It should be pointed out here that while Jizya tax was collected from able-bodied non-Muslim adult males who did not volunteer to join war efforts in a Muslim-administered country, a similar form of war tax was also collected from able-bodied Muslim adult males who refused to join war efforts to defend the country. There was, therefore, no discrimination between able-bodied Muslim males and able-bodied non-Muslim males when it came to the payment of war-tax, as long as the person in question would not volunteer in war-efforts for defense of the Muslim-administered state. Zakat (2.5% of savings) and %u2018Ushr (10% of agricultural products) were collected from all Muslims, who owned some wealth (beyond a certain minimum, called Nisab). They also had to pay sadaqah, fitrah and Khums. None of these taxes were collected from any non-Muslim. As a matter of fact, the per capita tax collection from Muslims was several fold that of non-Muslims.
Now let us deal with Aurangzeb%u2019s imposition of Jizya tax which had drawn severe criticism from many Hindu historians. It is true that Jizya was lifted during the reign of Akbar and Jahangir and that Aurangzeb later reinstated this. Before I delve into the subject of Aurangzeb%u2019s Jizya tax, or taxing the non-Muslims, it is worthwhile to point out that Jizya is nothing more than a war tax which was collected only from able-bodied young non-Muslim male citizens living in a Muslim country who did not want to volunteer for the defense of the country. That is, no such tax was collected from non-Muslims who volunteered to defend the country. This tax was not collected from women, and neither from immature males nor from disabled or old male citizens. For payment of such taxes, it became incumbent upon the Muslim government to protect the life, property and wealth of its non-Muslim citizens. If for any reason the government failed to protect its citizens, especially during a war, the taxable amount was returned.
The massacre of 6 million Jews by Hitler and the persecution Jews suffered all over the world in the last 15 centuries has been meticulously recorded by the Jews after 1945 and has been enshrined not only in history books, but also in Holocaust museums, the most famous one being in Washington, DC.
It has not been done with a spirit of revenge -- look at Israel and Germany today -- they are on the best of terms; yet, facts are facts and contemporary Germany had to come to terms with its terrible actions during World War II.
Hindus, Sikhs and Buddhists have also suffered a terrible holocaust, probably without parallel in human history. Take the Hindu Kush for instance, probably one of the biggest genocides of Hindus. There is practically no serious research ever done about it and no mention in history books. Yet the name Hindu Kush appears many times in the writings of Muslim chroniclers in 1333 AD
Ibn Battutah, the medieval Berber traveller, said the name meant 'Hindu Killer,' a meaning still given by Afghan mountain dwellers. Unlike the Jewish holocaust, the exact toll of the Hindu genocide suggested by the name Hindu Kush is not available. 'However,' writes Hindu Kush specialist Srinandan Vyas, 'the number is easily likely to be in millions.'
A few known historical figures can be used to justify this estimate. The Encyclopaedia Britannica recalls that in December 1398 AD, Taimurlane ordered the execution of at least 50,000 captives before the battle for Delhi; likewise, the number of captives butchered by Taimurlane's army was about 100,000.
The Britannica again mentions that Mughal emperor Akbar ordered the massacre of about 30,000 captured Rajput Hindus on February 24, 1568 AD, after the battle for Chitod, a number confirmed by Abul Fazl, Akbar's court historian. Afghan historian Khondamir notes that during one of the many repeated invasions on the city of Herat in western Afghanistan, which used to be part of the Hindu Shahiya kingdoms '1,500,000 residents perished.' 'Thus,' writes Vyas, 'it is evident that the mountain range was named as Hindu Kush as a reminder to the future Hindu generations of the slaughter and slavery of Hindus during the Moslem conquests.'
Or take the recent plight of the Kashmiri Pandits. Over 400,000 Kashmiri Pandits have been forced to flee their homeland. Many Pandit men, women and children have been brutally murdered. About 70,000 still languish in makeshift refugee camps in Jammu and Delhi. Scores of temples in Kashmir have been desecrated, destroyed, looted, more than 900 educational institutions have been attacked by terrorists. Properties of Pandits have been vandalised, businesses destroyed or taken over, even hospitals have not been spared.
Did you know that this huge human tragedy is taking pla
RE:Hindu Holocaust
by on Apr 01, 2007 04:59 PM Permalink
Any religion which protects hindus and interest of hindus will flourish well and others will perish sooner or later. The knowledge or the views collected in the golden era of Shri Rama and Shri Krishna will never go in vain. Fears of hindu annihilation should not exist in any hindu mind. Buddhism is an off-shoot of a hindu prince who cannot exist without the hindu root. Sikhism should be the defending arm of hinduism and its views should be respected by the country and our country men. Other religions should know about the contents existing in our scriptures written by our great saints. The country whose citizen do not respect their origins will perish on its own and they cannot fight for even a small enemy if they cannot stand for something which exists from time immemorial.
- Kafir - is derived from the word - Kufr - , which means to conceal or to reject. In Islamic terminology, - Kafir - means one who conceals or rejects the truth of Islam and a person who rejects Islam is in English called a non-Muslim.
Are you Muslim or Non-Muslim? calling non-Muslim to Non-Muslim is anything wrong?
If any non-Muslim considers the word - Kafir - i.e. - non-Muslim - as an abuse, he may choose to accept Islam and then we will stop referring to him as or call him a kafir i.e. a non-Muslim.
RE:Who is Kafir?
by rafiuddin farooqui on Apr 01, 2007 10:47 PM Permalink
Do you know what is Nastik. The Nastik means Kafir. How do you consider about nastik inferior or superior. The same way Muslim think. Is it very simple.
You fool doesnt understand anything I have to teach you abcd. You lost Intelligence case. Budhi Nasht hogai hai. dont ask me what is nastic and budhi.
- Kafir - is derived from the word - Kufr - , which means to conceal or to reject. In Islamic terminology, - Kafir - means one who conceals or rejects the truth of Islam and a person who rejects Islam is in English called a non-Muslim.
Are you Muslim or Non-Muslim? calling non-Muslim to Non-Muslim is anything wrong?
If any non-Muslim considers the word - Kafir - i.e. - non-Muslim - as an abuse, he may choose to accept Islam and then we will stop referring to him as or call him a kafir i.e. a non-Muslim.
RE:LIES AGAINST THE GREAT MOGHUL EMPEROR AURANGZEB
by Perv Sharma on Apr 01, 2007 03:58 PM Permalink
Aurangzeb wasn't a Great Moghul Emperor. He was just a horrible Islamist ruler. The author has incredibly pointed out the facts.
Two of the highest ranked generals, Jaswant Singh and Jaya Singh, in Aurangzeb%u2019s administration were Hindus. Other notable Hindu generals who commanded a garrison of two to five thousand soldiers were Raja Vim Singh of Udaypur, Indra Singh, Achalaji and Arjuji. One wonders if Aurangzeb was hostile to Hindus, why would he position all these Hindus to high positions of authority, especially, in the military, who could have mutinied against him and removed him from his throne?
Most Hindus like Akbar over Aurangzeb for his multi-ethnic court where Hindus were favored. Historian Shri Sharma states that while Emperor Akbar had 14 Hindu Mansabdars (high officials) in his court, Aurangzeb actually had 148 Hindu high officials in his court. (Ref: Mughal Government) But this fact is somewhat less known. It does not require much intelligence to understand the difference between 14 and 148. But when truth is hostage to bigotry, facts are substituted for fiction, 148 may appear to be smaller than 14 to disingenuous historians, and that is an unfortunate reality we face.
RE:THE GREAT MOGHUL EMPEROR - AURANGZEB
by Perv Sharma on Apr 01, 2007 03:53 PM Permalink
As a mullah U just don't understand again and again.
Aurangzeb was the choosen king. He forcefully grabbed the throne. In order to do so he needed the services of some of the Hindu generals. These Hindu Rajput generals had a large following of Military under them. Most of these Hindu Rajput Generals Grandpa's had been working under Akbar. Aurangzeb knew that he needed the support of these powerful Rajput Generals in order to establish himself as a king. Most of these Rajput Generals worked for Akbar who had established marital relations with these Traitors.
Once firmly established as a king - the methods he used to finish off these Generals is pretty well known.
RE:THE GREAT MOGHUL EMPEROR - AURANGZEB
by Perv Sharma on Apr 01, 2007 03:56 PM Permalink
Aurangzeb's first 20 years went to consolidate his regime. His last 25 to 20 years of his regretfull life were spent fighting the Marathas. This is one reason why Aurangzeb could not succeed in ethnically cleansing India. He had thought he would finish the Marathas like he had finished the Afganis. But, the Marathas were more than a Match for him. And in fact within 10 to 12 years after his death the Marathas were in control of Delhi(the mughal ruler had become a puppet ruler of Marathas).
It is difficult to untangle this historical mess without scrutinizing the accusations against Aurangzeb rationally. Fortunately, in recent years quite a few Hindu historians have come out in the open disputing those allegations. For example, historian Babu Nagendranath Banerjee2 rejected the accusation of forced conversion of Hindus by Muslim rulers by stating that if that was their intention then in India today there would not be nearly four times as many Hindus compared to Muslims, despite the fact that Muslims had ruled for nearly a thousand years. Banerjee challenged the Hindu hypothesis that Aurangzeb was anti-Hindu by reasoning that if the latter were truly guilty of such bigotry, how could he appoint a Hindu as his military commander-in-chief? Surely, he could have afforded to appoint a competent Muslim general in that position. Banerjee further stated: "No one should accuse Aurangzeb of being communal minded. In his administration, the state policy was formulated by Hindus. Two Hindus held the highest position in the State Treasury. Some prejudiced Muslims even questioned the merit of his decision to appoint non-Muslims to such high offices. The Emperor refuted that by stating that he had been following the dictates of the Shariah (Islamic Law) which demands appointing right persons in right positions." During Aurangzeb%u2019s long reign of 50 years, many Hindus, notably Jaswant Singh, Raja Rajrup, Kabir Singh, Arghanath Singh, Prem Dev Singh, Dilip Roy, and Rasik Lal Crory, held very high administrative positions.
In a polarized world that we live in (which is, sadly, getting ever more polarized now by every minute and hour), we have often assumed that what is good for "our" people had to be bad for the "other" people. A glaring example is the personality of Mughal emperor Aurangzeb, who ruled India for 50 years. Of all the Muslim rulers who ruled vast territories of India from 712 to 1857 C.E., probably no one generates as much controversy as Aurangzeb. He has been hailed as anyone from a "Saintly or Pauper Emperor" to one who "tried hard to convert Hindus into Muslims." Depending on one%u2019s religious rearing, one will favor one view over the other. For example, most Hindus castigate Aurangzeb as a religious Muslim, who was anti-Hindu, who taxed them, who tried to convert them, who discriminated them away from high administrative positions, who interfered in their religious matters. On the other hand, Muslims consider him to be one of the best rulers who was a pious, scholarly, saintly, un-biased, liberal, magnanimous, tolerant, competent and far-sighted ruler. To prove the view of the former group, a close scrutiny of the Government-approved text books in schools and colleges across post-partition India (i.e., after 1947) is sufficient.1 The second group depends mostly on pre-colonial (and some pre-partition) history, land-grant deeds and other available records.
