What's new

Afghan universities reopen but women still barred

The end goal of Taliban by such moronic and un-Islamic bans is obviously to prevent decreasing birth rates and prevent ideological threats to their rule.

Half of the population (women) remaining largely ignorant and housewives = more children = less of an ideological threat long-term and in general less Westernization and internal opposition.

Such bans are more political than anything else. Much like what the Taliban did in the 1990's.

Next step is to censor/control the internet (the few that have access) and actively force "unwanted" elements to migrate abroad.

They want their women dependent on their men who are uneducated so they have marry for survival. So the women have to be worse off for this to work. I don't know how long you can manipulate this country wide. Its only the Afghan Pashtun men who are retarded, the rest of the men aspire for more than just becoming a warlord.

This entire Taliban experiment needs to be scrapped. This should serve as a case study that a truly fundamental Islamic society does not work. The rules and guidelines don't make any sense unless they are cherry picked or interpreted pragmatically. Just like communism, an absolute failure of a system.
 
Last edited:
To me, left-wing libertarianism is just a fancy name for anarchism. In order for socialism or social democracy to work, a strong government is necessary. In my opinion, libertarianism doesn't belong anywhere near the left side of the spectrum.
Libertarianism is an ideology that espouses individual rights. It has nothing to do with left or right. You can have left wing libertarians and right wing libertarians.

People confuse libertarian socialists with anarcho-communists a lot, but the truth is that socialism and communism are not the same.

And you can have a strong central authority in the form of councils or committies. Many western nations already practice a form of it in the form of local/city councils which are made up of local elected officials. Often, these councils end up having a greater impact that federal and provincial government authorities.
 
"The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is the heartland of Islam, the birthplace of its history, the site of the two holy mosques and the focus of Islamic devotion and prayer. Saudi Arabia is committed to preserving the Islamic tradition in all areas of government and society."

If they can be progressive, why can't others?

Letting women go to Uni is not considered 'progressive' in Islam since there was never any barrier for women to pursue education and work in Shariah to start with. The Talibans are just interpreting Shairah differently and wrongly. No Islamic scholar of credibility will ever say women must be barred from education or work.
 
They want their women dependent on their men who are uneducated so they have marry for survival. So the women have to be worse off for this to work. I don't know how long you can manipulate this country wide. Its only the Afghan Pashtun men who are retarded, the rest of the men aspire for more than just becoming a warlord.

This entire Taliban experiment needs to be scrapped. This should serve as a case study that a truly fundamental Islamic society does not work. The rules and guidelines don't make any sense unless they are cherry picked or interpreted pragmatically. Just like communism, an absolute failure of a system.

Taliban are a backward movement and have little to do with Islam if you ask me. Moronic bans like this confirm it. It is more of a rural conservative and nationalist tribal Afghan Pashtun movement that uses elements of Islam as a vehicle for the masses and mixes that with Pashtunwali. The latter is probably more important for the rural tribals than Islamic teachings.

Afghanistan is a narco state in many ways as well.



Also the average Afghan has little actual grasp of Islam only what he is told by his local Mullah due to widespread illiteracy and lack of Arabic understanding (Classical Arabic). The above is something that also explains much of the backward “Islamic” practices found among many South Asian Muslims.
 
Last edited:
Taliban's should never be branded is islamists it's their own ideology which Islam clearly prohibits
 
Libertarianism is an ideology that espouses individual rights. It has nothing to do with left or right. You can have left wing libertarians and right wing libertarians.

People confuse libertarian socialists with anarcho-communists a lot, but the truth is that socialism and communism are not the same.

And you can have a strong central authority in the form of councils or committies. Many western nations already practice a form of it in the form of local/city councils which are made up of local elected officials. Often, these councils end up having a greater impact that federal and provincial government authorities.
As soon as you advocate for a strong central authority, libertarianism is thrown out of the window. The lack of a strong central authority is an integral part of libertarianism. Whether the local governments have more power than the federal government or vice versa is irrelevant. What you are proposing is simply a form of either social democracy or democratic socialism.
 
Last edited:
Historians spend their lives and lavish ink
Explaining how great commonwealths collapse
From great defects of policy–perhaps
The cause is sometimes simpler than they think.

It may not seem so grave an act to break
Postumia's spirit as Galileo's, to gag
Hypatia as crush Socrates, or drag
Joan as Giordano Bruno to the stake.

Can we be sure? Have more states perished, then,
For having shackled the inquiring mind,
Than whose who, in their folly not less blind,
Trusted the servile womb to breed free men?
 
Regardless, he's not wrong. Islam (at least the Sunni sects) is a very decentralized religion compared to others religions.

There is no hierarchy, no priesthood, no sainthood, and the head of mosques are literally just people who know more about Islam than anyone else in their community, usually through scholarly learning.
Then why no Saudi marry their daughters to Pakistanis and happily accept Pakistani / Bangladeshi as their 2nd /3rd bride. There is tiering in all the societies just vocabulary is different
 
To me, left-wing libertarianism is just a fancy name for anarchism. In order for socialism or social democracy to work, a strong government is necessary. In my opinion, libertarianism doesn't belong anywhere near the left side of the spectrum.
Left libertarianism is an oxymoron
 
Left libertarianism is an oxymoron
You're an oxymoron. Actually learn these terms before making ridiculous comments.

Then why no Saudi marry their daughters to Pakistanis and happily accept Pakistani / Bangladeshi as their 2nd /3rd bride. There is tiering in all the societies just vocabulary is different
Religious hierarchy and societal/cultural hierarchy aren't the same.
 
As soon as you advocate for a strong central authority, libertarianism is thrown out of the window. The lack of a strong central authority is an integral part of libertarianism. Whether the local governments have more power than the federal government or vice versa is irrelevant. What you are proposing is simply a form of either social democracy or democratic socialism.
What you're suggesting is authoritarianism, which gets rid of libertarian ideals altogether. A strong central authority doesn't necessarily have to be authoritarian in nature. Also, it doesn't also mean that local councils would be powerless or unable to challenge the central authority.

What I'm proposing is called libertarian socialism, and it's probably the most popular form of socialism there is.
 
Last edited:
@CLUMSY said: "Cant wait till some incels jump in here with their justifications"

Dont think anyone on PDF endorses this kind of behaviour by Talibs

Regards
 
,.,..,

Afghan women protest outside Kabul University as male students return to class​


Jessie Yeung

By Ehsan Popalzai, Shafi Kakar , Niamh Kennedy and Jessie Yeung, CNN
March 6, 2023

Afghan women are seen protesting outside a university in Kabul as male students return to class.

Afghan women are seen protesting outside a university in Kabul as male students return to class.
@natiqmalikzada/Twitter

Young Afghan women gathered outside Kabul University on Monday to protest the ruling Taliban’s ban on female education as their male peers returned to school for a new academic year and the United Nations heard the restriction may amount to a crime against humanity.

A video shared widely on social media shows a group of girls sitting on the ground outside Kabul University reading their books. CNN has not independently verified when the video was filmed.
The Taliban banned women from attending university last December, nine months after the Islamist group barred girls from returning to secondary schools amid a brutal crackdown on women’s rights since it seized power in 2021.

On Monday, a Taliban spokesperson for the Ministry of Higher Education announced the start of classes in several provinces, claiming “all teachers and students attended their lessons in a safe and calm atmosphere.”

Photos from universities in Kabul show classrooms full of male students and teachers; images of female students on a banner at one private university had been struck out with spray paint.

“We are happy that the university has started; But I am sad that our sisters cannot attend universities,” a male student named Nasir told independent Afghan outlet TOLO News on Monday.


Male students attend a computer science class after universities reopened in Kabul, Afghanistan on March 6, 2023.

Male students attend a computer science class after universities reopened in Kabul, Afghanistan on March 6, 2023.
Wakil Kohsar/AFP/Getty Images

The Taliban has previously said the university ban was due to women not observing Islamic dress rules and other “Islamic values,” citing female students traveling without a male guardian. Interaction between female and male students was “not allowed in Sharia law,” it said.

The ban has sparked an outcry, with girls expressing devastation and the sense they had been robbed of their future.


A banner with images of women defaced using spray paint inside a private university in Kabul, Afghanistan on March 6, 2023.

A banner with images of women defaced using spray paint inside a private university in Kabul, Afghanistan on March 6, 2023.
Wakil Kohsar/AFP/Getty Images

UN report on human rights crisis​

On Monday, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Afghanistan, Richard Bennett, presented a report to the Human Rights Council in Geneva that said the Taliban’s ban on female education “may amount to gender persecution, a crime against humanity.”

The report listed various other compounding crises, such as the rise in forced and child marriages, sexual abuse and assault, the ban on women from other public spaces like parks and gyms, and other restrictions limiting women’s ability to work and travel independently.

These bans “deepen existing flagrant violations of women’s human rights, already among the most draconian in the world,” the report said.

The Taliban’s return to power preceded a deepening humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan, worsening issues that had long plagued the country. After the takeover, the US and its allies froze about $7 billion of the country’s foreign reserves and cut off international funding – crippling an economy heavily dependent on overseas aid.

Already scarce humanitarian aid diminished further in December when the Taliban announced a ban on female NGO workers – prompting multiple major foreign aid groups to suspend their operations in the country.
 
What you're suggesting is authoritarianism, which gets rid of libertarian ideals altogether. A strong central authority doesn't necessarily have to be authoritarian in nature. Also, it doesn't also mean that local councils would be powerless or unable to challenge the central authority.

What I'm proposing is called libertarian socialism, and it's probably the most popular form of socialism there is.
Of course, it doesn't have to be authoritarian. My difference of opinion is in regard to the government's power and influence. This strong central authority should be strong enough to control the country's economy like the social democratic government of Switzerland. Now pay attention to this example. In a libertarian system, a government would never be able to control the economy.

What you are calling libertarian socialism is called social democracy. If this isn't what you refer to by libertarian socialism then kindly give me an example of a country that is running a "libertarian socialist" system.
Social democracy is distinguished from some modern forms of democratic socialism for seeking to humanize capitalism and create the conditions for it to lead to greater democratic, egalitarian, and solidaristic outcomes. It is characterized by a commitment to policies aimed at curbing inequality, eliminating oppression of underprivileged groups, and eradicating poverty, as well as support for universally accessible public services like child care, education, elderly care, health care, and workers' compensation.
 
Of course, it doesn't have to be authoritarian. My difference of opinion is in regard to the government's power and influence. This strong central authority should be strong enough to control the country's economy like the social democratic government of Switzerland. Now pay attention to this example. In a libertarian system, a government would never be able to control the economy.

What you are calling libertarian socialism is called social democracy. If this isn't what you refer to by libertarian socialism then kindly give me an example of a country that is running a "libertarian socialist" system.
There is currently no country practicing libertarian socialism, and the closest one is the example you gave Switzerland where even the smallest decision must be made with the majority approval of the electorate.

Libertarian socialism is not the same as social democracy, because it's not just a matter of democratic norms, but social norms that emphasize libertarian ideas such as individual rights that must not be infringed upon. Not all socialists that espouse social democracies believe this, and do make a number of exceptions. Where as other socialists think 'what's good for society is good for the individual, and the government must do everything to help society succeed', libertarian socialists reject this notion by believing in the reverse 'what's good for the individual is good for society and the government must do everything to help the individual succeed'.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom