Talk:Qutb Shah

The political dispensation Herat at the time OF Mahmud Ghazni

This article states that Qutab Shah was the King of Herat at the time of Mahmud Ghazni but sources from the history of Herat state otherwise .
Here are the references from reliable and verifiable sources abut the political dispensation in Herat at the time of Ghazni:

Herāt was under the rule of King Nuh III of Samanid the seventh of the Samanid line—at the time of Sebük Tigin and his older son, Mahmud of Ghazni.

The governor of Herāt was a noble by the name of Faik, who governed on behalf of Nuh III. Faik was a powerful, but insubordinate governor of Nuh III; and had been punished by Nuh III. Faik made overtures to Bogra Khan and Ughar Khan of Khorasan. Bogra Khan answered Faik's call, came to Herāt and became its master. The Samanids fled, betrayed at the hands of Faik to whom the defence of Herāt had been entrusted by Nuh III.

In 994, Nuh III invited Alp Tigin to come to his aid. Alp Tigin, along with Mahmud of Ghazni, defeated Faik and annexed Herāt, Nishapur and Tous.

Intothefire (talk) 03:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Related Wikipages and External links to verifiable secondary sources from books

Here are some related pages to the information currently on this article related to Qutb Shah , his lineage and descendants , which may help in improving this page.
Wikipages

• Muhammad ibn al-Hanafiyyah
• Abd-Allah ibn Muhammad ibn al-Hanafiyyah
• Al-Mukhtar
• Kaysanites Shia : Kaysaniyya; Kaysanis Adherents of an early Shi‘i group originally led by al-Mukhtar (d. 687) who recognised Muhammad b. al-Hanafiyya (d. 322/934) as their Imam and mahdi.
• Kaysanite sub-sects Hashimiyya
• Bada
• The Occultation

Books

• History of civilization of Central Asia , Volume IV , The Age of achievement: A.D. 750 to the end of the fifteenth century By UNESCO. Page 45</ref>
• Shi'ism Second Edition , By Heinz Halm , The Hashimmiya and the revolt of Abdallah ibn Muawiya (744), PAGE 21
• The new encyclopedia of Islam By Cyril Glassé, Huston Smith
  

Intothefire (talk) 07:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Check

I really think this article needs to be checked for factual accuracy and for proper citations/source etc by some experts — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.54.68.70 (talk) 08:54, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me, but why are at least two (2) obviously indigenous Indian tribes/people/s, i.e. Khokhars and Chauhan Rajput s, listed as amongst the sons of this 'Qutb Shah'?! At lest, please try to keep to historical factual accuracy when talking about these things--even when referring to tribal traditions and 'genesis/origins tales' (often biased or fictional) please try to balance/ascertain with rational, objective points of view. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.54.68.70 (talk) 09:31, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I also dont understand the perplexing need to link up factually/historically diverse tribes and ethnic peoples, under some sort of common tribal 'umbrella' ?! This just isnt true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.54.68.70 (talk) 09:36, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

That non of your business. qutub shah's two son's name are on their mother maternal name. However, From Muhammad Zaman Ali Shah Khokhar some of his descendants opted Awan title and some opted Khokhar known as qutub shahi khokhar, khokhar awan, khokhar alvi. beside that their is no tribal issue discuss here. its about history related to qutub shah, his sons, descendants no issue with khokar rajput tribe. Even in awan official site (awans.com.pk)family tree and some of their authentic books continously mention Qutub Shahi Khokhar. then who are you to object. beside that khokhar page now remain neutral no origin mention about khokhar rajput nor qutub shahi khokhar origin mention. so buzz off from this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.32.179.91 (talk) 12:23, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

User:39.32.179.91 I am sorry, but I dont think your allowed to speak to any people, least of all people making helpful and constructive comments, like that, on Wikipedia. No one 'owns' any article/s here and informed, civilised discussion is the order of things, I hope you understand that please? I think there are some valid and genuine queries made by the anonymous editor above and I think it would be good to answer these rationally, please. Also, sites like the one you mention arent 'official' sites they are considered to be self-promoting peacock-type sites set up by people, to plume themselves on some real or imagined 'origins'. The topic is indeed a sensitive one. Sadly, there are no original or authentic books mentioning any Qutb Shah/Qutub Shah, he is simply a fictitious figure, not a real historical person. That much is agreed upon by all serious modern scholars and historians. Maybe, youd like to amend the statements herein in the light of this? I assume that you are writing in good faith but it would be good to qualify your statements and claims with detailed evidence from reliable secondary sources. ThanksAsadUK200 (talk) 14:19, 10 September 2014 (UTC)AsadUK200

Plagiarism from unreliable source

This article appears to be plagiarized from this book, "Martial races of undivided India", by Vidya Prakash Tyagi,[1]. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:27, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, parts of this are indeed plagiarized from the above book. Also, much of this page has nothing at all to do with the so-called 'Qutb Shah' and none of the sources ref to here or elsewhere in this rather dubious article , prove at all that any person/individual of this name ever existed at all. The mention of 'Faik' , a historical general/governor of Herat, also has nothing to do with Qutb Shah and is irrelevant to the article. I frankly feel it is just a fake creation of some person or person/s, who wish to link certain origins to the Awan (tribe) and the Khokhar tribe- both of which are probably of indigenous Indo-Aryan origins. I would strongly suggest some reliable neutral editor/s should take a look at these articles and this one, and Id suggest they delete this particular one. Thanks 39.54.47.194 (talk) 15:18, 13 July 2014 (UTC)Col (ret) Malik Mumtaz Khan,Pakistan

Some people have also added references from unreliable and dubious sources, now, and these references are (a) either self-published ones by people who are not serious scholars or authorities but just out to promote themselves and (b) there is mention of a fictitious 'ancient book' that in fact doeasnt really exist but has been just made up by these self-promoters to try to draw or manufacture some false 'historical ' sources to suit themselves and show they are somehow connected to this person/subject of this article, whereas they are supposedly linked to one Qutab Shah who was a different person altogether. I am, thus, removing this fake material, and I am sincerely advising all editors to please maintain the highest academic integrity and levels of truth in referencing, and please try to follow the Wikipedia standards and regulations, thanks. 39.54.25.217 (talk) 14:45, 26 February 2015 (UTC)Col (r) Malik Mumtaz Khan , Pakistan

Repeated problems

Im sorry but this article is facing repeated problems--some person or persons keep on re adding fake and false information and changing this into an article about some other Qutab Shah a supposed ancestor of some Pakistani tribes (please see my note above)-- what am I supposed to do? I am leaving a not requesting one such person to please desist from this and I hope something will come out of this. What other recourse is there please? Any senior and impartial editors willing to take a look at this issue and kindly fix it? I need help thanks. 39.54.243.123 (talk) 05:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)Col (r) Malik Mumtaz Khan, Pakistan

I have reported user:101el capitan for edit warring. It would be best to refrain from anymore reverting until a decision comes down concerning user:101el capitan.

As for the article. I have only found small mentions in passing about Qutb Shah and clearly not enough to justify an article. Perhaps a request for comment to garner more sources would be in order. --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:36, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you sir, I will check for more references and request also. In case there's a problem then it might be a good idea to merge this with some other larger article on Sufism in South Asia, I feel . 39.54.226.104 (talk) 01:15, 28 February 2015 (UTC)Col (r) Malik Mumtaz Khan

I would suggest 101el capitan bring their concerns to the talk page. Returning to edit warring after coming off a block will not help their cause. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:46, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I am once again removing fake material- this Qutb Shah has nothing to do with the Awan tribe and other Punjabi tribes in Pakistan, who are supposedly (according to tribal legend) descended from another 'Qutab Shah'. Please see my repeated comments above. Thanks 39.54.0.160 (talk) 18:35, 30 March 2016 (UTC)Col (r) Malik Mumtaz Khan

Kansas Bear, hello, please refer to our previous discussion in this same regard above. Once again, someone has changed this article and tried to switch this real, historical Sufi person with a fictitious character, the supposed 'ancestor' of several indigenous Pakistani tribes in Northern Punjab. What to do? Im changing /fixing this again but its a sad thing, fixing this again and again. I dont want to start any sort of edit war but I would really appreciate some sort of check to help out, to keep this article safe from these repeated edits. I am trying hard to assume good faith edits, here, now, again and again. I'd very much request your help thanks. 39.54.69.145 (talk) 16:07, 5 September 2017 (UTC) Col (r) Malik Mumtaz Khan, Pakistan

Would it be any good to suggest that a separate article be created on the fictitious Qutab Shah and these good people guided there , to discuss their family pedigrees? 39.54.69.145 (talk) 16:10, 5 September 2017 (UTC)Col (r) Malik Mumtaz Khan

remove false information

awan has nothing to do with qutab shah, it is totally a false story, and Mahmud of Ghazni born on 2 November 971 and died on 30 April 1030, qutab shah born 1028 and died 1099.. The awan what they claim 11 centuries ? Awan never been joined forces with Mahmud Of Ghazni , Awan is local Hindu Region people's.. they have false calim , They have nothing to do with Arab people, they are from the local Hindu Jat people, after converting to Islam they used Islamic names, Qutab Shah's family is a totally different family, They have nothing to do with Qutab Shah, please study well to improve and avoid false information..🙏 KhanKhelYousafzai (talk) 11:42, 19 June 2022 (UTC)