India's Marxist historians have tried their utmost to whitewash Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb's religious bigotry. Muslims consider Aurangzeb to be a great and pious ruler, while Hindus remember his persecution. On the other hand, Mughal Emperor Akbar is remembered by Hindus to be a rather decent sort; but Akbar, in his adult years, was anything but an orthodox Muslim, and so he is reviled in Muslim histories. Claims are made in Mullah-authored histories such as Akbar forbid boys from being named "Muhammad" and he turned mosques into stables.
If you've read the Sikand piece (previous post), you know that, as per progressives (who in India are often Marxists) Hindus, by definition have to be wrong. Moreover, if Aurangzeb was in fact good, and Hindus revile him, it simply shows the communal-mindedness of the stupid Hindus. Lastly, since Aurangzeb, was by Muslim accounts, a good Islamic ruler and since the historical myth of "no compulsion by Muslims in religion" has to be upheld, the history of Aurangzeb's bigotry has to be minimized if not totally suppressed.
Well, here in his royal orders, is the reality of Aurangzeb.
If you've read the Sikand piece (previous post), you know that, as per progressives (who in India are often Marxists) Hindus, by definition have to be wrong. Moreover, if Aurangzeb was in fact good, and Hindus revile him, it simply shows the communal-mindedness of the stupid Hindus. Lastly, since Aurangzeb, was by Muslim accounts, a good Islamic ruler and since the historical myth of "no compulsion by Muslims in religion" has to be upheld, the history of Aurangzeb's bigotry has to be minimized if not totally suppressed.
Well, here in his royal orders, is the reality of Aurangzeb.
