Doesn%u2019t Islam promote violence, bloodshed and brutality since the Qur%u2019an says that Muslims should kill the kuffar where ever they find them?
Answer:
A few selected verses from the Qur%u2019an are often misquoted to perpetuate the myth that Islam promotes violence, and exhorts its followers to kill those outside the pale of Islam.
1. Verse from Surah Taubah The following verse from Surah Taubah is very often quoted by critics of Islam, to show that Islam promotes violence, bloodshed and brutality:
"Kill the mushriqeen (pagans, polytheists, kuffar) where ever you find them." [Al-Qur%u2019an 9:5]
2. Context of verse is during battlefield Critics of Islam actually quote this verse out of context. In order to understand the context, we need to read from verse 1 of this surah. It says that there was a peace treaty between the Muslims and the Mushriqs (pagans) of Makkah. This treaty was violated by the Mushriqs of Makkah. A period of four months was given to the Mushriqs of Makkah to make amends. Otherwise war would be declared against them. Verse 5 of Surah Taubah says:
"But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is oft-forgiving, Most merciful
RE:Killing Kuffar - Exposed - How Arun Shourie - Francois Gautier - Stephen Kanpp and others, Fabricated, Chewed, Qouting out of context to spread hatred - Inhuman practice -
by JATIN HALDANKAR on Jul 10, 2007 05:42 PM Permalink
Is Quran teaching tolerance towards jews and Idolators(hindus) ??? the following para has reproduced the verses from quran .. The Jews are upbraided constantly in the quran Qur%u0178an. They are charged with being willing to listen to any lie (Surah 5.44, 5.67) and are regarded as sworn enemies of the Muslims, determined to lead them astray from the right path. They are accused of being the most greedy of all the peoples on the earth, including idolaters, with each one clinging so much to life that he could wish to live a thousand years (Surah 2.96). Most of them are reviled as "rebellious wrongdoers" (Surah 5.84) and they are declared to be among the most persistent of Muhammad's opponents: The most vehement of men in hostility towards the believers will you find to be the Jews and the idolaters. Surah 5.85 Check out what Allah has oradined on muslims- whom should thye be friendly with and not to be friendly ... and what will happen to those who does not belive in Quran ... Judge your self how much quran propagates peace and how much hatred .. "5.77": Say: O followers of the Book! be not unduly immoderate in your religion, and do not follow the low desires of people who went astray before and led many astray and went astray from the right path. "5.78": Those who disbelieved from among the children of Israel were cursed by the tongue of Dawood and Isa, son of Marium; this was because they disobeyed and used to exceed the limit.
RE:RE:Killing Kuffar - Exposed - How Arun Shourie - Francois Gautier - Stephen Kanpp and others, Fabricated, Chewed, Qouting out of context to spread hatred - Inhuman practice -
by JATIN HALDANKAR on Jul 10, 2007 05:43 PM Permalink
"5.79": They used not to forbid each other the hateful things (which) they did; certainly evil was that which they did. "5.80": You will see many of them befriending those who disbelieve; certainly evil is that which their souls have sent before for them, that Allah became displeased with them and in chastisement shall they abide. "5.81": And had they believed in Allah and the prophet and what was revealed to him, they would not have taken them for friends but! most of them are transgressors. "5.82": Certainly you will find the most violent of people in enmity for those who believe (to be) the Jews and those who are polytheists, and you will certainly find the nearest in friendship to those who believe (to be) those who say: We are Christians; this is because there are priests and monks among them and because they do not behave proudly. "5.83": And when they hear what has been revealed to the apostle you will see their eyes overflowing with tears on account of the truth that they recognize; they say: Our Lord! we believe, so write us down with the witnesses (of truth). "5.84": And what (reason) have we that we should not believe in Allah and in the truth that has come to us, while we earnestly desire that our Lord should cause us to enter with the good people? "5.85": Therefore Allah rewarded them on account of what they said, with gardens in which rivers flow to abide in them; and this is the reward of those who do good (to others). "5.86": And (as for) those w
RE:RE:RE:Killing Kuffar - Exposed - How Arun Shourie - Francois Gautier - Stephen Kanpp and others, Fabricated, Chewed, Qouting out of context to spread hatred - Inhuman practice -
by JATIN HALDANKAR on Jul 10, 2007 05:49 PM Permalink
5.86": And (as for) those who disbelieve and reject Our communications, these are the companions of the flame.
RE:Killing Kuffar - Exposed - How Arun Shourie - Francois Gautier - Stephen Kanpp and others, Fabricated, Chewed, Qouting out of context to spread hatred - Inhuman practice -
by JATIN HALDANKAR on Jul 10, 2007 05:38 PM Permalink
"5.79": They used not to forbid each other the hateful things (which) they did; certainly evil was that which they did.
"5.80": You will see many of them befriending those who disbelieve; certainly evil is that which their souls have sent before for them, that Allah became displeased with them and in chastisement shall they abide.
"5.81": And had they believed in Allah and the prophet and what was revealed to him, they would not have taken them for friends but! most of them are transgressors.
"5.82": Certainly you will find the most violent of people in enmity for those who believe (to be) the Jews and those who are polytheists, and you will certainly find the nearest in friendship to those who believe (to be) those who say: We are Christians; this is because there are priests and monks among them and because they do not behave proudly.
"5.83": And when they hear what has been revealed to the apostle you will see their eyes overflowing with tears on account of the truth that they recognize; they say: Our Lord! we believe, so write us down with the witnesses (of truth).
"5.84": And what (reason) have we that we should not believe in Allah and in the truth that has come to us, while we earnestly desire that our Lord should cause us to enter with the good people?
"5.85": Therefore Allah rewarded them on account of what they said, with gardens in which rivers flow to abide in them; and this is the reward of those who do good (to others).
RE:RE:Killing Kuffar - Exposed - How Arun Shourie - Francois Gautier - Stephen Kanpp and others, Fabricated, Chewed, Qouting out of context to spread hatred - Inhuman practice -
by JATIN HALDANKAR on Jul 10, 2007 05:39 PM Permalink
"5.86": And (as for) those who disbelieve and reject Our communications, these are the companions of the flame.
RE:RE:Killing Kuffar - Exposed - How Arun Shourie - Francois Gautier - Stephen Kanpp and others, Fabricated, Chewed, Qouting out of context to spread hatred - Inhuman practice -
by JATIN HALDANKAR on Jul 10, 2007 05:56 PM Permalink
Quran 5:33, The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter; Quran 8:12, I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them Quran (8:15-16) O ye who believe! when ye meet the Unbelievers in hostile array, never turn our backs to them. If any do turn his back to them on such a day - unless it be in a stratagem of war, or to retreat to a troop (of his own)- he draws on himself the wrath of Allah, and his abode is Hell,- an evil refuge (indeed)! Quran 8:60, Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom Allah doth know. Whatever ye shall spend in the cause of Allah, shall be repaid unto you, and ye shall not be treated unjustly. Quran 8:65, O Prophet! rouse the Believers to the fight. If there are twenty amongst you, patient and persevering, they will vanquish two hundred: if a hundred, they will vanquish a thousand of the Unbelievers. Quran 9:29, Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbi
RE:Killing Kuffar - Exposed - How Arun Shourie - Francois Gautier - Stephen Kanpp and others, Fabricated, Chewed, Qouting out of context to spread hatred - Inhuman practice -
by JATIN HALDANKAR on Jul 10, 2007 05:44 PM Permalink
Is Quran teaching tolerance towards jews and Idolators(hindus) ??? the following para has reproduced the verses from quran ..
The Jews are upbraided constantly in the quran Qur%u0178an. They are charged with being willing to listen to any lie (Surah 5.44, 5.67) and are regarded as sworn enemies of the Muslims, determined to lead them astray from the right path. They are accused of being the most greedy of all the peoples on the earth, including idolaters, with each one clinging so much to life that he could wish to live a thousand years (Surah 2.96). Most of them are reviled as "rebellious wrongdoers" (Surah 5.84) and they are declared to be among the most persistent of Muhammad's opponents:
The most vehement of men in hostility towards the believers will you find to be the Jews and the idolaters. Surah 5.85
Check out what Allah has oradined on muslims- whom should thye be friendly with and not to be friendly ... and what will happen to those who does not belive in Quran ...
Judge your self how much quran propagates peace and how much hatred ..
"5.77": Say: O followers of the Book! be not unduly immoderate in your religion, and do not follow the low desires of people who went astray before and led many astray and went astray from the right path.
"5.78": Those who disbelieved from among the children of Israel were cursed by the tongue of Dawood and Isa, son of Marium; this was because they disobeyed and used to exceed the limit.
Just think a man such, character, calibre who cares and concern for public can be unjust, cruel. Just imagine A King such cruel and unjust to the Majority could rule a huge country, for about 50 years, where majority members serving highest position and comprising 80% in the Military.
He was so pious best character person noble and just. You cannot find a single one in the present leaders.
1. His personal piety, however is undeniable he led an exemplary simple pious life.
He care for the Royal Treasury as Public Treasury and for public. The present leaders considers Public treasury to personal Treasy.
2. Unlike his predecessors, Aurangzeb did consider the royal treasury as a trust of the citizens of his empire and did not use it for personal expenses.
He was subedar in Deccan and Gujarat. He did not destroy any Temple, His period was peaceful and prosperous, called Golden Period.
3. Despite more than two decades he campaign as Subedar in Deccan and Gujarat there is no record of temple destruction in the region. He continued to confer Jagirs to Hindu Temples. His period was golden period and relatively peaceful, prosperous in his tenure.
He was maligned that he was against art and Music. He was the accomplished musician playing VEENA. (He banned all Ashlil Nangey Nude dances )
4. Surprisingly he is well accomplished in playing VEENA stringed instruments.(Music Instrument)
Many historians accepted that the lies against Aurangzeb invented.
RE:The Truth about Auranbzeb
by JATIN HALDANKAR on Jul 10, 2007 05:33 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
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 10, 2007 05:32 PM Permalink
Now coming to Aurangzeb Road and The hindu-muslim arguments over history. May be No muslim will beleive that Aurangzeb was a villian and no Hindu will beleive him to be a Hero. But this has been well documented in India that he was a cruel ruler. That's y there were so many rebellions against him namely the Sikhs, Marathas, Satnamis etc. He inherited a great kingdom built so laborously by Akbar. The greatest mughal of the dynasty. Had aurangzeb been a good ruler there would not have been so many rebellions against him. Which ultimately lead to the decline of the mughal empire after his death. Now this should be difficult to refute by any muslim. How good can a person be who imprisons his own father, poisons his brother Murad who helped him win against Dara Shikoh can be well understood. Any ruler is a good ruler if he has been good to all his subjects No matter which religion he belongs to. He might have adhered strongly to the principles of Islam and enforced these principles in his kingdom But then by doing so he never did any good to his majority of subjects. Any govt today is a bad govt that treats badly the people who are in minority, And aurangzeb was very bad to majority of his subjects. This assumes signficance because almost all the revolts during his reign were from hindus. Except marathas all the revolts had sense of revenge for the atrocities commited on their religion and belief. His religious policy of intolerence was the main factor that a son of his revolted a
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 - AURANGZEB
by JATIN HALDANKAR on Jul 10, 2007 05:17 PM Permalink
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 --------------
Book 17, Number 17.24.46 states that Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz relieved those who converted to Islam from paying jizya. It also gives the sunnah on those who must pay jizya, principally non-Muslim males who have reached puberty, rather than zak
RE:THE GREAT MOGHUL EMPEROR - AURANGZEB
by JATIN HALDANKAR on Jul 10, 2007 05:35 PM Permalink
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 --------------
Book 17, Number 17.24.46 states that Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz relieved those who converted to Islam from paying jizya. It also gives the sunnah on those who must pay jizya, principally non-Muslim males who have reached puberty, rather than z
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. 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
RE:THE GREAT MOGHUL EMPEROR - AURANGZEB
by JATIN HALDANKAR on Jul 10, 2007 05:18 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 - AURANGZEB
by JATIN HALDANKAR on Jul 10, 2007 05:36 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"
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. 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 relig
RE:THE GREAT MOGHUL EMPEROR - AURANGZEB
by JATIN HALDANKAR on Jul 10, 2007 05:10 PM Permalink
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".
Regarding Jizya ...
.. the Hindus crowded from the gate to the fort to the Jama Masjid in large numbers to for imploring redress ... [Aurangzeb], who was riding on an elephant, could not reach the mosque...Then he ordered the majestic elephants should proceed against them. Some of them [Hindus] were killed ... at last then submitted to pay the Jiziyah.
Aurangzeb's ultimate aim was conversion of non-Muslims to Islam. Whenever possible the emperor gave out robes of honor, cash gifts, and promotions to converts. It quickly became known that conversions was a sure way to the empeor's favor..
THE GREAT MOGHUL EMPEROR AURANGZEB 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 accusat
RE:THE GREAT MOGHUL EMPEROR - AURANGZEB
by JATIN HALDANKAR on Jul 10, 2007 05:15 PM Permalink
Now coming to Aurangzeb Road and The hindu-muslim arguments over history. May be No muslim will beleive that Aurangzeb was a villian and no Hindu will beleive him to be a Hero. But this has been well documented in India that he was a cruel ruler. That's y there were so many rebellions against him namely the Sikhs, Marathas, Satnamis etc. He inherited a great kingdom built so laborously by Akbar. The greatest mughal of the dynasty. Had aurangzeb been a good ruler there would not have been so many rebellions against him. Which ultimately lead to the decline of the mughal empire after his death. Now this should be difficult to refute by any muslim. How good can a person be who imprisons his own father, poisons his brother Murad who helped him win against Dara Shikoh can be well understood. Any ruler is a good ruler if he has been good to all his subjects No matter which religion he belongs to. He might have adhered strongly to the principles of Islam and enforced these principles in his kingdom But then by doing so he never did any good to his majority of subjects. Any govt today is a bad govt that treats badly the people who are in minority, And aurangzeb was very bad to majority of his subjects. This assumes signficance because almost all the revolts during his reign were from hindus. Except marathas all the revolts had sense of revenge for the atrocities commited on their religion and belief. His religious policy of intolerence was the main factor that a son of his revolted a
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 cornered."
Thank you Sri. Gautier!We are now reading the correct history thanks to people like you.Indian history is completely distorted in text books because of the so called secular(read Marxist) historians.Once again thanks
