great sultan aurangzab alamgir

[alamgir]

spacial thanks-azmat of PDF Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb: Bad Ruler or Bad History?

4 January 2007
Filed under Islam, Polemical Rebuttals, History
Habib Siddiqui

Of all the Muslim rulers who ruled vast territories of India from 712 to 1857 CE, probably no one has received as much condemnation from Western and Hindu writers as Aurangzeb. He has been castigated as a religious Muslim who was anti-Hindu, who taxed them, who tried to convert them, who discriminated against them in awarding high administrative positions, and who interfered in their religious matters. This view has been heavily promoted in the government approved textbooks in schools and colleges across post-partition India (i.e., after 1947). These are fabrications against one of the best rulers of India who was pious, scholarly, saintly, unbiased, liberal, magnanimous, tolerant, competent, and far-sighted.


QUOTE
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?


Fortunately, in recent years quite a few Hindu historians have come out in the open disputing those allegations. For example, historian Babu Nagendranath Banerjee 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’s long reign of fifty 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. Two of the highest ranked generals in Aurangzeb’s administration, Jaswant Singh and Jaya Singh, 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 fourteen Hindu Mansabdars (high officials) in his court, Aurangzeb actually had 148 Hindu high officials in his court.1 But this fact is somewhat less known.

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’an prohibits any Muslim to impose his will on a non-Muslim by stating that

“There is no compulsion in religion.”2

Surah al-Kafirun 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 that are contrary to the dictates of the Qur’an.

Interestingly, the 1946 edition of the history textbook Etihash Parichaya (Introduction to History) used in Bengal for the 5th and 6th graders states:


QUOTE
“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.”


The proof of Aurangzeb’s land grant for famous Hindu religious sites in Kasi, Varanasi can easily be verified from the deed records extant at those sites

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’s land grant for famous Hindu religious sites in Kasi, Varanasi can easily be verified from the deed records extant at those sites. The same textbook reads:

“During the fifty year reign of Aurangzeb, not a single Hindu was forced to embrace Islam. He did not interfere with any Hindu religious activities.”3

Alexander Hamilton, a British historian, toured India towards the end of Aurangzeb’s fifty year reign and observed that every one was free to serve and worship God in his own way.

Now let us deal with Aurangzeb’s imposition of the 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’s 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 the zakaat (2.5% of savings) and ‘ushr (10% of agricultural products) were collected from all Muslims, who owned some wealth (beyond a certain minimum, called nisab). They also paid sadaqah, fitrah and khums. None of these were collected from any non-Muslim. As a matter of fact, the per capita collection from Muslims was several fold that of non-Muslims. Further to Auranzeb’s credit is his abolition of a lot of taxes, although this fact is not usually mentioned. In his book Mughal Administration, Sir Jadunath Sarkar, foremost historian on the Mughal dynasty, mentions that during Aurangzeb’s reign in power, nearly sixty-five types of taxes were abolished, which resulted in a yearly revenue loss of fifty million rupees from the state treasury. Other historians stated that when Aurangzeb abolished eighty types of taxes, no one thanked him for his generosity. But when he imposed only one, and not heavy at all, people began to show their displeasure.4

While some Hindu historians are retracting the lies, the textbooks and historic accounts in Western countries have yet to admit their error and set the record straight. Such intellectual dishonesty by historians is dangerous — more explosive and more damaging than nuclear bombs. We have already seen its hideous effect with the destruction of Muslim historic sites (including the Babri Mosque) and recent riots in India that killed thousands of Muslims.

Let us not fall into the trap set by those who want to “neatly divide our world.” Let truth vanquish falsehood.

http://www.bismikaallahuma.org/archives/ro...or-bad-history

 

[Adux]

Not a balanced review, YOu have a whole football stadium filled with the both WESTERN AND INDIAN writers about Aurngazeb, and you have one Banerjee. You call that evidence.

 

[Adux]

everything is a conspiracy if it is not hindu, then it is the jews, if not them it is the crusaders. This bugger killed people for fun, , though he could never touch mine.still hate him to the core. Aurangazeb doesnt go against Quran, Is it justified in quran that you can kill your own brothers, it is justified in Quram that you can put your own Father in prison, Enough said about this despot

 

[Adux]

Alamgir,

DO you know why the mountain range in Afghanistan is called HINDUKUSH

 

[sword9]

I refute Bannerjee by a simple fact, the rise of the Khalsa panth. The establishment of the Khalsas and rise of the Sikhs as warriors is directly proportional to the discrimination they suffered at the hands of the mughals especially Aurangzeb.

Why was Guru Teg Bahadur was killed?...these are recorded facts of history that refute Bannerjee's "research".

 

[alamgir]

everything is a conspiracy if it is not hindu, then it is the jews, if not them it is the crusaders. This bugger killed people for fun, , though he could never touch mine.still hate him to the core. Aurangazeb doesnt go against Quran, Is it justified in quran that you can kill your own brothers, it is justified in Quram that you can put your own Father in prison, Enough said about this despot

I know its very difficult to accept a reality which is against imagine imposse from childhood. you say he kill his brothers yes if he did not kill his brothers then they did kill him it is history of mughals in india,you can say self defence . He put his father not in prison but in palace of agra because his father in faver darashakoo one of his brother who is totally against islamic law .When he take dehli darbar,darbar was full of dancers,singers, jokers,Before him most of time of king pass in these kind of jokes,he clear up this rubbish

 

[alamgir]

Alamgir,

DO you know why the mountain range in Afghanistan is called HINDUKUSH

here a breif history of hindukush........................... that the name is a corruption of Caucasus Indicus, a name by which the Hindu Kush range was known in the ancient world after its conquest by Alexander the Great in the Fourth Century BC. Greek rule in the Hindu Kush region lasted over three centuries, and was followed by the rule of a dynasty known, significantly, as the Kushan. In its early period, the Kushan Empire had its capital near modern-day Kabul. The Kushans lost the Hindu Kush and became an Indian kingdom. Later, when the Hindu Kush region became part of the Sassanian Empire, it was ruled by a satrap known as the Kushan-shah (ruler of Kushan). A Fourth century CE Hebrew book, the Talmudic tractate of Megillah, uses the term "Kush Hodu" (Indian Kush), possibly a translation from the Persian words ("Hindu Kush") meaning "Indian Kush".
In modern Persian, the word "Kush" is derived from the verb Kushtan - to defeat, kill, or subdue. This could be interpreted as a memorial to the Indian captives who perished in the mountains while being transported to Central Asian slave markets.
that the name refers to the last great 'killer' mountains to cross when moving between the Afghan plateau and the Indian subcontinent, named after the toll it took on anyone crossing them.
that the name is a corruption of Hindu Koh, from the (modern) Persian word Kuh, meaning mountain. Rennell, writing in 1793, refers to the range as the "Hindoo-Kho or Hindoo-Kush".
that the name means Mountains of India or Mountains of the Indus (from the Indus River, the largest river in Pakistan) in some of the Iranian languages that are still spoken in the region; that furthermore, many peaks, mountains, and related places in the region have "Kosh" or "Kush" in their names.
that the name is a posited Avestan appellation meaning "water mountains."
that the name is a corruption of Hind-o Kushan, containing the name of the Kushan dynasty that once ruled this region for more than three centuries.
The mountain peaks in the eastern part of Afghanistan reach more than 7,000 metres. The highest, in Pakistan, is Tirich Mir at 7,705 m (cf. Mount Everest in Nepal which stands 8,850 m high). The Pamir mountains, which Afghans refer to as the "Roof of the World", extend into Tajikistan, China and Kashmir and are among the world’s highest mountains.
kushan dynasty peried is much before islam arive in central asia
WIKIPEDIA ......

 

[Adux]

I know its very difficult to accept a reality which is against imagine imposse from childhood. you say he kill his brothers yes if he did not kill his brothers then they did kill him it is history of mughals in india,you can say self defence . He put his father not in prison but in palace of agra because his father in faver darashakoo one of his brother who is totally against islamic law .When he take dehli darbar,darbar was full of dancers,singers, jokers,Before him most of time of king pass in these kind of jokes,he clear up this rubbish

Dude,

Lemme put it this way, I have finished my MBA from a world top 50 institute, i have worked for a long time abroad and finished my second level of CFA, if you think i am stupid and i cant read the various writers available to me, then all i can say is 'whatever'.

Dancers, singers are bad, what are you taliban?
I am sorry, u might have ingrained all this from childhood, but for us it is art. U r wrong in your history and your way of thinking, and i am sure i cant change your mindset,

 

[Adux]

hundereds of thousands of Hindu's were killed and died in that mountain range.

 

[sword9]

The only good thing about Aurangzeb was that he was a good administrator, he built public works and spent money on the state and not on himself. He himself took no wealth except what is needed for daily living. His greatest undoing was his fanatical evangelism that led to forced conversions, that gave rise to the Maratha and Sikh insurgencies that ultimately broke the Mughal empire.

 

[alamgir]

Dude,

L

emme put it this way, I have finished my MBA from a world top 50 institute, i have worked for a long time abroad and finished my second level of CFA, if you think i am stupid and i cant read the various writers available to me, then all i can say is 'whatever'.

I am really IMPRESS your higher edu. MBA.In your own post no.82 in[villagers death] you confirm that only tree years before you discover that hindu,s have one god which shows clearly how much high education you have

Dancers, singers are bad, what are you taliban?
I am sorry, u might have ingrained all this from childhood, but for us it is art. U r wrong in your history and your way of thinking, and i am sure i cant change your mindset,

I amnot talking about your art or cultur, i am talking about way of govt.tell me how many dancer, joker etc working in indian cabint or PM office or prsident office. 2nd thing iam talking about a muslim empire not hindu one

 

[alamgir]

hundereds of thousands of Hindu's were killed and died in that mountain range.

dear MBA you not wish to understand, In article all ready explain all this happen before islam arrive in central asia

 

[alamgir]

The only good thing about Aurangzeb was that he was a good administrator, he built public works and spent money on the state and not on himself. He himself took no wealth except what is needed for daily living. His greatest undoing was his fanatical evangelism that led to forced conversions, that gave rise to the Maratha and Sikh insurgencies that ultimately broke the Mughal empire.

Forced convesations is a biggest accuse against this great king created by narrow minded brahmins if he realey did that know india is muslim majorty country

 

[Adux]

Forced convesations is a biggest accuse against this great king created by narrow minded brahmins if he realey did that know india is muslim majorty country

narrow minded brahmins? hehhehelol,
You are not going to understand, so its a futile attempt.

 

[Adux]

I amnot talking about your art or cultur, i am talking about way of govt.tell me how many dancer, joker etc working in indian cabint or PM office or prsident office. 2nd thing iam talking about a muslim empire not hindu one

What do i reply to that...lol