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 2

In the first part in this series, we looked at one of the first things highlighted by Shaykh Rabīʿ and other mashāykh regarding Fāliḥ al-Ḥarbī, which is ghuluww (exaggeration) in his status as a means of compensating for his lack of evidence for his aggressive wars of tabdīʿ which he launched on salvageable shaykhs who had light errors without being complicit in serious violations of the foundations of the Sunnah (such as rebellion and shielding innovators), and thereby caused splits, divisions and enmities among Ahl al-Sunnah.

Ghuluww is a type of appeal to authority, an argument by status, and allows the one who demands adherence to principles and standards to be accused of opposing and belittling scholars. However, this technique appeals to emotion and not to reason, and hence, it has to be compounded with other techniques, and from them are the use of false principles involving misrepresentation of history.

So Fāliḥ enlisted one of his soldiers known as Fārūq al-Ghaythī to present the principles he had concocted in order to evade accountability for false, oppressive tabdīʿ.

The basic idea behind these principles is that the rules regarding criticism of narrators (ruwāt) of ḥadīth do not apply to speech about deviants and innovators, which is more like the field of fatwā and the underlying reasons for the disparagement and heresification do not have to be mentioned, and this returns to specialists scholars in this field regarding deviants and innovators, whose sayings must be accepted, otherwise, if this was not the case, then we would have to undermine the messengerships, because they were accepted on trust.

If you think about the connotations—and the affairs will become more apparent as we progress in this series, inshāʾAllāh—it’s kind of saying that you must make taqlīd of Fāliḥ in his tabdīʿ because this is from the field of giving fatwā and this is signing off (tawqīʿ) on behalf of Allāh, and he does not need to provide any actual evidence for rulings of tabdīʿ, just like we accept the speech of Messenger (صلى الله عليه وسلم) without question, and if you do not do so, you are invalidating the messengerships and upon a way other than that of the scholars of Islām. So you either accept this speech which is based on firāsah (insight) due to scholarly brilliance—as there is no burden of proof and evidences do not need to be provided, since scholarly intuition and insight is sufficient—or you are invalidating the very foundations of Islām itself.

Shaykh Rabīʿ (رحمه الله) refuted and exposed this mentality which is composed of exaggeration, various principles and false claims which follow on the heels of oppression and violation of principles regarding how to deal with Ahl al-Sunnah. In what follows below we will summarise one of the small works in which the Shaykh (رحمه الله) refutes Fārūq al-Ghaythī and falsifies one of these principles that underlie and produce this mentality, which is that the scholars of al-Jarḥ wal-Taʿdīl are other than the scholars of refuting innovators and deviants.

The Imāms of al-Jarḥ wal-Taʿdīl

Our aim here is to provide a very basic overview of this treatise, the important thing is that the reader understands the broader picture and where everything fits in, so that the jigsaw puzzle can be more easily solved as we progress.

01  The title of the treatise is: “The Imāms of al-Jarḥ wal-Taʿdīl are the Protectors of the Religion From the Plot of the Heretics, the Misguidance of the Innovators and the Fabrication of the Liars”^[1], (dated 6 June 2004) around 45 pages in length, and its objective is to prove that the scholars who spoke about the narrators of ḥadīth and disparaged them are the same ones who refuted and exposed their innovations.

02  Shaykh Rabīʿ mentions how Fāliḥ al-Ḥarbī is behind Fārūq al-Ghaytḥī, the author, whom he describes as a pseudo-scholar (mutaʿālim), a feigner of knowledge, and this is generally the state of Ḥaddādīs and those who resemble them. Because, the origin of their speech is to defend their shaykh and leader in his baseless tabdīʿ, and not to objectively pursue the truth, then by necessity, they can only bring lies, fabrications and pseudo-scholarship to the table.

03  The Shaykh mentions that by claiming that the Scholars of Ḥadīth are only scholars of reports and narrators, he is belittling them by implying that they are not fit for speech regarding innovators and deviants. Thereafter, the Shaykh gives a brief summary of the Imāms of the religion from the Salaf who conveyed the guidance of the Messenger (صلى الله عليه وسلم), from the Companions, their successors and their successors. He explains that they preserved the religion and its unity, and gives names of around 50 notable Imāms from the first to the eighth century after hijrah. He also lists their tremendous works in the field of creed and refutation of innovators.

04  Then the Shaykh quotes the actual verbatim speech of al-Ghaythī in which he excludes the innovators from the domain of al-Jarḥ wal-Taʿdīl (relating to narrators), and says that it has defined principles and rules whereas speech about men in other areas besides reporting and transmitting, (i.e. tabdīʿ) has its own men, other scholars who speak in these matters. The Shaykh went on to refute these false statements and the evidences al-Ghaythī tried to use in which he presented differences (fawāriq) between the two areas (speech about narrators and speech about innovators).

05  While addressing these various differences which al-Ghaythī tried to use as proof, Shaykh Rabīʿ said:

Shaykh Rabīʿ noted some clear signs of the Ḥaddādī enterprise as it is in motion, which is gleaned from speech, writings and actions. They call for loyalty and disloyalty around people's errors, praise and defend outright innovators while reviling and attacking people of the Sunnah, driven by partisanship towards particular personalities.

06  Then the Shaykh provides examples from fourteen imāms in ḥadīth, such as al-Thawri, Ibn ʿUyainah, ʿAlī bin al-Madīnī, Aḥmad, al-Bukhārī and others wherein they disparage narrators for their innovations to falsify the claim of al-Ghaythī.

07  The Shaykh (رحمه الله) then discusses the issue of the report of the innovator (riwāyah al-mubtadiʿ), is it accepted or not, and he presented the various views of the scholars in the matter. He summarises the issue by saying that the severe innovation, such as Tajahhum (the way of al-Jahm and his innovations), prevents acceptance of reports absolutely, and moderate innovation, such as al-Qadar (its denial), then the one who is a caller to it, his reports are rejected, and as for light innovation, such as al-Irjāʾ, then as to whether it is rejected absolutely, or only from the one who is a caller to it, there are two views reported.

08  One of the claims of Ḥaddādī theoreticians like Fāliḥ al-Ḥarbī and Fārūq al-Ghaythī is that when scholars speak about an innovator (making tabdīʿ), it is obligatory to follow them, as opposed to those who speak about the narrators in the matter of reports. The Shaykh responded to it with a number of points:

First, he asked him to provide evidence from the Book and the Sunnah to distinguish between the two and that it is obligatory to follow scholars in tabdīʿ and not the others in the matter of narrators.

Second, the Shaykh said that al-Ghaythī qualified the obligation by specifying the matter of tabdīʿ, which means its not obligatory to follow them in other subject matters, so the Shaykh asked him for evidence for that.

Third, the Shaykh said that based on his principle it is obligatory to accept that tabdīʿ made by Imām Muḥammad bin Yaḥyā al-Dhuhlī and his associates against Imām al-Bukhārī. However, the scholars, such as Imām Muslim, opposed them, and so the question is asked to these Ḥaddādīs, are you going to make tabdiʿ of them because they did not follow Muḥammad bin Yaḥyā in his tabdīʿ?

The Shaykh said that “the issues revolves around the presence or absence of evidence, not desires” (as is the way of al-Ḥarbī and al-Ghaythī and their likes). Hence, Ḥaddādīs and those who resemble them argue by way of statuses and personalities, whereas Ahl al-Sunnah demand the evidences.

The reader should note that this is the central, core point of contention whenever the Ḥaddādī machinery is in motion. It is the debate about the presence or absence of the evidences for tabdīʿ, wherein the Ḥaddādīs and those who resemble their conduct are trying to prove false, unwarranted, baseless tabdīʿ on flimsy grounds, and Ahl al-Sunnah are demanding evidences and holding them to principles and standards. Around this matter revolves everything else such as ghuluww (exaggeration) and invention of principles, and calling for loyalty and disloyalty around the errors (alleged, presumed or fabricated) of targeted people.

Fourth, Shaykh Rabīʿ asks al-Ghaythī:

From this, and what has preceded, the Ḥaddādī mentality and outlook should become more and more crystallised in the mind of the reader, and hence, should become easier to spot and characterise.

08  Al-Ghaythī tried to bring evidence from some speech of al-Dhahabī for his claim that the principles of ḥadīth sciences do not apply to tabdīʿ and innnovators, Shaykh Rabīʿ explained that his speech does not indicate this at all, and he remarked at this point:

Then the Shaykh quoted some valuable speech of Imām al-Dhahabī (Al-Muqidhah p. 88):

Then the Shaykh commented:

These are precious words from both Imām al-Dhahabī (رحمه الله) and Shaykh Rabīʿ (رحمه الله) and within them is a silencing of every Ḥaddādī who demands acceptance of tabdīʿ based not on proofs and evidences, but biases, prejudices and desires, which in the case of Fāliḥ and his followers, was to protect his status and his unjust rulings.

09  After this the Shaykh (رحمه الله) brought statements from Ibn Qutaybah, Ibn Ḥibbān, al-Khaṭīb al-Baghdādī and Ibn Taymiyyah to support his refutation of al-Ghaythī’s false principle.

10  The above summary, leaving out a lot of technical detail and discussion, is sufficient for our purposes because it presents the essence of the issue, enough for the reader to comprehend and connect the dots.

Comments and Observations

01  We have learned already that to protect the institution of oppressive and unwarranted tabdīʿ there are two routes appealing to both emotion and reason. One is ghuluww and appeal by status and the other one, intellectual, in the form of false principles.

The entire exercise is to evade responsibility and the remove the burden of proof for making tabdīʿ of Salafī shaykhs or callers who are well-known among the people, have many efforts in calling to and defending Salafiyyah and its scholars.

02  Pseudo-intellectualism and pseudo-scholarship will be prevalent in these endeavours because they are not in pursuit of truth, objectively, from the outset, but they are for the purpose of shielding statuses, out of taʿaṣṣub and taḥazzub. In this case, al-Ghaythī, a frontman for Fāliḥ al-Ḥatbī tried to present some differences (fawāriq) between speech about narrators of ḥadīth and speech about innovators so as to prevent rulings of tabdīʿ from being held to principles, to justify what Fāliḥ fell into of making oppressive, unwarranted tabdīʿ of well-known Salafīs with efforts in daʿwah without evidence, leading to great schisms and splits

03  The central contention when the Ḥaddādī enterprise is in motion is the presence or absence of evidence for tabdīʿ, in particular, of those known for Salafiyyah, with efforts in daʿwah and defending Salafiyyah.

Keep in mind that Ḥaddādiyyah started off by targeting the likes of Ibn Ḥajar and al-Nawawī to lay the foundation for justifying tabdīʿ. In relation to them, it was something easy, because they had errors related to matters of creed such as taʿwīl of the Attributes. But their intent went beyond this. It was to justify tabdīʿ on account of the excusable slips and errors of those known for Salafiyyah, and to target those who are obstacles to their goals from the contemporary scholars of the Sunnah, and anyone else from the shaykhs and callers. They targeted al-Albānī on the topic of Īmān and Irjāʾ and this became their hallmark. Hence, when debates erupt around these matters, it is a tell-tale sign that the Ḥaddādīs (or those who resemble them) have already landed and are in your neighbourhood.

04  When there is no justification for the tabdīʿ of well-known Salafīs who have efforts in daʿwah, we may see a combination of ghuluww, false principles and also a third matter, which is fanatical followers appearing on the scene to echo and amplify the alleged, perceived or actual errors of the target in order to convince people that the oppressive, baseless tabdīʿ of their shaykh that was shown rejection was totally justified. This is what the followers of Fāliḥ al-Ḥarbī did, and it is a repeat pattern whenever the Ḥaddādī machinery is in motion.

05  We can now take our Ḥaddādī crystals (the Ḥarbī ones), place them under the microscope and take a look, and describe what we can see through the magnification, which is: creating a unique authority (marjiʿiyyah) for heresification and disparagement (i.e. Fāliḥ al-Ḥarbī) through marginalisation of other scholars and shaykhs (that would otherwise serve as quality-control), presenting him as the “the brilliant one (al-jahbadh)” (and other titles and descriptions to exaggerate his status), so that the acceptance of these rulings—not built on proofs, evidences, principles, truth and justice—can be enforced upon others, through the argument that this is like the arena of fatwā, and that resisting and asking for underlying reasons and evidences is casting doubt about the status of scholarship and is considered revilement, not just of this exclusive scholarship in the field of tabdīʿ, but of the messengerships and even Islām itself.

In other words, you are either with the scholars of Islām (i.e. one or two shaykhs) and their intuition and insight, and their ruling of tabdīʿ which has divine sanction through the route of fatwā—as it is signing off (tawqīʿ) on behalf of Allāh—or you are with Louis Farrakhān and his likes, have left the scholars of Islam, and invalidated the messengerships. This, in essence, is how the followers of Fāliḥ saw him and presented him, as should be clear from this and other writings of Shaykh Rabīʿ.

By now you should be feeling, touching, smelling and tasting Second Wave Ḥaddādiyyah, and we already warned previously, that the Ḥaddādī crystals, being tangible and real, are foul, offensive and dangerous. You may consider wearing goggles, double gloves and facemasks in their presence.

Footnotes