Foriegn-funded feminists like Gulalali Ismail on mission of "liberating" Pashtunwomen

[Charsi Malang]

Let me show you the high culture of the West and their respect for women:

42 million visits:

Die Antwoord - Rich Bitch - YouTube

5,3 million visits

South Park - Kyle's Mom's a Bitch - YouTube

8 million visits

Nicki Minaj - Boss Ass Bitch ft. PTAF (Explicit) - YouTube

Do you guys can really picture Ahmad Zahir, Sarban or Ustaad Rahimbaksh singing "you are my b*tch?" Do you imagine Naghme calling herself "I am a b*tch"?????

This is the outcome of feminism which is a low quality ideology developed by one of the most nastiest, uneducated and bifarhang people in human history: anglo-saxons.

Hahahahaha you made me laugh brother! Food for thought.

[Nekrofrost]

Bitch , are you a feminist?

You are repeating the same stuff you said few weeks ago.

I am and i am

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

This is a great article written by an Iranian guy not long time ago. Check it out

How To Save Western Civilization – Return Of Kings

That Iranian guy is a creepy PUA who even thinks Muslim women should be targets of sexual conquests. **** that creepy dude.

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

By the way lot of Roosh Valizadeh's followers are the same lonely, desperate Indic dudes that come here pretennding to have Afghan ancestry

With one of the pictures Karachi posted of an Indian guy with an attractive white girl , if you were to use Google Image Search, would trace back to Roosh Valizadeh's forums.

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

2I've been kind of percolating on this for the last few days because I really want to be as nuanced about this as possible. I'm also trying to be careful not to seem as if I'm alienating or shunning our society's principal values nor disregarding the merits of the more materially developed parts of the world such as the West

So a few disclaimers.

First of all I do not subscribe to the umbrella of philosophies and ideological currents under the label of feminism or any mumbo jumbo under that banner.

I also accept that the existence of innate gender differences is real and rooted in physiological, evolutionary and psychological factors that distinguish between men and women aggregately. I do not believe that gender is a social construct (at least entirely). Especially not teritiary representations of it.

With that said, I do find things like burka, hijab and chador etc as being incredibly misguided. It's not the garment itself , but the prevailing cultural and social attitudes/stigma surrounding and attached to it.

Among Pashtuns there's exists an attitude, especially among the more rural and conservative regions, that women participating in social roles or activities will lead to them to being seen or "noticed" which would invite inappropriate attention on women, or "fitnah". So it's better that they're unseen, whether by shrouding them in veils or by restricting their movement or shutting them off from the world. Which leads detractors to view veiling as a tool of subjugation. Which in this sense is true.

However, the garment itself does nothing, you'll see niqab'd women in universities and even business all over the Middle East and Asia, but it certainly doesn't help and the theory behind the reasons to veil are archaic and easily falsified. In Morocco, Tunisa and Egypt for example, women wearing full veil/niqab have often been associated with prostitution, they use it as a cloak to hide behind. So where is the modesty and decency there?

And that's what I oppose about veiling, it reinforces and instills a belief about virtue and decency that is simply untrue. I also oppose women being made into some type of anatomical exhibit for an audience. Both things attitudes are absurd.

Between the the two, veiling is better than women being paraded around naked. At least there's more dignity in that than being paraded. Regardless I still feel the attitudes surrounding veiling are errant and in fact harmful for society.

Let's take a conversation I had with the Crypto-Qadiani "Dhulfigar" or rather "Zulfia" before he got banned again. Our discussion was about applying Shari'ah in the context of social welfare, He remarked, he'd rather see people abide to a literal rendering of Shari'ah with regards to women and purdah/veiling and being restrained to the home, than women receiving an education even if it's to their detriment. Meaning we should not try to look at Islam in a practical context to improve our social condition and social health.

So I asked him , if a man has a daughter, who is incredibly smart and skilled at managing money and assets and a son who isn't very smart and doesn't manage money well, who in this instance should get the larger sum of the inheritance they receive according to Shari'ahg? He said the son, because that's what the explicit/literal advice of the Qur'an, even if the son is incompetent and it will cause more harm than good.

What does this tell us? That to many it's more important to uphold an idealization than making rational and pragmatic decisions. Even though the the injunction itself was something related to pragmatic issues and not overtly metaphysical in nature. How can attitudes like that not be destructive? Now understandably there are often really strong gray areas and the answers to such issues aren't easy to come by, but this wasn't that that ambiguous.

Is it any wonder how we become vulnerable to the trappings of Liberalist ideologues when we have people preaching such counterproductive nonsense under the pretext of Religion?

In a similar sense, this idealization of liberalism is governed by a the same psychology, although to contrary ends. This camp perceives anything sound in reason or conducive for society is ushered as a consequence of liberalism. It's a sycophantic and servile attitude quite often the residue of colonialism and colonized mentality that's permuted over tiime and fostered on.

Yet, they both make solid insights of each other despite being abysmally wrong about themselves. The Liberalists correctly identify that the Narrow Literalists are caught in the mire of filtering reality by dogma. Likewise The Literalists are a stalwart against the sycophantism and colonial of Liberalists. But they're also both in error. The Literalists think anything not Literal is by default a gateway to the decadence and liberalists believe anything not liberal is therefore trapped in stagnancy and social regression.

The most effective approach would just let the merits speak for themselves and act accordingly.

While Firdousi is right in one sense that Liberalism is feminine, in that it's exploiting feminine interests to yield against society. There's nothing negative about something being feminine.

Even in Islam we say "Allah's mercy surpasses/prevails over his wrath"

Rahmat Allah taqlab ghadhabu.

Rahmat is a feminine word, a feminine aspect of God

Nekrofrost is similarly right that fragile masculinity that somehow reacts to anything feminine automatically seeks to undermine masculinity.

But he may not recognize the nature of the contemporary feminist currents and how they're used as a medium to create social dischord.

Samandri is right, that these women are warped by feminism, but may not recognize the failures of the religious establishment and how hijab and purda are used to subdue the betterment of women.

Sarbani is right that Pashtuns aren't ready for Liberalism, but he may not realize liberalism is not some penultimate solution for our issues.

There's a bigger process at work here; feminism, liberalism and any "ism" we can think of are instruments that are being used to undermine the stability of societies but they're not the only ones. Even religion has been used. The 90's is evidence of that.

The greater goal is most important how does a practice or idea impact or advance the well being and strength of our society. That's the real crux here.

[jama0112]

That Iranian guy is a creepy PUA who even thinks Muslim women should be targets of sexual conquests. **** that creepy dude.

If you think that's crepy, you should just go to sites filled with anti-muslims such as Theapricity or youtube for a much bigger view. There are a lot of those psychos.


Also, the ****'s a PUA?

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

If you think that's crepy, you should just go to sites filled with anti-muslims such as Theapricity or youtube for a much bigger view. There are a lot of those psychos.


Also, the ****'s a PUA?

Pick Up Artist

[DSM0305]

It all comes down to extremism. Contrary to popular belief, extremism isn't only religiously defined. Extremism is more correctly used to separate the logical thinking people from illogical people.

Now lets analyze whats wrong with her and why. First ask yourself, what she is saying logical? By removing that headscarf as she suggested, will it solve a problem? Intelligent people have a certain way of thinking. They do not use emotion to define they stand, they use logic.
- First establish a problem/an issue
- Secondly, come up with solutions
- Thirdly, plan a way of executing the solution.

What does she do. What problem is she trying to solve. Mobility isn't definable. You cant say I want to increase woman mobility. That is to wide a statement, which doesn't define a problem. It needs to be more specific.

This is how a problem/an issue is established. An example:
- Problem: Girls in Pashtun areas aren't going to school, because schools are to far away from home.
- Solution: build girl schools close to their home
- Executing by: getting international and local support for building and sustaining the school.

It establishes a precise problem, with precise solution.

Now you may ask, why isn't this woman doing this, when trying to ''help'' Pashtun woman. I tell you why, it all comes down to intelligence. Most average people cannot distinguish between modernism and westernism. This fact is particular highlighted when it come downs to non-western people.

This means that those average people are thinking that being westernized is equal to being modernized, which will eventual lead to their ''enlightenment'' and ''salvation''.
The thing is, wearing western clothes, wont make you smarter. Acting like westerners wont make your country more developed. Those fact are universal and cannot be changed.

Being modern is what makes you smarter. Creating a modern society is what makes your country more developed. You may ask, what is modern if it is not western? For me modernism is thinking logical. Creating a society based of logic.

Let me give you an example. If you're thirsty, the logical thing is to get something to drink. The illogical thing will be to start eating. While when you're hungry, the logical thing will be to start eating and the illogical thing will be to start drinking. I know what you're thinking ''no, shi*t Sherlock'', well, as logical as it is, basically the same concept apply to literally everything, even to more complicated stuff. The sad thing is, when things get complicated, the average person tend to get lost, and it is then the average person will start getting illogical and simplify the issue so their brain can follow. And this is exactly where she comes ind. She have taken a complicated issue and simplified it to an extent, where she can follow. ''the western women aren't wearing this and see how well off they are. If Pashtun women stop wearing this, they will have as good a life as their counter part in the west'', basically taking a complicated issue and simplifying it. The problem is, by doing this, she haven't found the problem/issue and her solution doesn't apply to the situation, which basically means, it will get worse.

The same thing applies to nationalism/factionalism, which can be clearly seen in Afghanistan. An example would be, when a Tajik nationalist or any other ethnicity for that matter is saying that the current conflict in Afghanistan is an ethnic war. They're simplifying a far more complex situation, so they brain can follow. Which means they haven't found the actual problem and therefor are just making the situation worse. Another example could be when Ghani tried to remove Atta. Those who are lesser intelligence are saying it is Pashtun vs Tajik thing, despite it being an anti corruption campaign by Ghani. They have simplified the issue ''Ghani is Pashtun, Atta is tajik. Therefor Ghani removing Atta, makes this Pashtun vs Tajik''.

To sum it up, basically it all comes down to intelligence. Average people aren't intelligence and therefore they need a simplified ideology to shape their world. They chose to act based on their personal preference that is shaped on illogical thinking. They do not understand that one can develop their society with native moral and culture, as long they use logic to shape and modernize the society they live ind.

[Sikandar.]

What do you think was the purpose of her demonstration in the video? , She is arguing that covering body like this limits the mobility of women i.e they have difficulty in movements , are uncomfortable (She is using the same arguments which are used against shuttlecok Burqa ). Now 'chel' or any other mode of Hijab is for covering angles and curves of female body, as ordained by our religion. If you ignore religion and norms of Pashtun society and argue that all Pashtun women should get rid of any mode of hijab, even if it is as light as chel of Swabi, just because if it is suffocating for you........then such woman should walk nude so that she can walk with full mobility and comfort.

As one can see these western stooges are not just o.k with getting rid of Burqa (which is cultural thing rather than Islamic) but also any Islamic mode of clothing.....western feminism has no place in Pashtun society. If some girl/woman does not want to do hijab and want to walk around sar-tor, then its o.k but if she is receiving dollars from western NGOs for "liberating" Pashtun females from Hijab then she must be stopped, in fact she must be arrested by the state and trialed for apostasy and fasad-fil-arz.

You know what else doesn’t have a place in the Pashtun society? Telling a woman to show her breasts to people when they do or say something you don’t like or approve of.

[Firdousi]

It all comes down to extremism. Contrary to popular belief, extremism isn't only religiously defined. Extremism is more correctly used to separate the logical thinking people from illogical people.

Now lets analyze whats wrong with her and why. First ask yourself, what she is saying logical? By removing that headscarf as she suggested, will it solve a problem? Intelligent people have a certain way of thinking. They do not use emotion to define they stand, they use logic.
- First establish a problem/an issue
- Secondly, come up with solutions
- Thirdly, plan a way of executing the solution.

What does she do. What problem is she trying to solve. Mobility isn't definable. You cant say I want to increase woman mobility. That is to wide a statement, which doesn't define a problem. It needs to be more specific.

This is how a problem/an issue is established. An example:
- Problem: Girls in Pashtun areas aren't going to school, because schools are to far away from home.
- Solution: build girl schools close to their home
- Executing by: getting international and local support for building and sustaining the school.

It establishes a precise problem, with precise solution.

Now you may ask, why isn't this woman doing this, when trying to ''help'' Pashtun woman. I tell you why, it all comes down to intelligence. Most average people cannot distinguish between modernism and westernism. This fact is particular highlighted when it come downs to non-western people.

This means that those average people are thinking that being westernized is equal to being modernized, which will eventual lead to their ''enlightenment'' and ''salvation''.
The thing is, wearing western clothes, wont make you smarter. Acting like westerners wont make your country more developed. Those fact are universal and cannot be changed.

Being modern is what makes you smarter. Creating a modern society is what makes your country more developed. You may ask, what is modern if it is not western? For me modernism is thinking logical. Creating a society based of logic.

Let me give you an example. If you're thirsty, the logical thing is to get something to drink. The illogical thing will be to start eating. While when you're hungry, the logical thing will be to start eating and the illogical thing will be to start drinking. I know what you're thinking ''no, shi*t Sherlock'', well, as logical as it is, basically the same concept apply to literally everything, even to more complicated stuff. The sad thing is, when things get complicated, the average person tend to get lost, and it is then the average person will start getting illogical and simplify the issue so their brain can follow. And this is exactly where she comes ind. She have taken a complicated issue and simplified it to an extent, where she can follow. ''the western women aren't wearing this and see how well off they are. If Pashtun women stop wearing this, they will have as good a life as their counter part in the west'', basically taking a complicated issue and simplifying it. The problem is, by doing this, she haven't found the problem/issue and her solution doesn't apply to the situation, which basically means, it will get worse.

The same thing applies to nationalism/factionalism, which can be clearly seen in Afghanistan. An example would be, when a Tajik nationalist or any other ethnicity for that matter is saying that the current conflict in Afghanistan is an ethnic war. They're simplifying a far more complex situation, so they brain can follow. Which means they haven't found the actual problem and therefor are just making the situation worse. Another example could be when Ghani tried to remove Atta. Those who are lesser intelligence are saying it is Pashtun vs Tajik thing, despite it being an anti corruption campaign by Ghani. They have simplified the issue ''Ghani is Pashtun, Atta is tajik. Therefor Ghani removing Atta, makes this Pashtun vs Tajik''.

To sum it up, basically it all comes down to intelligence. Average people aren't intelligence and therefore they need a simplified ideology to shape their world. They chose to act based on their personal preference that is shaped on illogical thinking. They do not understand that one can develop their society with native moral and culture, as long they use logic to shape and modernize the society they live ind.

What makes you believe that you are actually "smart" , dude? lmao. This losers is lecturing about not use emotions and then he brings up the Tajik vs Pashtun issue for no reason.

Modernization is not about using logic. Don't be stupid. Modernization is about modern infrastructures, technology, modern medicine, literate populations, and so on.

We smart people know already the difference between modernization, democratization and Westernization. It will take you years but you will eventually reach point too lol

[SavageCurry]

This is a great article written by an Iranian guy not long time ago. Check it out

How To Save Western Civilization – Return Of Kings

That guy wants women to be loyal and not sleep around, but at the same time complains that women aren't easier to ****. lol

You either have loose women sleeping around with 100 guys/year, or loyal modest women. Pick one lol

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

That guy wants women to be loyal and not sleep around, but at the same time complains that women aren't easier to ****. lol

You either have loose women sleeping around with 100 guys/year, or loyal modest women. Pick one lol

RooshV is a classic narcissist.

[DSM0305]

What makes you believe that you are actually "smart" , dude? lmao. This losers is lecturing about not use emotions and then he brings up the Tajik vs Pashtun issue for no reason.

Modernization is not about using logic. Don't be stupid. Modernization is about modern infrastructures, technology, modern medicine, literate populations, and so on.

We smart people know already the difference between modernization, democratization and Westernization. It will take you years but you will eventually reach point too lol

I never mention I was smart, but for some reason people keep bringing it up, including you. Must be some truth to the tale, when my intelligence is the highlight of the conversation. You see, people who are smart doesn't need to say they're smart, other people will verify it based of the comments the smart person writes.

The thing is, you're comment actually verifies my point. When an unintelligent person read something, he will automatically simplify the text to something his brain can comprehend. In my previous comment your brain was unable to comprehend what was written in it, and therefor simplified it to an extent, where your brain only read ''Pashtun vs Tajik''. The funny thing is, that was my entire point in my previous post. If I had to guess, your intelligence would be below average. By the way, thanks you very much for proving my point.

Now let see into modernization. What you did was an exemplar of what a person with below average intelligent will describe something like modernization as. An example:
What is modernization:
Below average: modern infrastructure, modern medicine, modern science, education etc.
Basically simplifying a definition. Now see exactly what he did... he literally put ''modern'' before mentioning a word and then called it ''definition'' of modernization. There is literally no deduction and no comprehension.

What will an above average intelligent person describe something like that. He will go to the core of everything. Lets see why modernization is related to logic. As an example, what is science. Science is deduction of particular thing based of logical thinking. Ask yourself, can you discover anything without logic. They discover new theories, new facts, every experiment is based of humans logical thinking. All experiments are deductions based of logic. Many thing discovered can actually not be seen, but are deduced into facts based of logic, which they proved by using experiments.
Lets look on modern infrastructure. And why can infrastructure be modern. It because something was better than the previous, which again comes back to logic. A person discover that if a thing is built a certain way, it become better and more efficient. That makes the new discovery modern. This is essentially what modern is. Efficiency and logic.
Basically a person use logic to find something that is more efficient than the previous thing, and the new thing become modern.

[Firdousi]

I never mention I was smart, but for some reason people keep bringing it up, including you. Must be some truth to the tale, when my intelligence is the highlight of the conversation. You see, people who are smart doesn't need to say they're smart, other people will verify it based of the comments the smart person writes.

The thing is, you're comment actually verifies my point. When an unintelligent person read something, he will automatically simplify the text to something his brain can comprehend. In my previous comment your brain was unable to comprehend what was written in it, and therefor simplified it to an extent, where your brain only read ''Pashtun vs Tajik''. The funny thing is, that was my entire point in my previous post. If I had to guess, your intelligence would be below average. By the way, thanks you very much for proving my point.

Now let see into modernization. What you did was an exemplar of what a person with below average intelligent will describe something like modernization as. An example:
What is modernization:
Below average: modern infrastructure, modern medicine, modern science, education etc.
Basically simplifying a definition. Now see exactly what he did... he literally put ''modern'' before mentioning a word and then called it ''definition'' of modernization. There is literally no deduction and no comprehension.

What will an above average intelligent person describe something like that. He will go to the core of everything. Lets see why modernization is related to logic. As an example, what is science. Science is deduction of particular thing based of logical thinking. Ask yourself, can you discover anything without logic. They discover new theories, new facts, every experiment is based of humans logical thinking. All experiments are deductions based of logic. Many thing discovered can actually not be seen, but are deduced into facts based of logic, which they proved by using experiments.
Lets look on modern infrastructure. And why can infrastructure be modern. It because something was better than the previous, which again comes back to logic. A person discover that if a thing is built a certain way, it become better and more efficient. That makes the new discovery modern. This is essentially what modern is. Efficiency and logic.
Basically a person use logic to find something that is more efficient than the previous thing, and the new thing become modern.

Do you know what I find so hilarious? That it seems that you hate me. I mean that you hold a pure and genuine hatred. I don't hate you. i like you, dude. Lets stop with this. You are always so angry at me. Not that I care it doesn't affect me, but I don't want you to have a bad time.

You got a valid point btw. Enlightenment, use of logic/reason, scientific revolution and modernity go hand in hand.