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 9

The diligent, keen-eyed reader should now have understood that there are two issues for consideration: The first is the original core Ḥaddādiyyah coming from disgruntled Takfīrīs and Quṭbīs, infusing weaponised harsh, unwarranted tabdīʿ and tajrīḥ as a means of creating splits, enmities, chaos, tumult, turmoil, splintering and weakening among Salafīs, as a plot against the Salafī daʿwah as a whole. These people still exist and have not disappeared. They are the ones who focus heavily on Īmān, Irjāʾ and issues of takfīr and they hide behind the daʿwah of Ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhāb, and they are proxies of the clear, open Takfīrīs.

The second is the manifestations of Ḥaddādiyyah that some from Ahl al-Sunnah may fall into, not as a plot against Salafiyyah, but due to other reasons and circumstances. Hence, some or many of its traits, behaviours and methods will manifest, precipitated by and centered around the engine of unwarranted, oppressive tabdīʿ on insufficient grounds and severe disparagement that is unjustified. It may be based upon genuine errors or even worse, lies, fabrications and trumped up charges. The targets are always prominent Salafīs, scholars, shaykhs or students, who have efforts in daʿwah and are respected by people.

Further, this second group^[1] may also be of types: those who are genuinely Ahl al-Sunnah but erred severely through oppression and being taken by pride, acting for self-vindication and caring not for the turmoil they cause in the process. Or it may be from those who have gained acceptance and recognition in the ranks, but are driven by grievances, or political and other motives and ambitions, with ties or sympathies to the aḥzāb. They may operate with cloaks of secrecy, deception and dissimulation for the attainment of their goals.^[2]

This manifestation has surfaced numerous times since the time of Fāliḥ. Notably, from Yaḥyā al-Ḥajūrī and his followers, Hishām al-Beily in Egypt (see details) and Muḥammad bin Hādī and his followers, and more recently, from ʿArafāt al-Muḥammadī and those with him.

In the next treatise, we will see one of the hallmarks of Ḥaddādiyyah which is engaging in academic dishonesty and treachery to make mighty accusations against the target in order to declare him disguided, an enemy to the Sunnah, harmful to Islām and its foundations, in order to completely discredit him.

Countering the Dirty War by Reversing the Polished Sharp-Edged Blade

Shaykh Rabīʿ wrote the treatise: “The Polished, Sharp-Edged Blade Reversed to the Neck of Its Wielder—the Forsaken, Ignorant One Who Toys with the Fundamentals.” It consists of two parts, the first is dated 5 Shawwāl 1426 (7 November 2005), and is 36 pages in length.^[4] The second is dated 20 Shawwāl 1426 (22 November 2005) and is 27 pages in length.^[5] It was a response to something Fāliḥ wrote and titled: “The Polished Blade for Confronting the Transgressor Against the Fundamentals” which was full of oppression and falsehoods.

Returning to the title of this treatise, what we picture here is a someone stepping forward with a polished, sharp-edge blade to assault someone in falsehood and oppression, with false charges, but the assailant is outwitted and outmanoeuvred, with the polished blade being reversed and placed on the neck of its wielder. So conceptually speaking, that’s what is happening here.

We will make an attempt to reproduce a visualisation of the scuffle and a demonstration of the reversal in what follows.

01  Right at the beginning of the treatise, on the first page, Shaykh Rabīʿ says:

We must ensure that we maintain a clear picture in our minds here.

There is the pre-tabdīʿ, pre-severe tajrīḥ period, and then there is the post-tabdīʿ, post-severe tajrīḥ period. While things happen behind the scenes in the first period, things really kick off when we enter the second period. This is because evading the burden of proof is a bit of a task and may have to involve a) creativity and ingenuity (in inventing or distorting principles), b) brute force and aggression to silence people, c) evasion and silent retreat, d) mobilisation of the hordes, or other responses depending on who we are dealing with and their character. As Shaykh Rabīʿ said previously, that Ḥaddādiyyah tries to wear its opponents down, paralyse them and make them give up.

This is what Fāliḥ attempted to do, and to that end, he accused Shaykh Rabīʿ of academic dishonesty, as we saw previously, and then, he accused him of permitting compromise in the very foundations of Islām and saying that the Messenger (صلى الله عليه وسلم) compromised in the issue of his messengership, as if to say, he renounced it for some benefit (maṣlaḥah). Fāliḥ clipped and distorted Shaykh Rabīʿ’s speech, and took it out of its layered context in order fabricate these lies.

The aim is to make it appear that Shaykh Rabīʿ is dishonest, ignorant and wastes even the foundations of religion, so how can he be worthy of speaking about Fāliḥ, the brilliant, insightful critic and unique authority in al-Jarḥ wal-Tabdīʿ of errant or falsely-accused Salafīs?

02  The issues for which Fāliḥ tried to attack Shaykh Rabīʿ were as follows:

• The claim that Shaykh Rabīʿ allows absolute compromise in the foundations of religion for some benefit or other, and the evidences used for that, such as the Treaty of Ḥudaybiyyah, not reviling the gods of the polytheists, and the Companions praying behind ʿUthmān (رضي الله عنه) who completed a prayer that the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) and Abū Bakr and ʿUmar (رضي الله عنهما) used to shorten.
• The claim that Shaykh Rabīʿ prohibits taqlīd absolutely, and this in relation to the fact that Fāliḥ and his followers were calling to taqlīd of his tabdīʿ and taḍlīl of well-known Salafīs without presenting credible and justifying proof.
• The claim that Shaykh Rabīʿ claims that Īmān is valid without action, and this relates to the affairs of Īmān and Irjāʾ roused by the Ḥaddādīs.

03  As for the first of the three issues, then the context is that Shaykh Rabīʿ was advising Fāliḥ about his wars of tabdīʿ (heresification), taḍlīl (declaring misguided), tajrīḥ (dispragement) and tajdīʿ (severing, cutting off) against well-known Salafīs, who have efforts in daʿwah, a following, and are respected, but who may have errors of sorts. That this aggression leads to divisions and enmities, exchanges of insults and tribulations and much harm to the daʿwah. That one should consider the benefits and harms behind this type of aggression of tabdīʿ and taḍlīl against Salafīs, and that this is in fact a principle in religion, and it is here that Shaykh Rabīʿ cited the evidences mentioned, as can be found in the written advice he had given to Fāliḥ previously.

However, Fāliḥ took this out of its context and accused Shaykh Rabīʿ of things he did not say or believe. He accused Shaykh Rabīʿ of saying that the Messenger (صلى الله عليه وسلم) compromised belief in the two names, al-Raḥmān, al-Raḥīm, and likewise, that he compromised affirmation his own messengership.

As for the issue of taqlīd, then Shaykh Rabīʿ wrote a small treatise about that which we have covered previously and Fāliḥ then accused him of prohibiting taqlīd absolutely. As for the issue of Īmān and Irjāʾ, then this is a Ḥaddādī staple, when you see it surface, be assured that Ḥaddādiyyah is in the neighbourhood.

After these false claims, and in a complete reversal of realities, Fāliḥ claimed that he had been patient with Rabīʿ who had been spreading these false principles etc. and that now he has been compelled to write, “The Polished Sharp-Edged Blade”(!).

04  Addressing Fāliḥ, Shaykh Rabīʿ says:

In the post-tabdīʿ, post-severe-jarḥ, post-failed-validation period, Fāliḥ al-Ḥarbī tried to reverse the realities and make it look as if he is the victim, he is the one who had to have patience, and that those who are replying to him and refuting him are the aggressors. Hence, he is now left with no option but to sharpen and polish his blade to tame and subdue the Murjiʾ criminals who are causing wastage to the religion.

This is from the Ḥaddādī traits, the reversal of realities. You recklessly initiate the fitnah, the turmoil, and then you play the poor victim who is being attacked and brought down when you are held to standard and your oppression and lies are refuted.

05  Shaykh Rabīʿ addresses the claim of Fāliḥ in what he alleged against him, that it leads to renunciation of the religion. He says that on the contrary, what Fāliḥ has fabricated (of the Ḥaddādī methodology) is what leads to renunciation of the religion.

This is because what Rabīʿ calls to is broad, comprehensive adherence to the religion as a whole, to what it brought of all affairs, inclusive of concessions, and considering benefits and harms, which indicate the perfection of Islām. He said that this is contrary to the methodology of Fāliḥ and the Ḥaddādiyah (which is: shoot and sever Salafīs first, no questions allowed later, without any consideration of benefits and harms) and which is built upon ignorance, lies and obstinacy, almost as if Islām is chains and shackles, meaning, severe and stern, with no mercy.

06  Shaykh Rabīʿ points out how Fāliḥ used to deny the principle of the benefits and the harms (maṣāliḥ and mafāsid) altogether, but now he says it is vast, but removes its application to issues of necessity (ḍarūrah) and compulsion (ikrāh), in objection to the issue of compromise (tanāzul) in such areas. But then he opens another route in which to place the issue of compromise, which is concessions (rukhaṣ), by which he also means to say that there is no consideration of benefits and harms attached to concessions.

Here, it is as if he is saying there are no wisdoms attached to concessions (and likewise to observing benefits and harms), but the removal of wisdoms from the Sharīʿah is the way of the Jahmiyyah Jabariyyah. The entire Sharīʿah is based upon drawing benefits and repelling harms, and necessities and compulsions enter into that, as do concessions.

What Fāliḥ did here was similar to what he did when he said that disparaging narrators is a different field to making tabdīʿ (of Salafīs with errors) and warning against innovators, which is false. They both enter into al-Jarḥ wal-Taʿdīl and are performed by the same scholars of ḥadīth.

Here, in this issue, Fāliḥ tried to separate between necessities and compulsions on the one hand, and concessions on the other, in the issue of compromise (tanāzul) and observing benefits and harms, when in fact, they all come under the principle of observing benefits and harms, which is what the entire Sharīʿah is based upon.

What is the overall thinking here?

It is to say that when I (Fāliḥ) make tabdīʿ of Salafīs, and launch wars of aggression against them, in protection of religion, there can be no compromise (tanāzul) here, because it leads to wastage of religion, and compromise only applies to the field of concessions, and as for observance of benefits and harms, this is besides the arena of necessities^[6] and compulsions^[7] in which there can be compromise in obligations and prohibitions.

However, the reality is that what Fāliḥ was doing was oppression against Ahl al-Sunnah and causing tremendous splitting and harm to the daʿwah, and he wanted to cover all of that up in various ways with various false principles, such as the issue of taqlīd, removing Ahl al-Bidaʿ and tabdīʿ from al-Jarḥ wal=Taʿdīl and its principles, denying observance of benefits and harms at first, and then affirming it but removing its application from certain areas and so on.

07  Shaykh Rabīʿ then goes on to explain some of the issues to illustrate how the truth was with him:

The first is the claim that he (Rabīʿ) said that the Messenger (صلى الله عليه وسلم) compromised in the issue of his messengership, as if he renounced it for the observance of benefits and harms at Ḥudaybiyyah. The Shaykh said that this amounts to accusing the Messenger (صلى الله عليه وسلم) and the Companions (رضي الله عنه) of kufr, and that no Muslim says this, and that he frees himself from making takfīr of any Muslim, even if he was an innovator, so what about the best of the prophets and messengers, and his noble companions.

The Shaykh goes on to cite his own speech and what he said and meant, which is that the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) overlooked and tolerated their rejection of his messengership and the names al-Raḥmān and al-Raḥīm, and likewise some of the unfair conditions of the treaty in order to attain benefits and repel harms. The Shaykh illustrates the difference between the word he used, “tolerate, overlook” (tasāmuḥ) and “compromise” (tanāzul), and that he used the former out of respect, and then he proceeds to outline ten or so other clear indications in his actual speech that falsify the slander of Fāliḥ.

08  The second is the claim that Shaykh Rabīʿ says: “compromise in the foundations of the religion is permitted.” However, Shaykh Rabīʿ points out that the word “religion” is not found in his speech, and he did not speak unrestrictedly like that. Rather, what he explained was that in particular circumstances, the benefits and harms are to be observed, and he brought the evidences for that. The issues he discussed in a broader sense were a) that there is toleration (tasāmuḥ) in the Islāmic Sharīʿah, b) that there can be compromise in obligations for necessities (ḍarūriyyāt) and needs (ḥājjāt) and then c) a summary of the issue of toleration in the Islāmic Sharīʿah. However, Fāliḥ came along, and seeing the word “uṣūl” (foundations) being used in Shaykh Rabīʿ’s speech, he added the word “dīn” (religion) to it, in order to cause alarm and fear.

This is one of the hallmarks of the Ḥaddādīs, they misquote you, clip your speech, remove any context, add words that were never said, and then ascribe outrageous things to you which your never thought of or intended.

09  Shaykh Rabīʿ gives the example of what people like Fāliḥ do, they take the saying of Allāḥ: “So woe be to those who pray.” (107:4-) in isolation from the rest, in order to give the impression that Allāh is threatening those believers who pray, and hence, turns the act of prayer into a crime, and those who pray, into criminals, and then he says:

Shaykh Rabīʿ then cautions such people with the speech of Allāh, that He is not unmindful of what the wrongdoers do (14:42-) and that those who harm the believing men and women undeservedly, that they will bear the crime of slander and sin (33:58-).

The Shaykh then goes on to clarify at length what he had written regarding this issue of the toleration of the Sharīʿah, and how it allows compromise in obligations in observance of attaining benefits and repelling harms, to refute the false accusations of Fāliḥ al-Ḥarbī. He brings evidences from the Qurʾān, the Sunnah and the speech of scholars, and he says once more:

10  Shaykh Rabīʿ then goes on to discuss each of the evidences, such as the Treaty of Ḥudaybiyyah, the rebuilding of the Kaʿbah, reviling the gods of the polytheists, the Companions compromising in the issue of shortening the prayer, and explains that in all of these affairs were benefits, especially the Treaty of Ḥudaybiyyah, which ultimately led to a great victory for Islām. The intent being that Fāliḥ is upon falsehood when he dismisses these affairs, as a matter of principle, in his tabdīʿ, taḍīl and tajrīḥ of Salafīs who may have errors.

11  Then Shaykh Rabīʿ clarifies his approach based on the Qurʾān and the Sunnah:

12  Shaykh Rabīʿ explains what his previous advice contains, which are the problems of Fāliḥ:

13  Shaykh Rabīʿ then provides statements of numerous scholars on the subject to establish that Islām is built upon the principle of attaining benefits and repelling harms. He quotes Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn al-Qayyim, al-Shāṭibī, al-ʿIzz bin ʿAbd al-Salām, al-Shawkānī, Badr al-Dīn al-Zarkashī and al-Saʿdī. Then the Shaykh remarks how these people disfigure and distort Islam and its foundations and principles, and portray it as if it is chains and shackles, having no mercy in it.

This is the end of the first part of the treatise.

14  In the second part of this treatise, Shaykh Rabīʿ reminds the reader of the advice he sent to Fāliḥ previously and in which he spoke about gentleness in the daʿwah in observance of benefits and harms, and this is in the context of the tabdīʿ, taḍlīl and severe tajrīḥ made by Fāliḥ of well-known Salafīs and the turmoil it caused in some countries. In that advice, he had used the examples of not reviling the gods of the polytheists and the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah to demonstrate the principle and its application to help Fāliḥ understand these matters. But, he notes, Fāliḥ and the Ḥaddādiyyah rejected this advice and twisted it, so Shaykh Rabiʿ addresses these issues once more, adding to the two issues he already discussed in the first part of the treatise.

The third issue then, is that of not reviling the gods of the polytheists in order to repel harms, and this is from the Qurʾānic āyah in this respect (6:108-). So Shaykh Rabīʿ exonerates himself by refuting the slander of Fāliḥ and his followers by explaining that in this matter a principle has been laid down for the ummah through which they can address religious, political and social and other problems that arise, with a view to attaining benefits and repelling harms. The Shaykh proceeds to quote from numerous scholars such as al-Nawawī, Ibn Ḥajar, al-Saʿdī, al-Shinqīṭī (رحمهم الله) and others in this respect, all of them affirming what Shaykh Rabīʿ said based on this principle, regarding repelling greater harm.

Shaykh Rabīʿ then remarks:

15  The fourth issue is regarding the basmalah, the names al-Raḥmān and al-Raḥīm in the written Treaty of Ḥudaybiyyah. Shaykh Rabīʿ explains that Fāliḥ slandered him regarding it, but ultimately, it has fallen back upon him, given the facts and realities of the matter.

Shaykh Rabīʿ says that abandoning the writing of these names does not mean abandoning the affirmation of mercy for Allāh, and likewise, the issue of messengership. Not writing it does not mean renouncing the description for Allāh’s Messenger (صلى الله عليه وسلم).

However, upon the extreme madhhab of Fāliḥ, he would have to make takfīr of Allāh’s Messenger (صلى الله عليه وسلم) who abandoned writing these things down, and because Fāliḥ does not apply the principle of observing benefits and harms, which the Messenger (صلى الله عليه وسلم) did in this instance, then it would mean that the Messenger (صلى الله عليه وسلم) himself renounced his messengership.

In reality, Fāliḥ tried to accuse Shaykh Rabīʿ of something, but it necessitating something worse upon himself, when taken through its proper line of reasoning, especially when he himself used the word tanāzala (compromise) while Shaykh Rabīʿ used the word tasāmaha (tolerate), when discussing the matter, thereby making him subject to his own extreme judgements.

And it is here that the polished, sharp-edge blade was reversed upon the neck of its wielder.

16  The fifth issue Shaykh Rabīʿ addresses is the fact that Fāliḥ tried to quote speech from ʿAlī (رضي الله عنه) and Ibn Ḥazm but which is against him. They both used the word “erase” (maḥā) in relation to the mention of his messengership which is more severe than using the word “tolerate” (tasāmaḥa). Hence, according to the methodology of Fāliḥ, they are also both disbelievers.

This shows the complete contradiction and inconsistency of Fāliḥ in that he comes across speech of scholars more severe–according to his understanding—than that of Shaykh Rabīʿ in the matter, but he does not say anything.

Further, the analogy of Fāliḥ resembles that of the Khārijites when they accused ʿAlī (رضي الله عنه) of disbelief for not writing “Chief of the Believers” during the dispute and arbitration. They said to him that you have renounced it, and, “you must be the chief of the disbelievers, so repent from your disbelief”. But Ibn ʿAbbās (رضي الله عنه) debated them and used the example of the Treaty of Ḥudabiyyah and the Messenger (صلى الله عليه وسلم) removing his messengership from it. This conduct of the Khārijites towards ʿAlī (رضي الله عنه) is what Fāliḥ did to Shaykh Rabīʿ in this issue.

Shaykh Rabīʿ makes a note however, about the difference between the Khārijites and the followers of Fāliḥ, he says:

He also states:

17  Finally, Shaykh Rabīʿ says:

And this brings us to the end of the treatise.

Notes and Highlights

There is a lot in what has preceded, the following are the important takeaways:

01  The reader should observe the continuity in the matter of tabdīʿ. For Maḥmūd al-Ḥaddād spoke of tabdīʿ of Ibn Ḥajar and al-Nawawī. They were great scholars, with oceans of goodness that drowned their errors, and the idea was to lay the basis for infusing this tabdīʿ into the Salafī ranks, to enable Salafī scholars to be attacked for their errors. As for ʿAbd al-Laṭīf Bāshmīl, he tried to get Shaykh Rabīʿ to make tabdīʿ of those who deserved tabdīʿ, not out of jealousy for methodology, but to create commotion and outrage. So Shaykh Rabīʿ said that he leaves tabdīʿ to the scholars but continues to refute and expose the errors. Then Fāliḥ al-Ḥarbī came along and made tabdīʿ of well-known Salafīs with appreciated efforts in daʿwah and teaching, caused huge harm, commotion and splits, and then became a theoretician to justify his actions.

At the centre of all of this is tabdīʿ, even tabdīʿ that is deserved in some cases. However, Fāliḥ and the Ḥaddādiyyah have a warped, twisted understanding of Islām wherein they deny, in principle, observance of the benefits and harms, and hence, see and portray Islām as an iron rod, and chains and shackles, devoid of mercy.

02  From the traits of the Ḥaddādīs is dishonesty and treachery in citation and attribution. They fabricate things against their adversaries who are barriers to their evil. This involves clipping speech, removing the context and hiding parts which completely falsify the accusations built on the isolated words.

03  Ḥaddādīs make outrageous and outlandish claims against their opponents which, upon simple reflection, based on the history, works and writings of their targets, are known to be false.

04  Ḥaddādīs do not like to be advised and told to refrain from their evil conduct. When they are held to standard and the burden of proof for their tabdīʿ and taḍlīl, they make it appear that they are the victims and those who question them are the aggressors They make a pretence of having shown patience with them and can no longer remain silent.

05  Ḥaddādīs reverse the realities, hide the historical facts, and hide the preceding chain of events, so that onlookers have no context and background. They make it appear as if they had to polish and sharpen their blades because they had to, for survival. Poor Fāliḥ, he endured patience, but was then forced to unsheath the blade after his unwarranted tabdīʿ and taḍlīl had caused chaos and ruin to the daʿwah in various places, and he had been insulted and belittled with so much advice.

06  Ḥaddādīs are callous and malicious, and they impose the severity and viciousness of their own characters upon Islām and the Salafī methodology. Hence, they portraying it as an iron rod, chains, shackles, brimstone and fire, stripping them of their justice and mercy. And you will see this manifest in their harsh and vindictive behaviour when their rulings and positions are not accepted. The strangest thing is that some of them behave like this during or after they talk about love, mercy, unity, forgiveness, overlooking of faults and exchanging gifts to foster brotherhood.

07  Ḥaddādīs present and market their oppressive tabdīʿ and taḍlīl, testing people (imtihān) and the splits they cause as protective jealousy for the religion. In this manner, they capture and deceive many naïve and gullible people, especially the youth who do not possess the experience, maturity and wisdom to hold back and think carefully, and who are made to feel that they are champions of Islām and the Salafī methodology.

08  Those targeted by Ḥaddādīs have to go to great lengths to exonerate themselves from the lies and fabrications thrown at them, and this is why Shaykh Rabīʿ, in addressing Fāliḥ, had to write a couple of hundred pages just to address the lies that were made against him, over and over. He repeatedly addressed the same issues, clarifying what he actually wrote and intended. So once again, this is the nature of Ḥaddādiyyah, it tries to wear you down and paralyse you through various means: intellectual terrorism, lies, fabrications, selective outrage.

09  Ḥaddādīs do not observe the benefits and harms from their actions of tabdīʿ and taḍlīl of other Salafīs devoid of evidence, and when their actions are criticised, and shown to be against the spirit of Islām and the Salafī methodology which incorporates mercy, toleration and patience, they show even more stubbornness, and some of them (like Fāliḥ) will respond with invention or distortion of principles as justification and self-vindication. Others may not do that and take other routes, such as doubling down, or evading and retreating, or backtracking. This all comes down to the nature and character of each person.

10  From the most glaring traits of the Ḥaddādīs is incoherence and double-standards and selective outrage. In this case, Fāliḥ falsely accused Shaykh Rabīʿ of something on account of a word (tasāmaḥa, tolerate, overlook), but there are other scholars who have similar or stronger words (maḥā, erase), which should necessitate the same serious accusations from Fāliḥ. But, no.

11  Some of he Ḥaddādīs—as Shaykh Rabīʿ indicated, given that the origin of this approach comes from the Khārijites and Takfīrīs—go as far as to intimate takfīr, let alone tabdīʿ. Hence, they will manifest some of their traits, those of ignorance (jahl), ghuluww (exaggeration). However, the Khārijites are braver and more transparent whereas the Ḥaddādīs are cowardly and use dissimulation. Shaykh Rabīʿ actually said that the Ḥaddādīs are not stirred by advice and admonition, and they are in a more evil state than the Khārijites (who were at least truthful and devoted to much worship) and are more severe in oppression and slander.

Conclusion

The picture we get from the above—a skilful reversal of the polished, sharp-edge blade upon the neck of its Ḥaddādī wielder—is that Ḥaddādīs operate on a warped and twisted understanding, a false reality they concoct through invention and distortion of principles, or upon misguided feelings of protective jealousy for religion which in their eyes, justifies their harsh and callous behaviour. They are characterised by ignorance, pseudo-scholarship, lies, deceit, dishonesty and stubbornness, which are the reasons for their ultimate exposure and downfall, even if they may roam the pastures for a period.

This is what happened to Fāliḥ when he set the Ḥaddādī engine in motion: unwarranted tabdīʿ of well-known Salafīs without sufficient, credible, justifying evidence, thereby causing splits, enmities and turmoil, and thereafter, the inability to validate these actions, except with falsehood, cunning, evasion, lies, deceit, playing the victim, reversing realities and so on. Save that Fāliḥ was prepared to invent and distort principles to that end, something which others who went in the same path did not venture into.

It is worthy to note what Shaykh Rabīʿ mentioned in the affair of Bāshmīl, that Ḥaddādiyyah is a complex fitnah, requiring deep reflection, and requiring the genius of the likes of ʿUmar bin al-Khaṭṭāb (رضي الله عنه) to unravel, the one who said: “I am not a deceiver, nor can I be deceived by a deceiver.” He also said that these people make apparent loyalty to the state and to the scholars, but privately, they speak ill of them and oppose them (see the quote here).

This demonstrates the importance of returning to the senior scholars well-versed in this arena, those who were not deceived by these people and who unravelled their deception. In the absence of such scholars (when they pass away), the Ḥaddādī spirit is left roaming around, festering^[8], waiting for the precipitating event(s), the embodiment and the mutual embrace. Ḥaddādī crystals do not mysteriously appear from a vacuum. They precipitate from solution.

Supplement

One of the evil consequences of the exaggeration and extremism (ghuluww) of the Ḥaddādīs (and those who resemble them in their behaviours) and their severe malice and hatred is that it leads them to intimate takfīr, meaning, hint at it, or imply it. You will find its undertones in their language, or implied by their arguments, as Shaykh Rabīʿ revealed about Fāliḥ.

Hence, on baseless grounds, they may speak of you as being alien to the “scholars of Islām” and speak of you as if you are in the same category as Louis Farrakhān and the Nation of Islām, all of which indicates the vileness of this spiritual poison. Beware of the Ḥaddādī spirit, lest it infect you! Wear gloves, goggles and two facemasks, because this spirit is not imaginary, its true and real, and can travel from one side of the world to the other in no time, and its symptoms manifest in minutes!^[9]

Footnotes