RE:TRUTH PASTED AGAIN............
by True Indian on Mar 29, 2007 02:35 PM Permalink
mohammed u need to catch a wake up big time, im sure ur smoking something to make such remarks, who in the right mind wud wanna live under islam...i think u shud first stay in an islamic country like pakistan or afghanistan n then come n post remarks like that..
many a times i told you. its not about any country or state. Islam can be practised anywhere. because it is easy and peaceful.
SO MUSLIMS GO EVERY PLACE, AMERICA, EUROPE, AFRICA, MALAYSIA OR AUSTRILIA and practice Islam. May be partially sometimes but tries to make it 100 percent ISLAMIC.
Before I delve into the subject of Aurangzeb's 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. It should be pointed out here that zakat (2.5% of savings) and ushr (10% of agricultural products) were collected from all Muslims, who owned some wealth (beyond a certain minimum, called nisab). They also paid sadaqah, fitrah, and khums. None of these were collected from any non-Muslim. As a matter of fact, the per capita collection from Muslims was several fold that of non-Muslims. Further to Auranzeb's credit is his abolition of a lot of taxes, although this fact is not usually mentioned. In his book Mughal Administration, Sir Jadunath Sarkar, foremost historian on the Mughal dynasty, mentions that during Aurangzeb's reign in power, nearly sixty-five types of taxes were abolished, which resulted in a yearly revenue loss of fifty million rupees from the state treasury. While some Hindu historians are retracting the lies, the textbooks and historic accounts in Western countries have yet to admit their error and set the record straight.
RE:Jizya - Why dont you accept it
by Perv Sharma on Mar 30, 2007 09:37 AM Permalink
Rafi are you gone mad. The tax called Jizya would be returned by the emperor if he couldn't protect his citizens from war. Mad chap a lost emperor wouldn't be able to pay back anything. A lost king is no longer a king. Which history did you study that a lost king will start refunding back taxes.
If U say so, then Aurangzeb should have returned back the jizya to many people in South because the Marathas more or less defeated him in many places. How much was returned.
RE:Jizya - Why dont you accept it
by Avi Priten on Mar 31, 2007 02:15 PM Permalink
rafiuddin farooqui, is i think a decendent of Aurangzeb. Bahut bakwas karta hai Rediff per.
Gand may dum hai to apna address reveal kar na. sala Katwa
1.Rafiuddun , mIKE gANDI have been spamming the site with cut-paste articles which sing praises of auranzeb, most of these have been written by pro-muslim western or pseudo-secular/marxist indian historians, most of whom did not live in the days of aurangzeb,these historians have no idea of the tyranny and misery under which hindus , sikh , buddhist and jains had to live in those days. we also can cut-paste articles from western articles who portray aurangzeb as evil,but obviously muslims will not believe in them, they refer to western historians only when it suits them.
2.While its true that aurangzeb had many hindu generals, that was because he was cunning and one of the earliest proponents of 'Divide and rule' policy.he hired them purely for political goals and not because he loved hindus.besides many of these hindu generals were hereditory servants of mughals,their grandfathers having served akbar and shahjahan. aurangzeb had very little trust on his hindu generals, he poisoned to death his commander-in-chief Mirza Raje Jaisingh and when Jaswant singh died,he invaded his kingdom and destroyed all the temples there. Many smaller hindu kings served him purely out of fear of being invaded. Many others served him to settle scores against rival hindu kings. many others served him to get mansabdari. this switchover of loyaly was very common in those days's especially among some rajputs and maratha's for example when Sambhaji Maharaj insulted his brother in law Ganoji Shirke, the latter immediately joined hands with aurangzeb and helped him in capturing Sambhaji. the king of jaipur joined akbar because of his rivalry with Rana Pratap. So there were multiple reasons why hindu generals were working for aurangzeb and he tolerated them because he could use their armies against one another.
3. He did donate some land / grants for some temples, most of these were in kingdoms of his hindu generals and this may have been done to please them and portray himself as secular.
4. having hindu generals and giving grants to temples in no way negates the evil acts he performed. even the nazis employed jewish security guards in jewish labour camps and ghettoes,not because they liked jews, but they wanted to make use of the jewish manpower.
5.He also had to employ hindus in his empires backoffice, because only hindus possesed the skills like calculating taxes, revenue,income,expenditure, accounting,loans,salaries etc. hindus had long experience and skills since thousands of years in managing empires something the illiterate arabs and turks lacked. muslims excelled only in warfare and were not educated,hindus on the otherhand were skilled in mathematics , accounting , business and trade etc so he was forced to rely on them.but that does not mean he liked them. Even today in gulf the rich but illiterate arabs employ hindus to do these tasks,but they hate hindu religion.
6.aurangzebs empire was larger than that of akbar and without the help of hindu kings he would not have been able to rule this vast country. so he had to rely on the hindu kings and generals ,to use their armies and keep them fighting among each other, in this he was a cunning and brilliant strategist but definitely not secular. thats precisely the reason why the moghul empre collapsed after his death, those hindu kings who had joined him out of fear immediately shifted loyalties and no longer supported his sons, so mughals lost control over much of india.
7 .aurangzebs reign was marred by large scale rebellions all over the country, Sikhs , Jats , Marathas , Gujratis ,assamese all were rebelling simultaneously. even afghans/pashtuns rebelled against aurangzebs atrocities. ( he sent rajputs to crush pashtuns) his predecessors like akbar did not have to face this large scale rebellion. this being the case aurangzeb was smart enough to understand that his mughal/muslim soldiers were not numerically enough to quell all the rebellions simultaneously all over this vast country. so he had to depend on hindu generals. it was a marriage of convenience and not very different from the shameless political alliances and coalitions we see in india today .
Also every country has its own share of traitors, so many hindu kings who joined him were simply traitors and did not represent the majority of oppressed hindus. so in a nutshell the following were the reasons why hindus worked for him . 1.fear of being invaded by aurangzeb , 2.hope of getting mansabdari , 3.greed , 4.rivalry with other hindu kings , 5.hereditory enemity with other hindu kings. 6.being hereditory servants of previous mughal rulers 7. cowardice and traitorship
RE:STOP CUT-PASTING SEE THE EVIDENCE I PROVDED ABOUT AURANGZEB
by rafiuddin farooqui on Mar 29, 2007 04:00 PM Permalink
Wada Pav doing the Cut and Paste and from where I know. I can say that you people are lost intelligence case and bad conscience. Bhagwan hi tumahara bhala otherewise you people are hell for yourself. Misguided Wanderers. Even they do not their meaning of life.
