Defensive Nature of Jihad

Taken from A Critical Exposition of the Popular 'Jihád' by Moulavi Gerágh Ali , Chapter 3

Sidenote: 17. Verses from the Koran in support of the defensive character of the wars.

This brief sketch of the defensive wars of Mohammad with the Koreish will fully show, that those who assert that Mohammad was aggressive or revengeful in his wars, or that he made war to force his religion upon the people, are altogether in the wrong.

I will now quote some verses of the Koran, showing that all the wars of Mohammad with the Koreish were defensive wars.

39. "Verily, God will ward off^[1] mischief from believers: lo, God loveth not the false, the unbeliever."

40. "A sanction is given to those who have been fought,^[2] because they have suffered outrages, and verily, God is well able to succour them"—

41. "Those who have been driven forth from their homes wrongfully, only because they say, 'Our Lord is the God.' And if God had not repelled some men by others, cloisters and churches and oratories and mosques wherein the name of God is ever commemorated, would surely have been destroyed! And him who helpeth God will God surely help: Verily, God is Strong, Mighty."

42. "They who, if We established them in this land, will observe prayer and pay the alms of obligation and enjoin what is recognized as right—and forbid what is unlawful. And the final issue of all things is unto God."—Sura, xxii.

186. "And fight for the cause of God against those who fight against you: but commit not the injustice of attacking them first: verily, God loveth not the unjust."

187. "And kill them wherever ye find them, and eject them from whatever place they have ejected you, for (fitnah)^[3] persecution is worse than slaughter: yet attack them not at the sacred mosque, until they attack you therein; but if they attack you, then slay them—Such is the recompense of the infidels!"—

188. "But if they desist,^[4] then verily God is Gracious, Merciful!"

189. "And do battle against them until there be no more (fitnah) persecution, and the worship be that of God: but if they desist, then let there be no hostility, save against wrong-doers."

214. "They will ask thee concerning war in the Sacred Month. Say: The act of fighting therein is a grave crime; but the act of turning others aside from the path of God, and unbelief in Him, and to prevent access to the Sacred Mosque, and to drive out his people, is worse in the sight of God; and persecution^[5] (fitnah^[6]) is worse than bloodshed. But they will not cease to war against you until they turn you from your religion, if they be able: but whoever of you shall turn from his religion, and die an infidel, their works shall be fruitless in this world and in the next: and they shall be consigned to the fire; therein to abide for aye."

215. "But they who believe, and who fly their country, and do their utmost in the cause of God, may hope for God's mercy: and God is Gracious, Merciful."

245. "And fight in the cause of God; and know that God is He who Heareth, Knoweth."

247. "Hast thou not considered the assembly of the children of Israel after the death of Moses, when they said to a prophet of theirs,—'Raise up for us a king; we will do battle for the cause of God?' He said, 'May it not be that if to fight were ordained you, ye would not fight?' They said, 'And why should we not fight in the cause of God, since we are driven forth from our dwellings and our children?' But when fighting was commanded them they turned back, save a few of them: But God knew the offenders!"

252. "And by the will of God they routed them; and (Dâood) David slew Goliath; and God gave him the kingship and wisdom, and taught him according to his will: and were it not for the restraint of one by the means of the other imposed on men by God, verily the earth had assuredly gone to ruin, but God is bounteous to his creatures."—Sura, ii.

76. "Let those then fight in the cause of God who barter this present life for that which is to come; for whoever fighteth on God's path, whether he be slain or conquer, We will in the end give him a great reward."

77. "But what hath come to you that ye fight not on the path of God, and for the weak among men, women and children, who say, 'O our Lord! bring us forth from this City whose inhabitants are oppressors; give us a champion from thy presence; and give us from thy presence a defender?'"

78. "They who believe, fight on the path of God; and they who believe not, fight on the path of Thâgoot: Fight then against the friends of Satan—Verily, the craft of Satan shall be powerless!"

86. "Fight then on the path of God: lay not burdens on any but thyself; and stir up the faithful. The prowess of the infidels, God will haply restrain; for God is the stronger in prowess, and the stronger to punish."

91. "They desire that ye should be unbelievers as they are unbelievers, and that ye should be alike. Take therefore none of them for friends, until they have fled their homes for the cause of God. If they turn back, then seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; but take none of them as friends or helpers."

92. "Except those who seek asylum among your allies, and those who come over to you—prevented by their own hearts by making war on you, or from making war on their own people. Had God pleased, He would certainly have given them power against you, and they would certainly have made war upon you! But, if they depart from you, and make not war against you and offer you peace, then God alloweth you no occasion against them."

93. "Ye will find others who seek to gain your confidence as well as that of their own people: So oft as they return to sedition, they shall be overthrown in it: But if they leave you not, nor propose terms of peace to you, nor withhold their hands, then seize them, and slay them wherever ye find them. Over these have We given you undoubted power."—Sura, iv.

19. "O Meccans! If ye desired a decision, now hath the decision come to you. It will be better for you if ye give over the struggle (or attacking upon Medina or the Moslem). If ye return to it we will return; and your forces, though they may be many, shall by no means avail you aught, because God is with the faithful."

39. "Say to the infidels: If they desist (from persecuting, obstructing, and attacking the Moslems), what is now past shall be forgiven them; but if they return to it (commit again the hostilities), they have already before them the doom of the ancients!"

40. "Fight then against them till civil strife be at an end, and the religion be all of it God's; and if they desist, verily God beholdeth what they do."

41. "But if they turn their back, know ye that God is your protector: Excellent protector! and excellent helper!"

73. "... And they who have believed, but have not fled their homes, shall have no rights of kindred with you at all, until they too fly their country. Yet if they seek aid from you on account of the faith, your part it is to give them aid, except against a people between whom and yourselves there may be a treaty. And God beholdeth your actions."

74. "And the infidels have the like relationships one with another. Unless ye do the same (i.e., aid the oppressed and repel the oppressor), there will be discord in the land and great corruption."—Sura, viii.

(When the Meccans broke the Hodeibia treaty mentioned in the above paragraph, the Koreish and Bani Bakr attacked Bani Khozaá, who were in alliance with Mohammad. It became incumbent on him to assist Bani Bakr and to chastize the aggressors. The following verses were published on that occasion, but happily, before the expiration of the fixed period, the Koreish submitted and Mecca was taken without bloodshed, and these verses were not acted upon:—)

1. "An immunity from God and His Apostle to those with whom ye are in league (and they have violated the same—compare verses 4, 8 and 10) among the polytheist Meccans."

2. "Go ye therefore at large in the land four months (i.e., four sacred months from Shaw-wal. The treaty was violated by the Koreish in Ramzan, a month immediately previous to the sacred months. It is announced here that four months' time is given to the aggressors, who violated the treaty of Hodeibia, to make terms. After the time is over (verse 5) the Moslems will commence hostilities to defend their allies, the Bani Khozaá), but know that ye shall not find God feeble, and that those who believe not, God will put to shame."

3. "And a proclamation on the part of God and His Apostle to the people on the day of the greater pilgrimage, that God is free from any engagement with those who worship other gods with God, as is his Apostle. If then, ye turn to God, it will be better for you; but if ye turn back, then know that ye shall not find God feeble: and to those who believe not, announce thou a grievous punishment."

4. "But this concerneth not those Polytheists with whom ye are in league, and who have afterwards in no way failed you, and not yet aided any one against you. Observe, therefore, your engagement with them through the whole time of their treaty. Verily, God loveth those who fear Him."

5. "And when the sacred months are passed^[7] kill those who join other gods with God^[8] wherever ye find them; and seize them, and besiege them, and lay wait for them with every kind of ambush; but if they repent and observe prayer and pay the obligatory alms, then let them go their way.^[9] Verily, God is Gracious, Merciful."

6. "If any one of those who join gods with God ask an asylum of thee, grant him an asylum, in order that he hear the Word of God; then let him reach his place of safety. This, for that they are people devoid of knowledge."

7. "How can they who add gods to God be in league with God and His Apostle, save those with whom ye made a league at the sacred temple? So long as they are true to you,^[10] be ye true to them: verily, God loveth those who fear Him."

8. "How can they? since if they prevail against you, they will not regard in their dealing with you, either ties of blood or good faith: With their mouths they content you, but their hearts are averse, and most of them are perverse doers."

9. "They sell the signs of God for a mean price, and turn others aside from his way; of a truth, evil is it that they do!"

10. "They respect not with a believer either ties of blood or good faith; and these are the transgressors!"

11. "Yet if they turn to God and observe prayer, and pay the impost, then are they your brethren in religion: and We make clear the signs for men of knowledge."^[11]

12. "But if, after alliance made, they violate their covenant and revile your religion, then do battle with the ringleaders of infidelity—verily there is no faith in them! Haply they will desist."

13. "Will ye not do battle with a people (the Meccans) who have broken their covenant and aimed to expel your Apostle and attacked you first? Will ye dread them? God truly is more worthy of your fear if ye are believers!"

14. "Make war on them: By your hands will God chastize them and put them to shame, and give victory over them, and heal the bosom of a people who believe."

36. "... and attack those who join gods with God one and all, as they attack you one and all."—Sura, ix.

What the above-quoted verses show.

I need not repeat here what these verses and the facts related above show, that the wars of Mohammad with the Koreish were merely defensive, and the Koreish were the aggressors, and that Mohammad was quite justified in taking up arms against them.

"In the state of nature every man has a right to defend," writes Mr. Edward Gibbon,^[1] "by force of arms, his person and his possessions; to repel, or even to repeat, the violence of his enemies, and to extend his hostilities to a reasonable measure of satisfaction and retaliation. In the free society of the Arabs, the duties of subject and citizen imposed a feeble restraint; and Mahommed, in the exercise of a peaceful and benevolent mission, had been despoiled and banished by the injustice of his countrymen." It has been fully shown in the foregoing paragraphs that the Moslems in Mecca enjoyed neither safety nor security. Religious freedom was denied to them, though they were harmless and peaceful members of the community. Besides this they were expelled from their homes, leaving their families and their property in the hands of their persecutors, and were prevented from returning to Mecca, and were refused access to the Sacred Mosque; and, above all, they were attacked by the Meccans in force at Medina.

Justification of the Moslems in taking up arms against their aggressors.
The persecution of the early Moslems by the Koreish was on religious grounds. They would not allow the believers to renounce the religion of their forefathers and profess Islam. Their intolerance was so strong and harsh that they tortured some of the professors of the new faith to renounce the same and to rejoin their former idolatry. "Taking away the lives, the fortune, the liberty, any of the rights of our brethren, merely for serving their Maker in such manner as they are persuaded they ought, when by so doing they hurt not human society, or any member of it, materially, is evidently inconsistent with all justice and humanity: for it is punishing those who have not injured us, and who, if they mistake, deserve only pity from us. The early Moslems had had every international right to resent persecution and intolerance of the Meccans and to establish themselves by force of arms, to enjoy their religious liberty and to practise their religion freely.

The first aggression after the Hegira was not on the part of Mohammad (saw).
Some of the European biographers of Mohammad say, "that the first aggressions after the Hegira were solely on the part of Mahomet and his followers. It was not until several of their caravans had been waylaid and plundered, and blood had thus been shed, that the people of Mecca were forced in self-defence to resort to arms.

This is not correct. The aggressors, in the first instance, were the Koreish, who, as already shown, followed up their persecution of the Moslems by an attack upon the city in which the Prophet and his followers had taken refuge. Even taking it for granted that the Moslems were the first aggressors after the Hegira, was not the Hegira, or expulsion itself (leaving aside the previous persecutions and oppressions at Mecca), a sufficient reason for the commencement of hostilities by the Moslems, who were anxious to secure their moral and religious freedom, and to protect themselves and their relatives from further aggressions?

Sir William Muir admits, that "hostilities, indeed, were justified by the 'expulsion' of the believers from Mecca. "It may be said," says Major Vans Kennedy, "that, in these wars, Mohammad was the aggressor by his having, soon after his flight, attempted to intercept the caravans of Mecca. But the first aggression was, undoubtedly, the conspiracy of the Koreish to assassinate Mohammad, and when to save his life he fled from Mecca, himself and his followers were thus deprived of their property, and obliged to depend for their subsistence on the hospitality of the men of Medina, it could not be reasonably expected that they would allow the caravans of their enemies to pass unmolested."

The alleged instances examined:
There is no proof that Mohammad, after the Hegira, commenced hostilities against the Koreish by intercepting their caravans. The alleged instances of the caravans being waylaid by the Moslems at Medina are not corroborated by authentic and trustworthy traditions. They have also internal evidences of their improbability. The Medina people had pledged themselves only to defend the Prophet from attack, and not to join him in any aggressive steps against the Koreish. Therefore, it seems impossible that they should have allowed Mohammad to take any aggressive steps against the Koreish which would have involved them in great trouble.

Hamza and Obeida expedition:
The alleged expeditions against the Koreish caravans by Hamza and the other by Obeida in pursuit of caravans which escaped, are in themselves improbable. Mohammad (saw) would not send fifty or sixty persons to waylay a caravan guarded by two or three hundred armed men.

The Abwa, Bowat, & Osheira expeditions:
The alleged expeditions of Abwa, Bowat, and Osheira, said to have been led by Mohammad (saw) himself to intercept the Mecca caravans, but in vain, are altogether without foundation. He might have gone, if he had gone at all, to Abwa, and Osheira to negotiate friendly terms with Bani Dhumra and Bani Mudlij, as his biographers say, he did.

The affair at Nakhla:
The affair of the Nakhla marauding party, as related in the traditions, is full of discrepancies, and is altogether inconsistent and untrustworthy. The very verse (Sura, ii, verse 214) which the biographers say was revealed on the occasion, and which I have quoted above (para. 16), contains a reference to the Meccans' fighting against the Moslems, which runs counter to the assumption of the European biographers, who make it an aggressive attack on the part of Mohammad (saw). It is probable that Mohammad (saw) might have sent some six or eight scouts to bring in news of the movements and condition of the Koreish, whose attitude towards Mohammad (saw) had become more hostile since his flight to Medina. As the Koreish had a regular and uninterrupted route to Syria for traffic, it was only reasonable on the part of Mohammad (saw) to take precautions, and he was always on his guard. The biographers "Ibn Is-hak", "Ibn Hisham" (p. 424), Tabri (Vol. II, p. 422), Ibnal Athir in "Kamil" (Vol. II, p. 87), Halabi in Insanul Oyoon (Vol. III, p. 318), say, that Mohammad (saw) had given written instructions to Abdoollah-bin-Jahsh, which was to the effect "bring me intelligence of their affairs." They also say that Mohammad (saw) was displeased with Abdoollah's affair at Nakhla, and said, "I never commanded thee to fight in the Sacred Month." The biographers also relate that Mohammad even paid blood-money for the slain.

At Badr Mohammad (saw) had come only in his defence:

Some of the European biographers of Mohammad allege, that the battle of Badr was brought by Mohammad himself. They appear to hesitate to justify Mohammad(saw) in defending himself against the superior numbers of the Koreish, who had advanced to attack him as far as Badr, three stages from Medina. It is alleged that Mohammad (saw) intended to attack the caravans returning from Syria, conducted by Abu Sofian, his arch-enemy, therefore he set out upon his march with eighty refugees and two hundred and twenty-five people of Medina, and halted at Safra to waylay the caravan. Abu Sofian, warned of Mohammad's (saw) intention, sent some one to Mecca for succour. The Koreish, with nine hundred and fifty strong, marched forth to rescue the caravan. In the meantime, the caravan had passed unmolested, but the Koreish held a council whether to return or go to war. On the one hand, the biographers say, it was argued that the object for which they had set out having been secured, the army should at once retrace its steps. Others demanded that the army should advance. Two tribes returned to Mecca, the rest marched onwards; but it is not fair to allege that Mohammad (saw) had set forth to attack the caravan. Had he any such intention, the people of Medina, who had pledged themselves only to defend him against personal attack, would not have accompanied him. The presence of a large number of the Ansárs, the people of Medina, more than double that of the Mohajirins, the refugees, is a strong proof that they had come out only in their defence.

Mohammad (saw), on receiving intelligence of the advancing force of the Koreish, set out from Medina to check the advance of the Meccan force, and encountered it at Badr, three days' journey from Medina. The Meccan army had advanced nine days' journey from Mecca towards Medina. The forces met at Badr on the 17th of Ramzan (13th January 623), the Meccans had left Mecca on the 8th of Ramzan (4th January), and Mohammad (saw) started only on the 12th of Ramzan (8th January), about four days after the Meccan army had actually set out to attack him. Supposing Abu Sofian had some reason for apprehending an attack from Medina, and sent for succour from Mecca, but the object of the Meccan army of the Koreish for which they had set out having been secured, the caravan having passed unmolested, they ought at once to have retraced their steps. The fact that Mohammad (saw) left Medina four days after the Koreish had left Mecca with a large army advancing towards Medina, is strongly in his favour.

The first aggressions after the Hegira, if from Mohammad, might fairly be looked upon as retaliation.
Even taking it for granted that the first aggressions after the Hegira were solely on the part of the Moslems, and that several of the caravans of the Koreish had been waylaid and plundered, and blood had been shed, it would be unfair to condemn Mohammad. Such attacks, had they been made, might fairly be looked upon as a retaliation for the ill-treatment of the Moslems before the flight from Mecca. "Public war is a state of armed hostility between sovereign nations or governments. It is a law and requisite of civilized existence that men live in political continuous societies, forming organized units called states or nations, whose constituents bear, enjoy and suffer, advance and retrograde together, in peace and in war. The citizen or native of hostile country is thus an enemy, as one of the constituents of the hostile state or nation, and as such is subjected to the hardships of war."^[1] The almost universal rule of most remote times was, and continues to be with barbarous nations, that the private individual of a hostile country is destined to suffer every privation of liberty and protection, and every description of family ties. But Mohammad protected the inoffensive citizen or private individual of the hostile country. He even protected those who had actually come out of Mecca to fight at Badr, but were reluctant to do so. Mohammad had desired quarters to be given to several persons in the Koreish army at Badr. Abul Bakhtari, Zamaa, Hárith Ibn Amir, Abbás and other Bani Háshim were amongst those named.

Who are Aryans?

There are many theories trying to explain this question.
1. Aryans are Ancient Iranians-
"I am Dariush, the great king, the king of kings,
The king od many countries, many people,
The king od this expensive land,
The son of Wishtapsa of Archaemenid,
Persian, the son of persian,
Aryan from the Aryan race"
This was said by 'Darius the Great' in "Naqshe-e-Rostam"
Read more about this Here

2.Aryans are Native Indians- This Theory has been disproved by Y chromosome DNA testing which shows that Aryans resemble more to the middle eastern people than the dravidians, who are the oldest residents of India till date. Sanskrit meaning of Aryan means a 'stranger' while Old tamil (Gauda Dravidian in ancient times) dictionaries translate the meaning as 'Uncivilised'. More over there are lot of differences in Dravidians and the sanskrit speaking aryans.

3.Indo-Iranian-The most probable date for Proto-Indo-Iranian unity is roughly around 2500 BC. In this sense of the word Aryan, the Aryans were an ancient culture preceding both the Vedic and Avestan cultures. This further makes intensifies the doubts that Aryans invaded India and forced their religion in India. Read more Here

4. Aryans are warrior-nomads from the steppes of southern Russia and that they were ancestors of the Jews. Read more Here

In ninteenth century, many European racist claimed themselves to be Aryans. Hitler also claimed himself to be an Aryan and that he was superior race than others.

Aurangazeb- Bad Ruler or Bad History?

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, unbiased, 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. 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-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."

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 of the 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 the zakaat (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. Other historians stated that when Aurangzeb abolished eighty types of taxes, no one thanked him for his generosity. But when he imposed only one, and not heavy at all, people began to show their displeasure.

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. Such intellectual dishonesty by historians is dangerous — more explosive and more damaging than nuclear bombs. We have already seen its hideous effect with the destruction of Muslim historic sites (including the Babri Mosque) and recent riots in India that killed thousands of Muslims.

Story of 'Cruel Muslim Invaders' of India

The Hindu extremists cunningly picturise muslim rulers of India as 'cruel' with all bad qualities in them and that they destroyed 'age old' hindu traditions as the 'peaceful hindu' just stood like a silent spectator. Let us look at the history if what they claim is right or not.

Treatment of women and the 'Sati':
Hindu extremists claim that Sati (burning the wife along with his husband's corpse) was practiced to protect the husbandless widow from the 'cruel Muslim ruler' who would take her away and rape her. As if the ruler had nothing else to do other than searching for widows and raping them.

Lets look into History:
Sati was the name of Lord Shiva's (hindu God) wife. She burnt herself alive after cursing her own father for insulting her husband. In olden days, Indians used to regard the practice of Sati (burning wife along with his husband's corpse) as a religious ceremony. They believed Sati to be the 'highest virtue' of a woman. Brahman priests used to force Sati on women. If any lady is unwilling, the people would doubt her fidelity and affection towards her departed husband.

What Muslim Emporers did:
Akbar, one of the muslim rulers was the first king to take Sati seriously. He gave an order which stated "If a woman wants to practice sati on her will, she should not be stoped. But no woman must be forced Sati"
Aurangazeb, who was more strict in this aspect issued orders as soon as he came back from Kashmir in Dec. 1663 AD "In all hands under Mughal control, never again should the officials allow a woman to be burnt".

Polygamy:
Polygamy was practiced by both muslims and hindus of that age especially the upper classes. Lower classes used to have only one wife irrespective of their religion. Mukundaram and Puija Madhava refer to a rich merchant marrying second wife khullana even though he had a wife (Lahana) and she was alive and had children. In Ghanaram chakravarty's 'Dhamamangal', Lausen had four wives namely Kalinga, Amala, Bimala, Kanara. Even the hindu scrptures allow marriage of more than one wife.
Hindu extremists who always point out fingure at Polygamy in Muslims have forgotten these facts and also that there are very few muslims who marry more than one wife in present India.

Cow Slaughter:
Akbar was the first Mughal king who prohibited killing of animals on 'sacred days'. He believed that killing cow was not good. He used to have food called 'Sufiyana food' which was purely vegitarian. This was surely somethingwhich was not taught by Islam. this was induced in him by his respect to Indian culture and beliefs.
Humayun considered beef was bad.
Another historian K.M.P Verma in his book 'Relevance of Gandhian Thought' says "Babar, Humayun, Akbar, Jahangir, Ahmad Shah and Hyder Ali banned cow slaughter" in their kingdom.

Hindu Culture, traditions and Education:
Hindu extremists picturise Mughal kings as cruel invaders who destroyed hindu culture and traditions while actually history speaks quite opposite to this claim.
In Akbar's reign, cities like Banaras, Mithila, Navadwipa, Kashmir, Multan, Sirhind, Thatta and Gujarath flourished as centers for Hindu Education and culture.

Some of Hindu scholars and poets in the 'Cruel Invaders'' court were:

Akbar- Gangadhar, Mahesh, Kishun Joshi, Bhagawan, Tansen, Raja Todar Mal, Narahari Mahaprata, Ganga, Brahmadatta, Raja, Askaran, Manohar.

Jahangir- Jadrup Gosain, Rai Manohar lal, Bishun Das. Raja Surja Singh presented a hindu poet to Jahangir who was inpressed and gave an elephant to him as present.

Shah Jahan- Jagannath Pandith (author of Ras Gangadhar), Siromani Mishra, Vedanga Rai, Harinath (he was gited a horse, an elephant and one lakh Dawrs).

Dara Shukoh- Chanda Bham (a brahmin from Lahore)

Aurangazeb- Birdas, Bhushan, Brinda, Iswardas, Bhimsen.
Aurangazeb who is considered as a deadly enemy of Hindus, learned hindi and even appreciated hindu cultures and traditions. He had Raja Jai Singh, a hindu as his strong Nobel who faught with Shivaji (who is considered as the protector of hindu religion by RSS/VHP hindu extremists). Shivaji inturn had a pathan (muslim) unit under him and one of his strong aides was Didi Ibrahim, a muslim.

Caste System:
Tons of books are written on caste system that prevailed in Hindu society. Mughals were opposed this caste system but used to be genlte in this matter because they did not want to interfere in hindu religious sentiments. Brahmins used to ill treat lower castes called Shudras and Panchum Bundum. They were beaten up quite often if they tried to enter into villages. they were supposed to live in the village outskirts. Francis Euchanan in his book 'Journey from Madras through the countries of Mysore, Canara and Malabar writes that Brahmins never touched the plough and their farms were cultivated by shudras.Brahmins used to torture Parriars (Panchun Bandhum is divided into Parriar, Baluan, Schliar, Toti classes) if they tried to enter Brahmin temples or try to participate in their prayers of processions. Shudras were given their own temples and Brahman priests would never enter those temples. They considered a shame for themselves to pray to these 'low level' Gods of shudras. Brahmins used to travel in night along with their desciples beause they use to consider that other travellers (muslims and christians) would not give them the respect they deserve if they travel in the night. Parriars were treated so badly that no one would take the charity they gave. But Francis notes that if the parriars gave 1000 or 2000 pagodas, Brahmins used to accept.
He further writes that Hyder Ali, the king of Mysore used to give Shudras farms of their own and was 'so sensible of their feelings that he would not let them suffer by calling them by their proper name (shudras). He ordered that they should be called cultivators'.

Akbar issued orders declaring a marriage illegal if the girl was elder than the boy. If the girl was more elder by more than 12 years, the marriage was considered as illegal. This was to show respect to the Brahmins who strongly practiced ManuSmriti (hindu book of law) which says that the Bridegroom must be elder than the Bride. It should be noted here that Islam allowed marriages where the bride was elder than the bridegroom.

References: Glimpses of Social Life in Mughal India by Professor P.N.Ojha, Relevance of Gandhian thought by K.M.P Verma.

The hindu extremists and terrorists who are spreading lies about Muslim rulers so that they can keep their anti-muslim propaganda (which is the fuel for their movement) forgot that they can hide the history but can not change it.