Stoning to Death

[faye]

what fantasy? I'm just causing some aging farangay woman to soil her adult diapers

now go call your caretakers deary, Foofoo made a booboo

not one of my family traits, regression. hope you enjoyed the visualisation though

[sherlock]

The granny got moves

[Shayesta]

And in these cases their actions were just as it was relevant for their conditions. Hence the injustice was the perpetrators not the penalizers.

Who are the perpetrators here, and who are the 'penalizers'?

you get penalized for adultery EVEN in Islam, you don't for forcing a marriage.

While you can get out of a forced marriage as it isn't considered valid. It's the validity per Islam that counts.

Women in my family generally aren't motivated by such shallow impulses so you're right they wouldn't want to lead it, because they have too much self respect;

Self-respect and comfortable lives; Most possibly in West. And it's not the self-respect of these women which decide their way of life, it's the inappropriate control others have had on their entire life. Easy said than done.

I haven't blamed their husbands because their husbands werent the ones who lit the match. They chose to light their match.

Their husband have spread the invisible fire all over, these physically burnings are pretty much it's outcome. This should actually remind you of how you keep blaming the 'Farangian' for the ongoing tensions they caused between Muslims, no?

There are many abused people who don't try to burn themselves alive or commit adultery.

The abused ones hardly even commit adultery, that's not their case. It's their mental balance they lose and committing suicide, drowning themselves, burning themselves alive and etcetera can be the result of one of these 'lost balances'. And that's exactly the reason why a proper and well-practised Islamic rules are necessary in such oppressive societies; To maintain physical, mental and verbal balance. Pukhtunwali simply doesn't fall into that category.

No that isn't what I said; I will repeat it for you since you clearly have poor or faulty reading comprehension, perhaps due to hasty reading,

No, you said a 'Primary Law' can be as strict or as loose as necessary. Adultery is considered a sin in Islam which Westerners find necessary (for whatever reason), forced marriages are considered a sin in Islam which many Muslims back home find 'necessary', and giving an inappropriate punishment of murder is considered a sin in Islam which is considered 'necessary' by many Muslims back home. Islamic seen, that doesn't mean anything.

Because Adultery is always wrong, forced marriages are only wrong in CERTAIN contexts.

No, forced marriages are wrong until and unless a very solid reason is provided. By the way, do you have any quote or text from Islamic scriptures where exceptions for forced marriages are mentioned?

I dont get your question at all, I think you're merely responding impulsively, blindly and emotionally now.

You were talking about the 'artificial interferences' of a society which plays a part in a person's natural behaviour or 'acts', which in this case was about the women in Afghanistan I was talking about. So I further asked you who are responsible for the 'natural behaviour' of those women's in-laws, families, etcetera?

This is false, because not all forced marriages result in this, many "love marriages" also ends up abusive. You really cant make a correlation here.

Those who have had the opportunity to have a love-marriage usually find some sort of support to get out of their marriage if it's turning abusive; And in many cases it's either by far not as worse, or either those women have returned to their maternal homes. Those pushed into a forced marriage didn't even have the choice to marry their own choice, forget getting out of it per their own choice.

You're saying Islam would not intervene in an Islamic Society, if you refused to marry because you could not marry a Non-Muslim male? but I think you know that Islamic Law would intervene and compel you to marry as your normal choices are a corruption and thus fitnah.

Eh, no. You said adultery isn't advocated in Islam, I said nor is forced marriage. And about a Muslima wanting to marry a non-Muslim, in Islam she is allowed to convert to her husband's religion upon marriage. She isn't considered a Muslima any more in that case, and nor should any of the Islamic laws apply to her.

Build a fully Islamic Society with all the appropriate checks and balances which regulate both penal code and gender behaviors.

I am talking about those women I describe, not about the people around them as their 'help' has already been pointed out.

There's quite a bit difference because forced marriages doesnt necessarily entail domestic abuse and but adultery always violates reproductive order, which is a contradiction to familial life.

The fact the marriage is 'forced' itself says enough about it's use and abuse, forget about its future. Adultery isn't forced, yet it's considered abusive because it's practised by people not married to each other. Forced marriage is forced, therefore it's abusive by all means because it destroys uncountable lives.

Well this is a quote from the original thread post, which was yours

That's why even previously many times I have mentioned my discussions with you. My first post wasn't even a debate, it was merely a short comment with no much details, followed by a video. With you, this was my original debate;

White-washed? Spineless? Westernised? What on earth are you on about, mate? These two people weren't married; They both were being forced into marriages against their wish with someone else, especially the girl who was oppressed into marrying the man her family had chosen for her. Instead of blaming the couple for in search of a better life, why hasn't any of you in this thread got the guts to blame their parents? If adultery is spoiling a society then so is forced marriages, why aren't you or any of the guys in this thread as critical of forced marriages as you are of adultery; Even though forced marriages ruin familiy lives on a much bigger and much harsher scale than adultery between two people? Why?

Fair enough, I didn't put much in my first comment because at first I just wanted to place this video, without placing specific details to it. But forced marriage issues have never been used as 'scape-goat' by me because that has been the issue I have been discussing mainly all this while, through-out this thread.

Since you're pulling the Islam Card, which surprises me since you're more secular minded from what I understood. Then where in Islam would it validate elopements like this?

Where in Islam would it validate punishments like these? Where in Islam would it validate force like this? Remember, they fled because of a forced marriage, not for fun.

Not necessarily true; for example the Nikkah of Nabi(saw) and Bibi 'Aisha(ra) was done between Muhammad(saw) and Abu Bakr Siddiq(ra).

And which one of the couple objected their marriage? Which one of them found their marriage to be a force?

Our Prophets warned against the misguidance of impulsive sensations, that we should know true happiness is different than merely the illusionary feeling.

That's what I am saying, how do you know what is considered 'happiness' and what is considered 'misguidance of impulsive sensations'?

I also understand why it takes place in western societies; they are morally corrupt. The reason why forced marriages happen in Pashtun societies is because it's a practical necessity. Which I also understand.

You understand it or accept it? Both still remain immoral, despite of either side of the arguments. Adultery remain necessary because people can either wait till they get married, or marry as soon as they wish. Forced marriages remain unnecessary because it's not impossible to arrange a marriage with your children's consent.

Practicing intercourse and practicing adultery are not the same thing. Even examine the word ADULTERY, it means to ADULTER, means corrupt; it's a corruption of the sexual drive.

Yes, I know what it means. But this was meant to be from an 'Western' point of view, where premarital sex and marital sex both are considered intercourse, not adultery.

IN fact part of the reason Islam advocates marriage so that people can practice intercourse for their own health. Hence you are in fact proving why forced marriage could become a necessity in certain contexts.

Why marriages are necessary I understand completely, but I stand by my point that forced marriages are not necessary. And that's what Islam advocates; Marriages, not forced marriages. But since I was talking about the 'Western' point of view, these people think about marriages in their thirties or so because they believe marriages become an obstacle to their professional lives, 'freedom' and careers. Therefore, they practise adultery/intercourse (whatever you want to call it) with their girlfriends/boyfriends before they actually step into a married life, which can be the case after decades for them. Therefore, for them, it's necessary nonetheless.

I have never seen any scholar western or otherwise say that adultery SPECIFICALLY adultery is necessary or healthy for rape or any other reason.

Scholars, especially Western scholars, don't consider sex outside marriage adultery anyway. As for prostitution, that's exactly the reason 'used' to prevent rape-cases, mainly in a countries like India. As for the studies by scholars, I got some sources for the moment:

Sex seems to be more than a hormonal discharge and some short moments of pure pleasure. Scientists show that sex is extremely beneficial for our health, while the lack of an active sex life might have negative effects.

Jessica is a sexologist and Ph.D. researcher who values sex as an essential element of relationships, culture, self-identity and health. Her primary goal is to provide sex-positive education that empowers clients to enjoy fulfilling, healthy and pleasurable sex lives.

No it doesnt. but only highlights further how far gone the Farangayan are.

What about despite of being introduced to Islam, how far behind we have remained?

Actually there is a penalty for eloping; it's 40 lashes in an Islamic State, read Al Ahkam Al-Sultaniyah for details on this.

I will, since I couldn't find any penalty for it anywhere else, I will go with your recommendation.

And no their marriage wont be considered valid; because women have to married through a Wali, You cant run away "get married" ; this is actually more proof they did in fact engage in illicit acts, because the only way to marry is by having witnesses and a wali.

What if they did have witnesses? And the woman did have a guardian? Fleeing used to happen in Pekhawer a lot, and it wasn't difficult for couples that fled to find witnesses for their Nikah.

The problem with your last conclusion; is that these people were innocent, which clearly they weren't. So the premise is faulty.

The problem with your conclusion is that the punishment was right, while it clearly wasn't. It's rather a murder, not a justified punishment.

Actually according to you, the Mujahideen were fighting to serve Pakistani interests, not morality. Why change your perspective on this for this matter?

Why put words in my mouth I have never used? When and where did I say the Mujahideen were fighting for morality? I said that's what the Mujahideen thought they were doing; Fighting for morality, that's got nothing to do with my personal opinion of them.

Nikah would still be considered valid if it had a valid premise, necessity (wujub) is considered a valid premise in Islam, for example if you're poor and have no money you can eat pork if that is all you have. Similarly if these types of marriage are how you must sustain your society, it's acceptable

And you are not understanding that many parents back home don't force their children into a marriage because they consider it a 'social necessity', they do it for themselves and for their own pride, honour and all the other nonsense that comes with it. If pork is all you have then you will eat it because it's necessary to remain alive as you have no other choice, but in case of marriages you got plenty of choices and therefore choosing specifically forced marriages is not your sole option, nor necessary.

Because it's a breakdown on social morality.

So is murder, which has happened in this case.

And people still have ended up pregnant, and children aborted as means of birth control.

That's because not all of them use contraceptions, pregnancy while using a contraception is very, very rare.

Well on some level I agree; but the farangayan have been cultivating it on many levels. Why for example do you have animosity with Pakistan?

This could actually be applies perfectly well with the example you gave on husband-wife issues; If you don't blame husbands of putting their women in such state, then why blame the 'Farangian' for putting others in miseries? Nonetheless, the difference here is that these Muslim countries do have an option to get out of foreign slavery, they do have an option to choose the right path without being stuck between life and death, they do have the option to call a spade, a spade. As far as Pakistan is concerned, I consider them as foreign as other countries (except for Pakhtunkhwa) and I don't know of any other country in the world which ever since its independence has been aided by foreigners, used by those very same foreigners, and destroyed its neighbours for the sake of those foreigners.

the adminstration of countries also farangay established. And the main reason they're still there is due to Farangay influencing disparity to keep them fortified.

Yes, I know and this is the argument I once had with my British classmates. One of them asked me why Muslims look down upon British so much, I explained the divide and rule policies of the British history. But if Pakistan knows the foreigners are trying to divide Muslims, if Afghans know it, if Arabs know it and all Muslims know it, then why the hell are we falling for it and that also since decades? Go and give any Western country money to terrorize its neighbouring country, will they agree? Go and give Pakistani government money to terrorize their neighbours, they will in return terrorize entire of Asia.

Health reasons, inability to perform sexually, lack of libido. fighting war etc.

What about their suitors' age? Or their bad reputation? Or their other wives? Aren't these considered reasons enough? Especially the first one is a very common case in Afghanistan.

Whether stoning or shooting, whatever worked for the,. Their parents choice was consistent with the greater good so no, they wouldnt earn penalty.

What greater good? Committing a sin of forcing first, followed by a sin of death punishment? Even the children did the good by making clear not everyone is open to injustice and force, because such a culture will remain intact until and unless people don't rise up against it.

based on what I know of your beliefs; if you believe that is in fact the case. then my only conclusion is that the reason you feel this way is quite possibly; that you've been corrupted and have lost your own self respect

Think as you wish, not really bothering me. I don't think being satisfied with a country which protects you despite of your religion, gender, background, lifestyle, etcetera got anything to do with losing self-respect. Losing self-respect is more like enjoying life here in West, and encouraging so-called honour killings and social necessities on people back home.

Back when they were protecting Osama he wasn't influencing immoral activity.

He was even protected after confessing his anger as a result of the injustice Muslims face all over. And just like any other foreigner, even he was a foreigner who should have remained wherever the hell he is from.

I'm here so that others dont have to be here meaning I'm doing what I can so that ultimately those pressures imposed by the farangays on the East wont pressure people to have to give up due to the disparities placed on their society.

Just like how you are here because of circumstances, you won't be able to stop anyone else back home from coming here for the very same reason. It doesn't make any difference to them where you are, unless you can do them a great good for making their lives in their respective countries both financially and stably, liveable.

BUt lets face it, if that was actually the case there would be a higher crackdown since the Government is clearly harsh on such things.

Crack-down on those activities back in the countries can't be any bigger than it already is, mate. Like I said, because a government bans something doesn't mean it never gets practised. Same-wise if a government protects something doesn't mean it's practised by everyone.

you totally switched on this point;s. If they went to Afghanistan and married with locals; this has been happening for centuries. If their husbands just married for one night I suspect that it's because they died fighting.

No, I am not switching on-off anything. I am literally saying what you are reading. I know the differences between a maintained and settled marriage, and a marriage for lust. The second was happening in Pekhawer. Apparently, some Arab individuals had donated money to the Pakistani government to support the Afghan refugee, that followed by many, many Arabs visiting Pekhawer themselves. A very few of them actually remained faithful upon their marriage to their Afghan wives, to others it was just a one night stand. I personally, unlike many Afghans, don't bare any hatred for Arabs whatsoever as I believe like many Muslims even they failed to follow Islam step-by-step (even though our scriptures are in Arabic), but just like how we got our own disturbing acts, so do they have theirs.

[Shayesta]

But my point is that the law of the land is Pashtunwali and they have to abide by it or be punished by it.

Even Islam has an alternative option; Leaving Islam. Therefore I believe these people also should be able to have the choice of leaving Pukhtunwali.

When I go to my village, I will not try to plan an elopement with any woman and have her come to the west with me.

You and both the woman at the same time wouldn't be forced into a marriage to begin with so I indeed wouldn't understand the elopement. But if a society is that selfish that it can take your life and the other woman's lives, simply because you don't want to be forced into anything, then even I wouldn't bother about such a selfish and merciless society.

In pashtunwali, the crime was not the sex, it was the man taking a namus that did not belong to him.

That was indeed the 'crime' per Pukhtunwali, but he got the punishment in name of 'Zinah', an Islamic sin for which there was absolutely no proof.

Yes peacefully corrected in according to the laws of pashtunwali but again this was not done in accordance with islam which would have been ideal but sharia does not exist in this area.

This, Khushal'a, is called a murder. They are first of all forced into a marriage, then they flee, then they are promised safety, and their safety ends up being somewhere in the sky. Nowhere in Islam is murder seen as a 'peaceful' process, nowhere. Even in Pukhtunwali it's stated that a Pukhtoon must be true of his promise/word, so these people basically even ditched their own Pukhtunwali for their so-called Nang and Namoos.

Kabuli's dont practice pashtunwali.

Nor did you asks about Pukhtunwali, you asked about societies in Islamic countries where such activities take place. I just named a few.

Your changing goal posts. The pashtun or any other person is not obligated to hit in that society, actually he will be punished by the law if he does.

No, I am not changing anything here. I first of all don't understand why one should be proud of a society where a person can save his Nang and Namoos by being violent, but the point being here is that a Pukhtoon will have his nerves hit on an insult, regardless of the society he lives in. Period.

Also It is the panjsheri and kabuli women that are being driven to NATO bases and what are the panjsheris doing about it but thts besides the point of the argument.

There are even rumours that many Helmandi women who got displaced are also part of it, along with many Kandahari women. But that's besides the point indeed, rumours about their actual identity will remain rumours.

But there are also positive aspects in pashtunwali such as defending ones dignity to the last breath.

Wrora, that's even the aspect of Islam. Fight for your right till the end, regardless. It's great that even Pukhtunwali has this small of a part in common with Islam, in daily lives I really don't see it as a necessary practice in any society.

It is because of this aspect that the Pashtuns are the heart of muslims.

According to who?

It was actually becoming a norm for Kabulis to wear mini skirts. It was tolerated.

What do you say, it ended for the good? It was besides a Pukhtoon who had introduced that 'norm', not Kabulis themselves.

What I just said and you just said is immoral in Islam. But these girls are manipulated by the society they live in because society has not only tolerated but encouraged this fashion.

Indeed, tolerance and encouragement; Exactly what some in here are doing regarding Pukhtunwali, even though many of its aspects are immoral. At least these fashion-'chicks' won't lose their lives, nor take any life for the sake of fashion.

I never said forced marriage is encouraged by Islam.

I never said you did, I just stated that dressing accordingly is even suggested in Islam, so it's not much of a big deal to dress as covered as possible in Pukhtoon-lands. But there is no adjustment required for forced marriages in Islam, and therefore you can't go and compare forced marriage in a society to dress-code of a society.

Pashtunwali does not encourage aggression or destruction of other societies but it does encourage defence very strongly and it has served that purpose.

That's once again not what I am talking about. I am just saying that Pukhtunwali didn't destroy foreigners in any way, instead the foreigners got what they wanted from us and we are left with our destruction and Pukhtunwali.

there were non Pushtuns that fought but the vast majority that fought were pashtuns and currently the vast majority of fighters are Pashtuns.

Quiet possible, that still doesn't mean others didn't fight for Afghanistan. It were besides also Pukhtoons who sided foreigners, and as a result came into conflict with Pukhtoons fighting against the foreigners. In Kandahar the foreigners haven't got much influence, but you got Nangarhar where people will prefer anything over Taliban and their rules. Pukhtoons aren't united enough to draw a conclusion over what our priority as a whole is.

[khushal]

@shayista

Scimitar is right, throughout the whole argument you raise straw man fallacies and change goal post. you have to stick with the original points and the original arguments. You are all over the place.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Even Islam has an alternative option; Leaving Islam. Therefore I believe these people also should be able to have the choice of leaving Pukhtunwali.


You and both the woman at the same time wouldn't be forced into a marriage to begin with so I indeed wouldn't understand the elopement. But if a society is that selfish that it can take your life and the other woman's lives, simply because you don't want to be forced into anything, then even I wouldn't bother about such a selfish and merciless society.


That was indeed the 'crime' per Pukhtunwali, but he got the punishment in name of 'Zinah', an Islamic sin for which there was absolutely no proof.


This, Khushal'a, is called a murder. They are first of all forced into a marriage, then they flee, then they are promised safety, and their safety ends up being somewhere in the sky. Nowhere in Islam is murder seen as a 'peaceful' process, nowhere. Even in Pukhtunwali it's stated that a Pukhtoon must be true of his promise/word, so these people basically even ditched their own Pukhtunwali for their so-called Nang and Namoos.


Nor did you asks about Pukhtunwali, you asked about societies in Islamic countries where such activities take place. I just named a few.


No, I am not changing anything here. I first of all don't understand why one should be proud of a society where a person can save his Nang and Namoos by being violent, but the point being here is that a Pukhtoon will have his nerves hit on an insult, regardless of the society he lives in. Period.


There are even rumours that many Helmandi women who got displaced are also part of it, along with many Kandahari women. But that's besides the point indeed, rumours about their actual identity will remain rumours.


Wrora, that's even the aspect of Islam. Fight for your right till the end, regardless. It's great that even Pukhtunwali has this small of a part in common with Islam, in daily lives I really don't see it as a necessary practice in any society.


According to who?


What do you say, it ended for the good? It was besides a Pukhtoon who had introduced that 'norm', not Kabulis themselves.


Indeed, tolerance and encouragement; Exactly what some in here are doing regarding Pukhtunwali, even though many of its aspects are immoral. At least these fashion-'chicks' won't lose their lives, nor take any life for the sake of fashion.


I never said you did, I just stated that dressing accordingly is even suggested in Islam, so it's not much of a big deal to dress as covered as possible in Pukhtoon-lands. But there is no adjustment required for forced marriages in Islam, and therefore you can't go and compare forced marriage in a society to dress-code of a society.


That's once again not what I am talking about. I am just saying that Pukhtunwali didn't destroy foreigners in any way, instead the foreigners got what they wanted from us and we are left with our destruction and Pukhtunwali.


Quiet possible, that still doesn't mean others didn't fight for Afghanistan. It were besides also Pukhtoons who sided foreigners, and as a result came into conflict with Pukhtoons fighting against the foreigners. In Kandahar the foreigners haven't got much influence, but you got Nangarhar where people will prefer anything over Taliban and their rules. Pukhtoons aren't united enough to draw a conclusion over what our priority as a whole is.

sister I am confused about this debate and here is why:
It boils down to a few simple points:

1) There are no ifs ands or buts that the judicial process here was not an Islamic one. Muhammad (S), during one zinah hearing tried to avoid the subject and urge the person who requested the punishment to keep the issue between him and God and correct his behavior. When the questioner insisted that the punishment had to be done on him, Muhammad (S) asked, the only time in his recorded life, a detailed question regarding the act itself as that defined zina. So we agree.
2) Some regions in Pashtunistan, or in Jordan, or in Zimbabwe etc observe cultural norms as they define it. We agree, you and I at least, that the word of the One God supercedes cultural norms. If the cultural norm is to worship a stick, morally it is incorrect because God says so right?

However, to me, it seems that you miss the big picture again here. Edward Said discussed orientalism, or the West passing judgements on the East as a matter of practice for gain... not correction or enlightenment.

So let us assume that this is wrong behavior:

A) What is the implication?
B) What is your corrective plan?
C) Does it involve the indigenous population making their strides and advancements or does it involve Shayesta and Barakzai or Karzai or Petreus imposing what they view as correct on them?

The issue more often than not, is that womens rights, advancement of socieites etc are used as a pretext by Western powers to colonialize far off places.

I urge you to read the works of Nathaniel Hawthorne. He wrote the Scarlet Letter and was the great grandson of the head judiciary or "lead ulema" of the Massachussetts Bay Colony. That was the founding colony of the American experience and its members were basically American Taliban. Basically, Hawthorne's great grandfather was like the Supreme Mullah (or perhaps the Mullah Omar if you please) of his day. The famous Salem Witch Trials that Arthur Miller Lee and others would write books and books about (see The Crucible) describe in lurid details how women were murdered by being burned, hung, and their dead bodies boiled in oil because they were suspected of being witches. The Bay Colony was a theocracy.

However, there was no Spain, or France or outside force to come and rebuke this nidus colony and demand that they alter their laws. Instead, the first Americans were given the right and the chance to evolve their system of governance and their views on justice.

My guess is that had an outsider power attempted to impose its law or force the Bay Colonialists to observe some form of secular or altered law, then the results would have been setbacks for the American experience.

Remember, any time an outside or occupier force attempts to impose its way on a people, radicalism or reactionaryism takes hold and shifts the balance backwards.

So too do the Afghans who never left their soil deserve the right to govern according to their way and to reach their own equilibrium.

In general surveys across the Muslim world show that when the West involves itself militarily or monetarily or imposes regimes, there are setbacks as opposed to progress made.

Finally, let us turn the questions back:

1) What is the accuracy of this report?
2) What measures were taken by the involved parties to work within the paramaters of their society?
3) If the boy really loved her, he, being a product of that society, must have known he had placed or would place her in inordinate danger by doing what he did. One might say that, as a male, he could have refused his imposed marriage. He did not however have to involve her in his scheme. Once he did what he did, he placed her life in further danger by bringing her back, which was plain stupid.

And the following questions as well for you:

A) If this was a case of proven adultry, what is your view on what the punishment should have been?

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Even Islam has an alternative option; Leaving Islam. Therefore I believe these people also should be able to have the choice of leaving Pukhtunwali.


You and both the woman at the same time wouldn't be forced into a marriage to begin with so I indeed wouldn't understand the elopement. But if a society is that selfish that it can take your life and the other woman's lives, simply because you don't want to be forced into anything, then even I wouldn't bother about such a selfish and merciless society.


That was indeed the 'crime' per Pukhtunwali, but he got the punishment in name of 'Zinah', an Islamic sin for which there was absolutely no proof.


This, Khushal'a, is called a murder. They are first of all forced into a marriage, then they flee, then they are promised safety, and their safety ends up being somewhere in the sky. Nowhere in Islam is murder seen as a 'peaceful' process, nowhere. Even in Pukhtunwali it's stated that a Pukhtoon must be true of his promise/word, so these people basically even ditched their own Pukhtunwali for their so-called Nang and Namoos.


Nor did you asks about Pukhtunwali, you asked about societies in Islamic countries where such activities take place. I just named a few.


No, I am not changing anything here. I first of all don't understand why one should be proud of a society where a person can save his Nang and Namoos by being violent, but the point being here is that a Pukhtoon will have his nerves hit on an insult, regardless of the society he lives in. Period.


There are even rumours that many Helmandi women who got displaced are also part of it, along with many Kandahari women. But that's besides the point indeed, rumours about their actual identity will remain rumours.


Wrora, that's even the aspect of Islam. Fight for your right till the end, regardless. It's great that even Pukhtunwali has this small of a part in common with Islam, in daily lives I really don't see it as a necessary practice in any society.


According to who?


What do you say, it ended for the good? It was besides a Pukhtoon who had introduced that 'norm', not Kabulis themselves.


Indeed, tolerance and encouragement; Exactly what some in here are doing regarding Pukhtunwali, even though many of its aspects are immoral. At least these fashion-'chicks' won't lose their lives, nor take any life for the sake of fashion.


I never said you did, I just stated that dressing accordingly is even suggested in Islam, so it's not much of a big deal to dress as covered as possible in Pukhtoon-lands. But there is no adjustment required for forced marriages in Islam, and therefore you can't go and compare forced marriage in a society to dress-code of a society.


That's once again not what I am talking about. I am just saying that Pukhtunwali didn't destroy foreigners in any way, instead the foreigners got what they wanted from us and we are left with our destruction and Pukhtunwali.


Quiet possible, that still doesn't mean others didn't fight for Afghanistan. It were besides also Pukhtoons who sided foreigners, and as a result came into conflict with Pukhtoons fighting against the foreigners. In Kandahar the foreigners haven't got much influence, but you got Nangarhar where people will prefer anything over Taliban and their rules. Pukhtoons aren't united enough to draw a conclusion over what our priority as a whole is.

The bottom line is that one should be wary of this judgement on an indigenous villager society doing what it does serving as a basis to promote interventionalism from the West by two groups of people:

1) the Armies of the West
2) Afghan emigres who left their country behind and now seek to impose their "enlightened" views onto the populace that they did nothing for.

This in fact was exactly the basis that Mr. Petreus was urging the CIA to pursue with the Red Cell memos Mr. Assange revealed to the world:

http://mirror.wikileaks.info/leak/cia-afghanistan.pdf

http://www.rawa.org/temp/runews/2010...he-burqa.phtml

The idea was to use such incidents as a basis to further intervention and imposition.

[unknownprince]

Pashtuns are the most conservative of Afghanistan. Islam and pashtunwali are practiced there, and no one should complain.
.

[Alchemist]

How about the Afghan "emigres" that find out that their daughter...whose hand they had given to someone of their own choosing..has eloped with a black man.

What's he to do?
Promise them safety and forgiveness...lure em in, and then stone them both to death. Oh, but you can't do that in a western society without having a fair a trial where both sides of the parties get legal representation and the evidences get presented. Then in this case ...the girl will simply show proof of marriage from city hall...and the father will have no proof that she had agreed to marry the boy of his choosing...so she'll win the case and daddy might even have to keep the mulatto children in his inheritance will...lol ... the world is a messed up place.

[Gulbabo]

lol @ mulatto children. its been a while i haven't read/heard that name. last i heard was in one of my history classes, back God knows when.

[Khan Lala]

I wish my enemes be stoned

[khushal]

How about the Afghan "emigres" that find out that their daughter...whose hand they had given to someone of their own choosing..has eloped with a black man.

What's he to do?
Promise them safety and forgiveness...lure em in, and then stone them both to death. Oh, but you can't do that in a western society without having a fair a trial where both sides of the parties get legal representation and the evidences get presented. Then in this case ...the girl will simply show proof of marriage from city hall...and the father will have no proof that she had agreed to marry the boy of his choosing...so she'll win the case and daddy might even have to keep the mulatto children in his inheritance will...lol ... the world is a messed up place.

Your confused. Elopement, adultery, orgies, simultaneously sexual relationship with mother and daughter, etc is not a crime but individual preference. So, Alchmist, if you want to elope with a black, white, yellow, red man or someone that was a man and now a woman, don't worry, you have the blessing of the society you live in.

This statement is aimed at western society. That it is not a crime in western society.

[Alchemist]

Your confused. Elopement, adultery, orgies, simultaneously sexual relationship with mother and daughter, etc is not a crime but individual preference. So, Alchmist, if you want to elope with a black, white, yellow, red man or someone that was a man and now a woman, don't worry, you have the blessing of the society you live in.

Part of your muslim duty? lol



hypocrite.

[khushal]

Part of your muslim duty? lol



hypocrite.

Explain how that statement says I am a hypocrite. You have to read the whole thread and what that thread was about. You are the hypocrite. You come in here and preach Islam and then you go out there everyday and sell pork products.

[Alchemist]

Explain how that statement says I am a hypocrite. You have to read the whole thread and what that thread was about. You are the hypocrite. You come in here and preach Islam and then you go out there everyday and sell pork products.

I don't know what's worse...

Eating pork ...or wearing religion for show?


What do you think?
You embody the character of the PRophet peace be upon him?