Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > Asian History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Asian History Asian History Forum - China, Japan, Korea, India, Australia, New Zealand, and the Asia-Pacific Region


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old November 23rd, 2012, 07:01 AM   #1
Citizen
 
Joined: Nov 2012
From: India
Posts: 13
Emperor Akbar and his secularism


While researching on Akbar's policy of secularism, a question came to my mind.
Akbar developed a strong disdain towards Islam and its ideals. In "The Commentary of Father Monseratte", Father Monseratte states, "His sentiments with regards to Muhammad were very different; for he believed him to have been a rascally imposter, who had deluded and infatuated men by his lies.”
What I want to know is that can we really call Akbar a secular Emperor when he harboured such hatred for Islam? Moreover, given the strong religious sentiments that the Islamic rulers possessed for their religion, what were the reasons that made Akbar dislike Islam?

I really am curious on this topic and hope to get some answers to my questions from the members!
historyhungry is offline  
Remove Ads
Old November 23rd, 2012, 08:27 AM   #2
.
 
Joined: Sep 2012
From: Valles Marineris, Mars
Posts: 4,835

I think its only one belief, did he only hate Islam?
Gorge123 is offline  
Old November 23rd, 2012, 02:21 PM   #3

civfanatic's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 989
Blog Entries: 6

Akbar showed disdain for both Islam and Hinduism and thought both were backward or lacking in some way. This is why he attempted to create a new religious ideology (Din-i-Ilahi), which incorporated elements from both Islam and Hinduism as well as other world religions like Christianity and Zoroastrianism.

Naturally, this has made Akbar hated by both Pan-Islamists and orthodox Muslims (who view Akbar as a Hindu-loving kafir) as well as Hindu nationalists (who view him as just a clever Muslim oppressor of Hindus). But neither paradigm accurately defines Akbar's world-view.

Last edited by civfanatic; November 23rd, 2012 at 02:32 PM.
civfanatic is offline  
Old November 23rd, 2012, 04:13 PM   #4

Pusyamitra's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Nov 2012
From: USA
Posts: 672

He was one of the few Muslim rulers in India not inherently blinded by his hate of Hindus, though he did a number to the poor Rajputs of Chittor and Ranthambhore.
Pusyamitra is online now  
Old November 23rd, 2012, 08:47 PM   #5
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Sep 2012
From: varanasi uttar pradesh, india
Posts: 1,610

Quote:
Originally Posted by civfanatic View Post
Akbar showed disdain for both Islam and Hinduism and thought both were backward or lacking in some way. This is why he attempted to create a new religious ideology (Din-i-Ilahi), which incorporated elements from both Islam and Hinduism as well as other world religions like Christianity and Zoroastrianism.

Naturally, this has made Akbar hated by both Pan-Islamists and orthodox Muslims (who view Akbar as a Hindu-loving kafir) as well as Hindu nationalists (who view him as just a clever Muslim oppressor of Hindus). But neither paradigm accurately defines Akbar's world-view.
Hahaha, and no one is telling that Akbar introduced a new religion of which he was the prophet himself.

one can doubt whether Moses, Muhammad were attended by angels but I am more than sure that Akbar did not receive any message and this makes him a fraudulent impostor who was trying to achieve prophethood by virtue of sword.

and so far as akbar considering other religions as backward, it was his morality that he kept thosands of women in harem ( overcrowded as in one room there were 10 women kept ), killed innocents more than often and castrated men.
avantivarman is offline  
Old November 23rd, 2012, 08:49 PM   #6
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Sep 2012
From: varanasi uttar pradesh, india
Posts: 1,610

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pusyamitra View Post
He was one of the few Muslim rulers in India not inherently blinded by his hate of Hindus, though he did a number to the poor Rajputs of Chittor and Ranthambhore.
and also to poor tribals and rajput women of gondwanaland.

Remember Durgavati 's daughter in law was forcibly taken in harem of Akbar along with slaughter of gond tribals in that area.
avantivarman is offline  
Old November 23rd, 2012, 09:00 PM   #7
Citizen
 
Joined: Nov 2012
From: India
Posts: 13

Quote:
Originally Posted by avantivarman View Post
and also to poor tribals and rajput women of gondwanaland.

Remember Durgavati 's daughter in law was forcibly taken in harem of Akbar along with slaughter of gond tribals in that area.
Can you tell me where you found this information?
historyhungry is offline  
Old November 23rd, 2012, 09:02 PM   #8
Citizen
 
Joined: Nov 2012
From: India
Posts: 13

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pusyamitra View Post
He was one of the few Muslim rulers in India not inherently blinded by his hate of Hindus, though he did a number to the poor Rajputs of Chittor and Ranthambhore.
I do not think that his treatment of the Rajputs had anything to do with the fact that they were Hindus, but it was because they were his enemies and the Mughals were known for their atrocious and brutal treatment of their enemies.
historyhungry is offline  
Old November 23rd, 2012, 11:02 PM   #9
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Sep 2012
From: varanasi uttar pradesh, india
Posts: 1,610

Quote:
Originally Posted by historyhungry View Post
I do not think that his treatment of the Rajputs had anything to do with the fact that they were Hindus, but it was because they were his enemies and the Mughals were known for their atrocious and brutal treatment of their enemies.
So what is this ?



HImUin was excessively arrogant on account of his troops and elephants. He advanced, fought, and routed the Mughals, whose heads lay in heaps, and whose blood flowed in streams. He thus at first vanquished the Mughal army; but as the brilliancy of the star of Prince Akbar’s fortune was not destined to be diminished, it chanced that, by the decree of the Almighty, an arrow struck HImUn in the forehead. He told his elephant driver to take the elephant out of the field of battle...


“When ShAh KulI Beg was told of what had occurred, he came up to the elephant, and brought it into the presence of Bairam KhAn. Bairam KhAn, after prostrating himself, and returning thanks, caused HImUn to descend from the elephant, after which he bound his hands, and took him before the young and fortunate Prince, and said, As this is our first success, let Your Highness’s own august hand smite this infidel with the sword. The Prince, accordingly, struck him, and divided his head from his unclean body (Nov. 5, AD 1556).”

“…The king struck Hemu with his sword and he won the title of Ghazi…”





Do note that Akbar was not being brutal towards hemu because he was an enemy but because he was a hindu or how can we explain his assuming title of Ghazi that is slayer of infidels.
avantivarman is offline  
Old November 23rd, 2012, 11:04 PM   #10
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Sep 2012
From: varanasi uttar pradesh, india
Posts: 1,610

Quote:
Originally Posted by historyhungry View Post
Can you tell me where you found this information?
I do not have link but Vincent Smith in his book Akbar has mentioned this clearly.
avantivarman is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > Asian History

Tags
akbar, emperor, secularism


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Akbar's Policies. Please Help bitdefen000 History Help 2 September 26th, 2010 02:43 AM
Question related to Akbar- Mughal.. Please Help bitdefen000 Asian History 2 September 25th, 2010 04:48 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.