The term “Madkhali” comes from the opinions of Shaykh Rabee Ibn Hadee Al-Madkhali, a Saudi scholar who promoted strict obedience to those identifying themselves as Muslims while holding power over the affairs of the Muslims (via using their faction’s armed force) – more specifically, the Saudi faction’s control over the Muslims of Arabia.

Rabee wasn’t the first or only scholar to argue as such, but became a notable advocate for obedience to those who assume the title of ‘ruler’ – and introduced previously unheard of doctrines: The Muslim Jama’ah can have multiple rulers, and even if these rulers legislate (secular) kufr laws they are still Muslim and legitimate, and it is forbidden to condemn the bad actions (or kufr laws) of the ruler in public.

The deviation & ‘bida’ of Madkhalis can be summarised as such, Madkhalis:

1. Demand Muslims accept multiple rulers
2. Claim that Muslims cannot even publicly command the good and forbid evil against these regimes
3. Claim that despite Secular regimes legislating kufr laws over Allah’s laws, they still remain Islamically legitimate regimes necessitating obedience of the Muslims

This is different to Islamic shariah and political fiqh, which commands:

1. Muslims can only have one Imam (leader), if there is a second leader (given bayah afterwards), he is either illegitimate or – if he somehow received leadership simultaneously with the other, then there is no leader and the Muslims are in a sinful state of anarchy (see Imam Juwayni’s explanation in Ghiyath ul Umam)
2. No Muslim is allowed to undermine the legitimacy of a duly appointed Caliph/Imam who has been given bayah by the people
3. As long as the Caliph upholds Islamic legislation only from the Quran & Sunnah, he is legitimate and to be obeyed as long as he is in position of ruling. Even if (according to the Ahul ul Sunnah position, but not the Ibadi position) he commits sins, and breaks the rights of the people (i.e. tyranny).
4. The Caliph may appoint deputies to act on his behalf, for example, regional governors (Wulaa) and commanders of squadrons of the army (Amirs). These are the amirs who must be obeyed. However, these ‘leaders’ are only deputies whose authority is conditioned of being formally appointed by the Caliph – they are not separate authorities from the Caliphate, nor can be independent from him.

If the Islamic fiqh positions sound new or strange, it isn’t because they are new (they are in every book of political fiqh written by classical Islamic scholars) but rather because of the prevalence of Muslim ignorance today after colonialism.

In essence, the deviation and ‘bida’ of the Madkhalis, is that they treat the multitude of modern secular ‘rulers’ as being owed the same Islamic legal obligations upon Muslims, as a unitary Caliphate with 100% Islamic laws.

The way Madkhalis are able to do this, is by exploiting the ignorance and shallow understanding Muslims have about politics and ruling after colonialism. This is because most Muslims in the Muslim world cannot see the difference between a leader issuing orders to his soldiers, administrators or the public (i.e. an executive command), and the legislation of laws for society that are stand as the official declared criteria for right and wrong, legal (halal) or illegal (haram) amongst the people.

Furthermore, the shallow understanding of people on Islamic terms means many cannot tell understand the many ways yahkumu (as in hukm, judgment or ruling) can be used in Islamic text, from judging a court case (i.e. ruling on a case) to establishing the hukm (rulings) of Allah (SWT) as the laws of the society. Both situations are not the identical! A corrupted leader making a bad judgment in a one-off court case IS NOT THE SAME as they legislating laws that our outside the Quran & Sunnah – even if there are referring to a ‘yahkumu’.

However, there are many Muslims including scholars who know the difference, and if any of them attempt to remind the Muslims of this, pointing out the classical Islamic position and urging Muslims to use the classical positions (and ahadith and Quran) as a lens to judge the sitation of the Muslims today, Madkhalis will use the following defence mechanism against them: calling them ‘deviants’ and ‘khawarij’ for the simple ‘crime’ of advocating for the classical ijma and Islamic understanding – namely, that only a unitary Caliph given bayah (pledge of allegiance) by Muslims is legitimate, and even then only if it legislates exclusively from the Quran and Sunnah.

Furthermore, Madkhalis like to denounce people as deviated ‘takfiris’ for saying that anyone who legislates from other the Quran and Sunna has committed major kufr, despite classical and modern (salafi) scholars holding this very same position.

The reason that Madkhalis say these things, is that after colonialism, with the institution of new secular nationalist states, the defunding of Islamic institutions and the removal of pro-Caliphate (Ottoman) scholars from their positions, most Muslims forgot just how Islamic political fiqh works.

Compounded onto that, most Muslims who talk about statecraft don’t even understand how a state works, so they won’t know how to interpret scholars quotes and ahadith related to things like the difference between a Caliph judging badly in a one-off court case, and a ‘ruler’ legislating secular kufr laws as the standard law of the land.

The Madkhalis would agree, that someone declaring there are two gods – without duress or insanity – has reneged Islam. And yet, their secular mindsets don’t understand that a ruler decreeing kufr law IS A PUBLIC DECLARATION of their (alternative opinion on) halal & haram, which shirk (see below for a scholar discussing this connection).

The mainstream understanding of classical scholars is: anyone who legislates unIslamic law is a disbeliever. There is no difference of opinion on this across any madhab, whether the four schools of ahl ul Sunnah, or the Ibadiyyah (“ahl ul haq wa’l istiqamah” as the name they adopt) or any of the schools of the Shi’ah (twelvers, Ismailis [dawoodi bohras], and Zaidis).

What are Madkhalis doing wrong when they misread the quotes of scholars or the ahadith of the Prophet (ﷺ)?

Madkhalis tend to hide or obscure words in quotes by ahadith or classical scholars, many even quoting Ibn Taymiyyah thinking he supports them, when in reality they conveniently gloss over the parts where he quite clearly says:

“So whoever does not commit to the judgement of God and His Messenger concerning the disputes between themselves, then God has sworn by His Self that he is not a believer…” [Ibn Taymiyyah, majmoo al fatawa]

…the intention here is to say that it is always an obligation…to judge by that which God sent down to Muhammad (SAAW)…Whoever does not commit to using the Law of God and His Messenger is a kafir” [Ibn Taymiyyah, majmoo al fatawa]

So what’s going on? Why are people misunderstanding the clear ahadith and Quranic surahs today? and what do we do today about secular rulers and their kufr laws?

The answer is context (i.e. what is a state and what does it do), and cross-referencing with other ahadith and Quranic verses.

In a state, and Caliphate, the regime does:

1. Legislation of laws to regulate – by threat of punishment or reward – the actions of the people (including the regime)

2. Judging disputes in courts

3. Executive action (deploy army, police etc)

4. The leader does actions as a private individual, i.e. in has personal life.

A leader that commits public sins or is tyrannical may be removed from power – but only by the ‘ahl ul hal wa’l aqd’

In Sunni fiqh, if the Caliph is sinful in his personal life, this is not the business of the public if it is kept secret.

But if the Caliph’s sin is made public, or he does bad executive actions deliberately (e.g. orders his soldiers to kill someone unjustly), or deliberately errs judging a court case, he is to be taken to court and judged. He may be either punished (depending on the crime), or simply impeached (removed from office by a competent judge of the mahkhamat ul madhalim – the court of unjust acts), or both.

‘if the Imam fulfils the rights of the Ummah…he will have executed the claim of Allah, may He be exalted, regarding their rights and their duties: in which case they have a duty to obey and support him as long as his state does not change. Two changes in a person’s state will exclude him from the Imamate: the first of these is a lack of decency…he commits forbidden acts, pursues evil, is ruled by his lust and is subject to his passions; this counts as a moral deviation which excludes him from taking up the Imamate or from carrying on with it. Thus if such behaviour befalls someone who has become the Imam, he is removed. If he recovers his decency he may not return to the Imamate except by way of a new contract’

Imam Mawardi, akham ul sultaniyya

This is because Muslims can’t have an unjust Caliph, but the only way he can be removed is that he should be impeached peacefully by a Judge citing Quran (2:124).

‘And [mention, O Muhammad], when Abraham was tried by his Lord with commands and he fulfilled them. [Allah] said, “Indeed, I will make you a leader for the people.” [Abraham] said, “And of my descendants?” [Allah] said, “My covenant does not include the wrongdoers.” [Quran 2: 124]

However, if for some reason we can’t bring the Caliph to the Judge, the Caliph remains in post, and while in his post we must continue obeying (except for any sinful orders he issues).

A ruler must be obeyed only as long as he is a ruler – and if the power brokers of the state (the ahl ul hal wa’l aqd – “those who loosen and bind” – the one’s who have influence and power enough to decide amongst themselves who will the Caliph) decide to dismiss the Caliph, the Caliph ceases to be a ruler instantaneously. They are called “those who loosen and bind” because they can ‘bind’ a new Caliph, and ‘loosen’ an old one from office. The power brokers have a duty to uphold a judges verdict regarding the legitimacy of the Caliph.

However, if the judge keeps the Caliph in office because his crime is too petty to warrant removal, OR the ahl ul hal wa’l aqd are corrupt and prevent anyone from taking the Caliph to a judge or implementing the judges ruling, Muslims MUST NOT use armed revolts against the Caliph. This is because the Caliph must be obeyed while he is still Caliph. The same is for even Western presidents, who have authority right up until the moment their term comes to an end, or they are impeached by a Parliament or a Senate.

The reason that rebellion is generally not allowed even if a Caliph is tyrannical is in order to preserve the State that guards the Deen and the unity of Muslims.

This is because even a self-serving Caliph would still guard the borders and fight against harbi kufaar, and protect the Ummah and uphold the laws courts of Islam (even if he makes sure he doesn’t appear in one himself). Historically, most of the greatest successes in Muslim history have been under a less than perfect Caliph.

Consider Vladimir Putin of Russia. He kills his opponents, find loopholes in the russian constitution to get what he wants, and remain in power for long after he could ever be constitutionally allowed – but despite all this, Putin wants Russia to be great and strong and will ensure it is. Likewise, even a corrupt Caliph has an interest to make the Caliphate strong and keep it united, and to expand its reach and power. This is why in the past there was no point rebelling against a Caliph, because it would not advance the Islamic interests of the state – the courts would still judge by Islamic law, the Jihad would still be launched, the frontiers protected from the enemy, and Muslims would be protected from outside enemies – while mostly being free to call the people to Islam and study and debate Islamic doctrines without Caliphal oversight.

So if Muslims cannot remove the Caliph easily, because the ahl ul hal wa’l aqd that support him have become corrupt and ignore petitions for his removal, peace must be maintained even under a tyrannical Caliph.

Calling out the public sins and tyranny of the Caliph and his deputies

Until the corrupt Caliph is removed from office by a judge, he remains in office and must be obeyed. BUT, he cannot be obeyed if he commands a sin. Furthermore Muslims are allowed to publicly command the good and forbid the evil and call out his public bad deeds BECAUSE THEY ARE PUBLIC.

The whole point of commanding the good and forbidding the evil, is so that Muslims don’t think that the corrupt actions of the Caliph are OK or part of Islam. Also, it is a dawah to his corrupt supporters who may be merely ignorant and they need to learn NOT TO OBEY IN SIN.

Madkhalis, with not much global or historical awareness, strangely claim that publicly calling to the good and denouncing evil is somehow say it causes ‘chaos’ despite the fact that the West criticise and make fun of their rulers all the time and no instability arises.

Madkhalis also obscure a hadith that talks about merely advising a Caliph (nasiha) in private, and obfuscate it to include Commanding the good and forbidding evil also. There’s no limitation on where truth can be said – as the hadith on obeying a ruler also mentions:

Narrated ‘Ubada bin As-Samit: ‘We gave the oath of allegiance to Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) that we would listen to and obey him both at the time when we were active and at the time when we were tired and that we would not fight against the ruler or disobey him, and would stand firm for the truth or say the truth wherever we might be, and in the Way of Allah we would not be afraid of the blame of the blamers’. [Sahih al-Bukhari 7199, 7200]

The sahabahs understood the importance of resisting the oppression of bad leaders (even if it is by the tongue only). In fact, the Sahabah even praise the Romans of having the good quality of resisting the oppression of their Kings:

Sahabi ‘Amr bin al-Aas said a “good quality” of the Romans was their putting resistence against the oppression of their kings. Modern Muslims must stop the ‘bida’ of calling secular warlords with kufr laws as “our rulers”, and adopt this “good quality”

Mustaurid al-Qurashi reported: ‘I heard Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) as saying: The Last Hour would come (when) the Romans would form a majority amongst people. ‘Amr said to him (Mustaurid Qurashi): See what you are saying? He said: I say what I heard from Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ). Thereupon he said: If you say that, it is a fact for they have four qualities. They have the patience to undergo a trial and immediately restore themselves to sanity after trouble and attack again after flight. They (have the quality) of being good to the destitute and the orphans, to the weak and, fifthly, the good quality in them is that they put resistance against the oppression of kings’. [Sahih Muslim 2898a]

There are of course many hadith related by the sahabah cited to approve of publicly rebuking the Governors and even the Caliph himself:

Narrated by Abu Ya’laa and at-Tabaraani from Abi Qubayl who said: “Mu’aawiyah (first Umayyad Caliph) delivered khutbah on a Friday saying, ‘Verily, the wealth and booties of war are only for us, we give whoever we wish and hinder it from whoever we wish’. No one refuted him (among the congregation). The following Jum’ah, he said the same thing and no one refuted him. When it was the third Jum’ah and he repeated the same thing, a man among those who were in the Masjid stood up to him and said, _’Never! The wealth and booties of war are for us and whoever hinder it from us, we shall judge him with our swords!’._ When he finished praying, he sent for the man and he entered upon him. He sat with him on the bed and then permitted people to enter and said, _’O people, I said something at the first Jum’ah which no one refuted me thereupon. Also, during the second Jum’ah, no one refuted me. When I repeated it the third Jum’ah, this man enlivened me, may Allah enliven him. I have heard the Messenger of Allaah saying “Some people will emerge, saying some things with no one refuting them. They will dive into Hell together like the diving of a monkey. So, I (Mu’aawiyah) feared that Allah might make me one of them, but when this man refuted me, he enlivened me, may Allah enliven him and I hope that Allah will not make me one of them [i.e. those diving into hell]‘”. [Al-Haythami said in Majma’ az-Zawaaid: It was narrated by at-Tabaraani in al-Kabir wal Awsat, and Abu Ya’laa in his Musnad. Classed as Saheeh by Shaykh Al-Albani and Husayn Asad.

Ka’b bin ‘Ujra, a companion of the Prophet who was told of Allah’s (SWT) mercy for him, reported that he entered the mosque and saw Abd al-Rahman b. Umm Hakam, governor under Caliph Muawiyah, delivering the sermon in a sitting posture. Upon this he said:

“Look at this wretched person; he delivers the sermon while sitting, whereas Allah said:” And when they see merchandise or sport, they break away to it and leave thee standing” [Sahih Muslim 864]

This is the same Ka’b bin ‘Ujra who related the following hadith about accounting the rulers:

“The Messenger of Allah(s.a.w) came out to us, we were made up of nine; five and four. The first of the numbers for the Arabs, and the latter for the non-Arabs. He said: ‘Listen, have you heard that after me there will leaders, whoever enters upon them and condones to their lies, and supports them in their oppression, then he is not from me and I am not from him, and he shall not drink with me from the Hawd. And whoever does not enter upon them, nor help them in their oppression, nor condones to their lies, then he is from me, and I am from him, and he shall drink with me at the Hawd.” [Jami` at-Tirmidhi 2259]

Another case was a Yahya bin Yamar, a tabi’ tabieen and famous hadith narrator who publicly rebuked Hajjaj, governor under Caliph Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan:

Aa’sim bn Bah’dalah narrated ‘”People gathered around Hajjaaj [and] then Husain bin ‘Ali (RA) was mentioned. Hajjaj said, “He is not among the progeny of the Prophet ﷺ” [arguing progeny isn’t via mothers, but only fathers].

In the gathering was Yahya bn Yamar who retorted “You have lied O [governor of the] Amirul Mu’mineen (Leaders of the Muslims)”. Hajjaaj: “You must surely put forth a proof for what you have said from the Book of Allah or I will kill you”.

Yahya recited (Surah An’aam vs 84-85): “Among his progeny, Dawuud, Sulaimon, Ayub, Yusuf, Musa and Haarun to …..Zakariyah, Yahya and Eesa’. Then Allah mentioned that Eesa is among the offspring of Adam through his mother and Hussain bin Ali is among the offspring of Muhammad (ﷺ) through his mother”.

Hajjaj: *You have said the truth! But what temerity do you have to belie me in my gathering?*

Yahya: “The covenant Allah took with the Prophets that they must give clarifications and not conceal it. (Then he quoted) “..but they threw it away behind their backs and purchase with it miserable gains!_…. [Al-Imran: 187]”

So, Hajjaj banished him to Khorasan’

[Haakim No 4772, Sunanul kubraa of Bayhaaqi Vol.6 pg166, Tafsir of Ibn Abi Haatim Vol.4 pg1335]

Clearly these hadiths illustrate sahabahs and renown transmitters of narrations clearly publicly accounting the Caliphs and their governors/Amirs for all to hear.

Conditional Limits of Islam regarding rulers

If Muslims must obey a public-ally sinful and tyrannical Caliph (but not his commands to sin or help him in his tyranny), is there no ‘red line’ for what a Caliph can do without Muslims rising up? NO. There is a clear red line. If the Caliph reneges Islam or demonstrates ‘clear kufr’, they can be fought. Why? Because a leader that rules with kufr laws is the very opposite of the reason Muslims appoint a Caliph.

Narrated Junada bin Abi Umaiya: We entered upon ‘Ubada bin As-Samit while he was sick. We said, “May Allah make you healthy. Will you tell us a Hadith you heard from the Prophet (ﷺ) and by which Allah may make you benefit?” He said, “The Prophet (ﷺ) called us and we gave him the Pledge of allegiance for Islam, and among the conditions on which he took the Pledge from us, was that we were to listen and obey (the orders) both at the time when we were active and at the time when we were tired, and at our difficult time and at our ease and to be obedient to the ruler and give him his right even if he did not give us our right, and not to fight against him unless we noticed him having open Kufr (disbelief) for which we would have a proof with us from Allah.“ [Sunan Ibn Majah 2865]

There are a lot hadith that say our obedience has conditions beyond simply the ruler identifying as a Muslim.

The whole point of government, is to protect the people and manage their affairs according to a definition of good and bad. In Islam, good and bad can only be determined by the Will of Allah (SWT).

Therefore, a government in Islam is only legitimate IF it legislates laws from, and holds as a criterion for judgement, the Quran and Sunnah.

Narrated Umm Al-Husain Al-Ahmasiyyah: ‘I heard the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) delivering Khutbah during the farewell Hajj, and he was wearing a Burd which he had wrapped from under his armpit.” She said: “I was look at muscle of his upper arm quivering and I heard him saying: O you people! Have Taqwa of Allah. If a mutilated Ethiopian slave is put in command over you, then listen to him and obey him, as long as he upholds the Book of Allah among you.‘” [Jami` at-Tirmidhi 1706]

It was narrated from Umm Husain that she heard the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) say:

“Even if the one appointed over you is a mutilated Ethiopian slave whose nose and ears have been cut off, listen to him and obey, so long as he leads you according to the Book of Allah.” [Sunan Ibn Majah 2861]

A person that rules according to whims or desires is the very definition of anarchy. Only Allah’s Will can be the benchmark for what is permitted and what is prohibited in a state. The Prophet Muhammed (SAAW) stated this as a pre-condition of legitimacy.

There is even a hadith that says there is no obedience to one who disobeys Allah SWT.

It was narrated from ‘Abdullah bin Mas’ud that the Prophet (ﷺ) said: “Among those in charge of you, after I am gone, will be men who extinguish the Sunnah and follow innovation. They will delay the prayer from its proper time.” I said: “O Messenger of Allah, if I live to see them, what should I do?” He said: “You ask me, O Ibn ‘Abd, what you should do? There is no obedience to one who disobeys Allah.” [Sunan Ibn Majah 2865]

Even the Americans have this red-line, albeit for liberalism. The 2nd amendment allows Americans to carry weapons, because if they Government ceases ruling by the principles of liberalism and public consent, it loses legitimacy and the people can revolt against it.

However, if Caliph demonstrates clear kufr by legislating from other than by the book of Allah (SWT) and the Sunnah (but again, not by his mere bad practices not following the Sunnah in his executive role, misjudging the odd court case or general oppression or injustice), then Muslim MUST fight against him.

Does this mean now that today, the Ummah must do takfir of the rulers and begin an armed rebellion – I’d agree with the scholars who say not to do so. But there is more ways to change a regime without rebellion. But before we get into a wise method of resolving this problem, we must discuss what was the actual sin of the Khawarij? If there are times Muslims can fight a ruler, why were the Khawarij condemned? What specifically did they do wrong?

The actual sin of the Khawarij that makes them the Khawarij (from the ahl-ul-Sunna perspective)

The Khawarij revolted against Ali (RA) because they felt that Ali (RA) agreeing to arbitrate a dispute with Muawiayh on who should be Caliph, was rendering to human judgement what had already been decided by God (i.e. the person given the first bayah is Caliph, and Ali was first)

Narrated Abu Huraira:

Narrated Abu Huraira: The Prophet (ﷺ) said, “The Israelis used to be ruled and guided by prophets: Whenever a prophet died, another would take over his place. There will be no prophet after me, but there will be Caliphs who will increase in number.” The people asked, “O Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ)! What do you order us (to do)?” He said, “Obey the one who will be given the pledge of allegiance first. Fulfil their (i.e. the Caliphs) rights, for Allah will ask them about (any shortcoming) in ruling those Allah has put under their guardianship.” [Sahih al-Bukhari 3455]

The Khawarij the argued that judging by other than what Allah (SWT) had revealed was kufr, and they declared Ali (RA) an apostate that must be fought. Here’s the thing, Ali (RA) himself said the principles they cited were true, but they (mis)applied it to the wrong case.

The Khawarij in Ali (RA)’s time never cited doctrines different from other Muslims, all Muslims – including the companions – believed that ruling by other than what Allah (SWT) has revealed is kufr, they also believed murtadeen are to be executed etc. These are all things the khawarij cited to justify their rebellion. The mentality of the khawarij merely made so zealous that they were misjudging the stiations and (mis)applying these akham to the wrong situation.

‘Ubaidullah b. Abu Rafi’, the freed slave of the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ), said:

When Haruria (the Khawarij) set out and as he was with ‘Ali b. Abu Talib (Allah be pleased with him) they said, “There is no command but that of Allah.” Upon this ‘Ali said: The statement is true but it is intentionally applied (to support) a wrong (cause). The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) described their characteristics and I found these characteristics in them. They state the truth with their tongue, but it does not go beyond this part of their bodies (and the narrator pointed towards his throat)”. The most hateful among the creation of Allah is one black man among them (Khawarij)” [Sahih Muslim 1066g]

Ali (RA) was obeying the Quran by submitting a dispute to the book of Allah (SWT), and of course this requires a human arbitrator to judge. It doesn’t mean Ali (RA) was judging by other than what Allah has revealed. The Khawarij didn’t understand that and transgressed.

Later on, the Khawarij developed a doctrine of even a sinful Caliph can be revolted against, and major sins take one out of the fold of Islam. That’s why they’re not Sunnis. The Khawarij developed the ‘chain of takfir’: anyone who doesn’t think Ali is a kafir, is a kafir too.

The Madkhalis are dangerous, because they call their opponents Khawarij, and because there is a hadith that the Khawarij are ‘the dogs of hellfire’ that should be killed – Madkhalis (and the governments they protect) can kill their opponents with assumed divine approval & impunity.

There is more to say about Islamic fiqh of ruling, like Ibn Taymiyyah viewing that if the ruler is corrupt he will corrupt the people, but having a bad Caliph is better than no Caliph. This brings us to another absurdity of the Madkhalis..

The Muslim Ummah can only have one Imam at a time

Muslims cannot have divisions (borders) between themselves and there can only be one Caliph/Imam of the Muslims (plus his deputees [Amirs] and Regional Governors [wulaa]) who rule various regions and squadrons of the army on his behalf.

Muslims must be united in one Jama’ah, under one Imam. This means that anyone claiming to be a leader (imam) after the first is fought.

It has been narrated on the authority of Aba Sa’id al-Khudri that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said:

‘When oath of allegiance has been taken for two caliphs, kill the one for whom the oath was taken later’ [Sahih Muslim 1853]

‘And hold firmly to the rope of Allāh all together and do not become divided. And remember the favor of Allāh upon you – when you were enemies and He brought your hearts together and you became, by His favor, brothers. And you were on the edge of a pit of the Fire, and He saved you from it. Thus does Allāh make clear to you His verses that you may be guided’ [Quran 3:103]

If the Madkhalis view the numerous Secular Muslim states as ‘legitimate’, and they apply what the hadith requires today, we’d have to kill 49 out of the 50 leaders of the Muslim states, as we can only have one Imam. This is the absurdity Madkhalis cause when they trying to justify a secular non-Islamic reality according to Islamic fiqh of ruling.

When the Prophet Muhammed (ﷺ) foretold of a time of fitna and evil people inviting to hell, he commanded the Muslims to seek refuge with the Jama’ah (the united body of Muslims) and their Imam. But if there is no Jama’ah, Muslims must separate from the factions. However by commanding us to obey the heads of the factions (firaq), the Madkhalis command the opposite.

The khawarij split from the jama’ah and rebelled against their Imam, but today, after the break up of the jama’ah and no Imam, the real khawarij today are those who want to keep it that way, calling to obey the split factions chiefs’.

To be anti-khawarij today, is to reverse this.

It was narrated that ‘Arfajah bin Shuraih Al-Ashja’I said:

“I saw the Prophet [SAW] on the Minbar addressing the people. He said: ‘After me there will be many calamities and much evil behavior. Whoever you see splitting away from the Jama’ah or trying to create division among the Ummah of Muhammad [SAW], then kill him, for the Hand of Allah is with the Jama’ah, and the Shaitan is with the one who splits away from the Ummah, running with him.’” [Sunan an-Nasa’i 4020]

Ibn ‘Abbas narrated that the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w) said:

“Allah’s Hand is with the Jama’ah.” [Jami` at-Tirmidhi 2166]

Ibn ‘Umar narrated:

“Umar delivered a Khutbah to us at Al-Jabiyah. He said: ‘O you people! Indeed I have stood among you as the Messenger of Allah(s.a.w) stood among us, and he said: “…Adhere to the Jama’ah, beware of separation, for indeed Ash-Shaitan is with one, and he is further away from two. Whoever wants the best place in Paradise, then let him stick to the Jama’ah. Whoever rejoices with his good deeds and grieves over his evil deeds, then that is the believer among you.’” [Jami` at-Tirmidhi 2165]

Narrated Hudhaifa bin Al-Yaman:

‘The people used to ask Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) about the good but I used to ask him about the evil lest I should be overtaken by them. So I said, “O Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ)! We were living in ignorance and in an (extremely) worst atmosphere, then Allah brought to us this good (i.e., Islam); will there be any evil after this good?” He said, “Yes.” I said, ‘Will there be any good after that evil?” He replied, “Yes, but it will be tainted (not pure.)” I asked, “What will be its taint?” He replied, “(There will be) some people who will guide others not according to my tradition? You will approve of some of their deeds and disapprove of some others.” I asked, “Will there be any evil after that good?” He replied, “Yes, (there will be) some people calling at the gates of the (Hell) Fire, and whoever will respond to their call, will be thrown by them into the (Hell) Fire.” I said, “O Allah s Apostle! Will you describe them to us?” He said, “They will be from our own people and will speak our language.” I said, “What do you order me to do if such a state should take place in my life?” He said, “Stick to the Jama’ah and their Imam [singular]” I said, “If there is neither a Jama’ah nor an Imam [singular]?” He said, “Then turn away from all those factions [firaq] even if you were to bite (eat) the roots of a tree till death overtakes you while you are in that state.”‘ [Sahih al-Bukhari 7084]

This hadith is repeated Sahih Muslim:

It has been narrated on the authority of Hudhaifa b. al-Yaman who said:

‘People used to ask the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) about the good times, but I used to ask him about bad times fearing lest they overtake me. I said: Messenger of Allah, we were in the midst of ignorance and evil, and then God brought us this good (time through Islam). Is there any bad time after this good one? He said: Yes. I asked: Will there be a good time again after that bad time? He said: Yes, but therein will be a hidden evil. I asked: What will be the evil hidden therein? He said: (That time will witness the rise of) the people who will adopt ways other than mine and seek guidance other than mine. You will know good points as well as bad points. I asked: Will there be a bad time after this good one? He said: Yes. (A time will come) when there will be people standing and inviting at the gates of Hell. Whoso responds to their call they will throw them into the fire. I said: Messenger of Allah, describe them for us. He said: All right. They will be a people having the same complexion as ours and speaking our language. I said: Messenger of Allah, what do you suggest if I happen to live in that time? He said: You should stick to the main body of the Muslims and their leader. I said: If they have no (such thing as the) main body and have no leader? He said: Separate yourself from all these factions, though you may have to eat the roots of trees (in a jungle) until death comes to you and you are in this state’ [Sahih Muslim 1847a]

The classical scholar Imam Mawardi explains clearly that the Ummah cannot have more than two Imams no matter if they were in the same land or different lands. He also explains that once an Imam is appointed somewhere, all Muslims everywhere must give their bayah (pledge of allegiance to him).

‘When the people of power and influence have gathered together to make the choice…if it becomes clear to them which person from amongst the community their ijtihad is leading them to choose, they should offer the Imamate to him: if he accepts, they should make the oath of allegiance to him and the Imamate thus comes into being by their act of allegiance and it is then incumbent upon the whole of the Ummah to enter into this allegiance and to accept obedience to him…

If two Imamates are established in two lands none of the two is valid as it is not permitted for there to be two imams at one time [in the world]…The correct opinion in this matter and that which the competent fuqaha hold to is that the Imamate belongs to the one who first received the oath of allegiance and the contractual agreement: this resembles the case in which there are two guardians marrying off a woman for if two of them marry her off the marriage is only actually contracted by the first of the two. Thus it is clear who is the first to receive the Imamate, it remains with him and it is incumbent upon the second of the two to submit the affair to the first and to make the oath of allegiance to him’.

Imam Mawardi, Ahkam ul Sultaniyya

This is the clearest evidence of the understanding that the entire Ummah can only have one Imam – Caliph – and that if there are more than one, this is equvalent to no (overall) leader, and is a state of anarchy (jahiliyah, lit. the time of ignorance).

The Madkhali call to obey those with hearts of Shayateen

Madkhalis rely on a (weaker) 2nd version of the same hadith above, which isn’t corroborated in any other hadith collection like the stronger version is.

It his been narrated through a different chain of transmitters, on the authority of Hudhaifa b. al-Yaman who said:

‘Messenger of Allah, no doubt, we had an evil time (i. e. the days of Jahiliyya or ignorance) and God brought us a good time (i. e. Islamic period) through which we are now living Will there be a bad time after this good time? He (the Holy Prophet) said: Yes. I said: Will there be a good time after this bad time? He said: Yes. I said: Will there be a bad time after good time? He said: Yes. I said: How? Whereupon he said: There will be leaders who will not be led by my guidance and who will not adopt my ways? There will be among them men who will have the hearts of devils in the bodies of human beings. I said: What should I do. Messenger of Allah, if I (happen) to live in that time? He replied: You will listen to the Amir [singular] and carry out his orders; even if your back is flogged and your wealth is snatched, you should listen and obey’. [Sahih Muslim 1847b]

Madkhalis claim says we have to obey those with the hearts of shaitan. And they use this to argue we must obey the chiefs of the many factions (firaq) we were commanded to dissociate فَاعْتَزِلْ ourselves from.

But if you pay attention to even this version, it still doesn’t support what Madkhalis say about it. The evil ‘leaders’ are called أَئِمَّةٌ (‘imams’, plural) but the one Muslims must unite around is called لِلأَمِيرِ The AMIR (singular). Paralleling the previous stronger version of the hadith.

The second part of the weaker version is believed to have been mistakenly interpolated/spliced with a separate narration that completely DOES NOT mention that the rulers have abandoned the law of the Quran & Sunnah, but only to obey rulers even if they do ACTIONS to ppl that those people don’t like.

Ubada bin Samit narrated that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said “O Ubada”, I replied “At your service (O Messenger of Allah) ” He ﷺ said “Listen and obey [the Imam] in prosperity and adversity, whether you are unwilling, or when someone is given undue preference over you, or when they eat your wealth, or when they lash your back except when they order you explicitly to disobey Allah.” [Ibn Hibbaan]

Abu Huraira reported: The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said, “You must listen and obey in hardship and ease, what you are eager for and what you dislike, even if they give undue preference over you‘ [Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim 1836]

However, whenever we do find ahadith mentioning rulers not actually leading with the Sunnah or extinguishing it, or enjoining evil (legalising evil) & prohibiting good (as illegal), the wording commands NO obedience to THEM, not just their orders. The hadith also command not aiding them.

It was narrated from ‘Abdullah bin Mas’ud that the Prophet (ﷺ) said:

“Among those in charge of you, after I am gone, will be men who extinguish the Sunnah and follow innovation. They will delay the prayer from its proper time.” I said: “O Messenger of Allah, if I live to see them, what should I do?” He said: “You ask me, O Ibn ‘Abd, what you should do? There is no obedience to one who disobeys Allah.” [Sunan Ibn Majah 2865]

Narrated by Ubada bin Samith that the RasulAllah ﷺ said “There will be leaders over you, after I am gone. They will enjoin you what you disapprove ( i.e. evil) and they will forbid you what you approve (i.e. goodness), so they will not be leaders over you” (reported by Suyuti, Al-Jamiu as-Sagheer)

Narrated by Ubada bin Samith that the RasulAllah ﷺ said, “Among those in charge of you, after I am gone, will be men who will enjoin what you disapprove (of evil) and they will forbid you what you approve (of goodness). Whoever amongst you live to know them, there is no obedience to those who disobey Allah azza wa jall”   (reported by Suyuti, Al-Jamiu as-Sagheer)

Jabir bin Abdullah narrated that RasulAllah ﷺ told Ka’b bin Ujra, “May Allah protect you from foolish Leaders”. He asked “What are foolish leaders?” He ﷺ said, “Leaders who come after me, they will not lead with my guidance, they will not adopt my Sunnah. Whosoever believes in their lies and helps them in their wrongdoing is not of me, and I am not of him, and he will not come to me at my Cistern (Howdh). Whoever does not believe their lies and does not help them in their wrongdoing, he is of me, and I am of him, and he will come to me at my Cistern (Howdh)” [Ahmed, Darami and Ibn Hibban]

This is actually an important issue. Because other ahadith state that not controlling the hand of the oppressor (dhalim) can lead to Allah (SWT) punishing everyone.

Abu Bakr As-Siddiq said:

“O you people! You recite this Ayah: Take care of yourselves! If you follow the guidance no harm shall come to you. I indeed heard the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w) saying: ‘When the people see the wrongdoer and they do not take him by the hand, then soon Allah shall envelope you in a punishment from him.’” [Jami` at-Tirmidhi 2168]

Narrated Abu Bakr As-Siddiq:

“O you people! You recite this Ayah: Take care of yourselves! If you follow the guidance no harm shall come to you from those who are astray (5:105). I indeed heard the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) saying: ‘When the people see the wrongdoer, and they do not stop him (from doing wrong), then it is soon that Allah shall envelope you in a punishment from Him.’” [Jami` at-Tirmidhi 3057]

Narrated Abu Bakr: ‘You people recite this verse “You who believe, care for yourselves; he who goes astray cannot harm you when you are rightly-guided,” and put it in its improper place.

We heard the Prophet (ﷺ) say: “When the people see a wrongdoer and do not prevent him, Allah will soon punish them all. Amr ibn Hushaym’s version has: I heard the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) say: If acts of disobedience are done among any people and do not change them though the are able to do so, Allah will soon punish them all” [Sunan Abi Dawud 4338]

How can we change our regimes? The importance of public Dawah and commanding the good / forbidding the evil

Another misconception is that it is believed that the Ummah is powerless against evil leaders who rule with kufr law – so that ‘absolves us’. It doesn’t. Leaders don’t have superpowers, they rely on Muslim soldiers, police, judges, lawyers and gov administrators to obey them.

But giving dawah simply educate people on what sinful orders look like, is prevented by Madkhalis who prevent all talk of ‘rulers’. Ironic, considering they tend to be hanbali, and yet Ahmad bin Hanbal advised to oppose the wrongdoing of the Mutazilite Caliphs, who ordered the Ummah to adopt their interpretations of Islamic aqeedah, by refuting them with publicly made counter-arguments.

Hanbal bin Ishaq  said: “During the rule of [Caliph] Wathiq, the jurists of Baghdad gathered in front of Ahmad bin Hanbal. They included Abu Bakr bin ‘Ubaid, Ibrahim bin ‘Ali al-Matbakhi and Fadl bin ‘Asim. So they came to Ahmad bin Hanbal so I gave them permission. They said to him, ‘This affair (i.e. the inquisition) has become aggravated and elevated.’ They were referring to the ruler making manifest the issue of the Quran being created and other than that. So Ahmad bin Hanbal said to them, ‘So what is it that you want?’ They said: ‘We want you to join us in saying that we are not pleased with his rule and leadership.’

So Ahmad bin Hanbal debated with them for an hour and he said to them: ‘Keep opposing with your statements but do not remove your hands from obedience and do not encourage the Muslims to rebel and do not spill your blood and the blood of the Muslims along with you. Look to the results of your actions. And remain patient until you are content with a righteous or sinful rule.’” [Mihnatul-Imam Ahmad (p. 70-72); al-Khallal in as-Sunnah (no. 90) with an authentic chain of narration.]

Ibn Taymiyyah (died 728H) stated:

“Ahmad [bin Hanbal] and his like did not declare these rulers [the Mutazilite Caliphs] to be disbelievers. Rather he believed them to have Imaan and believed in their leadership and he supplicated for them, and he was of the view that they were to be followed in the prayers and Hajj, and military expeditions [jihad] were to be made with them. He prohibited rebellion against them – and it (i.e. rebellion) was never seen from the likes of him from amongst the scholars. Yet he still opposed whatever they innovated of false statements, since that was major disbelief, even if they did not know it. He would oppose it and strive to refute it with whatever was possible. So there must be a combination of obeying Allaah and His Messenger  in manifesting the Sunnah and Religion and opposing the innovations of the heretical Jahmites, and between protecting the rights of the believers, the rulers and the Ummah, even if they are ignorant innovators and transgressing sinners.” [Majmu’ al-Fatawa, 7/507-508.]

This highlights that if a ruler makes a false statement or publicises a sin, it can be called out – so as to protect the Ummah from thinking that such statements and actions are good and ok.

Does Islam mandate takfeer against the person who legislates with other than what Allah has revealed?

More ironic, is that Madkhalis do a type of irja (deferring takfir) and shout ‘we don’t know what’s in the heart’ of a leader under kufr law, despite being Hanbalis and believing that anyone simply neglecting prayer due to laziness, is a kafir.

Ibn Katheer (RA): ‘The one who forsakes the law that was revealed to Muhammad ibn ‘Abd-Allah, the Seal of the Prophets (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) and refers for judgement to any other law that has been abrogated, has committed an act of kufr, so how about the one who refers for judgement to al-Yaasa and gives it precedence? The one who does that is a kaafir according to the consensus of the Muslims’ [al-Bidaayah wa’l-Nihaayah, 13/139]. 

Anyways, the arguments for what the scholars of Islam believe about the one who legislate kufr have been already explained by Sheikh Uthaymeen, a salafi scholar I’ve yet to see a Madkhali denounce (yet):

‘Whoever does not rule in accordance with that which Allah has revealed because he thinks little of it or looks down on it or believes that something else is better than it and more beneficial to people or is equal to it, is a kaafir whose kufr puts him beyond the pale of Islam. That includes those who promulgate laws for people that are contrary to Islamic laws, to be a system that the people follow. They only promulgate those laws that are contrary to Islamic laws because they believe that they are better and more beneficial for people, because it is known on the basis of reason and sound human nature that no one turns away from one path to a different path unless he believes that what he has turned to is better and what he has turned away from is lacking’ [Sharh al-Usool al-Thalaathah] 

The great scholar Al-‘Allaamah Muhammad al-Ameen al-Shanqeeti (RA) said:

‘From verses such as that in which Allah says (interpretation of the meaning) “and He makes none to share in His Decision and His Rule” [al-Kahf 18:26], it may be understood that the followers of those who promulgate laws other than those which Allah has ordained are associating others with Allah (shirk). This understanding is explained clearly in other verses, such as the verse which speaks of those who follow the laws of the Shaytaan in permitting dead meat, claiming that it has been killed by Allah [and thus should be permitted]:

“Eat not (O believers) of that (meat) on which Allaah’s Name has not been pronounced (at the time of the slaughtering of the animal), for sure it is Fisq (a sin and disobedience of Allaah). And certainly, the Shayaateen (devils) do inspire their friends (from mankind) to dispute with you, and if you obey them [by making Al‑Maytah (a dead animal) legal by eating it], then you would indeed be Mushrikoon (polytheists)”

[al-An‘aam 6:121]. 

…

The Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) explained this to ‘Adiyy ibn Haatim (may Allah be pleased with him) when he asked him about the verse in which Allah says (interpretation of the meaning): “They (Jews and Christians) took their rabbis and their monks to be their lords besides Allaah” [al-Tawbah 9:31]. He explained that they permitted to them that which Allah has forbidden and they forbade to them that which Allah has permitted, and they [the people] followed them in that; that is how they took them as lords. 

One of the clearest proofs concerning that is the fact that in Soorat al-Nisa’, Allah, may He be glorified and exalted, mentioned those who want to refer for judgement to something other than the laws prescribed by Him and wonders at their claim to be believers, because their claim to be believers even though they want to refer for judgement to false judges shows that they have reached a level of lying which is astounding. That is what Allah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“Have you not seen those (hypocrites) who claim that they believe in that which has been sent down to you, and that which was sent down before you, and they wish to go for judgement (in their disputes) to the Taaghoot (false judges) while they have been ordered to reject them. But Shaytaan (Satan) wishes to lead them far astray” [al-Nisa’ 4:60]

From the divinely revealed texts that we have quoted, it becomes very clear to everyone that with regard to those who follow man-made laws promulgated by the Shaytaan on the lips of his supporters which are contrary to that which Allah has prescribed on the lips of His Messengers (blessings and peace of Allah be upon them), there is no doubt that they are kaafirs and mushriks, except for the one whom Allah has blinded to the light of Revelation and left to go astray.  

As for the legal system that is contrary to the laws prescribed by the Creator of heaven and earth, ruling according to it constitutes disbelief in the Creator of heaven and earth, such as the claim that giving precedence to the male over the female in inheritance is not fair and it is necessary to make them equal in inheritance, and the claim that plural marriage is unjust, or that divorce is unfair to the woman, and that stoning, cutting off the hand and so on are barbaric acts that should not be done to people, and so on. 

Making this kind of system rule the lives of people in society and their wealth, honour, lineage, reason and religion, is disbelief in the Creator of heaven and earth and a transgression against the divine system prescribed by the One Who created all things and Who knows best what is in their best interests; may He be glorified and exalted far above having any lawgiver besides Him.

“Or have they partners with Allaah (false gods) who have instituted for them a religion which Allaah has not ordained?” [al-Shoora 42:21]

“Say (O Muhammad to these polytheists): ‘Tell me, what provision Allaah has sent down to you! And you have made of it lawful and unlawful.’ Say (O Muhammad): ‘Has Allaah permitted you (to do so), or do you invent a lie against Allaah?’” [Yoonus 10:59]

“Say: ‘Verily, those who invent a lie against Allaah will never be successful’” [Yoonus 10:69]‘

[Adwa’ al-Bayaan, commentary on the verse (interpretation of the meaning): “and He makes none to share in His Decision and His Rule” [al-Kahf 18:26]]. 

Madkhalis help the cause of secularism in the Muslim World

Ultimately, the Madkhalis will pave the way towards secularisation of the Muslim world. How? Because they follow the ways of the Christians before – who invented the doctrine of ‘divine right of kings’, and then Hobbes’ secular justification to tolerate Tyrants…

The divine right of kings doctrine states that the kings are appointed by God, and and evil king is God’s punishment. So pray more and be personally righteous, and the king will be good again. Sound familiar? Yes, the Christians did believe this to placate the masses.

Thomas Hobbes argued that having a leader was better than no leader and the chaos it brings, so argued to tolerate anything he does – no matter how much killing, oppression and even compelling of religious doctrines he does… the reaction to Hobbes lead to secular liberalism.

Locke argued that what’s the point of having a leader to protect you from chaos, when the leader’s whims cause chaos, and he (or his cronies) could kill anyone at anytime with impunity. He said this makes the ppl slaves of the leader, bcos he owns their lives at his whim.

Locke argued that what’s needed is for law to be absolute, and everyone under it, including the leader. ppl then know that if they stay in the permissible areas of law, they are safe. This he called ‘freedom’. But it took a secular liberal direction because Christians attached so much biblical interpretation to support passivity to tyrants, people turned away from the Bible and became secular Christians, deists (and later, atheists). The Bible was just too vague to guarantee ‘freedom’ from tyranny. Thus Secularism Liberalism was born

The Madkhalis are doing the same to Islam. If the people keep having Islam associated with being passive to tyrants, who can do whatever they (and their cronies/subordinates) want people’s ‘rights’ only exist by keeping your head down, paying bribes, and gaining leverage with favours.

Ironically, the corruption of the people is accelerated by not being able to speak out for Islam, lest you be viewed as a ‘fanatic’ and imprisoned or worse. We need to refute the Madkhalis to save the image of Islam, and the future belief of the Ummah.

Now, onto what to do today.

How to change the unIslamic regimes today

The shallow thinking of the Ummah, and consequently the Madkhalis, means that the only alternative in their heads to obeying a ruler, is revolution. NOT SO. Jihadis (those who believe we should revolt against the secular rulers today) are the other side of the coin unfortunately.

Jihadis, like their Madkhali cousins, do takfir against the leaders and seek to launch an insurgency against them. They are wrong to do this, because the State has more resources than them, and they are only ever successful in weak failed states. also, many muslims will die.

The issue is, the soldiers and government administrators etc that prop up the state are ignorant, ignorant of their purpose, ignorant of what Islamic law even says (it’s details). Islam as a full way of life is strange to many Muslims who were born being taught it only as a religion.

If the Muslim Ummah truly understood nationalism is haram, unity is mandatory and political, and only an appointed Imam (singular) is legitimate who upholds Islamic law, they would make the change we need. Mu’adhibn Jabal said: “Knowledge is a leader and action is its follower.”

One of the obstacles is the false belief that regional ‘leaders’ have any legitimacy. They don’t. They might as well be gang leaders. Gangs have force, but that doesn’t make them legitimate even if they ‘rule’ a small area that police don’t enter.

And just because gang or mafia leaders have no legitimacy, doesn’t mean we have to fight them. The Jihadi method would be to create a rival militia, which may or may not succeed against the superior resources of a cartel or mafia – the rival militia would need resources, which it would only get via extortion, kidnapping and illicit deals, ending up with the militia becoming a new gang or mafia.

However, the most reasonable way to fight gangs would be to get all the people to cease obeying them, and instead get the police to fight them, and if there is no police, then the people must re-establish a police force that holds the superior resources of a state.

If we simply convince everyone that the ‘rulers’ shouldn’t be obeyed, including convincing their followers, the gang leader’s power will evaporate – like Abdullah ibn Salul who thought he’d be king of Yathrib, until the Muslims gained control of the power brokers (ahl ul hal wa’l aqd) of both the Aws and Khazraj.

In essence, what we need is Dawah led by knowledge and understanding – of Islam, and how the world works. Madhkhalis ignorance of statecraft made them unable to fully understand the hadith of statecraft just like reading a book on medical ethics doesn’t make you know medicine.

But the Dawah can’t be done just by individuals alone, they need vanguard groups (not sects! groups, like how companies or charity organisations are). The need for groups is not only in the Quran, but Ibn Khaldun discusses how reforming the Ummah needs them (forgive the bad translation):

Vanguard groups can network behind the scenes, organise & hold protests/demonstrations – anything needed to change the psychological ‘social contract’ of a society from one of purposeless existence, to unity behind one vision and cosmic purpose that informs all actions and culture.

Madkhalis would call that khurooj (even though no violence is involved, and no takfir is involved, because we give the Muslim world today are simply ignorant). Jihadis would call this ‘all talk no action’, but they are both wrong. The Prophet ﷺ never took Madinah by force.

The Prophet ﷺ never took Madinah by force, he gained it by the dawah efforts of Mus’ab ibn Umayr and a group of Madinan supporters. This is important, because it shows we don’t need a Prophet ﷺ to achieve this, just wisdom, knowledge, organisation and perseverance.

Warlords not ‘rulers’: Why gang leaders have no legitimacy in Islam

I call the ‘leaders’ warlords, because warlords are those who have power only by controlling military force and not consent of the people.

In english, the word ‘Warlord’ means a man who has power due to having a band of fighters around him who obey him but not because he has been appointed or given bayah by the people to rule. Warlords are also defined as presiding over the broken up remains of a former state. This is exactly the Muslim world today which the Ummah inhabits, the former lands of the Caliphate broken up into fiefdoms. Thus the english word ‘warlord’ applies definitionally to the ‘rulers’ that have power over the Muslim world today.

Ghazali comments on a hadith “People will not be judged except by three: an Amir, a deputy (of the Amir) and an intruder” The Amir is the Imam (the Imams have always been the judges); the deputy is his assistant, while anyone else is an intruder who undertakes that responsibility without there being any need for him to do so’ [Imam Ghazali, Ihya uloom ul deen]

To use an example, imagine a city where the police force is weak or non-existent, and gangs take control of different areas of the city, with each gang having a leader. Do those gang leaders become ‘rulers’ over the Muslims with authority? No. Why? Because despite having power and control of territory, they lack legitimacy.

And if you think it strange that without a Caliphate, no one can have legitimacy, read the words of Imam Ghazali against those criticising the unqualified (in knowledge) Caliph of his time:

‘This is a serious attack on the ahkam (legal judgements of Islam) and an explicit declaration of their inoperativeness and neglect, and it would call for the clear declaration of the invalidity of all governors and the unsoundness of the judging of Qadis and the ruin of God’s rights [hudood] and prescriptions and the invalidation of [retaliation (qassas) for] blood and wombs [offspring] and property and the pronouncement of the invalidity of marriages issuing from the Qadis in [all] the regions of the earth and the remaining of the rights of God Most High in the custody [care] of creatures. For all such things would be legal only if their fulfilment issued from Qadis duly appointed by the Imam -which would be impossible if there were no Imamate. So the exposure of the corruption of a doctrine calling for that is an important task and duty of religion…with God’s help we shall attempt it. We claim that the Imam al-Mustazhir Billah is the true Imam who must be obeyed’

[Imam Ghazali, ‘Al-Mustazhiri’ (Fadiah al-Batinyah wa Fadail al-Mustazhariyah of al-Ghazzali)]

The Madkhalis claim they protect against anarchy. But anarchy has gang leaders, it doesn’t have ppl unified under one law or higher principles. As Ghazali explains, without a Caliph, there is no legitimacy, even to governors, it is anarchy. Madkhalis are protectors OF anarchy.

I therefore invite everyone reading this to study more the Fiqh of ruling in Islam, but also economics, statecraft… Stick to the Sunnah and the Khilafah (successorship to the position of the Prophet ﷺ as Imam), and remove the ‘bida’ of secular nation-states and kufr laws.

Narrated Irbad ibn Sariyah:

‘Al-Irbad said: One day the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) led us in prayer, then faced us and gave us a lengthy exhortation at which the eyes shed tears and the hearts were afraid.

A man said: Messenger of Allah! It seems as if it were a farewell exhortation, so what injunction do you give us?

He then said: I enjoin you to fear Allah, and to hear and obey even if it be an Abyssinian slave, for those of you who live after me will see great disagreement. You must then follow my sunnah and that of the rightly-guided caliphs. Hold to it and stick fast to it. Avoid novelties, for every novelty is an innovation, and every innovation is an error” [Sunan Abi Dawud 4607]

The best way to protect ourselves from the summoners to hell-fire (with hearts of Shaitans?), is to call and organise campaigns to unite the Ummah back into one Jama’ah and appoint an Imam.

I asked, “Will there be any evil after that good?” He replied, “Yes, (there will be) some people calling at the gates of the (Hell) Fire, and whoever will respond to their call, will be thrown by them into the (Hell) Fire.” I said, “O Allah s Apostle! Will you describe them to us?” He said, “They will be from our own people and will speak our language.” I said, “What do you order me to do if such a state should take place in my life?” He said, “Stick to the Jama’ah and their Imam [singular]” I said, “If there is neither a Jama’ah nor an Imam [singular]?” He said, “Then turn away from all those factions [firaq] even if you were to bite (eat) the roots of a tree till death overtakes you while you are in that state.”‘ [Sahih al-Bukhari 7084]

‘Whereupon he said: There will be leaders who will not be led by my guidance and who will not adopt my ways? There will be among them men who will have the hearts of devils in the bodies of human beings. I said: What should I do. Messenger of Allah, if I (happen) to live in that time? He replied: You will listen to the Amir [singular] and carry out his orders; even if your back is flogged and your wealth is snatched, you should listen and obey’. [Sahih Muslim 1847b]

Insha’Allah this will be the prophesied return of a Khilafah Rashida (right-guided) state.

Ḥudhayfa b. al-Yamān (rA) reported that the Prophet ﷺ said, “Prophethood will remain amongst you for as long as Allah wishes. Then Allah will remove it whenever He wishes to remove it, and there will be a caliphate upon the prophetic methodology. It will last for as long as Allah wishes it to last, then Allah will remove it whenever He wishes to remove it. Then there will be an abiding dynasty, and it will remain for as long as Allah wishes it to remain. Then Allah will remove it whenever He wishes to remove it. Then there will be tyrannical (forceful) kingship, and it will remain for as long as Allah wishes it to remain. Then He will remove it whenever He wishes to remove it, and then there will be a caliphate upon the prophetic methodology.” [Aḥmad (18406)]

Madkhalis would have supported Napoleon Bonaparte conquest of the Egypt & The ‘ISIS Challenge’

And if anyone still thinks that simply identifying as a Muslim, and possessing power and control of territory is sufficient to make one a ‘ruler’, would they be consistent and call ISIS ‘rulers’ too between 2014-2017 because they controlled territory too?! I hope they have the sense to say no. And if they say no, they would have to answer the same to the self-proclaimed ‘rulers’ today.

And taken to further ridiculous conclusions, Madkhalis would have had to ‘hear and obey’ Napoleon Bonaparte when he conquered Egypt, because he used Madkhali arguments to declare he and his army were ‘imperfect Muslims’ to justify his new rule and prevent ‘khurooj’ against it. ‘who knows what was in his heart’, right?

‘I confess that Bonaparte frequently conversed with the chiefs of the Mussulman religion on the subject of his conversion; but only for the sake of amusement. The priests of the Koran, who would probably have been delighted to convert us, offered us the most ample concessions. But these conversations were merely started by way of entertainment, and never could have warranted a supposition of their leading to any serious result. If Bonaparte spoke as a Mussulman, it was merely in his character of a military and political chief in a Mussulman country. To do so was essential to his success, to the safety of his army, and, consequently, to his glory. In every country he would have drawn up proclamations and delivered addresses on the same principle. In India he would have been for Ali, at Thibet for the Dalai-lama, and in China for Confucius‘.

[Memoirs of Napoleon Bonaparte by Louis Antoine Fauvelet de Bourrienne edited by R.W. Phipps. Vol. 1 (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1889) p. 168-169]

Caliphate is a sunnah we must cling to – so beware of the bida’ of those justifying obeying regimes upon secularism and nationalism

Irbaad ibn Saariyah, may Allah (SWT) be pleased with him, narrated that: ‘The Messenger of Allaah صلى الله عليه وسلم gave us a sermon which frightened the hearts and caused the eyes to shed tears. So we said, ‘O Messenger of Allaah! [it is as if it is a farewell sermon] so advise us.’ He said, “I advise you to fear Allah and to hear and obey even if an Abyssinian slave were to rule over you. For surely, he who lives from amongst you will see much differing, so it is upon you to be upon my Sunnah and the Sunnah of the Rightly Guided Caliphs. Bite on to it with your back molar teeth and beware of newly invented matters, for verily, every newly invented matter is an innovation, and all innovation is misguidance.’”