Violence

[graveyardofempires]

Interesting point Zayam.
I myself love guns and like keeping them. What you pointed out is too good, like why can't we imagine a Pakhtun without a gun? And that we must be loaded with the guns of intelligence and knowledge. We must keep guns but we must not give those guns a right to represent us.

Plus, Voilence is very common in us Pakhtuns. We are dying of hunger but are always ready to fight on silly issues with out cousions. I think we need to come out of this thinking..

you are full of it "violance is common in us pakhtuns"
you are the ones bringing violance upon pukhtane,you army which is haramy and your police which is reshwat khor naswary.

[Shehbaz Khan]

^ Hagha sanga? Asal ki we must accept che monga khpala topak aao dazo ta dier khushalego.. Gani nu che bal cha pa laas topak rakolo nu mong ba domra pa asana na wo aghistay.. Why we always blame others for our mistakes?

[Karachi]

I personally dont like Gandhi, infact many indians also dont like him, i am not saying weapons are good too, but i think their has to be a balance in everything in life, there is time we have to carry weapons and there is a time we have to be peace loving, it really depends on the situation, also i think prophet(pbuh) was the perfect balance of the two, we have to follow him

[graveyardofempires]

^ Hagha sanga? Asal ki we must accept che monga khpala topak aao dazo ta dier khushalego.. Gani nu che bal cha pa laas topak rakolo nu mong ba domra pa asana na wo aghistay.. Why we always blame others for our mistakes?

yara zaan na dey asey na poya jor keray thay

tata arse de pakistani aynako sha ekhkarey.
harse che dertha weway te kho yee asey ham ne maney.

[Wrayun]

I dislike Gandhi, Ghaffar Khan and all on the passive resistance model.

There is a difference between cowardice, and non-violent resistance. There is a difference between violent rabid animals, and self-defense. Those who come from heritages with violent backgrounds, for them, the employment of non-violent resistance takes a lot of courage (Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan). And for those who come from backgrounds that has little violent history, using violence takes a lot of courage. For Gandhi, it was easy for him and his people to employ non-violence. Most Indians come from a pacifist, non-violent, heritage. For a Pukhtoon like Ghaffar Khan, who in fact wanted to be a solider, (which takes courage btw), non-violence was very difficult. You'll find that out by reading his biography. For Pukhtoons, it's easy to pick up a gun, to be violent, it has become part of who we are because of our past. But it's very hard, for Pukhtoons, to have patience, to have sabr. It takes a lot of courage and strength control their nafs. As we say in Pukhto, Starr Zre Laree.

For those who don't understand Bacha Khan, and his philosophy of non-violent resistance, also do not understand the non-violent resistance of the Prophet Mohammad while he was in Mecca. Why didn't he pick up his 9 swords, 7 spears, and fought the Quraysh when they kicked the Muslims out of their homes? Why later when Muslims were strong, in strength, with numbers, that they decided to wage wars against aggressors?

You can't look at violent and non-violent resistance as Islamic or non-Islamic as some members have tried to define it. It all depends on circumstances. I don't understand that why people are referring to Islam when defending "violence", Islam stresses the important of justice, Islam doesn't have a concrete position violence. Islam is more concerned with justice served, not the means of it. Islam condones violence in self-defense, doesn't mean we should be inherently violent. Islam also condones "lying" to protect yourself (you can deny being a Muslim if your life is at danger), doesn't mean we should be inherently liars. What's important is to understand the context and nature of things.

Ghaffar Khan had witnessed, what violent resistance can do, and what the British were capable of, when the British planes flew over Waziristan against Mirza Khan, Fakir-i-ipi, and the carnage they caused i.e. burning of villages, starving local population, mass imprisonments and others things we can't discuss here. The Fakir and his fighters would find refuge in the hills, but the locals on the ground faced the brunt of the British onslaught. Exactly what is happening in our regions today. Who suffers the most?

Of course, those who fight, have no choice but to fight and I understand that. But given the choice, most wont. That is what Bacha Khan worked with. Who won after the British left? Who won after the Soviets left and who will win after the Americans leave? Look at the turmoil right now in our regions. After all the violence is over, who benefits? Who is at a greater loss when it comes to property, lives, and being? Foreign armies are foreign, they'll pack their bags and leave, but the locals, they have to live with it for the rest of their lives.

Violent resistance works under unique circumstances, and the same goes for non-violent resistance. Violence also works when you have the same weaponry, or better, against that of your foes. You can't win with your home made AK47 vs. a unarmed drones that with a press of button can send you and your whole village to oblivion. Many gungho kiddies born and raised in the West, don't know, or don't bother to know, that the successful violent resistance that drove the British out of Afghanistan, the Russians, and the resistance being put up against NATO/US have many dynamics that needs to be taken into consideration. Without these dynamics, if US/NATO were to use their full capacity, there would be a crater in the center of Asia called Afghanistan/Pukhtoonkhwa. Now that's what you call violence...you talk about spears?

What will your spears do against that? Ever heard of the Red Indians, Indigenous South Americans and the Aborigines, Africans? They had spears, lots and lots of them. Didn't work. Pukhtoon and Afghans, their circumstances were unique. That is why they survived, just like the Vietnamese.

As for weapons in Pukhtoon society....in the old days it was a noble part of the culture. Not only were weapons part of Pukhtoon life, but also the ethics and conduct on what their purpose was. With the emergence of automatic refiles, rocket launchers, grenades and other far more deadlier arms, the reason and purpose for having them, has seen a drastic change. Many areas have become like ghetto slums. Gangsters, kidnappers, and all sorts of other criminal entities harass locals with these deadly weapons. The poor, the average folks, who can't afford them, are hopeless. Various sorts of heinous and grave atrocities have been committed. Things got worst with the introduction of drugs and other narco vices, these weapons are now a menace to the Pukhtoon society.

My understanding is that if it wasn't for the influence of faith, God and strong culture over Pukhtoons/Afghans...there isn't much stopping them from becoming another Uganda, Congo or Cambodia. But I'm not sure how long that influence can and will last.




BTW, how many here have lost family members, very close family members, to violence... particularly gun violence, in our society?