Jihad al Talab proves violence is there

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Moron, you are denying the existence of offensive jihad doctrine? You are the biggest liar you stupid ****. Offensive Jihad is very real, and it has been used since day one of Islam, this is the sole reason Islam spread so quickly, by the sword. No one can deny this at all and I am using a Islamic source to prove this for crying out loud, while you are using some non muslim source to prove that muslims are non violent lol, how ironic is that? You can't hide anymore, It's high time all non muslims know these things about Islam, which are hidden by most mullahs like you, but they exist in your texts. ISIS and other terrorists all get their inspiration from somewhere dont they? clearly the answer is Jihad al Talab

Loooool. Pause, take a breath, and imbibe some Ganges water Vindaloo boy.

You're ignorant as hell. We are not trying to explain violence in the 9th century AD. We are attempting to explain violence 1920 and onward fool.

That is what the study is addressing.

Its pointing out to Roaches like you that even if the most aggressive doctrine ever espoused exists in Islamic sacred texts that these are not the motivators/catalysts for what is going on today across the world.

So no jack a$$, the study is pointing out that the hi lighted text above in your comment is asinine and not borne out of the evidence at hand - that is not what is "inspiring them."

As I said, rebut the study and rebut the evidence where they clearly searched out theological references cited by the extremists and what they find nothing to support your contention.

Now go make some curry and rub it all over your face in the hopes that Jennifer will think you are an Indian platter and accept you as a cuisine plate instead of the miserable roach-wannabe-human you are.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

lol idiot, like I said, Indians are willing to return to India, it doesn't matter, as long mullahs are hunted and Islamic terrorism and expansion ends, this is main goal

Are you retarded? You guys are H1b monkeys all the way. That visa is like a gold card for you out of the slum dawg untouchable cycle of pain.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

douchbag, This is a muslim source, in fact I cut out so many other parts, go read the original article and see how violent you Mofos are. You're days are numbered, the sooner non muslims find the truth about you the worst it will get for you. I am waiting for the day all mullahs like you are humiliated and deported one by one, may that day be very soon!

Loooool. My days are numbered? I have reproduced. You're still on the hunt for a white girl that will accept your perv genetics and water down the Vindaloo Chutney that is your DNA.

For every one of those posts you have I can produce 3 Neocon and Neolib and Just War Theory Christianity references written by early church fathers.

Now go get baptized like you plan to so you can play the part of Miss Jennifer's field slave and actually be less malodorous with that cologne you wear called Curry for Him.

[Zaadgaan Kabul]

^ read all of this, how can you know claim muslims are non violent? The Islam of ISIS is the real Islam or closes to the real Islam. Something should be done about the lying muslims, they are the biggest enemy of peace, they are liars and hypocrites and this is the reason so many of these terrorists exist, simple as that

ISIS is the Arab version of Islam of the 7th century ...are your family Hindus or Muslims? If Moslems, do they behave ''naturally'' like ISIS or why do you think that ISIS represents all Muslims and cultures existing within the islamic world?

[Karachi]

Loooool. Pause, take a breath, and imbibe some Ganges water Vindaloo boy.

You're ignorant as hell. We are not trying to explain violence in the 9th century AD. We are attempting to explain violence 1920 and onward fool.

That is what the study is addressing.

Its pointing out to Roaches like you that even if the most aggressive doctrine ever espoused exists in Islamic sacred texts that these are not the motivators/catalysts for what is going on today across the world.

So no jack a$$, the study is pointing out that the hi lighted text above in your comment is asinine and not borne out of the evidence at hand - that is not what is "inspiring them."

As I said, rebut the study and rebut the evidence where they clearly searched out theological references cited by the extremists and what they find nothing to support your contention.

Now go make some curry and rub it all over your face in the hopes that Jennifer will think you are an Indian platter and accept you as a cuisine plate instead of the miserable roach-wannabe-human you are.

lol idiot on one hand you are admitting these violent terror texts of Islam exist then you are denying that modern terrorists groups have no connection to these documents? who are you fooling, I mean you can't even fool a 5 year old with your stupidity.

Even your so called great source admits Quran is violent and look at the vary first comment in your article:

I found this analysis to have faulty analysis and is full of fallacious arguments. Starting from the top:
1) The authors of the study appear to be biased concerning the rule of abrogation. They suggest extremist reliance on the later Medina period Surahs is perhaps unreasonable and indeed suggest “zealous scholars” apply it in a “radical” way. My understanding of the rule is that the later parts of the Koran supersede the earlier parts. This is a function of time—not of extreme. If it is right of the timeline, it is the greater truth. This is the reason why extremism has appeal and traction—moderates have no legitimate argument against their ideology. This explains exactly why there is such reliance on later Surahs.
2) The authors use descriptive and extreme language to suggest they are not encouraging a “culture of naked aggression”. Who says they are encouraging a culture of “naked aggression”? Extremists if nothing else work within the scope of what is allowed according to the Qur’an and interpretations and/or rulings from clerics (Fatwas). They believe they are conducting a defensive jihad. It does not make it any less bloody or threatening. A future offensive jihad may be justified in the future at which point, the authors would see more justification in statements. However, in this phase, extremists are promoting today’s conflict as a defensive one.
3) I assert there is a disconnect in the logical argument behind the recommendation to “Abandon claims that Islamist extremists seek world domination.” My understanding is the argument goes like this: Extremists do not use Qur’anic quotes to call for world domination; therefore, they do not seek world domination. I recommend the authors examine the goals and objectives of extremist groups to identify goals and objectives (al-Qaida, HuT, Muslim Brotherhood). Does establishment of Shari’a over the earth suggest a desire for world domination?
4) Regarding the assertion that Islamists seek world domination, the authors “poison the well” when they make the following statement: “More objective analysts regard these claims as alarmist.” Really? A University uses this kind of critical thinking?
5) The authors twist the argument citing an extreme from Robert Pape: “The idea that Islamic fundamentalism is on the verge of world domination . . . is pure fantasy.” The argument went from extremism to fundamentalism; went from an objective to time-associated “on the verge”. In the author’s analysis, we are to presume this is objective thinking. This objective writer, Robert Pape, goes on to use ad-hominem attacks calling others “fearmongers” who use “delusions” to “whip up hysteria.” Is this a critical thinker worthy of consideration for his argument?
6) The authors then cite Michael Scheuer who asserts that extremist calls for world domination are “merely pro forma” and their true objective is the Middle East. The authors provide no evidence to support this opinion of one. I invite the authors to examine extremist literature about Khorasan (Central Asia), to view what is happening in West Africa, to explain the growth of extremism in Thailand and Indonesia; and, to explore extremist websites in Europe. There, they may find evidence.
7) Remarkably, the authors conclude that because extremists do not use the “Verse of the Sword” as often as they expected, their stated objective of world domination is irrelevant. Their evidence: 1) that is what objective analysts would say; 2) Robert Pape tells us domination is pure fantasy; 3) Michael Scheuer assesses their desires are only in the Middle East; and 4) extremist use of the Qur’an does not fit the author’s narrow criteria for evaluating intent. Really?
8) The authors then make the following claim: “Members of the target audience, the contested populations of the Muslim World, realize that extremists are not really preaching world conquest” without providing a shred of evidence.


^ this guy is so much smarter the the so called editor of the article, who has clear bias, must be a muslim moron like you

deal it with it man, the world now knows how violent your faith is and every sort of terrorism and violence is encouraged in it. The so called peace full muslims are living in a complete delusion

[Karachi]

Good work Karachi, a few broken links to tafsir and a 10 minute youtube video of non-contextualized quotations and a person narrating to the audience on how to think about the material and you've done what hundreds of scholars who wrote volumes of books examining every nuance on the topic couldn't do.

Your white masters will be proud.

which scholars you moron? did any scholars write against Offensive Jihad? that it should be banned? did they write that? again stop ****_ting

[Karachi]

ISIS is the Arab version of Islam of the 7th century ...are your family Hindus or Muslims? If Moslems, do they behave ''naturally'' like ISIS or why do you think that ISIS represents all Muslims and cultures existing within the islamic world?

I am muslim obviously, but a secular one now

Also never did I say ISIS represents all muslim , what I say is they are following the closes thing to real Islam. Most muslims in Subcontinent are peaceful, because they have no idea what real Islam is, Also Subcontinental Islam has clearly been effected by Indic/Hindu culture to an extent

[Kakar-Wardak]

Only cucks and low testosterone men have problems with jihad.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

lol idiot on one hand you are admitting these violent terror texts of Islam exist then you are denying that modern terrorists groups have no connection to these documents? who are you fooling, I mean you can't even fool a 5 year old with your stupidity.

Even your so called great source admits Quran is violent and look at the vary first comment in your article:

I found this analysis to have faulty analysis and is full of fallacious arguments. Starting from the top:
1) The authors of the study appear to be biased concerning the rule of abrogation. They suggest extremist reliance on the later Medina period Surahs is perhaps unreasonable and indeed suggest “zealous scholars” apply it in a “radical” way. My understanding of the rule is that the later parts of the Koran supersede the earlier parts. This is a function of time—not of extreme. If it is right of the timeline, it is the greater truth. This is the reason why extremism has appeal and traction—moderates have no legitimate argument against their ideology. This explains exactly why there is such reliance on later Surahs.
2) The authors use descriptive and extreme language to suggest they are not encouraging a “culture of naked aggression”. Who says they are encouraging a culture of “naked aggression”? Extremists if nothing else work within the scope of what is allowed according to the Qur’an and interpretations and/or rulings from clerics (Fatwas). They believe they are conducting a defensive jihad. It does not make it any less bloody or threatening. A future offensive jihad may be justified in the future at which point, the authors would see more justification in statements. However, in this phase, extremists are promoting today’s conflict as a defensive one.
3) I assert there is a disconnect in the logical argument behind the recommendation to “Abandon claims that Islamist extremists seek world domination.” My understanding is the argument goes like this: Extremists do not use Qur’anic quotes to call for world domination; therefore, they do not seek world domination. I recommend the authors examine the goals and objectives of extremist groups to identify goals and objectives (al-Qaida, HuT, Muslim Brotherhood). Does establishment of Shari’a over the earth suggest a desire for world domination?
4) Regarding the assertion that Islamists seek world domination, the authors “poison the well” when they make the following statement: “More objective analysts regard these claims as alarmist.” Really? A University uses this kind of critical thinking?
5) The authors twist the argument citing an extreme from Robert Pape: “The idea that Islamic fundamentalism is on the verge of world domination . . . is pure fantasy.” The argument went from extremism to fundamentalism; went from an objective to time-associated “on the verge”. In the author’s analysis, we are to presume this is objective thinking. This objective writer, Robert Pape, goes on to use ad-hominem attacks calling others “fearmongers” who use “delusions” to “whip up hysteria.” Is this a critical thinker worthy of consideration for his argument?
6) The authors then cite Michael Scheuer who asserts that extremist calls for world domination are “merely pro forma” and their true objective is the Middle East. The authors provide no evidence to support this opinion of one. I invite the authors to examine extremist literature about Khorasan (Central Asia), to view what is happening in West Africa, to explain the growth of extremism in Thailand and Indonesia; and, to explore extremist websites in Europe. There, they may find evidence.
7) Remarkably, the authors conclude that because extremists do not use the “Verse of the Sword” as often as they expected, their stated objective of world domination is irrelevant. Their evidence: 1) that is what objective analysts would say; 2) Robert Pape tells us domination is pure fantasy; 3) Michael Scheuer assesses their desires are only in the Middle East; and 4) extremist use of the Qur’an does not fit the author’s narrow criteria for evaluating intent. Really?
8) The authors then make the following claim: “Members of the target audience, the contested populations of the Muslim World, realize that extremists are not really preaching world conquest” without providing a shred of evidence.


^ this guy is so much smarter the the so called editor of the article, who has clear bias, must be a muslim moron like you

deal it with it man, the world now knows how violent your faith is and every sort of terrorism and violence is encouraged in it. The so called peace full muslims are living in a complete delusion

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL. Oh Vindaloo Boy, You walked right into a mental trap.

Do you think people here are as mentally stunted as you?

The author (Jeffrey Halverson PhD, not a Muslim) responded to your boyfriend making that post, namely, "Major Dave."


Rather convenient that you forgot to include that response in your rejoinder (I guess you were too busy trying to decide your gender status since rejection from Jennifer may have caused you to question it)

Here is the response to "major dave"

Hi Major Dave,

Thanks for your response to the white paper. Before I reply, I’d like to point you towards a follow-up statement released by the authors that responds to some critiques of the research (see Qur’an Verses Study: A Response to Our Critics | CSC Center for Strategic Communication ).

Now to some specifics in your response.

The principle of abrogation (or naskh) is a normative one in Islamic thought. For example, Muslims all agree on the Qur’an’s abrogation of the first qibla (al-Quds) with the second, Mecca. Thus, all Muslims pray toward Mecca (when possible). And Muslims agree that earlier verses about not praying while drunk are abrogated by the later prohibition against consuming alcohol at all. Those are normative examples. However, extremists generally adopt radical minority views on the subject of abrogation. In the paper we cited the fact that the “Verse of the Sword” is understood by extremists to abrogate an enormous number of earlier verses, thus adding to its significance among extremists (despite the fact that it was only cited 3x in the set of statements). That sort of abrogation is not the norm among the vast majority of Muslims.

Regarding the distinctions between Meccan and Medinan surahs, the sorts of time-specific abrogations about the qibla, alcohol, or many other topics (including permission to fight) are the norm. However, the Qur’an is still treated as a cohesive whole and the Meccan surahs are not radically marginalized. The sort of disproportionate imbalance in citations from Medinan surahs by the extremists indicates a radical treatment of the text out of step with normative readings. This is not a new finding, but a confirmation of existing views. This is also significant as a possible avenue for counter-messaging strategies and as a means to narrow or focus analytical attention on a smaller section of the Qur’an.

We agree with you that violent extremists are portraying conflicts as defensive. That is precisely the point. Their communication strategy to attract support among contested populations utilizes a deliverance story form to suggest that Islam is under imminent threat, Muslims are being slaughtered, and people must rally to defend it with violence. That’s the message that the West needs to counter. Approaching the communication dilemma (i.e. battle for hearts and minds) by claiming that we’re sending in troops to fend off world conquest by al-Qaeda doesn’t counter that message; rather it feeds into it (and “Clash” views). And to be sure, it’s a tricky and difficult challenge to address.

Regarding your claim that extremists are only acting within the parameters of Islamic law in their conduct of war and so forth, I assure you that is not the case. Far from it. The violations of normative Islamic law by al-Qaeda are abundant and many Muslims scholars around the world have pointed to these violations (despite the fact that some in the West claim otherwise). I will give you a couple brief examples. 1) A military jihad is a collective obligation declared by the Caliph/Amir, but extremists claim that military jihad is fard ‘ayn or an individual obligation; this is outside of normative Sunni Islamic legal thought. 2) Deployment of the heretical doctrine of takfir, or declaring other Muslims as apostates worthy of death, is outside of Sunni Islam; this is the doctrine of the Khawarij who murdered the Fourth Rightly Guided Caliph of Sunni Islam and the first Imam of Shia Islam, Ali ibn Abu Talib. I can go on, but I hope this sufficiently makes the point. There’s a reason these guys operate in the shadows and margins of society or take refuge in failed states.

Regarding what we consider to be “alarmist” views, we are referring to the conspiracy theory that there is a single-minded global Islamist movement working for world conquest. Some would like the US government to embrace this view. The fact that you have conflated the Muslim Brotherhood with al-Qaeda (two very different groups) suggests that you may subscribe to the theory. If so we can only say we believe this view is erroneous, despite the ideological fantasies and ambitions of certain extremists (e.g. Zawahiri).

And in any case a clear say-do gap does exist among extremists. Certainly there are numerous countries where armed Islamist insurgencies exist, fighting over the nature of state governance or a quest for autonomy/independence from existing states. All of these cases have distinct histories and local factors at play. Connecting the dots from a telescopic distance is the wrong approach. For example, from a distance one might conclude that al-Qaeda and Hamas, both militant Sunni Islamist groups in the Arab world, are a part of a shared project or movement. Upon closer inspection, one would find this is not at all the case. Hamas and al-Qaeda have actually engaged in bloody conflict with each other in Gaza. Numerous al-Qaeda statements have also denounced Hamas. Regardless, this white paper was about the use of Qur’anic verses in the communication strategies of Islamist extremists to contested populations, despite what some headlines (e.g. CNN) have claimed.

Finally we’ve said that contested populations realize the extremists aren’t preaching world conquest because the extremists are preaching self-defense. We have given ample evidence of that in their selection of verses, described in this paper. We have shown in other publications that the same can be said of their use of master narratives, and also how they frame the so-called “war on Islam” (a phrase that is itself an invocation of their deliverance narrative).

Thanks for your interest in the research.

See Crotch-E, that is how it works. Know your place and stay in it.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

lol idiot on one hand you are admitting these violent terror texts of Islam exist then you are denying that modern terrorists groups have no connection to these documents? who are you fooling, I mean you can't even fool a 5 year old with your stupidity.

Even your so called great source admits Quran is violent and look at the vary first comment in your article:

I found this analysis to have faulty analysis and is full of fallacious arguments. Starting from the top:
1) The authors of the study appear to be biased concerning the rule of abrogation. They suggest extremist reliance on the later Medina period Surahs is perhaps unreasonable and indeed suggest “zealous scholars” apply it in a “radical” way. My understanding of the rule is that the later parts of the Koran supersede the earlier parts. This is a function of time—not of extreme. If it is right of the timeline, it is the greater truth. This is the reason why extremism has appeal and traction—moderates have no legitimate argument against their ideology. This explains exactly why there is such reliance on later Surahs.
2) The authors use descriptive and extreme language to suggest they are not encouraging a “culture of naked aggression”. Who says they are encouraging a culture of “naked aggression”? Extremists if nothing else work within the scope of what is allowed according to the Qur’an and interpretations and/or rulings from clerics (Fatwas). They believe they are conducting a defensive jihad. It does not make it any less bloody or threatening. A future offensive jihad may be justified in the future at which point, the authors would see more justification in statements. However, in this phase, extremists are promoting today’s conflict as a defensive one.
3) I assert there is a disconnect in the logical argument behind the recommendation to “Abandon claims that Islamist extremists seek world domination.” My understanding is the argument goes like this: Extremists do not use Qur’anic quotes to call for world domination; therefore, they do not seek world domination. I recommend the authors examine the goals and objectives of extremist groups to identify goals and objectives (al-Qaida, HuT, Muslim Brotherhood). Does establishment of Shari’a over the earth suggest a desire for world domination?
4) Regarding the assertion that Islamists seek world domination, the authors “poison the well” when they make the following statement: “More objective analysts regard these claims as alarmist.” Really? A University uses this kind of critical thinking?
5) The authors twist the argument citing an extreme from Robert Pape: “The idea that Islamic fundamentalism is on the verge of world domination . . . is pure fantasy.” The argument went from extremism to fundamentalism; went from an objective to time-associated “on the verge”. In the author’s analysis, we are to presume this is objective thinking. This objective writer, Robert Pape, goes on to use ad-hominem attacks calling others “fearmongers” who use “delusions” to “whip up hysteria.” Is this a critical thinker worthy of consideration for his argument?
6) The authors then cite Michael Scheuer who asserts that extremist calls for world domination are “merely pro forma” and their true objective is the Middle East. The authors provide no evidence to support this opinion of one. I invite the authors to examine extremist literature about Khorasan (Central Asia), to view what is happening in West Africa, to explain the growth of extremism in Thailand and Indonesia; and, to explore extremist websites in Europe. There, they may find evidence.
7) Remarkably, the authors conclude that because extremists do not use the “Verse of the Sword” as often as they expected, their stated objective of world domination is irrelevant. Their evidence: 1) that is what objective analysts would say; 2) Robert Pape tells us domination is pure fantasy; 3) Michael Scheuer assesses their desires are only in the Middle East; and 4) extremist use of the Qur’an does not fit the author’s narrow criteria for evaluating intent. Really?
8) The authors then make the following claim: “Members of the target audience, the contested populations of the Muslim World, realize that extremists are not really preaching world conquest” without providing a shred of evidence.


^ this guy is so much smarter the the so called editor of the article, who has clear bias, must be a muslim moron like you

deal it with it man, the world now knows how violent your faith is and every sort of terrorism and violence is encouraged in it. The so called peace full muslims are living in a complete delusion

Here is the nice original journal response Dr. Halverson cited:

By Jeffry Halverson, Bennett Furlow & Steven R. Corman

Our study, entitled How Islamist Extremists Quote the Qur’an, released last week, seems to have touched a nerve in some and has generated some negative commentary. To date, we have received no criticism from other scholars or experts on these matters. Much of it seems to come from people who may have read a headline about the study in the press and reacted to it without reading the study itself. We would like to set the record straight by addressing four themes in these criticisms.

Questioning our motives

Some critics have insinuated that we support the terrorists and/or are apologists for them. Nothing could be further from the truth. The project of which this study is a part (and in fact everything we have done at the Center for Strategic Communication since 2004) has been directed toward resisting and undermining violent groups like al-Qaeda and their affiliates. To be unequivocal: The groups studied in our article are criminals and terrorists who murder innocent people. We think these acts must be stopped and we are working to help create ways to help stop them. The end of the study specifically describes communication strategies that we think will help undermine their propaganda strategies and image.

Misunderstanding the emphasis of the study

Some critics imply that the study is naïve and ignores what the extremists really want. In fact, the study says nothing at all about what the violent extremists “really want.” It is about what they say, specifically how they invoke the Qur’an to make and reinforce their “sales pitch” to ordinary Muslims in contested populations. The pitch is: “Support us because you are being attacked and we are fighting to save you and the community from destruction.” It is not: “Support us because we have all been commanded to take over the world.”

Ultimately the extremists, or certain factions or ideologues thereof, may aspire to global conquest. But that is not the message that sympathizers, supporters, or recruits appear to be hearing and responding to. Again, we’re not studying what they want, we’re studying what they say in their messaging strategies because that is how they try to persuade and recruit others to join or support them. The West cannot counter a message if it is focused on the wrong one.

Disputing systematic research with anecdotal examples

A common complaint of critics is: “Here are all these examples of Qur’an verses that talk about violence against other faiths, and statements from Islamists about taking over the world.” We don’t dispute that there are such verses and statements. In fact, we are very familiar with them. It is also easy to produce similar lists of verses preaching peace and statements from Muslims condemning violence. This is why we need systematic research to find out what verses and statements the violent extremists actually use to persuade people to support them.

Our conclusions do not come from a few cherry-picked examples, but from a systematic study of over 1,500 quotes in over 2,000 documents. If the results of this study do not align with some individual’s assumptions about the extremists’ rhetoric, then this confirms the need for the research.

For the record, the lack of emphasis on a global domination message surprised even us. That’s the value of systematic research: Things are not always what they seem or what you expect.

Giving inaccurate information about the cost of the study and source of the funding

Some critics claim that this study cost millions of dollars, and that it is an example of waste by the Obama administration. The study did not cost millions of dollars, or anything even close to that. It is a very small part of a larger funded project studying violent extremists’ use of narrative to influence contested populations in Southeast Asia, the Middle East, and North Africa. The project was funded under a program established during President George W. Bush’s administration. Last year the overall project won a research award from the Department of Defense.

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

which scholars you moron? did any scholars write against Offensive Jihad? that it should be banned? did they write that? again stop ****_ting

Hmmm like

Al Mawardi
Al-Quduri
Al-Haskafi

To name a few of the major ones.

As video where the narrator injects confirmation bias as he reads quotations without their context is not evidence of ISIS and whether or not they're following Islamic injunctions. Spoiler alert, they're not.

[Karachi]

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL. Oh Vindaloo Boy, You walked right into a mental trap.

Do you think people here are as mentally stunted as you?

The author (Jeffrey Halverson PhD, not a Muslim) responded to your boyfriend making that post, namely, "Major Dave."


Rather convenient that you forgot to include that response in your rejoinder (I guess you were too busy trying to decide your gender status since rejection from Jennifer may have caused you to question it)

Here is the response to "major dave"



See Crotch-E, that is how it works. Know your place and stay in it.

How much are you going to lie stupid mullah, look at this article from your professor and why he left Islam, he was clearly a muslim when he wrote your article: I left both Christianity and Islam behind: “It was the problem of evil and innocent suffering that truly led me out of religion” - Salon.com

again you can not fool anyone, no matter how much you try

[Karachi]

Only cucks and low testosterone men have problems with jihad.

we are not talking about defensive war here idiot, morons like you have no right to conduct offensive war on people living their lives normally, you will pay a heavy price if you do, this is not the 7th century anymore

[Karachi]

Hmmm like

Al Mawardi
Al-Quduri
Al-Haskafi

To name a few of the major ones.

As video where the narrator injects confirmation bias as he reads quotations without their context is not evidence of ISIS and whether or not they're following Islamic injunctions. Spoiler alert, they're not.

Where? give me exact quotes where they spoke against offensive jihad, and even if they did, certainly it doesn't make it true for all mullahs, because of the doctrine is there well rooted in your texts

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

Where? give me exact quotes where they spoke against offensive jihad

You're mixing up two things; Offensive Jihad and whether ISIS are actual followers of the Islamic Rulings.