Attack on punjab regiment base in Peshawer (news video)

[شمله ور خراساني]

explain how I am the biggest sinner?

he is using the classical circle argument of secularists.

They have a problem when you use their own sources to refute them.

[randolph85]

I have addressed the sword issue in a previous post.

And about Unkownprince. Quoting kaafir media talking about kuffaar is different than relying on kaafir media when judging Muslims.

so now u are relying on the kafir media on info about themselves?

so u trust the kafir on these issues?

[شمله ور خراساني]

so now u are relying on the kafir media on info about themselves?

so u trust the kafir on these issues?

You should read what I have said instead of giving your own meaning to my words.

[randolph85]

he is using the classical circle argument of secularists.

They have a problem when you use their own sources to refute them.

u say relying on the kafirs word is a sin

i say ur friend is relying on their word by posting dozens of articles written by kafirs

now u say i am using secular arguments



WHAT? lol this is hilarious, go on please.

[randolph85]

this is what u said, in ur own words.

And it is a sin to believe the kuffaar or even a faasiq when they bring you a message.

then u say its ok to believe the kufar when they talk about themselves, after i mention prince.

[شمله ور خراساني]

u say relying on the kafirs word is a sin

i say ur friend is relying on their word by posting dozens of articles written by kafirs

now u say i am using secular arguments



WHAT? lol this is hilarious, go on please.

You are hopelessly trying to argue because you have been refuted in your nonsensical rant on taliban being more guilty than kafirs for killing civilians.

But I will help you out:

When a kaafir tells you that a muslim has don such and so, you are not suppose to believe the kaafir. Because allah subhana wa ta3ala has said that the kuffar are his enemies.

So as a muslim you are suppose to have walaa (allegiance) for the Muslims. And you should always doubt an enemy of allah when he brings you news about your brethren.

Since you do not do this, it means that you have been secularized. Since you talk allot trash and critisize Muslims because they defend their home.

This is why I have refered to you and Mahmood as secularists. Because you have no allegiance with the Muslims in the war of Muslims and the kuffaar.

You claim that you do not choose sides because both parties are equally bad. This reveals your lack of imaan.

If you really have a firm imaan, you would never talk trash about your muslim brothers who are spilling their own blood defending their land.

By disassociating yourself from the Muslims in these times you are disassociating yourself from Islam.

And try to act funny as you always do, but the fact is, you are doing nothing else but mocking. You are mocking the state of Muslims.

[شمله ور خراساني]

this is what u said, in ur own words.



then u say its ok to believe the kufar when they talk about themselves, after i mention prince.

I said, it is okay to use kaafir sources to refute them.

A kaafir is by definition always a liar. Because "kufr" means someone who hides something. In this case, the truth.

[randolph85]

You are hopelessly trying to argue because you have been refuted in your nonsensical rant on taliban being more guilty than kafirs for killing civilians.

But I will help you out:

When a kaafir tells you that a muslim has don such and so, you are not suppose to believe the kaafir. Because allah subhana wa ta3ala has said that the kuffar are his enemies.

So as a muslim you are suppose to have walaa (allegiance) for the Muslims. And you should always doubt an enemy of allah when he brings you news about your brethren.

Since you do not do this, it means that you have been secularized. Since you talk allot trash and critisize Muslims because they defend their home.

This is why I have refered to you and Mahmood as secularists. Because you have no allegiance with the Muslims in the war of Muslims and the kuffaar.

You claim that you do not choose sides because both parties are equally bad. This reveals your lack of imaan.

If you really have a firm imaan, you would never talk trash about your muslim brothers who are spilling their own blood defending their land.

By disassociating yourself from the Muslims in these times you are disassociating yourself from Islam.

And try to act funny as you always do, but the fact is, you are doing nothing else but mocking. You are mocking the state of Muslims.

so why did the taliban fight hekmatyar and other muslims on their rise to power?

i see 2 pieces of ****, and stay away from both ****s. wrapping a bow around one of the ****s doesnt change the way it smells. whereas u are face deep in that turd.

so if a kafir says karzai is corrupt or that americans are killing innocents, then i shouldnt believe them, correct?

[graveyardofempires]

grano wruno
please try to stay on the topic

[randolph85]

I said, it is okay to use kaafir sources to refute them.

A kaafir is by definition always a liar. Because "kufr" means someone who hides something. In this case, the truth.

so u can use lying unreliable kafir sources for some things but not others. basically ur a hypocite.

[شمله ور خراساني]

so why did the taliban fight hekmatyar and other muslims on their rise to power?

i see 2 pieces of ****, and stay away from both ****s. wrapping a bow around one of the ****s doesnt change the way it smells. whereas u are face deep in that turd.

so if a kafir says karzai is corrupt or that americans are killing innocents, then i shouldnt believe them, correct?

Hekmatyar is a criminal. ANd all others who opposed the Taliban are criminals. And they should have been killed for the crimes they have commited.

You call Muslims piece of ****. How about yourself? What are you, Osman?

If a kaafir says Karzai is corrupt and you have eyes and ears and you see that he is corrupt, then yes, the kaafir has spoken the truth.

However, when a kaafir talks trash and uses propaganda to defame the mujahideen you are not suppose to believe them. Unless you have seen it with your own eyes.

[شمله ور خراساني]

so u can use lying unreliable kafir sources for some things but not others. basically ur a hypocite.

I am afraid that the description of a hypocrite in Qur'an suites you more than anyone else.

Please read the Qur'an and you will find out.

[Catya Sher]

"A kaafir is by definition always a liar. Because "kufr" means someone who hides something. In this case, the truth."

VERY illuminating explanation

Unknown, Huffington Post is usually not SO great but once in awhile they have a little something of use.

Much as i disagree with the member here "hairan", at least the Huffington Post printed his story that Aisha of Time magazine was simply Nazia renamed and glossed up to shock the entire world into hating Afghan culture.
I doubt TIME would have used that piece as a Letter To The Editor -
speaking of LIARS...!

Press TV is most reliable.
The Guardian was a former left of center publication which once in a while comes up with an unusual story, like the Russian Spestnaz officer's recollections of
his tours in Chechnya -
but oftentimes they still go right along with the usual American-British Party Line.

Press TV is run by Muslims after all; the others are publications of
probable atheists and certain secularists. Hence less to be trusted by far.
Yvonne Ridley is some sort of correspondent or reporter for Press Tv, by the way.

[qunduz92]

because we all know that foreigners are killing afghans, there is no debate on that.

the double standard is when talibs here post videos of civilians being beaten up or killed by nato/pakis saying there was no due process and that they might of been innocent. when a talib kills a person they dont say anything and assume they are guilty and have been tried. then they say talibs cant be guilty of anything because the country was invaded. they must also think massoud/hekmatyar/sayaf/mazari/others were blameless for their crimes in the civil war because it was the result of the russian invasion years later?

these people have too much pride to admit that BOTH sides are wrong. in islam, enemy aggression does not allow muslims the right or excuse to disregard islamic limits in war.

the civil war analogy can not be used in this situation where a war of aggression is being waged upon a people who have no choice but fight in self-defense with whatever means they may, some do it in an extreme fashion but what better can we expect from rural, tribal villagers whose idea of revenge and justice is the same as it was thousands of years ago?

you can not blame oppressed and impoverished village people but the ones who have willfully and provocatively brought them to this unfortunate situation in the first place.

we are simply saying that in order to stop the latter fighting in self-defense, the ones provoking it should stop.

wrong definitely occurs on both ends. i dont know where you are extracting this notion that we view the taliban as an angelic, infallible organization.

[graveyardofempires]

so u can use lying unreliable kafir sources for some things but not others. basically ur a hypocite.

randolph bro i think you are trying to beat water with stick and thinking it will be devide.
i can use any media from any source be it western eastern northern or southern.
that doesnt mean i blindly believe it ,there is punchline system in these media reports and if you are honest enough you will see through biasness.

and not all the non muslims are bad as not all muslims are good.

for example : real news network is considered by many as honest and unbiased, i can listen to some of their artciles but that doesnt mean i believe everything they say or what their so called analist has to say.
because those guys could have their own agenda.

i cant tell you what to think or which news channel is the best but i must say every source can be checked but that does not mean you follow it blindly.