Life and Conditions of the People of Hindustan (1200–1550 A.D.) c5.s1.75

Language: English

c5.s1.75.1

To give a form to their religious functions, the Sultans of Delhi instituted a number of fictitious ceremonials. They created a few religious offices like that of the *Shaikh-ul-Islam* and the *Sadr-us-sudur* with which we are not concerned here. Among the ceremonials : the form of the religious *Bai'at* (oath of fealty to the *Imam* or the religious head of Islam) was maintained ; the reign of the monarch opened with a consequential change in the bidding prayer (*khutba*) which was solemnly read from the pulpit of the principal mosque, and an appropriate legend was inscribed on the new coinage.¹ The Sultan usually appointed a *Mashaf-bardar* (Qur'an-bearer) who carried about the Holy Book with solemnity and becoming dignity.² Handsome endowments were made for religious institutions and the study of Muslim theology, and several mosques were constructed. The Sultan attended the Friday prayers, and in any case, joined the congregation in the *Idgah* for the two annual prayers with great pomp and ceremony.³ In other respects, he avoided giving provocation and offence to the susceptibilities of the people by an open breach of the Muslim law. For instance, the excessive number of his wives and concubines was confined to the closed Haram, and the drinking of wine was done in private except on very exceptional occasions.

c5.s1.75.2

The occasions of political wars against the Hindu rulers were especially reserved for the display of aggressive religious fervour, and the spirit of (*Jihad*) militant zeal ; though no indiscreet effusions were tolerated against the Hindu subjects of the state as a rule. Mysticism and deeply religious platitudes were frequently discussed in royal circles. In one case, a provincial Sultan even scrupulously enquired regarding ‘the supply of lawful vegetables for his table’, though the farce was a little over-done, since the Sultan was, at the same time, carrying on war against a brother Muslim with all the fervour of religious *jihad*.¹ The Ulama, for their part, undertook to forge or find religious and moral support for the Sultanate, thereby strengthening the position of the Sultans of Delhi. The Qur'anic injunction 'Obey Allah and obey the Apostle, and those in authority from among you' was discovered to be full of great possibilities of ingenious interpretation. The reigning Sultans of Delhi were identified with the persone meant in the text 'those in authority from among you' (*Ulul-amr-i-min-kum*). Suitable supporting Traditions of the Prophet were similarly discovered purporting to mean that obedience to the commands of an *Imam* (in this case, the Sultan) was similar to obedience rendered to the injunctions of Muhammad or the commands of Allah. Thus by simple logic, the status of a Sultan was raised to that of a Divine being, in matters of obedience.

c5.s1.75.3

Every breach of a royal command, grievous sin as it was, involved a dire punishment in the next world. It was not open to the Muslims to exercise the right of choosing an *Imam*. They had simply to carry out his orders, even if the Sultan was 'a slave and a negro and mutilated of form'.² In other respects, the Ulama preached the new doctrine that the secular state was a twin sister of the faith, only different in the nature of its functions. From this standpoint, the functions of a Sultan were hardly inferior to those of the Prophets of the Lord; in fact, just as the prophets guide the world in spiritual matters, so the Sultans also conduct secular matters which is only a counterpart of the same function.³ They gave their support to the doctrine that every resistance to royal commands was a criminal act on the part of the person so resisting, even if the monarch was a tyrant, and absolutely and palpably in the wrong, and the person so resisting was avowedly striving to restore equity and justice in the dominions.¹ In this case, the person accused of resisting the royal commands was not only a dangerous criminal in the eyes of the state, but also a heinous sinner in the eyes of the sacred law of Islam : so that, if he happened to be killed, a decent burial was not his share : he was doomed to die unmourned and unsung.

c5.s1.75.4

The theologians, similarly, authorized the state to expropriate from people any property or money it deemed fit in cases of military exigencies, and to distribute it ‘among the soldiers of Islam’.² In short, the ‘Ulama subscribed to the proposition : ‘He who obeys the Sultan, obeys the Lord Merciful’.³ When the Mughul Emperor Akbar laid claims to the exclusive religious and secular leadership of the Indian Muslims and the whole country agreed to this position without much protest, it was only a natural consummation of these developments. Under this dispensation, the *Imam-i-‘Adil* (‘the just Imam,’ otherwise the Sultan) acquired the right of superseding the consensus of the most approved theological opinion on any point at issue, and of giving his own interpretation to the injunctions of the Qur’an guided by very general provisions : nor was his decision to be disputed by anybody in the kingdom. This was the pinnacle of secular power : Islam became not only subordinate, but actually and definitely subservient to the state. The state in its turn assumed a divine character, both the benevolence and the persecutions of a monarch being divine attributes.⁴ We do not deny that many orthodox theologians like Bada’uni did not submit to this position, or only submitted with extreme reluctance, and that some earlier monarchs like Jalal-ud-din Khalji tried to be sincerely religious. But such isolated examples were not strong enough to influence the irresistible course of events.