Talk:Syed Ahmad Khan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former featured article Syed Ahmad Khan is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 3, 2007.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
August 27, 2006 Peer review Reviewed
November 2, 2006 Featured article candidate Promoted
April 20, 2009 Featured article review Demoted
Current status: Former featured article
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Syed Ahmad Khan:

To-do list is empty: remove {{To do}} tag or click on edit to add an item.

Comment by 72.139.114.132[edit]

I noticed that some of his most significant works is missing from the listing. Sir Syed wrote: -A complete Biography of Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him); as well as -A partial commentary on the Holy Bible (The first commentary of the Bible ever written by a Muslim. Must be a fascinating read for the devout of Islam or Christianity.)

Both of these are mentioned in Graham's Biography, which, as you know, is the trusted source on Sir Syed within intellectual circles. If you talk about The Biography of Sir Syed, you probably mean Graham's Biography of him. They were contemporaries - Graham was an englishman who was very impressed with this intelligent "native" (as they called him in the 1800's). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.139.114.132 (talkcontribs) 08:17, 8 April 2006.

NPOV[edit]

This article is intensely biased against Hindus and the Indian National Congress.

Syed Ahmed Khan was a critic of the Congress, but the article goes far beyond this without absolutely no factual basis. He is presented as anti-Gandhi and anti-India, and pro-Pakistan.

For example, it says Khan was disappointed that Hindus and Congress were working against Muslims. This is outrageous! Gandhi and the Congress at no end harped about bringing Hindus and Muslims together. It is insane, especially when there is no evidence offered!

Jai Sri Rama!

____

I disagree. I find the article to be fairly neutral, and the information about Ahmed Khan to be accurate. The quote in the article is not, "He was disappointed that Hindus and Congress were working against MUSLIMS", but instead, "He was pained to see both Congress and Hindus working against the INTEREST of the MUSLIMS." Khan did think that Congress' goals were against the interests of the Muslim community, which could use a little clarifying in the article, but overall the article seems fine in my opinion. (12-14-05)


Article is fairly neutral. Gandhi and other hindu leaders where working against Muslims, this is a fact anyou should embrace it. --digitalSurgeon 06:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Bullshit, And you are PAkistani, no Indian or Bannladeshi muslim would ever say something that disgusting. Anyway, muslims faced social boycott under the british after 1857 because of their role in the revolution. Although I provide no link here, sinse Sir Syed worked for the british and was generally a supporter of the govt. He believed that muslims had to integrate with the british further to regain their lost edge (Because of the primary rejection of british education), the congress, on the other hand, became increasingly hostile to the British and demanded as much separation as possible. -XK

How exactly do you vouch for every Bengali or Indian Muslim?I have gone through Indian curriculum and I see where you are coming from but when someone comments that the"Congress was working Muslim Interests." they imply its support for Hindi as the National Language instead of both Hindi and Urdu or the campaign for the reversal of the partition of Bengal or the failure to condemn the militant activities of the Arya Samaj or the Mahasabha in the early 1920's or the opposition to separate electorates and a higher Muslim representation in the assemblies.

Secondly:"Their role in the revolution?"If you read your history book right,the war began when a Hindu Sepoy,Mangal Panday,defied his British officer.The war itself knows its roots to Meerut,where the populations and the troops were predominantly Hindu.So in effect both Hindus and Muslims were equal party to the war.If I remember correctly,Hindu majority areas such as the Punjab and Bengal refused to take part in the war and the only reason the war is seen as a Muslim effort is because of the role of Bahadur Shah.[GoldFish] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.188.211.12 (talk) 16:53, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

The discussion is somewhat pointless. Sir Syed passed away in 1898 when Gandhiji was just beginning his political activities in South Africa. So there is no question of Sir Syed being against Gandhiji - he did not get the opportunity. When Sir Syed opposed the Congress it was led by men such as Hume and Badruddin Tyabji, who were not anti-British by any standard. His opposition was based not so much on the actual activities of the Congress as much as his anticipation of what the activities would eventually grow into. Even in his most vitriolic moment, I think he does not accuse the Congress (and not Hindus, by the way) of acting directly against the interest of Muslims as such - however, he felt that the demand of democracy in a country with a Muslim minority would lead to a loss of Muslim rights as Muslims would either not get elected or be in a minority in the government.

One need not argue, in a Wikipedia article, about whether he was right in this belief. Obviously, there are significant numbers of people on both sides in this debate! Amberhabib 06:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree Amber. I am distressed at the thought though that he may have propounded the TNT. Needs more unbiased research. Then again, nobody's perfect. [Aman Zaidi] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aman Zaidi (talkcontribs) 15:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Sir[edit]

What's "Sir", is that an honorific, or part of the name? If it's an honorific, when did he get the title?--128.139.226.37 20:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

It's a title, he was a loyal supporter of the British rule, and a great reformer, deserved it I guess. -XK


This "Sir" is the title from Knighthood. He was being Knighted by the British ( as mentioned in the article).

It's more complex than that. His claim to the title 'Sir' comes from his having been made a COMPANION of the Star of India, but being that DOESN'T entitle the holder to the designation 'Sir' - according to Tamin Ansary 'Destiny Disrupted' p.259 Ender's Shadow Snr (talk) 20:36, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Shet[edit]

Looks like some punk got to this page. can someone restore it? -X

That punk sure was creative with his wording wasn't he?

Educationalist?[edit]

Shouldn't it be "educator"? I won't change it if its a regional dialect thing. Savidan 05:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, "Educationalist" is possibly a regional dialect thing, but, use of standard English is more appropriate in an English language encyclopedia  :). It's been changed to "Educator" SahirShah 07:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Still says "educationalist" when I look at it. Strange.... Sca 16:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Some one has changed one of the photographs on this page... The one titled: "Sir Syed in his later years, wearing official decorations"

Hindus Love the Word Controversy[edit]

I am sure a vast amount of Hindu intellect has gone in writing these and many other Indian Muslim articles.They love entering the word "controversy" some how? In India there is already Babri-Masjid Ram Janmabhoomi controversy,Hubli Idgah controversy.Entire Mughal period is cited as controversial and genocidal to Hindus and what's more even the great Mughal Muslim monument Taj Mahal is being promoted as a controversy.There was this editor called Bakasuprman who once commented that - the Black stone of Kaaba in Mekkah is a Hindu Shivalingam as Hindus traded there..Wow 87.74.3.1 19:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Protest FA[edit]

I saw this article on the main page, and checked it out. It has onnly 12 sources - pretty ridiculous for such a medium-sized FA. It needs more proper format of referencing, including page numbers under the "Notes" section". I'm not logged on right now, but I'm Wikimachine. (69.245.43.115 20:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC))

To Do:[edit]

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program which I used to audit the article..

  • Since this article is about a person, please add {{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}} along with the required parameters to the article - see Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.[?]
  • Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: honor (A) (British: honour), honour (B) (American: honor), organise (B) (American: organize), recognise (B) (American: recognize), realise (B) (American: realize), criticise (B) (American: criticize), ization (A) (British: isation), isation (B) (American: ization), travelled (B) (American: traveled).

Thanks, ffm yes? 23:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

LINK NOT WORKING[edit]

This is a crucial link I think & if it's not working, it should be removed!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syed_Ahmed_Khan#cite_note-SAAG9-14 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aman Zaidi (talkcontribs) 14:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

u r my master key of the life!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.182.85.65 (talk) 16:54, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Mirza Ghalib.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Mirza Ghalib.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:49, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

File:ALMU-logo.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:ALMU-logo.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:08, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Why is Sir Syed Ahmed Khan in the category:Quranist_Muslims[edit]

There is no evidence that he followed that religious policy. No authentic source or material. Please have him removed from there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tangentplaneinvolute (talkcontribs) 15:20, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

True.But he did highlight certain verses of the Quran that would support his argument that "Islam Encourages all Forms of education." and "Learning helps understand the full majesty of God."[GoldFish] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.188.211.12 (talk) 16:46, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Syed Ahmad Khan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:54, 20 May 2017 (UTC)