The Fitnah of Ibn Hādī and the Muṣaʿfiqah

Ibn Hādī unleashed a fitnah among Ahl al-Sunnah in which he made unwarranted tabdīʿ on account of affairs that did not justify it and he was unable to provide any evidences for it. He rejected the advice he received from people, and after Shaykh Nizār’s advice in November 2017, he went even further in his insolence in December 2017 in his infamous lecture of breaking his silence.

From the earliest to take a clear stance were the Salafī callers, teachers, mosques and centres of the UK, despite a very strong and lengthy relationship between Muḥammad bin Hādī and Maktabah Salafiyyah. This was because rejecting and denouncing oppression openly, after persistence upon it has been established, is a legislative obligation, and when this is neglected, Allāh’s wrath is earned and the people are punished with disarray in the ranks. As a result of this timely, firm stance, the Salafī daʿwah in the English speaking world remained intact, by Allāh’s bounty.

There were from the people of knowledge who did not take a stance, having their own circumstances. However, after some months, with more information and speaking to Shaykh Rabīʿ about the issue they saw it an obligation to say the truth so as not to be guilty of blameworthy silence or concealing the truth, despite knowing it. So they openly declared the truth regarding Ibn Hādī and his fitnah.

Points of Note

From all of the above and the various citations from the scholars, the following points can be noted:

01  What is the controversy, its true nature and characterisation.
Internal disputes between Ibn Hādī and his students based on personal issues, past enmities, and seeking domination with an authoritarian demeanour, leading to transgressions and violations of foundations.

02  Have any foundations been violated and what are they?
Tabdīʿ of Salafīs without evidence, loyalty and disloyalty around such oppressive judgements, Ibn Hādī a trial (miḥnah) to test people, and splitting the ranks of Ahl al-Sunnah.

03  With whom and where does the truth lie with its evidences?
Ibn Hādī was unable to provide evidences for his tabdīʿ, loyalty and disloyalty around it, and the huge schisms he created. As the onus of proof was upon him, then by default, the truth lies with those who stood against him and his oppression. This became clear through his December 2017 breaking the silence lecture which signaled his open rejection of private advice weeks earlier. Shortly afterwards, Ahl al-Sunnah began to take an open, clear stance, because the truth had become clear.

04  Has one scholar, shaykh or more been through the stages of advice, correction and patient perserverance, where upon the proof is established?
Yes, Shaykh Nizār wrote his advice in November 2017, and he had been advised by others too, and even after Ibn Hādī’s breaking the silence lecture, advice remained ongoing while open warning was being made. This shows that there is no conflict between notification of errors, warning against oppression, and ongoing private advice. The former is for the benefit of Ahl al-Sunnah, so they are not caught up in doubts and falsehood, the latter is for the benefit of the individual concerned.

05  Has one scholar, shaykh or more made open writings to inform people about these errors and violations?
Yes, this began to take place in early 2018, and within the next five months, many others had spoken and written.

06  What about returning to the scholars and leaving the affair in their hands?
Yes, this is true and must be done. However, “returning to the scholars” is a phrase that has been used by the likes of al-Maʾribī and his followers, and likewise, Ibn Hādī who made frequent use of “returning to the senior scholars” during his fitnah, and what they intended was to sideline the critiquing scholars and shaykhs, and go to others who are either sympathetic to them, or do not know the full details, or who have aversion and dislike of the critiquing scholars and shaykhs and perhaps even speech against them. This is a ruse which Shaykh Rabīʿ addressed during the fitnah of al-Maʾribī (see his speech quoted earlier on “returning to scholars”).

07  Does it remain a “fitnah” that one should avoid after the truth has become clear?
No, as the scholars have explained, “fitnah” is when the truth and falsehood are not discernable and it's unclear where the truth lies. Here, people must not delve into it and take sides, and leave it in the hands of the scholars and shaykhs directly involved, who have the most knowledge in the matter. Here, the advice to keep away from “fitnah” is in its place. This would be between 2015 to the end 2017, in relation to the fitnah of Ibn Hādī. However, saying that this is a confusing ”fitnah” after the truth has become clear, which is early 2018, then this is incorrect. It is no longer a confusing ”fitnah” because truth has become distinguished from falsehood. Those who are looked up to, from the shaykhs and students, if the issue has reached their land, or is affecting Ahl al-Sunnah in general, then they must take a clear position and uphold truth. Not doing so is the actual “fitnah” in this stage, and it is desertion of truth and its people, and leads to more evils and confusion.

08  Is it “fitnah” and “splitting and division” to convey the speech of the criticising scholars and shaykhs after the truth has become clear?
No. Whoever said after Ibn Hādī’s rejection of advice and his breaking the silence lecture in December 2017, and the couple of months following that when clear positions began to be taken, such as the one by the Salafīs of the UK in March 2018, that “this is fitnah”, “let’s keep out of it to protect the daʿwah” and, “no refutations should be translated or spread right now”, especially in a place where the fitnah has already reached and has engulfed its people, then all of this is error and out of place. Rather, the fitnah is in this very speech, because the followers of Ibn Hādī were active in spreading their doubts, and reviling and slandering Salafīs in every place, calling to their extreme way, involving ghluluww and taʿaṣṣub to personality and status over truth.

09  But other scholars do not agree and can we take a middle path?
If someone said that we should go back to Shaykh Muḥammad al-ʿAqīl or Shaykh al-Ruḥaylī and others, who were sympathetic to Ibn Hādī and opposed to the critiquing shaykhs, in order to get a "balanced approach" then this would also be an error. It is a type of evasion and a route to undermining the truth that has already been established with concrete evidences by another group of the people of knowledge. If the truth is established by one scholar or shaykh, let a lone a group, it is obligatory to accept them from him and uphold it.

In the fitnah of the Quṭbiyyah, Surūriyyah a small number of shaykhs took the lead and exposed them, even while the great scholars, Imāms of the era, were alive, were not fully acquainted in the matter and continued to speak well of those criticised, both during and after their reality had been made clear by others. Eventually, when it came to their knowledge, they also spoke against them, because they saw the evidences and accepted them, as is their way. Hence, choosing another set of scholars to avoid upholding the truth that is with the scholars who criticised with evidences, is a form of evasion and desertion.

10  What about maṣāliḥ and mafāsid?
The issue of benefits and harms (maṣāliḥ and mafāsid) have already been considered and applied by the critiquing scholars and shaykhs during the initial phase of private advice and patience, and the phase of writing and criticising. They would not have made their speech and writings regarding Ibn Hādī open had they not already done this. Rather, after the period of patience has expired, they consider it from the beneficial interest to alert Ahl al-Sunnah to the opposition and deviation so that they are not beguiled by it and end up supporting the errant and oppressive, or, remaining silent and concealing the truth.

When speaking about the maṣāliḥ and māfāsid one must not confuse and equate between a) the likes of Shaykh ʿAbd al-Mālik al-Ramaḍānī, Shaykh Falāḥ Ismāʿīl and b) those who make tabdīʿ of Salafīs, have violations in mighty foundations, tear apart Ahl al-Sunnah in every place, belittle shaykhs and students, looking down upon them and so on. This is because the first category had light errors, they inclined towards those who had been spoken against and they may have had doubts and misconceptions, so they were salvageable given the right approach. As for the second category, their harm is tremendous, they have violations in foundations, tear up the daʿwah, sow enmities and divisions, and fiercely attack others by waging war against them, and all of this does not emanate from genuine misconceptions and misinterpretations.^[12] The evidences against them are clear cut, yet they show stubborn rejection and arrogance and revile Ahl al-Sunnah.

Also, in another scenario, if its in relation to a place where the people have no knowledge of the issue at all, then perhaps it is best left and not introduced to those people. However, applying this principle after the truth has been made clear, and the errant and oppressive remains on his path, and the people have been touched and engulfed by his fitnah, then what other maṣāliḥ are there other than to openly uphold the truth while Ibn Hādī's followers spread lies, confusion and doubts, and waging a fierce war against the people of truth and clarity?

Negating the maṣāliḥ and the mafāsid is from the way of the Ḥaddādiyyah who makea tabdīʿ of those known for the Sunnah and who may fall into what are genuine errors and slips, and not indicative of a way or methodology, and they do not consider the outcomes of their aggressive approach. This was the way followed by Fāliḥ al-Ḥarbī, Fawzī al-Baḥrainī and their likes. They wage an unnecessary, hasty war against those who do not deserve it, whose harm is limited and restricted in scope, and who are salvageable.

And affirming the maṣāliḥ and the mafāsid while applying them out of place, is from the way of Ibrāhīm al-Ruḥaylī, where the scales get turned upside down and the oppressed is considered the oppressor and vice versa, and so many restrictions are placed on disseminating criticisms and refutations of individuals with confirmed errors and violations, that they are effectively rendered null and void, of no effect and without purpose, despite the fact that the ones refuted have calamities, oppositions to foundations, have caused tremendous harm to the daʿwah, to the religion and its foundations, and to the servant and the land, and are stubborn and arrogant. So here the scales are overturned, and you see the strangest of affairs in behaviours and loyalties.

And in between there is consideration of the maṣāliḥ and the mafāsid wherein truth is not undermined and sacrificed, details of errors are not ignored or concealed, rather explained and made known (after the period of patience is over), and truthful, accurate speech is maintained with precedence from scholars and shaykhs in their writings, but tabdīʿ is refrained from, and the criticised are not lied upon and imputed with things that are false.

And that is the uniform, consistent way we have been upon from the first fitnah of the Quṭbiyyah Surūriyyah to the last fitnah of Muḥammad bin Hādī.

11  Is striving to halt the errant and the oppressor to curb and prevent his evil “revenge”?
This is one of the accusations used by the followers of Ibn Hādī and his likes to undermine what is pursued by Ahl al-Sunnah of striving to put an end to evil and oppression so that it does not widen and engulf more and more people and continue unchecked, creating more divisions and weakening the daʿwah, until the situation is irreparable. These types of accusations surface in these types of tribulations and come from different categories of people. However what is in the hearts is known only to Allāh.

Ibn Hādī reviled, slandered and oppressed many people, and these people saw this not merely as something personal, but a violation of the way of Ahl al-Sunnah. Their seeking of truth and justice was not for personal revenge, but to prevent the normalisation and acceptance of this behaviour. And if some were exacting revenge for oppression, then according to the principles of the Sharīʿah, they are allowed to, as long as they do not inflict the same on the oppressor if it is in relation to that which is unlawful, in this case oppressive tabdīʿ, slander and the likes, in the process of seeking their violated right.

Shaykh ʿAlī al-Waṣīfī (رحمه الله) and Shaykh Ḥasan bin ʿAbd al-Wahhāb al-Bannā (رحمه الله) said, as cited earlier:

This justice must only be to the extent of the oppression and not more, as that would also be oppression. Hence, if someone was accused by Ibn Hādī of opposing scholars and rulers and being an innovator, while Ibn Hādī himself opposes the senior scholars in his rulings and methodology, it is not from oppression to point that out, so long as he is not lied upon, and he is not unjustly declared an innovator, while not deserving it.

Conclusion

Past tribulations are to be learned from, so that mistakes are not made and we have enough from the tribulations of Muḥammad bin Hādī and before him, Ibrāhīm al-Ruḥaylī, to know how to navigate these issues in corroboration of the truth and invalidation of falsehood behind the scholars or shaykhs who have made the affairs clear. Otherwise, we end up in confusion where the correct from the errant, the oppressed from the oppressor can no longer be discerned. Rather, the scales are overturned whereby the truthful are tied up and silenced and the errant are given free reign to do as they wish.

From the things that can be taken from all of the above:

01  Lofty status, scholarship and titles do not make a person exempt from being judged by the Sharīʿah and the way of Ahl al-Sunnah when he departs form right conduct. The law applies to everyone equally.

02  The swift and timely rejection of unwarranted tabdīʿ of Ahl al-Sunnah, and rejection of slander and oppression, by way of legislative obligation, otherwise, if left alone without stern rejection, chaos ensues.

03  The difference between the Wāḍiḥīn (clear ones) and the Sukūtiyyah (silent ones) during fitan, after the reality becomes clear and truth is distinct from error.

04  The truth is not known by men, but men are known by the truth, hence, it is not the scholar who is being followed, but the principles and evidences as demonstrated by any scholar(s) or shaykh(s) being followed therein, in love and veneration of truth and justice and hatred of falsehood and oppression.

05  The methodology does not change from one century to the next, or one decade to the next, or one month to the next, or one week to the next. It is suitable for all times and places. That’s why Shaykh Rabīʿ said that every student must seek the truth with its evidences and not blindly follow anyone. This is not abandoned just because “the times have changed” and “the people are not at the same level any more”.

Finally, one should note that the fitnah of Ibn Hādī did not end with Ibn Hādī, rather, it continued. That’s because Ibn Hādī’s fitnah was more of an internal dispute and struggle between like-minded people with like character’s and traits, which spilled over and harmed Ahl al-Sunnah. The phenomenon of unwarranted tabdīʿ, tearing apart Salafī communities and the daʿwah along with it is very much alive, this time with numerous other grave and serious deviations added to it.