Strongly DISAGREE with you, I have read many books in Arabic were Algerians themselves described their suffuring, they didnt have nay kind of religous freedom. Now u tell me which books r more reliable? the ones which were written by Arab Muslims who lived the horror ..or some western men who never stepped their foot on Algerian land?
Name me one such book. Not only did they have all the religious freedom they wanted, but some Muslim leaders, especially the Sufi orders, were active supporters of French rule. Not that this stopped the Algerian Salafi reformers coming along and attacking the Sufis either. The question is not a choice between Algerian Arabs and Westerners who have never set foot in Algeria - after all millions of Frenchmen were born in Algeria. It is between the historical record and truth on the one hand and propaganda and lies on the other. Find me some books on the Algerian period that make this claim.
My Mom told me that in school, in history classes, they learned bout the Mughls n stuff, n I asked her did u guys study bout Auranghzib n his liks n how they opressed the Hindus? She said never in school they learned such thing, Indian goverment Text books DOSNT have anything where it says that Aurangzhib oppressed n killd. Now for sake of objectivity, we know that no one is perfect, n maybe there were some incidents...but not in a large number. Trust me if Aurangzib commited many crimes agains Hindus, Indian History text book would never miss that.
First of all India has had a policy of reconciliation with the Muslims, but I assume you that Indian history texts do not miss that. You are holding up the opinion of your Mother based on what she can remember from primary school as proof?
Aurangzeb (from Persian, اورنگزیب Aurang means throne and Zaib meant beauty or ornament),(November 3, 1618 – March 3, 1707, also known as Alamgir I, was the ruler of the Mughal Empire from 1658 until 1707. He was a very controversial figure in South Asian history, and is considered a tyrant by most Hindus, Sikhs, and other non-Muslim Indians.
Unlike his predecessors, Aurangzeb was remarkably pious and zealous. Strict adherence to Islam and Sharia (Islamic law)—as he interpreted them—were the foundations of his reign. He instituted these beliefs in the empire, abandoning the religious tolerance of his predecessors. During his reign, many Hindu temples were defaced and destroyed, and many non-Muslims (mostly Hindus) converted (widely believed forcibly) to Islam; the jizya, a head tax on non-Muslims, was reinstated during his rule.
This picture of Aurangzeb, and his unflinching use of vast military might in his goals, leaves him as one of the most controversial figures in Indian history. He ruled India for a period of 48 years (comparable to that of Akbar, regarded the greatest Mughal emperor); he also expanded the Mughal Empire to its greatest extent, leaving only the south tip of the Indian subcontinent independent from Mughal rule. However, his constant policies of war left the empire dangerously overextended, isolated from its strong allies of Rajputs, and with a population that (except for the Muslim minority) expressed resent, if not outright rebellion, to his reign. Aurangzeb's successors lacked his strong hand in suppressing high levels of Mughal opposition, and the Hindu Maratha Confederacy mostly replaced Mughal rule during the rest of the 18th century. Nevertheless, Aurangzeb is generally regarded as the last "great" Mughal ruler, and his religious policies have added to Muslim-Hindu conflict in India, wielding influence even in modern times.
Also, I found out that Hindu-Muslim conflict did exist prior British invasion but it dramaticly increased under their rule.
Well that is some progress. Increased in what sense? How many Hindus were murdered by Muslims after the British arrived?
Watever good thigns the British did, given the chance, indian would have achived the same just in a little more time. But the bad things they commited r so profound that Indian muslims n Hindus r still suffuring its consequences.
There is no evidence for the first claim - India's economy had not done well before the British arrived. In fact it had stayed roughly where it was when the Muslim invaded. It did not do well after they left either until recently. What bad things did the British do - build railways?
On what possible grounds? By any measure the French were more tolerant in Algeria than the Muslims were in Spain and the economic and social progress under the French grossly out-weighed that of the Muslims in Spain. How do you claim what you claim?
Much worse off, oil apart, than when the French were there.
...well, still that doesnt mean that British invasion didnt create the worst kind of damage within Indian community. U see for this I dont need to reffer u to books n that sort, its a common knowledge in India, not just Muslims belive so, but also Hindus. 