great sultan aurangzab alamgir

[sword9]

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

Aurangzeb ordered the beheading of Guru Teg Bahadur, and sawing off his 2 followers in Chandni Chowk, Old Delhi, for refusing to convert to islam. These was all that the people needed to see. What "brahmin popaganda" do you speak off, when there were real life examples of brutality? Not to forget the religious tax "jazia" that all non-muslims had to pay.

How would you like it, if you muslims were made to pay "jazia" in a country where they are a minority?

 

[niaz]

I am amused at the emotinally charged debate in this thread; as a student of history, I dont look at kings /sultans as to how good Muslims or Hindus or Christians they were in their personal belief. One should judge as to their deeds and what happened to the kingdom after they were gone.

No doubt Alamgir, last of the great mughals, was a very pious muslim and lived a relatively austere life. I have a book of letters sent by him to various functionaries and to his father; compiled by then his "munshi" or secratry who was a native of Thatha in Sindh. In this he comes out in very good light, but this covers only the period when he was a prince and acting as governor in Deccan.

Let us for the moment ignore his actions against the Sikhs mainly because all kings are ruthless and any activities considered seditious have to be quelled without mercy or else they will not remain kings for very long. ( This is true for modern dictators as well; look at actions of Saddam Hussein). We just examine his other political actions.

1. Aurangzeb was the third son, he fought and eliminated his elder brothers and also his ally the younger Prince Murad and kept his father in prison for a very long time. Thus he was a very cruel and ruthless man and the one who didnot hesitate to usurp the throne from his sick father.

2. He wasted most of the empire's resources in the war with Shivaji marhatta. This resulted in him being away from Delhi for 15 years and thus neglecting important administartional matters. He even died in the south.

3. Direct result of this waste of resources was that in less than 20 years, an empire that covered most of the subcontinent was reduced to Delhi and nearby territories; not dissimilar to the break of Soviet Union soon after defeat in Afghanistan.

In the light of the above I view Alamgir as essentailly a bad king and not a worthy successor to the great Taimur/ Babur lineage.

 

[Adux]

One cannot judge history by the laws of today.

There is a temple in kerala called Sabrimala where one has to pay respects to babur as he was the friend of the King who ruled the lands before entring the temple.

Among the muslim kings of North india
Aurangezeb, Ghazanvi, Ghauri etc are considered murderers,looters, invaders
while
Babur, Akbar, Tipu Sultan and Hyder Ali are supposed to be one of the best Kings India ever had.

 

[niaz]

One cannot judge history by the laws of today.

There is a temple in kerala called Sabrimala where one has to pay respects to babur as he was the friend of the King who ruled the lands before entring the temple.

Among the muslim kings of North india
Aurangezeb, Ghazanvi, Ghauri etc are considered murderers,looters, invaders
while
Babur, Akbar, Tipu Sultan and Hyder Ali are supposed to be one of the best Kings India ever had.

Naturally, as an Indian you have every right to look at the historical events with a different perspective. However, the fact is that probably Mahmood Ghaznavi is the only adventurer who could be called all of the above, as his adventures into India were primarily to grab wealth. Sultan Moizuddin Sam aka Ghauri, had Punjab under his control anyway ( Ghaznavi had annexed Punjab and his line ruled from Lahore for more than a hundred yeard after being thrown out of Afghanistan and Iran). Ghauri was actually invited to attack Prithvi Raj Chauhan by Jai Chand of Qanouj. Additionally, the conquest of India was carried out by his generals and he himself returned to Ghor soon after the 2nd battle of Tarian.

Aurangzeb, on the other hand, was a born Indian. Certainly not a marauder or a looter. Most of his actions were either to consolidate his rule ( against his brothers) and subsequently to quell rebellion. True he was very harsh against the Sikhs but no different from any other Indian potentates, say Rajputs against an insurrection. His major actions; excluding against Shivaji, were against the Muslim Kingdoms of Golkanda and Bijapour ( states of Nizam of Hyderabad). Golconda was a rich state with diamond mines, and like any greedy king, Alamgir grabbed it.

I am not praising Alamgir in any way, and I think he was a bad king but a lot of critcism is unjustified. Only exception is the 'Jizia' or poll tax. This had been levied off and on by various rulers until abolished by Akbar.

Regret to say that the subcontinent, of which I am a native as well, has had a history of very few good kings ( Muslim or Hindu) and very many bad kings. That is why there have only been two kings whom the historians call 'great' namely Asoka and Akbar, and this in a period of 4,000 years is pitifully small.

 

[joey]

Believing the above article is same as believing the article on Jesus being Hindu.

Ashoka was great but did a lot of atrocities i like his later life, I would like chandragupta more or the southern chola dynasty.

Akbar was Akbar, period.aurangazeb is not even legs comparison with akbar.the amount of atrocities he did which are documented by eminent writers with archeological surveys and not pro's which circulates in geocities.

 

[alamgir]

Aurangzeb ordered the beheading of Guru Teg Bahadur, and sawing off his 2 followers in Chandni Chowk, Old Delhi, for refusing to convert to islam. These was all that the people needed to see. What "brahmin popaganda" do you speak off, when there were real life examples of brutality? Not to forget the religious tax "jazia" that all non-muslims had to pay.

How would you like it, if you muslims were made to pay "jazia" in a country where they are a minority?

aurangzab not only fight against sikhs but also agianst muslims kings in south because he not allowed any one to make state in side the empire, many of sikh guru,s also fight with rajpoots of present himachal pardesh,he was a king not elected by the peoples as indra and rajav both mother son kill more sikh,s then aurangzab

 

[dabong1]

Aurangzeb ordered the beheading of Guru Teg Bahadur, and sawing off his 2 followers in Chandni Chowk, Old Delhi, for refusing to convert to islam.

You need to check your history.The guru was going around saying he was god.
Aurangzeb was told about this and asked for the guru to be bought infront of him to repeat what he has been saying in public.
The guru came infront of Aurangzeb and claimed he was god.
At this Aurangzeb had the gurus head chopped off.
If the guru was god what was the problem with him putting his head back on and coming back to life?

How would you like it, if you muslims were made to pay "jazia" in a country where they are a minority?

Do you know what "jazia" tax is?
Muslims pay zakat tax in a islamic country.
Being a non muslim you can not pay zakat.
So what islam says is that all non muslims pay jizya.
The advantage of jizya over zakat is that you do not have to serve in defence of the country or fight against people of the same faith as yourselfs.
Everybody has to pay tax in a country what do you want that muslims pay there tax's and non muslim dont?
So the answer to your question yes i would love to pay jizya tax if i lived in india so long as i did not have to fight for the country and if the state could not protect i would get my money back...that is what would happin in proper islamic country.
I think jizya you pay 1% more then you would if you where paying zakat hardly a amount that would bankrupt you.