"Madkhalis"- Sheikh Fawzan Weighs in

[Omar del Sur]

According to Sheikh Fawzan: "And you should not listen to the things that are being said about a person from the Scholars. Without returning back to his speech and his writings."

I think this is the right approach. If we were going to discuss Kantianism, Aristotelianism- what is the approach? We go to their writings.

Why then are people attacking Sheikh Madkhali and Sheikh Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab without referring to their writings?

What exactly has Madkhali said that is being objected to? Where is his writing that the anti "Madkhali" crowd is referring to?

I assume they should have some specific thing from his writings that lays out what it is they're objecting to. So where is this particular writing that lays out this alleged ideology that is so hated?

Same with Wahhab too.

Also, please don't post a video. The video at the top of this thread is not necessary. I wrote out the quote from Sheikh Fawzan. People might not have the time for a five, ten minute video so watching it can't be expected. It should be able to be put in writing.

 

[Aurelian]

According to Sheikh Fawzan: "And you should not listen to the things that are being said about a person from the Scholars. Without returning back to his speech and his writings."

I think this is the right approach. If we were going to discuss Kantianism, Aristotelianism- what is the approach? We go to their writings.

Why then are people attacking Sheikh Madkhali and Sheikh Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab without referring to their writings?

What exactly has Madkhali said that is being objected to? Where is his writing that the anti "Madkhali" crowd is referring to?

I assume they should have some specific thing from his writings that lays out what it is they're objecting to. So where is this particular writing that lays out this alleged ideology that is so hated?

Same with Wahhab too.

Also, please don't post a video. The video at the top of this thread is not necessary. I wrote out the quote from Sheikh Fawzan. People might not have the time for a five, ten minute video so watching it can't be expected. It should be able to be put in writing.

Well the Madkhalis or Jamis are well known scholars and their doctrine are teached to side with rulers whether they were right or wrong.
I can't provide their writings since mostly they are in arabic.

 

[Omar del Sur]

Well the Madkhalis or Jamis are well known scholars and their doctrine are teached to side with rulers whether they were right or wrong.
I can't provide their writings since mostly they are in arabic.

Yes, I'm not surprised you can't provide the actual writing. I hear so much about Madkhalis and I never actually see the writing where "Madkhalism" is laid out.

You shouldn't be attacking Madkhali in such a way if you haven't studied his writings.

 

[Aurelian]

Yes, I'm not surprised you can't provide the actual writing. I hear so much about Madkhalis and I never actually see the writing where "Madkhalism" is laid out.

You shouldn't be attacking Madkhali in such a way if you haven't studied his writings.

He had students which they also taught others, with time they became a distincted islamic doctrine. Their fatwas are the teachings of the Rabi' Al-madkhali. their statments are all over the internet. Statments like,
- Rulers have divine right, no one can or should oppose them, even if the rulers do unjustified violence against their subjects.
- Can't criticize the ruler in public
- If the ruler saw that killing 1/3 of its subject will make the 2/3 happy he can do it.
and others

You don't need to read his writing he has videos and students that are making fatwas according to his teachings like
Muhammed Saaid Raslan

and other "Saudi" Madkhalis like
or

 

[Omar del Sur]

No, to critique a scholar you need to study their writings. To do otherwise is a joke.

 

[Omar del Sur]

- If the ruler saw that killing 1/3 of its subject will make the 2/3 happy he can do it.
and others

How do you even know he said this? Can you show he said this or you're just repeating something without having verified it?

If you think it's cool to critique Madkhali without actually studying what he has said and written- I think it would be very questionable to rely on your approach to understanding Islam. That's not exactly a scholarly approach. It's not a serious approach.

 

[Omar del Sur]

@ibn Yahya Al-Sooli

You've basically led this anti-"Madkhakli" thing and you seem to be objecting with those reaction. Which of Madkhali's works have you read and what are your criticisms of his works that you've studied?

 

[Removed]

@ibn Yahya Al-Sooli

You've basically led this anti-"Madkhakli" thing and you seem to be objecting with those reaction. Which of Madkhali's works have you read and what are your criticisms of his works that you've studied?

His writings aren’t well known in the english speaking world but his “followers” are and they are the sole reason he is so deeply hated by so many people.

 

[embarassing]

His writings aren’t well known in the english speaking world but his “followers” are and they are the sole reason he is so deeply hated by so many people.

I dont even think anyone is referring to the actual scholars when they're speaking about them.

They're referring to those who identify themselves as Salafis @Omar del Sur

 

[Lum]

I dont even think anyone is referring to the actual scholars when they're speaking about them.

They're referring to those who identify themselves as Salafis @Omar del Sur

What’s wrong with referering one self as a salafi?

 

[ibn Yahya Al-Sooli]

What’s wrong with referering one self as a salafi?

It creates sectarianism. The original argument was call yourself salafi to distinguish your self from ahlul biddah but now you have people you would disagree with claiming to be salafi so why not just keep it as ibn Abbas (ra) said “ahlu sunnah wal jamaa”

 

[embarassing]

What’s wrong with referering one self as a salafi?

Well firstly, it causes further and unnecessary division.

But thats not what I was talking about, but how many of the people who identify as such are viewed.

 

[Removed]

I dont even think anyone is referring to the actual scholars when they're speaking about them.

They're referring to those who identify themselves as Salafis @Omar del Sur

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.

 

[ibn Yahya Al-Sooli]

What’s wrong with referering one self as a salafi?

@Omar del Sur @embarassing @Removed @Bossanova @Ayubi @Dawo @nomadicblood @Marcus just look at the toxicity it creates
Everyone that agrees with everything our select scholars says is a salafi anyone who disagrees is not and is thrown off “the manhaj” a sick cult may Allah protect us

 

[Marcus]

People really follow people because they have big beards and wear Arab garments

 

[embarassing]

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.

I agree.

I dont use those words either, a lot of Shias and anti-muslim gaals were using it at a point too.

 

[Removed]

I agree.

I dont use those words either, a lot of Shias and anti-muslim gaals were using it at a point too.

Sufis too. Somalis in Nairobi are going sufi at an alarming rate somebody called me wahabi because I refused to do the whole mawliid dress in white thing.

Spoiler

You don't have permission to view the spoiler content. Log in or register now.

 

[Omar del Sur]

His writings aren’t well known in the english speaking world but his “followers” are and they are the sole reason he is so deeply hated by so many people.

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.

 

[embarassing]

Sufis too. Somalis in Nairobi are going sufi at an alarming rate somebody called me wahabi because I refused to do the whole mawliid dress in white thing.

Spoiler

You don't have permission to view the spoiler content. Log in or register now.

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.

 

[Omar del Sur]

@Omar del Sur @embarassing @Removed @Bossanova @Ayubi @Dawo @nomadicblood @Marcus just look at the toxicity it creates
Everyone that agrees with everything our select scholars says is a salafi anyone who disagrees is not and is thrown off “the manhaj” a sick cult may Allah protect us

Is that Madkhali? Who is that? This is a thread about a man named Madkhali. Is that Madkhali?