Talk:Mughal Empire/Archive 1

message: Never heard "badshah" translated to "vice-shah". Thought it is from "pad shah"--"pad" meaning "throne" and making, for example "Akbar Badshah" mean the same as "Elizabeth II Regina" or "George II Rex", which is taken to mean "Elizabeth the second, Ruling Queen". (See signature graphic at Emperor of India.) —iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 20:47, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
:See Padishah.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 21:31, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
::I'll defer here. I can't remember now where I read the "vice-Shah" bit and what sources I do find doing a quick Google seem to support your etymology. Acsenray 14:43, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: ''Badshah''

message: Why is this in the form of an article when its name is "List of..."? Initially, I had set up a redirect, but now that there's substantial material on this page besides the list, shouldn't there be a separate article titled "House of Taimur" or something?
--iFaqeer 07:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  List versus Article 

message: == hello dear members,
im aman verma from india agra.!
im telling to you, this site is very useful and very nice commentaed..
im very happy and very impresed this site, this is the most recover  
in india.im a very simple and intelligent boy,and i request to this members
pleas give me a more excited information of history,biology,geografhy,
chemistry,physics and many more subjects please inform me of this email id 
the id is :amanverma007.2008@rediffmail.com:
this id is my for aman verma.]
and thanx for inform me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.163.162.81 (talk) 15:16, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  the history of india........... 

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saiyid_Brothers
----
If anybody thinks of moving this page to something with a slightly different spelling, please deal with the double redirects which may result. --Henrygb 01:03, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please add Saiyid Brothers Wikipedia link in Decline of Mughal Empire 

message: I find it strange that Humayun is listed in the table with his reign as a Mughal emperor from 1530 to 1556. Can a person without a territory to rule be considered an emperor!!! Giving Humayun that reign would be patently misleading. Humayun had to flee India and live as a refugee in Persia and also as a wanderer during that time, when Sher Shah was ruling India.
Himayuan was great mughal ruler . althought he loses his whole empire to the hand of sher shah but he regained his empire before his death , himayun is one of the greatest mughal emperor 
, do not consider this article to be the only source of information .
I believe that he really was a ruler of the Mughal empire. I dont see any real reasons why her shouldn't be!!!
Indeed Hamayun was a great king. If we were to judge kings by their failures, why Babur failed much more often than he succeeded but it's his success that counts. Hamayun was true to his brothers even when he had lost his entire empire. Hamayun was true to his father's will. He was a great diplomat at the Safawi court in Persia and it was only his tact and diplomacy that managed to get him support from the Persians. Remember that Hamayun had 'promised' the Safawis to make Shiaism the official religion of India but on his return, and following his father's will, Hamayun showed no marked difference between Shias and Sunnis. Most of the old Shia families who live in North India and Pakistan's old cities like the Kizalbash came with Hamayun from Iran. If not for Hamayun's greatness, his extremely diplomatic tactfulness, he would never have managed to win the support of the suspicious Persians.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.180.141 (talk) 01:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Human was chased out of Hindustan in 1540 by Sher Shah Suri; after much wandering he received aid from the Shah of Persia he captured the throne of HIndustan again. Hence it is only proper to include him as a Mughal emperor. Gopalan evr (talk) 10:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  How come Humayun be listed among the "Great" mughal rulers? 

message: sher shah was a warlord of afghan origin, who defeated humayun and was briefly in charge of the mughal empire. yet sher shah was not one of the mughal emperors, though his contribution to later administrative reforms by akbar was significant.
:I guess the right way to put that would be to say that he was briefly Sultan of Delhi.--iFaqeer 16:33, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)
He is credited with establishing the shortlived Sur dynasty, which collapsed after Islam Shah's death, prior to Humayun's return. Is he really credited with bringing Islam to India? I thought that was the work of Mahmood of Ghazni and the Delhi Sultanate. Leo Africanus 12:26, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  sher shah 

message: Babur and Moghuls were not Turks. I recommend everyone to read the German discussion about the heritage of the Moghuls: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diskussion:Mogulreich . Babur's ancestors were Mongols of the Berlas tribe. His mother was a direct descendant of Jingiz Khan. He was only a Turk by language. But the Timurids (Babur's royal ancestory) were partly Persian-speaking (like his forefathers Shah-Rukh and Ulugh Begh) and partly Turkic-speaking. The major line of the Timurid dynasty, meaning those who were ruling Khorasan from Herat (from Shah-Rukh to Hussein Beyqara) were native Persian-speakers. Only some minor linages - for example Omar Sheikh in Farghana - were Turkic-speaking. Babur himself married a Persian woman, and his children had also Persian wives. His grandson Akbar did not even know Chagatai Turkic. That's why he ordered to translate the "Baburnama" into Persian. The following text is a copy from the German Wikipedia, proving that the Moghuls were not Turks, but Persianized Mongols:
Sorry your argument and details in support are not based on facts. Zahiruddin Muhammad Babur indeed was a Turk by birth.
Ameer Taimur, Babur's foresire was from the Barlas-Bik subclan of Ata-Bik Turks whose women folk were commonly Qara Khatai Mongols that were captured after the decline of Mongol holdings at Qara Khata some fifty years after the reign of Shah Ghazan Khan. Refer to Tarikh i Abul Khair Khani (MS-16558 Saltykov-Shechedrin Public Library St.Petersburg Russia) Also refer to Tuzak i Baburi (Babur's Memoirs). ~~Lutfullah
==== Die Moghulen in Indien ====   
Baburs Sohn Humayun, aus der Ehe Baburs mit der Perserin Ayisheh Sultan Begum, (Quellen: "Afghanistan In The Course of History", Mir Gholam Muhammad Ghobar, Vol. I, ISBN: 0970796412 , "Humayun-Nama"), wurde zwischenzeitlich vom Paschtunen Scher Schah Suri gestürzt und musste 10 Jahre im persischen Exil verbringen. Dort heiratete er die Perserin Hamida Begum [Quellen: englische Wikipedia, externe. Link) und kovertierte zum schiitischen Islam. 
(Aus einer zweiten Ehe Baburs mit einer persischen Konkubine - Deldâr Begum - entstammte seine Tochter Gulbadan Begum, eine Halbschwester Humayuns, die vor allem durch ihre Gedichte - hauptsächlich in Persisch, sowie auch zu einem geringeren Teil in Tschagataisch - bekannt ist. Zuem war sie die Verfasserin des "Humayun-Nama", der Biographie Humayuns. Die "Humayun-Nama" ist in Persisch verfasst. ; "Gulbadan Begum" aus Encyclopaedia Iranica)
Aus der Ehe Humayuns mit der Perserin Hamida enstammte sein Sohn und Thronfolger Akbar. Unter Akbar wurde das Persische zum Indetifikationssymbol der Moghulen in Indien, und die Persische Sprache wurde für die nächsten Jahrhunderte die Hofssprache der Dynastie (Quelle: ). 
Akbars Nachfolger war sein Sohn Jahangir, aus der Ehe mit der armenischen Fürstentochter Mariam uz-Zamani Begum (Quellen: , Englische Wikipedia, ). Jahangir heiratet seinerseits die Perserin Nur Jahan, eine Verwandte der safawidischen Wesire in Persien (Quellen: , Englische Wikipedia). Ihr richtiger Name war Mihr al-Nisa; der Name "Nur-e Jahan" (Persisch: "Licht der Welt") wurde von ihrem Ehemann verliehen. 
Nach Akbars Tod kam sein Sohn Giyath du-Din Khurram Khan "Schah Jahan" ("Herrscher der Welt") an die Macht. Schah Jahan war nicht aus der Ehe Abars mit Nur Jahan, sondern aus seiner ersten Ehe mit der indischen Rajput-Prinzessin Manmati (Quellen: , , Englische Wikipedia). Er war selbst mit der Perserin Arjumand Banu Begum "Mumtaz Mahal", der Cousine Nur Jahans (Zweitfrau seines Vaters; siehe oben) verheiratet (Quellen: Englische Wikipedia, ).
Aus dieser Ehe enstammte auch der Nachfolger Schah Jahans, sein Sohn Aurangzeb. Aurangzeb heiratete Delras Banu Begum, Tochter des Persisch-stämmigen Adeligen Badi ud-Zaman Mirza Shahnawaz Khan (Quelle: Englische Wikipedia) 
Den Stammbaum der Moghulen könnte man hier noch weiter fortsetzen. Jedoch würde das den Rahmen dieser Diskussion spregnen, denn erstens verloren die Mghulen spätestens nach Aurangzib ihre einst glorreiche Bedeutung. Zum zweiten dürfte auch jetzt schon klar sein, dass absolut N I C H T S an den Moghulen türkisch war. WEDER Abstammung, NOCH Kultur, Sprache oder Interessen der Moghulen waren türkisch. Im Grunde waren sie durch und durch persisch - lediglich der Name "Moghul" erinnerte noch an ihre mongolische Abstammung.  
Man kann die ganze Abstammung der Moghulen auf der folgenden Seite studieren: http://www.uq.net.au/~zzhsoszy/ips/misc/mughal.html
:This is not German Wikipedia, please write in English or post this somewhere on de:Mogulreich 
Thanks DaGizza Chat (c) 00:15, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  The sources in text are English. Just do your own research. Nothing about the Mughals was Turkish. Their heritage was Mongol (--> Temür --> Mongol Berlas tribe --> Jingiz Khan). Their language was Persian. Their culture was Persian. Their soldiers were Persians and Indians. Most of the Mughal Shahs had Persian mothers (starting with Humayun, Babur's son). Only Babur himself spoke a Turkic language. His children did not. His son Humayun spent 10 years of his life in Persian exile. There, he married his Persian wife, a relative of the Persian Shahs. The Persian Shahs supported Humayun with a strong army to reconquer India. His son Akbar made Persian the official language of his kingdom. There was absolutely nothing "Turkish" about the Mughals. -213.39.153.170 22:58, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moghuls and Babur were not Turks 

message: Baburs Sohn Humayun, aus der Ehe Baburs mit der Perserin Ayisheh Sultan Begum, (Quellen: "Afghanistan In The Course of History", Mir Gholam Muhammad Ghobar, Vol. I, ISBN: 0970796412 , "Humayun-Nama"), wurde zwischenzeitlich vom Paschtunen Scher Schah Suri gestürzt und musste 10 Jahre im persischen Exil verbringen. Dort heiratete er die Perserin Hamida Begum [Quellen: englische Wikipedia, externe. Link) und kovertierte zum schiitischen Islam. 
(Aus einer zweiten Ehe Baburs mit einer persischen Konkubine - Deldâr Begum - entstammte seine Tochter Gulbadan Begum, eine Halbschwester Humayuns, die vor allem durch ihre Gedichte - hauptsächlich in Persisch, sowie auch zu einem geringeren Teil in Tschagataisch - bekannt ist. Zuem war sie die Verfasserin des "Humayun-Nama", der Biographie Humayuns. Die "Humayun-Nama" ist in Persisch verfasst. ; "Gulbadan Begum" aus Encyclopaedia Iranica)
Aus der Ehe Humayuns mit der Perserin Hamida enstammte sein Sohn und Thronfolger Akbar. Unter Akbar wurde das Persische zum Indetifikationssymbol der Moghulen in Indien, und die Persische Sprache wurde für die nächsten Jahrhunderte die Hofssprache der Dynastie (Quelle: ). 
Akbars Nachfolger war sein Sohn Jahangir, aus der Ehe mit der armenischen Fürstentochter Mariam uz-Zamani Begum (Quellen: , Englische Wikipedia, ). Jahangir heiratet seinerseits die Perserin Nur Jahan, eine Verwandte der safawidischen Wesire in Persien (Quellen: , Englische Wikipedia). Ihr richtiger Name war Mihr al-Nisa; der Name "Nur-e Jahan" (Persisch: "Licht der Welt") wurde von ihrem Ehemann verliehen. 
Nach Akbars Tod kam sein Sohn Giyath du-Din Khurram Khan "Schah Jahan" ("Herrscher der Welt") an die Macht. Schah Jahan war nicht aus der Ehe Abars mit Nur Jahan, sondern aus seiner ersten Ehe mit der indischen Rajput-Prinzessin Manmati (Quellen: , , Englische Wikipedia). Er war selbst mit der Perserin Arjumand Banu Begum "Mumtaz Mahal", der Cousine Nur Jahans (Zweitfrau seines Vaters; siehe oben) verheiratet (Quellen: Englische Wikipedia, ).
Aus dieser Ehe enstammte auch der Nachfolger Schah Jahans, sein Sohn Aurangzeb. Aurangzeb heiratete Delras Banu Begum, Tochter des Persisch-stämmigen Adeligen Badi ud-Zaman Mirza Shahnawaz Khan (Quelle: Englische Wikipedia) 
Den Stammbaum der Moghulen könnte man hier noch weiter fortsetzen. Jedoch würde das den Rahmen dieser Diskussion spregnen, denn erstens verloren die Mghulen spätestens nach Aurangzib ihre einst glorreiche Bedeutung. Zum zweiten dürfte auch jetzt schon klar sein, dass absolut N I C H T S an den Moghulen türkisch war. WEDER Abstammung, NOCH Kultur, Sprache oder Interessen der Moghulen waren türkisch. Im Grunde waren sie durch und durch persisch - lediglich der Name "Moghul" erinnerte noch an ihre mongolische Abstammung.  
Man kann die ganze Abstammung der Moghulen auf der folgenden Seite studieren: http://www.uq.net.au/~zzhsoszy/ips/misc/mughal.html
:This is not German Wikipedia, please write in English or post this somewhere on de:Mogulreich 
Thanks DaGizza Chat (c) 00:15, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  The sources in text are English. Just do your own research. Nothing about the Mughals was Turkish. Their heritage was Mongol (--> Temür --> Mongol Berlas tribe --> Jingiz Khan). Their language was Persian. Their culture was Persian. Their soldiers were Persians and Indians. Most of the Mughal Shahs had Persian mothers (starting with Humayun, Babur's son). Only Babur himself spoke a Turkic language. His children did not. His son Humayun spent 10 years of his life in Persian exile. There, he married his Persian wife, a relative of the Persian Shahs. The Persian Shahs supported Humayun with a strong army to reconquer India. His son Akbar made Persian the official language of his kingdom. There was absolutely nothing "Turkish" about the Mughals. -213.39.153.170 22:58, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Die [[Moghulen]] in Indien 

message: Akbar did not decree that his new "religion" was to be his offical state policy. In fact it was a religion for the upper nobility of his empire and was quite elitist in its nature. Furthermore, its not even a serious religion. Its more of a club for Akbars personal satisfication.
Sorry, I have to record here my difference to the above scholastic statement.
Deen e Ilaahi, a new platform for discussion with equality and secularity of the world's different religions and faiths was indeed a very noble and notable step taken by an Emperor of the Indian sub continent in the 16th century. Indeed it was an act of rare foresight and also a neccessity in his own times, and the fore-runner to the 20th century British Colonial era's Theosophical Society in India by the legendary English thinker Lady Annie Bessant and her associates.
Jalaluddeen Muhammad Akbar was born in extremely difficult times in Umarkot, a Rajput ruler's province where his mother and few relatives and servants of his exiled father's household had sought assylum to escape the wrath of Sher Shah Suri. He was brought up in Hindu surroundings with great care by the Rajput Rana's family especially the womenfolk in his household. He saw no traditional (Purdah) veiling of women folk in presence of non family males. He experienced the warmth and brotherhood of humanity that prevailed on the traditons of faith of his own lineage in the faith of his benefactors and though he was not very erudiately educated like his son Jehangir, he learned the wisdom of secularity and religious tolerance since his early days of upbringing.
Later after accession of Kashmir and Malwa and Gujarat, he experienced roots of disharmony in terms of ethnic and religious points of view in his realm's governance from his officials whom he had meticulously appraised and promoted to the high posts of government.
He saw his commands getting abeyed due to difference in opinion that were more religion oriented than practical politics. He had given equal opportunity to his handpicked Turani, Irani, Afghan, Tatari and Hindu and Jain officers and courtiers irrespective of their faiths and beliefs.
His Grand Vazir (Prime Minister) was Shaikh Abul Fazal Nagori a Sunni. The chief of staff (Ameer ul Umaraa) of his grand mughal army was Raja Man Singh a Hindu Rajput. His Chief Justice (Qazi Ul Quzzaat/Sadar Us Sudoor) was Maulana Abdun Nabi Gangohi who besides being a Sunni Muslim scholar was also a scion of the Sufi Chishtiya order of mystics, after Akbar had got the fanatic Shaikh Ul Islam (a legacy from the Lodhi days) Maulana Abdullah Sultanpuri drowned in the Jamuna river. His minister for revenue was Raja Todarmull a Hindu Baniya whose immediate deputy and a very efficient minister was a Shia from Iran, Mirza Ghayas Beg Jaafari of Isfahan, who was destined to become the Grand Vazir in his son's court. His courtiers included Bir Bal (Raja Brahma Dass of Bayana) whose tales of wisdom are Indian folklore today.
Amidst this extremely grand human mosaic of secularity, Akbar's experience of narrow fanatism in the silent hearts of his deputies caused him sorrow and the hard resolve to reconcile by a common media, all these intolerances. 
He called at his Jama Mosque at Fatehpur-Sikri (later renamed by him from Masjid to Ibadat Khaneh), a conference to hold religious discourses from all faiths so that all listeners could hear, debate and come to reconciliatory conclusions on topics that they were religiously unaware of or unfamiliar with. He called this Deen e Ilaahi or the order of God. To him and the followers of this order, man was to be percieved supreme in his human magnanimity first and in his religious steadfastness afterwards. Being humans made all equal and also of equal rights to honour, justice and protection from social misdeeds. All were to respect each other's private faiths and feelings and find ways and means of harmony and love amidst ethnic, racial and religious differences.
This effort of that Grand Mughal Emperor was echoed in his great grandson Dara Shikoh's way of living. Alas that history had other designs in store for this sub continent, and Aurangzeb the shrewd political crafter using religion and feigned bigotry to acheive hold of the Mughal Empire, did away with Akbar's popular human approach and did everything in name of Islam that Islam had NOT preached. Two centuries later with the end of the British Raj, Akbar's efforts to bind people of different faiths showed no effect in the ill fated human hearts of this sub continent! India was divided into two ever hating, ever suspicious and ever warring nations based on religious intolerance. The Islamic bigotry voiced against Akbar's Deen e Ilaahi remains enshrined in the unforgettale verse in by Mulla Sheri of Shekhupura of Lahore, a contemporary and severe critic of Akbar and his Deen :-
"Shaah e maa imsaal daawaa e Nabuwwat kardeh hast!   Gar Khuda khwaahad pas az saaley Khuda khwaahad shudan!"
Our emperor has proclaimed prophethood this year! (Bringing in a new faith of God after Islam is unacceptable to Muslims as Muhammad is claimed to be the last messenger of God.)  If God wishes he (our emperor) shall claim Godhood an year after!
59.180.58.2 09:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Akbar's religious policy 

message: This article contains many references to a certain set of emperors being "great" and the set that followed them as being "lesser", but it doesn't explain this distinction beyond the obvious indication that apparently being "great" means you get more attention here at wikipedia.  What is the historical precedence that has led to these labels?  Have there been any revisionist criticisms of labelling certain emperors "great" and others as "lesser"?  Is this merely an acknowledged terminology that is understood to be without value judgement, maintained for historical reasons?  I'm not an expert on Mughal history (I've just been copyeditting this article), so I'm not equipped to answer these questions, but I think the article would be greatly helped if they could be answered. siafu 23:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There aren't any print sources/references listed on the article.  Do you know of any good books or articles on the Mughal Empire I could go to for research? siafu 02:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, grab any book on Medieval Indian history. Don't know any particular ones off hand. All I've read are textbooks in middle school. deeptrivia (talk) 02:58, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Great" emperors 

message: Taken from the Encyclopaedia Iranica:
"... Babor, Zaher ud-Din Muhammad, ... Timurid prince ... His origin, milieu, training, and culture were steeped in Persian culture and so Babor was largely responsible for the fostering of this culture by his descendants, the Mughals of India, and for the expansion of Persian cultural infleunce in the Indian subcontinent, with brilliant literary, artistic, and historiographical results ... During his stay in Herat, Babor occupied Nava'is former residence, prayed at Nava'i's tomb, and recorded his admiration for the poet's vast corpus of Torki verses, though he found most of the Persian verses to be "poor and flat". Nava'is pioneering literary work in Torki, much of it based, of course, on Persian models, must have reinforced Babor's own efforts to write in that medium ... with the long connection between the Mughals and Safavids begun by Babor himself, the Persian language became not only the language of record but also the literary vehicle for his successors. It was his grandson Akbar who had the Babor-name translated into Persian in order that his nobles and officers could have access to this dramatic account of the dynasty's founder ..."  
The article further attests that when Babur attacked India, most of his army consisted of Non-Turks, probably Afghans and Persians (not including the Kizilbash aid he had received from the Safavids). So, not only the army of the Moghuls was largly Non-Turkic, but the dynasty itself - starting with Babur - was Persianized to a large degree. 
Now, the following text is taken directly from Babur's autobiography, the famous "Baburnama":
"... Babur begins by describing the geography of Fergana and some background history. He then recounts his part in the internecine conflicts between the Timurids (descendants of Temür/Tamerlane) over Khurasan, Transoxiana, and Fergana and their loss to the Uzbeks under Shaybani. Initially a puppet of others, used for Timurid legitimacy, Babur gradually became a real leader. His fluctuating fortunes saw him take and lose Samarkand twice; eventually he was forced into a kind of "guerilla" existence in the mountains. In 1504 he left Transoxiana with a few hundred companions, acquired the discontented followers of a regional leader in Badakhshan, and took Kabul. From there he began carving out a domain for himself, in a process combining pillage and state-building. ..." 
So, according to Babur himself, he left Central Asia with a "few companions" and the aquired support from a regional leader in Persian-dominated Badakhshan. Even assuming that all of his compainions in Central Asia were ethnic Turks (which is deffinitly not true), still the majority of his soldiers would have been Non-Turks, because Badakhshan was a Non-Turkic region back then - as it is still today. So, with Persian-Badakhshani support, Babur conquered Kabul and then recruited other Persian (Tajik) and Afghan soldiers into his army. The number of Turkic warriors was relatively small - that why the Mughals were a totally Persianized dynasty from the very beginning. 
All claims of Babur's "Turkic origin" are wrong. 
Tajik 03:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is about the entire Mughal dynasty, not just about Babur (whose ethnic heritage really did not matter). Fact is: the Mughals as a dynasty were NOT Turks, they were NOT Turkish-speaking, and they did NOT claim to be Turks. Their army was NOT predominantly Turkish, they Mughal Shahs (starting with Humayun) were totally Persianized, Babur's grandson Akbar did not even know Chaghatai. Therefore, it is totally wrong to say that "the word 'Mughal' is a misnomer, because the dynasty was Turkish". Tajik 15:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd agree with that (got a bit carried away before). No-one can dispute that the ethos, culture, language of the Mughal dynasty was overwhelmingly Persianate. Perhaps the phrase should be "The word 'Mughal' is a misnomer, because the dynasty was Timurid and was referred to as Gurkani by its members", or something along those lines (see the stuff from Thackston on the Talk:Babur page. My only real gripe all along is that the Indo-Persian character of the Mughal dynasty after Humayun has tended to overshadow the Central Asian character of its founder, revealed to us through that extraordinary memoir, the Babur-nama. In an article devoted to the entire dynasty that objection doesn't really apply. Sikandarji 15:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding the origin of the Mughals 

message: Naturally, we have no idea who 132.170.24.22 is (we rarely do with the kind of people who add this sort of stuff) but his motives are, on the contrary, blindingly obvious: let's stir up communal hatred between Indian Muslims and Hindus by presenting the Mughals as alien barbarians who killed people on the basis of their religion. The fact is that attempts to project today's religious attitudes into the past, whether these be those of Islamic suicide bombers or saffron-clad Hindutva hate-peddlers, are completely anachronistic. Religion in India possessed much more syncretic forms than it does today, and amongst the population (as opposed to the elites and the clergy) the religious divide was extremely blurred. The Mughals killed a lot of people in their campaigns, as did many rulers of the period - but, with the possible exception of Aurangzeb, they were not fighting an ideological war to spread Islam (and even Aurangzeb spent more time suppressing the Islamic Sultanates of the Deccan than fighting 'Hindu' rulers). They had many non-Muslim allies and courtiers, such as Bir Singh Deo of Bundelkhand and the culture they produced was a hybrid of Indian, Iranian and Timurid influences. Shah Jahan was indeed a good deal more Orthodox than his grandfather (See John F. Richards The Mughal Empire New Cambridge History of India I.5 (Cambridge) 1993 pp121-3) but he did not go around killing non-Muslims because they were non-Muslims, as this user has suggested. The story of the incestuous relationship with his daughter is a rumour, and should not be presented as accepted historical fact, and neither that nor the reference to his concubines belongs in the 'Religion' section. The so-called 'reference' provided by this user ("The Sword of the Prophet" by Yuri Trifkovic) is not to be found in either the Bodleian or the British Library's catalogue, so we can safely assume that it is not a reputable work (looking at the surname of the author, I strongly suspect that if it exists at all it will turn out to be far-right Serbian propaganda). I have removed Non-NPOV sections, unreferenced assertions and provocative attempts to stimulate hate: if references are not provided for the remainder I will re-write that section using reliable sources. Sikandarji 09:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religion 

message: While interesting, I dont think they have any place in themain article. I am moving themhere; if anyone is interested, they should put them in a separate article and link to them. Mughal Empire is already well over recommended size.
=== Early Sikh Gurus' perception of the Mughal Empire ===
The Sikh texts give a unique picture, at odds with most historical narratives. Babur's reign was witnessed by the first Sikh Guru Nanak Dev Ji. The Raag Asa Guru records Nanak's observations and thoughts in his poems. It says: 
:"Having attacked Khuraasaan, Babar terrified Hindustan. The Creator Himself does not take the blame, but has sent the Mugal as the messenger of death. There was so much slaughter that the people screamed. Didn't You feel compassion, Lord?" pg (360)
On the condition of Hindu women in Babur's rule:
:"Those heads adorned with braided hair, with their parts painted with vermilion - those heads were shaved with scissors, and their throats were choked with dust. They lived in palatial mansions, but now, they cannot even sit near the palaces.... ropes were put around their necks, and their strings of pearls were broken. Their wealth and youthful beauty, which gave them so much pleasure, have now become their enemies. The order was given to the soldiers, who dishonored them, and carried them away. If it is pleasing to God's Will, He bestows greatness; if is pleases His Will, He bestows punishment" pg(417-18)
On the nature of Mughal rule under Babur:
:"First, the tree puts down its roots, and then it spreads out its shade above. The kings are tigers, and their officials are dogs; they go out and awaken the sleeping people to harass them. The public servants inflict wounds with their nails. The dogs lick up the blood that is spilled." Source: Rag Malar, (pg.1288)
However, the Sikh Guru then met with the Mughal king babur and says:
:“Listen O King, go and survey the scene of destruction that has been caused by your army. Take a warning from those who have defeated others. He who is victorious today may suffer defeat tomorrow. Where are those kings who ruled here yesterday ? Where are those games, those stables, those horses ? Where are those bugles, those clarions ? Where are those who buckled on their swords and were mighty in battle ? Where are those scarlet uniforms ? Where are those mirrors that reflected fair faces ? Where are those houses, those mansions, those palaces ? We see them no longer here. O Lord, this world is Thine. In one moment, Thou create, in another moment, Thou destroy Thy Creation.”
Thus, according to the Sikh texts, the reasons for the Mughal success is actually because of the blessings of the Sikh Gurus. 
Hornplease 07:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotes from Guru Nanak 

message: The Sikh texts give a unique picture, at odds with most historical narratives. Babur's reign was witnessed by the first Sikh Guru Nanak Dev Ji. The Raag Asa Guru records Nanak's observations and thoughts in his poems. It says: 
:"Having attacked Khuraasaan, Babar terrified Hindustan. The Creator Himself does not take the blame, but has sent the Mugal as the messenger of death. There was so much slaughter that the people screamed. Didn't You feel compassion, Lord?" pg (360)
On the condition of Hindu women in Babur's rule:
:"Those heads adorned with braided hair, with their parts painted with vermilion - those heads were shaved with scissors, and their throats were choked with dust. They lived in palatial mansions, but now, they cannot even sit near the palaces.... ropes were put around their necks, and their strings of pearls were broken. Their wealth and youthful beauty, which gave them so much pleasure, have now become their enemies. The order was given to the soldiers, who dishonored them, and carried them away. If it is pleasing to God's Will, He bestows greatness; if is pleases His Will, He bestows punishment" pg(417-18)
On the nature of Mughal rule under Babur:
:"First, the tree puts down its roots, and then it spreads out its shade above. The kings are tigers, and their officials are dogs; they go out and awaken the sleeping people to harass them. The public servants inflict wounds with their nails. The dogs lick up the blood that is spilled." Source: Rag Malar, (pg.1288)
However, the Sikh Guru then met with the Mughal king babur and says:
:“Listen O King, go and survey the scene of destruction that has been caused by your army. Take a warning from those who have defeated others. He who is victorious today may suffer defeat tomorrow. Where are those kings who ruled here yesterday ? Where are those games, those stables, those horses ? Where are those bugles, those clarions ? Where are those who buckled on their swords and were mighty in battle ? Where are those scarlet uniforms ? Where are those mirrors that reflected fair faces ? Where are those houses, those mansions, those palaces ? We see them no longer here. O Lord, this world is Thine. In one moment, Thou create, in another moment, Thou destroy Thy Creation.”
Thus, according to the Sikh texts, the reasons for the Mughal success is actually because of the blessings of the Sikh Gurus. 
Hornplease 07:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early Sikh Gurus' perception of the Mughal Empire 

message: Any information about the official name of the Mughal Empire or what did Mughals call theirselves, regards --Dukak 09:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Official Name 

message: I earlier edited the religion section of the article, which seems to contain a bigoted point of view, and it was reverted:
*"Mongol invasion of Iran who civilised the invaders facilitating their conversion to Islam"
It is not the purpose of wikipedia to extoll bigoted/nationalist ideas about which cultures are civilized and which arnt.  Additionally, the Mughals were a Mongol and Indian dynasty as much as a Turko-Persian one.  Babur was maternally decended from Genghis Khan, and thereafter, the dynasty married local rulers, including Rajputs.  Why was the edit removed? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.42.68.85 (talk) 00:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Mongols were a nomadic people, therefore, by its very definition, they would not have qualified as a civilized people, because they lacked the social structures in order to qualify as a Civilization. ("Civilization" actually does have defining characteristics within academia, I believe. I could check if you really wish). I don't even believe the Mongols had a writing system before they began their expansionist period.. Perhaps the wording deserves to be changed only because the term "civilized" carries offensive connotations when it is used in a non-academic setting, although the term is, in fact, very accurate. 68.43.58.42 21:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Civilized 

message: I don't know anything about the Empire or I would do it myself.
-A value other than 'huge'. Like boundries for it's territory, or numbers for it's population. Even something non-numeric like "about twice the size of rome" would be good.
-How about a century instead of the "early modern era". It's an obscure term to the layman.
-"Eventually" and "self-inflicted weakness" When and what? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.44.226.49 (talk) 00:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can someone specify some terms? 

message: The result was keep separate. -- Debate 木 21:42, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a case for having a separate Mughal Era page. While the Mughal Empire page naturally focuses on the Emperors and their actions, the Mughal Era page should describe developments in society, culture, art, during the time of the Empire. Moreover, the Mughal Era page should provide information on events and kingdoms/countries connected to the Empire. Admittedly, at present the two pages have a rather similar nature. I would propose that they be given their appropriate distinct characters, rather than be merged. Amberhabib 07:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think there is a stronger case fore the opposite of what you propose. The Mughal Empire covered most of the indian subcontinent, it wasnt anywhere significantly outside. So therefore allready you have problems in justifying a Mughal Era page, forexample the is a Roman Era page but it is tiny. Everything covered in the mughal era page can and should be put into the mughal empire page becuase its silly haveing two almost identical pages with superficial changes and different names, and its even sillier to have a greater disparity between the two becuase there is nothing worth mensioning on the mughal era page that shouldnt belong to the mughal empire page, therefore i propose a merge. Aarandir 11:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Support merger of Mughal era into Mughal Empire. The Era unneccesarily discusses emperors and rivals of mughals which should be included into the Empire page then what does remain to be written in the era page? nothing.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 13:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

text:  Oppose the merger of the articles detailing the Mughal Empire.  The page of the Mughal Emprire should appear like the article for a former country whereas the article Mughal Era should have all the arts, culture and building built during that time. The two articles just need to be clearly separated with links to each other. There is enough to write about with all the buildings and their back stories. The Victorian Era page is not merged with the article about Queen Victoria or with the British Monarchy and yet it's pretty long. If that much can be written about just 63 years(20 June 1837 – 22 January 1901), a lot can be written about the Mughal Era from almost 1526 to the mid 17th century.Also the empire briefly resurfaced during the 1857 Rebellion. So the time lines of the Empire and the era are not even coincident. After the reign of Aurangazeb the era was mostly over with the british gaining a foothold. The Empire had broken up into small kingdoms and existed only around Delhi.(But it existed!) despite the "Era" being over.
So I oppose the merger of the two articles. Abhishekmathur (talk) 03:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Opposing the merger per amberhabib above. Cewvero (talk) 22:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge Proposal 

message: , could you explain why you blanked the political economy section? The information seems relevant to the article, if a little rough. I'm putting it back, unless there's a good reason to remove it. Gimme danger 00:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political Economy section 

message: I have reverted the changes by user 202.71.141.38, as s/he had replaced relevant material with very poorly written stuff Amberhabib 07:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aurangzeb 

message: I have removed the picture of the Ashokan lion capital purporting to be the Mughal coat of arms. I have also removed the many references to books inserted by a user into the section on Aurangzeb. They can't be in the middle of the article, and probably ought to go in the main Aurangzeb page instead. I reproduce the cut text here in case anyone wants to do this.
To have a detailed insight into Emperor Muhiuddin Muhammad Aalamgir's access to throne, his policies and governance, his achievements and failures, and most of all his inability to leave behind a trained and qualitatively superior descendant like Akbar from Humayun, who could sustain the Grand Mughal Empire for at least quarter of a century, instead of bringing about the reality of its miserable decline after only 50 years after his death the following chronicles by his court historians and later day researchers must be read:
1)Tareekh i Aalamgiri - Persian MS. Muhammad Saleh Kamboh. India Office Library London.
2)Siyar ul Mutaakhareen - Persian MS. Khafi Khan. Asiatic Society Libary Mumbai India.
3)Waqaa i Neimat Khan Aali - Persian MS. Dar ul Tarjuma , Kutub Khana Aasifia. Osmania University. Hyderabad. India.
4)History of Aurangzeb - Printed. Dr. Jadu Nath Sarkar. University of Calcutta. India.
5)Tareekh e Subhaani - Persian MS. Sujaan Rai Batalvi. Persian Catalog. Maharaja Patiala Collection. Punjabi University Library. Patiala. Punjab. India.
59.180.58.2 11:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lion Capital etc 

message: That flag is completly made up. There is no historical basis for it.
68.49.242.230 06:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Moghul flag had a golden blazing sun on a red field, if I remember right. The crescent was an Ottoman device, not a Moghul one. The Indian Muslim dynasties did not use green banner so prominently. Tipu, for instance, did not use it. The crescent moon on a deep green field came into wide use mainly after 1876, when the Sultan of Turkey was accepted in India as Khalifa. The Great Moghuls never accepted the claims of Turkish dynasty to Khilafat. Gopalan evr (talk) 02:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flag????? 

message: Any map or maps that we can provide would be helpful. -- 201.37.229.117 (talk) 17:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map(s) 

message: The main map showing the extent of Mughal rule is incorrect. The Mughals never reached as south as Calicut or managed to take much territory in Tamil Nadu. Please alter the images (which were self made) or they will have to be deleted.58.104.51.38 (talk) 09:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map Incorrect 

message: People of the sub continent know that at its peak the great mughal empire directly ruled all territories which is now in countries afghanistan, pakistan, india, nepal, bangladesh and burma. The areas of these countries as per <a href="www.cia.gov"> this </a> link are:
Afghanistan    647,500 sq km
Pakistan       778,720 sq km
India        2,973,190 sq km
Nepal          143,181 sq km
Bangladesh     133,910 sq km
Burma          657,740 sq km
Total        5,334,241 sq km*
*Note: I have only counted land area and totally excluded sea/ocean area assuming that mughal empire had no control on any part of any sea.
The wikipedia article about mughal empire says its peak area is 3 million sq km which is wrong. As shown above the peak area of mughal empire was well above 5 million sq km. Its an error of more than 77% by wikipedia. Its a wonder how can a thing such big is overlooked by wikipedia staff and why not anybody before me objected on it.
Once the true area of mughal empire is shown the mughal empire can get its just place in the list of greatest empires of the world.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matif1024 (talk • contribs) 20:13, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You may wish to read the key Wikipedia policies of Verifiability and No original research. While I can see your helpful intent in trying to clarify the land area, we cannot accept a calculation made by a single editor. If you can find a reliable source that says the Mughal Empire ruled over a greater area than is specified here then that will be extremely useful. Road Wizard (talk) 21:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

text: You are correct that the article is inconsistent, but I am not qualified to judge which figure is correct. Do you have a source that can either support or correct the existing figures? Road Wizard (talk) 23:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Area of Mughal Empire at its peak