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

[Buddhistforlife]

Other Mughal emperors had non Muslims in their government and military. This is not unique to Akbar. Even Aurangzeb had this.

Yes they had but they could only rise to the rank of a subedar, a jagirdar or a military commander of mere 7000 or so military platoon. However during Akbars rule, hindus were army chiefs, court ministers and prime ministers in his court.

 

[LASER1]

Akbar for me.

And founded a hybrid religion called Din-i-llahi, so, not many Muslims revere him to be great.
As per Mubarak Ali, a Pakistani historian, considered him to be a non-Muslim, as he had already committed blasphemy.

 

[TMA]

Yes they had but they could only rise to the rank of a subedar, a jagirdar or a military commander of mere 7000 or so military platoon. However during Akbars rule, hindus were army chiefs, court ministers and prime ministers in his court.

https://scroll.in/article/829943/wh...ples-and-protect-non-muslim-religious-leaders
https://qz.com/india/918425/mughal-...u-temples-more-often-than-he-demolished-them/

Another false claim. The very opposite is true. Turkey is fairly liberal in this aspect compared to other Muslim countries.

Stop inventing BS.

I am all for historical revisionism as new documents are found and new perspectives cast light...however there is a concerted attempt by a certain group and there has been an attempt by the British to exploit Muslim-Non Muslim differences, that they painted unfair picture of certain Emperors....

 

[hussain0216]

Aurengzeb by a distance
Tipu sultan
Khiliji
Babur
Akbar

So many to choose from

Great men

 

[El Sidd]

Tamerlane didn't strike Europe.He struck down Bayezid who had struck europe.
Timur destroyed Isfahan,Baghdad,Ankara,Damascus,Delhi,Sarai-Astrakhan.All the greatest cities of the islamic world were destroyed by him,only Cairo survived because he stopped at syria before turning back to defeat bayezid.Timur killed approx 20% of the entire population of the middle east.On their bones he built samarkand as the most beautiful city in the islamic world.

On the ashes of the old a new Order was formed.

 

[SuvarnaTeja]

Listen back in those days wars were brutal and mass murders were pretty common back then. Everyone did it. Even the Hindu Maratha empire killed thousands of rohilla muslim civillians when they conquered Rohillkhand in the 1770s. Basically it was a norm back then however Akbar was far less barbaric and less tyrannical than other muslim rulers of the subcontinent like Alauddin Khilji, Muhammad Tughlaq and Aurangzeb who were far more ferocious.

Agree.

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

On the ashes of the old a new Order was formed.

It wasnt a new order.The timurid empire didnt last nor did it have any lasting legacy.If babur a offshoot of the timurid remnant hadnt made his name in India,there would be nothing left.

 

[Buddhistforlife]

Majority of them were thugs and thieves.

Only ruler/darwash who brought sea of change in Sub continent were the migrated family of Holy Prophet PBUH.. who brought Sufism .

If you ask me then i would say only the first 4 caliphs were true muslim rulers. The rest were power hungry thugs who used religion for their own motive.

Aurengzeb by a distance
Tipu sultan
Khiliji
Babur
Akbar

So many to choose from

Great men

They all were mass murderers and genocidal freaks. If you are a true muslim then tell me where does it say in the quran to commit mass murders and genocide?

 

[SuvarnaTeja]

If you ask me then i would say only the first 4 caliphs were true muslim rulers. The rest were power hungry thugs who used religion for their own motive.

Ummayads were power hungry maniacs who massacred the entire family of Prophet Muhammad's (SAW) including a 6 month old baby at Karbala.

 

[Buddhistforlife]

What a stupid question.

Muslims are free People. No one Can rule them.

Everyone is free in this world. This world does not belong to you or your community alone.

 

[SuvarnaTeja]

Other Mughal emperors had non Muslims in their government and military. This is not unique to Akbar. Even Aurangzeb had this.

True. The main difference being Akbar did not implement Sharia, additional taxes on non-muslims and destroy temples like Aurangzeb did. Hence most non-Muslims admire Akbar while some Muslims admire Aurangzeb.

 

[El Sidd]

Everyone is free in this world. This world does not belong to you or your community alone.

Thanks for the gentle reminder. We keep forgetting

 

[Buddhistforlife]

Thanks for the gentle reminder. We keep forgetting

There is no benefit nor it is ethical to dominate or suppress 'other communities'. Remember muslims are also a minority in many countries today.

 

[El Sidd]

There is no benefit nor it is ethical to dominate or suppress 'other communities'. Remember muslims are also a minority in many countries today.

Ooo lol

 

[hussain0216]

If you ask me then i would say only the first 4 caliphs were true muslim rulers. The rest were power hungry thugs who used religion for their own motive.


They all were mass murderers and genocidal freaks. If you are a true muslim then tell me where does it say in the quran to commit mass murders and genocide?

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

Whose wheel is on the indian flag and how many indians did he kill?