Sultan Aurangzeb Alamgir: The Maligned Mughal Emperor

Guest post by Al-Farsi


He was a master of many crafts⁠—a calligrapher of great renown, a poet of rare talent, a warrior who emerged victorious from countless battles, a conqueror and administrator of incomparable skill. Is it possible for one man to simultaneously encompass such a wide array of expertise? The answer is, yes, indeed it is. And that man was the illustrious 6th Mughal Sultan, Aurangzeb Alamgir. Today, we aim to introduce readers to this extraordinary Muslim man of great distinction, whose unusual and commanding presence left an indelible mark on history.


Abu ‘l-Muzaffar Muhyi ‘l-Din Muhammad Aurangzeb Alamgir was the son of Sultan Shah Jahan, who famously built the Taj Mahal. He was a descendent of Timur (Tamerlane), who had founded the Timurid dynasty. He was born in 1618 and died in 1707, having lived for 88 years.[1]


Sultan Aurangzeb’s forty-nine-year reign was one of the greatest in Islamic history. Islamic scholars who wrote biographies of him, like Shaykh ‘Ali al-Tantawi, described him as a “remnant of the Rightly-Guided Caliphs.”[2] Under his rule, the adhan reverberated throughout the Indian subcontinent further than it had ever done before. Islamic monotheism (tawhid) spread far wider than it previously could within a land saturated with polytheism.

He was Alamgir⁠—or “conqueror of the world” in Farsi. He spent his life engaged in a series of successful military campaigns. Every time he would conquer a territory, he would move on to another, such that he never returned to the seat of his empire. In doing so, he propelled the borders of the Mughal civilisation and made it reach its greatest heights, eventually ruling a territory spanning 4 million square kilometres[3] with 150 million subjects.[4]

He established the Shari’ah, compiling Fatawa ‘Alamgiri, a comprehensive book of Hanafi juristic rulings, from 1667 to 1675, recruiting Ulama from south Asia, Afghanistan and Hejaz in order to do so.[5] This became the definitive source of Islamic law and the law of the Mughal lands during his reign. In accordance with the Shari’ah, he restricted gambling, drinking, music,[6] and he reinstituted the Jizya (the first to do so since the founding Mughal Sultan Babur).[7]


The Sultan was raised by the son and the grandson of the legendary scholar, Shaykh Ahmad Sirhindi (may Allah have mercy on him), who instilled in him an immense love for the Qur’an and Sunnah.[8][9]

He was a Sufi whose life was characterised by demonstrable piety, humility, and ascetism. He memorised the entire Qur’an after ascending the throne, a considerable feat given that he was in his forties at the time and that he did so alongside the duty of simultaneously administrating a vast empire.[10] He earned a modest living by selling mushafs of the Qur’an that he had inscribed himself[9] and sewing prayer caps.[11]

He avoided taking personal expenditure from the state treasury.[12] A karamah (miracle granted by Allah) is attributed to the Sultan in Tarikh-i Dilkusha, a first-hand account of the memoirs of a Hindu soldier under Aurangzeb’s employ called Bhimsen Saxena:

“The Emperor [Aurangzeb] wrote a prayer and threw [it] into the [flooded] water. Immediately the water began to subside. The prayer of the God-devoted Emperor was accepted by God, and the world became composed again”

Upon his death, he left behind little in terms of wealth, all of which was donated to charity, and he was buried in an unmarked, exposed grave.

How Hindutva Idealogues Revise the Legacy of the Sultan to Inflame Anti-Muslim Sentiments

Internally, our Muslim community remains vastly unaware with regard to Sultan Aurangzeb Alamgir. This is due to most of us not having delved deeply enough into the rich tapestry of our shared history and common spiritual ancestry. Externally, colonial and Hindutva historiography have unjustly portrayed him as a “Hindu hater,” “murderer,” “destroyer of temples” and “religious zealot,” rendering him a figure of revulsion in India today.

Audrey Truschke, in her book Aurangzeb: The Life and Legacy of India’s Most Controversial King (p.15), illustrates the destructive impact of the caricature of Aurangzeb as a villain.[13] It fuels anti-Muslim sentiments, portraying Muslims as dangerous traitors, by Indian politicians and media in her section named “The Myth of Aurangzeb the Villain”:

“The year 2015 was a bad one for Aurangzeb. A debate raged for much of the year over whether to strip the Mughal emperor’s name from a major thoroughfare in Delhi. The reason, as given by a local Sikh group that raised the idea, was that Aurangzeb was “one of the most tyrannical tormentor perpetrator of Intolerant Inhuman Barbaric crimes in India”. A few Members of Parliament affiliated with the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) jumped on this bandwagon and issued their own calls to tear what they viewed as a painful page out of Delhi’s history, or at least erase the offending ruler’s name from the city’s road signs. In late August of 2015 New Delhi officials capitulated and rechristened the street A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Road, after India’s eleventh president. A week later, city employees crept out in the dead of night and chiseled Aurangzeb’s name off the street signs. Rather than induce a society-wide amnesia about Aurangzeb, however, such events only propelled him into the forefront of people’s minds. A mere month later, in October 2015, a Shiv Sena MP was caught on tape hurling invectives at a civic official, including “Aurangzeb ki aulad” (Aurangzeb’s progeny). Such language mirrors “Babur ki aulad” (Babur’s progeny), a term of abuse lobbed against Indian Muslims, especially during the late 1980s and early 1990s in the lead up to the demolition of the Babri Masjid in Ayodhya by a right-wing, Hindutva mob.”

Drawing upon a range of primary and secondary sources, both Islamic and secular, this article will list and refute the misleading contentions advanced by modernists and Hindutva. In doing so, it will unravel the caricature of this maligned ruler and pay tribute to the enduring legacy of Sultan Aurangzeb Alamgir.

Contention 1

“Emperor Aurangzeb was power hungry, and he initiated a brutal war of succession, usurping and executing his brother⁠—and heir apparent⁠—Dara Shikoh.”

It is a misconception, commonly perpetuated by those with a modernist or Hindutva bias, that Emperor Aurangzeb’s decision to engage in a succession war with his brother, Dara Shikoh, was motivated solely by a power-hungry thirst to usurp the Mughal throne.

Even Audrey Truschke in Aurangzeb: The Life and Legacy of India’s Most Controversial King is guilty of feeding this simplistic and erroneous narrative in characterising him as “an Indian king who hungered after territory, political power, and a particular ideal of justice” (p.23) with a “lust for domination” (p.28) and an “insatiable hunger for political power” (p.90). This is predicated on the Mughal history of dynastic princely in-fighting for the Mughal throne, something that was a legacy of the Mongols, from whom they descended. Truschke and many other historians ignore the story of deep spiritual and theological strife spanning three generations, which Islamic sources pick up on.

A deeper examination of the historical context reveals that Aurangzeb’s actions were rooted in a sincere desire to preserve the traditionalist understanding of Islam.

At the time, Dara Shikoh was actively attempting to revive and promote the heretical belief of Din-i-ilahi or “Divine Faith,” which had been founded by their ancestor, Emperor Akbar, who had left Islam in order to propagate his syncretic pseudo-religion. This doctrine itself was derived from the idea of Sulh-i-Kul or “Universal Peace,” which asserted that “all religions were, in essence, the same, but only the paths varied” and not even Islam or the Shari’ah could be held as sovereign over other religious traditions.[14] Din-i-ilahi was perceived as a grave threat to Islam in India. Scholars such as the great Sufi of the Naqshbandi tariqah, Shaykh Ahmad Sirhindi (may Allah have mercy on him), a descendant of Sayyiduna ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him), worked tirelessly to refute it, earning him the title of Mujaddid Alf-Thānī as a result.

RELATED: The Abrahamic Religion: Historical Precedent for this Heresy

Josef W. Meri, in Medieval Islamic Civilization: An Encyclopedia (p.195), provides a number of primary sources as proof of Dara Shikoh’s syncretism and heretical beliefs:[15]

“His growing interest in following in the footsteps of his great- grandfather Akbar led to his encounters with Indian thought. In 1653, he met the kabirpanthi ascetic Baba La‘l Das and asked him questions about truth, religion, and community, a conversation that was recorded for posterity in an intriguing mix of Persian, Sanskrit, and Hindavi by Dara’s secretary, Candrabhan Brahman.

Dara’s most obvious expression of syncretism came in 1655 with the completion of Majma ‘ al-Bah- rayn (The Mingling of the Two Oceans). Drawing on Qur’an 18:60, he argued that the essences of Indian religions (he meant the Vedanta and Natha paths) and Sufism were the same. A rather mediocre work, its significance lies not in the quality of its composition but rather the identity of its author… Awrangzeb has been cast as Dara’s opposite, associating with Naqshbandis and treating non-Muslims harshly; this was in contrast with Dara’s syncretic idea of Universal Peace.”

Mufti Abdullah Moolla (may Allah preserve him) further elaborates on the origins of this hybrid faith in his own article:

“During the late 16th century (1582), the Mughal Emperor, Akbar, formulated his own religion. It borrowed heavily from Zoroastrianism, Jainism, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Catholicism. Its members were handpicked by Akbar and it had no scriptures or priestly hierarchy. The ideas of Akbar led to the creation of the ‘Ibādat Khāna,’ to which priests and scholars of all religions were invited.

In this case too, it was the scholars of Islām that rose to the occasion to refute this fitnah. The celebrated scholar of Islām, Shaykh Ahmad Sirhindi rahimahullāh dealt this fitnah a heavy blow. He was later known as Mujaddid Alf-Thānī for his tremendous work done for the preservation and protection of pristine Islām.”

Truschke fails to explore or even comment on the centrality of Sultan Aurangzeb’s spiritual heritage in his feud with Dara Shikoh. It is the divine wisdom of Allah that Aurangzeb came to be raised at the hands of the progeny of the opponent of emperor Akbar’s new religion, Shaykh Ahmad Sirhindi (may Allah have mercy on him). Namely, his son Muhammad Ma’sum and his grandson Sayf al-Din ibn Muhammad Ma’sum ibn Ahmad Sirhindi. Secondary sources, like Josef W. Meri’s work (quoted above), establish that Aurangzeb was a Sufi of the Naqshbandi tariqah. Primary sources such as Maktubat Ma’sumi, a compilation of letters written by Muhammad Ma’sum, showing letters to and from Aurangzeb consolidate this connection. They prove that the Sultan was a student of Shaykh Ahmad Sirhindi, through his son and grandson; and that he was raised with a deep love and understanding of the Qur’an and Sunnah.

The polar opposite of this was found in Dara Shikoh, son of Shah Jahan, the son of Jahangir, the son of Akbar. He became deluded in his misguided efforts to revive the “Divine Faith” of his great-grandfather. And Aurangzeb, in his great desire to preserve Islam and the prophetic tradition, could not accept that his brother should rule.

Emperor Aurangzeb’s decision to go to war with Dara Shikoh was therefore driven by his desire to protect the true understanding of Islam from the existential threat posed by Din-i-ilahi. This was especially important as Aurangzeb’s father, Emperor Shah Jahan, had publicly declared Dara Shikoh as his chosen successor.

The same theological conflict that had played out between Mujaddid Alf-Thānī Shaykh Ahmad Sirhindi and emperor Akbar three generations ago had concluded on the battlefield between their spiritual successors, Aurangzeb and Dara Shikoh, respectively. When the dust had settled, Din-i-ilahi was decisively defeated, never to be resurrected again, reserved to the annals of Mughal history. Aurangzeb emerged victorious in the succession war, and he had Dara Shikoh executed under apostasy laws, fulfilling his duty to protect the integrity of Islam.

The lasting legacy of this battle cannot be overstated even in modern day politics. The more “liberal” and syncretic Dara Shikoh has since forever been juxtaposed against “zealous” Aurangzeb. In keeping with this, some even suggested that Aurangzeb Road in Delhi should be renamed to Dara Shikoh. Political fervour in India has reached such boiling points that only recently it was even suggested that Dara Shikoh’s victory could have averted the violent 1947 partition of India. An entirely baseless claim which further demonstrates how a revisionist history of the Sultan continues to colour anti-Muslim hysteria in modern day India.

RELATED: The Intense Hatred Bred by Hinduism

Contention 2

“Sultan Aurangzeb was a tyrannical hater of Hindus.”

Contrary to what has become popular narrative in India today, there is no historical evidence or basis grounding such sensationalist claims.

It is well-documented that Aurangzeb enjoyed a significant level of support from the Hindu population during his reign. This is elegantly illustrated by the historian, M. Athar Ali, in his seminal work, The Mughal Nobility Under Aurangzeb (p.96), where he presents a compelling numerical analysis of the substantial Hindu backing Aurangzeb received during the wars of succession:[16]

“It will be seen that out of 124 mansabdars [nobles] of 1,000 zal and above who supported Aurangzeb, 20 were Turanis, 27 Iranis, 23 Afghans, 33 other Muslims, 9 Rajputs, 10 Marathas and 2 other Hindus. Out of 87 supporters of Dara Shikoh, holdmg mansabs of 1,000 zal and above, 16 were Turanis, 23 Iranis, one Afghan, 23 other Muslims, 22 Rajputs and 2 Marathas

In summary, Aurangzeb and Dara Shikoh received relatively comparable support from Hindu nobles, with Aurangzeb garnering the support of 21 nobles and Dara Shikoh receiving the support of 24 nobles. This small difference in numbers highlights the nearly equal support for both contenders among Hindu nobles. Many Mughal elites, both Hindu and otherwise, viewed Aurangzeb as a wise choice for the throne.

Additionally, Aurangzeb’s own attitudes towards Hindus is captured by his rapid expansion of the number of Hindus incorporated into Mughal bureaucracy, as elucidated in page 52 of Truschke’s book:

Under Akbar, for example, Hindus were 22.5 percent of all Mughal nobles. That percentage hardly budged in either direction under Shah Jahan, and, in the first twenty-one years of Aurangzeb’s reign (1658–79), it stayed level at 21.6 percent. But between 1679 and 1707 Aurangzeb increased Hindu participation at the elite levels of the Mughal state by nearly 50 percent. Hindus rose to 31.6 percent of the Mughal nobility.”

Here, Aurangzeb outperforms even his supposedly more “tolerant” counterpart, emperor Akbar, who was celebrated for his syncretism.

Finally, a closer ground level examination of his relationships with Hindu officials within his government paints a different picture. One such anecdote is the case of Raja Raghunatha, one of Aurangzeb’s most treasured state officers. Raghunatha’s expertise in managing the imperial treasury was well-renowned. His influence at court far exceeded his official position to the extent that the French traveller Bernier went so far as to describe him as an acting vizier of the empire.[17]

Even as an old man facing death decades later, Aurangzeb remembered and heeded Raghunatha’s sage advice on running an efficient government, citing it in letters to other administrators. More than forty years after his death, Raghunatha still loomed large in Aurangzeb’s mind, not just as an authority on finances but on all matters of Mughal state affairs and justice.[18]

Contention 3

“He was the destroyer of thousands of Hindu temples.”

Numerical Reality

Although numbers are purported to be in the thousands, the foremost authority on temple desecration, Richard M. Eaton, concludes that just over a dozen were destroyed during Aurangzeb’s reign (This 2015 article interviewing him further explores gross exaggerations by Hindutva idealogues). Of these, even fewer instances are directly attributable to the Sultan directly.[19]

Yes, a minority of temples were destroyed, the proper contextual factors for which will be explored in detail below, but Mughal official state policy proves that destruction of certain temples were the exceptions to the rule. Richard M. Eaton Explores this in Temple desecration and Indo-Muslim States (Journal of Islamic Studies, September 2000, Vol.11, No.3, September 2000, p.305):

“Such ideas continued in force into the reign of Aurangzeb (1658-1707), whose orders to local officials in Benares in 1659 clearly indicate that Brahman temple functionaries there, together with the temples at which they officiated, merited state protection:

In these days information has reached our court that several people have, out of spite and rancour, harassed the Hindu residents of Benares and nearby places, including a group of Brahmans who are in charge of ancient temples there. These people want to remove those Brahmans from their charge of temple-keeping, which has caused them considerable distress. Therefore, upon receiving this order, you must see that nobody unlawfully disturbs the Brahmans or other Hindus of that region, so that they might remain in their traditional place and pray for the continuance of the Empire.

By way of justifying this order, the emperor noted that, ‘According to the Holy Law (shariah) and the exalted creed, it has been established that ancient temples should not be torn down.’ On this point, Aurangzeb aligned himself with the theory and the practice of Indo Muslim ruling precedent”

Aurangzeb’s own comprehensive compilation of Islamic laws, Fatawa ‘Alamgiri, which served as the law of the Mughal Empire, codified the status of Hindus as dhimmis with certain protected rights. This included protection of the places of worship of Hindu dhimmis, granting land and stipends to Brahmins to do so. This precedent had been established since the 8th century by various Indo-Muslim rulers.

Barring a dozen or so cases, the tens of thousands of Hindu and Jain temples within Mughal territories remained standing at the end of the Sultan’s reign. Aurangzeb protected more temples than he destroyed by an incomparable margin. This carries weight politically too, since the destruction of temples was not in the interest of incorporating more territory into Mughal domain.

RELATED: India: Islamic Revival Amid Anti-Muslim Persecution

Reasons Why Aurangzeb Did Destroy a Few Temples

1. Temples were political centres and epicentres of rebellion:

In premodern India, temples were not just places of worship. They were understood to be centres of political action. Hindu idols were seen as symbols of divine legitimacy and could incite political rebellion from the entirety of the local populace if a particular temple associated itself with enemies of the state.

Even Hindu kings saw temples as legitimate targets of politically motivated destruction due to this. Dating as far back as the seventh century, Hindu monarchs frequently desecrated and looted images of various Hindu deities, like Vishnu and Ganesha, from each other’s temples, destroying them in the process. Sanskrit poetry was even commissioned by some Hindu kings, to honour and remember such deeds, who saw their actions as morally justifiable.[20]

Thus, the dozen or so temples Aurangzeb had destroyed were not acts in expression of Hindu oppression but a desire to quell rebellion and assert Mughal authority amongst those seeking to undermine it.

2. The temples destroyed were those that had engaged in rebellion and acted against state interests:

Aurangzeb’s actions of demolishing certain temples were a response to the political turmoil, insurrection and rebellions that were taking place at the time. Below, we will outline two examples of this.

One case is the demolition of the Benares’s Vishvanatha Temple in 1669. The common narrative paints it as a Hindu-hating act of defilement and desecration. However, it is known through historical records that the temple in question was considered a focal point of political dissent, dating back to the year 1666. At this time, Jai Singh (a descendant of the temple’s original builder) and other prominent landlords of Benares aided Shivaji (a state adversary who was under confinement) in his successful evasion of Mughal authorities.[21] By 1669, a full-scale uprising had broken out amongst these Benares landlords connected to the temple, which culminated in the destruction of the temple.[22][23]

In a similar vein, the Jat Rebellion of 1669-1670, led by Zaminder Gokula, wrought widespread devastation and resulted in substantial casualties for the Mughal forces.[24] This rebellion, which had a far-reaching impact and even drew in the participation of the peasantry, resulted in the death of a notable Mughal commander, ‘Abd al-Nabi Khan, who was also a patron of many mosques. In the aftermath of this rebellion, the Keshava Deva Temple in Mathura was reduced to ruins. This temple, which had been patronized by Dara Shikoh⁠—and may have played a role in aiding Shivaji’s escape⁠—also had roots in political dissent to Mughal rule.[25]

3. Aurangzeb destroyed certain temples with the aim of preventing false teachings and to protect his subjects

Aurangzeb was also concerned with elite Brahmins deceiving common Hindus about their own religion and was particularly alarmed that Muslims were falling prey to charlatans. This has been picked up on by Richard M. Eaton in his Temple desecration and Indo-Muslim States (pp.308-309):

“On 8 April, 1669, Aurangzeb’s court received reports that in Thatta, Multan, and especially in Benares, Brahmans in ‘established schools’ (madaris-i muqarrar) had been engaged in teaching false books (kutub-i batila) and that both Hindu and Muslim ‘admirers and students’ had been travelling over great distances to study the ‘ominous sciences’ taught by this ‘deviant group’. We do not know what sort of teaching, or ‘false books’ were involved here, or why both Muslims and Hindus were attracted to them, though these are intriguing questions. What is clear is that the court was primarily concerned, indeed exclusively concerned, with curbing the influence of a certain ‘mode’ or ‘manner’ of teaching (tawr-i dars-o-tadris) within the imperial domain. Far from being, then, a general order for the destruction of all temples in the empire, the order was responding to specific reports of an educational nature and was targeted at investigating those institutions where a certain kind of teaching had been taking place”

RELATED: Phallus Worship in Hinduism: How Hindus See the Shivling Everywhere


  1. Sarkar, Jadunath (1912). History of Aurangzib Vol. I (PDF). Calcutta: M.C. Sarkar & Sons
  2. Shaykh ‘Ali al-Tantawi, Rijal min al-Tarikh (p. 237-277)
  3. Fisher, M., The Mughal Empire. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Asian History. Retrieved 18 Jan. 2023, from:
  4. John Richards, The Mughal Empire (Cambridge, 1993), p.1
  5. Alan Guenther, “Hanafi fiqh in Mughal India,” in India’s Islamic Traditions, ed. Richard M. Eaton (New Delhi, 2003), p.209–30
  6. Haroon, Asif (2004). Muhammad Bin Qasim to General Pervez Musharraf: Triumphs, Tribulations. Lahore: Sang-e-Meel. p.70. ISBN 978-969-35-1624-1.
  7. Chandra, Mughal Religious Policies, p.170–89
  8. ‘Abd al-Hayy al-Hasani al-Nadwi, Al-I’lam bi man fi Tarikh al-Hind min al-A’lam
  9. Tarikh al-Muslimin fi Shibh al-Qarat al-Hindiyyah by Dr. Ahmad Mahmud al-Sadati (p.286-288)
  10. Saqi Mustaid Khan, Maasir-i Alamgiri, trans. Sarkar, 317–18
  11. Sewed prayer caps: Careri, Indian Travels, p.237.
  12. Khan Bahadur Sheikh Sir Abdul Qadir. “THE CULTURAL INFLUENCES OF ISLAM IN INDIA.” Journal of the Royal Society of Arts, vol.84, no. 4338, 1936, pp.228–41. JSTOR, Accessed 18 Jan. 2023.
  13. Truschke, A. (2017). Aurangzeb: The Life and Legacy of India’s Most Controversial King. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.
  14. Roy, H. (2020). Indian Political Thought: themes and thinkers. Pearson. p.130. ISBN 978-93-325-8733-5
  15. Meri, J. W., & Bacharach, J. L. (Eds.). (2005). Medieval Islamic Civilization: An Encyclopedia. Routledge. ISBN 0-415-96690-6. pp.195-196.
  16. M. Athar Ali, The Mughal Nobility Under Aurangzeb (Delhi, 1997), p.96
  17. Bernier, F. (1996). Travels in the Mogul Empire, AD 1656-1668. pp.391.
  18. Ruqaat-i Alamgiri, Persian Kanpur ed., pp.20–21; p.44
  19. Eaton, R. M. (2000). Temple desecration and Indo-Muslim states. Journal of Islamic Studies, 11(3), 283-319, doi:10.1093/jis/11.3.283
  20. Davis, Lives of Indian Images, p.51–85
  21. Surendra Sinha, Subah of Allahabad (Delhi, 1974), pp.65–68
  22. Rosalind O’Hanlon, “Letters Home,” MAS 44, no. 2 (2010): pp.234–35
  23. Asher, Architecture of Mughal India, p.278.
  24. Asher, Architecture of Mughal India, p.254; pp.259–60
  25. Sri Ram Sharma, The Religious Policy of the Mughal Emperors (Delhi, 1988), 63.

RELATED: The Kurds and Their Historical Contributions to Islam

MuslimSkeptic Needs Your Support!
Notify of

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Abdullah Ali

Be careful to avoid promoting of extremely deviant Naqshbandiyyah


The author of this article made a mistake Aurangzeb wasn’t a Sufi.


He most certainly was taught by Naqshbandi shuyukh. This is documented in MUSLIM history – not the Orientalist loser history written by Western “academics”.

It is the teachings and tireless efforts of Naqshbandi shuyukh that helped re-instate jizyah in Aurangzeb’s rule.


There is nothing deviant about Naqshbandiyyah following authentic teachings of the tariqah.

If by Naqshbandiyyah you refer to the cult of Hisham Kabbani, then yes they are deviants.

These days in our sad times labels don’t mean anything. Will you call the Madkhalis as true representatives of Ibn Taymiyyah?

Abdullah Ali

Aurangzeb didn’t just bring back the Jizyah, he also abolished other fraudulent taxes.

And when the Hindus toppled him, Allah punished them at hands of the British.

Last edited 4 days ago by Abdullah Ali

jazaakallah khair! would love another article regarding the Misguidance of Prince Dara Shikoh of the same Empire or the Virtues of Syaikh Sirhind/Syaikh Waliullah Dehlawi

Last edited 4 days ago by Del
Abdullah Ali

Can you write an article on the role of the Mongols in Islamic history? Especially those who claimed to have converted to Islam

Zaid Diaz

Berke Khan of Golde Horde was Muslim, he allied with the Mamluks against Hulegu Khan. The Chagatai Khanate was Muslim. OTOH, Ghazan and Olchaitu of Ilkhanate were Shi’tes, not Muslims.

Abdullah Ali

Recently, Iranian secularists have been spreading claims that the Muslim conquest if Persia was very brutal. So can you write an article on this subject?

Last edited 4 days ago by Abdullah Ali
Zaid Diaz

Iranian turban-Shi’ites, Zoroastrians and seculars are united in one thing: opposing Islam! The Islamic conquest of Persia was anything but brutal. It was the Persian local rulers themselves who did brutalities, not Muslims. Even 2 centuries later, Islam was still not the majority religion in the Iranic lands.


The beloved Shaykh Ahmad Faruqi Sirhindi rahimahullah even stated in his Maktubat that these idolaters should be thankful for the Hanafi school of thought, as in the Hanafi madhhab’s interpretation (along with the Maliki), jizyah can be accepted from the idolaters of the land. The Shafi’iy and Hanbali schools rule that jizyah can only be accepted from the Ahlul Kitab and the Majus, and all others need to either convert or continue facing war.


When Sayyiduna ‘Eisa ‘alaihis salam arrives again, he shall be within and a leader of the ummah of RasulAllah sal Allahu ‘alaihi wa sallam, and shall abolish the jizyah entirely at that time, and then the choice will only be Islam or war. Muslims will face the kuffar in fierce battles in that time, and that’s when rocks and trees will call out to Muslims about who’s hiding behind them.


I knew he killed his brother, but I didn’t know he did so because his brother was a murtadd and he was applying the islamic punishment of apostacy on him.

Jazakallahu khayran

The Hindutva morons lie and try to portray him as a bloodthirsty maniac, the reality is the Hindutva are projecting their bloodlust on him, and these Hindutva morons always gaslight and say they do no crimes on muslims.