Muadh_Khan, Naqshband66, Taalibah, Jinn, samah, the fake shaykh, abu mohammed, Acacia, dr76, my176, Abdullah bin Mubarak, BHAI1, Maria al-Qibtiyya, Abu Salma, Umm Khadeejah, abuzayd2k, Abdur Rahman ibn Awf, ALIF, sipraomer, hmdsalahuddin, saa10245, bint e aisha, a2z, tanveerzakee 6 guests appreciate this topic.
The fact that he now has a reputation of negative ten thousand (-10,000) means he is unable to post on all moderated sub-forums. (I think this means he may be able to post on the debates and refutations sub forum.)
Such bans are usually temporary, so I think he'll be back soon enough.
Professor sahab, this clears up a confusion that's been nagging me for a long time. To fight the Russians was suicidal, but the Afghans rose up against them because they were an external threat, and global sympathy was eventually in their favor because everyone respects nationalism.
Rising up against internal tyrannical rule ends in devastation and misery for Muslims. This is in evidence all around the globe, be it Kashmir, Palestine, Syria, countries in Africa, the Philippines, the Middle East.
It looks like the only legitimate jihads in modern times were Afghanistan and Bosnia.
Iraq was doomed because of Saddam's history of belligerence.
This cannot be undone and I am sure it will be greatly appreciated.
We apologise but you have been denied access to report posts in this thread. This could be due to excessively reporting posts and not understanding our forum rules. For assistance or information, please use the forum help thread to request more information. Jazakallah
