What Happened to Honor Code of Taliban?

[ذو الفقار]

One of the pre-Taliban armed factions which I admire were Jamil-ur-Rahman and his followers in Kunar province. They were also staunch Muwahhidin who fought purely for Islam and bravely on the battlefield against the Soviet savages. Regrettably, Hekmatyar slaughtered them and proved how maniacal he was. The rest of Afghanistan came to regret about Hekmatyar after his shelling of Kabul in the early 1990s.

Jamil-ur-Rahman's faction did not engage in the Takfiri tactics like suicide bombing. In fact, none of the various Mujahideen factions adapted such disgusting tactics in those days. It is a relatively new phenomenon that has been introduced to Afghanistan by the Takfiri Arabs of al-Qaeda.

[khushal]

Suicide attacks were introduced into Afghanistan by the Takfiri Arabs, who themselves seemed to have gotten it from Hamas and Hizbullah. Whatever the origin of this tactic, it is terrorism and totally un-Islamic. It is not befitting for a movement like Taliban, which claim to be Islamic, to adapt such Kamikaze methods or to kill civilians. Suicide is strictly forbidden in our Religion, the suicidal goes straight to Hell. Killing civilians and innocent bystanders is even worse. Taliban insurgency is also guilty of assassinating Ulema who do not agree with them and attacking Shi’ite places of worship.

Not all the Arab mujahideen who came to Afghanistan to fight the Soviets were Takfiris, but many of them were, like Abdullah Azzam and Bin Laden. They initially brought their ideology into Afghanistan, but now the Taliban have also adapted their methods and tactics.

I believe that Taliban should never compromise on principles. They should not engage in opium/drug trafficking; they should inspire an armed uprising among ordinary Afghan Muslims against NATO through bravery and Islamic heroism. They should not threaten non-Pashtun ethnic minorities, such as the Hazara.

You are going off at a tangent. Arabs have been in Afghanistan since 80s but even they did not employ suicide tactics unitl NATO invasion.

[ذو الفقار]

You are going off at a tangent. Arabs have been in Afghanistan since 80s but even they did not employ suicide tactics unitl NATO invasion.

I believe I acknowledged that fact. Takfiris adapted suicide bombing first in Iraq, they learned it from the Palestinian Hamas and the Lebanese Hizbullah. Then this tactic spread to Afghanistan. I also said that most of the Arab mujahideen in 1980s were not Takfiris, they were ordinary Arab volunteers who came to help their fellow Afghan Muslim brothers. The same kind of Arab volunteers went to Bosnia in the 1990s to fight against the genocide. The Takfiris have done the most damage to our cause with their poisonous ideology and now their terrorist methods.

[khushal]

Maulana Sami-ul-Haq may be the ideological founder of the Taliban,

this is wrong. Taliban have been in the area for centuries.
Natural Resources in Afghanistan: Geographic and Geologic Perspectives on ... - John F. Shroder - Google Books

[khushal]

I believe I acknowledged that fact. Takfiris adapted suicide bombing first in Iraq, they learned it from the Palestinian Hamas and the Lebanese Hizbullah. Then this tactic spread to Afghanistan. I also said that most of the Arab mujahideen in 1980s were not Takfiris, they were ordinary Arab volunteers who came to help their fellow Afghan Muslim brothers. The same kind of Arab volunteers went to Bosnia in the 1990s to fight against the genocide. The Takfiris have done the most damage to our cause with their poisonous ideology and now their terrorist methods.

Suicide attacks is a tactic that is a reaction to foreign invasion. This is well studied by experts:
Myth Busting: Robert Pape on ISIS, suicide terrorism, and U.S. Foreign Policy – Chicago Policy Review

[ذو الفقار]

this is wrong. Taliban have been in the area for centuries.
The Taliban and the Crisis of Afghanistan - Google Books

The book you are quoting from doesn't say that the Taliban have existed as an entity for centuries, it merely says: "The seeds for the emergence of the Taliban and Talibanism were sown during Afghanistan's creation a century before the Soviet invasion of 1979"

The Taliban proper emerged with Mulla Omar in the 1990s after the Soviet withdrawal when the country fell into anarchy.

[Samandri]

Regrettably, narrow-minded Pathan tribesmen betrayed these great Mujahideen resulting in their martyrdom at the hands of the Sikh barbarians at Balakot. Those tribesmen betrayed the cause of Islam and Tawhid. After this we realized that we cannot blindly trust the Afghan tribesmen because despite their turbans and long beards they are not very grounded in Islamic ideology and easily bought and sold by various interests.

What do you mean by "we"? Al-Hindis? . I have read such commentary in Hindustani Urdu literature.

Your understanding of Mujahideen movement is that of Hindi-ish Mutala-i-Pakistan. Local chieftains turned against him because they had rallied under his banner only for wars against their Sikh foes (Pashtuns used to rally around Pirs and saintly figures for wars against foreigners) while Syed Ahmad Bareilwi was more interested in ruling over them. Hindis assert that those Pashtun chieftains were bought by Sikhs but the same chieftains who murdered men of Syed Ahmad, also bitterly opposed Sikhs after the episode. The one who was colluding with Sikhs was Barakzai sardar of Peshawar (non-local) but he was not instrumental in the massacre of Qazis of Bareilwi.

The failure of Syed Ahmad Bareilwi had more to do with his own follies and short-sightedness than with betrayal of Afghan tribesmen. The local Pashtun Mujahid Haji Sahib of Turangzai, who wanted to reform the Pashtun society, was not opposed by Pashtuns because he understood nature of his people and did not disrespect and humiliate them. Syed Ahmad Bareiliwi and his Indian men on the other hand was acting like foreign Indians and were perceived as such by locals .....sources reveal that he and his men did not bother to communicate in Pashto . A follower of Syed Ahmad reveals that they foolishly dealt with locals ;




Pashtuns are proud people by nature. No wonder they turned against Indians due to such humiliation at their hands. When the local religious figures preached the same teachings, they were not killed or opposed, its because they knew how to approach their own people.

[khushal]

The book you are quoting from doesn't say that the Taliban have existed as an entity for centuries, it merely says: "The seeds for the emergence of the Taliban and Talibanism were sown during Afghanistan's creation a century before the Soviet invasion of 1979"

The Taliban proper emerged with Mulla Omar in the 1990s after the Soviet withdrawal when the country fell into anarchy.

I put in the wrong link cause I have too many pages open. I corrected it though. even churchill wrote abou them:
How Churchill Fought The Pashtuns in Pakistan | The Diplomat

[ذو الفقار]

What do you mean by "we"? Al-Hindis? . I have read such commentary in Hindustani Urdu literature.

Your understanding of Mujahideen movement is that of Hindi-ish Mutala-i-Pakistan. Local chieftains turned against him because they had rallied under his banner only for wars against their Sikh foes (Pashtuns used to rally around Pirs and saintly figures for wars against foreigners) while Syed Ahmad Bareilwi was more interested in ruling over them. Hindis assert that those Pashtun chieftains were bought by Sikhs but the same chieftains who murdered men of Syed Ahmad, also bitterly opposed Sikhs after the episode. The one who was colluding with Sikhs was Barakzai sardar of Peshawar (non-local) but he was not instrumental in the massacre of Qazis of Bareilwi.

The failure of Syed Ahmad Bareilwi had more to do with his own follies and short-sightedness than with betrayal of Afghan tribesmen. The local Pashtun Mujahid Haji Sahib of Turangzai, who wanted to reform the Pashtun society, was not opposed by Pashtuns because he understood nature of his people and did not disrespected them. Syed Ahmad Bareiliwi and his Indian men on the other hand was acting like foreign Indians and were perceived as such by locals .....sources reveal that he and his men did not bother to communicate in Pashto . A follower of Syed Ahmad reveals that they foolishly dealt with locals ;




Pashtuns are haughty by nature. No wonder they turned against Indians due to such humiliation at their hands. When the local religious figures preached the same teachings, they were not killed or opposed, its because they knew how to approach their own people.

Well this is quite interesting as before I did not know that the reason the Afghan tribesmen betrayed Sayyid Ahmad Shaheed (Rahmatullah alaih) was because they did not like being ruled by him. However, I do not see any error on the part of Sayyid Ahmad. Not speaking in Pashto is hardly a legitimate reason to massacre those Mujahideen who forsook their lives in India to fight the Sikh menace in another region. This is the point that I have been making all along, that you have to put ideology above these tribal customs and lifestyle. Our Prophet Muhammad (Sallallahu alaihi wasallam) had exactly the same difficulties in dealing with the Bedouin tribes that the Mujahideen had in dealing with these Afghan tribesmen. Sayyid Ahmad Shaheed was not at fault for enforcing the laws of Shari’a and not following those tribal customs which are against Shari’a. There is nothing in our Shari’a about giving refuge to murderers and not handing them over to the government so that they can be punished. Giving refuge to someone is an honorable thing, but no code of honor can trump the Shari’a of Mustafa (Sallallahu alaihi wasallam).

Consider the Ridda Wars when the Bedouin tribes revolted against the central government authority of the Prophet’s first successor Abu Bakr Siddiq (Radi Allahu anhu) in Medina. This tribal instinct for opposing central government rule has always been a problem for centuries going back to the earliest days of Islam.

[ذو الفقار]

I put in the wrong link cause I have too many pages open. I corrected it though. even churchill wrote abou them:
How Churchill Fought The Pashtuns in Pakistan | The Diplomat

How did Pashtuns become synonymous with Taliban?
Pashtuns have always been fighting one foreign power or another. But emergence of Taliban is with Mulla Omar in early 1990s from Kandahar. I stand by my assertion very strongly because you have simply failed to prove otherwise.

[khushal]

How did Pashtuns become synonymous with Taliban?
Pashtuns have always been fighting one foreign power or another. But emergence of Taliban is with Mulla Omar in early 1990s from Kandahar. I stand by my assertion very strongly because you have simply failed to prove otherwise.

Thats talking about modern perception which explains your flawed perception of taliban being a modern movement.

[ذو الفقار]

Have some self-respect as human being and stop worshiping Syeds.

I am not worshiping Saadaat, but I highly respect them because they are the seed of my beloved master Prophet Muhammad (Sallallahu alaihi wasallam). If I see a pious Sayyid I will surely kiss his hands and his feet out of respect.

When I study the early Islamic uprisings against the tyrannical Umayyads and later Abbasids, I see they were mostly uprisings of pious Imams of Ahlul Bayt, the two most famous being that of Imam Zayd in Kufa and Imam Nafs-al-Zakiya in Medina sharif. Hence I was convinced that the soul of Islam wants for Muslims to be governed by a pious Imam from the Ahlul Bayt. There were literally dozens of such uprisings, I’ve mentioned a few that actually took place in Afghanistan, such as the uprising of Sahib-e-Taloqan (rahmatullah alaih). At present, Muslims are divided into dozens of corrupt states ruled by autocratic regimes that are impious and full of injustice. The yearning of believing Muslims is that we should be ruled by a pious and saintly leader preferably from the Zurriyyaat-un-Nabi.

[Samandri]

Zulfiqar, you must be very dumb person in reaching to a conclusion that Indian Jihadis got slaughtered for not learning Pashto. I mentioned that to give you an idea why they were perceived as foreigners. Imagine if some Pashto speaking Mujahideen had come to Sindh, did not bother to learn Sindhi yet tried to dictate the locals within a short span and forcefully enforced their ideology on them.

The reason he earned the animosity , besides the facts mentioned in previous post, was his night raids on the chieftains and killing them ,who were not siding with him. Keep in mind that the locals did not welcome a foreigner like him to elevate him to the status of Amir-ul-momineen, but because superstitious Pashtuns believed that he was some pir or saintly figure who would work magic against their Sikh foes. But the only battle that Syed Ahmad fought against Sikhs, was a disastrous defeat. Before that he had made a small night raid on Sikh camp which was successful for obvious reasons. His battle , which ended up in defeat, was nothing close to the hard fought battles before him. So he did not leave a very good impression on locals in demonstrating in his military capabilities. He further aggravated the matter by directing his energies and resources to subdue the local chieftains (including the neutral ones)....

[khushal]

I am not worshiping Saadaat, but I highly respect them because they are the seed of my beloved master Prophet Muhammad (Sallallahu alaihi wasallam). If I see a pious Sayyid I will surely kiss his hands and his feet out of respect.
.

Thats going into worship mode

[Samandri]

You will kiss the hands and feets of a Syed ?......this confirms you to be a worshiper of Syeds. Will you kiss the hands and feet of Altaf Hussain of MQM? because he is also a Syed.