Of interest: Refer to this article where you will hear Shaykh Salih al-Fawzaan effectively making tabdee' of Hajurites like Musa Millington.
The affair starts when words of disparagement from Shaykh Rabee against Yahya al-Hajuri (that he is a Haddadi) started filtering out (1432H, 2011CE) through reports of the trustworthy and which the Hajurites accepted and used as a basis to start speaking ill of Shaykh Rabee' (see this article). During these days, the following types of remarks were being heard:
Just pause for a while and reflect upon the underlying psychology behind the above remark. Keep this in mind as you read on. When the Shaykh spoke, the poets of al-Hajuri began to unleash their tongues of disparagement and abuse. Some of the insults from the poets and students of al-Hajuri from the time were as follows: (غراب البين وكذاب وماكر ومحرش ومهيج وثائر على الدعوة وعميل للمخابرات وصاد عن سبيل الله وأنَّ الحدادية هي من صنعه وأنه هو من أوجدها بل ودعوا الله عليه بأن يقطع لسانه), "a crow, a liar, a plotter, inciter (of dissension, confusion), stirrer against the da'wah, working for the secret services(!), one who prevents from the path of Allaah, that he is the one who manufactured the Haddaadiyyah, that it is from his own handiwork, and they even made dua against him that Allaah cut his tongue." And al-Hajuri revealed what was in his own soul when he made remarks clearly directed at Shaykh Rabee (see this article for evidence), words such as "affaak (fabricator)", "kadhdhaab (liar)", "speaks out of following desires and shaytaan", "strives to set up a hizbee centre in Fayoosh", "person of destructive calamities", "calumniator", "the desires fester and flow in him", "may Allaah cut your tongue", "may Allaah fight you", "put my efforts and your efforts on the scale and we will see whose is more..."
Then months later, when Shaykh Rabee' reached out to Yahya al-Hajuri (in the context of the siege late that year) hoping to give him some rope, their tone changed, and now the taqleed issue was no longer spoken of. Now the benevolent gesture of Shaykh Rabee was used to defend and praise al-Hajuri.
This same Hajurite also retweeted a tweet on the same day (21st January 2012) in which the point was raised: Why would Shaykh Rabee let Yahya al-Hajuri do a tele-link to his house if he is disparaged?
Those who know Shaykh Rabee for long enough will know his way. He will keep the door open, and give a long rope for those from whom opposition occurs and gives them every chance, and shows benevolence and kindness to them. This he did with al-Maghrawi, al-Ma'ribee, al-Halabi and likewise with al-Hajuri. Sometimes he will let that person speak in his majlis (gathering) and sometimes he may say "All issues are finished between us there is nothing between us" and the Shaykh only says this when the person has given indication that he is stopping and changing, so the Shaykh is the most eager of wanting things to progress in that direction so he gives reassurance effectively saying, "if you are truthful and remain so, then all affairs are finished between us." We have seen this repeatedly from the Shaykh in the way he has dealt with the opposers. However, the Hajurites were not able to read the situation for what it really was (because they do not really know the Shaykh), and they left their earlier saying (of revilement) and started rejoicing with Shaykh Rabee's gesture towards al-Hajuri. This was a change of color. The Hajurites, riding on waves that were to eventually crash back in to the ocean of reality, remained on their surfboards...
And then they started speaking of talawwun (changing colors). What they meant by this was to say, "You people praise Shaykh Rabee' and say he is this and that and then you throw his speech behind your backs" and they said this because of the gesture of Shaykh Rabee towards Yahya al-Hajuri which was actually aimed to give him a way back and keep the doors open. The Hajurites were not able to read the situation because they do not really know the Shaykh and his way. And whoever has known the Shaykh since the early 1990s when he started advising the heads of the Qutbiyyah and has followed up his way, will know and understand what the Shaykh is aiming to achieve behind his kindness and benevolence. But the people of desires, blinded by their desires, don't see this and they depart from reality. So here they began to speak about talawwun, accusing the Salafis of changing colors with respect to Shaykh Rabee (as in no longer taking from him as it relates to the stance towards al-Hajuri):
Note that the Hajurites were on a rally during 2012 because the Ikhwani plant known as Khalid al-Gharbani had misconstrued a meeting he had with Shaykh Rabee early that year in which he ascribed to the Shaykh that which he did not say, giving the Hajurites a false sense of security that Shaykh Rabee had patched up everything with the Shaykh, when this was not the case. The Shaykh declared him a liar and a plant and accused him of not conveying his speech properly (see article).
Shaykh Rabee (after the period patience) began to speak about al-Hajuri and his extremist followers after having exhausted all avenues and efforts over years with al-Hajuri and because it became apparent that they did not desist and recant from their falsehood and continued unabated in causing fitnah for Ahl al-Sunnah. The Shaykh stated that "there is none more harmful upon the Salafi da'wah than Yahya al-Hajuri" and that his followers are Ghulaat (extremists) with an extremism that has no equal (see here) and what is like this. It is here that the Hajurites came crashing into the ocean, but remained in a state of denial, despite being submerged in the water. Here, they changed colors for the second time:
So after their own speech about talawwun (changing colors), they began to say Salafi Publications and Troid are about to make fools of themselves for spreading the speech of Shaykh Rabee in which strong disparagement was found - and this is after they were rejoicing with Shaykh Rabee's kind, benevolent gesture towards al-Hajuri (in order to keep a door open for him to recant). Denial, was clearly visible at this stage:
They quickly forgot their speech of "talawwun", wore the skins of chameleons and proceeded to flash their new colors in public:
The Hajurites were in denial that Shaykh Rabee' statement constitutes a jarh (disparagement) and this is with the knowledge that it was already established from two years earlier (in 2011) that the Shaykh had already described al-Hajuri as a "Haddaadi" and due to which the Hajurites had started attacking the Shaykh on their forums and in their poetic compositions.
The above was stated in reference to Shaykh Rabee's speech that "there is none more harmful to the Salafi da'wah than Yahya al-Hajuri," and the Hajurite was not able to understand that this was a disparagement! So instead of taking the implications of this disparagement he began to dance around the issue, "Where is the tabdee'? Where is the warning?" Sometimes, people just choose blindness, you can't help them to see the light.
Desperation set in quickly:
In the above tweet, the Hajurite was trying to argue that since Shaykh al-Albani retracted from describing Shaykh Rabee with harshness, then perhaps Shaykh Rabee can also retract from saying al-Hajuri has harshness. When you come crashing down into the ocean of reality and the waves were only shortlived, there is little time to think straight and hence you see twisted Hajurite logic. The difference here is that Shaykh Rabee' speaks and criticizes upon truth, after deliberation, and after years of advice. Thus, if he disparages someone, that person deserves to be disparaged, because the Shaykh has done so after long, careful deliberation, patience and with evidence being established. This is not the case with al-Hajuri, the short-fused firecracker. Secondly, when Shaykh al-Albani saw the evidence was in fact with Shaykh Rabee as it relates to Sayyid Qutb, the Shaykh retracted. Shaykh Rabee rejects and denies the truth is with al-Hajuri against the other Yemeni Shaykhs and the debate has been exhausted. Thirdly, Shaykh al-Albani's first position was a position of advice, of being gentle and not too stern in refutation. It was not a disparagement (jarh) as such in terms of manhaj, because Shaykh al-Albani explicitly stated that there is nothing for which Shaykh Rabee' can be criticized in manhaj. But as for Shaykh Rabee's position, he made jarh of al-Hajuri in that which reviles him in his manhaj, that he and his followers are Haddaadiyyah. So there are many differences between the two and the Hajurite's fanciful analogy is invalidated. Finally, when all avenues were closed, the Hajurites took the same path as the Qutbiyyah, Surooriyyah, Halabiyyah and Ma'ribiyyah before them:
Then, the situation became overturned, Shaykh Rabee was demoted and Yahya al-Hajuri was given the pedestal:
And the speech about Shaykh Rabee continued in the same vain:
This is graphical, visual evidence that these people are followers of desires. And we can add to this the following: When al-Hajuri, only weeks ago, decided to travel to Saudi in an attempt to save face and raise his status, and managed to meet with some of the Shaykhs, the Hajurites, got back on their surfboards and started riding the waves again:
So, al-Hajuri meets with al-Fawzaan and this was used as evidence in defence of al-Hajuri and his numerous innovations and deviations, because why would such scholars meet with al-Hajuri if he was a deviant, and does that make them deviant because they met with him and other such sophistries flying in the face all of what has been gathered and compiled against al-Hajuri. But as they remained on their surfboards, the waves suddenly came crashing down again, when the following fatwa of Shaykh al-Fawzaan came out, effectively implying tabdee' of al-Hajuri and his sect, because the question was specifically asked in relation the saying of the Hajurite sect and its leader and the Shaykh indicated tabdee' in his speech:
Shaykh Saalih al-Fawzaan was asked (mp3) (source):
Question: "Esteemed Shaykh, one of the du'aat (callers) says, "We do not declare Uthmaan (radiyallaahu anhu) an innovator - but we say that the first adhaan on the day of Jumu'ah is an innovation." He (the questioner) says, what is the ruling of this statement of his?"
Shaykh al-Fawzaan: "This itself is bid'ah (innovation), the man, this itself is bid'ah [to hold this position], he is an innovator. It is obligatory to withhold his tongue from the likes of this speech. Uthmaan is a rightly-guided caliph, and the Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said, "You must follow my sunnah and the sunnah of the rightly-guided caliphs after me..." Is this [speech of his against Uthmaan] from his eagerness for the Sunnah?? He declares the Companions innovators, declares the Caliphs innovators!! Is the Sunnah like this?! We ask Allaah for pardon! This is from ignorance (jahl) and not knowing the bid'ah from Sunnah. Yes."
As for the claim of al-Hajuri meeting with the Shaykhs, then refer to the excellent response of Shaykh Adil Mansoor in which the Hajurite logic is deconstructed and answered powerfully in this article.
IMPORTANT NOTE: It is clear that the Hajurites have not commented much on the speech of Shaykh al-Fawzaan except to say "Is so and so scholar also a mubtadi' then", childish reasoning. There are two issues: First, the position of Shaykh al-Fawzaan (and Shaykh's Rabee, Ibn Uthaymeen and others) is the correct position. Only yesterday they were using al-Hajuri's meeting with al-Fawzan to raise the lot of al-Hajuri. Now, its silence (talawwun comes to mind). Secondly, as for others who may have held this view (regarding the adhaan of Uthmaan), then they are mistaken, and the situation never arose where the issue was debated to the full whereby the truth in the matter became clear as it has now in the affair involving al-Hajuri, and the difference between al-Hajuri and them is that al-Hajuri has numerous other revilements against the Companions, which when put together, show that his position on Uthmaan (radiyallaah anhu) and the adhaan cannot be taken in isolation. As for those other scholars, they are just simply in error, and a scholar's error cannot be used to justify your own error, let alone expend great efforts to defend it in falsehood. Further, when the proof was slowly established against them and the sayings of the Scholars became known in defence of Uthmaan (radiyallaahu anhu) and invalidating the evidences of the Hajurites one by one, the Hajurites began to fall back upon the argument of "ikhtilaaf" arguing by ikhtilaaf. This is after they had been championing evidence and absence of taqleed. So when the false ijmaa' claimed by al-Hajuri was refuted, and his deliberate clipping of the sayings of the Scholars to claim as such was refuted (see example here) and slowly, things became tighter and tighter, they resorted to the argument of "there is ikhtilaaf in the matter." So out went evidence, and it no longer remained a matter of truth and falsehood, and the reality became exposed that this was just a matter of defending al-Hajuri, no matter what, at all costs, even at the expense of attributing, bid'ah, mukhaalafah, dalaalah and "umm al-bid'ah" to the action of Uthmaan (radiyallaahu anhu), whilst brandishing the disclaimer "We do not make tabdee' of Uthmaan."
There is nothing complicated or difficult to understand in what is above, the talawwun is with the Hajurite sect, and every time they accuse Ahl al-Sunnah with something, it is actually found with them, often blatantly, yet they are blind to it all. We ask Allaah, the Most High, to guide more of these people to the truth, Ameen.