You Can’t Understand “Islamic” Terrorism If You Don’t Know the History of Sunni “Islam”

Praise be to Allah (swt), for Allah (swt) forgives all sins: for He is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

As-salāmu `alaykum, since the terrible terrorist attack carried out in 2001, we hear every day about the acts of terrorism commited in the name of Islam. Some people say that terrorism has no religion, others say that terrorism is sanctioned and justified by the religion of Islam, as such acts are mainly carried out by self-described Muslims. Both statements couldn’t be further from the truth, terrorism has religion, and that religion is Sunni “Islam.”

One may say, but some of the Sunni “Muslims” condemn acts of terrorism. Yes and no. In 2001, the only majority Muslim country on Earth that immediatly condemned the 9/11 events as unislamic was…Shia Iran. The hijackers in the September 11 attacks were 19 men (all of them Sunni “Muslims”) affiliated with al-Qaeda. 15 of the 19 were citizens of Saudi Arabia. The others were from the United Arab Emirates (2), Egypt and Lebanon. Sunni states’ “condemnetion” of al-Qaeda and the “Islamic” State comes from the international pressure on them, not because those states differ ideologically and religiously from the terrorist organizations. All Sunnis worlwide use the same hadith books and adhere to the same main Sunni schools of jurisprudence.

Sufis, a friendlier face of the Sunni terrorism 

Within the Sunni cult, the condemnetion of Sunni terrorists comes mainly and primarly from the Sunni Sufi groups because ironically, Sufis are considered heretics and apostates by the mainstream Sunnis. However, they themselves are radicals in their own understanding. The perception in the West of Sufis being a peace loving creatures that write poetry (i.e. Rumi), play instruments and dance, as the whirling dervishes of Turkey, was propagated by the European Orientalists. Take as an example, Sunni Sufi Barelvis (Barelvi is a term used for the movement following the Sunni Hanafi school of jurisprudence, originating in Bareilly with over 200 million followers in South Asia. The name derives from the north Indian town of Bareilly, the hometown of its founder and main leader Ahmed Raza Khan Barelvi (1856–1921). Although Barelvi is the commonly used term in the media and academia, the followers of the movement often prefer to be known by the title of Ahle Sunnat wal Jama’at, or simply as Sunnis), are at war with  the Deobandi movement (that includes famous Taliban).

While both the Barelvi and Deobandi movements are Sunni Sufi “Muslims” that accept the Sunni Hanafi school of jurisprudence, they differ on fundamental beliefs and way in practicing Sufism. The scholars of each movement accuse the other of heresies. Ahmad Raza Khan, the founder of Barelvis, went as far as to declare all Deobandis infidels and apostates. Deobandi “scholars” returned the favour and accused Barelvis of the same thing. In the 1990s and 2000s, sporadic violence resulted from disputes between the Barelvi and Deobandi movements over control of Pakistani mosques, with the conflict coming to a head in May 2001 when sectarian riots broke out after the assassination of Sunni Tehreek leader Saleem Qadri. In April 2006 in Karachi, a bomb attack on a Barelvi gathering in celebration of Muhammad’s birthday killed at least 57 people, including several central leaders of the Sunni Tehreek. In April 2007, Sunni Tehreek activists attempted forcibly to gain control of a Deobandi mosque in Karachi, opening fire on the mosque and those inside, killing one person and injuring three others. On 27 February 2010, militants believed to be affiliated with the Taliban and Sipah-e-Sahaba attacked Barelvis celebrating mawlid in Faisalabad and Dera Ismail Khan, again sparking tensions among the rival Sunni Sufi movements. On 4 January 2011, former governor of Punjab Salmaan Taseer was assassinated by a member of the Barelvi group Dawat-e-Islami due to his opposition to the blasphemy law in Pakistan. Over five hundred “scholars” of the Barelvi movement voiced support for the crime and urged a boycott of Taseer’s funeral. Sunni Tehreek rewarded the assassin’s family and threatened Taseer’s family, while another Barelvi group abducted Taseer’s son. Supporters attempted to prevent police from bringing the perpetrator to an anti-terrorism court, blocking the way and cheering on the assassin.

In line with the traditions of Sunni terrorism, Ahmad Raza Khan issued a fatwa against beliefs and faith of Shia Muslims and declared practices of Shia as kufr (apostasy). He stated that “most Shiites of his day were apostates.” It’s worthy to mention that the apostasy in Sunni understanding carries an automatic death sentence, and whoever carries it out, will be granted acess to the paradise in the hereafter.

As of 2016, there is more than 50 armed Sunni terrorist organizations operating in Pakistan alone. Many of them are “peace loving” Sufis.

Afghanistan, and the Sunni Sufi Caliphate of Mohammed Omar

The Taliban are Sunni Sufi “Muslims” whose ideology was inspired by Sunni “scholar” Shah Waliullah Dehlawi (1703–1762). The movement traces its origin to the Pakistani-trained mujahideen in northern Pakistan, during the Soviet–Afghan War. The United States and Saudi Arabia joined the struggle against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan by providing all the funds. About 90,000 Afghans, including Mohammed Omar, were trained by Pakistan’s ISI (secret services) during the 1980s. After the fall of the Soviet-backed regime of Mohammad Najibullah in 1992, several Afghan political parties agreed on a peace and power-sharing agreement, the Peshawar Accord. However, the Taliban did not and went on the offensive. The Islamic Republic of Iran supported the government in Kabul, as well as Afghan armed militias on the ground (such as Hezbe Wahdat), all battling the fundamentalist Sunni psychopaths in the warn torn Afghanistan, long before the US invasion in 2001. At the same time, Saudi Arabia (the closest US ally in the region) and Pakistan (another US ally), continued to support the Taliban, al-Qaeda and various other Sunni terrorist organizations in Afghanistan. In 2001, Pakistan carried out operation known in the West as the “Kunduz airlift“, as described in several reports, the Taliban and Al-Qaeda combatants were safely evacuated from Kunduz and airlifted by Pakistan Air Force cargo aircraft to Pakistan Air Force bases in Chitral and Gilgit in Pakistan-administered Kashmir’s Northern Areas. At its peak, formal diplomatic recognition of the Taliban’s government was acknowledged by three nations: Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. All three are US allies.

The Taliban are known for commiting the acts of genocide against religious minorities (Afghan Christians, Hindus, Shia Muslims). The Afghan Shia Muslims who make up 20-25% of the population, particulary the ethnic Hazara group known for their distinct Asiatic features, were targeted primarly in the Taliban campaign of “cleansing the country of infidels.” They (the Taliban) were also condemned internationally for their brutal repression of women. All acts carried out with justification from the “authentic” Sunni books of ahadith (note that Shi’a Muslims do NOT use the six major hadith collections followed by the Sunni, as they do not trust the Sunni narrators and transmitters. Shia have their own extensive hadith literature; free of terrorism, violence, justifications for peadophilia, repression of women or the minorities, particulary the Jews.)

Boko Haram, al-Shabab, al-Qaeda and the Daesh (“Islamic State”) et al., the children of the Sunni theology

Many Western authors assume that the modern day (1980’s till now) terrorism comes from the teachings of the Saudi theological schools, as Wahhabism is a state sanctioned version of Sunnism in the country, ruled by the al-Saud absolute monarchy. The statement is partially true, as one shouldn’t overlook the fact that Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab was influenced in his ideas by other Sunni “scholars” that came long before him.

Wahhab’s terrorist producing and sanctioning teachings weren’t unique to him, Sunni “scholar” Ibn Taymiyyah already wrote 700 years ago that Shia Muslims are apostates and infidels worthy of death. In the wake of the war in Syria, famous Ibn Taymiyya’s fatwa on Alawites as “more infidel than Christians and Jews” (note the terrorist mindset already, us vs.them) has been recited by Muslim Brotherhood affiliated Sunni scholar Yusuf al-Qaradawi and the Syrian rebel Sunni leader of Jaysh al-Islam Zahran Alloush, in their justifications for the anti-Alawite genocide (note, the fatwas do not target Assad’s regime, but the whole Alawite sect, regardless if associated with Assad’s Syria, or not). The original fatwa calling Alawites “Nusayris” from the name of their founder, stated

“the Nusayris are more infidel than Jews or Christians, even more infidel than many polytheists. They have done greater harm to the community of Muhammad than have the warring infidels such as the Franks, the Turks, and others. To ignorant Muslims they pretend to be Shi’is, though in reality they do not believe in God or His prophet or His book…Whenever possible, they spill the blood of Muslims…They are always the worst enemies of the Muslims…war and punishment in accordance with Islamic law against them are among the greatest of pious deeds and the most important obligations.” – Ibn Taymiyyah, as quoted by Daniel Pipes (1992). Greater Syria. Oxford University Press. p. 163. ISBN 9780195363043.


Ibn Taymiyyah was extremely critical of Shia Muslims and considered them “religiously bankrupt”, “among the most morally depraved people” and “the root cause of many Islamic ills.” His severe critique of Shia Islam culminated in writing a book, Minhaj as-Sunnah an-Nabawiyyah. He focused his criticisms to the similarity between Shia, Christians and Jews..

Another target of Ibn Taymiyyah’s Sunni hatred, were Christians. In his work, Al-Jawāb al-Ṣaḥīḥ li-man baddala dīn al-Masīh, he wrote that Christianity was not divinely inspired but a cult of idolatrous pagans. Among his most famous students was Ibn Qayyim Al-Jawziyya. Ibn Qayyim wrote the famous poem “O Christ-Worshipper”, which “proved” (in his view) that Christian dogma of Trinity is nothing more or less than a polytheism. Therefore, as a polytheists, the Christian (same as Shia Muslim) blood was and is halal to be spilled.

Ibn Taymiyyah was noted for emphasis he put on the importance of armed jihad and for the “careful and lengthy attention” he gave “to the questions of martyrdom” in jihad, such as benefits and blessings to be had for martyrs in the afterlife. He asserted that martyrdom and eternal rewards and blessings, . He wrote that,

“It is in jihad that one can live and die in ultimate happiness, both in this world and in the Hereafter. Abandoning it means losing entirely or partially both kinds of happiness.” (Peters, Rudolph (1996). Jihad in Classical and Modern Islam: A Reader. Princeton: Marcus Wiener. p. 48.).

He declared:

“It is allowed to fight people for (not observing) unambiguous and generally recognized obligations and prohibitions, until they undertake to perform the explicitly prescribed prayers, to pay zakat, to fast during the month of Ramadan, to make the pilgrimage to Mecca and to avoid what is prohibited, such as marrying women in spite of legal impediments, eating impure things, acting unlawfully against the lives and properties of Muslims and the like. It is obligatory to take the initiative in fighting those people, as soon as the Prophet’s summons with the reasons for which they are fought has reached them. But if they first attack the Muslims then fighting them is even more urgent, as we have mentioned when dealing with the fighting against rebellious and aggressive bandits.” (DeLong-Bas, Natana J. (2004). Wahhabi Islam: From Revival and Reform to Global Jihad (First ed.). New York: Oxford University Press, USA. pp. 252–3. ISBN 0-19-516991-3.)

By many Sunnis, Ibn Taymiyyah is named “Shaykh al-Islām” (honorific title used for outstanding scholars of the Islamic sciences). He was one of many earlier Sunni terrorists in history, whose writings inspired, inspire and will continue inspiring millions of Sunnis worldwide. Ibn Taymiyyah’s writings can be found in every Sunni mosque in the world, from America throught Africa to Asia. His works are a main point of references for the Sunni students studying  Sunni “Islamic” theology in the Saudi and Qatari built, sponsored and funded schools at home and abroad, including those in the West. In 2011, a newly build state mosque of Qatar, with capacity of 30,000 people, was named after al-Wahhab.

Not surprisingly, many schools in the “Islamic State” controlled territories are named after Ibn Taymiyyah or Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab:


Al-Qaeda and ISIS regulary use fatwas of both Sunni “scholars”, among others, to justify their actions. So do sheikhs of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and other places (such as Pakistan, Egypt, Chechnya et al.). Despite controlling 48 out of 49 Muslim majority countries, Sunnis consider Shia Muslims to be an archenemies, and blame them for all the ills. Second to Shias, are Christians and Jews. Neither Ibn Taymiyyah, nor al-Wahhab are solely at the root of Sunni theology that is a factory for worldwide terrorism. The roots of it go all the way back to the very beginning.

The Sunni “rigthly guided” Caliphs and the concept of a Sunni “Islamic” Caliphate, the very first terrorists that cause reoccurring terrorist utopia  

As other Prophets before him, Prophet Muhammad in a speech given on 18th of Dhu al-Hijjah of 10 AH in the Islamic calendar (Sunday, March 15, 632 AD) appointed Ali (the cousin and son-in-law of the Islamic prophet Muhammad, and the husband of his daughter, Fatima) as his heir and successor at the pond of Khumm. Ali’s appointment was at first accepted by everybody, but over the time (especially after the death of Prophet Muhammad), he encountered fierce opposition from some of the other companions of the Prophet, including his wife, Aisha (the daughter of Abu Bakr). While the Prophet was buried by his family, or Ahlul Bayt, few Companions met secretly at Saqifa to decide on who should rule over the Islamic nation, despite the fact of Ali’s previous appointment. Umar gave bayyah (oath of allegiance) to Abu Bakr, thus Abu Bakr became the first Sunni “rightly guided” Caliph. To avoid fitna (sedition, civil war), strictly forbbiden in the Quran and described as “worse than killing”, Ali decided to take a passive resistance and keep a low profile. Many close companions of the Prophet, including whole Arab tribes, refused to give bayyah to Abu Bakr, by stating that Ali was chosen to lead the Islamic nation by the Prophet himself. By logic, if Muhammad had predicted the four caliphs as Rashidun (“Rightly Guided Caliphs”), then there was no need for the secret meeting at Saqifah to decide the first caliph and the later three caliphs.

Those Muslims that took the side of Prophet Muhammad’s family, are know as Shia Muslims, Shīʻatu ʻAlī (شيعة علي, “followers of Ali”). Those who took the side of enemies of the Prophet’s family, named themselves Sunnis, to differiate from Shias. Sunnis assert that their name is a short for ahl as-sunnah wa l-jamāʻah (Arabic: أهل السنة والجماعة‎), “people of the tradition”; tradition of Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Aisha, Muawiya, Yazid and Khalid ibn al-Walid.

The snapshots of four street signs in Saudi Arabia named after the four Sunni “Rightly Guided” Caliphs, note that after the name of Ali ibn Abi Talib there’s no “Rahimahullah” (English: Allah have mercy upon him).

Many Caliphs, one Caliphate

Since the fall of the Ottoman Empire, various Sunni leaders called themselves Caliphs and decalred the establishment of a Caliphate, thus making it obligatory upon all Sunnis to give bayyah (oath of allegiance) to them:

In Afghanistan, on 4 April 1996, supporters (the Taliban) of Mohammed Omar bestowed on him the title Amir al-Mu’minin (أمير المؤمنين, “Commander of the Faithful”),  after he donned a cloak alleged to be that of Prophet Muhammad that was locked in a series of chests, held inside the Shrine of the Cloak in the city of Kandahar. Legend decreed that whoever could retrieve the cloak from the chest would be the great Leader of the Muslims, or “Amir al-Mu’minin”. In 1998, despite receiving a personal invitation from Saudi Arabia’s ruler at the time, King Fahd, Omar did not make any obligatory pilgrimage to Mecca in his lifetime. He was succeeded by Mullah Akhtar Mansour in 2015. In April 2015, Mansour issued a fatwa declaring pledges of allegiance to the “Islamic” State group as forbidden in Islamic law. The man described ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi as a “fake caliph”, and said “Baghdadi just wanted to dominate what has so far been achieved by the real jihadists of Islam after three decades of jihad. A pledge of allegiance to him is ‘haram’.”

On 29 June 2014, the “Islamic” State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) started to call itself “Islamic State” and its leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi “caliph Ibrahim”, who accepted the title of “Amir al-Mu’minin”.

Not suprisingly, more Sunni terrorists wanted to be Caliphs. On 24 August 2014, the leader of Boko Haram in Nigeria, Abubakar Shekau, likewise declared a caliphate. His rule as a “rightly guided” Caliph was short lived, as he decided that al-Baghdadi was even more “rightly guided” than himself. On 7 March 2015, Shekau pledged allegiance to ISIL via an audio message posted on the organisation’s Twitter account. Afterwards, Boko Haram assumed the name “Wilāyat al Sūdān al Gharbī” (Arabic: ولاية السودان الغربي‎, “West Africa Province”) or “Islamic State in West Africa”.

The Emir of al-Nusra Front (al-Qaeda’s wing in Syria), refused to give bayyah to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, instead “renewing” the allegiance to the al-Qaead’s leader, Ayman al-Zawahiri.

The ISIS, al-Qaeda, Taliban and other various smaller Sunni terrorist groups engage in a low level, sporadic, armed conflict among themselves over the notion of who has a more “rightly guided” caliph. One can clearly see that the Sunni theology fails at its core. As for the title of Amir al-Mu’minin (أمير المؤمنين, “Commander of the Faithful”), (Shia) Muslim view is that Ali, the son-in-law of Prophet Muhammad and the progenitor of his only continuing lineage, was given the title during Muhammad’s era. Shias  believe the title is exclusive to Ali bin abi Talib. Being called the commander of the faithful does not entail only political authority, but spiritual and religious authority as well.

Abu Bakr, first “Rightly Guided” Sunni Caliph and Khalid ibn al-Walid, a Sunni hero named “Sword of Allah”

The rule of  first Sunni Caliph, Abu Bakr, was marked with a violent conflict with Ahlul Bayt, Prophet Muhammads’ family. Abu Bakr decided forcefully to “nationalize” the vast and huge land of Fadak, that was left to Fatima (Prophet’s daughter) as an estate inheritance. This caused Fatima to curse Abu Bakr, and complain that she won’t talk to him ever again and will complain to her father. The history is narrated in both, Shia and Sunni sources, but as usually, Sunnis try to justify the enemies of Ahlul Bayt and downplay saqifa and the conflict over Fadak.

Abu Bakr ordered that people be burned alive. (al-Riyadh al-Nadhira, volume 1, p2, ch 9, p 149.)

Abu Bakr also sent his armies against the Muslims that refused to give him zakat (religious tax), due to the fact that they refused his appointment and rule as a leader of the Islamic nation. Therefore, millions of Muslims were labeled by him as kuffar (disbelievers), and their blood became a must. The commander of each army that Abu Bakr sent out had a letter to be read to the tribe before it was attacked. The letter explained that “if the tribe did not return to Islam”, the army commander

will not spare any one of them he can gain mastery over, [but may] burn them with fire, slaughter them by any means… (Fred McGraw Donner. (1993). The History of al-Tabari (Vol. 10): The Conquest of Arabia. State University of New York Press, USA. p. 57. ISBN 0791410722.)

Abu Bakr even set the example when a captive who had fought against his armies was brought to him. The first Sunni “Rightly Guided” Caliph

ordered a fire to be kindled with much firewood in the prayer yard (musalla) of Medina and threw him, with arms and legs bound, into it. (Fred McGraw Donner. (1993). The History of al-Tabari (Vol. 10): The Conquest of Arabia. State University of New York Press, USA. p. 80. ISBN 0791410722.)

He sent the former champion general of Abu Sufyan ibn Harb, Muhammad’s former arch enemy, Khalid ibn al-Walid (named by the Sunnis “Sword of Allah”) to collect Zakat by force. Here is a command that Abu Bakr gave to Khalid:

…kill them by every means, by fire or whatever else. (Fred McGraw Donner. (1993). The History of al-Tabari (Vol. 10): The Conquest of Arabia. State University of New York Press, USA. p. 100. ISBN 0791410722.)

And Abu Bakr gave Khalid a specific command when he sent him against the Banu Hanifah in Al-Yamamah:

Kill their wounded, seek out those of them who flee, put the captives among them to the sword and strike terror among them by killing and burn them by fire. And I warn you against contradicting my orders. Peace (be upon you). (Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab At-Tamimi, The Abridged Biography of Prophet Muhammad. p. 345.)

Khalid took his Caliph’s admonitions to heart and was known for burning many captives alive. Abu Bakr’s response was,

I shall not sheathe a sword that Allah had unsheathed against the ‘unbelievers.’ (The Origins of the Islamic State, p. 148)

Shi’a refer to several hadith that mention three conditions where a Muslim blood may be shed, and not paying Zakat is not one of them.

Noteworthy, Khalid ibn al-Walid killed several famous people, including Malik ibn Nuwayrah. Khalid then “married” Malik’s beautiful wife, Layla bint al-Minhal, on the same night as he ordered the death of her husband. By Islamic law, Khalid raped her, because he did not wait for the full waiting period after her “divorce”. Khalid was recalled and questioned by the Abu Bakr – not because he killed and dined on an apostate’s head and “married” his wife, but because some believed that Malik was still Muslim, not an apostate to be treated so, and that Khalid killed him on the accusation of apostasy only as a pretext to take possession of his wife, whose beauty was renowned:

In the words of a renowed Sunni “scholar” Ibn Kathir’s authoritative historical tome, The Beginning and the End (al-bidaya we al-nihaya), “And he [Khalid] ordered his [Malik’s] head and he combined it with two stones and cooked a pot over them. And Khalid ate from it that night to terrify the apostate Arab tribes and others. And it was said that Malik’s hair created such a blaze that the meat was so thoroughly cooked.”

By logic, Abu Bakr employed one of the former arch-enemies of Islam as his highest general, and protected him when he committed murder and rape.

“Sunnah”of burning people alive continues

Some may allude that those practices were of the past, and nobody allows people to be burned alive as a punishment anymore. On February 27, 2006, a widely accesed Arabic website ( owned and operated by the Qatar’s Ministry of Awqaf and Islamic Affairs (Qataris, not surprisingly, are also a followers of Sunni Islam, in its Wahhabi form), issued Fatwa No. 71480, titled “The Burning of Ias bin Abdul Yalil by Abu Bakr.” The fatwa, or Islamic decree, concluded that burning people as a form of punishment is permissible:

The Burning of Ias bin Abdul Yalil by Abu Bakr

Fatwa No. 71480

Tuesday 2- 7- 2006

[Question]: How do we reconcile between the prohibition of burning [enemies] by fire made by the Prophet, peace be upon him, and the burning of Ias Abdul Yalil by Abu Bakr, may Allah be pleased with him, during the war of apostasy ?

[Answer]: Praise be to Allah and peace and blessings be upon the Messenger of God and his family and companions. Now:

The fact that the prophet – peace be upon him – forbade burning by fire is documented and stated in his holy hadith – peace and blessings be upon him – where he said: “No one punishes with fire except the Lord of fire,” Narrated by Abu Dawood and Ahmad in his Musnad .

The scholars differ as to whether this prohibition is for interdiction or just for humility; Ibn Hajar said in [his book] Fath Albari: “..Al Muhallab said: This prohibition is not for interdiction but just for humility, and the proof that burning is allowed is in the acts of the prophet’s companions, the prophet – peace be upon him – burned the eyes of the Oranyeen [from Orayna] with heated iron [nails]. And Abu Bakr burned the aggressors in the presence of the companions, Khalid Bin Alwalid [Muslim Army commander] burned some apostates, and most of the scholars of Medina [the prophet’s city] permit burning castles and ships, upon its people, this was stated by Althawri and Al-Awzaai. Ibn Mounir and others said: there is not a proof for permission, because the Oranyeen story was revenge, and the case of castles and ships is allowed with the necessity as a condition, if it was a way to achieve victory upon the enemy.

As for the story of Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) burning Ias Abdul Yalil with fire is documented in the books of history. In the book (Alkamel): “Ias Abdul Yalil came to Abu Bakr and said to him: help me fight the apostates by giving me arms. He gave him arms and ordered him to follow orders; he came to Muslims and even went down to Aljoa, and sent Nokhba bin Abi Almithae of Bani Sharid and appointed him an Emir on Muslims, then he raided every Muslim in the tribe of Salim, Amer, and Hawazen. Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) heard about that then he sent somebody to arrest him [Ias] and bring him back. Abu Bakr ordered a fire to be set in the prayer court then he threw him [Ias] in it with his hands tied.

If scholars have different opinions on the prohibition of burning by fire, as we have said, those who objected to burning allowed it in some exceptional cases, but there is no doubt that what Ias Abdul Yalil did was worth burning him [alive]. May Allah reward the Caliph of the Messenger of Allah – peace be upon him – for his zeal for Islam.

And Allah knows.

(Source of translation from original Arabic to English language is Raymond Ibrahim’s article titled “Qatar Published Fatwa In 2006 Permitting Burning People — Removes It After ISIS Burns Pilot“. Please be advised that the website has Islamophobic character and does not differiate between the Sunni cult and (Shia) Islam, however, the translation is accurate.)

In January, 2015, the IS burned alive captured Jordanian pilot, Muath Al-Kasasbeh. Ironically, hours after the Islamic State burned the pilot alive, Fatwa No. 71480 was removed from Qatar’s Islam Web. What is interesting to note is that the more recent fatwa issued by the Islamic State to justify the burning of the pilot makes the very same arguments as this 2006 Islam Web fatwa did — citing the same sources, Sunni hadiths, tafsirs, even the logic of “humility” — implying that IS may well have relied on this fatwa from the Qatari website when writing its own to burn the pilot alive — hence, why the fatwa has now “mysteriously” disappeared from Islam Web.

Umar ibn al-Khattab, a second Sunni “Rightly Guided” Caliph

Umar ordered the destruction of the town Arab Sous (Bughyat al-Talab, v1, pp. 330-330.)

As a graditude for his loyality, Abu Bakr named Umar as his sucessor, therefore the latter became a second Sunni Caliph. Umar is well known for physically assaulting Fatimah, wife of Ali and daughter of Muhammad, when he and Abu Bakr went to her estate to claim the Fadak. Sunni and Shia sources report that the event caused her to miscarry her child and eventually led to her death soon after. Ali ibn Abi Taleb buried his wife in an unknown location, according to Fatimah’s decision with the aim of expressing her anger towards the Abu Bakr and Umar.

Ali Asgher Razwy, a 20th century Shi’a Islamic scholar states:

“The Banu Umayya were the traditional champions of idolatry and the arch-enemies of Muhammad and his clan, the Banu Hashim. Muhammad had broken their power but Umar revived them. The central component of his policy, as head of the government of Saqifa, was the restoration of the Umayyads. He turned over Syria to them as their “fief”, and he made them the first family in the empire.”

Umar was assassinated by a Persian captured soldier named Piruz Nahavandi, whose tomb and shrine is located in Iran on the road from Kashan to Fins. His religion is unknown, althought some claim that he was a Shia Muslim. Nahavandi is seen as a hero by many Shias. After Umar’s death, Uthman became the third Sunni Caliph.

Uthman, a third Sunni “Rightly Guided” Caliph

Uthman became a Sunni Caliph by being elected in a council meeting. The six people to vote for the next Caliph among themselves (despite Ali’s previous appointment by the Prophet Muhammad), were Ali ibn Abi Talib, Abd al-Rahman ibn Awf, Sad ibn Abi Waqqas, Uthman ibn Affan, Zubayr ibn al-Awwam and Talhah. Talha was absent and did not reach Medina until after the decision had been made. The choice of a new ruler for the new Islamic empire fell to five men. Everyone in the council, except Zubair, was a relative of Uthman, therefore the voting itself was seen as a facade.

Sa’id Akhtar Rizvi, a 21st century Shi’a Islamic scholar writes:

“ On the third day, ‘Abdu ‘r-Rahman ibn ‘Awf withdrew his name and told ‘Ali that he would make him caliph if; Ali pledged to follow the Book of Allah, the traditions of the Holy Prophet and the system of Abu Bakr and ‘Umar. ‘Abdu ‘r-Rahman knew very well what his reply would be. ‘Ali (as) said, “I follow the Book of Allah, the traditions of the Holy Prophet and my own beliefs.”

Then ‘Abdu’r-Rahman put the same conditions to ‘Uthman, who readily accepted. Thus, ‘Abdu ‘r-Rahman declared ‘Uthman to be the caliph.

‘Ali (as) told ‘Abdu r-Rahman: “By Allah, you did not do it but with the same hope which he (‘Umar) had from his friend.” (He meant that ‘Abdu ‘r-Rahman had made ‘Uthman caliph hoping that ‘Uthman would nominate him as his successor.)

Then ‘Ali said, “May Allah create enmity between you two.” After a few years ‘Abdu ‘r Rahman and ‘Uthman grew to hate each others; they did not talk to each other till ‘Abdu’r Rahman died.

‘Uthman, the third Caliph, was killed by the Muslims who were not happy with his nepotism. The circumstances did not provide him the opportunity to choose his own successor. Muslims were, for the first time, really free to select or elect a caliph of their choice; they flocked to the door of ‘Ali (as).”

Sunni Caliph Uthman’s rule was so “rightly guided”, that it was marked with nepotism (he was known for making his kin, Banu Umayya, governors of key Islamic provinces, regardless of their credentials and experience) and widespread corruption, he was killed by  his own subjects during the siege on his house.

Ali ibn Abi Talib, a fourth Sunni “Rashidun Caliph”, first leader of all (Shia) Muslims, the real appointed (not chosen) successor to Prophet Muhammad

Aisha ordered that 400 men be beheaded slowly (Shahr Nahjul-Balagha, v9, p321.)

After Uthman’s death, due to the fact that he didn’t appoint his sucessor, Ali became a Caliph, however he was unable to fulfill his sucession to Muhammad as his rule was opposed by the Banu Umayya (the Arabic tribe fiercely opposed to Prophet Muhammad once he started preaching Islam. Among some, Umar, Uthman and Muawiya were its members), Muawiya, the first Caliph of the Sunni Umayyad Caliphate, fought Ali at Siffin, Aisha fought Ali at Jamal, Yazid (the son of Muawiya), the second Caliph of the Sunni Umayyad Caliphate, martyred Hussain (the son of Ali ibn Abi Ṭalib and Fatima, daughter of Muhammad) at Karbala. Prophet Muhammad’s family, and those (Shia) Muslims loyal to them, were further persecuted under the Sunni Umayyad and Abbasid caliphates, the genocide that continues till today.

The concept of Caliphate being led by an all powerful Caliph is present in Sunni theology, but completly absent in the Shia one. Shia Muslims believe that only divinely ordained leader (such as Prophet’s family members, including their real descendants) can lead all the Muslims, not a human being chosen in a secret, or open, elections or one who takes power in the armed struggle. Therefore, the armed offensive jihad is suspended and absent in Shia Islam. There are no Shia beheaders, Shia suicide bombers, Shia al-Qaeda, Shia Boko Haram, Shia ISIS, Shia taking and owning slaves, Shia sharia patrols in the West and so on. The only time when Shias can fight, is the one when they are on the verge of physical extermination and genocide, such as in Iraq or Syria. Not even in Bahrain or Saudi Arabia, Shias wage armed war on their apartheid governments, because there’s no Imam today who can lead them in a just fight.


Sunni theology is obsessed with the notion of establishing a Sunni caliphate that will impose its laws on everybody under its control. Starting from Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman, continuing with the Umayyads, Abbasids and Ottomans, to the dream of al-Qaeda and the “Islamic State”, any Sunni at any given time can claim to be a Caliph and that ‘now’ is a time to give bayyah (oath of allegiance) to him, just as Sunni Caliphs demanded before, later to be followed by Mohammed Omar, Osama bin Laden, and al-Baghdadi. Whoever disagrees, will be killed.

The history of Sunni “Islam” was whitewashed by the Sunni Umayyad Caliphate, fabricating hadith where possible and using black propaganda and spin on events that were regarded as established history was notorious. Till this day, Sunni “scholars” justify the slaughter of Prophet’s family, and the Shia Muslims. Therefore one has to understand the fact that terrorism has religion, and that religion is a Sunni cult that hijacked Islam from the day of Saqifa.


And do not mix the truth with falsehood or conceal the truth while you know [it]. [2:42]