Talk:Muslim conquests in the Indian subcontinent

From Wikiquote
Jump to navigation Jump to search

MonsterHunter32's deletions[edit]

As was told to you multiple times by mulitiple editors, you have to have move quotes to the talkpage that you want to blank from the article, with an explanation. Then they will be discussed. Thanks. See Template:Remove--Jedi3 (talk) 17:50, 6 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Remove: Quotes should never be removed without a comment in the edit summary, and should almost always be moved to the Talk page with a note that they were removed from the article, giving full reasoning. Otherwise the deletions can be reverted on that ground alone. Thanks. --Jedi3 (talk) 20:20, 6 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Edits made by vandal editor Jedi3 have been removed or reverted. He is using talks as an excuse to stall the removal of his non-notable POV-pushing and vandal editing, and has also lied multiple times in the past including claiming removal of a few quotes or one quote as blanking, falsely claimign titles of a book and claiming he thinks Ferihsta mentions Martand, though he doesn't and indirectly admitting he copied a quote form Wikipedia though it wasn't really a quote. I have already given the reason. Hopefully he is punished for his disruptive behavior soon as i have already complained of him. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 09:58, 7 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Removed quotes[edit]

  • There does not exist a history of ancient India. Their books contain no historical data whatever, except for a few religious books in which historical information is buried under a heap of parables and folk-lore, and their buildings and other monuments also do nothing to fill the void for the oldest among them do not go beyond the third century B.C. To discover facts about India of the ancient times is as difficult a task as the discovery of the island of Atlantis, which, according to Plato, was destroyed due to the changes of the earth... The historical phase of India began with the Muslim invasion. Muslims were India's first historians.

Removed because it is not really about the Muslim conquest of India, but about the historiography of India. It would better belong to an article on the historiography of India. (Apart from this, the view expressed is probably outdated). --Jedi3 (talk) 09:25, 7 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Islam had brought to India a luminous torch which rescued humanity from darkness at a time when old civilizations were on the decline and lofty moral ideals had got reduced to empty intellectual concepts. As in other lands, so in India too, the conquests of Islam were more widespread in the world of thought than in the world of politics. Today, also, the Muslim World is a spiritual brotherhood which is held together by community of faith in the Oneness of God and human equality. Unfortunately, the history of Islam in this country remained tied up for centuries with that of government with the result that a veil was cast over its true spirit, and its fruits and blessings were hidden from the popular eye.
    • N.S. Mehta, Islam and the Indian Civilization

Removed because I could not verify that the cited publication with the title "'Islam and the Indian Civilization" exists. I searched Worldcat, and the only publication by this author is titled "Contribution of Islam to Indian culture".--Jedi3 (talk) 09:25, 7 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • ...I became more than ever convinced that it was not the sword that won a place for Islam in those days in the scheme of life. It was the rigid simplicity, the utter self-effacement of the prophet, the scrupulous regard for his pledges, his intense devotion to his friends and followers, his intrepidity, his fearlessness, his absolute trust in God and his own mission. These, and not the sword carried everything before them and surmounted every trouble.
    • M. K. Gandhi said about the spread of Islam in the 7th century Arabia: Young India, (1924)

This quote is about Muslim expansion worldwide, not specifically about India. Moved to article Islam. --Jedi3 (talk) 11:52, 7 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • (The Muslims had) enriched our culture, strengthened our administration, and brought near distant parts of the country... It (the Muslim Period) touched deeply the social life and the literature of the land.

This quote is not about the conquest or invasions, it better belongs to an article on Islam in India, moved to article Islam in India.--Jedi3 (talk) 11:52, 7 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually it is. It says clearly Muslim period or specifically Muslim rule, Islam in India is not mentioned anywhere. As you've removed it under false claims, I've reverted your vandal edits. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 13:43, 7 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Removed quotes[edit]

I offered to volunteerly add these quotes. The only reason I didn't earlier was because I thought it better to discuss one article at a time. As these quotes I felt were non-notable I removed them:

  • The magnitude of crimes credited to Muslim monarchs by the medieval Muslim historians, was beyond measure. With a few exceptions, Muslim kings and commanders were monsters who stopped at no crime when it came to their Hindu subjects. But what strikes as more significant is the broad pattern of those crimes. The pattern is that of a jihãd in which the ghãzîs of Islam 1) invade infidel lands; 2) massacre as many infidel men, women, and children, particularly Brahmins, as they like after winning a victory; 3) capture the survivors to be sold as slaves; 4) plunder every place and person; 5) demolish idolatrous places of worship and build mosques in their places; and 6) defile idols which are flung into public squares or made into steps leading to mosques. Still more significant is the fact that this is exactly the pattern 1) revealed by Allah in the Quran; 2) practised, perfected and prescribed by the Prophet in his own life-time; 3) followed by the pious Khalifas of Islam in the first 35 years of Islamic imperialism; 4) elaborated in the Hadis and hundreds of commentaries with meticulous attention to detail; 5) certified by the Ulama and the Sufis of Islam in all ages including our own; and 6) followed by all Muslim monarchs and chieftains who aspired for name and fame in this life, and houris and beardless boys hereafter.
    • Goel, S. R. (2001). The story of Islamic imperialism in India. New Delhi: Voice of India.[Not found in reliable secondary and tertiary sources [1]]
  • One may very well ask the purveyors of this puerile propaganda that if the record of Islam in medieval India was so bright and blameless, where is the need for this daily ritual of whitewashing it. Hindu heroes like Chandragupta Maurya, Samudragupta, Harihar, Bukka, Maharana Pratap, and Shivaji, to name only a few of the notables, have never needed any face-lift. Why does the monstrous men of an Alauddin Khalji, a Firuz Shah Tughlaq, a Sikandar Lodi, and an Aurangzeb, to name only the most notorious, pop out so soon from the thickest coat of cosmetics?
    The answer is provided by the Muslim historians of medieval India. They painted their heroes in the indelible dyes of Islamic ideology. They did not anticipate the day when Islamic imperialism in India will become only a painful memory of the past. They did not visualise that the record of Islam in India will one day be weighed on the scales of human values. Now it is too late for trying to salvage Islam in medieval India from its blood-soaked history. The orthodox Muslim historians are honest when they state that the medieval Muslim monarchs were only carrying out the commandments of Islam when they massacred, captured, enslaved, and violated Hindu men, women and children; desecrated, demolished, and destroyed Hindu places of worship; and dispossessed the Hindus of all their wealth. The Aligarh “historians” and their secularist patrons are only trying to prop up imposters in place of real and living characters who played life-size roles in history.
    • Sita Ram Goel: The Story of Islamic Imperialism in India [Not found in reliable secondary and tertiary sources [2]]
  • The impact of the invaders from the north-west and of Islam on India had been considerable. It had pointed out and shone up the abuses that had crept into Hindu society - the petrification of caste, untouchability, exclusiveness carried to fantastic lengths.
    • Jawaharlal Nehru, wrote in his book Discovery of India, 1946 p. 218 [Only found the quote here. Not found in other reliable secondary and tertiary sources [3]]
  • Writing about the Sultanate period, Ishwari Prasad says: 'There was persecution, partly religious and partly political, and a stubborn resistance was offered by the Hindus' The state imposed great disabilities upon the non-Muslims' Instances are not rare in which the non-Muslims were treated with great severity' The practice of their religious rites even with the slightest publicity was not allowed, and cases are on record of men who lost their lives for doing so.'
    • Ishwari Prasad, History of Medieval India (Allahabad, 1940 Edition), pp.509-513. Quoted in K.S. Lal, Legacy of Muslim rule in India [Not found in reliable secondary and tertiary sources [4]]
  • According to A.L. Srivastava the Sultanate of Delhi 'was an Islamic State, pure and simple, and gave no religious toleration to the Hindus' and indulged in stifling persecution.' About the Mughal times his conclusion is that 'barring the one short generation under Akbar when the moral and material condition of the people was on the whole good, the vast majority of our population during 1526-1803 led a miserable life.'
    • A.L. Srivastava, The Mughal Empire (Agra, 1964), p.568-571. Quoted in K.S. Lal, Legacy of Muslim rule in India [Not found in reliable secondary and tertiary sources [5]]
  • From the seventh century onwards and with a peak during Muhammad al-Qasim's campaigns in 712-713 a considerable number of Jats [Hindus] was captured as prisoners of war and deported to Iraq and elsewhere as slaves.
    • Andre Wink, Al Hind, Vol. I, p. 161 [Not found in reliable secondary and tertiary sources [6]]

I am checking most of the quotes that were removed by user:MonsterHunter32, and most of them, if not all, fails to meet standards of notability and/or quotability. Quotes have to be widely repeated in reliable secondary and tertiary sources to be included on a page. Reliable secondary sources are a valuable way to demonstrate notability and quotability by showing that a statement is actually quoted outside the primary source. [See my comments in brackets] --Xsaorapa (talk) 21:53, 6 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your claim [Not found in reliable secondary and tertiary sources] is irrelevant because:

  1. Your internet search was very limited and we do not know how you evaluated the results
  2. Most of the quotes are translations of words or entire phrases or entire content from other languages (like Arabic or Persian) with many translation variations in the English language. We do know from your links that you did not check all the possible variations (which would be an arduous task)
  3. You did not search books and journals and other media which are not found online, or are only found behind paywalls.
  4. And most importantly, they are already all reliably sourced and all have proper citations to published sources. WQ:Q does not mandate a specific number of citations, and many WQ editors even oppose the inclusion of more than one source for a quote (when I added more than one source for a quote, the additional source were often removed by other editors). It is not mandatory at all that all quotes need to be widely repeated in other sources, this is only one of many factors to be considered. All the quotes are verifiably sourced, original to the author, from a notable author or source, and/or they the artfulness factor to be here, that means that is an eloquent and poingnat expression, a main rationale to add quotes in WQ. There is no single ultimate factor of quotability on WQ.
  5. You seem to confuse wikipedia with WQ, but the link to wikipedia is here. Wikiquote strives to cite PRIMARY sources for the origins of quotations "straight from the horse's mouth", while Wikipedia articles usually cite SECONDARY sources of information on a subject for objective coverage. Wikiquote allows original research; Wikiquotians are encouraged to search for primary sources.
  6. This seems motivated by a desire for censorship of quotes critical of Islam as noted here [7]. --დამოკიდებულება (talk) 07:38, 7 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The simple fact that most of these quotes cannot be found beyond a few websites is already telling that they are hardly notable. This seems motivated by a desire to promote a anti-muslim political agenda as noted here. --Xsaorapa (talk) 05:05, 8 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stop the personal attacks. I am not anti-Muslim, and I don't have a political agenda. I also did not say that you are promoting an anti-Hindu or a radical pro-Islamist political agenda.

There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Do not make them.

--დამოკიდებულება (talk) 09:32, 8 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

NPOV Policy[edit]

The NPOV policy states: "Wikiquote has a strict neutral point of view (NPOV) policy, which basically states that its mission is best served not by advancing or detracting particular points of view on any given subject, but by trying to present a fair, neutral description of the facts, among which are the facts that various interpretations and points of view exist." --Xsaorapa (talk) 01:08, 6 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]