Secular Atheists and their Logical Fallacy (Pukhtoon Nationalism)

[Amir al Ghaznavi]

Amir saab, I have not been exposed to the afghan communist, but I have seen the pakhtunkhwa ones. They are mostly poorly educated disillusioned peaple that have not done much to advance pashtoo or pashtoon. A free bottle of the cheapest whiskey is usually enough to get their services for the day. Not one has ever worked an honest hour.

This is not modernity, or progress. This is defaming both.

I met a few years ago a 85 year old american colonel, his wife of 65 years having died the year before. A second world war vet. A gentlemen, proud, honest, loving, caring and a gem of a men. Still talking of her with love and proud sentiment.

reminded me of an old uncle in pakhtunkwha, same age same mannerism, same world view, same love of his wife and of humanity, same side in second world war.

When I talk of secularism, i see the two, I want all pashtoons to grow and know one such role model in their lives.

Not the dalal, pimp, free alcohol degenerate illitrates some confuse with secularism.

Our pakhtu teaches us honor, respect, when I talk to a poor farmer in my village with the same respect I talked to my father, he can tell. If I go to the mosque or not, he does not give a holy cr ap. When I respect his women and children like I respect mine, he knows. And their is one thing I have amply witnessed. Give a respectful pashtoon respect and you have earned him over for the rest of his life.

I agree 100% that secularism cannot work in our areas now, and that we must first establish the security and stability that may require Islamic law. You use Islamic law to establish order then you can go about educating the populace.

An educated populace becomes a prosperous populace. An educated and prosperous populace goes hand in hand with industrialization and urbanization.

Shifts towards more education, skill sets and industry, will in itself change society. That hows the tribalist village mentality slowly starts to disappear.

The problem is that this must happen in a fluid gradual manner, so that this new society is created naturally by the people itself with their own cultures, traditions and ways. It cannot be imposed, like it was in Afghanistan in 1978

Nor can the people simply be taught these values, thats how we have people such as you have described. The Afghan/Pakistani secularist is confused because he has imposed a foreign ideology upon himself and he is not "prepared" for it because the society in which he lives is so far flung from it. That leads to polarization and extremism, such as how the Kabul elite lived vis a vis the rural majority.

[Toramana]

Simply put, a logical fallacy....

You say there is a logical fallacy in the argument by the secular/athiest Pashtun nationalists. The only fallacy you identify in the secular/athiestic argument is the assumption by the secularists that Pashtuns are a pre-dominently secular people and would accept a secular system or secular ideas.

Logic, as I understand it, governs the way one contructs one's argument. Primarily it looks at the soundness of the premisis (and the way they are connected togethor into an argument i.e., whether proper/correct connectives have been used ) used to build a thesis or derive a general or broader conclusion. The premises are usually self-evident truth/facts or empirical evidance from our experience and/or observation. For example when I say "all humans are mortal and gulalai is a human, so she is mortal", I base my argument or derive my conclusion (i.e., gulalai is mortal) on/from two premises i.e., "all humans are mortal"(which is an empirical obsevation) and "gulalai is a human" (which is a self-evident truth). Furthermore, I have used the connective "and" , which means the conclusion (i.e., gulalai is mortal) is true only if both the premises/anticedents (i.e., all humans being mortal and gulalai being a human) are true.

Now, what is precisely your uderstanding of the the secular/athiestic (as you call it) argument? Can you state or describe it explicitly and unambiguously for us here? I want to know whether you correctly understand the secular argument or just have a misguided comprehension of it.

Moreover, as I can see it, you have a counter argument/thesis, which runs like this, "99% Pashtuns are religious conservatives and a religious conservative doesn't accept a secular system, so Pashtuns cannot accept a secular system".

Now, I have issue with your basic premises i.e., they seem to me utterly ridiculous. No person with logical or scientific bent of mind can make such bizare claims as you are making here. Your claim that a religious person cannot live in a secular system is absurd. Rather more non-sensical is your claim that Pashtuns are 99% religious conservative. When have those census been held? Which sources are you deriving your truths from i.e., where is the empirical evidence (have you met every single Pashtun?). How can you base a logical conclusion on a subjective opinion?

There are further issues about your claims but I will talk about them later.

[BehavedMaseed]

If Pashtuns wont favor Seculariams then why are the Taliban so desparate to wage war on us secularists in pakhtunkhwa?

Why dont Taliban wage a War on these Jamiets who are supported by Pakistan ISI?

Kind Regards

Nothing is Relgion, Its all about Politics and Power!

[Baygham]

I agree 100% that secularism cannot work in our areas now, and that we must first establish the security and stability that may require Islamic law. You use Islamic law to establish order then you can go about educating the populace.........................
.

Amir saab, I disagree.

Its not a multiple choice questionaire. We have no options. We are on our last gasps at the bottom of world cultures, the last large tribal society, like many more esteemed ones, ready to become part of history.

We can do it the easy way (like the japenese) or the hard way(american indians). It in the end will not be decided by pashtoon but by the world. With or without pashtoon agreement.

The world has decided, no islamic government in pashtoon land. All the muslims in the world cannot overturn this decision even if Allah gets on board.

If not islamic than what?

Well if you have a better model than secular nationalism, I am all ears.

[Amir al Ghaznavi]

Amir saab, I disagree.

Its not a multiple choice questionaire. We have no options. We are on our last gasps at the bottom of world cultures, the last large tribal society, like many more esteemed ones, ready to become part of history.

We can do it the easy way (like the japenese) or the hard way(american indians). It in the end will not be decided by pashtoon but by the world. With or without pashtoon agreement.

The world has decided, no islamic government in pashtoon land. All the muslims in the world cannot overturn this decision even if Allah gets on board.

If not islamic than what?

Well if you have a better model than secular nationalism, I am all ears.

the west doesnt care about islamic governance, they supposedly care about foreign extremists and having an ally in power. an islamic govt can keep the jihadists out and keep the americans as a benefactor...i dont see why it couldnt

[Wrayun]

delete this duplicate post

[Wrayun]

Toramana,

You say there is a logical fallacy in the argument by the secular/athiest Pashtun nationalists. The only fallacy you identify in the secular/athiestic argument is the assumption by the secularists that Pashtuns are a pre-dominently secular people and would accept a secular system or secular ideas.

Logic, as I understand it, governs the way one contructs one's argument. Primarily it looks at the soundness of the premisis (and the way they are connected togethor into an argument i.e., whether proper/correct connectives have been used ) used to build a thesis or derive a general or broader conclusion. The premises are usually self-evident truth/facts or empirical evidance from our experience and/or observation. For example when I say "all humans are mortal and gulalai is a human, so she is mortal", I base my argument or derive my conclusion (i.e., gulalai is mortal) on/from two premises i.e., "all humans are mortal"(which is an empirical obsevation) and "gulalai is a human" (which is a self-evident truth). Furthermore, I have used the connective "and" , which means the conclusion (i.e., gulalai is mortal) is true only if both the premises/anticedents (i.e., all humans being mortal and gulalai being a human) are true.

Now, what is precisely your uderstanding of the the secular/athiestic (as you call it) argument? Can you state or describe it explicitly and unambiguously for us here? I want to know whether you correctly understand the secular argument or just have a misguided comprehension of it.

My argument is not against secularism alone, nor atheism, it is against secular atheists who claim Pukhtoon nationalism under the guise of preserving Pukhto and Pukhtoonwale. Secularism separates religion, or any other beliefs like Pukhtoonwale (some would argue that it is a religion itself) from government. In a secular state Pukhtoonwale doesn't stand in court. The concept of Badal, Tor, Ghairat, Namus, and even many other attributes of Pukhtoonwale are rendered useless. The atheistic secularists here concoct their own soft version of Pukhtoonwale which will allow many things i.e. free love, homosexuality, intermixing, access to vices that are frowned upon in the Pukhtoon society. If they don't then thats not really secularism is it? It would hardly be Pukhtoonwale.

This is why I keep repeating, how do secular atheists compensate for Pukhtoonwale under a secular state?

If my Namus is threatened, do I take care of the matter as a Pukhtoon, or should I file a report with a secular court first?

If my brother is killed, do I take Badal, or should I file a report with a secular court?

If my Ghairat is challenged, do I handle the issue, or do I have to wait till I get an approval from a secular court?

If someone comes to my house and asks for Nanawate, do I first verify with the secular court that it is okay, or should I follow Pukhtoonwale and allow the person panah?

Not to mention JIRGA will die, as it is in our villages. Since now we have to run to secular courts.

Secular atheists Pukhtoon Nationalists need to address this. They need to lay down the foundations which will accommodate for Pukhtoon beliefs. If you argue secularism alone, I have no argument. But when you sugarcoat it with Pukhto, Pukhtoonwale, that is a LOGICAL FALLACY.

Secularism will deal Pukhto and Pukhtoonwale the death blow it's enemies wish.

In an Islamic state, much of that is compensated, including JIRGA under the system of Shura.

Moreover, as I can see it, you have a counter argument/thesis, which runs like this, "99% Pashtuns are religious conservatives and a religious conservative doesn't accept a secular system, so Pashtuns cannot accept a secular system".

Now, I have issue with your basic premises i.e., they seem to me utterly ridiculous. No person with logical or scientific bent of mind can make such bizare claims as you are making here. Your claim that a religious person cannot live in a secular system is absurd. Rather more non-sensical is your claim that Pashtuns are 99% religious conservative. When have those census been held? Which sources are you deriving your truths from i.e., where is the empirical evidence (have you met every single Pashtun?). How can you base a logical conclusion on a subjective opinion?

I don't think I have to address this, till you address the above.

[Baygham]

Toramana,



My argument is not against secularism alone, nor atheism, it is against secular atheists who claim Pukhtoon nationalism under the guise of persevering Pukhto and Pukhtoonwale. Secularism separates religion, or any other beliefs like Pukhtoonwale (some would argue that it is a religion itself) from government. In a secular state Pukhtoonwale doesn't stand in court. The concept of Badal, Tor, Ghairat, Namus, and even many other attributes of Pukhtoonwale are rendered useless. The atheistic secularists here concoct their own soft version of Pukhtoonwale which will allow many things i.e. free love, homosexuality, intermixing, access to vices that are frowned upon in the Pukhtoon society. If they don't then thats not really secularism is it? It would hardly be Pukhtoonwale. .

Cultural identity is not dissolved in a secular state. Pakhtoonwale is not a belief system with diety attached (religion) it is a cultural mechanism, like japenese ethos, or turkish identity, or even newer things like being an Isreali. Pakhtunwalee will cherish in a secular state by making it stronger and broader (all major secular state have a much stronger identity than religious states, compare saudi identity in saudia with japenese identity in Japan).
Nowadays the pakhtunwalee in tirah - khyber agency is much different than in Kabul afghanistan or swabi pakhtunkhwa. These divisions are making us weak not strong.

This is why I keep repeating, how do secular atheists compensate for Pukhtoonwale under a secular state?

How do the japenese, english, french, turks and many other keep their cultural identity.
In comparison what is the cultural identity of a saudi (male servent of the saudi king). Have you ever heard of a saudi culture. The king uses islam to dissolve the will of millions for the controll of these millions by the few thousand sauds. Same in Iran.

If my Namus is threatened, do I take care of the matter as a Pukhtoon, or should I file a report with a secular court first?

In a primitive mindset the namus is being threatened by things that are not serving the whole. Where is your namus when the child mortality rate is one of the highest in the world, no flood control, no protection of private property. The Namus with proper education and state support will get threatened not by how ones sister dresses but by globally accepted parameters of progress, and the energy channelled that way.

If my brother is killed, do I take Badal, or should I file a report with a secular court?

Murder should and is in most secular states a crime against the state and imposes a burden on every one in the society to take care off. This also absolves the relative of this responsibility.

If my Ghairat is challenged, do I handle the issue, or do I have to wait till I get an approval from a secular court?

Again with proper education (which the islamists call brainwashing) we can make your ghairat get challenged in such a way that the response produces a positive change in the parameters of progress for the pashtoon nation and not in a negative manner. If your ghairat is challenged because my sister is going to college than we will have have to rehab that.

If someone comes to my house and asks for Nanawate, do I first verify with the secular court that it is okay, or should I follow Pukhtoonwale and allow the person panah?

In todays world nanawatee is not needed. Especially if that person is Osama bin laden and brings his enemies behind him. No need of nanawatee in a land where law and order is practiced. It is the abscense of such that there was and is a need for nanawatee.

Not to mention JIRGA will die, as it is in our villages. Since now we have to run to secular courts.

Secular atheists Pukhtoon Nationalists need to address this. They need to lay down the foundations which will accommodate for Pukhtoon beliefs. If you argue secularism alone, I have no argument. But when you sugarcoat it with Pukhto, Pukhtoonwale, that is a LOGICAL FALLACY.

Secularism will deal Pukhto and Pukhtoonwale the death blow it's enemies wish.
In an Islamic state, much of that is compensated, including JIRGA under the system of Shura.
I don't think I have to address this, till you address the above

Jirga is a very democratic institution and if anything will prosper. Remember loya jirga in afghanistan. I dont think the taliban invited all afghans for a jirga.

[khushal]

First of all you have to realize what works and what doesnt work. With Pushtoons secularism doesnt work, otherwise bacha khan and dr najib would have succeeded. Pashtuns love their religion as long as it doesnt interfere with pashtunwali. Its the code of pashtunwali that have shamed all empires when they came to tha land of the pashtuns. you look at the arabs, they have never been united under nationalism or secularism. They only time they were united was under Islam. The only way people come together is if a leader emerges and creates a system where the majority of the people he is trying to unite benifits.

The ISI is not interested in attaching the pashtuns land of afghanistan to pakistan to create a greater pakistan because the panjabis dont want a bigger pushtun population that can counter their power in pakistan. And the farsiwan of aghanistan dont want to attach pakhthunwa to afghanistan because they dont want to be 8% of the population in afghanistan.

The British realized that if you want to prevent an Islamic Super Power from being formed in the future you must divide India, so the partition Of India is what prevented an Islamic Super Power from being formed. If India had stayed intact you would have 1.6 billion people which almost half would be muslim. They say that Pakistan was created to prevent hindu dominance over muslims, but if you look at history my friends the hindus have never dominated the muslims in india for 1000 years because islam forbids caste system which is unfair to the majority, remember you need the majority to make something work. Pakistan was created to divide the muslims, Most pakistanis are brainwashed into thinking nationalism and that the survival of Pakistan is what is needed to insure the muslims a success, but the Pakistani elites is what have made the muslims weaker and are being dominated. Muslims can not influence global policies when divided.

look at the arabs, you have 250 million people divided and fighting over scraps but when united they have alot of wealth and can be respected and influence global policies, fair policies for all of humanity, This is what china is realizing, they have the population and they have unity to become respected. Why are the americans in Afghanistan and iran because they know that in order to counter chinese growing power, they need to control more stratigic locations and resouces. this is a global chess game and you can not stay viable without a big population united