Talk:Akbar the Great

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by the Royalty and nobility work group.
More information about this article... The following comments have been left for this page: akbar wasnt as great as describe he was rather ruthless ruler with good fortune in the begining though he did later realise that inorder to rule india he needs to adopt a different stratagy and which he did... often i found the sources to be a bit sham as though many does say that akbar was ruthless, proud, mercyless, killed more then 30,000 captive peasents for no reason... and yet they praise him like anything infact most of the sources of akbar seems to have come from his own vision of himself it is a proven fact that he was wise and did looked at the futher as what tomorrow the world will call him.. and who wrote the hisrtory of his time his own men.. where does in histtory do u find him incapable of anything.. It is a sham that he was an excellent warrior... i read sources saying that he fought many battles thought he leaded many it was his men who fought he was no fool to have run into war like the rajputs.. who live more for thier honour then to win.. had hemu kept himself in the back of his army woundnthave face the defeat.. more over i read in history that hemu lost one ey andhad 32 major wounds in his body and when he was killed he was uncouncesious... well it is true he was a good ruler atlest he did become a good ruler in the later stage of his rule... he is often shown as a character and what should one say of his charater with 300 wives and 5000 women in his haram... i woudnt comment much... well i do believe that its hard to trust that akbar was great but yes he did rule well.... (edit)

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (see comments)
	This article is maintained by the Indian history workgroup.
More information about this article... ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

	This article is part of WikiProject Pakistan which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Pakistan and Pakistan-related topics. For guidelines see WikiProject Pakistan and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. See comments
Additional information This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Article is property cited: criterion not met Article has one or more sections including LEAD: criterion not met Article is comprehensive: criterion not met Article includes some graphics (i.e., pictures or infoboxes): criterion not met Article is free of grammatical errors: criterion not met
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Comments edit akbar wasnt as great as describe he was rather ruthless ruler with good fortune in the begining though he did later realise that inorder to rule india he needs to adopt a different stratagy and which he did... often i found the sources to be a bit sham as though many does say that akbar was ruthless, proud, mercyless, killed more then 30,000 captive peasents for no reason... and yet they praise him like anything infact most of the sources of akbar seems to have come from his own vision of himself it is a proven fact that he was wise and did looked at the futher as what tomorrow the world will call him.. and who wrote the hisrtory of his time his own men.. where does in histtory do u find him incapable of anything.. It is a sham that he was an excellent warrior... i read sources saying that he fought many battles thought he leaded many it was his men who fought he was no fool to have run into war like the rajputs.. who live more for thier honour then to win.. had hemu kept himself in the back of his army woundnthave face the defeat.. more over i read in history that hemu lost one ey andhad 32 major wounds in his body and when he was killed he was uncouncesious... well it is true he was a good ruler atlest he did become a good ruler in the later stage of his rule... he is often shown as a character and what should one say of his charater with 300 wives and 5000 women in his haram... i woudnt comment much... well i do believe that its hard to trust that akbar was great but yes he did rule well....

Please check the list of akbar's wives. mariam zamani appears to be the same person as jodha bai. if so, they should not be listed separately as two distinct individuals. Sourav.sg 19:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)Sourav.sg

Is it?

[edit] Encyclopaedia Iranica link

This link:

• Akbar the Great entry in Encyclopaedia Iranica

Was added by a Columbia University IP along with many other links to the site. I have moved it hear in keeping with our external links guidelines so unconnected editors can evaluate its appropriateness. Many of the websites entries are short and may not contain much more than the articles they have been added to. However, this might be a good source even if editors do not consider it an appropriate external link. -- SiobhanHansa 23:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Iranica is produced by Columbia University and is a scholarly source. It should not be removed from the articles as they are pertinent sources of reference.--Zereshk 12:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why?

Why is he referred to as Muslim when he created and followed his own cult (Din-i-llahi)? Armyrifle 01:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Because it is considered an intelligent political move to keep harmony among the various factions under his rule & not a religious change on his part, because he continued to apply the Islamic Law in the courts. To counter any opposition from the scholars of Islam, he had himself declared to be an Islamic Caliph as stated in the Encyclopaedia Iranica link. As he had inherited the rule from his father under the name of Islam & as the Moghal State had been established as an Islamic state, continuation of the Islamic state as established under the previous rulers since 1206 as the first Islamic state as established by Qutb-ud-din Aybak, the first ruler of the Slave Dynasty, who established the Delhi Sultanate. As per the Islamic Law, an Islamic ruler would have to abdicate to his successor, if an 'open disbelief ' prevails under his rule. He would have been subject to proceedings of abdication as being an 'unfit ruler' under Islam. So the issue remains debatable. Unless convincing evidence otherwise, the move was a diplomatic move to garner support & minimise resistance for his grand vision to unite India under his rule rather than as a matter of his personal conviction. Did he follow the Shia Sect in his personal faith or in his rule? Referring to as claimed in the article of 'Humayun', the price he had to pay to get the Safawid help to get back his rule from the Sher Shah Suri, the intermittent Afghani ruler in India ILAKNA (talk) 16:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ghazi

The main article says that Ghazi means "slayer of Hindus," whereas it refers to a warrior of the faith, without further qualification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.176.48 (talk) 08:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jalaluddin-e-Muhammad Akbar

is the correct rendition of the name. "Jalaluddin-e-Muhammad" (being the first name) meaning "The Majesty of the Religion of Muhammad" ('Mohammad' is more phonetically correct transliteration of the Prophet's name in the Arabic), with no family surname, while 'Akbar' meaning "The Great" being his given unique title as the emperor, by which he was known & singled out. Without '-e-' in the first name, representing the inclination or 'kasra' (in Arabic) of the genitive case, the meaning will become disorienting as "The Majesty of the Religion, Muhammad", so he will have two first names "The Majesty of the Religion" & "Muhammad", which is not true, because he did not have two first names & had only one first name.ILAKNA (talk) 17:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

His name was Jalaluddin Muhammad Akbar. Muhamamd is common middle name and in this case has no connection in terms of meaning with his first name Jalaluddin. User:Maya Hanessey —Preceding comment was added at 07:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Akbar And Sikhs

Added the sikh history related to Akbar. Ohio Mailman (talk) 12:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Clear POV digression and spelling

I deleted the following line "The marriage between muslim man and a hindu women was highly encouraged to convert the non hindus to muslims. Akbar did the same and he had number of hindu wives. In total he had 33 wives and unknown number of mistresses in his haram. Which was common for mugul rulers." as it is personal POV with no reference coupled with spelling errors. Sagheero (talk) 15:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Akbar was a writer?

The article mentions in the introduction that Akbar was a "writer". However the same article mentions later that he never learned to read or write. There is a clear contradiction.
That Akbar was illiterate appears more probable.[1] Since there is a source mentioned for the claim that he was a writer, I just wanted to confirm whether the source material clearly states that he was a writer or it was just a wrong interpretation of some statement about his taste in literature. Philker (talk) 17:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I have deleted "writer" and "ruler" from Akbar's list of activities. The former is based on my post above. The latter is because he has already been described as an emperor. "Ruler" becomes redundant because of this.Philker (talk) 06:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Citation needed

"This movie is termed flop in india but oversees collection reported to be good because of Indian emperor,colourful dresses and palaces shown in it which are loved by foreigners." Vague wording, not backed up with figures. The movie has grossed a substantial sum overall. Hence removed. Sagheero (talk) 17:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Akbar's neg. qualities

What about all his negative qualities? "Xavier, a Jesuit in Akbar's court, gives a typical instance of Akbar's perfidy in making people drink water in which his feet had been washed. Xavier writes, says Smith (p.189), Akbar posed " as a Prophet, wishing it to be understood that he works miracles through healing the sick by means of the water in which he washed the feet." Badauni says that this [the above] special type of humiliation was reserved by Akbar only for Hindus. Says Badayuni, "... if other than Hindus came, and wished to become disciples at any sacrifice, His Majesty reproved them." Where was his broadminded and tolerant nature then?" Smith, V., "Akbar, The Great Mogul," 2nd Edition, S.Chand and Co., Delhi, 1958.read this http://www.hindunet.org/hindu_history/modern/akbar_ppg.htmlDomsta333 (talk) 10:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Contradiction

Some of the information reported in this article contradicts that which is represented by the ASI. For instance, the part about the temples he destroyed. As far as I know, the ASI and the official NCERT/CBSE/ICSE board does not recognise such information. I would like to have the information verified once again. Cyberina 11 11:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)