The Salafīs in Algeria split over the Muḥammad bin Hādī and Muṣaʿfiqah fitnah and there was a side that went with Muḥammad bin Hādī. They are Muḥammad Ferkous, ʿAbd al-Majīd Jumuʿah and their followers. There were other issues of contention besides the issue of Muḥammad bin Hādī as well. In an audio recording published to the tube there is a discussion between Shaykh Rabīʿ bin Hādī (رحمه الله) and a group of Algerians, and the issue in question was ʿAbd al-Majīd Jumuʿah publishing taḥqīqāt (verifications) of known historical people of innovation from the Malikī madhhab.

So the people in the audio recording mention the excuse of ʿAbd al-Majīd which is that many people are Mālikī in his land, so it is from wisdom and easier to make taḥqīq of these works as it will be more readily accepted by the people. So Shaykh Rabīʿ said:

Then they start to mention that the other side, they also praise Ahl al-Bidʿah, so the Shaykh said that anyone who has an error he must recant and repent, and that the issues return to the Book and the Sunnah, and that they should be with the Book and the Sunnah.

Towards the end of the discussion(5m:35s), one of them says:

And he repeats this a few times, and another speaker, interjecting in order to explain, says it more clearly:

Shaykh Rabīʿ said:

Notes

01  In this recording the speakers were trying to argue for ʿAbd al-Majīd Jumuʿah and make excuses, which Shaykh Rabīʿ rejected as false excuses. So they argued back saying that the other side have praises for Ahl al-Bidʿah as well, so they must repent too. So then a few of them suggest that the other side should return to Muḥammad Ferkous for arbitration (muḥākamah).

02  However, Ferkous is a contending party in the dispute, so how can he be returned to for arbitration? Shaykh Rabīʿ swiftly rejected this and said that referring judgement (taḥākum) is to Allāh’s Book and the Sunnah of the Messenger (صلى الله عليه وسلم). Hence, when there are issues of right and wrong, truth and error, guidance and misguidance, oppressing and being oppressed, then these matters are returned to the Book and the Sunnah and the methodology of the Salaf, not to a shaykh, in this case, Ferkous, who was considered by these people to be a senior one (kabīr) of Algeria, and a reference point for them.

03  These were the tactics employed by the Muṣaʿfiqah and it was done in the name of justice (ʿadl), and in general, these are the tactics of those who evade the truth and play games. When they are asked to make (taḥākum) to Allāh’s Book and to the Sunnah of the Messenger (صلى الله عليه وسلم) in order to determine what is right and wrong, or who is right and wrong, what is truth and falsehood, and oppression and justice, and who needs to recant and take back their speech in great and serious matters (such as tabdīʿ of Salafīs, or even issues of leadership, rebellion, war, bloodshed, praising and defendng innovators, or publishing their books and so on), they call for taḥākum to a shaykh who is one of the disputants. So Shaykh Rabīʿ (رحمه الله) saw throught it and swiftly cut it off.

04  This method has been employed by those who followed Muḥammad bin Hādī in his path of making tabdīʿ of Salafīs without evidence and they also praise heads of innovation and defend them. It is established that they have associations and affectations with the Ḥaddādīs or Ḥaddādī roots and origins from their initial upbringing.

So when these clear and evident affairs which are from the basics of Salafiyyah are explained to them directly from the speech of scholars such as Shaykh Rabīʿ, they do what the people of desires are known for: lie, deceive and act treacherously to accuse people of what they are innocent of, and turn the plain truth that has been said into misguidance and falsehood, and then to deceptively extract speech from people of knowledge to aid their futile cause.

04  Its almost as if these people are saying, through both the tongue of disposition and the tongue of expression:

So all praise is due to Allāh who made them testify against themselves by their own actions, and when they try to clothe themselves with tricks and games, we denude them with history and past tribulations.

Follow Up Reading

I refer the reader to the article: Response to ʿAbd al-Ilāh al-Rifāʿī: Regarding Commendations of Scholars, the Speech of al-Maʾribī and Partisanship in which I echo the above speech of Shaykh Rabīʿ bin Hādi (رحمه الله) from eight years ago regarding muḥākamah to Ferkous, based on other speech of Shaykh Rabīʿ from a quarter of a century ago.

In the article, I explain how one should benefit from all the scholars of Ahl al-Sunnah, quoting once again, the speech of Shaykh Rabiʿ bin Hādī, and how all of them collectively should be reference points for us. Then I reject calls to restrict these affairs to one or two shaykhs, just as I reject, in line with the speech of Shaykh Rabīʿ, the cunning scheme of calling for “arbitration” to a specific shaykh when unable to reply to legitimate criticisms or failure to provide evidence for oppressive judgements (in which the criterion of truth is the Book, the Sunnah and the Way of the Salaf, and is binding upon everyone). Then I also state that in great issues which affect nations (such as war, bloodshed, rebellion, leadership) only the most senior scholars should be returned to.