Greatest Mughal Emperor???

[rubyjackass]

As an emperor obviously Akbar was the best. Otherwise Mughal empire would not have that spread and legacy. This is indisputable.
The thread is an excellent indicator of the differences we have and of what we are taught.
I dont care if Aurangzeb knit caps for pocket money. It would be as stupid as Manmohan wanting to walk on foot everywhere. But alas Pakistani friends here consider this more important than the fact that he lost vast territories for Marathas and screwed up the most stable Muslim kingdom in the South to the advantage of Hindus and Christian British.

 

[DesiGuy]

Ya right.. and that was one of the reasons Muslim Leauge was created later Pakistan.

Good to hear that.


by the way, there are still many poor Muslims in BD and Pakistan. What are you going to do about that? Create another Muslim League and divide once again??

 

[humanfirst]

If what i heard is right,aurangazeb has killed many sikh people and many sikh gurus,Also he has destroyed many temples.If this is true how can we consider him even a human?Or is it justified to destroy temples by islam?

 

[Justin Joseph]

"babur" for chivalry,"akber" for it's dynasty and kingship and "aurengzeb" for his islamic mindset and rulership

It is said that babur was gay, Akbar was converted to Din E Elahi so one can claim him as a Muslim. Aurangzeb has killed sikh gurus and massacred innocent helpless people. so no one is good in between them.

 

[Kambojaric]

Ok all you indian haters out here who have nothing positive to add to this discussion, just one little fact

If the Mughal/Delhi Sultunate muslim kings really were such mass murderers who did nothing but raze down hindu/sikh temples and force the locals to convert them to islam, then tell me

why are YOU hindu today? Why is India a Hindu majority country today? Why is it that despite having ruled it for almost 1000 years majority of Indians are hindu? Shouldnt you all be muslim today if i am to believe all this b.s you guys are talking out here?

All you seem to want to do is generalise all these muslim kings into one general category which is "mass murderers and enforcers of islam on the people". Yes there may have been the odd Extreme king but then tell me anywhere in the world where you dont have extreme rulers from time to time.

 

[Kambojaric]

If what i heard is right,aurangazeb has killed many sikh people and many sikh gurus,Also he has destroyed many temples.If this is true how can we consider him even a human?Or is it justified to destroy temples by islam?

In Gujrat more than a thousand muslims were massacred. Can we consider those murderers as humans? Or is it justified in Hinduism to massacre non-hindus?
Grow up dude

 

[Prayag]

In Gujrat more than a thousand muslims were massacred. Can we consider those murderers as humans? Or is it justified in Hinduism to massacre non-hindus?
Grow up dude

Gujrat riots(not massacre) were a response to stimulas. It happened because muslims burned a complete railway bogey of pilgrims in godhra without any provocation but due to some verbal dispute on some railway station.

This was such a henious offence that led people to resort to violence against the perpetrators. Those "more than thousands" you are talking could unfortunately had been "more than ten thousands" had it happened anywhere else.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godhra_train_burning

Godhra train burning is a 2002 incident in which a coach of a train was burned, killing 58 people, mostly Hindu pilgrims, in Godhra, Gujarat. The event triggered widespread rioting in parts of Gujarat resulting in the deaths of about between 790[1][2] [3] and 2,000[4][5] Muslims and 254 Hindus.

In the very first police FIR, the incident was viewed as unplanned mob fury. However, a Special Investigating Team (SIT) of the Gujarat police argued that the coach was set on fire as a pre-planned act by a Muslim group, who were said to have stockpiled 140 liters of petrol from the day before for the purpose of killing the kar sevaks[6].

Do not float your own stupid theory.

 

[humanfirst]

In Gujrat more than a thousand muslims were massacred. Can we consider those murderers as humans? Or is it justified in Hinduism to massacre non-hindus?
Grow up dude

No the sick ones who participated in gujrat riots can never be called humans or they can never be considered as representatives of hinduism.The muslim extrimists who torched innocent people in godhra,those who killed people at akshardam temple,those who done mumbai carnage etc can never be considered representatives of islam.But if you look at some previous posts you can see many people considering aurangazeb a perfect example of a true muslim.My question was to those who consider aurangazeb a true muslim.If he destroyed temples and killed sikh gurus,he can be considered a true muslim only if it's acceptable in islam to destroy temple.Please enlighten me so that i can grow up

 

[Justin Joseph]

Ok all you indian haters out here who have nothing positive to add to this discussion, just one little fact

If the Mughal/Delhi Sultunate muslim kings really were such mass murderers who did nothing but raze down hindu/sikh temples and force the locals to convert them to islam, then tell me

why are YOU hindu today? Why is India a Hindu majority country today? Why is it that despite having ruled it for almost 1000 years majority of Indians are hindu? Shouldnt you all be muslim today if i am to believe all this b.s you guys are talking out here?

All you seem to want to do is generalise all these muslim kings into one general category which is "mass murderers and enforcers of islam on the people". Yes there may have been the odd Extreme king but then tell me anywhere in the world where you dont have extreme rulers from time to time.

1. We are not Indian haters

2. The answer is simple no muslim king has rules whole India.

3. All the muslim king's rule was confined to some cities in north India, And also not rural and tribal areas.

4. Hindus are in majority of their strength, there must be some quality that they are surviving for thousands of years.

5. The mass murderer term is used when someone tries to glamorize or glorify invaders.

Obviously then people will say about their deeds, good or bad.

6. Also, the invaders came to India kills people, looted there and run away to their own country.

The another category of invaders are like Mougals who first invades and kills but later make India their home and also gives high posts to Hindus and does not interfere in daily routine of people. That's why they have survived.

 

[PeacefulIndian]

Ok all you indian haters out here who have nothing positive to add to this discussion, just one little fact

If the Mughal/Delhi Sultunate muslim kings really were such mass murderers who did nothing but raze down hindu/sikh temples and force the locals to convert them to islam, then tell me

why are YOU hindu today? Why is India a Hindu majority country today? Why is it that despite having ruled it for almost 1000 years majority of Indians are hindu? Shouldnt you all be muslim today if i am to believe all this b.s you guys are talking out here?

All you seem to want to do is generalise all these muslim kings into one general category which is "mass murderers and enforcers of islam on the people". Yes there may have been the odd Extreme king but then tell me anywhere in the world where you dont have extreme rulers from time to time.

You just show your profound ignorance of the Mogal history here. First of all, you are overgeneralizing every Indian as a hater. Second, digest the fact that most of the muslim emperors were cruel dictators. They wouldn't be 'rulers' in first place had they not attacked India. Various Hindu & Rajput kings were taken over by brute force. Such religiously ignited force was a novelty to India at that time, and nobody could stand in front of the storm.

Regarding their cruelty - come to India & show us any non-muslim temple or any religious creation which was not vandalized (in their area of influence). Ayodhya Ram temple, Kashi visheshwara, Somnath - all prominent Hindu & Rajput features were brutally destroyed. Ayodhya is still an issue after so many centuries.

It was Shivaji Maharaja who did not let them occupy any territory, from Maharashtra to rest of south India. If you walk into south India, all the Hindu temples are perfectly standing, without even a scratch. What does that signify to you?

And before the muslim invasion, India hardly had any muslims. Today they number in billions, include Pakistan's muslims too. Does it signify that those many non-muslims converted by their own will? Definitely not - the conversion was forced & mainly was in the area held by the invaders.

 

[Virat]

Ok all you indian haters out here who have nothing positive to add to this discussion, just one little fact

If the Mughal/Delhi Sultunate muslim kings really were such mass murderers who did nothing but raze down hindu/sikh temples and force the locals to convert them to islam, then tell me

why are YOU hindu today? Why is India a Hindu majority country today? Why is it that despite having ruled it for almost 1000 years majority of Indians are hindu? Shouldnt you all be muslim today if i am to believe all this b.s you guys are talking out here?

All you seem to want to do is generalise all these muslim kings into one general category which is "mass murderers and enforcers of islam on the people". Yes there may have been the odd Extreme king but then tell me anywhere in the world where you dont have extreme rulers from time to time.

I'm surprized by ur juvenile analysis .

Moghul empire survived and thrieved as long as its accomodative of hindu majority.Emperor Akber clearly understood this aspect and made the strategic friendship with the hindu whenever it he had chance.This sagacity was later followed on till the Aurenzob arrived on the scene.

Aurenzeb was a bigot and fundamentalist. His policies lost the hindu Rajput support the moghul enjoyed for far .He faught battles with the marathsa in the south and other hindu and Sikh forces in the north which bankrufted moghulexchequr.Within few dacades of his death,moghul empire remained confined to few village around Delhi.

Hindus of india are still majority religion in india ,because they kept the religion alive inspite of all odds in the form of brutal presecution and lure of conversion during centuries odd of muslim rule of india. They fought and endured the worst conditions ,but kept the banner of hinduism floating .Nobody made any concession to hindus ,so u too never try that now.

 

[Kambojaric]

Ok i cant answer all of your replies because i dont have the time or to be more honest the will because no matter what i say you will tightly cling on to what you believe and arent open to new thoughts or ideas.

Anyways for the sake of discussion i will try my best to answer as many of your questions as possible.

Its funny how when you used the wikipedia link you decided to just quote some of the parts. well let me quote the other parts as well.

In February 2009, the Gujarat High court agreed with the POTA panel that there was no evidence of a conspiracy[11].

A commission set up by the Railways ministry reported in 2005 that the fire was almost certainly an accident[7][8]

Your very own parliment says that there was no conspiracy then why are you so keen to blame it on the muslims. And ok even if for the sake of argument i was to agree with your opinion that it was the muslims who started it does that still justify massacering so many people? thats like kids fighting and saying he, started it! no he started it, NO he started it!

As for Aurangzeb il tell you no humans perfect and if he did take down temples without any reason then he wasnt following Islam but why are you ignoring the fact that he had more Hindu Mansabdars than Akbar. Obviously he trusted them in order to give them one of the highest posts in the Empire.

It is Josephs post however which i find most amusing. Just look at these maps mate.

Resultat av Googles bildsökning efter http://photo.pds.org:5005/pl/content/na/pc/lg/lr003910.gif

Resultat av Googles bildsökning efter http://www.indiana.edu/~isp/cd_rom/images/map/image/mughal.jpg

Il agree with your statement that no muslim ruler ruled whole of India but all that they didnt rule was the southern tip of India as for your statement "All the muslim king's rule was confined to some cities in north India," . I hope you know what i mean after having looked at these maps.

6." Also, the invaders came to India kills people, looted there and run away to their own country"

I think you must be talking about the Goras here!! As far as i know Delhi lies pretty much in India so yes Delhi being the capital of the Mughal Empire was where the Mughal army went after war. To their own country that is. Yes earlier kings such as Mahmud Ghaznavi had come to India only to plunder but later on the muslims adopted Hindustan as their home.

And then finally all of you seem to imply how the Hindus didnt convert due to their great devotion to their religion which i am not doubting honestly. I respect hindus and for your information have many hindu friends. But you have to accept the fact that there were no massive forced conversion. As said yes their may have been individual cases but can you tell me anywhere , where massive forced conversion took place??? no you cant!

Muslims have throughout their history been the more merciful ones. Look at Spain, Al Andalus, for 500 hundred years muslims ruled there and this period is known as the "Golden age of Judaism" in Europe. Whilst Jews were oppressed in more or less all Christian countries, muslims tolerated them. Then in 1492 the last Muslim kingdom falls and what do the Christians do? force all the muslims and jews to convert to christianity or run away and where did all of them go to ? they went to Morroco and the Ottoman EMpire, why? becuase they were tolerated there.

I shouldnt even have to mention men like Salah uddin(Saladin) who when he recaptured Jerusalem didnt touch a single Christian whilst these very Crusaders had massacred all the Jews and Muslims of Jerusalem when they had captured it. The massacre was so horrible that the blood of the murdered came up to the knees!!

Hope i answered your questions and now i have to go back to my studies

 

[Nahraf]

All Mughal rulers had some pluses and minuses. But they all had to kill all their brothers to became rulers. All three major Muslim dynasties of middle ages had no succession law. The Ottoman, Safavi and Mughal dynasties had civil wars when the Sultan or Shah died and the sons fought among themselves. Nearly all Princes died or were killed except one that became Sultan or Shah. Nearly all Princesses remained unmarried by unwritten law since sons were a big problem and the son-in-laws will be another headache. So now we do not have descendents of Mughal or Safavid or Ottoman bloodlines. There was no law to protect nobility's property. So when a nobleman died his estate could be awarded to someother nobleman or supporter of the Shah. So unlike in Europe where nobility tried to restrain the King's power and represent people we had one man rule and nobles were all sycophants of the shah.

 

[Dr.Evil]

I would say good riddance of all the kings and queens. All the countries are better off as republics.

 

[Hammy007]

no indian is regarding shah jehan, seems like they have too much religion in their mind to answer this question!

alamgir was worst because he was very islamic in nature

and akber(though i admire him) is the best because he wanted din e ilahi and married a hindu wife even he was a muslim..

i think shah jehan was the best because of his cool mindedness and justice and that he left a huge legacy, like taj mehal a massive red fort etc etc