Shaykh Rabīʿ bin Hādī’s Brotherly Advice to Shaykh Fāliḥ (2004)

Fāliḥ al-Ḥarbī took the path of the Ḥaddādiyyah in making tabdīʿ of Salafī shaykhs and students and waging a war against them on flimsy pretexts and false principles, and he brought tremendous harm to the daʿwah. So Shaykh Rabīʿ advised him over a period which included written advices with respect to his errors. Below is a summary of one of the Shaykh’s important writings from early 1425H (early 2004) in which he addressed a range of errors that Fāliḥ fell into. It came in two parts.

Summary of first part (8 Rabīʿ al-Awwal 1425H):

01  Fāliḥ made tabdīʿ of well-known Salafīs with severe jarḥ (disparagement), which led to chaos and exchange of insults between those who saw that he oppressed them and those who supported him.

02  Shaykh Rabīʿ made it clear that detailed evidence must be provided to justify the tabdīʿ.

03  Shaykh Rabīʿ discussed the false principle of Fāliḥ such as a) speech about innovators and deviants being different to speech about narrators, b) that explaining the reasons for disparagement in tabdīʿ is not required, c) that speech against innovators for their innovation is not considered “jarḥ” and d) that the disparagement of ḥadīth narrators is other than those (deviants) about whom speech is sought from scholars by way of fatwā.

04  These principles open the door to tabdīʿ of scholars and lead to much chaos. If they were applied to Fāliḥ himself, he would not be happy about it.

05  Shaykh Rabīʿ provides many evidences against these harmful principles and explains that speech about others should be with truthfulness, justice and fairness.

06  The truth is that when someone makes tabdīʿ of another, the reasons for the tabdīʿ must be made clear in a sufficient, satisfying way, so that fitnah can be cut off. Otherwise, treat tribulations ensue if this is not adhered to and Salafīs become split and divided.

Summary of second part (24 Ṣafar 1425H)

01  The issue of taqlīd, Faliḥ refuted al-Maʾribī’s speech about not making taqlīd of scholars by which al-Maʾribī intended to invalidate correct, justified disparagements and warnings against deviants,. However, he did so incorrectly, and went to the other side of calling to taqlīd of disparagements made against those known for Salafiyyah, without the need for presentation of evidences.

02  Shaykh Rabīʿ gives the example of Fāliḥ warning against al-Azhar al-Jazāʾirī in an extreme and severe way just because he did not agree with this issue of taqlīd of rulings on people. He said that al-Azhar had some mistakes alongside being a caller to the manhaj of the Salaf and that all he needed was brotherly advice. Not this severe war waged by Fāliḥ, and mighty accusations made against him.

03  Shaykh Rabīʿ said that maybe Falīḥ might recognise the danger of his approach in making judgements on people with exaggeration and realise the danger of those people around him who strive to cause splits among Salafīs, and to get some of them to strike others, and they have already achieved some of that.

04  Shaykh Rabīʿ metions the extremism of Falīḥ in the matter of a person who refers back to a scholar he has chosen and trusts in a particular matter. Falīḥ considered this action to be a rejection of the Book and the Sunnah and rejection of Islām itself, which is extremism. In other words, you cannot go to any other scholar or shaykh regarding these judgements of tabdīʿ and taḍlīl, as this entails undermining the very basis of the messengerships (that came through transmission) and the revealed books.

05  Shaykh Rabīʿ says he is compelled to correct some of the unjust rulings of Fāliḥ on others, based on the true and just methodology.

07  Regarding the issue of some scholars remaining silent (against deviants or opposers) in observance of benefits and harms, Shaykh Rabīʿ said that maybe some scholars have reasons for being silent and wish to advise that person (in private), perhaps he may benefit from it, and that if he does not listen and accept the advice, he will only subject himself to refutation and bring his own downfall.

08  Shaykh Rabīʿ brought many evidences from the Book and the Sunnah to show that observance of benefits (maṣāliḥ) and harms (mafāsid) is an enacted principle and he gave examples from the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم).

09  The issue of preventing ignorant people from delving in tribulations. Fāliḥ considered this to be opposition to the Messengers and something rejected by reason. This was connected to issue of ʿAbd al-Mālik al-Ramaḍānī who made some statements like these in which there was truth but which Fāliḥ described as laying waste to all of the risālāt (messengerships), which again is more extremism.

10  Shaykh Rabīʿ mentioned the issue of tārik jins al-ʿamal (abandoning the genus of action), whether it is in agreement with the Murjiʾah or not. Fāliḥ said it is, and Shaykh Rabīʿ corrected this and advised on how this matter should be treated, and this is one of the talking points of the Ḥaddādiyyah that Fāliḥ was affected by and for which he subsquently attacked Shaykh Rabīʿ for.

11  The issue of the minimal definition of īmān (i.e. what is minimal requirement to remain a Muslim), Fāliḥ said it is the prayer, and Shaykh Rabīʿ brought ḥadīths regarding intercession and sinners being removed who have the smallest speck of īmān in their hearts. This is also a talking point of the Ḥaddādiyyah which Shaykh Rabīʿ addressed back in 2004, and then later in 2014.

12  Then Shaykh Rabīʿ addressed why senior scholars do not speak in some matters in the context of Fāliḥ being asked why he is the only one speaking in these affairs of disparaging and making tabdīʿ of those whom he did, like ʿAbd al-Mālik al-Ramaḍānī and waging a war against them. Shaykh Rabīʿ said that those other scholars did so in order to observe the benefits and harms (Shaykh Rabīʿ being one of them). Fāliḥ said that he is not a muqallid (blind-follower), and that he speaks in order to remove blame from himself.

Shaykh Rabīʿ said that he should return to his brothers (the mashāyikh) and consult in these affairs and that it is not always the case that every speech is naṣīhah (advice) and every silence is treachery, and nor is it the case that the silent scholars have concealed the truth and deserted the Salafī daʿwah. Rather, that those scholars do advise, mend and strive to remove the doubts and unite Salafīs in every way that they can and that Fāliḥ should be with them and defend them against those who attack them.

The above precious advice given at the time, during the fitnah of Fāliḥ al-Ḥarbī is very pertinent to the fitnah of ʿArafāt al-Muḥammadī and his network who have likewise made tabdīʿ of Salafīs on insufficient grounds and caused tremendous harm to the daʿwah.

This advice of Shaykh Rabīʿ to Fāliḥ al-Ḥarbī cannot be turned on its head and applied instead to the actual victims of Fāliḥ al-Ḥarbī, such as ʿAbd al-Mālik al-Ramaḍānī, merely for remonstrating against the injustice of Fāliḥ, or citing valid criticisms of Fāliḥ and his errors. This would entail a misrepresentation of the situation and departing from justice.

A Note Regarding ʿArafāt al-Muḥammadī and His Group

When Fālih al-Ḥarbī severely disparaged and made tabdīʿ of well-known Salafī shaykhs with unprecedented harsh words, operating on his false principles and his extremism, he was alone in that and no other scholars were with him. He did not consult with other scholars in these matters before waging his independent solo-war against those shaykhs and causing turmoil. Those shaykhs attacked severely by Fālih did not have major violations, their errors were light, and were salvageable. They had inclinations towards some of the Mumayyiʿah who had been disparaged (like al-Maʾribī and al-Ḥalabī) but Fāliḥ al-Ḥarbī waged an all out of war of tajrīḥ and tabdīʿ against them. So Shaykh Rabīʿ pointed out this harmful conduct of Fāliḥ al-Ḥarbī.

This advice of Shaykh Rabīʿ to Fāliḥ is more fitting for those who accuse well-known Salafīs of being innovators and plants without any evidence to justify these unjust rulings and who split the Salafis all across the world without any care or concern for the benefits (maṣāliḥ) and mafāsid (harms).

They should have returned the matter to Shaykh Rabīʿ and Shaykh ʿUbayd as they were alive, or to the Shaykhs in Riyāḍ, like Shaykh al-Fawzān and the Muftī, Shaykh ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, or Shaykh al-Luḥaydān and consulted them about these affairs, as they were more worthy and qualified to speak in them.

Instead the disparagers were perceived as having inherited the unique right in speaking affairs of al-Jarḥ wal-Taʿdīl, as some of their followers seem to believe. This resembles what the followers of Fāliḥ al-Ḥarbī did regarding him, treating him as if he had become the sole authority for disparagement of Salafīs, and requiring taqlīd of him and his harsh, oppressive rulings.

In contrast to those wbom Fāliḥ spoke of with tabdīʿ and taḍlīl on his own, without consultation with others, ʿArafāt and his group have been criticised by a group of shaykhs for following the manhaj of Fāliḥ as well as other major violations of the foundations of the Sunnah including rebellion, sedition and accommodating misguided innovators, praising and defending them. These shaykhs did so after observance of benefits (maṣāliḥ) and harms (mafāsid), after showing patience and trying to resolve the affairs in private for a number of years. They made a strong jarḥ mufassar through evidences which are compelling and through refutations which are in the public domain. There are around 300 articles, posts, documents and audios from various shaykhs and a very large number of them have been translated to English and are readily available on social media platforms.

This group of shaykhs have also have made it explicitly clear that Arafat al-Muḥammadi (with his Fāliḥ-type behaviour) should be warned against in preservation of the daʿwah and its unity, otherwise, it will be torn apart.

Hence, this is a matter of supporting existing evidence-based criticisms from numerous shaykhs that are already a matter of public knowledge, and whose validity is not disputed. This contrasts greatly with the unjust tabdīʿ and false principles of Fāliḥ al-Ḥarbī, which were disputed, objected to and refuted and for which he was criticised by Shaykh Rabīʿ because he was alone in his onslaught against others.

It is out of place to apply this advice of Shaykh Rabīʿ that was addressed to Faliḥ al-Ḥarbī to those who convey open, publicly available, scholarly, evidence-based criticisms of ʿArafāt and his group for the same behaviours, and other violations (such as complicity in rebellion, sedition, lying to senior scholars, praising innovators, and oppressive tabdīʿof Salafīs.

Table: Those most in need of Shaykh Rabīʿ’s advice and more.

There are Salafīs all across the world, offline and online who have displayed a clear position towards the fitnah of ʿArafāt al-Muḥammadī and his group because the evidences are established, abundant, overwhelming and compelling. They are upon the advice of shaykhs like Shaykh ʿAlī al-Ḥudhayf who said:^[1]

And he also said:^[2]

While it is conceded that wisdom and care should be used, and slips can occur in this arena (whether unintended or intended), the scales cannot be overturned whereby the victim becomes the oppressor and the oppressor becomes the victim. Speech that is directed towards those who, as a matter of principle, deny consideration of the benefits of the harms and consultation with senior scholars in the matter of tabdīʿ should not be applied to people out of context, as that entails injustice and fuels more division.

Footnotes