Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:30, 2 October 2022

Template:Vital article

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Military / Royalty and Nobility This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the military biography work group (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility (assessed as Low-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Central Asia Low‑importance Muhammad of Ghor is part of WikiProject Central Asia, a project to improve all Central Asia-related articles. This includes but is not limited to Afghanistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Tajikistan, Tibet, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Xinjiang and Central Asian portions of Iran, Pakistan and Russia, region-specific topics, and anything else related to Central Asia. If you would like to help improve this and other Central Asia-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.Central AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject Central AsiaTemplate:WikiProject Central AsiaCentral Asia Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Iran This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iran, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Iran on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please join the project where you can contribute to the discussions and help with our open tasks.IranWikipedia:WikiProject IranTemplate:WikiProject IranIran ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Afghanistan This article is within the scope of WikiProject Afghanistan, a project to maintain and expand Afghanistan-related subjects on Misplaced Pages. 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.AfghanistanWikipedia:WikiProject AfghanistanTemplate:WikiProject AfghanistanAfghanistan ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. India: History High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Indian history workgroup (assessed as High-importance). This article was last assessed in May 2012. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Pakistan This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pakistan on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PakistanWikipedia:WikiProject PakistanTemplate:WikiProject PakistanPakistan ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Military history: Biography / Middle East / Medieval This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Military biography task force Middle Eastern military history task force Medieval warfare task force (c. 500 – c. 1500)

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Military history of Ray, Iran was copied or moved into Mu'izz al-Din with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

This article contains a translation of Ghiyath al-Din Muhammad from ca.wikipedia. (593272029 et seq.)

This article contains a translation of Muizz al-Din Muhàmmad from ca.wikipedia. (593272029 et seq.)

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2

Neutrality Of The Article

this article is totally bias and have no refrences given for any statement and there is not disussion for any such refrence. This article looks like a story written by some one who loves the article to be in his own way. --Sandeepsp4u (talk) 11:10, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The article clearly does need more work, but there are already 9 citations for specific statements, which is hardly no refrences given for any statement. As to neutrality, please state what is unneutral and why. It is not sufficient to say, if you can't see it ... If you cannot state the specific problem, it is difficult to fix it. While I don't think that the version in the Encyclopedia Iranica is without point of view problems, there are really not very many ultimate sources. --Bejnar (talk) 03:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I respect your views but the article must be open for change. There are lots of section missing in this article. There is no criticism section in this article as a big part of the world is having few negative points of Mommohad Ghor.--Sandeepsp4u (talk) 05:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

The article IS open for change... But first you need to point out the Biased and unreferenced statements... Adil your (talk) 20:02, 27 August 2009

Notwithstanding the the discussion on the historical inaccuracies in this article ( which I shall not delve into ), it is apparent that in the " Legacy section " there is only emphasis on the Islamic historical and Pakistani viewpoints on Ghori ( or Ghauri ) , whereas the fact that he is widely considered as a plundering fanatic in India is ignored ( conveniently perhaps) ....This makes one wonder about the neutrality of the article ...14.96.61.200 (talk) 19:12, 17 December 2014 (UTC)Konish Biswas , 00:42 18/12/14

"Mu'izz is revered by many Pakistanis as a Muslim hero who defeated the Hindu King Prithviraj Chauhan in the 2nd battle of Terain " . What about the Indian and Rajput viewpoint of that of an iconoclastic Islamic fanatic hell bent on destroying Hinduism ; and which deify Prithviraj 14.96.61.200 (talk) 19:27, 17 December 2014 (UTC)Konish BIswas ; 00:57 18/12/14

Photo in info box

I've added the image of Muhammad of Ghor in the info box but some vandal keeps removing it.--119.73.0.255 (talk) 14:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

RV

I have reverted edits by an anon IP, most likely of a banned user. Although the edits are sourced (Encarta), the provided source is too weak and unscholarly. It is also contradicting major scholarly references, such as Encyclopaedia Iranica (see here). Tajik (talk) 16:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Well I am really sorry to say this but I really find the edit by the IP stupid (in fact idiotic) as it claims that the real name of ghori is Muhammad OF Ghor... What in the name of God is this...??? Please stop this blind reverting and take time to read out the edits... I think Tajik did the right thing if the IP is a banned user... but then.... Minaret of Jam is in Herat.... So i guess it was also a blind revert... I think that both sides have valuable info but there has to be a consensus... so kindly stop pushing your own POV and reverting everyting that you don't agree with...Adil your (talk) 17:03, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Encyclopædia Britannica:

LINK

His place of death is Damiyak, India.

Encyclopædia Britannica:

LINK

I wish you stop making these blind reverts because you don't seem to know anything about the Ghurids or the history of Afghanistan.--119.73.2.146 (talk) 03:51, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Well I certainly know a lot more then you... After all you were the one who put his real name up as Muhammad OF Ghor... If people like you started editing wikipedia, one would find out that Alex Ferguson's real name is Sir Alex... Plz Stop pushing POV ...Adil your (talk) 06:15, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

• The citations that 119.73.2.146 uses to support the word "Afghan" in the lead sentence, do not use the word Afghan. I would think that that would be a problem. --Bejnar (talk) 06:06, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Columbia University:

LINK

It says "Afghan" conqueror because his birth place is Afghanistan and he conquered India. I'm not sure if this is confusing for some but the source is just trying to tell us that he was Afghan-born, so readers don't think he was Indian.--119.73.5.87 (talk) 10:55, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Any claim of Ghuris being "Afghan" is POV. Afghanistan as a country did not exist prior to 19th century. Earlier, the name was used for Pashtun areas in and around Waziristan, but NOT for Ghor. The IP - which is the IP of a banned user (User:Khampalak/User:Alishah85) - really has no knowledge of the subject. The sources he lists are neither scholarly nor reliable. He also does not understand that the Ghoris were leaders of Turkish slave soldiers (Mamluks) but NOT of Turkish origin. Contemporary writers, especially al-Biruni and al-'Utbi, clearly and consistently differentiate between "Afghans" (who were present in the Ghurid and Ghaznavid armies) and "Ghoris", who spoke a different language/dialect and resided in central Khorasan and not in on the Indian frontier, as "Afghans" did. The current version is totally POV. Tajik (talk) 13:01, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Ferishta, a historian in India during the 1500s wrote:

LINK

Babur wrote in 1525 AD:

LINK

The above 2 quoted statments from 1500s are proof that Afghanistan did in fact exist prior to the 19th century. Notice that it clearly says all the people living in ("Ghur" means mountain in the Pashto language) were Afghans. The very word "Ghurids" means mountain people or people from the mountains. In the Persian language, however, "koh" means "mountain" and Kohistan means mountainous region. Why didn't the Ghurids call themselves Kohistanis or Kohs? The Ghurids were born in Afghanistan and there did exist people all around this region known as Afghans. Below is mention of "Afghans" in 982 AD, which is 300 years before Ghurid period and underneath that is another mention of "Afghans" in 1333 AD, which is less than 100 years after the Ghurids period.

Willem Vogelsang, The Afghans, Edition: illustrated Published by Wiley-Blackwell, 2002, Page 18, ISBN 0631198415, 9780631198413

Ibn Battuta in 1333 states:

Ibn Battuta, Travels in Asia and Africa, 1325-1354, ed. by Sir H. A. Rosskeen Gibb, Routledge Chapman & Hall, 2004, p. 180 (extract)

It's really hard to deny these facts. We don't need to say Turkish origin we can just say Turkish stock. Al-Biruni was not God or a Prophet, or a saint or an Imam, etc. He was just a historian who knew how to read and write stories. 1,000 years ago the Afghans didn't carry national ID cards with the name "Afghan" stamped on it, and if they did there isn't any proof. Even until today they have no national ID cards with the name Afghan on it. This doesn't mean we can't call them by their correct name Afghans. Tajik I know you are a POV pusher but then you go around calling others who are neutral as POV pushers. I'm just asking you to stop this because you're wasting time on things you cannot win.--119.73.4.252 (talk) 15:20, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

How do these quotes prove your point?! (Keeping out the fact that you have no understanding of modern political countries which are solely based on post-Napoleonic policies and ideas). Ferishta is talking of "Kabulistan", the area in and around Kabul, or to be precise (from his point of view): the border areas between Khurasan and India. There is no reference to Ghur, and most of all: Ferishta lived more than 400 years after the Ghurids. Babur actually confirms my point: that Afghanistan as a country did not exist, and that it was a loosely defined name for Pashtun-dominated areas in the south of Kabul. Again: Babur lived 400+ years AFTER the Ghurids. The facts are that CONTEMPORARY WRITERS, such as al-Biruni and al-Utbi, CLEARLY and CONSISTENTLY differentiate between "Afghans" (=Pashtuns) and "Ghoris". Go and read the definition of WP:POV and WP:OR. And read some REAL books, written by REAL experts, such as Andre Wink, professor at the University of Wisconsin and specialized on Indo-Islamic history. He, too, disproves your false claims: . Tajik (talk) 15:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Everything you say here is POV, Ferishta is talking about a wide area of land called "Afghanistan". Ibn Battuta didn't mention any Kabulistan when he visited in 1333 approximately 200 years before Ferishta. Khurasan is refering to Herat area and from there to India, all that land in between was "Afghanistan" (land of the Afghans) and Ghor was not part of Khurasan. Anyway, I've shown clear proofs. Give others a chance to see what they have to say, I'm tired of discussing this with you because you're not agreeing to the truth. May Allah help you to come to the true path.--119.73.4.252 (talk) 16:21, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Al-Beruni was no God... What sort of an argument is that...??? I think that if you don't have a counter reference, then you should accept the refs provided by Tajik... And stop pushing your own POV... May Allah give hidaya to all...Adil your (talk) 10:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Everytime you come here and leave a meaningless comment an image of this or this comes to my mind licking daal mash from a street in Pakistan.

Ferishta in 1500s states:

LINK

The above is the ultimate proof that Muhammad of Ghor (Mu'izzu-d dín) was in deed an ethnic Afghan (Pashtun), his father belonged to the famous Pashtun Suri tribe. This Tajik guy said "Afghanistan" didn't exist as a country before the 19th century... hahaha... I've proven him wrong. Pakistan didn't exist before 1947, Iran didn't exist before 1935, but Afghanistan did. I know this naturally trouble Iranis and Pakis. I'm wondering why is it only you Shia editors on to me?--119.73.2.86 (talk) 09:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Dear banned user, it is only your WP:OR that equates the surname "Suri" with the Pashtun tribal name "Suri". As I have told you before, it's just a name (meaning "the red one") and it is part of the wider Iranian vocabulary, found from Kurdish over Persian to Pashto. Among the Ghurids, only one single person had that name (and the name appeared in the extended name of his son, according to the rules of Arabic --> Nasb). Your allegation that the legendary "Amir Kror Suri" (whose existence is disputed, and is not accepted by scholars) was the same as the "Amir Suri" of the Ghurid era or that he was related to that one Ghurid prince is just POV. Most of all, because "Amir Kror Suri" is a pure fabrication of Abdul Hai Habibi who altered and falsified history for his Pata Khazana. The legend of "Amir Kror Suri" is solely based on the Pata Khazana which has been proved to be forgery. A similarity of names does not prove anything. That's the reason why Hanns Ludin, despite having the same name as the Pashtun tribe "Ludin", had absolutely nothing to do with Pashtuns, Pashtun history, Pashtun tribes, or Afghanistan. Tajik (talk) 17:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not banned, I got over a million dollars in a bank account which allows me to get visa to any place in the world. I'm not here to convince you because you don't accept the truth. It's you're POV vs. the 13th century historian Juzjani, 16th century historian Ferishta plus the 42 million Pashtuns who all claim that Ghurids were Suri (Pashtuns). If Misplaced Pages article on Ghurids include this information about them being of Pashtun stock or you remove it and place it with your POV that they were of Tajik stock... it wouldn't matter at all. How many Pashtuns do you think read this "English" version of Misplaced Pages or rely on the information from it? By you misleading readers with the false Tajik claim you are not harming Pashtuns but your own Tajik race because these Ghurids were destroyers of cities and wild killer. About Amir Suri, Juzani explained who he was in his 13th century work. The Pashtun poets in modern times are talking of the same person and how is that a forgery? The reason why you Persians (Parsibaans) call it foregery is because it doesn't agree with your false stories. You Parsibaans are those who believe that Ayatollah Khomeini was son of Allah and that your 12 Imams are infallable. Anyway, according to Pashtuns, the last name or surname "Suri" comes from the word "Sur" or "Soor" (means Red in the Pashto language) and it was something that the Suri Pashtuns highly praised as their tribal symbol. Something like the major gang known in America as the Bloods. The reason why I have no respect for your POVs is because you heavily depend on western historians, who have very limited knowledge on the history of Afghanistan. They only know about the major events, they know very little about the details.--119.73.0.57 (talk) 09:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Why don´t you tell that story to your Ana Khishtakbaaz? She will surely tell ya who Ghuris, Suris and Shuris were or not. http://www.nps.edu/programs/ccs/Docs/Tribal%20Trees/Tajik.pdf . Such a Pushtun tribe, called as Suri does not exist. It´s a fantasy made by Pushtun nationalists to vandalize on Misplaced Pages. Of course, Pushtuns have right to claim on Suris, but only as descandnats of their Turko-Mongolian slaves and not as their direct descandants. It was a common tradition among many slaves and Turks to use the names of their leaders as their mythological founder. There are among the Turkmens two tribes with the name Sur and Suri. So, whom of them are related to your Suri ancestors?

http://www.nps.edu/programs/ccs/Docs/Tribal%20Trees/Tajik.pdf --188.97.72.87 (talk) 13:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Doodoo-man (a.k.a. Tajik), everyone in Afghanistan are saying that they were not Tajeeks, even your khar-tajik professors say this. This is why you can't find a single evidence other than that one person who is only assuming and he clearly states that he has no knowledge about their ethnicity. These Ghurids were uncivilized warlords who burnt cities and since you're so much obessessed with these barbarians then I'll let you have them, so go and describe them as Tajiks. If you go to Afghanistan and tell teachers that they were Tajiks you'll get slaps across the face and laughed at. Sur in Pashto means red, if they were Tajiks or khar-koss farsibans then surely they would've used lal for red. Suri Pashtoons don't exist today because they now go by the name Kakar.

hahaha Afkooni, kussmadarkhel, try it better. Suri self is even Persian, kusstezan Pashitun. In Pashtu, red is wrona. Kosmadar--88.69.9.31 (talk) 18:10, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

RV

I have reverted the latest edits by User:Nageshvkl because the section he added was a) unencyclopedic and b) unimportant. It also contained many spelling mistakes etc. Tajik (talk) 18:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

==Raso myth==)GHORI WAS KILLED BY PRATHVI RAJ

Shahabuddin Muhammad Ghauri, not "Muhammad of Ghor"

He is widely known by his proper name i.e. "Shahabuddin Muhammad Ghauri", and not as "Muhammad of Ghor". Hence the page move. Poloplayers (talk) 12:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC) He is traditionally, i.e. print sources, known in English as "Muhammad of Ghor". --Bejnar (talk) 23:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

"Ghauri", not "Ghori"

Google is a good indicator of usage. Please note the following hits for "Ghauri" and "Ghori" respectively:

Results 1 - 10 of about 46,600 for Shahabuddin Muhammad Ghauri. (0.09 seconds)

Results 1 - 10 of about 8,370 for Shahabuddin Muhammad Ghori. (0.10 seconds)

Results 1 - 10 of about 366,000 for Ghauri. (0.44 seconds)

Results 1 - 10 of about 218,000 for Ghori. (0.06 seconds)

Also, "Ghauri" is closer to the actual pronunciation than "Ghori".

Poloplayers (talk) 10:01, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Your numbers are wrong. Here are the correct results:

• Shahabuddin Muhammad Ghauri 638 hits link
• Shahabuddin Muhammad Ghori 1.250 hits link

The results for "Ghori" and "Ghauri" are not useful, because they also contain links to sites that have nothing to do with the historical Ghurids (<-- the most common spelling in English and used in Encyclopaedia Britannica, Encyclopaedia of Islam, and Encyclopaedia Iranica!). However, even then "Ghurid" is the most common spelling:

• Ghurids 29.500 hits link
• Ghaurids 619 hits link
• Ghorids 15.900 hits link

I frankly ask you to revert your move, otherwise I will have to report you to an admin. Tajik (talk) 10:47, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

First of all, those figures are from Google. I'm talking about "Shahabuddin Muhammad Ghauri" and "Shahabuddin Muhammad Ghori" respectively. Please type the same and see for yourself. Secondly, you are the one who moved an existing page, which I undid. Thirdly, intead of threatening to report me to an admin, which I also have to right to do vis-a-vis your actions, we should try to have a civilized discussion (this is what this page is for and that is the spirit of Misplaced Pages). I am open to reason as should you. Poloplayers (talk) 12:47, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I already did, see the numbers above. I specified the search by putting the name in quotation marks. See the links above. That means: your numbers are still wrong, and you are rejecting the leading English encyclopedias. Tajik (talk) 12:57, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I just did it with the inverted commas and I got the following:

Results 1 - 10 of about 98 for "Shahabuddin Muhammad Ghori". (0.09 seconds)

Results 1 - 10 of about 641 for "Shahabuddin Muhammad Ghauri". (0.09 seconds)

Please recheck. Poloplayers (talk) 13:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Please psot the links of your searches the way I have done above, so everyone can check it. Tajik (talk) 13:14, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Google Search Result Links:

"Shahabuddin Muhammad Ghori":

"Shahabuddin Muhammad Ghauri":

Poloplayers (talk) 13:23, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

The links you have posted do not support your view. In fact, they are contradicting your edits. Tajik (talk) 13:51, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Suprisingly, I was getting 98 for ...Ghori and now I'm getting 1,250 for ...Ghori. When I went on your links, I was also getting 98 at the time. You will see that it fluctuates from 98 to 1,250 and to 98 again depending on the time you search. I concede to the higher figure though. Poloplayers (talk) 14:04, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Please guys! Muhammad of Ghor was from Afghanistan, a Persian-speaking dynasty. The true pronunciation is Ghor غور. JavadMohammadi14 (talk) 12:03, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Names

Please be consistent in the use of references to Ghori. Either he should be called "Ghori" throughout the article or "Shahabuddin". "Shahabuddin Muhammad" is too long. Also, since the article spells "Muhammad" the same spelling should be adopted in the article and not "Mohammad". For those who argue that there were many people who were called Ghori, well, the world only knows one - Shahabuddin Muhammad Ghori. It is uncomfortable to read the entire name. So in accordance with accepted standard, the surname or "Ghori" should be used in the rest of the article since everyone knows that we are referring to Shahabuddin Muhammad and not any other Ghori. Poloplayers (talk) 16:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

"Ghori" is a general designation of all Ghorid rulers. It's not a title. The proper name is, for example, Muhammad. His titles are Mu'izzuddin and Shahabuddin. I suggest using either Shahabuddin or Mu'izzuddin instead of simple "Ghori". In the article, the name of several other Ghorid rulers have been mentioned, including Ghiyasuddin Ghori, Ala'uddin Ghori and Qutbuddin Ghori. In[REDACTED] we should be as precise as we can be. Using a general title which is used for several other persons of the same family is not appropriate. All the scholarly sources use the proper titles. For example in Encyclopaedia Britannica, it uses Muʿizz-ud-Dīn. Encyclopaedia Iranica also uses Moʿezz-al-Dīn. Ariana (talk) 16:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

And by the way, the world knows many Ghoris. (Ala'uddin Ghori is as famous as Shahabuddin for founding the dynasty and for burning the city of Ghazna.) That's why I am insisting on using a "proper" title. Ariana (talk) 16:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok. I take your point. Can we agree on "Shahabuddin Ghori" throughout the article? This would be in the same sequence as Ghiyasuddin Ghori, Ala'uddin Ghori and Qutbuddin Ghori. Poloplayers (talk) 16:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, even solely "Shahabuddin" can be enough. Thank you. Ariana (talk) 17:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

List of referenced content deleted from this article

• User 117.207.185.74 deletes an entire section containing cited content on Assisination ,for unexplained reasons

References

Prithviraj Raso: literature

The story of the blind Prithviraj and his revenge on Muhammad of Ghor originates in the epic poem "Prithviraj Raso". See citations in article. It is is basically an epic about the valour of Prithviraj, with Muhammad of Ghor as the villain. I do not think that it is necessary to recite the elaborate story in this article, as that function really belongs to the Prithviraj Raso article. However, despite the existing research of numerous scholars (see above the section References which shows the references removed along with the history of the last days of Muhammad of Ghor and his assassination) editors, in understandable ignorance, keep removing the historical part and replacing it with the literary. In August 2009, after years of wrangling it was decided to delete the story completely, see Talk:Muhammad_of_Ghor/Archive_1 and view the long history of primarily IP edits espousing the literary version. It seems that that was not an adequate solution. So I have retitled the section "Literature" and provided what are, I hope, enough citations to "cool the jets" of those editors whose cultural background includes the "Prithviraj Raso", but not the history. I do think that a trimming of the recitation part of the section would be in order. It possibly could be appropriate to have added a concluding paragraph on the effect of the story, as it relates to Muhammad of Ghor. --Bejnar (talk) 17:54, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Ghori-ghor.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Ghori-ghor.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Misplaced Pages files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:15, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Jat Khokhars?

The present day Khokhars of Jhelum call themselves Rajputs, and use the title of "Raja". Can nationalist editors please stop putting in unspecified claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.65.60 (talk) 12:26, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Reliable sources compared to blogs, opinions, etc.

Muhammad of Ghor per Encyclopaedia of Islam was not captured at the 1st battle of Tarain.

• "In the winter of 586-7/1190-1 he invaded the Cawhan kingdom of Dihl! and captured Bhatinda, but the Radja, Prithw! Radj, marched against him and defeated him at Tarawr! near Karnal. He was wounded, but escaped, and in 588/1191 returned to India, defeated and slew Prithw! Radj at Tarawri, captured Hans!, Samana, Guhram and other fortresses, and plundered Adjmer." --MUHAMMAD B. SAM Mu'izz AL-DIN, T.W. HAIG, Encyclopaedia of Islam, Vol. VII, ed. C.E.Bosworth, E.van Donzel, W.P. Heinrichs and C. Pellat, (Brill, 1993), 409.
  

Also, he was not killed by Prithviraj Chauhan.

• "In Rabl< I 602/October 1205, he marched from Ghazm for India and, with the help of Kutb al-Dln Aybak, defeated the Khokars, but on returning towards Ghazm was assassinated in Shacban 603/March 1206 on the bank of the Indus, either by Ismaclli heretics or by some Khokars. He was succeeded in Ghur by his nephew Mahmud, son of Ghiyath al-Dln, but the viceroys of the provinces, Aybak in Dihll, Kabaca in Multan, Tadj al-Dln Yildiz in Kirman and Ildigiz in Ghaznl became independent." --MUHAMMAD B. SAM Mu'izz AL-DIN, T.W. HAIG, Encyclopaedia of Islam, Vol. VII, ed. C.E.Bosworth, E.van Donzel, W.P. Heinrichs and C. Pellat, (Brill, 1993), 410. --Kansas Bear (talk) 13:37, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Grave

Ab IP editor deleted the following:

This is described in the article Prithviraj Raso. Even today Afghans vent their anger by stabbing on the grave of Prithviraj Chauhan, as according to them, Prithviraj had killed Mu'izz. <ref>"http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_1-8-2005_pg4_20"</ref><ref>"http://hindu.com/2000/09/26/stories/14262186.htm"</ref> Sher Singh Rana, a member of Rajput community, visited Afghanistan to trace the grave of Prithviraj Chauhan. He dug Chauhan's "grave" and collected sand from it. This incident created sensation in Indian news and public media – as he said he did it to get back India's pride & respect.<ref></ref><ref>[http://hindu.com/2006/04/26/stories/2006042620491700.htm The Hindu : National : Phoolan murder accused held again</ref>

I am not sure of the pros and cons of including/excluding this. --Bejnar (talk) 17:06, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

The grave of Sultan Shahabuddin Ghori is in Ghazni Afghanistan not Pakistan. Read: Tabaqat-i-Nasiri, Raverty translation, pub. year 1873. p.492: "when they despatched the bier of Sultan Muizuddin from the halting-place of Dam-yak towards Ghaznin ..." Then in p.493: "When the Sultan bier reached Ghaznin, two days after ..." Also look at the footnotes: "The bier then conveyed to Ghaznin, and the corpse of the Sultan was interred in the Madrasah which he founded in the name of his daughter, and his only child." Also look at Tajul-Ma'asir: "و صندوق شهریار روی زمین به حضرت غزنین نقل و در مدرسه حره، که در سرای فنا بر طریقت والمحصنت من النساء رفته بود و بر سیرت قانتات تایبات بر خاک محتجب شده، دفن کرده آمد..." Also read Tarikh-i-Firishta: القصه، بسیت و دوم شهر شعبان، محفه سلطان شهاب الدین را به غزنین رسانیده در حظیره‌ای که برای دختر خود ساخته بود دفن نمودند" The History of the Rise of the Mohamedan Power In India or translation of Tarikh-i-Firishta by John Briggs Vol. 1 has said in p. 106: "He attended the funeral to Ghizney, where the king was buried, on the 22nd Shaban AH 602 (April 3, 1206), in a new vault which had been built for his daughter. JavadMohammadi14 (talk) 12:19, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Also read this article: https://mundigak.com/fa/2020/06/17/%D8%B4%D8%A7%D9%87-%D9%85%D8%AD%D9%85%D9%88%D8%AF-%D9%85%D8%AD%D9%85%D9%88%D8%AF-%D9%82%D8%A8%D8%B1-%D9%87%D8%A7%DB%8C-%D8%B3%D9%84%D8%A7%D8%B7%DB%8C%D9%86-%D9%88-%D8%B4%D8%A7%D9%87%D8%A7%D9%86-%D8%BA/ JavadMohammadi14 (talk) 12:22, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: consensus to move the page, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 03:17, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Mu'izz al-Din Muhammad → Muhammad of Ghor – more usual name in English. On 30 January 2014‎ HistoryofIran moved the page from Muhammad of Ghor to Mu'izz al-Din without discussion. Again on 19 February 2014‎ HistoryofIran moved the page from Mu'izz al-Din to Mu'izz al-Din Muhammad without discussion. There was minimal discussion here of the title in 2010, between Shahabuddin Muhammad Ghauri and Muhammad of Ghor. The Encyclopedia Britannica acknowledges that he is not commonly known as Mu'izz al-Din. see quote above, under RV. Bejnar (talk) 20:44, 10 September 2014 (UTC) --Bejnar (talk) 20:44, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose: The Encyclopedia Britannica is not reliable, and the name Mu'izz al-Din Muhammad is more often used, especially in major sources. --Mossadegh-e Mihan-dust (talk) 20:52, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

That is not what I have found. Most of the reliable sources seem to use some variant of "Muhammad of Ghor", the major exception seems to be the Encyclopedia of Islam and scholars associated with it. A quick search in GoogleBooks pulled up six times as many hits for "Muhammad of Ghor" as opposed to "Mu'izz al-Din Muhammad". GoogleScholar called up 114 hits for "Muhammad of Ghor" compared to only fifty for "Mu'izz al-Din Muhammad". As W. W. Hunter says in his book The Indian Empire: Its People, History and Products, page 275 the Ghorian prince Shahab-ud-din, better known as Muhammad of Ghor,. --Bejnar (talk) 21:45, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

The Encyclopedia of Islam being the only major exception? what about these important and major sources which are mostly relied on these Ghurid-related articles? .

Exactly. --Mossadegh-e Mihan-dust (talk) 22:03, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support - i would prefer Mohammed of Ghor, but the inclusion of "of Ghor" matters more than the spelling of "Mohammed". It is his most common name in English and more clearly established his connection to the Ghorid dynasty. Bobby Martnen (talk) 00:22, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

• • Remember what i wrote up above.. --Mossadegh-e Mihan-dust (talk) 17:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support He's vastly more often known by "of Ghor", including in assuredly hundreds of Indian historical works and textbooks, so there would be an even greater—an overwhelming—bias toward that name if Google Books contained every single book in English. —innotata 00:15, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

His birth name

I'm having doubt he was given the laqab "Shihab ad-Din" when he was born. He is defiantly born as Muhammad.Alexis Ivanov (talk) 16:45, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

It's true pronunciation is Shahab ad-Din شهاب الدین. It was a Persian name not an Urdu. JavadMohammadi14 (talk) 12:01, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Muhammad of Ghor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090221000011/http://www.amritworld.com:80/main/muslim_rule_in_india/slave_dynasty/ to http://www.amritworld.com/main/muslim_rule_in_india/slave_dynasty/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:58, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Muhammad of Ghor. 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/20090815193620/http://www.iranica.com/newsite/articles/v10f6/v10f608.html to http://www.iranica.com/newsite/articles/v10f6/v10f608.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:21, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Result of first battle of Tarain

The source (Tucker) mentioned in the wiki page says that Ghurid army retreated from battlefield after ghori was wounded and prithviraj was deemed victorious. While the reality was that Ghori was wounded and about to fall off his horse when he was saved by a Khilji horseman, rescued to safety. His army was routed and fled the field not "just retreated". And also why say "deemed" victory? It was a complete victory of Chauhan and complete rout for Ghori. I am suggesting edit in the article which mention "Ghori wounded, saved by a khaji, taken to safety, his army routed and fled".

Here are some reputed citations, I am providing 5 sources by reputed historians with the concerning content and page number.

1. History of Medieval India by Satish Chandra, Pg 69.:- In the battle that was fought at Tarain in 1191, the ghurid forces were completely routed, Muizzuddin Muhammad's life being saved by a young Khalji horseman.

2. Ancient India by RC Majumdar, Pg 347:- The battle took place in 1191 A.D. near the village of Tarain, or Torawana, 27 miles from Bhatinda. Shihabuddin vigourously chargedthe centre of Indian army, but his wings gave way and he was completely surrounded. He was severely wounded, but with great difficulty, and by dint of stubborn courage, he extricated himself with a few followers. Prithviraja gained a complete victory and routed the army of his opponents.

3. A history of Rajasthan by Rima Hooja pg 267-268 :- Both the armies met at Tarain — or Taraori (now in Haryana’s Karnal district), eighty miles (113 km) north of Delhi and fourteen from Thaneshwar. Both the Chauhan and Ghori armies adhered to their respective traditional battle-formations. The fighting was fierce. Prithviraj put to flight the right, left and vanguard of the Ghori army. The Ghori Sultan, however, continued to fight on. Finding himself face to face with Govindaraja, he hurled his spear with all his might at the Delhi governor, knocking out two of his teeth. Though wounded, the gallant Govindaraja, in turn, flung his own lance at the Sultan, seriously injuring the latter. The blow and loss of blood had the Sultan reeling in his saddle. He would have fallen had not a young Khalj warrior recognised him. The soldier quickly sprung up on the horse behind the Sultan, and supporting him carried him off safely from the battle-ground. The disaster caused a panic in the Ghori army. Leaderless, the Ghori troops rapidly fled in the field in disorder.

4. The oxford history of India by V.A. Smith, Pg 218-19:- The hindu host met army of islam at Tarain or Talawari betwenen Karnal and Thanesar. The Sultan who met brother of Prithviraj in single combat was severely wounded, and as a consequence of the accident his army was "irretrievably routed".

5. Military History of India by Jadunath Sarkar, pg 33-34:- The battle joined as the Hindus gave the signal for attack by blowing conchshells from the backs of elephants, while the Muslims struck their kettledrums carried on camels and sounded their trumpets. The impetuous charge of the Rajputs scattered like a cloud the Muslim vanguard, composed of “Afghan and Khokar braggarts”. Advancing further, they turned both wings of the Turkic army and inclining inwards dispersed their opponents and threatened the centre, where the Sultan commanded in person. Large numbers of his horsemen began to slip away, not daring to face the roaring tide of Rajput cavalry flushed with victory. The Sultan was urged to save himself by flight as he had no supporter left. But scorning such cowardly counsel, he made a reckless charge into the body of Rajputs, before him, hewing his way with his sword, and followed by a small body of devoted companions. Govind Rai (the Governor of Delhi), who led the vanguard of his brother Prithviraj, on sighting Shihabuddin from a distance, drove his elephant towards him. The two leaders met in a single combat. The Sultan’s lance knocked out two of Govind Rai’s front teeth, while the Hindu Chief hurled a javelin which inflicted a severe wound on the upper arm of Shihabuddin and forced him to turn his horse’s head round in agony and weakness. However, he was saved from falling down, by a Khalj youth who leaped uponi his horse from behind, kept him the saddle with his arms, and urging the horse on by word of mouth, carried him away to the base in safety. The rout of the Turki army was complete. Sajaypal007 (talk) 21:06, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Authenticity of File:Muhammad Ghori.jpg

File:Muhammad Ghori.jpg was recently uploaded by someone with notesonindianhistory.com as the source. The website is not a reliable source, and the same user recently uploaded an image of Babur misrepresented as that of Qutb-al-din Aibak, sourcing it from this website. The file File:Muhammad Ghori.jpg doesn't seem consistent with other representations of Muhammad Ghori. There are a few unreliable Facebook posts, blogs pots etc. that seem to have sourced the image from notesonindianhistory.com or Misplaced Pages, but I can't find any reliable source that confirms this to be an image of Muhammad Ghori. Also, the uploader mentioned the original license as CC-BY-SA, which was changed to public domain by another user (who also claimed that this image is from c. 1948, without citing a source). Unless someone presents the original source of this image, I don't think it belongs in the infobox. utcursch | talk 17:09, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran and Abhishek0831996: Please give your inputs here. I am pretty sure that this work is in public domain but not sure about the exact name. Since both these users are regular editors in these article and image-related licensing. I request them to look here.

I am pretty sure this is portrait of Shihabuddin. White Horserider (talk) 08:04, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Highly doubt that this is him. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:39, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

There are no contemporary paintings of Muhammad of Ghor and this is probably a post 15th century art piece but this could be any warlord or religious person. Certainly nobody would paint a Medieval style art in 1948, renaissance and oriental style had taken over long back. So in my opinion it's not him. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 15:21, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 November 2021

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Need to add more information on greatness of this valiant warrior Sultan who laid foundation stone for Delhi Sultanate, Sufi chronicles gives elaborate details on the belief of this esteemed ghazi Raashtrapati (talk) 21:23, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request. - FlightTime (open channel) 21:26, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)  Not done - you need to make a specific request - e.g. "add this text" or "replace this text with this" and cite reliable sources to support every part of your proposal - Arjayay (talk) 21:29, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

This great ghazi even after being defeated 16 times, he attacked 17th time as a surprise attack with ever blood thirsty,powerful and valiant ghurid Turkic Ghazis at the break of dawn at fortress of Tarain with through four divisions of archers with which Emperor Prithviraj Chauhan's army suffered heavy losses.After his defeat, Muhammad Ghori enslaved Hindus and destroyed the city and its temples thereupon instituting a complete rule of Islam in Prithviraj Chauhan's former empire, Sufi Saint Mu'in al-Din Chishti himself beheaded Prithviraj Chauhan at the second battle of Tarain. The revered Sufi saint Mu'in al-Din Chishti then threw a naked Empress Sanyogita in front of Turkic Ghazis who then suffered unspeakable atrocities. To add an insult to the newly conquered Empire of he gave the control of new found territory to his beloved slave Qutb al-Din Aibak who raised the Delhi Sultanate with this once prosperous and powerful empire of Prithviraj Chauhan was now being completely ruled by brutal Turkic invaders. But I don't want these facts to come out so let's devise a plan to whitewash the invader's conquest and selling of women as sex slaves and children as slaves around the Dar-Ul-Islam . We should come up with a subtle way to also whitewash Sufi crimes of mass murder and forced conversion to Islam. Let's go with usual narrative that Sufis promoted harmony between Hindus and Muslims and lives lost in this conquest was a collateral battle damage, Ghori appointed Qutb al Din Aibak due to his tolerance and governance skill as well as reward for his achievement in second battle of Tarain and the temples desecrated were the results of horrific battle with local leaders and especially with Hariraj chauhan and local jat warlords. Raashtrapati (talk) 21:53, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done You haven't cited any reliable sources to back up your claims - Arjayay (talk) 21:57, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Sources: Prithviraj raso, Jamal Malik's book Islam in South Asia: A Short History, Muzaffar Alam (1998). "The pursuit of Persian: Language in Mughal Politics" As well as The Delhi Sultanate: A Political and Military History by Peter Jackson Raashtrapati (talk) 21:59, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

You need to cite them properly - ISBN numbers, page numbers etc, - see Help:Referencing for beginners for the "how to" - Arjayay (talk) 22:03, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Further sources are : The Sufi Path of Knowledge: Ibn al-Arabi's Metaphysics of Imagination by William C. Chittick as well as Deewan Khwaja Moinuddin Chishti by Moin ud din Chishti himself, Israr-E- Haqiqi by the saint himself Raashtrapati (talk) 22:04, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Pg number wise??? Raashtrapati (talk) 22:05, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

In prithviraj raso from page number 430 onwards upto page number 529 this entire war and aftermath is explained in great detail Raashtrapati (talk) 22:07, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

In Jamal malik's book from page number 225 to 320 there is elaborate mention of the events I wrote about earlier Raashtrapati (talk) 22:10, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Entirety of The pursuit of Persian: Language in Mughal Politics" Talks about events after the battle if you doubt me read it yourself Raashtrapati (talk) 22:12, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Entire books of The Sufi Path of Knowledge: Ibn al-Arabi's Metaphysics of Imagination by William C. Chittick as well as Deewan Khwaja Moinuddin Chishti by Moin ud din Chishti himself, Israr-E- Haqiqi by the saint himself talks about same do you want me to give you snapshots for the same??? Raashtrapati (talk) 22:14, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

You can verify it after reading these sources yourself I think I gave you appropriate answers to satisfy your queries Raashtrapati (talk) 22:15, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

The story of seventeen invasions is a myth - see Manan Asif (2020).

Alam (1998) has nothing on the battle, much less the entirety. Malik (2008) does not say anything to these effects and I spot the sole discussion in p. 92-95 - it is quite implausible that an author will spend 91 pages discussing any particular battle, when drafting a textbook about Islam in S. Asia. Jackson (1999) does not say anything to these effects in p. 10, where he discusses the events. Prithviraj Raso is a primary text having multiple recensions and editions - any barely competent editor will mention details other than page number notwithstanding the fact that the text was drafted about 400 years after the battle and is laden with factual inaccuracies. I skimmed Chittick and found nothing relevant. Israr-E- Haqiqi is largely forged. I haven't read Deewan-e-Khwaja Moinuddin Chishti, a primary source.

Effectively, you are fabricating citations in support of your vile POV and unless the next edit quotes the relevant lines from all the sources, I will request sanctions. Arjayay, this might be of interest. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:25, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Birthdate of Muizuddin Muhammad Ghori

In Tabaqat-i-Nasiri, it's been clearly mentioned that Shahabuddin Ghori is 3 years and few months younger than Ghiyas-od-din Muhammad his elder brother. So, if Ghiyas-od-din Muhammad died in 599 AH at the age of 63 (notice that 63 years is counted in Hijri Lunar, not AD), he was born in 536 and Shahabuddin Muhammad Ghori should have been born in 539 which equals 1144 AD. It is not 1149. JavadMohammadi14 (talk) 12:56, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Muhammad Ghori reign

It's until 1203 not 1202. His brother died in February 1203. JavadMohammadi14 (talk) 13:04, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2022

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

He wasn't marauder or brute like European crusaders extremist

change it Hashim211116 (talk) 09:46, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

@Hashim21116:  Done, diff. Packer&Tracker «Talk» 15:10, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Got Hashim211116 (talk) 09:47, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

 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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:09, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Mohammad gaori death date

Hello sir mohammad gaori death date in Misplaced Pages hindi translation 1192 and In English translation 1207. I'm confused which date right!!!!!! 2409:4042:2498:E2A0:6424:F889:E1B4:F17B (talk) 14:28, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

They have changed they topic how Mohamad gouri was killed not mentioned

They have changed they topic how Mohamad 223.225.62.187 (talk) 11:20, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

RFC

Currently, except the title (Muhammad of Ghor), the article throughout the lead and body refers to him as Mu'izz al-Din. (a title he attained later in 1200 as the very first section which I added couple of days attests to)

• Should we simply use Muhammad throughout the article in running text or Shihabuddin or just stick with Mu'izz al-Din ?? We generally prefer common name which is a toss up between Shiahbuddin/Muhammad of Ghor/Mohammad Ghori and rarely Mu'izz al-Din or Mu'izz as we used here

• Please comment briefly:

Mu'izz al-Din/Muhammad/Shihabuddin/Muizuddin

@HistoryofIran, पाटलिपुत्र, Extorc, and Utcursch:

• Note I am not making this RFC for page move or the title, which is alright but since the name of the subject in the body and lead is different from the title of article, it looks a bit incoherent, Thanks. ∆ P&t ♀√ (talk) 07:17, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

I prefer Muhammad/Muhammad Ghori throughout the article of consistency. I would be in the favor of any future RM to Muhammad Ghori as well based on this ngram >>> Extorc.talk 07:29, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

This is a tricky one. I guess it also depends on how old the source is and where it's from. I would prefer Muhammad/Muhammad Ghuri (instead of Ghori) (also used by Richard M. Eaton in his India in the Persianate Age: 1000-1765). --HistoryofIran (talk) 07:59, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran: To be honest, I don't think the modernity of the sources matter in naming conventions. Eaton's most classic work was "Temple Desecration and Indo-Mulim States" a league above his latest book, where he used Muhammad Ghuri. (Md. Ghuri to be explicit) There is different in pronunciation between the Asian and Western academics which leads to Ghori/Ghuri.

• Andre Wink also used Muhammad Ghuri in:

:Al-Hind the Making of the Indo-Islamic World: The Slave Kings and the Islamic Conquest : 11Th-13th Centuries

• My main point though, was using Muhammad/Shihabuddin/Muizzuddin/Mu'izz al-Din in the article not with requested moves which need to be more broadly discussed in the future. ∆ P&t ♀√ (talk) 08:21, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Suggestion I think Muhammad of Ghor is more logical on an English enclyopedia then Muhammad Ghori which is used more commonly used by Asian scholars. My main issue at the moment was actually that the title and content in body are way too different then each other. Since, Muhammad was his birthname (Hamad in their family record) (See Tabaqt-I-Nasiri pp:-68)

I would be inclined towards it more, although Shihabuddin also had decent hits as well. See this section as well for Muhammad of Ghor/Ghori/Ghuri. ∆ P&t ♀√ (talk) 08:05, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough. Uehehe, don't mind the young fella in that old RFC... couldn't be me. Anyways, I don't mind your suggestion either (Muhammad of Ghor that is). --HistoryofIran (talk) 08:25, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran: I didn't acknowledged that the young lad Mossadegh-e Mihan-dust was you.

My main point was just about the name to use throughout the article:

Muhammad/Shihabuddin/Muizzuddin or just stick with Mu'izz al-Din. (least used in sources as well as vernacularly)

Could you pleaae briefly comment on that ?? Cheers. ∆ P&t ♀√ (talk) 08:38, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Oh I know, I'm just kidding around. I support "Muhammad", whether that be simply Muhammad, Muhammad Ghori/Ghuri or Muhammad of Ghur/Ghor. --HistoryofIran (talk) 08:51, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran: No problem, let's wait for more comments. (If any other do) ∆ P&t ♀√ (talk) 09:03, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

• I would prefer that the text use "Muhammad of Ghor". "Muhammad" alone rings too close to the prophet. --Bejnar (talk) 15:51, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

• I agree with suggestions here, Muhammad of Ghor seems very appropriate to me as it clears Muhammad of Ghor ( his root i.e Ghor province). I think writers also use either Mahmud Ghazni or Mahmud of Ghazna for Mahmud Ghazni. I think in Persianate system, places were associated with Leaders/ruling personalities. I am open to any correction on this topic from anyone having better knowledge on it. I am okay with suggestion of "Muhammad of Ghor". Akalanka820 (talk) 11:28, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

• Agree with "Muhammad of Ghor". Clearer. पाटलिपुत्र Pataliputra (talk) 18:56, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

• Suggestion: Since the overwhelming support is to use Muhammad of Ghor, my two relatively minor concern regarding it are - firstly, it won't be coherent to use Muhammad of Ghor literally in every line of the article, as we prefer using short name like Mahmud, (for Mahmud of Ghazni) Babur, Akbar, Aurangzeb etc.

Secondly using Muhammad alone is also bit confusing as Bejnar pointed out that - Muhammad is also commonly used for Prophet Muhammad and apart from him, Muhammad is too common name among the Mulsim males, like his Khwarzmian nemesis - Muhammad II of Khwarazm. ∆ P&t ♀√ (talk) 20:44, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

• If the use of "Muhammad of Ghor" in a particular sentence is awkward, and "he" is unclear, phases such as, "As ruler, he" may be used. --Bejnar (talk) 15:43, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

• Renamed: I changed it to Muhammad of Ghor throughout the article, does it look fine now ? - @Bejnar, पाटलिपुत्र, and HistoryofIran:

You are welcome to fix it wherever you found this naming as awkward. Looks better then Mu'izz al-Din ? ∆ P&t ♀√ (talk) 10:10, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

@Packer&Tracker:Looks good! Thanks! पाटलिपुत्र Pataliputra (talk) 11:03, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Looks good now, thanks. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:11, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Burial

Hello पाटलिपुत्र - regarding his burial and a 1990 claim (from Pakistan) that he was burried in Damyak after being assassinated by the Isma'ilis. (see assassination part for Khokhar part as well) - this is quite obviously a factual error as he was buried in his capital Ghazni which is confirmed by modern academics as well as by his contemporaries like Minhaj al-Siraj, Hasan Nizami, Muhammad Aulfi etc.

• Here is a Mohammad Habib for this

The triumphant march was turned into a funeral procession and it was with great difficulty that wazir, Khwaja Moidul mulk, succeded in preventing the royal treasure from being plundered by sultan's slave and conveyed his masterbier to Ghazni where he was buried in the mausoleum of his daughter

• Another one from R. C. Majumdar (a late noted academic) citing Tabaqt-i-Nasiri : (page no:- 125)

The body of Mu'izz ud-Din was carried to Ghazni and buried there

• A more elaborate note by Habib in his Asiatic environment journal (1970):-

Round the coffn of MuizAddin Ghuri as it proceeded from Damyak to Ghazni in 1206 a severe struggle took place between his Ghurian offcers and his Turkish slaves. The latter seem to have seized everythíng, and they placed Tảjuddin Yilduz, the senior-most slave-oficer, on the throne of Ghazni

Iqtidar Alam Khan (a retd. noted AMU professor) also mentioned it that he was buried in Ghazni .

• I don't see a point in mentioning his gravesite in Damyak when a number of scholars expliticy confirmed it in Ghazni.

Minhaj's (author of Tabaqat-i-Nasiri) father was friend of Muhammad of Ghor who also attested to the fact that he was buried in Ghazni, couldn't see any rational reason for Minhaj or these scholars to lie about his burial; no ?? Minhaj himself was 13 when Muhammad of Ghor was murdered and must have attended his funeral, considering their family relations (as noted Maulana Sirajuddin was a Qadi in the Ghurid court for 40 yrs)

• What is a logic in burying a medieval monarch, 600 odd km away from his capital ?
• Tagging @HistoryofIran, Akalanka820, and Extorc: for a comment - Is there any point in giving a weightage to a fringe 20th century claim by scientist over WP:HISTRS ? Thanks. ∆ P&t ♀√ (talk) 19:34, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

• @Utcursch: as well for a comment. ∆ P&t ♀√ (talk) 19:43, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

@Packer&Tracker: Oh, I'm fine with that, but then we'll have to remove the image from the infobox altogether. My point was only that the new caption only described it as "the Mausoleum of Muhammad of Ghor", which is at the very least anachronistic and misleading (this mausoleum was built in the 1990s). But if it is not even the location of his actual mausoleum, then let's simply remove the photograph.... पाटलिपुत्र Pataliputra (talk) 19:52, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

@पाटलिपुत्र: 20th century structure (something like this) of Muhammad of Ghor would be more app. perhaps ? I agree this is dubious creation and surprised that it stayed for so many years on the article.

Let's wait for more comments, Best. ∆ P&t ♀√ (talk) 19:57, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

@Packer&Tracker:Yes, but then this photograph raises so many issues and is misleading in so many ways: 1) the monument is a-historical (not Muhammad of Ghor's tomb... as you have explained above) 2) it is stylistically anachronistic (20th century, my main issue initially). Its only value would be that it is a modern tribute by a romantic scientist in Pakistan. In my opinion, it would only deserve a mention in a paragraph about modern interpretations/ perspectives, at the end of the article, but certainly not in the infobox, where it is so misleading... पाटलिपुत्र Pataliputra (talk) 20:05, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

@Packer&Tracker:By the way, is the actual location of his tomb in Ghazni known, and are there photographs?? पाटलिपुत्र Pataliputra (talk) 20:11, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

@पाटलिपुत्र: I think Minhaj and Ibn al-Athir both mentioned that he built a tomb originally for his deceased daughter, and he was buried there as well.

I think the mausoleum of his daughter (where he was buried) might have been demolished by the Mongols. Babur who visited Ghazni in 16th century wrote that

How this barren place served as a capital of two great dynasties in the past

which gives a reflection that the city was razed completely and couldn't recover even centuries later.

∆ P&t ♀√ (talk) 20:27, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Lets wait out for suggestions regarding use of image in infobox from the tagged editor. ∆ P&t ♀√ (talk) 20:33, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

@Packer&Tracker: Actually, many of the monuments and tombs of the earlier Ghaznavids do remain in Ghazni (including the tomb of Mahmud of Ghazni or the Ghazni Minarets for example), so it is a bit strange if nothing from the Ghurids had remained... पाटलिपुत्र Pataliputra (talk) 20:35, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Since the sources demonstrates that this mausoleum is ahistorical and not where Muhammad is actually buried, wouldn't the article be better of we just replaced the image with one of Muhammad's coins? Perhaps not the most aesthetic of images, but at least it is historical.--HistoryofIran (talk) 20:36, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

@पाटलिपुत्र: You are right, in all fairness Ghazni was more brutually sacked by the "world burner" uncle of Muhammad of Ghor - Alauddin Hussayn then Mongols, but even during that carnage they didn't vandalized Mahmud's tomb which is the reason it survived as you pointed out.

• I don't doubt Minhaj regarding a tomb of Muhammad's daughter being at Ghazni, though exact site of it remains contentious.
• * Also, it surprises me a bit that there are far many available representations of Mahmud then Muhammad of Ghor ? ∆ P&t ♀√ (talk) 20:56, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps best possible way (If any) to use this fake/fabricated tomb will be in the legacy part with his reception and assessment in modern-day Pakistan as a Islamic hero who killed infidels and their tribute to him by naming missiles on his name and creating a fake mauseloum. Vice versa, his legacy of a fanatic invader in India could be added to make it neutral with better paraphrasing by citing some contemporary presentation of his raids. (Like we have varied assessments of more accomplished conquerors like Timur, Genghis Khan etc and even Mughal rulers (Aurangzeb) on their respective articles.

• Re - Ghurids were unpopular in Khurasan as well during his time in their limited rule of a year where he imposed heavy taxes on the public which eventually turned them hostile when he came to besiege Gurganz and forced him to relieve the siege and flee.

@पाटलिपुत्र, HistoryofIran, Akalanka820, Extorc, and Sajaypal007: Sounds better ? I am open to suggestions on it. ∆ P&t ♀√ (talk) 04:31, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

PS:- Ironically Muhammad of Ghor's early raids, plunder and massacres were actually in present-day Pakistan — Multan (1175), Uch (1176), Peshawar (1179), Sindh (1182) and finally Sialkot (1185) and Lahore (1186). ∆ P&t ♀√ (talk) 04:31, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

@Packer&Tracker:Yes, I think it would be very interesting to have a final paragraph about modern re-interpretations/re-appropriations of this historical figure ("Legacy"), where the modern Pakistani mausoleum (which visibly only commemorates the place of his assassination in Damyak, but misleadingly makes it look like he was buried there) would nicely fit. To User:HistoryofIran's point, an image of an actual coin of Muhammad of Ghor would be great for the infobox. I'm still a bit surprised that remains of his tomb in Ghazni have apparently not been found. Best पाटलिपुत्र Pataliputra (talk) 05:42, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

@पाटलिपुत्र: Indeed, re on legacy bit - could you please draft or put up his reception in Pakistan as a hero, including dedicating a tomb to him which is not actually where he was buried ? I will provide the finishing touch by the negative reception in India and Khurasan of his rule.

• Regarding using image in the box, don't we have a modern statue dedicated to hin anywhere ? We possibly do have for his brother though. Frankly, I don't have much interset regarding potrays, so it's just fine for me either way. Best. ∆ P&t ♀√ (talk) 06:39, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

@पाटलिपुत्र: It doesn't look any clearer now either, I think this part need to be re written with nuances and his assessment in both Pakistan and India, as I said previously, open to suggestions. ∆ P&t ♀√ (talk) 08:57, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

@∆ P&t ♀√ Yes I think that sounds very good! --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:17, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

RFC

- Is it really mandatory to have a image in the infobox ? I personally think that this forged tomb can still be placed in the infobox without any nuances (i.e. description) and explain this in later sections ?

- Let's wait for more comments by other involved editors regarding this and get a long term consensus.

Bejnar – Would you mind glancing at this ? ∆ P&t ♀√ (talk) 10:44, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

I thought it was rather clear from the previous comments already... I support User:HistoryofIran's suggestion above to use an image of Muhammad of Ghor's coinage in the infobox instead, as it is both relevant and non-contentious. On the contrary, giving prominence to the image of the Dhamiak mausoleum is quite problematic and misleading: it is anachronistic (having been built in the 1990), and promotes a false version of history (the claim that Muhammad of Ghor was buried in Dhamiak, when he was actually buried in Ghazni). In short, it is a stylistical and a historical fake, however well intentionned (or propagandistic) it might be... Its only possible value is in showing some of the legacies/re-appropriations made around Muhammad of Ghor in modern times, in the "Legacy" paragraph of the article. I'm afraid it does not deserve the prominence given by an infobox, where it will inevitably continue to mislead readers about the architecture of the 12th century and the actual burial place of this ruler. पाटलिपुत्र Pataliputra (talk) 11:19, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

I see that the "shrine" photo in the infobox has been replaced by the coin image, by a bold editor. That's fine with me. I would avoid calling the shrine a "false tomb". It is a shrine. --Bejnar (talk) 15:59, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Territory

Just briefly on his territory, recently a editor questioned that our current representation of his territory expansion (Herat to Jantabad) looks confusing. Is it so ? Should we then remove the stretch of his territory from lead all together ? We know that even after the disaster of Andkhud, Muhammad of Ghor still retained Herat and Balkh in present-day Afganistan (then Khorasan) and Khwarzmians only captured Qandhar, Kabul region from his successors post his assassination.

How it looks confusing ? @HistoryofIran and पाटलिपुत्र: What stretch of his territory should we mention in the lead then (If anything) ? Is the current version (regarding territorial expansion) seems confusing ? Thanks. ∆ P&t ♀√ (talk) 17:06, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

@Packer&Tracker:Seems fine to me. I would only say "The Ghurid Empire..." instead of "His empire...", since he personally only ruled on the eastern part of the empire. Best पाटलिपुत्र Pataliputra (talk) 17:46, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

@पाटलिपुत्र: He did took over the western domain as well post 1203; didn't he ? ∆ P&t ♀√ (talk) 18:05, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

@पाटलिपुत्र and HistoryofIran: One more issue I saw is his birth year is apparently wrong as well. I went through this talk page and found out that JavadMohammadi14 pointed out quite a few factual errors like wrong date of Ghiyath al-Din's death - diff which turned to be true as well - see Habib (1970) cited in the article.They also pointed out his fake tomb in Damyak - diff.

• Since the article was full of factual errors previously, I see his birth year forged as well, couldn't confirm it being 1149 in any secondary source. They mentioned about Minhaj's Tabaqat-I-Nasiri and it turned to be true as well - He indeed states that Muhammad of Ghor was 3 years and little more younger then Ghiyath al-Din Ghuri. Ghiyath al-Din died in 599 Hijri (late 1202 or early 1203 - more likely 1203) aged 63, so he must have been born around 1140 which is confirmed by David Thomas as well. Thus, Muhammad Ghori who was 3 -4 years younger to him, must have been born around 1144-1145 and definately not 1149.

But unfortunately none of the scholar I read regarding the Ghurids mentioned Muhammad Ghori's birth year despite all of them use Minhaj's work as springboard for Ghurid history even more so then Taj ul-Masir (more synchronous) which is evidently a biased poetic text - omitted Muhammad Ghori's routes in Tarain-1191 and Mount Abu 1178 as well . Could we, thus, use 1144 and attribute this to Minhaj ? It's primary source though still better then misguiding readers. Any thoughts ? ∆ P&t ♀√ (talk) 06:10, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't see the harm in using a primary source for a birth date. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:12, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Hindu nationalist POV

Now that the Pakistani editors are away, I notice that various editors have turned the Muhammad of Ghor page into another unencyclopedic page with a POV section Muhammad_of_Ghor#Relations_with_non-Muslims, a monument to latter day Hindu nationalist gripe.

Among other things they have a quote box in which Muslim slaughter of hapless Hindus can fly under the RS radar by virtue of it marketed as quaint, literary, or both. Alongside, in the main text, all the irony in Richard Eaton has been lost in the mis-paraphrase. Please be warned that I'm privy to what is being done on this page, and at some point, I will act. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:30, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class biography articles
• C-Class biography (military) articles
• Low-importance biography (military) articles
• Military biography work group articles
• C-Class biography (royalty) articles
• Low-importance biography (royalty) articles
• Royalty work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• C-Class Central Asia articles
• Low-importance Central Asia articles
• WikiProject Central Asia articles
• C-Class Iran articles
• Unknown-importance Iran articles
• WikiProject Iran articles
• C-Class Afghanistan articles
• Unknown-importance Afghanistan articles
• WikiProject Afghanistan articles
• C-Class India articles
• High-importance India articles
• C-Class India articles of High-importance
• C-Class Indian history articles
• High-importance Indian history articles
• C-Class Indian history articles of High-importance
• WikiProject Indian history articles
• WikiProject India articles
• C-Class Pakistan articles
• Unknown-importance Pakistan articles
• WikiProject Pakistan articles
• C-Class military history articles
• C-Class Middle Eastern military history articles
• Middle Eastern military history task force articles
• C-Class Medieval warfare articles
• Medieval warfare task force articles
• Pages translated from Catalan Misplaced Pages