The contents of the Sultan Ala-ud-din Sikandar Shah page were merged into Delhi Sultanate. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. (November 2013) |
This
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
Check
http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00islamlinks/ikram/graphics/india1236.jpg
http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00islamlinks/ikram/graphics/india1335.jpg
Which is the Daulat Khan (1413 - 1414) listed in the table of delhi sultane . It links to another daulat khan who is lived in 1517-1526 period. required facts.-- sunil ( talk) 17:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Note: {{ WP India}} Project Banner with Delhi workgroup parameters was added to this article talk page because the article falls under Category:Delhi or its subcategories. Should you feel this addition is inappropriate , please undo my changes and update/remove the relavent categories to the article -- Amartyabag TALK2ME 08:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
The Delhi Sultanate is a term used to cover five short-lived, Delhi based kingdoms or sultanates, of Turkic origin in medieval India.
This should be Turkic and Pashtun.
Pashtuns are not turkic and at least 3 of the dynasties were Pashtuns this should be changed especially as you have cited later in the article that certain dynasties were from afghanistan ( pashtun.
Khilji's lodhis and ghor's were pashtun.
thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ranguna ( talk • contribs) 14:44, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
This article has a lot of content without cited sources. I have tagged some per WP:V requirement. @ Nestwiki: Please do not revert or remove "citation needed" tags without providing source. Similarly, please do not remove content that is sourced from peer reviewed journals and WP:RS publications of scholars. If you have concerns, I invite you to discuss them on this talk page. Beren Dersi ( talk) 19:42, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
I have given link to both Part-II & Part-I of Eaton’s work in PDF format.
1. http://ftp.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00islamlinks/txt_eaton_temples2.pdf (Part=II)
2. http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00islamlinks/txt_eaton_temples1.pdf (Part-I)
1) Statement- Eaton says that these were selectively targeted at the rival/rebel rulers or kings, not to the common men or community.Source- See “Temple Desecration And State Maintenance” section. Only those temples were targeted that were identified to be the extension of the rebel/rival patron/ruler, others were not. [Page-74(actually fifth page of Part II)]
2) Statement- The reason is that some temples during the middle age served both religious and political (sovereignty) symbols while the mosques were mainly religious and apolitical.Source- See “Temples and Mosques Contrasted” section. [Page-75(actually sixth page of Part II)]
3) Statement- Even, there are several instances of Sultans doing reconstruction/repair of old temples as they were considered state property or personally patronizing Brahmins in order to “legitimize” their new founded rule in new territories.Source- See “Conclusion” and “Temple Protection and State Maintenance” section. [Page-76(actually seventh page of Part II)] & [Page-70(actually first page of Part II)]
4) Statement- That is why in “pre-modern Indo-Muslim states, some temples were desecrated, some were protected and others were constructed anew”.Source- The very sub-title of the Part-II. [Page-70(actually first page of Part II)]
5) Statement- However, this practice of desecration of temples “patronized” by the erstwhile rulers dates back to the 6th century CE.Source- 6th line of the Introduction of the Part-II. [Page-70(actually first page of Part II)] Further examples are given in Part-I in the 4th and 5th Page.
6)Eaton makes it very clear that no campaign was done by Sultans to destroy or desecrate temple or idols but campaigns were done to conquer new territories in which some temples patronized by erstwhile were rulers were selectively desecrated.
Any one can check the authenticity of the facts given. However, I urge personally to go through both the parts to get a clear perspective. It’s of just 17 pages (9+8=17). In brief, read the conclusion part where everything is present in nutshell. Thank you. Ghatus ( talk) 17:09, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
People seem to have added a long list of successor States to the Delhi Sultanate. As far as I am concerned, it has only one successor: the Mughal empire. Is there any reason why other successors are needed? - Kautilya3 ( talk) 00:05, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
1) It says in the box that Lodis destroyed temples in Tamil Nadu. But, Lodis did not even cross central India, forget about going them to the Tamil Nadu.
2)Kashmir was NEVER RULED by Delhi sultanate. Native Muslim converts ruled Kashmir till Akbar came. So, how can Delhi Sultanate destroy temple in Kashmir?( It is even given in picture)
This articles confuses any Muslim state in India between 1206-1526 with this Delhi Sultanate. I am fed up correcting even this basic Indian History. Bye, Ghatus ( talk) 12:13, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
This makes no sense, "Vijayanagara was a successor state to the Tughlaq Dynasty, not to Delhi Sultanate. It is a typical case of confusing a single dynasty with a succession of five dynasties (Delhi Sultanate)." - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghatus ( talk • contribs)
@ Filpro: Regarding this edit [1], the sentence says that the Delhi Sultanate lasted for 320 years. Can you specify during what periods it was limited to the "Punjab region"? - Kautilya3 ( talk) 09:30, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Following sentence is in article:
During the Delhi Sultanate, there were a total of 37 instances of Hindu temples being desecrated or destroyed in India.
According to Eaton, there were a total of 37 instances of Hindu Temple desecration in span 320 years. I think it is an understatement. It should not be "total instances" but "recorded instances" as many instances may not have been documented in any texts. It is likely that only major temples desecration are recorded. Current sentence also omits/ignores Jain and Buddhist temples. It also seem that Eaton has also omitted several instances which are recorded elsewhere, like in inscriptions. They should be taken under consideration. So total of 37 is understatement. If Qutb complex was built from stones of 27 temples (according to some sources as written in article), how only 37 temples were destroyed during whole Delhi Sultanate period? I think some serious rewording needed to reflect this. Regards,-- Nizil ( talk) 12:23, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Eaton's quote from an interview:
- Question: Hindutva ideologues claim that 60,000 temples were demolished under Muslim rule in India. You have countered this in your essay, "Temple Desecration and Indo-Muslim states", saying “one may identify 80 instances of temple desecration whose historicity appears reasonably certain.” However, there have been objections to your method of counting, accusing you of counting as one an instance in which 70 temples were destroyed in Banaras; that you did not include a temple which was destroyed in Anantnag, Kashmir. How do you respond to this charge?
- Answer: I feel that we can get too swept up in a numbers game here. Yes, there is a huge discrepancy between 60,000 and 80. But as I mentioned in my published essay, the tables and maps I presented “by no means give the complete picture of temple desecration after the establishment of Turkish power in upper India.” And I concluded that “we shall never know the precise number of temples desecrated in Indian history.” All we can talk about are instances for which there is contemporary evidence, whether it appears in the archaeological record, in the epigraphic record, or in contemporary chronicles. And even those data must be closely interrogated.
- Think of trying to solve a jigsaw puzzle in which 30% to 50% of the pieces are missing, and you have no border pieces at all. The best you can do is to fit together the few pieces you have in order to construct a reasonable approximation of what the whole picture most likely looked like. An honest historian will admit that the evidence is almost always fragmentary, incomplete, or even contradictory. But what one cannot do is to try to fill in the blank spaces with pieces that don’t exist, or that you think “must have” existed.
- I have no doubt that more than 80 temples were desecrated by Muslims, just as there were probably more temples desecrated by Hindus than are in the record. Again, to quote myself, “Undoubtedly some temples were desecrated but the facts in the matter were never recorded, or the facts were recorded but the records themselves no longer survive. Conversely, later Indo-Muslim chroniclers, seeking to glorify the religious zeal of earlier Muslim rulers, sometimes attributed acts of temple desecration to such rulers even when no contemporary evidence supports the claims.”
- It’s always that jigsaw puzzle.
I think it clarifies a lot. We should make changes to reflect this.-- Nizil ( talk) 12:46, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
I find the following sentence in the lead problematic:
Two dynasties (Mamluk and Sayyid) were of Turkic origin, one dynasty (Khalji) was of Turko-Afghan heritage, one dynasty (Tughlaq) was of Turko-Indian origin, and the last dynasty (Lodi) was of Pashtun (Afghan/Pathan) origin.
User:Maestro2016's comments here suggest that the terms "Turko-Afghan" and "Turko-Indian" are intended to describe the ethnic ("Turko") and geographical ("Afghan"/"Indian") origins of the dynasties.
Thus, the sentence apparently describes ethnic and geographical origins of two of the dynasties, but only ethnic origins for the three other dynasties. This may mislead the readers, who may assume that "Afghan" and "Indian" here refer to the ethnic origins of these dynasties.
Moreover, it is not clear why the Khaljis are being called "Turko-Afghan" while the Tughluqs are being described as "Turko-Indian". The Khalji dynasty's founder Jalaluddin was a state official in present-day India, as was the Tughluq dynasty's founder Ghiyasuddin.
I've not come across any reliable source using the term "Turko-Indian" to describe the Tughluqs, in the sense "of Turkic ethnicity and residing in India". The term "Turko-Afghan" is also confusing, because many books use it to describe all the dynasties in the sense "of either Turkic or Afghan origin". For example:
Thus, calling one dynasty "Turkic", another "Turko-Afghan", and yet another "Turko-Indian", based on a synthesis of different sources is not appropriate.
I suggest that this line be removed from the article lead, unless someone can find a single reliable source that mentions ethnic and/or geographical origins for all these dynasties. The origins can be described in the article body instead, wheremore detailed explanations can provide the necessary clarity. utcursch | talk 18:58, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
References
Saying that all the 5 dynasties were "Turko-Afghan" is very misleading. Are we implying that these dynasties started in Afghanistan and then invaded India? No. Four of them were ethnic Turks(Turkics) and one was ethnic Pashtuns and all of them started within Indian territory. Calling all of them Turko-Afghan is very misleading. Afghan means a citizen or resident of Afghanistan, it is not an ethnicity. Even a Hindu or Sikh living in Afghanistan will be Afghan but a Turk or Pashtun living in India, wont be Afghan. NineTimes ( talk) 17:05, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
I have updatedthe khilji section (jalaludin from turkic to turko afghan) to keep up with modern scholership.I have provided reliable sources, and i can provide more. please before changing discuss it here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:190:B580:547E:C1BC:A0D9:ECF9 ( talk) 23:03, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
The article writes: The sultanate is noted for being one of the few states to repel an attack by the Mongol Empire. There is a reference given, but not what the referenced text says.
There is a big difference between the following two statements: The sultanate has repelled an attack of the Mongol empire and the sultanate is noted for having repelled an attack of the Mongol empire. Further, since the attack mentioned may have been by Neguderi, as the linked articles state, it is not clear whether it has been an attack by the Mongol empire or by other Mongol forces - making the claim as is wrong. What we need is the text in the reference, a specification of the invasion, and proof it has been an attack by the Mongol empire itself that has been repelled. -- Zz ( talk) 21:04, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Is there any source for the native name of the Delhi Sultanate being "Chirag"? I couldn't find anything. Chan-Paton factor ( talk) 13:49, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
I have removed that content. The sources mention about Bakhtiyar, who died in 1206. Delhi Sultanate was founded much later and existed for over 3 centuries and has nothing to do with the demolition of Buddhist places. The edit was initially inserted by a vandalism. A user is trying to add it back. It must be removed. Thank you. 85.211.165.21 ( talk) 18:51, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
English 2409:4066:E98:BCC5:0:0:A7C8:6710 ( talk) 04:08, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
I thought you should be aware that User:Maestro2016 has been banned as a sockpuppet of User:Jagged_85. Jagged_85 received a community ban for misrepresenting and abusing sources on a massive scale, especially in the areas of Islamic history and inventions. I would therefore strongly recommend taking a close look at Maestro2016's contributions to this article. Any edits made, even if referenced, should be considered dubious unless the exact reference has been validated. Merlinme ( talk) 23:00, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
I’ve already brought this issue up on the main page of the khalji dynasty, but there is even more issues on this page. For example, this sentence still remains despite the fact that it was removed months ago from the main page of the khalji dynasty for various reasons. “After their settlment in India they assimilated into the mass Indian Muslim settlements due to their century long domicile in India since the early Ghorid invasions.”
There’s a lot of references to an Indian Muslim nobility/state within this article but as I explained in the talk page of the khalji dynasty, this is false.
Amazingly Satish Chandra’s is cited here, and his source has been greatly misconstrued. I’ll quote both the article and Chandra’s exact quote.
“The Alai era saw the emergence of an Indian Muslim state, as Indian Muslims gained power to replace the old nobility”
this claims that the Aladdin era saw an emergence of an Indian Muslim state, and that Indian Muslims replaced the old nobility. This is not only completely false but also misconstrued because satish chandra doesn’t write this in the source cited. Here’s the quote. “This was the reason why, Alauddin was able to choose, and promote to the top, many non Turks”
in the entire paragraph, there is no mention of a creation of an Indian Muslim state. Satish Chandra only states that there was a promotion of some non Turks into the government. This doesn’t at all imply that Indian Muslims replaced the nobility and that there was an Indian Muslim state. In fact Satish Chandra explains why this view is false so not only is his source misconstrued, the same author seems to deny the claims written here. I cited his quote in the other talk page and I’ll cite it here as well.
“Thus, in a highly fragmented society it is hardly possible to speak of an "integrated" Indo-Muslim state.” pg 268
https://knowledgevalley2017.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Satish-Chandra.pdf
id recommend reading the full page because he gives an excellent explanation but nonetheless, Chandra is far more authoritative than any of the sources listed here in support of this claim. I’d recommend checking out the talk page of the khalji dynasty because there is a lot more information there. The same user who made these edits seemed to also misconstrue other sources such as John bowman.
It is for these reasons that I have decided to remove parts of the article. If anyone wants to discuss this with me feel free to use the talk page. Someguywhosbored ( talk) 18:39, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Is there any particular reason why "Islamic" is mentioned in lead? No other articles like that of Ottoman Empire, Saudi Arabia, or the Sultanate of Gujarat where the official state religion is/was Islam and rulers were Muslim mention "Islamic" in their lead. This word was added arbitrarily without talk page discussion recently on 26 February 2024 by Solblaze. [2] PadFoot2008 ( talk) 07:55, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
@ DeepstoneV: @ PadFoot2008: can you two please stop the WP:EDITWAR
you both already violating the Wikipedia:Edit_warring#The three-revert rule|The three-revert rule
it will be taken immediate action if you not stopping Ahendra ( talk) 22:31, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
@ Malik-Al-Hind You are welcome to change the dates, provided they are sourced. In all likelihood, Hindavi was known by the rulers from the very beginning of the Delhi Sultanate. Hindavi was the lingua franca, so it was known by the elites and non-elites, which was mentioned by Eaton as well. Persian was confined to the elites. Foreverknowledge ( talk) 17:42, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
The contents of the Sultan Ala-ud-din Sikandar Shah page were merged into Delhi Sultanate. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. (November 2013) |
This
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
Check
http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00islamlinks/ikram/graphics/india1236.jpg
http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00islamlinks/ikram/graphics/india1335.jpg
Which is the Daulat Khan (1413 - 1414) listed in the table of delhi sultane . It links to another daulat khan who is lived in 1517-1526 period. required facts.-- sunil ( talk) 17:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Note: {{ WP India}} Project Banner with Delhi workgroup parameters was added to this article talk page because the article falls under Category:Delhi or its subcategories. Should you feel this addition is inappropriate , please undo my changes and update/remove the relavent categories to the article -- Amartyabag TALK2ME 08:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
The Delhi Sultanate is a term used to cover five short-lived, Delhi based kingdoms or sultanates, of Turkic origin in medieval India.
This should be Turkic and Pashtun.
Pashtuns are not turkic and at least 3 of the dynasties were Pashtuns this should be changed especially as you have cited later in the article that certain dynasties were from afghanistan ( pashtun.
Khilji's lodhis and ghor's were pashtun.
thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ranguna ( talk • contribs) 14:44, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
This article has a lot of content without cited sources. I have tagged some per WP:V requirement. @ Nestwiki: Please do not revert or remove "citation needed" tags without providing source. Similarly, please do not remove content that is sourced from peer reviewed journals and WP:RS publications of scholars. If you have concerns, I invite you to discuss them on this talk page. Beren Dersi ( talk) 19:42, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
I have given link to both Part-II & Part-I of Eaton’s work in PDF format.
1. http://ftp.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00islamlinks/txt_eaton_temples2.pdf (Part=II)
2. http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00islamlinks/txt_eaton_temples1.pdf (Part-I)
1) Statement- Eaton says that these were selectively targeted at the rival/rebel rulers or kings, not to the common men or community.Source- See “Temple Desecration And State Maintenance” section. Only those temples were targeted that were identified to be the extension of the rebel/rival patron/ruler, others were not. [Page-74(actually fifth page of Part II)]
2) Statement- The reason is that some temples during the middle age served both religious and political (sovereignty) symbols while the mosques were mainly religious and apolitical.Source- See “Temples and Mosques Contrasted” section. [Page-75(actually sixth page of Part II)]
3) Statement- Even, there are several instances of Sultans doing reconstruction/repair of old temples as they were considered state property or personally patronizing Brahmins in order to “legitimize” their new founded rule in new territories.Source- See “Conclusion” and “Temple Protection and State Maintenance” section. [Page-76(actually seventh page of Part II)] & [Page-70(actually first page of Part II)]
4) Statement- That is why in “pre-modern Indo-Muslim states, some temples were desecrated, some were protected and others were constructed anew”.Source- The very sub-title of the Part-II. [Page-70(actually first page of Part II)]
5) Statement- However, this practice of desecration of temples “patronized” by the erstwhile rulers dates back to the 6th century CE.Source- 6th line of the Introduction of the Part-II. [Page-70(actually first page of Part II)] Further examples are given in Part-I in the 4th and 5th Page.
6)Eaton makes it very clear that no campaign was done by Sultans to destroy or desecrate temple or idols but campaigns were done to conquer new territories in which some temples patronized by erstwhile were rulers were selectively desecrated.
Any one can check the authenticity of the facts given. However, I urge personally to go through both the parts to get a clear perspective. It’s of just 17 pages (9+8=17). In brief, read the conclusion part where everything is present in nutshell. Thank you. Ghatus ( talk) 17:09, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
People seem to have added a long list of successor States to the Delhi Sultanate. As far as I am concerned, it has only one successor: the Mughal empire. Is there any reason why other successors are needed? - Kautilya3 ( talk) 00:05, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
1) It says in the box that Lodis destroyed temples in Tamil Nadu. But, Lodis did not even cross central India, forget about going them to the Tamil Nadu.
2)Kashmir was NEVER RULED by Delhi sultanate. Native Muslim converts ruled Kashmir till Akbar came. So, how can Delhi Sultanate destroy temple in Kashmir?( It is even given in picture)
This articles confuses any Muslim state in India between 1206-1526 with this Delhi Sultanate. I am fed up correcting even this basic Indian History. Bye, Ghatus ( talk) 12:13, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
This makes no sense, "Vijayanagara was a successor state to the Tughlaq Dynasty, not to Delhi Sultanate. It is a typical case of confusing a single dynasty with a succession of five dynasties (Delhi Sultanate)." - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghatus ( talk • contribs)
@ Filpro: Regarding this edit [1], the sentence says that the Delhi Sultanate lasted for 320 years. Can you specify during what periods it was limited to the "Punjab region"? - Kautilya3 ( talk) 09:30, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Following sentence is in article:
During the Delhi Sultanate, there were a total of 37 instances of Hindu temples being desecrated or destroyed in India.
According to Eaton, there were a total of 37 instances of Hindu Temple desecration in span 320 years. I think it is an understatement. It should not be "total instances" but "recorded instances" as many instances may not have been documented in any texts. It is likely that only major temples desecration are recorded. Current sentence also omits/ignores Jain and Buddhist temples. It also seem that Eaton has also omitted several instances which are recorded elsewhere, like in inscriptions. They should be taken under consideration. So total of 37 is understatement. If Qutb complex was built from stones of 27 temples (according to some sources as written in article), how only 37 temples were destroyed during whole Delhi Sultanate period? I think some serious rewording needed to reflect this. Regards,-- Nizil ( talk) 12:23, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Eaton's quote from an interview:
- Question: Hindutva ideologues claim that 60,000 temples were demolished under Muslim rule in India. You have countered this in your essay, "Temple Desecration and Indo-Muslim states", saying “one may identify 80 instances of temple desecration whose historicity appears reasonably certain.” However, there have been objections to your method of counting, accusing you of counting as one an instance in which 70 temples were destroyed in Banaras; that you did not include a temple which was destroyed in Anantnag, Kashmir. How do you respond to this charge?
- Answer: I feel that we can get too swept up in a numbers game here. Yes, there is a huge discrepancy between 60,000 and 80. But as I mentioned in my published essay, the tables and maps I presented “by no means give the complete picture of temple desecration after the establishment of Turkish power in upper India.” And I concluded that “we shall never know the precise number of temples desecrated in Indian history.” All we can talk about are instances for which there is contemporary evidence, whether it appears in the archaeological record, in the epigraphic record, or in contemporary chronicles. And even those data must be closely interrogated.
- Think of trying to solve a jigsaw puzzle in which 30% to 50% of the pieces are missing, and you have no border pieces at all. The best you can do is to fit together the few pieces you have in order to construct a reasonable approximation of what the whole picture most likely looked like. An honest historian will admit that the evidence is almost always fragmentary, incomplete, or even contradictory. But what one cannot do is to try to fill in the blank spaces with pieces that don’t exist, or that you think “must have” existed.
- I have no doubt that more than 80 temples were desecrated by Muslims, just as there were probably more temples desecrated by Hindus than are in the record. Again, to quote myself, “Undoubtedly some temples were desecrated but the facts in the matter were never recorded, or the facts were recorded but the records themselves no longer survive. Conversely, later Indo-Muslim chroniclers, seeking to glorify the religious zeal of earlier Muslim rulers, sometimes attributed acts of temple desecration to such rulers even when no contemporary evidence supports the claims.”
- It’s always that jigsaw puzzle.
I think it clarifies a lot. We should make changes to reflect this.-- Nizil ( talk) 12:46, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
I find the following sentence in the lead problematic:
Two dynasties (Mamluk and Sayyid) were of Turkic origin, one dynasty (Khalji) was of Turko-Afghan heritage, one dynasty (Tughlaq) was of Turko-Indian origin, and the last dynasty (Lodi) was of Pashtun (Afghan/Pathan) origin.
User:Maestro2016's comments here suggest that the terms "Turko-Afghan" and "Turko-Indian" are intended to describe the ethnic ("Turko") and geographical ("Afghan"/"Indian") origins of the dynasties.
Thus, the sentence apparently describes ethnic and geographical origins of two of the dynasties, but only ethnic origins for the three other dynasties. This may mislead the readers, who may assume that "Afghan" and "Indian" here refer to the ethnic origins of these dynasties.
Moreover, it is not clear why the Khaljis are being called "Turko-Afghan" while the Tughluqs are being described as "Turko-Indian". The Khalji dynasty's founder Jalaluddin was a state official in present-day India, as was the Tughluq dynasty's founder Ghiyasuddin.
I've not come across any reliable source using the term "Turko-Indian" to describe the Tughluqs, in the sense "of Turkic ethnicity and residing in India". The term "Turko-Afghan" is also confusing, because many books use it to describe all the dynasties in the sense "of either Turkic or Afghan origin". For example:
Thus, calling one dynasty "Turkic", another "Turko-Afghan", and yet another "Turko-Indian", based on a synthesis of different sources is not appropriate.
I suggest that this line be removed from the article lead, unless someone can find a single reliable source that mentions ethnic and/or geographical origins for all these dynasties. The origins can be described in the article body instead, wheremore detailed explanations can provide the necessary clarity. utcursch | talk 18:58, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
References
Saying that all the 5 dynasties were "Turko-Afghan" is very misleading. Are we implying that these dynasties started in Afghanistan and then invaded India? No. Four of them were ethnic Turks(Turkics) and one was ethnic Pashtuns and all of them started within Indian territory. Calling all of them Turko-Afghan is very misleading. Afghan means a citizen or resident of Afghanistan, it is not an ethnicity. Even a Hindu or Sikh living in Afghanistan will be Afghan but a Turk or Pashtun living in India, wont be Afghan. NineTimes ( talk) 17:05, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
I have updatedthe khilji section (jalaludin from turkic to turko afghan) to keep up with modern scholership.I have provided reliable sources, and i can provide more. please before changing discuss it here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:190:B580:547E:C1BC:A0D9:ECF9 ( talk) 23:03, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
The article writes: The sultanate is noted for being one of the few states to repel an attack by the Mongol Empire. There is a reference given, but not what the referenced text says.
There is a big difference between the following two statements: The sultanate has repelled an attack of the Mongol empire and the sultanate is noted for having repelled an attack of the Mongol empire. Further, since the attack mentioned may have been by Neguderi, as the linked articles state, it is not clear whether it has been an attack by the Mongol empire or by other Mongol forces - making the claim as is wrong. What we need is the text in the reference, a specification of the invasion, and proof it has been an attack by the Mongol empire itself that has been repelled. -- Zz ( talk) 21:04, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Is there any source for the native name of the Delhi Sultanate being "Chirag"? I couldn't find anything. Chan-Paton factor ( talk) 13:49, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
I have removed that content. The sources mention about Bakhtiyar, who died in 1206. Delhi Sultanate was founded much later and existed for over 3 centuries and has nothing to do with the demolition of Buddhist places. The edit was initially inserted by a vandalism. A user is trying to add it back. It must be removed. Thank you. 85.211.165.21 ( talk) 18:51, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
English 2409:4066:E98:BCC5:0:0:A7C8:6710 ( talk) 04:08, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
I thought you should be aware that User:Maestro2016 has been banned as a sockpuppet of User:Jagged_85. Jagged_85 received a community ban for misrepresenting and abusing sources on a massive scale, especially in the areas of Islamic history and inventions. I would therefore strongly recommend taking a close look at Maestro2016's contributions to this article. Any edits made, even if referenced, should be considered dubious unless the exact reference has been validated. Merlinme ( talk) 23:00, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
I’ve already brought this issue up on the main page of the khalji dynasty, but there is even more issues on this page. For example, this sentence still remains despite the fact that it was removed months ago from the main page of the khalji dynasty for various reasons. “After their settlment in India they assimilated into the mass Indian Muslim settlements due to their century long domicile in India since the early Ghorid invasions.”
There’s a lot of references to an Indian Muslim nobility/state within this article but as I explained in the talk page of the khalji dynasty, this is false.
Amazingly Satish Chandra’s is cited here, and his source has been greatly misconstrued. I’ll quote both the article and Chandra’s exact quote.
“The Alai era saw the emergence of an Indian Muslim state, as Indian Muslims gained power to replace the old nobility”
this claims that the Aladdin era saw an emergence of an Indian Muslim state, and that Indian Muslims replaced the old nobility. This is not only completely false but also misconstrued because satish chandra doesn’t write this in the source cited. Here’s the quote. “This was the reason why, Alauddin was able to choose, and promote to the top, many non Turks”
in the entire paragraph, there is no mention of a creation of an Indian Muslim state. Satish Chandra only states that there was a promotion of some non Turks into the government. This doesn’t at all imply that Indian Muslims replaced the nobility and that there was an Indian Muslim state. In fact Satish Chandra explains why this view is false so not only is his source misconstrued, the same author seems to deny the claims written here. I cited his quote in the other talk page and I’ll cite it here as well.
“Thus, in a highly fragmented society it is hardly possible to speak of an "integrated" Indo-Muslim state.” pg 268
https://knowledgevalley2017.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Satish-Chandra.pdf
id recommend reading the full page because he gives an excellent explanation but nonetheless, Chandra is far more authoritative than any of the sources listed here in support of this claim. I’d recommend checking out the talk page of the khalji dynasty because there is a lot more information there. The same user who made these edits seemed to also misconstrue other sources such as John bowman.
It is for these reasons that I have decided to remove parts of the article. If anyone wants to discuss this with me feel free to use the talk page. Someguywhosbored ( talk) 18:39, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Is there any particular reason why "Islamic" is mentioned in lead? No other articles like that of Ottoman Empire, Saudi Arabia, or the Sultanate of Gujarat where the official state religion is/was Islam and rulers were Muslim mention "Islamic" in their lead. This word was added arbitrarily without talk page discussion recently on 26 February 2024 by Solblaze. [2] PadFoot2008 ( talk) 07:55, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
@ DeepstoneV: @ PadFoot2008: can you two please stop the WP:EDITWAR
you both already violating the Wikipedia:Edit_warring#The three-revert rule|The three-revert rule
it will be taken immediate action if you not stopping Ahendra ( talk) 22:31, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
@ Malik-Al-Hind You are welcome to change the dates, provided they are sourced. In all likelihood, Hindavi was known by the rulers from the very beginning of the Delhi Sultanate. Hindavi was the lingua franca, so it was known by the elites and non-elites, which was mentioned by Eaton as well. Persian was confined to the elites. Foreverknowledge ( talk) 17:42, 17 April 2024 (UTC)