How is Group IS Takfir in black & white wrong when compared to Ahlus-Sunnah?
To explain this point let us see what the scholars of the Ummah have said regarding making General Takfir (Takfir Mutlaq) & Specific Takfir (Takfir Muayyan).
Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal (ra) dealing with the people of innovation was put forward by Imam Ibn Taymiyyah (ra), where he said regarding him:
It is right that Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal (ra) didn’t made specific Takfir (calling someone non-Muslim) of some individuals who indulged in the innovation of calling Quran as created (rather than Word of Allah coming from Creator). Some of the people of knowledge said that with regard to the sect who indulged in the innovation of calling Quran as created, there were two saying with regard to Imam Ahmad bin Hanbil (ra) on this topic. (one was that these people are Kafir, second they are not Kafir), then it actually looks like two sayings because of the principle that is mentioned above (i.e. Making General Takfir & Specific Takfir).
Actually Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal (ra) made Takfir of those individuals because of the fulfillment of the conditions that are required to make a specific Takfir (on an individual), and for those whose Takfir (specific) was not made of, though these people believed in the same thing for which others Takfir was made of, was due to the fact that in Imam Ahmad (ra) opinion those Shari ‘impediments’ of Takfir for those specific individuals was not removed.
(Majmo al-Fatawah 489/12)
Imam Ahmad bin Hanbil (ra) dealing with those people of innovation in Kufr might not be also liked by the sect al-Awwadiyyah (#ISIS Group) as well, and they might call Imam Ahmad bin Hanbil (ra) an innovator/Mujri as well because at some instances he made Takfir of individuals for same Kufr and for other instances he didn't made Kufr of others doing same Kufr.
He did so when some of the ‘impediments’ of Takfir was not removed specifically for some individuals, & thus he didn’t made Takfir of those indivduals, though there was no doubt on the Kufr of those who called Quran as created as a General rule.
The #IS al-Awwadiyyah group also puts forward a similar argument to #AQ and the scholars of the Ummah and Jihad that why are you not making Takfir of all ‘Islamic Parliamentarians & Leaders’, which includes Jamat-e-Islami, as well as Ikhwan al-Muslimoon and Hamas along with many others, as was recently pointed out recently in #Dabiq 6 Magazine of this self-claimed Caliphate, when they said [Adh-Dhawahiri does not make Takfir of the parliamentary “Islamists” nor the “Rafidi Majus” (Magians)], which implies that they made Takfir of every “Islamists” parliamentary leader in any country without going into any specific details.
They are also putting the same argument that since Democracy is Kufr(General Statement) then why not all those who participate in it are all Kuffar as well without going into any specific details.
This is the mistake of this #IS al-Awwadiyyah Sect that they love to take general statements which are regarded as Kufr, and without going into any details, conditions, impediments, and then forces others to accept of this wrong and batil. As for those who don’t accept their black and white Takfir, they term them as Murjia & deviants, just like recently they did so with #AQ, #AQIS, #AQAP, Taliban and #Scholars of the Ummah.
If we agree with this al-Awwadiyyah logic then we will have to make specific Takir (not general) of every individual who is involved in any Kufr. Also, then we have to also accept that Imam Ahmad bin Hanbil (ra) was also an Innovator or Murjia since he didn’t made Takfir of ALL those who indulged in this Kufr. God Forbid.
This shows that the case put forward by al-Awwadiyyah sect has nothing to do with the Manhaj of Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamah, who look into the conditions and impediments while making specific Takfir of individuals.