Ahmed Shah Abdali, the conqueror from Multan

[Hamza913]

Factually incorrect. You are now directly supporting the very claim Indians make and reducing Pakistan's edifice to just one aspect religion thus effectively making Pakistan a "refugee camp of Indian Muslims". Hindustan was a term mostly used for the Gangetic Basin region.

What you seem to be alluding to is British India which was a British product. For referance the British annexed Indus region with "British India" only in the 1940-50 period. Had they not it would have remained outside the orbit that you call "Hindustan".

I entirely and absolutely disagree with you that Pakistan is some sort of "refuge for Indian Muslims". If it is then I would prefer Pakistan rejoins this "Hindustan" of yours. We have had enough of wars over what exactly???

I find it obnoxious how a 6% minority that has roots in India expects and foists this "Indianess" on rest of the 94% majority. That is pathetic.

I know you disagree, but it's my personal opinion that other than being Muslim, most Pakistanis aren't drastically different to Hindustanis (although, this difference in religion is a huge ideological difference in my opinion).

If you wish to believe otherwise that's fine, but this is my opinion. I just don't see ethnicity being a major reason as to why Pakistan was created, all I see is religion and ideology in general playing a role.

 

[padamchen]

I know you disagree, but it's my personal opinion that other than being Muslim, most Pakistanis aren't drastically different to Hindustanis.

If you wish to believe otherwise that's fine

Pakistan is at the cusp of two civilizations.

Different Pakistanis will see things differently wrt India depending on which side they identify with primarily.

Racially.

You see, religion could not surmount blood.

It's been my hypothesis since I started debating with you guys.

Cheers, Doc

 

[Hamza913]

Pakistan is at the cusp of two civilizations.

Different Pakistanis will see things differently wrt India depending on which side they identify with primarily.

Racially.

You see, religion could not surmount blood.

It's been my hypothesis since I started debating with you guys.

Cheers, Doc

In my opinion, religion can surpass blood. Otherwise there would not be a Pakistan (again, in my opinion).

The only major ethnic differences I see between Pakistanis and Hindustanis is that you guys have more dravidians, and we've got a little more foreign blood in us since we are further West.

 

[padamchen]

In my opinion, religion can surpass blood. Otherwise there would not be a Pakistan (again, in my opinion).

Yes that is your opinion. Your wish even. And that of your founding father's.

But the reality leans more my way than yours. More India's way than Pakistan's.

By extension, it leans more the Zoroastrian and Judaic way than the Christian or Muslim one.

Cheers, Doc

 

[Hamza913]

Yes that is your opinion. YoYo wish even. And that of your founding father's.

But the reality leans more my way than yours. More India's way than Pakistan's.

By extension, it leans more the Zoroastrian and Judaic way than the Christian or Muslim one.

Cheers, Doc

Clearly reality leans my way, since Islam is rising rapidly, hardly any Pakistani wishes to join Hindustan, and Muslims and Hindus in Hindustan have a lot of, let's say, problems.

 

[padamchen]

Clearly reality leans my way, since Islam is rising rapidly, hardly any Pakistani wishes to join Hindustan, and Muslims and Hindus in Hindustan have a lot of, let's say, problems.

This is where you see how blood and faith are linked.

The Jews. And their original tribes. Down the ages.

The Persians.

The Hindu.

The Chinese.

These are natural nation states.

The Arabs even to be fair and honest. If not for their Christian allies and their meddling and drawing if lines in the sand.

But the Muslims at large?

Christians at large?

Not really. Over there, as the great wars proved. As the bloodbath in the ME is proving today.

Blood will come first. If faith breaks it's link to it and expands inorganically.

Because that's not what God entailed.

That was all Man.

And Man is a fool.

Cheers, Doc

 

[Hamza913]

This is where you see how blood and faith are linked.

The Jews. And their original tribes. Down the ages.

The Persians.

The Hindu.

The Chinese.

These are natural nation states.

The Arabs even to be fair and honest. If not for their Christian allies and their meddling and drawing if lines in the sand.

But the Muslims at large?

Christians at large?

Not really. Over there, as the great wars proved. As the bloodbath in the ME is proving today.

Blood will come first. If faith breaks it's link to it and expands inorganically.

Because that's not what God entailed.

That was all Man.

And Man is a fool.

Cheers, Doc

Still don't buy it, doubt I ever will.

 

[MultaniGuy]

Still don't buy it, doubt I ever will.

Actually there are huge ethnic differences between Pakistan and India.

In Pakistan you have Punjabis, Sindhis, Baloch, Kashmiri, and Pathan.

In India you have Hindi speakers, Bengalis,Tamils, Assamese.

 

[M. Sarmad]

A king is supposed to be the guardian of those whom he govern, not their plunderer ... Ahmad Shah Abdali was one of the most notorious plunderers in the history of sub continent, his lust for loot was limitless ...


During Ahmed Shah's times, this verse became popular in Punjab:

" Khahda peeta lahe da te baqi Ahmad Shahe da" (Consume as much as you can because the rest is going to be taken away by Ahmad Shah anyway)


In words of Waris Shah:

"Wang Kabuli kuttian gird hoyan dow dow alalhisab laga gayyan.”

On their defeat in 1761 Waris Shah again says

"Yey, ya Rab toon mehrban hoyon, tadey pher Choghatian da raj hoya

Toen diti shikast Qandharian noon, Dilli walian day sir taj hoya."

 

[padamchen]

Still don't buy it, doubt I ever will.

There are two fundamental reasons why you cannot get it.

Will not get it.

The first is that it goes against the base tenets of your belief system. What you were born into. What you grew up being told and taught. What you've read in your book.

The second is as a Pakistani Muslim. Or a Hindustani Muslim. Or an Indonesian Muslim. Or even a Persian Muslim.

You will.not believe faith is linked to blood because then that gives the Arabs the ownership of your faith.

It makes them more than you are.

And Islam coming in last onto the game knew it could never grow, would never grow, if it did not assure the conquered and converted that all Muslims are born and live as equals.

They do not. Ask the Arabs what they really believe. But it's a self perpetuating machine now. And politically and socially correct niceties are no longer as critical to the survival of the fledgling faith, as they were in 670 AD. And the immediate centuries of expansion of military imperialistic Islam that followed.

Hope that explains?

Cheers, Doc

 

[Śakra]

Very few countries are single ethnic states.

Supposidly the most sucessful (in reality the worst African-tier) state in Asia is mono-ethnic (banglerdash).

 

[Hamza913]

Supposidly the most sucessful (in reality the worst African-tier) state in Asia is mono-ethnic (banglerdash).

They're not really mono-ethnic (or weren't really mono-ethnic), they just systematically oppressed and subjugated the other ethnic groups. They got particularly wild in 1971, which is one of the reasons why the Pakistani military went so hard on them.

Actually there are huge ethnic differences between Pakistan and India.

We should forget this topic since we will never agree.

A king is supposed to be the guardian of those whom he govern, not their plunderer ... Ahmad Shah Abdali was one of the most notorious plunderers in the history of sub continent, his lust for loot was limitless ...


During Ahmed Shah's times, this verse became popular in Punjab:

" Khahda peeta lahe da te baqi Ahmad Shahe da" (Consume as much as you can because the rest is going to be taken away by Ahmad Shah anyway)


In words of Waris Shah:

"Wang Kabuli kuttian gird hoyan dow dow alalhisab laga gayyan.”

On their defeat in 1761 Waris Shah again says

"Yey, ya Rab toon mehrban hoyon, tadey pher Choghatian da raj hoya

Toen diti shikast Qandharian noon, Dilli walian day sir taj hoya."

Asalamu Alaikum

He came from Pakistan, and was a very religious man. He even thought about invading China to help the Muslims suffering there. He was a good man, let's not slander him. He only looted the land of those fighting him.

 

[M. Sarmad]

Asalamu Alaikum

He came from Pakistan, and was a very religious man. He even thought about invading China to help the Muslims suffering there. He was a good man, let's not slander him. He only looted the land of those fighting him.

Waalaikumussalam

He came from Herat, Afghanistan. He was a tyrant and a plunderer who looted indiscriminately ...

 

[Hamza913]

There are two fundamental reasons why you cannot get it.

Will not get it.

The first is that it goes against the base tenets of your belief system. What you were born into. What you grew up being told and taught. What you've read in your book.

The second is as a Pakistani Muslim. Or a Hindustani Muslim. Or an Indonesian Muslim. Or even a Persian Muslim.

You will.not believe faith is linked to blood because then that gives the Arabs the ownership of your faith.

It makes them more than you are.

And Islam coming in last onto the game knew it could never grow, would never grow, if it did not assure the conquered and converted that all Muslims are born and live as equals.

They do not. Ask the Arabs what they really believe. But it's a self perpetuating machine now. And politically and socially correct niceties are no longer as critical to the survival of the fledgling faith, as they were in 670 AD. And the immediate centuries of expansion of military imperialistic Islam that followed.

Hope that explains?

Cheers, Doc

No it doesn't. Not at all.

You have clearly been duped into this whole bloodline crap from an early age, and I'm sorry to say, but it is nonsense. The overwhelming majority of humanity would disagree with you.

Islam says the non Arab is the same as the Arab. No practising Muslim holds a view contrary to this, it wasn't a political nicety. It was the truth.

The expansion of Islam treated those who became Muslim as equals, very rarely did racism occur, and when it did, it was shut down fast. These Muslim Empires were very multi ethnic, for example, in the Muslim Empires of Hindustan you had Turks, Arabs, Persians, Pakhtuns, Punjabis, Baluchis, etc, all fighting together to spread Islam across the region. You also had frequent marriages between different ethnic groups, you had Turks marrying Persians, Arabs marrying Sindhis, etc.

Very few Arabs genuinely believe Islam teaches they are superior. Those that do are not practising Muslims, and just Arab nationalists (nationalism is haram according to most scholars btw).

Waalaikumussalam

He came from Herat, Afghanistan. He was a tyrant and a plunderer who looted indiscriminately ...

No, he came from Multan, as mentioned in my first post. This allegation of him being from Herat stems from the fact that his father was the governor of Herat. Multan is where he was from, as was most of his family, and he also spent his childhood there. It's highly unlikely he came from Herat.

 

[M. Sarmad]

No, he came from Multan, as mentioned in my first post. This allegation of him being from Herat stems from the fact that his father was the governor of Herat. Multan is where he was from, as was most of his family, and he also spent his childhood there. It's highly unlikely he came from Herat.

Well, even the source you yourself mentioned (in the OP) doesn't say what you are saying :



Aḥmad Shāh Durrānī’s biographical details are difficult to determine with certainty, and in some cases sources vary widely. The location of his birth is one particular point of contention. Although some sources hold that he was born in Multān, records do not indicate that his father visited Multān during the period in which Aḥmad is thought to have been born. Some consider the possibility that Aḥmad’s mother was sent to Multān to give birth, while others insist that Aḥmad was born in Herāt, of which his father was governor. The year of his birth is likewise uncertain; calculations based on allusions to his age in a number of historical sources suggest that he was born in 1722

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Ahmad-Shah-Durrani#

 

[Hamza913]

Well, even the source you yourself mentioned doesn't say what you are saying



Aḥmad Shāh Durrānī’s biographical details are difficult to determine with certainty, and in some cases sources vary widely. The location of his birth is one particular point of contention. Although some sources hold that he was born in Multān, records do not indicate that his father visited Multān during the period in which Aḥmad is thought to have been born. Some consider the possibility that Aḥmad’s mother was sent to Multān to give birth, while others insist that Aḥmad was born in Herāt, of which his father was governor. The year of his birth is likewise uncertain; calculations based on allusions to his age in a number of historical sources suggest that he was born in 1722

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Ahmad-Shah-Durrani#

He was raised in Multan, so it's likely he was born there over Herat in my opinion. Although I admit there are conflicting sources, the Multan one makes the most sense in my eyes.

Anyway, I don't think any source actually blatantly says he came from Herat. It's just deduced from timelines not matching and what not if I remember correctly.

Even if he didn't come from Multan, he's still a hero to the Pakhtuns, most of which live in Pakistan.