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 6

At this point in this series, the reader should have isolated and bagged numerous Second Wave Ḥaddādī crystals, while handling them with care of course, from them: unwarranted tabdīʿ, or taḍlīl or tajdīʿ, then ghuluww in the personalities making it, alongside false principles, and demanding acceptance and submission through taqlīd as means of evading the burden of proof for these judgements and an aggressive hostile demeanour towards Salafīs who are well-known with efforts in the Salafī daʿwah and defence of its scholars.

However, each Ḥaddādī persona may have other affairs, other errors, exaggerations and methods which bear some relation to the overall approach. These may involve affairs of geopolitics and the aḥzāb (political factions), or doctrinal issues such as Īmān and Irjāʾ, biases and grievances over fiqh issues, or matters that feed into the engine of false, oppressive tabdīʿ and taḍlīl, such as ghuluww, taqlīd and false principles such as distinguish between the domain of disparaging narrators and the domain of warning from innovators, and claiming that patience upon the errant from Ahl al-Sunnah (i.e. those who have been assaulted with oppressive tabdīʿ and taḍlīl) is a bidʿah, or is not from the way of the Salaf, and that rejecting the disparagement made by a scholar is a disparagement of him and so on all of which are aimed at enforcing acceptance of false tabdīʿ and taḍlīl of Salafīs and to evade the burden of proof.

In the case of Fāliḥ al-Ḥarbī there were numerous issues in his unique blend of Second Wave Ḥaddādiyyah and in April 2004 , Shaykh Rabīʿ had written some advices to Fāliḥ, just weeks apart, addressing some of these issues, hoping that he might turn back from his harmful way. Here, we present a summary of the first advice.

The First Advice

This advice is dated 24 Ṣafar 1425 (14 April 2004) and is 28 pages in length. The following issues were discussed therein:^[1]

01  The issue of taqlīd, Faliḥ had refuted Abū al-Ḥasan al-Maʾribī’s speech about not making taqlīd of scholars by which al-Maʾribī intended to invalidate correct, justified disparagements and warnings against clear deviants with calamities in creed and methodology. However, he did so incorrectly, and went to the other extreme of calling to taqlīd of severe disparagements made against those well-known for Salafiyyah, without the need for presentation of reasons and evidences.

From what Shaykh Rabīʿ said to Fāliḥ: ref]Majmūʿ Muʿallafāt wa Rasāʾīl (9/123).[/ref]

02  Shaykh Rabīʿ gives the example of Fāliḥ warning against al-Azhar al-Jazāʾirī in an extreme and severe way just because he did not agree with this issue of making taqlīd of his rulings. He said that al-Azhar had some mistakes alongside being a caller to the manhaj of the Salaf and that all he needed was brotherly advice. Not this severe war waged by Fāliḥ, and making mighty accusations against him.

Al-Azhar al-Jazāʾirī said:

And Fāliḥ said that this is futile (bāṭil), and that it is a wastage of the messengerships and what Allāh revealed of books! He said this applies only to those who are mujtahids such as Aḥmad, or al-Shāfiʿi. So Shaykh Rabīʿ explained the futility of this and said that Fālīḥ himself has opposed the mujtahid scholars which he mentioned, because they themselves prohibit people from making taqlīd of them in the severest of ways and strongly encourage them to follow the Book and the Sunnah.

03  Shaykh Rabīʿ said that maybe Falīḥ might recognise the danger of his approach in making judgements on people with exaggeration and realise the danger of those people around him who strive to cause splits among Salafīs, making some of them to strike others. Shaykh Rabīʿ noted that they have already achieved some of that.

04  Shaykh Rabīʿ mentions the extremism of Falīḥ regarding a person who, in the matter of tabdīʿ and tajrīḥ, defers to a scholar he trusts, and does not rush into accepting judgements. Falīḥ considered this action to be a rejection of the Book and the Sunnah and rejection of Islām itself, which is tremendous extremism. In other words, if you do not rush into tabdīʿ and taḍlīl, prefer to withhold, and wait for other scholars and shaykhs regarding these judgements lacking evidences. it entails undermining the very basis of the messengerships (that came through transmission) and the revealed books.

05  Shaykh Rabīʿ says he is compelled to correct some of the unjust rulings of Fāliḥ on others, based on the true and just methodology. This shows that Shaykh Rabīʿ did not sit around and just allow Salafīs to be trashed and trampled upon with oppressive judgements, without taking the oppressor to account openly, when necessary.

07  Regarding the issue of some scholars remaining silent against opposers in observance of benefits and harms. The Shaykh contrasted between the way of Fāliḥ which is an all out, open and aggressive war of tabdīʿ and taḍlīl against known Salafīs, absent advice and correction, and absent consideration of the harms of this approach, and between the way of scholars who prefer instead to advise first, so that either the advised benefits from the advice, and if not, “he subjects himself to scholarly criticism and brings upon himself his own downfall”. Shaykh Rabīʿ said that through this approach, unity can be maintained and the youth are protected from splitting and splintering.

08  Shaykh Rabīʿ brought many evidences from the Book and the Sunnah to show that observance of benefits (maṣāliḥ) and harms (mafāsid) is an enacted principle in religious, political and social affairs. From them, is that the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) abandoned rebuilding the Kaʿbah for fear that Quraysh might leave the religion, and likewise, the prohibition of reviling the gods of the polytheists, lest it lead to revilement of Allāh, and likewise the concessions made by the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) in the Treaty of Ḥudaybiyyah.

On the basis of these evidences and establishing the principle, Shaykh Rabīʿ said:

This was to defend those scholars who are not upon the manhaj of Fāliḥ of hasty and oppressive tabdīʿ, taḍlīl and tajdīʿ, and whom Fāliḥ began to revile and attack. At the head of them was Shaykh Rabīʿ himself.

09  The issue of preventing ignorant people from delving in tribulations. Fāliḥ considered this to be opposition to the Messengers and something rejected by reason. This was connected to issue of ʿAbd al-Mālik al-Ramaḍānī who made some statements like these in which there was truth but which Fāliḥ described as laying waste to all of the risālāt (messengerships), which again is more extremism.

Shaykh Rabīʿ explained that al-Ramaḍānī’s position regarding Abū al-Ḥasan al-Maʾribī was weak, however, he had strong positions towards the deviants (the Surūrīs), and he did not wage a war unlike others who sided with al-Maʾribī. he also denied that he had sided with al-Maʾribī. Hence, Shaykh Rabīʿ’s point, that does a person like this deserve such aggression and mighty accusations? When Fāliḥ launched his war against al-Ramaḍānī, it led to many tribulations, and in that context al-Ramaḍānī gave advice which was correct, and which Fāliḥ was unable to see, because of his extremism and exaggeration.

10  Shaykh Rabīʿ mentioned the issue of tārik jins al-ʿamal (abandoning the genus of action), whether it is in agreement with the Murjiʾah or not. Fāliḥ said it is, and Shaykh Rabīʿ corrected this and advised on how this matter should be treated, and this is one of the talking points of the Ḥaddādiyyah that Fāliḥ was affected by and for which he subsquently attacked Shaykh Rabīʿ. Hence, the issues of Īmān and Irjāʾ also surfaced in Second Wave Ḥaddādiyyah and this seems to be a defining feature of the Ḥaddādī enterprise.

11  The issue of the minimal definition of īmān (i.e. what is minimal requirement to remain a Muslim), Fāliḥ said it is the prayer, and Shaykh Rabīʿ brought ḥadīths regarding intercession and sinners being removed who have the smallest speck of īmān in their hearts. This is also a talking point of the Ḥaddādiyyah which Shaykh Rabīʿ addressed back in 2004, and then later in 2014.

12  Then Shaykh Rabīʿ addressed why senior scholars do not speak in some matters in the context of Fāliḥ being asked why he is the only one speaking in these affairs of disparaging and making tabdīʿ of those whom he did, like ʿAbd al-Mālik al-Ramaḍānī and waging a war against them. Shaykh Rabīʿ said that those other scholars did so in order to observe the benefits and harms (Shaykh Rabīʿ being one of them). Fāliḥ said that he is not a muqallid (blind-follower), and that he speaks in order to remove blame from himself.

Shaykh Rabīʿ said that he should return to his brothers (the mashāyikh) and consult in these affairs and that it is not always the case that every speech is naṣīhah (advice) and every silence is treachery, and nor is it the case that the silent scholars have concealed the truth and deserted the Salafī daʿwah. Rather, that those scholars do advise, mend and strive to remove the doubts and unite Salafīs in every way that they can and that Fāliḥ should be with them and defend them against those who attack them.

13  In short, we can see from the above that Fāliḥ:

• Without consultation with other scholars, and on his own, initiated wars of tabdīʿ and tajrīḥ against well-known Salafī shaykhs and callers such as ʿAbd al-Mālik al-Ramādānī and al-Azhar al-Jazāʾīrī who had very light affairs and due to his extremism and exaggeration, he rejected things which they said that were valid and true.
• He fell into great exaggeration when speaking about them and gave extreme rulings in the process, such as accusing his opponents of “invalidating the messengerships”.
• He added other matters in this extremism, such as the issue of taqlīd, by which he and his followers sought to force acceptance of his tabdīʿ and taḍlīl and evade the burden of proof.
• Likewise, issues regarding Īmān and Irjāʾ which he raised in order to attack Shaykh Rabīʿ after he had been advised and refuted. This is a common practice among the Ḥaddādīs, when they are unable to respond to criticism, they go looking for the critic’s errors as a diversion. The same was done by al-Ḥajūrī’s followers following his fitnah around 2012-2013, they brought up issues of Īmān and Irjāʾ.
• Likewise, he insulted and belittled other scholars, accusing them of treachery and desertion just because they did not agree with his approach of tabdīʿ and taḍlīl without evidence and advised that individuals like ʿAbd al-Mālik al-Ramādānī and al-Azhar al-Jazāʾīrī do not deserve that treatment, given that their errors were not severe and they had not shown aggression and hostility.

A Note Regarding This Advice

The above precious advice given at the time, during the fitnah of Fāliḥ al-Ḥarbī is very pertinent to the fitnah of ʿArafāt al-Muḥammadī and his network who have likewise made tabdīʿ and taḍlīl of well-known Salafīs on insufficient grounds and caused tremendous harm to the daʿwah.

Those whom ʿArafāt and his followers attacked severely did not have any major violations such as complicity in sedition, rebellion, matters of war and bloodshed, and praising and defending innovators and the likes. Rather, they were attacked on the basis of lies, fabrications and distortions and through affairs which could have been resolved quite easily. Instead, he initiated vicious attacks by mobilising his trained and loyal soldiers and proxies all across the world.

They never consulted with senior scholars in these matters because they—ʿArafat and company—have been declared by their followers to be the exclusive authority (marjiʿiyyah) in matters of al-Jarḥ wal-Taʿdīl in the Arab and non-Arab lands, and these statements are recorded and documented from them, as is their ghuluww.

Then, when other scholars and mashāyikh rejected this aggression and oppression, alongside pointing out their other violations, they began to attack and belittle them as well, resembling and echoing the behavioural patterns of Second Wave Ḥaddādiyyah, which is to say: You either accept our disparagements and rulings against well-known Salafī shaykhs and callers on trumped up grounds, or you are ignorant and revile “the scholars” and seek their downfall.

Some scholars and shaykhs have been advising and correcting ʿArafāt al-Muḥammadī and his network regarding matters of sedition, rebellion, jihād, war, bloodshed, praise of innovators and other affairs—which are not light but involve violation of foundations—for a lengthy period over many years, to no avail.

Thereafter, seeing that they did not benefit from advice and private attempts at rectification, these shaykhs began to make scholarly criticisms, which began to surface in late 2025, and by early 2026, the affair had become clear.

This is in line with what Shaykh Rabīʿ had said to Fāliḥ that instead of tabdiʿ and taḍlīl from the outset, some scholars prefer to advise first, “so that either he benefits from the advice, and if not, he subjects himself to scholarly criticism and brings upon himself his own downfall.”

Unlike Fāliḥ, these scholars and shaykhs did not start with the path of tabdīʿ, taḍlīl and tajdīʿ, rather, they took the path of advice and patience for a significant period. Thereafter, when they saw stubbornness and failure to abide by scholarly standards, a refusal to engage and were met with hostility, oppression, humiliation and belittlement, they began to write openly, and they were not merely one individual like Fāliḥ, but a collection of them alongside numerous other shaykhs and students.

These criticisms and refutations were open and shared by their authors for widespread distribution. They were translated by numerous parties and disseminated online, and hence, became public domain knowledge and ʿArafāt and those with him and behind him were unable to respond in substance, and never did so. Instead, they employed silence and evasion and made themselves appear to be the victims to their gullible followers who have been nurtured upon ghuluww and taḥazzub.

However, what ʿArafāt and his followers feared and detested most is that prominent Salafīs should openly support the truthful critics in defence and veneration of the foundations of the Sunnah, in aid of oppressed Salafīs, and against his subversive activities. He realised that if prominent callers openly support these criticisms around these major foundations of the Sunnah, he will lose his support base in many places in the world, and his project of causing tumult in the daʿwah alongside the furtherance of political ambitions would end.

So he and his followers embarked upon intellectual terrorism and selective outrage campaigns to cower Salafīs into silence and into not openly supporting the shaykhs who brought the truth, some of whom themselves were subjected to much abuse, intimidation and oppression by ʿArafat and those with him over many years.

Hence, applying the speech of Shaykh Rabīʿ bin Hādī regarding Fāliḥ al-Ḥarbī—who embarked on solitary wars of tabdīʿ and taḍlīl while denying the principle of benefits and harms, and denying consultation with others as a matter of principle—to these shaykhs and those who support them in the truth they made clear after the routes of advice and patience, is out of place.

This is because the issue of Fāliḥ was related to Salafī shaykhs who had very light errors that could be excused and resolved. As for the affair of ʿArafāt al-Muḥammadī and those with him and behind him, it involves violation of great foundations and serious affairs of sedition, rebellion, war, bloodshed, accommodating innovators, making tabdīʿ of Salafīs without right and splitting Ahl al-Sunnah all across the world, coupled with stubbornness, belittlement, humiliation and oppression against their advisors (or victims).

Further, these affairs have been pointed out by a group of shaykhs (and not a lone warrior) after they had shown patience, tried to resolve affairs in private with advice, and received much abuse and oppression in the process. And those who recognise and support the truth that is with these shaykhs—being obligated in that by the Sharīʿah and by the Salafī methodology—are certainly not upon the way of Fāliḥ al-Ḥarbī.

Such a claim would be an overturning of the scales and a gross misapplication of Shaykh Rabīʿs valuable advice. Indeed, this advice applies to the people of false tabdīʿ, ghuluww and taḥazzub and those who call to taqlīd in affairs of tabdīʿ, tajrīḥ and tajdīʿ, who claim that there is a marjiʿiyyah, a sole authority in affairs of al-Jarḥ wal-Taʿdīl, who demand acceptance of these unjust rulings and engage in vicious and brutal wars incorporating intellectual terrorism to stifle any dissent and hesitation.

They should not have torn apart the Salafī daʿwah in many places through these solo-wars of tabdīʿ, tajrīḥ, taḍlīl and tajdīʿ by accusing well-known Salafīs of being plants and innovators on baseless or dubious grounds, and should have returned to the competent senior scholars, made consultation with them and considered the benefits and harms of their actions.

This is where Shaykh Rabīʿ’s advice to Fāliḥ is most befitting in the eyes of the just, who understand and value the just Salafī methodology, while keeping in mind, these people causing splits and enmities through tabdīʿ of Salafīs are the same ones who accommodate, shield and praise Ḥaddādī innovators like Hishām al-Beily and have hidden affiliations with the Khārijīte Hānī bin Burayk, while viciously trying to bring down Salafīs with trumped up charges involving lies, fabrications and distortions.

Conclusion

From the above, the keen reader should now be well on his way to a prized possession of noxious Ḥarbī-type Ḥaddādī crystals. Viewed under the microscope, the peculiar texture and terrain should allow mapping and comparison with other crystals (Bāshmīlī, Baḥraynī, Ḥajūrī, Beily, Ibn Hādī, ʿArafatī) which have been or are yet to be precipitated, and whereby commonalities, differences and specialities can be discerned and further insight gained.

Footnotes