Talk:Mahmud of Ghazni
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mahmud of Ghazni article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1 |
 | This  level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Primary source
As usual Wikipedia is being used for creating a confusion in well documented histories in order to push certain goals. Mahmud was not a Persian but of Turkish origin. The Turks originally lived in Turkmenistan and parts of Afghanistan. When Mahmud defeated the Hindu Shahi dynasty some Shahi princes fled to Kashmir. Kashmir had supported the Hindu Shahis and also marriages took place between the royalty of both places. An angry Mahmud next attacked Kashmir twice and was soundly defeated both times by the Hindu Kashmiris. Reference of this in Rajatarangini and Kitab ta'rikh al-Hind, by Al-Biruni. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.203 (talk) 00:19, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
- The al-Hind by Biruni and Rajatarangini are primary sources and can not be used in Wikipedia. Also, you did not source your information either time you added it. If the information you are attempting to add is verifiable, I am sure you could find it in a secondary source. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:36, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
- Rajatarangini would be secondary source. It is not written or supported by primary subject of this article that is Mahmud. Saurabhbhardiya (talk) 20:07, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
- That's not what WP:SECONDARY means here. We are not historians and do not interpret historical sources. -Crossroads- (talk) 20:28, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
- Ok. @Crossroads: Anyway, can the info be included as two different primary sources (of opposing side) seems to agree on same fact? Saurabhbhardiya (talk) 10:42, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
- That's not what WP:SECONDARY means here. We are not historians and do not interpret historical sources. -Crossroads- (talk) 20:28, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
- Rajatarangini would be secondary source. It is not written or supported by primary subject of this article that is Mahmud. Saurabhbhardiya (talk) 20:07, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Modern researches on Somnath Attack
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Modern researches on Somnath attack present some interesting facts. Eminent historian Romila Thapar published a book named “Somanatha: The Many Voices of a History”. It has been found that
1. There is no Hindu text available on this incident. Hence, the entire narrative of this attack is solely based on Muslim authors. (Page-16) 2. There are even internal contradictions in the Turko-Persian narratives.(Page-14, Last paragraph)
- I've reverted this. You need to use the citation style used in the article with page numbers. You can't say 'researches' (not a word in any case) in the section heading as this is all about Thapar. You can call her 'historian' but not 'eminent', and you should not use "There are even" as that's editorial. Hm, the Hindu thing may be a red herring anyway. She does say that there are no mentions of the attack in what are regarded as 'Hindu' sources (inverted commas are hers, not mine) on p 163 but she isn't using that to suggest the attack didn't take place. Looking further it looks as though her analysis is much more nuanced that this edit suggests and that actually reading the book would be required to summarise it. I can't find anyplace where she argues it never took place. She seems to be discussing it as something that occurred. 11:54, 28 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs)
I never said it did not take place. It certainly happened. See Page No-16 and Page No-14(last paragraph). I just said:
1. There is no Hindu text available on this incident. Hence, the entire narrative of this attack is solely based on Muslim authors. (Page-16) 2. There are even internal contradictions in the Turko-Persian narratives.(Page-14, Last paragraph)
Both the statements are needed to present a correct and neutral version of history. You can change the style if needed. Ghatus (talk) 12:44, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- As it stand now, with the quotes, I see no need for the numbering(1&2) or sectioning, since this article is not about Somnath temple. This information, if verified, should be placed in the Somnath temple article, since this information has to do with the historiography of the raid on the temple, not Mahmud of Ghazni. Therefore, there only needs to be a single sentence mentioning it per Wikipedia:Weight. Also, in the Societies, Networks, and Transitions: A Global History, by Craig Lockard, page 366;"Hindu sources reported, probably with some exaggeration, that the attack killed 50,000 Hindus.", which means there are Hindu sources mentioning the raid. Both the statements are needed to present a correct and neutral version of history. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:22, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- A Global History of History, by Daniel Woolf, page 65;"India's very capacity to generate thought and writing about the past has often been rejected - the Muslim al-Biruni commented on the Hindu lack of interest in 'the historical order of things' as early as the 1020s; Edward Gibbon commented on a general 'Asiatic' lack of history in the eighteenth century; and the indictment was echoed by James Mill and by Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel in the nineteenth century." --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:27, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- And I repeat, the edit I reverted here is a cherry-picked version of what Thapar actually wrote. If it wasn't meant to cast serious doubt that it ever took place then it was badly written as that is exactly what it did. It is also not 'modern researches" as Thapar is only one person. Please don't do this again. Dougweller (talk) 16:13, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Ghatus was on the right track here. I don't know why everybody pounced upon him. The Somnath section is really poor with outdated sources and an extended quote from a 13th century fantasy legend. It should be rewritten based on Thapar. The entire point of her book is to demonstrate how unreliable these medieval Muslim legends are, even though they were taken to be "history" during the Raj era. - Kautilya3 (talk) 16:32, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- Let's keep this in the context of the situation;
- Ghatus added information solely concerning the historiography of the raid on the Somnath Temple
- Three editors reverted Ghatus, of which one, an Admin, directly calls Ghatus' edit as "cherry-picking" information.
- And as of this date, this information has not been added to Somnath Temple article, which leads me to believe the original edit(s) by Ghatus were made to make a point. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:24, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- From Encyclopaedia of Islam;
- "In the 8th century A.D. Somnath was ruled by the Cavada Radjputs, vassals of the Cawlukyas. Its fame in Islamic history arises from the famous attack on its temple, mounted from Multan, by Mahmud of Ghazna [q.v.] in 416-17/1015-16. The sultan desecrated the shrine and destroyed its idol, pieces of which were reputedly sent to Mecca and Medina to be trodden underfoot by the true believers; the whole event vastly enhanced Mahmud's reputation in Islam as the hammer of infidels. This was nevertheless essentially a plunder raid, and Kathiawar reverted to Hindu control in the persons of the Vadja Radjputs. In 697/1298, in the reign of the Dihli Sultan Ala al-Din Khaldji, the shrine was again sacked by the commander Ulugh Beg, but only came under prolonged Muslim control in 875/1470 when the sultan of Gudjarat, Mahmud I, conquered Djunagafh or Girnar from its Radja. It was eventually conquered by the Nawwabs of Djunagafh, and in British Indian times it fell within their princely state.", C.E. Bosworth, Encyclopaedia of Islam, Vol. IX, page 869. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:40, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- "The famous Somnath temple in Saurashtra, destroyed by Sultan Mahmud of Ghazna in A.D. 1026, was also of this type.", Building and Sculpture Techniques In India: Part I: The Pre-Classícal Phase, Hermann Goetz, Archaeology, Vol. 15, No. 4 (DECEMBER 1962), pp. 252-261. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:23, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- Kautilya3,Romila Thapar raised some profound questions in “Somanatha: The Many Voices of a History”
- Why is there no "non-Muslim" "historical" sources on Somnath Attack if it had been a such a disastrous incident? (Page-16)
- How much can we believe "Muslim" narratives when there is a clear contradiction between Turkic narrative and Persian Narrative? (Page-14, Last paragraph)
- Why was there no first hand/ contemporary description of the attack and why all the descriptions are based on legends?
- Was the Historiography of the Somnath Attack used as propaganda by the RAJ for the policy of "divide & rule"?(Like the British used Sir H. M. Elliot and John Dowson in the propaganda work "The History of India, as Told by Its Own Historians. The Muhammadan Period")
- If it was attacked seriously, was the temple attacked for being "Somnath Temple" or was it mistaken as "Su Manat"- The abode of Manat (Manat being one of the three chief goddesses of Mecca, the original idol rumored to have been in Gujrat after a raid in Arabia and was ordered by the islamic laws to be destroyed)? (Page-45)[1]
- If Ghaznavi was a Muslim fanatic and his aim was to spread Islam , why there was no imposition of Jijiya in his reign on "non- Muslims", why is there no mention of "forced conversion", why did he use a Hindu General named TILAK to slaughter his Muslim brethren in central Asia and why did he also attack mosques to loot gold? Was he a "crusader" or just a "plain plunderer"?
- There are five narratives of a same incident-"the occasion for the projection of an iconoclast and champion of Islam, the assertion of the superiority of Jainism over Shaivism, the inequities of the Kaliyuga, colonial perceptions of Indian society, and Hindu nationalism and the restoration of a particular view of the past." But, why is only one version accepted here???[2]
These are some questions asked by a prominent historian in the 21st based on serious researches. However, I never say that it (some sort of attack on Somnath though the magnitude is unknown) did not take place. At the same time, being a student of History, I seriously doubt if most of the editors here have the needed intellectual understanding of History. One can not be a master of history by just doing some google searches. The whole article is based on stone age historiography/narration with a blatant communal point of view and Kansas Bear is guarding this . To put it in brief, the article here is rubbish. :-) Ghatus (talk) 05:58, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- Ok, It looks like you are ready to build a page on Somanatha: The Many Voices of History. I would greatly welcome that. However, as far as this page is concerned, it looks what we need to do is:
- to briefly state the narratives from the 13th centurry Islamist legends,
- state that the contemporary historians don't believe they are reliable, and
- describe the most probable account of the event, viz., that Mahmud plundered the temple, but there is no evidence of him having destroyed it.
- Mind you that we will be battling both the Islamists and the Hindutawadis, who both love their legends. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 08:24, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- Instead of making accusations, "The whole article is based on stone age historiography/narration with a blatant communal point of view and Kansas Bear is guarding this . To put it in brief, the article here is rubbish", why don't you read pages 104-106 of Thapar's book?
- "Why is there no "non-Muslim" "historical" sources on Somnath Attack if it had been a such a disastrous incident?"
- "There are, however two passing references to Mahmud's raid on Somanatha in other texts. A contemporary of Mahmud, Dhanapala, the poet at the court of Bhoja Paramara of Malwa briefly describes Mahmud's campaign in Gujarat and mentions the towns looted en route. He makes just a bare reference to Mahmud breaking the idol at Somanatha.", page 105. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:09, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Kansas Bear: Thanks for that. Good find. Note, however, that both of these references are by Jain writers. Hindus themselves don't seem to have cared much about whatever happened at Somnath. Later in the book, Thapar also describes local Muslims being given land for building a mosque, out of the temple's own lands. So, whatever was done by Mahmud didn't affect the local Hindu-Muslim relations either. It was a non-event. It is only due to the Islamist propaganda of the following centuries that the Hindus have now convinced themselves that something disastrous happened. So, the question is why are we reproducing this propaganda on Wikipedia? - Kautilya3 (talk) 16:44, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- Are you speaking of this section, in regards to Hindu-Muslim relations? Largely unsourced rubbish? If you wish to remove any unsourced information from that section, you won't find me complaining.
- I was responding to Ghatus' accusation that there were "no non-Muslim historical sources", yet clearly Ghatus hasn't read the entire book, since pages 104-106 clearly show two Jain sources. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:25, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- I was responding directly to your comment. The pages 104-106 of Thapar's book mention two Jain books, of which one has a passing mention of the desecration of Somnath. They are not Hindu sources, even though it was a Hindu temple that was supposedly destroyed! I was also pointing out that in other parts of the book (page 84ff), Thapar points out that Hindus were happily sharing space with Muslims and allowing them to build mosques, after this supposed Islamic attack on their temple. It makes you wonder if there was an attack at all, doesn't it? - Kautilya3 (talk) 20:55, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- Should I believe that the Jain sources were lying? Why? Because there are no Hindu sources?
- As a Wikipedian, it does not matter what I believe, but what I can prove using reliable sources. If I were to postulate a belief, I would speculate that someone has taken a quote by A.K. Majumdar(page 16) from Thapar's book and ignored everything else that she states within her book(pages 104-106). --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:19, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- Are there any Hindu sources describing any of Mahmud's seventeen raids? --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:03, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- I was responding directly to your comment. The pages 104-106 of Thapar's book mention two Jain books, of which one has a passing mention of the desecration of Somnath. They are not Hindu sources, even though it was a Hindu temple that was supposedly destroyed! I was also pointing out that in other parts of the book (page 84ff), Thapar points out that Hindus were happily sharing space with Muslims and allowing them to build mosques, after this supposed Islamic attack on their temple. It makes you wonder if there was an attack at all, doesn't it? - Kautilya3 (talk) 20:55, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
@Kautilya3:, @Kansas Bear:
My Statement:"Why is there no "non-Muslim" "historical" sources on Somnath Attack if it had been a such a disastrous incident?"
Meaning: We depend on Muslim sources for the attack on Somnath.
Quote:"But, as is well known, Hindu sources do not give any information regarding the raids of Sultan Mahmud, so that what follows is based solely on the testimony of Muslim authers."[3]
Reference to Jains: I wrote-"There are five narratives of a same incident-"the occasion for the projection of an iconoclast and champion of Islam, the assertion of the superiority of Jainism over Shaivism, the inequities of the Kaliyuga..." But, as Thapar said that those two Jains texts are propaganda for the Jains and gives just a slight reference without giving detail description. They are not historical sources even. What details did they give? Were they contemporary? If not contemporary, can they not be victim of propaganda as even many are today now? What is their source-First hand/Royal record/oral legend?
Quote: "LET me turn now to the Jaina texts of this period. These, not unexpectedly, associated a different set of concerns with the event, or else they ignore it. The 11th century Jaina poet from the Paramara court in Malwa, Dhanapala, a contemporary of Mahmud, briefly mentions Mahmud's campaign in Gujarat and his raids on various places, including Somanatha.22 He comments, however, at much greater length of Mahmud's inability to damage the icons of Mahavira in Jaina temples for, as he puts it, snakes cannot swallow Garuda nor can stars dim the light of the sun. This for him is proof of the superior power of the Jaina images as compared to the Shaiva.
In the early 12th century, another Jaina next informs us that the Chaulukya king, angered by the rakshasas, the daityas and the asuras who were destroying temples and disturbing the rishis and brahmanas, campaigned against them.23 One expects the list to include the Turushkas (as the Turks were called) but instead mention is made of the local rajas. The king is said to have made a pilgrimage to Somanatha and found that the temple was old and disintegrating. He is said to have stated that it was a disgrace that the local rajas were plundering the pilgrims to Somanatha but could not keep the temple in good repair. This is the same king who built at Cambay a mosque which was later destroyed in a campaign against the Chaulukyas of Gujarat by the Paramaras of Malwa. But the Paramara king also looted the Jaina and other temples built under the patronage of the Chaulukyas.24 It would seem that when the temple was seen as a statement of power, it could become a target of attack, irrespective of religious affiliations.
Various Jaina texts, giving the history of the famous Chaulukya king Kumarapala, mention his connection with Somanatha. It is stated that he wished to be immortalised.25 So Hemachandra, his Jaina minister, persuaded the king to replace the dilapidated wooden temple at Somanatha with a new stone temple. The temple is clearly described as dilapidated and not destroyed. When the new temple on the location of the old had been completed, both Kumarapala and Hemachandra took part in the ritual of consecration. Hemachandra wished to impress the king with the spiritual powers of a Jaina acharya, so on his bidding Shiva, the deity of the temple, appeared before the king. Kumarapala was so overcome by this miracle that he converted to the Jaina faith. The focus is again on the superior power of Jainism over Shaivism. The renovating of the temple, which is also important, takes on the symbolism of political legitimation for the king. It does seem curious that these activities focussed on the Somanatha temple, yet no mention is made of Mahmud, in spite of the raid having occurred in the previous couple of centuries. The miracle is the central point in the connection with Somanatha in these accounts.'"[4]
The Jain propaganda further says: "SOME suggestion of an anguish over what may be indirect references to the raids of Mahmud come from quite other Jaina sources and interestingly these relate to the merchant community. In an anthology of stories, one story refers to the merchant Javadi who quickly makes a fortune in trade and then goes in search of a Jaina icon which had been taken away to the land called Gajjana.26 This is clearly Ghazna. The ruler of Gajjana was a Yavana - a term by now used for those coming from the West. The Yavana ruler was easily won over by the wealth presented to him by Javadi. He allowed Javadi to search for the icon and, when it was found, gave him permission to take it back. Not only that but the Yavana worshipped the icon prior to its departure. The second part of the narrative deals with the vicissitudes of having the icon installed in Gujarat, but that is another story."
Proved:Thus Thapar proved both the Jain texts are non-contemporary and propaganda literature. Hence, they have zero historical value as far as the historical description is concerned.
I also said:"However, I never say that it (some sort of attack on Somnath though the magnitude is unknown) did not take place".
By the way, what about my other qusstions like:
- How much can we believe "Muslim" narratives when there is a clear contradiction between Turkic narrative and Persian Narrative? (Page-14, Last paragraph)
- Why was there no first hand/ contemporary description of the attack and why all the descriptions are based on legends?
- Was the Historiography of the Somnath Attack used as propaganda by the RAJ for the policy of "divide & rule"?(Like the British used Sir H. M. Elliot and John Dowson in the propaganda work "The History of India, as Told by Its Own Historians. The Muhammadan Period")
- If it was attacked seriously, was the temple attacked for being "Somnath Temple" or was it mistaken as "Su Manat"- The abode of Manat (Manat being one of the three chief goddesses of Mecca, the original idol rumored to have been in Gujrat after a raid in Arabia and was ordered by the islamic laws to be destroyed)? (Page-45)[5]
- If Ghaznavi was a Muslim fanatic and his aim was to spread Islam , why there was no imposition of Jijiya in his reign on "non- Muslims", why is there no mention of "forced conversion", why did he use a Hindu General named TILAK to slaughter his Muslim brethren in central Asia and why did he also attack mosques to loot gold? Was he a "crusader" or just a "plain plunderer"?
- There are five narratives of a same incident-"the occasion for the projection of an iconoclast and champion of Islam, the assertion of the superiority of Jainism over Shaivism, the inequities of the Kaliyuga, colonial perceptions of Indian society, and Hindu nationalism and the restoration of a particular view of the past." But, why is only one version accepted here???[6]
I repeat again, this article is a communal PROPAGANDA.Ghatus (talk) 05:06, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Kansas Bear: Good of you to mention "reliable sources." However, 13th century Islamic legends are not reliable souces. At best they are primary sources. Wikipedia should be based on the analysis of them by contemporary historians. Historians analyse a number of historical sources to arrive at their conclusions. You are ignoring them and cherry-picking your favourite primary sources. That is not WP:RS tells you to do. - Kautilya3 (talk) 09:03, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- Exactly what primary sources am I using? C.E. Bosworth? Hermann Goetz? Carl Brockelmann, Moshe Perlmann and Joel Carmichael? Encyclopaedia of Islam? You seem to be just rattling off some random accusation.
- I see Thapar questioning whether the attack occurred, whether the temple was destroyed and colonial efforts to create a rift due to said raid. What I do not see is Thapar calling anything propaganda.
- "13th century Islamic legends are not reliable souces"
- And yet contemporary Hindu sources would be considered reliable? "Another category of major sources of the same period as the Turko-Persian accounts is that of inscriptions in Sanskrit from Somanatha and its vicinity.[....] The inscriptions bearing on the period of Sultan Mahmud which have so far been discovered have been published in the "Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal", the "Epigraphia Indica" and the "Indian Antiquary", but take together their historical value is almost negligible."(page 73-74) Fortunately, I won't be using this quote in the manner Ghatus continues to regurgitate the Majumdar quote on page 16.
- "How much can we believe "Muslim" narratives when there is a clear contradiction between Turkic narrative and Persian Narrative?"
- So your broken logic is, nothing is factual despite 2 independent sources(Jains/Turko-Persian) stating there was a raid on Somanatha? Oh my, a contradiction between sources? Like none of those exist anywhere else in history! LMAO! Well out of 17 raids, chances are Mahmud probably attacked Somanatha, as for the temple, that is debatable.
- "Why was there no first hand/ contemporary description of the attack and why all the descriptions are based on legends?"
- Another logic fallacy, based on this broken logic the Ghaznavids never raided Sind!
- "Was the Historiography of the Somnath Attack used as propaganda by the RAJ for the policy of "divide & rule"?(Like the British used Sir H. M. Elliot and John Dowson in the propaganda work "The History of India, as Told by Its Own Historians. The Muhammadan Period""
- Probably, I wouldn't use Elliot or Dowson as sources, though.
- "If it was attacked seriously, was the temple attacked for being "Somnath Temple" or was it mistaken as "Su Manat"- The abode of Manat (Manat being one of the three chief goddesses of Mecca, the original idol rumored to have been in Gujrat after a raid in Arabia and was ordered by the islamic laws to be destroyed)"
- If it was attacked, then Mahmud undoubtedly believed there was something of value to be taken. The raids, conducted by the Ghaznavids, were the only reason they were able to build an empire.
- "If Ghaznavi was a Muslim fanatic and his aim was to spread Islam , why there was no imposition of Jijiya in his reign on "non- Muslims", why is there no mention of "forced conversion", why did he use a Hindu General named TILAK to slaughter his Muslim brethren in central Asia and why did he also attack mosques to loot gold? Was he a "crusader" or just a "plain plunderer"?"
- The Ghaznavids had conflicts with both the Kakuyids and Seljuqs, both Muslim dynasties. I believe the Ghaznavids as a whole were expansionists, intent on empire building, not so much the spreading of Islam. I do not believe Mahmud's aim was to spread Islam, his aim was to plunder and pillage to build his empire. Mahmud was not the nicest person, he imprisoned his own brother so he could be emir.
- "There are five narratives of a same incident-"the occasion for the projection of an iconoclast and champion of Islam, the assertion of the superiority of Jainism over Shaivism, the inequities of the Kaliyuga, colonial perceptions of Indian society, and Hindu nationalism and the restoration of a particular view of the past." But, why is only one version accepted here???
- Haven't you already discarded any source that states what you don't want to hear? Jain source ~legend, Turko-Persian sources ~legend. As usual you remove what you don't like then ask a redundant question. Another logic fallacy.
- I noticed you have re-added your information again, without consensus, again. Pity it hasn't been added to the Somanatha temple article. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:52, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- What primary sources are you (or whoever wrote it) using? Elliot and Dowson. Actually, some unnamed 13th century Turko-Persian source translated by Elliot and Dowson. If you get rid of it and replace it by proper history, there would be no need for Ghatus's counter-narrative. - Kautilya3 (talk) 18:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- Shokoohy[7] mentions that the Somnath attack is the only campaign of Mahmud for which a proper historical record isn't available. So, it has been available for wild imaginations. To Persian eyes the sack of Somnath was not just yet another campaign of a medieval sultan confined to histories, but a symbol of the revival of Iranian identity boosted by religious zeal, which was to echo in literature and folklore throughout the millennium. Despite all this level-headedness, Sokoohy is not able to figure out that exactly this religious zeal now evokes the opposite Hindu religious zeal. We have an opportunity here to fix this, since extensive research has been carried out by Romila Thapar. Let us come up with a level-headed description of what might have happened in Somnath. - Kautilya3 (talk) 19:20, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- What primary sources are you (or whoever wrote it) using? Elliot and Dowson. Actually, some unnamed 13th century Turko-Persian source translated by Elliot and Dowson. If you get rid of it and replace it by proper history, there would be no need for Ghatus's counter-narrative. - Kautilya3 (talk) 18:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- What I wanted to convey Kansas Bear has accepted. He is now arguing for argument's sake to save his face. The points are:
- Mahmud's raid were for economic and political reasons, not for religion.
- What happened in Somnath is unclear.(I never said Somnath did not happen)
- One can not use "Islamic imperialistic fantasies" as sources, sources has to be taken from the modern researches of eminent historians.
Just read the version of previous week of this article. It was a blatant communal propaganda guarded by Kansas Bear. At least some credibility has been restored now. As far as the rebuts are concerned, I could not find out what Kansas Bear is trying to do / say- supporting or opposing. LOL!!! Confused mind. Please ask your questions the way I asked with numbering. Ghatus (talk) 03:53, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
- "It was a blatant communal propaganda guarded by Kansas Bear."
- Which is why you were reverted by an Admin Dougweller, Edward321 and myself. And you have changed the wording from the original time you tried to add the information. So you can quit playing dumb now. FYI, your continued personal attacks simply diminish you and no one else.
- "What happened in Somnath is unclear.(I never said Somnath did not happen)"
- Who is using the word legend, a word that Thapar does not use? Who is using the word propaganda, a word that Thapar does not use? And Thapar on page 43, states the raid happen as well.
- @Kautilya3. I write my sources in a distinct manner and can quickly tell you I did not put the Elliot and Dowson source there. I added my first source to the article 28 October 2011, a Bosworth source. It would appear user:Iamtrhino added the Elliot and Dowson source. So you've attributed someone else's actions to me. Next time, check before accusing.
- @Kautilya3. Thanks for the Shokoohy source. If you find any more sources you can post them on my talk page.
- ""[H]is (Mahmud's) expeditions against India were not motivated by religion but by love of plunder."
- @Ghatus. Clearly you can't understand. I can tell you haven't read Bosworth's book on the Ghaznavids(1963). The Ghaznavids empire building through raiding is not a new concept or "new researches"! LMAO.
- "Fourthly, war plunder. The rich spoils of regions like the northern Indian plain and western Persia were an important factor in making the Ghaznavid empire the most dynamic power known in eastern Islam since the Arab conquests. ~~ C.E. Bosworth, The Ghaznavids:994-1040, University of Edinburgh, 1963, page 77. So now that you have stated that Somanatha raid did happen and I have provided evidence that the Ghaznavids empire building concept was mentioned in 1963, you can apologize for your "stone age historiography" statement. But I'm sure you won't.
- @Ghatus. I found your statement, "If Ghaznavi was a Muslim fanatic...", quite amusing. Was that intended for someone? LOL.
- I would highly suggest reading Bosworth's books on the Ghaznavids, since clearly your knowledge of the Ghaznavids, if based off Thapar, it is severely lacking.
- And for the ?3rd? time, why hasn't this information been posted on the Somnath article? Seriously? Who has the "confused mind" here? LOL. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:12, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
I seriously can not understand whether you are supporting or opposing the changes done. What are to trying to convey with more than half a century old book? Ask your questions with numbering, if any.Ghatus (talk) 04:32, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
- Why are you trying to depict this source, "Mahmud of Ghazni, Md.Habab,p.77" as a "Modern Researches"? Mohammad Habib's 2nd edition of "Sultan Mahmud of Ghaznin" was published in 1967. If you are going to talk ill of the Bosworth source(1963)("What are to trying to convey with more than half a century old book?"), then you should see your source in the same light. Such duplicity is pathetic in an historian, and ignorant in a Wikipedian.
- As for the sections you have added, the Habib source should not be listed under modern researches since clearly it is not a modern source. And when are you going to learn to cite your sources properly?
- Also, the Ghaznavid coin paragraph is also, not a "modern researches". "..and in Mahmud's reign are first attested the well-known bilingual coins with legends in both Arabic and Devanagari characters.". ~~ Bosworth, Ghaznavids, page 44.
- Thus these two parts should be removed or moved to more appropriate areas of the article.
- And for the 4th time, why hasn't this information been added to the Somnath article? Or were you to busy making a point against some ethno-religious group?
- Clear enough? --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:46, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
- I first decided to ignore. But,as I saw in the edit history that you wrote there was no response to your post ( as if you were asking a million dollar question!!), I am giving an academic response. You have two peripheral questions- 1) Why I used the term "modern" to a book written 50 years ago( i.e. of Habib)? 2) Why am I not editing the Somnath Temple page?
- First case is a classical example of confusion between Modern work and Recent Work. Modernity is an approach and method. On the contrary, every recent work is not a modern work. Thapar's books published in 1960s are modern work whereas R. Malhotra's book published much later is a recent work.
- Truly speaking, the Somnath temple article is full of wrong informations as far as the History section is concerned. I do not know if I take out one or two wrong informations from a bunch of wrong informations, It would be of any use or not. To be honest, I do not know much about the history of Somnath Temple before Ghaznavi( if it had any). And also, the later part too seems like fairy tale. I personally believe that it was the British historiography that made Somnath famous. By the way, take it easy and enjoy life.:-)Ghatus (talk) 08:25, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
- "First case is a classical example of confusion between Modern work and Recent Work. Modernity is an approach and method. On the contrary, every recent work is not a modern work. Thapar's books published in 1960s are modern work whereas R. Malhotra's book published much later is a recent work."
- And I do not believe you are capable of making such judgements!
- Reviewed Work: THE GHAZNAVIDS. THEIR EMPIRE IN AFGHANISTAN AND EASTERN IRAN, 994: 1040 by Clifford Edmund Bosworth, Review by: A. S. BAZMEE ANSARI,Islamic Studies, Vol. 3, No. 2 (JUNE 1964), 243."
- The late Dr. Muhammad Nazim's doctoral dissertation entitled The Life and Times of Sultan Mahmud of Ghazna still holds the field in so far as the great Ghaznawid Sultan is concerned. Its appearance outshone and completely eclipsed the rather floppy and "nationalistic" study of Prof. Muhammad Habib of the Aligarh Muslim University entitled Sultan Mahmud of Ghaznin(Aligarh, 1927). After a lapse of more than thirty odd years we are now treated with a well-planned, well-written and extremely fine study of the Ghaznawids as a Turkish dynasty..[...]. In his refreshingly objective study Dr. Bosworth, Lecturer in Arabic in the University of St. Andrews, Scotland, has compressed a welath of material not found elsewhere...[..]. Casting aside the conventional method of writing history as a register of events or an inventory of the ruler's campaigns and victories he has attempted a cultural history of the Ghaznawids with special reference to the administrative, social and military institutions that flourished in the Central and Western provinces of the Empire."
- I believe that ends this discussion calling Habib's work, a "modern work".
- As for Somnath temple, I figured that type of response from you. Your editing has always been rather pointy. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:45, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
- It is better for you not to believe in my capability of "making such judgements." But, I have some belief in Eaton who quotes both Habib and Thapar as authoritative source. I leave it to the judgement of Eaton. I won't argue for argument's sake. I have made my point clear and this article has been changed accordingly. I am very happy for my work being done.Ghatus (talk) 04:45, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
- It would be even better if the Eaton source support your "opinion". No where does Eaton call Habib a modern historian or refer to Habib's work as modern. These are your creations, unsupported by any source. Therefore, I will be reverting said "modern historians" which is your original research. As usual you are still trying to make a point. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:17, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
- It is better for you not to believe in my capability of "making such judgements." But, I have some belief in Eaton who quotes both Habib and Thapar as authoritative source. I leave it to the judgement of Eaton. I won't argue for argument's sake. I have made my point clear and this article has been changed accordingly. I am very happy for my work being done.Ghatus (talk) 04:45, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
- Your typical response. Once you've been proven to be misrepresenting a source, again, you state the other editor "has a bias". LMAO. Then you will be adding "modern historian" to H.M. Eliot & John Dowson, since Eaton uses them as sources. I have yet to see you adding "modern historian" to Bosworth's works within this article, you be sure to get right on that! --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:54, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
References
- Thapar, Romila (2005). Somanatha: The Many Voices of a History. ISBN 9781844670208.
- Thapar, Romila (2008-06-19). Somanatha. ISBN 9789351180210.
- Thapar, Romila (2005). Somanatha: The Many Voices of a History. ISBN 9781844670208.
- Shokoohy, Mehrdad (June 2012). "The legacy of Islam in Somnath". Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies. 75 (2): 297–335. doi:10.1017/S0041977X12000493.
Towards resolution
It looks like all of us are agreed that it was a raid, not a "destruction." Thapar mentions (p. 75) that a Kadamba king of Goa made a pilgrimage to Somnath in 1038, and the temple was apparently fine. The best information we have (from Al-Biruni as well as Kumarapala's poet) is that the idol may have been damaged by Mahmud, and he might even had carried these chips back to Ghazna. Whatever damage was done was quickly repaired. So, as I said before, it was a non-event. So, the only thing of historical interest about Somnath is the fact that it became an object of religious zeal in Turko-Persian sources for a millennium and the temple was repeatedly raided. So, a short discussion of this aspect is all that should go into this section. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 06:04, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
- Here is an interesting perspective on Mahmud's raid on Somnath: The expedition to Somnath is one of the greatest feats of military adventure in the history of Islam. The news of this victory sent a wave of joy all over the Muslim world, and the delighted Caliph heaped titles and honours on the Sultan, his sons and his brother. Like many other heroes, Sultan Mahmud became transformed into an almost mythical fiture and generations of enthusiastic authros surrounded his name with a huge literature of fanciful stories which were intendedto glorify him as a king and a warrior.[1] - Kautilya3 (talk) 00:15, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
References
- Nazim, Muhammad (2015). The Life and Times of Sultan Mahmud of Ghazna. Cambridge University Press. pp. 120–. ISBN 978-1-107-45659-4.
Religion of Mahmud-e Ghaznavi
Hello people.
I am reading al-Milal wa n-Nihal, which is a medieval heresiography of al-Tahir al-Baghdadi (d. 1037 C.E.). The book has been printed in Lebanon in 1986 and has been edited by dr. Albert Nasri Nadir from the Faculty of Philosophy of the University of Lebanon. The book is printed by Dar ul-Mashriq in Bayrut.
In the book there is a chapter about Murji'ite Jahmites under the title Dhikr-u d-Dhalal min al-Karramiyyah. In a footnote beneath it, the editor is referring to imam al-Izz ar-Ras'ani (d. 1283) and his book Mukhtasar Kitab al-Firaq bayn al Firaq, wherein it is stated according to ar-Ras'ani Mahmud of Ghazna was a Murji'ite Jahmite and NO SUNNI.
Changed it accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scimethod (talk • contribs) 12:20, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
- Well, the bot reverted you because you inserted a nonexistent wikilink. In any case Murji'ah says that it is part of Sunni Islam. So, I am not sure that this should go into the infobox. Please feel free to add text in the body, discussing the subtleties and adding citations to the sources. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 12:40, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi there, hope you are all ok.
The Murji'ah were definitely NOT sunni's. All sunni/traditionalist heresiographies of the Middle Ages agree upon this. Nowadays, there is a trend among modernist sunni's to incorporate or take credit for lots of elements in the history of islam which had nothing to do with sunnism. Like declaring mu'tazilites sunni, or the bulk of non-sunni mu'tazilite/kalami/falsafi scholars and scientists. The contradiction between classical traditionalist sources concerning non-sunni schools of thought and groups, and contemporary sunni modernists, is striking. The first would villify and denounce them as heretics, legalizing their murder and persecution (declaring halal their blood and posessions), while the latter declaring them 'free-thinkers' within the framework of the quran and sunna (main sources of traditionalist islam). It simply IS-NOT-TRUE.
This is my first time editing anything on wikipedia, sorry for the inconvenience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.85.50.221 (talk) 05:54, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Outdated/questionable sources
- Sir Henry Miers Elliot,(1952). The history of India, as told by its own historians: the Muhammadan period, Volume 11. ~~This book was originally published in 1867! Terribly outdated, and I am sure more modern sources can be found. & The History of India as told by its own Historians by Eliot and Dowson. I am assuming is the same book.
- Martin Ewans Afghanistan: a new history, Edition: 2, illustrated Published by Routledge, 2002. Ewans is a former officer of the British Diplomatic Service, holds a degree of some kind from Cambridge. I believe better sources can be found.
- ʻAlī Muḥammad Khān, James Bird, The political and statistical history of Gujarát. Terribly outdated, 1837?
- Lal, Vinay (August 2009). "Mahmud of Ghazni". MANAS. Is a blog and will be removed.
- Imperial Gazetteer of India v2. Published as late as 1931. Most of the authors have been dead for 100 years.
- Zhao, Rukuo, Friedrich Hirth, and William Woodville Rockhill. Chau Ju-Kua: His Work on the Chinese and Arab Trade in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries. Hirth died in 1927, William Woodville Rockhill died in 1914, which makes this work outdated. Judging from what this source brings to the article, I am not convinced that information lends anything to the article. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:05, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Mahmud's mother
Ismail of Ghazni article say Mahmud's mother was a slave. 72.53.146.173 (talk) 05:37, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
- So? The Encyclopaedia of Islam states she was the daughter of a Persian aristocrat. BTW, the sentence in the Ismail of Ghazni article is unsourced. Pity you continue to ignore what a reliable source states. --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:21, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
- From the Encyclopaedia Iranica, "MAḤMUD B. SEBÜKTEGIN, YAMIN-AL-DAWLA ABU’L-QĀSEM, the first fully independent ruler of the Turkish Ghaznavid dynasty (see GHAZNAVIDS), who reigned (388-421/998-1030) over what had become by his death a vast military empire stretching from northwestern Persia to the Punjab in India and from Ḵᵛārazm (Chorasmia) and the middle stretches of the Oxus River to Makrān and the Arabian Sea shores.
On the maternal side, he was the eldest grandson of a landowner of Zābolestān in eastern Afghanistan...."
- More facts;
- "From motives which are unclear, Sebüktegin designated a younger son, Esmāʿil, as his heir in Ghazna (possibly because Esmāʿil’s mother had been a daughter of his old master Alptigin..."
Guess you have not bothered to check sources....--Kansas Bear (talk) 06:29, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Turkish spelling
SheriffIsInTown: Since instead of creating a section you just suddenly start reverting, I have created one;
Mahmud wasn't Turkish, he was Turkic, two different things - hence the Turkish spelling shouldn't be there. As I said, it's like adding the Persian spelling on Skilurus. There are probably some other reasons too which I can't remember - come on, why do you think most of these kind of articles don't have the modern Turkish spelling written? --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:45, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- First of all, thanks for starting the discussion but you started on the wrong foot, please check the article history, it was not me who started suddenly reverting instead i saw you reverting a newbie, to which i objected so the reverting started with you.
- As for your claim that he was a Turkic and not Turkish, i can provide you many sources which say that he was of a Turkish origin, just let me know, how many would be sufficient for you. Honestly, if you cannot remember the reasons why Turkish spelling should not be there then do not revert.
- We don't go by what other articles of the type have in them, every article should be evaluated and edited on its own merit. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:56, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- - I only restored the original information of the article, it was the person who randomly added the script that should have created a section.
- - And I could do the opposite (btw I know what sources you have in mind, but those sources uses Turkish and Turkic as synonym). But let's think about it another way; Mahmud's father was a nomadic (pagan?) Turk from Transoxiana, that's not what you call for a modern Turkish man now is it? This 'Turkish' group was formed many centuries later. Furthermore, I don't exactly think that the modern Turkish alphabet was used during Mahmud's time, and that he was known as 'Gazneli Mahmut', which is a modern term. And no, not when almost every article like this don't use the Turkish alphabet, which there is a pretty clear reason for. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:08, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- SheriffIsInTown: That I know, but the thing is that the Turkish people first appears later, so you can't really call him one. If he was one thing that was a Turkic man - his father was from present-day Kyrgyzstan. Heck, calling him a Turkoman would be more accurate than calling him 'Turkish' --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:02, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- @HistoryofIran you are wrong. Difference between Turkic and Turkish are a modern concept because of the definition in the constitution of Turkey. He is simply TÜRK like Ataturk, Kanuni or KulTigin. All resources refer him as Türk. Why this article have Persian spelling and not Turkish, Urdu or Arabic spelling? Turkic people also have now unified common alphabet and according to that he is Gazneli Mahmud. 84.51.29.38 (talk) 01:52, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- " Why this article have Persian spelling and not Turkish, Urdu or Arabic spelling?"
- Because the Ghaznavids used written Persian. Can you prove the Ghaznavids used written Turkish? Written Urdu? --Kansas Bear 02:20, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- SheriffIsInTown: That I know, but the thing is that the Turkish people first appears later, so you can't really call him one. If he was one thing that was a Turkic man - his father was from present-day Kyrgyzstan. Heck, calling him a Turkoman would be more accurate than calling him 'Turkish' --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:02, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Destruction of Somnath again
[Copied from User talk:Kautilya3]
The statement, "According to tradition" was added 1 March 2016, can you prove it is sourced content? Else it is an unsourced addition. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:53, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- Ah, I didn't realize that it was added today. @Huangdi: can you throw light on this? I don't have access to the source cited. As far as I am concerned, the whole sentence can go away. There is no evidence that Mahmud destroyed anything. - Kautilya3 (talk) 19:05, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- The source for the sentence, Habib 1965, p. 52-57, makes no mention of any tradition. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:09, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Kansas Bear: What does the source say? - Kautilya3 (talk) 19:25, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- I own and have read Thapar's book. Your point? --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:14, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- If and when some right wing historian produces an alternative version of the events, we will revisit the issue. Not until then. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:25, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- Kansas Bear, sorry for too late reply. I have forgotten that I have started as discussion. :D I am not suggesting any changes to article right now without any sources but I want to suggest that claims made by Thapar and other so called Leftist historians are questioned many times by rightist authors and many others. If someone critically studies the book and examine claims made in it without any references then it would be very helpful. For example, Kinnar Acharya, a Gujarati writer has questioned her claims. (It is in Gujarati language and copied and placed on his official blog from his book Mahabharatni Ramayan.) It particularly questions how Thapar linked Manāt to Somnath (read in Wiki article too) as on one hand she rejects claims made by Turko-Persian sources about the raid while on the other had she accepts the version of Farrukhi Sistani (who is referred as source of Manat claim), Ghaznavid court poet who claimed to have accompanied Mahmud on his raid. It looks like she accepted what fits her narrative and rejected what does not fit. It looks like she want to whitewash the Mahmud's iconoclastic raid by describing it as his religious duty. Sometimes historians can be biased too. Can you write here the text of Thapar regarding Manat as you own the book. Meenakshi Jain too has questioned many things. :) Regards,--Nizil (talk) 14:05, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
- There are no "claims" made in the book, except for one. There is no evidence of the temple being destroyed by Mahmud. He probably did break the lingam, which is what I state in the Somnath temple article.
- The book is called Many voices of history, i.e., a study of how Mahmud's raid was told and retold in various forms over the centuries. It is a great illustration of how narratives are made in historical sources, and a signal caution to all those that pick and choose the narratives they like and tom-tom them as "the truth".
- I do intend to write a page on the book itself. Not sure when I will get the time to do so. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:53, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you, Kautilya3 for your words. I would like to have a look on your writing asap. I wish the history would be written the way we write Wikipedia. We discuss sources, their reliability, their context etc. here and the same way historians/archeologists should be discussing their own interpretations of historical evidences. Than the history would have been better represented. Regards,-Nizil (talk) 17:06, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
- Kansas Bear, sorry for too late reply. I have forgotten that I have started as discussion. :D I am not suggesting any changes to article right now without any sources but I want to suggest that claims made by Thapar and other so called Leftist historians are questioned many times by rightist authors and many others. If someone critically studies the book and examine claims made in it without any references then it would be very helpful. For example, Kinnar Acharya, a Gujarati writer has questioned her claims. (It is in Gujarati language and copied and placed on his official blog from his book Mahabharatni Ramayan.) It particularly questions how Thapar linked Manāt to Somnath (read in Wiki article too) as on one hand she rejects claims made by Turko-Persian sources about the raid while on the other had she accepts the version of Farrukhi Sistani (who is referred as source of Manat claim), Ghaznavid court poet who claimed to have accompanied Mahmud on his raid. It looks like she accepted what fits her narrative and rejected what does not fit. It looks like she want to whitewash the Mahmud's iconoclastic raid by describing it as his religious duty. Sometimes historians can be biased too. Can you write here the text of Thapar regarding Manat as you own the book. Meenakshi Jain too has questioned many things. :) Regards,--Nizil (talk) 14:05, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
- If and when some right wing historian produces an alternative version of the events, we will revisit the issue. Not until then. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:25, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Poor and biased
It seems that editors here have decided that only one narrative should be given prominence, so much so that the article has become a biased account. For example, apparently there were powerful legends on the attack on Somnath Temple (what those are the section doesn't tell us, apart from a mention of "iconoclastic" in passing), instead it focused on those who questioned those unmentioned accounts. Are those "legends" the accounts mentioned earlier, or something else? The whole article is confused, and there appears to be an unacceptable attempt to push a narrative, which is evident throughout the whole article. It is wrong that only one view is presented in the historiography section. We should attempt to give a rounded view rather than focusing on particular viewpoint, i.e. mentioned whatever those supposed "legends" were and what the scholarship opinions on those are, so that we have a clearer view. If it is something contentious then say so, rather trying to present only one point of view. Hzh (talk) 00:15, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
- It appears that there has been no attempt to fix this problem. There is really something wrong when editors try to push one point of view and ignoring others. Please read WP:NPOV about giving due weight and balance. For a section that purports to be about historiography, when all the information is given to one side of the argument, especially one that is intended to argue against another opinion, not giving the opposing opinion means that the whole thing is unbalanced. There is also the absurdity of describing having soldiers of different religion as being about "attitude towards religious freedom". I guess you can also call the British practice of using non-British, non-white and non-Christian people to help fight their war and help administer the countries in their Empire as being about their attitude towards racial equality, which is an absurdity. I would propose deleting the whole section on Somnath if nothing is done. Hzh (talk) 18:26, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Contradictory information on Sultanate vs Emirate
First and foremost, I'd like to know what year Mahmud Ghaznavi broke off from the Sammanid Empire, and what year he adopted the Sultan title.
On the second issue, the article itself seems to have contradictory information. In the infobox, it states he adopted the Sultan title in 1002. Whereas in the section titled "Campaign timeline" its says 997. Which one is it, and are there any sources for either? - DA1 (talk) 01:26, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
- According to The Ghaznavids:994-1040 by C.E. Bosworth, page 45-46, Following Mahmud's victory over Ismail, Mahmud traveled to Balkh to pay homage to Mansur II. After Mansur II was blinded and his brother al-Malik II was foisted on the Samanid throne, Mahmud moved against al-Malik's supporters then decided on peace. Mahmud would have been given the title of Sultan by the caliph following the fall of al-Malik II. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:19, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Change name
In google, Mahmud Ghaznavi has more search results that Mahmud of Ghazni. So isn't it better to rename it to a common name ?31.215.192.185 (talk) 15:05, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- Perhaps some editor can look into it?Abbasquadir (talk) 17:32, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Mahmud of Ghazni. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929125948/http://persian.packhum.org/persian/index.jsp?serv=pf&file=80201010&ct=0 to http://persian.packhum.org/persian/index.jsp?serv=pf&file=80201010&ct=0
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:13, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Template:Islam in South Asia
I like to add this template to this page but not sure what the problem is. This page is part of a series on Islam in South Asia. Please help! 65.95.136.96 (talk) 14:55, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Mahmud of Ghazni. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090803221351/http://www.infinityfoundation.com/ECITTarikhYaminiframeset.htm to http://www.infinityfoundation.com/ECITTarikhYaminiframeset.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:08, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Copyright?
According to Visioncurve, the section Ghaznavid campaigns in Indian Subcontinent was copied from quora.
The quora link is dated July 27, 2017.
Yet I am finding this version in Mahmud of Ghazni as early as 4 July 2015.
So exactly how has this been plagiarized? --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:12, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
The IP188.170.194.197 added this to Mahmud of Ghazni:
- "Christoph Baumer notes that in 1026 CE, Jats "inflicted heavy losses" on the army of Mahmud while it was on its way from Somnath to Multan. Later in 1027, he avenged the attack by Jats, who had also been impervious to "forced Islamisation" for the last three centuries, by ravaging the fleet of Jats in the Indus river. Even though Jats had a bigger fleet than Mahmud, he is said to have around 20 archers on each of his 1400 boats, who were stocked with "special projectiles" carrying naphtha, and Jats' fleet were blazed by them."
According to Visioncurve this was taken from Quora. Here is the Quora quote:
- "Following the defeat of the Indian Confederacy, after deciding to retaliate for their combined resistance, Mahmud then set out on regular expeditions against them, leaving the conquered kingdoms in the hands of Hindu vassals and annexing only the Punjab region.
- "He also vowed to raid and loot the wealthy region of northwestern India every year."
- "In 1001 Mahmud of Ghazni first invaded modern day Afghanistan and Pakistan and then parts of India. Mahmud defeated, captured, and later released the Shahi ruler Jayapala, who had moved his capital to Peshawar(modern Pakistan). Jayapala killed himself and was succeeded by his son Anandapala. In 1005 Mahmud of Ghazni invaded Bhatia (probably Bhera), and in 1006 he invaded Multan, at which time Anandapala's army attacked him. The following year Mahmud of Ghazni attacked and crushed Sukhapala, ruler of Bathinda (who had become ruler by rebelling against the Shahi kingdom). In 1013, during Mahmud's eighth expedition into eastern Afghanistan and Pakistan, the Shahi kingdom (which was then under Trilochanapala, son of Anandapala) was overthrown."
- "In 1014 Mahmud led an expedition to Thanesar. The next year he unsuccessfully attacked Kashmir. In 1018 he attacked Mathura and defeated a coalition of rulers there while also killing a ruler called Chandrapala. In 1021 Mahmud supported the Kannauj king against Chandela Ganda, who was defeated. That same year Shahi Trilochanapala was killed at Rahib and his son Bhimapala succeeded him. Lahore (modern Pakistan) was annexed by Mahmud. Mahmud besieged Gwalior, in 1023, where he was given tribute. Mahmud attacked Somnath in 1025, and its ruler Bhima Deva I fled. The next year, he captured Somnath and marched to Kachch against Bhima Deva. That same year Mahmud also attacked the Jat people of Jud."
- "The Indian kingdoms of Nagarkot, Thanesar, Kannauj, and Gwalior were all conquered and left in the hands of Hindu, Jain, and Buddhist kings as vassal states and he was pragmatic enough not to neglect making alliances and enlisting local peoples into his armies at all ranks. Since Mahmud never kept a permanent presence in the northwestern subcontinent, he engaged in a policy of destroying Hindu temples and monuments to crush any move by the Hindus to attack the Empire; Nagarkot, Thanesar, Mathura, Kannauj, Kalinjar(1023) and Somnath all submitted or were raided."
Where is the copying?? --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:31, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
There's a specific and reliable tool that we use to find copyright and it informs that significant parts of the above-mentioned article (section of the article) have 83% of chance to be a copyright violation. Copyright issues are a serious problem with legal considerations, and must be dealt promptly. Moreover, I did not delete or remove any content, but simply placed a copyright suspicion tag. Consequently, I inevitably notified Wiki's copyright admins about this potential violation and now hope to receive a prompt response to my request.
As per discussion of each individual violation on articles' talk pages, it is considered impractical because there are dozens of potential violations to be assessed each day and only a very small group of people working on copyright cleanup. As I mentioned eaarlier - copyright issues are a serious problem with legal considerations. Thanks, --Visioncurve (talk) 04:54, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
- Are you going to address the fact that the quora answer is dated July 27, 2017, while the paragraphs that Mayank Kumar(on quora) copied from Mahmud of Ghazni had existed on Mahmud of Ghazni since before 2015?? Yes or no?
- The paragraph the IP added, is not in the information Kumar copied from Mahmud of Ghazni. Which I have proven above.
- For the 2nd time, "Where is the copying??" --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:05, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
- If you imply that the above-mentioned article does not have significant issues with copyright, and you have carefully checked the relevant dates, then there is no problem, good work. I told it beforehand, and I'm saying it now that there was simply a copyright suspicion, and I just wanted to notify editors of the article and copyright admins about that. Thanks --Visioncurve (talk) 06:51, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Indian subcontinent or South Asian subcontintent?
The word India is a creation of the Continental Europeans. It is best to avoid this word. It is connected to Continental European colonialism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.44.160.64 (talk) 02:22, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- I'm no historian but I'm pretty sure the word 'India' outdates colonism. --HistoryofIran (talk) 02:31, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
Date of plundering of Somnath
The article currently gives two dates for the plundering of the temple in Somnath, 1024 and 1025. Another source quoted above says Mahmud attacked Somnath in 1025 but captured it in 1026. Bosworth (article MAḤMUD B. SEBÜKTEGIN in the Encyclopedia Iranica) says the campaign took place in 1025–6. At any rate, 1024 doesn't seem to be correct. Kanjuzi (talk) 03:08, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Should "Turkic" be changed to "Turko-Persian"?
The first sentence states that the Ghaznavid dynasty was a "Turkic" dynasty, but the wiki page for the Ghaznavids point out that it was "Persianate" and "Persian" in its culture, language, literature, and habits. Maybe "Turkic" should be changed to "Turko-Persian; I think It would be more accurate, consistent, and parallel with the wiki page for the Ghaznavids.
Also, I think the first source should be removed; It seems quite inaccurate:
Homa Katouzian, "Iranian history and politics", Published by Routledge, 2003. p. 128: "Indeed, since the formation of the Ghaznavids state in the tenth century until the fall of Qajars at the beginning of the twentieth century, most parts of the Iranian cultural regions were ruled by Turkic-speaking dynasties most of the time."
"Ruled by Turkic-speaking dynasties most of the time" isn't true and doesn't make sense. When you factor in the Iranian sates, Mongol states, and Persian-speaking Turkic states (such as the Ghaznavids and Seljuks) between the 11th and 20th centuries, then the above quote simply doesn't make much sense. Armanqur (talk) 09:58, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 17 November 2021
 | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the "attack on Somnath" section there are grammatical errors such as "Some believes that Mahmud had to face attacks when he was returning to Kabul after 16th attack in which he captures a lot of innocent women, saints, children and money too at first Gogaji Maharaj fought fiercely but got martyred."
In addition to the numerous errors absolutely zero sources have been provided to substantiate anything written. It almost seems like someone was angry at a historical figure for whatever reason and decided it was a good idea to take their anger out on a Wikipedia article. I would like to request that someone add sources to this, if they exist, or delete this part of the article. 188.31.40.16 (talk) 00:02, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
- Removed unsourced information. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:17, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Not scholars/WP:RS
Neither of the sources and are reliable.
Thee authors aren't scholars; , nor are they historians. See WP:RS and WP:HISTRS. Noorullah (talk) 15:10, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Normstahlie Noorullah (talk) 15:14, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- These authors mention reliable muslims scholars i.e firishta and khawaja nizamuddin ahmad. Also WP:HISTRS does not condemn the use of non-scholarly material, the mentioned sources are also WP:NPOV. Normstahlie (talk) 15:43, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- Those authors mention primary sources (but they aren't cited), also for HIST:RS, the practice is that all sources should be scholarly and reliable.
- The former you mentioned are Muslim primary sources which on themselves are not reliable unless backed by secondary sources, see WP:SCHOLARSHIP.
- The sources cited are not scholarly and not reliable. See WP:SOURCE, the publishers are not academic, and nor do we know anything about the authors. Noorullah (talk) 16:50, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- These authors do mention primary sources with citations, looking at the cover page of the manuscript we can easily discern that these are dissertations submitted for PhDs by MA authors and are scholarly material refer WP:SCHOLARSHIP(The Rise of Paramaras, by Krishna Narain Seth). For further reading refer the foreword.
- The mentioned Primary Muslim sources can be taken at face value according to WP:SCHOLARSHIP there is no compulsion for a primary source to be backed with a secondary source, the article only restricts users to interpret the source on their own accord. In this case all of the primary sources mentioned above which include Tarikh-i-sultan (Including Firishtah's testimony), Tabaqat-i-akbari have explicitly stated the aforementioned event and don't need a secondary affirmation.
- The sources cited are scholarly dissertations as mentioned earlier. There are other secondary sources that I can cite which endorse the occurrence of this event. Normstahlie (talk) 21:49, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- These are not scholars as I pointed out again, I do not often like to repeat myself but see and .
- Also primary sources alone shouldn't be used -- it is better cited with a secondary source or a secondary source that cites it, but obviously that cited source has to be WP:RS.
- The publishers are again, not academic either, which is relevant to classifying it as a reliable source per WP:SOURCE. Noorullah (talk) 22:35, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- You can share other secondary sources if you'd like, and we can see if they are WP:RS/Scholarship to include in the article. Noorullah (talk) 22:36, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- Again, these sources are academic and are cited throughout the concerned topics. The only reason for argument here is that the publications are not well-known, and extremely old. This makes them hard to track down. The monograph is still a published dissertation, and holds true to WP:NPOV and aligns with other secondary sources.
- Let me repeat myself yet again, WP:RS/SCHOLARSHIP does not restrict the use of a primary source. It is recommended to use secondary sources whenever possible, but if a secondary source is not found a primary source may be used. Especially in this case wherein the primary source clearly mentions the event so there is no need for a secondary affirmation/interpretation.
- Not enough is known about the publishers, on a side note Progress Publishers both USSR based and Bhopal, India based were relevant in academia.
- Putting all of that aside a secondary source that I can quote is, and . Normstahlie (talk) 07:56, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- I've already informed you that they aren't scholars.
- I'm not going to repeat myself and my arguments there. The intercession of other editors such as 3PO can also be done
- For your other cited sources; Pratipal Bhatia is not a historian, but an author. Again being the same case of an unknown publisher, as well as they themselves not being a historian/scholarship.
- The source by Panikkar is alright, but can fall under WP:AGEMATTERS, is there more sources to back it up? Noorullah (talk) 15:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'd argue that there isn't enough information available about the authors or the publishers. Normstahlie (talk) 17:23, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- Could you clarify what you mean by "The intercession of other editors such as 3PO can also be done
- For your other cited sources;".
- Eitherways Pratipal Bhatia released this as a doctoral dissertation it was well appreciated by alot of her peers and other western indologists, This thesis was published on cambridge university press online . This was also published by Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers who are again well known and a leading publishing house in India . You cannot deny this book's reliability.
- Panikkar's source wouldn't necessarily fall under WP:AGEMATTERS unless you have a more updated source which contradicts or provides some newer insights on this event or the surrounding topic. Normstahlie (talk) 19:30, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- Seems good for those two sources then. Noorullah (talk) 20:44, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you, I'll replace the original sources with these sources. Normstahlie (talk) 21:18, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- Seems good for those two sources then. Noorullah (talk) 20:44, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
Do we need the Administration segment?
There is an extremely large section focused on the administration and governance during Mahmud of Ghazni reign. It seems largely irrelevant due to this article being a biography. Should it not be in the article for the Ghaznavids as it details how the empire worked during his rule? Pierce spacem (talk) 15:11, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
Ghaznavid Migration Theory
Hi everyone,
I’d like to start a discussion about a recent edit concerning the Ghaznavid migration hypothesis related to the origins of the Romani people.
Currently, there is a sourced statement in the article about how some scholars, such as Ian Hancock, have proposed that the widespread conflict and displacement during Mahmud of Ghazni’s campaigns in the early 11th century may have contributed to westward migration of certain groups, possibly including the ancestors of the Romani. This hypothesis is supported by linguistic and genetic evidence cited in Hancock’s work and other publications.
Another editor, User:Beylarbey, has removed this content, expressing concerns that “sourced ≠ validation” and suggesting it may not belong in the article. I believe the material is presented neutrally and with attribution, consistent with WP:NPOV and WP:V, as it is clearly described as a hypothesis, not as established fact.
My proposal:
- Keep the content with proper attribution (e.g., “Some scholars, such as Ian Hancock, have hypothesized that…”).
- Ensure it remains concise, so it does not give undue weight (WP:UNDUE) to a minority viewpoint.
- If there are additional sources opposing this theory, we can add them to create balance.
Here’s the current text for reference:
“A hypothesis proposed by some scholars, including Ian Hancock, links the migration of the Romani people from India to the period of the raids by Mahmud of Ghazni in the early 11th century…”
I welcome input from other editors on:
- Whether this material should remain in the article.
- If it should stay, how we can best phrase it neutrally and with proper context.
Thank you for your thoughts! Marvelcanon1 (talk) 02:27, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
- During ThirdmReich, Nazi academics propagated similar kind of so called hypothesis regarding the German nation. Now it doesn't mean their theories would have any value in the pages of history.
- Ian Hancock, does not provide any historical evidences that mentions Ghaznavid invasions are responsible for Romani people's migration. His entire work only mentions Ghaznavid invasions (which is supported by historical works of Utbi, al-Athir, Bayhaqi etc...) then concludes that these invasions caused Romani people to migrate to Europe. History values proofs not theories that drawn out of nowhere. Beylarbey (talk) 03:39, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for your response. I understand your concern about ensuring that speculative ideas are not presented as historical fact, and I agree that Wikipedia must follow WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:FRINGE.
- However, Ian Hancock is a recognized Romani scholar whose work has been widely published and cited in academic literature. Per WP:DUE, Wikipedia can include minority hypotheses when they are clearly attributed and presented with proper context.
- My original wording already described this as a “hypothesis” rather than an established fact, which keeps the article neutral under WP:NPOV.
- If you believe the current phrasing gives too much weight to Hancock’s view, perhaps we can collaborate on a wording that satisfies both concerns — for example:
- “Some scholars, such as Ian Hancock, have hypothesized that widespread conflict during the Ghaznavid invasions may have contributed to the migration of groups later identified as the Romani people, though this view is not universally accepted.”
- This way, the article includes the information while making it clear that it is a hypothesis and not mainstream consensus. Marvelcanon1 (talk) 04:16, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
- Wikipedia’s policies, particularly Verifiability (WP: V) and No Original Research (WP:NOR), govern how theories, including those proposed by a single academic, are handled.
- Ian Hancock proposed that Romani people's migration is caused by Mahmud Ghazni's invasions in India. Since Ian Hancock's theory yet not backed by any historical works, it shouldn't be added in Legacy section which should only contain (historically proven) effects of Mahmud's reign. Since the theory isn't backed by any evidences that Mahmud's invasion effected the migration, it wouldn't be accurate to add it in Legacy section of this history related article.
- The theory can be included briefly, with clear attribution (e.g., “Dr. X proposed Y, though it lacks historical support”) in article such as History of the Romani people or Romani people —> South Asian origin. The theory could have been added in Legacy section of this article if it had any historical evidence supporting it. Since there is no evidence but a theory it is safe to add it in articles related to Romani People's migration theory and origin. The primary reason is the theory fails to meet the verifiability criteria. Beylarbey (talk) 04:57, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for your input. I understand that Hancock’s hypothesis is not a documented historical consequence of Mahmud’s campaigns and therefore should not be included in the “Legacy” section, which is reserved for proven effects.
- To comply with Wikipedia policies (WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV), the hypothesis can be included in a neutral way under a general “Historiography” or “Scholarly views” section. This allows readers to see modern scholarly interpretations without presenting a hypothesis as a fact.
- For context, Hancock supports his hypothesis by noting the presence of military-related terms in the Romani language and genetic links between Romani populations and communities in northwestern India, particularly the Jats and Rajputs.
- Example wording could be:
- “Some scholars, including Ian Hancock, have hypothesized that the Ghaznavid invasions may have contributed to the westward migration of groups later identified as the Romani people, based on linguistic and genetic evidence, though this theory is not universally accepted and lacks direct contemporary historical evidence.”
- This approach keeps the article neutral, verifiable, and policy-compliant. Marvelcanon1 (talk) 05:24, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
Content move
The Events and challenges section only contains discussion on Historiography concerning the invasion of Somnath. Discussion of 'historiography' is irrelevant to 'Mahmud's reign or his life'. In short its less related to Mahmud more like the Somnath campaign. Since there is already another article regarding the invasion i.e. Sack of Somnath. It would be better to move entire content of this section to the dedicated article of the campaign. Beylarbey (talk) 18:45, 4 March 2026 (UTC)