Talk:Mahmud of Ghazni

message: As usual Wikipedia is being used for creating a confusion in well documented histories in order to push certain goals. Mahmud was not a Persian but of Turkish origin. The Turks originally lived in Turkmenistan and parts of Afghanistan. When Mahmud defeated the Hindu Shahi dynasty some Shahi princes fled to Kashmir. Kashmir had supported the Hindu Shahis and also marriages took place between the royalty of both places. An angry Mahmud next attacked Kashmir twice and was soundly defeated both times by the Hindu Kashmiris. Reference of this in Rajatarangini and Kitab ta'rikh al-Hind, by Al-Biruni.
  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.203 (talk) 00:19, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The al-Hind by Biruni and Rajatarangini are primary sources and can not be used in Wikipedia. Also, you did not source your information either time you added it. If the information you are attempting to add is verifiable, I am sure you could find it in a secondary source. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:36, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Rajatarangini would be secondary source. It is not written or supported by primary subject of this article that is Mahmud. Saurabhbhardiya (talk) 20:07, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not what WP:SECONDARY means here. We are not historians and do not interpret historical sources. -Crossroads- (talk) 20:28, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok.  Anyway, can the info be included as two different primary sources (of opposing side) seems to agree on same fact? Saurabhbhardiya (talk) 10:42, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

text: Bht khoob Bhai ne 175.107.221.178 (talk) 13:15, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Primary source

message: It looks like all of us are agreed that it was a raid, not a "destruction." Thapar mentions (p. 75) that a Kadamba king of Goa made a pilgrimage to Somnath in 1038, and the temple was apparently fine. The best information we have (from Al-Biruni as well as Kumarapala's poet) is that the idol may have been damaged by Mahmud, and he might even had carried these chips back to Ghazna. Whatever damage was done was quickly repaired. So, as I said before, it was a non-event. So, the only thing of historical interest about Somnath is the fact that it became an object of religious zeal in Turko-Persian sources for a millennium and the temple was repeatedly raided. So, a short discussion of this aspect is all that should go into this section. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 06:04, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is an interesting perspective on Mahmud's raid on Somnath: The expedition to Somnath is one of the greatest feats of military adventure in the history of Islam. The news of this victory sent a wave of joy all over the Muslim world, and the delighted Caliph heaped titles and honours on the Sultan, his sons and his brother. Like many other heroes, Sultan Mahmud became transformed into an almost mythical fiture and generations of enthusiastic authros surrounded his name with a huge literature of fanciful stories which were intendedto glorify him as a king and a warrior. - Kautilya3 (talk) 00:15, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Towards resolution 

message: Hello people. 
I am reading al-Milal wa n-Nihal, which is a medieval heresiography of al-Tahir al-Baghdadi (d. 1037 C.E.). The book has been printed in Lebanon in 1986 and has been edited by dr. Albert Nasri Nadir from the Faculty of Philosophy of the University of Lebanon. The book is printed by Dar ul-Mashriq in Bayrut.
In the book there is a chapter about Murji'ite Jahmites under the title Dhikr-u d-Dhalal min al-Karramiyyah. In a footnote beneath it, the editor is referring to imam al-Izz ar-Ras'ani (d. 1283) and his book Mukhtasar Kitab al-Firaq bayn al Firaq, wherein it is stated according to ar-Ras'ani Mahmud of Ghazna was a Murji'ite Jahmite and NO SUNNI.
Changed it accordingly.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scimethod (talk • contribs) 12:20, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the bot reverted you because you inserted a nonexistent wikilink. In any case Murji'ah says that it is part of Sunni Islam.  So, I am not sure that this should go into the infobox. Please feel free to add text in the body, discussing the subtleties and adding citations to the sources. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 12:40, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religion of Mahmud-e Ghaznavi 

message: *Sir Henry Miers Elliot,(1952). The history of India, as told by its own historians: the Muhammadan period, Volume 11. ~~This book was originally published in 1867! Terribly outdated, and I am sure more modern sources can be found.  & The History of India as told by its own Historians by Eliot and Dowson. I am assuming is the same book.
*Martin Ewans Afghanistan: a new history, Edition: 2, illustrated Published by Routledge, 2002.  Ewans is a former officer of the British Diplomatic Service, holds a degree of some kind from Cambridge. I believe better sources can be found.
*ʻAlī Muḥammad Khān, James Bird, The political and statistical history of Gujarát. Terribly outdated, 1837?
*Lal, Vinay (August 2009). "Mahmud of Ghazni". MANAS. Is a blog and will be removed.
*Imperial Gazetteer of India v2. Published as late as 1931. Most of the authors have been dead for 100 years. 
*Zhao, Rukuo, Friedrich Hirth, and William Woodville Rockhill. Chau Ju-Kua: His Work on the Chinese and Arab Trade in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries. Hirth died in 1927, William Woodville Rockhill died in 1914, which makes this work outdated. Judging from what this source brings to the article, I am not convinced that information lends anything to the article. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:05, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outdated/questionable sources 

message: It seems that editors here have decided that only one narrative should be given prominence, so much so that the article has become a biased account. For example, apparently there were powerful legends on the attack on Somnath Temple (what those are the section doesn't tell us, apart from a mention of "iconoclastic" in passing), instead it focused on those who questioned those unmentioned accounts. Are those "legends" the accounts mentioned earlier, or something else?  The whole article is confused, and there appears to be an unacceptable attempt to push a narrative, which is evident throughout the whole article.   It is wrong that only one view is presented in the historiography section.  We should attempt to give a rounded view rather than focusing on particular viewpoint, i.e. mentioned whatever those supposed "legends"  were and what the scholarship opinions on those are, so that we have a clearer view.  If it is something contentious then say so, rather trying to present only one point of view. Hzh (talk) 00:15, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears that there has been no attempt to fix this problem.  There is really something wrong when editors try to push one point of view and ignoring others.  Please read WP:NPOV about giving due weight and balance.  For a section that purports to be about historiography, when all the information is given to one side of the argument, especially one that is intended to argue against another opinion, not giving the opposing opinion means that the whole thing is unbalanced.   There is also the absurdity of describing having soldiers of different religion as being about "attitude towards religious freedom".  I guess you can also call the British practice of using non-British, non-white and non-Christian people to help fight their war and help administer the countries in their Empire as being about their attitude towards racial equality, which is an absurdity. I would propose deleting the whole section on Somnath if nothing is done. Hzh (talk) 18:26, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poor and biased 

message: First and foremost, I'd like to know what year Mahmud Ghaznavi broke off from the Sammanid Empire, and what year he adopted the Sultan title.
On the second issue, the article itself seems to have contradictory information. In the infobox, it states he adopted the Sultan title in 1002. Whereas in the section titled "Campaign timeline" its says 997. Which one is it, and are there any sources for either?  - DA1 (talk) 01:26, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: According to The Ghaznavids:994-1040 by C.E. Bosworth, page 45-46, Following Mahmud's victory over Ismail, Mahmud traveled to Balkh to pay homage to Mansur II. After Mansur II was blinded and his brother al-Malik II was foisted on the Samanid throne, Mahmud moved against al-Malik's supporters then decided on peace. Mahmud would have been given the title of Sultan by the caliph following the fall of al-Malik II.  --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:19, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradictory information on Sultanate vs Emirate 

message: In google, Mahmud Ghaznavi has more search results that Mahmud of Ghazni. So isn't it better to rename it to a common name ?31.215.192.185 (talk) 15:05, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps some editor can look into it?Abbasquadir (talk) 17:32, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Change name

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Mahmud of Ghazni. 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
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) 13:13, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I like to add this template to this page but not sure what the problem is. This page is part of a series on Islam in South Asia. Please help! 65.95.136.96 (talk) 14:55, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template:Islam in South Asia 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Mahmud of Ghazni. 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/20090803221351/http://www.infinityfoundation.com/ECITTarikhYaminiframeset.htm to http://www.infinityfoundation.com/ECITTarikhYaminiframeset.htm
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) 05:08, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The word India is a creation of the Continental Europeans. It is best to avoid this word. It is connected to Continental European colonialism.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.44.160.64 (talk) 02:22, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm no historian but I'm pretty sure the word 'India' outdates colonism. --HistoryofIran (talk) 02:31, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  "India" is a derivative of the Persian name, Hindush, c. 500 BC. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:54, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Which was in turn a derivative of Sanskrit "Sindhu" (modern Sindh). -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:56, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indian subcontinent or South Asian subcontintent?  

message: The article currently gives two dates for the plundering of the temple in Somnath, 1024 and 1025. Another source quoted above says Mahmud attacked Somnath in 1025 but captured it in 1026. Bosworth (article MAḤMUD B. SEBÜKTEGIN in the Encyclopedia Iranica) says the campaign took place in 1025–6. At any rate, 1024 doesn't seem to be correct. Kanjuzi (talk) 03:08, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of plundering of Somnath 

message: The first sentence states that the Ghaznavid dynasty was a "Turkic" dynasty, but the wiki page for the Ghaznavids point out that it was "Persianate" and "Persian" in its culture, language, literature, and habits. Maybe "Turkic" should be changed to "Turko-Persian; I think It would be more accurate, consistent, and parallel with the wiki page for the Ghaznavids.
Also, I think the first source should be removed; It seems quite inaccurate:
Homa Katouzian, "Iranian history and politics", Published by Routledge, 2003. p. 128: "Indeed, since the formation of the Ghaznavids state in the tenth century until the fall of Qajars at the beginning of the twentieth century, most parts of the Iranian cultural regions were ruled by Turkic-speaking dynasties most of the time."
"Ruled by Turkic-speaking dynasties most of the time" isn't true and doesn't make sense. When you factor in the Iranian sates, Mongol states, and Persian-speaking Turkic states (such as the Ghaznavids and Seljuks) between the 11th and 20th centuries, then the above quote simply doesn't make much sense. Armanqur (talk) 09:58, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should "Turkic" be changed to "Turko-Persian"? 

message: In the "attack on Somnath" section there are grammatical errors such as "Some believes that Mahmud had to face attacks when he was returning to Kabul after 16th attack in which he captures a lot of innocent women, saints, children and money too at first Gogaji Maharaj fought fiercely but got martyred."
In addition to the numerous errors absolutely zero sources have been provided to substantiate anything written. It almost seems like someone was angry at a historical figure for whatever reason and decided it was a good idea to take their anger out on a Wikipedia article. I would like to request that someone add sources to this, if they exist, or delete this part of the article. 188.31.40.16 (talk) 00:02, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed unsourced information. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:17, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 17 November 2021