Pashtun system of marriage has benefits...

[khushal]

Well if you're basing your assessment on this then BOTH YOU AND RAINN have poor Math Skills. there's 3,600 minutes in a day X 365 days in a year = 1,314,000 minutes in a year. RAINN says and I quote "There are 525,600 minutes in a non-leap year". If there are 207,754 instances of SEXUAL ASSAULT, NOT RAPE, that's an instance of sexual assault every 6 minutes 20 seconds. now here's the FUN part.

If there's 207,754 sexual assaults every 6:20 minutes then that's 1315082:53 minutes; THAT's more minutes than in a year. So yes the numbers presented by RAINN are impossible. Because every two minutes means 1,314,000/2 = 657,000 NOT 207,754 which is reported by the U.S. department of Justice.
.

LOL, I thought you were a math expert. Math is not my expertise but there are 60 minutes in an hour x 24 hours in a day= 1440 minutes in a day. Where are you getting 3600 minutes in a day from. Your lousy math even gets worse. as we double check your math.
525,600/207,754 = 2.5299 minutes per sexual assault, where did you get 6 min 20 sec from?
Im even defeating you in math.


Ill get back to you on the rest later.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

LOL, I thought you were a math expert. Math is not my expertise but there are 60 minutes in an hour x 24 hours in a day= 1440 minutes in a day. Where are you getting 3600 minutes in a day from. Your lousy math even gets worse. as we double check your math.
525,600/207,754 = 2.5299 minutes per sexual assault, where did you get 6 min 20 sec from?
Im even defeating you in math.


Ill get back to you on the rest later.

No i'll admit I typed the wrong value down; I was following along with the narrative that RAINN was using, it originally started using seconds then it computed it to minutes and I didn't reconvert it back, but it happens. Nontheless you're still doing your Math wrong

207755 Sexual Assaults/minutes in a year = 0.395 sexual assaults/minute
so for 2 minutes it's 0.790 assaults and 1.185 every 3 minutes. Which is effectively 1 SEXUAL ASSAULT every 3 minutes (you wrote Rape, not sexual assault). Now 207,759/ 160,109,420.4 female populaton = 0.0013 = 0.13 % of the female population are affected.

But thanks for pointing out my mistyped value. So now for Afghanistan since 70% of Afghan marriages are coerced. 14 million females in Afghanistan (approx) X 0.70 = 9,800,000 rapes . So 9,800,000 rapes/525,000 minutes = 18.6 rapes/ minute in Afghanistan So in 3 minutes 57 women are raped in Afghanistan, that's ONE rape for every sexual assault in America.

and you act like America is dangerous for women and that Afghan values/principles protect and honor women?

So even though I did type 3,600 minutes it doesn't really help your argument at all. So much for defeating me at math. You even "correct" people wrong LOL hahah

[Badlun]

This is patently false and I'll demonstrate it by an example

In Shari'ah women are allowed to inherit their own property; in Pashtunwali women cannot inherit property all of a woman's inheritance is dilineated through her male kin; this coincides with Indo-Aryan Customs where women of Hinduism and Zoroastrianis; since the ancestors of Pashtuns were supposedly in part came were Hindus and Zoroastrians prior to Islam; this makes sense that Pashtunwali may have retained the more misogynistic character traits of their ancestors.

in Shari'ah women have a certain degree of self determination, maybe not complete but more so than the Indo-Aryan cultures which Pashtunwali would only logically be derived from.

I think Pashtuns may have had more egalitarianism when it came to dressing, I know burqa is not the traditional Pashtun garb. But when it came to women's personal rights and self determination, Pashtunwali is even worse than Salafi style Islam. I say this even though I'm a staunch critic of Salafism; but one credit Salafi have over Pashtunwali is they advocate women's self determination to some degree, i.e. opposing forced marriages and stressing Islamic inheritance. Pashtunwali lacks this in every end.

Pashtunwali is not a written code like Quran. Quran has equaled two women to one man in inheritance but Pashtunwali is silent on it. Pashtunwali is mainly honor, welfare, bravery, loyalty etc(pat, khegarha, wafa, tura, nang, nanawatey, tiga, tang takor, hujra jumat, etc) but it does not have a code for inheritance. Thus we cannot say that Pashtun women do not inherit because of Pashtunwali but this a a malpractice amongst Pashtuns.

Also before Islam and when Pashtuns were only nomads, the concept of ownership was not there. In the nomadic cultures no body owns not but every body owns wherever they are. This make gender meaningless in property.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

Pashtunwali is not a written code like Quran. Quran has equaled two women to one man in inheritance but Pashtunwali is silent on it. Pashtunwali is mainly honor, welfare, bravery, loyalty etc(pat, khegarha, wafa, tura, nang, nanawatey, tiga, tang takor, hujra jumat, etc) but it does not have a code for inheritance. Thus we cannot say that Pashtun women do not inherit because of Pashtunwali but this a a malpractice amongst Pashtuns.

Also before Islam and when Pashtuns were only nomads, the concept of ownership was not there. In the nomadic cultures no body owns not but every body owns wherever they are. This make gender meaningless in property.

But Pashthnwali is culturally reinforced so it makes its misogynistic character more dangerous since that is what is practiced by habit and conditioning.

Shari'ah and Qur'an maybe more concrete and codeified but all the Authentic Sufis embrace Shari'ah and Understand that Shari'ah is broad and very fluid in itself even though it is very explicit, they view t is a problem solving methodology which is Regulated by certain principles/rules. Where as Pashtjnwali is not about solving problems but Following a Custom that one's ancestors followed to serve their interests. So we can say that pashtunwali deprived women of inheritance because Historically Pashtuns were from an area primarily inhabited by Indo-Aryan peoples and we know that the predominant custom of Indo-Aryans was that women were property and did not need inheritance; this is in the Laws of Hinduism and Zoroastrianism. Since Pashtunwali is derived from Indo-Aryan customs we can conclude that is the case for Pashtunwali

ALL Indo-Aryans were nomads at one time;Pashtuns were PASTORAL Nomads; so they did have a concept of ownership; they believed certain areas and pastures were theirs and also they owned sheep, cattle, various goods, the Concept of ownership were amongst Nomadic Peoples After about the Bronze Age. It is proven Scythians had Chieftans were buried with Items which they owned in their life and even they were buried with their concubines wives sometimes. Scythians pre-dated the Pashtuns and were Nomads; in fact some people speculate that Pashtuns are their descendants.

According to Anthropologists the period at which people did not have a concept of ownership was IN Africa when they were HUNTER GATHERING Nomads, NOT Pastoral Nomads. This was before Pashtuns even existed. When our ancestors were Africans, not indo-Aryans.

[faye]

[QUOTE=RevolutionThroughReason

So now for Afghanistan since 70% of Afghan marriages are coerced. 14 million females in Afghanistan (approx) X 0.70 = 9,800,000 rapes . So 9,800,000 rapes/525,000 minutes = 18.6 rapes/ minute in Afghanistan So in 3 minutes 57 women are raped in Afghanistan, that's ONE rape for every sexual assault in America.
and you act like America is dangerous for women and that Afghan values/principles protect and honor women.[/QUOTE]

of course america is dangerous for women. i was warned not to go to certain areas, when i was there, due to the possibility of being robbed or raped. some other stats. the different statistics for rape and sexual assault in america vary but there is a general agreement that the amount reported are not the true amount.
Crime Victim Services (CVS)

so, the mathematical evaluation, or should i say assumption, is that all women are raped when in a marriage that is considered coerced.
you actually are assuming that none of these people ever learn to care about and love each other.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

of course america is dangerous for women. i was warned not to go to certain areas, when i was there, due to the possibility of being robbed or raped. some other stats. the different statistics for rape and sexual assault in america vary but there is a general agreement that the amount reported are not the true amount.
Crime Victim Services (CVS)

so, the mathematical evaluation, or should i say assumption, is that all women are raped when in a marriage that is considered coerced.
you actually are assuming that none of these people ever learn to care about and love each other.

well then what do you think of the law legislatures passed that a rape victim must marry her rapist, I mean by your logic ..she'll eventually learn to love him right? so may as well?

I guess in your privileged "can live as you want" world of western comfort and insulatiion. It never occurs to you that women being subject to such violations have to "learn to accept" their situation to cope with the whole ordeal and that this "learning to love" is an act of coping with it. But it's easy to look on the Sunny side of things when you have the luxury to have a choice in the matter eh Faye?

And yes there are dangers in America, as there are dangers anywhere, you clearly go into numbskull mode when reading a post. The remark was that in comparison to Afghanistan America and MOST Western countries are at least 57 times safer, that's 5,700% safer than in Afghanistan. Women have a greater chance to be raped by their husbands in Afghanistan, than raped in America. I think when it comes to such high degree of safety, the and such low numbers of assault victims considering the population, the safety of America compared to say Paktia is apparent.

[faye]

lol..now you are going to the extreme, as per usual. you are not responding to what i said, you are just becoming hysterical.

but you still have no evidence that your supposed rape statistics for afghanistan have any validity.
very unscientific of you.
since you appear to be a hypocrite in your seeming concern for women and have little life experience, having spent most of your years in school and unmarried, i will explain a few things.
i have been living in homes with couples and their children, in arranged marriages, in india, iran and malaysia and indonesia. the couples i stayed with were not miserable, the wife not horsewhipped daily and their children were happy, healthy looking and behaving, children.

what you are unable to take into account from your lack of personal experience, yuppy comfort and westernised headspace, is that people throughout history could have, can and do, love each other, under all kinds of circumstances.

there are positives and negatives, i believe.
you just point out only negatives.
it is an achilles heel that you have found, to poke at pashtuns about, not because you care but because you think you can agitate and score points.

i believe your concern for afghan/pashtun women, is fake, hillary.

[khushal]

Pashtunwali is not a written code like Quran. Quran has equaled two women to one man in inheritance but Pashtunwali is silent on it. Pashtunwali is mainly honor, welfare, bravery, loyalty etc(pat, khegarha, wafa, tura, nang, nanawatey, tiga, tang takor, hujra jumat, etc) but it does not have a code for inheritance. Thus we cannot say that Pashtun women do not inherit because of Pashtunwali but this a a malpractice amongst Pashtuns.

Also before Islam and when Pashtuns were only nomads, the concept of ownership was not there. In the nomadic cultures no body owns not but every body owns wherever they are. This make gender meaningless in property.

Pashtun women in the rural setting don't inherit land unless there is no male heir. So daughters inherit their parents property if they have no brothers. The reason for this is that if daughters inherit land, that it would be used by their husbands for their own benefit. It is a male society so males have to make their own way and not depend on their wifes parents wealth.
Bothers would inherit property from their parents equally. The funny thing is that in English custom, all property is inherited to the eldest son and the rest gets nothing. This custom still is practiced in England.

[khushal]

Malalai Joya is a very meritable activist; but and her arguments regarding the issue of women in afghanistan are valid. But Malalai Joya opposes talks with the Taliban calling them "misogynist terrorists" Which indicates she sees the Taliban's rule worse than the current situation; which of course isn't much better. Leading us to conclude that the problem is Pashtun culture. BUt Malalai says that situation has not CHANGED since the Taliban, not that they're worse "than" the Taliban , indicating that during the Taliban time they're as terrible as they are now.

Afghanistan's Bravest Woman Malalai Joya: "Taliban are logistically & militarily growing stronger as each day dawns." "Afghan women and men are not 'liberated' at all" | Rupee News

This statement by malalai joya confirms what I have been saying:
“The US pushed us from the frying pan to the fire.” meaning the invasion made women more insecure.

You're running on a tangent now; you have no credibility in any of these topics. Pederasty is a cultural norm in Afghanistan too and that's very blatantly gay. So you aren't really refuting anything here; just getting high strung and diverting the subject to defend your failed culture.

We have already had this discussion and you lost as usual. you could not prove that pedestry is a cultural norm. /stop repeating things you have already been proven as false. If you want to discuss it further go back to the original thread. I don't have time to repeat things.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

This statement by malalai joya confirms what I have been saying:
“The US pushed us from the frying pan to the fire.” meaning the invasion made women more insecure.



We have already had this discussion and you lost as usual. you could not prove that pedestry is a cultural norm. /stop repeating things you have already been proven as false. If you want to discuss it further go back to the original thread. I don't have time to repeat things.

Actually she says herself that it's pretty much the same as the Taliban but only worse in "some" provinces.

feature | Malalai Joya | Overland literary journal

A recent survey compiled by the Thomson Reuters Foundation rated Afghanistan as ‘the most dangerous country for women’. And I completely agree with this conclusion. Afghanistan is currently facing a women’s rights catastrophe. One of the main slogans of the US and NATO was about women’s rights but today we see that women are subjected to the most inhuman kinds of violence. The conditions are the same as in the Taliban’s time, even worse in some provinces.

So we have her saying it's the SAME as Taliban for most of Afghanistan except "some" places and the most dangerous country for women; means the problem always existed in Afghan culture and no invasion or any other excuses played any greater role than to empower/embolden already existing aspects of Pashtun cultural forces.

You mean you've already got angsty and jumped around claiming victory wihout anything in your favor except avoiding or disregarding evidence as per usual? Not proven? Of course because you make excuses, conspiracy theories and ad-hominem accusations to DENY any eviodence presented; There's no one on this forum that suffers from the worst case of cultural and social denial as you are; Pashtun pride clouds the mind as usual.


EVEN THOUGH I know you're AS PER USUAL doing your usual attempt at looking for red herrings and DIVERSIONS from main topics and debates; I'm going to entertain you this time, BUT of course as expected you'll use your typical excuses about the "source" and other ad-hominem fallacies to avoid the evidence.
Asia Times Online :: South Asia news, business and economy from India and Pakistan

Most Pashtun men, Human Terrain Team AF-6 reports, engage in sex with men - boys - in fact, the vast majority of their sexual contacts are with males. "A culturally-contrived homosexuality [significantly not termed as such by its practitioners] appears to affect a far greater population base then some researchers would argue is attributable to natural inclination. Some of its root causes lie in the severe segregation of women, the prohibitive cost of marriage within Pashtun tribal codes, and the depressed economic situation into which young Pashtun men are placed

In fact the majority of their sexual contacts are with males; I think that says enough. disgusting to say the least. The Prohibitive cost of Marriage within Pashtun tribal codes ahem ahem aka Pashtunwali? (I can almost anticipate how you'll spin this as some shallow western understanding of Pashtunwali). But hey look on the bright side at least the study gives credence to your Poverty Theory; but apparently poverty just makes for the rise in homosexuality already present in Pashtun culture.

[khushal]

Pashtunwali makes things mandatory? Not all of Pashtunwali are mandatories. many are just customs; the individuals can choose to do them if they want In Pashtunwali person doesn't "have to" do something like Teega, they choose to. So your statement doesn't dissuade the connection to Walwar to Pashtunwali.The fact is Walwar is enshrined in Pashtunwali; it's sanctioned , supported and accepted. It is not the Islamic Mahr but IS CONTRARY to Islamic Law.

I know why it came to be You were just parroting an explanation I gave for it over a year ago under ScimitarXEdge ; but the explanation doesn't apply now. Trying to scapegoat with an "ph hey my friends from Iran do it too" i.e a Tu Qoque type fallacy doesn't take the heat off of Pashtuns.

Now look at what prostitution is? It's the exchange of money/goods/services for the sake of sexual gratification; what is Walwar? Taking money to be able to marry a woman to legally have sex with her. I see the only difference here is the method.

There is nothing unislamic about walwar if it is applied correctly. The money is given to the bride to be family for the intent to be used for the bride to be.
This custom is actually intended to protect the girls from harm. In india, the custom is that the girls family have to pay the dowry to the grooms family. This custom puts enormous financial strain on the girls family especially if the family has many daughters which leads people to despise bearing girls . This custom actually led to the killing of daughters to relieve financial burden. It has also created a custom of aborting girls in India, this is practiced even today.
Women Pregnant With Girls Pressured Into Abortions in India - ABC News

Any culture that gives benefit and value to families having daughters is the more moral and ethical culture.

And your pedestry claims were already refuted in another thread. Repeating the same thing over and over in new threads is not going to accomplish anything. Man up and answer in the appropriate thread. repeating things is a waste of time maybe not for you but for me it is. It did not take long for you to go back to your usual yoresponding like a sexual deviant, and in a mentally ill way.

So when you look at this picture, what do you think the lady loves her husband no matter what or is she with him for the money and cheats on him. Only you would know what your thinking and you would know that your a sexual deviant so get some therepy, seriously.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

There's no indication that Pashtunwali requires that Walwar be used by the Bride's family FOR the bride, but even this is riduculous and has no Islamic Basis because the Islamic Mahr is for TO the Bride, not the bride's father, not her brother not any of her relatives. TO HER only. Only if she CHOOSES to confer it to anyone else does it become "Islamic", but It's for her and using her as a conduit to make it appear as she's choosing to give up her money to her family when really she's being coerced is ALSO Unislamic. So there's nothing in Walwar which matches Islamic Law; and the Supposition that it's given to the bride's family to USE on the bride is illogical and redundant because the bride can choose to use it for herself directly, without an intermediary as is stipulated in Islamic Law.

As for what you're writing about India is totally irrelevant and a distraction and a red herring scapegoat to avoid the short comings of Pashtun society, since no one has argued for groom dowries here and it' ALSO a logical fallacy on two accounts; #1 It's a Non-Sequittur, Just because bride groom dowries exist in India; doesn't mean Walwar is morally correct or demonstrates "caring for daughters", as we have seen it is not. #2 False Correlation: Walwar doesn't benefit women but people in her family exploiting her to gain resources as there is no logical reason why the resources cannot be given to the woman directly for her decide what's in her benefit. the "family's take it to use on the bride" argument falters under scrutiny.

Stay on topic Khushal you're all over the map; first you Introduce the Red Herring when your arguments lack merit as a way to regain ground; then when that backfires you tell me to reply in the appropriate thread. As you can clearly see even your red herring hasn't been refuted as there is EVIDENCE that shows that your argument is incorrect and has been debunked. What you have done is what you usually do, DENY and make excuses for DENYING evidence. that's much different than refutation.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

Pashtun women in the rural setting don't inherit land unless there is no male heir. So daughters inherit their parents property if they have no brothers. The reason for this is that if daughters inherit land, that it would be used by their husbands for their own benefit. It is a male society so males have to make their own way and not depend on their wifes parents wealth.
Bothers would inherit property from their parents equally. The funny thing is that in English custom, all property is inherited to the eldest son and the rest gets nothing. This custom still is practiced in England.

This is completely absurd and faricial reasoning to say the least;. In Pashtun culture one of the biggest reasons for inter-family blood fueds is rivalry for brothers/cousins/uncles over inheritance/property/land disputes. This is evident in many long standing Pashtun Blood Fueds like that of the Kharoti against the Suleman Khel; two closely related tribes yet rivals over property and territory from hundreds of years back when the two tribes branched off from the other tribe.

If Husbands steal property by divesting it from the wife; that only reinforces the corruption and Injustice already enshrined in Pashtunwali and Pashtun culture in general. In Islamic Law a husband is forbidden from divesting the property of his wife under any stipulation UNLESS the wife chooses to give it to him; and it becomes HER RIGHT to give it to him if she CHOOSES to and her relatives would have NO right to protest as this is HER private property now. The fact that inheritance is deprived from the stipulation to the daughter on the grounds of husbands hypothetically stealing would only result from Pashtunwali and Pashtun culture viewing women as property of her husband lacking any degree of financial independence already granted to her in Islamic Law. Which further reinforces that pashtun culture and Pashtunwali contradicts Islam on many important issues.

way to help reveal the UnIslamic and woman-hating nature of Pashtunwali.

[khushal]

There's no indication that Pashtunwali requires that Walwar be used by the Bride's family FOR the bride, but even this is riduculous and has no Islamic Basis because the Islamic Mahr is for TO the Bride, not the bride's father, not her brother not any of her relatives. TO HER only. Only if she CHOOSES to confer it to anyone else does it become "Islamic", but It's for her and using her as a conduit to make it appear as she's choosing to give up her money to her family when really she's being coerced is ALSO Unislamic. So there's nothing in Walwar which matches Islamic Law; and the Supposition that it's given to the bride's family to USE on the bride is illogical and redundant because the bride can choose to use it for herself directly, without an intermediary as is stipulated in Islamic Law.

As for what you're writing about India is totally irrelevant and a distraction and a red herring scapegoat to avoid the short comings of Pashtun society, since no one has argued for groom dowries here and it' ALSO a logical fallacy on two accounts; #1 It's a Non-Sequittur, Just because bride groom dowries exist in India; doesn't mean Walwar is morally correct or demonstrates "caring for daughters", as we have seen it is not. #2 False Correlation: Walwar doesn't benefit women but people in her family exploiting her to gain resources as there is no logical reason why the resources cannot be given to the woman directly for her decide what's in her benefit. the "family's take it to use on the bride" argument falters under scrutiny.

Your lacking understanding of how this is done. Its given to the family that the girl is a member of and pashtuns do things as a family, its not america where everyone is independent and indvidual choice, pashtuns decide everything as a family because most decisions effect the whole family. The money is intended to be spent on the girl and her wedding. Whats so unislamic about that. Mahr is seperate, while this is decided before the engagement, mahr is decided during the vows. Your post is mostly ramblings and venting out and cant really explain how its unislamic and in reality its more in line with islamic values as far as putting values on women as long as its practiced the way it was intended. Its basically a system thats puts the financial burden on the grooms family vs the brides family which is the way it should be otherwie you will have the problem you have in India.

I am sorry to say you have lost this onebecause you did not think ahead as usual. Study hard and think ahead for the next argument.

[khushal]

This is completely absurd and faricial reasoning to say the least;. In Pashtun culture one of the biggest reasons for inter-family blood fueds is rivalry for brothers/cousins/uncles over inheritance/property/land disputes. This is evident in many long standing Pashtun Blood Fueds like that of the Kharoti against the Suleman Khel; two closely related tribes yet rivals over property and territory from hundreds of years back when the two tribes branched off from the other tribe.

If Husbands steal property by divesting it from the wife; that only reinforces the corruption and Injustice already enshrined in Pashtunwali and Pashtun culture in general. In Islamic Law a husband is forbidden from divesting the property of his wife under any stipulation UNLESS the wife chooses to give it to him; and it becomes HER RIGHT to give it to him if she CHOOSES to and her relatives would have NO right to protest as this is HER private property now. The fact that inheritance is deprived from the stipulation to the daughter on the grounds of husbands hypothetically stealing would only result from Pashtunwali and Pashtun culture viewing women as property of her husband lacking any degree of financial independence already granted to her in Islamic Law. Which further reinforces that pashtun culture and Pashtunwali contradicts Islam on many important issues.

way to help reveal the UnIslamic and woman-hating nature of Pashtunwali.

Rivalry over resources ie land is a human trait. All over the world you see feuds and disputes over inheritence.

Its the same in pashtuns where the wife chooses to give it to her husband, but almost always the wife gives it to her husband after all she belongs to that family and she wants her property to be passed down to her kids. Its only natural. My grandmother was an only child that had inherited alot of land in our village and she gave all her property to her husband which in turn was passed down to her sons. Who else is she going to give it to? her cousins? come on, think man, think. You know very little of human trait.