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 3

In his treatise on the Imāms of al-Jarḥ wal-Taʿdīl being the protectors of the religion, Shaykh Rabīʿ established that the scholars of ḥadīth were the same ones who criticised and refuted the people of innovation, and that the attempt to distinguish between speech about narrators and speech about innovators is false. This was simply a means by which Fāliḥ al-Ḥarbī and his followers tried to evade accountability for unwarranted tabdīʿ which they could not justify. So they tried to remove it from due process (principles, standards) and enter it into the domain of fatwā in which erudition, insight and brilliance could be invoked to enjoin taqlīd and remove the burden of proof.

Shaykh Rabīʿ went on to write two more works on this same issue, not sufficing with the first, and he brought more evidences to firmly establish the truth and to kill the falsehood for good. We provide a broad overview of the first of these two treatises.

The First Supplemental Treatise

The first treatise is titled: “Ahl al-Ḥadīth and Those Traverising Upon Their Way Are the Most-Knowledgeable of People Regarding the People of Desires and Innovations and the Legislation of Disparagement and Appraisal by the Competent Has Not Been Severed” and is dated 19 Shawwāl 1425 (2 December 2004) and is 13 pages in length.^[1]

01  The Shaykh (رحمه الله) opens the treatise with his statement:

02  The Shaykh goes on to explain, in light of this foundation, that Ahl al-Sunnah face numerous problems which are created by the people of innovations and desires, some of which are directed towards the Islāmic creed, others towards the Sunnah and its sciences involving criticism, disparagement and appraisal, authenticating and weakening. Likewise, the issue of differentiating between the early and later scholars (of ḥadīth), and false principles such as al-muwāzanāt (mentioning good points of individuals when refuting them for error and misguidance), the vast manhaj (al-manhaj al-wāsiʿ), carrying the general upon the specific (al-mujmal wal-mufaṣṣal) and other affairs. These latter ones were principles brought by Abū al-Ḥasan al-Maʾribī to shield the people of innovation.

02  Included among these affairs is the claim that disparagement of Ahl al-Bidaʿ does not come under the methodology of Ahl al-Ḥadīth, its principles and foundations, and this is what Fāliḥ al-Ḥarbī, Fāruq al-Ghaythī and other Ḥaddādīs came with, thereby extending First Wave Ḥaddādiyyah beyond its originating circumstances, and turning into a broader methodology by furnishing it with principles.

03  Shayk Rabīʿ goes on to explain that the first to bring this falsehood was al-Tāj al-Subkī, the Ṣūfī Ashʿarī adversary of Ibn Taymiyyah (رحمه الله). He did so in criticism of Imām al-Dhahabī who criticised Fakhr al-Rāzī and others in his book Mizān al-Iʿtidāl Fī Naqd al-Rijāl. Shaykh Rabīʿ quotes Ibn Ḥajar (رحمه الله) who said that al-Subkī criticised al-Dhahabī for speaking about al-Rāzī because al-Rāzī is not from the narrators of ḥadīth, and accused al-Dhahabī of bias and bigotry in relation to creed. Meaning he included and criticised these Ashʿarīs due to bias in creed, and they should not have been included in his work because they are not narrators of ḥadīth.

Shaykh Rabīʿ makes the point that none of the Imams of al-Jarḥ wal-Taʿdīl said that only the ḥadīth narrators are specified for disparagement in relation to their reporting. Rather, they criticised them from the angles of reporting and creed, and they considered the ḥadīth narrator who was an innovator to be more dangerous than the reporter who was free of innovation.

However, some people followed al-Subkī and removed Ahl al-Bidaʿ from the domain of al-Jarḥ wal-Taʿdīl, claiming that only ḥadīth narrators enter into it, and they are the likes of Fāliḥ and his followers, for their own particular purpose, which is to evade accountability for false tabdīʿ of people of the Sunnah with light or excusable errors. As for al-Subkī, his purpose was to defend innovators, like al-Rāzī, with calamities in creed, so its the same principle, with different objectives.

Then Shaykh Rabīʿ brings some more disparaging comments against al-Rāzī as cited by Ibn Ḥajar in relation to al-Rāzī’s tafsir, and for his serious errors in creed, such as negating the attributes, validating the docrine of al-Jabar and others. This was to refute the unjust criticism of al-Subkī against al-Dhahabī.

What Shaykh Rabīʿ established here is that:

04  After this the Shaykh goes on to explain that the Companions were at the head of those leading imāms of religion who engaged in these matters, and he mentions among them ʿUmar, Ibn ʿUmar, Ibn ʿAbbās, Anas bin Mālik (رضي الله عنهم). He then brings narrations from the Salaf about the importance of isnād (chain of narration) in the religion, and the importance of knowing who you are taking religion from. He proceeds to explain how Ahl al-Ḥadīth who are upon this way are most aware and alert to Ahl al-Bidaʿ, and most knowledgeable of their innovations and methodologies.

He then proceeds to list some of those imāms from the era of the Successors, starting with Saʿīd bin al-Musayyib, al-Ḥasan al-Basrī, all the way to al-Awzāʿī, al-Thawrī, al-Shāfiʿī, Aḥmad and others. The intent behind all of this is to establish that Ahl al-Sunnah and their imāms are fully aware and cognisant of Ahl al-Bidaʿ, both groups and individuals.

05  Then the Shaykh goes on to give numerous examples of those who were spoken against for their innovation by Ahl al-Ḥadīth wal-Sunnah, and they include:

• Ibrahim bin Ṭahmān al-Khurasānī, resident of Makkah, he was declared trustworthy by some scholars, such as al-Dārquṭnī and Aḥmad, but they described him with Irjāʾ.

• Ayūb ʿĀʾidh al-Kūfī, he was from the Murjiʾāh, and was described as such by Ibn al-Mubārk, al-Bukhārī, Abū Dāwūd and Ibn Ḥibbān.

• Thawr bin Yazīd al-Kalāʾī, and he was a Qadarī, and he had been expelled from Ḥimṣ due to his innovation, and they burned his house down as well. The imāms such as al-Awzāʿī spoke severely against him.

• Al-Jaʾd bin Dirham, Al-Jahm bin Ṣafwān, Bishr al-Marīsī. These three were criticised by al-Dārimī in his book refuting the Jahmites. Shaykh Rabīʿ quotes various passages from the book.

• Dharr bin ʿAbd Allāh al-Hamadānī, he was a Tabiʿī and was declared trustworthy but was criticised for speaking with Irjāʾ, and was considered to be from the Murjiʾāh.

The Shaykh goes on to give another seven examples, making 14 in total, but the above are sufficient for illustration.

After providing these examples the Shaykh says that the books of the scholars of al-Jarḥ wal-Taʿdīl are full of clarifications regarding Ahl al-Bidaʿ and their doctrines.

Then he says that the door of al-Jarḥ wal-Taʿdīl remains open and established so long as there are people of truth and people of falsehood, people of guidance and people of misguidance, and so long as there is a battle being the Aided Group (al-Ṭāʾifah al-Manṣūrah) and those who oppose them from the people of misguidance.

06  Then Shaykh Rabīʿ brings speech from Ibn Taymiyyah^[2] about the obligation of speaking against the people of innovation and misguidance so as to prevent corruption of religion, and that the one who refutes innovators is a Mujāhid^[3], and also speech of Ibn al-Qayyim regarding the people of innovations, such as the Qarāmiṭah, Malāḥidah, Falāsifah, Rāfiḍah, Qadariyyah and the Jahmiyyah and their false interpretations.^[4], and likewise Ibn a-Qayyim’s words regarding the types of pens, from which is the pen of refutation through which Ahl al-Sunnah refute innovators and falsifiers of various sorts.^[5]

07  After these quotes, Shaykh Rabīʿ (رحمه الله) give examples of how the Imāms such as Aḥmad bin Ḥanbal warned against specific individuals from Ahl al-Bidʿah, while making mention of their specific innovation, such as Aḥmad bin Rabāḥ, Ibn al-Khalnajī, Shuʿayb bin Sahl and others. He used words such as “Innovator, person of desires” regarding them.

Likewise, similar speech of Abū Ḥātim al-Rāzī and Abū Zurʿah al-Rāzī, al-Bukhārī, Abū Dāwūd and others, they have much speech regarding Ahl al-Bidaʿ. Then those who came after them such as al-Khallāl, al-Lālikāʾī, Ibn Baṭṭāh and Abū al-Qāsim al-Aṣbahānī. Then after them, ʿAbd al-Ghaniyy al-Maqdisī, al-Ḍiyāʾ al-Maqdisī and Ibn Qudāmah al-Maqdisī. After them Ibn Taymiyyah, and his students, Ibn al-Qayyim, Ibn ʿAbd al-Hādī and al-Dhahabī. Then their students such as Ibn Rajab, Ibn Kāthīr, and Ibn Nāṣir al-Dimashqī. Likewise, Ibn Hajar and his students have a fair share of speech against Ahl al-Bidaʿ due to the influence of the methdology of Ahl al-Ḥadīth upon them. Then Ibn al-Wazīr al-Yamānī, and al-Sanʿānī and al-Shawkānī, and Ṣiddīq Ḥasan Khān and Ahl al-Ḥadīth from India among others, they also spoke in a like fashion.

After providing these examples, the Shaykh says that this methodology extends throughout history, and will continue until the Qur’ān is raised to heaven and only the most evil people remain.

08  The Shaykh provides a beneficial reminder:

Here, with this categorisation, Shaykh Rabīʿ gave us, very concisely, the true methodology in this subject matter. This brings us to the end of this beneficial treatise.

Notes

From what has preceded, we can make some observations to keep things in perspective.

01  The reader must remember the wider context of what we are engaged in here. At the end of First Wave Ḥaddādiyyah we extracted some Ḥaddādī crystals that were characterised through sixteen or so properties, and in Second Wave Ḥaddādiyyah we are continuing the distillation, precipitation and extraction processes. We have a good yield in the form of two sizeable crystals, the first of which is ghuluww, and the second of which is removing tabdīʿ and taḍlīl from the domain of al-Jarḥ wal-Taʿdīl, (hence, not subject to its foundations and principles), and into another domain which is more like that of fatwā, in which tabdīʿ and taḍlīl (against Ahl al-Sunnah) are let loose, acquire their liberty and freedom, and fly into the horizons. These two matters are part and parcel of emotional and intellectual justifications to evade accountability for unwarranted, unjust tabdīʿ, and the resulting (intended) chaos it produces in the ranks of Ahl al-Sunnah. This is where we are within Second Wave Ḥaddādiyyah in the overall journey.

02  From this present treatise of Shaykh Rabīʿ, we see that the Shaykh did not suffice with his first treatise refuting the alleged differences (fawāriq) between the domain of speech about narrators and the domain of speech about innovators. In fact, the Shaykh went on to write over 400 pages, comprising sixteen works of various lengths in refutation of Fāliḥ and his followers.

This indicates the falsehood of those who say that you refute error, deviation, misguidance and innovation just once, and that’s it, no need to keep writing, over and over. This is not the way of the scholars from the era of the Salaf to this day of ours and examples are many. Some of the Salaf wrote many works just on the Jahmiyyah, and Ibn Taymiyyah wrote various works all centered around the same issues such Bayān Talbīs al-Jahmiyyah, Taʿāruḍ al-ʿAql wal-Naql and others and the same topics and points are repeated over and over in these works. What we find is that the scholars aim not to leave any stone unturned when it comes to innovations, misguidance and false principles, due to the great danger they pose to true religion.

03  In this treatise, Shaykh Rabīʿ is addressing the attempted marginalisation of the scholars of Ahl al-Ḥadīth wal-Sunnah in general and restricting the arena of refuting innovators and the errant from Ahl al-Sunnah (and making tabdi` of them) to one or two alleged brilliant, insightful specialists, in this case Fāliḥ al-Ḥarbī. So Shaykh Rabīʿ, adding to the strength of his first treatise, brought more lines of evidence and more examples to kill the doubt (shubhah), especially when its purveyors continue in their falsehood.

04  The approach here is that when you see a snake, kill it, while giving fair warning first. It’s the same with destructive ideologies and principles. Kill—proficiently of course—or the snake is left to roam, sting and potentially kill. Abu Idrīs al-Khawlānī (رحمه الله) said: “That I see a fire in a mosque that I cannot extinguish is more beloved to me than seeing an innovation therein that I am unable to change.”^[6] This is regarding innovations regarding worship of course, but innovated, destructive principles are far worse. Hence, kill them off proficiently with truthfulness, integrity, knowledge and evidence, and don’t give them breathing space or any lifelines.

Of the various deviant methodologies, the Ḥaddādī ideology is the most foul, destructive and barbarous, and it can do to Ahl al-Sunnah what the Ṣūfīs, Ashʿarīs, Takfīrīs, Ikhwānīs, Jahmīs and others are unable to do (combined), so beware!

05  In conclusion, in this treatise, Shaykh Rabīʿ has added to the weight of evidence to make it heavier and more “back-breaking” so to speak for those who spread false, destructive principles in order to justify oppressive tabdīʿ of those from Ahl al-Sunnah that have resolvable and excusable errors. With this treatise, our Ḥaddādī crystals (of the Ḥarbī type) increased in yield and size. However, Shaykh Rabīʿ went on to write yet another treatise as a follow up, and this will be examined in the next round of distillation, precipitation and crystallisation, with Allāh’s permission.

Footnotes