Pashtun system of marriage has benefits...

[Tjanaparh]

Thank You a lot! I hope however our users who know also share a bit more their knowledge..

[RevolutionThroughReason]

Do you meant Islam as religion in the context above?
Again, Im not an expert on Islam but from my point of view, Islam is not only religion (I mean limited to prayers and religious rituals), its more like a way of life. And some aspects of life are reasonable. Look at the Sharia law which seems to be very logical and comprehensive.

Thank you Yasmeen; yes Islamic Shari'ah Law uses a very logical system to determine and legislate laws, Islam as a methodology. There are of course some metaphysical concepts which may surpass logical inquiry but those can be discussed; as a structure of life it is very logical.

[faye]

Islam is not against Pashtun culture because it is Pashtun; it is against Pashtun culture because it is cruel, unjust and backwards. It teaches hatred to women, male bigotry. Islam wants justice, fairness and balance.
Pashtuns should not follow their way of marriage because their way is sick, and degrades women. Islam does not promote cultural customs of any culture, it promotes what it determines as just and fair.

In Islam reason does exist

i agree that the system espoused by khushal does not appear to fit with the islamic system in the article i added, but to say that it teaches HATRED of women is UNREASONABLE. you keep exaggerating what you deem the negative aspects of the pashtun system.

if that were the case, all the men on this forum and all of their families, would be living within a male dominated household, where the mothers, sisters, daughters, grandmothers, etc, are all hated. do you really think that is the case?
i was in afghanistan and i don't know which men were pashtun or not but i definitely did not experience hatred from men. in fact, i received the opposite.

i would say that the pashtun system does appear to promote OWNERSHIP of women.
i think the religions from the middle east, were chauvanistic and all promoted ownership of women, which christianity has been having difficulty, also, in letting go of.
male dominance, in fact, appears to have generally been the norm around the world, for thousands of years.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

i agree that the system espoused by khushal does not appear to fit with the islamic system in the article i added, but to say that it teaches HATRED of women is UNREASONABLE. you keep exaggerating what you deem the negative aspects of the pashtun system.

if that were the case, all the men on this forum and all of their families, would be living within a male dominated household, where the mothers, sisters, daughters, grandmothers, etc, are all hated. do you really think that is the case?
i was in afghanistan and i don't know which men were pashtun or not but i definitely did not experience hatred from men. in fact, i received the opposite.

i would say that the pashtun system does appear to promote OWNERSHIP of women.
i think the religions from the middle east, were chauvanistic and all promoted ownership of women, which christianity has been having difficulty, also, in letting go of.
male dominance, in fact, appears to have generally been the norm around the world, for thousands of years.

fair enough but I think you're also mixing two separate issue; the issue of male dominance/patriarchy with misogyny. The idea of male ownership of women is misogynistic but is not necessarily the ends of patriarchy. Male dominance is more a product of outcome than opportunity. However selling a daughter does not seem to have any legitimacy in that sense either.

what makes it hatred of women is precisely on this account that they want to justify practices that are ostensibly harmful for women and society.

[faye]

no. it is you who mixed the 2. i am pointing out that your unreasonable conclusion, hatred of women is promoted by a male dominated, pashtun system, is not the case.
misogynistic is not necessarily hatred of women. the system might be beneficial to the male, in assisting the their dominance, but that does not mean they hate the women.
hatred of women, can be by men/women in any system.

i am neither advocating any system nor not advocating any system here.

to analyse and speculate about a system or idea, does not need the infusion of exaggerations that make the person you are making a point to, become defensive.
this is anti reason or logic or shall we say, intellectual dishonesty.

[faye]

I cannot understand how you call your self RTR as reason does not exist in religion. Religion is belief in unseen and reason cannot be used in the realm of unseen. Reason for philosophy not Islam. And then how the champion of islam is discussing Pashtun marriage as marriage can only be Islamic not Pashtun or Turkish!

from my observations, religions all involve a structure, a system of behaviour, not just the mystical nor unprovable, by science.
therefore the acts and ideas behind the doing of these actions, can be reasoned.

[khushal]

Well, I am not an expert but I think you misinterpret partially the meaning of namus. I would say that a man is taught to protects his wife or sister or daughter because if he doesn't, and a woman will do something unacceptable, then he will be called beghairat and her acts will affect his sense of honour and social acceptance. So in fact by protecting women men in fact protect themselves and their namus.

If it were as you say, men after divorce would not be taunted as talaqi. Probably you know that in Pashto the real meaning of this word is different than that indicated by its Arabic origin. So man after divorce can lose his honor. For me it proves that de facto men protect their own honor.

I agree with your last statement. But its the culture that has in essence created a psychology that protecting your female members of the family/clan is protecting oneself. A threat to to those members is a threat to oneself. Human beings naturally regards the "importance of self" above all else so this psychology has created a way to transfer that "importance of self" to other members of the family. So protecting namos is equal to if not more important than protecting oneself.

But your statement about talaqi(one who is divorced) is taunted because the culture promotes of keeping the family unit intact at all costs. Most cultures in the world actually taunted divorcees in the past and the reason was as stated above to give the utmost rights to children to have both parents together even if the parents did not get along, it was regarded as the better choice than a broken family. Divorce is a new concept even though Islam introduced it 1400 years ago as lawful, people still did not divorce for the sake of the kids.

[faye]

khushal, human beings can also 'naturally' be in disregard of their own safety, to protect their loved ones, or even others outdside of their family and friends.

divorce is impractical for the woman, if she is in a system where she has no way of being independent.
the men in islam, who can afford it, can just get another wife if they are unhappy with one. they can even use getting another wife, as a threat, to get the wife to be 'well behaved'.

[khushal]

khushal, human beings can also 'naturally' be in disregard of their own safety, to protect their loved ones, or even others outdside of their family and friends.

divorce is impractical for the woman, if she is in a system where she has no way of being independent.
the men in islam, who can afford it, can just get another wife if they are unhappy with one. they can even use getting another wife, as a threat, to get the wife to be 'well behaved'.

That's true about being in disregard but I'm talking about in general.

As far your statement about divorce, you are right that unless a woman is in a system where she can take care of herself or force the father of her kids to pay child support/alimony, it would be not practical, but in pashtun society the divorced men are mocked and taunted to a point that they are almost shunned/ignored from society.

[faye]

khushal, i have to say, that the more you say about the pashtun social behaviours, the worse it sounds. both men and women are forced to be conservative, one way or another. it appears to lack compassion for others misfortune.

my personal theory is that male dominance is/has been a stage that humanity has /is going through. it will eventually be surpassed.
western women who have historically, only recently recieved a liberalisataion and large measure of equality, had no role models about what to do with their freedom.
there was no spiritual guidance that they felt they could identify with, since most religions common in the western domain are dominated by the system they want freedom from, male control. in general, women are still insecure and making many terrible mistakes by taking on dominating and even violent roles that they were supposedly against.
they can also be misguidedly, extremely materialistic, re: how much jewellery, clothes, shoes etc, they possess.
the acceptance of women, as they really are, is still up in the air, by both men and women.

i also believe the system of male dominance is/has not been. constructive for the men either. men actually have to be protected from other men, (apparently, a lot of the rape stats for america, involve male rape in prisons) and men feel the need to be wary on their women and childrens behalf, against the aggression or trespass, from other men. also a paranoia about women due to some demeaning of women in religions, myths and stories or insecurity about their capacity to be able to have a woman be faithful to them.
i think this all boils down to men believing in their superiority and ownership of others and a fear of losing that control.

[khushal]

Faye
I think the environment forces people to be conservative. The urban pashtuns are more liberal than the rural pashtuns and one can see this all over the world with all people. It does have compassion for others misfortunes because it has the concept of "melmastai" (the concept of hospitality) and "nanawata" (the concept of sanctuary and mercy for those that ask for it). There is one change in Afghanistan that has occurred for the first time in history. The urban population has increased from about 10% pre 2001 to more than 35% today and the projection is that it will be more than 50% by the end of the decade. This is a huge environmental change and peoples psyche will evolve with it.

As for your theory. I dont think it has anything to do with western women had no role models or they lacked spirituality. The liberalization and equality for women goes through the same process and ends up the same in the east and the west because all women seek freedom from not just male control but any control that society has put on them, this is not just unique in the West.

Human being in essence want to control others whether they are male or female. Men and women use their particular strengths to dominate others in their environment whether its through physical strength or through creativity/manipulation . The men raping men in prison is all about control and securing dominance over others in their environment. The want to control and dominate is not unique to one sex.

[یاسمینه]

I agree with your last statement. But its the culture that has in essence created a psychology that protecting your female members of the family/clan is protecting oneself. A threat to to those members is a threat to oneself. Human beings naturally regards the "importance of self" above all else so this psychology has created a way to transfer that "importance of self" to other members of the family. So protecting namos is equal to if not more important than protecting oneself.

Again I think that if we take Pashtun (well not only Pashtun) society, you are wrong. Men tend to protect themselves because of "what family/relatives/ society will say if they do not. They know that if they won't follow rules they will be excluded out of their social group. For the same reasons in extrememe cases both parents, man and woman kill their daughters etc/. I would say that there is not reallly the personal sense of honour which leads to such acts. Its more because of collective expectations and social control.

But your statement about talaqi(one who is divorced) is taunted because the culture promotes of keeping the family unit intact at all costs.

In Pashto, a divorcee is not the real meaning of a talaqi. A talaqi is rather someone whose wife has a right to sleep sleep with another man. And this is the most important aspect.
Islam sanctiones divorces and I think there could be logic behind.

Most cultures in the world actually taunted divorcees in the past and the reason was as stated above to give the utmost rights to children to have both parents together even if the parents did not get along, it was regarded as the better choice than a broken family. Divorce is a new concept even though Islam introduced it 1400 years ago as lawful, people still did not divorce for the sake of the kids.

What I am going to say now, it is more a general remark, not only about Pashtuns. In fact such situations happens everywhere. But the attitude towards such situations can vary in different cultures.
For the sake of kids... Do you really think that this is always the best thing for kids? I do not. Of course it is the best when kids can grow in a happy family but sometimes it does not happen. Do you think that kids who grow in a family where they can see how father tortures their mother? Many studies shows that kids reproduce patterns they witnessed at their homes. So what such kids will learn? That a beaten woman has to suffer silently because it is her sarnawesht. A boy will learn that with time he can beat her mother and wife without any consequences.
What with kids who are regularly beaten by parents?
Is this really for the sake of kids? Sometimes divorce is the best solution, for the sake of kids and their future life.

[faye]

Faye
It does have compassion for others misfortunes because it has the concept of "melmastai" (the concept of hospitality) and "nanawata" (the concept of sanctuary and mercy for those that ask for it).

As for your theory. I dont think it has anything to do with western women had no role models or they lacked spirituality. The liberalization and equality for women goes through the same process and ends up the same in the east and the west because all women seek freedom from not just male control but any control that society has put on them, this is not just unique in the West.

Human being in essence want to control others whether they are male or female. Men and women use their particular strengths to dominate others in their environment whether its through physical strength or through creativity/manipulation . The men raping men in prison is all about control and securing dominance over others in their environment. The want to control and dominate is not unique to one sex.

aren't those concepts you classify as compassion, behaviours that are said to gain a reward from allah in the afterlife?

so, after thousand of years of male dominance, which were the role models for women who were suddenly given a large degree of freedom? i am one of those women who went off on a tangent from the normal housewife, owned by man scenario and believe me, there are none. how could there be?

although eve is pretty cool.
that woman in the garden of eden, broke the rules and sought knowledge...but then she gets the blame for god's supposed crankiness and HIS hexing humanity to till the soil. or somesuch.
you see. blame it on the woman, lol.
now who would stick a tree of knowledge in the midst of the garden, knowing what humans are like, then tell them not to pick from it?? only a prankster.

the liberalisation for women in the west has not ENDED and has hardly started in the east. so i don't know what you are on about there.

i am not sure what kind of people you are used to being around or what branch of psychology you are into, but this is not my experience, through most of my life. it is not the way that people will find peace. i believe the need to dominate and control, it is from 'wrong thinking' and a feeling of insecurity and lack of belief or knowledge in a positive spiritual path or aim.

men penned up with men. women penned up with women? sure... sex, power, disrespect and need to dominate. in there in the first place? lack of education, inability to love and respect, wrong thinking, poverty, out of control aggressions..bad society?

what is accepted as the norm by psychology and western society, to my mind, is a sham and a dulling of the intellect and spiritual progress.
just look at what they call art these days, music, food, life.
they are leading everyone to be puppets to the machines. this ere machine and any other mod tech that they are coming up with. personal drones, cars that will do all the thinking for you, pills or ops to make you thin buy a new face, get a test tube copy of yourself etc etc etc... lol...what a freakin mess.

humans are being led up the garden path to zombicity.


oops, seem to have gone off on a rant there.

[Tjanaparh]

aren't those concepts you classify as compassion, behaviours that are said to gain a reward from allah in the afterlife?

If I may suppose, even if such a thinking occurs, I am sure the basic why these traditions were created were clear and pure and not reward seeking.

[faye]

rules of action for gain, can be just done for the sake of the reward, and not for true compassion, no matter what the rule was made for in the first place.
i never needed a rule nor reward, for compassion and empathy.