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.

Towards the end of his refutation of ʿAbd al-Laṭīf’s many falsehoods, Shaykh Rabīʿ gives another illustration of his treachery in citation and ascription, this time regarding the issue of the takfīr of the one who reviles Allāh, or the Messenger (صلى الله عليه وسلم) or the religion.^[1]

Shaykh al-Albānī had some speech in the matter in which he cautioned against making hasty takfīr of those who, due to evil cultivation and customs, say words which may comprise revilement but which they may not intend due to ignorance, or due to saying them in anger.

This was one of the issues used by the Ḥaddādīs to stir the issue of Imān and Irjāʾ as a means to an end. Bāshmīl took a discussion of Shaykh Rabīʿ on the matter from one of his cassette recordings and distorted some of his speech to make it appear that Shaykh Rabīʿ supports the presumed error of Shaykh al-Albānī by making false claims about the view of some of the Salaf.

This is the speech in question, in which Bāshmīl inserted a pronoun to a verb to alter what was intended:

In the above, Bāshmīl changed (يكفرون) to (يكفرونه) to make it look as if Shaykh Rabīʿ was speaking specifically about the one who reviles Allāh, and was saying that some of the scholars from the Salaf did not make takfīr of the one who reviles Allāh and granted him excuses.

Shaykh Rabīʿ said:

After this, the Shaykh explains how Bāshmīl cited a paragraph from Ibn Taymiyyah, but just like he did previously when he portrayed Shaykh al-Albānī as a bitter opponent to Shaykh Ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhāb through selective citations and concealment of clear speech, he did the same with Ibn Taymiyyah’s speech in al-Ṣārim al-Maslūl, the book that deals with the issue of reviling Allāḥ (عز وجل), the religion, and the Messenger (صلى الله عليه وسلم), and through it, he falsely accused Shaykh Rabīʿ of trying to excuse Shaykh al-Albānī and provide a way out for his error by asserting that the issue was differed over among the Salaf.

So Shaykh Rabīʿ responded to this:

Then Shaykh Rabīʿ—having read al-Ṣārim al-Maslūl a while back and suspecting that Bāshmīl was treacherous in quoting—he returned to the book to verify the quote, and he found what he suspected. That Bāshmīl omitted key details before the paragraph that he quoted and failed to present the matter objectively and with integrity.

The Shaykh brought the citations from Ibn Taymiyyah over the next page and a half.

The essence of it is that Bashmīl quoted from Ibn Taymiyyah a consensus of the disbelief of the one who reviles Allāh or the Messenger, and then he quoted a paragraph in which Ibn Taymiyyah said what some like al-Qāḍī Abū Yaʿlā fell into, of saying the revilement is only disbelief when it is declared lawful (istiḥlāl), was because they were affected by the speech of some of the later theologians (mutakallimīn), who held that īmān is the assent (taṣdīq) of the heart, and that it is a big mistake.

However, Bāshmīl excluded a sentence of Ibn Taymiyyah right before the quote in which he had said:

And it appears that he did not want the reader to know this, because it goes against his objectives. This is because Ibn Taymiyyah asked Allāh to show mercy to Abu Yaʿlā, and the Ḥaddādīs have an issue with invoking Allāh’s mercy for those who fall into innovation or are accused of it. And also, he said that Abu Yaʿlā has other speech contradicting this view in other places. So this is from the angle of justice and mercy which the Ḥaddādīs do not recognise as their methodology is based on oppression and malice.

On this matter there are some points and observations, which we can discuss below.

Notes

01  As we said in previous articles regarding the Takfīrīs and Khārijites, when they cite from scholars, and in particular from Ibn Taymiyyah, the base rule is to be suspicious, cautious and unaccepting of their quoting as it is replete with academic dishonesty and treachery through additions, omissions, concealments and distortions. It’s the same with the Ḥaddādīs. They are treacherous in citation as it relates to both their opponents and to the scholars whose words they rely upon.

02  Bāshmīl misquoted Shaykh Rabīʿ by changing his words, thereby changing his intent, and he did so in order to make it appear that Shaykh Rabīʿ supports or defends al-Albānī in a presumed error, in this case, the issue of reviling (sabb).

03  This issue that was stirred against Shaykh al-Albānī was later clarified by the Shaykh himself when Shaykh ʿAbd Allāh al-ʿUbaylān went to al-Albānī and recorded a discussion about the matter. In it Shaykh al-Albānī clarified his actual position. This was the cassette recording which upon the advice of Shaykh Rabīʿ, I translated in 2000 and published with Allāh’s tawfīq in refutation of the Quṭbīs, Takfīrīs and the Ḥaddādīs.

04  The essence of the matter was that Shaykh al-Albānī was speaking about the conditions required to make takfīr of a person in this issue, and said that he must “know and intend what he is saying”, and not that he was denying that reviling Allāh and His Messenger is disbelief on its own. The shaykh give an illustration of a person who could be in a fit of rage and say things without knowing or intending revilement through what the said.

The Shaykh (رحمه الله) said in the discussion with Shaykh al-ʿUbaylān:

Thus, the speech of al-Albānī was regarding making the actual judgment of takfīr, and ensuring the conditions are met, and he distinguished between words through which revilement is intended and are deliberate and those which are not, and all of this from the perspective the great danger of making takfīr of a Muslim. He affirmed the revilement (sabb) is kufr, and that kufr occurs by speech, as it does by action, and also spoke of the conditions and barriers to takfīr, all of it in agreement with the speech of other scholars, past and contemporary.

05  The quote used by Bāshmīl from Ibn Taymiyyah regarding the grave error of al-Qāḍī Abu Yaʿlā that revilement is kufr when it is made lawful (istiḥlāl) was to enable the accusation that al-Albānī has Irjaʾ (of the Ashʿariyyah, Jahmiyyah), and that Shaykh Rabīʿ defends him.

So, we have:

• Bāshmīl misquoting and lying upon Shaykh Rabīʿ by adding to his words,
• selectively quoting from Ibn Taymiyyah and misapplying his speech regarding al-Qāḍī Abū Yaʿlā and the issue of istiḥlāl of revilement to a different issue that al-Albānī was discussing, and
• omitting the part where Ibn Taymiyyah invokes mercy for Abu Yaʿlā.

All in order to stir controversy, tribulation and tumult.

Shaykh Rabīʿ stuck a final stake into this Ḥaddādī through his closing remarks on the issue which can be read here, and in short, the Shaykh explained how those Ḥanbalī jurists who erred in this matter are to be treated, they are are respected, Allāh’s mercy is invoked for them, and are from Ahl al-Sunnah, loving the Sunnah and defending it. This is the way of Ibn Taymiyyah, not the way of the extreme Ḥaddādīs, like Bāshmīl who wishes to belittle and sideline scholars and who makes use of treachery and lying in aid of his cause. The Shaykh asked these Ḥaddādīs to judge people with the scales of justice and fairness, and not by Satanic scales, and asks them if they are going to truly repent.

06  After Shaykh al-Albānī clarified his position in the discussion with al-ʿUbaylān, about which Shaykh Rabīʿ said that it should be spread, the Ḥaddādīs continued in their lies and fabrications and provided fuel for the Takfīrīs and Quṭbīs to continue using this issue. As a result, accusations of the Irjāʾ of the Ashāʿirah and Jahmiyyah against Salafī scholars remain till this day.

From the Ḥaddādī deviants upon this path is Hishām al-Beily who claims that al-Albānī agreed with the Ashʿarī Murjiʾah while there are found those who defend him, praise him and say he is a Salafī with no errors, having the right to criticise al-Albānī and to attack those who attack him in retaliation, and they also just happen to be involved in other things such as:

• Complicity in rebellion and sedition in a Muslim land, against legitimate authority, and matters of bloodshed and war.
• Supporting the causes of political factions (aḥzāb).
• Conspiring to deceive scholars regarding matters of war and bloodshed and concealing some of the verdicts that run contrary to political ambitions and agendas.
• Treachery and lying in citation and ascription, inserting words and concealing highly relevant speech.
• Tabdīʿ and taḍlīl of Salafīs without evidence.
• Calling to boycotting (hajar) of Ahl al-Sunnah.
• Specifically targeting Shaykh al-Albānī on fiqh related issues.
• Calling to tahazzub, taʿaṣṣub, takattul
• Splitting Salafīs all across the world.
• and more.

07  Also of note is what Shaykh Rabīʿ mentioned about how Bāshmīl and the Ḥaddādīs make an opportunistic attachment to scholars and present themselves as those who return to the senior scholars and respect them, but in reality, this is just a show for spreading their Ḥaddādī merchandise. They do this in order to instigate tribulations through controversial knowledge-based issues, but without really respecting and returning to those scholars more broadly speaking, in grave and serious matters. One of the clearest of proofs for this is that when it comes to major issues of leadership, obedience, rebellion, war and bloodshed, they do not return to the senior scholars, rather, they precede them, oppose them and try to deceive them.

Closing Note

What was mentioned previously should be emphasised again which is that while we must return to originating and localised circumstances to understand the emergence and evolution of ideologies and movements, we must also abstract the findings beyond them for the purposes of pattern recognition, because we are supposed to learn and benefit from past events and understand present events in light of them, so we can make better sense of them, otherwise, there is the danger of not being able to see the wood for the trees.^[3]

So based on what we have learned from the Salaf and the Salafī methodology and how scholars such as Shaykh Rabīʿ exposed the Ḥaddādī extremists decades ago, is that when you see a man stirring the issue of al-Albānī and Irjāʾ, scathingly attacking the senior Salafī scholars of his land, having close friendships with Takfīrīs and Daeshites and when you see another man defending him and praising him while also making tabdīʿ of Salafīs on false, unwarranted grounds, alongside calling to taḥazzub, and involvement in political projects, with scheming and cunning, even trying to deceive senior scholars therein, and academic dishonesty and treachery, then know that he is already advanced on a dangerous path.

Do not be deceived by the flex of his clueless followers as that is the state and nature of most of those who are misled by the glitter of endorsements, copious knowledge and the slick tongue. Moderation upon the Sunnah with scant knowledge is better than exertion in falsehood, partisanship and innovation (dishonesty, rebellion, bloodshed, tribulation, dividing Ahl al-Sunnah etc.). It is better to die a miskīn righteous believer knowing only the ḥadīth of niyyah and the ḥadīth of Jibrīl, than to perish with tomes upon tomes on your back and meeting Allāh with these types of enormities.

Footnotes