Pakistan: Haqqani Militant Network Has Ties With Government, Ambassador

[MostafaM]

First, I don´t dance around the issue. I am against an islamic state theory.
I thought I had made clear.

Second, Islam as a religion practiced by people is not my concerne.

Third, we don´t know what the majority of Afghans want.
Anyone who comes here and tries to hijack the debate with "majority wants XY" is just fooling him-/herself.

[checkmate]

6. The Durrani Empire never refered to itself as Khurassan. Khurassan was one part of all the "-stans" that Ahmad Shah himself and his successors claimed to have conquered.

Afghanistan was founded as an Islamic Emirate by Ahmad Shah Baba, the Amir Al-Mumineen at the time


nothing else.

[MostafaM]

Afghanistan, while not in fact termed that at the time, was founded as an Islamic Emirate by Ahmad Shah Baba who was also the Amir Al-Mumineen at the time. This means his words had value to the whole Islamic world.

nothing else

Capiche

Well, an "Islamic leader" is a worldly and a religious leader in personal union.

As far as Ahmad Shah is concerned, he never had a proper religious education to be able to fill that position.

You can go on and rant nonsense but facts remain facts.

Every king declares himself as the "religious leader", Zahir Shah had a religious title, too, so what?

[MostafaM]

PS: Ahmad Shah Abdali established his empire while the Caliphate of the Ottomons existed. The Amir-Al-Mumineen was residing in Istanbul, my friend.

[checkmate]

Well, an "Islamic leader" is a worldly and a religious leader in personal union.

As far as Ahmad Shah is concerned, he never had a proper religious education to be able to fill that position.

You can go on and rant nonsense but facts remain facts.

Every king declares himself as the "religious leader", Zahir Shah had a religious title, too, so what?

Ahmad Shah Baba, the Amir-Al Mumineen (translation: Commander of the Faithful) acquired some of his knowledge from the great Islamic scholar Shah Waliullah.

[checkmate]

I have just refuted and debunked all your weak and false claims.

You are welcome.

Not all caliphs were known or bestowed with the position of Amir-Al-Mumineen. Such position is give to those who demonstrated values of Islam and principles of justice.

[MostafaM]

Claiming something is one thing, refuting another.

You claimed that Sha Waliullah lectured Ahmad Shah in religious matters and educated him.

You claimed that the Caliph at that time was NOT the Amir-Al-Mumineen but Ahmad Shah was.

Please provide me with sources that back your claims and refute mine.

[ScimitarXEdge]

At one point in a discussion you have to start to make sense:

1. as far as the logic is concerend, the overwhelming majority of Afghanistan speaks Awghani/Afghani/Pashto. You can come up with the CIA-Factbook but we know how credible your sources are.

2. I don´t think that the distinct tribal way of life, with a jirga system, where decision making is based on the will of all and not of the majority like in any other tribal/shura system around the world, has anything to do with the "cultures" you mentioned, specially Arabs who came with the Islamisation of central asia.

3. I know that you lack a proper identity and never got in touch with Pashtuns in real life, but a distinct self-perception is for example "Pakhtunwali" or "Pakhto kawel"......doing Pakhto with a fellow Pakhtun.
You cannot deny something that has been a subject of research for decades now.

4. The uprisings of whole tribes, collective tribal bonds ( tor gund, speen gund etc.) proves my point, not yours. The King has always been someone who was accepted by the tribes and not the other way around like in Persian, Turkish or Arab culture.

5. Ethnic conflicts have always been present in every heterogene sociaty across the globe. Pashtun/Afghan dominance on others is more than obvious. Hazaras call themselves "Afghan" today, have been assimiliated into Afghan/Pashtun culture etc.

6. The Durrani Empire never refered to itself as Khurassan. Khurassan was one part of all the "-stans" that Ahmad Shah himself and his successors claimed to have conquered.

Zaman Shah´s letter to the Ottoman Empire is historical document in Turkish archives where he vents about how he was blinded and imprisoned by his own brother and calls himself the conquerer of "Herat Zameen, Kabulistan, Zabulistan, Khurassan" etc.


(Source: Afghanistan. Natur, Geschichte und Kultur, Staat, Gesellschaft und Wirtschaft, (Reihe Ländermonographien des Instituts für Auslandsbeziehungen, Bd. 3). Herausgeber: Willy Kraus im Auftrag der "Arbeitsgemeinschaft Afghanistan". Mit 82 Fotos und 11 Karten)

You shouldn´t come up with arguements that have no historical meaning just to make a point.

7. The identity of Afghans/Pashtuns is clear. The identity of something called Pakistan is not.
Modern day Afghanistan´s border have been drawn by outside powers, no question about that. But the Durrani Empire and it´s successor states united Afghans/Pashtuns as it´s core people under one banner. If that state is called Afghanistan, Pashtunistan or Rohila, I really don´t care about terminology, I care about the fact that Pashtuns/Afghans always reach out to each other wherever they are, there is a bond between them and I guess, you have never come into the taste of this.

8. The tribal structures and the decentralized nature of Pashtun identity have always been a two-sided blade. A nation can be subjugated by decapitating it´s head or leadership. A nation with a million heads can´t be subjugated and that´s what the Pashtun/Afghan nation is showing for atleast 1200 years now.
The definition of a nation is not a centralistic entity (what you try to sell us) but a distinct identity that separates them from the people surrounding them.
Everyone who would say that Afghans/Pashtuns are the same as Usbeks to the north, Iranians to the west, Chines to the east and Pakistanis to the south, must be high on crack or just dillusional.

What academically credible sources indicate that the overwhelming majority of inhabitants speak Pashto? And even at that why don't all inhabitants speak Pashto? Pluralism? If you argue pluralism it defeats your "united cultural bonds" argument.

Jirgas aren't even based on the majority; they're based on elders who represent their clan/tribe/village. This is a prevalent concept in almost all tribal societies, including Pashtuns. which is much different than Islam which bases leadership on meritocracy and not "elderlineess",

And you accuse me of not knowing Afghans? Mister "Pornosstan"


Whatever you consider as the "proper" identity is nothing but a Europeanized manufactured constructs of hereditary homogeneity. All of which have been revealed to be demonstrably false by Modern Anthropology and Science. Even your "Mangal" tribe were originally Turks, which shows how much your sense of identity is warped and distorted. You live in a pipe dream, and this delusion acts out in everything you do and think , including your childish notions of Nationalism.

The fact Pashtuns dominated over other ethnic groups doesn't indicate that Hazaras, Tajks and others share a culture with Pashtuns; but that their respective cultures were deemed subordinate. When you admit something is heterogenous this too nullifites any underpinning hereditary unity.

Abdali ruled over a Kingdom he referred to as Khurasaan, Timur Shah's reference to Khurasaan as a province doesn't nullify the name of the kingdom itself was known as Khurasaan as well. IN fact the quote is irrelevant for the most part. This is common since at one time during the rife between Abdalis and the Barakzai Amirs, Afghanistan became known as the KIngdom of Kabul, even though the region of Kabul was not the entire Kingdom.

Academic sources show you're clearly wrong

"The Anglo-Saxons and Russians made funds available to the Amir. Abdul Rahman Khan received 250,000 pounds in sterling silver from the British and 700,000 rubbles of gold from the Russians to his empire, known at that time as Khurasan. In the Middle of the 19th Century it began being identified Afghanistan, a name first applied by the British and Russan Tsars in reference to the Kingdom."

Source: From Aryana-Khorasan to Afghanistan, pg. 25. By Hamed Wahid Alikuzai

You shouldn't deny history and scholarship just to protect fabricated mythology.

So even with Timur Shah's statement; it is unlikely he referred to the Kingdom itself as anything other than Khurassan


The tribal uprisings and inter tribal fighting do not prove your point; they show that even amongst Pashtuns themselves they saw themselves as sovereign entities not a united nation bonded on cultural grounds. It would be foolhearty to claim otherwise.

There is no clarity on the identity of Pashtuns; we don't know if the Abdalis are Hepthalites, if Ghilzais were originally Turks and Eastern Pashtuns possibly Tajiks. Our "creation" myths are so diverse and varied we don't have any clue as to what is fact or fiction. Probably none are.

A Nation where they shun their leadership, shun a central authority is not a defacto nation in anything except paper. 12 Million heads or not. You clearly have no idea of what constitutes a nation. There is no concrete reference to anything Pashtun and the term "Afghan" seems not always refer to Pashtuns according to Ibn Battuta. Your idea of who you are is largely mythological.

Clearly you need to be educated on what nation means

nation [ney-shuhn]  
Example Sentences Origin Like this word?

noun
1.
a large body of people, associated with a particular territory, that is sufficiently conscious of its unity to seek or to possess a government peculiarly its own: The president spoke to the nation about the new tax.

hmmm sounds like centralization to me?

[ScimitarXEdge]

Claiming something is one thing, refuting another.

You claimed that Sha Waliullah lectured Ahmad Shah in religious matters and educated him.

You claimed that the Caliph at that time was NOT the Amir-Al-Mumineen but Ahmad Shah was.

Please provide me with sources that back your claims and refute mine.

I don't know about whether or not Ahmad Shah Abdali was a pupil of Shah Waliullah but I do know he was known to be formerly learned in Islamic Law and that Islamic Law was what he applied in is rulership and not Pashtunwali

and good riddance, who wants to follow a backwards misogynistic, pederastic tribal custom anyways?

Abdali :: Khyber.ORG

Ahmad Shah had now leisure to turn his attention to internal affairs, and to the settlement of Afghanistan and the newly-acquired provinces. He thus passed the next four years in tranquillity, and appears to have had time to devote himself to literature. He used to hold, at stated periods, what is termed a Majlis-i-Eeulama, or Assembly of the Learned, the early part of which was generally devoted to divinity and civil law-for Ahmad Shah himself was a Molawi and concluded with conversations on science and poetry. He wrote a Collection of Odes in Pushto his own native tongue, tinged, as usual, with the mysticisms of the sufis, and from that work the following specimens have been taken. The work is scarce, particularly in eastern Afghanistan. He was also the author of several poems in the Persian language.

so much for you claiming to do research eh?

[MostafaM]

What academically credible sources indicate that the overwhelming majority of inhabitants speak Pashto? And even at that why don't all inhabitants speak Pashto? Pluralism? If you argue pluralism it defeats your "united cultural bonds" argument.

Jirgas aren't even based on the majority; they're based on elders who represent their clan/tribe/village. This is a prevalent concept in almost all tribal societies, including Pashtuns. which is much different than Islam which bases leadership on meritocracy and not "elderlineess",

And you accuse me of not knowing Afghans? Mister "Pornosstan"


Whatever you consider as the "proper" identity is nothing but a Europeanized manufactured constructs of hereditary homogeneity. All of which have been revealed to be demonstrably false by Modern Anthropology and Science. Even your "Mangal" tribe were originally Turks, which shows how much your sense of identity is warped and distorted. You live in a pipe dream, and this delusion acts out in everything you do and think , including your childish notions of Nationalism.

The fact Pashtuns dominated over other ethnic groups doesn't indicate that Hazaras, Tajks and others share a culture with Pashtuns; but that their respective cultures were deemed subordinate. When you admit something is heterogenous this too nullifites any underpinning hereditary unity.

Abdali ruled over a Kingdom he referred to as Khurasaan, Timur Shah's reference to Khurasaan as a province doesn't nullify the name of the kingdom itself was known as Khurasaan as well. IN fact the quote is irrelevant for the most part. This is common since at one time during the rife between Abdalis and the Barakzai Amirs, Afghanistan became known as the KIngdom of Kabul, even though the region of Kabul was not the entire Kingdom.

Academic sources show you're clearly wrong


You shouldn't deny history and scholarship just to protect fabricated mythology.

So even with Timur Shah's statement; it is unlikely he referred to the Kingdom itself as anything other than Khurassan


The tribal uprisings and inter tribal fighting do not prove your point; they show that even amongst Pashtuns themselves they saw themselves as sovereign entities not a united nation bonded on cultural grounds. It would be foolhearty to claim otherwise.

There is no clarity on the identity of Pashtuns; we don't know if the Abdalis are Hepthalites, if Ghilzais were originally Turks and Eastern Pashtuns possibly Tajiks. Our "creation" myths are so diverse and varied we don't have any clue as to what is fact or fiction. Probably none are.

A Nation where they shun their leadership, shun a central authority is not a defacto nation in anything except paper. 12 Million heads or not. You clearly have no idea of what constitutes a nation. There is no concrete reference to anything Pashtun and the term "Afghan" seems not always refer to Pashtuns according to Ibn Battuta. Your idea of who you are is largely mythological.

Clearly you need to be educated on what nation means



hmmm sounds like centralization to me?

1. هيواد افغانستان ـ دافغانستان قومي جوړښت &#1662

2. Cultural assimilation and linguistic assimilation are two different things. It´s a known fact that Mongol culture doesn´t things like "namoos". In fact Dschingis Khans wife was abducted and raped, it was part of their culture.
Now Hazaras of Afghanistan have adopted to the "ghairatmand culture" of Afghans. ( no offense intended.

3. The elders or representatives who take part in Jirgas are respected and wise people who are indirectly elected through a show of respect. Of course a Jirga cannot consist of 100% of the members of a community. Decision making would be very hard to achieve.
Those elders discuss untill they reach an agreement with all.
Majority rules is not something that Pashtuns know.
It´s part of Islami Shura system but not of Afghan culture.

4. I don´t accuse you of anything. I know it.
You haven´t come across many Afghans so far, otherwise you wouldn´t behave they way you do. In real life a Pashtun would have broken your neck if you had talked that gibberish to females that you are known for here.
The fact that you are alive clearly indicates how close to Afghan/Pashtun sociaty you are.

5. Whatever "Mangals" are or were, is subject to scientific research. So far not a single historian or genetic research has revealed that this tribe is of Turkic descent. The question remains what "Turks" or "Turkic" means.
But today and for the last 1200 years, since Mangal, brother of Wardak, wo settled down in Paktia after he left modern day Wardak area, consider themselves as Pashtuns, speak Pashto and follow Pashtun culture and traditions.
You, on the other hand, my Yemenite friend with a deep inferiority complex because of a lack of a proper identity, can´t even date yourself back 20 years.

6. There is no genetic or tribal unity, but there is definitly a cultural unity among those living in modern day Afghanistan.
"Being Afghan" is considered as something distinct across Asia, in Iran, India, Pakistan or in Central Asia.
Anyone can tell you that.

7. Khurassan as a reference from historic sources indicates it was a part of the Persian Empire. The word comes from the Persian word "khurshid" and means sun. The eastern parts of the Persian Empire were called Khurassan, a reference to the east where the sun comes up.
Throughout history the eastern part of Persia was known as Khurassan, but in history never people existed who called themselves Khurassani. Khurassan had never a capital or a king. If you wanna argue on the basis of fairy tales, we can go ahead.
Claiming to be the king of Khurassan doesn´t make you Khurassani.

The term has many references in Islamic history and many kings tried to use this term to give themselves legitimacy. You and I know the story of the Mahdi and Khurassan bla bla bla.....

8. Tribal wars indicate that Pashtun tribes were had a lose bond. In case of a foreign aggression they always united. It does prove my point that Pashtuns consider themselves a nation, hold their Pakhtunness high and never forget where they are from.

9. Ibn Battuta is not someone who the world recognizes as an ethnologist or specialist in central asian history. Pashtuns are subject to research across the globe. You are allowed to acknowledge that although it leaves a bad taste in your mouth because of your derailed identity and islamic emperialism aspirations with a hidden Arab agenda.
The fact that Arabs couldn´t established a base in Afghanistan and Afghans only accepted their religion but rejected everything about them, proves my point. Otherwise Afghanyat/Pashtunwali or Afghan culture wouldn´t be loaded with pre-Islamic elements.

10. Being part of a nation is a concept of conscience and awareness. Being organised in a centralistic way is clearly not a concept of nation.
It sounds centralistic to you but to you everything sounds the way you want it to sound.

[khushal]

The tribal uprisings and inter tribal fighting do not prove your point; they show that even amongst Pashtuns themselves they saw themselves as sovereign entities not a united nation bonded on cultural grounds. It would be foolhearty to claim otherwise.

A Nation where they shun their leadership, shun a central authority is not a defacto nation in anything except paper. 12 Million heads or not. You clearly have no idea of what constitutes a nation. There is no concrete reference to anything Pashtun and the term "Afghan" seems not always refer to Pashtuns according to Ibn Battuta. Your idea of who you are is largely mythological.

Clearly you need to be educated on what nation means

hmmm sounds like centralization to me?

Your using my argument, which you were arguing against in the other thread about how the real conflict in Afghanistan has more to do with the autonomous nature of tribal societies and how forcing central authority on them will have a violent reaction.

Are you in Contradiction or are you coming around to my valid theory?

Your idea of who you are is largely mythological.
There is no clarity on the identity of Pashtuns; we don't know if the Abdalis are Hepthalites, if Ghilzais were originally Turks and Eastern Pashtuns possibly Tajiks. Our "creation" myths are so diverse and varied we don't have any clue as to what is fact or fiction. Probably none are.

Utter nonsense. What diverse myths are you talking about. We know who we are. Because of our geographical location, we are a people that never detribalized on a large scale and every attempt has failed. Are you aware of how societies detribalize and what variable you need for this to take place.

http://www.des.ucdavis.edu/faculty/Richerson/Ethnicity%208-11-06%20for%20pdf.pdf

[ScimitarXEdge]

1. هيواد افغانستان ـ دافغانستان قومي جوړښت پ

Hewad.com is NOT an academic source. Academic sources please.

2. Cultural assimilation and linguistic assimilation are two different things. It´s a known fact that Mongol culture doesn´t things like "namoos". In fact Dschingis Khans wife was abducted and raped, it was part of their culture.
Now Hazaras of Afghanistan have adopted to the "ghairatmand culture" of Afghans. ( no offense intended.

Ghairatmand culture? What is ghairatmand about boy rape, trading women to settle blood disputes and blatant hypocrisy, which is not only prevalent but a normative feature in Modern Afghanistan across the board.

rapes are as common amongst Pashtuns as it is anywhere else. Kidnapping of women has been common in all noted aspects of Pashtun society. It's situations like this which is why the concept of "Ghairat" and "Namous" exist. The fact that women are forced to marry men often 8 times their age,and then furthermore coerced to have sex with them, is proof positive your cultural ideals are seldom practiced.

3. The elders or representatives who take part in Jirgas are respected and wise people who are indirectly elected through a show of respect. Of course a Jirga cannot consist of 100% of the members of a community. Decision making would be very hard to achieve.

http://www.tribalanalysiscenter.com/PDF-TAC/Pashtun%20Tribal%20Dynamics.pdf

Built into this often violent culture some form of governance must exist to reduce the anarchy that would be a constant factor in its absence.
Tribal leadership is normally vested in khan and maliks, leading members of the tribe, who represent their extended families in jirgas, or councils,
whose consensus decisions govern that portion of the tribe within the jirga’s span of control. These leaders are recognized and accepted by the
individual families they represent because of an interconnected series of prestige factors, such as extensive land holdings, personal wealth, a heroic reputation during war, honor from extensive for Islamic learning and knowledge, descent from heroic or highly religious ancestors, but the positions
they encumber are only nominally hereditary and sons may move into a deceased father’s position that is theirs to hold or lose, depending on their
capabilities

so in other words your previous argument was essentially a incorrect. Point Taken.

They're not elected,
Those elders discuss untill they reach an agreement with all.
Majority rules is not something that Pashtuns know.
It´s part of Islami Shura system but not of Afghan culture.

Obviously.......that's my point there is a type of Elitism and Oligarchy that precedes over Pashtuns not meritocracy

4. I don´t accuse you of anything. I know it.
You haven´t come across many Afghans so far, otherwise you wouldn´t behave they way you do. In real life a Pashtun would have broken your neck if you had talked that gibberish to females that you are known for here.
The fact that you are alive clearly indicates how close to Afghan/Pashtun sociaty you are.

The problem isn't that I don't know Pashtuns, the problem is that you have a rose tinted idealization of what you want Afghans and Afghan culture to be which isn't consistent with reality. If Pashtuns are these embodiments of moral purity; why does Prostitution exist AT ALL in Pashtun society? The existence of Pashtun women who prostitute is well documented. It is a sad state of affairs of course but it exists.

How come women from prominent Pashtun families would often expose personal aspects of the body like their legs for the public eye? Without any reproach from the majority of Pashtuns? There was even a Pashtun woman in swimsuits posing Half-naked like typical British or American woman would. Where was the outcry?

You have an ass-backward idea of the morality of Pashtuns; apparently you think that "words" will make a Pashtun rife with anger; but ignore the fact that actions happening amongst Pashtuns.

How come a Shinwari man sold his wife for a bag of wheat a few years go? Where was your outcry then?

Apparently your morals end at words.

5. Whatever "Mangals" are or were, is subject to scientific research. So far not a single historian or genetic research has revealed that this tribe is of Turkic descent. The question remains what "Turks" or "Turkic" means.
But today and for the last 1200 years, since Mangal, brother of Wardak, wo settled down in Paktia after he left modern day Wardak area, consider themselves as Pashtuns, speak Pashto and follow Pashtun culture and traditions.
You, on the other hand, my Yemenite friend with a deep inferiority complex because of a lack of a proper identity, can´t even date yourself back 20 years.

Concepts like inferiority complexes regarding ethnicity are manufactured by Europeans; your entire model of identity is a remnant of colonalization and the stigmatization regarding. But for me to have an inferiority complex would mean being brainwashed by the Colonial psychological anxieties; but I see them as false; you on the other hand .....well it goes without saying their brainwashing afflicts you deeply. You take their illusions as reality.

6. There is no genetic or tribal unity, but there is definitly a cultural unity among those living in modern day Afghanistan.
"Being Afghan" is considered as something distinct across Asia, in Iran, India, Pakistan or in Central Asia.
Anyone can tell you that.

Not even a cultural unity......other than the fact they speak common language; Notice the way Kuchis dress/their culture vs. the culture of villager or urbanized people. Kuchis are treated like they're on the periphery of society. Their culture vastly differs from urban and rural groups. They're deemed with suspicion and are often short changed by their other kin. so much for cultural unity?

Being Afghan is considered distinct? Sure just like Being Persian, being Bengali and Being Punjabi is considered distinct; that does't however mean that Afghans have some kind of culture that is uniquely theirs; most of the things you identify as Afghan are prominent in almost all patriarchal cultures.

7. Khurassan as a reference from historic sources indicates it was a part of the Persian Empire. The word comes from the Persian word "khurshid" and means sun. The eastern parts of the Persian Empire were called Khurassan, a reference to the east where the sun comes up.
Throughout history the eastern part of Persia was known as Khurassan, but in history never people existed who called themselves Khurassani. Khurassan had never a capital or a king. If you wanna argue on the basis of fairy tales, we can go ahead.
Claiming to be the king of Khurassan doesn´t make you Khurassani

.

But it sure means that they didn't care about anything bonafidely Pashtun. Their ambitions broke free from the Pashtun tribal mold, or at least attempted to, perhaps unsuccessfully in some instances. None the less; they let go of any ethnic ambitions and adopted a national identity outside of Pashtunhood.

The term has many references in Islamic history and many kings tried to use this term to give themselves legitimacy. You and I know the story of the Mahdi and Khurassan bla bla bla.....

you're on a tangent; but the point being is that Afghanistan was the term officially applied by the British; hence verifying that the Nation you want so badly to defend against the British created Imperial eyesore known as Pakistan; is itself British created

ironic how that works eh?

8. Tribal wars indicate that Pashtun tribes were had a lose bond. In case of a foreign aggression they always united. It does prove my point that Pashtuns consider themselves a nation, hold their Pakhtunness high and never forget where they are from.

Also largely false; Shah Shuja Al Mulk and the Popalzais of his time were wholly alligned with the British. Against other Afghans, The Ghilzais joined with Mahmoud Ghazni to fight other Pashtuns. Abdali was alligned with Nadir Shah Quli against Hotak.

need more examples of where this argument you pin is ostensibly falsified?

9. Ibn Battuta is not someone who the world recognizes as an ethnologist or specialist in central asian history. Pashtuns are subject to research across the globe. You are allowed to acknowledge that although it leaves a bad taste in your mouth because of your derailed identity and islamic emperialism aspirations with a hidden Arab agenda.

It doesn't really take an ethnologist to know who the Persians are; Persians were one of the prominent cultures of the time. Ibn Battuta had Persian translators accompany him; it's pretty obvious tat they could recognize what was spoken.

Hidden Agenda? Only in your brainwashed conspiratorial nutcase hallucinations. The only agenda I have is for people to face the Truth and give up chasing British manufactured ideas of culture and heritage. And I have clearly stated that.

What irks you is that you're too much of a coward to actually confront that reality; so you lash out and you accuse others of the same disease you're afflicted with.

Yes Pashtuns are subject of research and that research is showing that Pashtuns are not what you think they are. That would be more likely to irk you than I. I'm not afflicted with the same Colonial psychological anxiety you have

The fact that Arabs couldn´t established a base in Afghanistan and Afghans only accepted their religion but rejected everything about them, proves my point. Otherwise Afghanyat/Pashtunwali or Afghan culture wouldn´t be loaded with pre-Islamic elements.

It doesn't prove your point because your point is based on a false premise; something that is only the product of your deranged conspiratorial hallucinations.

and also your self hatred for having an identity which is a product of a British invented house of cards. the existence of pre-Islamic customs isn't something unique to Pashtuns; most cultures that Islam encountered still retains pre-Islamic features, even Arabs still retain some pre-Islamic features. It doesn't have to do with Arab inroads; but the way Islam spread. The major features of Pashtun culture are however definitely came with conversions to Islam. the word Ghairat and Namous, are both Arabic terms. And we know this is true because based on current studies regarding people who were possibly ancestors of pashtuns; such as the Hepthalites, polyandry used to be practied, which would contradict both Ghairat and Namous

you need to stop looking at the world from the ethnicity angle; it makes you sound horribly insecure.

10. Being part of a nation is a concept of conscience and awareness. Being organised in a centralistic way is clearly not a concept of nation.
It sounds centralistic to you but to you everything sounds the way you want it to sound.

It is by definition; but dimwits like you will ignore definitions won't you? All to justify your asinine colonized brainwashing. ......it amazes me how you don't recognize how self defeating your cause really is.

[ScimitarXEdge]

Your using my argument, which you were arguing against in the other thread about how the real conflict in Afghanistan has more to do with the autonomous nature of tribal societies and how forcing central authority on them will have a violent reaction.

Not at all; your argument is that Pashtuns are unanimously resistant to central authority; Many Pashtuns cater to central Authority in fact these days MOST do; So your argument flunks there. The fact that many Pashtun tribes resist central authority proves there's no unanimous Pashtun consciousness and never was , which is Mostafa's argument;

You're both wrong in your own ways.

are you in Contradiction or are you coming around to my valid theory?

No your theory is still nonsensical; as always; I'm just able to acknowledge prominent examples where Mostafa's theory flunks too.

What diverse myths are you talking about.

what are the origins of the durranis and what are the origins of the Ghilzais?

[khushal]

Not at all; your argument is that Pashtuns are unanimously resistant to central authority; Many Pashtuns cater to central Authority in fact these days MOST do; So your argument flunks there. The fact that many Pashtun tribes resist central authority proves there's no unanimous Pashtun consciousness and never was , which is Mostafa's argument;

You are in contradiction. You are using my argument against mustafa, its OK if you do, I don't mind.

But I have to correct you. The Pashtun tribesmen reject central authority, it would be unnatural for tribes to embrace it.

http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/journal/docs-temp/393-haring.pdf

Even the Native Americans tribes had this same problem with the US government
American colossus: the triumph of ... - H. W. Brands - Google Books

[ScimitarXEdge]

You are in contradiction. You are using my argument against mustafa, its OK if you do, I don't mind.

But I have to correct you. The Pashtun tribesmen reject central authority, it would be unnatural for tribes to embrace it.

http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/journal/docs-temp/393-haring.pdf

Even the Native Americans tribes had this same problem with the US government
American colossus: the triumph of ... - H. W. Brands - Google Books

No your argument is ALL tribes reject it; my argument is some tribes reject it some tribes accept it


if you dont know the difference them then I misjudged your intelligence.