The Madkhalis: Between Sensory and Sharia-Based Absence

Upon the death of the founder of the Madkhali faction, Rabi' al-Madkhali, some sought to downplay his role in fracturing the unity of the Sunni community and legitimizing the bloodshed of countless innocent people. Others, however, eulogized him as a venerable scholar, acknowledging minor missteps, while some rushed to mourn him and his supposed scholarly efforts to suppress truth and champion the delusions and falsehoods of intelligence agencies. They conveniently forgot that he was a remnant of RAND Corporation's recommendations and a tool for anyone seeking to silence the contemporary Islamic revival.
Among the transgressions inherited from his teachings is his jurisprudential legitimization of certain political matters, upon which he built his falsehoods. 

This includes his indiscriminate designation of "those in authority" (ulu al-amr) to anyone in power, without conditions or restrictions, and without demanding adherence to Sharia. His followers even went so far as to claim that obedience is due even if there is no religion by which to abide. Furthermore, anyone who opposed their corrupt interpretations was labeled as a renegade (khariji) and apostate (mariq), thereby legitimizing the shedding of their blood. Thus, they became "Khawarij against the people of Islam, and Murji'ah with the people of disbelief and tyranny."
I never imagined that the jurisprudential maxim: "What is absent legally is like what is absent sensually" (from Al-Qarafi's Al-Furuq), a principle elucidated by scholars of jurisprudence, would become the starting point for a deliberate political conflict, spilling the blood of thousands of innocent people. This tragedy stems from the dullness of mind of a group among those who claim religious knowledge, disconnected from understanding reality—namely, the Madkhali faction.
I have personally witnessed these self-proclaimed Salafi adherents boldly transgressing Sharia, recording pages that history will struggle to describe in their true essence and judgment.
The issue of legitimate Imamate (leadership) and state governance, which no longer has a realistic definition within modern national political systems, has become a subject of distorted theorization and intense debate in their literature, books, sermons, and polemics, in an uncontrolled manner. I will now proceed to clarify this matter.
The Core Issue
Despite the consensus among scholars of Islamic political thought that the Grand Imamate, the Caliphate, or the Commandership of the Faithful all refer to a single function: the supreme governmental authority, they have defined it with closely related terms, almost identical in meaning. It is understood that this is not merely a descriptive title for the Caliphate, but rather the crucial element is the existence of a state, represented by whoever manages its affairs, conducts its business, and repels enemies.
Al-Mawardi stated: "The Imamate is instituted as a succession to prophethood in guarding the religion and managing worldly affairs" (Al-Ahkam al-Sultaniyyah).
Ibn Khaldun defined the function of the Imamate differently in his Muqaddimah (Vol. 1, p. 191), saying: "It is to lead the general populace according to the dictates of Sharia in their worldly and otherworldly interests, which ultimately revert to it." This is because, in the view of the Lawgiver, all worldly matters ultimately refer back to their consideration in terms of otherworldly interests.
Thus, it is, in reality: "A succession to the Lawgiver in guarding the religion and managing worldly affairs through it."
All books on Islamic political thought specify that the condition for one to be described as an Imam is: the establishment of religion through its application and the legal and political supremacy of Sharia. This is entirely or partially absent from a Sharia perspective in contemporary secular systems. It is not merely about the sensual existence of any authority in any form.
The simplest example to clarify the Sharia-based absence of these systems is: they are like water whose purity has changed; it is legally absent and unfit for ablution and purification, despite its sensual presence.
Is Sharia the Sole Source?
Does the constitutional provision stating that Sharia is a source of law mean it is the sole source? Of course not. It is on par with dozens of other sources and is not the exclusive one. Even if some laws are derived from Sharia, they exist within a legal framework, not a comprehensive Sharia system. This is akin to someone performing a prayer with all its pillars complete, but facing the White House instead of the Kaaba.
You would almost deem these people insane in any discussion with them. They know nothing of contemporary politics, the emergence of nation-states, the marginalization of Sharia in favor of Western laws, the theory of sovereignty, or the supreme legitimacy within an Islamic state.
The Vacancy of the Imamate
They refuse to acknowledge the vacancy of the legitimate authority—even if a secular or non-Muslim ruler exists—and insist that the existing governments (presidencies) derive their legitimacy from the supreme authority and legislation of man-made law, not Sharia. This invalidates their Sharia legitimacy and renders them non-existent from an applied Sharia perspective.
Calling for the application of Sharia in most prevailing political systems in the Islamic world is considered a violation of constitutional legitimacy, and even a destabilization of national peace and social security—according to their description—a crime for which thousands of preachers are punished, leading to prohibitions, restrictions, imprisonment, or even death.
Not to mention the thousands of detainees under charges of joining organizations and groups that advocate for Sharia supremacy. If this is the political and legal reality, how can the one in power be transformed into the Commander of the Faithful and the guardian of Muslim affairs according to the concept of Sharia?
Impact of the Political Dialectic
This group, predominantly the Madkhali Salafis of the rulers—due to their obstinate understanding—and those who agree with them, have fallen into several problems due to their violation of this fundamental principle:
* They exaggerated the description of the ruler to a ridiculous degree: One of them displayed a banner in a public square declaring, "We pledge allegiance to the Commander of the Faithful." Security forces promptly removed it after it became a joke, and the head of state affirmed that his country is secular.
* They failed to distinguish between the presidency or leadership of a country as a contract obliging obedience from its citizens, and the conferral of religious authority: They called for absolute obedience to the ruler ("even if he whips your back and takes your wealth") and even if he commits adultery on television for half an hour (as one of them described). This is despite the fact that those who cite this phrase as a Hadith of the Prophet (peace be upon him) did not intend such a meaning.
Referring to scholars: the phrase "even if he takes your wealth and whips your back" means rightfully, as in a judicial ruling where your property is awarded to an opponent, or through interpretation, or being whipped as a punishment under God's laws, or in the rights of people. This is authentically narrated from Ubadah ibn al-Samit who said: The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said: "O Ubadah," I said: "At your service," he said: "Listen and obey in your hardship and ease, in what you dislike, and in preference to others, even if they take your wealth and whip your back, unless it is an open disobedience to Allah" (Tahdhib Sahih Ibn Hibban (1-3) by Ali ibn Nayef al-Shahud (Sahih)).
His saying: "unless it is an open disobedience" undoubtedly includes when they take one's wealth unjustly or strike him with oppression and aggression (because he calls to Sharia). In such cases, their obedience is not obligatory. If they command him to take someone else's property unjustly or strike him unjustly, that would be forbidden to him. It is even more so when it happens to himself. Ibn Hazm said: "We ask them about one whose unjust and immoral ruler seizes his wife, daughter, or son to commit lewdness with them, or to commit lewdness with him himself. Is he at liberty, from the perspective of Islam, to surrender himself, his wife, his children, and his daughter to immorality? Or is it obligatory for him to resist whoever intends that upon them? If they say it is obligatory for him to surrender himself and his family, they have come with a grave matter that no Muslim would say. And if they say, rather, it is obligatory for him to resist that and fight, they have returned to the truth, and that applies to every Muslim concerning every Muslim, and the same applies to property." (Al-Milal wa al-Nihal, 4/135).
* They contradict themselves by forbidding political action within the systems of their rulers, under the pretext that democracy is disbelief. Minds are bewildered between democratic systems they label as (disbelief) and an obedient Muslim ruler with undisputed authority (within the same system). How can working through democracy, socialism, and other systems be forbidden due to their lack of Sharia legitimacy, while their leaders are considered legitimate rulers, yet it is permissible for them to engage in politics, and all Sharia texts of obedience are applied to them with simplistic absolutes?
* Their imaginations ran wild, envisioning an "eternal" ruler whose authority cannot be challenged by the people of "حل وعقد" (those who loosen and bind, i.e., scholars and leaders capable of making decisions), and no one else can be chosen as long as he has gained power and ruled the land, because his position is undisputed. They explicitly stated this during the superficial presidential elections in one country, charting a path untouched by any of their opponents among ancient or modern jurists. Thus, they closed the door to political action and any path to peaceful change.
* They outright reject party pluralism and legal political opposition—even if the ruler permits it. They even legitimize the prohibition of multiple parties under an Islamic state—despite this being a modern and contemporary issue—and on this basis, they label all opponents with terms like: partisan, factionalist, hateful partisanship... This led one contemporary scholar, Dr. Salah al-Sawi, to write the book Political Pluralism under the Islamic State to demonstrate its legitimacy, in addition to its necessity in contemporary reality.
* Consequently, they labeled anyone who criticized their states' policies, even verbally, as: a Khariji, an innovator, misguided, etc. This is despite internal laws permitting such criticism. They contradicted the majority of scholars by declaring these opponents to be disbelievers. They even contradicted our master Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) when he was asked about the Khawarij: "Are they disbelievers?" He replied: "They fled from disbelief."
They, therefore, legitimized their bloodshed, serving as an intellectual, political, and ideological justification for authoritarian regimes to kill every opponent under this claim, thus providing them with a legitimacy they had never dreamed of. The goal of those who opposed these regimes was either a call for their return to Sharia or to repel their oppression, tyranny, and open disbelief, which, in their view, was proven by conclusive evidence from Allah.
The True Definition of Khawarij
Sheikh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) clarified the true nature of those described as Khawarij in Majmu' al-Fatawa: "But the Khawarij, their greatest religious principle is to separate from the Muslim community and to legitimize their blood and wealth."
So, a person is not described as a Khariji unless they abandon the Muslim community based on the application of Sharia and legitimize their blood (which has not happened). Sheikh Abdul Rahman al-Ghunaiman said in his explanation of Fath al-Majid: "The Khawarij were named Khawarij because they departed from truth to falsehood, and they rebelled against the people of truth because they are people of falsehood. In reality, they are ignorant people who wanted to apply the Book of Allah according to their limited understandings. So, they proposed that people are only two types: a righteous pious person or a wretched immoral person, and no third. Thus, they began to judge by this opinion they held, so whoever fell into a sin, they declared him a disbeliever."
It is illogical that someone who calls to truth based on a comprehensive understanding of the Quran, Sunnah, and political reality becomes a Khariji, while someone who justifies falsehood and even the appointment of disbelievers becomes a Sunni.
The Impact of Salafi Dialectic
The confusion arising from the failure to distinguish between sensory and Sharia-based absence has led to sensory dullness and political moral decay. Sick souls have emerged, whose sole concern is the "slandering and criticizing" of opponents, "spying and surveillance," and "collaborating voluntarily or by proxy." They sit in their forums boasting about these transgressions, producing students of knowledge who act as spies and informants, proudly describing their security collaboration as jurisprudential choices. Indeed, one of their prominent preachers even stated, "I am proud to be an agent for them."
Perhaps this small point in the sea of evil justifications by Rabi' al-Madkhali and his followers is but one drop in their ocean of corrupt justifications, which we will dedicate further articles to, God willing.
The tragedy is that their hands extended to carry weapons and stand with those who overthrew systems approved by the people and elected presidents, in a way that makes you pause and ask questions: Where did they get this understanding from? Who pushes them to do this? Who coordinates their steps, making them a sword wielded against scholars? How are doors opened for them while they are closed to genuine scholars? Why do they not study contemporary politics to understand their reality? How did their common sense and empathy vanish?