Islamic State is good.

First of all:Who is it for you to decide that I should not use BBC and CNN or other "Zionist sources" as the source? I don't want any pics. I need justification, and rational ones too. As a framework, the BoP lies exclusively on the opposition to prove that (1) killing is permissible by Islamic Law, (2) that even if it is, it is permissible and just in this cae, (3) that actions done by IS, and things said by IS are moral in nature, and (4) that these actions are justified in their nature.Now, as a groundwork for objective morality, I turn to the Quran, the Geneva Convention and Categorical Imperatives that allow men to act morally and justly, and through this, I shall define morality in context:Good-Whatever is moral; i.e (in context) what ever is permissible by the Quran, by the Geneva Convention, and by pure human reason.The opposition starts off with a relatively biased case, and I shall dispel the rumour against CNN and BBC, or the usage of it. IS has recently set some "filming restrictions" in areas that it controlled. They do not deny CNN and BBC the right to film; they rather deny al-Jazeera the right to film in their territory. [4]REFUTATION:1. Islamic State kills Civilians and ChildrenThe Islamic State kills spies? More like innocent civilians and journalists in the area. It is destructive to the my mentality and the mentality of the world that any one man would attempt to justify the barbaric actions of anyone. Now, the opposition seems to accept video evidence exclusively. In the citation is a video of the Islamic State executing two children for unknown crimes. [1] The fact that the Islamic State executes children is a fact of incomprehensible thought, and the fact that people attempt to justify this is even much more disgusting. I do not need, hopefully, to rationalize why this is uncomprehensible.So, let us take the assertion that these kids are armed: if they were armed, then the Islamic State does not have any rights to kill them anyways, as via the Geneva Convention, this is banned. But accordingly to the title of the original video (عاجل اعدام طفلين شيعة من قبل دولة العراق والشام الاسلامية, "ISIS Executing to Shi'ites in Syria"), this is overruled. Then let us assert that they are spies; what information, other than biased facts perceived could be given to the Assadist forces? Apart from this, all human morality opposes this.This is not the only time where the Islamic State has been charged with war-crimes. Executing Sunni and Shias, Christians and others alike [2] they have no inkling of humanity left in them. Now, the opposition may "argue from genetics' and say since this is a youtube video, then it is unreliable, but to cite the Islamic State is wholly a stupid move to do.2. Islamic States Kills Non-MuslimsThere is general acceptance; IS kills non-Muslims. However, the degree of this is to be discussed; the opposition must justify the paying of this tax to reside in their own country for worshipping their own religion. The fact that not only Christian adults are killed, but every Christian who worships the cross instead of the crescent (including children and women) is simply disgusting. There are accounts from camps all around Syria of IS coming, and demanding three things that Christians weren't willing to give up: (1) their religion, (2) their women, and (3) their lives. There is no instance of a Christian ever paying a tax, and then the Christian's existence was ensured. Many accounts of the massacres in Iraq show that even Christians who pay the tax are killed. The number of Christians in Mosul and IS controlled areas are close to nil.Now accordingly to the opposition, opponents of the IS are not prosecuted. He cites a VICE video. The VICE video shows that the allegiance to ISIS is not needed and obligatory, henceforth opponents of the Islamic State could live in perfect harmony with the laws of the Islamic State. Cited is the video [3] in which the opposition refers to. This proves nothing but that the IS has a pledge of allegiance. I have pledge my allegiance to my country, and many other people have. However, these people have the rights to live under a just law and a just government. They have the rights to practice their own religion, and they (previously) had the rights to civil disobedience if some laws were unjust. This is characteristic of open society. Closed society is characteristic of the Islamic State. The Islamic State follows a naive monism of nature and convention, and henceforth, it kills based on a perceive intepretation of a Holy Book. There is a ban of civil disobedience in all forms in the Islamic State.3. Rationalization of Mass Murder"At least we aren't supporting people who eat the organs of their dead" PutinNo..................no................no.........So let us take your assertion. Assadist forces kill civilians, and they are "proud of it"? But what was Prophet's Muhammed words on killing? Oh yeah, that's right! And do not kill a soul that God has made sacrosanct (Quran 6:151) Islam is a religion of peace, not savagery. Two wrongs never make a right; apart from this, the opposition hates Assad because of merely idiotic reasons.The opposition criticizes Hezbollah, Assad and their allies for these attacks against humanity; however, these attacks were relatively minor when compared to the proud nature of the Islamic State. IS has killed, since the Northern Iraq Offensive, 10,000 people and injured/effected a further number of 14,000 people. Assad did not force his fellow Syrian citizens into sex-slavery, nor did he kill base on religion and race. The Islamic State does this. Hezbollah fought for Lebanon and the defense of fellow Sunnis; the Islamic State kills Shias and Sunnis alike. Rationalize and justify that, my friend. CASE:1. Islamic Law Bans KillingThere are many Islamic-Quranic verses that ban killing of anyone. But firstly, an Islamic State implies the separation between Mosque and the State. Islam teaches tolerance of all religions. “There is no compulsion in religion. The right way has become distinct from error.” (The Cow. 2:256) Islam bans killing in all forms. “… whoso kills a soul...it shall be as if he had killed all mankind" (Quran 5:53). Allah's merciful hands extend to everyone of every race, intention etc. "My mercy embraces all things …" (Al A-Rif, 7:7156) Furthermore, many opinions were valued in an Islamic society. ‘And those who were given the Scripture did not become divided, except after the clear proof had come to them.’ (Al-Bayyinah 98:4) Do not kill is mentioned again in Al-Isra, 17:33 "‘And do not slay the soul [whose life], God has made inviolable" And finally, dispelling the false accusations and claims that IS is "Jihading" against the world ‘O you who believe, what is wrong with you that, when it is said to you, “Go forth in the way of God', you sink down heavily to the ground' (Al-Tawbah, 9:38) [5,6] With a plethora of quotes from the Holy Book that establishes an outline of the Islamic value of ethical actions and killing, I have no other way to conclude that Prophet Muhammed and Allah did not need this needless killing, in which many have died for the sake of not following a religion in which the perpertrators of such barbarosity do not even follow.I consider the resolution negated. I am disgusted by the opposition's position. I am disgusted by the Islamic State, and I hope that one day, everyone shall live in harmony and peace.السلام عليكمCitations:[1] http://tinyurl.com...[2] http://tinyurl.com...[3] http://tinyurl.com...[4] http://www.syriadeeply.org...[5] http://www.juancole.com...[6] http://lettertobaghdadi.com...