Talk:Abdullah Shah Ghazi

message: 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)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Can Abdullah Shah Ghazi be called a Sufi? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Distortion of History 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Some misrepresented historical info

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

message: 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 inclinationsIbn Khaldûn (3:422); Ibn al Athîr (Kâmil, 5:595).. 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"Tabari, 3: 361; Ibn al-Athîr (Kâmi1, 5: 596); Ibn Khaldûn (3:422)..
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 companionsTabarî (3:363) and Ibn al-Athîr (Kamil, 5:597) both read the name as Safannaj, but the proper form is Sufayh as recorded in another context by ,Ibn Khayyat (Ta'rikh,1:473).As cited in: Derryl N. Maclean, Religion and Society in Arab Sind, pp. 127–130, BRILL, (1989)..
Dr. Hamza Ebrahim (talk) 18:15, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Life in Sindh

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