The Relationship of Badauni and Abu'l Fazl

[Genius of the Restoration]

Greetings and salutations. As some members may know, I've been doing my honours in history this year. I graduate next week and thought it might be a good idea to publish () my final thesis on the forum for anyone who may be interested. It'd probably be easier to find here through google indexing than through the Libraries Australia search engine, so potential researchers who may use my thesis might have an easier time too. The formatting has appeared a bit strange when copied to vBulletin, things like footnotes not appearing in supertext (I can't figure out if vBulletin allows this or now), italics disappearing etc.

Any comments and criticisms are most welcome. It's rather specific I know, but I hope you find it interesting and perhaps enjoy reading it

Full, wanky title: 'A Brilliant Diary and the Most Magnificent of Ornamental Scrolls': An Examination of the Personal Relationship of Abd al-Qadir Badauni and Abu'l Fazl 'Allami as reflected in their Histories

Introduction

Abu'l Fazl 'Allami (1551-1602) and Abd al-Qadir Badauni (c. 1540-1615) were two historians who wrote during the reign of the Mughal emperor Akbar (1542-1605). Both historians entered court in 1574, but Abu'l Fazl quickly rose to be the more successful of the two. This thesis will examine the relationship between the two men and will attempt in particular to understand how it functioned. Examining Abu’l Fazl and Badauni’s personal relationship not only better informs us about their respective histories, but can also be built upon to improve our understanding of how people interacted at Akbar’s court more generally. This relationship is important and worth examining because the scholarship surrounding these two figures is currently deficient. Studies of Abu'l Fazl in isolation appear occasionally in the historiography, while the sporadic glimpses of Badauni's personality, beyond simple dismissals of him as being orthodox, are rarer.1 This thesis will be an attempt in part to address this deficiency. One of the issues that this thesis will address is the dichotomy that some historians attribute to the seemingly one-dimensional characters of Abu'l Fazl and, more particularly, Badauni. One of the most influential books written about Abu'l Fazl is Saiyid Athar Abbas Rizvi's Religious and Intellectual History of the Muslims in Akbar's Reign with Special Reference to Abu'l Fazl.2 While Rizvi's text is the foundation of much of the contemporary historiography of Abu'l Fazl, and indeed intellectual history in Akbar's reign in general, Rizvi's portrayal of Badauni in relation to Abu'l Fazl is not as complete as his analysis of Abu'l Fazl in isolation. Rizvi argues that Badauni was an arch-orthodox, who was diametrically opposed to Abu'l Fazl and regarded him with 'deepest dislike'.3 My thesis will reject this interpretation and draw upon the work done by historians such as Annemarie Schimmel and Ishtiaq Husain Qureshi, who have argued that Badauni was not simply a straight-cut orthodox Sunni, due to his leanings towards the heterodox Mahdawi movement that will be discussed in Chapter One.4 Furthermore, this thesis will question whether Badauni did genuinely dislike Abu'l Fazl. To assess their relationship and attitudes towards each other, this thesis relies primarily on the histories written by Abu'l Fazl and Badauni: the Akbar Nama and Ain-i Akbari by Abu'l Fazl and the Muntakhabu-t-Tawarikh by Badauni, all translated into English in the early twentieth century.5 Abu'l Fazl's history was written when he was Akbar's favourite courtier and secretary.6 The official nature of the history, coupled with Abu'l Fazl's recitation to Akbar as he completed each chapter and Abu'l Fazl's genuine or feigned veneration for Akbar as a 'Perfect Man', makes the Akbar Nama occasionally read like a panegyric, an impression encouraged by the flowery Persian metaphors and couplets composed by Abu'l Fazl's brother, the poet Faizi.7 One of the problems this presents for this thesis is that because Abu'l Fazl's text is intensely focussed on Akbar and is an official history, it does not contain many references to Abu'l Fazl's personal life. Badauni is rarely mentioned in Abu'l Fazl's history and, where his name appears, it is often in the form of a list of people without much in the way of comments by the author. Abu'l Fazl's own views are often indistinguishable from the ideals he presents in his history, which also makes his own opinion of Badauni hard to identify. Some of Abu'l Fazl's letters have survived, but these insha'i have similar issues to his history because they were written under Abu'l Fazl's role as secretary, so again could possibly reflect the imperial, rather than Abu'l Fazl's own, position.8 This thesis will primarily draw upon Badauni's text to understand the two men's relationship. Badauni's Muntakhabu-t-Tawarikh had an entirely different genesis and goal. Badauni's account beginning with the establishment of the Delhi Sultanate until his own time was based on the work of another historian, his friend Nizamuddin Ahmad Bakhshi, with Badauni adding little new information himself.9 It is in the second volume of his work that deals with his contemporary events that Badauni's chief contribution to the historiography of his time rests. Though he used Nizamuddin's Tabaqat-i Akbari as a template and copied the year-by-year account of Akbar's reign from it, Badauni added his own criticism and observations from his persepective as a courtier.10 Composed in secret, the Muntakhabu-t-Tawarikh is scathing of the increasingly liberal religious approach taken by Akbar, and Badauni's hostility towards what he progressively perceived as an attack against Islam are clearly evident. The text itself apparently remained unknown to Badauni's contemporaries, none of whom mention it, and by the time the text was discovered in 1615, Badauni, Abu'l Fazl and Akbar had all passed away.11 Badauni's ruthless honesty, with himself as well as others, and the lack of agenda to please the monarch as in Abu'l Fazl's history, lends itself to the intense subjectivity that is valuable for examining relationships.12 The vast difference between the two histories has been described by Bamber Gascoigne as that between 'a brilliant diary and the most magnificent of ornamental scrolls'.13 The thesis begins by first examining the context in which the relationship functioned. It then examines the religious disagreements between Abu'l Fazl and Badauni, before finally focussing on the aspects of their relationship that suggest that they were friendlier than Rizvi claims. The thesis examines their relationship from their first recorded interactions until 1595, the last date mentioned in the Muntakhabu-t-Tawarikh.14 Chapter One provides an overview of Mughal court culture as well as some of the religious and political movements prior to Abu'l Fazl and Badauni arriving at court in 1574. This chapter is context-oriented to provide an understanding of what sort of atmosphere and worldviews were prevalent during Abu'l Fazl and Badauni's interactions. Chapter Two will examine two of the key events that have been used by some historians to place Badauni and Abu'l Fazl in opposition. These are the mahzar of 1579, a document that gave Akbar authority over religious matters, and the din-i-ilahi, a 'religion' established by Akbar in 1582. Badauni opposed both and this opposition to the religious innovations supported by Abu'l Fazl has led some historians, such as Rizvi, to observe that Badauni detested his fellow courtier. Examining their interactions by looking only at their religious beliefs to determine their relationship is not sufficient, though. The following chapter therefore looks at other aspects of their relationship. Beginning in the period before Abu’l Fazl and Badauni arrived at court, Chapter Three will discuss how they first came into contact. Before they were admitted to court, both men spent time under the tutelage of Abu'l Fazl's father, Sheikh Mubarak of Nagor (1505-1593), and worked together under the Sheikh. The chapter then examines the different spheres of interaction of Abu'l Fazl and Badauni within the court. The two worked together in many different areas, and disputes between them are certainly not apparent in all of their endeavours.

Chapter One: Shifting Attitudes within Akbar's Empire

Abu'l Fazl and Badauni's relationship operated largely within the environment of the elite Mughal court society. The court Akbar inherited when he came to the throne in 1556 was that left by his father Humayun, who, with Iranian assistance, had emerged victorious to reclaim the throne in 1555 but died only six months after his return to Delhi.15 Humayun's exile in Iran (1540-5) dramatically changed the Mughal court as he brought many Iranians back with him when he returned. This chapter will examine the rich political, religious and cultural background to Abu'l Fazl and Badauni's relationship to properly frame their interactions as discussed in the following chapters. The dominant elites within Mughal court society when Humayun reconquered his father's empire were Turanis from the tribes of Central Asia.16 Of the fifty-one nobles who returned with Humayun in 1554, twenty-seven were from Central Asia.17 These nobles brought with them the egalitarian attitudes of rulership that existed in the Turkic tribes.18 They were opposed to discipline and being ruled, and Humayun had intended to divide the kingdom into multiple regions assigned to different nobles.19 The Turanis were such a powerful force during the reign of Babur and the early reign of Humayun that they could force the padshah, or emperor, to conform to their will on occasion.20 By Akbar's reign many of these Turani nobles could claim to be related to Babur and Humayun by blood, adding to the instability they presented through the threat of rival claims to the throne.21 As well as the Turanis, Iranians also accompanied Humayun into India. Humayun's years in exile allowed him to become acquainted with leading Iranian writers and poets, and his presence in Iran further encouraged the emigration of these men of letters to India.22 Humayun's stay at the court of Safavid Shah Tahmasb during his exile also facilitated the influx of Shi'as as Tahmasb's father had introduced Shi'a Islam as the state religion in 1501.23 Unlike the Turanis who observed Sunni Islam, as did the Mughal emperors before Akbar, many of these Iranians were Shi'ite nobles.24 The Iranian Shi'ite nobles were also different from the Turanis in that they generally had a view of leadership based on the Iranian imperial tradition and were more likely to accede to the claim of Humayun to be a padshah.25 As well as being enticed to leave by the presence of Humayun, many poets, writers, painters and calligraphers were also pushed out of Iran because of the persecution they suffered if they refused to adopt Shi'ism.26 Shah Tahmasb even attempted to pressure Humayun himself into adopting Shi'ism during the latter's stay at the Safavid court.27 The Turanis and the Iranians formed the two main power blocs at the start of Akbar's reign and were in constant competition. One of the most hotly contested subjects was the role of Shi'ism within the Iranian ranks. So much mistrust was present in the Turani-dominated court that even those Sunni Iranians who happened to have names such as Yar Ali (friend of Ali) were suspected of being Shi'as.28 Although they thought of themselves as Muslims, Shi'as were considered to be heretics by many of the Sunni Turanis.29 The Turanis had the upper hand in any struggle however and, aside from Bairam Khan, the Shi'a general who advised Humayun during that emperor's rule and Akbar during his early reign, Iranian nobles initially had little influence on state policy.30 It is interesting to note that apart from three or four positions given to Shi'as by Bairam Khan, the situation regarding the balance of power hardly shifted during his regency, despite claims that Bairam Khan favoured Hindus.31 It was only after Bairam Khan's fall, and Akbar's assumption of royal control, that the numerical balance of power in the court changed in a meaningful way to the disadvantage of the Turanis. Revolts by Turanis were a relatively common occurrence during Akbar's early reign. Between 1562 and 1567 five revolts were led by Turani leaders.32 Over the same period of time, the only non-Turani revolt within the empire was the temporary desertion of Asaf Khan which only lasted a year.33 Not all Turanis revolted, however, with many remaining loyal to Akbar and the rebellions were put down with their help, as well as with the constant support of the Iranians.34 The Iranian nobles benefited from these revolts, as many improved their positions over the course of the military operations.35 In an attempt by Akbar to contain the restless and ambitious Turani nobles, new groups were added to the Mughal nobility during his reign. From at least 1561, Hindu Rajputs and indigenous Indian Muslims were introduced to the court as nobles in increasingly greater numbers.36 Rajas were incorporated into Mughal service themselves and actively participated in the policies of the empire, with some proving particularly useful as administrators, governors and generals.37 The use of unconverted Hindu soldiers in Muslim armies was not an innovation on Akbar's part. The Indo-Muslim rulers of various regional kingdoms, with the notable exception of the Sultanate of Delhi, had accepted Hindus into their military elite, as had the Surs, who made efficient use of Hemu, the great Hindu general whom Akbar's forces finally defeated on the memorable battlefield of Panipat in 1556.38 One of the ways Akbar incorporated Rajputs into his regime was through marriage. In 1562, Akbar married his first Rajput princess, Bihari Mal, the daughter of the Raja of Amber, who would later give birth to Prince Selim, the future emperor Jahangir.39 The most striking example of Rajput service to the throne is that of Raja Man Singh, the man who would become Akbar's chief general, and who, as member of the house of Amber, was incorporated into the Mughal nobility through a politically arranged marriage.40 Akbar's proliferation of marriages, three hundred according to the Jesuit Father Monserrate or five thousand according to Abu'l Fazl, have been seen by Ruby Lal as having a symbolic as well political aspect.41 According to Lal, Akbar was demonstrating that the world, symbolised by his zenana comprised of women from different areas, was under his protection.42 This could be seen as a possible extension of the Mughal policy of sulh-i kull, the concept of 'peace with all' that I will discuss throughout this thesis. Political factors are still important though, as the Turani nobility slowly saw its influence fade, and by 1580 Akbar's nobility was comprised of 48 Turanis, 47 Iranians, 44 indigenous Muslims and 43 Rajputs and other non-Rajput Hindus.43 While Abu'l Fazl and Badauni were both indigenous – and at least nominally Sunni – Muslims, their perception of other groups of nobles at court differed greatly. Abu'l Fazl and Badauni's differing religious beliefs shaped their perception of the different beliefs and practices of the members of the new Mughal nobility. There existed various degrees of tension amongst the Muslims in India about serving under a Hindu commander. While Badauni argued that the religion of the commander was not important in a religious war as long as the intentions behind it were pure, he found himself in agreement with Asaf Khan's response when Badauni asked him how to tell a friendly Rajput from a hostile one in battle. The answer was to continue to shoot arrows because '[o]n whichever side they may be killed, it will be a gain to Islam'.44 While it is hard to tell how prevalent this attitude was, Badauni's statement that 'Hindustan is a wide place, where there is an open field for all licentiousness, and no one interferes with another's business, so that every one can do just as he pleases' suggests that the tension, in Badauni's own limited, court-focussed, world at least, was not always divisive.45 Religious conflict and subjugation of Hindus by Muslims was by no means fundamental to Mughal rule in the subcontinent and although the idea that the Mughal empire represented 'Muslim rule' became an accepted tradition, it is far from a universal truth.46 On the whole, political power, not religion, seems to have been more influential with the elite, and Muslim rulers were often much closer to the Hindu ruling classes than the latter were to low caste groups within their own religious communities.47 It would be beneficial to think of the Mughal emperors as padshahs first and foremost, with their religion following behind. The policy of peace with all, sulh-i kull, that features prominently in Abu'l Fazl's works became an increasingly important concept in the Mughal court.48 In a letter to the poet Khan-i Khanan, Abu'l Fazl noted that 'one of the factors responsible for the prosperity of Akbar's reign was his sense of justice and peace with all'.49 Khan-i Khanan was advised by Abu'l Fazl not to look 'with contempt or enmity on the people who followed laws different from his own'.50 Sulh-i kull was expressed in different ways, from the inclusion of Hindus in administration, to the abolition of the jizya, the tax on non-Muslims that had long been regarded as a stigma upon non-Muslims as second-class citizens.51 At a basic level, Akbar's following of this inclusivist policy of sulh-i kull encouraged the immigration of dissident Iranians who were opposed to the Safavid regime's strict adherence to Shi'ism.52 Nonconformist opposition was given the imperial seal of approval and tolerated through the policy of sulh-i kull and as a result the space that was available for conflict between different groups increased in size.53 Following the policy of sulh-i kull, Abu'l-Fazl prepared a manual for officials with advice on how to protect equality and non-interference with matters of faith, which is evidence of interference occurring and supports the idea that tension was at least found in some areas of government during Akbar's reign, if not in the wider community.54 Many Hindus did not wish to challenge or upset the orthodox Muslims but just wished to allow each group to operate without provoking the orthodox Sunnis.55 Rajput Man Singh seems to exemplify this attitude. A devout Hindu, he made special arrangements for Muslim prayers in his campaigns, as well as telling Badauni not to leave the battlefield until he had completed his tasks as an imam, illustrating that tolerance was practised by some, even if it was mostly by Akbar's close followers.56 Islam as a religion does not distinguish between the religious and the profane. There is no organised church or priesthood in Islam; instead Muslims form what is essentially a community of laymen who organise to allow themselves to live according to the religious tenets of Islam, a religion that embraces all aspects of life.57 The 'ulema are those Muslims who are scholars and experts on Islam. They have no authority beyond the preaching of their doctrines and advising whoever wishes to consult them, and their position rests primarily on how others view the quality of both their scholarship and their piety, as they are supposed to be supremely religious and live to their own convictions.58 The 'ulema, the plural of 'alim, or legal scholar, are generally conservative because they are trained as jurists who must look to authority and precedent, though they are not by any means a united group.59 There were many religious movements during Akbar's reign, but one of the most significant for Abu'l Fazl and Badauni's background was the Mahdawi movement. In the late fifteenth century until his death in 1505, Saiyid Muhammed of Jaunpur initiated a new millenarian tradition in India which came to be known as the Mahdawi movement.60 Although the Qur'an overrides any possibility of another prophet following Muhammed in sura 33:40, there had been traditions since the first century of the Muslim era promising the coming of a Mahdi, or messiah.61 Saiyid Muhammed claimed to be the Mahdi while in Mecca in 1495-6 and upon his return gathered many followers in Gujarat.62 The Mahdawis, like other Sufi communities, practised asceticism and only lived on income received gratuitously.63 Many members of the 'ulema were opposed to the Mahdawis, and portrayed them as a threat to the state, and Makhdum-u'l-mulk, one of the leading members of the 'ulema, was particularly aggressive in his quest to punish those whom he saw as heretics.64 Makhdum-u'l-mulk gained many enemies in his persecutions, including Sheikh Mubarak and his sons, Faizi and Abu'l Fazl, whose family Makhdum-u'l-mulk forced into exile, and made few friends.65 Akbar grew to distrust the 'ulema and especially Makhdum-u'l-mulk, as the latter was charged with evading zakat, the Qur'anic alms-tax for the poor payable on all property that the owner had been in possession of for a full year.66 Makhdum-u'l-mulk had devised a way around the system by transferring his property to his wife every year so that neither of them owned it for the full year, exempting them from zakat.67 Actions like this fuelled Akbar's growing disillusionment with the arrogance, intolerance and rivalries within the 'ulema which became one of the defining features of religion in the Mughal court.68 There existed a notion of different types of nobles in Mughal India in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. One of the differences between the Iranian and Turani nobles was that they were often divided into the categories of 'men of the pen' and 'men of the sword' respectively. The 'men of the pen' were the class of writers, accountants and administrators that performed the day-to-day functions of the state.69 The origin of these men can usually be traced back to the Iranian scribes of the Abbasid caliphate that ruled much of Central Asia and extended as far west as Corsica between 750 and 1258.70 In contrast, the 'men of the sword' were those who traced their heritage back to the Seljuk Turks who overran West Asia in the tenth century CE.71 While there existed an opposition between these two categories, the ideal was for a man to embody both; to master the arts of both peace and war.72 Abu'l Fazl certainly knew that the highest positions in Mughal society were virtually reserved for successful soldiers, and when he had a near-death illness, he lamented that he had yet to prove himself on the battlefield.73 While it may seem unusual to modern readers that Badauni and Abu'l Fazl filled many roles in the Mughal court, it was a common practice at the time. Unlike in some Hindu traditions, there were no caste divisions that assigned people to a particular job and denied them the ability to perform others.74 With no clear tasks and responsibilities it was perfectly acceptable in Babur's age for a foster-nurse to serve as a diplomat.75 The Mughal nobility were expected to be able to perform many different functions as both learned men and warriors. During Humayun's reign the Mughal elite witnessed a transition of courtly language from Turkish to Persian. While a few men continued to speak Turkish, including occasionally Humayun himself in private conversation, the language of Humayun's own verse and prose was Persian and this became the standard language used at court.76 Under Akbar, translations into Persian flourished, particularly translations from Sanskrit into Persian that were commissioned by him.77 In 1574, the year both Abu'l Fazl and Badauni were admitted to court, Akbar ordered Badauni to translate the Singhasam Battisi, a collection of the stories of Raja Bikramajit, king of Malwa, from Sanskrit into Persian.78 Akbar's interest in translations continued to grow throughout his reign and he eventually set up a permanent translation bureau, the maktab khana, in his capital Fatehpur Sikri.79 Both Badauni and Abu'l Fazl translated works at Akbar's request, including the great epic the Mahabharata, which they worked on together and whose translation began in 1582.80 Many of the translators were from Iran, and Akbar's empire was known as the place of refuge and abode of peace (dar al-aman) where scholars would be encouraged to pursue their learning.81 The arts flourished under imperial patronage during Akbar's reign. Poetry in particular blossomed, with the outstanding figures of Urfi, a Shi'a poet from Shiraz, and Faizi, Abu'l Fazl's elder brother, dominating a court that hosted fifty-nine poets.82 Akbar instituted the formal position of malik al-shu'ara', poet laureate, at his court and this position continued to be held until Shahjahan's reign in the seventeenth century.83 The only non-Iranian to be awarded the position was Faizi, and Iranians continued to receive the bulk of patronage in Akbar's reign. According to Badauni, 168 Iranian poets and writers received the patronage of the emperor or his nobles.84 The extent to which the high Mughal elite had moved from Turkish to Persian in just two generations is perhaps illustrated best by Jahangir, Akbar's son and successor, who, while not particularly accomplished in Turkish, cultivated his own elegant Persian style and wrote his memoirs and critiqued Persian poetry in it.85 In any overview of culture and literature it is necessary to mention Akbar's illiteracy. Despite being brought up in a highly literate family and having four tutors attempt to teach him how to read as a young prince, Akbar remained illiterate according to his contemporaries.86 Although Akbar had many works translated, due to his lack of formal education he could not read them himself but had them read aloud to him.87 His efforts in cultivating the arts had an enormous impact on how he was viewed, and one Rajasthani bardic poet described Akbar as being lettered and well versed in many branches of knowledge including language, music, and the Qur'an and Puranas, texts sacred to Islam and Hinduism respectively, despite the fact that those close to him knew he could not read or write.88 Some recent commentators have claimed that it was possible that Akbar was dyslexic because his own contemporaries claimed he remained illiterate for his whole life.89 Akbar made no commitment to a permanent capital over his long reign. His court was able to move from one urban environment to another, and at times even became mobile, with massive tents ready to follow Akbar as he moved throughout his empire.90 One of the most notable capitals of Akbar's reign was Fatehpur Sikri, which remained the capital from 1571 until 1585.91 Fatehpur Sikri was built around the shrine and tomb of Sheikh Selim Chishti (d. 1571), a saint who predicted the birth of Akbar's first surviving son.92 Akbar named his son Selim in honour of the saint, but he is better known as the emperor Jahangir. Upon entering the enormous gateway at Fatehpur Sikri, the visitor is directed to Selim Chishti's marble tomb and onward to the 'ibadat khana.93 Many of the religious discussions that were recorded by Badauni and Abu'l Fazl were held in the 'ibadat khana. Constructed in 1575 at Fatehpur Sikri, the 'ibadat khana was a building for the 'ulema, Sufis, Akbar's favourite companions and other select individuals to discuss various topics that related to religion.94 Akbar would often invite foreigners to the debates, such as when the first Jesuit mission arrived at Fatehpur Sikri in 1580.95 Abu'l Fazl was appointed to translate the Gospel and one of the Jesuits, Father Monserrate, gave a lesson about Christianity.96 There were some groups that did not participate, however. Rajputs played no effective role in ideological debates, and the orthodox 'ulema paid them little heed as the Rajputs were content to follow their own beliefs without interference and let Muslims adhere to their own.97 It was in this environment of religious debate that Akbar seems to have taken a progressively hostile position in regard to the worldly members of the 'ulema. The political and religious tones of Akbar's reign were changing from a focus on the Sunni Turanis to an inclusivist policy of different religious and ethnic groups. The destabilising dominance of the Turanis was undermined by the inclusion of rival groups. The inclusion of non-Sunni Shi'as, who owed their position largely to the emperor's patronage, and Rajputs, who owed their position to alliances with Akbar, created an environment that encouraged the adoption of the policy of sulh-i kull. Abu'l Fazl and Badauni's reactions to this environment, and their relations with each other, will be the focus of the following chapters.

Chapter Two: Religious Division Post-1579

Five years after Abu'l Fazl and Badauni entered court service in 1574, Akbar promulgated a decree that would divide the two historians in a way they had not experienced before. This mahzar of 1579, a document that gave Akbar new powers over the 'ulema, was followed in 1582 with Akbar's establishment of a new 'religion', the din-i-ilahi. This chapter will examine the mahzar and din-i-ilahi in succession, first focussing on the context of the establishment of these new challenges to the cordial relationship that existed between Abu'l Fazl and Badauni. There has been considerable scholarly debate over the natures of the mahzar and din-i-ilahi, so this chapter will then examine their contents in detail. The mahzar and the din-i-ilahi will be investigated with the view to providing answers to questions relating to Abu'l Fazl's and Badauni's religious positions, what they valued as important, what this tells us about their relationship, and why their relationship deteriorated because of the mahzar and the din-i-ilahi. While Abu'l Fazl is famous for his liberal attitude, Badauni is often cast as a conservative who opposed Akbar in defence of Sunni Islam. This was not always the case, however. In 1576, Akbar was involved in a dispute about the number of wives he was permitted to marry.98 Akbar wished to have his many wives recognised by law. Islamic marriage practices during the sixteenth century fell into two categories: nikah and mutah.99 Nikah marriage is the traditional marriage contract, while mutah marriage is for a temporary duration and is generally only associated with Shi'as.100 When the emperor asked how many wives he was allowed, the answer he received was four.101 The legal standing of mutah marriage differs within the Maliki and Hanafi schools of Sunni Islamic jurisprudence, with Imam Malik supporting the Shi'is in legalising mutah marriages, while Ibn Hanifa, the founder of the Hanafi school that the Mughals generally followed, opposed it.102 When Akbar asked for Badauni's opinion on the different traditions, Badauni replied that, 'should at any time a Qazi of the Maliki sect decide that a mutah is legal, it is legal according to the common belief, even for Shafis and Hanafis'.103 Akbar was greatly pleased at this and, after hearing Badauni's opinion, replaced a Hanafi qazi with a Maliki, who immediately issued a decree making mutah marriages legal.104 It is normal practice within Islam for rulings made under the different schools of jurisprudence to recognise each other, as each are observed to be equally valid.105 Badauni's contribution to this event in 1576 ensured, in his words, that, 'the road of opposition and difference in opinion lay open, and remained so until His Majesty was appointed mujtahid of the Empire'.106 Badauni sees a disagreement between Akbar and Sheikh Abdu'n Nabi as the origin of the mahzar of 1579. In 1577, a brahman took material collected for the building of a mosque and built a temple with it instead.107 Badauni reports that Sheikh Abdu'n Nabi and some members of the 'ulema pressed for the maximum sentence under sharia, which was death, while others were in favour of the brahman being publicly paraded on the back of an ass and fined.108 Akbar refused to sanction the execution of the brahman, saying that 'Punishments for offences against the holy law are in the hands of you, the 'ulema'.109 Akbar became 'exceedingly wroth' when Abdu'n Nabi went against his wishes and ordered the execution of the brahman, an anger fanned by the complaints of Hindu courtiers and the ladies in his zenana, the area of the household designed for the women, who accused Akbar of pampering 'these Mullas till their insolence has reached such a pitch that they pay no heed to your wishes'.110 Badauni writes that Akbar asked his opinion on the issue and that, although the Mughal Empire was based on the Hanafi tradition of jurisprudence, Abdu'n Nabi's decision, based on a Maliki tradition, was allowed because 'although he was a Maliki, it is yet permissible, by the sacred law, for a recognised mufti to pass sentence in accordance with his decisions'.111 Akbar disagreed with Badauni and thought Sheikh Abdu'n Nabi had acted improperly. Badauni reports that the Sheikh's fortunes fell from this moment onwards.112 In Badauni's history, after Abdu'n Nabi's fall from grace, Sheikh Mubarak came to Akbar's court in Fatehpur Sikri. Akbar told him what had happened and asked for his opinion.113 The Sheikh replied, '[y]our Majesty is the Imam and mujtahid of the age', and viewed Akbar's reliance on the 'ulema as unnecessary.114 Then, according to Badauni, the Sheikh 'wrote a decree affirming the religious supremacy of the Emperor', with this 'mahzar' being written 'in the handwriting of Sheikh Mubarak'.115 The mahzar was signed and gave Akbar new powers on 2 September 1579.116 The mahzar, apparently drafted by Sheikh Mubarak, has been called the 'infallibility decree' by some historians, though this is slightly misleading.117 Vincent Smith coined the term in his Akbar the Great Mogul, where he argued that the 'infallibility decree' recognised Akbar as superior to any other interpreter of Islamic law, essentially investing him with infallibility.118 This is true in one sense because the mahzar gave Akbar powers similar to, though not exactly the same as, those of a mujtahid, an Islamic scholar who has the authority of ijtihad, or independent reasoning based on the sources of Islamic law, and could decide on matters of the divine sharia law in practical situations.119 Unlike other mujtahids within the 'ulema, Akbar was not educated in Islamic theology, and did not know the many hadith traditions that decisions could be based upon to the same extent as the scholars who had spent years studying these traditions. Perhaps in recognition of this, the mahzar empowered Akbar to exercise authoritative power only in the event of a difference of opinion among the 'ulema.120 Akbar could not issue fatwas, legal decisions, of his own, but only decide which tradition presented to him by those who knew them would be followed. Rather than signify that Akbar was presenting himself as infallible and perfect, it has been suggested that the mahzar was a political move to formally implement Akbar's policy of sulh-i kull, peace with all.121 By taking the ultimate decision of which tradition to follow into his own hands, Akbar could prevent the repetition of cases like Abdu'n Nabi's killing of the brahman, and instead enforce a peace between religions to a greater degree than he had the power to before the publication of the mahzar. If a mujtahid wished to execute a brahman in the future, and another mujtahid presented a contrasting opinion that would allow him to be spared, Akbar would be able to choose between them and his choice would be binding. Religious tolerance was the cornerstone of sulh-i kull and remained a defining characteristic of Akbar's reign, even after his death. In his eulogy for his father, the emperor Jahangir wrote that 'in [Akbar's] dominions, which on all sides were limited only by the salt sea, there was room for the professors of opposite religions, and for beliefs good and bad, and the road to altercation was closed'.122 The mahzar could be used to close the 'road to altercation' that had been taken by Abdu'n Nabi, and enforce the encompassing peace that Akbar used as part of his attempts to gain the loyalty of different religious groups that helped support his regime. Abu'l Fazl and Badauni's histories give differing accounts of the 1579 mahzar. Badauni is the main source for it, and copies the decree 'verbatim', according to his own work.123 Badauni treats the work as a political document, and says that the incident of Sheikh Abdu'n Nabi's killing of the brahman was the precedent for it.124 According to Badauni, the mahzar was a tool that was used by Akbar to open 'the road to deciding any religious question... and opposition was rendered impossible'.125 This description of the mahzar fits well with Akbar's policy of sulh-i kull, peace with all. More than this, however, Badauni saw the mahzar as an attack against Islam, as Akbar could decide on matters as a mujtahid and overrule the majority of the 'ulema, as long as there were some members of it presenting him with another opinion. Importantly, Badauni also mentions that there was opposition to the mahzar. This opposition was led by Abdu'n Nabi and Makhdum-u'l-mulk. While both of them signed the document, Badauni says they did so 'against their convictions', a claim supported by the contemporary historian from whom Badauni sourced much of his history, Nizamuddin.126 Badauni's reaction to the mahzar is very different from his earlier reaction to Akbar's desire to legitimise his multiple marriages. Badauni had previously argued in favour of a Maliki interpretation that would benefit Akbar and saw the Hanafi qazi Ya'qub removed from office and replaced with the Maliki qazi Husain 'Arab.127 The mahzar removed Akbar's need to repeat this kind of action, as he could decide which decision he would adopt as expedient and in the interests of the state. Badauni reported that in 1576 it was at his own suggestion that Akbar adopted the Maliki tradition, yet Badauni opposed the mahzar three years later that would allow Akbar to decide upon differences of opinion as a matter of course and without requiring the replacement of a qazi to obtain the desired decision.128 Badauni's change of heart over imperial intervention in the affairs of the 'ulema was due to his concern for Sunni Islam. Like Akbar, Badauni thought of judicial rulings in terms of their effect on the community. While the mahzar could be used by Akbar to enforce his policy of sulh-i kull, Badauni saw it as destructive to the Muslim community that he valued most highly. When Akbar asked Badauni why Sheikh Abdu'n Nabi, a figure Badauni had no great fondness for, killed the brahman, Badauni stated that he replied that the Sheikh 'must have had some wise purpose in view'.129 When Akbar enquired what sort of reason the Sheikh would have for going against his emperor's wishes, Badauni replied 'The closing of sedition and the uprooting of the germs of insolence from the minds of the common people'.130 Badauni was concerned about the attacks against Sunni Islam that were allowed as part of Akbar's policy of sulh-i-kull, and saw these attacks as going too far, even though he himself helped open 'the road of opposition and difference in opinion' in 1576. His defence of Abdu'n Nabi's decision, even though he was one of the members of the 'ulema whom Badauni thought of as a 'fool', informs us about what he valued most at this point and how his position had changed. Abu'l Fazl's account of the mahzar is less political. In Abu'l Fazl's history, a seemingly spontaneous uprising of the 'blissfully wise and the right-thinking' held a conference where they claimed Akbar should possess the power of ijtihad, or the ability to make decisions based on reasoning.131 The mahzar was then signed by Abdu'n Nabi and Makhdum-u'l-mulk and 'other great sages'.132 Unlike Badauni, however, Abu'l Fazl does not mention any opposition to the mahzar. Abdu'n Nabi and Makhdum-u'l-mulk are said to have signed it, but there is no mention of the coercion found in Badauni's account.133 Similarly absent is any mention of Sheikh Mubarak, who Badauni clearly identified as being the driving force behind the mahzar, even to the point that when the 'ulema signed the document, the Sheikh 'added at the bottom that he most willingly signed his name; for this was a matter to which for several years he had been anxiously looking forward'.134 According to Badauni, Sheikh Mubarak's ambition to see Akbar at the head of Islam in the subcontinent had a long history, and may have been due to personal grudges against the 'ulema held by the Sheikh for his family's persecution. The omission of any reference to Sheikh Mubarak may have been due to the nature of Abu'l Fazl's writing. Abu'l Fazl's panegyrical work was in continuous praise of Akbar, who is presented as a 'pure soul' and perfect being which is why he is given the power of ijtihad according to the Akbar Nama.135 The mahzar was attributed to an instinctive urge by the 'blissfully wise and the right-thinking' to give Akbar additional powers, instead of to the political solution offered by Sheikh Mubarak to the problem of how to obtain fatwas that benefited the state. This was a way for Abu'l Fazl to depoliticise the issue in keeping with his portrayal of Akbar as the 'Perfect Man', which will be discussed shortly. How Abu'l Fazl perceived this mahzar in isolation from other religious events and occurrences in Akbar's reign is difficult to ascertain, as any hint of Abu'l Fazl's own views can only be found through the formal writing that constitutes his history and imperial correspondence. Which of these views are really his own, and which, like the exclusion of any mention of Sheikh Mubarak, may have been examples of the interference of the political nature of the official histories he was writing, can be elusive. If there was a defining feature of Abu'l Fazl's approach to the religions of the world it would be tolerance, an attitude that would find expression through the concept of sulh-i kull.136 In a letter to Shah Abbas of Iran in 1594, in response to a request from the Shah for Mughal assistance, Abu'l Fazl wrote that the best advice to avoid 'hypocritical and treacherous persons' was to 'pacify the hearts of people of all sects in accordance with the principles of sulh-i kull'.137 The centrality of sulh-i kull to Abu'l Fazl's approach to governance as a proper way to ensure loyal subjects, even for a Shi'a ruler like Shah Abbas, contrasts with Badauni's professed belief that the Sunni Muslim community should receive preferential treatment under the law to the detriment of other groups. In 1582, Akbar promulgated the creed of the din-i-ilahi, often translated as 'divine faith', an institution that has been as debated as the mahzar and has alternatively been called a 'religion', 'personality cult' and system of 'imperial discipleship'.138 It featured elements of each of these aspects. Drawn together under the auspices of religion, the focal point of the din-i-ilahi was loyalty to Akbar, and its membership was composed of an elite group of his closest advisors and subjects. The din-i-ilahi was a syncretism of different religious beliefs that Akbar liked and found useful. Akbar issued prohibitions on things he found distasteful but were permitted within Islam and South-Asian culture more broadly, such as 'cohabitation' with girls under the age of puberty.139 Also banned was the eating of meat similar to Hindu and Jain teachings on vegetarianism and non-violence.140 The nature of the din-i-ilahi, and whether creating it made Akbar a heretic or an apostate, has been a contested subject since Badauni accused Akbar of being an apostate within whom 'not a trace of Islam was left'.141 Through the din-i-ilahi Akbar adopted many solar-related practices, including praying to the sun and having collected one thousand Sanskrit names for the sun.142 In Abu'l Fazl's collection of the sayings of Akbar, recorded in the Ain-i Akbari, Akbar's fondness of the sun was made clear: 'A special grace proceeds from the sun in favour of kings, and for this reason they pray and consider it a worship of the Almighty'.143 This adoption of sun and light-veneration may have had its roots in Zoroastrian practices, which seems likely considering Akbar's welcoming stance towards them during debates within the 'ibadat khana.144 According to Badauni, admission to the din-i-ilahi also required the novice to 'utterly and entirely renounce and repudiate the religion of Islam'.145 It has been claimed that Lowe's translation of this crucial passage is erroneous, however, and that it should be read as only opposing a ritually-focussed 'unreal and imitative' Islam that was a form of the Islam that existed in lip service only, not the religion itself.146 Akbar's introduction of non-Muslim practices alienated Badauni who held an increasingly hostile view of Akbar, whom he blamed for introducing 'these [Hindu] customs and heretical practices... after his own fashion into his assemblies'.147 As a personality cult, the din-i-ilahi has been argued to have bestowed upon Akbar the role of the 'Perfect Man' that Sufi theologians had looked forward to, a role often ascribed to Muhammad.148 The 'Perfect Man' was an ideal figure and a model for everyone, though only the prophets and saints were usually assigned this position.149 The 'Perfect Man' is often linked to the belief that a renewer will emerge in every century who will guide Islam back towards its true path.150 Through the din-i-ilahi, Akbar encouraged suggestions that he had attained the status of prophethood or even divinity. Badauni's and Abu'l Fazl's histories agree that the customary greeting for members of the din-i-ilahi was 'Allah Akbar', often translated as 'God is great', though its meaning is also ambiguous in that it could also mean 'Akbar is God'.151 The reply to this was 'Jalla jalaluhu', a term that was a common expression in the dhikr, the repetition and recitation of the names of Gods as an act of devotion, of some Sufi sects.152 Like the first phrase however, 'Jalla jalaluhu' was also a flattering hint towards the emperor's name, Jalal ud-Din Muhammad Akbar.153 The focus on Akbar also included images of him. Badauni claims that disciples were given images of Akbar to wear on their turbans, and Abu'l Fazl noted the distinct membership of the faith through insignia.154 While the din-i-ilahi revolved around Akbar, it has been argued that it did so in order to tie loyalty to the emperor. The din-i-ilahi has been seen by some historians as an institution of imperial discipleship. Abu'l Fazl and Badauni named eighteen disciples within the din-i-ilahi and these were all close advisors and high ranking nobles, including Abu'l Fazl, Faizi, Sheikh Mubarak and the sadr-i-jahan, the chief justice of the empire.155 Although the total number of disciples is unknown, and mentioned as in the thousands by both Badauni and Abu'l Fazl, the initiation process that they underwent before being accepted was recorded by Badauni, and the tenets of devotion they swore were recorded by both Badauni and Abu'l Fazl.156 The most striking element of the din-i-ilahi when approached as an institution of imperial discipleship are the 'four degrees of devotion' that were sworn at the initiation of a novice.157 These are given as 'readiness to sacrifice to the emperor property, life, honour and religion'.158 Members of the din-i-ilahi were not required to sacrifice every degree of devotion, but chose how many they were willing to sacrifice. Those who sacrificed one of the four possessed 'one degree' and so on, establishing an order of loyalty to Akbar, with those most loyal, such as Abu'l Fazl, possessing all four degrees.159 Closeness and loyalty to Akbar were graded using these degrees of devotion, and oaths bound the disciples to their fellows and made them cast aside their former enmities.160 Loyalty to Akbar above all else was a way to ensure Akbar's heterogeneous body of nobles were bound to the Mughal throne. The mahzar and the din-i-ilahi could be examples of the 'time-serving qualities' Badauni observed as present in Abu'l Fazl, though he did not always criticise them.161 Badauni viewed Abu'l Fazl's support of the mahzar as Abu'l Fazl favouring the worldly gains he could obtain by supporting it against his religious duty to object to it in the name of Islam, applying to Abu'l Fazl the proverb, 'I prefer hell to disgrace'.162 Abu'l Fazl's role as 'spiritual director' within the din-i-ilahi, 'the most infidel religion', was similarly condemned by Badauni, giving him the name 'Abu-l-Jahl', a pun that meant 'father of ignorance' instead of Abu'l Fazl, which was properly 'father of knowledge'.163 The relationship between Abu'l Fazl and Badauni became strained from Badauni's perspective due to Abu'l Fazl's compliance with and fostering of Akbar's liberal religious policy, apparently in order to advance himself within the court. Badauni was generally opposed to sacrificing religion to gain worldly favour, though he did muse on his relatively unsuccessful position in relation to Abu'l Fazl's appointment as wazir – the position of chief counsellor of the Mughal padshahs which had considerable power – and was at least tempted by worldly pomp.164 Badauni claimed that the din-i-ilahi was seen as 'the source of confidence and promotion', and that those who took the oath to sacrifice their four degrees of property, life, honour and religion to Akbar could find 'no better passport to damnation'.165 By allying himself with the emperor's policies so resolutely that Akbar appointed him wazir, Abu'l Fazl may have been pressured into dismissing Badauni as one of the ignorant 'base ones of the age', even if he did not think so himself.166 Those who opposed the mahzar and mourned 'the loss of faith' were rejected in Abu'l Fazl's history because, in their 'black-heartedness and shamelessness', they were ignoring Akbar's reverence for Muhammad by claiming the emperor was going beyond the boundaries of his professed religion.167 Badauni complained that doors became closed to him because a person who did not accept the din-i-ilahi was considered a 'lawyer and enemy of the state'.168 While Badauni was critical of both the mahzar and the din-i-ilahi, his reaction to the din-i-ilahi was the more hostile of the two. Badauni's opposition to Akbar and Abu'l Fazl's religious positions became more virulent the further those positions strayed from Sunni Islam and threatened its position of dominance within the empire. Between 1576 and 1582, Badauni's position in relation to Akbar's religious policy changed from supporting the imperial agenda to meddle in the decisions handed down by the judges, to criticising Akbar's ability to interfere in the decision-making process whenever he saw fit, and finally to opposing Akbar's actions with such vehemence that Badauni denied they were in any way Islamic and accused Akbar not only of heresy, but apostasy. In contrast to Badauni's changing position, Abu'l Fazl remained in constant support of Akbar's religious policies throughout this period. The gulf of religious difference between the two courtiers grew over time, and although Abu'l Fazl's personal opinion of this divergence is not separable from his persona as a royal historian, Badauni made it quite clear that what he perceived as Abu'l Fazl's support of Akbar's emerging 'anti-Islamic' positions on religious issues was detrimental to their relationship. The promulgation of the mahzar in 1579 and the establishment of the din-i-ilahi in 1582 mark transitions in the relationship of Abu'l Fazl and Badauni, as the religious positions of the two colleagues began to drift down separate paths. Their relationship was not only concerned with religion, however, and to focus on their religious beliefs and actions to the exclusion of other interactions between them, as the scholarship surrounding them has done, renders an incomplete image of their relationship. Chapter Three will attempt to redress this issue, focussing on Abu'l Fazl and Badauni's relationship with each other outside their disagreements over the mahzar and the din-i-ilahi.

Chapter Three: A Complex and Enduring Relationship

This chapter examines the varying ways Abu'l Fazl and Badauni interacted within the different spheres of contact in Mughal court society. The chapter begins with their earliest recorded interactions before their admission to the court when both were being taught by Abu'l Fazl's father, Sheikh Mubarak. Their communication with each other and their surrounding environment will then be explored to reflect upon their relationship within other spheres of interaction, such as through their work in the maktab khana and 'ibadat khana. How they interacted on these multiple levels of contact and how these actions are portrayed in their, particularly Badauni's, histories will inform us about how their relationship may have functioned within Mughal society. This chapter also addresses the dichotomy of opposition that has been suggested by scholars, such as Rizvi, and will illustrate that Abu'l Fazl and Badauni's relationship was a complex one between two individuals who interacted on many levels and only came into conflict in some of these. Before Abu'l Fazl and Badauni worked together and debated in the 'ibadat khana, they came into contact when both were taught by Abu'l Fazl's father, Sheikh Mubarak of Nagor.169 In 1572, two years before Abu'l Fazl and Badauni entered imperial service, they went, together with Haji Sultan of Thanesar, to see Makhdum-u'l-mulk.170 Badauni had a disagreement with Makhdum-u'l-mulk during this meeting and the authorities Badauni used to support his argument were dismissed by Makhdum-u'l-mulk as being 'accused of schism'.171 Being thought of as schismatic by Makhdum-u'l-mulk would not have been a comfortable place to be, as he terrorised many who did not share his orthodox Sunni views.172 Abu'l Fazl, perhaps sensing the danger that Badauni was in, 'secretly pressed [Badauni's] hand and warned [him] to be silent'.173 Abu'l Fazl had of course experienced first hand what the wrath of Makhdum-u'l-mulk could precipitate, as mentioned in Chapter One. Abu'l Fazl's attempts to stop Badauni from debating Makhdum-u'l-mulk can be seen as an intervention to save Badauni from a similar fate to that which befell his own family, when they found themselves on the wrong side of this oppressive leading member of the 'ulema. At this point in their lives, both Abu'l Fazl and Badauni were still students and there are no records of them having debated each other or come into religious conflict. Badauni wrote that, after they had left Makhdum-u'l-mulk's company, 'my friends said to me, “You have passed through a great danger, but (fortunately) he did not set himself to persecute you. Had he done so who could have saved you?”'.174 The little information that remains of their relationship prior to their interactions as members of the court seems to indicate that they looked out for each other. In the early years of their relationship, Abu'l Fazl and Badauni were perfectly amicable. Badauni's relationship with Sheikh Mubarak is difficult to assess. Badauni certainly held a deep respect for his teacher, though this lessened over time. His summary of the Sheikh in his 'account of learned men' begins, '[h]e was one of the great sages of the age and was distinguished among the men of his time and his contemporaries for his piety, devotion and trust in God'.175 Badauni praised his former teacher, especially the many religious practices the Sheikh adopted over his life, such as observing practices of the Naqshbandi order of Sufism.176 Badauni seems to have been upset about the direction the Sheikh took in his later years. Badauni claims that the Sheikh's actions so alienated him that he 'no longer felt himself fettered by his indebtedness to him'.177 Among the actions that the Sheikh took to elicit this response from Badauni were 'innovations in the faith',178 possibly referring to the Sheikh's involvement in the design of the 1579 mahzar as discussed in Chapter Two. Badauni's opinion of Sheikh Mubarak only declined due to his disagreement with his actions in later life. Despite viewing the Sheikh's involvement in the worldly affairs of politics with contempt, Badauni seemed still to get on well with his former teacher. Badauni approved of the Sheikh's life-long practice of conversing 'with men according to their understanding' and writes that he was a 'very pleasant companion, and had a great stock of wonderful anecdotes'.179 The Sheikh's failing, from Badauni's perspective, appears to have been linked only to his increasing worldliness in terms of his religious attitude and Badauni's distaste for him was limited to these differences in religious belief and practice. Badauni praised the Sheikh's scholarship and acknowledged that he was well versed in all branches of learning, 'especially the theology of the Sufis', and was 'one of the great sages of the age' whose like 'has never been seen'.180 Badauni certainly did not despise the Sheikh, but merely disagreed with him, and this disagreement was only on some matters of religious practice, while on other levels of interaction he found him admirable, which suggests that there was more to Badauni's relationships than simply the religious fervour that they are often reduced to. Both Abu'l Fazl and Badauni worked in the maktab khana, Akbar's translation bureau, from their early days in his service. Badauni reported that in 1575 he received a copy of the Singhasam Battisi, a book comprising thirty-two tales of Raja Bikramajit, with instructions from Akbar 'to make a translation of it in prose and verse'.181 It is important to note that though some members of Akbar's court, including Abu'l Fazl and Faizi, knew some Sanskrit and acted as translators, they often worked with interpreters for the complex Sanskrit texts.182 For instance, Badauni mentioned that a 'learned Brahman was appointed to interpret the book for me'.183 This occurred each time Badauni was asked to translate. In the same year, Badauni was also tasked to translate the Arthava Veda with a recently converted brahman, Sheikh B'hawan, but found many difficult passages, so Akbar ordered Faizi to assist.184 When the religious discussions in the 'ibadat khana expanded to include the adherents of other religions, the need for Persian translations of religious works became more important.185 Thus in 1575, Badauni noted that 'His Majesty firmly believed in the truth of the Christian religion... and charged Abu'l Fazl to translate the Gospel'.186 Abu'l Fazl was very interested in this, and according to Father Pierre Du Jarric, a Jesuit missionary who spent some time at Akbar's court, 'expressed a desire to be instructed in the Christian faith', though Du Jarric expressed his doubts about whether he did so out of a view to embrace the faith or in order to please Akbar.187 Badauni was outraged that the standard Muslim introduction to a text, bismallah-irrahman-irrahim, was replaced at the beginning of the translated Gospels as Ai nami vay Gesu Christu.188 Badauni was appalled that 'the attributes of the accursed Antichrist and his qualities were ascribed by those accursed men to his lordship The Best of the Prophets'.189 This episode raises an interesting issue in regard to how Badauni may have perceived Abu'l Fazl's actions. Badauni did not seem to mind Abu'l Fazl's 'time-serving qualities' and let many of his apparently opportunistic actions go by without criticism.190 While he was opposed to the 'accursed men', the Christian monks, Badauni did not criticise Abu'l Fazl for the removal of the bismallah, nor Faizi, who added the hemistich, 'Praise be to Thee, there is none like Thee, O He', to the new beginning of the piece.191 Professed interest in and reverence for Christianity may have been one way for Abu'l Fazl and Faizi to impress the religiously-minded Akbar, and indeed upon hearing Abu'l Fazl's desire to learn about Christianity, Du Jarric noted Akbar 'treated him with increased affection'.192 Badauni's criticism is not directed at Abu'l Fazl and Faizi, but instead towards the Christians who influenced their writing. Badauni does not say who removed the bismallah, only that it was replaced. Du Jarric's account of the event is more specific and places the blame, or credit as it is viewed in his text, at the feet of Akbar.193 Badauni attributes the blame for the new introduction to the Jesuit fathers, while avoiding the person who chose to add it, Akbar, and those who facilitated it, Abu'l Fazl and Faizi. Badauni's hostile attitude towards non-Sunnis in general perhaps caused him to feel reluctant to condemn those who were even only nominally Sunnis when there were non-Sunni scapegoats whom Badauni could blame instead. Abu'l Fazl and Badauni were united against the leading members of the 'ulema. Upon entering court Abu'l Fazl was embraced by Akbar, because, according to Badauni, 'he expected to find in Abu'l Fazl a man capable of teaching the Mullas a lesson'.194 This he certainly did, especially in the debates in the 'ibadat khana. Abu'l Fazl was recognised by Father Monserrate as the chief religious debater 'who laughed at the system of Muhammad (and for this reason was regarded with great favour by the king)', and always supported the priests in their debates against the 'ulema.195 Abu'l Fazl brought the leading members of the 'ulema into conflict with one another and debated against them using his superior knowledge of Arabic literature.196 Abu'l Fazl's dislike of the 'ulema perhaps stemmed from the persecution his family received from some of the leading members of the 'ulema. Badauni was also opposed to the over-zealous and pompous 'ulema. During one meeting in the 'ibadat khana, the 'ulema became worked up and created a huge noise and confusion.197 Akbar 'got very angry at their rude behaviour', and told Badauni, 'In future report any of the 'ulema who talk nonsense and cannot behave themselves and I shall make him leave the hall'.198 Badauni remarked, 'If I carried out this order, most of the 'ulema would have to leave', which pleased Akbar greatly.199 Badauni did not care for the 'ulema and his Sufic ideal of detachment comes shining through in his comments about the 'ulema. Badauni's dislike of the 'ulema was due to how their behaviour poorly reflected the Islam Badauni thought ought to be practised. In his entry on Sheikh Abdu'n Nabi, the leading member of the 'ulema who rivalled Makhdum-u'l-mulk, Badauni included a couplet he composed: All those who seek for pride of place are fools, Aye, those who style themselves the 'ulema.200 The worldliness of the 'ulema was in direct opposition to the Sufic tendencies of Badauni who preferred a life of holy poverty to one of wealth, pomp and ceremony.201 So both Abu'l Fazl and Badauni opposed the 'ulema, but for different reasons. While Abu'l Fazl was very much the emperor's pet, rarely disagreed with him and found Akbar's favour by arguing against the 'bigoted 'ulema', his own religious position is hard to ascertain due to the nature of his commissioned histories.202 Like his father, Abu'l Fazl engaged in many religious arguments for different positions, making his own beliefs hard to pin down, and indeed he once told Badauni that he liked 'to wander for a few days in the vale of infidelity for sport'.203 Badauni himself did not claim to know Abu'l Fazl's beliefs, but only judged him on his actions, and repeated the saying 'He who continually takes the offensive, does not commit himself to his true opinions'.204 Abu'l Fazl and Badauni's mutual dislike for the 'ulema does not sit easily with the explanation that they were diametrically opposed. A better thesis is that the pair interacted on many levels, and only contested each other on a few of these. Badauni and Abu'l Fazl seem to have respected each other within the world of Badauni's history. Although both entered court at roughly the same time and had similar starting positions as court Imams, leading Badauni to comment that they were 'both baked in one kiln', their careers took different directions, with Abu'l Fazl easily being the more successful of the pair.205 Abu'l Fazl elicited Badauni's respect through his 'intelligence' and strenuous effort in state administration, which allowed him 'to raise himself to a mansab of two thousand and the dignity of wazir'.206 Badauni was less impressed with his own progress within the court, despite trying to free himself from seeking its 'worldly pomp' in the distinctly Sufic tradition.207 Badauni mentions that many new decrees were promulgated during Akbar's reign, far too many to recount in a human life-time, but that many of them can be found in the Akbar Nama, 'composed by the very learned Sheikh Abu'l Fazl'.208 Abu'l Fazl's achievements impressed Badauni, and even if Badauni disagreed with the former on some matters, Abu'l Fazl's dedication and learning still garnered the respect of his elder colleague. Abu'l Fazl appears to have also valued Badauni's scholarly efforts, and Badauni records in his history that the former was always supportive of him whenever the latter was brought before Akbar in relation to his work in the maktab khana. When Akbar asked the sadr-i-jahan, or chief justice of the empire, whether it would be a good idea to appoint Badauni to the guardianship of the tomb of the great Sufi saint Mu'inuddin Chishti in the town of Ajmir in Rajasthan, Abu'l Fazl apparently influenced Akbar's decision by encouraging the idea that Badauni should stay at court.209 Akbar said in Badauni's presence, 'whenever I give him anything to translate, he always writes what is very pleasing to me, I do not wish that he should be separated from me'.210 Badauni was apparently valued by the emperor for his abilities as a translator and reported that Abu'l Fazl 'confirmed His Majesty's opinion of me'.211 While it may be tempting to claim that Abu'l Fazl's 'time-serving qualities' led him to support the emperor's decision, Badauni has recorded that Abu'l Fazl also defended him against the emperor's accusations numerous times. In 1595, Akbar found an error in the translation of the Mahabharata that he thought was the result of interpolation on Badauni's part.212 Akbar summoned him and in Abu'l Fazl's presence said that he had thought Badauni 'was an unworldly individual of Sufi tendencies, but he appears to be such a bigoted lawyer that no sword can sever the jugular vein of his bigotry'.213 Abu'l Fazl supported Badauni's claim that it was translated without alteration on his part, indicating that the concept of karma that Badauni represented was not a result of 'theological bias and bigotry' at all.214 Akbar was silent.215 The inclusion of both of these accounts of Abu'l Fazl defending Badauni in the Muntakhabu-t-Tawarikh is worth discussing. Of note are the dates of the two episodes. Both occurred in 1595, by which time their relationship, according to how it was portrayed in Badauni's history, had deteriorated significantly due to religious differences. As discussed in Chapter Two, Badauni found Abu'l Fazl's changing religious position progressively more distasteful. Despite this, Badauni chose to include these events in his history, indicating that even when their religious positions were opposed, Badauni did not portray all Abu'l Fazl's actions in a negative light. While he opposed as anarchy what Abu'l Fazl saw as intellectual freedom, Badauni's opinion of Abu'l Fazl was not so coloured by this to lead him to ignore occasions when the latter did something beneficial to him.216 The inclusion of these narratives of Abu'l Fazl defending the author of the Muntakhabu-t-Tawarikh demonstrates that either Abu'l Fazl supported Badauni even after the latter viewed their relationship as strained, or that Badauni wished to present Abu'l Fazl as having looked out for him, when in fact he did not. Either way, one party was still acting favourably towards the other in 1595, over two decades after they arrived at court and sixteen years after their religious differences began to be pronounced after the proclamation of the mahzar. The first text attributed to Abu'l Fazl was a commentary on the Qur'anic Ayat al-Kursi verse that he submitted to Akbar upon his arrival at the court in 1574, and which unfortunately has not survived.217 Badauni noted that some people said it was written by Sheikh Mubarak, but he does not uphold this claim and supports Abu'l Fazl's account that the work was highly praised.218 When Abu'l Fazl was later working on the Mahabharata and included a preface which he began with the formula 'Sri Ganesaya namah', Badauni wrote that it was 'in opposition to the commentary on the Kursi verse, which he had formally composed'.219 Despite the non-extant commentary, S. A. A. Rizvi has interpreted this as Badauni attacking Abu'l Fazl by distorting history.220 According to Rizvi, the fact that Abu'l Fazl does not mention his commentary on the Kursi verse shows that he did not contradict it, which is of course tenuous, given that the commentary has not survived and nobody has discussed its contents, but merely its reception.221 Rizvi has claimed that this accusation by Badauni was an example of him trying 'to distort history without any fear of being exposed'.222 Badauni supports Abu'l Fazl's claim to having written the Kursi commentary and praised it, saying it 'contained a good many subtleties of the Qur'an'.223 Nowhere in the Muntakhabu-t-Tawarikh does Badauni offer any criticism of this work. Given that the contents of the commentary are unknown, it is entirely plausible that Abu'l Fazl's preface to the Mahabharata conflicted with his earlier writing, with no evidence at all to suggest that Badauni was trying to distort history. Badauni's only written response to Abu'l Fazl's Mahabharata preface is 'we flee to God for refuge from infidelities and unprofitable words!', indicating his distaste for its contents.224 His praise of Abu'l Fazl's earlier work and his comment after reading the preface do not seem to indicate that Badauni was trying to misrepresent Abu'l Fazl in the manner suggested by Rizvi. What Badauni's comments demonstrate is that he found Abu'l Fazl's earlier commentary to be far more agreeable to his own religious palate. Badauni did not oppose Abu'l Fazl for the sake of opposing him, but gave credit where he thought credit was due, and given the religious nature of Badauni's comment I think a more persuasive argument is that he only criticised any action of Abu'l Fazl that he thought was morally reprehensible, such as the dedication of the work to the Hindu god Ganesha. Rather than see Badauni's comment in the Muntakhabu-t-Tawarikh as a covert attempt by Badauni to make Abu'l Fazl look bad, this episode in their relationship shows that Badauni's disagreements with Abu'l Fazl's religious position were limited to that only, and that this animosity was not representative of their relationship as a whole. Abu'l Fazl and Badauni's relationship as seen through the multiple levels of interaction discussed in this chapter is dissimilar to the relationship proposed by some historians. Rizvi's interpretation of their relationship, that Badauni regarded Abu'l Fazl with the 'deepest dislike', is not supported when viewing their relationship as a series of interactions on many levels.225 Badauni's dislike for Abu'l Fazl and Sheikh Mubarak only extended to their later religious positions. On a conversational level, Badauni found both Abu'l Fazl and the Sheikh amiable, and praised them on numerous occasions. Abu'l Fazl and Badauni's interactions before they entered court in 1574, and within the 'ibadat khana and maktab khana, suggest that their relationship was based on mutual respect and that this never faded, as Abu'l Fazl's defence of Badauni's character to Akbar in 1595 indicates. The two historians, though they disagreed on some aspects of their beliefs, were still 'both baked in one kiln', and were always respectful, even when they disagreed.

Conclusion

Abu'l Fazl and Badauni's relationship functioned within a society that was undergoing rapid change. The political dominance of the Sunni Turanis at court rapidly deteriorated with the inclusion of Shi'a Iranians and indigenous Hindus, especially Rajputs. Within this atmosphere of decline for the Turanis, Akbar pursued a policy of sulh-i-kull and facilitated the criticism of Sunni Islam through the 'ibadat khana to an unprecedented extent in the Mughal empire, or indeed in any of the Muslim kingdoms in the subcontinent before him. Abu'l Fazl and Badauni's relationship has often been viewed primarily on the basis of their religious conflict. Akbar's religious policies have always been a feature of his reign that has been focussed on and, given that Abu'l Fazl and Badauni developed opposing positions regarding Akbar's policies, it is understandable that their relationship has been viewed in this light. Badauni's support of Akbar's desire to have his marriages made legal under a ruling issued by a Maliki qazi indicates that his position was not always opposed to that of Abu'l Fazl and Sheikh Mubarak who supported the mahzar that gave Akbar authority over similar disputes. As Chapter Two demonstrated, though, only from around the time of the mahzar in 1579 onwards, when Badauni felt that Sunni Islam in South Asia was under threat, did their views of religion in relation to the state significantly part to form the oppositional attitudes that has too often been used to characterise their relationship. These religious discussions were not the sum of their relationship, however, and even though their religious positions diverged and led to anger, at least on Badauni's part, their relationship was not destroyed by these disagreements. Abu'l Fazl and Badauni had similar religious positions in the early days of their service at Akbar's court. Even before this, their recorded interactions under Sheikh Mubarak's tuition indicate that the two of them shared a mutual dislike for the 'ulema. Abu'l Fazl and Badauni also worked together in the maktab khana. They consistently praised each other's abilities as translators and Badauni reports that Abu'l Fazl defended him time and again throughout their careers, even when faced with opposition, such as Makhdum-u'l-mulk in 1572, and Akbar himself in 1595. Abu'l Fazl and Badauni's interactions on many levels do not support Rizvi's claim that 'deepest dislike' characterised their relationship. The only area of interaction this can be applied to is their religious disputes, but even this is fluid. Rather than being characterised as opposing forces of heterodoxy and orthodoxy, Abu'l Fazl and Badauni appear to have had a relationship that changed over their lives. Rizvi's discussion of the Muntakhabu-t-Tawarikh begins with the remark that 'one could almost believe [Badauni] wrote to glorify the pettiness of vision and stinginess of soul of the most hide-bound of the traditional 'ulema'.226 Badauni's opposition to the leading members of the 'ulema and the assistance he provided in the undermining of their position of authority discredits Rizvi's view that Badauni was a strictly orthodox Sunni member of the 'ulema, and the fact that the Muntakhabu-t-Tawarikh was kept hidden for so long after the last recorded date in it should encourage doubts about whether the text was 'meant to destroy the faith of the Sunnis in Akbar', as Rizvi suggests.227 Rizvi's portrayal of Badauni as an arch-orthodox leaves Badauni's character, and thus his relationships, undeveloped. A more humanised Badauni, whose thoughts changed over time, can have a far more complex relationship with Abu'l Fazl than that of a monolithic competitor. The complexity of Abu'l Fazl and Badauni's relationship can be seen in how Abu'l Fazl and Badauni treated each other. Their relationship was built from the foundations of trust and respect established under the tutelage of Sheikh Mubarak. Their relationship, viewed holistically, retained this trust and respect, even when disagreements between Abu'l Fazl and Badauni became more pronounced following the promulgation of the mahzar in 1579 and the creation of the din-i-ilahi in 1582. Abu'l Fazl's intervention to protect Badauni from the powerful Makhdum-u'l-mulk in 1572 and his defence of Badauni to Akbar in 1595, the last recorded year in Badauni's history, suggests a level of continuity within their relationship, despite their later religious differences. Abu'l Fazl and Badauni's histories indicate that their opinions of each other's religious positions deteriorated in some ways over their time at court. Despite this, their relationship remained positive in many of their other interactions. It would be impetuous to limit the scope of the relationship between these two great historians to a simplistic account of only their religious difference when there is so much more to them as human beings.

Footnotes

1) A typical example of the often casual dismissal Badauni receives can be found in J. Correia-Afonso’s summary of the writings from the Jesuit missions to Mughal India. When Badauni is mentioned, he is dismissed as unreliable. 'It is not only from the orthodox Badauni – whose attestations are suspect – but also from Akbar's bosom friend Abu'l Fazl that we can obtain confirmation of the Jesuit reports concerning the Emperor's religious leanings’. See J. Correia-Afonso, Jesuit Letters and Indian History 1542-1773 (London, 1969), p. 84. 2) S. A. A. Rizvi, Religious and Intellectual History of the Muslims in Akbar's Reign with Special Reference to Abu'l Fazl (Delhi, 1975). 3) Ibid., pp. 101, 173. 4) A. Schimmel, Islam in the Indian Subcontinent (Cologne, 1980), p. 86; I. H. Qureshi, Ulema in Politics: A study relating to the political activities of the ulema in the South-Asian Subcontinent from 1556 to 1947 (Karachi, 1972), p. 44. 5) Abu'l Fazl, Akbar Nama, vols I-III, tr. H. Beveridge (Delhi, 1972); Ain-i Akbari, vol. I, tr. H. Blochmann, vols II and III, tr. H. S. Jarrett (New Delhi, 1977-8); Al-Badauni, Muntakhabu-t-Tawarikh, vol. I, tr. G. S. A. Ranking, vol. II, tr. W. H. Lowe, vol. III, tr. W. Haig (New Delhi, 1973). 6) N. A. Siddiqi, 'Shaikh Abul Fazl' in M. Hasan, ed., Historians of Medieval India (New Delhi, 1968), p. 124. The Ain-i Akbari was originally composed as a part of the Akbar Nama, but because it deals mostly with records and details of Akbar's policies it is often treated as a separate text to the narrative of the Akbar Nama. The third book of the Ain is noteworthy for containing a survey of the land, revenues and who controls them, a valuable source of information about power in relation to different groups in Mughal society, but not one that will be considered for this thesis. 7) Ibid. The concept of the 'Perfect Man' is examined in Chapter Two. 8) Abu’l Fazl, Mukatabat-i-‘Allami, tr. and ed. M. Haidar (New Delhi, 1998). 9) M. Mujeeb, 'Badauni', in Hasan, Historians of Medieval India, p. 110. 10) M. Athar Ali, 'The Use of Sources in Mughal Historiography', Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, 5, 3 (1995), p. 369. 11) B. Gascoigne, The Great Mughals (London, 1971), p. 109. 12) Mujeeb, 'Badauni', p. 111. 13) Gascoigne, The Great Mughals, p. 109. 14) I. A. Zilli, 'Badauni Revisited: An Analytical Study of Najat-ur-Rashid', in I. H. Siddiqi, ed., Medieval India: Essays in Intellectual Thought and Culture. Volume I (New Delhi, 2003), p. 146. 15) Schimmel, Islam in the Indian Subcontinent, pp. 77-8. 16) Rizvi, Religious and Intellectual History, p. 175. 17) J. F. Richards, The Mughal Empire (Cambridge, 1993), p. 19. 18) Ibid. 19) Rizvi, Religious and Intellectual History, p. 176. 20) R. P. Tripathi, 'The Turko-Mongol Theory of Kingship', in M. Alam and S. Subrahmanyam, eds, The Mughal State 1526-1750 (New Delhi, 1998), p. 124. 21) Ibid. 22) S. Blake, Shahjahanabad: The Sovereign City in Mughal India, 1639-1739 (Cambridge, 1991), p. 135. 23) Schimmel, Islam in the Indian Subcontinent, p. 77. 24) M. Alam, 'The Mughals, the Sufi Shaikhs and the Formation of the Akbari Dispensation', Modern Asian Studies, 43, 1 (2007), p. 158. 25) Richards, The Mughal Empire, p. 19. 26) A. Ahmad, 'Safawid Poets and India', British Institute of Persian Studies, 14 (1976), p. 117; Blake, Shahjahanabad, p. 135. 27) R. Lal, Domesticity and Power in the Early Mughal World (Cambridge, 2005), p. 89. 28) Rizvi, Religious and Intellectual History, p. 176. 29) Ibid. 30) Ibid. 31) I. A. Khan, 'The Nobility under Akbar and the Development of His Religious Policy, 1560-80', The Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, 1 (1968), p. 30. 32) Rizvi, Religious and Intellectual History, pp. 176-7. Mirza Sharadu'd Din rebelled in 1562, Shah Abu'l Ma'ali in 1564, Abdu'llah Khan in 1564, Ali Quli Khan in 1565-7 and the large rebellion of the Mirzas in 1566. 33) Khan, 'The Nobility under Akbar', p. 31. 34) Ibid. 35) Ibid., p. 30. 36) Ibid; S. Athar Ali, 'Foundation of Akbar's Organisation of Nobility', Medieval India Quarterly, 3, 3 (1958), p. 296. 37) N. P. Ziegler, 'Some Notes on Rajput Loyalties during the Mughal Period', in Alam and Subrahmanyam, The Mughal State, p. 169. 38) Richards, The Mughal Empire, p. 20. Panipat has been the site of three large battles. In 1526, Babur defeated Ibrahim Lodi to annex the Sultanate of Delhi within the newly established Mughal empire, and in 1761 Panipat was also the site of a battle that saw the halting of the Maratha confederacy’s northerly ambitions when it was defeated by the Durrani empire. 39) Gascoigne, The Great Mughals, p. 81. 40) Ibid., pp. 81-2. 41) Lal, Domesticity and Power, pp. 166-7. 42) Ibid., p. 167. 43) Richards, Mughal Empire, pp. 19-21. 44) M.T. II, p. 237. 45) Ibid., p. 253. 46) I. A. Khan, 'State in the Mughal India: Re-Examining the Myths of a Counter-Vision', Social Scientist, 29, 1 (2001), p. 18. 47) D. Khan, Crossing the Threshold: Understanding Religious Identities in South Asia (London, 2004), p. 19. 48) A. Gabbay, Islamic Tolerance – Amīr Khusraw and Pluralism (New York, 2010), p. 89. 49) Abu'l Fazl, 'Letter to Khan-i Khanan', cited in A. Nizami, Socio-Religious Outlook of Abul Fazl (New Delhi, 1972), p. 42. 50) Ibid. 51) Schimmel, Islam in the Indian Subcontinent, p. 83. 52) M. Alam, The Languages of Political Islam: India 1200-1800 (Chicago, 2004), p. 125. 53) Ibid. 54) M. Alam, 'Shari'a and Governance in the Indo-Islamic Context' in D. Gilmartin and B. Lawrence, eds, Beyond Turk and Hindu: Rethinking Religious Identities in Islamicate South Asia (Gainesville, 2000), p. 236. 55) Rizvi, Religious and Intellectual History, p. 201. 56) S. A. A. Rizvi, Shah Wali-Allah and His Times (Canberra, 1980), p. 55. 57) Qureshi, Ulema in Politics, pp. 1-3. 58) Ibid., p. 9. 59) Ibid. 60) R. Aquil, Sufism, Culture and Politics – Afghans and Islam in Medieval North India (New Delhi, 2007), p. 228. 61) Rizvi, Religious and Intellectual History, p. 55. 62) Ibid., p. 56. 63) A. Ahmad, An Intellectual History of Islam in India (Edinburgh, 1969), p. 28. 64) I. H. Qureshi, The Muslim Community of the Indo-Pakistan Subcontinent (Karachi, 1977), p. 152. 65) Ibid., p. 41. 66) Richards, Mughal Empire, p. 37. 67) Rizvi, Religious and Intellectual History, p. 119. 68) A. Ahmad, 'The Role of Ulema in Indo-Muslim History', Studia Islamica, 31 (1970), p. 6. 69) Blake, Shahjahanabad, p. 130. 70) Ibid. 71) Ibid., p. 141. 72) Ibid., p. 130. 73) Gascoigne, The Great Mughals, p. 121. 74) Lal, Domesticity and Power, p. 75. 75) Ibid. 76) Blake, Shahjahanabad, p. 135. 77) C. W. Ernst, 'Muslim Studies of Hinduism? A Reconsideration of Arabic and Persian Translations from Indian Languages', Iranian Studies, 36, 2 (2003), p. 178. 78) Rizvi, Religious and Intellectual History, p. 206. 79) Ibid., p. 207. 80) M. A. Ali, 'Translations of Sanskrit Works at Akbar's Court', Social Scientist, 20, 9 (1992), p. 40. 81) Alam, The Languages of Political Islam, pp. 124-5. 82) Schimmel, Islam in the Indian Subcontinent, p. 84. 83) Alam, The Languages of Political Islam, p. 127. 84) Ibid. 85) Ibid. 86) Richards, The Mughal Empire, p. 35. 87) Alam, The Languages of Political Islam, p. 126. 88) B. L. Bhadani, 'The Profile of Akbar in Contemporary Rajasthani Literature', Social Scientist, 20, 9 (1992), p. 47. 89) J. R. I. Cole, 'The Indian Subcontinent', Iranian Studies, 31, 3 (1998), p. 568. 90) Richards, The Mughal Empire, p. 12. 91) Ibid., p. 29. 92) Schimmel, Islam in the Indian Subcontinent, p. 80. 93) Ibid. 94) Rizvi, Religious and Intellectual History, pp. 111-3. 95) S. Roy, 'Akbar', in R. C. Majumdar, ed., The Mughal Empire (Bombay, 1974), p. 137. 96) Ibid. 97) Rizvi, Religious and Intellectual History, p. 439. 98) M. T. II, p. 211. 99) Lal, Domesticity and Power, p. 172. 100) Ibid., p. 215. 101) M. T. II, p. 211. The origin of this standard number is the well-known sura 4:3, 'you may marry whichever women seem good to you, two, three, or four'. Qur'an, 4:3 tr. M. A. S. Abdel Haleem (Oxford, 2008). 102) M. T. II, p. 212. 103) Ibid., p. 212. A qazi is a judge who rules on cases in accordance with the sharia. 104) Ibid., pp. 212-3. 105) J. N. D. Anderson, Law Reform in the Muslim World (London, 1976), p. 13. 106) M. T. II, p. 213. 107) M. T. III, pp. 127-8. 108) Ibid., p. 128. 109) Ibid. 110) Ibid., p. 129. 111) Ibid., p. 130. 112) Ibid. 113) Ibid. 114) Ibid., p. 131. 115) Ibid: M. T. II, p. 280. 116) A. N. III, p. 394. 117) Qureshi, Ulema in Politics, p. 60. For a good summary of some of the historians who have debated the subject, see S. R. Bakshi, Advanced History of Medieval India (New Delhi, 2003), pp. 248-53. 118) V. A. Smith, Akbar the Great Mogul (Oxford, 1917), p. 179. 119) Schimmel, Islam in the Indian Subcontinent, p. 82; M. A. Ahmad, The Nature of Islamic Political Theory (Karachi, 1975), p. 184-5. 120) 'Should therefore in future a religious question come up, regarding which the opinions of the mujtahids are at variance, and His Majesty in his penetrating understanding and clear wisdom be inclined to adopt, for the benefit of the nation, and as a political expedient, any of the conflicting opinions, which exist on that point, and issue a decree to that effect, we do hereby agree that such a decree shall be binding on us and on the whole nation' M. T. II, p. 279. The full text of the mahzar as reproduced in Badauni's history is given in the appendix to this thesis. 121) Rizvi, Religious and Intellectual History, p. 148. 122) Jahangir, Tuzuk-i-Jahangiri, tr. A. Rogers, ed. H. Beveridge (Delhi, 1968), p. 37. It is worth remembering that, as mentioned in Chapter One, Jahangir's mother was a Rajput Hindu. 123) M. T. II, p. 279. 124) M. T. III, p. 130. 125) M. T. II, p. 280. 126) Ibid., p. 279; Athar Ali, 'The Use of Sources in Mughal Historiography', p. 369. 127) M. T. II, pp. 212-3. 128) Ibid. 129) M. T. III, p. 130. 130) Ibid. 131) A. N. III, p. 393. 132) Ibid., p. 395. 133) Ibid. 134) M. T. II, p. 280. 135) A. N. III, p. 393. 136) Nizami, Socio-religious Outlook of Abu'l Fazl, pp. 39, 41; S. A. A. Rizvi, 'Munajat (Invocation to God) of Shaykh Abu'l Fazl Allami', in Siddiqi, Medieval India, p. 137. 137) Abu'l Fazl, 'Letter to Shah Abbas, the Sovereign of the Realm of Iran', in Mukatabat-i-'Allami, p. 96. 138) M. L. R. Choudhury, The Din-i-Ilahi (Calcutta, 1985), p. 177; Schimmel, Islam in the Indian Subcontinent, p. 83; J. F. Richards, 'The Formulation of Imperial Authority Under Akbar and Jahangir', in J. F. Richards, ed., Kingship and Authority in South Asia (Madison, 1981), p. 267. 139) Ain I, p. 176. 140) Ibid. A. L. Balsham, 'Jainism', in R. C. Zaehner, ed., Encyclopedia of the World's Religions (New York, 1988), p. 259. 141) M. T. II, p. 263. The difference between heresy and apostasy in Islam is pronounced, particularly in the legal sense. Jurists during the Umayyad and Abbasid Caliphates had invoked hadith traditions that allowed the imposition of capital punishment for apostasy, but not heresy. See J. E. Campo, Encyclopedia of Islam (New York, 2009), pp. 48, 296-7. 142) M. T. II, p. 332. 143) Ain III, p. 435. 144) Schimmel, Islam in the Indian Subcontinent, p. 82. 145) M. T. II, p. 314. 146) A. Ahmad, Studies in Islamic Culture in the Indian Environment (Oxford, 1969), p. 173; Richards, 'The Formulation of Imperial Authority', p. 267. 147) M. T. II, p. 313. 148) Schimmel, Islam in the Indian Subcontinent, p. 83. 149) A. Schimmel, Mystical Dimensions of Islam (Chapel Hill, 1975), p. 273. 150) R. Jackson, Fifty Key Figures in Islam (New York, 2006), p. 188. 151) M. T. II, p. 367; Ain I, p. 175. 152) Ibid: Ahmad, Studies in Islamic Culture, p. 172. 153) Ahmad, Studies in Islamic Culture, p. 172. 154) M. T. II, p. 349. 155) Choudhury, Din-i-Ilahi, pp. 186-7. 156) Ain I, p. 174; M. T. II, p. 174. 157) M. T. II, p. 314. 158) Ibid., p. 299. 159) Ibid. 160) Richards, The Mughal Empire, p. 48. 161) M. T. II, p. 209. 162) Ibid., p. 280. 163) Ibid., p. 349-50; Ain I, p. 213, n. 3. 164) M. T. II, p. 209; D. Sharma, Prime Ministers Under the Mughals (New Delhi, 2006), p. 20. 165) M. T. II, p. 314. 166) A. N. III, p. 400. 167) Ibid., p. 399. 168) M. T. II, p. 349. Being called a lawyer carried the connotation of being a member of the 'ulema, whose authority within the Mughal court was now greatly reduced. 169) M. T. III, p. 118; A. N. III, pp. 118-9. 170) M. T. III, p. 114. Haji Sultan would work with Abu'l Fazl and Badauni again in the future, assisting in the translation of the Mahabharata. See M. T. III, pp. 173-4 for Badauni's account of him. 171) Ibid., p. 115. 172) Rizvi, Religious and Intellectual History, p. 72. 173) M. T. III, p. 116. 174) Ibid. 175) Ibid., pp. 109, 118. 176) Ibid., p. 119. 177) Ibid., p. 120. 178) Ibid. 179) Ibid., pp. 119-20. 180) Ibid., pp. 118-20. 181) M. T. II, p. 186. 182) Ahmad, Studies in Islamic Culture, p. 220. 183) M. T. II, p. 186. 184) M. T. II, p. 216. 185) Rizvi, Religious and Intellectual History, p. 206. 186) M. T. II, p. 267. 187) Father Pierre Du Jarric, Akbar and the Jesuits, tr. C. H. Payne (London, 1926), p. 31. 188) M. T. II., p. 267. Translation: 'In the name of the gracious and merciful God' and 'O thou, whose name is Jesus Christ'. 189) Ibid., p. 268. 190) Ibid., p. 209. 191) Ibid., p. 267. Lowe's translation is unclear about who the "accursed men" refers to, but a different translation provided by Payne in his notes to the translation of Father Pierre Du Jarric's Akbar and the Jesuits, gives 'accursed monks'. See Du Jarric, Akbar and the Jesuits, p. 224. 192) Du Jarric, Akbar and the Jesuits, p. 31. 193) Ibid., p. 25. 'The exercise commenced with the words “In the name of God”, on hearing which his Majesty at once told him to add the words “and of Jesus Christ the true prophet and son of God”; and this was done then and there in his presence'. 194) M. T. II, p. 201. 195) Antonio Monserrate, The Commentary of Father Monserrate, tr. J. S Hoyland (New Delhi, 1992), p. 51. 196) Badauni relates an amusing account of how poor some of the 'ulemas knowledge of Arabic really was with Abdu'n Nabi 'although he boasted of being learned in the Tradition, and claimed to be a Hafiz, and an Imam in this glorious science, yet he taught the Tradition, "The prudent course (hazam) is to hold an evil opinion of others," with a dotted khe, and an undotted he, when every child knows that it is spelt with an undotted he and a dotted z.' M. T. II, p. 207. 197) Ibid., p. 205. 198) Ibid. 199) Ibid. 200) M. T. III, p. 127. 201) M. T. II, p. 209. 202) A. N. III, p. 366. 203) M. T. II, p. 270. 204) Ibid., p. 201. 205) Ibid., p. 209. 206) Ibid. 207) Ibid. 208) Ibid., p. 406. 209) Ibid., p. 415. 210) Ibid. 211) Ibid. 212) Ibid., p. 413. 213) Ibid. 214) Ibid., p. 414. 215) Ibid., p. 413. 216) A. Schimmel, The Empire of the Great Mughals (London, 2004), p. 34. 217) A. N. III, p. 119; M. T. II, p. 201; Qur'an 2:256, tr. Haleem: 'There is no compulsion in religion: true guidance has become distinct from error, so whoever rejects false gods and believes in God has grasped the firmest hand-hold, one that will never break. God is all hearing and all knowing'. The verse has usually been interpreted as meaning that the beliefs and conduct of Islam cannot be imposed by compulsion. 218) M. T. II, p. 201. 219) Ibid., p. 331; Rizvi, Religious and Intellectual History, p. 212. Translation: 'Reverence to Lord Ganesha'. Ganesha is one of the most widely revered deities in the Hindu pantheon and is associated with the removal of obstacles. Ganesha is clearly recognisable by his elephant head. The Mahabharata is traditionally ascribed to Vyasa who dictated the text while Ganesha acted as scribe and recorded it. 220) Rizvi, Religious and Intellectual History, p. 211. 221) Ibid. 222) Ibid. 223) M. T. II, p. 201. 224) Ibid., p. 331. 225) Rizvi, Religious and Intellectual History, p. 101. 226) Ibid., p. 278. 227) Ibid., p. 285.

Bibliography

Primary Sources: Abu'l Fazl, Ain-i Akbari, vol. I, tr. H. Blochmann (New Delhi, 1977). Abu'l Fazl, Ain-i Akbari, vols II and III, tr. H. S. Jarrett (New Delhi, 1978). Abu'l Fazl, Akbar Nama, vols I-III, tr. H. Beveridge (Delhi, 1972). Abu'l Fazl, Mukatabat-i-'Allami, tr. and ed. M. Haidar (New Delhi, 1998). Al-Badauni, Muntakhabu-t-Tawarikh, vol. I, tr. G. S. A. Ranking (New Delhi, 1973). Al-Badauni, Muntakhabu-t-Tawarikh, vol. II, tr. W. H. Lowe (New Delhi, 1973). Al-Badauni, Muntakhabu-t-Tawarikh, vol. III, tr. W. Haig (New Delhi, 1973). Du Jarric, Father Pierre, Akbar and the Jesuits, tr. C. H. Payne (London, 1926). Jahangir, Tuzuk-i-Jahangiri, tr. A. Rogers and ed. H. Beveridge (Delhi, 1968). Monserrate, Antonio, The Commentary of Father Monserrate, tr. J. S Hoyland (New Delhi, 1992). Qur'an, tr. M. A. S. Abdel Haleem (Oxford, 2008). Secondary Sources: Ahmad, A., An Intellectual History of Islam in India (Edinburgh, 1969). Ahmad, A., Studies in Islamic Culture in the Indian Environment (Oxford, 1969). Ahmad, A., 'Safawid Poets and India', British Institute of Persian Studies, 14 (1976), pp. 117-32. Ahmad, A., 'The Role of Ulema in Indo-Muslim History', Studia Islamica, 31 (1970), pp. 1-13. Ahmad, M. A., The Nature of Islamic Political Theory (Karachi, 1975). Alam, M., The Languages of Political Islam: India 1200-1800 (Chicago, 2004). Alam, M., 'Shari'a and Governance in the Indo-Islamic Context', in D. Gilmartin and B. Lawrence, eds, Beyond Turk and Hindu: Rethinking Religious Identities in Islamicate South Asia (Gainesville, 2000), pp. 216-45. Alam, M., 'The Mughals, the Sufi Shaikhs and the Formation of the Akbari Dispensation', Modern Asian Studies, 43, 1 (2007), pp. 135-74. Ali, M. A., 'Translations of Sanskrit Works at Akbar's Court', Social Scientist, 20, 9 (1992), pp. 38-45. Anderson, J. N. D., Law Reform in the Muslim World (London, 1976). Aquil, R., Sufism, Culture and Politics: Afghans and Islam in Medieval North India (New Delhi, 2007). Athar Ali, M., 'The Use of Sources in Mughal Historiography', Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, 5, 3 (1995), pp. 361-73. Athar Ali, S., ‘Foundation of Akbar’s Organisation of Nobility’, Medieval India Quarterly, 3, 3 (1958), pp. 290-9. Bakshi, S. R., Advanced History of Medieval India (New Delhi, 2003). Balsham, A. L., 'Jainism' in R. C. Zaehner, ed., Encyclopedia of the World's Religions (New York, 1988), pp. 255-62. Bhadani, B. L. 'The Profile of Akbar in Contemporary Rajasthani Literature', Social Scientist, 20, 9 (1992), pp. 46-53. Blake, S., Shahjahanabad: The Sovereign City in Mughal India, 1639-1739 (Cambridge, 1991). Campo, J. E., Encyclopedia of Islam (New York, 2009). Choudhury, M. L. R., The Din-i-Ilahi (Calcutta, 1985). Cole, J. R. I., 'The Indian Subcontinent', Iranian Studies, 31, 3 (1998), pp. 583-93. Correia-Afonso, J., Jesuit Letters and Indian History 1542-1773 (London, 1969). Ernst, C. W., 'Muslim Studies of Hinduism? A Reconsideration of Arabic and Persian Translations from Indian Languages', Iranian Studies, 36, 2 (2003), pp. 173-95. Gabbay, A., Islamic Tolerance – Amīr Khusraw and Pluralism (New York, 2010). Gascoigne, B., The Great Mughals (London, 1971). Jackson, R., Fifty Key Figures in Islam (New York, 2006). Khan, D., Crossing the Threshold: Understanding Religious Identities in South Asia (London, 2004). Khan, I. A., 'State in the Mughal India: Re-Examining the Myths of a Counter-Vision', Social Scientist, 29, 1 (2001), pp. 16-45. Khan, I. A., 'The Nobility under Akbar and the Development of His Religious Policy, 1560-80', The Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, 1 (1968), pp. 29-36. Lal, R., Domesticity and Power in the Early Mughal World (Cambridge, 2005). Mujeeb, M., 'Badauni', in M. Hasan, ed., Historians of Medieval India (New Delhi, 1968), pp. 106-12. Nizami, A., Socio-Religious Outlook of Abul Fazl (New Delhi, 1972). Qureshi, I. H., The Muslim Community of the Indo-Pakistan Subcontinent (Karachi, 1977). Qureshi, I. H., Ulema in Politics: A study relating to the political activities of the ulema in the South-Asian Subcontinent from 1556 to 1947 (Karachi, 1972). Richards, J. F., The Mughal Empire (Cambridge, 1993). Richards, J. F., ' The Formulation of Imperial Authority Under Akbar and Jahangir', in J. F. Richards, ed., Kingship and Authority in South Asia (Madison, 1981), pp. 252-85. Rizvi, S. A. A., 'Munajat (Invocation to God) of Shaykh Abu'l Fazl Allami', in I. H. Siddiqi, ed., Medieval India: Essays in Intellectual Thought and Culture. Volume I (New Delhi, 2003), pp. 125-41. Rizvi, S. A. A., Religious and Intellectual History of the Muslims in Akbar's Reign with Special Reference to Abu'l Fazl (Delhi, 1975). Rizvi, S. A. A., Shah Wali-Allah and His Times (Canberra, 1980). Roy, S., 'Akbar', in R. C. Majumdar ed., The Mughal Empire (Bombay, 1974), pp. 104-68. Schimmel, A., Islam in the Indian Subcontinent (Cologne, 1980). Schimmel, A., Mystical Dimensions of Islam (Chapel Hill, 1975). Schimmel, A., The Empire of the Great Mughals (London, 2004). Sharma, D., Prime Ministers Under the Mughals (New Delhi, 2006). Siddiqi, N. A., 'Shaikh Abul Fazl', in M. Hasan, ed., Historians of Medieval India (New Delhi, 1968), pp. 123-41. Smith, V. A., Akbar the Great Mogul (Oxford, 1917). Tripathi, R. P., 'The Turko-Mongol Theory of Kingship', in M. Alam and S.Subrahmanyam, eds, The Mughal State 1526-1750 (New Delhi, 1998), pp. 115-25. Ziegler, N. P., 'Some Notes on Rajput Loyalties during the Mughal Period', in M. Alam and S. Subrahmanyam, eds, The Mughal State 1526-1750 (New Delhi, 1998), pp. 168-210. Zilli, I. A., 'Badauni Revisited: An Analytical Study of Najat-ur-Rashid', in I. H. Siddiqi, ed., Medieval India: Essays in Intellectual Thought and Culture. Volume I (New Delhi, 2003), pp. 143-68.

[ALFAJI]

Abu'l Fazl 'Allami was he an arab ? coz his last name is related to the tribe of bani lam ? and nice article

[Kitsunegari]

Very good work, Akbar was indeed a very great and enlightened ruler in stark contrast to the harsh nature of that era and other Mughal rulers.