A talk on Bacha Khan

[MeemWawMeemNoon]

Honey, I do have a teacher.

Go ask your teacher, when the polytheists rediculed the prophet muhammad saww and tried to attack him in Mekkah, didn't he make them a promise to kill them or not?

This is totally false.

[شمله ور خراساني]

There is a contradiction here. Are you saying that he (saw) was waiting for them to attack so that he could justify his attack? That is pretty lame, if you are alluding to that.

Go and re-read my replies. I did not say anything of that nature. I don't know how you came up to such conclusion.

But again, it is not surprising. Since you as a qadiani believe in stuf that are more weird and more far fetched than that.

[MeemWawMeemNoon]

True Muslims do not need proof, we know He is there, and He sees everyones' hearts.

What about Hadhrat Ibrahim (as)?

[MeemWawMeemNoon]

Allah(swt) can not be disproved by rational thought. Thats the dilemma apostates find themselves in. Secular societies give rise to apostates because they try to use science to support their idea that there is no God, but they fail ridiculously at that!

Are you against rational thought? Why are you against secularism? Good and bad come out of everything. What is wrong with science?

[MeemWawMeemNoon]

Go and re-read my replies. I did not say anything of that nature. I don't know how you came up to such conclusion.

But again, it is not surprising. Since you as a qadiani believe in stuf that are more weird and more far fetched than that.

I don't think you read what people write. Re-read and you will understand. Note the question mark.

[Baygham]

this baygham dude thinks that the queen is the absolute monarch in holland.

You would be a practicing priest if she was an absolute monarch. I know she is properly Neutered by her secular parliament, but still powerful enough to keep you quiet, can’t even utter a single word against her highness, give us atleast something like ‘Islam / koran / mohammad does not allow a female head of state”. Silence, complete - pin drop silence. LOL. (dumra peeghoroona ka mee kharr["donkey"] la hum warkarri wa, noo koowii["well"] tha pa ii dhangalii oo, khu not a single word from this teezan)

I admire her control even in this "khasi" state, it is more than enough to keep a radical who wants to take on 90% of the Muslims in other countries, and makes him totally "khasi" in front of her.

[afghan]

Didn't he say during his Makki time to the mushrikeen that he is here to kill them? LOL

Study the mekkan era. He threatened to kill all of the mushrikeen who were opposing him. And in the Battle of Badr he fullfilled his promise.

After muhammad's migration from Mekka to madina, Muhhamad had a truce with jewish and christian tribes and called them people of the book and natural allies. in the quran its stated that jews are chosen people of God. later on when muslims got stronger the jews and christians were attacked.
in pashtun laws dont permit to attack the people who are weaker.

[شمله ور خراساني]

After muhammad's migration from Mekka to madina, Muhhamad had a truce with jewish and christian tribes and called them people of the book and natural allies. in the quran its stated that jews are chosen people of God. later on when muslims got stronger the jews and christians were attacked.
in pashtun laws dont permit to attack the people who are weaker.

The reason why Muslims did not fight the jews in Madina initially was because there was no reason to fight them. There was no hostility or war between the two.

And when the jews were faught, it was due to the Jewish cunning and trickery.

No where does it say in QUr'an that the people of the book are our allies. In fact, since Jews and Christians disbelieve in the final messenger and the final message, they are kaafirs. The false status of people of the book often cited by ignorant people is due to the love and support they have for invaders.

ANd who are you to talk about Pashto law? First of all, Pashtunwale is not coded in any book. And if anyone would know more about what is permissible and what not in Pashto, that would be the person who knows his historyHave you studied Pashtun history? The raids in India, and Central asia were often against weaker people. The stronger Ghalji & Karlani tribes who raided the plains of Punjab and the steppes in the north of Afghanistan were much stronger than their opponents.

And those raids where not a retaliation against the wrong doings of the Punjabis and Turkomans. BUt because of the greed of the Pashtun tribes.

[afghan]

The reason why Muslims did not fight the jews in Madina initially was because there was no reason to fight them. There was no hostility or war between the two.

And when the jews were faught, it was due to the Jewish cunning and trickery.

No where does it say in QUr'an that the people of the book are our allies. In fact, since Jews and Christians disbelieve in the final messenger and the final message, they are kaafirs. The false status of people of the book often cited by ignorant people is due to the love and support they have for invaders.

ANd who are you to talk about Pashto law? First of all, Pashtunwale is not coded in any book. And if anyone would know more about what is permissible and what not in Pashto, that would be the person who knows his historyHave you studied Pashtun history? The raids in India, and Central asia were often against weaker people. The stronger Ghalji & Karlani tribes who raided the plains of Punjab and the steppes in the north of Afghanistan were much stronger than their opponents.

And those raids where not a retaliation against the wrong doings of the Punjabis and Turkomans. BUt because of the greed of the Pashtun tribes.

you are lost in arab culture, we have competed with stronger. i dont think the persian empire was weaker, neither the manghols and british. how did you assume i am not a pashtun and dont know about pashtunwali? no books are written on pashtunwali, its in our blood you have to be a pashtun and raised as a pashtun to know that. cannt be explained.

[شمله ور خراساني]

you are lost in arab culture, we have competed with stronger. i dont think the persian empire was weaker, neither the manghols and british. how did you assume i am not a pashtun and dont know about pashtunwali? no books are written on pashtunwali, its in our blood you have to be a pashtun and raised as a pashtun to know that. cannt be explained.

I am not lost in arab culture. I know my history. you think the only battles we faught was against persians and british and mongols?

WHo taught you history? Some drunk poet called Ghani khan, right?

[Wrayun]

ANd who are you to talk about Pashto law? First of all, Pashtunwale is not coded in any book. And if anyone would know more about what is permissible and what not in Pashto, that would be the person who knows his historyHave you studied Pashtun history? The raids in India, and Central asia were often against weaker people. The stronger Ghalji & Karlani tribes who raided the plains of Punjab and the steppes in the north of Afghanistan were much stronger than their opponents.

And those raids where not a retaliation against the wrong doings of the Punjabis and Turkomans. BUt because of the greed of the Pashtun tribes.

lulz my God....

Bring your evidence before spewing such nonsense.

The attack on Punjaab and Hind was sanctioned as ISLAMIC JIHAAD, against the Marata Empire, where the Muslims of Punjaab invited the Afghans. The war with the Persians was a sanctioned ISLAMIC JIHAAD, against the Shias kaafirs. Ghilja, Khalaj, brethren of Ghoris and Ghaznavis, came in to Pukhtoon areas as Islamic expansionists and Islamized the region converting weak Pukhtoon tribes into Islam. The Karlnari, mostly hill tribes, were and still are as weak as any plain land Punjabi farmer. In fact Punjab was ruled by various kingdoms, including the Rajputs, who were anything but "weak".

This history is normally glorified as an Islamic accomplishment by the meek faithfuls of Islam over the mighty Hindu armies by your zealot religious brethren, you now conveniently label that history as adventures of Pukhtoon greed?

Tell me, who generally benefited from those invasions, Muslims or Pukhtoons? The state of Pukhtoons is pretty much evident today as to how much wealth they acquired. But the path that these invasions laid into India placed Muslims as rulers for generations, and might I say, very rich rulers.

All greedy adventures, whether Turk, Persian, Arab, Afghan, or Moghul were sanctioned by Islam and the promise of war booty. Whether they were Salafis like you or not, to save face, that is your problem. Bottom line, would these otherwise normal people go on such "adventures" if it wasn't for what was driving them?

[شمله ور خراساني]

lulz my God....

Bring your evidence before spewing such nonsense.

The attack on Punjaab and Hind was sanctioned as ISLAMIC JIHAAD, against the Marata Empire, where the Muslims of Punjaab invited the Afghans. The war with the Persians was a sanctioned ISLAMIC JIHAAD, against the Shias kaafirs. Ghilja, Khalaj, brethren of Ghoris and Ghaznavis, came in to Pukhtoon areas as Islamic expansionists and Islamized the region converting weak Pukhtoon tribes into Islam. The Karlnari, mostly hill tribes, were and still are as weak as any plain land Punjabi farmer. In fact Punjab was ruled by various kingdoms, including the Rajputs, who were anything but "weak".

This history is normally glorified as an Islamic accomplishment by the meek faithfuls of Islam over the mighty Hindu armies by your zealot religious brethren, you now conveniently label that history as adventures of Pukhtoon greed?

Tell me, who generally benefited from those invasions, Muslims or Pukhtoons? The state of Pukhtoons is pretty much evident today as to how much wealth they acquired. But the path that these invasions laid into India placed Muslims as rulers for generations, and might I say, very rich rulers.

All greedy adventures, whether Turk, Persian, Arab, Afghan, or Moghul were sanctioned by Islam and the promise of war booty. Whether they were Salafis like you or not, to save face, that is your problem. Bottom line, would these otherwise normal people go on such "adventures" if it wasn't for what was driving them?

You are a funny guy.

When this forum was crowded with Muslims and the secularist clowns were being countered, you joined in with your silly pimping thread.

Now that most muslims have left this forum and it is re-occupied with secularists, you have changed and now you side with the secularists.

I am from the Ahmedzai < sulaimankhel < Ghiljay tribe. Our ancestors have a history of attacking other groups and raiding their cattle and areas. This is how our tribe is spread all across Afghanistan. And before the Anglo-Afghan wars, our tribe was scattered even beyond the current borders.

Are you telling me that a person who can't even spell the word "clouds" in pashto knows more about the history of my tribe?

[Wrayun]

Because violence is prescribed to Muslims by ALlah to defend themselves against the enemies.

The verse prescribes fighting, not violence. What's the difference? You can fight violently or you can choose to fight non-violently. What is important is the result that either of the two choices can produce. Now the Prophet Mohammad knew that if he was to fight violently while in Mecca, even though according to you he promised to kill his enemies (which he didn't do till he had the strength and means while in Mecca), the repercussions to his handful of followers will be great. So he choose to fight non-violently, till badr. You see he was a very good statesman, strategist, and a diplomat. All the qualities modern day gungo cyber-jahidis or their brethren on the ground lack. Puppets whose strings can be easily pulled by pushing on their nerves.

That was the whole purpose of Bacha Khan non-violently struggle. He knew that the British were strong, that even after the 3 wars Afghans fought them, the British were successful in dividing the empire of Afghanistan in two, rendering it into an ineffective state instead of the mighty empire it once was. While at the same time took majority of the ethnic Afghans i.e. Pukhtoons with them and subjugated them for decades. It was futile to fight the British violently when militarily a victory over them was not plausible. Militarily Muslims have lost every major war that they have fought ever since World War 1. Look at the situation of Palestinains, the more they fight, the more land they loose. One attack on America resulted in the occupation of 2 Muslim countries, millions dead. Afghanistan, Kashmir, Iraq, and it goes on.....

Reason? Muslim don't have the violent power to match the violent technology of non-Muslims. There is no way, that using violence you can win against "kaafirs". Rather every time you take a violent step, it becomes the very excuse that non-Muslims use against you, and in return violently blow you to oblivion. But unfortunately, to understand that, it requires brains and not brawns. Funny thing is that, to fight violently, Muslims are dependent on "kaafir" technology.

And that is why Baacha Khan decided to go the non-violent way. He knew what the last 3 violent wars produced. He wasn't going to risk more.

[Wrayun]

You are a funny guy.

When this forum was crowded with Muslims and the secularist clowns were being countered, you joined in with your silly pimping thread.

Really...? I remember it differently, like they mopping the floor with you guys and taking over. That is why I joined.

Now that most muslims have left this forum and it is re-occupied with secularists, you have changed and now you side with the secularists.

Actually what I have noticed is that the secularists are mostly quite..or gone. A few are left...and a lynch mob of religious zealots are trolling the forums...disrespecting moderators, administrators, and what not.

I don't take sides kid...I don't like to be defined. The secularists/atheists accuse me of being a Mullah, a Talib supporter, and the Mullahs accuse me of being a secularists, nationalists, kaafir supporter. I like it that way, because it proves to me I support neither.

Remember when you said you "liked" me after my "pimping threads"? What did I tell you, too soon for anyone to like me.

I am from the Ahmedzai < sulaimankhel < Ghiljay tribe. Our ancestors have a history of attacking other groups and raiding their cattle and areas. This is how our tribe is spread all across Afghanistan. And before the Anglo-Afghan wars, our tribe was scattered even beyond the current borders.

Are you telling me that a person who can't even spell the word "clouds" in pashto knows more about the history of my tribe?

Instead of coming back with lame rebuttals, personal attacks, character assassination attempts, for once, counter the points.

[afghan]

its better for sangar khan wror to lighten up by writings, he expresses himself here, then he thinks his duties are fullfilled as a muslim. its the best way to prevent him from going on suicide mission.