Talk:Muslim conquest in the Indian subcontinent

thanks

if i had the mental energy, i would try to improve this article. it looks great already ;] בינה תפארת (talk) 22:51, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Hm... maybe if it looked great then, we should revert. It has quite a few problems now. — LlywelynII 18:27, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Anti-Muslim POV

20 Million deaths? Wait, wait, Are you trying to tell me that Medieval India consisted had more than 20 millions which were to die?

The section on the "conversion" clearly shows the lack of actual historical knowledge on the side of its author, The author of it simply called the followers of "this islam" "barbaric" and "done many bad things"-- This alone contradicts Wikipedia's NPOV and I, consequently, removed the whole section until it is re-written from a NPOV. 22:54, 21 April 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.235.64.225 (talk)

Pro-Muslim POV: should be called muslim crusade of the indian sub-continent

another muslim crusade that gets a complete pass for being the atrocity that it was.xyz iz wrong for me but xyz iz just fine for anyone else.just another case of "i'll just pick and choose the things from history that are convenient for me to remember and forget the things that are convenient for me to forget" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.29.190.21 (talk) 14:27, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Since crusade has the cross built right into the word, maybe not the most felicitous title. Conquest does just fine, especially given the temporary nature of the actual crusades. — LlywelynII 18:27, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Rewriting

The article, "Muslim conquest in the Indian subcontinent" seriously needs "proper" rewriting. The fact of the matter is many paragraphs are actually pro Muslims and mere fantasies. How can its say, trade expanded because of Islam when it was already Well established before Islam, i.e silk route.

Many of the facts are irrelevant to arrival of Islam in south Asia. As European economic expanded, its trade was expanded with other countries including India as well therefore one cannot say arrival of Islam is responsible of trade expansion! Also age of exploration also helped Trade expansion, not Islam.

One more thing, Islam also destroyed many ancient Indian universities and did not built any infrastructure which "contributes to science" and destroyed Hindu, Buddhist, Jain temples and universities and built Mosques on them which is irrelevant to science expansion! So it will be better for "proper" rewriting of Impact of Islam that should include its atrocities on Hindu civilization!--Pt.Sumit (talk) 15:42, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Please adhere to wikipedia's neutral point of view policy before making any contentious edits. Removing large chunks of content just because they have not been tagged with citations on this article is no reason for removing them. The text you removed about technology is most likely verifiable and the architecture part is unchallengeable. Any thing added to the article can not be discriminatory or giving undue weight to something. Also keep in notice that if you don't like the content of the article or because you think it is not correct WP:TRUTH, it doesn't mean you can remove it. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:43, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is; all my points above are not deniable and also many point in your so called “Impact of Islam and Muslims” is irrelevant to Islam, one example, you have written (without any source) that “because of Muslims rulers and Islam, large urbanization took place in India”, which is completely false and nothing more than "propagandist statement” as population expanded which ultimately results in more urbanization, this “happen everywhere” not just Muslims countries but all round the World so crediting Islam or Muslims rules in particular, is again nothing more than propagandist. Also you have not written anything about economic sanctions on Non-Muslim population under Muslims rule which also include Jizya and other discriminations as well.--Pt.Sumit (talk) 02:20, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I've not written this content. Wikipedia is contributed to by a number of editors. I just reverted when you removed chunks of information without any explanation. There are parts of information that are verifiable. And the article itself is not so well sourced at the moment. It needs some working from all aspects. Removing material at this stage will tilt the article to a certain POV. It is better to use citation tags so that some other editor will eventually cite the material. Cherry picking content and adding only one side's POV is not the way it's done here. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:33, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Whoever written it, it does seem you are not interested in removing /replacing it with true and sourced information! Just by reading it, one can easily get the pro-Muslim appeal to the article which contents "many unfactual" and "irrelevant to Islam" information which itself is a violation of Wikipedia’s policies of neutrality and Correct information! Also the articles says, “Conversion controversy” which again; is completely false information to begin with. If I and many Muslims writers start saying "Osama bin laden was a Hindu" that does not make it a controversy or a thing for a debate, it will simply be “a completely false and propagandist information” similarly saying, conversion was because of genuine change of heart is again; biggest false information ever and it does not make it a topic of great debate or a "controversy" indicating that there is a possibility of such thing happening. Also it is clearly given in "Al-Hind", how they did convert people of Hindustan to Islam starting from Gandhara (Article: How 'Gandhara' became 'Kandahar')(Read it!) and latter whole India!--Pt.Sumit (talk) 03:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes I reverted those edits but they do need improvement and inline citations. The edits you just claimed to make are completely undue. The word controversy would be the right word. Just because some citations say it is the 'fact' doesn't mean it is, because others will very much argue against it. So what you need to read before editing this is WP:UNDUE & WP:POV. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:47, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Pt. is obviously bringing rather too much of his own baggage into the article (inter alia, the Silk Road had almost nothing to do with India as it ran well north of the Himalayas & it was staffed by Muslims for a goodly portion of its existence), but it should go without saying that mentions of trade and architecture easily run afoul of WP:RELEVANT in an article on conquest. Surely there are articles on, say, Indo-Islamic architecture and the Economic history of India where such issues should actually be discussed. Including them via a see also link here is generous or even questionable.

With respect, TopGun could do with looking over WP:UNDUE again himself. UNDUE deals with treating rogue, pet, or nationalistic theories (like, say, the idea that the conquest of India was a peaceful affair by friendly Sufi wisemen) as though they were reliable sources; it has nothing at all to do with removing unsourced claims, which is fine and particularly so when those claims themselves run afoul of UNDUE. Mentioning lots of extraneous irrelevant cultural details in a page on conquest is itself a violation of UNDUE.

I'm not defending all of Pt's stance or edits, but this page does currently have some UNDUE problems & they're not the ones being misrepresented in this exchange. There is no legitimate controversy that the Muslim expansion in India was either heartless domination or a peaceful love-in. There were elements at different times of both, there's some controversy of the extent of both, and sections of the article need rewriting and sourcing to reflect that. — LlywelynII 19:07, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, fwiw, WP:Beware of the tigers is rather less obnoxious than that "truth" link. WP:DONTBITE. — LlywelynII 19:13, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Lead In

The first sentence in the lead in is very confusing. It says...

"Muslim conquest in South Asia mainly took place from the 13th to the 16th centuries, though earlier Muslim conquests made limited inroads into the region, beginning during the period of the ascendancy of the Rajput Kingdoms in North India, from the 7th century onwards."

The part after the first comma seems like it should be a separate sentence but it's not a full sentence. Desasu11 (talk) 14:42, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

It's not confusing at all. Awkward, maybe. — LlywelynII 18:27, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

one of the bloodiest chapter in human history ? really ? and you're using rđa Trifković , the fervant islam hater as a reference ? how does the muslim conquest of india compare to the mongol invasions of the middle east? the conquest of the americas and the near-extermination of the natives in north america? the holocaust ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.250.247.56 (talk) 00:34, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

"The Mohammedan conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history." from Our Oriental Heritage: The Story of Civilization|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=ru4LPyMAxxkC&pg=PT725%7Caccessdate=27 August 2012|date=7 June 2011|publisher=Simon and Schuster|isbn=978-1-4516-4668-9|pages=725

Population of India,Pakistan,Bangladesh (South Asia) during 1000 and 1500 AD

According to this source: Demography: Analysis and Synthesis, Graziella Caselli,Jacques Vallin,Guillaume J. Wunsch, page 34, 2006. Online

The population of South Asia (now India, Pakistan and Bangladesh) increased

• from 40 million in 1000 AD
• to 83 million in 1250 AD
• to 95 million in 1500 AD.

DragonTiger23 (talk) 20:53, 11 February 2013 (UTC)