AN ASSOCIATE of Maḥmūd al-Ḥaddād, known as ʿAbd al-Laṭīf Bāshmīl, claimed that the Shaykhs of Madīnah, such as Shaykh Rabīʿ bin Hādī (رحمه الله) were calling to a deviant political methodology in complete secrecy built upon the errors of Shaykh al-Albānī (رحمه الله). He accused them of being infiltrators, working on the inside for political objectives. He also claimed that they were following the ways of the Ikhwānīs by not making tabdīʿ of certain callers in Saudi Arabia. These Ḥaddādis had exaggeration in matters of tabdīʿ and tajrīḥ, aiming to incite discord and chaos within the ranks of Ahl al-Sunnah. To support their claims, they attached themselves to well-known scholars in Saudi because they opposed Shaykh al-Albānī in various issues, and they leveraged this attachment to attack Shaykh Rabīʿ and others. Bashmīl is from the first wave Ḥaddādīs of the 1990s, and even though Maḥmūd al-Ḥaddād is the origin, and he disappeared into obscurity after being expelled from Saudi, Bāshmīl became the main promulgator, spokesman and caller to the ideology. After them, came the second wave Ḥaddādīs in the 2000s such as Fāliḥ al-Ḥarbī, then Fawzī al-Baḥraynī and they carried on the methodology with their own infusions.

In his refutation of the Ḥaddādī, ʿAbd al-Laṭīf Bāshmīl, Shaykh Rabīʿ bin Hadī (رحمه الله) said:^[1]

Notes

01  ʿAbd al-Laṭīf played a game of duplicity, making it look as if he has little to do with Maḥmūd al-Ḥaddād despite being his associate and the main promulgator of his methodology, and this is the way of the Ḥaddādīs, they use duplicity and feign ignorance.

Here Shaykh Rabīʿ outlined four foundations of the Ḥaddādī methodolog. It is very important to focus more on the skeletal framework than the actual people concerned and location in question (in this case, Madīnah) because those were just the circumstances of the emergence of the Ḥaddādī methodology, and it is not restricted to one place or another, but represents a harmful, corroding, destructive approach that surfaces through harshness, just as softness and laxity can also have similar effects in their own way.

Let’s look at each of these four principles:

02  First, waging war against contemporary scholars and showing hatred and enmity towards them. This should be correctly understood, from its basis. Maḥmud al-Ḥaddād declared past scholars like Ibn Ḥajar and al-Nawawī to be innovators and encouraged the destroying of their books. This was not directed towards those scholars specifically just because they may have had Ashʿarī leanings, or were in agreement with them in certain areas, but it was a general approach of bringing down scholars, past or present, on account of mistakes they may have fell into, but which are drowned in the ocean of their goodness. Hence, the Ḥaddādīs also belittled Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn al-Qayyim, Ibn Abī al-ʿIzz, and then they moved on to contemporary scholars, making Shaykh al-Albānī their main target.

The principle here is attacking and belittling scholars on account of excusable slips and errors which no person is free from, and rejecting all of their goodness, just because of these slips. This outlook is the foundation of the Ḥaddādī methodology (followed in quick succession by tabdīʿ, absence of taraḥḥūm and hajar) and it operates on a shoot first, ask no questions later policy, and the approach of cutting off the entire limb at the very first instance of a scratch or minor cut, just to make sure no corners are cut in preserving the body’s well-being and integrity. This, is the Ḥaddādī mentality. Its butcherous and barbarous as Shaykh Rabīʿ said elsewhere..

03  Second, having extremism in tabdīʿ, which is passing oppressive rulings of tabdīʿ upon others and then demanding that the tabdīʿ be accepted by others and if not, they are also made tabdīʿ of and treated like innovators (through warning, boycotting). So this follows on from the first principle of taking what are excusable slips and genuine errors, even if they were in foundations, and using these affairs to make tabdīʿ of people, with malice.

04  Third, prohibition of invoking mercy upon the people of innovation, or the one who fell into innovation. This is one of the pillars of the Ḥaddādī methodology. As for Ahl al-Sunnah, they do not prevent invoking of mercy upon the people of innovation, let alone scholars from Ahl al-Sunnah who had mistakes, or prominent scholars of ḥadīth, tafsīr and fiqh who were affected by innovations, and this emanates from the bonds of Islām and the rights of the Muslims. However, in certain cases, it may be withheld, for a particular benefit, but this is an exception, not a rule, as it is with the Ḥaddādīs.

05  Fourth, boycotting the innovator, upon the way of al-Ḥaddād that is, and note that this is regarding boycotting an actual innovator, let alone boycotting those upon whom false, oppressive tabdīʿ has been made. This issue of boycotting rests on the previous foundations, which are, taking excusable slips, extremism in tabdīʿ, and prohibition of invoking mercy (indicating malice). Hence, they call to this type of boycotting, the aim of which is to cause confusion and chaos among Ahl al-Sunnah.

06  This methodology was first directed towards Shaykh al-Albānī and Shaykh Rabīʿ from the contemporaries, and its objective was to split the daʿwah of clarity (wuḍūḥ) in methodology and pit some people of knowledge against others. What is interesting to note about the last paragraph in the quote above from Shaykh Rabīʿ is how the Ḥaddādīs somehow pretend that they are not upon this methodology or some of its aspects, when it is all but evident and visible in their actions: tabdīʿ (heresification), taḥdhīr (warning) and hajar (boycotting) with malice, without credible or sufficient evidence, or on the basis of slips and errors that do not warrant it, thereby bringing confusion and chaos, surges in blind enmity and loyalty, and thereafter, splitting Ahl al-Sunnah by way of it.

07  We can mention once again, some of the traits of the Ḥaddādīs outlined in this series which helps to identify the skeletal framework stripped or originating or localised circumstances:

• Hate clarity (wuḍūḥ) because they operate in ambiguity and evasion
• Averse to evidence-based discussions
• Use diversionary tactics to divert from the foundational issues
• Exaggerate errors and slips of Ahl al-Sunnah and weaponise them
• Make rulings of unjust, unwarranted tabdīʿ
• Boycotting of those who do not accept these rulings
• Are lenient towards actual innovators, yet harsh and unforgiving towards Ahl al-Sunnah
• Have ties to political aḥzāb and sympathy, defence and praise of innovators
• Conspire against scholars through lying and treachery
• Call to taḥazzub and takattul with ghuluww around personalities
• Accuse others of what they are actually engaged in (Taḥazzub, Ḥaddādiyyah)
• Academic dishonesty, clipping and concealing speech
• Accuse their opponents of being plants and agents without a shred of evidence

May Allāh protect us and the daʿwah from their evils.

Arabic text:

Footnotes