A Mughal Emperor/ Prince converts

So this is something I've been wondering for a while, is there any chance of a Mughal Emperor or Prince converting to Hinduism at any point, and if so, who might be the likeliest candidate and what consequences could this have?
 
1. Hinduism not be such religion where just could convert.
2. In Islam apsostasy is very serius sin. If prince would convert at least he can abandon all his wishes rise to peacock throne. in worst case he lost his head. And if Mughal emperor decides convert him should abdicate.

Mughals were religiously pretty tolerant until Aurangzeb but even they couldn't accept Hindu ruler to the throne.
 
1. Hinduism not be such religion where just could convert.
2. In Islam apsostasy is very serius sin. If prince would convert at least he can abandon all his wishes rise to peacock throne. in worst case he lost his head. And if Mughal emperor decides convert him should abdicate.

Mughals were religiously pretty tolerant until Aurangzeb but even they couldn't accept Hindu ruler to the throne.

Interesting, even if doing so would make him more accepted amongst the majority of his subjects, who were Hindu?
 
Interesting, even if doing so would make him more accepted amongst the majority of his subjects, who were Hindu?

No; he would be seen as stupid for converting for no reason. Before the modern era, if your parents followed Religion X, you usually followed Religion X.
 
While maybe a Mughal Emperor outright converting to Hinduism might be ASB, a valid question would be if Akbar's proposed Hindu-Islamic syncretic religion were to take hold and be followed by his successors. A lot of potential butterflies here, perhaps the rise of yet another major world religion?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Din-i_Ilahi

The Dīn-i Ilāhī (Persian: دین الهی‎‎ lit. "Religion of God")[1][2] was a syncretic religion propounded by the Mughal emperor Akbar the Great in 1582 AD, intending to merge the best elements of the religions of his empire, and thereby reconcile the differences that divided his subjects.[2] The elements were primarily drawn from Islam and Hinduism, but some others were also taken from Christianity, Jainism and Zoroastrianism.

Akbar promoted tolerance of other faiths. In fact, not only did he tolerate them, he encouraged debate on philosophical and religious issues. This led to the creation of the Ibādat Khāna ("House of Worship") at Fatehpur Sikri in 1575. He had already repealed the jizya (tax on non-Muslims) in 1568. A religious experience while hunting in 1578 further increased his interest in the religious traditions of his empire.
 
Last edited:
1. Hinduism not be such religion where just could convert.
2. In Islam apsostasy is very serius sin. If prince would convert at least he can abandon all his wishes rise to peacock throne. in worst case he lost his head. And if Mughal emperor decides convert him should abdicate.

Mughals were religiously pretty tolerant until Aurangzeb but even they couldn't accept Hindu ruler to the throne.
And yet, there was no uprising in response to the Din-i Ilahi Di which (whilst not a formal religion) syncretically borrowed from numerous religions.
 
Interesting, seeing the Din- Ilahi Di take root would be fascinating, especially, if it prevents the rise of more tyrannical rulers.
 
I thought the modern era started the late 15th century. Isn't that why we have the term "Early Modern Era"?

Then the Mughals were in the modern era and his sentence doesn't make sense in contrasting them with modern people.

I mean it's not true either way. Ashoka's parent weren't Buddhists, Seljuk's parent's weren't muslim, Constantine's parent's weren't Christian, etc, etc.

A ruler changing religion to solidate his rule is not remotely a modern age thing, as I'm sure you're aware yourself given your interests.
 
And yet, there was no uprising in response to the Din-i Ilahi Di which (whilst not a formal religion) syncretically borrowed from numerous religions.

The Din-I-Ilahi was a purely aristocratic institution, there was no attempt to convert any of the common people and because of the vastness of the Mughal Empire and poor levels of communication, I doubt many commoners outside of Delhi heard of it. Also, Akhbar had previously had trouble with the Ulema earlier in his regime and had already launched something of a purge of their influence in his court, although it would return when his son Jahangir came to the throne. Interestingly, Jahngir was a member of the Din-I-Ilahi whilst his father was alive, but returned to Orthodox Islam when he became emperor, maybe this was due to pressure from conservative court influences,or perhaps he was never a true believer in his fathers faith. Regardless the key to get Din-I-Ilahi to survive as more than an interesting footnote is to get Jahangir to remain faithful to it, perhaps even encourage it amongst the masses.
 
The Din-I-Ilahi was a purely aristocratic institution, there was no attempt to convert any of the common people and because of the vastness of the Mughal Empire and poor levels of communication, I doubt many commoners outside of Delhi heard of it. Also, Akhbar had previously had trouble with the Ulema earlier in his regime and had already launched something of a purge of their influence in his court, although it would return when his son Jahangir came to the throne. Interestingly, Jahngir was a member of the Din-I-Ilahi whilst his father was alive, but returned to Orthodox Islam when he became emperor, maybe this was due to pressure from conservative court influences,or perhaps he was never a true believer in his fathers faith. Regardless the key to get Din-I-Ilahi to survive as more than an interesting footnote is to get Jahangir to remain faithful to it, perhaps even encourage it amongst the masses.

And for that, I suppose one would need him to get actually invested in, perhaps with his Father actively trying to show him its benefits?
 
Then the Mughals were in the modern era and his sentence doesn't make sense in contrasting them with modern people.

I mean it's not true either way. Ashoka's parent weren't Buddhists, Seljuk's parent's weren't muslim, Constantine's parent's weren't Christian, etc, etc.

A ruler changing religion to solidate his rule is not remotely a modern age thing, as I'm sure you're aware yourself given your interests.


Whilst what you say is true, you have to remember all the examples you gave show people converting from polytheistic faiths to monotheistic ones (and in the case of Constantine and Seljuks, their former faiths were dying ones). Is there an example of the reverse from OTL? Or more specifically, a Muslim leader converting to a different religion and keeping his position? Not that I know of.

You have to remember, the concept of Sharia and the power of the Ulema existed as something slightly outside the realms of civil power, and were power unto themselves, as they were those who decided upon the law and had influence throughout Islamic community structurally from the richest to poorest. Whilst they were not comparatively a major force in the Mughal Empire until the reign of Aurangzeb, it's important to remember that they did still have influence, and apostasy by the head of the state would be unacceptable, especially by the Muslim majority regions in modern day Pakistan, who might find a Safavid (or other rival power) invasion preferable to life under a Hindu apostate.

Also, it's not as if becoming a Hindu would even unite the Hindus of the empire behind him, there were still different factions amongst them, different Rajput clans competing against one another for influence and power etc, as well as the growing enigma that is Sikhism not too far away from the empire's core. Also on a tangent, if a Mughal Emperor was to convert to Hinduism, what caste would he go into? I assume Ksatriya but I can't be sure as I don't understand how such proceedings work.
 
Whilst what you say is true, you have to remember all the examples you gave show people converting from polytheistic faiths to monotheistic ones (and in the case of Constantine and Seljuks, their former faiths were dying ones). Is there an example of the reverse from OTL? Or more specifically, a Muslim leader converting to a different religion and keeping his position? Not that I know of.

You have to remember, the concept of Sharia and the power of the Ulema existed as something slightly outside the realms of civil power, and were power unto themselves, as they were those who decided upon the law and had influence throughout Islamic community structurally from the richest to poorest. Whilst they were not comparatively a major force in the Mughal Empire until the reign of Aurangzeb, it's important to remember that they did still have influence, and apostasy by the head of the state would be unacceptable, especially by the Muslim majority regions in modern day Pakistan, who might find a Safavid (or other rival power) invasion preferable to life under a Hindu apostate.

Also, it's not as if becoming a Hindu would even unite the Hindus of the empire behind him, there were still different factions amongst them, different Rajput clans competing against one another for influence and power etc, as well as the growing enigma that is Sikhism not too far away from the empire's core. Also on a tangent, if a Mughal Emperor was to convert to Hinduism, what caste would he go into? I assume Ksatriya but I can't be sure as I don't understand how such proceedings work.

Given his rank as a Prince and a member of the warrior clans, I'd say Ksatriya
 
And for that, I suppose one would need him to get actually invested in, perhaps with his Father actively trying to show him its benefits?

Possibly, but exactly would the benefits be? As a faith, it would never be able to demographically displace Islam nor Hinduism in the subcontinent. Islam has been deeply entrenched into certain sections of the subcontinent, and majority would not be able to go through with what is akin to apostasy on a large scale, possibly a decent amount of them, but nowhere a near a majority.

And the problem becomes even bigger with Hinduism. Brahminical orthodoxy had survived, adapted and or consumed it's way through faiths such as Buddhism and Jainism in the past, and throughout the Islamic invasions remained unchanged demographically, with the only exceptions being outlying regions and East Bengal. I'm not sure how a aristocratic faith with little foundation, scripture or support in the Islamic community would do any better than traditional Islam had in gaining Hindu converts.

At very, very best, the Din-I-Ilahi would be comparable to Sikhism in terms of number of believers, without Sikhism's demographic cluster around Punjab, but more likely it would end up being the same size as all the heretedox sects of Islam visible in the subcontinent, with the exception that it was the religion with institutional support for a time.
 
Possibly, but exactly would the benefits be? As a faith, it would never be able to demographically displace Islam nor Hinduism in the subcontinent. Islam has been deeply entrenched into certain sections of the subcontinent, and majority would not be able to go through with what is akin to apostasy on a large scale, possibly a decent amount of them, but nowhere a near a majority.

And the problem becomes even bigger with Hinduism. Brahminical orthodoxy had survived, adapted and or consumed it's way through faiths such as Buddhism and Jainism in the past, and throughout the Islamic invasions remained unchanged demographically, with the only exceptions being outlying regions and East Bengal. I'm not sure how a aristocratic faith with little foundation, scripture or support in the Islamic community would do any better than traditional Islam had in gaining Hindu converts.

At very, very best, the Din-I-Ilahi would be comparable to Sikhism in terms of number of believers, without Sikhism's demographic cluster around Punjab, but more likely it would end up being the same size as all the heretedox sects of Islam visible in the subcontinent, with the exception that it was the religion with institutional support for a time.

Alright, this is true, would be an interesting thing to see though I reckon.
 
This is a very hard scenario to go through with and to achieve it you may have to change the very meaning of Mughal. What I mean by that is it is almost impossible to further the amount of localisation the Mughals underwent without not making them the Mughals but just some other Islamic dynasty ruling Hindustan.

Without going into too much detail, by the time the Mughals were entrenched in India so was Islam, nearly all of Sindh Kashmir and at least half of Bengal being Muslim with large pockets and enclaves throughout the north. Coupled with the fact that until Akbar's treaty with the Rajputs there was NO place for Hindus (hell, even Indian Muslims!) in the Mughal feudatory system I doubt this can be achieved. Since the only people associating with the Emperor would be his Turkmen kinsmen and loyalists, Afghan officers, Persian artists and courtiers and Arabian traders many Mughals (excluding Akbar) would not even talk to Hindu sages, much less get them to convert!

Next one must view the mindsets of the House of Gurkani itself. The thing about the Mughals was that they considered themselves above all other families and Lordlings in the entire sub-continent and their domain. Why? Because they believed they were born from different stock, Chengeizī Khūn, as one would put it in Urdu. In English that means 'Genghis' Blood'. That also inadvertently made them paternal descendants of Timur, a man who had left so deep a psychological impact upon north India and the Middle-East up till the Levant that simply uttering his name was said to silence the entire court according to the Baburnama. In their minds they were belonging to a 'race' unlike any other and given that Mughal is a bastardisation of the word Mongol, the few thousand Chagatai Mongols that came with Babur to India found themselves more akin to the eyes of commoners than simple rulers. They were expected to be better at everything than the masses of their Indian subjects, Afghan soldiers, Persian tutors and etc. The only apt comparison I can find is the Targaryens from ASOIAF (if one can replace Dragonlords with Horselords).

The reason something like the Din-I Ilahi can even exist is because the Mughals considered themselves far above all they ruled. Even the Safavids in Iran, also of Turcoman descent, tried to bring some sort of religious syncreticism between Sunni Islam, Shia Islam and Zoroastrianism under Mohammed Khobanda but it fell apart within a few years. The only reason Akbar could suggest something so audacious to the Ulema was because of the immense amounts of power the House of Gurkani held even in their early days. And it was also pretentious of Akbar to do so, after all he was supposed to be the defender of the Islamic faith and been Ghazi since the age of 12 when he had to knife a dying and twitching Hemu. However many Mughals considered themselves above such things and did as they pleased.

And there have been Mughal princes in the harem who have had both a Muslim and a Hindu naming. Jahangir was known as to his Rajput grandfather and mother Prithopal, a Rajastani version of his Persian name. Jahangir was quite open about his Indian heritage and merged it with his Mughal one, furthering them in the eyes of the nobility and peasantry.

Some (probably most) of is may seem disjointed since it is quite late here and I am writing this a bit groggy but I hope my argument at least ,Ames a little bit of sense.
 
Top