Taliban: "Don’t accept the system of infidels called Democracy." And we negotiate with them?

Originally posted by jdub297
reply to post by justwokeup

 

Please respond to the point. If you don't want to negotiate with the Taliban how do you intend to proceed given that one of your 'allies' will keep the movement alive and you cannot cut them loose for fear of the repercussions.

If by "there," you mean Pakistan, we weren't there "in the first place."

If you mean Afghanistan, it was to drive the Taliban out and, in so doing, "flush out" bin Laden.

And?

Anyone who believes Pakistan is an "ally," is delusional. They are hostage-takers: "Send more money, or the nuclear country get's it." Their continual extortion is pathetic and we should let India take back what was once theirs, if they still want it. Their perceived "nuclear threat" can be dealt with, with well-directed EMPs. India knows how to do this. I don't see India playing that stupid "nuclear threat" game.

jw

jw

Thank you for clarifying.

I'm not sure I subscribe to your 'Keep fighting on in Afghanistan while hoping for a Pakistan/India war' strategy for the region.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree.

The Taliban, whomever they truly are, are the infidels.

Democracy was the way in which prophet Muhammad had taught muslims. The Ummah - community - defines the spiritual aspects of Islam, and members are chosen ( elected) by the community whom all are equals. Prophet Muhammad left no heir or appointed ANY mortal to take over from him. It was left to the Ummah to chose, insha'Allah.

There is separation between the Ummah and Administration of a muslim land, as shown by the Divine Messenger prophet Muhammad.

He did not rule in either Medina or Mecca as a King, or Caliph, or sultan, but only as the leader of the Ummah, guiding the administrators with moral and ethical guidelines. He won Mecca but handed over the keys of the city of Mecca back to the conquered when they surrendered to him and his teachings, and let them keep their positions and priviledges.

The administrators continued with their every day dealings in trade, education, commerce, etc, not STRICTLY by Koran texts for the Koran was not meant to cover EVERY situation in the course of humanity, but by Koran principles - its ethical and moral guidelines.

Unfortunately, the newly and largely illiterate converted muslims whom only knew tribal chauvinism took time to fully comprehend his teachings and its new concepts - centuries of time. Thus the prophet's final message to all muslims - that one day, a future educated generation will understand his divine teachings from Allah. Today, that generation had arrived - the arab spring, with still much work to be done and the past mistakes/misdeeds undone.

Islam is a religion of peace, and it is only through peace that progress and evolution can happen. That was what the prophet had work so hard for decades, taming the barbaric arabs whom followed tribal chauvinism, of its brutal traditions and regressive pace of society, eradicating it so that arabs can evolve into the future.

What the Taliban had done is only to regress Islam back to barbaric tribal chauvism, and the most blasphemous of all - is to GO AGAINST the teachings of the Divine Messenger prophet Muhammad, and worst still - they committed atrocities MISUSING THE NAME OF ALLAH!!!

High time the Ummah and every true muslim to declare jihad upon the taliban, any muslim cleric and any radical militant who DARES commit such blasphemous blatant acts.

reply to post by SeekerofTruth101

I don't know how to thank you enough for your comments.

What the Taliban had done is only to regress Islam back to barbaric tribal chauvism, and the most blasphemous of all - is to GO AGAINST the teachings of the Divine Messenger prophet Muhammad, and worst still - they committed atrocities MISUSING THE NAME OF ALLAH!!!

High time the Ummah and every true muslim to declare jihad upon the taliban, any muslim cleric and any radical militant who DARES commit such blasphemous blatant acts.

That action would wipe away almost every objection the West might have to Islam and it's followers. I imagine the union of Islam, Christianity, and other religions in stopping the violence of blasphemous, violent, haters.

I join in your hopes.

reply to post by justwokeup

I'm not sure I subscribe to your 'Keep fighting on in Afghanistan while hoping for a Pakistan/India war' strategy for the region.

That is 100% dishonest, and you know it.

Where have I stated, anywhere, 'Keep fighting on in Afghanistan?"
Where have I said Obama's "strategy" is the same as mine?

Pathetic.

jw

reply to post by jdub297


I'm not trolling you, even if it seems that way.

I am attempting to find out what your alternative to negotiation is when the political realities in the region mean the Taliban cannot be 'defeated' conventionally.

Thats what i'm trying to get at. Your first response accused me of ignorance and your post above talked about getting india to 'take back' Pakistan using EMP weapons against their nuclear weapons. Neither of which is a realistic possibility.

I dont particularly like the idea of negotiating with them either, as they are an abhorrent bunch. However, I'm not seeing a better option given the mess we've gotten ourselves into.

reply to post by SeekerofTruth101

What the Taliban had done is only to regress Islam back to barbaric tribal chauvism, and the most blasphemous of all - is to GO AGAINST the teachings of the Divine Messenger prophet Muhammad, and worst still - they committed atrocities MISUSING THE NAME OF ALLAH!!!

Unfortunately, millions of "devout" Muslims disagree with your interpretation.
How do you "regress" from a dogma that has been in place for 2,500 years?
When did "barbaric chauvinism" ever leave the region; and, more importantly, who brought it back?

When the Taliban and others CITE the prophet's own words as "proof" of their righteousness, who in the West, or anywhere else, is to tell them they are wrong?
Who in the West, or anywhere else has the right to interpret the Q'uran for any of the tribes of the faithful?
Most importantly, if sincerely done in the names of the prophet and Allah, how are ANY deaths to be considred "atrocities?"

High time the Ummah and every true muslim to declare jihad upon the taliban, any muslim cleric and any radical militant who DARES commit such blasphemous blatant acts.

Why is it "high time," now, according to you? Hasn't the silence of the Ummah over the past 50 years spoken volumes?
Other than yourself, no "true muslim" has lifted so much as a finger to criticize, much less counter, the "blasphemous jihad;" or haven't you noticed?

What you've attempted to do is to ascribe political motivation to those things that do not keep with your perceptions, without anything else in support. Isn't there another, more obvious alternative? Isn't that alternative a deep and "uncorrupted" faith and adherence to centuries-old teachings and traditions?

Attempts to "whitewash," or judge according to Western standards, conduct that has been accepted, honored and passed-down for centuries is blatantly biased and misbegotten.

None of the Taliban's beliefs or practices are the products of contemporary social syatems; they are a way of life and the path to salvation.

reply to post by jdub297


At least they don't accept it instead of us who accept democracy but then let people run it with social manipulation via media. were no better off but were controlled in a way that lets us think we are.

reply to post by justwokeup

I am attempting to find out what your alternative to negotiation is when the political realities in the region mean the Taliban cannot be 'defeated' conventionally.

Thats what i'm trying to get at. Your first response accused me of ignorance and your post above talked about getting india to 'take back' Pakistan using EMP weapons against their nuclear weapons. Neither of which is a realistic possibility.

I dont particularly like the idea of negotiating with them either, as they are an abhorrent bunch. However, I'm not seeing a better option given the mess we've gotten ourselves into.

Funny thing; you see this in terms of "political realities" while others here see this as entirely a matter of(misguided) religious zeal.

That aside, who ever said that our goal was to "defeat" the Taliban?
I understood our goal to have been to drive them out of the region and find bin Laden.
The military people I've spoken with about this, suggest that the best solution is to step aside, and let the tribes "work this out (wink, wink) between themselves. All we have to do is maintain vigilance from the periphery, so that their efforts do not spill-over beyond the Afghan-Pakistan borders.

jw

reply to post by jdub297


Now that we get right down to it I don't see our positions are as far apart as it seemed.

The western purpose was to root out the Al Qaeda element responsible for 9/11. Thats been done, at least in Afghanistan. The Taliban themselves aren't really a threat to the west so we don't have to eliminate them. Only contain them.

The other factions are not strong enough to eliminate them so they will have to be accommodated to some degree. This is what will happen when we leave so it makes some sense to plan for it. I think thats whats going on now.

Originally posted by justwokeup
reply to post by jdub297

 

Now that we get right down to it I don't see our positions are as far apart as it seemed.

The western purpose was to root out the Al Qaeda element responsible for 9/11. Thats been done, at least in Afghanistan. The Taliban themselves aren't really a threat to the west so we don't have to eliminate them. Only contain them.

The other factions are not strong enough to eliminate them so they will have to be accommodated to some degree. This is what will happen when we leave so it makes some sense to plan for it. I think thats whats going on now.

So, why "negotiate" with these murderers ovre what will not involve us after we leave?
Why give them any semblance of legitimacy?

Do you bargain with the mugger, even if he agrees to let you leave alive after you give up your car and wallet?
kw

Originally posted by jdub297

Unfortunately, millions of "devout" Muslims disagree with your interpretation.
1.How do you "regress" from a dogma that has been in place for 2,500 years?
2.When did "barbaric chauvinism" ever leave the region; and, more importantly, who brought it back?
3.When the Taliban and others CITE the prophet's own words as "proof" of their righteousness, who in the West, or anywhere else, is to tell them they are wrong?
4.Who in the West, or anywhere else has the right to interpret the Q'uran for any of the tribes of the faithful?
5.Most importantly, if sincerely done in the names of the prophet and Allah, how are ANY deaths to be considred "atrocities?"
6.Why is it "high time," now, according to you? Hasn't the silence of the Ummah over the past 50 years spoken volumes?
7. Other than yourself, no "true muslim" has lifted so much as a finger to criticize, much less counter, the "blasphemous jihad;" or haven't you noticed?
8.What you've attempted to do is to ascribe political motivation to those things that do not keep with your perceptions, without anything else in support.
9.Isn't there another, more obvious alternative? Isn't that alternative a deep and "uncorrupted" faith and adherence to centuries-old teachings and traditions?

Attempts to "whitewash," or judge according to Western standards, conduct that has been accepted, honored and passed-down for centuries is blatantly biased and misbegotten.

None of the Taliban's beliefs or practices are the products of contemporary social syatems; they are a way of life and the path to salvation.

edit on 12-5-2013 by jdub297 because: (no reason given)

You asked many questions, and only proves how little knowledge you comprehended from the sacred Koran. You cannot just read or recite, but COMPREHEND what prophet Muhammad had attempted to teach. By your questions, it is obvious that you understood nothing. Have you been living in the desert for too long, and out of touch with the progress and evolution of Islam amongst TRUE muslims after deep soul searching for a decade?

Rather than to spend the necessary effective time of years to re-educate you to Islam which a reply post cannot justify to your confusion and lack, which I hope you will seek counsel at your local Mosque, hopefully an enlightened one and not one that is stuffed by a village idiot posing as Iman, I will just address your core concern in your post.


Barbarism too was once a way of lilfe for the arabs, before merciful and compassionate Allah sent Prophet Muhammad to teach and lead the arabs out of the morass of brutality and tribal chauvinism. There is no need to whitewash anything, because these are facts of history no true muslim will deny.

While times change, situations change and perceptions change, the sacred Koran was NEVER meant to change. The situations written down was of situations that dealt with an older age and are contextual. However, it is the ESSENCE, the PRINCIPLES - its moral and ethical guidelines that was not meant to change, but to guide arabs progressing and evolving through changes, from barbarism to conversion into Islam, to evolution to the stars.

For example:- The Prophet was once a trader of goods in the arab caravan routes of Arabia. He would have eaten tomatoes, for it is much part of an arab's diet. No where in the Koran does it say not to eat tomatoes, and yet, the Muslim Brotherhood declared that muslims cannot eat tomatoes, because cutting it cross section reveals the shape of a christian cross, and would derogate muslims as a sin to Allah.

You see the stupidity of those who claimed to be protectors of Islam? Mis-interpretations abound, made worse when the Koran's teachings are taken out of context, and only lead to confusion and destruction of the Koran if more of such stupid interpretations came from those who only read, but do not COMPREHEND prophet Muhammad's teachings.

What the barbaric Taleban had done is to repudiate prophet Muhammad's teachings, revert back to tribal chauvinism, and is only the path to hell. This has nothing to do with politics, but faith itself. As for politics, the Taleban practically determines it themselves by slaughtering innocent men, women, children and opposition figures who opposed their satanic ways.

Originally posted by Tuttle
reply to post by jdub297

 

You even read what I said man?
THREAD TITLE

Taliban: "Don’t accept the system of infidels called Democracy."

WHAT I SAID

Seems to me like they are pretty smart not wanting anything to do with our "democracy", I would not wish western style "democracy" on anyone.

YOUR RESPONSE

Since when is Pakistan governance "western style democracy?" Or Afghan?

What???
Never said that it was, what in the hell are you talking about? How is your response in any way connected to what I said?, what are you talking about????

edit on 10-5-2013 by Tuttle because: (no reason given)

OK. Let's take your reply on its own terms:

I would not wish western style "democracy" on anyone.

Despite my requests, you've offered nothing that shows Pakistan, Afghanistan or the Taliban endorse a "western style 'democracy.'

Your defensiveness betrays the lack of substance in your protests.

reply to post by SeekerofTruth101

Rather than to spend the necessary effective time of years to re-educate you to Islam which a reply post cannot justify to your confusion and lack, which I hope you will seek counsel at your local Mosque, hopefully an enlightened one and not one that is stuffed by a village idiot posing as Iman, I will just address your core concern in your post.

Wow! Iman is appearing at a local mosque? When? Can I bring a camera?

How are you to decide which mosque and which Imam are to be foolowed or denigrated?
The problem here is that wide-open interpretation invites radicalism.
You cannot seriously contend that those who've murdered in the name of Allah or Mohammed have not done so with a beleief in the righteousness of their actions.

jw

Originally posted by jdub297
Wow! Iman is appearing at a local mosque? When? Can I bring a camera?

How are you to decide which mosque and which Imam are to be foolowed or denigrated?
The problem here is that wide-open interpretation invites radicalism.
You cannot seriously contend that those who've murdered in the name of Allah or Mohammed have not done so with a beleief in the righteousness of their actions.

jw

You asked one question, and attempted to rhetorically answer it on your own.

I shall answer your question directly, unlike others whom will either deflect or derail questions.

There are NO clergy heirachies in Islam, as prophet Muhammad had taught Islam is a personal relationship between Allah and the submission of each man to His moral and ethical guidelines which no other mortal can come in between.

The Imams are only teachers, to reach out and teach the newly converted arabs from barbarism to Islam. After that, that relationship is personal, based upon one's comprehension of the teachings.

However, no man is to ACT ALONE, or blasphemously call himself a messenger, or claimed divine dreams, for the prophet had already warned that he was the last divine teacher in Islam. The prophet taught about 'Ummah' - community of muslims, for his message is for the muslims to act as a community, and not as single individuals acting on their own accord, agendas or presumptions.

And within a community, it is the muslims whom choose (elect) their leaders to discuss, debate and define moral and ethical guidelines within the Koran and then grapple with the evolving new generations into an evolving world, to progress and evolve further, as is the way it should be, for Islam did not teach tyranny or dictatorship of one man's rule.

Thus, in reply to your question on how one decides on which imam or mosque to follow - the answer already long lays with the prophet's teachings - the community - to discuss, debate and define.

One human is prone to error, for we are all flawed mortals, as my spelling has shown and ridiculed by you, as well as spelling mistakes you made in your own post.

Therefore, we need to freely discuss, debate with others over one's perceptions or interpretations and then find the best path to move forward within the community, without losing our moral directions while sharing our world with others in peace, just as prophet Muhammad had led his followers to live in peace and evolution with others after Mecca was won during his lifetime.

As to what happened next after he passed on, it was just that his passing may had been untimely, as his followers were not ready for nor comprehended in full the advanced civilisational teachings, which led to this 1200 years+ strife between shias and sunnis. And thus his prophetic final message that a future generation will comprehend his teachings. That generation is now.

Those whom had committed atrocities against Allah and His children, had done so because they failed to engage and work within the community of muslims, but only allowed themselves to be misled by others, and took decisions on their own that were not reflective of the whole, and will be condemned by both Allah and muslims.

reply to post by SeekerofTruth101

Regardless of what the Imams or mullahs admit (or deny), their singulat aims are expressed through the militant networks that goolow their lead.

Taliban militants launched a large-scale attack involving the United Nations in the center of the Afghan capital Kabul on Friday, sparking a five-hour battle with security forces.
...
An Afghan police officer was killed and 10 other people were wounded during the attack, which began at 4 p.m. (1130 GMT) with a suicide car bomb outside a compound used by the International Organisation for Migration (IOM), Afghan police said.
...
The attack came eight days after six American soldiers and civilians and nine Afghans were killed in a suicide car bombing in Kabul.

The Taliban, fighting to expel Western forces and establish Islamist rule in Afghanistan, claimed responsibility for Friday's attack, saying a "rest house" used by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) had been attacked.
...
Such attacks reinforce concern about how the 352,000 members of the Afghan security forces will cope with the insurgency after most foreign NATO-led combat troops leave by the end of next year.
...
A Taliban spokesman, Zabihullah Mujahid, speaking to Reuters by telephone, said Friday's attack had targeted a compound used by the CIA.

Taliban attack international compound in Afghan capital

It only takes a single Imam or "spokesman" to inflame the jihadis who do their biiding or fulfill their wishes.
Quoting Mohammed doesn't really help much when the bombs go off and the bullets and grenades are flying at innocents.

And Obama wants to negotiate with these bastards.

jw

Originally posted by SeekerofTruth101

There are NO clergy heirachies in Islam, as prophet Muhammad had taught Islam is a personal relationship between Allah and the submission of each man to His moral and ethical guidelines which no other mortal can come in between.

The Imams are only teachers, to reach out and teach the newly converted arabs from barbarism to Islam. After that, that relationship is personal, based upon one's comprehension of the teachings.

It's all in the ears of the beholder of the teachings?

Cleric Omar Bakri Mohammed believes the attempt to behead a British soldier in London can be justified "under certain interpretations of Islam." Bakri Mohammed, who was banned from Britain for "extremist activities," is believed to have influenced London attacker Michael Adebolajo through his sermons.

The cleric said when he saw the video of Adebolajo holding a knife and a cleaver in his blood-soaked hands after the attack, he thought Adebolajo to be "very courageous." Bakri Mohammed added: "Under Islam this can be justified, he was not targeting civilians, he was taking on a military man in an operation."

"To people around here [in the Middle East] he is a hero for what he has done."

A ... 2007 recording of Bakri Mohammed revealed him saying, "When you meet [Westerners], slice their own necks," and "make the blood spill all over." He implied that doing so would tire out the Western enemies and force them into ending the wars.

Added Bakri Mohammed: "Use the sword and remove the head of the enemy."

Cleric: Beheading British Soldier Could Be Justified Under Islam

'Nuff said?

If not for the "clerics" and Imams, who will the jihadists look to for "inspiration?"

jw

reply to post by SeekerofTruth101

... we need to freely discuss, debate with others over one's perceptions or interpretations and then find the best path to move forward within the community, without losing our moral directions while sharing our world with others in peace, just as prophet Muhammad had led his followers to live in peace and evolution with others after Mecca was won during his lifetime.
...
Those whom had committed atrocities against Allah and His children, had done so because they failed to engage and work within the community of muslims, but only allowed themselves to be misled by others, and took decisions on their own that were not reflective of the whole, and will be condemned by both Allah and muslims.

While I am sure that your beliefs and interpretations are sincere and well-founded, they do not coincide with those of a vast number of Muslim jihadists.

I acknowledge the "holy scriptures" are "contextual" and subject to interpretation, am aware of none that are so commonly used to justify atrocity as the Quran.

Many on the liberal/progressive side of American political debate contend that "America is not at war with Islam." Given the Obama administration's obvious reluctance to engage in any challenge to organized radicalized Muslims, that is often cited as "proof" of the "other side's" peaceful intentions.
But, that overlooks the other side of the equation: the organized, radicalized Muslim jihadis ARE at war with the US and Western ideals.

“Most…of the terrorism we face,” [Obama] said, ”is fueled by a common ideology…that Islam is in conflict with the United States and the West.” Without taking a deep breath, he hastily added that the “common ideology” was “based on a lie.” Why? Because “the United States is not at war with Islam…”

It’s typical of the president’s world-view that he would assume any such war to be instigated by us, but in this case the jihadis have it right, and he’s got it backwards. There is indeed a war, it is theirs, the jihadis’ war, and they are waging it because they firmly believe they are commanded to do so by the Almighty. They aim to destroy or dominate Western infidels and apostates. Those commands are in the Koran, and are repeated by a great mass of imams, ayatollahs and mullahs. Those thousands of Iranians or Hezbollahis who chant “death to America” mean just that. It’s the reason for their jihad against us.

But President Obama could not bring himself to mention that.

pjmedia.com...

While you speak in platitudes and of lofty ambitions of the faithful, there is a hard, brutal reality that this administration refuses to face or confront. Every day, around the world, there are murders and kidnappings and terror visited on those who have no animosity to Islam or Muslims, merely because of where they are or where they were born. This is all done is (misguided?) reliance upon their faith, their mullahs, their Imams and their scripture.

We have no business "negotiating" with those who have sworn blood-oaths against us and our ways of life(secular or in faith), even if the bases of their motivation are "religious" (or sacrilegious).

jw

reply to post by jdub297


Well, take a look at democracy. Or what passes for it. Then ask yourself, why in god's name would they want it? Considering the utter joke that it is, the real question is why would they negotiate with us? All the politicians lie, and most of them are in the back pockets of one large corporation or another. Everyone knows it, including the Taliban. It's a freak show, and a comedic one at that. Offering anyone democracy, you may as well be offering them a car full of clowns.

Originally posted by jdub297

Originally posted by justwokeup
reply to post by jdub297

 

Now that we get right down to it I don't see our positions are as far apart as it seemed.

The western purpose was to root out the Al Qaeda element responsible for 9/11. Thats been done, at least in Afghanistan. The Taliban themselves aren't really a threat to the west so we don't have to eliminate them. Only contain them.

The other factions are not strong enough to eliminate them so they will have to be accommodated to some degree. This is what will happen when we leave so it makes some sense to plan for it. I think thats whats going on now.

So, why "negotiate" with these murderers ovre what will not involve us after we leave?
Why give them any semblance of legitimacy?

Do you bargain with the mugger, even if he agrees to let you leave alive after you give up your car and wallet?
kw

How can you try and compair and extremely complex political situation to a mugging? The fact of the matter you negotiate with the enemy in every war. They are still their when its over unless you exerminate evey last one of them. Of course you hope to have the Taliban lay down its arms take a political settlement. That will not happen until you talk with them. This what happens during conflcts or they would never ever ever end. We would still be fighting the revolution.