[xtrudood]

No brother - my point is that if you think there is Sharia somewhere in the world being beautifully implemented then go there. I will criticise the Taliban all I like and so will others because I would hate to live in a society dominated by their rule - thus similarly if someone supports the Taliban (in terms of their ideology by holding them up as an example) then I will ask why don't you live with them. If people offer a contextualised, nuanced and historical account of the Taliban - I have no problems - but if you hold them up as an example then expect people to respond back.

And by the way the Ikhwanis had it bad because they had an Army that opposed them consistently for many decades.

Don't get me wrong - I see the Taliban as an historical relic, a movement that is pretty much a product of its times and environment - what gets me is when people claim the Taliban are having a righteous Islamic regime when in actual fact its little better than a tribal mafia. The Taliban are just a tribal brigands who tried to make the best of their situation - nothing less nothing more.

They have nothing absolutely nothing to offer to the Ummah - but on the other hand the Ikhwanis do have a vision for the Ummah.

You claim to have read a lot of Taliban related material yet you seem to have no knowledge on the issue.

Read what brother xs11ax wrote. No one here says that how the Taliban ran Afghanistan is what is to be followed since many know that the context of their rule was in a lawless country run by warlords, but many ulama and people know that what their objectives and their stated goals were are to be emulated. The true Taliban have always been low in numbers, ever since they took over in the 90s. It takes time for any plant to bear its fruits. The Taliban came to power in a country that was like the wild west of 19th century USA; they employed the only way possible to get the country under control and take out the major vices, such as drug trade, homosexuality, and fornication. They also targeted things like music and television as was their Islamic duty, but they eventually did become lax on television. They were doing everything right to achieve their goals of being the lone shari'ah based government on earth that did not bow down to foreign pressure nor get its dictates from external powers.

[DOWNLOADnowADOBEphotoSHOP]

as for al-qaeda. who the hell the is al-qaeda? who here has even heard of al-qaeda before the kuffar news agencies started talking about them? yes there may be some deluded muslims in this world who feel they are justifed in carrying out terrorist acts, but what is their percentage in comparison to the 2 billion muslims of the world? are there really that many terrorist muslims as made out to be?

kindly read post # 17 below. it will be of benefit in gaining more knowledge about this organization.

[PlanTaleks]

Fair enough - you have made your choice - I respect you for that at least. By the way I have lived in Saudi - please do not go in their with a rose-tinted view of the regime - it is perhaps one of the most immoral regimes of the world. So much hypocrisy - so much hypocrisy and the only reason Saudi still hasn't descended into a situation of the Afghan Taliban is because of their oil wealth.

Inshallah though the Ikhwan will succeed....

I have lived in Saudi Arabia for over a decade so I know exactly what to expect. There is hypocrisy because there is a monarchy, but it still remains the most shari'ah-compliant country ever since the Taliban were removed from power.

Also, you continue to evade the two points I keep asking you about:

1. List what you think was wrong with Taliban rule. We'll see where we agree and where we disagree. No one here says that the Taliban were a perfect government, but their goals were the closest to shari'ah than any other country on earth. Their implementation was harsh but necessary for their environment but again, their goals were the closest to shari'ah in comparison to any government.
2. You have always touted minority opinion as being legitimate but you don't hesitate to insult not just the Taliban, but the hundreds to thousands of ulama who support them, including the ulama who are within the ranks of the Taliban. Why the double standard?

[dfuzioniag]

I agree with this - but that doesn't mean you have to start supporting barbarians.

People should read the following:

Priorities of the Islamic Movement in the Coming Phase:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/7798605/Pr...sof-AlQardhawi

State in Islam:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30514150/S...uf-Al-Qaradawi

i respect the sheikh but our scholars have warned against taking any fiqh from him.
so to your biased hatred for taliban and your overall post.

[Olphander]

I agree with this sober analysis -we should treat the Taliban as a peculiar tribalistic movement in the context of Afghan politics. BUT they are not an example to be followed because they cannot build a country, they can only at best quell tribal conflicts and provide enough for a very basic feudalistic, warlord society. Their methodology has nothing to offer to a country like Egypt or Turkey. They are best seen as a movement of tribal vigilantism that is reacting to a harsh and unforgiving environment.

The Taliban do not have a global message for the Ummah - they should be just seen as a sad and tragic reaction to the brutal social context of Afghanistan - but that does not mean they are the Islamic ideal.

By all means provide contextualised, nuanced and historical analyses of the Taliban just don't hold them up as anything more than tribal vigilantes.

Then what is wrong if the Taliban come back into power now? Afghanistan is the same country as it always was, with warlords running the show, opium trade back to its high outputs, homosexuality and fornication making a comeback, etc.

If Afghanistan had a viable economy, a civil society, then the Taliban would have obviously taken a different route. They had to work with what was available to them, which was basically nothing but the help from Allah . They were a heavily sanctioned country to begin with, with only the Saudis and Pakistan willing to do any trade with Afghanistan. Even now, what does Afghanistan actually offer the world in terms of economy? A democracy would never work there because of the culture that exists therein, but the Americans are too foolish to realize this. The only options that may work would be absolute monarchies or the rule of the Taliban, which was extremely efficient in getting the country under control. Afghanistan is like a wild lion that needs to be tamed. You don't tame a lion by speaking to it. No government has existed ever since the British were defeated that has been able to control the country and bring law to it except the Taliban.

A similar situation was seen in Somalia, when the Islamic Courts ruled over the country. An extremely lawless country had become extremely law abiding practically overnight but then, the deposed leader called on his masters who then invaded and removed the Islamic Courts within a short period of time - and then, lawlessness returned. The first priority of any government in a country like Afghanistan and Somalia is to get the country under control, to control and eliminate criminal activity, not giving spineless speeches and preaching democracy.

[fubyFrery]

Brother - my point is simple - I'm taking about the context of having a methodology for Muslim success in the 21st century - the Taliban do not have it but the Ikhwanis do. Simple matter of fact. Afghanistan was a backward country during Taliban rule and it remains after it and before it.

Brother I do not know why you bring up the ''minority opinion'' issue -since I already explained to you the difference by citing the difference between ibadat (worship, acts of individual devotion) and political policy. That is the distinction I hold.

I agree this much -the Taliban did make an improvement to Afghanistan but that doesn't mean a lot since their predecessors were even bigger barbarians then they were. Why on earth should the Ummah look to a failed state such as Afghanistan or Pakistan for a successful methodology for the 21st century when we have the Ikhwanis, Turkey, Malaysia or Indonesia? By the way all these countries never claim perfection but they are all working hard and have been doing so for many decades.

Then why blame the Taliban or insult them as well as the ulama who support them? The way they ruled was a necessity and remains a necessity. If Afghanistan was a tame country, where lawlessness didn't run rampant, you'd have a point. But this has not been the case and is not the case so what is wrong with the Taliban?

If you're talking about the 21st century, then you should not be talking about Afghanistan. Afghanistan seems to be stuck in the 19th century, let alone the 20th or 21st century. As mentioned earlier, the way the Taliban ruled was due to necessity so why insult them? Do you think Ikhwanis would have succeeded in Afghanistan? Of course not, since there was no political infrastructure to support their approach to governance.

And that is quite an arbitrary distinction you're coming up with, especially since political policy is intertwined with ibadah in Islam.

Also, who has ever said that the methodology employed by the Taliban is something to be emulated worldwide? There are some areas where it needs to be emulated, like in Somalia, but it cannot be emulated worldwide since the context is different. Even the Taliban conceded that they are harsher and less lenient because the context calls for it.

What can Egyptians learn from the Taliban? Nothing
What can Turks learn from the Taliban? Nothing

Modern Muslim nations and countries where levels of education are even marginally better than Afghanistan have nothing to learn from the Taliban - they have developed their own movements, ideas and methodologies which are more conducive towards building successful Muslim power in the 21st century. This ultimately is the crux of the matter - how to develop and progress within an Islamic framework? What can Afghanistan learn from the Egyptians or the Turks? Nothing.

As I've said and you've basically agreed, Afghanistan is a special country. It does not have a strong civil society. It is in the hands of barbarian warlords and the people have become acclimatized to this type of rule. It takes at least a generation for nations to change. If the Taliban had been able to consolidate power for a longer period of time, it would have been the laying of a foundation for civil society but since they were ousted prematurely, how can you expect to build a house without a foundation?

[GotActichwicy]

Look at almost every modern society. No country jumped from anarchy and lawlessness to a civil society through democracy. Monarchies and absolute rule had to come into place to allow people to organize. Afghans have been unable to organize due to the splintering rules of the warlords as well as the continuous invasions of their country. No other country has seen the amount of wars, the number of invading armies than Afghanistan.

If you've studied a bit of anthropology, you'll see that societies had to evolve into democracies. You cannot force something like that without having a strong foundation set in the country to build upon. Look at Saudi Arabia before King Abdulaziz ibn Saud united the warring tribes. It was no better than Afghanistan but oil was discovered, which benefited not just the monarchy, but the people as well. Granted there still remains poverty and double standards, but Saudi Arabia is better for the monarchy than it was when it was inhabited by warring tribes. Now, some may say that the time for the monarchy has come to an end, but we should know that the monarchy set the foundation for other forms of government to exist in Saudi Arabia.

The rule of the Taliban was the best kind of "absolute rule" possible because at least the basis was Islam and at least the leadership had taqwa and no double standards, nor were they kowtowing to foreign entities and forsaking Islam.

[carreraboyracer]

this is one of their weak points. the strictness. it creates unnecessary enemies.

Is there any proof for that apart from media reports? please feel free to share here.

[JorgiOLusinio]

Look at almost every modern society. No country jumped from anarchy and lawlessness to a civil society through democracy. Monarchies and absolute rule had to come into place to allow people to organize. Afghans have been unable to organize due to the splintering rules of the warlords as well as the continuous invasions of their country. No other country has seen the amount of wars, the number of invading armies than Afghanistan.

If you've studied a bit of anthropology, you'll see that societies had to evolve into democracies. You cannot force something like that without having a strong foundation set in the country to build upon. Look at Saudi Arabia before King Saud united the warring tribes. It was no better than Afghanistan but oil was discovered, which benefited not just the monarchy, but the people as well. Granted there still remains poverty and double standards, but Saudi Arabia is better for the monarchy than it was when it was inhabited by warring tribes. Now, some may say that the time for the monarchy has come to an end, but we should know that the monarchy set the foundation for other forms of government to exist in Saudi Arabia.

The rule of the Taliban was the best kind of "absolute rule" possible because at least the basis was Islam and at least the leadership had taqwa and no double standards, nor were they kowtowing to foreign entities and forsaking Islam.

excellent observation

[bppstorr]

Brother all that you have said in your last two posts I agree with your main points. I just do not think we can call the Taliban ''Islamic'' or something worthy of emulation or religious admiration. They have done the best they can with their tribal circumstances and they themselves are a result of tribal culture which still does not exempt them from barbarism. I do not buy into anthropolgical relativism.

Why? You believe all societies are equal? History will tell you otherwise.

The Taliban are Islamic merely due to the fact that they enforced more Islamic laws than any other country. Their goals were and are Islamic. No other government can say that and back it up, not even the Ikhwanis, although they are most definitely a step in the right direction, especially with leaders like Syed Mursi - may Allah preserve him and help him. Their methodologies were necessary for their region, but again, they are Islamic since the foundation of all their laws was the shari'ah, whereas the foundation of almost every other Muslim country is anything but the shari'ah. Only Saudi Arabia comes close and even there, the hypocrisy that occurs because of the monarchy (e.g. parties with alcohol within the country) lead to the shari'ah and Muslims being ridiculed. At least the Taliban as a government were not hypocritical. I would even go as far as to say that they were the least corrupt government on the face of this planet!

Methods of establishing shari'ah vary from location to location so if someone is doing it by using the system, such as the Ikhwanul Muslimeen and the JUI in Pakistan or the Taliban in Afghanistan and the Islamic courts in Somalia. But all have the goal of establishing the law of Allah and His Rasool . The Taliban were still more Islamic since they were able to achieve a lot of their goals more quickly but it takes time to tame a wild country.

[Wachearex]

Any evidences for your claim?

9/11 killed 300 Muslims

7/7 had various Muslim victims

[jackie Obrian]

You are using the historical framework of modernity...ideas of progress and development...we first have a primitive society and things progress towards democracy etc. all be it you are saying that it needs to start organically and internally not from outside.

Saudi Arabia was rule by the Ottomons it was not a chaotic place. The Saudis worship Oil/Fire, they think this is the source of their power. They do not accept that The Knower, The Knowledge and The Known are One.

Look at almost every modern society. No country jumped from anarchy and lawlessness to a civil society through democracy. Monarchies and absolute rule had to come into place to allow people to organize. Afghans have been unable to organize due to the splintering rules of the warlords as well as the continuous invasions of their country. No other country has seen the amount of wars, the number of invading armies than Afghanistan.

If you've studied a bit of anthropology, you'll see that societies had to evolve into democracies. You cannot force something like that without having a strong foundation set in the country to build upon. Look at Saudi Arabia before King Abdulaziz ibn Saud united the warring tribes. It was no better than Afghanistan but oil was discovered, which benefited not just the monarchy, but the people as well. Granted there still remains poverty and double standards, but Saudi Arabia is better for the monarchy than it was when it was inhabited by warring tribes. Now, some may say that the time for the monarchy has come to an end, but we should know that the monarchy set the foundation for other forms of government to exist in Saudi Arabia.

The rule of the Taliban was the best kind of "absolute rule" possible because at least the basis was Islam and at least the leadership had taqwa and no double standards, nor were they kowtowing to foreign entities and forsaking Islam.

[Indidockobeni]

You are using the historical framework of modernity...ideas of progress and development...we first have a primitive society and things progress towards democracy etc. all be it you are saying that it needs to start organically and internally not from outside.

Saudi Arabia was rule by the Ottomons it was not a chaotic place. The Saudis worship Oil/Fire, they think this is the source of their power. They do not accept that The Knower, The Knowledge and The Known are One.

Yes, I am saying that societies cannot be forced to become this or that government if there is no foundation for that sort of government.

Saudi Arabia was a chaotic place. The Brits were able to use this chaos for their benefit to oust an already weakened Ottoman Empire. It was not the Arabs who destroyed the Ottoman Empire, it was the Empire itself. It had legalized so many things that have no part in Islam before it even got to its pathetic state in the 1900s.

There was rampant tribalism in Arabia, with a lot of interfighting going on. King Abdulaziz ibn Saud united these tribes to form the current Saudi state.

Also, it is completely out of order to say that the Saudis "worship Oil/Fire". This is an accusation of outright kufr over all Saudis. It may be the case for some in the monarchy, but to say that the Saudis do it is completely unwarranted.

[Mangoman]

Brother all that you have said in your last two posts I agree with your main points. I just do not think we can call the Taliban ''Islamic'' or something worthy of emulation or religious admiration. They have done the best they can with their tribal circumstances and they themselves are a result of tribal culture which still does not exempt them from barbarism. I do not buy into anthropolgical relativism.

Really? Unislamic? Subhanallah. Egypt & Tunisia & Libya (etc - soon) have adopted secular democracy this year 2012. Is that Islamic? They will never ever adopt Islamic shariah through democracy. Just like Hamas. Never. Its like saying you can get hasana from good deeds by robbing banks & shopkeepers & using the money to build orphanages & masjids.

Islam will not return while you let pimps, prostitutes, drug pushers, addicts, atheists & christians (e.g. Egyptian copts) decide whether Islamic Shariah is acceptable for a muslim country. And ulema are under the misguided impression this will please Allah?

Egypt, Libya & Tunisia (and others soon?) have not 'won' anything. Like when you jump off a cliff, all seems quite surreal when you're only halfway down.

[QQQQQ-Trek]

[QUOTE=abdulwahhab;794115]

Yes, I am saying that societies cannot be forced to become this or that government if there is no foundation for that sort of government. Yes, but it is not progress like you are making it sound. Monarchy is the best and natural form of government...it does not get better with democracy.

Saudi Arabia was a chaotic place. The Brits were able to use this chaos for their benefit to oust an already weakened Ottoman Empire. It was not the Arabs who destroyed the Ottoman Empire, it was the Empire itself. It had legalized so many things that have no part in Islam before it even got to its pathetic state in the 1900s.There was rampant tribalism in Arabia, with a lot of interfighting going on. King Abdulaziz ibn Saud united these tribes to form the current Saudi state. No Saudi and the Ikhwan helped by the British helped to splinter darul Islam and they killed Muslims by saying they are kafirun.


Also, it is completely out of order to say that the Saudis "worship Oil/Fire". This is an accusation of outright kufr over all Saudis. It may be the case for some in the monarchy, but to say that the Saudis do it is completely unwarranted. I am not saying all Saudis, I am saying the society is based on worship of Oil/Fire as the source of their power. They talk about Tawheed but are seeing power as coming from sources other than Allah Many of us Muslims are infected with this because of the modern education we have received and this is what science teaches us.

[Tij84ye]

Is there any proof for that apart from media reports? please feel free to share here.

glad u asked commander : p

My Life with the taliban (zaeef) page 128 top para.

[Fetowip]

Yes, but it is not progress like you are making it sound. Monarchy is the best and natural form of government...it does not get better with democracy.

I did not say progress. I said evolution. Evolution, as in biology, is purposeless and the next stage may be better or worse than the preceding stage.

No Saudi and the Ikhwan helped by the British helped to splinter darul Islam and they killed Muslims by saying they are kafirun. The Arabs should not have fought against the Ottomans but Ottomans had been their own downfall. Read about the Tanzimat reforms of the Ottomans. You'll be shocked.

I am not saying all Saudis, I am saying the society is based on worship of Oil/Fire as the source of their power. They talk about Tawheed but are seeing power as coming from sources other than Allah Many of us Muslims are infected with this because of the modern education we have received and this is what science teaches us. This is also a false allegation. Many scholars in Saudia are pious ulama who cannot openly criticize the government and don't hold the beliefs that you're ascribing to them. And also, it is extremely out of order to suggest that they "worship" Oil/Fire. Would it be fair to say that all Muslims "worship" money and wealth?

It is not about worshiping, it is about prioritizing. A lot of Muslims have their priorities wrong, whether they are Arabs, Desis, Africans, Southeast Asians, Europeans, etc.

[GrolmangHat27]

I agree with this sober analysis -we should treat the Taliban as a peculiar tribalistic movement in the context of Afghan politics. BUT they are not an example to be followed because they cannot build a country, they can only at best quell tribal conflicts and provide enough for a very basic feudalistic, warlord society. Their methodology has nothing to offer to a country like Egypt or Turkey. They are best seen as a movement of tribal vigilantism that is reacting to a harsh and unforgiving environment.

The Taliban do not have a global message for the Ummah - they should be just seen as a sad and tragic reaction to the brutal social context of Afghanistan - but that does not mean they are the Islamic ideal.

By all means provide contextualised, nuanced and historical analyses of the Taliban just don't hold them up as anything more than tribal vigilantes.

Brother, haven't you read "...the last part of this ummah (nation) will not be rectified, except by that which its first part was rectified by."? The seerah of the prophet SAW, the stories of the sahaba RA are all about sacrifice, hardships & 'going without'. I suggest you swat up. Our beloved prophet SAW & the first generation lived in abject poverty for many years & soon thereafter followed on-going qital. And we already know that the path back to Islam & ALLAH is to follow down the same path that was trod by the first of us. There is no other road back.

"...the last part of this ummah (nation) will not be rectified, except by that which its first part was rectified by."

[LookSe]

glad u asked commander : p

My Life with the taliban (zaeef) page 128 top para.

I agree with that part in the book but that does not mean that decisions must always be thought of as to suit with the public view. I agree there has to be that consideration but on clear-cut issues where strictness is the only solution then it is the right choice in my opinion. (I can not explain those issues here)
Every issue has to be treated separately I believe. The timing of that decision was a bit out of place but still I think we have to follow the Ameer (as is said in ahadith, he holds the decision power only). Khair, more on this later (in a separate discussion elsewhere )
But, here I must say that the movements have changed their tactics they are taking the masses with them together. I gave you that article on yemen. Moreover, if you follow news, the ttp have also become quiet 'targeted' in their attacks.
Allah hu Alam.

[RSAccountssy]

No Saudi and the Ikhwan helped by the British helped to splinter darul Islam and they killed Muslims by saying they are kafirun. The Arab Revolt was led by Hashimis, not Saudis. The Saudis were not able to stop the Turkish onslaught on their lands. Ironically, there's a nice quote by Ibrahim Pasha in which he laments that their armies are all composed of drunkards who do not pray and the Saudi armies are filled with prayerful ascetics.

Anyway, the Ottomans wrote their own fate by sticking themselves into Europe and wanting to be just like the Euros, taking giant loans from European countries, abolishing Shari'ah laws and replacing them with fines... letting evil tariqas like the Bektashis flourish within the Janissaries... what else does anyone need to note that they were not exactly an example to emulate?