Stoning to Death

[ScimitarXEdge]

Khushal wrora, farangayan and slaves of farangayan are some of the most extravagant in their hypocrisies. They exploit and manipulate terminology like "civilized" and "uncivilized" to portray themselves as the more enlightened and to create a facade of legitimacy; when really it's the opposite. They're the most animal like civilization, every feature of their culture is motivated by impulse and instant gratification; they mask it under the guise of technology and science to make it seem as if their way of doing things is more refined.

[khushal]

Khushal wrora, farangayan and slaves of farangayan are some of the most extravagant in their hypocrisies. They exploit and manipulate terminology like "civilized" and "uncivilized" to portray themselves as the more enlightened and to create a facade of legitimacy; when really it's the opposite. They're the most animal like civilization, every feature of their culture is motivated by impulse and instant gratification; they mask it under the guise of technology and science to make it seem as if their way of doing things is more refined.

I don't know if there are any star trek fans out there but here is an episode of what we are talking about. If you are not convinced by the end of this classic episode that it is more civilized of what we see in the video at the beginning of this thread than it is to kill people from half the world away by pressing a button. If you are not convinced please let us know why.

enjoy.
Star Trek Star Trek: The Original Series - A Taste of Armageddon

Notice Spock at 7:10 saying "We find your planet highly advanced, properous in material sense, comfotable for your people and peacefull in the extreme sense"

[SroZaro Aslaha]

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.

Wow, the dense mind of some. What Aab is trying to say is that this action is not Islamic, neither is it Pukhtoonwali. In Islamic customs this would be lashing not stoning, and in Pukhtoonwali you'd shoot them not stone them... Are you even reading the posts or did someone shoot you with a tranquilizer?

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

''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. ''

Killing IS of course easy when you are encouraged by a society to do it. Anything is a lot easier if you have hundreds that not only support you, but will praise you for it later. In the case of GULL whom Khushal mentioned – it was not easy. It had nothing to do with the fact that he couldn’t kill– but he chose not to do it – and that sadly became HIS agony. This is something that needs to change. Pukhtoons have their honour sometimes held on wrong premises. It’s the same with certain other cultures that are doing the same mistake, like Japanese shoguns who commit hara-kiri – or in WWII where all Japanese soldiers were ordered to commit suicide since it was regarded as shameful to die by the hands of an enemy. I fully understand the fundamental principles of their actions; the purpose in all societies is to keep ones honour – but the ways to go about and keep that honour is nothing but illusionary. It’s a state of mind that’s what it is – and therefore even harder to change or challenge.What you don’t seem to understand is that this incident was neither Pukhtoonwali, nor was it done according to Islamic law. Which means this should not have happened! This was wrong! When I referred to my grandfather, I did not mean that infidels were never killed – I meant that ‘Pukhtoonwali’ was solid. That’s not how it is today. When Wazir Akbar Khan killed those women – he did not stone them. These guys pick bits and pieces of two different ideologies for a solution to benefit their own selfish gain [spreading fear of succumbing to western lifestyle] – and then they blame it either on Pukhtoonwali or Islam.

BUT, again, [referring to what I said earlier – humans, regardless of sex – do mistakes and will continue to do so as long as they exist- this is inevitable so the key is HOW to deal with immoral actions] there are always those that don’t abide by such rules absolutely– for instance [this happened during my grandfathers time about 100 years ago] there was a woman who was tied up to a tree in the backyard of a household and she was almost starved to death for about a week. When the tribal community heard rumors of this, they [my grandfather included] called in a loya jirga and decided to question the master of that household on the matter. His reason was that the woman [his third wife of 20’s something] was very jealous and kept talking too loud. He had countless times warned her, but she still wasn’t listening. This evidently hurt his pride. So to make an example out of her to his three other wives - he tied her up naked to a tree outside, and no one was to feed her. The chiefs decided unanimously that the offender leaves her and returns her back to her own family – because such humiliation of a woman was not acceptable. When the man came home, a couple of days later to release the woman – he found that she’d shot herself with a rifle. [No one had sent a messenger since he was a guest in another household and they were afraid the news might ruin the mood]. Apparently she’d asked a little boy of 3 or 4 to bring her one of the master’s rifles and put it between her legs as she was sitting – and she’d managed to pull the trigger with her toes and shoot herself. The tribal chiefs then decided that the man had to pay remorse to the girl’s family and present them with some sort of alimony. I’m not sure if he was punished further. I was referring to how different these kind of things were dealt with democratically back in the old days when I mentioned my grandfather. Today’s jirga decrees are mostly influenced with fear from ‘farangyan’ cultures so much that the judgings are more and more ruled impulsively rather than fairly. Especially in areas where the citizens have in the past years been exposed to foreign lifestyle that in some way or another infringes their way of thinking.

''If one says otherwise then one does not know Pakhtun dignity.''

Sheesh. What a load of nonsense. Indicating I don’t know it just because I believe that there are and should be other ways to punish the immoral? Nice.


''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.''

No that's not what I was implying. When have I stated that Pukhtoonwali is more moderate? When I said that I'd choose Pukhtoonwali first and Islam second is mainly because of ONE thing. Pukhtoon is something I AM. That won't ever change and by denying that I'd be denying who I am. Islam is something I CHOSE. If I were to cause some sort of ruckus in the society, and my penalty was death, I’d prefer death by the sword a thousand times more than a bunch of idiots throwing rocks at me. Especially if I, at my very last breath, still believed I was in the right. Culprits [even women] have their pride whether you like it or not. THIS is Pukhtoonwali. You pay with your life, and that’s it. Humiliation such as stoning is within Islam not in Pukhtoonwali. But I’m against death penalty in overall so obviously this would have been better if dealt with by Islamic law.There are things within Islam and there are things within Pukhtoonwali that I do not support 100%– this does not make me less of a Musulman nor Pukhtoon. And it’s not in the least consent for you to judge my position. You’re neither God, nor are you the founder of our norms so you can put that tin-foil cap back on.


If a person thinks what a culture of degenerates thinks of him, then he should forget being Pakhtun at all.

Hehe, ah, man you’re one hell of a piece of work aren’t you? You have no idea of who I am, what I’ve done and what I am capable of doing in the name of Pukhtoonwali. I can’t predict the future either so your assumption is irrelevant. My disagreements and opinions are based on basic knowledge, common sense and experience and you are in no position to scrutinize me as a ‘’fraud’’ or not a real Pukhtoon which you’re clearly trying to do here. You on the other hand are obviously either ignorant or a hypocrite. ‘’I don’t advocate Pukhtoonwali, I advocate Islam’’ and then standing by these actions that represent none of those. At least I admit what’s wrong with what I stand by. Your phobia for ‘farangyan’ culture is becoming more and more pathetic and not to mention seems like a desperate propaganda hype to ‘’warn the people’’ and keep them in a nutshell of ignorance. It’s happening all over the place – best example is the US government playing an ace-card of talking bull**** on ‘pride this and pride that’ to control their moron-of-a-citizens further in hope that they carry out the flops in a society without asking questions.

To put it short - This was wrong. End of story!

[ScimitarXEdge]

Sro Zaro Alasha what's clear to me from this debate is you have lost the tract of what you're evn arguing about.

Originally your problem was the use of capital punishment for their crimes; not the method of punishment.


If you're reading Aaab's remark; he confirms that punishing someone for these behaviors with capital punishment is in fact from Pakhtunwali. There's no special forgiveness for this behavior. It was done in accordance to their values.


Your logic doesn't hold, something is not wrong because you say its wrong, it has to be wrong for principles

and your argument is false on so many levels; if Killing because society sanctions it is easy, then so is killing in war to protect your country, which is something society sanctions. These examples demonstrate that you have really come into gross inner conflict regarding what you're to believe

What's apparent to me is that your cognitive dissonance stems largely from this Pressure and expectation of Quasi-Humanism regarding civil liberties that is pushed on you from your host culture and your roots strong adherence to heavy handed justice. My advice is forget what the farangayan says it wont help you much.

[faye]

No better example of women being passed around like a potato sack than what happens predominantly in Farangay society.

Or worse yet, that's more like being passed around like a rag where everyone wipes their "snot" in and then being duped and told "no honey ...that's being independent....you don't want to be cooped up and bound down by retaining your self respect"

IN reality, what we do is free people from all the artificial distractions and impulses that manipulate ones mind that's predominant in your harlot culture. In truth we're the true liberators.

who's we? you're an american aren't you?
murder to me is immoral. the worst thing one can do to another human being. you actually have the same mentality as mdresden, in your approval of murder as a way of getting rid of someone you disapprove of.
the 'snuff' video, to me is obscene. some people would actually enjoy it, so i have read. this type of thing and murder itself, for some, is an enjoyable activity.
give me a neighbourhood of adulterers than a neighbourhood of murderers.

[SroZaro Aslaha]

''I believe the society is unsatisfied with Gull's decision to forgive the violators. 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.''

You don’t need to explain to me [again] that the society was unsatisfied with Gulls decision and that’s why the tragedy came forth. That is obvious, and exactly what I’m trying to get across here. After those two morons committed a crime, the next culprit would be the society and not Gull... You said it yourself – they were ‘pushing’ Gull to punish the violators by doing committing a religious sin.

Firstly, they should never have handed the perpetrators over to Gull to decide their fate IF they never were going to abide by his choice anyway. Do you see where I’m going with this? The society’s actions are what we call double standards – hypocracy, two-facedness and fibs. Objectivity here is either put your mouth where your foot is or your foot where your mouth is. The case with Gull is not the only one – I know countless stories similar to Gull and Adil’s where people are literally confused between morality and responsibility. It’s really unfair to men that have to commit that sin in order to not get shunned himself.

''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.''

You keep repeating yourself here Khushal –Once again - I know that Zahro and Adil started this commotion. I haven’t forgotten nor have I said that these two should go free without any penalty. There's no question that these people should be punished. What I'm questioning is their denunciation on wrong non-accurate principles by the society, and especially the punishment of a death penalty, which I know derives from Pukhtoonwali. The guidelines on what one should do in cases like these are too blurry for a person who thinks for himself, but is suddenly all clear when the society thinks for him. Manipulation, persuasion and the use of pressure are instruments that evidently causes him to kill – thus causing a hill of wrong upon wrong incidents. And if he doesn’t do as the society wants - we still end up with’ wrong upon wrong’ actions. So who needs to change? Gull who's dead now or the society?

''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.''

A person who robs a bank doesn’t necessarily want to go to prison. He wants to become rich. A person who steals bread, doesn't necessarily wants his hands cut off, but he does it perhaps because of survival. Two people who try to run away aren’t exactly pursuing death – they’re pursuing something they’re not allowed to have according to society or family laws - so your explanation above doesn't hold much perceptive. Punish them for all I care – just don’t kill them or make innocent people either commit sin or pay for the offenders’ crimes. That basically triples the crime.

''Pashtunwali has not changed at all. Watch this video.''

Yes, the idea is still as it was before. Pukhtoons are however today much more influenced by what has happened in the past 30 years – and that influence comes from insecurity and fear which affects the verdicts of cases in social tribal courts. I did not mean that the idea itself has changed.

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.

Are you referring to what’s going on in Lebanon, Syria and those Arab countries today? That those fights are cumulating from the Talebans frontline battle against Americans in this video? Not sure what the purpose with this video was.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

@ScimitarXEdge

''Sro Zaro Alasha what's clear to me from this debate is you have lost the tract of what you're evn arguing about.''

Really? You claim that this incident was Pukhtoonwali. Wrong. Then you claim that if Afghanistan doesn't become an Islamic State - such strict regulations are required in order to withstand from western influence? I believe differ, and have pointed them out in previous posts. My arguments were several. Amongst them was that this punishment was not according to Pukhtoonwali as you claimed. Neither was it according to Islamic law since they should not have been killed. And yes I am against capital punishment, hence the whole analyzing of why Pukhtoonwali needs a change came to surface. Which is why I presented my ideas of educating the Pashtuns who abide by spilling blood in order to keep their honour. And if Afghanistan never becomes an Islamic State, I still would not vouch for the killing of someone because of infidelity. Put them in prison - good enough for me. Our aim should be to teach people a lesson so that the society evolves for the better not the worse. I hope you, at least now, understand which matters we disagree on. It seems you’re the one who lost the track – but it’s fine, I've come to understand why so I'll leave it at that.


''Originally your problem was the use of capital punishment for their crimes; not the method of punishment.''

Yes. Initially it was the execution that bothered me. But since many started blaming this entirely on Pukhtoonwali; that was where I paid attention to the method that was used to prove it wrong. The very purpose with stoning is to make an example and humiliate the culprits so no one else does the same in Islam. In Pukhtoonwali – you kill the person to save face. You don’t ‘hack’ them to death like you initiated Pukhtoons do either.


''If you're reading Aaab's remark; he confirms that punishing someone for these behaviors with capital punishment is in fact from Pakhtunwali. There's no special forgiveness for this behavior. It was done in accordance to their values.''

Seriously man. I don’t think you comprehend my comments accurately. I don’t know what it is, dyslexia or just the habit of skimming through reading you’re doing but it’s quite annoying. I explained to you that this incident was bits and pieces of BOTH Islamic customs and Pukhtoonwali – not one in particular. And I have stated that I support none of them, neither the stoning, nor the execution and considerably argued for my reasoning as well.

''Your logic doesn't not, hold something is not wrong because you say its wrong, it has to be wrong for principles

and your argument is false on so many levels; if Killing because society sanctions it is easy, then so is killing in war to protect your country, which is something society sanctions. These examples demonstrate that you have really come into gross inner conflict regarding what you're to believe''

What? You must be high on something. Of course society’s sanctions and forbidding play a huge role in what’s easy and what’s not – that’s why certain dogmas survive while others die in just a matter of days. And yes because society sanctions it, killing for your country is a lot easier than for instance killing someone for money or personal gain. How does these ‘examples’ demonstrate my inner conflict of what I believe in? What examples are you referring to anyway? I have no idea where you are going with this. I’m not a monk – I do believe in Jihad and yes I would kill for a greater cause, but I’m taking my doctorate in saving lives so obviously I don’t believe in killing for minor crimes. These two in this video should have been punished YES, but not by death, which is my personal opinion.

What's apparent to me is that your cognitive dissonance stems largely from this Pressure and expectation of Quasi-Humanism that is pushed on you from your host culture and your want to retain the authenticity of your roots. My advice is forget what the farangayan says it wont help you much.

Haha, I see we have a charlatan here who thinks he’s excellent at analyzing someone he doesn’t know squat about. Aissh, sad man, very sad. Like I said, put your tin-foil cap back on. Taking it off didn’t do much for you so save us the gibberish will you.

[JAMALUDEEN]

Stoning people to death has no benefits, but then again locking people in cells also has no benefits.

[ScimitarXEdge]

who's we? you're an american aren't you?
murder to me is immoral. the worst thing one can do to another human being. you actually have the same mentality as mdresden, in your approval of murder as a way of getting rid of someone you disapprove of.
the 'snuff' video, to me is obscene. some people would actually enjoy it, so i have read. this type of thing and murder itself, for some, is an enjoyable activity.
give me a neighbourhood of adulterers than a neighbourhood of murderers.

Only on paper my allegiance is elsewhere. And it's not murder, consider it social engineering. You're using the emotional blackmail tactic again and also hopping into a tangent. Of course only a farangay would measure things in terms of "getting off" ....right?

[Shayesta]

you commited what is known in Logic as Converse error, you assumed that if a Condition is True that means its Converse is also true.

It's not up to you to decide what's the correct way and what's not, that's up to a logic named 'Islam'.

Purpose of Forced marriage is to ensure lineal patterns and organization;

Why forced marriage if they can have arranged marriage? Why does it have to be forced in order to remain organized? Nonetheless, how can you prove Islam also allows in name of 'organized family structure'?

Whether they are or not; those are what the appropriate options are;

'Appropriate actions' are actions which do justice, not the barbarism which Pukhtunwali has done in this case. In such cases where children want to oppose forced marriages, Pukhtunwali has never helped out the ones asking for help. Rather, always the parents who forced them were the ones better off.

You don't rob a bank because Banks won't give you a loan. You don't commit adultery, just because your parents want to marry you to your cousin. That's destructive.

You don't force your children into a marriage to prevent adultery, you don't stone them to death without proving they committed Zinah. That's just destruction of Islam. And once again, adultery wasn't the case here.

If forced marriages are wrong in your opinion, then adultery is even more wrong; and two wrongs cannot make a right,

If adultery is wrong in your opinion then forced marriages are also wrong, two wrongs cannot make a right indeed.

the lives of these women are miserable because of their attitude. Change their attitude and they'll be happier.

See, this, what you are just showing, is called a disorder. What you describe as a human life is a dog's life which even women in your own family wouldn't want to lead. You have not even once blamed their husbands for not taking good care of their wives. You have not even once blamed their parents by marrying them off under-aged. You have not blamed the tribal elders and Mullahs even once for not finding a solution for her circumstances. But you very easily blamed 'attitude' of the women of being fed up of something everyone would be fed up of; Injustice. It's not them needing to change their attitude, it's you who needs to clean his entire mind.

The Islamic Legal Procedures are only strictly binding in an Islamic State; we have no Islamic State, thereby based on the needs of the society, certain things can be amended until ideal conditions i.e. an Islamic State are placed into order.

In that case, even adultery is perfectly justified in many societies; They don't have any Shariah Law pursued and therefore can have a 'back-up' law, which allows adultery. So in that case, Allah Subhan'a Wa Tallah'a understands why adultery takes place, because they are not following Shariah Laws.

Well you're against the institution of an Islamic State from what I can grasp; I was under the impression you're a secularist; thereby your argument isn't consistent with your own approach.

You yourself are stating that if a state isn't being ruled Islamic then any other primary law is accepted; Which in your case could be Pukhtunwali, in someone else's Western society. Now prove me who is how much against institutions of an Islamic state?

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.

'Have to be' per what? Pukhtunwali? If that's your ideal of protecting forced marriages and then why can't anyone else's ideal be Western laws of protection of adultery?; Both immoral according to Islam?

Which anthropologically speaking is consistent with the Natural Reproductive and Marriage Cycles of Humans. Only contemporary societies have altered this because they have created artificial interferrences with how peoples natural patterns of behavior arise.

And what is your input of those Mullahs, tribal elders, in-laws and parents who are of absolutely no use to women in need? Is it the 'society' which created 'artificial' inhumanity into them?

Separate issue.

No it's not, this is exactly the result of a forced marriage; What you consider a 'necessity'.

separate issue; and Islam never advocates adultery as a solution. So you're putting your foot in your mouth here.

Nor does Islam ever advocate forced marriages, you have had your foot in your mouth all this while I see.

They're stupid because of their solutions to things are stupid.

Okay, as the genius one, tell me what your solution would be? What would be the 'perfect' solution? I am curious.

You seem to be of the childish notion that if others do wrong, then it's ok to do it yourself.

No, you are the childish one here who can't explain what should be done in such cases and what the duty of elders is here, instead of criticizing women who after God knows how much retries in life have come to this decision.

They shouldn't but you're talking about domestic abuse, not forced marriage. two completely unanalous scenarios

For the 'I-am-not-listening' ones, this is the result of a forced marriage; Used and abused. There is nothing different in these issues. Just like how you say adultery destroys family structure, this is what forced marriages do.

In fact I'm sorry to say this but your debate as of now is Scattered and all over the place. You're Committing a RED HERRING Fallacy and this in no way supports your original debate.

Since you are more aware of my original debate with you then tell me, what was my original debate with you? Uhm, maybe that these two were single before they fled and they fled because they were forced into a marriage? Because this was my original debate? How is my current debate 'scattered away' from my original one?

You might be able to fool others by using these tactics; but I'm sorry this approach won't work on me. With me You need to make sure the logical basis for your arguments are consistent.

I am not here to please you or to fool you, I am just wondering why you are so soft in matters which are as sinful in Islam as compared to points which even Islam supports? For example, forced marriage is considered a sin in Islam which you are showing 'necessary' understanding for, while people are allowed to get out of forced marriages in Islam to which you haven't shown any support whatsoever. Instead, you call it a 'necessity' of the society.

Islam doesn't necessarily only require witnesses, forensic data can also be used to ratify a conviction.

Ehh, you seriously believe after they came back they were first pampered and at later point figured out they committed Zinah? Right......

BUt Your Original debate seemed that you're against penalty for adultererers, NOt the Situation.

My original debate was against the type of punishment the couple received in their case and since there was no proof of committing Zinah plus fleeing from a forced marriage, that shouldn't even have been punished. Period.

However, I still understand in the societal case that such behaviors have to be dealt with a heavy hand in Pashtunwali to ensure social equilibrium.

Even though it's against Islam? Then why shouldn't adultery be allowed, if forced marriages are? Don't give me society necessity nonsense, explain to me from an Islamic point of view? You yourself said a primary law can be as strict or as loose as possible, then why can't adultery be a part of it?

No that is just your Attempt at what's called Emotional Black Mail or Guilt Tripping.

I would only emotionally blackmail someone who has got emotion, not someone who thinks emotion is our illusion. Be worry-free regarding that.

You're mixing up different cases , conditions and scenarios and arguing them as if they were one or that one validates the other; in the world of Logic it doesn't work that way.

I am not mixing up anything, I am telling you the outcome of forced marriages; Just like how you keep arguing against adultery.

Because forced marriages involve marriage and thus have a structural familial connection, adultery is absent of this. That's by definition of adultery. That definition can't apply with forced marriages.

And since Pukhtoons most possibly will do a Nikah, a Nikah isn't considered valid if either of the partner is against his/her marriage. In other words, the couple remain unmarried per Islam and yet having intercourse very soundly lead to adultery; There you go, an 'indirect' adultery.

No, True Happiness is derived by our relationship with nature because that is how we evolved. That mechanism and sensibility has been distorted due to whatever conditions hence the Sensation because deviated from it's function.

Nonetheless, it exists and even our Prophets have lived under this feeling. And who will decide who is 'truly' happy and who is happy 'out of illusion'?

No; but it that also doesn't mean adultery is valid either. The purpose for forced marriages is valid though under the faculties of life itself.

Exactly, just like how killings aren't justified doesn't mean adultery is justified. And just like how adultery isn't justified doesn't mean forced marriages are justified. No if's, no but's.

I don't support Pashtunwali I UNDERSTAND it and Understand why it's valid in this case.

I also don't support adultery either but I understand why it takes place in Western society; No Shariah Law which can guide them. Either way, just like how I don't see any validity in adultery (nor does Islam), same-wise I don't see it in forced marriages either (nor does Islam).

Parents right of maintaining the equilibrium of their environment. All your other contentions I already explained. This is what exists by necessity of the conditions in their lives.

Maintaining a pleasant society by forced marriages? They can solve it by arranged marriages, why force it? And like I said, even Western scholars (so-called) 'proved' that intercourse is good for your health and therefore 'necessary' to practise it in so many while. And you got other people (like in India) who consider adultery 'necessary' to decrease rape cases in their areas. Now tell me, just because these people consider adultery 'necessary' for whatever reason, does it take away the 'immoral' tag from adultery?

But forced marriage becomes a sin only when there are appropriate checks and balances where it's no longer NECESSARY, key word here. Necessary.

Why and when would it be necessary? You can explain it from a Pukhtunwali point of view if you want, but don't forget to explain it from an Islamic perspective as well.

Actually there are exceptions "Mate"; lack of Islamic State is a valid exception.

Lack of Islamic State is also the reason why people in West don't understand why adultery is considered a sin, does it make adultery any less immoral?

There's no specified Penalty for forced marriages in Islam, there's a specific penalty for adultery and fornication.

There is no specific penalty for eloping either and if they get married while getting away from their homes, their marriage is considered valid in Islam. And this method is way more acceptable in Islam since it doesn't contain killing of an innocent.

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.

Yes, Islamic seen I understand why happiness is defined in different words, that's why in many matters Islam does take into consideration happiness of an individual. However, this is not the case in Pukhtunwali while 'happiness' is hardly taken into consideration.

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

That's what the Mujahideen thought they were doing; Maintaining morality in Afghanistan and the same was the reason of Taliban. Now how and who will decide what's 'morality' in true meanings?

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

Uhm, they could have done that in a place where their children had their consent? You can't maintain balance by force, even Islam doesn't preach this.

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.

Marrying a 'Mushrik' also contains marriage, why is it a concern if a Muslim and a 'Mushrik' have intercourse? Because in Islam, the Nikah isn't considered valid as the non-Muslim hasn't converted to Islam, thus their 'marriage' is solely considered adultery. Not marriage. Same-wise, forced marriage also contains marriage but the Nikah isn't considered valid and when a couple has intercourse without Nikah, it's called adultery.

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.

No matter how necessary it comes, the Nikah isn't considered valid. Just like how necessary adultery might become in West, it isn't considered moral. Islam shouldn't adjust to a society's demands, a society should live Islamic demands.

And there is no known penalty for forced marriages;

Nor for eloping, so I don't understand why punishing the eloper is considered justified?

Adultery has been going on in the West for awhile, but there's nothing that indicates its "necessary" for them.

As I said, these people believe their psychologists, therapists and etcetera blindly who advice them that intercourse is good for their health and they thus should practice it as much as they can. They want to maintain their health, you want to maintain 'your' society; A 'necessity' for both of you.

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.

Uhm, they got pregnancy-conceptions to prevent that......?

Again this is a different point all together , you're conflating two different arguments into one;

No I am not, this is exactly what's a part of this entire discussion. Has been all the way.

You're debating the harshness and cruelty of the punishment, not the misuse of authority.

Just like you are debating the so-called 'misuse' of the authority, not the harshness of the punishment.

Actually even in Islam, those receiving it have incurred sin, since running away to get married is deemed sinful in Islam as well.

Tell me, what specific punishment does Islam have in store for them running away? Because as far as I know, those who get married after eloping, their marriage is considered valid in 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.

Because you consider this place immoral and Afghanistan more moral, you consider the Pukhtunwali way of life more pleasant than Western way of life. In that case, what's stopping you from following a more suitable society? What else, if not excuses?

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.

Even more destructive have been our own stupidity and disunity. One part of us wants to lead a modern life, the other wants to lead a tribal life. The 'Farangian' didn't force us to fight for a modern country, nor did they force us to fight for a tribal country. We have brought this upon ourselves.

People weren't worried about whether adulterers were punished harshly before Farangayan were involved.

Which people? Afghans in Afghanistan or Afghans in West?

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.

And what about the reason for why someone intentionally avoids a marriage? Under what circumstances is a individual allowed to avoid a marriage and under which they aren't?

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.

Go and read back my previous comments (especially those pointed at you), then come and tell me how irrelevant my recent comments have become.

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.

And therefore stoning to death was the right punishment? Then even their parents chose to engage in the wrong path, showing they are willing to embrace the wrong way. Therefore, even they should have been stoned to death; Since there is no Islamic punishment for either.

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;

Elopements nearly always involve secret marriage, which is considered valid in Islam and obviously will involve intercourse. I think their parents who were bound to force them into a invalid marriage (forced) were moronic for their act itself.

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.

Nonetheless, pretty much everyone is protected in these countries. The active adultery here might be the biggest disturbance in these countries, I nonetheless find most of it's rules and protection highly assuring. Unlike some of the 'society necessity' others follow, here you at least have a choice not to.

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.

A symptom which caused thousands and thousands of Muslim deaths. If a symptom has been this problematic then I wonder what it would have done if it was the actual problem? Indeed, let's be honest.

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

Like Osama?

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.

If these circumstances are being 'exported' everywhere already then why should it make any difference to you where you live and where else the same issues are being practiced?

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.

Uhh, are you trying to say that you here so that you can help someone else not to come here? Please, help me out here because I am having a very, very funny thought at the moment......

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.

And just because something is not being officially protected, it doesn't mean it is being practised by 'just a few'. The number of those 'just a few' who practice anything ill which isn't being protected by their government can be much higher than number of prostitutes protected here in West.

"Mate" you're talking about human trafficking, but this isn't apart of their culture since its criminalized to do this in Arab countries.

I am not talking about human-trafficking, I am talking about literally one night only marriage the Arabs had with Afghan refugees in Pekhawer. Those were happening in large scales in Pekhawer only, forget about other countries where this is as much of a practice.

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.

I am not talking about just 'a few' channels, nor can you prove they are all Christians. Nonetheless even Christianity itself doesn't support nudity as such, that's just what some countries have made out of it.

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.

Just like how small you claim the numbers of those above are, equally small are the numbers of prostitutes and those who encourage them in Holland.

[Shayesta]

I will get back to rest of the replies next time.

[khushal]

You don’t need to explain to me [again] that the society was unsatisfied with Gulls decision and that’s why the tragedy came forth. That is obvious, and exactly what I’m trying to get across here. After those two morons committed a crime, the next culprit would be the society and not Gull... You said it yourself – they were ‘pushing’ Gull to punish the violators by doing committing a religious sin.

Firstly, they should never have handed the perpetrators over to Gull to decide their fate IF they never were going to abide by his choice anyway. Do you see where I’m going with this? The society’s actions are what we call double standards – hypocracy, two-facedness and fibs. Objectivity here is either put your mouth where your foot is or your foot where your mouth is. The case with Gull is not the only one – I know countless stories similar to Gull and Adil’s where people are literally confused between morality and responsibility. It’s really unfair to men that have to commit that sin in order to not get shunned himself. You keep repeating yourself here Khushal –Once again - I know that Zahro and Adil started this commotion. I haven’t forgotten nor have I said that these two should go free without any penalty. There's no question that these people should be punished. What I'm questioning is their denunciation on wrong non-accurate principles by the society, and especially the punishment of a death penalty, which I know derives from Pukhtoonwali. The guidelines on what one should do in cases like these are too blurry for a person who thinks for himself, but is suddenly all clear when the society thinks for him. Manipulation, persuasion and the use of pressure are instruments that evidently causes him to kill – thus causing a hill of wrong upon wrong incidents. And if he doesn’t do as the society wants - we still end up with’ wrong upon wrong’ actions. So who needs to change? Gull who's dead now or the society?

I dont think you really understand how society works. Society is handing the violators(adil and zahro) to the victim(Gull) to punish them. When Gull does not punish them, they are putting pressure on Gull to do so. Your problem is that why didnt society do what you thought was right or what Gull thought was right. Society will decide what they as a whole think is right at the time not what an individual thinks is right.

Even In western society if John Doe commits a crime against Jane Doe. There are two actions that can be taken. One is the State(society) brings charges against John Doe with criminal counts whether Jane Doe forgives John Doe or not. The other action is Jane Doe has the option to bring Civil Suit Against John Doe for damages. Again the State(society) will bring charges against John Doe whether the victim likes or not. If you commit a crime in any society on this planet, that society will punish you whether you think it is right or wrong, your opinion does not count, societies as a whole opinion counts.

Yes, the idea is still as it was before. Pukhtoons are however today much more influenced by what has happened in the past 30 years – and that influence comes from insecurity and fear which affects the verdicts of cases in social tribal courts. I did not mean that the idea itself has changed.

Here you are redefining what you said earlier,
This is what you said about pashtunwali as not being the same and that it has all changed:

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

The purpose of the video is to tell you that pashtunwali has not changed at all. Watch the whole documentary and listen to what the fighters are saying, All their speeches are classic Pashtunwali speeches just like if they were being made during the time of your grandfather and before that. Listen to what Mathew Hoh says in the documentary at 7:58, he is talking about Pashtunwali.
I think you have a different memory of your grandfathers time because that was a time of peace. You are not alone in being fond of those times. I believe you fully don't understand pashtunwali or Islam because you choose pashtunwali over Islam. Pashtunwali is very strict and harsh where Islam is very tolerate and peaceful. No sane person can choose pashtunwali over Islam.

[khushal]

who's we? you're an american aren't you?
murder to me is immoral. the worst thing one can do to another human being. you actually have the same mentality as mdresden, in your approval of murder as a way of getting rid of someone you disapprove of.
the 'snuff' video, to me is obscene. some people would actually enjoy it, so i have read. this type of thing and murder itself, for some, is an enjoyable activity.
give me a neighbourhood of adulterers than a neighbourhood of murderers.

Well, then you have to move because you are living with murderers that sanction murder by dropping bombs on poor innocent villagers.

[ScimitarXEdge]

Wow, the dense mind of some. What Aab is trying to say is that this action is not Islamic, neither is it Pukhtoonwali. In Islamic customs this would be lashing not stoning, and in Pukhtoonwali you'd shoot them not stone them... Are you even reading the posts or did someone shoot you with a tranquilizer?

On the contrary, I was shot full of the ability to see false and emotionally based appeals. Like the ones you have been peddling.

You may not think others notice; but you have been consistently changing goal posts.

Killing IS of course easy when you are encouraged by a society to do it. Anything is a lot easier if you have hundreds that not only support you, but will praise you for it later.

Sure we can hypothetically claim that something becomes easy based on social or moral support. But so what? The Merit of something is not defined by easy or difficulty, we're not here to demonstrate a skill set. We're here to maintain a type of social order and principles. Which in this case this is accomplished.

In that sense the greater coward is one who struggles hard for the wrong reasons than one who easily accomplishes what he must for the right reasons.

In the case of GULL whom Khushal mentioned – it was not easy. It had nothing to do with the fact that he couldn’t kill– but he chose not to do it – and that sadly became HIS agony. This is something that needs to change.

I would disagree; this man failed to appropriate the socially relevant balances of. Just because he agonized over it, doesn't impact really change anything, these are just scapegoats people use to justify failure.

Pukhtoons have their [/SIZE]

honour[SIZE=3] sometimes held on wrong premises. It’s the same with certain other cultures that are doing the same mistake, like Japanese shoguns who commit hara-kiri – or in WWII where all Japanese soldiers were ordered to commit suicide since it was regarded as shameful to die by the hands of an enemy.

You're blinded by the apparent and completely oblivious to the essence or underpinning. Honor is the apparency, the essence is what honor implicates. It implicates a standard of virtues, virtues which themselves correspond to proper modes of behavior and action. Honor is not merely a reputation, it's a condition, the word itself is merely representative of the reality it alludes to.

I fully understand the fundamental principles of their actions

Based on your rhetoric and how many times you have made errorneous assessments of things AS WELL as switching the goal posts of your debate.

What you don’t seem to understand is that this incident was neither Pukhtoonwali, nor was it done according to Islamic law

Yeah because you say so ....and based on purely Anecdotal evidences I might add, which in my opinion could quite possibly be a product of creative writing than an actual event. My Wazir Akbar Khan reference was to give historically documented event in Pakhtun history regarding with how the dealt with behaviors of this nature.

Which means this should not have happened! This was wrong!

You haven't really given a solid reasoning for why it should not have happened

other than implicating or appealing to Contemporary Humanism; which in itself is so flawed that such an argument loses it's strength.

When I referred to my grandfather, I did not mean that infidels were never killed – I meant that ‘Pukhtoonwali’ was solid.

What did infidels have to do with this arm of the discussion? My reference to Wazir Akbar Khan was to demonstrate that your original attempt at portraying Capital Punishment in these matters as somehow alien to Pashtunwali and that the harshness of certain rules or procedures was somehow the result of some Extremist Influence from Arab Wahhabis ( a very common and popularized tactic in these times in popular Western media, (ironic considering what you're saying about how easy it is when something has popular backing) is fallacious. And I'm not even coming to the defense of Wahabism, since I myself am from a sect usually persecuted by Wahhabis, but intellectual dishonesty is a bad way to prove a point.

That’s not how it is today. When Wazir Akbar Khan killed those women – he did not stone them.

This is precisely what I was referring to when I said you change goal posts; you sir are drawing lines in the sand. So what if he didn't stone them? The point isn't whether they used stoning or dropped bricks on their head. They used capital punishment; which was your ORIGINAL argument. Changing it to a discourse about method of penalty is a demonstration of exactly how your argument has scattered and dwindled significantly. If its the method of capital punishment you're more concerned about, then you shouldn't be in this much of a uproar.

These guys pick bits and pieces of two different ideologies for a solution to benefit their own selfish gain [spreading fear of succumbing to western lifestyle] – and then they blame it either on Pukhtoonwali or Islam.

I fail to see how trying to repelling influences from a degenerate culture is a "selfish gain" but what I denote are hints of the Typical Emotional Blackmail Tactics that you'll use again later. Let me guess their alleged "selfish gain" is to keep people ignorant by retaining their traditional values instead of adopting the more advanced, progressive enlightened farangay ones? How close am I?

There's nothing selfish in what they're doing, they're not doing it for their own individual benefit; their choices are based on societal principles, environmental principles, ecological principles.

BUT, again, [referring to what I said earlier – humans, regardless of sex – do mistakes and will continue to do so as long as they exist- this is inevitable so the key is HOW to deal with immoral actions]

there's mistakes and then there's immorality; mistakes are unintentional, immorality is simply corruption.

Today’s jirga decrees are mostly influenced with fear from ‘farangyan’ cultures so much that the judgings are more and more ruled impulsively rather than fairly. Especially in areas where the citizens have in the past years been exposed to foreign lifestyle that in some way or another infringes their way of thinking.

Hehe I dont think that's the case. perhaps I MENTIONED Farangyan, not out of a fear of their culture, but because the pathology that influences your ideological paradigm for what makes this method abhorrent, is definitely molded by that sort of paradigm. This isnt a fear of farangyan, but cultural degeneracies in general; of which farangyan present one possible version.

Sheesh. What a load of nonsense. Indicating I don’t know it just because I believe that there are and should be other ways to punish the immoral? Nice.

Clearly I struck a nerve there; but you can't really blame me when you peddle a paradigm of someone who seems so disconnected from their hereditary culture and acculturated to their new one; and in this case yeah sure it is a farangay one.

No that's not what I was implying. When have I stated that Pukhtoonwali is more moderate? When I said that I'd choose Pukhtoonwali first and Islam second is mainly because of ONE thing. Pukhtoon is something I AM. That won't ever change and by denying that I'd be denying who I am. Islam is something I CHOSE. If I were to cause some sort of ruckus in the society,

well if you really want to get technical there's no concrete evidence of "Pakhtuns" before the 9th century. So hypothetically being Pakhtun can change too. How many people of Pakhtun ancestry are in South Asia , heck even Punjab for that matter, and are forever lost to their ancestry.

nd my penalty was death, I’d prefer death by the sword a thousand times more than a bunch of idiots throwing rocks at me.

Which is nothing but a subjective emotional appeal really. personally It wouldn't have matter which way they did it. My point was to demonstrate that this is something interwoven in Pakhtun values, I succeeded. What you seem to be doing is backpeddling when your original argument fliounder

specially if I, at my very last breath, still believed I was in the right.

No one gives a flying flea what you believe is right, we care about what YOU KNOW is right; and so far it seems you don't have much knowledge, but just a lot of emotional.....acculturated (probably from a farangay source) ideals.

Culprits [even women] have their pride whether you like it or not. THIS is Pukhtoonwali. You pay with your life, and that’s it. Humiliation such as stoning is within Islam not in Pukhtoonwali.

Again this whole "humiliation" jargon are lines drawn in the sand. Since you say your grandfather mentioned something that occurred over 100 years ago. I imagine you to be someone who's somewhat advanced in age yourself. Perhaps in your 50's?

I'm probably 20 or so years younger than you. Even being significantly younger I have learned the distinction between Dignity and False Pride. sure many people have pride; but often its false, misguided or delusional. These people who engage in these acts forsook their pride when they indulged in their choices; the impulse of feeling "humiliated" as they say is not out of their sense of dignity but hubris, they got caught. If dignity was their concern they'd have never made these reprehensible choices to begin with.

So sword, stone..lead anvil...the humiliation they experience is not in the penalty, but their hubris. They'd feel it regardless for their false pride.

But I’m against death penalty in overall so obviously this would have been better if dealt with by Islamic law.

There are things within Islam and there are things within Pukhtoonwali that I do not support 100%– this does not make me less of a Musulman nor Pukhtoon.

It's not your lack of support, but your motives.
that definitely makes you less of both. And in all irony you speak of how people are using Islam or Pakhtunwali for selfish motives; looks like you turncoat fast when it comes to yourself.

And it’s not in the least consent for you to judge my position. You’re neither God, nor are you the founder of our norms so you can put that tin-foil cap back on.

I don't have to be really; I'm not even sure God exists to be honest; I mean, I am intellectually convinced that there is a God, but that isn't absolute on account of the vastness of such a concept. I'm however very much in admiration of Islam and Pakhtunwali, their mathematical logic in how it governs over society appeals to me intensely there's more merit in them than any other ideological system I have ever encountered. So I give it my endorsement on that grounds.

My point being you don't need to be God or the founder of these norms to assess the consistencies or inconsistencies of something.

I could be a total Atheist saying all this stuff, and it would still apply.

By the way this "tin foil hat" mnemonic you keep playing upon; is being used incorrectly; you might want to examine its correct usage before you sound like a bigger dimwit than you already have.

Hehe, ah, man you’re one hell of a piece of work aren’t you? You have no idea of who I am, what I’ve done and what I am capable of doing in the name of Pukhtoonwali.

I couldn't give two specks of dust who you are; I care about the absurdities you peddle not your inflated self aggrandized claims or your unconformable anecdotal references.

I don't even so much care about Pakhtunwali in itself; I care about Truth, which from what I can surmise, you lack.

But this is why I say I'm not advocating Pakhtunwali, it's not Pakhtunwali I'm defending here, but those parts which are truthful about Pakhtunwali especially in contrast to what I can observe is fallacious farangay conditioning.

I can’t predict the future either so your assumption is irrelevant. My disagreements and opinions are based on basic knowledge, common sense and experience

Yet you never once qualified any of those into your discourses? Where as others have given attempts at demonstrating sociological and anthropological basis for their support of the practice.

I'll wait patiently for you to apply basic knowledge, common sense and experience here; dont take too long ok?

and you are in no position to scrutinize me as a ‘’fraud’’ or not a real Pukhtoon which you’re clearly trying to do here.

again clearly I struck a nerve.

You on the other hand are obviously either ignorant or a hypocrite. ‘’I don’t advocate Pukhtoonwali, I advocate Islam’’ and then standing by these actions that represent none of those.

Only in your limited and shallow understanding. I am not a traditional Sunni or Shi'a Muslim; I follow things from a more analytical pattern, we are known as the Mu'ataziliyeen. Hence from what I understand there are certain conventions of Islam which could ratify these processes, hence why I advocated Khilafah, so that the normative Islamic practices can be implemented instead of these emergency ones. Your basis for saying they don't represent Pakhtunwali is by some anecdotal stories which I might add once again, conflict recorded historical events regarding situations of a similar nature.

At least I admit what’s wrong with what I stand by.

Yes but you seem to be unable to admit the basis for why you see it as wrong is flawed. Which is what this debate really has escalated into.

Your phobia for ‘farangyan’ culture is becoming more and more pathetic and not to mention seems like a desperate propaganda hype to ‘’warn the people’’ and keep them in a nutshell of ignorance.

and now finally we get to this point; Extremely ironic to say the least. You're using the scare tactic you accuse me of really; This is how yours works

"you're trying to peddle desperate propaganda to "warn the people" that they're being kept in the nutshell of ignorance to hide phobia of resisting farangyan culture which you have been duped into believing is more "advanced and progressive"

how's that?

It’s happening all over the place – best example is the US government playing an ace-card of talking bull**** on ‘pride this and pride that’ to control their moron-of-a-citizens further in hope that they carry out the flops in a society without asking questions.

Yeah because Imperial conquest to trespass on native societies and their value system is exactly on the same level as resistance right? You're totally on point there

To put it short -

This was wrong. End of story!

If you say so pal, ...what were you saying about tin foil hats again? lol[/FONT]

[ScimitarXEdge]

It's not up to you to decide what's the correct way and what's not, that's up to a logic named 'Islam'.

It's up to Logic and Logic is what confirms whether Islam is valid or not.

Why forced marriage if they can have arranged marriage? Why does it have to be forced in order to remain organized? Nonetheless, how can you prove Islam also allows in name of 'organized family structure'?

It doesnt ALWAYS have to be forced to remain organized; but in some cases it does. I guess for Pashtuns since they dont have other societal checks in balances, it often is.

'Appropriate actions' are actions which do justice, not the barbarism which Pukhtunwali has done in this case. In such cases where children want to oppose forced marriages, Pukhtunwali has never helped out the ones asking for help. Rather, always the parents who forced them were the ones better off.

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

You don't force your children into a marriage to prevent adultery, you don't stone them to death without proving they committed Zinah. That's just destruction of Islam. And once again, adultery wasn't the case here.

Any marriage would in principle be a safe guard against adultery, that's just how it works by definition.

Islam can't be destroyed, Islam is so dynamic it can find credible reasons for this too.

If adultery is wrong in your opinion then forced marriages are also wrong, two wrongs cannot make a right indeed.

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

And in many contexts forced marriages are valid, in no contexts is adultery valid.

Hence there's only one wrong in this circumstance.

See, this, what you are just showing, is called a disorder. What you describe as a human life is a dog's life which even women in your own family wouldn't want to lead. You have not even once blamed their husbands for not taking good care of their wives. You have not even once blamed their parents by marrying them off under-aged. You have not blamed the tribal elders and Mullahs even once for not finding a solution for her circumstances. But you very easily blamed 'attitude' of the women of being fed up of something everyone would be fed up of; Injustice. It's not them needing to change their attitude, it's you who needs to clean his entire mind.

Dogs dont penalize other dogs for their sexual behavior. So again what you're doing is a Classic Example of Theatrical Ploys and Emotional Blackmail. 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; thank God.

I haven't blamed their husbands because their husbands werent the ones who lit the match. They chose to light their match. There are many abused people who don't try to burn themselves alive or commit adultery.

In that case, even adultery is perfectly justified in many societies; They don't have any Shariah Law pursued and therefore can have a 'back-up' law, which allows adultery. So in that case, Allah Subhan'a Wa Tallah'a understands why adultery takes place, because they are not following Shariah Laws.

No it's not "justified" its "accepted" in many societies but different than justified; but these societies are also contradicting their Fitrah (natural state), mainly Farangay ones.

If by understand you mean accept; this is false because it goes against the Primal Shari'ah which is the Natural Order; You should read what I write more carefully; there's Levels of Shari'ah, the Primal Shari'ah which relates to basic standards ...which apply to all humans regardless, of who or what or where they are. Then the specific details which pertain to Islamic Khilafah.

You keep making the "Converse" Error Shayestah, repeating the converse error won't make the converse error more applicable

You yourself are stating that if a state isn't being ruled Islamic then any other primary law is accepted; Which in your case could be Pukhtunwali, in someone else's Western society. Now prove me who is how much against institutions of an Islamic state?

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, who knows?

There's different levels of Shari'ah

1.) Primal Shari'ah, or Fitrah (natural state) ; these pertain to things which are fundamentally apart of human existence.

This is the level of Shari'ah where without an Islamic Legal system, any other system even if its a harsher one can be applied.

2.) Formal Shari'ah; this is the Islamic Canon which depends on an Islamic State and Islamic Order. The formal Shari'ah fulfils all the requirements in maintaining the Primal Shari'ah/Fitrah but goes into more details and takes certain measures to ensure fullly defined social structure to safe guard everything.

This in no ways means that people who contradict the primal Shari'ah can do so without any repercussions. LOL

'Have to be' per what? Pukhtunwali? If that's your ideal of protecting forced marriages and then why can't anyone else's ideal be Western laws of protection of adultery?; Both immoral according to Islam?

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

You need to stop recycling the same arguments by the way.

And what is your input of those Mullahs, tribal elders, in-laws and parents who are of absolutely no use to women in need? Is it the 'society' which created 'artificial' inhumanity into them?

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

try rephrasing.

No it's not, this is exactly the result of a forced marriage; What you consider a 'necessity'.

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.

Nor does Islam ever advocate forced marriages, you have had your foot in your mouth all this while I see.

If you only knew; 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? This is a hypothetical question. 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.

Okay, as the genius one, tell me what your solution would be? What would be the 'perfect' solution? I am curious.

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

No, you are the childish one here who can't explain what should be done in such cases and what the duty of elders is here, instead of criticizing women who after God knows how much retries in life have come to this decision.

But I'm not arguing based on my emotions here, you are. You bounce too much between subjects.

For the 'I-am-not-listening' ones, this is the result of a forced marriage; Used and abused. There is nothing different in these issues. Just like how you say adultery destroys family structure, this is what forced marriages do.

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.

Since you are more aware of my original debate with you then tell me, what was my original debate with you? Uhm, maybe that these two were single before they fled and they fled because they were forced into a marriage? Because this was my original debate? How is my current debate 'scattered away' from my original one?

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



"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"

So let's break this down

1.) you mention the punishment

2.) Your support for these people and validating their behavior because they were "in love" and thus didn't deserve this.

Something totally different from forced marriages, domestic abuse or whatever other ploys or scapegoats you have presented here.

I am not here to please you or to fool you, I am just wondering why you are so soft in matters which are as sinful in Islam as compared to points which even Islam supports? For example, forced marriage is considered a sin in Islam which you are showing 'necessary' understanding for, while people are allowed to get out of forced marriages in Islam to which you haven't shown any support whatsoever. Instead, you call it a 'necessity' of the society.

Well let's say we agree, in Islam forced marriage is sinful all across the board no matter what as you say.

Even then it's a "minor" sin because there's no real penalty for it. I would challenge you to find something which shows penalty for these practices even within the Islamic Canon.

So that leads to the following conclusion something that serves a primal human faculty cant by Logic be automatically be wrong there needs to be contexts in which it would be wrong and contexts in which it would be right.

And before you try and pull your logical fallacy of "then adultery" is right, there is no primal function adultery serves.

Ehh, you seriously believe after they came back they were first pampered and at later point figured out they committed Zinah? Right......

My original debate was against the type of punishment the couple received in their case and since there was no proof of committing Zinah plus fleeing from a forced marriage, that shouldn't even have been punished. Period.

That's not at all what you said, you added the forced marriage stuff and rather stressed the fact they were "in love"; which would validate nothing.

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?

Even though it's against Islam? Then why shouldn't adultery be allowed, if forced marriages are? Don't give me society necessity nonsense, explain to me from an Islamic point of view? You yourself said a primary law can be as strict or as loose as possible, then why can't adultery be a part of it?

Because there's no specific explicit penalty for forced marriages , it's not even heavily emphasized in Islamic Penal Code; adultery is specifically emphasied.

Yadda yadda, you seem to ask the same questions which I have answered over and over again.

The problem isnt that I haven't answered, you're so one track minded, you simply won't accept the answer I give.

I would only emotionally blackmail someone who has got emotion, not someone who thinks emotion is our illusion. Be worry-free regarding that

Emotional Black mail is attempts at trying to use theatrical portrayals of things to try and convince or persuade others. I have emotions but I try my best to make sure they're based on valid premises.

I am not mixing up anything, I am telling you the outcome of forced marriages; Just like how you keep arguing against adultery.

Which is a fraudulent correlation.

And since Pukhtoons most possibly will do a Nikah, a Nikah isn't considered valid if either of the partner is against his/her marriage. In other words, the couple remain unmarried per Islam and yet having intercourse very soundly lead to adultery; There you go, an 'indirect' adultery.

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

Nonetheless, it exists and even our Prophets have lived under this feeling. And who will decide who is 'truly' happy and who is happy 'out of illusion'?

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


Exactly, just like how killings aren't justified doesn't mean adultery is justified. And just like how adultery isn't justified doesn't mean forced marriages are justified. No if's, no but's.

I also don't support adultery either but I understand why it takes place in Western society; No Shariah Law which can guide them. Either way, just like how I don't see any validity in adultery (nor does Islam), same-wise I don't see it in forced marriages either (nor does Islam).

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.

Maintaining a pleasant society by forced marriages? They can solve it by arranged marriages, why force it? And like I said, even Western scholars (so-called) 'proved' that intercourse is good for your health and therefore 'necessary' to practise it in so many while. And you got other people (like in India) who consider adultery 'necessary' to decrease rape cases in their areas. Now tell me, just because these people consider adultery 'necessary' for whatever reason, does it take away the 'immoral' tag from adultery?

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. 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. Congratulations.

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

It would behoove you to show some studies which verify these scholars who did so.

until then its hearsay.

Why and when would it be necessary? You can explain it from a Pukhtunwali point of view if you want, but don't forget to explain it from an Islamic perspective as well.

You actually sort of helped me demonstrate it in the previous quotation. I will demonstrate it in other way though; it keeps regulation of reproductive order.

Lack of Islamic State is also the reason why people in West don't understand why adultery is considered a sin, does it make adultery any less immoral?

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

There is no specific penalty for eloping either and if they get married while getting away from their homes, their marriage is considered valid in Islam. And this method is way more acceptable in Islam since it doesn't contain killing of an innocent.

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

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.

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

Yes, Islamic seen I understand why happiness is defined in different words, that's why in many matters Islam does take into consideration happiness of an individual. However, this is not the case in Pukhtunwali while 'happiness' is hardly taken into consideration.

yes and for the same reason the individuals concept of happiness is ALSO evaluated to see if its meritable or just a silly impulse.

That's what the Mujahideen thought they were doing; Maintaining morality in Afghanistan and the same was the reason of Taliban. Now how and who will decide what's 'morality' in true meanings?

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

An objective standard for morality by how it conforms with our faculties and drives.

but if you're questioning morality; then fine, but then that invalidates your argument as well; because then killing would no longer be a crime either way.


Uhm, they could have done that in a place where their children had their consent? You can't maintain balance by force, even Islam doesn't preach this.

Marrying a 'Mushrik' also contains marriage, why is it a concern if a Muslim and a 'Mushrik' have intercourse? Because in Islam, the Nikah isn't considered valid as the non-Muslim hasn't converted to Islam, thus their 'marriage' is solely considered adultery. Not marriage. Same-wise, forced marriage also contains marriage but the Nikah isn't considered valid and when a couple has intercourse without Nikah, it's called adultery.

Their marriage would be detrimental to the Islamic community that's why it wouldnt be valid. The opposite is true in the case of marriage between Muslims which is forced for necessary reasons. That is done to protect and sustain their community.

Bas I hate having to repeat myself this many times. You're simply being stubborn.

No matter how necessary it comes, the Nikah isn't considered valid. Just like how necessary adultery might become in West, it isn't considered moral. Islam shouldn't adjust to a society's demands, a society should live Islamic demands.

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.

Adultery is never necessary in the West, you're conflating intercourse with adultery. This is why your entire argument is pretty much devoid of any solid or valid logical premises. You keep assuming the opposite becomes automatically true because its original condition is true. I will repeat this is called a CONVERSE ERROR

Nor for eloping, so I don't understand why punishing the eloper is considered justified?

Because it's a breakdown on social morality.

As I said, these people believe their psychologists, therapists and etcetera blindly who advice them that intercourse is good for their health and they thus should practice it as much as they can. They want to maintain their health, you want to maintain 'your' society; A 'necessity' for both of you.

Intercourse is good for your health but this isnt the same as saying adultery is good for your health. The two are not logically equivalent.

Uhm, they got pregnancy-conceptions to prevent that......?

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

No I am not, this is exactly what's a part of this entire discussion. Has been all the way.

No actually I have clearly proven from your first post that you had a different argument. You keep swerving around aimlessly now.

Just like you are debating the so-called 'misuse' of the authority, not the harshness of the punishment.

Exactly, the punishment is fine, the misuse of authority is in theory another debate entirely.

Tell me, what specific punishment does Islam have in store for them running away? Because as far as I know, those who get married after eloping, their marriage is considered valid in Islam.

Wrong, elopement even in Islam is not valid.

Because you consider this place immoral and Afghanistan more moral, you consider the Pukhtunwali way of life more pleasant than Western way of life. In that case, what's stopping you from following a more suitable society? What else, if not excuses?

Yes indeed, comparatively Afghanistan in principle is more moral; I dont necessarily consider it more pleasant

but just like eating Broccoli is not as pleasant as eating ice Cream; What's truly good for you is not always pleasant as whats bad for you.

Your conclusion "What else if not an excuse" is merely your limited and shallow understanding; There's other possibilities for example Circumstance? Global Interference? Global Imbalance? Monopolization and Exploitation of Global Ecosystem? Many many reasons

But again I already explained this in my last post; your fault if you dont have a good attention span and take the time to read.

Even more destructive have been our own stupidity and disunity. One part of us wants to lead a modern life, the other wants to lead a tribal life. The 'Farangian' didn't force us to fight for a modern country, nor did they force us to fight for a tribal country. We have brought this upon ourselves.

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? Isnt Pakistan itself a FARANGAY creation? In fact most of the borders of Asia, including Afghanistan, Pakistan, Modern India were their creation; 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.

Which people? Afghans in Afghanistan or Afghans in West?

Well Afghans werent displaced by farangayan interference and disruptions at that time; but yes Afghans.

And what about the reason for why someone intentionally avoids a marriage? Under what circumstances is a individual allowed to avoid a marriage and under which they aren't?

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

Go and read back my previous comments (especially those pointed at you), then come and tell me how irrelevant my recent comments have become.

I already did by demonstrating your original thread post. This auxiliary debate is just you squeamishly trying to validate your outrage; which I might add is completely invalid.

And therefore stoning to death was the right punishment? Then even their parents chose to engage in the wrong path, showing they are willing to embrace the wrong way. Therefore, even they should have been stoned to death; Since there is no Islamic punishment for either.

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

Elopements nearly always involve secret marriage, which is considered valid in Islam and obviously will involve intercourse. I think their parents who were bound to force them into a invalid marriage (forced) were moronic for their act itself.

Secret marriages are not valid in Islam. where did you draw this conclusion from?

This is one reason why you're supposed to have witnesses when you marry so that this cannot be used as a pretext for zinah.

Nonetheless, pretty much everyone is protected in these countries. The active adultery here might be the biggest disturbance in these countries, I nonetheless find most of it's rules and protection highly assuring. Unlike some of the 'society necessity' others follow, here you at least have a choice not to.

Well in this instance; 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 and hence your whole aversion to this whole thing is not because of human rights but as a coping mechanism for your own decline.

Now maybe I am speculating, I hope you're just trying to play devil's advocate here. But if its true; then this is merely your decay more than moral virtue.


A symptom which caused thousands and thousands of Muslim deaths. If a symptom has been this problematic then I wonder what it would have done if it was the actual problem? Indeed, let's be honest.

Like Osama?

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

If these circumstances are being 'exported' everywhere already then why should it make any difference to you where you live and where else the same issues are being practiced?

It doesnt, I'm only here because of circumstances, if circumstances were different I wouldn't be here. Simple as that.

Uhh, are you trying to say that you here so that you can help someone else not to come here? Please, help me out here because I am having a very, very funny thought at the moment......

No, 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. Global Liberation.

And just because something is not being officially protected, it doesn't mean it is being practised by 'just a few'. The number of those 'just a few' who practice anything ill which isn't being protected by their government can be much higher than number of prostitutes protected here in West.

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.

So your reasoning becomes internally contradictory.

I am not talking about human-trafficking, I am talking about literally one night only marriage the Arabs had with Afghan refugees in Pekhawer. Those were happening in large scales in Pekhawer only, forget about other countries where this is as much of a practice.

Hahahhaahaha you totally switched on this point;s. If they went to Afghanistan and married with locals; this has been happening for centuries. Gaiilanis and Mujadiddis are two prominent Afghan families of Arab descent. Many Arabic women, the sisters and daughters of the Arabs who came also married with Afghan men. In fact that's how my parents got married. If their husbands just married for one night I suspect that it's because they died fighting. Otherwise your claim is hearsay.

Unless you mean trafficking. Which in that case changes the whole deal.

I am not talking about just 'a few' channels, nor can you prove they are all Christians. Nonetheless even Christianity itself doesn't support nudity as such, that's just what some countries have made out of it.

Well I know most of the Arab media networks; Gulf Arab and Yemeni channels bar women from doing those things in public. Egyptian Channels are secularly run who were stooges of Farangayan, most Islamists want to put and end to them, so they dont reflect the society but a corruption brought into society. Likewise with Morocco and being under years of French domination.

Lebanese channels like LBC (Lebanese Broadcastng Channel) are ALL run by Masihiyeen (Christians) except for Al-Manar, which is the Hezbollah Network and they dont have Belly Dancing

Just like how small you claim the numbers of those above are, equally small are the numbers of prostitutes and those who encourage them in Holland.

Yeah nevermind that adultery and fornication are the norm there. Your case is dwindling really.

[faye]

Only on paper my allegiance is elsewhere. And it's not murder, consider it social engineering. You're using the emotional blackmail tactic again and also hopping into a tangent. Of course only a farangay would measure things in terms of "getting off" ....right?

why would i use 'emotional blackmail'? to whom and for whom? it is what i believe in my 'immoral illusion'.
by the way, let me know when you are about to 'take over the world' so's i can get the t-shirts printed. SCIMITAR RULES. be warned, another chap with a similar brainspace, such as yourself, tried it before and failed. i think his name was hitler, something like that.