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 4

In two previous treatises Shaykh Rabīʿ (رحمه الله) refuted the attempts of the followers of Fāliḥ al-Ḥarbī to restrict speech about innovators and deviants to alleged specialists (i.e. himself) and separating it from speech about narrators of ḥadīth. They tried this in order to build the case that these matters should be taken on trust from the specialists, as a means of evading accountability and meeting the burden of proof for his unwarranted tabdīʿ and the tribulations caused by it.

So Shaykh Rabīʿ established that the Imāms of Ḥadīth were the protectors of the religion in relation to both preservation and transmission and disparagement of the deviants and innovators, and that they were most knowledgeable of the innovators.

Not sufficiing with these two prior treatises in refuting the Ḥaddādīs led by Fāliḥ al-Ḥarbī, Shaykh Rabīʿ authored a second supplemental treatise (third in the series) addressing the subject from another angle, and also added a supplement to that as well (see further below). We present a summary of the treatise below.

The Second Supplemental Treatise

The second supplemental treatise is titled: “The People of Innovation Are the Foremost of Those Who are Subject to the Disparagemetn of the Imāms of Ḥadīth and the Those Besides the People ofe Innovation are Subject to Their Warnings Without Doubt.” It is dated 5 Dhū al-Ḥijjah 1425 (16 January 2005) and is 11 pages in length.

01  This treatise is a response to someone called “al-Sabīq al-Athari” posting on the al-Atharī website, a hub for the Ḥaddadīs. This individual tried to claim that the distinction made by Fāliḥ al-Ḥarbī between speech about narrators and speech about innovators can also be found in the speech of Ḥammād bin Zayd (رحمه الله), and also Shaykh Bin Bāz (رحمه الله). However, this was false, and so Shaykh Rabīʿ addressed this doubt in this treatise.

02  The doubts themselves are very flimsy and rely on very brief quotes that are misinterpreted and do not indicate at all, the falsehood of Fāliḥ al-Ḥarbī, Fārūq al-Ghaythī and others. The quote regarding Ḥammād bin Zayd (رحمه الله) is that Imām Aḥmad (رحمه الله) said that he never sat with Ḥammād bin Zayd except that he warned against ʿAbd al-Wārith and Jaʿfar bin Sulaymān. So the argument is that since these two are from the trustworthy narrators of ḥadīth, then the only reason for warning from them is due to the innovations they had with them. Thus, warning from innovators is other than disparaging narrators.

As for the speech of Shaykh Ibn Bāz (رحمه الله) it is a short sentence in which he mentioned some categories of people: “The one who acquaints (others), the scholars knew the disparaged ones, and the warner against Ahl al-Bidʿah likewise, and the advisor is known, and likewise, the one who commits sin openly, and the one who seeks fatwā…”. So out of this speech, this individual tried to extract the principle of Fāliḥ and his followers that tabdīʿ is the domain of specialists like Fāliḥ and that disparagement of narrators is a separate domain.

The author of these doubts attacks Shaykh Rabīʿ and says that he is the one who confuses between the two, thinking, in his compound ignorance, that he and Fāliḥ are upon the truth and that it is Shaykh Rabīʿ who is the author of falsehood.

03  In his response, Shaykh Rabīʿ calls out their ignorance and asks them to fear Allāh and affirms that criticism and disparagement of the innovators falls within the science of al-Jarḥ wal-Taʿdīl, and that they are the primary targets of the disparagement of the scholars of ḥadīth and criticism, and that they were the very ones exposed the people of innovations by unveiling them, and that the scholars and jurists follower after them, being reliant upon them in this great endeavour.

The Shaykh—quoting some dialogue from Fāliḥ when he is answering some questions on this topic—points out the ignorance of these people when they say that explaining the reasons for disparagement is not required when it comes to deviants, and that this should not even be called “jarḥ” as that it is for the narrators of ḥadīth in relation to the aspect of reporting only.

04  The Shaykh then refutes the two quotes they brought from Ḥammād bin Zayd and Shaykh Ibn Bāz. There is nothing at all in the narration about Ḥammād bin Zayd that indicates this false principle. Shaykh Rabīʿ went on to clarify that even the unqualified warning of Ḥammād bin Zayd was not accepted by others, and he cited from other Imāms of Ḥadīth, such as Imām Aḥmad, and likewise, from al-Bukharī who indicated that these narrators like ʿAbd al-Wārith had been lied upon and that he had never spoken with al-Qadar or the speech of ʿAmr bin ʿUbayd.

Shaykh Rabīʿ said:

The point being that there is nothing in this quote that supports their false principle and in any case, other Imāms did not accept the warning of Ḥammād bin Zayd. They verified that ʿAbd al-Wārith had been lied upon, which means that they require that the reasons for warning and disparagement must be explained, which also refutes Fāliḥ and his supporters. It shows that speech about people of the Sunnah was not just taken and accepted.

05  The Shaykh then address the speech of Shaykh Ibn Bāz and says there is nothing in it at all that separates between the arena of tabdīʿ and the arena of tajrīḥ of narrators, and that all Shaykh Ibn Bāz did was to mention various categories of people, some of which enter within a prior category, similar to how a general category is mentioned prior to specific elements within that category, such as the prayers in general mentioned before the ʿAṣr prayer (2:238-), or the angels in general being mentioned before Jibrīl and Mīkāl (2:98-). They are not two separate categories but simply a general category followed by specifics that enter into it.

06  After that, Shaykh Rabīʿ responds to the statement of the author of these doubts that he took these statements of Ḥammād bin Zayd and Shaykh Ibn Bāz to Fāliḥ al-Ḥarbī who agreed with him that they do indicate a distintion between the domain of tabdīʿ and the domain of tajrīḥ of narrators. The Shaykh says that Ibn al-Qayyim brought a hundred evidences for the prohibition of taqlīd and that one must follow evidences, and he requested them to bring five or ten evidences for their alleged separation (between the two domains).

07  The Shaykh then provides various evidences from ḥadīths and āthār to refute their false distinction once more, and demonstrates that these ḥadīths and āthār are general and include liars, sinners and deviants. These ḥadīths speak about those who will come at the end of time and speak with things that have not been heard of before, and that at the end of time there will great liars (dajjālūn kadhdhābūn) coming with ḥadīths you have never heard before, and warning from bad company in the ḥadīth of the musk seller and the blacksmith. Likewise, statements from Ibn ʿAbbās and the Successors, such as Ibn Sīrīn, about caution in accepting reports, especially after the fitnah, and asking for the isnād and being careful from whom you take your religion and what is similar.

08  The Shaykh then brings some speech from Ibn Ḥibbān in which he explains the categories of weak narrators who are disparaged, and he mentions among them the heretics (zanādiqah), then the fabricators and liars, then the righteous who have heedlessness and absence of precision and so on. This is also proof against the false principle of Fāliḥ and his followers.

09  The Shaykh then gives the example of Abān bin Abī ʿAyyāsh who was a weak narrator. Shuʿbah would speak about him due to his weakness and would say: “That I drink donkey’s urine until I am satiated is dearer to me than saying: ‘Abān bin Abī ʿAyyāsh narrated to us.’” He was then advised by others such as Ḥammād bin Zayd and and ʿAbbād bin ʿAbbād not to speak about him because he was a righteous old man, so he agreed. But then in a funeral gathering, he openly announced that he turned back from that because it is not permissible to withhold from speaking as is a matter of religion (i.e. disparaging Abān).

So Shaykh Rabīʿ explains from this example that Abān was not from the innovators and deviants, but a righteous man. However, he was not left alone and was disparaged and severely warned against by Shuʿbah and this was corroborated by Imām Aḥmad and Shuʿbah was praised for this advice and warning.

This example falsifies the claim that warning (taḥdhīr) of innovators is other than disparagement (jarḥ) of narrators. Whereas here, Shuʿbah warned against a man not for innovation, but for being weak in narrating, and hence, the Imāms of Ḥadīth are same ones who disparage and warn on the basis of both avenues, weakness in narrating and having deviations and innovations, and they do so with honesty, integrity and justice.

This is contrary to the claims of Fāliḥ and his followers who claim exclusivity in the arena of warning against deviants. Meaning, those whom they oppress from Ahl al-Sunnah through unjust, unwarranted tabdīʿ for which they cannot meet the standards of evidence.

10  Right at the end, he quotes the speech of Imām Mālik (رحمه الله) that knowledge is not taken from four: the fool, the liar who lies in ordinary speech, the person of desires (innovator, deviant) and the devout worshipper who is careless in what he narrates. This proves that the Imāms of Ḥadīth warned against fools, liars, innovators and careless narrators, and hence, the distinction is not found.

This concludes our broad overview of this treatise.

The Supplement

As for the supplement to the above treatise, then it is dated 16 Dhū al-Ḥijjah 1425 (27 January 2005) and is ten pages long. In it the Shaykh provides evidence from the Qurʾān, the Sunnah and speech of the Imāms of this discipline in falsification of the distinction between disparagement of narrators and warning against innovators.

01  As for the Qurʾān, then he brings the verse in which Allāh warns from the enmity of wives and offspring (64:14-), and wealth (64:15-). as there is a tribulation in them for a man’s religion This is proof that Allāh warned (taḥdhīr) with respect to other than Ahl al-Bidaʿ, and if there are innovators among them (wives and children), then the warning is more severe. Then he quotes the verse about this nation being the best nation which enjoins good and prohibits evil (3:104-) (3:110-). These are general in inviting people to every good and warning from every evil.

02  As for the ḥadīth, he cites what is related by Muslim: “There was no prophet before me except it was a duty upon him to direct his nation to every good and warn them from every evil…”, which shows that this warning is general from evils and tribulations. Likewise, the ḥadīth: “The religion is sincerity (of purpose)…” which is general and includes many things.

03  Then he brings various narrations to show how ʿUmar (رضي الله عنه) as the khalīfah, and Companions such as Muʿādh bin Jabal (رضي الله عنه) warned against innovators and affairs besides them such as the slip of the wise scholar, from doubtful things in the speech of wise scholars, or their popular statements, which means that warning is made not just for innovations and innovators but for other affairs too.

04  Then he comments on speech from al-Ḥākim al-Nīsapūrī in which he explains that this knowledge (of al-Jarḥ wal-Taʿdīl) is of two types, one related to taʾdīl (appraisal) and one related to jarḥ (disparagement), and within these two fields there are various works from the Imāms of ḥadīth. In those works related to disparagement, they include innovators and deviants. Likewise, the scholars who came after them, continued to include the innovators among those who are disparaged, and in their definition of integrity (ʿadālah), Imāms such al-Ḥākim include the requirement that a person does not call to innovation, because that would render his narrations void.

05  Then the Shaykh quotes al-Ḥākim's categories of those who are disparaged, and the first category are those who fabricate ḥadīths and they include, with named examples in the following categories:

• The heretics (zanādiqah)
• Those who have an innovation to call to, e.g. Khārijites, Muʿtazilah.
• Those claiming to call people to virtuous actions, so they fabricate ḥadīths to that effect.
• Those who fabricate ḥadīths for the kings to draw closer to them.
• Those who do so due to a need, such as those fanatical to a madhhab, such as ḥadīths of praise regarding Abū Ḥanīfah or al-Shāfiʿī.
• The beggars who go to the markets and gatherings and fabricate against the Messenger (صلى الله عليه وسلم) with correct chains which they had memorised for this purpose.

Then Shaykh Rabīʿ quotes al-Ḥākim’s remaining categories of those who are disparaged, there being ten in total. The intent being that the innovators are included among those who are disparaged and other than the innovators are included among those who are warned against.

06  Then he quotes Ibn Ḥajar from al-Nuzhah (pp. 82-83) in which Ibn Ḥajar defines khabar al-āḥād (the solitary narration) as: that which is transmitted from a trustworthy (ʿadl) precise narrator (tām al-ḍabt) with a connected chain, without being defective (muʿallal) or being anomalous (shādh). Then Ibn Ḥajar defines trustworthiness or integrity (ʿadālah) as possessing the quality which compels adhere to piety (taqwā) and honourable conduct. And in turn, he defined taqwā as avoiding evil actions such as shirk, sin or innovation.

Hence, in defining the accepted authentic report, he included shirk, sin and innovation among the affairs which negate integrity and piety. This, Shaykh Rabīʿ says, comprises a severe disparagement on the basis of innovation, which is derived from shirk and leads towards it.

06  With all these evidences, the Shaykh said that the saying of the people of ignorance and desires is invalidated, those who say that Ahl al-Bidaʿ are not subject to the principles of Ahl al-Ḥadīth and are not subject to disparagements (only warnings), and that those besides the innovators are not subject to their warnings (but only disparagements). The Shaykh said that he does not know ignorance and lies against Ahl al-Ḥadīth and their foundations and methodology that surpass this ignorance and lies, and this concludes his supplement to the main treatise.

Comments

The reader should already have the broader picture of what is taking place here, and hence, not much needs to be said, save that Shaykh Rabīʿ did a clinical job in killing this doubt.

He established that the innovators are the foremost among those who are worthy of disparagement, and they were disparaged by the Imām of the Ḥadīth, with innovation being one of the disparagments that can render a person’s reporting void, and that tabdīʿ, tajrīḥ, taḥdhīr are all the domain of the Imāms of Ḥadīth and the scholars who preserve this religion. As for the claimed exclusivity belonging to a specific set of scholars (i.e. Fāliḥ) in matters of tabdīʿ and writing off deviants (i.e. Salafīs with some errors and flaws, if they are not fabricated and exaggerated), it does not exist and is from the Ḥaddādī imagination.

This concludes some of the main writings of Shaykh Rabīʿ during 2004 and early 2005 in refuting the attempts of Fāliḥ and his followers in Second Wave Ḥaddādiyyah to shield themselves from accountability for their oppressive, unjust tabdīʿ that was without evidences against Salafīs who had much efforts in daʿwah and defence of creed, methodology and the scholars of Ahl al-Sunnah.

These principles and doubts regarding narrators and innovators were invented to provide that protection, gain self-vindication and justify their oppression and the chaos and turmoil that was caused in the da`wah, all under the guise of jealous zeal for the Sunnah and its scholars (i.e. Fāliḥ and his likes).

One should note the ways and means that one can evade accountability for tabdīʿ without evidence are many and that what came from Fāliḥ and his followers is just an illustration, since the main underlying issue is not these methods and principles, but the main objective behind them. If you grasp that, and avoid not seeing the forest for the trees, you will have keener vision in these affairs.