Quote:
Originally Posted by khanbaba512
rizwan bhai mera b fatwa dene ka koi mood nahi ha ..albata notes tu banany hi haina  paper mein tu din-i-ilahi ka maqsad smjhana ha ..books mein likha hua ha k us ne persian king ko letter mein likha tha k woh musalmaan ha ..ab yeh tu hum nahi likh sktay agr hm din-i-ilahi ko us k religious faith mein consider kren..agr yeh us ki political move thi tu humien btana paray ga k woh akhir kon se din ko follow krta tha..humein isi second hand information se paper pass krna ha majburi ha ..isay sahi ya galat tu manana hi paray ga..
Mein b usi theory ko second krun ga jo bano qudsia ki ha ...apnay aap ko khuda na banana hota tu aur b bht se tareeqay the reconciliation k..apnay ap ko muslim law ki interpretation k lye supreme authority declare krnay se b yehi lgta ha k woh apnay aap ko siyana smjhta tha..nobles ne b yakeen dilaya hoga..mein b isay AKBAR'S folly hi consider krun ga but is k lye relevant material milna mushkil ha |
according to k.k.aziz: he continued his life as an orthodox muslim till 1578, when a great change came over his mind.the sixteenth century was the century of religious revival in the history of the world. he wanted to make a religion to suit his political needs and therefore to be acceptable to his subjects professing various creeds. in his anxiety to substitute one creed for the many, he was led to adopt an eclecticism that found expression in the din-e-ilahi.... according to:
iswari parsad "it was an electic pantheism containing good points of all religions"
prof. S.R.sharma says that it is gross exaggeration to give din-e-ilahi "the rank of a religion"
according to lane poole and dr. holden "the din-e-ilahi was the outcome of a political necessity"
prof. Mohammad tariq awan writes in his book with reference to dr. Srivastava, "it is difficult to say what akbar's real motive was and what he would have done. however there is no doubt that akbar believed that he was possessed of spiritual gifts superior to those of an average saint, hindu, muslim or christian. nevertheless, though probably originally intended to be full fledged national religion, the din-e-ilahi remained from its inception a kind of socio-religious-cum-political brotherhood"
as far as his status as muslim is concerned, s.m.ikram answers the question. he says, "it is true that akbar adopted and prescribed for his disciples, and even others, many practices which were borrowed from other creeds, but precedents for this may be found in the lives of many sufi saints who continue to be considered muslims in spite of wide departures from traditional islam.
akbar did not claim to be a prophet or established a new religion. islam, however lost its position of privilege, and many of akbar's practices and regulations differed widely from the normal muslim practices. it should, therefore, cause no surprise if due to tehse innovations and particularly on account of the coloured and exaggerated version which gained currency, he was and is widely regarded as having gone outside the pale of islam."
after this analysis u may be able to formulate your own opinion and after these arguments, ur answer will never be wrong in any way.... but do remeber the fact that these views are of different people having different satate of mind.. some of them were in favour of akbar so they have written good things about him while his foes must be against him. and one thing for sure these are not the definite facts, and we have no authority to pronounce anyone as muslim or non muslim..... hope u have got the answers and (to some extant) NOTES as well
good luck