Atheistic Pukhtoon "nationalism", is it possible?

[Wrayun]

One thing we may also note that the traditional Pashtun society , before the invasion of the USSR, had a perfect separation of religion and politics, economy, culture and society. Hujra and Jumat had institutionalized this separation. Mulla for the religion while khan and common Pashtun for the politics, economy, culture and society. The menace of Mujaheedeen played havoc with this balance and Mulla was also involved in politics, culture, society and economy otherwise previously he used to conduct only pure religious duties. Mullas was part of Pashtun nationalism as he represented one institution but not beyond that.

We need a revival of this balance. Let religion be there but at its own place. Taliban should not become rulers, judges, economists and cultural idols and models. If atheism is there, it will only affect the religious part, the jumat but the Pashtun nationalism as a whole will flourish without any undue pressure from both Mulla and atheist.

The concept of Hujra and Jumat are both Islamic introductions. How do secularist atheists compensate for that?

[Levanaye Zalmaye]

Levanaye Zalmaye,

What was so contradicting?

Yes, you said you weren't thinking on my behalf and then you made sweeping statements like the one below. You say something, you do something else. That's a contradiction.

This: Therefore you disapprove of these things not out of your "good human" nature, but due to fear. You replaced your fear of hell, with fear of men and social rejection. Do you see the irony? Chew on it.

I concluded after reading your post. So, was the deduction accurate? You forgot to address it.

I couldn't care less what my "peers" would think. I agree more with George Galloway (a Catholic) than Christopher Hitchens (a very vocal atheist) on most international issues. I know that Bob Spencer and Geert Wilders have gotten it completely wrong. I'm not here to please anyone and I couldn't be bothered about anyone's approval, except of course, that of these three particular girls. If something is right, it's right. If it's wrong, it's wrong. I'm a Pashtun nationalist but that doesn't mean I turn a blind eye to whatever India is doing in Kashmir. I don't have any puppeteers to please. Ni Dieu, ni Cesar, ni tribun.

That means I'm not afraid of being rejected by any social, philosophical or religious group. But it's funny that you think that since you're afraid of being rejected by your self-appointed higher authority, I'd share the same fear. Sorry, not the case.

...didn't like the taste of your own medicine? I didnt start this thread for epic lulz...though after your witty antagonistic remarks (peace be up on you, maghrib, isha... falafel) I thought it might be fun to continue in such a trendy fashionable manner. But lets not moan about the discourse.

Showarma. Chew on it. lulz

Not really, though it helps to know that human morality, definition of good and bad, is an inherit quality which didn't just develop out of our "selfish" nature (which also includes laughing at others misery for good timez).

Not all acts of benevolence come inherently. Some acts of kindness do. Gloating is wrong.

I thought humans were advanced apes.

The term "advanced apes" has been generally used for gorillas, chimpanzees, orangutans, etc, if I am not mistaken. We share a common ancestor with these "advanced" apes and hence the numerous similarities that we primates share with our cousins. Like you're an advanced Mullah - you haven't declared Jihad on me yet.

Did I say that?

Let's see then. What is the purpose of your life? What should be the purpose of one's life? Please don't back away by saying that it's not part of the argument. It is now since I asked. Let's hear the other side of the argument.

What if I don't love my family, my friends, my people? Is your concocted purpose somehow better than mines? Once you realize the absurdity behind your self created "purpose" you might as well join a reality show. It will be as meaningful as the above.

You do realize that even your notion of right and wrong (your ethics) are neither 'Divine' nor "uncreated". What's ethical in Saudi Arabia is unethical in Egypt and vice-versa. People draw from the Quran whatever suites their tastes. That's why Islamic morality varies from Yusaf Khattab to Sheikh Hamza Yusuf. They're as far away from each other as the north pole is from the south.

Secondly, an individual's own notions of right or wrong are neither absurd nor anything new. These "concocted" ideas have been around among educated peoples for centuries. Read up: Click, scroll down to "Normative ethical theories".

Where do you get your notion of right and wrong from? Let's hear the other side on this, too.

And a hateful person is obviously not a good person, is he?

In an accidental universe, they are as purposeful as unicellular organisms budding heads.

Yes, we are born and we die and that's that. Whether a holy book tells you otherwise or not won't change this reality. I know it's very human to think that this miserable life is not all that there is. I would personally love to have an afterlife and get back together with all my family and my friends. I would love that. Alas, if only it were so. Therefore, make a purpose out of whatever little you have, false hopes of afterlives are what they are - false.

Says you Mullah saib. What about her moral values? She might find it enjoyable. And your morals, where do you get them from? Are you sure they are not socially relevant, influenced by your Islamic upbringing? You might as well pick up the prayer mat and make up for all those missed prayers my moral atheist friend.

If two consenting adults, without duress or without being under the influence of any substance, agree to do something to each other, I have no jurisdiction over them. It is the job of a Mullah to come between two people and their private affairs. Last year, a girl kissed a guy on the cheek in LUMS (Pakistan's top university). A burkha-girl saw them and started a mass movement. Allah granted her victory. Kissing has been banned on the campus. Hmmm I hope that girl wasn't you....

Oh defiantly. Those highly educated Western tourists (including many atheists), pocket filled
with dollars, looking for some tight teenage Thai and Pinoy punany are part time
fedayeens. At least the Taliban has a God that will punish them for taking advantage of the poor. As atheists, do as thou pleaseth. Don't suppress your 'selfish gene'. Oh wait. Mullah Zalmaye doesn't approve because of his personal set of "morals"?

epic.

What do I have to do with Western tourists visiting Thailand to engage in pedophilia?

Let's hear your views on morality. Where do you moral values come from? Or are you afraid about being ridiculed? My notion of right and wrong is pretty sound. And by those notions, I don't stop from evil because I think I'll be punished in the afterlife - I stay away from evil because I don't wanna engage in it. I'm a human, not a donkey. A donkey fears being punished and that's how it is obedient. A human should be more enlightened than a donkey.

True, you dont need anyone telling you from right and wrong. In this case you are free to invent your personal sets of morals (or morals that are circumstantiated by your upbringing). Though you can't say that your man made morals are somehow significant than those who wish to enjoy a weekly stoning. It makes good entertainment.

I'm lucky I had a good upbringing then. You learn from your environment.

Your morals are just as man-made as mine. Muslim A wants to blow everything up, Muslim B is a pacifist. How's that possible? That's possible because Muslims, too, follow their own notions of right and wrong, whether you like it or not. What's important is that since you claim that your morals are from God, you think you're better than everyone else. However, you should know that your religion allows you to beat up your wife, cut off people's arms, feet and legs, make them blind, kill people for their beliefs, etc, etc. Some fixed morality that is. At least if I descended from such people, I'd change those practices but since to you believe they're from God and His emissary, you'd have to stick with them. Fixed morals result in Saudi Arabia.

Humankind? - busy killing each other over pity things, like land, politics, religion too, resources - busy creating weapons that are getting more and more efficient in killing indiscriminately other life forms (including humans), especially the ones that get more advanced and technological. That you wish to fight for? human kindness...more like overgrown cancer.

Man is born good. It's in the Quran/Hadith. Calling Allah's creation an overgrown cancer is kufr. Get on your knees and say your taubas.

You don't think that Bob Spencer, Geert Wilders might have it right? You don't think they have legitimate concerns? I hope you are not just saying that to get into some Muslim Pukhtoon girl pants (3 of them?). It's all nice and touchy, but negro please. Save me the sentimentality. You might as well be saying that for social acceptance (in this case Pukhtoon Muslim societal acceptance). If Spencer, Wilders at the end of the day had their way, are you sure you wont declare your apostasy to them and join their ranks, again for acceptance? And why shouldn't you...it will make perfect sense. The selfish gene will naturally kick in.

The three exaggerate the issue and make all Muslims look like blood-thirsty zombies. If they get their way, and it seems that Wilders just might, it would usher in an era of great injustice. I know it's very difficult for you to realize that you can't stereotype me. It's okay, you'll get over it.

I love the part that I highlighted up there. You have been trained to speak the truth for the sake of epic rewards (72 girls instead of 3 for you, homie), I speak the truth because I don't want to be a liar. I know I'll get nothing for speaking the truth. In most cases, I'll get punished for it.

Is your moral compass in alignment with majority of the Pukhtoons? You know, they might want shariah, which includes stoning, decapitations etc.

Yes and that's because they've been in a savage state of war for 30 years. They're uneducated, what do you expect? Give them 60 years of education and they'll all turn liberal. The educated Pashtuns are all secularist - ANP, PkMAP.

This thread is not about believers like me. It's about atheists like you. I think the Muslim purpose in life is pretty much clear. Enjoy good, reject bad. Note, it says ENJOY, not do, but enjoy. There is a difference.

So when did you say that you shouldn't enjoy, reject good and promote evil? However, here's the problem. According to some mullahs, a lot of things are evil. According to Mullah Omar, the television was evil. According to the Saudi Salafis, camera phones are evil but women's milk is good (keeps the bones strong). You see, your notion of enjoying good and rejecting bad is as human as Chairman Mao's. Except Mao was honest about it and you aren't.

I thought you have morals, to be exact, something like not approving of a woman selling her body? That is a dogmatic belief no, assuming if your sister or daughter came up to you and said they have this amazing way of earning extra bling to help them through college, yet you disprove.

The difference is that while I don't agree with the exploitation of women, I won't decapitate a girl and a boy (or stone them to death) for making love. That's dogmatic. And according to your notion of promoting good and forbidding evil, that's something you'd have to do. See the difference? Make them chew on those stones.

Why? If I can't control what the chemicals are forcing on my brains, why should I suppress the very nature that promises the continued existence of my species by procreation, even if it is non-consensual? Mullah Zalmaye disproves? Professor Wrayun says do it, as long as you can get away with it. Enjoy the finer things in life.

Hey, how about this - you drug and rape someone and then ask for forgiveness! God is merciful! hehe xD

No matter how many silly analogies you can concoct, I still won't be convinced that the only solution is following the man-made morals of the Quran.

Not entirely. I believe that my inherit moral nature is only possible after my predecessors who went through various trials and tests (speaking religiously). The punishment in afterlife solidifies my convictions in what I hold moral to be true. That I am not crazy and wasting my time for thinking and believing in the way I do. Like instead of screwing my fellow Pukhtoon neighbors beautiful wife while he is out of town, I'm wasting my time concerning myself with his honor and dignity.

Whats your excuse? The 'selfish gene'? Of course you'll pass on something like that because of your "morals", even when she consents and is inviting.

I don't need a God to tell me that having sex with someone else's wife is wrong. Only you, it seems, need to be reminded about becoming Satan's favorite girl in hell if you'd hit your neighbor's hot wife. Is she the "Aryan" type of Pashtana (blue eyes, red hair) or the regular sort, by the way?

Did you not understand what I meant by empirical evidence? I need something tangible. Khan Abdul Wali Khan could be the descendant of some remote Turk who just might have happened to settled in the region with the first Islamic conquests. In fact many Pukhtoons probably are. There goes the credibility of your blood denomination. Don't tell me you honestly believe that Pukhtoons are a race, or share a common forefather.

lol a worshiper of a sky-deity is talking about empirical evidence. Qayamat just got a little closer!

Pashtuns are not a race, they're an ethnic group.

6000 years ago and might not have spoken the language? Why stop there, why not go as far as the first man and claim every other heritage from there on? It's okay. These things are as ambiguous as your atheistic morals can be. Ever evolving, accommodating time and environment.

We are, most of us, the offspring of those who had always inhabited our places of birth. It doesn't take a genius to decipher that. There has been migration from southern Afghanistan towards the Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa but we're talking about migrations and not exoduses.

Delhi Sultanate eh...Will you agree with the notion that Islam contributed many things to Pukhtoons (including the very name Pukhtoon), social standards, moral values, a writing system, infrastructure so on so forth. That it is an integral, inseparable part of who Pukhtooons are? That those who wish to go back (before Islam, pre-Islamic utopian past), are nothing more than those people who when reaching a river wish to turn back home and instead of moving forward? Especially a home which no one actually knows much about (Jews, Greeks, Aryans, aliens from outer space).

A Pashtun living in Kabul or Peshawar will have very different social standards and moral values from a Kochi. You and your notions of fixed morality....

If the Delhi Sultans made us what we are, why are Punjabis, Hindustanis and Bengalis so different? They, too, were under the control of the Turks and Persians.

It is ludicrous to suggest that Islam has had no impact on Pashtuns. However, it is equally ludicrous to think that Islam is a permanent part of Pashtun culture.

By the way, when do you think Pashtuns came into being? I'm just wondering because you disagreed with what I said without giving a clear answer of your own.

Anyways, good luck with your unwarranted self-importance pretty princess. Don't forget to save the whales.

Animal cruelty is not a laughing matter.

Anyway, I hope you answer the queries I left for you.

The concept of Hujra and Jumat are both Islamic introductions. How do secularist atheists compensate for that?

Geez, I wonder where tribal councils in pagan Europe and North America came from.

I got some after-Mabhrib food for thought for you once again. Scroll through these Zoroastrian norms and values and see how similar they are to Islam and Afghan culture. Geez, I wonder why.......

[Wrayun]

Levanaye Zalmaye,

Yes, you said you weren't thinking on my behalf and then you made sweeping statements like the one below. You say something, you do something else. That's a contradiction.

This is what I said:

Is it due to the fear of being excommunicated from your society? In this case the Pukhtoon society. Therefore you disapprove of these things not out of your "good human" nature, but due to fear. You replaced your fear of hell, with fear of men and social rejection. Do you see the irony? Chew on it.

You notice this question: Is it due to the fear of being excommunicated from your society?

I clearly inquired before summarizing if it was the case. You had the option to simply say no, it isn't the case and this is why...Though you chose to quote it out of context and claimed that I somehow contradicted myself without even bothering to address the question. Not a good distraction batman.

That means I'm not afraid of being rejected by any social, philosophical or religious group. But it's funny that you think that since you're afraid of being rejected by your self-appointed higher authority, I'd share the same fear. Sorry, not the case.

So can I assume that you have publicly made your apostasy known especially amongst Pukhtoons and are not hiding your true beliefs like a spineless worm? That you are not pretending to be a Muslim midst Muslims due to fear of rejection or persecution? I hope you did. Unlike the little girl you suppose I am, you be the man that you ought to be and stand up for your beliefs. If you don't, I'll understand. The 'selfish gene' made you do it (is that like the atheist version of Shaitan?).

N' don't twist my words. I never claimed that you fear being rejected by my very personal high authority. Rather that you fear social rejection and its why you buy into your man made morals. Trust me you do, you can't be the true atheist (liberal-secularist) you should be amongst these Muslim and culturally conservative Pukhtoons. Not saying that there is something wrong with those beliefs (I'm not judging you), but the fact that they are in total contrast to what majority of the Pukhtoons hold moral, is basis enough for some to just "pretend". Like some sneaky ninjas, you are probably waiting for the right time to jump out of your hiding, comprising the very people you say you are "fighting" for and their "NATOINAL RIGHTS", and proclaim: "ha ha! you thought we were Muslims and held true what you thought was GOOD and BAD, but while you weren't looking we did all those dirty little things we weren't suppose to." EPIC WIN!

It's called treachery. But why shouldn't you? Once again what do you have to base your honesty (or dishonesty) on?.....your very own personal sets of morals (not much different than believing in a sky-god is it?) which includes the highly improved Atheistic Taqqiya.

The term "advanced apes" has been generally used for gorillas, chimpanzees, orangutans, etc, if I am not mistaken. We share a common ancestor with these "advanced" apes and hence the numerous similarities that we primates share with our cousins. Like you're an advanced Mullah - you haven't declared Jihad on me yet.

There is nothing wrong with being a Mullah. Mullah in our society has played a vital role which I can appreciate. The stigma attached to this title is projected by a few men who do not represent the best of us. Even than, those trouble making Mullahs has shown more courage in face of adversity (no matter how ridiculous their position) than those educated, illuminated, pseudo atheists who can't make their basic beliefs public while claiming to be the custodians of Pukhtoon nationalism (at least wish to be). Those who can't stand up for themselves, can't be expected to stand up for the millions of marginalized Pukhtoons. The Mullah, is willing to give his leg, an eye, and arm. He believes he will be rewarded in the hereafter (a point for Mohammad! CASH!!!).

Atheists dont have that leverage. Forget that dude, atheists live only once. Atheists need both their eyes, legs and arms to do all the unholy things possible before they become worm sh&t. If I was an atheist I would totally dig that. That sort of logic makes perfect sense to someone who just "happens to be".

Oh...I wont declare jihaad on you princess (or anyone else for that matter). Don't get your panties all in a bunch. Relax, these are the interwebs. Commence freely!

You do realize that even your notion of right and wrong (your ethics) are neither 'Divine' nor "uncreated". You do realize that even your notion of right and wrong (your ethics) are neither 'Divine' nor "uncreated". What's ethical in Saudi Arabia is unethical in Egypt and vice-versa. People draw from the Quran whatever suites their tastes. That's why Islamic morality varies from Yusaf Khattab to Sheikh Hamza Yusuf. They're as far away from each other as the north pole is from the south.

Ah, but unlike you I have the comfort of claiming mines to be divine, even if they differ from other Muslims. Unfortunately for you, you can't make that claim. You consciously submit to your self-imposed man made societal rules and taboos. That's far more confusing than a woman in a mans body....not to mention psychologically damaging. How do you live with yourselves?

Secondly, an individual's own notions of right or wrong are neither absurd nor anything new. These "concocted" ideas have been around among educated peoples for centuries. Read up: Click, scroll down to "Normative ethical theories".

And a man who has dreamt up his own sets of morals, values, and ideals can't stress their importance to others while being fully aware of the fact that they are a figment of his own imagination. Unless of course he claims divinity. Can't argue with that.

Educated people? More like people who condition (brainwash) themselves and others into those "concocted" ideals like Ron Hubbard. You can say the same about Mohammad, but I'm okay with that because its already apart of who I am, who my people are. For me to look back and imagine how things were EIGHT HUNDRED YEARS AGO, is a complete waste of time and a total distraction from all the issues facing Pukhtoons today. And for me to yet subject my people to another sets of "concocted" foreign principles will be very selfish. Like actually giving a damn about your people sensitivties, their historic values, their heritage for which they have made so many sacrifices. Many of which you as an atheist take for granted and take pride in as an Pukhtoon/Afghan, though much of it wouldn't have been possible without belief in a sky-god.

This time don't just chew, gulp it down.

Where do you get your notion of right and wrong from? Let's hear the other side on this, too.

Isn't it obvious enough? I get them from my family, from my people, and their beliefs are based on the faith of Islam (or verifiable by Islam) and just like them I hold that to be true. I don't wish to take the liberty in thinking that millions of them are retarded, stupid, for believing in Islam (unlike you). I respect their convictions and wont comprise their sentiments by pretending to be one of them. Sadly, in your case you still prescribe to their norms and values and claim to be a Pukhtoon "nationalist" as an atheist. Knowing very well it isn't so. In sense that you are flexible to "changes" since your morals are ambiguous (ever evolving) and not written in solid (like a holy book). There is no guarantee that you won't kick Pukhto in the ass, and adopt to another language or standard, which has "evolved". In other words, how do you as an atheist guarantee your loyalty to us 99.9% Muslim Pukhtoons? What do you base it on?

Still not seeing the absurdity? Waat a farc.

And a hateful person is obviously not a good person, is he?

Unless the person has justifiable reasons. Though as an atheist what do you base your concept of good or bad on? Spaghetti Monster? Might as well. Sounds more interesting than "selfish genes".

Yes, we are born and we die and that's that.

Your personal beliefs Mullah saib, don't shove it down our throats.

Whether a holy book tells you otherwise or not won't change this reality.

Your personal perception of reality which most of us don't hold to be true. No need to get all up tight about it.

I know it's very human to think that this miserable life is not all that there is.

Life is miserably already?

I would personally love to have an afterlife and get back together with all my family and my friends. I would love that. Alas, if only it were so. Therefore, make a purpose out of whatever little you have, false hopes of afterlives are what they are - false.

They are better than the self-created ones no? No matter how much you stretch it you know its just you, in your own little head who is trying to make a purpose out of his meaningless, accidental, coincidental quote: "miserable" existence.

Which don't really matter if you think about it. If you die, or this world blows up. It won't make a single damn difference. But hey, don't forget, all the sex and alcohol and drugs you can have while alive. Spend your weekends away all drunk. All your weekdays working like an ant. Plus your spare time walking your dog, and it'll be just fine. Alas! But you have something better, PUKHTOON NATIONALISM. Sounds like a good gig.

If two consenting adults, without duress or without being under the influence of any substance, agree to do something to each other, I have no jurisdiction over them.

What if the two consenting, mature, educated, smart, mentally sound adults happen to be your father, and his daughter (your sister), do you still have no jurisdiction over them? I never said anything about jurisdiction btw, what's your opinion? If you dont have one, why? And if you do, what is it?

If answering the above makes you blush. Try this:

An atheist sees this pretty thing walking down an ally. All of the sudden he gets this urge to attack. He can't control it, doesn't understand it, his carnivorous nature kicks in. No one is around, he will probably get away it. So he gives in (why not? selfish gene in action). He beats her and kicks her. Brutally rapes her again and again breaking many tender bones in her body. Then, looking straight into her eyes, squeeze the life out of her.

Tell me, as an atheist, is that wrong, is that evil, how? I'd be interested to know.

It is the job of a Mullah to come between two people and their private affairs.

Nope, that's not the job of a Mullah. You should know that. Mullahs job is to spread the message of God, his job is to warn people and not interfere in peoples affairs. Some Mullahs try to, so do many people who can hardly be classified as Mullahs (like atheists claiming Pukhtoon nationalism who wish to impose secular laws on a people that might not even want them).

Last year, a girl kissed a guy on the cheek in LUMS (Pakistan's top university). A burkha-girl saw them and started a mass movement. Allah granted her victory. Kissing has been banned on the campus. Hmmm I hope that girl wasn't you....

Referring to me as a girl makes you feel good about your own manhood? Is it that bad? You sound like a venerable 12 year old with those semi-sarcastic insults. Mellow out homez. I got nothing to do with your shortcomings.

Man is born good. It's in the Quran/Hadith. Calling Allah's creation an overgrown cancer is kufr. Get on your knees and say your taubas.

There is a little thing called Shaitan (selfish gene) that can take a good God created man and mutate them into cancer.

What do I have to do with Western tourists visiting Thailand to engage in pedophilia?

As much as I had to do with the Taliban taking advantage of poor people.

Let's hear your views on morality. Where do you moral values come from?

Already answered.

Or are you afraid about being ridiculed?

I think as a believer, I have had my share of ridicule.

My notion of right and wrong is pretty sound. And by those notions, I don't stop from evil because I think I'll be punished in the afterlife - I stay away from evil because I don't wanna engage in it. I'm a human, not a donkey. A donkey fears being punished and that's how it is obedient. A human should be more enlightened than a donkey.

I can guarantee that the word "evil" is a religious one. As an atheist you should be careful using it. Despite that, how is something evil in a purposeless, accidental universe, while something else good? How does an atheist decide?

I'm a human, not a donkey.

Replace the d with an m, and you sure will buy it as science.

Your morals are just as man-made as mine. Muslim A wants to blow everything up, Muslim B is a pacifist.

But what does the religion they subscribe to really actually say about their positions? Just because they hold different views doesn't necessarily mean that's what the religion teaches.

How's that possible?

Perversion, and misguidance.

That's possible because Muslims, too, follow their own notions of right and wrong, whether you like it or not.

They can follow their own notions as they please, but those notions are not necessarily condoned by their religion (Islam). Granted that some are hard to argue with, but most exaggerations and differences can be challenged and proven false. Which doesn't mean they'll agree to it. However, midst all of that, there are some fundamental universal values, to which all subscribe. That's the difference between following a single set of beliefs, where in an atheistic world, everyone is (and should be) free to invent their own sets of unique morals as they please.

What's important is that since you claim that your morals are from God, you think you're better than everyone else.

I didn't claim that, but I won't disagree with it.

However, you should know that your religion allows you to beat up your wife, cut off people's arms, feet and legs, make them blind, kill people for their beliefs, etc, etc.

Without any conditions? Like I can just go and blind someone, cut off some legs, and beat up my wife for no reason? Really? WOWzie! I thought there was a process for these things.

Some fixed morality that is.

Sure is.

However, you should know that your religion allows you to beat up your wife, cut off people's arms, feet and legs, make them blind, kill people for their beliefs, etc, etc. Some fixed morality that is. At least if I descended from such people, I'd change those practices but since to you believe they're from God and His emissary, you'd have to stick with them. Fixed morals result in Saudi Arabia.

Change what? Although Saudi is not a great example, there are many things that they have established and achieved that I find reasonable. For example, strict punishment for offenses and one of the lowest crime rates in the world. You'll argue it, but they also haven't launched any wars for global dominance either. Unlike the alliance of oil thirsty secular nations, pillaging and consuming some brown man resources.

The three exaggerate the issue and make all Muslims look like blood-thirsty zombies.

Have you looked at yourself? Aren't you guilty of the same exaggerations? Look at this thread, read up.

You have been trained to speak the truth for the sake of epic rewards (72 girls instead of 3 for you, homie)

See what I mean by exaggeration.

Yes and that's because they've been in a savage state of war for 30 years. They're uneducated, what do you expect? Give them 60 years of education and they'll all turn liberal. The educated Pashtuns are all secularist - ANP, PkMAP.

Again, see what I mean by exaggeration? You seriously don't think that I am not educated, and that majority of the members here who happen to be Muslims, are secularists?

So when did you say that you shouldn't enjoy, reject good and promote evil? However, here's the problem. According to some mullahs, a lot of things are evil. According to Mullah Omar, the television was evil. According to the Saudi Salafis, camera phones are evil but women's milk is good (keeps the bones strong). You see, your notion of enjoying good and rejecting bad is as human as Chairman Mao's. Except Mao was honest about it and you aren't.

I wonder what sort of religious education Mullah Omar got. As for the Saudi, I'm sure many within his own Saudi community laughed at him. Though as a free thinker who believes in the exchange of ideas, don't be so close minded. Breast milk might turn out to be your ultimate kink.

The difference is that while I don't agree with the exploitation of women, I won't decapitate a girl and a boy (or stone them to death) for making love. That's dogmatic. And according to your notion of promoting good and forbidding evil, that's something you'd have to do. See the difference? Make them chew on those stones.

Are you sure you are not Robert Spencer? You keep making these wild accusations without any substance. You don't know what I believe in, or if I am your typical Muslim. Speaking of exaggeration.

Hey, how about this - you drug and rape someone and then ask for forgiveness! God is merciful! hehe xD

That's better than drugging and raping someone and not feeling guilt over it. After all, guilt over self concocted concepts of wrong and right is irrational. Should be for a logical atheist.

No matter how many silly analogies you can concoct, I still won't be convinced that the only solution is following the man-made morals of the Quran.

Except that you follow your very own man-made morals. Notice the silliness?

I don't need a God to tell me that having sex with someone else's wife is wrong.

Easy to say that now after you have been conditioned by your environment, a Muslim one to be exact.

lol a worshiper of a sky-deity is talking about empirical evidence. Qayamat just got a little closer!

Did you even know what empirical evidence was before I used it?

Pashtuns are not a race, they're an ethnic group.

Agreed.

A Pashtun living in Kabul or Peshawar will have very different social standards and moral values from a Kochi. You and your notions of fixed morality...

Your proof?

If the Delhi Sultans made us what we are, why are Punjabis, Hindustanis and Bengalis so different? They, too, were under the control of the Turks and Persians.

Because a large section of the Turks settled amongst the people who are now known as Pukhtoons. The Ghilzai in particular, are of Turkic stuck. That is one of the largest groups amongst Pukhtoons. The very religious and conservative one. Most Taliban are Ghilzai, so was the very first Pukhtoon nationalistic empire under Mirwais Hotak.

However, it is equally ludicrous to think that Islam is a permanent part of Pashtun culture.

And what of the Pukhtoon culture would be left if you remove Islam? Certainly not much as we love, adore, and admire it as we do today.

By the way, when do you think Pashtuns came into being? I'm just wondering because you disagreed with what I said without giving a clear answer of your own.

Not relevant to the topic. We can start another thread about it tho.

Geez, I wonder where tribal councils in pagan Europe and North America came from.

You failed to show how that relates to Hujra or Jumat, as practiced in Pukhtoon society.

Plus Hujra has nothing to do with "tribal councils". You probably meant Jerga. Two very different things.

I got some after-Mabhrib food for thought for you once again.

Keep your food. Can't trust an atheist with ambiguous morals, might feed you pork for lulz.

Scroll through these Zoroastrian norms and values and see how similar they are to Islam and Afghan culture. Geez, I wonder why......

I didn't know Zoroastrians were atheists.

[Wrayun]

hindupashtun,

This is a recent ideological thought. Prehistorically before Islam existed what where Pashtuns? answer that question of mine. Before Islam came into effect, where Pashtuns not Pashtuns?

Were there Pukhtoons before Islam? There were people who contributed to the Pukhtoon ethnic group, but they were not Pukhtoons. Certainly not as they are today. Pukhtoons are a mix mash of many different groups that might have been Jews, Buddhists, Shamans, Hindus, Zoroastrians, Jains and later Muslims. Besides, does it matter what they were? What are they today, matters most.

Pakhtun cultural standards are not necessarily in line with your Islam. In Hinduism it also teaches you to be hospitable and so does it in Pashtunwali. I can easily make a list of things that are similar.

Please do. And also list Hindu Pukhtoons who gave sacrifices in the defense of our land, our people, and freedom during the British era, the Russian, and today against the Americans and Pakistanis.

Religion plays no effect in my Pashtunness.Just because I am culturally adapted to Islam is because I was born in and educated in Kandahar. That is a Muslim province but tolerance can be founded that is why I respect it. If they would have forced me to do things, I would not have been this happy or proud.

But the very Islamic culture you adopted in Kandahar helps separate you from the other Hindus who can very will learn Pukhto and claim to be Pukhtoons. Do you see its importance now?

Atheists make one good point which is our cultural and social identity has no intertwining with Religion. What I pray to home should have no effect to my hospitality, Badal and walwar.

It is in their interest to stress that point because they don't have any. It is also in your interest to believe that because your religion is in contrast to the majority of Pukhtoons.

Wrora, I am not ignorant. I am willing to learn about Islam. I am open and I am not atheist.

Grena, I never said that you are ignorant, never claimed that you are an atheist. If you want to learn about Islam, do so out of true conviction. If you feel you are a Pukhtoon I can't take that away from you. No one here can. You don't have to change anything for that. Stay firm in your position. In the end it's in the hands of the collective Pukhtoon conscience whether to accept you as one or not. Not mines.

I can only stress my view point.

[Wrayun]

^I did, above.

[Roshina]

The concept of Hujra and Jumat are both Islamic introductions. How do secularist atheists compensate for that?

Wrayun gula! You seem to be quite unaware of the ideologies of both atheism and secularism. What IN atheism and secularism tells us that we cannot accept those practices of our people that are derived from religion? Absolutely nothing. One need not believe in God, and one need not mix religion and politics together, in order to accept the concepts of hujra, for instance. Only narrow-minded Pashtun atheists would reject a certain social custom of our people just because they're not Muslim. As for secularist Muslims, they're still Muslims; they just don't want religion to be imposed on the people by the state.

All of your posts are of this type -- confused about atheism and secularism -- and I think that unless you fully understand atheism and secularism, you will continue going in circle and shock us so much that we don't know what to say to you.

Further, I completely disagree with your idea that there were no "Pukhtuns" before Islam reached us. Tell me how much of Pukhtunwali is Islamic, for example, particularly when it comes to women -- and the mere notions of nang and namus. Pukhtunwali has always existed, long before Islam, and it did not come FROM Islamic beliefs themselves. Now, if you are implying that Pukhtunwali has evolved, has changed so that it coincides with our Islamic beliefs, then that's a different argument in itself, and it'd need evidence (I was going to write my honors thesis on this thought this year, but unfortunately, there are not many resources available to support this claim! I'll have to wait until I actually go to various Pukhtun areas to really see whether this is the case or not).

That said, I do not believe that the longer something exists, the more chances it has of being original or correct necessarily. So, readers must not assume that I'm suggesting that because Pukhtunwali is older than the Islam we know today, it is necessarily more authentic or important or correct. (This is why I find it silly when people say that a certain religion has existed for so long and is therefore correct or something. On the contrary, it has more chances of having evolved so much it is perhaps nothing close to the original version.)

Now ... in your reply to my post, can you please tell me what you believe secularism is? I think until that's settled, we will not get anywhere with this discussion.

Mananuna!

[Roshina]

Wait ... who said the hujra did not exist before Islam arrived to our areas? We've always had the system of jirga, and I thought this was the understood belief among Pukhtuns.

How SURE are we that it came only with Islam?

[Levanaye Zalmaye]

.

[akbarkhan]

Gulping down 7th century stuff in the 21st century will make you sick.

If that is the case then does it mean that you are sick of Pashtunwali? Pashtunwali is ancient, surely living according to such an old code of conduct must be sickening in 21st century!?

Do you see how absurd your argument is?

Modernism is not a prerequisite of virtue and wholesomeness, likewise, antiquity is not a prerequisite of vice and vileness!

[Saifullah]

Most laws are founded to be quite ancient, yet we follow it today....yep i do call it absurd coz Islam is really modern in that aspect, compared to the more ancient laws we follow and some people worship..

[muhsina]

Wrayun

Theism or Atheism has nothing to do with nationalism in case of Afghans or Pakthuns of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.

Without loosing your faith in any of metaphysical entities, let me assure you that we are least bothered about the term ,in case one's needles get stuck due to the term- nationalism.

Whatever Hobbes ,locke ,Roussue or others say about secularism or Machiavelli about Nationalism we should not care much. What Afghans should be concerned about is that for the Pakhtuns of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa nationalism means making sure they get freedom from the shackles of Punjabi imperialsim in political sense and preserve their Afghan nationhood status by preserving their language,culture and other human rights. This CANNOT be achieved just by callin onto religion as the usurpers are not Jews or Chriatians but our own so called muslim brothers - the power elite of Pakistan - who are also muslims.

In case of Afghans ,nationalism [or let us call it watan dosti] means making sure the national interests of Afghans are considered in each and every decision made at state level and at the same time respecting the sovereignty and integrity of other countries.

It is more just a political approach to make sure afghans progress and have a respectable position in the community of nations. to make it more clearer let me say that I would not like a christian insulting Islam viz a vis christianity not because I am a great fan of Islam but because we need to interact with other nations on an egalistarian basis. If we respect their religion or culture they have to do the same to us. To be more accurate my respect for their religion or culture is conditional to their respect for mine.

This should not be confused with the academic debate carried by the intellegentsia of various religions or nations about any culture or relgion as that is a non political domain.

The crux of the discourse hence is that there are certain ideas which help a nation to get her rights and respect and retain her sovereignty and these ideas have nothing to do with religion. An atheist can be a nationalist in the political sense as can a staunch muslim be.

Winning your poltical rights is the aim and target of nationalistic approach.

[Michin Khel]

Wrayun

Theism or Atheism has nothing to do with nationalism in case of Afghans or Pakthuns of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.

Without loosing your faith in any of metaphysical entities, let me assure you that we are least bothered about the term ,in case one's needles get stuck due to the term- nationalism.

Whatever Hobbes ,locke ,Roussue or others say about secularism or Machiavelli about Nationalism we should not care much. What Afghans should be concerned about is that for the Pakhtuns of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa nationalism means making sure they get freedom from the shackles of Punjabi imperialsim in political sense and preserve their Afghan nationhood status by preserving their language,culture and other human rights. This CANNOT be achieved just by callin onto religion as the usurpers are not Jews or Chriatians but our own so called muslim brothers - the power elite of Pakistan - who are also muslims.

In case of Afghans ,nationalism [or let us call it watan dosti] means making sure the national interests of Afghans are considered in each and every decision made at state level and at the same time respecting the sovereignty and integrity of other countries.

It is more just a political approach to make sure afghans progress and have a respectable position in the community of nations. to make it more clearer let me say that I would not like a christian insulting Islam viz a vis christianity not because I am a great fan of Islam but because we need to interact with other nations on an egalistarian basis. If we respect their religion or culture they have to do the same to us. To be more accurate my respect for their religion or culture is conditional to their respect for mine.

This should not be confused with the academic debate carried by the intellegentsia of various religions or nations about any culture or relgion as that is a non political domain.

The crux of the discourse hence is that there are certain ideas which help a nation to get her rights and respect and retain her sovereignty and these ideas have nothing to do with religion. An atheist can be a nationalist in the political sense as can a staunch muslim be.

Winning your poltical rights is the aim and target of nationalistic approach.

How will you make conservative pashtuns to listen you if you are an athiest. Instead they may start stoning you. Come to pashtun village and tell them that i dont believe in allah and i care for pashtuns...the response will be interesting.

[شمله ور خراساني]

How can you care about Pashtuns if you do not care about their religion and you are denying the existence of that for which every Pashtun prostrates at least 5 times a day?

[Wrayun]

Qrratugai,

Wrayun gula! You seem to be quite unaware of the ideologies of both atheism and secularism. What IN atheism and secularism tells us that we cannot accept those practices of our people that are derived from religion? Absolutely nothing. One need not believe in God, and one need not mix religion and politics together, in order to accept the concepts of hujra, for instance. Only narrow-minded Pashtun atheists would reject a certain social custom of our people just because they're not Muslim. As for secularist Muslims, they're still Muslims; they just don't want religion to be imposed on the people by the state.

All of your posts are of this type -- confused about atheism and secularism -- and I think that unless you fully understand atheism and secularism, you will continue going in circle and shock us so much that we don't know what to say to you.

I grew up in a secular country and culture, and for quite some time you can say I was quite an atheist. Please don't insult my intelligence by stating that I am confused about these subjects without providing any evidence. I have shown to be far more liberal and secular in this thread alone than the lone atheist knight Zalmaye who while rejects man-made sky-god, suffers from man-made societal taboos (dogmas).

Further, I completely disagree with your idea that there were no "Pukhtuns" before Islam reached us.

This is what I said: Were there Pukhtoons before Islam? There were people who contributed to the Pukhtoon ethnic group, but they were not Pukhtoons. Certainly not as they are today. Pukhtoons are a mix mash of many different groups that might have been Jews, Buddhists, Shamans, Hindus, Zoroastrians, Jains and later Muslims. Besides, does it matter what they were? What are they today, matters most.

Tell me how much of Pukhtunwali is Islamic, for example, particularly when it comes to women -- and the mere notions of nang and namus. Pukhtunwali has always existed, long before Islam, and it did not come FROM Islamic beliefs themselves. Now, if you are implying that Pukhtunwali has evolved, has changed so that it coincides with our Islamic beliefs, then that's a different argument in itself, and it'd need evidence (I was going to write my honors thesis on this thought this year, but unfortunately, there are not many resources available to support this claim! I'll have to wait until I actually go to various Pukhtun areas to really see whether this is the case or not).

In due time we will discuss that, this is not the topic for it.

Now ... in your reply to my post, can you please tell me what you believe secularism is? I think until that's settled, we will not get anywhere with this discussion.

Mananuna!

lulz... that will require a lengthy reply for which I have little time right now. What I do know that the short or long term ramifications are not in the interest of Pukhto, Pukhtoonyat, or Pukhtoonwale. As secularists, if you promote your ideas without sugar coating it with Pukhtoon nationalism, I have no argument. But when you use Pukhtoon nationalism as a means to promote secularist ideas, to me personally, thats completely irresponsible.

Wait ... who said the hujra did not exist before Islam arrived to our areas? We've always had the system of jirga, and I thought this was the understood belief among Pukhtuns.

How SURE are we that it came only with Islam?

The very word Hujra is Arabic, thats how sure you should be.

[muhsina]

Originally Posted by Luffy
How will you make conservative pashtuns to listen you if you are an athiest. Instead they may start stoning you. Come to pashtun village and tell them that i dont believe in allah and i care for pashtuns...the response will be interesting.

Our aim and target is political and not religious in nature, hence what we talk about is only in political context. It has nothing to do with the version of religion being followed by the oppressed or the oppressors. We are against those, who might even fly due to the caliber of their faith, if they usurp our rights and we have no debate with those who might even consider us non muslims as long as they assure not to violate our human rights.

For example the resilience to Kalabagh dam in Pakistan has nothing to do whether you worship graves or you are wahabi or ahle hadith or ahle quran or whatever. No political party or group will ever bother about this absurd debate.

In summary let me say that we will oppose the MUSLIMS of Punjab and of the same sect as that of Pashtuns if they usurp our rights but we wont bother anyone even if they have a different sect or religion if they they don’t usurp our rights.

We don’t need any Pakhtun Nationalism in Afghanistan but rather Afghan nationalism which means safeguarding the sovereignty, respect, and rights of Afghans.

We do need Pakhtun Nationalism in occupied Pakhtunkhwa to win our freedom from the those who have enslaved us for the last 63 years because religion will not help us to win our freedom.

I hope it makes things clearer.