Mutazilah its pashtoon relevence by ScimitarXEdge

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Nobody in yousafzai land or the peshawar belt wants mullah omar. They have a vague concept of sharia, that could mean anything and could be easily morphed into all the things that we need. Nobody knows what sharia is, let alone who will implement it and who will be the khalifah(try writing a two page sharia based constitution and lets simulate its effects in time). Afghanistan is war torn country with rampant PTSD, the people wishing for flashbacks to stop will do what ever promises to stop them. If sharia was to deliver than the 10 years under taliban would have delivered something, what did it deliver, name one parameter of human progress. Kandahar can keep sharia, we dont need in pakhtunkhwa, thankyou very much. If it comes to that than might as well make the durand 'pookh' and a few meters tall. Interestingly nobody in kabul wants sharia either but that does not mean they want something good.

The only difference between you and I is that I am willing to accept any solution to get us out of this quagmire, except Islamic sharia law, which for us has been tried and tested and discarded.
You will accept anything and everything as long as the muslim umma/islam paradigm of ultimate divinity is not shattered.

This is an insurmountable impasse and hence reflected in our stance.

One thing to clarify. The yousafzai did not surrender to the mughals and to this day occupy the same resources they did in mughal times without getting on the muslim umma / khalifa bandwagon.

The Yusufzai may have sat in their lands, but they did produce Ahmad Shah of the Barelvi insurgency, which was the closest thing to an actual Islamic insurgency in that region. Moreover, what of Khushal Khan's curse on the Yusufzai, who admittedly preserved their lands, but contrary to what you claim, were not able to supplant the Mughals the way Khattak had planned:

"I alone, amongst the Afghans, grieve for our honour and renown;
Whilst the Yusufzais at their ease are tilling their fields.
They who now act so dishonourably, and so shamelessly,
Will, hereafter, the upshot of their own acts perceive."

http://www.dawatan.com/biography/ind...d=article&id=5

The rest of the history appears to indicate that the Khattak could not sustain Yusufzai loyalty in a united confederation against Aurangzeb.

Once again, sharia law as an option, but no one said the dominant option or the inevitable outcome... but I am glad you affirm and confirm that you will subvert the will of the people without openly saying it (refer to Univ of Maryland Poll data for what the people want)... Most here are saying, let the Afghans decide for themselves but you are presenting it as a black or white stark option in order to falsify a justification for NATO presence.

I don't disagree that Afghanistan proper and the former NWFP have alternate political pasts and likely alternate political destinies. However, that is exactly the key point, you are from NWFP but seek to force an occupation force to maintain its presence across the border, but worse, you do this without understanding the ramifications for radicalization of the NWFP itself.

You are attempting to couple Talibanism as 1 alternative to American occupation as the other alternative for both Afghanistan and the NWFP proper. However, the NWFP may absolutely agree with you that it does not want Mullah Omar as its leader, but it also does not want a clandestine American presence or a launchpad for presence in my neck of the woods, that is proven, lock, stock, and barrell. Not a single Pashtun villager in the NWFP wanted that Blackwater group in their backyard and I hear that from them directly.

Further, your dream of maintaining occupation in our lands while the Pashtuns of KP remain unaffected is just that... a pipe dream. Everywhere the American footstep is, inthe Islamic world, the locals radicalize in response. Take a look at the severe radicalization Shabbab has undergone in Somalia with a completely uninvited and assinine US presence inthe country.

So now, to Afghanistan:

Usually your points are anecdotal and non evidence based... so I am surprised that this time you also failed to deliver anecdotally. You ask: What the did the Taliban accomplish in 10 years?
Its a complex question and ough to be weighed against what did Karzai and NATO accomplish in 10 years? Well what did they accomplish? Did they Taliban operate in a vacuum or under multiple layers of sanctions? Did the Iranian revolution complete itself and advance Iran in 10 years?

Here is what Karzai and your jananaa NATO has delivered in 10 years:

Infrastructure that is failing in less than a decade.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6336722.ece

When you read the report you realize that the bragging about building girls schools, etc. are unsubstantiated.
If you plan to retort with the oft said lie about more girls in school now under NATO, etc. the usual garbage, I refer you to:
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/afghan-enro...10008-603.html

"But despite those efforts, there are clear signs that the vision of more Afghan children in school — particularly girls, whose rights and privileges were non-existent under Taliban rule — has not come to fruition.
Indeed, the Afghan government's enrolment numbers are overblown, and there appears to have been limited effort by Canadian officials in Kandahar to verify them. There are thousands fewer girls in school than the books show."

Corrupt leadership versus what Scheuer calls an incorruptible force:
" Probably the only incorrupt people in Afghanistan are the Taliban. If you want no corruption, give the government back to the Taliban." -Dr. Michael Scheuer

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...714936,00.html

Finally, your pipe dream of sustaining US presence is only damaging your adopted country and proving that you play the role of a fifth column American citizen:

"American economists and politicians of both parties pretend that they can speak about the economic perils our country faces while the cost of our wars. To divert economic disaster, sacrifices need be made, all agree, but these sacrifices will come in cuts to schools, hospitals, roads, transportation -- the entire civil structure of society, it seems, will be gutted to keep paying for this war. "

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/12/07-8


Sadly for your case of a sustained presence, even Malai Joya, previously in your camp, has jumped ship and answered my response/question to your question of what NATO accomplished in 10 years:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...liban-warlords

"Almost eight years after the Taliban regime was toppled, our hopes for a truly democratic and independent Afghanistan have been betrayed by the continued domination of fundamentalists and by a brutal occupation that ultimately serves only American strategic interests in the region."

[Baygham]

The Yusufzai may have sat in their lands, but they did produce Ahmad Shah of the Barelvi insurgency, which was the closest thing to an actual Islamic insurgency in that region. Moreover, what of Khushal Khan's curse on the Yusufzai, who admittedly preserved their lands, but contrary to what you claim, were not able to supplant the Mughals the way Khattak had planned:

"I alone, amongst the Afghans, grieve for our honour and renown;
Whilst the Yusufzais at their ease are tilling their fields.
They who now act so dishonourably, and so shamelessly,
Will, hereafter, the upshot of their own acts perceive."

http://www.dawatan.com/biography/ind...d=article&id=5

The rest of the history appears to indicate that the Khattak could not sustain Yusufzai loyalty in a united confederation against Aurangzeb.

Once again, sharia law as an option, but no one said the dominant option or the inevitable outcome... but I am glad you affirm and confirm that you will subvert the will of the people without openly saying it (refer to Univ of Maryland Poll data for what the people want)... Most here are saying, let the Afghans decide for themselves but you are presenting it as a black or white stark option in order to falsify a justification for NATO presence.

I don't disagree that Afghanistan proper and the former NWFP have alternate political pasts and likely alternate political destinies. However, that is exactly the key point, you are from NWFP but seek to force an occupation force to maintain its presence across the border, but worse, you do this without understanding the ramifications for radicalization of the NWFP itself.

You are attempting to couple Talibanism as 1 alternative to American occupation as the other alternative for both Afghanistan and the NWFP proper. However, the NWFP may absolutely agree with you that it does not want Mullah Omar as its leader, but it also does not want a clandestine American presence or a launchpad for presence in my neck of the woods, that is proven, lock, stock, and barrell. Not a single Pashtun villager in the NWFP wanted that Blackwater group in their backyard and I hear that from them directly.

Further, your dream of maintaining occupation in our lands while the Pashtuns of KP remain unaffected is just that... a pipe dream. Everywhere the American footstep is, inthe Islamic world, the locals radicalize in response. Take a look at the severe radicalization Shabbab has undergone in Somalia with a completely uninvited and assinine US presence inthe country.

So now, to Afghanistan:

Usually your points are anecdotal and non evidence based... so I am surprised that this time you also failed to deliver anecdotally. You ask: What the did the Taliban accomplish in 10 years?
Its a complex question and ough to be weighed against what did Karzai and NATO accomplish in 10 years? Well what did they accomplish? Did they Taliban operate in a vacuum or under multiple layers of sanctions? Did the Iranian revolution complete itself and advance Iran in 10 years?

Here is what Karzai and your jananaa NATO has delivered in 10 years:

Infrastructure that is failing in less than a decade.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6336722.ece

When you read the report you realize that the bragging about building girls schools, etc. are unsubstantiated.
If you plan to retort with the oft said lie about more girls in school now under NATO, etc. the usual garbage, I refer you to:
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/afghan-enro...10008-603.html

"But despite those efforts, there are clear signs that the vision of more Afghan children in school — particularly girls, whose rights and privileges were non-existent under Taliban rule — has not come to fruition.
Indeed, the Afghan government's enrolment numbers are overblown, and there appears to have been limited effort by Canadian officials in Kandahar to verify them. There are thousands fewer girls in school than the books show."

Corrupt leadership versus what Scheuer calls an incorruptible force:
" Probably the only incorrupt people in Afghanistan are the Taliban. If you want no corruption, give the government back to the Taliban." -Dr. Michael Scheuer

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...714936,00.html

Finally, your pipe dream of sustaining US presence is only damaging your adopted country and proving that you play the role of a fifth column American citizen:

"American economists and politicians of both parties pretend that they can speak about the economic perils our country faces while the cost of our wars. To divert economic disaster, sacrifices need be made, all agree, but these sacrifices will come in cuts to schools, hospitals, roads, transportation -- the entire civil structure of society, it seems, will be gutted to keep paying for this war. "

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/12/07-8


Sadly for your case of a sustained presence, even Malai Joya, previously in your camp, has jumped ship and answered my response/question to your question of what NATO accomplished in 10 years:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...liban-warlords

"Almost eight years after the Taliban regime was toppled, our hopes for a truly democratic and independent Afghanistan have been betrayed by the continued domination of fundamentalists and by a brutal occupation that ultimately serves only American strategic interests in the region."

the treacherous ahmed shah brelvi, after being given protection by the yousafzai, turned around and left us fully exposed against the sikhs, that ******* had more yousafzai's killed and decieved than any in recent times (my family not excluded). Not to mentions the Hotis and other peshawar area pashtoon. Please dont demean us by calling him a yosafzai. If the sikhs had not gotten to him, we sure were not going to let him live much longer.

His decietful, ahli hadith is still popular with punjab, as a way to deciet the pashtoon into catastrophic alliances and further destruction.

Malai joya khareeba pa sa pooheegi. Its good she got a mike for a few days, will go back to the cave she came from. Unfortunate that she could not be maintained in sane state for long, PTSD must have been reactivated. War is harsh, leaves permanent scars, you know.

The war is not about pashtoon prosperity, we get that, its about how to keep the american industrial military complex happy and occupied to get their share of public funds(american), so as to maintain the pyramid structure of american society. It is entirely irrelevent for the pashtoons if america had the best or the worst of intentions, like a tusami it is upon us, we will do what is best to make the best of it.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

the treacherous ahmed shah brelvi, after being given protection by the yousafzai, turned around and left us fully exposed against the sikhs, that ******* had more yousafzai's killed and decieved than any in recent times (my family not excluded). Not to mentions the Hotis and other peshawar area pashtoon. Please dont demean us by calling him a yosafzai. If the sikhs had not gotten to him, we sure were not going to let him live much longer.

His decietful, ahli hadith is still popular with punjab, as a way to deciet the pashtoon into catastrophic alliances and further destruction.

Malai joya khareeba pa sa pooheegi. Its good she got a mike for a few days, will go back to the cave she came from. Unfortunate that she could not be maintained in sane state for long, PTSD must have been reactivated. War is harsh, leaves permanent scars, you know.

The war is not about pashtoon prosperity, we get that, its about how to keep the american industrial military complex happy and occupied to get their share of public funds(american), so as to maintain the pyramid structure of american society. It is entirely irrelevent for the pashtoons if america had the best or the worst of intentions, like a tusami it is upon us, we will do what is best to make the best of it.

Please write to the Tribal Analysis Center which is also acting on funds from Uncle Sam and providing info/guidance to Central Intelligence and the US Army from their research; please then, have them correct this tidbit:

"Missing in the available literature is an understanding of the Pashtun tribal connections to all of this new form of “revolutionary Islam”, as it developed deeply within northeast India where scholars consistently refer to the Rohillas as “Afghans”, but there is an excellent reason for the speed with which Sayed Ahmad Shah’s political-religious message was accepted by the Pashtuns, especially the Yusufzai tribe. The answer is simple: the initial “Hindustani Fanatics” were simply returning home to Pashtun country. Most of the original group that followed and supported Sayed Ahmad Shah, if not all of them, were probably Yusufzai Pashtuns. At a minimum, they were born and raised in a part of India that was once controlled by the independent Rohilla Pashtuns, most of whom were members of the Yusufzai tribe."

http://www.tribalanalysiscenter.com/...Deobandism.pdf

An interesting link between Abdali and Syed Ahmad was that the former was a disciple of Shah Waliullah and the latter of his son.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

"The greater percentage of the Pashtuns were from the Yusufzai tribe, a group reported by the British known for quickly turning to religious leaders for advice and control during tribal unrest. They accepted respected outsiders as leaders who could mediate between squabbling subtribes rather than select a member of any of their subtribes as a leader who would only polarize current animosities rather than minimize
them."

http://www.tribalanalysiscenter.com/...Deobandism.pdf

I myself am a bit unfamiliar with your areas deep histories, but it appears that this would reconcile the history of why Khushaal Khan Khattak failed so miserably at sustaining a nationalist insurgency against Aurangzeb: It was because the Pashtuns, being religious enough did not consider being ruled by a Muslim as worthy of a sustained jihaad as they did against the Mongols, the British, the Russians,the Sikhs, and now the Americans.

This would then supplement my point and cement it that the nature of the Pashtuns (certainly on my side of the line) and now per the above, possibly on your side of the line, have a deep respect for religion.

This in turn would add to the University of Maryland polling data and go against what you are saying regarding the NWFP not wanting shariah at all.

This is reenforced by this quote:

"The Pashtuns were exceptionally religious and tended to view any external threat to the tribe as a parallel threat against Islam, itself. This perception of a dual threat allowed leaders to mobilize the tribes quickly to face outsiders, particularly those from another religion."

[BarakzaiAbdali]

the treacherous ahmed shah brelvi, after being given protection by the yousafzai, turned around and left us fully exposed against the sikhs, that ******* had more yousafzai's killed and decieved than any in recent times (my family not excluded). Not to mentions the Hotis and other peshawar area pashtoon. Please dont demean us by calling him a yosafzai. If the sikhs had not gotten to him, we sure were not going to let him live much longer.

His decietful, ahli hadith is still popular with punjab, as a way to deciet the pashtoon into catastrophic alliances and further destruction.

Malai joya khareeba pa sa pooheegi. Its good she got a mike for a few days, will go back to the cave she came from. Unfortunate that she could not be maintained in sane state for long, PTSD must have been reactivated. War is harsh, leaves permanent scars, you know.

The war is not about pashtoon prosperity, we get that, its about how to keep the american industrial military complex happy and occupied to get their share of public funds(american), so as to maintain the pyramid structure of american society. It is entirely irrelevent for the pashtoons if america had the best or the worst of intentions, like a tusami it is upon us, we will do what is best to make the best of it.

Regarding Malalai, that was not the point... her counters of your evidence of progress and pretty much turns the question you asked about Taliban accomplishments across a decade on its head.

Wrorre, I will repeat myself, Ad Hominem and anicdote are no replacements for evidence based practice.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Goes on to say this in the rest of this well researched paper:


"Into this complex cultural mix, with its recent losses to the Shi’a, Sikhs, and the British, the next leader of the militants was born in Bareilly on November 29, 1786

33 – a little over twelve years after the destruction of the Rohilla’s adopted homeland. While the historical record shows that Ahmad Shah was a “Sayed” or could trace his family genealogy directly to the Prophet Mohammad, it is nearly a certainty that he was a member ofthe Yusufzai tribe, like the other Muslims living in this region."

The article rebuts any gripes you might have by providing some cold hard logic Baygham Khan:

"Given the traditional and deeply ingrained xenophobia found with all of the Pashtun hill tribes, it is highly unlikely that that anyone, regardless of his Sayed status, its lineage derived from the Prophet Mohammad, and his recent trip to Mecca – there were many, many men having these attributes in the region – that someone speaking a foreign language would ever have found acceptance within the Pashtun tribes, much less with the speed that Sayed Ahmad Shah was elected as their leader and about to lead them into a war with the powerful Sikhs. Sayed Ahmad Shah was probably a Rohilla or his mother belonged to that group of Pashtuns. There are few other explanations for the speed with which he became the war leader of the Yusufzai and allied Pashtun tribes."

http://www.tribalanalysiscenter.com/...Deobandism.pdf

Marra Baygham Khan Baba, khabaraa khatmaa swaa, aumanaa kanaa che dha reshtyaanaay au sahih akass pa tarikh key dasaay waau:

Syed Ahmad Shah ---><----- Yusufzai Tribe

Khushal Khan Khattak ---> <------ Yusufzai Tribe

Per above:
Monsh tha malmeezhee chey sa rarawaand dee aum dasaa ba wee:

Mullah Umar/Mullah Fazlullah, etc --->+ Yusufzai =

*Sorry, I recently discovered these emoticons and get carried away with them.

[Baygham]

Please write to the Tribal Analysis Center which is also acting on funds from Uncle Sam and providing info/guidance to Central Intelligence and the US Army from their research; please then, have them correct this tidbit:

"Missing in the available literature is an understanding of the Pashtun tribal connections to all of this new form of “revolutionary Islam”, as it developed deeply within northeast India where scholars consistently refer to the Rohillas as “Afghans”, but there is an excellent reason for the speed with which Sayed Ahmad Shah’s political-religious message was accepted by the Pashtuns, especially the Yusufzai tribe. The answer is simple: the initial “Hindustani Fanatics” were simply returning home to Pashtun country. Most of the original group that followed and supported Sayed Ahmad Shah, if not all of them, were probably Yusufzai Pashtuns. At a minimum, they were born and raised in a part of India that was once controlled by the independent Rohilla Pashtuns, most of whom were members of the Yusufzai tribe."

http://www.tribalanalysiscenter.com/...Deobandism.pdf

An interesting link between Abdali and Syed Ahmad was that the former was a disciple of Shah Waliullah and the latter of his son.

the world has since moved on, in the interim if you missed, penicillin was invented, small pox eradicated, man went to moon and yosafzais got western education, we are by and large the most educated pashtoons of any tribe. We have no big khans, and no khani system. Some land holding are there but no subservient master slave relation. A great prototype for other pashtoon tribes. Yosafzai are by large peaceful people, and mullah has not infiltrated us as much as some other unfortunate pashtoon, may be we got a little more wise from being betrayed by ahli-hadith, indian wahabis almost two centuries ago. BTW that was just 5 generations ago, I even know the name of that grandfather that this ******* ahmed shah had killed in a very convoluted treacherous manner.

there are no more rohilla pashtun power base, the last hurrah was a general in pakistan army (1960's) who is still alive and a great person (pakistani foreign minister at one point). He does not speak pashto and neighter did his father and I am sure grand father.

"were probably", is about as right, as the american knowing their left testicle from right in afghanistan. As a good friend of mine says "if the americans could differentiate between between a khan (meaning a respectable honest pakhtoon, not a land mafia thug) and a khar, like the british were able to, the afghan/american mess would be 100 fold less".

[BarakzaiAbdali]

the world has since moved on, in the interim if you missed, penicillin was invented, small pox eradicated, man went to moon and yosafzais got western education, we are by and large the most educated pashtoons of any tribe. We have no big khans, and no khani system. Some land holding are there but no subservient master slave relation. A great prototype for other pashtoon tribes. Yosafzai are by large peaceful people, and mullah has not infiltrated us as much as some other unfortunate pashtoon, may be we got a little more wise from being betrayed by ahli-hadith, indian wahabis almost two centuries ago. BTW that was just 5 generations ago, I even know the name of that grandfather that this ******* ahmed shah had killed in a very convoluted treacherous manner.

there are no more rohilla pashtun power base, the last hurrah was a general in pakistan army (1960's) who is still alive and a great person (pakistani foreign minister at one point). He does not speak pashto and neighter did his father and I am sure grand father.

"were probably", is about as right, as the american knowing their left testicle from right in afghanistan. As a good friend of mine says "if the americans could differentiate between between a khan (meaning a respectable honest pakhtoon, not a land mafia thug) and a khar, like the british were able to, the afghan/american mess would be 100 fold less".

British sources cited in the paper my friend. Rebut the paper point by point... its like saying: The New England Journal is written by stupid Americans. That does not undo the arguments. The last quote is brilliant in terms of how it defines their rapid acceptance of Syed Ahmad by the Yusufzai.

You are also then caught in a conundrum because you disavow American prowess (per their testicles) yet require that we accept them as our overlords. *By the way they appear to be pretty aware of their testicles as they have a great many jokes about the texas belt buckle.* So you want us to be crushed by the yolk so that you can continue to rule the roost across the border... what a fair deal for us!

Thank you at least for showing that your vandetta against what appears to be Pan Islamism goes back generations to that grandfather.

As I argued previously, the bulk of the pro American (bow to America in Afghanistan but for some reason not in KP) ANP movement is being championed by the sons of Abdul Samad Achekzai near our area across the border, and the sons of Utmanzai tribal elders, and the sons of Yusufzai feudals, and the sons of Khattak feudals.

Basically, your fear appears to be the ultimate destruction of the top down heirarchy (i.e. Islamic state based on pure meritocracy).

I gotta get some lunch wrorre, but I look forward to your response.

[Baygham]

Goes on to say this in the rest of this well researched paper:


"Into this complex cultural mix, with its recent losses to the Shi’a, Sikhs, and the British, the next leader of the militants was born in Bareilly on November 29, 1786

33 – a little over twelve years after the destruction of the Rohilla’s adopted homeland. While the historical record shows that Ahmad Shah was a “Sayed” or could trace his family genealogy directly to the Prophet Mohammad, it is nearly a certainty that he was a member ofthe Yusufzai tribe, like the other Muslims living in this region."

The article rebuts any gripes you might have by providing some cold hard logic Baygham Khan:

"Given the traditional and deeply ingrained xenophobia found with all of the Pashtun hill tribes, it is highly unlikely that that anyone, regardless of his Sayed status, its lineage derived from the Prophet Mohammad, and his recent trip to Mecca – there were many, many men having these attributes in the region – that someone speaking a foreign language would ever have found acceptance within the Pashtun tribes, much less with the speed that Sayed Ahmad Shah was elected as their leader and about to lead them into a war with the powerful Sikhs. Sayed Ahmad Shah was probably a Rohilla or his mother belonged to that group of Pashtuns. There are few other explanations for the speed with which he became the war leader of the Yusufzai and allied Pashtun tribes."

http://www.tribalanalysiscenter.com/...Deobandism.pdf

Marra Baygham Khan Baba, khabaraa khatmaa swaa, aumanaa kanaa che dha reshtyaanaay au sahih akass pa tarikh key dasaay waau:

Syed Ahmad Shah ---><----- Yusufzai Tribe

Khushal Khan Khattak ---> <------ Yusufzai Tribe

Per above:
Monsh tha malmeezhee chey sa rarawaand dee aum dasaa ba wee:

Mullah Umar/Mullah Fazlullah, etc --->+ Yusufzai =

*Sorry, I recently discovered these emoticons and get carried away with them.

another attempt to indoctrinate islamic bullcrap into our history,
How the hell can a sayed by a yousafzai, He calls himself sayed so if he is a yousafzai, than he is a liar. In any case even if it is proven that mullah omar is yousafzai, it still does not matter.

These tribes were killing each other all the time (http://www.khyber.org/pashtotribes/y/yusufzai-e.shtml), how else did the yousafzai got their present land in the first place. And as far as khushal khan is concerned. Though initially a mughal servant, later in life the yosafzais should have honored his request of unity. But as they say hind sight is 20/20. What the hell did a yousafzai knew then with his myopic world view what lay ahead in the next 400 years. They were probably thinking of the next harvest or the next looting opportunity.

[Baygham]

...........................

Basically, your fear appears to be the ultimate destruction of the top down heirarchy (i.e. Islamic state based on pure meritocracy).

I gotta get some lunch wrorre, but I look forward to your response.

Islamic state is not based on meritocracy. That is the biggest joke of all time.

Most of its history it has been hereditary monarchy, or blind religious fervor, in which case the religious leadership had been hereditary.

'pure meritocracy', now please tell me you were joking. We had meritocracy in the centuries of muslim rule since 661 AD until the fall of the ottomans, and now in saudia, jordan, and other.
The rest are according to you western puppet states and do not count.

There is no meritocracy in islamic rule. Read the history, dont give me the example of 2 years of abubaker and of umar , usman and ali (all killed) for none would be in power if muhammad had a son. May be they would have killed him too if he had one.

And what does that do to us in 21st century. What is happening in Eygpt is beautiful. you think they want a hashimite to come rule them. Give me a break, is it a american conspiricy. Thats how the world is going to shape, we have to coexist in a universal doctrine not some 7th century mumbo jumbo.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

another attempt to indoctrinate islamic bullcrap into our history,
How the hell can a sayed by a yousafzai, He calls himself sayed so if he is a yousafzai, than he is a liar. In any case even if it is proven that mullah omar is yousafzai, it still does not matter.

These tribes were killing each other all the time (http://www.khyber.org/pashtotribes/y/yusufzai-e.shtml), how else did the yousafzai got their present land in the first place. And as far as khushal khan is concerned. Though initially a mughal servant, later in life the yosafzais should have honored his request of unity. But as they say hind sight is 20/20. What the hell did a yousafzai knew then with his myopic world view what lay ahead in the next 400 years. They were probably thinking of the next harvest or the next looting opportunity.

When I read, I see anecdote over evidence everytime Baygham Khan. That is why you did not read the above:

"Given the traditional and deeply ingrained xenophobia found with all of the Pashtun hill tribes, it is highly unlikely that that anyone, regardless of his Sayed status, its lineage derived from the Prophet Mohammad, and his recent trip to Mecca – there were many, many men having these attributes in the region – that someone speaking a foreign language would ever have found acceptance within the Pashtun tribes, much less with the speed that Sayed Ahmad Shah was elected as their leader and about to lead them into a war with the powerful Sikhs. Sayed Ahmad Shah was probably a Rohilla or his mother belonged to that group of Pashtuns. There are few other explanations for the speed with which he became the war leader of the Yusufzai and allied Pashtun tribes."

As I said, invite the Tribal Analysis Officials to a debate over the British literature and citations:

"The greater percentage of the Pashtuns were from the Yusufzai tribe, a group reported by the British known for quickly turning to religious leaders for advice and control during tribal unrest. They accepted respected outsiders as leaders who could mediate between squabbling subtribes rather than select a member of any of their subtribes as a leader who would only polarize current animosities rather than minimize
them."

[ScimitarXEdge]

Islamic state is not based on meritocracy. That is the biggest joke of all time.

Most of its history it has been hereditary monarchy, or blind religious fervor, in which case the religious leadership had been hereditary.

'pure meritocracy', now please tell me you were joking. We had meritocracy in the centuries of muslim rule since 661 AD until the fall of the ottomans, and now in saudia, jordan, and other.
The rest are according to you western puppet states and do not count.

There is no meritocracy in islamic rule. Read the history, dont give me the example of 2 years of abubaker and of umar , usman and ali (all killed) for none would be in power if muhammad had a son. May be they would have killed him too if he had one.

And what does that do to us in 21st century. What is happening in Eygpt is beautiful. you think they want a hashimite to come rule them. Give me a break, is it a american conspiricy. Thats how the world is going to shape, we have to coexist in a universal doctrine not some 7th century mumbo jumbo.

This reason it seems this way to you is because you have a shallow and inaccurate level of understanding of Islam and it's history. Your contentions have more to do with demogoguery, which has no basis in Islaam. This of course may lead you to reitirate your previous assertion, about who follows the "real Islaam"? We all follow Islaam, but some apply or take more of a comprehensive understanding of it than others. This is measured by how much and what degree of information we incoporate when examining an issue. The more comprehensive the degree of source material the more detailed a picture we can have on the matter. This is simply a matter of logic.

The "two years of abu Bakr" as you so misguidedly attempt to disregard represent precisely the foundation and conceptual basis for Islaamic Political and Social Theory which would define Islaam; but we don't need to necessary refer to circumstantial references; examine the Qur'anic Textual basis.

Qur'an Al-Majid 42:38 And those who respond to their Lord and keep up prayer, and their rule is to take counsel among themselves, and who spend out of what We have given them.

Regardess of your irrelevant contentions, we can see that the Qur'an already enshrines the concept and emphasizes the role of meritocracy as the foundational standard of how we govern society.

but getting back to Abu Bakr; this is his take on the matter.

O people, I have been elected your leader, although I am not better than any one of you. If I do any good, give me your support. If I go wrong, set me right. Listen, truth is honesty and untruth is dishonesty. The weak among you are powerful in my eyes as long as I do not get them their due, God willing. The powerful among you are weak in my eyes as long as I do not take away from them what is due to others, God willing. Listen, you must obey me as long as I obey God and His Messenger. If I disobey God and His Messenger, you are free to disobey me. (Ibn Kathir, 305)

looks like meritocracy to me?

You can make commentary upon commentary, but what counts here is what evidence you have at your dsposal, feel free to prove us otherwise.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Islamic state is not based on meritocracy. That is the biggest joke of all time.

Most of its history it has been hereditary monarchy, or blind religious fervor, in which case the religious leadership had been hereditary.

'pure meritocracy', now please tell me you were joking. We had meritocracy in the centuries of muslim rule since 661 AD until the fall of the ottomans, and now in saudia, jordan, and other.
The rest are according to you western puppet states and do not count.

There is no meritocracy in islamic rule. Read the history, dont give me the example of 2 years of abubaker and of umar , usman and ali (all killed) for none would be in power if muhammad had a son. May be they would have killed him too if he had one.

And what does that do to us in 21st century. What is happening in Eygpt is beautiful. you think they want a hashimite to come rule them. Give me a break, is it a american conspiricy. Thats how the world is going to shape, we have to coexist in a universal doctrine not some 7th century mumbo jumbo.

Anecdote + lack of familiarity with history (or at least a subversion of its complexities) once again Baygham Khan. Please, I want to learn from you, but if I cannot trust your posts or have to fact check them, this is fast becoming a one way relationship.

The constitution of Islam (The Quran) answers you with what it mandates:

"O mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that ye may know each other (not that ye may despise (each other). Verily the most honoured of you in the sight of Allah is (he who is) the most righteous of you. And Allah has full knowledge and is well acquainted (with all things)." 49:013

The hadith literature, a sort of equivalent of the writing of the early founding fathers lays out the falling in supplement:

"All mankind is from Adam and Eve, an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab; also a white has no superiority over black nor a black has any superiority over white except by piety and good action."

True to the nationalist sentiment, you quote the assassination of the caliphs as proof that "camelot" did not exist... a much used and abused and debunked argument:

Take a look at the number of assassination attempts/successes against American Presidents. For that matter, Lincoln was assassinated... does that invalidate his vision?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...mpts_and_plots

For that matter, the proof against you is history itself. Recall the case of Osama Bin Zaid, the son of a freed slave. One of the proudest moments in early Muslim history was the obvious stroke of meritocracy in his directly being assigned to lead the second Muslim army against the Romans.

This tradition was affirmed by the second two caliphs immediatly after the passing of the Prophet. When some sahabah wanted this choice altered:

"Upon hearing this, Abu Bakr said to Umar: 'A man appointed by the Messenger of Allah, and you want me to replace him? Never will that happen.' Later, when asked by the other companions about it, Umar reprimanded them for suggesting the replacement of Usamah."

Usama ibn Zayd - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The fact that the fall of the rightly guided caliphate finally was cemented at Siffin, when Ali lost, more than shows that nepotism per relationship with the Prophet was not at all an immediate occcurance as you suggest (as Ali's rule initiated much later) nor was it something sustainable.

Finally, in a previous post you attempted to show that the Arabs are all too willing to utilize other people's stomping grounds as houses of war:

Once again you ignore history's complexities. Per Scheuer's 3rd chapter in his latest bio of Osama Bin Ladin he notes that the current ideological driver of the struggle in Afghanistan (Mr. Bin Ladin) actually did want to open up fronts of war within neighboring Arab states to subvert Marxist governments. His desire for this spilled over into the desire for action within the peninsula (and subsequent action that did occur was traced to him).

It appears, that in that same chapter it is written that Mr. Bin Ladin worked against Turki Al Faisal and the Saudi regime, which wanted to impose their Saudi/Pakistani hegemony over Afghanistan. It is well documented that he hosted a 7 party talk and attempted to court Massoud into an agreement as well. So this throws a monkey wrench into your central narrative of Arab hegemony.

*Forgive me for any delayed response as I plan on moonlighting tomorrow (gotta pay those bills you know). I do look forward to your answer though.

Finally, regarding Egypt and the Islamic flavor within its revolt, I refer you to Michael Scheuer's most recent assessment below (and please Baygham Wrorre save me the hand wringing ad hominem attack on Scheuer that you are about to dish out regarding him being a CIA stooge etc etc... evidence evidence evidence is all I will accept from you):

Tunisia, Egypt, and Yemen: Moving toward Islam and away from the West

By Michael Scheuer

The bankruptcy of America’s ideological and unrealistic educational system — especially its universities — has seldom been on better display than during this period of unrest in the Muslim world. For the most part, the well-educated folks offering analysis on television seem befuddled that anyone could think that the mass protests in Tunisia, Egypt, and Yemen have anything remotely to do with religion. No, say they, the unrest is the result of poverty, oppression, and a dozen other things, but it has nothing to do with Islam.

Well, no. While the immediate spark for events in Tunisia, Egypt, and Yemen came from poverty, oppression, etc, the ultimate cause is the unIslamic nature of the dictatorial governments that long have ruled the three states in question. Each regime has used the rhetoric of Islam in public statements and the methodology of European Fascism as its instrument of government. On this point the Neoconservatives were absolutely right: The Muslim world is rife with Islamofascists. What the Necons deliberately failed to add to this truism is that the Islamofascists are not found among the mujahedin, but rather man the Arab regimes that Washington, many of its Western allies, and Israel have supported for several decades.

Thus the uprisings now occurring are anti-fascist, but they are a nowhere near pro-democracy, at least in the Western sense. The international media’s propensity — especially strong in the BBC and CNN — for finding what it lusts to find is on prominent display as they seek out protesters in Cairo and elsewhere who speak English, are middle-class professionals, and wax eloquent with admiration for the West. Having found this “evidence” the media then extrapolate from what must be regarded as a rather small sample and declare that Americans are watching “We the people” movements on the Arab streets. (We have seen this absurd species of extrapolation frequently in recent years when U.S.-led military coalitions have success in one small- or medium-sized Iraqi or Afghan village and it is portrayed by the media as a nationwide trend.)
From Chris Matthews to Katie Couric to General Wesley Clark flows the nonsense they were trained to believe at university: The triumph of secularism, democracy, and globalization are inevitable and those that stand in the way are anachronistic expendables. General Clark, on Saturday, went so far as to tell FOX viewers that after Mubarak leaves Egypt there will be “some kind of an election” — presumably with Western observers — and that an international commission must be established to investigate the Egyptian government’s corruption.

In other words, the U.S. and Western interventionism that has supported Islamofascists for 50 years should now be revved up to intervene to teach our unwashed Arab brothers how to vote, be honest, and allow power to be passed from the dictator Mubarak to an unIslamic, unrepresentative, and tiny group of secularized Muslims who shave, admire Jefferson, and have little truck with that Islam stuff.

From Matthews on the left, to Clark on the right, to Press Secretary Robert Gibbs in the ever-hopeful-if-reality-defying heart of the Obama-Clinton fantasy world, the answer to a problem that has been partially wrought by U.S. and Western intervention on the side of tyranny is more and more intervention to again deny power to the majority. We should all be wondering how long the United States can survive the handiwork of the professors who “educated” this generation of U.S. leaders to be certain of the blessed inevitability of universal, pagan, and non-violent Westernization of the entire globe, a sort of a leftist, atheist, libertine Khalifate.

What seems lost in the wishing-makes-it-so fog of this “analysis” is the fact that nearly one-hundred percent of the Tunisians, Egyptians, and Yemenis we see on the street — indeed, all except the Westernized handful Matthews, Couric, and Clark want power passed to — are Muslim believers who not only want to improve their living and political conditions, but likewise want Islam to play a far larger role in governance, a role they believe will be lead to far less oppressive regimes. It is absolutely true that the Tunisian, Egyptian, and Yemeni dictators are hated by their peoples from imposing brutal repression, but they are also hated for limiting the role of Islam in government and their persecution of those Islamic scholars, preachers, and militants who have struggled to defend their faith. (Parenthetically, the government of our Republic under both parties long has used taxpayer funds to intervene in Tunisia, Egypt, and Yemen to encourage regime stability and so has facilitated both varieties of oppression. This may limit the pro-U.S. sentiment of any successor regime in these three states.)

At day’s end it is unclear whether Egypt’s Mubarak or Yemen’s Salih will fall, or whether the new Tunisian regime will be anything other than a more efficient dictatorship than the one it replaced. Fascist regimes, after all, have protected themselves by systematically disarming their citizenry and have little concern for anything save holding onto power. (NB: On the last point, they are like the two U.S. political parties.)

The Islamofascist regimes also know that the pro-democracy bark of Washington and its NATO allies is likely to be far worse than their bite because the existence of the regimes is necessary for the survival of Israel. It is the vigorously brutal oppression of the Mubaraks, Abdullahs (Jordan and Saudi Arabia), and Bashirs of the Arab world that controls borders contiguous with Israel and keeps a lid on hundreds of millions of Muslims who seethe with a desire to exact wide and lethal retribution for what they see as Israel’s theft, on-going occupation, and unfolding annexation of Muslim land.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Baygham Khanaa, I do appreciate your honesty and do hope you do not take things personally. I am happy that you are not cut out of the automaton like cloth of the ANPers. Your wittiness is appreciated. However, I shall continue to answer you with much vigor.

So, one last thing before I go off and play a game of soccer:

You noted that, in your opinion, the Yusufzai were on the wrong side of history in the following instances:

1) By not supporting Khushal Khan Khattak agaisnt the Moghuls
2) By supporting Syed Ahmad Shah Barelvi

So with that track record, who is to say that they are on the right side of history this time under your, Toramana Wrorre, etc.'s banner? Per the precedent they are usually on the wrong side of history according to you.


**Caveat: I have met a few Mardaan and Swaat derived Yusufzai throughout my medical education, and none of them are as leftist as you are; I have also met some local simple folk here in Connecticut from Swabi and they also appear to be against much of what you say (so I do not want this to seem a judgement passed on all Yusufzai).**

[faye]

as an outsider i find it sad that muslims appear to have so much to bicker about.
as i recently saw on a map, the block of muslim countries is huge, containing much mineral wealth and much oil and human potential. if you could all work towards peace between yourselves you would be a powerhouse and these 'powers that be' could be kept in their place.
while these freekin wars continue, your country, afghanistan will be a toxic wastedump, half of the population will be hobbling around with one leg, your land will be unusable for crops, children will be being born with defects, white phosphorous etc. imagine another 10 years of war in afghanistan. bombs are still going off that were there since the russians! i don't know the solution but you all should be concentrating on one. where are the peaceful protests by the afghans in the west, to publicise the cause of your people and country?