Usama Hasan decries what he calls the assumption of Muslim guilt without proof on the part of the above three Shuyukh.
"This assumption of Muslim guilt without proof" is based on two facts and one rule. The two facts are that, one, the media has contributed to establish a widespread perception of Muslim liability which is endorsed even among Muslims; two, the leaders of Muslim conscience and Ulema have by and large failed to take a strong stand in principle condemnation of acts of war targeting civilians. A golden opportunity was missed to actually formulate the fiqh of all Schools, including non-Sunni, on this urgent point and etch it in stone for all to see - `awamm and educated, Muslims and non-Muslims, even as our own Muslim civilians are being targeted day in and day out. As for the rule, it is that "idha shaa`a al-khabar fahuwa aqwa min al-waaqi`" meaning if the rumor spreads wide enough it becomes stronger than fact. And this is not a battle for accuracy so much as a battle for its perception, because so much credence is given to the technology that carries this perception to us that even we end up taking its 24-hr whisperings for actual knowledge.
Add to the above those who actually see good in the destruction of civilian centers in the name of Islam. Does this not all deserve a word of truth or two?
Al-Hamdu lillah, our readings are Imam Ibn `Abidin's Hashiya and al-Sawi's Hashiya `ala al-Jalalayn so that we no longer accept the naive lie that supposedly-bigoted Muslim magazines are the only place where a spade is called a spade. The Wahhabis were called Khawaarij by the major Sunni Ulema first and foremost. Learn it and accept it.
It is a mark of deficient thinking to distinguish between the targets but not between the means used, which in both cases were civilian planeloads. And the "civilian usurious installation" is a misguided attempt at justification which reveals a real incapacity to think in terms beyond slogans i.e. to think in concrete Islamic terms, which is what Keller, Yusuf, and Murad propose.
In fact, I have no doubt that the person who wrote the above lines is profoundly confused since he suggests that Ibn Taymiyya could be the greatest scholar after Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal. This is ghuluww and jahl that Imam Ahmad would be the first to despise; the Umma is less destitute and poor than they claim.
But what sight can be hoped for from someone so blinded as to continue to label Sufis with "the way of the mushrikun" - then shedding crocodile tears about being "vehement and adversarial amongst ourselves"?
This is surely the strangest and most risible proof of blind taqleed. And what else is expected from one who gives hadith rulings and speaks of Sunna even as he spells al-Tabari "Tibri" and al-Haythami "Haythumi"??
Their example is like the saying: "If you want to know the mistakes of your Shaykh, go visit another one." But who is their one Shaykh in the first place? Not even Albani, but Albani's books.
So to them, the view that non-Muslims who do not hear the message of Islam are admitted in Paradise" is "Ibn Taymiyyan"; then what would hot water be, "Ibn Qayyimic"?
As for the Satanic provocation that Keller etc. are guilty of "pacifism", al-Hamdu lillah, pacifism is most definitely closer to the core of Islam in every sense of this word, than extremism and fanaticism. Those two qualities do not belong to Islam in the first place, whereas the pursuit of peace does. But the job of the Big Liar (al-Dajjal) is precisely to replace values with their opposites and convince his followers that they are doing the right thing.
GF Haddad ©