A new generation is emerging. Young, happening, educated individuals and yet very much Muslims. While sitting recently with a group of young savvy’s discussing travel, the dialogue went all the road encircling our communication, and then someone mentioned Islam, I kept quiet to see their reaction, but with authority and details infact with much easiness Prophet, his colleagues and “hadits� were discussed, with it the beauty of Islam. It took me some time to sink in the thought that these dudes were not paper Muslims, with only Muslim names, but well balanced, positive, modern yet practicing Muslims, the guys knew it all, at least the basics.
I was drifted in my own thoughts, how often we hear from “moderates�, their opinion as to how Islam should be seen, many are happy to lay down new rules, principles and uproot the old fashioned medieval Islam, and even built a new one, very close to Christianity, Judaism and Hinduism, actually how to cut Islam apart and add new pieces with spark of new versioned Islam.
Sadly, few of these so called moderates, social reformers or positive voices hardly know Islam, how many genuinely bothered to read a short biography of Prophet Muhammad. Apart from being the Prophet of Allah, may peace be upon him, he was a man and lived among men, a social reformer, administrator, commander, philosopher, teacher, friend, father and husband. His life is worthy of being read and understood in detail. How a man uneducated, born in midst of desert eclipsed with the shadow of warring clans and Bedouins, developed the sense of brotherhood, love and security. He broke all ancient rules by proclaiming “There is no God but Allah�, and bore the pains and torture from his own people, and within his life time converted waves and waves of clans, tribes and individuals to the beauty of Islam, and worship of One Lord “Allah�. Within few years the disciples of Muhammad shook and brought the ancient and powerful Persian and Byzantine empires to knees.
Islam was not the blood thirsty religion then, as seen today by many, but was all about “SALAM�, PEACE, it was Christians then, who killed and persecuted the Jews. Again it was Christian monks not Muslims who burned and razed the legendary library of Alexandria. Thousands of women were burned alive by pious Christian men, accusing these women of heresy and witch craft.
What ancient civilizations and dynasties forged in centuries, Islam achieved in few decades. Not by sword but by call of brotherhood, equality of mankind, respect and rights for women, acknowledging orphans. Islam then meant “Brotherhood�, and each Muslim brother by religion, in his last speech Rasool said, “All mankind is from Adam and Eve, an Arab has no superiority over a non Arab nor a non Arab has any superiority over an Arab, also the white has no superiority over black nor a black has any superiority over white except by piety and good actions�. This was thousand years before Gandhi, Martin Luther, and Mandela.
To catch up with this modern world we shunned our basic beliefs, made lawful what was not, we threw our literature, culture and adopted with much confusion, the passion for west, and undoubtly, west is going full throttle towards development and growth.
The “magrib azan� started with “Allah o Akbar�, calling the faithful, my new friend happily removed the I pod head phone and got up to pray, he was clean shaven, wore Jack Jones jeans, and on his hand was strapped the iconic Audemars Alinghi Carbon, with Allah o Akbar he was transformed into meditation and personal dialogue with Allah, with no mediator in between. Later I recollected the young dude never even once called himself a “moderate�, he was just a MUSLIM.
Sahil, I agree with what u say. i also know if non muslims attack muslims or islam, muslims will not like it. but muslims do not like it even if opposition comes from muslims themselves. i don’t mind agreeing with Asad as well that history does not matter now at all, but i fail to reconcile the same with the sound of the blasts going on in India. I see that these people target others without regard for even religion (which supposedly motivates them). the absurdity, the sheer monstrosity of this i fail to reconcile with the OBL lookalike in bihar elections, or zakir naik’s ‘clever’ defence of OBL or the sympathy wave for parliament attacker. no wonder i’m confused. don’t know abt u, but i feel confrontation and not platitudes is needed to remove this confusion.
” It was tolerence from muslim rulers that your ancestors were not forced into conversion.”
saifaliahmad, Not true.
1. Hindu chiefs were co-opted to rule India (as in Akbar the Great’s time). When they werent (as in Aurangzeb’s time), a new religion (Sikhism) or a new Hindu power (Marathas) arose.
2. Yaar, if everybody was converted – who would pay the Jaziya tax
anonymous:
1. Is is presumptuous to assume that anyone can rule India without co-opting the largest majority, one way or the other. So, Aurangzeb had an unusually high number of top government officials as Hindus, 148 to be precise. Akbar had 14. The top military commander of Aurangzeb was a Hindu, Raja Jai Singh. The two highest ranked treasury officials were Hindus. Some historians like Nagendranath Banerjee have gone to the extent of saying that the state policy during his reign was being formulated by Hindus.
2. Jokes apart, let us get the facts right. The per capita amount of taxes being paid by Muslims during Aurangzeb’s rule was much more than paid by non-Muslims. Zakat (2.5% of the savings) and ushr (10% of agricultural produce) was collected from all Muslims whereas many Muslims also paid voluntary sadaqa, fitra etc. So, your point that forced conversions didn’t happen to collect high taxes from Hindus is incorrect.
Mohib:
There were two distinct phases in Aurangzeb’s rule. It is a bit misleading to use information about the first phase, when he continued the policies of his ancestors to a large extent and continued to employ Hindus in senior positions to prove a point, when most of the objections his detractors have are to policies and actions in the second phase.
In the first phase, that lasted approximately from 1658 to 1668, he continued the existing policy, of course imposing austerity and to some extent, conformity with Sharia wherever he thought there was divergence. His policy towards his Hindu subjects was also characterized by continuity, again with minor alterations. This is when he appointed several Hindus (primarily the sword arm of Rajputs but also others) to prime positions in his court. It was in 1665 that he started issuing firmans that started negatively affecting Hindus and around 1668 that they started being noticed as a change in policy. It was not until 1679 that he imposed Jaziya. It was at around the same time that senior Hindu court officials started losing his favor. Of course, at more junior levels, employment of Hindus continued – it was simply not possible to rule over these vast territories without that.
Thus, his change of policies was gradual, as was the change in objective facts like employment of officials. The use of his employment record (or another thing people mention – of a grant given to a temple) from the first, more benign (from the minority perspective) phase of his reign to discredit the intolerance his detractors point to in the second phase is therefore quite misleading. Thus, Aurangzeb was both – a person who continued his predecessors’ policies with some Islamic flavor and austerity (in the first phase of his reign) and a person who used state policy to persecute the Hindu majority and provide economic and other inducements for conversion. To say he was one or the other is a misrepresentation of the historical facts.
There isn’t much written at least in the non-research media on why Aurangzeb’s policies underwent this change. Why did he do a U-turn on a set of policies that had served his ancestors well. Instead, there is too much noise from one side or the other – one trying to prove that he was satan personified and the other trying to defend his policies one way or the other and often not very convincingly.
And BTW, there are numerous instances where somebody can rule a large country without co-opting the largest majority. (Iraq before the American invasion was a recent example). Sometimes for centuries together. So that argument is not particularly convincing. In fact, one of the important reasons why many historians think the Mughal empire collapsed after Aurangzeb died is the fact that he overturned, at least to some extent, the policy of co-opting the majority that his great-grandfather had crafted. In any case, the vast majority of Indians were far removed from the imperial court. Some key people (running into the thousands perhaps, but still a miniscule part of the total population) needed to be co-opted and the games were played between these few people. So when we talk about co-opting the majority (whether in Akbar’s time or Aurangzeb’s), it is not the masses that we are really talking about, but a few thousand people at most.
Girish:
Your comment at least validates the fact that like many rulers of his time, Aurangzeb was a complex personality. It doesn’t do justice to history to paint him either this or that. I am amazed at the amount of hatred heaped upon him by Hindus and reverence showed to him by Muslims for precisely the same reasons.
Historian Athar Ali has argued that his Islamist propaganda was a cover-up for his personal failures. He also needed money for his numerous wars and jiziya seemed like a perfect tool for the purpose.
As far as the majority population is concerned, Mughal rulers, even Aurangzeb, tried to co-opt the majority, one way or the other. If and when it didn’t happen, the rulers had to pay the price. Of course we didn’t have a democratic setup then and the local population may not always have a say in such decisions. At that time co-opting could range from buying loyalty from the provincial chieftans to allowing people to go about their business as usual. Aurangzeb might not be as good as his predecessors and it may be one of the reasons of the Mughal empire’s downfall after him. I just don’t agree with the assumption that he was anti-Hindu from the word go.
I think its important to understand why hindus make it a point to hate Aurangzeb, thats because he turned an otherwise tolerant Indian empire against them. of all the experience with Muslims, this leaves in them a sense of betrayal – also because of the timing of his betrayal. rem, he started his anti hindu policies when the mughal empire was at its mightiest. Hindus feel the agenda was revealed only when it was certain to succeed. the sense of betrayal is only surpassed by pakistan creation (separate pakistan was demanded only when it was sensed that independence was possible).
I rem even in maharashtra school textbooks (Aurangzeb tortured and killed Shivaji’s son for refusal to convert to islam, faught last 25 yrs of his life in deccan trying to subdue the marathas), we were taught that Aurangzeb was austere, that he earned his livelihood himself etc etc. this part even hindus appreciate, but many muslims argue that he’s vilified only because he was pious my q is, was it piousness of his that made him anti hindu, intolerant? on the other hand, why don’t hindus vilify all pious muslims… like pirs? so we are again looking at two different versions of piousness here?
Mohib:
Jizya was imposed not just as a tool for getting more revenue. Aurangzeb’s cynicism certainly played a part in this for which he personally and mughal empire as a whole paid a heavy price. Abraham Eraly in his “The Mughal Throne” has pointed out that in some parts when it became impossible for the imperial officers to colloect even the normal revenue because of bad rains, they petitioned to the emperor for waiving jizya. The emperor told his officers that they could waive the normal tribute if they wished but not jizya.
Secondly, amount of jizya was minuscule by mughal standards and as various historians have noted that even that minuscule amount was rarely collected in a systemmatic manner. The real purpose of jizya was symbolic and caused great erosion in the goodwill built over centuries. Aurangzeb used islam to mask his personal ambitions and cover his failures. He was not even an islamic fanatic. A fanatic would have treated all non-muslims with equal contempt. However, he continued to give special concessions to Rajputs because of political expediency, which were not available to his other hindu subjects. His anti-hindu stance was part of his great show to present himself as the “saviour of islam” and consolidate his power. He adopted this posture in his fight with Dara but ended up being consumed by his mask.
History has repeated itself again and again. Lots of Muslim rulers in history have turned “pious” when faced with insecurity. In Aurangzeb’s case, the insecurity was about the fact that he had imprisoned his father and there were murmurs amongst the religious leaders of that time against this act. There was also politics involved – the Sufi minded Dara Shikoh had been aligned with more liberal Sufi religious men, while the conservatives aligned with Aurangzeb. It was a similar story with Firoz Shah Tughlak and even Mahmud of Ghazni. And interestingly, the same insecurity played a role in Zia’s decision to turn Pakistan towards conservative Islam after getting Bhutto killed. Saddam Hussein, who started as a part of a secular order and perpetuated it for a long time, tried to mobilize people behind him using religious symbolism towards the end of his rule. Even Jinnah was willing to play along with slogans like “Islam khatray mein hai” and “Pakistan ka matlab kya, la ilaha il allah” when independence approached.
History has repeated itself innumerable times. What is interesting (and also distressing) is that becoming a “good Muslim” in these cases often meant becoming a bad human being, with terrible consequences for a large number of people, whether it was Ghaznavi or Aurangzeb or Tughlaq or Zia. It is worth asking why that was the case. What forces encouraged this conflict between becoming a good human being and a good Muslim, when the religion itself clearly enjoins people to be good humans first.
@Girish
“It is worth asking why that was the case. What forces encouraged this conflict between becoming a good human being and a good Muslim, when the religion itself clearly enjoins people to be good humans first.”
Girish, the examples you have given faced same conflicts that Modi and Togadiya face in being a good hindu/ jain and a good human being.
As far as Aurangzeb’s case is concerned, it is what he wrote to his brother Murad (whom he later killed), when still in struggle with Dara: “As you (Murad) know very well that I have no taste for the fruits of power. My opposition to Dara and support to you originates only from my deep desire to protect our deen from the evil hands of kuffars. My goal will be accomplished on the day I see you installed on the timuri throne. After that I can peacefully leave for hajj and spend my days in the remembrance of God almighty.” (p. 362, The Mughal Throne).
However as history tells us that after defeating Dara he had other more important duties to perform than mere remembrance of God almighty.
Asad:
The difference is that none of these people you refer to claim to be “pious” or doing what any religious text tells them to do. Togadia is not even a Hindu, as you also say. Advani has publicly declared that he does not visit temples or even pray at home. Nobody else considers them as “pious Hindus” either, not even their supporters. The same with even the RSS founders like Hedgewar and Golwalkar.
I know that the Quran does not tell people to be bad human beings in order to be good Muslims. Then why have so many Muslim rulers found it expedient to do so? What social and historical factors contributed to this?
Sir,
The Babri Masjid Demolition was one of the most unfortunate incidents in India’s modern history.
But it ostensibly received relatively large Hindu support because of “pseudo-secularism�
So kindly let me know what do common Muslims think about Uniform Civil Code, Artice 370 and Iran’s nuclear bomb – issues which I personally think have been used to appease the Muslim community
Thanks
“The per capita amount of taxes being paid by Muslims during Aurangzeb’s rule was much more than paid by non-Muslims”
Mohib, any evidence? Many commentators on this forum have opined that *if* the Mughals etc wanted, they could have forcibly converted all Indians. I think that is false. When they tried, as was mentioned before, Sikhs, Marathas, Tamils, Rajputs etc. revolted – in large or small numbers.
Genuinely Secular:
I have already mentioned various taxes which Muslims had to pay but Hindus need not to. At the same time, it is also important to note that many of these taxes are incumbent upon Muslims through their religion. Personally I feel that the idea to impose jiziya on Hindus on account of them being Hindus was a wrong one. However, I would not just use that single parameter to judge the legacy of Aurangzeb.
Do you have evidence to support that he forcibly tried to convert Indians and it was because of that reason Sikhs, Marathas, Tamils, Rajputs etc. revolted?
As for your previous comment, Indian Muslims don’t give a hoot about the Iranian nuclear bomb. Most of them haven’t even heard about Article 370, let alone worry about the same. Uniform Civil Code is an issue that affects them directly. Before, I respond, I would like to know your views on the issue.
hi mohib bhai,
if muslims dont know/care about 370, why has it not been repealed? why was it on bjp’s agenda and not others’? i have a feeling because everybody thought – apparently with no bad reason – that muslims have tactically supported the idea that atleast kashmir should remain muslim majority? otherwise whats the use of the article now so many decades after ’47? how can we claim kashmir to be an integral part of india when our constitution itself gives it more autonomy than most other states? kashmiris can go to the rest of india and settle down, but vice versa – its difficult….
regarding the civil code issue, i believe that individual liberty and dignity comes before any religion…. islam may allow polygamy, talaq and what not – but in a modern democracy, a truly liberal and seculat constitution should be the supreme book – and not quran, manusmriti etc. hindu personal law was changed even before 52 – when no elections were held…. when the people’s mandate wasnt given….
i’ll write more after ur response
Genuinely Secular:
There is no recorded history of a SINGLE revolt by Sikhs/ Marathas/ Tamils/ Rajputs etc. due to forced conversion by Aurangzeb. He tried to lure some powerful hindu kings into the fold of islam through material incentives such as offering 7000 mansabdari to Sambhaji or offering to recognize Ajit Singh as sovereign of Marwar if he accepted islam. Jadunath Sarkar has pointed out that in both these cases his motivation was to cut off these hindu kings from their mass base that was rooted in their caste. Ajit Singh had in fact considered this option quite seriously, but later rejected when he realized that by giving up his caste base he would become entirely dependent on the Emperor. No such incentives were offered by Aurangzeb to other hindu kings from whom their was no political threat.
It is obvious that such incentives could not have been offered purely from religious convictions as Islam does not recognize such conversions. The only conversion which are valid in the eyes of Islam are those, which are motivated by a change of heart. Aurangzeb was not some illiterate mullah who would not know these nuiances. He knew these subtleties of Islam in depth and used them to gain political mileage whenever the opportunity arose.
Some insights into the accusation against Emperor Aurangazeb,
http://www.bismikaallahuma.org/archives/2007/mughal-emperor-aurangzeb-bad-ruler-or-bad-history/
Dear Mohib, here’s some evidence for Aurangzeb’s view of Hindus… and there’s a lot of it. luckily muslims wrote a lot of history.
http://www.hindunet.org/hindu_history/modern/temple_aurangzeb.html
Also i’d like to see evidece that muslims were paying more tax under aurangzeb than hindus (as it sounds incredible). besides, isn’t jaziya and zakat is to be used for benefit of muslims alone? then how’s it the same? its not just one point abt jaziya, its abt interfering in hindu religious matters, abt persecution of sikhs and murder of tegh bahadur, abt destruction of temples but the main point is his belief in supremacy of sunni islam and the same remains very much relevant today. he was the strongest of all mughals, then why was his reign riddled with rebellions from hindus? the only other explanation can be political hinduism, but i hope we all agree that that was not present then. the most likely reason is it hwas just survival and revolt against humiliation of hindus.
Triple:
I find it really strange that even after three centuries we still have to attack/ defend Aurangzeb. Who says that Aurangzeb did not kill Teg Bahadur or did not attack sikhs or did not commit some other wrongs? OTOH, I have repeatedly mentioned that he indeed many times misused Islam to gain political mileage. The only point I am making is that he should be judged in his entirety, not just on this single trait. Using religion for political mileage is not something he alone was guilty of. Maybe he went overboard in his actions that we find today distasteful but judging a medieval king on standards of contemporary norms is really a farcical exercise.
I see two diametrically opposite trends here arguing at the cost of objectivity. One side thinks that just because he promoted islam at the cost of other religions, everything he did was wrong and needs to be attacked. The other side thinks that just because he did it in the name of Islam, he must be right in everything and needs to be defended. In both these passionate stands what gets sacrificed is the objective truth. When will we have the maturity to appreciate that he was a human being and a king and had many strengths and weaknesses just like everyone else? If we really want to learn from history, we must develop the maturity to look at the history dispassionately. Making a historical figure a saint or a demon and then trying to study him is a travesty of history.
Asad,
I agree that we need to look at history in entirety and most of what u said. but why look at history at all? completely ignoring history seems to be an objective exercise as all people in history were doubtlessly complex, that there have no ideas that have prevailed through history – from ancent to medieval to the present, that there’s nothing to learn from history just papmering ego by glorifying or vilifying people…
or u can look at what disasters took place under what ideas and learn from it. Tegh Bahadur is dead, but the pundits who refused to convert sre still suffering under the same ideology. i hope u read the link i gave above, don’t u think there ar ideas there that exist today? just listen to Zakir Naik (many indian muslims i know think he’s cool) and listen to the supremacist tone and twisted logic. and these poeple think they are secular and have ‘enuf’ respect for others. these are powerful ideas my friend and looking at these ideas through history is part of looking at history in entirety isn’t it? why look at aurangzeb when detractors mention him, look at his fatwas through to MIM and see the link. its quite objective.
This is for Amit. He was talking about Vishainavites and Shivaites and that they dont fight. Ask any resident of Chennai or any large Tamil town above 50 he will tell you all about the fights that you so proud do not exist. Present day most Hindus have very little knowledge of their religon and most dont care. If they do they know a few Slokhas and a few rites and restrictions in their religon beyond they know as much as a TV watching Muslim. It is natural he is least worried about any diffrences with other hindus.