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.

Background

In the concluding part of the First Wave Haddādī series, after a process of distillation, then precipitation, we extracted a modest yield of Ḥaddādi crystals whose properties and characteristics—around sixteen in total—were defined.

In this second series, Second Wave Ḥaddādiyyah, we are aiming to double or triple the yield to enable further characterisation of the basic element, which, for the purpose of education, we have called Ḥd₉₈, a highly noxious, and toxic substance, corrosive to the touch, foul of smell and taste, offensive.

Recall that the Ḥaddādī ideology was seeded by people sympathetic to the political aḥzāb, having realised that the refutations of Ahl al-Sunnah and its scholars cannot be contained, so they infused ghuluww (exaggeration), taḥazzub (partisanship) and tabdīʿ (heresification) as a means of preoccupying and busying Ahl al-Sunnah with internal discord. One of their chosen knowledge-based talking points was the issue of Imān and Irjā. Recall that they focus on unintended, excusable slips and errors, exaggerate them to the heaven, and build rulings of tabdīʿ and taḍlīl upon them, and they encourage tabdīʿ because it is a means of seeding aversion, bitterness and rivalries. Further, that they denigrate and dismiss the role of patience, claiming it is not the way of the Salaf and is an innovation. Recall also that the Ḥaddādiyyah and Mumayyiʿah are not two distinct opposing categories of people, but represent traits and behaviours (often justified through novel principles) which are adopted based on prevailing interests and the requirements of the situation. All of this under the cover of zeal and protective jealousy for the religion and love and defence of scholars.

Further, that though the originating circumstances of the Ḥaddādi enterprise were tied to geopolitics, not every instance of the appearance of this methodology may be tied to geopolitics but may simply be a resemblance in traits, behaviours and methods, or perhaps a bit of both. Thus, we can say that whereas al-Ḥaddād and Bāshmīl had sympathies to the ahzāb, someone like Muḥammad bin Hādī did not, he was stern against them and severe in the issue of leadership, obedience and rebellion. Hence, we have the originating circumstances, followed by the core ideology and its theoreticians, and then the traits, behaviours and methods.

From its most clear signs are splitting, discord and enmity which are from its objective. Likewise, to provide breathing space for the aḥzāb and their pursuits. As it relates to the issue of tabdīʿ, where Bāshmīl left off, Fāliḥ took over, and they were both associates.

Fāliḥ is from the Second Wave Ḥaddādīs, and he brought various false principles to justify his hasty, harsh judgements of tabdīʿ. In the first part of this series, we look at the issue of ghuluww (exaggeration) and place it into context.

Part 1

On the heels of the fitnah of al-Maʾribī (to be addressed separately), Fāliḥ al-Ḥarbī took to hasty tabdīʿ and taḍlīl of various shaykhs held with respect by many, and who had good efforts against the ḥizbīs and ḥarakīs. He launched expeditions and skirmishes which had no benefit except to create discord, enmities and splits, bringing disrepute to the daʿwah.

When taken to task he was unable to provide evidences for this approach, in which he was not preceded by other scholars. Instead of being humble, he and his followers faced these requests and demands by bringing innovated principles as well as exaggeration in his status. Within this scenario there are numerous ways you can deflect, divert, distract, obfuscate, prevaricate and disengage to avoid meeting the burden of proof, for example:

• invent false principles to remove burden of proof
• exaggerate status and appeal to authority to force acceptance
• launch personal attacks
• distract and divert by finding mistakes of the critic(s)
• reverse the accusation
• belittle the critics, accuse them of ignorance, or having errors in creed as a diversion
• and others.

The point being that exaggeration (ghuluww) is not done for its own sake but has a context and a purpose, just like the other mechanisms. It is to remove or shift the burden of proof, evade the necessity of abiding by standards, and to enforce acceptance of speech that is devoid of satisfactory evidence in the arena of tabdi`and taḍlīl. Then, when these affairs fail, you bring out the Irjāʾ card (or other cards), which serves as a distraction from the foundational issue.

This is the essence of the fitnah of Fāliḥ al-Ḥarbī and Second Wave Ḥaddādiyyah where we have the addition of ghuluww and innovated principles as means to protect the institution of oppressive tabdīʿ. Hence, the Ḥaddādī crystals are enlarged, which means a better yield for the purpose of ongoing study.

In his compilation, al-Majmūʿ al-Wāḍiḥ Fī Radd Manhaj wa Uṣūl Fāliḥ, Shaykh Rabīʿ bin Hādī starts with a letter (dated 14 March 2004) supporting a prior letter written by Shaykh ʿUbayd al-Jābirī and Shaykh Muḥammad bin Hādī condemning the ghuluww (exaggeration) in Fāliḥ on the two website forums that became Ḥaddādī hideouts and mouthpieces, Ana Salafī and al-Atharī. These statements were written by two individuals Tawfīq al-Azharī and Abū Mālik al-ʿAdanī.

After mentioning this letter and supporting what was in it, and advising the owners of these website to fear Allāh because of the way these sites were being used, the Shaykh (رحمه الله) went on to say:^[1]

This was one of the many shielding mechanisms or precursors to justifying baseless, unwarranted rulings of tabdīʿ and disparagements of people that do not meet the threshold of required evidence. It was exaggeration in the status of Fāliḥ al-Ḥarbī as a means of marginalising other shaykhs who would reject his tabdīʿ. So they came up with these lofty titles seeking to give Fāliḥ some degree of exclusivity in speech, so that the affairs of al-Jarḥ wal-Taʿdīl and speaking about people return to him, as if he was the unique specialist who is turned to.

Shaykh Rabīʿ explained the intent:

In other words, the other scholars are marginalised and done away with so that no one else has an acceptable say in these matters except Fāliḥ al-Ḥarbī. As such, his rulings of tabdīʿ and tajrīḥ can go unchallenged, and used for whatever purposes were intended by him and his followers. This matter will be further discussed in future parts in this series inshaʾAllāh.

Closing Note

Ghuluww (exaggeration) in statuses and personalities is one of numerous weapons to enforce acceptance of rulings of tabdīʿ and taḍlīl and to evade demands for evidence, and it is often coupled with apparent love and respect for other scholars while marginalising them, so that they do not have a say in this arena of al-Jarḥ wal-Taʿdīl, wherein the oppressive nature of those rulings would be revealed, with the claim that it is a specialist, unique science which only one or two people are returned to, meaning, Fāliḥ al-Harbī.

However, as Shaykh Rabi explained al-Jarh wal-Taʿdīl is not restricted to one or two scholars, or even the scholars themselves. It can be done by every scholar and the non-scholar with the conditions of having the right creed and following the correct principles. So in clear matters, those who are not scholars can disparage the Ṣūfī, the Rāfiḍī, the Jahmī, the Ashʿarī, the Khārijītes and rebels who oppose legitimate authority, those who praise and defend misguided innovators and so on. As for when their are intricate, detailed matters that require scholarly investigation, due to obscure, deceptive principles, or intricate, complex matters of creed and the likes, they are left to scholars to clarify.

The reader must understand the broader implication here which is that control over the domain of al-Jarḥ wal-Taʿdīl by restricting its marjiʿiyyah (reference point) through ghuluww and other means allows disparagement and praise to be based not upon what is necessitated by the actual evidences, but on particular interests. In addition, it removes the quality-control mechanism, whereby other scholars can challenge and object to the disparagements, as they may be erroneous and baseless.

As such, when Salafīs bring correct evidence-based disparagements in relation to clear errors and what involves foundations, they can be dismissed as personal issues requiring arbitration, or pardoned with the wave of a hand, and when oppressive rulings of tabdīʿ are brought against Salafīs, they can be enforced under the guise of “respecting the scholar”, or “your rejection of a scholar’s disparagement is a disparagement of him” or “he has deep insight (firāsah)” and what is similar.

Hence, the principles are not being applied, or they are applied inconsistently and selectively. We can see that this is a departure from the upright way of the deeply-rooted Rabbānī scholars proceeding upon the just Salafī methodology, and hence caution is needed.

Arabic text:

Footnotes