I can't believe that there is people on twitter who are unapologetically madkallis. As if it wasn't completely degenerate.

>he can't refute 10 groups in 10 minutes

I wouldn't say IslamQA is Madkhali

True. Islamqa is good.

What's a madkhali? A saudi fixated sect?

What

Yes basically @Deleted User

A Madkhali is someone who pretty much blindfollows Rabee al Madkhali, sides with al Albani in the jins al amal controversy, has bad manners towards their fellow Muslims, but is polite towards kuffar.

Wow it's the average protestant since the split

Madkhalis have done some pretty good work though, but the problem is they're pretty much a cult, you're either with or against them

The Madkhali relationship with Al Saud reminds me of Orthodox Christians and the Putin regime. They love their leader and disobeying said ruler makes you a deviant or even an apostate depending on who you talk to even tho said ruler dosent obey by the religion except in outward appearance.

obedience to the al saud is a notable characteristic of madkhalis but not exclusive to madkhalis, it's generally just common for scholars in autocratic states where all information in general is controlled by the state.
of course though being some british guy making takfeer on other teenage british kids for speaking against al saud is a bit absurd.

@Jacob 🕋 russian orthodox maybe

Yeah

@...new what is the jins Al amal controversy

@Jacob 🕋 the orthodox Church even bless people like Stalin who made the orthodox church illegal and gave the death penalty to whoever practiced it. That is what mindlessly following a ruler means.

Yeah exactly. ...new once sent a photo album of ROC priests blessings the most random things ever it was pretty funny

https://m.imgur.com/gallery/FGbhY

😂

The jins al amal controversy is an intersalafi debate about basically irjaa. For example if a person does not pray at all, yet he belives prayer is obligatory and he is committing a major sin by not praying, is he a Muslim? The standard answer given by the najdi dawah is of course not. This relates to another, more controversial and thus more talked about issue, if a ruler puts in place a law that isn't shariah, but he belives inwardly that the shariah is better and it is obligatory to rule by shariah, is he a Muslim? Again the standard answer given by the najdi dawah is of course not.
The Madkhalis, following the lead of al Albani, took the other view, yes they are Muslim. I would say the salafi movement itself is pretty split on this, but what I call the najdi dawah isn't, Salih al Fawzan, Salih al Luhaydan, Abdurrahman bin Nasir al Barrack, Grand Mufti Abdulaziz aal ash Shaykh all still give the standard answer that the najdi dawah always had. However while the other opinion is based on irjaa, we don't call those who try to be salafi in everything but fall into an issue here and there murjis or innovators, it is only that their opinion is from irjaa.

Some people took this issue to label Madkhalis as "Neo-Salafis" or "Salafiyyah Jadeedah", which is probably fair tbh.

I'm not a scholar but from what I do know, both of those cases would be a nullifier of Islam <:Thonking:484527546533281794>

that's the opinion I have found to have the most evidence

Not always that a ruler is able to do it. For example Erdogan would be removed from government straight away if he punished thieves by cutting off the hand. Even if he might want the law. The millitary is still fairly degenerate there. It is like the opposite of Pakistan where the millitary is religious and the government (usually, not so sure now with the new guy) have hated Islam. Where it is impossible the best a leader can do is to get as close as possible.

So it's like 4D chess

The najdis already take that into account and state that a person isn't responsible for what he isn't capable of.

So if a person enters into a disbelieving government, and he genuinely tries to rule by the shariah in what he can, this person isn't a kafir

Hasn't Erdogan said before tho that he doesn't want an Islamic State

I'm not sure if he's used those exact words, but he's certainly called to secularism many times

Had Erdogan not explicitly called to secularism I wouldn't make takfeer on him

Yeah, I get not being able to fully implement shariah but actively promoting secularism sounds like kufr to me

There may be other kufr Erdogan is guilty of, but that is the only one I know for sure that I can pin him on

There's also the fact that he seems to betray the Mujahideen in Syria

@Jacob 🕋 well, if he doesn't say it then he would be removed from power. A leader has to do it, it is illegal for politicians to say that they want sharia.

But that's not kufr afaik

@Jacob 🕋 yes he seems to betray the mujahedeen. That seems to be the worst to me.

Would it really get him removed tho? I mean, after that coup a couple years ago I imagine he has quite a bit of power

when you're on TV in Egypt and you say "Muslims shouldn't be afraid of secularism" or willingly say something like "secularism means the government having equal distance from all religions, this is what we want", I can't really excuse that. If he just sheepishly one time answered a tv interview with something like 'Turkey is a secular state by it's constitution and I will uphold that' that I can excuse.

@Jacob 🕋 yes it would, because it is the law. He would have to change the constitution due to the obvious kaffir ataturk who made such a degeneracy.

Yes but it's not illegal to call for a reform in the Turkish constitution tho is it?