[IdomeoreTew]

http://drabutamim.blogspot.in/2012/0...n-burning.html

[IdomeoreTew]

BEIJING, Feb. 25 (Xinhuanet) -- Thousands of Afghans are continuing to voice their anger over the burning of copies of the Koran - the holy Islamic text - at an American-run military base. CCTV correspondent Courtney Body reports from Kabul.

After Afghan workers found burned copies of the Quran near a rubbish pit on the US-run Bagram base Monday night, the country awoke Tuesday to turmoil, as over 2000 protesters rallied outside the largest airfield here. For the Americans, the act was like striking a match near gasoline, and as the violence spreads across the country for a third day, protests in Afghanistan have taken a deathly toll.

Throwing rocks, chanting "down with America," "death to America", and calling on Afghan President Hamid Karzai to step down himself, protestors also turned up on the outskirts of Kabul and directed their anger at a US military base and large foreigner compound, with shots fired towards the protestors as things went out of control.

NATO Commander General Jogn Allen said, "These are isolated incidents, they are not about who we are, we stand for more than that, and we will continue to stand by Afghans in the future. "

Wednesday also saw protests spread across the nation, as other cities reacted to the desecration of Islam's holy book. President Karzai also condemned the act. And Afghan's continued to call for the foreigners to leave.

Protester Mehrabam said, "If they're not bringing peace, why are they here? They should leave. If they they want to insult and do things against our religion, we don't want their help. "

But as Thursday came, the morning quiet soon was disrupted as Karzai's late appeal for calm was ignored and the Taliban issued a statement in an effort to capitalize on the anger and called on Afghans to attack foreign military bases and convoys. Fresh protests swept across the country with continued anger.. With the anti-American chants continuing and effigies of US President Obama burned, and Within hours the day turned deadly for the Americans as a man in an Afghan army uniform shot and killed 2 US soldiers in on a joint US-Afghan base in Eastern Nangahar province.

With the situation seemingly burning out of control, late Thursday Obama himself wrote a letter to Karzai, apologizing and promising to “hold accountable those responsible”.

(Source: cntv.cn)

[exeftWabreava]

The Americans have definitely shot themselves in the foot this time. If this doesn't make every Afghan support the Taliban (even passively), I don't know what will.

[milfovoxapl]

aoa,
here is why the americans did what they did:

http://2reachout.wordpress.com/2012/...n-afghanistan/

[snislarne]

mh16388, while the article is accurate as far as how some kufr view the world, as someone living deep in the "Bible belt" I can attest to the fact that a lot of Christians here would probably get violent if a Muslim burned the Bible here in the U.S. (not that that a Muslim would ever do that). It is also unfair to characterize all kufr as all believing in disrespecting Islam. That's the same as the kufr saying that all Muslims are blood-thirsty terrorists who want nothing more then to murder every last living kufr man, woman, and child. As such generalizations are very dangerous. Does the Shariat say to punish an entire society for the wrongful deeds of an individual?

[milfovoxapl]

mh16388, while the article is accurate as far as how some kufr view the world, as someone living deep in the "Bible belt" I can attest to the fact that a lot of Christians here would probably get violent if a Muslim burned the Bible here in the U.S. (not that that a Muslim would ever do that). It is also unfair to characterize all kufr as all believing in disrespecting Islam. That's the same as the kufr saying that all Muslims are blood-thirsty terrorists who want nothing more then to murder every last living kufr man, woman, and child. As such generalizations are very dangerous. Does the Shariat say to punish an entire society for the wrongful deeds of an individual?

when one rejects islam that is the same as disrespecting it. that is the case for born non-muslims and apostates. however there is nothing in shariah that allows a muslim to go into a non-muslim country (or a muslim one) and kill the non-muslims as far as i know.i dont know how exactly you inferred these points from the article.it just calls on muslims to shun secularism because it is harmful to the ummah's unity.
secondly would the US christians show the same reaction if an atheist burnt the bible?and how many in the christian world would join in?

[snislarne]

when one rejects islam that is the same as disrespecting it. that is the case for born non-muslims and apostates. however there is nothing in shariah that allows a muslim to go into a non-muslim country (or a muslim one) and kill the non-muslims as far as i know.i dont know how exactly you inferred these points from the article.it just calls on muslims to shun secularism because it is harmful to the ummah's unity.
secondly would the US christians show the same reaction if an atheist burnt the bible?and how many in the christian world would join in?

Well, there is a rather huge degree of difference between a non-Muslim who does not believe in Islam, but who otherwise has no ill-will towards Muslims versus a non-believer who goes out of his or her way to attack Islam, insult Muslims, and who actively seeks to destroy all Islamic influences in the world. Should both be treated as one and the same and both hated? Oh I should point out that I was not inferring that all Muslims believe in randomly killing kufr (only that many non-Muslim secular extremists in the West do make that generalization). Regarding secularism, I understand the arguement. However what I have not seen is any agreement amongst Islamic scholars on what things or ideas in the modern world should be classified as "secular". I have also never seen any agreement amongst scholars as to what a truly Islamic nation should look like in the modern world. If you know of any Islamic scholars who have wrote extensively on that issue I'd greatly appreciate any information on them and would very much like to study their writings. So far the closest I've seen so far is Shaykh Hamza Yussuf, but he's rejected and ridiculed by many Muslims.

By the way, as it shows to the left, I am not a Muslim, but rather a Theist (I believe in One God, but do not follow any organized religion so basically I'm a Unitarian more or less). I have however spent the last decade studying Islamic theology on and off as a anthropologist in the field of peace and conflict studies and have lived in several Muslim countries during my life. It may be a fools errand and completely hopeless, but I'm trying to understand how Western non-Muslim societies and Islamic societies can peacefully coexist as equals from not only a religious standpoint, but also from an economic standpoint as well.

Most Americans for example have absolutely no wish for the U.S. to be further involved in meddling in the affairs of other countries (especially Muslim nations). However economic powers often overide what the citizens of a country want (and as such, threaten democracy as we see in America where corporations have the most control over the government). I'm also looking at Islamic economic organizations and whether realistically they can be be self-sufficient or whether they are forced to rely on non-Muslim economic powers. There is also the issue of whether certain forms of capitalism are compatible (or not) with Islamic values and the shariat. Finally, I'm also looking at whether there are alternatives to fighting Western hegemony using non-violent forms of Jihad that are more effective in the long-term then violent strategies. That is actually an issue not just for Muslim countries, but also for many cultures around the world that fear that their values and traditions are being wiped out by the onslaught of Western culture, technology, and economic power. At any rate, I see all of these issues as key to peaceful coexhistence, but sadly few people seem to be interested in such things these days. At any rate, I'm stating these things just so that you know my intentions.

[snislarne]

Oh I forgot to answer your second question. Yes, I think many evangelical Christians would react violently to an athiest burning the bible. Many evangelical Christians in the deep South of the U.S.,. take their religion very very seriously and have supported such militant causes as assassinating doctors who perform abortions. What I find interesting though is that often their belief systems are not all that very different then many Muslims as many of them would love to see secular law replaced with biblical law (or at least be more influenced by Biblical law).

[milfovoxapl]

Well, there is a rather huge degree of difference between a non-Muslim who does not believe in Islam, but who otherwise has no ill-will towards Muslims versus a non-believer who goes out of his or her way to attack Islam, insult Muslims, and who actively seeks to destroy all Islamic influences in the world. Should both be treated as one and the same and both hated? Oh I should point out that I was not inferring that all Muslims believe in randomly killing kufr (only that many non-Muslim secular extremists in the West do make that generalization). Regarding secularism, I understand the arguement. However what I have not seen is any agreement amongst Islamic scholars on what things or ideas in the modern world should be classified as "secular". I have also never seen any agreement amongst scholars as to what a truly Islamic nation should look like in the modern world. If you know of any Islamic scholars who have wrote extensively on that issue I'd greatly appreciate any information on them and would very much like to study their writings. So far the closest I've seen so far is Shaykh Hamza Yussuf, but he's rejected and ridiculed by many Muslims.

By the way, as it shows to the left, I am not a Muslim, but rather a Theist (I believe in One God, but do not follow any organized religion so basically I'm a Unitarian more or less). I have however spent the last decade studying Islamic theology on and off as a anthropologist in the field of peace and conflict studies and have lived in several Muslim countries during my life. It may be a fools errand and completely hopeless, but I'm trying to understand how Western non-Muslim societies and Islamic societies can peacefully coexist as equals from not only a religious standpoint, but also from an economic standpoint as well.

Most Americans for example have absolutely no wish for the U.S. to be further involved in meddling in the affairs of other countries (especially Muslim nations). However economic powers often overide what the citizens of a country want (and as such, threaten democracy as we see in America where corporations have the most control over the government). I'm also looking at Islamic economic organizations and whether realistically they can be be self-sufficient or whether they are forced to rely on non-Muslim economic powers. There is also the issue of whether certain forms of capitalism are compatible (or not) with Islamic values and the shariat. Finally, I'm also looking at whether there are alternatives to fighting Western hegemony using non-violent forms of Jihad that are more effective in the long-term then violent strategies. That is actually an issue not just for Muslim countries, but also for many cultures around the world that fear that their values and traditions are being wiped out by the onslaught of Western culture, technology, and economic power. At any rate, I see all of these issues as key to peaceful coexhistence, but sadly few people seem to be interested in such things these days. At any rate, I'm stating these things just so that you know my intentions.

as i said 'hate' is a term reserved for ideologies not people. unless the people do something utterly destructive to islamic values so much so that shariah commands direct action to be taken against them.
to sum it up we hate kufr not the kafir.
you will notice in the blog that there is no call to violence. the onus is for change in thinking, an opening with which further progress can be made.

please read al ahkam as sultaniyyah to know more about how a muslim state should be run: http://www.kalamullah.com/ahkam-sultaniyyah.html
sh hamza yusuf has had mixed reviews. most people who respect scholars in general, show him respect while they may not agree with him.
secularism is well defined in islam. there are no ifs and buts.i have never seen any disagreement among prominent scholars. deviants are another thing and quickly identified and exposed.

[milfovoxapl]

Oh I forgot to answer your second question. Yes, I think many evangelical Christians would react violently to an athiest burning the bible. Many evangelical Christians in the deep South of the U.S.,. take their religion very very seriously and have supported such militant causes as assassinating doctors who perform abortions. What I find interesting though is that often their belief systems are not all that very different then many Muslims as many of them would love to see secular law replaced with biblical law (or at least be more influenced by Biblical law).

they are a minority in US. their reaction is nothing compared to the reaction of every muslim scholar and practising muslim on this incident. christianity is diluted and defeated.it exists as a culture and an option.im sorry but i say this without bias. the islamic perspective of previous religions is very unique and hard to grasp.
biblical law is not Law of Allah. it is an altered version. even if it is placed as a constitution then it wont be very different from secular law. as an outsider, to you all this is the same but Islamic Law is the most perfect Law and the only Law that is Allah's Law.one only has to study it w/o bias to see it.

we muslims are very different from these evangelists as we condemn abortion but no scholar has to my knowledge called for assasinating doctors. this is a very big generalization and you need to spend more time studying Islam under authentic scholars to understand Islam better. Here is how:
http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/show...amp-A-Websites

post your questions to these scholars. i find them the most moderate

[DenisMoor]

I think we should be scared for those individuals who have participated in this sort of acts throughout history (burning Qur'an, speaking ill about the Prophet , etc. Nauzubillah!). I don't know about the people committing these heinous acts, but it shakes me up personally just thinking about the punishment which awaits for these people in this life and/or in the hereafter. Unless of course any of these people should be guided by Allah towards the right path in their lifetime. Allah is Ar-Rahman and Ar-Raheem and only He knows everything and guides who He wills, forgives who He wills.

It just seriously shakes me up when I even start thinking about the punishment these type of people would receive, and I'm sure I am not the only Muslim who feels that way. Sad thing is that while these people are out trying to destroy something which can't be destroyed (Islam), it is us Muslim who are scared about the consequences of their actions which they will face and concerned for their hidayat.

May Allah guide us all and let us all die with solid imaan. Ameen.

Allah knows best.

[PyncGyncliacy]

Well, there is a rather huge degree of difference between a non-Muslim who does not believe in Islam, but who otherwise has no ill-will towards Muslims versus a non-believer who goes out of his or her way to attack Islam, insult Muslims, and who actively seeks to destroy all Islamic influences in the world. Should both be treated as one and the same and both hated? Oh I should point out that I was not inferring that all Muslims believe in randomly killing kufr (only that many non-Muslim secular extremists in the West do make that generalization). Regarding secularism, I understand the arguement. However what I have not seen is any agreement amongst Islamic scholars on what things or ideas in the modern world should be classified as "secular". I have also never seen any agreement amongst scholars as to what a truly Islamic nation should look like in the modern world. If you know of any Islamic scholars who have wrote extensively on that issue I'd greatly appreciate any information on them and would very much like to study their writings. So far the closest I've seen so far is Shaykh Hamza Yussuf, but he's rejected and ridiculed by many Muslims.

By the way, as it shows to the left, I am not a Muslim, but rather a Theist (I believe in One God, but do not follow any organized religion so basically I'm a Unitarian more or less). I have however spent the last decade studying Islamic theology on and off as a anthropologist in the field of peace and conflict studies and have lived in several Muslim countries during my life. It may be a fools errand and completely hopeless, but I'm trying to understand how Western non-Muslim societies and Islamic societies can peacefully coexist as equals from not only a religious standpoint, but also from an economic standpoint as well.

Most Americans for example have absolutely no wish for the U.S. to be further involved in meddling in the affairs of other countries (especially Muslim nations). However economic powers often overide what the citizens of a country want (and as such, threaten democracy as we see in America where corporations have the most control over the government). I'm also looking at Islamic economic organizations and whether realistically they can be be self-sufficient or whether they are forced to rely on non-Muslim economic powers. There is also the issue of whether certain forms of capitalism are compatible (or not) with Islamic values and the shariat. Finally, I'm also looking at whether there are alternatives to fighting Western hegemony using non-violent forms of Jihad that are more effective in the long-term then violent strategies. That is actually an issue not just for Muslim countries, but also for many cultures around the world that fear that their values and traditions are being wiped out by the onslaught of Western culture, technology, and economic power. At any rate, I see all of these issues as key to peaceful coexhistence, but sadly few people seem to be interested in such things these days. At any rate, I'm stating these things just so that you know my intentions.

While your research is indeed important, we the Muslims have been warned about all the calamities and war which if Allah Wills will happen between Muslims and non-Muslims allied forces. What I find as fascinating is the US's obsession in stopping any Muslim country from implementating the sharia law. Is there any particular reasons on why the US through CIA and other secret agencies would go to the extreme length to prevent the implementation of sharia law? If the US and the West still adamant of not letting the Muslims to implement the laws of our choice, then we don't have much option but to enforce it, thus can be the catalysts of a major war.

While studying about Islam, I believe you may have come across several hadiths from the Prophet regarding the major wars before the end of time?

I believe you've read the hadith about Khorasan wars. And most probably you've read about the hadith on the phases of Muslims ruling era?
"There will be Prophethood for as long as Allah wills it to be, then He will remove it when He wills, then there will be Khilafah on the Prophetic method and it will be for as long as Allah wills, then He will remove it when He wills, then there will be biting Kingship for as long as Allah Wills, then He will remove it when He wills, then there will be oppressive kingship for as long as Allah wills, then he will remove it when He wills, and then there will be Khilafah upon the Prophetic method" and then he remained silent.

Are we in the transition era from the oppresive kingship/rulers to the Khilafah upon the Prophetic method? When combined with all other hadiths (sufferings in Syaams and Iraq, Abyan Aden, tribulations in Egypts, etc), though we don't know for sure, but there are signs that we may be in this transition period.

And if you observe the reactions from some groups in the West, those who are afraid of Islam are becoming more reactive to spread the message of Islamophobic. I bet nobody in the West would believe that Afghanistan would be a burden to the major powers considering their weapons technology and how poor the country is, except the Muslims since we've been told that the people of Khorasan who are poor will be attacked by an alliance of major non-Muslim power but they will prevail.

Now if we can apply the same confidence level of non-Muslims towards any movement who is trying to establish sharia law, then we might have the same kind of confrontation but at a much bigger scale, since it is absolutely necessary for us to uphold the laws in the Quran in our everyday's lives.

Allah Knows Best.

[Arbinknit]

Well, there is a rather huge degree of difference between a non-Muslim who does not believe in Islam, but who otherwise has no ill-will towards Muslims versus a non-believer who goes out of his or her way to attack Islam, insult Muslims, and who actively seeks to destroy all Islamic influences in the world. Should both be treated as one and the same and both hated? Oh I should point out that I was not inferring that all Muslims believe in randomly killing kufr (only that many non-Muslim secular extremists in the West do make that generalization). Regarding secularism, I understand the arguement. However what I have not seen is any agreement amongst Islamic scholars on what things or ideas in the modern world should be classified as "secular". I have also never seen any agreement amongst scholars as to what a truly Islamic nation should look like in the modern world. If you know of any Islamic scholars who have wrote extensively on that issue I'd greatly appreciate any information on them and would very much like to study their writings. So far the closest I've seen so far is Shaykh Hamza Yussuf, but he's rejected and ridiculed by many Muslims.

By the way, as it shows to the left, I am not a Muslim, but rather a Theist (I believe in One God, but do not follow any organized religion so basically I'm a Unitarian more or less). I have however spent the last decade studying Islamic theology on and off as a anthropologist in the field of peace and conflict studies and have lived in several Muslim countries during my life. It may be a fools errand and completely hopeless, but I'm trying to understand how Western non-Muslim societies and Islamic societies can peacefully coexist as equals from not only a religious standpoint, but also from an economic standpoint as well.

Most Americans for example have absolutely no wish for the U.S. to be further involved in meddling in the affairs of other countries (especially Muslim nations). However economic powers often overide what the citizens of a country want (and as such, threaten democracy as we see in America where corporations have the most control over the government). I'm also looking at Islamic economic organizations and whether realistically they can be be self-sufficient or whether they are forced to rely on non-Muslim economic powers. There is also the issue of whether certain forms of capitalism are compatible (or not) with Islamic values and the shariat. Finally, I'm also looking at whether there are alternatives to fighting Western hegemony using non-violent forms of Jihad that are more effective in the long-term then violent strategies. That is actually an issue not just for Muslim countries, but also for many cultures around the world that fear that their values and traditions are being wiped out by the onslaught of Western culture, technology, and economic power. At any rate, I see all of these issues as key to peaceful coexhistence, but sadly few people seem to be interested in such things these days. At any rate, I'm stating these things just so that you know my intentions.

may be all is about how words are defined - for example also Muhammad pbuh can be called capitalist, dont you think so?

[snislarne]

as i said 'hate' is a term reserved for ideologies not people. unless the people do something utterly destructive to islamic values so much so that shariah commands direct action to be taken against them.
to sum it up we hate kufr not the kafir.
you will notice in the blog that there is no call to violence. the onus is for change in thinking, an opening with which further progress can be made.

please read al ahkam as sultaniyyah to know more about how a muslim state should be run: http://www.kalamullah.com/ahkam-sultaniyyah.html
sh hamza yusuf has had mixed reviews. most people who respect scholars in general, show him respect while they may not agree with him.
secularism is well defined in islam. there are no ifs and buts.i have never seen any disagreement among prominent scholars. deviants are another thing and quickly identified and exposed.

Hmm... I've definitely seen real hatred during my lifetime from people in many countries (and have myself felt hatred briefly during moments of extreme anger). At any rate, I never said the blog had any call to violence, only that it made some awfully huge generalizations. If one of the goals of Islam is dawah towards the kufr, such generalizations can be counter-productive. As such, understanding the different mindsets of kufr and the various attitudes towards Islam (both negative and positive) would seem important.

Thank you for the link. I believe I have read this before (although I will read it again). However, it is based upon a scholar from the 5th century and as such leaves out a tremendous number of issues facing the modern world, especially when it comes to issues of technology and economic and cultural issues between Muslims and Kufr. The disagreements I have seen mainly have to do with issues of defining Dar Al-Islam and Dar Al-Harb, issues of which areas of Western educational systems to accept and which to reject, issues regarding democratic versus totalitarian governments, issues regarding globalization (free-market economics), and of course issues regarding what forms of Western technology (such as the internet, cell-phones, satellite TV, etc..etc...) to reject and which are beneficial to islam. Then there are issues regarding whether secular laws that do not compromise or go against the Shariat are acceptable or not. Take for example a state-paid scholar in Morocco versus a respected Deobandi scholar from Pakistan and you find massive differences on such issues a long with various degrees of acceptence or rejection of certain aspects of Western culture. At any rate, I will look up some of these questions on the links you posted for scholars. Thank you.

As for the evangelical Christians, I'm not comparing them to Muslims regarding who is more right or wrong. Only that many of their goals are similar to Muslims as far as how they want to see society. Also Biblical law is vastly different then secular law. If anything it is much harsher and less compassionate then Shariat. But that is just a simple theological observation and opinion on my part and nothing more. The discussion on that specific topic should end there as that is more suitable for a different forum, not an Islamic one as I'm not interested in arguing the merits Christian theology (or lack of merits).

[snislarne]

While your research is indeed important, we the Muslims have been warned about all the calamities and war which if Allah Wills will happen between Muslims and non-Muslims allied forces. What I find as fascinating is the US's obsession in stopping any Muslim country from implementating the sharia law. Is there any particular reasons on why the US through CIA and other secret agencies would go to the extreme length to prevent the implementation of sharia law? If the US and the West still adamant of not letting the Muslims to implement the laws of our choice, then we don't have much option but to enforce it, thus can be the catalysts of a major war.

While studying about Islam, I believe you may have come across several hadiths from the Prophet regarding the major wars before the end of time?

I believe you've read the hadith about Khorasan wars. And most probably you've read about the hadith on the phases of Muslims ruling era?
"There will be Prophethood for as long as Allah wills it to be, then He will remove it when He wills, then there will be Khilafah on the Prophetic method and it will be for as long as Allah wills, then He will remove it when He wills, then there will be biting Kingship for as long as Allah Wills, then He will remove it when He wills, then there will be oppressive kingship for as long as Allah wills, then he will remove it when He wills, and then there will be Khilafah upon the Prophetic method" and then he remained silent.

Are we in the transition era from the oppresive kingship/rulers to the Khilafah upon the Prophetic method? When combined with all other hadiths (sufferings in Syaams and Iraq, Abyan Aden, tribulations in Egypts, etc), though we don't know for sure, but there are signs that we may be in this transition period.

And if you observe the reactions from some groups in the West, those who are afraid of Islam are becoming more reactive to spread the message of Islamophobic. I bet nobody in the West would believe that Afghanistan would be a burden to the major powers considering their weapons technology and how poor the country is, except the Muslims since we've been told that the people of Khorasan who are poor will be attacked by an alliance of major non-Muslim power but they will prevail.

Now if we can apply the same confidence level of non-Muslims towards any movement who is trying to establish sharia law, then we might have the same kind of confrontation but at a much bigger scale, since it is absolutely necessary for us to uphold the laws in the Quran in our everyday's lives.

Allah Knows Best.

I've also been puzzled by the U.S. State Department's obsession with stopping the spread of Shariat law. Personally I believe that if we truly believe in Democracy then that means that we believe in the people of other sovereign states choosing the type of government which reflects their values and beliefs (and not ours). That is what true freedom is. With that said, currently the main fear is that any such shariat based nation will become like Iran or that it will become a haven, training grounds, and supporter of terrorist organizations. But then you get into the different viewpoint between Muslims and non-Muslims regarding what defines a terrorist. At any rate...that's a long discussion and it would probably violate the forum rules which, for good reason, try to keep discussions away from such things. Suffice to say, that kufr (especially Western kufr) fear that coalitions of such nations will seek to attack and undermine Western values and institutions. Ironically it is the same fear that Muslims have of the kufr. As for the issue of Afghanistan, I can only say that the polytheistic and atheist Vietnamese were also a huge burden to the goals of the United States trying to stop the spread of Communism. In both cases, I believe that using military force and supporting thugs in puppet governments are failed policies. Dialog, mutual understanding, and developing mutual respect I believe is the only way to create lasting peace which is why Americans like myself, who respect Islam, were horrified by these Qur'an burnings.

[vekiuytyh]

@Mr. Wigon: Perhaps you would be interested in the Gulen Movement.

[snislarne]

may be all is about how words are defined - for example also Muhammad pbuh can be called capitalist, dont you think so?

That is indeed a good point. I see Mohammed (PBUH) and his first wife of good examples of basic market economics (which is all normal capitalism is). However today, we have vastly different forms of capitalism in the form of mega-corporations and stock markets that are based on religious-like "faith" in infinite economic growth while in a world of limited finite resources. As such the current Western capitalist system is not based upon sustainable economics. They are based upon short-sighted economic theories that people have blind-faith in. I am not saying that the solution is socialism either. Extremes of socialism are just as dangerous as we have seen in world history. It is in this area, that I do believe that a form of Islamic capitalism could fill in the gap between Western capitalist extremes and Socialist extremes. I know some Turkish companies practice Islamic values and I am sure that many do in other parts of the Islamic world. These are the types of Islamic ideas that I wish more Shaykhs would study and advocate rather then simply rant against Western global economics. If these Islamic forms of capitalism can catch on regionally, they could spread globally as Western economies collapse from their own greed and short-sighted economic policies (mainly based on imaginary "future money"). Unfortunately however very few Shaykhs study comparative economics as that is often lumped into "kufr" ideology. But without a strong understanding of economics, it leaves many Muslims at the mercy of those who do have a better understanding of economics, but who are not interested in doing what is best for Islam. At rate, if anyone knows of any Shaykhs who have tried to develop a form of economic theory based upon Islam, I would be very interested in studying that.

[snislarne]

@Mr. Wigon: Perhaps you would be interested in the Gulen Movement.

It's funny that you mention the Gulen movement. I have worked with them for the past 10 years and count them as some of my best friends. They're very good people. I am actually on the board of a charter school that was founded by members of the Gulen movement. (Because of this I have been accused of being an Islamist. lol) Overall, I think that they are probably some of the most awe-inspiring Muslims that I've ever met as most of them put their faith into practice helping to build their communities no matter where they live. They also do, I think, an excellent job of representing Muslims. However... Gulen's particular teachings of Tasawuuf are not exactly mainstream Islam. I like his teachings, but I don't really see him as on the same level of other well-established islamic scholars. To me, a true scholar is one who can trace his lineage through hundreds of years of scholars through an established Madhhab. He also, in my opinion, should be someone who has studied other Madhhabs and understands in great depth the science of analyzing the Ahadith so as to have strong knowledge regarding the strength or weakness of particular hadiths as well as the history of writings by other famous Islamic scholars all throughout Islamic history. That is one reason why I tend to like Hamza Yussuf as he goes into a lot of very deep detail and doesn't give simplistic mickey-mouse answers. In other words he backs up his answers with many different examples and even questions his own views on certain issues and admits when he may be wrong or is not sure about a certain issue. Humility to me is the sign of a very good spiritual teacher who has mastery over his own ego (which to me is probably the most important teaching of Tasawuuf and why it's important to spiritual development)

[nithhysfusy]

NATO has announced that all foreign adivsers will be pulled out of their posts in Kabul.

The announcement came hours after the shooting on Saturday of two International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) military advisers in the Ministry of Interior in Kabul city.

Al Jazeera's Bernard Smith, reporting live from the Afghan capital, said the withdrawal of hundreds of military and civilian advisers is a sign that NATO feels "no place is secure for any of their advisers" in Afghanistan.

In a statement, General John R Allen, ISAF commander, said that "for obvious force protection reasons, I have also taken immediate measures to recall all other ISAF personnel working in ministries in and around Kabul".

Speaking to Al Jazeera TV, ISAF spokesperson, Brigadier General Carsten Jacobson said the adviser pull out was a logical and necessary step to "account for all our personnel ... and bring them into their safe housing areas" in and around the Afghan capital.


Afghan access

The two American service members were inside a room in the ministry's command and control complex used only by foreign advisers. The only Afghans with access to that area are translators, Afghan officials said.

The interior ministry issued a statement confirming that two of the ministry's international colleagues were killed and that an investigation had been launched.

Additional reports claimed the men were US military officers serving as ISAF trainers.

A statement issued by NATO said "initial reports indicate an individual turned his weapon against International Security Assistance Force service members in Kabul city today, killing two service members".

Our correspondent said ISAF has closed off access to their command and control centre where the two bodies were found.

Of the shootings themselves, Allen said "we are investigating the crime and will pursue all leads to find the person responsible for this attack. The perpetrator of this attack is a coward whose actions will not go unanswered".

"Afghans have no part in the investigation into the deaths of the two senior advisers", said our correspondent.


Taliban claims

In statements on their website and a Twitter account, the Taliban have claimed responsibility for the shootings, which they say are in retaliation for reports of Quran burnings at a US airbase.

Zabiullah Mujahid, a Taliban spokesman, said the gunman was a man named Abdul Rahman. Mujahid said an accomplice inside the ministry helped Rahman gain access to the building.

Although official reports say two military advisers were shot, the Taliban, known to exaggerate tolls from attacks for which they take credit, claimed four high-ranking advisers were killed.

"After the attack, Rahman informed us by telephone that he was able to kill four high-ranking American advisers,'' Mujahid said. The Taliban frequently exaggerate casualty claims.

In a post on his official twitter account, Captain John Kirby, a US defence spokesman, said there has been "lots of speculation on today's attack in Kabul. We do not know who killed [two] ISAF members or why".

The shooting comes on the fifth day of protests across the nation sparked by the burning of Qurans at a US base.


Quran protests

Also on Saturday, at least four protesters were killed and 34 wounded as Afghans held protests for the fifth straight day against the burning of the Quran at a US-led base in the country, hospital officials have told Al Jazeera.

Three of the protesters were killed at a protest outside a United Nations compound in Kunduz province on Saturday morning, hospital officials said, adding that 30 other demonstrators were wounded in that protest.

The demonstration on Saturday had initially been peaceful, but turned violent after protesters threw stones at government buildings and the UN office, said Sarwer Hussaini, a spokesman for the provincial police. He said police had fired into the air to disperse protesters.

Denise Jeanmonod, a spokeswoman for UNAMA, the United Nations' Mission in Afghanistan, confirmed the incident, saying that the organisation was "assessing the situation at the scene".


5-day toll

Elsewhere on Saturday, one protester was killed and four others wounded during a protest in Logar province, south of Kabul, after hundreds of angry protesters took to the streets and clashed with security forces.

Protests also erupted in several other provinces on Saturday, with demonstrations reported in Sar-e-pol and Nangarhar provinces. In Laghman province, a protest reportedly turned violent when an estimated 1,000 protesters threw rocks at police and attempted to storm the governor's house.

There were reports of casualties at that protest, but there was no immediate confirmation on the number of wounded.

On Friday, protests across the country led to the deaths of 11 Afghans, including a protester who was shot dead in the capital Kabul. It was the deadliest day of protests since demonstrations began five days ago.

Brigadier General Carsten Jacobson, ISAF Spokesperson, said the response to the now five day-long protests was managed by "a police force that showed extreme skill and capability this week".

Saturday's deaths bring the five-day total to over 30 people killed, including two US soldiers who were shot dead on Thursday in eastern Afghanistan. http://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia/2...435215869.html

[PyncGyncliacy]

I've also been puzzled by the U.S. State Department's obsession with stopping the spread of Shariat law. Personally I believe that if we truly believe in Democracy then that means that we believe in the people of other sovereign states choosing the type of government which reflects their values and beliefs (and not ours). That is what true freedom is. With that said, currently the main fear is that any such shariat based nation will become like Iran or that it will become a haven, training grounds, and supporter of terrorist organizations. But then you get into the different viewpoint between Muslims and non-Muslims regarding what defines a terrorist. At any rate...that's a long discussion and it would probably violate the forum rules which, for good reason, try to keep discussions away from such things. Suffice to say, that kufr (especially Western kufr) fear that coalitions of such nations will seek to attack and undermine Western values and institutions. Ironically it is the same fear that Muslims have of the kufr. As for the issue of Afghanistan, I can only say that the polytheistic and atheist Vietnamese were also a huge burden to the goals of the United States trying to stop the spread of Communism. In both cases, I believe that using military force and supporting thugs in puppet governments are failed policies. Dialog, mutual understanding, and developing mutual respect I believe is the only way to create lasting peace which is why Americans like myself, who respect Islam, were horrified by these Qur'an burnings.

You probably would be interested to check more on the Medina Charter? That will be the basis of any Islamic state relationship with any non-Muslim country. Regarding any jihad, there's true that there're offensive jihad and defensive jihad. Whereas we consider what our brothers are fighting a legal defensive jihad in Afghanistan, offensive jihad is not as easy as that. The only person who can authorize offensive jihad is a Caliph, and he must have good reasons for it of which he will be held accountable for. We are talking about human lives here, and we are not allowed even to cut trees or to harm any other animals in any war and should it be required to do so, we can only do it under a direction of the commander, not just on our own whims.