A well meaning (and partially true) tweet that nonetheless simplifies a very real problem that Muslim jurists (and counter extremist thinkers) have yet to address properly https://twitter.com/CraigCons/status/1317444290864447490

It's an issue that came to a head with ISIS, which on a daily basis committed unspeakable atrocities in the name of religion. At the time I was particularly interested in how traditional Islamic scholars who denounced those acts would respond.

The main problem was the following: for each atrocity, ISIS was able to reproduce citations from the Quran, sunnah and scholarly works justifying the deed. The denunciations (by Azhar for example) were sparse on proofs.

This isn't to say ISIS correctly interpreted those proofs. Interpreting scriptures and translating them into a law is sophisticated discipline that was often beyond their grasp.

For instance, in an interview I asked the unlamented British ISIS member Omar Hussein how he justified to himself the Manchester concert bombing, seeing as the act was sure to kill young girls.

Classic scholars had made an allowance for "collateral" killings, citing the fact that the prophet conducted night raids (you can't really see who you're attacking) and used a catapult once. But surely not intentionally targeting children, I asked?

Hussein responded (I'm not joking): "As for the killing of little girls then it is permissible 2 kill the kuffaar as they kill us. I don't remember the exact verse, google it inshallah"

Another British jihadist announced that he believed himself to now be a mujtahid and capable of excommunicating Muslims (he posthumously excommunicated Saudi jurist Bin Baz) while a third set about theorizing about ISIS being a promised caliphate.

But tangents aside, ISIS often reproduced verses from scriptures and canon. Take for instance the tweet cited at the start of this thread: ISIS/AQ types would simply respond: yes, the prophet did forebear in Mecca before the hijra. After hijra, it was different