Pashtun Mullah

[RevolutionThroughReason]

No, you don't understand. Your only describing the areas that have feudal structures and have "Khans" or large feudal landlords. The reason you say its hierarchy is because feudal landlords are hierarchal.

The word "Mashar" is intrinsically indicative of hierarchy as it implies a state of authority, greater control and influence of power. If hierarchy was not intrinsically apart of Pashtunwali, then there'd be no such thing as a Mashar. So in summary, that means that this applies to every aspect of Pashtunwali.

What they do is devise ways to annex lands for themselves and people living on their lands are their subjects so land equals power because you could control people this way. This is not the case in most of pashtunland.

Which is what the Mashars do

Um yes it is

"the Mashar owns the land, commands those who work on and subsist from it, represents, to others as an integral unit, that is an extension of his person and derives their identities from his own in a metaphor of fatherhood" (Source: State and Tribe in Nineteenth-Century Afghanistan)

The mashers in the village are not large landlords who have subjects as you say.

Um yes they are

"the Mashar owns the land, commands those who work on and subsist from it, represents, to others as an integral unit, that is an extension of his person and derives their identities from his own in a metaphor of fatherhood" (Source: State and Tribe in Nineteenth-Century Afghanistan)

Some of my kaliwals are millionaires who reside in Peshawar and others reside in Kabul.

Then they're not keliwals

Having large plots of land is not power, having many male members in your household is power.

Um yes it is

"the Mashar owns the land, commands those who work on and subsist from it, represents, to others as an integral unit, that is an extension of his person and derives their identities from his own in a metaphor of fatherhood" (Source: State and Tribe in Nineteenth-Century Afghanistan)

The reason that the Brits, the Russian and the Americas have failed is because they cant figure a way to buy the people wholesale like they have in paksitan or Egypt where feudal landlords can deliver their subject to them very cheaply.

What do you mean? They have been doing it, Pashtuns have been their cannon fodder for the last 40 or so years. You're in deep denial.

It not very hard to buy a feudal society, and you don't really need guns to do it. Your a math expert, it should not be hard for you to figure this out.

Which has nothing to do with Mathematics; especially the branch of Mathematics I'm studying now, Differential Geometry and Low Dimensional-Symplectic Topology.

But if you mean to say I can use my deductive skills as a Mathematician; then I call nonsense; you're passing an IDEALIZATION not a Documented reality.

Most of your arguments in the past and now have been IDEALIZATIONS about Pashtuns. Pashtuns are known for their self-masturbatory commentaries. I know this because I heard all the comments you say ALL of my life. It was through analysis, evidence gathering and observation; I saw it was largely untrue.

All one has to do is use math equations to figure out how much wealth is needed to buy a feudal society by figuring out how much a feudal landlord is getting out of his people, if you offer that feudal land lords more money, he would have no choice but take an offer that is higher than what he is getting out of his subjects.

So you're saying if I used Riemmann's Curvature Tensor


It would help me in determining how much a Afghan costs? LOL

You really don't have a clue what you're talking about, do you?

Pashtuns are very expensive especially the ones in hills because the feudal landlord structures have not taken hold and they are too hilly, they cant take hold. Its hard to get them wholesale.

Yeah so expensive all it took was 4 viagra pills LOL

The Afghan chieftain looked older than his 60-odd years, and his bearded face bore the creases of a man burdened with duties as tribal patriarch and husband to four younger women. His visitor, a CIA officer, saw an opportunity, and reached in his bag for a small gift.

Four blue pills. Viagra.

"Take one of these. You'll love it," the officer said. Compliments of Uncle Sam.

The enticement worked. The officer, who described the encounter, returned four days later to an enthusiastic reception. The grinning chief offered up a bonanza of information about Taliban movements and supply routes - followed by a request for more pills.

hahaha, come on man. your stretching here. Karzai has the best armies in the world at his disposal with wealth and technology far advanced than any Sadozai or Barackzai did before him.

It's not about wealth or technology; the social and moral lanscape has changed. Before people wouldn't even care about scorched earth policies; mainly because people didn't have high speed media and were disconnected consequently. Now the world's eyes are watching. They can't use those policties even if they have more sophisticated means.

Abdur Rahman and other Kings could and did.

They only relocated people from mostly urban areas mostly it was a ghilzai/abdali rivalry. They left the rurals and other tribes alone. The kings only ruled the large cities, the rural areas were always out of their direct control. Interference with them always meant trouble whether it were the kings or brits or Russians or americans.

You're being intellectually dishonest now. Almost all the relocations were from where certain tribes were centralized not urban areas, It wasn't from Kandahar city, but kandahar province, not from Ghazni city, but provincial Ghazni. It wasn't simply "Ghilzai vs Durrani" rivalry, that's part of it but also Karlarni tribes like the Khugiani, Shinwari, Mohmands.

Your statement tells me you have failed to learn Afghan history and just fabricated a response out of total lack of knowledge.

The brits went to Afghanistan because they thought the Russians were gaining to much influence there. It had more to do with paranoia then anything else. It was a buffer state so the king in Kabul had to do his best to try to balance the russians with the brits. His job was basically to convince both they had nothing to fear. Any failure in convincing meant invasion. When the brits got paranoid, the invaded and when the Russians got paranoid, they invaded.

This is correct and also it was a trade route from Central Asia, there were mineral resources as well which were determined by Royal Geologists, ores which were beneficial for the early industrial revolution and industry. Whstever his judge was, essentially he was Britain's chimp.

So much for Pashtun's not being owned.

Then why does no one in our tribe pay taxes to anyone. No one in our tribe follows or accepts the Afghan constitution, No one recognizes the afghan police or courts. Even the Pashtuns in FATA don't follow an Pakistani constitution not do any courts law apply there. The brits could not change them even though they tried for over a hundred years and their child Pakistan trying to do the same thing for 70 years after that.

Well actually that's a total lie, there was actually a historical incident where Jaji tribesmen were used as stooges for the Royal government when the Mangal clan didn't want to pay taxes. They were agents and parcel of the taxation system in Afghanistan and obedient to the government, thus were paying taxes. This is actually documented in historical annals of Afghanistan

and even today

Abdul Rahman Mangal, Paktya deputy governor, walks with fellow Afghan government officials and Jaji tribal elders to a post-shura lunch in Jaji district Nov. 28. The shura was held as part of a ceremony to inaugurate a school and new police headquarters in the district. (Photo by 1st Lt. Eric Ozburn)

Almost every claim you've made is demonstrably false.

OK, fair enough, but we could also say the brits and now the US have managed to buy them wholesale.

The Saudis are not the early Muslims; your comment was about the early Muslims.

Still, she inherited her wealth right where you said before they could not.

Yes she couldn't if her husbands left behind sons or male relatives, which is what would happen in Pashtunwali if NO other male survives, But if some other male survives he would get the inheritance.

That was my point the whole time; women are divested of inheritance. The fact she gained inheritance is only a consequence of a lack of males, not because women were allowed inheritance.

So in essence, he was raised by his uncle who regarded what the Arabs were doing was ignorance. Worshipping Idols wasn't really an Arab culture but it was more an influence by the business community.

Which is basically another way of saying culture; since business and economics are central aspects of a culture.

Your entire rant here, only serves to reinforce the cultural aspect.

Your looking at this from a very primitive point of view.

Of course, because that's the point of view of Pashtunwali.

Your model of defense of women would only be true if Pashtun women weren't traded in exchange for settling disputes. A protective male from an evolutionary perspective would NEVER let ANY outsider touch his women even if a dispute would end his life

But we see that Swara is practiced amongst Pashtuns with no social repercussion except from Modernists and Progressives.

PAshtunwali would consider those men as baighyrat. in PAshtunwali, the man is supposed to protect and take care of his woman,

if that was the case these men would be put on the periphery of society; not the mainstream and they wouldn't have access to power and they'd be openly criticized for it amongst Pashtuns

yet none of that happens. Yet we see no evidence of that, so you're just inventing a narrative to save a failed culture.

Yes, your doing the same thing.

I'm not, Pashtunwali restricts freedom, where as the first amendment guarantees a freedom. The comparison is night and day.


the blame is cultural attitudes and practices; what else could it be? It's the culture that cultivates.

Actually, wahabya has been amended and is used to keep saud in power and infringe on the common Saudis rights and freedoms. PAshtunwali does the opposite, it keep all authorites out from infringing on the common persons rights and freedoms.

I don't see anywhere that the Wahhabiyah has been "amended"; looks like the same Wahhabiyah as there always was. I never doubted that Wahhabism tries to infringe on peoples rights, OF course it does, I'm just using YOUR argument. People are free if they can bypass authorities to leave Wahhabism behind.

Pashtunwali IS the authority that infringes on peoples rights. In Pashtuinwali, could a man send love letters to another man's daughter freely? Without invasion of privacy or retribution? No, of course not, but people do it ...so in that sense they're free to leave but not without a price.

My point was the "free to do" part is vacuous because everyone is free to do anything; The issue here is whether other people will try and infringe on that freedom, and the answer is yes they will.

There are female schools in the tribal areas, but they want to ensure what they perceive as enough protection for the females. The urbanized ones perceive that they are protected enough. So when it comes down to is there enough protection.

Yeah that get burnt down, attacked or threatened with the complicity of the tribesman. nice try.

Let's see you now try and throw the Taliban under the bus

He is not arguing the same thing, he is on a different tangent.
Well one can be a syed maternally, he still could have been Pashtun paternally And Hanafa's father was from Kabul, we don't really know if he was Tajik or Pashtun but regardless we are talking about the geography and we are talking about influence. If you are talking about technical achievement, Ill do some research, Im pretty sure Ill find you something.

You can't be Sayyid maternally with the exception of Hassan, Hussain . From then on Sayyid became Patrilineal. He's not Pashtun, None of the Sayyids are considered Pashtun even if they speak Pashto. This is Pashtun tribal law

I thought you knew Pashtunwali?

AQ Khan is a thief, so I guess since Pashtuns have a history of banditry then that would fall into something Pashtuns would be proud of.

Abu Hanifa is descended from the Wuzurzan who are Persian Noble families. Hence Tajik.

No, not grooming habits. One example would be that Urban Pashtuns divorce because in the urban setting a woman can take care of herself but in the rural setting divorce is unheard of since women can not take care of themselves. ITs about practicality.

This is your assumption; not fact, I'm sure many women could take care of themselves in tribal settings, and likewise many women can't take care of themselves in Urban settings. the Urban and Rural has no bearing. It's just capacity.

you're spinning an unsubstantiated narrative; Making stuff up as we go is NOT an argument.

Another "tradition" that is different is that when an engagement is announced, there is gunfire, urban Pashtuns don't do this since it is not practical considering the danger in a condensed population setting.

I've seen urban pashtuns do that all the time in Paghman. You really have no clue.

peshawaris have their celebration and nekha on the same day, we on the other hand never have it on the same day.
.

Slight modification; not a de-facto change in their ethical cosmology.