Talk:Alauddin Khalji

message: I read the discussion above and I don't agree with what Human10.0 has to say. Why should Malik Kafur be mentioned here? It is seriously misleading. Is there any source which explicitly states that Kafur was Alauddin's homosexual lover with proof? In case of Alauddin's son, Qutb-ud-din Mubarak Shah, it is clearly mentioned in sources that he was bisexual and had even taken male lovers i.e. Hasan and Hisamuddin. There is clear proof of his bisexuality, people even saw him hugging and kissing his lovers. But in Alauddin's case, it is merely mentioned in some sources that he took "fancy" to Kafur or he was "infatuated" with him. Banarsi Prasad Saksena states that Alauddin was "infatuated" with Kafur but "there was no element of homosexuality in Alauddin's character." He clearly states that the infatuation was not sexual in nature. Saksena clearly describes Alauddin's son, Mubarak Shah, as bisexual, why doesn't he call Alauddin one too then? Different historians describe their relationship differently but no one explicitly states that their relationship was romantic/sexual neither do they give any proof of it. The basis for all these claims are Barani's statements. The same Barani who was prejudiced against Kafur and calls him a "useless ungrateful, ingratiate, sodomite" and constantly used to refer to him as a "wicked fellow." Barani also claims that Kafur rose to a high position and only became commander of Alauddin's army because of Alauddin's love for him.
*'The third reason was that the Sultan loved the Malik Naib very much. He made him the commander of his army, a minister. He raised him above all the others. The heart of this sodomite beloved of his was soon corrupted.'
Satish Chandra explains Kafur's rise to power here in Medieval India: From Sultanat to the Mughals-Delhi Sultanat (1206-1526). No where does Chandra say that Alauddin gave him these positions because of his love for him.
*"From Somnath the Sultanate army proceeded to the flourishing port city of Khambhat (Cambay), plundered its merchants and obtained a vast booty—and, what turned to be far more valuable to the sultan, the army there seized a young, handsome and exceptionally talented slave eunuch named Kafur, who bore the nickname Hazardinari (Thousand Dinars), as his original price was one thousand dinars. Taken to Delhi, Kafur became an intimate of the sultan—his ‘beauty captivated Ala-ud-din,’ says Barani—and he would in time play a central role in the history of the times."
Here is how Chandra described Kafur's capture by Khilji forces. Again, Chandra doesn't mention anything about "love at first sight" for Alauddin.
Regarding Alauddin's last days, Chandra said:
*"The last years of Alauddin Khalji were disturbed by a painful disease, and intense struggle for power among the nobles. Malik Kafur, the malik naib or vice regent who had the complete confidence of Alauddin, gradually eliminated his opponents, and to clear his way to power had Khizr Khan, the heir-apparent, imprisoned and then blinded. After Alauddin's death (1316), Kafur elevated a minor son of Alauddin to the throne, and assumed all powers."
No where does Chandra say that Alauddin became "infatuated" with Kafur or "fell in love" with him and gave him power. My point is that Chandra is a prominent historian, if Kafur and Alauddin's relationship was actually romantic/sexual and was important then why is it not clearly mentioned in each and every prominent source? Chandra doesn't give even the slightest mention of it. Chandra should've also said that Alauddin became infatuated with Kafur and gave him all the power. 
A lot of undue importance is being given to Alauddin's relationship with Kafur even when there is no proof. The only basis are Barani's claims and it should be made clear in the article that these are his claims. Also, if the "Marriages" section in "Early life" is removed then this info: Malik Chajju's former Amirs (subordinate nobles) at Kara considered Jalaluddin as a weak and ineffective ruler, and instigated Alauddin to usurp the throne of Delhi. This, combined with his unhappy domestic life, made Alauddin determined to dethrone Jalaluddin in the next section "Governor of Kara" does not make any sense. It is important to describe Alauddin's unhappy domestic life i.e. his first two marriages in the "Early life" section because it played an important role in his subsequent rebellion against Jalaluddin. As for his marriages to Kamaladevi and Jhatyapali, they can be mentioned in the sections "Mongol invasions and northern conquests, 1297-1306" and "Marwar and southern campaigns, 1307-1313", when they occurred, respectively. This personal life section was made solely to state that Alauddin was supposedly "in love with Kafur" according to Barani?
I would also like to point out some points made by Human10.0 which I don't agree with:
*Banarasi Prasad Saksena, 1992: Please be clear, he does not "clarify" that the relationship was non-sexual. He opines that (without providing any information to discredit the sources that talk about Alauddin and Kafur's relationship in sexual/romantic terms, or to support his own unique position). Saksena aknowledges that "During the last years of his reign, Alauddin was infatuated with Malik Kafur" but he is the only source that explicitly denies a same-sex sexual element to their relationship (like I said, without backing it up with evidence). 
Can you please name any one prominent source which backs up the claim (with evidence) that Alauddin's relationship with Kafur was romantic and sexual? Saksena states that "there was no element of homosexuality in Alauddin's character". I guess that is what he is backing up his claim with. The same Saksena had no problem in calling Alauddin's son, Mubarak Shah, a bisexual. So if Alauddin was bisexual then why can't he call him one too? 
*R. Vanita and S. Kidwai, 2000: A seriously misleading claim by you is that their book is a "book on descriptions of same-sex love in Indian literature (not a history book)". The name of the book is literally Same-Sex Love in India: Readings from Literature and History. It's a collection of documented examples of same-sex love in not only South Asian literature but also in the region's millennia-old history. The book mentions Alauddin and Kafur when listing sexual relationships between men and castrated men. 
This is not a proper history book, it is just a book written by gay scholars about Indian literature. Their area of expertise is not history. You say that according to Barani they were in love and that is the proof. I've already mentioned before by citing Satish Chandra's book that Barani's statements are not believable. According to him, Kafur rose to prominence only because Alauddin loved him. What nonsense is this? He was clearly a competent general. If Alauddin was so madly and blindly in love with Kafur then why doesn't any other court chronicler or historian of the time mention this as well? Why doesn't Amir Khusrau state so too? 
*In summary, most sources explicitly mention or imply a romantic-sexual relationship between Alauddin and Kafur whereas only one interprets it explicitly as platonic. I think that, like other biographical wiki articles, Alauddin's article should have a separate 'Personal Life' section. His marriages and discussion of his relationship with Kafur could go there (perhaps even the current Religion section). As a compromise, the Personal Life section could discuss the relationship with Kafur briefly and as per WP:SUMMARY, it would have a link to the 'Relationship with Alauddin' section on Malik Kafur's Wiki article (where more detailed information could be available). I think a 'Personal Life' section will be quite helpful because:
The Marriage section contains information that breaks the chronological order of the article and doesn't go well with the subsequent text (e.g. the section discusses a marriage occuring in 1308 or 1296, and then the succeeding 'Governor of Kara' section starts relating events occurring earlier in 1291).
The question of which historical period to place the Kafur info in (i.e., in the last days section? Or earlier?) would become irrelevant.
::You say most sources "explicitly mention or imply a romantic-sexual relationship between Alauddin and Kafur whereas only one interprets it explicitly as platonic". Jaswant Lal Mehta in his book Medieval Indian Society And Culture doesn't mention any romantic/sexual relationship between Kafur and Alauddin. So don't say that most sources mention or imply a romantic/sexual relationship between them. Some sources only state that Alauddin took "fancy" to Kafur and was "infatuated" with him. There is a big difference between mentioning and implying something and giving definitive proof of it. There is not a single source which explicitly calls Kafur Alauddin's homosexual lover with proof. Also, I've already stated why it's important to have the "Marriages" section in "Early life".  Regarding the Kafur info, it should be mentioned in the "Mongol invasions and northern conquests, 1297-1306" and the "Last days" section. You are giving too much importance to Kafur and Alauddin's "supposed" relationship. I agree with Utcursch. The mention of a romantic or sexual aspect to their relationship is trivial. Also, it is not backed by an proof. Currently the sections "Early life" and "Personal life" have duplicate info. - Almeda64 (talk) 16:24, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: There are some other sources too that deny sexual relationship of Allauddin and Kafur including historian Banarsi Prasad Saksena book. There is no concrete evidence about his sexual relationship with Malik Kafur. Most sources that claim that their sexual relationship existed are based directly or indirectly on guesses. Polarbear678 (talk) 07:10, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Personal life section

message: Khilji dynasty was from khorasan related to turkic uzbeks of modern afghanistan, follower of turkic culture and language. They invaded modern pakiland n nothern india Antivirus20 (talk) 03:57, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Khalji dynasty 

message: Jalaluddin khalji 115.187.62.86 (talk) 11:36, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mother 

message: To Turkic / Afghan editors, who are edit-warring over the lead: please see MOS:ETHNICITY: "Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless it is relevant to the subject's notability." utcursch | talk 18:19, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Would agree with Utcursch, ethnicity should not be in the lead. The name of the dynasty is already present and a simple click tells the reader what they should know about the Khaljis.--Kansas Bear (talk) 17:27, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ethnicity in lead 

message: sst Naitik 636 (talk) 15:05, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which date Alauddin khilji born 

message: @ImperialAficionado According to "RISE AND FALL OF MUHAMMAD BIN TUGHLUQ" Agha Mahdi Husain https://archive.org/details/dli.ernet.14243/page/105/mode/2up
He was a staunch Shia and this is the latest edition of this book.
Sudsahab (talk) 18:14, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that was your honest mistake as the quotation goes as  It is talking about Ultaiju Khan. Not Alauddin Khalji. Imperial[AFCND] 18:24, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Allaudin shia or sunni