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, 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 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

Shaykh Rabiʿ bin Hādī (رحمه الله) established that making judgements regarding violations and oppositions to the Sunnah is only for the upright, trustworthy scholars who are people of fairness and justice. They are people of sound opinion and argument and their rulings and judgements are received with pleasure and satisfaction because they are built upon evidence, careful consideration and justice—and may involve the avenues of engagement, dialogue and removal of misunderstandings where appropriate—so that their rulings are solid, and do not become the source of confusion and division among Ahl al-Sunnah.

In every matter, in every issue and in the countering of every falsehood, the way of the Salafī is: bring your proof if you are truthful. Further, they distinguish between oppositions for which a person can be expelled from the Sunnah and those for which he is not expelled.

As for the Ḥaddādīs and those who follow in their footsteps or resemble their conduct, their way is to build their rulings and make their judgements upon lies, fabrications, uncertainties, plausibilities, genuine slips and so on and sometimes they may make their attacks on the basis of intolerance to legitimate and permitted views that go against their own, or it may be on the basis of mere statuses and appeals to authority. They are believed by those partisan towards them and the riff-raff, not those who are grounded in and respect the Salafī methodology, and they are unable to survive scrutiny and subjection to principles. Thereafter, they play games of evasion and distraction when requested to provide actual evidence.

Some of them respond that their chosen scholar has already spoken and because he is Allāh’s witnesses on earth who gives testimony for Allāh, portraying as if his judgement (in this case, of tabdīʿ) has divine sanction and cannot be interfered with. This sounds a bit like the way of Fāliḥ al-Ḥarbī, that if you do not accept his rulings of tabdīʿ of known Salafīs but ask for proof, you have invalidated the messengerships and invalidated Islām and so on, as if his unjustified tabdīʿ and taḍlīl was synonymous with Allāh’s judgement.

When they are approached and asked directly: “You made tabdīʿ of so-and-so, you accused so-and-so of being a plant, what is the evidence?” they have no response except total silence and evasion. Then they close the doors shut and block and boycott everyone who simply requests evidence upon the divinely revealed principle: bring your proof if you are truthful.

This behaviour involving exaggeration (ghuluww) and oppression (ḍhulm) has no connection to the methodology of Ahl al-Sunnah whatsoever and is not the way of the upright trustworthy scholars and those who follow them in the path of truth, justice and moderation. Rather, it is more in line with the way of the Ḥaddādīs of unjustified tabdīʿ (heresification), testing of people (imtihān) and boycotting them (hajar), all of which have been witnessed in the open, in full view.

See also:

• Disparagement and Appraisal Are Made In Accordance With a Methodology and Principles, Not Statuses of Scholars
• On the Necessity of Following Criticisms Based on Verification of Evidence, Not Bigotry and Partisanship Towards Individuals
• Accepting Truth from Scholars Due to Evidence Not Status, and There is no Place for Emotions, Schemes and Tricks in Clarifying Truth

Arabic text:

Footnotes