Hitskin.comThis is a Hitskin.com skin preview
Install the skin • Return to the skin page
Home
Latest imagesAbout Aurangzeb
2 posters
Page 1 of 1
About Aurangzeb
by Rishi Mon Dec 31, 2012 3:24 pm
Sita Ram Goel was a lifelong critic of the RSS, but unlike Mukhia, he knew what he was talking about. Already as a student, he remarked that only mediocre fellow-students were going to shakhas whereas the brighter ones were concentrating on other pursuits or were seduced by Communism. Anyone who has read some of his work (but that is where the problem for Mukhia arises) has seen for himself that its message is quite different from the RSS line.
Mukhia continues: “In the shakhas, they do tell you that Aurangzeb demolished temples and erected mosques in lieu of them (which he did at Mathura and Varanasi), but they never tell you that he was also giving monetary and land grants to other Hindu temples, including some in Varanasi itself, the original document for which is on display at the Bharat Kala Bhavan on BHU campus. Historians KK Datta and Jnana Prakash have also published numerous documents of Aurangzeb giving such grants to temples, maths and other Hindu institutions, and many more remain unpublished. Naturally ‘historians’ like Goel and Elst wouldn't know of them, nor would care to know.”
It is not only in the shakhas that they tell you this. Aurangzeb himself gave orders for a general destruction of temples and literally demolished thousands of them. Many other Muslim rulers acted likewise. No amount of special pleading by the eminent historians can change Islam’s record in this regard. It is possible that earlier, Aurangzeb gave some grants to Hindu institutions, as had been the Moghul dynasty’s policy since Akbar. We should of course not take Mukhia’s word for it (the eminent historians have a well-established reputation for mendaciousness), and “numerous” is certainly an exaggeration, but it remains possible. This only shows the inertia of changing a policy, as well as Aurangzeb’s increase in devotion to Islam, from a compromise-prone successor of Akbar to a zealous activist for Islam, which does not tolerate idolatry.
One issue where the much-maligned RSS is clearly wrong in its assessment of Aurangzeb, is its condemnation of him as a fanatic person. The said grants to temples, if true, may further prove a point that I have had to make repeatedly: it is not true that Aurangzeb was a cruel character, he was not more so than his less notorious predecessors. If he was cruel and fatatic, it was because he started taking the core doctrine of Islam to his heart. He was a pious person, more than is good for a ruler, so he became increasingly averse to the religious compromise on which his great-grandfather Akbar had built the Moghul empire. So at some point in his advancing years, not his personal predilection but his growing commitment to Islam took over. That is when he ordered all Pagan temples destroyed: when the Moghul empire became truly Islamic at last. But the RSS is fearful to say this, so it tells itself and its listeners that Islam is okay but that Aurangzeb “misunderstood” his religion due to his cruel and fanatic personality.
http://koenraadelst.blogspot.com.au/2012/12/a-debate-with-eminent-historian.html
Mukhia continues: “In the shakhas, they do tell you that Aurangzeb demolished temples and erected mosques in lieu of them (which he did at Mathura and Varanasi), but they never tell you that he was also giving monetary and land grants to other Hindu temples, including some in Varanasi itself, the original document for which is on display at the Bharat Kala Bhavan on BHU campus. Historians KK Datta and Jnana Prakash have also published numerous documents of Aurangzeb giving such grants to temples, maths and other Hindu institutions, and many more remain unpublished. Naturally ‘historians’ like Goel and Elst wouldn't know of them, nor would care to know.”
It is not only in the shakhas that they tell you this. Aurangzeb himself gave orders for a general destruction of temples and literally demolished thousands of them. Many other Muslim rulers acted likewise. No amount of special pleading by the eminent historians can change Islam’s record in this regard. It is possible that earlier, Aurangzeb gave some grants to Hindu institutions, as had been the Moghul dynasty’s policy since Akbar. We should of course not take Mukhia’s word for it (the eminent historians have a well-established reputation for mendaciousness), and “numerous” is certainly an exaggeration, but it remains possible. This only shows the inertia of changing a policy, as well as Aurangzeb’s increase in devotion to Islam, from a compromise-prone successor of Akbar to a zealous activist for Islam, which does not tolerate idolatry.
One issue where the much-maligned RSS is clearly wrong in its assessment of Aurangzeb, is its condemnation of him as a fanatic person. The said grants to temples, if true, may further prove a point that I have had to make repeatedly: it is not true that Aurangzeb was a cruel character, he was not more so than his less notorious predecessors. If he was cruel and fatatic, it was because he started taking the core doctrine of Islam to his heart. He was a pious person, more than is good for a ruler, so he became increasingly averse to the religious compromise on which his great-grandfather Akbar had built the Moghul empire. So at some point in his advancing years, not his personal predilection but his growing commitment to Islam took over. That is when he ordered all Pagan temples destroyed: when the Moghul empire became truly Islamic at last. But the RSS is fearful to say this, so it tells itself and its listeners that Islam is okay but that Aurangzeb “misunderstood” his religion due to his cruel and fanatic personality.
http://koenraadelst.blogspot.com.au/2012/12/a-debate-with-eminent-historian.html
Rishi- Posts : 5129
Join date : 2011-09-02
Re: About Aurangzeb
by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Mon Dec 31, 2012 3:31 pm
Rishi wrote:Sita Ram Goel was a lifelong critic of the RSS, but unlike Mukhia, he knew what he was talking about. ......
http://koenraadelst.blogspot.com.au/2012/12/a-debate-with-eminent-historian.html
He was a pious person, more than is good for a ruler, so he
became increasingly averse to the religious compromise on which his
great-grandfather Akbar had built the Moghul empire. So at some point in
his advancing years, not his personal predilection but his growing
commitment to Islam took over. That is when he ordered all Pagan temples
destroyed: when the Moghul empire became truly Islamic at last. But the
RSS is fearful to say this, so it tells itself and its listeners that
Islam is okay but that Aurangzeb “misunderstood” his religion due to his
cruel and fanatic personality.
****There...is the truth.... Excuses, justifications, reasons - every criminal gives.
Just bcz a person gave money to a woman he raped...he does not become a nice guy...
Aurangazeb is the chief rapist of Hinduism...and of course, the fakularists will support him just like they defend, reason out, justify the actions of rapists.
Marathadi-Saamiyaar- Posts : 17675
Join date : 2011-04-30
Age : 110
Similar topics» New Aurangzeb road comes up
» Aurangzeb vs Nizam
» Assessing Aurangzeb
» The Queen Who Challenged Aurangzeb
» Nizam, Aurangzeb and Akbar
» Aurangzeb vs Nizam
» Assessing Aurangzeb
» The Queen Who Challenged Aurangzeb
» Nizam, Aurangzeb and Akbar
Page 1 of 1
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum