Talk:Hinduism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Former featured article Hinduism is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 24, 2004.

Current version of the Islamic rule period[edit]

@JJ: are you okay if we expand "several hundred thousands of Indian slaves [...] were traced to other parts" to include Delhi slave market and Timur's last massive haul of Hindu slaves? It makes it more clearly relevant to Hinduism and its followers. It is in the embedded quote from the Andre Wink source, and @Kautilya3 approves of Andre Wink as a source. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:20, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Sure. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:38, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
I prefer it in the footnote. I have already demonstrated, through the Avari source, that slavery was the established practice of the Turkic society. It wasn't religious persecution. Harping on it would be WP:UNDUE. - Kautilya3 (talk) 18:22, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
At second thought, Kautilya3 has got a point here. The full quote already is in the note; the most relevant part is that there was a slave-trade. How i it relevant to Hinduism specifically? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:53, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
The more relevant part is the "last massive slave haul of Hindu slaves." Indeed, we should leave most in the note. @JJ, I will do some wordsmithing, but feel free to refine it further. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:23, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

"Hindu" slave/war captives and Timur[edit]

@Joshua Jonathan:

Historian Irfan Habib writes in "Timur in the Political Tradition and Historiography of Mughal India" that in the 14th century, the word "Hindu" (people of "Al-Hind", "Hind" being "India") included "both Hindus and Muslims" in religious connotations.[1]

When Timur entered Delhi after defeating Mahmud Toghloq’s forces, he granted an amnesty in return for protection money (mâl-e amâni). But on the fourth day he ordered that all the people of the city be enslaved; and so they were. Thus reports Yahya, who here inserts a pious prayer in Arabic for the victims’ consolation ("To God we return, and everything happens by His will"). Yazdi, on the other hand, does not have any sympathy to waste on these wretches. He records that Timur had granted protection to the people of Delhi on the 18th of December 1398, and the collectors had begun collecting the protection money. But large groups of Timur’s soldiers began to enter the city and, like birds of prey, attacked its citizens. The "pagan Hindus" (Henduân-e gabr) having had the temerity to begin immolating their women and themselves, the three cities of Delhi were put to sack by Timur’s soldiers. "Faithless Hindus", he adds, had gathered in the Congregation Mosque of Old Delhi and Timur’s officers put them ruthlessly to slaughter there on the 29th of December. Clearly, Yazdi’s "Hindus" included Muslims as well.[2]

Ghatus (talk) 03:39, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://asiecentrale.revues.org/500
  2. ^ Timur in the Political Tradition and Historiography of Mughal India, Irfan Habib,p. 295-312
I just read here in Eaton's essay on temple desecration that that the period of 1000-1200 CE the muslim invasions were merely for material reasons, that their armies also contained slaves (p.63), and that also territoy in Iran was plundered. Only with the establishment of the Delhi sultanate the aims changed. It reminds me of the Normans in Europe, who are regarded as barbarians in the Lowlands (and as traiders and settlers in England...). Adding your quoye to it, it seems that a lot of this Muslim-violence may have had little to do with the 'Hinduness' of India, and a lot with the economical base & logic of these invaders. But... that's my conclusion, and maybe your suggestion, and interesting and relevant for our own understanding and for a direction the article may take, but it's not suited for inclusion, since these are our thoughts. So, more is needed. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:28, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
@Joshua Jonathan:, my point is the article says "Enslavement of Hindus was part of the Muslim conquests."(Sarah added "of Hindus" later) What does that mean? Enslavement of war captives was a medieval policy. It did not see which religion one belonged as slave trade was a profitable business at that time. Even many Muslim rulers of Delhi sultanate and their top generals were Slaves. Again, this is not my word, Irfan Habib says that even in the 14th century the word "Hindu" did not have religious connotations, but geographical meaning. Timur's "Hindus" were actually Indians (both Hindus and Muslims). So the word "Hindu" in Persian text has totally different meaning and wrong interpretation is being done here. BTW, read both the booklets of Eaton and you will get a clearer picture.Ghatus (talk) 04:45, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
@JJ: I left your revised wording and the note intact, on slavery of followers of Hinduism. The notes/text already includes slavery of the families of war captives and for unpaid revenue (jizya tax revenue were always for Hinduness, or Henduân - a term in their historical texts that included Jains, Buddhists, Sikhs and anyone not officially Muslim). We can't do synthesis of Eaton and Habib. While Habib does write that, in Yazdi's text, slaughtered Hindus included Muslims, he neither writes enslaved Hindus included Muslims, nor anything about the relative ratios. Later Habib writes, "Delhi was laid waste (kharâb shod) ... in punishment for its inhabitants’ evil beliefs and vile deeds and conduct" - a reference to non-Islamic beliefs. I wouldn't recommend that you add Habib quote on slaughter into the slavery note.
If you wish to learn more about slavery of non-Muslims during the Mughal Empire, dig into Aurangzeb's Fatawa Alamgiri related HISTRS. That is where you will find more neutral solid information on the Islamic theory and practice of enslavement of Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, Sikhs, etc. in India. Dirk Kolff's PhD thesis at Leiden had sections on enslavement of Hindus during the Mughal rule. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 06:16, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Lol! We have Slave Dynasty of Muslims in India. BTW, are you interested to know about the History of Muslims slaves in India and worldwide? Should I name the slave sultans and their top slave generals. Truly speaking, Muslim rule started in the North India by Muslim slaves themselves. It was a worldwide profitable business. From Ghaznavi to Timur to Nadir Shah- all enslaved people irrespective of religions. Again,If you read little bit more History, you will know that Timur slaughter the enslaved ones- hence you difference between enslaved and slaughtered ones do not hold water. Timur got thousands of slaves from Iran and central Asian counties. And, you are making it a issue as if it was a deliberate policy to enslave only Hindus or like minded religions. I do not know which Fatwa of enslaving Hindus you are referring to, but 1/3 (31% ) of Mughal nobles were Hindu during the time of Aurangzeb. (1679-1707)

Table 1 . . Akbar Shah Jahan Aurangzeb (1595) (1628-58) (1658-78) (1679-17017) Total mansabdars 98 437 486 575 Hindus 22 98 105 182 Ghatus (talk) 07:14, 9 August 2015 (UTC) ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Ghatus: See WP:NOTFORUM. @JJ: I would not recommend expanding the section to include Mamluk dynasty and slavery of Hindus, Buddhists in each dynasty of the Islamic rule - it will be distracting and undue. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 07:33, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Hence, I think the line "Enslavement of Hindus was part of the Muslim conquests" should be changed to "Enslavement was part of the Muslim conquests" as it was before. The reason is you were making a general incident into a special incident. Again, not slave dynasty alone, from Aibak(12th century) to Malik Ambar (17th century), the Islamic slaves also have a great History. So, needless communalization is not desired.Ghatus (talk) 07:51, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Read the cited sources. We must stick to summarizing what the sources are stating, not your views derived from, "Lol! We have Slave Dynasty of Muslims in India. BTW, are you interested to know about the History of Muslims slaves in India and worldwide?." Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 08:10, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
(ec) We can't do synthesis of Eaton and Habib, says Ms Sarah Welch. Of course we can! We are writing an Encyclopedia, not reproducing cherry-picked sentences from our favourite books. We are supposed to describe what is available to us as scholarly consensus. It seems to me that Ms Sarah Welch is trying to use Wikipedia policies to push her own programme without understanding, or perhaps ignoring, the purpose of those policies. - Kautilya3 (talk) 08:17, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
The WP:Synthesis policy says, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." Synthesis of Eaton and Habib for creating content in this article will be a violation of that policy and its purpose. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 08:40, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── After digging into the sources a bit, what I gather is the following: Islam allowed their invaders to enslave the non-Muslim war captives. Even though Muslims were also enslaved on occasion (e.g., Ghurids enslaved Ghaznavids after conquering them), this wasn't the norm. Secondly, it appears that the availability of lots of war captives (along with booty) was one of the attractions of invading India, because Hindus were expected to resist and not convert to Islam. So I don't think we can brush aside the slavery issues. I have tweaked the text a little so that it doesn't appear that enslavement was unique to Hindus. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 10:29, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Suhrawardi Tariqah[edit]

The following line was added, as evidence for forced conversions:

"and orthodox Sufi Islam groups such as the Suhrawardiyya supporting the forced conversion of Hindus and Buddhists." (source: John Esposito (2003), Suhrawardi Tariqah, in The Oxford Dictionary of Islam, Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0195125597, page 303)

The source, which altogether only counts 114 words, only says:

"Supported the forced conversion of Hindus and Buddhists."

No context, no mention of other Sufi groups. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:41, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

@JJ: How about "and orthodox Sufi Islam group Suhrawardi Tariqah supporting the forced conversion of Hindus and Buddhists"? For context, see the "Sufi missionary" and the "warrior Sufi" theories discussed in Jamal Malik's 2008 book you have already included in this article, at pages 184-185 of the Conversion to Islam in South Asia section. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 06:40, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
@JJ: That phrase is not for "as evidence for forced conversions", but for "as evidence of support for forced conversions". It clarifies whether enslavement of the followers of Hinduism and Buddhism was merely an incidental consequence, or with a theory and intent behind? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 07:09, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Ah, I see. yet, this "theory and intend behind" is not clear, nor the number of converts involved. You refer to Malik, Jamal (2008), Islam in South Asia: A Short History, Brill Academic, ISBN 978-9004168596; I'll have to look it up. Thanks, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:07, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Hmm... Malik summarizes Eaton, starting witht he "religion of the sword thesis," and repeating Eaton by stating that there is little support for this thesis, and that mass conversions were usually not forced, though there were exceptions (p.183). The Sufi-section says that "Sifis did not set out to convert Hindus" (p.184). He does say, though, repeating eaton, that the Sufis suported the raids in India (p.185), but there's nothing about support by Sufis for forced conversions. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:18, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
@JJ: The section is on Conversion to Islam in South Asia, and eight theories of conversions, nothing else. The raids discussion must be read in that section's context (isn't that why you wanted context with John Esposito source?). But if you prefer to interpret Jamal Malik is somehow discussing raids in a random fashion, I will not insist that you add the above to this article. I will accept your call on this. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 08:29, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Aurangzeb from Burjor Avari[edit]

Few days ago, @Sitush had made a good suggestion that, "While this article has to focus on Hinduism, it doesn't not have to do so slavishly (sorry!). In other words, it would probably be wrong to say that "X enslaved Hindus" if in fact "X enslaved Hindus and also Muslims". The first creates the erroneous impression to the reader that only one community suffered under X."

In Aurangzeb's case, a note on him is already in this article, Burjor Avari source provides such a clarification on page 155. It mentions that not only Hindus, Aurangzeb's confrontation targeted the Sikhs as well. He writes, "Aurangzeb's religious policy caused friction between him and the ninth Sikh guru, Tegh Bahadur. In both Punjab and Kashmir the Sikh leader was roused to action by Aurangzeb's excessively zealous Islamic policies. Seized and taken to Delhi, he was called upon by Aurangzeb to embrace Islam and, on refusal, was tortured for five days and then beheaded in November 1675. Two of the ten Sikh gurus thus died as martyrs at the hands of the Mughals."

@JJ: do you want to add this to the embedded quote, to help avoid "the erroneous impression to the reader that only one community suffered under X"? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Is it clear that Aurangzeb thought of Sikhs as a separate community different from Hindus? - Kautilya3 (talk) 13:52, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Neither obvious nor implied in Burjor Avari source in my reading. The closest relevant sentence is on page 114 last para, which starts with and later reads,
"Aurangzeb was essentially an Islamic puritan. (...) The creation of an Islamic India was his goal; and for this he promulgated laws and ordinances that increasingly became unnerving for Hindus, other non-Muslims and for many Muslims too."
This sentence refers to non-Muslims other than Hindus, but this could be sloppy writing by Avari - he may mean non-Hindus and non-Muslims under modern era definition, not necessarily in Aurangzeb's view; or Avari could mean those Aurangzeb considered as neither Hindu nor Muslims. Either way, it is interesting. If Tegh Bahadur was tortured and beheaded because Aurangzeb considered him a Hindu sect leader, it is relevant; if Tegh Bahadur was tortured and beheaded because Aurangzeb considered him a non-Hindu leader, it may be relevant from @Sitush-suggestion perspective. BTW, I have read a lot about Islam history in India and outside India, in recent decades, including on Aurangzeb - but allow me silence and let me stick with no-WP:Synthesis policy for this article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:49, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
There isn't really a Synthesis-policy. There is only an OR-policy. Trying reading this essay: WP:SYNTHNOT.
My feeling is that it was only after Guru Gobind Singh that Sikhism asserted a distinct identity separate from Hinduism. Prior to that they were essentially thought of as Nanak-Panthis. (The Sikhs will probably deny that.) So I don't doubt its relevance to this article. My worry is only how far we should go with narrating history. Perhaps we shouldn't worry about it for the time being, because the excess text can always be moved to the History of Hinduism article. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 16:14, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Kautilya3: Indeed. Balance is the key. I am fine with whatever @JJ decides, given the difficult balance he is trying to craft, here or the other article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:01, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

"different yet similar"[edit]

This seems like an unnecessary "weasel" phrase. What does it really mean?

"While there are different yet similar pilgrimage routes in different parts of India..."

--23.119.204.117 (talk) 14:40, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 9 external links on Hinduism. 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:

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

N Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:38, 26 August 2015 (UTC)