AurangZeb%u2019s were the days of military rule. subjects and citizens wished to have the strongest and the wisest as their ruler. everybody had got a right to prove himself to be the best ruler. and only war between the different candidates could judge, who would be the best. no matter what relationship the candidates had between themselves.
We know that a state, a kingdom or a government is for basically giving peace and justice in a society. Peace can be hampered for a while to bring a larger justice....like a situation of war. and again little injustice can be justified to bring and keep the larger peace around.....like a situation of curfew in any area.
and the expansion of an empire is also not unjust. Mughal emperors did it like Ashoka and Alexander-the Greats conquered lands and made empires. AurangZeb in particular might have been more intolerant towards the injustices of Brahmins on the lower castes.... and also towards the social/spiritual/physical evil acts/rituals that were prevalent in the temples of those days. he had got his own personality and methodology........ open to critism from all. but making this issue a tool of condeming all muslim kings and religion of Islam is a sheer foolishness.... and even dangerous for society as a whole.
when i say..... AurangZeb in particular might have been more intolerant towards the injustices.........
i mean.... it's natural to be INTOLERANT towards larger INJUSTICES..... in fact it's desired.....
and so.... jehad is needed. JIHAD means organised effort/struggle to remove/kill the badness from SELF....SYSTYEM....SURROUNDING and if needed those MEN who comes on the way of that effort.
