A stone inscription in the historic Balaji or Vishnu Temple, located north of Chitrakut Balaghat, still shows that it was commissioned by the Emperor himself. The proof of Aurangzeb%u2019s land grant for famous Hindu religious sites in Kasi, Varanasi can easily be verified from the deed records extant at those sites. The same text book reads: "During the 50-year reign of Aurangzeb, not a single Hindu was forced to embrace Islam. He did not interfere with any Hindu religious activities." (p. 138) Alexander Hamilton, a British historian, toured India towards the end of Aurangzeb%u2019s 50-year reign and observed that every one was free to serve and worship God in his own way.
RE:AURANGZEB - GREAT EMPEROR OF INDIA
by Rationalist on Mar 16, 2007 01:08 PM Permalink
If Aurangzeb was that great & secular Hindus would be the first to hail him just like Akbar is hailed. You call him great only because he practiced Islam perfectly & tried to wipe out Hinduism.
RE:AURANGZEB - GREAT EMPEROR OF INDIA
by Dr_Ramanand Rao on Mar 16, 2007 08:59 AM Permalink
and what about the firmaans Gautier mentions that prove that Indians were killed/forcibly converted to Islam. By the end of Aurangzeb's misrule, not a single famous Temple survived
Indeed, women suffered immensely; they were the victims of every regiment, and the regret of all times, represented by many pages of deprivation, springs of sadness, they were deeply wronged, profoundly exploited in an unprecedented manner.
Chapters of Shame:
It is shameful that humanity was not treating women as human beings. All past civilizations exercised various types of torture, injustice, defeat and oppression unto her.
Greeks described her as the poisoning tree, and that she is filth made of from the Satan's work, and that she is sold as a commodity.
Romans said she has no soul and, as a sort of torture they poured hot oil over her, and she was dragged down to death by horses.
Chinese described her as the painful water which takes away happiness, and that a Chinese has the right to bury his wife alive and, if he dies his family will be entitled to inherit her.
Indians described her as worse than death, hell, poison, snakes, and fire. The woman has no right to live after her husband's death and that she should be burned with him.
Persians permitted the marriage of the unmarriageable with no exception), and it became allowed for a Persian to sentence his wife to death!
Jews described her as a curse because she is the reason of seduction, and that she is dirty when in menstruation, and they permitted her father to sell her.
In Christianity: The French held a conference in 586 AD to determine if the woman can be considered as a human or not, does she have a soul or not? If yes, is it a human or an animal soul? If it is a human soul, is it on the same level or on a lower level to that of the man? They finally decided that she is a human, but she is created only to service the man. The English parliament issued a decree during Henry the 8th rein, the English King, which banned women from reading the new testament (the falsified Bible) because they are sullied (dirty ) .
Before Islam, Arabs used to hate her like death. She used to be buried alive, or thrown into a well in a very brutal manner.
RE:Women status before Islam.
by Secular Indian on Mar 16, 2007 03:12 AM Permalink
How can you then explain MuhamMAD marrying a 6 year old girl when he was 53. Later he married his (ex) daughter-in-law. Here are some more points to ponder:
It is tragic to read news reports of old men marrying children in some Islamic countries, because they seek to follow the example of Muhammad who married a child. Muhammad had such an interest in fondling young girls, he criticized even the lawful marriage union of two grown adults.
Narrated Jabir bin 'Abdullah: When I got married, Allah's Apostle said to me, "What type of lady have you married?" I replied, "I have married a matron' He said, "Why, don't you have a liking for the virgins and for fondling them?" Jabir also said: Allah's Apostle said, "Why didn't you marry a young girl so that you might play with her and she with you?' Sahih Al-Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 17.
In the classic history of "The Life of Muhammad" (Sirat Rasul Allah) by Ibn Ishaq, there is an account in which Muhammad expressed a marital interest in a crawling baby. This event seems to have occurred around the time of the Battle of of Badr which would have made Muhammad approximately 55 years old. He had married Ayesha two years earlier, when he was 53 years of age.
(Suhayli, ii. 79: In the riwaya of Yunus I. I. recorded that the apostle saw her (Ummu'lFadl) when she was a baby crawling before him and said, 'If she grows up and I am still alive I will marry her.' But he died before she grew up and Sufyan b. al-Aswad b. 'Abdu'l-Asad al-Makhzumi married her and she bore him Rizq and Lubab...1
So, Muhammad's interest in young girls extended beyond Ai'sha ('Ayesha). Why would anyone think that Muhammad's sexual interest in babies be "the timeless expression of the Will of Allah?"
RE:Women status before Islam.
by Dr_Ramanand Rao on Mar 16, 2007 09:02 AM Permalink
Islam did reform the Arabs, but it was not the religion for the rest of the civilised world. Hinduism has always given respect to women and Islam was not required here
RE:RE:Women status before Islam.
by Dr_Ramanand Rao on Mar 16, 2007 09:06 AM Permalink
The Sathi system crept into India only a few decades before the advent of Islam and it has also been abolished now, so don't keep harping on that
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:AURANGZEB - GREAT EMPEROR OF INDIA
by Secular Indian on Mar 16, 2007 03:13 AM Permalink
But Koran encourages destruction of temples and killing of non-muslims. So he was doing the right thing by Islam. You are the one that is lying.
RE:AURANGZEB - GREAT EMPEROR OF INDIA
by Dr_Ramanand Rao on Mar 16, 2007 09:08 AM Permalink
not a single famous temple remained at the time of Aurangzeb's death - read about the firmaans Gautier mentions above
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:AURANGZEB - GREAT EMPEROR OF INDIA
by Secular Indian on Mar 16, 2007 03:15 AM Permalink
The mansabdars were simply administrators because there weren't enough educated Muslims to do the job. They had to be given titles so that they could be paid as the Mughal administration was a military one. Secondly they were the link between the administration and the taxable population that provided the revenue to the Mughals.
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?
RE:AURANGZEB - GREAT EMPEROR OF INDIA
by Secular Indian on Mar 16, 2007 03:16 AM Permalink
Temples in Jaswant Singh's kingdom were all destroyed once he died. So what's your point ? So Aurangzeb was simply biding his time.
RE:AURANGZEB - GREAT EMPEROR OF INDIA
by Perv Sharma on Mar 16, 2007 04:29 AM Permalink
Jaswant and Jaya Singh's fathers were counted as counted traitors by many hindus.
Mike you are gone nuts. Aurangzeb didn't come like Ghanzvi rather he wanted to live and rule in India. Which meant he had make friends with some powerful Rajput kings to continue his military expansions. Read the history the moment some of this generals died. How their provinces were treated.
Moreover, going by population wise, the Hindus were under-represented whereas the Muslims given over - representation.
Great Emperor of India- you must be fooling. This chap was made to go round and round by Marathas for 25 years of his 50 years as king of Delhi. At the end he died a lost man, a lost king in Maharashtra.
The bristishers initially too had a large muslims in their army. Where they able to retaliate to overthrow.
Today, the Indian Army is in Majority, are they able to stop genocide of KAshmiri Hindus. Can this Army give protection to Kashmiri Hindus.
It's a different story if you come from Afganistan only with the sole purpose of looting, killing and then running back.
The Muslims who followed the policy of Aurangzeb before Akbar lasted a few years in Delhi. Don't forget Akbar's father was thrown away and made to run helter shelter.
Only Akbar realised how to live a settled live. He knew he had to make peace with some important rulers.
This was utilised by Aurangzeb to achieve his agaenda.
RE:HINDUISM IS TOLERANT ???? FAKE CLAIM
by Rationalist on Mar 16, 2007 12:49 AM Permalink
Look who is talking? Even after filling entire country India is just reached 1 billion, where did you get 11 billion figure assuming all were men killed in war?
Krishna did not ask Arjuna kill Kauravas for not beliving him understand? He asked him to uphold dharma. Dont make blunt arguments to defend the loop holes of Quran. I know very well even u people know what u r saying is fake? U r not only trying to deceive others but also deceiving to yourself which is biggest crime just because of your obsession & pride.Stop this, be true to yourself.
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
RE:AURANGZEB - GREAT EMPEROR OF INDIA
by Secular Indian on Mar 16, 2007 03:17 AM Permalink
Just shows that he needed the local rulers to tax the locals. The Mughal writ did not run to far beyond the city walls.
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.
1. Hinduism is more than religion it is a civilization. The civilization of the people of Hindustan
1. Even an Atheist can claim to be a Hindhu only bcos it is not a religion.
Definition of Religion
A religion is a set of beliefs and generally held by Human Community adherence to codified beliefs.
Religion is described a system of divine guidance from Allah (God) the Unseen, Supernatural, All powerful. The religious teachings are sacred, sublime, highest truth, agreement of fact and reality, moral codes, principles, moral values.
Religion is also divine teaching for all human beings and a complete guidance to mankind all ways of life.
Definition of Culture
Culture, in sociology and social anthropology, is the beliefs, behavior, language, and entire way of life of a particular group of people at a particular time. Culture includes customs, ceremonies, works of art, inventions, technology, and traditions. Triandis' definition of Culture: 1Culture is a set of human-made objective and subjective elements that in the past have increased the probability of survival and resulted in satisfaction for the participants in an ecological niche, and thus became shared among those who could communicate with each other because they had a common language and they lived in the same time and place. 1 2British anthropologist Edward Burnett Tylor defines culture as "that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, law, morals, custom and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society".
Culture, in sociology and social anthropology, is the beliefs, behavior, language, and entire way of life of a particular group of people at a particular time.
1. The culture can be changed, added, deleted, fabricated and mixed.
2. The culture is a man-made laws and attitude demographically different.
3. The Culture is subject to human objective and also subjective. Man can do whatever to his desire, both good and bad. Drink, Illegal Relationship, gambling.
4. The Culture can not be forced and apply anybody.
1. Where as Religion is complete divine teaching cannot be changed.
2. The Religion for all human beings and having no demographic conditions or language.
3. Religion is Truth and highest moral code of conducts and values negate all bad habits non constructive and non-development acts.
RE:I have to teach You all.
by Secular Indian on Mar 16, 2007 03:23 AM Permalink
Your assumption is that there is a GOD, no one knows. You claim culture is man-made, well flash news, so is religion. How can religion be complete when it's very basis are unsound. One can have a moral code of conduct without divine sanction. Religion esp. Islam and Christianity have caused more strife and grief in the world than probably anything else including disease, hunger, natural catastrophes.
