Pashtuns and other muslims immitating the KUFAR!

[شمله ور خراساني]

As salaamu aleikoum,

this thread is among few topics I want to discuss. And hopefully unlike in other threads this discussion will not lead to more weeping and crying on the parts of few members who can't control their emotions while engaging in discussion with people with conflicting views.

--------------------------------------------------------


Pashtuns are a very primitive people. There are great virtues in the primitive character we have. Honor, valor, pride, courage, devoutness and other great characters that primitive people still have. But advanced and modernized civil societies lack.

However, there are many negative aspects to being primitive. Among them are, abuse of women and denial of women's rights as human beings; inter tribal hostility and lack of education.

There are great things we can learn from the Kuffar and their advanced societies. Among them are the arts and sciences for the benefit of progress.

But there are many negative things the kuffar have that we should not immitate. Like their immorality, nihilism, promotion of vices, disrespect for religion and etc.

Sadly, when primitive people come in contact with modern and advanced people, they are overwhelmed by everything they see. So instead of a quest and inquiry in to what the causes of the development and progress are in those societies, they quickly choose what to them seems as the quickest way to success.

As a result, they apostate from our religion, they immitate the dress-code of the kuffar, adapt themselves to the immoral and perverted arts and entertainment and preach immorality and promote falsehood claiming that it will bring about change and prosperity.

A good example is nationalism and secularism in Afghanistan. During our war with the British Empire, members of the royal family loyal to the British Empire have studied in Western Europe. On their return, they started preaching secularism.

During King Amanullah Khan's reign people in Kabul were not allowed to enter the city wearing our traditional attire. People were forced to wear European suites and remove their turbans and wear chapeau's.

While many Pashtuns revere Amanullah Khan as a "ghazi" the guy was actually a student of the kaafir Mustafa Kemal Attaturk.

People attribute our independence to him. But in fact, we were made independent thanks to the uprise in Waziristan. When Amanullah Khan declared war against Britain, the British military quickly crossed the Durrand Line and captures a vast portion of Eastern provinces Kunar, Laghman and Nangarhar. And in the South, they defeated the Kandaharis.

The only success Afghans made in that war, was the march of Waziris towards Dera Ismael Khan. The British in Punjab were defeated there and they feared that Waziris would invade Punjab and massacre them. So they offered Amanullah Khan a deal.

And Amanullah Khan accepted the British offer and sold out Pashtunkhwa to them. As a result large number of tribesmen all across Pashtunkhwa were massacred, villages burnt to ashes and women and children killed.

Yet, people ignore these facts of history. And ignore the that he prevented people from dressing the way they did, and the ignore that Amanullah Khan did not even speak Pashto.

BUt they claim he was a Ghazi. While in fact he did not even fire a single shot in defence of his homeland.

So are many other figures revered by Pashtuns who did not do anything useful for our people. Yet, they are promoted as heroes.

Najibullah Ahmadzai is another example. Most of my relatives are ex-Khad agents. They worked under Najibullah in the 80's. And they say, that Najibullah would offer warlords and criminal gangs such as Esmat Muslim and Rashid Dostum large sums of money to support his government. So did Najib pay many warlords in Nangarhar and Paktia cash money to turn to his side.

As a result, when his government fell, the jihadi movements already divided in over a dozen groups were led by money hungry pillagers who Najib himself paid cash money.

Soon, all Afghanistan was divided into regions dominated by criminal gangs and terrorists pillaging and looting people.

But people are unaware of this fact.They forget that Najib was the head of Khad during the early 80's when great many atrocities were commited against our people.

All they can remember is his speaches which he didn't even write himself. But were written for him by a committee of his advisors.

And after a few decades the same ignorant Pashtuns will revere Karzai and Gul agha Sherzai as heroes of liberation and prosperity. And forget their crimes. And claim they were heroes who emancipated Afghanistan and braught change and prosperity to Afghanistan.

All of these people are the same. They sugarcoat their filthy agenda with few aspects of Kaafir practices such as secularism, voting and such. And people think that this will bring change and prosperity. But it doesn't. All it does is fool people.



Conclusion:

We should all learn the good things the kuffar have. Like their sciences, their technology and advanced education system. We do not need their morality imposed on us by our corrupt leaders. We do not need their immorality and perverse customs to be imposed on us by commercial television sponsored by CIA. We do not need their dancing and singing and abuse of women as objects to emancipate our women.

We must take the good and leave the bad.

[Levanaye Zalmaye]

My friend, you are wrong on so many counts....

What do you mean by "their" morality? Last I checked, moral values vary drastically from Ukraine to the UK and from Chile to Canada. In fact, non-Muslim moral values vary just as much as they do from Morocco to Malaysia. For example, what's considered acceptable in Tunisia might be punishable by death by the Saudi Salafis (peace be upon them).

Moreover, moral values change from time to time. Here's some food for thought:

The moral values that our modern moulvis propose are exactly the same moral codes that were prevalent in pre-Renaissance and pre-Enlightenment Western Europe.

Please do some research upon the emboldened part of my post before replying.

[شمله ور خراساني]

My friend, you are wrong on so many counts....

What do you mean by "their" morality? Last I checked, moral values vary drastically from Ukraine to the UK and from Chile to Canada. In fact, non-Muslim moral values vary just as much as they do from Morocco to Malaysia. For example, what's considered acceptable in Tunisia might be punishable by death by the Saudi Salafis (peace be upon them).

Moreover, moral values change from time to time. Here's some food for thought:

The moral values that our modern moulvis propose are exactly the same moral codes that were prevalent in pre-Renaissance and pre-Enlightenment Western Europe.

Please do some research upon the emboldened part of my post before replying.

If you want to make such a bold statement as saying " you are wrong on so many counts...." please be kind to point out where I am wrong.

I did not generalize the morals of Kufar. I simply stated that their morals and perversity is not beneficiary for us.

And you are wrong by saying the morals moulvis propose are the same as pre-renaissance and pre-enlightenment.

Because in Europe, the church prevented people from science. To my knowledge, one of the most conservative countries on earth, Saudi Arabia enjoys approval from the most conservative religious figures in aspects of education and pursuit of higher learning in sciences.

You are accusing conservative Muslims of being rejectionists. This is a common misconception among non Muslims in the west.

Rejectionism is not what Islamic orthodoxy is preaching.

Furthermore, in pre-enlightenment liberal thinkers, scientists and philosophers were subject to prosecution because their ideas opposed and challenged the authority of the church and monarchy. That is why they prevented social activism of the liberal thinkers and scientists.

In Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Afghanistan, there are a great number of clerics on the pay-roll of the government who declare people as apostates because they challenge the central authority of the state. They resemble the pre-enlightenment Christianity of Europe.

There is a large diversity of ideas and ideologies among conservative clerics. Politics is an important factor contributing to this diversity.

It is unjust to generalize all clerics as one body of rejectionism.

Take, the conservative preacher in Peshawar, Sheikh Ameenullah as an example. In his speaches he condemns the use of internet for immorality. He claims the internet spreads nudity immorality and brainwashes people. Yet even the likes of him do believe that the internet can be very useful tool. That's why you find his lectures online for people to freely download them.

The point I am trying to make is, just because conservative clerics object against certain immorality and the spread of it among muslims, it does not mean they are against progress and development in its essence. THey just express their concerns on the spread of immorality and impiety through the channels that are suppose to be used as means of progress and development. Such as education and mass media.

But I have not come across any orthodox and ultra conservative cleric, Saudi or Pashtun rejecting education of women, use of mass media, sciences and technology. All of them warn us against the negative use of those means and caution us to be vigilant against it. But they do not condemn the use of it for meneficial purposes.

[شمله ور خراساني]

What do you think we need to change in order to improve?

I will make another thread to answer your question

[شمله ور خراساني]

What about us? Don't we have an equal share in Afghanistan?

You are a minority. And it would be unjust to have a very small minority have equal saying in a country with an absolute muslim majority.

However, this does not mean Hindus should be prosecuted or opressed like they are now being opressed and prosecuted by the current corrupt system in Afghanistan.

Islam provides rights and freedoms to non-Muslims. And those rights and freedoms should not be denied as that would contradict Shari'ah law.

[Roshina]

One thing in your post was MORE than enough for me to not give ANY thought to the rest of your post: You called Attaturk a kafir.

I don't believe ANY Muslim has a right to decide who's Muslim and who's not, and SO what if some students PREFER kafir teachers to Muslim ones? Perhaps they have a reason - I mean, think about it! You want us to follow people like Zakir Naik? You want us to consider HIM and people LIKE him our "teachers"? Oh God, that'd be a disaster for me.

So, no.

Another thing is ... when you mention denial of women's rights, you do realize that the mistreatment of Muslim women *worldwide* is a consequence of a misogynistic interpretation of Islam, right? I mean, take verse 4:34, for instance, which SUPPOSEDLY tells men to beat up their wives if they're being "disobedient." Then take that hadith I've constantly shared elsewhere that says that women who refuse sex to their husbands are cursed all night long by angels. So, yeah, it only makes SENSE that we women be abused and raped because the most common interpretation of Islam actually supports it.

As much as you might WANT to explain away verse 4:34, it's the most contested, most convoluted verse in the Quran, and NOTHING explains why a man should EVER even slightly hit his wife, be it with a miswaak, as many apologists say. So, yeah. Since the Quran doesn't explain how much he can beat his wife and what exactly "disobedience" means, it only makes sense that our husbands beat the hell out of us.

I just wrote a paper on how the patriarchal and sometimes misogynistic interpretation of Islam has destroyed the rights of women in Pashtun areas. It was a beautiful feeling. Get this, k: In tribal areas of the Pashtuns (and this is the case in tribal areas elsewhere as well), it is believed that because women are laden with the responsibility of honor, because she is the carrier of honor, she must be respected and dignified; she must not be harmed because to harm her is to destroy one’s honor, one’s social status. Hence, when a woman is beaten up or abused otherwise by her husband, the consequences are negative for the latter: her father, brothers, and other male relatives, sometimes including male members of her father’s village, come to her home and beat her husband publicly for having hurt his own wife, the agency of his honor.

Yet, TODAY, in settled areas of Pashtuns, what happens when a woman is beaten up? Nothing! :S What facilities do we have for abused women? Nothing!

Clearly, we have *chosen* which parts of Islam to accept, which to reject, and which to synchronize with Islam.

I believe we should take the most positive interpretation of ANY religion, ANY cultural ideals, and adhere to those for the betterment of humanity -- which includes both women and men.

[شمله ور خراساني]

One thing in your post was MORE than enough for me to not give ANY thought to the rest of your post: You called Attaturk a kafir.

I don't believe ANY Muslim has a right to decide who's Muslim and who's not, and SO what if some students PREFER kafir teachers to Muslim ones? Perhaps they have a reason - I mean, think about it! You want us to follow people like Zakir Naik? You want us to consider HIM and people LIKE him our "teachers"? Oh God, that'd be a disaster for me.

So, no.

Another thing is ... when you mention denial of women's rights, you do realize that the mistreatment of Muslim women *worldwide* is a consequence of a misogynistic interpretation of Islam, right? I mean, take verse 4:34, for instance, which SUPPOSEDLY tells men to beat up their wives if they're being "disobedient." Then take that hadith I've constantly shared elsewhere that says that women who refuse sex to their husbands are cursed all night long by angels. So, yeah, it only makes SENSE that we women be abused and raped because the most common interpretation of Islam actually supports it.

As much as you might WANT to explain away verse 4:34, it's the most contested, most convoluted verse in the Quran, and NOTHING explains why a man should EVER even slightly hit his wife, be it with a miswaak, as many apologists say. So, yeah. Since the Quran doesn't explain how much he can beat his wife and what exactly "disobedience" means, it only makes sense that our husbands beat the hell out of us.

I just wrote a paper on how the patriarchal and sometimes misogynistic interpretation of Islam has destroyed the rights of women in Pashtun areas. It was a beautiful feeling. Get this, k: In tribal areas of the Pashtuns (and this is the case in tribal areas elsewhere as well), it is believed that because women are laden with the responsibility of honor, because she is the carrier of honor, she must be respected and dignified; she must not be harmed because to harm her is to destroy one’s honor, one’s social status. Hence, when a woman is beaten up or abused otherwise by her husband, the consequences are negative for the latter: her father, brothers, and other male relatives, sometimes including male members of her father’s village, come to her home and beat her husband publicly for having hurt his own wife, the agency of his honor.

Yet, TODAY, in settled areas of Pashtuns, what happens when a woman is beaten up? Nothing! :S What facilities do we have for abused women? Nothing!

Clearly, we have *chosen* which parts of Islam to accept, which to reject, and which to synchronize with Islam.

I believe we should take the most positive interpretation of ANY religion, ANY cultural ideals, and adhere to those for the betterment of humanity -- which includes both women and men.

The most positive interpretation of Islam is taking the prophet Muhammad as an example. Did he hit his own wives? Did he teach people to abuse their wives? What do the scholars say in regards to men refusing to have sex with their wives? They reason by analogy saying that what applies to women should apply to men. Example

The reason in most Islamic societies people deny women's rights is not because Islam says so. BUt because of their culture. Take Pashtunwali as an example. In pashtunwali women have no right at all. So it is not a mistery why Pashtuns abuse their wives eventhough they claim to be Muslims. They just simply deny aspects of religion. They do not take the prophet's example in their actions.

And attaturk being a kaafir is evident as he opposed Islam. And in Qur'an it clearly says that anyone who opposes Islam is not a muslim. Take a look at the ayat posted in the Sainthood thread for further explanation.

[Roshina]

The most positive interpretation of Islam is taking the prophet Muhammad as an example. Did he hit his own wives? Did he teach people to abuse their wives? What do the scholars say in regards to men refusing to have sex with their wives? They reason by analogy saying that what applies to women should apply to men. Example

OMG :D Islam-qa.com? They even think women are OBLIGATED to cover their faces and use Quranic verses to support their claim, even though even majority of scholars agree that covering the face isn't in the Quran.

They take Quranic verses and interpret them in the MOST orthodox way possible, such that women become slaves--and specifically sex slaves--of their husbands, and a woman can't do this and that UNLESS her husband allows her. They even have their answers published in a book format that i came across yesterday on GoogleBooks.

So, yeah, they don't tend to convince me with their arguments, and EVERYTHING they say can be refuted.

Further, if the QURAN says you can beat your wife if she disobeys you, then who's anyone to tell you you can't? Sure, the Prophet was a great example and he never beat his wives, but Muslims who beat their wives still have a Quranic justification, so they're not exactly wrong.

I agree with the property rights thingie. If nothing else, Islam at least lets women have half a share in property, but most Muslim societies don't give women anything at all because they think it's not necessary. However, I must say one thing: I understand their reasoning because what they're doing is using the SAME explanation that is used for why women should get half a share in property. So, since according to scholars, the REASON women get half than their brothers is that women aren't obligated to work and men are, and women don't provide for their families but men do, our people say, "Well, the husband is enough; he and other males in the family work together to provide for the whole family and other relatives, so let's just give it all to her husband/brother and none to her."

Get my point?

However, this "property rights for women in Islam" matter will be discussed in the thread on "interpretations" that I plan to open in a couple of days' time, ka khairee.

And attaturk being a kaafir is evident as he opposed Islam. And in Qur'an it clearly says that anyone who opposes Islam is not a muslim. Take a look at the ayat posted in the Sainthood thread for further explanation.

Again, you tell us that the Quran says this but you never actually give a verse to support it. I'm not sure how much work it would've been to just give the same ayat number here, bro :D

And as far as "explanations" are concerned, they're PEOPLE's understanding of those verses, and as you said in the ahle-hadith thread, if a "scholar" says you should beat your wife, should you really do it just becuase he said so?" (Or some other similar example that you gave.)

So, yeah, why should I accept or favor their explanation over someone else's?

[MazloomyarMaseed]

One thing in your post was MORE than enough for me to not give ANY thought to the rest of your post: You called Attaturk a kafir.

I don't believe ANY Muslim has a right to decide who's Muslim and who's not, and SO what if some students PREFER kafir teachers to Muslim ones? Perhaps they have a reason - I mean, think about it! You want us to follow people like Zakir Naik? You want us to consider HIM and people LIKE him our "teachers"? Oh God, that'd be a disaster for me.

So, no.

Another thing is ... when you mention denial of women's rights, you do realize that the mistreatment of Muslim women *worldwide* is a consequence of a misogynistic interpretation of Islam, right? I mean, take verse 4:34, for instance, which SUPPOSEDLY tells men to beat up their wives if they're being "disobedient." Then take that hadith I've constantly shared elsewhere that says that women who refuse sex to their husbands are cursed all night long by angels. So, yeah, it only makes SENSE that we women be abused and raped because the most common interpretation of Islam actually supports it.

As much as you might WANT to explain away verse 4:34, it's the most contested, most convoluted verse in the Quran, and NOTHING explains why a man should EVER even slightly hit his wife, be it with a miswaak, as many apologists say. So, yeah. Since the Quran doesn't explain how much he can beat his wife and what exactly "disobedience" means, it only makes sense that our husbands beat the hell out of us.

I just wrote a paper on how the patriarchal and sometimes misogynistic interpretation of Islam has destroyed the rights of women in Pashtun areas. It was a beautiful feeling. Get this, k: In tribal areas of the Pashtuns (and this is the case in tribal areas elsewhere as well), it is believed that because women are laden with the responsibility of honor, because she is the carrier of honor, she must be respected and dignified; she must not be harmed because to harm her is to destroy one’s honor, one’s social status. Hence, when a woman is beaten up or abused otherwise by her husband, the consequences are negative for the latter: her father, brothers, and other male relatives, sometimes including male members of her father’s village, come to her home and beat her husband publicly for having hurt his own wife, the agency of his honor.

Yet, TODAY, in settled areas of Pashtuns, what happens when a woman is beaten up? Nothing! :S What facilities do we have for abused women? Nothing!

Clearly, we have *chosen* which parts of Islam to accept, which to reject, and which to synchronize with Islam.

I believe we should take the most positive interpretation of ANY religion, ANY cultural ideals, and adhere to those for the betterment of humanity -- which includes both women and men.

Its amusing how he calls atturk a kaffir just because he found arabs as retards and removed the disnosuer age religonous laws from WHOM THE ARABS DESTROYED THE OTTOMON EMPIRE OVER.

you see people like Sangar, are a dying breed, in UK we have his sort and they are called Al majorooon, head by an Punjabi Anjum Chunadry, they are all benefit eaters, and screeming for shariat etc etc etc

Attaturk saved the turks from Arabism

He realised the threat of Arab Desert Bedion Camel jockeys when they accepted alliance with the British and French to destroy the ottomon empire

Sangar knows very well who put his ideology into power, it was the kaffir british and kaffir french etc etc etc

Salafis like to insult others but isnt it amazing how much close they are to the west haha

[شمله ور خراساني]

OMG :D Islam-qa.com? They even think women are OBLIGATED to cover their faces and use Quranic verses to support their claim, even though even majority of scholars agree that covering the face isn't in the Quran.

They take Quranic verses and interpret them in the MOST orthodox way possible, such that women become slaves--and specifically sex slaves--of their husbands, and a woman can't do this and that UNLESS her husband allows her. They even have their answers published in a book format that i came across yesterday on GoogleBooks.

So, yeah, they don't tend to convince me with their arguments, and EVERYTHING they say can be refuted.

Further, if the QURAN says you can beat your wife if she disobeys you, then who's anyone to tell you you can't? Sure, the Prophet was a great example and he never beat his wives, but Muslims who beat their wives still have a Quranic justification, so they're not exactly wrong.

I agree with the property rights thingie. If nothing else, Islam at least lets women have half a share in property, but most Muslim societies don't give women anything at all because they think it's not necessary. However, I must say one thing: I understand their reasoning because what they're doing is using the SAME explanation that is used for why women should get half a share in property. So, since according to scholars, the REASON women get half than their brothers is that women aren't obligated to work and men are, and women don't provide for their families but men do, our people say, "Well, the husband is enough; he and other males in the family work together to provide for the whole family and other relatives, so let's just give it all to her husband/brother and none to her."

Get my point?

However, this "property rights for women in Islam" matter will be discussed in the thread on "interpretations" that I plan to open in a couple of days' time, ka khairee.



Again, you tell us that the Quran says this but you never actually give a verse to support it. I'm not sure how much work it would've been to just give the same ayat number here, bro :D

And as far as "explanations" are concerned, they're PEOPLE's understanding of those verses, and as you said in the ahle-hadith thread, if a "scholar" says you should beat your wife, should you really do it just becuase he said so?" (Or some other similar example that you gave.)

So, yeah, why should I accept or favor their explanation over someone else's?

your accusations are baseless. You claim to be able to refute Sheikh Munajid? hahah. That's very funny.

The interpretation in the most orthodox way is the only right way. As orthodoxy is refering back to the prophet and his companions. I don't see why that would be wrong.

And something I might want to add is, since you tell lies and accuse his companions of denying the rights of women using SHi'ite fabrications, I might ask what is the Shi'ite position in regards to womens property rights?

Qur'an does not say you can beat your wife as it is defined by most ignorant people. The verse is very well interpretated by the orthodox school. Hitting your wife does not mean going about causing her bruses. While teachin Qur'an the pious predecessors disagreed on the interpretation of the verse. However the most correct view is that since hurting someone is not right, the only right interpretation is that you make physical contact by an object like the sewak (tooth cleaning piece of wood). Which does not mean you can go about hurting your wife and injuring her.

And Muslims do hit their wives and hurt them. But some Muslims also attribute divinity to people. Does that mean we should accept both practices as corrrect ones? No. So I don't know why you post so much nonsense in this regard.

Denying womens property rights or even worse, preventing them from driving a cars is just opinions. They are opinions you can disagree with. Which does occur.

For instance, Muslims claim women should not drive cars. Yet they can easily be refuted by the fact that the prophet's wife Aysha ra use to ride a camel. Not only did she just ride a camel, she would even race her own husband.

But this just proves that taking the pious predecessors as an example only helps us in coming to terms and not deviating in to heresies and adhere to void opinions as some do.

You can disagree with people and provide evidence in support of your claim. But when you rely on interpretation od deviant sects and non-Muslims it is obvious that you are not being sincere.

[شمله ور خراساني]

Sangar.
I don't understand how you think we are imitating Kufar.

Pashtuns are known in Pakistan and Afghanistan to be ultra religious,honest and hospitable.

You should re-read my initial post. I did not say we do that all the time. I am just arguing why we should not immitate the kufar.

[MazloomyarMaseed]

You should re-read my initial post. I did not say we do that all the time. I am just arguing why we should not immitate the kufar.

Oh really...so we should immitate the Desert arabs Wahabis who were supported by the so called Kaffirs.

Sangar,your following an system and ideology that was brought into power by British and French, doesnt this tell you anything.

[شمله ور خراساني]

Oh really...so we should immitate the Desert arabs Wahabis who were supported by the so called Kaffirs.

Sangar,your following an system and ideology that was brought into power by British and French, doesnt this tell you anything.

Have you ever been treated for tourette syndrom?

[MazloomyarMaseed]

Have you ever been treated for tourette syndrom?

Well...I dont use Salafism to keep me away from Pork

[inqilab]

Muslims had layed the foundations of most technological and scientific advances you see today. Most of these were done by muslim scholars themselves. So it is quite stupid to even claim that scholars are against science etc.

You can eve watch the new documentary made about them. The famous actor ben kingsley playing a muslim scientist. And showing how Islam brought light to the european dark ages. If it was not for muslims coming to europe. It would have been lights out for them for a very long time. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZDe9...layer_embedded

We are against westernization. I repeat. We are against westernization. But we are not against modernization in science and technology. We do not want your backward democracy.