"Madkhalis"- Sheikh Fawzan Weighs in

[Omar del Sur]

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.

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

This is not a thread about Abu Khadeejah. And furthermore, you frame me it as me "taking knowledge from Abu Khadeejah".

I've listened to some of his lectures. I don't live in UK, I don't know those people.

I'm not out to badmouth Abu Khadeejah, it's not my business to badmouth him- I don't know him like that.

We're in agreement on 90% of what you said in your last post.

The only thing I don't agree with is this framing as "Omar del Sur has taken knowledge from Abu Khadeejah".

I guess you could say I've taken knowledge from him in the sense that you could say I've taken knowledge from Fidel Castro and Che Guevara.

I've listened to Che and Fidel and I agree with some of what they said (being against Western imperialism) but I'm not followers of Che or Fidel.

I've read and listened to all sorts of people. I've listened to some of Abu Khadeejah's lectures but I'm not a follower of Abu Khadeejah. I've listened to Nouman Ali Khan and Mufti Menk before. I'm not a follower of Nouman Al Khan or Mufti Menk.

I listen to all kinds of people and if I agree with them on something, I agree, if I disagree I disagree. I don't think anything I've said on here has really been influenced by Abu Khadeejah. I'm not out to badmouth him and I'm not a follower of him. If you want, you could make an Abu Khadeejah thread. I haven't made any Abu Khadeejah thread that I'm aware of.

 

[Removed]

This is not a thread about Abu Khadeejah. And furthermore, you frame me it as me "taking knowledge from Abu Khadeejah".

I've listened to some of his lectures. I don't live in UK, I don't know those people.

I'm not out to badmouth Abu Khadeejah, it's not my business to badmouth him- I don't know him like that.

We're in agreement on 90% of what you said in your last post.

The only thing I don't agree with is this framing as "Omar del Sur has taken knowledge from Abu Khadeejah".

I guess you could say I've taken knowledge from him in the sense that you could say I've taken knowledge from Fidel Castro and Che Guevara.

I've listened to Che and Fidel and I agree with some of what they said (being against Western imperialism) but I'm not followers of Che or Fidel.

I've read and listened to all sorts of people. I've listened to some of Abu Khadeejah's lectures but I'm not a follower of Abu Khadeejah. I've listened to Nouman Ali Khan and Mufti Menk before. I'm not a follower of Nouman Al Khan or Mufti Menk.

I listen to all kinds of people and if I agree with them on something, I agree, if I disagree I disagree. I don't think anything I've said on here has really been influenced by Abu Khadeejah. I'm not out to badmouth him and I'm not a follower of him. If you want, you could make an Abu Khadeejah thread. I haven't made any Abu Khadeejah thread that I'm aware of.

I won’t be making a thread on him but I do have reason to dislike him greatly.

 

[Misil]

Ppl don't like Rabe' because he's a hypocrite. For so long he's been preaching about how it's Haram to do khuruj against a ruler (wrong position btw). But for some reason he thinks it's okay to support Haftar and fight with him in his rebellion against the government. Why this change in stance? Is it because it aligns with Saudi foreign policy?

 

[Omar del Sur]

I won’t be making a thread on him but I do have reason to dislike him greatly.

I've heard various things about him. I'm not super familiar with him. I think people in the UK have actually interacted with his crowd. I was taught about Salafiyyah from a local Yemeni masjid. Our imams are Yemeni immigrants who've probably never heard of Anu Khadeejah. We really love our imams. I'm not saying our imam is the best in the world but to me our imams are the best in the world. I was taught in the local Yemeni masjid and we were taught Salafiyyah. This is why I agree with Salafiyyah but I don't necessarily agree with the SPUBS crowd on everything. I'm not part of the spubs crowd. Our imam doesn't stand on the minbar denouncing Mufti Menk. Our imam probably isn't familiar with Mufti Menk.

 

[Removed]

I've heard various things about him. I'm not super familiar with him. I think people in the UK have actually interacted with his crowd. I was taught about Salafiyyah from a local Yemeni masjid. Our imams are Yemeni immigrants who've probably never heard of Anu Khadeejah. We really love our imams. I'm not saying our imam is the best in the world but to me our imams are the best in the world. I was taught in the local Yemeni masjid and we were taught Salafiyyah. This is why I agree with Salafiyyah but I don't necessarily agree with the SPUBS crowd on everything. I'm not part of the spubs crowd. Our imam doesn't stand on the minbar denouncing Mufti Menk. Our imam probably isn't familiar with Mufti Menk.

Salafiya is very broad people don’t realize even the Salaf disagreed on many things. What sheikh(s) do you take from the most and best align with is a better way of analyzing where people stand.

 

[Omar del Sur]

Salafiya is very broad people don’t realize even the Salaf disagreed on many things. What sheikh(s) do you take from the most and best align with is a better way of analyzing where people stand.

Salafiyyah isn't about an identification. It's a methodology. Nor is it a sect or anything like that. Anyone can say they're a Salafi. It's not about saying or not saying you're a Salafi. It's about following a particular minhaj. A lot of people on here refer to me as a Salafi and I don't think I've ever in my life called myself a Salafi.

As far as identifying where people stand, my question is this- are they a Muslim?

 

[المهندس]

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?

Sheikh ul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah (ra) stated:

قال شيخ الإسلام ابن تيمية رحمه الله تعالى: ‘والإنسان متى حلّل الحرام المجمع عليه أو حرّم الحلال المجمع عليه أو بدّل الشرع المجمع عليه؛ كان كافراً باتّفاق الفقهاء

“Whenever a person makes Halaal what is Haraam by consensus or makes Haraam what is Halaal by consensus or replaces the Shari’ah that is agreed upon by consensus, then he is a Kafir by the agreement of the scholars of Fiqh.”[Majmu al-Fatawa, 3/267]

And al-Imam ibn Hazam (ra) stated:

قال ابن حزم رحمه الله تعالى: ‘من حكم بحكم الإنجيل ممّا لم يأت بالنص عليه وحيٌ في شريعة الإسلام؛ فإنّه كافر مشرك خارج عن الإسلام

“Whoever rules by torah and injil in issues where there is no text from revelation in the Shari’ah of Islam; then he is a Kafir Mushrik outside of Islam. With the consensus of the Fuqaha [scholars of Fiqh].” [Ihkaam al-Ahkaam fi Usuol Al-Ahkaam, 5/153]


Hafith ibn Kathir (ra) says in Al-Bidayyah wa’l Nihayyah Book 13, about Genkis Khan, when he speaks about those who ruled with Al-Yaasiq [the laws of the Tartars]:

قال الحافظ ابن كثير رحمه الله: ‘فمن ترك الشرع المحكم، المنزل على محمد بن عبد الله خاتم الأنبياء وتحاكم إلى غيره من الشرائع المنسوخة كفر فكيف بمن تحاكم إلى الياسق وقدمها عليه؟ من فعل ذلك كفر بإجماع المسلمين

“Whoever does that, he has disbelieved by the Ijmaa of the Muslims.” [al-Bidayyah Wa’l Nihayyah, 13/118-119]


Notice these scholars are stating a consensus on the issue so someone is translating wrong im assuming ? if you are saying its not apostasy to rule by other than what Allah revealed.

 

[Lum]

Sheikh ul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah (ra) stated:

قال شيخ الإسلام ابن تيمية رحمه الله تعالى: ‘والإنسان متى حلّل الحرام المجمع عليه أو حرّم الحلال المجمع عليه أو بدّل الشرع المجمع عليه؛ كان كافراً باتّفاق الفقهاء

“Whenever a person makes Halaal what is Haraam by consensus or makes Haraam what is Halaal by consensus or replaces the Shari’ah that is agreed upon by consensus, then he is a Kafir by the agreement of the scholars of Fiqh.”[Majmu al-Fatawa, 3/267]

And al-Imam ibn Hazam (ra) stated:

قال ابن حزم رحمه الله تعالى: ‘من حكم بحكم الإنجيل ممّا لم يأت بالنص عليه وحيٌ في شريعة الإسلام؛ فإنّه كافر مشرك خارج عن الإسلام

“Whoever rules by torah and injil in issues where there is no text from revelation in the Shari’ah of Islam; then he is a Kafir Mushrik outside of Islam. With the consensus of the Fuqaha [scholars of Fiqh].” [Ihkaam al-Ahkaam fi Usuol Al-Ahkaam, 5/153]


Hafith ibn Kathir (ra) says in Al-Bidayyah wa’l Nihayyah Book 13, about Genkis Khan, when he speaks about those who ruled with Al-Yaasiq [the laws of the Tartars]:

قال الحافظ ابن كثير رحمه الله: ‘فمن ترك الشرع المحكم، المنزل على محمد بن عبد الله خاتم الأنبياء وتحاكم إلى غيره من الشرائع المنسوخة كفر فكيف بمن تحاكم إلى الياسق وقدمها عليه؟ من فعل ذلك كفر بإجماع المسلمين

“Whoever does that, he has disbelieved by the Ijmaa of the Muslims.” [al-Bidayyah Wa’l Nihayyah, 13/118-119]


Notice these scholars are stating a consensus on the issue so someone is translating wrong im assuming ? if you are saying its not apostasy to rule by other than what Allah revealed.

Any examples on what a ruler has allowed? Allowed and halal are not the same.

 

[المهندس]

Any examples on what a ruler has allowed? Allowed and halal are not the same.

I already gave you countless articles in other threads tagging your name but ironically like a typical madkhali you ignored it.

 

[Lum]

I already gave you countless articles in other threads tagging your name but ironically like a typical madkhali you ignored it.

With all due respect saying something is allowed or halal is different. You can’t use ayat or what scholars have said and only apply them to rulers. Those sources are not just for rulers, they apply to everyone. And stop with this speech Shaykh Rabee is a great scholar.

 

[المهندس]

With all due respect saying something is allowed or halal is different. You can’t use ayat or what scholars have said and only apply them to rulers. Stop with this speech. Shaykh Rabee a great scholar.

Saying something is allowed or halal is different?

The spelling is different yes but the words pretty much mean the same thing.

A ruler has ALLOWED riba to happen in his country so automatically he made it HALAL by passing the hukum to allow riba to be implemented.

Stop twisting stuff

 

[Lum]

Saying something is allowed or halal is different?

The spelling is different yes but the words pretty much mean the same thing.

A ruler has ALLOWED riba to happen in his country so automatically he made it HALAL by passing the hukum to allow riba to be implemented.

Stop twisting stuff

The ayat and speeches from scholars you wrote down apply to everyone. Not just rulers. Takfir can not be applied if one commits major sins.

 

[المهندس]

No one has provided sources where muslims rulers have made something halal. In addition, The ayat and quotes from scholars you wrote than apply to everyone. Not just rulers. Takfir can not be applies if one commits major sins.

Like i said riba has been made halal and other satanic democratic laws you know this why deny it ?

This is not a kaabair sin this is a kufr akbar sin

Takfir is not a taboo subject

Takfir is part of the deen which separates muslims from disbelievers.

Infact there is a deviant sect which refrains from takfir totally which are called the murjiah and their irja is evident in the group you follow.

The murjiah were warned against for centuries.

This is the problem with you madkhalis you are in denial

 

[Lum]

Like i said riba has been made halal and other satanic democratic laws you know this why deny it ?

This is not a kaabair sin this is a kufr akbar sin

Takfir is not a taboo subject

Takfir is part of the deen which separates muslims from disbelievers.

Infact there is a deviant sect which refrains from takfir totally which are called the murjiah and their irja is evident in the group you follow.

The murjiah were warned against for centuries.

This is the problem with you madkhalis you are in denial

If someone commit major sins can someone apply takfir on that person? Yes or no?
Example;
If someone allows a person to drink alcohol in their house does that make the person a kafir? Yes or no?

 

[المهندس]

If I commit sins can someone apply takfir on me? Yes or no?
Example;
If I allow someone to drink alcohol in my house am I kafir? Yes or no?

This is a totally different concept this on an individual basis a ruler and an ordinary individual are totally different scenarios.

The ruler made it HALAL by LEGISLATING laws which LEGALISED it so he made it HALAL whether its by tongue or action he LEGALISED it.

You allowing someone to drink in your house is just helping them in transgression in sin so how can that be kufr ?

Why you trying to twist stuff ?

The only way you would become a kafir is if you said alcohol is halal you can have it.

 

[Lum]

This is a totally different concept this on an individual basis a ruler and an ordinary individual are totally different scenarios.

The ruler made it HALAL by LEGISLATING laws which LEGALISED it so he made it HALAL whether its by tongue or action he LEGALISED it.

You allowing someone to drink in your house is just helping them in transgression in sin so how can that be kufr ?

Why you trying to twist stuff ?

The only way you would become a kafir is if you said alcohol is halal you can have it.

Those speeches and ayat you quoted do not specify rulers. That ayat says everyone. The Sahaba said it's kufr duna(meaning major sin).

 

[المهندس]

Those speeches and ayat you quoted do not specify rulers. That ayat include everyone.
Rather The Sahaba said no it's kufr duna(meaning major sin).

Ahh the falsely attributed kufr duna kufr statement to Ibn Abbas RA.


What has reached us from Ibn Abbas from his saying “Kufr Duna Kufr” is not reliable. It is narrated in Al-Haakim in his Mustadraaq (Vol. 2/313) by the way of Hisham Ibn Hujaayr on the authority of Tawoos who heard it from Ibn Abbas. However, Hisham is declared Da’eef by Yahya Ibn Ma’een and Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal.


So these modern satanic rulers are special beings who are not humans and nothing is applicable to them but the rest of us yeah everything is applicable ?

Abd bin Humayd collected from ‘Ali, radiAllaahu ta’ala ‘anh, that he was asked about as-suht (ill-gotten wealth), he said: “It is bribery”, so he was asked, “In rulership”, he replied: “That is the very kufr” (thaak al-kufr)”. And al-Bayhaqi collected from Ibn Mas’ood similar to this statement”.


Qaasimi said regarding its tafseer, as has been mentioned in al-Lubaab, that Ibn Mas’ood, al-Hasan and an-Nakh’iee said: “These ayaat are general regarding the Jews, and regarding this ummah, so whoever takes bribes, and replaces the judgement of Allaah, so he ruled by other than what Allaah has revealed, then he has disbelieved, and oppressed and become evil, and to it went as-Suddi [And this statement of as-Suddi, was recalled by Ibn Katheer, and Ibn Madow



See, Tafseer Rooh al-Ma’ani, for al-Aloosee, volume 3, part 6, page 140]



Get out of here with your irja

 

[Omar del Sur]

Sheikh ul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah (ra) stated:

قال شيخ الإسلام ابن تيمية رحمه الله تعالى: ‘والإنسان متى حلّل الحرام المجمع عليه أو حرّم الحلال المجمع عليه أو بدّل الشرع المجمع عليه؛ كان كافراً باتّفاق الفقهاء

“Whenever a person makes Halaal what is Haraam by consensus or makes Haraam what is Halaal by consensus or replaces the Shari’ah that is agreed upon by consensus, then he is a Kafir by the agreement of the scholars of Fiqh.”[Majmu al-Fatawa, 3/267]

And al-Imam ibn Hazam (ra) stated:

قال ابن حزم رحمه الله تعالى: ‘من حكم بحكم الإنجيل ممّا لم يأت بالنص عليه وحيٌ في شريعة الإسلام؛ فإنّه كافر مشرك خارج عن الإسلام

“Whoever rules by torah and injil in issues where there is no text from revelation in the Shari’ah of Islam; then he is a Kafir Mushrik outside of Islam. With the consensus of the Fuqaha [scholars of Fiqh].” [Ihkaam al-Ahkaam fi Usuol Al-Ahkaam, 5/153]


Hafith ibn Kathir (ra) says in Al-Bidayyah wa’l Nihayyah Book 13, about Genkis Khan, when he speaks about those who ruled with Al-Yaasiq [the laws of the Tartars]:

قال الحافظ ابن كثير رحمه الله: ‘فمن ترك الشرع المحكم، المنزل على محمد بن عبد الله خاتم الأنبياء وتحاكم إلى غيره من الشرائع المنسوخة كفر فكيف بمن تحاكم إلى الياسق وقدمها عليه؟ من فعل ذلك كفر بإجماع المسلمين

“Whoever does that, he has disbelieved by the Ijmaa of the Muslims.” [al-Bidayyah Wa’l Nihayyah, 13/118-119]


Notice these scholars are stating a consensus on the issue so someone is translating wrong im assuming ? if you are saying its not apostasy to rule by other than what Allah revealed.

Yes, it is not necessarily major kufr to rule by other than what Allah has revealed.

Sheikh ul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah (ra) stated:

قال شيخ الإسلام ابن تيمية رحمه الله تعالى: ‘والإنسان متى حلّل الحرام المجمع عليه أو حرّم الحلال المجمع عليه أو بدّل الشرع المجمع عليه؛ كان كافراً باتّفاق الفقهاء

“Whenever a person makes Halaal what is Haraam by consensus or makes Haraam what is Halaal by consensus or replaces the Shari’ah that is agreed upon by consensus, then he is a Kafir by the agreement of the scholars of Fiqh.”[Majmu al-Fatawa, 3/267]

And al-Imam ibn Hazam (ra) stated:

قال ابن حزم رحمه الله تعالى: ‘من حكم بحكم الإنجيل ممّا لم يأت بالنص عليه وحيٌ في شريعة الإسلام؛ فإنّه كافر مشرك خارج عن الإسلام

“Whoever rules by torah and injil in issues where there is no text from revelation in the Shari’ah of Islam; then he is a Kafir Mushrik outside of Islam. With the consensus of the Fuqaha [scholars of Fiqh].” [Ihkaam al-Ahkaam fi Usuol Al-Ahkaam, 5/153]


Hafith ibn Kathir (ra) says in Al-Bidayyah wa’l Nihayyah Book 13, about Genkis Khan, when he speaks about those who ruled with Al-Yaasiq [the laws of the Tartars]:

قال الحافظ ابن كثير رحمه الله: ‘فمن ترك الشرع المحكم، المنزل على محمد بن عبد الله خاتم الأنبياء وتحاكم إلى غيره من الشرائع المنسوخة كفر فكيف بمن تحاكم إلى الياسق وقدمها عليه؟ من فعل ذلك كفر بإجماع المسلمين

“Whoever does that, he has disbelieved by the Ijmaa of the Muslims.” [al-Bidayyah Wa’l Nihayyah, 13/118-119]


Notice these scholars are stating a consensus on the issue so someone is translating wrong im assuming ? if you are saying its not apostasy to rule by other than what Allah revealed.

It is not that the translation is wrong. It is that there is more to the story.

I mean, for example, Quran says Allah will not forgive shirk. So couldn't someone claim that anyone who has ever committed shirk- that they cannot be forgiven?

But the Quran has to be considered in its totality. We can't just say "Quran says Allah will never forgive shirk" and that the one who has committed shirk will never be forgiven.

What's being done with the scholars is similar.

The Quran says Allah does not forgive shirk. The incorrect approach is to take that, close the Quran and start saying Allah will not ever forgive someone who commits shirk. The correct approach is to do more study- and then one learns that the correct position is that even shirk can be forgiven.

What if someone cited "slay the idolators wherever you find them"? Certainly, that is from what the translation of the meaning says- but a learned Muslim will understand that there is a larger context.

So these statements from the scholars about not ruling by what Allah had revealed- to take them in isolation and make takfir on any ruler who doesn't apply the sharia (or in today's world- every ruler on earth) is incorrect. The right approach is to understand things correctly.

There are situations where not ruling by what Allah has revealed constitutes apostasy. There are other situations where it doesn't constitute apostasy.

It depends on the situation.

 

[GeeljirePoet]

Rabi Al Madkhali is my shaykh and one the learned shaykhs of Alhu Sunnah .I followed Salafi websites for several years and I observed them being among the best in deen.

I also observed that many of Shaykh Rabee's students and admirers being too swift and extreme in disparaging fellow muslims even in the slightest of matters .The Shaykh is Allama but some of his fanbase in UK engage in divisive and sectarian way of Islam.