# Greatest Mughal Emperor???



## EvoluXon

Guys wat do you think who was the greatest Mughal emperor?? and why?? &#8233;&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;1. Zaheeruddin Babur&#8233;,2. Mirza Humayun&#8233;,3. Jalaluddin Akbar(Gen musharraf of that time)&#8233; ,4. Jahangir&#8233;,5. Shah Jahan&#8233;,6. Aurangzeb Alamgir(Gen. Zia of that time)&#8233;,7. Bahadur Shah Zafar.&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;My vote goes to Gen. Zia of that time great Aurangzeb Alamgir.&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;i request mod to change this thread in to poll.


----------



## FreekiN

This guy:


----------



## Avatar

FreekiN said:


> This guy:



Hritikh Roshan ?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## nightrider_saulat

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


----------



## Hyde

1) *Aurangzaib* is usually liked by Maulvi type peoples. I like this guy and he was probably the only person who himself used to go to the public and help peoples in nights like Hazrat Umar R.A. There has been many beautiful stories on record about him. I also like this guy for the Islamic architecture work done in his era..... its jus amazing..... So it like him for this particular reason however i strongly feel he was little more strict 

2) *Babur is the real guy who i believe had some qualities of leadership. I like this guy for his military abilities.*

*Shah Jahan* built Taj Mahal, Shalimar Bagh and few other famous architectures and nothing else i can praise about him and seriously did not like any Mughal leader except these two.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Materialistic

ahh i dont feel like writing something long right now, but i cudnt find an option to delete my post so this is my post here.


----------



## FreekiN

Avatar said:


> Hritikh Roshan ?



You know what I meant.


----------



## waraich66

Faixan_Hashmee said:


> Guys wat do you think who was the greatest Mughal emperor?? and why?? &#8233;&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;1. Zaheeruddin Babur&#8233;,2. Mirza Humayun&#8233;,3. Jalaluddin Akbar(Gen musharraf of that time)&#8233; ,4. Jahangir&#8233;,5. Shah Jahan&#8233;,6. Aurangzeb Alamgir(Gen. Zia of that time)&#8233;,7. Bahadur Shah Zafar.&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;My vote goes to Gen. Zia of that time great Aurangzeb Alamgir.&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;i request mod to change this thread in to poll.



I am also fan of Gen Zia , Gen Javed Nasir,Gen Ghulam Muhammad SSG ,Gen Hameed Gul, Gen Akhtar ,Brig Tariq,Gen Amir Hamza

I wish again PMA start producing soldiers like them.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Moorkh

firstly i think it would be less biased if you dont compare the rulers with generals musharraf and zia.

honestly i dont even understand what qualities either of the 2 generals represents here.

aurangzeb is infamous in india for his religios intolerance. and personally i find him too strongly religious. shah jahan and jahangir did not do anything great themselves. they in a way inherited their greatness from akbar. 

i believe akbar to be the greatest mughal. for 2 reasons
1) he was the one who truly "indianised" the mughals. before that they were occupiers from afganistan.
2) he is well known in india for his religious tolerance and how he helped hindu muslim unity.


----------



## FreekiN

Babur started it. Akbar established it. Aurangzeb ruined it.

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## third eye

FreekiN said:


> Babur started it. Akbar established it. Aurangzeb ruined it.



Pretty much sums it up.

Religious intolerance spawned by Aurangzeb lies at the roots of Sikh - Muslim antagonism.


----------



## waraich66

FreekiN said:


> Babur started it. Akbar established it. Aurangzeb ruined it.



Intresting point to note is Akbar when started his rule he was only 13 years old.

Nou (Nine) Ratan (Intellectuals ) were played key role in his success.

The Mughal ruler Akbar, despite his illiteracy, was a great lover of the artists and intellectuals. His passion for knowledge and interest in learning from great minds led him to attract men of genius to his court, known as the nine courtiers of King Akbar or Navratnas.

* Abul Fazl (1551-1602) was the chronicler of Akbar&#8217;s rule. He authored the biographical Akbarnama. Abul Fazl documented the history meticulously, over seven years, in three volumes, the third volume is known as the Ain-i-Akbari and a Persian translation of the Bible.[1] He was also the brother of Faizi, the poet laureate of emperor Akbar.

* Faizi (1547-1595) was Abul Fazl&#8217;s brother. He was a poet who composed beautiful poetry father was Mubarak Nagori, a scholar in the philosophy and literature of Greece as well as in Islamic theology.

* Miyan Tansen was a singer for King Akbar, born as Tanna Mishra, a Hindu, in 1520, he was a poet himself. He learnt music from Swami Haridas and later from Hazrat Muhammad Ghaus. He was a court musician with the prince of Mewar and later was recruited by Akbar as his court musician. Tansen became a legendary name in India and was the composer of many classical ragas. He was an extraordinarily gifted vocalist, known for a large number of compositions, and also an instrumentalist who popularized and improved the rabab (of Central Asian origin). He was buried in Gwalior, where a tomb has been constructed for him. It is unclear if Tansen converted to Islam.

* Raja Birbal (1528-1583) was a poor Hindu Brahmin who was appointed to the court of Akbar for his intelligence, and became the court jester. Born by the name Maheshdas, he was conferred the name Raja Birbal by the Emperor. Birbal's duties in Akbar's court were mostly military and administrative but he was also a very close friend of the emperor, who liked Birbal most for his wit and humor. There are many witty stories of exchanges and interactions between the monarch and his minister that are popular today. Birbal was also a poet and his collections under the pen name "Brahma&#8221; are preserved in Bharatpur Museum. Raja Birbal died in battle, attempting to quell unrest amongst Afghani tribes in Northwest India.

* Raja Todar Mal was Akbar&#8217;s finance minister, who from 1560 onwards overhauled the revenue system in the kingdom. He introduced standard weights and measurements, revenue districts and officers. His systematic approach to revenue collection became a model for the future Mughals as well as the British. Raja Todar Mal was also a warrior who assisted Akbar in controlling the Afghan rebels in Bengal. Todar Mal had developed his expertise in Sher Shah's employment. In 1582, Akbar bestowed on the raja the title Diwan-I-Ashraf.

* Raja Man Singh, was the Kacchwaha Rajah of Amber, a state later known as Jaipur. He was a trusted general in Akbar's army and was the grandson of Akbar&#8217;s father-in-law. His family had been inducted into Mughal hierarchy as amirs (nobles). Raja Man Singh was the formost ablest among Akbar's military commanders and assisted Akbar in many fronts including holding off advancing Hakim (Akbar&#8217;s half-brother, a governor of Kabul) in Lahore. He was also the Mughal viceroy of Afghanistan, led campaigns in Bihar, Orissa, Deccan and was also the viceroy of Bengal.

* Abdul Rahim Khan-I-Khana, a poet was the son of Akbar&#8217;s trusted protector and caretaker when he was a teenager, Bairam Khan. After Bairam Khan was murdered treacherously, his wife became the second wife of Akbar. He is most known for his Hindi couplets and his books on Astrology.[2] The village of Khankhana, named after him, is located in the Nawanshahr district of the state of Punjab in northwest India.

* Fakir Aziao-Din who was a mystic, and an advisor. Akbar regarded his advice in high esteem.

* Mullah Do Piaza, an advisor to Akbar who was known for his intelligence.

Our leaders should learn lesson from Akbar's strategy of novratan

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## PakSher

Had the British not come to India and implemented the divide and conquer policy successfully, we would not be where we are today. But history cannot be changed.


----------



## Al-zakir

Muhi Uddin Muhammad Aurangzeb. He was a true Muslim and ruled with iron hand...


----------



## Al-zakir

Zaki said:


> 1) *Aurangzaib is usually liked by Maulvi type peoples.* *I like this guy and he was probably the only person who himself used to go to the public and help peoples in nights like Hazrat Umar R.A. *There has been many beautiful stories on record about him. I also like this guy for the Islamic architecture work done in his era..... its jus amazing..... So it like him for this particular reason however i strongly feel he was little more strict




Iska matlab hua ki, you are a maulvi type too.  

Not to worry bro. You are not alone. Count me in...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Hyde

Al-zakir said:


> Iska matlab hua ki, you are a maulvi type too.
> 
> Not to worry bro. You are not alone. Count me in...



hahaha no i did not mean that...... and me not maulvi 

I like Aurangzaib for his social work. He was probably the only leader who used to go to the streets in the nights and trying to help peoples like Hazrat Umar R.A. I remember the story of one person who was building a house and Aurangzaib saw him making alone......... so he went to that man and asked his services and helped him align the bricks for his house (something like that). I also admire him for the buildings he erected in Hindustan. They are a great symbols of Islamic architecture

Despite these good things i take Aurangzaid as very strict leader and i believe in order to become a successful leader you have to have a flexibility in your orders/decisions. I didn't like his attitude towards non-Muslims

Frankly speaking almost all of the Mughal Leaders or whoever ruled in India under Muslims almost 90&#37; of them were not the practicing Muslims and there are many ocassions when i can disagree with them.

I really don't like any Mughal but i do admire Babur for his military strategies and Aurangzaib for his noble work (but still not my favourites)


----------



## jinxeD_girl

Bahadur Shah Zafar for his Urdu poetry

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Hyde

jinxeD_girl said:


> Bahadur Shah Zafar for his Urdu poetry



but i strongly feel he was the worst leader....... he was more of a poet than the Leader. He was busy in listening poetry from Mirza Ghalib and writing poetry himself and the "Goray" were making plans to take over India 

He was a great poet but the worst leader among Mughals


----------



## jinxeD_girl

Zaki said:


> but i strongly feel he was the worst leader....... he was more of a poet than the Leader. He was busy in listening poetry from Mirza Ghalib and writing poetry himself and the "Goray" were making plans to take over India
> 
> He was a great poet but the worst leader among Mughals



Mughal Empire was already in decline long before him.. so what else you expect him to do other than write poetry..


----------



## Hyde

jinxeD_girl said:


> Mughal Empire was already in decline long before him.. so what else you expect him to do other than write poetry..



But he was still an emperror. If he had some qualities of leadership he could have taken appropriate steps to change the history 

Anyway thats History now


----------



## Omar1984

The greates Mughal emperor has to be Mughal Emperor, Aurangzeb. He built one of the most beautiful and one of the largest Mosques in the world in Lahore, Pakistan. Badshahi Mosque in Lahore, Pakistan remained the largest mosque in the world from 1673 to 1986 (a period of 313 years) when overtaken in size by the completion of the Faisal Mosque in Islamabad, Pakistan. Today, it remains the second largest mosque in Pakistan and South Asia and the fifth largest mosque in the world after the Masjid al-Haram (Grand Mosque) of Mecca, the Al-Masjid al-Nabawi (Prophet's Mosque) in Medina, the Hassan II Mosque in Casablanca and the Faisal Mosque in Islamabad.

The magnificent Badshahi Mosque in Lahore, Pakistan. Built in 1673 by the Mughal emperor Aurangzeb.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## jinxeD_girl

Zaki said:


> But he was still an emperror. If he had some qualities of leadership he could have taken appropriate steps to change the history
> 
> Anyway thats History now



Leadership wise it was Akbar fo sho!! When Mughal Empire was at its zenith..


----------



## Hyde

jinxeD_girl said:


> Leadership wise it was Akbar fo sho!! When Mughal Empire was at its zenith..



Well it depends upon individuals choice but i strongly believe Babur was the best of all. He was the founder of Mughal Dynasty. He was the one who nourished and flourished the Mughal empire. There can be whole lot of books written on Babur's achievements. Akbar was good but it is usually liked by the Hindu's because of his sympthetic behaviour towards Non-Muslims. He was the one who abolished all the extra taxes on Hindu's and other minorities for religious pilgrimages etc.

I believe Babur was best as a leader  I like this guy (except few minor disagreements)

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## jinxeD_girl

Zaki said:


> Well it depends upon individuals choice but i strongly believe Babur was the best of all. He was the founder of Mughal Dynasty. He was the one who nourished and flourished the Mughal empire. There can be whole lot of books written on Babur's achievements. Akbar was good but it is usually liked by the Hindu's because of his sympthetic behaviour towards Non-Muslims. He was the one who abolished all the extra taxes on Hindu's and other minorities for religious pilgrimages etc.
> 
> I believe Babur was best as a leader  I like this guy (except few minor disagreements)



yeah you stick to your own choice and let me stick with mine


----------



## waraich66

Al-zakir said:


> Iska matlab hua ki, you are a maulvi type too.
> 
> Not to worry bro. You are not alone. Count me in...



Well Said Iqbal:

*. ILfaaz-o-maani main tafawat nahin lekin

Mullah ki azan aur hai, Mujahid ki azan aur

Parwaaz hai dono ki issi aik fiza main

Girgis ka jahan aur hai, Shaheen ka jahan aur


*. Sufi ki tareeqat main faqat masti-e-ahwaal

Mullah ki shariat main faqat masti-e-guftaar

Wo mard-e-mujahid nazar aata nahin mujh ko

Ho jis kay rag-o-pey main faqat masti-e-kirdaar

Mujh ko tou sikha di hai Afrang nay zandiqi

Iss dour kay Mullah hain kyon nang-e-Musalmani?

ho naqsh ager baatil, takraar say kya haasil?

Kya tujh ko khush aati hai Adam ki ye arzaani?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## rangbaaz

When Babur took over, whom did he defeat? Another Muslim "Lodhi". So please leave Islam out of this topic. It was never about the religion. It was all about the "kursi" and government. We have been fighting with each others ever since. People were greedy for the power and state even at that time. Akbar was the best amongst them as he united people of that region.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Hyde

rangbaaz said:


> When Babur took over, whom did he defeat? Another Muslim "Lodhi". So please leave Islam out of this topic. It was never about the religion. It was all about the "kursi" and government. We have been fighting with each others ever since. People were greedy for the power and state even at that time. Akbar was the best amongst them as he united people of that region.



oh well I believe none of the Mughal emperror had geniune attributes of a great leader however the choices given above forcing me to pick up one man only that i chose already.

Trust me out of all Indian Muslim leaders either invaded India or born india........... I believe after Muhammad Bin Qasim and Sultan Mahmood Ghaznvi................ Haidar Ali (The father of Tipu Sultan) was the best leader ever who ruled India. I don't really like Mughals


----------



## Hammy007

shah jehan, i like him for his justice, and alamgir as a strong ruler and islamic principles, akber for his strength, akber make the kingdom strong and he is famous for his intellect, while after alamgir, the civil war broke out and which caused the mughals throne in india.


----------



## Hammy007

jinxeD_girl said:


> Bahadur Shah Zafar for his Urdu poetry



yeah one great point, he was very very very weak ruler, and king just by name, but his urdu poems are of really high standards and taught in urdu curriculum!!!.

his had a very weak morale, if he had been strong, the mughals would have ruling for a longer period. he started some war to drive the brits out completely and revive mughal rule but failed miserably


----------



## Hammy007

and shah jehan built a very beautiful mosque, shah jehan mosque

the mughal ruler jhangir is buried in pakistan near badshahi mosque.


----------



## third eye

Fundamentalist said:


> Intresting point to note is Akbar when started his rule he was only 13 years old.
> 
> Nou (Nine) Ratan (Intellectuals ) were played key role in his success.
> 
> The Mughal ruler Akbar, despite his illiteracy, was a great lover of the artists and intellectuals. His passion for knowledge and interest in learning from great minds led him to attract men of genius to his court, known as the nine courtiers of King Akbar or Navratnas.
> 
> * Abul Fazl (1551-1602) was the chronicler of Akbars rule. He authored the biographical Akbarnama. Abul Fazl documented the history meticulously, over seven years, in three volumes, the third volume is known as the Ain-i-Akbari and a Persian translation of the Bible.[1] He was also the brother of Faizi, the poet laureate of emperor Akbar.
> 
> * Faizi (1547-1595) was Abul Fazls brother. He was a poet who composed beautiful poetry father was Mubarak Nagori, a scholar in the philosophy and literature of Greece as well as in Islamic theology.
> 
> * Miyan Tansen was a singer for King Akbar, born as Tanna Mishra, a Hindu, in 1520, he was a poet himself. He learnt music from Swami Haridas and later from Hazrat Muhammad Ghaus. He was a court musician with the prince of Mewar and later was recruited by Akbar as his court musician. Tansen became a legendary name in India and was the composer of many classical ragas. He was an extraordinarily gifted vocalist, known for a large number of compositions, and also an instrumentalist who popularized and improved the rabab (of Central Asian origin). He was buried in Gwalior, where a tomb has been constructed for him. It is unclear if Tansen converted to Islam.
> 
> * Raja Birbal (1528-1583) was a poor Hindu Brahmin who was appointed to the court of Akbar for his intelligence, and became the court jester. Born by the name Maheshdas, he was conferred the name Raja Birbal by the Emperor. Birbal's duties in Akbar's court were mostly military and administrative but he was also a very close friend of the emperor, who liked Birbal most for his wit and humor. There are many witty stories of exchanges and interactions between the monarch and his minister that are popular today. Birbal was also a poet and his collections under the pen name "Brahma are preserved in Bharatpur Museum. Raja Birbal died in battle, attempting to quell unrest amongst Afghani tribes in Northwest India.
> 
> * Raja Todar Mal was Akbars finance minister, who from 1560 onwards overhauled the revenue system in the kingdom. He introduced standard weights and measurements, revenue districts and officers. His systematic approach to revenue collection became a model for the future Mughals as well as the British. Raja Todar Mal was also a warrior who assisted Akbar in controlling the Afghan rebels in Bengal. Todar Mal had developed his expertise in Sher Shah's employment. In 1582, Akbar bestowed on the raja the title Diwan-I-Ashraf.
> 
> * Raja Man Singh, was the Kacchwaha Rajah of Amber, a state later known as Jaipur. He was a trusted general in Akbar's army and was the grandson of Akbars father-in-law. His family had been inducted into Mughal hierarchy as amirs (nobles). Raja Man Singh was the formost ablest among Akbar's military commanders and assisted Akbar in many fronts including holding off advancing Hakim (Akbars half-brother, a governor of Kabul) in Lahore. He was also the Mughal viceroy of Afghanistan, led campaigns in Bihar, Orissa, Deccan and was also the viceroy of Bengal.
> 
> * Abdul Rahim Khan-I-Khana, a poet was the son of Akbars trusted protector and caretaker when he was a teenager, Bairam Khan. After Bairam Khan was murdered treacherously, his wife became the second wife of Akbar. He is most known for his Hindi couplets and his books on Astrology.[2] The village of Khankhana, named after him, is located in the Nawanshahr district of the state of Punjab in northwest India.
> 
> * Fakir Aziao-Din who was a mystic, and an advisor. Akbar regarded his advice in high esteem.
> 
> * Mullah Do Piaza, an advisor to Akbar who was known for his intelligence.
> 
> Our leaders should learn lesson from Akbar's strategy of novratan



Fundamentalist,

Thank you indeed for this post. Most informative for ppl like me who have more than just a passing interest in history.

A large number of ppl here have decried Akbar for what was perceived as him being an appeaser. 

Little do they realise that only those CEOs, leaders , kings & dynasties / Companies have succeeded who took everyone along and looked after those who were a part of them.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## peacekeeper

perhaps AKBAR was the best because he made such a strong foundation of mughals that it ruled india for so long
and moreover in the reign of aurangzeb mughal empire may be was at its zenith but its policy shakened mughal empires foundation


----------



## Kambojaric

Babur and Akbar in terms of laying the foundations of the Empire

Jehangir and Aurangzaib in terms of characters. Many people tend to think that Aurengzaib was nothing but a religious bigot but do they know that Aurengzaib had more Hindu Mansabdars than Akbar? I.H Qureishis book has a really good chapter on Aurangzaib.


----------



## hillman32

*My Vote - Aurangzeb Alamgeer*

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## FireFighter

Hamza Iqbal said:


> Babur and Akbar in terms of laying the foundations of the Empire
> 
> Jehangir and Aurangzaib in terms of characters. Many people tend to think that Aurengzaib was nothing but a religious bigot but do they know that Aurengzaib had more Hindu Mansabdars than Akbar? I.H Qureishis book has a really good chapter on Aurangzaib.



Exactly. It's hindu radicals that fabricate such prejudiced claims to propagate hatred against Islam and muslims in India/Pakistan. 

Aurangzaib being a religious man was more compassionate towards his subjects which included both muslims and non-muslims combined. One evidence you highlighted, there are countless other examples set by him. 

Indian intellectuals have written on this as well to dispel hindu extremists propaganda that espouses and creates hatred against the Moguls. 


Moguls were still far better Muslims than us, as they protected the honour of Islam and Muslims in south Asia and even beyond. Compare them to the current Indian muslims who can't even raise a voice against government oppression.


----------



## DesiGuy

Shah Jahan was good. 

Aurangzeb was the worst.


----------



## Avatar

FireFighter said:


> Compare them to the current Indian muslims who can't even raise a voice against government oppression.



I think you know more about Indian Muslim oppression than the Indian Muslims themselves. Isn't it evident enough that Indian Muslims are happy ? They are far more progressive than Pakistani Muslims. They have more opportunities and the government gives special privileges to the minority. India's greatest president was also a Muslim. You need to visit India to know just how happy people of all communities are. 

Before I came on this forum I did not even know that there are Muslims in India ...we don't even think what religion the other person is. We were all Indians. Now you keep telling us "Sikhs want Khalistan, Muslims are oppressed" etc etc etc. All of this and more are mere fantasy on your part. 

You need to visit India to see how "oppressed" Indian minorities are. My best friend in school was a Muslim and I never even thought about religion. 

The reason why you keep raising this topic AGAIN and AGAIN is only because the existence of HAPPY Indian Muslims kills the idea of creating a Pakistan. 

Regards


----------



## FireFighter

Zaki said:


> Frankly speaking almost all of the Mughal Leaders or whoever ruled in India under Muslims almost 90&#37; of them were not the practicing Muslims and there are many ocassions when i can disagree with them.
> 
> I really don't like any Mughal but i do admire Babur for his military strategies and Aurangzaib for his noble work (but still not my favourites)






rangbaaz said:


> When Babur took over, whom did he defeat? Another Muslim "Lodhi". So please leave Islam out of this topic. It was never about the religion. It was all about the "kursi" and government. We have been fighting with each others ever since. People were greedy for the power and state even at that time. Akbar was the best amongst them as he united people of that region.


*
Honestly speaking it appears that the educated Pakistanis know nothing about their own history and are becoming apologists. *

Maybe bollywood's distorted perception of Mugal history have creeped into our mindsets and warped up our senses of our own cultural and historical perspectives that we cannot appreciate the work of our forefathers. 

Compare the Muslims of that time. Be they Mugals or not, they were *far* better muslims. They all prayed and gave zakat. it was common custom at that time, except for one or two Akbars. They also protected the honour and glory of Islam and the Prophet saw and their fellow Muslims, *comparatively speaking, do you think current Indian muslims have the backbone to protect Islam?*

Secondly, Mughals institutionalized Islamic values and Islamic culture in their Civilization, which in turn protected the cultural heritage and moral sense of Muslims throughout the Subcontinent's history. We observe these values in teh big Mosques they built, the Taj Mahals, and cultural and historical centres. Heck, Sub continental muslims still feel proud of these places. Muslims were far better off living under the Mughals than living under British who stole n ran away or the Hindu stooges of today. 

Heck the whole of Subcontinent rule under Mughal benefited both the muslims and non-muslims as it accounted for more than 30% of the world's trade, compared to what like barely 5% of world trade of India/Pakistan today. 


Then again I realize that Passing stupid judgements on historical figures is far easier than going through a history book and observing from facts.


----------



## DesiGuy

Avatar said:


> I think you know more about Indian Muslim oppression than the Indian Muslims themselves. Isn't it evident enough that Indian Muslims are happy ? They are far more progressive than Pakistani Muslims. They have more opportunities and the government gives special privileges to the minority. India's greatest president was also a Muslim. You need to visit India to know just how happy people of all communities are.
> 
> Before I came on this forum I did not even know that there are Muslims in India ...we don't even think what religion the other person is. We were all Indians. Now you keep telling us "Sikhs want Khalistan, Muslims are oppressed" etc etc etc. All of this and more are mere fantasy on your part.
> 
> You need to visit India to see how "oppressed" Indian minorities are. My best friend in school was a Muslim and I never even thought about religion.
> 
> The reason why you keep raising this topic AGAIN and AGAIN is only because the existence of HAPPY Indian Muslims kills the idea of creating a Pakistan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He should have watched Shahrukh Khan Meeting with fareed zakaria on CNN!!!


----------



## FireFighter

Avatar said:


> I think you know more about Indian Muslim oppression than the Indian Muslims themselves. Isn't it evident enough that Indian Muslims are happy ? They are far more progressive than Pakistani Muslims. They have more opportunities and the government gives special privileges to the minority. India's greatest president was also a Muslim. You need to visit India to know just how happy people of all communities are.
> 
> Before I came on this forum I did not even know that there are Muslims in India ...we don't even think what religion the other person is. We were all Indians. Now you keep telling us "Sikhs want Khalistan, Muslims are oppressed" etc etc etc. All of this and more are mere fantasy on your part.
> 
> You need to visit India to see how "oppressed" Indian minorities are. My best friend in school was a Muslim and I never even thought about religion.
> 
> The reason why you keep raising this topic AGAIN and AGAIN is only because the existence of HAPPY Indian Muslims kills the idea of creating a Pakistan.
> 
> Regards



It seems you have never met Muslims, you even admit that did not know about Muslims until you came on the forums reveals plenty that you have been living in a cave. 

No offense, the first place to visit Indian muslims would be Gujrat, then Kashmir, then Hyderabad, then Utter Pardesh, then Mumbai...to see the condition of "Indian muslims"

I thought "ignorance is bliss" comment no longer applies...but man am i wrong!!


----------



## DesiGuy

FireFighter said:


> It seems you have never met Muslims, you even admit that did not know about Muslims until you came on the forums reveals plenty that you have been living in a cave.
> 
> No offense, t*he first place to visit Indian muslims would be Gujrat, then Kashmir, then Hyderabad, then Utter Pardesh, then Mumbai...to see the condition of "Indian muslims"
> *
> I thought "ignorance is bliss" comment no longer applies...but man am i wrong!!





dude, there are over 1 billion people in India which includes Hindus, Sikhs, Muslims and all others. 
if some Muslims are poor, than it might be their fault. 

i mean look at Indian cricket team, bollywood, there are Muslims. 

if Muslims are poor in Gujarat, look at the condition of bihar, UP and tell me If Hindus are rich.


----------



## Kambojaric

DesiGuy said:


> He should have watched Shahrukh Khan Meeting with fareed zakaria on CNN!!!



Lol, Shahrukh khan, one day he's an afghan, the next day he's an indian, third day he's pakistani. Talk about identity crises


----------



## DesiGuy

Hamza Iqbal said:


> Lol, Shahrukh khan, one day he's an afghan, the next day he's an indian, third day he's pakistani. Talk about identity crises





hahah, i knew one of you were gonna say that. no surprise.


----------



## TopCat

DesiGuy said:


> dude, there are over 1 billion people in India which includes Hindus, Sikhs, Muslims and all others.
> *if some Muslims are poor, than it might be their fault. *
> 
> i mean look at Indian cricket team, bollywood, there are Muslims.
> 
> if Muslims are poor in Gujarat, look at the condition of bihar, UP and tell me If Hindus are rich.



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


----------



## Indian_Idol

FireFighter said:


> *comparatively speaking, do you think current Indian muslims have the backbone to protect Islam?*



dude the topic is *Greatest Mughal Emperor???* and its *not* *The Indian Muslims have backebone or not
* so try try to discuss wit the topic.

and for yr question they are not cowards like you who ran wit a piece of land for not being able to be in a Hindu majority country. also u say u guys were the guardian of Islam wit supporting terrorism, killing innocent people, back stabbing...??? The real muslims live in India they are the one protecting Islam even though there are many clashes. U guys dont have any rights to talk abt Our people...


sorry for being off topic


----------



## 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

iajdani said:


> 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

nightrider_saulat said:


> "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

humanfirst said:


> 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

Hamza Iqbal said:


> 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

Hamza Iqbal said:


> 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

Hamza Iqbal said:


> 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.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PeacefulIndian

Hamza Iqbal said:


> 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.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Virat

Hamza Iqbal said:


> 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

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## 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


----------



## rubyjackass

Nahraf said:


> 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.



No dude. Nowhere did the kings rule all by themselves. Their successes are also because of the company they had. It is only that Asian poetry and literature romanticized our rulers ability more and more often as their own even after medieval times. So we get the impression because we read more poetry and less history. But if we study a little more than an emperors personality, we will get to know about the scholar's who he patronized.
Only when it concerns personal pride advice is not sought. This is what I feel is different with India.


----------



## rubyjackass

Hammy007 said:


> 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



Dude!! again this conspiracy theory for altering history 
Tell me this:
Under whom did Mughal empire get the maximum area under its rule and maximum political power?


----------



## Nahraf

rubyjackass said:


> No dude. Nowhere did the kings rule all by themselves. Their successes are also because of the company they had. It is only that Asian poetry and literature romanticized our rulers ability more and more often as their own even after medieval times. So we get the impression because we read more poetry and less history. But if we study a little more than an emperors personality, we will get to know about the scholar's who he patronized.
> Only when it concerns personal pride advice is not sought. This is what I feel is different with India.



May be some kings were intelligent and some had good ministers but overall they all failed. The Asian empires in India, China and Japan remained insulated from world technological developments until they were defeated by Europeans. They should have indulged in poetry and literature in the evening but their day job was to protect their country.


----------



## Khalid Ibn Walid

going even further back i would choose ghaznavi then abdali.

if i had to choose from the mughals i would choose babur ,
what i think is mughals ruled over the sub continent for 1000 yrs what did they accomplish ,they were more worried about their wealth and their way of life ,if they had focused more on spreading Islam today all of the subcontinent would have been Muslim.

but then again this is my opinion.


----------



## Xtremeownage

*Aurangzeb was the best!*
 Aurangzeb is the one who brought the Mughal Empire to great new heights... As a young man he left his wealth and his father's kingdom for a spiritual path. Upon returning he was declared king shortly after... It was his later descendants that messed things up as they were inexperianced. 







*Akbar was the worst!* Akbar was definately the worst as he brought little but tyranny, oppression, and injustice to the land. This man was an egomaniac, and married over 200 women, and I also heard that he made people do "Sajda" or prostration to him. He in NO way did anything good for the Mughals. The empire fell in to much corruption during his terrible reign. 

The Muslim's who stood up to his Kufr and tyranny were killed or persecuted. It was truly a dark age during his reign. 






*PS: Akbar was the only non-Muslim Mughal.* Some sources say he was a Muslim, but others imply he was not, so there is skepticism. 

Wiki:



> D&#299;n-i Il&#257;h&#299; as propounded by Akbar combined mysticism, philosophy and nature worship. It also recognized no gods or prophets.





> Various Muslim clerics, among them the Qadi of Bengal and the seminal Sufi personality Shaykh Ahmad Sirhindi, responded by declaring this to be *blasphemy*.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Khalid Ibn Walid

Justin Joseph said:


> 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.




I THINK your argument is fundamentally flawed, akbar had conquered all of the subcontinent ,aurangzeib as well but by the end he was stretched so thin that many small states had started to form.

Now for your argument of looting , i think you are referring to Mahmoud Ghaznavi ,do you even know where ghaznavi was and what his strategy was ,ghaznavi main interest was the central Asian region he had no intention of coming to Pakistan or india ,ghaznavi controlled the area west of Peshawar going towards Afghanistan, there was one raja who controlled Peshawar and one raja controlled Rawalpindi , India was never controlled by one person it was always dived into small states ,so this raja who was in control of Peshawar would always be attacking gaznavis forces and he even took some of his land it was then that he came and attacked this raja defeated him and guess what he did he let him live and infact gave his land back to him and said dont invade my land again,then ghaznavi defeated the raja in rawalpindi ,then he went to Multan .so he never looted he had defeated them and took was rightfully his.
he was the first one to go deep inside india he took delhi he destroyed the soomnath temple ,and the poojaris there were famous for their magic when ghaznavi saw this idol statue flying in the air he was surprised to see it but he found out that there was magnet inside the walls of the temple ,and he destroyed the idol before he did the pojaris offered him allot of gold and diamond but he said no ,when he destroyed the idol it was filled with diamonds and gold ,it is also worth mentioning that the famous khinoor diamond was also in there.
and he would always go back he would not stay in India because like i said his focus was central asian countries.
so lets try to get the histry right. and to add something here is that before ghaznavi ashoka had ruled over all of India .
so it doesn't matter if they were Muslim Hindus Christians we should tell the correct history.


----------



## forcetrip

Akbar was way ahead of his time. We will not be alive to see how the world shapes faith in a distant future.


----------



## Virat

Khalid Ibn Walid said:


> I THINK your argument is fundamentally flawed, *akbar had conquered all of the subcontinent *,aurangzeib as well but by the end he was stretched so thin that many small states had started to form.
> 
> .




"akbar had conquered all of the subcontinent " ??

Only half of today's political india was under Moghul rule by the time of Akbar's death.

See this map of Moghul empire at death of Akbar's rule:




If u prefer color picture:



-------------------------------------------------------
For rest of ur argument ,i would say its time for u to read some real history book instead of creating own version of history.


----------



## yashchauhan

Xtremeownage said:


> *Aurangzeb was the best!*
> Aurangzeb is the one who brought the Mughal Empire to great new heights... As a young man he left his wealth and his father's kingdom for a spiritual path. Upon returning he was declared king shortly after... It was his later descendants that messed things up as they were inexperianced.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Akbar was the worst!* Akbar was definately the worst as he brought little but tyranny, oppression, and injustice to the land. This man was an egomaniac, and married over 200 women, and I also heard that he made people do "Sajda" or prostration to him. He in NO way did anything good for the Mughals. The empire fell in to much corruption during his terrible reign.
> 
> The Muslim's who stood up to his Kufr and tyranny were killed or persecuted. It was truly a dark age during his reign.
> 
> 
> 
> *PS: Akbar was the only non-Muslim Mughal.*
> 
> Wiki:



either you are mad or you have made your own history.........Akbar was the one who expanded Mughal empire from a regional force to a world superpower....during his time most of the india was annexed.........aurangzeb rather brough ME to the beggining of its end.......AKBAR WAS THE TRUE LEADER>>>>>>>>
.......
Akbar's reign significantly influenced art and culture in the region.[11] Akbar took a great interest in painting, and had the walls of his palaces adorned with murals. Besides encouraging the development of the Mughal school, he also patronised the European style of painting. He was fond of literature, and had several Sanskrit works translated into Persian, apart from getting many Persian works illustrated by painters from his court.[11] He also commissioned many major buildings, and invented the first prefabricated homes.[12] Akbar began a series of religious debates where Muslim scholars would debate religious matters with Sikhs, Hindus, C&#257;rv&#257;ka atheists, Jews, and Portuguese Roman Catholic Jesuits. He had an intolerant attitude towards Hindus during the early years of his reign, but exercised tolerance after he began marriage alliances with Rajput princesses.[13][14][15] He founded a religious cult, the Din-i-Ilahi (Divine Faith), but it amounted only to a form of personality cult for Akbar, and quickly dissolved after his death.[8][16].....go to wiki know more.....and watch Jodhha Akbar and Mugh e Azam......to know further


----------



## Frankenstein

Akbar the great!!!


----------



## Abhiras

Akbar the great surely


----------



## Ingis

To all those retards who say Aurangzeb was the greatest Mughal Emperor,

Aurangzeb practically ruined the Mughal Empire. He waged continuous wars against Sikhs and the Marathas and solely relied on his Empire's larger army to defeat his enemies rather than tactical military planning. This was the main reason that though the Sikhs and the Hindu Marathas were far outnumbered, the Mughals under Aurangzeb were never able to defeat them and instead loss a major chunk of their territory.

Aurangzed effectively isolated the Mughals from their greatest allies - the Rajputs. During the time of Akbar and Shah Jahan, the Rajputs were the biggest allies of the Mughals despite ideological and religious conflict. But Aurangzeb's religious zeal effectively destroyed the delicate relationship between the Mughals and the Rajputs. By the time Aurangzeb was on his death bed, the Mughal Empire was financially crippled and his army was on retreat. And thus rose the Sikh Empire and the Maratha Confederate. The Sikhs were eventually left to face the brunt of the aggression from the Persians and the Afghans, while the newly formed Maratha Empire faced too many inner leadership disputes which ultimately led to their disastrous performance in the Battle of Panipat. Consequence? India was left weak and thus the British managed to occupy it.

So, yes, Aurangzeb deserves full credit for weakening the Indian subcontinent by effectively damaging the unity of its people. If not for Aurangzeb, then the Indian subcontinent would have never been ruled by those Brits who came from 1000s of miles away.


----------



## jha

the best MUGHAL emperor was AKBAR and the WORST was AURANGZEB...

AKBAR for his liberal and broad thinking..AURANGZEB for his narrow mind and short sightedness that includes high head mentality and religious intolerance because of which he started war with SHIVAJI and according to me one of the major cause of decline of MUGHALs were MARATHAs who never let them rule with peace ....

The decline of MUGHAL EMPIRE started in the regime of a fool SHAHJAHAN..now before jumping to conclusions , listen a bit...That stupid king built a monument in name of his wife which took 30 yrs to build ..with almost 500 Billion dollars of capital in current value..while most part of INDIA was in doldrums..TAJMAHAL is a great sight but at what cost..??
Just imagine what sort of Tax he would have taken from the people...
AURANGZEB did one thing right and that was making SHAHJAHAN captive in AGRA fort , otherwise he would have built some other TAJMAHALs ..who knows..
when this IDIOT was busy in looting poor people of their rights to make name of his wife immortal , OXFORD university was beig built..this shows that the gap started then only and keeps widening till date...


----------



## Speaker

Xtremeownage said:


> *Aurangzeb was the best!*
> Aurangzeb is the one who brought the Mughal Empire to great new heights... As a young man he left his wealth and his father's kingdom for a spiritual path. Upon returning he was declared king shortly after... It was his later descendants that messed things up as they were inexperianced.
> 
> 
> *Akbar was the worst!* Akbar was definately the worst as he brought little but tyranny, oppression, and injustice to the land. This man was an egomaniac, and married over 200 women, and I also heard that he made people do "Sajda" or prostration to him. He in NO way did anything good for the Mughals. The empire fell in to much corruption during his terrible reign.
> 
> The Muslim's who stood up to his Kufr and tyranny were killed or persecuted. It was truly a dark age during his reign.
> 
> *PS: Akbar was the only non-Muslim Mughal.*



You are entitled to your choice, but the facts are not accurate. I can't comment on Aurangzeb's spirituality, but his accession to the throne was not by appointment. It was mired with conspiracy and betrayal and he had his his own brother (some consider him to be the natural successor) beheaded while doing that. He is also responsible for mixing religion and politics and for reinforcing the jizya (tax on non muslims). And for all that bravado, I believe he was more of a war monger than a conquerer.

Among the Mughals, I would think Babur or Akbar would be the greatest. Jahangir or Shah Jahaan were acceptable, but lived on the legacy and status quo. One of the good things about Akbar was the irrelevance of religion in his administration. People may call him a non-Muslim for marrying a Hindu (he had wives from many faiths actually), but a sensible ruler is one who understands that religion is not the business of the state.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Junaid375

Moghul dynasty was a muslim dynasty

Akbar invented a religion and abandoned Islam, he was not a muslim

Akbar was the worst due to this reason.

*Juda ho deen siyasat se tou reh jaati hai changayzi..(Iqbal)*


----------



## Kavin

It's sickening that people in this thread judge an emperor by his religious activities and not by his accomplishments. 

If he is a good mullah and persecutor of non-Muslims, he is best Mughal emperor!


----------



## Junaid375

we compare on standards, benchmarks etc
let it be F22 vs J-10 ,leopard vs cheetah, MAC vs PC
we have certain standards to compare

standards for muslim rulers have been laid out 1400 years ago. 
It was fully demostrated during Umar (RA) caliphate, area was much much larger than india and population was more diverse both culturally and religiously.

if someone follows those standards, he will be a good muslim ruler.

akbar abandoned the very first law, ISLAM hence his ranked is the lowest among all mughal rulers.

what other benchmarks do you have ? 
even if you take into account area ruled over Aurangzeb beats Akbar.


----------



## Speaker

Junaid375 said:


> we compare on standards, benchmarks etc
> let it be F22 vs J-10 ,leopard vs cheetah, MAC vs PC
> we have certain standards to compare
> 
> standards for muslim rulers have been laid out 1400 years ago.
> It was fully demostrated during Umar (RA) caliphate, area was much much larger than india and population was more diverse both culturally and religiously.
> 
> if someone follows those standards, he will be a good muslim ruler.
> 
> akbar abandoned the very first law, ISLAM hence his ranked is the lowest among all mughal rulers.
> 
> what other benchmarks do you have ?
> even if you take into account area ruled over Aurangzeb beats Akbar.



Junaid, Aurangzeb may have been a good administrator and good follower of Islam, but the Mughal emperors were not Muslim rulers, rather rulers who happened to be Muslim. If Islam was what they wanted to spread, they would not have waged a war against the Lodi dynasty. 

Separating religion from the state is the first step to being a good ruler. Even if that is not the case, persecution of other faiths is not the hallmark of a great ruler. By your own example, there were minorities who were free to practice their religion in the caliphate. That is what the standard should be, and Akbar followed that. People will have no problem if religion is spread through peaceful and soulful means. Where Islam has spread peacefully through trade, like parts of the southern coastline of India, and some Islands of Indonesia, the societies are more progressive and tolerant.


----------



## Prometheus

Akbar the great


----------



## Junaid375

not comparing aurangzeb with akbar, discussing akbar since most of the people posted his name here.

Religious tolerance can be achieved without abandoning your own faith.

There are many other proven ways of achieving it and it has been demonstrated in many time by muslims themselves (in spain, in Jerusalem etc) 

Akbar's move to introduce a new religion damaged islam so much that aurangzeb tried to revive islam and abolish un-islamic traditions amongst mughals. The way he opted to achieve his goal is debatable and was partially affective.

i think babur was the greatest among all mughals


----------



## Dr.Evil

I like Bahadur Shah Zafar as he was the last mughal king and gave an opportunity to india come out of Islamic occupation of the nation.


----------



## civilarmy

mughals were defeated by yusufzai pathan tribes in pakistan in the vallyes of swat,swabi and mardan.


----------



## Bang Galore

Junaid375 said:


> not comparing aurangzeb with akbar, discussing akbar since most of the people posted his name here.
> 
> Religious tolerance can be achieved without abandoning your own faith.
> 
> There are many other proven ways of achieving it and it has been demonstrated in many time by muslims themselves (in spain, in Jerusalem etc)
> 
> Akbar's move to introduce a new religion damaged islam so much that aurangzeb tried to revive islam and abolish un-islamic traditions amongst mughals. The way he opted to achieve his goal is debatable and was partially affective.
> 
> i think babur was the greatest among all mughals



I think a lot of guys are confused. The thread is not about the greatest Islamic ruler, just the greatest Mughal. Religious tolerance is an important factor since the bulk of their subjects were non Muslims. Akbar showed the most tolerance of all the Mughal rulers. How a king was perceived by the minorities in his kingdom reflects on his greatness or lack thereof. Akbar is also regarded highly for the quality of his court and his patronage of the arts.

BTW, in India there is no contest. There are only two Kings in the entire history of India whose names are appended with the phrase "the Great". Akbar is one and Asoka who lived nearly 1700 years before him, the other. In a country that is 85&#37; non-muslim, the fact that a Muslim ruler gets such high praise should be proof enough of his greatness.


----------



## Hammy007

Bang Galore said:


> I think a lot of guys are confused. The thread is not about the greatest Islamic ruler, just the greatest Mughal. Religious tolerance is an important factor since the bulk of their subjects were non Muslims. Akbar showed the most tolerance of all the Mughal rulers. How a king was perceived by the minorities in his kingdom reflects on his greatness or lack thereof. Akbar is also regarded highly for the quality of his court and his patronage of the arts.
> 
> BTW, in India there is no contest. There are only two Kings in the entire history of India whose names are appended with the phrase "the Great". Akbar is one and Asoka who lived nearly 1700 years before him, the other. In a country that is 85&#37; non-muslim, the fact that a Muslim ruler gets such high praise should be proof enough of his greatness.



the 1000 year reign of muslims in india was based on religious intolerance??


----------



## mughaljee

*Zahir ud-din Muhammad Babur,
I think the best one.*
(Z&#257;hir ud-D&#299;n Mu&#7717;ammad (&#65223;&#65260;&#65268;&#65198; &#65165;&#65247;&#65194;&#65267;&#65254; &#1605;&#1581;&#1605;&#1583;, also known by his royal titles as al-&#7779;ult&#257;nu 'l-&#703;azam wa 'l-&#7723;&#257;q&#257;n al-mukkarram p&#257;dsh&#257;h-e gh&#257;z&#299, is more commonly known by his nickname, B&#257;bur (&#1576;&#1575;&#1576;&#1585.

According to Stephen Frederic Dale, the name Babur is derived from the Persian word babr, meaning "tiger", a word that repeatedly appears in Firdaws&#299;'s Sh&#257;hn&#257;ma[4][5] and had also been borrowed by the Turkic languages of Central Asia.[6][7] This thesis is supported by the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, explaining that the Turko-Mongol name Timur underwent a similar evolution, from the Sanskrit word cimara ("iron") via a modified version *&#269;imr to the final Turkicized version tim&#252;r, with -&#252;r replacing -r due to the Turkish vowel harmony) 


The family tree of Babur






The Bagh-e Babur in Kabul where Babur is buried


----------



## smartsyco

if it is about mughal emporers i vote akbar and it is islamic emporer then i would definate chose a moulvie way Aurengzab the great


----------



## Ahmad

mughaljee said:


> *Zahir ud-din Muhammad Babur,
> I think the best one.*
> (Z&#257;hir ud-D&#299;n Mu&#7717;ammad (&#65223;&#65260;&#65268;&#65198; &#65165;&#65247;&#65194;&#65267;&#65254; &#1605;&#1581;&#1605;&#1583;, also known by his royal titles as al-&#7779;ult&#257;nu 'l-&#703;azam wa 'l-&#7723;&#257;q&#257;n al-mukkarram p&#257;dsh&#257;h-e gh&#257;z&#299, is more commonly known by his nickname, B&#257;bur (&#1576;&#1575;&#1576;&#1585.
> 
> According to Stephen Frederic Dale, the name Babur is derived from the Persian word babr, meaning "tiger", a word that repeatedly appears in Firdaws&#299;'s Sh&#257;hn&#257;ma[4][5] and had also been borrowed by the Turkic languages of Central Asia.[6][7] This thesis is supported by the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, explaining that the Turko-Mongol name Timur underwent a similar evolution, from the Sanskrit word cimara ("iron") via a modified version *&#269;imr to the final Turkicized version tim&#252;r, with -&#252;r replacing -r due to the Turkish vowel harmony)
> 
> 
> The family tree of Babur
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Bagh-e Babur in Kabul where Babur is buried



i dont think Timur is related to Changis Khan.


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

Mughals have mongol ancestory ahmed....same as hazaras.


----------



## Ahmad

Pakistani Nationalist said:


> Mughals have mongol ancestory ahmed....same as hazaras.



Mughal is a persianized term for Mongol we know that. But Timur being directly related to Changiz is wrong. they both are mughal, but not related to each other.


----------



## mughaljee

Ahmed , 
Mughals have Mongol Ancestory!
This is right.


----------



## Ahmad

mughaljee said:


> Ahmed ,
> Mughals have Mongol Ancestory!
> This is right.



Mughal and Mongol is the same thing, as i mentioned before Mughal is a persianized term for Mongol, we all understand that. but according to the chart you presented, it shows that Timor is son of Changiz khan which is wrong.


----------



## nightrider_saulat

tamerlame(timur) was tattar(timurid empire) he has no relation from mongolians
but babur itself was having family link with both temarlane anf mongols


----------



## Ahmad

nightrider_saulat said:


> tamerlame(timur) was tattar(timurid empire) he has no relation from mongolians
> but babur itself was having family link with both temarlane anf mongols



Timur was great great grand father of Babur.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Kambojaric

Yeah i have also read that Timur was not related to Genghis eventhough he said he was. As we know it was a common practise to say you were related to some great King of the past. Babur however through his mother was a decendent of Genghis.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## mughaljee

Peoples , 
be on my side, because "Mughaljee" saying


----------



## niaz

Hamza Iqbal said:


> Yeah i have also read that Timur was not related to Genghis eventhough he said he was. As we know it was a common practise to say you were related to some great King of the past. Babur however through his mother was a decendent of Genghis.




After the death of Chengiz, while Ogadai was elected the great Khan, Central Asian lands were allotted to another son named Chaghatai. In the later times nearly all the tribes of the Chaghatai's army were clubbed together as Chaghatai Moghals.

Taimur was not pure blood Mongol. He was from Barlas clan of the Tartar/Turkic tribes who were part of the Chaghatais. By the time of Taimur, even though Chaghatai lands were ruled by many semi independent warlords; there was a Mongol Khan; descendent of the Chaghatai, who was accepted as nominal sovereign. Much the same way as Marathas and Lukhnow Nawabs accepted later Delhi kings as their overlord.

One of my close friends is a Numismatist. He showed me a coin of Taimur with the inscription &#8220;Taimur Gurgaan&#8221;. Apparently to legitimize his right to rule the Chaghatai lands, Taimur married one of the Mongol Royal princesses and adopted the title of Gurgaan which in Turkish mean &#8216;Son in law&#8217;.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## devgupt

Was going through the thread.All the Indians were appreciative of Akbar while among Pakistanis the support for Aurangzeb was highest (though there are a few Pakistani members appreciative of Akbar).
This thread sums up in a few pages the basis of nationhood of our respective countries.

And I would end up by quoting a lyric from the epic Jodha Akbar regarding Akbar - 'Jitna kahe hum utna kam hai, tehjibo ka tu sangam hai'.

sangam- meeting point.
This is how we remember & respect him.

PS- To prove Aurangzeb as liberal , those who say that Aurangzeb had higher Hindu mansabdars compared to Akbar forget one small fact.Akbar didnt inherit an empire from Humayun. He built the empire. from scratch.He was the second founder of the Mughal empire after Babur. Also it was he who started the mansabdari system and absorbed Hindus into it.Gradually their numbers increased as the late rulers Jahangir and Shah Jahan didnt showed any big fanatical streak.So the highest number of Hindus in bureaucracy in Auranzeb's time was actually because of inheritance from earlier periods

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## AUz

Akbar "The Great" and Aurangzeb "Alamgir" stands out...


----------



## Aka123

Abu'l-Fath Jalal ud-din Muhammad Akbar .............. aka Akbar the Great!!


----------



## Icewolf

Greatest Mughal - Babur
Greatest Central Asian Conqueror - Mahmud of Ghaznvi and Timur


----------



## Brutas

I believe Timur not only conquered Central Asia, Iran, large part of South Asia & Mid East, but also routed the Ottomans & attacked Russia. Died on the way to invade China. Extra ordinary feat indeed !

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## dexter

Dont know who was good or bad but undoubtely was the worst !!! the man who ruined whole Mughal empire


----------



## eastwatch

mughaljee said:


> Ahmed , Mughals have Mongol Ancestory!
> *This is right*.




No, it may not be right. Babur was the direct descendant of Timur Lang who belonged to Turkic race. There were many invasions by the Mongol troops in the western front of Hindustan after the Turkic Kings started to rule India since 1190 after the defeat of Great Prithviraj Chauhan at the hands of Muhammad Ghori in the Battle of Tarain.

So, because of these invasions for hundreds of years from the west, almost all people there were known invariably as Mongols to the Hindustanis, both domiciled Muslims and local Hindus.

When the forces of Babur attacked Delhi, it was 1526 and the Turkic Muslim dynasties have been ousted by Bahlul Lodi, a Pathan, in around 1456(?), and his descendant Ibrahim was the Sultan. 

The invasion of Babur, like many others in the past, was from the west. So, people started to think it as a Mongol invasion. As a result Babur's family came to be known as Mongol, although it is not true.

the word Mongol changed to Mogol, Mugal, Mughal etc. However, the House of Babur spoke in Turkic inside the palaces and among themselves although Persian was also spoken. Persian remained the Official language of entire Hindustan since around 1190.


----------



## Backbencher

I'd say Shah Jahan for building Taj Mahal for his beloved wife Mumtaz Mahal . An example of a true love even in those times where Emperor's could have fucked literally anyone whosoever they wanted .


----------



## xyxmt

Faixan_Hashmee said:


> Guys wat do you think who was the greatest Mughal emperor?? and why?? &#8233;&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;1. Zaheeruddin Babur&#8233;,2. Mirza Humayun&#8233;,3. Jalaluddin Akbar(Gen musharraf of that time)&#8233; ,4. Jahangir&#8233;,5. Shah Jahan&#8233;,6. Aurangzeb Alamgir(Gen. Zia of that time)&#8233;,7. Bahadur Shah Zafar.&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;My vote goes to Gen. Zia of that time great Aurangzeb Alamgir.&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;i request mod to change this thread in to poll.



NONE 
they were dumb, cruel and kept their public uneducated and slaves to themselves. there was so visible improvement from day one to the last days of their empire, they were nothing but money collecting mafias.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Gandhi G in da house

Akbar. No one else even qualifies.


----------



## dravidianhero

all the mughal rulers were thugs.they sucked the blood of indians.only some royal,subordinates and officers families were happy;rest of the population was in tatters.bastrds enjoyed concubines in their harems and ate delicious dishes cutting themselves off from common peoples suffering.


----------



## Imran Khan

no one all of them were busy in wife and GFs . that is why they are no more on earth . if they work for public and hold country they were remain like UK royals . koi saala taj mehail banwa raha tha to koi anar kali ka mazar . or last wala to poetry likh likh mar gya arrest ho ker .

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## dravidianhero

have u ever seen muslim women in functions?they have heaps of make up on their face.it is the legacy of muslim rulers.i have never seen any hindu woman doing any make up apart from powder or fair and lovely.i donno abt north india but in south hindu women dont do make up where as muslims do(ofcourse now a days some upper middle class girls are doing make up


----------



## T90TankGuy

nick_indian said:


> Akbar. No one else even qualifies.



True but i am enthralled by Aurangzeb . as a ruler he might have been harsh but he was very pious in his personal life. , when i visited his grave in Aurangabad i was impressed by his humility . 







His tomb was in the open and there was a small tomb to its right (of his guru), he wanted all the rain which washed his gurus tomb to then flow over his tomb .

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Gandhi G in da house

jbgt90 said:


> True but i am enthralled by Aurangzeb . as a ruler he might have been harsh but he was very pious in his personal life. , when i visited his grave in Aurangabad i was impressed by his humility .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> His tomb was in the open and there was a small tomb to its right (of his guru), he wanted all the rain which washed his gurus tomb to then flow over his tomb .



Humility ? You can't judge a man's humility by looking at his grave. You judge it by looking at his behavior with those beneath him when he was in a position of power over them. And the less said about Aurangzeb in that respect, the better. His treatment of his subjects particularly non-muslims is famous.



dravidianhero said:


> have u ever seen muslim women in functions?they have heaps of make up on their face.it is the legacy of muslim rulers.i have never seen any hindu woman doing any make up apart from powder or fair and lovely.i donno abt north india but in south hindu women dont do make up where as muslims do(ofcourse now a days some upper middle class girls are doing make up



Hmm... didn't really pay much attention to this before but yes, Muslim women do tend to put more make up than the average Non-muslim woman. I am sure there are exceptions though.

Why is that ?


----------



## Umair Nawaz

Depends in which way u look at them. Military wise Zaheer Ud Deen Babar was best the way he had beaten Ibrahim Lodhi was just great.

Unity wise Akbar was best was he was able to unite the entire SA.

Regarding the prosperity/ better living standards and true Greatness Aurangzeb Alamgir was the best of them all.


----------



## pakdefender

Aurangzeb Alamgir , by far the Greatest


----------



## jbond197

pakdefender said:


> Aurangzeb Alamgir , by far the Greatest


He led Mughal Empire to its demise. Akbar by far was the strongest. Pakistanis love Aurangzeb because he killed a huge number of Hindus...


----------



## Icewolf

Greatest Mughal - Babur

Greatest central asian conqueror mahmud of ghazni 



jbond197 said:


> He led Mughal Empire to its demise. Akbar by far was the strongest. Pakistanis love Aurangzeb because he killed a huge number of Hindus something that gives Pakistanis an orgasm..



aurangzeb never killed hindus. his policies did.


----------



## niaz

Muhammad Yahya said:


> Intresting point to note is Akbar when started his rule he was only 13 years old.
> 
> Nou (Nine) Ratan (Intellectuals ) were played key role in his success.
> 
> The Mughal ruler Akbar, despite his illiteracy, was a great lover of the artists and intellectuals. His passion for knowledge and interest in learning from great minds led him to attract men of genius to his court, known as the nine courtiers of King Akbar or Navratnas.
> 
> * Abul Fazl (1551-1602) was the chronicler of Akbar&#8217;s rule. He authored the biographical Akbarnama. Abul Fazl documented the history meticulously, over seven years, in three volumes, the third volume is known as the Ain-i-Akbari and a Persian translation of the Bible.[1] He was also the brother of Faizi, the poet laureate of emperor Akbar.
> 
> * Faizi (1547-1595) was Abul Fazl&#8217;s brother. He was a poet who composed beautiful poetry father was Mubarak Nagori, a scholar in the philosophy and literature of Greece as well as in Islamic theology.
> 
> * Miyan Tansen was a singer for King Akbar, born as Tanna Mishra, a Hindu, in 1520, he was a poet himself. He learnt music from Swami Haridas and later from Hazrat Muhammad Ghaus. He was a court musician with the prince of Mewar and later was recruited by Akbar as his court musician. Tansen became a legendary name in India and was the composer of many classical ragas. He was an extraordinarily gifted vocalist, known for a large number of compositions, and also an instrumentalist who popularized and improved the rabab (of Central Asian origin). He was buried in Gwalior, where a tomb has been constructed for him. It is unclear if Tansen converted to Islam.
> 
> * Raja Birbal (1528-1583) was a poor Hindu Brahmin who was appointed to the court of Akbar for his intelligence, and became the court jester. Born by the name Maheshdas, he was conferred the name Raja Birbal by the Emperor. Birbal's duties in Akbar's court were mostly military and administrative but he was also a very close friend of the emperor, who liked Birbal most for his wit and humor. There are many witty stories of exchanges and interactions between the monarch and his minister that are popular today. Birbal was also a poet and his collections under the pen name "Brahma&#8221; are preserved in Bharatpur Museum. Raja Birbal died in battle, attempting to quell unrest amongst Afghani tribes in Northwest India.
> 
> * Raja Todar Mal was Akbar&#8217;s finance minister, who from 1560 onwards overhauled the revenue system in the kingdom. He introduced standard weights and measurements, revenue districts and officers. His systematic approach to revenue collection became a model for the future Mughals as well as the British. Raja Todar Mal was also a warrior who assisted Akbar in controlling the Afghan rebels in Bengal. Todar Mal had developed his expertise in Sher Shah's employment. In 1582, Akbar bestowed on the raja the title Diwan-I-Ashraf.
> 
> * Raja Man Singh, was the Kacchwaha Rajah of Amber, a state later known as Jaipur. He was a trusted general in Akbar's army and was the grandson of Akbar&#8217;s father-in-law. His family had been inducted into Mughal hierarchy as amirs (nobles). Raja Man Singh was the formost ablest among Akbar's military commanders and assisted Akbar in many fronts including holding off advancing Hakim (Akbar&#8217;s half-brother, a governor of Kabul) in Lahore. He was also the Mughal viceroy of Afghanistan, led campaigns in Bihar, Orissa, Deccan and was also the viceroy of Bengal.
> 
> * Abdul Rahim Khan-I-Khana, a poet was the son of Akbar&#8217;s trusted protector and caretaker when he was a teenager, Bairam Khan. After Bairam Khan was murdered treacherously, his wife became the second wife of Akbar. He is most known for his Hindi couplets and his books on Astrology.[2] The village of Khankhana, named after him, is located in the Nawanshahr district of the state of Punjab in northwest India.
> 
> * Fakir Aziao-Din who was a mystic, and an advisor. Akbar regarded his advice in high esteem.
> 
> * Mullah Do Piaza, an advisor to Akbar who was known for his intelligence.
> 
> Our leaders should learn lesson from Akbar's strategy of novratan




I have a copy of &#8216;A&#8217;een e Akbari&#8217; written originally in Persian by Abul Fazl and translated in Urdu by Mohammed Fida Ali. It comprises of two parts; first describes the State & Administration and the second deals mostly with the geography & culture of Hindustan. 

In the first part there is a section which lists all the Mansabdars or &#8216;Grandees&#8217; of the empire. Highest rank is &#8216;Deh hazaari&#8217; that is officer of the ten thousand. This being the crown prince Saleem. There is also only one &#8216;Haft hazaari&#8217; or officer of the seven thousand which is prince Danial, son of the Emperor. 

Of the traditional 9 jewels, Khan e khanaan & Raja Maan Singh were Panj hazaari (officer of the 5,000) which is the 3rd highest rank. Both of them were also the highest ranked military officers of the Empire. Khane Khanaan also listed as one of the 8 grandees who represented the Emperor (Wakeel).

Raja Todarmal Khatri was a &#8216;Char hazaari&#8217; that is officer of 4 thousand and also one of the 10 Ministers. Abul Fazl held the rank of 2,500, Raja Birbal was officer of 2 thousand, Faizi is mentioned as officer of the 4 hundred. Mian Tansen is listed as a musician with the note &#8220;No one of his calibre has been born in the last 1000 years&#8221;

List of &#8216;Danish Andozaan&#8217; or the wisemen does not include either Fakir Aziuddin or Mulla do piaza. It is difficult to imagine that a book that lists all officers of the empire down to the rank of 200 makes no mention of either Fakir Aziuddin or Mulla Do Piaza when both were supposed be members of the inner circle of the Emperor. Either these names are made up or their real names were different. 

It is possible that Mulla Abdul Qadir Badauni who is listed as one of the sages could be the real Mulla do piaza. But I am doubtful about Fakir Aziuddin. Sheikh Ibrahim, brother to Sheikh Saleem of Sikri is however listed as a mansabdar of 2,000 rank.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## T90TankGuy

nick_indian said:


> Humility ? You can't judge a man's humility by looking at his grave. You judge it by looking at his behavior with those beneath him when he was in a position of power over them. And the less said about Aurangzeb in that respect, the better. His treatment of his subjects particularly non-muslims is famous.
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm... didn't really pay much attention to this before but yes, Muslim women do tend to put more make up than the average Non-muslim woman. I am sure there are exceptions though.
> 
> Why is that ?




No mate i know he was cruel . but in his latter life he did become very pious, and when you see the tombs created for other emperors and you see his it does strike a cord.


----------



## Ayush

add a poll..


----------



## niaz

Very few kings construct their own tombs; Taj Mahal is an exception. Besides, it was originally meant for the emperors wife.

Kings tombs are constructed by their sons. Therefore one cannot guess a kings character or his grandeur from the size of his tomb. Instead size of the kings mausoleum is a reflection of the power of his immediate successor.

I have had the opportunity to visit Baghe Babur near Kabul where Babur is buried as well as tombs of Humayun, Akbar, Jahangir & Shahjehan (the Taj). Baburs tomb is the simplest of the lot mainly because Humayun was almost a pauper when Baburs body was brought from Agra for burial in Kabul. The tomb was later embellished by Jehangir & Shahjehan. 

It is rumoured that Aurangzeb himself arranged the building of his final resting place; not so sure if it is true. What is true is that by that time Moghal empire was virtually bankrupt due to couple of decades of continuous fighting with the Marathas and Aurangzebs son Muazzam alias Bahadur Shah had neither the money nor the energy to order a grand tomb for his father. Besides, the area soon became independent under the Nizams and it is they who built the current tomb.

Therefore size of Aurangzeb's tomb has no bearing on his piety or his magnificence.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## JohnyBoy

FireFighter said:


> It seems you have never met Muslims, you even admit that did not know about Muslims until you came on the forums reveals plenty that you have been living in a cave.
> 
> No offense, the first place to visit Indian muslims would be Gujrat, then Kashmir, then Hyderabad, then Utter Pardesh, then Mumbai...to see the condition of "Indian muslims"
> 
> I thought "ignorance is bliss" comment no longer applies...but man am i wrong!!



You are wrong..The biggest Muslim billionaire entrepreneur in South Asia is Azim Premji...who is from India..I guess U ignored that...Please understand that India is extremes...There are the Super riches and poorer in ever religion...Why are you only talking about conditions of Muslims? what about other religions?? u don't care??...Well that's the difference between us Indians and you...We are INDIANS FIRST...then every thing else comes next...


----------

