In the late 1990s, Imām al-Albānī (رحمه الله), who was the Reviver and Aider of the Sunnah in the 20th century, said about Shaykh Rabīʿ bin Hādī (رحمه الله): “Indeed the carrier of the flag of al-Jarh wat-Taʿdīl today, in this present time— and in truth—is our brother Rabīʿ and those who refute him do not refute him on the basis of knowledge ever, rather the knowledge is all with him.” This was in the cassette titled “Manhaj al-Muwāzanāt”, which we translated and spread at the time, in refutation of those who were attacking Shaykh Rabīʿ for speaking against the Ḥizbiyyīn, and their false principles and methodologies.

Shaykh Rabīʿ is known for truthfulness, precision, accuracy, honesty, integrity and justice in his criticisms and refutations, which is why his detractors were unable to accuse him of lying and dishonesty and were unable to refute his refutations, except with lies, fabrications and slanders, and casting aspersions upon his intentions.

With respect to his criticisms and refutations, here is an illustration regarding his writings against Sayyid Quṭb:^[1]

Shaykh Rabīʿ bin Hādī (حفظه الله) was asked:^[2] “Is it permissible to lie upon the People of Innovations and others from the People of Misguidance?”

He answered:

This makes it clear why he was referred to as the “Carrier of the Flag of al-Jarḥ wal-Taʿdīl in the present time”, and not by any ordinary person or a partisan follower, but by an Imām and Muḥaddith, a Reviver of the Sunnah, whose words hold tremendous weight.

However, from the humility of Shaykh Rabīʿ is that he renounced this title, and advised against it and warned from exaggeration (ghuluww), and explained that he is a mere critic who criticised certain people for their errors (with their actual words, with honesty and integrity). He also advised people against this and to leave off these exaggerations. He (رحمه الله) said:^[3]

Notes

On the above there are some points and observations:

01  Shaykh Rabīʿ’s refutations are based on objective critical evaluations of the speech of the opposers, founded upon academic integrity, intellectual honesty, truth and justice. This is why the Shaykh could never be accused of lying, and his refutations could not be refuted. Instead a variety of schemes were used to attack him and discredit him. This is why Shaykh al-Albānī (رحمه الله) said:

Shaykh Rabīʿ said:^[4]

This is far removed from criticisms and refutations based on lies, fabrications, exaggerations, and accusing and judging people’s intentions, all devoid of evidence, and relying on appeal to authority. This does not satisfy or quench the thirst of anyone, except those who pay no value to these matters. It also causes confusion, not clarity.

02  The one who referred to Shaykh Rabīʿ as “The Carrier of the Flag of al-Jarḥ wal-Taʾdīl” is himself an Imām, a Carrier of the Flag al-Jarḥ wal-Taʿdīl, a Reviver of the Sunnah, whose rulings upon ḥadīths have gained acceptance by the ummah, such that it has been said for a long time, “Al-Albānī authenticated it” in books, sermons and lectures all over the world. Hence, this carries tremendous weight.

03  Despite this, Shaykh Rabīʿ (رحمه الله), due to his humility and his knowledge that this leads to exaggeration, was averse to it and disliked it. He prohibited it and warned others from saying this and falling into the likes of this, whether with respect to himself, or others, and he gave examples of what has been said about past Imāms with what may exceed the limits, and noted that the Companions, never had such titles and are referred to by their first names.

And this is keeping in mind that, even though the Shaykh is averse to all of this, there is indeed truth in what Shaykh al-Albānī said, that Shaykh Rabīʿ did carry the flag of disparagement and evaluation of individuals, groups and sects in a critical junction in time, when these people were infiltrating the Salafī daʿwah, thereby delivering it from great trials.

04  From the reasons and wisdoms that a great scholar may give such praise to another scholar is to give reassurance that he is upon the truth, to encourage him in his endeavours and to support him, especially if he has been unjustly attacked. And the scholar being praised knows and understands that, he knows these realities. And this is what happened, because Shaykh al-Albānī did not know the realities about Sayyid Quṭb, Safar and Salmān, the Quṭbiyyah and Surūriyyah, and the realities of the Jamʿiyyāt and their figureheads, such as Iḥyā al-Turāth, and ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ʿAbd al-Khāliq and others. All of these people tried to dilute and pollute Salafiyyah, and invent new renditions of Salafiyyah, and when Imām al-Albānī realised this, and saw that these people had been lying and unjustly attacking Shaykh Rabīʿ, and that the truth was with Shaykh Rabīʿ, he aided the Shaykh and his writings with words of praise and support.

05  No sooner had Shaykh Rabīʿ bin Hādī (رحمه الله) passed away, literally on the same day, we started seeing a race, a competition, as to who is declared the new “Imām of al-Jarḥ wal-Taʿdīl”, the “Khalīfah”, (successor), as if this was a new position, a vacancy that Imām al-Albānī created when he said what he said over a quarter of a century ago, a position that has to be filled and can’t remain empty. All of a sudden, people from different lands, started saying that this person in Algeria, or that person in Yemen, or that person in Saudi is the new “Imām of al-Jarḥ wal-Taʿdīl”, as if this is an official post, or something inherited or passed on, or a vacancy that needs to be filled, without which Salafiyyah is incomplete can't continue.

06  As for the truth, then it is that everyone who speaks with truth, with evidence, and who disparaged, criticised or evaluated, with evidence, with integrity, and who established proofs and evidences, devoid of doubts and uncertainties, then his speech is taken and accepted. There are many people of knowledge, many shaykhs, and likewise students in their own lands, who abide by these principles and this methodology in criticising and evaluating individuals, callers and groups, being guided in that by the senior scholars, and following their way. Whoever abides by this methodology, then it is accepted from him, and all of this is upon the foundations of honesty, integrity and justice, free of motives and desires.

There were numerous other scholars of criticism and disparagement, from them Shaykh Aḥmad al-Najmī, Shaykh Muqbil bin Hādī, Shaykh Muḥammad Amān al-Jāmī, Shaykh Zayd al-Madkhalī, Shaykh ʿUbayd al-Jābirī and others (رحمهم الله), even if Shaykh Rabīʿ spoke and authored the most. Hence, the notion that there is only one critic, and only one scholar of al-Jarḥ wal-Taʿdīl, to whom all affairs, of all people, in all lands, return back to, then this is not said by any of the people of knowledge, not the great Imāms who praised Shaykh Rabīʿ and nor Shaykh Rabīʿ himself.

07  As for scholars recommending others, whether:

• for taking knowledge from them, or
• to praise them to give them firmness and to encourage them further, or
• speaking in praise of them after they have been attacked and spoken ill of, as a means of silencing the opposers and deviants

then we know that these are objectives that scholars have when they praise others from those who are lesser than them in knowledge and status. So we accept these types of statements and we understand them and what is intended by them and keep them in their place and context.

08  Shaykh Rabīʿ's refutations were accepted not because of mere titles and praises. Rather, because of the clear evidence and truth they contained, following the just methodology of knowledge-based criticism, done with integrity and sincerity of purpose. Shaykh Rabīʿ made clear that criticism and refutation must be based on evidence, on truthfulness and integrity, and far removed from lies, fabrications, distortions, doubts and uncertainties. It is the evidence that must be accepted, and whoever does not bring that will not be aided by titles.^[5]

09  It is a sign of Shaykh Rabīʿ’s truthfulness and uprightness that he renounced this title and this tremendous praise (even though he deserved it and was worthy of it). He warned against it because it can lead to exaggeration, and it can lead to a situation where people, particularly Salafīs, are disparaged by mere appeal to authority, rather, than actual evidences. A person is criticised and disparaged with evidences, with honesty and integrity, following the Salafī methodology, especially when it is someone from Ahl al-Sunnah.

This way was neglected by those who accepted titles and lavish praises from their followers. This is what happened with the likes of Fāliḥ al-Ḥarbī, Yaḥyā al-Ḥajūrī and Muḥammad bin Ḥādī. Those partisan to them began to shower them with lavish titles and praises to make up for the mistakes they fell into in terms of the unwarranted or hasty disparagements they made, devoid of evidence and truth, consisting of accusations, revilements and abuse, which were never found in the writings and refutations of Shaykh Rabīʿ bin Hādī (رحمه الله), because truth stands on its own.

10  Finally, around 12 years ago, the Ḥajāwirah, among others, tried to use this humility and modesty of the Shaykh to deny him the rank and status given to him by the great scholars of the era, not just Imām al-Albānī (رحمه الله). So we wrote a refutation against them, outlining the great difference between the praise of the major scholars for Shaykh Rabīʿ and the ghuluww of the Ḥajāwirah for Yaḥyā al-Ḥajūrī, and one can refer to the publication, “Shaykh ʿAllāmah Rabīʿ bin Hādī’s Advice to the Callers” for details.

It was not just Imām al-Albānī who praised Shaykh Rabīʿ but also Shaykh Bin Bāz, Shaykh Ibn ʿUthaymīn, Shaykh Muqbil bin Hādī, Shaykh Aḥmad al-Najmī, Shaykh Zayd al-Madkhalī, Shaykh Muḥammad al-Bannā, Shaykh Ṣaliḥ al-Luḥaydān, Shaykh ʿUbayd al-Jābirī (رحمهم الله) and others, which means that this is a consensus of the senior scholars of the era, and is not just a reflection of partisanship or exaggeration or bias, as is found with those who seek inflation and magnification of personalities and figureheads.

Conclusion

In short, the great scholars of the era were all in agreement and concurred upon the praise of Shaykh Rabīʿ for what he did in demolishing the foundations of the Quṭbī, Surūrī, Takfīrī, Khārijī ideology and the Ikhwānī Bannāʾī Tamyīʿī methodology, thereby purifying the Salafī daʿwah from various infiltrators and their false principles, lies and deceptions. So between them all, they described Shaykh Rabīʿ with various descriptions and titles of praise and recommendation. This was over 20 years ago, and since that time the Shaykh continued in the same path for another quarter of a century.

As for those who think that “Imām of al-Jarḥ wal-Taʿdīl” is an open position, a vacancy, a station that needs filling, with each party rushing to nominate his shaykh as the candidate for the position, then this indicates a lack of understanding.

There are scholars and shaykhs who will fulfil the duty of criticising and diparaging the innovators, the opposers and the errant ones, alḥamdulillāh, this has happened since the time of the Companions (رضي الله عنهم), it will not stop and does not require a title.

As for the description given to Shaykh Rabīʿ of being the “Carrier of the Flag of al-Jarḥ wal-Taʿdīl”, that was unique to the shaykh due to his outstanding, unrivalled efforts at a critical junction in time, it was not intended as a general vacancy within the Salafī daʿwah to be taken up by others, through nomination and social media campaigns, as a form of succession.

Shaykh Rabīʿ was indeed the Carrier of the Flag of al-Jarḥ wal-Taʿdīl, despite his humility and modesty and disliking it and renouncing it. As for the attempts we are seeing these days by people to confer this same title upon shaykhs in various lands, it should be seen as a form of belittling the Shaykh’s unique status and his tremendous efforts, and it seems like a usurpation of the right to confer this unique description and title given to Shaykh Rabīʿ (رحمه الله).^[6]

If there are great scholars of high calibre, such as those mentioned above, who describe a particular shaykh with the same as what Imām al-Albāni described Shaykh Rabīʿ with, and what the other great scholars said about him, and it becomes a matter of agreement among the great scholars of the era, then it can be said that that shaykh deserves such a title and description. However, aside from this particular unique scenario, there will always remain among the people of knowledge those who fulfil this duty of clarifying the path, elucidating the truth, and disparaging the deviants and innovators.

Update:

The ḥizbī, Mashhūr Salmān, made some remarks regarding the passing of Shaykh Rabīʿ, and while presenting himself as a balanced person, he made the following claims (with responses), as occurs in a video published on the tube on 10 July 2025:

Response: As for those who hate the Shaykh (رحمه الله), then it is clear. As for those who allegedly “exaggerated” in him, as he claims, then are they the major scholars of the era, those who described him as “The Carrier of the Flag of al-Jarḥ wal-Taʿdīl” and an “Imām in the Sunnah”, and a “Sign from the Signs of Allāh in knowledge of the Ḥizbiyyīn”?

The Salafīs took these testimonies with acceptance, these praises, which are founded on knowledge, justice and truth, in recognition of Shaykh Rabīʿs profound knowledge-based refutations of the principles, foundations and ways of the Ḥizbīs, and Mashhur Salmān is among them, and he befriends, allies with and defends the heads of innovation whom Shaykh Rabīʿ rightfully disparaged.

Response: Shaykh al-Albānī (رحمه الله) had different statements at different times, and he advised with gentleness and forbearance, and this is on the basis of what he knew. The Shaykh did not know the reality of Sayyid Quṭb, nor that of Safar and Salmān, and though he knew of the Ikhwānī manhaj of ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ʿAbd al-Khāliq, he did not know the extent of his misguidance and deviation, and his deceptions and tricks. The experience of Shaykh Rabīʿ was more direct, and thus he knew more about the reality of these people.

This is why Shaykh al-Albānī later acknowledged that the Shaykh was correct in his refutations of the misguidance of Sayyid Quṭb and Safar and Salmān and others. However, Mashhūr Salmān is not honest enough to give the full picture because his aim is to malign Shaykh Rabīʿ.

Response: TThis is not true at all and it is known that Shaykh Rabīʿ spends years and years in advising in private, then correcting the errors with knowledge and evidence, leaving no room for doubts and uncertainties. Then when these people show stubbornness, he publishes his writings and clarifications. And then when these people argue and make stubborn rejection and wage war, and incite their followers, he warns from them, and they effectively expel themselves from Salafiyyah, their actions being an open announcement that they have chosen misguidance willingly.

Response: Abū al-Ḥasan al-Miṣrī al-Maʾribī referred to the Companions as Ghuthāʾiyyah (scum), and he was refuted for that, and he played games, going through six stages, as Shaykh Rabīʿ explained in his treatise, “Marāḥil Abī al-Ḥasan wa Taqallubātihī Ḥawl Waṣfihī Li al-Ṣaḥābah bi al-Ghuthāʾiyyah”, which indicate his lies, deception in the matter, and that he was rightly and justly criticised for it.

Response: It is correct that the lāzim (implication) of speech, is not necessarily the speech believed and intended by the one who said it. But Mashhūr Salmān claims that all or most of the refutations of Shaykh Rabīʿ over the past two decades, and those of others, from Ahl al-Sunnah, are just based on the implications (lawāzim) of speech and imposing upon speech what a person did not say explicitly or intend.

However this is false, and whoever reads the refutations of Shaykh Rabīʿ will see clearly that the Shaykh quotes verbatim, then discusses critically, acdemically, and honestly, and evaluates the speech with the Book, the Sunnah and the way of the Salaf. Most often, he is refuting actual principles that are false, that the Ḥizbīs have invented or used to shield their own opposition to the Salafī methodology, and their own actions and behaviours are explicit proof of what they actually mean and intend.

Hence, it is not based on lawāzim, as claimed by Mashhur Salmān, but on actual realities, and relates to verifable false foundations and principles that these people tried to infuse among Ahl al-Sunnah through their lectures and writings.

In summary, this was a weak attempt by Mashhūr Salman, to malign and discredit the Shaykh (رحمه الله).

Once again there are those who belittle Shaykh Rabīʿ and use his humility and modesty to deny him the titles and descriptions he was given due to his unique efforts in a most critical junction in time, when various factions (aḥzāb) tried to infiltrate and corrupt the Salafī daʿwah and its methodology. And then there are those who try to institutionalise the title of “Imām of al-Jarḥ wal-Taʿdīl” and treat it as if was a permanent and exclusive post (vacancy) created by Imām al-Albānī which is to be filled by succession. This is belittlement of this and other titles and descriptions of praise that were given uniquely to Shaykh Rabīʿ by the great Imāms of this era, and are a reflection of the recognition of the tremendous and unmatched efforts of Shaykh Rabīʿ in this field by those great scholars.^[7]

Thereafter, there are numerous scholars and shaykhs (in every age and era) who engage in the field of al-Jarḥ wal-Taʿdīl, who contribute to the collective obligation of criticising, refuting and exposing the innovators and deviants. Some may be dedicated to refuting a specific individual or group, and more than one may share in refuting individuals and groups. Collectively, they fulfil the obligation. So whoever disparages with proofs and evidences, accuracy, and integrity, then this is what is accepted.

Footnotes