“The criterion is the Shariah. Any movement acting in violation of the Shariah is Baatil.”


“Abu Hurairah (radhiyallahu anhu) narrated: ‘I was in the home of Ibn Abbaas radhiyallahu anhu). He said: ‘Lock the door. Is there anyone else here besides us (i.e. the Sahaabah)?’ They said: ‘No.’ Then Ibn Abbaas (radhiyallahu anhu) said: “When you see the black flags coming from the east, then honour the riders, for verily our victory is in them.” (Then Abu Hurairah (radhiyallahu anhu) said): ‘I said to Ibn Abbaas: ‘Should I not narrate to you what I had heard from Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam)?’ He said: ‘And, were you surely there?’ I said: ‘Yes.’ He said: ‘Narrate!’ Then I said:

“I heard Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) saying: “When the black flags appear, then verily, its beginning will be a fitnah (trial/anarchy/ mischief). Its middle will be dhalaal (deviation from the Haqq), and its end will be kufr.”

Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) narrated:

“When you see the black flags, then cling to the earth (i.e. remain where you are). Do not move your hands nor your feet (i.e. do not aid them in any way). Then will appear insignificant people for whom there is no consideration. Their hearts will be like pieces of iron. They will be people of regimes. They will not fulfil promises nor honour pledges. They will (ostensibly) call to the Haqq (Truth) while they (themselves) will not be people of the Haqq. Their names will be patronyms (e.g. Abu this and Abu that), and their relationship will be to towns (cities, etc.). Their hair will be long like the hair of women. (They will perpetrate their shenanigans) until they will differ among themselves. Then Allah will award the Haqq to whomever He wills.” (Kitaabul Fitan of Abu Nuaim)

ISIS is summed up in a nutshell in these Ahaadith. The spectacular rush to ‘victory’ of ISIS – their swift conquest of the city of Mosul, the flight and melting away of the 30,000 Shiah army stationed in the precincts of Mosul, and the rapid capture of large swathes of territory in Syria and Iraq and of important oilfields which are the life-support of the U.S.A. by ISIS are not without mystery. While a number of theories have been provided by people of diverse backgrounds, what appears clear is that the fellow, Al-Bagdadi is a bogus ‘caliph’, or he is the deputy ‘caliph’ while the real ‘caliph’ is sitting in Washington, namely, Murtad Obama who in turn is the surrogate puppet of the Yahood Mafia gang in control of America. The spectacular and swift gains of ISIS appears to be parts of a massive conspiracy about which the Qur’aan says:

“…………….Verily, their plots are such that even mountains can move (from their locations or be displaced).”

Some contend that the swift ‘victory’ of ISIS is due to Allah’s Nusrat (Aid). The facts on the ground do not support this theory. The ‘victory’ of ISIS is superficial. When Allah’s Aid arrives, no air force, no army, no nuclear power can stall and thwart it. The Victory will be a genuine Victory which will spread like wildfire and be unstoppable. It will be similar to the Nusrat which was with the Sahaabah who had spilled out from the desert to overrun the world in a matter of a decade. Like a raging storm and a wildfire they raised the Standard of Islam on shores of the Atlantic Ocean in the West, and penetrated China in the East.

What type of ‘nusrat’ does ISIS enjoy? It has not managed to take Baghdad nor has it indicated any serious concern for marching on Baghdad. It trumpets about invading and taking Spain, when it is miserably impotent to go to the aid of the Palestinians being butchered by Israel. It issues hollow and laughable threats of reaching Washington whilst Baghdad is right on its doorstep, held by a cripple, miserable Shiah rag-tag government.

The U.S.A. cannot afford that Saudi Arabia, Iraq, in fact the entire Middle East with its oil wealth, slip out of its control and influence. The U.S. will never voluntarily quit the Middle east. Its survival as a super power is dependent on Middle eastern oil wealth. The inertia and the little concern which the U.S. has displayed over the events unfolding in Iraq are uncanny and peculiar.

To kill a single commander in Afghanistan, the U.S. sends a drone and in the process kills a number of people in the house where the commander is believed to be. America has dispatched numerous drones on missions targeting individuals. It has mercilessly bombed the mud-huts of village folk and their fields. Yet, it is so complacent about the advances of ISIS whose fighters move openly in convoys of armoured vehicles which are perfect targets for easy bombing. But America desists from striking the unprotected military convoys of ISIS.

The recent couple of air strikes are ploys for covering the role of the U.S. who appears to be the handler of ISIS. If the U.S. had no role in the rise of ISIS, it would not have remained an idle spectator for so long, allowing Iraq to fall into the hands of the “terrorists”, and Iraq becoming the headquarters for “terrorists” who will soon be threatening Israel, Saudi Arabia and the other surrogate puppets of America. Despite ISIS military targets being exposed and moving in the open desert with impunity being easy fodder for U.S. warplanes and drones, America has become a backseat-spectator.

ISIS is not an Islamic Khilaafate. It is in fact an American ‘caliphate’ to serve U.S. and Saudi interests. If ISIS is a movement of Haqq and if its superficial ‘victories’ are the consequence of Divine Aid (Allahs’s Nusrat), it would have by this time overrun Baghdad, consolidating its position and bringing the entire Iraq under its domination. This would have been the immediate scenario. Without an established headquarters, it is not possible to execute the objectives of a Khilaafate – genuine Khilaafate such as the Khilaafate of the Sahaabah and the Taabieen.

If ISIS is a movement of Haqq, it would not have brutally uprooted the non-Muslim communities of Iraq. Hundreds of thousands of non-Muslims (Christians, Yazidis and Shiahs) have fled their homes. Non-Muslims in an Islamic state are the target for Da’wat and Tabligh, not for Qatl (killing). The objective of Jihad is I’laa Kalimatullah – to raise the Word of Allah Ta’ala, that is Islam. Why did the entire non-Muslim population flee? The fear of being pillaged, plundered and killed drove them to abandon their homes and the land where they had lived for thousands of years.

When the Sahaabah invaded the lands of the kuffaar, there was no mass exodus of non-Muslims. When non-Muslims in an Islamic state opt for retaining their religion, Islam imposes on them a tax called Jizyah. The benefits of this tax are welcome to the non- Muslim citizens of the Islamic state. In lieu of Jizyah, their life and property are safe just as safe as that of the Muslim citizens. They are free to retain their religions. They are exempt from military duty. A wonderful bonus is the abolition of income tax and the host of other taxes and oppressive governmental levies, fines, etc. The Jizyah is a mere fraction of the bludgeoning burden of kuffaar taxation.

Thus, there is no reason for non-Muslims to flee from an Islamic state. Since ISIS is not a genuine Islamic movement of the Haqq, and since it acquits itself brutally in the same way as the kuffaar do, the non-Muslim population took flight. If ISIS is a movement of Haqq, it would not have killed ‘Sunnis’ (i.e. Bid’atis). Bid’atis may not be killed. The process of reformation and eliminating Bid’ah is gradual. It is an academic and an educational process.

ISIS is perpetrating the same crimes of murder as had the Saudis when they were installed as the ‘Islamic’ government of Hijaaz subsequently and wrongfully dubbed, ‘Saudi Arabia’. Hijaaz is not the property of the Saudi nomads who have been transformed into royalty by their handler, Britain. Muslims should not be so gullible as to fall into the trap of any one who raises the slogan of Khilaafate and Jihad. It is now in vogue to cite the Ahaadith of the Black Flags for claiming legitimacy. Our criterion is not the ‘black flags’. The criterion is the Shariah. Any movement acting in violation of the Shariah is Baatil. 


A Concerned Brother, in defence of ISIS, writes:

“I read your article regarding ISIS a few days ago and I find it necessary to clear some of the propaganda and misconceptions that has hit each and everyone of us due to the dajjali media. The saddest thing is that all the so-called Sufis hate ISIS because they are destroying the shrines, the molvis are hating ISIS because the ISIS are too harsh. The Taliban also say things like ISIS are too harsh in destroying the shrine of such great waliullahs. I don’t understand why are ISIS being criticized for upholding tauheed? Wallahi it saddens me to the core to see such attitude from us so called deeni people, leave alone the general public.

I just want to clarify a few points from your article if you may allow:

“An Islamic state presents the option of Jizyah to the non-Muslims, and in lieu guarantees their freedom and protection. Their life, honour and property are safe in the hands of the Muslim rulers and the Muslim citizenry. An Islamic state where the non-Muslim component lives in fear is not a genuine Shar’I state”

The reality is that ISIS has offered Jizyah to the non-muslims living under their rule. They have a proper office called Ahl uz zimmah where the non-muslims are explained about the Jizyah. Thousands have accepted to pay the Jizyah and Christians praise the ISIS for providing them protection.

This is the official statement from Dawlah Islamiyah ISIS to the Christians. First they called the head of the Christian community but the heads refused to come, then they issued this statement which clearly states: 1) Islam  2) Jizyah  3) Sword, and the fourth option as ihsaan on the Christians is that ameer ul mumineen Ibrahim db allows them to leave the ISIS control areas if they refuse to pay the Jizyah.

ISIS moved into Mosul last month and made no secret of their plans to impose the tax. Yesterday, after Christian leaders didn’t attend a meeting called by IS leaders, IS moved on those plans, issuing a formal statement. The text of the statement was simple:

We offer them three choices: Islam; the dhimma contract – involving payment of Jizya; if they refuse this they will have nothing but the sword.

ISIS has imposed the Jizyah and the people who fled didn’t want to pay the Jizyah, the Islamic state let them leave, they can’t force anyone to live under them. Hundreds of fire worshipping yazidis have become muslims under ISIS due to their good conduct…”


(1) Undoubtedly, the western media is ‘dajjaali’. However, our view is not structured on any basis acquired from the dajjaali media. A salient feature regarding the media response to the ISIS group is their (the media’s) uncanny silence and their abstention from condemning ISIS in the way their standard policy requires when dealing with other Muslim ‘terror’ groups.Their ‘criticism’ of ISIS is lukewarm just as lukewarm as the fake U.S. air strikes ‘against’ ISIS. Their lukewarm criticism is a facet of the American orchestration taking place in Iraq and Syria. Nothing of our view is the product of the western dajjaali media.

(2) Also, nothing of our view is based on ‘sufi hate’ for ISIS on account of the latter’s destruction of the shrines of bid’ah and shirk. What do you see in our view which could be associated with ‘sufi hate’ influence? The bid’ati so-called sufis hate ISIS on account of their shrines. Others condemn ISIS for other reasons.

(3) The Mujahideen of whom the ISIS personnel was an integral constituent, condemn ISIS not because of the ‘sufi hate’ element, nor because of the dajjaali media. The case of the Mujahideen has been elaborately presented by the Shaikhs and Ulama associated with the Mujahideen. They are the Ulama under whose guidance even Abu Bakr Baghdadi had operated.

(4) We do not know to which “molvis” you are referring. Our view is not based on any view expressed by any ISIS hating molvi.

(5) If the Taliban did in fact say that ISIS is “too harsh” because of their shrine-breaking, we are not aware of it. Further, the Taliban’s view is unrelated to our view. We do not base our view on the Taliban’s view.

(6) Your observation: “I don’t understand why are ISIS being criticized for upholding tauheed.”,betrays irrational bias. Who has criticized ISIS for upholding Tauheed? Were it the Mujahideen in Iraq and Syria or the Taliban or Al-Haq? If a Muslim criticizes Tauheed, does he remain a Muslim? In the lengthy statements issued by the Mujahideen Ulama is there a single criticism of ISIS for upholding Tauheed? Brother, one is required to reflect before making emotional comments. Even the bid’ati ‘sufis’ do no criticize ISIS for Tauheed. They criticize ISIS for destroying their shrines which in their religion are not in conflict with Tauheed. If the bid’ati criticism of ISIS is accepted as criticism of Tauheed, by what stretch of logic and justice can you claim that the Mujahideen Ulama who are currently criticizing ISIS do so on account of ISIS upholding Tauheed?

(7) The issue of Jizyah is not the fundamental basis on which criticism of ISIS is based. It is a Juzwi (a particular) issue. It is not because of the Jizyah mas’alah that the ranks of the Mujahideen have been so severely ruptured by ISIS.

(8) ISIS is criticized and ISIS is plodding the path of dhalaal (deviation) for having broken ranks with the Mujahideen with whom they were associated. Abu Bakr Baghdadi has become a Baaghi (treacherous rebel) against the authority of his Amir. ISIS has not offered a single valid Shar’i basis for breaking ranks in flagrant violation of the Qur’aan and Hadith which command solidifying the ranks. The unity of the Mujahideen has been severely ruptured by ISIS without any valid Shar’i grounds. A difference in methodology does not permit breaking of the ranks, disunity and defying the Amir. The Amir may be disobeyed only if his commands are in violation of the Shariah. ISIS has not presented any such argument in its defence nor has any of its supporters.

(9) ISIS is directly responsible for the severe infighting among the Mujahideen and for the killing of innumerable Mujahideen, and also for the killing of Mujahid commanders. In so doing, ISIS has been surreptitiously fostering the U.S. conspiracy. Did ISIS take to the Jihad field to kill Mujahideen?

(10) Whilst hitherto Jabhatun Nusra and other Jihad groups have explained their position, ISIS has not presented any valid Shar’i justification for its treacherous rebellion against the Amir. The breaking of shrines and the imposition of Jizyah (if the information is correct) are mere red herrings to justify the baghaawat (treachery) of ISIS. What are the grounds for justifying the act of breaking away from the Mujahideen, rebelling against the Amir and killing brother Mujahideen?

(11) The alleged good conduct of ISIS to the Yazidis does not justify the breaking of Mujahideen ranks by ISIS. It does not explain why ISIS perpetrated baghaawat towards its Amir. It is no compensation for killing Brother Mujahideen.

(12) While you have tried to favourably explain ISIS’s handling of the Jizyah issue, you have overlooked the most important aspect, namely, breaking the ranks of the Mujahideen and rebelling against the command of his Amir, which culminated in the killing of numerous Mujahideen by ISIS.

“O People of Imaan! When you meet the enemy, then be firm and remember Allah much so that you be victorious. And obey Allah and His Rasool, and do not dispute (among yourselves), for then (your hearts) will become weak, and your wind (power) will be depleted. And, have Sabr. Verily Allah is with the Saabireen.” (Al-Anfaal, Aayats 45 and 46)

“Verily, Allah loves those who fight in His Path in Ranks as if they are one solid steel wall.” (As-Saff, Aayat 4) 

[Maulana A S Desai]


  1. Abdullah Mikaeel

    Assalaam alaikum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatahu

    JazakAllah khair for the brilliant article.

    My thoughts and concern are:

    1. Now the US is making huge plans to ‘destroy’ ISIS and has drawn out a map too. What should be our position(the powerless Muslim Ummah)? Should we actively defend against US interfering in Iraq again? Or should we condemn ISIS and allow the other (spineless) Muslim nations to be partners to the US?
    2. Also, what is to be the position with respect to Iran? Shias, yes but can we support it against US?


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *