I'm not going to argue that the Mafia is a state! But I think the Taliban satisfies the primary condition for statehood: possessing a monopoly on violence over a physical territory. Being a general menace to the population within that territory is just icing on the cake. The Italian Mafia might be extraordinarily effective in parts of Italy, but I don't think even they have the monopoly on violence: the Italian police are free to saunter in and arrest anybody not involved in their particular flavor of organized crime.
And, FTR, I don't believe that all states are themselves unethical. What I've said is that ethicality is neither necessary nor sufficient for statehood, at least in the "classic" Western political theory definition of the state.
Hm. Monopoly on violence in the political sense doesn't mean being the unchallenged masters of the territory - it means that people in that territory can't do violence to each other, or in this context engage in tribal or clan conflict, because the settlement of disputes and the application of law is the remit solely of the governing power. I don't think that's ever been the case in Afghanistan, i.e. even the Afghan state ain't much of a state.
A movement is a permanent revolution. A revolution is not a state, nor is it a form of government. It can eventually settle and become a state, while still calling itself a revolution, as the Cuban revolution or Iranian revolution unfortunately did, but that only happens when it crystalizes into a non-revolutionary and stable form, having eliminated all internal enemies. Some movements never crystalize and require permanent enemies (Nazism, Stalinism). These resemble dictatorships and clothe themselves in state functions, but they do not demolish the basic structural aspects of the state. They keep them for appearances. What's left of the state itself operates below the movement and seeks whatever level of normalcy is possible through bureaucracy, just as the movement seeks legitimacy by cloaking itself with the state. i.e. the German state was a hostage of the Nazis. Some plain old despotisms even seek to impersonate revolutions (Gaddafi's little green book, the Kim family mafia). But the Taliban is much closer to the Khmer Rouge, or ISIS. Controlling the economic output of a territory doesn't make a movement a state, much as they may wish it so. At most, the Taliban are a mafia dressed up as a totalitarian movement which controls territory. When they controlled 90% of Afghanistan, there was no Afghan state.