Talk:Aurangzeb

From Wikiquote
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Removed non-notable quotes[edit]

Hello, I wanted to better this article and before starting adding notable quotes, I had to remove non-notable ones. But Jedi3 created many disruptions without even reading the rules himself.

I've removed all non-notable quotes that were added by Jedi3 for pushing his agenda without caring they are notable. They are not noted beyond 2 or 3 websites or books, that too many themselves only demonizing Muslims or Islam and pushing their agenda. In many cases they are not even noted at all by either.

Some of the quotes were also not about Aurangzeb. As such as I've removed them. Only first one is an improper quote mixed with translation. It's notable and I will add it back by correcting it. Here they are:

Removed quotes[edit]

Quotes from Muslim medieval histories
  • Dil-e-Yarana, Take Heart! Khuda Hai, There is God, What hope do we have in retreat, Know ye not where our victory is, Khuda Hai, Khuda Hai.
    • Aurangzeb during battle
  • Dãrãb Khãn who had been sent with a strong force to punish the Rajputs of Khandela and to demolish the great temple of the place, attacked the place on the 8th March/5th Safar, and slew the three hundred and odd men who made a bold defence, not one of them escaping alive. The temples of Khandela and Sãnula and all other temples in the neighbourhood were demolished...'On Sunday, the 25th May/24th Rabi. S., Khan Jahãn Bahãdur came from Jodhpur, after demolishing the temples and bringing with himself some cart-loads of idols, and had audience of the Emperor, who highly praised him and ordered that the idols, which were mostly jewelled, golden, silvery, bronze, copper or stone, should be cast in the yard (jilaukhãnah) of the Court and under the steps of the Jãm'a mosque, to be trodden on. They remained so for some time and at last their very names were lost'...Ruhullah Khan and Ekkatãz Khan went to demolish the great temple in front of the Rãnã's palace, which was one of the rarest buildings of the age and the chief cause of the destruction of life and property of the despised worshippers Twenty mãchãtoR Rajputs who were sitting in the temple vowed to give up their lives; first one of them came out to fight, killed some and was then himself slain, then came out another and so on, until every one of the twenty perished, after killing a large number of the imperialists including the trusted slave, Ikhlãs. The temple was found empty. The hewers broke the images.'....'On Saturday, the 24th January, 1680/2nd Muharram, the Emperor went to view lake Udaisãgar, constructed by the Rãnã, and ordered all the three temples on its banks to be demolished.'...On the 29th January/7th Muharram, Hasan 'Ali Khan brought to the Emperor twenty camel-loads of tents and other things captured from the Rãnã's palace and reported that one hundred and seventy-two other temples in the environs of Udaipur had been destroyed. The Khan received the title of Bahãdur 'Alamgirshãhi'...'Abû Turãb, who had been sent to demolish the temples of Amber, returned to Court on Tuesday, the 10th August/24th Rajab, and reported that he had pulled down sixty-six temples.
    • Maãsir-i-Ãlamgiri, translated into English by Sir Jadu-Nath Sarkar, Calcutta, 1947, pp. 107-120
  • Hamiduddin Khan Bahãdur who had gone to demolish a temple and build a mosque (in its place) in Bijapur, having excellently carried out his orders, came to Court and gained praise and the post of dãrogha of gusalkhãnah, which brought him near the Emperor's person.
    • Maãsir-i-Ãlamgiri, translated into English by Sir Jadu-Nath Sarkar, Calcutta, 1947, pp. 241
  • As his blessed nature dictated, he was characterized by perfect devotion to the rites of the Faith; he followed the teaching of the great Imãm. Abu Hanifã (God be pleased with him!), and established and enforced to the best of his power the five foundations of Islãm''Through the auspices of his hearty endeavour, the Hanafi creed (i.e., the Orthodox Sunni faith) has gained such strength and currency in the great country of Hindustan as was never seen in the times of any of the preceding sovereigns. By one stroke of the pen, the Hindu clerks (writers) were dismissed from the public employment. Large numbers of the places of worship of the infidels and great temples of these wicked people have been thrown down and desolated. Men who can see only the outside of things are filled with wonder at the successful accomplishment of such a seemingly difficult task. Arid on the sites of the temples lofty mosques have been built'.
    • Maãsir-i-Ãlamgiri, translated into English by Sir Jadu-Nath Sarkar, Calcutta, 1947, pp. 312-15
  • The Emperor learning that in the temple of Keshav Rai at Mathura there was a stone railing presented by Dara Shukoh, remarked, 'In the Muslim faith it is a sin even to look at a temple, and this Dara had restored a railing in a temple. This fact is not creditable to the Muhammadans. Remove the railing.' By his order Abdun Nabi Khan (the faujdar of Mathura) removed it.'...'News came from Malwa that Wazir Khan had sent Gada Beg, a slave, with 400 troopers, to destroy all temples around Ujjain' A Rawat of the place resisted and slew Gada Beg with 121 of his men.'...'The Emperor learnt from a secret news writer of Delhi that in Jaisinghpura Bairagis used to worship idols, and that the Censor on hearing of it had gone there, arrested Sri Krishna Bairagi and taken him with 15 idols away to his house; then the Rajputs had assembled flocked to the Censor's house, wounded three footmen of the Censor and tried to seize the Censor himself; so that the latter set the Bairagi free and sent the copper idols to the local subahdar.'...'The Emperor, summoning Muhammad Khalil and Khidmat Rai, the darogha of hatchet-men' ordered them to demolish the temple of Pandharpur, and to take the butchers of the camp there and slaughter cows in the temple' It was done.'
    • Akhbãrãt, cited in Sarkar, Jadu Nath, History of Aurangzeb,Volume III, Calcutta, 1972 Impression. p. 186-189.
  • 'When the war with the Rajputs was over, Aurangzeb decided to leave for the Deccan. His march seems to have been marked with the destruction to many temples on the way. On 21 May, 1681, the superintendent of the labourers was ordered to destroy all the temples on the route.'...'On 27 September, 1681, the emperor issued orders for the destruction of the temples at Lakheri.'...'About this time, on 14 April, 1692, orders were issued to the provincial governor and the district fojdãr to demolish the temples at Rasulpur.'...'Sankar, a messenger, was sent to demolish a temple near Sheogaon. He came back after pulling it down on 20 November, 1693.'...'Bijai Singh and several other Hindus were reported to be carrying on public worship of idols in a temple in the neighbourhood of Ajmer. On 23 June, 1694, the governor of Ajmer was ordered to destroy the temple and stop the public adoration of idol worship there.'...'The temple of Wakenkhera in the fort was demolished on 2 March, 1705.'...'The newswriter of Ranthambore reported the destruction of a temple in Parganah Bhagwant Garh. Gaj Singh Gor had repaired the temple and made some additions thereto.'...'Royal orders for the destruction of temples in Malpura Toda were received and the officers were assigned for this work.'
    • Akhbãrãt, cited in : Sharma, Sri Ram, Religious Policy of the Mughal Emperors, Bombay, 1962. p. 136-139
  • By looting, the temples of the South and hunting out buried treasures, Mîr Jumla amassed a vast fortune. The huge Hindu idols of copper were brought away in large numbers to be melted and cast into cannon.....Mir Jumla made his way into Kuch Bihar by an obscure and neglected highway' In six days the Mughal army reached the capital (19th December) which had been deserted by the Rajah and his people in terror. The name of the town was changed to Alamgirnagar; the Muslim call to prayer, so long forbidden in the city, was chanted from the lofty roof of the palace, and a mosque was built by demolishing the principal temple.
    • Fathiyya-i-Ibriyya cited by Sarkar, Jadu Nath, History of Aurangzeb, quoted in Goel, S.R. Hindu Temples What Happened to them
  • The infidels demolished a mosque that was under construction and wounded the artisans. When the news reached Shãh Yasîn, he came to Banaras from Mandyawa and collecting the Muslim weavers, demolished the big temple. A Sayyid who was an artisan by profession agreed with one Abdul Rasûl to build a mosque at Banaras and accordingly the foundation was laid. Near the place there was a temple and many houses belonging to it were in the occupation of the Rajputs. The infidels decided that the construction of a mosque in the locality was not proper and that it should be razed to the ground. At night the walls of the mosque were found demolished. Next day the wall was rebuilt but it was again destroyed. This happened three or four times. At last the Sayyid hid himself in a corner. With the advent of night the infidels came to achieve their nefarious purpose. When Abdul Rasûl gave the alarm, the infidels began to fight and the Sayyid was wounded by Rajputs. In the meantime, the Musalman resident of the neighbourhood arrived at the spot and the infidels took to their heels. The wounded Muslims were taken to Shãh Yasîn who determined to vindicate the cause of Islam. When he came to the mosque, people collected from the neighbourhood. The civil officers were outwardly inclined to side with the saint, but in reality they were afraid of the royal displeasure on account of the Raja, who was a courtier of the Emperor and had built the temple (near which the mosque was under construction). Shãh Yasîn, however, took up the sword and started for Jihad. The civil officers sent him a message that such a grave step should not be taken without the Emperor's permission. Shãh Yasîn, paying no heed, sallied forth till he reached Bazar Chau Khamba through a fusillade of stones' The, doors (of temples) were forced open and the idols thrown down. The weavers and other Musalmans demolished about 500 temples. They desired to destroy the temple of Beni Madho, but as lanes were barricaded, they desisted from going further.
    • Ganj-i-Arshadî, cited in : Sharma, Sri Ram, Religious Policy of the Mughal Emperors, Bombay, 1962. p. 144-45
  • Order issued on all faujdars of thanas, civil officers (mutasaddis), agents of jagirdars, kroris, and amlas from Katak to Medinipur on the frontier of Orissa:- The imperial paymaster Asad Khan has sent a letter written by order of the Emperor, to say, that the Emperor learning from the newsletters of the province of Orissa that at the village of Tilkuti in Medinipur a temple has been (newly) built, has issued his august mandate for its destruction, and the destruction of all temples built anywhere in this province by the worthless infidels. Therefore, you are commanded with extreme urgency that immediately on the receipt of this letter you should destroy the above-mentioned temples. Every idol-house built during the last 10 or 12 years, whether with brick or clay, should be demolished without delay. Also, do not allow the crushed Hindus and despicable infidels to repair their old temples. Reports of the destruction of temples should be sent to the Court under the seal of the qazis and attested by pious Shaikhs.
    • Muraqãt-i-AbuI Hasan by Maulãna Abul Hasa, quoted in Sarkar, Jadu Nath, History of Aurangzeb,Volume III, Calcutta, 1972 Impression. p. 187
  • When the imperial army was encamping at Mathura, a holy city of the Hindus, the state of affairs with regard to temples of Mathura was brought to the notice of His Majesty. Thus, he ordered the faujdar of the city, Abdul Nabi Khan, to raze to the ground every temple and to construct big mosques (over their demolished sites).'
    • Futûhãt-i-Ãlamgîrî, translated into English by Tanseem Ahmad, Delhi, 1978. p. 82
  • 'The Emperor, within a short time, reached Udaipur and destroyed the gate of Dehbari, the palaces of Rana and the temples of Udaipur. Apart from it, the trees of his gardens were also destroyed.
    • Futûhãt-i-Ãlamgîrî, translated into English by Tanseem Ahmad, Delhi, 1978. p. 130
  • In the city of Agra there was a large temple, in which there were numerous idols, adorned and embellished with precious jewels and valuable pearls. It was the custom of the infidels to resort to this temple from far and near several times in each year to worship the idols, and a certain fee to the Government was fixed upon each man, for which he obtained admittance. As there was a large congress of pilgrims, a very considerable amount was realized from them, and paid into the royal treasury. This practice had been observed to the end of the reign of the Emperor Shãh Jahãn, and in the commencement of Aurangzeb's government; but when the latter was informed of it, he was exceedingly angry and abolished the custom. The greatest nobles of his court represented to him that a large sum was realized and paid into the public treasury, and that if it was abolished, a great reduction in the income of the state would take place. The Emperor observed, 'What you say is right, but I have considered well on the subject, and have reflected on it deeply; but if you wish to augment the revenue, there is a better plan for attaining the object by exacting the jizya. By this means idolatry will be suppressed, the Muhammadan religion and the true faith will be honoured, our proper duty will be performed, the finances of the state will be increased, and the infidels will be disgraced.' 'This was highly approved by all the nobles; and the Emperor ordered all the golden and silver idols to be broken, and the temple destroyed.
    • Kanzul-Mahfûz (Kanzu-l Mahfuz), in: Elliot and Dowson, Vol. VIII, pp. 38 -39.
  • On the capture of Golkonda, the Emperor appointed Abdur Rahim Khan as Censor of the city of Haiderabad with orders to put down infidel practices and (heretical) innovations and destroy the temples and build mosques on their sites.
    • Muntikhãbul-Lubãb, by Hãshim Alî Khãn (Khãfî Khãn), Quoted in Jadunath Sarkar, Sarkar, Jadu Nath, History of Aurangzeb, Vol. III, p. 188.
  • 'The fall and capture of Bijapur was similarly solemnized though here the destruction of temples was delayed for several years, probably till 1698.
    • Muntikhãbul-Lubãb, by Hãshim Alî Khãn (Khãfî Khãn), Cited by Sri Ram Sharma, Sharma, Sri Ram, Religious Policy of the Mughal Emperors, Bombay, 1962., p. 137.
  • During the Subedari of religious-minded, noble prince, vestiges of the Temple of Chintaman situated on the side of Saraspur built by Satidas jeweller, were removed under the Prince's order and a masjid was erected on its remains. It was named 'Quwwat-ul-Islam
    • Mirat-i-Ahmadî by Alî Muhammad Khãn, in Mirat-i-Ahmdi, translated into English by M.F. Lokhandwala, Baroda, 1965, P. 194
  • 'In AD 1696-97 (AH 1108) orders were issued for the destruction of the major temples at Sorath in Gujarat.'...'He stopped public worship at the Hindu temple of Dwarka.'
    • Mirat-i-Ahmadî by Alî Muhammad Khãn, in : Sharma, Sri Ram, Religious Policy of the Mughal Emperors, Bombay, 1962., p. 137-138
Quotes about Aurangzeb
  • Aurangzeb cared nothing for art, destroyed its "heathen" monuments with coarse bigotry, and fought, through a reign of half a century, to eradicate from India almost all religions but his own. He issued orders to the provincial governors, and to his other subordinates, to raze to the ground all the temples of either Hindus or Christians, to smash every idol, and to close every Hindu school. In one year ( 1679-80) sixty-six temples were broken to pieces in Amber alone, sixty-three at Chitor, one hundred and twenty-three at Udaipur; and over the site of a Benares temple especially sacred to the Hindus he built, in deliberate insult, a Mohammedan mosque. He forbade all public worship of the Hindu faiths, and laid upon every unconverted Hindu a heavy capitation tax. As a result of his fanaticism, thousands of the temples which had represented or housed the art of India through a millennium were laid in ruins. We can never know, from looking at India today, what grandeur and beauty she once possessed. Aurangzeb converted a handful of timid Hindus to Islam, but he wrecked his dynasty- and his country. A few Moslems worshiped him as a saint, but the mute and terrorized millions of India looked upon him as a monster, fled from his tax-gatherers, and prayed for his death. During his reign the Mogul empire in India reached its height, extending into the Deccan; but it was a power that. had no foundation in the affection of the people, and was doomed to fall at the first hostile and vigorous touch. The Emperor himself, in his last years, began to realize that by the very narrowness of his piety he had destroyed the heritage of his fathers.
  • One age followed another--and still, generation after generation, the successors of the three Brahmins watched their priceless Moonstone, night and day. One age followed another until the first years of the eighteenth Christian century saw the reign of Aurungzebe, Emperor of the Moguls. At his command havoc and rapine were let loose once more among the temples of the worship of Brahmah. The shrine of the four-handed god was polluted by the slaughter of sacred animals; the images of the deities were broken in pieces; and the Moonstone was seized by an officer of rank in the army of Aurungzebe.
  • One may very well ask the purveyors of this puerile propaganda that if the record of Islam in medieval India was so bright and blameless, where is the need for this daily ritual of whitewashing it. Hindu heroes like Chandragupta Maurya, Samudragupta, Harihar, Bukka, Maharana Pratap, and Shivaji, to name only a few of the notables, have never needed any face-lift. Why does the monstrous men of [...] Aurangzeb, to name only the most notorious, pop out so soon from the thickest coat of cosmetics?
    The answer is provided by the Muslim historians of medieval India. They painted their heroes in the indelible dyes of Islamic ideology. They did not anticipate the day when Islamic imperialism in India will become only a painful memory of the past. They did not visualise that the record of Islam in India will one day be weighed on the scales of human values. Now it is too late for trying to salvage Islam in medieval India from its blood-soaked history. The orthodox Muslim historians are honest when they state that the medieval Muslim monarchs were only carrying out the commandments of Islam when they massacred, captured, enslaved, and violated Hindu men, women and children; desecrated, demolished, and destroyed Hindu places of worship; and dispossessed the Hindus of all their wealth. The Aligarh “historians” and their secularist patrons are only trying to prop up imposters in place of real and living characters who played life-size roles in history.
    • Sita Ram Goel: The Story of Islamic Imperialism in India
  • What are the facts? In Benares (Varanasi), Aurangzeb (1658-1707) did not just build an isolated mosque on a destroyed temple. He ordered all temples destroyed, among them the Kashi Vishvanath, one of the most sacred places of Hinduism, and had mosques built on a number of cleared temple sites. All other Hindu sacred places within his reach equally suffered destruction, with mosques built on them; among them, Krishna's birth temple in Mathura, the rebuilt Somnath temple on the coast of Gujrat, the Vishnu temple replaced with the Alamgir mosque now overlooking Benares, the Treta-ka-Thakur temple in Ayodhya. The number of temples destroyed by Aurangzeb is counted in 4, if not in 5 figures. According to the official court chronicle, Aurangzeb "ordered all provincial governors to destroy all schools and temples of the Pagans and to make a complete end to all Pagan teachings and practices". The chronicle sums up the destructions like this: "Hasan Ali Khan came and said that 172 temples in the area had been destroyed... His majesty went to Chittor, and 63 temples were destroyed... Abu Tarab, appointed to destroy the idol-temples of Amber, reported that 66 temples had been razed to the ground". In quite a number of cases, inscriptions on mosques and local tradition do confirm that Aurangzeb built them in forcible replacement of temples (some of these inscriptions have been quoted in Sitaram Goel: Hindu Temples, vol.2, along with a number of independent written accounts). Aurangzeb's reign was marked by never-ending unrest and rebellions, caused by his anti-Hindu policies, which included the reimposition of the jizya and other zimma rules, and indeed the demolition of temples.
    • Koenraad Elst (1992), Negationism in India. chapter 2
  • Fourteen years later, he [R.C. Majumdar] had to return to the theme and give specific instances of falsification. “It is very sad,” he observed, “that the spirit of perverting history to suit political views is no longer confined to politicians, but has definitely spread even among professional historians… It is painful to mention though impossible to ignore, the fact that there is a distinct and conscious attempt to rewrite the whole chapter of the bigotry and intolerance of the Muslim rulers towards Hindu religion. This was originally prompted by the political motive of bringing together the Hindus and Musalmans in a common fight against the British but has continued ever since. A history written under the auspices of the Indian National Congress sought to repudiate the charge that the Muslim rulers broke Hindu temples, and asserted that they were the most tolerant in matters of religion. Following in its footsteps, a noted historian has sought to exonerate Mahmud of Ghazni’s bigotry and fanaticism, and several writers in India have come forward to defend Aurangzeb against Jadunath Sarkar’s charge of religious intolerance. It is interesting to note that in the revised edition of the Encyclopaedia of Islam, one of them, while re-writing the article on Aurangzeb originally written by William Irvine, has expressed the view that the charge of breaking Hindu temples brought against Aurangzeb is a disputed point. Alas for poor Jadunath Sarkar, who must have turned in his grave if he were buried. For, after reading his History of Aurangzib, one would be tempted to ask, if the temple-breaking policy of Aurangzeb is a disputed point, is there a single fact in the whole recorded history of mankind which may be taken as undisputed?”
  • With the coming of Aurangzeb, the policy of sulah-i-kul (peace with all) initiated by Akbar in the later part of his reign suffered a complete reversal. Aurangzeb had started his career as a but-shikan (iconoclast) 13 years before he ascended the throne at Delhi. ... A general policy towards Hindu temples was proclaimed in April 1669. Maasir-i-Ãlamgîrî records: "On the 17th of Zil Kada 1079 (9th April 1669) it reached the ears of His Majesty, the protector of the faith, that in the province of Thatta, Multan, and Benares, but especially in the latter, foolish Brahmans were in the habit of expounding frivolous books in their schools, and that students and learners, Muslims as well as Hindus, went there, even from long distances, led by a desire to become acquainted with the wicked sciences they taught. The Director of the Faith, consequently, issued orders to all governors of provinces to destroy with a willing hand the schools and temples of the infidels and they were strictly enjoined to put an entire stop to the teaching and practising of idolatrous forms of worship. On the 15th Rabiul-akhir (end September) it was reported to his religious Majesty, leader of the unitarians, that in obedience to order, the government officers had destroyed the temple of Bishnath at Benares."
    • Sita Ram Goel, The Story of Islamic Imperialism in India, ch. 7
  • The temple of Kešavadeva was destroyed in January, 1670. This was done in obedience to an imperial firmãn proclaimed by Aurangzeb on April 9, 1669. On that date, according to Ma’sîr-i-Ãlamgîrî, “The Emperor ordered the governors of all provinces to demolish the schools and temples of the infidels and strongly put down their teaching and religious practices.” Jadunath Sarkar has cited several sources regarding the subsequent destruction of temples which went on all over the country, and right up to January 1705, two years before Aurangzeb died. ... Soon after, in 1665, Aurangzeb imposed a pilgrim tax on the Hindus. In 1668, he prohibited celebration of all Hindu festivals, particularly Holi and Diwali. The Jats who rightly regarded themselves as the defenders of Hindu hounour were no longer in a mood to take it lying.
    • Arun Shourie, Sita Ram Goel: Hindu Temples - What Happened to Them? Vol. II, ch. 4
  • No new temple was allowed to be built nor any old one to be repaired, so that the total disappearance of all places of Hindu worship was to be merely a question of time. But even this delay, this slow operation of Time, was intolerable to many of the more fiery spirits of Islam, who tried to hasten the abolition of ‘infidelity’ by anticipating the destructive hand of Time and forcibly pulling down temples.
  • The evidence [...] is always an exercise in suppressio veri suggestio falsi. For instance, Aurangzeb’s petty donations to 2-3 Hindu temples patronized by some pet Hindu courtiers, are played up with great fanfare. But his systematic demolition of thousands of Hindu temples and defilement of countless images of Gods and Goddesses, throughout his long reign, is never mentioned. Such pitiable attempts at pitting molehills of munificence against mountains of malevolence, go against all sense of proportion in judging a whole period of Indian history.
    • Sita Ram Goel, The Story of Islamic Imperialism in India, ch. 7
  • Distinguished historian Ranbir Vohra writes in his historical survey, The Making of India, “Most Hindus recall little of Emperor Aurangzeb's brutal, savage reign except that under his general order all the schools and temples of the Hindus were to be destroyed, and that hundreds of temples, particularly the Viswanath Temple at Benares and the Vishnu Temple at Mathura, had been demolished. That the Muslim rulers had built mosques over many of the razed Hindu temples was also a well-known fact."
    • Indo–US Relations: Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Nuclear Energy, by Nirode Mohanty, p. 50, ch. 1
  • [Arun] Shourie goes on to quote from Aurangzeb’s court chronicles: “News came to Court that in accordance with the Emperor’s command his officers had demolished the temple of Vishvanath at Benares (2/9/1669)… In this month of Ramzan, the religious-minded Emperor ordered the demolition of the temple at Mathura… In a short time by the great exertions of his officers the destruction of this strong centre of infidelity was accomplished... A grand mosque was built on its site... (January 1670)”
    • Arun Shourie, quoted in K. Elst: Ayodhya: The Case Against the Temple.
  • Aurangzeb was at the Udai Sagar on 24 January 1680. After enjoying the sight, Aurangzeb fulfilled his religious obligations by ordering the destruction of three temples on its bank.
    • Maharana Raj Singh and His Times by Sri Ram Sharma [2]
  • Aurangzeb's purpose in building those three mosques was the same intentionally offensive political purpose that moved the Russians to build their Orthodox cathedral in the city-centre at Warsaw. Those mosques were intended to signify that an Islamic government was reigning supreme, even over Hinduism's holiest of holy places. I must say that Aurangzeb had a veritable genius for picking out provocative sites. Aurangzeb and Philip II of Spain are a pair. They are incarnations of the gloomily fanatical vein in the Christian - Muslim - Jewish family of religions. Aurangzeb - poor wretched misguided bad man - spent a lifetime of hard labour in raising massive monuments to his own discredit. Perhaps the Poles were really kinder in destroying the Russians' self-discrediting monument in Warsaw than you have been in sparing Aurangzeb's mosques.

Discussion[edit]

Claiming that they are not notable because of your belief they are quoted in "agenda driven" sources is not a valid argument. You belief about oft-quoted is also wrong, it is not as itself listed as mandatory or defined, and would be difficult for you to define anyway since you have already admitted that you are not a specialist and claim that you have only a done a web search. Aurangzeb was a highly controversial ruler, so it is natural that not all quotes are neutral, and indeed these quotes are also quoted in sources critical about Aurangzeb. Please can you sort/order the disputed quotes in separate subsections? I want to see which quotes you believe are not about Aurangzeb so we can discuss them. Thanks.. --Jedi3 (talk) 17:50, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

The only belief that is wrong is your own. There is nothing about source means you add anything. What I said was some of them aren't quoted beyond a few and even many of those few are only agenda-driven rather than any notability of quote. But there are quotes which even these "agenda-driven sources" don't mention or aren't even about the topic. Your own edits are "agenda-driven". Please show me how have you made neutral edits and added notable quotes. You'll get the answer automatically why they aren't notable. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 18:29, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
I have asked you above, please can you sort/order the disputed quotes in separate subsections? I want to see which quotes you believe are not about Aurangzeb so we can discuss them. "There is nothing about source means you add anything." I didn't add anything, all quotes are properly sourced and relevant to this topic. " What I said was some of them aren't quoted beyond a few and even many of those few are only agenda-driven rather than any notability of quote." Your definition of "agenda driven" is irrelevant, not all quotes have to be neutral (and this cannot be expected for such a controversial figure as Aurangzeb, about whom many critical quotes have been made). Quoted beyond a few based on your claim of your web search is very sketchy and anyways such a commandment of quoted beyond a few is not listed or defined in the guidelines because it would be very difficult to prove for most quotes, especially since you are not a specialist. "But there are quotes which even these "agenda-driven sources" don't mention or aren't even about the topic. " Which quotes are we discussing here? Please list them in separate subsections, sorted by issue. "Your own edits are "agenda-driven"." Please stop your personal attacks.--Jedi3 (talk) 18:48, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
You should show how they are notable. You are adding them not me. Can you please show me under what criteria are you adding. Ad for which quotes you can yourself check by simply searching on the internet. It will be quicker for all of us. I am not engaging in any personal attacks. I am simply commenting about your editing style. As you have been adding only quotes only against Muslims and Islam, and in favour of Hindus and Hinduism. And this is why you hve simply added all the above quotes. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 18:59, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Also I don't know why you are asking. Simply see edit history at Aurangzeb. There might be some places where I didn't mention the reasons in detail as they were the same. Will be quicker. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 19:16, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
"As you have been adding only quotes only against Muslims and Islam, and in favour of Hindus and Hinduism. And this is why you hve simply added all the above quotes. " So this why you are censoring the quotes. Because you believe they are not neutral. Aurangzeb was a highly controversial and infamous ruler, so it is natural that not all quotes are neutral, and indeed these quotes are also quoted in sources critical about Aurangzeb, of which there are plenty. "Ad for which quotes you can yourself check by simply searching on the internet. It will be quicker for all of us" As discussed so many times, it is irrelevant what your 1 minute internet search claims to show. Where is internet search or beyond few quotes defined? it is not because such a thing cannot be proven. In any case all the quotes are quoted in secondary sources. "Also I don't know why you are asking. Simply see edit history at Aurangzeb. There might be some places where I didn't mention the reasons in detail as they were the same. Will be quicker." No, if you dispute a quote, you need to explain the removal otherwise no consensus is even possible.--Jedi3 (talk) 19:28, 5 March 2018 (UTC) Please add a section about quotes that you claim are not about Aurangzeb. Then we discuss them. Thanks.--Jedi3 (talk) 19:31, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
No. It's a Wikiquote policy to edit neutrally. I guess you know. My grouse isn't simply you adding that is something against someone or in favour of other. The only problem is that it is your motive to add non-notable quotes. As long as quote is notable, it doesn't matter what was the intent. You can add it. But if not then you shouldn't. Please don't distort following rules and removing non-notable quotes which you added with agenda as "censorship". Add notable quotes, whatever they are. I have no problem. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 19:38, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Do I need to repeat what I said above and at Somnath temple? You are repeating the same thing without reading what I wrote. If you think there is a problem with neutrality, please add a NPOV tag. The proper way to resolve this is to add quotes with an alternate pov. However, Aurangzeb is a highly controversial figure, this is a fact, and you are aware of it, and therefore it is an impossibility to have it completely "neutral" (if by neutral you mean whitewash of all that Aurangzeb is very well known for) without censorship. --Jedi3 (talk) 19:42, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Above you write ""As you have been adding only quotes only against Muslims and Islam, and in favour of Hindus and Hinduism. And this is why you hve simply added all the above quotes. " The quotes are about Aurangzeb, who happens to be a Muslim, but who is really better known to be a controversial ruler, a highly controversial ruler in fact, possibly the most controversial ruler of India, but there are also critical quotes about other controversial rulers and kings on wikiquote, who were not Muslims, but who were Hindus, Christians, Communists or atheists. So this not even about Muslim or not Muslim at all, but simply about what was said about a highly controversial and infamous ruler. --Jedi3 (talk) 19:59, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Whose repeating what? It is you who are doing it. When you keep making up the same thing, the truth won't change. I have not removed because of any POV. Just you adding non-notable quotes. But you added those quotes simply because of non-neutrality. Neutrality can be maintained, if you want to. What others wrote is irrelevant. However, regardless of your intent, I have not removed any quote I found notable that you added. Add criticism. Who has stopped you? I'm just saying I'll remove quotes that are non-notable. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 20:10, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
" . When you keep making up the same thing, the truth won't change. I have not removed because of any POV. " You have above claimed the quotes are against Islam and are in favour of Hindus and in favour of Hinduism so you have removed them because of a POV. I have to repeat myself: Please add a section about quotes that you claim are not about Aurangzeb. Then we discuss them. Thanks. You also have to explain why you believe they are not notable, as I don't agree with your definitions based on flimsy claims that they are quoted also in agenda driven sources or are "against" Islam or are in favour of Hindus or in favour of Hinduism or your web search only found few quotes. You also have to tell finally which quote you are discussing. Is it the Wilkie Collins quote or which one? That quote is notable because it is a vivid, memorable, poignant and eloquent description of Aurangzeb. --Jedi3 (talk) 19:31, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Please reply and discuss at talk and stop your edit warring.--Jedi3 (talk) 20:39, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
It is you who says notability is not possible. I am talking only about your editing intent. As you want quotes that are critical of Muslims or show them doing a "bad thing", that's what I have been saying the entire time. But if they are notable, then add it. Have I removed anything I found notable? I have nothing against discussion, but don't make it an excuse to make it your personal blog. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 20:53, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
For the umpteenth time, please add subsections and explantions for each quote you want to delete, so it can be discussed and we can find a consensus.--Jedi3 (talk) 20:55, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
I am busy adding real notable quotes, and not copying them out from some book whenever I see a chance to say look he destroyed this temple. Anyway you can check the article history. It will be more time-saving. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 21:06, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
For the umpteenth time, please add subsections and explantions for each quote you want to delete, so it can be discussed and we can find a consensus. Your vandalism and edit warring seems to show a mentality that is opposed to consensus and collaboration. But wikiquote requires collaboration and consensus building and also requires respecting different views.--Jedi3 (talk) 20:55, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
For the umpteenth time, please just use the article's history page. I am more busy with adding notable quotes. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 23:02, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Unfortunately your latest comment and your edit warring of your vandalism seems to show a mentality that is opposed to consensus and collaboration. But wikiquote requires collaboration and consensus building and also requires respecting different views. I have already attempted collaboration with you and have added your additions back to the article after you deleted my (and other editors) contributions from the article. Since you refuse to discuss on the talkpage the reason for the deletion of each quote, I will kick off the discussion with the first quote you deleted from the About Aurangzeb Section. So, please explain below, what is your reason for the deletion of the following quote?:

MonsterHunter32's deletion of quotes: Explanation Quote 1 (Will Durant quote)[edit]

  • Aurangzeb cared nothing for art, destroyed its "heathen" monuments with coarse bigotry, and fought, through a reign of half a century, to eradicate from India almost all religions but his own. He issued orders to the provincial governors, and to his other subordinates, to raze to the ground all the temples of either Hindus or Christians, to smash every idol, and to close every Hindu school. In one year ( 1679-80) sixty-six temples were broken to pieces in Amber alone, sixty-three at Chitor, one hundred and twenty-three at Udaipur; and over the site of a Benares temple especially sacred to the Hindus he built, in deliberate insult, a Mohammedan mosque. He forbade all public worship of the Hindu faiths, and laid upon every unconverted Hindu a heavy capitation tax. As a result of his fanaticism, thousands of the temples which had represented or housed the art of India through a millennium were laid in ruins. We can never know, from looking at India today, what grandeur and beauty she once possessed. Aurangzeb converted a handful of timid Hindus to Islam, but he wrecked his dynasty- and his country. A few Moslems worshiped him as a saint, but the mute and terrorized millions of India looked upon him as a monster, fled from his tax-gatherers, and prayed for his death. During his reign the Mogul empire in India reached its height, extending into the Deccan; but it was a power that had no foundation in the affection of the people, and was doomed to fall at the first hostile and vigorous touch. The Emperor himself, in his last years, began to realize that by the very narrowness of his piety he had destroyed the heritage of his fathers.
Unfortunately, you are doing the same thing you have been accusing me of. What are the edit summaries for? I've added "negative" quotes myself. I'm not opposed to anything. Except your where you are not contributing much in actual to this wiki and only disrupting. I was to add more notable quotes but it's been locked. I'll add them later. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 01:16, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
MonsterHunter32, I don't quite understand your comment about edit summaries? And this subsection is for your explanation about your deletion of the quote above. Please also add your quote additions to the talkpage, so that you don't forget them. I will check if some of the longer quotes can be made shorter in the coming week.--Jedi3 (talk) 01:17, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
You do understand, read the edit summary to get the answer to your questions about the quotes. I'm not repeating the same thing. Something not even mentiomed beyind itself or at most not even visible beyond some websites cannot be considered notable. As you are not cooperating and repeating the same thing, it will be useless to go into it one-by-one. Regardless you can read edit sumarry. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 01:51, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Unfortunately your latest comment and your edit warring of your vandalism seems to show a mentality that is opposed to consensus and collaboration. But wikiquote requires collaboration and consensus building and also requires respecting different views. this subsection is for your explanation about your deletion of the quote above so please start discussing it. --Jedi3 (talk) 09:45, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
By refusing to start to discuss your deleted quotes and instead starting to edit war in the same manner in other articles you are showing a mentality that is opposed to consensus and collaboration. But wikiquote requires collaboration and consensus building and also requires respecting different views. This subsection is for your explanation about your deletion of the quote above so please start discussing it. --Jedi3 (talk) 09:45, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
I haven't refused anything except excuses. All I said is you could easily look at the edit summary, so nobody's time is wasted when you could easily find the answer yourself. As I already said notability, with quote notability absent. Some quotes not or barely mentioned beyond their original source is the reason. In some cases, a few statements mentioned by a few 2 or 3 websites and in some cases those who mention it only for ulterior purposes and not because of the quote's relevance or notability, with quote not even or barely noticed by any other book, is the reason. "The quote itself must be notable".
It's you who has always refused to be cooperative in the past with deceptive statements and lies, making rules up etc. Consensus building doesn't mean vandalism or edit-warring which you have been doing. Such actions result in a block, not discussions. I tried to "build consensus" many times, but always you have engage in bad faith and disruptive behavior instead. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 09:51, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Discussions are done at the discussion page, not over edit summaries. There is a good reason that wikiquote has discussion pages! You now admit your refusal to discuss at the talkpage, with the poor excuse that you are using edit summaries. None of your reasons are mandatory criteria for inclusion or not, not by policy and not even by the guideline, and you have not even proven any of your reasons. This subsection is about the Will Durant quote. It is notable because the is quote original to the author to whom or work to which it is being attributed, from a notable writer or pundit, and the quote is particularly witty, pithy, wise, eloquent, or poignant. "Where the author is highly notable, the inclusion of less literate statements by that author may be justified. Where the speaker is of little notability, we seek the witty, the pithy, the wise, the eloquent, and the poignant expressions. " Here the author is not only notable, but the quote is also witty, the pithy, the wise, the eloquent. Compare this with the quote by Kathleen Parker on the article Everybody Draw Mohammed Day, that quote is notable because it is witty and eloquent. The same with the Will Durant quote, the quote is particulary eloquently written. I admit that the quote is a bit on the lenghty side, but I think this is justified, also because of course Will Durant is a notable writer and pundit. I have now given a few reasons for notability of the Will Durant quote based on the guideline criteria. --Jedi3 (talk) 11:51, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
All I said was is you want to find out about the reasons, see the edit summary. Discussions aren't done through edit-warring as well, perhaps you should remember that. Also the quote you quoted says "less literate", not "less notable". The same section you are quoting from says this: Notability of the author is not required for a quote to be included in a page on a theme. It is the quote itself that must be notable. Will Durant is notable, that doesn't mean he can be automatically added, that's from the same page you quoted it from. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 13:38, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Discussions are done at the discussion page, not over edit summaries. There is a good reason that wikiquote has discussion pages! You now admit your refusal to discuss at the talkpage, with the poor excuse that you are using edit summaries. I have to repeat myself because you are repeating yourself. Also the quote you quoted says "less literate", not "less notable". It says "Where the author is highly notable, the inclusion of less literate statements by that author may be justified. Where the speaker is of little notability, we seek the witty, the pithy, the wise, the eloquent, and the poignant expressions. " It says less literate, but the source is a book, so it is a literate source!!!! tHE next sentence says " Where the speaker is of little notability, we seek the witty, the pithy, the wise, the eloquent, and the poignant expressions." Yes, but the quote is notable as I explained to you through the quote of Kathleen Parker on the article Everybody Draw Mohammed Day, that quote is notable because it is witty and eloquent. The same with the Will Durant quote, the quote is particulary eloquently written. Are you reading at all what I write? The criteria for notability in the guidelines include that it is original to the author to whom or work to which it is being attributed, from a notable writer or pundit, and the quote is particularly witty, pithy, wise, eloquent, or poignant. "Where the author is highly notable, the inclusion of less literate statements by that author may be justified. Where the speaker is of little notability, we seek the witty, the pithy, the wise, the eloquent, and the poignant expressions. " Here the author is not only notable, but the quote is also witty, the pithy, the wise, the eloquent. I have given a few reasons for notability of the Will Durant quote based on the guideline criteria. The next sentence of what you quote above says this: "Thus, a particularly poignant or witty quote may be included even if the identity of the author is unknown.... an otherwise uninteresting quote becomes interesting because of the identity of the author.... " And I have explained already to you with the quote of Kathleen Parker on the article Everybody Draw Mohammed Day, that like the Kathleen Parker quote is notable because it is very eloquent, this quote is also is notable because it is also very eloquent. The quote is not an uninteresting one, but if it were, the guideline says it can become interesting because of the identity of the author, but the quote is not even uninteresting, it is very eloquent. --Jedi3 (talk) 15:37, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Please try to pick up a dictionary and read what you are quoting. "Where the author is highly notable, the inclusion of less literate statements by that author may be justified. Where the speaker is of little notability, we seek the witty, the pithy, the wise, the eloquent, and the poignant expressions." We don't just include quotes from literate so that has nothing to do with it. But it doesn't say you can include anything even if not notable.
I said it isn't talking about "less notability" of the quote. And you still haven't disproved it.And as you said earlier are you a literate expert? You don't even know the meaning of what you're talking.
You're repating the same witty, poignant, eloquent, pithy etc. I have even mentioned their actual meanings of many of them and how your quotes don't fit in them. It is better you pick up a dictionary before making claims again. This is exactly why I'm justified in removing your edits, because you keep repeating and making it up. You are a true vandal. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 16:14, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Now that you have quoted this: "Where the author is highly notable, the inclusion of less literate statements by that author may be justified. Where the speaker is of little notability, we seek the witty, the pithy, the wise, the eloquent, and the poignant expressions." I can assume that you have read it. "We don't just include quotes from literate so that has nothing to do with it." We do include from literate sources IF they are particulary poignant or witty quotes. "And as you said earlier are you a literate expert?" There is no such as thing as a "literate expert". Compare this with the quote by Chuck Hustmyre about women rights, that quote is notable because it is very witty and eloquent. The same with the Will Durant quote, the quote is particulary eloquently written. Will Durant was a very gifted writers and it is not difficult to find eloquent quotes from him. --Jedi3 (talk) 18:28, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
Try reading it again yourself, "Where the author is highly notable, the inclusion of less literate statements by that author may be justified. Where the speaker is of little notability, we seek the witty, the pithy, the wise, the eloquent, and the poignant expressions." Does it say a quote that is not notable? Does it say merely you calling it something make it eloquent, witty etc even if not notable? No, not to mention you have claimed witty, poignant etc before without even knowing what they actually mean because you want to have your way. One cannot trust your judgment. If Chuck Humstrye's quote is notable, good. If not, then it should be removed. The author doesn't need to be notable, it is the quote itself that must be. You are running in circles. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 21:58, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Well, you quoted the proof yourself without noticing: "Where the author is highly notable, the inclusion of less literate statements by that author may be justified. Where the speaker is of little notability, we seek the witty, the pithy, the wise, the eloquent, and the poignant expressions." It means that, even if the author is of little notability (like Chuck), then the quote can be notable if it is a witty, the pithy, the wise, the eloquent, and the poignant expression. But of course, the authors quoted here, including Will Durant, are notable, and the quotes are literate, and notable in their own right since they are poignant and eloquent. --Jedi3 (talk) 23:40, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
I said take a look at it before talking again. It says even non-notable author can be included. It's about the notability of the author, not how the quote is not notable because of poignant or eloquent or witty about which you don't even know their meanings. You have been using very poor made-up claims for long. It doesn't matter if it's Will Durant or anyone. Also meaning from Oxford of eloquent - "fluent or persuasive in speaking or writing", poignant - "Evoking a keen sense of sadness or regret." What eloquent or poignant? This is yet another addition to your long list of lies. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 05:38, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
I also forgot. Since it's talking about non-notable authors, why don't I make my own quotes and add whatever I want? That's justifiable according to your own claims you keep making it up. Who can call something not even present beyond the original source notable? You have been making up claims about eloquent, poignant just because I pointed out how you only added them for POV-pushing and now are making excuses and made-up claims. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 12:37, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Due to the continued refusal of User:MonsterHunter32 to move deleted quotes to the talkpage with full reasoning, as was told to him by many users many times, I am copying them here in one place (they are all India-related), so that others interested in the same topic area can comment on it in one place.

He was warned many times by multiple users that per Template:Remove the following is valid and must be observed:

  • All deleted quotes must at the very least be moved by him to the article talkpage with a note that they were removed from the article, giving full reasoning (for each removed quote), as required by Template:Remove. Otherwise, the status quo (uncensored) version should be kept.

See Talk:India#Censorship_of_sourced_quotes_by_User:MonsterHunter32

He has done dozens of blankings of my additions, most of them without ANY discussion on the talkpage, without moving the censored quotes to talk, and with very poor excuses (like that he only needs to "explain" his mass-blanking of many quotes in the same edit in his edit summary). .He refuses to discuss to discuss his censorship on talk, and just continues edit-warring.

I have started the discussion of the first quote, see above, but MonsterHunter32 needs to give full reasoning for ALL of the censored quotes. His poor excuse is that one edit summary and no talkpage discussion is admissible as "discussion", but full reasoning for each quote on the talkpage is needed. The deleted quote that is discussed above is from Will Durant who is already often quoted in other wikiquote articles like Napoleon, Aristotele, Democracy, Rome, and many more articles because he was a very gifted writer, his language is always very eloquent and to the point, exactly what we need here at wikiquote. The Will Durant quote is very eloquently written for this reason it is even quoted in wikipedia. --Jedi3 (talk) 20:19, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

If you are "discussing', then why are you still edit-warring. I know you have attempted to restore your quotes again. Sly attempts won't work. You are still edit-warring after being blocked. Oh and the other "multiple user" DanielTom edit-warred with me unnecessary as well, even though I'a already offered him a compromise. Take a look at Talk:Everybody Draw Mohammed Day#Unnotable and pointless quote and [3] It is ironic how this person is citing the comments of other editors who themselves are disruptive. He also keeps claiming eloquent, poignant, witty, pithy etc without understanding what they mean. Nor they are an automatic criteria for inclusion. In addition, he keeps using notability of the author, even though even non-notable authors can be included and only notability of quotes matter. I can witty statements, but it doesn't become notable. Jedi3 first should himself cooperate instead of lying. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 05:48, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Jedi3 being uncooperative[edit]

UDScott, Kalki, Peter1c, AC9016, Mdd, Jni, Risto hot sir, Abramsky, Aphaia, Cbrown1023, EVula, Fys, Just a Regular New Yorker, WikiLubber, Pmlineditor It is clear User:Jedi3 doesn't want to cooperate. He has run off to an unrelated talk page Talk:India and is repeating the same disruptive behaviour by repeating the same false claims. This is basically useless. Why don't he discuss the quotes at the article they are removed? He has abruptly stopped discussion. It is clear he is deliberately deflecting as I have already exposed that many of his quotes are not notable and he only added his quotes just to further his POV. I ask him to come back and resume discussion now, he should kearn to cooperate himself. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 17:18, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Temporary page protection[edit]

I have placed a temporary protection on this page, for a period of one week — I do not have time to thoroughly examine and comment upon the current disputes, as I must very soon be leaving, and remain busy with many other concerns, but I hope that some aspects of the dispute can be clarified within the coming week. ~ Kalki·· 00:40, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Censored quotes[edit]

Quotes added recently were not moved to talk. I am moving them here for MonsterHunter32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) to save him this work, since he repeatedly refuses to do it despite being asked MANY times by many users.
May need cleanup for duplication, will do later.
But MonsterHunter32 still needs to give full reasoning (for each removed quote) on the talkpage.
  • All deleted quotes must at the very least be moved by him to the article talkpage with a note that they were removed from the article, giving full reasoning (for each removed quote), as required by Template:Remove.

Now you are again doing deliberate misrepresenations when you claim you have discussed the quotes. You have almost never yourself moved quotes to the talkpage with full reasoning as was asked dozens of time by mulitple users.

What I ask as a minimal first step from you is that you move all your deleted quotes to the article talkpages with a note that they were removed from the article, giving full reasoning.

This is a minimal first step that is required to enable the further discussion of the removed quotes, and that you have refused to do despite being asked so many times by multiple users. Until you do that, what you say are just poor excuses. You have failed to provide your reasoning for each deleted quote on the talkpage despite being told many times by many users. And in most cases you did not even move the censored quotes to the talkpage.

  • All quotes censored by MonsterHunter32 must at the very least be moved by him to the article talkpage with a note that they were removed from the article, giving full reasoning (for each removed quote), as required by Template:Remove. Otherwise, the status quo (uncensored) version should be kept.
  • As long as you refuse to even move the censored quotes to the article talkpage with a note that they were removed from the article, giving full reasoning, which was asked by many people many times, you are just giving poor excuses to avoid open discussion where other editors are also involved. --Jedi3 (talk) 08:47, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey User:jedi3 the very first quote of yours claimed about Daud khan, is still there in the article after I reverted you. So how are you claiming I have removed it? Enough of your false claims. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 10:47, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

You deleted almost 40 quotes in this article alone. I made a quick copy of the suspected deleted quotes and there is a note where I say " May need cleanup for duplication, will do later.". If you wouldn't censor so many quotes on so many pages at the same time, I could be expected to take the time to double check immediately, but because of this, I will have to do it later.
But this is irrelevant, you are trying to distract from the larger issue, which is your censorship of dozens of quotes, almost 40 in this article alone. --Jedi3 (talk) 11:00, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
And if you didn't notice, I have also removed many of the quotes you challenged. Not because they don't belong here, but because I am trying to be co-operative. We can work on this article, maybe more cleanup is needed, but the first step has to come from you. You have to provide your full reasoning for each deleted quote here on this talkpage. --Jedi3 (talk) 11:12, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
User:Jedi3, some isn't enough. And please don't think I didn't notice. I already knew it days ago when I saw the read numbers in front of them. i am not dumb. i never said I won't provide reasoning. But please let's discuss the quotes one at a time. Is there a problem in that? Or is it that you yourself don't want a real discussion? MonsterHunter32 (talk) 11:17, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
If you want to discuss them one at a time, then you also have to delete them one at a time. Remember what JARNY told to you "Explanations are needed to remove quotes. " --Jedi3 (talk) 11:31, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
{{USer;Jedi3]]; There isno such rule nor are the quotes are going to be irrecoverable. Also Template:Remove says ALMOST ALWAYS NOT ALWAYS MOVE. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 11:35, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
It is clear that the only exceptions would be clear vandalism. This doesn't apply here, so this is another of your poor excuses. Also DanielTom and UDScott and others told you the same that you need to move them to talk.--Jedi3 (talk) 11:38, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Also the actual number is around 30. You can add your new quotes which you claim I "censored". Excpet they weren't censored, it is your own disruption that is causing their removal: [4], [5].
I am counting 37 deleted quotes (including the new quotes). You still have not added the full reasoning for all deleted quotes on the talkpage as asked to you. If you fail to add your full reasoning for each deleted quote to the talkpage of Aurangzeb, as asked many times, or if you do not self-revert, I will be forced to report this. I will give you some time, but please add your full reasoning. --Jedi3 (talk) 11:46, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Maybe you forget what you did when i was myself adding actually memorable/notable quotes. But while I was adding them, Jedi3 kept intruding to restore his non-notable quotes, causing a huge wastage of time on his repeated edit-warring which also resulted in me not being able to devote time to addition of quotes.
Here are the quotes I added at Aurangzeb: [6], [7], [8] and [9]. Also at the same time, Jedi3 kept edit-warring, sapping most of my time in dealing with his constant edit-warring. I told him not to edit-war while calling for cooperation. He didn't listen. See [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17]. Don't like your own pill? MonsterHunter32 (talk) 11:36, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Truth about Jedi3's poorly thought-out claims[edit]

I might keep adding more about Jedi3's baseless and poorly thought-out claims, but Jedi3 should

Some False claims of removal by Jedi3.:

  • He claims I removed, "In 1661 Aurangzeb in his zeal to uphold the law of Islam sent orders to his Viceroy of Bihar, Daud Khan, to conquer Palamau. In the military operations that followed many temples were destroyed...'Towards the end of the same year when Mir Jumla made a war on the Raja of Kuch Bihar, the Mughals destroyed many temples during the course of, their operations. Idols were broken and some temples were converted into mosques."
    • Alamgirnamah of Mirza Muhammad Kazim , cited in : Sharma, Sri Ram, Religious Policy of the Mughal Emperors, Bombay, 1962. p. 129.

-Still there in the article after my revert.

  • These quotes haven't been at all "censored" nor I have opposed their addition. These were all removed while me reverting Jed3's sly edit-warring attempt by hiding behind numerous additions after restoring his nob-notable quotes. Jedi3 CAN RESTORE THEM AS LONG AS THEY AR NOTABLE.
  • ‘It was reported to the Emperor (Aurangzeb) that in the Temple of Keshava Rai at Mathura, there was a stone railing presented by ‘Bishukoh’ (one without dignity i.e. Prince Dara, Aurangzeb’s elder brother). On hearing it, the Emperor observed, “In the religion of the Musalmans, it is improper even to look at a Temple and this Bishukoh had installed this kathra (barrier railing). Such an act is totally unbecoming of a Musalman. This railing should be removed (forthwith).” His Majesty ordered Abdun Nabi Khan to go and remove the kathra, which was in the middle of the Temple. The Khan went and removed it. After doing it he had audience. He informed that the idol of Keshava Rai was in the inner chamber. The railing presented by Dara was in front of the chamber and that, formerly, it was of wood. Inside the kathra used to stand the sevakas of the shrine (pujaris etc.) and outside it stood the people (khalq)’.
    • Umurat-i-Hazur Kishwar-Kashai, Julus (R.Yr.) 9, Rabi II 24 / 13 October 1666.

- Added by Jedi3 after his sly edit-warring revert.

  • “Orders were issued by the Sublime Court to dismiss the Hindu Chowkinavis and to appoint in their place Musalmans, and, likewise, a way should be found for replacing the Amins of the Haft-chowkis by the Musalmans.”
    • Hindu Chowkinavis and Amins of the Haft-chowkis to be replaced by the Musalmans. Siyaha Akhbarat Darbar Mu'alla, Julus (R. Yr.) 10, Zilhijja 16/30 May 1667

- Added by Jedi3 after his sly edit-warring revert.

  • “The Emperor ordered Jumdat-ul-Mulk to write to the Mutsaddis of all the subahs (provinces) of the empire that display of fire-works (atishbazi) is being forbidden. Also, Faulad Khan was ordered to arrange for announcement in the city by the beat of a drum that no one is to indulge in atishbazi.”
    • Akhbarat-i-Darbar-i-Mu‘alla, Julus 10, Shawwal 24 / April 9th 1667.

- Added by Jedi3 after his sly edit-warring revert.

  • "The Emperor said to Shaikh Nizam that his prayers were not having any effect. What could be the reason for this ? The Shaikh said, 'The reason is that a large number of Hindus are serving as ahlikhidmat (officials and officers) and as musahibs (courtiers) and they are ever (seen) in the Royal presence, and, as a result, the prayers do not have any effect'. The Emperor ordered that it is necessary that the Musalmans be appointed to serve in place of the Hindus."
    • Siyaha Waqai Darbar, Julus (R.Yr.) 10, Muharram 18 / 1st July 1667.
    • “For different reasons, and also out of apprehension, people visit in large numbers (the mazars or shrines) of Shah Madar, Khwaja Muin-ud-din, Salar, Sarur Sultan and Pir Ganun (Pir Pabu?) etc. They go for ziyarat (visit to sacred tombs) and perform tawaf (circumbulation) which are bid‘at. Orders were issued to stop these practices...Also, the Hindus, and quite often the Musalmans also, flock at (the shrines of) Devi for worship and that of Pir Pabu. The Emperor ordered that this should be stopped. It was also ordered that the Hindus must not crowd at these places, and worship of Shitla wherever it is performed, should be held at a distance (from the habitation).”
    • Siyaha Waqai Darbar, Julus (R.Yr.) 10, Rabi II, 17 / 26th September 1667.

- Added by Jedi3 after his sly edit-warring revert.

  • ‘As all the aims of the religious Emperor were directed to the spreading of the law of Islam and the overthrow of the practices of the infidels, he issued orders to the high diwani officers that from Wednesday, the 2nd April 1679 / 1st Rabi I, in obedience to the Quranic injunction, “till they pay commutation money (Jizyah) out of their hand and they be humbled”, and in agreement with the canonical tradition, Jizyah should be collected from the infidels (zimmis) of the capital and the provinces. Many of the honest scholars of the time were appointed to discharge the work (of collecting Jizyah). May God actuate him (Emperor Aurangzeb) to do that which He loves and is pleased with, and make his future life better than the present’.
    • 2nd April 1679 (Maasir-i-‘Alamgiri, p. 175, Tr. J.N. Sarkar)

- Added by Jedi3 after his sly edit-warring revert.

  • “The asylum of Shariat (Shariat Panah) Qazi Abul Mukaram has sent this arzi to the sublime Court: a man known to him told him that the Hindus gather in large numbers at Kalka Temple near Barahapule (near Delhi); a large crowd of the Hindus is seen here. Likewise, large crowds are seen at (the mazars) of Khwaja Muinuddin, Shah Madar and Salar Masud Ghazi. This amounts to bid‘at (heresy) and this matter deserves consideration. Whatever orders are required should be issued...Saiyid Faulad Khan was thereupon ordered (by the Emperor) to send one hundred beldars to demolish the Kalka Temple and other structures in its neighbourhood which were in the Faujdari of the Khan himself; these men were to reach there post haste, and finish the work without a halt.”
    • Siyah Waqa’i-Darbar, Regnal Year 10, Rabi I, 23 / 3 September 1667.

- Added by Jedi3 after his sly edit-warring revert.

  • “Saiyad Faulad Khan has reported that in compliance with the orders, beldars were sent to demolish the Kalka Temple which task they have done. During the course of the demolition, a Brahmin drew out a sword, killed a bystander and then turned back and attacked the Saiyad also, inflicting three wounds. The Saiyid managed to catch hold of the Brahmin.”
    • Siyah Akhbarat-i-Darbar-i-Mu‘alla, Julus 10, Rabi II, 3 / 12 September 1667.

- Added by Jedi3 after his sly edit-warring revert.

He can add the above as long as they're notable. But will he stop edit warring? Answer - Recent edit-warring revert by Jedi3: [18]. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 11:14, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Removed quotes[edit]

I offered to volunteerly add these quotes. The only reason I didn't earlier was because I thought it better to discuss one article at a time. As these quotes I felt were non-notable I removed them:

  • Dãrãb Khãn who had been sent with a strong force to punish the Rajputs of Khandela and to demolish the great temple of the place, attacked the place on the 8th March/5th Safar, and slew the three hundred and odd men who made a bold defence, not one of them escaping alive. The temples of Khandela and Sãnula and all other temples in the neighbourhood were demolished...'On Sunday, the 25th May/24th Rabi. S., Khan Jahãn Bahãdur came from Jodhpur, after demolishing the temples and bringing with himself some cart-loads of idols, and had audience of the Emperor, who highly praised him and ordered that the idols, which were mostly jewelled, golden, silvery, bronze, copper or stone, should be cast in the yard (jilaukhãnah) of the Court and under the steps of the Jãm'a mosque, to be trodden on. They remained so for some time and at last their very names were lost'...Ruhullah Khan and Ekkatãz Khan went to demolish the great temple in front of the Rãnã's palace, which was one of the rarest buildings of the age and the chief cause of the destruction of life and property of the despised worshippers Twenty mãchãtoR Rajputs who were sitting in the temple vowed to give up their lives; first one of them came out to fight, killed some and was then himself slain, then came out another and so on, until every one of the twenty perished, after killing a large number of the imperialists including the trusted slave, Ikhlãs. The temple was found empty. The hewers broke the images.'....'On Saturday, the 24th January, 1680/2nd Muharram, the Emperor went to view lake Udaisãgar, constructed by the Rãnã, and ordered all the three temples on its banks to be demolished.'...On the 29th January/7th Muharram, Hasan 'Ali Khan brought to the Emperor twenty camel-loads of tents and other things captured from the Rãnã's palace and reported that one hundred and seventy-two other temples in the environs of Udaipur had been destroyed. The Khan received the title of Bahãdur 'Alamgirshãhi'...'Abû Turãb, who had been sent to demolish the temples of Amber, returned to Court on Tuesday, the 10th August/24th Rajab, and reported that he had pulled down sixty-six temples.
    • Maãsir-i-Ãlamgiri, translated into English by Sir Jadu-Nath Sarkar, Calcutta, 1947, pp. 107-120
  • Hamiduddin Khan Bahãdur who had gone to demolish a temple and build a mosque (in its place) in Bijapur, having excellently carried out his orders, came to Court and gained praise and the post of dãrogha of gusalkhãnah, which brought him near the Emperor's person.
    • Maãsir-i-Ãlamgiri, translated into English by Sir Jadu-Nath Sarkar, Calcutta, 1947, pp. 241
  • As his blessed nature dictated, he was characterized by perfect devotion to the rites of the Faith; he followed the teaching of the great Imãm. Abu Hanifã (God be pleased with him!), and established and enforced to the best of his power the five foundations of Islãm''Through the auspices of his hearty endeavour, the Hanafi creed (i.e., the Orthodox Sunni faith) has gained such strength and currency in the great country of Hindustan as was never seen in the times of any of the preceding sovereigns. By one stroke of the pen, the Hindu clerks (writers) were dismissed from the public employment. Large numbers of the places of worship of the infidels and great temples of these wicked people have been thrown down and desolated. Men who can see only the outside of things are filled with wonder at the successful accomplishment of such a seemingly difficult task. Arid on the sites of the temples lofty mosques have been built'.
    • Maãsir-i-Ãlamgiri, translated into English by Sir Jadu-Nath Sarkar, Calcutta, 1947, pp. 312-15
  • The Emperor learning that in the temple of Keshav Rai at Mathura there was a stone railing presented by Dara Shukoh, remarked, 'In the Muslim faith it is a sin even to look at a temple, and this Dara had restored a railing in a temple. This fact is not creditable to the Muhammadans. Remove the railing.' By his order Abdun Nabi Khan (the faujdar of Mathura) removed it.'...'News came from Malwa that Wazir Khan had sent Gada Beg, a slave, with 400 troopers, to destroy all temples around Ujjain' A Rawat of the place resisted and slew Gada Beg with 121 of his men.'...'The Emperor learnt from a secret news writer of Delhi that in Jaisinghpura Bairagis used to worship idols, and that the Censor on hearing of it had gone there, arrested Sri Krishna Bairagi and taken him with 15 idols away to his house; then the Rajputs had assembled flocked to the Censor's house, wounded three footmen of the Censor and tried to seize the Censor himself; so that the latter set the Bairagi free and sent the copper idols to the local subahdar.'...'The Emperor, summoning Muhammad Khalil and Khidmat Rai, the darogha of hatchet-men' ordered them to demolish the temple of Pandharpur, and to take the butchers of the camp there and slaughter cows in the temple' It was done.'
    • Akhbãrãt, cited in Sarkar, Jadu Nath, History of Aurangzeb,Volume III, Calcutta, 1972 Impression. p. 186-189.
  • 'When the war with the Rajputs was over, Aurangzeb decided to leave for the Deccan. His march seems to have been marked with the destruction to many temples on the way. On 21 May, 1681, the superintendent of the labourers was ordered to destroy all the temples on the route.'...'On 27 September, 1681, the emperor issued orders for the destruction of the temples at Lakheri.'...'About this time, on 14 April, 1692, orders were issued to the provincial governor and the district fojdãr to demolish the temples at Rasulpur.'...'Sankar, a messenger, was sent to demolish a temple near Sheogaon. He came back after pulling it down on 20 November, 1693.'...'Bijai Singh and several other Hindus were reported to be carrying on public worship of idols in a temple in the neighbourhood of Ajmer. On 23 June, 1694, the governor of Ajmer was ordered to destroy the temple and stop the public adoration of idol worship there.'...'The temple of Wakenkhera in the fort was demolished on 2 March, 1705.'...'The newswriter of Ranthambore reported the destruction of a temple in Parganah Bhagwant Garh. Gaj Singh Gor had repaired the temple and made some additions thereto.'...'Royal orders for the destruction of temples in Malpura Toda were received and the officers were assigned for this work.'
    • Akhbãrãt, cited in : Sharma, Sri Ram, Religious Policy of the Mughal Emperors, Bombay, 1962. p. 136-139
  • By looting, the temples of the South and hunting out buried treasures, Mîr Jumla amassed a vast fortune. The huge Hindu idols of copper were brought away in large numbers to be melted and cast into cannon.....Mir Jumla made his way into Kuch Bihar by an obscure and neglected highway' In six days the Mughal army reached the capital (19th December) which had been deserted by the Rajah and his people in terror. The name of the town was changed to Alamgirnagar; the Muslim call to prayer, so long forbidden in the city, was chanted from the lofty roof of the palace, and a mosque was built by demolishing the principal temple.
    • Fathiyya-i-Ibriyya cited by Sarkar, Jadu Nath, History of Aurangzeb, quoted in Goel, S.R. Hindu Temples What Happened to them
  • The infidels demolished a mosque that was under construction and wounded the artisans. When the news reached Shãh Yasîn, he came to Banaras from Mandyawa and collecting the Muslim weavers, demolished the big temple. A Sayyid who was an artisan by profession agreed with one Abdul Rasûl to build a mosque at Banaras and accordingly the foundation was laid. Near the place there was a temple and many houses belonging to it were in the occupation of the Rajputs. The infidels decided that the construction of a mosque in the locality was not proper and that it should be razed to the ground. At night the walls of the mosque were found demolished. Next day the wall was rebuilt but it was again destroyed. This happened three or four times. At last the Sayyid hid himself in a corner. With the advent of night the infidels came to achieve their nefarious purpose. When Abdul Rasûl gave the alarm, the infidels began to fight and the Sayyid was wounded by Rajputs. In the meantime, the Musalman resident of the neighbourhood arrived at the spot and the infidels took to their heels. The wounded Muslims were taken to Shãh Yasîn who determined to vindicate the cause of Islam. When he came to the mosque, people collected from the neighbourhood. The civil officers were outwardly inclined to side with the saint, but in reality they were afraid of the royal displeasure on account of the Raja, who was a courtier of the Emperor and had built the temple (near which the mosque was under construction). Shãh Yasîn, however, took up the sword and started for Jihad. The civil officers sent him a message that such a grave step should not be taken without the Emperor's permission. Shãh Yasîn, paying no heed, sallied forth till he reached Bazar Chau Khamba through a fusillade of stones' The, doors (of temples) were forced open and the idols thrown down. The weavers and other Musalmans demolished about 500 temples. They desired to destroy the temple of Beni Madho, but as lanes were barricaded, they desisted from going further.
    • Ganj-i-Arshadî, cited in : Sharma, Sri Ram, Religious Policy of the Mughal Emperors, Bombay, 1962. p. 144-45
  • Order issued on all faujdars of thanas, civil officers (mutasaddis), agents of jagirdars, kroris, and amlas from Katak to Medinipur on the frontier of Orissa:- The imperial paymaster Asad Khan has sent a letter written by order of the Emperor, to say, that the Emperor learning from the newsletters of the province of Orissa that at the village of Tilkuti in Medinipur a temple has been (newly) built, has issued his august mandate for its destruction, and the destruction of all temples built anywhere in this province by the worthless infidels. Therefore, you are commanded with extreme urgency that immediately on the receipt of this letter you should destroy the above-mentioned temples. Every idol-house built during the last 10 or 12 years, whether with brick or clay, should be demolished without delay. Also, do not allow the crushed Hindus and despicable infidels to repair their old temples. Reports of the destruction of temples should be sent to the Court under the seal of the qazis and attested by pious Shaikhs.
    • Muraqãt-i-AbuI Hasan by Maulãna Abul Hasa, quoted in Sarkar, Jadu Nath, History of Aurangzeb,Volume III, Calcutta, 1972 Impression. p. 187
  • When the imperial army was encamping at Mathura, a holy city of the Hindus, the state of affairs with regard to temples of Mathura was brought to the notice of His Majesty. Thus, he ordered the faujdar of the city, Abdul Nabi Khan, to raze to the ground every temple and to construct big mosques (over their demolished sites).'
    • Futûhãt-i-Ãlamgîrî, translated into English by Tanseem Ahmad, Delhi, 1978. p. 82
  • 'The Emperor, within a short time, reached Udaipur and destroyed the gate of Dehbari, the palaces of Rana and the temples of Udaipur. Apart from it, the trees of his gardens were also destroyed.
    • Futûhãt-i-Ãlamgîrî, translated into English by Tanseem Ahmad, Delhi, 1978. p. 130
  • In the city of Agra there was a large temple, in which there were numerous idols, adorned and embellished with precious jewels and valuable pearls. It was the custom of the infidels to resort to this temple from far and near several times in each year to worship the idols, and a certain fee to the Government was fixed upon each man, for which he obtained admittance. As there was a large congress of pilgrims, a very considerable amount was realized from them, and paid into the royal treasury. This practice had been observed to the end of the reign of the Emperor Shãh Jahãn, and in the commencement of Aurangzeb's government; but when the latter was informed of it, he was exceedingly angry and abolished the custom. The greatest nobles of his court represented to him that a large sum was realized and paid into the public treasury, and that if it was abolished, a great reduction in the income of the state would take place. The Emperor observed, 'What you say is right, but I have considered well on the subject, and have reflected on it deeply; but if you wish to augment the revenue, there is a better plan for attaining the object by exacting the jizya. By this means idolatry will be suppressed, the Muhammadan religion and the true faith will be honoured, our proper duty will be performed, the finances of the state will be increased, and the infidels will be disgraced.' 'This was highly approved by all the nobles; and the Emperor ordered all the golden and silver idols to be broken, and the temple destroyed.
    • Kanzul-Mahfûz (Kanzu-l Mahfuz), in: Elliot and Dowson, Vol. VIII, pp. 38 -39.
  • On the capture of Golkonda, the Emperor appointed Abdur Rahim Khan as Censor of the city of Haiderabad with orders to put down infidel practices and (heretical) innovations and destroy the temples and build mosques on their sites.
    • Muntikhãbul-Lubãb, by Hãshim Alî Khãn (Khãfî Khãn), Quoted in Jadunath Sarkar, Sarkar, Jadu Nath, History of Aurangzeb, Vol. III, p. 188.
  • 'The fall and capture of Bijapur was similarly solemnized though here the destruction of temples was delayed for several years, probably till 1698.
    • Muntikhãbul-Lubãb, by Hãshim Alî Khãn (Khãfî Khãn), Cited by Sri Ram Sharma, Sharma, Sri Ram, Religious Policy of the Mughal Emperors, Bombay, 1962., p. 137.
  • During the Subedari of religious-minded, noble prince, vestiges of the Temple of Chintaman situated on the side of Saraspur built by Satidas jeweller, were removed under the Prince's order and a masjid was erected on its remains. It was named 'Quwwat-ul-Islam
    • Mirat-i-Ahmadî by Alî Muhammad Khãn, in Mirat-i-Ahmdi, translated into English by M.F. Lokhandwala, Baroda, 1965, P. 194
  • 'In AD 1696-97 (AH 1108) orders were issued for the destruction of the major temples at Sorath in Gujarat.'...'He stopped public worship at the Hindu temple of Dwarka.'
    • Mirat-i-Ahmadî by Alî Muhammad Khãn, in : Sharma, Sri Ram, Religious Policy of the Mughal Emperors, Bombay, 1962., p. 137-138
Quotes about Aurangzeb
  • Aurangzeb cared nothing for art, destroyed its "heathen" monuments with coarse bigotry, and fought, through a reign of half a century, to eradicate from India almost all religions but his own. He issued orders to the provincial governors, and to his other subordinates, to raze to the ground all the temples of either Hindus or Christians, to smash every idol, and to close every Hindu school. In one year ( 1679-80) sixty-six temples were broken to pieces in Amber alone, sixty-three at Chitor, one hundred and twenty-three at Udaipur; and over the site of a Benares temple especially sacred to the Hindus he built, in deliberate insult, a Mohammedan mosque. He forbade all public worship of the Hindu faiths, and laid upon every unconverted Hindu a heavy capitation tax. As a result of his fanaticism, thousands of the temples which had represented or housed the art of India through a millennium were laid in ruins. We can never know, from looking at India today, what grandeur and beauty she once possessed. Aurangzeb converted a handful of timid Hindus to Islam, but he wrecked his dynasty- and his country. A few Moslems worshiped him as a saint, but the mute and terrorized millions of India looked upon him as a monster, fled from his tax-gatherers, and prayed for his death. During his reign the Mogul empire in India reached its height, extending into the Deccan; but it was a power that. had no foundation in the affection of the people, and was doomed to fall at the first hostile and vigorous touch. The Emperor himself, in his last years, began to realize that by the very narrowness of his piety he had destroyed the heritage of his fathers.
  • One age followed another--and still, generation after generation, the successors of the three Brahmins watched their priceless Moonstone, night and day. One age followed another until the first years of the eighteenth Christian century saw the reign of Aurungzebe, Emperor of the Moguls. At his command havoc and rapine were let loose once more among the temples of the worship of Brahmah. The shrine of the four-handed god was polluted by the slaughter of sacred animals; the images of the deities were broken in pieces; and the Moonstone was seized by an officer of rank in the army of Aurungzebe.
  • One may very well ask the purveyors of this puerile propaganda that if the record of Islam in medieval India was so bright and blameless, where is the need for this daily ritual of whitewashing it. Hindu heroes like Chandragupta Maurya, Samudragupta, Harihar, Bukka, Maharana Pratap, and Shivaji, to name only a few of the notables, have never needed any face-lift. Why does the monstrous men of [...] Aurangzeb, to name only the most notorious, pop out so soon from the thickest coat of cosmetics?
    The answer is provided by the Muslim historians of medieval India. They painted their heroes in the indelible dyes of Islamic ideology. They did not anticipate the day when Islamic imperialism in India will become only a painful memory of the past. They did not visualise that the record of Islam in India will one day be weighed on the scales of human values. Now it is too late for trying to salvage Islam in medieval India from its blood-soaked history. The orthodox Muslim historians are honest when they state that the medieval Muslim monarchs were only carrying out the commandments of Islam when they massacred, captured, enslaved, and violated Hindu men, women and children; desecrated, demolished, and destroyed Hindu places of worship; and dispossessed the Hindus of all their wealth. The Aligarh “historians” and their secularist patrons are only trying to prop up imposters in place of real and living characters who played life-size roles in history.
    • Sita Ram Goel: The Story of Islamic Imperialism in India
  • What are the facts? In Benares (Varanasi), Aurangzeb (1658-1707) did not just build an isolated mosque on a destroyed temple. He ordered all temples destroyed, among them the Kashi Vishvanath, one of the most sacred places of Hinduism, and had mosques built on a number of cleared temple sites. All other Hindu sacred places within his reach equally suffered destruction, with mosques built on them; among them, Krishna's birth temple in Mathura, the rebuilt Somnath temple on the coast of Gujrat, the Vishnu temple replaced with the Alamgir mosque now overlooking Benares, the Treta-ka-Thakur temple in Ayodhya. The number of temples destroyed by Aurangzeb is counted in 4, if not in 5 figures. According to the official court chronicle, Aurangzeb "ordered all provincial governors to destroy all schools and temples of the Pagans and to make a complete end to all Pagan teachings and practices". The chronicle sums up the destructions like this: "Hasan Ali Khan came and said that 172 temples in the area had been destroyed... His majesty went to Chittor, and 63 temples were destroyed... Abu Tarab, appointed to destroy the idol-temples of Amber, reported that 66 temples had been razed to the ground". In quite a number of cases, inscriptions on mosques and local tradition do confirm that Aurangzeb built them in forcible replacement of temples (some of these inscriptions have been quoted in Sitaram Goel: Hindu Temples, vol.2, along with a number of independent written accounts). Aurangzeb's reign was marked by never-ending unrest and rebellions, caused by his anti-Hindu policies, which included the reimposition of the jizya and other zimma rules, and indeed the demolition of temples.
    • Koenraad Elst (1992), Negationism in India. chapter 2
  • Fourteen years later, he [R.C. Majumdar] had to return to the theme and give specific instances of falsification. “It is very sad,” he observed, “that the spirit of perverting history to suit political views is no longer confined to politicians, but has definitely spread even among professional historians… It is painful to mention though impossible to ignore, the fact that there is a distinct and conscious attempt to rewrite the whole chapter of the bigotry and intolerance of the Muslim rulers towards Hindu religion. This was originally prompted by the political motive of bringing together the Hindus and Musalmans in a common fight against the British but has continued ever since. A history written under the auspices of the Indian National Congress sought to repudiate the charge that the Muslim rulers broke Hindu temples, and asserted that they were the most tolerant in matters of religion. Following in its footsteps, a noted historian has sought to exonerate Mahmud of Ghazni’s bigotry and fanaticism, and several writers in India have come forward to defend Aurangzeb against Jadunath Sarkar’s charge of religious intolerance. It is interesting to note that in the revised edition of the Encyclopaedia of Islam, one of them, while re-writing the article on Aurangzeb originally written by William Irvine, has expressed the view that the charge of breaking Hindu temples brought against Aurangzeb is a disputed point. Alas for poor Jadunath Sarkar, who must have turned in his grave if he were buried. For, after reading his History of Aurangzib, one would be tempted to ask, if the temple-breaking policy of Aurangzeb is a disputed point, is there a single fact in the whole recorded history of mankind which may be taken as undisputed?”
  • With the coming of Aurangzeb, the policy of sulah-i-kul (peace with all) initiated by Akbar in the later part of his reign suffered a complete reversal. Aurangzeb had started his career as a but-shikan (iconoclast) 13 years before he ascended the throne at Delhi. ... A general policy towards Hindu temples was proclaimed in April 1669. Maasir-i-Ãlamgîrî records: "On the 17th of Zil Kada 1079 (9th April 1669) it reached the ears of His Majesty, the protector of the faith, that in the province of Thatta, Multan, and Benares, but especially in the latter, foolish Brahmans were in the habit of expounding frivolous books in their schools, and that students and learners, Muslims as well as Hindus, went there, even from long distances, led by a desire to become acquainted with the wicked sciences they taught. The Director of the Faith, consequently, issued orders to all governors of provinces to destroy with a willing hand the schools and temples of the infidels and they were strictly enjoined to put an entire stop to the teaching and practising of idolatrous forms of worship. On the 15th Rabiul-akhir (end September) it was reported to his religious Majesty, leader of the unitarians, that in obedience to order, the government officers had destroyed the temple of Bishnath at Benares."
    • Sita Ram Goel, The Story of Islamic Imperialism in India, ch. 7
  • The temple of Kešavadeva was destroyed in January, 1670. This was done in obedience to an imperial firmãn proclaimed by Aurangzeb on April 9, 1669. On that date, according to Ma’sîr-i-Ãlamgîrî, “The Emperor ordered the governors of all provinces to demolish the schools and temples of the infidels and strongly put down their teaching and religious practices.” Jadunath Sarkar has cited several sources regarding the subsequent destruction of temples which went on all over the country, and right up to January 1705, two years before Aurangzeb died. ... Soon after, in 1665, Aurangzeb imposed a pilgrim tax on the Hindus. In 1668, he prohibited celebration of all Hindu festivals, particularly Holi and Diwali. The Jats who rightly regarded themselves as the defenders of Hindu hounour were no longer in a mood to take it lying.
    • Arun Shourie, Sita Ram Goel: Hindu Temples - What Happened to Them? Vol. II, ch. 4
  • No new temple was allowed to be built nor any old one to be repaired, so that the total disappearance of all places of Hindu worship was to be merely a question of time. But even this delay, this slow operation of Time, was intolerable to many of the more fiery spirits of Islam, who tried to hasten the abolition of ‘infidelity’ by anticipating the destructive hand of Time and forcibly pulling down temples.
  • The evidence [...] is always an exercise in suppressio veri suggestio falsi. For instance, Aurangzeb’s petty donations to 2-3 Hindu temples patronized by some pet Hindu courtiers, are played up with great fanfare. But his systematic demolition of thousands of Hindu temples and defilement of countless images of Gods and Goddesses, throughout his long reign, is never mentioned. Such pitiable attempts at pitting molehills of munificence against mountains of malevolence, go against all sense of proportion in judging a whole period of Indian history.
    • Sita Ram Goel, The Story of Islamic Imperialism in India, ch. 7
  • Distinguished historian Ranbir Vohra writes in his historical survey, The Making of India, “Most Hindus recall little of Emperor Aurangzeb's brutal, savage reign except that under his general order all the schools and temples of the Hindus were to be destroyed, and that hundreds of temples, particularly the Viswanath Temple at Benares and the Vishnu Temple at Mathura, had been demolished. That the Muslim rulers had built mosques over many of the razed Hindu temples was also a well-known fact."
    • Indo–US Relations: Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Nuclear Energy, by Nirode Mohanty, p. 50, ch. 1
  • [Arun] Shourie goes on to quote from Aurangzeb’s court chronicles: “News came to Court that in accordance with the Emperor’s command his officers had demolished the temple of Vishvanath at Benares (2/9/1669)… In this month of Ramzan, the religious-minded Emperor ordered the demolition of the temple at Mathura… In a short time by the great exertions of his officers the destruction of this strong centre of infidelity was accomplished... A grand mosque was built on its site... (January 1670)”
    • Arun Shourie, quoted in K. Elst: Ayodhya: The Case Against the Temple.
  • Aurangzeb was at the Udai Sagar on 24 January 1680. After enjoying the sight, Aurangzeb fulfilled his religious obligations by ordering the destruction of three temples on its bank.
    • Maharana Raj Singh and His Times by Sri Ram Sharma [20]
  • Aurangzeb's purpose in building those three mosques was the same intentionally offensive political purpose that moved the Russians to build their Orthodox cathedral in the city-centre at Warsaw. Those mosques were intended to signify that an Islamic government was reigning supreme, even over Hinduism's holiest of holy places. I must say that Aurangzeb had a veritable genius for picking out provocative sites. Aurangzeb and Philip II of Spain are a pair. They are incarnations of the gloomily fanatical vein in the Christian - Muslim - Jewish family of religions. Aurangzeb - poor wretched misguided bad man - spent a lifetime of hard labour in raising massive monuments to his own discredit. Perhaps the Poles were really kinder in destroying the Russians' self-discrediting monument in Warsaw than you have been in sparing Aurangzeb's mosques.
  • ‘It was reported to the Emperor (Aurangzeb) that in the Temple of Keshava Rai at Mathura, there was a stone railing presented by ‘Bishukoh’ (one without dignity i.e. Prince Dara, Aurangzeb’s elder brother). On hearing it, the Emperor observed, “In the religion of the Musalmans, it is improper even to look at a Temple and this Bishukoh had installed this kathra (barrier railing). Such an act is totally unbecoming of a Musalman. This railing should be removed (forthwith).” His Majesty ordered Abdun Nabi Khan to go and remove the kathra, which was in the middle of the Temple. The Khan went and removed it. After doing it he had audience. He informed that the idol of Keshava Rai was in the inner chamber. The railing presented by Dara was in front of the chamber and that, formerly, it was of wood. Inside the kathra used to stand the sevakas of the shrine (pujaris etc.) and outside it stood the people (khalq)’.
    • Umurat-i-Hazur Kishwar-Kashai, Julus (R.Yr.) 9, Rabi II 24 / 13 October 1666.
  • “Orders were issued by the Sublime Court to dismiss the Hindu Chowkinavis and to appoint in their place Musalmans, and, likewise, a way should be found for replacing the Amins of the Haft-chowkis by the Musalmans.”
    • Hindu Chowkinavis and Amins of the Haft-chowkis to be replaced by the Musalmans. Siyaha Akhbarat Darbar Mu'alla, Julus (R. Yr.) 10, Zilhijja 16/30 May 1667
  • “The Emperor ordered Jumdat-ul-Mulk to write to the Mutsaddis of all the subahs (provinces) of the empire that display of fire-works (atishbazi) is being forbidden. Also, Faulad Khan was ordered to arrange for announcement in the city by the beat of a drum that no one is to indulge in atishbazi.”
    • Akhbarat-i-Darbar-i-Mu‘alla, Julus 10, Shawwal 24 / April 9th 1667.
  • "The Emperor said to Shaikh Nizam that his prayers were not having any effect. What could be the reason for this ? The Shaikh said, 'The reason is that a large number of Hindus are serving as ahlikhidmat (officials and officers) and as musahibs (courtiers) and they are ever (seen) in the Royal presence, and, as a result, the prayers do not have any effect'. The Emperor ordered that it is necessary that the Musalmans be appointed to serve in place of the Hindus."
    • Siyaha Waqai Darbar, Julus (R.Yr.) 10, Muharram 18 / 1st July 1667.
    • “For different reasons, and also out of apprehension, people visit in large numbers (the mazars or shrines) of Shah Madar, Khwaja Muin-ud-din, Salar, Sarur Sultan and Pir Ganun (Pir Pabu?) etc. They go for ziyarat (visit to sacred tombs) and perform tawaf (circumbulation) which are bid‘at. Orders were issued to stop these practices...Also, the Hindus, and quite often the Musalmans also, flock at (the shrines of) Devi for worship and that of Pir Pabu. The Emperor ordered that this should be stopped. It was also ordered that the Hindus must not crowd at these places, and worship of Shitla wherever it is performed, should be held at a distance (from the habitation).”
    • Siyaha Waqai Darbar, Julus (R.Yr.) 10, Rabi II, 17 / 26th September 1667.
  • “The asylum of Shariat (Shariat Panah) Qazi Abul Mukaram has sent this arzi to the sublime Court: a man known to him told him that the Hindus gather in large numbers at Kalka Temple near Barahapule (near Delhi); a large crowd of the Hindus is seen here. Likewise, large crowds are seen at (the mazars) of Khwaja Muinuddin, Shah Madar and Salar Masud Ghazi. This amounts to bid‘at (heresy) and this matter deserves consideration. Whatever orders are required should be issued...Saiyid Faulad Khan was thereupon ordered (by the Emperor) to send one hundred beldars to demolish the Kalka Temple and other structures in its neighbourhood which were in the Faujdari of the Khan himself; these men were to reach there post haste, and finish the work without a halt.”
    • Siyah Waqa’i-Darbar, Regnal Year 10, Rabi I, 23 / 3 September 1667.
  • “A darvesh brought to the notice of the Emperor that the Musalmans (of the country) felt dejected on account of (the burden of) Zakat and that they should be exempted from paying it. Jumdat-ul Mulk now sought the Emperor’s orders regarding the matter. The Emperor (Aurangzeb) ordered that the Musalmans were to be exempted from paying it, but it should be charged from the Hindus.”
    • Siyaha Akhbart-i-Darbar-i-Mu‘alla, Julus (R.Yr.) 10, Zilqada 2 / 16th April 1667.
  • “Saiyad Faulad Khan has reported that in compliance with the orders, beldars were sent to demolish the Kalka Temple which task they have done. During the course of the demolition, a Brahmin drew out a sword, killed a bystander and then turned back and attacked the Saiyad also, inflicting three wounds. The Saiyid managed to catch hold of the Brahmin.”
    • Siyah Akhbarat-i-Darbar-i-Mu‘alla, Julus 10, Rabi II, 3 / 12 September 1667.