Debunking the 'Islamic State'; Discussion and Analysis

[Falcon29]

This thread I believe is necessary. I speak both Arabic/English and am seeing too many misinformed/misguided people on Arab forums, Arab-Islamic forums, Youtube, News page comments and so on that are supporting this group and pushing it's flawed arguments on religious basis which is really irritating me. They are rendering whole groups of Muslims as apostates and justifying their terrorist acts, and therefore I have created this thread to address the core ideology group and its approach to achieve those objectives. I want to debunk their arguments in which they use religious basis for by putting forth a counter argument using religious basis(citing sources). This is needed as we can not allow them to freely keep pushing their narrative which is severely flawed, unchecked.

After I outline their core ideology and debunk their talking points, I will address their current propaganda campaigns and debunk those as well. I will also try to investigate their connections and who is egging them on and providing for them online platforms(in Arabic).

So I ask of moderators or other staff to please sticky this thread. Muslims need to be informed of their flawed arguments and misguided approach as they are continuing to spread their poison using strawman arguments that one without extensive religious knowledge wouldn't know how to debunk.

I will try making this as professional as possible and cite many sources. Please give me your thoughts on this idea, and then I will start with the first publication(well researched post).

@WebMaster @Slav Defence

 

[Falcon29]

Meant to put this in ME section, sorry, but would like the thread stickied.

 

[Falcon29]

Introduction:

Do not want to get into background of group too much, they were a 'Salafi-Jihadist' group in Iraq shortly before US invasion of Iraq in 2003. They pledged allegiance to Al Qaeda afterwards and tried resisting US forces along with many other Sunni/Shia/Nationalist groups on the ground. They conducted many bomb attacks against Iraqi residents in Baghdad during this period as well, primarily targeting Shia Iraqi's. After Syria civil war broke out, they sent members to Syria to form the Nusra Front led by Golani. Golani was actually Syrian and was more focused on helping the rebels against the Syrian regime. ISIS eventually gained ground in Syria and Iraq around 2014 during which they adopted name 'Islamic State'. ISIS head 'Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi' declared a Caliphate in territories seized by ISIS members and appointed himself as an Caliph and attempted to assert himself as an leader of all Muslims. We know how this experiment worked out by now, and now the group is trying to spread elsewhere and is actively pushing its propaganda out.

Core Ideology:

ISIS began as an Salafi-Jihadist militant group in its early stages. The connotation of 'Jihadist' attached to 'Salafi' is intended to imply that this era in Muslim world requires 'Jihad' or a constant armed struggle until an Caliphate or at least Sharia Law is established. Or even both. Most Muslims don't know what 'Salafi' means or where this notion of 'Salafism' originates from. Here is a brief explanation of Salifism:

The core meaning of the term “Salafi” is “like the salaf” or “salaf-like.” In defining the trend that Salafis collectively form, which we now know as Salafism, it is sensible to take this basic meaning as a starting point. According to several famous ḥadīths, the Prophet Muhammad claimed that “the best of my community” (khayr ummatī) or “the best people” (khayr al-nās) are “my generation [qarnī] and then the ones who follow them [thumma lladhīna yalūnahum] and then the ones who follow them [thumma lladhīna yalūnahum].”1 On the basis of such texts, one could argue that the first three generations of Islam were the best ones the religion has ever seen (and will ever see). These three generations—sometimes with additions from later times—have become known among many Sunni Muslims as “the pious predecessors” (al-salaf al-ṣāliḥ). In defining whom modern-day Salafis are and what they stand for, we could therefore say that Salafism, as a worldwide trend in the 20th century, represents those Sunni Muslims who claim to be “like the salaf” and, as such, say they emulate the “pious predecessors” as closely and in as many spheres of life as possible.

The people labeled “Salafis” in this article do not always refer to themselves that way nor are they in agreement about who—besides themselves—is a Salafi. The term “Salafism” is therefore hotly contested among adherents to this trend, which makes it difficult to say what percentage of Muslims worldwide may be labeled “Salafis.” This contestation is related to two different factors. First, the term “Salafism” is often associated with terrorism and violence in media discourse, both in the West and in the Muslim world, particularly since the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001. Many Salafis reject such acts of violence and often insist on not being associated with the perpetrators of these attacks by rejecting the latter as worthy of the label of “Salafis.” Second, “Salafi,” referring as it does to what they believe are the best generations of Islam, has come to acquire an aura of religious authority. It is, in other words, a term that gives the impression of purity and authenticity to its bearers, thereby making it a desired label to apply to oneself. Despite such contestations, a relatively clear trend of Muslims whose teachings are claimed to be geared entirely to emulating the salaf can be discerned.


http://oxfordre.com/religion/view/1...9340378.001.0001/acrefore-9780199340378-e-255

..
..

So as we see here. 'Salafi's' or the Salifi movement proclaims to follow or sets out to follow the 'Salaf-Al Saalih'. Or the first generation of 'pious predecessors. Now before we move on, keep in mind we are addressing original Salifi movement thought, which was born well before ISIS. And keep in mind many of Salifi's or the movement overall has disavowed this group. So don't make mistake of associating Salifi's in general with ISIS. Now back to the point, the pious predecessors here are I believe considered the first generation of Muslims that never saw Prophet Mohammed(SAW). Or the first generation of 'Tabeieen'. These are the first generation of Muslims that followed Islam but never saw the Prophet(SAW) himself. The ones who did see him and lived with him are considered 'Sahaba' or companions of the Prophet(SAW). The 'Tabeieen' are followers of the Prophet(SAW). All Muslims are considered 'Tabeieen', but only select few are considered both 'Tabeieen' and 'Sahaba'.

Reason we need to understand these terms is because ISIS supporters, when declaring other Muslims apostates use these terms and other terms like 'Wala and Bara', or 'Muwahadeen' to throw people off and justify rendering whole groups of Muslims as apostates. And you need to understand these terms to refute them. I will explain these terms as well, after which you realize these are not special terms.

So back to 'Al-Salf-al-Saalih', they are considered by Salifi's as the first three generations:

..
..

THE FIRST GENERATION:

The Prophet (Sallalaahu Alaihi wa Sallam) and his Sahaabah (companions).

THE SECOND GENERATION:

The Taabi’een (the followers of the companions).

THE THIRD GENERATION:

The Tabaa’at-Taabi’een (the followers of the followers of the companions).

..
..

General methodology of Salifi's(from blog post although relatively accurate):


The Manhaj (methodology) of the Salaf is to adhere to the Qur’aan and the authentic Sunnah as understood by the Salaf as-Saalih... Shaykh Saalih al-Fawzaan (may Allaah preserve him) said:

What is meant by the salafi madhhab is the way of the salaf (early generations) of this ummah, namely the Sahaabah, Taabi’een and prominent imams with regard to issues of ‘aqeedah, sound method, sincere faith and adherence to the beliefs, laws, etiquette and conduct of Islam, unlike the innovators, deviants and those who are confused.


..
..
Comparison of mainstream Orthodox Sunni Muslims and Salafi Sunni Muslims:

Salafism champions the strict emulation of the salaf, which sets it apart from orthodox or mainstream Sunni Muslims, who do not imitate “the pious predecessors” directly but view them through the prism of the Islamic scholarly tradition as embodied by the madhāhib and their ʿulamāʾ. Orthodox Sunnis nevertheless see the Prophet Muhammad and his companions as examples after which they should model their lives. Although this is a different and more general approach toward early Islam than Salafis advocate, it does show that orthodox Sunnis also attach great importance to the actions of the Prophet and his companions. As such, Sunnis can be said to be somewhat susceptible to Salafism as an approach that remains within the Sunni tradition and seemingly only stresses one aspect of it—the role of the salaf—above all else. This is not to say that orthodox Sunnis are all potential Salafis; in fact, some orthodox Sunnis are quite opposed to the Salafi approach of Islamic tradition.11 It does mean, however, that Sunnis’ admiration of “the pious predecessors”—even if only generally—facilitates the spread of Salafism among them, especially given Salafis’ allegedly greater authenticity and purity resulting from their concentration on the salaf.

 

[Falcon29]

Clarification: Right now I am going through brief background of Salafism and not ISIS methodology. ISIS grew out of Salafism but is more extreme faction which has different approach in some of the methodology. We first need to understand what Salafism is first, then I will explain how ISIS used that as ideological platform, and even twisted aspects of it or deviated from it.

...
...

Core Ideology(Continued):

As we see, mainstream orthodox Sunni Muslims follow example of the Prophet(SAW) and early companions or 'Sahaba' too. So why did this movement come about and what innovations are they talking about. Let's first trace the origins of modern 'Salafism':

The spread of Salafism in the 20th century and its emergence as a worldwide trend (rather than an ideology espoused by individuals or local movements such as Wahhabism) should be explained in this context of general Sunni proclivity toward the salaf. Although indigenous Salafi scholars and movements in various places have undoubtedly contributed to the rise of Salafism, the most important factor in the trend’s spread has been the influence of Wahhabism since the 1950s. This influence has been due to three factors. First, there was the rise of the oil industry in Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Gulf. Because of the booming oil business since the second half of the 20th century, many Arabs emigrated to Saudi Arabia or other Gulf countries to find jobs there. Apart from employment, they also often found Wahhabi ideas there, influencing their own beliefs, which they subsequently took with them when they returned to their home countries, sometimes even resulting in the founding of Salafi organizations.12 Second, in response to the anti-monarchical rhetoric from socialist Egypt in the 1950s and 1960s and revolutionary post-1979 Iran, Saudi Arabia actively started pursuing a policy of spreading Wahhabism as a conservative counter-narrative, backed up by money made in the oil industry.13 Third, the defeat of several Arab states in the June 1967 war with Israel and, by extension, the de-legitimization of Arab socialism, as espoused by Egyptian President Jamāl ʿAbd al-Nāṣir (Nasser; r. 1954‒1970), led to a search for an alternative discourse, which provided fertile ground for Wahhabism.14 As such, Salafism was spread across the Muslim world and even beyond when Middle Eastern Salafis moved to European countries and elsewhere to preach their message there.

http://oxfordre.com/religion/view/1...9340378.001.0001/acrefore-9780199340378-e-255

..
..

This is relatively accurate, modern Salafism or Salafi movement mostly did arise in Saudi Arabia and Saudi Arabia was the launching platform for it. This is okay, Salafi's are mostly similar to Orthodox or mainstream Sunni Muslims. They are not the only scholars who had such positions, some early Muslim Brotherhood scholars in Egypt had similar views as well. Mainstream or orthodox Sunni Muslims also follow the early companions and followers of the Prophet(SAW). The problems began arising, however, when the Saudi state or government gave this movement power, by allowing those scholars to preach inside Saudi Arabia and adopt that school of thought. Saudi state saw many benefits in this, ranging from influencing Muslims worldwide and asserting itself as at least ideological leader of Sunni Muslims to combatting other Islamist movements in the Arab world. Notably, the Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamic revivalist movement, which has similar message to Salafi's. That is being to tackle secular influences in the Arab-Muslim world and bring the people back to following Islam.

Because at the time, Arabs were rather secular nationalists. A lot of people weren't that well informed on Islam either. The Muslim Brotherhood movement and Salafi movement have similar proclaimed goals, mainly having Muslims return to the 'Quran and Sunnah'. The Quran is the Islamic holy book, which Muslims believe is divine and was revealed to the Prophet Mohammed(SAW) by God or Allah(SWT). The 'Sunnah' is or are the ways of the Prophet(SAW), and Sunni Muslims and most Muslims in general strive to follow them. Lots of the 'Sunnah' is derived from the 'Ahadeeth' or compiled recordings(on paper) of the sayings of the Prophet(SAW). Islamic scholars have come up with mechanisms to determine which are sound(strong or authentic) and which are weak. This will explain more:

The Science Of Hadith

The study of tradition (ʿilm al-ḥadīth) distinguishes between the substance, or content, known as the “gist” (matn) of the matter, and the “leaning” (isnād), or chain of corroboration on which it hangs.


Form of Hadith and criteria of authentication

That Muhammad observed “Seek knowledge, though it be in China” or “Beware of suspicion, for it is the falsest of falsehoods” reveals the matn, or “the meat of the matter.” The formula introducing such a Hadith would speak in the first person: “It was related to me by A, on the authority of B, on the authority of C, on the authority of D, from E (here a companion of Muhammad) that the Prophet said….” This chain of names constituted the isnād on which the saying or event depended for its authenticity. The major emphases in editing and arguing from tradition always fell on the isnād, rather than on a critical attitude to the matn itself. The question was not “Is this the sort of thing Muhammad might credibly be imagined to have said or done?” but “Is the report that he said or did it well supported in respect of witnesses and transmitters?” The first question would have introduced too great a danger of subjective judgment or independence of mind, though it may be suspected that issues were in fact often decided by such critical appraisal in the form of decisions ostensibly relating only to isnād. The second question certainly allowed a theoretically objective and reasonably precise pattern of criteria.

If the adjacent names in the chain of transmission overlapped in life, there was certainty that they could have listened to one another. Their travels were also investigated to see if their paths could have really crossed. Biographies could be built up to show that they were honest men and spoke truly. Comparative study could be made of their reputations for veracity as acknowledged by their contemporaries or indicated by their traditions when compared. The frequency of currency through several sources was yet another element in the testing of traditions. Most important of all was the final link with the “companion,” who in the first instance had the tradition from his or her contact with the Prophet.


Classifications

In all these ways, and others involving more minutiae, it was possible to establish categories of Hadith quality. Traditions might be sound (ṣaḥīḥ), good (ḥasan), or weak (ḍāʿīf). Other terms, such as healthy (ṣāliḥ) and infirm (saqīm), were also current. Each of the three classifications was liable to subdivisions, depending on refinements of assessment and, later, on their standing with the classic compilers. Distinctions were less rigorously seen if the traditions were cited not for legal definitions but merely for moral purposes. A ḍāʿīf tradition, for example, might well be salutary for exhortation, even if lawyers were required to exclude or ignore it. Traditions also varied in strength according to whether one or more “companions” could be adduced, whether the isnād had parallels, and whether they were continuous back to Muhammad (muttaṣil) or intermitted (mawqūf). The subtleties in these and other questions were part of the active competence that attended the whole science.

The repute and authority of the canonical collections did much to stabilize the situation, but only because their emergence demonstrated that the zest for tradition had overreached itself. By the end of the 3rd century AH it was sorely necessary to solidify Hadith into a stable corpus of material to which no new element could credibly be added and from which extravagances had been purged. The Hadith tradition within the various traditions had by then become a permanent and disciplined element in the authority structure of Islam—the second great source of law and practice, complementary to the Qurʾān and available for analogical handling (qiyās) and for consensus (ijtihād) as further sources of legislation, arguing from the Qurʾān and the Sunnah as primary. Shīʿitetradition stands apart from this structure of authority.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Hadith

..
..

This is important as much of Islamic rulings or Sharia Law is derived from the 'Ahadeeth'. This is normal in Islam, it is considered very important part of Islam. It is relevant in this case because ISIS tries justifying some of its ideological methodology by referencing some narrations. They misuse some narrations and/or misunderstand them. I will get into this more once I dive more into the Salafi vs. Muslim Brotherhood feud and detail the crucial differences between them.

 

[Slav Defence]

Excellent ya - akhi,
This thread was the need of an hour.

Thread has been made sticky.

 

[Falcon29]

Core Ideology(Continued):

Back to the Salafi movement modern rising, the Salafi's or their modern scholars like Mohammed Abdul Wahab at their time saw the Arabs as deviating from Islam(unintentionally or intentionally). They were not the only ones who believed so either. Early thinkers of the Muslim Brotherhood movement thought so as well and wanted to revive Islam. This concept of 'revivalism' in Islam is not new at all, and is actually a concept in Islam. In Arabic they are referred to as 'Mujaddids' or renewers. The Prophet Mohammed(SAW) in a sound and authentic hadith(to Sunni Muslims) stated that every century Allah(SWT) or God will send 'renewers' into my community to the renew the understandings of Islam or bring the understandings back to what they should be. Now, what is meant by 'sent' does not mean God talks to them or orders them to undergo task. He just naturally guides these matters. These 'renewers' will not know they are one of the 'renewers' or group of 'renewers' unless God informs them so after their death. So you are not allowed to proclaim yourself as a renewer. Unless you obviously are one, for example the promised arrival of the Mahdi, he's also considered a 'renewer' but we can safely say so because it is mentioned in authentic hadeeths.

'Renewers' of the faith can either be an individual or a group of people. Here is the narration(or hadeeth) in question and subsequent explanation of it:

Praise be to Allah

This hadith is one of the well-known, saheeh hadiths; it was narrated by the great Sahaabi Abu Hurayrah (may Allah be pleased with him) from the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him), that he said:

“At the beginning of every century Allah will send to this ummah someone who will renew its religious understanding.”

Narrated by Abu Dawood (4291); classed as saheeh by as-Sakhkhaawi in al-Maqaasid al-Hasanah (149) and by al-Albaani in as-Silsilah as-Saheehah (no. 599).

What the Muslim is required to do is to believe in the saheeh hadiths of the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) and accept them, with no hesitation about what is said in them. This is one of the requirements of belief in the Messenger (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him). Allah, may He be exalted, says (interpretation of the meaning):

“O you who believe! Obey Allah and obey the Messenger (Muhammad (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him)), and those of you (Muslims) who are in authority. (And) if you differ in anything amongst yourselves, refer it to Allah and His Messenger (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him), if you believe in Allah and in the Last Day. That is better and more suitable for final determination”

[an-Nisaa’ 4:59].

Mujaahid and others of the earlier generations said:

“refer it to Allah and His Messenger” means: referring to the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger. This is a command from Allah, may He be glorified and exalted, stating that regarding every matter concerning which the people may dispute, having to do with both fundamental matters and minor issues of religion, the dispute concerning that must be referred to the Qur’an and Sunnah, as Allah, may He be exalted, says (interpretation of the meaning):

“And in whatsoever you differ, the decision thereof is with Allah (He is the ruling Judge)”

[ash-Shoora 42:10].

Whatever ruling is given and testified to by the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger is the truth, and what can there be beyond the truth except misguidance?

End quote from Tafseer al-Qur’an al-‘Azeem (2/345).

The scholars have interpreted this hadith soundly. They said: The word “man” (translated here as “someone who”) is a relative pronoun that in general in application. It may be that the renewer (mujaddid) is an individual or it may be a group of people. Based on that, it is not necessary to seek out the names of individual scholars at the beginning of every century and determine who among them is the best in order to decide which of them is the renewer (mujaddid), for they may all play a part in renewing religious understanding and spreading it among the ummah.

https://islamqa.info/en/answers/153...ne-who-will-renew-its-religious-understanding

...
...

So we can consider three major 'revivalist' attempts by Muslim groups in the 21th century. Before I mention them, keep in mind this doesn't mean they are actually on right path, that is determined by God. But, they tried to revive Islam in their societies(in the middle east for now). Those being:

1.) Muslim Brotherhood movement
2.) Salafi Movement
3.) Iranian Shia revolution or Wilyaat al Fiqh movement

...
...

I won't get into Iranian Shia ideology/methodology, because it is quite different than the other two Sunni ones. And not really relevant in this discussion. But, it is relevant in sense that the Saudi's felt they needed to step up and provide a revivalist alternative for people of the Middle East to look up to. Especially since they felt threatened by Iran, and Iran did indeed encourage people to revolt against the governments in some Sunni Arab nations mostly in the Gulf, Saudi Arabia and Iraq. Thus, Saudi Arabia propped up the Salafi scholars, it gave them much more influence than they previously had to preach and have influence over Saudi laws/society. A sort of commitment was reached between the Saudi Royal family and the Salafi movement within Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia will implement the domestic religious laws/habits/norms they want, as long as they don't encourage revolt against the monarchy. Saudi monarchy also benefited, as these scholars are able to influence Sunni Muslims in Arab world and Asia to to draw them away from other competing movements but also secure future of monarchies.

The Salafi movement thus does not believe in democracy, and thinks this is harmful to Islam. It believes you should pledge allegiance to your rulers and not allowed to 'Ukhrj' or go out against your leadership at all. As long as this leadership allows practice of Islam and implements the Sharia(law) to a large degree. And many Muslim states indeed derive many laws from the Shariah. Saudi Arabia in particular does implement a lot of the Sharia is a more conservative nation. Until recently, this has changed, but that I will get into later, it is relevant. Overall point being, the Salafi movement(scholars and adherents alike) pledge commitment to the Saudi gov't as long as understandings are met. They can revoke this commitment in the future or could have in the past if they felt their conditions were not being met.

The Muslim Brotherhood on other hand, has looser restrictions when it comes to revolting against an government. The Muslim Brotherhood does not believe you should accept an government on the basis's Salafi movement does. Muslim Brotherhood has a larger criteria, and also focuses on political actions of these governments. Salafi movement don't really question political actions of their governments, and is more focused on domestic religious status on the ground. They are more worried about people deviating from Islam again, and not so much worried about an government having what is considered more pan-Muslim policies. Muslim Brotherhood on other hand, wants more pan-Islam policy direction. And Muslim brotherhood believes you can work within framework of democracy to achieve these goals, while Salafi's oppose that.

This is not a minor difference, it is actually the reason these movements are today fiercely opposed to one another. It is an significant dispute in the Arab world. Even though ideologically they are very similar with their focus on 'Quran and Sunnah' and general Islamic rulings. And the Salafi movement has extensive research on this subject of not revolting against a leader and use Islamic sources/scholarly teachings to justify it. Muslim Brotherhood also has extensive research to promote the opposite.

 

[Falcon29]

Core Ideology(Continued):

Before moving on, I want to address somethings about myself so people don't think I lean towards or are biased towards the Muslim Brotherhood. Or that I dislike Salafi's, I don't. I am an mainstream orthodox Sunni Muslim. Where I come from(Gaza) people follow the 'Shafi'i' school of thought mostly. I don't really look into the school of thought of issue. I mainly focus on core Islamic tenets(which all Muslims know) and halal/haram. I know many rulings off the top of my head too. So I am not lacking religious knowledge. I am not a subscriber to the Muslim Brotherhood movement or the Salafi movement. I'm fond of Hamas because it is a Palestinian movement where I originate from and not because they are close to the Muslim Brotherhood. As far as religious rulings/teachings, I almost always watch/read Salafi scholars positions for whatever I need or come across. I absolutely agree with them regarding innovations of other sects and agree with the overall message to observe puritarian or orthodox Islam. I view them as having extensive religious knowledge and appreciate their work on gathering the knowledge and structuring it.

I do not view them as extremist as some people do. I have some differences with them when it comes to approach in trying to get Muslims to follow aspects of Islam and when it comes to political matters. Now what you need to know about Salafi movement, is there are the ones not really affiliated or close to the governments and the ones sponsored by the governments. I am deeply disappointed by the ones sponsored by the governments especially with their positions after the Arab Spring and their crusade against the Muslim Brotherhood which I saw as uncalled for.

Regarding approach to Islam, I agree with establishing a Caliphate(how and how it will function is different story) and I agree with reverting back to Orthodox Islam and Quran/Sunnah. I do not agree with Muslim Brotherhood when it comes to their approach. They work within state institutions in some cases. This is fine, but it affects their path and sometimes causing them to go out of direction. I also don't agree with establishment Salafi's approach with their governments. They let them off too easy with many of their actions or defend them irrationally, to point where it certainly deviates from their proclaimed goals. Now where I stand or how I think an Caliphate could be established and what not, I'm not going to get into that for the sake of this thread. I will now get into ISIS ideology and show you how they are flawed in their views/approach and why it they are misguided.

...
...

ISIS approach & way of thinking:

ISIS and it's supporters are not 'revivalists'. The revivalists in the Sunni Arab world of this century are the Muslim Brotherhood and Salafi movements. These are the movements which restored Islam's importance in peoples daily lives and sought to bring back its influence in the society/state. ISIS is a late bloomer if you will. A group that has broken off from Salafi's and are proclaimed Salafi's. One of ISIS proclaimed methodology is 'Wila and Bara'. Their supporters use this term a lot when they spread their propaganda. Many Muslims don't know what this means or ever heard of such a term. In short, it refers to showing love or praise of Allah(SWT) by establishing Sharia Law in Muslim lands. ISIS really focuses on establishing Sharia Law, and declares many other Muslims as apostates for failing to implement Sharia Law. Now this may sound good in principle, until you realize how misinformed they are on Sharia Law, an Caliphate's conditions, their judgements/rulings, and of course their actions which all strip them of this status they give to themselves as frontrunners for Islam.

In my next post, I will address their flaws in their judgements/rulings on Muslims/non-Muslims and methodology in general. So none of that will be address their actions, just strictly doctrine based, to see they have misguided approach in first place. Let alone their bizarre/misguided/prohibited actions which deserves another piece for its own. After I address the methodological stuff.

 

[Ceylal]

I am sorry, but this thread the ikhwan with a dose of Wahhabism..This is propaganda to absolve what the Sauds and Muslim brotherhood of their deed..It should be closed...Muslims need a broad ijtihad where Islam need to be discussed , corrected and in line with the modern world..Muslim are living in the 21 first century not the 14th!
The rise of the Iraqis against the US for es was due to baring a large part of the Iraqi population (sunni) from having a political and civil participation in the new Iraq in favor of the Shias..The sectarisme was exasperated by the Sauds displeasure of the occupying forces political choices...Secterianism was created by the West, just as ISIS, El Qaïda and étal and the GCC financed it...
So that bla bla about explaining Islam to others to understand better the Arabs and Islam...Arab are well known and Islam doesn’t need any explication, it needs application the way it was intended to be..a religion of peace, a religion of all times..and a religion of people not for the Arabs only...In our days Muslims arabs and in particularly those of the GCC are the cancer and made a beautiful religion as the most fearful and her followers the most detested in the world.! Thx to the Muslim brotherhood and thx to the Wahhabism!

 

[Falcon29]

ISIS Methodology major flaws:

...
...
...

1.) Sharia Law is all about implementation of 'Hudud' or 'Limits' + Those who don't implement traditional punishments of 'Huddud' are apostates

ISIS supporters ramble a lot online about implementation of Shariah Law. They say Muslims have to implement Sharia Law to be supported by God. This is true, Muslims need to implement Sharia according to Islamic, and many Muslim majority(nations) laws are derived from the Sharia. ISIS primarily emphasizes the 'Hudud' or the criminal law and carrying out those punishments. They render all Muslims who don't implement traditional punishments of the 'hudud' as apostates. This is a common theme among ISIS circles. Even though 'Hudud' is a small part of Sharia Law, and the method of punishment is up to debate and can be less severe. Here is the overview of traditional 'Huddud' punishments:

Hadd

Limit or prohibition; pl. hudud. A punishment fixed in the Quran and hadith for crimes considered to be against the rights of God. The six crimes for which punishments are fixed are theft (amputation of the hand), illicit sexual relations (death by stoning or one hundred lashes), making unproven accusations of illicit sex (eighty lashes), drinking intoxicants (eighty lashes), apostasy (death or banishment), and highway robbery (death). Strict requirements for evidence (including eyewitnesses) have severely limited the application of hudud penalties. Punishment for all other crimes is left to the discretion of the court; these punishments are called tazir. With the exception of Saudi Arabia, hudud punishments are rarely applied, although recently fundamentalist ideologies have demanded the reintroduction of hudud, especially in Sudan, Iran, and Afghanistan.

http://www.oxfordislamicstudies.com/article/opr/t125/e757

...
...

'Huddud' has always been rarely applied, even in era of the Prophet(SAW) and first generations of Muslims. Yet, ISIS has gone out of its way to try implementing these punishments as much as possible. In fact, they probably have undergone such punishments more than all the first, mid and last generation of Muslims put together. Not to mention, many of them require four witnesses. You can't accuse someone of adultery(sex out of wedlock or cheating) unless you have four witnesses. To ISIS that doesn't matter. And I have seen a video which was posted on this forum in the past, of ISIS militants choking a woman to death with a metal wire for adultery. This is not only wrong method, but also they do not have four witnesses. And they do not put people through proper Shariah Court. To ISIS, any of its uneducated, misinformed militants can undergo these punishments on people and they are considered the judges. This is not allowed in Islam, you have to scholars who are qualified to make these judgements.

Their supporters also think that beheading with knives is Shariah. Even though the only punishments in Sharia Law or 'Huddud' have nothing to do with killing enemies, random civilians or journalists and other state employees. And you are not allowed to execute civilians under any basis you come up with. Or even members of an enemy army in most cases. Let alone with a knife in a gruesome manner. Yet their supporters claim that is 'Shariah' and they will declare other Muslims as apostates for not adopting their actions which have nothing to do with Huddud in first place. They have declared almost everyone in Syria apostates, including hardline Salafi groups like them. Even if those other groups carry out punishments(but with lesser severity or method of punishment).

Huddud is also a small part of Sharia Law, yet they emphasize that more than anything else. And suggest that having different method of punishments for 'Huddud' makes everyone else apostates. Because they are governing with something else other than the 'Shar3' or Allah's Law. Even though most Muslim majority nations laws are mostly based off the Sharia.

Use this link highlighted in sentence to get brief background on Shariah and Shariah judges, that ISIS doesn't observe properly and violates Islamic Law in many examples. And uses 'Huddud' as justification to render others apostates. This link will show you Sharia is much more than 'Huddud'.

Here is another very in-depth analysis of the Shariah and how even the Prophet(SAW) recommended to try not applying it at all, and how scholars viewed Huddud and so on.

...
...

I will finish the rest tomorrow, once we are done with their flaws that will render a misguided group of extremists, then I will move on to analysis of current agenda and their ties(if needed). I can't believe I need to explain why they are misguided, but there are people who think otherwise so it is needed. It should be crystal clear for all Muslims though. As they base their killings of people on mostly two main points which they are not right on.

 

[Falcon29]

2.) You have to struggle for a Caliphate or else you're an apostate

ISIS and their supporters seem to suggest that there must be an Caliphate, or that it should be the main goal for Muslims around the world. When in reality, you don't need an Caliphate at all. It was a system of governance in the past. In the ancient world, the Caliphate was pretty modern for ancient standards and was similar to other systems of governance or empires in that region historically. There is nothing in Islamic text that you can find that makes establishing a Caliphate a condition to be a Muslim. The conditions to be a Muslim are the declaration of faith in Islam, and not enjoining any other entities with the One God:

The Shahada (Arabic: الشهادة‎ aš-šahādah audio (help·info) "the testimony"; also aš-šahādatān (الشَهادَتانْ, "the two testimonials")) is an Islamic creed declaring belief in the oneness of God and the acceptance of Muhammad as God'sprophet. The declaration, in its shortest form, reads:

لا إله إلا الله محمد رسول الله

lā ʾilāha ʾillā-llāh, muḥammadun rasūlu-llāh

There is no god but God. Muhammad is the messenger of God.

https://www.islamicity.org/topics/declaration-of-faith-shahada

This is how people became Muslim in the early stages of Islam. It was just to denounce Polytheism and accept Monotheism. And mainly not enjoin any other entity with God. Whether that be an idol or human or anything else. The Quran was not completely revealed, nor was the Sharia established during the beginning of the Prophet's mission. Islam started out with the declaration of faith, then slowly more and more was revealed. Then there are five pillars, mentioned here:

Mohammad, the Prophet of Allah (Peace and blessing of Allah be upon him), said :

“The superstructure of Islam is raised on five (pillars) : testifying that there is no God (none truly to be worshipped) but Allah, and that Mohammad is the messenger of Allah, performing the prayer, paying the Zakah (poor-due), fasting the month of Ramadan, and performing Hajj.”

The Shahada can be declared as follows :

“ASH-HADU ANLA ELAHA ILLA-ALLAH WA ASH-HADU ANNA MOHAMMADAN RASUL-ALLAH”.

The English translation is :

“I bear witness that there is no deity (none truly to be worshipped) but, Allah, and I bear witness that Mohammad is the messenger of Allah.”

https://islamqa.info/en/answers/11819/how-to-become-a-muslim

As you can see, not struggling for an Caliphate does not remove one from the fold of Islam. It is not required, but more like recommended if it is needed. In a situation where Muslim rulers don't allow practice of Islam(in parts or totality). Most Caliphates were normal empires and not led by divine rulers or rightly guided rulers. So most of the time Islam was not inspiring most Muslims during these Caliphates, and it was not a Caliphate on the path of the Prophet Mohammed(SAW). Sunni Muslims accept the first four Caliphs as being rightly guided by God. Those are Abu Bakr(RA), Omar(RA), Uthmaan(RA), and Ali(RA). Those are high status figures rightly guided by God and this is agreed upon by Sunni scholars and there is evidence of this in Ahadeeths. Some Sunni scholars include another later man known as Umar Bin Abd Al Aziz(RA) as being somewhat rightly guided, but still not on level of first four Caliphs. Muslims believe the Mahdi(RA) who is yet to come will be another rightly guided figure like the first four Caliphs and it will be a Caliphate on the 'Manahij al Nubwah' or on the Prophet's path.

So it is not required to have an Caliphate, and rarely are they proper ones that establish Islam and Allah's Law properly. And it was not meant to be a permanent thing. But, we know it will come back in end times and this more likely due to Allah's(SWT) judgement. Which I assume is to prove to mankind once again that he can establish Islam on earth at a time people think religion is dying. And also Allah(SWT) gives believers help at the end times and gives people another chance to repent in a dedicated manner because of his mercy. There are other judgements to these things we don't know about, and Allah(SWT) knows best.

Not struggling for a Caliphate does not render one an apostate, contrary to ISIS's slander and accusations against Muslims. It is simply not true. But, they use this flawed understanding to justify killing other Muslims, or soldiers of Muslim army, or even policemen and so on. On top of that, they claim they will accept ones repentance from apostasy only if that person joins the ISIS group. Even though Apostasy has nothing to do with a militant group and is simply a Muslim returning to fold of Islam and declaration of faith. ISIS thinks it's not between a Muslim and God, and think they only repentance is joining their selfish group which wants power and resources.

 

[Falcon29]

3.) It is okay to systematically kill/target Shia Muslims and other Muslims

Another ridiculous and unacceptable position of ISIS is that they believe it is religiously permissible to kill Shia Muslims in an systematic manner. In some cases they kill Sunni Sufi Muslims or other Sunni Muslims elsewhere in targeted bombings that target ordinary people doing errands in their daily lives. ISIS and its supporters think they have green light to kill any Shia Muslim. They have stopped random civilian Shia males in either Iraq or Syria in the past(and documented this themselves), and executed them on charges of apostasy. They believe every Shia male is an apostate, even though as we said, the conditions to be a Muslim are simply the deceleration of faith and if you want to go farther believing and trying to observe the five pillars of Islam.

Shia's are not apostates, at most you can argue they are misguided Muslims, but they observe the five pillars of Islam and declaration of faith. Thus they are Muslims, and you can not declare them as apostates. To be an apostate requires conditions be met, and Shia's do not meet this conditions. ISIS doesn't care about Shariah court or any proof that one is an apostate or a 'Mushrik'(polytheist). They just brandish all Shia as 'Mushrikeen' because they think they worship graves or they reject earlier Muslim Caliph's or what not. It is propaganda to claim they worship graves, they don't, and majority of Shia's don't believe highly esteemed figures in Shia sect have God like powers. It is unacceptable to spread these notions and use it to justify systemically targeting them. There might be tiny minority of Shia Muslims who believe strange things, and even then, Shia Muslims/Shia scholars themselves declare that they are not true Shia Muslims or misguided ones.

ISIS is misinformed on Islam and what makes one a Muslim or not, and we need education campaigns to explain this to people. There are lots of misguided Muslims in the world, you are not allowed to kill them under any circumstance or charge them with apostasy. This is a bizarre trend with radical extremist groups who think everyone is an apostate. And they think it is permissible to plant a bomb in a market where Shia Muslims shop at, and kill many of them. You are not allowed to systematically non-Muslims, let alone Muslims who you think are apostates.

They have also targeted Sunni Sufi Muslims in Egypt in a systematic terror attack which we all remember:

Militants Kill 305 at Sufi Mosque in Egypt’s Deadliest Terrorist Attack

CAIRO — Militants detonated a bomb inside a crowded mosque in the Sinai Peninsula on Friday and then sprayed gunfire on panicked worshipers as they fled, killing at least 305 people and wounding at least 128 others. Officials called it the deadliest terrorist attack in Egypt’s modern history.

The scale and ruthlessness of the assault, in an area racked by an Islamist insurgency, sent shock waves across the nation — not just for the number of deaths but also for the choice of target. Attacks on mosques are rare in Egypt, where the Islamic State has targeted Coptic Christian churchesand pilgrims but avoided Muslim places of worship.

The attack injected a new element into Egypt’s struggle with militants because most of the victims were Sufi Muslims, who practice a mystical form of Islam that the Islamic State and other Sunni extremist groups deem heretical. And it underscored the failure of President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, who has justified his harsh crackdown on political freedom in the name of crushing Islamic militancy, to deliver on his promises of security.
..
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/24/world/middleeast/mosque-attack-egypt.html

They also deem Sufi Muslims as heretical, even though, once again, they meet conditions and pillars of Islam. If you believe they are misguided, you cannot do takfeer on other Muslims. To ISIS, misguided=disbelievers. This is not and never was the case. Misguided Muslims are Muslims that are not follow the right path entirely, but are rather close to doing so. This does not eject them from fold of Islam.

These ISIS nut jobs also think many other Islamist groups in Syria are heretical. And now suggest Hamas of Gaza is heretical. They have no religious justifications whatsoever to support their positions. Instead resort to their flawed arguments that have no religious basis to render other Muslims as apostates.

This is a serious flaw, because this is the position ISIS and their supporters use to continue justifying their insurgencies in the Muslim world. Without these flawed arguments, they can't get religious justification for their actions and would have to terminate their organization. They are like the Khawarij in the past who claimed if Muslims commit sins such as fornication they are thus apostates who should be killed. And the rightly guided Caliphs, such as Ali(RA) rejected these premises. Committing such a sin makes you a non Muslim during the immediate moment you make the sin. But, afterwards you remain a Muslim and must repent and not repeat or persist with these actions. What would make a non-Muslim is to imply that fornication is Halal and part of Islam. Those Muslims did not do that, they know they are sins but struggled to resist some of these sins for a short period. And in no way can they be slandered as apostates. Humans sin, and I will leave you with a Saheeh or Authentic Hadeeth in which Allah(SWT) informs the Prophet(SAW) that if humans didn't sin, Allah would replace us with another creation. We are not angels with no free will and this specific creation was meant to sin.

...
...
Hadith in question:

Abu Huraira reported: The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said, “By Him in whose hand is my soul, if you did not sin, Allah would replace you with people who would sin and they would seek forgiveness from Allah and He would forgive them.”

Source: Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim 2749

....
....

Allah's(SWT) judgement was for us to sin and seek repentance. Don't misunderstand this, however. It doesn't mean commit big sins then seek forgiveness. You are supposed to try to resist these sins to your best ability. But, many Muslims and human kind in general will fall into smaller sins and some bigger sins. The point of the Hadeeth was that it is impossible for humans to live life and die without committing a single sin(big or small). Unless you are a Prophet and Allah forgives your sins permantely.

....
....
....

-----------------

4.) It is okay to systematically target Christians and other non-Muslims

^^

Another major wrongdoing by the ISIS Khawarij and their supporters. There are plenty of examples of them bombing random Churches, or rounding up Coptic civilians, or killing random journalists from around the world and so on. Their terrorist supporters justify these attacks used very flawed positions. Sometimes they do this to seek ransom or money from other nations. That alone should be enough to show you they are not what they claim to be, and instead a terrorist, sociopathic killer gang movement which blackmails nations or other parties for money. Blackmail is haram in Islam, and that is normal blackmail in everyday normal examples. It is a major sin. Let alone threatening to murder a person or persons for large sums of cash. There are too many barbaric attacks by ISIS in the past so I will not go over every single one. But, this referenced quote will explain Islam's position to non-Muslims in Muslim land(backed by authentic narrations and Quran). It is important to read through this to understand:

Praise be to Allah.

The Islamic view of humanity is filled with mercy and compassion, and it cannot be otherwise, because the Islamic religion is the last of the religions that were prescribed by Allah, may He be exalted, and He commanded all of mankind to enter this religion. He revealed this religion and sent it down to the most compassionate of mankind, Muhammad (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him). This is confirmed in the Book of Allah, where He says (interpretation of the meaning):

“And We have sent you (O Muhammad) not but as a mercy for the ‘Alameen (mankind, jinns and all that exists)”

[al-Anbiya’ 21:107].

With regard to that, there are commands in the Qur’aan and Sunnah to the Muslims, instructing them to call people to affirm the Oneness of Allah (Tawheed), and to offer their wealth, time and selves for that purpose. This is only out of compassion and mercy towards all people, so as to save them from worshipping people and calling them to worship the Lord of all people; to save them from the constraints of this world and bring them to the abundance of this world and the Hereafter, even if they (parents) were to try hard to keep their children away from Islam and tell them to associate others with Allah and to disbelieve. Concerning that Allah, may He be exalted, says (interpretation of the meaning):

“And We have enjoined on man (to be dutiful and good) to his parents. His mother bore him in weakness and hardship upon weakness and hardship, and his weaning is in two years give thanks to Me and to your parents, unto Me is the final destination.

But if they (both) strive with you to make you join in worship with Me others that of which you have no knowledge, then obey them not, but behave with them in the world kindly, and follow the path of him who turns to Me in repentance and in obedience. Then to Me will be your return, and I shall tell you what you used to do”

[Luqmaan 31:14-15].

Islam advises us to treat neighbours kindly, even if they are not Muslim.

Al-Qurtubi (may Allah have mercy on him) said:

I say: based on that, kind treatment of neighbours is enjoined and is recommended, whether they are Muslim or not. And this is the right thing to do. Kind treatment may be in the sense of helping or it may be in the sense of being kind, refraining from annoyance and standing by them. Al-Bukhaari narrated from ‘Aa’ishah that the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said: “Jibreel kept urging me to treat neighbours kindly until I thought that he would make them heirs.” And it was narrated from Abu Shurayh that the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said: “By Allah, he does not believe; by Allah, he does not believe; by Allah, he does not believe.” It was said: O Messenger of Allah, who is that? He said: “The one whose neighbour is not safe from his annoyance.” This is general in meaning and applies to all neighbours, and the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) affirmed that the neighbour should not be annoyed by swearing three times and stating that the one who annoys his neighbour is not a believer in the complete sense. So the believer should avoid annoying his neighbour and refrain from doing what Allah and His Messenger have forbidden; he should strive to do that which pleases Him and encourage others to do likewise.

Concerning that Allah, may He be exalted, says (interpretation of the meaning):

“Allah does not forbid you to deal justly and kindly with those who fought not against you on account of religion and did not drive you out of your homes. Verily, Allah loves those who deal with equity”

[al-Mumtahanah 60:8].

In other words, Allah does not forbid you to be kind, uphold ties, return favours and be fair towards the mushrikeen (polytheists),whether they are relatives and others, so long as they are not fighting you because of your religion or seeking to drive you out of your homes. So there is nothing wrong with you upholding ties with them, because upholding ties with them in this case does not involve anything that may lead to negative consequences. It was narrated from ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Amr (may Allah be pleased with him) that the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said: “Whoever kills a mu‘aahid (a non-Muslim living under Muslim rule) will not smell the fragrance of Paradise, although its fragrance may be detected from a distance of forty years.” Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 2995

What is meant is one who has a deal with the Muslims, whether that is by paying jizyah or a peace treaty with the Muslim ruler or a guarantee of safety from a Muslim.

There is a hadeeth that speaks of that. The Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said: “If anyone wrongs a mu‘aahid, detracts from his rights, burdens him with more work than he is able to do or takes something from him without his consent, I will plead for him (the mu‘aahid) on the Day of Resurrection.” Narrated by Abu Dawood, 3052; classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Saheeh Abi Dawood.

If any of the non-Muslims comes to our country for work or business, and has permission (from the authorities), he is either a mu‘aahid (one who has a treaty with the Muslims) or a musta’min (one who has been granted security by the Muslims). So it is not permissible to transgress against him. It is proven that the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said: “Whoever kills a mu‘aahid will not smell the fragrance of Paradise.” We are Muslims who submit to the command of Allah, may He be glorified and exalted, and we respect those whom Islam instructs us to respect of those who have treaties and guarantees of security. Whoever transgresses against them has misrepresented Islam and has given Islam an image of terrorism, treachery and betrayal. The one who adheres to the rulings of Islam and respects treaties and covenants is one for whom it is hoped that he will do well and succeed.

Concerning that Allah, may He be exalted, says (interpretation of the meaning):

“and let not the hatred of some people in (once) stopping you from Al-Masjid al-Haram (at Makkah) lead you to transgression (and hostility on your part)”

[al-Maa’idah 5:2]

“and let not the enmity and hatred of others make you avoid justice. Be just: that is nearer to piety”

[al-Maa’idah 5:8].

https://islamqa.info/en/answers/128862/does-islam-regard-non-muslims-with-mercy-and-compassion

ISIS has no justification for its terrorist acts and brutal murders of innocent people. And thus because of their actions, you as a Muslim are expected to not associate with them, not to pledge them any support(moral or otherwise), not defend their actions, condemn them, fight them and kill them as they are Khawarij and meet conditions of the Khawarij who are considered by the Prophet(SAW) to be major evildoers. And you cannot overlook these actions, and decide to support their other ones. With these actions, they actually have gone out of fold of Islam.

And they abandoned the Aqeedah or Islamic methodology, and replaced it with a non-Islamic methodology that is inspired by the worldly interests of the selfish group that think they are God's representatives on earth and have no limits whatsoever in any of their actions or positions.

 

[Falcon29]

4.) ISIS are Khawarij

No, I am not using the term wrongly as ISIS and their supporters like to claim. They are Khawarij and worse than Khawarij, even. Khawarij have various characteristics, and they were active during early advent of Islam. The Prophet(SAW) himself actually had an encounter with an irrational person who he deemed an Kharijite and described that they are evildoers. Khawarij fought the Caliph Ali(RA), one of highly respected and significant figures in Islam and committed an atrocity against a companion of the Prophet(SAW) and his wife, as well as unborn baby. Read through the this to get some perspective on them and the atrocity committed by them. And how Ali(RA) eventually dealt with them:

There are many Muslims who are troubled by ISIS and their vicious rhetoric and vicious actions. But this is not the first time that a rebel group of Muslims have emerged with extremist tendencies. And as the saying goes, those who do not heed history are doomed to repeat it.

Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, warned his followers of a group of people who would arise after his death. The Prophet mentioned their arrival and characteristics no less than 10 times. Among the characteristics he mentioned were:

• They would worship so much that “you shall consider your worship and your prayer and your recitation of the Qur’an to be nothing compared to theirs.” Meaning, their outward actions, like praying and reciting the Qur’an, would be on overdrive. And yet…
• “They shall recite the Qur’an but it will not leave their throats.” Meaning that their understanding of the Qur’an will not go any farther than their recitation, and they will not have religious knowledge or insight.
• “They are calling to the book of Allah, but they have nothing to do with the book of Allah.” Meaning their call is great, but their actions are terrible.
• “They are speaking the best speech that you will ever hear of any man. But they will leave Islam like an arrow leaves its prey.”

Surely enough, less than 20 years after the death of The Prophet, this group came into being.

The Beginning of the Khawarij

During the time of the fourth Caliph, Ali, (who ruled from 656 – 661 CE) there was a political war between him and another man named Mu’awiyah. Both were Companions (sahaba) of Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him. Ali was also the Prophet’s son-in-law and cousin.

At one point, Ali and Mu’awiyah had ceased fighting and began a process of arbitration to bring about peace. Arbitrators were selected from the two sides to bring an end to hostilities, based on the Qur’an and sunnah (traditions of The Prophet). However, among these people was a group who believed that arbitration was a sin, based on their own understanding of the verse of the Qur’an which states:

The judgement (hukm) is Allah’s alone, He relates the truth and He is the Best of deciders.

Qur’an, 6: 57

The group accused Ali of sin and disbelief and told him to repent. He defended himself, and said of them:

“The sentence is right but what (they think) it means is wrong. It is true that law-giving (hukm, judgement) is God’s alone, but these people say that governance is God’s alone…In short, the law does not get put into practice all by itself; there must be someone, or some group, who tries to put it into practice.”

The group was adamant that Ali had sinned. In short, they believed that if Ali was following the truth, he had to kill Mu’awiyah and all his men for their insurrection. And if he was not following the truth, then Mu’awiyah and his men should have killed him.

6000 of them split away from Ali’s rule and formed their own tribe. They became known as the Kharijites, or Khawarij. The title comes from the Arabic word “khuruj”, meaning “revolt” or “insurrection”. This group was the first group to exhibit extremist tendencies and the first sect to split away from mainstream Islamic thought—even before the Sunni-Shia split.

Features of the Khawarij

Initially, Ali left the group alone. In his wisdom, he did not want to force people to reform their beliefs or overpower them. He told them that they could practice however they wished, so long as they did not spread corruption in the land.

However, the extreme, overzealous practices of the Khawarij are what drove them into constant conflict and bloodshed. They would kill anyone who did not believe in their extremist ideology. Some of the many features of the Kharawij were among the following:

• They would pray so much that their foreheads would become calloused and their hands rough
• They would be malnourished from fasting so much
• They considered anyone who had committed a major sin (ie drinking alcohol, fornication, backbiting) to be a disbeliever, and that they should be killed
• They believed only they were on the correct path and everyone else was a disbeliever and had to be killed
• They questioned the religious scholarship of notables like Ibn Abbas, Ibn Masud, Aishah—and even The Prophet himself
• They were narrow-minded and short-sighted
• They lacked any sort of religious knowledge or scholarship
• They acted without knowledge or insight into the consequences of their actions
• They saw the need to openly fight whoever they considered to be an unjust ruler

In short, much of the Khawarij belief stemmed from an overzealous sense of righteousness. Their intention was noble: they were concerned for the purity of the religion. However, their extremist tendencies were incompatible with the realities of life, and showed a disregard for the maxim of Islam that calls for mercy and peace first and foremost.

Decline of the Khawarij

Caliph Ali sent the scholar and Companion Ibn Abbas to the Khawarij camp to debate with them. Ibn Abbas noted that they were ceaseless in their worship to the point where their camp was buzzing with Qur’an recitation in the afternoon heat, and their shirts were reduced to tatters. He debated with them and, using his knowledge and wisdom, won the debate.

One of the points he mentioned was related to what caused their split in the first place—the issue of arbitration between people. Ibn Abbas mentioned that arbitration between people is mentioned as something acceptable in the Qur’an, and quoted the verse that discusses appointing an arbiter from a husband and wife if the two fall into disagreement (4:35).

2000 of the Khawarij agreed with Ibn Abbas’s arguments and returned with him, reforming their ways. However, the remaining 4000 refused to acknowledge his logic and remained stubbornly ingrate.

The turning point was when a man named Abdullah ibn-Khabbab, one of the children of the Companions, passed by the Khawarij with his pregnant wife. The Khawarij captured him and his wife and questioned him on his beliefs. When they asked what his opinion was on Ali—whom they regarded as a disbeliever—Abdullah told them Ali was more knowledgeable than either of them, and was the Caliph.

With that, the Khawarij killed his wife in front of him, cut her open and killed the baby, then tied him up and slaughtered him like an animal.

Upon hearing this, Caliph Ali went to war with them. He fought them for many years in many battles until they were practically eradicated in the Battle of Nahrawan in 659 CE. Though the bulk of them were killed, a few stragglers dispersed and fled.

They were Muslims—and yet Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon them, called them “the worst of creation” and said they were “the dogs of Hell”. He said if they were to rise up in his midst, he would kill them.

The trials and troubles they caused Muslims were so great that after the Khawarij had been defeated, one of the men in Ali’s army said: “Praise be to God who gave us rest with the death of these people.”

But Ali said in response: “No. There will be amongst the loins of people this ideology until you will find them that they will fight with Ad-Dajjal (the Anti-Christ).”

Modern Times

The Prophet, peace be upon him, said that this group would continue to come and go until near the Day of Judgement. He described the Khawarij of our times like so:

“There will come towards the end of time a group of people, young men, they have the most grandiose visions, they are speaking the best speech that you will ever hear of any man. But they will leave Islam like an arrow leaves its prey.” (Muslim)

There are a few noteworthy things to take from that hadith:

• They will be young men. Meaning they will be comprised mainly of overzealous young men. You won’t see the old and wise among their ranks.
• They will have the most grandiose visions. They will, as young men do, dream of changing the world and will be able to inspire others with their dreams—though their dreams will be incompatible with reality.
• They will be speaking the best speech. Meaning, as the Prophet said before, they will call to Islam and to the Book of God, but their actions will be outwardly evil.

In our times, groups like ISIS have weaved a grand illusion in which they consider themselves the representatives for Muslims everywhere. And yet they act in ways similar to the Khawarij. And what groups like ISIS have failed to realize is that blatant acts of violence and bloodshed are not the foundations of a just society.

https://www.islamicity.org/9647/khawarij-a-history-of-violence/

...
...

ISIS and their supporters all embody this 'holier than thou' attitude towards other Muslims. They do not see themselves as normal Muslims or willingly humble themselves as Muslims are obliged to. They also praise themselves way too much, and this is forbidden in Islam. Whenever you run into these people, they always speak as if they are higher than everyone else, which prevents anyone from being able to debate them with reason. They think everyone else is not suitable to determine what is right or not right. Or whether their actions are lawful or unlawful. And they never debate with sources. Simply try pushing their views. If you refute their views, they just ignore you and move on to another topic or another justification of their actions. This is one of characteristics of the Khawarij.

It is an evil characteristic and Allah(SWT) will curse those who go about matters these ways. It is both arrogance towards the people, or all other Muslims. But, it is also arrogance directed at Allah(SWT). They reject Allah(SWT's) religion and judgements, and ignore them, and view themselves as the authority. Such people are inherently evil and can't be reasoned with. Anyone that disputes any of their actions/policies, they slander. They are not going by the Aqeedah but rather selfish interests of their group.

So yes, they are ultra Khawarij, and always view themselves as above everyone else. As if they are more educated and pious than everyone else. Which is a joke in itself. As ISIS tends to be made up of mostly high school drop outs that are not qualified to religious scholars. It is hard to become an Islamic scholar, it requires years of study to amass the knowledge and interpret it. But, they think any of their militants are qualified to make judgements only scholars can make soundly.

 

[boca120879]

Assalamuaikum Falcon29 & any muslim here.

Great work, my brother.

Jazakallahu khairan

 

[Falcon29]

Assalamuaikum Falcon29 & any muslim here.

Great work, my brother.

Jazakallahu khairan

Walayukum Al Salaam Brother, thanks and Jazak Allah Khayr to you too.

 

[SALMAN F]

Isis are pure salafi Islam of bin tammyiah and The four imams