Estimated Reading Time: ?
Disclaimer: This is an ongoing series that is in the process of being translated...
We will today talk about one man who has changed many things. Some of these changes have led to good outcomes for Muslims, but they are much fewer than those that have led to negative outcomes. The mistakes were major and egregious, significantly influencing the people you would expect much from: those who call themselves "Salafis." Many have chosen to ascribe to the term "Salafi," and there is nothing wrong with it in and of itself, as it denotes that one is following as-Salaf as-Saalih, the righteous predecessors, otherwise known as the Sahaabah, Taabi'een, and Atbaa' at-Taabi'een. However, calling oneself "Salafi" is not obligatory. The name that has been used from the earliest times until today is Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah, and this is what one should adhere to. Therefore, one should question whether those who call themselves "Salafi" are truly Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah or not.
The man we will talk about had the biggest influence on those who called themselves "Salafis." This man's name is Rabee' ibn Haadee al-Madkhali. The group is otherwise known as Madaakhilah or Madkhaliyyah by those who oppose them.
The man we will talk about had some rules he adhered to, which he believed were essential for improving the condition of Muslims and bringing them back to the Sunnah. Unfortunately, most of those who opposed Madkhali and responded to what they considered his errors did so ineffectively. With possible exceptions that I may not have come across, most of those who refuted him did not do so clearly enough for others to see the issues. In some instances where Madkhali made mistakes, his opponents responded with their own mistakes. In other cases, they opposed Madkhali even when he was correct. In points where their critiques were valid, their refutations were often so weak that they did not realize the danger of their arguments. Insha'Allah, we will try our best to avoid the small mistakes made by others.
Madkhali made a statement in one of his books, suggesting that no one had ever pointed out mistakes in his rules. We will discuss his rules, which aim to bring Muslims back to the Sunnah and the straight path and oppose those he considers as having altered the Deen and the Sunnah, generally referring to innovators (المبتدعة). In some cases, he was correct in declaring individuals as innovators; in others, he was mistaken. Even when he correctly identified innovators, he did not treat them according to the Sunnah, contrary to his claims. Additionally, he has influenced his followers or those who hold him in high regard to focus almost exclusively on those he considers Mubtadi'ah (innovators), neglecting other important aspects.
We will first bring up the rules that were major mistakes and have dominated his line of thought and those who follow him. Insha'Allah, we will see how problematic these mistakes are. Later, we will discuss his knowledge and whether he is a scholar ('aalim) despite making all those mistakes, or if he is someone whom no one has the right to call an 'aalim, despite some considering him as such.
|
The first rule is about the importance of manhaj in relation to 'aqeedah. There are two points here: manhaj and 'aqeedah. Most of you might already know the meaning of 'aqeedah, but what does he mean by the term manhaj? By manhaj, he refers to what in Arabic is called "المناهج الدعوية", which is, in short, a methodology of how one calls Muslims back to the straight path. Consider what he said about manhaj. He once said, "Khawaarij are Salafi in 'aqeedah."! (Source) (شريط: مخيم الكويت الجلسة الخامسة)
Ponder over this for a moment. The Khawaarij are those who went against the Sahaabah, waged war against them, and considered 'Ali, 'Uthmaan, Mu'aawiyah, and the rest of the Sahaabah after the time of Abu Bakr and 'Umar as kuffaar (disbelievers). These were the people whom 'Ali fought against. Yet, Madkhali considers the Khawaarij to be Salafi in 'aqeedah. Why? He asserted that they didn't engage in shirk (associating partners with Allah) in worship nor did they deny or distort the Lofty Attributes of Allah like the Jahmiyyah, Mu'tazilah, and Ashaa'irah had done. That's why he asserts that they are Salafi in 'aqeedah. He then followed up with what the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said about them, such as that they are the dogs of Hell, that they will fight the Muslims and leave the idol worshippers, and that if he (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) were to meet them, they would be eliminated as the people of 'Aad were eliminated. (Source)
After pointing out what the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said about them, he then stated that their bida'ah (innovation) was not in 'aqeedah but in manhaj. His assertion and reasoning were that the Khawaarij fought against the Sahaabah due to politics, which is why they were innovators in manhaj and not in 'aqeedah.
Response: First of all, what is it he wants to conclude? Despite not stating it explicitly, anyone can ascertain that he wants to say that as long as the Khawaarij are Mubtadi'ah in manhaj, look at how the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) treated them. He implicitly implies that every group or sect that is Mubtadi'ah in manhaj should be treated similarly. Either he means that they are all like the Khawaarij and ought to be treated accordingly, or he means that bida'ah in manhaj is worse than bida'ah in 'aqeedah. This is how others will understand him, regardless of whether he intended it or not.
If one were to ask, "Why are you saying all groups? Aren't there exceptions?" He would respond that anyone who joins a group for any goal is engaging in bida'ah. This is despite a clear fatwa from shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah stating that being in a hizb and appointing a leader is not bida'ah. Rather, one should consider the purpose of joining the group and whether it is good or not.
... Therefore, whoever takes on the responsibility of a group is called a leader (za’eem); if he undertakes it for good, he is praised for that, and if for evil, he is blamed for that.
As for the "head of the party" (ra’s al-hizb), it refers to the leader of a group that forms a party, i.e., becomes a faction. If they are united upon what Allah and His Messenger have commanded without adding or subtracting, they are believers who have what they deserve and upon whom are duties they must fulfill. But if they have added to or diminished from that, such as showing bias towards those who join their party whether right or wrong and turning away from those who do not join their party whether right or wrong, this is the division that Allah Almighty and His Messenger have condemned. Indeed, Allah and His Messenger have commanded unity and harmony and prohibited division and disagreement. They have commanded cooperation in righteousness and piety and prohibited cooperation in sin and aggression.
(Majmoo' al-Fatawa, volume 11, page 92)
Allah says:
وَلْتَكُن مِّنكُمْ أُمَّةٌۭ يَدْعُونَ إِلَى ٱلْخَيْرِ وَيَأْمُرُونَ بِٱلْمَعْرُوفِ وَيَنْهَوْنَ عَنِ ٱلْمُنكَرِ ۚ وَأُو۟لَـٰٓئِكَ هُمُ ٱلْمُفْلِحُونَ
"And let there be [arising] from you a nation inviting to [all that is] good, enjoining what is right and forbidding what is wrong, and those will be the successful." (Aal 'Imraan 3:104)
What Madkhali says about the Khawaarij, that their bida'ah is in manhaj, goes against the Ijmaa' (consensus). All of the 'ulama' agree that the well-known bida'ah of the Khawaarij throughout history is that they declare Muslims who commit major sins as disbelievers. (Source) (Source) All of the 'ulama' have discussed this matter in 'aqeedah, stating that those who commit major sins are not disbelievers unless the individual considers them as halal.
This is a well-known matter, even a beginner student of knowledge can easily encounter it. He himself could easily know this. So, from this very first rule, it's evident that he is following his whims and desires.
You may not discern this, but the way in which he implies that all "Islamic groups" are innovators, without looking into their foundations, goals, beliefs, or adherence to the Sunnah, is problematic. In other words, he considers forming a group in itself to be bida'ah in manhaj, on the level of the Khawaarij or worse than bida'ah in 'aqeedah. He believes they should be treated in the worst possible manner, similar to how the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) treated the Khawaarij.
That's why those who follow him talk much about manhaj. By Allah, if you were to ask them what manhaj is and whether they could provide specific points, they wouldn't be able to answer. Instead, they would regurgitate what they were taught to say.
Before mentioning what he intends by "منهج الموازنات", let's first consider a question about innovators: what is the ruling on mentioning their good sides? Should one mention both good and bad sides when presenting who they are, or are we not allowed to mention their good sides at all? The answer is that there is a group of 'ulama' who said in general that it's obligatory when warning against the innovators to include their good sides. At the same time, they say only warning against innovations and their people is strange.
Madkhali was perplexed by this and went to the opposite side. He was right when he said it's obligatory to warn against the innovation and its people on an individual basis. There is a hadith indicating this, and shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah mentioned an Ijmaa' on this as well. He was right on this particular matter, though he followed up by saying we aren't allowed to mention their good sides at all in any circumstances. (Source) (Source)
What did the Ahlus-Sunnah say, and what does ibn Taymiyyah clearly stand on across most of his works? Shaykh ibn 'Uthaymeen, shaykh al-Albaani, and other shuyookh have mentioned that there are two circumstances. The first circumstance is when one warns against the innovators. Here, it will not be wise to mention their good sides when warning against them, as the purpose of warning is for people to stay away from them so that they don't fall into their innovations or get good impressions of them. This is the meaning of warning. That's why when 'ulama' warn against the innovators, they don't mention their good sides at all.
The second circumstance is if one talks about the innovator in general, like discussing his biography. In this circumstance, one should include all information, both good and bad sides. This is what the 'ulama' do, similar to how ibn Taymiyyah, adh-Dhahabi, ibnul-Qayyim, and others have done.
Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jama'ah say what is indicated by the Quran, the Sunnah, and the consensus (Ijmaa'), which is that a believer deserves the promise and favor of Allah, and reward for his good deeds, and he deserves punishment for his bad deeds.
A single person may have in him what he is rewarded for, and what he is punished for, what he is praised for, and what he is blamed for, what is loved about him, and what is hated about him; this and that.
(Majmoo' al-Fatawa, volume 11, page 16) (Relevant)
If one were to ask, "Is this not just a small mistake?" Remember, he considers this among the manhaj, which means that those who don't say as he does are now making an innovation. Is it an innovation in the manhaj, similar to the innovation of the Khawaarij, or an innovation worse than in 'aqeedah? If this was his sole mistake, in that one cannot mention the good sides, one could easily overlook this and say that it's a mistake. However, when he makes his mistake the basis of his arguments and considers it among the foundations, this becomes very dangerous.
He does not distinguish between those who mentioned this in a general sense nor could he distinguish between those who talked about it in a biographical sense or in the instance of warning against others. Instead, he considers this as all one type and he couldn't even discern that there are two opinions that contradict his opinion, as he thought there was only one opinion. To confirm his opinion, he brought up some statements he had noted from recordings, though not realizing that those he quoted were right and had a balanced view. They were not those who mistakenly thought that we should always mention all the good sides in all circumstances nor was it according to his opinion where one should never mention the good sides in any circumstances. He couldn't even discern this.
This was otherwise very clear among the five 'ulama'. If one were to ask, "Does this have to do with the foundations of Ahlus-Sunnah?" The answer is yes. One of the foundations of Ahlus-Sunnah is that eemaan is both speech and action, that it increases and decreases, and that it has branches and is not just one level. That's why 'ulama', according to the Qur'an, Sunnah and Ijmaa', say:
A slave [of Allah] may have both [minor] hypocrisy and faith, [minor] disbelief and faith within him. According to these [misguided] people, absolute faith is that which makes its possessor deserving of the promise of Paradise. Groups of people of whims and desires from the Khawaarij, Mu'tazilah, Jahmiyyah, and Murji'ah, both the Karramiyyah and others, say that faith and [minor] hypocrisy cannot coexist in a slave. Among them, there are those who claim consensus on this matter. Abu'l-Hasan mentioned in some of his books that there is consensus on this, and from here they made a mistake and contradicted the Qur'an, the Sunnah, and the sayings of the Companions and the Followers who followed them with excellence, in addition to contradicting clear reason.
The Khawaarij and Mu'tazilah pursued this corrupt principle and said that obedience, which deserves reward, and disobedience, which deserves punishment, cannot coexist in the same person. A person cannot be praised from one aspect and blamed from another, nor can he be loved and prayed for from one aspect and despised and cursed from another. According to them, it is inconceivable that a single person could enter both Paradise and Hell. Rather, they believe that whoever enters one of them will not enter the other. For this reason, they denied that anyone could come out of Hell or that intercession could occur for anyone from the people of Hell.
(Majmoo' al-Fatawa, volume 7, page 353)
Elsewhere, shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah also said that a slave could have both bida'ah and Sunnah. (Source) If that's the case, how should we treat them? We should have full disavowal against the kuffaar, while for righteous Muslims, like the Sahaabah, we should have full loyalty to them. What about the Muslims who have a little of each but are within Islam? How should we treat them? Ahlus-Sunnah say that we should have loyalty towards their good sides and disavowal of their bad sides. This also applies to the innovator and faasiq for their own benefit or that they be boycotted so their bad sides don't affect the Muslims. Despite that, we should still have loyalty towards them as they are still Muslims. However, in the particular instance of boycotting them, it's not wise to show them loyalty. To cite from ibn Taymiyyah's statement:
And if a person has a mix of good and evil, sin and obedience, adherence to the Sunnah and innovation, then they deserve support and reward to the extent of the good they possess, and they deserve hostility and punishment to the extent of the evil they possess. Thus, a person can simultaneously have reasons for being honored and reasons for being humiliated. This is similar to a poor thief whose hand is cut off for stealing, but who is also given enough from the public treasury to meet his needs. This is the principle agreed upon by Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah, which the Khawaarij and Mu'tazilah, and those who agree with them, have opposed. They do not consider people deserving of only reward or only punishment.
According to Madkhali, we aren't allowed to mention their good sides at all and in any circumstances. How will this result? It will result in us treating them almost similarly to the kuffaar.
This point has greatly affected him in the science of hadith, which insha'Allah we will discuss later. Briefly:
'Abdur-Rahman ibn Mahdi and others said: "The people of knowledge write what is for them and what is against them, while the people of whims and desires write only what is for them."
(Source)
That's why he only sees what is bad in others.
There is something called "العام" (general), "الخاص" (specific), "المطلق" (unrestricted), "المقيد" (restricted), "المحكم" (clear), and "المتشابه" (ambiguous) in usool al-fiqh. All these are utilized to understand the Qur'an and Sunnah, especially on matters of fiqh. According to Madkhali, all this should only be applied to the Qur'an and the Sunnah and never to the statements of the 'ulama'. He then considered those who oppose his opinion as having fallen into innovation, as according to him, this rule is from the foundations of Ahlus-Sunnah. It was not even a matter of usool al-fiqh or another topic of discussion in Shari'ah, but rather among the foundations of Ahlus-Sunnah. Those who go against this will be considered innovators!
He claimed that this statement was introduced by those who wanted to deny that Sayyid Qutub (may Allah have mercy upon him) advocated the concept of the unity of existence. (Source) (Source) (Source) (Source) Madkhali's statement is a new opinion that contradicts the consensus mentioned by ibn Taymiyyah in Majmoo' al-Fatawa, volume 31, pages 132-137. Even a basic understanding of the explanations of books on fiqh, books on usool al-fiqh, and books on jurisprudential maxims reveals the fallacy of this statement. How can one trust someone in their understanding of the 'ulama' when this is their condition? This principle is what led him and his followers to criticize people based on the general and ambiguous aspects of their statements and to reject the clarifications provided to explain their intentions.
This point actually shows how low his level is. Why? Because linguistic indications discussed in usool al-fiqh, most of the 'ulama', especially the later ones, when they discuss in the introduction what usool al-fiqh is based on, almost everyone has said that it's based on the Arabic language. For example, taking the general to specific, unrestricted to restricted, and such. And which language do the 'ulama' speak? So, usool al-fiqh is not only specific to the Qur'an and the Sunnah, rather this is something even before Islam in how the Arabs understood their language, and it was something innate in their nature to understand the speech of others. Will this grave misunderstanding lead to something bad? Listen to what ibn Taymiyyah says:
"... Taking the opinions of fuqahaa' from general statements without referring to their explanations and the implications of their principles leads to reprehensible positions."
(Source)
This consequence occurred to Madkhali. His allegation towards Sayyid Qutub on the unity of existence is not only limited to that but is much graver and bigger than that. This false opinion he holds will not only affect him but also his students and followers, impacting areas such as 'aqeedah, fiqh, the science of hadith, and the rest of the sciences of Shari'ah. There is a high risk of misunderstanding whatever he reads. Whenever he comes across a statement, he will understand it as it is without considering the specifics, restrictions, and contexts that could clarify it. This is why his opinions are reprehensible and strange. To quote from shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah:
Therefore, the views that align with the principles of the fuqahaa' should be added to the madhhabs of the fuqahaa'. Whoever attributes disagreement with this view to the madhhab of these imams is mistaken. Even if one speaks as a mujtahid, he must possess the tools of ijtihaad. What is surprising is that some people think that the indication of the concept is a proof in the speech of the Lawgiver but not in the speech of people, similar to Qiyaas. This is contrary to the consensus of the people; people either say that the concept is part of the indications of the words or say that it is not. This distinction is a new innovation.
Then imagine that Madkhali considers this as part of the foundations of Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah, despite it being an innovation! To take into account the linguistic indications discussed in the books of fiqh, especially in cases of divorce, oaths, judgments, etc., where they examine a person's statements—whether unclear, general, or ambiguous—and how they would approach them by referring back to their clear, specific, and clarified meanings. This shows his level of knowledge when it comes to fiqh. These discussions exist in the explanations of 'Umdah al-Fiqh by ibn Qudaamah al-Maqdisi, which is one of the first books the Hanaabilah study, and this topic is discussed there! Either he is greatly ignorant or has great whims and desires.
This matter is well known, and major 'ulama' have discussed this in practice, such as taking general statements to specifics, etc., including ibn Taymiyyah, ibnul-Qayyim, ibn Rajab, 'Abdurrahman as-Sa'di, and many others. I mentioned those names specifically because they are Hanaabilah. Yet, Madkhali is from Saudi Arabia and studies there, where the primary madhhab is Hanbali. This alone shows his level of knowledge or greatly indicates that he is following his whims and desires.
He has this line of thought: implementing the statements of the Salaf as they are in all circumstances. To implement their statements is obligatory, and I'm talking about the Salaf in general, which means Ijmaa', but to implement them in all circumstances? No, it's not the case. Rather, it's the Qur'an and the Sunnah that should be implemented in all circumstances; they apply at all times and in all places. Though the statements of the Salaf—some of them are said in general and ought to be understood in general and used accordingly at any time and in any place—a large portion of their statements were said in specific circumstances. That's why, when they are used, they should be applied in similar circumstances and not in every circumstance.
Let's give some examples, one of the foundations of Ahlus-Sunnah that one should stay away from the Mubtadi'ah, opposing and warning against them. This is one of the foundations which many Sunnis and many Muslims in general do not know about. This is part and parcel of enjoining good and forbidding evil. Yet this foundation also has its exceptions and what is it? It's when Ahlus-Sunnah are the dominant and strong, so in that particular instance, the Mubtadi'ah ought to be treated the same way the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) treated the munaafiqeen when the Sahaabah gained dominance after the conquest of Makkah.
However, if the opposite occurs where Ahlus-Sunnah become weak, either generally or in certain places, and circumstances where bida'ah and ignorance become widespread, the Muslims cannot recognize or know the Sunnah. In those circumstances, Ahlus-Sunnah should treat the Mubtadi'ah similarly to how the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) treated the munaafiqeen before gaining dominance, albeit with conditions. But Madkhali, based on what all the 'ulama' have said and how they treated the Mubtadi'ah in those circumstances, treats them as though Ahlus-Sunnah have dominance, while the reality is the opposite. What is more dominant in this day and age, Sunnah or bida'ah? Knowledge or ignorance? That's why they stay away from people, almost all people. They also took what ibn as-Salaah and ibn Taymiyyah have mentioned, while their statements are true, that the Mubtadi'ah are more dangerous to the Muslims than the kuffaar. Why? Because the Mubtadi'ah attack the hearts, while the kuffaar attack the bodies. Though, does this apply in this day and age? Is it still the same? The answer is no. Kuffaar in this day and age, especially after Louis the Ninth was captured in Egypt, have become more cunning. He studied the Muslims and realized that whenever they are fought against, they become stronger and return to their Deen. That’s why he said the "solution" against the Muslims is to attack their beliefs. Since that time, kuffaar have used various methods to attack the beliefs of Muslims, either through secularism, communism, orientalists, or taking young Muslims to places like France for education. After being indoctrinated, they are sent back to their home countries, or politicians are co-opted and made into leaders, through television and other media, universities, and schools. You will even find Darwin's theory being taught in Muslim schools. Aren't all these attacks against the heart of the Muslims and their beliefs? Kuffaar are not the same as they were before. Before, they attacked the bodies, but now they attack both the bodies and beliefs. That’s why one cannot say that today Mubtadi'ah are worse than the kuffaar as generically as the Salaf has said before. (Relevant)
From all that, we can understand why they don't even take into account what the U.S. does around the world. They don't consider what the Democrats, secularists, or nationalists do against the Muslims in our home countries. Even if they happen to speak on those matters, it is so scarce compared to their talk against the Mubtadi'ah. This is the last Madkhali's rule.
The first three rules he has are clearly explained, but the fourth is something you sense, recognize, see through, and ascertain from his rule, the way he treats others, and the way he uses the evidence of the Salaf. He contradicts what shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah and the Salaf said:
This ostracism varies according to the strength and weakness, and the fewness and abundance, of those who ostracize. The intention behind it is to rebuke and discipline the ostracized and to prevent the general public from falling into similar situations. If the benefit of ostracism is predominant, leading to the weakening and diminishing of evil, it is prescribed. However, if neither the ostracized nor others are deterred by it, and it increases evil while the one who ostracizes is weak, resulting in greater harm than benefit, ostracism is not prescribed. Instead, reconciliation may be more beneficial for some people than ostracism, and ostracism may be more beneficial for others than reconciliation. That is why the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) reconciled with some people and ostracized others. For example, the three who stayed behind were better than most of those whose hearts were reconciled because those individuals were leaders who were obeyed in their tribes, and the [religious] benefit lay in reconciling their hearts. These individuals were believers, and other believers were numerous, so ostracizing them brought honor to the Deen and purified them of their sins. Similarly, it is prescribed to fight the enemy at times, to make peace at times, and to take jizyah at times, all according to the circumstances and interests. The responses of the imams, such as Ahmad and others, in this regard are based on this principle. Therefore, they differentiated between places where innovations were widespread, such as Qadar in Basrah, astrology in Khurasaan, and Tashayyu' in Koofah, and places where this was not the case. They also differentiated between the influential imams and others. When the purpose of the Shari'ah is understood, one follows the most appropriate means to achieve it. When this is understood, legal ostracism is one of the actions commanded by Allah and His Messenger. Obedience must be sincere to Allah and in accordance with His command, thus being both sincere and correct.
(Majmoo' al-Fatawa, volume 28, pages 206-207)
In the issues of Ishaaq ibn Mansoor – and al-Khallaal mentioned it in Kitaab as-Sunnah in the chapter on avoiding those who say the Qur'an is created – Ishaaq reported that he asked Abu 'Abdullah [imam Ahmad]: "What should be done with someone who says the Qur'an is created?" He replied, "Attribute to him every calamity." I asked, "Should he show enmity towards them or be gentle with them?" He said, "The people of Khurasaan cannot cope with them." This answer, along with his statement regarding the Qadariyyah, "If we left the narration from the Qadariyyah, we would abandon most of the people of Basrah," and with how he dealt with them during the trial: repelling with what is best and addressing them with proofs, explains what he said and did regarding their ostracism, forbidding sitting with them and speaking to them, to the extent that in a different era he ostracized certain prominent figures and commanded their ostracism for a kind of Jahmiyyah.
Ostracism is a type of disciplinary action, and punishment is a form of ostracism that involves avoiding evil deeds. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: "The emigrant is the one who avoids evil deeds" and "The one who avoids what Allah has forbidden." This is the emigration of piety.
In the emigration of discipline and jihaad: the emigration of the three who stayed behind, and he commanded the Muslims to ostracize them until they repented. Therefore, ostracism sometimes involves avoiding evil deeds, as the Almighty says:
وَإِذَا رَأَيْتَ الَّذِينَ يَخُوضُونَ فِي آيَاتِنَا فَأَعْرِضْ عَنْهُمْ حَتَّى يَخُوضُوا فِي حَدِيثٍ غَيْرِهِ وَإِمَّا يُنْسِيَنَّكَ الشَّيْطَانُ فَلَا تَقْعُدْ بَعْدَ الذِّكْرَى مَعَ الْقَوْمِ الظَّالِمِينَ وَمَا عَلَى الَّذِينَ يَتَّقُونَ مِنْ حِسَابِهِمْ مِنْ شَيْءٍ وَلَكِنْ ذِكْرَى لَعَلَّهُمْ يَتَّقُونَ
"And when you see those who engage in [offensive] discourse concerning Our verses, then turn away from them until they enter into another conversation. And if Satan should cause you to forget, then do not remain after the reminder with the wrongdoing people. And those who fear Allāh are not held accountable for them [i.e., the disbelievers] at all, but [only for] a reminder - that perhaps they will fear Him." (Al-An'aam 6:68-69)
Thus, Allah made it clear that the righteous are different from the wrongdoers and that those who are commanded to avoid the assemblies of those who engage in offensive discourse concerning Allah's Ayat are the pious.
At other times, it is a type of jihaad and enjoining what is good and forbidding what is evil and establishing the limits. It is a punishment for the aggressor and wrongdoer. The punishment of the wrongdoer and his discipline is conditioned upon the ability to do so. Thus, the ruling of the Shari'ah regarding the two types of ostracism differs between those who are able and those who are not, and between the fewness and abundance, strength and weakness of the wrongdoer and innovator, as the ruling differs in all types of injustice from disbelief, immorality, and disobedience. For everything that Allah has forbidden is injustice, either regarding the rights of Allah alone, the rights of His slaves, or both. What He commanded in terms of avoiding evil deeds and ceasing them, and punitive ostracism and discipline, is only if there is no greater [religious] benefit in doing so. Otherwise, if there is a greater good in the evil deed, it is not an evil deed, and if the punishment has greater harm than the crime, it is not a good deed; rather, it is an evil deed. And if it is equal, it is neither good nor evil. Ostracism may be intended to avoid the evil of innovation, which is injustice, sin, and corruption, or it may be intended to perform the good deed of jihaad and forbidding evil, and punishing the wrongdoers so that they may be deterred and refrain from their wrongdoings. This strengthens the faith and good deeds among the believers. Punishing the wrongdoer prevents others from his injustice and encourages them to do the opposite of his injustice, such as faith, Sunnah, and the like.
If ostracism does not deter anyone or cause anyone to cease, but rather nullifies many good deeds that are commanded, then it is not prescribed. As Ahmad mentioned about the people of Khurasaan at that time: they could not cope with the Jahmiyyah. If they are unable to show enmity towards them, the command to do this good deed falls, and being gentle with them prevents harm to the weak believer and may even win over the strong evildoer. Likewise, when Qadariyyah were numerous in Basrah, if hadith narration from them was abandoned, knowledge, Sunnah, and preserved Aathaar would be lost. If fulfilling the obligations of knowledge, jihaad, and other duties is impossible except through someone with a minor innovation whose harm is less than abandoning the obligation, then achieving the benefit of the obligation with minor harm is better than the opposite.
Thus, the discussion of these issues is detailed. Many of the answers of imam Ahmad and other imams were based on the question of a specific inquirer whose condition the respondent knew, or it was directed to a specific individual whose condition was known, thus being similar to the specific cases issued by the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and their ruling applies only to similar cases. Some have generalized this and used ostracism and rejection beyond what is commanded, neither obligatory nor recommended, and perhaps neglected duties or committed prohibitions as a result. Others completely avoided it and did not ostracize the evil innovations they were commanded to, avoiding them like those who neglect rather than those who desist and disapprove. They did not forbid others from them or punish with ostracism those deserving punishment. Thus, they neglected the enjoining of good and forbidding of evil, either obligatory or recommended, and were between committing wrong or neglecting to forbid it, doing what they were forbidden and leaving what they were commanded.
Allah's Deen is moderate between the extreme and the negligent. Allah knows best.
(Majmoo' al-Fatawa, volume 28, pages 210-213)
Those are the four rules that have affected his line of thought, opinions, and actions against Muslims who are upon the Sunnah or bida'ah. Even if they are against the Mubtadi'ah, we should warn against them with knowledge and justice. Madkhali lacks both knowledge and justice. I will leave out the judgment of the Salaf against what he has said, as insha'Allah we will discuss them later. We need to discuss his other mistakes before it becomes clearer.
We will now discuss other rules he has. Some of them, there is a high probability he considers as a belief, though we cannot say that with certainty, as it's not clear if he said it due to his ignorance. However, we will bring them up to show his level of knowledge. It raises the question if they are just mistakes similar to how some 'ulama' fell into a few mistakes, whether big or minor, or if it's actually a matter of his very low level of knowledge despite being 74 or 75 years of age [relative to the time of recording]. His age has also had a significant effect on those who follow him because, in this day and age, many consider knowledge to be associated with age. Elder people who are 'ulama' are considered 'ulama' no matter what. Younger people may assume some of their peers are 'ulama', but in reality, they are not 'ulama' regardless of their age.
Knowledge has nothing to do with age; sure, age has an influence, but it's not something to measure with. What you measure with is something called in Arabic "الملكة" or "القريحة," which translates to being an expert in something. This expertise is comparable to a goldsmith inspecting false gold; he will immediately recognize it without specialized tools, while an amateur will need tools. To reach an expert level requires one to have great memorization, including the whole Qur'an, if not much of it, and memorization of the Sunnah, if not most of it, along with knowledge of usool al-fiqh, the Arabic language, and other sciences of Shari'ah.
These matters require three things: learning from the 'ulama', studying by reading voluminous books, and dedicating time to them. Obviously, this varies from person to person. Some may be sharp in mind, able to memorize in a short period of time, and blessed by Allah with understanding. For this kind of person, four or five years may be enough, and the more he studies, the better he becomes. Other individuals may require seven to ten years to reach the first level of expertise. The requirement is that one becomes an expert to the extent that knowledge becomes part of his very being.
To give you an example in the Arabic language, those who are experts in the language cannot tolerate someone making a mistake in their speech; they would immediately sense the mistake. On the other hand, a beginner needs to recall two or three rules of grammar to detect it, and even then, only after thinking about them. The first is like an 'aalim, and the other is not, regardless of how many years he has studied or his age.
Unfortunately, the requirements I’ve mentioned are almost forgotten except by a few groups of people. Though alhamdulillah many 'ulama' have mentioned them, in this day and age, many do not. Unfortunately, many 'ulama', even among the major ones, have been easygoing [تساهل] on this matter by calling some as 'ulama', either because they finished their studies at the university and have studied under some shuyookh, or because they are advanced in age, or because they studied under them, they suddenly consider them as 'ulama'.
We are not talking about people we dislike, like Madkhali, nor people we have high regard for, as there have been individuals who were called 'ulama' despite not having enough knowledge to be regarded as 'ulama'. This is unfortunately widespread across the world, and it even happened during the time of ibn Taymiyyah. He said that many began to give fatwas without knowledge and they weren’t 'ulama'. Ibn Taymiyyah also said that whoever teaches is not necessarily considered an 'aalim. For example, one who teaches at the university is not necessarily an 'aalim, even one who conducts halaqah in the masjid is not necessarily an 'aalim. Unfortunately, these misconceptions are very prevalent in this day and age.
We will discuss some matters to discern whether Madkhali is actually an 'aalim or not. Much of what we have already brought up regarding those four rules can easily answer the question. However, we will bring up additional points. While those four points are very apparent in their meaning, the other points are not easy to discern. Due to his lack of knowledge, he couldn't present them adequately.
The first point: Which is in the 'aqeedah, will attempt to use his own rules against him. One time he replied to a question about whether there could be disagreements in the 'aqeedah:
The questioner asked Rabee' al-Madkhali: "Is it true that the Companions disagreed on 'aqeedah?"
He replied: "No, no."
The questioner said: "But they say that the Companions disagreed on whether the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) saw his Rabb during the Mi'raaj?
He asked: "They disagreed on seeing Allah in Jannah?!"
The questioner said: "No."
He replied: "They disagreed on a minor point."
In this specific statement, he is correct.
The questioner said: "Is this not related to 'aqeedah, shaykh?"
He said: "No, we do not say they disagreed on 'aqeedah. We are not allowed to say they disagreed on 'aqeedah. Ibn 'Abbaas says: He saw Him with his heart, and 'Aa'ishah says: He did not see Him. They agree that he did not see Him with his eyes."
He is also correct in the conclusion that, in the end, it appeared as though there is no disagreement among them on this point.
He then said: "As for seeing with the heart: I see Allah with my heart, don't you see Him with your heart?!"
The questioner then said no, as though he was shocked.
Rabee' sounded as though he was confused. He then asked: "Do you believe in Allah and know that Allah is in the heavens?"
The questioner said: "Yes."
He then said: "This is seeing with the heart."
شريط مسجل له بعنوان ( الجلسة الرابعة في المخيم الربيعي ) وجه ( أ )
I believe, based on my own assumption, that if he were to be questioned again on this matter, he would answer differently. However, he was pressured here and couldn't escape it. He faltered and was caught.
On the point where the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) saw Allah with his heart during Mi'raaj, Madkhali attempted to explain that it was with knowledge. In other words, the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) believed in the Beautiful Names and the Lofty Attributes of Allah and that He is above His 'Arsh, meaning that having eemaan here equates to seeing Allah with one's heart.
Consider the following: first of all, as Madkhali mentioned, and before him ibn Taymiyyah and others, that it was with the heart and not with the eyes. When the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) was asked, as narrated in Saheeh Muslim (261), he said Allah was veiled by light, which prevented him from seeing Him. How could the 'ulama' disagree according to Madkhali's explanation whether the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) believed in Allah, such as His Beautiful Names and Lofty Attributes and that He is above His 'Arsh? How then could the Salaf disagree on those matters?
Secondly, ibn 'Abbaas mentioned that it was specific for the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and only happened to him twice (Saheeh Muslim, 258). Did the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) only believe in Allah's Names and Attributes and that He is above His 'Arsh only twice? May Allah protect us from misguidance. Can you see what his explanations could lead to? We are sure that it was not the intention of Madkhali. This shows how flawed his explanations are, and it was not an ordinary mistake but a major one.
If we were to use his rules, for example, him saying that it was not what he intended, we would say, no, there is no abrogating or abrogated, there is no clear or ambiguous, and you said that, and this is from your own rules.
Regarding his statement about whether there could be disagreements in 'aqeedah or not, if one were to answer by saying no, one would be mistaken. If one were to say yes, it would also be a mistake. It's not always in Islam that one can say "yes" or "no." Most of the time, one should provide an explanation; otherwise, one would be gravely mistaken. Here, in these circumstances, it's only the 'ulama' who have this specialty, as ibn Taymiyyah has mentioned. The answer is that, as ibn Taymiyyah and others have mentioned, if we talk about the major foundations, there cannot be any disagreement. Those who say the contrary become Mubtadi' by Ijmaa', as Sufyan ibn 'Uyaynah, the shaykh of ash-Shaafi'ee, has mentioned, as well as Ahmad ibn Hanbal, 'Ali ibn al-Madini, the shaykh of al-Bukhaari, and ibn Zayd al-Qaryawani. However, if we talk about the branches of the Deen, there have been instances where the Salaf disagreed in 'aqeedah. That's why the answer to the question should come with such details. You cannot just say "yes" or "no." This is the first point that shows his level of knowledge.
Second point: When speaking about the Lofty Attributes of Allah, there are some Attributes which are called "صفات الذات" (Attributes of Essence). The 'ulama' of Ahlus-Sunnah have divided the Attributes into two categories through ascertainment. One category includes those Attributes that Allah has always had and that do not depend on His will, such as Face, Hand, Eyes, and other Lofty Attributes, which are called "صفات الذات" (Attributes of Essence). The other category is called "صفات الفعل" (Attributes of Action), which depend on the will of Allah. If He wants to do something, He will do so, and all that is obviously from His Knowledge, Wisdom, and Power. An example of this is His "استواء" (ascension), where He was not "مستوي" (ascended). Also included are what Allah will do in the Hereafter, which is called "صفة المجي" (the Attribute of Coming), and other Attributes.
When 'ulama' speak of the second category, Attributes of Action, they say that Allah had them forever, but sometimes He performs actions and other times He does not, as we mentioned about "استواء" (ascension) and other Attributes, which are again done out of His Knowledge, Wisdom, and Power. One can ascertain that the Attributes of Essence are those that Allah has forever and that do not depend on His will, while the Attributes of Action are those that Allah has forever, though He can do them whenever and however He wants at any time.
What I've said about Attributes of Action applies to all the Attributes of Action. However, when Madkhali was asked about this—whether it applies to all Attributes of Action or only to the Attribute of Kalaam (Speech), or if it doesn't also apply to other Attributes—he said, "No, it only applies to the Attribute of Kalaam." Why? Because he then cited:
فَعَّالٌ لِّمَا يُرِيدُ
"(He is the) Doer of whatsoever He intends (or wills)." (Al-Burooj 85:16)
Have 'ulama' spoken about this? If so, who are they? 'Ulama' have mentioned examples other than the Attribute of Kalaam. One of them is ibn Taymiyyah in Majmoo'ah ar-Rasaa'il wal-Masaa'il. Another is ibn Abi'l-'Izz al-Hanafi in Sharh al-'Aqeedah at-Tahhaawiyyah, a book which Madkhali has most likely studied. Ibn Baaz has also spoken about this in his commentary on al-'Aqeedah al-Waasitiyyah, as well as Khaleel al-Harraas.
After mentioning 'ulama' who have stated contrary views to those of Madkhali, and who have provided other examples, we can see that Madkhali lacks in-depth knowledge. He used the Ayah mentioned above despite it being evidence against him. Shaykh Khaleel al-Harraas has used this Ayah to support the Ahlus-Sunnah belief that it applies to all Attributes of Actions.
The conclusion that Madkhali brought is close to what the Mubtadi'ah have said, because the Mubtadi'ah have reached the same conclusion: that one cannot say that the Attributes of Action were with Allah forever and that He performs them whenever He wants. Yet Madkhali said that this only applies to the Attribute of Kalaam, claiming that there is nothing else to this. This shows he is quite unread when it comes to 'aqeedah. Even if he has studied these topics, he doesn't remember them correctly. Considering that imam ibn Abi'l-'Izz al-Hanafi discussed this matter in his explanation of al-'Aqeedah at-Tahhaawiyyah, one cannot excuse Madkhali unless he was not attentive during the lecture when he studied it.
If one were to ask why he has fallen into this error, the reason can be illustrated by referring to shaykh ibn 'Uthaymeen. In many places in his works and lectures, when he talks about this topic and its principles, the only example he gave was the Attribute of Kalaam. This is because it is a Lofty Attribute where the Mubtadi'ah opposed Ahlus-Sunnah. Therefore, Ahlus-Sunnah emphasize this Lofty Attribute more than others. However, Madkhali mistakenly thought it was confined to this Attribute of Kalaam. Although his premise is not the same as the Mubtadi'ah, the premise and conclusion of the Mubtadi'ah were based upon 'Ilm al-Kalaam.
Third point: This again shows his level of knowledge. At one point, he talked about the Murji'ah. Who are they? The Murji'ah have many branches, some worse than others; however, they all agree that actions are not part of eemaan. In other words, according to the Murji'ah belief, if one were to abandon all deeds, one is still considered a Muslim. Madkhali talked about two well-known Murji'ah groups: the extreme Murji'ah (غلاة المرجئة) and the Murji'ah of the fuqahaa' (مرجئة الفقهاء). Initially, Madkhali said something correct, noting that the 'ulama' of Ahlus-Sunnah consider the extreme Murji'ah (غلاة المرجئة) to be kuffaar, which is a general judgment and not specified against every individual; there might have been some individuals who were disbelievers. He also correctly stated that Ahlus-Sunnah did not declare takfeer against the Murji'ah of the fuqahaa', which is accurate.
However, when he attempted to explain the reasoning why Ahlus-Sunnah did not do so, he said it was because both Ahlus-Sunnah and the Murji'ah of the fuqahaa' agreed on two matters: actions are a condition for eemaan and enforcing the threat against the people who commit major sins. This phrase "انفاذ الوعيد في اهل الكبائر" is one of the well-known five foundations of the Mu'tazilah.
Regarding the first point, that actions are a condition for eemaan: the condition of something can have three meanings. One meaning is a condition such as standing in 'Arafah during hajj, which is correct. Another meaning is a condition for obligation, such as the time of salah. When the 'ulama' and fuqahaa' use the term condition, they only apply it to these two meanings and never a third one. The third meaning, which was introduced and used in this day and age, refers to a condition not for its correctness but for perfection. This third meaning was never used by the Salaf. It can never be a condition for obligation.
If he intended by it that it's a condition for the correctness of eemaan, it would mean that abandoning all deeds makes one a kaafir. If he intended that actions are a condition for the perfection of eemaan, then despite abandoning all deeds, one would still be considered a Muslim. The Murji'ah do not believe that abandoning all deeds makes one a kaafir; all the Murji'ah agree on the second meaning, which is also the opinion of the Ashaa'irah. This is not the position of Ahlus-Sunnah. Al-Ghazaali, az-Zabeedi, and others held these false opinions because they were Ashaa'irah, that is, Mutakallimeen. According to the Qur'an, Sunnah, and Ijmaa', if one abandons all deeds, one becomes a kaafir.
For further reading on this topic: Are actions a part of Eemaan (faith), or are they a condition for the perfection of Eemaan?
If one were to ask, could Madkhali say all this? Despite shaykh ibn Baaz, shaykh Bakr Abu Zayd, shaykh al-Fawzan, Kibaar al-'Ulama', and others having made fatwas three or four times against this false meaning. Those who hold this opinion are going against the Qur'an, Sunnah, and Ijmaa', and it is from the Murji'ah opinion. Did Madkhali fall into this? There is a high probability that he meant this third false opinion, i.e., that actions are a condition for the perfection of eemaan. Why? Who was the person against whom Kibaar al-'Ulama' issued fatwas? It was 'Ali al-Halabi, a person whom Madkhali had defended much even after the fatawa. (Relevant) As we said before, his statement that actions are a condition for eemaan makes it impossible for the Murji'ah of the fuqahaa' to mean that actions are a condition for the correctness of eemaan; rather, they believe that actions are a condition for the perfection of eemaan. Why do I hesitate to say this was what Madkhali meant? Because there is no clear evidence, but there is a high probability that it is his opinion. Why do I say this? Because I believe it was not something Madkhali meant to phrase that way. What he intended to say seems to be what ibn Taymiyyah had said, as the words are very similar. However, due to his weak memory, he could not even discern what he was saying, hence why he uttered this strangeness.
Madkhali seemingly attempted to paraphrase what ibn Taymiyyah had said about the Murji'ah, as they had actually agreed on certain points with Ahlus-Sunnah. However, the way he paraphrased it did not capture the meaning of ibn Taymiyyah, even though the words were close. He was not wise enough in his phrasing. This is why I hesitated, and the reason for the high probability is because when Kibaar al-'Ulama' and the mentioned scholars issued fatwas against the books of 'Ali al-Halabi, 'Ali mentioned in "مجلة الفرقان" (the Islamic magazine called Furqaan) that he presented the book to one of the 'ulama'. He mentioned perhaps four, and one of them was Rabee' ibn Haadee al-Madkhali. Normally, when one acknowledges something in defense, it also means that one is in conformity with what was written, such as the book by 'Ali al-Halabi, where 'Ali believed that actions are a condition for the perfection of eemaan, which is also what the Ash'ariyyah believe. If this is what Madkhali intended when he said that actions are a condition for eemaan, then he is clearly a Murji'. Once again, if we try to use his own rules against him, what will he be? He is Mu'tazili and Mujri' completely according to his own rules, as he says that we cannot take ambiguity back to clarity. These are not our rules but his.
Fourth point: When he talks about the Khawaarij, it also exposes his level of knowledge. He once said that the early Khawaarij, and even those until today, never fell into shirk in worship. Is what he said correct? It is well known that contemporary Khawaarij are not exactly the same as the early ones, and their foundations have not been consistent throughout history. There is indeed a resemblance, but it's not the same, contrary to how the Ash'ariyyah have been. Therefore, the contemporary Khawaarij are the new Khawaarij, except for the 'Ibaadiyyah. At the time of Muhammad ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab, they fell into shirk akbar, and it is written in the works of the scholars of Da'wah an-Najdiyyah. How did he not come across this? I will say that most of the so-called Salafis, unfortunately, don't have much knowledge of the works of 'ulama' Da'wah an-Najdiyyah. Sure, they may know Kitaab at-Tawheed, Thalaathah al-Usool, Kashf ash-Shubuhaat, Nawaaqid al-Islam, and other small books but not the voluminous ones. There is quite extensive evidence for this, where some contemporary major 'ulama' have made judgments that contradicted clear statements found in the works of 'ulama' Da'wah an-Najdiyyah, especially on matters of taaghuut, takfeer, jihaad, and other topics.
Fifth point: Madkhali, on the topic of Khilafah, often seems perplexed by what others have said. Some have exaggerated the importance of Khilafah, claiming it is the most important matter and the primary reason prophets were sent. This is a mistake. Rather, the prophets were sent for Tawheed. Khilafah is a means to practice Tawheed. Madkhali didn't address this with clarity. In his writing, he spoke about Khilafah as a means to practice Islam, but he greatly undermined its significance.
To give you an example, when 'ulama' say a particular salah is naafilah, they mean it has great value, even though it's not on the level of waajib. There's a significant difference between an 'aalim describing a deed as mustahabb and an ordinary Muslim saying, "It's just a mustahabb," as if undermining it. Similarly, when 'ulama' say that Khilafah is a "وسيلة" (means), they are not undermining it. However, the way Madkhali wrote about it placed "وسيلة" below its deserved status.
Madkhali confirmed this with two points. First, he claimed there is Ijmaa' that it's obligatory to establish Khilafah. He is correct, as many have asserted this before. However, he also claimed there is no clear evidence for this, which he correctly asserted. Why is it like that? As 'ulama' have said, there has been disagreement on whether the obligation was based on Shari'ah or intellect (عقل).
Those who mentioned that there had been Ijmaa' that it's waajib, whether based on Shari'ah or intellect, were often from the Mutakallimeen or greatly influenced by 'Ilm al-Kalaam. Madkhali didn't highlight this matter to show its importance but rather to show that Khilafah is not as important as some claim. If those who exaggerated had based their understanding on 'Ilm al-Kalaam, we wouldn't excuse him, because he studied in Saudi Arabia, where the foundations, especially regarding Shari'ah and intellect, are clear. This is also evident in the works of ibn Taymiyyah.
Usool al-fiqh is an important science, and unfortunately, many who are considered to be 'ulama' are often very weak in this science of Shari'ah. They often make egregious mistakes. When Madkhali said there is no clear daleel, this shows his level in usool al-fiqh.
Abu Ishaaq ash-Sheeraazi and ibn Taymiyyah have mentioned that there can never be Ijmaa' on something that doesn't exist in the Qur'an and Sunnah. When there is Ijmaa', it is because it is found in the Qur'an and Sunnah. Sometimes, this evidence may be very clear, but it can also happen that only a few 'ulama' can ascertain its evidence. Who even says that the evidence should always be clear all the time? It can be both clear and unclear, which is why it can happen that 'ulama' rely on Ijmaa' as their only evidence when they cannot find an Ayah for a matter, while others may extrapolate evidence from an Ayah. Is Ijmaa' not enough for you? (Source)
That's the first issue. Secondly, evidence is evidence, whether clear or not. What is this unclear evidence that establishing Khilafah is waajib? It's all the ahaadeeth that talk about the pact (بيعة) being waajibah, therefore establishing Khilafah is waajib. If giving a pact is obligatory, doesn't giving a pact depend on the existence of a Khalifah? This means that establishing a Khalifah and Khilafah is obligatory. 'Ulama' in usool al-fiqh say "ما لا يتم الواجب إلا به فهو واجب," meaning, "What cannot be completed as obligatory except by it, then it is obligatory." However, for Madkhali, this is not a clear evidence, and therefore he does not even consider it as evidence.
Thirdly, for someone who considers himself an imam and an authority on al-Jarh wat-Ta'deel, as well as the foremost Salafi in the whole world, even the one who considers himself the champion of the Sunnah, he acknowledged that there had been disagreement about Khilafah being waajib. However, the difference was whether it was based on Shari'ah or intellect...
Before addressing this, it's important to make a brief introduction. Ahlus-Sunnah believe that Shari'ah doesn't go against the intellect, similar to how it will never go against the fitrah, scientific discoveries, or Qadar. Shari'ah will never go against any of them. When Allah mentioned the kuffaar who were in Hell:
وَقَالُوا۟ لَوْ كُنَّا نَسْمَعُ أَوْ نَعْقِلُ مَا كُنَّا فِىٓ أَصْحَـٰبِ ٱلسَّعِيرِ
And they will say: "Had we but listened or used our intelligence, we would not have been among the dwellers of the blazing Fire!" (Al-Mulk 67:10)
In many places in the Qur'an, reasoning or intellect is often mentioned or asked as a reflection on something, and Shari'ah will never go against the intellect. What about those instances that may seem to contradict the intellect? The answer is that either the intellect is mistaken, but not the Shari'ah itself, or it could be that they misunderstood something not based on Shari'ah, or their premise was based on a mistaken notion, such as a weak hadith. Therefore, if the evidence is authentic and the intellect is not mistaken or has misconceptions, in this particular instance, the intellect and Shari'ah will never oppose each other. Shari'ah was sent so we can understand it, and it was sent as guidance, not to confuse people. That's why evidence from the Qur'an can be extrapolated with great evidence from the intellect. What Allah has revealed, the clear intellect will easily discern. It's similar to the amazement of the creation of 'Eesa (peace be upon him), who had no father; what's more amazing is the creation of Adam (peace be upon him), who was created without a father or mother, which clearly shows that intellect and Shari'ah are in harmony.
إِنَّ مَثَلَ عِيسَىٰ عِندَ ٱللَّهِ كَمَثَلِ ءَادَمَ ۖ خَلَقَهُۥ مِن تُرَابٍۢ ثُمَّ قَالَ لَهُۥ كُن فَيَكُونُ
Verily, the likeness of ‘Îsâ (Jesus) before Allâh is the likeness of Adam. He created him from dust, then (He) said to him: "Be!" - and he was. (Aali 'Imraan 3:59)
When the kuffaar attributed daughters to Allah, what did Allah say to them?
وَإِذَا بُشِّرَ أَحَدُهُم بِمَا ضَرَبَ لِلرَّحْمَـٰنِ مَثَلًۭا ظَلَّ وَجْهُهُۥ مُسْوَدًّۭا وَهُوَ كَظِيمٌ
"And if one of them is informed of the news of (the birth of a girl) that which he sets forth as a parable to the Most Gracious (Allâh), his face becomes dark, and he is filled with grief!" (An-Nahl 16:58)
How could they dislike something so intensely, yet attribute it to Allah?
Thus, Allah brings parables that the attentive intellect would take heed of and be reminded of the Power of Allah:
وَٱلَّذِى نَزَّلَ مِنَ ٱلسَّمَآءِ مَآءًۢ بِقَدَرٍۢ فَأَنشَرْنَا بِهِۦ بَلْدَةًۭ مَّيْتًۭا ۚ كَذَٰلِكَ تُخْرَجُونَ
"And Who sends down water (rain) from the sky in due measure, then We revive a dead land therewith, and even so you will be brought forth (from the graves)." (Az-Zukhruf 43:11)
There are many evidences that conform to the intellect.
It once occurred to some of the Ahlul-Hadith that they were perplexed by the Mu'tazilah and Jahmiyyah, who exaggerated in their use of intellect. This resulted in some denying the intellect as evidence completely. Ibn Taymiyyah explained that they were mistaken in this and that being perplexed shouldn't lead one to the opposite extreme. Rather, one shouldn't go against the intellect itself but stand against the misconceptions and exaggerations of the intellect. What is the decisive factor in all this? Intellect, in relation to the Qur'an, is like eyes in relation to light. Eyes without light cannot see. If it's pitch black, even though you have eyes, you won't be able to see. Similarly, the intellect cannot see without the light of the Qur'an and Sunnah. Just as the eyes have limits, such as how far you can see, the intellect also has its limits, such as in understanding what the soul (روح) is.
وَيَسْـَٔلُونَكَ عَنِ ٱلرُّوحِ ۖ قُلِ ٱلرُّوحُ مِنْ أَمْرِ رَبِّى وَمَآ أُوتِيتُم مِّنَ ٱلْعِلْمِ إِلَّا قَلِيلًۭا
And they ask you, [O Muḥammad], about the soul. Say, "The soul is of the affair [i.e., concern] of my Lord. And you [i.e., mankind] have not been given of knowledge except a little." (Al-Israa' 17:85)
Therefore, attempting to ponder over the soul—what it is and such—will only waste one's time, similar to how philosophers wasted their lives, as Allah has limited the knowledge of it. Rather, it is only within the affairs of Allah.
The decisive factor in all this is Shar' (i.e., the revelation). Despite using our intellect to know that Islam is the truth, after knowing the truth, is it the intellect that should be the deciding factor? No, rather we should submit to Allah. Similarly, the Muslims of "the people of authority and decision" (اهل الحل والعقد) in relation to the Khalifah: in the beginning, they can decide on someone as a Khalifah, but after the decision, obedience is due and they can no longer say that they don't accept him. Similarly, with the intellect, after knowing the truth of Islam, one should submit to Allah and follow the truth (i.e., Qur'an and Sunnah which contain knowledge). This is the only path to salvation; otherwise, one will become misguided. That's why ibn Qudaamah al-Maqdisi and other 'ulama' have mentioned that there is no waajib according to the intellect, but that there is only waajib according to the Shari'ah. So, what is waajib according to the Shari'ah will never contradict or oppose the intellect. However, the "imam of al-Jarh wat-Ta'deel" and the "imam of Ahlus-Sunnah" in this day and age, i.e., Rabee' al-Madkhali, couldn't discern all this. This again shows his level of knowledge in usool al-fiqh, which is otherwise very important, and how weak it is.
Unfortunately, this issue is not unique to Madkhali; other 'ulama' have also opined that a fourth category of Tawheed, such as Tawheed al-Haakimiyyah or al-Hukm, is an innovation.
Tawheed al-Hukm is a concept, and when we talk about concepts in Islam, there are words that exist in the Qur'an and Sunnah that one should primarily stick to. There are concepts that are allowed to be used if their meaning is clear and correct. If there are other concepts used but their meaning is incorrect, the least we can say is that it's an incorrect usage, but we don't label it as an innovation since they are just concepts or words. When do we say that concepts are innovations when utilized? It's when they can have two meanings—one correct and the other wrong—at the same time. If utilized, if the concept is denied, one could be mistaken if the intended meaning was the correct one, or if accepted but the intended meaning was incorrect, then one will also be mistaken. In this instance, one should provide a clarification, explaining the correct intended meaning and denying the incorrect one.
Another innovation could be a concept that has multiple meanings, where one could utilize its correct meaning while others may use the false meaning. The third innovation type of concept is one that is clearly wrong in its usage. All these instances apply when used within Islam. These types mostly exist in philosophy and 'Ilm al-Kalaam.
This is what had affected the innovators when it comes to the Beautiful Names and Lofty Attributes of Allah. Rather, it also affected their understanding of the entire Deen. These problems reoccur with new concepts like diplomacy, democracy, nationalism, and similar ideas. Some "Islamists" might intend something correct, while others might introduce innovations or even concepts that could be considered kufr. The intended meaning of an individual regarding these concepts could be questionable. Therefore, we should use concepts or terminologies that are clear and unambiguous.
So the meaning of Tawheed al-Hukm is clear. If the meaning were incorrect, we would have otherwise considered it a mistake but not an innovation, as Madkhali and others have said. They alleged that this category has not been mentioned among the Salaf. Is this correct? Ibnul-Qayyim said in Madaarij as-Saalikeen:
And many people seek other than Him as a judge, referring their disputes to them, arguing before them, and being satisfied with their judgment. These three positions are the pillars of Tawheed: not taking anyone other than Him as a Lord, not taking anyone other than Him as a deity, and not taking anyone other than Him as a judge [حَكَمًا].
So, ibnul-Qayyim considered Tawheed al-Hukm as a category!
When considering the categories of Tawheed, they contain topics or branches under them. For example, when we say Tawheed al-'Ibaadah (or al-Uloohiyyah), it basically means that worship should be solely directed to Allah. When we say Tawheed ar-Ruboobiyyah, it means that all the attributes of Lordship belong only to Allah. When we talk about Tawheed al-Asmaa' was-Sifaat, it means that all the Beautiful Names and Lofty Attributes belong only to Allah.
The question then arises, could Tawheed al-Hukm fall under those three categories? Yes, it falls under all those categories. Tawheed al-Uloohiyyah refers to the actions of the slaves in worship, done solely for Allah. It is the same with Tawheed al-Hukm, which involves practicing and establishing Shari'ah. Tawheed ar-Ruboobiyyah refers to believing that Allah alone performs actions that befit His Majesty in Lordship, such as giving rizq (provision), creating, and so on. Similarly, in Tawheed al-Hukm, Allah is the only one who has the right to rule and legislate.
Does Tawheed al-Hukm fall under Tawheed al-Asmaa' was-Sifaat as well? Yes, the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said:
"إنَّ اللهَ هو الحَكَمُ وإليه الحُكْمُ"
"Indeed, Allah is the Judge, and to Him belongs the judgment."
(Source)
Ibnul-Qayyim in Madaarij as-Saalikeen and ibn Abi'l-'Izz al-Hanafi have mentioned a fourth category of Tawheed. Ibn Baaz has also mentioned that some 'ulama' (alluding to ibnul-Qayyim and ibn Abi'l-'Izz) have added a fourth category of Tawheed. Ibn Abi'l-'Izz al-Hanafi said:
...Tawheed of the Sender and the Tawheed of following the Messenger. We do not refer judgment to anyone else, nor are we content with any judgment other than his (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him)...
(Source)
The categorization by ibn Abi'l-'Izz al-Hanafi on Tawheed al-Mursal and Tawheed Mutaaba'ah ar-Rasool does not refer to the worship of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him); otherwise, it would be shirk akbar. Rather, the intended meaning of this is that we only follow the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). (Source) Hence, ibn Abi'l-'Izz explains:
It is obligatory to completely surrender to the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), to comply with his commands, and to accept his news with acceptance and belief, without opposing it with false imaginations that we call rationality, or carrying doubts or suspicions, or preferring the opinions of men and the remnants of their minds over it.
According to Madkhali, all of this would be considered an innovation! It's already evident that Tawheed al-Hukm comes under the three categories of Tawheed. So, what's the issue with bringing Tawheed al-Hukm as a separate category? As long as shirk in legislation is prevalent, with politicians establishing man-made laws and giving themselves the right to legislate, saying it's allowed for you to follow Islam or anything else—which in and of itself is clear kufr. To say that one can choose to be a Muslim or profess any other faith is disbelief, and this is from democracy. When this type of shirk is prevalent and widespread across the world, and it goes against Tawheed, either in al-Uloohiyyah by establishing man-made laws other than Islam, or in ar-Ruboobiyyah by asserting that people have the right to legislate, what's wrong with emphasizing this topic?
At the time of the Salaf, they emphasized Tawheed al-Asmaa' was-Sifaat when innovation was prevalent on that issue, and later, they emphasized Tawheed al-Uloohiyyah when shirk became prevalent. Emphasizing Tawheed al-Hukm in this instance actually constitutes following the examples of the Salaf and not introducing an innovation, especially since ibnul-Qayyim had mentioned this type of category.
Once you understand Tawheed al-Asmaa' was-Sifaat, you understand Tawheed ar-Ruboobiyyah, and by understanding those two, you understand Tawheed al-Uloohiyyah and Tawheed al-Hukm.
First of all, why does shirk occur and become prevalent? It's due to two matters: ignorance and philosophy. Ignorance in matters of Islam and Greek logic (i.e., philosophy and 'Ilm al-Kalaam). From the perspective of Greek logic, they don't believe in Allah being All-Hearing, All-Seeing, and All-Powerful, or that He is able to help, love some and hate others, reward some and punish others. When sorcerers perform their witchcraft, the ignorant will start to believe they are Awliyaa', or some will tell fantasy stories to people, such as saying if you call upon a wali, you will be aided. May Allah protect us. When people don't know much about Allah, what will result? They will most likely fall into shirk.
A similar occurrence happens in the aspect of legislation. When people don't know that Allah is the one who controls, the one with All-Power, the matters of Tawheed al-Asmaa' was-Sifaat and ar-Ruboobiyyah, they can easily be fooled by Western countries as though they bring "light" and prosperity, technology, and a sense of security about one's future. This will all result in blindly following their man-made legislations. All of this indicates the importance of those Tawheed categories, and one shouldn't just study 'aqeedah as "mere" rules or principles. Yes, it's important, but they should also be studied so that they can affect and influence your life, aside from learning how all those influence the Shari'ah and al-Qadar. There is much more reflection to be pondered over to realize how all of this is connected in our lives and how everything we do could either fall into what Allah loves or hates.
Could Madkhali be considered from Ahlus-Sunnah despite all the mistakes we have highlighted? Firstly, how do we know whether one is from Ahlus-Sunnah or not? In principle, we consider every Muslim a Sunni unless and until the contrary is confirmed. So, what are the things that take one out of being a Sunni? There are three: the first, by Ijmaa', is if one believes in something that opposes one of the major foundations of Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah. This has been mentioned by Ahmad ibn Hanbal and ibn Zayd al-Qaryawani. The second is what ibn Taymiyyah mentioned: many from Ahlus-Sunnah committed minor mistakes in 'aqeedah, not in the foundations. If we consider those 'ulama' as innovators for their mistakes in 'aqeedah, we would end up taking many out of Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah. He then said that to make loyalty and disavowal on the basis of those minor mistakes, to oppose and declare tabdee' and takfeer against others, which could result in ending others' lives, one would become a Mubtadi'. (Relevant)
If all this does not describe Madkhali, it largely describes him. He is a man well-known for siding with the government, a government that has allied with the U.S., and a government which not only was a significant member but also participated in funding the creation of the UN. (Source) He also opposes Muslim groups, whether mujaahideen or others. Anyone who opposes the government, he is ready to inform the intelligence about them and hand them over to the authorities. They are also known to issue fatwas on these matters, considering it obligatory and frowning upon refraining from doing so. Unfortunately, those who follow him adopt this practice of informing on others to governments that identify as secularists or even communists. Madkhali stands for this and does not oppose those who follow him in this.
It's very clear that Madkhali also opposes those who oppose his opinions, especially those groups that may oppose the governments. He even declares others as innovators if they oppose his views, which is characteristic of the innovators. Here, he takes what may seem like small mistakes and turns them into major issues, either as part of his manhaj or as one of the foundations of Ahlus-Sunnah, then declares tabdee' against others. He makes this a basis for loyalty and disavowal, never mentioning any good aspects but only highlighting the bad sides of others, which results in treating them all as if they were disbelievers. What ibn Taymiyyah said exactly fits Madkhali.
The third way to consider a person as an innovator is when minor mistakes in 'aqeedah become numerous: one in the topic of Eemaan, another in al-Qadar, a third in al-Asmaa' was-Sifaat, and so on. Regarding this third point, I hesitate to say that it exactly fits him, but rather it describes and fits most of it.
Despite Madkhali aligning with the major foundations of Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah in general, he implements many of them erroneously, while simultaneously making his own additions that do not exist in the foundations of Ahlus-Sunnah, and bases these on loyalty and disavowal. This either clearly shows that he is ignorant (jaahil), making it impossible to consider him an 'aalim, and if he is indeed ignorant, he still deserves to be warned against, whether Sunni or not; or we are talking about an 'aalim who follows his whims and desires. He is clearly a Mubtadi' (innovator). This should be stated clearly, publicly, and with evidence, as it is very important, especially if someone claims to be from Ahlus-Sunnah but is not. Just as we expose those who claim to be Muslims but are not, we should expose Madkhali likewise. This is similar to the kuffaar Quraysh claiming that Ibraaheem (peace be upon him) is from them and that their Deen is the same as his. Allah clarified that Ibraaheem was neither Christian, Jew, nor mushrik, but Haneef. Allah rejected their claims. People can easily get confused and be manipulated, even with names and words... What did Allah say about the munaafiqeen?
وَإِذَا قِيلَ لَهُمْ لَا تُفْسِدُوا۟ فِى ٱلْأَرْضِ قَالُوٓا۟ إِنَّمَا نَحْنُ مُصْلِحُونَ أَلَآ إِنَّهُمْ هُمُ ٱلْمُفْسِدُونَ وَلَـٰكِن لَّا يَشْعُرُونَ
And when it is said to them, "Do not cause corruption on the earth," they say, "We are but reformers." Unquestionably, it is they who are the corrupters, but they perceive [it] not. (Al-Baqarah 2:11-12)
Consider what George Bush said, as he claims he is restoring the whole world, or something to that effect. So, it is not a trivial matter at all for Madkhali to be considered as Ahlus-Sunnah. Such kinds of words or titles, putting him beyond his status, is how many people become misguided and could end up as innovators or disbelievers. To play with words is not a trivial matter. How did Iblees lead Adam and Hawwaa' to eat from the tree? This is despite Allah having commanded them not to do so.
فَوَسْوَسَ لَهُمَا الشَّيْطَانُ لِيُبْدِيَ لَهُمَا مَا وُورِيَ عَنْهُمَا مِنْ سَوْآَتِهِمَا وَقَالَ مَا نَهَاكُمَا رَبُّكُمَا عَنْ هَذِهِ الشَّجَرَةِ إِلَّا أَنْ تَكُونَا مَلَكَيْنِ أَوْ تَكُونَا مِنَ الْخَالِدِينَ وَقَاسَمَهُمَا إِنِّي لَكُمَا لَمِنَ النَّاصِحِينَ
But Satan whispered to them to make apparent to them that which was concealed from them of their private parts. He said, "Your Lord did not forbid you this tree except that you become angels or become of the immortal." And he swore [by Allāh] to them, "Indeed, I am to you from among the sincere advisors." (Al-A'raaf 7:20-21)
And:
فَوَسْوَسَ إِلَيْهِ الشَّيْطَانُ قَالَ يَا آَدَمُ هَلْ أَدُلُّكَ عَلَى شَجَرَةِ الْخُلْدِ وَمُلْكٍ لَا يَبْلَى
Then Shaitân (Satan) whispered to him, saying: "O Adam! Shall I lead you to the Tree of Eternity and to a kingdom that will never waste away?" (TaHa 20:120)
Narrated by ibn Maajah (4020), the Messenge of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: “Some people from my Ummah will drink wine, calling it by different names, and musical instruments will be played for them, and girls will sing to them. Allah will cause the earth to swallow them up, and He will turn some of them into apes and pigs.” (Relevant)
Playing with words is not a trivial matter but very dangerous, as this is what Shaytan does, through waswaas.
Insha'Allah, we will introduce different topics for our discussion. These introductions are very important so that one does not think that, just because Madkhali has talked about them, they are all wrong, or that because he presented them in a wrong way, they are entirely incorrect and have nothing to do with the Sunnah.
We will talk about the importance of 'aqeedah. The word 'aqeedah does not exist in the Qur'an or Sunnah, nor was it a term used by the Sahaabah. Instead, what existed and was used were eemaan and Tawheed. However, as long as the word 'aqeedah does not carry any negative meaning, it is acceptable and that's why 'ulama' have used it. Despite this, the more one uses terms that exist in the Qur'an and Sunnah, the better it is, even though it is permissible to use other terms.
The topic of 'Aqeedah encompasses the six articles of Eemaan and numerous other topics that branch out from these six articles. As you all know, these six articles are: belief in Allah, His angels, His books, His prophets, the Last Day, and belief in al-Qadar, both its good and bad. By believing in these, one attains a pure and lively heart, enabling them to manage their affairs and spread the Islamic message, coming to it and making da'wah to it. Without a lively heart, one will never be able to manage these responsibilities.
When discussing the points related to the six articles of faith, such as the status of the Sahaabah, where do they fit within these six articles? The belief regarding the Sahaabah pertains to 'aqeedah. So, where do we place them? It relates to the belief in the prophets, as the last prophet is Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). His Ummah, the people who followed him, were the best among all previous nations, and the best of his Ummah are the Sahaabah, followed by the Taabi'een (followers of the Sahaabah), and then the Atbaa' at-Taabi'een (followers of the Taabi'een). Among the Sahaabah, the best are Abu Bakr, 'Umar, 'Uthman, and 'Ali (may Allah be pleased with them).
For example, if one were to ask about belief in the signs before the Day of Judgment, such as the return of 'Eesa (peace be upon him), the coming of the Dajjaal, and the appearance of the Mahdi, where do these fit within the six articles of faith? As these topics pertain to 'aqeedah, they fall under the fifth article of faith: belief in the Last Day. These are signs of the Day of Judgment before it occurs.
Regarding the Khilafah and the Khalifah, how one should relate to the Khalifah, and what actions are permissible or impermissible, this too is connected to belief in Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). After discussing the Sahaabah, the 'ulama' address the Khilafah, as the first Khalifah was Abu Bakr. This shows that even if all aspects of 'aqeedah do not directly concern the six articles of faith, they still relate to the branches of these six articles.
When we deal with the six articles of faith, the least one should have is an understanding of their importance, as Allah has mentioned them several times in the Qur'an. For instance, when Allah sent Jibreel in the form of a man to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) while the Sahaabah were gathered, it was to teach them through his questions. We learn from this that one can ask a shaykh a question even if they already know the answer, with the intention of teaching others. This event highlights the levels of our Deen: Islam, Eemaan, and Ihsaan. It wasn't a random person or a Bedouin who came to ask a question, nor was it an incident where a Sahaabi came to inquire. Rather, it was Jibreel who came to ask these three questions. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) then told the Sahaabah that Jibreel had come to teach them their Deen, emphasizing the importance of this topic.
Therefore, the matters one should prioritize, learn, and teach others are those related to belief. One should never tire of them but must know how to present them effectively. Allah mentioned the stories of a prophet many times in the Qur'an, but the difference lies in how they were presented. Similarly, one should strive to improve their ability to present the same point in various ways—for instance, introducing it as the first point in one discussion, in the middle of another lecture, or briefly at one time and in-depth at another. This is something one can continuously learn and improve upon.
One of the unfortunate things that only a few 'ulama' today can manage effectively is the ability to ensure that when one learns and teaches 'aqeedah, they connect it to their own life and the lives of others. For example, as we discussed last time, it shouldn’t just be about explaining the belief in Allah’s Beautiful Names and Lofty Attributes. Rather, one should also emphasize the impact of these Names and Attributes—not only their impact on the individual but also their influence on Shari'ah and the creation of Allah, through which we can witness the wisdom of Allah.
To give an example, consider one of Allah’s Lofty Attributes, al-Qawiy (the Most Powerful). Everything happens by the Will of Allah, the Most Powerful. He helps those who hold fast to His Deen, so one should not fear those who appear to be more powerful. One shouldn’t be discouraged by being few in number against many opponents. From a materialistic point of view, such a situation might seem impossible, but this perspective overlooks the importance of 'aqeedah. This is why when Europeans studied the life of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), they couldn’t comprehend how he and his followers achieved so much within 23 years, especially considering that the jihaad only lasted 10 years. This example illustrates how significant 'aqeedah is.
To offer another example, consider the impact of the phrase "Laa ilaaha ill'Allaah" on the Sahaabah compared to its impact on many Muslims today. Although the words are the same, the meaning it held for the Sahaabah was far deeper and more transformative. Those who correctly understood it experienced its influence differently from many Muslims today. If we try to explain why some who call themselves Muslims end up committing shirk and worshiping "walis," we find that the reason is often that they attribute to these beings the same qualities as Allah. This is why they fall into shirk.
When a Muslim reflects on da’wah, Islam, and related matters, they gain a comprehensive vision of both the seen and unseen worlds. However, do the kuffaar possess such a vision? Never. They are trapped in fantasies and imaginations that do not exist; they fear things that do not harm them and place hope in things that do not benefit them. Who is deceiving them? It is the shayaateen.
Additionally, when we talk about the Angels, if we only mention that Jibreel has 600 wings, we should also recognize the power of Allah that this implies. Imagine when Allah sends Angels to assist mujaahideen against kuffaar.
When discussing the prophets, we understand that they were the best of people, chosen by Allah to deliver His message. They are the individuals we should strive to follow and emulate. We should not look up to or follow figures like Lenin, Stalin, Mao Zedong, Bush, Clinton, Gandhi, or anyone else. Unfortunately, some Muslims, including mujaahideen, believe that success cannot be achieved without committing haram acts. How did they fall into this mindset? Instead of living by the biography of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and drawing lessons from it, they turned to other sources, such as Mao Zedong, studying how he achieved his goals. Some even admire figures like Che Guevara, who committed haram acts, indiscriminately killing children, women, and others without remorse. What will this lead to? A Muslim who looks up to these individuals, studies their methods, and tries to emulate them, despite being a Muslim, will eventually think that success is unattainable without committing grave errors.
However, if one lives according to the biography of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), one will see clearly, especially during the Makkan period, how the Sahaabah (may Allah be pleased with them), despite being tortured, weak, few in number, and at risk of being wiped out, never compromised their Deen. When we speak of da'wah, jihaad, and learning, we must understand that committing an error with the belief that it benefits da'wah, Muslims, or Islam, is never justified. Haram acts are not only forbidden, but they also complicate matters. One may not realize or sense this initially, or perhaps never comprehend it, but when something is declared haram in Shari'ah, be certain that you will never achieve your goal through it. Consider the so-called Islamists who adopt democracy as a means to support Islam and da'wah—have they achieved their goals? Never. In fact, their situation has only worsened.
When we speak about the revelation of Allah (i.e., the Qur'an and Sunnah), and one recognizes that it is sufficient as guidance, light, and knowledge—the truth itself—then nothing else is needed. When one knows the people, specifically the Sahaabah, who experienced the Qur'an and were with the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), that too is sufficient. Unfortunately, most Muslims, when discussing 'aqeedah, cling to the innovations that occurred during the time of the Salaf. Only a few can practice the foundational principles that counter these innovations.
What happened during the time of the Salaf? Some people abstained from seeking knowledge, wisdom, guidance, and truth from the revelation and instead turned to Greek philosophy and logic, developing 'Ilm al-Kalaam from it. Is this the only issue in this day and age? No, there are many, but let's examine some primary examples, as well as another issue that some may struggle to recognize as dangerous. Here, we are discussing the adoption of philosophy as knowledge, which contains concepts that might have both correct and incorrect meanings from an Islamic perspective. This applies to democracy; while it may include some concepts that are potentially correct, it also introduces ideas that are forbidden in Islam. Much of it has no relevance to Islam at all. These ideas, like philosophy, stem from Greek democracy and have evolved, starting in France along with secularism. Similar issues arise with communism and socialism.
There is one particular danger that most people are unaware of: psychology and sociology. These two fields are philosophies themselves, based on pure disbelief. They are founded on the belief that humans can change fundamentally. For instance, when someone commits murder, they may view the execution of the perpetrator as barbaric, believing that talking to the perpetrator could lead to positive change. Consequently, they advocate for the removal of punishment. They study the human being without truly understanding what it entails. Allah created humans and provided sufficient guidance on how to address psychological issues, manage life, and navigate all circumstances—whether in family relations, feelings of well-being, difficult situations, war, travel, or any other scenario. This guidance encompasses both the seen and unseen worlds.
We know how to manage ourselves, considering the presence of Angels, and we do all this for the sake of Allah. Are we to follow a group of people, such as the Sahaabah, Taabi'een, and Atbaa' at-Taabi'een? By Allah, that is sufficient. But as ibn Taymiyyah observed, people abandon the truth and follow the path of misguidance due to one of three reasons: ignorance, following one's whims and desires, or an inability to handle the truth due to its perceived difficulty. When they cannot handle the truth, they seek other sources, like the Mutakallimeen, who couldn't see that the Qur'an contains answers that conform to reason. They believed the Qur'an lacked such answers and instead sought them in Greek philosophy.
In this day and age, only a few can adequately respond to secularists, democrats, communists, and socialists. While they may offer generic responses, they often lack the depth and sufficiency that the Salaf exhibited in their foundational responses, which were based on the Qur'an, Sunnah, and the statements of the Salaf. As a result, many have tried to engage in jihaad and, finding it difficult to uphold, turn to other paths. They mistakenly believe that the only way to achieve Khilafah is through da'wah, thinking that people will then change the state themselves, and that perhaps the state will eventually hand over control. Others argue, "We are in modern times; war will destroy many things and tarnish Islam's image. People have freedom and their own choices, so democracy is the best path." The other reason for misguidance is the pursuit of whims and desires.
When speaking about the Sahaabah and the Salaf in general, some people believe that what they achieved was miraculous and can never be replicated. They don't realize that if we were to follow the actions of the Sahaabah, we could reach the same goals, despite the differences in time, as human nature never changes, although the means and tools do. Unfortunately, others mistakenly think of the Sahaabah as Bedouins or ordinary people with limited knowledge, who only achieved what they did because of their unique experiences with the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). In reality, the Sahaabah were incredibly intelligent and had the purest of minds. If we were to extrapolate what is now considered psychology and sociology from the statements of the Salaf, it would be sufficient. However, it requires someone to thoroughly study the perspectives of the Salaf that align with the concepts of these sciences and present them to the people, so that we no longer need to rely on or adopt knowledge from the kuffaar.
When we speak about Judgment Day, it's not merely for its namesake; rather, it should be a guiding principle throughout one's entire life, knowing that one's actions will be weighed on Judgment Day. In other words, everything you do should be connected to the awareness of Judgment Day. One should also realize, as stated in many ahaadeeth, that the unseen world (al-Ghayb) is closely tied to the seen world. The greatest in al-Ghayb is Allah, who has created everything. Another important point is regarding the Angels, to whom Allah has delegated responsibilities in this world, such as overseeing mountains, rain, and plants. For example, when a rooster crows before sunrise, it is a sign that it has seen the Angels; this is why our parents in our home countries knew the time for Fajr prayer due to the rooster's crowing. Similarly, when a donkey brays, it is a sign that it has seen a shaytan (cf. Al-Bukhaari, 3303).
When it rains, while you may understand it in terms of atmospheric conditions, it is important to recognize that it is also connected to the unseen, as rain is a sign of Allah's mercy or punishment for the people (cf. Ibn Maajah 3727). Likewise, with earthquakes, although they can be explained geologically as the movement of tectonic plates, people often forget that such events are either a test from Allah or, in most cases, a punishment from Allah. (Relevant) Therefore, people rarely realize that the true solution to these "natural disasters" is repentance to Allah. Instead, they focus on materialistic precautions to avoid such events...
يَعْلَمُونَ ظَاهِرًا مِّنَ الْحَيَاةِ الدُّنْيَا وَهُمْ عَنِ الْآخِرَةِ هُمْ غَافِلُونَ
"They know what is apparent of the worldly life, but they, of the Hereafter, are unaware." (Ar-Rum 30:7)
There are many other issues, including those related to Shaytan, that people often overlook. They tend to attribute these issues to psychological problems, dismissing them as mental illness. However, the primary cause may not be psychological but rather the individual's sins. In such cases, the Qur'an, du'aa', and ruqya can potentially restore the person's state, especially in instances of possession. Alternatively, a sorcerer may have cast a spell on the person, which is a similar situation. Yet, those who do not believe in the unseen often deviate from understanding these realities.
The same applies to al-Qadhaa' wal-Qadar (Divine Will and Decree). Consider how important it is, as evidenced by what the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) told ibn 'Abbaas when he was still young. Ibn 'Abbaas (may Allah be pleased with him) recounted: I was behind the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) on a mount one day and he said: “O boy, I shall teach you some words. Be mindful of Allah and He will take care of you. Be mindful of Allah and He will protect you. If you ask then ask of Allah, and if you seek help then seek help from Allah. Know that if the nation were to gather together to benefit you in some way, they would not benefit you except in something that Allah has already decreed for you, and if they were to gather together to harm you in some way, they would not harm you except in something that Allah has already decreed for you. The pens have been lifted and the pages have dried.” (At-Tirmidhi, 2516)
That's why, when the Sahaabah believed in al-Qadhaa' wal-Qadar, they were not lax in their belief that Allah would support His Deen. Instead, they did their part to support it as well, exerting themselves in pursuit of the truth. Their belief didn't lead them to make claims like, "Take this equipment and then achieve something extraordinary." While the equipment may provide some benefit, can it alone help you reach the ultimate goal? It's not enough. Don't just consider al-Qadhaa' wal-Qadar and march forward thinking everything is happening by the Will of Allah and has already been written; rather, one should also prepare. In your daily life, being prepared for various things is essential. Unfortunately, many people do everything they can to achieve wealth and success in this life, taking all necessary means toward those goals. Yet, when it comes to the Deen, they give only half the effort they’ve put into other aspects of their lives and consider it enough, even though they haven't truly exerted themselves.
When discussing eemaan, which encompasses both speech and action, it’s crucial to understand its significance. This concept reveals the essence of a person and their thought process. Faith, as both speech and action, involves the heart and the body. But where does faith begin? It starts in the heart. Similarly, in both daily life and Islam, where does motivation originate? It begins in the heart, which then prompts the individual to take action toward their goals. The heart holds two key components: speech, which is belief, and actions, which include emotions such as love and hate. These are the actions of the heart connected to faith. In the same way, when a person reflects on something, recognizes its truth, and develops a love for it, they naturally aspire to achieve that goal. Once these elements are established in the heart, action typically follows unless something obstructs it. However, hypocrites conceal their disbelief, yet they can never completely hide it. Even if their disbelief isn’t blatant, Allah has spoken about them:
وَلَتَعْرِفَنَّهُمْ فِي لَحْنِ الْقَوْلِ
"... you will surely know them by the tone of [their] speech..." (Muhammad 47:30)
This also applies to others, whether their heart holds more or less faith—even to a disbeliever who opposes Muslims. If something prevents him from harming them, it is likely that what is in his heart is much worse.
يَـٰٓأَيُّهَا ٱلَّذِينَ ءَامَنُوا۟ لَا تَتَّخِذُوا۟ بِطَانَةًۭ مِّن دُونِكُمْ لَا يَأْلُونَكُمْ خَبَالًۭا وَدُّوا۟ مَا عَنِتُّمْ قَدْ بَدَتِ ٱلْبَغْضَآءُ مِنْ أَفْوَٰهِهِمْ وَمَا تُخْفِى صُدُورُهُمْ أَكْبَرُ ۚ قَدْ بَيَّنَّا لَكُمُ ٱلْـَٔايَـٰتِ ۖ إِن كُنتُمْ تَعْقِلُونَ
"O you who have believed, do not take as intimates those other than yourselves [i.e., believers], for they will not spare you [any] ruin. They wish you would have hardship. Hatred has already appeared from their mouths, and what their breasts conceal is greater. We have certainly made clear to you the signs, if you will use reason." (Aali 'Imraan 3:118)
Most students of knowledge only read that eemaan consists of both speech and action, but they often confine themselves to this understanding without reflecting on how it connects to life in this world. Our Deen is built on the entire 'aqeedah, encompassing people, life, the seen and unseen worlds—everything. When Ahlus-Sunnah say that eemaan consists of both speech and action, they mean that faith can never exist without being manifested. Take, for example, Mu'min Aal Fir'awn: he feared Fir'awn, but could he hide his eemaan when they conspired to kill Musa? He couldn’t hold himself back. The same applies to the Sahaabah when the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) initially told them to wait before making his da'wah public. The Sahaabah couldn’t conceal their faith; they made it public despite the consequences, and some were even beaten. What does this show? Matters of the seen and the unseen are tied together as long as there is no obstruction. This is why, when one observes what secularists are doing against Muslims—whether presidents, journalists, or others—it reveals how dark their hearts are. Because there can be factors that lead someone to change from disbelief to belief and vice versa, the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) emphasized that what matters most is the end of one's life. Therefore, one should never assume they are safe but should always be prepared and work towards a good end. If one works on it both inwardly and outwardly and sticks to the straight path, Allah will never abandon them. However, if one's outward appearance seems fine while inwardly there is crookedness, such people risk a bad end. May Allah protect us.
When discussing the concept that eemaan consists of both speech and action, as well as their interconnectedness with the seen and unseen worlds, it’s crucial to understand how they are all related. What Allah and His Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) have said about eemaan reveals the essence of human nature. For a person to achieve or practice something, they must possess knowledge of it, the will to pursue it, and the ability to take action. Without these three components, success or practice becomes impossible. If a person lacks knowledge, what can they accomplish? If they lack the will, they will remain inactive. And if they are incapable, they cannot achieve anything. This is why the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) sought refuge from incapacity and laziness in one of his du'aa's. This highlights the critical importance of knowledge. When someone has correct knowledge, their actions are likely to be precise and well-directed. However, if their knowledge is flawed, their efforts may be misguided, leading to incomplete or unsuccessful outcomes. Because knowledge is built on concepts, it is vital to understand them correctly. Misunderstanding these concepts can be extremely dangerous, with the severity depending on the significance of the topic. Incorrect understanding inevitably leads to misguided actions, underscoring the danger of innovations (bida'ah) and how they can lead to ruin in this life.
The reason I spoke about all this is because Madkhali places a strong emphasis on 'aqeedah, and I am concerned that those who dislike him might erroneously conclude that focusing on 'aqeedah is a mistake. Therefore, I provided this introduction to explain that it is not wrong but rather to emphasize its importance. However, while the Salaf experienced 'aqeedah, most of us merely learn it without truly experiencing it. One shouldn't experience 'aqeedah in a limited way but should integrate it throughout one's entire life. Everything should be built on Deen. Some people seek to learn the truth only in matters of halal and haram, yet they do not consider the specific path one must follow when presenting the truth or in discussions, or how one treats others. Many people adhere to the truth when things are easy, but as soon as trials arise, they waver and forget everything. One must be careful not to fall into this type of situation. When one is angry, one should learn from the circumstances in which the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) was angry, and similarly, when calmness is required, we should strive to be calm as he (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) was calm. Unfortunately, it seems that many Ahlus-Sunnah learn 'aqeedah, for lack of a better word, "theoretically" but not practically. This is not to say that the "theoretical" aspect is unimportant—without it, one cannot practice or live according to 'aqeedah. It is essential to understand how 'aqeedah connects to every aspect of your life, whether significant or insignificant, in the seen and unseen worlds, and in all circumstances. Those who think it is a waste of time have made a grave mistake, whoever they may be, whether they are mujaahideen or others.
The other point, as we have mentioned before, won't take much time. Deen al-Islam concerns all matters, whether life is smooth or one is facing trials. Just read the biography of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), and you will realize it. They held fast to the Shari'ah even while being tortured, during the siege in the Battle of the Trench, and in all circumstances. This is what we should also make sure to do.
One issue that shocks many people is Madkhali's frequent labeling of others as innovators, to the point where people feel opposition to it and develop a dislike for anything associated with it. This is also a mistake. The problem with Madkhali's approach to tabdee' (declaring someone an innovator) is that he doesn't apply the correct rules or adhere to the necessary conditions. Instead, he often disregards these and indiscriminately labels others as innovators. This is where he deviated. However, in the correct circumstances, with the proper rules and conditions, declaring someone an innovator is indeed part of Islam.
The Salaf, like Sufyan ibn 'Uyaynah (the shaykh of ash-Shaafi'ee), Ahmad ibn Hanbal, 'Ali ibn al-Madini (the shaykh of al-Bukhari), and many others—ibn Abi Zayd al-Qayrawani mentioned an Ijmaa' (consensus) concerning this—stated that when discussing the major foundations of 'aqeedah, abandoning or opposing even one of them could cause someone to become a Mubtadi' (innovator), thus leaving the fold of Ahlus-Sunnah (but not out of Islam). Therefore, declaring someone an innovator, when done correctly, is the truth.
However, declaring someone an innovator is not the end of the matter. It is a serious issue that can profoundly affect a Muslim's belief and life. If you consider someone's grave innovation to be just a minor mistake, dismissing it as something all humans are prone to, and you leave them be without warning others, do you think they will remain silent? Instead, they will spread their false beliefs, which will in turn harm the Muslim community. If you want to see the impact of innovation, just look at your own life. One of the major reasons the Ummah is in its current state is due to innovations in belief. On the other hand, if you declare someone an innovator and warn against them, you corner them and protect the Muslims from their misguidance, which highlights the importance of this issue.
It is similar to the importance of distinguishing between a Muslim and a kaafir. When you meet a Muslim, you greet them with salaam, and you can give your daughter's hand in marriage to them. However, for a kaafir, you cannot. Now, what if you mistakenly consider a kaafir to be a Muslim? This would have severe consequences. This situation is similar to distinguishing between a Sunni and a Mubtadi'. However, there are specific rules and conditions that the 'ulama' have outlined, and one's judgment should be based on them.
This is a fundamental part of Islam. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) warned against innovation and praised those who perform jihaad against a Mubtadi' with their actions, tongue, or heart, as innovation goes against the Sunnah. It is not an easy matter but rather a dangerous one. What Madkhali did is that he exaggerated this issue, which shocked many people and made it difficult for them to tolerate. That's why we should return to the Deen and what the Salaf have said, examining these matters in times of ease, not during trials when there isn't enough time to reflect properly. If you face someone involved in innovations without proper understanding, you might end up being shocked and wrongly conclude that what they do isn't part of Islam, even though it might have a basis, but not in the manner it was practiced. This can lead to committing another innovation or grave mistake.
This is what has happened to most innovators. The Murji'ah opposed the Khawaarij, the Qadariyyah opposed the Jabriyyah, the Naasibah opposed the Raafidhah, and so on, where both sides either underestimated or exaggerated certain matters. That's why it's important not to fall into the same trap.
It's also very important that if someone is not a Sunni but considers himself a Sunni, efforts should be made to expose him as such, so others can see that he is lying and merely making false claims. For example, some brothers, while being Sunni themselves, find themselves in the company of some innovators. They fail to recognize the importance of jihaad, and thus, they begin to label themselves as "Salafi jihadi," as if the term "Salafi jihadi" is exclusive to a particular group. However, jihaad is an integral part of Deen; it aligns with what Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah believes in, and that's how it should be presented. It shouldn't be portrayed as if the belief belongs to Usaamah bin Laadin, shaykh, or group. No, it is an essential part of our Deen, and that is the truth.
Lastly, I will discuss a brief story involving Madkhali. Madkhali began to gain prominence during the Gulf War when many shuyookh opposed the Saudi government's decision to bring the U.S. military into the Arabian Peninsula to counter Iraq, specifically Saddam Hussein. Unlike most of these shuyookh, Madkhali supported the government's decision and was stern in his opposition to those who disagreed, although he did not oppose all of them. This period marked the beginning of his recognition.
Another reason for Madkhali's rise to prominence was his outspoken stance against contemporary groups, which, unfortunately, were not primarily addressed by Ahlus-Sunnah but by Mubtadi'ah. These individuals were at the forefront of opposing secularists and democrats. Historically, when comparing the efforts of Mubtadi'ah against philosophers and Baatiniyyah to those of Ahlus-Sunnah, it was often the Mutakallimeen, such as the Mu'tazilah and Ashaa'irah, who led these efforts. I speak generally here and do not imply that Ahlus-Sunnah were entirely absent from these refutations against them.
During the first three generations, Ahlus-Sunnah were at the forefront of opposing Mubtadi'ah, but afterward, their influence seemed to wane. Ibn Taymiyyah noted that Ahlul-Hadith lacked sufficient knowledge of the Sunnah to effectively stand against Mubtadi'ah. This situation persisted after the first three generations, though it did not apply to every member of Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah.
During ibn Taymiyyah's time, he responded to various groups, including kuffaar like Christians, zanaadiqah like Baatiniyyah, and Sufis like ibn 'Arabi and al-Hallaaj. He also countered the arguments of Muslim Mubtadi'ah. After his time, divisions among Muslims reemerged, and in the present day, it is the Mubtadi'ah who lead the efforts against nationalists, democrats, socialists, and others. Unfortunately, groups like Ikhwaan al-Muslimeen primarily base their responses on kufr against kufr, rather than on haqq. They also focus on the innovations of the Muslims, which are less dangerous than the former. Only a few shuyookh are capable of providing in-depth responses to both issues, as this requires a deep understanding of their opponents' concepts—a skill that most 'ulama' manage only superficially.
Why was ibn Taymiyyah able to respond effectively to philosophers, mutakallimeen, Sufis, and others? It was because he thoroughly understood their concepts and meanings. After mastering the knowledge of the Qur'an, Sunnah, and other Islamic sciences, he studied their works extensively, which enabled him to respond with great depth. In our current age, only a few shuyookh have studied the works of secularists, democrats, and nationalists sufficiently to comprehend the concepts and terminology they use, which are often not easily understood by everyone.
This serves as an example that Madkhali, rather than Ahlus-Sunnah as a whole, was the one who made everything clear for everyone to see. Madkhali was among the few who spoke out against contemporary Muslim groups such as Ikhwaan, Da'wah Tableegh, and Hizb at-Tahreer. Initially, the al-Lajnah ad-Daa'imah issued a fatwa stating that all these da'wah groups were Sunnis, which was a significant error. When Madkhali addressed these groups, his responses could be divided into two categories: the first based on false foundations, which we will disregard, and the second based on correct foundations. In the latter, it was evident, even to an ordinary "Salafi," that he was not wrong. Madkhali compiled many statements from the Jamaa'ah at-Tableegh and Ikhwaan in their books that contained serious errors in 'aqeedah, including issues related to the Beautiful Names and Lofty Attributes, and even instances of shirk in 'ibaadah among some of their leading figures. An ordinary student might expect Madkhali, as a shaykh and defender of the Sunnah, to be the one to bring these issues to light, as others did not.
This is why many shuyookh in Saudi Arabia initially held one opinion but later revised it, particularly concerning Da'wah at-Tableegh. At first, they generally praised their efforts and suggested that their mistakes should be corrected. However, a later fatwa declared them to be Mubtadi'ah, stating that strict conditions should be applied that only major students could manage, not just anyone.
Relevant: Who are the Jamaa’at at-Tableegh?
One of the reasons for this change, unfortunately, relates to the effects of colonization. Before the Islamic world was divided, any scholar could speak about global issues, and their fatwas could reach beyond their own country, allowing them to respond freely without constraints. However, after colonization, many 'ulama' became increasingly constrained due to political pressure, limiting their focus to fatwas within their own countries. Few were able to respond to issues beyond their borders, and those who could often lacked the influence that scholars once had. This may explain why many 'ulama' did not address contemporary groups.
Consider this: it is unwise to tell people to abandon the only available groups when the alternative is darkness, such as secularists. While there may be some light within the darkness of Muslim Mubtadi'ah, it would be a grave mistake to instruct people to leave them, as there is no clear alternative. This perspective is not my own but rather what ibn Taymiyyah conveyed. In some situations, it is necessary to correct others, but in most cases, the primary approach is to warn against them. That is to say, either the innovators change and repent, or they are pressured to the point where they are no longer prominent among ordinary Muslims.
In general, Madkhali was one of the few who spoke out against these groups, having once been a member of Ikhwaan himself. His insight into the group gave him an understanding that others lacked. It is said that he made tawbah after leaving Ikhwaan.
One of the reasons for Madkhali's rise to prominence is his staunch opposition to anyone who criticizes the Saudi government. It is reported that he would sometimes go to the authorities and inform on these individuals, even writing reports against them. Followers of Madkhali often have good relations with the authorities and sometimes issue fatwas that support these actions, stating that it is allowed or even obligatory in certain situations. This is well-known globally, including in Algeria, Morocco, Libya, Egypt, and Tunisia. For example, in Tunisia, where hijab is forbidden by law, there are still those who work closely with the authorities. Madkhali's student, Usaamah al-Qoosi, in Egypt, is also known for such behavior. (Source)
In short, they are well-known for this approach. The Salaf, and perhaps ibnul-Qayyim, also noted that when Mubtadi'ah cannot refute others through knowledge and discussion, showing their opponents to be allegedly mistaken, they turn to the government for support. This behavior is evident among Madkhali's followers in Libya, despite the fact that many shuyookh, including ibn Baaz and others, declared Gaddafi a kaafir. Nevertherless, Madkhali called Ikhwaan "more evil than Gaddafi," likely because many of his followers were from Libya. (Source)
It is also worth noting that many of Madkhali's students were supported financially in Saudi Arabia despite not having proper documentation. Almost none of the Saudis follow him, except perhaps those who work with the government. This strongly suggests that Madkhali may have once received financial support from the government, but they no longer need him as they have found others.
This overview provides a glimpse into how Madkhali rose to prominence.
|
Insha'Allah, we will next begin with his foundations and rules, addressing them point by point. Instead of discussing them in general, we will explore them in depth.
After our discussion last time, we reached Madkhali's four main rules, which outline how Madkhali approaches those he considers as Mubtadi'ah. He strictly adheres to these four rules; three of them are clearly mentioned in his books and lectures, while the fourth can be extrapolated from his teachings. We will first address the initial three rules. The first rule pertains to the differentiation between manhaj and 'aqeedah in a specific way. He once said in "Liqaa' Maftooh fee Jaddah," in the first part of the tape:
The Khawaarij say, "There is no hukm except by Allah," and they pray, fast, and recite the Quran. The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) described them: "You would consider your prayer and recitation insignificant compared to theirs," and in another narration: "Their recitation amounts to nothing. They pass through the Deen like an arrow passes through its target. They are the worst under the sky. If you encounter them, kill them as the people of 'Aad were killed," or in another narration: "kill them as the people of 'Aad and Iram were killed." Their 'aqeedah are Salafiyyah, meaning those who fought 'Ali had, by Allah, Salafiyyah 'aqeedah, my brothers. They did not worship graves, nor did they adopt the Jahmiyyah's negation. They did not have any political deviation regarding governance. In al-Haakimiyyah, they regarded the Companions as ignorant and insulted them, declared them disbelievers, and did not rely on the Companions of the Messenger of Allah for anything. They acted independently, deviated from the Ummah, and drew their swords against them. The Companions of the Messenger of Allah unanimously agreed to fight them, without any disagreement that they were the worst of creation.
In another tape, titled "al-Jalsah al-Khameesah fee al-Mukhayyam ar-Rabee'ee", in the first part of the tape:
The Khawaarij had Salafiyyah 'aqeedah in worship and in the Names and Attributes (of Allah), but they had a deviation in their manhaj (i.e., methodology). So, how could the Prophet say such things about them? And why did the Companions fight them? They are considered by the entire Ummah as some of the worst of Allah's creation. The Khawaarij today are Mu'tazilah, and they hold I'tizaal (i.e., Mu'tazilah beliefs).
Based on what we have read of what Madkhali said about manhaj and 'aqeedah, one can conclude that he considers them Sunni in 'aqeedah, referring to them as Salafis in 'aqeedah, while they are Mubtadi'ah in manhaj. He mentioned certain points related to manhaj, such as al-Haakimiyyah, and how they approached the Sahaabah and fought against them. He also explained why they are Salafi in 'aqeedah, stating that they did not fall into shirk in worship, nor did they negate the Names and Attributes. One could then say that he seems to limit 'aqeedah to Tawheed that pertains to Allah. From all this, one can ascertain that Madkhali follows his whims and desires. Why? Because the Khawaarij are mostly known for declaring those who commit major sins, such as stealing, dealing with riba, or drinking wine, as kuffaar. This is the defining characteristic of the Khawaarij, and ibn Taymiyyah spoke extensively about them in his fatwas. He said in Majmoo' al-Fatawa, volume 3, page 355:
And if the origin of innovations is understood, the origin of the Khawaarij's doctrine is that they declare people disbelievers because of sins, they consider a sin what is not actually a sin, and they believe in following the Quran without the Sunnah that contradicts the apparent meaning of the Quran — even if it is mutawaatirah. They declare those who oppose them as disbelievers and deem permissible against them, due to their perceived apostasy, what they would not deem permissible against an original disbeliever.
We can say that the Khawaarij are built upon a foundation that considers sins, even those not recognized as sins by others, as sins, and those who commit them are regarded as kuffaar by the Khawaarij. All their actions, including what they did against the Ummah and the Sahaabah, are based on this foundation. This foundation is the most well-known aspect of the Khawaarij, and these beliefs were not confined to a few individuals but rather they were held by large numbers of people throughout Islamic history. This is why the Salaf, whenever they spoke about 'aqeedah (which they sometimes referred to as I'tiqaad, Usool al-'Aqeedah, Usool al-I'tiqaad, Sunnah, Usool as-Sunnah, Usool Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah, and similar terms), meaning when the Salaf spoke about the foundations of Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah, they always emphasized that one should not declare takfeer on those who commit major sins unless they consider the sin to be halal, as considering a sin halal is kufr.
On this matter, imam Sufyan ibn 'Uyaynah (the shaykh of ash-Shaafi'ee) spoke about ten Sunnahs, meaning the ten foundations of Ahlus-Sunnah:
The Sunnah are ten and whoever embodies them has fulfilled the Sunnah, and whoever neglects any of them has neglected the Sunnah: affirming al-Qadr, giving preference to Abu Bakr and 'Umar, (belief in the Prophet's) Pond, intercession, the scale (of deeds) and the bridge (over Hell), that faith is both speech and action, that the Quran is the Word of Allah, belief in the punishment of the grave, the resurrection on the Day of Judgment, and not definitely testifying that any Muslim [will be in Paradise or Hell (except with a textual proof)].
By "intercession," he means that those who went to Hell due to their sins, as they were not forgiven by Allah, so the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) will intercede for them by the permission of Allah, meaning they are not kuffaar, contrary to the belief of the Khawaarij. This (citation above) has been reported by al-Laalikaa'i in Sharh Usool I'tiqaad Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah, volume 1, page 175. (Relevant)
And imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal said:
The belief in the intercession of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him and his family) and in a group of people who will be brought out of Hell after they have been burned and turned to ashes, who will then be ordered to be taken to a river at the gate of Paradise—as it has been narrated—is to have faith in it and to believe in it as it has been described, in whatever manner it may be.
And he said:
Whoever meets Allah with a sin that warrants Hell but has repented and is not persistently committing it, then Allah, the Almighty, will forgive him, as He says [translation of the meaning], "{He accepts repentance from His servants and pardons misdeeds}" [Ash-Shura 42:25]. And whoever meets Him after having had the punishment for that sin carried out in this world, it serves as an expiation for him, as mentioned in the report from the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). But whoever meets Him persistently committing sins without repentance that deserve punishment, his fate is up to Allah the Almighty—if He wills, He will punish him, and if He wills, He will forgive him. And whoever meets Him as a disbeliever, He will punish him and not forgive him.
And he also said:
Whoever dies from the people of the Qiblah (i.e., Muslims), believing in the Oneness of Allah, should be prayed over, and forgiveness should be sought for him. He should not be deprived of being prayed for, nor should the prayer over him be abandoned due to any sin he committed, whether minor or major. His affair is left to Allah, the Almighty.
These were reported by al-Laalikaa'i in his book Sharh Usool I'tiqaad Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah, volume 1, pages 176, 178, 182, 184, and 185. Similar statements were made by the shaykh of imam al-Bukhaari, 'Ali ibn al-Madini, in the same book, volume 1, pages 185, 190, and 191.
What I've quoted are just some parts, as this should suffice as a response to what Madkhali said. Everything we've mentioned, including the statements of the Salaf, serves as proof that those who commit major sins are not considered kuffaar, and that this is part of 'aqeedah. Why? Because the Salaf mentioned these issues in the context of 'aqeedah, which was sometimes referred to as Sunnah, especially among the first three generations. Since the Salaf included them in 'aqeedah, it means that the Khawaarij's mistake was in 'aqeedah, not in manhaj. Remember, Madkhali did not even mention that this belief was held by the Khawaarij. As ibn Taymiyyah mentioned, their foundation began with this belief, which is why after the reign of 'Uthman, they considered the Sahaabah as kuffaar, denied intercession, and went against the Ummah, treating them as kuffaar. All these points are included in 'aqeedah. They built their foundation concerning major sins. These points are clear, and countless students of knowledge who have studied 'aqeedah understand that this is a matter that should not even be up for debate.
There are many 'ulama' who have mentioned the same in 'aqeedah books, stating that Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah do not declare takfeer on those who commit major sins. Since their statements are similar, we will not quote them word for word but will instead mention the names and the books in which they were cited. We have mentioned what Sufyan ibn 'Uyaynah (the shaykh of ash-Shaafi'ee), imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal and 'Ali ibn al-Madini (the shaykh of al-Bukhaari) said; similar statements were made by Abu Thawr (a student of ash-Shaafi'ee), and imam al-Bukhaari said, noting that more than a thousand men have said the same as he did. Ibn Abi Haatim (the son of Abu Haatim ar-Raazi) and his companion Abu Zur'ah ar-Raazi, who lived during the same time as imam al-Bukhaari and imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal, were major 'ulama' in hadith, and many other 'ulama' have also affirmed this. These were reported by al-Laalikaa'i in his book Sharh Usool I'tiqaad Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah, all mentioned in the first volume and at the beginning of the book, where he collected statements outlining the 'aqeedah of Ahlus-Sunnah, one after another.
Other 'ulama' have also said similar, like imam Abu Bakr al-Humaydi (the shaykh of al-Bukhaari), he has an 'aqeedah book. Imam ash-Shaafi'ee have said similar which was reported by as-Suyooti in "الأمر بالاتباع والنهي عن الابتداع". Abu Ja'far at-Tahaawi in his 'aqeedah book, ibn Abu 'Aasim in his Kitaab as-Sunnah, Abu 'Uthman as-Saabooni 'Aqeedah as-Salaf, ibn Abi Zayd al-Qaryawani in his books ar-Risaalah and Kitaab al-Jaami' as-Sunan, Abu Bakr Ismaa'eeli, ibn Jareer at-Tabari, and many others. Those from the Salaf.
Similar statements were made by later 'ulama', such as ibn Qudaamah al-Maqdisi, ibn Taymiyyah, and ibnul-Qayyim. They all mentioned that one should not declare takfeer on those who commit major sins. Based on this foundation, other principles were established, such as the concepts of intercession, praying the janaazah (funeral prayer) for them when they pass away, not treating them as kuffaar, not killing them as kuffaar, the belief that eemaan increases and decreases, and other related matters. All these issues were discussed in 'aqeedah as a response to what the Khawaarij claimed. It is clear that the Khawaarij fell into this form of innovation and many other innovations, all of which were built on the foundation of declaring takfeer on those who commit major sins, which is an innovation in 'aqeedah.
It is noteworthy that Madkhali did not mention this at all, as if he disregarded it. Why? So he could conclude that the innovation the Khawaarij fell into was in manhaj, not in 'aqeedah. If one were to ask what his objective was, it becomes evident that he considers all contemporary groups, whether they have Sunni or bid'ah 'aqeedah, as Mubtadi'ah, because he considers the formation of a group—whether it is a hizb (party) or jamaa'ah (group)—to be an innovation in itself, even if the group is based on Sunni 'aqeedah. This is what he refers to as Hizbiyyah and labels those involved as Hizbiyyoon or Harakiyyoon, considering all of them at once as Mubtadi'ah. If others within these groups commit innovation, it merely adds support to his opinion. For him, it is enough to be part of a hizb to be considered a Mubtadi'. Ibn Taymiyyah said:
... Therefore, whoever takes on the responsibility of a group is called a leader (za’eem); if he undertakes it for good, he is praised for that, and if for evil, he is blamed for that.
As for the "head of the party" (ra’s al-hizb), it refers to the leader of a group that forms a party, i.e., becomes a faction. If they are united upon what Allah and His Messenger have commanded without adding or subtracting, they are believers who have what they deserve and upon whom are duties they must fulfill. But if they have added to or diminished from that, such as showing bias towards those who join their party whether right or wrong and turning away from those who do not join their party whether right or wrong, this is the division that Allah Almighty and His Messenger have condemned. Indeed, Allah and His Messenger have commanded unity and harmony and prohibited division and disagreement. They have commanded cooperation in righteousness and piety and prohibited cooperation in sin and aggression.
(Majmoo' al-Fatawa, volume 11, page 92)
Forming a group, as ibn Taymiyyah mentioned, is allowed in itself. However, one should consider the objective of the group. If they unite upon the Sunnah, then they are Sunni; if they unite upon bid'ah, then they are Mubtadi'ah; and if they unite upon fisq (sinfulness), then they are fussaaq (sinners). In short, all of the 'ulama' agree that the innovation of the Khawaarij is in 'aqeedah, not in manhaj, contrary to what Madkhali claimed. Therefore, his opinion goes against the consensus of the 'ulama'. His objective in all this seems to be to consider all group formations, whether they are actually Sunni or Mubtadi'ah, as deviant simply because they are "Hizbi," with no other consideration. Consequently, one might extrapolate from what he says that these groups should be approached as Khawaarij and treated harshly, as the Sahaabah treated them.
Perhaps, and I'm not certain about this, this misconception could lead to contemporary groups being considered worse than the early Mubtadi'ah, such as the Ash'ariyyah and the Murji'ah. Why? Unfortunately, many ordinary people assume, based on what the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said about the Khawaarij, that they are the worst group, while the reality is not the case. Ibn Taymiyyah mentioned that the Raafidhah are worse than the Khawaarij. (Source). Ibn Taymiyyah also mentioned that the Murji'ah are worse than the Khawaarij, similar to the views of many from the Salaf, such as Qataadah and others, as stated in Kitaab as-Sunnah by al-Khallaal:
"The effects of the Murji'ah fitnah are more frightening for this Ummah than the fitnah of the Azaariqah (i.e., the Khawaarij)."
|
Unfortunately, many ordinary Muslims, because the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) spoke about the Khawaarij in such terms, erroneously believe that they are the worst and that they are a group that should be fought against. Since Madkhali considers the Khawaarij's bida'ah to be in manhaj, and the formation of other groups to also be bida'ah in manhaj, one might conclude that these groups should be treated the same way the Sahaabah treated the Khawaarij. From hearing his initial statements, we can see how dangerous his opinion is and what he truly meant by it. We are dealing with a man who follows his whims and desires. Twice he mentioned the Khawaarij but omitted what they are most known for, which is declaring takfeer on those who commit major sins.
Remember this point, according to Madkhali: bida'ah in manhaj is very dangerous—if not more dangerous than bida'ah in 'aqeedah, like that of the Ash'ariyyah, Jahmiyyah, or Raafidhah. If it's not worse, then at least, according to him, it's on the same level. We should keep this in mind because this false opinion has resonated among his other opinions, one after another, leading to the realization that he just wants to dismantle all groups at once—both those who have taken the right path and those who have unfortunately taken the wrong path.
The upcoming parts are currently still being translated...
Return to the main page