PIR AḤMAD ḴᵛĀFI, ḠIĀṮ-AL-DIN (d. 857/ 1453), Timurid vizier who served over thirty years under Šāhroḵ (r. 1409-47) and his successors until his death in 1453.

Pir Aḥmad Ḵᵛāfi b. Jalāl-al-Din Esḥāq b. Majd-al-Din Moḥammad b. Fażl-Allāh came from Ḵᵛāf, reportedly from a distinguished family, but we know nothing about his early career (Manz, p. 88; Sarafrāzi et al., p. 70). He was appointed to the divān (see DIVĀN ii.) in 1418, after the death of the chief vizier Faḵr-al-Din, who had brought the administration into chaos. The Timurid histories portray Pir Aḥmad Ḵᵛāfi as a responsible and competent vizier, in contrast to his predecessor (Ḵᵛāndamir, pp. 347-54; ʿAqili, pp. 336-43). His interest in correct procedure is shown by the production, on his orders, of an abridged manual of accounting to train finance officials (Subtelny, pp. 80-81).

Pir Aḥmad remained chief vizier for the rest of Šāhroḵ’s reign, serving along with a subordinate vizier. He was briefly dismissed in 1425-26 and in 1441 was threatened by a scandal over the taxes of Jām (q.v.), the site of an important shrine. A rising bureaucrat, Šams-al-Din Semnāni, implicated Pir Aḥmad’s subordinate vizier, ʿAli Šaqāni, and brought to light mismanagement of taxes elsewhere. Šāhroḵ ordered an investigation by his amir-al-omarāʾ (q.v.), Firuzšāh, who was on bad terms with Pir Aḥmad; the investigation revealed further weaknesses in the divān. ʿAli Šaqāni was dismissed and replaced by Šams-al-Din, while Pir Aḥmad absented himself from the divān for several days. The same year, he is reported to have been punished at the instigation of troublemakers, perhaps a reference to this affair (Samarqandi, pp. 752-55; Faṣiḥ, III, p. 292).

When a succession struggle broke out at Šāhroḵ’s death in 1447, Pir Aḥmad and Šams-al-Din went into the service of Uluḡ Beg’s son ʿAbd-al-Latif Mirzā (q.v.), but along with many emirs, soon left to serve ʿAlāʾ-al Dawla b. Bāysonḡor (see ʿALĀʾ-AL-DAWLA, ROKN-AL-DĪN MĪRZĀ) in Herat. In the spring of 1448, ʿAlāʾ-al-Dawla appeared to be losing ground, and the viziers accompanied Šahroḵ’s widow Gowhar-Šād Āḡā (q.v.) and her relatives to join Solṭān Moḥammad b. Bāysonḡor (Ḵᵛāndamir, pp. 354-56; Samarqandi, pp. 883, 940). Pir Aḥmad became chief vizier under Solṭān Moḥammad, then left to perform the pilgrimage. On his return after the defeat and death of Solṭān Moḥammad, he offered his services to the victor, Abu’l Qāsem Bābur b. Bāysonḡor, but was imprisoned and tortured to extort money, which caused his death in 1453.

Pir Aḥmad’s patronage shows his wealth and influence. He is known to have funded three buildings, one over the grave of Shaikh Zayn-al-Din Ḵᵛāfi, where he was buried. Two buildings, built in 1444-45, have survived: a madrasa (q.v.) in Ḵargerd, in Ḵᵛāf, and a mausoleum for Shaikh Zayn-al-Din Tāybādi; both stand out for their size and the quality of design and workmanship (O’Kane, pp. 22, 86). He had an agent at the shrine of Aḥmad-e Jām (q.v.), and Yusof Ahl’s collection of correspondence of the shaikhs of Jām, the Farāʾed-e ḡiāṯi is dedicated to him (Yusof Ahl, I, introd., p. 42; II, pp. 148-52).

Pir Aḥmad Ḵᵛāfi did not bring his countrymen and relatives into the divān. The historian Faṣiḥ Ḵᵛāfi was dismissed from the central divān shortly after Pir Aḥmad took over, and Pir Aḥmad’s son, Majd-al-Din (q.v.), who served as chief vizier under Solṭān-Ḥosayn Bāyqarā (q.v.; 1469-1506), apparently began his career after Pir Aḥmad’s death (Faṣiḥ, III, p. 235; Ḵᵛāndamir, p. 400).