Talk:Barha dynasty

Confusion?

I'm a bit put off by the quote, @Sutyarashi.

It states "Among the early emigrant Muslim families, there was one Saiyid Abul Far of Was'rt. One branch of his descendants later on became famous as Saiyids of Barha. H.R. Nevili, is of the view that towards the latter half of the fourteen century (1360-1400), the Saiyids generally seem to have attained to considerable power and might possibly had induced the Punjabi Saiyids to move to their assistance"

When it starts from "The Saiyids", I believe this is continuing to refer to the Sayyids of Barha, correct? And as it goes on, it states that they might've possibly induced the Punjabi Sayyids to "move to their assistance". Which is implying the Punjabi Sayyids are something else. I think it could be referring to the Sayyid dynasty of the Delhi Sultanate

Let me know what you think, and if possible, is there other sources to post? Noorullah (talk) 19:28, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If it is considered that "Punjabi Saiyids" of the source are same as the Sayyid dynasty, then it would not explain for whose assistance they moved who had gained power. Barhas did not gained power or rule over Delhi sultanate, and so Sayyid dynasty never moved for their assistance. Thus considering that here it refers to Sayyids of Delhi makes the statement meaningless. Given that another historian Dirk H. A. Kolff states Barhas to be of peasant origins from Punjab and the source (The Barha Saiyids and Associated Clans) in its entirety deals with the Barha dynasty, here Punjabi Saiyids refers to the Barhas.

Richard M. Eaton as well, though not specifying them to be Punjabis, calls Barhas a clan of Indian Muslims. Sutyarashi (talk) 20:33, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sutyarashi Then I still think it should be checked with WP:HISTRS, as far as I see, a Punjabi origin isn't corroborated by any scholarly source. "MUHAMMAD UMAR" from Jstor doesn't seem reliable, and compared to a much more prominent and well known historian such as Eaton.

I tried looking for more sources that would corroborate a possible Punjabi origin, and found nothing. I believe changing it to "Indian Muslims" would be more appropriate. Noorullah (talk) 21:57, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vast majority of sources don't state their any origin at all. Those who do, doubt their claim of being Sayyid. As for Muhammad Umar, the source mentions him to be a professor of history at Aligarh Muslim University. He's reliable, given that he was also a member of Indian History Congress.

Dirk's statement, in which he traces their origins to Punjab, is corroborative as well. So, I don't think Indian Muslims and Punjabi are in any way contradictory which would necessiate the change.

Sutyarashi (talk) 22:22, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]