Talk:Muhammad of Ghor/Archive 1

section break
Muizz-ud-din Muhammad bin Sam, commonly known as Shahab-ud-din Muhammad Ghuri is one of the key persons who played a significant role in the establishment of Muslim rule in North India. An ambitious person, Muhammad Ghuri wanted to extend his rule towards South Asia. He took the small state of Ghazni from his brother Ghiyas-ud-din Muhammad bin Sam and turned it into an empire by conquering vast territories. First he captured the area ruled by the Ghaznavids and later on extended his rule to North India and Bengal. He was an able general and a brave soldier. He never let a temporary defeat stand in his way.

After his defeat in the first battle of Tarain in 1191 at the hands of Prithvi Raj Chauhan, ruler of Delhi and Ajmer, he spent a complete year preparing for war. He came back in 1192 and defeated Raj Chauhan in the second battle of Tarain. He was the first Muslim ruler to conquer Delhi and establish a Muslim rule in India.

Muhammad Ghuri was a loyal brother. He refrained from declaring his independence in South Asia, knowing that it would result in civil war between the two brothers. Till the death of Ghiyas-ud-din Muhammad bin Sam in 1202, Ghuri never considered himself anything but a general in his brother's army. After every victory he would send the best of the looted items to his elder brother in Firuz Koh. Ghiyas-ud-din reciprocated by never interfering in the affairs of his younger brother. Thus they were each able to concentrate on their own responsibilities. As a result, Muhammad Ghuri managed to push permanent Muslim rule much further east than Mahmud Ghaznavi did.

Muhammad Ghuri had no heirs and thus he treated his slaves as his sons. It is said that he trained thousands of Turkish slaves in the art of warfare and administration. Most of his slaves were given excellent education. During his reign many hardworking and intelligent slaves rose to positions of excellence. Once a courtier regretted that Sultan has no male heirs. Ghuri immediately replied, "Other monarchs may have one son, or two sons; I have thousands of sons. Namely my Turkish slaves who will be the heirs of my dominions, and who, after me, will take care to preserve my name in the Khutbah throughout these territories". Ghuri's prediction proved true when he was succeeded by a dynasty of Turkish Slaves.

Though Ghuri's main aim was the expansion of his empire, he also took an interest in the patronization of education and learning. Illustrious Muslim philosopher Fakh-ud-din Razi and the well know poet Nizami Aruzi were few of the big names of his era.

In 1206, Ghuri had to travel to Lahore to crush a revolt. On his way back to Ghazni, his caravan halted at Damik near Jehlum. He was killed while offering his evening prayers. Many think that the murderer was an Ismaili. However, some historians believe that the murderer belonged to the warrior Ghakkar tribe that resided in the area. He was buried where he fell and his tomb has recently been renovated. Muhammad Ghuri is remembered as an empire builder and is justly called the founder of the Muslim Empire in Indo-Pakistan. 07/12/2007 zmufti Pakistan 18:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Islamophobic content
I have removed the Islamophobic content posted by user "Kefalonia" using extremist Hindutva websites as source! I have posted the material found in MSN Encarta and Britannica Encyclopaedia. How do I report this creep? And how do we stop this vandal at all? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.32.80.19 (talk • contribs) on 14.02.2006


 * There is not even an indirect mention of Islam in any of the content you reverted. This article is about a military leader, not a religious figure. I can't see user "Kefalonia" in the recent edit history. Calling anyone "brave" is certainly an unencyclopedic POV. Please point out which lines reflect an "extremist Hindutva" viewpoint or Islamophobia, failing which I'll revert your changes in 24 hours. deeptrivia (talk) 11:42, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Request to 212.32.80.19 - to begin with you may take a user name of your choice, and contribute. This depends on your wish though ... --Bhadani 16:53, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

All infromation is false on this page and without any refrence. It is urgently required to be discussed. All the content on this page is a POV and no refrence for any statement--Sandeepsp4u (talk) 09:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Siddiqui vandalism?
please don't deleted or blank text and references without giving reasons in the edit summary or talk page. --Kefalonia 11:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Do not write history
Please do not re-write history and geography from the perspective a particular country. We are working on a wider perspective. --Bhadani 17:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Sharing few words
Please do not take this as an adverse comment about the contents of this page or on the contributors to the page. I am just reproducing few words of William Ralp Inge, who had said: “Events in the past may be roughly divided into those which probably never happnned and those which do not matter. This is what makes the trade of historian so attractive.” IMHO, these words also apply to current events, continuing events and events of recent past. To that extent, the task of building the sum total of human knowledge becomes more difficult and challenging. --Bhadani 16:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The details of prithviraj described in thi story dosen't seem to be true

Missile name as Ghauri
In an article by Raj Chengappa, presently managing editor of India Today I had read an interesting detail about naming of the missile as Ghauri.

India had developed a surface-to-surface missile named it as prithvi (Another name for earth). This missile was a part of other missiles which had name based on elements.

Pakistan developed (this is controversial) a missile in retaliation of Prithvi missile and considering Prithvi as a name related to Prithviraj Chauhan, gave the name to its missile as Ghauri --- the missile superior to Prithvi (Muhammad Ghauri had defeated Prithviraj).

needs a redirection from Muhammad of Ghur
can anyone make a redirection from Muhammad of Ghur? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kerori (talk • contribs) 03:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

the 'revenge' of prithviraj chauhan
it's unproved. i intend to delete it after two weeks.Amitshah111 16:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

POV
Reliable references are needed in order to claim that Prithviraj was blinded to ridicule him, and that he killed Muhammad of ghor in an archerey competition. Also a citation is needed in order to claim that 20,0000 Hindus were killed and another 20,000 were made slaves. IP198 00:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * ''This article is a POV nightmare. --Nemonoman 23:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Please edit this article

I've taken about 3 courses in South Asian history and I've read countless books on the same subject. Not one of them describe the Delhi Sultanate as "peaceful, benevolent, or just" as has been stated in previous articles. Who is responsible for this article's upkeep? Are you asleep? I cited the John Keay article to prove the Delhi Sultante was not a peaceful one, someone has deleted my footnote and called it "just/peaceful." This is by far the most shameful of all wikipedia articles.

Denial of Historical fact
One must make the distinction between Islamophobia and "IslamoDenial." The Islamic invasions of the then Indian lands (now Pakistan, Bangladesh etc) were clearly acts of aggression by a religiously & culturally ALIEN entity. In other words Islam was never part of the Indo-Aryan-European history of the sub-continent. This article skirts the greater value of this theme throughout the various aggressive conquests of the subcontinent. Second, on IslamoDenialist, those that deny these events (enslavement, forced converstion, and other war crimes) just can not accept that those proclaiming thier faith commited these gross attrocites. Elsewhere they are called halocaust deniers. It is the duty of the real historical demokrats to shout down these deniers with fact. Our collective silence will serve only to allow the IslamoDenialists to brand anyone who gets in thier way of white washing the blood on thier hands by branding all dissenters as Islamophobists.

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 18:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)" "Islamodenial"? I love that.  The truth is that there is a concerted effort in India to malign every aspect of its Muslim past by painting it genocidal, et al.  While it is true that many Muslim rulers were ruthless and tyrannical, it is wrong to suggest that there was a pogrom (that lasted for over a thousand years of Muslim rule) to rid the subcontinent of Hindus and to forcefully convert everyone to Islam.  This is nonsense and does not hold up to scrutiny.  There is no evidence that this was official policy of Muslim rulers in India.  If this were true there would be no trace of Hinduism in India today for all Hindus would have either been forcefully converted or dead.

Entirely Vandalized Page
PLEASE CITE REFERENCES TO ALL CLAIMS. This page is one of the most vandalized pages there is on Wikipedia. Please cite references to the quote cited in the article as well as the use of the story by Hindu fundamentalists. It seems as though this article is an India vs Pakistan article. PLEASE refrain from "YOUR" version of history and only cite facts with references or else do not edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Viskash (talk • contribs) 00:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, please cite sources, in English if possible. Wikipedia:Verifiability - Non-English sources says, "Because this is the English Wikipedia, for the convenience of our readers, English-language sources should be used in preference to foreign-language sources, assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly." and provides detailed instructions about foriegn language material. In addition, Wikipedia provides a guide as to what information will help readers and other editors find the information. See Referencing for beginners. If you don't understand what information is needed, please ask.

Ethnicity
I removed statements about ethnicity from the lead in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines. If someone wishes to discuss ethnicity in the body of the article, please provide citations to reliable sources. Wikipedia policy says: "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed." Here, ethnicity is not important to the article, and obviously is a problem for some editors. --Bejnar (talk) 16:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Sources were added:
 * - Encyclopaedia Iranica, "Ghurids", C.E. Bosworth, (LINK):
 * "... The Ghurids came from the Šansabānī family. The name of the eponym Šansabānasb probably derives from the Middle Persian name Wišnasp (Justi, Namenbuch, p. 282). [...] Nor do we know anything about the ethnic stock of the Ghori's in general and the Sansabanis in particular; we can only assume that they were eastern Iranian Tajiks ... The sultans were generous patrons of the Persian literary traditions of Khorasan, and latterly fulfilled a valuable role as transmitters of this heritage to the newly conquered lands of northern India, laying the foundations for the essentially Persian culture which was to prevail in Muslim India until the 19th century. ..."
 * Please note that "we can only assume that they were eastern Iranian Tajiks" in the source does not merit "was a Persian(Tajik) ruler" in the Wikipedia article.--Bejnar (talk) 22:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * - Encyclopaedia of Islam, "Ghurids", C.E. Bosworth, Online Edition, 2006:
 * "... The Shansabānīs were, like the rest of the Gh ūrīs, of eastern Iranian Tājik stock. ..."


 * Tajik does not have to appear twice in the lead, especially when it is a conclusion, not otherwise known, and when it is unimportant to the article. --Bejnar (talk) 05:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Eastern Iranian stock does not = Persian speaking; see Eastern Iranian languages. --Bejnar (talk) 03:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Bejnar, the sources are clear. Whatever it means, you have no right to falsify or delete the information (besides that, currently, you are doing meatpuppetry for a banned user which eventually may get you banned if yuo do not stop). Whether they were "Eastern Iranian" by language/ethnicity or simply by geographical location (and Ghor is - in a historical context - "eastern Iran") is not up to us to decide. Clifford Edmund Bosworth also shows that the name of the tribe, Shansabani, is in fact not Eastern Iranian, by Western Iranian Middle Persian, derived from Wishnasp. So in any way, whether this is confirmed or not: we have two very good sources and the information should be given the way it is mentioned by the scholar, and not they way you interprete it or would like to have it. And if you think that this is not important, then you should not mention his ethnicity at all. Claiming that "his ethnicity is unknown" is the most useless and unimportant choice. Tājik (talk) 23:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Photo
I have uploaded an image of Chunky Pandey in his role as Mohammed Ghori in the movie Prithviraj Chauhan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RSCAMWSA (talk • contribs) 21:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Muhammad of Ghor was actually killed in an uprising of Ghakkar tribe in the potohar —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.144.228.194 (talk) 19:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

How can Muhammad Ghuri be a Tajik? He is a Pathan!
He is from the Suri tribe of Pathans/Pashtons, so why is it written there that he might be a Tajik. His complete name is Shahab-ud-din Muhammad Suri Ghuri and it is clear that he is a Pathan. That must be changed. Even if it's mentioned in Encyclopedia Iranica, but it is not right and he is a Pathan and from the Suri tribe of Pathans. You have quoted that Encyclopdia Irannica says that he might be of Persian-speaking Tajik stock, we cannot trust encyclopedia Irannica. I want to change it and hope there is no objection. The name itself proves that he is a Suri Pathan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.102.16.67 (talk) 13:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Suri is a Persian word which means Red. There Persians who have Waziri for a last name but they aren't from the Waziri tribe. or Ahmad Shah Masood wasn't from the Masood tribe. This is my source for him being Tajik ". . . The Ghurids came from the Šansabānī family. The name of the eponym Šansab/Šanasb probably derives from the Middle Persian name Wišnasp (Justi, Namenbuch, p. 282). . . . The chiefs of Ḡūr only achieve firm historical mention in the early 5th/11th century with the Ghaznavid raids into their land, when Ḡūr was still a pagan enclave. Nor do we know anything about the ethnic stock of the Ḡūrīs in general and the Šansabānīs in particular; we can only assume that they were eastern Iranian Tajiks." Encyclopedia of Iranica--71.107.11.87 (talk) 22:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Suri is a Persian word which means Red.

The Persian/Tajiki word for red is "surkh", NOT Sur. Sur is Pashtun tribe literally meaning red.

Year of death
Someone changed the year of death from 1206 to 1192 without chaning the source. Which one is the correct? Is it only ordinary vandalism? //FredrikLähnn (talk) 16:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No, this is POV vandalism. The myth about the blind Prithviraj Chauhan killing him with an arrow requires that he die before Prithviraj Chauhan, hence 1162. --Bejnar (talk) 20:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

IP edits
I've restored the last version by User:Kingturtle. Tājik (talk) 03:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Bosworth (reference)
Bosworth uses the word probably, he does NOT say he really thinks it is southwest Iranian. The name of the eponym Šansabānasb probably derives from the Middle Persian name Wišnasp.

It could have came from Pashto - we know in that area the East Iranian language were spoken and Hazara who now live in Bamyan and Ghor arrived merely in the 13th century when they burnt the original cities to the ground.

Bosworth further says "Nor do we know anything about the ethnic stock of the Ḡūrīs in general and the Šansabānīs in particular..."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.152.248.99 (talk) 07:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Bosworth is a leading scholar and this field and he has written the related articles in both, Encyclopaedia of Islam and Encyclopaedia Iranica. In the Encyclopaedia of Islam article he says:
 * "... The Shansabānīs were, like the rest of the Ghūrīs, of eastern Iranian Tājik stock. ..."
 * Whether this theory is fully correct or not, does not matter. It is sourced and is being discussed by scholars. The claims that the Ghuris were Pashtuns - which is totally unlikely - is the invention of Pashtun-nationalist scholars in Afghanistan. They have no proofs for this claim, and they are not supported by any Western scholars. Bosworth explicitely states: "The sultans were generous patrons of the Persian literary traditions of Khorasan, and latterly fulfilled a valuable role as transmitters of this heritage to the newly conquered lands of northern India, laying the foundations for the essentially Persian culture which was to prevail in Muslim India until the 19th century [...] It is clear, however, that all this literature was in Persian, and claims which were made in Afghanistan some decades ago (e.g., Ḥabībī in his ed. of Moḥammad Hōtak) of the existence of poetry in Pashto from the Ghurid period remain unsubstantiated. " Abdul Hay Habibi is notorious for his various inventions and fake scripts. Tājik (talk) 13:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Addition:
 * In the Encyclopaedia of Islam article, C.E. Bosworth writes:
 * "Ghurids, the name of an eastern Iranian dynasty which flourished as an independent power in the 6th/12th century and the early years of the 7th/13th century [...] The family name of the Ghurid Sultans was Shanasb/Shansab (< MP Gushnasp;  cf. Justi, Iranisches Namenbuch, 282, and Marquart, Das Reich Zabul, in Festschrift E. Sachau, 289, n. 3), and in the time of their florescence, attempts were made to attach their genealogy to the ancient Iranian epic past. [...] the Shansabanis  were, like the rest of the Ghuris, of eastern Iranian Tajik stock. [...] There is nothing to confirm the recent surmise that the Ghurids  were Pashto-speaking."
 * That should end this discuession. Tājik (talk) 15:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know what edition you are using, but that is not what Bosworth says at this link: http://www.iranica.com/newsite/articles/v10f6/v10f610.html. See above under /* Ethnicity */ the quoted material from February 2008. There is nothing to confirm either way.  --Bejnar (talk) 03:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

False Myths....
All editors must know that this is an encyclopedia not a story book....If you want to state a fact that is disputed then you must add a reference. The Encarta reference present clearly states that Ghori was killed in 1206 when returning from Punjab NOT in 1192 after the second battle of tarain as described in the myth of the archery contest.... Please maintain a NPOV.... and refrain from posting your OWN versions of history....Adil your (talk) 19:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The archery contest is a myth, as such, it can be documented as a myth and its effects on nationalistic beliefs can be explored in an objective way, if there are reliable sources. --Bejnar (talk) 03:06, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, That is Possible... But that myth was actually made up by Prithviraj's own Biographer and best friend... to give an alternative end to Prithviraj in his poem after the second battle of tarrain...Hence (In my opinion) this story is a bit more relevant on Prithviraj Page... The reason is that, the story narrated by Chand Bardai in his mythical poem is based on Prithviraj, rather then Ghori, and it has only a mere mention Of Muhammad Ghori... The reference is basically an epic about the valour of Prithviraj... To mention it as a base for nationalistic views would perhaps be more relevant if we do it on Chand Bardai or Prithviraj III Articles... But hey, its just my opinion... Adil your (talk) 19:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I like that suggestion. --Bejnar (talk) 21:56, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Photo in info box
I've added the image of Muhammad of Ghor in the info box but some vandal keeps removing it.--119.73.0.255 (talk) 14:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

RV
I have reverted the latest edits by User:Nageshvkl because the section he added was a) unencyclopedic and b) unimportant. It also contained many spelling mistakes etc. Tajik (talk) 18:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Shahabuddin Muhammad Ghauri, not "Muhammad of Ghor"
He is widely known by his proper name i.e. "Shahabuddin Muhammad Ghauri", and not as "Muhammad of Ghor". Hence the page move. Poloplayers (talk) 12:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC) He is traditionally, i.e. print sources, known in English as "Muhammad of Ghor". --Bejnar (talk) 23:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Names
Please be consistent in the use of references to Ghori. Either he should be called "Ghori" throughout the article or "Shahabuddin". "Shahabuddin Muhammad" is too long. Also, since the article spells "Muhammad" the same spelling should be adopted in the article and not "Mohammad". For those who argue that there were many people who were called Ghori, well, the world only knows one - Shahabuddin Muhammad Ghori. It is uncomfortable to read the entire name. So in accordance with accepted standard, the surname or "Ghori" should be used in the rest of the article since everyone knows that we are referring to Shahabuddin Muhammad and not any other Ghori. Poloplayers (talk) 16:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * "Ghori" is a general designation of all Ghorid rulers. It's not a title. The proper name is, for example, Muhammad. His titles are Mu'izzuddin and Shahabuddin. I suggest using either Shahabuddin or Mu'izzuddin instead of simple "Ghori". In the article, the name of several other Ghorid rulers have been mentioned, including Ghiyasuddin Ghori, Ala'uddin Ghori and Qutbuddin Ghori. In wikipedia we should be as precise as we can be. Using a general title which is used for several other persons of the same family is not appropriate. All the scholarly sources use the proper titles. For example in Encyclopaedia Britannica, it uses Muʿizz-ud-Dīn. Encyclopaedia Iranica also uses Moʿezz-al-Dīn. Ariana (talk) 16:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * And by the way, the world knows many Ghoris. (Ala'uddin Ghori is as famous as Shahabuddin for founding the dynasty and for burning the city of Ghazna.) That's why I am insisting on using a "proper" title. Ariana (talk) 16:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok. I take your point. Can we agree on "Shahabuddin Ghori" throughout the article? This would be in the same sequence as Ghiyasuddin Ghori, Ala'uddin Ghori and Qutbuddin Ghori. Poloplayers (talk) 16:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, even solely "Shahabuddin" can be enough. Thank you. Ariana (talk) 17:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Prithviraj Raso: literature
The story of the blind Prithviraj and his revenge on Muhammad of Ghor originates in the epic poem "Prithviraj Raso". See citations in article. It is is basically an epic about the valour of Prithviraj, with Muhammad of Ghor as the villain. I do not think that it is necessary to recite the elaborate story in this article, as that function really belongs to the Prithviraj Raso article. However, despite the existing research of numerous scholars (see above the section References which shows the references removed along with the history of the last days of Muhammad of Ghor and his assassination) editors, in understandable ignorance, keep removing the historical part and replacing it with the literary. In August 2009, after years of wrangling it was decided to delete the story completely, see Talk:Muhammad_of_Ghor/Archive_1 and view the long history of primarily IP edits espousing the literary version. It seems that that was not an adequate solution. So I have retitled the section "Literature" and provided what are, I hope, enough citations to "cool the jets" of those editors whose cultural background includes the "Prithviraj Raso", but not the history. I do think that a trimming of the recitation part of the section would be in order. It possibly could be appropriate to have added a concluding paragraph on the effect of the story, as it relates to Muhammad of Ghor. --Bejnar (talk) 17:54, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

RV
I have reverted edits by an anon IP, most likely of a banned user. Although the edits are sourced (Encarta), the provided source is too weak and unscholarly. It is also contradicting major scholarly references, such as Encyclopaedia Iranica (see here). Tajik (talk) 16:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well I am really sorry to say this but I really find the edit by the IP stupid (in fact idiotic) as it claims that the real name of ghori is Muhammad OF Ghor... What in the name of God is this...??? Please stop this blind reverting and take time to read out the edits... I think Tajik did the right thing if the IP is a banned user... but then.... Minaret of Jam is in Herat.... So i guess it was also a blind revert... I think that both sides have valuable info but there has to be a consensus... so kindly stop pushing your own POV and reverting everyting that you don't agree with...Adil your (talk) 17:03, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Encyclopædia Britannica:Muʿizz al-Dīn Muḥammad ibn Sām, commonly called Muḥammad of Ghūr. Ghiyāth al-Dīn ruled over Ghūr from Fīrūz-Kūh and looked toward Khorāsān, while Muḥammad of Ghūr was established in Ghazna and began to try his luck in India for expansion. The Ghūrid invasions of north India were thus extensions of a Central Asian struggle.Jayacandra died in battle against the Turkish leader, Muʿizz al-Dīn Muḥammad ibn Sām (Muḥammad of Ghūr), and his kingdom was annexed.LINK His place of death is Damiyak, India. 

Encyclopædia Britannica:...was assassinated, according to some, by Hindu Khokars, according to others, by Ismāʿīlīs.LINK I wish you stop making these blind reverts because you don't seem to know anything about the Ghurids or the history of Afghanistan.--119.73.2.146 (talk) 03:51, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Well I certainly know a lot more then you... After all you were the one who put his real name up as Muhammad OF Ghor... If people like you started editing wikipedia, one would find out that Alex Ferguson's real name is Sir Alex... Plz Stop pushing POV ...Adil your (talk) 06:15, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The citations that 119.73.2.146 uses to support the word "Afghan" in the lead sentence, do not use the word Afghan. I would think that that would be a problem. --Bejnar (talk) 06:06, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Columbia University:Muhammad of Ghor, d. 1206, Afghan conqueror of N India. A brother of the sultan of Ghor, he was made governor of Ghazni in 1173 and from there launched a series of invasions of India.LINK It says "Afghan" conqueror because his birth place is Afghanistan and he conquered India. I'm not sure if this is confusing for some but the source is just trying to tell us that he was Afghan-born, so readers don't think he was Indian.--119.73.5.87 (talk) 10:55, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Any claim of Ghuris being "Afghan" is POV. Afghanistan as a country did not exist prior to 19th century. Earlier, the name was used for Pashtun areas in and around Waziristan, but NOT for Ghor. The IP - which is the IP of a banned user (User:Khampalak/User:Alishah85) - really has no knowledge of the subject. The sources he lists are neither scholarly nor reliable. He also does not understand that the Ghoris were leaders of Turkish slave soldiers (Mamluks) but NOT of Turkish origin. Contemporary writers, especially al-Biruni and al-'Utbi, clearly and consistently differentiate between "Afghans" (who were present in the Ghurid and Ghaznavid armies) and "Ghoris", who spoke a different language/dialect and resided in central Khorasan and not in on the Indian frontier, as "Afghans" did. The current version is totally POV. Tajik (talk) 13:01, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Ferishta, a historian in India during the 1500s wrote:The men of Kábul and Khilj also went home; and whenever they were ques­tioned about the Musulmáns of the Kohistán (the mountains), and how matters stood there, they said, “Don't call it Kohistán, but Afghánistán; for there is nothing there but Afgháns and dis­turbances.” Thus it is clear that for this reason the people of the country call their home in their own language Afghánistán, and themselves Afgháns. The people of India call them Patán; but the reason for this is not known. But it occurs to me, that when, under the rule of Muhammadan sovereigns, Musulmáns first came to the city of Patná, and dwelt there, the people of India (for that reason) called them Patáns—but God knows!LINK Babur wrote in 1525 AD:In the hill-country to the north-east lies Kaferistān, such as Kattor and Gebrek. To the south is Afghanistān.LINK The above 2 quoted statments from 1500s are proof that Afghanistan [as a country] did in fact exist prior to the 19th century. Notice that it clearly says all the people living in [the mountains] ("Ghur" means mountain in the Pashto language) were Afghans. The very word "Ghurids" means mountain people or people from the mountains. In the Persian language, however, "koh" means "mountain" and Kohistan means mountainous region. Why didn't the Ghurids call themselves Kohistanis or Kohs? The Ghurids were born in Afghanistan and there did exist people all around this region known as Afghans. Below is mention of "Afghans" in 982 AD, which is 300 years before Ghurid period and underneath that is another mention of "Afghans" in 1333 AD, which is less than 100 years after the Ghurids period.Saul, a pleasant village on a mountain. In it live Afghans.Willem Vogelsang, The Afghans, Edition: illustrated Published by Wiley-Blackwell, 2002, Page 18, ISBN 0631198415, 9780631198413 Ibn Battuta in 1333 states:We traveled on to Kabul, formerly a vast town, the site of which is now occupied by village inhabited by a tribe of Persians called Afghans. They hold mountains and defiles and possess considerable strength, and are mostly highwaymen. Ibn Battuta, Travels in Asia and Africa, 1325-1354, ed. by Sir H. A. Rosskeen Gibb, Routledge Chapman & Hall, 2004, p. 180 (extract) It's really hard to deny these facts. We don't need to say Turkish origin we can just say Turkish stock. Al-Biruni was not God or a Prophet, or a saint or an Imam, etc. He was just a historian who knew how to read and write stories. 1,000 years ago the Afghans didn't carry national ID cards with the name "Afghan" stamped on it, and if they did there isn't any proof. Even until today they have no national ID cards with the name Afghan on it. This doesn't mean we can't call them by their correct name Afghans. Tajik I know you are a POV pusher but then you go around calling others who are neutral as POV pushers. I'm just asking you to stop this because you're wasting time on things you cannot win.--119.73.4.252 (talk) 15:20, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * How do these quotes prove your point?! (Keeping out the fact that you have no understanding of modern political countries which are solely based on post-Napoleonic policies and ideas). Ferishta is talking of "Kabulistan", the area in and around Kabul, or to be precise (from his point of view): the border areas between Khurasan and India. There is no reference to Ghur, and most of all: Ferishta lived more than 400 years after the Ghurids. Babur actually confirms my point: that Afghanistan as a country did not exist, and that it was a loosely defined name for Pashtun-dominated areas in the south of Kabul. Again: Babur lived 400+ years AFTER the Ghurids. The facts are that CONTEMPORARY WRITERS, such as al-Biruni and al-Utbi, CLEARLY and CONSISTENTLY differentiate between "Afghans" (=Pashtuns) and "Ghoris". Go and read the definition of WP:POV and WP:OR. And read some REAL books, written by REAL experts, such as Andre Wink, professor at the University of Wisconsin and specialized on Indo-Islamic history. He, too, disproves your false claims: . Tajik (talk) 15:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Everything you say here is POV, Ferishta is talking about a wide area of land called "Afghanistan". Ibn Battuta didn't mention any Kabulistan when he visited in 1333 approximately 200 years before Ferishta. Khurasan is refering to Herat area and from there to India, all that land in between was "Afghanistan" (land of the Afghans) and Ghor was not part of Khurasan. Anyway, I've shown clear proofs. Give others a chance to see what they have to say, I'm tired of discussing this with you because you're not agreeing to the truth. May Allah help you to come to the true path.--119.73.4.252 (talk) 16:21, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Al-Beruni was no God... What sort of an argument is that...??? I think that if you don't have a counter reference, then you should accept the refs provided by Tajik... And stop pushing your own POV... May Allah give hidaya to all...Adil your (talk) 10:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Everytime you come here and leave a meaningless comment an image of this or this comes to my mind licking daal mash from a street in Pakistan.

Ferishta in 1500s states:''Bahrám fled to Hindustán, and Saifu-d dín ascended the throne of Ghazní, when he placed the territories of Ghor under his brother, Sultán Baháu-d dín Súrí, father of Ghiyásu-d dín and Mu'izzu-d dín.LINK The above is the ultimate proof that Muhammad of Ghor (Mu'izzu-d dín) was in deed an ethnic Afghan (Pashtun), his father belonged to the famous Pashtun Suri tribe. This Tajik guy said "Afghanistan" didn't exist as a country before the 19th century... hahaha... I've proven him wrong. Pakistan didn't exist before 1947, Iran didn't exist before 1935, but Afghanistan did. I know this naturally trouble Iranis and Pakis. I'm wondering why is it only you Shia editors on to me?--119.73.2.86 (talk) 09:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Dear banned user, it is only your WP:OR that equates the surname "Suri" with the Pashtun tribal name "Suri". As I have told you before, it's just a name (meaning "the red one") and it is part of the wider Iranian vocabulary, found from Kurdish over Persian to Pashto. Among the Ghurids, only one single person had that name (and the name appeared in the extended name of his son, according to the rules of Arabic --> Nasb). Your allegation that the legendary "Amir Kror Suri" (whose existence is disputed, and is not accepted by scholars) was the same as the "Amir Suri" of the Ghurid era or that he was related to that one Ghurid prince is just POV. Most of all, because "Amir Kror Suri" is a pure fabrication of Abdul Hai Habibi who altered and falsified history for his Pata Khazana. The legend of "Amir Kror Suri" is solely based on the Pata Khazana which has been proved to be forgery. A similarity of names does not prove anything. That's the reason why Hanns Ludin, despite having the same name as the Pashtun tribe "Ludin", had absolutely nothing to do with Pashtuns, Pashtun history, Pashtun tribes, or Afghanistan. Tajik (talk) 17:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not banned, I got over a million dollars in a bank account which allows me to get visa to any place in the world. I'm not here to convince you because you don't accept the truth. It's you're POV vs. the 13th century historian Juzjani, 16th century historian Ferishta plus the 42 million Pashtuns who all claim that Ghurids were Suri (Pashtuns). If Wikipedia article on Ghurids include this information about them being of Pashtun stock or you remove it and place it with your POV that they were of Tajik stock... it wouldn't matter at all. How many Pashtuns do you think read this "English" version of Wikipedia or rely on the information from it? By you misleading readers with the false Tajik claim you are not harming Pashtuns but your own Tajik race because these Ghurids were destroyers of cities and wild killer. About Amir Suri, Juzani explained who he was in his 13th century work. The Pashtun poets in modern times are talking of the same person and how is that a forgery? The reason why you Persians (Parsibaans) call it foregery is because it doesn't agree with your false stories. You Parsibaans are those who believe that Ayatollah Khomeini was son of Allah and that your 12 Imams are infallable. Anyway, according to Pashtuns, the last name or surname "Suri" comes from the word "Sur" or "Soor" (means Red in the Pashto language) and it was something that the Suri Pashtuns highly praised as their tribal symbol. Something like the major gang known in America as the Bloods. The reason why I have no respect for your POVs is because you heavily depend on western historians, who have very limited knowledge on the history of Afghanistan. They only know about the major events, they know very little about the details.--119.73.0.57 (talk) 09:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Why don´t you tell that story to your Ana Khishtakbaaz? She will surely tell ya who Ghuris, Suris and Shuris were or not. http://www.nps.edu/programs/ccs/Docs/Tribal%20Trees/Tajik.pdf. Such a Pushtun tribe, called as Suri does not exist. It´s a fantasy made by Pushtun nationalists to vandalize on Wikipedia. Of course, Pushtuns have right to claim on Suris, but only as descandnats of their Turko-Mongolian slaves and not as their direct descandants. It was a common tradition among many slaves and Turks to use the names of their leaders as their mythological founder. There are among the Turkmens two tribes with the name Sur and Suri. So, whom of them are related to your Suri ancestors?

http://www.nps.edu/programs/ccs/Docs/Tribal%20Trees/Tajik.pdf --188.97.72.87 (talk) 13:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Doodoo-man (a.k.a. Tajik), everyone in Afghanistan are saying that they were not Tajeeks, even your khar-tajik professors say this. This is why you can't find a single evidence other than that one person who is only assuming and he clearly states that he has no knowledge about their ethnicity. These Ghurids were uncivilized warlords who burnt cities and since you're so much obessessed with these barbarians then I'll let you have them, so go and describe them as Tajiks. If you go to Afghanistan and tell teachers that they were Tajiks you'll get slaps across the face and laughed at. Sur in Pashto means red, if they were Tajiks or khar-koss farsibans then surely they would've used lal for red. Suri Pashtoons don't exist today because they now go by the name Kakar.

hahaha Afkooni, kussmadarkhel, try it better. Suri self is even Persian, kusstezan Pashitun. In Pashtu, red is wrona. Kosmadar--88.69.9.31 (talk) 18:10, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Jat Khokhars?
The present day Khokhars of Jhelum call themselves Rajputs, and use the title of "Raja". Can nationalist editors please stop putting in unspecified claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.65.60 (talk) 12:26, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Reliable sources compared to blogs, opinions, etc.
Muhammad of Ghor per Encyclopaedia of Islam was not captured at the 1st battle of Tarain. Also, he was not killed by Prithviraj Chauhan.
 * "In the winter of 586-7/1190-1 he invaded the Cawhan kingdom of Dihl! and captured Bhatinda, but the Radja, Prithw! Radj, marched against him and defeated him at Tarawr! near Karnal. He was wounded, but escaped, and in 588/1191 returned to India, defeated and slew Prithw! Radj at Tarawri, captured Hans!, Samana, Guhram and other fortresses, and plundered Adjmer." --MUHAMMAD B. SAM Mu'izz AL-DIN, T.W. HAIG, Encyclopaedia of Islam, Vol. VII, ed. C.E.Bosworth, E.van Donzel, W.P. Heinrichs and C. Pellat, (Brill, 1993), 409.
 * "In Rabl< I 602/October 1205, he marched from Ghazm for India and, with the help of Kutb al-Dln Aybak, defeated the Khokars, but on returning towards Ghazm was assassinated in Shacban 603/March 1206 on the bank of the Indus, either by Ismaclli heretics or by some Khokars. He was succeeded in Ghur by his nephew Mahmud, son of Ghiyath al-Dln, but the viceroys of the provinces, Aybak in Dihll, Kabaca in Multan, Tadj al-Dln Yildiz in Kirman and Ildigiz in Ghaznl became independent." --MUHAMMAD B. SAM Mu'izz AL-DIN, T.W. HAIG, Encyclopaedia of Islam, Vol. VII, ed. C.E.Bosworth, E.van Donzel, W.P. Heinrichs and C. Pellat, (Brill, 1993), 410. --Kansas Bear (talk) 13:37, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: consensus to move the page, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 03:17, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Mu'izz al-Din Muhammad → Muhammad of Ghor – more usual name in English. On 30 January 2014‎ HistoryofIran moved the page from Muhammad of Ghor to Mu'izz al-Din without discussion. Again on 19 February 2014‎ HistoryofIran moved the page from Mu'izz al-Din to Mu'izz al-Din Muhammad without discussion. There was minimal discussion here of the title in 2010, between Shahabuddin Muhammad Ghauri and Muhammad of Ghor. The Encyclopedia Britannica acknowledges that he is not commonly known as Mu'izz al-Din. see quote above, under RV. Bejnar (talk) 20:44, 10 September 2014 (UTC) --Bejnar (talk) 20:44, 10 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose: The Encyclopedia Britannica is not reliable, and the name Mu'izz al-Din Muhammad is more often used, especially in major sources. --Mossadegh-e Mihan-dust (talk) 20:52, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * That is not what I have found. Most of the reliable sources seem to use some variant of "Muhammad of Ghor", the major exception seems to be the Encyclopedia of Islam and scholars associated with it.  A quick search in GoogleBooks pulled up six times as many hits for "Muhammad of Ghor" as opposed to "Mu'izz al-Din Muhammad". GoogleScholar called up 114 hits for "Muhammad of Ghor" compared to only fifty for "Mu'izz al-Din Muhammad".  As W. W. Hunter says in his book The Indian Empire: Its People, History and Products, page 275 the Ghorian prince Shahab-ud-din, better known as Muhammad of Ghor,.   --Bejnar (talk) 21:45, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

The Encyclopedia of Islam being the only major exception? what about these important and major sources which are mostly relied on these Ghurid-related articles? .

Exactly. --Mossadegh-e Mihan-dust (talk) 22:03, 15 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Support - i would prefer Mohammed of Ghor, but the inclusion of "of Ghor" matters more than the spelling of "Mohammed". It is his most common name in English and more clearly established his connection to the Ghorid dynasty. Bobby Martnen (talk) 00:22, 25 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Remember what i wrote up above.. --Mossadegh-e Mihan-dust (talk) 17:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Support He's vastly more often known by "of Ghor", including in assuredly hundreds of Indian historical works and textbooks, so there would be an even greater—an overwhelming—bias toward that name if Google Books contained every single book in English. &mdash;innotata 00:15, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Neutrality Of The Article
this article is totally bias and have no refrences given for any statement and there is not disussion for any such refrence. This article looks like a story written by some one who loves the article to be in his own way. --Sandeepsp4u (talk) 11:10, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The article clearly does need more work, but there are already 9 citations for specific statements, which is hardly no refrences given for any statement. As to neutrality, please state what is unneutral and why.  It is not sufficient to say, if you can't see it ... If you cannot state the specific problem, it is difficult to fix it. While I don't think that the version in the Encyclopedia Iranica is without point of view problems, there are really not very many ultimate sources.  --Bejnar (talk) 03:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I respect your views but the article must be open for change. There are lots of section missing in this article. There is no criticism section in this article as a big part of the world is having few negative points of Mommohad Ghor.--Sandeepsp4u (talk) 05:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The article IS open for change... But first you need to point out the Biased and unreferenced statements... Adil your (talk) 20:02, 27 August 2009

Notwithstanding the the discussion on the historical inaccuracies in this article ( which I shall not delve into ), it is apparent that in the " Legacy section " there is only emphasis on the Islamic historical and  Pakistani viewpoints on Ghori ( or Ghauri ), whereas the fact that he is widely considered as a plundering fanatic in India is ignored ( conveniently perhaps)  ....This makes one wonder about the neutrality of the article ...14.96.61.200 (talk) 19:12, 17 December 2014 (UTC)Konish Biswas , 00:42 18/12/14

"Mu'izz is revered by many Pakistanis as a Muslim hero who defeated the Hindu King Prithviraj Chauhan in the 2nd battle of Terain ". What about the Indian and Rajput viewpoint of that of an iconoclastic Islamic fanatic hell bent on destroying Hinduism ; and which deify Prithviraj 14.96.61.200 (talk) 19:27, 17 December 2014 (UTC)Konish BIswas ; 00:57 18/12/14

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Muhammad of Ghor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090221000011/http://www.amritworld.com:80/main/muslim_rule_in_india/slave_dynasty/ to http://www.amritworld.com/main/muslim_rule_in_india/slave_dynasty/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 08:58, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Muhammad of Ghor. 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/20090815193620/http://www.iranica.com/newsite/articles/v10f6/v10f608.html to http://www.iranica.com/newsite/articles/v10f6/v10f608.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:21, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Result of first battle of Tarain
The source (Tucker) mentioned in the wiki page says that Ghurid army retreated from battlefield after ghori was wounded and prithviraj was deemed victorious. While the reality was that Ghori was wounded and about to fall off his horse when he was saved by a Khilji horseman, rescued to safety. His army was routed and fled the field not "just retreated". And also why say "deemed" victory? It was a complete victory of Chauhan and complete rout for Ghori. I am suggesting edit in the article which mention "Ghori wounded, saved by a khaji, taken to safety, his army routed and fled".

Here are some reputed citations, I am providing 5 sources by reputed historians with the concerning content and page number.

1. History of Medieval India by Satish Chandra, Pg 69.:- In the battle that was fought at Tarain in 1191, the ghurid forces were completely routed, Muizzuddin Muhammad's life being saved by a young Khalji horseman.

2. Ancient India by RC Majumdar, Pg 347:- The battle took place in 1191 A.D. near the village of Tarain, or Torawana, 27 miles from Bhatinda. Shihabuddin vigourously chargedthe centre of Indian army, but his wings gave way and he was completely surrounded. He was severely wounded, but with great difficulty, and by dint of stubborn courage, he extricated himself with a few followers. Prithviraja gained a complete victory and routed the army of his opponents.

3. A history of Rajasthan by Rima Hooja pg 267-268 :- Both the armies met at Tarain — or Taraori (now in Haryana’s Karnal district), eighty miles (113 km) north of Delhi and fourteen from Thaneshwar. Both the Chauhan and Ghori armies adhered to their respective traditional battle-formations. The fighting was fierce. Prithviraj put to flight the right, left and vanguard of the Ghori army. The Ghori Sultan, however, continued to fight on. Finding himself face to face with Govindaraja, he hurled his spear with all his might at the Delhi governor, knocking out two of his teeth. Though wounded, the gallant Govindaraja, in turn, flung his own lance at the Sultan, seriously injuring the latter. The blow and loss of blood had the Sultan reeling in his saddle. He would have fallen had not a young Khalj warrior recognised him. The soldier quickly sprung up on the horse behind the Sultan, and supporting him carried him off safely from the battle-ground. The disaster caused a panic in the Ghori army. Leaderless, the Ghori troops rapidly fled in the field in disorder.

4. The oxford history of India by V.A. Smith, Pg 218-19:- The hindu host met army of islam at Tarain or Talawari betwenen Karnal and Thanesar. The Sultan who met brother of Prithviraj in single combat was severely wounded, and as a consequence of the accident his army was "irretrievably routed".

5. Military History of India by Jadunath Sarkar, pg 33-34:- The battle joined as the Hindus gave the signal for attack by blowing conchshells from the backs of elephants, while the Muslims struck their kettledrums carried on camels and sounded their trumpets. The impetuous charge of the Rajputs scattered like a cloud the Muslim vanguard, composed of “Afghan and Khokar braggarts”. Advancing further, they turned both wings of the Turkic army and inclining inwards dispersed their opponents and threatened the centre, where the Sultan commanded in person. Large numbers of his horsemen began to slip away, not daring to face the roaring tide of Rajput cavalry flushed with victory. The Sultan was urged to save himself by flight as he had no supporter left. But scorning such cowardly counsel, he made a reckless charge into the body of Rajputs, before him, hewing his way with his sword, and followed by a small body of devoted companions. Govind Rai (the Governor of Delhi), who led the vanguard of his brother Prithviraj, on sighting Shihabuddin from a distance, drove his elephant towards him. The two leaders met in a single combat. The Sultan’s lance knocked out two of Govind Rai’s front teeth, while the Hindu Chief hurled a javelin which inflicted a severe wound on the upper arm of Shihabuddin and forced him to turn his horse’s head round in agony and weakness. However, he was saved from falling down, by a Khalj youth who leaped uponi his horse from behind, kept him the saddle with his arms, and urging the horse on by word of mouth, carried him away to the base in safety. The rout of the Turki army was complete. Sajaypal007 (talk) 21:06, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Authenticity of File:Muhammad Ghori.jpg


File:Muhammad Ghori.jpg was recently uploaded by someone with notesonindianhistory.com as the source. The website is not a reliable source, and the same user recently uploaded an image of Babur misrepresented as that of Qutb-al-din Aibak, sourcing it from this website. The file File:Muhammad Ghori.jpg doesn't seem consistent with other representations of Muhammad Ghori. There are a few unreliable Facebook posts, blogs pots etc. that seem to have sourced the image from notesonindianhistory.com or Wikipedia, but I can't find any reliable source that confirms this to be an image of Muhammad Ghori. Also, the uploader mentioned the original license as CC-BY-SA, which was changed to public domain by another user (who also claimed that this image is from c. 1948, without citing a source). Unless someone presents the original source of this image, I don't think it belongs in the infobox. utcursch &#124; talk 17:09, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Please give your inputs here. I am pretty sure that this work is in public domain but not sure about the exact name. Since both these users are regular editors in these article and image-related licensing. I request them to look here.

I am pretty sure this is portrait of Shihabuddin. White Horserider (talk) 08:04, 29 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Highly doubt that this is him. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:39, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

There are no contemporary paintings of Muhammad of Ghor and this is probably a post 15th century art piece but this could be any warlord or religious person. Certainly nobody would paint a Medieval style art in 1948, renaissance and oriental style had taken over long back. So in my opinion it's not him. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 15:21, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 November 2021
Need to add more information on greatness of this valiant warrior Sultan who laid foundation stone for Delhi Sultanate, Sufi chronicles gives elaborate details on the belief of this esteemed ghazi Raashtrapati (talk) 21:23, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Full-protection-shackle-no-text.svg Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request. - FlightTime  ( open channel ) 21:26, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * ❌ - you need to make a specific request - e.g. "add this text" or "replace this text with this" and cite reliable sources to support every part of your proposal - Arjayay (talk) 21:29, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

This great ghazi even after being defeated 16 times, he attacked 17th time as a surprise attack with ever blood thirsty,powerful and valiant ghurid Turkic Ghazis at the break of dawn at fortress of Tarain with through four divisions of archers with which Emperor Prithviraj Chauhan's army suffered heavy losses.After his defeat, Muhammad Ghori enslaved Hindus and destroyed the city and its temples thereupon instituting a complete rule of Islam in Prithviraj Chauhan's former empire, Sufi Saint Mu'in al-Din Chishti himself beheaded Prithviraj Chauhan at the second battle of Tarain. The revered Sufi saint Mu'in al-Din Chishti then threw a naked Empress Sanyogita in front of Turkic Ghazis who then suffered unspeakable atrocities. To add an insult to the newly conquered Empire of he gave the control of new found territory to his beloved slave Qutb al-Din Aibak who raised the Delhi Sultanate with this once prosperous and powerful empire of Prithviraj Chauhan was now being completely ruled by brutal Turkic invaders. But I don't want these facts to come out so let's devise a plan to whitewash the invader's conquest and selling of women as sex slaves and children as slaves around the Dar-Ul-Islam. We should come up with a subtle way to also whitewash Sufi crimes of mass murder and forced conversion to Islam. Let's go with usual narrative that Sufis promoted harmony between Hindus and Muslims and lives lost in this conquest was a collateral battle damage, Ghori appointed Qutb al Din Aibak due to his tolerance and governance skill as well as reward for his achievement in second battle of Tarain and the temples desecrated were the results of horrific battle with local leaders and especially with Hariraj chauhan and local jat warlords. Raashtrapati (talk) 21:53, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * ❌ You haven't cited any reliable sources to back up your claims - Arjayay (talk) 21:57, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Sources: Prithviraj raso, Jamal Malik's book Islam in South Asia: A Short History, Muzaffar Alam (1998). "The pursuit of Persian: Language in Mughal Politics" As well as The Delhi Sultanate: A Political and Military History by Peter Jackson Raashtrapati (talk) 21:59, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You need to cite them properly - ISBN numbers, page numbers etc, - see Help:Referencing for beginners for the "how to" - Arjayay (talk) 22:03, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Further sources are : The Sufi Path of Knowledge: Ibn al-Arabi's Metaphysics of Imagination by William C. Chittick as well as Deewan Khwaja Moinuddin Chishti by Moin ud din Chishti himself, Israr-E- Haqiqi by the saint himself Raashtrapati (talk) 22:04, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Pg number wise??? Raashtrapati (talk) 22:05, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

In prithviraj raso from page number 430 onwards upto page number 529 this entire war and aftermath is explained in great detail Raashtrapati (talk) 22:07, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

In Jamal malik's book from page number 225 to 320 there is elaborate mention of the events I wrote about earlier Raashtrapati (talk) 22:10, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Entirety of The pursuit of Persian: Language in Mughal Politics" Talks about events after the battle if you doubt me read it yourself Raashtrapati (talk) 22:12, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Entire books of The Sufi Path of Knowledge: Ibn al-Arabi's Metaphysics of Imagination by William C. Chittick as well as Deewan Khwaja Moinuddin Chishti by Moin ud din Chishti himself, Israr-E- Haqiqi by the saint himself talks about same do you want me to give you snapshots for the same??? Raashtrapati (talk) 22:14, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

You can verify it after reading these sources yourself I think I gave you appropriate answers to satisfy your queries Raashtrapati (talk) 22:15, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The story of seventeen invasions is a myth - see Manan Asif (2020).
 * Alam (1998) has nothing on the battle, much less the entirety. Malik (2008) does not say anything to these effects and I spot the sole discussion in p. 92-95 - it is quite implausible that an author will spend 91 pages discussing any particular battle, when drafting a textbook about Islam in S. Asia. Jackson (1999) does not say anything to these effects in p. 10, where he discusses the events. Prithviraj Raso is a primary text having multiple recensions and editions - any barely competent editor will mention details other than page number notwithstanding the fact that the text was drafted about 400 years after the battle and is laden with factual inaccuracies. I skimmed Chittick and found nothing relevant. Israr-E- Haqiqi is largely forged. I haven't read Deewan-e-Khwaja Moinuddin Chishti, a primary source.
 * Effectively, you are fabricating citations in support of your vile POV and unless the next edit quotes the relevant lines from all the sources, I will request sanctions. Arjayay, this might be of interest. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:25, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

His birth name
I'm having doubt he was given the laqab "Shihab ad-Din" when he was born. He is defiantly born as Muhammad.Alexis Ivanov (talk) 16:45, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

It's true pronunciation is Shahab ad-Din شهاب الدین. It was a Persian name not an Urdu. JavadMohammadi14 (talk) 12:01, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

"Ghauri", not "Ghori"
Google is a good indicator of usage. Please note the following hits for "Ghauri" and "Ghori" respectively:

Results 1 - 10 of about 46,600 for Shahabuddin Muhammad Ghauri. (0.09 seconds)

Results 1 - 10 of about 8,370 for Shahabuddin Muhammad Ghori. (0.10 seconds)

Results 1 - 10 of about 366,000 for Ghauri. (0.44 seconds)

Results 1 - 10 of about 218,000 for Ghori. (0.06 seconds)

Also, "Ghauri" is closer to the actual pronunciation than "Ghori".

Poloplayers (talk) 10:01, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Your numbers are wrong. Here are the correct results:
 * Shahabuddin Muhammad Ghauri 638 hits link
 * Shahabuddin Muhammad Ghori 1.250 hits link
 * The results for "Ghori" and "Ghauri" are not useful, because they also contain links to sites that have nothing to do with the historical Ghurids (<-- the most common spelling in English and used in Encyclopaedia Britannica, Encyclopaedia of Islam, and Encyclopaedia Iranica!). However, even then "Ghurid" is the most common spelling:
 * Ghurids 29.500 hits link
 * Ghaurids 619 hits link
 * Ghorids 15.900 hits link
 * I frankly ask you to revert your move, otherwise I will have to report you to an admin. Tajik (talk) 10:47, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * First of all, those figures are from Google. I'm talking about "Shahabuddin Muhammad Ghauri" and "Shahabuddin Muhammad Ghori" respectively. Please type the same and see for yourself. Secondly, you are the one who moved an existing page, which I undid. Thirdly, intead of threatening to report me to an admin, which I also have to right to do vis-a-vis your actions, we should try to have a civilized discussion (this is what this page is for and that is the spirit of Wikipedia). I am open to reason as should you. Poloplayers (talk) 12:47, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I already did, see the numbers above. I specified the search by putting the name in quotation marks. See the links above. That means: your numbers are still wrong, and you are rejecting the leading English encyclopedias. Tajik (talk) 12:57, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, I just did it with the inverted commas and I got the following:


 * Results 1 - 10 of about 98 for "Shahabuddin Muhammad Ghori". (0.09 seconds)


 * Results 1 - 10 of about 641 for "Shahabuddin Muhammad Ghauri". (0.09 seconds)


 * Please recheck. Poloplayers (talk) 13:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Please psot the links of your searches the way I have done above, so everyone can check it. Tajik (talk) 13:14, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Google Search Result Links:


 * "Shahabuddin Muhammad Ghori":


 * "Shahabuddin Muhammad Ghauri":


 * Poloplayers (talk) 13:23, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The links you have posted do not support your view. In fact, they are contradicting your edits. Tajik (talk) 13:51, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Suprisingly, I was getting 98 for ...Ghori and now I'm getting 1,250 for ...Ghori. When I went on your links, I was also getting 98 at the time. You will see that it fluctuates from 98 to 1,250 and to 98 again depending on the time you search. I concede to the higher figure though. Poloplayers (talk) 14:04, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Please guys! Muhammad of Ghor was from Afghanistan, a Persian-speaking dynasty. The true pronunciation is Ghor غور. JavadMohammadi14 (talk) 12:03, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Grave
Ab IP editor deleted the following:
 * This is described in the article Prithviraj Raso. Even today Afghans vent their anger by stabbing on the grave of Prithviraj Chauhan, as according to them, Prithviraj had killed Mu'izz. Sher Singh Rana, a member of Rajput community, visited Afghanistan to trace the grave of Prithviraj Chauhan. He dug Chauhan's "grave" and collected sand from it. This incident created sensation in Indian news and public media – as he said he did it to get back India's pride & respect.

I am not sure of the pros and cons of including/excluding this. --Bejnar (talk) 17:06, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

The grave of Sultan Shahabuddin Ghori is in Ghazni Afghanistan not Pakistan. Read: Tabaqat-i-Nasiri, Raverty translation, pub. year 1873. p.492: "when they despatched the bier of Sultan Muizuddin from the halting-place of Dam-yak towards Ghaznin ..." Then in p.493: "When the Sultan bier reached Ghaznin, two days after ..." Also look at the footnotes: "The bier then conveyed to Ghaznin, and the corpse of the Sultan was interred in the Madrasah which he founded in the name of his daughter, and his only child." Also look at Tajul-Ma'asir: "و صندوق شهریار روی زمین به حضرت غزنین نقل و در مدرسه حره، که در سرای فنا بر طریقت والمحصنت من النساء رفته بود و بر سیرت قانتات تایبات بر خاک محتجب شده، دفن کرده آمد..." Also read Tarikh-i-Firishta: القصه، بسیت و دوم شهر شعبان، محفه سلطان شهاب الدین را به غزنین رسانیده در حظیره‌ای که برای دختر خود ساخته بود دفن نمودند" The History of the Rise of the Mohamedan Power In India or translation of Tarikh-i-Firishta by John Briggs Vol. 1 has said in p. 106: "He attended the funeral to Ghizney, where the king was buried, on the 22nd Shaban AH 602 (April 3, 1206), in a new vault which had been built for his daughter. JavadMohammadi14 (talk) 12:19, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Also read this article: https://mundigak.com/fa/2020/06/17/%D8%B4%D8%A7%D9%87-%D9%85%D8%AD%D9%85%D9%88%D8%AF-%D9%85%D8%AD%D9%85%D9%88%D8%AF-%D9%82%D8%A8%D8%B1-%D9%87%D8%A7%DB%8C-%D8%B3%D9%84%D8%A7%D8%B7%DB%8C%D9%86-%D9%88-%D8%B4%D8%A7%D9%87%D8%A7%D9%86-%D8%BA/ JavadMohammadi14 (talk) 12:22, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Birthdate of Muizuddin Muhammad Ghori
In Tabaqat-i-Nasiri, it's been clearly mentioned that Shahabuddin Ghori is 3 years and few months younger than Ghiyas-od-din Muhammad his elder brother. So, if Ghiyas-od-din Muhammad died in 599 AH at the age of 63 (notice that 63 years is counted in Hijri Lunar, not AD), he was born in 536 and Shahabuddin Muhammad Ghori should have been born in 539 which equals 1144 AD. It is not 1149. JavadMohammadi14 (talk) 12:56, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Muhammad Ghori reign
It's until 1203 not 1202. His brother died in February 1203. JavadMohammadi14 (talk) 13:04, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2022
He wasn't marauder or brute like European crusaders extremist

change it Hashim211116 (talk) 09:46, 4 June 2022 (UTC)


 * ✅, diff. Packer&Tracker   «Talk»  15:10, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Got Hashim211116 (talk) 09:47, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:09, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Mohammad gaori death date
Hello sir mohammad gaori death date in Wikipedia hindi translation 1192 and In English translation 1207. I'm confused which date right!!!!!! 2409:4042:2498:E2A0:6424:F889:E1B4:F17B (talk) 14:28, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

They have changed they topic how Mohamad gouri was killed not mentioned
They have changed they topic how Mohamad 223.225.62.187 (talk) 11:20, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Burial
Hello पाटलिपुत्र - regarding his burial and a 1990 claim (from Pakistan) that he was burried in Damyak after being assassinated by the Isma'ilis. (see assassination part for Khokhar part as well) - this is quite obviously a factual error as he was buried in his capital Ghazni which is confirmed by modern academics as well as by his contemporaries like Minhaj al-Siraj, Hasan Nizami, Muhammad Aulfi etc. Iqtidar Alam Khan (a retd. noted AMU professor) also mentioned it that he was buried in Ghazni. Minhaj's (author of Tabaqat-i-Nasiri) father was friend of Muhammad of Ghor who also attested to the fact that he was buried in Ghazni, couldn't see any rational reason for Minhaj or these scholars to lie about his burial; no ?? Minhaj himself was 13 when Muhammad of Ghor was murdered and must have attended his funeral, considering their family relations (as noted Maulana Sirajuddin was a Qadi in the Ghurid court for 40 yrs)
 * Here is a Mohammad Habib for this
 * Another one from R. C. Majumdar (a late noted academic) citing Tabaqt-i-Nasiri : (page no:- 125)
 * A more elaborate note by Habib in his Asiatic environment journal (1970):-
 * I don't see a point in mentioning his gravesite in Damyak when a number of scholars expliticy confirmed it in Ghazni.
 * What is a logic in burying a medieval monarch, 600 odd km away from his capital ?
 * Tagging for a comment - Is there any point in giving a weightage to a fringe 20th century claim by scientist over WP:HISTRS ? Thanks. ∆ P&#38;t ♀√ (talk) 19:34, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * as well for a comment. ∆ P&#38;t ♀√ (talk) 19:43, 23 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Oh, I'm fine with that, but then we'll have to remove the image from the infobox altogether. My point was only that the new caption only described it as "the Mausoleum of Muhammad of Ghor", which is at the very least anachronistic and misleading (this mausoleum was built in the 1990s). But if it is not even the location of his actual mausoleum, then let's simply remove the photograph.... पाटलिपुत्र  Pataliputra  (talk) 19:52, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 20th century structure (something like this) of Muhammad of Ghor would be more app. perhaps ? I agree this is dubious creation and surprised that it stayed for so many years on the article.
 * Let's wait for more comments, Best. ∆ P&#38;t ♀√ (talk) 19:57, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, but then this photograph raises so many issues and is misleading in so many ways: 1) the monument is a-historical (not Muhammad of Ghor's tomb... as you have explained above) 2) it is stylistically anachronistic (20th century, my main issue initially). Its only value would be that it is a modern tribute by a romantic scientist in Pakistan. In my opinion, it would only deserve a mention in a paragraph about modern interpretations/ perspectives, at the end of the article, but certainly not in the infobox, where it is so misleading... पाटलिपुत्र  Pataliputra  (talk) 20:05, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * By the way, is the actual location of his tomb in Ghazni known, and are there photographs?? पाटलिपुत्र  Pataliputra  (talk) 20:11, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I think Minhaj and Ibn al-Athir both mentioned that he built a tomb originally for his deceased daughter, and he was buried there as well.
 * I think the mausoleum of his daughter (where he was buried) might have been demolished by the Mongols. Babur who visited Ghazni in 16th century wrote that which gives a reflection that the city was razed completely and couldn't recover even centuries later.
 * ∆ P&#38;t ♀√ (talk) 20:27, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Lets wait out for suggestions regarding use of image in infobox from the tagged editor. ∆ P&#38;t ♀√ (talk) 20:33, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually, many of the monuments and tombs of the earlier Ghaznavids do remain in Ghazni (including the tomb of Mahmud of Ghazni or the Ghazni Minarets for example), so it is a bit strange if nothing from the Ghurids had remained... पाटलिपुत्र  Pataliputra  (talk) 20:35, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Since the sources demonstrates that this mausoleum is ahistorical and not where Muhammad is actually buried, wouldn't the article be better of we just replaced the image with one of Muhammad's coins? Perhaps not the most aesthetic of images, but at least it is historical.--HistoryofIran (talk) 20:36, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * You are right, in all fairness Ghazni was more brutually sacked by the "world burner" uncle of Muhammad of Ghor - Alauddin Hussayn then Mongols, but even during that carnage they didn't vandalized Mahmud's tomb which is the reason it survived as you pointed out.
 * I don't doubt Minhaj regarding a tomb of Muhammad's daughter being at Ghazni, though exact site of it remains contentious.
 * * Also, it surprises me a bit that there are far many available representations of Mahmud then Muhammad of Ghor ? ∆ P&#38;t ♀√ (talk) 20:56, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps best possible way (If any) to use this fake/fabricated tomb will be in the legacy part with his reception and assessment in modern-day Pakistan as a Islamic hero who killed infidels and their tribute to him by naming missiles on his name and creating a fake mauseloum. Vice versa, his legacy of a fanatic invader in India could be added to make it neutral with better paraphrasing by citing some contemporary presentation of his raids. (Like we have varied assessments of more accomplished conquerors like Timur, Genghis Khan etc and even Mughal rulers (Aurangzeb) on their respective articles. Sounds better ? I am open to suggestions on it. ∆ P&#38;t ♀√ (talk) 04:31, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Re - Ghurids were unpopular in Khurasan as well during his time in their limited rule of a year where he imposed heavy taxes on the public which eventually turned them hostile when he came to besiege Gurganz and forced him to relieve the siege and flee.

PS:- Ironically Muhammad of Ghor's early raids, plunder and massacres were actually in present-day Pakistan — Multan (1175), Uch (1176), Peshawar (1179), Sindh (1182) and finally Sialkot (1185) and Lahore (1186). ∆ P&#38;t ♀√ (talk) 04:31, 24 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think it would be very interesting to have a final paragraph about modern re-interpretations/re-appropriations of this historical figure ("Legacy"), where the modern Pakistani mausoleum (which visibly only commemorates the place of his assassination in Damyak, but misleadingly makes it look like he was buried there) would nicely fit. To User:HistoryofIran's point, an image of an actual coin of Muhammad of Ghor would be great for the infobox. I'm still a bit surprised that remains of his tomb in Ghazni have apparently not been found. Best पाटलिपुत्र  Pataliputra  (talk) 05:42, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeed, re on legacy bit - could you please draft or put up his reception in Pakistan as a hero, including dedicating a tomb to him which is not actually where he was buried ? I will provide the finishing touch by the negative reception in India and Khurasan of his rule.
 * Regarding using image in the box, don't we have a modern statue dedicated to hin anywhere ? We possibly do have for his brother though. Frankly, I don't have much interset regarding potrays, so it's just fine for me either way. Best. ∆ P&#38;t ♀√ (talk) 06:39, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It doesn't look any clearer now either, I think this part need to be re written with nuances and his assessment in both Pakistan and India, as I said previously, open to suggestions. ∆ P&#38;t ♀√ (talk) 08:57, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @∆ P&t ♀√ Yes I think that sounds very good! --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:17, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

RFC
- Is it really mandatory to have a image in the infobox ? I personally think that this forged tomb can still be placed in the infobox without any nuances (i.e. description) and explain this in later sections ? - Let's wait for more comments by other involved editors regarding this and get a long term consensus.

Bejnar – Would you mind glancing at this ? ∆ P&#38;t ♀√ (talk) 10:44, 24 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I thought it was rather clear from the previous comments already... I support User:HistoryofIran's suggestion above to use an image of Muhammad of Ghor's coinage in the infobox instead, as it is both relevant and non-contentious. On the contrary, giving prominence to the image of the Dhamiak mausoleum is quite problematic and misleading: it is anachronistic (having been built in the 1990), and promotes a false version of history (the claim that Muhammad of Ghor was buried in Dhamiak, when he was actually buried in Ghazni). In short, it is a stylistical and a historical fake, however well intentionned (or propagandistic) it might be... Its only possible value is in showing some of the legacies/re-appropriations made around Muhammad of Ghor in modern times, in the "Legacy" paragraph of the article. I'm afraid it does not deserve the prominence given by an infobox, where it will inevitably continue to mislead readers about the architecture of the 12th century and the actual burial place of this ruler. पाटलिपुत्र  Pataliputra  (talk) 11:19, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

I see that the "shrine" photo in the infobox has been replaced by the coin image, by a bold editor. That's fine with me. I would avoid calling the shrine a "false tomb". It is a shrine. --Bejnar (talk) 15:59, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

RFC
Currently, except the title (Muhammad of Ghor), the article throughout the lead and body refers to him as Mu'izz al-Din. (a title he attained later in 1200 as the very first section which I added couple of days attests to)


 * Should we simply use Muhammad throughout the article in running text or Shihabuddin or just stick with Mu'izz al-Din ?? We generally prefer common name which is a toss up between Shiahbuddin/Muhammad of Ghor/Mohammad Ghori and rarely Mu'izz al-Din or Mu'izz as we used here

Mu'izz al-Din/Muhammad/Shihabuddin/Muizuddin
 * Please comment briefly:


 * Note I am not making this RFC for page move or the title, which is alright but since the name of the subject in the body and lead is different from the title of article, it looks a bit incoherent, Thanks. ∆ P&#38;t ♀√ (talk) 07:17, 18 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I prefer Muhammad/Muhammad Ghori throughout the article of consistency. I would be in the favor of any future RM to Muhammad Ghori as well based on this ngram >>> Extorc . talk  07:29, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * This is a tricky one. I guess it also depends on how old the source is and where it's from. I would prefer Muhammad/Muhammad Ghuri (instead of Ghori) (also used by Richard M. Eaton in his India in the Persianate Age: 1000-1765). --HistoryofIran (talk) 07:59, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I don't think the modernity of the sources matter in naming conventions. Eaton's most classic work was "Temple Desecration and Indo-Mulim States" a league above his latest book, where he used Muhammad Ghuri. (Md. Ghuri to be explicit) There is different in pronunciation between the Asian and Western academics which leads to Ghori/Ghuri.
 * Andre Wink also used Muhammad Ghuri in:

:Al-Hind the Making of the Indo-Islamic World: The Slave Kings and the Islamic Conquest : 11Th-13th Centuries
 * My main point though, was using Muhammad/Shihabuddin/Muizzuddin/Mu'izz al-Din in the article not with requested moves which need to be more broadly discussed in the future. ∆ P&#38;t ♀√ (talk) 08:21, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Suggestion I think Muhammad of Ghor is more logical on an English enclyopedia then Muhammad Ghori which is used more commonly used by Asian scholars. My main issue at the moment was actually that the title and content in body are way too different then each other. Since, Muhammad was his birthname (Hamad in their family record) (See Tabaqt-I-Nasiri pp:-68)

I would be inclined towards it more, although Shihabuddin also had decent hits as well. See this section as well for Muhammad of Ghor/Ghori/Ghuri. ∆ P&#38;t ♀√ (talk) 08:05, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Uehehe, don't mind the young fella in that old RFC... couldn't be me. Anyways, I don't mind your suggestion either (Muhammad of Ghor that is). --HistoryofIran (talk) 08:25, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I didn't acknowledged that the young lad Mossadegh-e Mihan-dust was you.
 * My main point was just about the name to use throughout the article:
 * Muhammad/Shihabuddin/Muizzuddin or just stick with Mu'izz al-Din. (least used in sources as well as vernacularly)
 * Could you pleaae briefly comment on that ?? Cheers. ∆ P&#38;t ♀√ (talk) 08:38, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh I know, I'm just kidding around. I support "Muhammad", whether that be simply Muhammad, Muhammad Ghori/Ghuri or Muhammad of Ghur/Ghor. --HistoryofIran (talk) 08:51, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * No problem, let's wait for more comments. (If any other do) ∆ P&#38;t ♀√ (talk) 09:03, 18 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I would prefer that the text use "Muhammad of Ghor". "Muhammad" alone rings too close to the prophet. --Bejnar (talk) 15:51, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

• I agree with suggestions here, Muhammad of Ghor seems very appropriate to me as it clears Muhammad of Ghor ( his root i.e Ghor province). I think writers also use either Mahmud Ghazni or Mahmud of Ghazna for Mahmud Ghazni. I think in Persianate system, places were associated with Leaders/ruling personalities. I am open to any correction on this topic from anyone having better knowledge on it. I am okay with suggestion of "Muhammad of Ghor". Akalanka820 (talk) 11:28, 20 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Agree with "Muhammad of Ghor". Clearer. पाटलिपुत्र  Pataliputra  (talk) 18:56, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Secondly using Muhammad alone is also bit confusing as Bejnar pointed out that - Muhammad is also commonly used for Prophet Muhammad and apart from him, Muhammad is too common name among the Mulsim males, like his Khwarzmian nemesis - Muhammad II of Khwarazm. ∆ P&#38;t ♀√ (talk) 20:44, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Suggestion: Since the overwhelming support is to use Muhammad of Ghor, my two relatively minor concern regarding it are - firstly, it won't be coherent to use Muhammad of Ghor literally in every line of the article, as we prefer using short name like Mahmud, (for Mahmud of Ghazni) Babur, Akbar, Aurangzeb etc.
 * If the use of "Muhammad of Ghor" in a particular sentence is awkward, and "he" is unclear, phases such as, "As ruler, he" may be used. --Bejnar (talk) 15:43, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

You are welcome to fix it wherever you found this naming as awkward. Looks better then Mu'izz al-Din ? ∆ P&#38;t ♀√ (talk) 10:10, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Renamed: I changed it to Muhammad of Ghor throughout the article, does it look fine now ? -


 * Looks good! Thanks! पाटलिपुत्र  Pataliputra  (talk) 11:03, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Looks good now, thanks. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:11, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Territory
Just briefly on his territory, recently a editor questioned that our current representation of his territory expansion (Herat to Jantabad) looks confusing. Is it so ? Should we then remove the stretch of his territory from lead all together ? We know that even after the disaster of Andkhud, Muhammad of Ghor still retained Herat and Balkh in present-day Afganistan (then Khorasan) and Khwarzmians only captured Qandhar, Kabul region from his successors post his assassination.

How it looks confusing ? What stretch of his territory should we mention in the lead then (If anything) ? Is the current version (regarding territorial expansion) seems confusing ? Thanks. ∆ P&#38;t ♀√ (talk) 17:06, 25 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Seems fine to me. I would only say "The Ghurid Empire..." instead of "His empire...", since he personally only ruled on the eastern part of the empire. Best पाटलिपुत्र  Pataliputra  (talk) 17:46, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * He did took over the western domain as well post 1203; didn't he ? ∆ P&#38;t ♀√ (talk) 18:05, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * One more issue I saw is his birth year is apparently wrong as well. I went through this talk page and found out that JavadMohammadi14 pointed out quite a few factual errors like wrong date of Ghiyath al-Din's death - diff which turned to be true as well - see Habib (1970) cited in the article.They also pointed out his fake tomb in Damyak - diff.
 * Since the article was full of factual errors previously, I see his birth year forged as well, couldn't confirm it being 1149 in any secondary source. They mentioned about Minhaj's Tabaqat-I-Nasiri and it turned to be true as well - He indeed states that Muhammad of Ghor was 3 years and little more younger then Ghiyath al-Din Ghuri. Ghiyath al-Din died in 599 Hijri (late 1202 or early 1203 - more likely 1203) aged 63, so he must have been born around 1140 which is confirmed by David Thomas as well. Thus, Muhammad Ghori who was 3 -4 years younger to him, must have been born around 1144-1145 and definately not 1149.
 * But unfortunately none of the scholar I read regarding the Ghurids mentioned Muhammad Ghori's birth year despite all of them use Minhaj's work as springboard for Ghurid history even more so then Taj ul-Masir (more synchronous) which is evidently a biased poetic text - omitted Muhammad Ghori's routes in Tarain-1191 and Mount Abu 1178 as well . Could we, thus, use 1144 and attribute this to Minhaj ? It's primary source though still better then misguiding readers. Any thoughts ? ∆ P&#38;t ♀√ (talk) 06:10, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I don't see the harm in using a primary source for a birth date. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:12, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

History
He is solve viceroy of Mohammad Ghori left behind by him India 2409:4089:AB03:BE83:BAD0:20E8:C205:12F8 (talk) 12:49, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Hindu nationalist POV
Now that the Pakistani editors are away, I notice that various editors have turned the Muhammad of Ghor page into another unencyclopedic page with a POV section Muhammad_of_Ghor#Relations_with_non-Muslims, a monument to latter day Hindu nationalist gripe.

Among other things they have a quote box in which Muslim slaughter of hapless Hindus can fly under the RS radar by virtue of it marketed as quaint, literary, or both. Alongside, in the main text, all the irony in Richard Eaton has been lost in the mis-paraphrase. Please be warned that I'm privy to what is being done on this page, and at some point, I will act. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  10:30, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Adding sourced material is by no means pov addition (looks a politically motivated commentary anyway - Hindu Nationalist jibe) especially if the content is sourced to academicians like Mohammad Habib, Andre Wink, Richard M. Eaton. Bar Wink, the other two are actually quite left liberal in their writing and ideology.


 * If somebody razed thousands of temples and converted them into mosques on most sacred pilgrim site, converted lakhs of infidels (last campaign against Khokhars) is sure by no means a secularist.
 * Regarding your quote box issue - it's sourced as well and it's been pointed out that this is a rhetorical account of the conquest by Hasan Nizami.
 * Eaton himself (who reduced the number of temples razed to 80 from 1192-1708) is actually admitting that Muhammad of Ghor and his slave generals destroyed temples on a large scale.

PS:- I made major contributions to this page and improved several errors that were there from years like his forged tomb in Dhamiak (buried in Ghazna), his brother's death year (1203 wrongly wrongly stated as 1202/1201), expanded on his early life and military carrer section as well. He had a daughter as well (Ibn al athir and Minhaj both referred to as) which the article never referred to either and claimed that he had no offspring, wrong birth year, identity of his assassins, relation with his slaves etc.


 * His Central Asian expeditions were never covered in detail that's why I expanded upon it and also created Battle of Andkhud (a watershed battle in Ghurid history), his conquest of the Ghaznavids also deserved a separate article so I created Siege of Lahore (1186) - both were rated as decent articles (B-Class in the very start)


 * I also expanded upon the Ghurid coinage and how they adopted a pragmatic approach (for economic reasons) by continuing with the pre-conquest Rajput mints (instead of their convential mints of Khurasan) that eventually were accepted here by financiers as well. (Sunil Kumar, 2002)

Beside all these constructive edits, when you got ranted for being a Hindu nationalist and turning it into unencyclyopedic article this surely is not in good faith and is not much different from a personal attack.

Since I was engaged with quite a few genuine unbiased editors here from couple of weeks, did I really turned this into a Hindu Nationalist article ? Does our article only mentions him as a temple destroyer and nothing else ?? (What about other parts of his life which I contributed to ?) If there is something that isn't in neutral tone, no offense I will be the first to remove it or argue on it.

Like always, I am open to discussion but definately these rant that I turned it into a Hindu Nationalist article beside spending crucial time in creating new articles regarding him, researching on original Persian chroniclers around that time, along with scholarly works on him like Professor Habib journal [Shihabuddin of Ghor (1960)] but got brushed off just for covering the ugly side that too in brief with secondary source and attributing it to primary works as well. Thanks. ∆ P&#38;t ♀√ (talk) 11:34, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

PS:- I am not a Hindu nationalist, have academic journals to my credit as well regarding this conflicts, not bragging about it but such rants definately deserves a response though in civil manner. Thanks. ∆ P&#38;t ♀√ (talk) 11:46, 2 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I have heard the denials and the affirmations before. What matters on WP is what you have done here. If you don't not remove the POV, I will soon remove it myself.  I am saving us both the bother by warning you now.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:50, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I am politely asking your baring your experience (on Wikipedia) in mind that in which part we added pov ? Thanks. ∆ P&#38;t ♀√ (talk) 12:00, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * First of all you need to remove the quote box with citation to a historian who is often thought to be an RSS hit man, K. S. Lal Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:14, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * This is all I have time for now. If you are not able to figure it out, then I will remove it myself.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:16, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

I would have appreciated you and wouldn't have mind the removal (still don't) had you have used better arguments to counter late Professor K. S. Lal instead of abusing him as a RSS hitman (I have zero interset in politics but for sure this was another rant)

Alas ! Lal is not alone in translating a contemporary chronicler, even late Dasharatha Sharma also mentioned it:- (detailed work about Chahamana Rajputs) (see here)

Nevermind, I am removing the quotebox not because I think Lal was a hitman of R.S.S but just that I don't want a tedious argument here on it as I contributed vastly to this article (largely positively) apart from just describing his iconoclasm. Still, wouldn't mind comments from other fellow editors like u|HistoryofIran पाटलिपुत्र etc. Thanks. ∆ P&#38;t ♀√ (talk) 13:25, 2 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Like I said, it is for you to remove the POV. The POV and the misinterpretation of Eaton and Wink is there aplenty in the section.  If I don't see improvements in a couple of days, I will improve the this section myself.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:44, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Could you please clarify the bit about Eaton and Wink? --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:49, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Are you asking me ? ∆ P&#38;t ♀√ (talk) 13:51, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was asking Fowler. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:54, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * HistoryofIran: Both Wink and Eaton have been grossly misinterpreted. One way you can tell is that they are not paraphrased precisely or judiciously, only quoted out of context, a sign of the lack of comprehension. The whole point Eaton and Wink's lifework is that the Sultanate indulged in swift and strictly delimited desecration of the temples frequented by royalty following a tradition that had existed in South Asia among local royalty in pre-Islamic times. The Turkish invaders, in other words, followed settled patterns. They left the temples of the non-elite laity alone.  The temples of royalty were the domain of kingly struggles, plundered for showing opponents down and for the wealth that was imagined to be stored there.  Wink says in the book that capped his lifework that the Muslims in India during Ghurid times were confined to the minuscule proportion of nomadic warriors of the original invading armies that had abandoned their lifestyles for sedentary ways, but the deeper fabric of Indian society was left untouched. There is a reason after all that very few conversions took place in South Asia (relative to those in West- and Central Asia) and those that did in a major way as in Kashmir or Eastern Bengal had to do with the Sufis, not the Turkic invaders. The late Rick Asher, the major art historian of Sarnath says the same thing, essentially that Buddhist monasteries by the 13th century CE had become disconnected from their laity, deriving their support from regional kings, not ordinary people (for whom they served as landlords).  It was for that reason and for the wealth imagined to be stored there, that the monasteries were attacked. You can read about it in later paragraphs of Lion capital of Ashoka.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  17:28, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * HistoryofIran: The problem with quoting generally is that the quoters have not digested the material, so they cherry-pick quotes to promote their POV, in this instance the dominant Hindu nationalist narrative of India today. Quoting in such fashion is best accomplished by the low-level sources (i.e. high-resolution) where the historian is focused on some details, not summing up. On the other hand, here for example is Andre Wink summing up in the book that capped his life's research,
 * "Releasing the vast wealth of plundered and destroyed Hindu temples and the treasure obtained through tribute levies from subjugated Hindu rulers into an expanding money economy, the medieval IndoIslamic states of the Sultans of Delhi exhibited a capacity to mobilize land revenue and commercial resources far exceeding that of their Hindu predecessors but did not set out to convert the “infidels” whose “idols” they attacked. The changes they effected were not primarily religious." I'll be darned if India-POV edits will have their way at a time when the Pakistani editors have abandoned Wikipedia in large numbers. I will bring to bear all my knowledge and experience on Wikipedia to oppose it. This is an encyclopedia, not a blog of biases.
 * Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  17:51, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * HistoryofIran, The problem with quoting the "court historians" of any period, and in particular the Ghurids, is that they inevitably exaggerate to glorify their royal or imperial sponsor. Such quotes are a dime and dozen. So what encyclopedic purpose is served by quoting them.  We were just discussing these legendary histories on another page (those of Tamerlane (i.e. Amir Temur), many written in Indo-Persian in India in the 16th-century, and not becoming known in his Uzbek heartland until the 19th. In sum, neither Tamerlane (who ended the rule of the Sultanate by debilitating it) and the Ghurids who began it, converted anyone in any numbers that affected the demographic balance.
 * These histories (and the quote boxes theyare couched in are best avoided. It takes a long long time, centuries, before someone like Iqbal (whose grandfather had converted to Islam in Kashmir) comes along as is able to both deconstruct Mahmud Ghaznavi a little and express his own ambivalence:"نہ وہ عشق میں رہیں گرمیاں نہ وہ حسن میں رہیں شوخیاں نہ وہ غزنوی میں تڑپ رہی نہ وہ خم ہے زلف ایاز میں جو میں سر بہ سجدہ ہوا کبھی تو زمیں سے آنے لگی صدا ترا دل تو ہے صنم آشنا تجھے کیا ملے گا نماز میں" Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:22, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * There also has to be some compatibility with Wikipedia's own more established narratives. See, for example, the last paragraph of the FA India and the first paragraph of early modern. There is a complete disconnect with this article.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:31, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Well there is no point in arguing over a strawman. I barely misinterpted any of the sources here - Wink is too vocal about Islamic iconoclasm and used stronger words (citing Quran) ∆ P&#38;t ♀√ (talk) 13:51, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Comment Here is Eaton's work regarding the temple destruction by Muhammad of Ghor and his slaves



Where is the misrepresentation ? ∆ P&#38;t ♀√ (talk) 14:05, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Re for Professor Wink:- (pp:-333, 325 of the book cited)


 * Well expectedly, this is a classic case of cherry picking and strawman. Eaton made his academic career largely on this argument that only royal temples were plundered (this argument is for Sultanate rulers who had settled here not Muhammad of Ghor) and those associated with the minor settlements (village temples) were left untouched (this is more broader argument regarding temple destruction don't know how you relate it to this article) - this is largely unproven claim, Eaton thesis that these temple raids by the Ghurids or earlier Ghanznavids were largely driven by their love of plunder is approach which Wink (quoted below) always regards as contentious. How after destroying a temple and then sending the desroyed idol to Agra, Delhi, Ghazna, Mecca where it was left to be trumple under feets of native populace is not iconoclasm but just plunder ?? Did Eaton cite anything that claim that village temples were not harmed upon ?? Well there is something called Dhimmi as well in Islamic society ? There is a poll tax which these villagers had to pay to be known as protected peoples.


 * Eaton also claimed that Hindu too did this on regular basis is also contentious to say the least, apart from vague incidents, he couldn't find example of temple destruction by the Hindus on same scale as of Turks (even close)


 * Since, your argument lies in perhaps that only royal religious sites were razed to curb rebellions, then there were Muslim rebellion as well ? Muhammad of Ghor had almost all of slaves rebelling post Andhkhud debacle but did he demolished mosques to prove his authority to them ? (Did he destroyed royal mosques of Ghaznavids (1186), or Soomras (1182) or even heretic Ismalilis ?) Why don't we have incidents of contemporary saying that Thousand mosques were destroyed in Mecca alone ? Why these destruction was largely assosiated with infidel monuments ??

( page no:- 309-310 of the same book)
 * You quoted Wink in a way which these argument has no relation (even there very selectively) now lets take a look about Wink take on Islamic iconoclasm and supposed mere lust for plunder of Turks:-

Here is Wink on iconoclasm ∆ P&#38;t ♀√ (talk) 18:30, 2 October 2022 (UTC)


 * It is hardly selective. Here are the first three paragraphs of his section on the Sultanate.
 * "The Ghaznavids were succeeded by the Shansabanis of Ghur, or “Ghurids” (1186–1206), the “Slave Kings” (1206–1290), the Khalajis (1290–1320), the Tughluqs (1320–1414), the Sayyids (1414–1451), and the Lodi Afghans (1451–1526). These were the medieval dynasties – without exception of Turkish origin or with numerically decisive Turkish or Turko-Mongol militaries – that understood it to be their historic mission to extend and consolidate Islamic rule in India and made Delhi their capital. They are known as the Sultans of Delhi. Their capital city of Delhi was the key to their dominion in India because it was ecologically situated in a broad transitional area between the arid zone of Rajasthan and the west and the more humid settled zone to the east, so that, in effect, the decisive battles for the control of the Indian plains were all fought in the wastes facing Delhi to the west, in the medieval and the early modern periods alike (Tarain 1191, 1192; Panipat 1526, 1556, 1761). Historians of the time aligned the rule of the Sultans of Delhi with an idealized and universal history of Islam, which was interpreted as a religion of empire, and extolled Islamic ideals of religious and political authority and the concept of jihad above all others.  Releasing the vast wealth of plundered and destroyed Hindu temples and the treasure obtained through tribute levies from subjugated Hindu rulers into an expanding money economy, the medieval IndoIslamic states of the Sultans of Delhi exhibited a capacity to mobilize land revenue and commercial resources far exceeding that of their Hindu predecessors but did not set out to convert the “infidels” whose “idols” they attacked. The changes they effected were not primarily religious"  I'm not summing up here; he is.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:41, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Our article as it stands did not says that he converted the whole land of infidels into Islam that's not possible, neither the Turks were iconoclast all the time (Wink argument also) - but they quite freuquently restored to it and that's our article simply says. Do we have any nuances regarding temple destruction whether it was iconoclastic or not ?

The video I posted for some odd reasons isn't appearing, anyway everyone is free to just simply type Why do historians deny Islamic Iconoclasm ? Actually, he said that this a typical wokiesm especially in U.S.A to say everything was political in medieval age and religious angle is something only modern imaginations claimed. ∆ P&#38;t ♀√ (talk) 18:45, 2 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Videos do not count on Wikipedia. I have no idea which book of Wink you are quoting from as his 2020 book summing up his life's work does not have a page 309. It has only 297 pages.  Everything else he wrote earlier does not count.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:48, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

It's tedious at best to argue with someone who won't change his opinion don't matter how much you insert, better leave it and this is not only portion where I contributed in this article.


 * Regarding which book I am citing from it's his "Al-Hind The Making of Slave Kings" (1991 re 2002) (Please cross check as many times you want)

I don't access to his 2020 book, but would be surprised to know that he changed that much or either there is selective citing.
 * Why the earlier works don't count ?? What sort of argument is these ?


 * Why the political razing of temples was not only restricted just in destroying it alone ?? Why a Islamic pulprit had to be built on demolished site as well ? How this is political . Shrug not going to press upon thus much.. ∆ P&#38;t ♀√ (talk) 18:57, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

( page no:-309-310) ∆ P&#38;t ♀√ (talk) 19:01, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

RFC
l don't think there is much point in getting into strawman with you who is making arguments those iself are barely explicity related to the subject and deviating by bringing broader argument over the motives of temple destructions, absurdly asking to quote from selected book of same professor (Wink 2020 not 1991) and incoherently asking to follow WP:Tertiary guidelines and just because the iconoclasm of Turks (temple destruction, massacres of populace and Khokhar conversion) - did not appeared in your handpicked textual apparatus so you think it never took place ? The issue is the books you cited above don't even discuss about him (Muhammad of Ghor) apart from a paragraph or two at best (that too about his Indian invasions) - they don't stress about the identity of his assassins, his early campaigns against Oghuz's etc. Since Habib wrote a journal back in the day on Muhammad's carrer (40 page piece from original Persian manuscripts) it is quite obviousl that he dealt with these points. Habib himself was a advocate of theory that temple destruction was not derived by religious hatred but just for mere plunders.

Wink's argument on temple destruction by Hindus:-
 * You claimed Eaton is not marxist, well he do style himself as such - the argument Eaton are using in his monograph are not something that he unearthened, but is repeating to the interpolations of Romila Thapar, Satish Chandra, Habib (Irfan and Mohammad) that the Hindus themselves used to destroy each others religious sites and the Turks just continue to this pattern and Islamic fundamentalism is all but propaganda of RSS

In the next chapter titled "Islamic iconoclasm":-

Note:- I am not expert in the Islamic doctrine and don't want a argument over such a sensitive issue (want to stay only on historical pieces which is my speciality) - I just put these quotes to show how Wink's thesis are manipulated to such a extent that they don't distinct much from Eaton


 * My simple question to you is since the destruction of polythestic religious sites was not derived by any religious zeal but just simply love for plunders or showing their authority - then why Muhammad of Ghor did not destroyed 1000 mosques in Lahore after outflanking the Ghaznavids ? (see Siege of Lahore (1186)), during his early raids why we don't found him destroying mosques of even Ismalilis in Multan and Uch, but all of sudden when he penetrated (badly got whopped) in east here in Rajasthan and Gujarat (1178), suddenly a carnage starts after taking Nadol, the Kiradu temples got demolished, Jain idol of Mahavira in Rajasthan was ordered to be destroyed (see here), thankfully the invasion was repulsed by a Solanki stripling at age of 13-14 (temples were repaired soon as well), which turned him for a decade against Ghaznavids and other non-infidel kingdoms (Soomras of Sindh) but don't found these instances of destruction of religious structures there as well until 1192.


 * If that was entirely political - why after destroying a thousand temples on most sacred pilgrim site they have to be converted into mosques as well ? It's political then why don't they destroyed mosques of their enemies during warfare and turn them into paganic structures ? After all, this could have been some statement of asserting authority over the other..no ?? (Mongols did that to Islamic kingdoms in early 13th century to showcase their authority) (If destroying a temple is only seen as a blow to the ruler and his kingship, then why not same scale destruction of mosques and their conversion into paganic structures took place to give a blow to the ruler and his kingship) ?


 * Fact is that you was never bothered to improve gruesome errors in the article which stayed for here in 2 decades, like his forged grave site, his failures against the Khwarezmians, Ghazanvid expansion, asssination, relations with his slave sons, his daughter which barely anyone knows, early campaigns as a prince - but you appeared yesterday and started ranting about Hindu nationalist pov and giving absurd arguments that since "My sources did not cover the temple destruction by Turks and building mosques" so these never happened and it's Hindutva mentality to include it here and it's not undue (actually arguing over motives of these temple raids is actually undue) (You are nobody to decide the sources to include and exclude)
 * The mass conversion is talked about by reputed academics like Mohammad Habib and Andre Wink by no means it's undue here (they backed it with Persian writings as well)
 * This is quite an annoying argument these days as more people are discovering about the ugly side of Turkish occupation so they call them with as many slurs as they want and propagate theories of political suppression of religious sites where the ideology barely played a part.


 * The problem here is that they choosed to glorify or whitewash even the worst iconoclasts like Muhammad of Ghor, Mahmud of Ghazni, Firuz Shah Tughlaq, Sikander Lodhi, Kutb al-Din Aybak. The article of Aurangzeb as it stands states that the men protected more temples then he destroyed ? - they cited a author who is contentious itself (even those destructions were political, though still the remnants of broken idols were placed in Delhi, so that native Muslims can trumpled them again and again under their feets) - there are much moderate figures who could be glorified like Babur, Humayun, Akbar, Jahangir, Illtutmish who were iconoclasts and practical in some of their measures as well.


 * I don't found any good reason to argue about it, but requesting other editors to please comment about Religion section, If I am wrong then no issue, I won't hesistate in reverting myself, since my few colleague who regularly contributes to these topics won't mind their views on it:-

and any intersted editors whom I forgot to tag, do comment please on how this section is undue and misphrashed in Hindutva ideology. (I might take this to other noticeboards as well for broader outputs, if these editors don't bother to get in) ∆ P&#38;t ♀√ (talk) 03:53, 3 October 2022 (UTC)


 * If you are going to have an RFC you cannot invite your chosen editors. Either have a proper RFC which is advertised on WikiProjects History, West Asia, South Asia, Political Science and Religion, or hold your peace and follow the tertiary sources.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  04:18, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I suggest that you focus on the early Sultanate. What tertiary sources have you used for determining due weight?  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  04:19, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Please also don't write incomprehensible and ungrammatical language such as: l don't think there is much point in getting into strawman with you who is making arguments those iself (sic)are barely explicity [sic] related to the subject and deviating by bringing broader argument over the motives of temple destructions, absurdly asking to quote from selected book of same professor (Wink 2020 not 1991) and incoherently asking to follow WP:Tertiary guidelines and just because the iconoclasm of Turks (temple destruction, massacres of populace and Khokhar conversion) - did not appeared [sic] in your handpicked textual apparatus so you think it never took place ?
 * It does not aid communication, nor help in improving this article. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  04:30, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Please also don't make wild allegations about Richard M. Eaton such as: You claimed Eaton is not marxist, well he do style himself as such - the argument Eaton are using in his monograph are not something that he unearthened, but is repeating to the interpolations of Romila Thapar, Satish Chandra, Habib (Irfan and Mohammad) that the Hindus themselves used to destroy each others religious sites and the Turks just continue to this pattern and Islamic fundamentalism is all but propaganda of RSS Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  04:39, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I already said that you are free to turn this into as you like.


 * How absurd is it that you are including quotations from authors who are writing in general about temple destructions and not even mentioning the subject of the article and then talking about due and undue weightage ?


 * You are still ranting about Hindu nationalist jibe (removed it now), quite obviously I can't be civil all the way through, when somebody is quoting authors out of the context and inserting gross generalisations which did not even include the subject of the article, then there is no point in arguing over it. (that's why I have to quote Wink for fundamentalist ideology of Islam which also is not related to the subject)


 * You are too civil to disrespect the editors who have been around longer then you like veteran Utcursch (removed that part as well) and questions their contributions ?; (Overall perhaps it would have been better had I not have pinged them and post it at suitable noticeboards but this was surely not in bad spirit)

I won't be replying here unless other editors join in and if they collaborate for the whitewashing, then I won't argue over it.

Note:- This is again not the only part of Muhammad of Ghor where I contributed, see newly created article on Siege of Lahore (1186), Battle of Andkhud etc as well which is barely related to iconoclasm ∆ P&#38;t ♀√ (talk) 05:06, 3 October 2022 (UTC)


 * On a related but similar topic in the History of Pakistan admin Vanamonde93 has commented that the onus is on the editor seeking inclusion not deletion. (See here_) I will per WP:BRD remove the entire section you have recently added until there is consensus for its inclusion.  I had offered you an easier option of taking my advice (as the main author of the FA India, and the sole author of its history section) but you have chosen another route.  Well until this issue is not decided, that section will not be there in the article.  Best regards,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  05:19, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Eaton styling himself as Marxist is not a wild allegation, see here:-

(not related to topic but I read that piece during controversial Ayodhya argument 10 years back; it's just for my marxist comment which you claimed as wild allegation was not my personal comment) Thanks. ∆ P&#38;t ♀√ (talk) 05:26, 3 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I have now removed the section until there is consensus for its inclusion (per admin comment). Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  05:33, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Great !! You removed the whole section (whitewashing) that too on the basis of admins comment on entirely different article which doesn't even remotely match up. I am done with Muhammad of Ghor's article in general. ∆ P&#38;t ♀√ (talk) 05:42, 3 October 2022 (UTC)


 * The admin was advocating a general principle, stating beforehand not wanting to get into the weeds, i.e. the small details or the controversy. It very much applies to this article. You are attempting to add content, in fact content of undue weight, therefore, the onus is very on you to establish a consensus for its inclusion.  Whether or not you are done with this article, you need to learn to avoid adding undue material; otherwise, the same issues will dog wherever you go on WP.  Best,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  06:20, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Comment I personally do not support the attempts by User:Fowler&fowler to whitewash Muslim destructions and depredations during the Muslim conquests in the Indian subcontinent, a behaviour I have seen in other articles as well (such as Lion capital of Ashoka). I personally don't have any stake in this as I'm related to neither faith... User:Packer&, please take the time to make a proper WP:RfC request following the exact Wikipedia procedure, and I think you might well obtain the support of other users. Fowler&fowler actually has a long history of making personal attacks (including branding other contributors as "Hindu nationalists" whenever he feels that Muslims are being slighted) and has very recently received a warning by Admins for making personal attacks (he was "warned against engaging in personal attacks and incivility" ), but I guess he still does not understand... पाटलिपुत्र Pataliputra  (talk) 06:40, 3 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I concur with you on it, the premier issue which I had with this user apart from obvious uncivil rants like dangerous Hindu nationalist game - diff, bragging about himself and showing no regards for other contributors - diff, (though one of them is older then him as well in those tags) and abusing professional historians with labels like RSS Hitman diff and off all they displayed typical ownership of the page where they never contributed and improved on it's factual errors but today used a comment from a administraitor on a different article altogether to whitewash a fanatic (Muhammad of Ghor) by wholesale removal - diff
 * I started out in very polite tone with them diff to point out the addition they think is poorly sourced - they abused K. S. Lal and raised echo for removal of quotbox where the contemporary poet Hasan Nizami describe sack of Ajmer to not make this into ugly argument, I removed the quotebox here - diff. However, they showed no pause and claimed that whole religion section is undue.
 * While this is impossible to deny that the Ghurids destroyed temples and converted them into mosques/madarsas on a large-scale, they opt for another route and claims that these events of destruction were not coloured by religious bigotry and was only restricted till royal temples - diff and accused that we wrongly interprated the works. Let's leave it alone for sec., this argument is itself contentious but see the pattern of diverting the main issue completely and bringing arguments that did not directly involves the subject of the article (Muhammad of Ghor) and even after this, they complaint that there is undue addition of content, let alone their own citings in which the author did not even mention the subject of article is not undue and justifiable for mass removal?
 * Since, deviating from topic seems to be the core of their argument here, they said that since their own cherry picked four textbooks do not mention any temple destruction, converion of Hindus and their massacre is undue here as well and it never happened and hence I am removing it altogether diff - What kind of absurd argument was these ? (claimed Mohammad Habib specialised work on Muhammad of Ghor as undergraduate work as well along with Satish Chandra both are well known academic historians)
 * Now coming to mass coversion of Khokhars/Buddhist between Ghazna and Punjab, during his final campiagn, they again brought something which did not even mention Muhammad of Ghor let alone details of this mass Buddhist conversion, claiming that this is the most widely used book on Indian history and it states that the conversion to Islam was largely due to this Brahmainical caste structure which suppresses lower caste Hindus diff - again where the source claimed that the conversion of Khokhar by Md. Ghori did not took place and if it does it was due to Brahmanical oppression ?
 * (Mohammad Habib 1981; pp:-133-134) (see here)
 * They claimed that Wink was misrepresented by me, when proven wrong citing his 1991 work (Al-Hind part 2) diff, they changed the goalpoast and said that no don't cite his 1991 work it won't count, stick to 2020 work (I personally don't have access to it) diff and diff. [see here as well regarding Wink
 * They could not bring up a source that expliticly states that large scale temple destruction by Muhammad of Ghor and his slaves is a Hindu nationalist propaganda (their original rant) although, they instead cited all the apologetics who did not even mentioned Md. Ghori (our subject) name anyway and even after that it's still them who are complaining over due and undue weightage.
 * I agree with them atleast on one point that the courtiers of this iconoclasts like Nizami in these case, generally exaggerate the depradations caused by their soverigns but that atleast gives a idea about how much even the liberal poets of that age had prejudice towards the non-Muslims and then they say Muslim rule was all-out peace.
 * '''Note:- I won't comment till the more intersted editors join in and if not WP:DR will not be a bad alternative ∆ P&#38;t ♀√ (talk) 08:57, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I will not be spending time in a Dispute Resolution with you Packer and Tracker.  You have attempted to add material of undue weight.  You have attempted to add it to an old article.  I, however, am the one who has written the major articles on Indian history and geography on Wikipedia:
 * the FAs India, Political history of Mysore and Coorg (1565–1760), Darjeeling (which has a significant history section) and garnered these views from experienced WPians.
 * Going backwards in time, I am the main author of : Dominion of India, Partition of India, History of Pakistan, British Raj, Bhagat Singh, Subhas Chandra Bose, Indian rebellion of 1857, Company rule in India, Great Bengal famine of 1770, Raksha Bandhan, Lion capital of Ashoka, Indian mathematics, Indus Valley Civilisation, Himalayas, and Ganges.
 * You are welcome to attempt RFCs, such as the numerous futile ones Pataliputra has attempted, but they are everything but straightforward, and they are an enormous time sink. Be warned. Best,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:20, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not bragging to you (which apparently you seem to think), rather I'm letting the other participants and potential participants know that one party to the dispute (namely me) is a highly experienced WPian with a large output of high quality major India-related articles, that they will need to take my arguments seriously. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:55, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I have told you dozens of times Patliputra. PLEASE do not ping me.  I hope you will respect my wish.  So, again:  PLEASE do not ping me  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  09:53, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi User:Fowler&fowler, as far as I know pinging is a courtesy and is an integral part of the communication process when interacting on Wikipedia. You should also ping a user when you mention or discuss him, which you often fail to do, as here for example: a highly problematic (and discourteous) practice. And my user name reads "Pataliputra", not "Patliputra". पाटलिपुत्र  Pataliputra  (talk) 10:08, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I have now silenced notifications from you per Help:Notifications. You are the first user who has abused that courtesy with me and the only name on my silence list.  I am notifying you here and have left a post on your user talk page Pataliputra.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:29, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I believe a simple, properly formatted WP:RfC would be largely sufficient for this subject. It's rather easy and straightforward, and can be resolved without much drama. पाटलिपुत्र  Pataliputra  (talk) 10:11, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Packer and Tracker: For Pataliputra's last RfC, which was nowhere near being resolved, please see Talk:Lion Capital of Ashoka. Please be also prepared to file ANI reports against me when it does not go your way, be prepared to hound the admin aggressively on their user talk page as Pataliputra did.  (See  here.)  But if Pataliputra's quest is an example, you'll be back on square one.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:59, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, in all these frankly useless comments by you where you made all the comments about everything bar Muhammad of Ghor. Your self bragging knew no limits - Irony dies thousand times when you talk about due and undue weightage, someone who staged his whole argument by adding quotations where the subject of the article (Muhammad of Ghor) is not even remotely mentioned is stalking claim of due and undue weightage ? Even then, when it looks that you couldn't put up anything decent ecplicitly related to subject, you used a comment from different article to remove the entire section (typical whitewashing)
 * No, I won't going to drag you to ANI, firstly I am not that free to waste so much time that too on somebody like you & quite frankly you are already at ANI for misconduct but by now, even you know that you can easily get away with it.
 * * I am not very much well informed about the Lion Capital of Ashoka scene, so won't going to poke my noise into it.
 * Anyway, as Pataliputra said, it's better to wait for comments from contributors about this systematic whitewashing. I am optimistic about this still, though not entirely centred about it. ∆ P&#38;t ♀√ (talk) 23:57, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Comments and queries
I was pinged here, but I hesitated to join the discussion because it was too unfocused and it wasn't even clear what is being debated. On the broader question of whether a section on Religious policy is WP:DUE in this page, there is no question about it. Every ruler's biography page can and probably should have a section on Religious policy.

But the content has been added here is too vague with unclear citations. Let me take for example this sentence:

It has three citations. Which of them says what the sentence says? Why do you need three citations for it? One of them has an included quotation, which doesn't say what the sentence says. So why is it here? There is a quoted phrase, which oddly has three quotation marks. But if I type it into Google Books, it is not found in any book! To top it, the sentence is decorated with random blue links, for Ghazna, Mahmud of Ghazni, holy wars (ghazwa), infidels, Hindustan and even Islam! Have you seen the guidance on WP:OVERLINKing? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:20, 8 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Sure, though it would have been better had you tagged me. Are you asking for a carbon copy of this sentence ? I personally in general avoid exact copy-paste of cited material even in highlighted lines (quoted phrase) to avoid copy-paste unless not doing so will change the whole meaning, which I don't think is the case here -


 * 1) Firstly, you questioned about the broader value of this sentence and about the motive of Ghurid invasion of north being similar to their Ghaznavids predecessors on ground of ghazwa/holy wars against infidels in east & to spread Islam by punishing the healthens/infidels/idolators/kaffirs etc..


 * I think both Bosworth and Thomas mentioned this explitcly and I found it hard to digest that how you could not find this quote of Thomas anywhere:-
 * (Ghaznavid instead of Mahmud might have been just better, although his admiration for Ghazi Mahmud is no secret as is evident from his disasterous campaign in Narhwala–1178)
 * (Bosworth 1968; pp:-162)

(Andre Wink 1991; pp:-328)
 * Just for more clarity on the Ghaznawid motives although it's not directly related, see here:-


 * On David Thomas:-
 * (David Thomas 2018; pp:-27-28)
 * (David Thomas 2018; pp:-27-28)


 * I found it very hard to distinguish between spreading the world of Islam and punish healthens or spreading the banner of Islam by punishing idolators or let it say infidels, kaffirs, pagans etc.


 * Anyone, who had a decent understanding of original Persian texts (especially of earlier period prior to 1590's) won't found the mentions of Muslims waging holy wars (Jihad in their annals) against the infidels as vague, this mention continued well till the invasion of Ahmed Shah Durrani as well. All the Muslim chroniclers mentions their raids in north as "holy wars"/"ghazwa"/"Jihad" which is barely contentious. You actually seems more anxious on linking to Islam, idolators and holy wars which is actually a trivial issue and could be unlinked without fuss.


 * On a diff. note though, I partially concur that this phrase or the passage in general could or rather should have been expressed in better terms (like as - Muhammad of Ghor just like any other pre-modern military invasions had the motives of extracting plunders from Ganges plain along with their religious aptitude of spreading the carpet of Islam by punishing infidels in similar to the Ghaznawids precursor...,something like it)


 * 2) The very next line, also somehow lacks context:-
 * It's attributed to Rima Hooja and is cited by Andre Wink as well:-
 * (Andre Wink 1991; pp:-326)
 * 3) I personally thought that this passage (holy war and the Jains hiding idols from him) could have been removed all together and I am not irresolute in conceding an argument to quicky end a dispute as I done it in removing the quote box earlier (though not whitewashing a fanatic and that too by adding citations which don't even mentions the subject)
 * 4) However, to claim that the whole section (about hostility towards Hindu pagans) is vague is a bit too much, even the quote about his sacking of Ajmer was properly sourced to a well-known academic historian (who was abused as a R.S.S hitman without any concrete proof, his earlier works are still cited widely) [diff] and [diff] ∆ P&#38;t ♀√ (talk) 03:35, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, K3, if Religious Policy is DUE, how would you describe Muhammad of Ghur's, keeping in mind that it was not the same as that of the handful of elite slaves from the heartland of horsemanship that he had purchased for a good price? Who would you be using, Eaton's views (much cited by the introductory texts such as Metcalf and Metcalf's Concise History or Asher and Talbot's India before Europe),  Wink's evolved views of 2020, a summary of his lifework and a walk back from what he had written in 1991, soon after he arrived in Madison, still wet behind the ears, or some historian partial to the RSS that I had never heard of and whose name I have already forgotten?  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:28, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * PS This editor Packer and Tracker is unable to paraphrase. They can only quote this bit and that bit.   I can without much fuss write a paragraph describing the differing views of Richard Eaton and Andre Wink (2020) on how Islam arrived in South Asia in the two major Muslim-majority areas (Eastern Bengal and the Indus borderlands (Punjab, northern Sind, and NWFP).   Wink, summing up his evolved views in 2020, agrees with Eaton that Islam arrived in Eastern Bengal in the form of the religious ideology of the plough. As the lowest stretch of the Ganges plain was deforested, pastoral populations or forest dwellers on whom the reach of Hinduism was remote, moved to sedentary lifestyles and converted to Islam during a period of Muslim hegemony.  Wink disagrees with Eaton that in the Indus borderlands, Islam came in the same way. Rather, he thinks the situation there is similar to Anatolia, which took place over a couple of centuries and was caused in large part by continual Mongol raids which either weakened the pre-existing religious fabric of society or caused areas to be depopulated and for Muslims from Islamic lands to move in. This did not happen in the early Sultanate, but during the later 13th-century and the 14th. The violence visited was not Afghan, but Mongol.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:33, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * PPS I forgot to add that the Mongols did not reach the subcontinental heartland during this period in part because it was defended robustly by the Sultanate, and we mention this in India, medieval history section, and in part because neither they nor their horses, nor yet their extensive retinue, could hack the ecology of the subcontinent. Eventually when Amir Timur did appear, it was briefly; he sealed the sultanate's fate, but his plunder did not really affect the demographic balance. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:03, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * A random uncivil comment here and there - like demeaning any of the reputable historian (didn't get on whose this rant was) by adding your personal commentary and calling them partial to R.S.S without any good enough citing, it's just character assassination now most likely this was again directed at K. S. Lal (diff). In continuation with your existing trait of talking about everything bar the subject of article, beliting others, self-bragging and talking about everything expect the main subject of the article - (diff), barely surprising now.
 * Since, off topic/usless comments continued on your side - I personally would have preffered that north India would have been conquered by the "Pagan Mongols" instead of "Muslim Turks". Yes, just like any other pre-modern (or bit more) conquest, the conquest of Mongols would have lead to a demongraphic decline here as well but after their conquests they were known to be a lot benign and didn't persecuted their subjects as their peace time policy like the iconoclasts - Mamluks, Lodhis, Khaljis, Mughals (Babur, Akbar pre-1580, Aurangzeb and the later Shah Jahan) did.
 * The resistance to later Mongols by the Delhi Sultans is overblown - (diff) courtesy of left liberal scholars who made Mongols as some sort of monsters (this is as usual extraneous though) while the Muslim Turks were the bulwarks who safeguarded Indian frontiers east of Indus. The so-called Delhi Sultanate did not repelled a full-scale invasion by the Mongols in their hey days but just in later 13th century (though still were a powerful military empire) like Balban, Jalaluddin and Alauddin Khalji did during the phase of 1265 - 1310 CE. It's rather luckily for the Mamluks of Muhammad of Ghor that the great Khan (Genghis) turned his back on India and did not crossed the Indus and Iltutmish smartly refused to aid the fugitive Khwarezmian prince Jalal which definately contributed to the cause as well.
 * No, Wink views on Islamic fundamentalism barely evolved (from 1991 to 2020; again this is not the topic of subject); it's rather how you are manipulating his views as it suits your narrative as I don't have access to the 2020 book, don't think that he allotted separate chapters to "Idols of Hind", "Islamic iconoclasm either". Wink was and still is quite vocal about Islamic fundamentalism and how a certail ideology or doctrine of this (Islam) preaches iconoclasm and violence towards idols and idolators. Heck, how did this screed (diff) is even remotely related to Muhammad of Ghor ?
 * Note:- Here is Andre Wink's breif views on Islamic iconoclasm not that long ago as well-2020, quite a fascinating evolution indeed. ∆ P&#38;t ♀√ (talk) 13:25, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Uncivil? The historian's own wikipedia page says that he wrote some worthwhile stuff in the 50s and 60s, but "Some of his later works were controversial, including allegation of being a spokesman for the RSS."  So you have boxed yourself between championing a dated scholar or an RSS spokesman. Neither is reliable.
 * And if you have not read Wink 2020, what is the point of claiming the mantle of Wink? Here he is in the summary of his lifework, published by Cambridge University Press in 2020:"At the easternmost end of the Persian plateau, the Indus borderlands followed broadly the same pattern of historical development as Anatolia and much of Persia. These areas had retained the substance of their Hindu-Buddhist and Persian-Zoroastrian identity under the three centuries of Arab conquest and occupation. The Arab conquest had been swift and was not accompanied by major migrations of nomads, resulting in the military occupation of a number of towns and some control of the countryside but no major demographic dislocations. There is no evidence of any extensive Islamization or conversion to Islam of the native Hindu-Buddhist population under the Arabs. Whatever evidence we have points to the contrary. The earliest Turkish raids and conquests under the Ghaznavids in the late tenth and eleventh/twelfth centuries resulted in more significant demographic dislocations, especially in the western Panjab, but these too were restricted. Like the subsequent military endeavors of the Ghurids and their Turkish slave generals in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, these were post-nomadic rather than nomadic conquests. There was some conversion to Islam among some specific populations in these centuries, but it was mostly sporadic. In short, when the Mongol nomadic hordes began pouring into the Indus borderlands in the thirteenth century, they came to a region of the subcontinent that had been under Muslim rule for more than half a millennium but where as yet no significant conversion to Islam had occurred. However, the social breakdown resulting from the incessant Mongol warfare, raiding, and nomadic migration that occurred throughout the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries was far worse than that resulting from the relatively quick conquests that, at an earlier stage, had led to the establishment of the Ghaznavid and Ghurid dynasties across much of the northern subcontinent. It is equally significant that the Mongol nomads did not penetrate anywhere beyond the Indus borderlands – at least not often and not for long. For ecological reasons, Mongol nomads could not sustain themselves in these other parts of the subcontinent. And correspondingly, there was no destruction of the deeper fabric of Indian society in these parts, and subsequently no mass conversion to Islam. page 98"  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:44, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Please read Wink 2020 now, at least the bits that I am providing, rather than spamming your sources. Let us focus on Wink first.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:46, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * So, that's enough to portray Lal as an R.S.S spokesperson ? (Look at that dubious citation which supported it) You are brilliant in deviating from the main subject of article. I am more or less sure that - Wink is misrepresented by you and his views as is evident from the brief clip I shared are intact, which is that temple raids by the Turks were coloured by religious bigotry along with the financial purposes.
 * If you could, do share the pdf of Wink 2020 edition, and this is not his life work either. Just because the 1991 edition did not suits your narrative, it does not means that was trash. I am sure this is misrepresentation as well.
 * Let alone all these, focus on subject of the article - where did Wink even mentioned Muhammad of Ghor ?
 * Where did he denied the mass conversion by Muhammad during his final days which is mentioned even by a left leaning historian like Md. Habib and also by Andre Wink (1991) ? Stop deviating from topic and reposting lengthy quotations to push your narrative where even the person whom we are arguing on is not even mentioned ? (Delhi Sultanate was established after his assassination and it is called as such only by later works by combining multiple ruling families) ∆ P&#38;t ♀√ (talk) 15:04, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * So the brief clip where he is talking in retirement to two Hindu nationalist data scientists one of whom later posts on Twitter is the best you can do? Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:12, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * So, no, I will not be sending you the pdf of a 300 page book in violation of the conditions of its availability to me. If you think I am not being truthful in quoting Wink, I am sure someone such as  can verify my quotes.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:17, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Wink also says on page 74, "Releasing the vast wealth of plundered and destroyed Hindu temples and the treasure obtained through tribute levies from subjugated Hindu rulers into an expanding money economy, the medieval IndoIslamic states of the Sultans of Delhi exhibited a capacity to mobilize land revenue and commercial resources far exceeding that of their Hindu predecessors but did not set out to convert the “infidels” whose “idols” they attacked. The changes they effected were not primarily intended to be religious. Perhaps most fundamentally, the Sultans of Delhi, in the course of the medieval centuries, put the Indian subcontinent through a horse warrior revolution, driving out or marginalizing the use of war elephants. Administered by post-nomadic, polyethnic military elites of Turks, Mongols, and Afghans without formal criteria of admission – many of slave origin or recent military converts to Islam, “new Muslims,” and as yet without formal ranking systems and permanent hierarchies of offices – the medieval IndoIslamic states inherited horsemanship and mounted warfare from the nomadic steppe tradition of the Turks." In other words, not only were the aims of the Sultans of Delhi not primarily religious but among other things, just like the Mughals and later the British, they modernized India in military technology. You seem to have forgotten to mention this in Legacy.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:51, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Here is Wink on Eaton:"Eaton speaks of the theory of “the religion of the plough”: “Much more in keeping with the geography and chronology of Muslim conversions in India,” he summarizes, “would be an understanding of mass conversion as a process whereby preliterate peoples on the ecological and political frontier of an expanding agrarian society became absorbed into the religious ideology of that society.” According to Eaton, it was not caste Hindus who most readily converted to Islam, but nonagrarian pastoral and forest peoples whose contact with Brahmanism and caste had been perfunctory at best and who were becoming integrated into a sedentary agrarian society. In the frontier regions, Islam was more a “religion of the plough” than a “religion of the sword.” In East Bengal, this came about when nonagrarian forest people were becoming integrated into an agrarian society emerging in the wake of the eastward shift of the Ganges River system and converted to Islam in the context of expanding Muslim rule in the area. The proliferation of rural mosques indicates that this process was well under way in the fifteenth century and gained further momentum in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. This process of Islamization, in Eaton’s view, was fundamentally the same as what happened (somewhat earlier) among the pastoral population in the western Panjab and Sind. While most, indeed almost all, of the evidence for it derives from East Bengal, the theory of Islam as a “religion of the plough” applies, in his view, to both the eastern and western peripheries. And it is, like the earlier explanations, a theory that cannot be easily dismissed. As opposed to some of the earlier theories of religious conversion, this one has the merit that it relates religious change to broader processes of social and economic transformation. It also serves as a corrective to the view that Islam is necessarily a religion of military elites or the inhabitants of cities by calling attention to the fact that in the Indo-Islamic world the majority of Muslims were rural people living in East Bengal and the Indus borderlands. Its major drawback remains that it is largely a theory designed to fit the evidence from East Bengal. It has a good deal of validity there. (pages 93–94)" As stated before, Wink, however, disagrees with Eaton about the Indus borderlands, where in his view it was the continual dismantling of the resident culture by the Mongols over two centuries that made the spread of Islam possible.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:31, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Wink also says on page 74, "Releasing the vast wealth of plundered and destroyed Hindu temples and the treasure obtained through tribute levies from subjugated Hindu rulers into an expanding money economy, the medieval IndoIslamic states of the Sultans of Delhi exhibited a capacity to mobilize land revenue and commercial resources far exceeding that of their Hindu predecessors but did not set out to convert the “infidels” whose “idols” they attacked. The changes they effected were not primarily intended to be religious. Perhaps most fundamentally, the Sultans of Delhi, in the course of the medieval centuries, put the Indian subcontinent through a horse warrior revolution, driving out or marginalizing the use of war elephants. Administered by post-nomadic, polyethnic military elites of Turks, Mongols, and Afghans without formal criteria of admission – many of slave origin or recent military converts to Islam, “new Muslims,” and as yet without formal ranking systems and permanent hierarchies of offices – the medieval IndoIslamic states inherited horsemanship and mounted warfare from the nomadic steppe tradition of the Turks." In other words, not only were the aims of the Sultans of Delhi not primarily religious but among other things, just like the Mughals and later the British, they modernized India in military technology. You seem to have forgotten to mention this in Legacy.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:51, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Here is Wink on Eaton:"Eaton speaks of the theory of “the religion of the plough”: “Much more in keeping with the geography and chronology of Muslim conversions in India,” he summarizes, “would be an understanding of mass conversion as a process whereby preliterate peoples on the ecological and political frontier of an expanding agrarian society became absorbed into the religious ideology of that society.” According to Eaton, it was not caste Hindus who most readily converted to Islam, but nonagrarian pastoral and forest peoples whose contact with Brahmanism and caste had been perfunctory at best and who were becoming integrated into a sedentary agrarian society. In the frontier regions, Islam was more a “religion of the plough” than a “religion of the sword.” In East Bengal, this came about when nonagrarian forest people were becoming integrated into an agrarian society emerging in the wake of the eastward shift of the Ganges River system and converted to Islam in the context of expanding Muslim rule in the area. The proliferation of rural mosques indicates that this process was well under way in the fifteenth century and gained further momentum in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. This process of Islamization, in Eaton’s view, was fundamentally the same as what happened (somewhat earlier) among the pastoral population in the western Panjab and Sind. While most, indeed almost all, of the evidence for it derives from East Bengal, the theory of Islam as a “religion of the plough” applies, in his view, to both the eastern and western peripheries. And it is, like the earlier explanations, a theory that cannot be easily dismissed. As opposed to some of the earlier theories of religious conversion, this one has the merit that it relates religious change to broader processes of social and economic transformation. It also serves as a corrective to the view that Islam is necessarily a religion of military elites or the inhabitants of cities by calling attention to the fact that in the Indo-Islamic world the majority of Muslims were rural people living in East Bengal and the Indus borderlands. Its major drawback remains that it is largely a theory designed to fit the evidence from East Bengal. It has a good deal of validity there. (pages 93–94)" As stated before, Wink, however, disagrees with Eaton about the Indus borderlands, where in his view it was the continual dismantling of the resident culture by the Mongols over two centuries that made the spread of Islam possible.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:31, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Couldn't you complete any of your sentences without bringing in your politically motivated views with labels like "Hindu Nationalist", "R.S.S Hitman and these abusive labels? I mean, What was the point in calling a simple interviewer as Hindu nationalist just because he posted something which is not in accordance with your prejudice.


 * No, this is not all I have, in my previous long threads, I posted extended quotes of Wink from the 1991 edition which PDF I have with me still that includes the Marxist deliberately equating the vague idol abducting and comparing it with the widespread iconoclasm of Muslims, citing Quran and it's prejudice towards idols and those worshipped it. For your kind information, those whom you randomly abused as Hindu Nationalists didn't had just a small clip with Wink either, they did a detailed episode on his 2020 edition which is there on You Tube (a long 100 minute episode); These two are not Hindu nationalists who interviewed Wink only about iconoclasm bit, rather they did it about all aspects of his recent work, life and historical career, they also brought marxist scholars to their podcast as well. It's baseless anyway to expect civility from your side.

• Obviously, I am not saying that these quotes are hoax, but could be the case of selective citing especially in contentious issue where the authors almost everytime in all his previous books, journals, essays strongly condemned iconoclasm of Muslims would not suddenly change his life-long take on the subject. I agree that a brief clip doesn't sum up a historian life-long researches but it still give a idea about the historians brief views on the topic of iconoclasm.

• Lets leave all this aside, even if these quotes are genuine, heck where they even mention the person whom we are arguing over ? Where they are denying the Khokhar/Buddhist conversion ? Where he denied destruction of non-Muslim religious sites by the Muhammad and his fanatical slave sons prior to his murder ?

• It's wastage of time to go through all your tedious threads, where even now you couldn't put up anything where the article subject (Md. Ghuri) is not even mentioned and posting all but meaningless long threads where the subject is not even mentioned in vague terms but the events which took place long after his assassination. Next time, post only if you have something explicit that discuss the subject and denied his temple desecration, conversion of Buddhists, persecution of heretic Islamilis etc. If not, it would be better to not waste my time as I am tired of repeating same thing over and over again. ∆ P&#38;t ♀√ (talk) 15:55, 9 October 2022 (UTC)


 * User:Packer& Why am I focusing on Wink 2020 (and end of career retrospective) and Eaton 2000? Well because Wikipedia policy mentions the usefulness of WP:TERTIARY sources in determining due weight. It states:"Many introductory undergraduate-level textbooks are regarded as tertiary sources because they sum up multiple secondary sources.Policy: Reliable tertiary sources can help provide broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources and may help evaluate due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other." It is for that reason I listed two introductory textbooks. The first of these was Barbara D. Metcalf and Thomas R. Metcalf's A Concise History of Modern India, Cambridge, 2012.  It is not only one of the most widely-used textbooks worldwide, but is also cited by other textbook authors and by scholars, its Google Scholar citation index being 886 (i.e. it has been cited in 886 other textbooks or scholarly publications.  Metcalf and Metcalf extensively quote Eaton.  I have quoted three paragraphs above. The other introductory textbook is Catherine Asher and Cynthia Talbot's India Before Europe, Cambridge, 2006.  Its Google Scholar citation index is 307.  They also describe Eaton's work.
 * I sincerely apologize for calling K. S. Lal a spokesman for the RSS, but I think there is a more cogent reason for not giving as much weight to his views. It is that his books are not cited as much in other works; the citations are not in the 100s such as above.  See here.  On the other hand Eaton's books are widely cited.  The Rise of Islam and the Bengal Frontier has been cited 1340 times.  Temple desecration in Indo-Muslim states, 218 times, and you can see the others here.  He is an important scholar, though his books are not introductory.  But as he is widely quoted in introductory books, even more than Wink, we have to take him seriously and give his views due weight.  Best regards,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:14, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Wink, Al-Hind, Vol. III, pp. 160–1. My conclusions on this subject, here and elsewhere, do not confirm those of R. M. Eaton, “Temple Desecration and Indo-Muslim States,” Journal of Islamic Studies, 11, 3 (2000), pp. 283– 319. Contrary to Eaton, I hold that Islamic iconoclasm always has both a political and a religious dimension, that it was far more widespread than he allows, and that it is not just a phenomenon of the political frontier. Akshaypatill (talk) 18:07, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * If you had read my quotes above, this is already quoted. The problem is that Eaton is much more widely mentioned, or his views are, in the WP:TERTIARY sources, in Barbara D. Metcalf and Thomas R. Metcalf,'s A Concise History of Modern India; in Catherine Asher and Cynthia Talbot's India before Europe, and in Hermann Kulke and Dietmar Rothermunds A History of India from which I have quoted above. WP policy required us to give less emphasis to iconoclasm within the purview of religious policy. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:15, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It is not volume III, but Winks 2020, in which this is a gootnote. "Iconoclasm" is mentioned twice in the main text, both times in the Mughal period. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:20, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, the context is Mughal period but the sentence for which the note is attributed says that It (Iconoclasm) was nothing new; already up to that point, we encounter blanket orders issued by Muslim rulers to destroy the temples of entire regions, which appear to have been carried out in, for example, medieval Gujarat and Kashmir. So his opinion isn't limited to the Mughals. The note is summation of his views regarding the issue.
 * "Eaton is much more widely mentioned" doesn't seem to be a very sensible reason for giving more weightage to him.  Rather we can include both the views. Akshaypatill (talk) 18:48, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, how did you determined that Eaton's views have more weightage in these tertiary books, most of the books being offline? Akshaypatill (talk) 18:54, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Of course they do per WP policy, stated above. The tertiary sources, per WP:TERTIARY, the introductory textbooks, give Eaton more weight. Besides as I have explained a number of times now, the Ghurids legacy on the subcontinent is not that of Islamicization or temple desecration. It is a much more positive legacy.  That is what the introductory textbooks state.  Even Wink does in my quotes above. Kulke and Rothermund and David Ludden below speak to the military technology they introduced into the subcontinent and save it from Mongol destruction.  In other words, there are many things that would come before Islamicization; and there, both Eaton and Wink, not not emphasize iconoclasm.  It is a favorite misreading of both Eaton and Wink by Hindu nationalists on the web, but that is not what they state.  Please read my sources carefully.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  19:02, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I should remind you that the article is about Muhammad of Ghor and not Ghurid dynasty, so Ghurids legacy isn't relevant. So, it would be better we discuss the due weight in terms of the person rather than the dynasty as whole. Akshaypatill (talk) 19:21, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Doesn't make a difference. It is a footnote.  Had he thought it was important in a retrospective of his lifework, he would have put it it the main body where his disagreement with Easton is only partial and related to conversion.  This is described in great detail in my quotes from him above.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  19:05, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That means that we have to give the tertiary sources and the scholars they cite primacy of emphasis. Another introductory textbook is Hermann Kulke and Dietmar Rothermund's A History of India, Routledge, 2018, 6th edition.  K and R say this  in their introduction to Muhammad of Ghur, The Rajput cavalry consisted of freemen who would not take orders easily, whereas the cavalry of the central Asian invaders consisted of specially trained slaves who had practically grown up with their horses and were subjected to a constant drill. Rushing towards the enemy and turning their horses suddenly, they would then – unobstructed by the heads of the horses and at a moment when they had stopped dead in their tracks – shoot a volley of well-aimed arrows before disappearing as quickly as they had come. The performance would be repeated elsewhere, thus decimating and confusing the enemy without great losses on the Muslim side. But the Indians were not vanquished just by the superior strategy and tactics of the invaders; they were simply not in a position to organise a concerted defence effort. Caste distinctions and the general separation of the rulers from the rural folk prevented the kind of solidarity which would have been required for such a defence effort. Neither religious wars nor any other wars involving fundamental principles had ever been waged in India. War was a pastime of the rulers. The troops recruited for such wars were either kinsmen of the rulers – particularly so among the Rajputs – or mercenaries who hoped for their share of the loot which was usually the main aim of warfare. Fighting against the troops of the Muslim invaders was both dangerous and unprofitable, as their treasures were not within easy reach. The invading troops, on the other hand, could expect a good deal of loot in India and their imagination was also fired by the merit attached to waging a ‘holy war’ against the infidels.  Moreover, Islamic society was much more open and egalitarian than Hindu society. Anybody who wanted to join an army and proved to be good at fighting could achieve rapid advancement. Indian armies were led by kings and princes whose military competence was not necessarily in keeping with their hereditary rank; by contrast, the Muslim generals whom they encountered almost invariably owed their position to their superior military merit. Even sultans would be quickly replaced by slaves-turned-generals if they did not know how to maintain their position. This military Darwinism was characteristic of early Islamic history. The Ghaznavids and the Ghurids and then the sultans of Delhi were all slaves to begin with. Such slaves would be bought in the slave markets of central Asia, would subsequently make a mark by their military prowess and their loyalty and obedience, and, once they had risen to a high position, often did not hesitate to murder their master in order to take his place. The immobile Hindu society and its hereditary rulers were no match for such people.
 * I disagree with that "Religious policy" has some kind of a priori due weight for any ruler. Unless there is a WP-wide rule that states this, the religious policy is no more due than "military strategy", "social views," and a host of other legacies of a ruler.  It all depends on what the tertiary sources have considered worthy of emphasis.  Clearly Kulke and Rothermund emphasize "religious policy" in the form that is quite different from in which the topic was being pursued on his page; they emphasize the superior military prowess of the Ghurids and strength that Islam's egalitarian mores gave over the caste-fragmented Hindu armies.  Whether or not we personally agree with Kulka and Rothermund, their book is an introductory text-book which has been cited 807 times on Google scholar.  Wikipedia policy requires us to give their views more emphasis than K. S. Lal.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:09, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Here is another tertiary source, In other words, neither Islamization nor temple desecration was the main legacy of the Delhi sultanate.  There were bigger legacies, the Sultanate introduced military technology that Winks himself emphasizes in my quotes above that changed India forever.  The Rajputs had no chance and eventually the Indian rulers themselves took to swift-horse cavalry.
 * Here is another tertiary sources (introductory text book), from my list above: David Ludden's India and South Asia: A Short History, 2014. Ludden has a very different view of the Ghurid legacy: "The Delhi Sultanate became an epoch-making Indian dynasty by repelling the Mongols, who were unstoppable elsewhere in Asia. ... Central Asian warriors became supreme during South Asia’s medieval transition by deploying swift-horse cavalry skilled in firing arrows at full gallop, volley after volley; by raising vast armies dedicated to siege and open-field combat, undeterred by local alliance building; and by organizing cavalry well supplied with saddles, stirrups, and the latest weapons, running rapidly over long distances, staying on the move to subsist on the fruits of conquest. Turk and Afghan tribes supplied the best men for this kind of warfare, as well as ethnic solidarity for discipline and social support. Central Asian steppe grasslands and herds provided horses at low prices. Routes across Mongol domains provided superior military technology. In 1200, dynasties east and south of the Hindu Kush relied on horses that came from Afghanistan by land and from Arabia by sea; they rarely fought on horses; they rarely fought to the death; and they rarely built strong forts; all of this put them at a disadvantage."  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:56, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * This all too is about Ghurid legacy and not specifically about Muhammad of Ghor. Please keep the discussion limited to Muhammad of Ghor. Akshaypatill (talk) 19:29, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It is very much about Muhammad of Ghur and the initial foray, i.e. not Ghurid in the sense of what came after him, but what came with him. It was the Central Asian Islamic warrior culture that proved triumphant, that Hindu rulers had no answer for either in terms of the vastly superior Central Asian military technology (please read Kulke and Rothermund quotes above) or the cohesion derived from Islam's egalitarianism.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  19:44, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Congratulations for posting a thread without defaming Hindus and the related aspects this one . (just kidding); Unfortunately, though you are still misapplying the argument of tertiary sources for your wholesale removal.
 * The textbooks you shared above from Hermann Kulke & Dietmar Rothermund (2004), Burton Stein (1992), Barbara D. Metcalf (2001), Peter Robb (2011) etc. All these books, have the PDF for all these (as good as they are) - they are not specialized work on Md. Ghori or even the Sansabanis (Ghurids) - they didn't discuss the article of the subject apart from a brief mention whereas Md. Habib's 40 page journal (Shihabuddin of Ghor), David Thomas (The Ebb and Flow of the Ghūrid Empire 2018) etc did covered our subject in detail.
 * These textbooks missed several aspects about Md. Ghori which we covered - his early years, relations with his slaves in detail, succession struggle, identity of his assassins with varied versions, coinage, his forged gravesite invented in Pakistan app. thousand year after his assassination (nobody noticed it till now) and other military expeditions he undertook in several years from Oghuzs till Khokhars, quite obviously excluding the instance of conversion, temple destruction is hardly surprising which are not needed at best in brief history of India.
 * * I care less about Lal being not cited widely on Google Scholar that could not be the reason to buzz him off. Unless, someone has unearthed something really extraordinary, I see no reason to avoid earlier writings and all these sources are from post-1947 period as well after the independence of both nations.
 * I personally don't agree with Eaton's view on temple destruction (the total number of 80 he put is at best a conservative figure) but yes he is a respected authority on this subject and could not be dumped just because I or anyone don't find his arguments compelling. We don't need to mention the nuances of the Ghurid temple raids whether it was iconoclasm or mere plunder for lucre, although we could include a complete quote from Eaton's work like:-
 * Lastly, this can't be the reason that some textbooks don't mentions this instances of temple destructions, conversion, masscares which applied that it never happened or is a Hindutva propaganda that's why a blanket removal is justified. At least, I don't agree on it.
 * I am not going to reply to your continous and tiresome posting of lengthy quotes which barely touched upon the subject. Unless, you (again) can bring something which clearly states that the conversion of Buddhists/Khokhars, large scale temple destruction are forged, I won't be wasting my time here as we are nowhere claiming that the only legacy of Ghurids or Muhammad was to raze heathens temples or Islamization (Ironically; the ancestors of Md. Ghori were themselves product of Islamization by the Ghaznawids)
 * * Since, this was my first logged in action after a week or so, I might not be that active here till the festive season of Diwali, let's hope that till then other editors could plug in as well and give their inputs, if not then let it be how it is or WP:DR would not be a bad alternative, although, I agree that it's anything but uncomplicated. Kind regards.
 * 'Note:- Courtesy to Akashay Patil, I do now have a PDF for Wink (2020) work now - although got no time to explore it as of now per the reasons explained above.. ∆ P&#38;t ♀√ (talk) 19:58, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Most of the sources that Fowler has put forth for his due weight argument are about Ghurid dynasty and not about Muhammad of Ghor and I don't expect these introductory books to go in details about a single ruler, obliviously for the lack of publishing space. The 'religion' section is perfectly due when prominent historians like Eaton, Chandra and Wink write about it and I see the consensus for the inclusion expect from the Fowler. Akshaypatill (talk) 20:22, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait out for more comments in a week or so. ∆ P&#38;t ♀√ (talk) 20:29, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait out for more comments in a week or so. ∆ P&#38;t ♀√ (talk) 20:29, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

(Andre Wink 2020; pp:-73-74)
 * I anticipated this - that F&f most likely was quoting Wink selectively to completely eliminate the doctrine angle from the temple raids by the Delhi Sultans to just reduce those events of destruction to mere lust for plunder; see - (Special:MobileDiff/1115040280) Although, again (unfortunately and vexingly) Fowler&fowler failed to bring something explicit (even remotely about our subject) to the table, they cited Wink in context of Delhi Sultanate which came in existence after Md Ghuri's assassination at Damyak-1206. Wink did not even mentioned Md Ghuri's in his (2020 edition) in sharp contrast to (1991 Al-Hind) edition which is quite understandable considering a number of factors which I will press upon later:-
 * On the so-called "Great Mughals" whom though I still placed on a bengin side then fanatical Delhi Sultans; Wink breifly touched upon on there iconoclast side as well:-
 * For the record though iconoclasm of Delhi Sultans or Akbar, Shah Jahan and Aurangzeb is not the bone of contention here, but F&f already inserted lengthy pipes where the subject of the article is not mentioned (see the new section they started recently and warned anyone to not edit that as it will make there ref. less effecticve which in any case are not effective) (blantant misusing of WP:TERTIARY policy as well for removing a selective section which did not fit in their pov; if we follow that policy per F&f this article will be reduced to a stub)
 * Let's come back on Wink to sum up my part here, apparently F&f made an extraordinary claim that Wink's previous thesis were his dated views now and his views evolved as he put them in 2020 edition - (Special:MobileDiff/1115012557)
 * Nonetheless, anyone who claims themself a decent reviewer or reader will get it that his Al-Hind's edition were detailed work of specfic period (1990- early muslim period in 300 pages) (1991- Slave kings and their heritage on period of 11th-13th century in 350 odd pages) (1997- Indo-Muslim state in 14th and 15th century in 300 pages) in contrast to his current edition where he summed up basically the whole of Muslim age (700 - 1800 CE) in one swipe and it's impossible to touch upon the subjects like Iconoclasm in a separate chapter there like he did in 1991 edition. From this, to conclude that the historian views on iconoclasm has changed is a tall tale. The short clip which I shared twice now is endorsement of the fact that there is widespread acdemic dishonesty about temple destructions.
 * Nonetheless, anyone who claims themself a decent reviewer or reader will get it that his Al-Hind's edition were detailed work of specfic period (1990- early muslim period in 300 pages) (1991- Slave kings and their heritage on period of 11th-13th century in 350 odd pages) (1997- Indo-Muslim state in 14th and 15th century in 300 pages) in contrast to his current edition where he summed up basically the whole of Muslim age (700 - 1800 CE) in one swipe and it's impossible to touch upon the subjects like Iconoclasm in a separate chapter there like he did in 1991 edition. From this, to conclude that the historian views on iconoclasm has changed is a tall tale. The short clip which I shared twice now is endorsement of the fact that there is widespread acdemic dishonesty about temple destructions.

Sorry, but the Ghurids did not left a positive mark on their native land let alone present-day India. Infact, the Ghurids were notorious vandals who don't have a positive legacy in Khurasan much less the Hindi Belt a land which they butchered, sacked mericessly. I studied their history in detail from primary works (mainly Minhaj which anyway was more centred on Sultanate) and qualitu detailed secondary works. The iconoclasts Ghaznavids were still celebrated across the Western frontiers of Asia for contribution towards art, archietecture (some of them were destroyed by Alauddin Hussayn (Md Ghuri's uncle) in that catastrophic invasion of 1151 where Ghazni was sacked for a week), poetry and on top smashing idols of Hind. Md Ghuri though, is celebrately vividy in Pakistan for spreading the carpet of Islam by destroying temples of heathen Hindus/Jains/Buddhists.They went a step firther and foolishly fabricated his tomb in Damyak (900 km away from the actual gravesite)

'''Bottom Line:- By turning a blind eye and being apologetic by blanket removals and defending it by misusing WP policy won't going to change the fact of mass temple destruction by Md Ghuri, large-scale Khokhar/Buddhist conversion and hostility towards the heretic Ismailis. Although, still if you can bring something explicit that denounce this events, feel free to discuss about it, if not then this it's nothing but whitewashing''' '''PPS:- Please stop your owning behaviour and labelling sources from reputed academics as dated - they are not, instead they are elaborative work on Md. Ghuri unlike these textbooks which you posted again that made a vague reference to the subject. (Thapar is largely from same time as Eaton and all sources of last 60 odd years are acceptable)''' ∆ P&#38;t ♀√ (talk) 05:02, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Discussion of F&f's sources
Please do not post here as long as the under-construction sign is there Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:57, 11 October 2022 (UTC)


 * You probably plan on adding more sources to the "Broad-scale Islamic history books" but otherwise, I am afraid, the choice of sources will skew the article to a S. Asianist POV. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:47, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, okay - it appears that you do not plan on rewriting this article but maybe, some sections? TrangaBellam (talk) 05:48, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The very first or second line itself is a small reflection of S. Asianist bias - as a matter of fact, where F&f replaced Indian subcontinent with SA which barely makes any sense.
 * The Ghurids never reached Peninsular India let alone laying the foundation of Muslim rule there, although Md. Ghuri did reach deep into Ganges which no one before him did though, that was largely restricted till the Doab (many were minor raids) - as apparent from the sketchy coinage of Turks till 1220 where they continued on model of the defeated Rajput families.
 * I am intrigued that how you suddenly joined in after two weeks of discussion ? Cheers . ∆ P&#38;t ♀√ (talk) 06:09, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't really know too much about Muhammad of Ghur's Central Asian antecedents. I'm still looking for the broad-scale Islamic history books or Central Asian history books.  If you have some good sources, please list them here.  I do not intend to rewrite the whole article, at least not in the short run.  I do intend to rewrite the lead as I've done in a number of vital India-related articles from Sanskrit to Great Bengal famine of 1770 (you may recall).  You are correct that there is the danger of the article skewing away from Central Asian and Islamic history to the South Asian.  That was much more the case before I intervened here to remove material added recently about temple desecration, iconoclasm, massacres, and conversions accompanying MG's campaigns in South Asia&mdash;the whole kit-and-kaboodle.
 * Best Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:32, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * And even in his South Asian campaigns, as the major editor of Audrey Truschke and some other medieval South Asia topics, you might know of some scholarly modern sources that I have not included. If so, please suggest.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:37, 16 October 2022 (UTC)