Naming of nuclear weapons after Afghan historical figures.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

Even though this occurred it doesn't negate how influential he was in showing how Afghans can fight for independence from foreign masters like Georgian vassal who ruled Kandahar. \.

I agree with everything you wrote except this part, Mir-Wais Khan was responsible for expelling Gurgin Khan , Qandahar. I'm sue that is probably what you meant. Abdali while you're probably right for his own tribal-centric motives helped re-seat an Iranian authority.

I really don't see any other way to redress that.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Scimitar -

Abdali was a 23 years old when Nadir Shah freed him from jail. His early years were on the run too since hid dad had a price on his head.

Mir Wais, an excellent leader, was also playing tribal politics and arranged for his adversaries in other tribes to lose their heads, land, resources.

Who imprisoned Abdali? One of Mir Wais's own kinsmen.

The issue of the Qizilbash remains unanswered because as I said, there is no proof in any early literature that he had a dynacorp style defense cadre of Qizilbashi gaurds. His own tribesmen were capable of doing that. Thats a major difference from Karzai. Karzai's own brother couldn't last in Kandahar.

Regarding the existence of shiah qizilbashi in Afghanistan - thats hardly proof of anything. There are also hazaras and shiah turis in northern Pakistan between swathes of sunnis right?

Iranians ruled Kandahar province for nearly a generation. They could have made it to Afghanistan during that era as well.

Your own Jalaludeen Afghani had high praise for Abdali.

Also, if Abdali was merely a Persian pawn, then why would he have had his eyes set on conquering Iran at some juncture? Why would he aid the Ottomans and write to the Caliph as his leader? Why would he support uighar minorities against Chinese oppression?

And to claim that Shah Waliullah was a Pakistani nationalist? Shah Waliullah implored Abdali to cleanse the Mughals and the marathas.

I dont understand the apologies that constantly are being paid to Indians about that era considering eons before Chandra Gupta and Asoka were making incurions as far as Kandahar. So what? The gradient reversed and India experienced the same sort of incursions it had made been making into those regions for some time. The Mughals themselves used to feud with Iranians over the Afghan territory.

But linking Abdali into being the catalyst for Pakistani nationalism? Isnt that a bit far fetched?

[khushal]

I find the resentment of people attacking you how some elementary historians do not want to criticize George Washington. Yes he was America's first president, he fought for independence...but then again..he still treated people like property. He murdered a lot of helpless Indians in the Ohio River valley, and he did rip the teeth out of his own slaves to make a set of dentures.

The point is that all those things does not erase the legacy or the foot print that had lasting impact on humanity. Alexander killed his own infant brother but people dont remember him for that, people remember him for the challenges he had to overcome to achieve his goals. There are a thousands of leaders that have killed their infant brother, they also arent remembered. During Washingtons time, owning slaves and killing indians so their land can be taken was the theme, the only reason that Bush or Obama dont own slaves is because it is illegal and no longer necessary. Torturing is still being used even though everyone knows its wrong today, why is still occurring? Bush wont be remembered for openly torturing people but for the failed Iraq policy because that would be the footprint that will have lasting impact well into the future.

[khushal]

Yeah he took Herat from Shah Rukh by force....and? Shah Rukh had his own principality and he was squabbling against the others. And even after he took it, he left Shah Rukh in power. By leaving someone in power, you're not deposing them

He created a perso-centric state, Qizilbash were culturally Persian. He squashed OTHER Qizilbash who were rebelling against Nader Shah after the assassination, and fragmenting his former empire. Notice that Abdalis "empire" nearly exactly matches the boudaries of Nader Shah's. In essence he was reconsolidating his master's empire.

Abdali was Nader Shah's servant. A loyal one too. Or he would have killed Shah Rukh.

The Hazaras and Qizilbash were allies?,...not so, If you read more you'll find that in the Kabul rebellion Most of the Qizilbash were along with the Durrani Khans against Shah Shuja because he cut their monetary allowances but still demanded their pledge allegiance. hmmm sound like power and money hungriness yet? Yes I think So.

I doubt people who had money and power like the Qizilbash did and were getting money would think the Briish are their "saviors"; just a better sugar daddy. Then there were Qizilbash who were ON the side of Shah Shuja, they definitely worked with the British BUT they wanted to keep Shah Shuja in power. Other Qizilbash were the ones who told Pashtuns that Shah Shuja was the lackey of the British and in this way they were trying to reconsolidate power ....see that power theme again?

The Hazara were oppressed, the Qizilbash were just power hawks. If they had any alliances it isnt because the Qizilbash needed saviors.

One thing I learned though is that you know absolutely nothing about Afghan history, NOTHING AT ALL. Pretty pathetic for someone who tries to feign credibility of "being there".

The problem is you have no concept of ghyrat and namos. Abdali could not kill Nadir Shah or his grandson because Nadir was his commander, that would show treachery and baighyrati. If you disagree with your commander, you resign your post and fight him on the battle field, not pretend to be his friend and backstab him you piece of baighyrata shyt. The same way that Salahudin could not directly challenge nor disobey his commander Nurad Din even though Salahudin disagreed with him. Salahudin just avoided him by keeping the buffer state of the Crusader kingdom until Nuradin died and then moved to consolidate his power before moving agaisnt the crusader kingdom.

I am not going to beleive Everything that English authors wrote on Afghansitan like you do, if they are such great authorities on the subject, they would not have failed three times and currently the fourth time. Your making things up as though you were there as it was happening. I have told you, go read Abdur Rahmans autobiography and you wil learn that it were always the Hazaras and Qizilbash who were the first to ally themeslves with foreign invaders and this is true even today. I know my culture very well and I know how things work when it comes to our society, I dont need some englishman telling me how pashtuns behave and operate. Its you who dont know nor understand the rural pashtun mindset that is why you are losing all arguments and going insane.

[khushal]

rtr is right about pashtun bravado, it gets ridiculous at times. though i do disagree with him on other points.

at this rate, in 100 years pashtuns will be praising karzai just because he had a bad relationship with america, like an abused wife. they will say hafizullah amin was a patriot for killing taraki, and that mullah omar could shoot a laser out of his one eye like cyclopes.

Thats wishful thinking. People arent remembered for bringing in foreigners, people are remembered for fighting the foreign aggressors. People like Moa, Saddam, Stalin, Salahudin, Abdali, Mirweis, Khushal Khattak, William Wallace, Castro, Ghandi, Washington, Sitting Bull, and others arent going to be remembered for the attrocities they committed but for uniting their people and kicking out are attempting to kick out the foreign invaders.

[Shahidulla]

Thats wishful thinking. People arent remembered for bringing in foreigners, people are remembered for fighting the foreign aggressors. People like Moa, Saddam, Stalin, Salahudin, Abdali, Mirweis, Khushal Khattak, William Wallace, Castro, Ghandi, Washington, Sitting Bull, and others arent going to be remembered for the attrocities they committed but for uniting their people and kicking out are attempting to kick out the foreign invaders.

exactly, they are not se negative that they are known for that. But people make mistakes.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

Scimitar -

Abdali was a 23 years old when Nadir Shah freed him from jail. His early years were on the run too since hid dad had a price on his head.

Mir Wais, an excellent leader, was also playing tribal politics and arranged for his adversaries in other tribes to lose their heads, land, resources.

Who imprisoned Abdali? One of Mir Wais's own kinsmen.

The issue of the Qizilbash remains unanswered because as I said, there is no proof in any early literature that he had a dynacorp style defense cadre of Qizilbashi gaurds. His own tribesmen were capable of doing that. Thats a major difference from Karzai. Karzai's own brother couldn't last in Kandahar.

Regarding the existence of shiah qizilbashi in Afghanistan - thats hardly proof of anything. There are also hazaras and shiah turis in northern Pakistan between swathes of sunnis right?

Iranians ruled Kandahar province for nearly a generation. They could have made it to Afghanistan during that era as well.

Your own Jalaludeen Afghani had high praise for Abdali.

Also, if Abdali was merely a Persian pawn, then why would he have had his eyes set on conquering Iran at some juncture? Why would he aid the Ottomans and write to the Caliph as his leader? Why would he support uighar minorities against Chinese oppression?

And to claim that Shah Waliullah was a Pakistani nationalist? Shah Waliullah implored Abdali to cleanse the Mughals and the marathas.

I dont understand the apologies that constantly are being paid to Indians about that era considering eons before Chandra Gupta and Asoka were making incurions as far as Kandahar. So what? The gradient reversed and India experienced the same sort of incursions it had made been making into those regions for some time. The Mughals themselves used to feud with Iranians over the Afghan territory.

But linking Abdali into being the catalyst for Pakistani nationalism? Isnt that a bit far fetched?

I never thought you'd stoop to such an egregious level of Straw-Man

I'm not claiming emperor Ashoka is an awesome guy, I'm claiming Abdali was a power-mad tyrant and yet acted as a "Qoli" for Nader Shah Qoli.

Nor have I claimed Shah Waliyullah is a Pakistani Nationalist. But the Sub-continental radicals have certainly used Shah Waliyullah and Abdali as twisted nostalgia of when Abdali butchered infidels wholesale to galvanize the same in the subcontinent. Mawdudi would be a perfect example of that.

All major Afghan Historians of the Durrani dynasty like Husaini are in agreement of Ahmad Shah's furbishment with Qizilbash administration. This is confirmed by even his Son and Grandson Zaman. There's no way you can skirt around that.

It is not merely their existence but their PRIVILEGED AND HIGH STATUS IN AFGHANISTAN despite being foreigners.

There's no controversy surrounding it.

To Answer your questions

a.) he was trying to preserve the last bit of his Master's empire; hence why he left Shah Rukh Afshari in Charge of Herat.
b.) He wrote to the Ottomans as an act of diplomacy because they were super powerful at that time, furthermore despite being Persian he was Sunni, my point was that he had incultated Persian cultural and social hegemony among Afghans.
c.) Why he supported the Ughurs? Because the Chinese are kufar.
d.) he went after the Mughals because Shah Waliyullah said they were no longer proper Muslims. This would not nullify that he was essentially subdued to a hegemonic Persian cultural and political sphere.

Where does Jamaluddin Afghani praise Abdali ..any reference?

[RevolutionThroughReason]

exactly, they are not se negative that they are known for that. But people make mistakes.

that's not due to their great deeeds, that's due to their court chroniclers doing a good Promotional relations job.

That's why all this stuff sounds so shocking to you.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

The point is that all those things does not erase the legacy or the foot print that had lasting impact on humanity. Alexander killed his own infant brother but people dont remember him for that, people remember him for the challenges he had to overcome to achieve his goals. There are a thousands of leaders that have killed their infant brother, they also arent remembered. During Washingtons time, owning slaves and killing indians so their land can be taken was the theme, the only reason that Bush or Obama dont own slaves is because it is illegal and no longer necessary. Torturing is still being used even though everyone knows its wrong today, why is still occurring? Bush wont be remembered for openly torturing people but for the failed Iraq policy because that would be the footprint that will have lasting impact well into the future.

No that wasn't your point; you actually outrightly denied the existence of open criticism by numerous scholars

you speak without knowledge ...and pretty much every educated member of this forum are rectifying your claims.

[Midnight_Sun]

I agree with everything you wrote except this part, Mir-Wais Khan was responsible for expelling Gurgin Khan , Qandahar. I'm sue that is probably what you meant. Abdali while you're probably right for his own tribal-centric motives helped re-seat an Iranian authority.

I really don't see any other way to redress that.

I was talking about Mirwais Khan Hotaki, sorry my figures were getting mixed up.

[Shahidulla]

that's not due to their great deeeds, that's due to their court chroniclers doing a good Promotional relations job.

That's why all this stuff sounds so shocking to you.

Now you are totally on crack. :D

[RevolutionThroughReason]

Now you are totally on crack. :D

then why are all the educated members agreeing with many of my points and only uneducated members like you and Khushal getting upset?

[BarakzaiAbdali]

I never thought you'd stoop to such an egregious level of Straw-Man

I'm not claiming emperor Ashoka is an awesome guy, I'm claiming Abdali was a power-mad tyrant and yet acted as a "Qoli" for Nader Shah Qoli.

Nor have I claimed Shah Waliyullah is a Pakistani Nationalist. But the Sub-continental radicals have certainly used Shah Waliyullah and Abdali as twisted nostalgia of when Abdali butchered infidels wholesale to galvanize the same in the subcontinent. Mawdudi would be a perfect example of that.

All major Afghan Historians of the Durrani dynasty like Husaini are in agreement of Ahmad Shah's furbishment with Qizilbash administration. This is confirmed by even his Son and Grandson Zaman. There's no way you can skirt around that.

It is not merely their existence but their PRIVILEGED AND HIGH STATUS IN AFGHANISTAN despite being foreigners.

There's no controversy surrounding it.

To Answer your questions

a.) he was trying to preserve the last bit of his Master's empire; hence why he left Shah Rukh Afshari in Charge of Herat.
b.) He wrote to the Ottomans as an act of diplomacy because they were super powerful at that time, furthermore despite being Persian he was Sunni, my point was that he had incultated Persian cultural and social hegemony among Afghans.
c.) Why he supported the Ughurs? Because the Chinese are kufar.
d.) he went after the Mughals because Shah Waliyullah said they were no longer proper Muslims. This would not nullify that he was essentially subdued to a hegemonic Persian cultural and political sphere.

Where does Jamaluddin Afghani praise Abdali ..any reference?

Scimitar,

Husaini wrote the Tarikh. The Tarikh does not mention Qizilbash gaurds. Also, I have yet to see Shah Zaman's description of having his grandfather having such gaurds. If you can find this information, I would be keen to read it because I have an avid interest in this history.

I dont know about Mawdudi, but what I can say is that its easy for anyone of anytime to take a figure and use him for propaganda. Take Sher Shah Suri - who was born in the Peshawar region in a village called Surizai - he had many economic accomplishments and was lenient but he also did kill to conquer. Its not like he should have crafted his movements into India based on the probability some nutjob named Kiyani would use his name later on for militarized purposes. Also, Pakistan and India are in a tit for tat type of thing in which history is often modified. One Indian physician told me she was taught sher shah was a hindu. So what?

Regarding Qizilbashi and Hindus in that region - one ought to take more exception with Pashtun tribal leadership itself. Its a well known fact that the purest Pashtun tribes like the Kharotes and the Wazirs used to import Hindus and other folks to do banking and money lending in their regions because they considered it beneath themselves. That doesnt mean they expected to be outwitted by their initial servants.

Jamaluddin Afghani wrote about Abdali in his Tarikh Afghan and said Abdali unified the tribes and consulted Pashtun tribal leaders on a regular basis.
http://books2.scholarsportal.info/vi...yanf00afghuoft

Its in Arabic, which I dont know. I have only viewed the British English translation in the Pashto Academy. Perhaps you can navigate through it and translate the sections on Abdali.

Also, read Ahmad Shah's own work. His poetry, posted here at PF extols Pashtun unity and also was the first to use the term "Pashtunkhwa."

If he was so enamored with Nadir Qoli, why did he write in his personal letters that he viewed Nadir Qoli as a tyrant

You are completely wrong about Shah Rukh. The most knowledgable western author about Abdali who derives ALL his bio from the sources of the era is Gommans:

http://books.google.com/books?id=-2T...ttoman&f=false


He actually writes:
"Ahmad Shah was neither prepared to comply with the superior claims of the safavids or the NADIRIDS."

He goes on in a personal letter to cited by Gommans to call Nadir Shah a sitamgar (page 49) or tyrant.

Gommans goes on to say that Durrani was thinking big and actually was thinking in reverse of what you allege. First, he made Shah Rukh submit. The exact words: "one ruler who was forced to submit to Durrani claims was Shah Rukh Shah."

Gommans goes on to say based on letters Durrani envisaged "not only Khorasan but the whole of Iran as a client state."

I mean this guy was a freaking genius for Pashtuns man. Not only did he think big, turning his eyes towards neutralizing threats on multiple fronts to his Pashtun people, but he also would do major economic shifts like modify the hajj route through Pashtun territories. How did that strengthen Iranian pretensions?

And remember, Mir Wais also appealed for mughal intervention to overturn Gurghin.

On page 48 Gommans CLEARS up the misconceptions in the foot note and makes it apparent that QIZILBASH CORPS gaurded NADIR SHAH as a SEPARATE CONTINGENT than the Abdali gaurds.

So what we can say is that this mythology of qizilbashi guards was something that was transferred off nadir shah onto Ahmad Shah Abdali.

On page 55 Gommans goes on to say that Ahmad Shah brilliantly did the reverse of what you say and he actually used Nadir's claims to Indian territory to justify his incursions. Gommans goes on to say that this notion of subservience to Nadir was Indo Afghan propaganda and that Ahmad Shah's own letters provide an ambivalent view of a schrewd leader that was set upon his own brand of Durrani ascendency.

Sorry my friend, I am not alleging prophetic status for Abdali, but I do think he deserves credit for being the father of the pashtun nation.

[khushal]

No that wasn't your point; you actually outrightly denied the existence of open criticism by numerous scholars

you speak without knowledge ...and pretty much every educated member of this forum are rectifying your claims.

I never denied the existance of the criticism, everyone knows there is criticism of everyone. Arnt you the one who criticized the prophet Mohammad as well by saying "Mo Po did alot of moronic stuff too." as though an armchair general as yourself could do better, is that why you claim to be a prophet.

But in the other thread I asked for the criticism by Scholars and asked you to compare that criticism to the legacy they left behind. Never did I say it did not exist.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

I never denied the existance of the criticism, everyone knows there is criticism of everyone. Arnt you the one who criticized the prophet Mohammad as well by saying "Mo Po did alot of moronic stuff too." as though an armchair general as yourself could do better, is that why you claim to be a prophet.

But in the other thread I asked for the criticism by Scholars and asked you to compare that criticism to the legacy they left behind. Never did I say it did not exist.

Scimitar did you really call him Mo Po?????? Remember the Quran itself says that only respectful terms can be used to address the holy of holies(s)