Mughal Emperor Sultan Aurangzeb Alamgir : Bad Ruler or Bad History?

[Saad]

He did not use hikmah to create faithful people who would support his cause after him. He was left kind of alone due to his harshness. He also can be accused of having his brothers killed for the sake of the throne and also bringing pain and suffering to his father and relatives.

My two cents.

Not for the sake of throne but for sake of Islam and Muslims. His elder brother Darra Shakoh had become a Hindu, and if he was to become the next ruler after Shah Jahan, it would have been hell for Muslims. It is said that after Sayyiduna 'Umar bin Abdul Aziz, he was most just Islamic ruler.

[kamals]

I am interested, what is the evidence that Dara Shikoh became an apostate ? I had not stumbled on this fact before. He was a Qadiri dervish and studied Hindu thought, but saw himself as a Muslim exploring the expressions of tawhid in other faiths. Allah knows best of his case.

A few words: It is highly useful, highly useful, for us to read the historys of past amirs, sultans, and Caliphs - espescially those in the fields of dawa and tabligh, and those who are organizers of Muslim groups.

I, for one, am benefiting greatly from the Babur-Nameh, much more interesting than Akbar's.

The mistakes of these past men, must be squarely looked atas well as their virtues. This is the ONLY way to learn from them. In my mind Aurangzeb (rahemullah alaihi) like Abdul Hamid (raheemullah alaihi) of the Ottomans were both at threshold moments in their dawlats and were faced with a DIFFICULT position -

Determining how to save what needed to be saved, and at what cost. Approaching their lives with respect is key because they HAVE been slandered through history. At the same time, our respect should not stop us from looking at things that were mistakes.

Every man should have a Himma that reaches to the stars, to read of men who did great things, had great virtues, and make great mistakes, is to see them in a respectful but human light...

And if there are some in our generation who, by Allah's grace, have weighty matters thrust upon them - who become responsible for ordering other men and organizing matters in their respective domains, to have in mind other great organizers and administrators such as these past Sultans is important.

There were things that he did whose effects could only be seen by later eyes, thus to fault him is poor adab, but to REALIZE what they were and TAKE LESSONS is the key. The Maratha's benefited from his over-exertion in the field,
would it have been possible to consolidate more? This can only be seen with hindsight vision.

Also his imprisonment of Shah Jehan - this appears to have been a clear power move, it is not necessary that we excuse obvious slips of judgement of this magnitude, fratercide and attempted patercide, if stories are to be believed (and Allah knows best).

Why not see him and his ken all as complex figures, with great virtues and faults alike.

To avoid the mistakes of the past it is necessary to understand it fully.

Another factor is his strength, he was the last of a certain breed, the strength of the Mongol steppe blood and the bellicose environment of Afghanistan was still in his blood, it is arguable that latter Sultans after him were simply not of the same fell strength and sharp material. That his princely race had diluted its power by the luxury of Hindustan's courts is likely. Sometimes things collapse after a man of great strength as him, as a focal point and central pillar in a certain sense, being a support for those weaker, collapses.

In the way an early death of a strong father leaves the family afloat and adrift.

The practice of passing the Sultanate to sons and within a family dynasty, the practice of monarchy in essence, will experience such difficulties if a certain rigor is not maintained over the candidates. This is why all dynasties weaken and fade.

Allah knows best. He was a better man than we are,

[treo-guy]

One of the greatest victories of our Prophet saws was not obtained in a war. It was through the treaty of Hudaibiah, because after just a couple of years of the treaty a huge number of Arabs came to accept Islam since the treaty gave them a chance to look at the religion.

This is what I refer to as hikmah. It seems like Aurangzeb could have done with a bit more of that.

Thanks.

[ryameen]

Assalamualaykum,

I do believe that peace treaties are better than war and bloodshed, as Rasulullah (sallallahu alaihe wa sallam) showed in treaty of Hudaybiyah, and in his whole mission. And I also believe this was shown and taught to us by the Sahaba radiallahu ta'ala anhum.

As for Aurangzeb's (rahmatullah alaih) wars we need to be sure that he was doing it for the sake o puref dominion, before we can say that he was doing this without Hikmah. It seems from the lecture posted by omar2006, that there was aggression from the other end that forced Aurangzeb into war. Mufti Saeed Ahmad (db) makes a pretty good case for Aurangzeb, I thought. I would have to personally read the history in depth, as an expert, to be moved from the attitude of Husn ad-dhann towards Aurangzeb (rahmatullah alaih), to criticism. In this matter mere general knowledge would not be enough to be critical of him, in my opinion.

Of course non-Muslims and secular people would have things to say against anybody who has a religious agenda. Aurangzeb was a man informed by the teachings of Islam, hence he had an overall agenda to further the cause of Islam. Experience says that if you have a religious agenda no matter how peaceful it is there will be a group of people who will find fault with it. Especially people who have an opposing agenda, or are shy of exerting their efforts in order to reform their wayward ways, or are happy with a status quo which favours them even though religiously speaking it might not be just. Take for example Tableeghi Jamaat and various Sufi Tariqahs, which are generally peaceful, but are yet not safe from the tongues of various groups of people. Or for example the person who stands out through his/her practice and tries to encourage toward practice. As long as one does not do dawah one is safe, but as long as one does some dawah, or invites people to good, there is always a group of people who are going to start feeling uncomfortable to the point of feeling the need to destroy this person's character. Of course this is why there must be a lot of Hikmah in dealing with these matters.

In the case of Aurangzeb the age was of wars and conquests. Plus being a committed Muslims in a non-Muslim majority which had its hostility toward Islam, it is understandable why people will want to find fault with him. It is perhaps easier to have a secular government than a government which has a religion other than ones own, especially if one has misgivings planted in oneself from early childhood and throughout ones life.

I suppose this is what the difficulty is with people of other religions and people in the modern world with regards to Aurangzeb and his likes. It seems that they are taught a deep distrust toward any religion that tries to assert itself. The nature of any ideology which respects itself and is confident of its validity will definitely try to spread itself. It is best to understand this and have some level of respect toward the proponents of other ideologies.

So, people like Aurangzeb (rahimuhullah) would always be spoken ill of, criticized etc. I don't think we should feel a need to criticize him merely based on general knowledge given that the general knowledge these days have a generally secular and anti religious agenda. And it seems that a secular attitude is hardly neutral toward religion, which is what it presents itself as.

These are my thoughts. I might be wrong. I am open to discussion and amendment.

Assalamualaykum

[Saad]

If one wants to read more about Sultan Aurangzeb Alamgir, read what was written by his contemporaries and not by Hindu historians and orientalists centuries later. They have tried their best to portray him as a villain and murderer.

Shaykh Abdul Hassan 'Ali Nadwi has mentioned that if it was not for 4 personalities, today there would be no practicging Muslims in the sub-Continent. Those are:

1. Imam Mujaddid Alf-i-Sani
2. Sultan Aurangzaib Alamgir
3. Imam Shah Waliullah
4. Sayyid Ahmed Shaheed

Sultan Aurangzaib was also a faqih and a sufi. Fatawa Alamgiri was compiled under his supervision, and whenever the scholars working on it would disagree on a particular issue, they would refer to Sultan Aurangzaib for the solution.

Once sultan wrote to Khawaja Masum, [son of Mujaddid Alf-i-Sani] that he should bay't him and instruct him in tasawwuf. So Khawaja Masum sent his son to Aurangzaib, who was his teacher in tasawwuf.

[Julaybib]

Salaam's.

Our Brethren should also take note that in recent times a concerted effort has been made to demonise our Pious Personalities by anti-muslim forrces.

To the extent that they are now seeking to Demonise Sultan Salahuddin Ayubi amongst others. So we should not give any weight to Kufr propaganda.

Aurangzeb Alamgir (RA) was a great saint and Scholar as well as a Ruler so we should refrain from uttering such slander against him.

The Hindus have sought to project the Emperor Akbar who developed his own religion of deen Elahi, as a great leader.

And have pro-actively sought to Demonise, both Alamgir (RA) and Mahmood al Ghaznawi (ra). Secular and modernist Pakistani historians have been recruited to regurgitate such Slanders...That is the same Ghaznawi that features prominantly in the parables of Ml Rumi (RA).

May Allah give us the Tawfiq to refarain from such slanders.

[Baibars]

Not for the sake of throne but for sake of Islam and Muslims. His elder brother Darra Shakoh had become a Hindu, and if he was to become the next ruler after Shah Jahan, it would have been hell for Muslims. It is said that after Hadhrat Umar bin Abdul Aziz [r.h], he was most just Islamic ruler.

Salaams to everyone, my first post here. That is news to me. I know he was trying to revive Akbar's Deen-e-Ilahi but not that he became Hindu.

[Saad]

Salaams to everyone, my first post here. That is news to me. I know he was trying to revive Akbar's Deen-e-Ilahi but not that he became Hindu.

Atleast I have heard that he had become a Hindu, and he was lost in the Hindu religious books. He might also be trying to revive his great grand-father's Deeh-e-Ilahi, as it would not contradict the other.

Anyways, coming back to Sultan Aurangzaib Alamgir, he had a daughter named Zaib al-Nisa. She wrote a tasfir of the Qur'an in Arabic called Zaib al-Tafasir. Her knowledge of very vast, and she spent most of her life in the library and also passed away in the library. She was so into knowledge and books that she decided not to marry. She is said to have possessed 30000 books of just Hanafi fiqh. Many of the senior scholars of the time could not reach her status in knowledge.

We already know that Sultan himself was responsible for compiling Fatawa Alamgiri, and for that purpose he called 500 senior Ulama of that time. 300 of these Ulama were from the different parts of sub-Continent, while other 200 were from Hijaz and Iraq. Head of these 500 Ulama was Mawlana Mufti Nizam al-Din and after him today the syllabus of madrasahs is called Dars-i-Nizami. Whatever the Ulama would compile that day, at night it would be presented to Sultan and he would go over it for mistakes, suggestions, etc.

[Ibn Ali Asghar]

By far the greatest of the Mughals, when I read of him it often brings tears to my eyes, had I any authority I would have given him the title of a Mujaddid!
But his reward lays with his Lord, and may his reward be great.. Aameen.

[SunniWaqas]

If one really wants to read the truth about the great Aurangzeb Alamgir (Rahimahullah), then I HIGHLY recommend reading Shaykh Abul Hasan 'Ali Nadwi's brilliant work 'Saviours of Islamic Spirit', Volume 3 on Mujaddid Alf Thani Shaykh Ahmad Sirhindi (Rahimahullah).

In it, he mentions about Aurangzeb's piety, his spiritual training under Khwaja Saifuddin, the son of Khwaja Muhammad Ma'sum who was the son of Shaykh Ahmad Sirhindi (may Allah have mercy on all of them).

He also mentions about Dara Shikoh, Aurangzeb's elder brother, who had developed extremely heretical Hindu views and wanted to revive the rule of Akbar in the sub-continent. That is the reason why Aurangzeb waged war against him and was supported by the scholars, mystics, and other concerned Muslims of his time.

It's a great read.

Wassalaam