This guy gets it.

[Yousufzai]

Just listen to this, and think long and hard about what he says:
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UpjFfgMTTDo

[Khostai]

As long as use religion in your speach and politics no unity can be achived.

[Yousufzai]

As long as use religion in your speach and politics no unity can be achived.

I agree that secularism is the ideal, but you can't have your head in the sand and deny that religion isn't an important thing for Pashtuns. If someone speaks about a form of nationalism that draws inspiration from certain aspects of the religion, I'll take it over whatever we have now. That's what others like Bacha Khan did in the past, and it worked quite well.

[Khostai]

I agree that secularism is the ideal, but you can't have your head in the sand and deny that religion isn't an important thing for Pashtuns. If someone speaks about a form of nationalism that draws inspiration from certain aspects of the religion, I'll take it over whatever we have now. That's what others like Bacha Khan did in the past, and it worked quite well.

Bacha Khan tried and did not suceed, this guy just parrots what every one is saying, be good muslim unite and bla bla, this is not something new. Trieng to mix relligion with politics will get you nowhere, you will just be stuck with Pakistan, becuase that is what religion mixing with politics is. I know relligion is important aspect for Pashtuns, but they must realise that uniting as singel ethnic group under relligion is not possible, you are just twisting Islamic teaching and that is not right, becuase for Islam unity must be among all people who are muslim, seperate ethnic state, like Pashtunistan or Loy Afghanistan is not possible.
Take example from Kurds and Baloch, do you thinkt they are not relligious? Yes they are, but they don't mix Islam with politics for their idependance or seperate state. Becuase they know that is a dead end, becuase if they follow relligion seperate state will never happen. Becuase it will not make any sence, preaching about muslim brotherhood, equality and unity becuase you are muslims but at the same time wanting a seperate state just for your own ethnic group and exclduing other muslims (for Kurds the Arabs and Baloch Punjabies) is kind of illogical.

[DSM0305]

There is a saying in Pashto. Ya nekum, ya de khre kum(either I don't do it, or I will do it like the donkey).

Now you guys wonder why I wrote that saying. The thing is, that is exactly the behavior of Pashtuns when it comes to politics. Either they do nothing, or they do it like a donkey.

Take all the Pashtun movements as an example; Taliban, the communists, atheists, liberalists, nationalists, secularists etc.

All of the above have one thing in common, they all take it to far. Pashtuns always take it to the extreme whether they follow Islam, nationalism, secularism, atheism etc.

The problem is, they don't use common sense, and cant find balance, especially between religion and secularism/atheism. Secularist/atheist absolutely deny the religious factor, and the religious completely deny political factor.

Even Europe, which is the most atheistic continent I know of, doesn't deny Christianities existence, they even support it. The atheists love it for cultural reason, and the religious love it for religious reason.

This is the problem in Pashtun society. The secularists, and religious Pashtuns cant find a common ground, because they completely deny each others existence. The question is, why cant secularist love Islam, if not for religious reason, then at least for cultural purpose.

Whether one is religious or not, we all want unity amongst Pashtuns, but religious people will not support a secularist who want to turn us into another west, where all go half naked and have intercourse left and right. Even I, wont support that kind of society for Pashtuns, and I am quite modern.
While no secularist wanna turn the society into a ghost town, where all women are covered like ghostly ninjas, and aren't allowed an education. While the male population memorize the holy Quran, but don't understand a word of it.

We need a common ground and goal. Which should include; unity amongst Pashtuns, and education for the entire population. While still be modest, and have our culture preserved.

[Yousufzai]

Bacha Khan tried and did not suceed, this guy just parrots what every one is saying, be good muslim unite and bla bla, this is not something new. Trieng to mix relligion with politics will get you nowhere, you will just be stuck with Pakistan, becuase that is what religion mixing with politics is. I know relligion is important aspect for Pashtuns, but they must realise that uniting as singel ethnic group under relligion is not possible, you are just twisting Islamic teaching and that is not right, becuase for Islam unity must be among all people who are muslim, seperate ethnic state, like Pashtunistan or Loy Afghanistan is not possible.
Take example from Kurds and Baloch, do you thinkt they are not relligious? Yes they are, but they don't mix Islam with politics for their idependance or seperate state. Becuase they know that is a dead end, becuase if they follow relligion seperate state will never happen. Becuase it will not make any sence, preaching about muslim brotherhood, equality and unity becuase you are muslims but at the same time wanting a seperate state just for your own ethnic group and exclduing other muslims (for Kurds the Arabs and Baloch Punjabies) is kind of illogical.

Bacha Khan failed to create an independent Pashtunistan because of Pakistani repression, not because of his views regarding religion, bro.

Anyway, it really looks like you're essentializing Islam. You assume that any reference to Islam by an individual means the person is being dishonest or is against the idea of nationalism. Islam is not monolithic. It's a thousand year old faith, followed by more than a billion people. That means everyone has a different idea of what Islam is. Like I'm sure you'd agree that Mullah Umar has a totally different understanding of Islam as compared to Bacha Khan. There's tons of different interpretations. Nationalism as we know it is only inconsistent with certain politicized interpretations of Islam.

The person in the video was speaking about Pashtuns and the need for greater unity and solidarity. That's what the entire video was about. That tells you all you need to know about his interests and loyalties. Just because he referenced the Quran does not mean that he believes in some larger pan-Muslim ideology or in creating a state like Saudi Arabia. It just means he's an ethnic nationalist who is sympathetic to the religion. It's interesting you mention the Baloch, btw, because Baloch nationalists have been doing the same thing for decades. If I'm correct, people like Gul Khan Nasir and Khudai Nur often made use of religious language and imagery when talking about their struggle. Does that make them Islamists?

Like I said, a complete lack of religious language when it comes to politics would be great, but if we want to actually affect things in the real world (as opposed to on the internet), we have to be pragmatic and nuanced regarding some issues. You sometimes have to weigh different options and go with what's best. That's how you get things done.

[Khostai]

Bacha Khan failed to create an independent Pashtunistan because of Pakistani repression, not because of his views regarding religion, bro.

Anyway, it really looks like you're essentializing Islam. You assume that any reference to Islam by an individual means the person is being dishonest or is against the idea of nationalism. Islam is not monolithic. It's a thousand year old faith, followed by more than a billion people. That means everyone has a different idea of what Islam is. Like I'm sure you'd agree that Mullah Umar has a totally different understanding of Islam as compared to Bacha Khan. There's tons of different interpretations. Nationalism as we know it is only inconsistent with certain politicized interpretations of Islam.

The person in the video was speaking about Pashtuns and the need for greater unity and solidarity. That's what the entire video was about. That tells you all you need to know about his interests and loyalties. Just because he referenced the Quran does not mean that he believes in some larger pan-Muslim ideology or in creating a state like Saudi Arabia. It just means he's an ethnic nationalist who is sympathetic to the religion. It's interesting you mention the Baloch, btw, because Baloch nationalists have been doing the same thing for decades. If I'm correct, people like Gul Khan Nasir and Khudai Nur often made use of religious language and imagery when talking about their struggle. Does that make them Islamists?

Like I said, a complete lack of religious language when it comes to politics would be great, but if we want to actually affect things in the real world (as opposed to on the internet), we have to be pragmatic and nuanced regarding some issues. You sometimes have to weigh different options and go with what's best. That's how you get things done.

This pragmatism that you speak of creates countries like Pakistan, who are not secular and also not Islamic. They use secular laws to earn money and use Islam to opress and shut other people who critisise them. Do you want that kind of future for Afghanistan? And yes you can claim that Pakistan is secular and what no, but a country who has state relligion, blasphamy laws and does everything to make the lives of other relligious group misserable is not secular.

[MENTION=8995]DSM0305[/MENTION]
Afghan culture does not need to be preserved is has not chnaged for centuries, so the last thing what Afghan culture needs is preservation. Afghan culture need drastic change. Becuase it came to a point that its not only stuk in its own bad habits but also bring damage to the people. Why would you want to perserve a culture that thinks it is shamefull for women to go to school, becuase some one can see her face, why would you want to protect a cultural habit that promotes isolotism and xenophobic behaviour? Or sell little girls in tribal conflicst? Or when some one kills a member of your family and you go and kill the smartes and the strongest member of that family? What kind of culture is that? A culture that does not allow free speach and free movement to the other half of population just becuase they have the other gender?
Islam in this case will not be used to unite but to opress other people. Becuase lets be honest their are more than enough verses in the Quran that can be used by those people to opress others, by interpreting it the way they want it and this was done by Talibs, by Ayatollahs of Iran, by the Sheikhs of Saudi Arabia, and now by the ISIS.

Without change in the mentality of Afghans no real progress can appear. Islam and mullah need to know their place and that is the private life and mosques. Secularism is the middel ground and the way forward in this time and age, we no longer live in the dark ages, were relligion has to control every aspect of live. Afghan need to seperate politics from relligion, mixing things will only confuse and bring half baked solutions.

[Yousufzai]

This pragmatism that you speak of creates countries like Pakistan, who are not secular and also not Islamic. They use secular laws to earn money and use Islam to opress and shut other people who critisise them. Do you want that kind of future for Afghanistan? And yes you can claim that Pakistan is secular and what no, but a country who has state relligion, blasphamy laws and does everything to make the lives of other relligious group misserable is not secular.

What? Pakistan is not secular, and I would never pretend that it is. It's officially called the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, dude!

The reason Pakistan was a failed idea right from the start was because its founders thought religion would be all they need to bind together a number of people who had very little in common with each other. They tried to push a foreign identity on the Bengalis, Baloch, and Pashtuns, and it backfired. It was all highly artificial right from the start.

Pashtuns on both sides of the DL, however, have a reason for uniting. They're one people, who share a language and culture. And there's an actual history that goes back for centuries. If a Pashtun nationalist wants to unite their people, and they make some references to religion while they're at it, I don't think it means the end of the movement. Like I said, everyone has a different idea of what Islam is. The Islam of an ethnic nationalism is nothing like the Islam of a Talib.

There's a risk of a lot of things happening, but I don't see any way that a Pakistan type situation could come about with these guys.

[Toramana]

There is a saying in Pashto. Ya nekum, ya de khre kum(either I don't do it, or I will do it like the donkey).

Now you guys wonder why I wrote that saying. The thing is, that is exactly the behavior of Pashtuns when it comes to politics. Either they do nothing, or they do it like a donkey.

Take all the Pashtun movements as an example; Taliban, the communists, atheists, liberalists, nationalists, secularists etc.

All of the above have one thing in common, they all take it to far. Pashtuns always take it to the extreme whether they follow Islam, nationalism, secularism, atheism etc.

The problem is, they don't use common sense, and cant find balance, especially between religion and secularism/atheism. Secularist/atheist absolutely deny the religious factor, and the religious completely deny political factor.

Even Europe, which is the most atheistic continent I know of, doesn't deny Christianities existence, they even support it. The atheists love it for cultural reason, and the religious love it for religious reason.

This is the problem in Pashtun society. The secularists, and religious Pashtuns cant find a common ground, because they completely deny each others existence. The question is, why cant secularist love Islam, if not for religious reason, then at least for cultural purpose.

Whether one is religious or not, we all want unity amongst Pashtuns, but religious people will not support a secularist who want to turn us into another west, where all go half naked and have intercourse left and right. Even I, wont support that kind of society for Pashtuns, and I am quite modern.
While no secularist wanna turn the society into a ghost town, where all women are covered like ghostly ninjas, and aren't allowed an education. While the male population memorize the holy Quran, but don't understand a word of it.

We need a common ground and goal. Which should include; unity amongst Pashtuns, and education for the entire population. While still be modest, and have our culture preserved.

Agree with you hundred percent. If your aim is transformation of the lot of your people and not some Utopia, you have to work within the prevailing condition. By becoming orthodox we will achieve nothing.

[Khostai]

What? Pakistan is not secular, and I would never pretend that it is. It's officially called the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, dude!

The reason Pakistan was a failed idea right from the start was because its founders thought religion would be all they need to bind together a number of people who had very little in common with each other. They tried to push a foreign identity on the Bengalis, Baloch, and Pashtuns, and it backfired. It was all highly artificial right from the start.

Pashtuns on both sides of the DL, however, have a reason for uniting. They're one people, who share a language and culture. And there's an actual history that goes back for centuries. If a Pashtun nationalist wants to unite their people, and they make some references to religion while they're at it, I don't think it means the end of the movement. Like I said, everyone has a different idea of what Islam is. The Islam of an ethnic nationalism is nothing like the Islam of a Talib.

There's a risk of a lot of things happening, but I don't see any way that a Pakistan type situation could come about with these guys.

The thing is that if you want to unite Afghan PAshtuns and Pashtuns from Pakistan, you also have to consider the other minorities of Afghanistan, Afghan Pashtuns do not want unity by giving up the north and the west of Afghanistan. So you also have to incorporate Tajiks, Uzbacks and Hazara in to the country. And now tell me how this will not bring the same situation as what in Pakistan is created? You again going to push semi Islamic ideology on other people in this case they will be Tajiks and Uzbacks with Hazara, the same as what Punjabies did to Pashtuns and Baloch.

This is just repeating history....

[Yousufzai]

The thing is that if you want to unite Afghan PAshtuns and Pashtuns from Pakistan, you also have to consider the other minorities of Afghanistan, Afghan Pashtuns do not want unity by giving up the north and west of Afghanistan.

First you talked about the dangers of using religious language when speaking about Pashtun unity, but now you're arguing against the idea of unity itself. Just so we're clear, you accept the DL?

[Khostai]

First you talked about the dangers of using religious language when speaking about Pashtun unity, but now you're arguing against the idea of unity itself. Just so we're clear, you accept the DL?

No I wish unification of all Pashtuns, I am against DL, but I don't want unification to happen around false pretences by mixing Islam in it, when in fact the whole unification is about getting one ethnic group toghether. And not getting united becuase we are muslims. Becuase is we use Islam, we can just join Pakistan and be one big "happy" united muslim country.

[Khostai]

I just think that if language culture and belonging to the same ethnic group is not enough to unite under one country, mixing Islam in it will not bring good results, it can even work against us.

[khushal]

It is because of the Afghan leadership(Zahir and Daud) policy of pashtunistan that isolated them and forced them to depend on the Soviets which destroyed their own country. Also it is because of Paki pashtuns policy of hypocrisy of going against its people and siding with the Paki elite for a couple of bucks that has created the instability in Afghanistan and now has spilled over to them.

But Afghanistan, Pakistan, or some mythical pashtunistan are all designed to be failed states just because they exist to destroy each other instead of existing to propel and support each other for common interests and protection.