Madhkhalis of Somalia
- Thread starter Galool
- Start date
Waa wax la yaab.
I used to be on the madkhali way, but after what happened with ikhwani muslimeen and the overthrowing of Morsi with the support of the Saudis...it really just opened my eyes to this brainwashing that is being done to pacify Muslims.
Ikhwaani muslimeen imo were a Muslim movement seeking to establish an Islamic government. In Egypt they went about that by using dacwa and recruiting supporters to become a political force that could take power through peaceful means. They tried to take on the system from within, but then you hear salafis saying they are ahlu bidca and that they should not be making political parties or taking part in Parliament or voting.
So if going through the existing political means is misguided and jihaad to establish an islamic state is terrrorism....then how can a muslim nation turn into reality the establishment of islamic based governments who represent them as Muslim people?
The Saudi madkhali doctrine is one that used 100% to secure the Royal family's seat in power.
In the video you posted subhanallah how are they saying " if the leader does zina on live TV and drinks alcohol that you still have to obey him"
Lool it reminds me of one time I was speaking to a salafi brother I know about Egypt changing...and he was like "yeah things are difficult for brothers who want to study there, and how if you have a beard or pray 5 daily prayers in the same masjid it can lead to you being locked up or getting deported from the country." So I was like Morsi shouldn't have been removed and that he was better than Sisi...wallahi I'm not joking my guy had a fit and said to me "what? Brother you have erred, Sisi no matter what is better than the ahlu bidca ikhwaani muslimeen." I just looked at him and thought if you continue this guy is going to call you a takfiri so I just smiled at him and kept it moving. Caqli madkhaalinta ku jiro ka waran?
Lol shaykh Xassan absolutely hates them and calls them salafi jadiidyo(neo-salafi). He is salafi, but unlike in the West the Salafi movement in Somalia is split into two different branches. Ictisaam which is the madkhali way and believes you have to obey the ruler no matter what they do or rule by, and itixaad which believes in establishing a shariah based state using political force and Jihad. They are both the same and kinda wish for the same goals but they differ in the use of Jihad as a means to achieve their goals.
I agree with many things shaykh Xassan says, but he also has controversial takes. For example, he says the Somali federal government is gaalo because they dont rule by Shariah, those who work with them are gaalo and that if you don't believe they are gaalo then you yourself have become gaal.
I haven't heard him come out in full support of Al shabaab, but he is the only Somali sheikh who has held the same position from the time of the Ethiopian invasion until now and sees Somalia as a country under foreign occupation.
Him and Sheikh Umal are sworn enemies despite both being from the Ogaden tribe lol
No, he hates them and is in the above video saying they are the worst lol.
Waa wax la yaab.
I used to be on the madkhali way, but after what happened with ikhwani muslimeen and the overthrowing of Morsi with the support of the Saudis...it really just opened my eyes to this brainwashing that is being done to pacify Muslims.
Ikhwaani muslimeen imo were a Muslim movement seeking to establish an Islamic government. In Egypt they went about that by using dacwa and recruiting supporters to become a political force that could take power through peaceful means. They tried to take on the system from within, but then you hear salafis saying they are ahlu bidca and that they should not be making political parties or taking part in Parliament or voting.
So if going through the existing political means is misguided and jihaad to establish an islamic state is terrrorism....then how can a muslim nation turn into reality the establishment of islamic based governments who represent them as Muslim people?
The Saudi madkhali doctrine is one that used 100% to secure the Royal family's seat in power.
In the video you posted subhanallah how are they saying " if the leader does zina on live TV and drinks alcohol that you still have to obey him"
Lool it reminds me of one time I was speaking to a salafi brother I know about Egypt changing...and he was like "yeah things are difficult for brothers who want to study there, and how if you have a beard or pray 5 daily prayers in the same masjid it can lead to you being locked up or getting deported from the country." So I was like Morsi shouldn't have been removed and that he was better than Sisi...wallahi I'm not joking my guy had a fit and said to me "what? Brother you have erred, Sisi no matter what is better than the ahlu bidca ikhwaani muslimeen." I just looked at him and thought if you continue this guy is going to call you a takfiri so I just smiled at him and kept it moving. Caqli madkhaalinta ku jiro ka waran?
Ictisaam are not madkhalis, they are different groups. The madkhalis are called jadiidiyo. For example, Sh Umal is known as ictisaam.
The more you understand and study islam the more you know that all these strands are just human interpretation based on what they think islam should be.
Of course you have extremist like ahamdiya which are not muslim. But everything else which I will include majority of shia are no different to sunni.
The both agree on quran what they differ in is bukhari. And there is no compulsion in following bukhari. Infact during the prophets time he forbade people writing hadiths even the early Khalifas forbade the writing of hadiths.
Hadiths is 200 years after the death of prophet Muhammad. Note bukhari according to bukhari heard 600,000 hadiths and only have 6,000 in his book. He rejected 99 percent of all hadiths he heard.
Another note I am not a hadith rejector. Just saying rejecting bukhari does not make you non Muslim.
Of course you have extremist like ahamdiya which are not muslim. But everything else which I will include majority of shia are no different to sunni.
The both agree on quran what they differ in is bukhari. And there is no compulsion in following bukhari. Infact during the prophets time he forbade people writing hadiths even the early Khalifas forbade the writing of hadiths.
Hadiths is 200 years after the death of prophet Muhammad. Note bukhari according to bukhari heard 600,000 hadiths and only have 6,000 in his book. He rejected 99 percent of all hadiths he heard.
Another note I am not a hadith rejector. Just saying rejecting bukhari does not make you non Muslim.
Last edited:
Xasan has always supported Arsenal. One could go as far as saying he is their spiritual guide and mentor outside of Somalia. I am surprised the Kenyan gov has not shut him down or the Somali gov hasn’t pressured them to do so. Remember they got that Takeeye fellow extradited from Somalia.Sheikh Hassan controversially came out of support of the Dacish “caliphate” which is quite ironic as Dacish believe Shabab and Taliban are Gaalo.
All of these groups have the fudeyd which is rampant in Somali culture and a few pass off their worldly ambitions as religiously motivated.
Madkhalis are not that prominent in Somalia though. Ictisam is strong amongst the Harti and wider Darood. I heard they (madakhila) have grown around Burco area? I don’t think they will ever be successful in Somalia due to Somalis nature of fighting against oppression and our long links with anti xabashi expansion revolutionary thought. Some madkhalis came out in support of the MOU with Ethiopia but most people didn’t take them seriously.
@Galool, is there new age Salafiya madkhaliha rising in Somalia? I have seen a few videos of them promoting these pro Saudi Somali sheikhs I have never heard of.
Ictisaam is also prominent in Muqdisho, it is one of their hubs. They are the most widespread in Somalia generally. The Madkhalis are not prominent. I dont know too much about the internal dynamics in Somalia but from what I can see there are just a couple based in Hargeisa and who support the local government there, which is no surprise.
I also doubt they will ever become prominent in Somalia for the reasons you mentioned. madkhalis have been falling out of favour and the current genocide has exposed them to the wider community. If they didnt take hold up until now they never will.
I also did not know that about sh xassan, that is surprising.
In this thumbnail I recognize that two of them are from Hargeisa, one from Gaalkacyo and one from Muqdisho. But the one based in Muqdisho condemned those speaking negatively of Palestinians and their resistance so I am not sure of the details of the dispute with him.
There seems to be a recent surge due to outrage over the comments madkhalis have made against the Palestinians. It is good they are being exposed.
Ogaansho even made a video describing the zionist plot to create a greater israel.
The alchemist
VIP
I need to first state that my true knowledge here is limited. I have not read their literature, just reading about the activities outside and some arguments here and there. The other aspects of the state, I do have more knowledge about. So this is some independent thinking, to make it clear.
I think Madkhalis is a new form of collective thinking (more like a trend) that formed from the investment of secular nation leaders in the Islamic world to show leniency in their operations.
Some Western scholars called it "quietist Salafism" which I think is quite apt. In a very interesting way, Madkhalism can be viewed as a mechanism for secular and nationalizing Muslim-majority countries (ruling power) to cultivate and utilize to suppress the politicization of genuine (and sometimes radical) Islamic collective will that can threaten the status quo of the interest of the secular ruling power or compete for authority.
Weirdly, Madkhalism would be the people who would stand in the way of a change if a group wanted a better Sharia-based country for the sake of the support of the ruler.
I'm not a one-dimensional about this. I reject this unwavering support for a leader, at the same time, I do agree one needs to have stability prioritized often even if the leader is not ideal. Madkhalism is the other extreme of the Khawarijs who want to break down everything that slightly disagrees with their ideology. Madkhalis are the ones who would go as far as to excuse and promote a bad leader who goes too far and undermines Islam. I am oversimplifying things, but I think in general gist of the stereotype, works enough.
The issue I have with Madkhalism is the use of the deen to support the political actions of a ruler that we know are of self-interested basis. A counter-argument to this would be; would you rather they use secular talking points? Which is valid. Because too many people are using only secular feelings in their hate for one Arab country or the other. No. In my case, I am more irritated by how they selectively use Islam to reify justification, even cloak the intentions of a leader beyond evidence or obvious intent, giving extreme charitability where there is obviously none. That to me is too much. One can make the case that a ruler is human, and if he is a Muslim we need to be charitable with them like we would be favorable to the average Muslim whenever they are flawed. The distinguishing feature here is within reasonability.
The other problem with Madkhalism is that we can never measure to what extent it is coerced and not. Usually, there are double functions. One is enthusiastic, the other is coerced and promotion (basically gains provided by the state which we might not be able to distinguish from "enthusiasm"). It is more like, one can gain legitimacy and influence by being employed by the state to channel their interest through an Islamic cloak ("legitimacy"), and on the other hand, one cannot suddenly be too critical, because then one can end up in jail or have their life uprooted completely being blackballed. In this case, Madkhalism is too connected, if not an extension of the ruling elites.
Madkhalism outside the affairs of the state is usually no different than any other Muslims and should get their credit there since they're not extremists in their day-to-day practice, as much as you give other people credit for furthering the sunnah. But they seem to be a loose pseudo-political movement organized mostly by ideology. A specialized order within Salafism that conveniently serves the ruler well.
Another angle to look at it from is Madkahlism's parallel with nationalism. Besides the clear differences, we have one notably weird one where, often nationalism has an ideology that shapes a-priori, while Madkhalism is defined by the status quo to then justify that. The state already has an Islamic element informed by the scholarships and the traditions cultivated throughout the generations that lends much coherence of not making the countries non-secular. So the Madkhalis are likely not the main body of Islamic adherence in those countries, they are merely a specialized one, given the influence to shift public discourse. And the general non-Madkhali scholarship and tradition usually are apolitical but still fill the daily citizen with character. That is why you find plenty of pious people of pure hearts in the peninsula who are very religious despite their love for the rulers. This notion that all the Arabs there are monsters is simply not true. You might find the best people deep in some Arabian mountain valley.
I think Madkhalis is a new form of collective thinking (more like a trend) that formed from the investment of secular nation leaders in the Islamic world to show leniency in their operations.
Some Western scholars called it "quietist Salafism" which I think is quite apt. In a very interesting way, Madkhalism can be viewed as a mechanism for secular and nationalizing Muslim-majority countries (ruling power) to cultivate and utilize to suppress the politicization of genuine (and sometimes radical) Islamic collective will that can threaten the status quo of the interest of the secular ruling power or compete for authority.
Weirdly, Madkhalism would be the people who would stand in the way of a change if a group wanted a better Sharia-based country for the sake of the support of the ruler.
I'm not a one-dimensional about this. I reject this unwavering support for a leader, at the same time, I do agree one needs to have stability prioritized often even if the leader is not ideal. Madkhalism is the other extreme of the Khawarijs who want to break down everything that slightly disagrees with their ideology. Madkhalis are the ones who would go as far as to excuse and promote a bad leader who goes too far and undermines Islam. I am oversimplifying things, but I think in general gist of the stereotype, works enough.
The issue I have with Madkhalism is the use of the deen to support the political actions of a ruler that we know are of self-interested basis. A counter-argument to this would be; would you rather they use secular talking points? Which is valid. Because too many people are using only secular feelings in their hate for one Arab country or the other. No. In my case, I am more irritated by how they selectively use Islam to reify justification, even cloak the intentions of a leader beyond evidence or obvious intent, giving extreme charitability where there is obviously none. That to me is too much. One can make the case that a ruler is human, and if he is a Muslim we need to be charitable with them like we would be favorable to the average Muslim whenever they are flawed. The distinguishing feature here is within reasonability.
The other problem with Madkhalism is that we can never measure to what extent it is coerced and not. Usually, there are double functions. One is enthusiastic, the other is coerced and promotion (basically gains provided by the state which we might not be able to distinguish from "enthusiasm"). It is more like, one can gain legitimacy and influence by being employed by the state to channel their interest through an Islamic cloak ("legitimacy"), and on the other hand, one cannot suddenly be too critical, because then one can end up in jail or have their life uprooted completely being blackballed. In this case, Madkhalism is too connected, if not an extension of the ruling elites.
Madkhalism outside the affairs of the state is usually no different than any other Muslims and should get their credit there since they're not extremists in their day-to-day practice, as much as you give other people credit for furthering the sunnah. But they seem to be a loose pseudo-political movement organized mostly by ideology. A specialized order within Salafism that conveniently serves the ruler well.
Another angle to look at it from is Madkahlism's parallel with nationalism. Besides the clear differences, we have one notably weird one where, often nationalism has an ideology that shapes a-priori, while Madkhalism is defined by the status quo to then justify that. The state already has an Islamic element informed by the scholarships and the traditions cultivated throughout the generations that lends much coherence of not making the countries non-secular. So the Madkhalis are likely not the main body of Islamic adherence in those countries, they are merely a specialized one, given the influence to shift public discourse. And the general non-Madkhali scholarship and tradition usually are apolitical but still fill the daily citizen with character. That is why you find plenty of pious people of pure hearts in the peninsula who are very religious despite their love for the rulers. This notion that all the Arabs there are monsters is simply not true. You might find the best people deep in some Arabian mountain valley.
Dooyo
Inaba Caadi Maaha
The Madkhali doctrine of blindly following and obeying Muslim leaders, good or bad, has never made sense to me.
Humans are not infallible, leaders can make mistakes, switch alliances and be misguided. Why should the people follow every command and stay subdued like blind sheep?
Humans are not infallible, leaders can make mistakes, switch alliances and be misguided. Why should the people follow every command and stay subdued like blind sheep?
