umm so the conclusion is that it is a political move to gain the support of rajputs,we can't consider it a religion,but his policies gave a blow to the image of islam and we can't just say he was a muslim..

see we are not the one who can decide weather a person is Muslim or not, this can be judge only by Allah, secondly, we have only second hand information, so the credibility of the information might be doubtful

__________________
Regards,
~ Riz ~

Quote:

Originally Posted by khanbaba512 Mein apki aur Bano Qudsia dono ki philosophy se disagree nahi krun ga so in short you are trying to say that he distorted the true picture of islam...history ka sb se bara masla yeh ha k har writer dosray se differ krta ha k mein sahi hn woh galat ha ..mushkil hm gareeboun ko parh jati ha ..ab ap suggest kren k is ko kya hum political move consider kren ya religions toleration ka lesson consider kren?? in short mjhe notes provide kr dain ta k mein baqi subject b tayar kr sakun feb se pehle pehle

dekhye mein ne pehlay b kaha "it was all in one package"..shayed ap ne kabhi Icecream khayi ho "Big three"..us mein ikhattay 3 flavours hotay hain.ye "Din e Ilahi" b "Big three" he tha.

ager meray doston ko ye lagta hai k mehez political benefits k lye Akber ne fata fat kuch religion ka murakkab tayaar kia aur logon ko plate paish ker di tou aisa nae..mazhabi toar pe wo kamzor aqaaiyid rakhta tha.mein ne ye detail mein parha hai k kis tarah wo aik din "Budhmat" k aalamon k sath meeting kerta tha..aur kuch din baad "zartasht" k aalamon k sath..un mein se her aik ye he smjhta tha k shayed Akber us k deen ko qabool ker le ga..mager Akbar b phr Akbar tha..us ne apna deen aijaad ker k sab ki umeedon pe paani phair dia.

Kuch us k darbaariyon aur qareebi ahbaab ne usay yaqeen dilaya k wo intehai naiik seerat insan hain aur unhe zameeni khuda(naaooz billah) ban'nay mein dair nae kerni chahye..Kuch Hindu raaniyon ka aser b tha k Islam k aqayid ne us ki zindagi ko shikanjay mein nae lia...

Inshort...Din e Ilahi ejaad kernay k peechay "awaamil" syasi nae thay..MAGER is k "asraat" sayaasi thay...k is se hindu kuch kuch khush ho gaye thay..par musalmaan kuch kuch naraaz

__________________
Love is my Shield,Truth is my Sword,Brain is my Crown,Smile is my Treasure and I'm a Queen;
Quitters never win and Winners never quit..!!!

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

__________________
La Fatah Illa ALI la SAIF illa Zulfikar

AoA

I had found some pages related to Din-i-Ilahi of Akbar and typed out at this thread http://www.cssforum.com.pk/css-optio...tml#post322123

__________________
'Thee woh ik shakhs kay tasawar saay - abb woh ranayee khayal kahaan'

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

__________________
Don't judge my path... for you haven't walked my journey...

Apne jo last baat likhi ha woh mere dil ko lagi ha .. Akbar k haq mein ya us k khilaaf kya fatwa dena..humein tu apnay kaam se gharaz ha anyways thanks for the analysis..all of you guys solved my problem to some extent

__________________
La Fatah Illa ALI la SAIF illa Zulfikar

One more question i want to ask..Did mujadad Alf Sani opposed Akbar's Din -i-ilahi???If yes then how he responded??

__________________
La Fatah Illa ALI la SAIF illa Zulfikar

yes he was totally against akbar's secular policies he clearly denounced the din-e-ilahi and his policy of sullahe-ekull. in fact the din-e-ilahi caused ahmad sirhindi to come forward and take an initiative to protect islam that is why he is called MUJADAD ALF SANI(reviver of second millennium). akbar announced his din-e-ilahi in 1581, and there were many muslim ullama in his court who opposed his decision, ahmad sirhindi was one of them... he clearly denied akbar's din-e-ilahi but his steps to respond to this secularism ware distinct.. he din't bother writing letters to the nobles for helping/taking steps to protect islam. instead he trained a number of disciples for the purpose and appointed them to various parts of the country to promote the true teachings of islam. it was for the first time in the history of indo-pakistan that the systematic preaching of islam began......

__________________
Don't judge my path... for you haven't walked my journey...