Ghurids were Pashtuns

[django]

I was hasty in coming to the conclusion that Ghurids were Suri Pashtuns. My assertions were mostly based on Tarikh-e-ferishta, Suri surname of Ghori Kings , Tarikh-e-shershahi, pata khazana and the fact that language of ghor was different from khorasan. With little deeper research , i have come to different conclusion.

1- Matti tribes of Pashtuns are, perhaps partly descended from ghorids if Pashtun oral history is to be believed......Husband of Bibi Mato, Shah Hussian Ghori was a Persian prince from line of zuhak in 55th descent. The traditional pashtun history itself doesnt consider ghorids to be pashtuns.
2- In original Persian text of tarikh-e-ferishta , there is no mention of word afghan for ghurids.......In Professor John Dowson's english translation, word afghan is added to Suri rulers of ghor. Dowson's mistranslated version of tarikh-i-ferishta is known to the world.
3- Minhaj-ud-din, a native of ghor , author of "tabaqat-e-nasiri" is familiar with afghans but he doesnt mention any where that ghorids themeslves were Afghans
4- Pata khazana is either fabrication of alama habibi or he modified the dates of oldest poetry in original manuscript and claimed the poets to be of ghor. The original manuscript, by Muhammad hotak in 1729 might not have included amir kror suri part. According to H.G Raverty, the original abode of pashtuns is, the Ghar (not ghor) i.e Suleiman mountains . Ghar means mountain in pashto. If Amir kror suri or asad suri existed, they were most likely inhabitants of ghar not ghor.
5- B.Dorn gives reference of passage in text of janabi where ghorians are mentioned as turks. Pehaps ghorians were persianized turks.
6- The Tarikh-e-shershahi bit is confusing one. Its author Abas sherwani was asked by Mughal emperor Akbar to write history of sher shah suri. Abas Sherwani mentions that Sher Shah Suri's family was descended from royal family of ghor. Professor Qanungo challenges the claim of Abas sherwani , that sur tribe of afghans had royal lineage before their arrival to hind. Suris were considered inferior in status compared to Niazis and Lodhis(Prangis) in that period. And ibrahim suri migrated to hind due to poverty. I think it was again ghar (koh suileman) not ghor. Sher shah's grandfather had migrated from eastern fringes of koh suileman near gomal valley where suri tribe used to live before they were ousted by lohanis.
7- Pashtun nationalistic poet, khushal Khan khattak mentions Bahlol lodi, Sher Shah and Jalal ud din khilji as Pashtun rulers of hind in his poetry but he doesnt mention ghauri as pashtun king.
8- Ahmad shah abdali , in his poetry, speaks about Farid (sher shah), bahlol and hamid (lodi) as past rulers of pashtun in one of the couplet, he doesnt mention ghauri.
9- If Shahabudin ghauri was an afghan, why he installed turk government in india?. Why he didnt patronized his own afghan qaum if he really was an afghan?. There were large number of afghans in his army, but as hired mercenaries. His nobles and ministers were not afghans.
@save_ghenda @ghoul

Samandri was jalaludin khilji a pashtun or tajik. I know he rallied pashtuns to fight the mongols but i am not entirely sure of his origin.

 

[Kabira]

I dont know about that, but Afghans of Ismaili faith , rulers of Multan ,sided with Jaipal against Mahmud Ghaznavi. Afghans, even if they were muslims, did sided with Hindus, most notably with Rajputs, on some occasions. Mahmud Lodhi sided with Rana Sanga against Babur. Hakim Khan Suri joined Rana Pratap against Akbar.
Hakim Khan Sur - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hmm are you sure they were Afghans of Ismaeli faith? I don't think so.

 

[Samandri]

Samandri was jalaludin khilji a pashtun or tajik. I know he rallied pashtuns to fight the mongols but i am not entirely sure of his origin.

He was by no means a tajik. The confirmed fact about Khiljis , is that they were Afghans , at least in manners, language, customs etc who claimed to be turks in Delhi but the real turk nobles rejected their claim and refused to accept them as Turks. They had migrated to Hind from Qalat-i-Khilji (also called kalat-i-ghilzai) in ghazni and were nomadic in lifestyle. Some historians consider them same as ghilzais , others think that they just lived among ghilzais for time in ghazni and and by the time they arrived in India, they were Pashtunized/Afghanized. I will post futher details of debate on origin of khiljis later.

Mr.Elliott's History of India (Vol.III page 34) has given the translation of a portion of Feroz Shahi , which runs as follows -

"At the same time Jalaludin, who was Ariz-i-Mamalik , had gone to Baharpur , attended by a body of his relations and friends. Here he held a muster and inspection of the forces. He came of a race different from that of the Turks ; so he had no confidence in them , nor would the Turks own him as belonging to the member of his friends".

Khushal Khan Khattak in his Dewan of poetry calls the Khaljis as Ghiljis Afghans.

Preshan Khattak opines that most of the historians wrongly write "Khaljis" instead of "Ghiljis". There are also several similarities between the Khalji and other Afghan dynasties. For instance majority of the Afghan monarchs were very lenient and the simplicity of the court was a common feature shared by all these dynasties. Many Afghan monarchs fell victim of their own relatives and so was the fate of Jalal-ud-Din. Another common feature of the different Afghan dynasties was their disunity and inter-tribal warfare, every monarchy ceased to exist after its third heir such as Khaljis ruled over northern India with three monarchs and so were Lodhis. Suris, royal Khalji family of Qandahar, Abdalis and Barakzais etc

Hmm are you sure they were Afghans of Ismaeli faith? I don't think so.

Shiekh Hamid Lodhi is said to have accepted ismaili faith , he was governor of laghman and multan and was contemporary of Sabuktigin.
.....................................................


Sir Olaf on Kiljis

 

[Kabira]

He was by no means a tajik. The confirmed fact about Khiljis , is that they were Afghans , at least in manners, language, customs etc who claimed to be turks in Delhi but the real turk nobles rejected their claim and refused to accept them as Turks. They had migrated to Hind from Qalat-i-Khilji (also called kalat-i-ghilzai) in ghazni and were nomadic in lifestyle. Some historians consider them same as ghilzais , others think that they just lived among ghilzais for time in ghazni and and by the time they arrived in India, they were Pashtunized/Afghanized. I will post futher details of debate on origin of khiljis later.

Mr.Elliott's History of India (Vol.III page 34) has given the translation of a portion of Feroz Shahi , which runs as follows -

"At the same time Jalaludin, who was Ariz-i-Mamalik , had gone to Baharpur , attended by a body of his relations and friends. Here he held a muster and inspection of the forces. He came of a race different from that of the Turks ; so he had no confidence in them , nor would the Turks own him as belonging to the member of his friends".

Khushal Khan Khattak in his Dewan of poetry calls the Khaljis as Ghiljis Afghans.

Preshan Khattak opines that most of the historians wrongly write "Khaljis" instead of "Ghiljis". There are also several similarities between the Khalji and other Afghan dynasties. For instance majority of the Afghan monarchs were very lenient and the simplicity of the court was a common feature shared by all these dynasties. Many Afghan monarchs fell victim of their own relatives and so was the fate of Jalal-ud-Din. Another common feature of the different Afghan dynasties was their disunity and inter-tribal warfare, every monarchy ceased to exist after its third heir such as Khaljis ruled over northern India with three monarchs and so were Lodhis. Suris, royal Khalji family of Qandahar, Abdalis and Barakzais etc


Shiekh Hamid Lodhi is said to have accepted ismaili faith , he was governor of laghman and multan and was contemporary of Sabuktigin.
.....................................................


Sir Olaf on Kiljis

Fatimed dynasty of Multan had 3 rulers of arab race.

First one Jaylam bin Shayban

Hamid Shaikh his son

And lastly Fateh Dawood, son of Hamid Shaikh. Fateh Dawood was captured by Mahmud. @ghoul do you anything about this?

 

[django]

He was by no means a tajik. The confirmed fact about Khiljis , is that they were Afghans , at least in manners, language, customs etc who claimed to be turks in Delhi but the real turk nobles rejected their claim and refused to accept them as Turks. They had migrated to Hind from Qalat-i-Khilji (also called kalat-i-ghilzai) in ghazni and were nomadic in lifestyle. Some historians consider them same as ghilzais , others think that they just lived among ghilzais for time in ghazni and and by the time they arrived in India, they were Pashtunized/Afghanized. I will post futher details of debate on origin of khiljis later.

Mr.Elliott's History of India (Vol.III page 34) has given the translation of a portion of Feroz Shahi , which runs as follows -

"At the same time Jalaludin, who was Ariz-i-Mamalik , had gone to Baharpur , attended by a body of his relations and friends. Here he held a muster and inspection of the forces. He came of a race different from that of the Turks ; so he had no confidence in them , nor would the Turks own him as belonging to the member of his friends".

Khushal Khan Khattak in his Dewan of poetry calls the Khaljis as Ghiljis Afghans.

Preshan Khattak opines that most of the historians wrongly write "Khaljis" instead of "Ghiljis". There are also several similarities between the Khalji and other Afghan dynasties. For instance majority of the Afghan monarchs were very lenient and the simplicity of the court was a common feature shared by all these dynasties. Many Afghan monarchs fell victim of their own relatives and so was the fate of Jalal-ud-Din. Another common feature of the different Afghan dynasties was their disunity and inter-tribal warfare, every monarchy ceased to exist after its third heir such as Khaljis ruled over northern India with three monarchs and so were Lodhis. Suris, royal Khalji family of Qandahar, Abdalis and Barakzais etc


Shiekh Hamid Lodhi is said to have accepted ismaili faith , he was governor of laghman and multan and was contemporary of Sabuktigin.
.....................................................


Sir Olaf on Kiljis

Could they have had a possible dardic origin, if they were not of turkic origin that does not necessarily translate to a pashtun origin, btw are tanolis descended from khilijis, they are a pashto speaking tribe that resides in ghaznavi.

 

[Samandri]

Could they have had a possible dardic origin, if they were not of turkic origin that does not necessarily translate to a pashtun origin, btw are tanolis descended from khilijis, they are a pashto speaking tribe that resides in ghaznavi.

On you basis you would establish that they might be dardic?

The origin of Tanolis is shrouded in mystery

 

[Kabira]

Could they have had a possible dardic origin, if they were not of turkic origin that does not necessarily translate to a pashtun origin, btw are tanolis descended from khilijis, they are a pashto speaking tribe that resides in ghaznavi.

Kiljhis can't possibly have dardic origin because they are believed to have come from west/north of Afghanistan/central asia.

 

[django]

Kiljhis can't possibly have dardic origin because they are believed to have come from west/north of Afghanistan/central asia.

On you basis you would establish that they might be dardic?

The origin of Tanolis is shrouded in mystery

I have heard the theory that a lot of the pashtun tribes are actually dards that have been pashtunised, perhaps not in the case of kiljhis as save ghenda has mentioned that they come from west/afganistan or central asia.

 

[Samandri]

I have heard the theory that a lot of the pashtun tribes are actually dards that have been pashtunised, perhaps not in the case of kiljhis as save ghenda has mentioned that they come from west/afganistan or central asia.

Those tribes are known, who are Pashtunized but are not part of lineage tree of Pashtuns. There is no Pashtun tribe which has dardic roots, but yea pashtunized people of dardic origin do live among Pashtuns in north. Also Kohistanis are dardic and they are neighbors to yusufzais. Chitralis are also dardic and they are neighbors to Dirojen Pashtuns. In Afghanistan dardic people of Nuristan are neighbor to Pashtuns. Keep in mind that the Khashi confederation of tribes (yusufzais, mohamnds, khalils, gagianis, jaduns etc) arrived in peshawer valley , bajaur and malakhand division in early 16th century........so they are neighbors to dardistan for only 5 centuries.

Perhaps you have not read the pages i posted about khiljis........read it, it will clear some things about them to you....

 

[ghoul]

Fatimed dynasty of Multan had 3 rulers of arab race.

First one Jaylam bin Shayban

Hamid Shaikh his son

And lastly Fateh Dawood, son of Hamid Shaikh. Fateh Dawood was captured by Mahmud. @ghoul do you anything about this?

No, I have absolutely no clue about whom Ghaznavi fought in Multan.

 

[Kabira]

No, I have absolutely no clue about whom Ghaznavi fought in Multan.

He fought against Ismailis of Multan who were clearly not Afghans. Seem like @Samandri have yet again not verified his sources.

I have heard the theory that a lot of the pashtun tribes are actually dards that have been pashtunised, perhaps not in the case of kiljhis as save ghenda has mentioned that they come from west/afganistan or central asia.

Only tribes native to FATA/KPK are believed to be of dard/indo-aryan origin, known as karlani tribes among pashtuns.

 

[IrbiS]

He was by no means a tajik. The confirmed fact about Khiljis , is that they were Afghans , at least in manners, language, customs etc who claimed to be turks in Delhi but the real turk nobles rejected their claim and refused to accept them as Turks. They had migrated to Hind from Qalat-i-Khilji (also called kalat-i-ghilzai) in ghazni and were nomadic in lifestyle. Some historians consider them same as ghilzais , others think that they just lived among ghilzais for time in ghazni and and by the time they arrived in India, they were Pashtunized/Afghanized. I will post futher details of debate on origin of khiljis later.

Mr.Elliott's History of India (Vol.III page 34) has given the translation of a portion of Feroz Shahi , which runs as follows -

"At the same time Jalaludin, who was Ariz-i-Mamalik , had gone to Baharpur , attended by a body of his relations and friends. Here he held a muster and inspection of the forces. He came of a race different from that of the Turks ; so he had no confidence in them , nor would the Turks own him as belonging to the member of his friends".

Khushal Khan Khattak in his Dewan of poetry calls the Khaljis as Ghiljis Afghans.

Preshan Khattak opines that most of the historians wrongly write "Khaljis" instead of "Ghiljis". There are also several similarities between the Khalji and other Afghan dynasties. For instance majority of the Afghan monarchs were very lenient and the simplicity of the court was a common feature shared by all these dynasties. Many Afghan monarchs fell victim of their own relatives and so was the fate of Jalal-ud-Din. Another common feature of the different Afghan dynasties was their disunity and inter-tribal warfare, every monarchy ceased to exist after its third heir such as Khaljis ruled over northern India with three monarchs and so were Lodhis. Suris, royal Khalji family of Qandahar, Abdalis and Barakzais etc


Shiekh Hamid Lodhi is said to have accepted ismaili faith , he was governor of laghman and multan and was contemporary of Sabuktigin.
.....................................................


Sir Olaf on Kiljis

Can you shed some light on Niazi's linked with Khiljis and Suris

 

[Samandri]

Can you shed some light on Niazi's linked with Khiljis and Suris

Niazaey was son of Ibrahim alias lodi. He had two other brothers, Siarnaey and Dotanaey. Sur or Suri was grandson of Siarnaey . So in lineage both belong to same family of tribes, the Lodhis. Ghilji was elder brother of Ibrahim lodi (progenitor of lodhis). Even if some one dont believe in accepted lineage tree of Pashtuns, historically Niazis , Surs and Ghilzais have considered each other as kinsmen and cousins. For example both Lodhis and Suris shared power mostly with their immediate Kin tribes. Niazi was the most prominent tribe in administration and army of Suri empire.
Here is article about early history of Niazis
Early history of Niazi tribe

He fought against Ismailis of Multan who were clearly not Afghans. Seem like @Samandri have yet again not verified his sources.



Only tribes native to FATA/KPK are believed to be of dard/indo-aryan origin, known as karlani tribes among pashtuns.

There is little information about them but it is generally accepted as a fact that Shiekh hamid Lodhi, governor of Laghman and Multan and supporter of hindu shahis, was an Afghan. Ferishta says Hamid Lodhi was an Afghan. But according to Sayed Suleiman Nadwi, 20th century Indian historian, , the Lodhi descended from Jalm bin Sheiban, an Arab ruler and a native of Sind. Sayed Suleiman Nadwi argued that Shiekh is used by Arabs but there were many pashtuns in history with Shiekh name e.g Sheikh Mati, a chief of the Ghoryakhel tribe, Sheikh Mali Yusufzai, Sheikh Qasem Suleimani, and others. Who knows, he might be an Arab.......but Lodhi was attached to his name and we dont know about any arab clan with lodhi surname.
The Encyclopaedia of Islam - Google Books

 

[Kabira]

There is little information about them but it is generally accepted as a fact that Shiekh hamid Lodhi, governor of Laghman and Multan and supporter of hindu shahis, was an Afghan. Ferishta says Hamid Lodhi was an Afghan. But according to Sayed Suleiman Nadwi, the Indian historian, , the Lodhi descended from Jalm bin Sheiban, an Arab ruler and a native of Sind. Sayed Suleiman Nadwi argued that Shiekh is used by Arabs but there were many pashtuns in history with Shiekh name e.g Sheikh Mati, a chief of the Ghoryakhel tribe, Sheikh Mali Yusufzai, Sheikh Qasem Suleimani, and others. Who knows, he might be an Arab.......but Lodhi was attached to his name and we dont know about any arab clan with lodhi surname.

"By 279/892 Multan passed into the hands of an Arab dynasty. Banu Sama, founded by one Asad Qurashi. The population, however, remained Hindu (referred to as "Majus" in our sources) and worshipped a famous idol Aditya (Sun God), venerated even by the Arab princes. In 347/958 we find a Fatimid mission active in the city, trying to convert the local inhabitants to Islam. However, the da'i in-charge of this mission showed signs of disloyalty and the Fatimid Caliph al-Mu'izz was trying to replace him, when the da'i was killed in a riding accident7.

Next year a new da'i was sent to Multan. He was Jalam b. Shayban. He had great success in converting the local people to Islam and bringing them within Fatimid loyalty8. In fact he succeeded in deposing the Arab prince and putting him to death, thus establishing Ismaili rule in Multan. On this occasion, the Fatimid Caliph sent him instructions in a letter dated 354/965, the full text of which has come down to us9. During Da'i Jalam's rule the famous geographer and traveller, al-Muqaddasi, visited Multan. He gives the year as 375/985 and writes: "The people of Multan are Shi'a...... In Multan the Khutba is read in the name of the Fatimid Caliph of Egypt and the place is administered by his orders. Gifts are regularly sent from here to Egypt".10 About the social life of Multan under Ismaili rule, al-Muqaddasi gives the following picture: ".Multan is smaller than Mansurah in size, but has a large population. Fruits are not found in plenty.. yet they are sold cheaper.... like Siraf, Multan has wooden homes. There is no bad conduct and drunkenness here, and people convicted of these crimes are punished with death or by some heavy sentence. Business is fair and honest. Travellers are looked after well. . Most of the inhabitants are Arabs. They live by a river. The place in abounds vegetation and wealth. Trade flourishes here. Good manners and good living are noticed everywhere. The Government is just. Women of the town are modestly dressed with no make-up and hardly found talking to any one in the streets. The water is healthy and the standard of living high. There is happiness, well-being and culture here, Persian is understood. Profits of business are high. People are healthy, but the town is not clean. Houses are small. The climate is warm and arid. The people are of darkish complexion. In Multan, the coin is minted on the style of the Fatimid Egyptian coin, but the Qanhari coins are commonly used 11."

At the time of al-Muqaddasi's visit in 375/985. Multan still had its idol Aditya, but al-Biruni informs us that the Da'i Jalam b. Shayban destroyed it along with a mosque built during Umayyad times and in their place built a new mosque 12. This must have been in 376/986 shortly after al-Muqaddasi's visit.

We have no information about the date of Da'i Jalam's death. Farishta 13 says that the next ruler of Multan was Shaykh Hamid, another Isma'ili da'i, and probably the son 14 of Jalam b. Shayban. Da'i Hamid ruled up to approximately 387/997 15. The Ghaznawid Amir Sabuktagin invaded Multan in 381/991, but later made a truce with Shaykh Hamid, as Isma'ili Multan served as a buffer-state between the rising Turkish power of Ghazna and the old Hindu rulers-the Imperial Pratiharas of Kanauj.

Sabuktagin's successor, the famous Mahmud of Ghazna, was temperamentally adverse to compromise but was sworn enemy of lsma'ilism. He broke the truce by invading Multan in 396/1005. At this time the Isma'ili da'i Abu'l-Futuh Da'ud b. Nasr, the grandson of Shaykh Hamid, was ruling Multan. Tiring of the seven days siege of the town laid by Mahmud, Abu'l-Futuh agreed to pay tribute to the Sultan and Mahmud withdrew to Ghazna. Returning in 401/1010, the Ghaznawid finally annexed Multan, took Abu'l-Futuh prisoner and massacred many Isma'ilis. Abul-Futuh died in a prison in Ghazna 16.

So came to an end the Ismaili rule in Multan. It had lasted from 354/965 to 401/1010 - about half a century. The Da'is of Multan constituted an Arab dynasty of three rulers under the sovereignty of Fatimid Egypt. After the fall of this dynasty Isma'ilism did not disappear from Multan. In fact it even became a ruling creed at the nearby Mansurah. But with this later history we are not concerned here."
http://amaana.org/heroes/note006.htm


Fatimid Caliphate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Samandri]

"By 279/892 Multan passed into the hands of an Arab dynasty. Banu Sama, founded by one Asad Qurashi. The population, however, remained Hindu (referred to as "Majus" in our sources) and worshipped a famous idol Aditya (Sun God), venerated even by the Arab princes. In 347/958 we find a Fatimid mission active in the city, trying to convert the local inhabitants to Islam. However, the da'i in-charge of this mission showed signs of disloyalty and the Fatimid Caliph al-Mu'izz was trying to replace him, when the da'i was killed in a riding accident7.

Next year a new da'i was sent to Multan. He was Jalam b. Shayban. He had great success in converting the local people to Islam and bringing them within Fatimid loyalty8. In fact he succeeded in deposing the Arab prince and putting him to death, thus establishing Ismaili rule in Multan. On this occasion, the Fatimid Caliph sent him instructions in a letter dated 354/965, the full text of which has come down to us9. During Da'i Jalam's rule the famous geographer and traveller, al-Muqaddasi, visited Multan. He gives the year as 375/985 and writes: "The people of Multan are Shi'a...... In Multan the Khutba is read in the name of the Fatimid Caliph of Egypt and the place is administered by his orders. Gifts are regularly sent from here to Egypt".10 About the social life of Multan under Ismaili rule, al-Muqaddasi gives the following picture: ".Multan is smaller than Mansurah in size, but has a large population. Fruits are not found in plenty.. yet they are sold cheaper.... like Siraf, Multan has wooden homes. There is no bad conduct and drunkenness here, and people convicted of these crimes are punished with death or by some heavy sentence. Business is fair and honest. Travellers are looked after well. . Most of the inhabitants are Arabs. They live by a river. The place in abounds vegetation and wealth. Trade flourishes here. Good manners and good living are noticed everywhere. The Government is just. Women of the town are modestly dressed with no make-up and hardly found talking to any one in the streets. The water is healthy and the standard of living high. There is happiness, well-being and culture here, Persian is understood. Profits of business are high. People are healthy, but the town is not clean. Houses are small. The climate is warm and arid. The people are of darkish complexion. In Multan, the coin is minted on the style of the Fatimid Egyptian coin, but the Qanhari coins are commonly used 11."

At the time of al-Muqaddasi's visit in 375/985. Multan still had its idol Aditya, but al-Biruni informs us that the Da'i Jalam b. Shayban destroyed it along with a mosque built during Umayyad times and in their place built a new mosque 12. This must have been in 376/986 shortly after al-Muqaddasi's visit.

We have no information about the date of Da'i Jalam's death. Farishta 13 says that the next ruler of Multan was Shaykh Hamid, another Isma'ili da'i, and probably the son 14 of Jalam b. Shayban. Da'i Hamid ruled up to approximately 387/997 15. The Ghaznawid Amir Sabuktagin invaded Multan in 381/991, but later made a truce with Shaykh Hamid, as Isma'ili Multan served as a buffer-state between the rising Turkish power of Ghazna and the old Hindu rulers-the Imperial Pratiharas of Kanauj.

Sabuktagin's successor, the famous Mahmud of Ghazna, was temperamentally adverse to compromise but was sworn enemy of lsma'ilism. He broke the truce by invading Multan in 396/1005. At this time the Isma'ili da'i Abu'l-Futuh Da'ud b. Nasr, the grandson of Shaykh Hamid, was ruling Multan. Tiring of the seven days siege of the town laid by Mahmud, Abu'l-Futuh agreed to pay tribute to the Sultan and Mahmud withdrew to Ghazna. Returning in 401/1010, the Ghaznawid finally annexed Multan, took Abu'l-Futuh prisoner and massacred many Isma'ilis. Abul-Futuh died in a prison in Ghazna 16.

So came to an end the Ismaili rule in Multan. It had lasted from 354/965 to 401/1010 - about half a century. The Da'is of Multan constituted an Arab dynasty of three rulers under the sovereignty of Fatimid Egypt. After the fall of this dynasty Isma'ilism did not disappear from Multan. In fact it even became a ruling creed at the nearby Mansurah. But with this later history we are not concerned here."
http://amaana.org/heroes/note006.htm


Fatimid Caliphate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

His full name was Shiekh Hamid Lodhi and even the isameli author of the above article is not sure whether hamid was son of shayban. The author has taken passages from Ferishta but has omitted words Afghan from it. In original text it is written that Afghans of Laghman and Multan formed buffer state between Samanids and hindu shahis. Ferishta also mentions that Afghan garrisons of Shiekh hamid , who were under Hindu shahis, also constructed fort at the pass and named it khyber, thats why its called khyber pass. Not just encyclopedia of islam, Pakistan gazetteer, Punjab gazetteer and Multan gazetteer agrees with Afghan origin of Shiekh hamid Lodhi.