"Madkhalis"- Sheikh Fawzan Weighs in

[ibn Yahya Al-Sooli]

The Zionist-controlled United States military and intelligence? Why would I take their word for it on Islam? Look, if you're going to show me- from actual words of Madkhali- you're definitely welcome to show me.

I’ll show you from both and how they coincide you jahil. I’m gunna give you facts if you don’t accept that then I don’t know what you will

 

[Omar del Sur]

I’ll show you from both and how they coincide you jahil. I’m gunna give you facts if you don’t accept that then I don’t know what you will

It's a bit premature to call me an ignorant. I can't be blamed for not having accepted theoretical facts that have yet to be shown. I'm happy to see what facts there are but in the meantime I have yet to see them.

 

[المهندس]

I agree but it creates a possibly false notion that those scholars and there teachings are to blame. I personally stray away from the “madkhali” “wahabbi” labels for that reason.

The scholars I most resonate with in understanding is probably Ibn Hazm, Shawkani, and Albani. I don’t know why but almost everyone who quotes Sh. Rabi al Madkhali is extremely toxic in nature and surrounded in controversy.

Shawkanis work is amazing may allah grant the shaykh jannah

 

[المهندس]

It's a bit premature to call me an ignorant. I can't be blamed for not having accepted theoretical facts that have yet to be shown. I'm happy to see what facts there are but in the meantime I have yet to see them.

Akhi you quoted islamqa the very people who's ideology you're indirectly defending will scold you for this.

Not everyone is fluent in the arabic language so his works were translated and refuted by various students of knowledge.

Now if you see all these videos of their refutation you would see how well mannered the opposition of the madkhalis are but they will go onto character assassinate everyone who rejects their interpretation of a certain hadith, is this not arrogant?

Their main belief is khurooj against a ruler is not permissible under any circumstances.

Now we are not saying we want to start a rebel group and topple these "muslim" governments that would be unwise as the masses are uninformed which will bring chaos and destroy lives, so its not wise to go down that route in my opinion.

However changing the rulings of the quran and sunnah in favour of tyranny under the disguise of "salafiyyah" is a big sin this would be called out because this is deviating.

PS: You would have to do your own basic Ijtihaad by gathering statements throughly reading translated fatwas and comparing them to other scholars who hold alternative opinions. The one which falls upon the correct ruling is to be taken but the followers of rabee al madkhali are not just nor are they open to be reformed.

Just watch the countless ex madkhali videos or the various scholars of different opinions coming together and countering their argument.

Its all over youtube and the internet.

 

[Omar del Sur]

Akhi you quoted islamqa the very people who's ideology you're indirectly defending will scold you for this.

Not everyone is fluent in the arabic language so his works were translated and refuted by various students of knowledge.

Now if you see all these videos of their refutation you would see how well mannered the opposition of the madkhalis are but they will go onto character assassinate everyone who rejects their interpretation of a certain hadith, is this not arrogant?

Their main belief is khurooj against a ruler is not permissible under any circumstances.

Now we are not saying we want to start a rebel group and topple these "muslim" governments that would be unwise as the masses are uninformed which will bring chaos and destroy lives, so its not wise to go down that route in my opinion.

However changing the rulings of the quran and sunnah in favour of tyranny under the disguise of "salafiyyah" is a big sin this would be called out because this is deviating.

What ideology? I don't think anything called "Madkhalism" even exists. I think this is something like "Wahhabism" where it's basically a hoax.

If all of the material is in Arabic and we can't read Arabic then we're not qualified to discuss Sheikh Madkhali- we have no business doing so.

What are these works that were translated and refuted?

Look, firstly where are even his words where he explains this alleged ideology?

I will say another thing. I don't think Sheikh Madkhali has ever said it's haraam to rebel against the ruler no matter what. I don't think Madkhali himself believes in this alleged "Madkhali" ideology. I think Sheikh Madkhali is just a Salafi scholar.

I have heard so much about this alleged Madkhali and I have never seen the words of Madkhali where he lays out such an ideology.

I think the standard Salafi view and the view that's been expressed even by Ibn Kathir and the classical scholars is that you shouldn't rebel against the ruler unless he openly commits apostasy.

Honestly, I think this entire narrative that there's a sect called Madkhalism that teaches the ruler must never be rebelled against even if he commits apostasy- I think it is a giant hoax like the narrative that there's a sect called Wahhabism and they make takfir on anyone who doesn't join Wahhabism.

If this thread reaches 100 pages, I don't think anyone is going to show exactly where Sheikh Madkhali says never rebel against the ruler even if he commits apostasy.

I think people are lying about Sheikh Madkhali. If Sheikh Madkhali has really claimed that we must never rebel against the ruler even if he commits apostasy, where is the writing where he lays out this ideology? I think it's a hoax- and if I'm wrong then someone should be able to show the writing where he lays out the alleged ideology. Yet no one shows this ideology and I'm supposed to take this as my source:

I don't think any such thing as "Madkhalism" exists.

 

[المهندس]

What ideology? I don't think anything called "Madkhalism" even exists. I think this is something like "Wahhabism" where it's basically a hoax.

If all of the material is in Arabic and we can't read Arabic then we're not qualified to discuss Sheikh Madkhali- we have no business doing so.

What are these works that were translated and refuted?

Look, firstly where are even his words where he explains this alleged ideology?

I will say another thing. I don't think Sheikh Madkhali has ever said it's haraam to rebel against the ruler no matter what. I don't think Madkhali himself believes in this alleged "Madkhali" ideology. I think Sheikh Madkhali is just a Salafi scholar.

I have heard so much about this alleged Madkhali and I have never seen the words of Madkhali where he lays out such an ideology.

I think the standard Salafi view and the view that's been expressed even by Ibn Kathir and the classical scholars is that you shouldn't rebel against the ruler unless he openly commits apostasy.

Honestly, I think this entire narrative that there's a sect called Madkhalism that teaches the ruler must never be rebelled against even if he commits apostasy- I think it is a giant hoax like the narrative that there's a sect called Wahhabism and they make takfir on anyone who doesn't join Wahhabism.

If this thread reaches 100 pages, I don't think anyone is going to show exactly where Sheikh Madkhali says never rebel against the ruler even if he commits apostasy.

I think people are lying about Sheikh Madkhali. If Sheikh Madkhali has really claimed that we must never rebel against the ruler even if he commits apostasy, where is the writing where he lays out this ideology? I think it's a hoax- and if I'm wrong then someone should be able to show the writing where he lays out the alleged ideology. Yet no one shows this ideology and I'm supposed to take this as my source:

I don't think any such thing as "Madkhalism" exists.

"If all of the material is in Arabic and we can't read Arabic then we're not qualified to discuss Sheikh Madkhali- we have no business doing so."

But the work has been translated, using this logic should we act upon hadith which have been translated for us since we can't read arabic?



"Sheikh Madkhali has really claimed that we must never rebel against the ruler even if he commits apostasy, where is the writing where he lays out this ideology?"

Its deception, he won't admit that he and his followers have hizbiyyah so the original hadith will remain in tact and his commentary will seem like its according to quran and sunnah.

But his actions go against his commentary.

Do you really think the founder of a sect of salafiyyah will openly say obey the ruler even if he is a kafir ?

This will go against the manhaj and render his qualities and status as useless.

Rather actions speak louder than words.

 

[Omar del Sur]

"If all of the material is in Arabic and we can't read Arabic then we're not qualified to discuss Sheikh Madkhali- we have no business doing so."

But the work has been translated, using this logic should we act upon hadith which have been translated for us since we can't read arabic?

I meant if the material hasn't been translated. If we have the material then let's examine the material. Where is the material in question?

I have one of his books and I think he's just a regular Salafi scholar.

 

[المهندس]

I meant if the material hasn't been translated. If we have the material then let's examine the material. Where is the material in question?

I have one of his books and I think he's just a regular Salafi scholar.

SalafiPublications.Com : The Salafi, Creed, Worship and Methodology: Salaf us-Salih

www.spubs.com

The main website which translates alot of his work.

Im not calling the guy a kafir he's a muslim and lot of the stuff such as tawheed and fiqh issues i agree with.

But i won't agree with his bias opinion towards saudi arabia and "muslim" governments and how his sect ( i call it sect because thats what they have become, if you don't agree with them they will throw you off the manhaj) - is this islam ?

If you dig deeply into their beliefs you will realise why are they so obessed with defending governments who cause chaos and tyranny?

Even a simple question like that will result in you being ridiculed and name called.

I believe their actions are the consequences of the name "madkhali" since they show cult like tendencies.

 

[Removed]

Loool, what do you think is causing that?

And no, i'm just against demonizing them when our people were for almost all known history. They have always been good muslims upholding the Sunnah and are not the weird extreme types usually found in South Asia people think of when they hear Sufi.

Most of our grandparents at least have Sufi tendencies even if they dont realize or call themselves it.

I think its spreading because the Somalis who are Sufi are extra religous and are very active in Dawah/Tabligh.

Also I think a huge sufi population lives in Liibaan/Mandheera/Marsabit I have heard its even bigger than Mudugs but considering that area is the most unknown region of Somaliweyn I can’t verify.

Sufis make up a huge part of the good ages of islamic history I just can’t wrap my head around waseela(grave “worshiping”) and why some of them cling to it so much.

Firstly, how do we know those are actually his followers? I don't think anyone actually says about themself "I am a Madkhali".

Secondly, how would we even know they're following Madkhali in a particular opinion rather than some other scholar?

I agree that Madkhali's writings aren't well-known in the English-speaking world but we're not really qualified to critique him if we can't read his writings.

I didn’t critique him so that line won’t work here. If someone constantly refers back to him and names him by name everytime they refer to ahlu sunnah i.e. “Sh rabee and the rest of the scholars of ahlu sunnah” it would be reasonable to assume they claim to be his followers. Whether he accepts them to be properly upon his ideals is a different argument completely.

Are you a fan of Spubs? If so I would warn you to be suspicious of them as another muslim and human being you should be wary of people constantly shrouded in accusations and controversy. These names are derogatory labels in general it doesn’t make sense that you would try and say “show me someone who calls themselves Madkhali” its an exonym not an endonym

 

[Omar del Sur]

I didn’t critique him so that line won’t work here. If someone constantly refers back to him and names him by name everytime they refer to ahlu sunnah i.e. “Sh rabee and the rest of the scholars of ahlu sunnah” it would be reasonable to assume they claim to be his followers. Whether he accepts them to be properly upon his ideals is a different argument completely.

Are you a fan of Spubs? If so I would warn you to be suspicious of them as another muslim and human being you should be wary of people constantly shrouded in accusations and controversy. These names are derogatory labels in general it doesn’t make sense that you would try and say “show me someone who calls themselves Madkhali” its an exonym not an endonym

Well I have a book by Sheikh Uthaymeen with me right now. Sheikh Uthaymeen was a great scholar of ahlus sunnah.

So am I thereby now a follower of a sect called Uthaymeenism?

 

[Omar del Sur]

Are you a fan of Spubs? If so I would warn you to be suspicious of them as another muslim and human being you should be wary of people constantly shrouded in accusations and controversy. These names are derogatory labels in general it doesn’t make sense that you would try and say “show me someone who calls themselves Madkhali” its an exonym not an endonym

I'm not out to talk negatively about Abu Khadeejah. But I'm also not super familiar with him. I think SPUBS has put out some valuable translations.

 

[المهندس]

Well I have a book by Sheikh Uthaymeen with me right now. Sheikh Uthaymeen was a great scholar of ahlus sunnah.

So am I thereby now a follower of a sect called Uthaymeenism?

The difference between uthaymeen and rabee al madkhali was uthaymeen was a just sheikh who didn't criticise and tarnish everyone that disagreed with him.

Nor did uthaymeen have a hidden agenda of twisting hadith.

Also im pretty sure you are aware of saudi imprisoning alot of scholars.

Islam QA owner was imprisoned few years ago.

 

[Omar del Sur]

The difference between uthaymeen and rabee al madkhali was uthaymeen was a just sheikh who didn't criticise and tarnish everyone that disagreed with him.

Nor did uthaymeen have a hidden agenda of twisting hadith.

Also im pretty sure you are aware of saudi imprisoning alot of scholars.

Islam QA owner was imprisoned few years ago.

Imam Ahmed was imprisoned and tortured for refusing to say the Quran is created.

To say the Quran is created is considered to be major kufr.

Yet Imam Ahmed did not make takfir on the ruler. Nor did he call for revolt.

Furthermore, even according to what Ibn Taymiyyah has said, a ruler not ruling by the sharia is not necessarily sufficient to make takfir.

Furthermore, even if the ruler does commit apostasy- whose job is it to overthrow the apostate ruler? It's the job of the one who is able to do it- it's not the job of ordinary people.

I'm not willing to make takfir on the Saudi government, I'm under no obligation to do so and honestly it's not really my concern- I don't have any say in what goes on in Saudi Arabia. Why should I get worked up over things that are outside of my control?

I'm not responsible for what happens in Saudi Arabia. I'm responsible for myself and what I have control over.

I have no business meddling in the politics of Saudi anyways. I don't even know their language.

I need to focus on what I have control over, what I'm responsible for and stick to what I know.

Think of the pious older people you've met.

What do you see with pious older people? Are they focused on politics or are they focused on acts of worship?

What would be the point of them or us focusing on things we have no control over?

We don't need to make takfir on every government on earth and basically declare ourselves at war with the entire planet and overthrow some government to have an Islamic revolution.

I can make an Islamic revolution in my home. If I'm slacking on Sunnah prayers- I can do more Sunnah prayers. I can do more acts if worship. I can spend more time studying the Quran, working on memorizarion.

In the meantime- I don't know the Saudi rulers. I've never met them, I don't know their language, I don't know much about them, as far as I'm concerned, they're Muslims and I'm not looking to backbite them.

This isn't some special rule I have towards Saudi Arabia- I have the same mentality towards the Muslim governments in general. I don't make takfir on Imran Khan and try to meddle in the politics of Pakistan, for example. I don't know Urdu. The politics of Pakistan- I leave it to Pakistanis.

A while back some of these people who make takfir on every government on earth- they tried to get me to make takfir on Ilhan Omar and acted like there was something wrong with me because I didn't want to make takfir on Ilhan Omar. I'm not focused on what Ilhan Omar is up to or what she's doing. If I'm going to make takfir on Ilhan Omar or whoever- it's my own decision and I have to choose it, not because some group of people is insisting I make takfir on such-and-such. If I want to get closer to Allah, I think I should focus in Quran- not focus on making takfir on people.

 

[المهندس]

Imam Ahmed was imprisoned and tortured for refusing to say the Quran is created.

To say the Quran is created is considered to be major kufr.

Yet Imam Ahmed did not make takfir on the ruler. Nor did he call for revolt.

Furthermore, even according to what Ibn Taymiyyah has said, a ruler not ruling by the sharia is not necessarily sufficient to make takfir.

Furthermore, even if the ruler does commit apostasy- whose job is it to overthrow the apostate ruler? It's the job of the one who is able to do it- it's not the job of ordinary people.

I'm not willing to make takfir on the Saudi government, I'm under no obligation to do so and honestly it's not really my concern- I don't have any say in what goes on in Saudi Arabia. Why should I get worked up over things that are outside of my control?

I'm not responsible for what happens in Saudi Arabia. I'm responsible for myself and what I have control over.

I have no business meddling in the politics of Saudi anyways. I don't even know their language.

I need to focus on what I have control over, what I'm responsible for and stick to what I know.

Think of the pious older people you've met.

What do you see with pious older people? Are they focused on politics or are they focused on acts of worship?

What would be the point of them or us focusing on things we have no control over?

We don't need to make takfir on every government on earth and basically declare ourselves at war with the entire planet and overthrow some government to have an Islamic revolution.

I can make an Islamic revolution in my home. If I'm slacking on Sunnah prayers- I can do more Sunnah prayers. I can do more acts if worship. I can spend more time studying the Quran, working on memorizarion.

In the meantime- I don't know the Saudi rulers. I've never met them, I don't know their language, I don't know much about them, as far as I'm concerned, they're Muslims and I'm not looking to backbite them.

This isn't some special rule I have towards Saudi Arabia- I have the same mentality towards the Muslim governments in general. I don't make takfir on Imran Khan and try to meddle in the politics of Pakistan, for example. I don't know Urdu. The politics of Pakistan- I leave it to Pakistanis.

A while back some of these people who make takfir on every government on earth- they tried to get me to make takfir on Ilhan Omar and acted like there was something wrong with me because I didn't want to make takfir on Ilhan Omar. I'm not focused on what Ilhan Omar is up to or what she's doing. If I'm going to make takfir on Ilhan Omar or whoever- it's my own decision and I have to choose it, not because some group of people is insisting I make takfir on such-and-such. If I want to get closer to Allah, I think I should focus in Quran- not focus on making takfir on people.

I understand where you're coming from
you might think that it doesn't concern you but eventually it will because falsehood is being spread.


https://adviceforparadise.com/artic...rule-other-what-allah-revealed/#_Toc497145154 this is a good article which explains this topic of khurooj in detail

These are some translated works from scholars who are on the other end of the saudi "justice system".

 

[Omar del Sur]

I understand where you're coming from
you might think that it doesn't concern you but eventually it will because falsehood is being spread.


https://adviceforparadise.com/artic...rule-other-what-allah-revealed/#_Toc497145154 this is a good article which explains this topic of khurooj in detail

These are some translated works from scholars who are on the other end of the saudi "justice system".

what that website downplays is that the ruler who rules by other than the rule of Allah is not necessarily an apostate.

It quotes Ibn Taymiyyah on ruling by other than the rule of Allah but it doesn't quote where he explains that it doesn't necessarily constitute apostasy.

furthermore, it's not my job to overthrow the Saudi government even if they did commit apostasy.

furthermore, it still hasn't even been demonstrated that anything called Madkhalism even exists.

before, I was seeing claims that "Madkhalis" were openly preaching that the ruler has to be obeyed even if he commits apostasy openly. now it's been switched to "it's a secret doctrine" and Madkhalism supposedly just consists of being pro-Saudi.

This just makes it seem more like what I already think- Sheikh Madkhali is just a regular Salafi scholar. The accusation against him has been watered down to him being pro-Saudi. Okay? So you mean to tell me there is a Saudi Salafi scholar who is pro-Saudi? That's not really remarkable. That's like saying you discovered a fire that was hot.

And so Madkhalism consists of being pro-Saudi.... why is it Madkhalism instead of Fawzanism?

Look, if you accuse someone of adultery- what does Islam say? Produce witnesses.

Has anyone in this thread cited a single word that Madkhali has said? Has anyone at all followed the principle outlined by Sheikh Fawzan in OP?

From what I can tell, the anti-Madkhali movement seems to consist of people who have never read Madkhali and are slandering him purely based on rumors.

I mean... if I want to know about the philosophy of Aristotle, do I ask the person who has read and studied Aristotle or do I ask someone who has never read Aristotle?

 

[Omar del Sur]

@ibn Yahya Al-Sooli

where is that proof you said you were bringing? I am still waiting

 

[Removed]

Well I have a book by Sheikh Uthaymeen with me right now. Sheikh Uthaymeen was a great scholar of ahlus sunnah.

So am I thereby now a follower of a sect called Uthaymeenism?

Thats not the parameters I set for someone being a follower which itself is a fluid label you for example might call someone a Marxist if they constantly quote Marx and constantly rave about him as one of the greatest thinkers ever. Marx might not ever accept him as a student and might detest that person but people will rationalize this group that constantly refers to him as “marxists”. Similiar to how we call christians christians even though they have nothing to do with “Christ”.

I am starting to sense that you are trying to use ambiguity to win you arguments and troll people and I for one am not going to respond to your low effort joke posts except with low effort jokes.

what that website doesn't mention is that the ruler who rules by other than the rule of Allah is not necessarily an apostate.

because he isn’t there is 9 types of ruling 6 of which considered the major apostasy 3 of which are the minor. Ustadh Abdulrahman hassan has a good video on it

 

[Omar del Sur]

because he isn’t there is 9 types of ruling 6 of which considered the major apostasy 3 of which are the minor. Ustadh Abdulrahman hassan has a good video on it

Yes, I know, that's what I was referring to. That's what I was saying- the person that rules by other than the rule of Allah is not necessarily an apostate.

As for people being Madkhalis, there is a religion called Christianity where the people claim they follow Jesus (peace be upon him). So we judge Jesus (peace be upon him) by his alleged followers?

Even Marx- who cares what his followers say. If you want to talk about his philosophy, you have to go to his writings.

It still hasn't even been established there's any such thing as a Madkhali.

I didn't learn about Salafiyyah from Abu Khadeejah. I was taught Salafiyyah by Salafis from Yemen who don't really speak English- way before I'd ever heard of Abu Khadeejah.

But I've listened to some of Khadeejah's lectures and I think Khadeejah mentions Sheikh Fawzan twice as much as Sheikh Madkhali. I think he mentions Sheikh Ibn Baz more than Sheikh Madkhali and I think he probably mentions Sheikh Uthaymeen more often as well. He occasionally mentions Sheikh Madkhali in passing as a good scholar. There's no evidence that's been presented that he's a follower of any movement called Madkhalism. I think Sheikh Madkhali is just a regular Salafi scholar.

 

[Omar del Sur]

Can you imagine turning in a paper on Aristotle to a professor without having ever read Aristotle?

I think I'm the most qualified person in this thread to discuss Sheikh Madkhali.

Does anyone else in this thread actually own one of his books?

Has anyone else in this thread even read any of his books?

 

[Removed]

Yes, I know, that's what I was referring to. That's what I was saying- the person that rules by other than the rule of Allah is not necessarily an apostate.

As for people being Madkhalis, there is a religion called Christianity where the people claim they follow Jesus (peace be upon him). So we judge Jesus (peace be upon him) by his alleged followers?

Even Marx- who cares what his followers say. If you want to talk about his philosophy, you have to go to his writings.

It still hasn't even been established there's any such thing as a Madkhali.

I didn't learn about Salafiyyah from Abu Khadeejah. I was taught Salafiyyah by Salafis from Yemen who don't really speak English- way before I'd ever heard of Abu Khadeejah.

But I've listened to some of Khadeejah's lectures and I think Khadeejah mentions Sheikh Fawzan twice as much as Sheikh Madkhali. I think he mentions Sheikh Ibn Baz more than Sheikh Madkhali and I think he probably mentions Sheikh Uthaymeen more often as well. He occasionally mentions Sheikh Madkhali in passing as a good scholar. There's no evidence that's been presented that he's a follower of any movement called Madkhalism. I think Sheikh Madkhali is just a regular Salafi scholar.

Sh.Rabee is a normal Sh similiar to the ones you have named they have spoke well of him and I believe they are all more or less the same. Abu Khadeeja is toxic and a deviant in my opinion but you have not looked into him properly before taking knowledge from him so I can’t help you with that.

As for calling people Madkhalis its not something I do for the fact that spubs has an actual name and it is far more useful to use there endonym because if you didn’t people would say “but who is that, but do they actually exist”. Beings exist outside of labels these people and there idea of being the chosen few essentially is not something beyond your understanding you know who is being referred to but you would rather pretend like you didn’t. Nobody knows this scholar and he is not the one actually being referred to but I agree its unfair to use his name as the slur.

Can you imagine turning in a paper on Aristotle to a professor without having ever read Aristotle?

I think I'm the most qualified person in this thread to discuss Sheikh Madkhali.

Does anyone else in this thread actually own one of his books?

Has anyone else in this thread even read any of his books?

I have listened through some of his lectures and read some of his writings long ago.