Talk:Mirwais Hotak

Move page ?
I am proposing to move this page to Mir Wais Hotak, as Khan is a title, and as modern references to him use Mir Wais rather than Mirwais. Is there any objection? --Bejnar 16:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree and there is no objections, proceed, however refer to him as "Mirwais Hotak" rather than "Mir wais Hotak" Pashtunfacts (talk) 15:59, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Hotaki dynasty origin and ethnicity
The RFC on the origin and ethnicity of Mirwais Khan Hotak and the Hotaki dynasty are being conducted on the Hotaki dynasty talk page, as that is where a lot of the discussion of this issue has appeared. --Bejnar 16:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Modern scholarly sources
You shouldn't remove the Persian Cromwell, which is the only first hand account of Mirwais. It is a primary source and you have replaced with secondary sources of British Empire historians. Mirwais being a Ghilji Pashtun is a big lie like Putta Khazana. Mirwais's lineage is well documented in Indian (Mughul), European and even some Iranian archives. Mirwais was a Turk (Tatar and Uzbek). It is not Putta Khazana times that information remain hidden anymore. I have edited the page suppling some modern scholarly sources for the questioned facts. The citation to the 1725 British work of fiction, Persian Cromwell, has been removed. --Bejnar 18:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Elphinstone
Mirwais being a Ghilji Pashtun is bogus like Putta Khazana. It is well documented in Indian (Mughul), European and even a few Iranian archives that Mirwais was a Turk (Tatar and Uzbek). The Swedish Officer gives by far the most comprehensive account of Mirwais's time and clime in his biography.

The cite to Elphinstone (Mountstuart Elphinstone's An account of the kingdom of Caubul and its dependencies in Tartary and India (1815)) for the premise that Mirwais was a Tatar is completely bogus. --Bejnar 06:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Raoulduke47 said: "However, I have read through this book (available on Google books:  ) and found nothing that might confirm Mirwais' supposed Tatar ethnicity. On the contrary, Elphinstone persistently refers to "Ghilzai kings"(that he writes "Ghiljie"):


 * Page 435-436: "The Ghiljies were in former times by far the most celebrated of the Afghauns. In the beginning of the last century this tribe alone conquered all Persia and routed the armies of the Ottoman Porte: after a hard struggle, the third Ghiljie king of Persia was expelled by Nadir Shah."
 * page 541: "In 1708, the Ghiljies rose against the Georgian Prince Bagrathion..." "

When Elphinston visited Afghanistan he spoke and wrote about a PASHTUNIZED tribe that he count to the Ghiljis who are originally also turks. All non-indo-aryan tribes of Afghan society are part of this tribe..why?? --88.68.197.81 12:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC) Balboa
 * That is not what Elphinstone says in his book. --Bejnar 16:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Than you should provide yourself the correct book that says that...or do you just hided that information?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.59.122.201 (talk) 14:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what you are suggesting. Raoulduke47 put it clearly:
 * The proponents of Mirwais' supposed Tatar ethnicity seem to have latched -rather irrationally- onto Elphinstone's statement that the Hotakis belong to the "family of Toraun" which, according to them, should be written "Turan", meaning Turkish (this is not clear: Turan is a word of Iranian origin). This is not at all convincing. If Elphinstone had wanted to say the Hotakis were Turks, or had Turkish origins, then he would have said it outright, not used an ambiguous circumlocution like "family of Toraun". Quite on the contrary, from reading the whole paragraph, the evidence is that the Hotakis were Ghilzais, and that "family of Toraun" is simply an indication of lineage, not of ethnicity.
 * More importantly, Elphinstone's An account of the kingdom of Caubul is primarily a geographical study, and provides no evidence that Mirwais was a Tatar, as he is not mentioned even once in the entire book. Raoulduke47 19:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Because in Persian Turan is still used and is a sononym for Turks. Kandahar was during his reign like Kabul, Herat, Balkh,Ghazni and many other cities and provinces a persian speaking region. The majority spoke Persian liek they do it still today. Kandahar self was a multi-cultural area where Persians, Arabs, Usbeks, Tatars, Afghans and even Mongols like the Arghuns lived. The language of trde and economy was Persian not just because of the persian governeur there ...Gurgin Khan. If you inform yourself we still use the term Turan for turks in Persia beside tork. And that is why Elphinston used it too ...so it´s not a chance. In south-eastern Peshawar there is a region called Turan-Shar. Maybe because of the Turki-Shahis and their descends that still live there. Again: Turan is a Persian word and a sononym for Turks since ancient times--88.68.223.93 19:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Elphinstone was not a Persian, please see his actual use of terms. --Bejnar 20:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * who said he was a Persian??? Don´t fool Wiki, turke khar--88.68.221.165 14:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 88.68.223.93 said that Turan was a Persian word. That is not the word that Elphinstone used.  We know that Elphinstone used Turkic when he meant Turkic. --Bejnar (talk) 00:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

he didn´t used turk in his books. Why are you lying?? --88.68.213.103 (talk) 14:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * See, The History of India by Mountstuart Elphinstone p.347 "The Turks had not come into Ghazui as conquerors. Numbers of Turkish slaves had been brought into souther countries after the conquest of Transoxiana ..." for example. --Bejnar (talk) 17:19, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Copyright violation - deleted material
The material correctly deleted by KnowledgeOfSelf as a potential violation of copyright, should be mined for appropriate information, if it can be collaborated from a reliable source. It can be viewed at link or link. --Bejnar 20:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Early life
This material is contentious. The 21 May version of early life read:
 * Mirwais Hotak was born in a well-known, rich and political family in the Kandahar area. His family had long been involved in social and community services. He was the son of Alem Khan and Nazo Tokhi (also known as "Nazo Anaa"), grandson of Karum Khan, and great-grandson of Ismail Khan, a descendant of Malikyar, the ancient head of Hottaki or Hotaks. The Hottaki is a strong branch of Ghilzai, one of the main tribes among the Pashtun people. Hajji Amanullah Hottak reports in his book that the Ghilzai tribe is the original residents of Ghor or Gherj. This tribe migrated later to obtain lands in southeastern Afghanistan and multiplied in these areas.ref name="bw" Mirwais was married to Khanzada Sadozai, who belonged to the rival Abdali tribe of Pashtuns.

with one citation. The 29 May version by IP editor 160.39.240.120 was altered and expanded to two paragraphsread:
 * Mirwais was born in a well-known and politically connected family in Kandahar area to a Tatar father and Uzbek mother. He was the son of Emir Baqir Mohammad and Guni (also known as "Nazo" meaning infertile in Persian as Mirwais's birth ended the rumors that Guni was 'Nazo' or infertile). Mirwais's father, Emir Baqir Mohammad was originally the Chief Khan in Bukhara and his mother Guni was the daughter of an influential Khan from Balkh. Before Mirwais was born, his family moved from Bukhara to Balkh and then to Kandahar after his father defeated the Persian garrison and captured the city. According to his only biographer, the Swedish Officer, before his birth, Mirwais's mother had a dream that an eagle flew out of her lap, who flew very high in the air, and the higher the eagle flew, the greater he grew till at last "he shaded with his wings all Persia and a part of India."


 * Mirwais was educated with his parents utmost care. By the age of eight, Mirwais was already fluent in Persian and Arabic. Mirwais's circumcision ceremony is well documented as his father held a grand feast and invited ambassadors from the Great Mughal's Court, the Kingdom of Persia and other nearby foreign nations. At the end of the ceremony, Emir Mohammad Baqir declared his son's name as 'Mohammad Mirwais'. At the age of 15, Mirwais was well versed in all the necessary sciences and was sent for further education to the Great Mughal's Court by his father, whom the Great Mughal considered as his vassal in Kandahar. He was received with honor by the Sultan of Agra. There Mirwais got acquainted with the Great Mughal, who afforded him a "very favorable" reception. Mirwais frequented the court every day from then on until he fell in love and got married with the grand daughter of Shah Alam, Roshanara Begum and returned to Kandahar

with no citation.
 * Try to work out the differences here by discussion on the talk page and do not restore the /* Early life */ section until there is consensus and at least two citations to reliable sources. --Bejnar (talk) 22:24, 29 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Please note that: The Persian Cromwell: Being An Account of the Life and Surprizing Atchievements and Successes of Miri-Ways, Great Duke of Candahar and Protector of the Persian Empire. Written by a Swedish Officer who, for many Years, was Domestick Slave to Miri-Ways. London: Printed for W. Mears and J. Roberts, 1724. is a work of fiction, --Bejnar (talk) 22:31, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

What happened to the early life section and why was it deleted? I believe it should be re-added in. Akmal94 (talk) 07:06, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:38, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * MIRWAIS HOTAK.png

Mirwais Hotak's name
Ok User: AfgCric, we shouldn't be edit warring. I should have taken this to the talk page instead of doing this. But anyway, I don't think you should have removed my edit saying Mirwais ibn Shah Alam Hotaki was his full name. As I have already adressed, Arab names are common in the muslim world so ibn isn't necessarily unusual. Different sources also give different names for people so it wasn't an incorrect version of his name. However, initially I had put Mirwais ibn Shah Alam Hotaki at the front of the page, and I admit I shouldn't have done it and just used the more common name Mirwais Hotak/Hotaki. Mirwais ibn Shah Alam Hotaki should have been left into the textbox for Mirwais Hotak instead of being put at the front of the page. I don't want to keep arguing with you so let me know if you disagree with my conclusion. Kailanmapper (talk) 00:41, 26 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for bringing this to the talk page, and I agree, this is where we should have started. Well, not here, but the Mirwais Hotak talk page. But nevermind that.


 * I still disagree with your conclusion. You will not find a single Afghan (Persian or Pashto) source that will refer to him using Ibn Shah Alam. Additionally, 99.9% of the english sources do not refer to him using Ibn Shah Alam either. The english sources use a mix of Mirwais Khan, Mir Wais Khan, Mirwais Hotak, Mirwais Hotaki, Mir Wais Khan Hotak etc. You are giving undue weight to this singular source. That version of his name does not need to be included anywhere on this page.


 * And just in general, using the Arabic naming structure doesn't make sense in this case as no one in the region uses it. Give me an honest answer, would it make sense to refer to Mohammad Reza Pahlavi as Mohammad ibn Reza Khan Pahlavi? Using your logic, Arab names are common in the Muslim world, which includes Iran, so using Ibn in this case isn't necessarily unusual, right? AfgCric (talk) 01:23, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Hey there, glad we could agree that we escalated the situation and I did make a blunder and should have taken it to the Mirwais Hotak talk page. Anyways about what you said. I cannot confirm or deny whether any Afghan sources mention him as Mirwais ibn Shah Alam but I can infer that they do because Lockhart called him ibn Shah Alam. Additionally a persian chronicler who produced the Majma' al Tawarikh ( a major source on Iranian history at this time) calls Mirwais by the Arab name of Uwais (see this screenshot for more: https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/736324802557640826/869036010418360320/20210725_214721.jpg), meaning that it wouldn't be an uncommon feature to arabify names of individuals. I agree that most english sources call him Mirwais Hotak or one of the minor variants of that name. However, this one is more unique and not a minor variant of Mirwais's name. It would make more sense to include that especially given that the rebellion was heavily influenced by religion (the georgians were nominally shiite, the populace was sunni and the georgians frequently shamed sunni islam and their leader partied on the anniversary of caliph umar's assassination by a persian slave according to the book persia in crisis: safavid decline and the fall of isfahan if i remember correctly. Also Mirwais literally went to mecca to recieve a fatwa that would enable the sunni afghans to free themselves from the heretic persians). It wouldn't make sense to call Mohammad Reza Pahlavi Mohammad ibn Reza Pahlavi but for different reasons. The Pahlavis weren't connected to Islam as much as other dynasties of Iran. They were autocratic secularists and frequently cracked down on the power of Islam and Islamism in the country. Reza Khan Pahlavi was an atheist and although Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was more lenient with Islam, he still found more influence in the pre-Islamic dynasties of Iran like the Achaemenids and Sassanids (the pahlavi royal crown was shaped after a pre-islamic crown of persian dynasties). In the Islamic dynasties of Persia bin and ibn were frequently used. In fact, while writing the article Revolt of Hasan Khan Salar and looking through sources on the topic, I was surprised how many times bin was included in the names of Qajar generals and tribesmen. The Qajars used it, the Ottomans used it (if you would check some articles on Ottoman sultans), etc. I don't think here would be any different. As this pdf (https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1081&context=rtd) states, "Arabic and Islam are so much tangled together that it is impossible to deal with one without dealing with the other." Arabic names have been used for centuries to enhance a ruler's Islamic prestiege (If I remember correctly this was common among the Muhammadzais that ruled the Emirate of Afghanistan. This article (https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2006/07/abu-ibn-and-bin-oh-my.html) also states: "Bin and ibn are more likely to show up in places with strong connections to tribal culture" and since the Hotaks were largely a tribal dynasty and had barely any idea of how to properly administrate the country (as illustrated in the tadhkhirt ul-muluk, https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.227105/) it would again make somewhat sense. Maybe bin would be more famiiliar, Mirwais bin Shah Alam Hotak, but either way it would not be unusual by any means. (edit: ibn/bin means son of in arabic, so this would make sense for a full name. Additionally, https://www.royalark.net/Persia/ghilzai2.htm shows that Mirwais's father was indeed Shah Alam Khan although the site isnt the most reliable of sources) Kailanmapper (talk) 02:27, 26 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Do you see how much of a reach the above is? Let me point out a few things


 * No, you can't infer that just because a western scholar like Lockhart used "ibn Shah Alam" that therefore some Afghan sources might have done the same
 * Just because a source refers to him by the "Arab name" of Uwais doesn't really mean anything in this case. A name is not the same thing as nasab
 * Look how the requirements have changed. Initially the reason was that it's ok to use "ibn" because of Islamic and Arab influences. But now on top of that we have to determine how religious they were in order for it to make sense to use it. You are deeming Mirwais and his empire to be more religious, therefore using "ibn" makes sense but Shah Reza and his kingdom were not that steeped in religion so we can't use "ibn". Do you see how this can be a problem?
 * Even if the Qajars used it, what does that have to do with using "ibn" in the case of Mirwais or in Afghanistan?
 * Arabic and Islam are tangled together, that is for sure. Arabic names are very common in Afghanistan, no one is arguing against that. But you are equating Arabic names with Arabic nasab, and those are very different. Yes the Barakzais basically all had Arabic names, but can you show me one person who refers to Amanuallah Khan as Amanullah ibn Habibullah ibn Abdur Rahman Khan? You can't because no one uses this nomenclature in Afghanistan.
 * You misunderstood the Slate article and quote you shared. Yes, ibn/bin are used commonly in places with strong tribal culture and connections. But the article is talking about tribal culture in the Arab world not tribal culture in all of the world. That is why the author uses Saudi and North African examples, because those are part of the Arab world. AfgCric (talk) 03:58, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

I can infer that he was called ibn Shah Alam in an Afghan source for an obvious reason. Lockhart used mainly Persian sources and I find it highly unlikely that a European primary source would call him ibn Shah Alam. Yes, a name isn't the same thing as a nasab, I made a blunder there. The requirements actually didn't change. Note I said that Arabic and Islam are tangled together and talked about arabic influence on the muslim world. The Pahlavis were cutting out Islam and by extension Arabic influence in favor of reviving the Persian (specifically pre-Islamic) aspect of Iran so it would not make sense in that context. I don't understand how you don't get that. This is true especially given that the Pahlavis were Iranian nationalists in an era of nationalism and secularism, so arabic and islamic influence would have been cut out. Yes Arabic names are commmon in Afghanistan, glad we could agree with that. But again you're making an incorrect comparison again. Although not as secular as the Pahlavis, Amanuallah Khan was in the end still a secular ruler who wanted to reform Afghanistan along Western lines. He had many religious reforms that alienated the clergy and tribesmen which caused his overthrow. It wouldn't make sense to refer to him with the nasab bin for that reason, going back to what I said earlier. I have seen multiple examples of bin being used in historical Afghan texts. For example, Mohamed Yusuf (a Iranian of Durrani ancestry) in his "A History of Afghanistan: From 1793 A.D. to 1865 A.D." refers to Shah Shuja as Shuja' al-Mulk bin Timur Shah on page 73. He also refers to the sons of Timur Shah Durrani with the nasab bin. (https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/736324802557640826/869207671436349470/20210726_091858.jpg) There are countless more examples of bin being used in the full names of individuals. Common people in Afghanistan don't use it (and they probably don't use it in this modern day and age), but Islamic rulers of Afghanistan in the past have used this nasab in their full names as mentioned in texts. I probably made a mistake when explaining that article though as it was just referring to the Arab world. Kailanmapper (talk) 13:26, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Everything above this was copied from my talk page to here as this is the proper place to be having this discussion


 * Looks like we aren't getting anywhere with this. The point here is that we need to use his common name. If you'd like to add anything more to that in the infobox, then it should be a widely used version of his name. Again, you keep pointing me to Iranian sources referring to people in Afghanistan as such. We do not have a single Afghan source that refers to any king in such a manner, regardless of how religious or not they were. From Ahmad Shah Durrani to Amanullah Khan, from whoever you think was the most religious to whoever you think was the most secular, the same thing applies. No one in the country uses this naming format. You say that common people do not use the nasab but Islamic rulers of Afghanistan in the past have used it. That is not correct. What you have shown is that a very small number of Persian sources from the past have used it when referring to Afghan leaders. You have not shown an Afghan king referring to himself as such in his own writing. You have not shown Afghan historians and authors referring to their kings as such. You have not shown common people referring to the kings as such. You have not shown that this is common language or something that is commonly used in the region. Both the official languages of the country (Persian and Pashto) do not use this type of naming format. All you have shown is a couple of Persian sources referring to them using nasab. You are giving undue WP:WEIGHT to these sources.


 * Since we cannot find agreement here, let's see what the other editors think. I'm thinking if we don't get any input in a week or so, maybe we can tag the last 10 or so editors and see if they can chime in here. AfgCric (talk) 13:56, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

You're right, I will avoid countering your claims for the moment until someone intervenes. Kailanmapper (talk) 21:05, 26 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I am ok with whatever gets decided as I do not know which is more correct. I just did a fairly extensive copy-edit but I am pretty sure nothing I did affected his name. Or if I did, see above, I am ok with consensus Elinruby (talk)

In the article "Relations between the Center and the Periphery in Safavid Iran: The Western Borderlands v. the Eastern Frontier Zone", Mirwais is referred to as Mir Weys bin Shah 'Alam. It seems as though that being Mirwais's full name is correct. Kailanmapper (talk) 21:24, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Article
I hate to say it, but this articles relies too much on a outdated source from 1878 (WP:AGE MATTERS) by person who is not even an academic historian, and seems more reminiscent of a primary source. The name of "Afghanistan" did not have a state designation during this period, and its extent and location often fluctated (per the last cited source). Mirwais Hotak did not use the titles of "Emir" or "Shah" either. WP:RS do not refer to the Hotaki dynasty an "empire" either.

Some WP:RS which can be used to improve the article:

--HistoryofIran (talk) 11:50, 15 June 2022 (UTC)


 * @HistoryofIran Hey, now that I have finished Dost Mohammad Khan, I will likely begin working to revamp Mirwais's page again as I did this when I was fairly new to Wikipedia. I will take into account your sources and some other ones as you have probably seen that I used before. Just letting you know. Also might work on Ahmad Shah Durrani. Noorullah (talk) 05:05, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:52, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Mirwais Khan Baba.png