Thread by @SiriuslyCold

It's hard to defend your faith against detractors because there are so many similarities between the Taliban / ISIS and traditional Islam
Quran ✅
Sunnah & Hadith ✅
Ijma' (consensus) ✅
Qiyas (analogy) ✅

Even the attestation of faith is the same ✅

thread >

In Shafi'i-centric Malaysia, there is even some amount of support for the Taliban.

So how can you glibly say "They are not Islam" to non-Muslims?

Are you even allowed to declare others who call themselves Muslims "non-Muslims"?

The minutiae of faith and actions are opaque to non-practitioners. Even practitioners themselves quibble over matters (hence ijma'), so how do you expect non-Muslims to know these fine details?

There is no one to lay down the "correct" Sharia in the absence of an Islamic "governing" body such as the Papacy.

Even then, Christianity is still beset with kooks like the KKK and WBC, so there are no guarantees either.

The outcome, then, depends on who picks the "better" sunnah and hadith to follow, and "better" is subjectively dependent on the mullah in that specific locale or sect.

There is no doubt the Taliban considers moderate Muslims like Dr. Safi Kaskas or Mustafa Akyol insufficiently pious, never mind liberal Muslims, who are probably considered borderline apostates.

Considering Mustafa Akyol himself is (was?) banned from entering Malaysia, which side of the fence do you think Malaysia is?

So, in the absence of a proactive action like excommunication, we're left to defend our faith every time there is an incident.

And as more and more people find out about the sources and who decides who gets to pick what to follow, the protestations become progressively weaker.

When does it become indefensible?

< thread

@threadreaderapp unroll s'il te plait