Fountainhead of Jihad The Haqqani Nexus, 1973-2012

[BarakzaiAbdali]

I am really astonished that many educated members here like Khushal, Barakzai, Shamlawar etc defend Taliban and want to push Pashtuns further in the caves of darkness, ignorance, obscurantism and barbarity.

Can you cite a single example that Taliban style system has been implemented anywhere in the world including the 58 Muslim countries? Was it implemented in the history of Muslims in the past 1400 years any where?How come you recommend, support and suggest it for Pashtuns and Afghans? Even in the Salafi Saudi, Kuwait and Qatar states you have monarchy not Taliban style government.

Citing a link that a Sikh was happy in Taliban era does not serve the purpose. They had to give those positive statements because of terror and fear of Taliban otherwise they would be cut into pieces and their throats slaughtered.

Do not you think that we have better alternatives like democracy, human rights, development, prosperity, secularism and modern education and keeping the religion limited to our personal and family life?

http://ca.reuters.com/article/topNews/idCATRE6610BM20100702

Above is the link that you decided to conveniently gloss over. The interview with the Sikh community leader and parliamentary leader is circa 2010 and well into the Karzai decade. That definitively rebuts your argument regarding the statement that the earlier interviews were a reflection under duress.

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

I have never claimed taliban are infallible so dont lie.

All reasons given to discredit the taliban and cast doubt on the legitimacy of jihad comes from americans northern alliance and warlords.

The truth is people dont like floggings and beheadings or ban on music or chris rock shows. Thats why they hate taliban.

If accidentally killing an innocent person during war was the reason for hating taliban then we ought to hate talibans enemies first and foremost. After all Talibans raison d etre is to bring peace through islam.

It would be delusional to think that muslims can bring islam without making mistakes.

Sahaba made grave mistakes while rasool allah sal allahu alayhi wasalam was their leader.

You people claim to be muslims but demand higher standards from your contemroraries than Sahaba. This is why i say only hypocrites and kafirs hate taliban.

[Badlun]

Barakzai Saib

I really appreciate your dedication, energy, knowledge and the time you spare for such discussions. I might have not got that capability and opportunity what you have to defend your pro Taliban approach and your Islamist agenda. I wish I should also have that much time for research and my cause of democracy, human rights, development and secualrism.

I wish also that a man of your caliber may spend his energy on promoting modern education, human rights and development instead of pushing Pashtuns further in abyss of ignorance and backwardness. You may work like a messiah to pull them out of the quagmire instead of giving them last push to be drowned for good in the ocean of oblivion and annihilation.

Besides my points are always based on axioms, self evident truths and common sense. I cannot and do not have time(although I will try) to quote several references to prove that Taliban are evil and the worst enemies of humanity, Muslims and Islam. I am sure I can quote thousands such articles and research papers which will no doubt prove that Taliban are devils and threat to humanity but again I will confess that so far no time to involve myself in such lengthy debates.

Also not always quoting few authors will prove a fact as is your style that just by giving some links and references you try to make your point and reach conclusions. For self evident truths I do not need proofs as for proving that Afghanistan exists I have to quote few encyclopedias. Again few things are subjective as Taliban is the worst entity on the surface of earhth for me but may be for many like you they are paragons.


My approach is based on the same question I asked earlier that where in the world people prefer Taliban style system and whether we have any plausible precedence of Taliban in history and that a similar system REALLY WORKED IN WORLD AFFAIRS. Why Pashtuns are the only unlucky who support and struggle for such a barbarous system?

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Barakzai Saib

I really appreciate your dedication, energy, knowledge and the time you spare for such discussions. I might have not got that capability and opportunity what you have to defend your pro Taliban approach and your Islamist agenda.

Once again, I do not consider this approach to be pro anything. Rather, I consider the information we discuss to be a balancer to what I see as chronic misinformation doled out by militant secularists and convenient fascists. For instance, if the discussion at hand were to be which government produced more technology and a stronger more professional military - it would be absurd of me to argue that the Taliban excelled the US at this.

Rather, once again, what appears to you to be pro Islamic and pro Taliban is to me, an analysis of Afghan governance by the evidence basis and in the light of history.

I wish I should also have that much time for research and my cause of democracy, human rights, development and secualrism.

We are both educated people... if I have the time to do justice by both sides - i.e. reading Khostai's work in what little spare time I have then I am sure you could do the same. A medical trainee devotes at least 80 hours a week to their art and science - what little time is left over is always valuable and can be spent informing one's self.

I wish also that a man of your caliber may spend his energy on promoting modern education, human rights and development instead of pushing Pashtuns further in abyss of ignorance and backwardness.

Once again, I do not see it as our role to promote anything for anyone. The trouble with the educated elite, from which you and I derive, is that we always think we know what is best for all others. This was in fact, Najib's fatal flaw. When one UN observer asked him about his uncivilized and barbaric treatment and direct handed murder of civilians with antipathy to him - he slammed his fist on the table and insisted that he knew his people better than anyone and that his manner of dealing with them was justified because of this. In this vein, he and Karzai and others have actually forgotten the semblance of their people and the faces of their fathers because if they knew our history they would know Pashtuns cannot be coerced - they can be killed or they can make their own decisions. I prefer the latter.

You may work like a messiah to pull them out of the quagmire instead of giving them last push to be drowned for good in the ocean of oblivion and annihilation.

Messiah in its origin means "the one anointed." It simply means someone who is chosen to do a job. We should never view ourselves as chosen to do anything.

What we ought to do is be A) informed historically, B) informed in the right context and C) utilize impartial evidences to guide our decision making.

Besides my points are always based on axioms, self evident truths and common sense.

This is insufficient in an evidence based and scientific discussion. It helps to have pragmatism and practicality at the table with which to apply and interpret evidences, but many famous scientists in my field would sternly lecture you and say "anecdote is no substitute for evidence."

I cannot and do not have time(although I will try) to quote several references to prove that Taliban are evil and the worst enemies of humanity, Muslims and Islam.

Once again, this is an emotional argument. The other side has a stronger argument based in Islamic history and Islamic textual interpretation regarding who is more lethal to the autonomy and progress of the traditional Islamic regions.

To make such an argument we would have to be scientific about it once again. The notion of what is humanistic and Islamic would have to be discussed and then we would have to have an educated back and forth over which players in the recent historical stage were working against traditional mores and which were not based on the agreed upon definitions.

For instance, if we view human unity as a measure of humanity then it might surprise you over who South Koreans view as a barrier to unity with their brethren:
http://byeways.net/webreadings/readi...D_web/2282.htm


I am sure I can quote thousands such articles and research papers which will no doubt prove that Taliban are devils and threat to humanity but again I will confess that so far no time to involve myself in such lengthy debates.

I don't disagree that a strong argument requires evidence and takes a bit more time. On average, it takes me about 2.5 minutes to find a good piece of evidence and 5 minutes to read a section. However, my approach is not really piece meal. Rather, I read for pleasure for about 1 hour daily and do this 365 days a year. I have had the chance to do this for years now and because of this I am fortunate to have a cache of references handy. So it really doesn't take much time if you are truly dedicated to learning as opposed to propagandizing.

For instance, in this last year I have been reading the translated works of various Parcham and Khalqi folks and that allowed me to reference Zeary.

Where there is a will, there is a way. Those that love their peoples and their history should treat it as an art and a science and demand the utmost instead of theorizing without merit or evidence.

Also not always quoting few authors will prove a fact as is your style that just by giving some links and references you try to make your point and reach conclusions.

That is a scientific approach. In the West, we assign impact factors to journals and have prized investigators in various fields. If the New England Journal of Medicine comments on a particular therapy, every doctor in the world listens attentively. That doesn't mean we don't critically analyze what they put out, in fact they encourage criticism to ensure optimal analyses.

When we reference people in our historical and evidence based discussions, they are impeccable in their credentials and generally are perfect in that they derive not from partial local sources that are better used as witness statements than evidences, but their central investment is to provide an honest assessment of the situation in a scientific and detached way.

We could for instance spend days quoting Zaeef and Zeary, two polar opposite primary people involved in their respective movements - but the issue there is that the only value they provide is a witness testimony as opposed to an impartial analysis.

Generally, we put the ball in your court by using high impact factor, impeccable, and erudite scholars on these matters and we also reference established media outlets.

This then allows evidence to be weighed and hypotheses to be made.

The best approach when using a local source is to offer it as a reality check to a particular acolyte of an ideology. For instance, if a hardcore Talib supporter claims that Najib never opted for reconciliation, its wise to point him to Zaeef's own statement about listening to Najib's radio address and his thinking it made sense for reconciliation... if a secular militant/former communist is trying to camoflauge their atheistic tendencies by claiming the politburo of Afghanistan was actually full of sufi mystics - Zeary's statements provide a reality check.

Also not always quoting few authors will prove a fact as is your style that just by giving some links and references you try to make your point and reach conclusions. For self evident truths I do not need proofs as for proving that Afghanistan exists I have to quote few encyclopedias.

This is a red herring. For instance, making the statement: George W Bush exists is not the same as stating "George W Bush was one of the top 5 Presidents to ever lead the USA based on accomplishments." The former is a statement that is universally agreed upon by most as not requiring references the latter requires heavy buttressing by evidence. If the latter statement is made and not backed up by evidences or at least underpinned with a logical discussion - the discussion lacks direction and utility in the first place. In such a circumstance it merely becomes propagandizing as opposed to an evidence based discussion of the facts.

Again few things are subjective as Taliban is the worst entity on the surface of earhth for me but may be for many like you they are paragons.

Assemble all my posts, its a simple Einstein style challenge. I never once said that I advocate their return or that I think they are paragons. I have however made the argument, along the same lines as secular historian Kawun Kakar, that they were more representative of the rural masses and their mores - hence they were accepted versus Najib for obvious reasons. I believe the quotes from former communist official Zeary of Kandahar buttress Kawun Kakar's assessment.

Why does this matter? It matters because my whole premise has not been to say Americans are all evil and Taliban are all good. Rather it has been to say to both Americans and Afghans that there are logical and important historical trends to take into account when making decisions regarding armed action. Every US soldier that has visited this forum has actually agreed with me and some Salafists have actually disagreed with me and called me brain washed by the West. I don't think that's a bad thing - because I think the approach I take is the most representative of a historical and scientific one. It demands evidence on all statements.

My approach is based on the same question I asked earlier that where in the world people prefer Taliban style system and whether we have any plausible precedence of Taliban in history and that a similar system REALLY WORKED IN WORLD AFFAIRS.

That is a fair question and I think there are evidence based approaches we can take to answer it. A part of that involves avoiding propagandistic confounders that the militant secularists you join hands with and are a proponent for usually use erroneously. For example - to say the Taliban produced nothing in 10 years and Karzai produced New York in 10 years is a very loaded statement. The confounders are - 67 world nations being involved, post war era reflections, and the circumstances. I guess we could liken it to how historians adjust for the value of money and inflation when talking about the economics of different eras. The statement you guys make is as erroneous as vsaying: Bill Gates was smarter than Vanderbilt... most historians would say there are nuances you are ignoring.

There are firm conclusions we can come to, but to do so we have to use evidence, citations, and the like or else the back and forth is purely political grand standing and nothing more.

Why Pashtuns are the only unlucky who support and struggle for such a barbarous system?

That my friend is the key question and theme I have been discussing since day 1. Therein lies the rub and this is the crux of all matters. And not only should we validate that statement, but also understand the historical implications of usurping the momentum of the "unlucky" ones. What does history reveal regarding outside groups with different genetic, racial, and ideological heritages attempting to use coercion to alter that support? How often are such efforts successful and why were some efforts successful and some failures?

But unfortunately we have found ourselves unable to discuss such matters because people have vested interests. Either their families taught them a world view or are gaining from/or gained from some particular situation and thereafter their worldview alters to suit that gain as opposed to detachedly thinking about reality versus idealization.

x

[Khostai]

[MENTION=7736]Barakzai[/MENTION]

Thank you for your replay. It cleared a lot about you for me, first I tought you were just fanatic extremist like dagarwal, this khurasani guy and Khushal, but you are a logical man.
But I have to say one thing in your comment.

How can you compare a christian movement that happend almost 400 years ago to taliban? I don't see a recemblance. We as a whole world are way a head of that stage. Burning witches -_-, is that your argument to justify taliban strict rules? You are saying that taliban were a natural reaction to the chaos, but than it can be sayed the same to the Communist movement in Afghanistan, it too can be seen as that. Centuries of religion doctrines and monorarchy +tribalism that led Afghanistan to no whear, having a population that only 20% was literate, and a tiny elite who had almost all the money, is also breeding ground for ideas like communism to spread. Or are you gona claim that communism was totaly foreign based and taliban were totaly home grown?
I have also read in some of your comments that peopel were at first happy with the reforms of communists but when they realized that communists were atheist they rebeld. Was it not the same with the taliban movement, at first peopel were happy that finlay there would come some stability, but than they saw what kind of rule taliban implemented and that led again to angry and unsatisfied peopel.....

And yes it took Europe and US almost 400 years to be were they are now, but they too were influeced by other countries... like the French revolution inspired many other European countries to get read of there monarchs. Many wars in Europe were fuled by there neighbours( for example the Spanish civil war). And also in those 400 years of development only the last 80-90 years the rural masses or the common peopel have a say in the goverment and politics, but that influence is also really small....

About the Nazis, I live in Europe so for the last 3 years of my school the only subject that we were tought in history was about WWII. Most of the information that I know is written in my school books and articals that I read during that time, I don't make things up. But I will try to find for you some links, if you need it that much.

[ډګروال]

[MENTION=4505]Khostai[/MENTION]
learn to spell before pretending to be smart fanatic koni .

[MENTION=1034]Badlun[/MENTION]
being anti Islam and Muslims doesnt equate to progress and modern education.
Afghanistan is an Islamic nation and your twisted fantasies of it becoming an anti muslim state is a dream inside another dream. I feel sorry for people such as you who dont belong to Afghanistan anymore because they sold themselves out and became against Afghans and their way of life.

[MENTION=1772]BarakzaiAbdali[/MENTION]
these guys know very well what are facts but they still choose to believe fictions.
I dont thik they even appreciate that you are giving so much time to educate them on a subject instead they act like a bunch propagandists who have an agenda to promote.
what these people think is irrelevant to Afghanistan .

[Khostai]

^Learn how to be a human first a-hole.

[ډګروال]

^
ok mr donkey.

[Khostai]

^
ok mr donkey.

try harder monkey, you can do it...

[BarakzaiAbdali]

@Barakzai

Thank you for your replay. It cleared a lot about you for me, first I tought you were just fanatic extremist like dagarwal, this khurasani guy and Khushal, but you are a logical man.

That's the thing though, and I think I am as guilty of emotional narratives sometimes, but the best way to look at folks is almost as surrogate data points. What this means is that you can detach yourself and say, well these guys have variant views and they got them from somewhere. Then the next step would be to try and understand how representative those views are to Afghan society. This does not mean you have to like those views, but it gives one a clear concept of measures and goals.

But I have to say one thing in your comment.

How can you compare a christian movement that happend almost 400 years ago to taliban? I don't see a recemblance.

The Puritans were down right orthodox and were seen as extremists by their English compatriots. When they had their own nidus in the new world, they banned holidays of celebratory nature:
http://theweek.com/article/index/222...nned-christmas

They went on to actually create a rigid theocracy and base their penal code on biblical punishments:

http://mises.org/page/1427

Women were excluded form both church leadership and governmental decision making:

http://www.ushistory.org/us/3d.asp

Church attendance was mandatory (same reference)

Adulterers were executed (same reference)

The famous Salem Witch trails occurred when scores of women were accused of witchcraft and burned at the stake. More than that, some of their bones were even dug up and burned again in oil.

We as a whole world are way a head of that stage.

I think that's a presumption that's unsafe to make. If the whole world is not even economically astride on the same foot, how can we assume that socially everybody has universal values?

Burning witches -_-, is that your argument to justify taliban strict rules?

No, its not a justification. Once again, its pointing out that at other times, in other nations in particular circumstances radical movements are born, they may even last a century or a little more as the Puritan power did. But they fizzle out because their own sons and grandsons (like famous author Nathaniel Hawthorne) turn on these approaches and ideas.

THEY KEY IS that the change has to be internal and has to be self motivated and has to be gradual because if an outside hand or an outside ideology tries to change people by force, reactionary radicalization occurs.

Another comparison that you might have seen in your own life is Iran's swings and shifts. I know you hate the Iranians, but I am just using them as an example. When Khomenei took power, the radical revolution was on steroids and all politics were on the far right. When iran was left alone for some time, the people started to elect people like Khatami who was more liberal. But once Bush and Bolton started to stick their big noses into Iran's business, Iranians responded by electing more and more far right governments.

In my estimation, Kawun Kakar's estimation, and even the communist Salih Zeary's estimation, the Taliban most resembled the life and mores of the rural masses. Therefore, I posit that they had to be left alone to govern and over decades, maybe even a century whether it was Mullah Omar's own son or grandson, but at some point the future generations would force change.

And change Khostai is not cheap, it costs blood and sweat and tears. Americans fought a bloody civil war in Lincoln's time that destroyed a huge amount of the population just to change to a fully federated government. So the solution is not quick and easy, but it has to be their own otherwise you will just see what you are seeing, which is more and more reactionaryism

You are saying that taliban were a natural reaction to the chaos, but than it can be sayed the same to the Communist movement in Afghanistan, it too can be seen as that.

Centuries of religion doctrines and monorarchy +tribalism that led Afghanistan to no whear, having a population that only 20% was literate, and a tiny elite who had almost all the money, is also breeding ground for ideas like communism to spread. Or are you gona claim that communism was totaly foreign based and taliban were totaly home grown?

I think between the two concepts, once again as the communist leader Salih Zeary wrote, see this thread for direct quotations regarding Talibanism in Kandahar pre the Taliban in Zeary's own childhood:

http://www.pashtunforums.com/showthr...t=38615&page=4

As an added example, refer to the writings of Winston Churchill where he wrote of the Talib ul ilm students he had to content against when he was occupying the frontier.

I think if you watch even Najib's speech here:
Dr. Najibullah's speech to representatives of Kabul (english sub) دکتور نجیب الله - YouTube

You can see that late in his career, even he understood just how native these ideologies were and he started to couch his language in the language of Islam to remove the Khalqi and Parchami imagery that the prior years had used that inflamed the population.

------------------

But now, how and where did communism and democracy and these concepts find their way into the Afghan history? We see multiple folks from the elites themselves who tried to inject things like Ataturkism even before communism (e.g. Mahmud Tarzai).

Also, lets not kid ourselves Khostai look at the Parchami and Khalqi leaders themselves. We both know how difficult it is for a villager to find their way to elite schools in Kabul, and this was the same back in the day.

Hafizullah Amin: father was a civil servant that died when he was young, but the family still had enough wherewithal to send him and he even found his way to America at Columbia. Became radicalized in communism while actually meeting with underground groups in the US.

Babrak Karmal: Son of an Afghan Major General and cemented his ideas from Khybar

Taraki: learned of communism first in India when India had strong ties with Russia.

Mir Akbar Khybar: Urban raised and from the intelligentsia

Najibullah Ahmadzai: His father Akhthar Muhammad was Kabul's counsel in Peshawar and he acquired some of the leftist ideas from Russian influenced Pashtuns in the NWFP. Najib was born into a prominent landowning family.

This is a great book as well that will give you detailed information on who the politburo of Afghanistan was, where they got their ideas, and how they governed:
http://books.google.com/books?id=RUS...0zeary&f=false

So Khostai, these are not the peasants and the rural masses that were leading this movement... and that is why it was predominantly an external inoculant and not something internal.

Here is what Salih Muhammad Zeary, top communist official for both Khalqi and Parchamis says about it:

"The People felt the land reforms was theft, and that God would punish them for accepting stolen goods. page 73"
http://books.google.com/books?id=3hD...nistan&f=false

So Khostai, Zeary is answering you for me... he is saying that the native mentality was strongly against these ideologies that were foreign to them.

I have also read in some of your comments that peopel were at first happy with the reforms of communists but when they realized that communists were atheist they rebeld. Was it not the same with the taliban movement, at first peopel were happy that finlay there would come some stability, but than they saw what kind of rule taliban implemented and that led again to angry and unsatisfied peopel.....

The anti communist movement involved many groups, some of who even hated eachother ethnically and did not agree on particulars religiously fighting Soviet involvement.

With the Taliban, what one saw was the majority of the resistance came from pre existing groups like Hizbe.

Later on, some folks like Abdul Ahad Karzai were not satisfied but because they thought Taliban would stabilize the country and bring back Zahir Shah - which if Karzai wanted this to happen it was his duty to be a leader instead of sitting on the side lines while the madrassah boys did the heavy lifting.

And yes it took Europe and US almost 400 years to be were they are now, but they too were influeced by other countries... like the French revolution inspired many other European countries to get read of there monarchs.

Yes but the French revolution was violent under Robespierre and the Brits and others tried to even get involved there to turn it back. Charles Dickens's work in some ways was propagandizing against that revolution.

Whats more important was that if the French revolution was influencing others, it was not French Armies marching on Boston to force the Americans to agree to their view.

Franklin did spend some time in France, but the key here is these leaders of the Americans still led their people in the best and worst times.

Many wars in Europe were fuled by there neighbours( for example the Spanish civil war). And also in those 400 years of development only the last 80-90 years the rural masses or the common peopel have a say in the goverment and politics, but that influence is also really small....

The difference once again is who helped and who led from the front. Their Khanaan like Washington was braver and actually led their troops against the Brits. In many ways, their Khanaan earned the right to lead but even then still put the vote in the hands of the people. So even if the common man was not ahead of Washington, Washington's values and ideologies were not too conflicting with the rural mans and the rural man had fought under Washington's command so he respected him.

About the Nazis, I live in Europe so for the last 3 years of my school the only subject that we were tought in history was about WWII. Most of the information that I know is written in my school books and articals that I read during that time, I don't make things up. But I will try to find for you some links, if you need it that much.

I think it is important to see the sources. There is a lot of suppression of honest dialogue on World War 2 in Europe. I think its ridiculous that Earnest Zundel and these guys can be put in jail for being "anti semitic." If they have such a problem with David Irving et al they should debate them and show that they are wrong with the facts. One Jewish American historian agreed and said that the Europeans were doing a huge disservice by trying to not allow debate on the history of these matters.

They don't even teach the fact that Woodrow Wilson's original interventionalism and the treatment given to Germany post WWI was what led to Hitler's rise in the first place.

x

[Catya Sher]

Hafizullah Amin became radicalized at Columbia University ?
I hadn't heard that. He joined underground Communist groups in NY ?
That's something.

Anyway, I hope you intelligent members here will go help out after
the foreign forces depart and advise the Taliban government !

How can anyone expect them to know EVERYTHING ?

They will need a lot of assistance and different points of view to help
create a workable goverment and social system.

They can't do it on their own - they need input especially in some areas
like foreign policy and diplomatic relations with other nations.

So use what you learned here at PF and go help them !

Don't let these negative people [like some on this thread] have
anything to carp about.

[khushal]

I think if you watch even Najib's speech here:

Dr. Najibullah's speech to representatives of Kabul (english sub) دکتور نجیب الله - YouTube

You can see that late in his career, even he understood just how native these ideologies were and he started to couch his language in the language of Islam to remove the Khalqi and Parchami imagery that the prior years had used that inflamed the population.

not only najib but saddam also went through an evolution when he no longer had the support of the west. He started to pray in public and added the Takbir to the flag of Iraq. When they no longer have the support of the foreigners, they then turn to their own people for support and they have to start speaking their own peoples language.

[khushal]

As ghoul and ignorant as you are .

No you can't see Khost from Sada but I have seen the vultures and scavengers,aka Mujahideen I.e Taliban Flogging the war loot on streets .

You dimwit ghool.

you first claimed that haqani raped and looted hindus and Sikhs in khost and when I posted a source to refute your claims, you said you don't need sources, that you have seen it with your own eyes, then you said you were in Sada. Well how could you see it from Sada, it would be impossible.

If your going to lie, I would advise you to keep your lies straight. don't get lost in them that you don't even know what you said.

[khushal]

I am really astonished that many educated members here like Khushal, Barakzai, Shamlawar etc defend Taliban and want to push Pashtuns further in the caves of darkness, ignorance, obscurantism and barbarity.

Can you cite a single example that Taliban style system has been implemented anywhere in the world including the 58 Muslim countries? Was it implemented in the history of Muslims in the past 1400 years any where?How come you recommend, support and suggest it for Pashtuns and Afghans? Even in the Salafi Saudi, Kuwait and Qatar states you have monarchy not Taliban style government.

Citing a link that a Sikh was happy in Taliban era does not serve the purpose. They had to give those positive statements because of terror and fear of Taliban otherwise they would be cut into pieces and their throats slaughtered.

Do not you think that we have better alternatives like democracy, human rights, development, prosperity, secularism and modern education and keeping the religion limited to our personal and family life?

I am not defending Taliban, I am defending truth. You cant demonize the Taliban with lies, it does not work. We must study how they came to be, the environment in Afghanistan and recently in Pakistan which gave them a rise.

How they came from nothing into a force that took 90% of the country not once but twice and both times they spread like wildfire and took the criminal warlords by surprise. How a ragtag "gang" is challenging a superpower of 42 nations. why are the Pashtuns disenfranchised in their own country. Why are the afghan people approaching them to handle disputes rather than their government. Why is the ANA not standing on its own feet after 12 years and hundreds of billions of dollars later. Why is the afghan gov leaving out the last 30 years of its history from the school curriculum which I believe is the most important thing to learn so as not to repeat those same mistakes. How could you not teach your future leaders of how your country was destroyed.
Answer these questions with honesty and in it lies the answers that could rid of these people you hate so much.

Pak this, pak that, hitler this, hitler that, against women education, raped looted this and that. these are all lies that have been refuted like a thousand times with credible sources.
Man up and quit the lies and tell the truth. "Kafir" is the Arabic word for "cover." One who covers up the truth. you claim to be a sufi, but when you cover up the truth, you are practicing kafiryat.

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

[B]

not only najib but saddam also went through an evolution when he no longer had the support of the west. He started to pray in public and added the Takbir to the flag of Iraq. When they no longer have the support of the foreigners, they then turn to their own people for support and they have to start speaking their own peoples language.

During Najibs era many new Masajid were built with governments funds coming from USSR.

Basically he was using atheists money to built places of worship for Muslims.

They also used to have a shura of so called scholars with a few Azharite zanadiqah who openly proclaimed Islam but would attend parties with the ruling party and drink alcohol.

One prominent member of Najibs government once told me these so called scholars from Azhar were all appointed to such position because they did not believe in Islam and thus they were perfect tools for the communists.

Najib who grew up in a religious environment knew more about Islam than his fellow Parchami farsiwans who in some cases came from families where even their parents never practiced Islam.

The thing is, when you read and learn about Najib and you find out that his favorite book was not the Qur'an but Niccolo Machiavelli's The Prince, it is sufficient to know that he was a filthy kafir who was using Islam to fool people.