Talk:Syed Ahmad Khan/Archive 1

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"

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)

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))

To Do:
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program which I used to audit the article.. Thanks, ffm  yes? 23:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Since this article is about a person, please add  along with the required parameters to the article - see 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).

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)

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)

Why is Sir Syed Ahmed Khan in the category:Quranist_Muslims
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 (talk • contribs) 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)

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

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).

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&#39;s Shadow Snr (talk) 20:36, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090709150800/http://www.ssuet.edu.pk/stidemo/ssuet/Chronology.htm to http://www.ssuet.edu.pk/stidemo/ssuet/Chronology.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120501105025/http://www.amu.ac.in/ssah.htm to http://www.amu.ac.in/ssah.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930055228/http://www.ssuet.edu.pk/stidemo/ssuet/sirsyed/main.html to http://www.ssuet.edu.pk/stidemo/ssuet/sirsyed/main.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929200751/http://www.cyberamu.com/ulc/sirsyed.php to http://www.cyberamu.com/ulc/sirsyed.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050228042121/http://www.saag.org/papers7/paper611.html to http://www.saag.org/papers7/paper611.html

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

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

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160820222650/http://www.mainahimanta.com/2016/08/sir-syed-ahmad-khan-181799.html to http://www.mainahimanta.com/2016/08/sir-syed-ahmad-khan-181799.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:37, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Sir Syed Ahmed Khan
Sir Syed Ahmed Khan, the founder of Aligarh Muslim University in India, was a Shia muslim. This fact was earlier given in this Wiki article on Sir Syed, but now removed. Why? Cdpnkr (talk) 17:05, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Dipankar Chowdhury cdpnkr@rediffmail.com Calcutta India 29-04-2018

Sir Syed Ahmed Khan
Sir Syed Ahmed Khan, the founder of Aligarh Muslim University in India, was a Shia muslim. This fact was earlier given in this Wiki article on Sir Syed, but now removed. Why? Cdpnkr (talk) 17:31, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Dipankar Chowdhury cdpnkr@rediffmail.com Calcutta India 29-04-2018

Bhai tu Editing delete kar Raha hai Kiya..

Sir syed Ahmad Taqvi was Shia reformer, he want Muslims to join the race of world by catching hand of science technology modern education Mir Adil Ali Rizvi (talk) 16:37, 8 December 2018 (UTC)