ISIS in Iraq megathread

Walaykum salaam wa rahmatullah wa barakatu.

Certain factions of the FSA / SRF etc..

Go on the islamic awakening forum they had a great debate on this with evidence and everything. i was lurking ;P

Prove that these groups are khawaarij

- Ansaar Al Islaam
- Jaysh al mujahideen
- Jaysh an naqshbandiyyah (a sufi group fighting the regime)
- The Revolutionary military councils.

They are all fighting the regime.

Is khawaariji even a word?

It's either Khaariji or Khawaarij no?

I don't need to prove anything, anyone with half a brain cell and who isn't blind can see that many affiliates of these groups are murdering people, primarily because they don't fit their definition of what a "true Muslim" is. Disgusting khawaarij. I find it very difficult to believe that they have not been trained by the CIA.

Sunnis who are fighting because they have been oppressed, by the oppressive Shia government I have no problem with. Just like the Sunnis who have had to witness their wives being raped by Assad's forced, and thereafter having their children slaughtered in front of them.

But the truth is that many of these "fighters" are egotistical, ugly, power hungry animals who are an embarrassment to Muslims.

There is no sectarian strife

Sunnis who are fighting because they have been oppressed, by the oppressive Shia government I have no problem

as salaamu alaykum (sorry forgot it in my initial post)

I'm afraid you do akhi or at least you owe a clarification as you seem to have contradicted yourself!

before you said



now you say



I'm going to ignore the rest of the post as this kinnda makes the rest of it difficult to respond to without an answer here first.

jazakumullahu khairan.

Walaikum Asalam brother

You haven't asked a question, so I don't know want you want an answer for, but I haven't contradicted myself. There is no sectarian strife, Shias and Sunnia were getting a long perfectly fine, they have done so for hundreds of years until certain western forces decided to play on the spilt for their own advantages. They love destabilisation and conflict between Muslims, it provides them easy access to the natural resources in the Middles East. ISIS is an arm of Saudi-sponsored global Salafi-takfiris, who we know are supported and protected by the USA and UK. This is no coincidence. Haider al-Khoie got it right on Newsnight and a rather frazzled Robin Yassin-Kassab agreed.

They loved Saddam for many years when he allowed them access to their oil and when he refused their contracts, he got overthrown. Wahabbis, who are usually not Arab but Arab wannabes, or Somalians have failed to realise that Western forces have for years played on the Sunni-Shia divide, using Saudi Arabia to instigate the tensions, thinking that they are defending Islam when in fact they are nothing more than puppets who are creating untold misery for millions of Muslims, and displacing millions. The Saudis obviously make the most of the sunni-shia spilt, that's why they're still in power.

So there is no sectarian strife per se, until it is hyped up by those in power for their own purposes. Now those in power in Iraq are Shia, and are abusing Sunnis, but the average shia is not responsible for this, just like the average sunni isn't for the abuse of Shias in Pakistan. I hope that has cleared my position.

Walaikum Asalam brother

You haven't asked a question, so I don't know want you want an answer for, but I haven't contradicted myself. There is no sectarian strife, Shias and Sunnia were getting a long perfectly fine, they have done so for hundreds of years until certain western forces decided to play on the spilt for their own advantages. They love destabilisation and conflict between Muslims, it provides them easy access to the natural resources in the Middles East. ISIS is an arm of Saudi-sponsored global Salafi-takfiris, who we know are supported and protected by the USA and UK. This is no coincidence. Haider al-Khoie got it right on Newsnight and a rather frazzled Robin Yassin-Kassab agreed.

They loved Saddam for many years when he allowed them access to their oil and when he refused their contracts, he got overthrown. Wahabbis, who are usually not Arab but Arab wannabes, or Somalians have failed to realise that Western forces have for years played on the Sunni-Shia divide, using Saudi Arabia to instigate the tensions, thinking that they are defending Islam when in fact they are nothing more than puppets who are creating untold misery for millions of Muslims, and displacing millions. The Saudis obviously make the most of the sunni-shia spilt, that's why they're still in power.

So there is no sectarian strife per se, until it is hyped up by those in power for their own purposes. Now those in power in Iraq are Shia, and are abusing Sunnis, but the average shia is not responsible for this, just like the average sunni isn't for the abuse of Shias in Pakistan. I hope that has cleared my position.

This whole thing just once again reminds me of the brilliant Sheikh Buti, may Glod bless his beautiful soul. Muslims were too stupid to take heed of his words, the khawaarij blew his head.

This whole thing just once again reminds me of the brilliant Sheikh Buti, may Glod bless his beautiful soul. Muslims were too stupid to take heed of his words, the khawaarij blew his head.

I asked you to prove that the groups i listed were khawaarij.
You said you didn't need to.
I said yes you do as you stated there was no sectarian strife
You made this post.


That makes your position more clear, although i largely see it as irrelevant (relevant to clarification though) given that i was specifically referring to the current situation and none of the history,

We had different views of the word "sectarian" in this context so i wasn't clear on what you were saying.

2 quick questions to wrap everything up

1) do you make a distinction between shia' and raafidah.
2) do you call those groups i listed khawaarij.

You do know that either Nuh Ha Mim Keller or Muhammad Al Yacoubi (I can't remember which or if it was both) said the regime killed him because he was going to defect and none of the rebels took responsibility for it?

I don't think dwarfs have the divinity to bless anyone.

1) yes, I personally know many Shias who accept the four rightly guided khalifahs. I still don't believe it is acceptable to murder anyone for being a "raafidah" though, and i never will.

2) I don't categorically label everyone from those groups as khawaarij, but anyone who thinks they have God's permission to go and chop someones head off because he is a shia, then i think of them as khawarij. i despise them, and they are responsible for the tensions and disunity between Muslims in the middle East.

1) yup good, same here.

2) I see. Islamically speaking that would make them takfeeriyoon rather than khawaarij wouldn't it? The usool of the madhab of the khawaarij is their takfeer on kabaair and khurooj no?

Defect to what? He never defended the regime like some wahabbis have claimed.

oh ok, then they are the takfeeriyoon

That's if they are guilt

He was going to categorically expose the regimes crimes is what was said, i think it was Muhammad al Yacoubi who said it who is known to be in good contact with him.