What I Discovered From Interviewing Imprisoned ISIS Fighters

[Indus Pakistan]

Wow. And the lesson here is: The State of Iraq isn't so much a nation as a condition. Americans didn't appreciate that and tried to strengthen a practically non-existent Iraqi nationalism. If the U.S. had more boots on the ground for half a generation and concentrated on imbuing democratic values - like we did in Germany - success in Iraq would have been much more likely.

The lesson here is simple. Most of these countries are in the raw stage of formation like US might have been in 1800s ( hint civil war ) and they need time to ripen. This process is not helped if outside forces with overwhelming power gate crash, wreck what ever semblance of rickety structures they have and then walk away after holding a election.

US should NOT have got involved. If however it insisted then it should have gone in with full heart. That is deploy at least 500,000 men for 10 years. Restructure society tooth and nail. By using the massive impress of half million men as stick and massive investment with preferential trade agreements as carrot similar to how Mexico has. Then sit it out for at least 50 years for the effects of the reform feed into at least three generations. By that stage the "reformed Iraqi's" would be the majority. Then US would actually have another Turkey.

The Russian's have done it. Ever seen Kazaks, Turkmen, Tajik and they are doing it now with the Chechens. Tajikistan is test case of what I am saying. The exact same Tajiks in Afghanistan are wild, medieval, religious bigots torn along tribal lines. Compare then across the Amu Darya in Tajikistan and the differance is amazing. I am not saying across Amu Darya nestles Switzerland but compared to Afghanistan it is modernty personified.

However like I said don't go and if you do go in, go in with half century project. Worse is barge in, muck up and then tail it. You see the result.

 

[Indos]

Maybe you all saw CNN report just 2-3 hours ago, CNN invited former Jihadist who has said that the core of radicalism in Islam is due to Wahhabism. This is very danger accusation and truly false.

Until Today CNN never mentioned about Khawarij ideology in Islam history that more fit with ISIS/AQ ideology etc

 

[Zibago]

Probably not. Jews have an identity as a people going back over three thousand years. "Iraq", on the other hand, was a twentieth-century invention of the British.

Projecting your cultural fetishes upon Americans and Israelis makes for a poor fit. So was trying to fit existing Arab culture into a democratic box.

Sorry to interupt but you were mostly white europeans who got dumped into the middle east

 

[Indus Pakistan]

3000 yrs is not an identity but an obsession and lack of integrating into their host lands!

That needs to be framed. I doubt the Muslim's in Europe who are accused of not integrating will have any trace left 3,000 years down the road.

And they accuse us of not integrating.

 

[Indos]

This group is so familiar with Educated Muslim, but some how we should once again post this to educate non Muslim PDF and I believe many of ISIS / AQ follower also dont know this group since they are actually not knowledgeable in Islam.



Kharijites (Collective plural Arabic: الخارجية‎, translit. al-Khārijiyyah; multiple plural: Arabic: خوارج‎, translit. Khawārij; singular Arabic:خارجي‎, translit. Khāriji; literally "those who went out")[1] were a sect in early Islam that broke into revolt against the authority of CaliphAli ibn Abu Talib after he agreed to arbitration with his rival Mu'awiyah to decide the succession to the Caliphate following the Battle of Siffin (657).[2]

Khawarij held that "judgement belongs to God alone", and that God would decide succession by determining the victor in battle, whereas arbitration would be decided by men.[2] They believed that all Muslims, rich or poor, had the same rights, and that any Muslim (not just a Quraysh or even Arab) could be the leader of the community (imam) if they are morally irreproachable, but that if the leader sinned, it was the duty of Muslims to oppose and depose him.[3][4] The Kharijites developed extreme doctrines that further set them apart from both mainstream Sunni and Shiʿa Muslims. They were particularly noted for adopting a radical approach toTakfir.[citation needed]

A Khariji later assassinated Ali, and for hundreds of years the Khawarij were a source of insurrection against the Caliphate.[3] They survive today in small numbers in more moderate forms.[3]

Their name come from the fact that they left or "seceded" from Ali's army. They did not call themselves Khawarij, but the Shurah, (Arabic: الشراة‎, translit. Ash-Shurrā'),[A] literally meaning "the buyers" and understood within the context of Islamic scripture (Quran 2:207) and philosophy to mean "those who have traded the mortal life (al-Dunya) for the other life [with God] (al-Aakhirah)".[3][5]

The name "Khawarij" comes from the Arabic root خ ر ج (K-R-J), which has the primary meaning “to go out”,[6][7] as in the basic wordخَرَجُ (kharaju), meaning "to go out", "to walk out", "to come out" etc.[8]

The name "Khawarij" comes from the Arabic root خ ر ج (K-R-J), which has the primary meaning “to go out”,[6][7] as in the basic wordخَرَجُ (kharaju), meaning "to go out", "to walk out", "to come out" etc.[8]

History
Origin
The origin of Kharijism lies in the first Islamic civil war, the struggle for political supremacy over the Muslim community in the years following the death of the Islamic prophet Muhammad. One source describes Khawarij as "bedouin nomads" who opposed the "centralization of power in the new Islamic state that curtailed the freedom of their tribal society."[4] After the third caliph (Uthman ibn Affan), a struggle for succession ensued between Caliph Ali and Muʿāwiyah, the governor of Syria and cousin of Uthman, in league with a variety of other opponents.

The Khawarij initially supported the authority of Caliph Ali ibn Abi Talib, the son-in-law and cousin of the Islamic prophet Muhammad, but then later rejected his leadership, after he agreed to arbitration with Mu'awiyah rather than combat to decide the succession to the Caliphate following the Battle of Siffin (657).[2]

In 657, Alī's forces met Muʿāwiyah's at the Battle of Siffin. Initially, the battle went against Muʿāwiyah but on the brink of defeat, Muʿāwiyah directed his army to hoist Qur'āns on their lances.[9] This initiated discord among some of those who were in Alī's army. Muʿāwiyah wanted to put the dispute between the two sides to arbitration in accordance with the Qur'an. A group of Alī's army mutinied, demanding that Alī agree to Muʿāwiyah's proposal. As a result, Alī reluctantly presented his own representative for arbitration. The mutineers, however, put forward Abu Musa al-Ashʿari against Alī's wishes.

Muʿāwiyah put forward 'Amr ibn al-'As. Abu Musa al-Ashʿari was convinced by Amr to pronounce Alī's removal as caliph even though Ali's caliphate was not meant to be the issue of concern in the arbitration. The mutineers saw the turn of events as a fundamental betrayal of principle, especially since they had initiated it; a large group of them repudiated Alī.

Citing the verse "No rule but God's," an indication that a caliph is not a representative of God, this group turned on both Alī and Muʿāwiya, opposing Muʿāwiya's rebellion against one they considered to be the rightful caliph, and opposing ʻAlī for accepting to subject his legitimate authority to arbitration, thus giving away what was not his, but rather the right of the people. They became known as Kharijites: Arabic plural khawārij, singular Khārijī, derived from the verb kharaja "to come out, to exit."

Alī's cousin and a renowned Islamic jurist, Abdullah ibn Abbas, pointed out the grave theological errors made by the Kharijites in quoting the Qur'an, and managed to persuade a number of Kharijites to return to Alī based on their misinterpretations. ʻAlī defeated the remaining rebels in the Battle of Nahrawan in 658 but some Kharijites survived.

One of the early Kharijite groups was the Harouriyyah; it was notable for many reasons, among which was its ruling that a Harūrī, Abd-al-Rahman ibn Muljam, was the assassin of Caliph Alī.

For hundreds of years the Khawarij continued to be a source of insurrection against the Caliphate.[3] and they aroused condemnation by mainstream scholars such as 14th-century Muslim Ismail ibn Kathir who wrote:

If they ever gained strength, they would surely corrupt the whole of the Earth, Iraq and Shaam [Syria] – they would not leave a baby, male or female, neither a man or a woman, because as far as they are concerned the people have caused corruption, a corruption that cannot be rectified except by mass killing.[10]

Khawarij - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Look how Khawarij killed Ali in the mosque during Ali Bin Abi Thalib praying.

Similar Mentality. And Khawarij comes from Beduin, a Tribe in which even Allah Himself said in Quran that this tribe understanding about Islam is so little.

Quran (surah At-Taubah/9)

9/ verse 97. The Bedouin Arabs are (by nature) more stubborn in unbelief and hypocrisy (than the city-dwellers), and more liable to be unaware of the bounds prescribed by God in what He has sent down on His Messenger. God is All-Knowing (of the nature and state of His servants), All-Wise

 

[Jaanbaz]

You are right on this one. ISIS is the promise of a good future. The promise of a Caliphate. The promise of return to the glorious days of Glorious Victorious Islam - away from the present reality. The hope of domination over other people, to impose Islam. It does bring hope.

You went full retard. I'm not even Sunni but even I know that majority of Sunni Muslims have rejected Al Baghdadi's Caliphate, while you're making sarcastic remarks, there are Sunni and Shia Muslim Iraqi soldiers giving their lives..Al Baghdadi and ISIS are a cult, all religions have had that problem, only difference is that most Muslim countries are political unstable to deal with poverty, corrupt clergy and be able to have a robust judicial system. There were some countries that managed to control terrorism only to be invaded by freedom loving USA and its allies.

However some blame does go on with a certain mindset within Muslims which needs to be changed but it doesn't help when their societies are never allowed develop, they keep getting invaded, their resources stolen away and their foreign policy being controlled by greedy capitalists in the West. Change itself can only come from with in the Muslim community, any outside party trying to force ''democracy'' or ''freedom'' would face failure and make matters worse.

 

[monitor]

 

[Solomon2]

Debunked: link