Atheistic Pukhtoon "nationalism", is it possible?

[Baygham]

From what I understand, an atheist is someone who believes that life happened by chance. That our existence is by accident and merely a coincidence. There is no divine purpose or meaning behind it. If so, how can an atheist be a nationalist Pukhtoon, or for that matter a nationalist German, Persian, Arab etc.? Isn't our heritage by accident too? You are a Pukhtoon, Tajik, Punjabi, Arab, English, French because your parents happen to be. Your heritage is by chance, and is no more significant than any other. Logically speaking, instead of promoting or clinging on to a primitive, under evolved heritage, it would be better to adopt to a far more sophisticated, evolved culture to increase the chances of your survival......it will be completely irrational and unreasonable for any atheist to hold on to an identity which is only relevant to the society of their birth, while other, far more advanced, sophisticated, refined languages and cultures exist that will increase the chances of their success and living standards.

How then, can atheists explain their Pukhtoon nationalism....is it nostalgia?

Wrayun wrora,
It is very simple. It is not just how you see yourself but as others see you.

The world and humanity at large has developed an idea of nationhood, with geographic bounderies and such. You need passports, trade papers, currency, you are made to follow laws based on this discription.

In a thousand years we may have other designations and other methods of grouping. At that time the idea of pashtoon nation will become archiac. Just like the notion of irish is irrelevent in America, they did go through a period of irish american identity which is slowly fading away. but in ireland the identity is still strong, The reason is that the irish in Ireland prosper from that identity while the irish in USA dont, so they have assimilated a different identity (american).

On the other hand a lithvanian Jew has no state identity and does not prosper as a lithvanian. He has morphed into the identity of an american Jew where he is prosperous.

At this time in our existence, pashtoons in pakhtunkhwa/afghanistan will prosper in our pashtoon identity only. A pashtoon can be muslim, sunni, shia, hindu or atheist, farsiwan, hindkowan, crippled, one-eyed or what ever else we choose to include and the world see fit to include.

[akbarkhan]

A pashtoon can be muslim, sunni, shia, hindu or atheist, farsiwan, hindkowan, crippled, one-eyed or what ever else we choose to include and the world see fit to include.

Please explain?

[ijaz yousafzai]

Qrratugai said:



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.

Wrayun said: 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)

Wrayun!You are beating about the bush consistently, stubornly and without appreciating what Qrratugai tries to tell you. You lack understanding the difference between Atheism and Secularism. You are deliberately confusing both or you are lacking the wisdom to draw a line between the two terms, which are not related to each other. Go through Qrratugai's post again, sipping strong tea and understand the difference.

[akbarkhan]

You lack understanding the difference between Atheism and Secularism.

Secularism is a shortcut to atheism, want to find out how? Study European history.

[ijaz yousafzai]

Secularism is a shortcut to atheism, want to find out how? Study European history.

A good example is that of India, which is secularist. Do you really think it is Atheist? In fact the seperation of Hujra and Jumat is secularism, it does not promote that you should not have a Jumat. Atheism advocates that you should not have a Jumat. It is a simple difference.I do not need to study for it further more, I am pretty sure.

[Baygham]

A good example is that of India, which is secularist. Do you really think it is Atheist? In fact the seperation of Hujra and Jumat is secularism, it does not promote that you should not have a Jumat. Atheism advocates that you should not have a Jumat. It is a simple difference.I do not need to study for it further more, I am pretty sure.

jumat had always been subservient to the hujra in pashtoon society. Only after the wahabi/salafi money came in did the jumat became bigger and stronger and out of control of the hujra.
With seperation of hujra and jumat the pashtoon were always in a way secular.

[Baygham]

Very well said Akbar lala, It astounds me and slightly amuses me how when worships Pashtunwali yet calls Islam barbaric -- fine let's agree Islam is barbaric for the sake of atheism and PF but how in the world do you side with Pashtunwali then? Don't we literally sell our daughters?

When a Popalzai and Achakzai have tribal wars they settle war by offering a woman. Is that not more barbaric?

selling a daughter whether in pashtunwali or any other system is bad. Their are many archiac elements in pashtunwali that will not serve a modern pashtoon society just like their are many primitive elements in Islam that are not compatible with a modern muslim or modern pashtoon society.

Pashtunwali is not something to worship. Now we are pashtoons and the world sees us as such. What we do with that identity is up to us. In this space given to us with our identity we can turn things around to benefit the peaple that share this space with us. Under a mechanism which allows maximum growth both as an individual and as a nation.

Ancient pashtunwali and ancient (salafi) Islam is not going to do that for us.

BTW. Modern pashtun identity may have nothing to do with barbaric elements of pashtunwali. Look at Japan, a modern japanese is as much a japanese as the one born in Samuri time 200 hundred years ago. Yet those ancient very japanese part of their culture are there no more.

[Roshina]

Wrayun, since you don’t have time to tell us what your understanding of secularism is, I’ll remind you of one of its most basic teachings: Theoretically, it gives EQUAL attention and respect to ALL religions. Under secularism, then, all Muslims and non-Muslims have equal chance of succeeding, and the state doesn’t care whether someone’s a Muslim or not. Secularism does NOT (theoretically) ban people from practicing ANY religion so long as the followers of religions don’t use violent tactics to make their point.

We’ve discussed secularism in several other threads, and I urge you to look into that to become more familiar with the concept.

In the meantime, I will be waiting for your response to my question of what you believe secularism is, because I’m still under the impression that you don’t know what it is – and I make this conclusion based on your posts about secularism here in this thread and others.

Again, until you tell me what you think secularism is, I don’t wanna continue this discussion how can I talk to someone about something about which he lacks such necessary knowledge? I’ve decided that I don’t have time for people who argue against something that they don’t know enough about. I’ll respond to a couple of your posts for now, though.

Qrratugai,
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).

Growing up in a secularist country means nothing, really. Neither does having experienced atheism.

Let me explain.

Firstly, France considers itself a secularist country, yet it has banned the veil on women. What IN secularism says women cannot wear their traditional clothing? Such a ban is not inherent to secularism; that is inherent to intolerance.

Just like you can live in a typical so-called Muslim country and never experience what the Islamic country/state/government should be like, you can live in a country claiming to be secular and never experience what secularism really is. So your saying that you’ve lived in secularist states doesn’t mean much here.

Secondly, oftentimes, many Muslims who claim to have been atheist ones are under the misconception that religion is just very bad in general. Few, if any, will actually BOTHER to study several different religions and fully understand atheism and THEN make their decision. I cannot assume which category you belong into because I don't know you. But if you’re one of those who think that atheism means that one can be as immoral and as ethical as one wants, then you don’t know what atheism means (I haven’t read all of your posts, and I’m not suggesting that you have said this anywhere; I’m only making a point). Unfortunately, your discussion of atheism AND secularism so far tells me that you don’t know what either means. You may have considered being, or been an, atheist, but that doesn’t mean you know what it is – again, simply because you think that they believe in nothing. Not believing in God does NOT mean one doesn’t believe in anything. We need to get out of this narrow mentality that to believe in God is to believe in everything and to disbelieve in God is to disbelieve in everything. One of the points you made in your first post in this thread concluded just that.

You see, most of us don’t know that there’s a difference between rejecting something once you’ve studied it well and fully enough and rejecting it out of sheer rebellion or resistance. Too many of us assume that EVERYONE who’s an atheist is just ignorant of God or is intentionally rebelling, and this is actually not the case with all atheists. It is so mostly with those people who are culturally Muslims but not so by faith because they are forced to believe a certain way, and they’re not given wide enough – or ANY – space to express their disagreements with the masses. When they do, they’re told something as silly and pathetic as, “Whatever. Who cares what you think – you’re a minority anyway.” We’ve heard this quite frequently here on PF as well, but it means NOTHING to those who really know what they believe and have reasons to believe what they do.

Regarding your claim about the hujra and its origin, your argument is flawed in several ways. First, you don’t prove that to us (for example, you can tell us what the term “hujra” means in Arabic and what its root words are). Second, you’re sharing only one side of history with us: there are actually historical arguments out there about the origin of the term “hujra,” and one of them is that it’s of Greek origin, coming from the term “Agora,” which was the term for open space for the Greeks. I say this to remind you that there’s more to history than what we might know already or what we may be taught, and this is a major example of it.



Manana.

[Levanaye Zalmaye]

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!

The subject of Pashtunwali has already been touched upon by Beygham. As for modernism not being a prerequisite for virtue and wholesomeness, you should first understand what I mean by modernism. Modernism, unllike what Sangar and company think, is not a process whereby people have sex on the streets with young girls, who may or may not be intoxicated. Modernity is liberal thought in regards to freedom of speech, freedom to follow whatever religion or philosophy that one wishes, facing the challenges of our industrial and post industrial urban societies, open exchanges of ideas, the teaching and acceptance of science, equality of all races, ethnic groups and genders, individual freedom, your say in how you're governed.... it's the sort of stuff that most of you people are enjoying in the West as we speak.

I only want for my fellow Pashtuns everything that you people enjoy in the West everyday. Is that too much to ask?

One simple thing that these people who constantly call islam from teh 7th century is that their beloved Demoracy itself and its main principles were formed in ancient Greece in 5-3rd centruty BC. lol. Talk about absurdities.

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..

Timbaktu and (Saleem) Saifullah, that was the most absurd thing I've ever heard. Are you deliberately trying to deceive us here or are you really that ignorant in regards to what democracy really is? Again, another member enjoying the fruits of democracy criticizes it.

The 3rd century BC democracy of Athens is not the system we follow nowadays. In ancient Athens, women weren't allowed to vote, slaves (without any basic rights) could be bought or sold, there were cruel punishment for minor offenses and freedom of speech was very sternly curtailed by the ruling elite in some cases.

The ideals of Greek democracy (voting, basic rights, law) were taken and worked upon and improved for hundreds of years by the likes of John Locke, John Stewart Mill, James Madison (author of the Bill of Rights - something all of you are enjoying everyday without being thankful), etc. Liberal thought evolved from the Renaissance until well after World War Two (Civil Rights Movement, more rights of homosexuals, etc) and that continuously improving system is what we refer to as a liberal democracy.

Comparing Greek democracy to the modern Welfare state is an absurdity of the highest degree. Greek democracy was a step in the right direction but was no where near perfect. The system was worked upon for centuries and improved (your sex was given the right to vote in the 1920s, for instance) and to say that a person promoting democracy is promoting something ancient and backwards is extremely ignorant and dishonest.

[PFgulalai]

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!

First come first, there is a difference between the nature of Pashtunwali and Islam.Pashtunwali does not cater to the need to God. It pertains to the life of the Pashtun people.Pashtunwali is more modern in its approach than the 7th century Islam. Certainly,it is ancient and patriarchal but it has the tendency to evolve like any other culture.The cultural evolution has been slower due to Pashtun's slower progress and development for a variety of reasons. For instance, compared to past, Pashtun women are allowed to vote and have been serving as elected representatives.I am not talking about the Khan bibi's of Khans but rural women in Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa. Our women are allowed to drive cars and can go to schools as well (compared to what 7th century Islam offers). Our women were used to work in the fields along side with men. Pashtuns are tolerant towards both fine arts and performing arts which ofcourse are considered Haraam by the 7th century Islam.The pashtun fathers today are proud of their daughters achievements as much as their sons compared to yesteryear. Pashtuns have been tolerant towards people of other faiths unlike the 7th century Islamic extremists dwelling our lands at present. If Pashtuns were that much obssessed with Islam, why wouldn't they just be contented with their Muslim identity and forget about Pashtunwali?They will allow the Imam to lead in the prayers but will not elect him as their leader (the MMA was brought upon us by ISI).For a Pashtun, a Mullah place is in the Mosque, not in the Hujra!

One simple thing that these people who constantly call islam from teh 7th century is that their beloved Demoracy itself and its main principles were formed in ancient Greece in 5-3rd centruty BC. lol. Talk about absurdities.

Questionable absurdities: Saudia Arabia and Iran practice classical Sharia. The rest of the Muslim countries have limited the incorporation of the Islamic law in their jurisprudence, and has wisely replaced it with modern (ancient) secular laws or dummy versions of democratic systems of the neighbors. Conversely, there are some 120 plus countries today which has accepted the ancient concept--democracy--as a form of goverment.Another example of modernism could be found in the ancient Pashtunwali in the form of Jirga and Hujra--both follow democratic norms.Also, the Greeks are considered the inventors of the democracy but not many know that Vaishali (present Bihar) was the world's first ever republic in the ancient India.

What is the reason behind the rejection of Sharia law by many Muslim countries?

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..

How is changing from polytheism to monotheism makes one "modern"?

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?

A leader has to do more than just praying 5 times with is followers.Unfortunately, a Mullah lacks the ability to be a political leader since for him God is more important than people.You don't have to care about the religion of the Pashtuns because nobody can stop one from practicing our belief system, neither an atheist, nor a Talib. The problems of Pashtuns are not divine; they are real human problems and can be solved by leaders who consider education, development, awareness, and provision of justice to masses more important than the amount of time spent by them in the mosque.

Very well said Akbar lala, It astounds me and slightly amuses me how when worships Pashtunwali yet calls Islam barbaric -- fine let's agree Islam is barbaric for the sake of atheism and PF but how in the world do you side with Pashtunwali then? Don't we literally sell our daughters?

When a Popalzai and Achakzai have tribal wars they settle war by offering a woman. Is that not more barbaric?

Barbarism against women in all forms is cruel, be it Swara or Stoning to death. I am personally against any kind of exploitation of women and children.We, regardless of our belief systems, should condemn such acts in all forms. Swara is a social crime which is not just limited to Pashtuns.The practice is carried out under other names such as Vanni, Stan, Sang Chatti, and Khoon Baha.Till few decades back, Swara was considered a sacred traditional custom of our society and criticizing it was tantamount to incurring wrath of Jirga.In 2003, a bill (Prohibition of Swara Marriges Act 2003) was drafted by the provincial law department of Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa and was presented to MMA goverment which was in power then but they did not enact the law even though that they remained in power till 2007. Also, an act was passed in January 2005 according to which Swara was considered a criminal offence but the law could not be applied to FATA and PATA areas of KP where most of the Swara cases happen. Unless there is legal prohibition for this brutal custom, it would be difficult to eradicate this brutal custom.We can use the power of education and awareness to bring a positive change.This is obvious from the fact that there has been decrease in the cases of Swara compared to few years back.There is an increasing change in the attitude of Pashtuns towards the custom of Swara as shown by the famous Pashtun anthrapologist and journalist, Samar Minallah in her research paper.According to her:
-57% of men and 51% of women think that Swara is according to tradition.40% think that Swara is not acceptable in the present society.
-Only 10% men and 6%women are of the opinion that Swara is the best option for resolving disputes. According to her:
-5% considered it a religious practice.

A 2006 poll of the "moderate" muslims of the Indonesia showed that 50% supported Stoning to Death as a form of capital punishment.It should not be surprising since Stoning to death is a form of capital punishment in Islam.

Good that Pashtuns did not transform into Arabs completely.

[Wrayun]

Levanaye Zalmaye,

Yes, my family and friends know. I don't wear an armband though. And for the fifth time, I'm not afraid about being "rejected" or "accepted" by my "peers" and I couldn't care less how anyone else would judge me and my beliefs. You can say a hundred times that just like you're afraid of making your higher authority angry, I, too, am afraid of displeasing my "elders" but that still won't make it true.

I said public, not private. Family and friends are hardly considered public.

Your own morality comes from you and not divine sources.

So at what age did you realize that a woman selling her body is wrong and immoral? I think society, environment and upbringing plays a considerable role in instilling in our minds what is moral and what isn't. This is why what is moral in one part of the world might be immoral in another due to differences of environment and in societies. As an atheist I would consider a prostitute a "social worker", she caters for societies members who might not be able to get laid due to various reasons. Which one should consider poetic, and not immoral (speaking atheistically, and secularly).

Secondly, and it's very important for you to understand this, atheism is amoral. It promotes neither morality nor immorality.

Agreed. Thus why I question atheists who are secularists, claiming Pukhtoon nationalism, to elaborate on their moral standards in comparison to what majority of the Pukhtoons believe. Because in a state that is governed by secularist atheists most of Pukhtoon culture has a very little chance of lasting more than 3 decades. Genuine Pukhtoon nationalists will establish a government that will regulate laws which will guarantee the safeguarding of Pukhtoon heritage. I don't think that is possible under a secular state (especially one being run by bedouin hating, closet x-Muslim Pukhtoons). In fact I don't see how it is possible to even suggest that a Pukhtoon national home should or could be be a secular one. Not in this point in history.

Come live here in the Third World and you'll see that every Mullah is corrupt. Except Junaid Jamshed. And Inzamam-ul-Haq. And Saeed Anwar. You do know that the biggest enemies of Pashtun nationalists are Mullahs, right? The JUI and it's whole entourage of curvy bellies. Rosha-khor Malagaan.

Didn't you say something about exaggeration earlier?

Everyone lives just once. Too bad no one realized this after dying lol...

How do you know, did you die and pulled a Christ on us? If that's the case you proved yourself wrong. Consider the folly. How childish.

You choose the beliefs that fit in with your personal beliefs and reject the more violent ones (like beating your wife, cutting off hands and heads, stoning people to death, circumcising women, etc). You can call your personal morals divine all you want, I'll call mine earthly and will still claim the moral high-ground because at least I won't be forced to follow barbarity.

Not true. If cutting off hands and heads produce results I don't see what's wrong with it. Instead of paying and wasting billions of tax payers dollars on sustaining a staggering prison population of rapists, murderers, and molesters, it will be logical to establish institutions that will greatly reduce first offences and proceeding ones. In so-called civilized societies rehabilitation has failed. Many rehabilitated criminals end up ruining more lives, back in prison again to suck more blood out of the ordinary citizen. It is a futile cycle. Civilized laws should be for civilized people. Criminals are not civilized. I'm not talking about petty thieves, but hardcore seasoned criminals.

Recently in the US a 15 year old pimped her 7 year old sister to 12 boys at a party. The community was so outraged that many suggested the participants should be castrated. In another incident a 16 year old was ganged raped by 20 different individuals after a school party while over a hundred different people watched and took pictures. No one did a single damn thing to stop it. In this episode, many in the community suggested public lashing and some went as far as suggesting beheadings. You would think that only religiously inclined will condone such punishments, but these were all community members of very secular states.

The problem with your earthly morals is that as an evolved monkey, those are your personal beliefs and unique perspectives. So it's very naive to even claim a higher moral ground, labeling one set of man-made morals as barbaric (even if they are from an imaginary sky-god) and yet another set of man-made morals as somewhat worthy. At the end of the day both sets of morals are man-made. In an accidental universe, both are equally significant (or meaningless).

Moreover, according to you, Scandinavia and most of Western Europe should be the most corrupt places on earth. Their man-made, self-appointed morality should make their countries resemble the lowest depths of hell. Guess what, most Muslims would sell their kidneys to be able to live there.

According to who? You need to establish that before making such presumptions.

Nonetheless one can argue that Western Europeans are "people of the book". In some of these states up to 80 to 70 percent of the general public are registered church members. So their morality, has been already conditioned by biblical values (unfortunately for you). As for their secular status, only time will tell how much of that they actually will hold. Many of these Scandinavian states can be considered ethno-centric, with very insignificant number of minorities. What guarantee is there that like Germany, Britain, France, and Italy, these states wont turn intolerant when their (Judo-Christian) "secular" values are challenged by an indigestible group (Muslims)?

Just like if you had a secular Pukhtoon centric state, how would you deal with a minority that refuses to say the national anthem in Pukhto? What if they wish to have their language recognized as national?

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

Exactly Mr. Atheist! This is what this thread is all about, how can you claim to be a Pukhtoon nationalist (as an atheist) considering the fact that to a logical, rationalist, 21st century free thinking atheist Pukhto (the language and culture) would be primitive?

Tell me though, do your family's notions of Islam and Islamic morals differ in some ways from those of other Muslim families all over the world? If so, then why?

That's been answered already. There will be minor differences due to cultural influences, but there are fundamental universal values that we all share. Like ghairat (dignity), namus (honor), haya/satar, different roles for men and women in society.

How does an atheist tell his mother, sister, or daughter to stay away from the Hujra where only men of the Pukhtoon community dwell? If you allow them, then that's not very Pukhtoon like or preserving Pukhtoon culture. If you prevent them, then you are not very secular are you.

No, your assessment is completely off but is that what you'd do when you find out that religion is a farce?

Would it be any more or less meaningful if I did or didn't?

Incest is wrong and I don't need a holy book to tell me that especially if that holy book tells me another dozen things that are unscientific and immoral. Your own biology disagrees with incest, by the way. Children born from incestuous intercourse are abnormal in most cases.

It is only wrong because it is considered a societal taboo, the roots of which can be traced to religious indoctrination. As for biological disagreements, there is something called contraceptives.

Tell me though, as a Muslim, what would you do if you caught your father and your sister in the act?

Nothing short from stoning to death.

Though as a logical and rational atheist, I wouldn't find it wrong as long as they are not hurting each other. See, how I can be far more liberal and secular than you? Time for you to grow a pair.

I like how your imagination works.

You should, I think like an atheist.

As for the second situation, only a psychopath would think that way. Man is rational. He will control himself. How do I know? Because that's what I'd do. By the way, in Norway, a couple of years ago, an Imam blamed high rates of rape on women who dressed up "inappropriately". Most of the rapists were Muslim and African immigrants.

Psychopathy - a personality disorder characterized by an abnormal lack of empathy combined with strongly amoral conduct but masked by an ability to appear outwardly normal.

What's wrong with psychopaths? What if they are the next step in our evolutionary human development, a sub-group of humanity that no longer could be blackmailed by pathetic notions of empathy. It is a bit hypocritical for the subscribers of evolution to accept homosexuals and their genetic condition as a natural phenomena, yet criminalize poor psychopaths as sufferers of disease.

Man is rational. He will control himself. How do I know? Because that's what I'd do.

You are just one man, and you speak for your self.

By the way, in Norway, a couple of years ago, an Imam blamed high rates of rape on women who dressed up "inappropriately". Most of the rapists were Muslim and African immigrants.

By the way, most occupations and wars around the world are being waged by so-called civilized, secular states. Who while claiming to be very tolerant, are very intolerant of non-secular concepts (burka, niqab, beard, mosques etc.) There is no jihaadi army in any foreign land. All the while, armies from these secular states are stationed in Muslim and non-Muslim countries.

If you could tell all the Mullahs that from Morocco to Malaysia, we'd be eternally grateful to you. Unfortunately, you'll be beheaded and fed to the goats by the time you reach the Middle-East.

Can someone say exaggeration.

If you were a girl, maybe we would have both had a chance you know......

That would mean I have to be a lesbian to hit it. No fun.

Yet Northern Europe has achieved the same thing without resorting to bloodshed and a total clampdown on individual freedom. I wonder how they did it. Divide guidance? Not.

Besides the UK and the Netherlands you have to take population in consideration as well. Most of these states are very small and have less then 10-7 million people. Compare that to Saudi Arabia. Not to mention very ethno-centric.

I think believing in gods is irrational. And I never said all Muslims are savages. However, the best educated societies of the world are atheistic. That's a fact, not an opinion. Google it or if you want, I'll post the evidence myself if you dispute it.

Geo-political outcomes ever since World War 1 have little to do with religion. I can argue that for the past 600 years these very educated and advanced nations you speak of have pillaged every continent to the point that much of the native cultures and people are extinct. They kept the queen very happy.

At one point Islamic societies were far more advanced in comparison to most of these states that suffered from "dark ages". Most of these states, with exception of some asian states like Japan, have large religious populations (majority believes in the sky-god of Abraham, one way or the other).

They're both 100% convinced that they're right.

That's what the Salafi said about the Sunni and that's what the Deobandi said about the Barelvi and that's what the Deobandi said about the Ahle-tashi and that's what the Ismaili said about the Bohri...... need I go on?

Again, what does the religion they subscribe to really say about their positions?

I'm not closed minded but I'm also not so open minded that my brain slips out lol... (not my own words, by the way). Secondly, stoning to death is a punishment that's prescribed in the Sunnah on many occasions. Rejecting an action of the prophet is kufr, is it not? You are educated and civilized (see, I've changed my stance on you already!) and you don't approve of it because of your own personal values and morals.

Dodgy dodgy Mullana Zalmaye. I didn't know that rejecting Sunnah was equivalent to kufr. Before you say what about this or that group, refer to my statement above this one.

Guilt is a feeling prevalent amongst all human beings.

Sociopaths are not human?

A person may feel guilty after stepping over an ant (our biological cousin) and another would feel only very little guilt after taking a human life but what does that have to do with their theological perspective? Religious zealots kill with impunity.

And collateral due to indiscriminate bombings by the most high, most educated, secular armies is a big joke that we're not in on?

What is it that prevents the Taliban from gang raping, humiliating, and perform all sorts of kinky fetishes on their captives that the secular soldiers enjoyed upon the prisoners of Abu Gharib and the 14 year old girl of Mohammadiya? What makes secular NATO/American soldiers such degenerates that they force little kids to perform sexual acts on their parents while having epic lulz, giving thumbs up, and taking snaps which are shared on the internets for lulz?

I wonder if your mother, sister were going to be taken captive by the two different sides, which will they pick. This is in no way in support of the actions of the Taliban, but something to consider.

You also follow your own man-made morals. On top of that, you think you follow the morals of the Quran, which are also man-made. We all follow our own set of right and wrong. All of us. Individually. It's just something you deliberately don't wanna understand.

N' you deliberately don't wish to accept the absurdity of your beliefs in them.

If I were a direct product of my environment, I'd be busy blowing stuff up. Take that comment with a pinch of salt. After maghrib of course.

Are you calling 40 million plus Pukhtoon suicide bombers? Or are you saying that Pukhoon environment nurtures such extremism?

More Punjabis claim Turkish/Arab/Kurdish/Martian/Persian lineage than Pashtuns yet we're still so different for them. You didn't address my question properly.

Not really. In fact, racially a large section of Pukhtoons are similar to Northern Indians which include Punjabis, and Kashmiris aka Indo-Aryans. Why is it that they are not as religious and conservative as us? Because amongst Pukhtoons dwell many of the past Islamic conquistadors. Pukhtoons and Afghans are the Islamic conquistadors who Islamized the region. If you were alive during the days of the British Raj against whom Afghans/Pukhtoons fought religiously, as an atheist you would call it "Islamic terrorism". Fortunately for you, you weren't. Now you can take that history, pride over it, without having to feel guilty about its religious implications.

Religiosity depends on how uneducated a society us, not on which 'stock' it's from.

So are you saying that Malaysians and Indonesians are less educated than Pukhtoons? You and your silliness.

Hujra came most likely from the Greek "Agora". It has nothing to do with Bedouin people.

Hujra is an Arabic word which means a room, or a guest house. Ask any of your fellow Pukhtoons who speak Arabic or live in the Gulf. Agora is a market place that wasn't segregated for the most part. Hujra, is a place of dwelling for only men of the community or family where women are not allowed. Besides which Greek forefather introduced this to the Pukhtoons? If that was the case then only those Pukhtoons who claim decent from Greeks should practice it. Yet this is a common thing found all over Pukhtoon areas, not just the Sadozais.

You don't know much about your Pukhtoon heritage do you?

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

Are you stealing my lines?

Why are my morals ambigious? Prophet Mohammad's morals were ambiguous. Sahih Bukhari is filled with acts of great selflessness and mercy along with acts of savage and uncompromising brutality. Do you want empirical evidence for this, too? I'll very gladly post it.

hahahahahaaha just because Mohammed treated his friends and foes differently doesn't mean his morals were "ambiguous". Common sense, use it some time.

Read the stuff on the link again. Their "moral values" have more in common with Islam than anything else. Even though they're all man-made and hence corrupt.

Again, Zoroastrians are atheists? Go back, and look, I asked atheists to compensate.

Lastly, for all the stuff you say, you are unfortunately completely ignorant of the fact that hundreds of philosophers, from ancient times to our post modern time, who have talked about ethics, right/wrong, morality and such.

Waaat? wat? wat?

Just because someone doesn't subscribe to your yet-to-be-explained ethics (you should post a thread about them) doesn't mean he/she is lost and misguided. That's an assumption you make, I think, either out of ignorance or, to give you the benefit of the doubt, to assert your position in a very silly way.

No one is forcing you to participate in this discussion. Just because you think that I haven't made my ethics clear, doesn't take away from the failure of you intelligibly addressing yours.

This thread is after all about secularist atheists.

[Wrayun]

Qrratugai,

Wrayun, since you don’t have time to tell us what your understanding of secularism is, I’ll remind you of one of its most basic teachings: Theoretically, it gives EQUAL attention and respect to ALL religions. Under secularism, then, all Muslims and non-Muslims have equal chance of succeeding, and the state doesn’t care whether someone’s a Muslim or not. Secularism does NOT (theoretically) ban people from practicing ANY religion so long as the followers of religions don’t use violent tactics to make their point.

How do you then implement a secular state over a population that is 99.99% Muslim? To be exact, hardcore Muslims. And what if these 99% Muslims decided to vote for laws that derived from their religious beliefs, does the secular state ignore the 99% and given into the 1% minority who might not agree with the majority?

Growing up in a secularist country means nothing, really. Neither does having experienced atheism.

So my personal experiences don't count since you might not see eye to eye with them? If you say so.

I cannot assume which category you belong into because I don't know you. But if you’re one of those who think that atheism means that one can be as immoral and as ethical as one wants, then you don’t know what atheism means (I haven’t read all of your posts, and I’m not suggesting that you have said this anywhere; I’m only making a point).

You know how you sound by suggesting over and over again how I might not know what atheism, and secularism is? Like a mother speaking to a 7 year old.

Why I don't I do this, I'll keep repeating the following, maybe then I will realize that I don't know what atheism or secularism is:

I don't know what atheism is
I don't know what atheism is
I don't know what atheism is
I don't know what atheism is
I don't know what atheism is
even my personal experiences don't count
my personal experiences don't count
my personal experiences don't count
my personal experiences don't count
my personal experiences don't count
my personal experiences don't count

....nope, still feel the same about these subjects. :- )

Too many of us assume that EVERYONE who’s an atheist is just ignorant of God or is intentionally rebelling, and this is actually not the case with all atheists.

I don't think that. I have many good atheist friends. The problem here is that you think that I am ridiculing secularism, or atheism, each subject on its own. I'm not. From the very start, I have stated, again and over, what this thread is about. Most atheists know exactly what I am referring to. I question how atheists who are secularist, fit their Pukhtoon nationalism into their beliefs? Most of them know exactly what I am talking about. They won't admit that logically, and rationally, as Free Thinkers, Pukhtoonwale and Pukhto culture is absurd. The very reason why they want secular laws, is so they don't have to be responsible towards the core fundamental Pukhtoon values. Basically, so they can get away with unPukhtoon like things. They can't admit that because they know if they did, they will be rejected, not back home in our communities but by many members here on this forum.

Regarding your claim about the hujra and its origin, your argument is flawed in several ways. First, you don’t prove that to us (for example, you can tell us what the term “hujra” means in Arabic and what its root words are). Second, you’re sharing only one side of history with us: there are actually historical arguments out there about the origin of the term “hujra,” and one of them is that it’s of Greek origin, coming from the term “Agora,” which was the term for open space for the Greeks. I say this to remind you that there’s more to history than what we might know already or what we may be taught, and this is a major example of it.

Grena khorakai,

Hujra is an Arabic word, it means a room, a guest house, or separate quarters. You can ask any of Pukhtoon here who knows Arabic to confirm it since for some reason you think I will be blatantly spreading lies.

As for Agora, see my reply to LZ.

[Wrayun]

Wrayun!You are beating about the bush consistently, stubornly and without appreciating what Qrratugai tries to tell you. You lack understanding the difference between Atheism and Secularism. You are deliberately confusing both or you are lacking the wisdom to draw a line between the two terms, which are not related to each other. Go through Qrratugai's post again, sipping strong tea and understand the difference.

Yes sir I don't know what I am talking about. I must be confused because you said so.

[Wrayun]

Wrayun wrora,
It is very simple. It is not just how you see yourself but as others see you.

The world and humanity at large has developed an idea of nationhood, with geographic bounderies and such. You need passports, trade papers, currency, you are made to follow laws based on this discription.

In a thousand years we may have other designations and other methods of grouping. At that time the idea of pashtoon nation will become archiac. Just like the notion of irish is irrelevent in America, they did go through a period of irish american identity which is slowly fading away. but in ireland the identity is still strong, The reason is that the irish in Ireland prosper from that identity while the irish in USA dont, so they have assimilated a different identity (american).

On the other hand a lithvanian Jew has no state identity and does not prosper as a lithvanian. He has morphed into the identity of an american Jew where he is prosperous.

At this time in our existence, pashtoons in pakhtunkhwa/afghanistan will prosper in our pashtoon identity only. A pashtoon can be muslim, sunni, shia, hindu or atheist, farsiwan, hindkowan, crippled, one-eyed or what ever else we choose to include and the world see fit to include.

I appreciated this reply, very short and precise.

Though the last part is some what confusing.

[Baygham]

At this time in our existence, pashtoons in pakhtunkhwa/afghanistan will prosper in our pashtoon identity only. A pashtoon can be muslim, sunni, shia, hindu or atheist, farsiwan, hindkowan, crippled, one-eyed or what ever else we choose to include and the world see fit to include.

I appreciated this reply, very short and precise.

Though the last part is some what confusing.

deera manana,

Pashtoon nationalism should be inclusive, not exclusive. If you want exclusive nationalism than Islam will serve us very well. It is a perfect model for hegemony of a single group. Unfortunately for pashtuns those spots are already taken on the Islam bandwagon. The salafi version will only tilt towards the kingdom of saudia with paki second leutenants. Pashtoons are only needed as foot soldiers.

In inclusive nationalism, we have to accept diversity. The hindkowan living in Swabi as much entitled to the same rights of a citizen as I am living amongst them as a pushto speaking person. Similarly the Hazara, have the same right. Now if a minority is happy as a vassal of a hegemonizing outsider and using that status to take the majority for a ride by grabbing resources by using that affiliation (a traditional method to control population in muslim populace), then they are also happy with exclusive forms of government and equally to blame. An example would be the pro paki-army/establishment pashtoons in pashtunkwha.

The problem arises when outsiders exploit the weaknessess inherit in our psyche. As historically we have hegemony rule, the life of subgroups is at times uncertain. This allows for them to develop, what a dear friend calls, a loyalty deficit. They have to prove that they are loyal. Look at Pakistan. Punjabies can talk to indians, its commerce. Pashtun talking to pashtun accross the durand is a traitor.

This model, also used in Islam does not allow maximum prosperity of a diverse/inclusive nation. Once freed from loyalty credit and deficit issues, one can focus on individual and group progress and development.

America is a good example of an inclusive model (and the main reason for its power). I, an immigrant pashtoon american feel as american as some 2nd generation ukrainian Jews or a 4th generation Irish, or a 100th generation american indian. You cannot buy my loyalty by arabian dollars, as first that will not enhance my social status in America and secondly I have nothing upsetting me that I cannot solve internally without outside affiliation. If I dont like sarah palin I can go work against her and help my buddies on the other side of the ailse.