Clearing dust off Aurangzeb’s image




By Prof. M.H. Jawahirullah


(In this piece, Prof. M.H. Jawahirullah, President of Tamilnadu Muslim Munnetra Kazhagam (TMMK), counters claims by artist Francois Gautier about his exhibition on Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb held at Chennai.)

To begin with: Tamilnadu Muslim Munnetra Kazhagam (TMMK) strongly condemns Francois Gautier for his lies, innuendos and calumnies regarding his exhibition held at Chennai.



[Photo from thoughtsdecoded.com]

Gautier alleges that the Prince of Arcot Nawab Abdul Ali sent a group of goons from TMMK to disturb the exhibition. He also describes TMMK volunteers as the Prince’s ‘henchmen’. This is his sheer imagination and fantasy and portrays his sick mind. The Prince of Arcot neither contacted us regarding the virulent exhibition of Gautier nor would we send our volunteers at the beck and call of the Nawab.

There is a Tamil proverb which says that a single rice is enough to judge the quality of a pot full of cooked rice. Similarly, Gautier’s allegation against the Nawab and TMMK is enough to judge his sincerity and honesty in reporting history. When Gautier cannot report a contemporary event faithfully and truthfully one can very easily judge the veracity of his version of Mughal history depicted in his exhibition.

A galaxy of Hindu historians whose faithfulness are not stained as that of Gautier have strongly refuted the version of Mughal history as depicted by the likes of Gautier. The famous 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 as 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.”

Gautier claims that he organised the exhibition on Aurangzeb to show “Aurangzeb as he was according to his own records.” However, in his exhibition hosted at Lalit Kala Academy in Chennai, there was not a single exhibit to show that 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. Further, we could not see an exhibit depicting two of the highest ranked generals in Aurangzeb’s administration, Jaswant Singh and Jaya Singh who 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?

Aurangzeb had 148 Hindu high officials in his court. (Sharma: Mughal History). We could have appreciated Gautier as a faithful historian if he had an exhibit depicting this fact. Alas, he was serving His Master’s viz., the Sangh Parivar’s sentiments.



Aurangzeb Mosque [Photo from http://www.amrita-it.com]

Gautier in his exhibits has depicted Aurangzeb as the person who ordered demolishing of Hindu temples. However, he himself in his write-up (“Freedom Gagged,” New Indian Express, 10th March 2008) has given Aurangzeb the certificate of being a true, pious, Muslim. He further adds strength to his statement by stating that Aurangzeb copied the Holy Quran himself and stiched Muslim caps. When this is the fact how can a saintly man indulge in vandalism as alleged by Gautier? The Quran prohibits any Muslim to impose his will on a non-Muslim by stating that “There is no compulsion in religion.” (surah al-Baqarah 2:256). Another verse states: “To you is your religion and to me is mine.” It would be totally unbecoming of a learned scholar of Islam of his calibre, as Aurangzeb was known to be, to do things that are contrary to the dictates of the Quran.

Interestingly, the 1946 edition of the history textbook “Etihas Parichaya” (Introduction to History) used in Bengal for the 5th and 6th graders states: “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 Banares, Kashmir and elsewhere. The official documentations for these land grants are still extant.”

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.” (p. 138) 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.

Gautier in his vituperative article has raised the question as to how Aurangzeb has become “a hero to the Nawab of Arcot and his henchmen”. It is not the question of whether Aurangzeb is a hero or not. We would like to point out that it is the question of depicting history faithfully to the present and future citizens of this country. In this connection Gautier has mentioned about the jizya tax imposed by Aurangzeb. It is true that jizya was lifted during the reign of Akbar and Jahangir and that Aurangzeb later reinstated this.

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 defence 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. In return 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 zakat (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 folds than that of non-Muslims. Further to Aurangzeb’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 losses. Why is Gautier who claims that he was careful to show Aurangzeb according to his own documents failed to depict this fact.

The late scholar and historian, Dr. Bishma Narain Pande’s research efforts blasted myths on Aurangzeb’s rule. They also offer an excellent example of what history has to teach us if only we study it dispassionately. Dr. Pande had to deal with a land dispute between two temple priests. One of them had filed in evidence some firmans (royal orders) to prove that Aurangzeb had, besides cash, gifted the land in question for the maintenance of his temple. Might they not be fake, Dr. Pande thought, in view of Aurangzeb’s fanatically anti–Hindu image? He showed them to his friend, Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru, a distinguished lawyer as well a great scholar of Arabic and Persian. He was also a Brahmin. Sapru examined the documents and declared they were genuine firmans issued by Aurangzeb. For Dr. Pande this was a ‘new image of Aurangzeb’; so he wrote to the chief priests of the various important temples, all over the country, requesting photocopies of any firman issued by Aurangzeb that they may have in their possession. The response was overwhelming; he got firmans from several principal Hindu and Jain temples, even from Sikh Gurudwaras in northern India. These firmans, issued between 1659 and 1685, related to grant of jagir (large parcel of agricultural lands) to support regular maintenance of these places of worship. Why is it that Gautier could not mention anything about these firmans in his exhibiton?

Dr Pande’s research showed that Aurangzeb was as solicitous of the rights and welfare of his non–Muslim subjects as he was of his Muslim subjects. Hindu plaintiffs received full justice against their Muslim respondents and, if guilty, Muslims were given punishment as necessary.

One of the greatest charges against Aurangzeb is of the demolition of Vishwanath Temple in Banaras (Varanasi). That was a fact, but Dr. Pande unravelled the reason for it. “While Aurangzeb was passing near Varanasi on his way to Bengal, the Hindu Rajas in his retinue requested that if the halt was made for a day, their Ranis may go to Varanasi, have a dip in the Ganges and pay their homage to Lord Vishwanath. Aurangzeb readily agreed.

“Army pickets were posted on the five mile route to Varanasi. The Ranis made journey on the palkis (palanquins). They took their dip in the Ganges and went to the Vishwanath Temple to pay their homage. After offering puja (worship) all the Ranis returned except one, the Maharani of Kutch. A thorough search was made of the temple precincts but the Rani was to be found nowhere. “When Aurangzeb came to know of this, he was very much enraged. He sent his senior officers to search for the Rani. Ultimately they found that statue of Ganesh which was fixed in the wall was a moveable one. When the statue was moved, they saw a flight of stairs that led to the basement. To their horror they found the missing Rani dishonoured and crying deprived of all her ornaments. The basement was just beneath Lord Vishwanath’s seat.”

The Rajas demanded salutary action, and “Aurangzeb ordered that as the sacred precincts have been despoiled, Lord Vishwanath may be moved to some other place, the temple be razed to the ground and the Mahant (head priest) be arrested and punished.” ( Pande, Bishma Narain, Islam and Indian Culture, Khuda Bakhsh Oriental Public Library, Patna, 1987).

Gautier claims that a lot of historical research was done for this exhibition. We can judge the standard of ‘historical research’ while viewing his partisan exhibition at Chennai.

Comments

Facts speak for themself.

There are many in lies in this article. Take for example the distruction Kashi temple. Entire life of this ruler is well recorded. There is no record of his travel to Kashi. There is no record of this thing taken place. Can the author tell us from there he has got this story??? No where. This is lie our leftist people tell.

The orders of this man to destroy the temples and the temple destruction that has take place is well recorded. Killing of countless Hindus is also well recorded. I can give other lies in this article also. But it makes no point in arguing with communist and muslim writers who are bent upon telling lies??

But who is going to duped even now????

R.L.N.Rao

Hypocrit exposed.

Your comments is just a baseless hypocritical attack on the author. The article is full of sources and quotes from various authors.
You seem to have done a very selective reading. Here are some of the quoted authors and books in the article.
1. Babu Nagendranath Banerjee's work.
2. Sharma: Mughal History
3. Gautier and his ariticle in indian express
4. 1946 edition of the history textbook “Etihas Parichaya” (Introduction to History)
5. Stone inscription on the temple(can be easily verified by anyone willing to do so and proved false)
6.Alexander Hamilton
7. Dr. Bishma Narain Pande
8. Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru
9.Pande, Bishma Narain, Islam and Indian Culture, Khuda Bakhsh Oriental Public Library, Patna, 1987(This is where the story of Kashi Viswanath temple comes from if you failed to notice in the article. It is not a figment of the authors imagination as you would like us to believe).

It seems that the author of the article has done a very good job of quoting sources whereas you have just spit vile without substance.
If you cannot be open minded enough to see this at least learn to keep your mouth shut.

Re: Aurangzeb

what purpose is this article serving except for expanding the divide. If we Indian don't look forward then whatever we have left with will be lost . Is this what we want to leave our kids with .. a legacy of hatred.

Aurangzeb - an intolerant Muslim ruler

Dear Sir,

You seem to have been clouded by the 'research' of Pande. The story told by Pande about the destruction of Kashi Vishwanath temple is repeated by Jawarullah. Perhaps they do not know that the story is completely fabricated without a bit of truth (except the fact that the temple was destroyed by Mughals). The entire period of Aurangzeb's reign has been completely recorded. He has never visited Kashi let alone Bengal.
The proof of Pande is a book by Pattabhi Sitaramayya. His proof is nothing but the 'words' of a Muslim cleric who 'claimed' that he has the relevant documents which 'prove' the 'story' true. Sitaramayya himself never saw the paper even once. But Aurangzeb's biographers clearly mention that the destruction of Kashi temple was done by the Mughal soldiers and the news of the destruction (along with the destruction of many temples) was conveyed to Aurangzeb at his 'court'. (Kindly refer to Koenraad Elst's article on this issue). What should be considered as evidence - mere words of a mullah or the contemporary records?

And what is this comedy about Pande being a 'Hindu' historian? My dear friend, communists claim to be atheist. They are not Hindu historians but communist historians.

Then Pande has claimed that hundreds of firmans issued by Aurangzeb for grants to temples were seen by him. If it is so, can we see the copies of those hundreds of firmans? Pande has been shown to write 'fanciful bullshit' stories as history (see above). Therefore, forgive us if we are not ready to accept his 'mere words'. Also, can Pande or anyone deny that Aurangzeb ordered the destruction of temples, imposed Jiziya on Hindus, prohibited the public celebration of Hindu festivals like Diwali, Holi etc? All the above said items are mentioned by Aurangzeb's biographers.

The claim that a pious Muslim will not destroy temples is utterly ridiculous. Perhaps you have not read the Quran and the Hadiths properly. Kindly read the Quran's final ruling (overruling the previous 'revelations' by the doctrine of abrogation) on Jihad which is found in Quran 9-5. If you want to read more about the intolerance of pious Muslims (especially against idolaters), you can read the Hadiths on Jihad.

Just because Aurangzeb had some Hindu jagirdars, it does not make him secular. Some Indians were given top positions under the British rule. It does not mean that the British did not treat Indian society as slaves nor does it give legitimacy to the British rule of India. There were Jews in Nazi army. Does that disprove that Hitler killed 6 million Jews or that Hitler was anti-Semitic? Such silly statements show the kind of 'historians' that you have cited and whose school you wish to follow.

Finally, we come to the issue of the donations made to a few temples by Aurangzeb. Do these donations change the fact (proved by his biographies) that he was instrumental in destroying thousands of Hindu temples? The answer is a huge no. So what has to be done is to investigate as to what made Aurangzeb to give these donations and as to why such exceptions (as opposed to the normal policy of destroying temples) are found. Just as we must investigate as to why Hitler employed Jewish soldiers.

As to the claim made by the 1946 Bengal history book (may I remind you that this book was published in the Muslim majority unified Bengal), the claim that no Hindu temple will exist if Aurangzeb had ordered a wholesale destruction of temples is once again ridiculous. We can see from his biographies that he did order so. That there are still many ancient temples remaining in India is because of the simple reason that Aurangzeb was not in complete control of every part of his empire. There were kingdoms outside his control as well (like the Marathas, Assam etc). Also, many temples destroyed by him were subsequently rebuilt.

Read the orthodox commentaries of Quran and Hadiths with an impartial mind. You will find that Islam grew from a tolerant religion during the Mecca phase to an intolerant, bigoted and inhuman (with respect to non-believers) religion in the Meccan stage and the Caliphate period. The same intolerant face of the religion is still being seen by many of us in the form of Bin Laden, terrorists in Kashmir, Al-Qaeda etc.

Aurangzeb

Why the people are not taking in to consideration that Aurangzeb had confined his father also for years together in Agra fort?Whether Shahjahan was also confined on the caste line? The critics do not see thatAurangzeb conspired the killing of his own brothers? Aurangzeb was out and out a king.He was neither Hindu nor Muslim.Had he been a devout Muslim he would have gone for haj pilgrimage and would have named every battle against Maratha or Sikhs or what so ever as Jihad.Aurangzeb,s shadow has recently been seen in Gujrat. If in a democratic and secular state Gujrat and Godhra can happen cospired by an ordinary person who is elected by the votes of the persons ,majority of whom does not understand the politics ,then what was wrong if the monarch Like Aurangzeb did(?) any atricity when he was mighty king of his time.
Donot base your opinions on caste and communal lines.A king can do no wrong.....hope you understand?
adil

Proof of the Hindu inferiority complex

Muslims united India and forged a large country, ruled centrally from Delhi. The Mughals made innovations in administration and they had leadership qualities, that is why they could rule a country larger than present day India.

The only negative effect of Muslim and British rule is that it has led to a lasting inferiority complex in some Hindus. Hindutva arises from this. It is epitomized in Advani s slogan - garv say kaho kay hum Hindu hain. This means that before Advani, the Hindus were ashamed to be Hindus !

So why do Hindus feel bad about being Hindus ? This is what led to Advanis slogan. You do not say see leaders of other communities like Muslims, Sikhs and Christians urging their followers to show pride in their religion.

Only I can explain the latent meaning in the twisted writings of these bloody Hindutva Brahmins. Many chaddhiwalas are admitting the Hindu inferiority complex – the root cause for Hindu chauvinism and insecurity.

Now that the Muslims and British are gone, we should have successfully reverted to Manusmriti and Vedic times !!

So let us examine what the Brahmins Janata Party did to return us to Vedic times – that is the pristine Hindu life, when they drank gomutra and had a cow dung economy, and practised untouchability and sati, unadulterated by Muslim and British influence.

Murali Manohar Joshi was Hindutva minister for education and propaganda.

Here is a case study of what he did to return India to its glorious days before Muslims and Hindus.

(1) Joshi introduced Hindu knowledge like astrology and vasthu shastra in universities. This was derided by the scientific community in India as peddling superstitions, and undermining the credibility of Indian universities.

(2) Joshi introduced legislation saying school girls should not wear skirts as it was a British symbol of slavery. He decreed that the girls should wear salwar kameez – he overlooked the fact that it was a Muslim dress and so would be a symbol of Hindu slavery under the Muslims !!! The legislation had to be withdrawn because the parents protested at having to spend more money for new uniforms.

(3) Joshi and VHP funded research in a Lucknow institution to discover medicines from gomutra ! Foreigners sniggered at India and Hindus.

(4) Joshi instilled Sanskrit teaching in the state schools in UP. Prof. Kancha Illahiah who has analysed the harm done to India by Brahmanism wrote this was another diabolical Brahmin plot to exclude the low castes. The upper castes would be going to English medium schools and getting jobs, and the lower castes will be going to state schools and learning Sanskrit slokas and be unemployable.

I wish that the BJP had enacted a law based on Hindu shastras declaring that it was forbidden for Hindus to cross the ocean and go to Muslim and Christian countries.

The Hindus who deride India as being a failed state since the BJP left are upper castes sitting in America.

MR.R.L.N.RAO

hi Mr. Rao

as now we live where???? in India. ok
so the history which was there pre independence were the real history and got the real hard stuff and now we are in the INDIA and after partition the other part was pakistan and the india so the indian swrote there own history according to the NETAS who came and saw something suspisious about their kings and changed them and saw anything good about other religion king they changed it, so on the other the same happened in PAKISTAN and they had the same NETAS as we have in INDIA and now you tell me that from where you got the proofs about the aurangzeb that he looted the temples and rooted them out. and on the other hand in the WWW.STORYOFPAKISTAN.COM you get the total oppsite story, so from your name i think you are and adult man middle 30-40 so how you know about the aurangzeb just from the neighbours or you have read BRTISH HISTORIANS because i m HIstory Special Student doing his graduation from Cambridge UNIVERSITY and it is in Britain so i get the real stuff

KNOW YOU ANSWER YOUR OWN QUEWSTION AND GIVE ME THE MORE ERRORS FROM THE SAME NOTE AND THEN ALSO GIVE ME THE NAME AND THE AUTHORS OF THE HISTORY BOOKS YOU HAVE READ.

OK MR. RAO BYE TAKE CARE AND KEEP BLOGGING

Aurangazeb/Ghazi

@Ghazi

Aurangazeb was an intolerant, myopic, brutal king who taunted his non-Muslim citizens imposing additional tax, destroying places ofw orship and forcing conversion.

He ascended to his throne by imprisoning his father and killing his brothers. In fact, many Muslim kings througout history have acsended to throne by killing their parents and brothers.

He singularly is responsible for the demise of Mughal empire in india. Because one cannot be a king or a leader if the populace is against you. He made sure citizens weer against him through his actions!

AURANGZEB the GREAT

During the Great Moguls(MUSLIMS) Rule in India, from Shahinsa Jehangir onwards, the Extremist & Fanatic HINDUS, Planned to Connive & Conspire with the slowly arriving British, to make India a Colony of the British(Church of England followers).

From the beginning of British PLAN to Colonize & Enslave India, hundreds of Great MUSLIM Leaders(Jehangir, Shahjehan, Aurangzeb the GREAT, Hafiz Rahmat Khan, Tipu Sultan Shaheed, Sirajud-daula, etc, etc, & MILLIONS of Common-MUSLIMS, RESISTED the British(Church of England followers) by even sacrificing their LIVES to save INDIA from British-Colonization; while MOST of the Extremist & Fanatic HINDUS(similar to Bajrang Dal & VHP, who even today hate muslims), secretly conspired with catholic churches & with British(church of england) in India, to ENSLAVE India from the FREEDOM of Muslim Rule, & to make it a British Colony

Best Regards, Engr-Arshad Ali Khan, UmmaaBroadcasting, Rolla, Missouri-65402, USA

aURANGAZEB

The artcile by Arshad Ali is laughable. he says fanatic Hindus conspired with British to destroy Mogul empire. This utter nonense.Mogul empire was already decaying with Maratha and Sikh resistence. The British only gave a nudge to it. Most of non-muslims in India don't have any problem with British rule. Though it was not very good,but IMO, 1000 times better than brutal Mogul rule.
Raj
Chicago

Re: Aurangzeb

What is laughable Mr Raj (and unfortunate), is the insistence of some people to defame Muslims without proof, which flies in the face of hard facts. According to the Guardian Newspaper (UK) in the mid 1700's 25% of the world's manufacturing output was from India, which was under Mughal/Muslim rule. By 1947 it had dropped to 1% after 200 years of British rule. Any serious scholar of history will tell you about the numerous famines that occured in India during British rule in previously prosperous states, and millions died in those. Not to talk about the sacking and looting of Delhi after the 1857 war. And what about Jallianwallah bagh and other such famous massacres? Aren't their actions in Iraq today an indication of their past brutality?

It is ironic that after they have passed away from the world the great Mughals are criticized by anyone and everyone. Dont they realise that if Muslims were brutal, there would not be 80% Hindu's left in India after 800 years of Muslim rule? Would the defenceless Hindu subjects been able to stand against the mightly Mughal armies? Have those who slander the Mughals forgotten the advice Babar gave his son when he asked him to be careful of the rights of his Hindu subjects? Or have they forgotten Akbar and his favours and Hindu high officials? Or Jahangir and his bell of justice, or when he was ready to sentence his queen to death because she shot a common washerman? Or Aurangzeb and his hundreds of 'Firmans' granting land and resources to Hindu temples? Till the time of Jahangir and Aurangzeb there were free sarai's all over India where weary travellers could rest (not paid hotels) and free medical care was provided by government appointed hakeems and vaids all over the country, so that the people could be at ease.

Read history from original sources dear brother, and do not fall for those who twist history for short term personal and political gains. The Mughals had their faults (as do Muslims today) no doubt, but in doing all of the above they were only following Islam which teaches us to work for the good of the creation of Allah, for all of humanity is His creation, and the dearest of creation to God is mankind.

Peace,
Tariq

TARIQ - BRAIN IS MIGHTIER THAN SWORD

THE HINDUS WERE MORE INTELLIGENT AND HINDUISM IS THE MOST POWERFUL RELIGION IN THE WORLD. EACH ONE OF US IS BORN A HINDU TILL BAPTISM/ CIRCUMCISION. THE NATURE IS THE ULTIMATE GOD. THE HINDU GODS LIKE SUN, WATER, WIND, SEA, TREE, EARTH ETC ETC.. ARE THE TRUE GOD WHICH SUSTAIN LIFE ON THIS EARTH. THAT IS WHY HINDUISM SUSTAINED IN INDIA WITH 800 YEARS OF MUSLIM RULE AND 150 YEARS OF CHRISTIAN RULE, WHILE THE ANCIENT RELIGIONS IN ARABIA, AMERICA, AUSTRALIA ETC SUCCUMBED TO THE ONSLAUGHT OF ISLAM/ CHRISTIANITY

To Anonymous- who posted BRAIN IS MIGHTIER THAN SWORD

HI anonym.... its late to Reply ur post , but still i cant stop myself to write u reply after reading few lines of urs....
HINDU GODS LIKE SUN, WATER, WIND, SEA, TREE, EARTH ETC ETC.blah blah

you Worship the Creation

We (muslim) Worship Creator....

AURANGZEB the GREAT ??

Shivaji the Great
Shivaji the Great
Shivaji the Great
Shivaji the Great
Shivaji the Great
Shivaji the Great

this picture is a shame for

this picture is a shame for all indians because many of hindus' parent were migrated from other part of world{see ancient indian history} rather than many muslims parent who converted on their own are the oldest inhabitants of the land which today we call india[you can take any part of it] but some mauntain rats played fanatic in the hand of english attackers n looters and played to weaken the INDIA.
YOU KNOW IN THE SAME FASHION TODAY THEIR DIRTY BLOOD IS DOING IN MUMBAI in the name of biharis or in assam or in tamilnadu or any part of india in different names.

why you are proud of PAHADI CHUHA???????????

hi Vikas

you just know that shivaji killed by false means to Afzal Khan, the Gneral, but ever thought that AURANGZEB ALAMGIR killed the son of the MR.Shivaji like a ant , first pulled the eyes and the tongue and the taken out the skins and the tored apart like a leaf.

IN THSI PIC HE JUST STABBED HIM AND HE DIED THATS ALL. BUT THINKS WHAT HAPPENED TO SHAMBHAJI WHAT OYU CALL DHARAMVIR SORT OF THING. JUST THINK HOW AURANGZEB TOOK THE REVENGE OF HIS COLLGUIES IN SUCH A GREAT WAY.............

oh yea??? how convenient...

oh yea??? how convenient... now Hindus become conspirators and Mughals become the son of the soil right...!

btw go back to history to c who ditched Tipu sultan...it was your own nawab from deccan...

and which mughal died at the hand of the british...?????
for your information your esteemed last mughal ruler surrendered to the british and begged for mercy...he was kicked out to burma and died a rotten death!

and btw wat makes u think the Hindus conspired??? dont u know the great kings and queens who dies fighting the british...and who is the Father of the Nation????

it is because of people like u that parties like BJP,SS make a living !

any one who you are , first

any one who you are , first of all oy uknoe nothin gabout history and you are are proud of you r Kings who took the penstion from the BRITISHERS and then survived their lives like a PALTU DOGS and never stood agains BRITISHERS, but i m proud that the BAHADUR SHAH ZAFAR DIED a soldiers death he never took pension , but only in the prison the rangoon he was under them and THE BRITISHERS KILLED THE SONS OF THE GREAT EMPOROR OF INDIA not the simply king of their own small cities SO THINK ABOUT AND THEN START BLOGGING OR ASKING ANY HTING HERE MR ANYONE WHO YOU ARE..............
FOOLS ARE ALWAYS FOOLS, NO MATTER YOU SAY THEM INTELLIGENT.

All: History is not what it

All: History is not what it always seem to be.

Pl. read this and then form your own opinion: http://satyameva-jayate.org/2008/04/05/lies-and-half-truths-part-2/

Aurangzeb

Dear All,
I have been doing research on Aurangzeb and trying to understand his real image in history, i have come across to some good books like BN Pandy's, letters of aurangzeb,etc. but still i need to read more and see the proofs with my own eyes. if anybody knows the sources of those farmaans or any document, please let me know also if you would like to suggest unbaised book, please suggest me.
Thank you,
Regards
Aftab Alam

History of Sultan Aurangzeb (Urdu Audio)

Assalaamualaikum Aftab Sb,

Please visit the following link and click on "Histoy of Sultan Aurangzeb", which is a wonderfully well researched 7-hour audio history of his life and times, quoting original sources of historians of the Mughal period:

http://www.seerat.net/audio.html

The scholar presenting this is an illustrious student of Maulana Abul Hasan Ali Nadwi (rah) of Nadwatul Ulama, Lucknow.

Tariq

aurangzeb the worst fanatic muslim ruler who demolished temples

dear tariq ji ive read ur article on aurangzeb projecting him as a ruler who ruled his people equally irrespective of their religion , caste,etc. in telugu there is a proverb feeding a person with ghee till it overflowed from his mouth and then beating him till he shits everything he had eaten. this example exactly suits to hitler of mughal times mr. aurangzeb(the evil incarnate).auranzeb had done more cruelties against hindus than favours during his reign.if u want hindus to believe that aurangzeb was actually secular and he destroyed the temples like kasi vishwanath for it was dishonoured. then it is like making the iraqis beliieve that george bush of america was actually a benevolent person and he is developing their country. whether it is good or bad u would be keep losing majority in iraq for the coming thousand years if u were to conduct opinion poll on bush and his army.the horrors of islamic rule in india till the advent of british rule in india is totally ingrained in the minds of hindus. u cannot change the mindest of hindus who know that timurs, ghazani, ghoris, babur and moghul empire stood only for religious expansion of islam , conversions, killing,looting , pillaging, raping, destruction of temples.if aurangzeb was innocent in kasi vishwanath temple destruction, then u people can also make hitler a noble leader,telling that hitler was not responsible for the killing of 60 million jews but he gave employment to them in concentration camps which even jews hailed as abodes of heaven and that there are historians like pande, mukherjee and others ready with proofs and quotations, references. mr tareeq, ur article reminds me of another telugu proverb , a passer by asked a stranger scaling the toddy tree,that why was he scaling the tree, the stranger anwered him that he was going up the toddy tree for cows milk,.anybody would answer the purpose of toddy tree is toddy and not cows milk. like wise aurangzeb destroyed temples because he was zealot and anti hindus.aurangzeb was responsible for hindus kashmir pundits massacre and the subsequent rise of hindu sikhs. the insulting taxes had a sinister design to weaken hindus strength and induce conversions.which resulted in the rised of marathas, the jats, the assames under chatrasal,. he was a sunni and he spent his whole life destroying the shia kingdoms of the south.tareeq ji know that it is muslims who divided the indian subcontinent.if islam respects democracy and nationalism why would we see today pakistan and bangladesh based on islam. where ever muslims are in a majority like in kashmeer they start commotion and fight for a seperate state driving the original hindu inhabitants like kashmiri pundits from their home land. where as for the same muslims they want the whole world support the palestinian cause who are the original inhabitants of israel and jews whoare foreigners and who came from egypt. such is the split tounge attitude of amuslim.

Re: Aurangzeb the worst fanatic ?

So Aurangzeb, the Mughal with a Hindu prime minister, the man in whose name over 300 farmans with 'jaagirs' for building new temples were issued, was a fanatic? And the Mughals - who cared for our beloved country India like the apple of their eye, made her into one of the greatest cultural centres and powerful empires in the world and restored her ancient glory - were fanatics and murderers? I have quoted from historians of the time; where did you learn history, the local RSS office?

Fine, if that makes you happier... time will tell who is right.

As they say, you can wake up the sleeping person, but who can wake up the wide awake??

praising Aurzangazeb and

praising Aurzangazeb and cribbing about Modi and Togadia is double standards at itz worst!

tareeq anwar the huji terrorist,beware he supports aurangzeb

mr.tareeq, salaam.i have already said in the prior article that aurangzeb's merit must be counted on the atrocities he committed on the hindu subjects rather than than the favours which if there were any should be discounted.the moral is that nobody requires ur favours but atleast donot harm others.you stated that my painting of aurangzeb as terrorist was from the local r.s.s. office. then i have quote a proverb to u for ur early recovery from total ignorance, moorkasya naasthi aushadham(sanskrit)which means a person who always sticks to his foolish mind cannot be changed.to prove that aurangzeb was a zealot i need not get any information from rss office.under britsh rule many soldiers, police were indians and actually they beat all the freedom fighters.should we mean since there were many indians under british rule , the british rule actually fought for the ancient glory,apple of their eye,bla bla bla... such other ideas fall to the ground.like wise aurangzeb a descendent of a foriegner babur used the state craft for an islamic empire where the hindu officials under him could do nothing.u go and comment before the hindu sikhs that aurangzeb was not responsible for the killings of hindu sikh gurus.it is like i am showing the image of prophet mahammad(letprophet change tareeq anwar to normal mental condition)to muslims in public and convincing them that there is no wrong in worshipping him in image than allah(swet).so listen carefully my feelings are hurt being a hindu to read that auranzeb was secular.

Mughals glorifying India - my foot!!!

Mr Tareeq, those who are benevolent do not invade others' lands. That's the simplest fact. There cannot be anything more ridiculous than calling Mughal era as glory for India. It's like someone coming to your home, snatching all money from your home and then buying two chocolates for your kids - will you say he glorified your home?
The great "glorious" buildings raised in India, are gifts by the emperors to their countless wives - be it Taj-mahal or Shalimar Baug. They are raised at the expense of Indian masses, Indian prosperity, taxes on Indian subjects. For that matter, all Islamic building reflect Mughal architecture and not the native Indian architecture. Its' copy of the structures erected in Kabul, Kandahar, Samarkand and Istanbuls - nothing is influenced from the local structures.
Please give some sensible arguments.

the Mughals the glory for India??????????

Hi Mr. Sandeep

you just gave the information that the mughals came to india as invaders and then errected the big forts for their wives, so for this that mughals came as invaders is not true , its not true that as im a muslim i will say, but its the proofs that tell according british historian as they dont have our habits thet its my king so he is piuos and your is not. So the fact is that when BABUR was in Afghanistan at that time it was IBRAHIN LODI who was ruling the Delhi so his associates who were nit happy with him were against him didnt have enough power to get his throne so in this way way called BABUR from Afghanistan, so that he will defeat hism and then the culpurets of IBRAHIM LODI will rule his throne but happened like this that he saw means BABUR saw there was no ruler from INDIA after IBRAHIM LODI whether its muslom or the hindu anyone , so he would have thought for the throne and started ruling but only four year and then he died so in this way he deteated IBRAHIM LODI in the first battle of Paniput and he was the FIRST PERSON TO WIN THE WAR AGAINT IBRAHIM LODI WHO WAS HAVING MASSIVE ARMY AND ON the hand BABUR comnparatively less, its because of the TOPS, artillary he bought from Afghanistan , before this war the war used to happen only with the BOW AND ARROW without any effect and the Swords and if he would have been an invader so he would have been looted the whole INDIA, like NADIR SHAH AND HIS GENERAL and would have gone there, for your question theta if someone comes come to your place and then take yoru money and everything and buys to chockales for your children, but here the whole house empty and no one was there so he tried and established the throne. AND there after they ruled INDIA for almost 350 years so its possible for an empire to keep fighting with its PRAJA and rule, its nowhere possible its was the support of the PRAJA also for this only they ruled so far than the Brtishers. SO now it means you got your asnwers if know again ask ill try to answer the question sother then Mughals AS im as student OF HISTIOR SPECIAL through ARTS. KK BYE TAKE CARE.

Aurangi The Great

In my childhood I remember even the Government documents also used to mention that Tipu Sultan committed umpteen atrocities including forced circumsion in an around Srirangapattanam. But off late Different Political parties started competion for secularism.Today he is hailed as hero. I guess it is the same case with Aurengzeb - The Hero, The most pios,bhal bhah blah.
Going by the same standard it is not a wonder if our brothers openly celebrate centenaries lauding the acheivement of Dawood Ibrahim. There will be stories that he was the most secular because he employed Hindus and ungreatful Hindus stabbed him in the back by leaving him after the 1992 Blasts.
Then goes the adventerous story of how Mr Dawood Manged to escape to Pakisthan and served the Humanity(Read Ummah)
This is indeed sad state,but I think nothing can be done as it has become a global phenomenon sweeping the Europe too.
God Save the World!

Aurangazeb and Tipu Sultan were both Islamic Fanatics.

"Aurangzeb copied the Holy Quran himself and stiched Muslim caps. When this is the fact how can a saintly man indulge in vandalism as alleged by Gautier? The Quran prohibits any Muslim to impose his will on a non-Muslim by stating that “There is no compulsion in religion.” (surah al-Baqarah 2:256)."

- Muslims believe that breaking idols gets them to Jennath. Where else can "Aurangi" find idols than Hindu temples. stitching caps has nothing to do with it.
- “There is no compulsion in religion.” (surah al-Baqarah 2:256)." but is contradicted by Islamic practice itself
- Muslims must Pray facing Macca- compulsion
- Muslims must Pray in a specific way- compulsion
- Muslims must Believe that Allah is the only GOD and Muhammad---- compulsion.
- Muslims must Perform Haj- compulsion
- Muslims must Dress differently to Kafirs- compulsion.
So Islam is a religion of compulsions and above surah has no relevance.

- Tipu also gave donations to temples in Mysore as he had to keep his Hindu subjects in his fiefdom - Mysore happy while he is out fighting Jehad against neighbors but resorted to forced conversion when he invaded Calicut.
So both Tipu and Aurangazeb were both fanatics and their dynasty was eclipsed after their Tenure- Mughals degenerated and Tipu exterminated.

dear brothers dont make a

dear brothers dont make a issue plz.v all shud be united and come common terms between all of us.

This IS in reference to

This IS in reference to comment posted by Submitted by A Nair (not verified) on 2 March 2009 - 9:07pm.I AM WRITING ANSWERS TO IT.
Muslims believe that breaking idols gets them to Jennath. Where else can "Aurangi" find idols than Hindu temples. stitching caps has nothing to do with it.
- “There is no compulsion in religion.” (surah al-Baqarah 2:256)." but is contradicted by Islamic practice itself
- Muslims must Pray facing Macca- compulsion
- Muslims must Pray in a specific way- compulsion
- Muslims must Believe that Allah is the only GOD and Muhammad---- compulsion.
- Muslims must Perform Haj- compulsion
- Muslims must Dress differently to Kafirs- compulsion.
I AM WRITING ANSWERS TO IT.
NO COMPULSION OF RELIGION APPLIES TO NON MUSLIMS.
IT DOESNT APPLY TO MUSLIMS.IF HE IS A MUSLIM HE HAS HE HAS TO FOLLOW SPECIFIC RULES.IF HE DENIES TO FOLLOW ACCORDING TO SPECIFIED RULES NO ONE WILL FORCE HIM TO & HE WILL BE TREATED AS NON MUSLIM.
WHAT IS THE MEANING OF COMPULSION ACCORDING TO YOU?

ATHAR QUADRI - QUR'AN is for Muslims to follow

ATHAR QUADRI - QUR'AN is for Muslims to follow and NOT for NON-MUSLIMS and so when it is written that "There is no compulsion in religion” it is for MUSLIMs that there is NO COMPULSION.

Now if you insist that it is only for NON-Muslims and if MUSLIMs do not follow QURANIC DIKTATS "HE WILL BE TREATED AS NON MUSLIM", then all MUSLIMs must follow the QUR'AN Verses given bellow too.

Surah 8/12 – Al-Anfal- I will instil terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers. Smite you above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them.
Surah 9/1 to 5-At- Tawhah- Declaration of immunity to Unbelievers and then slaying the Pagans.
Surah 9/29-At- Tawhah- Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the last day- Until they pay Jizyah.

Aren,t the TALIBAN imposing Jazia even now in Pakistan???

JIZYA IS FOR PROTECTION OF

JIZYA IS FOR PROTECTION OF ONES LIFE (SECURITY TAX) IF THE MEMBER OF NON MUSLIMS PARTICIPATE IN ARMY OF THAT COUNTRY THEN HE IS EXEMPTED IF YOU THINK YOUR COMMUNITY MEMBER ARE PATRIOTS THEN THEY SHOULD JOIN ARMY TO SAVE THEIR COUNTRY FROM ENEMIES YOU HINDUS COMMENT US THAT WE INDIAN MUSLIMS ARE NOT PATRIOT.THEN YOU SHOULD REMEBER THAT THE PERCENTAGE OF MUSLIMS WERE MORE IN THE ARMY THAN THEIR POPULATION.AND LK ADVANI WAS VERY JEALOUS OF THAT HE TRIED TO REMOVE MUSLIMS FROM ARMY.

ATHAR QUADRI- will muslims pay a jazia like tax in India????

will Muslims pay a jazia like tax, as protection money, in India like what the TALIBAN has imposed on non-muslims in AFPAK?? Muslims can NOT kill another Muslim knowingly as per direction in QUR"AN. Verse 93- Surah 4- "If a man kills a believer intentionally, his recompense is Hell, to abide there in fore ever".

With out questioning the patriotism of Muslims or their contribution to nation building, wouldn't the above verse of Qur'an conflict with life of "a few fanatic Muslims" if they are in Army and a war breaks out with Islamic country as most of the soldiers of such countries would be "believers".

THIS IS IN REPLY TO

THIS IS IN REPLY TO Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on 9 July 2009 - 10:50am.
will Muslims pay a jazia like tax, as protection money, in India like what the TALIBAN has imposed on non-muslims in AFPAK?? Muslims can NOT kill another Muslim knowingly as per direction in QUR"AN. Verse 93- Surah 4- "If a man kills a believer intentionally, his recompense is Hell, to abide there in fore ever".

With out questioning the patriotism of Muslims or their contribution to nation building, wouldn't the above verse of Qur'an conflict with life of "a few fanatic Muslims" if they are in Army and a war breaks out with Islamic country as most of the soldiers of such countries would be "believers".
I AM WRITING ANSWERS TO IT
IN ISLAM PROPHET MOHAMMAD (PBUH) SAID FIRMLY THAT A MUSLIM WHO IS LIVING IN OTHER THAN ISLAMIC COUNTRY HE HAS TO FOLLOW RULES LAID DOWN BY THAT COUNTRY WITHOUT IT HE WONT BE REGARDED AS MUSLIM IT IS OUR IMAN. IF THE RULES ARE AGAINST ISLAM A MUSLIM SHOULD NOT FOLLOW IT. YOU ARE STATING THAT IF WAR BREAKS OUT WITH ISLAMIC COUNTRY CERTAINLY WE WILL SUPPORT INDIA.HOW SHOULD WE BELIEVE THAT ANY COUNTRY IS ISLAMIC COUNTRY IF THEY SPREADING TERROR.ISLAM PROHIBITS TERRORISM

ATHAR QUADRI- why did muslims agitate on Shah Bqanoo case?

ATHAR QUADRI,

"A MUSLIM WHO IS LIVING IN OTHER THAN ISLAMIC COUNTRY HE HAS TO FOLLOW RULES LAID DOWN BY THAT COUNTRY WITHOUT IT HE WONT BE REGARDED AS MUSLIM".

Then why did Muslims agitate against the rule that "maintenance has to be paid by Muslim men to wife on divorce". It was a "rule in India" which had to be changed by a "Constitutional Amendment". So whom are you trying to fool with your "Taaquia".

Immediately there after you state "IF THE RULES ARE AGAINST ISLAM A MUSLIM SHOULD NOT FOLLOW IT" contradicting yourself. Accepting ALLAH a god and Muhammad a prophet alone does NOT make anyone a follower of ISLAM. Followers of ISLAM has to abid by QUR'AN,& HADITH too. ---Muslims can NOT kill another Muslim knowingly "has been precisely directed" in QUR"AN. (Verse 93- Surah 4- "If a man kills a believer intentionally, his recompense is Hell, to abide there in fore ever").

So the "order to kill PAKI Muslim soldiers" can be interpreted as "against ISLAM" by some "fanatic Mullah" and a Fatwa issued. Similar "Fatwa" has been issued in AFPAK and there have been instances of the parents of PAKI SOLDIERS who died fighting TALIBAN refusing to accept their "mortal remains" claiming that the soldier committed a crime against ISLAM by killing other "believers"- TALIBAN.

This is the "bunch of contradiction" that ISLAM is, as mentioned in my first post. NON-MUSLIMS have no reason to abide by QUR'AN. Everything written in QUR'AN is for MUSLIMS to strictly adhere to. "NO COMPULSION IN RELIGION" is also for MUSLIMS. The contradiction is that "MUSLIMS are bound head to toe in Compulsions". Even the method of prayer to Allah is compulsorily to be followed. IS ALLAH IN MACCA ONLY THAT HE WILL ACCEPT PRAYERS ONLY IF OFFERED FACING MACCA??? WHAT HAPPENS if Muslims face any other direction and offer prayer???

The earliest Mosques in KERALA, had NAMAZ being offered towards EAST like HINDUS. IT is the ARAB hegemony that insist on prayers to MACCA and these ARAB muslims treat Indian Muslims like "untouchables" and do NOT give citizenship rights while insisting that all Muslims must face them and pray. IF A CONCENTRIC CIRCLE AROUND MACCA IS DRAWN AS PRAYING MUSLIMS, IT WILL BE EVIDENT THAT ARAB MUSLIMS ARE "STICKING THEIR BACKSIDE" AT REST OF THE WORLD MUSLIMS and Indian Muslims ARE PRAYING to the "backside" of ARAB MUSLIMs.

the Meaning of Compulsion (in positive way and negative way)

My Dear Friend
First of all i m very pleased to know that you have the good knowledge of the islamic rules but till some extent
so the answer for your question that we say there is no compulsion in the ISLAM and we have certain rules which we have to obey and as a compulsion ly according to you.

so the answer for the First Question that was
That we Should Pray in the direction of the Mecca? ok
so the sloution for this is
firstly the Mecca is in the centre of the world from any pole north to south or fron west to east, in ISLAM we think that unity should be there for the prayers due to this we come to contact to other people and their problems and so the every muslim in the world should pray in the diretion of the Mecca as yhe unity purpose and when you are in Mecca its and small room with nothing inside its whole empty room build by Yousufaliassalam, so there you will see that its in the center and every one is around it praying as the unity, for the positive thinking its compulsive.

the next question was that the muslims must pray in the specific way ???

the answer for this is that as you do differbt pujas on the various occassions whether on diwali, shiv ratri and many others so its not same, in this way we have differbt different ways for the namaz its not always the same. its diff in ramzan id, the other ids so there no compulsion here.

the next question was that allah is the only GOD and Prophet Mohammed P.B.U.H. as well.

for the answer is that we believe in one God thats true but Prophet is The Messanger of God , not himself GOD, and for the reason that we believe in one God is that God is not the person that is born that eats and gets JANAM everything its divine and it doent have gender so its unite people , rather to say taht i believe in this God he Most Powerful then your God and there re various reason s but i m not a orator but if you have any duobts in these answers ,{YOU ARE FREE TO ASK THE QUESTON TO ASK MR ZAKIR NAIK AND HE WILL DEFINITELY ANDWER YOU R QUESTIONS BERIFLY AND CLEARLY) HIS ID IS WWW.IRF.COM

so your next Q was that we should perform HAJ compulsorily

so the answer for this wuestion is that its absolutely not compluslory for the peolpe o go for HAJ, but its as optional as now a days or in the olden days its very far so the person wh is going there must have the financail strong or if it is possoble for him then its good to go for haj, taking loan and going for haja nd coming and paying that loan or 10 years is not necessary.

its no where compulsory for HAJ, but if its possible then oyu go for it ass optional thing

and the next question was that special dresses should be worn against other kafirs??

so the answer is simple that its no where written that you shuold wear different cloth in front of kafirs, instead its written that if someone who is ill whether he is kafir or muslim if you help you get sawab, did good deed in this manner, so if it was compulsory that we should wear different cloth , so would haveto carry daily 10 jodis cloth every day then,,,,,

i appriate that you are intersesteed in knowing whether its anything abt the ISLAM and for any other big reated question sjust go this site WWW.IRF.COM which is in Mumbai and research founadation and as k your jenuine questions to him kkk

brother byeee take care

Meaning of Compulsion

BROTHER THE WEBSITE CORRECT URL IS www.irf.net

There is no compulsion in the way of Islam,means Whoever chooses to worship Allah without partners and is devoted to Him and is obeying His commands as much as possible has grasped the firm handhold that will never break. Whoever denies God and chooses some other way to worship or not to believe at all, for them there is an eternal punishment that is most horrible (Hell).Choice is yours.
If you want to obey Allah,then all compulsions mentioned by Quran and Prophet(saas) we must follow.
If anyone(individual,king,or country) is suppressing freedom of practicing Islam then it becomes compulsory for all of us to fight against this oppression.
For us muslims there is no need to find logic and reasoning to follow the commandments of Allah and Prophet(saas).We follow because it is the order of Allah.Although there are lots of benefits of following these commmands.But we should not just do it for mere benefits only,but rather obeying Allah (swt)should be the primary objective.

May ALLAH increase you in knowledge and take you as means of conveying His message to all of us.Jazakallah for your effort.

Your Friendly Invaders

Hmm
So Jizya was a friendly tax charged only from those who did not want to fight for protecting the Islamic rule?

Let me clarify something. It is true that Muslim invaders were being extraordinarily "Generous" when they allowed Hindus the "Honour" to pay Jizya because technically this privilege was meant for Only people of BOOK, for hindus it should have been Convert or die. So why the "Generosity"? It is the economy stupid.

Why is India still majority Hindu?
First of all you need to incl Pak and B'desh too. Second Muslims rarely enjoyed control of whole India for any decent period of time. Akbar and to some extent Jahangir and Shah Jahan were among the few Muslims rulers who believed that Hindus can be allowed to live with dignity.

Most importantly, converting all Hindus to Muslim would have destroyed the finances of Muslim invaders , who would have paid the Jizya? An interesting example about jizya comes from the period of Allah-u-din Khiljee , when one of his Qajis explained that "Jizya should be used as a substitute for Death"

For more divine interpretations and actual practice of Jizya, have a look at this link and all the lies that are being perpetrated here would become crystal clear.
http://persian.packhum.org/persian/search?q=jizya&start=0

And these are Persian Historians translated by British and some Muslims
Regarding why Muslims should not be called invaders, the argument some followers of Aurangzeb have given above is that Aryans also invaded.

Hmm ..... Now, leaving aside the premise of some historians who do not accept the Aryan-Dravidian construct, if we consider the views of only those who meet the definition of "Historians" as per the standards set by followers of Aurangzeb, like Romila Thapar, even they had to modify their theory from "Aryan Invasion" to "Aryan Migration" because of overwhelming evidence against invasion theory.

So comparing Aryans (granting for now that they came from foreign lands) to Muslims Invaders is silly a naked attempt to justify the atrocities perpetrated by Muslim Invaders.

There are just too many facts to rubbish the attempt of presenting Aurangzeb as anything less that detestable and presenting the Muslim Invaders (except Akbar, Jahangir , shahjahan and Md Kasim to some extent) as anything other than "looters of Indian wealth" . But I am not going to cite more evidences, b'coz many of you know this but won't admit it in front of us, although many are actually "proud" of these Achievements.

Aryan invasion a mith

Aryan invasion or migration theory is now put ot rest with the recent paper on genetic make of the indian population. The people migrated to southern india some 50K years back while those in Northern india came 30K years back. All the Aryan civilization is indegenous although it spread to even places as far as Russia and central Asia.

Protecting Hindu Temples from "evil Brahmins"

“Aurangzeb ordered that as the sacred precincts have been despoiled, Lord Vishwanath may be moved to some other place, the temple be razed to the ground"

Well if this is true, can you tell us which unspoiled site was chosen by Auranzeb for idols?

Second, if the percints were despoiled why build a Mosque there?
The lies are blatant and open to even those who are historically challenged except the one who consider Aurangzeb as their role model and the leftist historians.

I am sure very soon we will have another story claiming that Mathura temple was demolished and a moque built in its place was to protect hindus from evil Brahmins

Now, where does digust begin?

Proven History; not story

Aurangazeb is one of the best Indian ruler ever found in history.

The Temple he demolished was not a temple, but a center of hoodlum. That was proved by historians, beyond doubt.

Yes Prathiba- AURANGI was a GREAT ruler

Had it not been for AURANGI the Mughal dynasty may have prospered in India for much longer, even upto 20TH centuary, especially if DARA SHIKON had replaced Shah Jahan. But the MUSLIM FANATIC that AURANGI was, he antagonized all HINDU KINGS and within 13 years of AURANGIS death, by 1720, the MUGHAL rule ended and the Marathas become the de-facto rulers of India. The re-establishment of combined HINDU MARATHA -SIKH rule in India was only possible because of AURANGI. So AURANGI IS GREAT.

The MARATHAs and the SIKHS ruled most of India from 1720 to 1845, a period of about 125years, when the resurgent HINDU-SIKH rulers exterminated MUSLIMS from many part of India which would have not been possible without the contribution of AURANGI. SO AURANGI is certainly GREAT.

Proven History;not story?

Or His-Story?

Everyone knows how hindu scriptures were compromised to project Kalki avatar as Prophet Mohammed. There was something called AlloUpanished as well written at the time of mughal rule.

I think you are 100%

I think you are 100% correct. Imagine the evil brahmins ruling the dividing the society with several caste and sect leave alone sati sahagamana those days and fining the slaves with atrocities. So keeping all that in mind, it is possible that The Temple he demolished was not a temple, but a center of hoodlum. That was proved by historians, beyond doubt.