Tweet
Originally posted by RevolutionThroughReason
View Post
-
Pashtunwali considers this as a kidnapping, not as how you explained it. From reading articles about that particular stoning incidence. Both parents of the couple agreed to it to prevent badi. -
Kidnapping implies unwilling participants, nice try though lol[QUOTE=Afghanistan2010;658085][B]He is no different [COLOR="Red"]than us[/COLOR][/B],[B]he[COLOR="Red"] blindly believes [/COLOR]in the words [COLOR="Red"]of other men[/COLOR][/B],:[/QUOTE]
2010 Admitting he's a blind believer not in God, but what other men says.Comment
-
Well, I said that is pashtunwali perspective. The man must have permission from the girls guardians so in pashtunland it is kidnapping. Even in the US, a person is considered a child if under 18 and if an under 18 year old person is taken without permission from parent/guardian even if that under 18 year old person was willing. The law will treat the case as a kidnapping.Last edited by khushal; 01-27-2014, 09:07 PM.Comment
-
Well the girl was killed too, so if it was for kidnapping then don't see why the girl would be killed, still falls under murder for the couple as a penalty, That's not Islamic Shari'ah[QUOTE=Afghanistan2010;658085][B]He is no different [COLOR="Red"]than us[/COLOR][/B],[B]he[COLOR="Red"] blindly believes [/COLOR]in the words [COLOR="Red"]of other men[/COLOR][/B],:[/QUOTE]
2010 Admitting he's a blind believer not in God, but what other men says.Comment
-
I agree with you about the shariah aspect.Originally posted by RevolutionThroughReason View Post
But pashtunwalis perspective is that the girl committed treason against her house. The girl is not always killed for this.
The man in the situation is accused of using force against the particular house.
The two individuals should have done this the right way and the guy should have asked for the girls hand in marriage from her parents and the girls should have persuaded her parents in the same regard.Comment
-
treason implies voluntary action, which contradicts your kidnapping claim. LOL[QUOTE=Afghanistan2010;658085][B]He is no different [COLOR="Red"]than us[/COLOR][/B],[B]he[COLOR="Red"] blindly believes [/COLOR]in the words [COLOR="Red"]of other men[/COLOR][/B],:[/QUOTE]
2010 Admitting he's a blind believer not in God, but what other men says.Comment
-
true but the voluntary action is committed by the girl.Originally posted by RevolutionThroughReason View Post
The man in the situation is committing kidnapping since pashtunwali looks at him as using force against the household to take their namos as he wishes.
The girl> treason
the guy> kidnappingComment
-
But if she chose to go with him and is reprehensible for it, it wasn't kidnapping, if she was a minor and has no voluntary choice, it isn't treason. LOL[QUOTE=Afghanistan2010;658085][B]He is no different [COLOR="Red"]than us[/COLOR][/B],[B]he[COLOR="Red"] blindly believes [/COLOR]in the words [COLOR="Red"]of other men[/COLOR][/B],:[/QUOTE]
2010 Admitting he's a blind believer not in God, but what other men says.Comment
-
But the guy kidnapping would imply as you said that she isn't voluntary or incapable of making a voluntary choice. But if she commits treason, then she wasn't kidnapped since that is voluntary.
You're pretty much contradicting yourself.[QUOTE=Afghanistan2010;658085][B]He is no different [COLOR="Red"]than us[/COLOR][/B],[B]he[COLOR="Red"] blindly believes [/COLOR]in the words [COLOR="Red"]of other men[/COLOR][/B],:[/QUOTE]
2010 Admitting he's a blind believer not in God, but what other men says.Comment
-
you forgot the LOL in that post. LOL.Originally posted by RevolutionThroughReason View Post
I get what your saying.
The issue is separate and its against the household. Per pashtunwalis perspective, the guy used force against the household, not against the girl. His crime was against the household by using force to take without THEIR Permission not hers. He did not commit any crimes against her.
Her case is separate and again per pashtunwalis perspective, her crime was also against the same household, her own household. This is why girls are not always killed for it.Comment
-
Khushal, you;re making stuff up. That was my point. You need more logical consistency in your attempts to rescue Pashtunwali. What you're describing is basically saying the same thing as penalizing these people for eloping; this is known as TOR in Pashtunwali. It wasn't kidnapping, it wasn't treason; it was punishing people for marrying by their own choice.[QUOTE=Afghanistan2010;658085][B]He is no different [COLOR="Red"]than us[/COLOR][/B],[B]he[COLOR="Red"] blindly believes [/COLOR]in the words [COLOR="Red"]of other men[/COLOR][/B],:[/QUOTE]
2010 Admitting he's a blind believer not in God, but what other men says.Comment
-
What rescue are you talking about. Dude I've seen this happen. There are many of these instance of where I am from.Originally posted by RevolutionThroughReason View Post
First lets look at what TOR derives from. Tor in essence means black. When someone says "a khaza TORA sha way saree sa." or "sarai TOR sha wai khazai sa." What its saying is that the person's name has been blackened meaning they are criminals. When one steals, they would say "a sarai ghelya sa TOR sha wai." When someone's name has been blackened, they are considered criminals in essence. They have committed crime.
There is reason behind the law. What I am describing is the detail reasoning of what TOR is.
Plus, those two never married, they just ran away. Like I said before, there is a way for them to do this correctly.Comment
-
So in other words, they're killed for trying to elope. The end. next.[QUOTE=Afghanistan2010;658085][B]He is no different [COLOR="Red"]than us[/COLOR][/B],[B]he[COLOR="Red"] blindly believes [/COLOR]in the words [COLOR="Red"]of other men[/COLOR][/B],:[/QUOTE]
2010 Admitting he's a blind believer not in God, but what other men says.Comment
-
eloping is when you run away to marry. These two individuals never did. so you are wrong.
next indeed.Comment
Comment