File talk:Syrian rebellion.jpg

A lot of discussion (by the parties involved) may be due here. It is clear that Kurds are separate. With the rest, it is not so much about graphics on emblems, but Sharia vs civilian law. This is a crucial distinction which played in Ichkeria vs Chechnya (the latter incorporated Russian law; the former was Sharia). There is only one Sharia, it cannot really be more or less radical, because reforming that law never occurred (maybe a very small variation with how it is implemented in practical terms, in cases when that is at all possible). This is very different from, for example, Jewish law, with a long tradition of non-literal interpretation. Or modern Western law (which became very complex and convoluted, with obvious fairness and justice drowned, and in some cases lost, in procedural regulation, thus simple old solutions may appear attractive to some young males).

And then, Caliphate or a western-like state --this point is clear and agreed/understood by the parties already. Caliphate has to do j-had, it is not really optional. Some Islamic scholars say that caliphate conditions are not met to begin with. -- They are the ones to judge. (BTW, as I understand, judges on IS side are Saudis, as it was reported in social media).

Who collaborated with whom, and who was standing behind--well, in the long run, does it really matter? --Resup (talk) 21:07, 2 January 2016 (UTC)