[7] His central thesis on the economic impact of Islam dispelled many commonly held dogmas on demonetization theory, and underlined the errors in "drawing parallels between contemporary Europe and India".
[7] Bruce B. Lawrence – a scholar of religious studies, states Wink's scope is "ambitious, even monumental", but volume 1 of "al-Hind is seriously flawed by its too narrow focus, its author's near total disregard of cultural actors, issues, and influences".
The book is a reprieve from small scale histories that characterizes South Asian historiography, but a better study would integrate insights of historians such as Derryl MacLean, remarks Lawrence.
[8] Historian Derryl N. Maclean, who published Religion and society in Arab Sind in 1984, noted Wink's first volume focuses on the initial expansion of Muslims into the East and their economic activities at the frontiers.
However, states MacLean, Wink's work exhibited signs of "hasty research and composition" affecting his larger conjectures and portrayed a reductive, unsubtle and "ahistorical caricature" of a complex Indo-Islamic past.
[9] Maclean criticized his "the cavalier manner with unattributed quotes from primary sources", "numerous broad and unsupported statements", "quasi-orientalist musings" and "chaotic transliterations" some of which are "clearly misreadings".
[9] Historian Peter Jackson states Wink's volume 1 deals with India and entire Indian Ocean basin just like the Arabic-Persian term "Hind embraced a far wider area than the subcontinent".
[11] The historian Sanjay Subrahmanyam, in one of his essays, states Wink's volume 1 "tends to treat both Islam and Muslims in a largely monolithic and undifferentiated fashion and is strikingly reticent both on questions of ideology and on the social and economic competition and conflict between different groups operating in the Indian Ocean".
[13] Sunil Kumar, in his review of Wink's first volume, noted the author to "seldom extend beyond a 'cut and paste' methodology" where information was conveniently chosen and discarded from existing secondary scholarship to pursue his broader agenda.
[15] Ranabir Chakravarti, a historian of ancient India, express surprise that Wink's discussion on Rashtrakutas were solely based on Arabic chronicles and that he did not cite any kind of epigraphic records.
This is the period in Wink's analysis where a fusion happened between two different cultures, one "of maritime trade and pastoral nomadism" prevalent in the Islamic controlled parts of West and Central Asia, and the settled and "static agricultural world" of India.
Jackson lists a series of such "irritating distractions" and "slips" as he calls them, then adds Wink's volume 2 is "otherwise splendid" and "much needed" scholarship to place Indian history in the global context and to understand the Indo-Islamic world.
[18] Gavin Hambly found it to be an authoritative work of "consummate scholarship and intellectual distinction" on the Islamic spans of India; the parts on Delhi Sultanate were given "an entirely fresh perspective" and overall, the volume exhibited "deep learning, leisured pace, and sound judgment" doing justice to Wink's wide-ranging approach.
He mentions Wink's central thesis on the establishment of the Delhi Sultanate as a part of larger geo-cultural movement, that the attacks and wars during this period had a major role in essentially ending Buddhism within India, and its shift to Tibet, Sri Lanka and southeast Asia.
Wink's work, states Eaton, also argues how the Delhi Sultanate's iqta system revitalized north Indian economy and helped India become "the hub of world trade".
It covers the Habshi slaves and mercenaries from East Africa brought into India for military campaigns in Bengal, Gujarat and the Deccan, how capitals and major cities such as Delhi and Devagiri were settled in the fringes of semi-arid zones as well as in the non-arid lower Gangetic valley.
The Volume 3 may be judged by critics as 'sweeping geography-driven" scheme that does not give human agency the credit it deserves, states Eaton, yet it is innovative and provocative secondary work that is a "welcome relief from standard dynastic narratives" commonly published.