Aurangzeb, the last of the great Mughals, was a wise king who exercised efficient and strict control over his vast kingdom. But he has been criticized by historians for his approach towards non-Muslims and the manner in which, despite his obvious piety, he did away with his brothers and imprisoned his father, Shahjehan, in order to gain the throne.
He justified these acts as necessary for maintaining the ascendancy of Islam over the Indian empire. As he put it, the liberal policies of Akbar, followed by the rather lax attitude of Jehangir and Shahjehan towards religion, had caused incalculable harm to the cause of the faith — to the extent that had he not intervened on its behalf, “the faith would have been wiped out in Hindustan.”
Aurangzeb was assiduous in paying homage to saints and men of knowledge and accorded great respect to those learned in the Shariah and Fiqh. However, history shows that in his early years, his views about these good people were coloured by his hatred for Dara Shikoh, his eldest brother, whom Shahjehan had chosen as his successor. If the saintly persons were friendly with Dara, they forfeited the goodwill of Aurangzeb.
Before I come to Sarmad, mention must be made of one such theologian, Shah Muhammad, a disciple of Hazrat Mian Mir, whose admirers called him “the man drowned in the ocean of communion with God.” Just because Dara and his sister, Jehan Ara, honoured this scholar, Aurangzeb became averse to him and ordered him to leave Kashmir and live in Lahore where he died in extreme poverty. He is buried next to Mian Mir Sahib.
Sarmad was executed on the orders of Aurangzeb in 1665, after a bench of Muslim theologians had sat in judgment over him and doomed him to death, “on account of nakedness” and “because frequently words opposed to the holy law were uttered by him.” But Sarmad’s refusal to cover the lower part of his body could hardly have been a reason for condemning him to death, because we read of no Hindu nude Sanyasi or any other Muslim fakir who were similarly punished. Every town had its share of demented naked mendicants who generally went about unmolested. In fact, the reasons for Sarmad’s execution were more political than anything else.
Sarmad’s life is a strange and fascinating mixture of scholarship, mysticism, romance, bright intellect, courage and independence of mind. No wonder he and Dara hit it off, for Dara was not strong on ritual and believed in a rather loose and liberal kind of Islam.
Sarmad was born of Jewish parents in Kashan, Iran, and became a religious scholar (rabbi) by studying Jewish scriptures. He then embraced Islam, and taking the name of Muhammad Saeed, studied Islamic philosophy under renowned professors of that country. Coming over to India as a trader, like so many other Persians, he met in Thatta a Hindu lad named Abhay Chand, with whom he became so infatuated that he gave up his business, became a naked fakir and induced Abhay Chand to be his disciple.
According to the historian Sir Jadunath Sarkar, Abhay was a bright boy and learned fast and willingly. He was carefully instructed by Sarmad in the Jewish scriptures and even translated the first few chapters of the Book of Moses from Hebrew into Persian. After an unsuccessful visit to Hyderabad to see King Qutb Shah, Sarmad lived in Delhi where Dara Shikoh made much of him and introduced him to the favour of Shahjehan. Dara used to pay frequent visits to the naked Sarmad and listen to his teachings on sufism. A sample of his instruction to Abhay Chand is available in the verses he made him sing:
“I am a follower of the Furqan, a priest and an anchorite; I am a rabbi of the Jews, an idolater and a Muslim.” And again: “In the Ka’aba and temples alike they preserve only His stone and his wood; at one place He takes the form of a black stone; at another He becomes the idol of the Hindus.”
Significantly, in all this, Sarmad’s attitude to the Holy Prophet (Peace be upon him) is one of deep veneration. In comparison with other prophets, he extolled him as “a more weighty sun.” But on several points of Muslim theology, his opinions were unorthodox.
For example, he held that the reward for good deeds and the punishment for sins take place in this world.... A man’s soul in born again after a period of sleep exactly as long as his last life.... Life in this world and repose in the grave alternate just like day and night.... Every element that exists in the universe is present in the human body...and so on.
As stated above, Sarmad used to go about stark naked. As an uncompromising monotheist, he denied the duality of matter and mind, contending that only one existed, a belief somewhat akin to Wahdat-ul-Wajood. Since he denied the existence of matter, he felt no shame about anything pertaining to his body. In support of his conduct, he cited a Talmud tradition that the Jews, before the time of Moses, wore no clothing.
Sarmad mounted the scaffold (as Jadunath Sarkar puts it) singing extempore verses in a lofty strain of sufism and laid his head on the block, rejoicing that the body which had so long hindered the union of his soul with his Beloved was at last being removed by the friendly agency of the sword. With his last breath he sang, “My friend the naked sword, I know thee, in whatever guise thou cometh.”
Of course legends have built up that when Sarmad’s severed head rolled down the steps of the scaffold, it spoke something contrary to the beliefs propagated by him. But that is all legend.
