Talk:Ali Mohammed Khan

To this guy below me, you are clearly mistaken, AMK was from Bangash tribe. Just search google books.. There is no point in fixing the page since people keep changing it. https://books.google.com/books?id=MMFdosx0PokC&pg=PA322&lpg=PA322&dq=nawab+ali+muhammad+khan+Bangash&source=bl&ots=gyhs46CYBr&sig=q_sS5jZeDGj6zrc2ZOO7pv2EGog&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCEQ6AEwAjgKahUKEwjkhIqz-svIAhXImYAKHeUWCyM#v=onepage&q=nawab%20ali%20muhammad%20khan%20Bangash&f=false

- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeeshan haider000 (talk • contribs) 11:58, 18 October 2015 (UTC) Mohammad khan bangash was different person, he was founder of farrukhabad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jawwad khan marwat (talk • contribs) 07:42, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Muhammad Khan Bangash was born in 1665 and was a Mughal noble. Ali Muhammad Khan was a Rohilla, not Bangash and he was born in 1706 AD. The former founded Rohilkhand, the latter state of Farrukhabad.

Nawab Ali Mohammad Khan was Jat not so called ahir
Please work on this issue some anonymous user change his family background @Sutyarashihi men, can sort this out Truthfindervert (talk) 08:05, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Origin
Multiple historians explicitly mention that the subject was a Jat. But not a single historian mentions that the subject was an Ahir: a couple of them are simply summarising the primary sources without stating whether he was a Jat or an Ahir. So unless a historian actually states that he was an Ahir or was born in an Ahir family, we cannot make that claim by ourselves. In short, if one wants to add that claim, please find a source by a historian which states that he was an Ahir. - NitinMlk (talk) 22:17, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * User:NitinMlk,
 * "There is a good deal of controversy over the origin of Ali Mohammad Khan. According to Ghulam Ali he either belonged to a Jat family or a Saiyyed family. Imad-us Saadat, Nawal Kishore, 40 ; Ghulam Husain says that Ali Mohammad was the son of an Ahir. Siyar-ul Mutakhirin, N.K. P. 853 ; Shiv Prasad holds that he was the son of Daud Khan Rohilla. Tarikh-i Farah Bakhsh, Aligarh, MS. f. 12 b ; Allah Yar Bilgirami says that Ali Mohammad Khan was a Rajput. Hadiqat-ul-Aqalim, N.K. p. 139. Also see Maasir-ul Umara, II, 841 . Another source to add for summary of primary sources. Chariotrider555 (talk) 00:01, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * , can you please wait for 2-3 days? I am a bit busy in real life. But I will add these claims most probably on Sunday using better sources, as the source provided by you is a conference paper that has never been cited by anyone. - NitinMlk (talk) 19:19, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * , two decades afer writing the conference paper that you cited here, Iqbal Husain authored a scholalry source which contains his latest opinion. So I will add his opinion in the footnote. The only clear claim that Husain makes is that Khan was not an Afghan. Note that the detailed footnote provided in his book shows that the Ahir/Rajput claim is self-contradictory and that the Sayyid claim was actually rejected by the same Maulvi who made that claim in the 20th century. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:00, 21 January 2024 (UTC)