Aurangzeb's generous side and love for books

panini press wrote:This thread is on the verge of breaking into two pages. One more dot and it will get there. Jai Aurangzeb.

I used to be a good dotter.

.
.
.
.
.
.

panini press wrote:

Rashmun wrote:i question the authenticity of this poem. I do not think Guru Gobind Singh wrote in this fashion about Aurangzeb.

This is because you have a hatred for Aurangzeb. This may be because some of your ancestors were roughed up by him when he lost his head towards the latter half of his rule and did some minor bad things that are best glossed over.

Rashmun wrote:He moreover the trash you are now posting is not from your favorite 'Hindu' newspaper.

I posted this from the SikhiWiki:

SikhiWIKI is an encyclopedia of the Sikh Way of Life written collaboratively by many of its readers. Lots of people are constantly improving SikhiWIKI, by constantly making changes, all of which are recorded on the page history and the Recent Changes page. Nonsense and vandalism are usually removed quickly.

These verses are completely authentic and attributed by Sikh tradition to Guru Gobind Singh. Here are other sources that contain the same verses with very similar translations.

http://www.zafarnama.com/Download/zafarnama.pdf, page 34
http://www.unp.me/f15/zafarnama-guru-gobind-singh-ji-da-likhiya-khat-auranzeb-nu-17015/

Here is a higher-quality English translation of the verses: http://www.info-sikh.com/EEZPage1.html

O Aurangzeb, king of kings, fortunate are you,
An expert swordsman and a horseman too: (89)

Handsome is your person and your intellect high,
Master of the lands, ruler and emperor. (90)

A skilled wielder of the sword and clever in administration,
A master-warrior and a man of charitable disposition. (91)

You grant riches and lands in charity,
O one of handsome body and brilliant mind. (92)

Great is your munificence, in war you are like a mountain,
Of angelic disposition, your splendor is like that of Pleiades. (93)

You are the king of kings, ornament of the throne of the world:
Master of the world, but far from religion! (94)

Guru Gobind Singh's verses praising Aurangzeb are recited at a gurdwara:



Watch from 5:24. As the section with praise of Aurangzeb begins, the person reciting the Persian poem explains to the congregation in Punjabi: "these next verses are those in which the Guruji praises Aurangzeb." Then he proceeds to recite the Farsi poem. Read the English subtitles.

It is clear that Sikhs consider this an authentic work of Guru Gobind Singh. Rashmun, your questioning of the authenticity of these verses just shows your hatred towards Aurangzeb. Why do you hate him so much?

blabberwock wrote:

panini press wrote:This thread is on the verge of breaking into two pages. One more dot and it will get there. Jai Aurangzeb.

I used to be a good dotter.

.
.
.
.
.
.

Thank you for getting Aurangzeb across the first milestone of his SuCH career. He has the potential to accomplish much.

Rashmun wrote:

ashdoc wrote:
after aurangzeb murdered his elder brother dara shikoh ( along with other brothers ) he wanted to rape and forcibly make his concubine dara's favourite and most beautiful wife . but the loyal lady took a knife and destroyed her own charms by slashing her face apart with the knife .

how unfortunate for aurangzeb.....

in fact Dara Shikoh's favorite wife had already died by the time Dara was captured. please get your facts right.

If the Jaipur painting of Dara Shukoh and Ra`nadil is correctly dated to 1658, it is not only an depiction of an intimate romantic scene but in retrospect quite touching. In the painting, Dara Shukoh has taken her hand and is offering her to drink (probably wine) as one female attendant pours another glass and another plays sitar. Dara Shukoh was at that time the heir apparent and Ra`nadil his favorite wife. By mid-March, 1659, Dara Shukoh had been defeated in a succession crisis sparked by his father Shahjahan's illness and his brother Aurangzeb's ambition, and soon thereafter was executed. Aurangzeb attempted to add all his brother's wives and concubines to his own harem, but Ra`nadil resisted. The story told by a Western traveller goes that he summoned her and she refused to come. He insisted, saying it was a brother's duty to take care of his sisters-in-law when they were widowed. Ra`nadil is said to have asked what Aurangzeb particularly liked about her. He replied that it was her hair. She cut it off and sent it to him, saying he now had what he wanted and should leave her alone. When Aurangzeb persisted, Ra`nadil is said to have taken a knife and slashed her face, putting a kerchief to it to record the scars. She sent the kerchief to Aurangzeb, who finally relented and consented to leave her alone. (Randhawa & Galbraith, pp. 49-50, quoting Storia do Mogor.) Of course, that this story comes to us from a European raises all sorts of questions about its truth and the degree to which the narrative and emotions depicted were filtered through a foreign culture. Yet the tale seems to me to contain folkloric motifs such as repetition, and if not true it may at least be indigenous. And the very existence of the 1658 painting does point to something special in the relationship of the two, to a tenderness that contrasts with Jahangir's bear hug and with the frankly lascivious embraces into which the Rajput chieftains are often shown drawing their women. Was the love of Dara Shukoh and Ra`nadil somehow early modern in character? After his death, she successfully resists being treated as mere property, the spoils of war, asserting her autonomy as a person by being willing to discard outward marks of beauty. This behavior is very different from that of the medieval Layla, who acquiesces dutifully in her family's plans for her, driving her beloved mad.

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jrcole/graphics/large/mughpriv.htm

ashdoc wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

ashdoc wrote:
after aurangzeb murdered his elder brother dara shikoh ( along with other brothers ) he wanted to rape and forcibly make his concubine dara's favourite and most beautiful wife . but the loyal lady took a knife and destroyed her own charms by slashing her face apart with the knife .

how unfortunate for aurangzeb.....

in fact Dara Shikoh's favorite wife had already died by the time Dara was captured. please get your facts right.

If the Jaipur painting of Dara Shukoh and Ra`nadil is correctly dated to 1658, it is not only an depiction of an intimate romantic scene but in retrospect quite touching. In the painting, Dara Shukoh has taken her hand and is offering her to drink (probably wine) as one female attendant pours another glass and another plays sitar. Dara Shukoh was at that time the heir apparent and Ra`nadil his favorite wife. By mid-March, 1659, Dara Shukoh had been defeated in a succession crisis sparked by his father Shahjahan's illness and his brother Aurangzeb's ambition, and soon thereafter was executed. Aurangzeb attempted to add all his brother's wives and concubines to his own harem, but Ra`nadil resisted. The story told by a Western traveller goes that he summoned her and she refused to come. He insisted, saying it was a brother's duty to take care of his sisters-in-law when they were widowed. Ra`nadil is said to have asked what Aurangzeb particularly liked about her. He replied that it was her hair. She cut it off and sent it to him, saying he now had what he wanted and should leave her alone. When Aurangzeb persisted, Ra`nadil is said to have taken a knife and slashed her face, putting a kerchief to it to record the scars. She sent the kerchief to Aurangzeb, who finally relented and consented to leave her alone. (Randhawa & Galbraith, pp. 49-50, quoting Storia do Mogor.) Of course, that this story comes to us from a European raises all sorts of questions about its truth and the degree to which the narrative and emotions depicted were filtered through a foreign culture. Yet the tale seems to me to contain folkloric motifs such as repetition, and if not true it may at least be indigenous. And the very existence of the 1658 painting does point to something special in the relationship of the two, to a tenderness that contrasts with Jahangir's bear hug and with the frankly lascivious embraces into which the Rajput chieftains are often shown drawing their women. Was the love of Dara Shukoh and Ra`nadil somehow early modern in character? After his death, she successfully resists being treated as mere property, the spoils of war, asserting her autonomy as a person by being willing to discard outward marks of beauty. This behavior is very different from that of the medieval Layla, who acquiesces dutifully in her family's plans for her, driving her beloved mad.

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jrcole/graphics/large/mughpriv.htm

Dara Shikoh's favorite wife was Nadira Banu with whom he had all his children. This Ra'nadil is either a fictional character or she may have been a mistress of Dara. Nadira Banu died before Dara's death.

Rashmun wrote:

ashdoc wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

ashdoc wrote:
after aurangzeb murdered his elder brother dara shikoh ( along with other brothers ) he wanted to rape and forcibly make his concubine dara's favourite and most beautiful wife . but the loyal lady took a knife and destroyed her own charms by slashing her face apart with the knife .

how unfortunate for aurangzeb.....

in fact Dara Shikoh's favorite wife had already died by the time Dara was captured. please get your facts right.

If the Jaipur painting of Dara Shukoh and Ra`nadil is correctly dated to 1658, it is not only an depiction of an intimate romantic scene but in retrospect quite touching. In the painting, Dara Shukoh has taken her hand and is offering her to drink (probably wine) as one female attendant pours another glass and another plays sitar. Dara Shukoh was at that time the heir apparent and Ra`nadil his favorite wife. By mid-March, 1659, Dara Shukoh had been defeated in a succession crisis sparked by his father Shahjahan's illness and his brother Aurangzeb's ambition, and soon thereafter was executed. Aurangzeb attempted to add all his brother's wives and concubines to his own harem, but Ra`nadil resisted. The story told by a Western traveller goes that he summoned her and she refused to come. He insisted, saying it was a brother's duty to take care of his sisters-in-law when they were widowed. Ra`nadil is said to have asked what Aurangzeb particularly liked about her. He replied that it was her hair. She cut it off and sent it to him, saying he now had what he wanted and should leave her alone. When Aurangzeb persisted, Ra`nadil is said to have taken a knife and slashed her face, putting a kerchief to it to record the scars. She sent the kerchief to Aurangzeb, who finally relented and consented to leave her alone. (Randhawa & Galbraith, pp. 49-50, quoting Storia do Mogor.) Of course, that this story comes to us from a European raises all sorts of questions about its truth and the degree to which the narrative and emotions depicted were filtered through a foreign culture. Yet the tale seems to me to contain folkloric motifs such as repetition, and if not true it may at least be indigenous. And the very existence of the 1658 painting does point to something special in the relationship of the two, to a tenderness that contrasts with Jahangir's bear hug and with the frankly lascivious embraces into which the Rajput chieftains are often shown drawing their women. Was the love of Dara Shukoh and Ra`nadil somehow early modern in character? After his death, she successfully resists being treated as mere property, the spoils of war, asserting her autonomy as a person by being willing to discard outward marks of beauty. This behavior is very different from that of the medieval Layla, who acquiesces dutifully in her family's plans for her, driving her beloved mad.

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jrcole/graphics/large/mughpriv.htm

Dara Shikoh's favorite wife was Nadira Banu with whom he had all his children. This Ra'nadil is either a fictional character or she may have been a mistress of Dara. Nadira Banu died before Dara's death.

As this book correctly says, Dara had only one wife--Nadira Banu:

http://books.google.com/books?id=AV--abKg9GEC&pg=PA360&lpg=PA360&dq=nadira+banu+death&source=bl&ots=iI0hU0FN7k&sig=l5z4rvtZbbx3XCU7NJsFkaJYue8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=5tqPUKXNCaei2wW_lIH4BQ&ved=0CDYQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=nadira%20banu%20death&f=false

panini press wrote:

panini press wrote:

Rashmun wrote:i question the authenticity of this poem. I do not think Guru Gobind Singh wrote in this fashion about Aurangzeb.

This is because you have a hatred for Aurangzeb. This may be because some of your ancestors were roughed up by him when he lost his head towards the latter half of his rule and did some minor bad things that are best glossed over.

Rashmun wrote:He moreover the trash you are now posting is not from your favorite 'Hindu' newspaper.

I posted this from the SikhiWiki:

SikhiWIKI is an encyclopedia of the Sikh Way of Life written collaboratively by many of its readers. Lots of people are constantly improving SikhiWIKI, by constantly making changes, all of which are recorded on the page history and the Recent Changes page. Nonsense and vandalism are usually removed quickly.

These verses are completely authentic and attributed by Sikh tradition to Guru Gobind Singh. Here are other sources that contain the same verses with very similar translations.

http://www.zafarnama.com/Download/zafarnama.pdf, page 34
http://www.unp.me/f15/zafarnama-guru-gobind-singh-ji-da-likhiya-khat-auranzeb-nu-17015/

Here is a higher-quality English translation of the verses: http://www.info-sikh.com/EEZPage1.html

O Aurangzeb, king of kings, fortunate are you,
An expert swordsman and a horseman too: (89)

Handsome is your person and your intellect high,
Master of the lands, ruler and emperor. (90)

A skilled wielder of the sword and clever in administration,
A master-warrior and a man of charitable disposition. (91)

You grant riches and lands in charity,
O one of handsome body and brilliant mind. (92)

Great is your munificence, in war you are like a mountain,
Of angelic disposition, your splendor is like that of Pleiades. (93)

You are the king of kings, ornament of the throne of the world:
Master of the world, but far from religion! (94)

Guru Gobind Singh's verses praising Aurangzeb are recited at a gurdwara:



Watch from 5:24. As the section with praise of Aurangzeb begins, the person reciting the Persian poem explains to the congregation in Punjabi: "these next verses are those in which the Guruji praises Aurangzeb." Then he proceeds to recite the Farsi poem. Read the English subtitles.

It is clear that Sikhs consider this an authentic work of Guru Gobind Singh. Rashmun, your questioning of the authenticity of these verses just shows your hatred towards Aurangzeb. Why do you hate him so much?

.

Rashmun wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Rashmun wrote:


Aurangzeb was communal because he reimposed jaziya (special tax on non-muslims). Nizam did not impose jaziya on non-muslims.

.

.

.

.

.

panini press wrote:Of all the men who sat upon the throne in Delhi no name evokes such an image of somber grandeur as that of Aurangzeb.

http://www.islamicart.com/library/empires/india/aurangzib.html

It is worth noting that Aurangzeb's name evokes a higher-resolution, higher-color-density, sharper-focus, better-exposed image of somber grandeur than that of Akbar. If Aurangzeb was communal, this would not have been the case with his image.

.

Rashmun wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

ashdoc wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

ashdoc wrote:
after aurangzeb murdered his elder brother dara shikoh ( along with other brothers ) he wanted to rape and forcibly make his concubine dara's favourite and most beautiful wife . but the loyal lady took a knife and destroyed her own charms by slashing her face apart with the knife .

how unfortunate for aurangzeb.....

in fact Dara Shikoh's favorite wife had already died by the time Dara was captured. please get your facts right.

If the Jaipur painting of Dara Shukoh and Ra`nadil is correctly dated to 1658, it is not only an depiction of an intimate romantic scene but in retrospect quite touching. In the painting, Dara Shukoh has taken her hand and is offering her to drink (probably wine) as one female attendant pours another glass and another plays sitar. Dara Shukoh was at that time the heir apparent and Ra`nadil his favorite wife. By mid-March, 1659, Dara Shukoh had been defeated in a succession crisis sparked by his father Shahjahan's illness and his brother Aurangzeb's ambition, and soon thereafter was executed. Aurangzeb attempted to add all his brother's wives and concubines to his own harem, but Ra`nadil resisted. The story told by a Western traveller goes that he summoned her and she refused to come. He insisted, saying it was a brother's duty to take care of his sisters-in-law when they were widowed. Ra`nadil is said to have asked what Aurangzeb particularly liked about her. He replied that it was her hair. She cut it off and sent it to him, saying he now had what he wanted and should leave her alone. When Aurangzeb persisted, Ra`nadil is said to have taken a knife and slashed her face, putting a kerchief to it to record the scars. She sent the kerchief to Aurangzeb, who finally relented and consented to leave her alone. (Randhawa & Galbraith, pp. 49-50, quoting Storia do Mogor.) Of course, that this story comes to us from a European raises all sorts of questions about its truth and the degree to which the narrative and emotions depicted were filtered through a foreign culture. Yet the tale seems to me to contain folkloric motifs such as repetition, and if not true it may at least be indigenous. And the very existence of the 1658 painting does point to something special in the relationship of the two, to a tenderness that contrasts with Jahangir's bear hug and with the frankly lascivious embraces into which the Rajput chieftains are often shown drawing their women. Was the love of Dara Shukoh and Ra`nadil somehow early modern in character? After his death, she successfully resists being treated as mere property, the spoils of war, asserting her autonomy as a person by being willing to discard outward marks of beauty. This behavior is very different from that of the medieval Layla, who acquiesces dutifully in her family's plans for her, driving her beloved mad.

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jrcole/graphics/large/mughpriv.htm

Dara Shikoh's favorite wife was Nadira Banu with whom he had all his children. This Ra'nadil is either a fictional character or she may have been a mistress of Dara. Nadira Banu died before Dara's death.

As this book correctly says, Dara had only one wife--Nadira Banu:

http://books.google.com/books?id=AV--abKg9GEC&pg=PA360&lpg=PA360&dq=nadira+banu+death&source=bl&ots=iI0hU0FN7k&sig=l5z4rvtZbbx3XCU7NJsFkaJYue8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=5tqPUKXNCaei2wW_lIH4BQ&ved=0CDYQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=nadira%20banu%20death&f=false

http://lahorenama.wordpress.com/2010/02/04/nadira-begums-tomb-faded-glory-of-lahore/

On the other hand, Muslims consider him to be one of the best rulers who was a pious, scholarly, saintly, unbiased, liberal, magnanimous, tolerant, competent and far-sighted. To prove the view of the former group, a close scrutiny of the Government -approved text books in schools and colleges in post-partition India is sufficient.[1]

The second group depends mostly on pre-colonial (and some pre-partition) history, land-grant deeds and other available records. It is difficult to untangle this historical mess without scrutinizing the accusations against Aurangzeb rationally. Fortunately, in recent years quite a few Hindu historians have come out in the open disputing those allegations. For example, historian Babu Nagendranath Banerjee [2] 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 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 decisions 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."

http://www.milligazette.com/news/3837-mughal-emperor-aurangzebs-reign

---

Rashmun has repeatedly claimed that Aurangzeb was communal. It is clear that he was not. Unlike the Nizam whose commander-in-chief was Muslim, Aurangzeb appointed a Hindu. How could Aurangzeb have targeted Hindus if his policy was formulated by Hindus? Rashmun stands clearly exposed by Banerjeeji.

Rashmun wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

ashdoc wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

ashdoc wrote:
after aurangzeb murdered his elder brother dara shikoh ( along with other brothers ) he wanted to rape and forcibly make his concubine dara's favourite and most beautiful wife . but the loyal lady took a knife and destroyed her own charms by slashing her face apart with the knife .

how unfortunate for aurangzeb.....

in fact Dara Shikoh's favorite wife had already died by the time Dara was captured. please get your facts right.

If the Jaipur painting of Dara Shukoh and Ra`nadil is correctly dated to 1658, it is not only an depiction of an intimate romantic scene but in retrospect quite touching. In the painting, Dara Shukoh has taken her hand and is offering her to drink (probably wine) as one female attendant pours another glass and another plays sitar. Dara Shukoh was at that time the heir apparent and Ra`nadil his favorite wife. By mid-March, 1659, Dara Shukoh had been defeated in a succession crisis sparked by his father Shahjahan's illness and his brother Aurangzeb's ambition, and soon thereafter was executed. Aurangzeb attempted to add all his brother's wives and concubines to his own harem, but Ra`nadil resisted. The story told by a Western traveller goes that he summoned her and she refused to come. He insisted, saying it was a brother's duty to take care of his sisters-in-law when they were widowed. Ra`nadil is said to have asked what Aurangzeb particularly liked about her. He replied that it was her hair. She cut it off and sent it to him, saying he now had what he wanted and should leave her alone. When Aurangzeb persisted, Ra`nadil is said to have taken a knife and slashed her face, putting a kerchief to it to record the scars. She sent the kerchief to Aurangzeb, who finally relented and consented to leave her alone. (Randhawa & Galbraith, pp. 49-50, quoting Storia do Mogor.) Of course, that this story comes to us from a European raises all sorts of questions about its truth and the degree to which the narrative and emotions depicted were filtered through a foreign culture. Yet the tale seems to me to contain folkloric motifs such as repetition, and if not true it may at least be indigenous. And the very existence of the 1658 painting does point to something special in the relationship of the two, to a tenderness that contrasts with Jahangir's bear hug and with the frankly lascivious embraces into which the Rajput chieftains are often shown drawing their women. Was the love of Dara Shukoh and Ra`nadil somehow early modern in character? After his death, she successfully resists being treated as mere property, the spoils of war, asserting her autonomy as a person by being willing to discard outward marks of beauty. This behavior is very different from that of the medieval Layla, who acquiesces dutifully in her family's plans for her, driving her beloved mad.

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jrcole/graphics/large/mughpriv.htm

Dara Shikoh's favorite wife was Nadira Banu with whom he had all his children. This Ra'nadil is either a fictional character or she may have been a mistress of Dara. Nadira Banu died before Dara's death.

As this book correctly says, Dara had only one wife--Nadira Banu:

http://books.google.com/books?id=AV--abKg9GEC&pg=PA360&lpg=PA360&dq=nadira+banu+death&source=bl&ots=iI0hU0FN7k&sig=l5z4rvtZbbx3XCU7NJsFkaJYue8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=5tqPUKXNCaei2wW_lIH4BQ&ved=0CDYQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=nadira%20banu%20death&f=false

but Abraham eraly in ' Emperors of the peacock throne ' says that ranadil was dara's wife .

ashdoc wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

ashdoc wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

in fact Dara Shikoh's favorite wife had already died by the time Dara was captured. please get your facts right.

If the Jaipur painting of Dara Shukoh and Ra`nadil is correctly dated to 1658, it is not only an depiction of an intimate romantic scene but in retrospect quite touching. In the painting, Dara Shukoh has taken her hand and is offering her to drink (probably wine) as one female attendant pours another glass and another plays sitar. Dara Shukoh was at that time the heir apparent and Ra`nadil his favorite wife. By mid-March, 1659, Dara Shukoh had been defeated in a succession crisis sparked by his father Shahjahan's illness and his brother Aurangzeb's ambition, and soon thereafter was executed. Aurangzeb attempted to add all his brother's wives and concubines to his own harem, but Ra`nadil resisted. The story told by a Western traveller goes that he summoned her and she refused to come. He insisted, saying it was a brother's duty to take care of his sisters-in-law when they were widowed. Ra`nadil is said to have asked what Aurangzeb particularly liked about her. He replied that it was her hair. She cut it off and sent it to him, saying he now had what he wanted and should leave her alone. When Aurangzeb persisted, Ra`nadil is said to have taken a knife and slashed her face, putting a kerchief to it to record the scars. She sent the kerchief to Aurangzeb, who finally relented and consented to leave her alone. (Randhawa & Galbraith, pp. 49-50, quoting Storia do Mogor.) Of course, that this story comes to us from a European raises all sorts of questions about its truth and the degree to which the narrative and emotions depicted were filtered through a foreign culture. Yet the tale seems to me to contain folkloric motifs such as repetition, and if not true it may at least be indigenous. And the very existence of the 1658 painting does point to something special in the relationship of the two, to a tenderness that contrasts with Jahangir's bear hug and with the frankly lascivious embraces into which the Rajput chieftains are often shown drawing their women. Was the love of Dara Shukoh and Ra`nadil somehow early modern in character? After his death, she successfully resists being treated as mere property, the spoils of war, asserting her autonomy as a person by being willing to discard outward marks of beauty. This behavior is very different from that of the medieval Layla, who acquiesces dutifully in her family's plans for her, driving her beloved mad.

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jrcole/graphics/large/mughpriv.htm

Dara Shikoh's favorite wife was Nadira Banu with whom he had all his children. This Ra'nadil is either a fictional character or she may have been a mistress of Dara. Nadira Banu died before Dara's death.

As this book correctly says, Dara had only one wife--Nadira Banu:

http://books.google.com/books?id=AV--abKg9GEC&pg=PA360&lpg=PA360&dq=nadira+banu+death&source=bl&ots=iI0hU0FN7k&sig=l5z4rvtZbbx3XCU7NJsFkaJYue8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=5tqPUKXNCaei2wW_lIH4BQ&ved=0CDYQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=nadira%20banu%20death&f=false

but Abraham eraly in ' Emperors of the peacock throne ' says that ranadil was dara's wife .

Eraly may have been sensationalizing history by interweaving facts with his own imagination. Ranadil may have been his own fictional creation. Moreover, Eraly does not know persian (he does not know how to read or write persian) which is an essential skill to have if you wish to be an authority on mughal india since the contemporary historical works of those times are all in persian. Eraly depends on translations and writings of other scholars for his own history books. He can be read for amusement but that is about it.

Rashmun wrote:
Ranadil may have been his own fictional creation.

the link i gave is not based on eraly's book . so we have two people talking about ranadil---and only one of them is eraly .

and accusing a historian who has written a major book of creating fictional characters is too much . looks like you have run out of excuses to excuse aurangzeb of the stigma of being a rapist .

ashdoc wrote:

Rashmun wrote:
Ranadil may have been his own fictional creation.

the link i gave is not based on eraly's book . so we have two people talking about ranadil---and only one of them is eraly .

and accusing a historian who has written a major book of creating fictional characters is too much . looks like you have run out of excuses to excuse aurangzeb of the stigma of being a rapist .

i am only claiming that eraly cannot be considered an authority on mughal india because he does not know persian. in other words, he does not know how to read or write in persian. i have no problem with people like you reading eraly for amusement, but i object to anyone proclaiming him to be some kind of authority on mughal india since all the contemporary historical accounts of this period of indian history are in persian.

Rashmun wrote:

ashdoc wrote:

Rashmun wrote:
Ranadil may have been his own fictional creation.

the link i gave is not based on eraly's book . so we have two people talking about ranadil---and only one of them is eraly .

and accusing a historian who has written a major book of creating fictional characters is too much . looks like you have run out of excuses to excuse aurangzeb of the stigma of being a rapist .

i am only claiming that eraly cannot be considered an authority on mughal india because he does not know persian. in other words, he does not know how to read or write in persian. i have no problem with people like you reading eraly for amusement, but i object to anyone proclaiming him to be some kind of authority on mughal india since all the contemporary historical accounts of this period of indian history are in persian.

Do you know Persian? i.e. Read or Write in Persian?

Rashmun wrote:Eraly does not know persian (he does not know how to read or write persian) which is an essential skill to have if you wish to be an authority on mughal india since the contemporary historical works of those times are all in persian. Eraly depends on translations and writings of other scholars for his own history books. He can be read for amusement but that is about it.

Congratulations on being able to read and write Farsi.

panini press wrote:On the other hand, Muslims consider him to be one of the best rulers who was a pious, scholarly, saintly, unbiased, liberal, magnanimous, tolerant, competent and far-sighted. To prove the view of the former group, a close scrutiny of the Government -approved text books in schools and colleges in post-partition India is sufficient.[1]

The second group depends mostly on pre-colonial (and some pre-partition) history, land-grant deeds and other available records. It is difficult to untangle this historical mess without scrutinizing the accusations against Aurangzeb rationally. Fortunately, in recent years quite a few Hindu historians have come out in the open disputing those allegations. For example, historian Babu Nagendranath Banerjee [2] 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 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 decisions 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."

http://www.milligazette.com/news/3837-mughal-emperor-aurangzebs-reign

---

Rashmun has repeatedly claimed that Aurangzeb was communal. It is clear that he was not. Unlike the Nizam whose commander-in-chief was Muslim, Aurangzeb appointed a Hindu. How could Aurangzeb have targeted Hindus if his policy was formulated by Hindus? Rashmun stands clearly exposed by Banerjeeji.

.

Major good news for fans of Aurangzeb. Many thanks to Rashmun for making these facts about Aurangzeb the Great known to me.

1. Aurangzeb did not attempt to rape his brother's widow. This shows his generous side.

2. Aurangzeb did not impose jaziya on all Hindus. His Hindu nobles and chieftains were not charged jaziya. This shows that he is not communal, contrary to the claims of Rashmun.

3. Aurangzeb did not impose jaziya on women, children or the elderly. This shows his generous side.

Here is a helpful comparison of Aurangzeb with a not-communal king, the Nizam. As you can see, if Nizam is not-communal, Aurangzeb is at least not-communal x 10.

Criterion	Aurangzeb	The Nizam	Who is less communal?
Appointed Hindu commander-in-chief	Yes	No	Aurangzeb
Policy made by Hindus	Yes	No	Aurangzeb
Extolled by Sikh Guru Gobind Singh	Yes	No	Aurangzeb
Appointed more than 100 Hindus to senior positions in government	Yes	No	Aurangzeb
Built temple in Chitrakoot	Yes	No	Aurangzeb
Formed private army to target all Hindus	No	No	Both about the same
Imposed jaziya on all Hindus	No	No	Both about the same
Praised for generosity	Yes	Yes	Both about the same
Considered a miser	Yes	Yes	Both about the same
Had love for books	Yes	Yes	Both about the same
Did not impose jaziya on women, children and the elderly	Yes	Yes	Both about the same

In the face of this overwhelming evidence, if Rashmun maintains that Aurangzeb was communal while the Nizam was not, that is because he has personal hatred for Aurangzeb, because Aurangzeb had roughed up some of his ancestors a little (just to clarify: I meant Rashmun's ancestors, although Aurangzeb also roughed up some of his own ancestors a little too -- but that was before he lost his head so it was not a bad action on his part).

This is getting so interesting! Our history books needs to be thrown out and all students should follow this forum to know history on nizam/aurangzeb/etc etc.

Rashmun, I am really happy to note that you are googling for evidence of Sikh leaders praising the Nizam. I do hope you find something as effusive as Guru Gobind Singh's praise of Aurangzeb. Good luck to you and the Nizam!

FluteHolder wrote:This is getting so interesting! Our history books needs to be thrown out and all students should follow this forum to know history on nizam/aurangzeb/etc etc.

LOL... this forum is already the definitive source for the long-standing links between Khariboli and Mandarin. Next it will be the definitive source on the generous sides of Nizam and Aurangzeb. If you don't believe me, look here...

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=nizam+generous
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=aurangzeb+generous

Aurangzeb is in second place, but together we can fix that!

panini press wrote:Major good news for fans of Aurangzeb. Many thanks to Rashmun for making these facts about Aurangzeb the Great known to me.

1. Aurangzeb did not attempt to rape his brother's widow. This shows his generous side.

2. Aurangzeb did not impose jaziya on all Hindus. His Hindu nobles and chieftains were not charged jaziya. This shows that he is not communal, contrary to the claims of Rashmun.

3. Aurangzeb did not impose jaziya on women, children or the elderly. This shows his generous side.

Here is a helpful comparison of Aurangzeb with a not-communal king, the Nizam. As you can see, if Nizam is not-communal, Aurangzeb is at least not-communal x 10.

Criterion	Aurangzeb	The Nizam	Who is less communal?
Appointed Hindu commander-in-chief	Yes	No	Aurangzeb
Policy made by Hindus	Yes	No	Aurangzeb
Extolled by Sikh Guru Gobind Singh	Yes	No	Aurangzeb
Appointed more than 100 Hindus to senior positions in government	Yes	No	Aurangzeb
Built temple in Chitrakoot	Yes	No	Aurangzeb
Formed private army to target all Hindus	No	No	Both about the same
Imposed jaziya on all Hindus	No	No	Both about the same
Praised for generosity	Yes	Yes	Both about the same
Considered a miser	Yes	Yes	Both about the same
Had love for books	Yes	Yes	Both about the same
Did not impose jaziya on women, children and the elderly	Yes	Yes	Both about the same

In the face of this overwhelming evidence, if Rashmun maintains that Aurangzeb was communal while the Nizam was not, that is because he has personal hatred for Aurangzeb, because Aurangzeb had roughed up some of his ancestors a little (just to clarify: I meant Rashmun's ancestors, although Aurangzeb also roughed up some of his own ancestors a little too -- but that was before he lost his head so it was not a bad action on his part).

.

panini press wrote:

Rashmun wrote:Eraly does not know persian (he does not know how to read or write persian) which is an essential skill to have if you wish to be an authority on mughal india since the contemporary historical works of those times are all in persian. Eraly depends on translations and writings of other scholars for his own history books. He can be read for amusement but that is about it.

Congratulations on being able to read and write Farsi.

.

panini press wrote:On the other hand, Muslims consider him to be one of the best rulers who was a pious, scholarly, saintly, unbiased, liberal, magnanimous, tolerant, competent and far-sighted. To prove the view of the former group, a close scrutiny of the Government -approved text books in schools and colleges in post-partition India is sufficient.[1]

The second group depends mostly on pre-colonial (and some pre-partition) history, land-grant deeds and other available records. It is difficult to untangle this historical mess without scrutinizing the accusations against Aurangzeb rationally. Fortunately, in recent years quite a few Hindu historians have come out in the open disputing those allegations. For example, historian Babu Nagendranath Banerjee [2] 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 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 decisions 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."

http://www.milligazette.com/news/3837-mughal-emperor-aurangzebs-reign

---

Rashmun has repeatedly claimed that Aurangzeb was communal. It is clear that he was not. Unlike the Nizam whose commander-in-chief was Muslim, Aurangzeb appointed a Hindu. How could Aurangzeb have targeted Hindus if his policy was formulated by Hindus? Rashmun stands clearly exposed by Banerjeeji.

.

I am pleased to note that this thread has already reached 75 replies, most of them by me. This thread will soon overtake the Nizam thread if we (I) keep this up. After all, there are more source materials available about Aurangzeb than there are about the Nizam.

Here is a helpful comparison of Aurangzeb with a not-communal king, the Nizam. As you can see, if Nizam is not-communal, Aurangzeb is at least not-communal x 10.

Criterion	Aurangzeb	The Nizam	Who is less communal?
Appointed Hindu commander-in-chief	Yes	No	Aurangzeb
Policy made by Hindus	Yes	No	Aurangzeb
Extolled by Sikh Guru Gobind Singh	Yes	No	Aurangzeb
Appointed more than 100 Hindus to senior positions in government	Yes	No	Aurangzeb
Built temple in Chitrakoot	Yes	No	Aurangzeb
Formed private army to target all Hindus	No	No	Both about the same
Imposed jaziya on all Hindus	No	No	Both about the same
Praised for generosity	Yes	Yes	Both about the same
Considered a miser	Yes	Yes	Both about the same
Had love for books	Yes	Yes	Both about the same
Did not impose jaziya on women, children and the elderly	Yes	Yes	Both about the same
Did not attempt to rape brother's widow	Yes	Yes	Both about the same

In the face of this overwhelming evidence, if Rashmun maintains that Aurangzeb was communal while the Nizam was not, that is because he has personal hatred for Aurangzeb, because Aurangzeb had roughed up some of his ancestors a little (just to clarify: I meant Rashmun's ancestors, although Aurangzeb also roughed up some of his own ancestors a little too -- but that was before he lost his head so it was not a bad action on his part).

PS: I had inadvertently left out a point of comparison. I have fixed it now.

panini press wrote:Rashmun, I am really happy to note that you are googling for evidence of Sikh leaders praising the Nizam. I do hope you find something as effusive as Guru Gobind Singh's praise of Aurangzeb. Good luck to you and the Nizam!

Please post any evidence you find of this level of effusive praise of the Nizam by any Sikh here. Thanks. (also, wow in advance for any such evidence you find).

On the other hand, Muslims consider him to be one of the best rulers who was a pious, scholarly, saintly, unbiased, liberal, magnanimous, tolerant, competent and far-sighted. To prove the view of the former group, a close scrutiny of the Government -approved text books in schools and colleges in post-partition India is sufficient.[1]

The second group depends mostly on pre-colonial (and some pre-partition) history, land-grant deeds and other available records. It is difficult to untangle this historical mess without scrutinizing the accusations against Aurangzeb rationally. Fortunately, in recent years quite a few Hindu historians have come out in the open disputing those allegations. For example, historian Babu Nagendranath Banerjee [2] 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 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 decisions 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."

http://www.milligazette.com/news/3837-mughal-emperor-aurangzebs-reign

---

Rashmun has repeatedly claimed that Aurangzeb was communal. It is clear that he was not. Unlike the Nizam whose commander-in-chief was Muslim, Aurangzeb appointed a Hindu. How could Aurangzeb have targeted Hindus if his policy was formulated by Hindus? Rashmun stands clearly exposed by Banerjeeji.

I was reviewing this thread and came across something that I haven't dotted in almost an entire day. Here it is!

---

It seems unbelievable but it is reportedly a historical fact that Mughal emperor Aurangzeb built a temple 323 years ago at Chitrakoot, a region now divided between UP and MP.

[Aurangzeb] ordered his men to build a grand temple then and there. He also conferred 330 bighas of precious and fertile land with seven villages and one rupee daily from the state treasury for the maintenance of the temple. These villages are Hamutha, Chitrakoot, Rodra, Sarya, Madri, Jarva and Dohariya in Allahabad district, UP.

What we have always known and Aurangzeb must have known too, is that Chitrakoot, today in shambles and civic disarray, is sacred ground, the abode of Lord Ram, Sitaji and Lakshman for nearly eleven and a half years of their exile.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/News-Feed/NM21/Aurangzeb-at-Chitrakoot/Article1-199287.aspx

I should have fixed the colors before doing that. There you go.

panini press wrote:I was reviewing this thread and came across something that I haven't dotted in almost an entire day. Here it is!

---

It seems unbelievable but it is reportedly a historical fact that Mughal emperor Aurangzeb built a temple 323 years ago at Chitrakoot, a region now divided between UP and MP.

[Aurangzeb] ordered his men to build a grand temple then and there. He also conferred 330 bighas of precious and fertile land with seven villages and one rupee daily from the state treasury for the maintenance of the temple. These villages are Hamutha, Chitrakoot, Rodra, Sarya, Madri, Jarva and Dohariya in Allahabad district, UP.

What we have always known and Aurangzeb must have known too, is that Chitrakoot, today in shambles and civic disarray, is sacred ground, the abode of Lord Ram, Sitaji and Lakshman for nearly eleven and a half years of their exile.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/News-Feed/NM21/Aurangzeb-at-Chitrakoot/Article1-199287.aspx

excellent thread. good balance of underlining, odd color changes, weird analogies, pigheaded stubbornness, and labored comparisons. A+

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:excellent thread. good balance of underlining, odd color changes, weird analogies, pigheaded stubbornness, and labored comparisons. A+

Thanks for your kind words. I take none of the credit. All credit goes to the great Emperor Aurangzeb the Great, whose spectacular accomplishments make this thread possible.

I have just figured out how to make the table colorful. So here is an update:

Here is a helpful comparison of Aurangzeb with a not-communal king, the Nizam. As you can see, if Nizam is not-communal, Aurangzeb is at least not-communal x 10.

Criterion	Aurangzeb	The Nizam	Who is less communal?
Appointed Hindu commander-in-chief	Yes	No	Aurangzeb
Policy made by Hindus	Yes	No	Aurangzeb
Extolled by Sikh Guru Gobind Singh	Yes	No	Aurangzeb
Appointed more than 100 Hindus to senior positions in government	Yes	No	Aurangzeb
Built temple in Chitrakoot	Yes	No	Aurangzeb
Formed private army to target all Hindus	No	No	Both about the same
Imposed jaziya on all Hindus	No	No	Both about the same
Praised for generosity	Yes	Yes	Both about the same
Did not impose jaziya on women, children and the elderly	Yes	Yes	Both about the same
Did not attempt to rape brother's widow	Yes	Yes	Both about the same

In the face of this overwhelming evidence, if Rashmun maintains that Aurangzeb was communal while the Nizam was not, that is because he has personal hatred for Aurangzeb, because Aurangzeb had roughed up some of his ancestors a little (just to clarify: I meant Rashmun's ancestors, although Aurangzeb also roughed up some of his own ancestors a little too -- but that was before he lost his head so it was not a bad action on his part).

Rashmun wrote:i am only claiming that eraly cannot be considered an authority on mughal india because he does not know persian. ... all the contemporary historical accounts of this period of indian history are in persian.

Rashmun congratulations on reading the autobiography of the grandfather of the illustrious Aurangzeb the Great. This gives you authority on Mughal India. I presume you can read and write Farsi. If you can't, never mind, move the goalpost at a later date and that will be that.

PS: When you said all above, I am sure you didn't mean all in the traditional, almost old-fashioned sense of the word. You meant to automatically exclude the writings of contemporary European observers like one Sir Thomas Roe. It is quite obvious, really.

I made a serious mistake in my earlier copy-paste of the Milli Gazette article in the previous page of this thread. I am sorry for this mistake, and I would like to rectify it. You see, I copy-pasted the first few arguments there regarding Aurangzeb the Great's greatness, but forgot to post the rest. I hope the Spirit of Aurangzeb the Great forgives my error.

Some of the Hindu historians have accused Aurangzeb of demolishing Hindu temples. How factual is this accusation against a man who has been known to be a saintly man, a strict adherent of Islam? The Qur’an prohibits any Muslim to impose his will on a non-Muslim by stating that "There is no compulsion in religion." (Qur’an: Surah al-Baqarah). The Surah al-Kafiroon (The Rejecters) clearly states: "To you is your religion and to me is mine." It would be totally unbecoming of a learned scholar of Islam of his stature, as Aurangzeb was known to be, to do things which are contrary to the dictates of the Qur’an.

This is conclusive proof that Aurangzeb did not really destroy the temples he is accused of destroying. If he did destroy those temples, there is no way he would be considered a saintly emperor.

I know the evidence is already overwhelming that Aurangzeb did not destroy temples, but what am I if not overwhelming in my evidentiary powers? Here is more conclusive proof that Aurangzeb was secular.

Interestingly, the 1946 edition of history textbook, Etihash Parichaya (Introduction to History), used in Bengal and published by the Hindustan Press, 10 Ramesh Dutta Street, Calcutta, 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 Benares, Kashmir and elsewhere. The official documentations for these land grants are still extant."

http://www.milligazette.com/news/3837-mughal-emperor-aurangzebs-reign

It is time to copy-paste the next paragraph of this article. I know SuCHers must be eager with anticipation to read its contents.

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 e]]Aurangzeb’s land grant for famous Hindu religious sites in Kashi (Varanasi)[/u] can easily be verified from the deed records extant at those sites. The same textbook reads: "During the 50-year reign of Aurangzeb, not a single Hindu was forced to embrace Islam. He did not interfere with any Hindu religious activities." (p. 138)

http://www.milligazette.com/news/3837-mughal-emperor-aurangzebs-reign

---

It is high time that people like Rashmun stopped calling Aurangzeb communal. He was clearly secular in that he gave land grants to temples in Kashi, the epicenter of Hinduism located in the holy state of Uttar Pradesh.

It has been conclusively proven that Jahangir, the grandfather of Aurangzeb the Great, was secular because a British visitor said that all religions were welcome in his realm. Here is another British visitor, talking about Aurangzeb the Great's empire.

Alexander Hamilton, a British historian, toured India towards the end of Aurangzeb’s 50-year reign and observed that everyone was free to serve and worship God in his own way.

http://www.milligazette.com/news/3837-mughal-emperor-aurangzebs-reign

These references clearly show that accusations of forced conversion and religious intolerance are false. It is also evident that since the independence of India in 1947, there has been an overt attempt by revisionist, bigoted Hindu historians in India to malign the Muslim history.

---

It is sad to see Rashmun side with revisionist, bigoted Hindu historians -- despite professing belief in secularism -- when it comes to the secular legacy of Aurangzeb the Great.

Rashmun has repeatedly accused Aurangzeb of being communal, using the idea that he imposed jaziya on Hindus. Here is the truth about the jaziya.

---

http://www.milligazette.com/news/3837-mughal-emperor-aurangzebs-reign

Now let us deal with Aurangzeb’s imposition of Jizya tax which had drawn severe criticism from many Hindu historians. It is true that Jizya was lifted during the reign of Akbar and Jahangir and that Aurangzeb later reinstated it.

Before I delve into the subject of Aurangzeb’s Jizya tax, or taxing the non-Muslims, it is worthwhile to note that Jizya is nothing more than a war exemption tax which was collected only from able-bodied non-Muslim young male citizens who did not want to volunteer for the defence of the country. There was no Jizya if they volunteered to fight for the country. No such tax was collected from non-Muslims who joined to defend the country.

---

As Rashmun helpfully explained earlier, this is very similar to what the Razakars did. If a Hindu were to join the Razakars in fighting the enemies of the state he would be welcomed. If he refused to join up and instead supported the enemies of the state, he would be punished as a traitor. You cannot call the ruler who created one system communal while calling the creator of the other system secular.

I shall have more to copy-paste on this in subsequent posts.

On the topic of jaziya, here are some more details.

This tax was not collected from women, nor from young males or from disabled or elderly non-Muslim male citizens. Muslims who paid zakat were not exempt from war duty and a similar form of war tax was also collected from able-bodied Muslim adult males who refused to join war efforts to defend the country. There was, therefore, no discrimination between able-bodied Muslim males and able-bodied non-Muslim males when it came to the payment of war-tax, as long as the person in question would not volunteer in war- efforts for defense of the Muslim- administered state.

http://www.milligazette.com/news/3837-mughal-emperor-aurangzebs-reign

---

This clearly demolishes Rashmun's claim that jaziya is communal. It is clear that jaziya was secular just like the Nizam was secular.

Here is another nail in coffin of the idea that jaziya was communal.

Zakat (2.5% of savings) and ‘Ushr (10% of agricultural produce) were collected from all Muslims, who owned some wealth (beyond a certain minimum, called Nisab). They also had to pay sadaqah, fitrah and Khums. None of these taxes were collected from any non-Muslim. As a matter of fact, the per capita tax collection from Muslims was many folds higher than that of non-Muslims.


---

Aurangzeb taxed Muslims at a higher tax rate than he taxed Hindus. This proves that he was thoroughly secular. He was even more secular than the current government of India which taxes all its citizens at the same rates regardless of religion.

Almost forgot the link -- oops! Here it is: http://www.milligazette.com/news/3837-mughal-emperor-aurangzebs-reign

It is an axiom of Rashmunian History that no defense of a Muslim tyrant is ever complete without mentioning that kings of other faiths did the same thing too. Let me uphold that great tradition with Aurangzeb the Great and jaziya.

---

Rajputs living in western India used to collect a similar form of Jizya or war tax which they called "Fix" tax. (Ref: Early History of India by Vincent Smith). War tax was not a sole monopoly among the Indian or Muslim rulers.

Historian Dr. Tripathy mentions a number of countries in Europe where war-tax was practiced. (Ref: Some Aspects of Muslim Administration by Sri Tripathy) Let us now return to Aurangzeb. In his book "Mughal Administration,” Sir Jadunath Sarkar [3] foremost historian on the Mughal dynasty, mentions that during Aurangzeb’s reign, nearly 65 types of taxes were abolished, which resulted in a yearly revenue loss of 50 million rupees to the state treasury. It is also worth mentioning here that Aurangzeb did not impose Jizya in the beginning of his reign but introduced it after 16 years during which 80 types of taxes were abolished. Other historians stated that when Aurangzeb abolished eighty taxes no one thanked him for his generosity. But when he imposed only one, and not a heavy one at that, people began to show their displeasure. (Ref: Vindication of Aurangzeb).

---

It should be noted that Sir Jadunath Sarkar was quoted by Rashmun earlier today. The same reputed scholar who is the foremost historian on all matters Mughal mentions that what Aurangzeb did in fact was simplify the tax code, reduce rates, close deficits and eliminate the fiscal deficit. This is exactly the sort of plan Mitt Romney has for America. It seems to me that the people of Aurangzeb the Great's empire -- many of them from Uttar Pradesh -- were not smart enough to realize how good Aurangzeb's tax plan was for them.

This time I really did forget to post the link. Here is the link for the use of future generations: http://www.milligazette.com/news/3837-mughal-emperor-aurangzebs-reign

panini press wrote:It is time to copy-paste the next paragraph of this article. I know SuCHers must be eager with anticipation to read its contents.

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 e]]Aurangzeb’s land grant for famous Hindu religious sites in Kashi (Varanasi)[/u] can easily be verified from the deed records extant at those sites. The same textbook reads: "During the 50-year reign of Aurangzeb, not a single Hindu was forced to embrace Islam. He did not interfere with any Hindu religious activities." (p. 138)

http://www.milligazette.com/news/3837-mughal-emperor-aurangzebs-reign

---

It is high time that people like Rashmun stopped calling Aurangzeb communal. He was clearly secular in that he gave land grants to temples in Kashi, the epicenter of Hinduism located in the holy state of Uttar Pradesh.

This particular post has been referenced in another thread. For completeness, I am going to reference that thread here: https://such.forumotion.com/t8507p50-was-rana-pratap-an-ass#64403.

panini press wrote:

Rashmun wrote:i am only claiming that eraly cannot be considered an authority on mughal india because he does not know persian. ... all the contemporary historical accounts of this period of indian history are in persian.

Rashmun congratulations on reading the autobiography of the grandfather of the illustrious Aurangzeb the Great. This gives you authority on Mughal India. I presume you can read and write Farsi. If you can't, never mind, move the goalpost at a later date and that will be that.

PS: When you said all above, I am sure you didn't mean all in the traditional, almost old-fashioned sense of the word. You meant to automatically exclude the writings of contemporary European observers like one Sir Thomas Roe. It is quite obvious, really.

.

panini press wrote:http://www.milligazette.com/news/3837-mughal-emperor-aurangzebs-reign

These references clearly show that accusations of forced conversion and religious intolerance are false. It is also evident that since the independence of India in 1947, there has been an overt attempt by revisionist, bigoted Hindu historians in India to malign the Muslim history.

---

It is sad to see Rashmun side with revisionist, bigoted Hindu historians -- despite professing belief in secularism -- when it comes to the secular legacy of Aurangzeb the Great.

.

panini press wrote:On the topic of jaziya, here are some more details.

This tax was not collected from women, nor from young males or from disabled or elderly non-Muslim male citizens. Muslims who paid zakat were not exempt from war duty and a similar form of war tax was also collected from able-bodied Muslim adult males who refused to join war efforts to defend the country. There was, therefore, no discrimination between able-bodied Muslim males and able-bodied non-Muslim males when it came to the payment of war-tax, as long as the person in question would not volunteer in war- efforts for defense of the Muslim- administered state.

http://www.milligazette.com/news/3837-mughal-emperor-aurangzebs-reign

---

This clearly demolishes Rashmun's claim that jaziya is communal. It is clear that jaziya was secular just like the Nizam was secular.

.

Rashmun has repeatedly accused Aurangzeb of being communal, using the idea that he imposed jaziya on Hindus. Here is the truth about the jaziya.

---

http://www.milligazette.com/news/3837-mughal-emperor-aurangzebs-reign

Now let us deal with Aurangzeb’s imposition of Jizya tax which had drawn severe criticism from many Hindu historians. It is true that Jizya was lifted during the reign of Akbar and Jahangir and that Aurangzeb later reinstated it.

Before I delve into the subject of Aurangzeb’s Jizya tax, or taxing the non-Muslims, it is worthwhile to note that Jizya is nothing more than a war exemption tax which was collected only from able-bodied non-Muslim young male citizens who did not want to volunteer for the defence of the country. There was no Jizya if they volunteered to fight for the country. No such tax was collected from non-Muslims who joined to defend the country.

---

As Rashmun helpfully explained earlier, this is very similar to what the Razakars did. If a Hindu were to join the Razakars in fighting the enemies of the state he would be welcomed. If he refused to join up and instead supported the enemies of the state, he would be punished as a traitor. You cannot call the ruler who created one system communal while calling the creator of the other system secular.

PS: The colors were a little off on this one, so fixed it.