Stoning to Death

[SroZaro Aslaha]

[B]

ScimitarXEdge I actually advocate Islamic Law; your way is the IDEAL Way, it's the way things SHOULD be; but what I'm saying here is that until that is, the way these people are doing it, is the way things HAVE to be.

Predominantly, that right there is our biggest problem in Afghan society. Because people have accepted these terms and regulations as the ''only'' way - they've put down their strength to finding better ways that can at least be more humane. Having an ideal way of thinking have changed maps, demographics and civilizations for the better in history before – so it’s fully possible. What you consider as your pride doesn't have to change, but the idea and rules of what ruins it and how you deal with it can change – hence letting you still keeping your honour.

Most Afghans I’m acquainted with like my uncles, cousins and the bunch; knows there should be other ways, but in fear of becoming 'outcasts' they resent to promote that idea. What needs to be said here is that war and bloodshed is inevitable for a society who needs change - no society has ever excelled without paying a huge price for it. That’s how successful nations came to be.

When the fight is fought amongst the people themselves without any interference from outside powers, the results of dissidence can be successful. Although, I have to admit, there is no certainty with Afghanistan. It’s fully possible that a revolution can backfire so harshly that it may even wipe off our race completely from the face of earth (given how every Pukhtoon is his own ruler). But this shouldn't stop us from doing the right thing. We seriously need change. Understanding WHY it is as it is [which I do], is different than accepting it and not bothering to do anything about it. That would be cowardice in my opinion. It would only prolong the delinquency and making it even harder for Afghans to return back to their homeland. I was born and raised somewhere else, but I have plans of moving to Afghanistan in a few years, getting married to a stunning Pukhtanah - have a bunch of little pahlawans and assist [I’m a med. Student at the moment] the deprived as much as the Lord is willing. But if I ever get a female patient who is heavily abused by her husband - and she repeatedly comes to visit me with a smashed face - I'd go berserk. Hitting children as a mean of discipline is perfectly understandable, but hitting a grown up woman is nothing but the acts of a coward and insecure idiot; would hardly call him a man. ****, thinking over it, I would most likely cause my ration of commotion there and may even be accused of having an affair with the abused woman and result in us both being killed. How poetic would that be? =)

Anyway, to those educated Afghans out there [who has the least excuse of not understanding that lack of education is ruining our country], it doesn't have to be like that and neither does it have to change into a western dog-eat-dog world. The change I believe is needed will come at a HUGE price – it may last for decades, even centuries – since we’re the last people on the earth to ever succumb to a one conjoint leader. But this, I am certain if successful, would make Afghanistan the most desirable nation to be in and afghans would become the smallest fearing empire by the West ever in history. Ah, smearing it in the faces of those bloody Pakistani, Gulbuddin and Rabbani worshippers would be priceless. Our biggest problem is our own stubbornness – it may have saved us from the outside world, but it has also devastated us within our own society. It’s about time we had peace and happiness in our beloved watan. Lord knows we deserve it.

People kept calling Gull baighyrat, bainamus, he lost all respect. Gull had five sons, his sons were also called the sons of a baighyrat, sons of bainamus. Gull eldest son one day got sick of the disrespect and got up and shot Adil killing him [...]and today 30 people are now dead including all of Gull's sons

Do you see the main problem here? It's not that Gull's decision of forgiving the two was a wrong thing to do. They were left in his hands, and he gave a verdict of forgiving the two, so in essence it should have ended there. The problem is the society! Instead of thinking of Gull as a better, more merciful and greater man for being able to restrain his anger from killing them both, they called him beghairat and benamous!! That is precisely my point. The whole idea of which solutions are considered most honourable is twisted. Killing is easy - there should be no honour in that unless you're in a front-line battle and fighting your country. That is the only time I deem killing as a part of a solution which is necessary. A man should be remembered for his up-righteousness and his valour. There is no bravery in killing an unarmed person because of a woman he did not even care for. There's no common sense in that. Those two who ran away are the ones that should have lived through their lives with people looking down on them - not the man who bravely forgave them. The only reason Pashtoons don't realize this is because they've never considered looking at it from a different point of view - and the reasons to which they haven't looked at it from a different point of view is because nobody has presented it to them like that. They've all this time been bathing in the muds of their own turmoil without realizing that mud makes you sink deeper and deeper. This is why education is needed. Had they read stories of countless legends in history who's had a similar ''honour codes'' as those we have, but with a few differences where certain solutions have been given an even greater value; such as forgiveness or showing mercy - they might have thought differ - and many lives would be saved.

I understand fully why they're disillusioned with this type of thinking since they grew up within it, alongside of it and around it. It's the same with extremists who've either grown too much with hatred for non-believers, or known only one-side of Islam - it's hard for them to imagine other possibilities. But all opinions aside – think to yourself – what would be the right thing to do if we did NOT have those codes of honour? How would you deal with a case similar to this if there were no risks of demeaning your family name and pride? If nobody blamed you – how would you deal with it then? Would you still murder your daughter who’s done a mistake of foolishly falling for some guy? I’ll have you know, that if it wasn't for how 'taboo' it is talking about personal desires and choices – there would not have been ‘run-away’ incidents like these in the amounts there are today.

Like I said earlier, putting up examples like this one – by stoning someone to death will not keep women and men from being human, i.e. making mistakes. It’s one of the many faults God has given us that separate us from the angelic – following our instincts, feelings and the risks of making blunders. It’s something that will never change. So ask yourself, would you want to live and witness neighbours stoning this and that person by the dozens each month? Come on! Be realistic, the society which Pukhtoonwali is aiming at is unlikely to exist. Better to start giving the newer generations education now so that this crazy wrong upon wrong actions stop!

I believe the intention of this was that the feuding families actually becoming related by blood so the feud and hate can disappear and love between the two parties can flourish. The idea is that you can not hate your relative.

The intention is correct as you say - and very understandable. What I tried to point out was that even though this halts a bloodshed, it still does not benefit everyone since it is done in the act of necessity and mental force. The whole drama isn't exactly applauding for either part.

YouTube - ‪The Pashtunwali , Pakhtunwali‬‏

[B]

khushal;464578]

Listen to 1:12 where the man clearly says that" che ta ghyrat habara rashe bya sari(man) sar na thair ta." When it comes to ghyrat, then man's life is sacrificed.

Thanks for this!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[AFG21]

Truth when it comes to moral Laws is something that is related to how mankind's behaviors correspond with nature, and nature is not bound by by linear perceptions of time like the 21st century. When something is fundamentally true, it is valid even in the 21st century; anything that is false isn't education, but corruption. The real dark ages are the 21st centiry's lack of moral standards.

Stoning peopel to death is the lack of moral standard. I just can't understand how a parent can be oke, whith stoning his own son or doughter. It is just beyond me.

[ScimitarXEdge]

Stoning peopel to death is the lack of moral standard. I just can't understand how a parent can be oke, whith stoning his own son or doughter. It is just beyond me.

It only seems to be against moral standards to societies that lack moral standards; which is a contradiction therefore this claim is fraudulent.

maybe it's beyond you because you've become a farangay.

[khushal]

[B]

Do you see the main problem here? It's not that Gull's decision of forgiving the two was a wrong thing to do. They were left in his hands, and he gave a verdict of forgiving the two, so in essence it should have ended there. The problem is the society! Instead of thinking of Gull as a better, more merciful and greater man for being able to restrain his anger from killing them both, they called him beghairat and benamous!! That is precisely my point. The whole idea of which solutions are considered most honourable is twisted. Killing is easy - there should be no honour in that unless you're in a front-line battle and fighting your country. That is the only time I deem killing as a part of a solution which is necessary. A man should be remembered for his up-righteousness and his valour. There is no bravery in killing an unarmed person because of a woman he did not even care for. There's no common sense in that. Those two who ran away are the ones that should have lived through their lives with people looking down on them - not the man who bravely forgave them. The only reason Pashtoons don't realize this is because they've never considered looking at it from a different point of view - and the reasons to which they haven't looked at it from a different point of view is because nobody has presented it to them like that. They've all this time been bathing in the muds of their own turmoil without realizing that mud makes you sink deeper and deeper. This is why education is needed. Had they read stories of countless legends in history who's had a similar ''honour codes'' as those we have, but with a few differences where certain solutions have been given an even greater value; such as forgiveness or showing mercy - they might have thought differ - and many lives would be saved.

I doubt they are actually killing for a woman they don't care about in the first place. It is the consequences of doing nothing when your rights have violated is what they are killing for. Human beings naturally are very aggressive, pashtunwali does not advocate aggressiveness but it advocates resistance against violations of human rights. You have to remember that in pashtunwali, women are considered property, so whenever someone violates or takes away your property such as land or namus(women), your rights have been violated and pashtunwali obligates you to fight for your rights. In pashtun society, the most important property a pashtun has is his namus because a namus is needed to populate or carry on his genes. Tura(weapon) and Land are second and third most important things a pashtun has. One is needed to protect his Namus and the other is needed to feed his Namus. A bainamus is defined as a person without namus, basically a man who is unable to populate or pass on his genes. The purpose here is survival.

When society was calling Gull Bainamus, it was not just name calling but it was society shunning him. He was regarded as someone that is not very important because he did not fight for his rights, People were walking all over him, People were walking over his sons because they inherited the title of their father. Did Gull do the right thing of choosing forgiveness, Islamically, it was his choice. Did Gull's son do the right thing by killing Adil, in Islam he committed murder. Did Adils son do the right thing by killing Gull, in Islam he committed murder.

Let look at the society that these people live in. In the society, what Zahro and Adil did was unacceptable, they did not tolerate such action even though the party that was violated forgave the violators. Societies intolerance level for this action was strong even 20 years later, Gull may have forgiven the violators, but society did not. In my opinion, Zahro and Adil should not have done what they did in the first place. If they do it, then they should accept the consequences. If society accepts and tolerates their action, then that society accepts this action and will become the norm allowing the structure of that society to break down. Why is the pashtun society not allowing for the break down of its society's structure.

Pashtuns are well aware of how Farsiwan culture is and Panjabi culture is. They are aware of how the Russian culture and American culture works. It is not that pashtuns have not been exposed to other cultures, it is that pashtuns puts their own values above the others. You have to look deeper into why cultures evolve. The pashtuns society refuses to break down how it is structured because the way it is structured has served its basic goal which is survival. Once pashtunwali stops serving its basic purpose, then it will evolve, until then, you have to live with it.
If you look at neighboring people, Panjabi's have been moghulized and Angloized. Tajiks, uzbeks, Hazaras, have been Persianized, etc.

[ScimitarXEdge]

Brilliantly stated Khushal ....you demonstrate that you have much more of a sophistcated and nuanced understanding of social and cultural dynamics even between Pashtuns and other cultures than Srozro Alasha

[SroZaro Aslaha]

A bainamus is defined as a person without namus, basically a man who is unable to populate or pass on his genes. The purpose here is survival.

Khushal, like I initiated earlier, I understand why it operates that way. Pukhtoonwali is not something I’m opposed to. The foundation it was built upon is the reason it's still alive, you're right. In the case of the story you presented - my position is not in favour of the two who ran away - far from it. But it is neither with the society who condemned Gulls decision. Here's where the thinking point turns oblique. When a perpetrator is by tribal laws handed over to the offended for a decree - and the offended decides to forgive the culprits - the society should accept his decision and by common sense shun the perpetrators instead of Gull and his family. Forcing a man to commit murder of someone he already forgave is the real immorality here. Saying ''The culprits should never have done this and this'' won't help the cause - everyone knows what they did was wrong. But keep blaming them doesn't serve a better purpose. The issue here is HOW one should deal with cases like these when they occur (and they always occur - humans do make mistakes) as fairly as possible. This was not fair to Gull and his family - the society relies on wrong merits of achieving honour and pride. There will always be violators in a village - why should the victim pay for their crimes? Take a close look: the society basically gave this man literally two options - one was to commit murder [become a sinner by Islamic law] or be called a coward for the rest of his lineage. Where's the logic in that? That's what is wrong.

Pashtuns are well aware of how Farsiwan culture is and Panjabi culture is. They are aware of how the Russian culture and American culture works. It is not that pashtuns have not been exposed to other cultures [...] Panjabi's have been moghulized and Angloized. Tajiks, uzbeks, Hazaras, have been Persianized, etc.

Why are we comparing cultures? Did I insist there were better cultures out there and we should become like them? Please, stop comparing other cultures to Pukhtoonwali. I would never want those customs to change in the footsteps of those you mentioned. I’m not promoting any specific ideologies here nor am I against my own farhang. I don’t have an ideal culture which I deem better than my own, but that does not mean ours is flawless! It is not even close to perfect when more than 50+% of the population is considered as ‘’property’’ and are deliberately left illiterate, while the remaining 50-% are desperately trying to live up to our ancestral Pukhtoonwali, but fails in so many ways to do so. The Pukhtoonwali you see today is not the same as it was when my grandfather was alive. This all changed after the Mujahedeen fought off the Russians back in the late 80’s and started fighting among themselves – and it became worse after Taleban came to power. In earlier times the word ‘honour’ truly meant something. Today, it’s basically used as an excuse as there’s a wave of xenophobic disease dispersed causing people to act by impulse more than morale. The outcome of this is hurting our people more than our enemies. If it wasn’t for the two-faced Pakistan and American support of the fanatic Taleban, our own Pukhtoon farhang would not have been influenced by acute religious hype-talks which caused insecurity amongst the warlords. The founders of the Taleban organization are purposely using our customs as a weapon here – in a WRONG way. Adding to that - most Pukhtaneh are illiterate and only knows the ways of Islam, which benefits those blood-sucking leeches even more since we are the perfect guinea pigs to deliver THEIR selfish message. This is what I meant by education – not that we adapt to other foreign cultures like Punjabi or whatever!? The purpose of education is to have a broader perspective of things. Accepting foreign culture is impossible within our custom – I would rather die before I vouch for that. The day that happens, there wouldn’t be one sincere Pukhtoon alive. But you have to look at the whole picture here. Who can honestly say that Islam survives in a society such as ours? It can’t unless Pukhtoonwali doesn’t change on some of the negative aspects of its norms. Don’t get me wrong, although most people here on this forum would choose Islam over Pukhtoonwali – I wouldn’t – I am a Pukhtoon first, secondly I’m a Moslem. That will be my sin in this and next lifetime, but its how I feel. Trying to hide that love for my Pukhtoonwali wouldn’t exactly cease me a spot in Paradise anyway. But this does not mean that I don't think our customs are in need of a few changes in thinking; especially when it comes to women being viewed as a property. Quite honestly, the women issue is imperatively the set of view I’m hoping will change a bit. I don’t believe that one human belongs to someone else. All humans belong to God. And Adam was no God I was in Afghanistan in summer 2006, and I visited Kunar, where I’m from. Me and my cousins had been walking for quite some time looking for a nearby waterfall that I had heard a lot of – when we reached it I saw about 6 or maybe 7 women that were about to leave the place – they were herding sheep and filling vessels with water. I asked my cousin why the women were alone with no male figure as protection. And he explained that it was not necessary – 'the Taleban does not hurt women in these areas' he stated. The women I saw wore headscarf and no chadari. I was truly surprised and can’t put words on the joy I felt when I saw them. We waited for their departure and then rewarded ourselves with a nice cool shower. That is one of the things I’ll remember. How I loved that view. That is my Afghanistan. That’s how I want it – peaceful, respectful. Our best times in the 20th century were the times during King Zahir Shah, and I believe a man is sadly delusional if he says we can’t go back to that period of time.

Peace to you all Afghans out there

[ScimitarXEdge]

SroZaro Alasha, your premise and your conclusion are completely wrong; Wazir Akbar Khan had executed the women of Kabul, who were Non-Pashtun on account of their liasons with British Infantry. This is around 140 years prior to the Afghan/Soviet conflict.

I'm not sure of the age of your grandfather, but if your grandfather lived in the age of Zahir Shah, the Pakhtunwali he practiced is quite possibly itself altered or completely watered down from its original premises because during these times large amounts of Farangay copying influences flooded into Afghanistan and infiltrated the educational system. Of course it wasn't always blatant but it was definitely policy.

Regardless; it is actually a Islam which is a more temperate and moderate element and Pakhtunwali which implements much harsher more rigid policies of behavior; not the other way around as you seem to be implying.

I would definitely embrace Islamic Law more than Pakhtunwali, it is much more logical and has more practical application and has a deeper more holistic understanding. But with that said Pakhtunwali is much superior to Farangay ideologies popularly being propagated under the guise of progressive rhetoric by many sell-outs who posture themselves as Nationalists these days. Like I said, I don't say Pakhtunwali is ideal; but I understand it, I understand why they would take the lives of these two people for such an act. I also understand without Islamic Law moderating and regulating social behavior, then Pakhtunwalis harsher laws become necessary.

[ScimitarXEdge]

To use Sro Zaro's analogy ...Killing is easy ....and there's no honor in it unless one is on a frontline battle.

This is false ....killing the lewd, the immoral , the deviant is a frontline battle against corruption dwelling amidst us; and thus is a brave thing to do in the cause of our dignity. If one says otherwise then one does not know Pakhtun dignity.

the only detriment such a thing could cause to Pakhtuns is that it makes Pakhtuns less liked by Farangayan and slaves of Farangayan. If a person thinks what a culture of degenerates thinks of him, then he should forget being Pakhtun at all.

[ScimitarXEdge]

I believe Pukhtoonwali has values that many other cultures could learn from, but it also has some of the worst regulations that definitely needs a change. I'd hate it to become too loose like the west, but there are many things in our Pukhtoonwali that are not needed any longer because education can be a better solution. That is what we essentially lack - and the main reason for tragedies such as these.

---

I agree there are some things that need to change; but this isn't one of them, this is one of the GOOD virtues of Pakhtunwali. Changing Pakhtunwali customs on sexual morality and inter-gender interactions is a step in the wrong direction.

Swara/Badal and excessive walwar, spending extravagantly on weddings needs to change though.

[faye]

well, put your clothes back on, you filthy animal

[Michin Khel]

So this video was aired on Ariana Afghanistan two weeks back (I had lost my sleep for days after watching it) and some of the comments in defence of this disgusting 'punishment' coming from the callers absolutely shocked me! So I want to know from you guys, do two people, who love each other and are single deserve this kind of barbarity? And what disgust me the most is that these couple's parents themselves had informed the 'Taliban' about their children! 'Tuff' on such parents!

Afghan Couple Stoned To Death

This video has disturbed me....Who says that stoning to death for fornication is according to pashtunwali, i have never heard a single such type of case in my region in which adulterers are stoned to death.....their families shot them with guns when they are caught on the occasion...if the boy run away with girl safely and do court marraige then girl's family demands badal from boy's family i.e boys family has to give one of their girl to girl's family in marraige.....if badal does not happen then blood fued starts....Boy's family usually accepts the couple after some time but from girl's family there is constant threat that the couple can be killed any time....
In this video two unmarrried persons are stoned instead of lashed....which is totally wrong and cruel...as a muslim i accept this punishment for marrried adulterers but only when sharia is enforced in the whole state, even then i would not participate in stoning two humans.....

[ScimitarXEdge]

And why doesn't it make true? I am still not able to find one solid point to why you think forced marriages are more acceptable than adultery? Give me one justified clarification for forced marriages (taking Islam into account) as to why forced marriages are more acceptable than adultery?

Because You're committing what's called a Converse Error, in Logic here's some more detail on it.

Affirming the consequent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


If you want to take Islam into account, then this would be an easy rebuttal. There's no specified Penalty for forced marriages in Islam, there's a specific penalty for adultery and fornication. Hence that's why they would be more acceptable, in an Islamic Context as well.

In normal words, happiness (according to you) is just an illusion of mind? Then tell me, why was Mohammad Salalahu Alaihe Wasalam's marriage considered a 'happy' marriage? Why does Islam say when marrying your children off take into consideration their 'happiness'? Now is Islam promoting 'Farangi' illusions as well?

Happiness is somewhat abstract; in the Islamic sense True Happiness is a condition/state, not a sensation and that condition is based on how one is in accord with Higher Truths. The reason this is is because the sensation itself may or may not be based on Truth. It can be delusional. Thereby something else needs to be confirmed in order for the sensation itself to be legitimate. LIke a child may hate eating Brocolli and prefers Ice Cream everyday will make him "happy" but really it will ruin him, where as brocolli will nourish him. So the happiness of Islam is on a much deeper and higher scale; sometimes one must intervene in harsh ways for a higher good to be attained.


But there is no proof that they committed adultery either? That's the accusation they got upon them for fleeing their village? Now tell me, what is your stand now?

Even Russians killed Afghans for a purpose, even Americans are killing Afghans for a purpose, even Mujahideen were killing Afghans for a purpose, even the Taliban are killing Afghans for a purpose; Does that mean it's a valid one? Just because it's done out of a 'purpose'?

Well it's not merely the purpose; but the validity of the purpose; Maintaining Morality is a valid purpose.

Then why isn't the correct thing happening? And why are you still supporting this law; Pukhtunwali? You are very rapid in calling Western society immoral where it clashes with Islam, but at the same time shy away by calling Pukhtunwali immoral even though many of it's aspects clash with Islam? Why the double-standard? Or am I being 'white-washed' again?

There is no double standard; just a deeper and more nuanced understanding. There are different levels to Islam. Although some of these Pakhtunwali Laws may contradict the more detailed regulations of Islam, they actually serve the more Imperative Concepts of Islam regarding social order and moral behaviors. The Problem is without an Islamic State in place, those detailed Laws which help regulate society better cannot be put into practice because there's no central Khilafah to organize things like gender interactions. People have to do things all on their own. The Problem with Farangay society (if that's what you mean by "Western" ...I try to avoid terms like Western), is they throw it all out the window, at least Pakhtunwali keeps the essentials.

Parents right of what? Ruining their children's lives? Forcing them into a marriage?; An Islamic sin? Even they (the children) could argue that per Pukhtunwali they tarnished their families' honour but Islamic seen saved their parent's from committing a sin. How are you going to oppose that one?

maintaining moral order in society so that society can stay in balance.

And this is what I am asking you; Why? In Islam with capital letters it's said that adultery is a sin because it disturbs a society while forced marriage is a sin because a forced marriage is never considered valid in Islam to begin with. Islam has given full right to couples to get out of a forced marriage, so per Islam this couple hasn't even committed a sin; Because they wanted to prevent forced marriages.

BUt in Islam there are different categories of sins, in Islam adultery is a sin because it corrupts the reproductive cycle and purpose of sexuality. Forced marriages become a sin because they can be misused, so its like a secondary offense. Likewise someone's choice to say marry a Mushirk can be a sin too even if its not forced. In fact that would be something of greater concern than forced marriages.

Aha, forced marriages are necessary looking at a country's environment; That's why without any exception it's considered a sin? Mate, who do you think you are kidding? I will tell you why forced marriages are more appealing to you; Because it has been going on for centuries and maybe thousands of years, you are so used to the idea of forced marriage that it seems necessary to you. Same-wise, adultery has been going on in West for quiet a while now which is why people are so used to it, that's why it seems a necessary practise for them (those who practise it). And now per Islam; Both are a sin, both are punishable and both are considered immoral. A Islamic fact, deal with it.

"Mate" you're going bonkers, and I mean that in the nicest way possible. When you can't argue something you invent the other person's argument FOR THEM? That's not how it works.

Forced Marriages become necessary because they're used to keep selection of mating practices and ensure proper mating cycles are maintained. When there's no appropriate checks and balances in society this makes it necessary.

And there is no known penalty for forced marriages; maybe a slap on the wrist and a wagging of the finger, but that's all I can find from Islamic Sources, perhaps you can show otherwise?

Adultery has been going on in the West for awhile, but there's nothing that indicates its "necessary" for them. In fact the fact that most Abortions occur from adulterous or fornication relationships indicate that such things are detrimental to them. Thus cannot be necessary.

No no no, they didn't realize anything. They knew damn well they would kill them off in name of 'Zinah'. This couple had fled for a while already and they might even have got married (which most couples do when they flee) but they were never given a fair trial. You can twist and turn it all you want, per Islam, it's the 'punisher' who has committed a sin. Not those receiving it. And how can one 'violate' Pukhtunwali? Pukhtunwali itself is a violation!

Again this is a different point all together , you're conflating two different arguments into one; You're debating the harshness and cruelty of the punishment, not the misuse of authority. Actually even in Islam, those receiving it have incurred sin, since running away to get married is deemed sinful in Islam as well. What's different here is that Islam has a Due Process of how to mete out punishment, and in terms of the punisher that is in truth their only wrong, not using due process. This is why I'm not an advocate of Pakhtunwali, because it lacks a due process system as a mandatory feature where as Islam enshrines it.

Excuses, excuses and more excuses! Where there is a will there is a way, not excuses. You are here because you know you are better off here. It's not the so-called Western Imperialism which makes life difficult for Afghans in Afghanistan; It's our own thinking which pushes is back even before Islam.

Accusing someone of excuses is not a valid counter argument; you need to demonstrate precisely how its an excuse and why the claim is invalid. In fact , by not doing so your argument, becomes an excuse in itself.

And yes it is Farangay Imperialism which makes life difficult for Afghans, notice most of the major catastrophes that have fell upon Afghans have been a product of Farangay intrusions in Asia.

People weren't worried about whether adulterers were punished harshly before Farangayan were involved. Now I won't say that "proves" things, but it's a seriously uncanny coincidence wouldn't you say?

I am here for why I said, circumstances, this is an unnatural materialistic society, this is bad for all human beings even the Farangayan, but because it controls so much of our world its inescapable.

For a millionth time; Why? For a change, give an Islamic reason, why?

Islamic reason

forced marriage- no specific penalty

adultery- specific penalty.

I haven't been telling you fairy-tales all those while, I was talking forced marriage all this time! If you can discuss adultery then why not forced marriages? Because per Islam you can't find any justified reason for it?

Because that's why the punishment was meted out because these acts constitute various manifestations of adulterous relationships.

Sure in Islam I can find justififcations for it; like for example, if a person is intentionally avoiding marriage, they can be forced to offsway fitnah, or if the environment requires forced marriages to maintain equilibrium. this would make it halal.

Your talk about forced marriages however is irrelevant because that isnt tbe subject matter within the original post. That's why you can't go on a tangent, it shows your debate is all over the place.

A disorder is mainly associated with illness and a ill person needs to be treated, not stoned to death. And in Islam unmarried couples aren't getting 100 lashes over stoned to death for nothing; That's so the couple can learn from their actions, repent it and never repeat it again. As far as the married couple are concerned, they receive straight death because they always got an option to get out of their marriage if they aren't happy with their partners, which they obviously don't choose to do. You are talking as if those who are forced into marriages were a bunch of sexually frustrated creatures who were bound to commit Zinah, LOL.

There's many renderings of disorder; and yes this is an illness. There's different ways of treating it. Some ways may require treatment, but in light of treatment you have to put the ill down because they pose a greater threat. Therefore sometimes capital penalty is the best way to approach it.

Whether they were "bound to commit zinah" it appears they chose to engage in the wrong path regardless; and therefore show they're willing to embrace wrong. therefore

Per Islam, what is the legitimated basis of forced marriage? Be careful, I asked for Islamic view, not Pukhtunwali one. And about adultery, there are in fact people who justify adultery (including prostitution) as part of good health and in some countries even to prevent rapes. How about those people give these as a reason for adultery? How can you proof them wrong? How is their point of view of adultery illogical and yours of forced marriage logical?

And once again you ignoring this point per Islamic view; Again, adultery was just an excuse here. They had eloped, that's why they got punished. You think they were that stupid to come back to the village if they knew the villagers think (or knew) they committed adultery? Are we killing logics here or what?

And like I said if there is foul play here then that's another issue. That doesnt make the penalty itself invalid to apply in legitimate cases. However, elopments rarely if ever do not involve sexual activity; this is just an inevitable. I think people who do these acts are moronic for the act itself, so anything is possible; but perhaps they thought they'd get leeway or something.

At least you won't be stoned to death, be sure of that. Here in West you are allowed to propose your ideas, in Pukhtunwali that's not even an option.

And that's a problem, people engage in all sorts of indecency here and its protected by the Laws, sure indecency happens everywhere on some level, but it's not legally sanctioned.

I won't be stoned to death anywhere because I dont do things which could potentially illicit it.

Honestly if there was true morality in this society, most people would be decimated already.

If those who stone people for wrong assumptions to death can be protected per Pukhtunwali (like those in the video I posted), or those who created disasters for Muslims in the entire world can be protected per Pukhtunwali (Osama), if those who commit a sin per Islam by forcing their children into marriages can be protected per Pukhtunwali (parents), then why not prostitutes in West? It's you who calls the West immoral and Pukhtunwali the rule of morality, then why would you even think of comparing an Islamic country with a immoral one?

Let's be honest here; Osama didn't create the disaster, we've been in a disaster ever since the first Farangay navigated around Africa. Osama is symptom of the problem, not THE problem.

So your premises are false ones here. Pakhtunwali protects people who maintain the equilibrium of their society.

Why not prostitutes in the west? Because prostitutes are social vermin. If you feel otherwise

then dont wonder why you're deemed Farangified.

That wasn't my point. My point was that if these countries were so valueless and immoral, you wouldn't be here. You are here because, unlike in Pukhtunwali, you are free here to practice your believes, morals and values. And you enjoy it, you know you do. Then why don't you wish the same opportunities for your fellow Pukhtoons back home?

Thanks for telling me WHY I am here, even though I though I had clearly explained my reasonings before. Thanks for correcting me, since clearly you know my understanding of myself BETTER than I do.

From what I have observed, this seems to be an example of why your arguments are largely incorrect and lack logical consistency; is because you Assume your premises are AUTOMATICALLY TRUE, without any qualification as to how and why they are. You might be able to impress others with that, but it wont impress me since I have experience in these things.

But I wont make this a criticism of you ...but I will say ONCE AGAIN, so you get this through your head once and for all , that the reason I'm living in a Farangay culture is because of the compulsion of global circumstances, NOT because of any benefit their culture provides but because it was an inescapable result of global society being disjointed and disrupted. It's environmentally detrimental and that's precisely why I wouldn't want this for my brothers and sisters in ANY Muslim society, even though it's being exported as we speak. I do this so that others wont have to. In fact my ultimate goal is to liberate everyone from the clutches of such a morally degenerate culture so that we no longer required to immigrate here and we can protect our moral values from endangerment and return back to our natural way of life the way our ancestors had intended for us.

Bachabazi happens very open in many places. If you go to Afghanistan, some people will advice you not to go to a certain area as it's full of 'Bachabazan', why don't these respected elders carry a bunch of supporters with rocks to stone them to death? And then they dare to point fingers at two so-called adulterers against whom there aren't even witnesses?; Which is an Islamic requirement?

Well you just

Nothing in Islamic countries are really given a license, but they happen and not in too much of a secret either. Things like sex-change operations, facial surgeries and homosexuality happen in Iran very often but that doesn't mean these things became their culture; Same-wise not entire Holland practices prostitution, nor are they proud of it. Go to any village in Holland and ask them what they think about the 'Red Lights'.

Again there's a difference between something happening by a few deviants, and something having OFFICIAL SANCTION: when there is OFFICIAL SANCTION, as done through a government body this is done because it is a feature of their cultural surroundings. Sex change operations maybe the exception and facial surgeries maybe the exceptions here; but Iranians suffer from cultural confusion due to years of Shah being a slave of Farangayan. So yes maybe you have a fair point about Iran, but there's legitimate explanations which happened outside of their hereditary culture for what that is. This doesnt change the fact that Dutch are morally corrupt because of their INTERNAL society.

Mate, this is what Arabs are known for in many countries; Pakistan, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, India and in Pakistan especially a good example have been the orphaned Afghan refugee females who were destined an Arab husband for just one night. Now you figure out for yourself what that means. Besides this you will find Arab channels where men are in full covered Arabic clothing, while their women half-naked please them through belly-dancing. It happens on-air, very openly. See how in each country norms and values differ for each individual?

"Mate" you're talking about human trafficking, but this isn't apart of their culture since its criminalized to do this in Arab countries. If there are Arabs who do this its being done secretly and against the Law.

Arabs are also NOT all Muslim, the channels you speak about are mainly Lebanese who are 50% Christian, and furthermore often secular Governments who were placed into power by Farangayan like for example in Egypt ratify some of these things as well. So again these aren't examples of the society but of a imperial power corrupting the society's normal checks and balances. Much different than Holland where it is the natives themselves who promoted these behaviors.

[ScimitarXEdge]

This video has disturbed me....Who says that stoning to death for fornication is according to pashtunwali, i have never heard a single such type of case in my region in which adulterers are stoned to death.....their families shot them with guns when they are caught on the occasion...if the boy run away with girl safely and do court marraige then girl's family demands badal from boy's family i.e boys family has to give one of their girl to girl's family in marraige.....if badal does not happen then blood fued starts....Boy's family usually accepts the couple after some time but from girl's family there is constant threat that the couple can be killed any time....
In this video two unmarrried persons are stoned instead of lashed....which is totally wrong and cruel...as a muslim i accept this punishment for marrried adulterers but only when sharia is enforced in the whole state, even then i would not participate in stoning two humans.....

Thank you Aab for proving my point.


see that everyone???????? Please Sro Zaro, and Shayesta, as much as you want to find scapegoats, these are the standards of Pashtunwali .....deal with it.

[khushal]

Khushal, like I initiated earlier, I understand why it operates that way. Pukhtoonwali is not something I’m opposed to. The foundation it was built upon is the reason it's still alive, you're right. In the case of the story you presented - my position is not in favour of the two who ran away - far from it. But it is neither with the society who condemned Gulls decision. Here's where the thinking point turns oblique. When a perpetrator is by tribal laws handed over to the offended for a decree - and the offended decides to forgive the culprits - the society should accept his decision and by common sense shun the perpetrators instead of Gull and his family. Forcing a man to commit murder of someone he already forgave is the real immorality here.

I believe the society is unsatisfied with Gull's decision to forgive the violators which Islamicaly would be his right but I believe society is pushing Gull to punish the violators because the society believes it is only Gulls right to punish the violators and nobody elses. If anybody is going to punish the violators, it has to be Gull or his family because they are the ones that were violated. You have to remember that in pashtunwali, independence is everyones right and the right to punish is granted only to the ones that were violated. Again it is the tolerance level of the society for this action.

The real immorality is the act that Zahro and Adil committed because that set of a chain of unfortunate events. Yes I agree that people make mistakes, we are all human but you have forgotten that there are consequences to mistakes. If there were no consequences to mistakes made, we would be making them all the time.

The reason that no one jumps off the bridge is because they know the consequence, but the ones that do jump off, it is because they desire the consequence---suicide.

Pashtunwali has not changed at all. Watch this video.
YouTube - ‪frontline kill capture pt 3‬‏

Listen to 5:16 when the man speaks he is saying "that our friend has been martyred but nothing has changed, the fight has not ended, if we all die, our fight will not end, our children will ask what happened to my father, who killed my father and they will continue the fight and their children will continue after them until the end of time." Why is he so sure that his children will take up the fight, it is because he knows that he lives in a place where pashtunwali thrives and he knows that pashtunwali will obligate their children to correct the wrong that was done to their parents.

Throughout that whole frontline documentary I see classic pashtunwali speeches from the all fighters. They are talking as if they were talking during the Soviet occupation, the British occupation, and the invaders before them. All this rhetoric that this fight is imported from Arab land is a myth and created by invaders when in reality the fight that is happening in Arab land is actually exported from Pashtunland to Arab land.

[ScimitarXEdge]

Brilliantly said Khushal

if there were no consequences, then mistakes become no longer deemed mistakes. Men and women in America live together and they dont see their behavior as a mistake or even wrong, precisely because of this.