10-26-2010, 02:29 PM
No problem, Bodhi. I will be in this position too in the forthcoming months. I have to slow down to avoid a burn out.
I stand corrected on Akbar's change removed from orthodox Islam,. As I haven't made a thorough study of (the personality of) Akbar, that's why I am glad that you have cleared some points on these last doubts I had about Akbar and have enlightened me on the position of the Aligarhites w.r.t. Akbar.
Now, I do understand better the court intrigues of the last years of Akbar from Salim's rebellion on to the tensions after his death with the progressive Man Singh group favouring Salim's son and the orthodox group favouring Salim.
I also do understand the strategic and symbolic nature of Prayaga against this background of the orthodox camp versus Akbar's change.
As a matter of fact, I have no problem with a Persian name, but I concluded, perhaps hastily, with still keeping a Muslim Akbar in mind, that it contained an Islamic Arabic (!) word Ilah coupled to a M-Persian word -abad adopted and used solely by Muslims (Safavid influence entered through Humayun's and Akbar's Khurasanis?), that it was a strategic action against Hindus. With the new information about his change in mind, it thus was not an action against Hindus, but rather a personal action or plan against the orthodox (Sunnis and Sufis).
It doesn't seem to have been executed w.r.t. other Hindu centers, that's correct. But, then he didn't change the citynames in his Jihadi or Sufi period too, except only the addition of a Jihadi FatH-pur to Sikari.
You are partly right about the subtle notion of Ilahabad pointing to a pre- and non-Islamic Ilaha versus an Islamic Allah, seen from the perspective of Akbar's change on the religious plane. But, Ilah is certainly also a mainstram orthodox Muslim used word, remember the important Shahada for all Muslims: la ilaha ill allah .... Allah too is a contraction of al-ilah, as you have stated too: the ilah, par excellence. There are pre-Islamic Arabic and scores of Persian words and names which were being reused within orthodox Islam. Ilah was within the realm of Islam. Here is where I made my conclusion, w.r.t. changing a Hindu name Prayaga into a very Islamic sounding Ilah-abad, at least remote from a Hindu name and significance.
Akbar's personal invention called Din-e Ilahi, obviously, was far removed from orthodox Islam. But in my opinion was also far removed from Hindu Dharma, in the sense of respect for ancient old and periods of reformed streams through Bhakti-vada. A Jihadi previously, an 'enlightened' one now, he still was a powerful political leader in the first place and with ambitious religious visions in the second. But, people still remembered his earlier actions.
As smart as Akbar was, he must have known and felt the opposition from the orthodox Muslims, but also of scepsis amongst the other religious people. To convince the last that he really had changed may not have been easy to believe, even though he was sometimes generous towards Hindu rulers via his favourite general. But, was Man Singh respected or liked by his adversary Hindus, or simply tolerated or feared? (Hindu scepsis amongst nobility and learned ones?) I do not know.
A ruthless Jihadi from 1556 to ca. 1576, that is another 20 years of ruthless Muslim terror. Then he slowly started to change, first as a Chishtiya Sufi, then in the 1580s removed from orthodoxy, that is more than 34 long regnal years. In that sense I compared the competing Osman Khilafat with his Din-e Ilahi Khilafat, as in both ruler and religion are intertwined.
For sure neither Akbar's character nor the time he lived in were simple. Even though he may have changed for insiders, previously terrorised insiders and outsiders never give up their fear, scepsis or apathy. See how people in former Russia still weren't free from totalitarian clutches for a while after Gorbachev.
B.t.w. is there a change or development in character and position of these four, Abul Fazl (he came later), Birbal, Todar Mal and Man Singh, too? Maharana Pratap didn't like Man Singh and his Kula giving daughter's and son's services to a Turushka. His son Amar Singh didn't bow for Akbar in his last 6 years either.
There is one question I have: Was this U-turn for the general benefit of the Hindus, or was it rather motivated by his personal vendetta against orthodox Muslims? The Four Conspirators with his motivations had of course their own personal agenda's, but all five needed each other against the orthodoxy. The reason why I pose this question, is that (absolute and/or brilliant) powerful persons (see also brilliant artists adored by millions) can display a dual nature of higher spirituality and sophistication coupled with lower traits pulling them sometimes in scandalous situations or actions.
added today (october 27th)
Dear Bodhi,
In the above I wanted to take the role of the "advocate of the devil". Your research is very interesting and compelling to me. But I still keep getting questions in my mind, perhaps you can solve these. The question marks I have posted above, could have been put by anyone disagreeing with your case.
The points I wanted to raise probably needing more elaborately quoted and annotated explanation are:
1. From Jihadi Sunni period of Akbar, to intermediate Jihadi Sufi period till his complete U-turn as "Ilahi Sufi" period. Akbar had an agenda: like a boss trying to get out of the Maffia, you must have good bodyguards and followers, he too was in a same situation having his private trustees, but with paramount power.
2. Opinions of others about the Four Conspirants. All these four had their own agenda through Akbar.
3. Opinions and objections of Badayuni(and Sunni and Christian sources). Badayuni, jealous of Abul Fazl (his Ustad-bhai?), has his own agenda, like the missionary Christin writers, whose objective was follow the standard procedure of trying to get the monarch's soul through maligning.
4. Impact and adherers of the Din-i Ilahi cult. Is it correct that ownly a handful clique of court people surrounding the monarch were followers? This sounds like a political agenda.
By the way, here is a link with some very interesting material for your research, perhaps you already know: Http://www.scribd.com/doc/36781210/DIN-E...n-of-Akbar
I stand corrected on Akbar's change removed from orthodox Islam,. As I haven't made a thorough study of (the personality of) Akbar, that's why I am glad that you have cleared some points on these last doubts I had about Akbar and have enlightened me on the position of the Aligarhites w.r.t. Akbar.
Now, I do understand better the court intrigues of the last years of Akbar from Salim's rebellion on to the tensions after his death with the progressive Man Singh group favouring Salim's son and the orthodox group favouring Salim.
I also do understand the strategic and symbolic nature of Prayaga against this background of the orthodox camp versus Akbar's change.
As a matter of fact, I have no problem with a Persian name, but I concluded, perhaps hastily, with still keeping a Muslim Akbar in mind, that it contained an Islamic Arabic (!) word Ilah coupled to a M-Persian word -abad adopted and used solely by Muslims (Safavid influence entered through Humayun's and Akbar's Khurasanis?), that it was a strategic action against Hindus. With the new information about his change in mind, it thus was not an action against Hindus, but rather a personal action or plan against the orthodox (Sunnis and Sufis).
It doesn't seem to have been executed w.r.t. other Hindu centers, that's correct. But, then he didn't change the citynames in his Jihadi or Sufi period too, except only the addition of a Jihadi FatH-pur to Sikari.
You are partly right about the subtle notion of Ilahabad pointing to a pre- and non-Islamic Ilaha versus an Islamic Allah, seen from the perspective of Akbar's change on the religious plane. But, Ilah is certainly also a mainstram orthodox Muslim used word, remember the important Shahada for all Muslims: la ilaha ill allah .... Allah too is a contraction of al-ilah, as you have stated too: the ilah, par excellence. There are pre-Islamic Arabic and scores of Persian words and names which were being reused within orthodox Islam. Ilah was within the realm of Islam. Here is where I made my conclusion, w.r.t. changing a Hindu name Prayaga into a very Islamic sounding Ilah-abad, at least remote from a Hindu name and significance.
Akbar's personal invention called Din-e Ilahi, obviously, was far removed from orthodox Islam. But in my opinion was also far removed from Hindu Dharma, in the sense of respect for ancient old and periods of reformed streams through Bhakti-vada. A Jihadi previously, an 'enlightened' one now, he still was a powerful political leader in the first place and with ambitious religious visions in the second. But, people still remembered his earlier actions.
As smart as Akbar was, he must have known and felt the opposition from the orthodox Muslims, but also of scepsis amongst the other religious people. To convince the last that he really had changed may not have been easy to believe, even though he was sometimes generous towards Hindu rulers via his favourite general. But, was Man Singh respected or liked by his adversary Hindus, or simply tolerated or feared? (Hindu scepsis amongst nobility and learned ones?) I do not know.
A ruthless Jihadi from 1556 to ca. 1576, that is another 20 years of ruthless Muslim terror. Then he slowly started to change, first as a Chishtiya Sufi, then in the 1580s removed from orthodoxy, that is more than 34 long regnal years. In that sense I compared the competing Osman Khilafat with his Din-e Ilahi Khilafat, as in both ruler and religion are intertwined.
For sure neither Akbar's character nor the time he lived in were simple. Even though he may have changed for insiders, previously terrorised insiders and outsiders never give up their fear, scepsis or apathy. See how people in former Russia still weren't free from totalitarian clutches for a while after Gorbachev.
B.t.w. is there a change or development in character and position of these four, Abul Fazl (he came later), Birbal, Todar Mal and Man Singh, too? Maharana Pratap didn't like Man Singh and his Kula giving daughter's and son's services to a Turushka. His son Amar Singh didn't bow for Akbar in his last 6 years either.
There is one question I have: Was this U-turn for the general benefit of the Hindus, or was it rather motivated by his personal vendetta against orthodox Muslims? The Four Conspirators with his motivations had of course their own personal agenda's, but all five needed each other against the orthodoxy. The reason why I pose this question, is that (absolute and/or brilliant) powerful persons (see also brilliant artists adored by millions) can display a dual nature of higher spirituality and sophistication coupled with lower traits pulling them sometimes in scandalous situations or actions.
added today (october 27th)
Dear Bodhi,
In the above I wanted to take the role of the "advocate of the devil". Your research is very interesting and compelling to me. But I still keep getting questions in my mind, perhaps you can solve these. The question marks I have posted above, could have been put by anyone disagreeing with your case.
The points I wanted to raise probably needing more elaborately quoted and annotated explanation are:
1. From Jihadi Sunni period of Akbar, to intermediate Jihadi Sufi period till his complete U-turn as "Ilahi Sufi" period. Akbar had an agenda: like a boss trying to get out of the Maffia, you must have good bodyguards and followers, he too was in a same situation having his private trustees, but with paramount power.
2. Opinions of others about the Four Conspirants. All these four had their own agenda through Akbar.
3. Opinions and objections of Badayuni(and Sunni and Christian sources). Badayuni, jealous of Abul Fazl (his Ustad-bhai?), has his own agenda, like the missionary Christin writers, whose objective was follow the standard procedure of trying to get the monarch's soul through maligning.
4. Impact and adherers of the Din-i Ilahi cult. Is it correct that ownly a handful clique of court people surrounding the monarch were followers? This sounds like a political agenda.
By the way, here is a link with some very interesting material for your research, perhaps you already know: Http://www.scribd.com/doc/36781210/DIN-E...n-of-Akbar