What Happened to Honor Code of Taliban?

[Firdousi]

Good analysis. I fear the rise of ‘Statism’ in much of the Muslim world where the State is holding all the cards. Apart from places where the State has failed (Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Libya), majority of Muslims now live under strong durable modern States. These States have consolidated themselves largely by maintaining bloated militaries. Pakistan, Iran, Egypt, and Turkey are the best examples of this. None of these States can perish so easily because they simply have too powerful militaries. They also have some degree of stability, despite the fact that these States (with possible exception of Egypt) have powerful enemies. America, Israel and Saudi Arabia are implacable foes of Iran, while India is Pakistan’s mortal nemesis. Nevertheless, Iran and Pakistan can’t be swept away like what happened to Saddam or Gaddafi. Pakistan has the nuclear deterrent, while the Iranian spirit of nationalism would mean any foreign attack on it would be met with a united front of resistance. Foreign interventions can only work in places where the State has failed because the population of those countries are fragmented, i.e., Iraq, Yemen, Libya, Afghanistan and Syria.

Like what happened to the Jews, who abandoned the idea of an individual Messiah to redeem them and substituted that with the establishment of a secular but powerful Jewish State (Israel), I fear that Muslims will look to the State, despite it being inherently modern, secular, irreligious and even anti-religious to a degree, as their savior. The State knows that Muslims cannot so easily be parted from their Religion, so it is now pushing forward a new ideology, State-Islam or ‘Statist’ Islam. This is the new Islam of the future. In it, the State itself will determine the religious narrative its citizens have to adapt. The State will maintain control over the institutions of religion, such as the mosque, the Ulama, the madrassa, etc. Textbooks will indoctrinate children about that brand of Islam which the State favors.

Good points. But we have one problem in the Islamic world: clientelism. We have seen how in many islamic countries, specially in the Arab world, all the state, all the government, all the system is built around the figure of the dictator and his relatives, who ask for loyalty and submission in exchange for political favors. Meritocracy doesnt exist.

Thats why the political systems are so weak in these countries. Once you remove the "cornerstone" the system is doomed. We have witnessed this process all over the Islamic world: once the strongman and his family are kileld, arrested or run away, the system falls apart. Gaddafi in Lybia, Saddam in Iraq, Mubarak in Egypt, Saleh in Yemen, Najib in Afghansitan.. same thing would have happened in Syria in case of removal of Assad (which is right now unlikely).

From this current civil war we got absolutely nothing positive. We know that all of them are corrupt, slefish and useless AF. Islamism failed, secular dictatorship failed, democracy failed, commies failed, Islamic republicanism failed. The Islamic world needs to keep struggling until we manage to create a solid universal system.

From my own experience I believe what vast majority of Muslims want is authoritarian democracy, led by a strongman and backed by religious/conservative values. The closest system to this right now is (believe it or not) Erdgoan´s neo-Othomanism thats why Erdogan is so popular among so many Muslims around the world. But we still have a long way to go until stability, peace, brotherhood and progress can come to the Islamic world.

[Firdousi]

It’s ridiculous to say that ISIL was the only force that could have toppled Assad. ISIL are responsible for sabotaging the armed uprising against Assad. ISIL came out of Iraq and took advantage of the anarchy and civil war in Syria. They ended up harming the cause of those Syrian Sunnis that wanted to end the fascist regime in Damascus and establish a moderate Islamic state. This is why right now the Syrian Sunnis are cursing ISIL. The truth is that these Takfiri groups ISIL and Qaeda always end up sabotaging legitimate armed Islamic movements and insurgencies against foreign occupation or anti-Islamic regimes. You as Afghans should know this very well. If it wasn’t for the presence of Qaeda in Afghanistan and their stupid shenanigans, perhaps the Taliban would still be in power. Anyways, the threat of ISIL is now decisively over and that’s a good thing. Their remnant in Afghanistan needs to be exterminated mercilessly too.

ISIS always take advantages of political vaccums and chaos in order to progress. They are like rabid dogs always harming everyone around. They did this in eastern Afghan provinces, in eastern Syria and northern Iraq, in some lawless areas of Lybia, in the dessert of Sinai in Egypt, etc.

ISIS has proved to be an utter failure basically because they have almost no support by Muslims. They only take advantage of chaos and absence of political order. ISIS was only good for the disenfranchised Sunnis of Iraq and Syria and by some uneducated poorly-integrated rapper immigrants in the West. Most of us dont give a f uck about them.

[ذو الفقار]

Good points. But we have one problem in the Islamic world: clientelism. We have seen how in many islamic countries, specially in the Arab world, all the state, all the government, all the system is built around the figure of the dictator and his relatives, who ask for loyalty and submission in exchange for political favors. Meritocracy doesnt exist.

Thats why the political systems are so weak in these countries. Once you remove the "cornerstone" the system is doomed. We have witnessed this process all over the Islamic world: once the strongman and his family are kileld, arrested or run away, the system falls apart. Gaddafi in Lybia, Saddam in Iraq, Mubarak in Egypt, Saleh in Yemen, Najib in Afghansitan.. same thing would have happened in Syria in case of removal of Assad (which is right now unlikely).

From this current civil war we got absolutely nothing positive. We know that all of them are corrupt, slefish and useless AF. Islamism failed, secular dictatorship failed, democracy failed, commies failed, Islamic republicanism failed. The Islamic world needs to keep struggling until we manage to create a solid universal system.

From my own experience I believe what vast majority of Muslims want is authoritarian democracy, led by a strongman and backed by religious/conservative values. The closest system to this right now is (believe it or not) Erdgoan´s neo-Othomanism thats why Erdogan is so popular among so many Muslims around the world. But we still have a long way to go until stability, peace, brotherhood and progress can come to the Islamic world.

In the case of Egypt, I would like to point out that the Arab Spring there, which forced Mubarak to resign, could not have succeeded without tacit support from Egypt’s military. I believe the Egyptian military simply did not want the kind of nepotism you described to persist since it was well known that Mubarak was grooming his son Gamal to succeed him. But as soon as the Egyptian military realized the threat faced to them by the Muslim Brotherhood, which basically operates as a ‘state within the state’ and pursues its own secretive agenda, it decided to act quickly and decimate the Brotherhood and overthrow its elected government. Now it is decisively known that the Brotherhood is completely decimated and has no more chance in Egypt. Egyptians basically proved that they respect the powerful State and its military and are not interested in anything that could potentially undermine that, especially since they obviously have become acquainted with the kind of anarchy that visited their neighbors in Syria and Libya.

Similarly, in Pakistan the military is building up its position of respect among the public through a shrewd propaganda machinery and by giving the impression that it is above and beyond the kind of nepotism and corruption associated with civilian politicians who are running the government. Therefore, while governments fail and continue to fail in much of the Muslim world, the actual ‘deep state’, whose survival hinges on maintaining a powerful military, is becoming stronger and entrenching itself. Governments can rise and fall today and tomorrow, but the State is a permanent institution which the public can take solice in as their ‘savior’.

I don’t think that most Muslims really value democracy. What they value is a strong and stable State that is efficient and has the interests of the country at heart, especially economic development. The Arab Spring in the early 2010s was all the rage because Arabs thought democracy was the answer to increasing corruption and economic stagnation. Turns out, though, all they really needed was a new generation of autocratic leaders. So Sisi replaces Mubarak, and while King Salman is absolute monarch of Saudi Arabia, basically his 32 year old son is running the show.

Erdogan is an interesting phenomenon. I believe his success is in large part due to Europe’s decline and the EU’s consistent refusal to have Turkey join it. The Turks, a proud and nationalist people, could not digest the fact that Europe looks down on them, so they decided to look back to their Islamic roots and identity. While he certainly represents conservative values, I hesitate to call him a truly ‘Islamic’ leader. He is popular and considered a hero among more religious Muslims of the world simply because they don’t have anyone else, and they are desperate for a hero.

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

[SIZE="3"][FONT="HardTimesW01-Roman"]Islam is against destitution and poverty. But it is also against wanting too comfortable of a lifestyle, like what is in the Western countries and the other rich countries of the world. The Prophet (peace be upon him) said:
]

No it's not, stop projecting your idealizations of things onto Islam when in reality it never says or even demonstrates such views within its own philosophy or practice. Islam is against over-indulgence and waste. It doesn't mean making life better or easier is something we shouldn't aspire for. Prophet(saw) practiced zuhud from time to time, but he balanced it and he never told people they should not make things simpler and easier. There were date farmers who grew crops by hybridizing tree roots and to produce more dates, when asked for his advice, he told them they know better, In fact that suggests simplicity is more aligned with Islam than anything. What you're quoting from the Prophet(saw) has nothing to do with having a more productive and efficient society with a better standard of living.


This is exactly why, people like you need to be pushed to the margins of society. Your distortion of Islam is toxic and would keep us all in decline.

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

Continuing on the premise I expressed in my previous post, I want to elaborate about the implications of the ideology that is currently being developed (State version of Islam). The purpose of developing this new version of Islam is to control religion and to prevent what they call ‘religious adventurism’. The State has traditionally feared the role of Religion as a counter influence on the public, and its potential to incite people’s emotions, sometimes against the State itself. The State wants to control this force called Religion by sapping its life force, primarily through what is called a ‘counter narrative’. This idea of ‘counter narrative’ was put forward by the Pakistani modernist Ghamidi. He argues that the way to curtail ‘religious extremism’ is not through secularism, but through a ‘counter narrative’ where the State allows for, and may even encourage, the practice of the essentials of Islam such as the five daily prayers, fasting in Ramadan, and pilgrimage to Mecca, while at the same time indoctrinating the youth, who now overwhelmingly attend public schools about the philosophy of Islam which omits key concepts that are potential threats to the State.

I believe one of these concepts is the idea of Jihad. Either it will be taught that Jihad is synonymous with defending the borders of the State from foreign aggression, or the concept of armed Jihad will be dispensed with altogether. Similarly, the concept of the emergence of the Mahdi as an Islamic warrior who will establish a theocratic State and restore justice in the land for the oppressed, will be dispensed with. Iqbal, the ideological reference for the Pakistani State, viciously attacked ideas like Mahdi and Messiah, because he knew how potentially disruptive they could be to the smooth running of a modern State which requires a high level of emotional attachment and fealty from its citizens.

The State’s ‘sanitized’ brand of Islam will also strip it of all mystical concepts associated with Sufism. For example, the role of the Sufi ‘shaikh’ or ‘pir’ will have to be diminished, because that too is an uncontrolled variable. The Sufi shaikh by definition is not a functionary of the State and is therefore always a potential threat, since the Sufi-disciple relationship is a very strong one, which could potentially be stronger than the State-citizen relationship. Again, this explains why virtually all modernist thinkers of the 20th and 21st centuries have detested Islamic mysticism, especially Iqbal, Ghamidi, Abduh, Rida, and others.

Statism and its modern program of social engineering is a very serious matter we need to confront as it tries to become a surrogate for religious values and replace it with a cult of personality.

but let's face it, Most Modern Sufi Pirs/Shaikhs or even Religious establishment are crooks and just business men. I don't think necessarily debunking them and keeping them honest is a bad response. We have so many Goofy Rainbow Color Turban "Pir Babas" coming out of your countries pretending they have mu'aja'iz and special talents and market themselves.. Some sort of oversight to put religious leaders in check, especially ones who are claiming they're "working to serve spiritual values" at the expense of people living productive/meaningful lives.

[ذو الفقار]

Statism and its modern program of social engineering is a very serious matter we need to confront as it tries to become a surrogate for religious values and replace it with a cult of personality.

but let's face it, Most Modern Sufi Pirs/Shaikhs or even Religious establishment are crooks and just business men. I don't think necessarily debunking them and keeping them honest is a bad response. We have so many Goofy Rainbow Color Turban "Pir Babas" coming out of your countries pretending they have mu'aja'iz and special talents and market themselves.. Some sort of oversight to put religious leaders in check, especially ones who are claiming they're "working to serve spiritual values" at the expense of people living productive/meaningful lives.

I agree that the vast majority of our contemporary mystics and Sufis are corrupt pretenders. A lot of them have in fact been co-opted by the State and can hardly be described as independent religious leaders. But I disagree with any suggestion of “oversight”. I am simply too cynical about the integrity of the State to give them the authority to start meddling in religious affairs.

[ذو الفقار]

Islam is against over-indulgence and waste.

That's basically what I'm articulating.

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

That's basically what I'm articulating.

But that's drastically different from living comfortable and easy lives. Having a good quality of living is not mutually exclusive from self control

[salman47]

I agree that the vast majority of our contemporary mystics and Sufis are corrupt pretenders. A lot of them have in fact been co-opted by the State and can hardly be described as independent religious leaders. But I disagree with any suggestion of “oversight”. I am simply too cynical about the integrity of the State to give them the authority to start meddling in religious affairs.

I think the better way for Mazlim countries is the 'Roman' style government(the ancient one). Where the State controls the Religious affairs and basically removing any leverage(d*ck) religious leaders have. This way there won't be any religious problems to deal with(only national/international problems).
At least it will reduce the collateral damages('religious' protestors burning pieces of clothes, other vandalism, stealing from shops etc..)

[Elias]

From Herat. But was born in Kabul, in Shar-e Naw. So I guess I am Kabuli to some degree lol

Kho Gul bachay Herati :P. Me in Alauddin.

[khushal]

ISIS always take advantages of political vaccums and chaos in order to progress. They are like rabid dogs always harming everyone around. They did this in eastern Afghan provinces, in eastern Syria and northern Iraq, in some lawless areas of Lybia, in the dessert of Sinai in Egypt, etc.

ISIS has proved to be an utter failure basically because they have almost no support by Muslims. They only take advantage of chaos and absence of political order. ISIS was only good for the disenfranchised Sunnis of Iraq and Syria and by some uneducated poorly-integrated rapper immigrants in the West. Most of us dont give a f uck about them.

Its not that they take advantage of chaos, its that chaos makes people realize their starvation for some sort of true muslim sovereignty. People know that client regimes do not represent their interests. They want something, anything to cling on to. One of the main argument over ISIS split from AQ was over proclaiming a caliphate or not. The Baghadadi camp's argument was that people are starving for it so claim it even if it does not exist and it will build itself.

[ذو الفقار]

I think the better way for Mazlim countries is the 'Roman' style government(the ancient one). Where the State controls the Religious affairs and basically removing any leverage(d*ck) religious leaders have. This way there won't be any religious problems to deal with(only national/international problems).
At least it will reduce the collateral damages('religious' protestors burning pieces of clothes, other vandalism, stealing from shops etc..)

These remarks reflect your obliviousness to the Muslim ethos. Non-religious, secular Westernized so-called "Muslims" will never have their ideas about secularism accepted by the Muslim society at large.

[ذو الفقار]

Its not that they take advantage of chaos, its that chaos makes people realize their starvation for some sort of true muslim sovereignty. People know that client regimes do not represent their interests. They want something, anything to cling on to. One of the main argument over ISIS split from AQ was over proclaiming a caliphate or not. The Baghadadi camp's argument was that people are starving for it so claim it even if it does not exist and it will build itself.

And the Baghdadi camp has manifestly failed, and if this was their theory that the caliphate will simply build itself once it is proclaimed, then it is self-evident how ridiculous that theory turned out to be.

The truth is Caliphate is the manifestation of the power and glory of Islam. A poor person may be desperate to get rich, and desires riches all his life. But if he pretends to be rich that is meaningless because in reality he is poor. Similarly, you can pretend to have a Caliphate but pretending is never the real deal. You can't get the real deal just by making some proclamation in a mosque and then disappear underground.

Islam right now is weak and in a state of deterioration and decline. Proclaiming a caliphate is laughable. It is like a poor person pretending to be rich. Sooner or later the charade is going to be exposed.

If you study Islamic theology you will realize that Caliphate is actually a gift from God to reward the Muslims for their faithfulness. You cannot manufacture this divinely granted gift, it is like challenging Heaven.

[khushal]

Hmm, thats partially right/wrong. Its true that ISIS had the best, most hardcore and prepared forces, but its absolutely wrong to say that they were Assad´s worst enemy. ISIS has been busy fighting Kurds and other rebel forces as well as the Iraqi Shia forces. Its also true that most of rebels are a bunch of fat losers, but its wrong to say all of them. I mean HTS, the former branch of AQ in Iraq (AN) got very well organized and battle-hardened troops and chain of command.

What happens is the strong group will overtake the weak groups either through negotiations or through force. Rebels have always quarreled with each other even during the American revolution.

What triggered Russian intervention in Syria was the formation of an Islamist coalition called "Jaish al Islam". They easily took over Idlib, made huge progress in Latakia (which is the main Shia stronghold of psycho Bashar) and were making huge progress in Aleppo and Hama. It was then when Qassem Soleimani went to Russia and asked for Russia to step in.

What triggered the Russian to send in bombers and forces was Obama's plan to create a no fly zone in Syria. The US can't shoot down Russian bombers therefore can't create a no fly zone.

[ذو الفقار]

Romanticism about ‘Caliphate’ is largely a triumphalist Sunni phenomenon. It is based on a collective memory of the powerful Muslim dynasties of the past (Omar, Omayyads, Abbasids and Ottomans). The loss of this “prestige” in the Sunni world due to European colonialism and then the proliferation of failed modern states created this nostalgia for Caliphate. But Sunnis have largely ignored the apocalyptic promise of the Mahdi, and for a long time, apocalypticism has been the narrative of the Shi’a. Sunnis seem to be living in a bubble and have failed to understand the present reality. This was best illustrated when Saddam was toppled in Iraq. It shocked the conscience of the Sunnis who had become accustomed to being in position of rule, and now suddenly found themselves as a vulnerable minority in a predominantly Shi’ite country. Instead of trying to make the best of the situation through political participation and engagement, the Sunnis were simply too blind and uncritically followed the instinct of violently resisting the reality of Saddam’s overthrow. Right now, Sunnis simply don’t have a compelling narrative to base a coherent political policy on given the current realities. They keep looking to the past and romanticizing about Omar bin Khattab and their medieval dynasties without thinking critically about the future.

I remember talking to some typical Sunni mullas and they would say that soon all the technology in the world is going to be destroyed and the world will go back to fighting with swords and spears, then the Muslims will rise again. I thought how oblivious and stupid can these people be who have adapted this psychology.