We are one nation. We are Afghan! Our daughters proclaim it proudly: “I am not Tajik, Pashtun, Hazara, Turk, or Uzbek. I am Afghan.” To those who seek to divide us, know this: as long as humanity lives, we will remain united! Our strength is in our unity, our shared struggles, and our shared hope. We are Afghans, and we stand as ONE! ✊🤝💪 🖤🇦🇫❤️🇦🇫💚 #Afghanistan

@mobarezalizay @Omar119Azizi

@Omar119Azizi

د همایون وردګ، طوطي ګل، او د نورو افغان ملحدینو له اسلام سره د جګړې دلیل او منطق! #افانستان

@AbdullahNoori_

@ShansabGhilzai

Second Part: Does Islam or the Quran say Adam was created 10,000 years ago? My first question to the Afghan atheists: Who said according to Islam Adam AS is 10,000 years old? No, the Quran does not specify the exact date of Adam’s creation. The idea that Adam was created around 10,000 years ago comes from certain historical calculations, mainly from biblical historical traditions rather than direct Quranic evidence. Very few Muslim scholars, relying on genealogies found in Islamic historical sources (like Ibn Kathir’s Al-Bidaya wa'l-Nihaya), have estimated that Adam lived around 6,000 to 10,000 years ago. However, this is not a universally accepted view by the Muslim scholars, and many scholars caution against taking these estimates as absolute. The problem the Afghan atheists have is that they only know Afghan and Pakistani illiterate Mullas and their arguments only revolve around information they have acquired fro those uneducated Mullas. Now, What does Science say about human origins? (This information is available on Google) Science, based on archaeological and genetic evidence, SUGGESTS that anatomically modern humans (Homo sapiens) have been around for at least 200,000 to 300,000 years. Fossils and DNA studies indicate that early humans migrated out of Africa around 50,000 to 70,000 years ago. Science DOES NOT "say" this is a fact in the absolute sense, but rather it is the best understanding based on current evidence. Scientific conclusions are always subject to change with new discoveries. Remember John Stuart Mill, the Problem of Induction and the Black Swan, and the fact that for a very long time according to Euclidean geometry, we thought the shortest path between two points was a straight line but later non-Euclidean geometry proved that otherwise… Islam DOES NOT explicitly state that Adam was created 10,000 years ago, and science DOES NOT say with 100% certainty that humans have been here for 100,000+ years, but it is based on the best available evidence. The supposed clash is mainly due to some human interpretations rather than a direct contradiction between Islam and science. All Islamic scholars maintain that faith and scientific inquiry can coexist without conflict, unlike the christian scholars. Now let me elaborate a little bit more for those who want to get to the bottom of all this. To the Afghan Mulhideen (atheists): While I’m not advocating that you form your own legal opinions without asking, I will remind you that Ibn Kathir is NOT Islam.  He is a revered Muslim scholar but if every time a scholar said something that was rejected or shown to be wrong, then we are facing an issue with Islam itself, then we are finished.  But that’s not the case and has NEVER been the case! The only issue is if we have certainty the prophet ﷺ said something (which is something you leave to scholars to argue over) or the Quran has it, OK! The Quran certainly says nothing like that, that Adam AS was created 10,000 years ago.. unlike the Bible.   I am saying this because there’s a concerted effort by Christians to brainwash Muslims into thinking we are like them when it comes to the issues with religion.  Nothing could be further from the truth.   Nothing like that.   We are simply monotheists without a single scratch; whereas they have essentially become polytheists at some level, plus they fundamentally clash with Reason and science. So, their atheists want to convince us that we have the same religion problems as they did.   I went through this a million times in X spaces with you all, so there’s no reason to go over it again.. just remember however, most of what we deal with on twitter is infiltrated useful idiots.  That’s what I suspect. As for Sunnah, the bar for something in Sunnah to be accepted is 100% has to do with the quality of the chain of transmission.. the إسناد (chain of transmission or supporting evidence). Nothing that goes against material evidence is accepted from Sunnah to be an actual transmission. There are a lot of false transmissions as you know.   Weakness and validity of حديث (narration) isn’t simply a question of صحيح (authentic) or not.   It’s much more nuanced and requires scholarly work.  It has to do with “corroborating” evidence mainly, because if we hold the highest standard then we’d accept very very few احاديث (narrations)… However, a حديث (narration) can be weak and treated as true.  Why?  Because it would have many corroborations (other احاديث and maybe even Quran to support the meaning.  Some schools, even allow reason to be a corroboration however to distinguish between reason and whim/ego is not for the layman - so we stick to proper methods, OK). A few things.   First science doesn’t believe Adam was created.  He evolved from another biological being thanks to a genetic mutation (aka mistake/accident).  That’s their belief (عقيدة) as science.    Many scientists are religious and don’t believe that, but there’s no conflict in doing science without believing the scientific عقيدة bit because this is not a matter of material proof in the first place.  No matter how much evidence you have for evolution, this does not mean Evolution (with Capital E) is the only force and God is a hallucination people make for psychological reasons …. That’s what science says in terms of capturing the part of the logic that is comparable (Creation vs. Evolution = what I just talked about). secondly, they don’t even remotely have enough evidence for any of the claims and every few years more things are discovered that update their claims.   To the extent that this narrative is confined to a scientific theory (i.e. without claims about metaphysics), it would be fine.  But when biology charlatans (like Richard Dawkins) enter metaphysics (for which they have no qualification and in fact they seem to have negative qualification judging by their rationale for their hypothesis for atheism).  Evidence for 100,000 years, will be replaced with another, and so on.   But as Muslims, if we ignore the evidence for 100,000 years because some حديث of dubious إسناد and dubious interpretation, then we are being foolish (And this is the opinion of all mainstream scholars; Except perhaps the Pakistani Deobandi ones that our Afghan atheists are familiar with). We don’t ignore what scientists find and say within their domain; it is when they move to metaphysics that we have issues.   So, 10,000 years is off the table since allegedly we have material evidence otherwise and the حديث for 10,000 years is not remotely consensus. Finally, just because you can read and write Arabic, English, Pashto, Farsi, or whatever, doesn’t mean you have the legal training to deduce rulings (إستنباط الأحكام)… This requires scholarship.   In fact most of our rulings do need to be rooted in Sunnah (which is the lived Quran: See حديث by Sayedda Aisha that Prophet ﷺ was walking Quran).    A great example of this is in the Maliki school with respect to how you hold your hands when you pray (small example, but very informative).  Imam Malik wrote what’s probably the first/oldest حديث book (موطأ الإمام مالك) and in it he relates the حديث that you clasp your hands together on your body.   But Malik is more important because he’s a legal scholar (فقيه) and he gave fatwas about halal, haram, مباح ،مكروه ،مندوب. In his school, he says you don’t clasp your hands.   Why?  because he lived in Madina and was born less than 100 years after the prophet ﷺ’s passing to the other world.   So, for him, the practice of the people of Madina (where there were many many تابعين) is stronger evidence than a حديث.  He would say a حديث = one person’s claim of another person’s claim of what ﷺ did or said in his Sunnah; while the unanimous practice of the people of Medina represents thousands transmitting from thousands based on lived practice.  It wasn’t conceivable for him that the practice can be misled, but it is not impossible at all for a حديث to be invented (bad intention) or just misrelated (well intentioned error). In summary, in order to say one word about anything, you need to know all that’s been said about it and why (from Prophet ﷺ and scholars and today specialists of the field) before you can add to it.  I say this, because it is too common that people read a word here or there from Quran and Sunnah and they think they’re علماء (scholars).   Or more dangerously they simply parrot what a mufti has said without undertaking any effort to research everything else that’s been said and why?   There’s an اصولي matter that underpins all of this…. You go from statements, to chain of reasoning, to school of thought… If you understand what all this involves for a given question, then you begin to appreciate that what was said by the early scholars is profound. However, your application of it will be in light, not darkness. May Allah protect us all from that. The standard for authentication is naturally higher when the stakes are higher. For عقيدة (belief, creed) its highest because this is belief and disbelief. For law obligatory things (five prayers) are different than non obligatory things (left foot in the toilet etc. and general etiquette things). I repeat though. The issue is not the حديث has to be strong or weak, the issue is, the act of deducing legal opinions from حديث is not so simple as to know the strength of a حديث. You have to know everything that’s been said about this subject plus the scholarly opinions. Because everybody reading text is interpreting. We can’t follow the interpretation of ignorant people especially when we have so many scholars. They disagree and it’s in studying the disagreements of giants that you begin to understand the matter. It’s not as simple as حديث's strength. #Afghanistan @khabatun @kuchiafghan @wakil_m4

اول: موږ حقیقت د سړي د اعمالو پر اساس نه پیژنو. حقیقت که د هر چا لو خولې وتلی وي حقیقت دی. لکه څنګه چه رسول اکرم ﷺ ابو هریرة ته وفرمايل، "صدقک و هو کذوب". دوهم: ما درته ندي ویلي چه مبین ولسمشرۍ ته ولاړ دی او رایې ورکړئ لکه تا چه کرزي خاین ته لابي کوله. زه شهاب لیوال ته وایم واوره ستا خپل د امارت ملاتړي په تا لعنت وهي او درته وایي چه ته دروغجن یې. پښتو لوستل خو پوهیږې کنه شل کلن د کرزي جنراله ههههه ته اوس د کرزي بیناموس چه وطن یې تباه کړو غصه په موږ مه وباوسه. هغه مورده ګاو نور څوک په یو خروار لیټۍ کې هم نه حسابوي. نور د هغه غلو نه تیر شه انډیواله. کرزي ښکاره ویل چه غلا کوئ. د هغه غل ډول ته، ته نڅا کوې او د وجدان خبره ماته کوې؟ عجب!!! زه ستاسې کوم بیسواد، جاهل، له نړۍ بې خبر ستاسې کوم پخوانی وزیر، رئیس یا د کرزي په څیر چرسي نه یم چه ما سره تاسې منطقي یا علمي بحث وکړی شئ، اوکی!!!! بړستنې ته دې ګوره انډیواله او پښې دې غځوه! د غلو او چرسیانو په سر نه په خپله مبارزه کې بدلون راوله او نه د نورو سره په خپل سلوک کې. کرزی ولا که ستا سلام ته حتې ځواب هم ووایي. هغه تاسې مسکینان لکه د پسانو وکارولئ او کاروي مو تر څو خپل جیبونه لا نور هم ډک کړي! 🤮🤮 دریم: د پیر صیب په سپییونو کې همدا ته مبین خان ته جنرال صیب جنرال صیب کوې او چاپلوسي یې کوې، وه سړیه! 😂😂 څلورم: نو ته او خداې ته لا زان ته جنرال وایې، دا د څنګه ټکی داسې لیکل کیږي لکه تا چه لیکلی؟ په س او څ کې توپیر نشئ کولی انډیوالانو 😂😂 خو کرزي چرسي ته مې خو ځکه قهر راځي کنه چه ته یې هم جنرال کړی وې.

@jamalkhanamini8 سل په سلو کې دا خلک عقده لري!

@FahimShinwari14 جالبه دا ده چه د امریکا سره تعامل اوس سم شو مګر د جمهوریت په وخت کې کفر وو؟ دا خلک ایمان لري؟

@Afg_Barakzai

@mujtaba2025afg @rhmtallhjmal2

@OsmanMayan13543 @Omar119Azizi

@Omar119Azizi