Atheistic Pukhtoon "nationalism", is it possible?

[Baygham]

..................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.....

I find my pashto heritage as very uplifting (could be very depressing if I choose to do that-its the cup half full or empty scenario). I did explain the logic and rationality of my pakhtunwali and pakhtu culture. I am assured of my pashtoon heritage. The village mullah does not give me my identity. He never did. Secondly never have I ever been sidelined from being a pashtoon.

Now if an outsider with petro dollars and ISI backing comes to my village and tells me that I am not a pashtoon because 'Salafi' servents of the Saud kingdom say so. what do you think I will say. Its like me sending an emissory to king abdullah and telling him to give up his wahabi rhetoric for 'pir baba plus some hashish'. He will inspect the merchandise and look at his kingdom and probably have the emissory decapitated.

yet when we do the same calculations, most chose the incomming merchandise, as what is there in our own kingdom. Unless pashtoons develop a worthwhile worth of their identity as real as the petro dollars, we will be sold for pennies to outsiders finding pennyless allies amongst us.

As they say, "dha muflis husan pa dhwa mootti charroo zi"

[Roshina]

Wrayun gula, I simply asked you to define secularism for us. Until you do so, whenever that might be, I will continue believing what I have stated in my previous posts about your thoughts on secularism. So I look forward to your definition. Also lemme know if you've read any scholarly works on secularism, since, although not always required, they can help clear up a lot of your misconceptions about secularism.

Same with atheism, but I have seen that many of us here are afraid of reading things that are pro-atheism, so I won't encourage you to read those. But secularism, absolutely.

As for hujra, the reason I'm not gonna ask any Arabic-speaking individuals about it is that all languages borrow words and phrases from each other. It's highly unlikely that the Pashtuns borrowed the whole CONCEPT of hujra from Arabs or Arab-speaking Muslims, since it's something that'd exist in all cultures and societies. So you have to give me some authentic source that I can turn to that explains the origin of hujra -- both the term and the concept.

Manana.

[Toramana]

Qrratugai,



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?

How can you make that claim? At leat to the extent of Pukhtunkhwa, Pukhtuns have overwhelmingly voted for parties or candidates that have/had secular credentials. You can also not deduce that claim from the history of Pashtuns who so far have shown little inclination to building theocracies.

Furthermore, politics is done not for some celestrial purpose but for our ever-changing worldly needs, which a never-changing (supposedly) devinely-ordained blind belief system can never help meet.

[BehavedMaseed]

I guess Wrayun has forgotten how the people of Pakhtunkhwa booted the JUI F/JUI out of Government and choose Secular ANP.

During the government of JUI I will point out a few things they only did for the people

1) Put laws that force people to go prayers
2)Banned Music
3)Arrested Musicians
4)Put rape cases through three witnesses
5) gave power to Jihadi groups

Thats all and that is why Pashtuns of Pashtunkhwa booted them out. If Pashtuns of Pashtunkhwa really cared much about Shariat or JUI/Islamic Parties then they wouldnt be raising Lashkars to boot out Talibs or they wouldnt have voted for Secularists instead

Kind Regards

[Saifullah]

ANP are secularists which can be interpreted as athiestic beliefs...because athiesm doesnt believe in God and secularist do not believe in involvement of GOD or religion in matters of state.

So basically those who believe in secularism go against the basic principle of Islam which is mentioned in Quran by Allah that ruling has to be in accordance with religion (rules sent down to Muhammad (Saw) by Allah)....Therefore secularists are grouped together with athiests more so, rather than their religion.

[ijaz yousafzai]

ANP are secularists which can be interpreted as athiestic beliefs...because athiesm doesnt believe in God and secularist do not believe in involvement of GOD or religion in matters of state.

So basically those who believe in secularism go against the basic principle of Islam which is mentioned in Quran by Allah that ruling has to be in accordance with religion (rules sent down to Muhammad (Saw) by Allah)....Therefore secularists are grouped together with athiests more so, rather than their religion.

In a nutshell;

Che somra khule humra khabare
Kulala na yam che bargholee jorawama

[Toramana]

Moreover, when 7th Century medievalism is mentioned in the context of Islam or any other religion, that reference is made in metaphorical sense not literal. Religion (supposedly)the word of God is an absolute and static system of beliefs (and moral/ethical injunctions derived from them) that holds validity till eternity in the eyes of its upholders. That is why Islam in its meaning and substance has remained as it was in 7th Century ( thanks Mullahs ) lacking the flexibility and vitality to address the issues and challenges of the modern time. That is also why clergy tries to reverse the tide of time and take the socity back to medieval conditions because they know very well that most of the principles and practices of religion are no longer applicable in todays circumstances and require the social and political conditions of 7th Century to be in force.

True, Pashtunwali is also ancient but the difference with religion is, it is not based on divinity and blind belief. Most of its customs, values, ethics, and practices have been derived from the worldy experiances of our forefathers, as they tried to meet the challenges from nature and other human-beings to their individual and collective survival, and transmitted to us through generations of fellial affiliation. It is as such-and unlike religion- a dynamic and evolving system that can adapt to new changes. It is one of the reasons many nationalists consider Pashtunwali to be more realistic and acceptable as a practical system than the religion.

[BehavedMaseed]

Dear Saifullah

Lets be abit honest and Logical here.

You say Secularists go against every principle of Islam.

Let me point out the number of principles your breaking here.

1) You speak to girls on this forum(Segragation)
2) You live in a Western Secular Kuffr country
3) You pay tax, contribute to Kuffur society which gets spent on unislamic things
4) You live in the UK so you have made alliance with the unholy anti Muslim Queen Elizabeth
5) You are being taught by Kuffur teachers in schools and universities
6) You have fled the land of the Muslims to live under Secular Kuffur Laws


I could go on and on and on.

I mean no offence, I just find it abit strange how Muslims in the west dictate who is godless and who is faithful. ANP are secular, there are Relginous ANP members, All ANP members pray to the same god as you, just because they dont want to turn our society like Mullah Omars or Saudi Arabia where grown mothers feed their drivers milk or how girls are forced to go into burning buildings becos they havnt got the hijab on.

Kind Regards

[Toramana]

ANP are secularists which can be interpreted as athiestic beliefs...because athiesm doesnt believe in God and secularist do not believe in involvement of GOD or religion in matters of state.

So basically those who believe in secularism go against the basic principle of Islam which is mentioned in Quran by Allah that ruling has to be in accordance with religion (rules sent down to Muhammad (Saw) by Allah)....Therefore secularists are grouped together with athiests more so, rather than their religion.

My Hizbul-Tahriri friend, it is obvious from your Hizb coonections as why are you targetting ANP. They are the main hurdle in the way of your and your mentors achieving the dream of Khalafat.

[BehavedMaseed]

I am astonished why the British Government doesnt ban these Hizb Tahirs. Didnt they book one of their Arab Radicalist Omar Bakri?

[JAMALUDEEN]

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?

They will never answer this question. These atheists are professionals in dodging questions. Implementing a secular system in Afghanistan is not impossible but highly unlikely and you have mentioned the reason why pretty good.

So now, these Pashtun Atheists, who are probably accounted as "OUTKASTS" in a Pashtun society, come online to brainwash people for their "cause". So one day, they may have enough people to return back to Afghanistan (Not that its possible), wearing pink t-shirts, tight jeans, plucked eye brows with BRANDED lubsirin that is invisible, holding hands with Kevin Aviance to proclaim their rightful place as PROUD Pashtuns in a Pashtun Nation who happened to be majority Muslims ..99% .

Sometimes i wonder, do these atheists feel guilt at all, the guilt that their brothers and sisters are dying in Afghanistan in the hands of the same secular countries that they praise, and call the innocent lives lost as "Collateral damage" giving it no significance, i mean Why should they? One Muslim less on their way.

The more they try to separate people from their religion, the more desperate these people are going to feel and it's quite "transparent" right now.

LOL love that word "transparent".

[Levanaye Zalmaye]

.

[Wrayun]

Levanaye Zalmaye,

So you want me to wear an armband? I guess it's only fair because as a Muslim who follows the Quran and Sunnah, you must wear your pants way over your ankles, you must have a Santa Claus beard and no mustache. No wait, you reject the Hadith that tell you to look like that. Where are you Islamic morals now?

I seriously don’t even know what to say to that. I point out to you that family and friends are not considered public in reference to what I meant by my previous statement i.e. about having the courage to stand up publicly for your atheistic beliefs. You come up with this beard, ankle kurta panjama santa banta harry singh waaat?

No society openly approves of prostitution. Even where it is legal, it is not accepted as a social norm. "Hey, where were you last night, son?" "Hey, sorry about not coming over, mom, my friend and I saw this hooker and we brought her back home... "
Just because someone doesn't believe in your own personal notion of Islam doesn't mean he/she approves of prostitution.

Ever been to Vegas? Try some red like districts in Europe where you can get a preview before handling the merchandise right on a public street. And it’s not about believing in my personal notion of Islamic belief, it’s about how pathetic it actually sounds for an atheist to deduce that a prostitute is wrong for selling her body.

“Hi, I am an atheist, I just happenz to be!”
“Hi, I am a prostitute, I sell my body. Its fun. I enjoy it.”
“That’s bad! It’s immoral!”
"Says who?"
"Me me me...I just know it is okay."
"Mmmmm...okay."

How do you think, in an Islamic state in Pashtun areas, you will keep the people in check who want people stoned, deprived of their arms and decapitated for minor offenses? This religiously-motivated barbarity goes against your personal morals, does it not? Why is it that Nordic culture is still thriving although they're following a Greek-British-American political system? Why are Pashtuns, on the other hand, losing out to Dari, Urdu and Hindustani culture? Don't confuse religion with culture or religiosity with Pushtun-ness.

You make the mistaken assumption that all Pukhtoons were or are followers of extremist ideologies. They are not. The current extremist elements unfortunately for you are not the product of Islamic teachings alone. They were nurtured, financed, and exploited by the secular American nation and the rest of the civilized world to counter communism. Before that most Pukhtoons even though conservative Muslims were not extremists. They were fundamentalists in their approach to Islam, but not extremists. Even the Taliban regularly had to put a leash on most of their violent compadres. It is easy to keep people in check by first educating the public on what Islamic law actually says, second by establishing governing bodies that enforce that law, third you need to make sure that those preaching in the mosques are also educated and sanctioned by the state which regulates these laws. The mullah title should be earned, and not passed down from father haji gul to son charsi gul.

Greek, British and American aren’t that much different than their Nordic cousins. They are all considered Western. It’s like asking why Pakistani cultural is thriving under a Hindustani language. The cultural difference is very little between these groups.

Pukhtoon current status has nothing to do with their religion. Their fault is that they actually happened to successfully defend themselves against various invaders, while communities like Urdu/Dari/Hindi couldn’t. Pukhtoons never really got a chance to recover. These societies might have the upper hand now, but their cultures and languages are suffering from complexes created by all those foreign influences which have left them in a semi-bondage state. In other words they remain in servitude to their Western sahibs and their leftover heritage.

lol and you call yourself a moral person. In fact, if you believe that then the phrase "Islamic morals" would automatically because paradox

Haha! That would be possible if only you were left to decide what moral is and isn’t. Morals are socially relevant remember? If an atheist thinks that cutting off hands is immoral, that’s his meaningless opinion conditioned by his meaningless environment which are totally irreverent to the society where chopping hands and heads are considered recreational sports. He can very much believe that taking a smelly pile of dump is immoral, no one cares (or should).

The punishment for rape ranges between the death penalty and life

In which secular countries?

And here we go again. Even if I believed in God, my morals wouldn't be any different from what they are right now. And yes, all our morals are man-made, there's no doubt regarding that.

I answered this in this thread like a thousand times already.

How would you feel if a 40+ year old friend wants to marry your 9 year old daughter? Social values have changed since the 7th century and even the Saudis don't do it now - not openly anyway. However, any religious nut-head can do it claiming that if God's prophet can do it, so can I

Doesn’t make that idiot right, nor did the Prophet prescribed 9 year olds. In fact, I might suggest him to marry a widow, since Mohammad had a thing for them.

But as an atheist do you find it wrong marrying a 9 year old? Say yes please.

That's what's wrong with the man-made morals of religions. The man-made morals of philosophers are much better in this regard because you won't be punished for deviating from an outdated norm.

Yeah, l hope a philosopher comes along and suggests rape as the ultimate climatic experience. As an atheist I’d totally dig that, consensual sex is so overrated.

People of the book argument doesn't fly because they threw religion out of the state as early as the late 19th century. Even so, according to the European Commission, more than 2/3rds of Swedes do not believe in organized religion and God whereas only 20% of the population or so believes in God (people of the book).

Doesn’t matter since they have been already exposed to biblical beliefs for ages. Bring me a nation that was inherently atheist and prospered then we’ll talk.

If you wish to be a citizen of the US or Canada, you have to pay allegiance to them, do you not?

You do, but once the minority grows in numbers it’s hard to reject them. In states like California and New Mexico Spanish might as well become the national language and Binito as the founding father of the nation.

Languages are neither primitive nor modern and they are under a constant process of evolution.

Yet Pukhto is not just a language, it is also the heritage that defines the Pukhtoon ethnicity. This is why Pukhto often replaces the term Pukhtoonwale in typical Pukhto discourse.

Oh so there are minor cultural differences? How can there be differences as far as God's perfect morals are concerned? God's morals are one and the same. Either your family or the rest of the world is going to hell, boy.

Maybe you should go back to the verse I quoted where God actually sanctions the cultural differences, boy.

Wrong answer, by the way. The major differences between Muslims lie on what you've mentioned as the fundamental universal values - some Muslims say that if a man lets his wife/daughter out of this house without a burkha, that's beghairat behavior on both their parts, others couldn't care less about a burkha, some Muslims think that it's against their notion of ghairat and haya to let their offspring wear Western clothes, receive Western education, learning a Western language, talk to the opposite gender, watch television, use the internet, etc, etc. What is considered as dignity, honor and haya differs from province to province, let alone from state to state.

Actually you proved my point. Even though these groups may differ from each other in actual practice, the fundamental concept of ghairat, haya, and honor are practiced. To what degree, that’s up to their environment.

That's why absolutist religious morals are so dangerous. They give cavemen the right to impose their own brand of cruelty upon others.

And ever-evolving morals are superfluous. You are robbed today from what your future generations might be allowed to enjoy and practice tomorrow.

I believe in complete gender equality but your religion tells you that the testimony of a woman is equal to half of that of a man's. And you talk about being moral.....

That belief is no more or less ridiculous than believing a woman who sells her body out of her own choice and consent is engaging in an immoral act. You suffer from the same disease.

That can't be right. Adam's family was the biggest nest of incestuous humans on earth!

So is the family of the very first evolved monkeys to walk on two legs.

Some religions promoted incest, by the way. The ancient Egyptians loved it.

So did that the enlighten secular Greeks. Giggidy!

Furthermore, if incest was only not uncommon because of religious reasons, it would be very common in secular and atheistic societies. It's not.

Sssshhhhhh it’s an open secret, they call it “experimentation”. You don’t know much huh?

It's a socially-accepted wrong with biological consequences.

Lulz…no its not, people still do it especially in secular societies. It’s an open secret. They don’t make it public because of the stigma attached to it.

Some religions approve of it, others reject it. That has nothing to do with many people's personal views on the matter.

Lulz…which religions approve it? And it has everything to do with it. As morals and humanity evolve, this too one day might become acceptable. It’s only a matter of time when a great human philosopher comes along and trashes this outdated taboo. Don’t even bother to mention the biological stuff, I gave you the work around already (which has worked so far for many in secular nations – unless you are that Danish guy who bore his own grandsons).

So you'd bury in the sand and stone to death your own father and your sister?

You forgot to mention for what, because you see that’s very important to put things in perspective. Rephrase it and I’ll give you an answer.

I consider it against my ghairat to even answer such a question. (see, I can be far more Islamic and backwards than you!)

Wimp. For once, stand up and give a straight answer.

No one is more perverted than Mullahs, ask any Third World resident that.

You are a third world resident, how was your experience?

Psychopathy is an abnormality, not an evolutionary stage. You should read a good book on evolution. Written by a scientist, not a cleric.

Some would argue that an evolutionary stage starts with an abnormality.

Homosexuality is consensual, the criminal acts of psychopaths are not.

They probably realize the futility of an evolved monkey asking another evolved monkey of consent in an accidental universe. If they never get caught for their criminal acts, it wouldn’t matter if it was consensual or not, would it?

Seeing the destruction of WW-II, the Western world decided not to destroy itself again. The Muslims states, who were only 400 years ago at the gates of Vienna, failed to modernize and became sheep that the Western wolves play around from time to time. Is it the fault of the fox that he hunts rabbits? Is the tiger evil for chasing deer? That's the realist paradigm. Make some big bombs and long-range delivery systems, they'll stop bullying you.

And I thought secular states were far more moral and civilized than religious ones. They turn out to be bullies.

I'm a man with gross body hair and stuff. I wish I were a Pasthana with a face as smooth as an egg....... and stuff.

They can help you with that in some secular states. Don’t lose hope.

The same small states with their little populations were living hells during the Medieval era, when their own Mullahs were given a free hand. Europe was the worst place in the world for over a thousand years, all thanks to them. Germany has 80 million, France has 64. Saudi Arabia has 28. Sheer numbers don't matter if you have the right sort of society.

Actually they do:
List of countries by homicide rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Below the rate of .99, whether the nation is Islamic or secular, you can see that many of them have one thing in common, low percentage of population.

Was Hitler a medieval Mullah?

And how do you explain all those other nations that have secular governments with high crime rates?

When Islamic societies were far more advanced than the West and were at par with ancient China, they were very tolerant of opposing views, including atheism and deism. They were full of intellectual exchanges and encouraged the flow of ALL sorts of scientific and philosophical knowledge. However, the people who want to bring back the golden age of the Khilafa nowadays neither believe in that sort of freedom of speech nor do they allow scientific progress (for example, you personally reject evolution without knowing what it is).

I reject evolution? Now where did I do that.

Each sub-sub-sect has its own evidence. Rejecting the prophet is rejecting Islam. Sociopaths are not normal human beings like you and me.

Doesn’t mean their evidence is accurate. Not believing every invented concept as Sunnat doesn’t = rejecting Islam nor the Prophet. Though they are humans, even if abnormal, last I checked.

I speak out whenever and wherever I can against American imperialism.

Great, whats more important is not to generalize.

Most, if not all, American soldiers are believing and practicing Christians. Why do you think I'd condone the abuse of prisoners?

I’d call them cultural Christains instead of believing or practicing ones. A believing Christain would turn the other check, not brutally gang rape little girls. You dodged the question by asking me yet a ridiculous one. No where did I hinted, let alone suggested that you condoned prisoner abuse.

After Abu Gharaib discovery and the trials and after Donald Rumsfeld's departure, I'm more comfortable with the Americans than the Taliban and their professional beheaders.

I didn’t ask for your preference. You are not even letting your mother and sister decide in a hypothetical situation.

Not all ethics come out of religion, much less the subsect of your religion. Surprise!

My position is the same. Man made juju is man made juju.

There is a difference between being educated and merely knowing how to read and write. In countries where the teaching of science and philosophy are suppressed, people learn how to read and write and they learn something additional but they are not intellectuals. How many renowned intellectuals has South-East Asia produced to date? Even so, that little education has made most of these people more forward-looking than most of our Pashtuns, unfortunately.

Even if South-East Asia had produced intellectuals of great caliber, you would never know due to the Wests monopoly over knowledge. For some part of their history, it was a sanctioned policy of Western Europe to purposely rob nations of their knowledge, keep them ignorant, and suppress their history. This is why every time you open a book today you see the same George, Tom, D1ck and Harry as the inventors of everything. They also cook up rewards ceremonies and pat each other back for their great “contributions” and “accomplishments”. Yet they didn’t even allow Gandhi the noble prize while he was alive. Only when dead he was considered worthy. Not to forget our very own Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan who rendered great selfless sacrifices, but no one acknowledges him. He did it all in the name of peaceful Islam. How many Western governments even make a hint towards his existence in their curriculum? Yet, he exists.

So when you are being educated, don’t forget you are also being brainwashed.

The Greeks remained in Pashtun areas for hundreds of years as opposed to Arabs, who very overthrown very quickly, by the Turks and Persians. If anything, our more ancient cultural norms are from

Waaat wat wat?

Yeah, a man who stoned men and women from his own community to death, had people blinded with their hands and feet chopped off, encouraged men to lash their own sons to death, allowed polygamy, allowed men to beat their wives, beheaded entire tribes, prescribed horrific punishment is also the same man who entered Mecca, forgave everyone (including some of his oldest enemies), except 10 people, who weren't deserving of mercy in his view. See the disparity? That's why Islamic man-made morals are so dangerous. You might be following the good stuff but how will you get someone to ignore all the rotten stuff?

A lame attempt to prove a point by mashing up different events without referencing or using them in context.

The purpose of that Zoroastrian link was to show that ethics can exist outside your personal view of religion as well. Moreover, they can be very similar to yours, even though you claim that yours were especially created by a deity and others were by humans or devils, the ones that are yet to be taken down by shooting stars.

Let’s try it again, how do atheist compensate?

Yes, you are unfortunately completely ignorant of the fact that hundreds of philosophers, from ancient times to our post modern time, have talked about ethics, right/wrong, morality and such. That's why you refer to any set of ethics that is against the personal norms and values of your own family as ambiguous. It is because of your willful ignorance.

Actually I am quite aware of ancient philosophers discussing ethics. You however fail to provide any evidence whether or not the one you subscribe to were influenced by religion or not. And when I say ambiguous, it’s directed at moral atheists like you who change their beliefs to suit your needs. You know, always evolving.

Secular ethics have been available from the times of Aristotle and Socrates until right now. They have laid the foundations for some of the happiest and most successful states in the world.

You mean the happy and successful states that formed the very alliance which invaded Iraq over false pretext to rob it from its resources? Or those that are dropping 50000 ton bombs on innocent villagers in pursuit of a bogyman?

Your stagnant and ambiguous Islamic ethics (sometimes merciful, sometimes enraged by blood lust) have only led to misery.

Islam preaches to show mercy to those who deserve it and are of no threat. In self-defense, well, turning the other cheek doesn’t really work does it?

[Levanaye Zalmaye]

.

[Wrayun]

Levanaye Zalmaye,

It goes against my conscience.

Humans beings are rational, not instinctual. The Greeks realized that in around 400BC.

Not according to Darwin, you know, the founder of evolution:

Charles Darwin, for example, considered that conscience evolved in man as an outcome of having to resolve conflicts between competing natural impulses-some about self preservation, but others increasingly about safety of a family or community; the claim of conscience to moral authority, thought Darwin, emerged from the "greater duration of impression of social instincts" in the struggle for survival.

According to Darwin, human rational behavior is learned (and thought). That means when Mr. Levanaye Zalmaye finds prostitution wrong, its not because he has a "conscience" (you religious, you!), but because he is raised that way.



N' ways, this was a good discussion, but now redundant. I'll leave it here.