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)
RE:THE GREAT MOGHUL EMPEROR - AURAGAZEB
by JATIN HALDANKAR on Jul 27, 2007 03:50 PM Permalink
JIZIYA is not a tax as many people think .its a set of around 20 restrictions to be imposed on non-muslim subjects in a country occupied by muslims. the terms were set by caliph umar when he invaded egypt and subjugated christians and jews. in india, jiziya was applied to Hindus , sikhs, buddhist and jains.. those who pay jiziya are called Dhimmi which means subjugated , miserable , inferior.
the terms of jiziya are as follows..
1. Display of non-Muslim religious symbols was prohibited on buildings and on clothing.
2. Loud prayers were forbidden.
3. Dhimmis were prohibited from proselytizing.they were also forbidden from preventing a dhimmi from being converted to islam.
4. Dhimnmis were prohibited fromn publishing or sale of non-Muslim religious literature and a ban on teaching the Qur%u2019an.
5. Dhimmis had to bury their dead without loud lamentations and prayers.
6. Dhimmis were not to rebuild or repair destroyed temples.
7. Dhimmi testimony and oaths were not valid against Muslims.On the other hand, Muslims could testify against Dhimmis.
8. Dhimmis had no right to bear arms of any kind.
9. Dhimmis were forbidden to ride horses or camels; they were only allowed to ride donkeys.
10.Dhimmis could not to build houses higher than those of Muslims.
11.Dhimmi man could not marry a Muslim woman.
12.Dhimmis had to build their houses away from muslim localities.
RE:THE GREAT MOGHUL EMPEROR - AURAGAZEB
by JATIN HALDANKAR on Jul 27, 2007 03:46 PM Permalink
The Jaziyah argument cuts both ways, if as the author claims that it's a tax that non-Muslims have to pay for not joining the army, then that forces the poorer sections of society to convert or join the arm y therefore inflating the Hindu numbers in the army. This conclusively proves that the whole aim of Aurangzeb's re imposition of Jaziyah was win-win for him. Get the Hindus to convert or at least get them to fight other Hindus and convert them.
These were alliances of convenience (in fact Indians should take note what happens when they fight amongst themselves). Aurangzeb had made the titles hereditary and the Hindu Zamindars wanted to legitimise their rule. Tactically this was a smart move by Aurangzeb to get the Hindus rulers into his orbit by getting them onside and then sorting them out one by one, divide and rule. Jaswant Singh is a case in point, just after he died all temples in his kingdom were destroyed. Earlier the mansabdari system too was created to incorporate these "civilized" and settled centres of society, by Akbar, it was based on sem-meritocracy to enable non-muslims to rise to a position of some power. Aurangzeb simply used it as a divide and rule instrument.
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. 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 p
RE:THE GREAT MOGHUL EMPEROR - AURAGAZEB
by JATIN HALDANKAR on Jul 27, 2007 03:49 PM Permalink
RE:THE GREAT MOGHUL EMPEROR - AURANGZEB by JATIN HALDANKAR on Jul 10, 2007 05:17 PM Well first of all Jiziya was not a war tax at all , it was a tax to humiliate non-muslims. it can't be compared to war taxes imposed by rajputs, the rajput tax used to applied before war to raise additional money for preparing for war with muslims.it was for the countrys defence.while jiziya was an extortion. it was paid to save oneself from being killed or forcibly converted to islam.when payment of jiziya ceased,jihad resumed.
iam quoting a few verses from islams holy books:
Sura 9:29 ------------------ stipulates that jizya be exacted from non-Muslims as a condition required for jihad to cease. Failure to pay the jizya could result in the pledge of protection of a dhimmi's life and property becoming void, with the dhimmi facing the alternatives of conversion, enslavement or death (or imprisonment, as advocated by Abu Yusuf, the chief qadi %u2014 religious judge %u2014 of Abbasid caliph Harun al-Rashid).
Ibn Kathir on Sura 9:29,
--------------------- writes that dhimmis must be:
disgraced, humiliated and belittled. Therefore, Muslims are not allowed to honor the people of the dhimma or elevate them above Muslims, for they [dhimmis] are miserable, disgraced, and humiliated.[107] Al-Muwatta --------------
RE:THE GREAT MOGHUL EMPEROR - AURAGAZEB
by JATIN HALDANKAR on Jul 27, 2007 03:52 PM Permalink
Zakat is a religious duty, but Jizyah is discrimination and way to eventually convert non-muslims to Islam. The two are very different. Taxation was a concern for non-Muslims who were paying a higher tax than the zakat tax paid by Muslims. It was also an important factor persuading many dhimmis to convert to Islam, though during the first century after the Arab conquest of Syria and Palestine conversion to Islam was not encouraged "partly because the jizyah constituted an important source of state revenue"
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. These above references clearly show that accusations of forced conversion and religious intolerance are false. It is also evident that since the independence of India in 1947, there has been an overt attempt by revisionist, bigoted Hindu historians in India to malign the Muslim history.
RE:THE GREAT MOGHUL EMPEROR - AURAGAZEB
by JATIN HALDANKAR on Jul 27, 2007 03:56 PM Permalink
Aurangzeb was a religious bigot and actively promoted forced conversions of Hindus to Islam. By passing discriminatory laws based on the Shariat he created the conditions for his administrators to actively pursue his forced conversion agenda. He didn't go from house to house to convert people he didn't need to his job was to create the conditions within which he plan would be implemented, thats what rulers do.
e.g.,
From "The Mughal Empire", John F. Richards. Pg. 176
Zealous imperial officers had considerable power to enforce the new edicts, especially among the urban non-warrior groups. At Suray in 1669 the qazi terrorized the entire Bania or Hindu merchant community of that city. He pressured several members of the community to convert to Islam and threatened others with forcible conversions unless they paid ransom money. He extorted other sums to prevent defacement of the Hindu temples and shrines in the city. The qazi forcibly circumsized and converted a Bania serving as a Persian writer or clerk, who then killed himself. At this point there was a mass protest: "all heads of the Banian families of what condition whatsoever departed the Town to the number of 8000 leaving their wives and children in Surat under charge of their brothger or next of Kinn".
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:THE GREAT MOGHUL EMPEROR - AURAGAZEB
by JATIN HALDANKAR on Jul 27, 2007 03:59 PM Permalink
In July 1998, Manoj Raghuvanshi, host of a popular ZEE TV program called Aap ki Adalat, Aap ka Faisla (Your Court, You Judge) invited Arun Shourie and one of the "eminents," K. L. Shrimali.
Raghuvanshi posed the question first to Shrimali whether Aurangzeb was a religious bigot. Despite Raghuvanshi's repeating the question, Shrimali gave no clear answer, only asserting that Aurangzeb's court had many Hindu nobles. Shourie countered this by pointing out that there were many Indians among the persons honored by the British with titles - - and both for the same reason.
In Shourie's words: "How does this wipe away the destruction of Hindu temples by Aurangzeb? Aurangzeb had entertained no doubt about the fact that his primary impluse was the religious one. And that he faithfully implemented an essential element of his religion, Islam, that is to destroy the places of worship of other religions." As evidence, Shourie read out several passages from Sita Ram Goel's book Hindu Temples: What Happened to Them, The Islamic Evidence. All Shrimali could mumble was that it was a "questionable source."
When Shourie pressed the point that the source was the Akhbarat (Newsletter) of the Court of Aurangzeb himself written on the very day the news reached the court, the "eminent" historian merely repeated "questionable source." Shourie comments: "So, when an 'eminent' historian says that the sources were questionable, they must be questionable" - - this is their technology when
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 - AURAGAZEB
by JATIN HALDANKAR on Jul 27, 2007 04:11 PM Permalink
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.
RE:RE:THE GREAT MOGHUL EMPEROR - AURAGAZEB
by JATIN HALDANKAR on Jul 27, 2007 04:11 PM Permalink
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.
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 Cror
RE:THE GREAT MOGHUL EMPEROR AURANGZEB
by JATIN HALDANKAR on Jul 27, 2007 04:13 PM Permalink
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
these were the reasons why some hindu kings were supporting aurangzeb.this does not give aurangzeb a clean chit.
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. It is difficult to untangle this historical mess without scrutinizing the accusations against Aurangzeb rationally. Fort
Killing Kuffar - Exposed - How Arun Shourie - Francois Gautier - Stephen Kanpp and others, Fabricated, Chewed, Qouting out of context to spread hatred - Inhuman practice -
RE:exposed
by JATIN HALDANKAR on Jul 10, 2007 05:32 PM Permalink
In July 1998, Manoj Raghuvanshi, host of a popular ZEE TV program called Aap ki Adalat, Aap ka Faisla (Your Court, You Judge) invited Arun Shourie and one of the "eminents," K. L. Shrimali.
Raghuvanshi posed the question first to Shrimali whether Aurangzeb was a religious bigot. Despite Raghuvanshi's repeating the question, Shrimali gave no clear answer, only asserting that Aurangzeb's court had many Hindu nobles. Shourie countered this by pointing out that there were many Indians among the persons honored by the British with titles - - and both for the same reason.
In Shourie's words: "How does this wipe away the destruction of Hindu temples by Aurangzeb? Aurangzeb had entertained no doubt about the fact that his primary impluse was the religious one. And that he faithfully implemented an essential element of his religion, Islam, that is to destroy the places of worship of other religions." As evidence, Shourie read out several passages from Sita Ram Goel's book Hindu Temples: What Happened to Them, The Islamic Evidence. All Shrimali could mumble was that it was a "questionable source."
When Shourie pressed the point that the source was the Akhbarat (Newsletter) of the Court of Aurangzeb himself written on the very day the news reached the court, the "eminent" historian merely repeated "questionable source." Shourie comments: "So, when an 'eminent' historian says that the sources were questionable, they must be questionable" - - this is their technology when
RE:exposed
by jatin on Jul 23, 2007 06:34 PM Permalink
What matter most is that he has good knowledge of Islam and its lunatic proponents like Aurangzeb !!!
RE:Read about Aurangzeb true history nor brochure of RSS and BJP you will be sick and will lost
by JATIN HALDANKAR on Jul 10, 2007 05:35 PM Permalink
6) In August 1669, he destroyed the famous Vishavnaath temple of Banaras and constructed a mosque there. Same year he razed the Gopi Nath temple.
7) The biggest temple of Mathura that was constructed by Nar Singh Bundela, a Rajput king, got razed in 1670. The official name of Mathura was changed to Islamabad.
8) All temples built in the last 10 years were destroyed.
9) Aurangzeb constituted a team of Maulvis and gave them a unit of his army. This group used to go village to village and city to city and destroyed centres of non-Muslims.
10) Lala Daulat Rai, in his book Sahib-e-Kamaal, writes that Hindus were humiliated in various ways. If a Muslim felt like spitting, he had the right to spit in the mouth of a Hindu standing there. If the Hindu refused to open his mouth to accept the spitting of the Muslim, he would get punished by the authorities.
In 1674, Aurangzeb decided to destroy the root of Hinduism. The most educated and strict Hindus lived in Kashmir. He decided to concentrate in that area. Bhai Mani Singh jee Shaheed writes that Aurangzeb thought that Kashmiri Pandits were the most educated Hindus and were also teaching Hindu texts to other Hindus. He decided to bring Kashmir to the fold of Islam
RE:Read about Aurangzeb true history nor brochure of RSS and BJP you will be sick and will lost
by JATIN HALDANKAR on Jul 10, 2007 05:23 PM Permalink
The Jaziyah argument cuts both ways, if as the author claims that it's a tax that non-Muslims have to pay for not joining the army, then that forces the poorer sections of society to convert or join the arm y therefore inflating the Hindu numbers in the army. This conclusively proves that the whole aim of Aurangzeb's re imposition of Jaziyah was win-win for him. Get the Hindus to convert or at least get them to fight other Hindus and convert them.
These were alliances of convenience (in fact Indians should take note what happens when they fight amongst themselves). Aurangzeb had made the titles hereditary and the Hindu Zamindars wanted to legitimise their rule. Tactically this was a smart move by Aurangzeb to get the Hindus rulers into his orbit by getting them onside and then sorting them out one by one, divide and rule. Jaswant Singh is a case in point, just after he died all temples in his kingdom were destroyed. Earlier the mansabdari system too was created to incorporate these "civilized" and settled centres of society, by Akbar, it was based on sem-meritocracy to enable non-muslims to rise to a position of some power. Aurangzeb simply used it as a divide and rule instrument.
RE:Read about Aurangzeb true history nor brochure of RSS and BJP you will be sick and will lost
by JATIN HALDANKAR on Jul 10, 2007 05:28 PM Permalink
AURANGZEB%u2019S RELIGIOUS POLICY
After he became the king, he adopted the policy of converting the whole of India to Islam. He wanted to see only one religion in India and in the world and that was the Sunni sect of Islam. In order to achieve this aim, he revamped the religious policy of his predecessors and made life for Hindus very difficult. Here are some of the examples to prove what he did to the Hindus of that time:
1) When he was the governor of Gujrat, he declared Jihad against non-Muslims. In 1645, he started razing Hindu temples in Gujrat. The famous temple, Chintamani got converted to a Mosque at this time. To humiliate the Hindus, he killed cows in their temples and washed the temples with blood of cows.
2) When he became the governor of South India, he continued his sadistic activities. He destroyed many temples there. Shah Jahan, his father sensed what he was doing there and moved him from there to Afghanistan. As soon as he left South, temples got constructed again. Aurangzeb used to say that if he gets a chance, he would eliminate all temples from India.
3) When he became the king, he doubled the road toll for Hindus while halved it for the Muslims. He was trying to create financial difficulties for the Hindus and at the same time creating incentive for them to become Muslim, by halving the road tolls for Muslims.
4) Most Hindus were employed by the civil department of the government. He passed a bill to ensure that only a Muslim could hol
RE:Historians Blinkers - Aurangzeb was the greatest King of India
by JATIN HALDANKAR on Jul 10, 2007 05:25 PM Permalink
Great Hindu kings like Shivaji fought Aurangzeb. we don't need a Mr pande to tell us what Auranzeb was like. ------------------------- This is what Sant Ramdas said when auranzeb died.
'Budala Aurangya Paapi , Hindustan Balavle' It means:
" Aurangya the sinner is dead , hindusthan is now stronger"
