The History of Islamic Rule

Dynasties

• Ottoman Caliphate
  • They sided with Germany for support
  • The late Young Turks movement for a civil government later turned to a sort of Turkish nationalism
  • The Arabs didn't like this, and during WWI, they teamed up with Britain to defeat them to form an Arab national state from Aden to Aleppo.
  • They also committed the Armenian genocide, forcing them out into the Syrian desert.
• Empires of the time -- British, French, Dutch, Spanish, American, Ottoman, were all concerned with expanding their empires.

Oppressive Regimes

Osama's Two letters to America, Nov 2002: https://en.rattibha.com/thread/1725195829621760272

Indian History

Shariah

• Prithviraj Chouhan

• Mughal Empire

  • Babar ()
    • He was descendant of Genghis Khan and Tamerlane (Timurids)
    • He founded the empire in 1526 after the First Battle of Panipat.
  • Humayun ()
    • He was driven out by Sher Shah
    • His son Sher Shah Suri along with his general Hemachandra Vikramaditya established a secular rule until 1556, when a 13 year old Akbar got the empire back in the Second Battle of Paniput, and Humayun ruled again.
    • He banned forced Sati, but it was only enforced in Akbar's regime
  • Akbar (secular, married a Rajput)
    • He respected all races and religions and was also a patron of the arts who commissioned the first beautifully illustrated translations of the Ramayana and Mahabharat into the state language of Farsi (Persian) to make them widely known.
    • He removed Jizya tax and pilgrimage tax (which was collected unbeknownst to him, from anyone who went to any place of worship according to how much the tax collector wanted)
    • In 1582, Akbar united all religions with the syncretic religion of Dīn-i Ilāhī (Persian: دین الهی, lit. 'Religion of God'), known during its time as Tawḥīd-i-Ilāhī ("Divine Monotheism", lit. 'Oneness of God') or Divine Faith.
    • According to Iqtidar Alam Khan, it was based on the Timurid concept of Yasa-i Changezi (Code of Genghis Khan), to consider all sects as one. The elements were drawn from different religions.
    • Akbar was the first to appoint Hindus in courts in large numbers
      • Out of his 9 Navrathnas (9 Jewels), Raja Birbal, Raja Man Singh, Raja Todramal were from the majority Hindu community.
    • He banned child marriage, and increased the minimum age from 14 to 16
    • He introduced registration of marriages at the police station
    • He banned forced Sati, to ensure that the wife would only do it if she wanted to
  • Jahangir (loved art and architecture)
  • Shah Jahan (Built Taj Mahal)
  • Aurangazeb (1658 to 1707)
    • He was often described as a ruthless tyrant who was an expansionist, imposed tough Sharia laws and brought back the discriminatory jizya tax that Hindu residents had to pay in return for protection.
    • He reinstated the pilgrimage tax which Akbar abolished
  • Azam Shah (1707)
  • Bahadur Shah (Shah Alam) (1707–1712)
  • Jahandar Shah (1712–1713)
  • Farrukh-Siyar (1713–1719)
  • Rafi-ud-Darajat (1719)
  • Rafi-ud-Daulah (Shah Jahan II) (1719)
  • Muhammad Shah (1719–1748)
  • Ahmad Shah (1748–1754)
  • Alamgir II (1754–1759)
  • Shah Jahan III (1759–1760)
  • Shah Alam II (first reign) (1760–1788)
  • Mahmud Shah (Shah Jahan IV) (1788)
  • Shah Alam II (second reign) (1788–1806)
  • Akbar II (1806–1837)
  • Bahadur Shah II (1837–1857)

Modi speaking against Aurangazeb

It started when the dispute over the Gyanvapi mosque began bubbling in the holy city of Varanasi - the mosque is built on the ruins of the Vishwanath temple, a grand 16th Century Hindu shrine destroyed in 1669 on Aurangzeb's orders. Now, his name is trending on social media with thousands of disparaging references, can be found in court files and has been invoked by India's present-day Hindu nationalist rulers.

In December, Prime Minister Narendra Modi spoke about "Aurangzeb's atrocities, his terror" at an event in Varanasi. "He tried to change civilisation by the sword. He tried to crush culture with fanaticism," Mr Modi said.

He mentioned the Mughal ruler's name again last month - speaking on the occasion of the 400th birth anniversary of Sikh Guru Tegh Bahadur who was beheaded for refusing to convert to Islam.

"Even though Aurangzeb severed many heads, he could not shake our faith", Mr Modi said.

His comments seemed to baffle a Canadian-American journalist who asked on Twitter why the Indian Prime Minister was "giving a long speech attacking a Mughal emperor who died 300+ years ago"?

In a series of tweets, historian Audrey Truschke responded that Hindu nationalists believed that "Muslims oppressed Hindus for hundreds of years so they deserve to be oppressed today, as retribution for the past".

She said Aurangzeb's name was being used as "a dog whistle to signal that it is acceptable to hate and use violence against present-day Muslims".

Prof Rezavi says the Mughal emperor did demolish a number of Hindu temples and imposed the discriminatory tax on Hindus, but he was a complicated figure, and not completely evil.

"He gave the highest number of grants for maintaining Hindu temples, he himself was two-thirds Hindu by blood because Akbar, his great-grandfather, had married a Rajput [a warrior Hindu caste], and there were more Rajputs in higher echelons during his rule than that of any other Mughal."

Despite popular perception, Prof Rezavi says Aurangzeb was not a fundamentalist in his personal life and that he "enjoyed wine, played the veena - an instrument favoured by Hindu goddesses - and more music books were written under him than any other Mughal".

But, he adds that Aurangzeb "invoked religion to cover up for his political failures and strengthen his authority - much like India's present-day leaders.

"But the question to ask is that even if Aurangzeb was all dark and evil, a sectarian and fundamentalist, who destroyed temples, should we be emulating him today?" Prof Rezavi asks.

"He was a tyrant and an emperor who lived 300 years ago. At the time there was no modern democracy, there was no constitution to guide him. But today we are guided by the Indian constitution and laws of parliament, so how can you duplicate the deeds that were done in the 16th and 17th Century?

"So if someone is indulging in the politics of 17th Century, they are committing a far greater crime than Aurangzeb did in the 17th Century," he adds.