Histories are created and written by human beings.So its obvious there are at least some biases present in the narration. For Muslims the ruler in question was extremely Islamic so he was good on the other hand for Hindus he was barbaric for his deeds. Even Asoka the great emperor was barbaric in this sense. Not Muslims were at all responsible for his deeds, if at all anti hindus, at that period. please stop labelling Muslims as anti-Hindus. I respect Hinduism as being one of the most ancient and tolerant religion. But dont try to spread hatred in the name of REWRITTEN history. Let Hindus and Muslims of India live in harmony and peace.
RE:Aurangzeb (RA)
by tamal sarkar on Feb 16, 2007 03:29 PM Permalink
I agree that Ashoka was barbaric to Conquer other nations but not in the name of religion.He did not break their Worship places and not behead their religious leaders like Guru Teg Bahadur.If you pray 5 Times a day that doesnt give you the right to break any worship place or behaed any religious leader who is not accepting to accept Islam. Secondly Ashoka after the Kalinga War was so repentant on his action that he started crying after war accepted Budhdhism spread the message of Truth as he constructed the Shanti Stupa in Kalinga and he went even to the extent that he changed his name from "Chhandashoka" to "Dhammashoka". So it is an insult to compare a demon like aurangazed to Ashoka who recreated his image as messiah of Tolerance and peace and helped the Buddhist missionaries financially to spead the word of truth and peace.Kindly read the Ashokan Scriptures you will find that it will be a day dream for Muslims to become so HUMANE.
RE:Aurangzeb (RA)
by Ankit Jain on Feb 16, 2007 03:08 PM Permalink
i think u didnt read it carefully. its no harm to read your history. what the writer is trying is to give a view that we need to ensure these things font happen again...
RE:RE:Aurangzeb (RA)
by faize rizvi on Feb 16, 2007 03:17 PM Permalink
Dear Ankit your History and my history are not different. we are all Indians and our history is same.
RE:Aurangzeb (RA)
by Jarnail singh on Feb 16, 2007 03:23 PM Permalink
rizvi saab let me tell you the truth. aurangzeb was an emperor. he wanted to spread his empire by any mean. he killed his brother dara shikoh and imprisoned his own father. but to avoid criticism by clerics and big maulana lobby he masked himself as a devout muslim. you may agree that a devout muslim could not became an emperor. today a devout muslim cannot win a municipality election. just to please the fanatic clerics and maulanas aurangzeb started conversions. dara shikoh was tolerant to hindu and other religions {this is what you expect from hindus in india now}. so when you support aurangzeb and forget about dara shikoh then how can you criticise modis and fanatic hindus. it is shameful at one hand you people supports a person who killed tolerant dara shikoh and converted thousands of hindus forcefully. on other hand criticise hindu extremists and wanted a tolerant india. you have to support the tolerant figures in history. you say now we should forget about past. but when extremist hindu organisations will say forget the gujarat massacre what will you say? history is to learn for good. i too believe historyh should not become a tool to spread intolerance. but you should be the first person to start supporting tolerant rulers not intolernat rulers like aurangzeb
RE:RE:Aurangzeb (RA)
by faize rizvi on Feb 16, 2007 03:35 PM Permalink
Dear Jarnail Singh jee. the time has changed much. today we are more civilized and advanced. how can you support todays atrocities by drawing support from the similar deeds of the past rulers. and please stop ascribing YOU people and WE people because I gave my views as an Indian Muslim and not as Muslims alone
