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 7

The keen reader should now be well versed with both First Wave Ḥaddādiyyah and Second Wave Ḥaddādiyyah, and should have developed the ability to observe similarities and parallels without much effort.

Only weeks after his first advice to Fāliḥ al-Ḥarbī, Shaykh Rabīʿ (رحمه الله) followed up with a second piece of advice. Once again, he focused on his oppressive tabdīʿ and the tumult and chaos that followed in its wake. In this advice, Shaykh Rabīʿ focuses on the principles of disparagement (jarh) and heresification (tabdīʿ), and emphasis on the standard of evidence, and that when these matters are ignored, it leads to tremendous confusion and much splitting.

Hence, tabdīʿ is the core of the Ḥaddādī engine. ʿAbd al-Laṭīf Bashmīl was keen on tabdīʿ of people who actually deserved tabdīʿ with the intent of causing chaos and confusion in the ranks. So Shaykh Rabīʿ, being wise, said: I will leave tabdīʿ to the scholars, but will continue refuting their errors. So the Ḥaddādīs returned empty handed. Fāliḥ al-Ḥarbī fell into tabdīʿ and oppression, then theorised ways to justify it, evade accountability and remove the burden of proof. Shaykh Rabīʿ refuted his false principles and rejected his rulings against the people he attacked and oppressed. Fawzī al-Baḥraynī came shortly after, also wallowing in tabdīʿ and extremism. Then came, Yahyā al-Ḥajūrī, followed by Hisham al-Beily, and after them Muḥammad bin Hādī who turned on some of his students, and then recently, ʿArafāt al-Muḥammadī and his followers.

Save that there is a difference. Whereas all of the others were very open, transparent and unapologetic, ʿArafāt al-Muḥammadī is simply a coward.

It is sad to see such a decline in standards in Ḥaddaḍī traits and behaviours. At least you could engage with those who are willing to stand by what they really believe, and put up an honourable fight. With cowards and weasels who hide behind curtains, operate under tables, work through proxies, and dare not say in public what they profess in their private circles, it becomes more challenging. Hence, the only way is to ignore the proxies and the drones, barge in, rip the curtains, smash the table, and just shine the spotlight, so that the entire racket can be exposed, seen for what it is and ended, with Allāh's permission.

Let us proceed to the valuable second advice.

The Second Advice

This advice is dated 8 Rabīʿ al-Awwal 1425 (27 April 2004) and is 17 pages in length.^[1] During the fitnah of Muḥammad bin Hādī in March 2018, I translated and commented on these extremely insightful and valuable words from Shaykh Rabīʿ from this letter of advice. The reader is strongly encouraged to read it, it is found from page 80 onwards in the book: “Shaykh Rabīʿs Advice to the Callers” (PDF). Some readers will note the tremendous irony in all of this.

In this important advice Shaykh Rabīʿ touches upon due process (i.e. standards, principles, required course of conduct). The reader should understand that in order to learn from the past, we must look beyond the names, (i.e. Fāliḥ in this case) and the originating circumstances, and look at just the conduct and the chain of events, so that we are able to make comparisons and draw parallels. This exercise is about identifying patterns so that we can benefit most from the insight and advice of senior scholars, rather, Imāms in religion, and rightfully call an apple an apple and an orange an orange and a snake a snake.

The reader should have his pen and paper ready to make his list of checkmarks as we go along.

He (رحمه الله) said:

Comment: Tabdīʿ of well-known Salafīs with severe disparagements is the cause of tribulations because many are sentimentally attached to both the disparager and the disparaged.

Thus, one party demands acceptance and argue by way of status, standing and scholarship, failing to return to the principles or ignoring them, and the other party demands evidence, holding that oppression has taken place, and in the process, as Shaykh Rabīʿ said, insults may be exchanged, leading to tribulation.

This is because it is natural for each party to show support to those whom they deem to have benefited them in religion. Likewise, there is a natural tendency, due to the emotive nature of the issue, for both parties of followers to fall into exaggeration and excess as the effects of the tabdīʿ or severe disparagement unfold, and this returns to human nature.

This leads to much division and enmity, and then the underlying issues become clouded. This continues until the matter becomes unresolvable, after deep divisions settle in. This leads to great confusion which harms the daʿwah a great deal and allows the adversaries (innovators, ḥizbīs) to rejoice, showing the great danger in this tabdīʿ and tajrīḥ.

This tremendous insight and the advice following on from it was said all the way back in 2004, over two decades ago, before the fitnah of al-Ḥajūrī, Muḥammad bin Hādī in Madīnah and now ʿArafāt al-Muḥammadī, and it seems none of them benefited from it whatsoever, despite some of them being victims of others.

So what is the solution that will end all of the tribulation? Is it peace (ṣulḥ)? Is it arbitration (muḥākamah) to the one issuing the judgements? Were ʿAbd al-Mālik al-Ramaḍānī and others brought to sit in front of Fāliḥ as their judge and jury? Were the shaykhs and students brought in front of Muḥammad bin Hādī as their judge and jury? Or was muḥākamah to the Book, the Sunnah, and the just Salafī methodology and its principles?

Shaykh Rabīʿ made muḥākamah to the Book, the Sunnah and the methodology of the Salaf and asked Fāliḥ to end the tribulation by providing evidences justifying tabdīʿ and severe disparagement which disfigures the religiosity and repute of well-known Salafīs. Hence, we must be absolutely clear, it is not about errors, because no one is immune from errors in religion, save the Prophets.

It is about unwarranted, unjustified judgements of tabdīʿ and severe disparagements that lead to splitting and chaos.

This is the quintessence of Ḥaddādiyyah and its defining features and signs. This is what Fāliḥ was taken to task for because it led to great turmoil in the daʿwah. This is what Muḥammad bin Hādī was taken to task for, because it brought chaos to the daʿwah. It was said to Fāliḥ: “End the fitnah, bring your evidences for your tabdīʿ and severe disparagements that justify the turmoil and splitting you caused.” It was said to Ibn Hādī: “End the fitnah, bring your evidences for your severe disparagements that justify the turmoil and splitting you caused.” And this is from the clear, Salafī way (al-Salafiyyah al-Wāḍiḥah), it is one of transparency, clarity, principles, evidence and equal policy for all.

He (رحمه الله) said:

Comment: So here is the solution, which is in line with methodological principles, and in line with justice, which applies to everyone equally. There is not one rule for peasants and another for the elites, or one rule for disposable students and another for scholars and shaykhs, or one for foreigners and another for natives. Allāh made the honour of every Muslim inviolable and declaring a Muslim an innovator and misguided in religion without credible, justifying evidence is more evil and repugnant than falsely accusing him of fornication. This is why al-Ḥajūrī and Muḥammad bin Hādī were not allowed to get away with their tabdīʿ of Salafīs, despite their lofty statuses and repute.

So Fāliḥ was asked for the evidences, and people went to him, asking for evidences for the tabdiʿ, what has led you to make such judgements against well-known Salafīs? What justifies all of this chaos, splitting and harm to the Salafī daʿwah? What is your proof?

Shaykh Rabīʿ demanded the evidences and demanded that he end the fitnah resulting from his tabdiʿ or severe disparagement and whatever follows on from it, of warning (taḥdhīr) boycotting (hajar), and belittlement, and then divisions and splits. Fāliḥ could not bring the evidences as requested, or whatever errors he had compiled did not justify tabdiʿ, severe disparagement and all the tumult he caused. So instead, he resorted to inventing false principles to evade accountability and remove the burden of proof.

In responding to these doubts, Shaykh Rabīʿ asked how can tabdīʿ be different to jarḥ (disparagement)—which Fāliḥ restricts to the domain of reporting—when tabdīʿ is from the greatest types of jarḥ upon an individual. He explained that the books of the Imāms of Ḥadīth are replete with this, and he mentions al-Bukhārī’s al-Ḍuʿafā, and al-Majrūḥīn of Ibn Ḥibban, al-Kāmil of Ibn ʿAdiyy and numerous others. After mentioning other scholars and their speech in this regard, and with some examples regarding the Rāfiḍah, Shaykh Rabīʿ asks:

Comment: We discussed this previously, and the reasons why Fāliḥ came out with these principles should be understood, to evade being held to standard and to remove the burden of proof. However, what is important here is that this is just one way of many, and others include demanding taqlīd, or arguing by status through ghuluww (exaggeration), or claiming speciality in the domain requiring acceptance and submission without question or principle.

There is also the way of cowards, which is to backtrack and make denials for public consumption while maintaining their rulings of tabdīʿ privately among their initiates, and this is the way of ʿArafāt al-Muḥammadī, as is known full well by him and his inner circle.

He (رحمه الله) said:

Comment: Shaykh Rabīʿ has explained the right course of conduct and the principle to be followed, which is that the tabdīʿ and severe jarḥ against well-known Salafīs must be validated by those who made it in order to satisfy people and extinguish the tribulations that were unleashed. If not, then these judgements must be retracted and apologies issued to those who were transgressed against.

The reader must very carefully understand here, that this is not about errors, whether, presumed, alleged or actual. It is about proof for the judgement of tabdīʿ and severe disparagement which justifies the chaos, confusion, division, harm to the daʿwah and enmities that were sown as a result of these judgements against well-known Salafīs.

So when we find that there was nothing to validate and justify such harsh judgements, then the oppressors and transgressors must retract and apologise for the evil they unleashed upon the daʿwah by their reckless adventure of severe jarḥ and tabdīʿ that were unwarranted and not commensurate with the presumed, alleged or actual errors.

When this point is reached, and the tabdīʿ and severe disparagement cannot be justified, and what is known and established about the reality of the disparaged is contrary to what he has been accused of, then in classical Second Wave Ḥaddādiyyah, to evade being bound by standards and principles, avoid accountability and save face, the response is to:

• Demand taqlīd
• Make ghuluww in the disparager and argue by status and expertise
• Invent false principles

However, these affairs return to the creativity of the one making the oppressive tabdīʿ and taḍlīl, and are by no means limited. The more intelligent ones resort to inventing false principles, which, as we said before, shows the willingness to make some intellectual exertion and deserves some appreciation. However, in classical First Wave Ḥaddādiyyah, there was intellectual terrorism with brutish behaviour aimed at wearing down and exhausting the targets and victims, as Shaykh Rabīʿ said regarding Bashmīl:

Hence, those who follow the behaviours and methods of the Ḥaddādīs may bring a bit of this and a bit of that, and the precise mix returns to the temperaments, intellectual abilities, diligence and moral aptitudes of those who go down this path of tabdīʿ and taḍlīl without justification. Muḥammad bin Hādī for example, and he was known and said to be lazy in the field of authoring, he kept saying: “soon, soon, soon” which was just a delay tactic, and that’s because he was more knowledgeable than to invent false principles in al-Jarḥ wal-Taʿdīl as a means of evading the burden of proof. He was more grounded in knowledge than Fāliḥ than to resort to such a method.

Closing Notes

This way of unwarranted tabdīʿ and taḍlīl without evidence was followed by ʿArafāt al-Muḥammadī and his group during 2021-2026. They accused Salafīs of being innovators and plants who are involved in a conspiracy to bring down the scholars in relation to worldly sciences and matters of differing and ijtihād, and of following the way of the Quṭbiyyah and Surūriyyah in relation to rulership, rebellion, sedition viruses, colds and flus, having based their judgements on private communications which were clipped, distorted and horrendously exaggerated by unscrupulous liars, some of whom barely left Ikhwāniyyah and the aḥzāb (political parties).

They demanded submission to these oppressive judgements and tested people with such acceptance, reaching the stage where people were dismissed from their roles and were blocked, boycotted and silenced. They unleashed their followers in various countries with attacks, revilement and abuse against others and created much division and enmity in the process, the effects of which have not subsided to date.

This fitnah initially involved Indians as the proxies, then moved to continental Europeans, and then reached the Americans. And now, it is on the ground in the UK, just as I had been warning since late 2024 and early 2025, that these behaviours are not mere slips and errors, but an actual methodology at play, and that its tentacles will spread if a clear, unified, galvanising stance is not taken soon enough.

This became crystal clear in late 2025 when more affairs surfaced in the context of other events, supporting the view that this is a scheme against the daʿwah of clarity, wherever it exists, to draw it into confusion. This is why some shaykhs have made repeat, open warnings, hoping that people would take heed, but to no avail.

From the new tactics brought by ʿArafāt al-Muḥammadī are:

a) Initiating public attacks and then calling for ṣulḥ (peace) when faced with an unexpected backlash.

b) Calling for muḥākamah (arbitration) with those issuing these judgements presiding as the judge and jury, which is an insult to people’s intelligence.

c) Saying, “I did not mean this, and I did not mean that”, in an attempt to backtrack on the judgements that amount to tabdīʿ and taḍlīl, explanations and excuses which they do not accept from those whom they attack based on clipped, twisted, distorted and exaggerated speech.

d) Denying the role of reports as acceptable lines of evidence. Meaning, “do not accept anything unless you have it in my voice, or written by me”, and this is to evade accountability for tabdiʿ of Salafīs on the one hand and praise of innovating Ḥaddādīs on the other.

e) Mobilising proxies on social media in a coordinated large-scale vicious attack to give the impression of overwhelming consensus, force and domination, upon the Machiavellian principle, “might is right” and “numbers don’t lie”.

So as we can see, there is some degree of creativity here—mixing cowardice with principles similar to those of Abū al-Ḥasan al-Maʾribī regarding verification (tathabbut)—but we will defer our evaluations and ratings for the appropriate time and place.

Timeline of Events

It is important to provide a chronology of Shaykh Rabīʿs advice and then his refutations of Fāliḥ. This is what we have so far:

From the above chronology we can see that the theoretical foundations of Second Wave Ḥaddādiyyah were dismantled within about five months from March 2004 to August 2004. Evidences were demanded for tabdīʿ in April 2004 to end the tribulation, and over the next few months, the tactics and the methods of evasion were refuted and exposed: those of ghuluww, calling to taqlīd and the false principles regarding narrators and innovators.

These refutations of Shaykh Rabīʿ were open and were published and distributed online through websites and forums for the benefit of the students of knowledge.

From this point onwards, what happened is the waging of the dirty war, which is the last refuge of the Ḥaddādī scoundrel. In fact, the war, in principle, is dirty from the outset, so it should really be the dirtier war.

This is when the theory, the emotional and intellectual arguments, appeals to authority and so on have been refuted and destroyed, and nothing is left except to wage the dirty war, as it is a matter of survival and saving face in front of all the misled followers.

This means the use of all means, such as lying, deceiving, searching for mistakes, isolating and clipping speech, mobilising soldiers, selective outrage, intellectual terrorism and making sustained vicious attacks to muddy the waters and keep everyone confused, all in order to prevent the clear truth that has been made apparent from reaching people in order to preserve followers and maintain standing.

This is what happened in late 2004 and early 2005 onwards, and we shall explore that next inshāʾAllāh.

Footnotes