Life and Conditions of the People of Hindustan (1200–1550 A.D.) c5.s1.75.3

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.