Quran is mainly a book of religion/subjects wise Quran

[BarakzaiAbdali]

[QUOTE=Badlun;651675]I separate Pashto frm Quran or religion. Pashto has a history of more than 60000 years while Islam is 1400 years old. Also Pashto is culture, society, way of life and is not religion.

This is the assinine logic of the Wali Khan/Ghani Khan group. Do you realize how dumb this quote is? They say that they have been Pashtuns for excess of 1400 years and garbage of the like. I would like this group to show me the writings of a kafir neka or baba of ours. The oldest Pashto literature have, and the only textual history we have of our own people defining themselves comes within that 1400 year period.

And Pashto culture incorporates aspects of Islamic jurisprudence to certain degrees. The British had a massive amount of trouble dealing with implementing Anglican law because, in their own words the tribesmen would resort to "Mohemmedan scripture."

I would love to have the dastar of Khushal Baba which sprouts from Pashtunwali not from religion.

If Khushaal Khan was the John the Baptist forerunner, then Ahmad Shah Baba was the Pashtun Messiah. All that Khushaal Baba envisioned Ahmad Shah bought to fruition. Ahmad Shah Abdali was a disciple of Shah Waliullah and did worse to the Golden Armistar Temple than Mullah Omar did to the buddahs. So even then your logic fails .

Religion has its own significance but not in culture or society. I respect Quran as a great book of religion, consider it sacred and a divine scripture but does not deem it a book of science or culture or politics or economics and so on.

I never post insulting material but yes I post irreligious things and advocate not brazenly incorrect ideologies but the internationally accepted ideology like democracy , human rights, secularism and liberalism.

That is your opinion and your opinion alone with respect to secularism and democracy. Polling data from Univ of Maryland shows that in the whole Muslim world, there is a preference for shariah as an adjunct to governance. It was the largest set of data collected to date.

I don't commit mockery of religion but want to give it its due place. This strategy is working and will work more efficiently and effectively in the near future. Just visit Kabul city and you will find it in practical form.

I have and you are wrong.

Khushaal Khan Baba struggle was mainly against the Mughals. He did fight some tribal wars but later on he repented. However his struggle was not for establishing a Taliban like empire. He was a liberal and modern sage.

Oh really? Is that why he insulted Pir Roshaan and deemed his ideologies sacriligeous. Nice try, you are talking to someone who has read all of his works and not selectively like you.

His religious approach was more spiritual. I have read almost all his books. He is famous for his liberal views. You have quoted a wrong Pashtun Baba in this context.

Wrong again. Khushal Baba in his diwan takes the side of the Mughal cleric Akhud Derwaza against Pir Roshaan and even against his Afridyaan supporters.

Also, his criticism of Auregnzaib was that his fasting and what not were purposeless as his Islamic actions did not match up to the true practice of Islam. He says "I am well acquainted with Aurangzaibs religiosity" and then sarcastically rebukes how a fasting and self denying person would murder his own brothers and imprison his father. He goes on in the same verse to pray that God deliver justice on Auragnzaib.

Here is where Khushaal Baba screws you and Wali Khan:

"Excellent is he, who is steadfast in the laws and precepts of the

Prophet; But wicked is he, who is unsteady and wavering in their observance.
The affairs of the world are all of them transitory and fleeting:

O If there is anything eternal, verily, ‘tis the name of the Most High"

And dont even try to sneak in your other illogic:


"The believers in Ṣūfi mystics, * and the unbelievers are all one;

For they both account, as iniquity, the laws and precepts of

Muḥammad."

- Both quotes from Khushal Khan Khattak

I have the original Pashto verison and here is the translation available free:

www.bookdepository.co.uk/ebooks/downloadebook/isbn/9781409909705

[/QUOTE]

So I picked EXACTLY the right Pashtun Baba my not so clever agent friend.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

where is the evidence of Pashto from 6000 years ago though?

Revolution,

This is an idiotic favorite quote that derives from the Wali Khan ANPiite family I think based on Ghani Khan's horrible poetry.

They look foolish because all the heroes of Pashto, perhaps save for Pir Roshaan (who did not leave much behind to truly understand his views) were staunch Muslims.

This claim was injected to do what these folks have tried to foolishly do for decades now; decouple Pashtuns from religion. Their misguided view is that religion has been used as a tool to control and imperialize the people and they derived inspiration from Lenin's revolution. The Russians themselves did not agree with the foolhardy, insult religion approach that these folks take especially in the context of Afghanistan where they tried to get Amin and others to slow down reforms. These guys think that by inventing an alternative narrative of some sort of Pashtun Kafir past they can decouple Pashtuns from any dependency or relationship to the Muslim world.

That is where the KP crowd/communists now somehow converted capitalists get this quote from.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Focusing specifically on Osho's unsubstantiated assertion:

"I never post insulting material but yes I post irreligious things and advocate not brazenly incorrect ideologies but the internationally accepted ideology like democracy , human rights, secularism and liberalism. I don't commit mockery of religion but want to give it its due place. This strategy is working and will work more efficiently and effectively in the near future. Just visit Kabul city and you will find it in practical form."


It is ironic that Robert Spencer, the vitriolic anti Muslim author provides the best summary of the report and a direct link the pdf showing that Osho pretty much is full of hot air and delusions of grandeur (hence the clinical illness)

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/02/in...premacism.html

They differ with Al-Qaeda on the means, not on the goals.
Here is a pdf of the full report. See especially pages 27 through 30: "Islamist Groups and Shari'a." On page 27, the report says: "The Islamist goal of giving Shari'a a larger role in Islamic society is viewed positively."
And on page 29: "In Egypt 81 percent said they agreed with the al Qaeda goal of "requir[ing] a strict application of Shari'a law in every Islamic country" (65% strongly); only 12 percent disagreed. Pakistanis were similar with 76 percent agreeing with this goal (52% strongly); 5 percent disagreed. Indonesians, however, agreed by only a narrow plurality: 49 percent supported the goal (just 14% strongly), while 42 percent disagreed. In Morocco in late 2006, 76 percent agreed."
"Muslim Publics Oppose Al Qaeda's Terrorism, But Agree With Its Goal of Driving U.S. Forces Out" a press release:

COLLEGE PARK, Md., Feb. 25 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- A study of public opinion in predominantly Muslim countries reveals that very large majorities continue to renounce the use of attacks on civilians as a means of pursuing political goals. People in majority-Muslim countries express mixed feelings about al Qaeda and other Islamist groups that use violence, however, perhaps due to a combination of support for al Qaeda's goals and disapproval of its terrorist methods. Large majorities support allowing Islamist groups to organize parties and participate in democratic elections. In some majority-Muslim countries, Islamist groups, such as the Muslim Brotherhood, are forbidden from participating in elections....
The survey is part of an ongoing study of Egypt, Pakistan, and Indonesia, with additional polling in Turkey, Jordan, the Palestinian territories, Azerbaijan, and Nigeria. It was conducted July through September, 2008 by WorldPublicOpinion.org with support from the START Consortium at the University of Maryland. Margins of error range from +/- 3 to 4 percent.
In nearly all nations polled more than seven in 10 say they disapprove of attacks on American civilians. "Bombings and assassinations that are carried out to achieve political or religious goals" are rejected as "not justified at all" by large majorities ranging from 67 to 89 percent. There is a growing belief that attacks on civilians are ineffective, with approximately half now saying that such attacks are hardly ever effective....

Views of al Qaeda are complex. Majorities agree with nearly all of al Qaeda's goals to change U.S. behavior in the Muslim world, to promote Islamist governance, and to preserve and affirm Islamic identity. However only minorities say they approve of al Qaeda's attacks on Americans....

[BarakzaiAbdali]

The funny thing is the more you read Khushaal Khan, the more he resembles your simple common Pashtun with his culturally honed religious views even if he is not complete in his ability to practice them. He goes on to deal a devastating punch in the face to the wali/ghani Khan logic of "I was a pashtun for 10,000 years" garbage by taking a stab even at that supposed past in which we were fire worshipping zoroastrians:

"With the precepts of the

Ḳur‘ān, Fārūḳ is acquainted:
It pointeth not out the right path to Bū-Lḥab, or to Bū-Jhal. *
The purity of the Musalmān, O KHUSHḥĀL! is possible;

But no ablutions, no purifications, can make the Gabr * clean."

Gabr is the fire worshipper or the magian/zoroastrian. Ooops there goes the idiotic attempt implemented by the RAND corporation and Zalmaay Khalilzaad's wife to try and break apart Muslim brotherly links by getting native populations to construct a nonexistant nationalist past in which Islam is purposefully depicted as the imperializer force. It is ironic because had they studied the history of Iran, for instance, they would see that Safavid attempts to Zoroastrify the population have failed. Any attempt to "Zoroastrify" the Pashtuns will be laughable.

[Badlun]

If Quran is the constitution and the legal code then except Saudi Arabia why this is not the constitution and legal code of any Muslim country out of the 58 countries? Why Muslims need to frame their constitutions and legal codes in spite of the already existing ones. We do things when we do not have it. why we repeat the same . Our search for new codes is the logical conclusion that w do not have them already.

Where Islamic History demonstrates that Quran served as constitution or legal code? Just its mention in one book cannot prove it in the last so many centuries. Quran provides few moral and legal principles but cannot serve as a complete constitution or legal code because legal and constitutional complications and nuances are multifaceted which requires detailed codes to cover all aspects of civil and criminal cases.

In case of any debates as on abortion, the question arises that who will conduct this debate? Democracy is considered against Quran as Quran cannot be changed by vote or debate.

I agree that most of the legal issues are based on ethics and whatever legal aspects of Quran we see are basically ethical not purely legal.

Religion is to believe in unseen and I will repeat that beliefs or worship do not need reason or wisdom but one has to believe. rationally you cannot prove or disprove God. Religion needs Iman not aqal. I am of the opinion that Mutazila approach is workable in non religious subjects but on purely religious subjects its application will be wrong.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

Badlun, lack of application does not imply that it does not serve that purpose.

Your question is like asking "if cars were meant for driving, why don't the amish drive cars?"

The reasons are very complex Badlun and cannot be just given one straight answer. But some contributing factors would be. Lack of a Central Body to proceed an international Islamic System. Lack of Muslim political power in the world. Remnants of Colonial Institutions. Global Social and Economic Intimidation. Warfare and so on.


Again Badlun, I recommend you read Al-Ahkam Al-Sultaniyah; this gives ample example of the Qur'an applied as a constitution and Legal code, it is not only a document history of the process, it is also a historical document of that process in action.

you can't just repeat the same question after you received the answer. Be Logical Badlun/Osho.

Democracy isn't considered against the Qur'an directly, but perhaps certain formulations and degrees of democratic institution would be opposed.. Abortion is a law based on the INTERPRETATION of the Constitution. Likewise the Laws in the Qur'an must be interpreted from Other Laws. In this way it acts like a constitution exactly. Using the principles of the Qur'an.

Transfer of leadership is allowed in the Qur'an by democratic process, so is legislative body. What would be against the Qur'an is repealing the Qur'an as the fundamental Laws of the society. But same is true for the U.S. constitution. You cannot repeal those fundamental laws, those are unchanging like the Qur'an.


So really Badlin your argument does not change refute anything about the validity of the Qur'an; in fact it reaffirms it if we compare how other democratic societies use their constitution.

[Badlun]

Pashto is thousands of years old. Please read the following

http://pashto.upesh.edu.pk/articles.htm

http://www.afghanwiki.com/en/index.php?title=Pashto

and many others. Just google it.

Pashtuns cannot be 1400 years old. It will be a mockery to this nation. Pashtuns were Hindus or Buddhists or just practicing Pashtunwali as a religion before their mass conversion to Islam. we can have this discussion somewhere else. But Pashtuns are Pashtuns racially, linguistically , culturally, socially and politically while they are Muslims religiously. Quran is their book of religion only . They should seek their religious guidance from Quran but may seek other sources for other aspects of life as economic, social, cultural and political.

[Badlun]

I will just comment on the last part of your post where you say that if we compare how other democratic societies use their constitution. This is my main point.

Why other societies use their constitution but Muslims do not use their constitution! My approach is that Muslims do not use it because it is not a constitution. When we have a car then definitely we use it as a car but we will never use a horse as a car in spite of the fact if we call it car thousands times.

When some hing is not applied it means it does not serve that purpose. Its non use is the greatest proof of its non existence. At least some one should use it if not all.

I will surely read the book you recommended but again being a pragmatic person why I know the constitution of Afghanistan, Pakistan, USA, Iran but not studies Quran as a constitution or this book you recommended in my course of political science in an Islamic country.

[Badlun]

On Baraakzai debate on Khushal Baba we can have a repartee topic but what ever I have found in the books of Khushal are mostly secular subjects with few sufistic and religious references. His this verse is the most beautiful definition of secularism I have ever found

SHEIKH BA MUNZ ROJA KRHI ZA BA DAKEY PYALEY AKHLAM
HAR SARHEY PAIDA DEY KHPAL KHPAL KAR LARA KANA

[RevolutionThroughReason]

Pashto is thousands of years old. Please read the following

http://pashto.upesh.edu.pk/articles.htm

http://www.afghanwiki.com/en/index.php?title=Pashto

and many others. Just google it.

Pashtuns cannot be 1400 years old. It will be a mockery to this nation. Pashtuns were Hindus or Buddhists or just practicing Pashtunwali as a religion before their mass conversion to Islam. we can have this discussion somewhere else. But Pashtuns are Pashtuns racially, linguistically , culturally, socially and politically while they are Muslims religiously. Quran is their book of religion only . They should seek their religious guidance from Quran but may seek other sources for other aspects of life as economic, social, cultural and political.

There is no evidence in either link which verifies that pashto is 4000 years old.

These are just speculation and inferential hypothesis. And before you said 5000 years old. 4000 years and 5000 years is very different.

If Pashto was even 2,000 years old , we'd have remnants of fragments or references which clearly detail or demonstrate that Pashto was an existant language

Also we can use Logical Analysis to see that this claim is either completely false or extremely dubious. Since we know Avestan is the root of Eastern Iranian languages, we have records of Avestan language in fragments and books, that have been preserved. Other languages of the region which relate back to Avestan, which lived under similar conditions, weather climate, historical events and so on as Pashto would have, also have remnants and evidence their languages existed, such as written documents, parhments and so on. Also Since Buddhism was prevalent in the region at one time; we have Bddhist records in all the Eastern Iranian languages of the Ancient Times; in Khotanese, Soghdian, Bactrian, and so on and even in Prakrit/Sanskrit/Gandhari.

All these languages survived, in areas of Afghanistan where Pashtuns now inhabit and all have records and remnants which have survived from thousands of years ago, yet not one of Pashto predating the 14th century A.D. All these evidences point to the idea that the antiquity of Pashto is an exaggerated myth, similar to other Pashtun myths like Bani Israel theory or Qais Abdur Rashid Theory or the Amir Kror theory. It is true that the languages Pashto may have derived from are 4000-5000 years old, but Pashto would not have been since it is a derivative language. This means Pashtuns are more than likely just a cultural hybrid of different sources. which culminated into a specific cultural identity of its own much much later on.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

I will just comment on the last part of your post where you say that if we compare how other democratic societies use their constitution. This is my main point.

Why other societies use their constitution but Muslims do not use their constitution! My approach is that Muslims do not use it because it is not a constitution. When we have a car then definitely we use it as a car but we will never use a horse as a car in spite of the fact if we call it car thousands times.

It is just like William Shakespeare once said

"a rose by any other name is just as sweet"

call it this call it that, the principle function is the same, it still operates for the same directives and objectives.

When some hing is not applied it means it does not serve that purpose. I

Not necessarily; it can mean

a.) some people prefer something else to serve a purpose; for example some people may prefer to buy a a Nissan car rather than a Ford car.

So just because someone buys a Nissan car, does that mean the Ford car is no longer a car?

Similarly Islam is still a way of life, with politics and laws etc, but some people whether right or whether wrong, may prefer another car. Remember this is a HYPOTHESIS of why people may or may not apply something.

b.) interference which prevents its application; for example economic intimidation, imperialism/colonialism, cultural inferterence, Sometimes it is by Monopoly, a world order only allows one predominant system.

c.) Maybe some people are intimidated by the World Super Powers, so even if they may have are more valid system; they choose the less valid one just because of weight of influence

This is something

ts non use is the greatest proof of its non existence. At least some one should use it if not all.

By Logical Analysis, this is totally Not true, Logically, the merit or validity of something is not determined by its current useage; this is called "Appeal to Novelty" fallacy. It is totally possible for something to be not in current use, to have existed/be existing and still be valid.

I will surely read the book you recommended but again being a pragmatic person why I know the constitution of Afghanistan, Pakistan, USA, Iran but not studies Quran as a constitution or this book you recommended in my course of political science in an Islamic country.

Like I said "a rose by any other name is just as sweet"; Whether the word constitution is used, if it demonstrates the properties of what a constitution is supposed to do; it is then a constitution even if they call it someone else or refer to it using different terms.


Remember there is a story in a Sufi story where there were Three men, a Turk, an Arab and a Persian, each were eating almonds

The Arab said "I love these luwaz" and the Persian said " you fool, these are not Luwaz, these are badam" and then the Turk said "you fool, these are not badam, it is "badem".

Something like that. But you get my point. So let's not play semantics.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

On Baraakzai debate on Khushal Baba we can have a repartee topic but what ever I have found in the books of Khushal are mostly secular subjects with few sufistic and religious references. His this verse is the most beautiful definition of secularism I have ever found

SHEIKH BA MUNZ ROJA KRHI ZA BA DAKEY PYALEY AKHLAM
HAR SARHEY PAIDA DEY KHPAL KHPAL KAR LARA KANA

Read the Khushaal Khan quotes about the type of Sufism you and Toramana are advocating he calls it sacreligious.

The quote above doesnt amount to exhortation or endorsement of secularism. It is an observation of the fact that people are born on different paths and he himself prefers to "eat out of the plate of religion." You are putting words in his mouth. The fact that he endorsed the cleric of his own enemy, Akhund Derwaza shows you that unlike you and Toramana, Khushal Khan was not a person that compromised his religious world view. Had he wanted, he could have generated a big fuss and attacked Derwaza and others who were going after Pir Roshaan (even though Apridyaan were Khushaal Baba's allies and protectors he did not flinch from truth) and tried to pry the Pashtuns from obeying Mughal clerics. Instead, he honestly attacked Aurganzeb's hypocrasy and NOT the precepts of Islam.

So I am sorry but you fail in producing the Red Khushaal Khan Khattak false idol that the ANPiites and others have tried to create. They site his love of beauty and odes to females as somehow evidencing that he was anti religion when his own words contradict them.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

It is just like William Shakespeare once said

"a rose by any other name is just as sweet"

call it this call it that, the principle function is the same, it still operates for the same directives and objectives.



Not necessarily; it can mean

a.) some people prefer something else to serve a purpose; for example some people may prefer to buy a a Nissan car rather than a Ford car.

So just because someone buys a Nissan car, does that mean the Ford car is no longer a car?

Similarly Islam is still a way of life, with politics and laws etc, but some people whether right or whether wrong, may prefer another car. Remember this is a HYPOTHESIS of why people may or may not apply something.

b.) interference which prevents its application; for example economic intimidation, imperialism/colonialism, cultural inferterence, Sometimes it is by Monopoly, a world order only allows one predominant system.

c.) Maybe some people are intimidated by the World Super Powers, so even if they may have are more valid system; they choose the less valid one just because of weight of influence

This is something






By Logical Analysis, this is totally Not true, Logically, the merit or validity of something is not determined by its current useage; this is called "Appeal to Novelty" fallacy. It is totally possible for something to be not in current use, to have existed/be existing and still be valid.






Like I said "a rose by any other name is just as sweet"; Whether the word constitution is used, if it demonstrates the properties of what a constitution is supposed to do; it is then a constitution even if they call it someone else or refer to it using different terms.


Remember there is a story in a Sufi story where there were Three men, a Turk, an Arab and a Persian, each were eating almonds

The Arab said "I love these luwaz" and the Persian said " you fool, these are not Luwaz, these are badam" and then the Turk said "you fool, these are not badam, it is "badem".

Something like that. But you get my point. So let's not play semantics.

The other logic fallacy Osho is making is that the US constitution is actually being applied.

Ron Paul, is perhaps the last real constitutionalist left in government. His farewell address in the past few days said:

“Our Constitution, which was intended to limit government power and abuse, has failed,” Paul said. “The Founders warned that a free society depends on a virtuous and moral people. The current crisis reflects that their concerns were justified.”

http://washingtonexaminer.com/transc...rticle/2513544

He goes on to define the failure and provide evidences for it:

" A grand, but never mentioned, bipartisan agreement allows for the well-kept secret that keeps the spending going. One side doesn’t give up one penny on military spending, the other side doesn’t give up one penny on welfare spending, while both sides support the bailouts and subsidies for the banking and corporate elite. And the spending continues as the economy weakens and the downward spiral continues. As the government continues fiddling around, our liberties and our wealth burn in the flames of a foreign policy that makes us less safe. "

This is exactly why Toramana prefers Party Politics for the Pashtuns... not because it works, but rather because it has the potential to be completely coopted by the elites and the body politic while lulling the public into complacency.

That is the other issue with Osho's argument that the Bill of Rights and the US constitution themselves are somehow adhered to and therefore superior to other modalities.

[Badlun]

One Ron Paul says that US Constitution has been failed and we listen to him but millions of US citizens are following , Congress is working under this constitution for the last many decades , supreme court is functioning under it and the whole government functionary is managing its affairs in the light of his constitution but Ron Paul call it a failure!

On the other hand Quran was never called as constitution and is never used for that purpose for the last 14 centuries. Its definitely a success being a book of religious guidance but will be a failure if ever used as a constitution.

[khushal]

^^^your repeating yourself, you have introduced nothing new to the argument.

Ron paul is saying that party politic are doomed to fail and gives you the reason why america is going bankrupt. your reponse to it is a repeat of the same thing. you need to learn how to respond to an argument. Are you that PF member "Dust," he also claimed to be a scholar but in reality was an idiot who couldnt respond logically.