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, 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 Fāliḥ al-Ḥarbī, then Fawzī al-Baḥraynī.

In his refutation of the Ḥaddādī, ʿAbd al-Laṭīf Bāshmīl, Shaykh Rabīʿ bin Hadī (رحمه الله) said:^[1]

Notes

Infallibility is only for Allāh’s Messenger (صلى الله عليه وسلم) in affairs of religion, and as for those besides them, no matter their status, their sayings in religious matters can be taken or rejected. Further, as they are not infallible, they are prone to error, and they can err even in the foundations (creed and methodology) alongside the branches. However, one must distinguish between:

—a) the scholar or shaykh from Ahl al-Sunnah who errs, is criticised and returns back to the truth,
—b) the scholar or shaykh who persists upon his error, and
—c) the people of innovation whose errors arise from their deviation.

The first one has his honour maintained and is increased in rank for returning from error. The second, is treated with respect and gentleness, and after advice and correction if he persists upon error and falsehood, he loses his honour and diminishes his rank, regardless of his prior status and following. The third are warned against from the outset, as they are already upon deviation and misguidance.

This was the way of the scholars of Madīnah, among them Shaykh Rabīʿ bin Hādī, Shaykh Muḥammad Amān al-Jāmī, Shaykh ʿUbayd al-Jābirī (رحمهم الله) and others, and they did not consider even Ahmad, Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhāb (رحمهم الله) to be above knowledge-based criticism, let alone those besides them. They were not nurtured to be parrots and they did not nurture Salafīs to be parrots either, repeating the sayings of their shaykhs without knowing the evidences for what they say and judge.

However, today, after the passing of these scholars and those before them and greater than them, this way has become obscure, is harder to find and has been replaced by ghuluww, authoritarianism, sanctifying of figureheads and calls to blind-following, wherein unjust rulings of tabdīʿ and taḍlīl cannot be openly challenged on the one hand because of statuses, and critiques of violations of foundations backed by evidences are dismissed on the other, merely because of statuses.

Arabic text:

Footnotes