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 5

In what has preceded, we covered the issue of exaggeration (ghuluww) in status as an emotional argument and false principles regarding tabdīʿ and tajrīḥ, as intellectual arguments, to provide cover for unwarranted, unjust tabdīʿ and to remove the burden of proof and evade accountability. This brings us to another issue which is that of taqlīd, wherein Fāliḥ and his followers spoke with language that demanded not just the common-folk to make taqlīd of his tabdīʿ (heresification) and tajdīʿ (severing Salafīs from the ranks), but also scholars and students of knowledge.

Let us proceed with another of the many wonders of Second Wave Ḥaddādiyyah and see what crystals we can extract in this round.

The Fitnah of Tabdīʿ and the Issue of Taqlīd

This treatise is called: “Debating Fāliḥ About the Affair of Taqlīd”, and it is dated 21 Jumādā al-Ūlā 1425 (9 July 2004) and is 13 pages in length.

01  We start with a very important passage in which the Shaykh summarises the essence of the fitnah of Fāliḥ al-Ḥarbī. Shaykh Rabīʿ said:

So from the above (and other writings), we have:

This story sounds remarkably familiar and seems like what Muḥammad bin Hādī fell into (absent the false principles), and after him, following in his tracks, ʿArafāt al-Muḥammadī along with his mobilised army of blind-followers, and students with personal interests, grudges and grievances.

Save that there is a difference.

Some degree of respect has to be given to those who are open and transparent—and are free of other serious violations such as sedition, rebellion, and treachery to senior scholars—as opposed to cowards and liars who are complicit in blameworthy politics, invent false principles resembling those of al-Maʾribī to deny the rulings they reveal to their innermost circles, and occasionally let slip to others, whether it is tabdīʿ of Salafīs or tamjīd (praise) and defence of Ḥaddadī innovators who revile senior scholars, accuse them of agreeing with the Murjiʾah and who have kept Takfīrīs and Daeshites as close friends.

So they say that only what is in their own voice or written by them is ascribable to them (thereby excluding reports as a source of information about them), and then they threaten and intimidate those who relate things from them, or cunningly use the issue of gatherings being a trust as a shield to evade responsibility for what they secretly hold and know they have said and judged but dare not say with full confidence in the open, for fear of exposure. So they seek to limit the spread of such reports through intellectual terrorism and emotional blackmail.

In light of this sad decline in standards, we can divide Ḥaddādiyyah into two types:

Those with some ethics despite their misguidance, we can call it Ethical Ḥaddādiyyah for the sake of simplicity: Exaggeration in tabdīʿ, absent the fabrication of false principles to remove the burden of proof, and absent complicity in violations in other serious matters related to leadership, rebellion, war and bloodshed. This would be Muḥammad bin Hādī. It is enacted openly, transparently, with courage and with conviction. As for Fāliḥ, while he did invent principles to evade the burden of proof, we have to give him recognition and some extra points because at least he exerted some intellectual effort that could be responded to.

Those lacking such ethics, and we can call it Unethical Ḥaddādiyyah: Unwarranted tabdīʿ in a cowardly manner, in private circles which may be occasionally revealed to the uninitiated, alongside complicity in violations of foundations, while operating in shadows, behind curtains and under tables. Then, backtracking to evade accountability and inventing or reviving false principles to undermine the role of reports as a source of knowledge to bury information that would expose your reality. Meanwhile, directing a fierce, vicious war from behind the scenes which cannot be reconciled with the denial of tabdīʿ and the backtracking. A plain contradiction.

02  After the above, Shaykh Rabīʿ explains how he wrote a piece of advice to Fāliḥ following his chaotic tabdīʿ, taḍlīl and tajdīʿ, advising him of his errors and asking him to return to the truth so that the discord and division, along with their causes may stop. This was dated 24 Ṣafar 1425 (14 April 2004). However, Fāliḥ did not stop, and then after a month or so, the Shaykh then sent a second piece of advice.^[1]

This caused his followers to resort to lies, direct and indirect abuse, distortions, creating confusion and so on, against anyone who spoke the truth. The Shaykh then elaborates on what had happened:

After this account of what took place, Shaykh Rabīʿ then goes on to furnish some evidences for this, that Fāliḥ al-Ḥarbī and his followers call to taqlīd of him in his rulings of tabdīʿ and tajdīʿ of well-known Salafīs.

03  Shaykh Rabīʿ provides three evidences in the form of dialogues and statements from Fāliḥ which prove that he calls to taqlīd of his rulings of tabdiʿ.

The first is with someone from Algeria, and the essence of it is that Fāliḥ presented himself as the one who is sincere to the ummah and is engaged in protecting the religion, which means advising the ummah to tarnish Salafīs with oppressive judgements and false principles. He made it appear that other scholars who do not support his tabdi`, taḍlīl and tajdīʿ of Salafī shaykhs and callers are treacherous to the ummah.

From the second statement of Fāliḥ, Shayh Rabīʿ explains that Fāliḥ presents himself as one who must speak and exonerate himself from blameworthy silence, and that he cannot follow or consult with other scholars, otherwise he would be a blind-follower, and that he is simply fulfilling his duty, and that he cannot conceal these affairs lest he be guilty of what Allāh condemned the Jews for (2:159-). In all of this is raising himself, calling to taqlīd of himself and belittling other scholars who do not agree or sanction his wars of tabdīʿ (heresification), tajrīḥ (dispargement), taḍlīl (attributing misguidance) and tajdīʿ (severing Salafīs from the ranks).

The third example is when Fāliḥ was expecting al-Azhar al-Jazāʾirī, who holds a university qualification and teaches Tawḥīd and ḥadīth, to accept his fatwā of participating in the elections at that time. But al-Azhar refused because he agreed with the view of Shaykh al-Albānī and Shaykh al-Luḥaydān, and not that of Fāliḥ. So then Fāliḥ launched a vicious assault upon him because he did not follow his view, and declared him an ignoramus who must blindly follow scholars (i.e. himself).

From these three examples, Shaykh Rabīʿ, at the end of the treatise, concludes that:

From the above, we gather that to justify and enforce unwarranted oppressive tabdīʿ, Fāliḥ and his followers brought three things: a) ghuluww in his status, b) false principles regarding al-Jarḥ wal-Taʿdīl, and c) calling to taqlīd (i.e. following without evidences). These Ḥaddādī crystals were brought to remove or evade the burden of proof for false, oppressive tabdīʿ of Salafīs known for knowledge and teaching, and with praiseworthy efforts in their lands.

The starting point of all of this is unwarranted tabdīʿ or what approximates it on baseless, fabricated or exaggerated grounds. This then sets off a chain of events resulting in discord, chaos, divisions and enmities with multiple polarities appearing with the ranks centered around differences regarding what is the maṣlaḥah and the ḥikmah and so on in the unfolding turmoil.

04  This was the intended objective of the original, core Haddādīs, to infuse this approach, under the guise of protective jealousy for the religion and for the scholars, so that it splinters Ahl al-Sunnah in many ways And while Ahl al-Sunnah are preoccupied between themselves, it gives breathing space for the aḥzāb (political factions) and their ambitions, which are furthered behind the scenes.

Now, not everyone who falls into Ḥaddādī behaviour will have these other involvements, as we have explained previously, but the context and the originating circumstances were tied to geopolitics. For that reason, it is necessary to abstract beyond those originating circumstances and derive the traits, behaviours and methods, so we have a pattern for comparison and identification, and by now, it should be Ḥaddādī crystal clear, except to the blind, the wilfully ignorant or the indifferent.

Closing Notes

We must distinguish between core Ḥaddādīs, which are Maḥmūd al-Ḥaddād and ʿAbd al-Laṭīf Bāshmīl. Then the theorists and developers which include Bāshmīl himself and Fāliḥ, so there is an overlap. Then there are those who resemble the behaviours and methods and they may not necessarily be tied up in other issues involving foundations, such as proximity with the aḥzāb, accommodating innovators and matters of rulership, rebellion, war and bloodshed, and from this category is Muḥammad bin Hādī.

Hence, the core, defining feature of the Ḥaddādī enterprise is unwarranted tabdīʿ on trumped up charges and the creation of enmities and divisions through it. This is from its clear signs as Shaykh Rabīʿ explicitly indicated. Thereafter each Ḥaddādī or whoever applies their methods and behaviours, will act in his own way according to the circumstances.

The reader should also remember a key point mentioned previously which is that we should not think of distinct groups such as the Ḥaddādiyyah and Mumayyiʿah, as if they are mutually exclusive groups. Rather, these are approaches which are adopted and which return to something more foundational, which are the prevailing interests and ambitions that drive these behaviours. Thus, you can have a Ḥaddādī and Tamyīʿī approach at the same time, towards different groups of people, because its not the approach, but the prevailing interest. Hence, the worst of the Ḥaddadīs or those who resemble them are the ones who have interests and political ambitions and agendas to pursue behind the scenes as well as ideological convictions. Only then, do their actions make any sense.

In closing, with a more general note, the attentive reader should note that when we see these various affairs, that of controversial tabdīʿ or tadlīl that brings about much debate, differing and enmity among Ahl al-Sunnah (and the various methods used to justify it or evade the burden of proof), the accusation of Irjāʾ against scholars, praise and defence of Ḥaddādī innovators who revile Imams of the Sunnah, ghuluww in personalities, claiming a special, exclusive marjiʿiyyah in the field of al-Jarḥ wal-Taʿdīl and tabdīʿ, as well as sympathy and support for the aḥzāb in blameworthy politics, then it is indicative of the fact that the Ḥaddādī ship already set sail a while ago.

From here, there are various groups, those who see the ship in the distant horizon (when its signs first appear) and warn accordingly, those who board it when it arrives, join the crew and participate in Ḥaddādī festivities, and those who remain indifferent, either because they don’t recognise it, or they don’t consider it serious enough for any meaningful action, or they are incapacitated, or they have other maṣāliḥ (interests) which are more important to them than venerating the foundations of the Sunnah and valuing the honours of Salafīs who have been trashed through the dirt, declared plants and innovators, silenced and boycotted.

Then, in a Ruḥayliesque manner, with an inversion of maṣāliḥ and mafāsid described as “ḥikmah” that Shaykh Rabīʿ would never recognise in such circumstances, those who initiated the seeds of chaos and turmoil through harsh rulings based on trumped up charges are given excuses and painted as the oppressed poor victims, while their victims are blamed for the chaos, and while divisions and enmities unfold all around due to either explicit tabdīʿ or tabdīʿ in all but name, testing people (imtihān), calling for boycotts and dismissals (from occupations) of those who do not tow the line and blindly submit to oppressive judgements.

We praise and thank Allāh for scholars such as Shaykh Rabīʿ (رحمه الله) who stood up against this tremendous danger, exposed it from top to bottom, turned it inside out and provided us with valuable scales, insights and pattern recognition so we can identify it and call it out whenever it surfaces, in protection of the Salafī daʿwah and manhaj.

Footnotes