Talk:Muhammad Bakhtiyar Khalji

Nalanda

The authenticity of the claim that Nalanda was ransacked by Bakhtiyar Khilji cannot be verified independently. Two famous historians Will Durant and Sir William Wilson Hunter did not mention such incident in their detailed history of Indian subcontinent. These two historians have done extensive research before they wrote anything about India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.130.21.183 (talk) 04:21, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

In Hasmukhlal Dhirajlal Sankalia's 1934 book The University of Nalanda, he posits on page 245 that the monastery (vihāra) was destroyed about 1205 or 1206. However he does mention, on that same page, that another author, Samaddar, gives the date as 1199, which is before Khilji's invasion of Bihar (c. 1203). Unfortunately, I've only seen Google snippets from Sankalia's book. The "Hop around India" web site says:

During 1193, the Nalanda University was annulled by the fanatic Bakhtiyar Khilji, a Turk; an act seen by academicians as an eventual milestone in the decline of Buddhism in India. As per the excerpts from of the Persian historian Minhaj-i-Siraj in his famous literary work, Tabaquat-I-Nasiri, thousands of monks were burnt alive and thousands beheaded as Khilji tried his best to replace Buddhism with Islam by the sword. His devastating actions continued for several months and smoke from the burning manuscripts in the library hung for days like a dark pall over the low hills. http://www.hoparoundindia.com/bihar/history-of-nalanda.aspx

However, I did not find any reference to Nalanda in the electronic copies of the Tabaquat-I-Nasiri, nor in the electronic copy of the Index to the English translation of the Tabaqāt-i-Nāṣirī. In the section on "The Khalj Maliks in Lakhanawati" pp. 548–593, on pages 551 and 552 Siraj describes the taking of the Bihar fortress and indicates that the inhabitants were Brahmins with shaved heads and that the place was later found to be a college and that there were many books. The lurid details of the "Hop around India" account is not there. This may well not have been Nalanda. Obviously this issue needs more research in reliable sources. --Bejnar (talk) 20:07, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Dalrymple

I deleted the cite to Dalrymple, since Dalrymple in his review of Charles Allen's book The Buddha and the Sahibs did not mention either Ikhtiyar or Nalanda. Both Dalrymple and Allen appear to be more interested in the Hindu persecution of Buddhists, rather than in the later Islamic. The citation was also incorrect, William Dalrymple's review was entitled "When Buddha was sacked". --Bejnar (talk) 20:07, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Plagiarism

This sentence;
"The Persian historian Minhaj-i-Siraj, in his chronicle the Tabaqat-i Nasiri, reported that thousands of monks were burned alive and thousands beheaded as Khilji tried his best to uproot Buddhism."
Has been copied from this book, "I Am Not a Buddhist, page 97. The author has no specialization in history or the time period in question. Therefore this book is not a reliable source and I wil be removing the sentence in question. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:58, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

This article is not accurate because Khilji is tribe in Afghanistan not Turky

Actualy the article is confiscated as always by the persian people . Iranian historical sources are always fabricated by their nationalists who are strongly opposing the Afghans because Afghans ruled Persia for thousands of years , and second reason is that Iranians are radical shaya (shite) who hate Sunnis as Afghans are 98 % sunnis. after the war in Afghanistan persian speaking community helped iranian government in rewriting the history of the region to their credits. Khilji is the biggest root of the Afghan tribe , second largest is the Duranis . Khilji is wrong pronounced by the persian speakers and foreigners , actually it is Ghilji or (Gherzi) which means owners of mountains . it was also described by the arabian historians like Ibne batota as Malok-ul-jabal . the place garimser is in Hilmand a district where there are many ghirzais (khiljis) live side by side with Duranis. I would like the moderator of this section to correct the mistakes and please do not confiscate every history , search for it and then write . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Afghanwrites (talk • contribs) 23:48, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Edit in Legacy

Removing the line

'However, according to Tibetan legend, the university and library were reportedly repaired shortly after by Muditabhadra, a Buddhist sage. The library was again burned by Tirthaka mendicants.[17]'

The reasons are: No reference to the 1st claim is provided Regarding the citation 17, which Datta, which book, which page? But more seriously, the reference here is to a myth on destruction which was first narrated in the late 18th century. As per this myth, a couple of Tirthaka mendicants were insulted in Nalanda. Incensed, they underwent tough austerities to gain power of the sun, i.e., they faced the sun for 12 years. Finally, armed with the power of sun, they came back to Nalanda and miraculously burnt some buildings.

http://kafila.org/2014/07/09/how-history-was-unmade-at-nalanda-d-n-jha/ http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/how-history-was-made-up-at-nalanda/

The above are arguments and one may take sides. But the basic fact remains that the story of Nalanda getting burnt is a miracle based tale, not serious history

Now, is this type of tale good enough historical evidence? Again, this is a page on Khilji not on how or how many times was Nalanda destroyed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Puruvara (talk • contribs) 18:20, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

To the editor. Khilji was of turk o afghan origin. please change it to that. If you want refernces, i can provide you with a ton of it. please change it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:190:B580:547E:C1BC:A0D9:ECF9 (talk) 13:55, 27 December 2017 (UTC) 

"Savioiur of Buddhists"

This bit from the article seems a little dodgy to me:

However, some other Buddhist sources portrayed him as a savior from the oppression of the Brahmin Hindus who actually destroyed the Nalanda university. This claim was supported by later archaeological discoveries as well.

The sources cited are two non-English books and a book published by the Islamic Foundation. Going by the publisher name, the third one doesn't seem to pass WP:HISTRS. I'm not sure about the first two -- please provide English translations and quotes from the books if you're adding this back. The article should be specific about what these "some other Buddhist sources" are. utcursch | talk 21:36, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

The latest addition is also dubious: the ref doesn't support the assertion that "Some pro Hindutva sources" attribute the destruction of Nalanda to Bakhtiyar Khalji. Irrespective of whether this claim is disputed or not, it appears in several books whose authors cannot be remotely described as "pro-Hindutva"). The second part is pretty much synthesis. utcursch | talk 20:14, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Reverted removal of sourced content

This edit, with an edit summary saying "the reference is not based on historical sources. It is unfounded.", caught my eye, and I have reverted it and improved the supporting citation. Firstly, the assertion was not that the article's subject was responsible for the destruction of Nalanda, but that Buddhist sources hold him responsible; secondly, see WP:DUE regarding whether or not cited sources are required to be based on historical sources; thirdly, this source apparently is based on historical sources (see note 87 therein, at the bottom of the now-linked page in the cited source.) Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:03, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

HE was not Turkic!

Seriously how the hell can he be "Turkic" if the majority population of Southern Afghanistan is Pashtun? Why would a single Turk out of millions of Pashtuns in the region suddenly become a ruler? Turks did not even exist in Afghanistan during this time period and were mere slaves to others. The Khilji is a Pashtun tribe who are the modern day Ghilzai and they do not possess Mongoloid features but look like other Pashtuns, even the Delhi Sultantes before them were opposed to them becoming rulers because of their non-turkic origins. I am going to remove "Turkic" in the origins box because it is untrue. Akmal94 (talk) 22:26, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Did you miss this source?[1]

• "Khaljī dynasty, also spelled Khiljī, (1290–1320), the second ruling family of the Muslim sultanate of Delhi. The dynasty, like the previous Slave dynasty, was of Turkish origin, though the Khaljī tribe had long been settled in Afghanistan."

Clearly the source does not agree with your personal opinion, "Turks did not even exist in Afghanistan during this time period..." --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:59, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

So you cherrypick one source and claim he was Turkic? That is such bad reasoning, how does that explain why the modern day Ghilzai do not look Turkic but like other Pashtuns? Not even tons of mixing would change the phenotypes in such a short amount of time. And why does Wikipedia have such serious Anti-Pashtun undertones? Even the Ghorid dynasty is wrongly classed as "Tajik" on here! And i have sources to back my claims, tons which agree on their Pashtun origins such as this one;

Ferdowsi claims Khalaj were not Turk in this poem; Bar-Avard mili za sang-u za gaj Ki kas ra ba-Iran za Turk-u Khalaji (Ghilzai) Nabudi gugar juz ba farman-I shah Haman niz Jayhun miyani ba rah

Irfan Habib also claims them to be Afghan but not Turkic and same with Abdul Hai Habibi: http://www.khyber.org/tribes/info/KhaljiesareAfghan.shtml

Olaf Carole in "History of the Pathans" mentions in one line the Khaljis as an Afghan tribe http://apnaorg.com/books/english/the-pathans/book.php?fldr=book

This article itself uses sources from different authors that show the Afghan origin of Khiljis http://www.khyber.org/tribes/info/Ghilzai_Afghans.shtml Akmal94 (talk) 06:21, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

• "So you cherrypick one source and claim he was Turkic?"

Which proves you do not know what "cherrypick" means(LOL), especially when I quoted the entire sentence.

• "That is such bad reasoning, how does that explain why the modern day Ghilzai do not look Turkic but like other Pashtuns?"

That is not relevant here. Wikipedia is written using reliable published secondary sources.

• "And why does Wikipedia have such serious Anti-Pashtun undertones?"

That is your personal opinion. Wikipedia is written using reliable published secondary sources.

• "Even the Ghorid dynasty is wrongly classed as "Tajik" on here!"

Again, your opinion. In regards to the Ghurids, <begin sarcasm>yes, the Encyclopedia of Islam, written and edited by hundreds of academics specialized in these particular fields are wrong.<end sarcasm>

• "And i have sources to back my claims, tons which agree on their Pashtun origins such as this one"

• sigh* addressed and unsupported by secondary sources.

As for the "cherrypicking", Satish Chandra, Medieval India: From Sultanat to the Mughals-Delhi Sultanat (1206-1526) - Part One, page 41;

• "The Khaljis were a Turkish tribe from southwest Ghur."

Also, Burjor Avari (2013). Islamic Civilization in South Asia: A History of Muslim Power and Presence in the Indian Subcontinent, page 59;

• "The Khaljis were a Turkic people who had long been settled in Afghanistan."

So much for "cherrypicking".(LOL)

Olaf Caroe(no l) read classics which would not give him any specialization in the area of Afghanistan, much less the Khaljis.

Ferdowsi is a primary source, which according to Wikipedia must have a secondary source to support it.

Abdul Hai Habibi, appears to have only written about Afghan history, while not having any academic specialization, seeing how he taught Afghan literature(not history). And his lecture in 1939 appears to have not influenced anyone, considering the numerous sources that state otherwise.

I see nothing about Irfan Habib stating anything.

FYI, next time bring quotes and page numbers. You simply stating something does not make it fact. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:39, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

And, according to The Encyclopedia of Islam, vol.IV, 1997, page 920;

• "The Khaldjis were probably of Turkish origin and the old view that they were Afghans or Pathans probably arose from Barani's statement that the relations of Djalal al-Din Firuz Shah, founder of the dynasty, with the Turks were strained because he belonged to another racial stock."

Even The Encyclopedia of Islam places the view of the Khaldjis as Afghans or Pathans as "old". --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:47, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Wow, you are grasping straws dude, you only showed one source that states they were Turkic but you deny the countless other sources that state they were not? That is cherrypicking. The source you posted is from Brittanica but i thought that was not reliable on here? You should read the "Ghilzai Afghans" source from Khyber i posted, it mentions Irfan Habib claiming the Khiljis to be Afghan and it sources dozens of secondary sources as well. How is the caucasian looks of the Ghilzai irrelevant? Its a clue to the origin of the Khiljis, regarding Habibi, he is respected and renowned in Afghanistan as a reliable historian, even if he did serve as a dean of literature at Kabul university, he specialized in history mainly. My point stands that there is no neutrality regarding their origins and some editors are quick to paint them as "Turkic" ignoring a Pashtun origin despise more sources favouring a Pashtun origin then a Turkic one. Akmal94 (talk) 03:01, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Wow, you changed referenced information, then accuse me of cherrypicking? Then in your own nonsense, ignore Chandra, Avari, and The Encylopaedia of Islam. Yeah, you can not hear anything except what you think. We are done here. Continue to remove/change referenced information at your own peril. --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:23, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Useful infp

User:Kansas Bear what was wrong with the pages and successor?--92.3.88.6 (talk) 14:39, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

1. why restore, "Khilji is claimed to have burned down and destroyed 100000 books of knowledge in science, medicine, politics and art", "Islamic invadorers activity", "forced convertions to Islam"?
2. Concise History of Islam is not a reliable source last time I checked.
3. why change "was a military general of the early Delhi Sultanate who led the Muslim conquests of Bengal and Bihar and then became their ruler." --Majumdar, Dr. R.C., History of Mediaeval Bengal to "was a Ghurid" --Concise History of Islam, Muzaffar Husain Syed???
4. where in the article does it state Muhammad bin Bakhtiyar Khalji was a Ghurid general?? If the information is not mentioned in the article then it should not be mentioned in the lead of the article.

Therefore, my removal of information, excluding the change to successor was removal of POV editing. I will be reverting everything except the successor. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:02, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Turk o Afghan.

I think his tribe should be written turko afghan same as khalji dynasty article, so that the articles match. thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4643:C8EC:0:C5FC:B68B:1E2:5B59 (talk) 12:15, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Destruction of Nalanda library

What happened to the mention of the destruction of Nalanda library by Bakhtiyar Khalji?

Sources supporting said destruction:

• From Stone to Flesh: A Short History of the Buddha, by Donald S. Lopez Jr., page 56-57.
• India's Interaction with China, Central and West Asia, Volume 3, Part 2, Basu Kaushik Ray Ranjan And Nayak Pulin (editors), page 292.
• Destruction' and 'Decline' of Nālandā Mahāvihāra: Prejudices and Praxis, Anand Singh,Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Sri Lanka, New Series, Vol. 58, No. 1 (2013), page 23.
• Historical Dictionary of Tibet, by John Powers, David Templeman, page 465.
• History of Ancient India: Earliest Times to 1000 A.D., by Radhey Shyam Chaurasia, page 191. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:14, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

I have no idea why it's not here. Further up on the talk page someone says that the addition of it would be supposedly 'pro-Hindutva' history, whatever the hell that means. It's very well established as shown by your sources - some further reading that I have just done seems to throw up some rather fringe and frankly partisan views of people attempting to rehabilitate Khalji and instead blame it on 'Hindu fanatics', despite no solid historical evidence. Alleging it to be 'Hindutva' seems to be a political slur of some kind, so I wouldn't pay much attention to it.

I would go ahead and add a section in about it as it is a significant historical event - there's more than enough scholarly and academic support for it. John.k.newton (talk) 12:34, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring

@Sultan.abdullah.hindi: Kindly take your concerns here. Moreover, I highly advise you to read WP:MOS and WP:CONSENSUS, as well as look at how other infoboxes are presented. By adding the transliteration box, you turned made his name written in italics. In what articles, GA and FA, is this used? And how is this an improvement? --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:55, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Also, please refrain from calling your fellow editors 'cringe' [2], my warning was also clearly an autogenerated one, which you copypasted yourself [3]. Moreoever, you have not shown any proof either that 'Ikhtiyār al-Dīn Muḥammad bin Bakhtiyār Khaljī' is WP:COMMON NAME, another reason why it shouldn't be added in the infobox. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:05, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran: 1) There are many pages containing the transliteration template, 2) Transliteration box? What are you on about? The transl template indicates that the words being used are transliterations of words of a different language. It's not used to italicize words. It doesn't need to be used in GA and FA articles and I don't need to give you examples of GAs & FAs containing its usage. It is an improvement simply because it is appropriate. How about this? -- Sulṭān ʿAbdullāh al-Hindi ^Talk 16:10, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

So you have no examples, alright. Also, Britannica is not WP:RS, and even if it was, that's not proof that the name is WP:COMMON NAME (please read the guideline). Also, you have violated WP:3RR, included in the same warning which you called 'cringe'. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:15, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Why is WP:BRITANNICA not an RS in this context? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:29, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

[4] [5] --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:34, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

So, per WP:RSP and those 2017 links it seems reasonable that Brittanica would be RS for the spelling of the name of a person they have an article on. Here's a newer discussion:Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_334#Encyclopedia_Britannica_website. There may be sources that spell it differently, perhaps even better sources, but that doesn't make Brittanica non-RS in this context. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:52, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough. But the user has yet to show that this is WP:COMMON NAME and why the name should be italicized. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:16, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Sultan.abdullah.hindi points repeatedly at Britannica, but that source has Ikhtiyār al-Dīn Muḥammad Bakhtiyār Khaljī, without the "bin" between "Muhammad" and "Bakhtiyar". Encyclopaedia of Islam 2 also doesn't have the "bin", nor does the older Encyclopaedia of Islam 1. However, searching Google scholar for "Muhammad bin Bakhtiyar Khalji" yields about as many results as "Muhammad Bakhtiyar Khalji". We probably need someone to go through the actual literature to determine which of the two sets of sources is more reliable (the one saying "Muhammad bin Bakhtiyar" or the one saying "Muhammad Bakhtiyar"). It may be interesting to note that according to this review of Hussain, Syed Ejaz (2003). The Bengal Sultanate: Politics, Economy and Coins (AD 1205-1576). New Delhi: Manohar. ISBN 81-7304-482-1., Hussain's book attempts to correct long-standing errors of fact that have crept into the historical record of Sultanate Bengal. Thus, for example, Hussain argues that the first Muslim invader of Bengal was actually named Muhammad Bakhtiyar Khalji instead of the broadly used Muhammad bin Bakhtiyar Khalji, asserting a bit further that this book is the perfect reference work against which to check dates, place names, and historical details.

As for the name in the infobox: transliterated proper names are normally not italicized, unless when used to specifically denote a transliteration, e.g. in the romanized: part of the {{lang-ar}} template. Whether the proper name is given in basic transcription or full transliteration (per WP:MOSAR) doesn't matter: if it is a plain reference to the name, it is not italicized. Since the name given in the top of the infobox is usually a plain reference to the name, it does not get italicized. It is often given in full transliteration though, which I think is helpful. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 12:09, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Khalji succession in Bengal

This paragraph is weakly written, not cited and probably not relevant. So I am moving it here. Please re-write and make relevant if needed.

One of the 17 pioneers of Ikhtiyar Uddin Muhammad Bakhtiyar Khalji was Subedar Aulia Khan, a close friend of Bakhtiyar from Garmshir, Afghanistan. He was originally appointed by Khalji as the ruler of the Bengal region of eastern India. Subedar Aulia Khan was the ruler of Bengal till his death. Later his descendants ruled the area for generations. Aulia Khan named Bakhtiyarpur area of present Bhawal Gazipur Kaliganj police station in 1206 in memory of her dear friend Bakhtiyar Khalji. Which is now known as Baktarpur area. At that time Aulia Khan established her administrative center at Bakhtiyarpur. He settled in the surrounding Fulhari area (now Fuldi village) as the settlement was beautiful. According to sources, Munshi Muhammad Sarwar Khan (then Rupganj Circle), a Circle Inspector of Police, a descendant of Subedar Aulia Khan, changed the name of Fulhari to Fuldi during the British East India Company. [citation needed]

Name

Is there any strong reference that his name includes Bin? So many history books including some from national curricular of Bangladesh suggest that the name is Ikhtiyar Uddin Muhammad Bakhtiyar Khilji, but unfortunately there are lots of them which says there is BIN in that name.

As per my little knowledge, the Arabic word "Bin" means "son of". The Bangla Translation of Tabaqat-e-Nasiri stated him as "Muhammad Bakhtiyar Khilji. If the translation is accurate then the "Bin" must be removed. I hope experts would solve the confusion. -Asifmuktadir (talk) 17:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I would also advise that this article name be changed to simply Muhammad Bakhtiyar Khalji. The bin is certainly a mistake, and the vast majority of historians do not accept it including the likes of Jadunath Sarkar, ABM Shamsuddin Ahmed, ABM Habibullah etc. UserNumber (talk) 18:03, 19 May 2022 (UTC)