Talk:Khalji dynasty

message: Note:  Project Banner with Delhi workgroup parameters was added to this article talk page because the article falls under :Category:Delhi or its subcategories. Should you feel this addition is inappropriate , please undo my changes and update/remove the relavent categories to the article -- Amartyabag  TALK2ME 15:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:INDIA]] Banner/Delhi Addition 

message: According to , Mongols invaded Singh and Punjab in 1296-1297, being defeated by two Khilji generals. Later another Mongol army invaded in 1298 and captured Siwistan. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:44, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mongol invasion 

message: "The dynasty is known for their faithlessness and ferocity" -- is this wording encyclopedic and suitable for the lede, or can it be changed? Khestwol (talk) 19:52, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: No doubt, many parts was edited by biased editorAhendra (talk) 22:30, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

text: It lends nothing historically to the article, so I see no reason to keep it. Besides, I wouldn't base something like that from Encyclopedia Britannica(ie. a tertiary source). --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:43, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Ferocity" and "faithlessness" 

message: I have removed the generic section on Khilji people, as it was offtopic, unrelated and undue to Khilji dynasty. It was tagged quite a while ago. The section may better belong in Turkestan or Ghilji or a new article. Beren Dersi (talk) 22:57, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Khilji people 

message: , , 
There is no confusion over the edits done. Earlier version was misleading.
Market Regulation: Market regulation or price control was one of the achievements of Ala-ud-din. For this reason, he made crack down on "Hindu" middlemen and also confiscated Muslim aristocrats' property.
But, the reference to the confiscation of Muslim property was omitted in the earlier version. Not only that, the world "middleman" was also omitted from the phrase "Hindu middleman" and it gave the whole para an impression of the religious prosecution of "Hindus". But, reality was different. Muslim population centred around cities and hence the agricultural market was under the total control of "Hindu middlemen".
Massacres: Khiljis massacred their enemies. In conquering areas they massacred "Hindus". They also massacred Muslims( biggest massacre is Ala-ud-din's order to kill 30000 new Muslims in a day). Howevre, in the earlier version the reference to Muslims was ommitted and again made it as a case of religious prosecution of "Hindus".
HINDU: Timur in 1398 used the term "Hindu" in order to mean Indians(both Hindu and Muslims). So, in what sense Khiljis(1290-1320) used the term "Hindu"? The Khiljis called themselves "Turks". Since you are quoting from primary sources, one has to be highly careful.
Sources:  "Tarikh-i-Firuz Shahi"  is a primary, non contemporary source. Elliot and Dowson's work is nothing but a collection of translations with their "scholarship" and "intentions" being in question.Ghatus (talk) 12:48, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I think we have moved on from these concerns now. However, let us not get too far into the secularist tarpit. He did ask his clerics to devise rules to grind down "Hindus," which could only mean the unbelievers. So, religion was certainly part of the enterprise, even though it may not have been the driving force. - Kautilya3 (talk) 13:01, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: , both Hindu Rights and Muslim Rights get their inspirations from the same source-misinterpretation of History. The Sultanate period produced two so called "realistic/pluralistic" rulers- Ala-ud-din Khilji ( who first separated the state from clergies) and  Muhammad bin Tughluq ( who persecuted clergy for overstepping and also the first Muslim practitioner of Yoga). I do no know what reference you are giving, but if background is read and proper interpretation is made, I then will be able to comment.  BTW, Alauddin believed "Kingship knows no kinship" and the terrible stories of the execution of his "near and dear" ones prove that. Again, Alauddin was no "Akbar", but that does not mean that he was a "bigot" like "Firuz Shah Tughlaq" or "Sikandar Lodi". It is also true that he "cut muslim clergy to size" (when situation demanded) not for "secularism", but for his own security. Bye :-)Ghatus (talk) 13:36, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: No Confusion

message: thumb
Does anyone have a source for this map? According to KS Lal's History of the Khaljis (p. 220-221): "On the north-west, river Indus may roughly be taken as the boundary line of the Indian empire. Beyond the Indus the land was constantly disputed between the Mongols and the Indians. [...] On the east .Turkish empire does not seem to have extended beyond Benares and Jaunpur (Sarju). Bihar and Bengal were ruled by Harasimka and Shamsuddin Firoz respectively, both independent of the Sultanate of Delhi."
While Bengal did form a part of the Delhi Sultanate under the Mamluks, this doesn't seem to be true for the Khiljis. utcursch | talk 18:40, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map 

message: Change "Madura" to "Madurai"
Note:
It is wrongly given as "Madura" in Tamilnadu. The city name in Tamilnadu is "Madurai". Also the hyperlink wrongly leads to an Indonesian city. K.ratan (talk) 03:09, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Done Gulumeemee (talk) 03:21, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 23 October 2017 

message: Khaljis "POV and fringe". First of, please explain what this actually means. I only added one line from a book and quoted it and yet is somehow counts as expressing my point of view.The book clearly states:
"At the same time Jalaludin, who was Ariz-i-Mamalik , had gone to Baharpur , attended by a body of his relations and friends. Here he held a muster and inspection of the forces. He came of a race different from that of the Turks ; so he had no confidence in them , nor would the Turks own him as belonging to the member of his friends" Mr.Elliott's History of India (Vol.III page 34)" Hayras123 (talk) 00:54, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Ignoring the fact that Elliott's History of India is an obsolete source (see WP:HISTRS), the book includes translations of various chronicles. The "a race different from that of the Turks" bit is from the Tughluq-era Delhi chronicler Barani, who is not a reliable source. As several modern historians have explained (see Jalaluddin Firuz Khalji#Early life), the Khaljis were of Turkic origin, and their ancestors had lived in present-day Afghanistan for quite some time, because of which they were wrongly regarded as non-Turkic when they came to Delhi. utcursch | talk 15:02, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

text: Ignoring the fact that the Ghilzai tribe of Afghans are descendants of Khaljis,Vladimir Minorsky's comments on Hudud al-Alam there are many other reputable, non-biased sources that clearly state that Khaljis were not of Turk origin. In fact, it is clearly stated that they are of Afghan origin  "Therefore, Khaljies or Ghaljies are not the descendants of those Turks or Ghuz who had come to Khorasan during the Islamic period, but are Hepthalites of the Arian race who were famous as White Huns and lived in Tukharistan and Zabulistan and the name of their ancestors has remained in the names of the present Ghalji—the Kochi=Koshi tribes of Zabul."  The Life and Works of Sultan Alauddin Khalji: "According to Minhaj and Barrani Khaljis were not Turks. But there is a group of historians determined to prove that the Khaljis were actually Turks. Even if we grant some concession to this group, we shall have to admit the fact that seven hundred years ago, even during the rule of the Khaljis, the people of Delhi did not consider the Khaljis as of Turkish origin"  Hayras123 (talk) 22:11, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

text: Barani is not one of those sources that are acceptable as primary sources: plenty of modern historians have shown him to be unreliable. As already mentioned, Ghulam Sarwar Khan Niazi is a Pashtun, and so is Abdul Hai Habibi. Independent historians who do not have a conflict of interest on the topic disagree with them. utcursch | talk 23:58, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Afghan origin 

message: The article is completely biased and uses words such as "The dynasty is known for its faithlessness" etc. This is against the Wiki spirit and culture AFAIK and I'd like to see it neutralized to present a broader picture instead of telling the story from POV of the enemies of Khilji Empire. 110.36.227.66 (talk) 10:00, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. —KuyaBriBriTalk 14:40, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  The anon probably wants to remove "faithlessness and ferocity" bit from the lead. I agree -- Britannica is a tertiary source, and now allows readers to contribute. Unless more authoritative, scholarly works support this description, such vague terms don't belong in the lead. utcursch | talk 15:13, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 14 February 2018 

message: @User:W28394
Clearly nearly all the sources mention them as Turks who had migrated to Afghanistan and adopted some customs of Local Pashtuns. 
This is for some users who want to make them Pashtun when they are Turkic. Pashtunization involves change of Language but there is no such evidence of Pashto Speaking Khalaj. 
They Spoke Persian and Khalaj Turkic language. 
Statements from the references used within the article: 
*His ancestors, after having migrated from Turkistan, had lived for over 200 years in the Helmand valley and Lamghan, parts of Afghanistan called Garmasir or the hot region, and had adopted Afghan manners and customs. They were, therefore, wrongly looked upon as Afghans by the Turkish nobles in India as they had intermarried with local Afghans and adopted their customs and manners. They were looked down as non Turks by Turks
*The prejudice of Turks was however misplaced in this case, for Khaljis were actually ethnic Turks. But they had settled in Afghanistan long before the Turkish rule was established there, and had over the centuries adopted Afghan customs and practices, intermarried with the local people, and were therefore looked down on as non-Turks by pure-bred Turks.
*The Khaljis were a Turkish tribe but having been long domiciled in Afghanistan, had adopted some Afghan habits and customs. They were treated as Afghans in Delhi Court. They were regarded as barbarians.
*This dynasty, like the previous Slave dynasty, was of Turkish origin, though the Khaljī tribe had long been settled in Afghanistan. Its three kings were noted for their faithlessness, their ferocity, and their penetration to the South of India
Kami2018 (talk) 05:40, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turkic and Afghan 

message: Kansas Bear Firstly khalaj people still live in Iran and they speak turkic so they are not "initially" turkic. Secondly someone has vandalized the origin part, for example I don't see any source saying anything like that: "They were already treated entirely as Afghans by the Turkic nobles of the Delhi Sultanate during the reign of the Khalji Sultanate."  The source says They were "wrongly" looked upon as Afghans by the Turkish nobles in India as they had intermarried with local Afghans and adopted their customs and manners. I wrote that part back with more accurate sentences, according to the sources. 
:Might I suggest creating an account and not editing as an IP? Also, signing your posts is also quite helpful.
:Actually the sentence is;
*"The Khalaj were from the very beginning going through a process of assimilation into the Pashtun tribal system, during their reign in India they were already treated entirely as Afghans by the Turkic nobles of the Delhi Sultanate."
:Which is supported by Eraly source which states, "The prejudice of Turks was however misplaced in this case, for Khaljis were actually ethnic Turks. But they had settled in Afghanistan long before the Turkish rule was established there, and had over the centuries adopted Afghan customs and practices, intermarried with the local people, and were therefore looked down on as non-Turks by pure-bred Turks.";AND, Chaurasia;"The Khaljis were a Turkish tribe but having been long domiciled in Afghanistan, had adopted some Afghan habits and customs. They were treated as Afghans in Delhi Court. They were regarded as barbarians. The Turkish nobles had opposed the ascent of Jalal-ud-din to the throne of Delhi."
*"I don't see any source saying anything like that: "They were already treated entirely as Afghans by the Turkic nobles of the Delhi Sultanate during the reign of the Khalji Sultanate.""
:The Chaurasia source states that Turkic nobles had opposed the ascent of Jalal-ud-din Khalji, which is poorly worded as "They were already treated entirely as Afghans". 
:That being said, I have read your revision;
*"the Turkish nobles wrongly looked upon them as Afghan.."
:and on the conditions that you 1)change the word "Turkish" to "Turkic", 2)you register under a named account, and 3)get the consent from (since they reverted you on 30 August), I will agree to your version. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:03, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Ngl, I don't even know what the original and correct revision is anymore. This article has been a theater of edit warring (mainly by IPs) regarding that topic so much that I just gave up. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:06, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  about my edits 

message: Main points about khilji dynesty  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.107.141.245 (talk) 11:33, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Social stadiues 

message: I see that in the original section they point to Alauddin Khalji sister being married to Indian. And one of the sources claim they were Indian I have noticed that this page has turned to a propaganda site. As well as when I provide facts with accurate citations which are all from Oxford, Cambridge University and Unesco it gets reverted for no reason. Afghan.Records (talk) 21:49, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editors reverting my edits 

message: I wanted to discuss this because it seems that the mentions of an “indo muslim” nobility/state still remains in this article, and it’s even in the lead. I personally believe it should be removed but I would also like the opinions of others on this. Satish Chandra had written about this view before where he extensively explains why it’s wrong, I’ll cite the full quote. 
“It has been suggested that with the rise of the Khaljis, and the end of Turkish monopoly of high offices, an "integrated Indo-Muslim state" emerged in India, i.e., one in which different sections of the Muslims, including Indian Muslims, were admitted to the nobility, and high offices filled on the basis of efficiency and the pre-dilections of individual rulers, rather than on the basis of their ethnic origins. Sufficient research work has not been done to prove or effectively
disprove the point. We do, however, know that the ruling classes and the rulers in India strongly believed in the principle of superiority of blood so that only those who could establish their links with 'respected' families, whether in the secular or the religious fields, were entitled to high offices in government. The earliest Muslim political thinker in India, Fakr-i-Mudabbir, who wrote during the reign of Iltutmish, says:
"Posts of diwan, shagird and muharrir (revenue posts) should be given only to ahl-i-qalam (the educated sections) and whose ancestors had served rulers and amirs."
Ziauddin Barani who wrote his political tract, Fatawa-i-Jahandari, while in prison during the early years of Firuz Tughlaq, echoes the same views. He says that at the time of creation, some minds were inspired with the art of letters and of writing, others with horsemanship, and yet others in the weaving, stich- craft, carpentry, hair-cutting and tanning. Thus, men should practice only those crafts and professions "for which men have been inspired (and) are practised by them". He goes on to say, "Even if a man of base or low birth is adorned with a hundred merits, he will not be able to organise and administer the country according to expectations, or be worthy of leadership or political trust."
Barani was, apparently, voicing the prejudices of the ruling sections. But these views had a definite bearing on the character of the state. The state remained the exclusive preserve of the so-called "respectable" classes. The only ruler who tried to breach this policy was Muhammad bin Tughlaq who appointed a number of persons, both Hindus and Muslims, from the so-called low classes on the basis of their efficiency. But there was a strong reaction against this from the established ruling classes. Under Firuz Tughlaq, we find no reference to the appointment of such people, either Hindus or Muslims.
Thus, in a highly fragmented society it is hardly possible to speak of an "integrated" Indo-Muslim state. The position of converted India Muslims from the lower classes hardly changed. The rise of a converted Tailang Brahman, Khan-i-Jahan Maqbul, to the position of wazir under Firuz Tughlaq, or of an Ain-ul- Mulk, a Hindustani, who was governor of Awadh under Muhammad Tughlaq and later was Firuz's mushrif-i-mamlik (auditor-general), should not be interpreted to mean that Indian converts from the upper castes had now become a dominant element in the nobility. Muhammad Tughlaq's induction of a large number of foreigners in the nobility, calling them 'aizza' is an index to the continued preference of foreigners over Indians. It was one of these nobles who later set up the Bahmani kingdom in the Deccan, and another in Gujarat.”
pg 268. Here’s the source. https://knowledgevalley2017.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Satish-Chandra.pdf
he’s a far more authoritative source than any of the other citations listed under “indo muslim nobility”, and he cites primary sources as well. It is for all these reasons, that I decided to remove this part of the article. 
@Noorullah21 @पाटलिपुत्र Someguywhosbored (talk) 03:02, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't intend to edit the article myself since I haven't read widely enough on the topic but, hopefully, some subject experts will be able to take up on the suggestion. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 18:41, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indo muslim nobility?  

message: Kasghari also said the Khalaj and Arghu are Turkified Sogdians should it be added? 
Ref —> Cambridge Language Surveys
 Turkic
Lars Johanson Afghan.Records (talk) 01:26, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kashghari context  

message: Publisher and ISBN are switched in this citation:

. 76.14.122.5 (talk) 22:28, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:55, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 22 April 2024 

message: Hello, I am an historian with focus on Indo-Iranian studies I mastered at Afghanistan and its ethnic groups history. I believe I can add some context to this page.It seems like its not well updated. Zhun.Rokko (talk) 00:11, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. Jamedeus (talk) 00:15, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 23 April 2024 

message: DNA don’t lie and show them to be close relatives to Durrani Pashtuns who belong to R1a. Also, primary sources mention them as Afghan. 208.98.222.64 (talk) 19:48, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Khiljis are Pashtuns