BhV sorry I missed your conversations earlier; please feel free to post it where it had appeared if you feel like.
Ishwa, what you said is of course what the reigning Aligarhites (Habib et al) have been repeating as proof of Akbar having remained a committed moslem contrary to the otherwise. Most of what they say is not borne out of fact however. Of late even Habib's colleagues and collaborators have questioned these notions, especially Sanjay Subramanyam and even subalternists like Harbans Mukhia.
My comments on some of your points:
<<<1. He controlled where and when temples could be constructed. In 1595, actually
in his Hindu-tolerant period, he ordered Man SinghKachhvaha to convert the
temple he had started to built into a mosque. This is odd.
Forbes, Geraldine; Tomlinson, B.R. (2005). The new Cambridge history of India.
Cambridge University Press. p. 73.>>>
Yes this is not only odd, this is also untrue. Man Singh's so called Masjid in the old capital of Jharkhand is exactly contrary to what is said above. There is absolutely no shred of any proof to support the conjecture -- which is why the Aligarhites keep attributing it to the "local oral traditions". I have studied the remains in detail and facts point exactly in opposite direction to this.
One may compare the structure of the mosque with the palaces at Sikari in UP and Rohtas in Bihar, also curious is the location of a sun temple near the so called mosque of Man Singh. In short, here is what my opinion of the matter is: the structure was originally supposed to be a palace along with a temple. A beautiful temple at the site, as it must have been since beginning, still stands, although the palace is gone. The Bengal-Bihar Governor Man Singh, as we know, faced frequent Afghan rebellious uprisings which he was mandated to quell in east, but these were only further fuelled by the murmurs about Akbar's blasphemous and apostatic acts -- and the sunnis of the moghal army also frequently threatened to turn against. Man Singh's case of converting the palace into a mosque was an act borne out from these compulsions. Even a dutch visitor to the place records this process. Also, there is nothing to show that the conversion had a sanction of Akbar; Raja Man Singh in particularly was quite autonomous in his decisions, especially in his construction spree, and required no order-taking from Akbar. By the way, in the same period, Akbar and Man Singh contributed financially to Konark and Jagannath temple -- as recorded by Patsah Buranji -- an Assamese Hindu Chronicle written by the Assamese ambassador at the Mughal court. In the same period Akbar got a certain brahmana tantrika from orissa to complie for him an exclusive mantra of Surya Sahasranama, and to initiate him in this. He memorised the mantra with effort and continued to recite till the end of his days (which was not far).
I hope to be able to clarify this oft-repeated evidence of Akbar's continued Islamness, when other pre-occupations permit me some time.
<<<2. He changed the sacred name of Prayaga into Ilhabas in 1583, also in his
tolerant period. A name with the Islamic word Ilaha.>>>
Please remember that "Ilaha" was NOT an Islamic but a pre-Islamic word simply meaning "God". Dominance of "Allah" over "Ilaha" is the Islamic contribution to some extent, the word having been created by prefixing "Al" to "Ilaha", meaning "The God". The making of exclusive "The God" from the simple and general "God" is what Islam is in a nutshell, besides of course the Finalness of its Prophet. Akbar understood this and laboured to revert Islam to its pre-Mohammedan days. During his later days he always used to refer to Islam not by its hallowed self-title "Islam" but as "kais-i-ahmad", "The Cult of Muhammedans"; In Akbar's view, it is just a cult and a corruption of the original and better religion. Akbar thought that Islam -- if Muhammad is taken out from it -- will heal itself out of the fanaticism it has gained. His clipping out the latter half of the Kalima of the moslem creed to be read in the mosques of his reign, i.e. removing "...and mohammed is his prophet", was an announcement of his intent: drop the prophet and Islam will be acceptable to him. His terminating in his empire of the usage of hijri era beginning with prophet's migration is also on that line.
<<<2. He changed the sacred name of Prayaga into Ilhabas in 1583, also in his
tolerant period. A name with the Islamic word Ilaha. If he really respected his
Hindu subjects, there was no need to change the name and steal the traditional
sacred location from them. This is pure Muslim practice, like what Babur did to
Ayodhya.>>>
Coming to "Ilahabad" -- not "Allahabad" which is a misspelling and a mispronunciation from what Akbar called it. You stopped just at looking the name. I suggest you to look at the larger things involved here in Akbar's liking to Prayag so much that he decided to shift his very imperial capital from Agra to Prayag/Ilahabad. As we know Akbar had first shifted his capital from Agra to Sikri -- and the shift was a representation of his religious tendency -- a devoted Sufi Moslem that he then was, moved his capital to the camp of Salim Chishti at Sikari. A decade later, when he had remained no longer a Moslem -- Sufi or otherwise -- he reverted back his capital to Agra. And then finally, he again decided to shift his capital when he had found his linking towards the ways of the Hindus. The new capital, like the earlier one, would be a statement of where is religious/spiritual tilt now stood. As he had earlier shifted to the Sufi Dargah, he now decided to shift to the holy Hindu city of Prayag, calling it the Abode of God -- Ilahabad. You have difficulty with the persian name -- but you dont see his inspiration. Your similie of Akbar's shifting his imperial capital to the Hindu holy city for the reasons of reverence, with that of Babur's vandalism at Ayodhya -- is hard to understand. So did he rename any other Hindu cities? What about Varanasi and Haridwar, both of which being important Hindu Centers in his domain, and which he liked very much too -- why did he not rename these two? If naming is anything to go by, please also remember that Akbar named a new fortess-city he built in the North West, near Attock, as Kashi, after the Hindu city and it came to be known as Attock-Kashi as says Badayuni in disdain.
Akbar could never practically sfift to Ilahabad -- it was taken by Salim -- unltimately symbolic of Akbar's failed mission of life.
<<<3. His lust for Hindu princesses had a political motive too. To break the
backbone of the Rajas and keep them manipulating and loyal.>>>
Of course the motive you said is the correct one, but irrelevant for the topic at hand -- he would do this even if he was or was not an apostate.
<<<4. Despite political intrigues, one led by his own son, there were no religious
outbreaks of Sunnis around Akbar's last years. Even an influential orthodox
theologian like Abdul Haq still considered Akbar to be a Muslim and not a
heretic. Habib, Irfan (1997). Akbar and His India. New Delhi: Oxford University
Press, p. 96.>>>
Inaccurate. Several of his senior sunni generals rose is revolt, but they were no match to Akbar's cunning and might as long as he had with him his chosen four -- Birbal, Todarmal, Abul Fazl and Man Singh. There is one curious instance recorded by Badayuni: Once some of Akbar's senior Generals approached him mildly complaining against his anti-islamic policies and saying what the Khalifa would think of these. Akbar reproached them harshly saying his is no army of Islam and if fighting for Islam is what motivated them they had better go and seek the skirt of the Khalifa for whom Akbar would be happy to address his letters recommending their service. In a letter, Akbar says something similar to his second son Murad -- that no Namaz or Azan should be heard in his war camps. If any generals or soldiers felt the need for namaz -- they should better do it privately in their camps; his is not an army of Islam. Still, the more fanatic of Akbar's generals were stealthily assassinated by his trusted fierce Rajput friends. Study the death of Husain Khan, killed like a dog on the orders of Akbar, much lamented by Badayuni.
But after the murders of his main friends, who were helping him stand up to the islamists, as well as the loss of his favourite sons Daniyal and Murad, both of whom Akbar was grooming as practically Hindus in outlook, Akbar's position became weakened. Sunnis then rallied around Salim who gave them solemn oaths to revert the despicable reign of Akbar again to the rule of Islam only if he came to power. But Man Singh was still too much for Jahangir to overcome in field, and Akbar had to be taken out through palace intrigues... Jahangir's rebellion is written off by the neo-Aligarhites like Irfan Habib as not having any religious motives at all. But i see it being much far from the truth.
<<<That is Din-e Ilahi, a megalomaniac Sufi variant of the totalitarian Islam>>>
Din-a-Ilahi was anything but any variant of Islam! It was more like the society of the Freemasons, and only condition of joining it was the personal declaration of the rejection of Islam.
<<<In the end, from the start, his person and power mattered to Akbar.>>>
<<<the illiterate megalomaniac Akbar>>>
It is true that Akbar was, above all, a power-hungry ruthless monarch without many scruples. Also true that he was illiterate, which I proposed was connected to some neurotic disorder rather than his being dumb or foolish. My friendly caution to you both is, please don't fall for P.N.Oakish stuff which will only mislead us to the wrong direction.
Finally, Ishwa and BhV, thanks for your comments; no offence meant in any manner; I just did not have enough time to elucidate it better or continue on important topic of Akbar's apostasy. Hope to get back to do so at some time very soon in a more formal manner.
Ishwa, what you said is of course what the reigning Aligarhites (Habib et al) have been repeating as proof of Akbar having remained a committed moslem contrary to the otherwise. Most of what they say is not borne out of fact however. Of late even Habib's colleagues and collaborators have questioned these notions, especially Sanjay Subramanyam and even subalternists like Harbans Mukhia.
My comments on some of your points:
<<<1. He controlled where and when temples could be constructed. In 1595, actually
in his Hindu-tolerant period, he ordered Man SinghKachhvaha to convert the
temple he had started to built into a mosque. This is odd.
Forbes, Geraldine; Tomlinson, B.R. (2005). The new Cambridge history of India.
Cambridge University Press. p. 73.>>>
Yes this is not only odd, this is also untrue. Man Singh's so called Masjid in the old capital of Jharkhand is exactly contrary to what is said above. There is absolutely no shred of any proof to support the conjecture -- which is why the Aligarhites keep attributing it to the "local oral traditions". I have studied the remains in detail and facts point exactly in opposite direction to this.
One may compare the structure of the mosque with the palaces at Sikari in UP and Rohtas in Bihar, also curious is the location of a sun temple near the so called mosque of Man Singh. In short, here is what my opinion of the matter is: the structure was originally supposed to be a palace along with a temple. A beautiful temple at the site, as it must have been since beginning, still stands, although the palace is gone. The Bengal-Bihar Governor Man Singh, as we know, faced frequent Afghan rebellious uprisings which he was mandated to quell in east, but these were only further fuelled by the murmurs about Akbar's blasphemous and apostatic acts -- and the sunnis of the moghal army also frequently threatened to turn against. Man Singh's case of converting the palace into a mosque was an act borne out from these compulsions. Even a dutch visitor to the place records this process. Also, there is nothing to show that the conversion had a sanction of Akbar; Raja Man Singh in particularly was quite autonomous in his decisions, especially in his construction spree, and required no order-taking from Akbar. By the way, in the same period, Akbar and Man Singh contributed financially to Konark and Jagannath temple -- as recorded by Patsah Buranji -- an Assamese Hindu Chronicle written by the Assamese ambassador at the Mughal court. In the same period Akbar got a certain brahmana tantrika from orissa to complie for him an exclusive mantra of Surya Sahasranama, and to initiate him in this. He memorised the mantra with effort and continued to recite till the end of his days (which was not far).
I hope to be able to clarify this oft-repeated evidence of Akbar's continued Islamness, when other pre-occupations permit me some time.
<<<2. He changed the sacred name of Prayaga into Ilhabas in 1583, also in his
tolerant period. A name with the Islamic word Ilaha.>>>
Please remember that "Ilaha" was NOT an Islamic but a pre-Islamic word simply meaning "God". Dominance of "Allah" over "Ilaha" is the Islamic contribution to some extent, the word having been created by prefixing "Al" to "Ilaha", meaning "The God". The making of exclusive "The God" from the simple and general "God" is what Islam is in a nutshell, besides of course the Finalness of its Prophet. Akbar understood this and laboured to revert Islam to its pre-Mohammedan days. During his later days he always used to refer to Islam not by its hallowed self-title "Islam" but as "kais-i-ahmad", "The Cult of Muhammedans"; In Akbar's view, it is just a cult and a corruption of the original and better religion. Akbar thought that Islam -- if Muhammad is taken out from it -- will heal itself out of the fanaticism it has gained. His clipping out the latter half of the Kalima of the moslem creed to be read in the mosques of his reign, i.e. removing "...and mohammed is his prophet", was an announcement of his intent: drop the prophet and Islam will be acceptable to him. His terminating in his empire of the usage of hijri era beginning with prophet's migration is also on that line.
<<<2. He changed the sacred name of Prayaga into Ilhabas in 1583, also in his
tolerant period. A name with the Islamic word Ilaha. If he really respected his
Hindu subjects, there was no need to change the name and steal the traditional
sacred location from them. This is pure Muslim practice, like what Babur did to
Ayodhya.>>>
Coming to "Ilahabad" -- not "Allahabad" which is a misspelling and a mispronunciation from what Akbar called it. You stopped just at looking the name. I suggest you to look at the larger things involved here in Akbar's liking to Prayag so much that he decided to shift his very imperial capital from Agra to Prayag/Ilahabad. As we know Akbar had first shifted his capital from Agra to Sikri -- and the shift was a representation of his religious tendency -- a devoted Sufi Moslem that he then was, moved his capital to the camp of Salim Chishti at Sikari. A decade later, when he had remained no longer a Moslem -- Sufi or otherwise -- he reverted back his capital to Agra. And then finally, he again decided to shift his capital when he had found his linking towards the ways of the Hindus. The new capital, like the earlier one, would be a statement of where is religious/spiritual tilt now stood. As he had earlier shifted to the Sufi Dargah, he now decided to shift to the holy Hindu city of Prayag, calling it the Abode of God -- Ilahabad. You have difficulty with the persian name -- but you dont see his inspiration. Your similie of Akbar's shifting his imperial capital to the Hindu holy city for the reasons of reverence, with that of Babur's vandalism at Ayodhya -- is hard to understand. So did he rename any other Hindu cities? What about Varanasi and Haridwar, both of which being important Hindu Centers in his domain, and which he liked very much too -- why did he not rename these two? If naming is anything to go by, please also remember that Akbar named a new fortess-city he built in the North West, near Attock, as Kashi, after the Hindu city and it came to be known as Attock-Kashi as says Badayuni in disdain.
Akbar could never practically sfift to Ilahabad -- it was taken by Salim -- unltimately symbolic of Akbar's failed mission of life.
<<<3. His lust for Hindu princesses had a political motive too. To break the
backbone of the Rajas and keep them manipulating and loyal.>>>
Of course the motive you said is the correct one, but irrelevant for the topic at hand -- he would do this even if he was or was not an apostate.
<<<4. Despite political intrigues, one led by his own son, there were no religious
outbreaks of Sunnis around Akbar's last years. Even an influential orthodox
theologian like Abdul Haq still considered Akbar to be a Muslim and not a
heretic. Habib, Irfan (1997). Akbar and His India. New Delhi: Oxford University
Press, p. 96.>>>
Inaccurate. Several of his senior sunni generals rose is revolt, but they were no match to Akbar's cunning and might as long as he had with him his chosen four -- Birbal, Todarmal, Abul Fazl and Man Singh. There is one curious instance recorded by Badayuni: Once some of Akbar's senior Generals approached him mildly complaining against his anti-islamic policies and saying what the Khalifa would think of these. Akbar reproached them harshly saying his is no army of Islam and if fighting for Islam is what motivated them they had better go and seek the skirt of the Khalifa for whom Akbar would be happy to address his letters recommending their service. In a letter, Akbar says something similar to his second son Murad -- that no Namaz or Azan should be heard in his war camps. If any generals or soldiers felt the need for namaz -- they should better do it privately in their camps; his is not an army of Islam. Still, the more fanatic of Akbar's generals were stealthily assassinated by his trusted fierce Rajput friends. Study the death of Husain Khan, killed like a dog on the orders of Akbar, much lamented by Badayuni.
But after the murders of his main friends, who were helping him stand up to the islamists, as well as the loss of his favourite sons Daniyal and Murad, both of whom Akbar was grooming as practically Hindus in outlook, Akbar's position became weakened. Sunnis then rallied around Salim who gave them solemn oaths to revert the despicable reign of Akbar again to the rule of Islam only if he came to power. But Man Singh was still too much for Jahangir to overcome in field, and Akbar had to be taken out through palace intrigues... Jahangir's rebellion is written off by the neo-Aligarhites like Irfan Habib as not having any religious motives at all. But i see it being much far from the truth.
<<<That is Din-e Ilahi, a megalomaniac Sufi variant of the totalitarian Islam>>>
Din-a-Ilahi was anything but any variant of Islam! It was more like the society of the Freemasons, and only condition of joining it was the personal declaration of the rejection of Islam.
<<<In the end, from the start, his person and power mattered to Akbar.>>>
<<<the illiterate megalomaniac Akbar>>>
It is true that Akbar was, above all, a power-hungry ruthless monarch without many scruples. Also true that he was illiterate, which I proposed was connected to some neurotic disorder rather than his being dumb or foolish. My friendly caution to you both is, please don't fall for P.N.Oakish stuff which will only mislead us to the wrong direction.
Finally, Ishwa and BhV, thanks for your comments; no offence meant in any manner; I just did not have enough time to elucidate it better or continue on important topic of Akbar's apostasy. Hope to get back to do so at some time very soon in a more formal manner.