Amir ul-Mumineen Aurangzeb: A Critical Look at Some Criticisms

A critical look at criticisms lobbied against Hazrat Aurangzeb  from a post by Aryan Khan:

Of all the Muslim rulers who ruled vast territories of India from 712 to 1857 CE, probably no one has received as much condemnation from Western and Hindu writers as Aurangzeb. He has been castigated as a religious Muslim who was anti-Hindu, who taxed them, who tried to convert them, who discriminated against them in awarding high administrative positions, and who interfered in their religious matters. This view has been heavily promoted in the government approved textbooks in schools and colleges across post-partition India (i.e., after 1947). These are fabrications against one of the best rulers of India who was pious, scholarly, saintly, un-biased, liberal, magnanimous, tolerant, competent, and far-sighted.

Fortunately, in recent years quite a few Hindu historians have come out in the open disputing those allegations. For example, historian Babu Nagendranath Banerjee rejected the accusation of forced conversion of Hindus by Muslim rulers by stating that if that was their intention then in India today there would not be nearly four times as many Hindus compared to Muslims, despite the fact that Muslims had ruled for nearly a thousand years. Banerjee challenged the Hindu hypothesis that Aurangzeb was anti-Hindu by reasoning that if the latter were truly guilty of such bigotry, how could he appoint a Hindu as his military commander-in-chief? Surely, he could have afforded to appoint a competent Muslim general in that position. Banerjee further stated: "No one should accuse Aurangzeb of being communal minded. In his administration, the state policy was formulated by Hindus. Two Hindus held the highest position in the State Treasury. Some prejudiced Muslims even questioned the merit of his decision to appoint non-Muslims to such high offices. The Emperor refuted that by stating that he had been following the dictates of the Shariah (Islamic Law) which demands appointing right persons in right positions." During Aurangzeb's long reign of fifty years, many Hindus, notably Jaswant Singh, Raja Rajrup, Kabir Singh, Arghanath Singh, Prem Dev Singh, Dilip Roy, and Rasik Lal Crory, held very high administrative positions. Two of the highest ranked generals in Aurangzeb's administration, Jaswant Singh and Jaya Singh, were Hindus. Other notable Hindu generals who commanded a garrison of two to five thousand soldiers were Raja Vim Singh of Udaypur, Indra Singh, Achalaji and Arjuji. One wonders if Aurangzeb was hostile to Hindus, why would he position all these Hindus to high positions of authority, especially in the military, who could have mutinied against him and removed him from his throne?

Most Hindus like Akbar over Aurangzeb for his multi-ethnic court where Hindus were favored. Historian Shri Sharma states that while Emperor Akbar had fourteen Hindu Mansabdars (high officials) in his court, Aurangzeb actually had 148 Hindu high officials in his court. (Ref: Mughal Government) But this fact is somewhat less known.

Some of the Hindu historians have accused Aurangzeb of demolishing Hindu Temples. How factual is this accusation against a man, who has been known to be a saintly man, a strict adherent of Islam? The Qur'an prohibits any Muslim to impose his will on a non-Muslim by stating that "There is no compulsion in religion." (surah al-Baqarah 2:256). The surah al-Kafirun clearly states: "To you is your religion and to me is mine." It would be totally unbecoming of a learned scholar of Islam of his caliber, as Aurangzeb was known to be, to do things that are contrary to the dictates of the Qur'an.

Interestingly, the 1946 edition of the history textbook Etihash Parichaya (Introduction to History) used in Bengal for the 5th and 6th graders states: "If Aurangzeb had the intention of demolishing temples to make way for mosques, there would not have been a single temple standing erect in India. On the contrary, Aurangzeb donated huge estates for use as Temple sites and support thereof in Benares, Kashmir and elsewhere. The official documentations for these land grants are still extant."

A stone inscription in the historic Balaji or Vishnu Temple, located north of Chitrakut Balaghat, still shows that it was commissioned by the Emperor himself. The proof of Aurangzeb's land grant for famous Hindu religious sites in Kasi, Varanasi can easily be verified from the deed records extant at those sites. The same textbook reads: "During the fifty year reign of Aurangzeb, not a single Hindu was forced to embrace Islam. He did not interfere with any Hindu religious activities." (p. 138) Alexander Hamilton, a British historian, toured India towards the end of Aurangzeb's fifty year reign and observed that every one was free to serve and worship God in his own way.

Now let us deal with Aurangzeb's imposition ofthe jizya tax which had drawn severe criticism from many Hindu historians. It is true that jizya was lifted during the reign of Akbar and Jahangir and that Aurangzeb later reinstated this. Before I delve into the subject of Aurangzeb's jizya tax, or taxing the non-Muslims, it is worthwhile to point out that jizya is nothing more than a war tax which was collected only from able-bodied young non-Muslim male citizens living in a Muslim country who did not want to volunteer for the defense of the country. That is, no such tax was collected from non-Muslims who volunteered to defend the country. This tax was not collected from women, and neither from immature males nor from disabled or old male citizens. For payment of such taxes, it became incumbent upon the Muslim government to protect the life, property and wealth of its non-Muslim citizens. If for any reason the government failed to protect its citizens, especially during a war, the taxable amount was returned.

It should be pointed out here that zakat (2.5% of savings) and ‘ushr (10% of agricultural products) were collected from all Muslims, who owned some wealth (beyond a certain minimum, called nisab). They also paid sadaqah, fitrah, and khums. None of these were collected from any non-Muslim. As a matter of fact, the per capita collection from Muslims was several fold that of non-Muslims. Further to Auranzeb's credit is his abolition of a lot of taxes, although this fact is not usually mentioned. In his book Mughal Administration, Sir Jadunath Sarkar, foremost historian on the Mughal dynasty, mentions that during Aurangzeb's reign in power, nearly sixty-five types of taxes were abolished, which resulted in a yearly revenue loss of fifty million rupees from the state treasury.

While some Hindu historians are retracting the lies, the textbooks and historic accounts in Western countries have yet to admit their error and set the record straight.

Anchorgate

Nasim Zehra quits Dunya Channel over allegations of fraud concerning other anchors. "Free" media is not working out so sharply in PAK.

Junoon, Javed Hashmi come to Seattle with Imran Khan and Shafqat Mahmood webcast

Soundbites (English summaries from Urdu talks) from the PTI Jalsa which attracted a turnout filling 2/3s of the Town Hall. I've included anything I was able to remember which I felt was either meaningful or interesting.

Javed Hashmi: [Introduced to the audience as the "cleanest politician" in Pakistan after Imran Khan. Was former senior vice president of PML-N before defecting to PTI]

PTI Flag

- Says he had long envisioned the creation of a new party in the face of a corrupt system, corruption from which not one single department was untouched.

- Says he decided to join PTI after a near-death experience. Having faced a stroke and having had a dialogue with God, he decided to defect.

- A few people in the audience began chants in his favor which caught on "Eik Bahadur Adami: Hashmi, Hashmi" (One Couragous man: Hashmi, Hashmi) and "Baghi, Baghi" (Rebel, Rebel).

- Told of his amazement at the affluence of Pakistani-Americans who held major positions in local companies here in Seattle. Explained how he had previously witnessed the menial wage jobs performed by talented Pakistanis in many countries abroad, such as the Arab states, and that he was amazed at how successful the community had become here and what great potential they had to help not only America in her growth and development but also Pakistan.

- Mentioned how expatriates of other nations often abandoned their countries and burned bridges, while Pakistanis everywhere feel invested in Pakistan.

Shafqat Mahmood: [Central Information Secretary for PTI]

- Encouraged investment in Pakistan. Spoke of how somebody he knew had invested back home, and upon arriving there, found that somebody else had established property on his land. Upon going to the police, he himself was arrested. He said he envisions a Pakistan where outside investments can be made safely (which also implies that PTI is in favor of expanding foreign investment in Pakistan by presenting enhanced security for outsiders as well).

- Mentioned how some people wanted PTI to expand more on actual policies they would have (as much of the support, reminiscent to that of Barrack Obama here in the states, comes from people who blindly hope in change having been disillusioned by their other options). Argued that these people were just the elites without actually expanding on this criticism of the party.

Imran Khan: [The face of PTI, it's chairman and founder]

Imran Khan via Skype

- Spoke of how he envisioned that the masses of Pakistan would one day have the ability to elect all upper politicians democratically.

- Mentioned the corruption that mars Pakistani politics.

Salman Ahmad: [The man who formed Junoon, introduced as having come to entertain the audience free of charge across the states]

- Quoted an English translation of a couplet from Allama Iqbal: Poets dream up Nations. Politicians destroy them.

- Spoke of the enthusiasm he saw and his own dream for Pakistan's future.

Police Drug Bust - Renton (N 3rd St - Park Ave N) Trophies Bar

Some before-shots of the SWAT vehicle while the police were prepping for this bust:

During photos:

There was other xmt-plate cars across the street with under-covers...no pics, sorry. Info/more pictures? Get me[At]mohammadmufti[dhot]com

All photos and text copyright (c) 2011 Mohammad Mufti

May 21st....

http://fsiforms.familyradio.org/fm/

Image from before May 21, 2011

lol...talk about preparing ahead...

If Camping and friends (staff of Family Radio) really believed the bull they were selling to their sheep - they would've sold off or given away their property and goods. None of these worldly things would've been of any use to them in the Kingdom of Heaven. Instead, only his followers were dumb enough to go about doing that (and contributing millions to Camping's campaign). Camping and friends were instead planning for stage two...

Camping Predictions (to date):

Sep 27, 1994

Sep 29, 1994

Oct 2, 1994

Mar 31, 1995

May 21, 2011

...

October 21, 2011

Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me; fool me 6 times...

I know there is a good degree of religious freedom in the US, but there are limits. When religious obligations begin to infringe on the rights of others or cause people noticeable material harm, someone from up top will typically get in the way. Cults centered on criminal activity, murderous rituals, etc. are not protected. I know Family Radio isn't directly robbing these people - they are donating voluntarily and falling for their bull on their own, but somebody has to draw a line at some point. Religious groups often tithe or guilt their victims into compensating for upkeep, and irrespective of whether or not the leaders of these groups are just lining their pockets, they aren't bleeding their congregants dry. The same isn't true for apocalyptic movements. As in this case, they destroy peoples' well-being and something ought to be put in place to protect the inane amongst us, or at least the innocent victims, their children and families. Camping may simply be messed up due to old age, or a degenerative psychological condition, and I do feel bad for the old man who keeps clinging as stubbornly as he does. But if Camping were to disappear from the picture, if there was no Family Radio, many, many people could go back to living their routine lives.

mfvkvfm2116

Raymond Ibrahim at EvCC

I tried my best to get to see this lecture from beginning to end, speeding past cops (it's a long way to Everett) and struggling to find parking (for an event open to the public, visitor parking spots were few and far between). Due to the inadequacy of the later, I got there for only the later part of his lecture (questions and answers), but what I did notice from the later part didn't make me feel in the slightest that it was worth the drive. In fact, this lecture was more likely a disservice to the student body at the college. The handful of things I did hear him speak about were flawed so deeply and displayed such an ignorance of everything the man is purportedly an expert of, down to basic 'Arabic, that he shouldn't be teaching an Islam 101 course let alone a topic as critical (Muslims in the West) as this one.

(1) He was asked by one guy if he could provide any evidence to suggest that the vast majority of Muslims held the ideas he ascribed to them. And that sure, he was able to give a handful of incidents, but that no credible academic could say "I saw these things happen - therefore this is true about the entirety of group X or a sizable portion of group X" . The man insisted that in order for something to be generalizable about a group (i.e. that a disturbing percent of Muslims believe the things Raymond Ibrahim had proposed), it ought to be supported by the statistics, and Raymond Ibrahim was unable to bring that. Basically, in the back and forth question that Raymond made every effort to avoid properly answering, the questioner would raise concerns over how Raymond's presentation wasn't grounded in science and couldn't be statistically applied to a significant percentage of Muslims and Raymond's response would be I NO KNOW MATH, No numbers in humanities, har har har - something I consider highly irresponsible to suggest in any academic field.

(2) Another one of the good questions he was asked (by Ronald J. Young, consultant to the National Interreligious Leadership Initiative for Peace in the Middle East) was why the vast majority of Muslim Scholars condemn al-Qaeda if in fact his speech is accurate. He replied that this is just strategic on the part of the majority of Muslim scholars, that they adhere to the same ideology deep down but do not openly share it under the pretense of Taqiyya.

- Taqiyya is a Shi'i practice, most people that claim to be Muslim condemn it including the majority of Islamic scholars. Muslims generally are allowed to break certain Islamic laws in the face of physical danger. For example, if a Muslim store-owner was being robbed, it would be well within his rights (as a Muslim) to lie to his assailant if the lie gave him the ability to, say, alert the authorities or find protection. Another instance where a Muslim is allowed to break an Islamic law is in the event that no provisions are accessible aside from those which are forbidden (such as pork) - the Muslim can than eat the pork in spite of this meat being prohibited in general.

- Those scholars who he alleges only condemn al-Qaeda for strategic purposes use the very same Islamic material he was casting in a negative light to condemn them! This is problematic for the general theme of Raymond Ibrahim's writings in multiple ways. It suggests that whatever material he did use was deliberately taken out of context in order for his argument to be in contradiction with the vast majority of scholars.

In support of his allegations he proposed something along the lines of (totally paraphrased): "c'mon, if you're a scholar living in America, what are you gonna say? Viva al-Qaeda?" Besides failing to respond to either of the issues above, this proposal also fails to contend with the reality that the vast majority of Islamic scholars are NOT American and reside OUTSIDE of the US in countries that would not have responded particularly harshly to pro-al-Qaeda statements immediately post-9/11. After 9/11, because of the role the US has played in the Middle East, particularly as it pertains to Israel, there were some Muslims who weren't particularly sickened by the event - even jubilant, that we Americans tasted something that they live with day in and day out. So clearly, the governments in these societies would not have brought down a hammer of punishment against any scholars that showed their support for the attacks like some of the unlearned people who only know that America is in some way associated with their deplorable living conditions. And yet we find the biggest Islamic scholars condemning the people involved in this attack, calling it heinous and un-Islamic, though they ought to have feared no repercussions (and would thus have no reason to lie).

What's more important to note here is that Raymond Ibrahim didn't object to the assertion that most Muslim scholars do condemn the attacks. And in spite of the data contradicting his contentions, he suggested that the data was wrong as he, Raymond Ibrahim, reader of hearts and minds was able to ascertain the true diabolical objectives of the lying scholars of Islam. Statistics really mean nothing when you can read into them something that isn't even there. It just goes to show that with bigots like Raymond Ibrahim, it wouldn't matter if all the Muslims in the world came out to condemn al-Qaeda, people like this will still see in it what they want to see, not what's unmistakably evident.

(3) He was also asked why he thought Muslim society was incapable of change, as it relates to their legal system in particular. He said that Muslim society is different from Western society because Muslim's believe in God's law, and as a result, their laws are unchangable. The questioner responded that Shariah is a human interpretation of God's law - so how can it be unchangable? He responded by avoiding the question and asked how can you change, for example, that Muslim men may have four wives?

Firstly, his example is flawed because there are less than 500 legal verses in the Qur'an (including those which have no pertinance to an Islamic state) of several thousand verses. So the number of set "laws" by God is limited (and this doesn't account for abrogation). Secondly, besides a handful of examples, such as the one he brought up, not all of them are exactly clear-cut and unopen to interpretation. And further considering the diversity of legal ikhtilaf (differences of opinion) amongst Muslim scholars in general, not just between madhahib (Schools of Thought) but also the ikhtilaf within a madhab, his reasoning is clearly flawed. Just one example that comes immediately to mind is the variety of opinions amongst Islamic scholars as to what sorts of meat are permissible for Muslim consumption. So his idea that Islamic legal practice is immutable and unopen to change is false on that account.

We constantly see changes in the legal systems throughout the Middle East, including in Saudi Arabia where women used to be prohibited from driving throughout the kingdom. Today, we see small referendums instituted by the government as well as moves towards giving women more freedom to actually drive. Many of the laws, in fact, which signify shariah to the West are inherently cultural, a point easily missed when a bigot is speaking about Islam and will cherry-pick the handful of laws that are in fact unalterable. These laws were put in place at a time when the cultural norm demanded them, and as indicated in the article above, would feasibly be removed as society no longer sees the matter as an issue and even considers it an economic burden.

(4) Somebody asked him a question from the floor (which wasn't allowed), to which he responded: "Are you Sh'a? Do you believe in Ijtihad." This again displays ignorance of Islamic jurisprudence. Ijtihad is essentially a scholar's attempt at coming to a professional opinion about a legal matter in Islam - and the idea that Sunnis don't perform ijtihad is ludicrous. There are many Fiqhi Masa'il (Legal Problems) for which the voluminous texts of the past don't deal with - though the Muslim scholars have discussed and come to conclusions on many topics, new legal matters always arise in the face of growing technology. For example, the issue of space exploration inspired a short piece by Malaysian scholars about performing the daily prayer from outside of the Earth's atmosphere. Legal issues surrounding prayer on planes are also technically new matters which have required modern ijtihad, as have technologies like radio, Television, and so forth.

(5) One more issue I found troubling was that when he began to speak about "Wahabis" near the end, he wasn't able to display a strong control over the 'Arabic language. For somebody who's made it their career to badmouth a religion that they describe as an "Arab religion," I don't think it's too assuming of me to hope they have a good grasp of the language. And yet we see him referring to Mohammad Ibn Abdul Wahab as "Wahab" - something incorrect in Arabic for a multitude of reasons. Firstly, the man's name was Mohammad, not Wahab. Secondly, even the father's name was Abdul Wahab, not Wahab ("Ibn" means "son of"). And finally, there is a big distinction (especially religiously) between saying "Wahab" and "Abdul Wahab", whereas "al-Wahab" is a name of God according to Islam, "Abdul Wahab" means "Slave of al-Wahab" in Islam. This wasn't the only mistake when it came to 'Arabic language that this "translator" made (I don't know who employed him, but they were clearly wasting their money - Arab kids in a primary school would have a better grasp of their language than this man).

Some people might get the impression that the fact that Raymond Ibrahim misused a name (multiple names in fact), is not a big issue, nor does it reflect on his knowledge of 'Arabic. I'd respond by presenting a similar example in English. How much credibility would you give to the English of a man who picked up the Bible, and after reading about "Jesus of Nazareth," began to call Jesus as Nazareth? Comparably, if the same person read "Jesus, son of Mary" and began to refer to Jesus by saying "Mary"? This is the same exact thing. We have here a man, who worked as a translator, unable to differentiate between "Son of Abdul Wahab" and "Muhammad."

Suppose his supporters than argue that, even if his grasp of 'Arabic is rudimentary at best, his knowledge of Islam is tip-top. Raymond Ibrahim himself however suggested that Islam is an 'Arab religion, with it's primary texts rooted in the 'Arabic language - a religion where even the devout Indonesian must read the Holy Text in the original language. The fact of the matter is that Islam can not be stripped from 'Arabic, just as Shakespeare can not be stripped of English. And if the same publicly funded institution had hired a lecturer, with audible incompetence as far as the English language was concerned, to come speak about Shakespeare - there would be a lot more of an uproar than there is over EvCC's humanities director Joyce Walker's invitation to this ineffectual bigot.

 

Finally, he said that CAIR is a bunch of liars and that he exposed them. He said CAIR called him racist whereas he had said nothing about race in his entire speech (untrue as he did just minutes before suggest that Islam is an Arabic religion and non-Arab believers must give precedence to this Arab tradition over their own in order to be devout Muslims). That of course doesn't support the proposition that he's racist, and I wasn't there long enough to pick out any racially motivated comments on his part. However, he most definitely is a bigot from what I've seen myself. And before he singles CAIR out and tries to make it look like it was just a bunch of Muslims purportedly tied to Hamas (as he said) that opposed him:

http://www.cair.com/Portals/0/pdf/evccletter.pdf

The letter was sent to EvCC prior to the event, signed by 50 interfaith leaders from OUR community (contrast that against the numerous Facebook spammers, spurred on by "Act! For America" from around the country that have absolutely no connection to Washington state or EvCC).

EvCC to Invite Islamaphobic Speaker Raymond Ibrahim Tomorrow

Everett Community College is having  Raymond Ibrahim speak tomorrow about Islam. Exciting! Commentators on Facebook are saying stuff along the lines of it being "Fair and Balanced" (I kid you not, you can tell what these guys are watching on TV) to give the man a platform to speak just like legitimate organizations and individuals. Now I'm all for having conflicting views argued on a common platform, but by analogy, is it really "Fair and Balanced" to give any credence to flat-Earthers at all? You know, the people that even to date, would consider all the findings of reputable scientists as bunk. Is it fair to use State-funded money in promoting such a concept, which is fairly well-established as being categorically false, in an educational institution? I don't think so. And yet the leadership at EvCC is more than willing to go out of their way in giving the podium to a man like Raymond Ibrahim.

What's more interesting than the man himself though is the myriad of individuals coming to his support, both in person and online. First and foremost, there's Joyce Walker. EvCC's director of Humanities who started this April and clearly hit the ground running. I believe she's more directly responsible for the selection of speakers for of an event put on by the humanities department than the president, and I'd like to pose an open question to her: Would she give the same platform she's giving to Raymond Ibrahim tomorrow for her "Islam in America" week to David Irving during one of her Holocaust Forums? She regularly runs the Holocaust Forum at EvCC, and if she has any decency and intends to uphold even a shred of credibility, she should do with her Holocaust Forum (next year) what she's so adamant about doing with a forum on Islam. Of course she won't though - and she didn't. The Holocaust forum this year was held just a month ago, and Miss Walker felt absolutely no need to present an "alternative" view than as she does now when it comes to Islam and the West.

Off campus, support for this event is almost entirely online (since most of these people hitting up Facebook are out of state tea baggers partiers). I wonder how many of these tools posting the thank you messages are actually students, staff and faculty of EvCC, let alone residents of Washington State, and how many are random neo-cons from around the globe with no affiliation and no intention of attending simply spurred on by Act! for America's call to spam the EvCC Facebook Wall.

I know betting is haram (forbidden) in Islam, but I'd be willing to put a hundred bucks on not even half of them being current students of EvCC. It wouldn't even be gambling, having looked at random Facebook pages over the course of 4 hours:

6 had properly protected their Facebook Privacy Settings, giving no data on location.

3 grew up out of state.

5 live out of state presently.

The data sample is too small considering the number of posts (in the hundreds), but knowing that generally Washington State is known for a more liberal and open-minded political outlook and Washingtonians are less likely to be members of organizations reminiscent of the tea-party, such as Act! For America, I imagine it would be a pretty safe bet on my part.