The Administration of the Sultanate of Dehli c8.65

c8.65

Personal law. It has already been noticed that the sultan had very little legislative power. He could not interfere with the personal and religious law of his subjects, for both the Muslims and the Hindus had their systems of law with which they would not brook any interference even at the cost of their lives. The sultans realized their helplessness in this respect; some of them disliked certain Hindu customs but considered it impolitic to meddle with them.¹ Nor could they flout the *shar'* with immunity. They could rely on the support and loyalty of the Faithful only so long as they ruled in accordance with the Law; for though the Muslims are enjoined to obey their rulers and co-operate with them in lawful projects and activities, it is a mortal sin to do so if the monarch does anything unlawful or un-Islamic.² In such cases a believer's duty is to rebel, and the sultans well knew the consequences of a successful rebellion. Nāṣir-u'd-dīn Khusraw, for instance, lost his throne, because his henchmen disgusted Muslim opinion by behaving arrogantly towards Islam.³ Though not within our period, Akbar's experience illustrates this point. His heterodoxy fed the flames of a widespread rebellion in the east and resulted in an invasion by his brother from the north-west. For a moment the very foundations of the empire were shaken, and Akbar overcame the danger partly by an ostentatious display of orthodoxy for the time being, and partly with the help of his Rājpūt and Persian supporters. The rebellion would have succeeded under better leadership. Even then, Jahāngīr had to reverse his father's policy and come to terms with orthodoxy. The Hindus also believed in the right to rebel against an unjust monarch.⁴