[UtidaBrar]

After a short hiatus (I could not stand the Sunni/Salafi "debates") I want to know what you lot think about this interesting article I found called "Hanafi Salafism: An Oxymoron?". What are your takes on this article?

Here is an extract.
In conclusion, it is perfectly possible for a Hanafi to ascribe to Salafism whilst a Salafi may be an adherent of a school of thought being convinced of its methodology. To be a Hanafi is to ascribe to a certain understanding of the Qur’an and Sunnah, whereas Salafism is to ascribe to an Islamic methodology and outlook, namely that of the earliest generations of Islam. There is no contradiction between the two since they are not in the same category. One is to follow an interpretation of the Islamic sources of authority – fiqh; and the other is to have a distinguished manner by which to practise one’s faith and approach its different aspects - manhaj. Once this is understood, we can call for a revival of the relationship between adherents of the various schools whereby they should strive to follow the same methodology of their Imams. There also needs to be an endeavour where those who attribute themselves to Salafism need to understand what truly is blameworthy when it comes to following Schools of Thought.

[gettoblaster]

Imam Abu Hanifa and his Mujtahid students = Salaf

So, Hanafi = Salafi

Anyone is Hanafi means he is a Salafi.

Thus "Hanafi Salafism" is not oxymoron.

[snova]

Hanafi = Hanafi
Salafi = Salafi

You can't combine a wahabi with a shia, or a salafi with a hanafi. Just my opinion.

[FloareTraurne]

It's basically impossible since ascribing to the Hanafi Madhhab means you follow Traditional Islam, Salafism is a modernistic revivalist movement with its roots in modernism and isolated sloganism it has no roots in Traditional Sunni Islam.