Aurangzeb's policy was to treat the empire as a Muslim state, not as the Indian state with Islam as the state religion. That weakened the empire and also invited revolts. In a sense he brought Islam in politics. He was probably inspired by the 17th century theologian Sirhindi. Sirhindi was against syncretism.
Source: Percival Spear.
Sent from my iPhone
Sent from my iPhone
The following is pure nonsense culled out of propagandist Islamophobic historiography of 19th century by PAID British colonial writers. James Mill (the author of 'History of India') and his more famous son, John Stuart Mill, were both on the payroll of East India Company. So were Warren Hastings and Thomas B. Macaulay.
<< We would never know what would have happened if English had not colonized the Indian subcontinent? Another two hundreds years of Muslim rule would have made India a different country as far as I can guess. English rule was probably a blessing in disguise for many Hindus because few more unfortunate Aurangzeb types could have finished the residual Hindu resistance if Islamic rule was allowed to proceed? >>
Aurangazeb's rule was the zenith of Mughal India, the greatest Empire of India that was the most dazzlingly wealthy in the world of the time. The British started bad-mouthing Aurangzeb in order to justify their theft and illegal occupation. Aurangazeb has been praised as a great ruler by foreign visitors to India from the East (China) and the West (France) and by contemporary Hindu commentators and subsequent chroniclers. Can I please appeal to the common sense of these mukto-mona stalwarts of Communalism, and point to the POSSIBILITY of the existence of history written by competent scholars who refute the above bs? I am not asking you guys to do any hard work like 'reading'. Only a humble request to acknowledge that there may be scholarships since the days of 19th century history-writiing by the colonial British. Just an appeal to some rational thinking, please!
Farida Majid
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
From: qrahman@netscape.net
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 13:54:34 -0400
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Fwd: বাংলাদেশ সাম্প্রদায়িক সম্প্রীতির দেশ
We would never know what would have happened if English had not colonized the Indian subcontinent? Another two hundreds years of Muslim rule would have made India a different country as far as I can guess. English rule was probably a blessing in disguise for many Hindus because few more unfortunate Aurangzeb types could have finished the residual Hindu resistance if Islamic rule was allowed to proceed?
>>>>>>>>>>> Anyone can speculate and spend rest of their lives talking about Muslims and what they "Might have done" in India.
Let us check the FACTS for a sec. Muslims did rule most parts of India around 1000 years and they did NOT force any type of mass conversion. ALSO now contrast it with two Indian states which were colonies and today most of the population are Christians over there.
Let me share few information about Christianity in India. ...
Goa inquisition
Main article: Goa Inquisition[edit]Modern times
Since 1851, the Christian population of Goa has been facing a continual decline. As a result, the percentage of Christian population (once a majority) has shifted in favor of the Hindus. As per the data available, Christians constituted 64% and Hindus 35% in 1851 census.[10] Currently, Christians constitute 27% and Hindus 66% of the population of Goa.[1]
NOW look at what happened AFTER the British took over India. People from all faith gathered around Bahadur Shah Jafar (The last Moghul who was banished by the British). History tells us a band of patriotic freedom fighters asked him to lead them to freedom. Bahadur was not a capable leader like his forefathers but he did his best. The point is the Muslim rulers were not forced but they were accepted by the locals as leaders of India because of their contribution.
They did not want to colonize India but became "Indians" and put their lives on line to defend India.
Therefore, anyone is free to "SPECULATE" about history and share their "Guess works" but history tells us otherwise.
To be fair, I blame Muslims the most for not knowing their own history and share it with some wisdom. So it is not hard for a non-Muslim to assume true story of Islam. We (Muslims) do a lousy job in projecting the authentic message of Islam and I hope this will help to promote a better understanding of Islam.
Shalom!
-----Original Message-----
From: Shah Deeldar <shahdeeldar@yahoo.com>
To: mukto-mona <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Mon, Oct 29, 2012 7:54 am
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Fwd: বাংলাদেশ সাম্প্রদায়িক সম্প্রীতির দেশ
"It is fruitless to debate if anyone wanted to establish an ideal "Islamic state" in India."
We would never know what would have happened if English had not colonized the Indian subcontinent? Another two hundreds years of Muslim rule would have made India a different country as far as I can guess. English rule was probably a blessing in disguise for many Hindus because few more unfortunate Aurangzeb types could have finished the residual Hindu resistance if Islamic rule was allowed to proceed?
-SD
"All great truths begi
