Latest / Aurangzeb: The Emperor Who Expanded and Broke the Mughal Empire — Fexingo History / Aurangzeb's Fatwa Against Shia Islam: The Sectarian Turn
Transcript
- Lucas: We've talked a lot about Aurangzeb's wars and policies, but there's one aspect of his reign that often gets glossed over: his official fatwa against Shia Islam. It wasn't just a personal prejudice—it was a state document, issued around 1668–69, that declared Shias heretics and opened the door to persecution. Luna: A fatwa against Shias? I knew he was orthodox Sunni, but I didn't realize it was that explicit. Lucas: It's not as famous as the jizya or the temple destruction, but it's arguably just as significant. The maasir i alamgiri, his court chronicle, mentions it in passing—almost as if it were routine. But the fatawa e alamgiri, the legal code he commissioned, lays out the reasoning. The fatwa argued that Shias had abandoned the consensus of the Muslim community, and therefore could be treated as apostates. Luna: And this was during his Deccan campaigns, right? Where the sultanates of Golconda and Bijapur were Shia-ruled. Lucas: Exactly. The timing is important. Aurangzeb was already moving against the Deccan sultanates—Golconda and Bijapur were both Shia states—and the fatwa gave him religious justification for annexation. It wasn't just about territory; it was about purifying the empire. But it also had a huge impact on Mughal society. Shia nobles in the imperial service suddenly found themselves under suspicion. Lucas: European travelers like Niccolao Manucci, who was in India at the time, noted that Shia Muslims were sometimes cursed in public, with the phrase 'Umar, may God curse him' replaced by 'Ali, may God curse him' in some Sunni circles. It's a small detail, but it shows how deep the animosity ran. Luna: Wait—they would curse Ali? That's extreme, even for the time. Lucas: It was a way to signal loyalty to the Sunni orthodoxy. Aurangzeb encouraged this kind of sectarian boundary-marking. The fatwa meant that Shias could be excluded from high office, and there were reports of Shia mosques being damaged or closed. But it wasn't uniformly enforced—some Shia nobles managed to keep their positions, especially if they were useful. Lucas: The irony is that Aurangzeb's own empire was deeply syncretic. Many of his soldiers, merchants, and even some officials were Shia, especially from Iran. The fatwa created a tension between the emperor's ideology and the practical needs of the state. Luna: So it was more about political control than pure theology? Lucas: I think it was both. Aurangzeb was genuinely pious—he memorized the Quran, he prayed regularly, he sponsored the ulama. But he was also a pragmatist. The fatwa helped him rally Sunni support for his Deccan wars and undermine the legitimacy of his Shia enemies. It's hard to separate the two motives. Lucas: The long-term effect was to institutionalize sectarianism in the Mughal state. Before Aurangzeb, the empire had been remarkably tolerant of Shias. Akbar had Shia wives, and his court included Shia scholars. Even Shah Jahan employed Shia artisans and administrators. Aurangzeb's fatwa shifted that balance. Luna: And that shift echoes down to modern South Asia, doesn't it? The Sunni-Shia divide we see today has roots in policies like this. Lucas: Absolutely. Historians debate how much of an impact the fatwa had on everyday life—some say it was mostly symbolic, others point to real persecution. But symbolically, it was a clear statement that the Mughal state now had an official position on sectarian identity. Lucas: If you've been following along with these episodes—about the Deccan wars, the Maratha conflict, the Sikh rebellion—you can see how this religious hardening made it harder for the empire to hold together. When you start defining loyalty by sect, you alienate large parts of your population. Luna: That's such an important thread. Makes me think about how much of history is about these choices. Lucas: Exactly. And speaking of choices—this show is entirely listener-supported. A couple of dollars a month is genuinely what keeps these going. If you've gotten something out of them, you can find us at buy me a coffee dot com slash fexingo. Luna: It really does make a difference. Every bit helps keep the research deep and the episodes ad-free. Lucas: So, back to the fatwa. One of the most fascinating aspects is how it was implemented—or not. For example, in the early years after the fatwa, there were reports of Shia religious processions being banned. But by the 1670s, some Shia observances like Muharram were still allowed in certain cities, especially in the Deccan where the population was largely Shia. Luna: So it wasn't a blanket policy. It varied by region and circumstance. Lucas: Right. The Mughal state wasn't a modern bureaucracy—it relied on local elites and governors to enforce policies. Some governors were sympathetic to Shias and looked the other way. Others used the fatwa as an excuse to settle scores. Lucas: There's also the question of the fatwa's legacy. After Aurangzeb's death, his successors—especially Bahadur Shah I—were more conciliatory. But the precedent had been set. The idea that the Mughal emperor could define orthodoxy and enforce it through law became part of the imperial tradition. Luna: So it's not just a historical curiosity—it actually shaped how later rulers thought about religion and state. Lucas: Exactly. When you look at the decline of the empire in the 18th century, sectarian conflicts are part of the picture. The Mughals had always managed diversity through a kind of pragmatic pluralism. Aurangzeb's fatwa undermined that. It made religion a more rigid dividing line. Lucas: And that's the tragedy of his reign, in a way. He was brilliant, disciplined, and ambitious—but his religious policies created fractures that the empire never fully healed. Luna: It's a reminder that even the most powerful rulers can't always control the long-term consequences of their decisions.