Two men kidnap priest, take hostages in church near the French Rouen

ISIS is unpopular. Imagine what would happen to them if they did support ISIS. It is quite clear the Caliphate isn't going to last more than a few years at most.

Also, different interpretations are a thing.

What has this got to do with whether ISIS follow the common sources and interpretations?

Different interpretations are acceptable in Islam (see the sunni madhabs), but I don't think they're calling for their execution over a matter of interpretation.

It has to do with why the preachers are against them.

The preachers? They're calling for the execution because they make them look bad and that they are murdering people that these scholars consider true Muslims, Qu'ran 5:32.

Or maybe it's to do with the fact that they're the modern day
Khawarij

They're calling for their execution because they go against Islamic principles, namely causing "mischief in the land". They're criminals, not true muslims.

Im not entirely sure what point you're trying to make? Of course priests/monks/guru's you name it aare killed accross the world which is no less terrible. Indeed it's only newsworthy because its france though because things like this simply do not happen in the west in general.

Or maybe not. I know I wouldn't be supporting ISIS if I was in such a prominent position.

That too, and ISIS uses this to go against the other muslims who they believe cause mischief too.

Read up on the aforementioned group. Perhaps you'll see why the likes of ISIS are rejected beyond the simplistic need to not associate, even when the scholars were in positions of power with no threat to their lives for supporting the extremists.

So on the one hand we have mainstream muslims denouncing the actions of ISIS as un-Islamic, with their thorough refutations of ISIS ideology. On the other hand we have cherry-pickers who kill for their own gain by using the excuse of Islam. Hmm...I wonder which group is the true representative of Islam.

I'll just leave this here:

In the commentary on the verse which says, “Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors.”

“Meaning, ‘Fight in Allah’s path and do not transgress when doing it. Entering into that (transgression) is the committal of the forbidden acts just as Al-Hasan Al-Basri stated. [Those forbidden acts include] Mutilation, stealing from the war booty, killing women and children, Old folk who have no notion about them and do not having fighting within them, monks and the people of monasteries and churches, the burning of trees, the killing of animals for other reasons than benefit. This has been stated by the companion Ibn ‘Abbas, [scholars and leaders such as] ‘Umar ibn Abdul-‘Aziz, Muqatil ibn Hayyan and other than them.” [Tafsir Al-Qur’an by Ibn Kathir]

ISIS have violated all rules of warfare; they are by no means using common sources and interpretations.

Dismantling my point? You are a very funny guy.

Claiming these are so called "surgical strikes" whilst disregarding the true motives. Manbij was just devastated by these US-led coalition airstrikes which did kill over 70 civilians.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/20/us-airstrike-allegedly-kills-56-civilians-in-northern-syria

Fact is, its not just Russia intensively bombing Syria. Accept the truth.

Logic, reason and enlightenment.

You said we were living in strange and disturbing times.

I was simply pointing out that they are strange and disturbing only by the standards of post war western Europe.

And that what we are witnessing is just another chapter in a bloody, centuries long struggle between Christianity and Islam.

The two faiths have been at war, off and on, ever since the days of Mohammed This is nothing new and I don't really understand why everyone, including you, is so shocked that this is an on period, not an off.

I guess no-one is taught history nowadays at school. It is all just the twentieth century. Hitler, Stalin, yawn.

And it is politically incorrect to point out that both Christianity and Islam were spread at the point of the sword and scimitar respectively.

Ohhhhhh reallyyyyyyy? Can it REALLY be used to justify this? I've just shown you what the rules of warfare in Islam say about killing priests, but nooooo, you had to post the most misinterpreted verse from the Qur'an to further your agenda this had anything to do with Islam. Nice try, cherry-picker.

The verse that you have posted is from Surah Anfal Ch. 8 verse 39. It is absolutely true and unadulterated. But didn't you notice that the verse begins with an And? Doesn't it indicate that there must be something before the verse that set the context of the verse?
Let me quote the preceding verse i.e. 8:38

Say to those who have disbelieved that if they cease hostilities, what has previously occurred will be forgiven for them. But if they return to hostility - then the precedent of the former rebellious peoples has already taken place.

Clear enough?
Verse 8:39 is in the context of those non-Muslims who were hostile to the Muslims back then. Islam is not just a spiritual entity but also a political entity. With the advent of Islam and the Muslim empire most non-Muslim tribes and kingdoms around it began attacking and waging a war against it. All seemingly "violent" verses refer to those who were at war with Muslims/Islam. As for general non-Muslims, the Quran clearly states that they must be treated with kindness and justice. Have a look at this verse:

Surah Mumtahana 60:8-9
Allah does not forbid you from those who do not fight you because of religion and do not expel you from your homes - from being righteous toward them and acting justly toward them. Indeed, Allah loves those who act justly.
Allah only forbids you from those who fight you because of religion and expel you from your homes and aid in your expulsion - [forbids] that you make allies of them. And whoever makes allies of them, then it is those who are the wrongdoers.

But of course, Bacon boy is going to continue cherry-picking. How smart of you to post a verse you think you understand, and how insidious of you to hope this magic verse would nullify ALL THE OTHER VERSES THAT DEAL WITH WARFARE AND TREATMENT OF NON-MUSLIMS, ALL THE HADITH ON ISLAMIC WARFARE AND THE RULES THEREOF, ALL THE ACCEPTED COMMENTARIES, THE HISTORY OF ISLAM FROM THE CONSTITUTION OF MEDINA WHICH GUARANTEES FREEDOM OF RELIGION TO THE LAST LEGITIMATE CALIPHATE WHEREIN NON-MUSLIMS MINORITIES LIVED IN PEACE.

WHAT A JOKE YOU ARE, BACON BOY.

Agree. But to say they are doing "surgical strikes" in themselves is also a joke. The aim of one is to minimise the risk of potential casualties whilst destroying its target but that isn't the case with the bombs in Syria at the moment.

Hundreds of civilians more than one occasion are dying so the nature of these air strikes must be questioned.

As things stand, they will outbreed us, that is a fact. The government is unwilling to do anything to stop that from happening.

Oh and you're a history scholar? I think not.

So?

Currently at 4% of the population, do you realised how long that would take at current rates? And birthrates always come down as education and standard of living increases.

It will get worse before it gets better, but Islam will be the irrelevance that Christianity now is.

Really a church and a priest? It is like they want to go against what the Prophet explicitly taught.

In the commentary on the verse which says, “Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors.”

“Meaning, ‘Fight in Allah’s path and do not transgress when doing it. Entering into that (transgression) is the committal of the forbidden acts just as Al-Hasan Al-Basri stated. [Those forbidden acts include] Mutilation, stealing from the war booty, killing women and children, Old folk who have no notion about them and do not having fighting within them, monks and the people of monasteries and churches, the burning of trees, the killing of animals for other reasons than benefit. This has been stated by the companion Ibn ‘Abbas, [scholars and leaders such as] ‘Umar ibn Abdul-‘Aziz, Muqatil ibn Hayyan and other than them.” [Tafsir Al-Qur’an by Ibn Kathir]

Like I said, intepretations are a thing, i'm not denying that, I just imagine a lot of prominent theologians don't support them down to the public opinion.

Most muslims aren't scholars. Heck, a good chunk of muslims can't read, so we may as well ignore them on theological judgements unless they use actual sources within the theology.

I would say those who go for the purest form of the religion, IE the fundamentalists.

Islam allows room for interpretation (again, see the sunni madhabhs) but as I pointed out, the vast majority of the scholars have agreed upon some basic rules that no one serious really disputes. Most schools of Islamic thought have never supported the likes of ISIS throughout history, even when barbarism was more tolerated by the public.

I wasn't talking about laymen, but studies have shown that education of Islam leads to less support for militantismin Muslim-majority countries.

Fundamentalism isn't synonymous with extremist militantism.

There are other hadiths that contradict that, as the person who I linked you to points out. Watch the second in his series for the justification of the murder of innocents.

Yet Muhammad also said that only by submitting to Islam would a person's life and property be safe

He also had one of his enemies killed in the Kaaba, despite declaring this to be forbidden.

And the Quran prescribes death for those guilty of fasad, and what could be more corrupting than preaching idolatry and promoting shirk.

So we can see (as we always do) that there are passages that can be used to support every agenda.

Remember that ISIS do not subscribe to the same interpretation that you do. And they would almost certainly consider you a munafiq.

The only way to prevent people like ISIS using certain passages of the Quran and sunnah as justification for barbarity and oppression is to remove those passages and declare that version as official Islam. Then people might take you seriously when you claim that ISIS are not Muslims and their actions not Islamic.