Sh. Abdullah Al-Muhaysini : Refutes common misunderstandings concerning ISIS (updated)
# 1st refutation:
Al-Baghdadi is an overpowering ruler!
Some Say: Yes the Caliphate of Al-Baghdadi was not established on the basis of consultation (Shura) with the Muslims. Al-Adnani said “We took it with the tip of our sword forcibly.” The group conquered and ruled with the Sharia of Allah. So why do we not pledge our alliance?
1. First of all, Al-Baghdadi conquered limited and specific territory, and did not conquer all the territory of the Muslims.
2. Second, we ask the group of Al-Baghdadi, do you consider Al-Baghdadi a Caliph or an overpowering ruler? If he is a Caliph than he is not on the methodology of the Prophet (saws), because the Caliphate is not taken by force.
3. Third, if he is truly an overpowering ruler, then a group of people of knowledge stated that an overpowering Caliph is immoral (Faasiq). Ibn Hajar Al-Haytami said in Al-Sawa’iq Al-Muhriqah (A book refuting the Shia sect), p6: “The overpowering ruler is an immoral person who should be punished, he does not deserve to preach or to order goodness over that which he overpowered, rather he deserves to be restrained and rejected, and the evilness of his deeds and his corrupt situation must be declared.”
If you are saying that he (Al-Baghdadi) is an overpowering ruler, you should acknowledge his immorality. So will you acknowledge this? Everyone who is saying that the Caliph overpowered, then he is accusing Al-Baghdadi of immorality.
4. Fourth, the people of knowledge stated that no one should join or support the overpowering ruler. So how could you call the people to migrate to the state of Al-Baghdadi?
In conclusion, he should be pushed back in the territories in which he does not have authority, after agreeing to this. So the factions of Syria and others must push him back because he is immoral and overpowering.
# 2nd refutation
They say: If ISIS was not on the truth then the enemies of Allah the Almighty would not have gathered against it. Waraqah ibn Nawfal said to the Prophet (saws): “No one came with something similar to that which you came with, except that people would oppose him.”
Replies to this confusion:
1. First, to make such a confusion evidence for the correctness or error of a methodology, is actually evidence for the deviance, the confusion, the diseased heart and the desires of the one using such evidence. Allah the Almighty said: “Those in whose hearts resides confusion follow the figurative.” (3:7) Aisha may Allah be pleased with her said: “If you see those who follow the (doubtful) figurative; those are the ones who Allah warned us about.”
The Quran and the Sunnah and the methodology of the righteous predecessors are the dividing standard for the one who follows the truth from the one who follows falsehood. So the invalidity of ISIS and their deviance is proofed by the Sharia, and nothing else will benefit them.
2. Second, animosity is no way evidence for the truth or falsehood, and if it was an evidence for the truth then Al-Qadaffi was on the truth when the whole world declared their animosity against him, which led to his removal. And many others like him, towards who animosity was declared, but nevertheless were not on the truth. So not every one who is confronted with animosity is on the truth, but everyone who is on the truth is indeed confronted with animosity.
3. Third, the statement of Waraqah doe not mean that a person should attract enemies and drag them until they become hostile towards him, in order to proof for people that he is on the truth. The truth is proofed by following the Words of Allah and the words of His Messenger (saws); by honoring the sacred blood, and refraining from making Takfir on Muslims, and so forth. When the Prophet (saws) said to his companion (to Hudaifah during the battle of the Trench): “Do not provoke them.” Wasn’t the Prophet (saws) on the truth because he tried to neutralize them (the coalition against Al-Madinah)?! Or when he made a truce with the Jews (in Al-Madinah) to neutralize them from his path. Was the Prophet (saws) far away from the truth?!
4. Fourth, falsehood could confront other falsehoods. The entire West and the world behind it turned against Germany in the second world war, in an earth-shattering war, which killed millions. Despite this Germany was not on the truth, and this was not an evidence for the correctness of its methodology.
5. Fifth, the Mujahideen are confronted by the enemies, they are waging war against the Mujahideen, and the Mujahideen are fighting against them everywhere. While their behavior and method is contrary to that of ISIS.
6. Sixth, this statement also means that Al-Qaedah and the Taliban are on the truth, because in reality the whole world has turned against them. So we must then understand from this confrontation that they are on the truth. But ISIS says that they are on the truth because the world has turned against it. While their methodology and beliefs are different from the methodology of Al-Qaedah!
7. Seventh, in stead of this statement we say: The classification of this Ummah and its scholars on a matter is by proofing its falseness, and this is verified in ISIS, the Ummah and the scholars agree on its falseness from different angles and classifications.
# 3rd refutation:
ISIS says: How could you say we are Khawarij while the Khawarij make Takfir on the major sins, and we do not say that the one who commits major sins is a disbeliever?
A reply to this misunderstanding:
1. First, then they do not make Takir on all people explicitly, but they evidently make Takfir on them concerning many sins when we look at their practical application, and they treat a sinner like they would a disbeliever, like for example how they treat the one who eats during the daytime in Ramadan and the like.
Furthermore, Al-Adnani stated recently that anyone who fights against ISIS becomes a disbeliever whether he realizes it or not. Meaning he is a disbeliever in all cases (even when he fights in self-defense). And this happened after he lied and denied that ISIS makes Takfir on all those who fight against them, he even swore to this!
2. Second, they resemble the Khawarij in the consequences of Takfir on sins, and this is the goal of the Sharia; which looks at the consequences. If the consequence of Takfir is making the blood of Muslims and their property Halal, then they are indeed doing this. They make the blood of Muslims Halal with the flimsiest of justifications. And likewise they classify land of the believers (Islam) as land of war, and their own land as land of the believers.
Like Shaykh Al-Islaam ibn Taymiyah, May Allah have mercy upon him, explained in Majmu’ Al-Fatawah (73/19): “The Khawarij all resemble each other in making the blood of Muslims Halal after making Takfir on them with corrupt suspicions and what they consider to be disbelieve while this is not the case.”
3. Third, it is not required for the Khawarij to make Takfir on all major sins. Not all the Khawarij make Takfir on sins. The later generations were not like this. The Najdat Khawarij (led by Najdah ibn Amir al-Hanafi) did not make Takfir on the one who commits major sins. So making Takfir on the one who commits major sins is not required to be described as the Khawarij. The Khawarij encompass everyone who makes Takfir on Muslims without any right, and makes their blood Halal. Even if he doesn’t consider the one who commits major sins to be a disbeliever.
4. Fourth, Takfir has many faces: Like Takfir on the one who commits major sins, or Takfir on something which isn’t even a sin in the first place, or Takfir based on doubts and suspicion and probabilities, or issues about which there are legal differences of opinions or individual judiciary judgments (Ijtihaad), or Takfir without verifying the present conditions and the absent objections, etc.
5. Fifth, the real fundamental concerning all the Khawarij is: Takfir without correct justification, and Takfir on someone who doesn’t deserves it. And thus legalizing the death of someone who does not deserve to be killed. Because they adopt specific principles, and whoever differs from them they consider him to be a disbeliever.
Dr. Al-Wuays said: “Through the statements of scholars like Ibn Taymiyah and others it will become evident that they do not limit the meaning of the Khawarij based on Takfir on known sins like drinking alcohol and fornication. Rather he describes them as people who could forgive something which is permissible in the first place, or they could classify an act of obedience as a sin, or a sin as disbelieve, they could consider that which is not a sin as a sin, and they make Takfir on those who differ with their desires. The investigatory scholars even stated that Takfir on major sins was only present in the latecomers. Because it is known that the first Khawarij made Takfir on Ali due to arbitration; something which is valid and allowed. And their father Dul Khuwaysirah accused the Prophet (saws) with being unfair; because he softened the hearts of some people (by giving them more), and this is a legal goal.”
6. Sixth, it is not a condition that they resemble the first Khawarij in all their features, like we said before. Rather is it enough that they resemble them in most of their features. A group is labeled as the Khawarij if they share most of the statements and deeds of the Khawarij, or their overall fundamentals. Like As-Shatibi explained, may Allah have mercy upon him.
The above is summarized from the gathering of Sh. Dr. Abdullah Al-Muhaysini, may Allah preserve him.
# 4th refutation:
“The Prophet (saws) described the Khawarij and said their sign will be that they shave their heads. This is their sign, and ISIS does not have this sign!”
A reply to this misunderstanding:
1. First, this description is not a necessary description for them, in every period and in every place. Rather this inquired (visual) description is secondary, which could change according to time and place. This description came when the companions were afraid of misunderstandings concerning the Khawarij, after they were described as people who were strong in worship and with good appearances. That’s why they asked the Prophet (saws) for a (specific) sign about these specific people, so he said: “Their sign is that they shave (their heads bald).”
This was not a primary description, rather it came after asking and inquiring about it, to give them a description about their outer appearance, which the companions needed to confront these (specific) people.
Haafid ibn Hajjar said: “Ibn Habeerah said that this was a condemnation of shaving the head.” And ibn Hajjar said: “And from another perspective it could also indicate an actual description and not an condemnation.” (Al-Fath 315:12)
2. Second, the Khawarij love to distinguish themselves from the people, and the Arabs of old would let their hair grow long, so the Khawarij would distinguish themselves from them and shave their hair, or so that they could recognize each other. As for today, people most of the time cut their hair short, so the Khawarij of today let their hair grow long, and they distinguish themselves with specific clothes and a specific appearance.
And this is something blameworthy, the pious predecessor forbade distinguishing oneself from the habits and customs of people, even if it were permissible. Ibn Abu Dunya narrated from ‘Adi ibn Al-Fadl, who said: “Ayoub said to me, purchase sandals for me which are similar to the sandals of the Prophet (saws). So I did. But I saw him only wear them a couple of days, after that he left them. I asked him why? He said, because I do not see the people wear them.” (At-Tawadu’ wal Khumool, p86)
And Al-Haseen said: “Zubayd Al-Yami was wearing a robe with a hood, so I heard Ibrahim criticize it, he said to him that people wore them in the past. Zubayd replied: ‘Yes but those who wore them have passed away, so if someone would wear it today it would become well-known again.’ And the people were indeed pointing their fingers at him.” (Musannaf ibn Abi Sahaybah, 312/8)
And Shaykh Al-Islaam ibn Taymiyyah said: “The friends (Awliyaa) of Allah do not distinguish themselves from people in the outer appearances which are permissible. They do not distinguish themselves with certain clothes which differ from other clothes if they were both permissible, nor with shaving their hear or shortening it, or their nails, if it was permissible. Like it is said: many righteous wear a jacket, while many heretics wear a heavy cloak.” (Al-Furqan Bayna Awliyaa Rahmaan wa Awliyaa Shaytaan, p51)
3. Third, if the meaning were to be that this is their situation most of time, and that this is a well-known description, meaning that most of the time they look like this. Then this is like the description of women who will be ‘dressed but naked’, and will have ‘heads like camel humps’. This description of theirs could change from time to time. But the meaning of the description is that they will be flaunting, nude and unveiled. It is not a necessary for a flaunting woman to have a head like a camel hump. Likewise is not necessary for the Khwarij to have shaved heads, like it is not necessary for a Khariji to have a mark which looks like a nipple (the mark of a specific Khariji killed in the time of Ali, predicted by the Prophet). (Al-Alamaat Al-Fariqah, p153. By Dr. Al-Wuays)
4. Fourth, it is not a necessary condition that they resemble the first Khawarij in all their features, like we said before. Rather is it enough that they resemble them in most of their features. A group is labeled as the Khawarij if they share most of the statements and deeds of the Khawarij, or their overall fundamentals. Like As-Shatibi explained, may Allah have mercy upon him. This reply was already stated in the 3rd refutation.
And this refutation is also summarized from the gatherings of Sh. Dr. Abdullah Al-Muhaysini, may Allah preserve him.
# 5th refutation:
ISIS says: The Islamic State wants to implement the Sharia of Allah trough an Islamic Caliphate, and pushes towards this, and no one hates this except a treacherous hypocrite. So why do you stand in our way and confront us?
A reply to this confusion:
1. First, the Prophet (saws) teaches us not to be fooled by appearances and slogans, the Prophet (saws) informed us about the good appearances of the Khawarij, and their nice speeches. So we do not care about slogans. And we do not give it any value, until we see it in accordance with the truth or not.
2. Second, this it is actually a sign that supports the fact that ISIS belongs to the Khawarij when it is taken with some of their other characteristics. Because the early Khawarij rebelled against the senior Companions with exactly the same slogan, they wanted the implementation of the Sharia while they were legalizing the blood of Muslims, rather the best of Muslims. They rebelled with this slogan while they were the most far away people from its understanding and its manners towards the seniors. The Khawarij: “Speak the best speech you will ever hear from any person, but they will leave Islam like an arrow leaves its prey.” (Hadeeth)
3. Third, we have seen some of their ignorance and misunderstanding and the predominance of their desires and innovations concerning the manner of implementing the Sharia. How could their application of the Sharia mean the legalization of Muslim blood and misplaced judgments? We saw how this application became a disaster upon Muslims, and a cause for people to flee from the religion, and a means by which resentments are discharged.
4. Fourth, how could someone implement the Sharia if he is himself ignorant about the Sharia? They do not have any established scholar who Allah the Almighty ordered us to follow and obey. So if they do not have any judicious scholars, who they could follow, then who are they following in that which they claim? Students of knowledge who did not reach a tenth of the lowest level? The Prophet (saws) said: “When the scholars will die the people will take ignorant people as their leaders, who will issue religious verdicts without knowledge, they will go astray and will lead others astray.” If there is a lack of scholars then nothing remains except misguidance.
# 6th refutation:
“The people of ISIS are people of piety and religion and righteousness and courage and sacrifice, they left their relatives and everything behind to support this religion and Jihad in the path of Allah. So why are you opposing them and why are you fighting them? Are you not afraid that they will be your opponents on the Day of Resurrection?”
A reply to this confusion:
1. First, it is well known amongst the rational people that piety and devotion is not an evidence for the correctness of the methodology and the correctness of deeds. Many among the people of innovation were devoted and ascetic, but this did not remove them from the label of innovation. And Ibn Mas’ud (May Allah be pleased with him) said: “Many people who want righteousness pursue it incorrectly.”
2. Second, the Prophet (saws) described the Khawarij as the most devoted people with the best speech and best appearance. So that people would not be deceived by this appearance of theirs. Because of this people could think that their path is correct, why would they otherwise succeed in these acts of obedience? But the Prophet (saws) showed us that this is not the case, and that outwardly righteousness is not an evidence for the correctness of the methodology. Like we explained.
3. Third, they show this outwardly piety in some aspects, while they do not in the most heinous crimes, and the spilling of Muslim blood with the flimsiest of justifications. They resemble those who killed Al-Husayn (the grandson of the Prophet) and after that they asked about the blood of a mosquito (they asked whether it is allowed to kill a mosquito during Hajj)!
4. Fourth, what kind of religion is this which is devoid of the morals and manners (Akhlaaq) of the Prophet (saws)? And which is devoid of his mercy and kindness towards the Muslims? And what righteousness is this which collects the traits of hypocrisy; from foulness in disputes to lies and betrayal and treason?
5. Fifth, true religiosity and piety exists in all the Mujahideen beside the Khawarij. So it is not something which only ISIS commits to, in order for them to use this as proof. While the devotion of others besides them is a true devotion, we consider it to be, in a general sense. Others do not legalize the blood of Muslims and their wealth, and they are not from the people of betrayal, treachery and lies. So who of these two parties is more deserving of followers if you are truthful?
6. Sixth, as for sacrifice and courage and the like, then it is something the Khawarij and other people of misguidance are famous for. It is not an evidence for the correctness of the methodology. Furthermore, undisciplined courage is nothing more than recklessness and foolishness. True faith restricts loss of life.
Attention: We known that there are people of piety and righteousness and those who love goodness, who are deceived by ISIS. But they are caught up in the large misguidance of ISIS, so their outwardly righteousness will not benefit them, like it will not benefit the Khawarij. And many of them with the Grace of Allah have returned to the correct path and the truth, and they joined Ahl Sunnah and the community, and wage Jihad with them. And we ask Allah the Almighty to lead those who remained in ISIS and to leave the evil characteristics which the Sunnah showed us about the Khawarij, like the fact that they are the dogs of hellfire. Which made them: “..The greatest losers in deeds. The ones whose efforts have been wasted in this wordy life, while they thought they were doing good.” (Al-Kahf: 103-104 *)
* Ali ibn Abi Taalib, Ad-Dahhaak and others said that these Quranic verses included the Harooriyah, meaning the Khawarij.
# 7th refutation.
ISIS says: The Caliphate is a result of the Jihadi march, and its scholars are the scholars of Jihad who praised ISIS from the beginning. But we refuse that someone who sits and stays behind (from the battlefield) gives verdicts to a Mujahid. The people on the fronts are the most deserving to give verdicts instead of others. Others are not entitled to oppose us, no matter how high his knowledge has reached.
A response to this misunderstanding:
1. First, passing verdicts are linked to two matters.
The first matter: Having a correct perception of the case. Thats why it has been said that the people on the fronts have the most complete knowledge about their fronts. Because they see and know what others beside them do not know, who are far away from them at that certain moment in time. And this isn’t applicable anymore today because of the modern means of communication which virtually renders the absent like the one who is present, even in the minute details. So clinging to the statement that the people on the fronts know best is a result from ignorance in understanding the meaning and reason of this statement.
But if we were to assume that these modern communication means did non exist, then it would be sufficient if the situation is depicted to the scholar and he envisions the matter completely, and it is not necessary for him to witness the reality. That’s why we find scholars give verdicts for the people of medicine and others, after the doctors depicted the issue fully for the scholars. And the doctor nor others do not say “We are more deserving to give the Islamic verdicts because we are more knowledgeable than the scholars about the reality which we live.” They do not do this, rather they are keen to depict the issue to the people of knowledge so that they give the Sharia ruling about it.
The second matter which is linked to the correctness of the verdict (Fatwa) is knowing the Sharia ruling. The means of deduction must be present, and the ability to give jurisprudential judgments on the basis of revealed texts, which are generally separated from the reality in case.
Ibn al-Qayyim (may Allah have mercy on him) said: “The Mufti or judge is not able to issue a Fatwa or verdict without understanding two things. The first is understanding and having a good grasp of reality, he should have a good understanding of what is happening, on the basis of circumstantial evidence and other signs, so that he has a full understanding of it. The second is understanding what is required in the light of these circumstances, which means understanding the ruling of Allah that He issued in His book or on the lips of His Messenger concerning this reality, then he should apply the one to the other.” (i’laam Al-Muwaqqi’een)
So where are the scholars who are firmly established in knowledge in the ranks of ISIS who have the means of deducting jurisprudential verdicts? This will be discussed in the second paragraph.
2. Second, one of the biggest proofs for the deviance of this group is that which we have referred to previously in regards to the lack of judicial scholars amongst them. Shaykh Al-Muhaysini says: “Thats why we see them come with amazingly strange things as a result of their ignorance.” Imam Shatibi, may Allah have mercy upon him, says: “Many deviances in beliefs are connected to superficial knowledge about the Quran and the authentic Sunnah, which pushed them to that which was not mentioned before, nor did it come up in the minds of the predecessors.” Their situation is indeed like that. They frequently use the statements of later scholars as proof, especially the scholars of Najd, and they take from them what agrees with their desires and leave what doesn’t agree with it.
And ignorance is the biggest reason for the deviance of the Khawarij generally. Ibn Hazm, may Allah have mercy with him, says: “The arbitration of Ali, may Allah be pleased with him, between Abu Musa Al-Ash’ari and ‘Amr ibn Al-Aas, so that both of them would proof their position and represent the two parties (of Ali and Muawiyah), and would judge in favor of the one who is closest to the judgment of the Quran. Because it was impossible for the abstaining one to understand the noisy uproar of the armies, or to listen to all the men of the army and their arguments. So it became certainly and inevitable that Ali, may Allah be pleased with him, was right in the arbitration, and that he was the closest to the favored judgment of the Quran, and nothing else was permissible. But the ancestors of the Khawarij were Bedouins, they have read the Quran before they gained knowledge about the established Sunnah from the Prophet (saws). They did not have anyone from among the scholars, not from the companions of ibn Masud, and not from the companions of Umar, and not from the companions of Ali, and not from the companions of Aisha, and not from the companions of Abu Musa, and not from the companions of Muaad ibn Jabal, and not from the companions of Abu Dardaa, and not from the companions Salmaan, and not from the companions Zayd, and ibn Abbas, and ibn Umar. That’s why you would find them make Takfir on one another based on the smallest issues they encountered which would need very simple verdicts. So weak people appeared amongst them who were strong in ignorance.” (Al-Fasl fil Milal)
Ignorance is the biggest reason for the deviance of the Khawarij, and it is the cause for many of their disasters. Al-Hafid ibn Hajjar said: “What led the Khawarij to judge those who opposed them to be disbelievers, making their blood lawful, and leaving the fight against the polytheist while they fight against the Muslims. All this is comes from those who worship based on ignorance; those whose hearts haven’t been opened by the light of knowledge. Nor do they stick to the firm rope of knowledge. It is enough that their first leader (Dhul Khuwaysirah) who responded to the Messenger of Allah (saws) was classified under the Khawarij. We ask Allah protection.” (Fath Al-Bari)
This ignorance is one the main reasons for the deviation of ISIS, and this shows the proof for their falsehood like nothing else. Thats because you will not find scholars among them who are known for their knowledge. Rather not even a student of knowledge. Their faults are predominant over their correct verdicts. And Allah the Almighty called people to return to the established judicial scholars of understanding, the owners of broad knowledge. As Allah the Almighty says “Those who are deeply rooted in knowledge.” (3:7) And He says “If they had only referred it to those who are able to investigate the matter, they would have known it.” (4:83)
And everything that is published by them in regards to Takfir and other deviations, it is only because of their ignorance in jurisprudence, and the weakness of their knowledge about it. Since the bulk of their reading is restricted to books on Tawheed (monotheism), and what the later scholars wrote about it. And they do not understand the distinctions. They see Imaan (believe) as one degree in its judgment, even if they say with their tongues that Imaan increases and decreases. And they see Kufr (disbelieve) as one degree in its judgment, even if they say with their tongues that Kufr has many degrees.
They for example see and label a certain act which falls under loyalty to other than Allah, as Kufr, and they judge the one who commits it, as an apostate. Without looking at the degree of this act in the religion of Allah the Almighty. And the books of Tawheed which talks about Al-Walaa wa Al-baraa (loyalty and enmity) do not break up the subject in details, because its details is a subject which is found in the books of jurisprudence (not monotheism). This is the reason for the error of these young people. They deal with the fundamentals without looking at the specific judgments about a subject, and they generalize judgments in this manner.
3. Third, the scholars of the Salafi Jihadi movement have gathered to reject the methodology of ISIS after they showed this deviant image of theirs. And they warned against them and their methodology, like Shaykh Zawahiri, Abu Muhammad Al-Maqdisi, Abu Qatadah Al-Filistini, Abu Baseer Tartoosi, Sulayman Al-Alwan, AbdulAziz Turaifi, and others. Rather they reject them very strongly, is this not enough to proof the falseness of their methodology?
And when they were confronted with the rejection of the scholars they dared to accused them of every defect, and with Al-Irjaa (postponing), and misguidance. So they can not be an extension of the Salafi Jihadi movement. Rather they are an extension of the Khawarij who match their characteristic traits and lack of manners towards the seniors and seasoned scholars.
ISIS says: You keep silent about the crimes of the tyrants, the criminals and the enemies of Islam, while you are eager to advise ISIS. You turn a blind eye to the mistakes of other factions and groups, out of admiration, exaggeration or transgression. And you do not notice nor observe except ISIS, and you ignore the good qualities of ISIS, and turn a blind eye to them. You only approach it with accusations and critique, so your statements are not accepted whatsoever.
A response to this misunderstanding from several angles:
1st: It is not a condition for the one who gives advise that he denounces every evil, and no one does this, even not they themselves. This statement is closer to foolishness or childishness rather than the statement of men.
2nd: Suppose they were neglectful and did not reject some things which must be rejected, and this is forbidden; because pronouncing the truth openly is obligatory. But lets say this happened, does this then mean for the members of ISIS that they can reject the truth he did have? And that they reject his legitimate evidences?
3rd: Saying that the scholars and preachers, those who rebuke ISIS, do not denounce others from among the tyrants, is a statement which consists of lies, injustice and false accusations. For how much did they reject and how much are they still rejecting! And how much did they suffer for this, imprisonment, torture, displacement, etc. And how much do they advise the factions, leaders and individuals, if they found a mistake or deviation from them. And they do not find anything in them except piety, as they accept their advise, and they respect those who advise them.
4th: One of the afflictions of the youth from ISIS, is that they mix between those who attribute themselves to knowledge who are known for flattering and backscratching the tyrants, and between the advisory truthful scholars who reject and advise and proclaim until they were tried and imprisoned. Like Al-Ulwan, Al-Maqdisi, Al-Sa’d, Al-Ghunaymaan, Al-Falastini, Al-Turayfi, and many other scholars of the Ummah.
5th: With this reported judgment and evasive misunderstanding, they try to disentangle and escape from those who expose the crimes of ISIS, and the extend of their atrocities and their war against Islam, and their legalization of Muslim blood, and their usefulness for the enemies of the religion. As for the one who wants Allah and the Hereafter, he does not care where the advise comes from, even if the advise were to come from a Jew or Satan himself. Because the truth is not rejected depending on the one who spreads it, rather his goal and interest is the satisfaction of Allah the Almighty.
6th: How many leaders and individuals from ISIS did we come to know with bad manners, and their lack of appreciation for advise, and their rejection of it and their mocking of those who came with it. Even from their most low in rank individuals, towards the scholars, the preachers and students of knowledge. As this is the religion and the habit of the Khawarij, they are infamous for their bad manners, and their loose bold tongue, and hostile disputes and feuds. All of these are the traits of the dogs of Hellfire, starting with the hostility of their very first member (Dhul Khuwaysirah At-Tamimee) with the Prophet (saws), and his lack of manners with him. The lack of manners continued and their self-conceited opinions and belittlement of others no matter how great they are, even if they were from the major Companions; and this is still their situation until this very day. And the websites of social media witness to this fact.
7th: Good deeds -if they are present- do not prevent the advise concerning bad deeds and misbehavior, so let alone if this deed is one of the worst deeds and crimes? And is there any human being who does not have any good deed? There is not one. For there is no pure evil except with the Devil only. So if we were not able to advise and reject when good deeds are mixed with bad, then we cannot advise anyone period.
8th: If we were to put one bad deed of ISIS next to all of their good deeds, then this bad deed will exceed with power, due to its atrocity and evil, and the ugliness of their deeds. Their Takfir on Muslim, and them searching for the flimsiest of justifications to legalize Muslim blood, and keeping them distracted from their enemies, and supporting their enemies against them, etc.
Translated from the Telegram Channel of Sh. Abdullah Al-Muhaysini: