It is hard to explain the idea of the narrative and give all the details within a couple of pages. There are detailed (and somewhat tedious) refutations from Islamic theologians such as al-Yaqubi's Refuting ISIS (http://www.amazon.com/Refuting-ISIS-Religious-Ideological-Fo...). Mohammad al-Yaqubi is an orthodox Sunni scholar who was the Imam of the largest Mosque in Damascus until being forced into exile by the Syrian government. There are other works by scholars from different currents within Sunni Islam.
As a lay Muslim, I will give a few examples. The interpretation of correct Islamic creed and behavior according to Sunni Muslims is according to the Qur'an and Hadith as understood by the early Muslims, principally the first four caliphs and some of the closest students of the Prophet, succeeding generations, and four or five schools of law established thereafter. Within these schools, there is debate and re-interpretation. So simply citing a snippet of text to support your position, if it contradicts other texts, established practice, or informed consensus opinion is not going to fly.
For example, Daesh burned a captured Jordanian pilot alive while his tribe and the Jordanian government wanted to have him released under a prisoner exchange. There are specific Hadith and verses to support that prisoners of war can be ransomed or exchanged. More pointedly, there is a well accepted Hadith that burning is specifically prohibited as a punishment for even the severest enemies. This is a well-known Hadith and is accepted by all schools of law. So Daesh not only ignored all the Islamically available options which they might have used, but did an act to further inflame specific Sunni Muslim communities that they claim to defend. Further, they did something which would offend all people ethically and goes against specific Islamic rules.
While slavery in the medieval period was practiced against enemies that would do the same, there has been a consensus among Muslims and non-Muslims alike that this is a thing of the past. Muslim governemnts have signed specific international conventions banning it. Even extremely vile outfits like their predecessors like AQ had never mentioned bringing it back. They however chose to revive it against communities that were not doing this to them.
Sending irregular forces under the guise of a Muslim community which is bound by a legal agreement with a country and endangering said agreement is something that is again prohibited. i.e., the Muslims living in France as citizens or foreigners are under a legal framework of citizenship or diplomatic recognition of Muslim countries wherein they are given legal protection in France in return for obeying French law and not fighting them.
As a lay Muslim, I will give a few examples. The interpretation of correct Islamic creed and behavior according to Sunni Muslims is according to the Qur'an and Hadith as understood by the early Muslims, principally the first four caliphs and some of the closest students of the Prophet, succeeding generations, and four or five schools of law established thereafter. Within these schools, there is debate and re-interpretation. So simply citing a snippet of text to support your position, if it contradicts other texts, established practice, or informed consensus opinion is not going to fly.
For example, Daesh burned a captured Jordanian pilot alive while his tribe and the Jordanian government wanted to have him released under a prisoner exchange. There are specific Hadith and verses to support that prisoners of war can be ransomed or exchanged. More pointedly, there is a well accepted Hadith that burning is specifically prohibited as a punishment for even the severest enemies. This is a well-known Hadith and is accepted by all schools of law. So Daesh not only ignored all the Islamically available options which they might have used, but did an act to further inflame specific Sunni Muslim communities that they claim to defend. Further, they did something which would offend all people ethically and goes against specific Islamic rules.
While slavery in the medieval period was practiced against enemies that would do the same, there has been a consensus among Muslims and non-Muslims alike that this is a thing of the past. Muslim governemnts have signed specific international conventions banning it. Even extremely vile outfits like their predecessors like AQ had never mentioned bringing it back. They however chose to revive it against communities that were not doing this to them.
Sending irregular forces under the guise of a Muslim community which is bound by a legal agreement with a country and endangering said agreement is something that is again prohibited. i.e., the Muslims living in France as citizens or foreigners are under a legal framework of citizenship or diplomatic recognition of Muslim countries wherein they are given legal protection in France in return for obeying French law and not fighting them.