Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > Asian History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Asian History Asian History Forum - China, Japan, Korea, India, Australia, New Zealand, and the Asia-Pacific Region


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old November 24th, 2012, 01:19 AM   #11

civfanatic's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 1,411
Blog Entries: 6

Quote:
Originally Posted by avantivarman View Post
Hahaha, and no one is telling that Akbar introduced a new religion of which he was the prophet himself.

one can doubt whether Moses, Muhammad were attended by angels but I am more than sure that Akbar did not receive any message and this makes him a fraudulent impostor who was trying to achieve prophethood by virtue of sword.

and so far as akbar considering other religions as backward, it was his morality that he kept thosands of women in harem ( overcrowded as in one room there were 10 women kept ), killed innocents more than often and castrated men.
He was by far the greatest emperor of India in the past 1000 years, and possibly the second greatest king of India in all history behind Ashoka (I will ignore Chandragupta Maurya since we lack sufficient information on him). I am not saying this because he was "kind" to Hindus or even because he was "secular", but because he had a well-articulated vision for the future of India. This was something that most Indian kings have lacked throughout history. I could honestly care less how many innocents he killed or how many women he slept with, what is more important is his administrative talent, diplomatic acumen, and foresight.

India under Akbar and Abul Fazl had a genuine opportunity to become a major world power. The only other time when India had this opportunity was in the 3rd century B.C.E.
civfanatic is offline  
Remove Ads
Old November 24th, 2012, 01:52 AM   #12
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Sep 2012
From: varanasi uttar pradesh, india
Posts: 1,610

Quote:
Originally Posted by civfanatic View Post
He was by far the greatest emperor of India in the past 1000 years, and possibly the second greatest king of India in all history behind Ashoka (I will ignore Chandragupta Maurya since we lack sufficient information on him). I am not saying this because he was "kind" to Hindus or even because he was "secular", but because he had a well-articulated vision for the future of India. This was something that most Indian kings have lacked throughout history. I could honestly care less how many innocents he killed or how many women he slept with, what is more important is his administrative talent, diplomatic acumen, and foresight.

India under Akbar and Abul Fazl had a genuine opportunity to become a major world power. The only other time when India had this opportunity was in the 3rd century B.C.E.
old nehruvian slogan of ashoka and akbar being greatest.

I will not debate much on this but Gupta age India has contributed more to world civilization than either mauryan or mughal india and it is Gupta age which is regarded as classical age or golden age of india.


in 350 to 470 ad the only power that matched Gupta empire in all ways was Roman empire whereas during Akbar's time , India was a poor and backward region with a kingdom which maintained a large army.
avantivarman is offline  
Old November 24th, 2012, 01:54 AM   #13
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Sep 2012
From: varanasi uttar pradesh, india
Posts: 1,610

Quote:
Originally Posted by civfanatic View Post
He was by far the greatest emperor of India in the past 1000 years, and possibly the second greatest king of India in all history behind Ashoka (I will ignore Chandragupta Maurya since we lack sufficient information on him). I am not saying this because he was "kind" to Hindus or even because he was "secular", but because he had a well-articulated vision for the future of India. This was something that most Indian kings have lacked throughout history. I could honestly care less how many innocents he killed or how many women he slept with, what is more important is his administrative talent, diplomatic acumen, and foresight.

India under Akbar and Abul Fazl had a genuine opportunity to become a major world power. The only other time when India had this opportunity was in the 3rd century B.C.E.
Ashoka did not create Mauryan empire and it was the work of Chandragupta maurya but since chachaji sang praises of ashoka, he must be praised.
avantivarman is offline  
Old November 24th, 2012, 01:56 AM   #14
Citizen
 
Joined: Nov 2012
From: India
Posts: 13

Quote:
Originally Posted by avantivarman View Post

Do note that Akbar was not being brutal towards hemu because he was an enemy but because he was a hindu or how can we explain his assuming title of Ghazi that is slayer of infidels.
Please do keep in mind that at that point of time Hemu was being a serious threat to the Mughal empire, which was dwindling anyway. And hence "infidels".
historyhungry is offline  
Old November 24th, 2012, 01:58 AM   #15
Citizen
 
Joined: Nov 2012
From: India
Posts: 13

No one has yet answered one of questions- what changed Akbar's sentiments towards Islam? What made him dislike Islam?
historyhungry is offline  
Old November 24th, 2012, 02:06 AM   #16

Linschoten's Avatar
nonpareil
 
Joined: Aug 2010
From: Wessex
Posts: 10,379
Blog Entries: 11

Akbar was surely a syncretist rather than a secularist; though syncretism of that kind does tend to place the emphasis on the ethical ideas that are passed down in religious traditions, rather than supposed revelations or historical truths (hence the hatred with which it tends to be viewed by orthodox religious believers). As far as I can see, Akbar's ideas on religion seem to have been civilized and enlightened, e.g the notion that no single religion can claim to have a monopoly of the truth. That latter view is coming to prevail increasingly in the Christian world (at least in the West outside the American bible belt). The trouble with syncretistic religions is that they tend to be artificial constructions that have little vitality and don't last. In so far as Akbar's ideas have any lasting value, it is in the notion that people of different religions should try to live peacefully together, to appreciate what is of positive value in other religions, and not imagine that there is no salvation except within a specific faith.
Linschoten is offline  
Old November 24th, 2012, 02:15 AM   #17
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Sep 2012
From: varanasi uttar pradesh, india
Posts: 1,610

Quote:
Originally Posted by historyhungry View Post
Please do keep in mind that at that point of time Hemu was being a serious threat to the Mughal empire, which was dwindling anyway. And hence "infidels".
That can justify any acts as even marathas were threat to aurangzeb and hence " infidels".
avantivarman is offline  
Old November 24th, 2012, 02:50 AM   #18
Citizen
 
Joined: Nov 2012
From: India
Posts: 13

Quote:
Originally Posted by Linschoten View Post
Akbar was surely a syncretist rather than a secularist; though syncretism of that kind does tend to place the emphasis on the ethical ideas that are passed down in religious traditions, rather than supposed revelations or historical truths (hence the hatred with which it tends to be viewed by orthodox religious believers). As far as I can see, Akbar's ideas on religion seem to have been civilized and enlightened, e.g the notion that no single religion can claim to have a monopoly of the truth. That latter view is coming to prevail increasingly in the Christian world (at least in the West outside the American bible belt). The trouble with syncretistic religions is that they tend to be artificial constructions that have little vitality and don't last. In so far as Akbar's ideas have any lasting value, it is in the notion that people of different religions should try to live peacefully together, to appreciate what is of positive value in other religions, and not imagine that there is no salvation except within a specific faith.
Din-i-Ilahi justifies your point!
historyhungry is offline  
Old November 24th, 2012, 08:15 AM   #19

Pusyamitra's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Nov 2012
From: USA
Posts: 672

Quote:
Originally Posted by civfanatic View Post
He was by far the greatest emperor of India in the past 1000 years, and possibly the second greatest king of India in all history behind Ashoka (I will ignore Chandragupta Maurya since we lack sufficient information on him). I am not saying this because he was "kind" to Hindus or even because he was "secular", but because he had a well-articulated vision for the future of India. This was something that most Indian kings have lacked throughout history. I could honestly care less how many innocents he killed or how many women he slept with, what is more important is his administrative talent, diplomatic acumen, and foresight.

India under Akbar and Abul Fazl had a genuine opportunity to become a major world power. The only other time when India had this opportunity was in the 3rd century B.C.E.
That is sick when you don't care how many of your countrymen a despotic tyrant killed and is probably a reason why India is in a mess now (i would assume you to be muslim, correct?). What oppertunities did India have for becoming world power? Mughals were intellectually backward unlike Europe of the time which was booming with secular universities. Mughals had no navy when at same time Chinese and Europeans were sailing around the world.
Pusyamitra is offline  
Old November 24th, 2012, 09:06 AM   #20
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Sep 2012
From: varanasi uttar pradesh, india
Posts: 1,610

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pusyamitra View Post
That is sick when you don't care how many of your countrymen a despotic tyrant killed and is probably a reason why India is in a mess now (i would assume you to be muslim, correct?). What oppertunities did India have for becoming world power? Mughals were intellectually backward unlike Europe of the time which was booming with secular universities. Mughals had no navy when at same time Chinese and Europeans were sailing around the world.
first time I agree with you mere bhai.

and i am more than sure he is not a muslim.

he is nehruvian even though he would deny it as a nehruvian does not know that he is nehruvian.


India under harshavardhana was world leader in medicine , metallurgy and mathematics and what was mughal india doing actually?

a state with a massive army and no science.

it needed a petty ruler like kerala kings to produce great mathematicians like Neelkantha and Madhav who developed calculus.
avantivarman is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > Asian History

Tags
akbar, emperor, secularism


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Akbar's Policies. Please Help bitdefen000 History Help 2 September 26th, 2010 03:43 AM
Question related to Akbar- Mughal.. Please Help bitdefen000 Asian History 2 September 25th, 2010 05:48 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.