RE:CONVERSION IN THE HISTORY
by zaheen usmani on Mar 27, 2007 09:07 PM Permalink
Most of the conversion in India has been taken place by Khawaja moinuddin chishti it is said even one lac people converted in one day by him,where every day Hindus and Muslim go to pay homage on his grave at Ajmer.Infact it is sangh parivar propaganda that Aurangzeb forcily converted people they can not blame khaja moinuddin chishty since Hindus to respect him and if they do so again a wave of conversion can start by Hindus to get self respect and free from clutches of upper caste
RE:CONVERSION IN THE HISTORY
by wada pav on Mar 27, 2007 10:25 PM Permalink
Khwaja Moinuddin Chisti's mazaar is located in what was a destroyed hindu temple. so don't tell about ur crooked saints.
RE:CONVERSION IN THE HISTORY
by Mayur Punekar on Mar 27, 2007 06:34 PM Permalink
- i think you are still not able to understand what author is saying. "Accept History" thats most important thing. What you are saying is same as what your brother Ahmadinejad (Iran's so called president) has said your Holocaust. No one has any doubt about existence of Holocaust in west, including Germans who accepts that their ancestors have commited such horrific crime and still your brother Ahmadinejad says it never happend.
- Similarly, some historians with prejudice in mind try to distort the facts about Muslim kings.
- For moment forget about Aurangzeb and can you please tell me who destroyed Nalanda Univeristy and why??
- If you don't know, it is a known fact it was destroyed by soldiers of Allauddin Khilji. And why?? I think its better you answer this. Or you are also not ready to accept this fact?? Or do u think its again a myth propagated by RSS???
- once again ACCPECT HISTORY.
- One more example of tolerance of muslims from ancient Iran. Why persians with Zoroastrian religion run away from Iran and come to India?? please answer this question. Again its a known fact that Muslim invaders didn't gave any religious freedom to there salves. Again are you ready to accept this fact or not??
- also use your own name (if you dare to use it!!), please don't use authors name. You are misleading other readers by doing this.
RE:RE:CONVERSION IN THE HISTORY
by Jeffrey Mittal on Mar 27, 2007 06:52 PM Permalink
Why accept history
Misleading is what it is all about.
By creating confusion and quoting or fabricating some theories, they want to try and embarass the Hindus to accept Aurangazeb or modern day Jihadis as kind, peace loving people.(so what if a few thousand innocents get killed by their actions)
What hypocrisy!
Just by blaming the caste system, among other things, Francoise (pathetic pseudo)Ekalavyan, Mike etc. you can not make fools of the readers of this board.
They have the intelligence to sort out the bashing that you are trying to inflict.
RE:CONVERSION IN THE HISTORY
by wada pav on Mar 27, 2007 07:04 PM Permalink
They are following the principle of constant denial and 'Attack is the best form of defence' they are also trying to team up with dalits to portray themselves as victims.while dalits were truly victims,these bas***ds are perpetrators not victims.
RE:[object]
by wada pav on Mar 27, 2007 07:06 PM Permalink
and they are cut-pasting same articles hundreds of times,because they have no defence left. that too under different misguiding names like 'Mike Gandhi' and 'Francoise Gautiere'
Temple constructed by Aurangzeb Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb had constructed a huge temple in Chitrakut (Uttar Pradesh) and made arrangement for the 'bhog' at this temple for generations. Many historians consider Aurangzeb as the most bigot emperor.
However, the old arrangement continues till date. Nearly 323 years back Aurangzeb Alamgir had issued a 'firman' as per which 8 villages (330 bighas of land) were allotted for the upkeep of the temple besides Re 1 every day from the government fund.
Mahant Balram Das of the temple is in possession of the firmaan that was written on brass plate and issued on 19th of Islamic month of Ramzan. As per the decree Sant Balak Das of Allahabad's Kalinjar pargana's Chitrakoot was given 330 bighas of land without any 'lagaan'. The temple is now in a poor state despite enormous funds at the disposal. The discord amongst Mahants has led to the situation, say locals.
Interestingly, Aurangzeb had not only got the temple constructed but also wrote the order of 'rajbhog', himself. The land adjoining the Balaji temple has been encroached by musclemen and the infighting amongst the temple committee has hit the structure, which is crumbling, says the District Magistrate, Chitrakot.
RE:THE TRUTH ABOUT THE AURANGZEB
by sania on Mar 27, 2007 05:51 PM Permalink
i don know why r u supporting muslims... i think ull stop admiring them after a blast in ur country.. ull know the impact of terrorism.. which we have faced..
RE:RE:THE TRUTH ABOUT THE AURANGZEB
by on Mar 27, 2007 06:19 PM Permalink
rasheed truth always hurts...u guys have problems with every religion,be it hinduism(india), christianity(USA), judaism(Israel), u cant be a religion of peace...u only know how to live life by the sword
RE:THE TRUTH ABOUT THE AURANGZEB
by Rasheed on Mar 27, 2007 07:26 PM Permalink
I guess, if I were to equate the people who terrorised the Muslims in Gujarat with Hinduism, then does Hinduism have the right to call itself a great civilisation and a way of life thats peaceful. I use your same logic equating terrorists with Muslims.
RE:[object MouseEvent]
by Rasheed on Mar 27, 2007 07:31 PM Permalink
Islam and Christianity are global religions. So they have tensions with different other religions on a multi-national scale. Hinduism has its geographical limitations, and even within India, it has its share of tensions with Islam and Christianity. If Hinduism were a global religion, it would have faced the same fate of Islam, Christianity and Judaism. The fact remains, no matter what different religions preach, their followers interpret the faiths for their own interests....
RE:THE TRUTH ABOUT THE AURANGZEB
by amit on Mar 27, 2007 10:16 PM Permalink
here you are talking at least some things which initially make some sense, but not completely. And, finally, TIT FOR TAT is not called terrorism (for your information).
RE:THE TRUTH ABOUT THE AURANGZEB
by wada pav on Mar 27, 2007 10:29 PM Permalink
a religion does not have to be multi-national to create trouble. take the case of tiny countries like Cyprus , israel , somalia , sudan(darfur) ..there also muslims are fighting and creating trouble.. so geography does not matter to muslims. when there is nobody left to fight,u guys fight among urself :example: shia-sunni , sunni-ahamadiya , arab-berber , sunni-kurds , sindhi - mohajir , sunni-baluch etc
RE:THE TRUTH ABOUT THE AURANGZEB
by Rasheed on Mar 28, 2007 01:00 AM Permalink
You said, a religion does not have to be multi national to create trouble. Precisely my point. The Hindutva types dont require Hinduism to be a multinational religion to propagate their narrow reading of the religion. THey always an Other, Muslims and Christians in this case, to fight against. So, please, by preaching to Muslims, dont corner that high moral ground. Coz, you just dont belong there.
Let us now return to Aurangzeb. In his book "Mughal Administration," Sir Jadunath Sarkar3, foremost historian on the Mughal dynasty, mentions that during Aurangzeb%u2019s reign in power, nearly 65 types of taxes were abolished, which resulted in a yearly revenue loss of 50 million Rupees from the state treasury. It is also worth mentioning here that Aurangzeb did not impose Jizya in the beginning of his reign but introduced it after 16 years during which 80 types of taxes were abolished. Other historians stated that when Aurangzeb abolished eighty taxes no one thanked him for his generosity. But when he imposed only one, and not heavy at all, people began to show their displeasure. (Ref: Vindication of Aurangzeb)
I could see how even fair-minded individuals like Nobel Laureate Professor Amartya Sen may have been deceived by the deadly venoms of dishonest, prejudiced historians whose sole aim has been to smear Muslim history. Such intellectual dishonesty by historians is dangerous - more explosive and more damaging than nuclear bombs. We have already seen its hideous effect with the destruction of Muslim historic sites (including the Babri Mosque) and recent riots in India that killed thousands of Muslims. Let us not fall into the trap set by those who want to "neatly divide our world." Let truth vanquish falsehood.
1 For example, see Shri Binoy Ghosh%u2019s Bharatjaner Etihash (Bengali for: History of Indian People), Kolkata, West Bengal, India.
2 Quoted in Chepe Rakha Itihash (The History %u2013 Hushed Up) by G. A. Murtaza, Barddhaman, India.
3 He demonstrated his vast knowledge of Persian-language (the official language during the Mughal period) sources. However, he was a Euro-centric historian and thus, not flawless in historical accounts. He served as the Vice Chancellor of the University of Calcutta (1926-28).
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.
I would also like to state here that before the advent of Islam in India, Rajputs living in western India used to collect a similar form of Jizya or war tax which they called "Fix" tax. (Ref: Early History of India by Vincent Smith) War tax was not a sole monopoly among the Indian or Muslim rulers. Historian Dr. Tripathy mentions a number of countries in Europe where war-tax was practiced. (Ref: Some Aspects of Muslim Administration by Sri Tripathy)
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.
Some of the Hindu historians have accused Aurangzeb of demolishing Hindu Temples. How factual is this accusation against a man, who has been known to be a saintly man, a strict adherent of Islam? The Qur%u2019an prohibits any Muslim to impose his will on a non-Muslim by stating that "There is no compulsion in religion." (Qur%u2019an: Surah al-Baqarah). The Surah al-Kafiroon (The Unbelievers) clearly states: "To you is your religion and to me is mine." It would be totally unbecoming of a learned scholar of Islam of his caliber, as Aurangzeb was known to be, to do things which are contrary to the dictates of the Qur%u2019an. Interestingly, the 1946 edition of history text book, Etihash Parichaya (Introduction to History), used in Bengal, published by the Hindustan Press, 10 Ramesh Dutta Street, Calcutta, for the 5th and 6th graders states: "If Aurangzeb had the intention of demolishing temples to make way for mosques, there would not have been a single temple standing erect in India. On the contrary, Aurangzeb donated huge estates for use as Temple sites and support thereof in Benares, Kashmir and elsewhere. The official documentations for these land grants are still extant."
RE:RE:THE TRUTH ABOUT THE AURANGZEB
by sania on Mar 27, 2007 05:57 PM Permalink
irs o.k aurangzeb is dead.. we r not bothered abt him we r bothered abt the present muslim generation who r becoming really cruel ... what do u say
RE:THE TRUTH ABOUT THE AURANGZEB
by sania on Mar 27, 2007 06:19 PM Permalink
I THINK BANERJJEE IS PLANNING TO BE A POLITICIAN..
MUSLIMS MAY HAVE RULED US FOR 1OOO YRS BUT BEFOR THAT IT WAS ONLY HINDUS AND U CAN IMAGINE FOR HOW LONG THE HINDUS R IN HINDUSTHAN.. PLEASE U MUSLIMS GO OUT OF INDIA .. GO TO PAKISTAN.. AS UR SUPPORTING THEM ULL LEARNA GOOD LESSON WHEN THEYLL KICK U OUT OF THIER COUNTRY.. PLEASE TRY THAT ONCE .. GO TO PAKISTHAN . HINDUSTHAN IS OURS AND IF U PEOPLE WANT YO BE HERE LEARN TO LIVE IN PEACE.. DONT EVER THINK OF JIHAD AND ALL THOSE STUFF
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.
Funny, this post is still going strong. Full marks to Karl Marx, who proclaimed ages ago that "religion is the opium of the masses." Another thousand posts, and you guys are not going to agree on anything. Keep going. At least Rediff will be happy!
