![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Interesting illustration. However neither Malik Kafur not his servants could not have looked like that in that period. Should be removed. Malaiya ( talk) 01:19, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Why wouldn't they have looked like that? The illustration is from a reputed source.
The section dealing with the death of M.K. lacks any useful explanation of the the circumstances or motivations around a number of key events, and also lacks references to support most of the claims made. Why did he kill his master? How did he he "hasten" his death - did he directly kill him or did he just neglect him intentionally? Why did he blind his master's successors, and why did he choose to place the given person on the throne? How did he wield this enormous executive power? How did he physically achieve these ends? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.201.100.168 ( talk) 01:14, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Obviously MK wanted to capture power for himself. [1] Malaiya ( talk) 01:23, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
(removed from article as unsourced) It is reported that Alauddin fell in love with his effeminate handsomeness and named him senior commander in his army after he agreed to convert to Islam. citation needed Early in his career, he became known as “Thousand- dinar Kafur” for the price at which he was rumored to have been bought. Thanks, Mattisse 16:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
The 'Relationship with Alauddin' subsection stated that Historian Banarsi Prasad Saksena believes that the closeness between Alauddin and Kafur should not be interpreted as a homosexual relationship: Alauddin had great trust in Kafur because unlike other officers, he did not have family or followers. Such a sentence implies that the explanation for Alauddin & Kafur's closeness is that Alauddin specially trusted Kafur because the latter lacked family and followers. The source does not give such an explanation. Whoever wrote that sentence has combined two different statements from the source and joined them to imply a conclusion not supported by the source. That is WP:SYNTHESIS.
Since the purpose of that misleading sentence seemed to be to prove that Alauddin and Kafur were not involved sexually, I am suspicious of the other sentence that states they weren't involved sexually, especially so because that sentence was written in a non-neutral manner. The sentence was: "However, historian Abraham Eraly notes that Barani's criticism of Kafur is not credible: Barani was extremely prejudiced against Kafur, presumably because of Kafur's non-Turkic origins." I could not access the cited source (Abraham Eraly's book The Age of Wrath: A History of the Delhi Sultanate, p. 178) for that sentence myself so I added the 'verification needed' tag. I am suspicious that that sentence may have WP:SYNTHESIS too so I would like someone to verify if the source truly states that:
I would like whoever verifies the sentence to copy-paste/quote the relevent paragraph(s) from the cited page of Eraly's book onto this talk page so that it is clear that the verification was honest. — Human10.0 ( talk) 20:06, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Here's the quote:
Besides, Ala-ud-din, according to Barani, ‘was infatuated with Malik Kafur, and made him the commander of his army and vizier. He distinguished him above all his other helpers and friends, and this eunuch and minion held the chief place in his regards.’ And in the closing days of the sultan’s reign, he became the virtual ruler of the empire. Kafur ‘did not allow anyone to see the emperor, and he himself began to … administer the realm,’ states Isami.
Barani is severely critical of Kafur, but his excoriations are not quite credible, for he was deeply prejudiced against Malik Kafur, whom he invariably described as a ‘wicked fellow,’ presumably because he was not a Turk but an Islamised Hindu and a eunuch.
utcursch | talk 17:18, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Barani is severely critical of Kafur, but his excoriations are not quite credible, for he was deeply prejudiced against Malik Kafur, whom he invariably described as a ‘wicked fellow,’ presumably because he was not a Turk but an Islamised Hindu and a eunuch. The resentment against Kafur among the Turkish nobles intensified when he blinded Khizr Khan and his brother Shadi Khan—Kafur, writes Barani, ‘sent his barber to blind Shadi Khan … by cutting his eyes from their sockets with a razor’—and imprisoned the other sons of Ala-ud-din, except the boy sultan who was his protégé. ‘His great object was to remove all the children and wives of the late sultan, all the nobles and slaves who had claims for the throne, and to fill their places with creatures of his own.’
@ Almeda64: Regarding these edits, you might want to read the discussion above. @ Human10.0 has raised concerns that Eraly doesn't specifically speak about Barani's description of Kafur's homosexuality, so connecting his cautionary note about Barani's unreliability to this specific topic is original research. utcursch | talk 06:30, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
It is mentioned in
Malik Kafur#Early life and career that "by 1309-10, he held the iqta' (administrative grant) of Rapri, in Jagadhri tehsil of Yamunanagar district of present-day Haryana.
" But the cited source doesn't support the current location of Rapri.
Here's the relevant quote from the source:
Kafur's first known base
was Rapri, on the Yamuna, which was his iqta' by 709/1309-10;33 but towards the end of the reign he was
in command at Deoglr, which had by then been annexed to the Sultanate (p. 202 below); the date of his
appointment as na'ib is unknown.
[2]
I have access to the above source, and there aren't any details regarding Rapri's current location in the book. So I will remove it for now. - NitinMlk ( talk) 20:47, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Interesting illustration. However neither Malik Kafur not his servants could not have looked like that in that period. Should be removed. Malaiya ( talk) 01:19, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Why wouldn't they have looked like that? The illustration is from a reputed source.
The section dealing with the death of M.K. lacks any useful explanation of the the circumstances or motivations around a number of key events, and also lacks references to support most of the claims made. Why did he kill his master? How did he he "hasten" his death - did he directly kill him or did he just neglect him intentionally? Why did he blind his master's successors, and why did he choose to place the given person on the throne? How did he wield this enormous executive power? How did he physically achieve these ends? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.201.100.168 ( talk) 01:14, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Obviously MK wanted to capture power for himself. [1] Malaiya ( talk) 01:23, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
(removed from article as unsourced) It is reported that Alauddin fell in love with his effeminate handsomeness and named him senior commander in his army after he agreed to convert to Islam. citation needed Early in his career, he became known as “Thousand- dinar Kafur” for the price at which he was rumored to have been bought. Thanks, Mattisse 16:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
The 'Relationship with Alauddin' subsection stated that Historian Banarsi Prasad Saksena believes that the closeness between Alauddin and Kafur should not be interpreted as a homosexual relationship: Alauddin had great trust in Kafur because unlike other officers, he did not have family or followers. Such a sentence implies that the explanation for Alauddin & Kafur's closeness is that Alauddin specially trusted Kafur because the latter lacked family and followers. The source does not give such an explanation. Whoever wrote that sentence has combined two different statements from the source and joined them to imply a conclusion not supported by the source. That is WP:SYNTHESIS.
Since the purpose of that misleading sentence seemed to be to prove that Alauddin and Kafur were not involved sexually, I am suspicious of the other sentence that states they weren't involved sexually, especially so because that sentence was written in a non-neutral manner. The sentence was: "However, historian Abraham Eraly notes that Barani's criticism of Kafur is not credible: Barani was extremely prejudiced against Kafur, presumably because of Kafur's non-Turkic origins." I could not access the cited source (Abraham Eraly's book The Age of Wrath: A History of the Delhi Sultanate, p. 178) for that sentence myself so I added the 'verification needed' tag. I am suspicious that that sentence may have WP:SYNTHESIS too so I would like someone to verify if the source truly states that:
I would like whoever verifies the sentence to copy-paste/quote the relevent paragraph(s) from the cited page of Eraly's book onto this talk page so that it is clear that the verification was honest. — Human10.0 ( talk) 20:06, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Here's the quote:
Besides, Ala-ud-din, according to Barani, ‘was infatuated with Malik Kafur, and made him the commander of his army and vizier. He distinguished him above all his other helpers and friends, and this eunuch and minion held the chief place in his regards.’ And in the closing days of the sultan’s reign, he became the virtual ruler of the empire. Kafur ‘did not allow anyone to see the emperor, and he himself began to … administer the realm,’ states Isami.
Barani is severely critical of Kafur, but his excoriations are not quite credible, for he was deeply prejudiced against Malik Kafur, whom he invariably described as a ‘wicked fellow,’ presumably because he was not a Turk but an Islamised Hindu and a eunuch.
utcursch | talk 17:18, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Barani is severely critical of Kafur, but his excoriations are not quite credible, for he was deeply prejudiced against Malik Kafur, whom he invariably described as a ‘wicked fellow,’ presumably because he was not a Turk but an Islamised Hindu and a eunuch. The resentment against Kafur among the Turkish nobles intensified when he blinded Khizr Khan and his brother Shadi Khan—Kafur, writes Barani, ‘sent his barber to blind Shadi Khan … by cutting his eyes from their sockets with a razor’—and imprisoned the other sons of Ala-ud-din, except the boy sultan who was his protégé. ‘His great object was to remove all the children and wives of the late sultan, all the nobles and slaves who had claims for the throne, and to fill their places with creatures of his own.’
@ Almeda64: Regarding these edits, you might want to read the discussion above. @ Human10.0 has raised concerns that Eraly doesn't specifically speak about Barani's description of Kafur's homosexuality, so connecting his cautionary note about Barani's unreliability to this specific topic is original research. utcursch | talk 06:30, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
It is mentioned in
Malik Kafur#Early life and career that "by 1309-10, he held the iqta' (administrative grant) of Rapri, in Jagadhri tehsil of Yamunanagar district of present-day Haryana.
" But the cited source doesn't support the current location of Rapri.
Here's the relevant quote from the source:
Kafur's first known base
was Rapri, on the Yamuna, which was his iqta' by 709/1309-10;33 but towards the end of the reign he was
in command at Deoglr, which had by then been annexed to the Sultanate (p. 202 below); the date of his
appointment as na'ib is unknown.
[2]
I have access to the above source, and there aren't any details regarding Rapri's current location in the book. So I will remove it for now. - NitinMlk ( talk) 20:47, 30 March 2019 (UTC)