Afghan Taliban chief seeks 'good relations' with US

[FOOLS_NIGHTMARE]

The supreme leader of the Afghan Taliban, Sheikh Hibatullah Akhundzada, on Wednesday said that his government desires to have "good relations" with the United States, and reiterated that Afghanistan will not allow anyone to "use its territory against its neighbours".

The Taliban chief's latest statement is thought to be softer than his remarks at last week’s address to a scholars’ conference wherein he stated that the world should not interfere in Afghanistan's affairs as the country under the Taliban does not accept anyone's orders.

“You (the Americans) have dropped the mother of all bombs (in Afghanistan) and [even] if you use the atomic bomb against us we will not deviate from Islam or Sharia,” Akhundzada had said at the ulema moot.

Today, the Taliban supreme commander publicly mentioned the United States for the first time, expressing the intention of the Islamic emirate to have good relations with Washington.

“Within the framework of mutual interaction and commitment, we want good diplomatic, economic and political relations with the world, including the United States, and we consider this in the interest of all sides,” Akhundzada said in his Eidul Azha message.

Afghan Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid issued the message in several languages, including Urdu.

The Taliban leader allayed concerns of neighbours about the use of Afghan soil against them.

“We assure our neighbours, the region and the world that we will not allow anyone to use our territory to threaten the security of other countries. We also want other countries not to interfere in our internal affairs,” Akhundzada said.

Pakistan has long been saying that its armed opponents are using Afghan soil to launch attacks on border posts.

The Taliban government has been playing the role of a mediator in peace talks between Pakistani security officials and the proscribed Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP).

Several rounds of talks have been held with little progress. However, both sides are holding an indefinite ceasefire.

In his message, the Taliban chief mainly focused on Afghanistan’s internal affairs but did not mention the opening of girls’ educational institutions above sixth grade. The global community has been urging the Taliban to reopen the schools as they had initially promised to allow girls to attend high schools before withdrawing the decision in March this year.

Akhundzada said the Taliban government “pays attention to education, with special emphasis on religious as well as modern studies for children", adding that "the Islamic emirate understands its importance and will work hard for its further enhancement."

The Taliban leader also addressed the growing concerns in and outside of Afghanistan about curbs on freedom of expression in the country.

“The Islamic emirate is committed to freedom of expression in the light of Islamic principles and Sharia as well as the country's national interests. Journalists [mindful of] the above and the principles of journalism can continue their work,” he said.

He urged Taliban officials to honour commitments with Afghan leaders and those who worked with the previous government.

“As Afghans return from abroad to their homeland, I instruct the liaison commission to fulfil all the promises made to them and ensure their safety and security,” Akhundzada said.

He insisted that Afghanistan "is the common home of all Afghans, [and] we must all take part in the reconstruction of the country. We must consider this as our national duty."

He underlined that Afghanistan did not want enmity with anyone, saying "our arms are open to our countrymen and our friendship and enmity are based on the principles of Islam,” the Taliban leader added.

Afghan Taliban chief seeks 'good relations' with US

Says his govt remains committed to not let the Afghan soil be used against any country.

www.dawn.com

 

[KendoKhan]

Ha

 

[jamahir]

The Taliban chief's latest statement is thought to be softer than his remarks at last week’s address to a scholars’ conference wherein he stated that the world should not interfere in Afghanistan's affairs as the country under the Taliban does not accept anyone's orders.

Mr. Taliban Chief, the females of Afghanistan reject your burqa imposition ( some of them kick it and burn it in public demonstrations ) and their brave male co-workers display solidarity with them. Afghanistan is beset with homelessness and hunger. Many Afghans have fled the country or tried to or try to. All of this while you regularly showcase your fake piousness. And it is automatic that you want to work with the American government because after all it is the American government which brought you Talibs into power last year.

The Taliban government has been playing the role of a mediator in peace talks between Pakistani security officials and the proscribed Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP).

Peace talks with TTP ? The TTP wants the same in Pakistan what the Afghan Taliban has imposed on Afghanistan. How can any rational person seek peace talks with TTP unless the TTP forgoes its ideology ?

Akhundzada said the Taliban government “pays attention to education, with special emphasis on religious as well as modern studies for children", adding that "the Islamic emirate understands its importance and will work hard for its further enhancement."

Sure, we will soon see the second Islamic Golden Age coming out from the Taliban's "Islamic" Emirate of Afghanistan and there will be a Talib Elon Musk whose Mars-hosted website's "Mission and Vision" will declare "Kabhi aao na New Kabul khushbu laga ke" :

 

[-=virus=-]

Afghanistan is beset with homelessness and hunger.

Hungry to tu bhi rehta hai.

Many Afghans have fled the country or tried to or try to.

you've also tried to flee but max you ever made it was a couple 100 KM from your communist slum.

All of this while you regularly showcase your fake piousness.

How is that any different from your always-on display of sanctimony and self righteousness ?

Talk about hypocrisy..

 

[Goritoes]

If America once again call a delegation of Taliban into the white house...

 

[Skull and Bones]

So the masterstroke by Pakistan is nothing but hot air?

 

[jamahir]

Hungry to tu bhi rehta hai.

Kaisan ba, Sharma ji ?

you've also tried to flee but max you ever made it was a couple 100 KM from your communist slum.

100 kms ? Write this in stone, by the mid-2030s I will be 188.46 million kms away on Mars and you will be right here on Earth.

How is that any different from your always-on display of sanctimony and self righteousness ?

Talk about hypocrisy..

I only write simple words which should be acceptable now or later to any rational person.

 

[KendoKhan]

Afghanistan is FUBAR!

 

[gambit]

“You (the Americans) have dropped the mother of all bombs (in Afghanistan) and [even] if you use the atomic bomb against us we will not deviate from Islam or Sharia,” Akhundzada had said at the ulema moot.

Fine. You can keep your primitive ways.

“We assure our neighbours, the region and the world that we will not allow anyone to use our territory to threaten the security of other countries. We also want other countries not to interfere in our internal affairs,” Akhundzada said.

So you admit the previous administration in Afghanistan was stupid to allow Al Qaeda to use Afghanistan as a base to attack US. We will see how long you can keep that promise. Stay in the 7th century and we will get along.

 

[_NOBODY_]

Fine. You can keep your primitive ways.


So you admit the previous administration in Afghanistan was stupid to allow Al Qaeda to use Afghanistan as a base to attack US. We will see how long you can keep that promise. Stay in the 7th century and we will get along.

Don't insult the people of the 7th century like that. People like the Taliban who are enemies of humanity would have been executed during the Rasidun Caliphate.

 

[jamahir]

Fine. You can keep your primitive ways.


So you admit the previous administration in Afghanistan was stupid to allow Al Qaeda to use Afghanistan as a base to attack US. We will see how long you can keep that promise. Stay in the 7th century and we will get along.

1. You didn't read my post# 3. The Taliban were brought to power last year by the American government, by NATO. And the Taliban's rule between 1996 and 2001 was happily in bed with NATO. After all the Taliban had executed the formerly Communist president Dr. Najibullah and the Taliban's types, the so-called Afghan Mujahideen, a set of international psychos, criminals and regressives had been created, armed, funded and supported politically and logistically by NATO.

2. To add to @_NOBODY_'s words, 7th century Islam was a political, social, socio-economic and theological revolution that brought progressiveness, rationality and harmony and emancipation especially for the females. Opposite to the Taliban, the Tableeghi Jamaat etc. Below is from a thread of mine from 2015 whose OP is an article written by an Indian Christian lady who married an Indian Muslim and she opted to marry under Islamic marriage law because that better secured her socio-economic rights in case of divorce ( divorce was first codified in Islam ). Read how Europe derived inspiration from Islamic marriage law :

Maneka Gandhi, minister of women and child development, recently gave a call for prenuptial agreements to be recognised in India. According to her, if the terms for division of property, guardianship of children and spousal support are settled prior to marriage, divorces will be less acrimonious and disputes could be resolved expeditiously.

In the discussions that followed, as to whether such a step will, in fact, safeguard the rights of women, there was no mention that this concept is already rooted in Islamic law of marriage since the 7th century. The nikahnama, an Islamic marriage contract is, in fact, a prenuptial agreement that outlines the rights and responsibilities of the parties and provides for conditions to be included for safeguarding a woman’s rights upon marriage.

One wonders why a reference to the Islamic law was not made either by the minister or other experts. Married Muslim women, we find, are often on a higher and more secure footing than their counterparts from other religions. In fact, as a Christian marrying a Muslim, I chose to marry under the Muslim personal law, even over the seemingly modern Special Marriage Act, 1954, to better secure my economic rights. My mehr was a house in my name and my nikahnama includes necessary clauses to safeguard my and my children’s rights. My husband’s family members were witness to this document, which is registered and enforceable by law.

When we examine marriage laws in their historic context, it is interesting to note that the universally accepted notion that marriages are contractual rather than sacramental originates in Muslim law, which was accepted by the French law only in the 1800s and incorporated into the English law in the 1850s and became part of codified Hindu law as late as 1955. Today it appears to be the most practical way of dealing with the institution of marriage. Treating marriage as a sacrament which binds the parties for life has resulted in some of the most discriminatory practices against women such as sati and denial of right to divorce and remarriage, even in the most adverse conditions.

The cornerstone of a Muslim marriage is consent, ejab-o-qubul (proposal and acceptance) and requires the bride to accept the marriage proposal on her own free will. This freedom to consent (or refuse), which was given to Muslim women 1,400 years ago, is still not available under Hindu law since sacramental rituals such as saptapadi and kanya dan (seven steps round the nuptial fire and gifting of the bride to the groom) still form essential ceremonies of a Hindu marriage. Even after the codification of Hindu law, the notion of consent is not built into the marriage ceremonies.

The contract of marriage (nikahnama) allows for negotiated terms and conditions, it can also include the right to a delegated divorce (talaq-e-tafweez) where the woman is delegated the right to divorce her husband if any of the negotiated terms and conditions are violated.

Mehr is another unique concept of Muslim law meant to safeguard the financial future of the wife. It is an obligation, not a choice, and can be in the form of cash, valuables or securities. While there is no ceiling, a minimum amount to provide her security after marriage must be stipulated. This is a more beneficial concept than streedhan which is given by choice and usually by the natal family. In addition to Mehr, at the time of divorce, a Muslim woman has the right to fair and reasonable settlement, and this is statutorily recognised under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 as per the 2001 ruling of the Supreme Court in the Daniel Latifi case.

It is also important to address polygamy and triple talaq, two aspects of Muslim law which are generally used to discredit the community and argue in favour of a uniform civil code. While sharia law permits a man to have four wives (before 1956 Hindu law permitted unrestrained polygamy), it mandates equal treatment of all wives. If a man is not able to meet these conditions, he is not permitted to marry more than one woman. (Quran 4:3; Yusuf Ali’s translation)

On the other hand, though codification introduced monogamy for Hindus, the ground reality has not changed and Hindu men continue to be bigamous or polygamous. The most disturbing aspect is that while men in bigamous/adulterous relationships are allowed to go scot-free, it is the women who are made to pay the price. Women in invalid relationships with Hindu men are denied maintenance and protection and are referred to as “mistresses” and “concubines”, concepts specific to the uncodified Hindu law. Any attempt to codify Muslim law to bring in legal monogamy should not end up subjecting Muslim women to a plight similar to that of a Hindu second wife. This is an important concern which needs to be taken into account while reforming the Muslim law.

And lastly, the much maligned triple talaq or talaq-ul-biddat, which the Prophet himself considered as the most inappropriate form of divorce. Fortunately, in 2002, in Shamim Ara vs State of Uttar Pradesh & others, the Supreme Court laid down strict Quranic injunctions which must be followed at the time of pronouncing talaq, hence now fraudulent practices adopted by errant husbands (including email and SMS talaq) can no longer constitute valid talaq. Yet, after a decade and a half, very few know challenge the validity of such divorces in court as they are unaware about this ruling.

Though Muslim law stipulates many different ways to end a marriage, including a woman’s right to dissolve her marriage (khula), divorce by mutual consent (mubarra), delegated divorce (talaq-e-tafweez), judicial divorce (fasq) and dissolution under Muslim Marriage Act