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 of the 1990s, 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 the second wave Ḥaddādīs in the 2000s such as Fāliḥ al-Ḥarbī, then Fawzī al-Baḥraynī and they carried on the methodology with their own infusions.

Shaykh Rabīʿ quotes the speech of ʿAbd al-Laṭīf Bāshmīl, the arch-Ḥaddādi of the 1990s, in which he boasts about his apparent connection and respect for the scholars:^[1]

Shaykh Rabīʿ then comments:

Notes

01  From the traits and behaviours of the Ḥaddādīs, in this case ʿAbd al-Laṭīf Bashmīl, is to make a display of loving and venerating the scholars, and turning those whom they found utility in to be the reference-point marjiʿiyyah, who cannot be deserted and with whom the connection should be (exclusively), and who should not be left for others.

And how did Shaykh Rabīʿ respond to this?

02  The Shaykh said yes, indeed, while those scholars are worthy of honour and respect—and he means the senior scholars of that time in Saudi Arabia—they themselves would reject this foul Jāḥiliyyah of ḥizbiyyah and taʿaṣṣub that Bāshmīl calls to. Meaning, this restriction in scholarship and calling to a faction would be rejected by those scholars. Shayk Rabiʿ quoted an āyah about brotherhood, and ḥadīths condemning such taḥazzub and taʿaṣṣub around those scholars, and describing them as calls of Jāhiliyyah.

03  Shaykh Rabīʿ called the speech of Bāshmīl—as beautiful and lofty as it seems—to be foul, putrid Jāhiliyyah, based on the ḥadīths of Allāh’s Messenger (صلى الله عليه وسلم). Alongside this, he said to Bāshmīl that if what you said was actually true, the affair would be lighter. But the reality is that the attachment of the Haddādīs to the scholars is an opportunistic and scheming one.

To Bāshmīl and the Ḥaddādīs, the scholars and their views and statements are only respected when they are useful in attacking and defaming others, to stir controversies through knowledge-based issues. Hence, even their so-called honour and respect of scholars, is not genuine. In other words, the putrid Jāhiliyyah that Haddādīs like Bāshmīl make a display of, they are not truthful in that even, which make the affair of these Ḥaddādis much worse.

Alḥamdulillāh, the way of those scholars in question was different to the hostile methodology of the Ḥaddādis. They would have rejected this foul Jāḥiliyyah if they were aware of this call to taḥazzub and taʿaṣṣub around them, which is why Shaykh Rabīʿ effectively declared Bāshmīl a liar in his claim and indicated that these texts from the Book and the Sunnah is what the way of those scholars emanates from, texts that condemn what Bāshmīl was calling to.

04  Then Shaykh Rabīʿ described the methodology of Bāshmīl as the most severe of methodologies in evil and tribulations, in which this “call to Jāḥiliyyah” as he put it, (around a faction of scholars) became one of their main weapons. In other words, making a faction of scholars to be the marjiʿiyyah, and calling for the connection to be with them, without going to others

05  The Shaykh said that through this weapon of taʿaṣṣub and taḥazzub, they seek to destroy the brotherly bonds of creed and methodology that exists between Salafīs (scholars, students and common-folk) in all parts of the world, in all Muslim countries.

06  Finally, Shaykh Rabīʿ exonerated the religion from these “jāhiliyyāt” as he called them, which emanate from these Ḥaddādīs like Bāshmīl and others, and which the scholars of Ahl al-Sunnah are free of.

07  Alḥamdulillāḥ, we remain upon the way of Shaykh Rabīʿ and the way of the senior scholars, and we have not changed nor abandoned it. Our rejection of these calls are continuous and consistent, because it derives from the Book. the Sunnah, the way of the Salafi and the eminent, senior scholars who see the harmful effects these calls have upon the daʿwah, despite the lofty and alluring slogans they are decorated with.

In conclusion, making this type of call, creating storms in the daʿwah through it and the chosen knowledge-based talking points, instigating tribulations, and splitting Salafīs all around the world is one of the hallmarks of the Ḥaddādī methodology, you have to be blind not to see it. And we praise and thank Allāh for the scholars and shaykhs who recognise it and have the courage to call it out upon the way of Shaykh Rabīʿ and his brethren from the senior scholars.

Follow Up Reading

I refer the reader to the article: Response to ʿAbd al-Ilāh al-Rifāʿī: Regarding Commendations of Scholars, the Speech of al-Maʾribī and Partisanship in which I echo the above firm speech of Shaykh Rabīʿ bin Hādi (رحمه الله).

In the article, I explain how one should benefit from all the scholars of Ahl al-Sunnah, quoting once again, the speech of Shaykh Rabiʿ bin Hādī, and how all of them collectively should be reference points for us. Then I reject calls to restrict these affairs to one or two shaykhs, just as I reject, in line with the speech of Shaykh Rabīʿ, the cunning scheme of calling for “arbitration” to a specific shaykh when unable to reply to legitimate criticisms or failure to provide evidence for oppressive judgements (in which the criterion of truth is the Book, the Sunnah and the Way of the Salaf, and is binding upon everyone). Then I also state that in great issues which affect nations (such as war, bloodshed, rebellion, leadership) only the most senior scholars should be returned to.

Arabic text:

Footnotes