[Fuerfsanv]

Salam Alaykum,

A certain Sikh reader of my website saw one of the articles on his religion, and he has tried to answer back. I have sent him a number of emails and the correspondence is ongoing.

There is one area however where I need more information, which is concerning the alleged atrocities commited by Muslim rulers of India to Hindus and Sikhs of that region. For example, the Sikh says:

... most of the decisions were taken by Muslim emperors like Aurangzed or Jahangir moreover their is place in Lahore where Mir Manu a Muslim governor ordered all the Sikh women were asked to convert to Islam but they refused look the kind of brutality he applied he killed the babies stuck on the spear and garland of face was made and hing around necks of those mothers what kind of decisions are you're talking about?

But moreover he was reciting the verses of Quran. But sikhs later came and freed those women and killed Mir Mannu for this genocide. If you look at the history of Islam is famous for genocides which Sikhs faced but when Islamic rulers messed with Sikhs they were destroyed. For you're kind information Ahmed Shah Durani came from Persia he was a Muslim raped Hindu women and then Sikhs decided to do something about it Sikhs defeated him in the battlefield. So I would like to know about the truth of such allegations and whether there is (perhaps) some hidden reason as to why such events may have occured as mentioned and still be in line with Islamic Shariah?

[23tommy]

Waaleykum'Assalaam!

Sikhs have tendency to extol their Gurus as Brave warriors who according to them fought against Mughals for the rights of Non-Muslims. Their Gurudwaras are filled with atrocious hand made images that depicts the persecution of Babys and their Gurus at the hands of Muslims. But all their claims fall flat on their faces when one closely examine the history of that time.

I hope the article below would help you answering the false allegations made against Muslims. Read it here:

http://www.islam-sikhism.info/hist/rebel01.htm

Assalaam'aaleykum!

[teentodiefows]

sikhs have immense hatred for muslims...i have witnessed this first hand on many occasions. For this reason if I get a son I shall name him aurengzeb or alomgir.....inshallah....

[finnmontserrat]

i dont no if this is true or not but y look at the muslims to judge islam? i mean yes we and they might be muslims but how many of us follow our religion as we should. Ask him to look at he Quraan and the example of Nabi(SAWS) and try and find a fault with that. When Nabi(SAWS) won a battle or took over a place e.g. makkah, the people there were asked to become muslims, not forced. When prophet Musa(AS) went to the people of Firone he gave them the message of Allah and then it was up to them whether they wantd to b muslims or not. In islam its all about choice, if we were all forced to b muslims, then Allah would have made us ALL muslims & there wud b no non-believers on earth.

And again i dont no if these stories are true but where Quraan or Hadith does it say rape is halaal, i mean wudn't that fall under Zina? and killing babies?!? common man

[ButKnillinoi]

It seems that sikhs consider it a virtue to hate muslims. It is as though the only way to keep their religion going they have to show hatred for muuslims and the moghuls, especially Aurangzeb because he was considered the most pious of them and he ruled according to the Shari'ah. Believing what sikhs say about the history of Muslims (the Moghuls) in India is like believing a shi'ah talking about Sayyiduna Abu Bakr and Sayyiduna Umar :anhuma:. In the thread " Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb: Bad Ruler or Bad History? " brother Saad posted the following article about allegations against him:

By Dr. Habib Siddiqui
Posted: 9 Jamad-ul-awwal 1427, 5 June 2006

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, un-biased, 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. (Ref: Mughal Government) 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-Baqarah 2:256). The 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." (p. 138) 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 ofthe 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 zakat (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.

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.

http://albalagh.net

There is also a book about Aurangzeb he posted in that same thread, look between posts 58 to 101. If not all of the book then at least just the parts highlighted in red. (May Allah Ta'ala reward him well for that).

[WomanBreast40356]

For this reason if I get a son I shall name him aurengzeb or alomgir.....inshallah....

Masha'Allah I have the same intention for my son (if Allah gives me one): Aurangzeb is on the top list of eventual names! ;-)

[estheticianI]

I think it's also important to remember that many of the Sikh leaders, in addition to forming the Sikh religion, were also trying to establish their own independent terrritories within the Mughal Empire (ie rebellion against the state).

Just curious, but are Sikhs in the US as anti-Muslim as Sikhs in other countries? Has anyone living in the US had particularly bad experiences with Sikhs? Also, is it just the men who aren't able to remove their hair, or is the women too...cause that'd be kind off nasty

[23tommy]

I think it's also important to remember that many of the Sikh leaders, in addition to forming the Sikh religion, were also trying to establish their own independent terrritories within the Mughal Empire (ie rebellion against the state).

Just curious, but are Sikhs in the US as anti-Muslim as Sikhs in other countries? Has anyone living in the US had particularly bad experiences with Sikhs? Also, is it just the men who aren't able to remove their hair, or is the women too...cause that'd be kind off nasty

Waaleykum'Assalaam!

In Sikhism both the genders are prohibited to remove hair of any part of the body. And that sounds Yuck, I know!

You should read this article to know more about this abnormal Sikh belief:

http://www.islam-sikhism.info/fem/hir/hir01.htm

[TaxSheemaSter]

Reading western history books, many Mughal emperors were portrayed as bloodthirsty and genocidal, though they did point out that the founder (Babur?) did not intent in founding an Islamic state, but rather a Mongol-inspired one, hence the name. Any truths to this? I understand many member of this forum are from former Mughal controlled territories and may hold a bias, which is expected, but can it not be denied that SOME Mughal emperors engaged in blameworthy acts?

[arriftell]

Over here in Rexdale, and nearby in Brampton, is a large population of sikhs of whom a vast majority have a hatred for muslims. You cant really blame some of them, if everytime they walk into their gurdwara's, the first thing their eyes set on are framed depictions of their guru's being tortured and brutaliated against by muslims so its this constant brainwashing and indoctrination into their version of history. Like a_muslim said, it IS almost like a virtue for them to hate muslims.
ive also heard from a person whom i trust, that told me that they aren't allowed to take off their turbans or cut their hair until every muslim on the planet is dead? could anyone confirm that one for me ?

[u2ZQGC6b]

It is a virtue for them to hate Muslims. I believe it is haram for them to eat HALAL meat.

[Dayreive]

Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb: Bad Ruler or Bad History
http://www.albalagh.net/general/0093.shtml
-------------------------------------------------------------
If i was a ruler, I would put stop any rebalion be that be muslim or non muslim! Even if that means imprisoning father for greater good of the country!! This is politics!!!

[Mboxmaja]

Guys & Gals,

Don't start REFUTING something without proof that it actually happened. The first thing to ask the Sikh is to PROVE beyond doubt that this actually happened and not to quote my Great-Great-Great-Grand-Mother said so and so.

Once you have established this beyond doubt then we will deal with the issue.

Aurangzeb (RA) NEVER did any of this, its NON-NENSE.

[adverwork]

It seems that sikhs consider it a virtue to hate muslims. It is as though the only way to keep their religion going they have to show hatred for muuslims and the moghuls, especially Aurangzeb

Sikhism does not encourage hatred whatsoever. Aurangzeb was a Moghul Emperor who sought to convert non-believers into Islam, amongst other things. Refusing Aurangzeb's oppression and thus, resisting forced conversion into Islam resulted in death. There is no debate about this. Sri Guru Teg Bahadur Ji was tortured and executed for the very reason. Aurangzeb's oppression upon Sikhism extends far greater than simply to the execution of many Sikhs. It is for this reason, that the individual Aurangzeb is remembered so "passionately". It is important to remember that his character is not a representation of the entire Islamic populace. Hence, Sikhs do not despise Muslims -this is reinforced by Sikh philosophy and how every man and woman is equal. So please be mindful of such generalisations.

I think it's also important to remember that many of the Sikh leaders, in addition to forming the Sikh religion, were also trying to establish their own independent terrritories within the Mughal Empire (ie rebellion against the state).

Just curious, but are Sikhs in the US as anti-Muslim as Sikhs in other countries? Has anyone living in the US had particularly bad experiences with Sikhs? Also, is it just the men who aren't able to remove their hair, or is the women too...cause that'd be kind off nasty

Does constructing a mosque in a provincial state automatically mean Muslim leaders are trying to establish their own territories and are thus, rebelling against the state? No it does not. The same does apply to constructed Gurdwarras and other generally Sikh-based localities. I'm not sure if being pessimistic is a common thing on these forums, but why not ask has anyone had any good experiences with Sikhs? I'm sure you would receive a decent response. As a sikh, I can tell you know that I have had both good and bad experiences with the Islamic community. But, we are all human and this remains true for all communities.

Furthermore, baptised Men swear against cutting their body hair. In the Lord's court, both men and women are equal. Thus, women also swear against cutting their body hair. The removal of bodily hair is compulsory within Islam so I have read, however, if God wanted you to shave -don't you think you would be born without it?

Waaleykum'Assalaam!]You should read this article to know more about this abnormal Sikh belief

Why do you have such a disrespectful attitude towards other religions and their practices? Abnormal would be what falls out of the ordinary for you as an adherent of Islam. But the practice of not removing hair is perfectly normal within Sikhism.

I understand many member of this forum are from former Mughal controlled territories and may hold a bias, which is expected, but can it not be denied that SOME Mughal emperors engaged in blameworthy acts?

There is much truth to what you say. Some Mughal emperors were incredibly ruthless individuals.

Over here in Rexdale, and nearby in Brampton, is a large population of sikhs of whom a vast majority have a hatred for muslims. You cant really blame some of them, if everytime they walk into their gurdwara's, the first thing their eyes set on are framed depictions of their guru's being tortured and brutaliated against by muslims so its this constant brainwashing and indoctrination into their version of history. Like a_muslim said, it IS almost like a virtue for them to hate muslims.
ive also heard from a person whom i trust, that told me that they aren't allowed to take off their turbans or cut their hair until every muslim on the planet is dead? could anyone confirm that one for me ?

While you may not like to admit it, these brutalities are real. It is the consequence of resisting oppression. They are important in remembering where we came from and where we have been. They are not a message of hate towards any religion -but a message of the hardships Sikhs have endured to being where we are today. Sikhism, a Universal Brotherhood, preaches equality amongst all men and women as well a peaceful outlook upon other religions. It is unfortunate that on these Sunni forums that you do not understand this due to the low amount of Sikh users. Religion is merely a path to God, as the colour of safflower is impermanent and is washed away in water, likewise the colours of religiosity are also temporary.

It is a virtue for them to hate Muslims. I believe it is haram for them to eat HALAL meat.

Once again, it is not a virtue to hate Muslims. Why do you critique things you do not understand? Sikhs cannot eat meat that is prepared in a ritualised manner. The preparation of Halal meat is ritualised. For this reason, Sikhs are forbidden from eating Halal meat. However, many Sikhs are unintentionally eating Halal meat as many businesses do not publicise that their food is halal.


Please do not judge the Sikh community based on the actions of a few. All religions of the world have both good and bad people - The Khalsa Panth and Islam are no exception.

[AntonioMQ]

Your excuse that we shouldn't cut our hair is not sufficient. Why do you cut your nails, then?

As for the history, the burden of proof rests upon the claimant. Please prove your skewed version of history from non-Sikh texts. Aurangzeb is seen as the best Mughal emperor amongst Muslims because of his realization of Islamic shari'ah in Mughal India. I highly doubt that there is any fact to the claim that he promoted forcing people to convert because many Hindus and even Sikhs survived under Aurangzeb . What Aurangzeb did do was break the cycle of complacency that had plagued the Muslims of India for far too long. India being India, a lot of the legends are greatly exaggerated, with emotion overriding historical facts leading to falsifying of history.

As for "ritualized" slaughter, all a Muslim really has to do to make an animal halal is say "Bismillah" and go ahead with regular slaughter. In fact, sometimes a Muslim may even forget saying "Bismillah" yet the animal is STILL considered halal so where is this "ritual"? And why do you think such a law came into place anyway? Hindus don't have anything to consider when slaughtering an animal. There are recommended ways of slaughter in Islam that ARE ritualistic albeit they are not requirements, such as facing the animal towards the qibla, using a sharp blade (it is forbidden to use a dull blade and cause pain to the animal), severing the carotids and jugulars, as well as the trachea, and that is all. So, this law against "ritual" slaughter was concocted specifically to target Muslims because no other religious group in India has a method in their religion when it comes to the slaughter of animals.

[addyta.org]

Sikhs do not hate any religion. They hate people who violate human rights.

This whole debate seems to be Sikhs hate Mulsims because they are taught to hate Mughals because they were trying to set up their own state. This is incorrect, if you study history before adding to "the hate" you will realise the 10th & last living Sikh teacher actually helped Mughal emporer Bahador Shah to the throne before his death. Bahador Shah had promised better relations towards non-Muslims after Aurangzebs death. This historical fact is proof that Sikhs never "hated" Muslims and that Aurangzeb was cruel to non-Muslims.

And remember the Mughals are not Islam so no need for anyone to take offence.

[fruttomma]

Sikhs do not hate any religion. They hate people who violate human rights.

This whole debate seems to be Sikhs hate Mulsims because they are taught to hate Mughals because they were trying to set up their own state. This is incorrect, if you study history before adding to "the hate" you will realise the 10th & last living Sikh teacher actually helped Mughal emporer Bahador Shah to the throne before his death. Bahador Shah had promised better relations towards non-Muslims after Aurangzebs death. This historical fact is proof that Sikhs never "hated" Muslims and that Aurangzeb was cruel to non-Muslims.

And remember the Mughals are not Islam so no need for anyone to take offence.

In what way was Aurangzeb cruel to non Muslims? Give references and examples

And sikhs hate those who violate human rights? Since everyone has a different understanding of human rights (because the term is subjective in a secular context), please explain exactly what you mean by human rights, so I may know who you hate and who you do not

[GohJHM9k]

Sikhs do not hate any religion. They hate people who violate human rights.

This whole debate seems to be Sikhs hate Mulsims because they are taught to hate Mughals because they were trying to set up their own state. This is incorrect, if you study history before adding to "the hate" you will realise the 10th & last living Sikh teacher actually helped Mughal emporer Bahador Shah to the throne before his death. Bahador Shah had promised better relations towards non-Muslims after Aurangzebs death. This historical fact is proof that Sikhs never "hated" Muslims and that Aurangzeb was cruel to non-Muslims.

And remember the Mughals are not Islam so no need for anyone to take offence.

Tenth Guru was born on 22 December 1666AC.
Bahadur Shah Zafar Born in 1775.
Bahadur Shah was king in 1837. At that time the age of tenth Guru will be 171 years.

[DYjLN8rF]

Tenth Guru was born on 22 December 1666AC.
Bahadur Shah Zafar Born in 1775.
Bahadur Shah was king in 1837. At that time the age of tenth Guru will be 171 years.

السلام عليكم

That is how history is taught to them.

[poispanna]

Guru Gobind Singh Ji was born 1666
Bahadur Shah was born 1643
Bahadur Shah was king from 1707-1712
Guru Gobind Singh Ji died in 1708 at age 42

I don't understand why there is so much hate on this message board. There were good Mughals and bad Mughals
Good Sikhs and bad Sikhs
Good Muslims and bad Muslims

You shouldn't judge people by there religion but by there character.
If you think that everyone from a certain group did everything perfect you are mistaken
Just get along with everybody now and make the world a better place.