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 8

The reality of the fitnah of Fāliḥ al-Ḥarbī was revealed during 2004 through a series of writings from Shaykh Rabīʿ in which the core of the Ḥaddādī engine was demonstrated to be: unwarranted judgements of tabdiʿ and taḍlīl against well-known Salafīs with efforts in daʿwah, but whose errors (alleged or actual) do not justify such aggression with severe disparagement. Shaykh Rabīʿ, in establishing the commanded and obligatory justice, demanded that the proofs be furnished so that the tribulation and discord can be ended, or otherwise apologies must be made.

Being devoid of the proofs, Fāliḥ al-Ḥarbī brought emotional and intellectual arguments to evade the burden of proof. These arguments were thoroughly dismantled and their reality became clear to everyone in a matter of months.

Having been exposed, Fāliḥ and his Ḥaddādī followers sought vengeance through what we call the dirty war, or the dirtier war to be more accurate. This is when, by all means necessary, they tried to discredit Shaykh Rabīʿ in his scholarship and integrity, by accusing him of academic dishonesty, ignorance and being a Ḥaddādī! Being good little Ḥaddādīs, they topped it with the Irjāʾ card as well.

We will explore these issues in what follows in as concise a manner as possible so that the Salafī knows the difference between the justice and fairness of Alh al-Sunnah in their upright way, and the lying, treacherous, barbarous Ḥaddādī way.

The Dirty War of Treachery and Cowardice

Shaykh Rabīʿ bin Hādī wrote the treatise: “The Exoneration of the Trustworthy Against the Slanders of the Lowly, Treacherous, and Ignorant” which was dated 14 Jumādā al-Ākhirah 1426 (20 July 2005) and is 42 pages long.^[1]

01  In this treatise, Shaykh Rabīʿ is responding to an article posted on the al-Atharī website, a Ḥaddādī mouthpiece, by someone called Sulaymān al-Ḥarbī, and it was part of a longer piece by Fāliḥ al-Ḥarbī. It contained lies, treachery and fabrications.

The Shaykh started by saying that al-Jarḥ wal-Taʿdīl has conditions which are a) knowledge of the reasons behind disparagement and appraisal and b) taqwā of Allāh and being mindful of Him. Shaykh Rabīʿ said that these two conditions are not found in Fāliḥ and his group as they do not have any awe, fear and mindfulness of Allāh and they revile senior scholars who are known for integrity.

02  Fāliḥ accused Shaykh Rabīʿ of clipping speech of Ibn Taymiyyah (in one of his articles refuting Abū al-Ḥasan al-Maʾribī) to make it appear that he prohibits (absolutely) the invoking of mercy for those who die upon open sin, and built upon this, he accuses him of treachery and lying upon scholars and also of being a Ḥaddādī.

03  Shaykh Rabīʿ proceeds to answer this lie with much sarcasm against Fāliḥ, describing him as the “genius imām”, with “genius discoveries” and the “mighty verifier”. He says that it is Fālīḥ—alongside his “geniusness”—who treacherously clipped his (Rabīʾs) speech. He says:

The Shaykh then quotes exactly how he cited Ibn Taymiyyah (see here) and then said:

04  Then Shaykh Rabīʿ points out how Fāliḥ omitted his speech (about a page or so) in which he said that many scholars prohibited praying janāzah for the people of innovation, and brings numerous quotes to that effect, he then said:

05  Shayh Rabīʿ then goes to discuss more technicalities regarding the quote of Ibn Taymiyyah in question, regarding those who summarised and extracted views and positions of Ibn Taymiyyah and published them, and how a scholar can have many views on the same topic, and that citing speech from him in which one of his views may be mentioned does not amount to lying against him, and we do not need to go into all of those details.

Suffice it to say that Ḥaddādīs fight the dirtier war because when they make accusations against their targets, the target has to go to tremendous lengths to exonerate himself, because of the complexity that lies in the matter and also because it has layers of context.

In this case, the quote in question from Ibn Taymiyyah is taken from Shaykh Rabīʿ’s refutation of Abū al-Ḥasan al-Maʾribī, in which he is clarifying a matter relating to the people of innovation and Fāliḥ clipped Shaykh Rabīʿs citation of Ibn Taymiyyah’s speech and took it out of the context of that discussion with al-Maʾribī, and framed it in an entirely different way, to make it appear as if Shaykh Rabīʿ is a Ḥaddādī who prohibits the invoking of mercy upon sinful Muslims, and that he is prepared to lie upon Ibn Taymiyyah to that end.

06  Shaykh Rabīʿ then says that Fāliḥ knows full well the view that he holds in the matter from his refutation of al-Maʾribī, just as he knows full well that he debated and refuted al-Ḥaddād and the Ḥaddādiyyah on this very matter of prohibiting the invoking of mercy for the people of innovation, and that no one confronted them on this matter like him. He said that the extremist Ḥaddādī, ʿAbd al-Laṭīf Bāshmīl, who was a close friend and ally of Fāliḥ, did not relent in his war against Rabīʿ regarding this matter.

Therefore Shaykh Rabīʿ asks Fāliḥ:

07  Then Shaykh Rabīʿ goes on to refute another of the false and serious accusations of Fāliḥ regarding the same quote. In the quote (pictured earlier, in yellow highlight), Shaykh Rabīʿ quoted it accurately from his particular source with the particle (أو). So Fāliḥ claimed that Shaykh Rabīʿ had changed it from (و) to (أو) so that the sentence about the sinners becomes conjoined (maʿṭūfah) to the previous sentence rather than being an initial sentence (ibtidāʾīyyah). This would give it the meaning that it is absolutely prohibited to invoke mercy for the sinners just as it is for the disbelievers.

From this Fāliḥ accused Shaykh Rabīʿ of agreeing with al-Ḥaddād, and as Shaykh Rabīʿ said, feigned tears for the sinful Muslims. Shaykh Rabīʿ protests his innocence from all of this and says that none of this ever crossed his mind and that Fāliḥ is worse than Abū al-Ḥasan al-Miṣrī al-Maʾribī, who never reached this level of fabrication. So Shaykh Rabīʿ refutes this and once again shows the treachery and deceit of Fāliḥ, and we will spare all the details here and suffice with what Shaykh Rabīʿ said:

08  Shaykh Rabīʿ goes on to argue that in any case, scholars can have different views on the same matter at different times in their lives based on the fact that they make ijtihād based on available evidences, and they can change their views. Hence, it is neither a contradiction from them, nor is it treachery and lying when someone quotes one of their views, truthfully, from its source.

Further, he goes on to discuss different prints or manuscripts in which the quote in question has come with both the (أو) and the (و), and he just happened to quote from the latter, which appears as the most accurate and correct one due to it being based on various manuscripts and the plausibility of the hamzah having been dropped from (أو) in the quote from some manuscripts. Shaykh Rabīʿ mocks Fāliḥ, referring to him as the “great verifier” (al-muḥaqqiq al-ʿaḍhīm).

So all of this is lost on Fāliḥ who—driven by revenge for being exposed for his unwarranted tabdīʿ and severe disparagements against Salafīs—resorted to all of these unscrupulous dirty tactics in order to serve his Ḥaddādī cause.

09  Shaykh Rabīʿ then points out how Ḥaddādīs like Fāliḥ change colours and flip due to grievances and interests:

10  Shaykh Rabīʿ continues to mock Fāliḥ:

There is even more biting sarcasm and mockery after this, but we will suffice with the above, so as not to prolong the matter.

11  Shaykh Rabīʿ goes on to point out the clear double standards of Ḥaddādīs like Fāliḥ, for he was unable to excuse Shaykh Rabīʿ in his citation of some other speech of Ibn Taymiyyah in which there was an ommission in the manuscript (and no fault of Shaykh Rabīʿ), yet he turns a blind eye to people like `Abd al-Laṭīf Bashmīl who treacherously omit whole pages on purpose in order to attack scholars like Shaykh al-Albānī (see details here).

Shaykh Rabīʿ said:

12  Then Shaykh Rabiʿ reminds Fāliḥ

He goes on to remind Fāliḥ about the seriousness of lying and how the scholars spoke about lying and the liars and that he is considered a liar by testimony of the trustworthy against him and his rulings against people based on exaggerations, and that all the great scholars of the era, if they knew of Fāliḥ and his lies and transgressions, they would stand against him severely and witness against him that he distorts and lies, and Shaykh Rabīʿ says:

13  Further on, Shaykh Rabīʿ makes note of the exaggeration of the Ḥaddādīs in Fāliḥ as the unique, specialist critic:

14  Towards the end Shaykh Rabīʿ notes that Fāliḥ does not have any recognisable efforts at all in refuting the misguidance of the Jews and Christians, the Rāfiḍah, Khawārij, Ashʿariyyah, Ṣūfiyyah and others and in defending the Salafī methodology, unlike Rabīʿ. None of this can be found from him in terms of authorships and efforts.

15  A very important observation Shaykh Rabīʿ makes about Fāliḥ is how he presents himself in relation to al-Ḥaddād:

Shaykh Rabīʿ responds to this:

16  In the closing pages, Shaykh Rabīʿ notes how Fāliḥ—despite making this display of not being from the Ḥaddādīs and feigning tears for the sinful Muslims for whom invoking mercy has been prohibited by al-Ḥaddād and allegedly, Shaykh Rabīʿ—does not have any refutations against al-Ḥaddād and the Ḥaddādiyyah. The Shaykh says that whatever he accuses Shaykh Rabīʿ of, it is all found in him and that he is practically the leading proponent of the Ḥaddādī methodology, despite feigning opposition to it.

Notes and Highlights

There is a lot in what has preceded, and the keen reader will have observed much, but just to aid the precipitation and crystallisation processes for the extraction of more Ḥaddādī crystals, the following are the important takeaways:

01  The Ḥaddādīs are not fit for al-Jarḥ wal-Taʿdīl because they do not fulfil its conditions, for they have no fear and awe that prevents them from lying against Salafīs, scholars and those less than them. They are silent towards Ḥaddādī innovators, Khārijites, rebels, people of sedition, but ferocious towards Salafīs upon clarity (wuḍūḥ), merely because of slips and errors, if not lies and fabrications.

02  Once their Ḥaddādī engine has been dismantled, they seek to destroy the standing and repute of those who expose them and establish justice for their victims, by accusing them of academic dishonesty, treachery and lying. The reason behind this is to discredit everything, to remove their integrity and trustworthiness with people, so that people no longer turn to their writings and words in refutation of the Ḥaddādī enterprise.

03  Ḥaddādīs choose issues in which there are layers of complexity which are outside of the ability of most people to unravel and which requires great efforts by the accused to explain. In this case, a paragraph in a quote, having variants in manuscsripts, from a passage, that is quoted in refutation of al-Maʾribī, in the context of a battle of a different nature. In events with multi-layered contexts, the accusations can be easily levelled and made plausible.

04  Ḥaddādīs knowingly lie against their target, in this case Shaykh Rabīʿ because they know full well that he has refuted the Ḥaddādīs on the issue in question, that of invoking mercy upon the innovators, and they leave his books, abundant writings and recorded statements on the issue, and then choose something obscure, in this case, a very short paragraph that Shaykh Rabīʿ cited from Ibn Taymiyyah in order to make Shaykh Rabīʿ out to be a treacherous, deceitful liar who fabricates things against scholars.

05  Ḥaddādīs play on technicalities that turn out to be trivialities in reality, to make it appear that they are sophisticated and intelligent, when they are in reality, fools and idiots, pretenders and wannabes.

06  Ḥaddādīs engage in the dirtier war to create shock, alarm and commotion with outrageous accusations built on flimsy evidences, in order to incite the mob through scandalisation, and to create smoke and mirrors. This is to make sure that people no longer trust their critics and refuters who have exposed their reality and their evil, barbarous methodology.

07  From the traits of the Ḥaddādīs is how they flip and change colours based on prevailing interests. So at one moment, the principle of al-Maʾribī of interpreting the general with the specific (which is used to defend outright statements of disbelief, innovation and misguidance) is rejected as falsehood, then it is accepted, but not applied with justice, in this case to Shaykh Rabīʿ. No, excuses, gentleness and pardon are reserved for innovators, deviants and ḥizbīs and not for Salafīs upon clarity.

08  Shaykh Rabīʿ illustrated how obstinate, unruly Ḥaddādīs like Fāliḥ are dealt with. They are slapped into oblivion, mocked, ridiculed and cut to pieces with biting sarcasm, as just recompense, commensurate to the nature of their crimes, their lies, deceptions and mighty transgressions. Just look at that evil transgressing alif (أ) and what he did to the poor waw (و), for whom the Ṣufīs will build tombs for veneration, and as for the alif (أ) the Rāfiḍah will declare it a Nāṣibī and hate it with all passion! And look at that criminal, Rabīʿ who facilitated this trangression of the alif (أ) which brought disaster upon the Ḥaddādī ummah!

09  Ḥaddādīs have clear double standards and two scales of measure. They overlook their own associates for academic and other crimes, but as for those whose downfall they seek, they do not give them the slightest excuse, not even for a single letter, and they give the worst possible interpretation to their statements and actions. Bāshmīl ommitted pages from Shayk al-Albānīs speech in praise of Shaykh al-Islām Muḥammad bin ʿAbd al-Wahhāb in order to portray him as a hater and enemy, yet Fāliḥ said nothing about it, but waged a dirtier war on Shaykh Rabīʿ on account of a transgressing, oppressing, Nāṣibī alif (أ).

10  Shaykh Rabīʿ presented lying against Ahl al-Sunnah, their writings and their methodology as a “bidʿah”, an innovation. Hence, those who take this as a way or fall into it, then this is an innovation in itself.

11  Shaykh Rabīʿ mentioned how Ḥaddādīs are blind-followers and they do not question anything from the likes of Fāliḥ, due to their ghuluww in his status, and they do not verify if he has credible evidences in his attacks against others. Those who hesitate and do not tow the line and adopt the stance (of tabdīʿ, severe disparagements, oppression and transgression), are deemed Wāqifah (Hesitationists) and they will be punished, (perhaps fired from their positions), or boycotted and shunned. This is what ghuluww in personalities leads them to and these deeds are from the clearest of signs of Ḥaddādiyyah in motion.

12  The Ḥaddādīs and those who resemble them have little to show when it comes to refuting the various groups sects and people of falsehood, innovation and misguidance, at least compared to those whom they attack, seek to destroy and declare as dangerous enemies. When Ahl al-Sunnah refute the sects and from them the aḥzāb (political factions), especially in great matters of rulership, obedience, war, bloodshed, rebellion and sedition, they either remain silent or come out in their defence, while vilifying Ahl al-Sunnah.

13  From the most important of what Shaykh Rabiʿ explained is that one of the promiment traits of the Ḥaddādīs is to pretend they are not Ḥaddādīs, that they are opposed to al-Ḥaddad and his way, and they oppose him in his views, such as not invoking mercy for the open sinners and innovators. And this is how the Ḥaddādīs and those who resemble them and follow their way shield and protect themselves. They accuse their opponents of being Ḥaddādīs because they rejected their oppression and exposed and countered their lies. Thus their oppressive, unwarranted tabdīʿ does not make them Ḥaddādīs, while refuting their false tabdīʿ makes a person a Ḥaddādī. Hence, the Ḥaddādīs invert the scales of justice, one rule for them, another for others, they are also chameleons who change colours and flip very easily. One minute the are with the aḥzāb and next minute, they are free of them. One minute, this principle applies, then the next, it doesn’t and so on.

14  Shaykh Rabīʿ notes the increasing intensity in the Ḥaddādī war and that these wars are extensions of prior wars. Here, it is important for the reader to understand what we have repeated often, that one must not think of Ḥaddiyyah and Mumayyiʿah as two distinct groups that are mutually exclusive and at war with each other. No, they are two ways to attack Ahl al-Sunnah from people who are allies with each other, or the same party, or with overlapping interests. Hence, Ḥaddādiyyah and its dirty and dirtier wars surface in certain circumstances, which can include geopolitical events and political aspirations and ambitions among other things.

15  From the important things to note is what Shaykh Rabīʿ said to Fāliḥ, that Abū al-Ḥasan al-Maʾribī is his peer in waging war against the Salafī methodology and its people, and it is known that al-Maʾribī was working for the interests of the aḥzāb and for political considerations, as became clear during the Arab Spring protests years later when he came out as a full-blown Ikhwānī.

16  One other very important point buried in the speech of Shaykh Rabīʿ is how Ḥaddādiyyah can also be seen as a mentality, a potential that is looking for a magnent, an anchor, so when it sees a suitable personality, a figure, they will embrace him, and he likewise will embrace them, as they are like-minded.

The explanation of this is that there are various types of people, those with grudges, grievances and resentments, they could be hidden ḥizbīs, or victims of past tribulations, or people of worldly interests, or people with ambitions, or people seeking to settle scores, or people who never really grasped the Salafī methodology, and proceeded upon blind acceptance in tribulations, and operate in reality out of loyalty to figureheads. So they float around, ascribing to Salafiyyah and are present within the ranks, until they find a figure who will install the pipework for them to channel what they harbour in their chests, expressed as Ḥaddādiyyah. So this requires the mentality, the mob, the figurehead, and the right circumstances, some event, political or otherwise, a dispute, a fallout etc. and then Ḥaddādiyyah rears its beastly and ugly head:

Conclusion

Recall how Shaykh Rabīʿ mentioned in his refutation of Bāshmīl that the fitnah of Ḥaddādiyyah requires deep reflection and comprehension. However, the writings of Shaykh Rabīʿ (رحمه الله) have made these affairs very clear for us decades ago, may Allāh reward him immensely.

From the angle of justice, it should be made clear they are not all the same. There is the core Ḥaddādī engine as we said, unwarranted tabdīʿ and severe disparagement lacking justification, but then each persona brings something different to the table when faced with accountability and scrutiny and is to be judged, evaluated and rated accordingly.

Hence, we must distinguish between:

• Original, Core Ḥaddādīs such as Maḥmūd al-Ḥaddād himself (concealed Takfīrī) and ʿAbd al-Laṭīf Bāshmīl, and this is First Wave Ḥaddādiyyah. They introduced oppressive tabdīʿ as a destructive weapon against Ahl al-Sunnah.
• Theorists and developers like Bāshmīl, Fāliḥ al-Ḥarbī, and Fawzi al-Baḥraynī, the latter revolving heavily around Īmān and Irjāʾ. This is Second Wave Ḥaddādiyyah.
• Then those who fall into unwarranted, oppressive tabdīʿ and severe disparagements of well-known Salafīs, and the behaviours that follow to evade accountability, and they include Yaḥyā al-Ḥajūrī and Muḥammad bin Hādī. This is Third Wave Ḥaddādiyyah.
• Following in their wake, resembling their deeds, ʿArafāt al-Muḥammadī and his followers, save that they are cowards from the outset. For while they operate upon conviction in their judgements of tabdīʿ and taḍlīl of their targets, they do not reveal this except to initiates in the fold, and if they do inadvertently reveal it, they backtrack and claim they have been lied upon, while maintaining full and absolute conviction in these judgements and coordinating a most vicious, unrelenting war, from behind the curtains and beneath the tables, through the mobilisation of mindless drones and proxies, all the while, displaying the cloak of wisdom, gentleness, unity and brotherhood.

Likewise, we must separate and isolate:

• the traits, behaviours and methods from:
• the originating circumstances (geopolitical or otherwise), and the names and personalities

This process of separation, isolation, and crystallisation gives us something tangible and physical in our hands (Ḥaddādī crystals) for inspection, understanding and reflection, whereby we can subsequently detect the “Ḥaddādī spirit” or the “Ḥaddādī odour” and identify it whenever it makes a presence. This Ḥaddādī spirit roams around until it finds an anchor in an event or a circumstance, whereby the traits, behaviours and methods begin to surface first before taking full embodiment in the embraced personality or figure, and this could be after much harm has already been done. It can also be the case that full embodiment does not come to pass because of the diligence of Ahl al-Sunnah in quickly identifying, diagnosing and exposing the trend in a timely fashion. The Salafī daʿwah has within its ranks many of those people mentioned in point 16 above, indicating that the potential is always present and the phenomenon can arise, given the right set of circumstances and characters.

By now, the reader should have much more insight about Ḥaddādiyyah and its dynamics and should have a decent collection of Ḥaddādī crystals for ongoing inspection and study. We have discovered many new properties from our discussion above based on these tremendous, insightful writings of Shaykh Rabīʿ bin Hādī (رحمه الله).

Supplement

Given what has preceded, I would like to make an honourable mention of that great genius (ʿabqariyy aḍhīm) from the United States who after close to 30 years suddenly discovered (through the kashf of the Ṣūfīs) that I am a plant (dasīsah) who must be warned against, and that I should be spoken of as someone alien to the “scholars of Islām”, despite efforts—only with Allāh’s tawfīq and minnah—in defending Islām, Sunnah and Salafiyyah and its scholars in all that time. Why? Because I allegedly followed the way of the Quṭbiyyah, Surūriyyah (after refuting them for a quarter of a century) and the way of ʿAmr bin ʿUbayd al-Muʿtazilī, and in what?

Open criticism of the rulers, supporting rebellion and fighting legitimate authority?

No. But rather, for: Questioning fictional viruses and the dubious shots of Ahl al-Kitāb upon the way of scholars thereby drawing people into the disaster of the strength of conviction in Tawḥīd and tawakkul upon the way of scholars and the tragedy of being saved from injury, harm and death when they could have been enjoying unwarranted fear, anxiety, triple boosters with free burger and chips, and the potential of myocarditis, turbo cancer and sudden death. What despicable crimes against the ummah (!) necessitating tabdīʿ (heresification), taḍlīl (declared misguided), isqāṭ (dropping) and iskat (silencing) upon the way of Fāliḥ and Ibn Hādī!

Footnotes