The speech by the Maulana is in Urdu/Hindi.
Shivaji did not fight with Aurangzeb to eliminate Muslims, but to expand his territory – that is what all the bloody kings did. Shivaji’s generals were Muslims. Maulana gave a free degree to Aurangzeb, adding Rahmatullah Alaih to his name. Was he Rahmat to ‘all’ of his subjects?
The correct narratives would be:
- Islam did not emerge to rule others. Islam came into being to bring sanity, peace, and harmony to society.
- Muslims ruled (Hukoomat) Spain for 800 years, and India for 1000 years – wrong, they were kings for themselves who happened to be Muslims. The right term could be Muslims served in India for 1000 years (Khidmat v. Hukoomat).
- We, the people of India, need to remove religious labels off kings, all Kings, Muslims, Christian, Sikh or Hindu. They were not for religion, any religion, they were for themselves and their power. If the Muslim kings did anything, it was to appease their base of influential clerics.
Mr. Tariq Farooqi adds his comment, “Many Muslim Kings spent a lot of time fighting other Muslim and Hindu kings to expand their kingdoms. Plenty of Muslim Kings employed Hindus in their armies and the Hindus employed Muslims to fight on their side. It was a battle for land, money and power. Religion was a side issue!” and “We all get trapped in false narratives and stay prisoners to those narratives.”
Mike Ghouse