Theory and Practice of Muslim State in India c6.s2.18

c6.s2.18

Thus religious and political thinkers had gone on multiplying the duties of a Muslim monarch, presenting him with an unmanageable agenda. Obviously the king could not possibly follow all their injunctions. In such a situation there was adjustment and accommodation between precept and practice. If a sultan could not follow these behests in their entirety, this in no way compromised his status or weaken his position. The rulers who tried to live like true Muslims, are highly praised by their contemporaries. But those who did not, are not blamed or decried. Often the ulema overlook; many even justify their not-so-Islamic actions and habits. Ziyauddin Barani is very liberal with regard to such aberrations. He says: "If the king's faith in the religion of the Prophet is firm and unshakable, then there is no harm if he is not excessively given to his religious devotions and cannot fulfil the supererogatory duties prescribed with regard to fasting and prayer." Similarly, "If there is no fault or defect in the religious beliefs of the king, the enjoyments and pleasures in which he indulges as a human being are forgiven to him out of consideration for his firm faith ... (and) the sins due to his human nature are erased from the records of his life."⁹⁷ Not only enjoyments and sins due to human nature were forgiven, the ulema, chroniclers and clericals, indeed all custodians of medieval publicity media, admired the large harems, the extravagance, the grandeur and the magnificence of the monarch. This mode of living raised his stature and strengthened his position in public eye. But in this the ulema went too far and exhibited a vacuum in the process of their thinking. While drinking of wine by a monarch was perhaps rightly overlooked, there was no redressal suggested even when he turned out to be a tyrant. There was no remedy recommended except to pray for change of his heart.