Aurangzeb gave temples grants, land: Historian

[tested]

Hindu rulers, on the other hand, would never offer any support to build Mosques.
Independent India demolishes historical mosques instead!

Incorrect.
As a religion, Hindus are most tolerant. They only back violence as a reply in kind.

The first mosque of India was built under a Raja's protection far before any of the desert barbarians arrived.

Its a flaw of Hinduism actually. Islam systematically introduces its followers to violence and force. I want Hindus to learn from that

 

[Irfan Baloch]

[B]He was an Islamic bigot, a mass murderer of Titanic proportions, a puritan, regressive, temple destroyer who had no respect for his family(murdered his own brothers, one by one) let alone non Muslims in his empire[/B].


Akheilos has a knack for supporting threads which has a taste of Hindu blood. That's all. If there is a terrorist on this forum, it's her. There is a particular amount of relish in the way she despises Hindus and despises/thrashes Muslims in India.

ahem

calm down buddy. he was an emperor a monarch and didn't do anything extraordinary that the kings and queen of his time and before hadn't done. he just happened to be born with a Muslim name .. he could have been sun worshipper or Christian etc. his relation to Islam was as much as the Arab Monarchies. its a cloak nothing more nothing less.

he belonged to a family that invaded India and saw the Indian natives as inferior and as a conquer he saw it as his birth right to oppress them... again nothing extraordinary if you look from east to west how conquerors eradicated entire civilizations and levelled their infrastructures to the ground.

to put you into perspective of what I mean, to me he was General Zia of his time, not Mullah Omar tough and neither Zardari or Nawaz Sherif.

I
Its a flaw of Hinduism actually. Islam systematically introduces its followers to violence and force. I want Hindus to learn from that

so you want to be as violent and similar to Daesh then? what right of protest you have? same moral ground as these terrorists?

 

[SarthakGanguly]

ahem

calm down buddy. he was an emperor a monarch and didn't do anything extraordinary that the kings and queen of his time and before hadn't done. he just happened to be born with a Muslim name .. he could have been sun worshipper or Christian etc. his relation to Islam was as much as the Arab Monarchies. its a cloak nothing more nothing less.

he belonged to a family that invaded India and saw the Indian natives as inferior and as a conquer he saw it as his birth right to oppress them... again nothing extraordinary if you look from east to west how conquerors eradicated entire civilizations and levelled their infrastructures to the ground.

to put you into perspective of what I mean, to me he was General Zia of his time, not Mullah Omar tough and neither Zardari or Nawaz Sherif.

Well, we hate him. Not necessarily his faith. Akbar and a host of other monarchs with Muslim names are celebrated.

Its a flaw of Hinduism actually. Islam systematically introduces its followers to violence and force. I want Hindus to learn from that

Oh come on.
What would the difference be then?

Adopt the Sikh tactic. Be ready to fight tyranny. But don't strike the first blow.

 

[tested]

so you want to be as violent and similar to Daesh then? what right of protest you have? same moral ground as these terrorists?

No. I donot mean ISIS level of violence.
I do mean the Deobandi type of commitment and comfort with violence and a single minded goal.

This has been an asset to Islam.

Hinduism is soft and accomodating. While many Hindus are comfortable with this, I am not.

I believe that we should learn some qualities from others. For what is life if not a continuous change.

Oh come on.
What would the difference be then?

Adopt the Sikh tactic. Be ready to fight tyranny. But don't strike the first blow.

Yes, Sikhs are close to what I want Hindus to be in general like.

Right now and for centuries, they are too pacifist.

 

[Irfan Baloch]

Well, we hate him. Not necessarily his faith. Akbar and a host of other monarchs with Muslim names are celebrated.

well you are not alone and people who have the courage to read history without religious or political constraint can see the shocking history of these kings what went around came around unfortunately for the innocent sons of Bahadur shah Zafar who were executed by the civilized Brits in front of him, again cant complain because that's what the victors do.
you have every right to disagree and have an alternate view

but as a historical student or a critic it shouldn't be dictated by the apparent faith of the person in question and in which camp he was.. few thousand miles to the west in middle east we had so called caliphates of Umayats and Abasaids and they were called caliphates for name sake , again they were no different to their counter parts in the rest of the world.. well thats another story.

No. I donot mean ISIS level of violence.
I do mean the Deobandi type of commitment and comfort with violence and a single minded goal.

This has been an asset to Islam.

Hinduism is soft and accomodating. While many Hindus are comfortable with this, I am not.

I believe that we should learn some qualities from others. For what is life if not a continuous change.


Yes, Sikhs are close to what I want Hindus to be in general like.

Right now and for centuries, they are too pacifist.

you are a mad man. get hold of yourself . you can articulate and I welcome civilised disagreement and discussion
please review your postings and calm down a bit.. meaning don't say something which is taken as a direct offence or too brass and result in moderation.

your quality posts with alternate view are most welcome.


PS: majority of Muslims have serious issues with Wahabis and their local versions like Deobandis.


take care

 

[tested]

you are a mad man. get hold of yourself . you can articulate and I welcome civilised disagreement and discussion
please review your postings and calm down a bit.. meaning don't say something which is taken as a direct offence or too brass and result in moderation.

your quality posts with alternate view are most welcome.


PS: majority of Muslims have serious issues with Wahabis and their local versions like Deobandis.


take care

My apology. My post was intended to be a discussion, not a flame war which wastes my time and other's.
In your opinion which part of my post could be construed as being offensive, so that I can make my point better next time.

On the issue of wahhabis and deobandis, I must tell you, despite the fact that you say that majority of Muslims have serious issues with them, I am sure you have not failed to notice that the Barelvi's of today are far far stricter in their views compared to the Barelvi's of 1960's and 70's.

What has happened in fact is that the Deobandi views of the 60's and 70's have proliferated and become the norm today in 2000's. So what was Deobandi then is considered Barelvi and 'normal' today. So most Muslims who say identify themselves as Barelvi's today are actually far stricter than Barelvi's of the 60's. Ofcourse the Deobandi's have also become stricter.

This is societal engineering that was accomplished by this group.
So whether or not most Muslims have issues with Deobandis and Wahhabis, these two have been successful in societal engineering of Muslims even to those that opposed them.

Do you see my point?

 

[Irfan Baloch]

My apology. My post was intended to be a discussion, not a flame war which wastes my time and other's.
In your opinion which part of my post could be construed as being offensive, so that I can make my point better next time.

On the issue of wahhabis and deobandis, I must tell you, despite the fact that you say that majority of Muslims have serious issues with them, I am sure you have not failed to notice that the Barelvi's of today are far far stricter in their views compared to the Barelvi's of 1960's and 70's.

What has happened in fact is that the Deobandi views of the 60's and 70's have proliferated and become the norm today in 2000's. So what was Deobandi then is considered Barelvi and 'normal' today. So most Muslims who say identify themselves as Barelvi's today are actually far stricter than Barelvi's of the 60's. Ofcourse the Deobandi's have also become stricter.

This is societal engineering that was accomplished by this group.
So whether or not most Muslims have issues with Deobandis and Wahhabis, these two have been successful in societal engineering of Muslims even to those that opposed them.

Do you see my point?

yes I do and I see similar kind of "engineering" (for the lack of term) for the shia school as well. for Beralvis the case of Mumtaz Qadri is worse who assassinated our governor of Punjab out of his love for prophet which is actually self contradictory..

but looking at Daesh, LeJ, LeT, TTP, Taliban, Al Qaeda, ISIS, ISIL, Boko Haram, Jamiah Islamiyah etc.. what you see common in them is wahabism and its derivatives. who have sytematically launched a war on the world through the Arabian oil funding.

you would struggle to find a terror group belonging to sufis or Beralvis in India or Pakistan. just saying... having extreme views maybe not as bad as long as they were kept within the limits of words and not put into action.

I don't deny that he was a true Muslim and for Muslims he was an absolute Godsend.

thats a tragedy and misinformation and Pakistani/ Indian Muslims are the victims of distortion.

 

[Bang Galore]

well you are not alone and people who have the courage to read history without religious or political constraint can see the shocking history of these kings what went around came around unfortunately for the innocent sons of Bahadur shah Zafar who were executed by the civilized Brits in front of him, again cant complain because that's what the victors do.
you have every right to disagree and have an alternate view

but as a historical student or a critic it shouldn't be dictated by the apparent faith of the person in question and in which camp he was.. few thousand miles to the west in middle east we had so called caliphates of Umayats and Abasaids and they were called caliphates for name sake , again they were no different to their counter parts in the rest of the world.. well thats another story.

A rational discussion of history is always difficult especially when there are people who wish to paint a figure in any one specific light . It is also extremely foolish to look at people of the past through the lens of standards that didn't exist back then. What we consider completely unacceptable now might well have been the norm

Aurangzeb is one who gets quite a bit of the spotlight, what with some portraying him as some kind of a saint & others, a monster. By most standards of the era across the Muslim ruled kingdoms, Aurangzeb certainly does not come off as the worst, he certainly was nowhere as bigoted or murderous as other Muslim rulers in Central & west Asia. However in comparison to those who preceded him & in the land he ruled, he certainly was an unwelcome bigot. By itself, his actions might have been par for the course by the standards of other Muslim rulers who ruled early on but by the standards that the Mughals themselves had set, he was a clear regression into a much darker age. With the exception of Akbar, all the Mughal rulers were bigots but none of their actions ever rose to the level of Aurangzeb. The fact that his elder brother Dara Shikoh was a completely different persona, a man with scholastic abilities, tolerance & who was much admired adds to the negative image of Aurangzeb who came across as narrow minded, a bigot, a man who even hated music. The only good thing that can be said about him was that he was a devout Muslim & very religious. That attribute, by its very nature, can only appeal to a small section of people for whom that is a redeeming or positive factor . Pretty clear that it cannot be a source of appeal to those who are not Muslim & who would need other attributes of which there was precious little on display. Aurangzeb suffers poorly in any comparison with his eldest brother & certainly, with his great grandfather. The opprobrium heaped on Aurangzeb may be a little excessive but he did his best to earn most of it.

 

[tested]

yes I do and I see similar kind of "engineering" (for the lack of term) for the shia school as well. for Beralvis the case of Mumtaz Qadri is worse who assassinated our governor of Punjab out of his love for prophet which is actually self contradictory..

but looking at Daesh, LeJ, LeT, TTP, Taliban, Al Qaeda, ISIS, ISIL, Boko Haram, Jamiah Islamiyah etc.. what you see common in them is wahabism and its derivatives. who have sytematically launched a war on the world through the Arabian oil funding.

you would struggle to find a terror group belonging to sufis or Beralvis in India or Pakistan. just saying... having extreme views maybe not as bad as long as they were kept within the limits of words and not put into action.

And yet, what is the point of words if they are not a precursor to action?

And this is the crux of my wish. To move the average Hindu out of his/her self created bubble of inaction comforted by the intellectual justification of 'non-violence' and 'individuality'.

And this is the key problem - Hinduism focuses of individual moksha or salvation whereas Islam is a collectivist religion which focuses on ummah/brotherhood.

So there is this major problem that needs to be overcome. However, social engineering/religious moulding can be done with the right resources and intent.

 

[Irfan Baloch]

And yet, what is the point of words if they are not a precursor to action?

And this is the crux of my wish. To move the average Hindu out of his/her self created bubble of inaction comforted by the intellectual justification of 'non-violence' and 'individuality'.
.

again in reality I see quite the opposite to the teaching when I see the actions of Hindu's against the minorities there is a big laundry list of acts committed by Hindu mobs as well. the communal riots the violence during civil disturbance ,disobedience, partition etc to name the few. the similar actions by Muslims get branded as "Islamic" and problem with the faith .. but its not the case when Hindu mobs burn churches or Muslim homes ..BBC reported Hindus killing people based on the names of their victims during Gujrat riots. had the roles been reversed then Muhammad and Quran would have been blamed.. yes or no?

 

[AUz]

Aurangzeb Alamgir The Great was a magnificent ruler who extended the Islamic Mughal Domination of inferior hindu lands to the maximum extent!

The Great Mughal Islamic Empire under Aurangzeb Alamgir The Great

What a man!! He did tremendous things during his rule. Eliminated trouble-makers, destroyed structures of evil, spent his life with great Islamic piety, and did not make any personal wealth.

Did you guys know that Aurangzeb used to caligraphy Quranic verses and sell the product to make some extra money (he did not use to take wealth from Mughal's treasury). When he died, he was a very poor but pious man!

May Allah have mercy on him and forgive his wrong-doings...

Pakistan should name its next high-tech nuclear weapon system after this great man.

@SarthakGanguly

 

[Irfan Baloch]

A rational discussion of history is always difficult especially when there are people who wish to paint a figure in any one specific light . It is also extremely foolish to look at people of the past through the lens of standards that didn't exist back then. What we consider completely unacceptable now might well have been the norm

Aurangzeb is one who gets quite a bit of the spotlight, what with some portraying him as some kind of a saint & others, a monster. By most standards of the era across the Muslim ruled kingdoms, Aurangzeb certainly does not come off as the worst, he certainly was nowhere as bigoted or murderous as other Muslim rulers in Central & west Asia. However in comparison to those who preceded him & in the land he ruled, he certainly was an unwelcome bigot. By itself, his actions might have been par for the course by the standards of other Muslim rulers who ruled early on but by the standards that the Mughals themselves had set, he was a clear regression into a much darker age. With the exception of Akbar, all the Mughal rulers were bigots but none of their actions ever rose to the level of Aurangzeb. The fact that his elder brother Dara Shikoh was a completely different persona, a man with scholastic abilities, tolerance & who was much admired adds to the negative image of Aurangzeb who came across as narrow minded, a bigot, a man who even hated music. The only good thing that can be said about him was that he was a devout Muslim & very religious. That attribute, by its very nature, can only appeal to a small section of people for whom that is a redeeming or positive factor . Pretty clear that it cannot be a source of appeal to those who are not Muslim & who would need other attributes of which there was precious little on display. Aurangzeb suffers poorly in any comparison with his eldest brother & certainly, with his great grandfather. The opprobrium heaped on Aurangzeb may be a little excessive but he did his best to earn most of it.

I dont rate people much its only a handful but this was a very good post. just thanking was going to be disservice.
many thanks for your contribution.

 

[ThaniOruvan]

Hindu rulers, on the other hand, would never offer any support to build Mosques.
Independent India demolishes historical mosques instead!

Had Muslim rulers stayed in their lands the incidents which you mentioned would have never occurred.
Think.

Generals = Slaves? Oh well, Indian logic.

Btw, care to appoint some Muslim "slaves" in Republic of India to avenge the "slavery"?

There are few openings. Interested to join ?

 

[HariPrasad]

ALLAHABAD: In sharp contrast to Mughal emperor Aurangzeb's image of a temple destroyer in history books, an Allahabad-based historian has claimed that he had offered lavish grants and land to the ancient Someshwar Mahadev temple on the banks of Sangam in Arail.

Historian and principal of Serveshwari Degree College Pradeep Kesherwani made this claim based on certain historical facts. "During one of his military campaigns, Aurangzeb and his army had spent time near the temple. During the stay, he not only visited the temple but also offered grant and land for its maintenance. This fact is mentioned on the 'Dharma Dand' (religious pillar) situated on the temple premises," Kesherwani told TOI.

"The pillar has 15 sentences in Sanskrit inscribed on it mentioning, 'The ruler of the country visited the temple in 1674 and gave heavy grants to the temple, both in form of land and money'," said Kesherwani, lamenting that regular use of vermilion on the pillar, situated near Lord Hanuman's idol, had made the inscription illegible.

He said the fact also finds mention in the writings of former Allahabad mayor Vishamber Nath Pandey, who later became the governor of Odisha. "Speaking in Rajya Sabha on July 27, 1977, Pandey informed the House that during his tenure as chairman of Allahabad Nagar Palika, a dispute over the temple came before him. One of the parties presented documents regarding grants by Aurangzeb, both in terms of land and money. The matter was later referred to a committee headed by Justice TB Sapru. The committee sought documents from all temples that received 'jagir' (land) or money as donation from Aurangzeb," Kesherwani said.

He said that several temples, including Maha Kaleshwar temple of Ujjain, Balaji temple of Chitrakoot, Umanand temple of Guwahati, Jain temples of Saranjay and some temples of South India, produced such testimonials before the committee headed by Justice Sapru.

Another historian of Allahabad University, Prof Yogeshwar Tiwari, supported the contention. "Akbar too provided grant to the temple to show his 'praja' (common man) that he was the ruler of everyone. Patronizing Hindu temples was one such act. As far as Someshwar Mahadev temple is concerned, Aurangzeb might have given or even hiked the grants," Tiwari said.

Aurangzeb gave temples grants, land: Historian - The Times of India

That is possible. The cruel Muslim kings has shown this gesture to improve the relationship with Hidus in the time of crisis. Tipu too did that.

 

[ThaniOruvan]

Generally Muslim rule bought headache to India. They did not bring anything productive or useful but were trying to spread their religion and plundered riches. It is quiet natural for any ruler. If not Muslim rulers Hindu rulers would have ruled the people. What is the advantage of Muslim rulers over Hindu rulers?
Only British invasion bought good things to the sub-continent but at a very very huge cost.
I am ashamed to put that statement but we need to accept the fact.