Aurangzeb - The Great Ruler

[SarthakGanguly]

Not just in the region, but of all time. However, he could have been better as I mentioned earlier due to obvious reasons such as the fact that he didn't finish exterminating the polytheist pest infestation. If only he went after the babies, then the job would have been done properly and he could be deemed a true Muslim ruler!

In case you haven't noticed, I caught on to your sarcasm.

I am not being sarcastic.

It is based on two different perspectives.

For us non Muslims (as you call polytheist pest), he was a monster and will remain so.
But for Muslims, he was (as you said) probably the best ruler of all time.

But I think you need to look at Sikander Butshikan or Ghaznavi/Ghouri a bit more. But yeah, Alamgir had access to a wider area and could destroy temples far and wide, in every corner of erstwhile India.

If only he went after the babies

That would have been a bit difficult, because temples can't move. People can. In fact, hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Indians actually deserted the towns and moved into the forests during his reign to evade forced conversion. Getting people in the net is slightly more difficult.

Also I doubt the fanaticism of his soldiers as well. They probably did not have much enthusiasm in implementing his edicts to the letter. Had he had more foreign soldiers (which he did, but perhaps more), this 'problem' could have been avoided.

 

[Hamza913]

I am not being sarcastic.

It is based on two different perspectives.

For us non Muslims (as you call polytheist pest), he was a monster and will remain so.
But for Muslims, he was (as you said) probably the best ruler of all time.

But I think you need to look at Sikander Butshikan or Ghaznavi/Ghouri a bit more. But yeah, Alamgir had access to a wider area and could destroy temples far and wide, in every corner of erstwhile India.

I already told you, my comment was sarcastic. You therefore cannot quote it as my actual beliefs.

The fact is Aurangzeb is unnecessarily demonised. A lot of what he did was retaliatory and is exaggereted significantly by Hindu nationalists.

Ghaznavi was great too, he was dedicated to spreading Islam throughout the sub continent and gave India it's first sizeable Muslim population. Without him, there may have not been this many Muslims across the region and as a result, potentially no Pakistan.

Don't know much about Ghori though.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

I already told you, my comment was sarcastic. You therefore cannot quote it as my actual beliefs.

The fact is Aurangzeb is unnecessarily demonised. A lot of what he did was retaliatory and is exaggereted significantly by Hindu nationalists.

Ghaznavi was great too, he was dedicated to spreading Islam throughout the sub continent and gave India it's first sizeable Muslim population. Without him, there may have not been this many Muslims across the region and as a result, potentially no Pakistan.

Don't know much about Ghori though.

Again you are trying to build a common narrative.
That is not possible.

For Muslims Aurangzeb was great. For non Muslims, he was terrible. It is as simple as that. And both shall never meet. Let's accept this and move on.

 

[Hamza913]

Again you are trying to build a common narrative.
That is not possible.

For Muslims Aurangzeb was great. For non Muslims, he was terrible. It is as simple as that. And both shall never meet. Let's accept this and move on.

Opinion doesn't equate to fact. Fact is he expanded the Mughal empire to its peak strength and was one of the richest men in the world at the time.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

Fact is he expanded the Mughal empire to its peak strength and was one of the richest men in the world at the time.

Yeah, that is not disputed. He extended the empire to the limit.

I am talking about perception. The topic says 'Aurangzeb the GREAT ruler'.

My point is that he was great for Islam, terrible for the rest. That's all.

Ghaznavi was great too, he was dedicated to spreading Islam throughout the sub continent and gave India it's first sizeable Muslim population. Without him, there may have not been this many Muslims across the region and as a result, potentially no Pakistan.

Exactly. First part is a perception.
The last sentence is a fact.

 

[Hamza913]

Yeah, that is not disputed. He extended the empire to the limit.

I am talking about perception. The topic says 'Aurangzeb the GREAT ruler'.

My point is that he was great for Islam, terrible for the rest. That's all.


Exactly. First part is a perception.
The last sentence is a fact.

Yes but your point is opinion. Factually, in order to determine if Aurangzeb and the likes were great or not, you have to look at what they accomplished.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

Factually, in order to determine if Aurangzeb and the likes were great or not, you have to look at what they accomplished.

No. Not really.

Greatness itself is subjective.

 

[Hamza913]

No. Not really.

Greatness itself is subjective.

If someone has achieved major things, they can be defined as great. Aurangzeb achieved major things, as we all know. He is therfore factually great.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

If someone has achieved major things, they can be defined as great. Aurangzeb achieved major things, as we all know. He is therfore factually great.

Nope. Here you are wrong. Learn to learn the difference. Use of subjective adjectives does not qualify as facts.
Say he was a powerful ruler. A distinguished military commander.
But 'Great'ness is subjective. Islamic states will consider him 'Great'. Not others.

 

[Hamza913]

Asalamu Alaikum

@waz

Could I please get this thread moved to the history section?