Stoning to Death

[Saifullah]

You are against any form of killing, even in self-defence?

[MostafaM]

You are against any form of killing, even in self-defence?

I said any form of state sponsored death penalty like killing.

I am definitly not a pacifist.

[ScimitarXEdge]

If help comes with hidden intentions and interests in your country, then it´s better not to take it otherwise you become a slave of foreigners like the people you are fighting against.

There are many ways of resistance, many ways of defeating your enemy but the most noble way is to avoid any havouc coming down on your people, the ones you say you wanna fight for.

The resistance against the US forces could have been easily won via media pressure. I do not know if its appropiate to say that here but bringing the war to the enemy is an option, too. We saw how Spain pulled their troops out of Iraq after an attack on a train in combination with the elections there.

Killing, beheading, suicide-blasting women, children and men who have nothing to do with the conflict is the stupidest way of resistance. Kill the people you fight for! HA!

Civilian disobedience, general strikes etc.
The insurgency cannot come up with these things because they have a bad name. They impose their will on the people but if they are gone, the people turn their backs to them.

I myself am a witness of children throwing stones at Russian soldiers in Kabul. The bravery of Afghans made place for cowardice Arab style!

in the other thread you argued that the Mujahideen had legitimacy and that the is the reson soviets started killing civiilians was to get back at the Mujahideen and discourage civilian support?

now you're arguing that if the wrath comes down on people then that's the wrong way to fight

you're contradicting yourself.

[شمله ور خراساني]

To be murtad, you need to be a "muslim" first, right?

You are right. Kafirforums sounds muhc more appropriate.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

I answered it by saying that the death sentence is part of all abrahamitic religions.

I am against any form of stoning, killing, beheading etc. just a prophet said it is God´s will.

Is my answer clear now?

No, delineate more for us. So Muhammad (S) said stoning is the prescribed punishment and the second Caliph of Islam buttressed the historicty of rajm and the Quran prescribes hand cutting. So you have a logic conundrum here.

Either we believe Mustafa1919 is a messenger with a new book telling us that God now says differently than he told Muhammad (S) or we accept Islam.

So delineate how you reconcile the fact that Muhammad (S) disagrees with you?

[ScimitarXEdge]

I said any form of state sponsored death penalty like killing.

I am definitly not a pacifist.

But Pashtunwali has death penalties for things like even adultery.

so you're against even Pashtun society's standards then.

[MostafaM]

Regarding OBL, even that goes back to the Americans. Their presence in the Arabian peninsula, which he advised and then fought against, their chasing him out of Sudan, etc led to his ill will. So to answer your question, if a Muslim superpower put its troops in the vacinity of the Vatican and created a backlash amongst conservative catholics and backed the occupation of traditional Catholic lands by filling the land with Jews by force and arming them... I would say that the Muslim superpower made its own bed with its intervention.

For the rest, I refer you to my prior, and yet answered by you post that shows the much STRONGER indigenous nature of the Taliban as opposed to your race horses:

Suuuure, impose their will on the people, yet an Afghan historian of the age, professor kakar disagrees with you, despite his distate for the Taliban.

3) You have not proven that the Pashtuns of the southern Afghan basin viewed the Taliban as imposed outsiders. You contradict yourself. If the Afghans are, as you state, so capable of repelling invaders, then the Taliban would have been repelled had they been seen as foreign imposed elements. Instead the evidence is to the contrary:

http://www.thenation.com/article/157...-insider-talks

" In 2001–02 we installed a government in Kabul headed by Karzai. In doing this, we backed one side in a long civil war—the more progressive-secular and urban camp, Tajiks, Uzbeks and Hazaras, and some Pashtuns and those who live in the north and west. But it excluded one-third of Afghans, the rural, religious, traditional camp, who are Pashtuns in the south and east—which include the Taliban—whose forerunners we backed in 1980s, against the Soviets. "

I refer you to Dr. Kakar's text (an anti taliban Afghan historian) regarding how the rural Afghans functioned under the Taliban:

http://www.institute-for-afghan-stud...ntro_kakar.htm

"Although taliban have never been, until recent times, at the pinnacle of military and political power, they are not new to Afghanistan. They have been a component of the religious establishment and have always ways lived in the shadow of other military, political, and economic groups. Mullah Shor Bazar, an Afghan fighter known for inflicting heavy losses on the British during the Third Anglo-Afghan war of 1919, was also a talib, as were Mirwais Khan Hotaki, and Mullah Mushki Alam, who fought against the British occupation of Afghanistan. During the national struggle against the Soviet invaders, taliban fought alongside the Mujahideen mainly under the leadership of Mohammad Nabi, one of the seven sanctioned Mujahideen leaders in Pakistan (also known as "Peshawar Tanzeem" Leaders)."

"In reality, the traditional way of life in villages has changed little by Taliban's rule. The situation of Afghans in the countryside controlled by the Taliban has improved because of increased peace and security, giving them the opportunity to rebuild after two decades of war."

So in summary, you have not successfully proven at the Taliban are imposed (or even as imposed as NATO) or that the US presence is in any way benign.

Do you lack a chromosome or two?

The Taliban prior to 2001 did have alot of support in the Pashtun areas of the south and were tolerated in other Pashtun areas. They were not accepted anywhere else because of their brutal persecution of Shias and to some extent non-Pashtuns.

After 2001-2003 they changed into a ruthless organisation that kills those people who they claim to fight for.

There safe havens, training facilities and even their tactics on the field indicate hardly that they lack the support a guerilla movement needs to win a war by weakining the enemy by outsourcing him.

This has clearly not happened from a military point of view nor does their retreat to places outside Afghanistan indicate they a militia from the people but mercinary-like entities.

And you still didn´t answer my questions about how to finance a guerilla movement. Your "every Pashtun has a rifle" remark is not just stupid, it lacks any sense.

[Ayub.]

Some cultural norms should be banished with time. They serve no purpose in te modern age.

[MostafaM]

in the other thread you argued that the Mujahideen had legitimacy and that the is the reson soviets started killing civiilians was to get back at the Mujahideen and discourage civilian support?

now you're arguing that if the wrath comes down on people then that's the wrong way to fight

you're contradicting yourself.

Its the wrong way to fight if you kill those who you fight for.

Thats contradictory.

[ScimitarXEdge]

no offense mostafa but you're arguing uselessly in the face of evidence. You're trying to explain away the evidence because it debunks your position

[MostafaM]

No, delineate more for us. So Muhammad (S) said stoning is the prescribed punishment and the second Caliph of Islam buttressed the historicty of rajm and the Quran prescribes hand cutting. So you have a logic conundrum here.

Either we believe Mustafa1919 is a messenger with a new book telling us that God now says differently than he told Muhammad (S) or we accept Islam.

So delineate how you reconcile the fact that Muhammad (S) disagrees with you?

I do not care about what people said 1400 years ago.

There is no room for stoning and beheading nowadays.

Death penalties have proven wrong.

[lol]

mostafa = massood ? im wrong i think :p

[ScimitarXEdge]

Its the wrong way to fight if you kill those who you fight for.

Thats contradictory.

I agree, but similarly it's also wrong if you get people killed who you're trying to protect

[MostafaM]

But Pashtunwali has death penalties for things like even adultery.

so you're against even Pashtun society's standards then.

Standards and norms change with time.

Even Pashtunwali has to evolve.

[MostafaM]

I agree, but similarly it's also wrong if you get people killed who you're trying to protect

True.

By these standards, the Taliban should have thought about the interests of 24 million afghans and not of the 2500 foreign terrorist who were harboured in Afghanistan since the mid 90s.