User talk:AfgCric

AfgCric, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi AfgCric! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Worm That Turned (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:01, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Mirwais Hotak 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)[reply]

@Kailanmapper: 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@Kailanmapper: 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@Kailanmapper: Copying this discussion and continuing on the Mirwais talk page. AfgCric (talk) 13:40, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alright then, see you there. Kailanmapper (talk) 13:56, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]