AFTER THE 1990 GULF WAR the Quṭbiyyah Surūriyyah apparatus emerged in Saudi Arabia, using the event to precipitate the pursuit of their political ambitions. They ascribed to Salafiyyah and had many lessons regarding Tawḥīd and ʿaqīdah, captivating a significant body of practising youth. However, they had many errors and were speaking and delving in affairs of politics with Ḥizbī ideologies and giving fatāwā regarding places of conflict such as Afghanistan, Algeria and the Gulf War itself.

Shaykh Rabīʿ was among the small group or shaykhs from Madīnah who played a significant role in writing and speaking about their errors which exposed underlying deviant methodologies. At the time, the senior scholars such as Shaykh Bin Bāz, Shaykh Ibn al-ʿUthaymīn, Shaykh al-Albānī (رحمهم الله) and others were not aware of the reality of these callers and maintained good views about them, praising them and even defending them on occasions, as their deviations were hidden from them for a time.

In the speech of Shaykh Rabīʿ bin Hādī (رحمه الله) below there are some important benefits: ^[1]

Notes

01  The Quṭbiyyah Surūriyyah are a group nurtured upon the writings of Sayyid Quṭb, Muḥammad Quṭb, Muḥammad Surūr and others, and they are upon the methodologies of the Khārijites, revolving around takfīr and ḥākimiyyah, making the issue of rulership and replacing the rulers their greatest concern. To those ends, they engaged with the jamāʿāt of ḥizbiyyah and siyāsah, supporting, defending and accommodating them. Learn more here: Quṭbiyyah is a Fitnah So Know it (1994).

02  The Ḥaddādiyyah originate with those groups, but they saw that the association with the Quṭbiyyah, Surūriyyah, Ikhwāniyyah, Takfīriyyah is harmful for their cause. So they infiltrated Ahl al-Sunnah under the guise of zeal and jealousy for Salafiyyah, but they had severe hatred for the Salafī scholars. They focused around the issue of īmān and ijrāʾ, targeting certain scholars, thereby serving the cause and the agenda of the Quṭbiyyah Surūriyyah whom they claimed to oppose. From the prominent Haddādīs were Maḥmūd al-Ḥaddād, ʿAbd al-Laṭīf Bāshmīl, and after them, there was Fāliḥ al-Ḥarbī, and he kept company with the Haddādīs. From their distinguishing hallmarks is targeting Shaykh al-Albānī with the accusation of Irjāʾ.

03  The concern of these groups was political in nature, they were politically motivated, and had ambitions, and they employed attachment to Salafiyyah to pursue those ambitions, blending in with Ahl al-Sunnah at times, and other times, making their enmity known, moving like snakes and scorpions. The issue of īmān and irjāʾ is one of their greatest talking points because it feeds into the entire agenda. They strive to create turmoil and chaos in the ranks of the Salafis in order to weaken and divide them, so that they can be left untouched to pursue their goals. This is actually a plan from the 1990s, when they saw that the tongues and pens and whips of Ahl al-Sunnah will not leave them untouched, so they had to resort to an insidious, infiltrating approach from within.

04  As Shaykh Rabiʿ explained above, he was aware of this current that had emerged, the Ḥaddādiyyah, and their goals. They would incite tabdīʿ of those being criticised for their errors in order to play the victims, and weep, using this as a type of “atrocity propaganda”, to win the sympathy of the youth. However, Shaykh Rabīʿ saw through this ruse, and said that he will continue to expose the errors of these people through speech and writings, which he continued doing, until the senior scholars of the era finally realised the truth and spoke against them as well, affirming the correctness of Shaykh Rabīʿ’s writings and refutations.

Benefits

01  There is a period of time in which these figureheads, Safar and Salmān and others were advised and dialogue was made with them, whether written or spoken. They were considered from Ahl al-Sunnah at the time, so they were advised and criticised, while maintaining their respect and standing, as is the way of Ahl al-Sunnah. However, after it became clear that their errors were not mere slips, but a pattern representing departure from the foundations of the Sunnah and the Salafī methodology, and they were not engaging, but persisting, Shaykh Rabīʿ and others began to criticise them and their errors openly. A large body of material began to accumulate in the form of cassettes, articles and books.

02  In each of these stages, the maṣlaḥah (beneficial interest) was observed. There is a period in which there is advice, patience and dialoge. That is the maṣlaḥah. Then when it becomes clear that this is not sufficient, because those concerned are persisting in their errors and their way, and have not engaged in the proper manner, then the maṣlaḥah is that the Muslims are protected from their errors by speech, recordings (cassettes), audios, articles and books. Now, this is out in the open in order to attain the maṣlaḥah (benefit) and repel the mafsadah (harm).

03  When a group of the scholars of shaykhs do it, be it one or more, and they do so with evidence, it is necessary to accept it, and if the people concerned have people attached to them, defending them, supporting them, and affected by them, then these criticisms and refutations are vital for protection. Spreading them, conveying them, translating them, publishing them, summarising them, and anything that helps others to understand the nature of the errors and deviations is from the maṣlaḥah, because within it is containment of the errors and deviations, and preponderance of truth. Otherwise, confusion will prevail, especially if those criticised are vocal and continue to spread their errors and doubts.

04  During that period in the mid to late-1990s the fledgling Salafī community in the UK played an important role in translating these materials. They were published on the Salafī Publications website after being published first a couple of years earlier on a university website. During this period, this was the actual maṣlaḥah as required by the aims and objectives of the Sharīʿah and the Salafī methodology.

05  Claiming here, at this junction, that it is not from the maṣlaḥah (benefit) to convey these materials against those with errors in the foundations, rather, that it is from the mafsadah (harms) and that the benefits and harms (maṣāliḥ and mafāsid) have to be weighed first is an error. Rather, one can clearly see from the speech of Shaykh Rabīʿ above, that he said that he will continue criticising these errors, despite the presence of the senior scholars. He only deferred the judgement of tabdīʿ to the senior scholars, not refutation of the errors themselves and distribution of these criticisms and refutations.

06  Also, claiming here, that we must “leave this affair to the scholars”, then this would be a vague, ambiguous statement that offers no clarity about the situation at all. It gives the impression that those who say this are with the scholars (without specifying which scholars), but without this providing any real meaning or benefit to the listener.

There is detail (tafṣīl) to this matter:

Firstly, if what is meant is leave it to the scholars who are criticising and refuting, in this case Shaykh Rabīʿ and others, then yes, they are left to it, and their speech and writings are conveyed and translated, for the maṣlaḥah at this stage, even if greater scholars have not said or written anything, because the evidence in these matters have not reached them, and they have not investigated the matter fully. This does not prevent those shaykhs who do know from exposing the errors, having observed and evaluated the maṣlaḥah (clarify the errors) and mafsadah (remain silent).

Secondly, if what is meant is leave it to another group of scholars who are senior, wherein they are the ones who pass the judgement of tabdīʿ, and we await the outcome of what they say, and do not pass these judgements ourselves, then this is correct as well. This does not contradict acceptance and conveyance of the criticisms already being made.

Thirdly, if what is meant that we turn away from the speech and writings of the critiquing shaykhs altogether, just leave them to it without having any declared view in the matter with knowledge and comprehension of its truthfulness and validity, and then conceal these materials, or prevent them from reaching the public, which is the actual maṣlaḥah at this stage, then that is an error. This does not emanate from any methodological principle, but a subjective, personal opinion with localised considerations, not the universality of the methodological principle, which is alerting people to error, falsehood and misguidance, which they could easily get caught up in during this phase.

07  Also, claiming that we must not spread the criticisms and refutations of Shaykh Rabīʿ and only consume them privately because people are not at the same level they used to be in the decades prior, that they are not as knowledgeable, not as understanding, and not able to read books and listen to hour-long cassettes, and also because they are so attached to Safar and Salmān that it will be a fitnah for them, especially for their students (numbering tens of thousands), then this is not a valid argument, because it implies that the manhaj has to change in order to accommodate people. Rather, the manhaj never changes, and always remains the same.

08  During this period of open criticism and refutation of errors, with knowledge, principles and evidences to establish that so-and-so person or group have erred or opposed the foundations, in order to beware from their mistakes, there were infiltrators or instigators who tried to push for tabdīʿ which is a major judgement. However, Shaykh Rabīʿ continued to criticise the errors and say: “This is an error”, “This opposes the foundations”, “You have opposed the foundations” and so on, and all of this was conveyed by Salafīs, remaining behind the critiquing shaykhs.

09  Following this period in which the truth was clear, despite much confusion spread by the followers and defenders of Safar and Salmān, Shaykh Bin Bāz (رحمه الله) sanctioned the detention of Safar and Salmān because of the incitement that was in their lectures and cassettes. Then Shaykh al-Albānī (رحمه الله) referred to them as “Khārijiyah Āṣriyyah”, the Contemporary Khārijites, and some years later, Shaykh Ibn al-ʿUthaymīn (رحمه الله) warned from their cassettes and referred to them as “Thawriyyūn”, Revolutionaries.

In a similar way, in each fitnah, Ahl al-Sunnah do not issue judgements of tabdīʿ upon individuals refuted for confirmed errors relating to the foundations unless they are preceded by scholars and shaykhs.

So this is the way of the Ḥaddādiyyah, they wish to create outrage, or they wish to equate legitimate criticism of errors and oppositions, done with knowledge and evidence, with tabdīʿ so as to make people think that the criticised have been wronged and treated as innovators, and this is what the Quṭbiyyah Surūriyyah used to do with the aid of the Ḥaddādīyyah.

10  In the evolution of these types of fitan there are stages and there are scholars with different positions.

11  As for the stages of fitnah:

There is a stage of “fitnah” where truth is not clear from falsehood, the correct from the errant, the oppressed from the oppressor. In this stage, this should be avoided and no speech or position should be taken, and it should be left in the hands of the scholars or shaykhs .

There is a stage where the truth has been made clear from error, the correct from the errant, and here, when the evidences have demonstrated that, and the situation is one where clarity is required, because people have been touched by the issue, then here one must clarify and say, “This is truth”, “This is error”, The truth is with so-and-so”, “So-and-so has erred”, “So-and-so has opposed the foundations” and what is similar, so that doubt and confusion does not persist and mislead people.

So whoever is in a position where the situation requires him to clarify and explain the correct position, then he must do so and remaining silent is an error, and it is not from fitnah to uphold the truth. Thus, though the senior scholars have not made tabdīʿ at this stage, one says that the truth is with Shaykh Rabīʿ and his brothers from the scholars who have been speaking, they have proven that errors have occurred and foundations have been opposed, through the speech, writings, actions and allegiances of the criticised.

Shaykh Bin Baz (رحمه الله) said in his lecture on the position of a believer regarding tribulations:^[2]

He (رحمه الله) also said in another place:^[3]

12  As for scholars:

1. There are the criticising shaykhs who point out the errors, after the period of advice and engagement. This could be one scholar, one shaykh, or a group of them, a senior scholar, or less than him. Shaykh Rabīʿ and shaykhs from Madīnah criticised Safar, Salmān, Nāsir al-ʿUmar, the Quṭbiyyah Surūriyyah and others, and they were a small group amidst many scholars of great stature and shaykhs in that time.

2. There are other shaykhs who may be of greater stature, they do not have the detailed knowledge regarding the criticised, they may continue to hold good opinions of them, praise them and even defend them as happened with Shaykh Ibn al-ʿUthaymīn regarding Safar al-Ḥawālī in the earlier stages. However, whoever brings evidence regarding errors and deviations, it is accepted from him, since a specific criticism (that is damaging to integrity or foundations) based on sound evidences takes precedence over general praises and defences.

3. There are other shaykhs who might see a maṣlaḥah in still trying to give advice, and this has its place and there is no conflict between this and open criticisms and refutations, because the first is for the maṣlaḥah of the criticised, which is specific and restricted and the second is for the wider maṣlaḥah of the people at large, that they are not beguiled by the errors and oppositions, and this is general. Here, there is no room to find fault with those shaykhs who continue to criticise and refute and claim that this is mafsadah (harmful) because the criticising shaykhs have already made that consideration prior to speaking and writing openly, as they had already directly engaged with the criticised and refuted.

4. There are other shaykhs who are on the side of the criticised and do not like for them be criticised, and may come out in their defence, such as Ibn Jibrīn and others and find fault with the critiquing shaykhs, and speak ill of them, and attack them, dismissing their evidences, and rejecting their approach.

5. There are other shaykhs who might say this is a “fitnah”, stay out of it, and depending on when this is said, it may be correct and in its place, or incorrect (see above), and some may have a bias towards the criticised, such as those who sympathised with Safar and Salmān and the Surūriyyah, but without hostility towards those criticising.

Given the above, it is not correct for a person of the Sunnah to choose and specify a particular scholar or shaykh or a group of them to follow at the cost of undermining and neglecting the truth that is with the criticising shaykhs and what is obligatory of upholding the truth after it has become clear.

Shaykh Rabīʿ said:^[4]

Shaykh Rabīʿ made the principle clear and explained that it should be conveyed to the opposers so they can understand the reality, recognise what is right and abandon their fanaticism. He did not advise here, that we go to other shaykhs unfamiliar with the issue, have not or will not look into it, or who dismiss it altogether, or to form a committee, or to have a vote or a consultation, or make a collective decision whether the criticisms should be divulged or not.

Shaykh Rabīʿ said, in response to a doubt of Abū al-Ḥasan al-Maʾribī and his followers regarding “returning to the scholars”:^[5]

Shaykh Rabīʿ bin Hādī also said, when asked about the sufficiency of quoting the jarḥ mufassar (detailed criticism) made by scholars, he said:^[6]

13  We must distinguish between:

a) The way of Ibrāhīm al-Ruḥaylī in placing so many barriers, principles, invocations of maṣāliḥ and mafāsid, that render the valid, justified, sound criticisms that have clarified truth from error of no effect and of no practical value, thereby defeating the Sharīʿah objectives behind them.

b) the way of Shaykh Rabīʿ in not remaining silent from errors when the maṣlaḥah requires it, writing and clarifying with evidences, explaining the issues for the benefit of other shaykhs, students and the common Muslims, while repelling potential mafsadah (harm) by deferring tabdīʿ to the senior scholars, and

c) the way of the Ḥaddādiyyah, from them Fāliḥ al-Ḥarbī. Those who make unjustified tabdīʿ on the basis of errors that do not warrant that, or against people who are salvageable from their confirmed errors, and are unable to provide evidence, or claim that they are not required to and that it is not from the methodology to ask for them, and that their speech must be accepted, and then launching a fierce war against those who do not accept this tabdīʿ, even if they are respected scholars, in denial of the principle of observing the maṣāliḥ and the mafāsid.

This way of Fāliḥ and the Ḥaddādiyyah of tabdīʿ and taḍlīl from the outset, prematurely, must not be confused with the way of Shaykh Rabīʿ of not remaining silent against errors, and clarifying and exposing them with evidences from the Book, the Sunnah and the way of the Salaf, and those who convey these writings and criticisms to educate and enlighten others and protect them from such errors, especially when they involve mighty foundations of the religion.

The diagrams below show the differences between the way of Shaykh Rabīʿ and others such as Fāliḥ al-Ḥarbī and more recently Muḥammad bin Hādī and those continuing his path (click to enlarge):

14  Finally, all of the above is based on various tribulations that have taken place over the decades, from the conduct of the scholars in question, and their speech, writings and guidance in those matters, which were translated and published during the start, evolution and conclusion of those tribulations, ending with the fitnah of Ibn Hādī and the Muṣāʿfiqah.

Closing Note

It is important for the reader to understand the broader framework of what took place in that fitnah during the 1990s, because these situations continue to arise and repeat themselves.

In the context of a geopolitical upheavals, a group emerge with political ambitions, polluting Salafiyyah with politics, violating foundations of the Sunnah in the arena of rulership, obedience, rebellion, war, bloodshed, the ahzāb, the jamāʿat, the innovators and the likes, and this goes with the territory.

Then scholars and shaykhs stand to refute these deviations wherein their geopolitical dimensions intersect with mighty foundations of the Sunnah, given that these foundations are not abstract issues for memorisation and repetition in lessons with no connection to reality. Rather, they are only understood and spoken of in relation to events, because they address these very matters.

Then an element emerges sympathetic to the refuted, and they use the approach of harshness (Ḥaddādiyyah) to cause confusion, and discredit the critiquing scholars and shaykhs in order to serve the cause of the original group.

And there is another element that takes the approach of softness, and they are also sympathetic to the refuted, in order to undermine and neutralise the criticisms and refutations, making them of no effect.

And there are others who play both sides, showing a face of Ḥaddādiyyah and enjoining it against those upon the truth, in order to create chaos from one side, and then they also play Mumayyiʿah towards those upon falsehood, innovators and deviants, to whom they are allies, in order to raise them and prop them up.

And then there are those who are weak in knowledge regarding methodology and are ill or misinformed regarding these matters, or do not have the courage to uphold the truth when it is required to do so, and from whom different behaviours emanate, depending on character and temperament.

So these things recur, over and over, and this is why learning from these past fitan and how the scholars dealt with them is very important.

Footnotes