Greatest Mughal Emperor???

[rubyjackass]

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]

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]

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:

Dīn-i Ilāhī 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.

 

[Khalid Ibn Walid]

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]

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]

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, Cārvāka 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]

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.

 

[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)