Talk:Mahmud of Ghazni

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article incorporates text from the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition, now in the public domain.


Mahmud of Ghazni is part of the WikiProject Afghanistan, a project to maintain and expand Afghanistan-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
LGBT Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Middle Ages Icon
Middle Ages Portal
Mahmud of Ghazni is part of WikiProject Middle Ages, a project for the community of Wikipedians who are interested in the Middle Ages. For more information, see the project page and the newest articles.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Article Grading:
The article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
WikiProject Middle Ages To do:

I am truly sick and tired of these "history" pages set up by Pakistanis and other anti-Indian elements, claiming that people such as Mahmud Ghaznavi had a "positive" influence on India.

Clearly, due to his geographical location he had a much greater influence on what is today Pakistan and Afghanistan. We can all see how the fine nations of Pakistan and Afghanistan have benefited from his civilizing influence. These are countries that count among the most backward places, universally detested in almost every corner of the world.

As for "Hindu" India, it is a fine upstanding country and a mighty civilization irrespective of its imperfections. There is no comparison whatsoever in any sphere of civilization between India as developed by the Hindus and others, and Pakistan and Afghanistan (the latter is essentially in the Stone Age). Ridiculous that barbarians and plunderers from Central Asia are actually humanized and presented as members of civilized nations in these pages.

Today the Seventh Somnath Temple stands proudly in Gujarat (an Indian state ruled by "fascist Hindu nationalists" and whose GDP is comparable to that of all of Pakistan and Afghanistan). I'd rather be a "heathen Hindu" from India than a "civilized beneficiary of Mahmud Ghaznavi's good governance policies" from Paki-/Afghanistan.

76.17.109.178 04:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

what else is new?

Muslims and anti-Hindu types defending Muslim tyrants. This guy was a bastard. plain and simple. There is plenty of evidence that he massacred Buddhists and Hindus and destroyed temples.

Why is there a need to sugarcoat it?

AS far as Hindu kings oppressing their own people, it is absolutely nothing compared to the way that Muslim invaders treated all Hindus. Timur himself massacred 100,000 Hindus (regardless of caste).

Now please reference one single incident that is sourced in which a Brahmin excecuted 100,000 Dalits.

---


Contents

[edit] Tigeroo stop deleting my posts

Tigeroo you are hounding and deleting my posts on this and the article on Qasim . Please stop . Cheers Intothefire 13:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Please red up WP:MOS. I have tried to show you numerous times on how to make acceptable and useful contributions ubt you refuse to pay attention. Case in point, you still place your comments any what where and when instead of at the bottom of the talk pages. I have accepted and incorporated legitimate issues raised by you, but you really need to get your act together and stop degrading the quality of the articles.--Tigeroo 13:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Islamophobic content

this article is a prime example of why Wikipedia cannot be trusted. You have Hindus who read this and it makes their blood boil that these foreign Muslims actually did all of this stuff. Then you have Muslims and Muslim-sympathizers who sugarcoat history and actually try to make a man like this look "normal" and in some cases act like he did Hindus a favor by killing them off.

Actually, articles like this are a prime example of why Wikipedia can be trusted. As opposed to traditional articles or encyclopedia entries, which are either written by one biased side or a supposedly neutral side that will gloss over "extreme" opinions of either side, here both sides can "face off" and show the full range of opinions, with facts to back them up where applicable. The result, while undoubtedly flawed (and clearly suffering from some grammatical issues), is still a much more complete version than is typically seen in such articles contrained by procedural tradition.


I have replaced the Islamoiphobic content posted by non-Muslims from Hindutva extremist websites, with the authentic history from MSN Encarta and Britannica Encyclopaedia.

You would do better to respect history and the umma by not saying untruths about these men. If you wish to contest material in the article you need to bring counter-proofs. Haiduc 12:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

JASpencer apparently posted a series of anti-Islamic views collected from rightwing Hindu and other anti-Islamic sites. These articles are so outrageously ridiculous. Take this article as an example. The article claims that Mahmud of Ghazni slaughtered 50,000 Hindus just in one temple!!

What the hell? What was the population of India 1000 years ago, again?

They didn't have nuclear bombs or F-16's in those days. How on earth can a small raid by a few thousand soldiers armed with only swords kill 50,000 Hindus just in one temple? Why didn't these 50,000 men spit on them? That would have drowned the killers.

In another article, the guy goes on to compare Bin Qasim attack on Sindh with Mao atrocities in China! Moa killed like how many 30 million people? The whole population of India was not 30 million in 700 AD!

Bin Qasim attacked Sindh with less than 3,000 men. If the Indian kings were not suppressing their own population (low casts) and fighting each other, he would not have even made it. OneGuy 19:41, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

The opinions expressed by OneGuy seems to be biased. Exaggeration on both sides is possible. It could be that 30,000 muslim invaders might have killed 5000 residents near a temple. Ofcourse, it is also true that the areas targetted by Mahmud Ghazni eg. Somnath, Thaneshwar are piligrim centers and attract multitudes of devotees.

---

The article needs to be cleaned up. An attempt has been made to portray Mahmud Ghazni as nothing but a bandit but not an iconoclast. The very fact that many temples were destroyed and made as steps of mosques point to the fact that Mahmud Ghazni was a zealot too.

Abhijna

---

[edit] Article changes from third paragraph

Editing parts of the article especially the third paragraph, in which the content becomes incredibly biased towards Ghazni and gives Ghazni the image of an evil religious zeal, which he was not.

Alexeifjodor before you revert my edits next time, I suggest you look at the bias being put into the article by others.

Ghazni did indeed establish good government and yes he did fight against many hindu armies. The fact that the hindus lost the many battles does NOT mean that this man should be portrayed as a murderer! And yes some temples were destroyed in the lines of battle, but he did not cause this out of religious zeal.

Similarly his armies were outnumbered by 8 to 1 by the Hindu armies so it is not likely that he went around destroying temples. He won every battle and set up government in the region and transformed it into a centre of culture and art.

Please document your reasons for deleting information. For example, if you think he didn't destroy the temples out of religious zeal, then explain your reasons for thinking so and cite sources - don't just delete the whole thing about temple destruction. --Alexeifjodor 00:13, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

The recent edits to this article go so far in trying to whitewash Mahmud that they distort history. Mahmud's raids on Hindu targets and his destruction of Hindu temples are portrayed as incedental to his ambition to "create a fairly governed empire in the subcontinent;" the destruction of 'several' Hindu temples is presented as "a tactic used by Ghazni to weaken holds of enemy regions in early India.". Every credible historian has noted that the majority of Mahmud's raids into India were not directed at establishing just and stable governance, but were targeted to temple towns with lots of mobile wealth. The account of Mahmud's raids was eliminated from the article, and any criticism of Mahmud's destruction is portrayed as sour grapes, "because of their [Hindus'] losses on the battlefield".

Previous and better-balanced versions of the article noted his capable administration in the Muslim parts of the empire, and his patronage of the arts and culture in the capital of Ghazni. But the widespread and deliberate destruction he wreaked in Hindu India is a part of the historical record that should not be suppressed. Mahmud is a very different character from later conquerors like Babur and Akbar. Distorting history to present him as a humane ruler of India is POV pushing which ignores the facts of his Indian campaigns. Tom Radulovich 20:06, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

______

Tom, check my recent edits to the article. I think that it is as least controversial as it can get without referring to Mahmud as figure that serves the opinion of either side. I edited some mistakes that you left in repeating paragraphs of the article and other stuff. Feel free to add stuff as long as it is not bias quoted from.

By the way, I was not "whitewashing" history, I was simply stating the truth. The fact that he has a POSITIVE influence in shaping India should not be overlooked as he did indeed establish good government and the act of "destroying" temples was more a battle tactic than one to accumulate wealth.

Probably the one additon by User:Admin001 / User:67.71.62.220 / User:70.50.117.237 that didn't seem part of a pov-pushing (with deletions) campaign was copy and paste (but an otherwise maybe interesting ancectode) from www.afghan-network.net/Rulers/mahmud-ghazni.html. --Alexeifjodor 20:55, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
The account of the battle did seem an interesting addition, but it probably should not be used without permission, unless User:Admin001 was the author. The assertions about Mahmud's "POSITIVE" influence on Indian history, his establishment of good government, and that his attacks on temples were a battle tactic incidental to military aims are quite dubious. The attack on Somnath, for example, had no obvious military objective; it was not Gujarat's capital (Anhilwara was) nor did it command a strategic location. Nor was the objective of the raid a "good government" one; Mahmud didn't intend to set up an administration, good or otherwise, over the city; he left it in ruins. Tom Radulovich 23:44, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Changing title to "Mahmud of Ghazna"

It seems to me that his conventional title is "of Ghazna" or "Ghaznavi," both referring to the older form of the city's name, in use during his reign. "Ghazni" seems to be a more recent spelling. Haiduc 01:42, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

User 'Haiduc' seems to have continously vandalizing this page by adding false allegations about Mahmud Ghazvavi. Siddiqui 19:31, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. Siddiqui, try to understand Haiduc. He's not trying to denigrate Mahmud. He just has a (very) different attitude to Mahmud's love for the young man. Personally I think he goes too far. But he's not an enemy of Mahmud's reputation. PiCo 10:20, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent Changes by 72.141.1.98

  • Historical Controversies Section: Please discuss before making any changes, it is work in progress and can be improved and this is the section where the POV is most likely to occur therefore we need to work to build concensus.
  • Dhimmi = payer of Jizya = tribute, poll tax can insert a reference to Jizya here, and protected (protected from what etc. and other details should be in the dhimmi article).
  • Kashmir: Feel free to correct the information.
  • Utbi Quotes: Don't really belong here all they do is justify the iconoclast label and the raider of temples and take up too much space to make the point. The one about slaves can be worked but please try to insert it and frame it a little better. Quotes should be used to illustrate a point as a reference for a claim not stand on their own. Also please be more specific on where the quotes can be found in the book rather than a generic reference to the entire book.
  • Utbi Reference: Need a better reference, where can some one access it, which printing, whose translation etc.

--Tigeroo 04:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

someone commented below-----

      • have replaced the Islamoiphobic content posted by non-Muslims from Hindutva extremist websites, with the authentic history from MSN Encarta and Britannica Encyclopaedia-------------

There is no question about Mahmud's motives about his Indian campaigns for any student of history. The above mentioned sources(i.e MSN or Britannica)as well as official sources in India either for the lack of space or fearing negative and emotional reactions(some of the details a very gruesome) tend to omit details and thus, appear to sanitize Mahmud's campaigns. Most independent historians after decades of research especially in the west, agree that his campaigns involved a great deal of cruelty and religious zeal(seen time and again in followers of different religions and not limited to any particular religion). The most credible source on this, Al utbi, Mahmud's secretary and royal historian who accompanied him on his campaigns describes everything in detail while Ferishta and others also mention these events. If this article is to have any shred of credibility it should include the first person account of Al-Utbi. Efforts like this to sanitize history play right into the hands of fundamentalists like the Hindutva forces who take any omissions or outright denial as silent affirmation of the actions of historical figures. The accounts posted on Hidutva websites are ditto lifted from the translation of Tarikh-e- Yamini(by Al Utbi) and Ferishta's works by neutral Historians in the Last century agreed upon after deliberations and conferences on five continents. There is nothing new about these accounts as any student of history would know, they are known to historians the world over, the efforts to omit these are what Hindutva forces are playing politics with.

then there is this arguement---

"They didn't have nuclear bombs or F-16's in those days. How on earth can a small raid by a few thousand soldiers armed with only swords kill 50,000 Hindus just in one temple? Why didn't these 50,000 men spit on them? That would have drowned the killers."

Yes the figure of 50,000 killed at the sea side temple at Somanth is quoted by the above mentioned Muslim historians of the time. They are described as defenders gathered from the countryside on foot wave after wave trying to stop Mahmud and his army from entering the temple. The reason why Mahmud was so successful in inflicting heavy casualities in the enemy ranks was the use of central asian technique of warfare where horsemen(fewer in number) would ride directly into the opposing army columns that were on foot and inflict far greater casualities than the conventional warfare(described in greater detail in the account of the battle with shahi king Jaipal).

"He won every battle and set up government in the region and transformed it into a centre of culture and art" ----Alexeifjodor

What centres of culture and art did Mahmud set up in India??? the list of ones he destroyed is very long indeed. He didn't even intend to govern the area and only exacted an annual tribute from the areas he raided. There were already established governments and empires in the areas he conquered that were great patrons of art for example, In Mahmud's words(al utbi, ferishta) "the beauty of the temple at Mathura was beyond description". Alexeifjodor doesn't have the slightest idea of this chapter of history. If you intend to idiolize a Muslim historical figure for good governance and the spread of Islamic arts and culture, there are plenty of them but Mahmud is a very poor example.

Also, how does publishing accurate accounts of the actions of a historical figure like Mahmud(right or wrong) constitute Islamophobia??? Mahmud was not an Islamic religious figure. His actions were certainly not sanctioned as a religious war by any Islamic religious authority of the time. Mahmud did not represent millions of muslim at the time in the same way as fundamentalists donot represent over one billion muslims today and Bush doesn't represent all christians

For more on this read the book India: A histroy by british writer and historian John Keay, this is the latest source(with a detailed account of Mahmud's campaigns citing different sources) i could find that is easily available to the general public, the rest are all either decades old(out of print)or are from partisan sources in India and Pakistan, most others are only availabe to academics and researchers at various Universties and other institutions. Any more neutral sources posted here will be higly appreciated.

Peace

It's a very old argument that was settled and the article has been adapted since to include the impact mentioned by you. This is a constant theme of edits to the page POV pushing and highlight. Please sign your comments that dates them as well and gives an indicator of when the debate dates from.

Also please post any new debates at the bottome of the page.--Tigeroo 11:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


Isn't it true that the quotes from Tarikh-e-yamini(a historical document containig first person accounts of Al-Utbi Mahmud's secretary who accompanied him during his campaigns to India)have been deleted by people who are pushing their POV of depicting Mahmud as a hero. Why have the details described by Utbi and Ferishta been omitted??? Its not just the "Hindutva" forces that pay attention to such distortion of history. Any student of history would be troubled by attempts like this to sanitize histroy. Neutral Historians the world over have paid attention to the brutal nature of his campaigns. "hindutva" forces have just come on the scene during the last decade, don't hide behind the fact that hindutva forces are using this denial by official sources in some countries as a political weapon(and people like you are helping them achieve this end by omitting these facts). Deleting quotes from a historical document and writing your own comments under "controversies" if thats not pushing your POV then what is??? your comments about it make your motives about pushing you POV very clear. How does it settle the arguement when the article omits well-documented historical facts and ends up calling historical realities "controversial" why do the quotes of Al-Utbi not belong here??? is it a historical article or an attempt to glorify Mahmud. Tell history like it happened rather than picking bits and pieces that help your point of view and omiting facts agreed to by the historians the world over after decades of research and delibrations just because they contain facts that weakens your POV. Wikipedia must take note as the neutrality of this article is in question. 30, July 2006

  • Yes, Utbi quotes have been deleted, please refer to the itemized and specific reasons for this listed above.
  • As for Ferishta, please note the reference below as well as inline as examples and I have personally gone through it to include the information into the article. Please note how it was done an attempt has been made to keep the article concise, use citations and footnotes if necessary to support your support instead of dragging an immense long quote in. There is no attempt to disinclude historical facts.
  • I suppose POV being referred to in this instance is his brutality. I offer you to comparitively look through the accounts of all his wars and all of his opponents, and for that matter of wars in general in medeival history and put them in context. The controvesy is not over what happened, but over its context and both the historical importance and symbolisms currently attached to events from his life. Comparitively review other articles across wikipedia with reference to your "sanitizing" claim. We can work towards including them into the article appropriately.
  • As you can see in different regions distinctly different threads of his history have been emphasised or deemphazized and the section controversies has been rightly adjusted by other editors to Regional Attitudes which is more apt. He was neither a demon nor a saint, and his only "glory" was that of forging an empire, and such events are always drenched in blood and loot. If you define greatness of historical figures by such events then he was one, and if villany then he was one to.
  • Generally it's easier to deal with specific line items to improve this article. I find that the affect of Ghaznis conquests in India and their impact on the slave trade has not been mentioned, and am sure it will feed well with vision of desanitizing this piece. Plus please feel free to raise specific objections to where you feel he is unduly glorified and we can adjust it. Wiki is a collaborative effort so feel free to help.--Tigeroo 05:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Why are quotes from contemporary historical documents (i.e tarikh e yamini) being deleted repeatedly is that not POV pushing??? by people who cannot stand a quote that might provide a slightly negative picture, however true it maybe. No one is writing their own comments with the quotes they are from the original source and universally accepted translations.

you wrote.......

  • Utbi Quotes: Don't really belong here all they do is justify the iconoclast label and the raider of temples and take up too much space to make the point.

Why don't they belong here give a credible reason, it provides a glimpse of the conquests same way as some parts are an insight into the governance and arts etc. They are not inserted to make a point but to give an accurate account of history(good or bad) as it happened which this article currently lacks.

Why does everything that deviates from your POV has to go under Regional controversies and why does the name hindutva have to be invoked everytime. This is not an issue that is unique to hindutva forces it is an issue of distortion of history and what hindutva people say does not sway independent historians one bit, because it is these historians and academics that after painstaking research and years of delibrations and numerous conferences arrive at a universally accepted and complete version of history derived from historical sources. Read this article again everything negative has been ommitted or mentioned in comments about how different people percieve mahmud it is not a matter of perception but that of a view of history that is made one sided by ommiting historical version of events and trying to make them seem controversial by listing them under "Regional controversies" or attributing them to partisan sources like hindutva ppl.

What do other articles across wikipedia have to do with the sanitzing of this particular article. Also the zeal and brutality even in medieval context is not matched by any other conqurer and was mainly justified by mahmud as being in service of a certain ideology so it gives a true picture of the motivation and explanation of certain actions that seemed unnecessary from a military point of view during a conquest and that he was advised against by his nobles. Deleting these is classic sanitizing and POV pushing for which wikipedia is so well known. It certainly is not history its what you would like history to look like if you were the author. Now that could hardly be called an encyclopedia. This article as it is, is one of the most one sided and controversial historical articles on wikipedia and is in crying need for balance and some history not creating sections like "regional attitudes" and "controversies". What does these two have to do with history and why do they belong in a historical article anyway just insert historical facts and quotes that belong here not your comments on what you think is controversy there is not controversy about mahmud there never was for historians ppl on the extremes who are bent upon creating heroes and villains out of historical figures might think that way when they read certain parts of history but thankfully hisroty in this case is well documented and there for everyone to read and know so please save us from your line of thought and leave history as it is.

For better understanding see Primary sources and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources and Historiography to get a basic understanding of history and problems with Utbi, plus you will notice that while most of the material is actually based of Fersihta the article has avoided including the whole book as quotation to get the information across, simlary fawning and gloryfying quotations from those historians are also missing. If you can summarize it sufficiently it can easily be placed incorporated properly, I have even given you something directly to his brutality and Indian raids that has not been mentioned that you can place here, and if there is something you wish to add about his motivation go ahead. There is no sanitizing of history, medeival history is bloody across the board the difference is the attempt to make it out as something more or limited to Mahmud. He was bloody above average but that has been acknowledged, or misrepresentation by over emphasizing things and focusing on narrow sphere events vs. the overall picture. Hindutva is mentioned because it is a significant factor in the re-evaluation of his history in relation to his historical view, as can been seen not everyone agrees with that narrow focused a view as definition of the man, Iranian nationalists focus on a different section of his life and Pakistanis have found succour in a different aspect, but all of these just singular pieces of the larger whole. If you have sources please cite them and include them to help the article overcome deficiences that you see. It would help to know what has not been mentioned, that you want included, there is indeed a lot that not has been mentioned, this artcile is a brief attempting to summarize and capture an outline of history. There must be more than Utbi, that you can contribute if you see so many problems, you have not helped in identifying them or where he is glorified?? The only thing I can see that could be glory attributed to him is success in the political sphere and carving of an empire, but this is a fact and I don't think we have even used anything like great etc and delivered it quite matter of factly. Help we can work on things, if it is easier we can work with specific issues.--Tigeroo 10:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes i saw Wikipedia:Reliable_sources etc.

"Wikipedia articles may use primary sources only if they have been published by a reliable publisher e.g. trial transcripts published by a court stenographer, or historic documents that appear in edited collections" According to you Publishers of Johan keay's books and other such books on history are not reliable????? and that rule does not even apply here Utbi has been verified through modern research he is a historical source not a modern one that has to be verified everytime he is quoted the historians have agreed upon his being an important source on Mahmood for at least five decades now, Most notable historians that are involved in research discuss the authenticity of a source only once and after that it is authentic. Do not try to push POV by using a technicality that doesn't even apply here because it clearly states that primary sources may be used if they are part of "historic documents that appear in edited collections" or read this "In general, Wikipedia articles should not depend on primary sources but rather on "reliable secondary sources" who have made careful use of the primary-source material(in this case modern day historians who have established the authenticity through research, numerous discussions and conferences and have quoted extensively from the works of Utbi and ferishta etc.). No one has challenged Utbi's works it goes same for Ferishita, Abolfazl begyahi, Ferdowsi and all the historians that you have quoted as well. If people started ommiting everything without understanding what the guidelines actually say then this article will not exist, including everything attributed to other medieval historians that have been quoted here. They have all been verified and authenticated and quoted numerous times so this arguement doesn't hold and besides we are not using anything directly from Utbi etc. all the books citing them and other medieval historians have been written and published in modern times by independent historians after the authenticity of these sources had been verified at various points in time during the last century. Take a look at the history of the artile once again anything that deviated from a POV that is being pushed in the narrative has been ommited especially quotes fron utbi, ferishta, al bruni etc. while pushing a certain POV using the same above mentioned historians. So isn't this sanitizing ommiting quotes from same sources or similar sources that have been cited elsewhere in this article just because those particular quotes don't confirm to the POV being pushed i.e sanitizing Mahmud's life. Sept 4, 2006

I think you had gotten confused between reliable sources and primary sources, and then mixed them with a second issue of sanitizing etc. The essence is it is better to quote a historian who if familiar with the primary sources, because there are many and can be contradictory and therefore need indepth study to analysis to weight, contextualize and objectify. You can ofcourse use Qutbi himself if you lack this review of his work (Most historians agree that court historians are known for propoganda, so what can be adduced is that glorifying his military crackdown was good for his social standing), but the second issue is have you noticed the style of the article, there are no quotes included at all, Qutbi also has lots of other praises in his work but they are not included either just summarized. There is no blockage to mention things infact I have given you a leader to mention something which I am aware of but can't find a source for to include. I think what you are more interested in is detailing the bloodiness of war of those times to contrast it to todays concepts which is misrepresentation, he was bloody even for his time, but not in the manner you wish to paint it. Take a walk down the Mongol histories and invasions articles, these were bloodier than anything Ghazni did but even more so because they happenned on a large scale and at more places because of the greater success of the mongols. That however was norm of the times and so is rightly contextualized and not given undue weightage, but yes these things do deserve mention if merely to highlight what life was like during those historical periods.

Any rate the main objection to the Qutbi quotes was never about their exclusion and has been summarized many times reference them properly, contextualize them, summarize them, to allow them to sit smoothly into the article and so that we can pack more into it by taking up less space. This discussion is getting old, you want to insist that there is some blockage of your contribution, when it has been pointed out that you need to improve its quality and how this may be acheived as well.--Tigeroo 06:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mahmoud's birthplace

Some users in here claim that Mahmud was born in Ghazni (or that "it its belived by some" thatr he was born there), and attach two sources to this claim:

  • Britannica
  • Columbia Encyclopaedia

The truth is: neither of these 2 sources actually gives ANY remarks on Mahmud's birthplace. Here are direct quotes:

Britannica:

Mahmud (born 971; died April 30?, 1030, Ghazna), in full Yamin Al-daula Abu'l-qasim Mahmud Ibn Sebüktigin, sultan of the kingdom of Ghazna (998–1030), originally comprising modern Afghanistan and northeastern modern Iran but, through his conquests, eventually including northwestern India and most of Iran. He transformed his capital, Ghazna, into a cultural centre rivalling Baghdad. ... [1]

Columbia Encyclopaedia:

Mahmud of Ghazna (mämOOd', gŭz'na) [key], 971?–1030, Afghan emperor and conqueror. He defeated (c.999) his elder brother to gain control of Khorasan (in Iran) and of Afghanistan. In his raids against the states of N India, Mahmud, a staunch Muslim, destroyed Hindu temples, forced conversions to Islam, and carried off booty and slaves. ... [2]

STOP using wrong quotes and sources! And STOP messing up the article. His birthplace is not known, and the place where he died (probably Ghaznai) should be mentioned in another part of the article, maybe at the "Political challenges and his death" section!

THANK YOU!

Tājik 13:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's repeat that again. Encyclopaedia Britannica quotes:

“ Mahmud (born 971; died April 30?, 1030, Ghazna), in full Yamin Al-daula Abu'l-qasim Mahmud Ibn Sebüktigin, sultan of the kingdom of Ghazna (998–1030), originally comprising modern Afghanistan and northeastern... [3] ”

According to Britannica's, it 100% confirms that Mahmud Ghaznavi was born and died in Ghazni, Afghanistan.

(born 971; died April 30?, 1030, Ghazna),

The above statement clearly means he was born in Ghazna (Ghazni) and he died in Ghazna. Notice that there is no "?" next to born 971;, as there is a "?" next to died April 30?, which means the day of his death is not confirm. If you think this means something else, then you need to put up a good argument rather then just denying facts about major Encyclopedias of the world.

The Columbia Encylopedia also explains that Mahmud was born in Afghanistan because he is labelled Afghan, as someone being born in what is now Afghanistan.

Columbia Encyclopedia states:

“ Mahmud of Ghazna (mämOOd', gŭz'na) [key], 971?–1030, Afghan emperor and conqueror. He defeated (c.999) his elder brother to gain control of Khorasan (in Iran) and of Afghanistan... [4] ”

This proves, with no doubt, that Mahmud was both born and died in Ghazana, which is the city of Ghazni in Afghanistan. Since Encyclopedia Britannica explained that he was born in Ghazni then it should also be stated in the introduction section of Mahmud on Wikiepedia. This will help readers who just want to know about his place of birth and death, without reading the entire article.--King of Spirits 16:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Britannica's "Ghazni" is a reference to the place where he died. His birthplace is NOT known. If he had been born in Ghazni, Britannica would have mentioned that (like in this article about Nizami; he was born and he died in Ganja - which is mentioned twice!).
As for Columbia: labeling him "Afghan" is most deffinitly wrong - Mahmud of Ghazni was neither an "Afghan" in ethnicity (which means "Pashtun") nor an Afghan in nationality (because the country "Afghanistan" was created 800 years later).
Tājik 16:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry bud, your wrong again. Only the Persian speakers of Afghanistan (which you are) call the ethnic Pashtun people as Afghans. This is not the case with the rest of the world, as we westerners call all the people of Afghanistan as Afghans. The Encyclopaedia Britannica clearly show that Mahmud was born in Ghazni. So it's you against Britannica. Until you can prove that he was born else where in the world, leave the birth/death info on the intro. --King of Spirits 16:23, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


The link you showed is this, Britannica:

born c. 1141, , Ganja, Seljuq empire [now Gyandzha, Azerbaijan] died 1209, Ganja

The reason for this is very simple, something was explained before the death-date and place of death was stated. It's not always the same case with every article on Britannica.--King of Spirits 16:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

King of Spirits (or NisarKand or Pashtun or whatever name you have on Wikipedia):
ALL scholarly sources - most of all the authoritative Encyclopaedia Iranica - use "Afghan" as synonym for "Pashtun", because that is the traditional and only correct meaning of the word.
This is even confirmed by traditional Pashto literature, as Pashto's most famous writer, Khushal Khan Khattak, explains in one of his most famous peoms:
“ Pull out your sword and slay any one,

That says Pashton and Afghan are not one.

Arabs know this and so do Romans,

Afghans are Pashtons, Pashtons are Afghans.

 ”
The quote is taken from the famous "The Passion of the Afghan" ("Afghan Poetry Of The 17th Century: Selections from the Poems of Khushal Khan Khattak", by C. Biddulph, London, 1890)
So, once again, your claims are all wrong!
As for Britannica: your try to explain your POV does not work, because Ganja was still part of the Seljuq Empire when Nizami died. If Mahmoud had been born in Ghazni, Britannica would have mentioned that directly in the article. This is not the case (as the comparison with the article "Nizami" has proven).
Tājik 16:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Going by your philosophy, if only Pashtuns are considered as Afghans then check this name ------> Yunus Qanuni and tell me if he is Afghan or not? It says that he is Afghan but he is not Pashtun. So how come he is called Afghan then? I'm sure there are million others like him, who are not Pashtuns but are called Afghans. The way you think is very funny. Don't accuse me to be other people, as many people in one house or one office use Wikipedia.--King of Spirits 17:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

First of all, Yonus Qanuni is half-Pashtun and half-Tajik, his mother being from Tajik. Besides that, this is the most stupid comparison ever. Because Yonus Qanuni is a contemporary politician from Afghanistan, while Sultan Mahmud of Ghazni as well as Khushal Khan Khattak lived centuries and decades before the creation of "Afghanistan".
You are deffinitly the same person as User:NisarKand and I have already reported you to admins. They will check your IP and then decide to either block you or not.
Tājik 17:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

This proves that you are not here to contribute to Wikipedia but here to fight with people. You are also showing that you are obsessed with someone by the name of User:NisarKand, and you should control your self. Now where does it say that Yunus Qanuni is half Pashtun and half Tajik?--King of Spirits 18:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

It absolutely does not matter what ethnic group Yonus Qanoni belongs to, because that's not matter of the discussion. The point is: Yonus Qanuni is called an "Afghan" because he is a citizen of the modern political entity known as Afghanistan. Sultan Mahmud of Ghazni lived 800 years before the creation of Afghanistan, and his own writers and book-keepers (for example al-Biruni) recorded Mahmud's fought with "Afghans and Rajputs", making it clear that Mahmud himself was NOT an Afghan (Pashtun).
Tājik 18:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

You use people's name as references but can't show what the books actually stated. Where are the records of those writers? So Afghans never fight one another? Didn't Afghans fight one another for over 10 years in the 1980s? That was a silly thing you stated. Besides, you need to argue with Encyclopedias about why putting Mahumud as Afghan. You are trying to take the discussion somewhere else, the information that you are removing is about him being born in the city of Ghazni, do not jump to Afghanistan as a nation not being created in that period of time. Ghazni or Ghazna did exist then and now, and that's where Mahmud was born. You want to conceal this in a way to make people assume he was born perhaps anywhere but Ghazni, Afghanistan. And you also are purposly removing the totally dispute tag so that nobody comes to join this discussion.--King of Spirits 18:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about?!?! So far, the Columbia Encyclopaedia is the only source calling him "Afghan". Every other, serious source correctly describes him as a Turk - because that's what he was: a descendant of Turkic generals from Khorasan.
His grandfather, Alptegin, was a bodyguard of the Samanid sultans in Balkh. His father, Sebüktegin, was a Qarluq slave from Central Asia who was freed by Alptegin. His mother was a Persian noble from Zaranj. The sources are already given in the article. It's only you who is claiming that "he was Afghan".
This is like saying that Ahmad Shah Durrani, the founder of modern Afghanistan, was actually a Pakistani, because he was born in Multan which is now located in Pakistan.
Stop pushing for POV and stop purposely misinterpreting Britannica's information. Mahmud's birthplace is not known ... and even IF it were known, it is not that important to mention it in the intro!
Tājik 18:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not arguing over Mahmud's heritage, perhaps he was Turk, Uzbek, Persian or other. I am arguing that he was born in Ghazna, which is now a city in Afghanistan by the name of Ghazni. About Ahmad Shah Durrani, it is not known if he was born in Multan, Kandahar or Herat. Where did you get the information that states Ahmad Shah was born in Multan (present-day Pakistan)?. Britannica has a "?" next to his birth-place. After reading, Mahmud's father lived in Ghazni so that should support the Britannica's claim of Mahmud being born in the came city or perhaps in Ghazni province. Only you say Mahmud's place is unknown, I read many Afghan related sites and they all indicate that he had to be born there because they all name him as Mahmud of Ghazni, which means someone from that city. Usually someone born in that city reieves such name, same as Mohammad of Ghor, meaning he was from Ghor, which is now in Afghanistan.--King of Spirits 18:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Ahmad Shah Abdali was born in Multan. Britannica has a question-mark next to the date "1722" [5], but not next to his birthplace. It usually argued whether he was born in 1722 or in 1723. His birthplace Multan in modern Pakistan is not disputed, which would make the founder of Afghanistan - according to your logic - a "Pakistani", 200 years before the creation of Pakistan.
"Mahmoud of Ghazni" is called that way, because he was the emperor of a large kingdom known as the "Sultanate of Ghazni". The Ghorids were called "Ghorids" because their empire was centered in the Ghor region. Their real name was "Shansabani", a powerful Tajik family once allied to the Samanids.
Tājik 19:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Calling him homosexual with NO REFERENCES?

If you are going to label such a major historical figure as a homosexual than you can't have a Gay and Lesbian association's web page as your reference for such a RIDICULOUS claim! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.54.218.111 (talk) 00:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)