Reform in Muslim societies

[Khostai]

A secular state with Islam being the majority population among the population, like in Turkey. That to me is the best form of government in regards to religion.

But Turkey could only become secular after strict restriction on relligion, it was modernised by atheists and people who maby belived in God, but would never pass for a muslim.

They seperated relligion from the state quite abrupt, they could achive that becuase there was no funding of extremists by outside forcess, And no Turkey was not that modern or secular during the otoman regime, they were a kahliphate and enough hardcore muslims who would fight the state if they had the money for it.

In this time and age SA and all the other gulf states will fund any wahabist group in a country if they see a chance in it. If Afghanistan secularised during that time we would also have a normal state right now, without all this nutjobs and arab pretending to be pashtun just to spread their submissive ideology that they call the relligion of peace.

[Firdousi]

West got many good and positive things that we should learn and adopt them to our own way of life. Human Rights, science, progress, justice, government, technology, free media,.. West is ahead of the rest of the world in all these fields. We should embrace their achievements. But this does not mean to become Westerns or leave our way of life. We have our own set of values, our own mentality, our own culture,.. we just need to reform them and adapt them to the new century. Adapt or die.

[Firdousi]

But Turkey could only become secular after strict restriction on relligion, it was modernised by atheists and people who maby belived in God, but would never pass for a muslim.

They seperated relligion from the state quite abrupt, they could achive that becuase there was no funding of extremists by outside forcess, And no Turkey was not that modern or secular during the otoman regime, they were a kahliphate and enough hardcore muslims who would fight the state if they had the money for it.

In this time and age SA and all the other gulf states will fund any wahabist group in a country if they see a chance in it. If Afghanistan secularised during that time we would also have a normal state right now, without all this nutjobs and arab pretending to be pashtun just to spread their submissive ideology that they call the relligion of peace.

Get your info right, baiyan. Turkey had her highest growth and progress under Erdogan rule. Secular Kemalists proved to be a bunch of useless coward European wannabes.

Recep Tayyip Erdo& - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Firdousi]

This is a picture of what's permitted freely in Modern Turkey



After all your arguing trying defend Pashtuns from negative criticism....are you sure this is the type of society you want to see in Afghanistan?


May Allah help Honest Believing Muslims in Turkey purify their society of this Fitnah.

Turkey today is a culturally confused country. Just like Afghanistan. Just because they have a better economy or more stability means nothing. Ataturk destroyed Turkish identity by trying to abruptly Westernize the country. Well, seems that era is over and now the traditional Turkish values are raising. Still Turkey is unable to find her place in the world: Turkey rejected Mecca and tried to embrace Brussels. Now Brussels has rejected them, leaving them in a confusing situation, in where they are not fully Muslims, nor Westerns. Thats why many Turks claim to be a "bridge" between civilizations. Thats of course BS, because after all, bridges are artificial creations that connects two solid and separate lands.

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

This type os society can be seen in every muslim country behind close doors. Just becuase you do not see it on tv does not mean it does not happen.

Maybe in your home; but definitely not mine.

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

Turkey today is a culturally confused country. Just like Afghanistan. Just because they have a better economy or more stability means nothing. Ataturk destroyed Turkish identity by trying to abruptly Westernize the country. Well, seems that era is over and now the traditional Turkish values are raising. Still Turkey is unable to find her place in the world: Turkey rejected Mecca and tried to embrace Brussels. Now Brussels has rejected them, leaving them in a confusing situation, in where they are not fully Muslims, nor Westerns. Thats why many Turks claim to be a "bridge" between civilizations. Thats of course BS, because after all, bridges are artificial creations that connects two solid and separate lands.

Don't get me wrong; I know Turkish Reformists are trying to undo a lot of the damage the Attaturkists have done. My only point was to educate Aryana that "Modern Turkey" did not become secular with a Muslim backbone; rather the Attaturkists tried to replace Islam in all spheres of life.

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

In this time and age SA and all the other gulf states will fund any wahabist group in a country if they see a chance in it. If Afghanistan secularised during that time we would also have a normal state right now, without all this nutjobs and arab pretending to be pashtun just to spread their submissive ideology that they call the relligion of peace.

This is just a Western Imperialist narrative perpetuated by mentally colonized drones that have been indoctrinated by Western Liberalism.

There is a brilliant Sufi and Mystic Tradition which Imparted Islam in Afghanistan, Iran, Tajikistan and South Asia for centuries; Wahhabism isn't the natural alternative nor is Western style seculariams.

[Firdousi]

Don't get me wrong; I know Turkish Reformists are trying to undo a lot of the damage the Attaturkists have done. My only point was to educate Aryana that "Modern Turkey" did not become secular with a Muslim backbone; rather the Attaturkists tried to replace Islam in all spheres of life.

Ataturk did not secularize the country but rather Westernize it. Ataturk was an European wannabe suffering from inferiority complex, like most of nationalist people. Ataturk looked down on Arabs, calling them "barbaric bedouins" but he omitted the fact that Turks were also a primitive tribal people too, before migrating into Persian lands, which at the time was an urban civilization and learned basic government skills, knowledge and civilization. Once they settled down, they adopted Islam. After all their preislamic way of life was disgusting, backward and tribal and contributed with nothing to humanity.

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

Ataturk did not secularize the country but rather Westernize it. Ataturk was an European wannabe suffering from inferiority complex, like most of nationalist people. Ataturk looked down on Arabs, calling them "barbaric bedouins" but he omitted the fact that Turks were also a primitive tribal people too, before migrating into Persian lands, which at the time was an urban civilization and learned basic government skills, knowledge and civilization. Once they settled down, they adopted Islam. After all their preislamic way of life was disgusting, backward and tribal and contributed with nothing to humanity.

Most People in Turkey are Turkified Anatolians; I will say however Turks had good things and badthings. I actually have a strong admiration for some of the Spiritual ideas from Tengri or Goktanri. It's very beautiful and I appreciate its virtues. I think the real message of Islam is not to diminish people's heritage but to channel it to the best of aims. The Ummayads tried to cloud the Islamic message with their Arab-centrist attitude, but it's no surprise since many of them were originally in opposition to Islam; but the spiritual beauty of Islam also inspired men like Muhyideen Chishti, Abdullah Ansari and Rumi to spread its spiritual essence; they were Persians but to them they thought broader than that. Same with Rahman Baba and Dost Muhammad Kandari among Pashtuns. They were bonded and unified with everyone from every land that were tied to the Spiritual Path (ruhaniyyah)

But it's no doubt in my mind that Imperialists tried to instigate and manipulate ethnic identity and nationalism to Steer different peoples they tried to exploit against each other.

Look at how they riled up and propped up the Kuwaiti, Emirati and Saudi rulers into power and use them against the Turks ....how Attaturk tried to appease Europeans and Europeanize Turkey ...and then they established Israel to create more tension .in Middle East....Pakistan, and Afghanistan to create tension in South Asia.

Divide and Rule ..and these drones like Khostai keep playing into Imperialist games.

[Porus]

This is actually incorrect from an Anthropological perspective. The purpose of human society is to sustain the welfare of human interests, but mocking has never shown any benefit in that regards. On the contrary this type of behavior interferes with social harmony. Thus it is not only the right but DUTY to suspend those who engage in that behavior to maintain social integrity and accord.

Even the Qur'an says "Do not mock their Gods, lest they berate Allah out of enmity and ignorance" (Surah Al 'An'am: 108) So it would actually be for everyone's welfare including that of the Mocker.

Furthermore it trains people who use constructive forms of criticism which are more intellectually sound such as analysis. Thus improving the intellectual merits of discourse. So in that sense it LIBERATES the level of people's thinking into applying higher reasoning and faculties.Allowing mocking only enables intellectual laziness.

You still shouldn't physically punish people for voicing their opinion. You can ignore them, but you don't have the right to punish them. In fact that's how superior societies are in the modern-age. Look at the Muslim world. A guy in Pakistan (Khurram Zaki) is murdered in cold blood by Mullahs for asking for the protection of Shia Muslims. These same Mullahs follow Islam word for word, unlike regular Muslims who'd just prefer to interpret it in their own way.

Since Western Liberalism is an ideological and cultural movement; no one definition can really encapsulate its scope in a sentence. So rather it's more useful to summarize it. It can be essentially summarized with the idea that any and all behaviors are qualitatively and morally equal as long as participants consent to do them. The emphasis is on safe guarding the opportunity to engage in such behaviors than evaluating whether things should be safe guarded by the merits of the behaviors in themselves.

If by 'behaviours', and since you've mentioned consent, I assume you mean sex. I'd go on to say that there's nothing wrong with sex either. Even if it is before marriage.

Which falls into a Paradox since if "Allowing all behavior, as long as there's consent" Is the Moral Maxim and "disallowing certain behaviors regardless of consent" is the antithesis of that Maxim. Then "Disallowing" would fall into "allowed" behaviors.. Hence it's logically incoherent to rely on Western Liberalism.


A didactic example: Gay Marriage is sanctioned in Western Liberalist social theory since homosexuality and orientation are deemed as equally normal as heterosexual. even though biologically it is something that arises due to a physiological disorder. But such enabling only prevents people from correcting this disorder.

Well that's just not true dude. lol. Homosexuality is not a psychological disorder, it's actually a very common occurrence among most species on Earth. We are one of those species that do it as well.

1,5 animal species practice homosexuality

Homosexual behavior in animals - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There is no science that says homosexuality is an abnormality, nearly every civilised country accepts this as a very natural occurrence.

Perhaps according Western Liberalism; yes but Western Liberalism does not have the monopoly on the concept of "freedom". If a Muslim asked you why you believed and you told him; that's not you going out of your way to promote Atheism now is it? If you're accused of doing so, then you can vindicate yourself of these accusations.

Well, if he gets convinced that there is no God, then I've lead him to become an apostate. I'm sure any Islamic state, would not tolerate that.

I disagree, It's quite tolerant; you're allowed to live a productive, fruitful and healthy life as long as you respect the boundaries. All your natural human needs and opportunities are allotted to you. If we it was intolerant you'd be persecuted for just existing. According to Social Theory, all your basic rights are accounted. Anything else is privilege. Here a compromise is met; you can be who you are in your private bubble, as long as you respect Islamic rules in the public domain.

How are my rights, assuming if I were Atheist or non-Muslim square off in an Islamic state as opposed to a Secular state? What is it about an Islamic state that would, in your opinion make it more appealing to non-Muslims than a Secular state?

Ok what you did is what's called in Informal Logic as a "Bait and Switch" You made Claim A such as "Non-Arab Muslims must pay jizya" , but switched it with claim B "Dhimmis who joined military didn't have to pay jizya"

The two notions are not logically equivalent; thus you have failed to support your claim. You're also conflating religion with ethnicity, which isn't stated within your citations.

Nope, I simply stated the occasions where Dhimmis would be exempt from tax, according to the sources I stated, the only cases where they would be exempt would be if they joined the military service. In any case, tell me why an Islamic state is a better alternative for non-Muslims than a Secular state?

[Aryana]

This is a picture of what's permitted freely in Modern Turkey



After all your arguing trying defend Pashtuns from negative criticism....are you sure this is the type of society you want to see in Afghanistan?


May Allah help Honest Believing Muslims in Turkey purify their society of this Fitnah.

We are Pashtuns and Muslims. The Turks have obviously gone a little out of hand, but our culture prevents us from doing these things regardless of who is governing. A secular state however will be much more beneficial for Afghanistan. So many people, like Amanullah Khan, tries to modernise and help Afghanistan. However, under the banner of "Islam", they were always assassinated/stopped from doing so. Imagine where Afghanistan would've been if Radical Islamists didn't take power in Afghanistan. Does Islam forbid advancement? No.

[Firdousi]

Well that's just not true dude. lol. Homosexuality is not a psychological disorder, it's actually a very common occurrence among most species on Earth. We are one of those species that do it as well.

So... what? Just because its practiced by many species makes it ok? No, it does not. Of course its a disorder. Reproduction and survival are key among all species. Its only in the West were people are encouraged to be gay and to not have kids. Western civilization. Most of Westerners don't have enough guts to breed two kids per couple in order to survive. Most of them prefer to have career and have one children at the age of 35.

Western civilization is looming toward cultural and racial self-destruction. Lefties are to be blamed although right wing people are not much better. Its a decadent civilization that has completely lost its direction/mind. They don't care about anything. They are too individualist and too weak. Life is not only about "having fun" and "enjoy". We are lucky people so we should give a meaning to it. This something Westerners does not realize despite being far ahead of us in almost everything. Civilizations collapse from inside.

[Firdousi]

We are Pashtuns and Muslims. The Turks have obviously gone a little out of hand, but our culture prevents us from doing these things regardless of who is governing. A secular state however will be much more beneficial for Afghanistan. So many people, like Amanullah Khan, tries to modernise and help Afghanistan. However, under the banner of "Islam", they were always assassinated/stopped from doing so. Imagine where Afghanistan would've been if Radical Islamists didn't take power in Afghanistan. Does Islam forbid advancement? No.

You can't impose secularism on people. First step always must be education. Secularism will do more bad than good for Afghanistan. We had the Parchami/Khalqi/Setami experience in Afghanistan. They failed miserably basically because they were crazy people.

[Aryana]

Well that's just not true dude. lol. Homosexuality is not a psychological disorder, it's actually a very common occurrence among most species on Earth. We are one of those species that do it as well.

1,5�� animal species practice homosexuality

Homosexual behavior in animals - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There is no science that says homosexuality is an abnormality, nearly every civilised country accepts this as a very natural occurence

Animals also happen to practise cannibalism. Should we start it as well now? Among humans, it is not natural at all. Homosexuality is a mental disorder and should be treated as such, like depression or anxiety. Homosexuality is only encouraged in Western world. It isn't a surprise that there has been an increase in homosexuals in the west since they've been encouraged to become homosexuals.
Not only homosexuals, but transgenders as well. There are so many transgenders in the west today that there is now a term "cisgender" instead of "normal" to refer to a normal person. If you are born with XX, you are a woman. If XY, you're a boy. I don't understand how you can just go against this and then in fact support LGBTQ behaviour. However, I couldn't care less about westerners becoming homosexuals and transgenders, it is only destroying their civilisation.

You can't impose secularism on people. First step always must be education. Secularism will do more bad than good for Afghanistan. We had the Parchami/Khalqi/Setami experience in Afghanistan. They failed miserably basically because they were crazy people.

Education will naturally lead to secularism. It will do more good for the people of Afghanistan, it will allow for modernisation without religious fanatics trying to stop it under the banner of "Islam". The change to secularism should be a gradual one. Afghans for history have been a people who are resistant to change in their culture, religion and way of life. Great example would be Turkey. They're still 99% Muslim but they're a secular nation.

[Firdousi]

Education will naturally lead to secularism. It will do more good for the people of Afghanistan, it will allow for modernisation without religious fanatics trying to stop it under the banner of "Islam". The change to secularism should be a gradual one. Afghans for history have been a people who are resistant to change in their culture, religion and way of life. Great example would be Turkey. They're still 99% Muslim but they're a secular nation.

True. I agree with you to some extend. But Turkey is not that good example. As I pointed out before, Turkey is a culturally confused nation right now. Ataturk did not try to secularize the country but rather Westernize it. The growing influence of religion and traditional Turkish values in modern Turkey proves how Kemalist failed miserably. Many Turks are Western wannabes, they are ashamed of their roots or they behave like bighairat people. I know this also happens in other Islamic countries but in Turkey this has been some sort of political strategy carried out by the Kemalist rulers (who BTW, no matter how much Westerners say, were a bunch of dictatorial people). Kemalism represents a dictatorship of minority of secular Turks against vast majority of conservative Turks. Now the tide has been turned. Erdogan represents real Turkey.

BTW Aryana jaan, from now on we should try to keep our conversations/talks civil like this. By insulting and cursing each other we are just bringing ourselves down. No matter how different we are, but should really stop with the bad manners. I am ready to have a more productive approach, dude.