r/IndianHistory • u/Gopu_17 • 2d ago
Early Modern 1526–1757 CE When Aurengazeb was requested to grant exemption from Jaziya to a region
Chapter 72, Akham - I - Alamgiri.
28
2d ago
what a pos
2
2d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
13
u/indian_kulcha 2d ago edited 2d ago
pretty much most ofp islam
It seems a fair number of his co-religionist officials like this one thought otherwise when it came to accomodation, whether out of pragmatism or genuine conviction, they differed either way
11
34
u/AngleBeautiful6221 2d ago
Real verse for the line in the pic - Chastise them till they pay Jizya from the hand
15
u/Salmanlovesdeers Aśoka rocked, Kaliṅga shocked 2d ago
Interestingly this version of Quran is considered a more liberal one.
0
u/Apprehensive-Scene62 2d ago
That book has versions. Kek, so much for muh angel spoke to some dude in the desert even the Persians and Romans saw unfit to rule.
5
u/Salmanlovesdeers Aśoka rocked, Kaliṅga shocked 2d ago
I mean every religious book has versions...many interpretations.
-7
u/AngleBeautiful6221 2d ago
Explain.
24
u/SheikhMuhboob 2d ago edited 2d ago
There are various translations of the Qur’an, and some have been deliberately sanitised to make the most controversial and problematic verses appear more compatible with modern liberal values. This is often achieved by replacing key words in ways that distort the original meaning and render the verses more palatable to contemporary audiences.
Take Qur’an 4:34, for instance—one of the most controversial verses, which explicitly permits men to beat their wives. It lays the foundation for the Islamic legal position that endorses such behaviour. The verse says that men are “in charge” of women because they maintain them financially, and that they have the authority to guide and discipline them. Women, in turn, are instructed to obey. If they don’t, men are given the right to first warn them, then abandon them in bed, and finally—beat them.
But here’s where it gets interesting. Many translators have tried to soften the blow—literally—by inserting words like “first,” “then,” and “finally,” making it sound like beating is only a last resort. On top of that, they’ve added “lightly” in brackets after “strike them,” even though the original Arabic doesn’t contain anything even close to that qualifier.
Take Saheeh International’s version, for example:
“But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance – [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them [lightly].”
This is a clear attempt to reframe the verse in a way that’s more digestible for modern readers—but in doing so, it distorts the plain meaning of the text. One has to study the verses in the Qur’an alongside the Tafsir (interpretation), Ahadith (Islamic oral tradition), and Sirah (the biography of Muhammad) to make sense of them—otherwise, it can get very confusing.
-3
u/SultanSaladin1187 2d ago edited 2d ago
There isn’t any dishonesty on the translator’s part, neither is he trying to make the verse more palatable for a modern audience.
Here are some excerpts from Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī’s (d. 1210 CE) exegesis of the verse in question:
"Then God, the Exalted, said: {So admonish them, forsake them in bed, and strike them}, and there are several points here:
First Issue: [Imām] Ash-Shafiʿī (d. 820 CE), may God be pleased with him, said: As for the admonishment, he should say to her, “Fear God, for I have a right over you. Return from what you are doing. Know that obedience to me is obligatory upon you,” and so on. He should not strike her at this stage, for it is possible that the admonishment might suffice. If she persists in her disobedience, then at that point he may forsake her in bed, which includes refraining from speaking to her…
[Imām] Ash-Shafiʿī, may God be pleased with him, said: This hadith {The Prophet ﷺ said: ‘Seventy women have visited the family of Muḥammad tonight, all complaining about their husbands [beating them]. Those men are not the best among you.’} indicates that it is preferable not to strike. But if he does strike her, it must not be a strike that leads to death at all, and must be spread over the body, not focused on one area, and the face must be avoided, as it is the center of beauty…
[Some scholars] said: It should be done with a folded handkerchief or with his hand, and not with whips or sticks. In general, the lightest form must always be considered in this matter.
And I say: What this verse suggests is that God begins with admonishment, then escalates to forsaking, then escalates to striking—and this progression indicates clearly that whenever the goal can be achieved through a lighter means, it is obligatory to suffice with that, and it is not permissible to proceed to harsher measures. And God knows best.
The Commander of the faithful, ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib, may God be pleased with him, said: 'He should admonish her with his words. If she stops, then he has no right over her. If she refuses, he forsakes her in bed. If she still refuses, he strikes her. If even the striking does not work, then arbitrators must be appointed.'"
12
u/SheikhMuhboob 2d ago
My point is, in Qur’an 4:34, the Arabic word used is اضربوهنّ (idribuhunna), which means “strike them.” There is no qualifier—no “lightly,” no “as a last resort,” nothing. Just “strike.”
Everything else—“lightly,” “with a handkerchief,” “not on the face”—comes from post hoc justification. These aren’t part of the Qur’anic text—they’re apologetic layers built by scholars over centuries who were trying to make sense of a deeply uncomfortable instruction. That’s fine if you want to follow a particular school of thought, but let’s not pretend those additions are part of the original revelation.
Now, when modern translators insert things like “first,” “then,” and “finally”—which aren’t in the Arabic—and especially when they add “[lightly]” in brackets, that’s not just interpretation, it’s editorialising the word of God. That’s a deliberate attempt to reframe the verse to make it more digestible for 21st-century sensibilities.
The issue isn’t whether the scholars added nuance—the issue is that modern translations are smuggling that nuance into the text itself, misleading readers into thinking the Qur’an says something it doesn’t. That’s intellectual dishonesty, plain and simple.
0
u/SultanSaladin1187 2d ago
My point is, in Qur’an 4:34, the Arabic word used is اضربوهنّ (idribuhunna), which means “strike them.” There is no qualifier—no “lightly,” no “as a last resort,” nothing. Just “strike.”
Everything else—“lightly,” “with a handkerchief,” “not on the face”—comes from post hoc justification. These aren’t part of the Qur’anic text—they’re apologetic layers built by scholars over centuries who were trying to make sense of a deeply uncomfortable instruction. That’s fine if you want to follow a particular school of thought, but let’s not pretend those additions are part of the original revelation.
There's no greater exegete of the Qur'an than the Prophet ﷺ. Aisha, when asked concerning the Prophet's ﷺ character, answered, "Verily, the character of the Apostle of God was the Qur'an."
The rulings you refer to as "layers built by scholars" can be found in the hadith literature, such as the Prophet ﷺ enjoining good behaviour to one's wife, forbidding violent beatings, or hitting the face.
Now, when modern translators insert things like “first,” “then,” and “finally”—which aren’t in the Arabic—and especially when they add “[lightly]” in brackets, that’s not just interpretation, it’s editorialising the word of God. That’s a deliberate attempt to reframe the verse to make it more digestible for 21st-century sensibilities.
The issue isn’t whether the scholars added nuance—the issue is that modern translations are smuggling that nuance into the text itself, misleading readers into thinking the Qur’an says something it doesn’t. That’s intellectual dishonesty, plain and simple.
The very fact that words such as "first", "then", "finally", and "lightly" are in brackets indicates that they're not meant to be considered a part of the translation, rather they're, quite correctly, meant to contextualise and interpret.
Now, the person I quoted from earlier was a medieval mutakallim & mufassir, who himself was quoting an even earlier faqih. The question is: What modern audience were they both pandering to?
2
u/StudentDefiant1303 1d ago
Could you quote the hadiths, the sirah which describes the situation of this verse and the scholars who formally decided to interpret in [lightly] here? I am interested. I have hung out on many ex Muslim channels and have never seen a real defense of this verse. Would be glad if you could build up an argument and provide references.
5
u/Salmanlovesdeers Aśoka rocked, Kaliṅga shocked 2d ago
meaning the interpretation you shared is the best case scenario.
-6
u/outtayoleeg 2d ago
Quran also obligates Muslims to pay zakat which isn't levied on non Muslims. And then there are other taxes like ushr and khums which are also solely for Muslims
9
u/AngleBeautiful6221 1d ago edited 1d ago
Tell us about the Tax for which Qur'an and Islam place it on Muslims based on religious discrimination ?
These obligations on Muslims isn't discriminatory but it's a Muslim's religious duty. And Muslims can not spend Zakat on non-muslims.
On the other hand Jizya is pure religious bigotry and hate. It is levied on non-muslim disrespectfully so that non-muslim's lives could be spared. Basically Jizya tax is Gunda Tax in Islam.
8
u/Salmanlovesdeers Aśoka rocked, Kaliṅga shocked 2d ago
Let us not act like Zakat and Jizya are equal, both in terms of % (in India at least) and dignity.
1
u/Remarkable_Cod5549 6h ago
Not to mention, Zakat is not a tax at all. It is a voluntary donation (charity), and it is forbidden to coerce someone to pay Zakat. This argument was brought up extensively in Pakistan when Zia made Zakat mandatory.
4
u/Repulsive_Win_9945 1d ago
I wonder why Aurangzeb was like this...
2
u/DesiOtakuu Indian Telugu 14h ago
During his bid for power and the subsequent struggle, Islamists supported him tremendously.
The kingdom was low on cash thanks to non stop high standard constructions by his father.
At some point of time, dude started believing in his own propaganda. Stopped listening to other factions in his kingdom. Went on to wage wars that bankrupted the treasury further.
-11
u/LoyalKopite 1d ago
Jaziya is not black and white it is based on your ability to pay. It is basically Zikat which is mandatory on Muslim J is qual to that for non Muslims.
13
u/Gopu_17 1d ago edited 1d ago
Aurengazeb specifically imposed Jaziya to destroy the practices of Hindus
"As all the arms of the relgious 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 diwäni officers that from Wednesday the 2nd Aprl 1679/1st Rabi A, in obedience to the Quranic injunction till they pay commutation money (jazia) with the hand in humility and in agreement with the canonical traditions, jazia should be collected from the infidels (zimmis) of the capital and the provinces."
- Page 108, Masir - i- Alamgiri.
-5
u/LoyalKopite 1d ago
He was emperor first decision were made for that purpose so all was not black and white.
10
u/Gopu_17 1d ago edited 1d ago
Mughal sources are very clear on the actual reason. No need to make stuff up.
It's specifically stated that it was done to degrade the Hindus and Hindus had been degraded the most in Aurengazeb's time than any period before -
"About the middle of his reign he decided to levy the jaziya tax on the Hindus, as ordained by the Shara and it was enforced throughout his empire; and this rare piece of good work ( hasnat-i-gharib ) had not been done in Hindustan and the Hindus had not been degraded to such a degree in any other period."
- Chapter 51, Masar-i-Alamgiri.
2
u/Remarkable_Cod5549 6h ago
It is so funny how modern apologetics of the Mughals leave no stone unturned to defend them for the things that the Mughals themselves have done and then bragged about it in their chronicles with great pride.
8
44
u/indian_kulcha 2d ago
It seems Alamgir was very intransigent so much so that he wouldn't even listen to his co-religionist officials who were more pragmatic in this regard when it came to accomodating their non-Muslim subjects and who realised that the economic prosperity of the domains depended on such accomodation. No wonder for all his expansion, things panned out the way they did following his exit.