WHY?? No protests around the world about this??

[Mark of Zorro]

so do the kuffar

The sooner you stop using stupid, bigoted words like that, the better for us all.

 

[abdalrasyid]

so what is kuffar mean in your opinion? why u so fast and reactive toward that words? tell me what do u understand about that stupid and biggot words?

 

[noyhauser]

Just a word of wise for you, don't use "Islamic Arabia", Caliphate was anti-nationalist, anti Fascist, anti tribal centric government entity. The center of knowledge like Cordoba, Samarkand, Constantinople, were not been overwhelm by Arabs and are not Arabic country. So do many great figure in Islam from Salahudin Al Ayyubi or as you know as Saladin, Muhammad Al Fatih, Yavus Sultan Selim, and thousand more even millions of them are not Arabs.

We are cross national boundaries brotherhood, that Spread from China to Spain under the way of Islam. You will not also say Ottoman was an Arabic Caliphate that totally blunder, not also a Turkish Caliphate, another blunder, it's Muslim Caliphate that been given bai'ath or oath by the muslim all over the world, from Indonesia to Bosnia, from Albania to Somalia, from the blackest of the black peoples to whitest of the white peoples.

Except that you're not. Pan-islamism is a nice ideal that does not conform to the reality of practice, where there is a major schism between Sunni and Shia states... and even between sunni states.

The reason of our fall is the conspiracy of British and French propaganda, injecting nationalist idea from a man like Arthur Lumney, also the backing for the establishment nationalist feudal of Hejaz, the salafi Saudi Kingdom.

That is a very very limited view that does not encompass the reality and diversity of sources for the Arab political thought. I would argue there are three major strands: Ottoman Nationalism, Safavid clericalism and Wahhabist dual control.

The establishment of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia could be traced to 1744 between ibn Saud with the assistance of Ibn Abd al Wahhab. Wahhab's writings, specifically on the role of religion and state rulers, were critical for establishing a "nationalist" ideal for the early Saudi state. It was very different from the Ottoman's model of political control, with a fairly significant distinction between the Ulema and the King, but still based heavily on more stricter forms of Sharia juristprudence. Its provided the model for much of the Gulf monarchies.

And then there was the Shia based Safavid and Timurid empires that were islamic and frequently clashed with the Ottomans. Their Shah based government and traditions are significantly different, which saw much greater day to day role for clerics, which continues today with the Ayatollah being the supreme leader.

Ottoman's rule was heavily influenced European ideas not because of just one British thinker, but due to its Byzantine history and its proximity to the Russia and Austria. It resulted in a much weaker role for the Islam in governance compared to Iran and the Gulf States. The Ottoman's greatest influencing was in countries on the Mediterranean and ones that do not have monarchies: Syria, Iraq, Egypt, Libya, and Turkey. First, the Ulema or Clerics does not posses the same structured role in their governance, which is more along the lines of Western governments.

My advice, study the history of Islam goodly from a muslim author. I tell you something good, a history is a discourse and discipline of knowledge that man mostly poorly educate or wrongly educate that create miss conception and miss understanding in both present and future.

I've read several, including Ibn Khaldun, who I really enjoy. His discussion of `Asabiyya is one I actually used in an journal article of I wrote. I've also discussed these views with many muslim scholars.

First myth, Taliban use drug trafficking and support their economy with drugs.

Aren't any of you remember who is the one successfully ban and burn the cultivation of Opium in Afghanistan that provide more than 75 percent of the total of world opium supplies? It was the Taliban who ban it and successfully burn it and mark it as illegal.

in 1999 the Taliban banned Opium not because of their religious view but simple economics. Rather they had flooded the international market over the past four years and prices were dropping. Opium probably accounted for over 80 percent of the State's revenue in 1998. The Taliban would have collapsed had they of actually banned opium production. That year was also a banner year for production, and their storehouses were full of refined opium. So they banned opium production in order to drive up the price. If anything they made it cheaper to produce opium. The 20 percent tax they levied on opium is much lower than the 40~80 Percent kickbacks that current groups expect. All one could say about The Taliban and opium was that they were very good at managing their market, not outlawing it.

Today. The US collaborate with Russian Mafia and Afghani Mafia cultivate Poppies in Afghanistan and sell it whole over the world. The occupation of the US to Afghanistan is count not long after Mullah Omar burn more then 90 percent of the total poppies in Afghanistan. Of course they lost trillions dollar profit because the halal and haram of Taliban domestic policies, they need to invade and settle new government over there that more cooperative for US favor.

Absolutely false. Just a complete and utter propaganda. Its even illegal under US law, specifically on drug trafficking. I would argue that one of the worst aspects of US policy was its anti-narcotics policy; it was too severe at the outset and created a large number of farmers who were left destitute when their crops were destroyed and they supported the Taliban. The other side was that it wasn't completely fair. There were a number of afghan leaders who also used it to get revenge on rival leaders.

Second Myth, women are forbid to go to school under Taliban rule

Mr Blair talking about the evil Taliban, that this nation are so evil they don't even let their kids to fly a kite. What he and Bush not told us yet is, how the Taliban feed their babies for dog food and put them in dark basement and let them sleep above the broken glasses, if they say you so will you believe it peoples?

While all of us here seating in the cozy chair, in see 19 peoples that shot in the theater as tragedy and non of us know the reality of the war, when a thousand of peoples die not even a tragedy not even worth enough to be put in CNN unless, we only believe what the tv told us to believe. TV is the truth for most of peoples, TV is the prophet, while their nation is their God and nationality is their religion. And false emancipatory war is their religious teaching, hating the enemy of the state their foe is their moral conduct.

I wouldn't be too sure about that. I have seen enough Innocent afghans and devout muslims, die because they didn't accept the Taliban's control in their area. Its quite common for individuals to join the Taliban to carry out revenge. Certainly the western forces have caused large numbers of casualties, through air strikes and the Central government has serious problems with corruption and injustices. However what the Taliban has never altered its use of terror, and violence against civilians to enforce its control. And the women were forbidden to go to school in areas. Claiming otherwise just ignored the reality of what they are doing.

 

[abdalrasyid]

The sooner you stop using stupid, bigoted words like that, the better for us all.

You log off while I wait for you so you don't understand what it mean. I appreciate many of your post except your hesitation to condemn someone stupid and idiot so easily, that is not humble

Kuffar or Kafir mean reject. In surah Ali Imran state

Wala Kafiranna anhum sayyitihim

(I will reject for you your evil deeds) or it mean forgiven.

Kafir mean reject. In surah Al Kafirun

Qul Ya ayyuhal Kafiruun
Say oh you who reject (or disbelieve)
La a'budu ma ta'budun
I do not worship what you worship
Wa laa antum abidunamaa a'bud
Nor are you worshippers of what I worship.
Wa laa ana a' biduma abattum
Nor will I be a worshipper of what you worship.
Wa laa antum a' bidunamaa a'bud
Nor will you be worshippers of what I worship.
Lakum diinukum waliyadiin
For you is your religion, and for me is my religion.

This surah special talking about those who reject or those who disbelieves with Allah, Muhammad (saw) and Quran. So simply those who reject or disbelieve Islam we call the them the disbelieves.

Isn't it true? and I will always use the terms kuffar and kafir, this is something that already ordain and truth. Even the one who helping Islam in the first struggle is the uncle of the prophet who is Abu Thalib the father of Ali he also non believer or kafir. And the prophet love him so much, but he is kafir, he don't believe in Allah, Quran and Muhammad (saw).

So do we accommodate the custom of the kafir in the time of caliphate, as the Jews have they own court that been rule by Torah and Talmud, and Christian have christian court that been rule by Bible. Are our terms of Kafir make us behave like the Christian of infidel where they persecute and genocide us in Spain, Sicily and many other places?

We protect the kafir and we let them to worship and to be believe what ever their like, we even protect their dignity, isn't it right? It is the Arianus Christian and the Jews that been exploit by Visigoth who invite muslim to come to rescue them, and the muslim come with Tariq Ibn Ziyad (r) to rescue them and later the Kingdom of Andalus settle where the Muslim live side by side with the kafir and the kafir enjoy the freedom and the magnificent of cordoba for hundreds years?

As our prophet say those who harm Kafir Dhimni will be my foe in the day of judgement so we protect their everything like we protect our own? Tell me and compare when muslim persecute minority religion and disbeliever like Christian do to Muslim even to their own sect?

And the terms kafir can't be erase as the terms of citizen and foreigner can't be erase. It is nothing but fact. But the myth of being kafir make you throw such words to me.

---------- Post added at 07:45 ---------- Previous post was at 07:43 ----------

It's late now, I will reply this later

Except that you're not. Pan-islamism is a nice ideal that does not conform to the reality of practice, where there is a major schism between Sunni and Shia states... and even between sunni states.




That is a very very limited view that does not encompass the reality and diversity of sources for the Arab political thought. I would argue there are three major strands: Ottoman Nationalism, Safavid clericalism and Wahhabist dual control.

The establishment of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia could be traced to 1744 between ibn Saud with the assistance of Ibn Abd al Wahhab. Wahhab's writings, specifically on the role of religion and state rulers, were critical for establishing a "nationalist" ideal for the early Saudi state. It was very different from the Ottoman's model of political control, with a fairly significant distinction between the Ulema and the King, but still based heavily on more stricter forms of Sharia juristprudence. Its provided the model for much of the Gulf monarchies.

And then there was the Shia based Safavid and Timurid empires that were islamic and frequently clashed with the Ottomans. Their Shah based government and traditions are significantly different, which saw much greater day to day role for clerics, which continues today with the Ayatollah being the supreme leader.

Ottoman's rule was heavily influenced European ideas not because of just one British thinker, but due to its Byzantine history and its proximity to the Russia and Austria. It resulted in a much weaker role for the Islam in governance compared to Iran and the Gulf States. The Ottoman's greatest influencing was in countries on the Mediterranean and ones that do not have monarchies: Syria, Iraq, Egypt, Libya, and Turkey. First, the Ulema or Clerics does not posses the same structured role in their governance, which is more along the lines of Western governments.



I've read several, including Ibn Khaldun, who I really enjoy. His discussion of `Asabiyya is one I actually used in an journal article of I wrote. I've also discussed these views with many muslim scholars.





in 1999 the Taliban banned Opium not because of their religious view but simple economics. Rather they had flooded the international market over the past four years and prices were dropping. Opium probably accounted for over 80 percent of the State's revenue in 1998. The Taliban would have collapsed had they of actually banned opium production. That year was also a banner year for production, and their storehouses were full of refined opium. So they banned opium production in order to drive up the price. If anything they made it cheaper to produce opium. The 20 percent tax they levied on opium is much lower than the 40~80 Percent kickbacks that current groups expect. All one could say about The Taliban and opium was that they were very good at managing their market, not outlawing it.





Absolutely false. Just a complete and utter propaganda. Its even illegal under US law, specifically on drug trafficking. I would argue that one of the worst aspects of US policy was its anti-narcotics policy; it was too severe at the outset and created a large number of farmers who were left destitute when their crops were destroyed and they supported the Taliban. The other side was that it wasn't completely fair. There were a number of afghan leaders who also used it to get revenge on rival leaders.



I wouldn't be too sure about that. I have seen enough Innocent afghans and devout muslims, die because they didn't accept the Taliban's control in their area. Its quite common for individuals to join the Taliban to carry out revenge. Certainly the western forces have caused large numbers of casualties, through air strikes and the Central government has serious problems with corruption and injustices. However what the Taliban has never altered its use of terror, and violence against civilians to enforce its control. And the women were forbidden to go to school in areas. Claiming otherwise just ignored the reality of what they are doing.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

So simply those who reject or disbelieve Islam we call the them the disbelieves.

I know what it means and I know you think its a neutral term, despite perfectly good definitions of infidel and "hiders of the truth". But even if it were neutral, it is a word that separates Muslims from all OTHERS. It indicates to Muslims that there are Muslims in the world and OTHERS only, at best, and its bad enough. At worst it teachers Muslims that everyone else is a pack of liars and worthy only of contempt.

In English we would say "people who are not Muslims", not a word, but an entire phrase, but even then, we would hardly ever use such a phrase. We might even say "non-Muslim" but its a compound. Having a single word for that OTHER group of people is bigoted and therefore stupid. It teaches Muslims to be bigoted, even if some Muslims are not despite the ugly semantics of that word.

There are Christians, Jews, Buddists, agnostics, atheists, Wiccans, etc. etc. and they all deserve more respect than be lumped together with a single word, kafir. Its even more disrespectful than when Christians say "unbeliever", because the word itself does not mean "non-Christian". Anybody of any religion can use the word "unbeliever". But the meaning of kafir is more rigid. Its more akin to leper, untouchable, the South African use of the same kafir, slope, or the Japanese burakumin.

I suggest you throw the word away and never use it again.

 

[Wardibald]

I know what it means and I know you think its a neutral term, despite perfectly good definitions of infidel and "hiders of the truth". But even if it were neutral, it is a word that separates Muslims from all OTHERS. It indicates to Muslims that there are Muslims in the world and OTHERS only, at best, and its bad enough. At worst it teachers Muslims that everyone else is a pack of liars and worthy only of contempt.
In English we would say "people who are not Muslims", not a word, but an entire phrase, but even then, we would hardly ever use such a phrase. We might even say "non-Muslim" but its a compound. Having a single word for that OTHER group of people is bigoted and therefore stupid. It teaches Muslims to be bigoted, even if some Muslims are not despite the ugly semantics of that word.

To some extent I agree with this. It is a separatist term in the strongest sense of the word. That it means "reject" doesn't quite make me feel any better about it, since that means an active, negative motion. I do not "reject" Islam, but I do not embrace it either. Using the term kaffir means this middle ground cannot exist.
I hope now it may be better understood what I meant with responsibility in free speech, in the other thread. Things you say can be very offensive to other people, even if you see no harm in them yourself. However, making words like that unlawful is against free speech.

Many people get offended by many things. Keep up forbidding all these various terms and practices and one can hardly open one's mouth anymore. Especially in an increasingly multicultural world. This is why free speech needs to be protected. And why it is a requirement for living together in relative peace. Everyone needs a bit of self-relativation to make this work. The understanding that others who are not like you, are also not against you (rejecting you), is quintessential.

So I forbid no one from using the mentioned term (who am I to do this anyway), but be mindful of the consequences of using it.
-
To the matter of this thread then.

Don't get offense from this advice I mean no offense just a sharing for you. I know person like you will happy to get this.

Indeed. Thank you. This sort of thing makes me glad I participated in this thread.

First myth, Taliban use drug trafficking and support their economy with drugs.
Second Myth, women are forbid to go to school under Taliban rule

It may be a good idea to read up a bit on what Wikipedia has to say on this matter:

Taliban - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Taliban treatment of women - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I hope you will take this source of information seriously and not label it something like "western conspirational propaganda". It is very well documented by external sources and it is by far the largest peer reviewed source of information available. It contains many accounts of witnesses and victims of Taliban oppression.

Reading this, and fully grasping all the ramifications is enough to make a grown man cry (figuratively speaking); this treatment of half of their population is far far worse than the worst days of South-African apartheid.
I am always one to try and understand there is no black and white in this world, just shades of grey, but this? It is everything a humane society is not.

And a word on the posted youtube fragment on the converted woman:
Notice how she is
*not wearing a burka
*allowed to speak and be heard
*not accompanied by a male chaperone who takes full responsibility for everything she says and does

This would be against everything the taliban stands for. She may be converted to Islam, but in taliban society she would at best be flayed mercilessly, but probably rather be shot on the spot or stoned in public.

Only? She fought against the Taliban directly even if only in words. She was Tokyo Rose for the Taliban.
Yes, the Taliban are a bunch of backward idiots. Probably the closest thing on Earth we have left of cavemen. But her words and activism were a threat to them.
To the Taliban, she might as well have been Osama bin Laden. Did Osama actually lift a finger to harm anyone? Not that I know of. What he did was spread ideas. The problem was his mouth. His mouth got people on our side killed. Her mouth got people on their side killed.
-
Me too. Just remember that sides must take a back seat to principles. The American government does not define my principles. I still side with the American government more than any other, but I am very often opposed, because I am not a thrall.
I never liked the Taliban. But I do remember a time when they were cheered for bringing stability to Afghanistan. I do believe that if left alone they could have evolved, just like everybody else. Look at China. They step closer to capitalism every day.
But America decided to topple Taliban. Why? Because they harbored al-Q? That's not a good enough reason to destabilize a whole country!
And you know what happened because America decided to destablize Afghanistan? The Taliban spread into Pakistan! Which leads us directly to why this Pakistani teen was gunned down, not in Afghanistan, but Pakistan!
And now lets go back to women's rights and freedom of speech. You think that is what the region needs right now? You think that will bring peace and stability? That is like saying we will get there faster by putting the cart in front of the horse! Its not going to happen. You name me any country that went from a mess to a modern westernized country and I will show you a place where freedom of speech and women's rights came only after stability and a significant period of time.
It all has to start with stability. They had it. America destroyed it. And its been 11 years of death and destruction ever since. Women's rights? Freedom of speech? How about the right to not live in a friggen war zone patrolled by trigger happy American predator drones? The Taliban are scum and they are not nice. But better to live with the Taliban than to live dead. Think about that.

I do understand what you mean. No, the US and allies (Belgium too) did not invade because of some feeling for humanitarian plight. The reason was, imho, to find another piece of territory to gain a military foothold in, and to gain acces to an area rich in mineral deposits (e.g. lithium and uranium) and other natural resources.
In other words: gain a strategic territorial advantage and gain an economic advantage. What other reasons have there been throughout history to start a war?

But thinking the taliban could evolve into something even remotely like the freedom we like to take for granted, is the same as hoping a pebble will jump up on its own and give you a haircut.
A regime like that needs to be overthrown in order for change to happen. Either an invasion like this or an internal, likely to be just as bloody, civil war.

Like I stated before: this is a very complicated and difficult matter. I only said, that if the taliban would be toppled in the process, at least one good thing would come out of this total mess.
Would an invasion, even with humanitarian thoughts as the driving force, be a good idea in any case?
Good question. I do not pretend I have an answer for you.

 

[Hezam]

Couple months ago i talked to an Afghani man [ 40-45 year old ] who is working in a restaurant in my Neighborhood and i asked him about Taliban, He said he doesn't know where Taliban came from and he told me that there is bad and good persons in the Taliban government.

 

[undrentide]

It looks to me that the discussion wandered off the point from around the post #8...

I do not think it is about a crime to a woman.
It happenes to be a girl who was shot by TTP, who announced that they did shoot her because she was persistant and did not stop critisizing TTP 'despite their warning'.
What she was claiming was mainly about the women's right to get education.
I believe that getting education is one of the basic human rights.
Seeing that in most countries where Muslim is the major religion women are able to go to school and get proper education, to my eyes it is not against Islam.

Someone claims that people deserve one of the basic human rights, then this person is warned (to me sounds more like a threat) and if this person ignore the "warning", it means getting shot down to be killed.
Where is the sanity about this???

To me people who act like this or support such an action are barbarians, and if they do it under the name of Islam, it is an insult to the religion and its followers.

 

[abdalrasyid]

I choose to answer this first after that I will go on to answer Noy, well I'm late to answer to limit myself on writing and put more portion on reading, life must be balance for me. Because the world will be dysfunction if it full itself with the silent and coward reader, but it will be banal and empty if it fill itself full of uneducated writer.

I know what it means and I know you think its a neutral term, despite perfectly good definitions of infidel and "hiders of the truth". But even if it were neutral, it is a word that separates Muslims from all OTHERS. It indicates to Muslims that there are Muslims in the world and OTHERS only, at best, and its bad enough. At worst it teachers Muslims that everyone else is a pack of liars and worthy only of contempt.
In English we would say "people who are not Muslims", not a word, but an entire phrase, but even then, we would hardly ever use such a phrase. We might even say "non-Muslim" but its a compound. Having a single word for that OTHER group of people is bigoted and therefore stupid. It teaches Muslims to be bigoted, even if some Muslims are not despite the ugly semantics of that word.
There are Christians, Jews, Buddists, agnostics, atheists, Wiccans, etc. etc. and they all deserve more respect than be lumped together with a single word, kafir. Its even more disrespectful than when Christians say "unbeliever", because the word itself does not mean "non-Christian". Anybody of any religion can use the word "unbeliever". But the meaning of kafir is more rigid. Its more akin to leper, untouchable, the South African use of the same kafir, slope, or the Japanese burakumin.
I suggest you throw the word away and never use it again.

I don't like debating with you, not with the fact that I found u truth or you coming out with a tight exegesis that hard for me to answer, but with the fact that you defend my sister in other forum, and Islam also the muslim in many places. If I can avoid not debate u I will avoid but as you without knowledge and understanding already call part of our religion as stupid, so I will stand firm on debating you in this matter more than other matters, for me this is crucial.

First you cannot erase the terms of Kafir or tell us not to use that terms because it also part of our religion recognizing those who don't believe, reject, disapproving Islam as kafir. So if you are non muslim, you are kafir, as simple as that.

Innaladzi na kafaru Min Ahlil Kitabi Wal Musyrikina Munfakkina Hatta Tattiya Humul Bayyinah

Verily, the disbeliever from the peoples of the book and the polytheist will not change until it comes to them clear sign.

I know a little arabic I translate it myself, you can check better translation by Yusuf Ali or other, but it will not changes a lots. This is surah Al Bayyinah. We even mention the words Kafir in these surah to refer to the peoples of the book and the polytheist, which both of them are rejecting Allah and His prophet.

The problem with this words not with the essence or meaning of this words but the problem is with how you define and understand this words, in a short explanation the problem is with you not with the words kafir itself.
You tell me the reason that you disagreeing with the use words of Kafir because it come as a one words to determine other than Muslim, as you will be more agree if we explain the definition of kafir than say it "Kafir" clearly, and you call that stupid. I mean what is it?

How about calling the other non american citizen, be it japanese, Indonesian, British, Germany, Arabs, Syrian, as a foreigner? is it an act of stupidity? how about calling those who don't believe in Christianity, be it muslim, budhist, hindust, and other sect of Christianity as the heathen, infidel, or black sheep? is it stupidity? How about if we muslim simply calling those who not believe in Allah, Muhammad, Quran, etc, as those who disbelieve or those who reject that it mean in Arabic as Kafir be they are Christian, Budhist, Agnostic, Hindu, or other religion, is it stupidity?

It is your mind and your perception of the words kafir itself is the one who in trouble. As you say it separate the muslim from other and make us think that you are on your big plan to fight against us. While Kafir is not as you mention, Kafir is simply naming the one who disapprove Islam.

Also if what you think is right, why then the Christian coptic, begging Amr Ibn Ash (ra) to retake Egypt from the hand of the East Roman Empire? because as being a kafir in a land of Muslim they been given the freedom to worship, the freedom to express themselves in some extent, and a light taxation that similar with dzakat which is around 2,5 percent from their yearly profit. While under the Christian, the Infidel, the hearten is been hunt to death to unless convert and dies.

I don't want to down grade the Christian here, but you lead discussion in this manner which for me it really not necessary and it force me to bring historical fact to make a comparison on how the kafir live in Islam and how the Infidel live in Christian land.

Machiavelli in his book the prince tell to Borgia, the Christian in Balkan and many other parts of the world love the Caliphate because of their fairness, low taxation and religious protection. In our thousands year of existence we never have any appetite to converting peoples to Islam, while Christian by force do that with their inquisition.
The Christian brutality toward Infidel can be answer by how many left of the Muslim in Spain, Jews in Spain, also Arianus Christian in Spain in the time of Isabella and Pope Innocence. None of them left, the infidel as they are the enemy of the church who plotting and dishonoring the teaching of christ been persecute by Spain Inquisitors. That is historical fact.

While now see how the kuffar live in Muslim Land. In Lebanon, Egypt, Indonesia, Syria, tons and tons muslim country they religious freedom been protected by Muslim under the name of Kafir Dhimni.

Please don't teach us about religious freedom and living within multi cultural manners, historically we are more successful then the western Christianity.

If you keep insulting with the words stupid, I gonna be strict on u, but if you behave, I will respect you.

---------- Post added at 05:01 ---------- Previous post was at 04:43 ----------

Except that you're not. Pan-islamism is a nice ideal that does not conform to the reality of practice, where there is a major schism between Sunni and Shia states... and even between sunni states.




That is a very very limited view that does not encompass the reality and diversity of sources for the Arab political thought. I would argue there are three major strands: Ottoman Nationalism, Safavid clericalism and Wahhabist dual control.

The establishment of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia could be traced to 1744 between ibn Saud with the assistance of Ibn Abd al Wahhab. Wahhab's writings, specifically on the role of religion and state rulers, were critical for establishing a "nationalist" ideal for the early Saudi state. It was very different from the Ottoman's model of political control, with a fairly significant distinction between the Ulema and the King, but still based heavily on more stricter forms of Sharia juristprudence. Its provided the model for much of the Gulf monarchies.

And then there was the Shia based Safavid and Timurid empires that were islamic and frequently clashed with the Ottomans. Their Shah based government and traditions are significantly different, which saw much greater day to day role for clerics, which continues today with the Ayatollah being the supreme leader.

Ottoman's rule was heavily influenced European ideas not because of just one British thinker, but due to its Byzantine history and its proximity to the Russia and Austria. It resulted in a much weaker role for the Islam in governance compared to Iran and the Gulf States. The Ottoman's greatest influencing was in countries on the Mediterranean and ones that do not have monarchies: Syria, Iraq, Egypt, Libya, and Turkey. First, the Ulema or Clerics does not posses the same structured role in their governance, which is more along the lines of Western governments.



I've read several, including Ibn Khaldun, who I really enjoy. His discussion of `Asabiyya is one I actually used in an journal article of I wrote. I've also discussed these views with many muslim scholars.





in 1999 the Taliban banned Opium not because of their religious view but simple economics. Rather they had flooded the international market over the past four years and prices were dropping. Opium probably accounted for over 80 percent of the State's revenue in 1998. The Taliban would have collapsed had they of actually banned opium production. That year was also a banner year for production, and their storehouses were full of refined opium. So they banned opium production in order to drive up the price. If anything they made it cheaper to produce opium. The 20 percent tax they levied on opium is much lower than the 40~80 Percent kickbacks that current groups expect. All one could say about The Taliban and opium was that they were very good at managing their market, not outlawing it.





Absolutely false. Just a complete and utter propaganda. Its even illegal under US law, specifically on drug trafficking. I would argue that one of the worst aspects of US policy was its anti-narcotics policy; it was too severe at the outset and created a large number of farmers who were left destitute when their crops were destroyed and they supported the Taliban. The other side was that it wasn't completely fair. There were a number of afghan leaders who also used it to get revenge on rival leaders.



I wouldn't be too sure about that. I have seen enough Innocent afghans and devout muslims, die because they didn't accept the Taliban's control in their area. Its quite common for individuals to join the Taliban to carry out revenge. Certainly the western forces have caused large numbers of casualties, through air strikes and the Central government has serious problems with corruption and injustices. However what the Taliban has never altered its use of terror, and violence against civilians to enforce its control. And the women were forbidden to go to school in areas. Claiming otherwise just ignored the reality of what they are doing.

Good that you read Ibn Khaldun. But that is classic literature that not cover many part. About Savafid its different. It come from the very first time of it existence also as Persian nationalist not as religious entity, even a microsoft Historian like Tamim Ansary are agree with that terms. While Timurids, I don't recall there are many war between Timurids and Ottoman. Except one great war that is cause by a false messages that Beyazit is siding with Christian fighting the muslim, as in his time he put more effort on fighting his fellow muslim than protecting them from the wave of crusaders, and some Christian spy spread this issue until it reach Timurids, resulting this battle.

After the battle of Ankara Timurids stop the attack and not continue, if he want to, he already occupy Sivas and even whole of the Anatolia. But instead of that he move back he accept the ruling of Mehmet Celebi. So it negate your notion.

Timurids also not as you Imagine, it is not a long last dynasty that stand for so long like Mughal for example, it just spread so fastly then later been absorb under the realm of Ottoman. It only a nation that start with Timur and decline and later join the Caliphate after Timur.

About the Taliban. I more believe the information of someone like Yvonne Riddley, she have no tendency, or any political interest on defending Taliban, it even risk her life as she been threaten by Mossad because her testimonies. And she say women under Taliban rule can go to school and not feel oppress unlike what US want us to believe. Then why should I believe that she is lying? While I have thousand of reason and fact to believe US war propaganda mostly lies. Just remember how the US picture the Japanese peoples as an evil bad peoples even as monkey as it address detaily in Noam Chomsky, and put most of the Japanese that live in US at 1939 into prison, it also been cause by the same reason. Black Campaign. True or not? now they want to do the exactly same things with the taliban, and peoples forgot the history! right.

About Ottoman empire, I will put this article for us to read :
___________________________________________________________________________
The abolition of the Caliphate, which gathered Muslims under a united leadership, notwithstanding their ethnic or racial background, was the primary aim sought by the Crusades of colonizers.

With a view to impairing and attenuating the Islamic identity - as part of ideological attacks - the Western states spread fallacious, dangerous and destructive to Islamdom ideas of nationalism and patriotism.

One of the first Islamic countries, where nationalism made its way, was Turkey, and the first who persistently fanned the flames of Turkish nationalism, was the orientalist Arthur Lumley, David, who lived in the first half of 19th century.

During his journey to Turkey, he wrote a book "Preliminary considerations," which attempted to show Turks as a prominent and independent race, superior to the Arabs and other Oriental peoples. It was one of the earliest works to put forward nationalism, a totally unknown phenomenon in the Ottoman Caliphate.

In his work "Islam in history," the most famous and influential contemporary Orientalist Bernard Lewis writes: "The book by a British Jews encouraged Turks to view themselves as a prominent and independent nation."

Before the spread of Western ideas and propaganda in the Ottoman Caliphate no signs of nationalism had existed. Muslims, who observed the Sharia, until the beginning of 20th century had viewed each other as brothers, culling by a degree of piety.

While professing the same religion, they lived a satisfying life under the rule of the Ottoman Caliphate, recognizing their common responsibility for it. Nevertheless, a book by the above-mentioned Orientalist inspired some cocky and superficial intellectuals and politicians with an idea about the superiority of the Turkish race.

First, they translated most of David's writings into Turkish. But later, some of them imitated his arguments claiming the glorious past of the "Turkish race", to publish their own treatises. As Bernard Lewis notes: "Thus, the Turks discovered their nationality stimulated by the Occident and by works by Western authors."

Speaking of other people who helped promote the ideas of Turkish nationalism, it is essential to mention a French writer David Leon Cohen. His book, "General introduction to the history of Asia" (1899) also discusses the racial superiority of the Turks and their great contribution to history.

Bernard Lewis argues that it was this work, translated into Turkish and published in a large issue in early 20th century, that gave rise to Pan-Turkism of Young Turks movement and triggered the revolution in 1908.

Aside from the above book Cohen published several works on the glorious past of the Turks. Needless to say, the primary idea of this orientalist, extolled with enthusiastic praise by Turks, was to incite racial prejudice and weaken the link between the Turks and other Muslim nations.

It should be noted that Cohen was not content with merely writing his own papers, but he also founded in Paris the society for the Turkish and Egyptian refugees, and was trying to lay the groundwork for the nationalist movements in their respective countries.

Creating a secret revolutionary society named "Unity and Progress" was the most significant and awful outcome of work made with his participation.

The founders of this society originated from the Turkish youth who aligned with French republican ideas of and took a careful insight into French Revolution. A well-organized structure, with its own extremist agenda and strong and durable channels of propaganda, this society ran its chapters in Berlin, Thessaloniki and Istanbul.

Masonic organizations, including the largest organization of Italian Masons in Thessaloniki, supported "Unity and Progress" and helped them conduct publishing work, as well as provided their venues to lodge the meetings of its members, many of whom were also affiliated with masons.

Underground printed material of the organization reached Istanbul via European diplomatic missions, to be secretly distributed by its members in Turkey.

Apparently the key role in sparking both the Turkish and Arab nationalism was played by an Orientalist Arminius Vambery - son of a rabbi from Hungary who published a number of papers on the need to revive the Turkish nation, language and literature.

His work attracted the attention of the pro-Western, or the so-called "enlightened" Turks, and awoke their patriotism.

Vambery kept close liaisons with Turkish statesmen and politicians of the highest rank. Already during the life of this "traveler" his links were revealed with British intelligence. The impact of this orientalist on the Islamic views of some Turks was so significant, that they even advised Turkish as a language of the Holy Qur'an and worship instead of Arabic.

After the caliph Abd al-Hamid II firmly and finely rejected claims by Zionists (represented by Theodor Herzl) to purchase a part of the Palestinian territories for huge amounts of money, these coordinated their efforts with the states of the Entente, actuated their agents in the environment of the Turkish nationalists.

The conspiracy of colonialism and Zionism spawned the development of Young Turks, the revolution of 1908 and a coup d'etat whereby Abdul-Hamid II was deposed. The Young Turks, carrying out the Zionist plan, adopted a pan-Turkic stance in their policy, assuming superiority of the Turkish race.

After taking an anti-Arab bias, the Turks closed down all Arab cultural organization and actively discriminated against Arabs and non-Turks, thus adopting a policy in concert with the plans of British colonialism to stimulate the development of Arab nationalism.

Arab youth nurtured the idea that "Turkey had colonized your country. It's now right time to get rid of colonial rule". This soaked their hearts and minds with a sense of nationalism, and made them form political parties with the aim to uniting the Arabs and liberating them from Turkish influence.

Thus, Zionism and imperialism and discrimination against Arabs, on the one hand, coincided with the incitement of Arab nationalism and the opposition to the Turks, on the other hand. Before that date, Arabs had viewed themselves as a common nation. But as soon as the Turks had proclaimed the superiority of Turkish culture over other cultures, Arabs also began to insist on acknowledging their own national identity.

While sparking the trends of nationalism and dissent in the Muslim lands, by backing up the call for secession from the Ottoman Caliphate, the Europeans trumpeted that Ottoman Caliphate should implement a European model of citizenship, and impose this framework onto the so-called young nation-states.

This was the first step to disband the Ottoman Caliphate from within and share it into individual States that would split from Islam, adopt the European model of citizenship as a substitute, thereby gradually alienating Islam from the people and their Islamic feelings replacing with nationalistic and patriotic jingoism.

All this was openly revealed, for example, by a famous British spy, Thomas Edward Lawrence. He entered the territory of the Middle East in the Oriental archaeological expedition that was used as a cover for British military intelligence.

Once, while crossing the distance between military camps of the sons of the main Arab traitor - the sheriff of Mecca Husayn ibn Ali, he said, in particular: "All the way I have been thinking of Syria ... During the Hajj, I wondered: will ever nationalism replace religion? Will a patriotic belief prevail over religious beliefs? Whether Syria will ever replace its religious ideal with patriotism? "

Organizer and actual leader of the Arab revolt against the Ottoman Caliphate, Lawrence, in his book "Seven Pillars of Wisdom" wrote:

"I deeply believed in the Arab movement. Even before arriving in Hijaz, I was convinced that it is this idea that would crush Turkey for good. "

In a report "The Politics of Mecca," sent in January 1916 to the directors of British intelligence, he says:

"If we manage to convince Arabs to suddenly and by force enforce their rights vis-à-vis Turkey, it will put an end to the threat of Islam and will push Muslims for an internecine war that will dissent them from the inside. There will be a Caliph in Turkey and there will be another one in the Arab world. Then they will rage a religious war between each other.

After this, Islam will no longer bother us. Our main goal - to disrupt Islamic unity, to win over the Ottoman Empire and push it in into disintegration. If we understand how we should work with the Arabs, they will be in constant political anarchy, in small warring with each other states that will not be able to unite with each other. "

After the revolution of 1908, the Young Turks began to enforce the power of Turkish nationalism and propaganda through the media. Racial and nationalistic policies of the Young Turks, educated in Masonic lodges across Europe, has fueled the flames of Arab nationalism - the phenomenon which, in turn, was openly supported by the British.

Counter-attacks inflicted on Turks by Arab rebels, along with the expansion of Western education and training of students in Europe further stirred up the Turkish nationalist frenzy.

In an attempt to protect at least some rudiments of Islam in the people, some Muslim thinkers have attempted to blend Islam with nationalism. But whereas these two concepts are incompatible, their idea from the start was doomed to failure. The increasing promotion of nationalism and colonization, eventually led to the rise of Mustafa Kemal, known as Ataturk, obsessed with hatred for Islam and everything associated with it.

The fact that European governments took under their wing the advocates of nationalism in the Islamic world, had the greatest impact on the buoyancy of nationalism. By implementing the ideas of nationalism and patriotism they caused destruction of the Ottoman Caliphate and the division of Muslim nations. These ideas were implemented, not only among Arabs and Turks, but also among other peoples who lived under the shadow of the Caliphate.

Bernard Lewis, briefly setting out this tragedy, which served as a motive for Schadenfreude of the West against Muslims, said: "In that Empire, the main devotion of Muslims aligns with Islam and the state embodies a concrete form of reality of Islam - the Caliphate, which has acquired a legal nature over centuries, and administers public affairs.

The opposition, the rebels and the insurgents sought to change ministers, governors and even the whole of the Caliphate, who ruled at the time, though never trying to change the basis of loyalty to the State of Islam and the unity of its essence. This situation in the Middle East had prevailed until 19thcentury and may have lasted into 20th century.

The idea of ​​establishing state based on patriotism and nationalism had been alien to Muslims, before the Western philosophical trends ushered people into a new way of thinking.

Thus began the era of Occidental influence. The late 19th and early 20th century saw the Muslims in Islamic caliphate change their allegiance. Their ancient alignment gave way to Occidental scattered and fragmented thoughts: a mixture of patriotism, nationalism, and unrealistic ideas of homeland and nation, which replaced the old, real truth of the state and doctrine".

Introducing the idea of nationalism and patriotism challenged the essence of a united Islamic nation and split the Islamic world in many maverick states, warring among themselves.

In the midst of World War I, in May 1916, Britain and France (with the agreement of Russia), concluded a secret Sykes-Picot agreement to divide the Arab territory of the Ottoman Caliphate, which led to the partition of Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and Palestine into British and France zones of influence.

In reciprocation for the occupation of Palestine, the British promised the Zionists to retaliate for their assistance.

On November 2, 1917 British Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour sent a formal letter to a representative of the Jewish community to Lord Walter Rothschild, for transmission to the Zionist Federation of Great Britain.

The text of the letter, known as the "Balfour Declaration" states that: "His Majesty's government view with favor the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of this object."

While acknowledging that it had to pay the Zionists for their help in the destruction of the Ottoman Caliphate, the British Prime Minister Lloyd George said: "... the Balfour Declaration represents not a simple act of mercy. It should be understood that a point here is a deal in exchange for support ... the Jews of the world of the Allied cause. "

And in 1923, Turkish nationalists under the leadership of Ataturk on the one hand and a coalition of allies, led by Britain and France on the other hand concluded the so-called Peace Treaty of Lausanne, signed without question, whereby the government legalize the disintegration of Ataturk Ottoman Caliphate and announced the establishment on its ruins of secular Turkish Republic.

As a result of Turkish nationalism, Turkey joined NATO and, consequently, lost its very political and cultural independence. Remaining abandoned without the patronage and protection of the Caliphate, the Muslim countries have coveted prey of rapacious colonizers and became the scene of incessant wars.

---------- Post added at 05:15 ---------- Previous post was at 05:01 ----------

Taliban - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Taliban treatment of women - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm sorry but spamming wikipedia is not a way to clearly understand Taliban, as a person like me is also contribute in Wikipedia. Backthen the US praise the fearless Mujahideen fighting the Sovyet, both in their media and entertainment, still remember how Rambo being accompany with fearless and honest Afghan Mujahideen? now suddenly when they protect themselves against US invasion they becoming heathen both cultural and as political entity, peoples re-define the definition of freedom fighter as terrorist. Don't you tired with these double standard?

 

[Mark of Zorro]

If you keep insulting with the words stupid, I gonna be strict on u, but if you behave, I will respect you.

Instead, I urge you to change.

No need to respect ME. Respect the truth and the path to it, above ALL ELSE. And THAT point is where I begin to run into trouble with Muslims, because so many of them will put a book full of words first, words which are fallible NO MATTER WHAT ANYONE OR ANY GOD SAYS.

Fine if you say God is unlimited. But we humans are regardless. God cannot communicate with us perfectly, even if it SEEMS he said he could. We MUST have misunderstood!

but with the fact that you defend my sister in other forum, and Islam also the muslim in many places.

On one hand I appreciate that. On the other, again, I am not what needs respecting.

If you insist that God and Mohammad are/were perfect, I will not argue with you. But if you say human language and Arabic are perfect, I will argue that tooth and nail. A perfect God and a perfect Mohammad CANNOT perfectly communicate with us via our imperfect language. Language must change and adapt. Better if that change is guided by reason.

All of this imperfection is evidenced by varying interpretations of the Koran even by Muslim scholars.

First you cannot erase the terms of Kafir or tell us not to use that terms because it also part of our religion recognizing those who don't believe, reject, disapproving Islam as kafir. So if you are non muslim, you are kafir, as simple as that.

And I have a feeling that it is quite possible that the next prophet will come and chastize you for being so hard-headed and ask: Why are you still using that word!

There are ways forward, ways of making holy books productive, if you just accept that no book of human language can be perfect. The Western Christian world has accepted this and have made stunning progress. Far too many Muslims reject this and its not helping them, or anyone.

Please understand that I still believe both worlds have much to teach each other, but I see the Western Christian world as being ahead because they have rejected the hard headed approach that a book of ancient human language is perfect and up to date and we should all adapt to the book.

They key point of how language is imperfect is that it changes over time. You may keep the word in the Koran because it was the truth that it was used. But just because Mohammad used it in his time does not mean its a perfect word and therefore you should use it today. That is backward and foolish. Mohammad lived in a certain time. Times change. I urge you to change with them. There is nothing stopping you from ceasing to use that word except to quote the Koran.

But to reject wise change is to guarantee stagnation. And that is truly where the Muslim world is at right now. I don't think God or Mohammad wanted that for Muslims.

 

[abdalrasyid]

You always love using intimidation and playing around with the words foolish, backwards, hard-headed for something that is not fit with your point of view, as something that does not orbiting around your little logic you put them into a Blasphemy in your believes. I don't like that attitude.

As I never mock or downgrade your point and as a person who try to apply Islam as my way of life, I don't even get used with swearing and saying horrible words toward others. But it seems your "wise" point of view becoming fruitless in dealing with your basic manners especially on communicating to others.

Of course there are peoples who cannot stick in discussion and try to understand each other then throwing an arrogance comment about other's belief, and becoming verbally aggressive when things going out from his wish, that is what I call foolish and backwards, contrary your definition of foolish and backwards is when things keep firm on it places and not orbiting within your understanding regarding right or wrong, good or bad.

Don't call it wise changes, you the one who need wise changes on your debating attitude. While I don't urge you to agree with me, as you urge me to agree with you with your mockery, I urge you to discuss with civil manners on disagreeing with me but you can't even go to sleep without spitting and mocking those who not agree with you.

I don't want to be wise in your definition, urging other with mockery and aggressive verbal is not wise for me, but expressing a point of views with understanding, tolerances and good manners it is something that I call wise.

Just look at Noy, he doesn't agree with me, even I can bet as someone who love US and its policies he deeply annoys with my argumentation on defending Taliban position, but he keeps his behavior civil. Hence even I don't agree with him morally but ethically I recognize he has an attitude of a scholar.

While your attitude is conflicting with a very base of my definition of wise.

Instead, I urge you to change.

No need to respect ME. Respect the truth and the path to it, above ALL ELSE. And THAT point is where I begin to run into trouble with Muslims, because so many of them will put a book full of words first, words which are fallible NO MATTER WHAT ANYONE OR ANY GOD SAYS.

Fine if you say God is unlimited. But we humans are regardless. God cannot communicate with us perfectly, even if it SEEMS he said he could. We MUST have misunderstood!

So you think God doesn't know how to speak to human? so God the almighty is having trouble to making up his point using Armaic, Hebrew or Arabic? Are you Theist or Atheist or Agnostic? Maybe it is from your christian background as you don't interact with Bible originally, plus the Bible it consists with tons of gospel that is why in Hermeneutics they treat bible profoundly.

Your try to projective your problem with languages that is used in Bible, as among you also acquire a dissensus on the bible even on its own translation. As none of the Bible represent real bible, both on the way that it was gathered that is hundreds years after Jesus (PBUH) and also on the languages as it does not appear as the original languages but as a translation or interpretation of the original languages.

As you see your religious text is profound and it depend on the institution that dictate the real meaning of it so it can be fit or adapt according to the time and place that its exist even now it been adapt and totally overshadow by the agnostic. and you demand for Quran the same things, while it is indeed entirely a different subject.

As a muslim I believe in Jesus (PBUH) and Bible, also I believe in Musa (PBUH) and his Torah. And I don't believe God bestow to them these scripture to cause a semiotics conflict between God point of view and human's, so human must tolerate God's limitation on communicating with human via human languages and we try to be more understandable toward God and change his words and adapt it to be more fit with human development by time. If you say this, you already don't believe in God anymore, you don't believe in His knowledge, and judgement also ability to deliver a simple guide and ethics for human to hold.

I believe in Bible and Torah, I put faith on Jesus (PBUH) and Moses (PBUH) but also it addresses in Quran that the human changes or adapt the Bible and Torah, and it states thousands years before someone point out there were changes, manipulation, verses that was removed and added after Jesus (PBUH) pass away, as it becomes popular in the hand of Dan Brown.

As it states in Surah Ali Imran, God said :

"It is He who has sent down to you, [O Muhammad], the Book; in it are verses [that are] precise - they are the foundation of the Book - and others unspecific. As for those in whose hearts is deviation [from truth], they will follow that of it which is unspecific, seeking discord and seeking an interpretation [suitable to them]. And no one knows its [true] interpretation except Allah . But those firm in knowledge say, "We believe in it. All [of it] is from our Lord." And no one will be reminded except those of understanding."

It is said that it is God who teach us the verses of Muhakamat, which is the clear verses that there is no doubt and disputation regarding it. For example a verses that order us to believe in God, believe in the day of judgement, perform salat, give dzakat to the poor and the needy, be compassion and full of respect toward parents, and many other similar verses that is clear in meaning and order.

There are also verses that is Mustayabih, which are the metaphorical verses, for example, the verses that say "And the Chair of God expands from the heaven to the earth" it is in Surah Al Baqarah Ayyatul Kursi. So it is mean God have chair? or Chair it is a form of words to describe God power? As this is not something for us to debate about, God know the best what is it and how is it. Also the verses "wherever you face yourselves, you face the Face of God" so is God have face? now this is a point that one shouldn't busy or debate about.

So Quran was given down as a guidance toward the universe and toward those who want to be guide as something clear to follow and to apply, not as something unclear to bring confusion for the mankind. And accepting and believing God words is part of believing God, believing God ability is part of believing God, how can you say you believe in God if you don't even believe God cannot clearly make up his point? That's bias.

So are you a Christian, Atheist or Agnostic?

On one hand I appreciate that. On the other, again, I am not what needs respecting.

If you insist that God and Mohammad are/were perfect, I will not argue with you. But if you say human language and Arabic are perfect, I will argue that tooth and nail. A perfect God and a perfect Mohammad CANNOT perfectly communicate with us via our imperfect language. Language must change and adapt. Better if that change is guided by reason.

All of this imperfection is evidenced by varying interpretations of the Koran even by Muslim scholars.

Yes I believe God is the Most knowledgeable on what we do, what we are, what we want, what we face in the future. As I believe Islam is the closure of the chain of religion, and Muhammad (saw) is the closure of the chain of the prophethood, that it will stand until the end of time, and the languages that been chose for the scripture is Arabic languages, so I do believe the Arabic languages is the best for us to contemplate, and the most able to answer the test of time.

I believe only God is perfect, hence God also have a perfect judgement and ordain, if God ordain the languages of the Quran is Arabic that this ordain is a perfect ordain. If it not for you and you don't believe it, have it your way, but it is for me, and I will have it my way.

And I have a feeling that it is quite possible that the next prophet will come and chastize you for being so hard-headed and ask: Why are you still using that word!

There are ways forward, ways of making holy books productive, if you just accept that no book of human language can be perfect. The Western Christian world has accepted this and have made stunning progress. Far too many Muslims reject this and its not helping them, or anyone.

Please understand that I still believe both worlds have much to teach each other, but I see the Western Christian world as being ahead because they have rejected the hard headed approach that a book of ancient human language is perfect and up to date and we should all adapt to the book.

They key point of how language is imperfect is that it changes over time. You may keep the word in the Koran because it was the truth that it was used. But just because Mohammad used it in his time does not mean its a perfect word and therefore you should use it today. That is backward and foolish. Mohammad lived in a certain time. Times change. I urge you to change with them. There is nothing stopping you from ceasing to use that word except to quote the Koran.

But to reject wise change is to guarantee stagnation. And that is truly where the Muslim world is at right now. I don't think God or Mohammad wanted that for Muslims.

It is almost impossible for you to make a point of disagreement without kicking directly to the subject instead of stick in the object. The point of the debate here is on the use of the words Kafir, but you spread the discussion into semiotics and make it more subjectively than objectively debate, because your inability to stand your point.

Even not just you even extent the discussion into politics and nationhood, there nothing to be prove around that subject, Muslim civilization lead for more than a thousand year as you remain backwards at that time.

In Toffler it mention the leading of western civilization especially US it just count until the end of WW II, in 1945, and even now culturally, economically, the western are degrading and Christianity goes into it non existence by time it will be replace with Agnotism and Atheism, if you aware and knowledgeable on the subject you will agree with me in this matters. So your point is nothing to be brag about.

The words kafir mean plainly disbeliver as also the words infidel and heathen, while I already state the point that you always ignore the words of kafir historically more friendly than the words infidel, as the kafir have their freedom to live, freedom of performing their religion, freedom of expression in some extent, while infidel in Christian terminology doesn't even have a right to live unless they convert.

You just another victim of media Islamophobs on try to simulate the words of Kafir and Shariah into negative connotation, and you eat it rawly. Martin Luther King once been accuse as radical by US government, so what does he answer for that? he say "also Jesus radical on loving other" this is not ordinary cases, this is extraordinary cases where some words like radical, revolution, fundamental, been twist it meaning into negative connotation while by definition it don't have that negative connotation as other claim. Radical derive from the words Radix mean root, so if something rotten and goes wrongly from it very root and we change it from the very root we call that "radical changes" but as this words can be appear dangerous, then by definition it been put as infidel words that deserve to be slaughter.

While the stand for the words Kafir for disbeliever is nothing but a fact. Kafir mean rejecting or disbelieves, so if you disbelieve with Islam and it teaching you are a kafir. But the painful part of this words not lies on the word itself, but lies on what society form your perspective toward this words, as you say as it like sickness, while it is not, that is your false and wrongly inform mind who say that.

 

[Wardibald]

I'm sorry but spamming wikipedia is not a way to clearly understand Taliban

Are you asking me to build my opinion here without citing any sources? Calling me a spammer is not something I appreciate.

as a person like me is also contribute in Wikipedia.

Why would that be a bad thing?

Backthen the US praise the fearless Mujahideen fighting the Sovyet, both in their media and entertainment, still remember how Rambo being accompany with fearless and honest Afghan Mujahideen? now suddenly when they protect themselves against US invasion they becoming heathen both cultural and as political entity, peoples re-define the definition of freedom fighter as terrorist. Don't you tired with these double standard?

Back then the US were supporting them because they were fighting the Sovyets. They even helped to further radicalise the Afghan soldiers. This is not something you'll likely hear from the mouth of a US citizen, but it is the truth. The Reagan administration caused many problems the whole world is still paying for. Ten years from now this will also be true for the W. Bush administration.

But blowing up or shooting civilians is not my idea of defending a country. I'm sure it's not yours either. You can say what you want about the US, its al qaida and the taliban who cause by far the most civilian victims in the region in and around Afghanistan. Malala Yusufhai is just one of them.
Another difference is that they do it with full intent. Drones and other air strikes never target civilians intentionally, deadly though they are.

 

[Hezam]

Another difference is that they do it with full intent. Drones and other air strikes never target civilians intentionally, deadly though they are.

You sure about that ?

 

[Wardibald]

Well, what is certainty anyway?

There are probably exceptions to that. I know of one case for sure in Iraq, but I'm also pretty sure these are exceptions. There is a shoot-first-ask-questions-later-attitude among soldiers who percieve their lives are in danger. That on itself is a normal human reaction, it's the decision that put those men there, that should be criticized.

But you completely ignore the fact that the taliban attacks civilians on purpose, as per planned policy. Which is the point I made.
I am no fan of US foreign policies, and I wonder time and again how only the parts where I put them forward as the lesser evil, gets a response as if I support them. Are the taliban really worth it to be defended by Muslims, being the people that suffer the worst from them?

 

[abdalrasyid]

Are you asking me to build my opinion here without citing any sources? Calling me a spammer is not something I appreciate.

Of course that is not what I mean, pardon if you find me rude but it really not what I intent. I just not agree that everybody try to know the world and everything by make their base foundation with Wikipedia, it is an open sources that each of the sources are cannot be hold responsible. It can be use as supplementary sources or as something that stronger your sources but to rely always upon it that its what I don't agree with. If you agree with what I state then we have no problem. I just saying, see also another point of view, another angle of opinion, I really like if you watch Yvonne Riddley and tell me what do u think about her, as all of the sources is not come from someone who really live inside the Afghan society, or even live under the Taliban. I think its bit unfair to judge them only from the perspective that against them, more and more if it come from a source like Wikipedia.

Why would that be a bad thing?

Because I'm not a professional? I write about Philosophy on Aristotelian logic while my background is psychology, well if it not a problem for you than its alright. Just keep in mind, its an open sources you don't know the credibility or the accuracy of those who write it.

Back then the US were supporting them because they were fighting the Sovyets. They even helped to further radicalise the Afghan soldiers. This is not something you'll likely hear from the mouth of a US citizen, but it is the truth. The Reagan administration caused many problems the whole world is still paying for. Ten years from now this will also be true for the W. Bush administration.

But blowing up or shooting civilians is not my idea of defending a country. I'm sure it's not yours either. You can say what you want about the US, its al qaida and the taliban who cause by far the most civilian victims in the region in and around Afghanistan. Malala Yusufhai is just one of them.
Another difference is that they do it with full intent. Drones and other air strikes never target civilians intentionally, deadly though they are.

That what I not agree, where do u know if the Taliban kill more civilian than US and it allies? From the victim quantity what done by the US is nearly genocide. Even the weaponry of the Taliban are not match in US on doing rampage on civlian, that statement is illogical. Second, the execution that been establish by the Taliban Muajhideen so far its done for the combatan and spy.

I don't agree with killing civilian and babies with light weapon or light explosive because it is madness it not even fit to be call barbaric, it not even fit to be call animal, it devlish, it is anti-human.

I don't agree with killing civilian and babies with high explosive weapon or drone missile, because calling them as collateral causalities and put them into number don't make their death to be more humanize also don't justify their death. Why you call someone who blow up the US military facility as terrorist while US blow up civilian house you justify their action as collateral damages? Does it make it more right if you kill civilian miles away with drone missile hiding behind american flag? does it justify your action?

 

[Cikki]

But you completely ignore the fact that the taliban attacks civilians on purpose, as per planned policy.

What is the purpose of taliban on the attacking to civilians ??

 

[Hezam]

Let's face the truth, What All the Extremist muslim groups did is not even 1percent of the crimes that the US gov did since 9 11
The US gov doesn't say " we will target the civilians " but they give an excuse like " we will target the terrorists and dictators ( Like Saddam ) i can post many videos for American soldiers admitting that they killed civilians and got rewarded for killing civilians..But this is not what this topic posted for.

 

[abdalrasyid]

well said Hezam, I'm on your side buddy

 

[Hezam]

I'm glad that this topic has been posted because it shows that there are some people who care.
Thanks Uncle Frank

 

[noyhauser]

Let's face the truth, What All the Extremist muslim groups did is not even 1% of the crimes that the US gov did since 9 11
The US gov doesn't say " we will target the civilians " but they give an excuse like " we will target the terrorists and dictators ( Like Saddam ) i can post many videos for American soldiers admitting that they killed civilians and got rewarded for killing civilians..But this is not what this topic posted for.

No, that's just plain false and not an accurate representation of the reality. I've lived among troops, worked with them on these issues. Unequivocally, it is not the policy of the US government or any Western state to target civillians. If anything, the United States military has worked since 2006 to prevent civillian casualties at all costs, to the extent that many troops complained that the rules of engagement were too restrictive and it caused unnecessary American casualties because authorization for the use of heavier armaments was refused. Nevertheless the rules remained.

This is from the US Army's 2006 Counterinsurgency manual, which is the primary source of guidance for operations in Afghanistan and Iraq (before the US departure from there.)


5-38. Insurgents use unlawful violence to weaken the HN government, intimidate people into passive or
active support, and murder those who oppose the insurgency. Measured combat operations are always re-
quired to address insurgents who cannot be co-opted into operating inside the rule of law. These operations
may sometimes require overwhelming force and the killing of fanatic insurgents. However, COIN is "war
amongst the people."Combat operations must therefore be executed with an appropriate level of restraint
to minimize or avoid injuring innocent people. Not only is there a moral basis for the use of restraint or
measured force; there are practical reasons as well. Needlessly harming innocents can turn the populace
against the COIN effort. Discriminating use of fires and calculated, disciplined response should character-
ize COIN operations. Kindness and compassion can often be as important as killing and capturing insur-
gents.

That's not to say that collateral damage happens and that Western troops have caused civilian casualties. Absolutely... its happened and it should never happen. Its not US government policy, nor is it how it is practiced on the ground.

You can claim what you want from a youtube video. However I would completely disagree with the any statement that it is the policy of the US government or any allied government to go and deliberately kill civilians.

That however is very different from what the Taliban tries to do, which is to use fear and terror to coerce civilians to support them. It should not be surprising then that they are responsible for 80% of all civilian casualties according to a recent UN report, compared to 9% for the coalition and afghan government operations.

 

[Hezam]

However I would completely disagree with the any statement that it is the policy of the US government or any allied government to go and deliberately kill civilians. That however is very different from what the Taliban tries to do.

You are like " I'm gonna kill you but i want to prevent the pain " ...

 

[noyhauser]

No, that is not the case. American troops guidance has changed significantly since 2001. Civilian casualties on a basic level are abhorrent, and operationally it is counter productive to their goals.

In a counter insurgency, the civilian population's opinion is who matters, as they determines which side wins. The United States' approach is to make civilians supporters of the government, through security and the offer of a stable government that provides economic benefits as well as basic freedoms. Killing turns them against the government, so the US avoids it at all costs. The core Taliban leadership maintains its support by terrorizing civilians at gunpoint, and killing anyone who speaks against them. That's why government and western forces cause 1/9th the number of civilian casualties as the Taliban, and 14 year old girls get shot because they say they want to go to school. The terror is a key instrument of their control over the civilian populace.

 

[abdalrasyid]

Hezam talking about US killing civilian like this

the US soldier killing civilians and making fun of them caring AK47 while they carry nothing, from all the victim that they killed one of them is photographer and his driver.

[video=youtube;Zn1czFssoQE]

or beating Children like this

[video=youtube;DDUMi53l2rI]

their confession

[video=youtube;O-Xiza2_JCQ]

another US confessing they given an order to kill civilian and regretting what he done

[video=youtube;WcMk3V3LZcQ]

A US soldier in Iraq confess he raping the Afghani women as the best amusement they can do over there. And he rape a virgin muslim teenager 15 years old that later he sell her for 100 usd as prostitute until she hang herself

[video=youtube;O3dvoBhevOQ]

you want more? you want to justify and make rationalization regarding this action and regarding this occupation? you want to play advocate on what the US do on Iraq and Afghanistan? Noy how about it happen to your wife? your daughter? your family? Where is your sympathy?

 

[Hezam]

No, that is not the case. American troops guidance has changed significantly since 2001. Civilian casualties on a basic level are abhorrent, and operationally it is counter productive to their goals.

Nope, When Bush was the president the orders was to arrest then torture to death, Now since Obama won he changed the plan to Kill then ask later.

In a counter insurgency, the civilian population's opinion is who matters, as they determines which side wins. The United States' approach is to make civilians supporters of the government, through security and the offer of a stable government that provides economic benefits as well as basic freedoms. Killing turns them against the government, so the US avoids it at all costs. The core Taliban leadership maintains its support by terrorizing civilians at gunpoint, and killing anyone who speaks against them. That's why government and western forces cause 1/9th the number of civilian casualties as the Taliban, and 14 year old girls get shot because they say they want to go to school. The terror is a key instrument of their control over the civilian populace.

the civilian population's opinion is who matters ? Since when ? and what population ? Americans ? because it will be funny if you say Muslims.
through security and the offer of a stable government that provides economic benefits as well as basic freedoms. You mean through war,occupation, corrupted system and dictation as we saw in Iraq & Afghanistan and other places in the world.

That's why government and western forces cause 1/9th the number of civilian casualties as the Taliban

Your either joking or blind, Only God knows how many missiles they western aircraft dropped on peoples houses,markets,mosques etc..... I don't need to count or explain.
So please respect our minds.

 

[noyhauser]

you want more? you want to justify and make rationalization regarding this action and regarding this occupation? you want to play advocate on what the US do on Iraq and Afghanistan? Noy how about it happen to your wife? your daughter? your family? Where is your sympathy?

So you've watched a couple of Youtube videos, read some anti-american sites and then you come here to state that this is completely representative of the United States and the West in Afghanistan. Basically you're suggesting that the US is indiscriminately bombing and killing everybody. Yet the reality is that the Taliban and anti-government forces are responsible for 10 times the number of casualties as the Western forces.

I'm different. I've dealt with this on a day to day basis and I've seen it up close. I understand military doctrine and how its applied in the field. I've met hundred of soldiers and civillians. My work concentrated on civil-military relations, and how to work with the populace. The welfare of the Afghan people matters a great deal to me personally. I care deeply for them, both morally and because I believe it is critical for our collective well being.

When crimes committed by western troops, and there have been, they should and have been dealt by our criminal justice system. I find them abhorrent. However they are much more rare than your propaganda videos would have us believe. However it is ridiculous to claim, by any objective measure, that civilians are better off with the Taliban. My understanding of the situation is based on surveys and discussions with the afghan people, discussions with troops, academic studies. There isn't some sort of moral relativism between the two sides... there is only the reality, which is that the Taliban makes it a policy to massacre and kill civilians in order to achieve its control over society.

Its also true that the Taliban is not just one group and that there are huge variations between people. The situation is very complex and a lot of people have very legitimate grievances against the government and Western Forces. The policies we applied prior to 2006 were heavy handed and resulted in disproportionate civilian casualties. I don't dispute that. And I think we should get out of there as fast as possible. However a greater tragedy would be to let the hardcore Taliban leadership come back in and rule the country as they did prior to 2001.

the civilian population's opinion is who matters ? Since when ? and what population ? Americans ? because it will be funny if you say Muslims. through security and the offer of a stable government that provides economic benefits as well as basic freedoms. You mean through war,occupation, corrupted system and dictation as we saw in Iraq & Afghanistan and other places in the world.

You can joke about it all you want. That is precisely the situation on the ground with troops.

Your either joking or blind, Only God knows how many missiles they western aircraft dropped on peoples houses,markets,mosques etc..... I don't need to count or explain.
So please respect our minds.

ITs troubling to me that you can't even comprehend that you might be wrong. Those figures came from the United Nations. You can read about them here:

United Nations News Centre - UN reports drop in civilian casualties in Afghanistan in 2012

... which also has a link to the report.