Fālih al-Ḥarbī took and carried the flag from the chief of the First Wave Haddādīs, ʿAbd al-Laṭīf Bāshmīl, and proceeded upon the same way, that of haste and exaggeration in tabdīʿ. Unable to provide evidence when held to standard, he and his loyal followers began to invent new principles regarding al-Jarḥ wal-Taʿdīl to justify their activities, and they also made exaggeration (ghuluww) in the status of Fāliḥ to compensate for his lack of evidences. Hence, like Bāshmīl, Fāliḥ al-Ḥarbī also became a theorist and developer of the ideology. Shaykh Rabīʿ advised Fāliḥ much, and wrote numerous letters and treatise to address the great problems caused by his extremist manhaj of tabdīʿ.

Part 10

We return to the first half of 2004 (1425) where Shaykh Rabīʿ offered two written advices to Fāliḥ al-Ḥarbī regarding his tabdīʿ and taḍlīl of well-known Salafīs, without consultation with other scholars and without consideration of the harms of his actions, and following those two pieces of advice written less than a month apart (14 April 2004 and 27 April 2004), Shaykh Rabīʿ raised questions for Fāliḥ al-Harbī to answer in June 2004. To maintain the broader context and to appreciate the way of the scholars in dealing with these issues, the core and centre should be kept in mind, which is that:

When the instigating party is asked for evidence and justification for their actions and the consequences, the response may vary, depending on each person's character, ambitions, motives and goals, and they are of categories:

• The First Wave Ḥaddādīs like Maḥmūd al-Ḥaddād and ʿAbd al-Laṭīf Bāshmīl tried to push for tabdīʿ of those who actually deserved it (.e. the figureheads of the Quṭbiyyah, Surūriyyah), but only in order to create commotion and turn people against the likes of Shaykh Rabīʿ, to turn people away from him. It was not out of protective jealousy for the religion, but as a weapon. So the response of Shaykh Rabīʿ was that he will leave tabdīʿ for the scholars but will continue refuting them.

• The Second Wave Ḥaddādīs like Fāliḥ al-Ḥarbī responded by inventing false principles in al-Jarḥ wal-Taʿdīl, enjoining taqlīd, and his follwers making ghuluww in him as the unique authority of al-Jarḥ wal-Taʿdīl and the saviour of the Sunnah from the Murjiʾ heretics. Fawzī al-Baḥraynī joined the battle, and focused heavily on the issue of Irjāʾ, which, as we said before, is a Ḥaddādī staple.

• The Third Wave who fell into the ways of the Ḥaddādiyyah in their treatment of Ahl al-Sunnah like Yaḥyā al-Ḥajūrī, who just doubled down with foul, harsh language and vile attacks against the scholars. Some of his followers allied with the Ḥaddādīs and brought the charge of Irjāʾ against Shaykh Rabīʿ bin Hādī. Others, like Muḥammad bin Hādī took the route of evasion, by saying, “I have the evidences, I have a huge file, soon, soon, soon”, but he was unable to justify his tabdīʿ and taḍlīl and the huge splits he caused.

  Ibn Hādī was more knowledgeable than Fāliḥ than to invent false principles, but never reached the level of foulness of Yaḥyā al-Ḥajūrī. He also never raised the issue of Irjāʾ (as part of his polemic), nor did he praise, endorse and shield Ḥaddādī innovators, and he was severe and stern in the issues of rulership and the aḥzāb. However, his fitnah, due to his status, was still severe. And this is because the more a person has credibility and good standing, the greater the impact, which is why the error of someone like Muḥammad bin Hādī caused much harm.

• Then we have the likes of Hishām al-Beily, who openly attacks senior scholars, and he manifests the foundations (uṣūl) of the Ḥaddādīs in a clear way, such as prohibiting the invoking of mercy for Shaykh Ḥasan bin ʿAbd al-Wahhāb al-Bannā (رحمه الله), and reviling him openly on platforms, and deceptively trying to ascribe Irjāʾ to Shaykh al-Albānī (رحمه الله) but in a cunning way, saying that he agreed with the Ashʿarī Murjiʾah (but is not a Murjiʾ). He is more of a typical First, Second Wave Ḥaddādī, and his origins return to the Quṭbiyyah as has been said, before he presented with an appearance of Salafiyyah.

• Then we have the likes of ʿArafāt al-Muḥammadī and those with him and their blind-followers, and they resemble the Ḥaddādiyyah in their behaviours and methods and the way they deal with Ahl al-Sunnah. Their example is a most clear and apparent one because alongside the angels recording it, it has also been recorded and observed in real time on social media over the past couple of years, and only the deaf and blind can deny this.

  They are the most cowardly because they firmly believe in their tabdīʿ and taḍlīl of well-known Salafīs, and mobilise their followers to treat their targets as such without necessarily expressing it. They may occasionally reveal the tabdīʿ and taḍlīl to someone who has not been initiated into their private, inner circle, but they hate that it should be disclosed publicly. Then, when they are questioned, they either make denials, or remain suspiciously silent, and then engage in public relations management, while having full conviction in their oppressive, unwarranted tabdīʿ and continuing from behind the scenes to mobilise their loyal blind-followers against their targets and victims, while claiming at the same time, to be callers to unity and brotherhood. It is also no surprise that ʿArafāt is an ally of Hishām al-Beily.

  This category is a stain upon the rest, a decline in standard, because forthrightness, bravery and courage (in standing by the tabdīʿ) should be expected qualities due to the inherently harsh and aggressive nature of the Ḥaddādī enterprise. Hence, its strange to see cowards like ʿArafāt al-Muḥammadī running the show. It has been related to me that he was livid that his tabdīʿ was divulged and made public and his close inner circle know this as well.

With all of this in mind, the reader should be able to maintain the broader picture, the bird's-eye view, the picture for the jigsaw puzzle, and hence, the ability to make sense of the sayings, actions, behaviours, friendships and loyalties, which are the individual jigsaw pieces.

This is while keeping in mind of course, that we distinguish between core Ḥaddādīs, their theorists and developers and those who fall into their ways in the matter of tabdīʿ and resemble their traits and behaviours.

Follow Up Questions to Fāliḥ After His Failure to Respond to Advice and Correction

After six weeks or so had transpired following Shaykh Rabīʿs two advices (dated April 2024), he wrote two letters with follow up questions, and they are as follows, the first “Questions Directed to Shaykh Fāliḥ al-Ḥarbī To Reflect Upon and Provide a Scholarly Response To.” It is dated 28 Rabīʿ al-Ākhir 1425 (16 June 2004) and is 4 pages in length. And the second: “Questions and Answers Regarding the Problems of Fāliḥ.” It is dated 11 Jumādā al-Ākhirah 1425 (28 July 2004) and is 21 pages in length.

01  In the first and shorter letter, Shaykh Rabīʿ mentions that Fāliḥ al-Ḥarbī did not benefit from the two previous advices he had written to him two months earlier (and which had been spread without his permission), and that he proceeded to argue in falsehood and stir up unknown people to defend him. The Shaykh said that after all of this, he presents this letter to him, expecting answers based on the Sharīʿah.

02  The first question is regarding the statement of Fāliḥ as to whether the reasons for disparagement have to be mentioned, and he said that it is not a condition and that this is only for the narrators of ḥadīth, and not regarding the opposers.

Shaykh Rabīʿ said that this is an explicit negation of clarifying the reasons for disparaging Ahl al-Bidaʿ, and that this distinction has been rejected and that the necessity of clarifying the reasons is the way of the Imāms of Ḥadīth. And when there is a conflict between disparagement and praise, then the affair is even more severe by far, and it is only when the reasons and proofs have been presented that the disparagement is accepted. Shaykh Rabīʿ said that he had refuted this in his prior article, The Scholars of al-Jarḥ wal-Taʿdīl are the Protectors of Religion.

Shaykh Rabīʿ mentions that in his previous advice he had asked Fāliḥ what if, according to your principles, someone accused Shaykh Ibn Bāz, or al-Albānī or Ibn ʿUthaymīn or al-Fawzan, al-Najmī, or Zayd bin Hādī, those well-known for Salafiyyah, of innovation, would we not ask for the reasons? However, Fāliḥ and his blind-followers did not answer. Rather, what if someone accused Fāliḥ himself of innovation, do you accept that from him or would you ask for the reasons?

03  The second issue raised is regarding what Fāliḥ said—when someone mentioned that it can be objected that a shaykh might disparage someone on account of something that is not accepted by others—that “this is an oppressive, innovated principle that has misguided the ummah”. Shaykh Rabīʿ said that he contested this in his prior advice and now asks Fāliḥ to establish these claims and judgements about the requirement of providing the reasons and evidences for tabdīʿ and tajrīḥ.

04  The third issue is the statement of Fāliḥ than when a scholar speaks in the affair of tabdīʿ, it is not called “jarḥ” as that is for the domain of reports and narrators and that a scholar speaking about innovators and the affairs of creed and methodology is a separate domain.

Shaykh Rabīʿ says that he already discussed this in his prior advice and writings and now he requests Fāliḥ to establish, with evidences this separation between the domain of reporting and the domain of speech about innovators, which includes tabdīʿ of well-known Salafīs, which is the issue that gave rise to this tribulation.

This is what the first, shorter letter contains.

05  The second longer letter revolves around the issue of Irjāʾ which Fāliḥ raised against Shaykh Rabīʿ as another tactic of distraction and evasion, to avoid the burden of proof for his tabdīʿ and taḍlīl of well-known Salafīs.

Shaykh Rabīʿ refers to a recording with someone in Algeria in which Fāliḥ says that Shaykh Rabīʿ fled from certain issues regarding Īmān, and that he says that the one who abandons jinsʿ al-aʿmāl (the genus of actions) is deficient in faith (i.e. not devoid of it completely), and hence, practically speaking, he is a Murjiʾ, agreeing with the extreme Murjiʾah. He also claimed that “jins al-ʿamal” is a pillar in the definition of Īmān with Ahl al-Sunnah.

What Fāliḥ is referring to is the two pieces of advice that Shaykh Rabīʿ had written to him, that in them, he fled from discussing these issues, because he perceived that he will be refuted regarding them.

Shaykh Rabīʿ says to him:

Here, we get an idea of timescales as to what is reasonable to expect in terms of a response from someone. The Shaykh said that he has not responded after over a month, which means that when it comes to knowledge-based issues and requests to clarify, to affirm or deny, to accept or refute, we should not be waiting for months on end.

06  Shaykh Rabīʿ proceeds to address these claims and mentions how the Salaf defined Īmān, and that the Salaf did not enter “jins al-ʿamal” into its definition, and hence, they must also be Murjiʾah according to Fāliḥ. Shaykh Rabīʿ exposes the faulty reasoning of Fāliḥ in this regard, by accusing people of “agreeing with the Murjiʾāh”, especially those who affirm actions are from Īmān and that it increases and decreases.

Shaykh Rabīʿ advices that we should stick to the definitions of the Salaf regarding Īmān, that it is belief, speech and action of the heart and limbs, that it increases with obedience and decreases with sin, and thereafter, that we believe in the ḥadīths of intercession which state that those who say the kalimah and have the smallest speck of Īmān, or what is less than that, will be removed from the Hellfire.

07  The Shaykh goes on to mention the various groups regarding this subject, from those who say Īmān is merely acquaintance (maʿrifah) in the heart, or its assent (taṣdīq), or it is assent of the heart and speech of the tongue. All these groups deny actions are from Imān and that it increases and decreases. He says that if mentioning “jins al-ʿamal” was obligatory, how come the Salaf never mentioned it? This is supported by what Shaykh Ibn al-ʿUthaymin (رحمه الله) said in his famous words on this subject which were recorded in his lecture in Qaṭar, wherein he rejected this statement, “tārik jins al-ʿamal kāfir”, that the one who abandons the genus of action is a disbeliever, as it is unknown.

08  The next (second) issue is relating to the minimal definition of Īmān, in other words what makes a person remain a believer, what is the minimal definition, and Fāliḥ gave a confusing, incoherent answer. Saying that “it’s the prayer” but then saying that “we are unable to define the minal definition”, showing confusion. Shaykh Rabīʿ cites a number of ḥadīths, from them the ḥadīth of the branches of Īman, the highst of which is the kalimah and the lowest of which is removing something harmful from the path, showing that these affairs have been made clear in the Sunnah which should be sufficed with, and that new terms and phrases that are not known from the Salaf should be shunned.

09  The next (third) issue is regarding the statement ascribed to Imām Aḥmad: “The Khāwārij are the Murjiʾāh.” In this respect, Shaykh Rabīʿ provides some discussion about wordings narrated from the Salaf in relation to Īmān and other affairs but which are not established from them and cannot be relied upon and that using gharāʾīb was something rejected by the Salaf, and the common people should not be addressed by these types of things, which Fāliḥ and his likes are using, such as attachment to the word “jins al-ʿamal” in the subject of Īmān, or relying upon other statements which are not established or in which there is much doubt. The Shaykh then points out the ambiguity of the word “jins” (genus), even linguistically, upon return to the dictionaries, so how can affairs of creed be bulit upon it.

10  The fourth issue discused is the claim of Fāliḥ that in the matter of taqlīd, Shaykh Rabīʿ has opposed the Aʾimmah of the daʿwah, the scholars, the Muslims and Aḥmad bin Ḥanbal. Once again, Faliḥ was unable to respond to Shaykh Rabīʿs advice and clarification in the matter of taqlīd, because this is what Fāliḥ was calling to to evade the burden of proof, so he resorted to making these claims to discredit Shaykh Rabīʿ and make it out that he has opposed the scholars.

So Shaykh Rabīʿ said:

11  Shaykh Rabīʿ proceeds to mention speech from the leading Imāms prohibiting taqlīd, and the fact that scholars wrote books calling to following the Book and the Sunnah and prohibiting taqlīd, from them, Abū Shāmmah, al-Sanʿānī, al-Fulānī, and al-Shawkānī. He also mentioned that Ibn al-Qayyim fought against taqlīd and Ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhāb likewise fought against taqlīd in both the foundations and branches, making an exception in the branches onl for those who are incapable from the common-folk. Then he proceeds to cite some of his statements and the statements from his grandson, Shaykh Sulaymān bin ʿAbd Allāh bin ʿAbd al-Wahhāb.

Shaykh Rabīʿ says to Fāliḥ that he opposes his methodology of obligating upon a particular category who are not mujtahidīn, but who are obligated with ittibāʾ (following evidences) to make taqlīd, and accusing them of laying waste to the messengerships if they do not do so.

12  With these and other evidences and citations, Shaykh Rabīʿ falsifies the claims of Fāliḥ in these four and the preceding three issues. At the end, Shaykh Rabīʿ invites Fāliḥ to present a knowledge-based reply to the questions and issues raised, and not to respond with boasts, revilements and accusations and not defer the response to unknown, ignorant people.

Notes

There are some issues of note here:

01  The first is that Shaykh Rabīʿ sent his advices to Fāliḥ in April 2004, and was expecting a response in a matter of weeks, which is the timescale within which there should be sufficient time for a meaningful scholarly response. This is why Shaykh Rabīʿ followed up regarding the unanswered questions that remained outstanding based on the initial advices. This was only some weeks later, perhaps six.

02  Sending follow up questions is from the way of the scholars in trying to engage in a meaningful way with someone from Ahl al-Sunnah with oppositions and expecting a response within a month or so should be considered normal if there is a genuine desire to seek cooperation upon truth and righteousness.

03  When someone does not reply in substance and remains evasive, elusive and does not engage, it is a cause of concern, and indicates that the person is empty-handed and/or arrogant. This is not the way of scholars who seek and venerate the truth. Fāliḥ did not answer, and instead, responded with boasts, as Shaykh Rabīʿ indicated at the very end of his second letter mentioned above, as well as false accusations. Likewise, he had other people respond on his behalf with attacks and claims against Shaykh Rabīʿ.

04  The questions all revolve around issues subsidiary and consequential to the initial tabdīʿ, taḍlīl and severe tajrīḥ that Fāliḥ was taken to task for. Unable to respond he brought a mixture of issues such as calling to taqlīd, false principles, accusations of Irjāʾ, reversing the realities by making himself the victim who has shown much patience and so on.

The first set of questions were related to his innovated principles regarding al-Jarḥ wal-Taʿdīl. The second set of questions relate mainly to issues of Īmān and Irjāʾ which Fāliḥ raised as another diversion and route of attack to discredit Shaykh Rabīʿ, and then finally, the issue of taqlīd.

In all of these areas, he was unable to face scrutiny and respond in substance to the questions which came after his failure to engage and respond to brotherly advices.

Conclusion

The moral of the story is that you should not squeeze the tabdīʿ toothpaste or resin too quickly and strongly, causing it all to squirt out of the tube and thereby create a sticky mess. Some people may try to explain and justify the mess in creative and philosophical ways. Others may just come out with abuse and insults. Others may ask for an indefinite period of time to come up with an explanation. And others may just flee and try to pretend they didn’t squeeze the toothpaste all over the public record of the Internet. Whatever the case, the root of the problem which sets the Ḥaddādī bandwagon in motion should now be well understood.