Can Kaafir Pashtun Nationalist represent Pashtuns in Politics?

[JAMALUDEEN]

What people don't realize is that they are being subtly subjugated by the West by using Islam as a means to the end. Afghanistan has always been in the way in the region, so you either get Afghanistan on your side or your control it.

To get Afghanistan on your side you would have to speak the same language, i.e. Islam.
To control Afghanistan you would need to instill an Islamic puppet government.

Therefore, Afghan people have to realize that Islam is being used as a means to the ends of those who have interests in the region.

There are two options: Either separate the church from state or allow to be taken advantage of by means of a puppet government.

Afghan cannot allow religion to meddle in the politics of the day. Otherwise, they will be coerced with threat of Hell in order to get the masses to agree on an issue.

Seriously, only two options? I am sure as a rationale, you can come up with many more.

[Feroza_Banu]

I am not sure if any afghanistan or pashtoon leaders will be very vocal about their religious beliefs or disbeliefs especially considering how politics is a dirty game and the politicians are number 1 liars in the whole world. So the fact is that we might never ever know whether our current leaders, or past ones are/were kafir or not. they could be well well lying about being Muslim.

To me a muslim politician or a kafir has no difference, because it seems like the moment one enters politics he forgets about his muslim and/or kafir brothers and sisters... he also forgets about his religion and/or aetheism. rather to him politics becomes a mean for reaching his own personal agenda. Whether its a kafir or a muslim, politicians are not concerned about representing the people... they are busy doing their own dirty politics. The political race is about gaining power and prestige, about financial gain and dirty mind games, its not for interest and/or benefit of ordinary civilians.

The issue is not whether our leader can be a kafir or has to be muslim, even though personally i do prefer to be represented by a muslim. rather the issue is that we need a leader that works for the benefit of every individual. has a sense of responsibility towards his country men. He is able to establish law that is above human. A law that protects everyone's rights, may it be a muslim, a kafir, a white, a black, a hindu, a jew or a christian (keep adding if i left anyone lol). I would like to vote for someone who works for betterment of humanity, or a country as a whole.

I live in a country where I am represented by a kafir president; but my rights are protected. from government officials to employers, to ordinary citizens, everyone has a responsibility not to violate my right and if they do, they should be prepared to face the consequences. I am not saying i live in a perfect society, i am sure no one here will be able to find any perfect society in the world. but things are better. alot better than many muslim countries i have visited. the only reason is that the law is above any person living here.

If some day a kafir leader is chosen for representing pashtoon nation, i would hope that kafir leader to be respectful to Islam, if not accepting the religion. for him to know the sentiments of pashtoons towards Islam and to help promote the religion and also protect its followers.

[Master Khan]

no a kaafir can't represent Pashtuns..sorry but I am being honest and stright foward here, most pashtuns are muslims and we represent Islam so I won't not have a kaafir as our leader.

[Dust]

If a Pashtun openly declares he is kaffir he will be killed in our motherland. He will have no support since Pashtuns are very religious.

That is the problem.

Here look at it from this angle. The laws of nature don't change from country to country. In other words, the law of nature do not change at the border of Denmark and Germany, at the border of Iran and Iraq, or at the border of North Korea or South Korea. They always remain constant.

Therefore, if people enjoy the freedom of the West, meaning that everyone can choose what they want to believe in and be under a system that is not Islamic, means that the human mind understands what it likes, even under a non-Islamic system. Yet, why is it that when the same people, who enjoyed life under a non-Islamic system, go to Afghanistan they have to change their manteau and play to the tunes of the psyche of the people and promote an Islam government just to not be "labeled?" This is the definition of hypocrisy.

Change can only happen when people start becoming honest and fighting for it. Europe would not be what it is today if it had people like Afghanistan at the helm. Many people in Europe fought to establish what they have today. Many have died for what liberties are being enjoyed today in Europe. If I am not mistaken, the early Muslims fought for the same principles. They fought for freedom of conscience.

So, why is it that people can enjoy the life in the West and be for unconsented subjugation of their brothers and sisters in Afghanistan?

You want a free Afghanistan? Start fighting for it by standing up against radicalists, even if it means to lose your life. The only people that can bring this sort of change are those who are Muslims who understand what it means to enjoy liberties.

[Dust]

Seriously, only two options? I am sure as a rationale, you can come up with many more.

What other options can you propose?

[Dust]

no a kaafir can't represent Pashtuns..sorry but I am being honest and stright foward here, most pashtuns are muslims and we represent Islam so I won't not have a kaafir as our leader.

This is a contradictory statement to what is happening around the world.

Today, we have many Pashtuns who are living peacefully and are progressing in the lands of the infidel. In fact, many are citizens and have pledged allegiance to the land they are citizens of now.

[Dust]

Dust. I understand what you mean but the people who are mainly Muslim need some who is Muslim to cater their satisfactions. Kafir is an alien concept to Pashtuns nowadays.


Do you promote secularism?

What has Islam done for the Pashtun, aside push it back in time? I am not against Islam. I am just saying that progress cannot happen with religion at the helm. It would be a war of interpretation.

I am promoting secularism because it allows for freedom of religion and allows the leadership of the land to cater to the needs of the people instead of fear mongering the people to cater to the needs of the government.

A government is to serve the people and, in turn, the people will fight to protect its government.

In the Afghan history we have never had an instance, in the modern era, where the people have fought for the government, even when the system was Islamic. That goes to show that our governments have never cared for the people. We need to change that. The first step is to separate church and state.

[Master Khan]

This is a contradictory statement to what is happening around the world.

Today, we have many Pashtuns who are living peacefully and are progressing in the lands of the infidel. In fact, many are citizens and have pledged allegiance to the land they are citizens of now.

yeah only for money, We pashtun only did that because we needed money...after its kaafirs that are destorying our countries, you can't blame Islam for our bad state.
Islam does help us alot by keeping our women away from bad things, and keep us in peace.
We need a good, honest muslim pashtun as our leader.

[Dust]

yeah only for money, We pashtun only did that because we needed money...after its kaafirs that are destorying our countries, you can't blame Islam for our bad state.
Islam does help us alot by keeping our women away from bad things, and keep us in peace.
We need a good, honest muslim pashtun as our leader.

I am pretty sure you are not being honest here. For one, it would only be in Afghanistan that women are not safe. Not in the land of the infidel. For example, in the land of the infidel, she can choose who she wants to marry. Further, in Afghanistan she is a second class citizen who lacks the basic right a dignified human being has.

The infidel did not destroy Afghanistan. All is fair in love and war. Afghanistan was not strong enough to withstand the powers of those who had vested interest in the area.

Moreover, it would be impossible to have an "honest muslim pashtun as our leader" until and unless you don't separate church for state. Otherwise, he would have to cater to the religious masses in order to sustain power.

[JAMALUDEEN]

What other options can you propose?

it's not what i have to propose, it's what you have chosen to hide.

Like you said:

"Either separate the church from state or allow to be taken advantage of by means of a puppet government."

Just two options, while there can be many more. I could sit here and write a 100 more options like

"Keep the church intact with the state or allow it to be taken advantage as a puppet government." OR
"Be a puppet government and take advantage of the west or let Afghanistan being taken over by Taliban". etc.

It's just a matter of perspective. So the problem here is not what you have proposed, which to be honest does sound tempting but, you have to be reasonable. Reasonable with the fact that majority demographics in Afghanistan are Muslims. So, how will the population react to such a change? Are they going to welcome it? What percentage of the population will welcome it?

You see bro Jan, the people of Afghanistan are very simple people. Majority of them do not have any education, because of the long going war. The problems that we currently have, can be fixed by not IMPOSING Western ideologies (which are alien to their beliefs and faith) on the people but through educating them, and this will happen slowly. If the people are educated, they won't be cheated by "Mullahs" nor "Taliban" nor "Atheists". They will be able to reason and decide for themselves and for the future of their nation. They won't need you, me or Mullah Omer to help them decide what is right or wrong.

And To be honest, what you propose will sound as extreme as any other ideology (e.g. Communism) to the Muslim population, because as i mentioned before, it's just a matter of perspective and education plays a crucial role in it. Hope you understand.

[Dust]

it's not what i have to propose, it's what you have chosen to hide.

It is not easy to hide something among the intellectual elite.

Like you said:

"Either separate the church from state or allow to be taken advantage of by means of a puppet government."

Just two options, while there can be many more. I could sit here and write a 100 more options like

"Keep the church intact with the state or allow it to be taken advantage as a puppet government."

This is incoherent.

"Be a puppet government and take advantage of the west or let Afghanistan being taken over by Taliban".

Again, incoherent.

Whichever way you slice the cake what you have proposed comes under what will work: Separate church and state or allow for a puppet government to take over in order to help to progress the nation.

It's just a matter of perspective. So the problem here is not what you have proposed, which to be honest does sound tempting but, you have to be reasonable. Reasonable with the fact that majority demographics in Afghanistan are Muslims. So, how will the population react to such a change? Are they going to welcome it? What percentage of the population will welcome it?

Progress is never felt right away. It takes time. Many generations later our children will reap the harvest of what we sow today. We have to put our heads at the stake for their well being. If this had happened 100 years ago we would not be in the situation that we are in today.

You see bro Jan, the people of Afghanistan are very simple people. Majority of them do not have any education, because of the long going war. The problems that we currently have, can be fixed by not IMPOSING Western ideologies (which are alien to their beliefs and faith) on the people but through educating them, and this will happen slowly. If the people are educated, they won't be cheated by "Mullahs" nor "Taliban" nor "Atheists". They will be able to reason and decide for themselves and for the future of their nation. They won't need you, me or Mullah Omer to help them decide what is right or wrong.

How can you properly educated people so as to not be taken advantage of if there is no secular system that exist? Without a secular society the cycle will continue to deteriorate our social fabric.

And To be honest, what you propose will sound as extreme as any other ideology to the Muslim population, because as i mentioned before, it's just a matter of perspectives and education plays a crucial role in it. Hope you understand.

Actually, it is not. At the start of the Russian-Afghan war many of us became refugees. Our parents had to adapt to the Western form of life, which is secular. Despite, living under non-Muslim rulers, today, many Muslims in the West are able to preach their faith without a problem. The problem of lack of freedom of conscience exists under an Islam system not a secular system.

[Badlun]

The solution is to do justice with all, give due status to all the departments of life .religion for faith, worship and morality and Mulla or religious sncolars should take care of these 3 aspects of life , the rest to its own specialissts as politics for politicians, economy for economists, science for scientists and so on

If we have democracy then a Muslim or non Muslim both can become leader of Pashtuns but the probability will be a Muslim Pashtun leader as almost 100 % Pashtuns are muslims by faith.

Mulla should be the religious leader while a true stateman should be a political leader. The problem arises when Mulla occupies both the state and the church.

[Khan Gul]

There is the natural and congenital difficulty involved in the ruling of people of different tongue, tradition, national feeling, minorities and religion. Patriotism exists, but the leaders have failed to inspire nationalist sentiment in the people. In my view, secularism is the best option for the problems of the present day Afghanistan but the problem is that it has no inspired mass of followers and without the support of Islamists, it would probably not be able for secularists to maintain its hold successfully for any length of time over all the territory of the country.

[ijaz yousafzai]

As salaamu aleikoum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuhu,

I would like to you if you think it is possible for a kaafir Pashtun Nationalist to ba political leader or a representative of pashtuns.

----now I really think that you should see a psychiatrist very soon.

[Dust]

There is the natural and congenital difficulty involved in the ruling of people of different tongue, tradition, national feeling, minorities and religion. Patriotism exists, but the leaders have failed to inspire nationalist sentiment in the people. In my view, secularism is the best option for the problems of the present day Afghanistan but the problem is that it has no inspired mass of followers and without the support of Islamists, it would probably not be able for secularists to maintain its hold successfully for any length of time over all the territory of the country.

There are two options. Take the long course that Europe took or take the short course that Kamal Ataturk took.

Today, the reason why Islamic radicals exist is because that is what will bring the Afghan people on board. Otherwise, we would have some different types of approach by the great powers. Had Afghanistan been a secular society we would not be suffering today.

You cannot have a secular puppet government. Puppet governments only exist when people are attached to a specific archaic culture. That is the problem with Africa, for instance.