Extreme Humuliation of Women in Sudan and other Arab Countries

[ScimitarXEdge]

If my modus-operandi were appeal to popularity, etc., I would've been making use of jargon and ideas (Al-Qaueda and Muslim Ummah) that are the most popular here. And the moral standards that I consider as higher and so refer to have been evolved by humanity after extensive experimentation and deliberation (as such there is a higher degree of universality, generality, and objectivity attached to it).

On the contrary, Rafiq Edge, I have an impression about you i.e., your knowledge of the things is generally very superficial and abstract and not the kind of intricate and detailed understanding required for clarifying things or identifying contested points. You mostly avoid delving into the fundamental of things and make use of sophistry to make your arguments forceful.

Toramana; wow, I don't know what to say; you don't know anything about Logical Constructs of Argument; you are really uneducated and it shows in how you respond to things. It's ironic that you posture with words like "Rationality" and yet I always find some type of error or logical fallacy in your writing.

You say the following and I quote "And WORLD morality has far advanced.."

Appeal to Popularity doesn't mean trying to follow what the forum's standards views are. Appeal to Popularity means trying to validate an Argument JUST BECAUSE the argument is a Popularly Held opinion. You have argued that the "rest of the world" Views certain things as moral "progress" or "advancement" and because they do, that implicates that they're right. To implicate that the world views things a certain way, doesn't mean it's correct. So far you have demonstrated no reason why those new ideals on morality are valid, I however have given plenty of reasons why Islam's morality is valid and is rationally sound.

What you're accusing me of is PRECISELY describing yourself; Sophistry, you're using very Lofty Sounding Terminology like "advanced" and "Rational" and yet not demonstrating how and why your ideas are qualitatively better or more beneficial. You use false appeals. You're extremely vague and most of the things you speak of are so rudimentary and don't have any direct or pertinent evidence in support of them.

I'm so glad you mention Sophistry, because that describes you perfectly.

[ScimitarXEdge]

Gentleman, you are nominally a Pashtun being born to an Arab woman and as you claim it without any evidence/verifiable informmation a Pashtun father with an ad-mixture of other foreign blood (i.e., Tajak blood)...so much for your claim of being a Pashtun...How come a desert-inhabitant claims to be a mountain dweller like me...?


But the real thing that is itching you is your Arab sensitivity not some limitless love for Islam.


Rest, do you consider Pashtunwali and Islam equivalent? Which one is evolved and have they been evolved in the same ecological environments (remember ecology changes/varies both in time and space)? Are there any scriptures that formally stipulate rules of Pashtunwali? Ecological environments are subject to change...Are then the rules of Islam also subject to change? If you go to Mars where there are different ecological conditions, would values of Islam change as well? Take one stance i.e., either say Islam is universal (both in space and time) without dependence on environment or say it is dependent on the objective conditions (ecological) at a particular point of time and space.


Do you claim that Pashtun values are the same as they were two centuries back?

Well firstly I never said my father has Tajik blood, I said I have Tajik Aunts and Uncles; my Uncles and Cousins often marry Tajik women and their families become my In-Laws.

So nice try; but keep grasping.

As for Tajik blood, as you well know my tribal lineage is Ghalji (Ghilzai), and many allege that we're descendants of Ghorids, I'm of the opinion that Ghorids were probably Pashtoon, but my evidence of this is very scant; unlike you I won't use circumstantial evidence to make definitive claims. Others assume Ghorids were likely Tajiks on account of Persian inscriptions on the Minaret of Jam and names like "Firuzkoh"; So that's where my "possible" Tajik connections could be. As far as I know for fact however, my family are Pashtoons from a well known Pashtoon clan in Afghanistan who are well known to from Qandahar to Ghazni.

No what's itching you is your Angrez chakari and chalaki sensivities; hence why you're using this "Arab sensivity" jargon as a scapegoat to stir animosity for Islam, not your love of Pashtoons. So you think everyone else is "itching".

Now for Ecology; You are simply the worst Nonsense peddler I have ever encountered in my life. Human Ecology means Humans relationship to the Natural World; humans have evolved and lived in the Natural World which has remained where humans have had a Niche for EONS, even if we hypothesize change, those changes are so gradual that they have little to nothing to do with human ecological relationships as they have evolved to be. What are these silly red herrings; if we go to Mars? We evolved on EARTH not Mars, our adaptive mechanisms pertains to Earthly conditions and not Martian; and even if we hypothetically go to Mars, we couldn't just "adapt" to Mars we'd have to artificially recreate an Earth-like condition. That basically debunks your false dichotomy. That either we have Universal Islam not pertinent to the relationships of Nature or we have Pertinent to the relationships of Nature and not Universal. Islam is universal AND it's pertinent to the relationships of Nature; because it deals with Universal relationships but understands those universal relationships culminate to the Human ecological niche on Earth and thereby the ecological niche is what defines Human Life in the Universe. Your argument has now been proven false.


You're talking to someone with an Environmental Science degree; Unless you want to be publicly exposed as a total nitwit, please refrain from discussing things you have no knowledge of.

In fact I would really like to know your educational credentials.

[ScimitarXEdge]

It's not hard to nuke bomb Toramana; all of his arguments are so abjectly flawed that they're easy to respond to.

[MazloomYarMasud]

First of all Abu Bakar, Let me recall last year, you are the same guy who said it is the duty of all Muslims to kill,attack and invade atleast one Non-Muslim country a year

and from whom did you get this idea from? Oh let me guess, it was the Arab Palestinian Terrorist Azzam Abdullah who got his backside blown up by his own supporters in Peshawer,

Abu Bakar people such as you are looked down upon, you speak of Muslims yet people such as you who follow Wahabism consider 80 percent of your Muslim Ummah as Shirk,Kaffir and devients.

What unity of a common foe? Dude you and your arab brothers here are the biggest joke that is why hardly anybody takes you guys so seriously

Your minds are repressed and follow mumbo jumbo conspiracy theories while you sleep in your cofy beds in the secular west.

You see guys, at the end of the day you all live under secular laws so do not make a fool of yourself

if you prefer the lifestyle that you preach, then pack your bags and move to somehwere like the tribal region of Pakhtunkhwa,Chechnya,Sudan,Somalia,Afghanistan.

Burn your passport, or give it to someone who deserves it and appriciates it if you are so against secularism.

But you see, you got a right in Secularism while your third world backward Islamic laws can not even give a single right to a Christian to build a Church because your ideoligists fear what if mankind realises the super-natural non sense that most Ideoligists of Alqueda follow.
Shariat and khalifate was a flob, Prophet Mohammads own family started slaughtering themselves for power and religion is nothing but a tool of power and politics.

We witnessed reality when the whole khalifate crumbled and become a state of Family rivalry,

We witnessed the birth of Shiasm due to the policies of Arabs

We witnessed the system of Mawali which also played part of the emergence of Shiasm

We witnessed how Arabs choose to consider non Arab Muslims as lower cast and we witnessed
how the Arabs with Islam placed their tribal identities into ruling positions.
Arabs are only using Islam to gain back a power they lost, but it will not work
Islam is very much divided with only two power houses bieng Saudi Arabia and Iran
both are nations that are filled up corruption,terrorism and bigotry so how can they lead anyone?

Secularism has brought peace to the whole world, have you ever seen a Sunni or Shia riot or fight during Ashura in the UK or America?
Rest assured in so called Muslim countries it occurs daily.

Also in a secular state everyone has equal rights unlike in a Islamic state where women are considered as Half witted and can not leave their home without a male escort.
What about the rape laws in Islamic state, there are 1000s of Muslim women inprisoned because they could not prove their complaint of rape due to the backwardness of Islamic law
You think in this technological era, in Islamic state they must put forward three male witnesses of the rape, ignoring DNA testing and other updated sciencifitic apparatus.

Also, under a Islamic state, Religionous Police have the duty to enforce citizens to attend prayers and are allowed to do so by force, not only is this oppressive and counter productive as we see in Iran,but under a secular state
mankind is allowed to preach,follow,attend whatever they want as long it does not cause a public disorder or harm to others, unlike under a Islamic state where life starts in the mosque and ends in the mosque.

Under a Secular state, Citizens are free to follow any religion they want, under a Islamic state, by law you can be killed even if you left Islam or wore a cross, as that would be evidence of your execution.
Talk about Arab gang mentality eh!

Most of you here are living in the West, what if the Christians started enforcing a programme of converting Muslims to Christianity?
just as Muslims are doing through those annoying Dawah stalls and programmes?

Islamic state has always been a epic failure and its promotors and supporters here in the west are even more of a joke than the laws of the Islamic state.

Stoning women in 6ft deep holes, lashing people for listening to Music in their cars, harassing public to follow Sunnah by intidimation and fear, these are all what you guys represent and makes sane minded individuals laugh.

Plus on the other thread you posted pictures of this depleted uraniam claim being used in Afghanistan with Photos
what you ignored is that those were not pictures of uranian affecting the children, they were children who were born prematurely and suffered from a particular disease.

Radical Islam does not work with modernisation or if you ones country to be successful. I have seen it with my own eyes
bickering and angry re-born Muslims argueing how bad the west is while they refuse to work and sit on benefits.

People cry over Iraq and Afghanistan, but they never bring the issue of Sunnis killing Shias in Iraq, and the civil war between Muslims in Afghanistan for power,
Promotors of Arab interests neglect the rights of oppressed minorities such as Kurds, Christians and Jews and then they complain about the banning of veils and minerets.

Arab world is sheer hypocrisy. Take the case of the Saudi Girls school burning down, the Saudi Islamic law virture and vice police sent the girls back into fire because there burqa's were burnt.
Under a secular state they would have been saved.

Plus it was not long ago that the Islamic state of Saudi Arabia wanted to legalise Slavery,
Slavery was only illegal in Saudi Arabia in the 70's due to pressure from the secular world, goes to show how modern and good your islamc state that reconises Slaves.

Due to concerns addressed by Admin Khan, most of us here do not indulge too much into questioning Islam,
Most of the world does not waste time questioning Islamic laws or the religion as a whole, because Muslims get upset and pull out the racism card.

Nobody questions why Islam and Hadith states Day of judgement will not come until Jews are killed and the trees will talk to you "that hey jew is hiding here,kill the jew".

What about the 72 virigins, the rivers of milk and wine and the orgies of sex with beautiful white women with black eyes.

what about the permissble rape of a wife, by blackmailing her that angels will curse her if she does not submitt.

You see last time I posted many threads in regard to the other side of Islam and Islamic law but people are sensitive and got me banned so I do not want to repeat same mistake.

But Nobody has seriously challenged Islam because Muslims themselves are sensitive and can not take any criticism of their faith due to this unusual confident feeling of being the only truthful path lol!

With due time and global modernisation, Islam like with other relgions will fade away

Muslims on Pashtunforums do the exact opposite of what Islam preaches

1)they speak to girls/boys, Islam promotes gender segregation
2)they listen to Music, Islam bans Music and only allows the drum of Deserb Bedion Arab
3)they watch football, Footballers wear shorts, play for Nationalitiess(nationalism) and most are non Muslim
4)they watch movies, Islam bans Visual content and movies are the product of the kaffir
5)they post their pictures,taking photos is haraam

The list goes on, so no matter how much you cry over secularism and the west, always remmeber this
you guys do the exact oppositie of what Islam/Hadith teaches you to do, plus most of you actually follow a secularized Islam

Kind Regards

[MazloomYarMasud]

It's not hard to nuke bomb Toramana; all of his arguments are so abjectly flawed that they're easy to respond to.

Says the guy who hates Secularism and blames secularism for everything while he lives under secular laws. You are born flawed, you flawed and will be until you burn your secular passport.

Secondly, I suggest you be a bit more unbiased and educate us on how families are effected when Arabs travel 7000 miles to Afghanistan to blow up markets packed full of civilians.

You see people like you have other motives and interests. and Main one being, you want to preserve the dominance and the backwardness of the Arab world upon a already backward and poverty stricken Pashtun region.

Go to Palestine, unite the Palestinian Muslims and Christians lol!

[Toramana]

I know that advanced doesn't mean "New"; but in other posts you constantly use Modernity as a justification which is arguing from a position of newness.

It seems to be from your arguments that you believe that Newness of ideas means "more universe; more in keeping with rationality" and "self-respect and dignity"

rather than qualitative analysis.

Where did I use the word modernity? And again you are making the same mistake i.e., confusing NEWNESS with MODERNITY or ADVANCEDNESS. When we say "birth of a new child", that doesn't mean "birth of an advanced child"....When we say "I bought a new car", that doesn't necessarily mean "an advanced or modern" car.

Advanced and modern in a sense are semantically similar i.e., both connote (to a degree) efficacy, efficiency, rationality and objectivity, knowledge-based decisions/actions (if humans and societies are considered), optimality, generality and universality, etc.

Now let me give you a concrete example. The TRANSPORTAION/DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM 1400 years back was primitive i.e., it was not advanced ...because huge distances couldn't be covered in short times nor freight or commodities could be transported in huge amounts. Therefore, they were not efficient and effective compared to today’s transportation/distribution systems. Why…because, CAMEL TRANSPORTATION was based on simple knowledge i.e., the knowledge how to domesticate camels (study camel's relationship to its ecology) and how to get on its back and drive it.

Compare this to today's Transportation/Distribution Systems. They are based on more intricate/thorough/profound knowledge of nature and resource utilization/management/administration. Study of nature has enabled human-beings to discover laws (Newtonian Mechanics for example) and use them to design practical technologies (vehicles), that enable them to cover long-distances in short time in all types of environment (e.g., land, oceans, and air) i.e. such knowledge is more general. Look at the air traffic control system; how sophisticated and intricate, and consequently efficient/effective it is.

Another example would be disaster-response systems today, which are able to deliver almost instant (this is an extreme claim though) response to human suffering due to natural calamities (e.g. flood, fire, etc.) on a huge scale. Compare it to the disaster-response (if there were any) systems 1400 years back.

Now let us come to social systems because we are concerned with ethics and moral systems.

In old times, these moral definitions/concepts and legal systems were based on claims of divine revelation and approval, myth, superstition, might is right, and disregard for the rights of the weak and the vulnerable. Contrary to this, today's moral and justice (sorry mixing both) systems are based on profound knowledge of human psychology, society, and needs, etc. This is because, thousands of thinkers, philosophers, social scientists, jurists, politicians, psychologists, etc. have pondered over the notions, descriptions, and formulations that most adequately capture human sense/concept of fairness/justice irrespective of creed, gender, age, etc. These formulations have been debated and re-debated and constant adjustments/modifications have been made to them...Based on this understanding, institutionalized legislation has been done, which has been put to test as well. In many cases, its effectiveness has been assessed through a variety of means and tools, quantitative as well as qualitative and the feedback has been used to make it more perfect. Today, a larger part of more aware, more conscious, and more knowledgeable humanity has greater consensus on the notion of human-right, morality, fairness/justice, and the ways of justice dispensation today. That is why today's notions of morality are more advanced, universalistic, and humanistic compared to the superstition-based approaches (to ethics/morality) of the past.

[ScimitarXEdge]

Says the guy who hates Secularism and blames secularism for everything while he lives under secular laws. You are born flawed, you flawed and will be until you burn your secular passport.

Secondly, I suggest you be a bit more unbiased and educate us on how families are effected when Arabs travel 7000 miles to Afghanistan to blow up markets packed full of civilians.

You see people like you have other motives and interests. and Main one being, you want to preserve the dominance and the backwardness of the Arab world upon a already backward and poverty stricken Pashtun region.

Go to Palestine, unite the Palestinian Muslims and Christians lol!

Fallacy: Circumstantial Ad Hominem
Fallacy: Circumstantial Ad Hominem

Description of Circumstantial Ad Hominem

A Circumstantial ad Hominem is a fallacy in which one attempts to attack a claim by asserting that the person making the claim is making it simply out of self interest. In some cases, this fallacy involves substituting an attack on a person's circumstances (such as the person's religion, political affiliation, ethnic background, etc.). The fallacy has the following forms:


Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on A's circumstances.
Therefore X is false.



You're being Intellectually Dishonest Mazloomyar; but I guess I wouldn't expect much more out of you.

There are numerous posts where I condemn Al-Qaeda and similar groups for their extremism. However, I can distinguish between Al-Qaeda, Arabs in general and Pan-Islam as being distinct and mutually exclusive premises. Something which you and all your Logically Fallacious Genetic Fallacy or Circumstantial Ad-Hominems have yet to debunk.

If you can't refute the claim itself; you have no argument. ....sama da?

[ScimitarXEdge]

Where did I use the word modernity? And again you are making the same mistake i.e., confusing NEWNESS with MODERNITY or ADVANCEDNESS. When we say "birth of a new child", that doesn't mean "birth of an advanced child"....When we say "I bought a new car", that doesn't necessarily mean "an advanced or modern" car.

Advanced and modern in a sense are semantically similar i.e., both connote (to a degree) efficacy, efficiency, rationality and objectivity, knowledge-based decisions/actions (if humans and societies are considered), optimality, generality and universality, etc.

Now let me give you a concrete example. The TRANSPORTAION/DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM 1400 years back was primitive i.e., it was not advanced ...because huge distances couldn't be covered in short times nor freight or commodities could be transported in huge amounts. Therefore, they were not efficient and effective compared to today’s transportation/distribution systems. Why…because, CAMEL TRANSPORTATION was based on simple knowledge i.e., the knowledge how to domesticate camels (study camel's relationship to its ecology) and how to get on its back and drive it.

Compare this to today's Transportation/Distribution Systems. They are based on more intricate/thorough/profound knowledge of nature and resource utilization/management/administration. Study of nature has enabled human-beings to discover laws (Newtonian Mechanics for example) and use them to design practical technologies (vehicles), that enable them to cover long-distances in short time in all types of environment (e.g., land, oceans, and air) i.e. such knowledge is more general. Look at the air traffic control system; how sophisticated and intricate, and consequently efficient/effective it is.

Another example would be disaster-response systems today, which are able to deliver almost instant (this is an extreme claim though) response to human suffering due to natural calamities (e.g. flood, fire, etc.) on a huge scale. Compare it to the disaster-response (if there were any) systems 1400 years back.

Now let us come to social systems because we are concerned with ethics and moral systems.

In old times, these moral definitions/concepts and legal systems were based on claims of divine revelation and approval, myth, superstition, might is right, and disregard for the rights of the weak and the vulnerable. Contrary to this, today's moral and justice (sorry mixing both) systems are based on profound knowledge of human psychology, society, and needs, etc. This is because, thousands of thinkers, philosophers, social scientists, jurists, politicians, psychologists, etc. have pondered over the notions, descriptions, and formulations that most adequately capture human sense/concept of fairness/justice irrespective of creed, gender, age, etc. These formulations have been debated and re-debated and constant adjustments/modifications have been made to them...Based on this understanding, institutionalized legislation has been done, which has been put to test as well. In many cases, its effectiveness has been assessed through a variety of means and tools, quantitative as well as qualitative and the feedback has been used to make it more perfect. Today, a larger part of more aware, more conscious, and more knowledgeable humanity has greater consensus on the notion of human-right, morality, fairness/justice, and the ways of justice dispensation today. That is why today's notions of morality are more advanced, universalistic, and humanistic compared to the superstition-based approaches (to ethics/morality) of the past.

You are simply an Intellectual Midget.

Now you're using Fallacy of Equivocation; using One rendering of "Newness" which applies in One context (a new car); and comparing it to other forms of "Newness" which pertain to Modernity.

As should already be known, The distinction between Advancement and Modernity is already established by myself and many others. In my understanding a So-Called "Primitive Culture" is actually MORE ADVANCED than a Technocratic Complex Society, because the Primitive Society is more in balance with it's Ecosystem; where as the Technocratic society is debilitating itself by violating the ecosystem which ultimately results in self destruction.

This is the culmination of what each kind of society ultimately ends in and it demonstrates who one is actually more reflection of Virtues and which one isn't.

So in ONE sentence your Entire One Page argument has been debunked completely. You have the picture in COMPLETE reverse. It is your view of MODERN Society which corrupts with it's disregard for Morality, The Values of Rights, tolerance of social corruption, exploitation of nature/the Earth, human beings and animals, Inujustice, inequity, disparity and unfairness. While the thing you deem primitive, wrongfully so I might add; which has provide Ecological Stability and Harmony which ultimately serves all members of our human species and ultimately ensures the well being, justice, equity, moral virtue for all things.

It doesn't matter if there have been "Thousands of Debates"; again You're committing a typical logical fallacy, which is Appealing to Popularity, that because a large number of discussions happen that means automatically the Argument has become ratified with sufficient. We find that EVIDENTIALLY that the claim is false by Examining how displaced and dysfunctional Contemporary Human Society has become due to it's displacement from the Natural Ecosystem. And yet you want to copy this and make it our standard for progress?

You sir are mentally ill.


The measure of how virtuous or prosperous an ideology is depends on how it influence our relationship with the ecosystem/natural world, because that is the foundation and derivation of our senses and faculties. What an ideas basis is makes no difference, what matters is the end result

Either you're in balance with Nature; or you're a Parasitic Order, your value of Modernity is Value for Parasitism.

You're peddling a losing argument.

[Toramana]

Moreover, what should be the relatioship/contract of society to/with individual. Some may argue society is primary; others may say, individual is primary and that society exists for the individual (i.e. society is a tool/mean of the individual for self-realization and presevation). Let us take the middle course and assume society exists for individual and individual exists for society.

Society as such is as much responsible to individual as individual is to the society. Society must do all it can for the happiness (and emotional health) of the individual as long as collective well-being is not compromised.

Now as we know, all human beings irrespective of gender and creed have got same emotions and sense of self-respect and dignity...Shame, stigma, humuliation, disgrace and degradation, etc. are things that torment and traumatise us all irrespective of our gender..Rational ability and self-consciousness are characteristics of all human-beings....A society should, therefore, not treat an individual in a way that would cause emotional pain to him/her.

Would the woman in question be able to pass a normal life after this public humuliation of her and the stigma brough upon her? What should be the goal of the justice system...rehabilitation and re-integration of the individual in the society or inflicting emotional and psychological scars on her/him rendering him/her permanently unable to cope with life?

This was extremely abhorable and ugly yet there are some who justify and condone it.

And when have Pashtuns allowed the public humuliation of their women-folk until AL-Qaueda and Taleban brought this Arab-rooted ideology to our land? Still how many Pashtuns would approve of such things?

[Toramana]

Again, I know you very well...Your rote-learning, psuedo-knowledge, and layman rhetoric/arguments (e.g. primitive society being more efficient with regard to ecosystem) cannot prevent us from seeking knowledge.

And why not we send you to some stone-age environment? There still exist such places on earth e.g. some desert in Saudi Arabia or mountain wilderness of Hamaliya? Why are you enjoying all fruits of modernity including the Computer you are using, the Internet, the books, the college campus, the resource-allocation system, etc.? However, this point of primitive society being more efficient with regard to ecosystem is a different one that should be discussed at its turn.

But anyhow, let me take the Human Ecology thing first that you mentioned in one of your earlier posts.

[Alchemist]

Read Toramana,

Don't just scan and then jump into your own rhetoric.

Your arguments seem lengthy but its mostly foam and holds no water.

You are saying that the woman has been "publicly" humiliated. As if to say that the punishment doesn't fit the crime. First of all, you can't even see the woman's face so you don't even know who she is. Therefore, in a sense her "privacy" is protected. Secondly, the point of punishment, even if it is humiliation, is to deter the act from being repeated. Sometimes your parents scolded you infront of your friends. You felt ashamed and held it against your parents to humiliate you in front of others. But maybe you left your parent's with no choice since getting punished in private would not affect you, as you had become too accustomed and unashamed (bayhaya). You are talking about "Shame" as if it only exists in public, but the shame of committing licentious acts means nothing to you. This is your own personal opinion and you have no right to speak on behalf of sudanese or pashtuns or arabs if your cultural values are not the same as them, i.e Islam. This much even european supremacists can understand through years of cultural sensitivity training.


More importantly Sudan is a country in turmoil. I don't know if you know this or not but Sudan is going through a referendum to get split up into 2 states. This means that the country is in total chaos and what you are seeing is a glimpse of the lawlessness and confusion that comes about from having a weak government. Right now there are 2 armies and a dozen different factions running around in sudan spreading their own ideologies. What do you propose as a solution for the root cause of what is happening in Sudan? You don't know! This is why you are an intellectual midget...because you see a 30 second video and you assume you know the 30 year history of Sudan and then pretentiously you write on behalf of a people whose situation you don't even understand. You are looking at the symptom and blaming Islam for the failed state of Sudan, as if to say that Sudan has been running under Islamic Khilifat for the past 50 years. But you don't know its history under the occupation of British and you don't know that this country has been in civil war for the past half century. You show a lack of total disregard for the country of Sudan as a whole and choose to showcase the plight of one woman to further your own agenda. This makes you nothing more than a selfish opportunist. If this really was a humiliation for the woman, and you felt that it was extreme, you wouldn have had the decency to not show the video in the first place, out of respect for the woman. But instead you, like the poster of the video, don't really care about the woman, but only care to use her as an example....just like the ones who are punishing her are using her as an example. There is no difference between you and them! You just have a different title on the story than them.
Get your head out of the sand hole and show some real brains...for a change.

[ScimitarXEdge]

Moreover, what should be the relatioship/contract of society to/with individual. Some may argue society is primary; others may say, individual is primary and that society exists for the individual (i.e. society is a tool/mean of the individual for self-realization and presevation). Let us take the middle course and assume society exists for individual and individual exists for society.

Society as such is as much responsible to individual as individual to the society. Society must do all it can for the happiness (and emotional health) of the individual as long as collective well-being is not compromised.

Now as we know, all human beings irrespective of gender and creed have got same emotions and sense of self-respect and dignity...Shame, stigma, humuliation, disgrace and degradation, etc. are things that torment and traumatise all irrespective of whether one is a male or a female...Rational ability and self-consciousness are characteristics of all human-beings....A society should not treat an individual in a way that would cause emotional pain to him/her.

Would the women in question be able to pass a normal life after this public humuliation? What should be the goal of the justice system...rehabilitation and re-integration in the society or inflicting emotional and psychological scars on the individual rendering him unable to adjust to life after the punishment?

This was extremely abhorable and ugly yet there are some who justify and condone it.

And when have Pashtuns allowed the public humuliation of their women-folk until AL-Qaueda and Taleban brought this Arab-rooted ideology to our land? Still how many Pashtuns would approve of such things?

Everything should be addressed in context; if someone does moral wrong; then it's not the punishment that's a humiliation; but their WILFULL choice to do wrong that has humiliated them. So this argument is nothing more than a diversion and red herring from the underlying problem that's being addressed here.


If you believed in the functional equality of genders; you would not try to employ Special Standards for women. Obviously, you don't believe in this sort of equality of genders, perhaps Much like Islam teaches believe in the Complimentary Equality of Genders, where there are special sensitivities alloted for women which are distinct than men in some regards and vice versa.


The KEY FULCRUM which will tip the scale for whether this Woman has been UNJUSTLY humiliated and violated is her innocence; if she is innocent then we should most certainly protest on her behalf and ask for justice to be done against her oppressors, most definitely. Islam does not accept or tolerate tyranny. The oppressors should have done to them as they had done to others. And the trauma you allege she would experience would be removed as this person has been vindicated and only her oppressors would be disgraced by this act.

However if this person, hypothetically had done evils, crimes against the society and blatant indecency; then if their concern was for their own dignity and self respect, he/she would never engage in such acts or even think of it. If they were willing to humiliate themselves with immoral deeds, then their concern isn't being humiliated anyways but just their wounded ego.

It is not enough to show someone being punished, you must show everything in complete context. Your claim that her punishment is unjustified regardless of what evil she's done is a Non-Sequitur; meaning it does not logically follow from your premise.

As for the relationship between society's rights and individual's rights; this is of course a Mutual Exchange, Society Helps support and sustain the individual and the individual helps support and sustains the society. The Society nor the Individual is Absolute. Nonetheless What is absolute is when an act disturbs the coherent relationships between both; this is the measure by which we know whether an individual has gone beyond their rights or whether society has gone beyond theirs. Each is accountable. Hence why society can be punished by Violent overthrow by it's individuals and an individual can be punished by societally meted penalties.

[Toramana]

“While we can agree that Pashtunwali is derived from ecological relationships; so is Islam; and furthermore these ecological relationships are products of human biological developments. So they're not subject to "change" for the human species in the sense you speak of. As evolutionary time scales are VAST. Lastly Pashtunwali has always had both a hard/strong and soft/gentle aspect, this is not anything knew nor is there emphasis anything unique to the Novelty Appeal you're conveying.”

Reference to the above statement in one of your earlier posts.

Now let us come to this Human Ecology point in your argument. Let me state that I never used the term “Human Ecology” explicitly. It was rather you that used it. And the context was, when I said the punishment given to the woman was extremely harsh to which you responded by saying that Pashtunwali also has such (or rather harsher punishments) punishments. This is interesting point because, drawing a parallel between Pashtunwali and Islam, as you did, can have only one interpretation i.e. Pashtunwali as a justice system is as good or as bad as Islam is (depends on whether you consider the justice system of Pashtunwali bad or good).


Instead of responding to my point from a rational/humanistic stand-point, you committed logical fallacy by arguing that as Pashtunwali has inhuman punishments, so it is ok for Islam to have such punishments. Here you forgot that Islam is a divine system (as you think) and therefore should be free of human- induced biases and weaknesses.


Anyhow, to the above I responded by saying that I don’t approve of the punishments in Pashtunwali and that, unlike the presumed divine origin of religion, Pashtunwali being a human-evolved system, is subject to change. I said, Pashtunwali or Pashtun culture is the life-style/way-life Pashtuns evolved in response to challenges from nature (and co-humans) in order to survive…and that, as consequently happens, Pashtunwali would change as Pashtuns would acquire more knowledge and control of their environment. In a later post, I further elaborated that Pashtun values and ideals have mostly been (informally) orally and socially transmitted whereas tenets of Islam have formally been stipulated in Islamic scriptures (Quran and Hadiths) and as such they are constant and unchanging.

Now you counter argued that if Pashtunwali is derived from Ecological Environment, so also is Islam. I had presented the natural environment argument to bring home the point that due to the interaction between humans and their natural environment, human cultures, social organizations, values, etc. emerge and change. Did you mean Islam also changes? If you mean so, how come you call Islam to be divine (if God’s hand doesn’t manifest in nature) and its rules and principles to be universally/eternally applicable and valid?

Doesn’t your argument imply that Islam is mostly derived from Ecology (of Saudi Arab at that time) with the only exception that it has become fixed and petrified at that point of time ----it is almost an exact image/copy/model of Arab way of life, culture, values, etc. then (i.e. 1400 years back)…and you are trying to carry it into future, to our times, and implement it as it is without reforming it?

When you mention evolutionary change, you mean change in human biology or change also in human culture, society, and values? Do you argue that societal changes i.e. changes of culture, values, social organization, etc. also occur on evolutionary time-scale?

[ScimitarXEdge]

Moreover, what should be the relatioship/contract of society to/with individual. Some may argue society is primary; others may say, individual is primary and that society exists for the individual (i.e. society is a tool/mean of the individual for self-realization and presevation). Let us take the middle course and assume society exists for individual and individual exists for society.

Society as such is as much responsible to individual as individual is to the society. Society must do all it can for the happiness (and emotional health) of the individual as long as collective well-being is not compromised.

Now as we know, all human beings irrespective of gender and creed have got same emotions and sense of self-respect and dignity...Shame, stigma, humuliation, disgrace and degradation, etc. are things that torment and traumatise us all irrespective of our gender..Rational ability and self-consciousness are characteristics of all human-beings....A society should, therefore, not treat an individual in a way that would cause emotional pain to him/her.

Would the woman in question be able to pass a normal life after this public humuliation of her and the stigma brough upon her? What should be the goal of the justice system...rehabilitation and re-integration of the individual in the society or inflicting emotional and psychological scars on her/him rendering him/her permanently unable to cope with life?

This was extremely abhorable and ugly yet there are some who justify and condone it.

And when have Pashtuns allowed the public humuliation of their women-folk until AL-Qaueda and Taleban brought this Arab-rooted ideology to our land? Still how many Pashtuns would approve of such things?

See your understanding is flawed because you speak from the perspective external to Islamic Society and in particular Pashtoon society, which is a subset of Islamic society.

The sanctity of someone, and in this case women in regards to Humiliation or Reprimand is wholly dependent on their Innocence. The reason Pashtoons revere the sanctity of women so much is because they idealize their innocence, their grace and their virtue. If someone does such acts it is their choice and infact willing volition to be humiliated, the invite such scars and traumas. It is their own disgraceful self destruction which brought them to that point and it is condition which is meted out Justice.

When those things are contaminated or corrupted; that sanctity is lost. This is the Pashtoon view and we know this from the rules of Pashtoonwali. There's no argument of tough environmental conditions or some shallow minded blanket statement of alleged experimentation or debates by scholars which supplants these standards. These standards exist because this is how our evolutionary composition has established in our species.

There's nothing in any of your arguments that make such things "extremely abhorable and ugly", this is merely an Emotional ploy, and it's Non-Sequitur. On the contrary what is most disgusting and abhorrent is this insistence to defend, condone, protect or grant reprieve to the immoral with impunity; and it is such because to give such appeasement only demonstrates social deterioration.

Indeed we can find in Pashtoon history the example of Wazir Akbar Khan who lead an uprising against the British Garrison of Kabul; after the Uprising, it was known some of the women of Kabul who were known to have had liaisons with members of the British Cantonment, they were lead through the streets, publicly lashed and then executed, also publicly, mainly by beheading and/or being hacked apart. Not the Islamically prescribed stoning or lashing I might add. Although at this time Kabul was not heavily Pashtoon inhabited, it demonstrates that when anyone sought the way of corruption, Pashtoons had no hesitance in dealing justice against them and scorning them publcly; this included women. It's unfortunate because ideally we want to cherish and honor our women as precious and inviable and more over incorruptible, but reality is that's not always the case. And certainly Pashtoons understood this.

This was before any "Arab rooted" ideology as you distortedly and intellectually dishonestly attempt to portray had any sway in the region.

[Alchemist]

Toromana,

you don't understand evolution if you think that it is means "progression". In evolution there is no "higher life" vs "lower life" or any such scale of "development". It's not like all the species are evolving towards some "higher self". So don't confuse your self into think that "cultural evolution" is "progressive" and towards a more "standardized, universal, objective" utopia. Objectivity and evolution in the realm of science do not transfer to cultural realities, and this has been proven in the science fields already. Your rhetoric is 19th century social philosophy of darwinism and it has been debunked and castrated. Get with the times.