I come across some funny opinions.
Mongol Catastrophe
This (http://www.islam-watch.org/HistoryOfJihad/jihad_against_mongols.htm) was rather interesting.
To quote this writer:
“…The relatively unknown story of how the Jihadis tormented the Mongols and Turks leading to a fierce and vicious counter-attack by the Mongols on Islamdom from 1200 to 1258. An attack that was fiercer than the Crusades and which nearly wiped out Islam.”
Immediately upon reading this, I was wondering what he has to say about their (the Mongol’s) subsequent conversion to Islam, and this absolutely hilarious guy goes on:
“…President Bush can as well learn a lot from the Mongols who were the only ones in History to have come nearest to destroy Islam. The failure of the Mongols to do so was due to the fact that although they hated the Muslims, they did not realize that the brutality of the Muslims originated from Islam and eventually the Mongols themselves embraced Islam to become part of the Muslim psyche they so hated to begin with.
Any one who wants to fight the Muslims, needs to understand Islam, and he needs to fight Islam and not just its practitioners – the Muslims. Or else, like the Mongols, after defeating the Muslims on the battlefield, that leader would end up embracing Islam, and become a part of the problem he started out to unravel.”
For those who do not know the history (you could watch this): A Muslim ruler did indeed do very wrong by killing a messenger from the Mongols. The Mongols, in response, attacked. The Muslims at that time were not very united. This resulted in a military defeat. Baghdad, the intellectual capital of Medieval world, collapsed. The famous “House of Wisdom” was destroyed. Books were burnt down.
After sometime, the conquerors became conquered. They converted to become Muslims.
Do I need to talk about the writer’s inconsistency in that he endorses the killing of so many people as a feat and celebrates the killings and the burning of so many books and the destructioin of Baghdad? At the same time claiming to want peace?
Aurangzeb
I came across a writing on Aurangzeb on Rediff. Shariqe has already written about it. Did we know that Aurangzeb built a temple? I seriously think this was a gimmick. A ploy to win votes. Appeasement!
Aurangzeb is often pictured as only a tyrant. He surely was pitted against Hinduism, that’s what my impression is. Yet, he never attempted a full-fledged equivalent of the inquisition. Given that, he restarted Jiziya tax! And he is responsible of destroying a lot of Temples.
Point is: there was no government order to kill the infidels everywhere in the country. There have been some atrocities here and there, though.
From wikipedia
“…During his reign, many Hindu temples were defaced and destroyed…”
but…
“…Also, it is useful to note that even amidst the orthodoxy, a great many top imperial officers continued to be Hindu, including Aurangzeb’s highest general Mirza Raja Jai Singh. The number of Hindu mansabdars actually went up in Aurangzeb’s time to 33% in the fourth decade of his rule, from 24.5% under his father Shah Jahan.”
His own daughter did not share his orthodox viewpoint. She wasn’t killed because of that!
As Sharique pointed out, Aurangzeb is often invoked in order to prove the tyranny of the Muslims. His or other Muslim rulers’ wrongdoings are used to justify or invoke hatred against the Muslims.
On the other hand, the much celebrated Akbar was no all-saint. We hear that deen-e-elahi was a very nice thing. I don’t agree. The central idea of deen-e-elahi was submission to king. I don’t like that. I would like to question the king.
What we want is an honest, impartial discussion of history.
Life can not be coloured in black and white. Most of it are in shades of grey.
—
Cross-posted at Indian Muslims (blog).
—
UPDATE (23FEB2007)
Relevant documents
1. Aurangzeb’s Policies and the Decline of the Mughal Empire,
by Hamida Khatoon Naqvi
The Journal of Asian Studies
2. Akbar’s Personality Traits and World Outlook: A Critical Reappraisal,
by Iqtidar Alam Khan
Social Scientist
His or other Muslim rulers’ wrongdoings are used to justify or invoke hatred against the Muslims. – I know this one and I hope this would be left to history.
The central idea of deen-e-elahi was submission to king. – Any reference to that? And I didn’t know that Din-E-Elahi was praised in India, but I know that his attitude towards the population was praised.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Din-i-Ilahi
It is said (and I have read from childhood) that Din-E-Elahi is built upon parts taken out from major religions. However, I don’t know “submission to king” was at all a part of either of these faiths.
My view is that a king should be judged by the impact he had on his population. Akbar had a good impact which made the country prosperous. While in Aurangzeb’s time it was full of revolts all throughout India. I feel that can be used to draw conclusions.
wikipedia entry on deen-e-elahi is nothing close to being comprehensive. I read in some history book about it.
diganta (It’s a pain to write your new pen-name)
It is not that simple. The role played by the previous emporers, the current economy etc. can all play a very important role.
A big mistake of Aurangzeb was efforts to expand the empire beyond the manageable limit. Naturally, these lead to revolts. These revolts will not necessarily result from bad governance or oppression. Rather just because these new provinces will want to be free, and the circumstances (that the empire is unable to manage such a huge size).
Manas Mian
Interesting post and I like the variety of opinions put together. The villification of Aurangzeb and his rule has entered the realm of popular belief and discourse and it is almost impossible to sift truth from the fiction. Especially in these times when Islam/Muslim-bashing has become a cult – an excuse for anything under the sun.
There are two important points to consider: The Emperor spent almost half of his reign fighting the Deccan kingdoms (a sectarian dimension has also been attributed). He was never in Delhi – the seat of the Empirefor for almost twentyfive years . Second, as pointed out (above by Manas), the depletion of revenues given years of over-spending (in Shahjehan’s rule) and cost of war reduced the efficacy of the Mughal Empire.
The regional revolts and local rebellions were all a challenge to the writ of a crumbling central state. This was also linked to the ostensibly puritanical personal nature of Aurangzeb that was a departure from the earlier inclusive style of representational politics and governance.
Poor guy – he has been maligned a bit too much and he is a scapegoat for the excesses of earlier Mughals. But then we must remember that power-politics is ruthless and history judges you harshly when you are such a brutal power-seeker such as Aurangzeb, You kill three brothers, imprison father, sister and the favourite daughter…! Not that this was uncommon in medieval times but then you cannot be a pious and God-fearing Muslim at the same time.
“You kill three brothers, imprison father, sister and the favourite daughter…! ”
not very nice characteristics. not very typical, either. but that’s what people try to say…
and not talking of the good he did? that i don’t like. just as i don’t like not talking of the bad of akbar.
unrelated but related: i listened to ayaan ali tonight. she is eloquent. can put up a nice mask of meaning good.
hope somebody puts her in front of a good debater.
“Life can not be coloured in black and white. Most of it are in shades of grey”… Undoubtedly! However, it is upto a discretionary mind to be mindful of the camouflaged negatives in the grey which cannot and must not be overlooked. History is our reservoir of information from the past; deeds done by people and the consequences those deeds and those decisions brought about. It becomes obligatory on our part to see those historical happenings as they are/were without having to justify or villify individual actions. Raking up past history to discuss it in a present day context with present day values seems to me a futile exercise. Besides our histories were geographically fragmented then; which is no longer true today; ours is a connected world so why not look for things that’ll help us connect rather than look for incidents in the past to highlight our differences.
Yes, Mongols themselves converted to Islam after a few years, without any force or fighting. I think this is the power of Islam. So west will never see victory against islam. Be sure..
See my new post please:
A ‘Little’ Wisdom
http://khour.ir/webnotes/?p=10
Still the issue of Din-i-ilahi is unresolved. I agree that the wikipedia entry is not comprehensive, but I could not find any reference to “submission to king”. I would encourage you to search a little on this.
I do not claim that Aurangzeb’s policies are solely responsible to create disruption in his state, but it had a major impact. One other example I would like to cite is the problem with Sikhs and assacination of Guru Govind Singh.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guru_Gobind_Singh
That is one of the wrongdoings of his.
I was surprised by this: “Aurangzeb demanded that all Sikhs either convert to Islam or be killed.”
It’s difficult for me to believe. I always thought that the war was political. Why will he decree such a thing for the Sikhs, but not for the Hindus?
Sorry for my wrong spelling in the space above – “assassination”.
You can search in google with “Guru Govind Singh + Aurangzeb” and read innumerable entries.
Somebody above said that Muslim-bashing is a fashion now-a-days and bashing Aurangzeb is a part of that. But, I would ask him to see that he was equally hated among people for over 300 years (this year is 300th year of his death) and it did not change with difference in view towards Muslims. It might not be true that his policies alone were responsible, but it was significantly responsible. All religions/communities has bad people among them. I consider Aurangzeb as a bad Muslim and do not want him to align with other Muslims or it has anything to do with my view of Islam.
Why will he decree such a thing for the Sikhs, but not for the Hindus? – Sikhs were less in number and mass-conversion of Hindus by force was almost an impossible mission. He was not that impractical I guess.
If he did that, he was terribly wrong. I don’t know what else to say.
In the beginning of his reign,Akbar was very religious . But his faith was the blind faith of an ignorant . In fact Akbar was the only Mughal Emperor who was practically illiterate. So Akbar’s religiosity was shown by practices like walking long distances barefoot to visit tombs of different Sufi Saints and sweeping their shrines etc.
Later,as he grew older and more powerful,he invited people of all religions for discussions etc. Unfortunately in his court there were no outstanding Muslim Religious scholars only ulama a soo as opposed to the ulama of Haq.. They were worldly minded people whose only goal was to increase their influence at the expense of each other. This vacuum at the court led to the Emperor going personally astray by Abul Fazl and Faizi (both of whom were outstanding scholars of the secular sciences ),Akbar was convinced that since a thousand years had passed since the Prophet (SAW) arrived on this earth,the time for a new creed had come.
Hence the Din Illahi. This curious mixture of
Islam,Hinduism,magianism,Nuqtawis* etc. was developed.It was adopted by only a few sycophants of Akbar only. According to some historians,this religion had its Kalma La Illaha Illal La,Akbar Khalifatullah .Followers of this religion were to take an oath of fealty to Akbar and to greet other as Allaho Akbar and Jallajalaalahu.(Akbar’s full name was Jallaluddin Akbar).He legalized pork,wine etc. banned cow slaughter etc. Fire worship was an important part of this religion .. Prayer times were at Sunrise,the Zenith and the sunset (The very time in which Salat is Haram in Islam)..
However it is said that Akbar reverted back to Islam on his deathbed.
In contrast,Aurangzeb’s excessive self righteous proved to be a disaster.He did not see the wisdom in being less rigid and being flexible.In ritual matters- he was very orthodox.He prayed five times a day,kept fasts,gave alms etc.He lived simply and reduced the extravagance of the court.He restored the Hijri Calender in place of the Ilahi calender which had been started by Akbar.He started a project to codify the Shariah according to the Hanafi school which was completed at an expense of Two lakh rupees.This code called Futawah i Alamgiri is still the primary basis on which the religious scholars of the Hanafi school base thier decisions today.A syllabus for the Madarsas called the Dars a Nizami was formulated which is still used today by Madarsas.. Singing and Dancing was abolished.The Jharokha Darshan was abolished.He declared that he was prepared to meet any civil or Shari claims against him.A Vakil a Shari was posted in every territory to represent him to consider the claims of people against him.When he died in 1707 CE,he wrote in his will,that the four and half rupees he had earned by making caps should be used for his funeral expenses and the 800 odd rupees he had earned by the copying the Quran be distributed
among the poor.He was also called ‘zinda peer’ by many Sunni muslims due to his religiosity.
Nothing comes with reference, it’s all written by you.
It was largely based on Maulana Ali Mian’s book Saviours of Islamic Spirit .
The most controversial parts about Akbar are by Badayuni (generally acknowledged to be his harsh critic by modern historians).
This may be relevant. I don’t trust Wiki much!
Now let us focus on the article:
Now are we surprised to see that the conflict dates far back than Aurangzeb’s time? The Sikhs were having a political ambition from the beginning of seventeenth century.
This one is interesting. I don’t know how impartial that is, though.
The Sikhs then lived in relative peace with the political rulers until the time of the Moghal Emperor, Aurangzeb, who used force to make his subjects accept Islam. – this is what you quoted, but I don’t see a political connection to conversion to Islam. What’s the gain after all?
The later one is partial one and the site is known to be partial (go through other parts). However, this also dodges the Guru Govind Singh case.
The Sikhs then lived in relative peace with the political rulers until the time of the Moghal Emperor, Aurangzeb, who used force to make his subjects accept Islam. –
this is what you quoted, but I don’t see a political connection to conversion to Islam. What’s the gain after all? Why is the link with religion? There are many political assassinations – like the war between Rana Pratap and Akbar, but Akbar didn’t ask him to convert either.
The later one is partial one and the site is known to be partial (go through other parts). However, this article also dodges the Guru Govind Singh case. Also why only Aurangzeb is targetted by the so-called Hindu and Western historians, and not others – is my question.
Whoever converts by force is wrong.
I am not attacking that. I am saying that the conflict between the Sikhs and the Mughals started because the Sikhs has political ambitions that conflicted with Mughal’s. And that conflict dated far back compared to when Aurangzeb became the king. I too don’t see any political logic behind forced conversion.
I didn’t notice that they totally skip the Govind Singh part, though. You are right.
I am referring to some papers relating to the issue
Aurangzeb’s Policies and the Decline of the Mughal Empire, by Hamida Khatoon Naqvi
The Journal of Asian Studies
http://www.jstor.org/view/00219118/di973696/97p0159c/0?searchUrl=http%3a//www.jstor.org/search/BasicResults%3fhp%3d25%26si%3d1%26Query%3daurangzeb%26wc%3don&frame=noframe¤tResult=00219118%2bdi973696%2b97p0159c%2b0%2c07&userID=90104004@iisc.ernet.in/01cce4405a00501b9820f&dpi=3&config=jstor
Akbar’s Personality Traits and World Outlook: A Critical Reappraisal, by Iqtidar Alam Khan
Social Scientist
First Page
http://www.jstor.org/view/09700293/sp060193/06x2072r/0?currentResult=09700293%2bsp060193%2b06x2072r%2b0%2cFFFF&searchUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jstor.org%2Fsearch%2FBasicResults%3Fhp%3D25%26si%3D1%26Query%3Dakbar%2Breligion%26wc%3Don
Akbar’s journey was first hostile and later friendly attitude toward Hindus, and then to repressive of the Muslims, completing the journey from one extreme to the other.
However, I can’t log in to the pages
.
Going into the topic, I never claimed that Aurangzeb’s policies are “solely” responsible towards decline of emperor but what I understand is that Mughals lost the trust of Indians after Aurangzebs.
Akbar turned friendly towards Hindus after understanding that the vast population of his subjects are in fact Hindus. I don’t see anything wrong in it. He was a hard-core diplomat. However, I don’t see why he’s “turning hostile” towards Muslims. Is there any reference to this point – when and how did he “turn hostile” towards Muslims?
Oh maybe because I am accessing from inside my institute I am facing no problem.
That article discusses those issues in detail. For example Akbar discouraged Adhan and congregational prayers.
Manas
Could you post both the articles here or if it not possible,then mail the whole article to my mail-id ?
I will upload the relevant pages.
Please look for update in the main article.
By the way, I must thank gess for telling me about JSTOR.
This debate got more interesting and complex. Anyway, I just want to say that Khushwant Singh’s History of Sikhs (I forget the exact title) actually is a more objective account of Sikh-Mughal relations.
There are several texts on Din-i-Ilahi but alas none of them are available online. Din-i-Ilahi was very much about submission to the authority of the monarch as much as it was an effort to bridge differences between various subjects of the Mughal state.
However, because it was so bizarre and top-down it found no adherents. Further, the respective clergies and their share in Mughal Court’s power made sure that it died with Akbar’s demise.
There was a comment about links between the past and the present. Understanding history is paramount to know the present and even sometimes plan or prepare for the future. A key to unity and harmony is a shared perspective on history and appreciation of trends that ought not to be repeated..
I would also love to dig deeper into it. Khushwant singh is an intersting charecter, but I don’t know how good a historian he is, but I will take your word for it.
Only if history is taught with honesty. Both my country and yours are guilty of the same error.
For example Akbar discouraged Adhan and congregational prayers. – Well, discourage can be out of personal bias against those practises. Many more rulers had many other things those they ‘discouraged’. But, how could it be an ‘Anti-Muslim’ activity?
If he did not like it, he could have just stayed away.
That is why I think it is repression of the muslims.
Could be you are right. But, what’s the document he’s suggesting as a pointer to that incident?
Moreover, I don’t think he actively did anything to stop prayers, did he? But his opinion is something else. He can have any opinion. Until and unless he’s forcing them, it just another opinion.
In that regard, asking anybody to convert to another religion also be considered as ‘repression’. But the point is, he’s only asking … not forcing.
Diganta
You did not read the document, did you?
Akbar stopped paying the Mu’azzins (callers to prayers) and Imams (leaders) at the Mosques. Stopped paying maintenance to the mosques (don’t get it wrong, Mughals paid some temples as well).
Not only that, he prohibited praying in congregation.
Not only that, he converted many mosques into stables and store-houses.
(See page 11 of the document).
Thanks for your reference. But the accuracy of the ‘farmaan’ depends on trust on Salim. Salim did not have a very good relation with Akbar, did he? So, it could well be a political plot by Salim to gather support from South against Akbar. I simply cannot accept Salim’s ‘farmaan’ as a authentic source. In that case, all the subadars would have revolted. I found the reasonings given by Athar Ali (referenced in article) better than trusting a sources from anti-Akbar princes.
However, Aurangzeb’s article discuss only political issues and does not discuss the religious allegations on him.
Why should Salim order resumption of payments and renovation of mosques (remember that such farmaans usually are very specific) if there was no discontinuation to start with?
To gain political support against Akbar. I would ask why should Akbar would order ‘farmaan’ only for Bijapur state? Why wasn’t everywhere? If he was committed against Muslims, or at all against congregational Namaz, why not the decree was public for the whole country? Remember the ‘farmaan’ includes reference to ‘My father’ … so, it was presumably written by Salim. He(Salim) alleged that Akbar had closed a lot of Mosques and converted them to stables. Salim had bad relations with his father and was gathering Army against him. The document was dated 1601 and Salim started opposition to Akbar in 1599.
Salim was opposing Akbar at 1601. This document was written when Akbar was still in power.
Does that make sense?
I will elaborate.
Salim wanted to take the Muslims of Bijapur to his side. In order to do that, he played the religion card (as is always done).
Had there not been any such steps taken by Akbar, nobody can hope to gain advantage out of such a farmaan.
There is a futher evidence at page 12. A letter from Murad to Akbar asking whether a man caught praying should be prosecuted or not.
Your point in favour of Salim again points to the same ‘farmaan’. I would say – had there been such farmaan, revolts would have been normal throughout India, not only in Bijapur. Isn’t it? After all, most of the Jaigeers were devout Muslim.
Murad’s letter was in reference to Namaz offered by somebody in his camp. For military reasons, the namaz might have been temporarily suspended or discouraged. The period referred here was when Ahmednagar was invaded by the Mughals (November 1595). Murad asked, whether he should forbid such person or not since he was not favour of ‘prosecuting’ him. If there were a farmaan clearly stating the ban against such namaaz, questions would not have arisen at all.
I don’t agree to “Muslim repression’ mostly because most of his Jaigirs were still Muslims. In such a situation, he would have faced a widespread revolt.
I think we are discussing too much. Let me stop it here.
satish chandra writes well on aurangzeb, politics comes before religion, robert hennisey does the same. athar ali, one of satish chandra’s students at aligarh showed how hindus were integrated into aurangzeb’s army.
i taught mughal history at north london uni during the late 1990s, wrote a ma dissertation on aurangzeb for my ma at soas, london uni.
aurangzeb is a very complex person. there are muslims who write against him, while there are hindus and gori log who write well of him.
aurangzeb’s private tutor was a sayyid from bihar, who is the ancestor of the barrister imam brothers -ali imam and hasan imam who defeated the top hindu lawyers in british india. so aurangzeb had the best education.
It’s really a great and helpful piece of information. I am satisfied that you just shared this helpful info with us. Please stay us informed like this. Thank you for sharing.