some thoughts.

Auranzeb was a murderer who killed hundreds of thousands of Hindus and destroyed thousands of temples during his reign. I no longer have any faith in wikipedia because it is so easy for history to be manipulated and edited on this website, the actual factual evidence in any historical subject becomes misconstrued. This article also fails to mention that time beginning with the Muslim invasions of India in the 12th century up until the death of Aurangzeb and some years afterwards is known as the largest holocaust in history. An estimated 100 million Hindus were murdered by Muslim invaders over a period of 3-4 centuries, not to mention the millions who were forcibly converted. History is history, and Indian Muslims have a responsibility to the entire nation to portray the history of Muslim rulers in India in the correct light. To change history is to change one's reality, which cannot be allowed to happen.

This article also fails to mention the fact that it was not just the Marathas, but also the Sikhs in northern India who had consistently fought the Mughal empire for a longer period of time. The Sikh struggle with the Mughals originated much before any armed resistance from the Marathis and had it not been for the exploits of Guru Gobind Singh and the earlier Gurus, northern India would have presumably been under Muslim control for a much longer period of time after Aurangzeb. It was the Sikhs who saved the lives of millions of Hindus and it was the Sikhs who defended all Indians against Mughal tyranny and opression.- Pervez Ashraf 6/22/05

Auranzeb was a murderer who killed hundreds of thousands of Hindus and destroyed thousands of temples during his reign. I no longer have any faith in wikipedia because it is so easy for history to be manipulated and edited on this website, the actual factual evidence in any historical subject becomes misconstrued. This article also fails to mention that time beginning with the Muslim invasions of India in the 12th century up until the death of Aurangzeb and some years afterwards is known as the largest holocaust in history. An estimated 100 million Hindus were murdered by Muslim invaders over a period of 3-4 centuries, not to mention the millions who were forcibly converted. History is history, and Indian Muslims have a responsibility to the entire nation to portray the history of Muslim rulers in India in the correct light. To change history is to change one's reality, which cannot be allowed to happen. This article also fails to mention the fact that it was not just the Marathas, but also the Sikhs in northern India who had consistently fought the Mughal empire for a longer period of time. The Sikh struggle with the Mughals originated much before any armed resistance from the Marathis and had it not been for the exploits of Guru Gobind Singh and the earlier Gurus, northern India would have presumably been under Muslim control for a much longer period of time after Aurangzeb. It was the Sikhs who saved the lives of millions of Hindus and it was the Sikhs who defended all Indians against Mughal tyranny and opression.- Pervez Ashraf 6/22/05

The following sentence:

His intolerance of other religious views led him to threaten violence against Shia Muslims, for not renouncing their religious beliefs and declaring themselves heretical.

Isn't this just a POV? Also, the Shia declared themselves heretical"? Is that a typo?—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 23:31, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

I don't know how it is (—or is not) POV? Could you explain why you think it is POV? And about Shia declaring themselves heretical again I don't see why it is a typo? Aurangzeb wanted Shia Muslims to accept that they were committing heresy — makes sense to me. -Ankur 04:33, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The first part of their sentence has a cause-and-effect sequence that is a conclusion drawn by the writer, no? Unless one can quote Aurangzeb himself saying that that was why he was doing what he does. No?

At first I was mis-reading the second half of the sentence. But a couple of problem remain: the Shias could either renounce their beliefs or declare themselves heretical; they couldn't do both, no? And again, I would like to see more documentation on his actual treatment of the Shia.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 04:59, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

So would I :-), But you are not of the view that Auranhgzeb was acutally a good person — or are you? Lets just hope that you believe that Aurangzeb was horribly misrepresented - tho he did not leave scope for it. On a serious note, give me an hour or half, I'll read some history books and let you know what I can find. -Ankur 05:29, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

OK, I did some reading and found a little evidence about his dislike for Shias. If you wait till tomorrow I will write down whatever I could find. Gota go to bed now. Bye. -Ankur 07:10, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, I have taken longer than I asked for. I've been busy and once I started reading I could not stop. Since I have not finished yet I am not posting anything. Oh another thing - I have not found anything conclusive yet. -Ankur 07:17, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I hope I haven't sent you/caused you to go on a wild goose chase. I am not asking for proof that he disliked the Shia. Just that we need to get a little more specific on what he did. Otherwise, it is just a blanket accusation—like the usual practice of taking his destroying (or causing, or allowing the destruction of) temples and, on the basis of that alone, saying that he oppressed Hindus. The situation, in the latter case, was much more complex: the temples destroyed were done in agreement (or collaboration) with some Hindus and reasons (excuses, if you will) were provided. And he had Hindu generals, governors, and allies. Which is not to say that he was sympathetic to Hindus or Hinduism or that he was tolerant. Just that we need to provide a clearer picture.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 20:15, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

Well, had I gone in a search of Aurangzeb and his treatment of Shia Muslims - maybe I would have gone on a wild goose chase, but I was in search of truth and such a search is always fruitful (I know it sounds filmi). I did not want to search for anything on the net, coz most if not all material on the net is not verified. I am sure a Google search on the topic would have resulted in a lot of stuff worth mentioning here. I am also sure that most of the stuff that I could have found would have been by fanatics. So I looked for published material only. I based my search only on e-books available through my universities library (did not have the time to get a real book.) Ruefully there was'nt much about Aurangzeb's treatment of Shia Muslims. Almost every book I read clearly paints a negative picture of Aurangzeb but none of those books were specifically about him so there was not enough detail. About treatment of Hindus there seems to be near consensus that he treated Hindus not just unequally but unjustly too. But most of what I could find about treatment of Shia's can only be left to interpretation.

The only book that had any praise for him also had this line (exact words) Historians suggest their Shia fervour roused the orthodox fury of the Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb.--Ahmed, Akbar S. Discovering Islam: Making Sense of Muslim History and Society. I might also add that this book goes on to claim that Aurangzeb funded construction of temples. But I have read enough of this book not to trust it (due to its Islamic bias.) The line above that I picked from the book is about Aurangzeb's conquest of the Deccan Muslim Kingdoms. The problem with the line I have used from this book is that the fact that Aurangzeb wanted to avoid the possibility of any alliance in the Deccan against his empire and had to nip the possibility in the bud. So it is not specifically about Shia vs Sunni.

Paraphrasing from The Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions. Aurangzeb linked Sunni orthodoxy with the interests of the Mughal Empire. While this does say a bit about his beliefs as a Sunni Muslim. It does not say much about his dislike for Shia (even if it can be interpreted.) I think enough is said (but not in so many words - its concise dictionary after all) to interpret that - well nothing actually :-)

So this ends my wonderful search through several books about History of India and how so may people look at it differently. I have read enough to contribute (time permitting) to the collaboration of the week and I have this recurring feeling that I wont. --Ankur 15:09, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC) Oh wait I have to write a conclusion too. It boils down to benefit of doubt and who gets it. The person writing the article or the person about whom the article is. Cricket says benefit of doubt goes to Aurangzeb Sahib. Lets hope whoever wrote that part about Shia heresy comes and explain his edit himself. I hope its not the same guy who wrote the Zafarnama stuff, that was some real POV stuff dude.

Ankur, I have been on wikivacation and just re-read the above thread. I would like to compliment you on actually drawing an objective conclusion from the facts as you found them and, at least the way I saw it, moving a little ways away from your initial assumptions. Kudos! That's the mark of a wise--dare I say good-hearted--person.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 20:05, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

Looks like some Muslim re-wrote this to make Aurang. sound more humane than he really was. (Comment left by 69.172.211.222 (talk · contribs)).

This comment is yet another disheartening example of a POV. What does it matter whether the author (whoever s/he was) was Muslim or a Hindu or a Christian or Buddhist? I sincerely hope people would work on a non-religiously-motivated neutral manner, and rise up above religious and national affiliations. I am restoring the line as it did not deny the fact stated, rather it commented on the possibility of many views. Discuss it here if you want, but please leave religion and your nationality out of the picture. Be neutral, please!!!. --Ragib 05:19, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It commented on "the possibility of many views" in order to please Muslims, especially Pakistanis, who overwhelmingly seem to have this habit of sugarcoating the violent nature of *unwanted* Muslim rulers and invaders that existed in the Indian sub-continent (meaning that Hindus didnt really care for the Arabs, Turks, Afghans, and Persians who invaded and brought with them their "noble Islam").

In-fact, you could put "it is an exaggeration" for much of history or any facet related to any historical character.

It comes down to this: You, as a Muslim, want to make Aurang look like a "keeper and restorer of the Muslim Ummah" in South Asia, and conveniently brush off and disregard his extreme non-Muslim prejiduce. To begin with, these Turks and Mughals really had no business invading India to begin with, secondly, the man was a bloodthirsty tyrant, regardless of any Muslim bias than can be injected.

I suppose your are going to go and sugar-coat Saddam Hussein article? (Note:Comment left by 69.172.211.222 (talk · contribs)).

I really am saddened by your continued religious-minded rhetoric, and I almost wish I did not have to comment on that. It is really your last few comments that surprise me. I hope you'd learn some tolerance, and rise up above religious lines to continue contributing to wikipedia. When I edit or write articles, I really try to think neutrally and not just do-justice or sugar-coat articles. I am also surprised at your extreme views on "people-who-invaded-india" notion. Frankly, take any country, and any ethnic group, you can almost always find some other ethnic group it uprooted and invaded. Taking your example, I could definitely say that the "Aryans have no business invading India to begin with", and India belongs to the Dravidian race who lived here and built great cities like Harappa and Mohenjodaro. That would be just another funny argument, but you can see that the argument you place against Arabs, Turks applies to the Aryans too. In the similar way, it can also be argued that parts of India, at least what is now Bangladesh was Buddhist predominantly, but was converted to hinduism first and then later to Islam. Many of these conversions were voluntary, many were forced. In case of Aurangjeb, there are allegations, much of which may be true, but there are also other versions of history by some historians, which may also have some truth in them, and thats what that one line about "there may be exaggerations" implied. In the end, I would like to emphasize again that it is NOT the task of a neutral editor to go on rewriting articles to state their religious beliefs. Your allegations just prove what is bad with this religious-minded attitude: you get a "tunnel vision" and a monochromatic view of things. I hope you would understand my point here and stop bringing religion into this discussion. This article or wikipedia are not the battlegrounds for hindu-muslim-buddhist or Pakistani-Indian fights. I would love to have a good discussion with anyone to make this article better, but if you keep drawing religious lines, it really wouldn't work well. I have no intention of sugar coating "Saddam Hussein" article to make him look better or worse, just to make my own beliefs stick out. In the same way, I do not have any intention of denigrating any article or any person just because that person was of religion X, Y,Z. Please have the discussion without referring to your or anyone else's religious affiliation. The spirit of wikipedia and cooperation depends on working in a decent manner and respecting other's views while establishing facts. Finally, please sign your comments. Thanks --Ragib 02:36, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Your accusations are false based on some clear and evident points. 1. There was no "Aryan Invasion". The AIT theory has been debunked completely. There is an Aryan Migration theory which scholars now accept, but that is still speculative.

2. The Aryans who migrated into India developed a unique religion and language system that are *unique to India*. Unlike the Arabs, Mughals, and Afghans, they simply didnt enter the sub-continent, loot and plunder it, then leave, all while maintining a seperate and distinct identity. The Aryans assimilated and contributed in which they formed the *basis* of Hindu and Indian culture. The invading Muslims did no such thing.

3. The Dravidian race is not native to India either, and is thought of to have originated from somewhere between Iran and Greece, hence why the elamite languages are linked to the South Indian languages. The Dravidians, like the Aryans, migrated into South Asia and helped form a basis of culture as the group assimilated.

4. You say that Bangladesh was first Buddhist, then Hindu, then Muslim. This makes absolutely no sense due to the fact that Hinduism predates Buddhism by many centuries. So what were the Bangladeshis before they were Buddhist?

Regardless, I agree that religious attitudes should not reflect Wikipedia's articles, but I fail to see this ethos manifested in your editing of this page. I mean, why even bother sugar-coating a Tyrant's history? Why do you feel as though you have make it a point that forced conversions were an exxageration only for a leader who happend to be Muslim?

It is simple, because you are Muslim yourself, and you unconciously feel it as your duty to make these rulers and invaders who brought *you* (more so your descendents) Islam, (for I am sure you are forever gratefull) look as Saintly and legitimate as possible.

signed *insert IP address here* (Note:Comment left by 69.172.211.222 (talk · contribs))

I refuse to submit to the attitude you show here, so I would refrain from commenting on it. Sometimes, it is worthless to argue with people who would continue to see the world in monochromatic way. I just wanted to keep this page out of religious hatred and potential POV, and that's not too hard to keep (See NPOV). I stand by my edit which was merely to revert a single line which I didn't even insert there in the first place, and which you removed after posting a derogatory comment on certain religious beliefs. Also, I have not and will not bring the religion-card here. And my reference to the Aryans coming to south asia was just an example to you on how different people came here in different periods of times. As a Bangladeshi, my ancestry includes all these people, who came here in different periods of time, so I am equally proud to descend from my ancient dravidian/pre-dravidian, aryan, hindu, buddhist and arabic ancestry, which most of the people in Bangladesh share. However, that is NOT what should affect any of my edits here or elsewhere. And once again, can't you be a little more *decent* in commenting here? It doesn't hurt to be respectful of other people, while still being true to your own faith and putting together logical arguments here nicely. I would like to repeat the simple message that "just because I belong to religion X doesn't mean it is my duty to make anyone saintly". I just hope you learn from your experiences and stop bashing/flaming other people just because you don't like their religion. Also, signing your message in wikipedia requires typing out only 4 ~'s, as in ~~~~, so sign your messages with that. Thanks. --Ragib 05:43, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sayind that His harsh policies led to uprisings in Deccan by the Marathis under rebel Shivaji

This is a POV Deccan was NEVER RULED BY Aurangzeb. It was ruled by Bijapur Kingdom out of which the enslaved Marathas carved out their Homeland in Maharashtra. Moreover Shivaji was NOT a rebel he was a Maratha Price or "Chatrapati" (King under the Umbrella). Marathas fought with Mughals only because Mughals repeatedly attacked Maratha sovereignity. During a truce Aurangzeb had Shivaji invited to Agra & imprisoned trecherously. Comon IFukeer (pun intended) accept the fact that Aurangzeb was an ICONOLATOR. Who told u bout the trash that Hinndus destroyed Hindu temples :-o

More of his actrocities should be mentioned.

Article discusses "harsh treatment of non-Muslims" and so on. And even that doesn't mention specifics. We need specifics, if they can be found.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 00:03, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

How about the fact that he imposed tax on being non-muslim (Jezia). I have added a few more. Hope it helps. 24.126.17.155 06:15, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to quote Prof. Vinay Lal's page on Aurangzeb

Aurangzeb's Fatwa on Jizya [Jizyah, or Poll Tax]

Much has been made of Aurangzeb's reimposition of the poll tax (jizya, or jizyah) on Hindus. However, as the text of the fatwa, which is seldom read, indicates, an exemption was provided for various classes of people, such as those who were indigent, without employment, unable to work on account of poor health, and so on. Moreover, the fatwa clearly shows that the amount was, far from being uniform, fixed according to a person's ability to pay. The statement that the jizyah was imposed as well on "the people of the Book" -- here doubtless a reference to Christians and Jews -- is particularly significant, since it suggests that there was no animus directed particularly against the Hindus. The translation below is by Anver Emon of the Department of History, UCLA.

Source

Al-Fatawa al-Alamgiriyyah = Al-Fatawa al-Hindiyyah fi Madhhab al-Imam al-A‘zam Abi Hanifah :al-Nu‘man (Beirut: Dar al-Ma‘rifah, 1973), 2:244-245.

Chapter on Jizyah

[Jizyah] refers to what is taken from the Dhimmis, according to [what is stated in] al-Nihayah. It is obligatory upon [1] the free, [2] adult members of [those] who are generally fought, [3] who are fully in possession of their mental faculties, and [4] gainfully employed, even if [their] profession is not noble, as is [stated in] al-Sarajiyyah. There are two types of [jizyah]. [The first is] the jizyah that is imposed by treaty or consent, such that it is established in accordance with mutual agreement, according to [what is stated in] al-Kafi. [The amount] does not go above or below [the stipulated] amount, as is stated in al-Nahr al-Fa’iq. [The second type] is the jizyah that the leader imposes when he conquers the unbelievers (kuffar), and [whose amount] he imposes upon the populace in accordance with the amount of property [they own], as in al-Kafi. This is an amount that is pre-established, regardless of whether they agree or disagree, consent to it or not.

The wealthy [are obligated to pay] each year forty-eight dirhams [of a specified weight], payable per month at the rate of 4 dirhams. The next, middle group (wast al-hal) [must pay] twenty-four dirhams, payable per month at the rate of 2 dirhams. The employed poor are obligated to pay twelve dirhams, in each month paying only one dirham, as stipulated in Fath al-Qadir, al-Hidayah, and al-Kafi. [The scholars] address the meaning of "gainfully employed", and the correct meaning is that it refers to one who has the capacity to work, even if his profession is not noble. The scholars also address the meaning of wealthy, poor, and the middle group. Al-Shaykh al-Imam Abu Ja‘far, may Allah the most high have mercy on him, considered the custom of each region decisive as to whom the people considered in their land to be poor, of the middle group, or rich. This is as such, and it is the most correct view, as stated in al-Muhit. Al-Karakhi says that the poor person is one who owns two hundred dirhams or less, while the middle group owns more than two hundred and up to ten thousand dirhams, and the wealthy [are those] who own more than ten thousand dirhams...The support for this, according to al-Karakhi is provided by the fatawa of Qadi Khan (d. 592/1196). It is necessary that in the case of the employed person, he must have good health for most of the year, as is stated in al-Hidayah. It is mentioned in al-Idah that if a dhimmi is ill for the entire year such that he cannot work and he is well off, he is not obligated to pay the jizyah, and likewise if he is sick for half of the year or more. If he quits his work while having the capacity [to work] he [is still liable] as one gainfully employed, as is [stated in] al-Nihayah. The jizyah accrues, in our opinion, at the beginning of the year, and it is imposed on the People of the Book (whether they are Arab, non-Arab, or Majians) and idol worshippers (‘abdat al-awthan) from among the non-Arabs, as in al-Kafi...The [jizyah] is not imposed on the idol worshippers from among the Arabs or from among the apostates, where they exist. Their women and children [are considered] as part of a single liability group (fi’). [In other words], whoever from among their men do not submit to Islam shall be killed, and no jizyah is imposed upon their women, children, ill persons or the blind, or likewise on the paraplegic, the very old, or on the unemployed poor, as is stated in al-Hidayah

Thanks. --Ragib 06:26, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I added the NPOV tag because the whole article seems biased and quite one-sided in representing Aurgangzeb. I do believe this needs to be discussed. I am curious why the sole good point mentioned in the article (about abolition of satee) was removed without even any edit summaries, and a whole lot of negative points added. I am adding the NPOV until this issue is discussed thoroughly. Thanks. --Ragib 05:56, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I added the NPOV tag because the whole article seems biased and quite one-sided in representing Aurgangzeb. I do believe this needs to be discussed. I am curious why the sole good point mentioned in the article (about abolition of satee) was removed without even any edit summaries, and a whole lot of negative points added. I am adding the NPOV until this issue is discussed thoroughly. Thanks. --Ragib 05:56, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Auragzeb was exteremely unpopular in India as opposed to Akbar. There is a reason for that. There were not many good things to say about him. Please add if you know any. 24.126.17.155 06:00, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since you asked, I googled a little bit and picked up some of the following text from [1]. If you want, I can do more googling and add to the list. My point is, Aurganzeb was a religious person and he had his own vision. That may be positive to people of muslim faith, and negative to people of hindu and Shikh faiths. It would not be fair if the article is written with one's own faith in mind. The current article seems to be biased in the sense that it portrays Aurangzeb as an invader and a religious fanatic, and overlooks any other interpretation of the facts. Anyway, here is an excerpt from [2] as I mentioned above:

It can scarcely be doubted, once the historical evidence is weighed, that the religious policies of Aurangzeb were discriminatory towards Hindus, Sikhs, and other non-Muslims. Nonetheless, numerous inferences have been drawn from the literature which are not warranted by the historical record. Though many historians have written of conversions of Hindus, surprisingly little, if any, evidence has been offered to suggest how far the conversion of Hindus took place, and whether there was any official policy beyond one of mere encouragement that led to the conversion of Hindus. Then, as now, conversion would have been more attractive to the vast number of Hindus living under the tyranny of caste oppression, and it isn't clear at all how the kind of inducements that Aurangzeb offered -- if indeed he did so for the purposes of conversion, as Richards maintains -- are substantially different from the inducements that modern, purportedly secular, politicians offer to people in their electoral constituencies. And what of the popular representation of Aurangzeb as a ferocious destroyer of Hindu temples and idols? Hindu temples in the Deccan were seldom destroyed, notwithstanding Aurangzeb's extensive military campaigns in that area. True, in north India, some Hindu temples were undoubtedly torn down, but much work needs to be done to establish the precise circumstances under which these acts of destruction took place. The famed Keshava Rai temple in Mathura was one such temple, but here Aurangzeb seems to have been motivated by a policy of reprisal, since the Jats in the region had risen in revolt. Like his predecessors, Aurangzeb continued to confer land grants (jagirs) upon Hindu temples, such as the Someshwar Nath Mahadev temple in Allahabad, Jangum Badi Shiva temple in Banaras, and Umanand temple in Gauhati, and if one put this down merely to expediency, then why cannot one view the destruction of temples as a matter of expediency as well, rather than as a matter of deliberate state policy? Moreover, recent historical work has shown that the number of Hindus employed as mansabdars, or as senior court officials and provincial administrators, under Aurangzeb's reign rose from 24.5% in the time of his father Shah Jahan to 33% in the fourth decade of his own rule. One has the inescapable feeling that then, as now, the word 'fanaticism' comes rather too easily to one's lips to characterize the actions of people acting, or claiming to act, under the name of Islam. It is also notable that as a firm Sunni, Aurangzeb dealt as firmly with the Shia kingdoms of Bijapur and Golconda as he did with the Hindus or Muslims. One can safely assert that Aurangzeb acted to preserve and enhance the interests of his own Muslim community, and restored the privileges of the Sunni ulema, but his actions with respect to the Hindus, Shias, and others are more open to interpretation.. (From Article written by Vinay Lal, Associate Professor of History, UCLA). --Ragib 06:12, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reply. I do not mention that he converted non-hindus by force, though it is mentioned in numerous biographies of Sambhaji who was offered to convert or to die. I don't think he brought down any Masjids for any reasons, say to tame Adil Shah of Deccan. I don't think there could be any justification apart from his view that he was fighting hindus and not just other kings. Any way it is known to be a fact that he did it and I only mentioned it. Why he did it could be disputed. The article did not call him 'fanatic' either. Although not many would call him tolerant. So why you call the 'entire' article biased is beyond me. 24.126.17.155 06:25, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you then remove reference to the fact that Aurangzeb banned the practice of Satee? Also what about mentioning his austerity and the facts that he earned his own living by means of sewing caps and creating copies of the Koran, unlike his lavish predecessors? My own view is that a biographical article about X cannot be neutral if it is completely full of negative facts about X. Aurganzeb did destroy many temples. He did impose Jizya (see above). But He also expanded the Mughal empire to the greatest extent, and was a devout follower of Islam. There are also numerous anecdotes of his fair judgement. So, I do not say any of your points are good or bad, I say that under the current presentation of facts, the article is one-sided. --Ragib 06:35, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I do mention that he banned Hindu practices. I am not sure he banned Sati, which was popular in South India and he never went there. Hindu temples in Deccan were not destoyed because he could not defeat Shivaji, not because he liked temples in Deccan better. He did sew caps, but to say he earned his living by doing that would be bit of a stretch. As to the fair judgement, I don't think there is any evidence of his judgement being any better than those of other kings. In either case, I don't think adding anecdotes to the short article is appropriate and moreover anecdotes do not prove that he had better judgement than others which would be a broad conclusion. The article has lots of facts which show him in negative light does not necessarily mean that it is biased. By the way, the three temples mentioned in the article you quoted were _the_ most important temples to hindus, calling it a matter of expediency or not even mentioning them in Auragzeb's article is totally unfair and biased. 24.126.17.155 07:28, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Before you get worked up, I am not telling you to remove any of these facts. These should be mentioned in the article, no doubt about that. My point is that only mentioning these facts while overlooking other cast Aurangzeb into the role of the Proverbial (Hindi) cinematic villain, always doing bad things while never doing a good thing or two. A biographical article should have all sides of his character. Only then it can be called neutral. Thanks --Ragib 07:42, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am removing POV tag since you failed to mention which facts are POV. I am glad that you think the acts mentioned are villainish. 24.126.17.155 07:52, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think more discussion is required to make it NPOV. I did not say your presented facts are disputed. I said the article presents a one sided view. My points of non-neutrality claim did not imply the truth in the facts presented, rather that implied the omission of many other facts which would have made it neutral. So, let us continue the discussion. I also want to clarify my words on "Villainish". Please check what I wrote:

only mentioning these facts while overlooking other cast Aurangzeb into the role of the Proverbial (Hindi) cinematic villain, always doing bad things while never doing a good thing or two.

I meant to say that mentioning facts A about person X while omitting fact B would solely make person X look like whatever the fact A implied. Same as the cheap B-rated movies, where the only thing a villain does is go on doing bad thing. I do not pass any judgement on Aurangzeb solely on any particular fact, and have NOT called his acts villainish or whatever. Thanks. --Ragib 08:14, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Then why do you think the article is biased against him? You did not dispute the facts. You are repeatedly calling the article biased and one sided. Write down whatever you think the other side is. What are the facts that are omitted here? 24.126.17.155 08:43, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is quite unfortunate that 24.126.17.155 (talk · contribs) is taking things personally and vandalizing my own user page. Please follow wikipedia etiquette. I may disagree with you but you have the right to express your views. And so do I. My own user page, on the other hand, is a place where I am entitled to express my view. I CAN call my home country beautiful in my user page. You don't HAVE to vandalize it. If you are angry with my views, please discuss it logically here. Please do not act like a petty vandal.

Also, your recent changes are taking quite a religious turn. Now you are terming content as controvertial and marking scholarship as "muslim" etc. That itself is a blatant POV. Please act logically, and have discussion. --Ragib 10:57, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I did not call the scholarship muslim. It was already there. It is not something that I introduced. Also please don't make your religious inclinations a factor while discussing validity of the facts. 24.126.17.155

Ragib, please stick to the subject Aurangzeb. Will be reported as Vandalism if continued. King1

Excuse me! The user I mentioned above vandalized my user page, it doen't take too much thinking to find out why a totally unknown person would be encouraged to do so. I'd love to be "sticking to the subject", and discuss it here. That's what I have been doing since 2 days now. And also, since wikipedia keeps logs, it [[3]] is all open for all to see. Thanks. --Ragib 18:50, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Right, Just discuss about this on appropriate page thats all.. King1 19:18, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ragib, You should have pointed out a non muslim source which _considers_ Aurangzeb "in the best traditions of the companions of The Prophet himself and his early successors. The latter group has even gone to extent of using the phrase Fifth Rightly Guided Caliph" to support your argument that it is a 'blatant' POV. King1 17:36, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have not added that line. I also wouldn't keep that line, but the point is, Aurangzeb's evaluation should be done in a neutral manner. And we can always go on and discuss the matter here, unlike 24.126.17.155 (talk · contribs) who is unilaterally changing things, while discussion is going on. Also, since you say it again, what exactly is a "Muslim" source? Did the world of scholarship and education got divided with religious lines? Thanks. --Ragib 18:50, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Best seems to remove/replace the first para altogether that is if we agree? Seems POV to me too.. King1 19:18, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I added that. But it was in an effort to show the two kinds of views held. At the same time that I added that, I also added the other view:

He is a historical figure that can be described as "lightning rod", drawing strong condemnation as well as great reverence. Critics level the charge, specifically, of the destruction of Hindu temples (see Temple destruction in Indian History) and his suppression of the Shia sect within Islam. Supporters, particularly Muslims, draw a very aposite picture of a pious, simple-living figure in the best traditions of the companions of The Prophet himself and his early successors. The latter group has even gone to extent of using the phrase Fifth Rightly Guided Caliph.

It is subsequent edits that have made this sound odd. My take was that since such opposite views are held about him, let us present both and the reader can see the whole picture.

More generally, I do think that presenting just one side of Aurangzeb--any side--will not do the topic justice. As important as what he did is how he is viewed today and how that affects people's attitudes, both to him and to inter-communal relations in India and the Subcontinent.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 02:41, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

One of my most pleasant and fulfilling exchanges on the Wikipedia is the one under #Tolerance—or the lack thereof above. You can see what can be done if people stick to principles.

Secondly, Aurangzeb is a very controversial figure, with various legends on both sides of the arguments. Let's back everything we say with strong documentation and references, please. Preferably from primary sources.

Thirdly, may I humbly suggest that 24.126.17.155, as a person that this is this invested in a discussion and making such substantial contributions (and I, at least, cherish that) get an account--or use an existing one they may have?

I have attempted a partial edit--as objectively as I can given my own view of the world, I am the first to admit that. Please take a look.

—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 08:09, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Deleted my earlier comment here. It was based on a misunderstanding. My apologies.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 19:13, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Does anybody know how reliable the book 'Religious Policy of Muslim Rulers' is, incase it actually exist? The website seems questionable. Also it seems to directly contradict the information given on the Varanasi temple which can be found in Jadunath Sarkar's books and almost every other book on Aurangzeb. Should be removed? The information is not verifiable.

• Questionable website? Which one?
• As for the book, I know someone who has a physical copy. Does that qualify as existing? :D
• Well, there are books with varying information. Let's not say that this or that is in "almost every book". Let's try to provide a complete picture.
• And please sign your posts on this page and your edits.

—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 03:40, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

God knows I am no scholar of Indian history, but I have to ask if the following Literary Evidence of Temple Destruction under Aurangzeb's Rule (Partial List & Quotes) shouldn't count as primary sources from MOSLEM authors in the period... in which case, uh, er, it's pretty damning. I really see no reason not to include at lease some of these citations. another web source would be Destruction of Hindu Temples by Aurangzeb By Rajiv Varma ... as I said, this -in period- moslem sources look pretty convincing.

Further, this site: Why did Aurangzeb demolish the Kashi Vishvanath temple? maked extensive use of the official court chronicle, Maasir-i-Alamgiri - also a primary source, quoting the court chronicle as saying Aurangzeb “ordered all provincial governors to destroy all schools and temples of the Pagans and to make a complete end to all Pagan teachings and practices”. another site easily found quotes further from the official court records of Aurangzeb's travels as follows:

January 1680 : "The grand temple in front of the Maharana's mansion (at Udaipur) - one of the wonderful buildings of the age, which had cost the infidels much money - was destroyed and its images broken."

"On 24 January the Emperor went to view the lake Udaisagar and ordered all the three temples on its banks to be pulled down."

"On 29 January Hasan Ali Khan reported that 172 other temples in the environs of Udaipur had been demolished."

I note a few other things not yet mentioned. For example, despite his islamicsm, several sources say that not less than 25% of his court were Hindus.... Still, by all accounts, he did reverse the previous stand of tolerance. In light of that, and with links to primary sources widely available on the web, does anyone have a problem with adding those citations and a few of the primary quotes into the article? Rick Boatright 04:14, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Commenting on myself, I would urge a look at [4] as well, noting it's mention of his establishment of public morals police.... not yet mentioned in the article. Rick Boatright 04:19, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is no reason to exclude facts that are extensively documented and its no secret that he did destroy a huge lots of temples. On the other hand the book refered 'Religious Policy of Muslim Rulers' I am sure is non existent/extremely obscure. I looked up in our library which is one of the best in the world. I think its pretty clear when I ask for physical evidence of the book. Just let me know the citation (publisher etc.). Also let me know where and how to get a copy. The website refered sabrang.com is questionable at best. The information is not even a secondary source. It refers to a website that says that there is a book that gives a citation of the primary source. Neither gives citation of the book nor of the primary source. I think the information about his donating funds to Varanasi temple (which he destoyed by the way) should be removed unless we get reliable source. AnkA 04:48, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rick, the issue is not so much the fact that he destroyed temples--but the motivation. One version has him dealing with the largest temple because of requests from a Hindu Maharaja. And the whole narrative seems to be that Aurangzeb was this evil, out-of-the-ordinary South Asian ruler. As an archeologist friend of mine (a Hindu and ardent Gandhian himself) puts it, every religious site in South Asia has multiple layers; every Shivaite Temple is built on the remains of a Vishnavite temple which is built on the remains of a Buddhist site, which... and on top of some of these are mosques. Do I think that destroying one religion or sect's place of worship or holy site to build a different one is ever justified? No! But demonizing one person out of context is inappropriate--and can lead to some nastiness, too.

And I am not saying none of the current inflexible extremism about religious sites comes from Muslims. Aurangzeb seemed to take a more liberal approach to moving or destroying mosques when it made sense, too. There are documented cases in Hyderabad, for example.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 18:53, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

I think when one destoys temples, builds mosques on the same sites and boasts about that in his chronicles (see above), the motivation is pretty clear. AnkA 19:22, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"every Shivaite Temple is built on the remains of a Vishnavite temple which is built on the remains of a Buddhist site" I seriously doubt that, but please provide evidence. I would like to see. AnkA 19:27, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rick the sites you quote do not sound objective. Calling someone the "warhorse" of one ideology or another does not instill confidence in me about the academic credentials of a paper.

AnkA, let me get back to you on that. You do understand that my statement is an informal one; the academic description will be more complex.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 20:34, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

IFaqeer, the issue is not the "objectiveness" of the site I was quoting... it's that they were quoting PRIMARY SOURCES... that is, 17th cenutry MOSLEM writers and the court records of his court themselves... If you quote primary sources, and they _themselves_ say damning things, the only recompense is to find OTHER primary sources that say something else. Primary sources _rule_ don't they? Again, I freely admit, I am an english-speaking-only US, Kansas Baha'i, not a scholar of 17th century India, and I got drawn into this article due to a tourturous connection to a Baha'i article... but uh, errr, the period sources say that he was the 'warhorse' not the web site I pointed to. (Unless the translation is bad, which I can not comment on.) I'm all for a balanced presentation, in fact, it seems clear that the guy was far from one-sided. After all, the same sources say that 25% of his court were Hindu. But those same sources tend to say that the money flowed into the hands of ex-hindu converts to Islam. (Duh) Additionally, it seems _very_ clear that the guy was a fairly intolerate MOSLEM in the sense that he vigoursly persecuted Sufi and Shia thought, and banned things like court music, court portrature, and refused to participate in the hindu ceremony of the adoration of the monarch. I'm all in favor of citing sources which show the guy's good side, I just think that there need to be SOURCES for it. Rick Boatright 02:29, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have toned down my own additions around his and his father's rebellions—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 02:41, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

All,

I am working on the coinage of Aurangzeb. If anyone is also working on the same, maybe we can compare notes.

Do let me know at anuragvarshney@hotmail.com

You are changing content that has been agreed upon after a consensus. "said to" etc are written there to keep the neutral tone of the article, rather than having it sound one sided. See previous discussions. I am changing to older version. As for Black taj, a google search shows ample links. Thanks. --Ragib 17:23, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

PS-the edit summary is supposed to say, "rv to last version agreed upon consensus", I hit enter prematurely. --Ragib 17:25, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please do not edit by misleading and false edit summaries. I have to revert again, further reverts from you without discussion will result in the page being protected. Thanks. --Ragib 17:35, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You are making changes and blanking weeks of work. Please add, not blank and remove NPOV consensus to make the article somewhat one-sided. Thanks. --Ragib 17:50, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Would Neonoman (talk · contribs) please come to this discussion? You are changing the existing content like "is said to have" to "have", the current content was reworded to make it NPOV. Also, you have blanked several sections/inserted out of context comments etc making the article POV again. Please come to this discussion. I have already reverted 2 times, and do not want to violate 3RR. Thanks. --Ragib 17:58, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have left comments at Neonoman (talk · contribs)'s page asking him/her to come to discussion here before the massive edits. Please don't go on starting an edit war, come to discussion here... --Ragib 18:02, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)