Hamid Guls grandfather supported Mirwais neeka?

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Ahmad Shah Baba was first and foremost a Pashtun/Afghan nationalist to the core---and a Muslim warrior to the same extent that as Mahmoud of Ghazna was---If the situation lended him the opportunity to tape Islam to expand his Afghan Empire, why not---But if it were the Khalifa of Islam to annex the territory of his Afghan Empire, he would have fought back with true Afghan zeal---

Same also did Mahmoud of Ghazna---will wage expansionist campaign into India in winters and into Central Asia in the north (against Turk Muslim brothers ) in summers...

So Akhwani fanatics don't need to re-invent him as Mullah Omar---It is too late ---too much has been written about him---and he is well known to the world as the first Pashtun to have established modern Afghanistan ....

Also, you are wrong in that his letters that are cited wrote to the Khalifa for approval of evening considering the shiites as a lesser madhab of sorts. The Khalifa had no need to enter his lands. So your theory is just hot air without evidence basis. Its like me saying: well maybe George Washington sailed a boat into Afghanistan he and Ahmad Shah would have become friends and Ahmad Shah would have adopted a constitutional democratic republic and worn a white wig.

[Toramana]

Suuuure. Deal with the evidence and the quotes. Not make believe. I know it riles you to understand that Baba would not wear a red cap... and it even must have irritated you that the preserved letter from Istanbul notes Ahmad Shah's judgement on the Iranians having been served Nadir Quoli Beg as a punishment for breaking God and the Rasools law (his words, not mine).

Otherwise, your commentaries are useless meanderings to try and salvage a loss.

It is not make-believe---go and investigate history---He was constantly at war with his Turk clansmen in the north---At one point he even intended to attack Baghdad---the seat of Islamic Khalafath...

And I am not into the business of selectiively quoting from books ---and writing long posts full of irrelevant verbosity and gibberish....

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Ahmad Shah Baba was first and foremost a Pashtun/Afghan nationalist to the core---and a Muslim warrior to the same extent that as Mahmoud of Ghazna was---If the situation lended him the opportunity to tape Islam to expand his Afghan Empire, why not---But if it were the Khalifa of Islam to annex the territory of his Afghan Empire, he would have fought back with true Afghan zeal---

Same also did Mahmoud of Ghazna---will wage expansionist campaign into India in winters and into Central Asia in the north (against Turk Muslim brothers ) in summers...

So Akhwani fanatics don't need to re-invent him as Mullah Omar---It is too late ---too much has been written about him---and he is well known to the world as the first Pashtun to have established modern Afghanistan ....

And Mullah Omar is not in the same categorie as Ahmad Shah either. Ahmad Shah was a tribal lord + a Pashtun at his core who lived the life of a Pashtun and loved his mother dearly + a studied Muslim + had the elite understanding of governmental function by being force educated by Nadir Shah's government. Nonetheless, his action in India and his sacking of Armitsar debunk and debase you. Hamid Karzai would go and lick the Ganges silt up and Ahmad Shah would damn it off. Thats the difference.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

It is not make-believe---go and investigate history---He was constantly at war with his Turk clansmen in the north---At one point he even intended to attack Baghdad---the seat of Islamic Khalafath...

And I am not into the business of selectiively quoting from books ---and writing long posts full of irrelevant verbosity and gibberish....

Wrong, the Ottomans provided the Caliph. You also gloss over his involvement in Turkistan and the embassy to the Chinese over Muslim saints taking refuge in Afghanistan. Its fact, and recorded in history, all citations above ^. Sorry buddy, Ahmad Shah's boot would be on Asfandyaars neck today.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

It is not make-believe---go and investigate history---He was constantly at war with his Turk clansmen in the north---At one point he even intended to attack Baghdad---the seat of Islamic Khalafath...

And I am not into the business of selectiively quoting from books ---and writing long posts full of irrelevant verbosity and gibberish....

Your grasp of history is laughable... you just projected the reign of Ahmad Shah 400 years before it occured.

1517-1875

Ottoman postage stamps issued for the Liannos City Post of Constantinople in 1865


For the last 400 years of its existence, the Caliphate was claimed by the Turkish Sultans of the Ottoman Empire. Though the Ottomans actively used the title only sporadically, from 1517 onwards the Ottoman Sultan came to be viewed as the de facto leader and representative of the Islamic world. From Constantinople (now Istanbul), the Ottomans ruled over an empire that, at its peak, covered Anatolia, most of the Middle East, North Africa, the Caucasus, and extended deep into Eastern Europe.
Strengthened by the Peace of Westphalia, the Reformation, and the Industrial Revolution, European powers regrouped and challenged Ottoman dominance. Owing largely to poor leadership, archaic political norms, and an inability to keep pace with technological progress in Europe, the Ottoman Empire could not respond effectively to Europe's resurgence and gradually lost its position as a pre-eminent great power.
By the late nineteenth century, the Ottoman Empire's problems had evolved into crises. The Empire underwent a period of secularisation to catch up with European advances, this included: the adoption of Western penal codes, and the replacement of traditional laws with European laws. Territorial losses in conflicts such as the Russo-Turkish Wars substantially reduced Ottoman strength and influence, and years of financial mismanagement came to a head when the Empire defaulted on its loans in 1875

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_Caliphate

[BarakzaiAbdali]

It is not make-believe---go and investigate history---He was constantly at war with his Turk clansmen in the north---At one point he even intended to attack Baghdad---the seat of Islamic Khalafath...

And I am not into the business of selectiively quoting from books ---and writing long posts full of irrelevant verbosity and gibberish....

Your grasp of history is laughable... you just projected the reign of Ahmad Shah 400 years before it occured.

1517-1875

Ottoman postage stamps issued for the Liannos City Post of Constantinople in 1865


For the last 400 years of its existence, the Caliphate was claimed by the Turkish Sultans of the Ottoman Empire. Though the Ottomans actively used the title only sporadically, from 1517 onwards the Ottoman Sultan came to be viewed as the de facto leader and representative of the Islamic world. From Constantinople (now Istanbul), the Ottomans ruled over an empire that, at its peak, covered Anatolia, most of the Middle East, North Africa, the Caucasus, and extended deep into Eastern Europe.
Strengthened by the Peace of Westphalia, the Reformation, and the Industrial Revolution, European powers regrouped and challenged Ottoman dominance. Owing largely to poor leadership, archaic political norms, and an inability to keep pace with technological progress in Europe, the Ottoman Empire could not respond effectively to Europe's resurgence and gradually lost its position as a pre-eminent great power.
By the late nineteenth century, the Ottoman Empire's problems had evolved into crises. The Empire underwent a period of secularisation to catch up with European advances, this included: the adoption of Western penal codes, and the replacement of traditional laws with European laws. Territorial losses in conflicts such as the Russo-Turkish Wars substantially reduced Ottoman strength and influence, and years of financial mismanagement came to a head when the Empire defaulted on its loans in 1875

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_Caliphate

[Toramana]

Wrong, the Ottomans provided the Caliph. You also gloss over his involvement in Turkistan and the embassy to the Chinese over Muslim saints taking refuge in Afghanistan. Its fact, and recorded in history, all citations above ^. Sorry buddy, Ahmad Shah's boot would be on Asfandyaars neck today.

I am talking about Mahmoud of Ghazna---And Asfandiyar might have his weaknesses no doubt but he is a lot better than the one-eyed Mullah Omar and his fanatic/mentally deranged admirers who would not hesitate to sacrifice Pashtun honour at the doorsteps of Arab glory---

[BarakzaiAbdali]

I am talking about Mahmoud of Ghazna---And Asfandiyar might have his weaknesses no doubt but he is a lot better than the one-eyed Mullah Omar and his fanatic/mentally deranged admirers who would not hesitate to sacrifice Pashtun honour at the doorsteps of Arab Shaiukhs---

Who cares about him or him. This is not about Ghaznavi. We are talking about Ahmad Shah Abdali, period.

And you confused Abdul Ghani Abdali's period of service in Baghdad under Nadir Shah with Ahmad Shah as well. Awdaalyaan were able to reacquire Kandahar because of how well Abdul Ghani performed in the battles in and around Baghdad. Ahmad Shah Abdali has nothing to do with fighting action in Baghdad.

As noted, your commentary means nothing until you dissect each and every reference. All of the Netherland's professor's quotes reference Persian primary sources and are well documented in his book (in your paranoid ISI mind, another ISI creation no doubt).

So keep commenting away trying to trivialize the exact references from Abdali's personal letters preserved in Istanbul, alongside of the other preserved documentation referenced by Harvard University in regard to Ahmad Shah's defense of disenfranchized Muslims in Central Asia and his attempt to unify a Pan Islamic force against the Chinese. That is history written not by the ISI, but by those that are neutral.

Otherwise, you are wasting my and your time. Evidence basis to keep the discussion going.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

I am talking about Mahmoud of Ghazna---And Asfandiyar might have his weaknesses no doubt but he is a lot better than the one-eyed Mullah Omar and his fanatic/mentally deranged admirers who would not hesitate to sacrifice Pashtun honour at the doorsteps of Arab glory---

And your supporters here are cringing. They now that you are unable to debunk the text, the sound references to primary source literature, including Terikh e Ahmad Shah and Ahmad Shah Nama, so they are hoping you will successfully move this debate towards the emotional and away from the literal. They know that they have repeatedly stated on this forum, such BS as: Pashtuns hate outsiders... outsiders are Arabs... and therefore these outsiders are unwelcomed under Pashtunwali. They are not the inheritors of Graan Baba da Wataan Ahmad Shah Sadozai and now they know it. They are the inheritors of Karzai and will be known as such. Karzai is their Baba and Ahmad Shah is ours.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

I am talking about Mahmoud of Ghazna---And Asfandiyar might have his weaknesses no doubt but he is a lot better than the one-eyed Mullah Omar and his fanatic/mentally deranged admirers who would not hesitate to sacrifice Pashtun honour at the doorsteps of Arab glory---

You will be vexed to deal with the part I noted above:

Beginning under the discussion of Turan on page 61:

"In central Asia the Most Powerful representatives of Islam were the numerous sufi orders... amongst with Naqshbandiyaa was the most influentiall" Page 63...

.... "the political influence of these khojas (term used for a subsection of these Muslim networks)

"The Political influence of these Khojas recieved a serious blow during the Chinese annexation of East Turkestan. Some of them were incorporated into Chinese nobility... but by sending them to Beijing, they were deprived of all former attachments in the area. The leading figures were forced to flee to Khokan and Badakhshan. They appealed to the local Muslim rulers to take action, to mount a holy war, and to restore them in their former eminence. In order to counter these instigations, the Chinese authorities paid large amounts of cash and tea to enlist the help of the Muslim rulers to keep these refugee Khojas at bay."

So let us halt here... we now have refugee Muslims taking refuge in Badaskhan. LET US REPEAT THIS FOR YOU MASEED... WE HAVE MUSLIM REFUGEES TAKING REFUGE IN AN AFGHAN PROVINCE IN THE ERA OF AHMAD SHAH. HMMMMM, DOES THIS SOUND FAMILIAR????

And these Muslims were asking the Muslim brethren to aid them in resisting the imperial chinese. HMMMM, SOUND FAMILIAR MASEED?

Out comes the LION OF KANDAHAR, the true Ahmad Shah Abdali of history:

Once again, not my words, but the words of the esteemed professor himself:

"These Chinese annexation of eastern Turkisten and the perilous conditions of the Khojas posed an ideal challenge to the Durrani championship of Islam."

PAGE 65

And what did Ahmad Shah Durrani Abdali, God bless his soul do next? He took on an empire at the risk of his own people. All of the secularist atheist nationalists cannot even counter this or explain this risk he put Afghanistan into when, once again, according to the same source:

"In 1763, Ahmad Shah played the leading role in striving to marshall a United Islamic force to push the Manchus back into China."...

"he planned to send an army to stand between Kokand and Tashkent while he tried to raise enough military support to expel the invaders and to arrange a central asian embargo on Chinese trade. The sublime Durrani Shah also sent an embassy to Beijing to enter a plea on behalf of the Khojas, but the Chinese emperor, true to his own inherited ideal of world supremecy, mistook the embassy for a tribute mission, and a sign of surrender, so the embassy did not achieve its purpose. Page 65

SUBREFERENCE from primary source: Eichorn, Kolonialkampfe p 315-316 and in J Fletcher, "China and Central Asia 1368-1884 in the Chinese World Order from harvard university press pages 220, 359

"Thus reviewing the the Durrani claims in Turkistan, we may conclude that, although Ahmad Shah could not as openly and visibly claim Durrani suzerainty over Turkistan ... he nevertheless propagated his championship of Islam, as he had done in India." page 66

<A href="http://books.google.com/books?id=-2TH8UYeAaoC&pg=PA65&lpg=PA65&dq=fletcher+the+chine se+world+order+ahmad+shah&source=bl&ots=Q3Z7XdbK4M &sig=CUePTmrgvsrC_ftbzoBjt1uksGk&hl=en&ei=bJrFTpTc GOng0QH1rKz0Dg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnu m=1&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=fletcher%20the%20c hinese%20world%20order%20ahmad%20shah&f=false" target=_blank>http://books.google.com/books?id=-2T...20shah&f=false

[Toramana]

Who cares about him or him. This is not about Ghaznavi. We are talking about Ahmad Shah Abdali, period.

And you confused Abdul Ghani Abdali's period of service in Baghdad under Nadir Shah with Ahmad Shah as well. Awdaalyaan were able to reacquire Kandahar because of how well Abdul Ghani performed in the battles in and around Baghdad. Ahmad Shah Abdali has nothing to do with fighting action in Baghdad.

As noted, your commentary means nothing until you dissect each and every reference. All of the Netherland's professor's quotes reference Persian primary sources and are well documented in his book (in your paranoid ISI mind, another ISI creation no doubt).

So keep commenting away trying to trivialize the exact references from Abdali's personal letters preserved in Istanbul, alongside of the other preserved documentation referenced by Harvard University in regard to Ahmad Shah's defense of disenfranchized Muslims in Central Asia and his attempt to unify a Pan Islamic force against the Chinese. That is history written not by the ISI, but by those that are neutral.

Otherwise, you are wasting my and your time. Evidence basis to keep the discussion going.

No, it is not me trivializing references---It is you quoting from one or two sources of your choice selectively and propagating an entirely baseless view about Ahmad Shah Baba character and actions based on that---true and authentic history writing is not like that (but I know the Akhwani intincts may be too overwhelming for you to resist Akhwanizing the Afghan history)---

I quoted Mahmoud of Ghazna as an analogy i.e., leaders can tape Muslim brotherhood and sentiments if it could further their power interests---

The same thing are said by ISI---There is one Gen Asad Durrani of ISI (whom you might well-know through your connections) trying to sell the same views to the world i.e., Ahmad Shah Baba was also a Talib ...and Afghans are not unknown to the rule by Talibs--so the justification for the one eyed Mullah Omar---

[BarakzaiAbdali]

No, it is not me trivializing references---It is you quoting from one or two sources of your choice selectively and propagating an entirely baseless view about Ahmad Shah Baba character and actions based on that---true and authentic history writing is not like that (but I know the Akhwani intincts may be too overpowering to resist Akhwanizing the Afghan history)---

I quoted Mahmoud of Ghazna as an analogy i.e., leaders can tape Muslim brotherhood and sentiments if it could further their power interests---

The same thing are said by ISI---There is one Gen Asad Durrani of ISI (whom you might well-know through your connections) trying to sell the same views to the world i.e., Ahmad Shah Baba was also a Talib ...and Afghans are not unknown to the rule by Talibs--so the justification for the one eyed Mullah Omar---

^ Just a reaffirmation of the fact that you refuse to comb through the quotes and deal with them. You are not trivializing me, you are trivializing history which only looks bad for you. Deal with Ahmad Shah's shelting the non Pashtun Khojas, deal with his attempt to rally the Muslim powers via his letter to the Turkish Caliphate against the Chinese (as a United Muslim front would not provide the Afghans Chinese land). Deal with Ahmad Shah sending his embassy to China.

Regarding your mistake of which Abdali went to Baghdad, see below:

http://books.google.com/books?id=MI7...aghdad&f=false

[BarakzaiAbdali]

No, it is not me trivializing references---It is you quoting from one or two sources of your choice selectively and propagating an entirely baseless view about Ahmad Shah Baba character and actions based on that---true and authentic history writing is not like that (but I know the Akhwani intincts may be too overwhelming for you to resist Akhwanizing the Afghan history)---

I quoted Mahmoud of Ghazna as an analogy i.e., leaders can tape Muslim brotherhood and sentiments if it could further their power interests---

The same thing are said by ISI---There is one Gen Asad Durrani of ISI (whom you might well-know through your connections) trying to sell the same views to the world i.e., Ahmad Shah Baba was also a Talib ...and Afghans are not unknown to the rule by Talibs--so the justification for the one eyed Mullah Omar---

Looool, same age old canard. Now Ahmad Shah Abdali's letters are an ISI creation! They went to Istanbul and forged his letter where he castigates the Iranians for breaking the laws of God and his rasool. LOOOOOL.

Thats rich, you get more and more paranoid every year. Soon you will believe that green tea is an ISI Chinese joint conspiracy.

[Toramana]

And one can well-deduce why are Americans are propagating such views now---the same they did during Soviet period ---using Islamist zeal/fanaticism against the infidel Chinese---

And your Baba in Akhwani ideology General Hamid Gul is a strong ally of Chinese although Chinese are oppressing Ughur Muslims in Xinging---Go and persuade him instead of Akhwanizing Afghan history...

[BarakzaiAbdali]

And one can well-deduce why are Americans are propagating such views now---the same they did during Soviet period ---using Islamist zeal/fanaticism against the infidel Chinese---

And your Baba in Akhwani ideology General Hamid Gul is a strong ally of Chinese although Chinese are oppressing Ughur Muslims in Xinging---Go and persuade him instead of Akhwanizing Afghan history...

Keep the propaganda focused brother... otherwise, you begin to look senile. You fear it... you know that the minute the other secularist baathist equivalents amongst you see Ahmad Shah's actions, his quotes, and who he is... his Pashto, his unique blend of who he was, it will overpower them and cause them shame! We welcome them back to the fold of true Pashtunwali.

You will be vexed to deal with the part I noted above:

Beginning under the discussion of Turan on page 61:

"In central Asia the Most Powerful representatives of Islam were the numerous sufi orders... amongst with Naqshbandiyaa was the most influentiall" Page 63...

.... "the political influence of these khojas (term used for a subsection of these Muslim networks)

"The Political influence of these Khojas recieved a serious blow during the Chinese annexation of East Turkestan. Some of them were incorporated into Chinese nobility... but by sending them to Beijing, they were deprived of all former attachments in the area. The leading figures were forced to flee to Khokan and Badakhshan. They appealed to the local Muslim rulers to take action, to mount a holy war, and to restore them in their former eminence. In order to counter these instigations, the Chinese authorities paid large amounts of cash and tea to enlist the help of the Muslim rulers to keep these refugee Khojas at bay."

So let us halt here... we now have refugee Muslims taking refuge in Badaskhan. LET US REPEAT THIS FOR YOU MASEED... WE HAVE MUSLIM REFUGEES TAKING REFUGE IN AN AFGHAN PROVINCE IN THE ERA OF AHMAD SHAH. HMMMMM, DOES THIS SOUND FAMILIAR????

And these Muslims were asking the Muslim brethren to aid them in resisting the imperial chinese. HMMMM, SOUND FAMILIAR MASEED?

Out comes the LION OF KANDAHAR, the true Ahmad Shah Abdali of history:

Once again, not my words, but the words of the esteemed professor himself:

"These Chinese annexation of eastern Turkisten and the perilous conditions of the Khojas posed an ideal challenge to the Durrani championship of Islam."

PAGE 65

And what did Ahmad Shah Durrani Abdali, God bless his soul do next? He took on an empire at the risk of his own people. All of the secularist atheist nationalists cannot even counter this or explain this risk he put Afghanistan into when, once again, according to the same source:

"In 1763, Ahmad Shah played the leading role in striving to marshall a United Islamic force to push the Manchus back into China."...

"he planned to send an army to stand between Kokand and Tashkent while he tried to raise enough military support to expel the invaders and to arrange a central asian embargo on Chinese trade. The sublime Durrani Shah also sent an embassy to Beijing to enter a plea on behalf of the Khojas, but the Chinese emperor, true to his own inherited ideal of world supremecy, mistook the embassy for a tribute mission, and a sign of surrender, so the embassy did not achieve its purpose. Page 65

SUBREFERENCE from primary source: Eichorn, Kolonialkampfe p 315-316 and in J Fletcher, "China and Central Asia 1368-1884 in the Chinese World Order from harvard university press pages 220, 359

"Thus reviewing the the Durrani claims in Turkistan, we may conclude that, although Ahmad Shah could not as openly and visibly claim Durrani suzerainty over Turkistan ... he nevertheless propagated his championship of Islam, as he had done in India." page 66

<A href="http://books.google.com/books?id=-2TH8UYeAaoC&pg=PA65&lpg=PA65&dq=fletcher+the+chine se+world+order+ahmad+shah&source=bl&ots=Q3Z7XdbK4M &sig=CUePTmrgvsrC_ftbzoBjt1uksGk&hl=en&ei=bJrFT pTc GOng0QH1rKz0Dg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnu m=1&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=fletcher%20the%20c hinese%20world%20order%20ahmad%20shah&f=false" target=_blank>http://books.google.com/books?id=-2T...20shah&f=false