You are wrong on almost all counts.
1. Yes, Islam is a religion of peace.
2. No, rulers in Islam do not keep the people under their "thumb". Islamic law places stringent conditions on rulers and grants people rights that are inalterable by any ruler. I suspect you already knew that, but I do have to give you the benefit of doubt. At least once, anyway.
3. You "Westerners" may have civil rights, but they are not unique to you. Many of the civil rights you refer to existed in Muslim nations hundreds of years prior to debuting in your societies. As recently as the mid-60s people in your society were expressing views in mainstream magazines that show exactly how extensive these "civil rights" were.
Here's some reading for you:
A blast from the past... 1965... and yet this could be today. The police in the US still act the same way when dealing with blacks. LA riots... multiple-shot killings of African Americans simply for opening their front door...
4. What does "Taliban like rule" have anything to do with this discussion? Taliban-like rule has as much to do with Islam as National Socialism (aka Naziism) has to do with Christianity, and as much as Ben-Gurion's terror brigade and Ariel Sharon's Shatila child killers have to do with Judaism.
You need to read indian history.
Aurangzeb - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Enforcement of Islamic law
A quran produced in the times of the Mughal empire.
François Bernier (16251688), a French physician and traveler, became for 12 years the personal physician of Aurangzeb. He described his experiences in Travels in the Mughal Empire.
Soon after his ascension, Aurangzeb purportedly abandoned the "liberal" religious viewpoints of his predecessors.[8] Though Akbar, Jahangir and Shah Jahan's approach to faith was more syncretic than the empire's founder, Aurangzeb's position is not so obvious. While his conservative interpretation of Islam and belief in the Sharia (Islamic law) is well documented, how this affected the empire remains unclear. Despite claims of sweeping edicts and policies, contradictory accounts exist.[9] Specifically, his compilation of the Fatawa-e-Alamgiri, a digest of Muslim law, was either intended for personal use, never enforced, or only poorly done. While some assert the lack of broad adoption was due to an inherent flaw[10], others insist they were only intended for his observance.[11] While it is possible the war of succession and a continued incursions combined with Shah Jahan's spending made cultural expenditures impossible[12], Aurangzeb's orthodoxy is also used to explain his infamous "burial" of music. The scene describing the "death of music"(and all other forms of performance) is paradoxically dramatic.
Niccolao Manucci's Storia do Mogor and Khafi Khan's Muntakhab al-Lubab are the only documents which describe the aforementioned event. In Storia do Mogor, Manucci describes the ramifications of Aurangzeb's 1668 decree.[13] Here, Aurangzeb's instructions for the muhtasib seem particularly damning:
In Hindustan both Moguls and Hindus are very fond of listening to songs and instrumental music. He therefore ordered the same official to stop music. If in any house or elsewhere he heard the sound of singing and instruments, he should forthwith hasten there and arrest as many as he could, breaking the instruments. Thus was caused a great destruction of musical instruments. Finding themselves in this difficulty, their large earnings likely to cease, without there being any other mode of seeking a livelihood, the musicians took counsel together and tried to appease the king in the following way: About one thousand of them assembled on a Friday when Aurangzeb was going to the mosque. They came out with over twenty highly-ornamented biers, as is the custom of the country, crying aloud with great grief and many signs of feeling, as if they were escorting to the grave some distinguished defunct. From afar Aurangzeb saw this multitude and heard their great weeping and lamentation, and, wondering, sent to know the cause of so much sorrow. The musicians redoubled their outcry and their tears, fancying the king would take compassion upon them. Lamenting,they replied with sobs that the king's orders had killed Music, therefore they were bearing her to the grave. Report was made to the king, who quite calmly remarked that they should pray for the soul of Music, and see that she was thoroughly well buried. In spite of this, the nobles did not cease to listen to songs in secret. This strictness was enforced in the principal cities.[14][15]
This implies he not only placed a prohibition on music, but actively sought and crushed any resistance. Without music, and implicitly dance, many Hindu-inspired practices[16] would have been impossible. Lavish celebrations of the Emperor's birthday, commonplace since the time of Akbar, would certainly be forbidden under such conditions. Oddly, artistic work not only steadied during Aurangzeb's reign, it increased.[17] Amidst these and other contradictions, the validity and bias of Manucci and Khafi Khan's work is being questioned.
Another particularly heinous claim against Aurangzeb, was his policy of temple destruction. Though figures vary wildly from 80 to 60,000[18], it clearly took place to some extent. However, Aurangzeb's Firmans on behalf of the Balaji or Vishnu Temple[19] and his land grant for famous Hindu religious sites in Kasi[citation needed], Varanasi insist these events weren't universal. Noted Historian Richard Eaton believes the overall understanding of temples to be flawed. As early as the sixth century, temples became vital political landmarks as well as religious ones. In fact, not only was temple desecration widely practiced and accepted, it was a necessary part of political struggle.[20]
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[citation needed]. Francois Bernier, traveled and chronicled Mughal India during the war of succession, notes both Shah Jahan and Aurangzeb's distaste for Christians. This led to the demolition of Christian settlements near the British/European Factories and enslavement of Christian converts by Shah Jahan. Furthermore, Aurangzeb stopped all aid to Christian Missionaries (Frankish Padres) initiated by Akbar and Jahangir.[21][page needed]
Aurangzeb's views on the Jizya (poll tax)
From Aurangzeb's Fatwa:
"[Jizyah] refers to what is taken from the Dhimmis, according to [what is stated in] al-Nihayah. It is obligatory upon [1] the free, [2] adult members of [those] who are generally fought, [3] who are fully in possession of their mental faculties, and [4] gainfully employed, even if [their] profession is not noble, as is [stated in] al-Sarajiyyah. There are two types of [jizyah]. [The first is] the jizyah that is imposed by treaty or consent, such that it is established in accordance with mutual agreement, according to [what is stated in] al-Kafi. [The amount] does not go above or below [the stipulated] amount, as is stated in al-Nahr al-Faiq. [The second type] is the jizyah that the leader imposes when he conquers the unbelievers (kuffar), and [whose amount] he imposes upon the populace in accordance with the amount of property [they own], as in al-Kafi. This is an amount that is pre-established, regardless of whether they agree or disagree, consent to it or not.
"The wealthy [are obligated to pay] each year forty-eight dirhams [of a specified weight], payable per month at the rate of 4 dirhams. The next, middle group (wast al-hal) [must pay] twenty-four dirhams, payable per month at the rate of 2 dirhams. The employed poor are obligated to pay twelve dirhams, in each month paying only one dirham, as stipulated in Fath al-Qadir, al-Hidayah, and al-Kafi. [The scholars] address the meaning of "gainfully employed", and the correct meaning is that it refers to one who has the capacity to work, even if his profession is not noble. The scholars also address the meaning of wealthy, poor, and the middle group. Al-Shaykh al-Imam Abu Jafar, may Allah the most high have mercy on him, considered the custom of each region decisive as to whom the people considered in their land to be poor, of the middle group, or rich. This is as such, and it is the most correct view, as stated in al-Muhit. Al-Karakhi says that the poor person is one who owns two hundred dirhams or less, while the middle group owns more than two hundred and up to ten thousand dirhams, and the wealthy [are those] who own more than ten thousand dirhams...The support for this, according to al-Karakhi is provided by the fatawa of Qadi Khan (d. 592/1196). It is necessary that in the case of the employed person, he must have good health for most of the year, as is stated in al-Hidayah. It is mentioned in al-Idah that if a dhimmi is ill for the entire year such that he cannot work and he is well off, he is not obligated to pay the jizyah, and likewise if he is sick for half of the year or more. If he quits his work while having the capacity [to work] he [is still liable] as one gainfully employed, as is [stated in] al-Nihayah. No jizyah is imposed upon their women, children, ill persons or the blind, or likewise on the paraplegic, the very old, or on the unemployed poor, as is stated in al-Hidayah."[citation needed]
Now if only he can make it alive through his term. If you hear Michael Savage, Glen Beck or Laura Ingraham, they appear to be after his blood. I think Michael Savage - with his audience of 15 million listeners - refers to him as a Marxist Communist servant of the Muslims. I pray for Obama's safety...
