Talk:Malik Kafur

Illustration?

Interesting illustration. However neither Malik Kafur not his servants could not have looked like that in that period. Should be removed. Malaiya (talk) 01:19, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Why wouldn't they have looked like that? The illustration is from a reputed source.

Death section insufficient

The section dealing with the death of M.K. lacks any useful explanation of the the circumstances or motivations around a number of key events, and also lacks references to support most of the claims made. Why did he kill his master? How did he he "hasten" his death - did he directly kill him or did he just neglect him intentionally? Why did he blind his master's successors, and why did he choose to place the given person on the throne? How did he wield this enormous executive power? How did he physically achieve these ends? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.201.100.168 (talk) 01:14, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Obviously MK wanted to capture power for himself. Malaiya (talk) 01:23, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

References

Moved unsourced material here

(removed from article as unsourced) It is reported that Alauddin fell in love with his effeminate handsomeness and named him senior commander in his army after he agreed to convert to Islam.‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.›  Early in his career, he became known as “Thousand-dinar Kafur” for the price at which he was rumored to have been bought. Thanks, Mattisse 16:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Proper citations were provided.Kumarrao (talk) 08:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Verification needed

The 'Relationship with Alauddin' subsection stated that Historian Banarsi Prasad Saksena believes that the closeness between Alauddin and Kafur should not be interpreted as a homosexual relationship: Alauddin had great trust in Kafur because unlike other officers, he did not have family or followers. Such a sentence implies that the explanation for Alauddin & Kafur's closeness is that Alauddin specially trusted Kafur because the latter lacked family and followers. The source does not give such an explanation. Whoever wrote that sentence has combined two different statements from the source and joined them to imply a conclusion not supported by the source. That is WP:SYNTHESIS.

Since the purpose of that misleading sentence seemed to be to prove that Alauddin and Kafur were not involved sexually, I am suspicious of the other sentence that states they weren't involved sexually, especially so because that sentence was written in a non-neutral manner. The sentence was: "However, historian Abraham Eraly notes that Barani's criticism of Kafur is not credible: Barani was extremely prejudiced against Kafur, presumably because of Kafur's non-Turkic origins." I could not access the cited source (Abraham Eraly's book The Age of Wrath: A History of the Delhi Sultanate, p. 178) for that sentence myself so I added the 'verification needed' tag. I am suspicious that that sentence may have WP:SYNTHESIS too so I would like someone to verify if the source truly states that:

1. Barani's statement that Kafur was a "sodomite" is not credible
2. It is not credible because Barani was prejudiced against Kafur
3. He was prejudiced against him presumably because of his non-Turkic origins.

I would like whoever verifies the sentence to copy-paste/quote the relevent paragraph(s) from the cited page of Eraly's book onto this talk page so that it is clear that the verification was honest. —Human10.0 (talk) 20:06, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Saksena clearly states: "There was no element of homosexuality in Alauddin's character; and though Kafur was a eunuch, there was nothing wrong in Alauddin's relations with Kafur, apart from the fact that since Kafur, unlike all other officers, had no family or followers, the Sultan had a greater trust in him."

Eraly's statement is about Barani's criticism of Kafur in general: it can be moved to a part about Barani's criticism of Kafur, to avoid any confusion. utcursch | talk 20:23, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Note that in Saksena's relevant statement that you have quoted, he doesn't phrase trust in Kafur as an explanation of Alauddin's infatuation. Saksena is stating two different things: one being that he doesn't believe Alauddin and Kafur's relationship was sexual and the other being that the only 'negative' thing he can think of about their relationship was that Alauddin trusted Kafur more than all other officers. These are two unrelated statements that should be included in the 'Relationship with Alauddin' subsection and 'As the viceroy' section separately, not as one being the explanation of the other. I will try to be WP:BOLD and remedy the situation.

The current arrangement of text is better than the earlier versions after the text move made by you but I feel it can be further improved. Thank you for quoting Eraly's statement in the citation. I wish you had not removed my 'verification needed' tag though because now another verification (and WP:SYNTH) issue has arisen. The current text states: The chronicler Ziauddin Barani (1285–1357) is severely critical of Kafur, and states that Alauddin was infatuated with Kafur, who cut the emperor off from others, and became the de facto ruler of the Sultanate. Historian Abraham Eraly believes that Barani's criticism of Kafur is not credible as Barani was extremely prejudiced against Kafur, presumably because of Kafur's non-Turkic origins.

Does the cited source (Eraly 2015, p. 178) list Alauddin's infatuation, cutting off of the emperor from others, and becoming de facto ruler as criticisms made by Barani of Kafur?

And does the source state that these 3 specific apparent criticisms by Barani are not credible, the way the current text seems to imply? I would appreciate if Eraly's statements that apparently convey this message are quoted on the talk page. —Human10.0 (talk) 10:24, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Eraly mentions Barani's statement about Kafur cutting Alauddin from others, and then, in a new paragraph, starts with "Barani is severly critical of Kafur..." (the part which is quoted in the article). Your reorganization of content seems alright to me. utcursch | talk 21:04, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for accepting my edit and for verifying the part about Eraly mentioning Barani's accusation about Kafur cutting off Alauddin from others. Could you kindly quote what Eraly says about Alauddin's infatuation with Kafur on p. 178? –Human10.0 (talk) 09:57, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Here's the quote:

Besides, Ala-ud-din, according to Barani, ‘was infatuated with Malik Kafur, and made him the commander of his army and vizier. He distinguished him above all his other helpers and friends, and this eunuch and minion held the chief place in his regards.’ And in the closing days of the sultan’s reign, he became the virtual ruler of the empire. Kafur ‘did not allow anyone to see the emperor, and he himself began to … administer the realm,’ states Isami.

Barani is severely critical of Kafur, but his excoriations are not quite credible, for he was deeply prejudiced against Malik Kafur, whom he invariably described as a ‘wicked fellow,’ presumably because he was not a Turk but an Islamised Hindu and a eunuch.

utcursch | talk 17:18, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing the quote. I was able to access the book myself and I read the relevant pages preceding & succeeding the part you quoted.

The following sentence in the Wiki article needs to be edited: The chronicler Ziauddin Barani (1285–1357) is severely critical of Kafur, and states that Alauddin was infatuated with Kafur, who cut the emperor off from others, and became the de facto ruler of the Sultanate. Historian Abraham Eraly believes that Barani's criticism of Kafur is not credible as Barani was extremely prejudiced against Kafur, presumably because of Kafur's non-Turkic origins.

It needs to be edited because, according to the source, it was not Barani who said that Kafur cut the emperor off from others or that Kafur became the de facto emperor while Alauddin was ill; Isami said both those things.

After reading the relevant pages of the source, I've gotten a better understanding of the context. And context is really important here because if one only reads the part quoted above, it seems like the excoriation line is a comment on the veracity of what has been stated earlier. But in actuality, the excoriation line is the starting line of a different paragraph that's trying to convey a different piece of info, i.e., after saying "Besides, Ala-ud-din, according to Barani, [...] states Isami," Eraly begins a new paragraph with "Barani is severely critical of Kafur..." The purpose of this new paragraph is to relate that Kafur faced prejudice and animosity from people due to his origins and eunuch status. The paragraph does not seem to be a comment on the "Ala-ud-din, according to Barani, ‘was infatuated with Malik Kafur" line. The opening statement ("Barani is severely critical of Kafur, but his excoriations are not quite credible") seems to be an overall analysis of how Barani talks about Kafur in his writings:

Barani is severely critical of Kafur, but his excoriations are not quite credible, for he was deeply prejudiced against Malik Kafur, whom he invariably described as a ‘wicked fellow,’ presumably because he was not a Turk but an Islamised Hindu and a eunuch. The resentment against Kafur among the Turkish nobles intensified when he blinded Khizr Khan and his brother Shadi Khan—Kafur, writes Barani, ‘sent his barber to blind Shadi Khan … by cutting his eyes from their sockets with a razor’—and imprisoned the other sons of Ala-ud-din, except the boy sultan who was his protégé. ‘His great object was to remove all the children and wives of the late sultan, all the nobles and slaves who had claims for the throne, and to fill their places with creatures of his own.’

The source text does not explicitly state that Alauddin's infatuation with Kafur was one of Barani's non-credible/incredible excoriations, the way the current Wiki text seems to be imply so that part needs to be edited too. The Wiki article relates information according to the periods/stages of Kafur's life (e.g. early life, as a viceroy, as a regent). After removing Isami's statements from the "The chronicler Ziauddin Barani (1285–1357) is severely critical of Kafur..." sentence, there's no indication of what period to mention it in. It should ideally be paired with the Turkish nobles info (that I intend to add to the 'As a regent' section), because the two sentences together aid in relating that Kafur faced prejudice. But because I can't currently figure out an eloquent way to mention those sentences together, I'll have to move the Barani criticism sentence elsewhere. —Human10.0 (talk) 00:10, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

@Almeda64: Regarding these edits, you might want to read the discussion above. @Human10.0 has raised concerns that Eraly doesn't specifically speak about Barani's description of Kafur's homosexuality, so connecting his cautionary note about Barani's unreliability to this specific topic is original research. utcursch | talk 06:30, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Regarding Rapri's current location

It is mentioned in Malik Kafur#Early life and career that "by 1309-10, he held the iqta' (administrative grant) of Rapri, in Jagadhri tehsil of Yamunanagar district of present-day Haryana." But the cited source doesn't support the current location of Rapri.

Here's the relevant quote from the source:

Kafur's first known base was Rapri, on the Yamuna, which was his iqta' by 709/1309-10;³³ but towards the end of the reign he was in command at Deoglr, which had by then been annexed to the Sultanate (p. 202 below); the date of his appointment as na'ib is unknown.[2]

I have access to the above source, and there aren't any details regarding Rapri's current location in the book. So I will remove it for now. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:47, 30 March 2019 (UTC)