Can Kaafir Pashtun Nationalist represent Pashtuns in Politics?

[Wrayun]

Dust,

I agree with most of your points, particularly about seeking a balance, though it is invalid to claim that those who struggled physically only achieved the destitution of the Pukhtoon masses. The wars imposed on Pukhtoons were not instigated by those who rose up in the defense of their people using armed struggles. When these Pukhtoons who become successful in liberating their land from foreign occupiers, everyone, including the secularists and liberals boost of their achievement as a collective accomplishment of the NATION. We see this today, the boosting of pride over the defeat of the British, the expulsion of the Soviets, and the conviction in the grandeur nature of the impregnable mighty Afghan/Pukhtoon warriors. This is enjoyed by all Afghans and Pukhtoons including the secularist irreligious lot. The secularist-irreligious nationalists even go a step further, justifying these accomplishments as a unique quality of the Pukhtoons due to their genetic-racial makeup. The irony, all these mighty accomplishments, including the non-violent peaceful ones, transpired at the hands of the religiously motivated.

It is wrong to assume that the majority of the religious Pukhtoons subscribe to the creed of the few extremists midst them. Such intolerant extremism is bred by extreme circumstances and desperation. Even Western nations give up their constitutional "rights" when dictated by necessity. It is wrong to assume that they lack brains, intellect, rational or reasoning. They reason according to their social norms and circumstances. A few individuals with completely foreign concepts instilled into them by receiving foreign "education" or upbringing all of the sudden can't expect the majority to accommodate to their personal, private and newly acquired beliefs. The minority should respect the aspirations of the majority. In the case of the Pukhtoons, the majority just happens to be religious and conservative, probably far more so than anyone else in the region.

[Dust]

Nice reply, greatly appreciated!

The one factor that you should also hold in the balance is that the Afghan nation were, for most part of Modern Afghanistan, always used by other nations to push their own agendas. The Afghan nation prides itself for never being colonized, but the irony of it is that they have been the tools of the powers, past or present.

The only types of Pashtun Muslim that can make a difference are the silent majority (I think I alluded to this). They are the ones that understand the beauties of tolerance. It is only these that can bring the Pashtun together. The reason why they have not stepped forward is the loud and obnoxious minority, the likes of Wahabi/Salafis, that are over drowning their cries.

If these Muslims don't step forward, then no one can help Afghanistan, not even the Atheist Secularists, who are very intelligent. The reason is because the Pashtun nation hold Islam very dear to their hearts and they will not submit to a non-Muslim leader. However, if the leader is a moderate, or secularist, Muslim, then they will. Not only would the Muslim majority would be satisfied, but the intellectual elite among the Atheist would also have their voices heard.

Sadly, I don't see this happening. The obnoxious minority are too loud.

[Palwasha]

In practice, Islam started in 7th century AD as far as the recorded history of the religions is concerned. The fossil record of earliest humans is considered to be much older than 6000 years old (considering the claim of Bible). Some of the recent fossil records are considered as old as 17,000 years, and even 40,000!!!

That's fascinating info which you've shared, however, in practice Islam started since the day of creation, as I've already mentioned.

The earliest forms of humans (much before the humans who started practicing prehistoric religions) did not practice religion, based on the evidence from the fossil records of prehistoric times. Considering this, we can have two scenarios: (1) Adam was the first human and he did not practice Islam (assuming that he was the first man with no religion based on the fossil record), or (2) Adam was not the first human, and there were prehistoric men before him who were not practicing religion.

How exactly to fossils show the individuals religion? Even then, they won't have the fossils of Adam ('aliahis salaam).

By the way, if Adam was muslim, why did it take SO LONG for Islam to establish itself? Look at the history of religions spanning over thousands of years. If God gave Adam the "message of Islam" and that he was the first person on earth, how come we don't see any history of "muslims" including Adam himself for the duration between his first day and the birth of Islam in Mecca?

Interesting questions. I’m no scholar, but..

The message was sent to mankind along with the Messengers, their job was only to spread the message, people joining Islam wasn’t to decided by them. *Most importantly*, The Creator has His reasons for that which occurs; it's all part of a plan. His knowledge and wisdom far extends anything beyond imagination, He knows what he's doing; one has to acquire faith to understand this.

The Earth was created what alsmot 4 billion years ago, and you expect there to be evidence from life and religion of that age?

There is actually evidence that Islam was spread in other parts of the World, before the Prophet pbuh's time, In places like Africa. So that's thousands of years ago, you only assume it hasn't been, since you've haven't heard anything mainstream about it. (I posted it as a reply to LZ a very long time ago, I could try and dig it up?)

Many things mentioned in Islam require faith; trust and confidence on God, the All knowing and the Most merciful. He has reasons for His commands and that which occurs.

Also, Adam asked his sons Abel and Cain to marry their sisters which qualifies as incest according to Islam.Why you think Adam was muslim?

There's a few things which were permissible at one point, but later became forbidden. You're a boilogist, if Cain and Abel didn't marry their sisters, then where else was the offspring supposed to come from?

I can see we're not going to agree on this issue, which is fair enough, it's interesting to learn others perspectives.

[akbarkhan]

According to your book, it says that those who are disbelievers are doubtful of birth ( 'b a s t a r d').

Is the Quran suggesting that all those who reject Islam are b a s t a r d s? Was Abu Talib a b a s t a r d or was Abu Lahab?

Young kid,

Keep your adolescent friends entertained with such primary school grade arguments and fallacies. No where in Quran does it say "those who are disbelievers are doubtful of birth".

Verse 16th of Surah Al-Qalam refers to one person from the Quraish as Zanem. Zanim is a derivative of Zina/Zaani and in Arabic it means the outcome of an act of zina (fornication).

Allah swt is not calling each and every one of your Kufaar Zanims! In this instance the reference to used to identify a man called Walid who was very arrogant and proud of his high position among the Quraysh. When the verse was revealed and Walid heard it, he got very angry and went to his mother and demanded the truth about his birth.

His mother said: "Your father was a very rich man, but as he was impotent we did not have any child; and I did not want his brother's sons to own our wealth, so I cohabited with a slave and you were born."

His own mother testified that he was born out of wedlock hence the word used is a factual descriptor and not an innuendo aimed at Walid. The verse does not refer to all disbelievers as Zanims, not even remotely!

I know what my book contains and I know it is infallible, you on the other hand don't know what you are talking about.

If we get into nitty-gritty of the matter then a secular person can not be a Muslim. A Muslim is someone who submits his/her will to Allah swt, (s)he submits all his/her affairs to Allah swt. Seculars on the other hand do not submit their political and financial affairs to Allah hence they can not be Muslims.

Regarding your second post:

Secularism leads to immorality, perhaps not majorly in all cases. Islam teaches us moral values, universal moral values that transcends borders, races and linguistic differences. Morality is the essence of human ethos - societies without it have perished into the oblivions of darkness and self destruction; I don't have to explain that to you, human history is witness.

Study from Suarez to Rousseau and you find the idea that no religion is useful to the body politic is preposterous. Even Warburton rejects Bayle's suggestion that an atheist/secularist can both recognize and fulful the demands of morality, he does however conclude that he partly agrees with Bayle that an atheist/secularist can have some grasp of morality but what they lack is a grasp of moral obligation which requires recognition of post-mortem rewards and punishments.

Roursseau states that a successful society is one that joins divine worship to the a love of the law, and that making the homeland the object of citizen's adoration, it teaches them that the service of state is the service of tutelary God; and that is exactly what Islam teaches us!

[Dust]

Young kid,

Keep your adolescent friends entertained with such primary school grade arguments and fallacies. No where in Quran does it say "those who are disbelievers are doubtful of birth".

Verse 16th of Surah Al-Qalam refers to one person from the Quraish as Zanem. Zanim is a derivative of Zina/Zaani and in Arabic it means the outcome of an act of zina (fornication).

Allah swt is not calling each and every one of your Kufaar Zanims! In this instance the reference to used to identify a man called Walid who was very arrogant and proud of his high position among the Quraysh. When the verse was revealed and Walid heard it, he got very angry and went to his mother and demanded the truth about his birth.

His mother said: "Your father was a very rich man, but as he was impotent we did not have any child; and I did not want his brother's sons to own our wealth, so I cohabited with a slave and you were born."

His own mother testified that he was born out of wedlock hence the word used is a factual descriptor and not an innuendo aimed at Walid. The verse does not refer to all disbelievers as Zanims, not even remotely!

I know what my book contains and I know it is infallible, you on the other hand don't know what you are talking about.

If we get into nitty-gritty of the matter then a secular person can not be a Muslim. A Muslim is someone who submits his/her will to Allah swt, (s)he submits all his/her affairs to Allah swt. Seculars on the other hand do not submit their political and financial affairs to Allah hence they can not be Muslims.

Regarding your second post:

Secularism leads to immorality, perhaps not majorly in all cases. Islam teaches us moral values, universal moral values that transcends borders, races and linguistic differences. Morality is the essence of human ethos - societies without it have perished into the oblivions of darkness and self destruction; I don't have to explain that to you, human history is witness.

Study from Suarez to Rousseau and you find the idea that no religion is useful to the body politic is preposterous. Even Warburton rejects Bayle's suggestion that an atheist/secularist can both recognize and fulful the demands of morality, he does however conclude that he partly agrees with Bayle that an atheist/secularist can have some grasp of morality but what they lack is a grasp of moral obligation which requires recognition of post-mortem rewards and punishments.

Roursseau states that a successful society is one that joins divine worship to the a love of the law, and that making the homeland the object of citizen's adoration, it teaches them that the service of state is the service of tutelary God; and that is exactly what Islam teaches us!

What is the point of it being in the Quran then, if it only to refer to "one" person. Is your book that limited?

[Shehbaz Khan]

Pakhtunwali and Islam goes together in the almost 99.99% cases

So for a person to be the leader of Pakhtun Nation he must be a good practicing Muslim =)