Reform in Muslim societies

[Porus]

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.

It's not a disorder in their species. The rest of what you said is pure conjecture.

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.

What does this have to do with homosexuality being abnormal?

Animals also happen to practise cannibalism. Should we start it as well now?

You can't seriously compare eating someone to two men or women having sex. Two consenting parties, having sex is nobody else's business but their own. Additionally they aren't hurting any one. Except for when they repress their desires so much due to age old century values that 'homosexuality is immoral and abnormal', that they go around killing and murdering other innocent homosexuals (i.e. Omar Mateen). I sometimes wonder if he accepted himself as a homosexual he could've lived a happy life. If he came from a culture which didn't shame homosexuality, perhaps this would've never happened.

Among humans, it is not natural at all. Homosexuality is a mental disorder and should be treated as such, like depression or anxiety.

That's your opinion dude.

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.

There's plenty of homosexuality in the Muslim world too. Islamic law doesn't deter people's natural inclinations. In the same way as you probably can't help being attracted to a woman, they can't help being attracted to men.

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.

I do support LGBTQ, and since you've given no proof of homosexuality being abnormal, or being the 'cause' of the 'destruction of Western civilisation', I'll take it that you're wrong. Point is, picking out stuff that you don't like, such as homosexuality, and branding it as a 'Western idea', doesn't change the fact that homosexuality is rampant in the Muslim world, and many Muslim gays have come out in Western countries and are happy living in these societies.

****ty countries like Afghanistan and Pakistan, will never understand what it means to sympathise with their people or listen to what science says about subjects like these. There's always a group of people that will say 'no man this is just Western liberalism', just because they personally feel disgusted by homosexuality.

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

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.

The Turks also used to be very devout Muslims like Pashtuns at one time. Amanullah Khan was a follower of Attaturk in Turkey who suppressed Islam,, so naturally Muslim Afghans would resist........he was basically trying to imitate Western Culture.



Islam doesn't forbid advancement; it forbids trying to follow Jahiliyah in the guise of doing so.

Here's a picture of Amanullah and his wife Soraya in the 1920's, Now by today's standards this is no big deal, BUT to Muslim Pashtuns of 1920 it was an insult. think of where they would have taken us if Pashtuns allowed Amaullah to implement Attaturkist plans?

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

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.

You're doing a bait and switch again; Your original proposition was about MOCKING, not simply "voicing an opinion"There are constructive, intellectually valid ways to voice opinions. One has every opportunity to employ those.One chooses mocking just to be a nuisance and gratify one's own ego.

And who says physical punishment is the only way to deal with this? You could be fired from your job, have all your assets and bank accounts seized, made a pariah in society and forced to live in destitution for example. That's more harsh than a physical penalty in my view. Rather than ignore you, do the opposite, pay close attention to every minutia of your life and make it disintegrate.

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.

Sex is one, but there's also drinking alcohol, the types of associations; establishing places where intoxicating substances are served or distributed From an anthropological point of view; sex is fundamentally a reproductive act; It's a moral imperative of civilized societies to regulate sexual behavior to facilitate human welffare, hence marriage becomes a societal maxim according to Human Evolutionary Psychology.

Western liberalism enables sexual relationships outside of the framework and hence conflicts with human welfare and should be opposed rather than model how society should operate.

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.

I said PHYSIOLOGICAL Disorder.....PHYSIO and PSYCHO are two different prefixes. And the fact that it exists in other species only means other species exhibit the disorder. Just like other species can also get cancer....

You're doing what's called a Bait and Switch again.

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

There is

Actually a few recent studies have shown that Homosexuality may have origins in specific DNA Sites that code for sexual orientation being disabled due to certain chemical processes

Homosexuality may be caused by chemical modifications to DNA | Science | AAAS


epigenetic studies suggest that environmental factors could be the mechanism that causes this.

Epigenetic 'tags' linked to homosexuality in men : Nature News & Comment


So in essence there is evidence demonstrating it is a Physiologically based disorder.

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.

Maybe there has to be a trial to see if you were responsible. Maybe he was looking for an excuse and you provided it? That's why a trial would be needed.Can't just convict someone without determining their culpability?

If you're worried about it that much you can simply tell the person "I'd rather keep that to myself". Thereby absolving yourself. Problem solved.

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?

Well I don't know if I agree with the idea of an "Islamic State", but an Islamic Society where the rulers confer with Islamic jurisprudence to ratify civil and some aspects of criminal laws. As you exemplified Western Liberalism enables the normalizing of dysfunctional behavior that conflicts with human welfare. Islamic Society would restore normal human behavior that conforms with human welfare . Reordering and Engineeing the environment and society so all the impediments, diversions and distractions that facilitate those dysfunctionalities are removed.

It would be for the greater good of humanity, just as vegetables are good for us even when as children we may revile them; but once we get used to it and mature we start recognizing its benefits. The Western Liberalisty psychology is parallel to the developmental level of an immature teenager believing they have the right to do "Anything that arises"; but later as they mature they realize their parents, Islamic society, were right.

Most of what people in attribute as "freedom" in Western Liberalist framework are dyfunctional patterns of behavior which have been habituated to seem normalized to them. When we break out of that framework, we find Western Liberalism impedes on human liberty by doing so.

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?

No you definitely did a bait and switch; you suggested Non-Arab Muslims had to pay Jizya but cited something completely different.

I asked you to show me where this is so ACCORDING to Islamic Doctrine. Your response was to NOT only show something that IS NOT quoted from Islamic doctrine, but a comment in a book related to something else.

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

It's not a disorder in their species. The rest of what you said is pure conjecture.

It doesn't facilitate reproduction; so it's a disorder; the basic biological maxim of sexuality is to reproduce, so if they're not doing acts that engender a partnership between reproducing pairs of their species. It's a disorder. i.e. not within the order of the reproductive framework of the species.

What does this have to do with homosexuality being abnormal?

Covered that.

You can't seriously compare eating someone to two men or women having sex. Two consenting parties, having sex is nobody else's business but their own.

Actually we can since they're both based on some pattern of dysfunctionality For humans cannibalism conflicts with the welfare of the species. Consent is not a measure of the abnormality of behavior and furthermore If we examine the moral imperative for protecting human welfare homosexuality conflicts with that. The measure of wrong is the impact is has, not whether it was consent.

As a didactic example, forcing a person to eat vegetables is morally acceptable if their choice not to eat them leads to malnutrition. We can draw parallels with that and human sexuality as well.

There's plenty of homosexuality in the Muslim world too. Islamic law doesn't deter people's natural inclinations. In the same way as you probably can't help being attracted to a woman, they can't help being attracted to men.

Exactly, people who suffer from homosexuality disorder aren't getting appropriate treatment.

Attraction between women and men is in conjunction with the welfare of the human species, attraction between homosexuals is not, current evidence shows that it arises as a misfiring of chemical signature in the methylization of certain parts of the DNA. Hence it would be something we should control from affecting our species.

I do support LGBTQ, and since you've given no proof of homosexuality being abnormal, or being the 'cause' of the 'destruction of Western civilisation', I'll take it that you're wrong.
.

Homosexuality isn't the cause of break down, but the ideology that accepts homosexuality as anything except a disorder is apart of the social breakdown of Western civilization. It's the same ideology that enables the break down of family, with children out of wedlock, sanctioning transgenderism.

It things that are diseases and imposes them on society as being normal. It's only by social brainwashing that this is deemed acceptable.

[Aryana]

The Turks also used to be very devout Muslims like Pashtuns at one time. Amanullah Khan was a follower of Attaturk in Turkey who suppressed Islam,, so naturally Muslim Afghans would resist........he was basically trying to imitate Western Culture.



Islam doesn't forbid advancement; it forbids trying to follow Jahiliyah in the guise of doing so.

Here's a picture of Amanullah and his wife Soraya in the 1920's, Now by today's standards this is no big deal, BUT to Muslim Pashtuns of 1920 it was an insult. think of where they would have taken us if Pashtuns allowed Amaullah to implement Attaturkist plans?

Maybe not secularisation, but Afghanistan needs to modernise. Modernisation will be a key part in the rebuilding of Afghanistan, there is no way to improve the current state that Afghanistan is in without it.

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

Maybe not secularisation, but Afghanistan needs to modernise. Modernisation will be a key part in the rebuilding of Afghanistan, there is no way to improve the current state that Afghanistan is in without it.

I agree 100% we need modernization, but a modernization that respects our principles and values.

And actually I am not actually arguing against secularization, but this idea that people like Porus are advocating, emulating the Western Liberlaism.

No problem with Secularism if it respects the Islamic character of society. It's when we have what Attaturk did which becomes a problem.

[Khostai]

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

The ranking of the Turkish economy in terms of GDP moved slightly from 17 to 16 during this decade. From your own source. Yes wow so much progress that he made on the backs of the work that was done before him.

[Khostai]

Maybe in your home; but definitely not mine.

LOL you dont even have a home, 40 year old bald virgin who leaves in the basement.

[Khostai]

I agree 100% we need modernization, but a modernization that respects our principles and values.

First you dont have priciples and values, so there is no "our"in this.
And second rural Pashtun values is not allowing girls to get educated pass the age of 12 in some remote areas even the wealthy dont let their girls go to school, they rather keep them in the dark at home. So we should just accept that? Becuase thats what you say, or becuase you never set foot in Afghanistan you dont even know what the values and norms are of most Afghans, you just see people with beards and traditional clothing and you want to keep them in the same state for ever, meanwhile you live in the west and do everyhing that goes against the so called "Afghan vlaues and principles".

And actually I am not actually arguing against secularization, but this idea that people like Porus are advocating, emulating the Western Liberlaism.

Allowing setrain religious groups and people with certain lifestail to choose for themself is not western liberalism, it common sence, why would we supress other grown up people if they choose a certain way of life that does not hurt other people? Relligion is private matter, most of your hate comes from relligion if you was trully pro-secularism you would not opose it, becuase it is the middle ground were a lot of people can live in peace.

No problem with Secularism if it respects the Islamic character of society. It's when we have what Attaturk did which becomes a problem.

More like what Taliban did and ISIS does forms a much bigger problem and brings much more damage to countries ID than what attaturk or millions of his likes will ever do. But ofcourse you will never speak against them. You are the same person who was pro-taliban and pro-sharia not so long ago, you were also the same person who called women who marries outside their own ethnic group *****s and treators when your own mother married a foreigner, who she met on some job that you claim she did in Afghanistan.

[Khostai]

Maybe not secularisation, but Afghanistan needs to modernise. Modernisation will be a key part in the rebuilding of Afghanistan, there is no way to improve the current state that Afghanistan is in without it.

Secularisation is one of the steps towards modernisation. Just having new fancy clothes, better infra and economy or new gadgets without moraly growing up from the stone age will do no good. Becuase just take example of what happend with the burning of Farkhunda in Kabul. If you saw the masses who did the killing, alot of the youg guys were so called "modern youth". Who had flashy phones had facebooks and some had western clothing. But their mentality was that of an seven century bedouin. They heard, and yes nobody saw Farkhunda burn the quran, so they just heard that a women burned the quran and they all got nuts and killed her.

Do you think this kind of reaction would have happend if those people would have grown up in a more secularised environment? No I dont think so.

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

LOL you dont even have a home, 40 year old bald virgin who leaves in the basement.

Considering you're so anxious of what European Liberals are thinking of you, as if you're panicking that they'll evict you; you seem to be projecting your own circumstances.

[Manzareh]

Disagree, I think secularism is the only way for equal rights for minorities.

In an Islamic state, even if all other religions are respected, the point remains that you cannot mock Islam. Though, if you can prove to me that I can be an Atheist and mock Islam and call Mohammad a pedo in an Islamic state, then I'd be all for it.

Plus, Jizya is not a secular concept. The concept of extra tax for non-Muslims, and originally this was for non-Arab 'Muslims' a.k.a Dhimmis. Non-Muslims according to Islam have to pay a Jizya Tax.

Why would you want to mock anyone, what kind of immoral mentality is that.

In a Muslim country it would be compulsory for Muslims to pay a percentage of their earnings (Zakaat) .. 'Jizya' is a form of tax that non-Muslims have to pay since they also have to contribute to society. Also Jizya payers have the authorities at their service, it is a type of insurance that guarantees their safety and well being in society.

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

Blah blah blah Personal Attacks ...Emotional Appeals, Blah Blah blah still can't make any logical arguments blah blah blah.

Khostaya, wale chinjei sta pa pandah ki tartala natsawi? la khpel Aorrapai farangai khawand sakha daroo na khorala? Pa dwaro stergo der ghamjan swalay
It looks like you got panicky when all I did was show a picture of Turkey and Amanullah Khan and Soraya and it was enough to make the average Pashtun rethink secularization.

Don't be so disingenuous Russians Slaughtered 1 Million Afghans because it wanted to Impose its European Liberalization on Afghan soil and even now Russians with their Stooge Assad have murdered more than Syrians than ISIS. Indeed Taliban and ISIS are terrorists and extremists, but they are a by product invasions of Western Liberalism. Islam teaches moderation not extremism. So they do not reflect Islamic Values Situation of Farkhunda is also contrary to Islam; because in Islam you cannot take the law in your own hands. vigilantism isn't permitted.

Even You quoted me as saying "Secularization is acceptable as long as it respects Islamic principles" . Well Islamically, education for men and women is mandatory. So this argument that without accepting Western Liberalism we will have girls not being educated past age 12 is a False Dichotomy.If we have a Secularization that Compliments to the Values of Islam, this is fine.If Rural Afghans don't educate their girls it's because they don't know Islam well enough.

The Lifestyles created by Western Liberalism are artificially manufactured through Liberalist social engineering; so they aren't something people choose; but rather they are brainwashed and habituated by Media and Social Indoctrination. We don't need Gay Marriage and Children outside of Marriage to be the Norm in Society; just because that's what happened to you when you migrated to Europe. It seems you want Afghans to get brainwashed into thinking this progress so you can make yourself feel better for having a dysfunctional life.

[MENTION=1753]Manzareh[/MENTION] [MENTION=19433]Aryana[/MENTION] [MENTION=1772]BarakzaiAbdali[/MENTION] [MENTION=1547]khushal[/MENTION] [MENTION=18139]Shapur[/MENTION] [MENTION=19424]Firdousi[/MENTION] [MENTION=1669]Adam[/MENTION]

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

Secularisation is one of the steps towards modernisation. Just having new fancy clothes, better infra and economy or new gadgets without moraly growing up from the stone age will do no good. Becuase just take example of what happend with the burning of Farkhunda in Kabul. If you saw the masses who did the killing, alot of the youg guys were so called "modern youth". Who had flashy phones had facebooks and some had western clothing. But their mentality was that of an seven century bedouin. They heard, and yes nobody saw Farkhunda burn the quran, so they just heard that a women burned the quran and they all got nuts and killed her.

Do you think this kind of reaction would have happend if those people would have grown up in a more secularised environment? No I dont think so.

[MENTION=19433]Aryana[/MENTION]

Basically what Khostai is trying to tell you is that Western Liberalization

where women are brainwashed to walk around luch, Where Gays can get married, where pornography is propagated and protected under law, where alcohol is legalized and promoted openly is "Progress"

but Afghan and Islamic values are "Stone Age", because a few thugs Killed a woman in a Vigilante Mob, which goes against the values Afghan Culture or Islam. Since Afghan culture teaches protecting the vulnerable.

Doesn't that sound like the Banner of Western Imperialism to you? Where the Europeans went around invading different parts of the world because they called them "Stone Age" and needed to be "Civilized" With European values?

In Actuality Western Liberals are trying to promote through their Stooges like Khostai is actually the way of LIFE of the Jahiliyah., because these things were they claim as "Modernization" Used to exist among the Pagan Arabs when Nabi(saw) came to teach them Islam.

[Khostai]

Khostaya, wale chinjei sta pa pandah ki tartala natsawi? la khpel Aorrapai farangai khawand sakha daroo na khorala? Pa dwaro stergo der ghamjan swalay
It looks like you got panicky when all I did was show a picture of Turkey and Amanullah Khan and Soraya and it was enough to make the average Pashtun rethink secularization.

For your information Amanullah Khan was more pro modernisation, as in better economy and more wealth for the people, than secularisation, he still used shariah law and even called it Shariah. The way he dressed was just his idea of looking modern. A lot of people in Asia and even in the west had the idea of being modern is also having this kind of dress code. This was not seen as western clothing, but more as modern clothing who happens to originate from the west. Becuase even in europe not all people dressed like that. Farmers who came to the city did not dress like that, only later to fit they dressed like this, becuase for them this meant modernism.

This is again the thing I mean about superficial modernisation without really elevating peoples mentality from the dark ages. Islam came from a time that middles east had a lot of diffrent cultures and rich civilizations all over, its book was written by a warlord who combined other religions stories in one book and added his on twist to it. Like what the brothers Grimm did with all the excisting fairy tales of their time. Just combined them in one book. There is nothing special or holy about it. It is also has some issue that can be highly disputed, like it allows slavery, concubines, states that women are inferior to men and punishes people who do not agree with its ideology or want to leave Islam. Islam is totalitarian and only slaves minded people like theocratic goverment and totalitarian regimes. Like communism, Islam cannot be implemented fully, and only by a brutal force it can be implemented partialy, like what taliban and ISIS are doing.

Don't be so disingenuous Russians Slaughtered 1 Million Afghans because it wanted to Impose its European Liberalization on Afghan soil and even now Russians with their Stooge Assad have murdered more than Syrians than ISIS. Indeed Taliban and ISIS are terrorists and extremists, but they are a by product invasions of Western Liberalism. Islam teaches moderation not extremism. So they do not reflect Islamic Values Situation of Farkhunda is also contrary to Islam; because in Islam you cannot take the law in your own hands. vigilantism isn't permitted.

Russian invaded for their own interest they even advised Afghan communist not to implement secular laws and modernisation so fast, They could care less what Afghans did and what not they just wanted to get closer to the warm waters. Ideologies are used on simple mided people to motivate them for war or unite the under one common goal, the west uses human rights and democracy, muslims use Islam. Taliban and ISIS are a byproduct of Islam, the west also interfiers in other countries and you see that in most such countries gurilla fighter immerge, but not taliban or ISIS like who destroyes old cultural harritage and burn people alive and not to forget wanting to conquer the world.

Even You quoted me as saying "Secularization is acceptable as long as it respects Islamic principles" . Well Islamically, education for men and women is mandatory. So this argument that without accepting Western Liberalism we will have girls not being educated past age 12 is a False Dichotomy.If we have a Secularization that Compliments to the Values of Islam, this is fine.If Rural Afghans don't educate their girls it's because they don't know Islam well enough.

You still cannot distinguishe western culture from liberalism, you need to educate yourself. There are a lot of laws that are put forward in Islam that restricts women, like single adult woman cannot go outside alone, single adult woman cannot work with strange males, single adult women cannot travel alone, so she would never fully expirience the freedom that the men enjoy. How can she be educated if she cannot go outside by herself. Do you think every village has its own uni at the doorstep? And dont begin about this is all to protect, this is all to supress, this is why those tribal do not let their girls educate pass 12 years, becuase girls get menstruation at that time and are considered grown up. And grown woman are not allowed to go alone outside without any male supervison, this is the gift of Islam to women.

The Lifestyles created by Western Liberalism are artificially manufactured through Liberalist social engineering; so they aren't something people choose; but rather they are brainwashed and habituated by Media and Social Indoctrination. We don't need Gay Marriage and Children outside of Marriage to be the Norm in Society; just because that's what happened to you when you migrated to Europe. It seems you want Afghans to get brainwashed into thinking this progress so you can make yourself feel better for having a dysfunctional life.

I do not say we should have gay parades in Kabul, or discos or consume alcohol and drugs. We all can be liberal and free without this harmfull things. You just dont understand the concpet of persoanl freedom of choosing a live they way it fist you without harming other people. No liberal did the so called brainwashing. If western liberals were so good at brainwashing a lot of muslims would not even build mosques and would become atheist or non-religious like them, here in EU. But we see that the opposite is true.
The reson why you always scream about western brainwashing and what not, is becuase you arabs use brainwashing to atract people towards Islam and when you see people to be doing something else you automaticaly think that he is brainwashed.

Western people started this liberal movement from bottum up, no goverment or leader imposed gay marriage on the people, in each western country it was the population itself who accepted it by long human right movements and campaigns. A lot of social research went in to the human behaviour about sex, sexuality and general gender roles. This all resulted in the scocial norms of the west as it is now.

And the last thing marriage excisted before Islam, there is nothing sacred about it, it was mostly done so that the men and women would take responcibility for their offspring. And also used by powerfull leaders to make aliances or just for money. The reason gays want marriage equality lies in the rights that they get with it, like insurrance if one parther is working, mortgages for the house and there are many more rights that married couples enojoy that just two people living toghether dont have.


[MENTION=1753]Manzareh[/MENTION] [MENTION=19433]Aryana[/MENTION] [MENTION=1772]BarakzaiAbdali[/MENTION] [MENTION=1547]khushal[/MENTION] [MENTION=18139]Shapur[/MENTION] [MENTION=19424]Firdousi[/MENTION] [MENTION=1669]Adam[/MENTION]

so