Are all Pashtuns grave worshipping Mushrikeen and Kuffar?

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

Islam, as a religion has a few basic aspects. These asects need to be present in every individual in order to be considered as a Muslim.

The most important aspect: to disbelieve in all false deities and to believe in Allah alone. Belief in Allah implies solely worshiping Allah. Everything considered as an act of worship in Qur'an should be preformed for Allah alone.

There are certain acts of worship people are performing in Afghanistan and Pakistan which are considered as shirk, therefore kufr. For instance, people visit graves of saints and ask death people to give them a son, a better harvest, a better job, more money, health etc.

People also attend Jirga's where tribal elders issue rulings based on Pashtunwali. Some of this rulings constitute shirk and kufr because they directly contradict laws revealed in Qur'an. Example: badal.

Seeking judgement is obedience, and obedience is a form of worship. Therefore, those who seek judgement from un-Islamic courts are also worshipping other than Allah.

We know that the above practices are common in certain parts of Pashtunkhwa and Afghanistan. The question is: do all Pashtuns perfom these types of worship? Do all Pashtuns believe in these un-Islamic matters?

People who accuse me of considering all Pashtuns as kaafirs should give me statistical data proving all Pashtuns are engaged in the described types of shirk and kufr.

Since there is no evidence that ALL pashtuns are involved in these types of shirk and kufr, we can't assume all Pashtuns are kaafirs.

From an Islamic perspective, considering a person a Muslim is the 'asl (basic premise). This means that every person who identifies himself as Muslim, preforms prayer and other acts of worship is considered as Muslim.

So everyone in an Islamic country is Muslim unless they specifically ascribe themselves to a group or sect which is known for polytheism, like shiites or barelwi sufi mushrikeen.

Therefore, those who claim that I consider all Pashtuns as kaafirs are wrong. Your claim is based on an assumption that all Pashtuns are engaged in shirk and kufr. You don't have any evidence to prove all Pashtuns perform shirk and kufr. Since you don't have any evidence, it is safe to say, you are merely saying this because you fear to debate me on matters of religion.

Accusing me of making mass takfeer of all Muslims is an escape strategy from a debate. You fear debating me so you choose to falsely accuse me of something I havent said.

If anyone is interested in debating me, feel free to start one here:

[randolph85]

I don't recall anyone saying you think all Pashtuns are non believers, I may be wrong though as I skip many threads that breed nonsense.

Many Pashtuns do partake in Mushrikeen actions such as the Pashtunwali and superstition which doesn't conform to Shariah but many are ignorant towards religion and have never been taught properly. A lot of people have had the misfortune of living in a place where their Mullah is a man without real knowledge but their only source of Islam as most are illiterate and rely on such a person for info.

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

I don't recall anyone saying you think all Pashtuns are non believers, I may be wrong though as I skip many threads that breed nonsense.

Many Pashtuns do partake in Mushrikeen actions such as the Pashtunwali and superstition which doesn't conform to Shariah but many are ignorant towards religion and have never been taught properly. A lot of people have had the misfortune of living in a place where their Mullah is a man without real knowledge but their only source of Islam as most are illiterate and rely on such a person for info.

Suppose a person kills another person because he doesn't know that killing people is haram. Does that make him a murderer and is his action a murder, therefore a crime from an Islamic perspective? If yes, then those ignorant Pashtuns who don't know anything about religion and commit acts of kufr and shirk, are also kaafir and mushrik.

I don't believe they are the majority. From what I know, most Pashtuns are influenced by Hanafi school and Deobandi/tableeghi dawah. The practice of grave worship does exist in some regions and some places. Not all Pashtuns are involved in these activities.

[randolph85]

Suppose a person kills another person because he doesn't know that killing people is haram. Does that make him a murderer and is his action a murder, therefore a crime from an Islamic perspective? If yes, then those ignorant Pashtuns who don't know anything about religion and commit acts of kufr and shirk, are also kaafir and mushrik.

I don't believe they are the majority. From what I know, most Pashtuns are influenced by Hanafi school and Deobandi/tableeghi dawah. The practice of grave worship does exist in some regions and some places. Not all Pashtuns are involved in these activities.

Was this murderous Pashtun not exposed to Islam or was he led astray from someone else? The Quran deals with haram and one party accusing the other of being led astray, God knowing what is best and so on.

If this Pashtun or anyone for that matter had not been exposed to Islam and commits a crime against humanity or the word of God, this goes into the issue of culpability in the sight of God. Does this person burn in hell for his transgressions or are they forgiven for not knowing they transgressed? or did they violate in the instinctive nature of not to kill innocents implanted in human beings by God? I am sure you know better than I do in regards to the scripture or opinions of the scholars.

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

Was this murderous Pashtun not exposed to Islam or was he led astray from someone else? The Quran deals with haram and one party accusing the other of being led astray, God knowing what is best and so on.

If this Pashtun or anyone for that matter had not been exposed to Islam and commits a crime against humanity or the word of God, this goes into the issue of culpability in the sight of God. Does this person burn in hell for his transgressions or are they forgiven for not knowing they transgressed? or did they violate in the instinctive nature of not to kill innocents implanted in human beings by God? I am sure you know better than I do in regards to the scripture or opinions of the scholars.

You reasoning is the reasoning of a true wahhabi najdi Hanbali. The hanaabilah of Saudi believe that if a person doesn't know, and commits shirk, he is considered as a kaafir and a mushrik in this life by us, however, we don't pass judgements about him in the afterlife.

What you are saying about the murderer is the exact same thing. You acknowledge that the act is murder and the one who does it is a murderer, however, you don't pass judgement about his final state in the hereafter.

There is another view held by Hanafis. Hanafis believe that the person who commits shirk in this life, even if he is ignorant, he will still burn in hell. They feel confident enough to assume that a person like that is doomed to burn in hell for eternity.

Personally, I feel more comfortable with the Hanbali position in this matter.

As I have explained already, I don't believe I can know who is going to burn in hell and who is not. By observing a particular act, I merely state what I see: if a person kills, he is murderer, if a person worships other than Allah, he is mushrik.

Will this person receive punishment from Allah? I don't know. Maybe he will repent, maybe he will find out the truth, maybe Allah has a better plan for him.

All I can do is make an observation. This is the essential difference between a person who makes takfeer, and the one who doesnt. One who doesn,t is basically refusing to observe with his own eyes.

[randolph85]

You reasoning is the reasoning of a true wahhabi najdi Hanbali. The hanaabilah of Saudi believe that if a person doesn't know, and commits shirk, he is considered as a kaafir and a mushrik in this life by us, however, we don't pass judgements about him in the afterlife.

What you are saying about the murderer is the exact same thing. You acknowledge that the act is murder and the one who does it is a murderer, however, you don't pass judgement about his final state in the hereafter.

There is another view held by Hanafis. Hanafis believe that the person who commits shirk in this life, even if he is ignorant, he will still burn in hell. They feel confident enough to assume that a person like that is doomed to burn in hell for eternity.

Personally, I feel more comfortable with the Hanbali position in this matter.

As I have explained already, I don't believe I can know who is going to burn in hell and who is not. By observing a particular act, I merely state what I see: if a person kills, he is murderer, if a person worships other than Allah, he is mushrik.

Will this person receive punishment from Allah? I don't know. Maybe he will repent, maybe he will find out the truth, maybe Allah has a better plan for him.

All I can do is make an observation. This is the essential difference between a person who makes takfeer, and the one who doesnt. One who doesn,t is basically refusing to observe with his own eyes.

I side with the Hanbali position and believe the Hanafi are extremist in this regard. This is why I don't follow a particular madhab, they are like political parties in that you cannot deviate from the party statement even if you have some minor disagreements.

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

I side with the Hanbali position and believe the Hanafi are extremist in this regard. This is why I don't follow a particular madhab, they are like political parties in that you cannot deviate from the party statement even if you have some minor disagreements.

These disagreements between different schools are based on their varying methodology of deriving rulings from sources of law: Quran & Sunnah.

Laymen and ignorant people make them look like political parties. But if you look at their core principles, you will appreciate them better.

Hanafis may have very good reasons for believing what they believe. I don't know their arguments for holding that particular position. Neither do I know the arguments of Hanbalis.

But as I layman, if I see two different views, I tend to towards the Hanbali position because it seems safer to me.

However, I don't reject Hanafi position as invalid.


You have to understand, these schools exist because they are what they are: schools. Different schools are established to systematize learning process. The great Imams developed their own methodologies to systematize learning and to develop methods in order to derive rulings from Qur'an and ahadeeth.

As a layman, we are not obliged to follow a particular school. But if want to learn Islam, we do have to learn it according to a particular school. Otherwise it is quite confusing and frustrating. I suffered from the same problem in the past when I didn't specifically follow a particular school.

[randolph85]

These disagreements between different schools are based on their varying methodology of deriving rulings from sources of law: Quran & Sunnah.

Laymen and ignorant people make them look like political parties. But if you look at their core principles, you will appreciate them better.

Hanafis may have very good reasons for believing what they believe. I don't know their arguments for holding that particular position. Neither do I know the arguments of Hanbalis.

But as I layman, if I see two different views, I tend to towards the Hanbali position because it seems safer to me.

However, I don't reject Hanafi position as invalid.


You have to understand, these schools exist because they are what they are: schools. Different schools are established to systematize learning process. The great Imams developed their own methodologies to systematize learning and to develop methods in order to derive rulings from Qur'an and ahadeeth.

As a layman, we are not obliged to follow a particular school. But if want to learn Islam, we do have to learn it according to a particular school. Otherwise it is quite confusing and frustrating. I suffered from the same problem in the past when I didn't specifically follow a particular school.

I am a layman and don't disagree with the label. My quote regarding these schools of thought is targeted towards the masses of people of today rather than the great scholars of yesterday. I appreciate the schools of thought and those who have contributed to them. The civil differences between these schools of thought have only strengthened the understanding of Islam, which is of course the final goal of understanding.

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

I am a layman and don't disagree with the label. My quote regarding these schools of thought is targeted towards the masses of people of today rather than the great scholars of yesterday. I appreciate the schools of thought and those who have contributed to them. The civil differences between these schools of thought have only strengthened the understanding of Islam, which is of course the final goal of understanding.

People have turned schools into sects.