Talk:Syed Ahmed Khan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured article star Syed Ahmed Khan is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 3, 2007.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
To-do list for Syed Ahmed Khan: edit · history · watch · refresh

Here are some tasks you can do:
  • Verify: Please add reliable sources for all of the information

Contents

[edit] Comment by 72.139.114.132

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 (talk • contribs) 08:17, 8 April 2006.

[edit] NPOV

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

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 (talk • contribs) 15:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sir

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).


[edit] Shet

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

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

[edit] Educationalist?

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"

[edit] Hindus Love the Word Controversy

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)

[edit] Protest FA

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))

[edit] To Do:

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)

[edit] LINK NOT WORKING

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 (talk • contribs) 14:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)