A blistering and necessary chastisement of both the salafists responsible for the attacks that have shocked and divided communities in the UK over the past three months, and of Muslim apathy. And remember Dear Reader: apathy is almost as bad when perceived as when real.
Take home message: blaming foreign policy won’t cut it anymore…
The recent suicide bombing and terrorist atrocities which took a place in Manchester and London have once again provoked many of the wrong kinds of questions about Islam. Again, ordinary Muslims find themselves besieged by an increasingly emboldened right-wing media and left acutely embarrassed before their friends and colleagues as attacks carried out in the name of their religion become the ‘new normal’ now at home as well as abroad, with the result that, as even friendly commentators have pointed out:
‘In the wake of the massacre in…
View original post 8,461 more words
Sorry but this is written by the apostates Tabek and his student Sulaiman Ahmed.
They use deceptive methods. As you can see the first thing they do is explaining how the hanafi school differs with the others regarding the punishment for murdering a dhimmi. One may ask why are they talking about this when the topic is about terror attacks in the West not about murders of nowadays non-existing dhimmis?
The reasons for bringing this up are
(1) that they want to highlight how the hanafi school is more secular than the others
(2) and how they follow an old traditional school instead of making up their own opinions.
However when it comes to the actual topic which is the killing of harbis they have to openly lie. In order to hide this blatant lie they have to rant about other topics before. They say:
“Harbi: with regards to this category it is prohibited for Muslims to do two things: cheating them (deception), and breaking promises or contracts. But is there any penalty in killing them? The answer is lamentably ‘No!’ according to the official position of most of the schools of Sunnism (including nowadays what is wrongly called the modern ‘Hanafi’ school).”
The lie lies in this part: “including nowadays what is wrongly called the modern ‘Hanafi’ school”. They claim that the “modern hanafi school” has this opinion but not the “early hanafi school”. However they fail to give any references to the “early hanafi school”. They proceed to prove their point using their interpretation of the Qur’an but no reference to any early hanafi scholar is given.
So the “early hanafi school” is only an abstract concept. It never actually existed. They will never quote you an early hanafi scholar who has their opinion because even Abu Hanifah did not have these opinions.
What’s Abu Taliha’s opinion about that?