بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
السلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاته

I understand where you are coming from, I understand that alot of the muslimeen are confused regarding the Taliban and some other factions of the muslimeen. However we should take into account that the messenger of Allah (صلى الله عليه وسلم) did have what is known as "peace treaties" with disbelievers. Therefore there is no sin on the Taliban for choosing to make treaties with china. However I also understand that there is no "peace treaty" with a kafir nation who fights the muslimeen. China does not occupy any muslim land even though they oppress the muslims in china.

There is no denying that the khawarijj "fight the muslims and leave the disbelievers". Likewise do we not see that baghdadi's crew have attacked muslims the most? even more than Bashar al Assad? When they attacked [the muslim factions] of the Free Syrian Army? when they attacked Jabhat al Nusra When they attacked Ahrar Asham etc? How can we take this quote out of context and say "they fight disbelievers therefore such a trait does not apply"? Even if this quote did not apply onto baghdadi's soldiers, there are only two traits needed to deem a group to be khariji. Which is Takfir and Qitaal of muslims. We do not see every khariji group cutting the robbers hands from the shoulder or shaving their heads. Therefore every khariji group is different.

I should also mention that from one of the lectures of Shaykh Anwar al Awlaqi (رحمه الله) , the shaykh touched on the topic of khawarijj in detail. explaining many ahadith. among which he (رحمه الله) mentioned the hadith of the messenger of Allah where he (صلى الله عليه وسلم) says that after every khariji group, there will appear a new one. and after that one gets amputated, there will come a new one. He (صلى الله عليه وسلم) has been said to have repeated this for Twenty whole times.

Another hadith [about the fitna that occured between the sahaba] states that "the one who's sitting is better than the one who's standing and the one who's standing is better than the one whos walking and the one who's walking is better than the one who's running." Can we not apply this on the civil war between Ad-Dawlah and other groups of the muslimeen such as Tanzhim al Qaeda and At-Taliban? even if you persist on your support for the so called islamic state? especially when there are so much you are unsure of when it comes to your takfir of the muslims.

As for your claim of the Islamic State being a “caliphate” after it’s unrightfully split from Tanzhim Al Qaeda, this is not true. As the conditions of a caliphate were not fulfilled. Where is the ahlul hall was aqd? Where is the shura? The shura that lead to the election of Baghdadi is only found in your Dabiq magazines. The messenger of Allah says: “… So if any person gives the pledge of allegiance to somebody [to become a caliph] without consulting the other muslims, then the one he has selected should not be granted allegiance lest both of them should be killed.” Focus on when he (صلى الله عليه وسلم) said “the other muslims”. Was the shura of Jabht Al nusra consulted? Was the shura of Ahrar Asham consulted? You will find that only the so called shura of Iraq was involved and even that is according to some pdfs. Not a valid proof. In the first days where Baghdadi claimed that he was the caliph of the muslims, no factions came fourth to give bayah. Even unto this day not a single faction, not the least and not the greatest have pledged allegiance to Abu bakr al Baghdadi. Not even Book haram, yet alone Ansar al sharia. It’s only [a few] of their soldiers who have been misguided or bribed with lead them to pledge allegiance to al Baghdadi.

I understand that these times are times of fitan and times of confusion for the muslimeen. May Allah Aid our good intentions and guide us to the right path and make us among the caravan of shuhadah. Ameen.

السلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاته

It brings a coolness to my heart to see a munasir, someone who rejects false caliphates and embraces the haqq by expressing unity between the factions whether its in afghanistan or Mali.

I'd like to advice you my brother, to be careful with the term "khariji". There is no doubt that the so called "islamic state" who broke bayah from shaykh ayman hafidhuhullah are khawarijj as they have made the blood of muslims halal and accused them of kufr. However random muslims who don't know the reality behind the muslim civil war wouldnt know the khuruj of such a state until they are told. And even if they [the followers and not the soldiers] continue to persist in their musguidance, We are unable to label the individuals as khawarijj until we specifically see them making takfir of muslims and commiting qitaal of muslims. So beware my brother of calling people khawarijj. Only the ones who spill the blood of muslims and accuse them of disbeleif are khawarijj. May Allah keep us All on the right path and take form us our blood so that we may become shuhadah. Allahumma ameen. - Random Munasir