The text below is reproduced from Abu Iyaad’s article, How the Scholars Dealt With The Fitnah of Ibn Hādī and the Muṣaʿfiqah (opens in a new tab).
Shaykh Ḥasan bin ʿAbd al-Wahhāb al-Bannā (رحمه الله) did not originally take a position, and some of those loyal to Ibn Hādī told him lies about the situation and about some of the Salafī shaykhs in Egypt who had taken a correct position in the fitnah early on, from them, Shaykh Bilāl al-Sālimī, as a result of which he made some speech about Shaykh Bilāl. However, afterwards, when the truth became apparent in detail, the Shaykh took back that speech and, along with Shaykh ʿAlī al-Waṣīfī, said that making their stance known was binding so that they are not from those who remained silent or concealed the truth in this matter.
Because the clear position of these two shaykhs came later, they were in a position to provide a broader overview of the matter, and this is what we see in their statement, which was also translated shortly after it was released, and parts of which are cited below.
Shaykh ʿAlī al-Waṣīfī (رحمه الله) and Shaykh Ḥasan bin ʿAbd al-Wahhāb al-Bannā (رحمه الله) said:[10]
There is no doubt that a person posssessing a right [that has been violated] has a place to speak [about it], and it is obligatory upon the oppressed to extract justice from his oppressor, the Messenger (صلى الله عليه وسلم) said: “Aid you brother, whether the oppressor, or the oppressed”.
Due to the broadcasting of that fitnah and its effects spreading to the countries of the world and many Salafī students of knowledge being affected by it, it was binding upon us to explain our position regarding it, so that we are not from the faction that remained silent or concealed what was obligatory for us to say of the truth, and what was obligatory upon us of aiding its people.
It occurred previously from me—Ḥasan bin ʿAbd al-Wahhāb—that I explained that Muḥammad bin Hādī is in error in this path of his in accusing his Salafi brothers without proof or evidence and that the truth is with Shaykh Rabīʿ, and this was [presented by me] in a general way. We have not observed the path of Ibn Hādī from any of the Imāms of the Salaf in their behaviour towards Ahl al-Sunnah when they err in a matter or depart from the right way in an issue.
And we, at the same time, with the bounty of Allāh the Exalted, are certain that the foundations (employed by) Shaykh Rabīʿ derived from the Book, the Sunnah and the understanding of the Salaf are more greatly rooted in knowledge, actualisation of justice and zeal for the Sharīʿah than you, and is what leads us to aid him and support him in that battle which you (Ibn Hādī) engage in with him and his students. Especially when we see that the basis of your differing with them is not that they took the path of the Jahmiyyah, nor the Ashāʿirah, nor the Muʿtazilah, nor the Rawāfiḍ, nor the Ṣūfiyyah, for they are innocent of all of that, but its basis was personal disputes and past enmities.
If the issue was connected to creed and methodology, then make known to us in detail the thing in which those you call Ṣaʿāfiqah have agreed with doctrines of deviant sects and opposing groups so that we may establish the proof against them, end the doubt and separate from them when they show stubborn refusal and arrogance.
For there is a difference between [the manner] of dealing with the original people of innovations and [dealing with] Ahl al-Sunnah when they err. There have arisen mighty tribulations on account of his actions and great evil which has spread over all parts of the Islamic world.
He filled the hearts [with enmity], split asunder the unity, and entered the youth into blind partisanship at the expense of [the principle] of loyalty and disloyalty (al-walā wal-barāʾ) for the sake of Allāh the Exalted.
The ignorance of many of the beginner students of knowledge of the principles of refuting the opposer became apparent, let alone their utter ignorance of the etiquette of differing and its mannerisms
ʿAllāmah Rabīʿ embarked upon that and read the evidences of Shaykh Muḥammad bin Hādī letter by letter, and reviewed it word by word. He then issued his decisive judgement in that affair: That Shaykh Muḥammad bin Hādī al-Madkhalī does not possess proofs, evidences or [have any justified] reasons that call for the feud [which he initiated] and nor revilement upon Salafis.
It was obligatory upon Shaykh Muḥammad bin Hādī to be satisfied with the judgement of ʿAllāmah Rabīʿ, to cease and then withdraw from kindling this issue among the general-folk from the students of knowledge.
And he [himself] until now has not brought except some extracts of speech which he selectively quoted from audio [lectures] that were given offhand in order to use them as evidence against his disputants.
Indeed, the evidences that are obligatory for people to abide by [in matters of tabdīʿ and taḍlīl] are the ones that are white and pure, like the sun in the midst of the sky, there being no darkness, and nor whiteness tainted with darkness.
And all of your proofs, most of them are of this type (murky, unclear), and this is sufficient (on its own) to explain their weakness, and they are in reality, weak…
And you have striven to contact and speak to all the centres of knowledge [in various lands] that follow Shaykh Rabīʿ and [associate] with his way in order to stir up disputes and to kindle battles between a people who have no knowledge of those issues and which do not concern them, until you split them and entered them into partisanship. You roused them [by filling] their hearts with enmity and hatred towards their brothers... Do you have from among the scholars, [one who is] a precedent for what you have done?
This is what Ibn Hādī did, he began to arrange lectures in various countries, drawing people into his fitnah, canvassing for support and enlisting helpers and supports who would become soldiers for his cause, willing to split and destroy their own communities, out of blind fanaticism towards him and defence of him, invoking his status as the driving factor.
Footnotes
- In their article dated 18 Dhū al-Ḥijjah 1439 (29 August 2018) ↩