Interesting! First, thank you for writing this rejoinder. I will archive it in the stockpile of rejoinders in my folder. I don’t need to go personal with you or engage in personal attacks. I don’t even know you in person except through Ayat and there are high chances that most of you on this platform our exchanges would only start and end online. We might not see eye-to-eye on this issue but hopefully we might agree on other issues.
Islamic scholarship is a vast territorial marketplace of ideas. It is a marketplace of rigid censorship where you often only get to hear of the views of those condemned as “heretics” from the texts of their opponents. My referencing style might offend you but I have a penchant of unearthing and investigating what is not obvious.
If gauging through different Islamic rulings and dwelling upon the ruling that can save the death penalty on Yusuf (who has so far shown to be repentant) and give him another chance is what you call "misrepresents Islamic scholarship", you are free to hold your opinion.
If you truly want this Hudūd to be applied as a sincere believer that you are (a category you probably claim that I don’t belong), you have the option of going through the Boko Haram route by fighting Jihad against the Tawaghīt (including your Khadimul Islam Ganduje) to establish a “Dār al-Islam” or you can also start campaigning for a peaceful exit of Arewa from this contraption called Nigeria. What exactly is holding you back? Why negotiate for half-baked Shari’a when you can get it in full by campaigning for secession like MASSOB, IPOB or Oduduwa Republic? As long as Nigeria remains the way it is, the bitter truth is, Shari’a will always remain defective because its rulings will constantly clash with the other recognized legal systems in the country. To deny this fact, is to live in an illusion. Take the sample from Safiya Hussein, Amina Lawal to other less known cases.
I will repeat again for the umpteen time the case of Nigeria is completely different from Ibn Taymiyya’s notion of “Dār al-Murakkab”. Did you read his “Dār al-Murakkab” at all and the centuries-old debate on Mardin? The case of Nigeria falls under what scholars have called dār al-ṭārīʾ “colonized territories”. You still have more nights to study these issues if you are nettled by what I write.
If I was “dishonest” as you rightly claimed, I would not even have bothered to present the views of Imam Shāfiʿī. I would have deliberately kept mute and not even bother cite his al-Umm where he disagrees with ikhtilāf al-dārayn:
مما يَعقِلُه المسلمونَ ويجتمعون عليهِ: أنَّ الحلالَ في دارِ الإسلامِ حلالٌ في بلادِ الكفرِ، والحرامَ في بلادِ الإسلامِ حرامٌ في بلادِ الكفر (الأم) 354/7
Rather, I cited his view in my article. And then I deliberately went further to project the Hanafi view because that is the view in my opinion that can save Yusuf’s life from this death penalty and give him another chance. I did not hide this fact from the beginning of my intervention.
Is Yusuf wrong? Absolutely wrong. Has he so far shown to be repentant? Yes, he has. Does he deserve to die? No. He doesn’t deserve to die in a region whose class-based Shari’a system is laden with egregious irregularities and irreconcilable contradictions. Whatever I write in this topic revolves around these three issues.
Lastly, by the way in the standard Wahhabi theology, Your Khadimul Islam (I mean Ganduje) himself is a Taghut. If you doubt me, go ahead and read the compilation of the Ulama of Najd in الدرر السنية في الأجوبة النجدية or the verdict passed by حمد بن علي بن عتيق in his سبيل النجاة والفكاك من موالاة المرتدين والأتراك. This terrain is laden with layers upon layers of contradictions.