There is no Islamism in Islam

[Khorosani]

She was engaged BUT not married, engagement is not marriage. There is no engagement in Islam. ...a man can marry up to 4 wives in Islam. There is no evidence that either had sexual intercourse with each other. So they did in fact take a ruling from other than Islam, it is not merely applying a ruling wrongly. So are you sure I shot myself in the foot? And you're not taking Kafirs as evidence but you're using these sources? I was right you only pull that Card when it doesn't serve your agenda .You can never use this argument again since you have contradicted yourself.

the man was married and he didn't get married to a second wife. This story is not going for you at all. It isn't known if confessions took place or not, in one of the articles it stated that they "eloped".

There is too little information to make any judgement for or against the Taliban. This story is not on your side.

[khushal]

Khorosani,
These things happen in pashtunland all the time. They apply pashtunwali. Its useless to try to pass this as Shariah compliant. Pashtunwali looks at this situation differently.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

the man was married and he didn't get married to a second wife. This story is not going for you at all. It isn't known if confessions took place or not, in one of the articles it stated that they "eloped".

There is too little information to make any judgement for or against the Taliban. This story is not on your side.

They were trying to get agreement for marriage so they ran away. There's no evidence they had intercourse And they killed the girl who was not married.

No matter how you cut it, it amounts to abiding by a law that isn't Shari'ah.

[Khorosani]

Anyone who stresses Ibn Kathir over Zamakhshari or Jalalayn is essentially following the Doctrines favored by Wahhabis.





This is not a "law" as you suggested and more over Using Prison system is acceptable. Many instances where Hudud was amended in Islam when it serves better interest of society. That's actually a concept in Shari'ah, used even during the time of Khalifa Rashideen.





But I already responded to this; in Afghanistan or Middle Eastern countries it would not make them look bad; because people are ignorant of Islam and there is widespread attitude that Murdering Eloping lovers is JUSTIFIED. KHAMA.com's target audience is not Western/American. So this would not be a motive otherwise they're doing it wrong.



It is because we know that the Jew was apart of Banu Nadhir, who were warring against Muslims and rejected Nabi(saw) so by definition a fsiq, and his testimony was taken as factual.

You are just ignorant and uneducated because you just listen to what your Sheikh tells you rather than researching things. Your Sheikh just wants to keep you under his mind control so he doesn't tell you everything, he hides information from you so he can mold you into thinking the way he wants.





Well you admit it is a big story and if it is big we see no denial from the Taliban which implies they accept it. Which is consistent with the other evidence since Taliban are targeting Afghan audience and they will appeal to the norms of Afghanistan. Killing run away lovers is a norm especially for Pashtuns.








The difference is the Taliban claim their "mistakes" are Shari'ah; so it's a CRIME not a mistake. Why do you make it sound so light for the Taliban and so evil for others? Total hypocrisy. No the Taliban DID crimes. Crimes against Islam itself are not acceptable.



Don't be so sure, Islamic Law is VERY sophisticated; If you examine the Islamic canon of legal processes you will see that NO one was ever criminalized for guilty by association or for Allegedly having done some other action wrong. They were guilty on basis of evidence and probable motive. This is another evidence that you're Wahhabi because of your approach.

Yes as if the uthmaniyyas didn't argue their mistakes weren't sharia either. Like when they say apostasy wasn't from Islam.

Your final comment is absolutely not true. Ali ibn Abi Talib didn't put every khariji in court to see if they are a khariji, they attacked them all. They were in one saff.

If the security officials take money from Karzai, a haram source of revenue than khalas they are fussaq. Their wala is with Karzai and America.

and you need to bring evidence that the khulafa arashidun used imprisonment when they were supposed to cut off a hand or whip 100 times. Imprisonment is a form of ta'zeer that can be used, but not when it has to do with implementing the hudood of Allah. What was used in the time of Umar ibn al khattab is when there was a drought and people stole, in that instance the hudood was not applied but even when they newly conquered lands and were with new Muslims, they applied the hudood and didn't find the excuses of them being new to Islam to not apply the hudood.

There are laws that you can't attack the harbi kuffar. That's why they killed the afghan soldier Abdul saboor who killed the French soldier. Every book of fiqh says that if the kafir enters the land they are to be fought. It's in mukhtasar quduri, its in hidayah, its in the other madhabi books.

and please, if you don't know my shuyukh don't talk about them. I'm pretty sure you get all your opinions from your DIY ijtihad.

And you totally dodged the rest of my answers, because you don't have an answer.

Ibn katheer is used by Deobandis who are absolutely NOT wahabis so no your point their doesn't hold. Zamakhshari was a mutazali based tafsir (although it does have its benefits) and the mu'tazali school of thought is not accepted by the ahlus sunnah as a valid school of thought. Jalalayn is a small tafsir and is not detailed as much as ibn kathir who usually uses quotes from early mufassirin and the four schools of thought. That is totally irrelevant anyway because ibn kathir is a well respected tafsir, even by asharis and those who oppose the salafi methodology. Ibn kathir said that unknown sources aren't taken as sources of information among the muhaditheen. So he wasn't stating anything from his own opinions but through the methodology of ahlul hadeeth.

The story doesn't show that they didn't apply sharia. The man was married the women was not, we don't know the evidences used by the Taliban (i repeat if they did it) and nothing in the story indicates that they used Pashtun wali. However if they were guilty (and the evidences were not shown, because the Taliban don't have to prove anything to you or me but to the courts in their locality) than the punishment given was according to the sharia. Stoning. At first, I thought this story was just two random lovers, but now that I know that the man was married than the punishment makes sense. The women could've been done with nikah because when pashtuns are engaged they finish nikah early at times. I was engaged two years with my wife however I had nikah with my wife at the beginning of my engagement. So it is very possible that she was "legally" married. It's common in Afghanistan. The only thing that you can use against the Taliban in this case is if they didn't have shari' evidences to apply the hudood. The only way you can do that is actually going to Afghanistan and investigating yourself because these matters can't be investigated through half-page articles. So no this is not evidence against Taliban.

The legal canon is deep, however you haven't presented anything from the sources that argues your point.

Khaama wasn't the only one reporting this story, and since its written in English and not Pashto, it is targeting non muslims as well. The presenters of this story were obviously not doing it in praise of the Taliban but to put them down. Khaama is a pro government, pro Bollywood pro ahmad shah masood news agency so yes they would find it in their benefit to spread lies about Taliban. Let alone their source for the story is security officials among them being general Qatra who is being friendly to kafir harbis (The women was a soldier).

[60:8] Saheeh International

Allah does not forbid you from those who do not fight you because of religion and do not expel you from your homes - from being righteous toward them and acting justly toward them. Indeed, Allah loves those who act justly.

but they do fight us because of our religion, and they do expel us from our homes. So he is commiting a transgression by showing hospitality to them. From logic it would be irrational to claim that it is only one person when Generals in afghanistans army have connections with high officials among their allies.

The whole story of the Taliban sending a 10-year old girl for a suicide mission is a sufficient proof that there is a campaign to make the Taliban look bad. The Taliban denied the story.

[Khorosani]

Khorosani,
These things happen in pashtunland all the time. They apply pashtunwali. Its useless to try to pass this as Shariah compliant. Pashtunwali looks at this situation differently.

I've only seen one incident so far which is far too doubtful. And i'm certainly not going to take from afghans who live in the west to tell me what the Pashtuns do or don't do.

Just because an act is widespread (According to you and RTR) that doesn't mean the Taliban do it. Nice try though.

[Manzareh]

[MENTION=1034]Badlun[/MENTION] whats your reply to RTR's post debunking your claim of secularists never clashing with one another.

[khushal]

I've only seen one incident so far which is far too doubtful. And i'm certainly not going to take from afghans who live in the west to tell me what the Pashtuns do or don't do.

Just because an act is widespread (According to you and RTR) that doesn't mean the Taliban do it. Nice try though.

You and RTR don't understand pashtunwali very well.

If one looks at from shariah aspect. Did the man committed adultery. We don't know because we don't know if they had been intimate.

Did the girl commit adultery?
Technically, pashtunwali does not recognize engagements. In pashtunwali, when one is engaged, that person is actually married. But again we don't know if they had been intimate.

But regardless, whether the two inviduals were single or not and they ran away together with or without having an intimate affair, In pashto's culture, a badi would have started unless its resolved. In a case like this, its hard to avoid execution because there are too many parties involved. You have the girls family who were wronged, you have the family of her fiancé who were wronged. The two "kors" would unite against the mans family and they could probably wipe that family out. So in essence the Taliban justice was to avoid badi and avoid more bloodshed.

People in the west don't understand these things. They think the whole world lives like "dawsons creek."
Varsity Blues Clip "I DON'T WANT. YOUR LIFE." - YouTube

[RevolutionThroughReason]

Yes as if the uthmaniyyas didn't argue their mistakes weren't sharia either. Like when they say apostasy wasn't from Islam.

Your final comment is absolutely not true. Ali ibn Abi Talib didn't put every khariji in court to see if they are a khariji, they attacked them all. They were in one saff.
.

Your post is a lot of non nonsensical rambling so I'm going to just focus on the top two

#1.) Can you show where in the Uthmaniyah legal canon where they said apostasy was not in Islam? Remember Wahhabi/Selefi commentator isn't reliable since they rebelled against the Khilafah and have a motive to lie here.

#2.) you're speaking about War, totally different context. This isn't the same as criminal law. Your Interpretation sounds like a bunch of ignorant apes who just acy out of anger without thinking.

[Khorosani]

Your post is a lot of non nonsensical rambling so I'm going to just focus on the top two

good way to say you don't have an answer. Like for the slave and ta'zeer issue.

#1.) Can you show where in the Uthmaniyah legal canon where they said apostasy was not in Islam? Remember Wahhabi/Selefi commentator isn't reliable since they rebelled against the Khilafah and have a motive to lie here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanzimat#Religious_Freedom

They abolished the law because they didn't find the argument 'convincing' even though there is an ijma on the issue.

#2.) you're speaking about War, totally different context. This isn't the same as criminal law. Your Interpretation sounds like a bunch of ignorant apes who just acy out of anger without thinking.

So afghanistan is not in a state of war? Is it not that laws on war and dealing with war is apart of the canon?

and i didn't catch the sly comment you made that i used the card of not taking from the media even though i specifically mentioned 2-3 times throughout my posts, including the one you commented on that i don't accept any side of the story. (bolded for emphasis)

[MENTION=1547]khushal[/MENTION] yes i admit i'm not quite versed in pashtunwali

[RevolutionThroughReason]

good way to say you don't have an answer. Like for the slave and ta'zeer issue.

Or good way to say that you're recycling the same moronic tirade that I already responded to with such poor incoherent reasoning that it serves no purpose. That would be my guess.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanzimat#Religious_Freedom

They abolished the law because they didn't find the argument 'convincing' even though there is an ijma on the issue.

Wkikipedia is not the Ottoman Canon, I said Find me something from the OTTOMAN Canon, can't you read?

So afghanistan is not in a state of war? Is it not that laws on war and dealing with war is apart of the canon?

We're talking about 'Ali, Even if Afghanistan is in a state of war, we're talking about Mainstream Legal System vs. What someone does WHILE IN the PROCESS of War. 'Ali was in the process of war, he went and made combat. Your argument holds no ground

ON A SIDE NOTE: I'm almost doubting that you're learning from a qualified Islamic Scholar ...I think he's a Wahhabi idiot based on the stuff you say. Seriously tell me your Sheikh's name. I want to look up his credentials.

[B]even though i specifically mentioned 2-3 times throughout my posts,

And yet you just did ..amazing eh?

[Badlun]

Actually yes they do; in fact more secularists killed each other than anyone else. NAZI's Killed Russian Communists in Millions. Both were different sects of Secularism. American Capitalist Secularists killed hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese Communist Secularists. Numerous examples. More people have died at the hands of secular regimes as a consequence of their agendas and ideology

There is no "mixing" of Shari'ah with Pashtunwali; Islam/Shari'ah cannot mix with anything. What it proves is that what the Taliban were applying was Pashtunwali and not Shari'ah and that their corruption stems from applying Pashtunwali and has no impact on the merits of Shari'ah. The relationship of Islam/Shari'ah and cultural norms is a different than applying cultural laws contrary to Shari'ah. Islam accommodates cultural dynamics as long as they're not OUTRIGHTLY opposing the objectives of Shari'ah. The Accommodation of Islam to cultural norms does not mean Pashtunwali is an acceptable cultural form of Islam. In fact it is not.

Also Islamism is just a special code for Islam, itself there is no difference, it refers to the same thing according to English Dictionaries. Westerners invented the word to make it seem as if they were not trying to deride Islam itself but in reality it refers to Islam as Islam is a social-political-intellectual movement all in one as shown by history. Pashtuns have applied Pashtunwali is the reason why they were backwards. Islamic Shari'ah has proven to be beautiful because of the magnificent empires that ruled by Shari'ah as we see with Abbasids and the Golden Age of Islam.

Your argument of the killing of capitalists, communists, Nazis etc is totally flawed. They did not fight and killed each other on the name of secularism or one sect of secualrism never claimed that they are the true secularists, but for other political reasons. While when a Sunni extremist kills a Shia, he kills on the name of religion because he considers Shia to be infidel. Similarly a Talib kills an Afghan or Pakistani soldier because according to him the soldier is infidel.

Islam ,may be in books , a beautiful system but the caliphates were a shame and stigma on the face of Islam and humanity. Just google the wording barbarities, brutalities and cruelties of so called Muslim caliphs and you will find horrible stories like Abbasids digging out the graves of Umayyids and teaing their corpses into pieces.

What kind of Islam and Sharia this was? If you consider those caliphates Sharia compliant then Sharia seems to be a barbaric kind of system which have no place in civilized world.

[Badlun]

And the existence of Pashtunwali mixed or side by side with Sharia is a crystal clear proof that the so called Sharia or islamism is not enough for Pashtuns. They need Pashtunwali too. Pashtunwali for political and cultural as well as social purposes while Islam as a religion before 1979 and Islamism as a parallel or competitor system of Pashtunwali after 1079.

Before 1979 Hujra and Jumat were separate but so called Mujahideen and Taliban are trying to mix these two.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

They died and killed each other for Different Sects of Secularism; they believed each of their sects to be the better one. Nazis called people who were not Nazis Inferior/SUbhuman and should be killed. Capitalists called Communists "Pinko ****" . Communists killed Capitalists because they said Capitalists were "Bourgeoisie" . Whatever word they used was essentially they essentially meant infidel by it, someone who was opposed to the norm they accepted.So it is not flawed at all;. The Point being that if someone can claim Secularism works despite the facts that Secularissts have murdered more people, destroyed our Environment more and diminished the resources of the planet more than anyone would demonstrate that EVEN with the conflicts between sects, that Islam proves to be a more successful at providing solutions and answers WHEN Applied correctly. Secularism is too vague and ambiguous so we cannot have any measure of when it is applied correctly or not. However we can see that when it is applied it is mainly detrimental. Where as with Islam we see when it is applied, Without mixing backwards traditions like in Pashtunwali; it is very successful.

Even the worst Cailph was better than the Best Secularist when it comes to Brutaliities, Cruelities and so on. . We look at reality as a continuum and a spectrum. Seculairist Powers ascended using the worst and most damaging things such as Genocide and Starvation/Environmental destruction which you would excuse as realpolitik and Statecraft. Which Calph did such things?. So maybe Calphs did 25% Bad 75% was Good, where as Secularists did 75% Bad and 25% good. Islam is not here to create a utopia it is here as a Method of Problem Solving, How close to Utopia we get with it depends on us. But It gives us the Tools to approach that goal. Secularism and Pashtunwali lack those tools because they're either too rigid as Pashtunwali or too ambiguous as Secularism, Islam is the right balance. if Pashtunwali was needed; then Pashtuns would have had powerful empires in history. Even all the great Pashtun heroes we think about NEVER ruled by Pashtunwali and this is proven because for example Ahmad Abdali has Qiziilbash as his ministers and not Pashtuns. if anything the fact Pashtunwali is used is exactly why Islamic Shari'ah is needed because it is keeping Pashtuns down.

[Badlun]

Let us talk of today or the last 100 years of progress and development and scientific revolution. Where on the earth Sharia is correctly applied? Will you prefer to live in the secular USA, Germany, Scandinavian countries or the Islamic republics of Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan or the Wahabi kingdom of Saudi, or the Islamic Sudan, Somalia ?

Be honest and choose a place? secular or Islamic? If you say they are not truly Islamic then Islamism when not applied is not applicable and exists only in books not in reality.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

No we should talk of the whole historical pattern; because focusing on just today gives secularists special convenience Tt's like someone saying "Don't look at my bad stuff look at ONLY my good stuff". We should examine ALL of secularism "Today" is only a small piece of time. Secularists are very anxious to only focus on certain things because they want to sweep their corruption under the rug; but everyone knows how Secular Nations today got their power. Great murders, genocides and injustices were done to make Secular Nations powerful. We know history, you can't fool us Badlun.

Yes today Secularists are powerful but if we look at how they got there, it was by doing mainly criminal acts. Muslim's would have had scientific development too if they kept working hard and didn't get lazy. Shari'ah actually teaches us to explore and find solutions to problems. So there is no conflict with Science/Technology and Islam in fact They are Very complimentary.Scientific Development is not due to secularism; It is true Catholic Church did a great deal of repression. But Science developed on its own independent of Political Dynamics. We do not need secularism to have science.So Like Rumi said "Keep the Kernal and throw away the husk" the Husk in this case is secularism, and Science the Kernal. If we have Science within the frame of an Islamic Society; then we'll be close to Utopia. Science should be merged within Islam not outside of it.