What is wrong with the Taliban?

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

That is bit of oxymornic wouldn't you say. If the dedication was there 80% of your army personals would not be standing at the wrong theater.

Its not as if the threat from India just vanished once the Taliban threat came about. And in terms of resources, the Indian threat demands a lot more of them.

So the proportion of resources on one front vs another has little to offer in terms of determining 'dedication'. Both front's are threats.

 

[Ghareeb_Da_Baal]

...as stated earlier I will clear this mess, initiated by solomon2 (a choice of name that is suggestive of the destruction of an Islamic holy site), after the
20th of may

What is his name in reference to?
If it is offensive, then I guess it is
a fair game to deal with him
in whatever words we choose.
If he has the kahunas , perhaps he
can tell us himself.

is this his blog?
http://solomon2.blogspot.com/
He mentions Roadrunner by name! WOW!!!

let me quote something from his blog:
"The Talmud tells us that when Abraham sent Ishmael (progenitor of the Arabs) away the angels asked G-d why, knowing what evils would ensue, did not G-d invoke the death penalty immediately. G-d's reply was that each individual is judged in his own time and not by his descendants. "
very Interesting................... When I quoted something form the olt testamnet he complained that i was trashing his religion! Wow what an *** wipe!

 

[Solomon2]

Re-posted from the "Army called in to eliminate terrorists from Swat" thread due to its relevance:

...there is widespread suppourt for sharia but theres nothing wrong with that thats how it was originally but they is no suppourt for taliban sharia. Also understand how taliban toke power they came in and first heard the complaints of the people they bought docter fees and school fees down and so won the suppourt of the people and only after that they started to introduce their law and then the horrors began and it became clear that they are not interested in peace they have their own agenda the people could not raise their voice and they began bombing markets my friends uncle was a victim of this and he only just escaped death. The people are not braindead zombies who just believe what they are told and they are not all antiamerican but had to keep their mouths shut or suffer the horrific consequences. If u watch the news noone is blaming the army at all they are all in suppourt . this insurgency will not last because the population doesnt suppourt it

I thought there was only one sharia, now I learn there is "taliban sharia", too. But I still don't understand what its theological differences are.

 

[Solomon2]

Another analyst puts it this way:

Until the heart of this radical doctrine [the Taliban's takfiri ideology] is probed, and its underlying causes are treated, this cancer will continue to spread and its symptoms will continue to be exhibited until the [Islamic] body weakens and perishes...the retraction of an opinion or viewpoint is possible based upon the interests of the Islamic Shariaa, and what is contrary or conflicts with the common interest should therefore not be taken into account...The next stage for confronting the radical and violent trends in the Islamic world requires practical treatment, in other words the revision of many opinions, viewpoints, and fatwas in circulation that explicitly incite against non-Muslims, as well as the ruler and the State. This is not to mention the fatwas that support the principle of takfir being used against society, and fatwas that put forward strange explanations on the concept of allegiance, the position of women, and other issues that only result in an unstable and troubled society. Such a society is continually in a state of suspicion, fear, anxiety, and panic against everything that is unknown to it and therefore ignorant of, and this ultimately results and severe and violent reactions. The coming confrontation is necessary, and will result in a great leap forward in dealing with extremist ideology.

So the problem is Islam as currently practiced and interpreted, but that can change. The unanswered question is, "how"? And it is still unclear to me how such changes can be accepted as valid.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

R

I thought there was only one sharia, now I learn there is "taliban sharia", too. But I still don't understand what its theological differences are.

One calls for 'no compulsion in religion', as the Quran commands, the other refuses to acknowledge anything in the Quran that allows for respect, equality non-violence and tolerance when dealing with those who have differing viewpoints.

How can you not understand what the theological differences are?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

So the problem is Islam as currently practiced and interpreted, but that can change.

No, the problem is how Islam is currently interpreted by the Taliban.

By the way, you still haven't taken the time to argue in support of the (IMO flawed) premise behind the original argument you raised in this thread.

 

[rokhanyousafzai]

Re-posted from the "Army called in to eliminate terrorists from Swat" thread due to its relevance:

I thought there was only one sharia, now I learn there is "taliban sharia", too. But I still don't understand what its theological differences are.

taliban sharia is not sharia taliban sharia is 'i have an AK therefore u do what ur told' sharia, its not sharia. there is only one type of sharia and its perfect the problem is the taliban not Islam

 

[Solomon2]

You mean this one?

Your question is based on a flawed premise - you have to first prove that the Taliban are indeed following in Muhammad's footsteps before trying to ask why Muslims should oppose the Taliban.

Not at all. I made it clear that my statement was subjective. Whether the premise is flawed or not does not necessarily mean the question is invalid.

An analogous question would be, "My favorite color is blue. Why isn't everybody's favorite color blue and why?"

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

You mean this one?

Not at all. I made it clear that my statement was subjective. Whether the premise is flawed or not does not necessarily mean the question is invalid.

An analogous question would be, "My favorite color is blue. Why isn't everybody's favorite color blue and why?"

In this case the question is moot unless the premise is established as valid.

You ask, "Why are so many Pakistanis, who claim to be Muslims, now opposed to the Taliban, who possess no religion-based moral inconsistencies that I can perceive?"

You have included a flawed premise in your question - the Taliban do possess 'religion based moral inconsistencies', which is why 'so many Pakistanis who claim to be Muslims are now opposed to the Taliban'.

So, unless you validate your premise, your question is answered and the thread pointless.

 

[Solomon2]

Like I said, I don't perceive such inconsistencies. That may be due to my ignorance. fhassan has promised to work on this issue and respond some time after May 20th, and I'm looking forward to that.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Like I said, I don't perceive such inconsistencies. That may be due to my ignorance.

You made the assertion - you should back it up.

If not, and you admit ignorance, then this thread is pointless since it was based on an 'ignorant' and flawed premise, and should be closed.

 

[Solomon2]

I asked a question. Whether or not its premises are "flawed", as you put it, we have been promised a detailed answer. I am content to wait. In the meantime I've posted excerpts with links to topical material from other sources.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I asked a question. Whether or not its premises are "flawed", as you put it, we have been promised a detailed answer. I am content to wait. In the meantime I've posted excerpts with links to topical material from other sources.

You wan't an answer to an argument you haven't even validated?

I know you have a preference for argumentum ad ignorantiam, but just because you insist upon it does not make it any less of a logical fallacy.

What someone has promised or not has nothing to do with the fact that you have not backed up your premise.

 

[Solomon2]

premise. Logic. a proposition supporting or helping to support a conclusion.

argumentum ad ignorantiam: a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false, or is false only because it has not been proven true...An important aspect of the ad ignorantiam argument is establishing the burden of proof.

I don't think the problem is any flawed premise because I don't state a conclusion. Instead, the objection is that I asked a loaded question:

It is committed when someone asks a question that presupposes something that has not been proven or accepted by all the people involved. This fallacy is often used rhetorically, so that the question limits direct replies to those that serve the questioner's agenda....The fallacy relies upon context for its effect: the fact that a question presupposes something does not in itself make the question fallacious. Only when some of these presuppositions are not necessarily agreed to by the person who is asked the question does the argument containing them become fallacious...
...One form of misleading discourse is where something is implied without being said explicitly, by phrasing it as a question. For example, the question "Does Mr. Jones have a brother in the army?" does not claim that he does, but implies that there must be at least some indication that he does, or the question would not need to be asked.[4] The person asking the question is thus protected from accusations of making false claims, but still manages to make the implication in the form of a hidden compound question. The fallacy isn't in the question itself, but rather in the listener's assumption that the question would not have been asked without some evidence to support the supposition.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

premise. Logic. a proposition supporting or helping to support a conclusion.

argumentum ad ignorantiam: a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false, or is false only because it has not been proven true...An important aspect of the ad ignorantiam argument is establishing the burden of proof.

I don't think the problem is any flawed premise because I don't state a conclusion. Instead, the objection is that I asked a loaded question:

Loaded question, also known as complex question, presupposition, "trick question", or plurium interrogationum (Latin, "of many questions"), is an informal fallacy or logical fallacy.

Its a logical fallacy either way.

Your insistence on someone else disproving your unsubstantiated premise, and your question.