DĪN-I-ILĀHĪ: THE RELIGIOUS
SYNCRETISM OF SULTAN AKBAR THE GREAT
(INDIA:1556-1605)
PAPER
The Extract of Doctoral Thesis with New Research
Sources in Germany, September & October 2013, on Invitation from
Prof. Dr. Arndt Graf
(Professor of
Southeast Asian Studies at the University of Frankfurt, Germany)
Compiled By:
Dr. Anwarsyah Nur, MA
(Lecturer of Islamic Studies at Ushuluddin Faculty
IAIN-SU)
STATE INSTITUTE FOR ISLAMIC STUDIES
NORTH-SUMATRA
MEDAN
2013
CONTENTS
FOREWORD
ACKNOWLEDMENTS
ABSTRACT
I.
Introduction....................................................................................... 5
The
Methodology of this Research.................................................... 8
II.
The Background of His Thought......................................................... 10
- Internally....................................................................................... 10
- Externally...................................................................................... 11
- His Career and Works................................................................... 13
- The Methodology of His Thought.................................................. 19
- People Who Influenced Him.......................................................... 20
III. His Thoughts on Syncretic Din-I-Ilahi................................................. 21
Dīn-i-Ilāhī and sulh-i-kull (Universal Toleration)...................... 25
IV. The Contributions of Din-I-Ilahi in Development
and Harmonism-
of
the Indians........................................................................................ . 31
A. Din-I-Ilahi and Harmonism
of the Indians.................................... . 31
B. Din-I-Ilahi and Democracy
in India.............................................. . 33
C. Din-I-Ilahi and the
Dynamics of the Indians............................. 35
V. Conclusion...................................................................................... 37
BIBLIOGRAPHY.................................................................................. 38
APPENDIX
FOREWORD
In the name of Allah, the Merciful. the Charitable.
All praise is due to Allah alone; and
peace and blessings be upon Muhammad the Chosen, the Prophet of Direction and
Grace, and also upon his posterity and his companions the pure and the pious.
On invitation from Prof. Dr. Arndt Graf
(Professor of Southeast Asian Studies at the
University of Frankfurt, Germany), and as visiting fellow I have luckily got a
scholarship from State Institute for Islamic Studies North-Sumatra (IAIN Medan)
for doing my post doctoral research overseas in Germany with topic “Dīn-i-ilāhī:
The Religious Syncretism of Sultan Akbar The Great (INDIA: 1556-1605)”. Because
this study uses library research method with historical approach, so it strongly
needs many historical references which can be easily found in almost all universities
in Germany in general.The research had been done since 19 September 2013
up to 18 October 2013. The consideration why the research is done in Germany
for nearly all universities there, full of informations and modern technology
such as complete collection of all kinds of books, magazines and scientific films
from all over the world and can easily access to electronic library as
downloading an important book we need. In this case, the writer here had
downloaded a book as a main source in this research i.e a well-known work of
Indian historian Professor Makhanlal Roychoudhury from Calcutta University (The
Din-i-Ilahi or the religion of Akbar consisting of more than 400 pages)
besides other books which are certainly hard to find them in Indonesia.
Let you know that the above topic is
also an extract of my doctoral thesis with new research references that I found
in Germany.
The writer realizes that this research
is still far from perfection. Therefore, suggestions and constructive critics
from readers for the improvement of this research are very much appreciated.
ACKNOWLEDMENTS
-
I wish to
express my sincerest appreciation to Prof. Dr. Arndt Graf (Professor of Southeast Asian Studies at the University of
Frankfurt, Germany) who indirectly be as our research consultant during in
Germany. Rector of State Institute for Islamic Studies North-Sumatra
Medan (IAIN-SU) Prof. Dr. Nur A. Fadhil Lubis, MA. and his Deputies
who have created a lot of breakthroughs in collaboration with overseas
Institutions such as Islamic Development Bank (IDB), Higher Educational
Institutions in Europe: Goethe Frankfurt Univ, Leiden Univ. and Marmara Univ. in
Turkey, Marocco Univ. etc. All this, in the framework of being IAIN-SU go to
UIN or State Islamic University.
-
Unforgetable
thanks for my respondents in this research in Germany: Dr. Jur Stefan Koos
(Munchen Univ), Dr. Dietmar Burkhardt (Frankfurt Univ), Rusdin
Sumbayak (Chair of Indonesian Community in Germany), Bern Mothes
(Lec. Of Leipzig Univ.), Roselien Rehfeldt and many others that I cannot
enumerate here.
-
Many thanks
also go to all my group fellows: Prof. Dr. Ramli Abdul Wahid, MA, Prof Dr.
Katimin, M.Ag., Zulkarnaen, MA., Drs. Irwansyah Betawi, M.Ag., Dra. Aisyah,
M.Ag who have supported me in doing my research.
-
Special
thanks are due to Chair of Project Implementation Unit (PIU) Dr. Zainul
Fuad, MA., and all his staffs who have well arranged all our traveling
facility such as; visa, ticketing, accomodation and transport in Germany.
-
At last I
convey my sincerest thanks to my beloved wife and sons at home who are so
patient and willing to support my traveling to Germany.
-
May the
Almighty God accept this humble contribution and show His gratefulness to you
all. Aameen!
Frankfurt, Germany, October 19, 2013.
Dr. Anwarsyah Nur, MA.
DĪN-I-ILĀHĪ: THE RELIGIOUS
SYNCRETISM OF
SULTAN AKBAR THE GREAT
(INDIA: 1556-1605)
ABSTRACT
Akbar
is the third and most sophisticated and successful Mughal Emperor (1556-1605)
in Mughal Empire (1525-1858). There are many
firsts under his rule; equal respect to different religions, against casteism
and most importantly-Akbar
not only tolerated religions other than Islam, he encouraged interfaiths
discussion and debate. After listening to many religious scholars from the
prominent religions of his empire. He decided that no one faith was entirely
and exclusively true; he developed a syncretic religion which he called Dīn-i-Ilāhī,
"the Divine Faith" and encouraged his subjects to follow it. It
combined elements primarily from Islam and Hinduism, but also from
Zoroastrianism, Jainism and Christianity. While it never gained a real
following, it promoted many universal values found in these religions,
including compassion, piety, abstinence and prudence. It forbade celibacy and
animal slaughter. Another religion that was developing at the same time, but
gained a large following and continues to this day as one of the world's great
religions is Sikhism, which also blends elements of Hinduism and Islam. Akbar promoted a policy of syncretic Dīn-i-Ilāhī
for tolerance for all religions.
The objectives of this research are to know how Akbar’s
motivation in creating a policy of syncretic Dīn-i-Ilāhī and his thought contributions towards Indian people.
This research uses literary or
library research with historical approaches. As main sources of this research
is the prominent work of Indian historian Prof. Makhanlal Roychoudhury “The Din-i-Ilahi or the Religion
of Akbar” first published by Calcutta
University Press, 1923. Data collection technics: firstly by doing
inventarisation with widely, critically and deeply reading references relating
to Akbar’s thought, secondly by critical evaluation, and thirdly by making
synthesis to find out the best elements of all.
The result of this research indicates that his policy of
syncretic Dīn-i-Ilāhī purely promoted racial
tolerance and religious freedom under the policy of "universal
tolerance" or "sulh-i-kull"
He appointed Hindus to high
positions in his cabinet, married Hindu women and abolished taxes levied
against both Hindus and non–Muslims. He
welcomed visitors of all faiths—including Jains, Jesuits
(Renaissance Roman Catholics), Hindus and Zoroastrians—to his court.
Discussions with these visitors led him to develop his own religious teachings, Dīn-i-Ilāhī or "divine faith," that sought to transcend the
disagreements and conflicts of the world’s religions. Music, art and literature
flourished in Akbar's cosmopolitan court. By influence of Renaissance and Scholaticism in Europe,
making Akbar think more liberally. One of his suggestions is that Quran as
divine revelation should be contextually interpreted and not textually in
accord with the change of time and its community. His thought contributions
then influence the daily life of the Indians such as harmonism in
interreligious community far better than before. He also
constitutes as symbol of liberalism and secularism then reflected by modern
India.
Key-words:
Dīn-i-Ilāhī, syncretism, universal toleration,
Mughal Empire.
DĪN-I-ILĀHĪ: THE RELIGIOUS
SYNCRETISM OF
SULTAN AKBAR THE GREAT
(INDIA: 1556-1605)
I.
Introduction.
The Dīn-i-Ilāhī
(Persian: دین الهی lit. "Religion of God") Dīn-i-Ilāhī (Tawhid Ilahi) or divine religion/divine faith,[1]
was a syncretic
religion propounded by the Mughal or Moghul[2]
emperor Akbar the
Great in 1582 AD., intending to merge the best elements of the religions of
his empire, and thereby reconcile the differences that divided his subjects.
The elements were primarily drawn from Islam and Hinduism, but
some others were also taken from Christianity,
Jainism and Zoroastrianism.
Akbar promoted tolerance of other faiths. In fact, not only did he
tolerate them, he encouraged debate on philosophical and religious issues. This
led to the creation of the Ibādat Khāna ("House of Worship") at Fatehpur
Sikri in 1575. He had already repealed the Jizya (tax on
non-Muslims) in 1568. A religious experience while hunting in 1578 further
increased his interest in the religious traditions of his empire.
From the discussions he led at the Ibādat Khāna, Akbar concluded
that no single religion could claim the monopoly of truth. This inspired him to
create the Dīn-i Ilāhī in 1582. Various pious Muslims, among them the Qadi of Bengal and the
seminal Sufi
personality Shaykh Ahmad Sirhindi, responded by declaring this to be blasphemy to
Islam.
Dīn-i Ilāhī appears to have survived Akbar according to the Dabestān-e Mazāheb of Mubad Shah (Mohsin Fani). However,
the movement never numbered more than 19 adherents.
Dīn-i-Ilāhī prohibits lust, sensuality, slander and
pride, considering them sins. Piety, prudence, abstinence and kindness are the
core virtues. The soul is encouraged to purify itself through yearning of God.
Celibacy is respected and the slaughter of animals is forbidden. There are
neither sacred scriptures nor a priestly hierarchy in this religion. To make
all-races of his people are pleased with him, Akbar promulgated a controversial
religious syncretism[3]
which was opposited to many people particularly by orthodox Muslims in his
time. The impact of Renaissance and Scholaticism in Europe, Akbar made a lot of
changes for his people whether in religious, architectural, political, art,
educational, social fields etc.
When there is a sudden upheaval in one country at a
particular period of time, there is a vibration in every direction in the
common level. This is particularly true of the great upheaval of the 16th
century of Indian history, the age of Akbar. It was an age of the Renaissance
in Europe, of the Mahdi movement in Islam, the Ming revival in China, and of
the Sufi forces and Bhakti cult in India. In the 16th century of the
Christian Era, every civilized country in the world was pulsating with a new
life; new orders of things were on the anvil, vigorous dynasties appeared-in
England the Tudors, in France the Bourbons, in Spain and Austria the Hapsburgs,
in Prussia the Hohenzollerns, in Turkey the Usmanlis, in Egypt the Mamluks, in
Persia the Safavids, in Transoxiana the Sahabanids, in China the Mings, in
India the Timurids-all in the same period. Greatness of the individual kings
rather realized the spirit of the Age-Henry VIII and Elizabeth in England,
Henry IV in France, Fredrick William in Prussia, Sigsmund in Austria, Philip II
in Spain, Suleiman in Turkey, Shah Ismail and Shah Tahmasp in Persia, the
Sahabani Khan in Transoxiana, Yung Lo in China and Babur and Akbar in India.
Indeed the unison was perfect.[4]
European writers on the Timurids in India tried to explain in
the life and actions of the great emperor Akbar as mere accidents. They made an
isolated study of Akbar without reference to the Central Asian background neglecting
the unity of the Islamic movements of the period. The range of their study was
circumscribed by the conception of history current in the 19th
century. They interpreted the facts of the Timurid India as mere isolated
accidental happenings. Few of them tried to enter into the spirit that inspired
the movement of Indian events-their currents and cross-currents. Their life was
different and the perspective was exclusive. As such, their interpretations of
Indian history were coloured by their predilections. They depended on the
contemporary writers on Muslim India who were mere narrators of events. These
writers were ecclesiastics, merchants, adventurers and travellers. The scope of
their writings was determined by the nature of the professions to which they
belonged. Even stray acquaintance with Muslim chronicles did not alter their
angle of vision, because almost all the Muslim chroniclers were mere writers of
events, and their conception of history may be gathered from the name they gave
to history-Tawarikh (date-records). Thus, in the light of stereotyped
conception of history, with materials of doubtful value furnished by
contemporary European recorders of events and with chronicles maintained by
Muslim chronologists at their command, the European historians failed in many
cases to offer reliable interpretations of Indo-Muslim thoughts and events.
Moreover, most of the early English writers were obsessed with a feeling of
superiority when they wrote the history of the conquered people of India-specially
of the Muslims from whom they conquered Hindustan. They laid stress on Akbar as
a conqueror, as an empire-builder and as an administrator. They showered
encomiums on Akbar for his personal qualities, for his versatility.[5]
Certainly, Akbar deserves a good deal of what has been said
of him as a builder of the Timurid Empire in India and as a founder of some
institutions which survive even to-day. But that is only one side of the medal.
The explanation of Akbar's life and contemporary events is incomplete unless
they are treated in the spirit of the atmosphere he breathed, the ideals for
which he stood and the cultural synthesis which he and his great associates
brought about. The veil of seclusion that had concealed India from the gaze of
the world outside was no longer there, she was no longer dead to the play of
forces that were working in the contemporary world. A mere narration of events
of the age of the Emperor Akbar is not a satisfactory approach to the history
of that important epoch of the Indians. Without a study of the cultural and
intellectual activities of the Ibādat
Khāna-the first parliament of the religions of the world-it is
impossible to understand the forces and ideals for which India had been working
for centuries. Indian civilization has a wonderful capacity of assimilating
extraneous currents and transmitting her own to others. The Dīn-i-Ilāhī
of emperor Akbar clearly demonstrated how the Central Asian forces, winding
their course through the Semitism of Arabia and filtering through the Monism of
Iran, were ultimately Aryanised by the touch of Hindustan. The contribution of
the different cultures, as represented in that great Hall of Worship or Ibādat
Khāna, to the transformation and Indianisation of Islam was immense,
though of course the process had already begun. Maintaining the basis of real
Islam, the great savants of the age metamorphosed and crystallized the spirit
of the age into Sufi order, called the Dīn-i-Ilāhī.[6]
By way of his intellectuality and genius policy, Akbar could
hold the power nearly a half of century (1556-1605 AD.). He reigned the empire
with clean government and good governance and let the Hinduism surviving as
majority up to now without forcing them to follow his Dīn-i-Ilāhī what’s
more to force them to profess Islam. Nevertheless, his syncretic Dīn-i-Ilāhī
has at least influenced to many aspects of people’s life particularly in India.
Therefore, his contributions in pluralism and universal tolerance have been
strongly remained in Indian sub-continent (India, Pakistan and Bangladesh)[7].
At last it was interesting that his son Prince Salim or
Jahangir (1606-1628 AD.) as his next successor commented about his father, “My father always associated with the learned
of every creed and religion, especially with the Pandits and the learned of
India, and although he was illiterate, so much became clear to him through
constant intercourse with the learned and wise…that no one knew him to be
illiterate…”[8]
Historically, Akbar was
one of the two monarchs in the Indian
sub-continent tittled “the Great” by the West or Indian
historians, and the other one was Emperor Asoka, “Akbar is one of the only two monarchs in the
entire span of Indian history to be called ‘great’, the other being Asoka, who
lived eighteen centuries before Akbar. Akbar’s name meant ‘great’, and he would
live up to its promise”[9]
The Methodology of this Research
As
a literary or library research, this research uses eclectic, blended, with qualitative
method in content analysis. In considerance with that historical approach
containing philosophic thoughts. It cannot be obtained by one method only.
History and human thoughts are so complicated and having a lot of dimensions.
Hence, this study uses historical approach. The history of Akbar the Great as
the third Emperor in Mughal Dynasty is quite significant to be researched with
historical approach. According to Akbar S Ahmed that in the theory of Islamic
history, there are six categories that should be observed.
To place our
theory of Islamic history in context and to identify the main developments, we
will creat six socio-historical categories. These broad categories, overlapping
and borrowing from each other, also identify distinct social characteristics
correlating the time and place within which Muslims lived. It is a frame to
help us view Muslim history and society simply, an otherwise formidably complex
task. Although a clear common theme, the more towards the ideal runs through
them, the categories are culturally and socially distinct from one another.
Each possesses a characteristics way of looking at the world. The six
categories are: 1). The time of the Prophet and the ideal caliphs. 2). The Arab
dynasties. 3). The three Muslim empires. 4). Islam of the periphery. 5). Islam
under European rule. 6). Contemporary Islam.[10]
Joachim Wach, also named as ‘the father of comparative
religions’ was born on 25 January
1898 in Chemnitz Germany and died on 27 August
1955. He suggested an approach on religious study as
follows: “Historical approach is the attempt to trace the
origin and growth of religious ideas and
institutions through definite periods of historical development and to asses
the role of forces with which religion contended during these periods.”[11]
The objectives of this research are to know how Akbar’s motivation in
creating a policy of Dīn-i-Ilāhī and his thought contributions towards Indian people. As a main source
of this research is the biggest work of Indian historical professor Makhanlal Roychoudhury
Sastri, “The Dīn-i-Ilāhī or The Religion of Akbar”, published by The University of Calcutta Press,
Calcutta India 1941 consists of 237 pages and Hard Cover edition printed in New Delhi by Munshiram Manoharlal
Publisher Pvt. Ltd, 1997, no change in both editions.[12] Data collection
technics: firstly by doing inventarisation with widely, critically and deeply
reading references relating to Akbar’s thought, secondly by critical evaluation,
and thirdly by making synthesis to find out the best elements of all.[13]
See
the following diagram of Joachim Wach’s theory in Religious Study:
How
his contributions and the background of his thought especially about his
syncretic Dīn-i-Ilāhī have been influencing to people’s life in Indian
sub-continent would be analyzed in this paper.
II. The Background of His Thought
- Internally.
Akbar was
born on 15 October 1542 AD in Amarkot Sindh India and born as Abu al Fath Jalaluddin Muhammad Akbar. His father was Humayun and his grandfather was Zahiruddin
Muhammad Babur, who invaded northern India from his post in Kabul
(Afghanistan). At its height, the Mughal Empire included most of the Indian sub-continent and an estimated population of 100 million people at that time.[14] Akbar was the first Mughal emperor who was a natural born
Indian, but he had no Indian blood in him; he was in fact more Persian than
Mughal in blood, as his mother (Hamidah Banu Begum), as well Humayun’s mother,
were Persians.[15]
At the time of Humayun’s death, Akbar was in the field under his guardian
Bairam Khan. Akbar, like his grandfather, had started his military career while
still a mere boy. Having been born while his father was fugitive, he had
received no formal education. It is even probable that he could not read or
write, but he had a prodigious memory and a passion for knowledge. When the news
of his father’s death arrived, Bairam Khan hastily arranged for Annar to be
crowned as Padshah (leader or prime minister), before rival claimants
should have the opportunity of rising. The coronation took place at Kalanaur in
the Gurdaspur District, on 14 February 1556 AD.[16]
The political influence of Bairam Khan and his mother Hamidah Banu
Begum, his foster parents the couple of Maham Anaga and Atga Khan and son Adam
Khan and his wife Princess Amber were quite significant to Akbar’s policies.
According to Abu Fazl, the last four was also called as “behind the veil”, and
the above persons internally extremely influenced Akbar’s policies. But on Akbar’s
wisdom, says Abu Fazl, “was not learnt or acquired, but he was the gift of God”.[17]
The name of Amber Princess Akbar married is not recorded. Her Royal
Title was Mariam Zamani, and she was burried, like a Muslim, in Sepulchre near
Akbar’s Tom at Sikandra and Akbar died on 25 October 1605 in 63. The religious
eclecticism influence of Akbar from his wife was quite hard as Makhanlal says:
There was
nothing unusual in the raja’s offer, nor in Akbar’s acceptance. The custom of
Hindu rulers offering their daughters in marriage to Muslim rulers, though not
common, has been known in India for several centuries. Yet Akbar’s marriage
with the princess of Amber is significant, as an early indication of his
evolving policy of religious eclecticism. Contrary to the usual practice of the
sultans. He allowed the princess to remain a Hindu and maintain a Hindu shrine
in the royal palace, and he himself occasionally participated in the puja (ritual prayer in Hinduism) she performed.[18]
In 1557 AD. Akbar established the Hall
of Worship or Ibādat Khāna-the first
parliament of the religions of the world. This place for weekly discussion with
multi-religious scholars pertaining to religious thought, philosophy, universal
tolerance, education etc. By this hall Akbar broke a lot of fresh innovations
through discussions with cross religious experts.[19]
B. Externally.
Most European
writers made an isolated study of Akbar without reference to the Central Asian
background. Akbar’s thought also influenced by the social condition of Indian
sub-continent which is full of highly heterogenity of castes, religions,
ethnicities and cultures have been going on for centuries in Indian
sub-continent. Because of the impact of Renaissance and Scholaticism in
Europe, Akbar made a lot of changes for his people whether in religious,
architectural, political, art, educational, social fields etc. In this matter, Makhanlal says that:
European writers on the Timurids in India tried to explain the life and
actions of the great Emperor Akbar as mere accidents. They made an isolated
study of Akbar without reference to the Central Asian background, neglecting
the unity of the Islamic movements of the periods.[20]
In spite of all liberal tendencies of the age, Akbar could not be
absolutely free from the Central Asian influences. Many of the social
regulations of Akbar can be explained by a reference to the manners and customs
of his accestors (the hereditary traits of Gengis Khan and Timur Lank). Akbar
was quite a good Musalman but the sad fact is that he had, on account of his
state regulations, displeased the orthodox theocracy.[21]
Akbar is often considered the true
founder of the Mughal Empire. He reigned over his Mughal
Empire in India from 1556 AD. to 1605 AD. By now, in addition to Hinduism,
Buddhism, and Jainism,
Christianity,
Zoroastrianism,
and Sikhism were also religions that the Muslim rulers had to tackle. Akbar stands
distinctively from all other Muslim rulers in his policy towards the religions
of his kingdom. His policy of inclusivism, religious tolerance, and
inter-religious respect and endeavour towards an empire based on unity and
equality led to Jawaharlal Nehru calling him the ‘the Father of
Indian Nationalism.’[22]
As Thapar points out, Akbar ‘won the allegiance of the Rajputs, the most
belligerent Hindus, by a shrewd blend of tolerance, generosity, and force; he
himself married two Rajput princesses. Rajput princess were given high
government ranks, and by 1583 all Rajput states had accepted Akbar as ruler. His
religious policy towards the Hindus was in such a time when religious
intolerance was on high and Muslim rule over Hindus was more often of an
oppressive kind.[23]
It is conjectured that Akbar’s Hindu
policy was greatly influenced by the many Hindu wives that he had. Akbar
himself was a regular audience of Hindu saints and philosophers. Some consider
that a probable influence behind Akbar’s Hindu policy could be Sufism that is
said to have inspired him towards a more liberal approach towards Hinduism.
Others think that Akbar’s Hindu policy was politically motivated.[24]
C. His Career and Works
Akbar was the ruler of the Moghul Empire from the time of his accession in 1556
until 1605. He is considered the greatest of the Moghul emperors in terms of
his military conquests. He engaged in military campaigns that caused the deaths
of thousands, but within his empire he tried to rule justly and bridge cultural
and religious barriers between its different peoples. He was a patron of
learning and of the arts. Akbar is best known for his vision of empire as an
interfaith community—a view quite exceptional for his time. Although a pious Muslim,
he believed that truth underlies all religions and pioneered inter-religious
collaboration through his discussions with religious scholars, his promotion of
the unity of religious truth, and through his own inter-cultural marriages.
Although his policies clearly had pragmatic benefits in attracting the loyalty
of non-Muslims, Akbar's personal commitment to unity appears to have been
genuine. Lane-Poole as quoted by Iqbal says:
“The true founder and organizer of the Empire,
Akbar, “represents The Golden Age of the Mughal Empire….Assimilation of the Hindu
chiefs was the most conspicious feature of Akbar’s reign….The remarkable points
about this expansion…. were firstly, that it was done with the willing help of
the Hindu princess, and secondly that expansion went hand in hand with orderly
administration….Akbar allowed no oppression…”[25]
“Akbar was the greatest of the Mughals and perhaps the greatest of all
Indian rulers for a thousand years. If
not ever since the days of the mighty Mauryas. But, without detracting in
the least from the genius of the man of the inheritance of his birth, it may
yet be said that Akbar was so great, because he was so thoroughly Indianized. His genius perceived the two communities
into a common Nation by the
universal bond of common service and equal citizenship of a magnificent Empire…”[26]
“Akbar was a man of unlimited imagination. He had immense energy in his
dealing with the state and society matters. Hence, the nature and volume of the
reforms under him. All these and other innovations, came from the head of one
man-Jalalauddin Akbar-a contemporary of Elizabeth (England), Philiph II (Spain)
and forerunner of Louis XIV (France), “whose age was that of religious
intolerance, rigid inquisition and ruthless persecution, and whose environts in
different fields “are the index of genius unsurpassed in the annals of the
world”[27]
Political career
Akbar was driven from the throne of India in
a series of decisive battles by the Afghan, Sher Shah Suri. After more than 12
years of exile,
Humayun regained his sovereignty, though he held it for only a few months
before his death in 1556. Akbar succeeded his father the same year under the
regency of Bairam Khan, a Turkoman noble whose zeal in repelling pretenders to
the throne and severity in maintaining the discipline of the army helped
greatly in the consolidation of the newly recovered empire. When order was
somewhat restored, Akbar took the reigns of government into his own hands with
a proclamation issued in March 1560.
It is speculated by historians that Bairam Khan attempted to
dethrone or murder Akbar when he came of age, or led an army against his
loyalists. It is also suggested that Akbar, suspicious of Khan's ambitions and
loyalties, encouraged him to perform a pilgrimage
to Mecca,
and there had him killed by an agent. The Encyclopaedia Brittanica (11th
ed.) surmises rather
that Bairam had been despotic and cruel as regent but that following his
rebellion, Akbar forgave him and offered him either a “high post in the army or
a suitable escort” to Mecca. On November 5, 1556, 50 miles north of Delhi, a
Moghul army defeated Hindu forces of General Hemu at the Second Battle of Panipat,
granting the throne of India to Akbar.[28]
When Akbar ascended the throne, only a small portion of what
had formerly comprised the Moghul Empire was still under his control, and he
devoted himself to the recovery of the remaining provinces. He expanded the
Moghul Empire to include Malwa (1562), Gujarat (1572), Bengal (1574), Kabul
(1581), Kashmir (1586), and Kandesh (1601), among others. Akbar installed a
governor over each of the conquered provinces, under his authority. Some poinst
to the slaughter of captives that took place after many of the battles he
fought, or to his beheading Sher Shar's Hindu chief minister, Hemu, after the
Second Battle of Panipat (which earned him the title of Ghazi, Muslim
soldier, warrior), or the self-immolation of thousands of Hindu women at the
siege of Chitor, Rajasthan (1568) as evidence of his moral failings (some
sources claim he slaughtered 30,000 Hindu captives after the fall of Chitor).
Others claim that he kept a huge harem of concubines, or temporary wives
(allowed under Shi'a law), which makes his life less than morally ideal. It was
his conquest of Bengal that gave him control of the whole of northern India,
which qualifies him according to some scholars as the real founder of the
Moghul Empire.[29]
Parallels to Elizabeth I of England
A contemporary of Elizabeth I of England, some have compared
their roles. Akbar ruled over a much larger territory, but Elizabeth, like
Akbar, laid the foundation of her country's imperial expansion. Elizabeth lost
England's last European colony but defeated Spain, turned her attention to the
American colonies, and sponsored the voyages of Sir Francis Drake and others that eventually
resulted in the acquisition of her overseas possessions. Qureishi assesses
Akbar's legacy thus, “By all standards, Akbar was personally brave, a good
general and excellent administrator. He was responsible for converting a small
kingdom into a resplendent and mighty empire”. It was Elizabeth I, too, who in
1600 granted a Royal Charter to the British East India Company, which would
eventually bring about the downfall of the Moghuls; and it was Akbar's son,
Jehangir, who first gave the company permission to trade in India (1617).[30]
Administration
Akbar did not want to have his court tied too closely to the
city of Delhi
and built a new capital for himself at Fetehpur Sikri, near Agra.
Unfortunately, the new palace, although architecturally splendid, did not prove
habitable—possibly because of an inadequate water supply—so he set up a roaming
camp that let him keep a close eye on what was happening throughout the empire.
He tried to develop and encourage commerce, and had the land accurately
surveyed for the purpose of correctly evaluating taxation and he gave strict
instructions to prevent extortion on the part of the tax gatherers. The
agricultural tax system he used has been described as “scientific and
benevolent” since it levied only an average of what was judged to be a medium
yield of crop. Believing that the wazir, or wazir al-saltana had
traditionally wielded too much power, Akbar restricted this function. Instead,
his diwan exercised mainly fiscal authority. He divided the empire into
provinces (subas), which were subdivided into districts (sarkars),
which in turn were subdivided into parganas. This remained the pattern
throughout British rule and is more or less maintained today in Bangladesh
and Pakistan as well as India.
His provincial governors were given short tenures to prevent their acquiring
too much power or wealth. Akbar's diwan, Todar Mall, is credited with unifying
the imperial administration.[31]
Akbar gained a reputation for justice and for interest in the
welfare of ordinary people. He encouraged “purity and plainness of living.”
Introducing reforms, he abolished many practices that had been “insulting and
oppressive” of Hindus. The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia describes him
as “such a wise and tolerant administrator of his vast realm that he was called
‘Guardian of Mankind’. Akbar's concern to treat Hindus fairly was of course
pragmatic, but there is little doubt that he sincerely wanted to be a just
ruler, hence his motto, “Peace with all”. His reforms, abolishing the jizya
tax (the tax paid by non-Muslims in return for protection and religious
liberty—with some restrictions) in 1564, and other anti-Hindu laws, resulted in
many non-Muslims becoming “faithful servants” of the empire. Legal cases
concerning disputes between individuals were dealt with in the Qadi courts.
Matters concerning disputes between subjects and government or complaints about
government officials were dealt with in the mazalim courts, of which the
sultan was president.[32]
Mulk Raj Anand compared Fatehpur
Sikri built by Akbar with London city that time:
The total complex of private palaces, residences as well as the
Imperial eshtablishments, and the great mosque with the giant gateway, is one
of the most considerable achievements in the history of world architecture. The
Hamton Court of Henry VIII, near London, seems like a ramshackle barn as
compared to Fatehpur Sikri. One has to remember that the city was built at the
end of the 16th century, communications were difficult, materials
inaccessible, and machine tools non-existent. And then one has to imagine the
boldness of the conception, emerging from the social milieu of small moribund
villages, where the construction of one grand mausoleum or mosque had been the
only aspiration of the most powerful monarchs and Akbar must have seemed an
eccentric even to his own nobles, to even those who were used to the heroic
deeds of the Emperor when he ordained the building of a whole city.[33]
Religion
At the time of Akbar's rule, the Moghul Empire included both Hindus
and Muslims.
Profound differences separate the Islamic and Hindu faith; Muslims are allowed
to eat beef, while for those of the Hindu religion it is forbidden to harm cows
because they are worshiped as sacred. Hindus are allowed to drink alcoholic
beverages (such as wine), a practice which is forbidden by Islam.
Nonetheless, Hindus were regarded as “people of the book” since they possessed
scriptures and, while worship of the many deities could be regarded as both
idolatry and polytheism, they were given the benefit of the doubt on
both accounts. That is, on the issue of idolatry they were said to venerate not
the representation, or image, but the deity that it represented while the many
deities were taken to be different names for the same, single reality. In fact,
some Hindu mystical teachers attracted Muslim devotees while such Muslim Sufi saints
as Chisti and Kabir were popular with Hindus. Sufis taught unity of all beings (wahdat-al-wujud),
and Akbar was a disciple of Chisti, who prophesied the birth of his first son.
Akbar incorporated Chisti's shrine into Fatehpur Sikri (1670). Akbar the Great,
leader of the Moghul Empire, fostered pluralism and tolerance for all religions.
During the period of the Moghul Empire, the majority of the Indian population
was Hindu, but the rulers of the empire were almost exclusively Muslim. It was
in this polarized religious arena that Akbar commenced his rule. Akbar himself
fostered tolerance for all religions, which was known as his policy of sulh-i-kull
(universal tolerance). Clearly interested in religious issues, he started to
invite scholars to court to discuss theological topics. Initially, only Muslims
took part, but later Akbar invited Jews,
Parsees (Zoroastrians), Hindus,
Buddhists, Jains, and Christians, including Jesuits
from Goa. At his new capital, he built the Ibādat
Khāna (house of worship) to accommodate scholarly exchanges.[34]
Akbar was “genuinely interested in the study of Comparative
Religion,” according to Davies, as he became convinced of “good in all
religions.” Some assume that Akbar's interest was mainly political, to retain
the loyalty of non-Muslim subjects. Thus, his cross-cultural marriages to several Hindu
princesses have been dismissed as politically motivated, rather than a genuine
attempt at religious reconciliation. On the other hand, he also married
Christians and at the time no Christian power was strong enough to justify a
strategic alliance. Therefore, he appears to have seen his marriages as a way
of cementing interreligious friendship.
Akbar tried to reconcile the differences of both religions by
creating a new faith called the Dīn-i-Ilāhī, or Tawhid-i-Ilahi,
which incorporated both Islam and Hinduism. This stressed unity (tawhid)
of all beings and a pure theism that in his view represented the “common
element of all the creeds he sought into”. Some believe that, in any formal
sense, few people subscribed to this religion.[35]
However, it was his successors' “departure from the main principles
of his rule that led to the decline of the Moghul empire”. In reaction, harsh
measures were enacted against Muslims (and also Sikhs).
His immediate successors, Jehangir (1569–1627) and Shah
Jahan (1627–1658) (builder of the Taj
Mahal) more or less continued his policy of toleration but Aurangzeb
(1618–1707; emperor from 1658 until 1707), influenced by traditional or
conservative Muslim scholars, pursued an iconoclastic policy of destroying
Hindu images, banning music, closing non-Muslim schools, and even destroying
temples. The jizya was re-introduced. He also disapproved of Sufi
Islam. Much of this anticipated the type of Islam that Shah Waliullah (1702–1767)
would advocate.[36]
Akbar and Orthodox Islam
Akbar's policies were also aimed at attracting the support of
non-Sunni Muslims. He is said to have been disgusted with the internal
disagreement between different Muslims. He appears to have disliked the immense
authority exercised by the traditional Muslim scholars, the ulama, and
wanted to curb this. Advocating something similar to King Charles I of England's doctrine of the “divine
right of kings,” he believed that the monarch exercises authority under God,
which contravened the orthodox Muslim understanding that the shariah
(divine law) is above the caliph,
or sultan. Technically, when Akbar became emperor it was the chief qadi
(judge) who legalized his accession by reading a proclamation during Friday
prayer. This official exercised “extraordinary powers”. In 1579, Akbar issued a
decree, known as the “Infallibility Decree,” that required the ulama to
recognize him as the supreme authority in religious matters. They also had to
declare that he was a just ruler, imam-i-'adil. However, in practice
Akbar was not qualified to act as an Islamic judge, since this involves
adjudicating between the opinions of different scholars, so as a matter of fact
(although the subject of considerable controversy) the decree was never
implemented. Instead, Akbar “relied upon the political device of appointing to
high religious and legal offices his own nominees”.[37]
His successors saw him as an apostate and infidel who compromised
Islam but “the charge that he denounced Islam and ceased consciously to be a
Muslim is not proved,” concluded Qureshi. According to Sheykh Nur al-Hakk,
Akbar “tried to take the good from all differing opinions” with the “sole
object” of “ascertaining [the] truth”. This represents a classic struggle
between the two spheres of authority in Islam, that of siyasah, or
politics, and of fiqh, or jurisprudence. As sultan, Akbar wanted to
control both and to recruit support for his interpretation of Islam. The tactic
of appointing nominees to high office who are sympathetic to one’s views is
almost universally used by heads of state and of government. Akbar clearly
wanted to curb the power of the traditional ulama, whose version of
Islam he considered narrow and intolerant. Following the “Infallability
Decree,” Akbar's half-brother, Hakim (governor of Kabul) tried to ferment a
revolt with the aid of a fatwa in support of his cause. Aided by his
loyal Hindu soldiers, Akbar took Kabul in
1581, defeating Hakim.[38]
Patron of the Arts
Although Akbar was illiterate, surprisingly because his
family had a reputation for learning and two of the most important women in his
life, his wife Salima Sultan and his aunt, Gulbadan, were “accomplished in
letters,” he had a great love for knowledge. He was a patron to many men of
literary talent, among whom may be mentioned the brothers Feizi and Abul Fazl.
The former was commissioned by Akbar to translate a number of Sanskrit
scientific works into Persian; and the latter produced the Akbar-Nameh,
an enduring record of the emperor's reign. It is also said that Akbar employed
Jerome Xavier, a Jesuit missionary, to translate the four Gospels
of the New Testament into Persian. He also built schools for
Muslims and for Hindus. The western writer Philiph Bamborough says:
“The
Emperor Akbar (1556-1605) is generally regarded as the greatest of the Moghul
Emperors. During his reign, elements of the native Hindu arts were incorporated
with that of Islam, to produce some of India’s greatest art treasures.”[39]
D.
The Methodology of His Thought.
Akbar who lived at the age of Renaissance in Europe where the
transition time from Middle Age (14th-18th century) to Modern
Age in Europe marked by re-intepretation towards classical literatures, the
growth of arts, new literature, modern sciences as philosophy, medicals,
technics etc. At the same time he was influenced by Scholasticism i.e the
philosophy and theology of Christianity based upon Aristotelianism as rational
base of Christian faith.[40]
These rational methods of thinking extremely influenced his way of thinking in
drawing a conclusion without neglecting normative methods (Quran and Hadith or the
Prophetic Traditions) with deductive/inductive, sociological and empiric
approaches.
Ontologically, Akbar observed an issue as disharmony phenomena in the
mids of his community consisting plurality and highly heterogenity and people
had broken the norms of religions and community, and in fact it should not be happened
like that. Then epistemologically, he used normative-deductive, empiric and
sociological approaches, and from this point he concluded his opinion.
Axiologically, all his decisons were absolutely and unsatisfactorily
unacceptable by a part of his plural people. But he had unified his people in
an integrated nation-state. By its integration as a nation-state in his power, Akbar
could develop his empire in all fields.
As a great emperor in his empire, Akbar really desired that the trilogy
of tolerance will exist among others; internally harmony in religious
community, harmony in interreligious community, and harmony between religious
community and power-holder (Government). In his mind, if he could build it, he
certainly could have developed his empire without meaningless obstacles.
Nation-state needs stability as a key in developing welfare people, while instability
will make the people live in disharmony and poverty. In this case, the
Government cannot well develop his country. His thoughts then have been proved by
him and successful in developing his empire all kinds of infrastructures and
suprastructures in all fields.
E. People Who Influenced Him.
The advent of three
learned scholars are Sheykh Mubarak and his sons Feizi and Abul Fazl as Shi’i
followers from Persia visiting Delhi. They open College or School of Law and Divinity at Agra near Delhi. Born as Sunni, Akbar begins to be interested in shi’ism. Because from many
discussions held in Ibādat Khāna, the sunny orthodox ulama always fail and answer rigidly the Shi’i ulama’s questions. Akbar observes that Sunni orthodox ulama as
begoted ones and they cannot break the rivals’ arguments. At the same time, he
also witnesses the rivals are tearing the arguments of others to pieces.
According
to Akbar, Quran as the divine revelation should be contextually interpreted as
the three scholars have done, unlike the orthodox ulama who always textually
interpreted the Quran. The time is always change as well as its community. The
discussion forum inspires Akbar to decide a doctrine consisting the best
elements of all religions.[41]
Pertaining
to these three Shi’i figures The
Historians’ History of the World says:
The blame of corrupting Akbar’s orthodoxy is thrown by all Mussulman
writers on Feizi and his brother Abul Fazl. These eminent persons were the sons
of a learned man named Mubarak, who was probably a native of Nagor, and who, at
one time, taught at College or School of Law and Divinity at Agra. He was at
first a Sunni, but turned inti Shi’a; and afterwards took to
reading the philosophical works of ancients, and became a free thinker, or,
according to his enemies, an Atheist.[42]
Earlier, in 1575, Akbar had built
the Ibādat
Khāna at Fatehpur Sikri. Here he gave impartial hearing to all religious
experts-Hindu, Muslim, Jain, Christian and Zoroastrian. He was against rigid
orthodoxy and narrow sectarianism of the Sunnis, who were bitterly opposed to
his tolerant policy. Then from this, he began to be interested in shi’ism and
appoited the three scholars Sheykh Mubarak, his sons Feizi and Abul Fazl to
work in his palace as ministers and spiritual advisors for him.[43]
III. His
Thoughts on Syncretic Din-I-Ilahi.
His acquaintance with
the three shi’i scholars make Akbar think more liberally. He promulgated
an elite syncretic and eclectic religious movement in 1582, which never numbered
more than 19 formal adherents.[44]
Nevertheless, the informal or unregistered members are thousands and admitance
with some conditions. Historically, one who wants to admit this movement must be
in a deep religious conviction whatever his faith. Of course, it could not be a
fact that all those who entered into the order were without exception, actuated
by a deep religious conviction.[45]
The Dīn-i-Ilāhī
was essentially an ethical system, prohibiting such sins as lust,
sensuality, slander, and pride and enjoining the virtues of piety, prudence, abstinence,
and kindness. The soul was encouraged to purify itself through yearning for God (a
tenet of Sufism, Islamic mysticism), celibacy was condoned (as in Catholicism), and the
slaughter of animals was forbidden (as in Jainism). There were no sacred scriptures or
a priestly hierarchy in the Dīn-i-Ilāhī. In its ritual, it borrowed heavily from
Zoroastrianism, making light (Sun and fire) an object of divine worship and reciting, as
in Hinduism, the 1,000 Sanskrit names of the Sun.
sensuality, slander, and pride and enjoining the virtues of piety, prudence, abstinence,
and kindness. The soul was encouraged to purify itself through yearning for God (a
tenet of Sufism, Islamic mysticism), celibacy was condoned (as in Catholicism), and the
slaughter of animals was forbidden (as in Jainism). There were no sacred scriptures or
a priestly hierarchy in the Dīn-i-Ilāhī. In its ritual, it borrowed heavily from
Zoroastrianism, making light (Sun and fire) an object of divine worship and reciting, as
in Hinduism, the 1,000 Sanskrit names of the Sun.
In practice, however, the Dīn-i-Ilāhī
functioned as a personality cult contrived by Akbar around his own person.
Members of the religion were handpicked by Akbar according to their devotion to
him. Because the emperor styled himself a reformer of Islam, arriving on Earth
almost 1,000 years after the Prophet Muhammad, there was some
suggestions that he wished to be acknowledged as a prophet also. The ambiguous use
of formula prayers (common among the Sufis) such as Allahu akbar, "God is most
great," or perhaps "God is Akbar," hinted at a divine association as well. According to Akbar Dīn-i-Ilāhī was founded—that truth may be found in all religions, and that reason should be the sole basis for belief and action.[46]
suggestions that he wished to be acknowledged as a prophet also. The ambiguous use
of formula prayers (common among the Sufis) such as Allahu akbar, "God is most
great," or perhaps "God is Akbar," hinted at a divine association as well. According to Akbar Dīn-i-Ilāhī was founded—that truth may be found in all religions, and that reason should be the sole basis for belief and action.[46]
As a matter of fact,
Akbar never confessed that he was the God. He said, “Why should I claim to
guide men before I myself am guided.”[47]
“Universal toleration is the sole basis of
Dīn-i-Ilāhī, and God ought to be worshipped with every kind of
veneration, he said.”[48]
Akbar is recorded by various conflicting
sources as having affirmed allegiance to Islam and as having broken with Islam.
His religion was generally regarded by his
contemporaries as a Muslim innovation or a heretical doctrine; only two sources from
his own time--both hostile--accuse him of trying to found a new religion. The influence
and appeal of the Dīn-i-Ilāhī were limited and did not survive Akbar, but they did trigger
a strong orthodox reaction in Indian Islam.
contemporaries as a Muslim innovation or a heretical doctrine; only two sources from
his own time--both hostile--accuse him of trying to found a new religion. The influence
and appeal of the Dīn-i-Ilāhī were limited and did not survive Akbar, but they did trigger
a strong orthodox reaction in Indian Islam.
Akbar removed the tax
on Hindus, despite the traditional mandate in Islam to tithe non-believers, and
invited scores of religious scholars, including Hindus, Jews, and Christians,
to debate him personally in his private chambers, often late into the night.
Akbar's wives were also of different religious backgrounds—each marriage was
thus a strategic union that would allow the adherents of India's many faiths to
feel that they too were apart of the royal household.
Over time, Akbar's
fascination with religion grew to almost an obsession when he fashioned his own
faith, called Dīn-i-Ilāhī was an eclectic mix of the other religions
Akbar had studied during those late-night theological debates. He borrowed what
he saw as the best components of each and blended them into the melange that
became Dīn-i-Ilāhī The new faith, however, never caught on among the
Hindus and Muslims outside of his court, but despite this failure, Akbar
continued to support religious tolerance among his people.[49]
Certain ceremonials of the Dīn-i-Ilāhī were
prescribed. There were four grades of the followers of Dīn-i-Ilāhī.
Those grades entailed readiness to sacrifice for the Emperor Property, life,
honour and religious. Whoever sacrificed all the four possessed the four
degrees and whoever sacrificed one of the four, possessed only one degree.[50]
Badaoni tells us that "After the promulgation of Dīn-i-Ilāhī,
Akbar issued many ordinances which were against Islam" but no reliance can
be placed upon the views of Badaoni. Most of his information was based on
hearsay. He criticized Akbar because he was dissatisfied with his own
promotion. He was jealous of the rise of Abul Fazal and Faizi. His frustration
made him the bitter enemy of Akbar and his friends.[51]
The view of V.A. Smith is that "The
organisation of the adherents of Dīn-i-Ilāhī was that of an Order and
not a church. The creed inculcated monotheism. His conclusion is that the Dīn-i-Ilāhī
was the outcome of his ridiculous vanity, a monstrous growth of unrestrained
autocracy."[52]
Dr. lswari Prasad says that " Dīn-i-Ilāhī
was an electric pantheism containing the good points of all religions. Its
basis was rational. It upheld no dogma and recognised no Gods or Prophets. The
chief exponent of Dīn-i-Ilāhī was Akbar himself." The view of S. R.
Sharma is that "The Dīn-i-Ilāhī was the crowning expression of the
idealism of Akbar. It was nothing more than a tentative experiment in the
process of fundamental synthesis. It was never forced upon any man."[53]
Dr. R.P. Tripathi says that "The Dīn-i-Ilāhī
was not a religion and Akbar never intended to establish a Church. Akbar knew
that his position might induce a large number of men to become the followers of
Dīn-i-Ilāhī and he was very strict in admitting men into it. In spite of
these restrictions, a number of men might have got themselves enlisted with no
higher motives than those of hope and fear.Those selfish men found that Akbar
was a very shrewd man. No compulsion was used or bribes given to convert a
person to Dīn-i-Ilāhī. There is not a single instance to show that
refusal to join Dīn-i-Ilāhī lowered or admission into it raised the
official status of a person. Only a few courtiers of Akbar became the followers
of Dīn-i-Ilāhī." Tripathi further says that Akbar wanted to bring
together men who were willing to submit to his spiritual guidance and infuse
into them his own catholic spirit and principles of action this he expected to
do by his personal example and not through coercion or cajoling.[54]
Akbar had no intention to perpetuate Dīn-i-Ilāhī by
propagating it. With his own position it would not have been difficult for
Akbar to have a large number of followers with the death of Akbar disappeared
the Dīn-i-Ilāhī. Jahangir tried for some time to follow the example of
his father, initiate disciples and bestow Shast and his picture.
The view of Malleson G.B. is
that "The Dīn-i-Ilāhī was, by no means, a new religion or a new
sect. At the most, it was an order whose purpose perhaps was veneration for
Akbar. So far as Akbar was concerned, the Dīn-i-Ilāhī was an
"earnest and intense endavour in search of a formula which would satisfy
all but hurt none and contained all that was good and true and beautiful in the
great faiths of the world."[55]
"It is difficult to define Dīn-i-Ilāhī. It may be
that Akbar's desire was that his person should be the symbol of the unity he
sought to build up among his subjects. He believed that a king was the shadow
of God. However, Dīn-i-Ilāhī cannot, in any sense be called a religion.
It had no holy book or books, no priests, no ceremonies and no religious dogmas
or beliefs.
In all probability, Akbar had in mind the removal of those
conditions under which a man like Mulla Mohammad Yazdi could fan the fire of
fanaticism against his authority. Akbar wanted to rally around him a number of
adherents who would place loyalty to the throne even above honour, property,
life and religion.
An obvious refutation of the allegation that Akbar founded a
new religion is to be found in the fact that even after 1583, he continued to
have religious discussions, patronize leaders of all faiths and summon two more
Jesuit missions from Goa.[56]
Sir Woolseley Haigh as quoted by Iqbal says:
But with all his faults, and they were neither few
nor venial he was by far the greatest of all who ruled India during the era of
the dominance of Islam in that land. A foreigner
in blood, though he happened to have been born on Indian soil, he was the only
one of the long lone of rulers professing
Islam who even conceived the idea of becoming the father of all his
subjects, rather than the leader of militant and dominant minority, alien in
faith, and to a great extent in race, to the nation of India…[57]
At last, the assesment of E.B Havel
pertaining to Akbar with his Dīn-i-Ilāhī as quoted by
Iqbal says:
Akbar has share the fate of all great reformers in
having his personal character unjustly assailed, his motives impugned, and his
actions distorted, upon evidence which hardly bears judicial examination…He was
neither an ascetic nor a saint of the conventional type; but few of the great
rulers of the earth can show a better record of deeds of righteousness, or more
honorably and consistently maintained their ideal of religious life devoted to
the service of humanity. In the western sense his mission was political rather
than religious, but in his endeavours to make the highest religious principles
the motive power of State policy he won an imperishable name in India history
and lifted the political ethics of Islam into a higher plane than they had ever
reached before.[58]
Dīn-i-Ilāhī and sulh-i-kull (Universal
Toleration)
In an ideal Islamic state, there
should be no religion other than Islam; it is a country of and for the Muslims
and Muslims only. But, even in the Prophet's time, there were non-Muslims who
refused to convert to Islam and it was necessary to accommodate them within the
land or abode of Islam (Dar-al- Islam). So rules were framed, under
which the non- believers were divided into two categories: ahlal-kitab
or those who had some kind of revealed scripture and kafirs or the infidels.The
Prophet accepted the Jew and the Christian residents of Madina as ahlal-kitab
and offered them security and some freedom to practise their religions subject
to the condition that they paid the jizya or poll-tax. The word jizya
means compensation of requital from good or evil and it is in the latter sense jiziya
is derived, meaning the tax imposed on non-believers for the security of life
and property they enjoy by living in an Islamic state where ordinarily they
have no business to be.[59]
Here, an observation by V.A. Smith is of significance:
"The
Muslims were not absorbed in the Indian caste system of Hinduism as their
foreign predecessors, the Shakas, Hunas and others, had been absorbed in a
generation or two. The definiteness of the religion of Islam, founded on a
written revelation of a known date preserved its votaries from the fate which
befell the adherents of Shamanism and the other vague religions of Central
Asia. Then it was time for the Sultanate to disintegrate, bringing in a number
of states and chieftaincies. In the Deccan, the Bahmini and the Vijayanagara
states took shape; in the north and central areas, the Muslim states of Bengal,
Jaunpur, Gujarat and Malwa were established; and the Rajput states of Mewar and
Marwar emerged as powerful Hindu kingdoms.”[60]
Be that as it may, in the time of
Akbar, the conditions were somewhat different. Akbar since his boyhood was
exposed to the liberal influences of the Shi’as, Sufis, fakirs, Hindu
yogis, etc., and this had some effect on his thinking in such matters.
It should, however, not be concluded
from this that the Sufis were in ascendancy at that time. The ulema, custodians
of the law, who were attached to the royal courts or held the positions of
muftis (legal advisers) or qazis in provincial capitals, were very
hostile towards any religious movement which they believed would affect the
pristine purity of Islam and dilute iman (faith) with kufr
(infidelity).[61]
The religious life of the Muslims in
India were not only affected from time to time by puritan fury directed against
what was regarded as Hinduising influences on Islam, but also the endemic Shia-Sunni
differences which became much pronounced after the establishment of the Mughal
rule.
Its founder, Babur was an orthodox
Sunni who was, however, remarkably tolerant towards the Shias, many of whom
accompanied his cortege in the funeral procession taken out after his death.
The story of Humayun's conversion to shiaism during his years of exile in
Persia was probably a myth, but a number of his followers, especially, the great
Bairam Khan, were Shias.
Consequently, there was regular
contacts between the Mughal and Persian courts leading to a kind of
Persianisation of the Mughal court. While it meant improvement in the culture
and sophistication of the higher levels of the society, there was a
corresponding intensification of the Shia-Sunni
fights. As, however, the number of Shias were relatively small and
considering that the Sunnis enjoyed royal patronage, the Shias
generally did not push their differences with the Sunnis to the extreme,
thereby avoiding bloodshed.[62]
This possibility of violence due to Shia-Sunni
differences was very much there when Akbar ascended the throne. It was further
compounded by the fact that two great Sunni bigots, Makhdoum-ul- Mulk and Abdun
Nabi were holding the positions of chief ulema and sadr-us-sadr (supreme
judge) respectively, powerful official positions which they were holding at the
time of Humayun as also of Sher Shah Sur. For the young and inexperienced
Akbar, who did not have much of an education, it was necessary to follow their
advice in matters of law, state and religion.
Akbar was no doubt aware that some harmony was needed
between these warring groups in order to bring peace and prosperity in the
empire and that could only be done by curbing fanaticism whenever or in
whatever form it might appear. For a time, probably he felt powerless to take
any action against the ulamas, but when their depredations crossed the limits,
he took the plunge, removing them from their perches of power and influence.
The second and far more bolder step
taken by Akbar against the ulemas at that time was to declare himself as the
spiritual and secular leader of his subjects. Akbar needed scriptural authority
for such a step; Sheykh Mubarak found out verses from Quran and traditions of
the Prophet supporting such actions of a Muslim ruler. A manifesto drafted by
Sheykh Mubarak and duly signed by several jurists raised Akbar to the rank of a
Mujtahid of his time (Mujtahid-i-Asr).
Sheykh Mubarak was the leading
scholar of his times, persecuted (before he met Akbar) for his unconventional
views. Faizi, Sheiykh Mubarak's eldest son was a poet-philosopher, while Abul
Fazl, the other son, was a famous intellectual even in his younger days.
Akbar's discourses with the trio had apparendy created the most lasting
influence in Akbar's mind.
Akbar assumed the role of the
spiritual leader of Islam. In 1579, he issued the so-called Infallibility
Decree (Mahzar) in this regard. This decree made him the 'Pope as well as king',
by which he appropriated to himself the right to choose any interpretation of
the Quran in the interest of public good. This ended the dominance of bigots.[63]
From 1579 to 1582, when the debates
came to an end, representatives of other religions were admitted and the
disputants met in the private apartments of the palace. The site of the House
of Worship has, however, been utterly forgotten and no trace of the building,
which was large and highly decorated, has been discovered. The probability is
that Akbar pulled it down when he had no longer any use for it.[64]
Akbar now took the bold step of
introducing his four-fold path of renunciation, the Dīn-i-Ilāhī in 1582.
The sacrifice of course was to be made to Akbar, who was now the vice regent of
God. Prostrating before him and chanting Allahu Akbar, the intending devotee
had to bequeath property, life, honour and religion to him.
Dīn-i-Ilāhī, or Tawhid-i-Ilahi,
was not inspired by any Revelation nor was it based on any well- defined
philosophy or theology. Dr. S. Roy observes: "It was deism modified by
Hindu and predominant Zoroastrian influence, a religion without priests or
books. It was an ethical rationalism leading to the ideal of mystic union of
the soul with the divine”. In this respect it was based on the Sufi idea of
absorption of the soul in the Divine Being.
It enjoined such ethical and social
reforms as recommending alms-giving and sparing of animal life, permitting
remarriage of widows, prohibiting child- marriage and marriage among close
relations as also as forced sati, recommending monogamy, enforcing chastity and
controlling gambling and drinking by restricting the sale of drink. The Dīn-i-Ilāhī
was
definitely an attempt at religious syncretism. It was as much a child of
Akbar's spiritual development as a product of the age, following as it does the
movements of Kabir and Nanak."[65]
In the Ain-i-Akbari, Abul Fazl
gives twelve principles of the Dīn-i-Ilāhī
after
stating that Akbar is now "the spiritual guide of the nation" who
"sees in the performance of this duty a means of pleasing Allah
(God)." These principles do not contain any dogma or belief which can be
regarded as the tenets of a new faith in contradistinction to Hinduism, Islam
or Christianity.
These principles describe the
ceremonies performed by the Ilahian (member) upon entry or initiation and the
code of conduct to be followed by him. The intending Ilahian is to perform sijdah
(prostration) before Akbar when he raises the Ilahian by touching his
shoulders, places the turban on the entrants head and gives the Ilahian his own
portrait or shast on which is engraved the chant Allahu Akbar. The
Ilahian is required to celebrate his birthdays by feeding his associates and
one special dinner once in his life in anticipation of death, which would liberate
him from this material world of desires, sufferings and sorrows.[66]
The Ilahians are required to abstain
from a diet of meat as far as possible, not to dine with or use the utensils of
butchers, fisher folk and bird trappers. They should not marry old women or
minor girls and should be regularly giving alms to the poor and the needy.
Their devotion to Akbar is graded according to the number of items or
possessions they would pledge as a sacrifice.
These are property, life, honour and
religion. The person pledging one of these to the emperor (his spiritual guide)
would be of one degree of devotion, the person pledging two would be of two
degrees and so on in ascending order upto four. It would be seen that the
pledging of religion was regarded as the most valuable sacrifice of all, but
was not essential to become elligible for the honour.[67]
There is a book, Dabistan-i-Mazahib
written by Mohsin Fani, decades after Akbar's death, in the middle of the
seventeenth century. Fani says that he received the details given in the book
from one Mirza Shah Muhammad, son of Mirza Baigh Khan.
This Mirza Baigh got the information from Azam Khan, a
trusted officer of Akbar and a follower of the Dīn-i-Ilāhī. The
Dabistan-i-Mazahib is a treatise on the Dīn-i-Ilāhī
in the form
of dialogues between men of religion and a philosopher imagined by the author.
According to this book, there are ten virtues which the Dīn-i-Ilāhī
professes.
These are:
(1) Liberality and beneficence.
(2)
Forgiveness of the evil doer and repulsion of anger with mildness.
(3)
Abstinence from worldly desires.
(4) Care of
freedom from the bonds of the worldly existence and violence as well as
accumulating precious stores for the future real and perpetual world.
(5) Wisdom
and devotion in the frequent meditation on the consequences of actions.
(6) Strength
of dexterous prudence in the desire of marvellous actions.
(7) Soft
voice, gentle words, pleasing speeches for every body.
(8) Good
treatment with brethren, so that their will may have the precedence to our own.
(9) A
perfect alienation from creatures and a perfect attachment to the Supreme Being.
(10)
Dedication of soul in the love of God and union with God the preserver of all.”[68]
It appears there was another reason
for the promulgation of the Dīn-i-Ilāhī at that
time. The Shias, Sunnis, Mehdavis and Sufis were then fighting merrily
amongst themselves in Kashmir and in Ahmednagar thereby causing damage to the
life and property of the subjects. Probably, Akbar felt that a syncretic creed
would quell the warring urges of the factions and help bring peace and
tranquility. Presumably, as the first step, he wanted to change the thinking of
the leading men, ulemas and the nobility.
The Dīn-i-Ilāhī
was Akbar's
attempt to unify different schools of religious thought. The Ain-i-Akbari
states that there were only ninteeen Ilahians
who by pledging property, life, honour and religion qualified for the highest
degree of devotion and the only Hindu among them was Raja Birbal. The total
number of followers of all degrees were only a few thousands. According to
Badauni, Raja Man Singh and Raja Bhagawan Dass, two of Akbar's most trusted
lieutenants, categorically refused to join the creed.
The principle of sulh-i-kull
or universal tolerance which Akbar made a state policy in the second half of
his reign, was actually the avowed creed of Sheykh Mubarak and Abul Fazl even
before they came in contact with the emperor and started to attend the court.
Thus, in the period of reign after circa 1580, the policy of universal
toleration was fully applied in favour of Hindus, Christians, Jains, and
Parsees, who enjoyed full liberty both of conscience and of public worship.[69]
The policy adopted by Akbar in
relation to his Hindu subjects was generally independent of his personal fancies
or beliefs in respect of religion. It was a measure of his perspicacity to have
realized at an early age that the badshah should be the impartial sovereign of
all his subjects, regardless of religion.
In that medieval environ, it was
remarkable that he considered this to be the absolute politically necessity. It
should also be admitted that Sher Shah was also following such a goal and had
he lived longer perhaps his reign would have also adopted similar measures.
Nonetheless, Akbar married Hindu princesses,
abolished pilgrim tax, removed jizya, and provided the Hindus with
employment readily when he was a practising Muslim who took his religious
duties seriously. Accepting Hindu princesses in marriage was not that uncommon
among the Muslim rulers, especially in the Deccan, a fact which was known to
Akbar. He, however, differed from the existing norms in the sense that he
accepted his in-laws as members of the royal family and all due honours were
accorded to them.
The Rajput families he married into,
the Rajas of Amber, Bikaner or Marwar were never pressurized to convert into
Islam. Without any restrictions they were taken into the highest command of
military services or given the responsibility of the topmost civilian officer.
That was a policy decision Akbar
entirely took on his own. No Sheykh Mubarak or Abul Fazl was behind this
decision and this policy of Akbar afforded the strongest support to his reign
and the reigns of his successors. It should also be admitted that the Rajput
princes on their part gave their unflinching loyalty to the cause of the
empire.
In his later years, he chose his
friends and senior officers from among both Hindus and Muslims with a
preference for the former. Raja Man Singh, riephew and adopted son of Raja
Bhagawan Das of Amber was one of Akbar's best generals and governors. He was
the designated governor of Kabul for some time and is said to have ruled the
eastern provinces with great prudence and justice.
Raja Todar Mai, he was also an able military commander
and was regarded as the ablest of the king's courtiers, second to Abul Fazl.
The sharp wit and ready repartee of Raja Birbal made him Akbar's favourite. It
seems Akbar developed a genuine friendship with the Jesuit fathers who visited
his court and took part in the religious discussions at the Ibādat
Khāna. Using a twentieth-century term, it can be said that Akbar's relations
with the non-Muslims were politically correct.[70]
IV.
The
Contributions of Dīn-i-Ilāhī in Development and Harmonism of the
Indians.
A. Dīn-i-Ilāhī and Harmonism
of the Indians.
The greatest and most influencial
contributions of Akbar in the life of people in Indian sub-continent (included
present Pakistan and Bangladesh) that there were harmonism and good tolerance among religious community much
better than before Akbar’s reign. If
previous people were so sensitive bringing about some conflicts and social
conflict as consequence of castes level of people’s life. But after Akbar’s
policy in universal toleration. So the implication of his thought strongly
influenced people’s life in Indian sub-continent.
It is interesting what the First Prime
Minister of Republic of India Jawaharlal Nehru (1949-1964) stated, as an Indian stateman and father of
two-period Prime Ministress Indira
Gandhi (1966-1977, 1980-1984), pertaining to Islamic influence and Akbar’s
contributions in Indian sub-continent as quoted by Akbar S. Ahmed:
“Historically Hinduism absorbed the shock of Islam
and, as best it could, survived. The secret, as Nehru noted, was synthesis”.[71]
Nehru’s statement
showed that how great Islamic influence in India was. In spite of Muslim as
minority, they held the power more than three centuries and not reducing
Hinduisme totally. It was because of Akbar’s merit as the third emperor in
Mughal Imperium for the first time making synthesis of all his policies such as
in arts, architectures, cultures, art-paintings, and religious faiths. His
synthesis policies have been influencing the life of Indian people up to
now. This matter was certainly recognized
either by the prominent Indian leaders or Indian and Western historians.
Akbar
S. Ahmed then stated:
“By the time of his grandson, Akbar, Hindu
influences; astrology, caste, magic – would be commonplace in daily life. The
introduction of the foreign element was the cost Islam paid for the trasition,
the passage, to India”.[72]
Besides Akbar’s influence on universal
toleration, many buildings with astonished architectures such as mosques,
palaces, temples, tombs, and forts built by Akbar and his successors by
maintaining Arabo-persian character, calligraphy in Hinduism style. All these
can be found in Indian sub-continent. Akbar S. Ahmed confirmed the above
statement:
The South-Asian sub-continent is littered with
noteworthy examples of different kinds of mosques, shrines, tombs and fords,
some showing a degree of synthesis with Hindu architecture, others
self-conciously retaining an Arab-Persian character.[73]
Many Muslim kingdoms were established in Delhi
before the Mughals, but it was with the coming of the Mughals in the sixteenth
century that Muslim power reached its height in India. Art, literature and
architecture flourished. The royal family were patrons of art and books; many
wrote excellent diaries. They revelled in nature, beauty and good company. Six
extraordinary emperors, in a direct line descent from Babur, father to son,
ruled between 1526 and 1707. The drama of their reign, their conquests, their
loves, their personal tragedies survive through folk tales, novels and, now the
cinema.[74]
Many film productions made by Bollywood tells about the importance of pluralism in Indian
people’s daily life such as mixed married, syncretism in faiths, and all these
caused by Akbar’s influence in launching the universal toleration.
The other contributions
of Akbar was historically recorded i.e the improvement of Urdu as national and
official language for Indian people especially in Northern India. Urdu then has
once become scientific language in Islamic history, and up to now Urdu still
used as one of Nasional languages in Republic of India and Pakistan. As one of
the biggest emperors in Mughals Empire, Akbar has become the symbol of
harmonism for Indian people, and his title as “the father of harmonious people or the father of Indian Nationalism”
as Nehru said. He also constitutes as symbol of liberalism and secularism then
reflected by modern India. As Ahmed S Akbar said, “He was the most successful ruler. The guide’s emphasis on liberalism
and secularism reflects the official philosophy of modern India”.[75]
B. Dīn-i-Ilāhī and Democracy in India.
As
the second democratic country after USA in the world. , India has more than 1.3
billions people and also the second most populous after China. India has kept
its highly heterogenity. The plurality of race, religion, culture, language,
etc. causing communal coflicts everywhere. These phenomena have been going on
for centuries since the advent of Islam to sub-continent. Thus, when the Mughal
held the power in the sub-continent facing oppositions from the Hindus as
majority. The Hindus were frightened with the Muslim conquerors for in their
mind Muslim were their enemies who would destruct their old traditions such as
castes, shutee system where several Hinduism traditions have
actually been going on for centuries, and when Islam entered would destruct the
tradition.
Historically,
the Muslim conquerors have extremely tolerantly acted . The tolerance proved
that why Islam could hold the power for centuries in sub-continent. Most
historians considered that the true founder of Mughal was Akbar the Great, and
to subdue the communal conflicts he made a syncretic Dīn-i-Ilāhī
in protecting all his
people consisting all races and religions.
In its journey Dīn-i-Ilāhī
facing many oppositions, but many also considered that Dīn-i-Ilāhī
realized them how important harmonism in life, mutual respect one to another in
plural community in sub-continent.
After
British fleed from sub-continent in the middle of 20th century. The
Indian founding fathers began to make
unification movements in one state called Republic of India. For Indian
founding fathers such as Jawaharlal Nehru, Ghandi, Tilak as a matter of fact
they have been inspired in leading the state by naming that the system of
Mughal administratives leaving a lot of impressions to present modern India.[76]
The
word "democracy" derives from Greek, demos
means people, and kratos/cratein means government or
ruler, this means as people’s
government or government from people, by people and for people. The
concept of democracy became a key in
political science to obtain welfare people. Democracy at present as indicator of political development of a
state in obtaining improvements in all fields. India as a big country firmly
holding democracy to perform the principles of democracy. By carrying out
general elections in selecting their leaders as its competence by consultation
or deliberation, freely to express their opinions, and recognizing the
plurality in different faiths, holding universal toleration, recognizing the
right of minority, etc.[77]
All these principles were covered in the doctrine of Dīn-i-Ilāhī.
The
Indian founding fathers as above
mentioned, they have been strongly inspired by the principles which of course
had been practised in national life and state which once existed in Mughal
Empire particularly in Akbar the Great’s time.
People
may just have the opinion that the current democracy in India may not be
related to the system or policy of Mughal empire. For one thing that Akbar was
the first leader in the Middle Age named as The Great, and none after that
except eighteen centuries before his empire namely Ashoka who had the same
title like Akbar.[78]
He
was named the Great because he can inspire many people to follow the Mughal
administratives, because he held the power from 1556 up to 1605. Akbar could
lead his government well, full of toleration, no discrimination among the
religious groups. To answer all these complexity, the founding fathers
formulated their state constitution which also once used in Mughal empire.
Thus, the Preamble of Indian Constitution written as follows:
“------to constitute India into a sovereign democratic
state and to secure to all its citizens: justice, social, economic and
political; liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship; equality
of status and opportunity, and to promote among them all fraternity assuring
the dignity of the individual and unity of the nation.”[79]
From the above quotation Dīn-i-Ilāhī
as Akbar’s teaching clearly providing for Indian
independent founding fathers which was proclaimed on August 15, 1947,
particularly in formulating its preamble of constitution where secure to all its
citizens: justice, social, economic and political; liberty of thought,
expression, belief, faith and worship; equality of status and opportunity, and
to promote among them all fraternity assuring the dignity of the individual and
unity of the nation and mutual respect one to another. Once again as
Akbar S. Ahmed quoted pertaining to Akbar’s policy that it is reflected to
philosophy then followed by modern India. (He
was the most successful ruler. The guide’s emphasis on liberalism and
secularism reflects the official philosophy of modern India).[80]
C. Dīn-i-Ilāhī and and the Dynamics of the Indians.
Dīn-i-Ilāhī
also provides
its contributions towards the dynamics of Indian plurality. The word “dynamics”
means ‘a group’ or movement or strength belong to a group of community for
making changes in the order of community’s life as spirit to perform
development in all fields for making changes in the order of community’s life.[81]
The
castes in the strata of Indian people’s
life always emerged horizontal conflicts internally among religious people
especially the Hindus. The high castes like Brahmana or Satrya
seem always to look down the lower class as Sudra or Paria who
never accepted opportunity in all cases such a chance in fulfilling their life
needs as competent or feasible jobs, intimated friendship, kinship relation by
marriage etc. Because the high
castes’ views, it is impposible to
mingle or join with low castes as above mentioned. As a matter of fact, the low
castes also cannot against the high castes for caste institution too strong and
rooted in Hinduism.
The
advent of Islam to sub-continent and became the power holder and politically
launching universal toleration. In accord with
Islamic teachings that Islam does not discriminate one’s skin color or one’s
descendents, and nations or race. The difference of races or nations as a
matter of fact is to mutual acquaintance one to another. Historically the
Muslim emperors never force the Hindus to convert to Islam. They always make
tolerant policies that the low castes attract this and to be interested in
Islam in grouply. This happen of course accepted by Islam as the power holder.
If their ranks were quite low and contemptible by the high castes before, and
after converting to Islam, they felt more self-confidently and as ranking as
the Muslim who even hold the power too. For
the high castes this event was so displeased. Because the tradition had existed
for centuries. In consequence of being accepted the community of Sudra and
Paria in Islam emerging oppositions from the Hindus who still wished the
tradition surviving on.
Dīn-i-Ilāhī which was promulgated
by Akbar consisting blended, syncretic, and eclectic doctrine taken from best
elements of all religions make all religious adherents in India more aggresive,
and more active in practice harmonious life. Not only that, Dīn-i-Ilāhī,
also
make the Indian people more enthusiastic
in arts work as building architecture, paintings, calligraphy, music, and
literature more living. The statement of
Akbar S Ahmed in relating this in framework of confirming the above argument as
follows:
Many Muslim kingdoms were established in Delhi
before the Mughals, but it was with the coming of the Mughals in the sixteenth
century that Muslim power reached its height in India. Art, literature and
architecture flourished. The royal family were patrons of art and books; many
wrote excellent diaries. They revelled in nature, beauty and good company. Six
extraordinary emperors, in a direct line descent from Babur, father to son,
ruled between 1526 and 1707. The drama of their reign, their conquests, their
loves, their personal tragedies survive through folk tales, novels and, now the
cinema.[82]
Dīn-i-Ilāhī and the dynamics of
Indian people in spirit to develop all changes to people’s welfare certainly
having a strong correlation. Bacause the people who are full of communal conflicts
and disharmony or intolerance impossibly to improve well the structure of its
people.
V. Conclusion
Dīn-i-Ilāhī as religious sycretism of Akbar the Great purely
promoted racial tolerance and religious freedom under the
policy of "universal tolerance" or "sulh-i-kull" Akbar appointed Hindus to high
positions in his cabinet, married Hindu women and abolished taxes levied
against both Hindus and non–Muslims. Akbar welcomed
visitors of all faiths—including Jains, Jesuits
(Renaissance Roman Catholics), Hindus and Zoroastrians—to his court.
Discussions with these visitors led him to develop his own religious teachings, Dīn-i-Ilāhī
or "divine faith," that sought to transcend the
disagreements and conflicts of the world’s religions. Music, art and literature
flourished in Akbar's cosmopolitan court. By influence of Renaissance and
Scholaticism in Europe, making Akbar think more liberally. One of his
suggestions is that Quran as divine revelation should be contextually
interpreted and not textually in accord with the change of time and its
community. His thought contributions then influence the daily life of the
Indians such as harmonism in interreligious community far better than before. He
also constitutes as symbol of liberalism and secularism then reflected by
modern India.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abraham Eraly, The Mughal Throne, The Saga of India’s Great
Emperors. London: Phoenix Publisher, 2004.
Akbar S. Ahmed, From Samarkand to Stonorway:
Living Islam. London: BBC Books Limited, 1993.
Akbar. S. Ahmed, Discovering
Islam, Making Sense of Muslim History and Society: A Theory of Islamic History. London and New York: Routledge, 1988.
Annemarie Schimmel, The
Empire of The Great Mughal’s History, Arts, and
Culture. London: Treaction Books Limited, 2004.
Ashirbadi
Lal Srivastava, History of India (1000-1707A.D.) and Laxminarayan Gupta,
History of Modern Indian Culture. Agra: Shiva Lal Agarwal & Co.Ltd.
Bertold
S. History of Mongols. London:
Routledge & Kegan Paul Limited, 1972.
Bosworth,
C.E. The Islamic Dynasties: Edinburg:
Edinburg University Press, 1980.
Captain
S.F. Mahmud, The Story of Islam. London: Oxford University Press, 1960.
Cyrill
Glasse, The Concise Encyclopedia of Islam. Jakarta: RajaGrafindo
Persada, 1996.
Dudung Abdurrahman, Metode Penelitian Sejarah (The
Methods of History), Cet. I (Jakarta: Logos Wacana Ilmu, 1999.
George
J, Mouly. The Science of Education Research. New York: American Book
Company, 1963.
Ibnu
Hasan. The Central Structure of the
Mughal Empire. New Delhi India: Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers, 1936.
Ikram,
S.M. Muslim Civilization in India, Edited by Aislie T. Embree. New York:
Colombia Press, 1956.
Ira M. Lapidus, A
History of Islamic Societies. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2000.
Joachim Wach, The Comparative Study of Religions. New York and London: Columbia University Press, 1966.
John
F. Richards, The New Cambridge History of
India, The Mughal Empire. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996.
Makhanlal
Roychoudhury. The Din-i-Ilahi or the Religion of Akbar. Calcutta: University
of Calcutta, 1941.
Moreland,
W.H. “The Mughal Empire to the Death of
Aurangzeb” dalam M.Th. Houtsma (Ed). First
Encyclopedia of Islam. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1987.
Mulk
Raj Anand, “Fatehpur Sikri”, Mark: A
Magazine of the Arts, Vol. XX, No. 4. Bombay: September, 1967.
Philiph
Bamborough, Treasures of Islam. New Delhi: Heritage Publisher, 1977.
Qureishi,
IH. “Muslim India before the Mughals” and India under the Mughals” in the
Cambridge of Islam, Ed. P.M. Holt et. al. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1977.
Richards,
John F. The New Cambridge History of
India, The Mughal Empire. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996.
Romdon, Metodologi
Perbandingan Agama. Jakarta: RajaGrafindo
Persada, 1996.
S.
Abul Hasan Ali Nadwi. The Musalman, Lucknow India: Islamic
Research & Publications, 1977.
Sharma
S.R. Mughal Empire in India: Akbar’s Din-i-Ilahi. Bombay: Karnatak
Publishing House, 1940.
Shed Mahmuddunnasir. Islam its Concept &
HistoryNew Delhi: Kitab Bhavan, 2000.
Sheykh Mohammad Iqbal, The
Mission of Islam. New Delhi: Vikas Publishing
House PVT Ltd., 1997.
Syahrin
Harahap, Metodologi Studi Tokoh Pemikiran Islam. Jakarta: Prenada Media
Group, 2011.
The
Department of Education and Culture of RI, Kamus Besar Bahasa Indonesia.
Jakarta: Balai Pustaka, 2005.
The Encyclopaedia
Brittanica, 11th Edition, Vol. 1-2.
The Historians’ History of the World, Vol.
XXII.
Tripati,
R.P. Some Aspects of Muslim
Administration. Allahabad. Central Book Depot, 1956.
Ubaidillah. A., et
al., Civic Education. Jakarta:
IAIN Jakarta Press, 2000.
Vidyadhar
Mahajan, Muslim-Kalin Bharat (Muslim Rule in India). Delhi: S. Chand
& Co. Ltd., 1979.
William
L. Langer, in Encyclopedia of World
History. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1956.
[1]The term of “Din-i-Ilahi” or in Western library “divine religion or divine faith” means “the
religion of God”, See, Ira M. Lapidus, A History of Islamic Societies (New York: Cambridge University
Press, 2000), p. 456. See also,
Wikipedia, Din-i-Ilahi.
[2]The word of “Moghul atau Mughal” sometimes also written as Mogol borrowed from Persian and Arabic phoneme “Mongol” in Persian call for the
Mongolian
and their descendents, the four terms of Moghul, Mughal, Mogol dan Mongol used as the same meaning in this writing for
different sources. The Mughal Empire was founded in 1526 CE, peaked around 1700
and steadily declined into the 19th century, severely weakened by conflicts
over succession. Mughal rule began with Zahiruddin Muhammad Babur (Akbar’s grandfather), who invaded northern India from his post in Kabul
(Afghanistan). At its height, the Mughal Empire included most of the Indian
subcontinent and an estimated population of 100 million people. See, Sharma S.R. Mughal Empire in
India: Akbar’s Din-i-Ilahi (Bombay: Karnatak Publishing House, 1940), p.
331. The Mughal Dynasty or the Mughal
Empire (1525-1858)
was one of the biggest Islamic Superpower in the Indian
sub-continent with its capital Delhi. See,
William L. Langer, in
Encyclopedia of World
History (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1956), p.
332. See also,
Cyrill Glasse, The Concise Encyclopedia
of Islam (Jakarta: RajaGrafindo Persada, 1996), p.
270.
[3]Religious Syncretism exhibits blending of two or more religious belief systems into a new
system, or the incorporation into a religious tradition of beliefs from
unrelated traditions. This can occur for many reasons, and the latter scenario
happens quite commonly in areas where multiple religious traditions exist in
proximity and function actively in the culture, or when a culture is conquered,
and the conquerors bring their religious beliefs with them, but do not succeed
in entirely eradicating the old beliefs or, especially, practices. In modern
society, religious innovators sometimes create new religions syncretically
as a mechanism to reduce inter-religious tension and enmity, often with the
effect of offending the original religions in question. Such religions,
however, do maintain some appeal to a less exclusivist audience. See,
Wikipedia, Syncretism.
[4]See, Makhanlal Roychoudhury. The Din-i-Ilahi or
the Religion of Akbar (Calcutta: University of Calcutta, 1941), p. xx
[5]Ibid.
[6]Ibid.
[7]Islamic Republic of Pakistan (former West
Pakistan) separated with Republic of India in 1947. Bangladesh is the former
East Pakistan and separated with West Pakistan in 1971. The contributions meant
covering these three independent countries.
[8]See, John F. Richards, The New Cambridge History of India, The
Mughal Empire (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996), p. 35
[9]See, Abraham Eraly, The Mughal Throne, The Saga of India’s Great
Emperors (London: Phoenix Publisher, 2004), p. 163
[10]See, Akbar. S. Ahmed, Discovering Islam, Making
Sense of Muslim History and Society: A Theory of Islamic History (London and New York: Routledge,
1988), p. 32-33.
[11]See, Joachim Wach, The Comparative Study of Religions (New
York and London: Columbia University Press, 1966), p. 21. See also, Romdon, Metodologi Perbandingan Agama (Jakarta:
RajaGrafindo Persada, 1996), p. 78.
[12]This book was downloaded via internet in Library
of Frankfurt University Germany October 2013 by the writer when doing post
doctoral research funded by State Institute of Islamic Studies North-Sumatra.
[13]See, George J, Mouly. The Science of Education
Research (New York: American Book Company, 1963), p. 226. See also, Syahrin
Harahap, Metodologi Studi Tokoh Pemikiran Islam (Jakarta: Prenada Media
Group, 2011), p. 34-35.
[14]Sharma S.R. Mughal
Empire in India..., p. 331.
[16]See, Shed Mahmuddunnasir. Islam its Concept
& History (New Delhi: Kitab Bhavan, 2000), p. 267.
[19]Ibid.
[21]Ibid.
[22]Ashirbadi Lal Srivastava, History
of India (1000-1707A.D.) and Laxminarayan Gupta, History of Modern
Indian Culture, p.24 (Agra: Shiva Lal Agarwal & Co.Ltd.), p.
434.
[23]Vidyadhar Mahajan, Muslim-Kalin
Bharat (Muslim Rule in India) (Delhi: S. Chand & Co. Ltd., 1979), part
II, p.103.
[25]See, Sheykh Mohammad Iqbal, The Mission of Islam (New Delhi: Vikas
Publishing House PVT Ltd., 19977), p. 203
[29]Abraham Eraly, The Mughal Throne...,p.
158-172.
[30]Qureishi, IH. “Muslim India before the Mughals”
and India under the Mughals” in the Cambridge of Islam, Ed. P.M. Holt et.
Al. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977), p. 56.
[31]Ibid.
[32]Ibid.
[33]See, Mulk Raj Anand, “Fatehpur Sikri”, Mark: A Magazine of
the Arts, Vol. XX, No. 4 (Bombay: September, 1967), p. 39. See also, Akbar S. Ahmed,
Living Islam, p. 91
[37]Ibid.,p. 62
[40]See, The Department of Education and Culture of
RI, Kamus Besar Bahasa Indonesia (Jakarta: Balai Pustaka, 2005), p. 946,
1079.
[41]See, Captain S.F. Mahmud, The Story of Islam (London: Oxford
University Press, 1960), p. 253-256. See also, Makhanlal Roychoudhury, The
Din-i-Ilahi...,p. 127-135.
[43]See, Ikram, S.M. Muslim Civilization in India,
Edited by Aislie T. Embree (New York: Colombia Press, 1956), p,. 156-166.
[44]The adherents
were 1. Sheykh Mubarak. 2. Sheykh Abul Faizi. 3. Jafar Beg. 4. Qasim Qahi. 5.
Abul Fazl. 6. Azam Khan. 7. Abdus Samad. 8. Mullah Shah Muhammad Shahadad. 9.
Sufi Ahmad. 10. Mir Sharif Amal. 11. Sultan Khwaja. 12. Mirza Jani Thatta. 13.
Taki Shustar. 14. Sheykh Zada Gosla Benarasi. 15, Sadar Jahan. 16. Sadar
Jahan’s first son. 17. Sadar jahan’s second son. 18. Birbal. 19. Prince Salim. See,
Makhanlal Roychoudhury, The
Din-i-Ilahi..., p. 293.
[51]Ibid.
[59]See, Quoted also by Vijay Rayan from Ikram, S.M. Muslim
Civilization in India, p. 156-166.
[60]Ibid.
[62]Ibid.
[66]Ibid.
[70]Ibid.
[73]See, Akbar S. Ahmed, From Samarkand to Stonorway: Living Islam (London: BBC Books
Limited, 1993), p. 85.
[75]See, Akbar S.
Ahmed, Discovering Islam…,p. 85. See
also, Annemarie Schimmel, The Empire of The Great Mughal’s History, Arts, and Culture. (London: Treaction Books
Limited, 2004).
[77]For full principles of democracy, See, A. Ubaidillah, et al., Civic Education (Jakarta: IAIN
Jakarta Press, 2000), p. 160-169.
[81]See, Departemen Pendidikan
dan Kebudayaan RI, Kamus Besar Bahasa
Indonesia, Third Edition (Jakarta: Balai Pustaka, 2005), p. 265
[82]See, Akbar S.
Ahmed, From Samarkand…..,p. 85. See
also, Annemarie Schimmel, The Empire of The Great Mughal’s History, Arts, and Culture. (London: Treaction Books
Limited, 2004).
