Taliban Offer Question-and-Answer Service Online 284
First time accepted submitter nachiketas points out this story about a new online service offered by the Taliban. "Worried about whether Islamic verses on Facebook are allowed? Or that suicide bombers kill innocent civilians? Afghanistan's Taliban have set up a new question-and-answer section on their website to address such issues. The facility on Voice of Jihad, the official website of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan — the Taliban's own name for their movement — allows readers to submit queries to spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid. It is a demonstration of how far the insurgents' attitude towards technology has changed."
Umm? (Score:5, Interesting)
Other than some tactical intimidating-cell-operators-into-shutting-down-at-certain-times, based on the (plausible) theory that NATO was having a merry old time eavesdropping, I don't remember the Taliban being terribly anti-technology... Not particularly big enthusiasts(in public) of internet pornography or applied empiricism; but perfectly happy to use technological artifacts where available.
I do look forward to seeing what the
Re:Umm? (Score:5, Interesting)
Considering their goal is to bring us back about a thousand years, it stands to reason that they have issues with technology. From Wikipedia:
Under the Taliban regime, Sharia law was interpreted to forbid a wide variety of previously lawful activities in Afghanistan. One Taliban list of prohibitions included: pork, pig, pig oil, anything made from human hair, satellite dishes, cinematography, and equipment that produces the joy of music, pool tables, chess, masks, alcohol, tapes, computers, VCRs, television, anything that propagates sex and is full of music, wine, lobster, nail polish, firecrackers, statues, sewing catalogs, pictures, Christmas cards. They also got rid of employment, education, and sports for all women, dancing, clapping during sports events, kite flying, and characterizations of living things, no matter if they were drawings, paintings, photographs, stuffed animals, or dolls. Men had to have a fist size beard at the bottom of their chin. Conversely, they had to wear their head hair short. Men had to wear a head covering.
Mod me redundant... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I am curious of what they think about Fox news (Score:4, Interesting)
I am curious of what they think about Fox news ?
Probably big fans.
Actually, they hate Fox, and are big MSNBC fans [washingtonpost.com]. The same piece in the Washington Post also said that they were bummed when Keith Olbermann was fired.
Re:Not a good sign (Score:5, Interesting)
There's actually a few questions I'd like to ask them myself (won't bother, since I assume they only take questions in Farsi, or maybe Arabic as well, neither of which I speak). I can probably guess their answers, but hearing it straight from them, instead of indirectly through our own "expert analysis", would be... well, more scientific, I suppose. Direct observations are almost always more accurate and reliable than indirect observations.
First, I'd ask "if you had the ability to eliminate every 'infidel' from the planet, would you?". Second, "if the invaders were to leave, completely, on the sole condition that Afghanistan become a non-Islamic, but non anti-Islamic, state, would that be preferable to continued occupation?"
The first is sort of a "can we co-exist with these people? can they be reasonable?" If we were to leave them completely alone, would they keep to themselves, or would they remain a threat to our security? A classical Islamic state would tolerate 'infidels' even in their own country - during the Middle Ages, all you had to do was pay an extra tax, and *that* was mainly to get out of the military draft. It was illegal to *leave* the state religion (on pain of death, often), but for the most part, if you stayed quiet and obeyed the secular laws, the religious laws left you alone. However, a modern fundamentalist Islamic state probably would not be so... tolerant.
The second is a "what do they care more about: being left alone, or being fundamentalist Muslims?" Because, undoubtedly, a fundamentalist state of any religion is generally bad. Even a fundamentalist atheist state would be oppressive and essentially *wrong*. So it is in the best interests of justice, of humanity, that Afghanistan not revert to a fundamentalist Islamic state, as the Taliban desires. However, I suspect that much of their popular support comes not from people wanting to be ruled by some theocrat, but by people who want the invaders out of their homeland. I can sympathize - I want our "invaders" out of their homeland and back in ours, as well. The question is, would their leadership accept not ruling Afghanistan themselves if it meant a free Afghanistan? It's not likely, given the past decade, but it's possible. And any possibility for a peaceful but beneficial resolution to war is worth entertaining.
Re:I am curious of what they think about Fox news (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Umm? (Score:5, Interesting)
For sure. It's like reasoning with Rick Santorum. I mean, here's Foreign Policy magazine's quiz to see if you can successfully identify the difference between Rick's quotes and those of Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei:
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/02/29/grand_ayatollah_or_grand_old_party [foreignpolicy.com]
Re:Sigh (Score:2, Interesting)
You'll find the answer to all those questions except the last one in the old testament.
The answer to the last one is there as well.
"The LORD our God delivered him over to us and we struck him down, together with his sons and his whole army. At that time we took all his towns and completely destroyed them--men, women and children. We left no survivors." Deuteronomy 2:33-34
Age of consent in Vatican is 12... (Score:2, Interesting)
One of the GP's questions was "Can I marry an 8-year old? How about 12? Or 16?". Did you know that the vatican is the only place in Europe where age of consent is 12 years old? (Sure, it was that in Italy when they "separated" and vatican just didn't want to change that when Italy did... but I don't think it makes things any better)
So I agree that comparing most western churches to fundamentalist islamists isn't that clever but I can't keep a straight face when people who are fine with the catholic church call islam a religion of pedophiles or something along those lines.
Re:Sigh (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, the commandments and the other rules and regulations of the Bible (and I can only assume other scriptures as well) make a lot of sense if you consider the circumstances they were written in and they were very sensible in their time and age. Not eating seafood during a time when refrigeration was but a mythical dream was a pretty GOOD idea for a people who dwell in a very hot climate and by and large too far from the coast to consider the stuff "fresh". It's simply easier to tell people not to eat certain foods with a religious "because God says so" if you cannot really explain it to them sensibly, lacking the scientific means to explain bacteria and parasites.
The problem is that the zealous are stuck in a system that's 2000+ years old, without acknowledging that the times change, that science and technology advanced and that certain rules that were very sensible back then simply do not apply anymore. If the Bible (Koran, whatever) was written today, it would contain no such nonsense. It would (hopefully) still contain the parts about not killing, stealing and lying. These parts are still important to make the cooperation of nonrelated human beings possible. One could argue that we wouldn't need commandments from a God for this matter and that our "morals" are "advanced" enough to understand from a logical point of view that this is a necessity. True for some. And I am fairly convinced it was already true for some back then who noticed that society will have a pretty hard time holding together when we have to assume (with good reason) that our neighbor just waits 'til we leave our home to take away our cows and sheep (or today our plasma TV and stereo) because he needs them and has none.
"Morals" are nothing but a convention dictated by society. Biologically, it would be limited to friends and family, aid them and fight the rest because they compete with you for the same resources. So, biologically, I should go over to my neighbor that I hardly speak to, bash his head in and take what was his. It's a social convention that I don't do that. And most societies these days are at least to some degree influenced by some religion, even if it is agnostic and atheist as can be, its morals are usually rooted in a religious background. Even as an atheist I cannot ignore that most of my moral values (namely don't lie, steal, kill, cooperate and the like) are very similar to those most religions teach. And I cannot say for sure that this is not influenced by the Christian society around me.
Personally, I consider it a sign of moral weakness if you need a religion to make you socially acceptable. In my eyes, an advanced human being is able to comprehend the implications of a lack of "morals" (I use the term loosely here, in the sense of "something that makes society possible where you don't have to watch your back constantly so you don't get a knife between your ribs") and that he has more to lose than to gain from a dog-eat-dog anarchy. Think of it as an applied prisoner's dilemma.
Judaic law (Score:4, Interesting)
Christians believe first in the New Testament.
A lot of Christians also believe in the Old Testament.
the basis of our law system is ~90% Judaic law
No... The basis of U.S. law [wikipedia.org] is English common law, [wikipedia.org] which followed rulings made by the King's judges based English tradition and legal precedent. There was influence from some other legal systems, including the Roman one where Christianity was the state religion (as it was in England), but no direct link to Judaic law. Some laws developed that were heavily influenced by religious views - the death sentence for blasphemy and homosexuality being two obvious ones (see Thomas Aikenhead [wikipedia.org], John William Gott) [wikipedia.org]. Both of those were argued from Christian religious perspectives, primarily based on passages in the Bible.
Judaic law is far better than islamic law in that it's not racist
613 mitzvot: Wipe out the descendants of Amalek (every man, woman and child). [wikipedia.org] Genocide of another ethnic group is inherently racist.
There are plenty of others, for example, there are explicit passages that mandate setting a Hebrew slave free after 7 years, whilst Canaanite slaves must work forever.
And more recent racist religous law:
Say no to rabbis’ racism: [ynetnews.com] Back in 2010, some 50 of Israel’s most prominent rabbis issued a religious edict against Jews renting property to gentiles, "Leasing land to non-Jews blasphemous, anyone violating ban may be ostracized, rabbis say" Thirty-nine of those rabbis are on the government’s payroll, although their opinions vary drastically from the State of Israel’s official laws and ethos. After this incident, no rabbi was fired or brought to court for incitement.
Killing Non-Jewish Infants is Permitted: [about.com] "There is justification for killing babies if it is clear that they will grow up to harm us, and in such a situation they may be harmed deliberately, and not only during combat with adults.”In a chapter entitled “Deliberate harm to innocents,” the book explains that war is directled mainly against the pursuers, but those who belong to the enemy nation are also considered the enemy because they are assisting murderers."
King's Torah splits Israel's religious and secular Jews: [bbc.co.uk] "Rabbis Dov Lior and Yacob Yousef had endorsed a highly controversial book, the King's Torah - written by two lesser-known settler rabbis. It attempts to justify killing non-Jews, including those not involved in violence, under certain circumstances."
does not have slavery
It does, it is even explicitly permitted for a father to sell his pre-pubescent daughters into slavery as a "last resort" to get money. Judaism and slavery: [wikipedia.org] "Judaism's religious texts contain numerous laws governing the ownership and treatment of slaves."
I of course, sadly, know the justification given in islamic text. Because he won military battles and his tactics will supposedly give his followers military domination over everyone else.
As opposed to the religious law that you apparently support, where the complete genocide of every living thing in a city is ok when "ordered by God"? Where followers are instructed to Wipe out the descendants of another tribe, To burn a city that has turned to idol worship, To destroy idols and their accessories (y
Re:Sigh (Score:5, Interesting)
Why skip them? They make sense too!
1. no god but god and all that.
Well, self serving. It's kinda a necessity to establish the justification of his rule. It also serves a very real purpose, if you could have other gods with other commandments, you might start to fight amongst each other who's right. For reference... well, look around you.
2. No images
Ok, that one was killed by the stonemasons' union, I guess. My guess is that it exists so rulers don't create an image of god that looks like them, which can also easily lead to unrest. Imagine the leader becomes unpopular (think Nero), that could lead to god becoming unpopular if they are unified.
3. not abusing god's name
Hard to do with a god that has none. But it's similar to why in many totalitarian systems making fun of the head of state is severely punishable. You cannot fear something that you mock.
4. sabbath and not working /. or chat, but really just sitting around and following a train of thought?
If you ask me, an early anti-burnout strategy. In its original form (and held high by very orthodox Jews) it means resting and doing NOTHING. Sitting around and waiting for the day to pass. I guess a lot of our burnout problem stems from lacking this, we have activities that we "must" do all week, even during our holidays we don't really rest. When was the last time you sat around and really did nothing? And I don't mean sit here and talk on
You see, I am not so sure that the "god commandments" are pointless. They have their meaning. Sure, mostly they are self serving to ensure that they stay in effect, but I wouldn't dismiss them. They were very important for their own "survival".
I admit, save for the 4th, they serve little real purpose anymore, but I can see why they had to exist.
Their respect for women is conditional (Score:3, Interesting)
A liberal woman receives full support. Rush Limbaugh called a 30 year-old law student a slut because she wanted her insurance to pay for her birth control -- which she is probably on so she can fuck around and not get pregnant. I don't agree with the term "slut" in any case, but here at least it was in context.
Compare to the left's treatment of Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann (for the record, I like neither of them). Downright vile content is constantly spewed at their mere mention.
That's just a small sampling.
And they even go after their own when that woman is out of favor. Hillary Clinton received some pretty sexist remarks for challenging Obama for the nomination.
Where's the outrage? It won't be there among the left. They don't have principles when it comes to women. Respect for women is conditional upon whether they agree with that woman politically. If they don't, they make Limbaugh's comment look downright benign.