Rabu, 20 November 2013

DĪN-I-ILĀHĪ: THE RELIGIOUS SYNCRETISM OF SULTAN AKBAR THE GREAT (INDIA:1556-1605)


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
  1. Internally.......................................................................................                10
  2. Externally......................................................................................                11
  3. His Career and Works...................................................................               13
  4. The Methodology of His Thought..................................................             19
  5. 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
  1. 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.
 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]
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.
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 meansthe 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.
[15]Abraham Eraly, The Mughal Throne..., p. 115.
[16]See, Shed Mahmuddunnasir. Islam its Concept & History (New Delhi: Kitab Bhavan, 2000), p. 267.
[17]Abraham Eraly, The Mughal Throne...,Ibid.
[18]See, Makhanlal Roychoudhury.  The Din-i-Ilahi..., p. 136
[19]Ibid.
[20]Ibid., h. xxi
[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.
[24]Ibid. p.106-108.
[25]See, Sheykh Mohammad Iqbal, The Mission of Islam (New Delhi: Vikas Publishing House PVT Ltd., 19977), p. 203
[26]Ibid., p. 204
[27]Ibid., h. 205
[28]The Encyclopaedia Brittanica, 11th Edition, Vol. 1-2, p. 454.
[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
[34] See, Makhanlal Roychoudhury. The Din-i-Ilahi...,p. xx.
[35] See, Qureish, IH, “Muslim India before the Mughals”...,p. 66-65
[36] Ibid.
[37]Ibid.,p. 62
[38]Ibid. p. 63
[39]See, Philiph Bamborough, Treasures of Islam (New Delhi: Heritage Publisher, 1979),  p. 19
[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.
[42]See, The Historians’ History of the World, Vol. XXII, p. 28
[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.
[45]Ibid., h. 282
[46]Abraham Eraly, The Mughal Throne:..., p. 211.
[47]See, Makhanlal Roychoudhury, The Din-i-Ilah..., p. 282
[48]Ibid. p. 283        
[49]Ibid, p. 283-288
[50]See, Sharma S.R. Mughal Empire in India...,p. 331-335.
[51]Ibid.
[52]Ibid.
[53]Ibid.
[54]Ibid.
[55]Ibid. and see also, Sheykh Mohd. Iqbal, The Mission of Islam..., p. 203.
[56]Ibid.
[57]See, Sheykh Mohd. Iqbal, The Mission of Islam..., p. 204.
[58]Ibid.
[59]See, Quoted also by Vijay Rayan from Ikram, S.M. Muslim Civilization in India, p. 156-166.
[60]Ibid.
[61] See, Makhanlal Roychoudhury, The Din-i-Ilahi..., p. 85
[62]Ibid.
[63]Ibid., p. 100.
[64]Ibid., p. 265
[65]Ibid., p. 242-246
[66]Ibid.
[67]Ibid., p. 251
[68]Ibid., p. 278-279
[69]Ibid., p. 265
[70]Ibid.
[71]See, Akbar S. Ahmed, Discovering Islam..., p. 73.
[72]Ibid., p. 76.
[73]See, Akbar S. Ahmed, From Samarkand to Stonorway: Living Islam (London: BBC Books Limited, 1993), p. 85.
[74]Ibid., p. 88.
[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).

[76]See, Akbar S. Ahmed, Discovering Islam,…,p. 73.
[77]For full principles of democracy, See, A. Ubaidillah, et al., Civic Education (Jakarta: IAIN Jakarta Press, 2000), p. 160-169.
[78]See, Abraham Eraly, The Mughal Throne, ..., p. 163
[79]A. Ubaidillah, et al., Civic Education...,p. 83
[80]See, Akbar S. Ahmed, Discovering Islam…,p. 85.
[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).