Why the Taliban do what they do

[Bigmo]

Dear Bigmo,

what was the purpose of Quran being revealed to Hadhrat Muhammad (saw)?

To guide mankind. Basically the Quran tries to prepare mankind for the day of judgement. This is of course very different than how Sunni/Shia Islam understands it. They see the Quran came down to create an Islamic state. They call it Shariah Law. The emphasis they have is this life while the Quran emphasizes the day of Judgement. The Quran cares little about this life.

[MeemWawMeemNoon]

Do you follow the Holy Prophet, Hadhrat Muhammad (saw) or not?

[Bigmo]

Its the same thing. Quranist & Parvezi are both exactly the same thing. Rejectors of Sunnah.

You are talking about Sunnah. However Sunnah is not an easy word as many Muslims claim. It was Al Shafi who introduced this concept. Prior to Al Shafi Muslims did not understand Sunnah as Muslims today might. Lets look at Al Shafis' Risala and what he says:

Excerpt: On Legal Knowledge

29. Someone asked me: What is [legal] knowledge and how much should men know of it?

30. Shafi�i replied: Legal knowledge is of two kinds: one is for the general public, and no sober and mature person should be ignorant of it.

31. He asked: For example?

32. [Shafi�i] replied: For example, that the daily prayers are five, that men owe it to God to fast the month of Ramadan, to make the pilgrimage to the [Sacred] House whenever they are able, and to [pay] the legal alms in their estate; that He [God] has prohibited usury, adultery, homicide, theft, [the drinking of] wine, and [everything] of that sort which He has obligated men to comprehend, to perform, to pay in their property, and to abstain from [because] He has forbidden it to them.

This kind of knowledge may be found textually in the Book of God, or may be found generally among the people of Islam. The public relates it from the preceding public and ascribes it to the Apostle of God, nobody ever questioning its ascription or its binding force upon them. It is the kind of knowledge which admits of error neither in its narrative nor in its interpretation; it is not permissible to question it.

33. He asked: What is the second kind?

34. Shafi�i replied: It consists of the detailed duties and rules obligatory on men, concerning which there exists neither a text in the Book of God, nor regarding most of them, a sunna. Whenever a sunna exists [in this case], it is of the kind related by few authorities, not by the public, and is subject to different interpretations arrived at by analogy.

35. He asked: Is [legal knowledge on this kind as obligatory as the other, or is it not obligatory so that he who acquires such knowledge performs a supererogatory act, and he who neglects it falls not into error? Or, is there a third kind, derived from a narrative (khabar) or analogy?

36. [Shafi�i] replied: There is a third kind [of knowledge].

37. He asked: Will you explain it, give its source, and state what [portion] of it is obligatory, and on whom it is binding and on whom it is not binding?

38. [Shafi�i] replied: The public is incapable of knowing this kind of knowledge, nor can all specialists obtain it. But those who do obtain it should not all neglect it. If some can obtain it, the others are relieved of the duty [of obtaining it]; but those who do obtain it will be rewarded.

ON THE OBLIGATION OF MAN TO ACCEPT THE AUTHORITY OF THE PROPHET

A Declaration Concerning the Duty Imposed by God, as Laid Down in His Book, [Ordering Men] To Follow the Prophet�s Sunna

86. Shafi�i said: God has placed His Apostle�[in relation to] His religion, His commands and His Book�in the position made clear by Him as a distinguishing standard of His religion by imposing the duty of obedience to Him as well as prohibiting disobedience to Him. He has made His merits evident by associating belief in His Apostle with the belief in Him. For God, Blessed and Most High, said:

So believe in God and His Apostles, and do not say: �Three.� Refrain; [it will be] better for you. God is only one God. Glory be to Him. His having a son is something alien to him [Q. IV, 169].

And He said:

The believers are only those who have believed in God and His Apostle, and who when they are with him on some common affair do not go away until they ask his permission [Q. XXIV, 62].

Thus [God] prescribed that the perfect beginning of the faith, to which all other things are subordinate, shall be the belief in Him and then in His Apostle. For if a person believes only in Him, not in His Apostle, the name of the perfect faith will never apply to him until he believes in His Apostle together with Him.

So the Apostle laid down the sunna [of reciting the Prophet�s name together with that of God] for testing the faith of every man [as the following tradition indicates]:

http://islamicsystem.blogspot.com/20...al-risala.html

You can see the questioner never heard of this Sunnah and did not even know what its purpose is. This was about 150 years after the prophet passed away. It is the same argument the Israelites have with the Talmud. Al Shafi here claims that two revelations came to the prophet. The other revelation he says was in the hands of a few and not the general public. It somehow appeared during malik and Shafi's era. After Shafi by a short time Bukhari made his famous collection about two hundred years after the propet. Shafi was, as can be seen in the conversation he talks about with a questioner, a controversial figure. But his srgument on the day probably because of political support from the Abbasid caliphs, especially Al Mutawakkil.

Al Shafi knew that to convince others of this new revelation he had to rely on the Quran to justify it. So he used two arguments.

One was "Obey God and His messenger" argument. The Other is "the Quran and wisdom" argument. Al Shafi seems to see the term "and" in the Quran as signalling two different sources. One is God and the Quran, the other is the prophet and his Sunnah or what Shafi says is the wisdom the Quran is talking about. Shafi's main problem is he uses implied reasoning. Like how Christians do when it comes to the Trinity. Implied reasoning meaning not explicit reasoning. The Quran never actually says there are two sources but IMPLIES that by saying obey the messenger or wisdom. Like The Gospel never explicitly says Jesus is divine or says the Trinity but "who have seen me have seen the father" IMPLIES that Jesus is divine. "I am my father are one" IMPLIES that Jesus is divine.

Yet the Quran is explicit when it says:

"And certainly We have repeated for humankind, in this Qur’an, every kind of example, but the majority of humankind do not consent to anything but denying."(17:89)

“We have put forth for humans, in this Qur’an, every kind of example so that they may remember”(39:27).

"A. L. R. These are the verses of a Book,- and a Qur'an that makes things clear. "(15:1)

"We have not instructed the (Prophet) in Poetry, nor is it meet for him: this is no less than a Message and a Qur'an making things clear: "(36:69)

"A.L.R. These are the verses of the clear Book."(12:1)

"These are verses of the Book that makes (things) clear "(26:2)"

These are verses of the Qur'an,-a book that makes (things) clear;"(27:1)

"These are Verses of the Book that makes (things) clear."(28:2)

"By the Book that makes things clear,"(43:2, 44:2)

"We have already sent down to you verses making things clear, an illustration from(the story of) people who passed away before you, and an admonition for those who fear (Allah)."(24:34

“And certainly We have brought them a Book, which We have detailed with knowledge, a guidance and mercy for a people who believe”(7:52)

“A Book of which the verses are distinctly detailed, an Arabic Qur’an for people who know”(41:3)

“Indeed We have made the verses detailed for a people who take reminder”(6:126)

"A. L. R. (This is) a Book, with verses basic or fundamental (of established meaning),further explained in detail,- from One Who is Wise and Well-acquainted (with all things): "(11:1)

“In their histories there is certainly a lesson for men of understanding. It is not anarrative which could be forged, but a verification of what is before it and a distinct explanation of all things and a guide and a mercy to a people who believe.”(12:111)

"We have made the Night and the Day as two (of Our) Signs: the Sign of the Nighthave We obscured, while the Sign of the Day We have made to enlighten you; that ye may seek bounty from your Lord, and that ye may know the number and count of the years: all things have We explained in detail."(17:12)

And He it is Who has made the stars for you that you might follow the right way thereby in the darkness of the land and the sea; truly We have detailed Our revelations for a people who have knowledge.”(6:97)

“And He it is Who hath produced you from a single being, and (hath given you) ahabitation and a repository. We have detailed Our revelations for a people who have understanding.”(6:9)

“Thus do We make the revelations detailed for a people who reflect” (10:24)

Thus do We make the revelations detailed for a people who use their reason”(30:2)

Is it not enough for them that We have revealed to you the Book, which is recited to them? Most surely there is a mercy in this and a reminder for a people who believe”(29:51)

These are explicit verses.

[MeemWawMeemNoon]

Dear brother,

Do you follow the Holy Prophet, Hadhrat Muhammad (saw) or not?

[Roshina]

Thank you, Bigmo, for your post regarding why the Taliban do what they do.

I will be happy to explain each of those hadiths further, especially those that talk about education (and we need to remember that hadiths never DEFINE education, and so the Taliban, like all other people, decide to define what it means to be educated, how one should obtain education, what IS "good" education, what is "ilm," what is education for women and men, and so on).

Most Muslims who stand against the Taliban claim that the Taliban are not following Islam, but that's when you gotta ask what Islam is then. We take hadiths and Quranic verses here and there and say, "See??? You can't kill people unless this is the case." Right - that's what the Quran might teach, but what about hadiths? And, yes, to those of us who're just calling people Pervezis and such, what's your point? Are such labels REALLY that important? Or are we implying that anyone who puts in front of you violent hadiths, or hadiths that support violence or animosity or intolerance, is a Pervezi? That's not the point. The point is: The Taliban have PERFECTLY legitimate justifications for whatEVER they do. If what they do is not directly supported by the Quran and/or hadiths, then it is implied so by a certain interpretation of the Quran/hadiths.

And, uh, such irrelevant questions are being asked of Bigmo, but I see no one discussing the hadiths he's presented. Why do we have to ask questions regarding Bigmo's beliefs? Why can't we just sit and ponder what he's presented? (Bigmo, I'm assuming you're male; if you're not, I apologize.) Why, oh WHY are we so illiterate and think that ever single person on earth MUST fit in that tiny suffocating box we've created for every single human on earth?

Anyway, so back to the topic ... can someone please get those hadiths and Quranic verses (IN CONTEXT, please!) that condemn the acts of the Taliban? That's one way to continue this discussion -- NOT by asking whether someone's an Ahmadi, a Pervezi, an ahl-e-Qurani, an ahl-e-hadithi, etc. For God's sake, free yourselves of these things, folks! And listen at last.

[Roshina]

''You have indeed in the Messenger* of God an excellent pattern of conduct.'' (33:21)


We are advised by Allah Himself to follow Muhammad (PBUH)'s ways, his Sunnah.

Advised? Would you really consider it just "advice" and nothing more? ... Like a command?

I think most Muslims who believe in hadiths would say that, no, we're not "advised" to follow him; we're COMMANDED to follow him. Their argument? "If we don't believe in hadiths, how would we know how to pray then?" Such people have not done enough research on the history of hadiths and hadith criticism.

I'm really interested in the rebuttals to those hadiths above. I'll be waiting for those who have something to offer us -- something serious and important, that is. Because to me, NOTHING in the above hadiths suggest that hadiths are being mocked or those who believe in hadiths are being mocked. It only tells me that the Taliban use such hadiths to kill the types of people they kill along with committing all other atrocities they've committed so far.

[MeemWawMeemNoon]

When it comes to an intellectual discussion, then ALL is fair for it is only an intellectual discussion.

However, when the discussion is based upon what is true then one must ask of the person's belief for in it lies the clues to what that person really believes in and it makes the discussion more fruitful. It brings the discussion closer to a fruitful conclusion.

If someone is being a devil's advocate and is only after rebuttals then the discussions will never end and in the end the discussion is concluded as per: "Let us agree to disagree."

This is a manner in which the Existence of God has been discussed among the intellectual elite of secular institutions. Their conclusions end of the day: It is inconclusive.

Why is it inconclusive? The reason being is because their personal beliefs were left out of the discussion and were not allowed to be scrutinized. Had they been part of the discussion then a totally new perspective would have been part of the discussion and a conclusive conclusion would have been reached.

[Mayana]

lol this is some ridiculous BS.

Why the Taliban do what they do, eh?
Now we're gonna go around and try to legitimize political actions and secular issues with God? Lunatic tyranny is not what Islam has taught anyone to do neither is it the way to go for Afghanistan.

And those Ahadith posted prove or even justify nothing at all.
First of all, let's take a look at this example:

"Awf ibn Malik reported that the Prophet (Peace be upon him) said, 'The Jews split into 71 sects: one will enter Paradise and 70 will enter Hell. The Christians split into 72 sects: 71 will enter Hell and one will enter Paradise. By Him in Whose hand is my soul, my Ummah will split into 73 sects: one will enter Paradise and 72 will enter Hell.' Someone asked, 'O Messenger ofAllah (Peace be upon him), who will they be?' He replied, 'The main body of the Muslims (al-Jama'ah).' Awf ibn Malik is the only one who reported this Hadith, and its isnad is acceptable." And in another version of this Hadith the Prophet (Peace be upon him) goes onto say that the saved sect, "...Are those who follow my and my Sahaba's path" (Tirmidhi, vol. 2, pg. 89)

So there are 73 sects, one will enter Jannah. Now it's up to Mullah Omar to decide which ones of these sects will go to hell and kill all of them because they're gonna go to hell anyways?

Not a single one of the Ahadith posted (whether or not they're sahih is a whole different discussion) even begin to explain what the Taliban did because for one they are incoherent and for another, they are not related to the actions of the Taliban.




On a different note .. WHAT THE HELL IS THIS BS?!

:Narrated Atiyyah al-Qurazi: I was among the captives of Banu Qurayzah. They (the Companions) examined us, and those who had begun to grow hair (pubes) were killed, and those who had not were not killed. I was among those who had not grown hair. Abu Dawood

Pubes.. are you serious?
I only found this particular Hadith on a website designed to be "the key to remove sectarian shackles" - I doubt it's sahih.

Some Zanadiqa (atheists) were brought to ‘Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event, reached Ibn ‘Abbas who said, “If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah’s Apostle forbade it, saying, ‘Do not punish anybody with Allah’s punishment (fire).’ I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah’s Apostle, ‘Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him. Bukhari

It was forbidden to burn people - your point?!

Allah's Apostle sent us in a mission (i.e. am army-unit) and said, "If you find so-and-so and so-and-so, burn both of them with fire." When we intended to depart, Allah's Apostle said, "I have ordered you to burn so-and-so and so-and-so, and it is none but Allah Who punishes with fire, so, if you find them, kill them." Bukhari

Incoherent with the Hadith you previously posted - how can he (sas) forbid it and then do it himself? One of the two above mentioned Ahadith can't be sahih.

In the Qur'an it reads "There is no compulsion in religion.Verily, the right path is clear from the wrong path." [2:256]


On a different note, stop quoting yanabi.com please, thank you.

[Roshina]

Who decides what hadith is saheeh and whihc one is not? Are all the hadiths in Bukhari and Muslim saheeh? Can any of them be declared false or unauthentic today after extensive research and studies on them?

[MeemWawMeemNoon]

The most important and only factor is the Quran itself.

The sunnah of the Prophet (saw) was based on the Quran, hence, his sayings must have also been in-line with the Quran.

[Baygham]

Who decides what hadith is saheeh and whihc one is not? Are all the hadiths in Bukhari and Muslim saheeh? Can any of them be declared false or unauthentic today after extensive research and studies on them?

Qrrantugai khore, mullah omar will decide which one is to overrule the other. Before him the ruler of the day would. How do you think this hadith bussiness prospered in the first place.

The early kings of arabia, in search of legitimacy were provided by a bunch of free and idle commoners with stories of their legitimacy. This one put King one in good light, the second one fifty years later put the second one in good light. The better the royals felt the more the commoner advanced.

Our modern perception of a king is a dictatorial saddam hussain who can do what ever they desire. This has rarely been the case. In most instances, being a king meant dealing with nuances of legitimacy and threat. Playing the populace required great fabrication and finnesse. Other cultures have done this just as much. Constantine changed the religion of his roman empire to christianity for more legitimacy, same with the conversion of Sunni Iran to shia to advance their rule

The Safavid conversion of Iran from Sunnism to Shiism made Iran the spiritual bastion of Shia Islam against the onslaughts of orthodox Sunni Islam, and the repository of Persian cultural traditions and self-awareness of Iranianhood, acting as a bridge to modern Iran. Through their actions, the Safavids reunified Iran as an independent state in 1501 and established Twelver Shiism as the official religion of their empire, marking one of the most important turning points in the history of Islam.

Sahih Bukhari came into existence 200 years after mo's death. In a society where death can be granted at a whim, can you honestly believe the kings would have paid for a compilation that did anything else beside perpetuating his rule.

Forget Hadith, even the Quran had many versions, some most famously burnt by Usman to advance the one in his daughters possession and hence advance his familys legitimacy over rivals.

Its good fascinating folklore and one should treat it as such.

[MeemWawMeemNoon]

Qrrantugai khore, mullah omar will decide which one is to overrule the other. Before him the ruler of the day would. How do you think this hadith bussiness prospered in the first place.

The early kings of arabia, in search of legitimacy were provided by a bunch of free and idle commoners with stories of their legitimacy. This one put King one in good light, the second one fifty years later put the second one in good light. The better the royals felt the more the commoner advanced.

Sahih Bukhari came into existence 450 years after mo's death. In a society where death can be granted at a whim, you can honestly believe the kings would have paid for a compilation that did anything else beside perpetuating his rule.

Forget Hadith, even the Quran had many versions, some most famously burnt by Usman to advance the one in his daughters possession and hence advance his familys legitimacy over rivals.

Its good fascinating folklore and one should treat it as such.

Whoa there, whoaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa....


Hadhrat Imam Bukhari came 450 years after? And there are many versions of the Quran?

Which world are you living in?

[MeemWawMeemNoon]

I know, I know, you will show me proof...but you actually buy those "proofs?"

[MeemWawMeemNoon]

I hate to sound so sour for many but I would like to say politics.

We are so busy declaring who is kaffir and who is what that we forget more important things like why are women so uneducated in Islamic countries? Why don't women in Afghanistan become journalists? Why do I as an Afghan from the USA have to travel to Afghanistan to report? Why cant someone from Kabul,Ghazni,Kandahar,Wardak,Swat,Peshawar do the job instead?

Like Swat said its the people who decide who is who based on their very own interests. Its cherry-picking if you ask me.

So you are referring to culture?

[MeemWawMeemNoon]

You said that we base the truthfulness of a hadith based on "politics." However, what you described was culture. If I am mistaken, please accept my apology.