Secularism in Afghanistan

[Manzareh]

Those who are crazy enough to believe that it can be done are the one who do it. Secular state of pakistan might be a dream today but dreams do come true. The idea is already planted .People die, ideas don't . Extremists can kill one apostate but many more will rise .Ideas are bulletproof ! The idea of everybody having the right of living his/her life according to will can not die .
As for anti pashtun,I am against them too .Anti pakistanis ? I am against them too .
Let's get this straight that the jinnah was more of a liberal too ! He'd hang out with ladies, enjoy wine and have dogs as pets(dogs are not allowed in islam) so yah...the very idea of formation of an islamic state by an un-islamic or hypocrite is flawed. I don't have problems with muslims or islam I just want them not interfering in my unislamic life ..is that too much to ask for ? Why does it offend you that I do not follow the preachings of mohammad ? Crazy world ,isn't it ? As for when the times this land will ask for red WE'LL GIVE IT RED !

It offends Muslims when you live your unislamic life openly in a Muslim country, its not because they care about you burning in hell when you die but they care because unislamic people have no honour or dignity from many aspects such as dress sense and other physical acts that are seen as disgusting which will inevitably happen out in the public sphere once freedom is given to kuffars. As for Pashtuns we are a people of honour and respect regardless of religion we see acts that happen in the west like open fondling in public, influence of alcohol, clubbing, the open promotion of fornication and adultery as acts of begherati and are considered the lowest low lives, a playboy is something to be proud of in the west but from the eyes of a Pashtun its the total opposite. When you talk about being secular to Pashtuns, all the above factors mentioned about the western cultures spring into mind, they see these acts of begherati as synonymous with kuffars and apostates and it scares the crap out of them and makes people defensive.

[Khanwali]

But Afghanistan the advocates of secularism are predominantly people with either marxist inclination or a communist past.

That's not entirely true because nowdays we see a new generation of afghans who are not linked with "communists" but they advocate for a secular Afghaanistan. I don't know why you islamists are afraid of it because a secular society doesn't mean that the society is anti religion. You will be free to go to mosque and follow the rules of your religion but this rule wouldn't be imposed on others. What is wrong with this? Today thanks to secular states in west we have hundreds of mosques here where everyone can go and pray. If these states weren't secular we couldn't do that so why you guys like secularsim in west but not in muslim world.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

That's not entirely true because nowdays we see a new generation of afghans who are not linked with "communists" but they advocate for a secular Afghaanistan. I don't know why you islamists are afraid of it because a secular society doesn't mean that the society is anti religion. You will be free to go to mosque and follow the rules of your religion but this rule wouldn't be imposed on others. What is wrong with this? Today thanks to secular states in west we have hundreds of mosques here where everyone can go and pray. If these states weren't secular we couldn't do that so why you guys like secularsim in west but not in muslim world.

Because they do it at the barrel end of a gun. Look at the istan states next door that pretty much completed the process Najib wanted to complete in Afghanistan. These folks criminalized Islam to the extent of writing "There is no God and Lenin is his Prophet" on mosque walls.

I wonder why these Najibites and Khalqis ran to better off Moscow instead of living with their farsiwanaan buddies under the Marxist secularist regimes in Uzbekistan and Tajikistan. Perhaps Mr. Islam Karimov would have been a step up?

As Al Jazeera clearly demonstrated, most of these groups in Muslim countries have intrigues with outside powers because they cannot in any meaningful way win on the ground on their own.:

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/fea...522489801.html

This usually then sparks a radical response from religionists who then open up their own funding reserves from unsavory places.

The issue is not secularism per se, but rather that secularists submit to the reality that they are in a very small minority and that they have no right to impose this foreign ideology at the barrel end of a gun on the majority.

Every nation deserves to have their own internal conflict resolved on their own to reach a healthy middle ground. The secularists have to be willing to make their own arguments to their people, lose their own lives for their cause, and grow their own philosophy without using 57 nations of the world and black ops at times to enforce their ideologies.

Instead, in Afghanistan and KP these are fundamentalist, cowardly, militant secularists (e.g. Toramana and Farhat Taj ANDERSON) who do their utmost to bring the outside world into their own struggle for supremacy while pretending to hold their peoples values but in private hating the very Islamic fabric that underlies that society- knowing if they ever stated this openly they would be drawn and quartered by their own people.

As Robert Fisk points out in this article on what is happening in Egypt, this results in the urban and secular effete soft handed feminized elites who are few in number hoisting their ideologies on the majority masses:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...l-8734453.html

The title by Fisk is that the impoverished crowds are backing Morsi and the well heeled are backing this monster of a general.

Frankly, in this circumstance, these secularists of this brand are pretty much barbarian traitors to their nations and their respective peoples. They deserve the punishment of treason.

The worlds that they create end up being tyrannical and far less tolerant of any brand of Islam or even native culturalism for that matter.

[Nazar]

"Marxists" are not the only people who advocate for a secular society, a society where the matters of state are separated from religion. If you look at most developed countries of the world all of them are secular states although they are not communist countries.

You may be right about secularists as a whole. I was just talking about 'Secularism in Afghanistan' and 'secularists as I have seen in Afghanistan'

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

People believe that secularism is responsible for wealth and prosperity. Thats why they always refer to it whenever talking about secularism

[Gulalai]

no good would come out of secularism for Afghanistan

[Khanwali]

Because they do it at the barrel end of a gun. Look at the istan states next door that pretty much completed the process Najib wanted to complete in Afghanistan. These folks criminalized Islam to the extent of writing "There is no God and Lenin is his Prophet" on mosque walls.

I wonder why these Najibites and Khalqis ran to better off Moscow instead of living with their farsiwanaan buddies under the Marxist secularist regimes in Uzbekistan and Tajikistan. Perhaps Mr. Islam Karimov would have been a step up?

As Al Jazeera clearly demonstrated, most of these groups in Muslim countries have intrigues with outside powers because they cannot in any meaningful way win on the ground on their own.:

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/fea...522489801.html

This usually then sparks a radical response from religionists who then open up their own funding reserves from unsavory places.

The issue is not secularism per se, but rather that secularists submit to the reality that they are in a very small minority and that they have no right to impose this foreign ideology at the barrel end of a gun on the majority.

Every nation deserves to have their own internal conflict resolved on their own to reach a healthy middle ground. The secularists have to be willing to make their own arguments to their people, lose their own lives for their cause, and grow their own philosophy without using 57 nations of the world and black ops at times to enforce their ideologies.

Instead, in Afghanistan and KP these are fundamentalist, cowardly, militant secularists (e.g. Toramana and Farhat Taj ANDERSON) who do their utmost to bring the outside world into their own struggle for supremacy while pretending to hold their peoples values but in private hating the very Islamic fabric that underlies that society- knowing if they ever stated this openly they would be drawn and quartered by their own people.

As Robert Fisk points out in this article on what is happening in Egypt, this results in the urban and secular effete soft handed feminized elites who are few in number hoisting their ideologies on the majority masses:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...l-8734453.html

The title by Fisk is that the impoverished crowds are backing Morsi and the well heeled are backing this monster of a general.

Frankly, in this circumstance, these secularists of this brand are pretty much barbarian traitors to their nations and their respective peoples. They deserve the punishment of treason.

The worlds that they create end up being tyrannical and far less tolerant of any brand of Islam or even native culturalism for that matter.

It appears that you are too young and you haven't lived in afghanistan during the time of Najib. If you had lived during his time you would never come up with these basless accusations. During time of Najib there were mosques, islamic schools, mullas were everwhere and there were no restriction on any teaching of islam or quran. You are just another victim of the propagande spread by panjabis and their servents.

[Khanwali]

People believe that secularism is responsible for wealth and prosperity. Thats why they always refer to it whenever talking about secularism

There is a connection between the type of adapted idealogy and the level of social and economic development of a country. In a secular society people are not bound to certain idealogy or way of thinking or life style.
Saudi Arabia is islamic country which has implemented Sharia law and you have for instance UK which is a secular non islamic state. In which of these state you would feel comfortable to live and work?

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

Thats a bad comparison. Let me give you an example of another country.

The Netherlands, one of the smallests and yet one of the richest countries in the world use to be the most religious country in the world 50 years ago. The Dutch colonized various places around the world and their economy was better than much larger countries. This while they are extremely religious and bigotted back then.

They aquired all their wealth long before they stopped being religious bigots. The Dutch were segregated into Protestants, Catholics and liberals. They use to be violent and extremely hostile to one another.

They stopped being such extreme fanatics after WW 2. The religious society slowly collapsed due to internal problems within sects.

Many advocates of secularism seem to have a very short memory. Just because a country is now secularand prosperous it doesn't mean secularism caused prosperity. In some cases it is prosperity that is causing secularism.

We should stop seeing things we wish to see but rather see things for what they are.

If it is worldly matters that we want and desire, we should say so up front and we shouldnt blame religion gor our poverty. Because if we were honest we could look back in history when Muslims were most wealthy and prosperous nation in the worlx yet we were not secular back then.

So why should we advocate secularism now to eradicate poverty? It only makes us look misinformed and misguided.

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

It appears that you are too young and you haven't lived in afghanistan during the time of Najib. If you had lived during his time you would never come up with these basless accusations. During time of Najib there were mosques, islamic schools, mullas were everwhere and there were no restriction on any teaching of islam or quran. You are just another victim of the propagande spread by panjabis and their servents.

I remember Najibs era. I use to live in micro rayon 3 and attend best communist school wherr Najibs daughter use to go.

Back then all Mullahs were instructed by the gov. Tafseer of quran was restricted to non political matters. Bukhari was prohibited literature.

People would get arrested and locked up for being too religious. Najib was using SCUDDS against fellow Pashtun villagers in Aryub, Ahmedkhel, Azra, khost, Orgun, Kunar, Nangarhar and Zabul.

He wiped out entire villages with his Russian weapons.

Only dishonest and incensitive communists remember him as a just ruler because they personally benefited from his tyrannical government.

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

I know the people who use to restrict Mullahs personally. I will see if I can find any literature that stipulates their policy towards religion.

[Tjanaparh]

wants to revive his sodomite pagan religion of feeding parents to vultures and removing genitals of minor boys to use them as sex slaves and worshipping flames and candle lights.

Who gives you the right to talk this way?
Before talking about something, get knowledge, or otherwise if you prefer ignorance accept the ignorance towards yourself!
Ignorance is one of the basics of disbelief, the other is aggression that you have.

[ډګروال]

Who gives you the right to talk this way?
Before talking about something, get knowledge, or otherwise if you prefer ignorance accept the ignorance towards yourself!
Ignorance is one of the basics of disbelief, the other is aggression that you have.

why do you push your views upon us?
you want to tell us to abandon Islam and become pagans?

[Tjanaparh]

why do you push your views upon us?
you want to tell us to abandon Islam and become pagans?

Where did I push anything on You and said You to abandon Islam?
I hoped at least a muslim is a person with faith in his heart and respect towards the other. But if You think that it is Islam to talk of others disrespectful without any knowledge, if that is Islam than the first to be muslims are those who came to your country with war to kill your people.
If you see defending Islam by defending a person that can insult but not try to acquit any knowledge, that uses lies because the people of the aith he insulted are fery few thinking they are weak and he has the right to insult, if that for you is defending Islam and you see me as somebody who is offending Islam by criticizing ignorance, than why not defending all ignorants?

I appreciate many things in Islam and don't see Muslims as some Western media try to show. You your self often complain about this.
Why do you try to protect the same way of action done by a person who tells to be a Muslim?

[ډګروال]

Where did I push anything on You and said You to abandon Islam?

you have done so in the past and now when shamlawar said about the pagan practices prior to Islam you jump in to defend that.
that is the same tactic used by those who wish to deislamise Pashtuns. By promoting the pagan past.

I hoped at least a muslim is a person with faith in his heart and respect towards the other.

you dont tell us what Muslim is and what Muslim is not and what you hoped Muslims to be. i have respected you and still do but your attempts at banding up and backing those who insult us on this forum wont fly.

But if You think that it is Islam to talk of others disrespectful without any knowledge, if that is Islam than the first to be muslims are those who came to your country with war to kill your people.

your knowledge is zero.
you actually want to tell us that it is ok for chechen muslims to be against other muslism because they dont share same pagan history.
first gain some knowledge yourself. dont talk about my country and people ,since you dont have their best interests at heart.

If you see defending Islam by defending a person that can insult but not try
to acquit any knowledge,

I dont defend him im just telling you to stop pushing your views upon us.thats what im saying ,next time mind your own business.

that uses lies because the people of the aith he insulted are fery few thinking they are weak and he has the right to insult, if that for you is defending Islam and you see me as somebody who is offending Islam by criticizing ignorance, than why not defending all ignorants?

you have always defended those who insult Islam and muslims on this forum but you dont dare to do it yourself just like here you are trying to insult me but arent direct about it.
if i was going to defend ignorance than i would have defended you and the likes of toraman that you like.



I appreciate many things in Islam and don't see Muslims as some Western media try to show. You your self often complain about this.
Why do you try to protect the same way of action done by a person who tells to be a Muslim?

i dont know what you are trying to say in the last part but it was you who said that a chechen mulslim has nothing in common with an arab muslims.
but you and russians have alot with them in common because you share the same paganism or race?