The best ruler of the Indian Subcontinent - Aurangzeb Alamgir

[W.11]

Aurangzeb was the single biggest reason the Mughal dynasty ended

thats some BS analogy, how do you think aurangzeb was the biggest reason that ended mughal dynasty?

regards

 

[Nilu Pule]

thats some BS analogy, how do you think aurangzeb was the biggest reason that ended mughal dynasty?

regards

He turned lot of his allies into enemies. He engaged in a long unending war with Marathas which emptied his treasury. Duh

 

[Robbie]

thats some BS analogy, how do you think aurangzeb was the biggest reason that ended mughal dynasty?

regards

Take a moment to read the chain of posts. I am not going to write it again.

 

[Mad Scientist 2.0]

Yes. Some are Muslims in just name. I'll trust them any day over the religious ones. One of my friends is an irreligious Muslim (who is a girl btw). But the percentage of irreligious Muslims is less as compared to irreligious Hindus.

Irreligion means they are atheist or agnostic so they are not muslim to begin with. A muslim name does not make you a muslim your conviction towards Islam does.

Ask them to ear pork and watch their reaction. That will give you an idea how "irreligious" they are.

Also these are personal preference. Someone won't eat everything just because they are atheist or agnostic.

 

[TheGreatMaratha]

Well Abdali ensured the long tradionational history of Hindus desire for foreign rule continued, let the Brits roll in.

You mean the converted Hindus/Buddhists of Pakistan? True for that.

Also, tell me when did Pakistanis rule themselves pre-1947 and post the invasion of Muslims? Heck, even when you guys were Hindus/Buddhists, you were under current Indian region influence or some Northwest empire influence. It's the people of your land that has a history of being ruled over by foreigners.

Then why does Naseeruddin shah's children have ARABIC names ?

He has a son named Vivaan and it's a Sanskrit name.

 

[TNT]

Ahh the last king. A great man of honor. A great muslim, he helped all muslims around the world. I would go to the extent to say the subcontinent Islam was revitalized by him. Akbar and shah jehan Were not religious, his rule reestablished Islam in subcontinent.
Once his sons arranged a prayer, when asked why, they said we are praying that our Father dies because he is a king and doesn't give us any money. He was strict and sincere with wealth of kingdom and wrote Quran and other books to earn money for himself and would ask his sons to earn for themselves.
You can also realize his greatness by observing how much sanghis hate him and going to lengths to distort history and give him a bad name.

 

[Andhadhun]

I actually think that British slowed down the process of reversion to the basics of Hinduism. Though speculation, I think that process would have been far faster under Marathas.

To contextualize, since independence, the reduction of caste consciousness and discrimination has been slow. Though political parties have, of course, done as much as possible to fan differences, I'd venture it really only picked up post-2000s with the emergence of new industries (Indians from all over working together) and Indians travelling a lot within the country (for education and jobs). This reduction of physical and mental distances has led to a large number of inter-caste marriages.

Caste is inscribed in the constitutions and promoted by it, how can it reduce when the constitution reminds us daily about it ? Especially when it comes to getting an education or a govt. job or a promotion in a govt job.

what alphabet was used to write sanskrit?

regards

That would be the Brahmin script , also known as the Brahmi and which later evolved into the Devnagari. Prakrit uses the same srcipt because it is just poor sanskrit. Not a new language.

Also these are personal preference. Someone won't eat everything just because they are atheist or agnostic.

Usually they are. But in case of muslims they are not. They are religious preference.

Those who eat beef and mutton would have no problem in tasting pork either if they were really atheist or agnostic. One can not eat it if they don't like the taste. But to never taste it ? that is religious.

 

[TNT]

Why don't you let the FACTS speak for themselves ?

How many institutions of learning did the muslim ruler create ? How many work of literature was written during their time ? How much did the per capital income rise during their rule ? How many canals and wells did they dig and create ?

The OP did talk about those. India was very rich during his rule. Only sanghi literature shows him bad. But that is just stupid lies. Also muslims may drink but not eat pork because they never have and would feel disgusted by it. Would a regular non vegetarian eat a dog or cat? U calling it a test of religiousness is extremely dumb and stupid. Go and read Islam before making dumb opinions of ur own. In Islam eating pork is not a bigger sin than drinking alcohol, its not a bigger sin than out of marriage sexual relations, its not a bigger sin than stealing, even not a bigger sin than backbiting. Shows how illinformed u r.

 

[Andhadhun]

The OP did talk about those. India was very rich during his rule. Only sanghi literature shows him bad. But that is just stupid lies. Also muslims may drink but not eat pork because they never have and would feel disgusted by it. Would a regular non vegetarian eat a dog or cat? U calling it a test of religiousness is extremely dumb and stupid. Go and read Islam before making dumb opinions of ur own. In Islam eating pork is not a bigger sin than drinking alcohol, its not a bigger sin than out of marriage sexual relations, its not a bigger sin than stealing, even not a bigger sin than backbiting. Shows how illinformed u r.

Also answer to OP is given by me right below.

 

[AUz]

Boy, I thought you had left the forum.

Glad to see you back. Keep bashing Hindu

What exactly is "Hindu bashing" in my post? Read again below:

Lol as expected---poor Hindutva incels getting mad in this thread.

Aurangzeb had great positives and as expected, some negatives too. His reign, his conquests, and his policies can be critiqued. But to imagine a balanced view of him from inferiority-complex stricken Hindus is laughable. Afterall, Aurangzeb literally stretch the domination of Mughals across the length and width of Indian landmass like no ruler in Medieval India had ever done so before.

Although, Aurangzeb's reign also coincided with the time where global Islamic domination was setting, and the era of Europe as a the new global hegemon was rising. He died in the 18th century----by mid 18th century, another Islamic empire (Afsharid empire) was arguably the most powerful empire on the face of the Earth. However, after mid 18th century, it was all Europe (that had been rising since quite some time now)

Even in India, after Mughals decline post Aurangzeb---few decades of chaos existed where Sikhs, Marathas etc made small territorial gains temporarily (poor Indians call those meager gains as "empire" LOL)---but by 1757, Brits at Plassey had announced their arrival and domination of India passed from Mughals to Brits effectively.

Aurangzeb, nevertheless, was one of the most powerful and influential Indian ruler. Much more so than any Hindu ruler of Medieval times.

Ironically, Aurangzeb had more power over Indian landmass and population than Modi does today

 

[W.11]

That would be the Brahmin script , also known as the Brahmi and which later evolved into the Devnagari. Prakrit uses the same srcipt because it is just poor sanskrit. Not a new language.

sanskrit is practically written in loads of brahmi scripts, even tamil brahmi script which is made for tamil language

regards

 

[Andhadhun]

sanskrit is practically written in loads of brahmi scripts, even tamil brahmi script which is made for tamil language

regards

That is because Tamil uses Sanskrit grammar called Aindra Vyakarana.

Brahmin script is specifically designed to write Sanskrit. And can hence accommodate all languages including chinese.

 

[doorstar]

You only prove my point. Not eating pork is a remnant from their hindu past where they had abhorrence to eating beef. They just substituted the meat when they converted.

Similar to the neo muslim claim that quran cannot be "modified", similar to the Vedas. Only history shows that quran was not only modified several times but also re written.

Similar to claim that muhammed was "perfect man", similar to Maryada Purushotam Ram.

The Hindu converts simply superimposed their earlier Hindus beliefs onto their new religion. Similar to how 25th December became "Christmas".

Also answer to OP is given by me right below.

hindus never had any "abhorrence to eating beef" in the not-so-distant past. Moslems not eating pork might have something to do with the Mosaic Laws rather than hinduism you illogical moron! if your stupid logic was correct then why do they still eat other meats?

as for the rest of your post I'll leave it to the staff e.g @AgNoStiC MuSliM @Foxtrot Alpha @BHarwana et al for now. see you a little later if they do not respond to you.

 

[Andhadhun]

hindus never had any "abhorrence to eating beef" in not so distant past. Moslems not eating pork might have something to do with the Mosaic Laws rather than hinduism you illogical moron! if your stupid logic was correct then why do they still eat other meats?

as for the rest of your post I'll leave it to the staff e.g @AgNoStiC MuSliM @Foxtrot Alpha @BHarwana et al for now. see you a little later if they do not respond to you.

Cow slaughter was always a strict NO among hindus.

British christians claiming to interpret Hindu scriptures mean nothing.

Muslim not eating pork is directly related to quran, but they drinking, smoking but still not eating pork is linked to their conversion from Hinduism.

 

[W.11]

That is because Tamil uses Sanskrit grammar called Aindra Vyakarana.

so tamil language is also poor sanskrit?

regards