Talk:Muslim period in the Indian subcontinent

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): FreedomOfHumanity.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:54, 17 January 2022 (UTC) == PLEASE CHANGE THE TITLE ==test

Untitled

Most Islamic Empires originated in areas like Pakistan, which then expanded to India. Please change the title from "India" to "South Asia" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xtremeownage (talk • contribs) 00:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Islamic rulers in South Asia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929125948/http://persian.packhum.org/persian/index.jsp?serv=pf&file=80201010&ct=0 to http://persian.packhum.org/persian/index.jsp?serv=pf&file=80201010&ct=0
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929132016/http://persian.packhum.org/persian/index.jsp to http://persian.packhum.org/persian/index.jsp

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:39, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Minor unclear sections within the article.

While the article clearly shows the beginnings of a standard article, it lacks information that is very important to its subject. Some minor information that is missing is who were the 35 sultans and what power and territory did they rule over. The origin of Islam in India is decently clear but fails to acknowledge the remaining presence of Islam in Pakistan and Bangladesh. How did these two Indian Plateau regions remain heavily Islamic despite the fall of most Islamic leaders. FreedomOfHumanity (talk) 04:09, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

How to change the name of this page

Islamic rulers in the Indian subcontinent does not make sense. Muslim rule of India or Muslim India/Islamic India are more appropriate terms. I would like to change the name of this page. How do i go ahead?--Vitalpantaryan (talk) 15:28, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I support with something like Muslim rule in India.92.3.86.121 (talk) 02:50, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

@Vitalpantaryan: Hi, looks like that the article was already moved, but without a discussion. I'm going to change it to Muslim rule of India.--Relaxwikis (talk) 13:50, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your help--Vitalpantaryan (talk) 13:40, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• The Mughal Empire.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:37, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Title

The region encompassed by Muslim-ruled empires included today's Pakistan, Afghanistan, Bangladesh and India. The current title is misleading, since the article talks extensively about regions outside the Republic of India. A more suitable title would be "Muslim rule of South Asia". Fundamental_metric_tensor (talk) 18:26, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Looks like that the changes were undiscussed. I guess by the term India is not meant to be the modern Republic of India, but refers to the Indian subcontinent, or more precisely the geographical and historic India as Hind, therefore the title is not misleading at all. In addition, the article does not mainly discuss about modern Pak, as you've wrongly states.--Plaitmuffs (talk) 14:33, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Overlap with another article

This article seems to overlap a lot with Muslim conquests in the Indian subcontinent. It differs in making some cultural aspects a priority, but even those are discussed in other articles dedicated to the topic such as Indo-Persian culture. Wondering if a merger or something is in order here. Gowhk8 (talk) 01:22, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Map

The map isn't accurate at All It look like a huge bias No empire had a full control of South India Except the British

You are trying to mix the delhi sultanate with mughal Empire Bhima Palavīṉamāṉa (talk) 13:43, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Atrocities

Can anyone please add atrocities commited by the mughals please Bhima Palavīṉamāṉa (talk) 13:46, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

"Muslim rule in South Asia" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address a potential problem with the redirect Muslim rule in South Asia and it has been listed for discussion. Readers of this page are welcome to participate at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 11 § Muslim rule in South Asia until a consensus is reached. Veverve (talk) 17:11, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

"Islamic South Asia" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address a potential problem with the redirect Islamic South Asia and it has been listed for discussion. Readers of this page are welcome to participate at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 11 § Islamic South Asia until a consensus is reached. Veverve (talk) 17:12, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

"Muslim South Asia" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address a potential problem with the redirect Muslim South Asia and it has been listed for discussion. Readers of this page are welcome to participate at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 11 § Muslim South Asia until a consensus is reached. Veverve (talk) 17:12, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

"Muslim rule of South Asia" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address a potential problem with the redirect Muslim rule of South Asia and it has been listed for discussion. Readers of this page are welcome to participate at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 11 § Muslim rule of South Asia until a consensus is reached. Veverve (talk) 17:12, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 8 September 2023

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. After well over a month, there is no consensus to move here as proposed. (closed by non-admin page mover) estar8806 (talk) ★ 21:53, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

---

Muslim period in the Indian subcontinent → Muslim rule in India – This article has a long history of undiscussed moves, so it gets about time to start an RM. "Period" is ambiguous because a Muslim period in one part of India was completely different from a Muslim period in another part of India. The point is Muslim rule, not Muslim period. Second, "the Indian subcontinent" is unnecessary verbose because India before 1947 was equal to the subcontinent. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:41, 8 September 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. ❯❯❯ Raydann^(Talk) 16:06, 15 September 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 15:44, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

• Lean oppose, open to alternatives While we do need to reach consensus on an article title that will be sustainable in the long term after all these unilateral undiscussed moves, I don't see the proposed name as an improvement. The name "India" is politically, culturally, historically and linguistically contentious, and would certainly not be an improvement on the current term "Indian subcontinent", a politically neutral term. Given that this article starts the story with the conquest of Sindh and Multan, two places outside the present-day Republic of India, but in Pakistan, I don't think we gain anything by renaming it to "India" instead. "Rule" is extremely vague and we've just been phasing out the term "ruler" in WP:CFD. I'm more amenable to the other elements of the title. I think there was something in WP:MOS about preferring "Islamic" over "Muslim" as an adjective. "Period" is a good term for a time frame, although we do need to cite literature on the periodisation and not make it up as we go along (WP:OR). Islamic period in the Indian subcontinent might thus work as a better alternative. NLeeuw (talk) 14:42, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

  "India" does suffer from the same problems as "Russia", "Spain", "Germany" and many others in that there is now a country bearing the name which does not correspond to the entire area historically known by the name. But I do not think that forcing a meaning based on modern borders onto the past is a good solution. Best to let the period in question define the term. Roman Spain, e.g., includes what is today Portugal; medieval Germany Austria; etc. (Besides, when the Hindu nationalists rename India Bharat the problem will disappear.) Since "Islamic rule" means "rule by Muslims", I don't think there is anything to choose between the alternatives. "Muslim rule" sounds better and is more commonly used. As for "period", I think the nominator is right: the period covered by this article was as Hindu as it was Muslim in the Indian subcontinent. Srnec (talk) 16:00, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

• Comment Distinguishing between Muslim/Islamic is worth considering if there is a MOS guideline in place, though 'rule' is preferable to 'period' as the latter implies a fixed historicity and/or terminal date to such religious influence, which is untrue given Islam is the official religion of both Pakistan and Bangladesh today. 'Indian subcontinent' is preferable to 'India' here as well. I don't recommend 'Muslim/Islamic political rule in the pre-modern Indian subcontinent,' which is too unwieldy but it gets the closest to what I see the article as presenting, given that there is already an overall Islam in South Asia page. Sleath56 (talk) 18:03, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
• Comment A return to a formula including the word states or monarchies might work better than either "rule" or "period". After all, the contents of this article are essentially an enriched list of former countries in a certain region that were in some way Islamic. The earliest article titles reflected that. A title such as Former Islamic states/monarchies in the Indian subcontinent might thus suit better. Recently, we renamed the Category:Former Muslim countries in Europe to Category:Former Islamic monarchies in Europe; I believe the present situation is quite comparable, and the rationales for renaming are strongly overlapping. Curious what others think. NLeeuw (talk) 20:41, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
  • I'd say that approach has merit, though more feedback would be needed. If the page was chronologically organised, I'd have suggested something like "History of Islamic states/monarchies in the Indian subcontinent." Sleath56 (talk) 01:38, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support. Proposed title is clear and simple. Srnec (talk) 00:46, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Oppose: Indian subcontinent definitely doesn't equal India. There's no need to move, unless the focus is specifically on modern day's India. Or perhaps the article should be renamed as Muslim rule in South Asia, which is more NPOV term. Sutyarashi (talk) 10:15, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Islam has been notified of this discussion. ❯❯❯ Raydann^(Talk) 16:04, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject India has been notified of this discussion. ❯❯❯ Raydann^(Talk) 16:04, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Pakistan has been notified of this discussion. ❯❯❯ Raydann^(Talk) 16:04, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

• Support.Indian subcontinent may not equal India but the article only covers covers Muslim rule in India Tiny Particle (talk) 16:01, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

  Article also covers Bengal Sultanate, Ghaznavid Empire and Sindh...none of these lies in present-day's India. Perhaps we should go with South Asia instead of either Indian subcontinent or India. Sutyarashi (talk) 12:44, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Relisting comment: for consideration of alternative proposed title(s) such as "Muslim rule in South Asia". – robertsky (talk) 15:44, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

• Support per WP:CONCISE. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:05, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose "Muslim rule...". The world rule to describe the Muslim states in India over the centuries imply that these states were a yoke imposed from outside, which is a rewriting of the history of India. They're just part of the history of the country. It adds to the music that the Muslim rajas were foreigners and that the hundreds of millions of Indians who are Muslim are not really citizens. Muslim/Islamic period is a lot more neutral. I suggest Muslim period in the history of India as an alternative, but I am fine with Muslim/Islamic period in India. An above suggestion of Former Islamic states/monarchies... is also interesting. Place Clichy (talk) 18:53, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose the current title makes more sense. The proposed change would make people confused into thinking there are some sort of Muslim dynasties in the country India. There are no Muslim dynasties there.--Cheel (talk) 21:59, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This article seems to refer to Hindu-nationalist talking points rather than extant studies on the history of this period

The first Muslims (Arabs), who invaded India were the Successor of Bin Qasim and his army who deceitfuly killed King Dahir of Sindh. He was defeated by the collective militarian front created by Bappa Rawal, along with Solanki Pratihars. This occured in the 700s AD. After this attack, the Arabs did not come to India for about 300-400 years, as the military camps designed by Bappa Rawal in his time, proved to be a succesful retaliation against any foreign invasions. It began in the Indian subcontinent in the course of a gradual conquest. The perfunctory rule by the Ghaznavids in Punjab was followed by Ghurids, and Sultan Muhammad of Ghor (r. 1173–1206) is generally credited with laying the foundation of Muslim rule in Northern India. No citation provided with biased views that are currently being disseminated by the ruling, Hindu-nationalist, party of India. Modern historians consider the centuries long reign of rulers belonging to various ethnic groups and Islamic sects over parts of the Indian subcontinent to not be a continuity of Muslim dominance. 2001:410:A014:667:7186:39AB:CCA0:AAD0 (talk) 00:40, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Cleanup

This article contains a lot of unsourced pov and original research. It looks like a battle ground for various nationalists. I am thinking about cleaning up this Article and removing anything that does not have a source or is original research. Wanted to establish consensus first SKAG123 (talk) 16:25, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

While you're at it, this sentence is ungrammatical and makes no sense:

"In comparison, there was lower than the GDP growth in India during the prior 1,000 years." 2601:147:4401:6AD0:3418:3457:185A:3346 (talk) 06:18, 10 June 2024 (UTC)