Shamsi Crushes DH.

[Omar del Sur]

I've very strongly criticized Shamsi and myself and Salafiyyah Promoter have openly gotten into it with each other... but DH does get crushed here. Anybody that remembers about the famous incident where Katie Couric asked Sarah Palin what newspaper she reads and Sarah Palin says all of them and can't name one (I'd post the clip but obviously Palin and Couric don't wear hijab).... DH is doing the Sarah Palin thing here.

DH and his movement lack scholarly backing and it gets exposed here.

 

[Omar del Sur]

this is just something I came across from DH on Twitter


"Over the past three decades, the definition of "political Islam" (i.e., Islamism) has been continuously widened. First it was claimed that "political Islam" means demanding that state policies and laws be based on Islamic teachings (e.g., state implementation of the hudud). Next, it was claimed that "political Islam" also includes simply demanding that social norms be based on Islamic teachings, even if they are not enforced by the state (e.g., wearing veils and beards). Next, it was claimed that "political Islam" also includes simply holding in one's heart that salvation requires being Muslim, such that if one is a Jew or a Hindu one will not enter heaven (e.g., rejecting universalism and perennialism). In other words, at this point, "political Islam" means affirming Islam either at the level of the state, or at the level of society, or simply in one's heart. As a result, the only way to renounce political Islam is to completely repudiate Islam at every level. People are pushed into doing this, because hegemonic political institutions in places like the UK, France, Israel, and India equate "political Islam" with radicalism or terrorism. Hence, to avoid being accused of radicalism or terrorism, one must renounce political islam. Muslim political and religious leaders must stop bowing to this kind of pressure. At this point in time, being Muslim in any way involves embracing what has been labelled "political Islam." Hence, all Muslims must openly and explicitly embrace political Islam."

I find this really disturbing. All Muslims have to embrace "political Islam"? Where is the fatwa from a scholar??? Where is any reference from Quran and Sunnah? If we follow DH ideology, Islam seems to be based on DH's reasoning. And then if you want to stick to following Quran and Sunnah and sticking to the scholars- you are a "Madkhali bootlicker".

This to me shows how DH is actually a fake opposition to liberalism/modernism. DH is clearly following a "rationalist" approach. With sjwism, Soviet Marxism, liberalism, modernism, etc.- you are ultimately following some person's reasoning. With DHism you would be doing the same thing except it would be DH's reasoning.

His whole thing is a bait and switch. He claims he's defending something he calls "traditional Islam" (which is very vague btw)... but then he is calling to his own interpretation of Islam and then inciting mobs of his followers to attack you if you don't follow his own interpretation. I really wish the DH movement would end. "Owning the libs" does not make a person a scholar or make them an authority on Islam.

edit: just to be clear, I don't think there's any such thing as "political Islam," just I don't think there's any such thing as French or Canadian Islam. Believing in things like hudud punishments is not something that belongs to some sect that has branched out from Islam- it is simply part of Islam. If we define ordinary Muslim beliefs as constituting some sort of branched-out offshoot- this would lend creedence to the idea that these views are not simply part of ordinary Islam but an abberation that entities like the French state can then legitimately combat.