Ahmad Shah Abdali was a Wahhabi

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

http://abdurrahman.org/sunnah/methodlogysavedsect.html

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

[MENTION=65]Pakhtunzai[/MENTION]

As you can see, Abdul Qaadir al Jilaani is the imam of Wahhabiyyah. We are the ones who are entitled to be called Qaadiris and not the crypto-shias and crypto-Hindus.

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

Note: not all Qaadiri sufis are bad. There are many qaadiris who do not engage in shirk.

[Pakhtunzai]

Manana.

[Khostai]

Wahhabism was a popular revivalist movement instigated by an eighteenth century theologian, Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab (1703–1792).
Ahmad Shah Abdali cam to power in 1747, At that time the wahabi movement didn't reach Afghanistan and was totaly not present there, so by claiming that he was a wahabist is false.

[Pakwatan]

Anyone that wants to ask a question to a real wahabi, come and ask me.


I am real wahabi. I am Muslim.


Tell me more about this wahabi propaganda.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

I never advocated any such thing. your manipulating like always.

your no hotak, your an american idiot who only read books but lacks any ground realities understanding. All leaders can be criticized but at the end of the day, all Pashtun tribes stood with abdali including the ghilzai who was his rival. No other Pashtun leader has united his people before him of after him.

Are you sure you're not describing yourself here>? After all you've been exposed as not knowing Pashto not too long ago in the Bakht Zamina thread.

Hotaks never stood with Abdali; why would they stand with a Turkmen slave who drove them out of their homes? That would make no sense what so ever.

[khushal]

Are you sure you're not describing yourself here>? After all you've been exposed as not knowing Pashto not too long ago in the Bakht Zamina thread.

Hotaks never stood with Abdali; why would they stand with a Turkmen slave who drove them out of their homes? That would make no sense what so ever.

hahaha, No I am describing you. Its you who made the mistake in that thread.

I said Ghilzai, not Hotaks specifically. I think you need to work on your Pashto. Also Abdali ruled through the tribal Jirga and allowed Pashtun tribes to keep their authority which is why his empire crumbled quickly after his death.

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

hahaha, No I am describing you. Its you who made the mistake in that thread.

I said Ghilzai, not Hotaks specifically. I think you need to work on your Pashto. Also Abdali ruled through the tribal Jirga and allowed Pashtun tribes to keep their authority which is why his empire crumbled quickly after his death.

His empire crumbled because his sons were greedy and couldnt agree on how to divide the empire among themselves.

[khushal]

His empire crumbled because his sons were greedy and couldnt agree on how to divide the empire among themselves.

that's the simple explanation, but in reality it was because there was no centralized governmental system that had a strong tradition of choosing a successor. alexander ruled similarly and he had no sons to fight over his empire. It did no matter if his sons were good or greedy, the empire was doomed to crumble because he could not develop a monarch system like they had in Europe. He was dealing with Pashtuns that have a strong tradition of living under no ones authority.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

hahaha, No I am describing you. Its you who made the mistake in that thread.

I said Ghilzai, not Hotaks specifically. I think you need to work on your Pashto. Also Abdali ruled through the tribal Jirga and allowed Pashtun tribes to keep their authority which is why his empire crumbled quickly after his death.

Well I said Hotak SPECIFICALLY, if you notice the post you responded to was about the Hotaks. Hence the Hotaks were opposed to them for sure. No amount of Sugar Coating won't change that. I mean MOST other Ghilzai tribes opposed the Abdalis too, but You're responding to my post so let's keep it to that. As Shamlawar pointed out correctly; his empire crumbled because his children would fight for greed and power.

You didn't even understand that Bakht Zamina mentions Pakistan in her song; LOL Talk about needing to work on Pashto. Do you even know how to speak ....That is without internet help.

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

that's the simple explanation, but in reality it was because there was no centralized governmental system that had a strong tradition of choosing a successor. alexander ruled similarly and he had no sons to fight over his empire. It did no matter if his sons were good or greedy, the empire was doomed to crumble because he could not develop a monarch system like they had in Europe. He was dealing with Pashtuns that have a strong tradition of living under no ones authority.

Oh so the sons of Ahmed Shah Abdali kill each other by even making their own blood brother blind, but it is the tribes fault and it is Ahmed Shah Abdalis fault because he didn't model his empire to the European style of ruling?

Makes allot more sense.

[khushal]

Well I said Hotak SPECIFICALLY, if you notice the post you responded to was about the Hotaks. Hence the Hotaks were opposed to them for sure. No amount of Sugar Coating won't change that. I mean MOST other Ghilzai tribes opposed the Abdalis too, but You're responding to my post so let's keep it to that. As Shamlawar pointed out correctly; his empire crumbled because his children would fight for greed and power.

You didn't even understand that Bakht Zamina mentions Pakistan in her song; LOL Talk about needing to work on Pashto. Do you even know how to speak ....That is without internet help.

My post about Pashtun tribes standing with abdali was in response to your criticism that Afghanistan should have never existed. Your implying that the Pashtun tribes that stood with abdali were all wrong. The point that most of his kids were greedy is mute. If you have no strong system in place with a strong foundation, it is bound to crumble. Americas leaders are the greediest on the planet, yet America flourishes because of its strong system.

I understood it, it was the other PF member who I was replying to. you just butted in for no reason.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

Wait a second ...he had no central authority ....but somehow built an empire where he was deemed the ruler ...and managed to convince the people he had no central authority over to stick together and be known as Afghanstan instead of ruling themselves in their own fiefdoms? What doesn't seem logically consistent about Khushal's bogus picture?

[RevolutionThroughReason]

My post about Pashtun tribes standing with abdali was in response to your criticism that Afghanistan should have never existed. Your implying that the Pashtun tribes that stood with abdali were all wrong. The point that most of his kids were greedy is mute. If you have no strong system in place with a strong foundation, it is bound to crumble. Americas leaders are the greediest on the planet, yet America flourishes because of its strong system.

I understood it, it was the other PF member who I was replying to. you just butted in for no reason.

It shouldn't have ever existed; the fact that people of HIS OWN tribe were primarily in support of him or they were motivated by Greed and lust for money and fortune isn't this romanticized idea that people were taking up the Pashtun cause for a United Pashtun country. The Fact you admit that Abdalis own sons were rivals of each other for LUST, MONEY AND POWER would only be more so with the other tribes who joined him. Logic would dictate the tribes who joined him were only doing so to fill their own pockets.

This is why Afghanistan should never have existed. It still shouldn't exist, but for the time being it's better to have an Afghanistan than to have a Pakistan.

LOL You understood it but then you said she doesn't say anything about Pakistan. LOL yeah ok. You were called out by nearly every member here. You're posing hard.