5 ms·

what information makes you believe he was tolerant?

keiferski 6y ago
Well, I said tolerant for the time. His entire Wikipedia article indicates a pretty serious commitment to pluralism and tolerance, especially compared to his contemporaries (and even his descendents.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akbar#Religious_policy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akbar#Religious_policy
- drieddust 6y ago
  Edits: - Replacing links with original source material. I included tweets because I would like to attribute the credit to people who I learned from. - Removing line about Wikipedia's Left and Islam leanings. I will present more details argument later on. Wikipedia isn't a reliable source when it comes to history. Even for his time he wasn't tolerant. Let me narrate 2 stories from the same period. When Akbar took over Chittore fort, he ordered butchering of general public (30000) and made a tower out of skulls. This event is celebrated in Mughal painting. He called himself a Gazi(slayers of infidels) after this event.[1] Maha Rana Pratap was Akbar's great enemy who despite having a small kingdom never accepted Akbar's rule so he sent out Abdul Rahim Khane Khana to fight with Maha Rana. Rahim was travelling with his wife and daughters. Maha Rana's subordinates were able to capture his family. But when prisnors were bought in front of Maharana he ordered them to be returned with immediately without harm. This event changed Rahim so much that he became devotee of Bhagwan(Lord) Krishna and refused to fight for rest of his life.[2] Both were from the same era. Who looks tolerant? Akbar ordered his sisters to remain unmarried because he could digest the idea of someone getting physical with women of his family. Later this became a practice and all subsequent Mughals princess died spinsters. He demanded women from the kingdoms he conquered. His harem had 5000 women. He killed his tutor Bairam Khan and married his wife.[3] [1] Source: Fathnama-I-Chittor, March 1568 (translated by Ishtiaq Ahmed Zilli), Proceedings of the Indian History Congress, Vol. 33 (1971), pp. 350-361 [2] KS Lal's "The Mughal Harem" (1988) [3] The Naked Mughals: Forbidden Tales of Harem and Butchery. [2] https://mobile.twitter.com/TIinExile/status/1224292144023654400 https://mobile.twitter.com/TIinExile/status/1224292144023654...
  - shadowfox 6y ago
    > Wikipedia isn't a reliable source anymore. They seems to have become a Islamist and left propaganda machine I do think that needs some stronger sourcing. It is one thing to argue that certain wiki articles have some bias or the other, but a categorical claim that it is an Islamist and left propaganda machine seems rather bizarre at first cut. At the moment these claims seem to be supported by some random tweets?
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - drieddust 6y ago
      Did you look at the details in those tweets? They further refer to original source material.
    - pritambarhate 6y ago
      Wikipedia article for Siege of Chittorgarh (1567–1568)[1] to quote: >> Rising pillars of smoke soon signalled the rite of jauhar as the Rajputs killed their families and prepared to die in a supreme sacrifice. In a day filled with hand-to-hand struggles until virtually all the defenders died. The Mughal troops slaughtered another 20-25,000 ordinary persons, inhabitants of the town and peasants from the surrounding area on the grounds that they had actively helped in the resistance. — John F. Richards, The Mughal Empire[8] [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Chittorgarh_(1567%E2%80%931568)#:~:text=On%2023%20February%201568%2C%20Akbar,die%20in%20a%20supreme%20sacrifice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Chittorgarh_(1567%E2%....
    - boogies 6y ago
      > > Wikipedia isn't a reliable source anymore. They seems to have become a Islamist and left propaganda machine > I do think that needs some stronger sourcing. Academic study, showing leftist bias: https://hbr.org/2014/12/wikipedia-is-more-biased-than-britannica-but-dont-blame-the-crowd https://hbr.org/2014/12/wikipedia-is-more-biased-than-britan... > Greenstein and Zhu borrowed this taxonomy of partisan terms and counted their use in pairs of Wikipedia and Britannica articles on the same subject. They calculated bias as the absolute difference between the number of Democratic terms and the number of Republican ones. For example, if an article contained 10 terms associated with Democrats and only three associated with Republicans, its bias score would be seven. > They found that Wikipedia is significantly more biased than Britannica by this measure, and a bit more left-leaning. And a co-founder’s perspective: https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-biased/ https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-biased/ > Wikipedia’s “NPOV” is dead.

Well, I said tolerant for the time. His entire Wikipedia article indicates a pretty serious commitment to pluralism and tolerance, especially compared to his contemporaries (and even his descendents.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akbar#Religious_policy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akbar#Religious_policy

drieddust 6y ago
Edits: - Replacing links with original source material. I included tweets because I would like to attribute the credit to people who I learned from. - Removing line about Wikipedia's Left and Islam leanings. I will present more details argument later on. Wikipedia isn't a reliable source when it comes to history. Even for his time he wasn't tolerant. Let me narrate 2 stories from the same period. When Akbar took over Chittore fort, he ordered butchering of general public (30000) and made a tower out of skulls. This event is celebrated in Mughal painting. He called himself a Gazi(slayers of infidels) after this event.[1] Maha Rana Pratap was Akbar's great enemy who despite having a small kingdom never accepted Akbar's rule so he sent out Abdul Rahim Khane Khana to fight with Maha Rana. Rahim was travelling with his wife and daughters. Maha Rana's subordinates were able to capture his family. But when prisnors were bought in front of Maharana he ordered them to be returned with immediately without harm. This event changed Rahim so much that he became devotee of Bhagwan(Lord) Krishna and refused to fight for rest of his life.[2] Both were from the same era. Who looks tolerant? Akbar ordered his sisters to remain unmarried because he could digest the idea of someone getting physical with women of his family. Later this became a practice and all subsequent Mughals princess died spinsters. He demanded women from the kingdoms he conquered. His harem had 5000 women. He killed his tutor Bairam Khan and married his wife.[3] [1] Source: Fathnama-I-Chittor, March 1568 (translated by Ishtiaq Ahmed Zilli), Proceedings of the Indian History Congress, Vol. 33 (1971), pp. 350-361 [2] KS Lal's "The Mughal Harem" (1988) [3] The Naked Mughals: Forbidden Tales of Harem and Butchery. [2] https://mobile.twitter.com/TIinExile/status/1224292144023654400 https://mobile.twitter.com/TIinExile/status/1224292144023654...
- shadowfox 6y ago
  > Wikipedia isn't a reliable source anymore. They seems to have become a Islamist and left propaganda machine I do think that needs some stronger sourcing. It is one thing to argue that certain wiki articles have some bias or the other, but a categorical claim that it is an Islamist and left propaganda machine seems rather bizarre at first cut. At the moment these claims seem to be supported by some random tweets?
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - drieddust 6y ago
    Did you look at the details in those tweets? They further refer to original source material.
  - pritambarhate 6y ago
    Wikipedia article for Siege of Chittorgarh (1567–1568)[1] to quote: >> Rising pillars of smoke soon signalled the rite of jauhar as the Rajputs killed their families and prepared to die in a supreme sacrifice. In a day filled with hand-to-hand struggles until virtually all the defenders died. The Mughal troops slaughtered another 20-25,000 ordinary persons, inhabitants of the town and peasants from the surrounding area on the grounds that they had actively helped in the resistance. — John F. Richards, The Mughal Empire[8] [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Chittorgarh_(1567%E2%80%931568)#:~:text=On%2023%20February%201568%2C%20Akbar,die%20in%20a%20supreme%20sacrifice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Chittorgarh_(1567%E2%....
  - boogies 6y ago
    > > Wikipedia isn't a reliable source anymore. They seems to have become a Islamist and left propaganda machine > I do think that needs some stronger sourcing. Academic study, showing leftist bias: https://hbr.org/2014/12/wikipedia-is-more-biased-than-britannica-but-dont-blame-the-crowd https://hbr.org/2014/12/wikipedia-is-more-biased-than-britan... > Greenstein and Zhu borrowed this taxonomy of partisan terms and counted their use in pairs of Wikipedia and Britannica articles on the same subject. They calculated bias as the absolute difference between the number of Democratic terms and the number of Republican ones. For example, if an article contained 10 terms associated with Democrats and only three associated with Republicans, its bias score would be seven. > They found that Wikipedia is significantly more biased than Britannica by this measure, and a bit more left-leaning. And a co-founder’s perspective: https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-biased/ https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-biased/ > Wikipedia’s “NPOV” is dead.