Those would be munafiqeen or hypocrites. The khawarijites did not exist in the time of the Prophet(pbuh) the first khawarijites were said to have come towards the end of Hazrat Usman(R.A)'s khilafat and they sort of were hypocrites who infiltrated the religion to cause it to be destroyed on the inside. They killed the third khalifa then caused a huge fuss over who should be the next khalifa. Then they were present on both sides of the battle of camel between Hazrat Ali(R.A) and Hazrat Ayesha(R.A). At first they started the battle when negotiations were being conducted by attacking before the command can to fight. When the battle stopped they broke off and fought another battle with Hazrat Ali(R.A). After that they planned a simultaneous attack on three key figures including Muawiya(R.A)and Hazrat Ali(R.A). Hazrat Muawiya(R.A) survived while Hazrat Ali(R.A)'s sound was fatal. I'm not quite sure about the specifics afterwards but a part of their descendants became the shia we know today. Just as the shia the present khawarijites have nothing to do with the predecessors who were clearly hypocrites and betrayed the then leaders of Islam. Supposedly they existed at the time of Hazrat Umar(R.A) as well but he was such a feared ruler that they bided their time. Hazrat Usman(R.A) was more lenient so they used it against him. But the Prophet(pbuh) never could have condemned them since they did not exist during his time like no sect existed during his time. He(pbuh) condemned all hypocrites who utter something else and believed another. Even then when the leader of the hypocrites died the Prophet(pbuh) prayed for his mercy and went to his funeral. I am just going on and on now but the point is that modern. Khawarijites cannot be said to not be Muslims since as long as they believe in Allah and the last Prophet(pbuh) it is not our place to say even though some people still say it. The ahmedis are clearly not Muslims since they don't believe in the Last Prophet(pbuh) but I believe the khawarijites do so there's that.

Side note: in the sahih hadith anything in brackets was not uttered by the Prophet(pbuh) so the translator is insinuating or supposing that they are khawarijites which is not true. Its silly to just say khawarijites in brackets and it is misleading just remove the bracket stuff and it is then seen as talking about hypocrites whether they are s or a group

Isis represents radical version of islamic thought which is quite popular by many muslisms far more then 0,01%.

These peopleare now in western countries corruptings minds and causing violence.

I don't the SS claimed to be Christians.

No idea where you got that 99.9% figure. As far as I know, Islam considers lack of faith in their god to be blasphemy. Hence why so many Muslim countries have blashphemy laws.

Do you often go around and speak on behalf of other people and dictate what religion they practice or do not practice?

Our liberal party wants this too (they're a majority in parliament, so god help us). So Iran, Saudi Arabia, and... Canada! Very scary times we live in. Also: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/live/2017/mar/23/westminster-attack-parliament-resumes-tributes-keith-palmer-live

Was a muslim convert.

I'm sorry, I must have missed the news that Parliament's attempting to make Canada an Islamic theocracy.

Liberals want to sign an "anti-islamaphobia" law. That can be interpreted pretty vaguely, don't you think? Lets see if the charter can protect us, as it is attacking freedom of speech.

It depends on what the goal of the law is. If it's to protect Muslims from harassment, I don't see the problem. If it's to ban the criticism of Islam, then yeah it's bad, but I highly doubt that'll ever happen. If Rebel Media can get away with saying what they do, and the Conversative Party's support of banning the niqab from Citizenship oaths, I highly doubt that they're going to do anything. 

As I said, the term is very vague, which is very worrying. Critism can fall under that category. Look at the objectives. Stop all forms of racism and islamaphobia? Quell public hate and fear? Some very scary terms, and some very vague terms. There shouldn't be any ban on critism on a religion, and this bill is going a long way in doing that.

Edit: Well, I guess it did pass today. Guess the conservatives had a backbone for once. Let it begin ;): http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/m-103-islamophobia-motion-vote-1.4038016

And if you read the top, it says right there that it's a non-binding motion. So it means nothing.