Talk:Khokhar

Origin

I have come across some sources that claim, similar to the Awan, Khokhar (Muhammad Shah) to be one of the sons of qutab Shah and a truce reached between the invading forces with a local Rajput raja by marrying his daughter to Qutab Shah's son; Khokhar. Hence the Khokhar Rajput title, some people claim the confusion of origin to be to be caused by different Rajput/Jat tribes which are geographically related, such as the Khokharan and the khakhar. There's some further information and sources in the wiki Kukhran article and alot of the avilable information regarding Muslim Khokhars has been put together in a book called 'Punjabi Muslmans by Lt. Col. j.m' .Khokhar (talk) 21:38, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Massive vandal edits by 86.96.228.86 and others

Practically all the Referenced content from reliable and verifiable sources with citations
has been vandal deleted by anonymous user 86.96.228.86
with this edit of 8th May
This vandal has also deleted the entire discussion page
Other users have added citations from non reliable websites.,
Revision as of , 17 August 2008 JaGa is about where after the vandalism started
Intothefire (talk) 13:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Article restored

I was able to restore the article to before the massive deletions and have since made some changes to the layout and added many new sources. In the future could people please discuss any major changes before removing sourced and verified material otherwise it will be considered vandalism and ip addresses reported. Khokhar (talk) 23:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits regarding 'origin'

I'm going to move some of the information refuting khokhar/awan arab ancestry to the 'Hindu/Sikh view section (where it should be) as it's not shared by most Muslims and removing the items which are repeated, also most of it is originally sourced from the works of H. A. Rose; who himself took it from the writings of local Muslim historians translated in 'The History of India, as told by its own Historians' and even states that he is assuming the Gakhar to be the same as Khokhar [[1]], this has already been refuted in the 'differing theories of origin' section.

On a side note, almost every source has said that the Awan/Khokhar themselves (the vast majority of whom are Muslim) have always and invariably claimed ancestry from Qutb Shah (some as early as 1016) and it's the historians/bystanders making assumptions to the contrary[[2]]. Khokhar (talk) 09:29, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I have done some research regarding the claim

“ Almost 60% of the population of the Punjab comprises of Rajputs and Jats and the various branches of their race such as Awans , Khokhar , and Khattars , Janjuas , Arains Gujjars etc , though the Awans , Khokhars and Khatars claim common ancestory from Qutb Shah , who is said to have come from Ghazni with Mahmud Ghazni , scholars hold the view that they were most probably converted by Qutb Shah during Mahmud Ghaznnavi reign and were not his descendents . This tendency of claiming foreign origin by some of the local tribes is not uncommon. Even admittedly rajput tribes of famous ancestry such as the Khokhar , have begun to follow the example of claiming connection with the Mughal conquerors of India or the Qureshi cousins of the prophet. ”

The only place I have come across this is in the book 'Origins and History of Jats and Other Allied Nomadic Tribes of India' By B.S. Nijjar, and he makes no mention of either Ahmed Abdulla or Syed Abdul Quddus in his bibliography section and doesn't clearly mention any source for his claims. The only other place I can trace this to is on the geocities site (word for word) and that site makes a lot of claims most of the time without any sources, however IIRC they do quote Ahmed Abdulla on a few occasions.

In any case, unless there is more reliable and non-pov evidence to suggest otherwise, I will remove the above quote from the main article and we can continue to discuss it here. The other claims refuting the 'Muslim view' (mostly taken from H A Rose) have in fact already been discussed and proven to the contrary in both the first section of the 'Muslim view' and in the 'differing theories of origin' section, I see no reason why they should be repeated in different places specially as the the current sources have already been disapproved, unless there are other reliable sources to back this, they will also be moved to the discussion page.Khokhar (talk) 21:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC)