PDA

View Full Version : Bahadur Shah Zafar



IcyCosmic
03 June 2012, 02:43 PM
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/da/Bahadur_Shah_II.jpg/230px-Bahadur_Shah_II.jpg
Today a news channel was showing a little documentary on Bahadur Shah Zafar, I'm not amazingly knowledgable about India's history but I understand the damage that was caused by some muslims and the british alike. To my surprise, my dad started complementing this Mughal emperor, even reciting some of his poetry and saying that he was one of the more noble muslim emperors to his knowledge, religiously balanced and very patriotic in regards to India. I don't know about todays signifance, or even it has any at all.

Does anyone else know anything about this emperor and/or have any opinions on him? I'm just interested.

Believer
03 June 2012, 05:14 PM
Namaste,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bahadur_Shah_Zafar

All muslim kings were Hindu subjugators. Unfortunately, some of our elders mistakenly consider the ones who were not exceptionally cruel to Hindus as the good guys.

Pranam.

McKitty
03 June 2012, 05:22 PM
Zafar consciously saw his role as a protector of his Hindu subjects, and a moderator of extreme Muslim demands and the intense puritanism of many of the Orthodox Muslim sheikhs of the Ulema (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulema).[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bahadur_Shah_Zafar#cite_note-Dalrymple4-8) In one of his verses, Zafar explicitly stated that both Hinduism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinduism) and Islam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam) shared the same essence.[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bahadur_Shah_Zafar#cite_note-Dalrymple4-8) This syncretic philosophy was implemented by his court which came to cherish and embody a multicultural composite Hindu-Islamic Mughal culture


Indeed, what a horrible man, he was a muslim after all, so he was soooo horrible. Really. Bad muslim. Oh, bad, bad muslim uh ? A muslim that refused to convert hindus by force, attended to hindu festivals and trying to make a multicultural society based on respect ? Oh yeah. He is a baaad muslim, this must be muslim propaganda. After all, a good and reasonable muslim cannot exist u__u"

wundermonk
03 June 2012, 09:16 PM
A few extreme left "elites" in India try to portray the Mughal rule and the British rule in India as the greatest events to happen to India - abolishing Sutee, Thugee practise and educated the otherwise backward Hindoos who were into child marriages, stupid superstitions and animal worship, etc. We Hindoos ought to be eternally thankful to these invaders who taught us how to count, build bridges and do philosophy.

In reality though, the Mughal history in India is soaked in blood. There may have been one or two rulers who did not follow this trend to the letter [I have no idea about the specific details of Bahadur Shah Zafar's reigh] but the norm has been Mohammed Ghazni [destroyer of Somnath temple], Babur [destroyer of Ayodhya temple], Bhaktiar Khilji [destroyer of the university town of Nalanda...the library at Nalanda ALONE was so huge that the fire burned for months on end :( , Aurangazeb and Tipu Sultan.

Had the Mughal invasion not happened, partition would have not happened. Had Mughal invasion not happened, Pakistan today would not exist. If Pakistan did not exist today, we would not have had the London train bombings [all 4 bombers got training in Pakistan]. If Pakistan did not exist today, Osama Bin Laden would not have been hiding there and directing 9/11.

So, the London bombings and 9/11 [I am mentioning this because the news channels tend to focus on this a lot...the lost life of an Indian Hindu is less newsworthy] are directly the result of Mughal invasion of India.

Sahasranama
03 June 2012, 11:24 PM
..the lost life of an Indian Hindu is less newsworthyThis is very true, the western media completely ignores the atrocities of Islamic terrorism in India and Islam apologists do not care about what happens far from their home. America doesn't care either, because they need Pakistan to get oil from Afghanistan. Few westerners are aware that a large part of the Hindu population in Pakistan, Kashmir and Bangladesh have been wiped out by Muslims and that Hindus in these areas are still suffering from Muslim oppression.

Sahasranama
03 June 2012, 11:29 PM
Indeed, what a horrible man, he was a muslim after all, so he was soooo horrible. Really. Bad muslim. Oh, bad, bad muslim uh ? A muslim that refused to convert hindus by force, attended to hindu festivals and trying to make a multicultural society based on respect ? Oh yeah. He is a baaad muslim, this must be muslim propaganda. After all, a good and reasonable muslim cannot exist u__u"Enough with the sarcasm already. If he truly was a good person, he would not sit on a throne that has so much blood on it.

Shuddhasattva
03 June 2012, 11:41 PM
Namaste

In my opinion, it would be dishonest to ignore the positive sides of some of the Mughal emperors, and their contributions to the culture of India.

It may even be argued that the modern state of India has come about as a result of the Mughal conquest as well. Am I justifying it? Of course not. But history is a tangled web. The Hindu kingdoms had, like bickering sects, split into many groups, refusing to unite or even come to eachother's aid as they had in the time of Alexander's invasion (uniting under Chandragupta). This is what allowed the Mughal invasion to succeed and perpetuate itself.

It may be indeed due to the Mughal and the British unifications of India (of course, under their rule - indisputably malign as it was) that India once again enjoys unification.

Had the Mughals, and the British later, not invaded, can we say with confidence that India would even exist as a single nation now, or it would be scattered fragments? It's surely possible that India would have reunified. Perhaps someone like Shivaji, whose energies were so brilliantly spent fending off the Mughals, would have, without such interference, been able to unite all of India again.

But also perhaps not. We may view these conquests, as horrible as they were, as catalysts for positive things as well.

Moreover, some of the Mughal emperors, such as Akbar, had excellent personal qualities and contributed greatly to the project of nationbuilding.

A pity they were Muslim.

Namaste

sankar
04 June 2012, 03:00 AM
In my opinion, it would be dishonest to ignore the positive sides of some of the Mughal emperors, and their contributions to the culture of India.
they destroyed the real culture of india to implant a culture based on islam, what a contribution !!



It may be indeed due to the Mughal and the British unifications of India (of course, under their rule - indisputably malign as it was) that India once again enjoys unification.
India united but all were beggars since that, except the nehru family. The mughals and britishers looted everything.



But also perhaps not. We may view these conquests, as horrible as they were, as catalysts for positive things as well.
i agree to this, the positive side of british conquest is that it helped to end mughal rule in india.



Moreover, some of the Mughal emperors, such as Akbar, had excellent personal qualities and contributed greatly to the project of nationbuilding.

wikipedia is free, kindly read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akbar#Early_conquests

karthikm
04 June 2012, 03:14 AM
Bahadur Shah Zafar was the last of the Mughals. He was the Mughal emperor when the Sepoy Mutiny took place in 1857, after which the Raj took over. There is an excellent book called "The Last Mughal" that explains the events surrounding the Mutiny in 1857 and the fall of Delhi. Even before the Mughal invasion there was spread of Islam in India. Remember that before the Mughals, much of the empire were ruled by the Delhi Sultanate.

Reading through History one gets awed by how much Hinduism has survived.

The Last Mughal book - http://www.amazon.com/The-Last-Mughal-Dynasty-Delhi/dp/1400043107

Shuddhasattva
04 June 2012, 03:16 AM
Namaste


they destroyed the real culture of india to implant a culture based on islam, what a contribution !!


I am not disputing that the conquest (and rule) was destructive to Indian culture, particularly its heart of dharma. What I am saying is that there are positive sides as well.



a union of beggars to be more exact. The mughals and britishers looted everything.

The Mughals looted during the conquest, but at times made important contributions to the upliftment of the socioeconomic situation thereafter. What they looted, taxed, etc., tended to stay.

The British were far more rapacious when it came to exploiting resources and removing them from India.

Still, India is exceptionally blessed with natural resources. Progress is being made. One day not too far from now the world will look to India as a model of development.


wikipedia is free, kindly read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akbar#Early_conquests

Is it really necessary to be sarcastic? I am (somewhat) familiar with the history of Akbar. Need I remind you that Ashoka, one of the few who truly deserved the title of Great, also was a conqueror in his youth?

Consider Akbar's environment and lineage (ie, his mad, bloodthirsty grandfather), and consider his own behavior. He was truly an exceptional man.

sankar
04 June 2012, 04:03 AM
I am not disputing that the conquest (and rule) was destructive to Indian culture, particularly its heart of dharma. What I am saying is that there are positive sides as well.
i understand, just like the postive side of a rape is that it would result to birth of a child, right ?



The Mughals looted during the conquest, but at times made important contributions to the upliftment of the socioeconomic situation thereafter.
kindly state them if there is any, according to what i know they simply percecuted hindus, destroyed temples and looted their property, is that the socioeconomic upliftment you are talking about?


The British were far more rapacious when it came to exploiting resources and removing them from India.

but with less shed of blood.



Still, India is exceptionally blessed with natural resources. Progress is being made. One day not too far from now the world will look to India as a model of development.
to my understanding the progress is mainly due to hardwork.




Is it really necessary to be sarcastic? I am (somewhat) familiar with the history of Akbar. Need I remind you that Ashoka, one of the few who truly deserved the title of Great, also was a conqueror in his youth?

Consider Akbar's environment and lineage (ie, his mad, bloodthirsty grandfather), and consider his own behavior. He was truly an exceptional man.

the same justification can be applied to every criminal, that is to blame the environment in which they were brought up. Aurangazed is his death bed felt sorry for what he did against hindus, so auranagzed was a nice guy? Yes he is, so is bin laden, hitler etc. Hitlers childhood life was a very painful one.

Believer
04 June 2012, 06:59 AM
Namaste,

It is said that youth in wasted on the young. When people with little life experience and no sense of history make obnoxious statements, they are ignored, as the comments are borne of ignorance. But one wonders about the things coming from some of our wise and learned members....

In my opinion, it would be dishonest to ignore the positive sides
..........contributed greatly to the project of nationbuilding. When over half of Hindu land has been lost (Afganistan, Paki, BD)...
When half the population has been converted to Islam and is always looking for ways to screw the remaining Hindus.....
Someone is looking for positivity?
And calling everyone who does not, DISHONEST?
Give me a break!

Pranam.

Shuddhasattva
04 June 2012, 07:06 AM
Namaste


i understand, just like the postive side of a rape is that it would result to birth of a child, right ?

Precisely. That has been the experience of many women; the child can be considered a blessing.


kindly state them if there is any, according to what i know they simply percecuted hindus, destroyed temples and looted their property, is that the socioeconomic upliftment you are talking about?

You may continue reading that article about Akbar if you wish.



to my understanding the progress is mainly due to hardwork.

Hardwork is certainly an important factor.



the same justification can be applied to every criminal, that is to blame the environment in which they were brought up. Aurangazed is his death bed felt sorry for what he did against hindus, so auranagzed was a nice guy? Yes he is, so is bin laden, hitler etc. Hitlers childhood life was a very painful one.

Except that I'm not excusing Akbar as a criminal. He was legitimately a great man, Muslim or not. My point is that Akbar transcended his environment/conditioning. Early in his rule, he was a product of it. Later, he sobered like Ashoka did. Was Akbar as great as Ashoka? Not nearly, but my point is that we should not blind ourselves to the good qualities of people (such as the person about whom this thread was started) simply because they're Muslim, or even Mughal.

Understanding the environment that shapes people, at times deforming them, is not an excuse for behavior. It's a way of understanding why people behave the way they do, so that future behavior can be corrected.

I detest Islam precisely because of the way it conditions people towards A., bad behavior, and B. no real relationship with Bhagavan. Nonetheless, within Islam, some people rise above its low-mindedness and still become good, even great, people. This, in my opinion, is to be celebrated as the triumph of the human spirit over the forces of avidya.

Islam will not be destroyed by the sword, nor will it be destroyed by argument, for blind faith inures itself to reason by necessity. The way to destroy Islam is by setting such a superior example that Muslims will want to live as you do, and to do that, they must learn from you. This requires compassionately embracing Muslims despite all differences and blood spilled between ancestors. This is my opinion.

Namaste

PARAM
04 June 2012, 08:14 AM
Wikipedia is not a good source of knowledge, most of the Wiki knowledge about Hinduism is also misleading.

Bahadur Shah Zafar was a Muslim ruler with no support to Hindus, but the Indian freedom struggle of 1857 started during his time, and he supported freedom fighters against British East India Company to regain his lost Empire.

IcyCosmic
04 June 2012, 10:48 AM
I asked my dad about this again, and he still facilitated that Mughal rule had some posotives, telling me he studied history for 9 years in detail...I don't know though I told him I think the emperors had zero to no benefit, the same things could happen with less bloodshed and malicious activity.

He did however proceed, to slander a certain emperior called Aurangzeb. I have no knowledge of him but apparently he was especially horrid towards hindus and indian culture.

PARAM
06 June 2012, 07:40 AM
I asked my dad about this again, and he still facilitated that Mughal rule had some posotives, telling me he studied history for 9 years in detail...I don't know though I told him I think the emperors had zero to no benefit, the same things could happen with less bloodshed and malicious activity.

He did however proceed, to slander a certain emperior called Aurangzeb. I have no knowledge of him but apparently he was especially horrid towards hindus and indian culture.

Aurangzeb was one of the big destroyer of Hindus and Hinduism, he is popular in Muslims because of re-imposing the Jaziya and other tax on Hindus, banning Hindus to visit tirthas and implementing many other ways to depress Hindus. Aurangzeb is also loved by Muslims for fighting against Guru Gobind Singh, Shivaji Maharaj and all other Hindus.

Equinox
07 June 2012, 01:41 AM
Aurangzeb was also the one who imprisoned his father, Shah Jahan! And he was definitely ruthless towards non-Muslims, besides destroying many Hindu schools and an infinite number of Hindu temples, including the Kashi Vishwanath Temple.

sankar
13 June 2012, 09:16 PM
Precisely. That has been the experience of many women; the child can be considered a blessing.
you know why they do so. Do you think actually it is a positive thing?
Sorry to offend you, if the same happens to somelady very close to you, would you say the rapist contributed to your family in a good way?



Except that I'm not excusing Akbar as a criminal. He was legitimately a great man, Muslim or not. My point is that Akbar transcended his environment/conditioning. Early in his rule, he was a product of it. Later, he sobered like Ashoka did. Was Akbar as great as Ashoka? Not nearly, but my point is that we should not blind ourselves to the good qualities of people (such as the person about whom this thread was started) simply because they're Muslim, or even Mughal.

You know the difference? Ashoka had to become buddhist to be a good man, but incase of akbar he had become detatched from his religion to be a tolerant guy. The main motives behind conquests by mughals(including akbar) was religion(because they are muslims), this is not the same for Ashoka.


I detest Islam precisely because of the way it conditions people towards A., bad behavior, and B. no real relationship with Bhagavan. Nonetheless, within Islam, some people rise above its low-mindedness and still become good, even great, people. This, in my opinion, is to be celebrated as the triumph of the human spirit over the forces of avidya.
Thanks for your opinion, there are certainly great people who claims to be muslim, but i wont attest that they are muslims. I would say they dont have any idea about muhammad or quran. I have debated with such good muslims, there are many things in islam that they cant answer, what they say is that they cant answer that but they are muslims.


Islam will not be destroyed by the sword
you know that islam destroyed many religions using sword, im not saying we should follow the same, but cant discard any possibilities.



nor will it be destroyed by argument
we should argue if they argue, it is for the protection of our own faith.


The way to destroy Islam is by setting such a superior example that Muslims will want to live as you do, and to do that, they must learn from you. This requires compassionately embracing Muslims despite all differences and blood spilled between ancestors.
we have been doing all these as per the teaching of gandhi, but did it work? Gandhis teachings are all bullshit, he allowed a seprate nation for muslims, and now all indians are paying for that. Pakistan has become a terrorist centre in this world. See the situation of hindus in pakistan.

Shuddhasattva
13 June 2012, 09:54 PM
Namaste


Sorry to offend you, if the same happens to somelady very close to you, would you say the raper contributed to your family in a good way?

No, as contribution implies intent. The salient point is that if this lady chose not to abort the child, I would accept the child as as much a family member as any other child, and in that sense, a positive addition to the family.



You know the difference? Ashoka had to become buddhist to be a good man, but incase of akbar he had become detatched from his religion to be a tolerant guy. The main motives behind conquests by mughals(including akbar) was religion(because they are muslims), this is not the same for Ashoka.
Ashoka had to realize the folly of violence to become a good man - this lead him to Buddhism. Akbar had to realize the folly of violence and repression - this lead him away from Islamic fundamentalism. I agree.



Thanks for your opinion, there are certainly great people who claims to be muslim, but i wont attest that they are muslims. I would say they dont have any idea about muhammad or quran. I have debated with such good muslims, there are many things in islam that they cant answer, what they say is that they cant answer that but they are muslims.
Yes, in many cases this is true. However, other good, even great, people were very devout Muslims, though generally of a more esoteric bent - Sufis, for instance. What are we to say, for example, of Shirdi Sai Baba and his provenance?


you know that islam destroyed many religions using sword, im not saying we should follow the same, but cant discard any possibilities.
That is a possibility that should certainly be discarded. Destroying Islam by the sword practically means in this time the use of nuclear weapons, which would be an unimaginable folly greater in extent than the original invasion of Bharat.


we should argue if they argue, it is for the protection of our own faith.
There may be times when argument is warranted to protect those who would otherwise be vulnerable from being swayed by the weak arguments of the Abrahamics. Otherwise, it is quite useless.


we have been doing all these as per the teaching of gandhi, but did it work? Gandhis teachings are all bullshit, he allowed a seprate nation for muslims, and now all indians are paying for that. Pakistan has become a terrorist centre in this world. See the situation of hindus in pakistan.Though you may blame Gandhi, unjustifiably for the creation of Pakistan and its use by cynical forces to perpetuate geopolitical instability for their benefit, you will not credit him for the vital role he played in the liberation of India and its establishment as a vast unified nation rooted in solid principles?

I will contend that a sufficiently better example has not been set. Not until poverty is banished from the fair face of Bharat Ma can this be said to be accomplished.

Namaste

sankar
26 June 2012, 11:57 PM
No, as contribution implies intent. The salient point is that if this lady chose not to abort the child, I would accept the child as as much a family member as any other child, and in that sense, a positive addition to the family.
the same is for what you call 'contribution' of mughals, their intention was not good.


You may continue reading that article about Akbar if you wish.
a period when millions of hindus were persecuted, you call it as social-economic upliftment?


Yes, in many cases this is true. However, other good, even great, people were very devout Muslims, though generally of a more esoteric bent - Sufis, for instance.
path of sufism is bit different from islam, many islamic scholars accepts this fact. The sufis dance, sings etc etc, all which is banned in islam. I agree that it has something common with islam, but sufism is not islam.


What are we to say, for example, of Shirdi Sai Baba and his provenance?
he had to act according to the situation, so did he receive fans from every community.


That is a possibility that should certainly be discarded. Destroying Islam by the sword practically means in this time the use of nuclear weapons, which would be an unimaginable folly greater in extent than the original invasion of Bharat.
You misunderstood my point, i did not say i would like to see islam destoryed by sword, but anything can happen, reality wont care about the severeness of nuclear weapons.