Aurangzeb

[Guest person A]

Hi All,

I've read a lot of positive news lately between Muslims and Sikhs. lots of shared history between Muslim sufis and Sikh Gurus. However one point of contention seems to be how Muslims and Sikhs view the Mughal ruler Aurangzeb.  

There seems to be different accounts of his legacy - either a pious Muslim leader who did execute people based purely on political grounds rather than religious ones, - on the other a despotic ruler who forced the Hindus to Islam. Historical records provide evidence for both.

What are the views on the people on this forum?

[amardeep]

Welcome to the forum

I think a large majority of Sikhs will subscribe to the second notion - a despotic ruler who suppressed his people. He and his allies were responsible for the shaheedi martyrdom of the ninth Guru as well as the martyyrdom of the Guru's four sons, as well as thousands of SIkhs.

Interestingly, there was a failed assasination attempt on his life from a Sikh in the early 1680s. A sikh threw a brick on him for his involvement in the shaheedi of Guru Tegh Bahadur in 1775

[paapiman]

22 hours ago, amardeep said:

Interestingly, there was a failed assasination attempt on his life from a Sikh in the early 1680s. A sikh threw a brick on him for his involvement in the shaheedi of Guru Tegh Bahadur in 1775

Was this the incident which took place in Delhi, near Jama Masjid?

 

Bhul chuk maaf

[amardeep]

I'm not sure where it happened, but most likely in Delhi yes.

[paapiman]

15 hours ago, amardeep said:

I'm not sure where it happened, but most likely in Delhi yes.

Do you know the name of the Sikh or any other info about that Sikh? Which historical account mentions about it?

 

Bhul chuk maaf

[amardeep]

It's mentioned in a Mughal source from the 1600s. I've never seen any Sikh source mention it.. See Irfan Habib's "sikh history from Persian sources"

[chatanga1]

I have that book but haven't seen it. What happened to the Sikh after?

[amardeep]

Can't remember. Read it some 8 years ago or something

[Guest SikhKhoj]

The brick (some say two) was thrown near the Jama Masjid of Agra. It happened in 1776 but the Sikhs name is not recorded in Mughal records. Strangely this event is not even mentioned in Sikh granths.

[paapiman]

10 hours ago, Guest SikhKhoj said:

The brick (some say two) was thrown near the Jama Masjid of Agra. It happened in 1776 but the Sikhs name is not recorded in Mughal records. Strangely this event is not even mentioned in Sikh granths.

Thanks for the info.

[gdskler]

On 9/19/2017 at 4:54 AM, Guest SikhKhoj said:

The brick (some say two) was thrown near the Jama Masjid of Agra. It happened in 1776 but the Sikhs name is not recorded in Mughal records. Strangely this event is not even mentioned in Sikh granths.

According to wikipedia, Aurangzed died 3.3.1707. Therefore the said  incident cannot be in 1776.

[amardeep]

He probably meant 1676.

[chatanga1]

It could be. At that time, Sikhs were not recognisable as Sikhs.

[Guest SikhKhoj]

October 1676 it is. Typo in my earlier post.

 

[Guest SikhKhoj]

The Persian records states that it was a friday, the 29th of Muharram in the year 1676. Aurangzeb alighted from his boat to mount on his Takht when a disciple of Guru Tegh Singh (sic) threw two stones, one of which managed to hit the Takht. He was arrested and handed to the Kotwal.

 

[gdskler]

According to muslim calendar converter, 1676 is 1087hijrah and 29th Muharam is April 13. Thus the incident happen 5 months after Guru ji martyrdom ie 13 April 1676.  About 153 days from Guruji martydom (11.11.1675 to 13.4.1676). An interesting analogy with Indira Gandhi's attacked on Harmandhar Sahib (1.6.1984) and her demise (31.10.1984) equal to 153 days.

[paapiman]

8 minutes ago, gdskler said:

According to muslim calendar converter, 1676 is 1087hijrah and 29th Muharam is April 13. Thus the incident happen 5 months after Guru ji martyrdom ie 13 April 1676.  About 153 days from Guruji martydom (11.11.1675 to 13.4.1676). An interesting analogy with Indira Gandhi's attacked on Harmandhar Sahib (1.6.1984) and her demise (31.10.1984) equal to 153 days.

That's an interesting connection. The difference being that Aurengzeb escaped death.

 

Bhul chuk maaf

[gdskler]

Well we never know what happen to the second stone. probably it hit his head and cause him a slow death?

[amardeep]

On 9/10/2017 at 7:20 PM, gdskler said:

Well we never know what happen to the second stone. probably it hit his head and cause him a slow death?

very unlikely

[Guest Guest]

A bit of a tangent on the oringinal question- but from what I've read the deaths of the Gurus is highly disputed in historical view points - some stating the reason for the death of the guru from previous guru family members fighting for the guruship who stired up the problems. I can understand thats little consideration for Sikhs but for true seekers of the truth you would have to look at history objectively?

After all Guru Gobind Singh killed the 5 volunteers to form the Khalsa and he torutured brutally the minas who he had issues with. Why is that seen differently to the battles aurengzeb had?

Aurengzeb had a more diverse cabinet then Akber - had more Hindus and minorities in his government than any other leader. Also there is the idea of him converting Hindus and Sikhs by force - distorying temples- which is not sound from historical sources as he is also noted to have built hundred of temples - he also had Amritsar under his protection- although the city was under a different Sect to mainstream sikhsim today it proves aurengzeb was not hostile to Sikhism per say but rather political opponents. 

A lot of the Sikh sources of events around aurengzeb i.e. Letters of guru gobind are mentioned in books like the Dassam Granth - which are controversial amongst Sikh academics to let alone other historians ... can't really be relied on. 

it seems to me this selected historical account of history only highlights certain accounts to perpetuate a particular narrative? 

Yes aurengzeb may have killed people but so did all the other Hindu and Sikh rulers ... 

 

[Guest Guest]

Also having two stones thrown at someone doesn't make it an assination attempt-LOL 

[amardeep]

In all conflicts there are always multiple agendas. Look at Syria for instance, it's not simply a matter of rebel groups vs Bashar Al Assad. The different rebel groups have hundreds of agendas, and in some cases they can work together for a common goal while setting their own differences aside.

Likewise in terms of the Shaheedi of the Gurus, Jahangeer had one motive to persecute Guru Arjan Dev while Chandu Shah and others on a local basis had other motives. But in both cases they wanted to get rid of the Guru.

Likewise, the Pahari rajas had their motives to get rid of Guru Gobind Singh while Aurangzeb had others.

[paapiman]

11 hours ago, Guest Guest said:

After all Guru Gobind Singh killed the 5 volunteers to form the Khalsa and he torutured brutally the minas who he had issues with. Why is that seen differently to the battles aurengzeb had?

Sri Satguru jee killed those 5 volunteers and brought them back to life. Don't forget the second part.

He tortured the Minas? Do you mean Masands? Masands were tyrants, who deserved the punishment they received from Sri Satguru jee.

 

Bhul chuk maaf

[paapiman]

11 hours ago, Guest Guest said:

Also having two stones thrown at someone doesn't make it an assination attempt-LOL 

Well, one can kill a man with a brick. So, it all depended on the intention of the Sikh. If his intention was to kill, then it would definitely be classified as an assassination attempt.

 

Bhul chuk maaf

[amardeep]

I dont think anyone would get away with trying to hurt the Mughal emperor. So if one were to hurt him, it would be for the sake of assasination. Trying to inflict him little damage would not be worth the risk of facing execution afterwards.