Tweet
Originally posted by Badlun
View Post
So you think that if he was alive today he would champion the cause of Taliban or Salafis
Based on his behavior that you find abhorrent, I think he would have an easier time sitting in a room with them than with Ghani Khan or Asfandyaar. He would not however fully agree with them either based on his letters to Mostafa III. His Pan Islamist approach for instance, of trying to win over the Caliph in regarding certain Shiite subsects as additional madhabs would be considered improper by Salafists, though his approach of appealing to the Caliph's scholars and the Caliphate to make the decision might quell their objections. They might also have regarded his terminologies in his letter to Mostafa III when he called the Iranians renegades or rafidas.
otherwise the seekh must be penetrated deep and deep in the rectum of these scoundrels!
Truly! If they are creating a completely propagandistic image then they too deserve the seekh in the rectum. The problem I have with these propagandistic approaches is that the secularist militants seek to dehumanize their adversaries and create a psuedo history. For example, I would be a liar if I tried to say other than what I said above without proof.
For instance, there were other letters of Ahmad Shah where he reproached a Muslim leader in what is now the frontier for adopting Indic ways when the leaders lineage came from Afghanistan. If he were simply a Pan Islamist alone or a purist salafist he may have found this sort of appeal to Afghan heritage unpalatable.
I am compelled to use such a language as you uses such vulgarities in your posts.
This was not directed to you, but my point was that these propagandistic militant secularists are unreliably inventing a pseudo history. They are also doing this for nefarious ends and they have to be held accountable
Did he do well to desecrate the Sikhs shrines or he was a lunatic fanatic barbarian soul enjoying destroying worship places of others which Islam clearly prohibit.
Badlun wrorre, read what I wrote, I am not advocating this and I would actually think Muhammad (S) would not approve of that either. The Quran itself says to not even insult their gods because they would insult Allah and harden their own hearts. My point is that we have to have a FAIR discussion of Ahmad Shah Abdali and Pashtuns and Mullah Omar and Ghani Khan etc and not make patently FALSE claims to try and legitimize behavioral abberancy and then call it indigenous.
My point is that I have seen 1000 Achakzai videos and 1000 ANP videos contriving this pseudo history of a marijuana smoking Ahmad Shah and Afghans who danced with Hindus and suddenly the barbarian Arabs came and brain washed them.
I would respect the secularists more of they simply were honest and said : "We don't care what Ahmad Shah did or what he was or who he was except for his cultural contributions - we understand that he probably even still in this era appeals in his behaviors to the majority rural Pashtuns - but we respectfully disagree with his ideologies and views of the time and would not endorse them. We will not create a pseudo historical ANP hat wearing Ahmad Shah though and we will be utterly honest. If Ahmad Shah's behavior mirrors Mullah Umars we hold both accountable.
He did it all for creating an impact on Sikhs for his worldly designs being an invader not for a religious cause or you think he was doing all this because Islam authorities destroying temples of other religions.
Based on what he wrote about it and the fact that he specifically routed to Armistaar to do it where he could have avoided it - I think he felt Islam justified his approach, yes. Now do I, Barakzai think that Islam justifies it? No I do not. Do I think the majority of rural Pashtuns of that era and a large number of this era wouldnt even give a second thought to this? Yes, I think they would probably not feel to bad about it. Would I agree with this majority view? No.
But if Americans asked me about my history my people, my leaders of the past, my cultures - then I would not lie to them like ANP walas do and tell them things like Ahmad Shah Abali was just like Brad Pitt and his wife was like Angelina Jolie and we Pashtun Nationalists secularist militants are the real Pashtuns and represent the majority view. I would instead tell them the truth of history
You get blind in your worship of Taliban , Islamism and Salafism.
Read above, I think you will see what I am saying. I was presenting the history not endorsing it.
Is it Islamic that he got his authority from Abdal? How can you say that he was chosen by God.
He meant that Allah destined him for the role... like if tomorrow Badlun becomes President of the United Pashtun States then some of his followers might say "God destined Badlun for this role even though Badlun wanted to simply be a teacher etc etc"
Was he a prophet as only prophets are chosen by God not mass murderers and invaders.
Is it Islam to kill other fellow Muslims like Safavids? Is it Islam that he was an authoritarian dictatorial ruler by that time. Except invading others, looting others, killing Hindus and Sikhs and his fellow Muslims what else he did for Islam.
I dont think its Islam per se, but I think Ahmad Shah Baba was influenced by a culturally modified view of Islam but he was also a lettered man had a moral imperative rooted in his role as emperor and defender of Islam. In the era of conquer or be conquered and because he himself was raised in the fire of war (he was a refugee even as a baby when his dad was killed and he was just a boy when he was taken into Nadir's Army and he was still a very young adult when he became a King). This meant that he would for a period rely on literalism and moral imperitives that made sense to him.
My point is that we can understand a lot of Pashtuns through Ahmad Shah and that if Pashtun secularist militants were honest in their discourse they would present the history this way.
Instead they create a red Ahmad Shah... in fact there are various ANP chapters which paint his turban red (even though red clothes and a red turban are seen as womanly by many rural Pashtuns) and try to create an Ahmad Shah that did not exist so as to create a lie that only they can live.
His sending letters or troups to China is not the same as invading Iran or India?
He subsequently set up troops and invaded a local region in question. He did hit and run ops there. He also pissed off the Chinese by taking in the fugitive Khoja Muslims.
Based on his behavior that you find abhorrent, I think he would have an easier time sitting in a room with them than with Ghani Khan or Asfandyaar. He would not however fully agree with them either based on his letters to Mostafa III. His Pan Islamist approach for instance, of trying to win over the Caliph in regarding certain Shiite subsects as additional madhabs would be considered improper by Salafists, though his approach of appealing to the Caliph's scholars and the Caliphate to make the decision might quell their objections. They might also have regarded his terminologies in his letter to Mostafa III when he called the Iranians renegades or rafidas.
otherwise the seekh must be penetrated deep and deep in the rectum of these scoundrels!
Truly! If they are creating a completely propagandistic image then they too deserve the seekh in the rectum. The problem I have with these propagandistic approaches is that the secularist militants seek to dehumanize their adversaries and create a psuedo history. For example, I would be a liar if I tried to say other than what I said above without proof.
For instance, there were other letters of Ahmad Shah where he reproached a Muslim leader in what is now the frontier for adopting Indic ways when the leaders lineage came from Afghanistan. If he were simply a Pan Islamist alone or a purist salafist he may have found this sort of appeal to Afghan heritage unpalatable.
I am compelled to use such a language as you uses such vulgarities in your posts.
This was not directed to you, but my point was that these propagandistic militant secularists are unreliably inventing a pseudo history. They are also doing this for nefarious ends and they have to be held accountable
Did he do well to desecrate the Sikhs shrines or he was a lunatic fanatic barbarian soul enjoying destroying worship places of others which Islam clearly prohibit.
Badlun wrorre, read what I wrote, I am not advocating this and I would actually think Muhammad (S) would not approve of that either. The Quran itself says to not even insult their gods because they would insult Allah and harden their own hearts. My point is that we have to have a FAIR discussion of Ahmad Shah Abdali and Pashtuns and Mullah Omar and Ghani Khan etc and not make patently FALSE claims to try and legitimize behavioral abberancy and then call it indigenous.
My point is that I have seen 1000 Achakzai videos and 1000 ANP videos contriving this pseudo history of a marijuana smoking Ahmad Shah and Afghans who danced with Hindus and suddenly the barbarian Arabs came and brain washed them.
I would respect the secularists more of they simply were honest and said : "We don't care what Ahmad Shah did or what he was or who he was except for his cultural contributions - we understand that he probably even still in this era appeals in his behaviors to the majority rural Pashtuns - but we respectfully disagree with his ideologies and views of the time and would not endorse them. We will not create a pseudo historical ANP hat wearing Ahmad Shah though and we will be utterly honest. If Ahmad Shah's behavior mirrors Mullah Umars we hold both accountable.
He did it all for creating an impact on Sikhs for his worldly designs being an invader not for a religious cause or you think he was doing all this because Islam authorities destroying temples of other religions.
Based on what he wrote about it and the fact that he specifically routed to Armistaar to do it where he could have avoided it - I think he felt Islam justified his approach, yes. Now do I, Barakzai think that Islam justifies it? No I do not. Do I think the majority of rural Pashtuns of that era and a large number of this era wouldnt even give a second thought to this? Yes, I think they would probably not feel to bad about it. Would I agree with this majority view? No.
But if Americans asked me about my history my people, my leaders of the past, my cultures - then I would not lie to them like ANP walas do and tell them things like Ahmad Shah Abali was just like Brad Pitt and his wife was like Angelina Jolie and we Pashtun Nationalists secularist militants are the real Pashtuns and represent the majority view. I would instead tell them the truth of history
You get blind in your worship of Taliban , Islamism and Salafism.
Read above, I think you will see what I am saying. I was presenting the history not endorsing it.
Is it Islamic that he got his authority from Abdal? How can you say that he was chosen by God.
He meant that Allah destined him for the role... like if tomorrow Badlun becomes President of the United Pashtun States then some of his followers might say "God destined Badlun for this role even though Badlun wanted to simply be a teacher etc etc"
Was he a prophet as only prophets are chosen by God not mass murderers and invaders.
Is it Islam to kill other fellow Muslims like Safavids? Is it Islam that he was an authoritarian dictatorial ruler by that time. Except invading others, looting others, killing Hindus and Sikhs and his fellow Muslims what else he did for Islam.
I dont think its Islam per se, but I think Ahmad Shah Baba was influenced by a culturally modified view of Islam but he was also a lettered man had a moral imperative rooted in his role as emperor and defender of Islam. In the era of conquer or be conquered and because he himself was raised in the fire of war (he was a refugee even as a baby when his dad was killed and he was just a boy when he was taken into Nadir's Army and he was still a very young adult when he became a King). This meant that he would for a period rely on literalism and moral imperitives that made sense to him.
My point is that we can understand a lot of Pashtuns through Ahmad Shah and that if Pashtun secularist militants were honest in their discourse they would present the history this way.
Instead they create a red Ahmad Shah... in fact there are various ANP chapters which paint his turban red (even though red clothes and a red turban are seen as womanly by many rural Pashtuns) and try to create an Ahmad Shah that did not exist so as to create a lie that only they can live.
His sending letters or troups to China is not the same as invading Iran or India?
He subsequently set up troops and invaded a local region in question. He did hit and run ops there. He also pissed off the Chinese by taking in the fugitive Khoja Muslims.
Comment