The History of Jihad From Muhammad to ISIS introduce you to the real Aurangzeb, beyond these ridiculous academic myths, not from the work of “later-day historians,” but in his own words and the words of eyewitnesses to his deeds. Aurangzeb in 1670 issued this decree: “Every idol-house built during the last 10 or 12 years, whether with brick or clay, should be demolished without delay. Also, do not allow the crushed Hindus and despicable infidels to repair their old temples.”
A Muslim historian, Saqa Mustad Khan, writing just after Aurangzeb died in 1707, reported that in January 1680, Aurangzeb “went to view lake Udaisagar, constructed by the Rana, and ordered all the three temples on its banks to be demolished.” The following day, “Hasan Ali Khan brought to the Emperor twenty camel-loads of tents and other things captured from the Rana’s palace and reported that one hundred and seventy-two other temples in the environs of Udaipur had been destroyed.” Later that year, “Abu Turab, who had been sent to demolish the temples of Amber, returned to Court…and reported that he had pulled down sixty-six temples.”
Bakhtawar Khan, a nobleman during Aurangzeb’s reign, was also pleased, noting that “Hindu writers have been entirely excluded from holding public offices, and all the worshipping places of the infidels and great temples of these infamous people have been thrown down and destroyed in a manner which excites astonishment at the successful completion of so difficult a task.”
You won’t learn all this at any American university. They’re too busy teaching academic fictions such as those retailed here by Audrey Truschke, and warning their students about “Islamophobia.” But you can get the truth in The History of Jihad, the only comprehensive one-volume history of jihad in the English language, including not just the jihad in Europe but in India, Africa and elsewhere, drawing primarily on accounts of eyewitnesses and contemporary chroniclers. Arm yourself with the truth against the prevailing disinformation. Order here now.
“Redefining Aurangzeb…more sinned against than sinning,” by Sumit Paul, Free Press Journal, January 4, 2021:
…In her seminal tome, ‘Culture of Encounters: Sanskrit at the Mughal Court,’ the Stanford Post-Doctoral researcher Audrey Truschke is of the view that Aurangzeb was the most misunderstood Mughal because his certain alleged atrocities were amplified by the later-day historians, who called him a bigot of the first order and ‘a humourless drybone’ (to quote the late Akhilesh Mishra, the amateur but highly popular pop-historian of The Asian Age).
But that doesn’t mean that he was a man without flaws. As a human and that too as a supreme ruler of the subcontinent, he committed certain blood-curdling atrocities — incarcerating his father, executing his elder brother Dara Shikoh, who was to become the emperor, imposing Jaziya tax on Hindus and non-Muslims and converting legions of Hindus to Islam, torturing the ninth Sikh Guru Tegh Bahadur and executing him, also executing Shivaji’s son Sambhaji who refused to embrace Islam. The list of his atrocities is quite long.
But to quote the legendary British historian Sir Arnold Toynbee and ancient Roman historians Pliny the Jr. and Catullus, “A ruler’s good-deeds and misdeeds must be juxtaposed to strike a perfect balance and then come to a conclusion whether he was indeed good or vile.” So very true. The great Roman emperor Julius Caesar was pathologically against the Neo-Pagans and was a confirmed rapist, who did not spare even the mother of his dearest friend Brutus (yes, he raped Brutus’s mother and made her his concubine; read ‘Rise and Fall of Roman Empire’ by Sir Edward Gibbon and ‘Rome, the Dome ‘ by Sir Collingwood). Brutus killed his friend Caesar not because he was concerned about Rome and the Senate. He was fuming that his friend and emperor had raped his mother and made her a concubine in his seraglio. But Caesar is considered to be a great and even just (!) emperor by most historians and students of Wikipedia and WhatsApp University.
Aurangzeb wasn’t an archetypical anti-Hindu. Granted, he was a strict Muslim, who offered namaz nine times (yes, there’re nine namaz in Islam, five are mandatory, 4 are optional) a day, he didn’t take any action when his two trusted courtiers Eram Khan and Raqsool Usman accepted Hinduism and became Dhaniram and Raichand. They remained with Aurangzeb till they breathed their last. He didn’t punish or banish his favourite erstwhile Muslim courtiers.
He was against music not because music is haram or prohibited in Islam, but because he considered music to be ‘Inguzeer-ul-khwam’ (Arabic for a frivolous pastime or an unnecessary indulgence). He had indeed made it prohibitory or haram for his Muslim subjects but Hindus could sing bhajan and keertan. Read his Arabic treatise ‘Fatwa-ul-Alamgir’ (The edicts of Aurangzeb; only two copies are left, one at Al-Azhar, Cairo, and another one at the Archives of Oxford University). He clearly mentioned that ‘ Mausiqi bin halaal ul but-parastaan, deeham az’zeega’r haram un-Momin’ (Music is acceptable to the idol-worshippers, but completely unacceptable to Momin or a true Muslim)….
That sounds like “music is haram” to me.
mortimer says
Preposterous to claim that was benign.
Encyclopedia Britannica says the following: “in the struggle for power (1657–59), Aurangzeb showed tactical and strategic military skill, great powers of dissimulation, and ruthless determination. Decisively defeating Dārā at Samugarh in May 1658, he confined his father in his own palace at Agra. In consolidating his power, Aurangzeb caused one brother’s death and had two other brothers, a son, and a nephew executed.” He certainly persecuted Hindus vigorously.
mortimer says
Correction: Preposterous to claim that Aurangzeb was benign.
Onesaffronladoftherisingsun says
For thirty years aurangazeb tried to defeat the Marathas and ended up bankrupting the mughal empire. When he retreated a tired man, with his rear guard being pursued by marathas, aurangazeb’s untill he finally died. Infact Marathas gave him “buttseks of the lifetime”.
Jon Sobieski says
Apologetics on steriods. Read like this. Aurangzeb saved millions of Hindus from dangerous temples that were in danger of falling by razing them to the foundations. Hindus were universally thankful.
Infidel says
He also had one Sikh Guru executed, and the next one assassinated, and his generals bricked alive 2 of the latter’s younger sons. Any reading of the Sikh texts, which include that history, makes that emphatically clear!
The Mughals also had some novel barbaric ways of killing people that would make the likes of Adolf Eichmann blush
sidney penny says
https://www.amazon.com.au/History-India-Told-Its-Historians/dp/1376534851
The Muhammadan Period; Volume 5
The History of India, as Told by Its Own Historians,
will also “introduce you to the real Aurangzeb, beyond these ridiculous academic myths, not from the work of “later-day historians,” but in his own words and the words of eyewitnesses to his deeds. ”
by Henry Elliot and John Dowson.
Published as a set of 8 volumes between 1867-1877.
and remember own means Muslims
sidney penny says
One way academics Audrey Truschke get away with a lot is to ” give the dog a bad name” like calling
the late Akhilesh Mishra amateur or pop historian or popular pop historian or writing in the The Asian Age.
or saying that Robert Spencer is not an academic so pay no attention to him ( same is said about the historian Koenraad Elst)
and music is haram to Aurangzeb no matter how Audrey explains it.
There was nothing Great or Golden about the Moguls in India.
b.a. freeman says
“…nothing Great or Golden about the Moguls…”
—
i beg to differ, sidney; i’m CERTAIN that he created great piles of hindu skulls. furthermore, i am CERTAIN that he stole great quantities of hindu gold. if ever a man has earned a place in hell, the a**hole aurangzeb has done so.
gravenimage says
Free Press Journal claims bloodthirsty Muslim ruler in India, Aurangzeb, was ‘more sinned against than sinning’
………………….
More grotesque whitewash. Sumit Paul has also written articles saying that taking moral issue with savage Halal slaughter is “ridiculous” and saying that forced marital conversions are ‘un-Islamic’.
Infidel says
Oh yeah, India has its share of secular historians who do what they can to whitewash as many muslim atrocities in India as possible, particularly the best known ones such as Aurangzeb
Incidentally, news for Hugh: the street in Delhi where a lot of foreign embassies are which was called Aurangzeb Road – it was renamed to Dr Abdul Kalam Road after India’s late president when the BJP came to power.
gravenimage says
True, Infidel.
JamesC. says
Catullus was not an historian. Parts of that article sound like something by Zakir Naik.
John Webster says
My song The Ballad of Akbar and Aurangzeb tried to communicate the reality of Aurangzeb to a modern audience. Also now be n French! https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sLcSVq2x9qM
Owen Morgan says
For the record, Sumit Paul, neither Pliny the Younger nor Catullus was an historian. Pliny is known for his letters, Catullus for his poetry, Julius Caesar wasn’t an emperor, either. Is it possible that history isn’t your strongest point, or, there again – heaven forbid – that it actually is?
Besh says
Fraudrey Truschke does not appear to be an academic, if by academic is meant to have an objective, factual based and scientific outlook, she appears more like a political activist.
The twitter handle True Indology did a good job exposing some of her falsehoods.
This page is a good overview https://en.dharmapedia.net/wiki/Audrey_Truschke
Infidel says
Talking about history books, while I’m sure RS’s book does a good job, as far as India goes, it barely scratches the surface, unless it went into volumes. As a kid, I used to read Dr RC Majumdar’s Indian history series books, and there, in 3 volumes (Struggle for Empire, Delhi Sultanate and Mughal Empire), he goes into detail about the persecution of Hindus by muslims and the relations b/w the 2 groups. This series incidentally was never adapted by India’s former Congress governments since it went against the official claims of Nehru and Gandhi that everything was hunky-dory b/w the 2.
It wasn’t just Aurangzeb: all muslim rulers of India, starting w/ Qutb-ad-Din Aybaq – had a policy of persecuting non-muslims, destroying temples and replacing them w/ mosques, desecrating images like using them as steps to mosques and so on. Under the first Mamluq sultans, Buddhism and Jainism were virtually wiped out of India, and only Hindus survived b’cos they put up a fiercer resistance. The only muslim rulers who didn’t persecute Hindus were the ones who were too busy in self preservation wars to take notice
In fact, forget Aurangzeb, none of the Mughals were tolerant. Babur, as is well known – his generals destroyed the Rama temple in Ayodhya amongst several 100 others during his first wave of conquests. Akbar massacred the inhabitants of Chittor. Even on the claim that he removed the Jiziya tax on Hindus, it was found out that that order was never really implemented. His successor Jahangir had the 5th Sikh Guru Arjan Dev executed, after witnessing some of his companions being tortured to death. Shah Jahan resumed the destruction of Hindu temples during his reign, and Aurangzeb went full jihad, pulling back any pretense of tolerance. It was during Aurangzeb’s reign that the Guru Tegh Bahadur was executed, Guru Govind Singh’s 2 young sons were bricked alive and Guru Govind Singh himself was assassinated. His successor Banda Bahadur was cruelly executed, after watching his young son slaughtered in front of him. Indeed, the Mughals gave the Nazis a run for their money
Indian secularists are forced to whitewash all this b’cos absent that, it’s impossible for them to claim that muslims were a positive influence in India’s history, or that today’s muslims of India are benign. Thankfully, in Indian schools and colleges, they’ve at least stopped claiming that the muslims were good, even if they refuse to go into the depth of their depravity
Hari Singh says
As a Sikh we know Aurangzeb as the Hitler of the Muslims. He killed the Ninth Sikh Guru, his four grandsons. Aurangzeb attempted to wipe out the Brahmins of Kashmir reportedly killing 37,000 and fed many to his dogs. He killed his father and brother for recognizing Hinduism as an Adamic religion.
He set up forced conversion sites at Hindu holy places. He destroyed nearly all Hindu & Buddhist temples in NW India. Aurangzeb Built mosques on Hindu holy sites.
He killed tens of thousands of Hindus and Sikhs. Of all the Mogul emperor’s he was the worst.
Infidel says
Calling Aurangzeb a ‘Hitler’ is an insult to Hitler
bewhitebarry says
Watch what the Moslems do to the churches in France. They will destroy them for the same reason they destroyed the temples in India and the churches in the middle east.
Why should we expect them to act differently.
No one will take any notice until they destroy Westminster Abbey.