The Foundation of Muslim Rule in India: A History of the Establishment and Progress of the Turkish Sultanate of Delhi, 1206–1290 A.D. c20.40

c20.40

Of the economic and social status of the *zimmi* who lived in Muslim towns the quotation from Firoz Khalji's speech will have given a fair idea. There is little supporting evidence for the statement recently made that Hindu pilgrimage was sought to be banned by the imposition of a tax¹, or that public worship of idols was, as a rule, forbidden. In only one sphere the *zimmi*'s freedom, it may be reasonably assumed, was affected; he was not allowed to make converts from among the Muslims for, in Islam, the law of apostacy is severe. But this would be only a theoretical restriction, for except in the case of lower class converts who, in any case, tend to drift back to their original religious habits, Brahminical Hinduism is not a proselytising religion. Of the Hindu's economic affluence we have testimony in writings of Barani himself. During the gay reign of Kaiqubad the Hindu wine brewers of Kol and Meerut plied a lucrative trade in the city. The Multani money-lenders who held almost every Muslim noble as his debtor enjoyed great social prestige². Barani complained that in the city of Delhi the Hindus lived in palaces and displayed rich dress and fine horses; they even employed "Mussalman servants to runs in front of their mounts; even Muslims beg at their doors, and within the city, the capital of the Muslim Sultanate, the infidels are addressed in such honourable terms as *rai*, *ranah*, *thakur*, *shah*, *mehta* and *pundit*"³. Referring possibly to Muhammud b. Tughluq's reign in which the Hindus were specially patronised by the king, Barani further complains of "the idolaters and *mushriks*, called *kharaji* and *zimmi*, who are given rich dresses, horses, and flags and are raised to high offices of state"⁴.