Read on Twitter
1/n
This will be my last set of tweets on this topic, since there is no end to obfuscation (and you have not even addressed my previous strings of replies rebutting you point for point)
1) This discussion was not about how secular Akbar was (such a concept did not exist at that + https://twitter.com/Aabhas24/status/1265368655467958272
This will be my last set of tweets on this topic, since there is no end to obfuscation (and you have not even addressed my previous strings of replies rebutting you point for point)
1) This discussion was not about how secular Akbar was (such a concept did not exist at that + https://twitter.com/Aabhas24/status/1265368655467958272
2/n
..point in time) or how inclined to go against Islamic law to do justice to Hindus. The scope of the argument was: what was the immediate, intermediate and ultimate aim behind drawing up of ‘mahzar’, miscalled by you “infallibility decree”.
2) I said:
a) its immediate cause +
..point in time) or how inclined to go against Islamic law to do justice to Hindus. The scope of the argument was: what was the immediate, intermediate and ultimate aim behind drawing up of ‘mahzar’, miscalled by you “infallibility decree”.
2) I said:
a) its immediate cause +
3/n
..was the ad hoc execution of a brahmin who had blasphemed as per Islamic law, by the orders of Sheikh (Abdu-n-Nabi) Akbar's Sadr-ul-Sadur,
b) that the mahzar was aimed at ending dominance of the ulema on judicial procedure and punishment, a permanent solution to recurring +
..was the ad hoc execution of a brahmin who had blasphemed as per Islamic law, by the orders of Sheikh (Abdu-n-Nabi) Akbar's Sadr-ul-Sadur,
b) that the mahzar was aimed at ending dominance of the ulema on judicial procedure and punishment, a permanent solution to recurring +
4/n
..miscarriage of justice and religious persecution, and a solution to peculation of religious grants (which came directly under the Sadr),
c) ultimately meant to free the Indian empire from the suzerainty of the Caliphate and the Persian empire.
To a neutral eye or from the +
..miscarriage of justice and religious persecution, and a solution to peculation of religious grants (which came directly under the Sadr),
c) ultimately meant to free the Indian empire from the suzerainty of the Caliphate and the Persian empire.
To a neutral eye or from the +
5/n
..Hindu perspective, none of these aims can possibly be held as blameable against Akbar.
Now what did you say?
a) That with the “infallibility decree” Akbar had an ambition to present himself as the Khalifa and “global leader of Islam”
b) Ottomans spoiled it for him in 1581 +
..Hindu perspective, none of these aims can possibly be held as blameable against Akbar.
Now what did you say?
a) That with the “infallibility decree” Akbar had an ambition to present himself as the Khalifa and “global leader of Islam”
b) Ottomans spoiled it for him in 1581 +
6/n
..(how exactly?) Since Mughal pilgrims continued to visit Mecca without break after this and instead Akbar was patently extremely successful in keeping the Turks and Persians out of Indian affairs. You're quoting from a highly biased account which has misrepresented several +
..(how exactly?) Since Mughal pilgrims continued to visit Mecca without break after this and instead Akbar was patently extremely successful in keeping the Turks and Persians out of Indian affairs. You're quoting from a highly biased account which has misrepresented several +
7/n
..portions (incl. gross misportrayal of the circumstances and intention behind disinterring and translocation of Mir Murtaza's grave). It's an absolute falsehood that Bada'uni criticised it. And A'in in fact lavishly praises him! Needless to say, it is not a primary source. +
..portions (incl. gross misportrayal of the circumstances and intention behind disinterring and translocation of Mir Murtaza's grave). It's an absolute falsehood that Bada'uni criticised it. And A'in in fact lavishly praises him! Needless to say, it is not a primary source. +
8/n
3) that Akbar founded a “new religion” with Din-e-Ilahi to counter the Turkish ‘slight’. It clearly was not, as those who accepted it retained their personal faith. It was merely an order comprising members-from among the nobility alone-committed to the Mughal crown.
It can +
3) that Akbar founded a “new religion” with Din-e-Ilahi to counter the Turkish ‘slight’. It clearly was not, as those who accepted it retained their personal faith. It was merely an order comprising members-from among the nobility alone-committed to the Mughal crown.
It can +
9/n
..in fact be seen as a forerunner of the concept of secularism in a monarchical paradigm (as there was no constitutional democracy those days.)
To none of these claims you provide a primary source (which you should be actually in a position to provide straightaway off hand.)+
..in fact be seen as a forerunner of the concept of secularism in a monarchical paradigm (as there was no constitutional democracy those days.)
To none of these claims you provide a primary source (which you should be actually in a position to provide straightaway off hand.)+
10/n
All that^ said @Aabhas24 I have to apologise to you profusely as I'd honestly not had a look at the conversations (with JAkhtar and the Paki hacks) preceding your tweet that I reacted to. I totally missed the context and vociferated more from a history lover's perspective.
+
All that^ said @Aabhas24 I have to apologise to you profusely as I'd honestly not had a look at the conversations (with JAkhtar and the Paki hacks) preceding your tweet that I reacted to. I totally missed the context and vociferated more from a history lover's perspective.
+
There's a background to my ire too: past exchanges with handles like TI and some extremely abusive, much-followed handles that have attacked Hindu icons like BGTilak, Mah. Shivaji, RjRMRoy, Rani Lakshmibai.. We all react from prior experience.
I hope you can ignore my words
-n/n-
I hope you can ignore my words
-n/n-
Adding #4)
Hindus obviously seem to be in cloud about how Sharia works (ref. Why Akbar initially left the matter of the Brahmin to Sheikh Abdu-n-Nabi).
In Islamic jurisprudence the sultan's status is that of the ‘commander of the faithful’ (Amir al-Mu'minin). In non-Arab domain +
Hindus obviously seem to be in cloud about how Sharia works (ref. Why Akbar initially left the matter of the Brahmin to Sheikh Abdu-n-Nabi).
In Islamic jurisprudence the sultan's status is that of the ‘commander of the faithful’ (Amir al-Mu'minin). In non-Arab domain +
..title of imam devolves on the sultan and therefore the khutba read in his name & all orders issued by him.
In matters pertaining to jurisprudence however his powers are limited to qanun (secular law). It doesn't extend to Sharia (religious law). He's not entitled to pronounce +
In matters pertaining to jurisprudence however his powers are limited to qanun (secular law). It doesn't extend to Sharia (religious law). He's not entitled to pronounce +
..the principle (usul al-fiqh) in deciding a matter (unless qualified to do so, which requires thorough knowledge of Arabic, Qur'an, Sunna and legal theory), or practice interpretation (ijtihad). (It's somewhat like the difference between judiciary and executive.) This presents +
..little problem unless there is lack of consensus among scholars (ijma) which was the case in the Brahmin's matter. But in absence of an order from the sultan punishments cannot be executed, esp. capital punishment. Akbar clearly would not give an order (in spite of the Sadr's +
..importunity) and asked him decide the matter (i.e. arrive at a consensus). He was outraged when Abdu-n-Nabi overstepped his authority (and acted against principles of his own school of law, i.e. Hanifi) and took upon himself to execute the Brahmin.
For someone who is aware of +
For someone who is aware of +
..the workings of Islamic law this question wouldn't arise since Badauni's account is crystal clear.
And here's the significance of the mahzar. Because of interferences of political authority with religious law and the fact that in latter ultimate authority rests with Caliphate +
And here's the significance of the mahzar. Because of interferences of political authority with religious law and the fact that in latter ultimate authority rests with Caliphate +
..any Islamic dominion is always subordinate to the Caliphate for Sunnis (in Akbar's time with Sultanate of Rum) or to Shia taj (in Akbar's time, as now, with Persia).
Akbar wrested that prerogative in one go making the Indian state free of Islamic dominion for 3-1/2Cs to come.
+
Akbar wrested that prerogative in one go making the Indian state free of Islamic dominion for 3-1/2Cs to come.
+
The very next year he established secular courts, made alterations to public law, founded separate courts for Hindus to be governed by their own personal laws and... by express decree declared that non-Muslims would not be tried by Islamic law even in case of public law.
-×-
-×-
