Naming of nuclear weapons after Afghan historical figures.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

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.

Now this is Back peddling PAR EXCELLANCE

Your original thesis statement was "Abdali rebelled" now you're saying "Abdali was loyal because he wanted to be Ghairatmand. I pretty much don't even need to respond to any other points you made there in because your fundamental premise has flunked the test of consistency. This cannot even be explained in terms of context because rebelling has a very specific meaning and claiming he's loyal and yet rebelled is an oxymoron. This also sabotages the narrative that the leaders of Afghan history ever actually lived according to the ideals and standards of Pashtunwali; which thus relegate the custom largely based on lies. Furthermore demonstrates that contrary to the generic narrative Pashtuns as a people are not "independent" and demonstrated by Khushal's own words that Abdali was not independent of Nader Shah Afshar but was loyal to him. What it also demonstrates is that this rhetoric of "Ghairat" is not an actuality of a construct of ethical behavior but an Appeal to Emotion and Emotional Blackmail tactic which people use to justify behavior and silence critics or subdue information.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

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.

you denied that scholars criticized him

haven't you said that nonsense about claiming to be a Prophet about 30 times in this thread (making hypberole of course)? You're already debunked on logical fallacy by both Faye and I, repeating it won't make t real.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

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)

Ask Khushal to present the quote. lately he's been making allegations without evidence to support it

[RevolutionThroughReason]

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.

Actually yes it does, almost all Modern Sources cite Husaini so you must not have the actual Tarikh and I doubt modern scholarship would all be lying in conspiracy.

P


Here is an author that SITES Husaini, You can find the pages they site and then post the relevant pages here on the message board since you have a copy

http://books.google.com/books?id=ylTi-e2C_0IC&pg=PP60&dq=Ahmad+Shah+Qizilbash&hl=en&sa=X&ei=u6nEUPSKO4rE0QG9pYGYAQ&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAg

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?

Anecdotal stories mean very little to me here.

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.

All well and good but Abdali made them lords over the Pashtuns. As for what other trbes did, is irrelevant in context of the debate

RED HERRING FALLACY B.A.

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

I see no reference about Abdali here ...show us exactly where.

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."

I just need to see Ahmad Shah's actions

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

Did you bother reading the next page? where it says (page 50)

"On the other hand Nadir's tyranny represented as the rightful, By God directed punishment of the Iranian people"

if he saw it that way, why is he treating him almost as if he was a Prophet.

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:

No I am correct read here

http://books.google.com/books?id=8BVIKsDbdKYC&pg=PA119&dq=Ahmad+Shah+Shah+Rukh&hl=en&sa=X&ei=_vjEUJiCKq_W0gHenoD4Cg&ved=0CEUQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=Ahmad%20Shah%20Shah%20Rukh&f=false

"Afghans took the capital, but Ahmad allowed Shah Rukh to remain in Office"

ahem ahem, what a nice gesture to do for a former master, almost seems like loyalty.

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?

No he was lucky, he buddied up with a powerful ruthless warlord when the Hotaks were fighting amongst themselves. This is what Karzai did, this is why his empire crumbled within 30 years.

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

Perhaps, but that's not servitude. And more over It shoots holes in the Non-interventionalist Pashtun hypothesis you present elsewhere. You sure you want to take that route?

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

he wasn't a Qizilbash , but he was certainly buttressed with them and hence he got those fancy Pearl Earrings that Nader Shah adorned him as a gift. He was his very special royal guard. Something given to the loyalest of loyals

http://books.google.com/books?id=X0CLyC39MEgC&pg=PA17&dq=Abdali+guard+of+Nadir+Shah&hl=en&sa=X&ei=__zEUJHEM47O0QHh1ICYCQ&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Abdali%20guard%20of%20Nadir%20Shah&f=false

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.

Great I STAND corrected ,,,,,this suffices what I was saying to Khushal that HE was trying to RETAIN his Master's territory

THANK YOU for correcting me on this, this adds evidence to my earlier hypothesis against Khushal.

Well done B.A.

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.

Actually you just helped me debunk that claim unwittingly

http://books.google.com/books?id=X0CLyC39MEgC&pg=PA17&dq=Abdali+guard+of+Nadir+Shah&hl=en&sa=X&ei=__zEUJHEM47O0QHh1ICYCQ&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Abdali%20guard%20of%20Nadir%20Shah&f=false

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Actually yes it does, almost all Modern Sources cite Husaini so you must not have the actual Tarikh and I doubt modern scholarship would all be lying in conspiracy.

P


Here is an author that SITES Husaini, You can find the pages they site and then post the relevant pages here on the message board since you have a copy



http://books.google.com/books?id=ylT...ed=0CDMQ6AEwAg




Anecdotal stories mean very little to me here.




All well and good but Abdali made them lords over the Pashtuns. As for what other trbes did, is irrelevant in context of the debate

RED HERRING FALLACY B.A.


I see no reference about Abdali here ...show us exactly where.





I just need to see Ahmad Shah's actions






Did you bother reading the next page? where it says (page 50)

"On the other hand Nadir's tyranny represented as the rightful, By God directed punishment of the Iranian people"

if he saw it that way, why is he treating him almost as if he was a Prophet.




No I am correct read here
http://books.google.com/books?id=8BV...20Rukh&f=false


"Afghans took the capital, but Ahmad allowed Shah Rukh to remain in Office"

ahem ahem, what a nice gesture to do for a former master, almost seems like loyalty.







No he was lucky, he buddied up with a powerful ruthless warlord when the Hotaks were fighting amongst themselves. This is what Karzai did, this is why his empire crumbled within 30 years.




Perhaps, but that's not servitude. And more over It shoots holes in the Non-interventionalist Pashtun hypothesis you present elsewhere. You sure you want to take that route?






he wasn't a Qizilbash , but he was certainly buttressed with them and hence he got those fancy Pearl Earrings that Nader Shah adorned him as a gift. He was his very special royal guard. Something given to the loyalest of loyals

http://books.google.com/books?id=X0C...20Shah&f=false




Great I STAND corrected ,,,,,this suffices what I was saying to Khushal that HE was trying to RETAIN his Master's territory

THANK YOU for correcting me on this, this adds evidence to my earlier hypothesis against Khushal.

Well done B.A.





Actually you just helped me debunk that claim unwittingly

http://books.google.com/books?id=X0C...20Shah&f=false

Thank you for our source. Actually, I am reading it and it undoes what you are saying. It presents TWO hypothesis for how the Qizilbash embedded in Afghanistan. It presents one pitched by Afghan historians of the latter days in the modern era and one pitched by earlier historians.
Unfortunately the sources 96/97/98 are not discernable in this online edition.

The earlier source in contrast to Fofalzai notes, DESTROYS your theory in that the Qizilbash were already present in large numbers. Ahmad Shah merely showed them leniency and allowed them to participate in the state.

You go on to cite Husaini. You have made a DIRE mistake. Munshi Husaini was the author of TARIKH E AHMAD SHAHI - the history of Ahmad Shah. The Husaini writing Zaman Khan's tarikh is not Munshi Mahmud Al Husaini.
All you are doing is driving a nail into your thesis's coffin because its rather easy to say that Zaman Khan, already a hated ruler, was justifying his Persianization of the empire by projecting back and claiming his beloved grandfather did the same. Its a fallacy to assume the accuracy of Kabul Court writer Imad ud Din Husaini would be anywhere near that of the direct eye witness and writer of Ahmad Shah's personal Tarikh. Rather, the attempt by Zaman Shah to justify his moves by referring to the uniter, his grandfather, Abdali, is about as laughable as Shah Shuja's attempts to justify his moves in the same way.

And therefore, its not I that has to print out the whole Tarikh e Ahmad Shahi and show you were no Qizilbash commentary exists - it is you that has to furnish a contemporary source validating your view on Ahmad Shah being subservient to Qizilbashis. To date, you have at best furnished works done in his grandson's time.

Putting Shah Rukh back on the seat is really no different than Alexander putting Porus back in charge after he beat him as well. We all know Alexander was in charge when it came to his empire. The same with Ahmad Shah - you ignored the part of the text that made it clear that the NADIRIDS and the Safavids demanded certain things from Ahmad Shah that he refused. So you are still merely repeating the claim that since Ahmad Shah showed mercy to Nadir Shah's grandson that he was somehow his servant. If such is the case, then Alexander was Porus's servant. I would say history and Professor Gommels disagree.

Regarding the commentary of tyranny; Genghis Khan was also called God's scourge. Ahmad Shah was merely pointing out that Safavid decadence led to God sending Nadir as a scourge and a tyrant over the Iranians. So you are in effect, twisting his words without evidence.

Many Muslims today, including yourself say that the Muslims are in the state they are in and attacked from all sides because of their own actions etc. Does that mean you hold Bush to be a Prophet??? Hardly.

Also, if temporal constancy is your measure of success - each of the Ghilzai leaders and the whole Ghilzai kingdom in Iran was merely a few decades. That doesnt detract from the amazing feat of seizing Isfahan.

So once again, what we know for sure:

1) Ahmad Shah Durrani was the first to construct a pan pashtun empire across the mountains and tribal borders.
2) His leadership acumen was Alexandrian and superb
3) He was shrewd and much more independent than Karzai winning prize autonomy for his people unlike Karzai who is on the verge of even giving UN soldiers complete immunity
4) He did not leave behind a solid leadership plan: Oh well great men in the past like Alexander have done the same. Doesnt diminish their accomplishment.

[ډګروال]

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)

this is what he exactly said

Well since I have the mind of a fully developed grown up . I would just laugh and say, "that tells us more about what happened with you and your mother, than it does mine". Make a smart and more clever come back is the proper response.



Muhammad can handle himself he doesn't need us. Here I'll prove it

Muhammad did a lot of moronic stuff......what are you going to do now?

[RevolutionThroughReason]

at least you quote what I actually said instead of downright fabricing this "Mo Po" nonsense that Khushal ddid

Khushal is getting more desperate by the day.

[ډګروال]

at least you quote what I actually said instead of downright fabricing this "Mo Po" nonsense that Khushal ddid

Khushal is getting more desperate by the day.

you did say mo po.
in another post.

so just because you didnt say mo po your post becomes any better?

do you believe Muhammad(pbuh) did alot of moronic stuff?

[RevolutionThroughReason]

Thank you for our source. Actually, I am reading it and it undoes what you are saying. It presents TWO hypothesis for how the Qizilbash embedded in Afghanistan. It presents one pitched by Afghan historians of the latter days in the modern era and one pitched by earlier historians.
Unfortunately the sources 96/97/98 are not discernable in this online edition.

The earlier source in contrast to Fofalzai notes, DESTROYS your theory in that the Qizilbash were already present in large numbers. Ahmad Shah merely showed them leniency and allowed them to participate in the state.

You go on to cite Husaini. You have made a DIRE mistake. Munshi Husaini was the author of TARIKH E AHMAD SHAHI - the history of Ahmad Shah. The Husaini writing Zaman Khan's tarikh is not Munshi Mahmud Al Husaini.
All you are doing is driving a nail into your thesis's coffin because its rather easy to say that Zaman Khan, already a hated ruler, was justifying his Persianization of the empire by projecting back and claiming his beloved grandfather did the same. Its a fallacy to assume the accuracy of Kabul Court writer Imad ud Din Husaini would be anywhere near that of the direct eye witness and writer of Ahmad Shah's personal Tarikh. Rather, the attempt by Zaman Shah to justify his moves by referring to the uniter, his grandfather, Abdali, is about as laughable as Shah Shuja's attempts to justify his moves in the same way.

WRONG!!!!!! The one who wrote Tarikh-i-Ahmad Shahi was Mahmud AL MUSANNA, not HUSAINI,

THIS IS THE ONLY PRIMARY SOURCE in Afghan history with the name HUSAINI. Read here.

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

One of the historians relied on primary sources such as Mahmud-ul-Musanna's Tarikh-i-Ahmad Shahi of 1753 and Imam-uddin al-Hussaini's Tarikh-i-Hussain Shahi of 1798.

THAT:S THE ONLY HUSAINI who wrote a chronicle about the Durrani Dynasty or its members.

So quite to the contrary I didn't shoot myself in the foot , YOU shot YOURself in the face. MAJOR BLUNDER!!!

This indicates that you did not actually read the source material as you claimed since you have the authors names wrong!

What? did you read the Fofalzai passage? This is what it says.

In His opinion (Fofalzai's) major groups of new and old Khurasanis were brought into Kabul by Ahmad SHah and given land That's how the Chindawal Qizilbash came out

read it its on PAGE 25 of the same book you alleged shot me in the foot but shot you in the face.

And therefore, its not I that has to print out the whole Tarikh e Ahmad Shahi and show you were no Qizilbash commentary exists - it is you that has to furnish a contemporary source validating your view on Ahmad Shah being subservient to Qizilbashis. To date, you have at best furnished works done in his grandson's time.

Well you have to show no references to Qizilbash exists since this was your argument ....and from what your last fumble indicates, you never even read the material since you got the AUTHORS WRONG!!! WHich is a big deal since you were trying to flag me on that.

Your statement was merely empty rhetoric.

Putting Shah Rukh back on the seat is really no different than Alexander putting Porus back in charge after he beat him as well.

It's VASTLY different since Shah Rukh was his masters grandson and that he was a loyal servant with pearl earings . Sorry context counts.

Regarding the commentary of tyranny; Genghis Khan was also called God's scourge. Ahmad Shah was merely pointing out that Safavid decadence led to God sending Nadir as a scourge and a tyrant over the Iranians. So you are in effect, twisting his words without evidence.

Ahmad Shah isn't JUST saying that God has "maktoub" this for Savafids but that Nadir Shah was directed BY GOD, not that God merely sent him, that God DIRECTED HIM ...that's a WHOLE other level

sorry your argument is NO BUENO. That's like me who does God DIRECT except Prophets?!?!?!?!?

Many Muslims today, including yourself say that the Muslims are in the state they are in and attacked from all sides because of their own actions etc. Does that mean you hold Bush to be a Prophet??? Hardly.

Yes but I don't say God is DIRECTING Bush to do it. Hahahah

1) Ahmad Shah Durrani was the first to construct a pan pashtun empire

False he had Qizilvash adinistration, it was a Perso-centric empire with a Persian elite class and Government institutions. He did not even run his empire by Pashtunwali, just conferred with tribes that wy.

2) His leadership acumen was Alexandrian and superb

This is all based on a spinned narrative you're giving and that your sources do not.

3) He was shrewd and much more independent than Karzai winning prize autonomy for his people unlike Karzai who is on the verge of even giving UN soldiers complete immunity
4) He did not leave behind a solid leadership plan: Oh well great men in the past like Alexander have done the same. Doesnt diminish their accomplishment.

He gave QIZILBASH LAND to stay in not even Karzai is GIVING them MONEY and ALLOWANCES and LAND in Afghanistan at least not so overtly.
Shrewd and more independent doesn't mean trying to salvage the empire of Nadir shah ..something YOU YOURSELF admitted and corrected me on.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

you did say mo po.
in another post.

so just because you didnt say mo po your post becomes any better?

do you believe Muhammad(pbuh) did alot of moronic stuff?

where is it then ...find it

[RevolutionThroughReason]

you did say mo po.
in another post.

so just because you didnt say mo po your post becomes any better?

do you believe Muhammad(pbuh) did alot of moronic stuff?

Yes ,he tried to jump off a cliff, that's NOT dumb?

[BarakzaiAbdali]

WRONG!!!!!! The one who wrote Tarikh-i-Ahmad Shahi was Mahmud AL MUSANNA, not HUSAINI,

THIS IS THE ONLY PRIMARY SOURCE in Afghan history with the name HUSAINI. Read here.

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


THAT:S THE ONLY HUSAINI who wrote a chronicle about the Durrani Dynasty or its members.

So quite to the contrary I didn't shoot myself in the foot , YOU shot YOURself in the face. MAJOR BLUNDER!!!

This indicates that you did not actually read the source material as you claimed since you have the authors names wrong!

What? did you read the Fofalzai passage? This is what it says.

In His opinion (Fofalzai's) major groups of new and old Khurasanis were brought into Kabul by Ahmad SHah and given land That's how the Chindawal Qizilbash came out

read it its on PAGE 25 of the same book you alleged shot me in the foot but shot you in the face.







Well you have to show no references to Qizilbash exists since this was your argument ....and from what your last fumble indicates, you never even read the material since you got the AUTHORS WRONG!!! WHich is a big deal since you were trying to flag me on that.

Your statement was merely empty rhetoric.






It's VASTLY different since Shah Rukh was his masters grandson and that he was a loyal servant with pearl earings . Sorry context counts.






Ahmad Shah isn't JUST saying that God has "maktoub" this for Savafids but that Nadir Shah was directed BY GOD, not that God merely sent him, that God DIRECTED HIM ...that's a WHOLE other level

sorry your argument is NO BUENO. That's like me who does God DIRECT except Prophets?!?!?!?!?





Yes but I don't say God is DIRECTING Bush to do it. Hahahah







False he had Qizilvash adinistration, it was a Perso-centric empire with a Persian elite class and Government institutions. He did not even run his empire by Pashtunwali, just conferred with tribes that wy.




This is all based on a spinned narrative you're giving and that your sources do not.





He gave QIZILBASH LAND to stay in not even Karzai is GIVING them MONEY and ALLOWANCES and LAND in Afghanistan at least not so overtly.
Shrewd and more independent doesn't mean trying to salvage the empire of Nadir shah ..something YOU YOURSELF admitted and corrected me on.

Scimitar lol you are so wrong. There is an extant copy in Peshawar, 1 of the few that survived the Russian aquisition of hundreds of copies that were sent to Moscow. I have personally viewed the document. There is 1 copy Sara Chayes was given access to that the Russians sent back to Kabul.

http://www.amazon.com/Ahmadshahi-Hok.../dp/9640350222

Above is the Iranian government's recent rendering and release

Here is an official full length name lol. Trust me on this; you confused Husaini of Zaman Khan's era with this individual.

The full name of Tarikh Ahmad Shahi's author is:

Munshi Mahmud ibn Ibrahim Al Jami Al Husaini (page 277)

http://books.google.com/books?id=Cji...munshi&f=false

And Professor Gommels notes the same independently and the University of Tehran Farsi release uses the EXACT same name minus the title Munshi.

Sorry my friend, you are outgunned here. I have spent much of my adult life studying Ahmad Shah Baba here and in the watan as my free time hobby.

The source above confirms my commentary regarding extant manuscripts being sweeped up and sent to moscow (another tragedy inflicted upon the Afghan people alongside the selling of Abdali's sword for 20 rupees to an Australian businessman).

[BarakzaiAbdali]

I think its time you concede honorably compadre. The bullet I shot appeares to have missed my face and caused you to shoot your own ; ). Wiki has many typos and inaccuracies in between some good pieces of info.. especially in articles about Afghan heroes. That was where you went wrong.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Once again the above honored author, a scholar of Quran and hadith by the way as well, differs from:
Imam-uddin al-Hussaini's

Author of Zaman Khan's Tarikh, a book I care not read since its likely polemic and defense of Zaman squandering his grandfathers accomplishment.

But altogether you grabbd the wrong Hossaini.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

To amend that, Fofalzai relies heavily on Zaman's Tarikh and not at all on Ahmad Shah's ... so ipso facto irrelevent. It would be like listening to Karzai's historian about Ahmad Shah's comings and goings.