Madaakhila Explained? | A Guide to Usool Al-Madaakhila

Madaakhila Explained: A Guide to Usool Al-Madaakhila
The term "Madaakhila" refers to followers of a particular strain within Salafism, often associated with the teachings of Rabee al-Madkhali. Although they present themselves as adherents of the Salafi methodology, certain views and practices distinguish them from mainstream Ahlus-Sunnah.
Foundations of Madaakhila
Excessive Loyalty to Rulers: One of the key tenets of the Madkhali ideology is an unwavering loyalty to Muslim rulers, irrespective of their actions. This principle often leads to criticism of any opposition or dissent against these rulers, regardless of the legitimacy of grievances.
Rigid Stance on Criticism: Madkhalis are known for their harsh stance against those who criticize Muslim authorities, labeling them as deviants or rebels. This rigidity often extends to scholars and preachers who do not align with their views.
Focus on Refutation: A significant aspect of Madkhali practice is the emphasis on refuting and discrediting other Islamic groups and scholars. This often results in division within the Muslim community and a focus on internal disputes rather than broader issues facing the Ummah.
Claim to Purity of Salafism: While they claim to follow the purest form of Salafism, their interpretations and applications can be seen as diverging from the more inclusive and tolerant aspects of the Salafi methodology upheld by Ahlus-Sunnah.
Root Causes of Divergence
Misinterpretation of Loyalty and Authority: The Madkhali emphasis on loyalty to rulers can be traced back to a misinterpretation of Islamic teachings on obedience and governance. This view prioritizes political stability over accountability and justice.
Influence of Contemporary Political Context: The political landscape in many Muslim-majority countries, where regimes seek religious legitimacy, has contributed to the rise of Madkhali ideology. Their stance often aligns with governmental narratives, which helps maintain their influence.
Isolationist Approach: Madkhalis tend to adopt an isolationist approach, focusing inwardly on the Muslim community and shunning broader engagement with global issues. This can create a narrow worldview that is less adaptable to changing contexts and challenges.
Misapplication of Salafi Principles: While Salafism emphasizes a return to the practices of the first three generations of Muslims, Madkhalis often apply these principles in a selective and sometimes extreme manner, leading to a rigid and uncompromising outlook.
Conclusion
Understanding the Madaakhila requires a nuanced analysis of their beliefs, practices, and historical context. While they operate under the banner of Salafism, their distinct views and methodologies set them apart from mainstream Ahlus-Sunnah, often causing division and controversy within the Muslim community.
For more in-depth discussions and insights, consider supporting my work on Patreon: patreon.com/DaudBurke.

[@عبدالله-ن6ه2ص]

These, my brother Daud, are topics mostly related to politics, and those who used the word “jamiyyah” and “Madkhali” are the Muslim Brotherhood and those who followed their path. You will find most of them related to the overthrow of political regimes and revolutions against Muslim rulers. The Muslim Brotherhood's project is to overthrow the ruling regimes in the Arab and Islamic countries in order to rule the Arab and Islamic world, so those who disagree with them are demonized. And whoever is from their group, they do not criticize him. Therefore, you will find leaders from the Islamic world from the Muslim Brotherhood, but they do not criticize them, even though their mistakes are greater than the countries they criticize.

[@yustakzarslan8385]

Nice video bro ! Love from France 💘

[@mouradali8270]

As someone who's not really associated with contemporary Salafism, but being in and around the circles. Your views on Manhaj-related issues are balanced and knowledge-based. A lot of what I've seen from people over the years is mostly attachment to personalities and individuals, rather than knowledge-based inquiry.

[@-------....___]

You know, I asked a madkhali what he thinks about music concerts and film festivals. He said, well, before they used to have these parties, but they were underground. At least now they are organized by the government, so at least it's regulated. There will be less haram. GG madkhalia.

[@DaudBurke]

قاتلهم الله أنى يؤفكون… Government regulation is endorsement. And the sad thing is the amount of kufr packed into the songs of the music industry and it’s basically a platform for spreading kufr sugarcoated with lust and carnal desires.

[@-------....___]

@@DaudBurkeof course brother, government regulation is endorsement. That is the thing they don’t understand. We know Zina happens underground or in private, so basically let’s regulate it by making brothels so there is less haram. That is their logic. It is sad how blind they have become.

[@-------....___]

@@DaudBurke I mean, I just asked one of them what he thinks about the bikini competitions. It's a madkhali called Wajdi Akkari. As usual, his main responses at first were 'its all lies', then he changed to 'its happening far away in the corner of KSA' and then 'leaders don't know about it'. When I then explained that nothing happens in KSA, and these types of countries that the leaders are not aware of, or the leaders have not pushed for it or approved it, he then said 'I don't debate with people of desires' and then he deleted all my comments from his channel. GG

[@DaudBurke]

I’m pretty sure my comments were all deleted from his channel as well. After a while I stopped wasting time doing inkar when I realized it’s just me pouring time down the drain with him.

[@-------....___]

@@DaudBurke yep. When I talk to them, I feel like I am talking to twelvers. Just people not willing to see reason. I mean, they literally change history by saying Husayn RA never went for khurooj, he just went to rule Kufa, which is a straight up lie. And then they also say that near the end he was regretful that he ever went against the rightful ruler I.e. Yazid. I am telling you, had these people been alive at that time, they would been calling Husayn RA kharji too, wanting his head.

[@abelwolf7141]

Who have you studied with? Which shayukh do you take from , living and dead ?

[@DaudBurke]

Look at my list of subscriptions these are many of them, also I have shuyookh in Egypt some known and some not so well known.

[@TawheedOnly1]

Do you take from Ahmed Musa Jibril?

[@DaudBurke]

No, I don’t take from English speakers in general.

[@محمد-و5ه8ت]

إذا كنت طالبا للحق فستصل ما قيل في الشيخ ربيع هو ما قيل في الإمام أحمد ولا يوجد شيء اسمه مداخلة هي مجرد تهمة يرمي بها أهل البدعة أهل السنة وفي النهاية سيرتفع أهل السنة ويهلك أهل البدعة كما هو معلوم فكن على الحق مع العلماء ودع عنك كلام أهل الباطل

[@briancordero7674]

الدين عند.الله الاسلام و ارسل محمدا رحمة للعالمين. أما الشيخ ربيع فهو ادمي غير معصوم و نعوذ بالله من الغلو في الشخص او الحزب .ليست السعودية بالخلافة بل هي المملكة العربية كونتها بريطانيا ١٩٢٤ و وو قد اصبحت الفتنة على المملكة من التأثر الأمريكي. و ألله المستعان لا شك

[@ebrahimezzat1510]

قبح الله ربيع المدخلي

[@userjasks]

@@ebrahimezzat1510 الله يكفينا من شرّك

[@seekfactsnotfiction9056]

@@userjasksومن هم اقبح اشرارً من سرطان المداخلة ؟

[@userjasks]

@@seekfactsnotfiction9056 ولله الحمد نحن اهل السنة متبعون للاثار وللسنة مذهب السلف الصالح. ولله الحمد لسنا على منهج الإخوان المفسدين ولا على منهج التكفيريين ولا غيرهم من اهل البدع والأهواء. وكل فرقة من فرق اهل البدع اقبح منا, لأنهم يختارون طريقة غير طريقة رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم واصحابه والسلف اجمعين.

[@dar-al-hijratayn]

Barakallahu feek akhi. Are you a student of Sh. Adil by any chance?

[@DaudBurke]

Yes. He’s one of my shuyookh حفظه الله

[@dar-al-hijratayn]

@@DaudBurke MashaAllah, had a feeling lol. He's a gem. حفظك الله

[@RababZaker]

استاذ داوود هل درست في الجامعه الاسلاميه بالمدينه المنوره؟ ولماذا لا تضع ترجمه عربيه لفيديوهاتك

[@ceesaysulayman158]

I really hate this government agent called madKhali

[@DZMegamind]

First of there is no such thing as madakhila similarly there is no such thing as wahabis or jami or raslani...etc these are deragetory terms people of bidaa use for ahlu sunnah because whos one of the big schoolars of our generation who named this group madakhila its only ikhwani, sororya and khawaridj fear allah akhi dont speak about scholars.

[@briancordero7674]

I don't endorse calling Muslims by insulting names, but there have been many groups identified by blameworthy characteristics or other than that.

[@DaudBurke]

Did I mention any scholars by name? I addressed the issues of the group that have been given this name based on the one Shiekh, that’s all. If you say that the madakhila are the true version of salafiya than you don’t do any benefit to calling people to salafiyah-as it’s not that. The people you call sururiyah… um I think you just contradicted yourself. This is a new term used to degrade those who don’t agree with the madkhalis… um I think you get the point.

[@DZMegamind]

​ @DaudBurke my friend there are scholars who coined this term sororya it's the ikhwanis that are trying to portray salafya while still upholding ikhwani manhaj. the name is attribute to Mohammad bin soror and he says this stuff openly he said we are mixing ikhwani manhadj with salafya I can provide the video. now you are saying I didn't name any schoolers I think you are just playing obtuse here when you say Madakhilah we all know who you are referring to similarly when you say Wahabis we all know who you talking about. if you are saying that Ibn Uthaimin, Ibn Baz, Mohammad nasir addin al albani, Mohhamad Aman aldjami, shikh mukbil wadi3i, and errzak bader, muhsin albader, shikh fawzan and all these are madakhilah. then yes I am also mudkhali. all of them have praised shikh rabie on many occasion especially his writing against ikhwani, sorori, sayed kutb...etc. and that's why they hate him by the way and in huge part why they have this campaign against him. that being said am asking you which trustworthy upon manhaj schoolar coin this term madakhilah because everything you said in the video is a stick man that ahl bidaa created themselves and nothing to do with shikh rabie just to turn people from hearing the truth. and am going to make a big claim here walahi billahi tallahi you will not be able to bring something from the books of shikh rabie where he openly upose sunnah or manhaj salaf trust me I've been asking this for years and no one able to. so fear Allah strop regurgitating ikhwani and sorori talking points and remember you'll be standing in front of Allah at the day of judgement and he'll ask you about everything you said/ shared you should prepare an answer may Allah guide you and me to the truth.

[@briancordero7674]

​@DZMegamind You must be new to Salafiyya. In 1979 was the Sahwa Islamiyya ( Islamic Resurgence) in the Kingdom of Saudi with Salafiyya and the Big Three: Shaykh Albani, Shaykh Uthaymeen and Shaykh Bin Baz were in their heyday. Shaykh Bin Baz Fatwa concerning the Ikhwan Muslimeen Fatwa (6250). اقرب الجامعات الاسلاميةالى الحق.The closest Jamaat to the truth. أقرب الجماعات الاسلاميةالى الحق و احرصها على تطبيقه :اهل السنة:و هم أهل الحديث،و أنصار السنة ثم الاخوان المسلمون .The closest Jamaat to the truth and most ambitious upon it are Ahl Sunna, and they are Ahl Hadith, and Ansar Sunna then the Ikhwan Muslimeen. Google it.

[@AbdallahSuleiman-l8p]

Who created the term madkhali? I only noticed around the past 2 years the people using this term. Not sure who they are or what they are but I hear a lot of people using it.

[@LJ-jd5yy]

I really respect you for your knowledge and adab in these matters but this video has made me confused - Although I’m very opposed to the likes of SPUBS and their cultish mentality and tabdee, I do take on board what they say about the rulers , about how speaking against the rulers publicly and publicizing the sins leads to khurooj and more fitnah, especially the Hadith of Usama bin Zayd not wanting to speak about Uthman RA publicly. Are you for public criticism and khurooj which will lead to fitnah and bloodshed or are you against it? I don’t see how believing that would make one a madkhali….

[@DaudBurke]

بارك الله فيك أخي الكريم This issue by itself, without considering the combination of other issues, wouldn’t necessarily make someone Madkhali. If they understood that this is an area of difference in determining the amount of pushback that would cause fitna, etc., it would be different. However, the majority of people go to extremes and call those who differ with them Khawarij, and that is baseless. It’s very important to understand that if someone is trying to get rid of an evil, they can’t create a greater evil than they are trying to prevent. This is my position when it comes to speaking about them. In America and overseas, where there is political freedom, having people create pressure on evil un-Islamic rulers is definitely a great thing. But for a person who is inside of that country, it can easily be a death sentence and cause him, his family, and all those who knew him a ton of harm. If someone tries a revolt without proper planning, it can lead to great bloodshed. The issue with Madkhalis is that they view unwavering loyalty and obedience as an act of worship in and of itself, and then they proceed to do tabdee’ on all opposition.

[@LJ-jd5yy]

@@DaudBurke Barakallah feek. Although I do understand your pov, won’t speaking out even from America lead to resentment of the people of that country towards its rulers and end up with the same consequences? Because I think it is common sense that lay people speaking out from the west isn’t going to lead the rulers to change things just because the American public spoke against them. But what it could lead to is that the locals of the country coming across such criticism and starts harboring hatred towards their own rulers and then that could lead to fitnah? That makes sense right?

[@DaudBurke]

The fitna is already present of people going against the deen. This is fitna that is present and the fear of another fitna is maybe and here the the inkar has to be present from someone in the ummah. If people were all quiet about it would be taken as acceptance and that’s impossible. Especially when these people under them are mukrah and unable to establish one who will establish the deen in the dunya. You gotta have pressure and push back or these people will know no bounds.

[@TawheedOnly1]

If the leader rules by other than Allah's law and affirms it's better than Allah's law that makes him a kafir. However if the leader rules by other than Allah's law due to worldly whims and desires but affirms Allah's law is superior it's a major sin. Seek ilm and stop spreading deviant baatil. May Allah guide you.

[@DaudBurke]

Takfir is one thing, and obedience to one who changes shariah is another. This is agreed upon that there is no more obedience to him. I’ll share this ijma from qhadi eyaadh in an upcoming upload inSha’Allahu

[@essa200911]

Mashallah Mashallah Mashallah May Allah bless you I’m so amazed of the adab and the knowledge in this video You just hit the points and it is exactly what these people are doing Just to give my comment about this amazing video. I’m from Arabia and the most famous known name about same this kind of people is “ Al Jameah الجاميه " and of course there is “ Al Madkhalieah المدخليه “ and there are all the same and they existed during the Gulf Wars but their ideas are just a continuous of shaping the religion in the interests of their leaders and this is an old problem which always appears during our history in different forms I think there is very important points that needed to be highlighted: - You made it very clear that there are Conditions of who we call Imam and this is very important because the way that we will view whoever doesn’t fit the Conditions will be different. imam al nawawi transferred the consensus “ijma” about that in his explanation of Muslim, he said: The scholars agreed that it is haram “prohibited” to obey “giving beah بيعه" to two Kalefah “ امير المومنين الخليفه " in one time or time period even if the land of Islam expanded! , And then he said: the late saying of we can have if it is expanded is corrupted! And not upon what salaf and khalaf stands ‎نقل الإجماع على ذلك النووي في شرح مسلم فقال: اتفق العلماء على أنه لا يجوز أن يعقد لخليفتين من عصر واحد سواء اتسعت دار الإسلام أم لا وقال إمام الحرمين في كتابه الإرشاد: قال أصحابنا لا يجوز عقدها لشخصين قال: وعندي أنه لا يجوز عقدها لاثنين في صقع واحد وهذا مجمع عليه قال: فإن بعد ما بين الإمامين وتخللت بينهما شسوع فللاحتمال فيه مجال قال: وهو خارج من القواطع وحكى المارزي هذا القول عن بعض المتأخرين من أهل الأصل وأراد به إمام الحرمين وهو قول فاسد مخالف لما عليه السلف والخلف ولظواهر إطلاق الأحاديث. انتهى. والله أعلم. We have clear evidences from sunnah and even saying from Sahabah of the prophet peace be upon him and scholars which state clearly the imamah must be one imam and we need to kill the other one Also, Shura الشورى even Omar ibn Alkhatab said: …. فمَن بَايَعَ رَجُلًا علَى غيرِ مَشُورَةٍ مِنَ المُسْلِمِينَ، فلا يُتَابَعُ هو ولَا الذي بَايَعَهُ؛ تَغِرَّةً أنْ يُقْتَلَا. ‎الراوي : عبدالله بن عباس | المحدث : البخاري | المصدر : صحيح البخاري ‎الصفحة أو الرقم: 6830 | خلاصة حكم المحدث : [صحيح] ‎التخريج : أخرجه مسلم (1691) مختصراً Which means: "So if any person gives the Pledge of allegiance to somebody (to become a Caliph) without consulting the other Muslims, then the one he has selected should not be granted allegiance, lest both of them should be killed." Reference : Sahih al-Bukhari 6830 In-book reference : Book 86, Hadith 56 USC-MSA web (English) reference : Vol. 8, Book 82, Hadith 817 (deprecated numbering scheme) Also, Hereditary imamah is haram and ibn Hazem transferred the agreement of all ummah in this So, fitting the conditions and be able to match it with today reality and be able to analyse today reality correctly is very important main thing because it is very important that we need to be well grounded in knowledge “ theoretically “ and have well grounded in understanding practical reality and able to apply the theoretical in practical reality life which we call it “ تحقيق المناط " So, I have big problem with them because they use half of the picture for example they may use a Hadith to obey the rulers but they miss the complete picture which is the conditions that we already talked about and also they are not clearing what they mean because they need to be accurate in what they mean because there is many things will be built on that judgment so it is not enough to just apply one evidence when the situation is completely different and have different view and commitment than what they show because the complete evidences showing complete different judgement on today reality. - second point is that you also mentioned very important problem that they always in the matters or objects of differences they attack the opposite side when sometimes the differences are not in their side at all They for example do not understand the احكام the judgments in case of “ المتغلب " the one who by force want to take leadership and the different between just متغلب and injustice متغلب there is more to the picture than they think and also the khorooj in case of fitnah and what we need to do in case of fitnah and what is the plan all these topics are different when we go to details in knowledge than what they think and it is against them actually and not same what they assume and even the matter of what about if we can do Khorooj after we are saved from the greater fitnah how we need to deal with the injust متغلب and this actually if this متغلب already fits the conditions which has no options. I mean it is long discussion and long details which they are not aware of and I am just trying because this is short place which will not fit all the evidences so I just want to give a taste of what I mean so I will end with this point because I really have many points but I will just write these because I don’t want to make it longer. I will put this quote from ibn hajar very important talking about what we must to do in every case: ‎قال ابن حجر في “الفتح” [13/11]: (نقل ابن التين عن الداودي قال: الذي عليه العلماء في أمراء الجور أنه إن قدر على خلعه بغير فتنة ولا ظلم وجب، وإلا فالواجب الصبر، وعن بعضهم لا يجوز عقد الولاية لفاسق ابتداءً، فإن أحدث جوراً بعد أن كان عدلاً فاختلفوا في جواز الخروج عليه، والصحيح المنع إلا أن يكفر فيجب الخروج عليه) اهـ. “The translation: aldawudey said that what the scholars stand for is that in case of injustice Aumara “leaders” it is a ( must ) to take him out in case of there is no fitnah and injustice by doing that and he added it is a ( must ) to have patience if this is not the case.” So, the case of ( الواجب ) “ the obligation “ depends on the situation so imagine if we are in time where we can’t take them off because of fitnah but we prepared ourselves during that time then after a period of time we are in atmosphere where we are able to do it so in this time it will be obliged to take them off it is not a choice!! And this the people who glorify leaders today will not say it to you I will end it with saying that we are in the time where we need to seek knowledge that go to Quran and Sunnah and be with the right scholars

[@DaudBurke]

وفيك بارك الله It’s obvious you have studied this subject deeply and you see the nonsense that’s been spreading around about wulaat al-umoor. There is one thing that I’ll mention about the two khalifas: one the ijmaa’ is in question and even if we say that is the right opinion, I’ve seen some issues with it from others and its interpretation. As far as the same country/region or close countries with no serious borders or separations the ijmaa is clear only one khalifa. But for a while there was a khilafah in andalos and another on the other side of the Muslim world… and most would agree that the ahkaam was relied upon from both sides even if there is question about its validity in essence. And lastly an ameer or wali can be on a subscale and valid if it fits the major conditions but doesn’t replace the fardh of a khalifa. And if it is doing the job of establishing the deen in the dunya and guiding the people with it than it takes most of the rulings of a khilafah on a smaller scale. So these countries if they actually had umaraa’, no problem but we still need a khalifa and they need to do the job or be replaced with those who will do it if we are able to. Thanks again for your comment and it shows a lot of research and thought that you have put into this very important topic. جَزَاك اللهُ خَيْرًا

[@essa200911]

@@DaudBurke ‎اللهم امين اجمعين ♥️ Thank you very much for kindness to give your important highlights on my comment and yes I tried my hardest to study these topics because I was forced to make my study in this matter earlier because of the reality I was born in for today world and it is very important because we will build our views and relationships and moves based on what the evidences of Quran and Sunnah and all evidences related to Quran and Sunnah so it was very important for me to spend time in this matter specially I don’t want to be involved in defending a group against another group in the sense of defending my country and then it may that I was involved in a big lie which I may fight my Muslim brothers in the other group and this fitnah of pushing people into conflicts in the sense they are citizens and they have to obey can happen and sometimes this will be a challenge and fitnah which is hard and dangerous and also to sit up my big goals and visions and what I do in this life to make it in what Allah loves which is in the interests of Islam and empowering Muslim ummah and make it together and to make this division by steps melting and getting smaller because I hate Fitnah and sadly even if I hate fitnah still saying what I am saying right now, I try to avoid to tell it to normal people or people who are not students of knowledge because it can be Fitnah for them because we need to talk with them in the sense that they can understand I totally understand the points that you mentioned I already know that there is a lot of talking that happened later in the ummah which is “ The Great Imamah الامامه الكبرى " and “ The Small Imamah الامامه الصغرى " and all what I was trying by intention to say that there is origin even if there is opinions and things happened later in the ummah so the ummah can work towards them again and you already touched the matter of two Khalifas and I totally agree that there is who mentioned about andalos which happened later in the ummah and I was intentionally to mention what Imam Al nawawi said because there is two views in this and imam al nawawi was in the view to not allow this absolutely and he clearly replied as I quoted on them because we was trying to show the origin and this is what matters to me the most in what Imam Al nawawi quote which is we need always to remember the origin whatever is the situation because I already understand the second view as Imam Al-Qurtubi said in his Tafser: ‎ذهب القرطبي في تفسيره فقال: (لكن إذا تباعدت الأقطار، وتباينت كالأندلس وخراسان، جاز ذلك) ‎(([١٣٤٩٥])) ((الجامع لأحكام القرآن)) (١/ ٢٧٣). Which means simply that “if the land where far in same sense of Al andalos and Khorasan then it is halal or permissible “ And this absolute different of what we see today like just an example here in Arabia it is one Arab Peninsula but still divided and all of us say the conflict that happened between the Gulf governments during 2017 and the heat which was before it and this even our second Khalefah Abu baker May Allah be pleased with him warned us about: ‎روى البيهقي عن امير المؤمنين الامام الاعظم الخليفه الراشد الواحد العام ابو بكر الصديق رضي الله عنه انه قال في خطبه : (أنه لا يحل أن يكون للمسلمين أميران، فإنه مهما يكن ذلك يختلف أمرهم وأحكامهم، وتتفرق جماعتهم ويتنازعون فيما بينهم، هنالك تترك السنة، وتظهر البدعة، وتعظم الفتنة، وليس لأحد على ذلك صلاح) ‎(([١٣٥٠٢])) ((السنن الكبرى)) للبيهقي (٨/ ١٤٥) عن ابن إسحاق. It has been narrated that only one the second khalefah of the prophet peace be upon him and the amer “prince” of believers Abu Baker said: “ whenever Muslims have multiple Ameer “ rulers “ then their rulings and commands or orders will differ then the Gamah or ummah will split up and fight with each other and Sunnah will be left and bedah will appear and Fitanh will be become continuously GREAT up “ Source: Alsunan alkubra And sadly this great fitanh is happening today may Allah save us from these Fetan and forgive us all for any mistakes Ameen And about your second point, I totally with you that in today reality that all these groups, they need to work towards the one Khelafah or preparing the atmosphere for the rise of it and by the way this is the stand of Shiekh al albani may Allah mercy his soul and bring Muslims closer and closer together until we achieve unity, these are the goals that I was talking about that I want to see in ummah today that’s why I look at all these groups which has Islamic backgrounds in the eye of everyone of them has something for them and something against them “ مالهم وماعليهم " which means everyone has something close to Islam and something far from what Islam teachings so they need to work towards fixing and help each others in the direction of what Allah loves. Because simply non of them fits or replace the one Khelafah and there don’t have any right to claim that they have a general Byeah “ loyalty بيعة عامه " and we have clear evidences from Quran and Sunnah and what salaf and scholars said about the option of isolating yourself from all these groups until they unite and follow as what Ibn Omar May Allah be pleased with him did which as ibn tymeah said that he hit and targeted directly the truth not same Ali and Muaweah May Allah be pleased with them and yes Ali he was the closest. So, I have no problem to work with any body to fill the gaps between the ummah and to make it untie because this is is an interest for the ummah and a benefit for the ummah to destroy the Fitnah and May Allah return the ummah in the Menhaj “ approach “ of the Prophet peace be upon him “ منهاج النبوه " May Allah guide all these groups and divisions I always remember what Shiekh ibn uthemeen said about that the great imamah was Extinct from a long time ago so this is a great reminder of the origin and I always remember the challenge of Shiekh Al Albani May Allah mercy their souls all when he said “for whose we need to give Byeah “ loyalty بيعه " today? Where is the imam that you want us to give byeah to? “ These questions really changed a lot on me and alhamdullallah that Allah saved me from fitnah of entering any groups which also has problems and involved in the fitnah. I stick myself to the scholars and specifically now the students of Shiekh Ibn Uthemeen May Allah mercy his soul I remember saying of Shiekh Al islam Ibn Tyemeah may Allah mercy his soul talking about the time of division: قيل لشيخ الإسلام ابن تيمية يرحمه الله: إذا صال العدو على بلاد الإسلام وتحزب المسلمون أحزابا فأيها نتبع؟ قال: من حكم بما انزل الله وأنفذ القرآن والسنة قيل له: فإن كانت كلها أو معظمها تحكم بما أنزل الله فأيها نتبع؟ قال: الأكثر نكاية والأشد تنكيلا بالعدو مجموع الفتاوى{٢٨_٤٤١} “Which means that if an enemy attacked the land of Islam and Muslims were in sects who we need to follow. He said that whoever established what Allah revealed and applied the Quran and Sunnah. Then been asked: what if all or most rule by what Allah revealed then who we follow: he said the most one which is very harsh on the enemy and makes victory on them” This is very important understanding also because even in the time of all or most are establishing the religion but still we follow the most one that do victory on the enemy And to be honest I hope if this kind of sect is clear to me. However, I am still isolating myself from all groups until the reality picture is clear to me in the sense of the one imam or the sect that fight the enemy the most in a victory and not involved in the fitnah that happening between ummah today. I ask Allah to forgive me if I made any mistake and I ask Allah to reward me if I said anything right ameen And Jazak Allah khair جزاك الله خير ايضا for you response comment because it is very rare in life to see and talk to someone in these matters and have adab of talking subhanallah and forgive me if I talk too much I learn from you brother and feel free to correct me if I made any mistakes because you are higher than me in knowledge and even in status too may allah bless you ♥️

[@-------....___]

@@DaudBurke Actually, Abu Bakr RA also forbade having two Amirs. This was then repeated by Imam Nawawi, the 4 Imams etc. That there is an obligation to have a Caliph, and there can only be a single Amir, who can then appoint additional leaders in his government. The ijm3 was clear that even if the lands were far apart, the ummah can only have one Amir. When there were two Caliphates, that was because the Abbasid were against the Ummayad, so they didn't consider the Ummayad legitimate. Ibn Taymiyya came and said that you can have separate Emirates with their own Amirs, which is against the position of the Sahabah and classical scholars, and the function of how the Caliphate works, and his justification was that there had been no true Caliphate since the d3ath of Uthman RA. But he did put a caveat. He said if there are separate Emirates, the ruler of those Emirates MUST implement STRICT SHARIA. Because logically speaking, this would be the only way to bypass the disbelief of Nationalism, removal of a single Caliphate etc. So I disagree with Ibn Taymiyya on there being separate Emirates allowed. The requirement is to have a single Caliphate, a single Amir. Abu Bakr RA was wise when he said two Amirs are forbidden because it would lead to division, in-fighting, innovations, sunnah being abandoned etc. And this is what has happened, except it is even worse. The madkhali murji'a who support 'nation' states and separate rulers have totally discarded the Sahabah and classical scholars, and even discarded Ibn Taymiyya who said even if there are separate states, they MUST rule with Sharia.

[@HudhaifahWeathers]

Prophet Muhammad sal Allahu alayhi wasalam told us there will be corrupt leaders and we are to hear and obey. The Ulema explained the first form of kharuj was speaking out against the ruler. No doubt that there are rules who commit haram but this is not an opinion from the opinions of ahlus sunnah wal jamah. "whoever rules by whatsoever Allah has not revealed..." Sheikh Ibn Aqil Az Zahiri explained how the kings are not making up rules, they ruling by the laws already put into place by the Europeans. If you don't believe that the laws that are getting ruled by are better than sharia than that cant be a reason to make takfir. If you don't have the authority to change the condition than hate it in your heart and be patient upon it.

[@DaudBurke]

In the video, I addressed much of what you brought up here. I explained that if someone is genuinely an Islamic leader, they must be obeyed, respected, and not rebelled against (no khurūj). However, if they do not meet the conditions of an Islamic leader, they do not fall under this category. Such a person could be considered similar to a muslim highway robber who has unlawfully taken control. If a highway robber were to take over a village, would it be obligatory for the villagers to obey him and accord him the rights of an Islamic ruler (Amīr) just because he's a Muslim and ruling? Certainly not. We would say that the villagers should protect themselves, their families, and remove the oppressor whenever possible. I’m not saying all of these leaders are like highway robbers, but if they no longer fulfill the conditions of leadership, they are not holding an islamic position of authority. A true Amīr’s role is to establish the Dīn in the dunya and lead people according to it, as explained by scholars such as Imam al-Juwaynī and Ibn Khaldūn. Therefore, someone merely having an army and invading a land does not automatically make them an Islamic ruler. Islamic rulership has specific conditions, including ruling according to what Allah has decreed. Regarding the first type of khurūj (speaking out against the ruler), we have examples from the Sahābah. Inshā’Allah, we will address these examples in future videos. There is no doubt that rulers can commit harām acts. If the sin is personal and between them and Allah, we leave it to Allah. But if they make harām into halāl and enforce it upon everyone, punishing those who oppose, then this is a form of kufr-specifically, kufr akbar (major disbelief) that takes one out of Islam. However, for a person to be declared a disbeliever, specific conditions must be met and analyzed by a qualified mujtahid who understands the circumstances unless the matter is clear-cut. Inshā’Allah, we will discuss the ijmā’ (consensus) that Imam al-Nawawī mentions in his Sharh of Sahīh Muslim regarding not rebelling against the rulers, as it is a significant point to consider. You mentioned that this is not an opinion from Ahl al-Sunnah wal-Jamā‘ah, but in fact, it is. Al-Qurtubī actually states it is the majority opinion, so it is important to review the evidence provided in the video. Regarding rulers making up laws, it does not matter if they take these laws from others; this is still kufr. Replacing Allah’s laws with other laws constitutes kufr. An action such as istihlāl is kufr, which means believing/making something permissible that is categorically impermissible in the Dīn-something known by necessity. And Istihlāl is kufr because it is changing the Sharī‘ah, which is a branch of altering the divine law. In Sharī‘ah, legislation encompasses more than just acts of worship; it includes aspects of governance. The right to legislate belongs solely to Allah. If one does not have the authority to change an unjust situation, then they should hate it in their heart, be patient, and do whatever is within their capacity, even if it means raising their voice or encouraging others to speak out. As scholars such as Iman An-nawawi have mentioned. Ultimately, the rulers (umara) are considered representatives (wakīl) of the Ummah, tasked with establishing the Dīn in this world. If they fail to fulfill their duty, the Ummah has the right/duty to remove them, as they are merely representatives acting on the Ummah’s behalf and of course, all of this is according to ability without creating more harm than what is being fixed. It is crucial to understand this concept, and Inshā’Allah, I will discuss it further in a future video.

[@HudhaifahWeathers]

@@DaudBurke Among the salaf it was ijma that rebelling haram, unless you you clear kufr and you have the power to take out the oppressive ruler without more harm occurring. Ibn umar, ibn abbas, muhammad al hanafiyyah all from the first and second generation all warned against rebelling, so did imam ahmed and others. From the time of the ummayads forward there were laws that weren’t apart of shariah, does that make every leader since kafr? Obviously not that’s why for rebelling to be halal it goes back to the ijma of the scholars of the time not just every laymen or student of knowledge. And you have to have someone that can replace them and rule by shariah.

[@HudhaifahWeathers]

@@DaudBurke Prophet Muhammad, alayhi salatu wa salam, was ruled over by mushriks for 13 years and he never called to rebellion, the most he did was to make hijrah and he was made the leader of the people and only fought back when he became the leader and had the power to

[@DaudBurke]

The question is what makes a leader a leader and if he is a leader, does this have conditions that need to be met for his leadership to be valid and if these conditions are missing is he still a leader or no? So if you take the consensus and apply it to someone who isn’t a valid leader, then you’re taking consensus and putting it its wrong place. But if you’re putting the consensus in the area of a leader who actually holds the conditions of leadership, then this is where the consensus that you mentioned would lie. As far as having rules that aren’t a part of the shariah as long as they don’t go against something that is agreed-upon and clear cut, then this is somewhat understandable and is outside of the area mentioned of whoever changes any single thing (agreed-upon) from the shariah that there is consensus that his leadership is null and void. So if we have a leader and his leadership is null and void how are we supposed to deal with him? Does he deserve the obedience of a leader who does fulfill the conditions or no? And if you were to use the texts that affirm obedience and no revolution with a person whose leadership is invalid then without a doubt this is incorrect. It goes back to what creates the least amount of harm in this case, which mostly is understood as no rebellion unless there is the power to do it with a reasonable amount of bloodshed. This is discussed in the area that imam annawawi mentions the ijmaa’ in greater detail. I hope to bring this up in another follow up video. As far as rebelling against a ruler over the Muslims who is a kaffir then this is unanimously agreed upon its obligation according to ability. And nobody says that he gets the same rights as a valid Muslim ruler. And what you mentioned of the time in Mecca is munsookh.

[@omanhakimi3321]

I actually understand and in some way agree with, but its still wrong to use "madkhali" because people attribute these harsh people to Imam Rabi Madkhali, I definitely disagree with projectguidinglight, they are people who slanders the ahlul ilm like shaykh Abdul Aziz Rayyis So dont use that term

[@DaudBurke]

The group definitely exists The group has been given a name. Shiekh rabi’ has a host of ulama that he too has slandered under the name of jarh and ta’deel. And the whole basis of the madaakhilah is based on slandering the majority of the umma with bida’h… so a bit of backfire is nothing but expected. I have no affiliation with project guiding light and I mentioned I don’t like the way they spoke about some, but that information is only available in the English language from them and is a gem, so I thank them for their service and hard work while advising them to speak a bit more respectfully with ahlu al-ilm

[@omanhakimi3321]

@@DaudBurke it is known that imam rabee' would make ijtihad and refute certain individuals, That is no surprise, we may not totally agree with him due to lack of evidence, But to use his name to make it a whole group "madakhilah" this is not respect to him, Imam Al Fawzan say to not do this.

[@DaudBurke]

Shiekh al-fawzan made his ijtehaad in that matter. There are a host of other scholars that have accepted this term and do use it. So we can agree to disagree as this is a matter of ijtehaad. And as I said I don’t think calling individuals names helps anyone or is ok.

[@omanhakimi3321]

@@DaudBurke which ulama that shaykh Rabee' slandered

[@DaudBurke]

He’s got a list that leaves only a few standing as from ahlu sunnah. He is known for a new understanding and use of the term jarh and ta’deel.

[@F78ly]

السلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاته Question, is sh. Rabee AlMadkhali guilty of this and is it okay for us to label the people with these descriptions as such; with this term?

[@DaudBurke]

‏وعَلَيْكُمُ السَّلامُ ورَحْمةُ اللهِ وبَرَكاتُه I personally don’t spend time listening to him. But the issues are here of the madkhali virus. Don’t fall into the issues mentioned. I don’t like calling individuals names, but the idea is clear as day and distinct so giving it a name is great.

[@F78ly]

@@DaudBurke I’m okay with everything you’ve said, I agree that there exist; people of that ideology, I also agree that we should give them a name so as to distinguish, but why give it a name after a person who might not be aligned with their beliefs? I myself don’t listen to sh. Rabee but I don’t know if it’s the right thing to name people like them after him? (That’s if he didn’t do anything which I’m supposing) And is there a better way to contact you? I have many questions I hope to get answered. جزاك الله خيرا

[@DaudBurke]

You can email me look on the channel description. As far as naming individuals, this should be avoided unless the conditions for naming with a negative term have been met, and that’s not for a lay person in general.

[@-------....___]

Simple explanation of these groups: 1. Khawarij: turned major sins into disbelief. 2. Murji'a: turned disbelief into major sins. They have the understanding that even if ALL the Sharia is replaced with man made laws, the ruler is still muslim and to be obeyed as long as he doesn't consider it in his heart that the man made laws are better than the Sharia. This is a type of worship, and can be considered worship of the 'rulers'. 3. Madkhalis: they are murji'a, but with added traits. They call everyone who disagrees with them khawarij, or innovators. They choose a specific shaykh, and blindly follow him, and refute everyone else. They defend their rulers and scholars like a m4dness. This is also a type of worship, but they worship their 'scholars' as well as the 'rulers'. The khawarij, whilst misguided, were considered muslims. The other two categories are not. Any 'ruler' who legislates in contradiction to Sharia, or makes halal what is haram, is a disbeliever. Any scholar or group who then preaches obedience to these 'rulers' has also disbelieved.

[@DaudBurke]

One point to clarify is the definition of Murji’ah. The common understanding is that they believe actions do not affect a person’s status as a believer. This means that, according to them, even if someone commits an act of Kufr, it does not impact their Iman unless it is accompanied by a belief in Kufr. This is the essence of the Murji’ah’s stance on this issue. I hope this clarifies the definition, as the previous one might not have been entirely accurate. Most of Ahl al-Kalam fall into the category of Murji’ah, though there are varying degrees among them. Those who say that a Munafiq (hypocrite) is still a believer are considered Ghulat al-Murji’ah (extremists among the Murji’ah). These are the ones who warrant Takfir, like the Karramiyya sect. This brings me to the second point: before declaring Takfir on an individual or a group, we must ensure that all conditions are properly met. Without this, Takfir cannot be justly applied. Generally, the Murji’ah are considered part of Islam, much like the Khawarij, who share a similar trait with them. The Khawarij believe that Iman is all or nothing, and the Murji’ah hold a similar view, though from the opposite perspective. Both are extreme in their interpretations, though on different sides of the spectrum. Applying Takfir broadly to all Murji’ah is an extreme position. Doing so would lead to declaring large numbers of Muslims as disbelievers, which would diminish much of what has been contributed to Islam by them. For instance, this would involve declaring all Ash’aris, Maturidis, and even some Hanafis, like the Murji’ah al-Fuqaha’, as disbelievers. This is not the approach of Ahl al-‘Ilm (the people of knowledge). Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah stated that only the extreme Murji’ah, such as the Karramiyya, or the extreme Jahmiyyah, warrant Takfir. Regarding those who do not declare Takfir on these extreme sects, Ibn Taymiyyah mentioned in his Majmu’ al-Fatawa (Volume 10) that there is a difference of opinion. The strongest view, according to the Madhhab and Imam Ahmad’s narration, is that those who refrain from declaring Takfir on the extremists are not disbelievers themselves. I have discussed this in a separate video on Ibn Taymiyyah’s methodology concerning ’Uthar bil-jahl, as this issue requires a nuanced, proper understanding. Takfir has conditions, and while the scholars have ruled that those who govern by other than what Allah has prescribed are disbelievers, each case must be assessed individually. Just because an action is Kufr does not automatically mean that everyone who commits it is a disbeliever regardless of their condition, especially if certain conditions prevent them from being held accountable. It’s important to understand that there is a distinction between the ruling attached to an action and the ruling attached to the individual who performs that action. Ibn Taymiyyah is very clear on this matter. He cites the example of Imam Ahmad, who stated that “whoever says the Qur’an is created has disbelieved.” However, despite this, many around him, including the Khalifa, were saying it in his presence, and Imam Ahmad did not declare Takfir on them. In fact, he was even making Istighfar (seeking forgiveness) for them. This shows that certain statements must be understood within the broader context of the actions and circumstances surrounding them, particularly phrases like man fa’ala kadha fahuwa kafir (whoever does such-and-such is a disbeliever).

[@-------....___]

@@DaudBurkethank you for the clarification.

[@-------....___]

@@DaudBurkewhen I talk about the murji’a, I am not talking generally. I am specifically talking about those who say a ‘ruler’ can remove all Sharia, and this is only a sin, and we must be obedient to those same ‘rulers’. These murji’a are those who say Mecca can be turned into Las Vegas, where all Sharia has been removed, and the person who is doing this is Muslim and to be obeyed. When Allah SWT says to reject the taghut, and we have specific murji’a who are saying they are not taghut, they are only sinning, and we must be obedient to taghut, wouldn’t you say these ‘murji’a’ are preaching obedience to taghut? We have so many scholars calling these ‘rulers’ disbelievers, including Ibn Taymiyya, Nawawi, Muhammad Bin Ibrahim, Ibn Uthaymeen, so where is the doubt.

[@-------....___]

@@DaudBurkefor example, let’s leave KSA, and focus on UAE. There is not a shroud of Sharia there anymore. Everything haram is openly practiced, to the point where even temples and churches are being constructed. And we have ‘daee’ like Dawah man and Abdur Rahman Hasan saying UAE leader is still Muslim and has to be obeyed. Like what? Abdur Rahman Hasan even said in an interview that if the ‘ruler’ removes ALL sharia from the land, as long as he doesn’t SAY it, he has to be obeyed. Isn’t this the classical definition of Irja’? Isn’t this classical example of w0Rshi.p of taghut?

[@-------....___]

@@DaudBurkeand sorry but, Quran being created or uncreated, is a totally different scenario removing or replacing Sharia. Do you believe that if the KHALIFA at the time of Imam Ahmad was ruling by man made laws, or removing Sharia, Imam Ahmad would react the same way? We know that when a simple Sharia punishment was not implemented, Ibn Taymiyya protested openly against the Caliph.

[@khalidabdullah268]

المداخلة، كانوا ولا زالوا بلاء على السلفية.

[@ayoubdavid]

ماشاء الله

[@bungooli]

Barakallahu feek Ustadh Daud, very well addressed, especially with the references on screen. Really admire the way you approach issues like this. One thing I am curious in your journey towards coming to Islam is was there anything that you were not aware of before reverting and then came to Islam and found out about and were maybe shocked by or found uncomfortable? Perhaps even something that played a role in your conversion that turned out to be false or misrepresented? Things like the obligation of jihad under a khalifah, apostasy laws, rulings regarding dealing with non-muslims in dar al-harb or warfare, rights of women etc. If so how did you deal with it or overcome it?

[@briancordero7674]

In order to wrap your head around any concept, in light of your question it requires a few things to clear the path ways of biases and the impairments to objectivity. Firstly, removing ethnocentric biases we all hold naturally being subjects of particular times and spaces. We all have preconceived notions based on our culture and our current familiarity which shapes our opinions that directly effect our judgments and fuel our chauvinisms. Secondly, we must all understand that the world arrangement we know today of the nation states ,is a recent construct since the end of WWI 1917 .The idea of nationalities and national borders were unheard of until the 20th century, rather an empire was only defined by what it could militarily defend and expand. Thirdly, you must see the world in clear view of Imperialism and Colonialism in Modernity as an ubiquitous entity with historical implications from its Predecessors of Feudalism and the Theocentric world which has transitioned into a Homocentric world (God centered ideology into a Human centered ideology)Fourthly, we must understand Universal Human and Numinous nature of Man to worship his Creator by way of religiosity. And we must also recognize the intellectual prowess of Man to reason and philosopize to the developments of science. However, the most challenging question for Man is , what is the true ethos ? Meaning what is the most authentic and credible source of guidance and truth? The Philosophers The Scientists? Or the Prophets? These are the presupposed questions and answers of sound Islam and Iman. How can Man be free from being in servitude to everything except Allah? Work from that premise.

[@DaudBurke]

I have a video response coming shortly inSha’Allahu

[@AbuAbdillah1413]

جزاكم الله خيرا Very good advice

[@briancordero7674]

This young brother is very well informed in the Minhaj of the Salaf Salih. I embraced Salafiyya in 1985 by the permission of Allah. In the 1990s I witnessed much chaos from the transition of the Sahwa Islamiyya ( Islamic Resurgence) to the Gulf War and 9/11 War on Terrorism. Emerged a fantasticism for a restricted group of Shaykhs, that could be disqualified in a moment's notice. And Hizbiyya and gross mass Tabdee3 left, right and center became the order of the day. And super blind following on issues based solely upon extremism,with no regard for nuances in Usul or Furu3 ( Primary Principles or Subsidiary Principles in the Sharia) .One size fits all narrow - minded peer pressure and fault finding criticism, absent of any self reflection or the purification of the soul.

[@Ameermensur80]

Well said

[@ssalafion]

😂😂

[@MODEST500]

السلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاتهBrother, what are your sources for the conclusions you draw about their beliefs? Are these primary sources, such as videos you've watched and lectures available online, or secondary sources, like things you've heard from others? I believe it's crucial to differentiate between the two. You're making significant claims that cast them in a negative light. To be honest, I don't mind if they declare other scholars to be misguided or non-believers as long as they are committed to the truth, which is paramount. Therefore, I want to ask if you have personally encountered any instances where you've seen them unjustly accuse someone of being misguided? Of course, they make such declarations, but instead of harboring a negative opinion about them, we should investigate the matter and assess whether it was justified or not. i am just trying to be fair tbh and make excuses for them since they run a publication and i am sure they know a lot more than rest of us coz they are engaging with knowledge and translating works of ascholars all the time

[@DaudBurke]

‏وعَلَيْكُمُ السَّلامُ ورَحْمةُ اللهِ وبَرَكاتُه I’ve taken lectures from them, lived with them, and been exposed to what they’ve had to say for a long time. Idk about spubs in particular but the madkhalis are who I’m talking about.

[@MODEST500]

@@DaudBurke you dnt know SPUBS ? they are salafi publications. who are usually accused of being madkhalis. i thought you said earlier that you know them. brother shamsi , Sheikh Abu Khadeejah , Ustadh Abu iyyad , troid , Dus dawah . none of that rings the bell ?.

[@enghazi1]

I have first hand account with these people and I attest to everything the brother here is saying. They absolutely 100% harbor these misconceptions about: 1) calling rulers who rule by entirely secular legal systems as "waliy ul-amr" and giving them the absolute obedience of a proper imaam 2) calling anyone who protests or criticizes these rulers (for their oppression or going against the sharia) as being khawaarij or "resembling khawaarij" 3) quizing salafis with the names of their teachers and what they think about those teachers and using that as a weapon to consider them outside of the Sunnah, considering other salafis in need of guidance through their, and only their teachers, etc. 4) being competitive and fanatic and close-minded and non-inclusive when it comes to their circless of teachers, most of whom have low qualifications and are generally incompetent and low-IQ, petty, etc. I have experienced all of this nonsense with people I am extremely close with, in one case being boycotted over stuff like this even though I am salafi and practice Islam and have a long beard and know way more quran/sunnah/arabic then them, etc. they even play this game with mshayikh who know much much more.. It's also obvious where this is coming from if you do some investigation on the likes of spubs and dus dawa; they cover all these topics just as the brother described. Those who know, know. Those who don't know, don't know.

[@DaudBurke]

@@MODEST500idk these personally, I’m American and don’t like drama

[@MODEST500]

@@DaudBurke bro you cant say that especially when you are making claims about them. who do you think these madkhalis are ?

[@MODEST500]

that project guiding light video was made by people who admire AMJ, ahmed musa jibril which tbh is said to be a very problematic person for his support for some uncanny groups, lets say groups in irq and syria who carry a dark flag and they go firecracker on people . i have seen that video

[@DaudBurke]

I have no affiliation with them or amj, but the content in the video without a doubt given a lot of time and energy and just the compilation of sayings itself was very beneficial.

[@MODEST500]

@@DaudBurke ok جزاك الله خيرا i am just saying that this is what i have heard regarding them. i am not saying that this is what i believe about them. just to be safe.

[@MODEST500]

@@DaudBurke i have seen that video to explore alternate perspectives. and have also taken notes for the first 30 minutes.

[@Holistic_Islam]

@@DaudBurkeMay Allah The Majestic reward you for being sincere. The propaganda against Shaykh Ahmad Musa Jibril is extreme, yet I’ve not found one Shari’ academic refutation of Shaykh Ahmad’s 25 years of dawah work. As I see you from being a good brother that actually linked the video I showed you last time, I advise you to watch the forthcoming video regarding Shamsi on the Project Guidinh Light channel this June, insha’Allah. May Allah The Majestic reward you. Ameen

[@Holistic_Islam]

@@MODEST500May Allah The Majestic reward you for actually watching the video by Project Guidinh Light. The people of desires try to refute it without watching. The sincere ones will always be guided.