Talk:Ghurid dynasty

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Ghurid Dynasty)

Aybak plunder of Varanasi[edit]

I reverted पाटलिपुत्र here; diff. Since it's not possible to convey everything in a edit summary, I brought it here to briefly explain my part.

  • Aybak raid on Varanasi/Kashi/Benaras is the same which is mentioned in next para; where Mu'izz al-Din uprooted many temples and ransacked the holy city.
  • I think पाटलिपुत्र, probably thought that this are two different raids, albeit this is not the case. Ghurids could have only enter Varanasi after overcoming the Gahadavala Rajputs (as this territory was under their sway); whom they narrowly defeat in Chandawar-1194, where Jayachandra was killed and afterwards Mu'izz sacked Kashi and Hasan Nizami claimed that 1000 temples were razed to the ground and the idols were smashed.
  • The exact year of Battle of Chandwar is bit disputed (1193 or 1194; more sources points 1194) and some even claimed that Mu'izz did not lead in person here and attributes the wholesale destruction to Qutub, Thanks. ∆ P&t ♀√ (talk) 17:22, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Packer&Tracker: Thanks. My source (a very good one) said 1193, so I thought these had to be two different events. Could we then find a way to coalesce the two contents and two sets of references, and explain this happened in "1193 or 1194" as well as other uncertainties? पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 17:26, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@पाटलिपुत्र: Asher did not mention much about the background of this raid by Qutub/Mu'izz. As, I mentioned earlier there is a bit inconsistency about the exact year of these events. (1193/1194; at some places even 1195); The scholar who wrote about the Ghurids in detail don't generally stress much upon the Ghurid position in aftermath of their Tarain-1192 triumph and before Mu'izz murder near Indus; after which Aybak founded Delhi Sultanate.
Here is a source from reputed academic on this; (Mohammad Habib):-
on page no. 116:

In the winter of A.D. 1194-1195 Shihabuddin once more marched into Hindustan and invaded the doab. Rai Jaichand moved forward to met him....then description of Chandwar struggle

Shihabuddin captured the treasure fort of Asni and then proceeded to Benaras, 'where he converted about thousand idol-temples into house for the Musalmans.

No, these are not different events. I think you are confusing this because of the inconsistency in the dates in multiple sources. ∆ P&t ♀√ (talk) 17:53, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mapping[edit]

पाटलिपुत्र - Please clarify regarding your edit here, as you changed the date to 1205 in the infobox diff, the Ghurids after they were routed in Battle of Andkhud (1204) against their Turkish rivals, did not had any control over Merv, Nishapur etc. As a matter of fact they only retained Herat and Balkh of their former conquests in Khurasan. I think the previous date - i.e. around 1200 seems more appropirate. Any thoughts HistoryofIran ? Thanks. Re Packer&Tracker (talk) 07:48, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Re Packer&Tracker:Good point. Maybe I could tweak the date to 1203 (to account for the conquest of Bengal still)... पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 07:59, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@पाटलिपुत्र Hey so I recently did a Ghurid video on youtube (here) [1] and while researching, I found that the Khiljis of Bengal expanded a little further then just Nudiya.
"Ikhtiyar al-Dīn Muḥammad Khalji left the town of Devkot in 1206 to attack Tibet, leaving Ali Mardan Khalji in Ghoraghat Upazila to guard the eastern frontier from his headquarters at Barisal. Bakhtiyar Khalji's forces suffered a disastrous defeat at the hands of Tibetan guerrilla forces at Chumbi Valley, which forced him to retreat to Devkot with only about a hundred surviving soldiers. As he lay ill and exhausted in Devkot, Bakhtiyar Khalji was assassinated by Ali Mardan Khalji."
The main raised point here is how they also ruled Barisal as said in the source. and Barisal is in deep southern Bangladesh.
Maybe you would wish to add this to your map?
This is corroborated by:
Nitish K. Sengupta (1 January 2011). Land of Two Rivers: A History of Bengal from the Mahabharata to Mujib. Penguin Books India. pp. 63–64. ISBN 978-0-14-341678-4.
William John Gill; Henry Yule (2010). The River of Golden Sand: The Narrative of a Journey Through China and Eastern Tibet to Burmah. Cambridge University Press. p. 43. ISBN 978-1-108-01953-8. Noorullah (talk) 14:44, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Noorullah21: I adjusted the map to include Barisal (you might have to refresh your file cache to be able to see it). Thank you! पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 07:21, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@पाटलिपुत्र No problem Noorullah (talk) 17:14, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mahayana Buddhism or Paganism?[edit]

I observed some recent changes to the article where Noorullah21 changed the early religion part of the Ghurids from Buddhism to Paganism citing that only late historian Satish Chandra (d. 2017) elaborated about it although Chandra's views are substantial enough to merit a inclusion directly in the leas itself, another notable scholar K. A. Nizami also elaborated about it in detail, a small of chunk of it is as follows:-

We know very little about the pre Muslim religion of Ghur and no contemporary record of the Ghurid conversion to Islam has survived. Since Tukharistan, Kabul and Bamiyan were active centre of Buddhism, it may be assumed that people of Ghur also believed in some sort of Mahayana Buddhism.....There is nothing improbable, therefore, in the region of Ghur being inhabited mostly by the Buddhists..... Sultan Mahmud, we are told that had patronized the Karamis. It was probably due to him that this sect spread in Ghur and acted as a bridge between Mahayana Buddhism and Islam

Foundation of the Delhi Sultanat. In Mohammad Habib; Khaliq Ahmad Nizami (eds.). A Comprehensive History of India: The Delhi Sultanat (A.D. 1206-1526). Vol. 5 (Second ed.) (pp. 148-149)

Since there have been a number of reverts by several senior editors in the past 24 hours, I being a involved editor here brought these to talk page for a better discussion to garner a long term consensus. I am pinging them all @Noorullah21, HistoryofIran, Kansas Bear, No2WesternImperialism, पाटलिपुत्र, and Sutyarashi: for comments here instead of edit waring on the article mainspace.

Lastly, I am inclined to include Mahayana Buddhism for obvious reason that this is cited by two eminent scholars (Chandra & Nizami) over Paganism which by all means is ambigious as Paganism can be anything other then orthodox Islam - i.e. Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism in some cases even the Carmathians. The historians which are laconically refering to the Ghurids as Pagans (citing contemporary Muslim chroniclers who always use this label for non-muslim empires even with the Mongols) are not claiming that the early Ghurids were not Buddhists. So, If we have reliable sources on hand addressing the early Ghurids as followers of Mahayana Buddhism, then there is no good reason to include the ambigious Paganism here, Cheers. Re Pa©ker&Tra©ker (♀) 07:16, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you should have dug a bit deeper in your research:
  • "As late as the end of the tenth century, the population of Ghur was for the most part heathen. According to the geographer al-Istakhri, it was the biggest pagan enclave within the borders of Islam..[..].. The nature of the imperfect conversion is best illustrated by the fact that sometimes the names were Muslim, but the people led the life of pagans." -- K.A. Nizami, History of Civilizations of Central Asia, Volume 4, page 178.
  • "Indeed, Ghūr remained an enclave of paganism – but of what this paganism consisted is wholly unknown to us." -- C.E. Bosworth, Medieval Central Asia and the Persianate World, A.C.S. Peacock, D.G. Tor, page 210.
  • "..Muhhamd ibn Karram is said to have been instrumental in converting Ghur from paganism to Islam." --Finbarr Barry Flood, Objects of Translation: Material Culture and Medieval "Hindu-Muslim" Encounter, pag e96.
  • ".. helped convert the recalcitrant Ghur from paganism to Islam." -- D.G. Tor, The Princeton Encyclopedia of Islamic Political Thought, page 193.
  • "Pagan cults did not disappear overnight with the Arab invasions , despite the later juridical position that their practitioners were not entitled to the protection of the dhimma . In the remote and mountainous district of Ghur, for example, in what is now Afghanistan, Islam made few inroads and the older pagan religious traditions survived intact until the early eleventh century." --Jonathan Porter Berkey, The Formation of Islam: Religion and Society in the Near East, 600-1800, page 169.
  • "Ghur, a province amid mountains and rugged country. It has a king called Ghur-shah. He draws his strength from the mir of Guzganan. In the days of old this province of Ghur was pagan.." -- Scott Cameron Levi, ‎Ron Sela, Islamic Central Asia: An Anthology of Historical Sources, page 33.
  • " GHUR ( Pagan enclave ) " -- The Cambridge History of Iran, Volume 4, edited by William Bayne Fisher, Richard Nelson Frye, R. N. Frye, page 93.
  • "The Ghaz- navids also used madrasas endowed with augaf in order to establish Islam in the stubbornly pagan territory of Ghur , possibly through the inter- mediary of missionaries from the Karamiya." -- Robert Hillenbrand, Islamic Architecture: Form, Function, and Meaning, page 173.
  • "..called Ghor, was almost wholly terra incognita to the early Islamic geographers..[..].. and as the home of a race of bellicose mountaineers who remained pagan until well into the eleventh century." -- C.E. Bosworth, The New Islamic Dynasties, page 298. --Kansas Bear (talk) 12:59, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would add on but @Kansas Bear has said everything I would have said and posted the sources for it.
    I am in support of keeping it to paganism as the claim of them being buddhist is dubious and many other sources refer to them as Pagan. Noorullah (talk) 13:44, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me again stress on this point that there are sources which adressed the early Ghurids to be Pagans but none of them dismissed the very likely Buddhist connection which Professor Nizami touched upon. No, it's not dubious by any means instead the current designation of Paganism is dubious as it's obviously ambigious. Buddhists were obviously refered to as Pagans/infidels/healthens etc. by Muslim historians so there is no point of it being dubious..
    Except Boworth 2015 none of these sources commented upon the nature of paganism, even Bosworth laconically just mentions that the nature of paganism is unknown. If there are reliable sources which commented on our topic in detail (Nizami attributed a whole chapter on this titled "Conversion of Ghur") that they should be prefered over the references which just made a vague reference to the Ghurids. Anyway, let's wait for more comments upon it.
    On other note, I am soon going to write a religion section where all these aspects including their later change of schools will be covered at length. Re Pa©ker&Tra©ker (♀) 16:05, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any other sources, Re Pa©ker&Tra©ker? Not only are the sources listed by Kansas Bear in great abundance, but are written by highly prominent authors (including arguably one of the most prominent scholars in Medieval Islamic history of the Near East, C.E. Bosworth). No disrespect meant to the two figures, but Chandra and Nizami does not seem to be near the level/prominence of the listed authors. I could be wrong, of course. Another source that calls them pagan;
  • "They were descended from eastern Iranian Tajik stock but spoke a dialect of Persian sufficiently different from that of their neighbors for the Ghaznavid Sultan Masud to require local interpreters during his campaign to subjugate the region in 1020 and convert its pagan inhabitants to Islam" - Thomas, D.C. (2016). Ghurid Sultanate. In The Encyclopedia of Empire (eds N. Dalziel and J.M. MacKenzie). https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118455074.wbeoe216 --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:13, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am finding it hard to swallow that the contributors of such excellence failed to catch my main point. Obviously, I am nowhere denying that scholars did not designated them as Pagans, as a matter of fact Nizami himself called them as pagans. But, they are simply refering to them as Pagans by citing Juzjani who wrote the iconic Tabaqt-I-Nasiri. Anyone, who followed Persian historiography in any length are quite aware that the chroniclers simply call their non-muslim nemesis as pagans. Juzjani, Juwyani, al-Athir et al; called Mongols pagans as well does it change the fact that they were followers of Tangrism ? Paganism doesn't means that they can't be Buddhist, perhaps we need to make a new section in the article body regarding it and then summarize it into the lead. Since, it's meaning is ambigious, then there is definate need to shed light upon it with availiable reliable sources.
Also HistoryofIran - nobody is beliting Bosworth repute in the eastern Islamic world but neither he is saying that they weren't Buddhist, as explained earlier paganism is no definate religion it's a vague designation by Muslim historians (medieval times) for the non-muslim empires. BTW, despite the Ghurids despite being of Iranian origin and of Persian speaking dialect, their legacy in the eastern Islamic world is inconsequential and except a spur under the dyarchy of Ghiyath al-Din & Muhammad Ghori they were largely confined to the hills of Ghor. Their any lasting legacy actually survived east of the river Indus in the South Asia. I don't think anybody who are active on Indian history articles will rate Satish Chandra or K.A. Nizami as unreliable. Actually, Nizami was the one who composed the chapter on the Ghurids in History of civilizations of central Asia: Volume IV The age off achievement: A.D. 750 to the end of the fifteenth century : (part one) The historical, social and economic setting in which Bosworth was the general editor. Re Pa©ker&Tra©ker (♀) 05:51, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I get what you're saying, and I know you weren't belittling Bosworth. My point is that it seems that the the beliefs of the early Ghurids is uncertain to the point that a lot of scholars simply choose to call them "Pagans", not considering the Ghurids being Buddhist to be a possibility. Perhaps it could be written that the beliefs of the early Ghurids are uncertain, with many referring it to as paganism, with Chandra and Nezami suggesting it to be a form of Mahayana Buddhism. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:54, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "it may be assumed that people of Ghur also believed in some sort of Mahayana Buddhism.." --Mohammad Habib; Khaliq Ahmad Nizami
  • "Even then it is believed that paganism, ie. a variety of Mahayana Buddhism persisted in the area..." ---Satish Chandra, Medieval India: From Sultanat to the Mughals Delhi Sultanat (1206-1526), page 22.
Habib/Nizami say assumed, while Chandra states it is believed.
As such, Wikipedia should not present assumptions or beliefs as fact. Wikipedia can state it is believed/assumed by (Habib,Nizami,Chandra) they were Buddhists, while other academics simply call them pagans. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:00, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Also HistoryofIran - nobody is beliting Bosworth repute in the eastern Islamic world but neither he is saying that they weren't Buddhist..."
We are not here to prove negatives, and K.A. Nizami in the History of civilizations of central Asia: Volume IV The age of achievement: A.D. 750 to the end of the fifteenth century : (part one) The historical, social and economic setting fails to call the Ghurids Buddhist. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:31, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ghurid origin[edit]

He did not know the Persian language, so he had a Persian translator in his court. he was not tajek. Realone23 (talk) 19:38, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why you created two threads for this. Anyways, read WP:SOAPBOX. Moreover, in Wikipedia we follow WP:RS, not your personal theories/deductions. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:01, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for comment Realone23 (talk) 04:04, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Origin[edit]

A Turkic runic inscription in Southern Kazakhstan dating to 720 AD, refers to Arab invaders as "Taziks" (Tajiks)

The term Tazik or Tajik was originally applied to Arabs or their descendants in Ajam. The author of Hayat-i-Afghani says : "Of the many theories regarding the etymology of this word Tajik, the most probable is that which makes it a corrupt form of the Pahlvi word, Tazi, an Arab, a word still current in modern Persian with the same meaning. All the dictionaries give Tazi as meaning the descendants of Arabs in Persia or any other foreign country."

Note that Ghorids were not Tajiks in the meaning of Farsiwan. They are called Tajiks because they claimed to be descendants of Zahhak, an evil Arab king of Persian mythology who had serpents growing out of his shoulders.He did not know the Persian language, so he had a Persian translator in his court. 

Realone23 (talk) 19:48, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PST, WP:SYNTH and misunderstanding of sourced material - all in all WP:OR. This is the same person that claimed that the Parni were Afghans [2]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:00, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lol and I also know who are you.racist Realone23 (talk) 04:02, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ghurid_dynasty&oldid=1194952240"