Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb: Bad Ruler or Bad History?
 

[B]By Dr. Habib Siddiqui[/B]
[B][/B]
[B][/B]
[B]Of all the Muslim rulers who ruled vast territories of India from 712 to 1857 CE, probably no one has received as much condemnation from Western and Hindu writers as Aurangzeb. He has been castigated as a religious Muslim who was anti-Hindu, who taxed them, who tried to convert them, who discriminated against them in awarding high administrative positions, and who interfered in their religious matters. This view has been heavily promoted in the government approved textbooks in schools and colleges across post-partition India (i.e., after 1947). These are fabrications against one of the best rulers of India who was pious, scholarly, saintly, un-biased, liberal, magnanimous, tolerant, competent, and far-sighted.

Fortunately, in recent years quite a few Hindu historians have come out in the open disputing those allegations. For example, historian Babu Nagendranath Banerjee 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 decision to appoint non-Muslims to such high offices. The Emperor refuted that by stating that he had been following the dictates of the [I]Shariah[/I] (Islamic Law) which demands appointing right persons in right positions." During Aurangzeb's long reign of fifty years, many Hindus, notably Jaswant Singh, Raja Rajrup, Kabir Singh, Arghanath Singh, Prem Dev Singh, Dilip Roy, and Rasik Lal Crory, held very high administrative positions. Two of the highest ranked generals in Aurangzeb's administration, Jaswant Singh and Jaya Singh, were Hindus. Other notable Hindu generals who commanded a garrison of two to five thousand soldiers were Raja Vim Singh of Udaypur, Indra Singh, Achalaji and Arjuji. One wonders if Aurangzeb was hostile to Hindus, why would he position all these Hindus to high positions of authority, especially in the military, who could have mutinied against him and removed him from his throne?

Most Hindus like Akbar over Aurangzeb for his multi-ethnic court where Hindus were favored. Historian Shri Sharma states that while Emperor Akbar had fourteen Hindu [I]Mansabdars[/I] (high officials) in his court, Aurangzeb actually had 148 Hindu high officials in his court. (Ref: [I]Mughal Government[/I]) But this fact is somewhat less known.

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." ([I]surah al-Baqarah[/I] 2:256). The [I]surah al-Kafirun[/I] 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 caliber, as Aurangzeb was known to be, to do things that are contrary to the dictates of the Qur'an.
Interestingly, the 1946 edition of the history textbook [I]Etihash Parichaya[/I] (Introduction to History) used in Bengal 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."

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

Now let us deal with Aurangzeb's imposition ofthe [I]jizya[/I] 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 this. Before I delve into the subject of Aurangzeb's jizya tax, or taxing the non-Muslims, it is worthwhile to point out that jizya is nothing more than a war tax which was collected only from able-bodied young non-Muslim male citizens living in a Muslim country who did not want to volunteer for the defense of the country. That is, no such tax was collected from non-Muslims who volunteered to defend the country. This tax was not collected from women, and neither from immature males nor from disabled or old male citizens. For payment of such taxes, it became incumbent upon the Muslim government to protect the life, property and wealth of its non-Muslim citizens. If for any reason the government failed to protect its citizens, especially during a war, the taxable amount was returned.

It should be pointed out here that [I]zakat[/I] (2.5% of savings) and [I]‘ushr[/I] (10% of agricultural products) were collected from all Muslims, who owned some wealth (beyond a certain minimum, called [I]nisab[/I]). They also paid [I]sadaqah[/I], [I]fitrah[/I], and [I]khums[/I]. None of these were collected from any non-Muslim. As a matter of fact, the per capita collection from Muslims was several fold that of non-Muslims. Further to Auranzeb's credit is his abolition of a lot of taxes, although this fact is not usually mentioned. In his book [I]Mughal Administration[/I], Sir Jadunath Sarkar, foremost historian on the Mughal dynasty, mentions that during Aurangzeb's reign in power, nearly sixty-five types of taxes were abolished, which resulted in a yearly revenue loss of fifty million rupees from the state treasury.

While some Hindu historians are retracting the lies, the textbooks and historic accounts in Western countries have yet to admit their error and set the record straight.


[/B]

@Saqib Shah

thanks for sharing.aurangzeb's religious policy is a marked feature of his reign.Dr. Habib Siddiqui had thoroughly exlplained aurangzeb's good treatment with hindus.actually auranzeb tried to run the empire in accordance with Isalamic law and in course of time this brought the question of the position of the non-muslims to the fore.in 1668 auranzeb forbade music at the royal court,in 1679 Jizyah was reimposed which had remained abolished for over a century.he also abolished many taxes which were not in accordance with Islamic law.

Saqib no one can deny the fact that many temples were destroyed in aurangzeb's reign.but one thing whch was not taken into consideration that this act of destroying temples was not becoz of religious bigotry.

Temple of Multan which was built by abu-ul-fadl's murderer,and to which a railing had been added by aurangzeb's rival Dara shikoh was destryed.

In the provinces of multan,thatta,Benares,the Berhamans were engaged in teaching unholy books and it was reported to Aurangzeb that both Muslims and hindus were being led away from the right path,ordrered were issued to all governers to destroy such temples and schools.
but ver often the orders of destruction of temples remained a dead letter.

higher custom duties were imposed on Hindus(5%) as against 2% on those of Muslims.

these were generally in accordance with practice of the time but they marked a departure from the political philosphy of Mughals.

As for as closing the doors of official employment to Hindus (as held by some Hindu and Western writers) is concerned,it is totally baseless.Dr. Habib Siddiqui has profoundly explained that.and we can say that actually there were more Hindu officers under Aurangzeb than under any Mughal emeror.

Here again i am endowed to both of you guys. You have provided me some really valuable inputs.
However i like you to please romove the doubts casted about Aurangzaib for some other measures too.
His war against his father and his act of fatricide also does it relate to ottoman empire and also his relations with the superpower of that time The ottomans
He imposed tax on terirth Yatra also the manner Jizya was demanded from his hindu subjects Some details about the procedure in Fatawa alamgiri is given
His exhaustive campaign in south india . Also corruption was on rife in the last decade of his rule. Squandering away of his resources for trying to subdue all India.
He kept his heirs in confinement. His successor Bahadar shah prove to ba a meek fellow as many pointed out his solitary confinement for his mental ossification
Also it was his era when mansabdar became extreemly powerful and his neglect to established practices and codes lead to the unfortunate Hindustani-Turani struggle for power in the coming days. Syed brothers and all
Mir jamla and his campaign in asam and the way suleiman darasukhwa was opium-drugged to have a miserable death.
So there were weakness in his character which led to dissolution of his empire and saw seven most sanguinary wars of succesion in the coming decade of his death.
Yes History is very unfair and baised to the last most sagacious and great muslim ruler but we cant shut our eyes from the apparent mistakes he did.

Doctor sahb u have raised many question and it seems that u have not only studied David Thomson but also Elphinstore, Wolsely Haig , Lane Poole, S.M Ikram,Ishtiaq Hussain Qurashi and Ishwari Prasad as well.i am truly impressed.
Aurangzeb’s war against his father and brothers has been a subject of serious criticism especially by Hindu and Western writers.we all know that auranzeb twice remained the governor of deccan.the affairs of deccan were unsettled ,cultivation was neglected and the revenues were diminishing.aurangzeb worked hard and introduced land revenue reforms which akbar had adopted earlier.he was successful to a large extent in deccan but unluckily his relation with his brother dara shikoh were not good.dara shikoh at capital delhi created many difficulties for him.once he was almost at the verge of annexing bijapur when dara interfered and aurangzeb was ordered to withdraw at the time when it seemed possible that whole of bijapure will fall.dara shikoh did everything which he could to dishonour aurangzeb.this was perhaps due to the fact that dara knew very well that he is no match to aurangzeb but dara enjoyed the favour of sahah jahan and towards the end shah jahan left all administration to dara and conferened on him the title of shah-i-buland iqbal.we all know that shah jahan fell seriously ill and all the princes began to take measures to assert their claims for the throne.in aurangzeb’s letters which he wrote to Shah jahan during the war of succession,he used to say that he is acting just for the sake of true faith and peace of the kingdom.all historians agree that auranzeb,s brothers were no match to him.he was far superior in all spheres,whether military or administrative.shah jahan was still alive when dara started to act as king. The king was seriously ill and was even unable to attend the court.Dara’s life meant the death of ablest auranzeb.this was the “survival of the fittest” and auranzeb through his tactics and military leadership emerged as “fittest”.in my own perception we should not take this war as the ’war between father and son”.and we see when shah jahan recovered from his illness,he ultimately became reconciled to auranzeb’s kingship and when he died in 1668,his daughter jahan ara begum who was with her father throughout his internment,presented aurangzeb with a letter of pardon written by shah jahan.

Treatment of Jews in Islam
 

Another article by Habib Siddiui which i want to share, though on another issue.

[B]Treatment of Jews in Islam [/B]

[U]By Habib Siddiqui
[/U]
To prove Islam’s alleged mistreatment of Jews, I was recently provided a link to Spencer’s hate literature. As have been repeatedly demonstrated by many scholars he simply cannot be relied upon to provide the truth on anything pertaining to Islam and Muslims. He is a merchant of hatred – an Islamophobic maniac. Period! Scores of Jewish scholars and historians can be cited, including Ben-Sasson and Abba Eban,to prove him unreliable, hostile and lying.

Let me quote from the scholarly work, A History of the Jewish People, edited by Haim Hillel Ben-Sasson (Harvard University Press, 1976), an Israeli historian:

“The height of magnificence and luxury was reached by the wealthy Jews in the lands of Islam, particularly in Moslem Spain. We know that the court bankers of Baghdad in the tenth century kept open house for numerous guests and for the poor. Similarly, the ceremonies of the Jewish leaders in Babylonia [Iraq] and the patronage of the leading Jews in Moslem Spain, indicate conditions of ease and plenty.

“The attitude toward these non-Moslems in the Islamic territories was shaped in principle in accordance with the concept of dhimma, meaning protection granted to them by agreement or treaty… In return, their lives and property were protected and, in accordance with the general attitude of Islam to infidels, they were assured liberty of faith and worship. They were also permitted to organize themselves as they wished, and the Jews fully availed themselves of that permission.

“From the Jewish viewpoint, this conglomerate of Moslem attitudes to infidels was easier to live with than the one that had been established by Christianity, particularly in the Byzantine Empire. As we have noted above, for hundreds of years the overwhelming majority of Jews lived in the Islamic territories. Although it is possible to perceive some Christian impact on the Moslem attitude towards non-believers and even towards the Christians themselves, the moderation with which the Moslems applied this influence proved to be of great importance to the majority of Jewry over a long period. Unlike the masses of Christians and pagans who joined the Moslems over the first half century or so, the overwhelming majority of the Jews under Moslem rule held firmly to their own faith.”

As to the settlement and economic activity in the 16th and 17th centuries and the establishment of the Sephardic Diaspora in the Ottoman Empire, the above book states: “A considerable stream of exiles from Spain overflowed into the Ottoman Empire. Once the latter had annexed Erez Yisrael, it became a lodestone for Marranos who wished to repent and return to their former faith…. The sultan at the time of the expulsion, Bayezid, welcomed the refugees fleeing from the fanatical Christians. As recorded by a Jewish contemporary ‘the Sultan sent men ahead, and spread the word through his kingdom in writing as well, declaring that none of his officers in any of his cities dare to drive the Jews out or expel them, but all of them were to welcome the Jews cordially.’ It can be assumed that this imperial protection and the order granting right of domicile were issued through the influence of the leaders of the long-established Jewish community in the Ottoman Empire… Success was not restricted exclusively to medical and court circles. It seems that in the Ottoman Empire it was felt that the absorption of the exiles from the West provided social, cultural and even military advantages… The exiles gradually dispersed throughout the main cities of the Empire. Many synagogues were to be found in Constantinople during the sixteenth century. In this city they settled in quarters where Jews had not formerly resided. Salonika also became one of their main centres, and similarly Adrianople and Smyrna (Izmir). The exiles also established themselves in smaller cities. Expulsions from southern Italy helped to diversify the Jewish community and increase the various congregations in the Empire.”

What is clear is that historically the relationship between Jews and Muslims living under Muslim Sultans was rather amicable and, that even in places like Palestine, Muslim people did not have any problem with Jews living there. The relationship soured only after the Balfour Declaration (1917) when the British allowed European Jews to colonize Palestine.

As to the matter of jizya imposed on Jews, one simply has to read European history about what had happened to the European Jewry who sought protection from the Christian royalty in the medieval times. In return for royal protection during the first two Crusades, German Jews were made ‘serfs of the Imperial Chamber’ and were required to pay vast sums of ‘protection money’ for this privilege. Those Jews eventually became a very real source of royal revenue. As the king’s property, they could be – and were – bought, loaned and sold, to pay off creditors. The custom spread to other European countries. Church leaders justified this status theologically on the basis of earlier Church teaching that the Jews were doomed to eternal servitude for having crucified their lord – Jesus Christ.

Unfortunately, the protection for which the Jews paid such a hefty price in Europe did not always materialize. For instance, before setting out for the 3rd Crusade the Crusaders plundered the possessions of the Jews, who had fled into the royal castle where they were besieged by the warriors – many of whom were deeply in debt to their quarry. In York, England, the climax was reached when a stone, thrown from the castle, killed a Christian monk. A battle cry was raised urging the people to “destroy the enemies of Christ.” When the Jews saw the fury of the besiegers and felt their fate to be sealed, they took their own lives, cutting one another’s throats. When the mobs gained access to the tower, the few Jews left, who begged for baptism and deliverance, were slaughtered. The total casualties have been estimated variously from 500 to 1500. From this scene of carnage, the attackers converged on the cathedral and burned all the records of financial obligations to the Jews kept in its archives.

Writing in 1135, the French scholar Pierre Abelard has a European Jew in “Dialogue between a Philosopher, a Jew, and a Christian” speak these words: “No nation has ever suffered so much for God. Dispersed among all nations, without king or secular ruler, the Jews are oppressed with heavy taxes as if they had to repurchase their very lives every day. To mistreat the Jews is considered a deed pleasing to God. Such imprisonment as is endured by the Jews can be conceived by the Christians only as a sign of God’s utter wrath. The life of the Jews is in the hands of their worst enemies. Even in their sleep they are plagued by nightmares. Heaven is their only place of refuge. If they want to travel to the nearest town, they have to buy protection with the high sums of money from the Christian rulers who actually wish for their death so that they can confiscate their possessions. The Jews cannot own land or vineyards because there is nobody to vouch for their safekeeping. Thus, all that is left them as a means of livelihood is the business of money-lending, and this in turn brings the hatred of Christians upon them.”

Bottom line: the status of a dhimmi in a Muslim-run state was much better compared to that of a Jew living in Christian-run Europe.

There is no denying that the Jewish tribe of Bani Quraiza was punished by the Prophet of Islam. But can Muhammad (S) be blamed for their treason? They were punished not for rejecting Muhammad (S) as the last Prophet (nabi) of Allah, but for their confessed crime against the nascent Islamic state, and judged by their own laws, by their appointed judge. My question is: was Musa [Moses] (AS) more merciful to the Jews when he and his faithful disciples killed 3000 misguided Children of Israel (Exodus 32:28)? [See Md. Saidul Islam’s “Were the Jews maltreated by Prophet Muhammad, or vice-versa?” for a good analysis.]

A closer scrutiny will show that the verses in the Qur’an that castigated Jews of Madinah for their nefarious activities were comparatively milder than those found in the Bible (see, e.g., the Books of Isaiah, Micah, Hosea and Ezekiel, and especially those of Jesus in the so-called NT)

[QUOTE=farooq_basir]Doctor sahb u have raised many question and it seems that u have not only studied David Thomson but also Elphinstore, Wolsely Haig , Lane Poole, S.M Ikram,Ishtiaq Hussain Qurashi and Ishwari Prasad as well.i am truly impressed)[/QUOTE]
OHh bhai yeh sab kaun hain yaar No yes iread SM ikram and IHQ and Parasad and aslo excripts of lane poole but not others I had read other sources O bhai mein aik naha sa ignorant individual hi shai hoon