What is wrong with some Afghan-Americans?

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

I can not blame them. They were born and raised in those circumstances, away of their home, so its not their fault. But claiming that Hindus are Ahl al Kitab or that Islam and Homosexuality are ok.. thats too much.

I don't think we should equate claiming Hindus are Ahl Al Kita and thinking homosexuality is OK . They're morally two different concepts. I personally don't have a problem with viewing Hindus as Ahl Al Kitab. it just means we can have covenants with them and dissolves animosity. We don't need to embrace their religion, but I think it's good to respect others instead of make everyone our enemies just for being different.

I may mock Indics who come here with their weirdness , but I don't hate or have any hostility to Hindus or Indians who are just living their lives and minding their own business. Why should I? While one does not need to view them as "Ahl Al Kitab" to respect them, I think doing so is not innately an issue except in marital terms. Islam's a universal message so it's natural that Islamic undercurrents are even within Hinduism.

Homosexuality is a different issue, it is an abberation, we should not validate abberations even if homosexuals themselves are not bad people but are struggling with regards to something they can't control. This does not mean we should give such desires social approval.

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

I don't want to speak ill of anyone , especually not a dead man who tried his best to serve his community, but I think we need to call a spade a spade and acknowledge the elephant in the room.

Many Afghans, myself included who either lived in New York or lived on the East Coast most of their lives are familiar with Imam Muhammad Nabi Yusufi (rahmatullah 'alayhu). He was kind of a "spiritual" figure especially among Kandahari Pashtuns around the East Coast Even his own family have some questionable individuals. I don't want to go into any details but anyone who knows his family will know exactly what I mean. Now if the Imam of one of the central Masjids among the Afghan Pashtun diaspora in America has this happening among his own family. Then imagine the rest of the community.

That is all.

[Charsi Malang]

Yeah, what the hell is wrong with some of our fellow Afghans in the USA?? I have come across some weird Afghans on Twitter. They are like uploading pics of their ass and smoking weed and drinking whiskey and claiming to be Muslims at the same time. I recall this girl from Kabul living somewhere in Virginia, she claims to be a Muslima but few days ago she uploaded a video of herself twerking. When other people criticized her she replied "you guys are not real Muslims. You follow a culture and not pure Islamic values like me" and I was like wtf!! lol Another girl claimed that Prophet Muhammad was actually a feminist (?¿?¿?¿).

Iblis and Maneatinglizard, you guys live in the USA.. is this normal over there? Here in Europe we have also plenty of Afghan weirdos but never heard of an Afghan claiming that alcohol is actually halal lol

I’ve come across Afghans in the U.K. who claimed alcohol was halal. I used to have a group of Afghan friends 20 yrs ago who had an Afridi living with them as well. He also claimed alcohol was halal LOL.

[Firdousi]

I don't think we should equate claiming Hindus are Ahl Al Kita and thinking homosexuality is OK . They're morally two different concepts. I personally don't have a problem with viewing Hindus as Ahl Al Kitab. it just means we can have covenants with them and dissolves animosity. We don't need to embrace their religion, but I think it's good to respect others instead of make everyone our enemies just for being different.

I may mock Indics who come here with their weirdness , but I don't hate or have any hostility to Hindus or Indians who are just living their lives and minding their own business. Why should I? While one does not need to view them as "Ahl Al Kitab" to respect them, I think doing so is not innately an issue except in marital terms. Islam's a universal message so it's natural that Islamic undercurrents are even within Hinduism.

Homosexuality is a different issue, it is an abberation, we should not validate abberations even if homosexuals themselves are not bad people but are struggling with regards to something they can't control. This does not mean we should give such desires social approval.

I am all for coexistence and brotherhood between people, but come on, Iblis, how can a Mushrik be also part of the People of the Book? We can not twist the basic teachings of Islam for the sake of short-term interest.

[Manzareh]

Yeah, what the hell is wrong with some of our fellow Afghans in the USA?? I have come across some weird Afghans on Twitter. They are like uploading pics of their ass and smoking weed and drinking whiskey and claiming to be Muslims at the same time. I recall this girl from Kabul living somewhere in Virginia, she claims to be a Muslima but few days ago she uploaded a video of herself twerking. When other people criticized her she replied "you guys are not real Muslims. You follow a culture and not pure Islamic values like me" and I was like wtf!! lol Another girl claimed that Prophet Muhammad was actually a feminist (?¿?¿?¿).

Iblis and Maneatinglizard, you guys live in the USA.. is this normal over there? Here in Europe we have also plenty of Afghan weirdos but never heard of an Afghan claiming that alcohol is actually halal lol

Days of the Dajjal my friend. The one eye'd prick is in fruition

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

I am all for coexistence and brotherhood between people, but come on, Iblis, how can a Mushrik be also part of the People of the Book? We can not twist the basic teachings of Islam for the sake of short-term interest.

Well that's the thing I like about Islam is that it's not as narrow as some may claim it to be. Now I understand the conundrum, people may use that "idea" to validate things like twerking and lewdness, but when Islam openly objects to lewdness and there's plenty of context and historical examples that reveal that it is a prevailing value of Islam, there's no way people can legitimately make an argument in favor of it.

On the other hand, while Muhammad(saw) opposed the Mushrikeen of Arabia, he wasn't necessarily advocating for hostility (which I'm not saying you are), he wanted peaceful coexistence, BUT mushrikeen wouldn't have it. However, the mushirk were also in power at the time and they wanted to protect and retain their power structure.

We are told that there were 144,000 Prophets and Messengers, some we know some we don't know, sent to all peoples of the Earth. Maybe we it's bad practice to guess and proclaim who they were, but I don't think it's unfair or "twisting" things to consider people Ahl Al Kitab as a token that we all have an underlying spirituality that unites us all, despite our overt distinctions. That's the spirit of Islam I think is to strive to be always in the Middle Path, not bowing to everything but being able to accommodate when it is sensible to do so.

I think one of the problem of contemporary Muslims is that they think one must either be rigid or be loose. I think we shouldn't be either; we should be cohesively dynamic.

Brother, I have no issue with reading the Bhagavad Gita or Tao Te Ching and drawing something that enriches my faith in Allah(swt) though both of these books are not from the known Abrahamic line. Of course I'm not going to Durga Puja and put a red tika on my head, but I will eat their prasad if it is given to me as a gesture of good will and kindness. I've avoided making meat/beef to be considerate to others. Maybe I'm taking unwarranted/unjustified liberties as you maybe suggesting, but I think this is what Islam is really was about.

I think the reason that some scholars in the past have interpreted things in such a back handedly hostile way at times is because they feared the cultural/social impact of being allowing different influences to dilute Islam's core values. That can certainly hapen, but we shouldn't use a balistic missle to do brain surgery. It requires more effective and conscientious approach. Often being too rigid at the wrong point can backlash as much as being too lenient and make people go the other way. In fact that's one excuse people use: "I don't want to be like ISIS or the Taliban". It's the rigid discoourse which argues that we need to suppress art and music because it may "corrupt" people. Sure it may, but doesn't have to. In fact we need viable alternatives because as you mentioned, that "Twerking" Afghan girl didn't just come out of nowhere. She's a consequence of the social and cultural vacuum we live in.

My take away here is that we have to be conscientious of what we draw our focus on or else it will just get muddled with trivial things and not focus on the bigger picture.

[Firdousi]

Well that's the thing I like about Islam is that it's not as narrow as some may claim it to be. Now I understand the conundrum, people may use that "idea" to validate things like twerking and lewdness, but when Islam openly objects to lewdness and there's plenty of context and historical examples that reveal that it is a prevailing value of Islam, there's no way people can legitimately make an argument in favor of it.

On the other hand, while Muhammad(saw) opposed the Mushrikeen of Arabia, he wasn't necessarily advocating for hostility (which I'm not saying you are), he wanted peaceful coexistence, BUT mushrikeen wouldn't have it. However, the mushirk were also in power at the time and they wanted to protect and retain their power structure.

We are told that there were 144,000 Prophets and Messengers, some we know some we don't know, sent to all peoples of the Earth. Maybe we it's bad practice to guess and proclaim who they were, but I don't think it's unfair or "twisting" things to consider people Ahl Al Kitab as a token that we all have an underlying spirituality that unites us all, despite our overt distinctions. That's the spirit of Islam I think is to strive to be always in the Middle Path, not bowing to everything but being able to accommodate when it is sensible to do so.

I think one of the problem of contemporary Muslims is that they think one must either be rigid or be loose. I think we shouldn't be either; we should be cohesively dynamic.

Brother, I have no issue with reading the Bhagavad Gita or Tao Te Ching and drawing something that enriches my faith in Allah(swt) though both of these books are not from the known Abrahamic line. Of course I'm not going to Durga Puja and put a red tika on my head, but I will eat their prasad if it is given to me as a gesture of good will and kindness. I've avoided making meat/beef to be considerate to others. Maybe I'm taking unwarranted/unjustified liberties as you maybe suggesting, but I think this is what Islam is really was about.

I think the reason that some scholars in the past have interpreted things in such a back handedly hostile way at times is because they feared the cultural/social impact of being allowing different influences to dilute Islam's core values. That can certainly hapen, but we shouldn't use a balistic missle to do brain surgery. It requires more effective and conscientious approach. Often being too rigid at the wrong point can backlash as much as being too lenient and make people go the other way. In fact that's one excuse people use: "I don't want to be like ISIS or the Taliban". It's the rigid discoourse which argues that we need to suppress art and music because it may "corrupt" people. Sure it may, but doesn't have to. In fact we need viable alternatives because as you mentioned, that "Twerking" Afghan girl didn't just come out of nowhere. She's a consequence of the social and cultural vacuum we live in.

My take away here is that we have to be conscientious of what we draw our focus on or else it will just get muddled with trivial things and not focus on the bigger picture.

Yeah I agree. We can and should befriend non Muslims. Also we should always try to learn about other civs and cultures. But doesn't change the fact that Hindus are not ahl al kitab. Saying so goes against Islamic teachings. A Mushrik can not be part of the people of the book.

Also I don't buy the religion of peace mumbo jumbo, bro. Islam is not a religion of peace nor a religion of war but something in between. Nor I believe Prophet Muhammad intended to be friend with Mushriks or non Muslims. Every religion or ideology claims to be superior to others. I don't think Prophet was a relativist but rather he really believe in the superiority of his faith. Nothing wrong about this. Muslims shouldn't get defensive. We should and must claim our moral authority even when our countries are a mess. We are always trying to justify ourselves to Westerners. West is always claiming to be superior to others, let alone the way it deals with those countries who refuse to accept its hegemony. It doesnt make any sense.

We have a rich jurisprudence and falsafa that has developed a rich doctrine over centuries. These retarded modern Islamists are an insult. For once looking at our past it would greatly our future.

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

Yeah I agree. We can and should befriend non Muslims. Also we should always try to learn about other civs and cultures. But doesn't change the fact that Hindus are not ahl al kitab. Saying so goes against Islamic teachings. A Mushrik can not be part of the people of the book.

Also I don't buy the religion of peace mumbo jumbo, bro. Islam is not a religion of peace nor a religion of war but something in between. Nor I believe Prophet Muhammad intended to be friend with Mushriks or non Muslims. Every religion or ideology claims to be superior to others. I don't think Prophet was a relativist but rather he really believe in the superiority of his faith. Nothing wrong about this. Muslims shouldn't get defensive. We should and must claim our moral authority even when our countries are a mess. We are always trying to justify ourselves to Westerners. West is always claiming to be superior to others, let alone the way it deals with those countries who refuse to accept its hegemony. It doesnt make any sense.

We have a rich jurisprudence and falsafa that has developed a rich doctrine over centuries. These retarded modern Islamists are an insult. For once looking at our past it would greatly our future.

We're definitely not a religion of peace or war, but we are certainly a religion of balance "Siratul Mustaqim" ..and "Ummatanl Wasata". Islam doesn't claim that it is superior to other faiths, It claims that it is the true essence of faith and thus the hidden reality of all brands of faith that has been obscured over time. In fact there is no other "faith" in the transcendental sense. We actually all have the same faith deep inside, but the followers of other "paths" have not come to that realization. Islam is not simply a name of a specific brand it , but it is a broad term for surrendering to the absolute. This is no different than Tao.

I know that sounds like new agey mumbo-jumbo but there is a philsophical undercurrent about what does Islam mean beyond simply its insular cultural/social representations. If the celestial objects are "Muslim" then how can the Mushrikeen in their essence at least, not be Muslim? I'm not saying they are Muslim in the jurisprudential sense, but the essence of everything is Islam, whether it is for those that are legally Muslim or the most dastardly Kafir.

We do have a rich body of juriprudence and falsafa, but this doesn't mean that they weren't often mired by their shortsight, social surroundings and political events of their times. Like I said, we need a conscientious evaluation of the past. Not simply emulating the past out of romantic notions about it. We can certain draw inspiration and utilize what works. I don't however think transfixing ourselves is what works. Nor am I suggesting that you believe this either. But, I think our issue should be with the more overt challenges to our values, which are the social behavior of people today.

[Firdousi]

We're definitely not a religion of peace or war, but we are certainly a religion of balance "Siratul Mustaqim" ..and "Ummatanl Wasata". Islam doesn't claim that it is superior to other faiths, It claims that it is the true essence of faith and thus the hidden reality of all brands of faith that has been obscured over time. In fact there is no other "faith" in the transcendental sense. We actually all have the same faith deep inside, but the followers of other "paths" have not come to that realization. Islam is not simply a name of a specific brand it , but it is a broad term for surrendering to the absolute. This is no different than Tao.

I know that sounds like new agey mumbo-jumbo but there is a philsophical undercurrent about what does Islam mean beyond simply its insular cultural/social representations. If the celestial objects are "Muslim" then how can the Mushrikeen in their essence at least, not be Muslim? I'm not saying they are Muslim in the jurisprudential sense, but the essence of everything is Islam, whether it is for those that are legally Muslim or the most dastardly Kafir.

We do have a rich body of juriprudence and falsafa, but this doesn't mean that they weren't often mired by their shortsight, social surroundings and political events of their times. Like I said, we need a conscientious evaluation of the past. Not simply emulating the past out of romantic notions about it. We can certain draw inspiration and utilize what works. I don't however think transfixing ourselves is what works. Nor am I suggesting that you believe this either. But, I think our issue should be with the more overt challenges to our values, which are the social behavior of people today.

Indeed we are. Never said otherwise. Islam is a balanced faith. But at the end of the day it does claim it message and values are superior thats why Muslims are rewarded with the highest places in Jaanat. Claiming that all others are the same or have the same value its wrong in my opinion.

I am not denying the humanity or kindness of mushrikeen. I am denying their belonging to ahl al kitab. Shirk is the biggest sin in Islam. Hard to believe that is tolerable from an islamic point of view.

By fiqh and falsafa I mean that we should try to take inspiration in our own heritage and not trying to emulate others. Of course we live in a different world so we should adapt. We must also adapt the way we understand Islam to the modern world. Also Islamic law needs to adapt to this. For example, in classical huddud in order to prove rape you need four witnesses. Nowadays thanks to science and technology we don't need that because we can prove that a woman has been assaulted scientifically or by a recording.

But all this shouldn't be done at the expense of our core values. Thats a red line I believe. As I have said many times before modernization, democratization and Westernization are different things. We should try to fully modernize, democratize to some degree and reject Westernization not because Western values are wrong or bad but because it leads to social confusion and destroys harmony.

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

Indeed we are. Never said otherwise. Islam is a balanced faith. But at the end of the day it does claim it message and values are superior thats why Muslims are rewarded with the highest places in Jaanat. Claiming that all others are the same or have the same value its wrong in my opinion.

Well that's not exactly what I claimed, rather there's a more subtle, more esoteric aspect that the conventional representations of Islam doesnt always address; where the understanding that all people's have received the message of islam and that Islam is the inner core of all the known manifestations of religions. On that grounds it's not completely invalid to consider them Ahl Al Kitab. Especially since we consider followers of Christianity as Ahl Al Kitab though Christianity in its current representation, characterizes a form of crypto polytheism.

Even if we're in the highest maqam of Jannah, we won't be the ONLY ones in Jannah. Entrance into Jannah is not a guarantee on the grounds of our "creed" alone. There are works and intentions that go in it. That's why it is highly possible that even a mushirk Hindu that's cared for the weak and unfortunate will get to Jannah before a self indulgent Muslim Prince in a Middle Eastern country.

However ....ultimately everyone goes to Jannah, but at different times, after serving a period of time in Jahanam.While Qur'an Sharif says "fa 'ulaika as-habu al nari hum fiha khaliduna" (and so such people are the companions of the fire; they will be in it perpetually)

the Qur'an also says "Inna lilahi wa inna ilayhi raji'un" (To him we belong and to him we return). I can only conclude that "khalidun" refers to the something that can carry on to an indeterminate time, but not necessarily immutably. Allahu 'Alim. There's been a tendency to look at the Divine in such a harsh way, when they are not harsh at all.

I am not denying the humanity or kindness of mushrikeen. I am denying their belonging to ahl al kitab. Shirk is the biggest sin in Islam. Hard to believe that is tolerable from an islamic point of view

.

Nor am I suggesting shirk is not reccompensible. Certainly it is, but there are different ways that can happen. But Shirk alone would not necessarily disavow one from Ahl Al Kitab, as mentioned above with regards to Christianity. Shirk is also not always as blatant as we think it is. How many Muslims in their pompousness end up commiting shirk.

Qur'an speaks of : "a-fa raʾayta mani takhadha ʾilāhahū hawāhu" (and have you seen those who take their desires as their deity)

I think this could apply to many Muslims, again Allahu 'Alim. My point being, we should have some humility about this than assume we are entitled heaven simply because we proclaim ourselves Muslims or that others are denied heaven because they don't. Let's leave cosmic decisions to our creator. We're here to manage the planet The Divine left for us to look after.

By fiqh and falsafa I mean that we should try to take inspiration in our own heritage and not trying to emulate others. Of course we live in a different world so we should adapt. We must also adapt the way we understand Islam to the modern world. Also Islamic law needs to adapt to this. For example, in classical huddud in order to prove rape you need four witnesses. Nowadays thanks to science and technology we don't need that because we can prove that a woman has been assaulted scientifically or by a recording.

Of course, we should not simply disregard our legacy and supplant it with something else. This is what the Attaturkists tried to do.

But all this shouldn't be done at the expense of our core values. Thats a red line I believe.

That's what I was saying too.

As I have said many times before modernization, democratization and Westernization are different things.

Agreed, they are very different , Westernization is a cultural and social concept that seeks to emulate the social and cultural climate of Western societies. This is why I decried the legitimization of homosexuality, while at the same time we should understand that homosexuality occurs typically outside a person's choice and needs to be handled differently but without validating it or giving it license.

We should try to fully modernize, democratize to some degree and reject Westernization not because Western values are wrong or bad but because it leads to social confusion and destroys harmony.

Absolutely. I don't think Westerners or values are simply intrinsically wrong or right, they gave a mix of positive and questionable values. Each idea needs to be examined on the merits of their impact. This is the approach I advocate for everything. Even among Muslims or anywhere else.

[khushal]

I feel bad for the Afghan females here.
1. They either get married to someone from back home who would not be able to understand her cause she grew up here with a different mentality and she would not be able to understand him who grew up there with a more traditional mentality.

2. From what I see, most Afghan males don't want to marry the females here cause they want a "traditional" girl or someone that does what they tell them. There are a few Pashtun girls I know that have married Indian Muslims or Arabs. But the Afghan males are more messed up than the females. At least Afghan females concentrate on getting an education, most of the males are losers who smoke weed and listen to, as Iblis said "rap" acting like they are black.

I know alot of Iranians and what I see is that almost all the girls have degrees and very few of the boys have any degrees so the girls tell me that they want to marry an Iranian boy but they don't want to marry one that has less education than them and their option are limited. I do know many that have married Americans but it was because they could not find an Iranian with similar goals or education.