By Aboo Aamir
The circle of the ghulāt at-tabdīʿ (neo-Haddādīs) in Ilorin, was thrown into disarray yesterday following a public statement by one of its former leading members, Abu Nabeel al-Bāhirī, a once fierce and vocal advocate of the group’s ideology. In the statement, Abu Nabeel explained the reasons for his departure from the group he once strongly supported.
In his calm and calculated address lasting over an hour (find its piecemeals on Al-Bayan page on Facebook), Abu Nabeel provided clear and detailed reasons why he firmly concluded that the path he had been taking under the leadership of Ejigbo and his cohorts was not only counterproductive but also divisive, particularly among the Salafis in South-West Nigeria and Ilorin in particular.
He expressed his wish to see an end to the ongoing bickering and mutual hatred and said his stance was informed by facts already recognized by many other senior teachers of the Sunnah who had long warned against the flawed methodology of these neo-Haddādīs. Locally, this trend has been nicknamed "Jabata Phase Two," a reference to Brother Abdur-Razzaq Ejigbo’s background as a devout student of the Takfīrī Muhammad Ali Jabata, known for declaring Muslims disbelievers over trivial matters, such as eating with a spoon and fork.
Though Ejigbo claimed to have repented from the extremism of Muhammad Ali Jabata, he reportedly adopted another extreme methodology: the indiscriminate declaration of fellow Sunnis as innovators (tabdīʿ) over trivial matters. Their mantra was essentially, "If you continue to see someone we’ve declared as a mubtadiʿ as a person of Sunnah, we will first give you evidence of his bidʿah. If you still refuse to see him as a mubtadiʿ, we will treat you like him and declare you off the Sunnah."
This approach, termed ilzām or ilhāq (they once spent weeks then debating if the terms were synonymous), was often justified by citing certain statements from Imām Aḥmad (رحمه الله). Yet, when presented with other reports encouraging consideration of maṣāliḥ and mafāsid (benefits and harms), they would quickly brand the objector as a Halabiyy or Mumayyi, someone allegedly lenient toward the people of innovation.
Abu Nabeel, however, began to reflect seriously on the criticism raised by other well-known teachers of Sunnah regarding this misuse of classical āthār. Among them was Shaykh Abdul-Ghani Jumʿah (Abul-Barakāt), based in Lagos, who since 2020 has openly criticized the blanket application of tabdīʿ principles, arguing it would do more harm than good among the Salafis.
The growing fragmentation among Salafis is now evident, especially in Ilorin, even though the wider body of Salafis in other cities remains largely upon mainstream Salafiyyah. Nonetheless, the disruptive noise from the ghulāt in Ilorin continues to be harmful and disheartening.
In the released audio, still unanswered by the heads of the ghulāt except for some veiled responses like, "Someone has been swayed by Shayṭān", Abu Nabeel stated that the selective application of tabdīʿ principles by his former allies is something he can no longer tolerate, describing it as outright injustice.
He cited numerous examples, which some from the ghulāt camp are now equating to the actions of Ḥusayn bn Aliyy al-Karābīsī, who in the time of al-Imām Aḥmad authored a book on mudallisīn (ambiguous narrators) in which he blurred issues that opponents of Ahl al-Sunnah could exploit. Imām Aḥmad rejected that book and reprimanded al-Karābīsī.
While Imām Aḥmad was correct, Abu Nabeel emphasized that his own critiques, and those of other teachers, are not comparable to al-Karābīsī's actions. What they are applying is known in scholarly discourse as:
"Ilzām al-Khaṣm bi-Mawqifih" - Compelling an opponent to remain consistent with their own stated principles when they refuse to reflect on their consequences.
Major critics of false methodologies have used this style. Shaykh Rabeeʿ ibn Hādī al-Madkhalī (رحمه الله) employed it repeatedly in his refutations, including during his exchanges with Shaykh Fāliḥ al-Ḥarbī in a case involving tabdīʿ.
Hence, the insinuation by the neo-Haddādīs in Ilorin that Abu Nabeel is engaging in Karābisiyyah is unfounded and poorly reasoned.
Abu Nabeel went further to expose selective justice: for example, when Dr. Sharaf, who, by their standards, should have been declared a deviant for interacting with individuals already labeled as such, was not declared one, despite prior "warnings" supposedly issued to him. Instead, they justified the silence with the excuse of maslaḥah (interest). Yet, Dr. Faadil, who allegedly committed a similar "crime" but spoke against them, was swiftly labeled and attacked.
Abu Nabeel insisted that if maslaḥah was the reason Dr. Sharaf was spared, then the same should apply to Dr. Faadil. He rejected the accusation that he alone was responsible for labeling Dr. Faadil and Ustadh Alase, clarifying that it was a collective decision at the time.
Ironically, many now accuse Abu Nabeel of being the most hasty among them, while conveniently remaining silent about Abu Hanīfah Tanimola, known for his repeated hastiness, one that led to a court case still ongoing. We pray for his safety and sincere return. If he were to renounce this path tomorrow, those same people would likely accuse him of lacking patience, just as they now accuse Abu Nabeel.
There is a lesson in this for both Abu Hanīfah and that young boy in Ibadan who was egged on with phrases like "uhjuhum, hājihim", “Attack them! Humiliate them!”, and who was even being made to believe that Mālāk al-Jibrīl was with him just as he was with Ḥassān ibn Thābit (رضي الله عنه), the noble companion whom the Prophet ﷺ encouraged to respond poetically to the insults of the idolaters.
As for Mallam Abdur-Razzaq Ejigbo, he is known for his manipulative misuse of āthār, and he has a loyal following in this misapplication.
Abu Nabeel revealed that in their private meetings, the likes of Dr. Sharaf, Dr. Eleyinla, Dr. Koro, and Shaykh Qamarud-Deen Yūnus Akorede were already considered deviants, and it was only a matter of time before the public warning against them would be announced.
He also pointed to the inconsistency in how they handled the case of Shaykh ʿAlī al-Ḥasan al-Ḥalabī, allowing it to escalate, while managing the issues of Shaykh Yaḥyā al-Ḥajūrī and Shaykh ʿAbdullāh al-Imām with their followers in Ilorin specifically.
He demanded that they either publicly declare all those in their “Black Book” of deviants or retract their approach against Dr. Faadil and al-Ḥalabī. He added that he has now come to realize that the path to safety, unity, and cohesion lies in managing the disagreements with other Salafis whom they had hastily declared deviants.
He also revealed internal politics within the An-Naṣīḥah Foundation in Ilorin, saying that many of its members were secretly despised by the ghulāt, except for two individuals, based on private conversations he now believes to be inappropriate.
This, in summary, is Abu Nabeel’s current stance. He made it clear that although he still believes some Salafis have issues, those issues can and should be managed, not exploited.
However, the foot soldiers of the ghulāt see no better response than to label him with Karābisiyyah. Watch, soon they may start calling him "Abu Nabeel al-Karābīsī."
We call upon their leaders to sincerely reflect on what Abu Nabeel has said, things we have been saying to them for a long time. Whether they listen or not, the record is there, and they will be reminded when they too grow weary of this path, as Abu Nabeel now has.
We pray that Allah keeps Abu Nabeel firm, and never lets him fall back into that path.
And we pray for those still upon it. May Allah guide them before they inflict more harm on themselves and others.
And may He keep us all steadfast on the path of Salafiyyah.
