Talk:Aurangzeb

Tolerance—or the lack thereof

The following sentence:

His intolerance of other religious views led him to threaten violence against Shia Muslims, for not renouncing their religious beliefs and declaring themselves heretical.

Isn't this just a POV? Also, the Shia declared themselves heretical"? Is that a typo?—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 23:31, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

I don't know how it is (—or is not) POV? Could you explain why you think it is POV? And about Shia declaring themselves heretical again I don't see why it is a typo? Aurangzeb wanted Shia Muslims to accept that they were committing heresy — makes sense to me. -Ankur 04:33, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The first part of their sentence has a cause-and-effect sequence that is a conclusion drawn by the writer, no? Unless one can quote Aurangzeb himself saying that that was why he was doing what he does. No?

At first I was mis-reading the second half of the sentence. But a couple of problem remain: the Shias could either renounce their beliefs or declare themselves heretical; they couldn't do both, no? And again, I would like to see more documentation on his actual treatment of the Shia.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 04:59, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

So would I :-), But you are not of the view that Auranhgzeb was acutally a good person — or are you? Lets just hope that you believe that Aurangzeb was horribly misrepresented - tho he did not leave scope for it. On a serious note, give me an hour or half, I'll read some history books and let you know what I can find. -Ankur 05:29, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

OK, I did some reading and found a little evidence about his dislike for Shias. If you wait till tomorrow I will write down whatever I could find. Gota go to bed now. Bye. -Ankur 07:10, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, I have taken longer than I asked for. I've been busy and once I started reading I could not stop. Since I have not finished yet I am not posting anything. Oh another thing - I have not found anything conclusive yet. -Ankur 07:17, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I hope I haven't sent you/caused you to go on a wild goose chase. I am not asking for proof that he disliked the Shia. Just that we need to get a little more specific on what he did. Otherwise, it is just a blanket accusation—like the usual practice of taking his destroying (or causing, or allowing the destruction of) temples and, on the basis of that alone, saying that he oppressed Hindus. The situation, in the latter case, was much more complex: the temples destroyed were done in agreement (or collaboration) with some Hindus and reasons (excuses, if you will) were provided. And he had Hindu generals, governors, and allies. Which is not to say that he was sympathetic to Hindus or Hinduism or that he was tolerant. Just that we need to provide a clearer picture.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 20:15, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

Well, had I gone in a search of Aurangzeb and his treatment of Shia Muslims - maybe I would have gone on a wild goose chase, but I was in search of truth and such a search is always fruitful (I know it sounds filmi). I did not want to search for anything on the net, coz most if not all material on the net is not verified. I am sure a Google search on the topic would have resulted in a lot of stuff worth mentioning here. I am also sure that most of the stuff that I could have found would have been by fanatics. So I looked for published material only. I based my search only on e-books available through my universities library (did not have the time to get a real book.) Ruefully there was'nt much about Aurangzeb's treatment of Shia Muslims. Almost every book I read clearly paints a negative picture of Aurangzeb but none of those books were specifically about him so there was not enough detail. About treatment of Hindus there seems to be near consensus that he treated Hindus not just unequally but unjustly too. But most of what I could find about treatment of Shia's can only be left to interpretation.

The only book that had any praise for him also had this line (exact words) Historians suggest their Shia fervour roused the orthodox fury of the Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb.--Ahmed, Akbar S. Discovering Islam: Making Sense of Muslim History and Society. I might also add that this book goes on to claim that Aurangzeb funded construction of temples. But I have read enough of this book not to trust it (due to its Islamic bias.) The line above that I picked from the book is about Aurangzeb's conquest of the Deccan Muslim Kingdoms. The problem with the line I have used from this book is that the fact that Aurangzeb wanted to avoid the possibility of any alliance in the Deccan against his empire and had to nip the possibility in the bud. So it is not specifically about Shia vs Sunni.

Paraphrasing from The Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions. Aurangzeb linked Sunni orthodoxy with the interests of the Mughal Empire. While this does say a bit about his beliefs as a Sunni Muslim. It does not say much about his dislike for Shia (even if it can be interpreted.) I think enough is said (but not in so many words - its concise dictionary after all) to interpret that - well nothing actually :-)

So this ends my wonderful search through several books about History of India and how so may people look at it differently. I have read enough to contribute (time permitting) to the collaboration of the week and I have this recurring feeling that I wont. --Ankur 15:09, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC) Oh wait I have to write a conclusion too. It boils down to benefit of doubt and who gets it. The person writing the article or the person about whom the article is. Cricket says benefit of doubt goes to Aurangzeb Sahib. Lets hope whoever wrote that part about Shia heresy comes and explain his edit himself. I hope its not the same guy who wrote the Zafarnama stuff, that was some real POV stuff dude.

Ankur, I have been on wikivacation and just re-read the above thread. I would like to compliment you on actually drawing an objective conclusion from the facts as you found them and, at least the way I saw it, moving a little ways away from your initial assumptions. Kudos! That's the mark of a wise--dare I say good-hearted--person.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 20:05, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

Re-wrote the Maratha part

Sayind that His harsh policies led to uprisings in Deccan by the Marathis under rebel Shivaji

This is a POV Deccan was NEVER RULED BY Aurangzeb. It was ruled by Bijapur Kingdom out of which the enslaved Marathas carved out their Homeland in Maharashtra. Moreover Shivaji was NOT a rebel he was a Maratha Price or "Chatrapati" (King under the Umbrella). Marathas fought with Mughals only because Mughals repeatedly attacked Maratha sovereignity. During a truce Aurangzeb had Shivaji invited to Agra & imprisoned trecherously. Comon IFukeer (pun intended) accept the fact that Aurangzeb was an ICONOLATOR. Who told u bout the trash that Hinndus destroyed Hindu temples :-o

atrocities!

More of his actrocities should be mentioned.

Article discusses "harsh treatment of non-Muslims" and so on. And even that doesn't mention specifics. We need specifics, if they can be found.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 00:03, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

How about the fact that he imposed tax on being non-muslim (Jezia). I have added a few more. Hope it helps. 24.126.17.155 06:15, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I would like to quote Prof. Vinay Lal's page on Aurangzeb

Aurangzeb's Fatwa on Jizya [Jizyah, or Poll Tax]

Much has been made of Aurangzeb's reimposition of the poll tax (jizya, or jizyah) on Hindus. However, as the text of the fatwa, which is seldom read, indicates, an exemption was provided for various classes of people, such as those who were indigent, without employment, unable to work on account of poor health, and so on. Moreover, the fatwa clearly shows that the amount was, far from being uniform, fixed according to a person's ability to pay. The statement that the jizyah was imposed as well on "the people of the Book" -- here doubtless a reference to Christians and Jews -- is particularly significant, since it suggests that there was no animus directed particularly against the Hindus. The translation below is by Anver Emon of the Department of History, UCLA.

Source

Al-Fatawa al-Alamgiriyyah = Al-Fatawa al-Hindiyyah fi Madhhab al-Imam al-A‘zam Abi Hanifah :al-Nu‘man (Beirut: Dar al-Ma‘rifah, 1973), 2:244-245.

Chapter on Jizyah

[Jizyah] refers to what is taken from the Dhimmis, according to [what is stated in] al-Nihayah. It is obligatory upon [1] the free, [2] adult members of [those] who are generally fought, [3] who are fully in possession of their mental faculties, and [4] gainfully employed, even if [their] profession is not noble, as is [stated in] al-Sarajiyyah. There are two types of [jizyah]. [The first is] the jizyah that is imposed by treaty or consent, such that it is established in accordance with mutual agreement, according to [what is stated in] al-Kafi. [The amount] does not go above or below [the stipulated] amount, as is stated in al-Nahr al-Fa’iq. [The second type] is the jizyah that the leader imposes when he conquers the unbelievers (kuffar), and [whose amount] he imposes upon the populace in accordance with the amount of property [they own], as in al-Kafi. This is an amount that is pre-established, regardless of whether they agree or disagree, consent to it or not.

The wealthy [are obligated to pay] each year forty-eight dirhams [of a specified weight], payable per month at the rate of 4 dirhams. The next, middle group (wast al-hal) [must pay] twenty-four dirhams, payable per month at the rate of 2 dirhams. The employed poor are obligated to pay twelve dirhams, in each month paying only one dirham, as stipulated in Fath al-Qadir, al-Hidayah, and al-Kafi. [The scholars] address the meaning of "gainfully employed", and the correct meaning is that it refers to one who has the capacity to work, even if his profession is not noble. The scholars also address the meaning of wealthy, poor, and the middle group. Al-Shaykh al-Imam Abu Ja‘far, may Allah the most high have mercy on him, considered the custom of each region decisive as to whom the people considered in their land to be poor, of the middle group, or rich. This is as such, and it is the most correct view, as stated in al-Muhit. Al-Karakhi says that the poor person is one who owns two hundred dirhams or less, while the middle group owns more than two hundred and up to ten thousand dirhams, and the wealthy [are those] who own more than ten thousand dirhams...The support for this, according to al-Karakhi is provided by the fatawa of Qadi Khan (d. 592/1196). It is necessary that in the case of the employed person, he must have good health for most of the year, as is stated in al-Hidayah. It is mentioned in al-Idah that if a dhimmi is ill for the entire year such that he cannot work and he is well off, he is not obligated to pay the jizyah, and likewise if he is sick for half of the year or more. If he quits his work while having the capacity [to work] he [is still liable] as one gainfully employed, as is [stated in] al-Nihayah. The jizyah accrues, in our opinion, at the beginning of the year, and it is imposed on the People of the Book (whether they are Arab, non-Arab, or Majians) and idol worshippers (‘abdat al-awthan) from among the non-Arabs, as in al-Kafi...The [jizyah] is not imposed on the idol worshippers from among the Arabs or from among the apostates, where they exist. Their women and children [are considered] as part of a single liability group (fi’). [In other words], whoever from among their men do not submit to Islam shall be killed, and no jizyah is imposed upon their women, children, ill persons or the blind, or likewise on the paraplegic, the very old, or on the unemployed poor, as is stated in al-Hidayah

Thanks. --Ragib 06:26, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

POV?

I added the NPOV tag because the whole article seems biased and quite one-sided in representing Aurgangzeb. I do believe this needs to be discussed. I am curious why the sole good point mentioned in the article (about abolition of satee) was removed without even any edit summaries, and a whole lot of negative points added. I am adding the NPOV until this issue is discussed thoroughly. Thanks. --Ragib 05:56, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

POV?

I added the NPOV tag because the whole article seems biased and quite one-sided in representing Aurgangzeb. I do believe this needs to be discussed. I am curious why the sole good point mentioned in the article (about abolition of satee) was removed without even any edit summaries, and a whole lot of negative points added. I am adding the NPOV until this issue is discussed thoroughly. Thanks. --Ragib 05:56, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Auragzeb was exteremely unpopular in India as opposed to Akbar. There is a reason for that. There were not many good things to say about him. Please add if you know any. 24.126.17.155 06:00, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Since you asked, I googled a little bit and picked up some of the following text from [1]. If you want, I can do more googling and add to the list. My point is, Aurganzeb was a religious person and he had his own vision. That may be positive to people of muslim faith, and negative to people of hindu and Shikh faiths. It would not be fair if the article is written with one's own faith in mind. The current article seems to be biased in the sense that it portrays Aurangzeb as an invader and a religious fanatic, and overlooks any other interpretation of the facts. Anyway, here is an excerpt from [2] as I mentioned above:

It can scarcely be doubted, once the historical evidence is weighed, that the religious policies of Aurangzeb were discriminatory towards Hindus, Sikhs, and other non-Muslims. Nonetheless, numerous inferences have been drawn from the literature which are not warranted by the historical record. Though many historians have written of conversions of Hindus, surprisingly little, if any, evidence has been offered to suggest how far the conversion of Hindus took place, and whether there was any official policy beyond one of mere encouragement that led to the conversion of Hindus. Then, as now, conversion would have been more attractive to the vast number of Hindus living under the tyranny of caste oppression, and it isn't clear at all how the kind of inducements that Aurangzeb offered -- if indeed he did so for the purposes of conversion, as Richards maintains -- are substantially different from the inducements that modern, purportedly secular, politicians offer to people in their electoral constituencies. And what of the popular representation of Aurangzeb as a ferocious destroyer of Hindu temples and idols? Hindu temples in the Deccan were seldom destroyed, notwithstanding Aurangzeb's extensive military campaigns in that area. True, in north India, some Hindu temples were undoubtedly torn down, but much work needs to be done to establish the precise circumstances under which these acts of destruction took place. The famed Keshava Rai temple in Mathura was one such temple, but here Aurangzeb seems to have been motivated by a policy of reprisal, since the Jats in the region had risen in revolt. Like his predecessors, Aurangzeb continued to confer land grants (jagirs) upon Hindu temples, such as the Someshwar Nath Mahadev temple in Allahabad, Jangum Badi Shiva temple in Banaras, and Umanand temple in Gauhati, and if one put this down merely to expediency, then why cannot one view the destruction of temples as a matter of expediency as well, rather than as a matter of deliberate state policy? Moreover, recent historical work has shown that the number of Hindus employed as mansabdars, or as senior court officials and provincial administrators, under Aurangzeb's reign rose from 24.5% in the time of his father Shah Jahan to 33% in the fourth decade of his own rule. One has the inescapable feeling that then, as now, the word 'fanaticism' comes rather too easily to one's lips to characterize the actions of people acting, or claiming to act, under the name of Islam. It is also notable that as a firm Sunni, Aurangzeb dealt as firmly with the Shia kingdoms of Bijapur and Golconda as he did with the Hindus or Muslims. One can safely assert that Aurangzeb acted to preserve and enhance the interests of his own Muslim community, and restored the privileges of the Sunni ulema, but his actions with respect to the Hindus, Shias, and others are more open to interpretation.. (From Article written by Vinay Lal, Associate Professor of History, UCLA). --Ragib 06:12, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for reply. I do not mention that he converted non-hindus by force, though it is mentioned in numerous biographies of Sambhaji who was offered to convert or to die. I don't think he brought down any Masjids for any reasons, say to tame Adil Shah of Deccan. I don't think there could be any justification apart from his view that he was fighting hindus and not just other kings. Any way it is known to be a fact that he did it and I only mentioned it. Why he did it could be disputed. The article did not call him 'fanatic' either. Although not many would call him tolerant. So why you call the 'entire' article biased is beyond me. 24.126.17.155 06:25, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Why did you then remove reference to the fact that Aurangzeb banned the practice of Satee? Also what about mentioning his austerity and the facts that he earned his own living by means of sewing caps and creating copies of the Koran, unlike his lavish predecessors? My own view is that a biographical article about X cannot be neutral if it is completely full of negative facts about X. Aurganzeb did destroy many temples. He did impose Jizya (see above). But He also expanded the Mughal empire to the greatest extent, and was a devout follower of Islam. There are also numerous anecdotes of his fair judgement. So, I do not say any of your points are good or bad, I say that under the current presentation of facts, the article is one-sided. --Ragib 06:35, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I do mention that he banned Hindu practices. I am not sure he banned Sati, which was popular in South India and he never went there. Hindu temples in Deccan were not destoyed because he could not defeat Shivaji, not because he liked temples in Deccan better. He did sew caps, but to say he earned his living by doing that would be bit of a stretch. As to the fair judgement, I don't think there is any evidence of his judgement being any better than those of other kings. In either case, I don't think adding anecdotes to the short article is appropriate and moreover anecdotes do not prove that he had better judgement than others which would be a broad conclusion. The article has lots of facts which show him in negative light does not necessarily mean that it is biased. By the way, the three temples mentioned in the article you quoted were _the_ most important temples to hindus, calling it a matter of expediency or not even mentioning them in Auragzeb's article is totally unfair and biased. 24.126.17.155 07:28, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Before you get worked up, I am not telling you to remove any of these facts. These should be mentioned in the article, no doubt about that. My point is that only mentioning these facts while overlooking other cast Aurangzeb into the role of the Proverbial (Hindi) cinematic villain, always doing bad things while never doing a good thing or two. A biographical article should have all sides of his character. Only then it can be called neutral. Thanks --Ragib 07:42, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I am removing POV tag since you failed to mention which facts are POV. I am glad that you think the acts mentioned are villainish. 24.126.17.155 07:52, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I think more discussion is required to make it NPOV. I did not say your presented facts are disputed. I said the article presents a one sided view. My points of non-neutrality claim did not imply the truth in the facts presented, rather that implied the omission of many other facts which would have made it neutral. So, let us continue the discussion. I also want to clarify my words on "Villainish". Please check what I wrote:

only mentioning these facts while overlooking other cast Aurangzeb into the role of the Proverbial (Hindi) cinematic villain, always doing bad things while never doing a good thing or two.

I meant to say that mentioning facts A about person X while omitting fact B would solely make person X look like whatever the fact A implied. Same as the cheap B-rated movies, where the only thing a villain does is go on doing bad thing. I do not pass any judgement on Aurangzeb solely on any particular fact, and have NOT called his acts villainish or whatever. Thanks. --Ragib 08:14, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Then why do you think the article is biased against him? You did not dispute the facts. You are repeatedly calling the article biased and one sided. Write down whatever you think the other side is. What are the facts that are omitted here? 24.126.17.155 08:43, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

This is quite unfortunate that 24.126.17.155 (talk · contribs) is taking things personally and vandalizing my own user page. Please follow wikipedia etiquette. I may disagree with you but you have the right to express your views. And so do I. My own user page, on the other hand, is a place where I am entitled to express my view. I CAN call my home country beautiful in my user page. You don't HAVE to vandalize it. If you are angry with my views, please discuss it logically here. Please do not act like a petty vandal.

Also, your recent changes are taking quite a religious turn. Now you are terming content as controvertial and marking scholarship as "muslim" etc. That itself is a blatant POV. Please act logically, and have discussion. --Ragib 10:57, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I did not call the scholarship muslim. It was already there. It is not something that I introduced. Also please don't make your religious inclinations a factor while discussing validity of the facts. 24.126.17.155

On POVs and Logical discourse

One of my most pleasant and fulfilling exchanges on the Wikipedia is the one under #Tolerance—or the lack thereof above. You can see what can be done if people stick to principles.

Secondly, Aurangzeb is a very controversial figure, with various legends on both sides of the arguments. Let's back everything we say with strong documentation and references, please. Preferably from primary sources.

Thirdly, may I humbly suggest that 24.126.17.155, as a person that this is this invested in a discussion and making such substantial contributions (and I, at least, cherish that) get an account--or use an existing one they may have?

I have attempted a partial edit--as objectively as I can given my own view of the world, I am the first to admit that. Please take a look.

—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 08:09, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Undiscussed reversion

Deleted my earlier comment here. It was based on a misunderstanding. My apologies.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 19:13, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Questionable Source?

Does anybody know how reliable the book 'Religious Policy of Muslim Rulers' is, incase it actually exist? The website seems questionable. Also it seems to directly contradict the information given on the Varanasi temple which can be found in Jadunath Sarkar's books and almost every other book on Aurangzeb. Should be removed? The information is not verifiable.

• Questionable website? Which one?
• As for the book, I know someone who has a physical copy. Does that qualify as existing? :D
• Well, there are books with varying information. Let's not say that this or that is in "almost every book". Let's try to provide a complete picture.
• And please sign your posts on this page and your edits.

—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 03:40, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

God knows I am no scholar of Indian history, but I have to ask if the following Literary Evidence of Temple Destruction under Aurangzeb's Rule (Partial List & Quotes) shouldn't count as primary sources from MOSLEM authors in the period... in which case, uh, er, it's pretty damning. I really see no reason not to include at lease some of these citations. another web source would be Destruction of Hindu Temples by Aurangzeb By Rajiv Varma ... as I said, this -in period- moslem sources look pretty convincing.

Further, this site: Why did Aurangzeb demolish the Kashi Vishvanath temple? maked extensive use of the official court chronicle, Maasir-i-Alamgiri - also a primary source, quoting the court chronicle as saying Aurangzeb “ordered all provincial governors to destroy all schools and temples of the Pagans and to make a complete end to all Pagan teachings and practices”. another site easily found quotes further from the official court records of Aurangzeb's travels as follows:

January 1680 : "The grand temple in front of the Maharana's mansion (at Udaipur) - one of the wonderful buildings of the age, which had cost the infidels much money - was destroyed and its images broken."

"On 24 January the Emperor went to view the lake Udaisagar and ordered all the three temples on its banks to be pulled down."

"On 29 January Hasan Ali Khan reported that 172 other temples in the environs of Udaipur had been demolished."

I note a few other things not yet mentioned. For example, despite his islamicsm, several sources say that not less than 25% of his court were Hindus.... Still, by all accounts, he did reverse the previous stand of tolerance. In light of that, and with links to primary sources widely available on the web, does anyone have a problem with adding those citations and a few of the primary quotes into the article? Rick Boatright 04:14, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Commenting on myself, I would urge a look at [3] as well, noting it's mention of his establishment of public morals police.... not yet mentioned in the article. Rick Boatright 04:19, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I think there is no reason to exclude facts that are extensively documented and its no secret that he did destroy a huge lots of temples. On the other hand the book refered 'Religious Policy of Muslim Rulers' I am sure is non existent/extremely obscure. I looked up in our library which is one of the best in the world. I think its pretty clear when I ask for physical evidence of the book. Just let me know the citation (publisher etc.). Also let me know where and how to get a copy. The website refered sabrang.com is questionable at best. The information is not even a secondary source. It refers to a website that says that there is a book that gives a citation of the primary source. Neither gives citation of the book nor of the primary source. I think the information about his donating funds to Varanasi temple (which he destoyed by the way) should be removed unless we get reliable source. AnkA 04:48, 17 May 2005 (UTC)