What's new

Who is the greatest Muslim ruler of the subcontinent and why?

All kings and emperor's have a tendency to bull doze through enemies

Whose wheel is on the indian flag and how many indians did he kill?
The wheel on the Indian flag is the dharmachakra, which is the religious symbol of Buddhism.

All kings and emperor's have a tendency to bull doze through enemies

Whose wheel is on the indian flag and how many indians did he kill?
Who told you? Hindus never committed any mass murders. Please prove it that any hindu kings committed genocide or mass murders. However 95% of the muslim rulers committed genocide and you are a terrorist who is supporting genocide. You are not even a human but a psycho.
 
.
The wheel on the Indian flag is the dharmachakra, which is the religious symbol of Buddhism.

Also used by Ashoka a noted butcher and killer

But your willing to overlook that and concentrate on other factors


The same is with muslim rulers from Babur to Akbar to Khiliji

They were ruthless rulers for a ruthless time

So were Alexander, Julius Ceaser, Napoleon

You cant conquer territory with flowers

Who told you? Hindus never committed any mass murders. Please prove it that any hindu kings committed genocide or mass murders. However 95% of the muslim rulers committed genocide and you are a terrorist who is supporting genocide. You are not even a human but a psycho.

Unless hindu kings were complete pusseys they killed people during wars

Stop crying and accept historical reality
 
.
True. The main difference being Akbar did not implement Sharia, additional taxes on non-muslims and destroy temples like Aurangzeb did. Hence most non-Muslims admire Akbar while some Muslims admire Aurangzeb.
Aurangzeb built temples as well. He did not destroy temples cos he hated them. But this is a question of history.

The wheel on the Indian flag is the dharmachakra, which is the religious symbol of Buddhism.


Who told you? Hindus never committed any mass murders. Please prove it that any hindu kings committed genocide or mass murders. However 95% of the muslim rulers committed genocide and you are a terrorist who is supporting genocide. You are not even a human but a psycho.
Whilst I am not defending the oppression of Muslim emperors, oppression was not the domain of Muslim rulers only.

And what is your definition of genocide? Are you using the UN definition retrospectively.
 
.
Aurangzeb built temples as well. He did not destroy temples cos he hated them. But this is a question of history.

Good deeds don't make news only the bad ones stick forever. He did commit some bad ones and his legacy would always carry these misdeeds.

######################################################################

While Aurangzeb was extending the empire in the east and south, and consolidating his position on the northwest marches, he was also concerned with the strengthening of Islam throughout the kingdom. His attempt to conduct the affairs of state according to traditional Islamic policy brought to the fore the problem that had confronted every ruler who had attempted to make Islam the guiding force: the position of the Hindu majority in relation to the government. In 1688, when he forbade music at the royal court and took other puritanical steps in conformity with strict injunctions of Muslim law, he affected both Hindus and Muslims. When jizya, abolished for nearly a century, was reimposed in 1679, it was the Hindus alone who suffered.

By now Aurangzeb had accepted the policy of regulating his government in accordance with strict Islamic law, and many orders implementing this policy were issued. A large number of taxes were abolished which had been levied in India for centuries but which were not authorized by Islamic law. Possibly it was the unfavorable effect of these remissions on the state exchequer which led to the exploration of other lawful sources of revenue. The fact that, according to the most responsible account, the reimposition of jizya was suggested by an officer of the finance department would seem to show that it was primarily a fiscal measure. The theologians, who were becoming dominant at the court, naturally endorsed the proposal, and Aurangzeb carried it out with his customary thoroughness.

Another measure which has caused adverse comment is the issue of orders at various stages regarding the destruction of Hindu temples. Originally these orders applied to a few specific cases—such as the temple at Mathura built by Abul Fazl's murderer, to which a railing had been added by Aurangzeb's rival, Dara Shukoh. More far-reaching is the claim that when it was reported to him that Hindus were teaching Muslims their "wicked science," Aurangzeb issued orders to all governors "ordering the destruction of temples and schools and totally prohibiting the teaching and infidel practices of the unbelievers." That such an order was actually given is doubtful; certainly it was never carried out with any thoroughness. However, it is incontestable that at a certain stage Aurangzeb tried to enforce strict Islamic law by ordering the destruction of newly built Hindu temples. Later, the procedure was adopted of closing down rather than destroying the newly built temples in Hindu localities. It is also true that very often the orders of destruction remained a dead letter, but Aurangzeb was too deeply committed to the ordering of his government according to Islamic law to omit its implementation in so significant a matter. The fact that a total ban on the construction of new temples was adopted only by later jurists, and was a departure from the earlier Muslim practice as laid down by Muhammad ibn Qasim in Sind, was no concern of the correct, conscientious, and legal-minded Aurangzeb.

As a part of general policy of ordering the affairs of the state in accordance with the views of the ulama, certain discriminatory orders against the Hindus were issued: for example, imposition of higher customs duties, 5 percent on the goods of the Hindus as against 2 percent on those of Muslims. These were generally in accordance with the practice of the times, but they marked a departure not only from the political philosophy governing Mughal government, but also from the policy followed hitherto by most Muslim rulers in India.


http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00islamlinks/ikram/part2_15.html
 
.
Good deeds don't make news only the bad ones stick forever. He did commit some bad ones and his legacy would always carry these misdeeds.

######################################################################

While Aurangzeb was extending the empire in the east and south, and consolidating his position on the northwest marches, he was also concerned with the strengthening of Islam throughout the kingdom. His attempt to conduct the affairs of state according to traditional Islamic policy brought to the fore the problem that had confronted every ruler who had attempted to make Islam the guiding force: the position of the Hindu majority in relation to the government. In 1688, when he forbade music at the royal court and took other puritanical steps in conformity with strict injunctions of Muslim law, he affected both Hindus and Muslims. When jizya, abolished for nearly a century, was reimposed in 1679, it was the Hindus alone who suffered.

By now Aurangzeb had accepted the policy of regulating his government in accordance with strict Islamic law, and many orders implementing this policy were issued. A large number of taxes were abolished which had been levied in India for centuries but which were not authorized by Islamic law. Possibly it was the unfavorable effect of these remissions on the state exchequer which led to the exploration of other lawful sources of revenue. The fact that, according to the most responsible account, the reimposition of jizya was suggested by an officer of the finance department would seem to show that it was primarily a fiscal measure. The theologians, who were becoming dominant at the court, naturally endorsed the proposal, and Aurangzeb carried it out with his customary thoroughness.

Another measure which has caused adverse comment is the issue of orders at various stages regarding the destruction of Hindu temples. Originally these orders applied to a few specific cases—such as the temple at Mathura built by Abul Fazl's murderer, to which a railing had been added by Aurangzeb's rival, Dara Shukoh. More far-reaching is the claim that when it was reported to him that Hindus were teaching Muslims their "wicked science," Aurangzeb issued orders to all governors "ordering the destruction of temples and schools and totally prohibiting the teaching and infidel practices of the unbelievers." That such an order was actually given is doubtful; certainly it was never carried out with any thoroughness. However, it is incontestable that at a certain stage Aurangzeb tried to enforce strict Islamic law by ordering the destruction of newly built Hindu temples. Later, the procedure was adopted of closing down rather than destroying the newly built temples in Hindu localities. It is also true that very often the orders of destruction remained a dead letter, but Aurangzeb was too deeply committed to the ordering of his government according to Islamic law to omit its implementation in so significant a matter. The fact that a total ban on the construction of new temples was adopted only by later jurists, and was a departure from the earlier Muslim practice as laid down by Muhammad ibn Qasim in Sind, was no concern of the correct, conscientious, and legal-minded Aurangzeb.

As a part of general policy of ordering the affairs of the state in accordance with the views of the ulama, certain discriminatory orders against the Hindus were issued: for example, imposition of higher customs duties, 5 percent on the goods of the Hindus as against 2 percent on those of Muslims. These were generally in accordance with the practice of the times, but they marked a departure not only from the political philosophy governing Mughal government, but also from the policy followed hitherto by most Muslim rulers in India.


http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00islamlinks/ikram/part2_15.html
https://scroll.in/article/829943/wh...ples-and-protect-non-muslim-religious-leaders

"Hindu and Jain temples dotted the landscape of Aurangzeb’s kingdom. These religious institutions were entitled to Mughal state protection, and Aurangzeb generally endeavoured to ensure their well-being. By the same token, from a Mughal perspective, that goodwill could be revoked when specific temples or their associates acted against imperial interests. Accordingly, Emperor Aurangzeb authorised targeted temple destructions and desecrations throughout his rule....."

Basically it boils down to who wrote the history.



"...Aurangzeb followed Islamic law in granting protection to non-Muslim religious leaders and institutions. Indo-Muslim rulers had counted Hindus as dhimmis, a protected class under Islamic law, since the eighth century, and Hindus were thus entitled to certain rights and state defences. Yet, Aurangzeb went beyond the requirements of Islamic law in his conduct towards Hindu and Jain religious communities. Instead, for Aurangzeb, protecting and, at times, razing temples served the cause of ensuring justice for all throughout the Mughal Empire.

Aurangzeb’s notion of justice included a certain measure of freedom of religion, which led him to protect most places of Hindu worship. Mughal rulers in general allowed their subjects great leeway – shockingly so, compared to the draconian measures instituted by many European sovereigns of the era – to follow their own religious ideas and inclinations....."
 
. .
Good deeds don't make news only the bad ones stick forever. He did commit some bad ones and his legacy would always carry these misdeeds.

######################################################################

While Aurangzeb was extending the empire in the east and south, and consolidating his position on the northwest marches, he was also concerned with the strengthening of Islam throughout the kingdom. His attempt to conduct the affairs of state according to traditional Islamic policy brought to the fore the problem that had confronted every ruler who had attempted to make Islam the guiding force: the position of the Hindu majority in relation to the government. In 1688, when he forbade music at the royal court and took other puritanical steps in conformity with strict injunctions of Muslim law, he affected both Hindus and Muslims. When jizya, abolished for nearly a century, was reimposed in 1679, it was the Hindus alone who suffered.

By now Aurangzeb had accepted the policy of regulating his government in accordance with strict Islamic law, and many orders implementing this policy were issued. A large number of taxes were abolished which had been levied in India for centuries but which were not authorized by Islamic law. Possibly it was the unfavorable effect of these remissions on the state exchequer which led to the exploration of other lawful sources of revenue. The fact that, according to the most responsible account, the reimposition of jizya was suggested by an officer of the finance department would seem to show that it was primarily a fiscal measure. The theologians, who were becoming dominant at the court, naturally endorsed the proposal, and Aurangzeb carried it out with his customary thoroughness.

Another measure which has caused adverse comment is the issue of orders at various stages regarding the destruction of Hindu temples. Originally these orders applied to a few specific cases—such as the temple at Mathura built by Abul Fazl's murderer, to which a railing had been added by Aurangzeb's rival, Dara Shukoh. More far-reaching is the claim that when it was reported to him that Hindus were teaching Muslims their "wicked science," Aurangzeb issued orders to all governors "ordering the destruction of temples and schools and totally prohibiting the teaching and infidel practices of the unbelievers." That such an order was actually given is doubtful; certainly it was never carried out with any thoroughness. However, it is incontestable that at a certain stage Aurangzeb tried to enforce strict Islamic law by ordering the destruction of newly built Hindu temples. Later, the procedure was adopted of closing down rather than destroying the newly built temples in Hindu localities. It is also true that very often the orders of destruction remained a dead letter, but Aurangzeb was too deeply committed to the ordering of his government according to Islamic law to omit its implementation in so significant a matter. The fact that a total ban on the construction of new temples was adopted only by later jurists, and was a departure from the earlier Muslim practice as laid down by Muhammad ibn Qasim in Sind, was no concern of the correct, conscientious, and legal-minded Aurangzeb.

As a part of general policy of ordering the affairs of the state in accordance with the views of the ulama, certain discriminatory orders against the Hindus were issued: for example, imposition of higher customs duties, 5 percent on the goods of the Hindus as against 2 percent on those of Muslims. These were generally in accordance with the practice of the times, but they marked a departure not only from the political philosophy governing Mughal government, but also from the policy followed hitherto by most Muslim rulers in India.


http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00islamlinks/ikram/part2_15.html
All of them did bad deeds. Even non Muslim rulers....but for some reason his name is cast as the "evil" one....
 
.
Greatest Muslim ruler of the subcontinent - easy one. APJ Abul Kalam. Loved by all when he was President. Focussed on the sciences. Died while teaching kids. A great life.
 
.
Apj Abdul Kalam was the best Muslim rulers of indian subcontinent.Even sanguis love and respect him.
 
.
https://scroll.in/article/829943/wh...ples-and-protect-non-muslim-religious-leaders

"Hindu and Jain temples dotted the landscape of Aurangzeb’s kingdom. These religious institutions were entitled to Mughal state protection, and Aurangzeb generally endeavoured to ensure their well-being. By the same token, from a Mughal perspective, that goodwill could be revoked when specific temples or their associates acted against imperial interests. Accordingly, Emperor Aurangzeb authorised targeted temple destructions and desecrations throughout his rule....."

Basically it boils down to who wrote the history.



"...Aurangzeb followed Islamic law in granting protection to non-Muslim religious leaders and institutions. Indo-Muslim rulers had counted Hindus as dhimmis, a protected class under Islamic law, since the eighth century, and Hindus were thus entitled to certain rights and state defences. Yet, Aurangzeb went beyond the requirements of Islamic law in his conduct towards Hindu and Jain religious communities. Instead, for Aurangzeb, protecting and, at times, razing temples served the cause of ensuring justice for all throughout the Mughal Empire.

Aurangzeb’s notion of justice included a certain measure of freedom of religion, which led him to protect most places of Hindu worship. Mughal rulers in general allowed their subjects great leeway – shockingly so, compared to the draconian measures instituted by many European sovereigns of the era – to follow their own religious ideas and inclinations....."

Ironically, the one that I posted was written by S. M. Ikram a historian who migrated from India to Pakistan during partition and served as Pakistani civil servant while the one you published is by Audrey Truschke, an assistant professor in the US. Does Audrey has more access to historic literature now than S.M.Ikram did ~100 years ago?

All of them did bad deeds. Even non Muslim rulers....but for some reason his name is cast as the "evil" one....

I am not here to paint anyone good or evil. I am only interested in truth.
 
.
Look who's talking. You Turks under the ottoman empire massacred millions of Armenian christians. We dont need lectures from turkey alright. We know how are christians currently treated in turkey. In India muslims are presidents, religious freedom and have no issues practicing religion. Meanwhile in Turkey Christianity is banned, Christians cannot build churches and cannot join the army ar any government institutions. So its a irony that turks are lecturing indians on human rights.
do you know who were missionaries. they were christians mostly. turks treated their manorties best ever way not like your great india who killed muslims and christians on wil
 
. .
Ironically, the one that I posted was written by S. M. Ikram a historian who migrated from India to Pakistan during partition and served as Pakistani civil servant while the one you published is by Audrey Truschke, an assistant professor in the US. Does Audrey has more access to historic literature now than S.M.Ikram did ~100 years ago?



I am not here to paint anyone good or evil. I am only interested in truth.
I don't know if she had more access or not but read an interview with her @ https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/in...erely-misunderstood-figure/article7648723.ece

"....Generally, the Mughals acted violently towards political foes (whether they were Rajput, Muslim, Hindu, or otherwise was irrelevant). It is very difficult for many modern people to accept that violence in pre-modern India was rarely religiously motivated. In this sense, pre-colonial India looked very different than pre-modern Europe, for example. But we lack historical evidence that the Mughals attacked religious foes. On the contrary, some scholars have even suggested that modern “Western” ideas about religious toleration were, in part, inspired by what early European travellers witnessed in the Mughal Empire......"



"Mughal history is such a contentious part of history in the Hindu nationalist imagination. How do you propose to shed light, and create space for a scholarly engagement with the period? It also comes at a time when there is a wave of revisionism in India.

My approach is that of a historian. I seek primary sources from numerous languages and archives, read deeply in secondary scholarship, and attempt to reconstruct the most accurate vision of pre-colonial India possible. My work has plenty of present-day implications, but those come secondary and explicitly after the serious historical work. This approach is unappealing to many in modern India (and across the world). It is painstaking, requires specialist knowledge, can be slow, and often leads to nuanced conclusions. But there are also plenty of people, non-academics, who view what is going on in modern India with scepticism. For those who want it, my work offers a historically sound foundation for challenging modern political efforts to revise the past."

Also she is competent both in Sanskrit and Persian and came over to (Subcontinent) India and had access to archives.

"....Truschke, one of the few living scholars with competence in both Sanskrit and Persian, is the first scholar to study texts from both languages in exploring the courtly life of the Mughals. The Mughals ruled a great swath of the Indian subcontinent from the early 16th to the mid-18th centuries, building great monuments like the Taj Mahal.

Over several months in Pakistan and 10 months in India, Truschke traveled to more than two dozen archives in search of manuscripts. She was able to analyze the Mughal elite’s diverse interactions with Sanskrit intellectuals in a way not previously done...."

https://news.stanford.edu/2015/09/09/sanskrit-mughal-empire-090915/

Now I think that S.M Ikram knew Persian but I don't think he knew Sanskrit. Also he was born in what is now Pakistan and not what is now Bharat.

It is always nice to get a fresh perspective...one less tainted with the prejudices of division of British India.




We are all interested in the Truth.
 
.
Who knows about Syed Brothers the King makers the ISI of Mughal empire
 
.
I don't know if she had more access or not but read an interview with her @ https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/in...erely-misunderstood-figure/article7648723.ece

"....Generally, the Mughals acted violently towards political foes (whether they were Rajput, Muslim, Hindu, or otherwise was irrelevant). It is very difficult for many modern people to accept that violence in pre-modern India was rarely religiously motivated. In this sense, pre-colonial India looked very different than pre-modern Europe, for example. But we lack historical evidence that the Mughals attacked religious foes. On the contrary, some scholars have even suggested that modern “Western” ideas about religious toleration were, in part, inspired by what early European travellers witnessed in the Mughal Empire......"



"Mughal history is such a contentious part of history in the Hindu nationalist imagination. How do you propose to shed light, and create space for a scholarly engagement with the period? It also comes at a time when there is a wave of revisionism in India.

My approach is that of a historian. I seek primary sources from numerous languages and archives, read deeply in secondary scholarship, and attempt to reconstruct the most accurate vision of pre-colonial India possible. My work has plenty of present-day implications, but those come secondary and explicitly after the serious historical work. This approach is unappealing to many in modern India (and across the world). It is painstaking, requires specialist knowledge, can be slow, and often leads to nuanced conclusions. But there are also plenty of people, non-academics, who view what is going on in modern India with scepticism. For those who want it, my work offers a historically sound foundation for challenging modern political efforts to revise the past."

Also she is competent both in Sanskrit and Persian and came over to (Subcontinent) India and had access to archives.

"....Truschke, one of the few living scholars with competence in both Sanskrit and Persian, is the first scholar to study texts from both languages in exploring the courtly life of the Mughals. The Mughals ruled a great swath of the Indian subcontinent from the early 16th to the mid-18th centuries, building great monuments like the Taj Mahal.

Over several months in Pakistan and 10 months in India, Truschke traveled to more than two dozen archives in search of manuscripts. She was able to analyze the Mughal elite’s diverse interactions with Sanskrit intellectuals in a way not previously done...."

https://news.stanford.edu/2015/09/09/sanskrit-mughal-empire-090915/

Now I think that S.M Ikram knew Persian but I don't think he knew Sanskrit. Also he was born in what is now Pakistan and not what is now Bharat.

It is always nice to get a fresh perspective...one less tainted with the prejudices of division of British India.




We are all interested in the Truth.


Knowing Sanskrit is useless
  • Sanskrit died with the advent of Islamic rulers who have used Persian as the language of the court replacing Sanskrit.
  • Hindus never cared about maintaining records where as Muslims recorded and preserved their history
 
.
Back
Top Bottom