Taliban denies killing member of Afghan peace council

[RevolutionThroughReason]

this law does not contradict Islam.

It does when you're using it as an excuse to justify the Taiban's unislamic activities. we roll by Higher standards G

[khushal]

Ok reread this .....and if anyone is making circular red herrings here it would be you; how does saying that NATO and the Taliban are equally responsible for the problems in Afghanistan today equal to saying that the Taliban's crimes justify invasion. two totally different things.
One does not follow from the other; so it's a nonsequittur on your part
furthermore the Taliban committing crimes was to demonstrate that the violence of the Taliban is their own fault; not their own NATO's violence is their own fault.

your back tracking.

you claimed equal responsibility.
I claimed international law does not put liability on both parties.
you brought up taliban actions before invasion which has nothing to do with the argument at hand----- red herring
I asked if you are justifying the invasion to stop those particular actions that you claim
you went back to your original claim-- equal responsibility--- circular

do you see your fallacy

[khushal]

It does when you're using it as an excuse to justify the Taiban's unislamic activities. we roll by Higher standards G

Im using it to justify truth. NATO can not provide security to the people they are occupying because the occupation is unjust. If the occupation is unjust then the occupation should end. they should allow natural social evolution to take place and let the people sort it out without outside interference. The natural way is the best way.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

your back tracking.

you claimed equal responsibility.
I claimed international law does not put liability on both parties.
you brought up taliban actions before invasion which has nothing to do with the argument at hand----- red herring
I asked if you are justifying the invasion to stop those particular actions that you claim
you went back to your original claim-- equal responsibility--- circular

do you see your fallacy

Not at all because your premise is false to begin with; . Islamic Law overrides International Law; and Islamic Law says that the wrong doers are the ones responsible; well guess what? both are wrong doers.

We're Muslims, Islamically Kufar never have ANY authority on Muslims unless it has been agreed upon by the Islamic Leader (Khalif). Where did the Khalif agree upon this?

now ...let me ask you ...do you see YOUR fallacy?

Using international law as an excuse VIOLATES Shari'ah, wouldn't want to do that now would we?

[RevolutionThroughReason]

Im using it to justify truth. NATO can not provide security to the people they are occupying because the occupation is unjust. If the occupation is unjust then the occupation should end. they should allow natural social evolution to take place and let the people sort it out without outside interference. The natural way is the best way.

The Occupation is unjust , but not because NATO can't provide security, but because NATO are a threat to security. Similarly Taliban also couldn't provide security because they're a threat to security.

This isn't about denying NATO's crimes; we know that , it's established, no need to beat a dead horse.

This is about not allowing Taliban apologists to shift responsibility away from the Taliban. Thus you're neither justifying it with truth; since Islamic Law is totally autonomous to International law, and Islamic Legal standards operate differently.

[randolph85]

@Randolph and Revolution
NATO broke Afghanistan and so they are responsible for all the violence in the country. They could have done the ethical thing back in 2001 and worked with the Afghans instead of bombing the hell out of it and installing a corrupt regime. International law states that the occupier is responsible for security of the occupied.

international law is written by the biggest imperialists in the world. didn't the UN also sanction the war in afghanistan?

[khushal]

The Occupation is unjust , but not because NATO can't provide security, but because NATO are a threat to security. Similarly Taliban also couldn't provide security because they're a threat to security.

This isn't about denying NATO's crimes; we know that , it's established, no need to beat a dead horse.

This is about not allowing Taliban apologists to shift responsibility away from the Taliban. Thus you're neither justifying it with truth; since Islamic Law is totally autonomous to International law, and Islamic Legal standards operate differently.

Its exactly because they cant provide security. If Party A is the occupier and Party B is the occupied, it does not really matter if either party is muslim, hindu, jewish or christian. If Party A cant provide security, then party A is fully liable. This law does not contradict Islam, its actually protected by Islamic law. Islam gave people autonomy that did not want to be apart of them or did not want to be ruled by them, they even provided security in exchange for a fee if party B wished. In Islamic Law the "Millet system" was used and this international law that I have stated is a direct copy of the Islamic law in the "Millet sytem."

I am no Taliban apologist, but the root of the problem is not the Taliban, but an unjust occupation. If the oocupation was just , then there would be no Taliban. In 2001, the Taliban disapeared into the dust bins of history. The afghans gave NATO a chance to see if they will do the just thing, everyone saw ther was no justice and so came a resistance to the injustice. In history we have seen Christian, Mulsim and other empires implement just and unjust policies. The unjust policies have always backfired on them wheather they were Christian or Muslim.

[khushal]

international law is written by the biggest imperialists in the world. didn't the UN also sanction the war in afghanistan?

We are not talking about what the UN sanctions or does not saction. We are talking about the law, the law is not always followed by the UN or its members. Just because the UN members or the UN itself sanctions something illegal, that does not mean there is something wrong with the law. Every major Scholar agrees that the Iraq invasion was illegal and most agree that the Afghan occupation is also illegal.

bottom line, there is nothing wrong with the law, and there is nothing unjust about the law.

[Shah-i-Kot]

Khushal has a point, and I dont understand what all the hoo haa is.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

Its exactly because they cant provide security. If Party A is the occupier and Party B is the occupied, it does not really matter if either party is muslim, hindu, jewish or christian. If Party A cant provide security, then party A is fully liable. This law does not contradict Islam, its actually protected by Islamic law. Islam gave people autonomy that did not want to be apart of them or did not want to be ruled by them, they even provided security in exchange for a fee if party B wished. In Islamic Law the "Millet system" was used and this international law that I have stated is a direct copy of the Islamic law in the "Millet sytem."

I am no Taliban apologist, but the root of the problem is not the Taliban, but an unjust occupation. If the oocupation was just , then there would be no Taliban. In 2001, the Taliban disapeared into the dust bins of history. The afghans gave NATO a chance to see if they will do the just thing, everyone saw ther was no justice and so came a resistance to the injustice. In history we have seen Christian, Mulsim and other empires implement just and unjust policies. The unjust policies have always backfired on them wheather they were Christian or Muslim.

Now you're doing what you accused me of; making a circular argument. The Law can't be protected by Islamic Law, since it isn't based on the the Islamic Sources; it's a man made Law, Islam opposes man made Laws which are not rooted in the Islamic Teachings. And as Randolph pointed out, those laws were created by the Enemies of Islam the Imperialists, so they couldn't be sanctioned under Islamic Law. What you're saying would ONLY be true if the Taliban completely disbanded and wilfully abdicated power, but they were scheming and planning a come back from day one of their loss of power.. So it's not "unjust" occupation, but losing power. They couldn't imagine a world where their vision for Afghanistan wasn't on the menu. Look at their early post overthrow semantics; they didn't just say "well as long as you leave we'll stay out of power" they maintained a Governmental Structure the whole way through, with Mullah Omar planning to be leader.

People didn't see the Taliban as a response to injustice; because Taliban were the Injustice; what the Taliban did was take advantage of the Injustice NATO did, and said "we're unjust but at least we're locals" and they used that as their rallying cry.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

Khushal has a point, and I dont understand what all the hoo haa is.

you're only saying that because he's making the point you made. His point is wrong because of the fact the Taliban were already doing tyrannic things prior to NATO. It's simple as that.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

We are not talking about what the UN sanctions or does not saction. We are talking about the law, the law is not always followed by the UN or its members. Just because the UN members or the UN itself sanctions something illegal, that does not mean there is something wrong with the law. Every major Scholar agrees that the Iraq invasion was illegal and most agree that the Afghan occupation is also illegal.

bottom line, there is nothing wrong with the law, and there is nothing unjust about the law.

The Law was created by the UN though, so this argument is internally contradictory. Sorry your argument from International Law does not jive with Islam; since Islam does not recognize such Laws as presiding over Muslims.

[khushal]

The Law was created by the UN though, so this argument is internally contradictory. Sorry your argument from International Law does not jive with Islam; since Islam does not recognize such Laws as presiding over Muslims.

What are you talking about. you are living in the US therfore American Laws are presiding over you who is muslim and the 6 million other muslims. There is nothing wrong with you living in america being a law abiding citizen. you have the freedom to practice your religion, that also is a law of the kuffar or is it?

[khushal]

Now you're doing what you accused me of; making a circular argument. The Law can't be protected by Islamic Law, since it isn't based on the the Islamic Sources; it's a man made Law, Islam opposes man made Laws which are not rooted in the Islamic Teachings. And as Randolph pointed out, those laws were created by the Enemies of Islam the Imperialists, so they couldn't be sanctioned under Islamic Law. What you're saying would ONLY be true if the Taliban completely disbanded and wilfully abdicated power, but they were scheming and planning a come back from day one of their loss of power.. So it's not "unjust" occupation, but losing power. They couldn't imagine a world where their vision for Afghanistan wasn't on the menu. Look at their early post overthrow semantics; they didn't just say "well as long as you leave we'll stay out of power" they maintained a Governmental Structure the whole way through, with Mullah Omar planning to be leader.

People didn't see the Taliban as a response to injustice; because Taliban were the Injustice; what the Taliban did was take advantage of the Injustice NATO did, and said "we're unjust but at least we're locals" and they used that as their rallying cry.

Most of the laws we have today were copied from Greek, Islamic and other great civilizations thinking. They are nothing new that were thought up by modern day europeans. Most of British Common law is copied from the Torah, and American law is copied from British common law.

The common villagers is a response to the injustice, they are just labaled as taliban by the occupiers. Where are these Taliban think tanks who were coming up with great ideas on how to scheme a comeback. Ive never heard of them.

[faye]

is it classified as an occupying power if the country is not under martial law of the invader?