Talk:Alauddin Khalji

Personal life section

I read the discussion above and I don't agree with what Human10.0 has to say. Why should Malik Kafur be mentioned here? It is seriously misleading. Is there any source which explicitly states that Kafur was Alauddin's homosexual lover with proof? In case of Alauddin's son, Qutb-ud-din Mubarak Shah, it is clearly mentioned in sources that he was bisexual and had even taken male lovers i.e. Hasan and Hisamuddin. There is clear proof of his bisexuality, people even saw him hugging and kissing his lovers. But in Alauddin's case, it is merely mentioned in some sources that he took "fancy" to Kafur or he was "infatuated" with him. Banarsi Prasad Saksena states that Alauddin was "infatuated" with Kafur but "there was no element of homosexuality in Alauddin's character." He clearly states that the infatuation was not sexual in nature. Saksena clearly describes Alauddin's son, Mubarak Shah, as bisexual, why doesn't he call Alauddin one too then? Different historians describe their relationship differently but no one explicitly states that their relationship was romantic/sexual neither do they give any proof of it. The basis for all these claims are Barani's statements. The same Barani who was prejudiced against Kafur and calls him a "useless ungrateful, ingratiate, sodomite" and constantly used to refer to him as a "wicked fellow." Barani also claims that Kafur rose to a high position and only became commander of Alauddin's army because of Alauddin's love for him.

• 'The third reason was that the Sultan loved the Malik Naib very much. He made him the commander of his army, a minister. He raised him above all the others. The heart of this sodomite beloved of his was soon corrupted.'

Satish Chandra explains Kafur's rise to power here in Medieval India: From Sultanat to the Mughals-Delhi Sultanat (1206-1526). No where does Chandra say that Alauddin gave him these positions because of his love for him.

• "From Somnath the Sultanate army proceeded to the flourishing port city of Khambhat (Cambay), plundered its merchants and obtained a vast booty—and, what turned to be far more valuable to the sultan, the army there seized a young, handsome and exceptionally talented slave eunuch named Kafur, who bore the nickname Hazardinari (Thousand Dinars), as his original price was one thousand dinars. Taken to Delhi, Kafur became an intimate of the sultan—his ‘beauty captivated Ala-ud-din,’ says Barani—and he would in time play a central role in the history of the times."

Here is how Chandra described Kafur's capture by Khilji forces. Again, Chandra doesn't mention anything about "love at first sight" for Alauddin.

Regarding Alauddin's last days, Chandra said:

• "The last years of Alauddin Khalji were disturbed by a painful disease, and intense struggle for power among the nobles. Malik Kafur, the malik naib or vice regent who had the complete confidence of Alauddin, gradually eliminated his opponents, and to clear his way to power had Khizr Khan, the heir-apparent, imprisoned and then blinded. After Alauddin's death (1316), Kafur elevated a minor son of Alauddin to the throne, and assumed all powers."[1]

No where does Chandra say that Alauddin became "infatuated" with Kafur or "fell in love" with him and gave him power. My point is that Chandra is a prominent historian, if Kafur and Alauddin's relationship was actually romantic/sexual and was important then why is it not clearly mentioned in each and every prominent source? Chandra doesn't give even the slightest mention of it. Chandra should've also said that Alauddin became infatuated with Kafur and gave him all the power.

A lot of undue importance is being given to Alauddin's relationship with Kafur even when there is no proof. The only basis are Barani's claims and it should be made clear in the article that these are his claims. Also, if the "Marriages" section in "Early life" is removed then this info: Malik Chajju's former Amirs (subordinate nobles) at Kara considered Jalaluddin as a weak and ineffective ruler, and instigated Alauddin to usurp the throne of Delhi. This, combined with his unhappy domestic life, made Alauddin determined to dethrone Jalaluddin in the next section "Governor of Kara" does not make any sense. It is important to describe Alauddin's unhappy domestic life i.e. his first two marriages in the "Early life" section because it played an important role in his subsequent rebellion against Jalaluddin. As for his marriages to Kamaladevi and Jhatyapali, they can be mentioned in the sections "Mongol invasions and northern conquests, 1297-1306" and "Marwar and southern campaigns, 1307-1313", when they occurred, respectively. This personal life section was made solely to state that Alauddin was supposedly "in love with Kafur" according to Barani?

I would also like to point out some points made by Human10.0 which I don't agree with:

• Banarasi Prasad Saksena, 1992: Please be clear, he does not "clarify" that the relationship was non-sexual. He opines that (without providing any information to discredit the sources that talk about Alauddin and Kafur's relationship in sexual/romantic terms, or to support his own unique position). Saksena aknowledges that "During the last years of his reign, Alauddin was infatuated with Malik Kafur" but he is the only source that explicitly denies a same-sex sexual element to their relationship (like I said, without backing it up with evidence).

Can you please name any one prominent source which backs up the claim (with evidence) that Alauddin's relationship with Kafur was romantic and sexual? Saksena states that "there was no element of homosexuality in Alauddin's character". I guess that is what he is backing up his claim with. The same Saksena had no problem in calling Alauddin's son, Mubarak Shah, a bisexual. So if Alauddin was bisexual then why can't he call him one too?

• R. Vanita and S. Kidwai, 2000: A seriously misleading claim by you is that their book is a "book on descriptions of same-sex love in Indian literature (not a history book)". The name of the book is literally Same-Sex Love in India: Readings from Literature and History. It's a collection of documented examples of same-sex love in not only South Asian literature but also in the region's millennia-old history. The book mentions Alauddin and Kafur when listing sexual relationships between men and castrated men.

This is not a proper history book, it is just a book written by gay scholars about Indian literature. Their area of expertise is not history. You say that according to Barani they were in love and that is the proof. I've already mentioned before by citing Satish Chandra's book that Barani's statements are not believable. According to him, Kafur rose to prominence only because Alauddin loved him. What nonsense is this? He was clearly a competent general. If Alauddin was so madly and blindly in love with Kafur then why doesn't any other court chronicler or historian of the time mention this as well? Why doesn't Amir Khusrau state so too?

• In summary, most sources explicitly mention or imply a romantic-sexual relationship between Alauddin and Kafur whereas only one interprets it explicitly as platonic. I think that, like other biographical wiki articles, Alauddin's article should have a separate 'Personal Life' section. His marriages and discussion of his relationship with Kafur could go there (perhaps even the current Religion section). As a compromise, the Personal Life section could discuss the relationship with Kafur briefly and as per WP:SUMMARY, it would have a link to the 'Relationship with Alauddin' section on Malik Kafur's Wiki article (where more detailed information could be available). I think a 'Personal Life' section will be quite helpful because:

The Marriage section contains information that breaks the chronological order of the article and doesn't go well with the subsequent text (e.g. the section discusses a marriage occuring in 1308 or 1296, and then the succeeding 'Governor of Kara' section starts relating events occurring earlier in 1291). The question of which historical period to place the Kafur info in (i.e., in the last days section? Or earlier?) would become irrelevant.

You say most sources "explicitly mention or imply a romantic-sexual relationship between Alauddin and Kafur whereas only one interprets it explicitly as platonic". Jaswant Lal Mehta in his book Medieval Indian Society And Culture doesn't mention any romantic/sexual relationship between Kafur and Alauddin. So don't say that most sources mention or imply a romantic/sexual relationship between them. Some sources only state that Alauddin took "fancy" to Kafur and was "infatuated" with him. There is a big difference between mentioning and implying something and giving definitive proof of it. There is not a single source which explicitly calls Kafur Alauddin's homosexual lover with proof. Also, I've already stated why it's important to have the "Marriages" section in "Early life". Regarding the Kafur info, it should be mentioned in the "Mongol invasions and northern conquests, 1297-1306" and the "Last days" section. You are giving too much importance to Kafur and Alauddin's "supposed" relationship. I agree with Utcursch. The mention of a romantic or sexual aspect to their relationship is trivial. Also, it is not backed by an proof. Currently the sections "Early life" and "Personal life" have duplicate info. - Almeda64 (talk) 16:24, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

@Almeda64: I'm going to try to address the major points:

no one explicitly states that their relationship was romantic/sexual neither do they give any proof of it [...] Can you please name any one prominent source which backs up the claim (with evidence) that Alauddin's relationship with Kafur was romantic and sexual?

In the section above, numerous sources have been quoted stating that Alauddin was infatuated or enamored or in love with Malik Kafur, or that Kafur had caught his fancy. All these terms have a romantic/sexual love meaning; there are many terms to describe platonic closeness if that was the meaning the authors wanted to convey but they did not use those terms. Also see the statements in context – often times sources mention how Kafur was physically attractive before stating that Alauddin was infatuated with him, which obviously conveys that the infatuation was related to sexual attraction. Most sources are saying that Alauddin and Kafur's relationship was romantic/sexual in nature; you're willfully ignoring it.

Regarding your claim that the authors don't back up their claims, the authors do actually: they cite the chronicler Barani's medieval record of Indian history, wherein he states and implies multiple times that Alauddin and Kafur's relationship was sexual. Barani is a major source for information regarding Alauddin. Every source cited in this Alauddin article has in turn cited him to back up their statements. Historical records are our few sources of information about dead historical figures. We can't summon the dead Alauddin to explain the exact nature of his relationship with Kafur to you, if that's the kind of proof you want. You don't think Barani's historical record's statements are proof? That's fine. But reliable sources do, so the information should be mentioned in the article.

"The same Barani who was prejudiced against Kafur and calls him a "useless ungrateful, ingratiate, sodomite" and constantly used to refer to him as a "wicked fellow.""

It is ironic that here you're accepting Abraham Eraly's belief that Barani was prejudiced against Kafur yet you don't accept Eraly's belief that Alauddin was captivated by Kafur's beauty and was in love with him (what you called "love at first sight" above). One can argue that since same-sex sexual relationships were stigmatized in olden times, it is likelier that a chronicler who disliked Kafur (or was neutral towards him) would mention that Kafur engaged in a same-sex relationship with Alauddin, rather than someone who liked him. Anyways, it has been explained to you before that Barani's description of Kafur as a "sodomite" is not specifically considered unreliable by Eraly (or, to my knowledge, by any other historian).

No where does Chandra say that Alauddin became "infatuated" with Kafur or "fell in love" with him and gave him power.

Chandra does not deny that Alauddin was in love with Kafur either; the fact that Chandra did not state something does not mean that thing never happened. Chandra doesn't seem to go into as much detail about Alauddin and the Khalji dynasty as do the many sources that do mention that Alauddin was in love with Kafur. Correct me if I am wrong, but Chandra does not even mention Alauddin's wives Malika i Jahan and Mahru, and consequently does not mention his marital relationships with them. Does this prove that Alauddin was not married to them?

The same Saksena had no problem in calling Alauddin's son, Mubarak Shah, a bisexual. So if Alauddin was bisexual then why can't he call him one too?

Ask Saksena. I'd be interested in the answer as well because like I said before, Saksena just claims Alauddin's relationship with Kafur was nonsexual. He doesn't give any citation or evidence to back up his unique "no homosexuality" claim. And for the record, Saksena doesn't ever use the word "bisexual" to describe Mubarak Shah; we logically come to that conclusion after Saksena describes him as a simultaneous 'active' heterosexual and 'active' homosexual.

This is not a proper history book, it is just a book written by gay scholars about Indian literature. Their area of expertise is not history.

These claims are clear evidence that you do not know who R. Vanita and S. Kidwai are and that either you have not read their book Same-Sex Love in India: Readings from Literature and History or you don't understand what a history book is. Kidwai is literally a historian and was Professor of History at Delhi University for 20 years. And are you really trying to insinuate that if Kidwai and Vanita are gay, what they've mentioned in their book is untrue?

I'm perplexed that you do not want this wiki article to state what these "gay scholars" are explicitly stating (and what numerous other scholars are also stating or implying) and instead, you want the article to reflect what was said by Saksena, even though he is the only source out of all the sources that discuss Alauddin's relation with Kafur to explicitly claim that it was nonsexual. Whether or not we personally believe that Alauddin and Kafur had a romantic/sexual relationship or not is irrelevant. Wiki articles are suppose to state what the sources are stating and that's what has been done. The current Wiki article mentions Saksena's opinion; that should suffice.

You say most sources "explicitly mention or imply a romantic-sexual relationship between Alauddin and Kafur whereas only one interprets it explicitly as platonic". Jaswant Lal Mehta in his book Medieval Indian Society And Culture doesn't mention any romantic/sexual relationship between Kafur and Alauddin. So don't say that most sources mention or imply a romantic/sexual relationship between them.

If you read it in context, you'll see that I said "In summary, most sources explicitly mention or imply a romantic-sexual relationship..." That means I was summarizing what I had stated earlier about the numerous sources listed by utcursch. Those sources happen to be major sources for Alauddin-related information. Besides, the fact that one other source doesn't discuss the relationship does not mean that the ones that do are wrong. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Mehta mentions Malika i Jahan and Mahru either.

Honestly, your issue with the inclusion of the discussion of Alauddin's relationship with Kafur in the Wiki article (a discussion that, for the record, includes Saksena's denial that you personally believe in) seems like just a case of you personally not liking it. You don't want any mention of any infatuation or relationship, even though reliable secondary sources have mentioned it. You wanted to cast doubt on Barani's veracity specifically when he talks about a sexual relationship between Alauddin and Kafur but not for the rest of the statements in this article for which Barani is the ultimate source (all the citations in this article use Barani as a major source).You did not bother learning about Vanita and Kidwai before dismissing their expertise. You have also repeated the prejudice claim that does not apply even after you were made aware of it's non-applicability on Malik Kafur's talk page (after you had made edits in the Relationship with Alauddin section of Malik Kafur's wiki article, trying to deny a romantic/sexual nature to the relationship). —Human10.0 (talk) 01:07, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

There are some other sources too that deny sexual relationship of Allauddin and Kafur including historian Banarsi Prasad Saksena book. There is no concrete evidence about his sexual relationship with Malik Kafur. Most sources that claim that their sexual relationship existed are based directly or indirectly on guesses. Polarbear678 (talk) 07:10, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

————

Khalji dynasty

Khilji dynasty was from khorasan related to turkic uzbeks of modern afghanistan, follower of turkic culture and language. They invaded modern pakiland n nothern india Antivirus20 (talk) 03:57, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

No they were Pashtun Afghan of Ghilzai tribe. Akmal94 (talk) 21:53, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Mother

Jalaluddin khalji 115.187.62.86 (talk) 11:36, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Ethnicity in lead

To Turkic / Afghan editors, who are edit-warring over the lead: please see MOS:ETHNICITY: "Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless it is relevant to the subject's notability." utcursch | talk 18:19, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

I concur with Utkarshraj Atmaram reasoning on not mentioning him as a Turk (or for that matter any particular Sultan on their respective pages); this is mentioned anyway on more relevant page of Khalji dynasty. Packer&Tracker (talk) 18:05, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Would agree with Utcursch, ethnicity should not be in the lead. The name of the dynasty is already present and a simple click tells the reader what they should know about the Khaljis.--Kansas Bear (talk) 17:27, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Which date Alauddin khilji born

sst Naitik 636 (talk) 15:05, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Is Allaudin shia or sunni

@ImperialAficionado According to "RISE AND FALL OF MUHAMMAD BIN TUGHLUQ" Agha Mahdi Husain https://archive.org/details/dli.ernet.14243/page/105/mode/2up

He was a staunch Shia and this is the latest edition of this book.

Sudsahab (talk) 18:14, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

I believe that was your honest mistake as the quotation goes as Uljaitu Khan (1303-16), a contemporary of Ala-ud-din Khalji of India, was a staunch Shi'ah. It is talking about Ultaiju Khan. Not Alauddin Khalji. Imperial^[AFCND] 18:24, 24 December 2023 (UTC)