Extreme Humuliation of Women in Sudan and other Arab Countries

[Toramana]

"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.”

Yes, Human Ecology means Human relationship to the Natural World. For a more precise definition of Human Ecology, see the following definitions quoted from articles mentioned in the given links. Please, read the full article.

The study of how the distributions and numbers of humans are determined by interactions with conspecific individuals, with members of other species, and with the abiotic environment. Human ecology encompasses both the responses of humans to, and the effects of humans on, the environment. Human ecology today is the combined result of humans' evolutionary nature and cultural developments. http://www.answers.com/topic/human-ecology#ixzz1A0YQ11Sz

It is disputed if human ecology is a sub-discipline of sociology, or if it is a sub-discipline of ecology. A point that strengthens the latter position is the methodological approach of human ecology, that is orientation rather along the lines of natural science then along the lines of social sciences. The inclusion or exclusion of human ecology in to sociology proper varies between countries and schools of sociological thinking. Environmental sociology is a field of sociology which encompasses the interactions between humans and nature/natural environment, but is rooted in the methodological and theoretical canon of sociology. Sometimes human ecology is seen as part of environmental sociology, sometimes it is seen as something completely different. Influences can also be seen between human ecology and the field of political ecology.

Human ecology - Definition

As can be understood from the above text, Human Ecology is a very interdisciplinary field encompassing many areas e.g. biology, sociology, geography, anthropology, etc. The problem is, you are taking it in purely biological sense (gradual changes on evolutionary time scale) and divorce the study of society and the impact of social processes on environment and vice versa from its scope. My main argument is, in Human Ecological relationship, environmental conditions and humans act upon each other and as a result of that process, the environment gets modified as well as human society (its culture, values, social organization, technology, mode of living, food, etc.).

For example, if you consider coastal, desert, mountain, and agrarian communities their ecological systems in terms of resource distribution, social organization and technology required to exploit those resources and human capacities needed to be successful in such ecological systems, then there is a marked difference. Now if you claim Islam is derived from ecological conditions as Pashtunwali is, how can its values be suitable for local conditions but universally applicable at the same time taking into account the ecological diversity? If it is derived from ecology, how can it be non-changing and eternal in terms of social organization, culture, values, etc. because we know cultures, values constantly change due to ecological relationship?


Why is that, the punishment for adultery in Arab society or for that matter, Pashtun society is much harsher than in Malaysian, Bangladeshi, or Indonesian society? Does it have something to do with ecology and consequently values and culture?

How can you claim that Pashtun values are unchanging although the changes are so evident?

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. "

Tell me on thing; is it the natural system that has nurtured humans or humans that have designed/altered the natural system to meet their needs? Which was prior and which later? Has the adaptive mechanism in humans induced by nature (through hosting human life) or can humans develop an adaptive mechanism suited to life on Mars (for example) without living in it? How is it possible that there (on Mars) exist the same kind of resources (food) and conditions (temperature, pressure, gravity, water availability, etc.) to give rise to the same kind of culture and set of values as on earth? What kind of values, social patterns, culture, technology, law, etc. are needed for human race to survive on Mars?

For example, most of the marriages on earth are either monogamous or polygamous because males and females exist in even proportion. Assume 20 men and 10 women make it to Mars; what kind of marriage (polyandrous?) would be required there for human race to survive on Mars and foremost how Islamic ethics and morality would hold there (traditional Islam being universally effective/applicable as you claim).

How can you rule out the possibility of humans going to Mars ? Same was the perception of humans about space travel 200 years ago.

[ScimitarXEdge]

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?

Sir, repeating the same flawed argument, and I emphasize when I said flawed; doesn't make them any more meritable. These are meritless arguments.

Now I will elucidate as to why they're meritless; yes it's true that I mentioned the ecological relationships of Pashtoons to nature and human beings, and it's also true that I emphasize that Pashtoonwali is derived from those ecological relationships. However, human ecology is much more expansive than the localized conception of it you seem to be drawing upon to make your point; human ecology is a global phenomena and encompasses the conditions which humans as a species had evolved in. This is what fashioned the characteristics of human nature, and thereby will make things applicable to all climates or geographic terrains. They are so because human nature is still essentially the same as the one that evolved through the global ecosystem. Pashtoonwali, for the most part would therefore remain consistent through time since it is ecologically attuned to human nature. This is also true about Islam; as it's based on the same relationships with human ecology and the natural world itself; the difference however is that Pashtoonwali has some errors in it's assessments which went into certain gross deviations, for example the practice of SWARA, who's current format is totally forbidden in Islam; exists in Pashtoonwali; in the original format swara was a way to rekindle bonds between conflicting tribes by intermarriage; then it became a grudge feud where the female ends up getting being demoralized just for being from the offending clan, and treated as cattle rather than human. However, Islam is more holistic and retains more appropriate checks and balances. Both Islam and Pashtoonwali assert parallel principles, but Islam somewhat more accurate in it's relationships to ecology than Pashtoonwali is; largely because it's based n a closer relatiionship to nature. Oral transmission does not indicate that Pashtoonwali was subject to dramatic changes (despite the Swara example); because oral transmission was so widespread. However for the most part Islam and Pashtoonwali still more accurate than so called "Modern Standards" because they're based on a closer relationship to Nature in comparison, therefore better suited for us. I would describe Islam as A grade, Pashtoonwali as A- and Modern Secularism as F Grade.

Your ecological understanding of localized environments is incorrect; Pashtoon lands are extremely diverse as far as differential geographic terrain is concerned. You have Pashtoons that live in largely mountainous and or desert based and arid climates, This is true at least in the case of Qandahar, Helmand, Farah, Nimrouz, Balouchistan and such. This type of geology is not terribly different than the conditions of Saudi Arabia or Yemen, which is also arid and mountainous. Then you have Eastern Pashtoons who live in mountainous yet heavily forested areas. Then you have Pashtoons who are Kuchiyeen/Powanda that often reside in grassy flat plains of North and Central Afghanistan. Yet regardless they all retain Pashtoonwali and more over Islam. This examples demonstrate two things; first, Human Ecology is not a localized phenomena, second that oral transmission did not dramatically alter Pashtoonwali and thirdly that the relevance of human ecology and the principles that pertain to human ecological relationships is not dependent on differential geographic terrain, but human nature as it was developed in relation to global ecology.

Also once again you're committing the same Logical Fallacy of Appeal to Novelty; something doesn't become invalid because it's not from "our times" nor does it become valid because it's from "our times". Your assessment on Islam is also inaccurate, because Arabic norms before Islam were drastically different after Islam, and also Islam had spread to Iran and North Africa and it was viable in all sorts of conditions; if Islam was meant only for desert Arabs or pertained only to their conditions, this would not be the case. Even more so as time progressed What this indicates is already Islam is suited for differential geographic terrain and timespans.

When we speak of Evolutionary Change we speak of the constructs which compose human faculties; this requires Evolutionary Timespans, which are pretty vast. It took millions of years for our ancestor primates to become "human" and for us to no longer be humans would imaginably be also millions of years; if that. It is understood that societies change and so do societal values; but change does not mean those changes or alterations are valid. As we saw in Pashtoonwali; although Pashtoonwali retains most of it's essential values, some of the changes to those values were WRONG, for example Swara. The cause of those changes wasn't due to enlightened novelty but corruption. Therefore we need a measure by which we can correctly analyze when something is valid and when something is not. Our Evolutionary Faculties would be the proper measure as that is what composes how we function; to determine whether societal changes are correct or they're distortions and corruptions. Any reformation has to be based on those principles to be valid. On this basis we can determine that contemporary standards are in fact corruptions and not advancements.

[IamDZJ]

what do you people eat in the morning. you talk so much. who reads all that stuff.

[Toramana]

Now I will elucidate as to why they're meritless; yes it's true that I mentioned the ecological relationships of Pashtoons to nature and human beings, and it's also true that I emphasize that Pashtoonwali is derived from those ecological relationships.

Ok accepted. That is right.

However, human ecology is much more expansive than the localized conception of it you seem to be drawing upon to make your point; human ecology is a global phenomena and encompasses the conditions which humans as a species had evolved in.

I think the only UNIVERSAL in Human Ecology is whereever humans exist, they exist in relation to an environment (acting upon each each other)...and that they live in groups(societies)...and that they have cultures ...and the cultures are shaped by the environment and cultural factors in turn impact the environment...And this action and reaction (togethor with cultural contact) gives rise to social change, value transformation, cultural development in societies, and so on....

The other UNIVERSAL may be the diversity of cultures and values (different food habits, life-styles, etc.), which itself is indicative of different environmental conditions at different points of times and space (if we consider ecology to be the determinent of culture...which at least may be the partial truth)...


Nevertheless, no universal set of ecological laws or ecological paradigm exits that can fully explain or describe (in specific detail) Human Ecology of a given society ...and that the human ecology of every society should be studied in its own individuality in relation to its specific environment in order to describe it.


Why go afar? In natural sciences, we have this thing. For example, motion and forces of attraction/repulsion between bodies are UNIVERSAL in Physics; nevertheless there is not a single set of physical laws that can model the interaction of motion and gravitational forces between all bodies in the Universe. We have Netwtonian Mechanics that models the motion of celestial bodies, then we have Quantum Mechanics for describing the motion of sub-atomic particles, and finally there is Theory of Relativity to explain the motion and gravitational properties of heavenly/cosmic objects. And what about Zoology...and Anthropology, etc.?

But the actual point here isn't that. It is that how cultures and values and the related concepts of morality and ethics change even in our life-time.

This is what fashioned the characteristics of human nature, and thereby will make things applicable to all climates or geographic terrains. They are so because human nature is still essentially the same as the one that evolved through the global ecosystem. Pashtoonwali, for the most part would therefore remain consistent through time since it is ecologically attuned to human nature. This is also true about Islam; as it's based on the same relationships with human ecology and the natural world itself;

This is prespostrous, ridiculous, non-sensical, and I would say with regrets in advance, outright foolish. Has Human Ecology discovered/identified/determined the general patterns and principles applicable to all climates and geographic terrians? Where are those patterns/principles e.g. which research has reported such findings?

More importantly, can you show me any academic or research work that vindicates the position of Islam with regard to its stance on morality and ethics i.e. its moral principles are based on Human Ecology and are therefore universalistic?

Why you do you make such claims. I am sure, you cannot utter these absurdaties in front of educated/academic audience. If you ever did, I am sure you would have an extremely negative impression on them and consequently have your presentation/thesis rejected with ridicule.

the difference however is that Pashtoonwali has some errors in it's assessments which went into certain gross deviations, for example the practice of SWARA, who's current format is totally forbidden in Islam; exists in Pashtoonwali; in the original format swara was a way to rekindle bonds between conflicting tribes by intermarriage; then it became a grudge feud where the female ends up getting being demoralized just for being from the offending clan, and treated as cattle rather than human. However, Islam is more holistic and retains more appropriate checks and balances. Both Islam and Pashtoonwali assert parallel principles, but Islam somewhat more accurate in it's relationships to ecology than Pashtoonwali is; largely because it's based n a closer relatiionship to nature. Oral transmission does not indicate that Pashtoonwali was subject to dramatic changes (despite the Swara example); because oral transmission was so widespread. However for the most part Islam and Pashtoonwali still more accurate than so called "Modern Standards" because they're based on a closer relationship to Nature in comparison, therefore better suited for us. I would describe Islam as A grade, Pashtoonwali as A- and Modern Secularism as F Grade.

This I again would say is ridiculous...something that you cannot even mention before an educated audience (in a formal setting). It makes me laugh. Ecological devices, which should have been evely distributed accross the Earth, somehow favoured inhabitants of Pakhtunkhwa/Afghanistan mountains and dwellers of the Arab desert more than the rest of humanity
and perfected their sense of morality and ethics better than that of others. And there as well, it was a bit more favourable to the DESERT DWELLER and refined his moral principle better than the mountain-inhabitant...BRAVO.


But I can postulate a more pluasable theory i.e., it is higly likely that nature was equally favourable (or unfavourable) to Pashtuns and Arabs and improved/evolved some aspects of Pashtunwali more whereas in other aspects refined Arab Culture more ---so on the total both are equivalent and therefore, Pashtuns don't need Islam. Pashtunwali is enough for them. Alternatively, we can postulate neither of the two was sufficiently refined and they both are therefore primitive and useless.


But I wonder, why do you stop 1400 years or 5000 years back when Islam and Pashtunwali emerged? Why not get things reversed to the stone age when there was perfect equalibruim between man and nature and where man could live in state of nature of nature, nacked, in caves, eating gross, and laying his hand on any woman in his environment (no marriage) he could come accross...

[ScimitarXEdge]

Yes, Human Ecology means Human relationship to the Natural World. For a more precise definition of Human Ecology, see the following definitions quoted from articles mentioned in the given links. Please, read the full article.

The study of how the distributions and numbers of humans are determined by interactions with conspecific individuals, with members of other species, and with the abiotic environment. Human ecology encompasses both the responses of humans to, and the effects of humans on, the environment. Human ecology today is the combined result of humans' evolutionary nature and cultural developments. http://www.answers.com/topic/human-ecology#ixzz1A0YQ11Sz

It is disputed if human ecology is a sub-discipline of sociology, or if it is a sub-discipline of ecology. A point that strengthens the latter position is the methodological approach of human ecology, that is orientation rather along the lines of natural science then along the lines of social sciences. The inclusion or exclusion of human ecology in to sociology proper varies between countries and schools of sociological thinking. Environmental sociology is a field of sociology which encompasses the interactions between humans and nature/natural environment, but is rooted in the methodological and theoretical canon of sociology. Sometimes human ecology is seen as part of environmental sociology, sometimes it is seen as something completely different. Influences can also be seen between human ecology and the field of political ecology.

Human ecology - Definition

As can be understood from the above text, Human Ecology is a very interdisciplinary field encompassing many areas e.g. biology, sociology, geography, anthropology, etc. The problem is, you are taking it in purely biological sense (gradual changes on evolutionary time scale) and divorce the study of society and the impact of social processes on environment and vice versa from its scope. My main argument is, in Human Ecological relationship, environmental conditions and humans act upon each other and as a result of that process, the environment gets modified as well as human society (its culture, values, social organization, technology, mode of living, food, etc.).

For example, if you consider coastal, desert, mountain, and agrarian communities their ecological systems in terms of resource distribution, social organization and technology required to exploit those resources and human capacities needed to be successful in such ecological systems, then there is a marked difference. Now if you claim Islam is derived from ecological conditions as Pashtunwali is, how can its values be suitable for local conditions but universally applicable at the same time taking into account the ecological diversity? If it is derived from ecology, how can it be non-changing and eternal in terms of social organization, culture, values, etc. because we know cultures, values constantly change due to ecological relationship?


Why is that, the punishment for adultery in Arab society or for that matter, Pashtun society is much harsher than in Malaysian, Bangladeshi, or Indonesian society? Does it have something to do with ecology and consequently values and culture?

How can you claim that Pashtun values are unchanging although the changes are so evident?



Tell me on thing; is it the natural system that has nurtured humans or humans that have designed/altered the natural system to meet their needs? Which was prior and which later? Has the adaptive mechanism in humans induced by nature (through hosting human life) or can humans develop an adaptive mechanism suited to life on Mars (for example) without living in it? How is it possible that there (on Mars) exist the same kind of resources (food) and conditions (temperature, pressure, gravity, water availability, etc.) to give rise to the same kind of culture and set of values as on earth? What kind of values, social patterns, culture, technology, law, etc. are needed for human race to survive on Mars?

For example, most of the marriages on earth are either monogamous or polygamous because males and females exist in even proportion. Assume 20 men and 10 women make it to Mars; what kind of marriage (polyandrous?) would be required there for human race to survive on Mars and foremost how Islamic ethics and morality would hold there (traditional Islam being universally effective/applicable as you claim).

How can you rule out the possibility of humans going to Mars ? Same was the perception of humans about space travel 200 years ago.

Actually on the contrary; and this is purely your straw-man argument. I acknowledged the social relationships of human ecology but what I was stressing is that how those social relationships fundamentally developed was through our Ecological Relationships between our biology and the Natural World. They're all connected by their Hierarchy and Cycling are on different scales.

The faculties we have were modified through those processes in nature which established our ecological relationships and resultingly established the various social relationships as well; those faculties that emerged are still with us today. This is Irregardless of the social and environmental modifications we have made artificially. What this demonstrates is that there is a distinction between social and environmental modifications that were done artificially and the ecological relationships which developed our faculties. When it comes to resource distribution, social organization and technology; the general pattern has been consistent; being in equilibrium and balance with your ecosystem, manageable sustainability. Now different geographic conditions might require certain aspects in that; they're still operated by the same fundamentals, which is where Islam and similarly Pashtoonwali come to play. People will always need food, people will always need sexual order, people will always need moderate application of wealth and resources. This is universal in all diverse geographies. However their applications depend on whether one thing is of primary mode, secondary mode or tertiary mode. This is why you may see some variations of how and when certain things are applied.

Why are punishments for adultery harsher with Arabs , Pashtoons and Indo-Aryan and Semitic Cultures than it is for people in South Asia and South East Asia? Who said it is? In current day Arab countries like Jordan, Syria, Egypt, Lebanon, Qatar, Kuwait, UAE, Oman; they have much less stringent penalties than Pashtoonwali and Yemen, Saudi Arabia. Notably Malaysian and Bangladeshi and even Non-Muslim South Asian punishments for Adultery were traditionally very harsh. In India,The Law of Manu says an adulterous girl should be torn apart by dogs. In Bangladesh while mainstream secular law forbids punishment for adultery; the rural areas apply caning and stoning for adultery. Native Indians of North America, used to use mutilation for an adultery punishment. My explanation for differential penalties that we may observe now have little to do with ecological relationships but because the alienation that has emerged between man and nature due to colonial and imperial interventionism which has created this alienation. Yet even inspite of this we find that all over the world even in non-canonized or legal context; people are often seen to react to an adulterous party in a harsh way, this is true even in secular societies such as Europeans and Americans. I have seen numerous incidences here in the states where one party have killed/maimed the adulterous party. It comes to show that no matter how hard they have tried, their attempts at alienating the principles which arise out of our ecological relationships to nature have failed; they can't fight nature nor should they.

When I say Pashtoon values are changing I mean that the actual Pashtoon culture itself is still retaining it's qualities and standards inspite of all these so called contemporary views. Which in many cases is a good thing. Pashtoon culture doesn't need to be changed much it just needs to be reassessed to it's more honest foundations. Albeit you may argue there are changes to Pashtoon "values" these aren't Pashtoon values and more over they're changes which are more of a corrupting influence. In other words they're invalid changes. Some might call this regression.

To answer your questions it is Nature that creates the fundamental parameters which have nurtured human beings. Dramatic human alterations to the Natural World is very recent; and as we are finding now, Very destructive and ultimately debilitating. The last century has done so much damage more than 10,000 years of Civilization. Now I won't claim Agrarian societies were not damaging, but small scale agriculture was at least more intune with the Natural System. We certain did not have widespread deforestation as we do now which is affecting gas and moisture distribution around the planet. The changes you are proposing that are creating these "human changes" and in turn "Environment Changes" are destructive. They're destructive because they're not in harmony with our Normal Ecological Relationships, normal meaning the ones that our faculties were adapted for. So in turn our current ecological relationship has become a parasitical one and not a healthy one, for this reason. It needs to be reestablished.

Here's how I would address the scenario that you described. if there are 10 women and 20 men. In Islam there are three possible approaches; first of all in Islam if there are extreme conditions, one is that if there is something that must be done out of dire necessity, it is excused or it becomes "wajib" or necessary. However; the key point is dire conditions where an absolute extreme condition is pending. Second is if it's practically feasible, third does it actually function with human faculties. Women can only be pregnant by one man at a time, men can impregnate several women in what can relatively be called "same time". Polyandry wouldn't really provide good results because of time of gestation parental investment, many things involved in breeding. Do men take turns breeding with the women, will it over stress women's? prroductive capacity? i.e. harm the reproductive facility. What would happen is that the more capable males would end up breeding with the women which would normalize to 5 males to to 10 women. That would 5 males would be lost. Unfortunately, you can't save everyone; but the same situation would happen with the women in the opposite, in the end women and their reproductive faculties opt out. Thereby that becomes priority and how Islam would help us survive.


Many Astrophysicists says that Mars shows evidence that it once had ice/water or hypothetically still has them. That would be crucial, but also crucial would be annual Sunlight, Supernal cycles , orbit, gravitational field, magnetic field; effect of moons ,cosmic debris etc etc. As to whether we would be able to colonize Mars. There are some very impressive and interesting theories. However, the energy demand in terms of Solar Energy alone would be on the magnitude of 100 Million Nuclear Bombs to just get a habitable ecosystem started on Mars ( I am probably under exaggerating). At this current time we are not capable of providing the energy demand of even North America or Europe for another 50 years. The idea of colonizing space is just narrowly unlikely just simply based on resource limitation alone nevermind logistics. Now that's not really comparable to Space Travel itself, because that was done at a time when Energy resource demand was still largely abundant. The reality is within the next 100 years Technological Society will cease to function. And good riddance we've done enough damage here, time to start respecting Nature again like we once did.

[Toramana]

Your ecological understanding of localized environments is incorrect; Pashtoon lands are extremely diverse as far as differential geographic terrain is concerned. You have Pashtoons that live in largely mountainous and or desert based and arid climates, This is true at least in the case of Qandahar, Helmand, Farah, Nimrouz, Balouchistan and such. This type of geology is not terribly different than the conditions of Saudi Arabia or Yemen, which is also arid and mountainous. Then you have Eastern Pashtoons who live in mountainous yet heavily forested areas. Then you have Pashtoons who are Kuchiyeen/Powanda that often reside in grassy flat plains of North and Central Afghanistan. Yet regardless they all retain Pashtoonwali and more over Islam. This examples demonstrate two things; first, Human Ecology is not a localized phenomena, second that oral transmission did not dramatically alter Pashtoonwali and thirdly that the relevance of human ecology and the principles that pertain to human ecological relationships is not dependent on differential geographic terrain, but human nature as it was developed in relation to global ecology.

Bravo...You would hold onto any thing to win an argument. Same arguments. You are considering a bounded, isolated-insulated, and lab-confined Pashtun population and trying to prove that despite the different physical conditions, Pashtuns have evolved a common culture and values---so "human ecological relationships is not dependent on differential geographic terrain, but human nature as it was developed in relation to global ecology."

What is this global ecology by the way? How has it speculated on the development of human nature? Any theory...any model that has been developed by global ecologists and that explains the evolution of human nature? What is this human nature by the way...Isn't it a psychological question to a degree (if you mean human behavior by human nature)?

Nevertheless, how come Pashtuns were set apart from Uzbak and Tajak communities up north of Afghanistan and Punajabis east of Indus? Look at the social organization in these communities; Pashtuns having tribal social organization (even in Pashtuns there are variations, Urban, semi-Urban, Rural, Tribal ) with clan structure an autonomy intact whereas in the other communities, social organization revolves around extended and nuclear families with clan struture and autonomy completely broken down. You can also see the difference of values (e.g. honour or namus in Pashtuns) with Pashtuns and divergence of other things e.g. food, closthing, etc.

Why Pashtuns in Kandahar and Swat for example were able to develop a homogeneous culture? Probably due to vertical as well as horizental transmission of values and cultural traits, cultural contacts, economic interaction, shared struggle against common foe whether in nature or humans, inter-marriages, etc. This was aided by geographic proximity of different tribes...etc.

Below is a definition of global econology...it is a new branch of ecological studies that tries to discover broader and consistent ecological patterns (also develop general theories and ecological models) based on geographically extensive data (collected using modern technologies)....

Global Ecology and Biogeography focuses on the emerging field of macroecology: the study of broad, consistent patterns in the ecological characteristics of organisms and ecosystems. The journal emphasizes studies that address general ecological hypotheses, explored and tested using data of broad geographic, taxonomic, or temporal scope.

http://www.wiley.com/bw/journal.asp?ref=1466-822X

[ScimitarXEdge]

Ok accepted. That is right.




I think the only UNIVERSAL in Human Ecology is whereever humans exist, they exist in relation to an environment (acting upon each each other)...and that they live in groups(societies)...and that they have cultures ...and the cultures are shaped by the environment and cultural factors in turn impact the environment...And this action and reaction (togethor with cultural contact) gives rise to social change, value transformation, cultural development in societies, and so on....

The other UNIVERSAL may be the diversity of cultures and values (different food habits, life-styles, etc.), which itself is indicative of different environmental conditions at different points of times and space (if we consider ecology to be the determinent of culture...which at least may be the partial truth)...


Nevertheless, no universal set of ecological laws or ecological paradigm exits that can fully explain or describe (in specific detail) Human Ecology of a given society ...and that the human ecology of every society should be studied in its own individuality in relation to its specific environment in order to describe it.


Why go afar? In natural sciences, we have this thing. For example, motion and forces of attraction/repulsion between bodies are UNIVERSAL in Physics; nevertheless there is not a single set of physical laws that can model the interaction of motion and gravitational forces between all bodies in the Universe. We have Netwtonian Mechanics that models the motion of celestial bodies, then we have Quantum Mechanics for describing the motion of sub-atomic particles, and finally there is Theory of Relativity to explain the motion and gravitational properties of heavenly/cosmic objects. And what about Zoology...and Anthropology, etc.?

But the actual point here isn't that. It is that how cultures and values and the related concepts of morality and ethics change even in our life-time.





This is prespostrous, ridiculous, non-sensical, and I would say with regrets in advance, outright foolish. Has Human Ecology discovered/identified/determined the general patterns and principles applicable to all climates and geographic terrians? Where are those patterns/principles e.g. which research has reported such findings?

More importantly, can you show me any academic or research work that vindicates the position of Islam with regard to its stance on morality and ethics i.e. its moral principles are based on Human Ecology and are therefore universalistic?

Why you do you make such claims. I am sure, you cannot utter these absurdaties in front of educated/academic audience. If you ever did, I am sure you would have an extremely negative impression on them and consequently have your presentation/thesis rejected with ridicule.





This I again would say is ridiculous...something that you cannot even mention before an educated audience (in a formal setting). It makes me laugh. Ecological devices, which should have been evely distributed accross the Earth, somehow favoured inhabitants of Pakhtunkhwa/Afghanistan mountains and dwellers of the Arab desert more than the rest of humanity
and perfected their sense of morality and ethics better than that of others. And there as well, it was a bit more favourable to the DESERT DWELLER and refined his moral principle better than the mountain-inhabitant...BRAVO.


But I can postulate a more pluasable theory i.e., it is higly likely that nature was equally favourable (or unfavourable) to Pashtuns and Arabs and improved/evolved some aspects of Pashtunwali more whereas in other aspects refined Arab Culture more ---so on the total both are equivalent and therefore, Pashtuns don't need Islam. Pashtunwali is enough for them. Alternatively, we can postulate neither of the two was sufficiently refined and they both are therefore primitive and useless.


But I wonder, why do you stop 1400 years or 5000 years back when Islam and Pashtunwali emerged? Why not get things reversed to the stone age when there was perfect equalibruim between man and nature and where man could live in state of nature of nature, nacked, in caves, eating gross, and laying his hand on any woman in his environment (no marriage) he could come accross...

You'd be wrong; because human beings have not become different species regardless of their Geographic Locations. Punctuated Equilibrium has not occurred for human beings. We have however seen other species change into other species even in Frogs from two different sides of a mountain cliff. It means our ecological niche is much vaster and broader merely localized relationships. Therefore those relationships can be more generalized; and we find more consistencies; or "Laws" if you want to call them that. This would account for the varying food habits and lifestyles always having an underpinning structure;which determines their validity.

While there are social changes, as stated changes are not always valid and we can know their validity by how they relate to the Environment; We have observed Human Alteration to the Environment is detrimental. We're witnessing it now. So while that value-social-change-environmental change does occur it is a dysfunctional ecological relationship insomuch as Modern Society is concerned. The Alterations which are changing value and culture are destructive and disengage us from our ecological niche and those changing values and culture are cultivating destructive ecological relationships. Hence we can gage social changes and value changes by what they do to that niche. It just so happened that Islam is the best suited system for that niche.

You have a very shallow understanding you think ALL CHANGE Is good Change or that Change is Progress/Advancement or that Evolution means "more Advanced"

It's ironic you mention Natural Science because right now in the Natural Science they have been pursuing in working out the Ontological Interrelationships of Classic Physics, General Relativity and Special Relativity, the properties of space time and Quantum Mechanics; called Grand Unified Theory, some are proposing it to be String Theory or M-Theory. This symbiosis of interrelationships and a "Oneness" or Monotheism or rather Monontology play right into the hands of the Interrelationships of Ecological Niche; as this equilibrium that's established becomes what defines the Proper Ecological Order and In turn social and cultural conditions and in turn directs our efforts and resources. Remember as much as we evolved from other species life itself evolved from the Cosmos itself. The idea of social/changes thereby becomes a red herring; because I'm not arguing if things in society have changed, obviously it has, but that those changes are violating our ecological niche, for precisely the reasons you mentioned; we're behaving in a way which is disengaged from the Natural world and has altered it detrimentally.

Which research? Open up the Qur'an Al-Sharif; open up some common research regarding Evolutionary Psychology; compare the way Qur'an elucidates human order ecological relationships; examine how Evolutionary Psychology and Sociobiology elucidates human ecology, See how many times it matches on nearly every level. That's what I did and that's what I have found. I will actually be writing a book on it in the next five years. Be sure to order it.


But since you want research; here's a great book to start you off, tell me what you think.



I think you're taking my Islam vs. Pashtoonwali comment a bit too ethnocentrically; you should not let your feelings of inferiority and insecurities pepper your scope of things. My point wasn't to somehow imply "Arabs" got it right while Pashtoons got it "almost right". Clearly Arabs didnt get it right, hence the advent of Islam, to rectify a dysfunctional society in Arabia. It was the astuteness of one man in regards to his Ecological insights that helped Islam flourish; not something that rested with the Arab ethnic group. I think your confusion arises because you're so self deludedly convinced that Islam is an Arabic movement; which it's clearly not as we see most Muslims are not Arab. Islam being able to flourish world over is proof of it's Universality; secularism primarily appeals to Moraless white Europeans. However that's not what makes it wrong; it's the intrinsic destructiveness which makes it wrong.

I make claims because these are what I have found and I share these connections so they too can benefit from what myself and many others have discerned.

Don't worry; not everyone in the world is as shallow minded and insecure as you.

There is in fact a WIDE academic scope for understanding Islam and these relationships; and the research is being done even at Widely Touted University's such as Yale Unversity.

Have a look for yourself; http://fore.research.yale.edu/religion/islam/islam.pdf

I think what's anatagionizing you is that you out of your own egotistic feelings of inferiority have tried so hard to shun Islam or rebuke it; that the idea that people are acknowledge that it has meritable and relevant significance even in contemporary times aggravates you because it delegitimizes this animosity you want so desperately to portray as based on sensible information.

I wasn't trying to imply that Nature magically gifted Pashtoons and Islam; in fact I believe Nature gifted all societies and cultures; but what happened is other societies and cultures for whatever reason became more alienated from the natural world to whatever degree, some greater; that different societies today have various degrees of connection to the human ecological niche in the Natural Environment. This is where Islam has stood the test of time and to a lesser degree Pashtoonwali, Even some aspects of Taoism and Buddhism has done so. I rate those as A- and B+ respectively.

Even if you argue their primivity; that would actually prove their use, primitive societies bear deeper understandings of Natural Relationships. Now as for stopping 1400 years ago, or stopping 5000 years ago. My argument isn't based on Appeal of Antiquity or Appeal to Novelty; just what is ecologically accorded to the Environment at large. So these "stone age vs. technocracy" dichotomies make no sense.

[ScimitarXEdge]

Bravo...You would hold onto any thing to win an argument. Same arguments. You are considering a bounded, isolated-insulated, and lab-confined Pashtun population and trying to prove that despite the different physical conditions, Pashtuns have evolved a common culture and values---so "human ecological relationships is not dependent on differential geographic terrain, but human nature as it was developed in relation to global ecology."

What is this global ecology by the way? How has it speculated on the development of human nature? Any theory...any model that has been developed by global ecologists and that explains the evolution of human nature? What is this human nature by the way...Isn't it a psychological question to a degree (if you mean human behavior by human nature)?

Nevertheless, how come Pashtuns were set apart from Uzbak and Tajak communities up north of Afghanistan and Punajabis east of Indus? Look at the social organization in these communities; Pashtuns having tribal social organization (even in Pashtuns there are variations, Urban, semi-Urban, Rural, Tribal ) with clan structure an autonomy intact whereas in the other communities, social organization revolves around extended and nuclear families with clan struture and autonomy completely broken down. You can also see the difference of values (e.g. honour or namus in Pashtuns) with Pashtuns and divergence of other things e.g. food, closthing, etc.

Why Pashtuns in Kandahar and Swat for example were able to develop a homogeneous culture? Probably due to vertical as well as horizental transmission of values and cultural traits, cultural contacts, economic interaction, shared struggle against common foe whether in nature or humans, inter-marriages, etc. This was aided by geographic proximity of different tribes...etc.

Below is a definition of global econology...it is a new branch of ecological studies that tries to discover broader and consistent ecological patterns (also develop general theories and ecological models) based on geographically extensive data (collected using modern technologies)....

Global Ecology and Biogeography focuses on the emerging field of macroecology: the study of broad, consistent patterns in the ecological characteristics of organisms and ecosystems. The journal emphasizes studies that address general ecological hypotheses, explored and tested using data of broad geographic, taxonomic, or temporal scope.

http://www.wiley.com/bw/journal.asp?ref=1466-822X

Don't worry I know what Global Ecology is; I work in the Environmental Field; Albeit a somewhat different branch. Clearly I was speaking of Global Human Ecology not general Global Ecology, which you're referencing here. If I knew you're going to try to nit-pick in an informal discourse when I'm speaking in context.

Maybe this is something more relevant to the discussion.



Another great book, recommended reading.

Just because I saw the flaw in your argument and was able to discern it doesn't make my point invalid.

Tajiks too were originally tribal; what happened was the Mongol invasions broke down most Tajik tribal systems. Most Tajiks are not even Tajiks, they're Soghdians, Khwarzemian, Bactrian and so on. However, even then Tajik life is not terribly different than Pashtoons, neither are Punjabis. This is part of the reason why I eschew ethnic rivalry; I find we're so much more similar than different. Uzbaks too are tribal, and ironically Uzbeks are parallel to Pashtun Powanda. The differences you make about food clothing are just subtle variations of the same thing. Now look at Pashtoon dress and the dress of Moroccans and their Kaftan; it's amazing how parallel they are. This shoots holes into your narrow theories.

But you wouldn't know because you're so narrow minded.


All Pashtuns migrated from the West towards the East, Pashtuns of Swat are just descendants of Pashtuns from Qandahar. I'm from Ghazni but my ancestors come from Qandahar, Farah, Ghor...Westward places.

[ScimitarXEdge]

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.

"Stone Age" in the manner you describe it is nothing more than a hollywoodized mythical image. If you want to talk about Rote-Learning and Layman's Knowledge. Your conceptualization of "Stone Age" is a perfect example of that.

But let me emphasize why your reasoning is totally fallacious and again nothing more than Typical Logical Fallacies; this time embodying Red Herring and Straw Man Arguments.


I have a degree in Environmental Science; which I'm not saying to sound impressive, but firstly it demonstrates that I'm not just speaking irrelevant rhetoric but Very Explicit and Detailed Information based on the same criteria you Uphold as credible. Secondly to demonstrate that Our Modern Science is discovering that SECULAR STANDARDS WERE WRONG ALL ALONG, that our system of trying to exploit and manipulate Nature has not bettered humanity but actually is cultivating great perils, making our planet uninhabitable and unmanageable.


Your attempt at trying to shy away from the subject of Ecosystem relationships shows you only view progress from very Superficial and Shallow Minded scope and not holistically i.e. through the big picture. The so called "knowledge" you claim to be seeking is merely an indoctrination scheme to maintain a status quo which is dysfunctional.

As for this invitation to go "live in Saudi Arabia" or "Go back to the stone age"; it reeks of ignorant Redneck American Talk. But to answer your question; we live in technocratic society and live on the "fruits of modernity" is because it has hijacked, hindered, interferred, displaced, altered, corrupted our entire globe and imposed it's institutions on everything around us, so we're disposed to rely on it's "fruit" as we say so now we must use these books and instruments to gain the relevant information; so that we can undo the dysfunctional status quo of Modernity; since only technocracy can dissolve technocracy.

[Toramana]

Actually on the contrary; and this is purely your straw-man argument. I acknowledged the social relationships of human ecology but what I was stressing is that how those social relationships fundamentally developed was through our Ecological Relationships between our biology and the Natural World. They're all connected by their Hierarchy and Cycling are on different scales.

Man I was using just layman arguments but you dragged this ecology into it because you studied it in your Environmental Science degree.

And all this, discussion is useless, if we couldn't resolve the fundamental question i.e., is there any evidence or theory based on genuine and thorough research that suggests that ethics and moral concepts evolved by Arabs in the ecological conditions of Saudi Arabia are superior to those of other human beings?

You have even graded moral systems giving Arab morality an A grade, Pashtun morality an A- grade, and have put all the rest in F-category(falied). This is something that only you can believe. Even from a moral development standpoint, how can this gradation be justified?

And then we have have so many different kinds of moralities, cultural morality, social morality, personal morality, liberal morality, conservative morality, etc. And then morality has been studied from so many stand-points.

What is this human nature? Which aspects of human nature are linked with moral and ethical sense? These are such profound questions.

Of course, there are many things considered wrong by majority of human beings but there is no agreement on the type and form punishment. And there are many acts considered bad in one culture but not in another culture. What is the golden rule?

Somehow, I feel you cannot differentiate between abstraction and concretion...and culture...and cultural values...and morality linked with cultural values...

[Alchemist]

^ Great speech, mr.hypocrite...

You admit now that you there is no standard yard stick by which to measure moral values! In doing so you have contradicted your self and now admit shamefully that you had no right to judge what grade Islam deserves. Now stop abstracting the issue and find another hobby. ; )

[ScimitarXEdge]

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

This argument is a blatant example of distortion and intellectual dishonesty; based on fabrication and/or distortions about the rules and values of Islam; the stance on Islam regarding different issues like Saudi Statehood (created by British Secularists), Minority Rights in Islam; role of gender and marriage in Islam by deceptively exploiting rape, the use of Radioactive Genocide in the Middle East and Afghanistan. The Divide and Rule Sectarian Schemes in Iraq manufactured by CIA visa vis AlQaeda or ethnic divides in Pakistan and Afghanistan by propping one ethnic group against each other, likewise in the Middle East with Kurds and Arabs and Christiians who before Western Intervention, lived in a state of stable normalcy. Or assuming that Anti-Secular Pan-Islamist Muslims are followers of Wahhabi/Salafist doctrine; when there are other doctrines like Mu'tazilism which are more viable and more revolutionary and do not hold silly fatwas like pictures being harram as valid. Or correctly understanding proper context and symbolic language of the Qur'an and Hadith. Or lacking the sense or educationto understand that people live in secular societies because it's imposed on them by the meddling , disruption and contamination secular societies have placed on the global environment on so many levels which would inhbit their functioning without dependence on secular institutions.


Perhaps the problem wasn't that you were criticizing Islam; rather that you do so with the most distorted, unuanced intellectually dishonest means.

[ScimitarXEdge]

Man I was using just layman arguments but you dragged this ecology into it because you studied it in your Environmental Science degree.

And all this, discussion is useless, if we couldn't resolve the fundamental question i.e., is there any evidence or theory based on genuine and thorough research that suggests that ethics and moral concepts evolved by Arabs in the ecological conditions of Saudi Arabia are superior to those of other human beings?

You have even graded moral systems giving Arab morality an A grade, Pashtun morality an A- grade, and have put all the rest in F-category(falied). This is something that only you can believe. Even from a moral development standpoint, how can this gradation be justified?

And then we have have so many different kinds of moralities, cultural morality, social morality, personal morality, liberal morality, conservative morality, etc. And then morality has been studied from so many stand-points.

What is this human nature? Which aspects of human nature are linked with moral and ethical sense? These are such profound questions.

Of course, there are many things considered wrong by majority of human beings but there is no agreement on the type and form punishment. And there are many acts considered bad in one culture but not in another culture. What is the golden rule?

Somehow, I feel you cannot differentiate between abstraction and concretion...and culture...and cultural values...and morality linked with cultural values...

Talk about STRAW MAN argument; not only are you completely misrepresenting what my argument was, you've completely MADE UP another argument that I have never even made what so ever.


This shows intellectual dishonesty and the desire to desperately strive to SAVE a PATHETICALLY defeated vantage point; because you cannot actually uproot or rebut the actual Argument being made

For all those reading make note of my actual arguments and make note on how Toramana has deceptively tried to make it appear as if I'm arguing a completely different point entirely. This would hint to the strength of my ACTUAL arguments since you have bypassed them and went on some idiotic moronic inferiority complex driven ethnic tirade.

As for your appeal to cultural relativity; again something that arises depending on our harmony or displacement of our ecological niche with Nature on the whole. Human Nature are the faculties we have been evolutionarily ingrained with through our ecological niche in relation to the natural world as a SPECIES. Which I said Islam most accurately mimics; a far cry from "ethics and moral values developed by Arabs in Saudi Arabia are superior" especially considering anyone who knows Islam knows the Arabs at the time of Islam were completely lost , dysfunctional and out of sync with the human ecological niche, hence Islam is not a product of collective Arab culture but a revolution that arose to revive the primal relationship against the status quo of the time. Hence why Islam pioneered in Persia, North Africa and yes eventually what is now called Afghanistan, with Pashtoons being some of it's most ardent advocates.



Toramana one day you'll have to learn that Logical Fallacy does not win arguments; Strong Intellectual Rebuttals with cogent reasoning does. Any further attempts at trying to Make the CIRCULAR claim of Arab Ethnic Constructs to Islaml which has already been REFUTED; will demonstrate Your intellectual dishonesty. No more using this as a scapegoat.