Talk:Abdullah Shah Ghazi

Merger proposal
I propose that Abdullah Shah Ghazi Mausoleum be merged into this page. I think that the content in the Abdullah Shah Ghazi Mausoleum article can easily be explained in the context of Abdullah Shah Ghazi Article, and merging will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. Nannadeem (talk) 20:22, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Untitled
Can i know Siddiqui sahab, as to why are you so bent upon proving Abdullah Shah Ghazi as an Umayyad general, when it is rediculous to even propose something of that sort, considering the fact that Abdullah Shah Ghazi was a Syed, or the progeny of the Prophet and niether Sunni nor Shia nor universal Islamic history in any point of time has ever tried to conjoin the two clans Banu Hashim and Banu Umayya as being even courteous to the other, from Badar to Ohad to Siffeen to Jamal to Karbala and whatever happened after that, these are two clans which have been bitter rivals before and after the dawn of Islam. It is hence in my opinion, absurd to try and prove this just because some Mr. Daud Pota says so... if he one fine day says that Lal Shahbaz Qalandar of Sehwan fame is an Umayyad general, i wouldnt give it a second thought.

Also i wonder why of these two gentlemen, Abdulla bin Nahban and Badil bin Tuhfa, firstly none has ever been heard of either of them, and secondly, why is there not even a grave of the second general Badil bin Tuhfa anywhere known, and lastly, as to what deeds of this Umayyad general made him so holy and saintly, that he became such a pious saint of Karachi. Also, then what about the so many people (other than Daud Pota) who say he's from the linage of Imam Hasan and the fact that 90% of the people who revere him more are the ones who are the partisans of Ali ibne Abi Talib.

Please clarify these few points and i wont change the Pota version again and again, after all we're grown ups and should act like them instead of changing each others edit every day. Wasalam...

Can Abdullah Shah Ghazi be called a Sufi?
I visited his shrine in Karachi some weeks ago and everybody told me he was a famous Sufi. Maybe someone could add this aspect to the article (if true)... Roland ro 14:53, 23. Aug 2007 (CEST)

Actually Hazrat Abdullah Shah Ghazi R.A. is saint of saints and center of spiritual power in this region specially. He is Taba'e e Rasool sallal la ho alaihe wassallam which hold a better position in Sufi hierarchy. He is Hasni Hussaini Syed and direct descendent of Hazrat Ali R.A. and Prophet Muhammad sallal la ho alaihe wassallam. He was born in 98 Hijri. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.228.156.241 (talk) 18:19, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Distortion of History
Wow. I'm amazed at the gall and shamelessness with which the gentleman has distorted history. Abdullah Shah Ghazi and his family were victims of the Umayyads, not their foot soldiers. Many of his family members, including himself were persecuted and killed off by the Umayyads.

How do we dispute a fake article in wikipedia?

Zakireza (talk) 12:54, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Fake
THE SECOND VERSION IS FAKE...HOW IT IS POSSIBLE a MAN BORN on 720 A.H. and then Fight in 721 A.H...Actullay Abdullah Shah Ghazi is also MARTYED by UMMYAD Dynsty....Because he was SON of Muhammad al-Nafs al-Zakiyya who is Strongly Againset UMMYAD....and UMMYAD Kill him ..

Above comment made by in the article text and was moved here

The history of locating Abdullah Shah Ghazi Mausoleum is fake that does not match geographical and tectonic facts.
Our earth consist on Tectonic plates. The subcontinent of India and Pakistan is located on the West-northern part of Indo-Australian Tectonic plate which is moving north word about 4 centimeter per year and raising the West and North of subcontinent about 4 centimeter as well. as such the coastal line of Karachi is continuously retrieving away about 2 kilometer per century (100 year). It can be witnessed by the old Clifton pavement end that was situated in sea water in 1950s and now the coast is away above one kilome ter from that stone pavement. According to the plat tectonic movement the Himalayan mountains are still rising due to tectonic folding emerging by Euro-Asian and Indo-Australian tectonic plate collision. The serial earthquakes in the North-West part of subcontinent are of this Tectonic Plats movement and tsunami of Indian Ocean is also an example of that Tectonic Plat movement. The Land of southern coastal part of Pakistan is moving about 4 meter north word from the equator per century (100 years) and rising 4 meter per century as well. Calculation of land rising of the coastal area of Karachi above 50 meters for about 1300 years that means before 1300 years the land of the Clifton was about 100 to 150 feet below the water. How it be possible that the Mausoleum was built below 100 feet under water in AD 700s.

Some misrepresented historical info
Hello. This article has some misrepresented or wrong historical information which I have removed. First of all, whatever his provenance, Abdullah Shah was probably a person of Arab origins, or part-Arab origins who was living in the area of Sindh, then in medieval India, circa 750-760 CE. But the first Arab invasion of Sindh, led by the youthful general Muhammad ibn Qasim, had been in 711-713 CE; and this same Muhammad ibn Qasim had already died in 715 CE, at a very young age. So, it is totally unbelievable that he might have 'killed' Abdullah Shah more than 30 or 40 years after his own death. Secondly, as every history book will tell you clearly, Muhammad ibn Qasim did not attack Sindh, in India, to 'finish off' the descendants of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) but he attacked the city of Deebal, along the Sindh coast, after the Raja/ruler Dahir, refused to free some Muslim prisoners held by him. After defeating Dahir, ibn Qasim found the rest of Sindh an easy target and kept on advancing, until he was recalled by his father-in-law and Governor of Kufa (in Iraq) and tortured to death. I really do think that people writing any Wikipedia articles should be aware of basic historical facts, at least, and should not indulge in flights of fancy. Thank you. 39.54.46.187 (talk) 17:09, 23 May 2016 (UTC)Col (r) Mumtaz Ali Khan, Pakistan.


 * Who were Muslim prisoners? History also speaks about refugees including descendants. Besides am not talking about any killing, period and geography. Nannadeem (talk) 19:08, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Template
This article needs a template. 39.50.189.74 (talk) 06:01, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Life in Sindh
Around the year 761 AD, Muhammad Nafs al-Zakiyah sailed from Aden to Sind where they consulted with the governor, Umar ibn Hafs Hazarmard before returning to Kufah and Medina. His son Abdullah al-Ashtar, also known as Abdullah Shah Ghazi, married a woman from Sindh and had children by her. According to Tabari, Sindh was selected since its governor, Umar ibn Hafs, supported Muhammad's claim to the Imamate. Ibn Khaldun and Ibn al-Athir say that the governor had Shi'ite inclinations. Once they decided enough support had been amassed to revolt successfully (762 AD), Muhammad went to Medina, and Abdullah al-Ashtar stayed in Sind. Abdullah al-Ashtar was accompanied by a number of troops belonging to the Shi'ite sect of Zaydiyah, who at the time were active supporters of Ahlulbayt, willing to take a militant stance in pursuit of the Imamate. Shortly thereafter, however, Umar received word from his wife in Basrah that Muhammad Nafs Al-Zakiyah had been killed in Medina (14 Ramadan 145/6 December 762). In consequence, Umar felt that their presence in the capital compromised his position as governor. Unwilling to take any definite action either for or against them, he summoned Abdullah al-Ashtar and suggested:

"I have an idea: one of the princes of Sindh has a mighty kingdom with numerous supporters. Despite his polytheism, he greatly honors [the family of] the Prophet. He is a reliable man. I will write him and conclude an agreement between the two of you. You can then go to him, stay there, and you will not desire anything better" .

Abdullah al-Ashtar went to that area spent Some years there, probably from 762 AD to 769 AD. Eventually hearing of their presence in Sindh, the caliph al-Mansur replaced Umar ibn Hafs with Hisham ibn Amr al-Taghlibi on the understanding that he seize Abdullah al-Ashtar, kill or otherwise disperse the Zaydiyah, and annex the non-Muslim region. When Hisham, after reaching Sind, also proved loath to undertake the task, his brother Sufayh (later a governor of Sindh) did it for him, killing Abdullah along with many of his companions.

Dr. Hamza Ebrahim (talk) 18:15, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Tomb built by
. 111.119.183.3 (talk) 15:45, 1 January 2023 (UTC)