Farkhunda: Why a secular Afghanistan is needed

[Khostai]

Did you forget about hitler who was secular. He was burning jews alive.

You are using selective history to fit your narrative.

And Osama bin Laden was a mulsim, but that did not prevent him being a murderer of people. Even your precious prophet killed alot and the rulers after him killed even millions when they spread out the empire.

[Khostai]

Screw you and your secularism.

If you deslike secularims so much why don't you go and live in the Islamic state of Afghnistan? Where you will be stoned to death for trivial things. Secularism is the only why to uplift the people.

[khushal]

And Osama bin Laden was a mulsim, but that did not prevent him being a murderer of people. Even your precious prophet killed alot and the rulers after him killed even millions when they spread out the empire.

That is a strawman fallacy. Your changing the subject. Your claim was that secular societies dont burn people and I proved you wrong, and thats that. Dont cry, you should appreciate that I am educating you you ungrateful ingrate.

[Badlun]

That is a strawman fallacy. Your changing the subject. Your claim was that secular societies dont burn people and I proved you wrong, and thats that. Dont cry, you should appreciate that I am educating you you ungrateful ingrate.

Secular societies may not be perfect and the wars there are not on the name of secularism. But in religious societies wars are on the name of God and religion.

Secular societies give you development and better life but Islamism has not given you anything good. Secular societies may be 10% bad but 90% good. Islamist societies like those of Somalia, Sudan, Afghanistan, Pakistan etc are 100% dirt.

[Khostai]

That is a strawman fallacy. Your changing the subject. Your claim was that secular societies dont burn people and I proved you wrong, and thats that. Dont cry, you should appreciate that I am educating you you ungrateful ingrate.

False I refuted your childlish argument, you proved nothing, I still have to see your proof of a secular society were the mob burns a person in public, please show me your proof.

[khushal]

False I refuted your childlish argument, you proved nothing, I still have to see your proof of a secular society were the mob burns a person in public, please show me your proof.

Well, Hitler institutionalized burning people and he was a secular but if your talking about lynching, that has nothing to with Islamic or secular, that is mob mentality so here you go:

http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5487/

http://www.schooltube.com/video/311cdfd03f1b4d8eade0/Psychology%20of%20Mobs,%20Lynching,%20and%20Moral%20Cowardice

Here, read about the psychology of lynching and mob violence:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/beyond-bullying/201311/modern-lynchings-when-accusations-are-all-it-takes

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sonya-rehman/no-job-for-the-jschooler_b_681440.html?

[Brown Skinned Savage]

False I refuted your childlish argument, you proved nothing, I still have to see your proof of a secular society were the mob burns a person in public, please show me your proof.

It doesn't matter why someone was burned alive; the fact they were burned alive and galvanized by a motive that was sanctioned by the institution of Government is enough.

Khushal did actually accurately depict a secular society that committed these atrocities and on a wider scale. We can split hairs on whether Hitler was secular; but Fascism & Nationalism are both secular ideologies and are what drove Hitler.

Hence Khushal is right. Therefore your claim that Secularism inoculates society from barbarity is incorrect.

[Brown Skinned Savage]

Secular societies may not be perfect and the wars there are not on the name of secularism. But in religious societies wars are on the name of God and religion.

Secular societies give you development and better life but Islamism has not given you anything good. Secular societies may be 10% bad but 90% good. Islamist societies like those of Somalia, Sudan, Afghanistan, Pakistan etc are 100% dirt.

Most of the world is secular and under developed so it is not correct to say secularism coincides with development.Take South America and Africa, most countries there are secular and heavily under developed.

You're attributing things to ideology which are not based on ideology.

[Kushan Saka]

Afghanistan needs modernization and we can learn from the west but this does not mean that we should copy them and their mistakes . Secularism will not make us prosperous and rich ,when we have a poor developed economy and not enough security. Our deeply religious society and state is not our problem but it is also not wrong to strengthen our secular institutions. I dont see how adopting strict secularism will change anything in Afghanistan. Our main problems are corruption,criminality, ignorance, superstitions and lack of education. All this would still exist in a secular Afghanistan because this problems are a result of poverty, bad education and a primitive understanding of Islam. Islam is actually not against modern technology and modernization of Institutions (schools,universities) like some idiots claim. We need to find the middle way and should preserve our traditions, religion and values but should be also open to modern technologies and reforms which improve the living conditions of our people. But never we should adopt western liberalism and degenerated ideas, which would destroy our country in the end.

[Azmal]

First of all there is no proof that she burned anything at all. Its all accusations.

Second, show me a credible source that says Islam sanctions the hanging of someone that has burnt any literature.

Third, all your claims are nonsense. None of it is true.
Iran has a more democratic system compared to the secular arab tyrants that rule their nations.
capital punishment exists in those arab secular societies and also in secular america.


Most of you guys are morons.

Why do you have to insult to make you a point? You need to realize that in modern world anyone has the right to express their opinion, no matter how much you may find it personally offensive. Now if you really are committed to your ideas, then surely you can muster the strength to withstand discourse.

[Azmal]

Many of these prevalent in secular countries as well.

There are legal restrictions on age of consent; which is essentially a form of policing people's sexual behavior. I'm not saying I disagree with the law; but it falls under "moral policing"

I think your argument only makes sense if you're arguing against the STATE entirely because the Nature of a STATE is to regulate over the behavior of those under its authority.

Most secular countries fits Max Weber's definition of states---"Monopoly of violence" but at the same time the limits to an individual’s liberty is enshrined in the Law on the one hand, and at the mercy of one’s own conscience on the other. Whereas the former applies limitations on our freedoms only from interfering with the freedoms of other individuals, the latter is one that happens through active propagation amid religious discourse. (In old days of college countless time I have called bible corrupt and garbage to Mormon missionaries trying to convert me…he would try to reason.) This is what is lacking in Muslims society and reason for internal state of coma of Muslims world. In my opinion Islam is by nature secular while both political Islam as well as our traditional Islam in my view are a hindrance to people's faith. Without faith, you cannot motivate yourselves to perform good deeds. People should not ignore the fact that Muslims the world over are viewed as liars, thieves, tyrants, corrupted and violent. The volume of evidence here has fuelled immense anti-Islam polymics.
The issue with Muslims today is that instead of forming an appreciation for God through free inquiry, people's views are blurred by the ugly faces of Jallaludin Haqqani, Zia-ul-Haq, Omar, Rabbani or Gulbudin. Although they position themselves as the pillars of our faith, they in effect empower themselves as man-gods, hence the ultimate evil of all.
The important thing is that the people of Afghanistan are spared from all tyrannies, be they from the Islamists, Marxists, or the myriad of Barbarians posing as both. All are ok to compete, but only politically and with their hands and feet bound by laws that observe individual liberties.
Nobody should have the right to impose anything over the people. My view of the government and the state is that it ought to be bound. The less powers people surrender to them, the better. The more people demand from their government, the less free they will be, guaranteed. You want somebody to regulate your daily moral behavior? Fine, there goes your god-given liberty to regulate your own behavior. You want the government (or foreigners) to build you things and give you things? Fine, but don't complain when they expect you to do things in return like paying lots of taxes or accepting a pay-cheque that is lower than your measured labor as you've to foot the bill for a lazy counterpart as the Commies would have it. You want to excuse Barbarism as those carrying it out happen to be in your circle of politics? Fine, but don't complain when they come to your home and force your daughter into marriage with them.

[Khostai]

Well, Hitler institutionalized burning people and he was a secular but if your talking about lynching, that has nothing to with Islamic or secular, that is mob mentality so here you go:

http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5487/

http://www.schooltube.com/video/311cdfd03f1b4d8eade0/Psychology%20of%20Mobs,%20Lynching,%20and%20Moral%20Cowardice

Here, read about the psychology of lynching and mob violence:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/beyond-bullying/201311/modern-lynchings-when-accusations-are-all-it-takes

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sonya-...b_681440.html?

Again where is your proof of a secular society where people are dragged on the streets and burned alive? Nowhere, Hitler did not burn with his mob in clear view. Actually Hitler gassed the jews in secret. The world did not know that the camps that the people were send to were killing camps, people taught that it was labour camps. After the war people realised what was done. And Hitler was raised a catholic and later he belived in accult magic and old German gods. He never was atheist or secular. The whole Nazi regime was never atheist or secular. So nice try, dum ass.

[Khostai]

Afghanistan needs modernization and we can learn from the west but this does not mean that we should copy them and their mistakes . Secularism will not make us prosperous and rich ,when we have a poor developed economy and not enough security. Our deeply religious society and state is not our problem but it is also not wrong to strengthen our secular institutions. I dont see how adopting strict secularism will change anything in Afghanistan. Our main problems are corruption,criminality, ignorance, superstitions and lack of education. All this would still exist in a secular Afghanistan because this problems are a result of poverty, bad education and a primitive understanding of Islam. Islam is actually not against modern technology and modernization of Institutions (schools,universities) like some idiots claim. We need to find the middle way and should preserve our traditions, religion and values but should be also open to modern technologies and reforms which improve the living conditions of our people. But never we should adopt western liberalism and degenerated ideas, which would destroy our country in the end.

I think you do not understand what modernisation is. Secularism is the middle way and can help with what I made bold. Secularism does not ban relligion you can belive in everything you want, do everything you deem fit to fulfill your relligious duty. One extreme would be to bann relligion from people and closing all mosques and relligious holidays, the other extreme is what Saudis and Iran are, and to extent the Afghan taliban and the current regime. This are the two extremes, and secularism is the middle way.

I live in secular Europe, I see people attending mosques and are wearing relligious clothes, do you think christians have so much freedom in Afghanistan? Can a christian built a church in Afghanistan? No they can't. I find muslims to be super hypocrite, they travel to other countries and demand their relligious right, but in their own they kill and bomb and supress other relligions, they even supress their own muslim, just becuase they happend to have diffrent view. This is all thanks to mixing relligion with goverment.

If you want modernisation than secularism is a part of it. Most development will not be possible if you don't have secular law.

[Toramana]

I 200% agree with happy khan and khostai. Islamism is a curse that should have been erased a long time ago for society to progress and modernize not just in material sense but also in the sense of attitude.

Religion creates distinction between humans and creates the class-based society where the dominant religious group is at the top and the rest low-ranking citizens. This is unacceptable.

[DaZahroJaam.]

Afghans are not ready for or deserving of either one of these options. A secular state doesn't necessarily mean the absence of religious belief in a system. It requires that a nation be tolerant and accepting of other religions and their beliefs.
Farkhunda didn't die because of religion but because of its absence.
They say, in order for peace to become a part of the land, its soil has to go through a certain amount of turmoil and that Afghanistan hasn't gone through enough.. This land, it's people, their religions and their freedoms are corrupted. Let it all burn. In due time, the good will resurface..