A Convert's View of Recent Events
David Myatt
In the Name of Allah, The Compassionate, The Merciful
Just over three years ago - Alhamdulillah - I converted to Islam. Before my
conversion, I had been active in ultra-nationalist groups of the kind that
are now taking a very anti-Islamic, and pro-Western, stand: for instance,
condemning *Islamic terrorism* and calling for swift and lethal
*retribution*.
I believe I have spent the last three years usefully, deepening my
understanding of Islam and of those things which make us human. As a
consequence, I view the recent events in America from an Islamic perspective
and not from the viewpoint of Western ideas; neither are my views coloured
or distorted by Western prejudices. For I consider myself now a Muslim, and
as a Muslim only. That is, I regard the place of my birth, the culture of
what once my own country, as irrelevant. What is important, to me, is the
Will of Allah, as revealed in the noble Quran and the Sunnah of the Prophet.
These are my guides: not Western ideas, and certainly not Western culture,
which I for many years vigorously defended. If I have need of guidance, I
turn to the Quran, the Sunnah, to those who know: Islamic scholars of
learning and piety. Because of this guidance I have come to appreciate the
reason, the justice, the humanity, which forms the foundation, the essence
of Islam, evident as these things were in the life of the Prophet, the
community at Medinah, and in the great Islamic civilizations, and evident as
they are today in perhaps the majority of Muslims who do indeed strive to
live according to the Will of Allah.
So it is that I am deeply saddened by the response of the West to the recent
events in America. For I perceive this response to be barbaric: irrational,
unjust, and inhumane.
To me, the American government - supported by the majority of Americans - is
behaving like an ignoble bully. They are blaming not just one person, but a
whole country, and threatening that country with invasion should that
country not do exactly what America wants. The Taliban, on the contrary,
seem to be behaving in a noble, a dignified, an Islamic way. They have asked
for proof of the allegations made by the American government, saying they
will consider this proof, and if there is enough evidence, they will send
the chief suspect to another Islamic country to stand trial. For the Taliban
are upholding what I understand to be an Islamic principle: <quote>Our stand
on this issue, as with any other, is based on Islamic Law, and we call on
all to abide by the Shariah. There is no possibility of us changing our
position on this. </quote> (Mullah Muhammad Omar, Ameer-ul-Mumineen of
Afghanistan and leader of Taliban). That is, Usama bin Laden - as a Muslim
living in a Muslin country - can only be tried according to Islamic law.
But the American government has not only refused to provide any evidence, it
has stated that such evidence is irrelevant: <quote>These demands are not
open to negotiation or discussion. The Taliban must act, and act
immediately. They will hand over the terrorists, or they will share in their
fate.</quote> (President Bush, speaking on 3 Rajab).
Both the Taliban and Usama bin Laden have denied any involvement in the
attacks, denials which the American government has contemptuously ignored.
Thus, America will go to war against a poor country which has few weapons to
defend itself, just as America will use its military might to *get its own
way*. That is, it will engage in an act of imperialist aggression and in the
act kill, injure and maim thousands upon thousands of people: if not
hundreds of thousands of people.
What I find particularly astonishing is the reaction of not only other
Western governments, but of so-called Muslim countries. From Egypt to Saudi
Arabia to Jordan to Iran to Pakistan there are only words and deeds of
support for such bullying aggression, with a country such as Pakistan even
prepared to help America by allowing America to use its airspace and its
territory. Why are these so-called Muslim doing this? Because America will
give these countries money and support. In brief, these countries have
allowed themselves to be bought by America: they fear America more than they
fear Allah, just as they seek the favour of America more than they seek the
favour of Allah.
I am, of course, ignoring all the rhetoric and propaganda about *terrorism*
and *the fight of good against evil* which Western governments and the
Western Media are now indulging in, and which many officials in so-called
Muslim countries have parroted and are parroting. For that is all it is:
rhetoric and propaganda. Bullies often try to justify their actions, to
themselves and others.
The simple truth is probably that the attacks on America were the work of
individuals, or individuals belonging to one or perhaps two small
organizations. There are, of course, the usual conspiracy theories,
involving various foreign governments such as Iraq and even the Zionist
government which occupies Palestine. The rational, the civilized, the human
thing to do is for the American government to openly, in public, begin a
detailed investigation into those responsible: to find evidence, to consider
the evidence, and then draw conclusions from the evidence. Then, the
evidence would be presented to the relevant governments, who would also
consider it, rationally and objectively, and if they agreed there was a case
for the accused to answer, they would try those accused according the laws
of their own country, as they would pass sentence according the those same
laws. Thus, the rational, the civilized thing to do would be for the
American government to find, and provide the Taliban with, evidence against
Usama bin Laden, and allow the Taliban - or another Islamic country - to
judge him according to Shariah law, as indeed the Taliban have said they can
and would do.
But the American government is not prepared to do this: it *demands* action
now. It has even stated that even were the Taliban to hand-over Usama bin
Laden that would not be the end of the matter: that is, they would still
invade Afghanistan, and any other country they wanted to.
What we are witnessing is the hue and cry of people seeking a barbaric
vengeance: of people abandoning reason, justice and fairness. And more than
that: we are witnessing once again the arrogance of not only the
governments, but also the peoples, of the West who believe their ways, their
ideas, their culture, is superior.
For the West - led by America - demands (note *demands*) that any and all
suspects be extradited to Western countries to stand trial according to
Western laws. That is, they basically do not accept any other kind of law,
any other kind of trial. Justice, for such Westerners, is the *justice*
meted our by Western Courts of Law. In effect, the West claims jurisdiction
over the entire world. This is uncivilized and indeed barbaric: primitive
naked imperialism, albeit now swathed in fine sounding rhetoric.
The West has no jurisdiction in Islamic countries, especially in those who
uphold Shariah law. But what it is now saying is that there is only one
world-wide law: *our Western law*. The West is saying: *what matters are our
treaties, our international agreements; what does not matter are Islamic
laws, the Islamic way of life...* And the so-called Muslim countries have
accepted this: all, of course, except the Taliban, who stand firm in their
Islamic beliefs.
So it is that I am saddened by the attitude of the West, and others, but
also pleased by the attitude of the Taliban and (those few) who support
them.
For what is happening here - IMHO - is a fundamental clash of world-views:
between the Islamic and the Western. What is at stake is fundamentally
important to our future: we can either support Islam, and its noble
civilizing ideals, or we can support Western imperialism with its bullying
and its use of blackmail.
We should certainly not allow ourselves to be distracted by meaningless
Western rhetoric, but instead seek to view any and everything in an Islamic
way, just as the Taliban are striving to do.
Allah knows best.
David Myatt
Nuomone
>
>So it is that I am deeply saddened by the response of the West to the recent
>events in America. For I perceive this response to be barbaric: irrational,
>unjust, and inhumane.
1. What does your Islamic belief say about the people responsible for flying
planes into buildings full of people?
2. What does your Islamic belief say about President Bush's speech that
distinguished between the "terrorists" and Islam?
Acting out prejudice: 1. Antilocution (negative talk) 2. Avoidance 3.
Discrimination 4. Physical attack 5. Extermination (massacres, etc)
from The Nature of Prejudice by Gordon W. Allport, Addison-Wesley, 1979.
Zmogus
Robert Knowles
"David Myatt" <dwm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:tqpinek...@corp.supernews.com...
>The Taliban, on the contrary,
> seem to be behaving in a noble, a dignified, an Islamic way. They have
asked
> for proof of the allegations made by the American government, saying they
> will consider this proof, and if there is enough evidence, they will send
> the chief suspect to another Islamic country to stand trial.
Bin Laden has been wanted for masterminding several terrorist acts
such as the bombing of embassies and even the original WTC bombing
as I recall.
So it's not like he was a model citizen who just suddenly went bad.
The Taliban is too busy terrorizing its own citizenry to worry about
a terrorist who only terrorizes the Taliban's enemies.
> For the Taliban
> are upholding what I understand to be an Islamic principle: <quote>Our
stand
> on this issue, as with any other, is based on Islamic Law, and we call on
> all to abide by the Shariah. There is no possibility of us changing our
> position on this. </quote> (Mullah Muhammad Omar, Ameer-ul-Mumineen of
> Afghanistan and leader of Taliban). That is, Usama bin Laden - as a
Muslim
> living in a Muslin country - can only be tried according to Islamic law.
Oh, great. Well at least you admit that Osama bin Laden is a Muslim
and not an atheist or something else like so many other Muslims seem
to be saying. And you seem to think the Taliban is implementing Islamic
Law as well. Sounds like heaven on earth.
>
> But the American government has not only refused to provide any evidence,
it
> has stated that such evidence is irrelevant: <quote>These demands are not
> open to negotiation or discussion.
Yep. Because we know that all they'll do is stall long enough to let
him escape. Whoops, he already did! How convenient for the
Taliban, eh?
Besides, every time we explain what we know we reveal how
we collect our information. Bin Laden has already changed his
communications when he realized we could intercept his
satellite phones.
Any information he gets about what we know only helps him
hide better, so he's not getting it from an obviously sympathetic
Taliban trick.
>The Taliban must act, and act
> immediately. They will hand over the terrorists, or they will share in
their
> fate.</quote> (President Bush, speaking on 3 Rajab).
Yep. The fun is over. Now it's time to take responsibility for harboring
terrorists. The Taliban doesn't realize the rules have changed. World
opinion is changing. It's no more Mr. Nice Guy.
David Myatt
> Bin Laden has been wanted for masterminding several terrorist acts
> such as the bombing of embassies and even the original WTC bombing
> as I recall.
>
> So it's not like he was a model citizen who just suddenly went bad.
> The Taliban is too busy terrorizing its own citizenry to worry about
> a terrorist who only terrorizes the Taliban's enemies.
>
Being *wanted* does not mean there is substantial evidence, or any
evidence, which implicates a person: it just means someone is a
suspect, possibly as a result of mere rumour or deliberate
mis-information.
Furthermore, your remarks about the Taliban are, in my view, totally
incorrect and based upon propaganda in the Western media and smears by
Western governments and agencies.
Have you been to Afghanistan? Do you know anyone who has? Do you know
that the Taliban have been striving to create an Islamic society which
by its very nature is very different from the secular, materialistic
society of the West?
> >
> > But the American government has not only refused to provide any evidence,
> it
> > has stated that such evidence is irrelevant: <quote>These demands are not
> > open to negotiation or discussion.
>
> Yep. Because we know that all they'll do is stall long enough to let
> him escape. Whoops, he already did! How convenient for the
> Taliban, eh?
>
> Besides, every time we explain what we know we reveal how
> we collect our information.
This is one of the standard excuses used by governments: and it is
unethical (or as I and many others would say, it is very un-Islamic).
What is more important, protecting so-called *sources*, or acting in a
just, an honourable, way toward individuals regardless of the
so-called nationality of those individuals?
This shows that such governments place their safety, their concerns -
real or imagined - before the truth, before real justice, before
honour, and certainly before the interests of the person or the
persons they have condemned or whom they accuse. In effect, such
governments are saying: our people, our citizens are more important
than the foreign individuals we accuse. Or expressed another way: our
man-made laws are more important that Allah's laws.
> Any information he gets about what we know only helps him
> hide better, so he's not getting it from an obviously sympathetic
> Taliban trick.
>
Again, unethical and biased. You have judged him, on the basis of no
real evidence, and then say we cannot do what is right (provide
evidence and so on) because that would only help him.
BTW since Clinton has now revealed he wanted Usama bin Laden killed,
do you think such a planned assassination was justified? If so, on
what basis? Just accepting the word of a man like Clinton?
> The Taliban doesn't realize the rules have changed. World
> opinion is changing. It's no more Mr. Nice Guy.
1) Who makes the rules? Man, or God? And if - as you and many others
assume - it is Man, then these rules today are made by the one who has
the most weapons, the biggest Army, the most wealth: *do what we say,
or else!*
The crux, as my original post saught to explain, is whether we accept,
act and live by, man-made laws and man-made jurisprudence, or whether
we accept Allah's laws.
The West - especially America - seeks to impose Western jurisprudence
upon the whole world, through either force of arms, or through such
organizations as the United Nations.
Islam, on the contrary, seeks to create societies where Allah's law
(the laws of God) are implemented.
The West fundamentally does not recognize the right of Muslims to live
according to Islamic laws in an Islamic society.
Thus, any true Muslim country cannot and should not recognize or
participate in the United Nations since this is based upon man-made
laws, man-made ideas, and as such is, according to true Islam, false:
based upon Ignorance, a manifestation of Kufr.
In effect, the hue and cry about *terrorism* is a pretext for renewed
American aggression: a Crusade against the islamic way of life itself.
2) World opinion? You must surely mean the hue and cry raised and
maintained by the Western Media and Western politicians, and accepted
by the majority in the West who refuse to ask rational questions and
who seek to judge people only on the basis of what they read in the
Media or hear from the Media?
Millions upon millions of Muslims, world-wide, have different opinions
than the ones presented by the Western Media and Western governments.
Allah knows best.
Jens Haug
> Being *wanted* does not mean there is substantial evidence, or any
> evidence, which implicates a person: it just means someone is a
> suspect, possibly as a result of mere rumour or deliberate
> mis-information.
Or as a result of investigations. The proof of guilt can only be the
subject of a trial. So somebody who is wanted because he is a suspect
should be brought to a trial.
Or what do you think how it works? Somebody who has not yet been proven
guilty (in a trial) can not be brought to a trial? Nah!
Anyway: He said americans should be killed wherever they are met. This
alone is a serious crime!
> Furthermore, your remarks about the Taliban are, in my view, totally
> incorrect and based upon propaganda in the Western media and smears by
> Western governments and agencies.
Any *better* sources of information that we should be aware of?
> Have you been to Afghanistan? Do you know anyone who has?
We've heard several people who have. We've seen the pictures they've
taken. We've heard the taliban leaders talking. That should be enough.
*If* these were all lies - then why don't the taliban show us the
truth? Why don't they let everybody go there and see for themselves?
Why do they hide the truth? And why would *everybody* in the media tell
these same lies, even people from Afghanistan who love their country?
> Again, unethical and biased. You have judged him, on the basis of no
> real evidence, and then say we cannot do what is right (provide
> evidence and so on) because that would only help him.
The real judgement is to be on a trial. The real evidence is to be
shown on this very trial, not before. People normally are arrested when
they are suspected, so they can not escape nor destroy evidence. It is
normal and necessary to do it in this order: First arrest, then tell
about the evidence.
> BTW since Clinton has now revealed he wanted Usama bin Laden killed,
I don't think he said so.
He only said he didn't care if Bin Laden was killed. Dead *or* alive,
IIRC.
> do you think such a planned assassination was justified? If so, on
> what basis? Just accepting the word of a man like Clinton?
Planned assassination is never justified. But when somebody who is
suspected to be a murderer tries to escape from arrest or even uses
arms in order not to get arrested - then it could happen that he gets
killed.
What do you expect to happen when you draw a gun instead of showing
your driver's license?
> The crux, as my original post saught to explain, is whether we accept,
> act and live by, man-made laws and man-made jurisprudence, or whether
> we accept Allah's laws.
I can clearly tell what man-made laws say.
We can't tell what Allah's laws say. You can believe in it - but you
can't really know, and you can't expect others, who don't believe it,
to accept these laws they don't believe in.
Even muslims don't always agree with each other when discussing what is
allowed and what is not.
So we should try to define laws which you could call man-made, but on
which as many men as possible agree that they are at least close to
Allah's law.
> The West - especially America - seeks to impose Western jurisprudence
> upon the whole world, through either force of arms, or through such
> organizations as the United Nations.
The United Nations are not an american organisation. Not even a western
organisation. And it seeks to impose not western jurisprudence but
those parts of the law that virually every country agrees to. Or are
the human rights against Allah's law? I think they are *part* of it.
> Islam, on the contrary, seeks to create societies where Allah's law
> (the laws of God) are implemented.
In other words: It seeks to impose islamic jurisprudence upon the whole
world, through either force of arms, or through such organisations as
the one that sent the airplanes into WTC.
Great! :-(
> The West fundamentally does not recognize the right of Muslims to live
> according to Islamic laws in an Islamic society.
The west does recognize that. But some muslims don't recognize the
right of non-muslims to live another kind of life.
A simple question:
Does anybody have the right to force other people to live their lives
the way he wants them to live?
If yes: Then what do you accuse the western countries of?
If no: Then an islamic society must not force non-muslims to live
according to islamic laws.
> Thus, any true Muslim country cannot and should not recognize or
> participate in the United Nations since this is based upon man-made
> laws, man-made ideas, and as such is, according to true Islam, false:
> based upon Ignorance, a manifestation of Kufr.
Nope. United Nations are based of the "human rights" which are just
another word for a part of Allah's laws - the part on which Jews,
Christians, Muslims and others agree. Sure, there are other laws, but
as most people don't agree on them, there can't be a word wide
organisation based on these.
I understand that muslims believe in a book which only Allah knows,
where all the truth and Allah's laws are written down. All prophets
only got to know part of this truth, every prophet learned about it in
a special way, so he could tell his people about it. Your prophet
learned part of this truth so he could tell your people - but even
muslims can't ever know everything about Allah's law, or can they? How
can you ever expect every other peoples to accept only this part of the
truth? They were told another part. So we should focus on the parts on
which we all agree! And that's the human right. Every muslim who loves
Allah's laws should participate in the United Nation's effort to help
these human rights spread!
> In effect, the hue and cry about *terrorism* is a pretext for renewed
> American aggression: a Crusade against the islamic way of life itself.
It is not as you can clearly see in the example of muslims living in
America who can live their lifes the way they want.
On the other hand, what is this terrorism then? What do you think of
sending airplanes in huge buildings and killing thousands of men, women
and children - Christians, Jews, Moslems and Hindus? Was it an act of
crime or was it in accordance with Allah's laws?
> 2) World opinion? You must surely mean the hue and cry raised and
> maintained by the Western Media and Western politicians,
If you call Saudi Arabia, China and Usbekistan western countries... ;-)
> Millions upon millions of Muslims, world-wide, have different opinions
> than the ones presented by the Western Media and Western governments.
I don't think there as many as you would like to believe.
Jens
David Myatt
> The proof of guilt can only be the
> subject of a trial. So somebody who is wanted because he is a suspect
> should be brought to a trial.
The crux is: what *kind* of trial according to *what* laws. America
and its Crusader allies demand that the trial be one in a Western
country according to Western laws.
The Taliban say: give us evidence (real evidence, not allegations,
rumours and so-called *intelligence* reports from un-named sources)
and we will consider it according to our Islamic system, and if it is
judged - by our Islamic standards - that there is sufficient evidence,
we shall hand-over the suspect for trial in an Islamic court according
to Islamic rules and Islamic laws.
> Or what do you think how it works? Somebody who has not yet been proven
> guilty (in a trial) can not be brought to a trial? Nah!
> Anyway: He said americans should be killed wherever they are met. This
> alone is a serious crime!
>
According to whose laws? Western, Kufr, laws. Are you saying these
laws apply to the whole world? That American laws apply to everyone,
everywhere?
> > Furthermore, your remarks about the Taliban are, in my view, totally
> > incorrect and based upon propaganda in the Western media and smears by
> > Western governments and agencies.
>
> Any *better* sources of information that we should be aware of?
>
Yes, the Taliban.
> The real judgement is to be on a trial. The real evidence is to be
> shown on this very trial, not before. People normally are arrested when
> they are suspected, so they can not escape nor destroy evidence. It is
> normal and necessary to do it in this order: First arrest, then tell
> about the evidence.
>
Once again, you - and others - assume that Western laws have priority,
and that the Western way of doing things applies in this case. I
repeat, the America government now claims that Western jurisprudence
applies to the whole world. In effect, they say: "We define who is a
terrorist, as we demand that everyone whom we call a terrorist be
captured alive by our forces, or killed by us, wherever in the world
they are, and if captured then we have the right to imprison them
pending their trial and put them on trial in our country or a country
of our choosing, and try them according to the laws we have made, as
we have the right to sentence them or execute them if the evidence we
provide convicts them."
>
> > The crux, as my original post saught to explain, is whether we accept,
> > act and live by, man-made laws and man-made jurisprudence, or whether
> > we accept Allah's laws.
>
> I can clearly tell what man-made laws say.
> We can't tell what Allah's laws say.
Yes we can, through the Quran, the Sunnah and the Shariah: through the
guidance of learned Islamic scholars and through the leadership of a
Khalifah.
>You can believe in it - but you
> can't really know, and you can't expect others, who don't believe it,
> to accept these laws they don't believe in.
> Even muslims don't always agree with each other when discussing what is
> allowed and what is not.
Because IMHO they need the guidance which only the restoration of the
Khilafah can provide.
I have heard some Muslims say that Mullah Mohammed Omar could be
regarded as the new *Caliph*.
> So we should try to define laws which you could call man-made, but on
> which as many men as possible agree that they are at least close to
> Allah's law.
>
I and many other Muslims totally disagree. It is not *as many men as
possible agree*: again, this is a Western - kufr - view, or idea,
which applies (at least in theory) in the West but which does not and
never should apply in Islamic societies. Some Muslims may disagree,
but IMHO Islam does not mean or imply so-called democracy: it means
and implies the Khilafah.
> > The West - especially America - seeks to impose Western jurisprudence
> > upon the whole world, through either force of arms, or through such
> > organizations as the United Nations.
>
> The United Nations are not an american organisation. Not even a western
> organisation. And it seeks to impose not western jurisprudence but
> those parts of the law that virually every country agrees to.
>
What you call *those parts of the law* are Western laws based upon
Western ideas. The UN may not be an America organization in name, but
who really wields the power: the Security Council, which allows
America to veto anything it does not like.
I stand by my original claim that the UN is a Kufr organization which
Muslims should have nothing to do with.
> > Islam, on the contrary, seeks to create societies where Allah's law
> > (the laws of God) are implemented.
>
> In other words: It seeks to impose islamic jurisprudence upon the whole
> world, through either force of arms,
No, only for ALL Muslims. All Muslims should live in an Islamic
society (the Khilafah) just as Islam cannot be imposed upon anyone by
force of arms, and to my knowledge no one claims it should be.
>
> > The West fundamentally does not recognize the right of Muslims to live
> > according to Islamic laws in an Islamic society.
>
> The west does recognize that.
No it does not: the West, the UN, only recognizes those so-called
Muslim societies that accept the ultimate rule, the laws, of kufr
organizations like the UN. Any which do not are *rogue states* are
have sanctions imposed upon them.
>But some muslims don't recognize the
> right of non-muslims to live another kind of life.
Excuse me? I do not know of any Muslims who say or believe that they
have the right to impose Islam upon others, for it is expressly
forbidden to do so.
> Nope. United Nations are based of the "human rights"
The very words *human rights* express Western ideas, the Western way
of thinking, just as the word *democracy* does. This Western way
implies a division into abstract concepts deriving as these concepts
do from man considering himself in control, the master, and from
dividing the *sacred* from the *profane*.
In complete contrast, Islam is the Way of Tawhid: of The One, the
Unity, which makes no distinction between *politics*, *religion*,
*society* and *man*.
My limited understanding is that, for Islam, there is only the Way of
Life which is Al-Islam, manifest in the Khilafah (what the West would
call an Islamic society) or there is Kufr, the way of Ignorance.
> you can clearly see in the example of muslims living in
> America who can live their lifes the way they want.
It is not a question of Muslims living in the way *they* want to: it
is a question of them living according to the Way of Islam. Many
Muslims believe that a Muslim can only truely live according to
Allah's laws if they live in an islamic society: that is, in a
Khilafah.
Allah knows best.
ZOID...@webtv.net
Government, yet they wanna turn around and bad mouth the U.S. whoever
thinks the taliban is so wonderful can go straight to afghanistan and
live with them. Dont hide in the "Evil Western World" Women living under
the rule of the taliban are not happy at all. And that is not western
Propaganda. If you dont like the western world then by all means leave.
It doesnt say anywhere in islam that its ok to abuse women and treat
them like animals. If you support the Taliban you are basically saying
that you would support the abuse of your mother and sister. Dont mix
Islam with militant groups. I dont care what religion you are its a
basic understanding that if you live by the sword you will also die by
the sword. Any blood you take will be asked back from you on judgement
day. Im not saying the U.S. is innocent Cause i know the government has
done some shady things. But thats not an excuse to terrorize innocent
people. Two wrongs dont make a right. And remember you can tell all the
lies you want but God see's everything and knows everything.
David Myatt
> whoever
> thinks the taliban is so wonderful can go straight to afghanistan and
> live with them.
Or undertake Jihad in support of them. However, some who wish to do
these things cannot because they either lack the financial means to do
so, or they have obligations and commitments (to their family, for
example).
>Dont hide in the "Evil Western World"
I am not *hiding*, and neither are any Muslims I know: on the
contrary, we are striving in our own small ways to make those in the
West appreciate and understand Islam.
>Women living under
> the rule of the taliban are not happy at all. And that is not western
> Propaganda.
Oh no?
> It doesnt say anywhere in islam that its ok to abuse women and treat
> them like animals. If you support the Taliban you are basically saying
> that you would support the abuse of your mother and sister.
I, of course, totally disagree with your cliched, propagandistic,
statement regarding the Taliban.
>And remember you can tell all the
> lies you want
Who is telling lies? Certainly not, to my knowledge, the Taliban, who
- AFAIK - are striving to live and act like pious Muslims because they
know that Allah knows all and sees all and will one day judge them. As
I wrote in the original post, when contrasted with the war-mongering,
arrogant, statements and actions made by the American government, the
Taliban are acting in a reasoned, honourable way, according to the
principles of Islam.
Since this thread now seems to have come *full circle*, and I have
expressed what I believed needed to be expressed, I shall, for my
part, end it here.
Allah knows best.