doctrinal dispute? Isil scholars are just... either made up... or how do I put it...? Internet certified? It's akin to an armchair doctor/psychologist diagnosing a patient's brain tumour off of wikipedia. Yeah, some might guess right, but this idea that we now have to accept these doctors as real doctors is a woefully bad idea for true believers.
So why am I supposed to take Isil seriously as a madhab? Cause they have a gun to my face? Surely for it to be authentic it should be on the merit of your work, not violence?
Violence, ironically, is exactly why we do take them seriously. We take them seriously because they are violent and powerful. I mean it's not because they're supported by Muslims organisations is it? They're denounced by pretty much every big Muslim organisation out there, no? Even extremist muslim preachers here in the UK denounced them, when they don't reject salafism. Isil are denounced even by salafist-jihadist leaders last I checked - I mean surely this means it isn't a pr exercise? The Muslim world isn't rejecting isis like a bad smell, just cause, but because they know their texts. So when the ummah rejects isil, I have to ask, why ought Muslims to give Isil legitimacy? It's become schizophrenic to condemn isil, when you don't consider their agenda islamic.
Am I supposed to listen to Isil just because they have a voice then?
edit: Actually, on reflection, ISIS does have support for being a legit; but that's by people such as yourselves, whose definition includes absolutely anybody and anything remotely close to Islam. As well as pretty much any anti-religious blogger or new age atheist activist, or ex-muslim expert on islam.
