The martyrs of the Tirah Valley

[TalibanSwatter]

The element of Khawarij is unforgettable in the history of terrorism. The question arises: who were Khawarij? What does the Islamic law ordain about them? Are the present day terrorists a continuation of Khawarij?

• The Khawarij were the rebels and apostates of Islam. Their advent took place during the period of the Prophethood (blessings and peace be upon him). Their intellectual growth and organized emergence took place in the Osmani and Alvi periods respectively. These Khawarij were so punctual and regular in performance of religious rituals and acts of worship that they would appear more pious than the holy Companions would at times. However, in keeping with the manifest command of the Holy Prophet (blessings and peace be upon him), they were absolutely out of the fold of Islam. The Khawarij would not only regard the killing of Muslims as lawful, reject the Companions for their disagreement with them, raise the slogan 'there is no Command but Allah's', consider the launch of armed struggle and killing against Hazrat Ali (ra) as lawful, but would also keep on perpetrating these heinous actions. These Khawarij were in fact the first terrorist and rebellious group that challenged the writ of state and raised the banner of armed struggle against a Muslim state. The texts of Hadith clearly establish that such elements would continue to be born in every age. By Khawarij is not meant merely a group which took up arms against the rightly guided Caliphs, but it encompasses all those groups and individuals bearing such attributes, ideologies and terrorist way of action who would continue to rear their head and perpetrate terrorism in the name of Jihad till the Day of Judgment. Despite being almost perfectionist in the performance of manifest religious rituals, they would be considered as being out of the fold of Islam for their wrong and misplaced ideology. A Muslim state cannot be allowed to give them any concession in the name of dialogue or stop the military action without their complete elimination in the light of instructions of the Holy Prophet (blessings and peace be upon him). The only exception when they can be spared is that they lay down their arms, repent of their actions and vow to honour the state laws and writ of the Muslim state.

The Khawarij, even today, invoke Islam and raise slogan to establish the Divine Order, but all of their actions and steps constitute a clear violation of Islamic teachings. When their supporters do not have any legal argument to defend the actions of Khawarij, they draw the attention of people to the vices of the ruling elites and oppression of the imperialist forces as a justification for their killing. They feel contented that though the terrorists are doing wrong things, their intention is good beyond any doubt. This is a major intellectual faux pas and people, both educated and uneducated, suffer from this doubt. An evil act remains evil in all its forms and contents.

Good intention can never change a vice into virtue

If some good intention motivates bloodshed and massacre, the question arises whether tyranny and barbarism can be declared lawful on this basis. Some people think that though suicide explosions are atrociously evil, killing of innocent people too is a monstrous crime, spreading mischief and strife in the country is again a heinous act, while destruction of educational, training, industrial, commercial and welfare centers and institutions is still a greater sin, the suicide bombers are doing that with good intention and pious motive. Therefore, they are justified. They are retaliating foreign terrorism against Muslims. They are doing a Jihad. So, they cannot be given any blame.
The Quran says:

“(Say to the people ‘Listen, sincere obedience and worship is only Allāh’s due. And those (disbelievers) who have taken (idols as) helpers other than Allāh (say in false justification of their idol-worship:‘We worship them only that they may bring us near to Allāh.’ Surely, Allāh will judge between them concerning the matter in which they differ. Certainly Allāh does not give him guidance who is a liar, very ungrateful.” (Al-Quran, 39-3)

When the idolaters of Makka were asked the reason of idol-worship, they said the idols would get them into Allah’s proximity. The intention to attain to Allah’s nearness is good, but idol-worship is blasphemy and disbelief. The idolatry, therefore, cannot be justified because of good intention.

Similarly, the terrorists’ claim of reformation too cannot be accepted because, practically, they prove bloodshed and violence instead of some constructive work and reformation.
English Books > Fatwa on Terrorism and Suicide Bombings - Islamic Library

Excellent explanation - the description fits the TTP and other Salafi militant groups quite well. Like the Kharijites, the Salafis also strong believe in the notion of Takfir.

 

[FaujHistorian]

Excellent explanation - the description fits the TTP and other Salafi militant groups quite well. Like the Kharijites, the Salafis also strong believe in the notion of Takfir.

You know when mongol hoards were knocking at the doors of Baghadad,

Many Muslims intellectuals were busy discussing if Quran is Khaliq or Makhlooq

Discussion on Kharaji reminds me of the same type of discussion.

peace

 

[H. Dawary]

If there is one thread that has confused me more than any other as to what is what... It is this thread right here

Ultimately I believe every nation must prevent as much division as possible, as division is a given and makes its existence felt, where as the absence of division is the prevention of it.

The longer a nation remains alive the more it will have to contend with the divisions inherent within it, and those divisions will be a cause for a rift. Every member within a nation must ask themselves on a political level, "will such a move bring us more division or less", if the answer is more division then even if it means war with another nation or its people, it must seek that option as an alternative, otherwise the possible break up of the state is on the line.

Brothers, what do you think of my view... I myself became very confused after going through this thread, and I'd like to hear your views.

@Pan-Islamic-Pakistan @IbnAbdullah @OldenWisdom...قول بزرگ @Falcon29 @saiyan0321

 

[Pan-Islamic-Pakistan]

If there is one thread that has confused me more than any other as to what is what... It is this thread right here

Ultimately I believe every nation must prevent as much division as possible, as division is a given and makes its existence felt, where as the absence of division is the prevention of it.

The longer a nation remains alive the more it will have to contend with the divisions inherent within it, and those divisions will be a cause for a rift. Every member within a nation must ask themselves on a political level, "will such a move bring us more division or less", if the answer is more division then even if it means war with another nation or its people, it must seek that option as an alternative, otherwise the possible break up of the state is on the line.

Brothers, what do you think of my view... I myself became very confused after going through this thread, and I'd like to hear your views.

@Pan-Islamic-Pakistan @IbnAbdullah @OldenWisdom...قول بزرگ @Falcon29 @saiyan0321

TTP was taking US and Indian dollars to attack Pakistan and Afghan Taliban. They are basically anti-state elements. Targetting civilians intentionally was just a tactic to disrupt and weaken Pakistan, ready it for some overt attacks like an Indian invasion or US denuclearization.

Alhamdulilah, both failed.

I have things to discuss with you brother, elsewhere.

 

[IbnAbdullah]

Salaam

If there is one thread that has confused me more than any other as to what is what... It is this thread right here

Ultimately I believe every nation must prevent as much division as possible, as division is a given and makes its existence felt, where as the absence of division is the prevention of it.

The longer a nation remains alive the more it will have to contend with the divisions inherent within it, and those divisions will be a cause for a rift. Every member within a nation must ask themselves on a political level, "will such a move bring us more division or less", if the answer is more division then even if it means war with another nation or its people, it must seek that option as an alternative, otherwise the possible break up of the state is on the line.

Brothers, what do you think of my view... I myself became very confused after going through this thread, and I'd like to hear your views.

@Pan-Islamic-Pakistan @IbnAbdullah @OldenWisdom...قول بزرگ @Falcon29 @saiyan0321

I agree bro. Division is bad but I also think it is ultimately inevitable.

Differences usually start out smaller and by the time they have gotten big enough to be a concern they usually are very much much entrenched. By that point there are people who have associated their interests with one side or the other.

I feel the forming of differences is part of the ultimate social mechanisms that drive a society forward - or maybe is a byproduct of social change which is inevitable. It is part of what ibn khuldun described as the rise and decline of nations and people. It can be held off for a bit but it cannot be stopped.

In this very thread we can see this in play. The people who are personally irreligious want to keep religion out of this fight despite it being a very integral part of most soldiers motivation. Conversely, the religious find their reasons and motivations within religion. Despite both wanting similar outcomes.

I think it is a way to keep the society from becoming stagnant. A crude example would be the Mumluks (I read somewhere) were dismissive of the technological changes coming about on the battlefield and it cost them dearly. Had a group disagreed and overcome the group that was unwilling to adopt newer technologies, they may have survived longer.

So difference of opinion happens and it is part of the process. At what point does it go from good to bad, is something that would be difficult to know. It probably differs on a case to case basis. We may have different opinions of where that line is in most cases. Hence the original point.

 

[saiyan0321]

If there is one thread that has confused me more than any other as to what is what... It is this thread right here

Ultimately I believe every nation must prevent as much division as possible, as division is a given and makes its existence felt, where as the absence of division is the prevention of it.

The longer a nation remains alive the more it will have to contend with the divisions inherent within it, and those divisions will be a cause for a rift. Every member within a nation must ask themselves on a political level, "will such a move bring us more division or less", if the answer is more division then even if it means war with another nation or its people, it must seek that option as an alternative, otherwise the possible break up of the state is on the line.

Brothers, what do you think of my view... I myself became very confused after going through this thread, and I'd like to hear your views.

@Pan-Islamic-Pakistan @IbnAbdullah @OldenWisdom...قول بزرگ @Falcon29 @saiyan0321

Depends on the definition of division. Is the country divided if it has multi party system and people support their own political parties ferociously? Is the division based on economic factors that the gap between the rich and the poor has grown larger than it should be? Is the gap ethnic that there is power consolidation in one ethnicity as comparison to the other? There are many factors when we look at division and you will find that all societies have divisions and differences. The idea is not to remove divisions but to consolidate them through national cohesion. This is why you see support for democracy and dissent that the idea that they have differences or greivances must be addressed through dialogue. This is for the idea of division and they exist however what happens when dialogue fails or divisions cannot be answered. Here we come to the point that there is no zero sum game. There is no right answer. Sometimes states must take decisions where division will come no matter what for the betterment of the state. Most notable examples would the baluchistan sardar and center conflict. If the state caters too much to the whims of the sardar class then they effectively weaken the writ of the state within the province but if they don't then effectively enhance the division. You see in this scenario there is no right solution because the state has to make a choice. Let's throw in another factor. Let's say that now there are three divisions. You have the center, the ruling sardars and the populace. The sardars have greivances with the resource management of the center and wants center to be weak in it's writ. The center feels that it must contain the whims of the sardars lest it becomes too decentralized. The people are ignored by the center and crushed by the sardars. So here what can the state do to answer greivances. If it answers the call of the people then it will enhance the division of the ruling class since they will feel that they are being bypassed and weakened. They react politically and violently so you have a division that has harmed the country. If the state ignored the people and focused on the sardars then it weakens its own writ, since they want decentralization at extreme levels, loses its control on resources and loses the trust of the people who may also react politically by forming pressure groups and activism or violently through militant actions. These are all important to your query because we are looking at sociopolitical nature of the divisions in a state. Not too mention that in this scenario the people remain economically backward.

First we must understand as to what is the primary concern and primary objective of the state.
The primary concern of the state is survival. No state will ever take an action that will threaten it's existence so wilfully unless circumstances demand that it must take this action lest not taking it will lead to an even greater threat to survival. This is the concern. i.e the instinct of survival that we all have. States may make blunders, indeed they do, but none them make them knowingly. This is why we have words like treason for those that do take action that impacts the survivability of the state. This is the primary concern. The primary objective of a state is to provide for it's people. This is the reason for it's existence. It must provide and serve the people and this is where we are left standing. You see there is no right or wrong answer here. It's entirely grey with many colours when we look at statecraft. States take serving the people as taking actions towards the larger interest of the people. States will justify crackdowns on dissent through the excuse of survival. They will justify crackdowns on civil liberties through the excuse of larger welfare of the people. Does that create divisions? Yes. Many but what would inaction bring? This is why we have democracy, we have discourse, we have arguments, we have parliaments. So that divisions that may rise can be addressed. So that those that sir their greivances can be answered. Can be replied. Can be consoled. Divisions will always exist. The medium to hear them and work on their solution must be maintained as well. This is what we mean when say statecraft when the state known when to shake the hand or make it a fist.
In political theories, this is an argument that has spanned generations. You have political thinkers that support the extreme end of state non-involvement and declare that state, as an entity is inherently self-centered, too powerful and necessary to the minimum and people must be empowered to solve their issues themselves and then we have those that advocate extreme steps of state control. You have bad examples and good examples in both of them.


To your last. What political member should see before making a decision? He should see everything for he is elected to see everything and empowered to being about him, men who are masters of seeing various things in society. If he solely looks on divisions, as you said it even to embark on war that would most certainly contravene the primary concern and the primary objective since war is not good for the people. He must look at every factor to make balance the primary objective and secure the primary concern. This is why it is imperative to elect the person that is focused on both rather than on none. Look into several political theories and you may find alot of answers and clear alot of confusion.

And then look at your own state and ask how would you want your political leader to think. Primary concern, primary objective or simply focus on the divisions of the society and then see whether doing of such brings what results.

 

[H. Dawary]

Depends on the definition of division. Is the country divided if it has multi party system and people support their own political parties ferociously? Is the division based on economic factors that the gap between the rich and the poor has grown larger than it should be? Is the gap ethnic that there is power consolidation in one ethnicity as comparison to the other? There are many factors when we look at division and you will find that all societies have divisions and differences. The idea is not to remove divisions but to consolidate them through national cohesion. This is why you see support for democracy and dissent that the idea that they have differences or greivances must be addressed through dialogue. This is for the idea of division and they exist however what happens when dialogue fails or divisions cannot be answered. Here we come to the point that there is no zero sum game. There is no right answer. Sometimes states must take decisions where division will come no matter what for the betterment of the state. Most notable examples would the baluchistan sardar and center conflict. If the state caters too much to the whims of the sardar class then they effectively weaken the writ of the state within the province but if they don't then effectively enhance the division. You see in this scenario there is no right solution because the state has to make a choice. Let's throw in another factor. Let's say that now there are three divisions. You have the center, the ruling sardars and the populace. The sardars have greivances with the resource management of the center and wants center to be weak in it's writ. The center feels that it must contain the whims of the sardars lest it becomes too decentralized. The people are ignored by the center and crushed by the sardars. So here what can the state do to answer greivances. If it answers the call of the people then it will enhance the division of the ruling class since they will feel that they are being bypassed and weakened. They react politically and violently so you have a division that has harmed the country. If the state ignored the people and focused on the sardars then it weakens its own writ, since they want decentralization at extreme levels, loses its control on resources and loses the trust of the people who may also react politically by forming pressure groups and activism or violently through militant actions. These are all important to your query because we are looking at sociopolitical nature of the divisions in a state. Not too mention that in this scenario the people remain economically backward.

First we must understand as to what is the primary concern and primary objective of the state.
The primary concern of the state is survival. No state will ever take an action that will threaten it's existence so wilfully unless circumstances demand that it must take this action lest not taking it will lead to an even greater threat to survival. This is the concern. i.e the instinct of survival that we all have. States may make blunders, indeed they do, but none them make them knowingly. This is why we have words like treason for those that do take action that impacts the survivability of the state. This is the primary concern. The primary objective of a state is to provide for it's people. This is the reason for it's existence. It must provide and serve the people and this is where we are left standing. You see there is no right or wrong answer here. It's entirely grey with many colours when we look at statecraft. States take serving the people as taking actions towards the larger interest of the people. States will justify crackdowns on dissent through the excuse of survival. They will justify crackdowns on civil liberties through the excuse of larger welfare of the people. Does that create divisions? Yes. Many but what would inaction bring? This is why we have democracy, we have discourse, we have arguments, we have parliaments. So that divisions that may rise can be addressed. So that those that sir their greivances can be answered. Can be replied. Can be consoled. Divisions will always exist. The medium to hear them and work on their solution must be maintained as well. This is what we mean when say statecraft when the state known when to shake the hand or make it a fist.
In political theories, this is an argument that has spanned generations. You have political thinkers that support the extreme end of state non-involvement and declare that state, as an entity is inherently self-centered, too powerful and necessary to the minimum and people must be empowered to solve their issues themselves and then we have those that advocate extreme steps of state control. You have bad examples and good examples in both of them.


To your last. What political member should see before making a decision? He should see everything for he is elected to see everything and empowered to being about him, men who are masters of seeing various things in society. If he solely looks on divisions, as you said it even to embark on war that would most certainly contravene the primary concern and the primary objective since war is not good for the people. He must look at every factor to make balance the primary objective and secure the primary concern. This is why it is imperative to elect the person that is focused on both rather than on none. Look into several political theories and you may find alot of answers and clear alot of confusion.

And then look at your own state and ask how would you want your political leader to think. Primary concern, primary objective or simply focus on the divisions of the society and then see whether doing of such brings what results.

Good post.

Can you please further answer this question... What is the purpose of a state? If there arise too many divisions (e.g. Yugoslavia) and the state then becomes more oppressive then at what point does it no longer serve the interests of each peoples? To what extent should states go towards preserving itself and at what point should it call it quits?

 

[saiyan0321]

Good post.

Can you please further answer this question... What is the purpose of a state? If there arise too many divisions (e.g. Yugoslavia) and the state then becomes more oppressive then at what point does it no longer serve the interests of each peoples? To what extent should states go towards preserving itself and at what point should it call it quits?

The primary objective is the purpose of a state. It's always the welfare of the people and I understand your concern that where does the state understand what is the limit and where to stop. You gave the example of yugoslavia. Do you feel that the yugoslavian state was working towards the primary objective and the primary concern. As I said it may have said that by cracking down on dissent and various ethnic minorities and curtailing freedoms, it acted for self-preservation of the state but we can all see that that it didn't self-preserve at all. I am sure that they all thought that by taking such actions they are giving homage to the primary concern but in reality their actions were in contradiction to the primary concern....

This is why, as I said, it is imperative to have discourse, not crackdown on dissent, listen to greivances and create a democratic atmosphere. All these things act as a platform where a the people can communicate with the state. I am not saying this is the solution. There are many flaws here but it is the best solution that somewhere greivances could be answered. Let me give you an example. Since 1947 pakistan has focused entirely on centralization and that created great greivances amongst the populace especially amongst the smaller provinces. When MUSHARRAF fell the political parties signed the charter of democracy which included that this greivances must be addressed and it was addressed in the 18th amendment which gave provinces vast powers. It has actually helped stabilize alot of concerns by the provinces and such was the demand that pakistan was forced to pass a similar legislation for Azad kashmir in the form of the 13th amendment which gave them vast autonomy and addressed some of their greivances. Most notable were energy production and resource.

So what I am saying is that democracy, parliament, discourse all of these things help answer greivances and create a national cohesion even in the presence of divisions.

You see coming back to self-preservation the state must understand what it means to self-preserve. You have failed in self-preservation if you have alienated your population. This is why there must be support for critical thinking. Critical thinking from jurists, from sociologists, from political scientists. They all act as a bridge and as a guide for the state to understand where it is going wrong.
Oppression begins when the state fails to understand or is simply not interested in understanding greivances and to what extent. The state must listen to the populace and to those mentioned to understand where they are going wrong or are going too far away. Oppression will never be the guide. It will only make things worse since oppression acts as a blanket to all the criticism, to all the discourse, the very foundations of a democratic state thus if state feels that it must take action then it must keep the avenues, that are central to the democratic structure, open so that it can be stopped when it enters the realm of oppression.

 

[عقاب]

TTP aren't Kafir because they still believe in the One God & His Prophet (PBUH) even if they've torn to shreds the very message of Islam !

There is a better word for them - Kharjites !

Musharaff was the first khariji in this region who gave safe passage to the enemy of Allah

 

[OldenWisdom...قول بزرگ]

If there is one thread that has confused me more than any other as to what is what... It is this thread right here

Ultimately I believe every nation must prevent as much division as possible, as division is a given and makes its existence felt, where as the absence of division is the prevention of it.

The longer a nation remains alive the more it will have to contend with the divisions inherent within it, and those divisions will be a cause for a rift. Every member within a nation must ask themselves on a political level, "will such a move bring us more division or less", if the answer is more division then even if it means war with another nation or its people, it must seek that option as an alternative, otherwise the possible break up of the state is on the line.

Brothers, what do you think of my view... I myself became very confused after going through this thread, and I'd like to hear your views.

@Pan-Islamic-Pakistan @IbnAbdullah @OldenWisdom...قول بزرگ @Falcon29 @saiyan0321

Manifest Injustice demands Manifest Justice! Division is not inherent. One way that Prophet(Allah's Peace and Blessings be upon him) brought harmony was "brotherhood" ... I also understand this as equal representation and that everyone gets a seat on the table!
Everyone must get a seat at the table and every public injustice publicly served.
When Othman(R.A.) was murdered an injustice was done and subsequent inability of then governance resulted in it's(models) conclusion(Note that I'm not blaming anyone nor pointing to a fault on someone's behalf).
Of course a teaching moment, should we take it as such.
Which is why I believe there should be an office of public prosecutor... independent of governance. One that takes the cause of public grief and injustice.

That being said, perhaps I didn't tackle the substance of your post. So, I'd appreciate some context and particulars.

 

[OldenWisdom...قول بزرگ]

Manifest Injustice demands Manifest Justice! Division is not inherent. One way that Prophet(Allah's Peace and Blessings be upon him) brought harmony was "brotherhood" ... I also understand this as equal representation and that everyone gets a seat at the table!
Everyone must get a seat at the table and every public injustice publicly served.
When Othman(R.A.) was murdered an injustice was done and subsequent inability of then governance resulted in it's(models) conclusion(Note that I'm not blaming anyone nor pointing to a fault on someone's behalf).
Of course a teaching moment, should we take it as such.
Which is why I believe there should be an office of public prosecutor... independent of governance. One that takes the cause of public grief and injustice.

That being said, perhaps I didn't tackle the substance of your post. So, I'd appreciate some context and particulars.

I'd like to further bring my point home... conflicting tribes of Yathrib... just one thing, you could really have any known, proclaimed or attributed identity(ies) in a select space in the past and see them in conflict for one reason or another... Did Aws and Khazraj not see each other as a fellow Arab? Or, perhaps even a common background in Yemen? Why a larger identity didn't suffice?
Islam a voluntary submission to otherwise conflicting identities(for all bowed their heads to their Creator and not to another dynasty, empire, tribe, identity, language, creation, manifestations, avatars, each other, ancestors, origin, lineage, hierarchy...so on and so forth), a voluntary acceptance of the sovereignty of The Almighty and no one else, no legislative authority but The Almighty, no other oath of loyalty, volunteering in charity, volunteering in call to arms for an ultimate attestation of submission...
Which is why even known hypocrites had rights and no judgment passed till the day come!
We can certainly not produce such society without enlightenment. Which is why each constituency gets a seat and never winner take all!
We have instead sleepwalked into the days of jahiliya, tried again and failed again ideas, financed by enslaving humanity and mortgaging our future.
Pain thus is self rought!

 

[Pan-Islamic-Pakistan]

Musharaff was the first khariji in this region who gave safe passage to the enemy of Allah

Actually, it is even more insidious than that. You should see what Dr. Israr Ahmad said about Musharraf.

Good post.

Can you please further answer this question... What is the purpose of a state? If there arise too many divisions (e.g. Yugoslavia) and the state then becomes more oppressive then at what point does it no longer serve the interests of each peoples? To what extent should states go towards preserving itself and at what point should it call it quits?

The purpose of the state is to bring all makhlooq (creation) into alignment with the orders of Allah swt and the way of Prophet Muhammad saws.

If we strive for the people, we should know that human beings are not the ultimate determinant of what is right. Masses of humanity can make wrong, oppressive, and even inhumane decisions if given a free hand. History is witness to this.

The state was made to serve Allah swt, to organize the society for the enjoing of good, forbidding evil, and to uplift man's physical and spiritual state.

 

[H. Dawary]

Actually, it is even more insidious than that. You should see what Dr. Israr Ahmad said about Musharraf.


The purpose of the state is to bring all makhlooq (creation) into alignment with the orders of Allah swt and the way of Prophet Muhammad saws.

If we strive for the people, we should know that human beings are not the ultimate determinant of what is right. Masses of humanity can make wrong, oppressive, and even inhumane decisions if given a free hand. History is witness to this.

The state was made to serve Allah swt, to organize the society for the enjoing of good, forbidding evil, and to uplift man's physical and spiritual state.

Musharraf was a good guy, he had a good heart. He was just a unwise, it’s like that saying “the road to hell is paved by good intentions”. I personally think he should have never got involved with politics, the same with Asad Durrani, both of them had weak hearts.

We seriously need a guy like Umar in these troubling times, and the only person close to that was Zia Ul Haq, but even he was not even 10% of Umar.

The thing is brother is that I understand the importance of a nation, but what good is it if everyone is fighting? It’s like that saying goes “a good war is better than a bad peace”. For what good is a peace if tomorrow you wake up to someone pointing a gun at you?

@saiyan0321 made a really great post, but his post and his theory about democracy is only valid if everyone is involved in politics, and the truth is most people don’t care. So what good is the democratic process if people don’t involve until push comes to shove?

And a worst case scenario in a democracy is what happened to us in Afghanistan... asking the help of a foreign power and assassinating its president (Saur revolution)

Because of this I agree with this post of yours “The purpose of the state is to bring all makhlooq (creation) into alignment with the orders of Allah swt and the way of Prophet Muhammad saws.”

But there is one problem that Rasool’Allah did not show us and left it completely up to us... And that is succession. What is stopping me from usurping power and how can you prove that my usurpation is un-Islamic? Was Zia a usurper? He was one of my heroes. This is where things get complicated and bloodshed begins, and we in Afghanistan are going to soon go through that unfortunately.