This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is requested that an image or photograph of Muhammad Bakhtiyar Khalji be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
Wikipedians in Pakistan may be able to help! The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
|
|
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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
User:Kansas Bear what was wrong with the pages and successor?-- 92.3.88.6 ( talk) 14:39, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
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)
What happened to the mention of the destruction of Nalanda library by Bakhtiyar Khalji?
Sources supporting said destruction:
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)
@ 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)
@ 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)
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)
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]
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)