Re: Ruling image of Islam
During Altamsh period, the discussion raised whether Hindus be killed or converted to Islam forcibly. A delegation of clergy came to the king with these demands. He replied that Islam doesn't allow to convert someone forcibly and if we want to kill all Hindus, we don't got such resources. If Hindu population opt to rebel, we can't stand them. This is all rational politics more than secular values, which was also followed by Akbar. Altamash was the person who made her daughter Raziya Sultan emperor of Delhi.
Ghayas u din Balban never allowed clergy to interfere in state matters and used to say openly that state matters are subject to rationality and compromises. When Balaban's sons started learning, he was suggested that princes should be taught fiqah ( jurisprudence) and sarf o nahv, but rejected the suggestion by saying 'give molvis gifts and rewards and ask them to leave'. He made his sons learn 'Aadab u Salatin' and 'Tasur u Salatin' imported from Turkey dealing with politics.
The letters of Shah wali ullah and Sarhandi are also not good examples for inter-religion harmony and equality.
Most religions have clergy and their value in religion as well as running of state. These people not only try to be middlemen between God and human, but also middlemen between rulers and ruled.
Islam is unique, as we have Quran to guide. Quran is clear that no one bear the burden of others (it means, all are responsible of their own faith and no middlemen).
Thus, in Islam there is no such thing as clergy or their middlemen role, so those who consider that they qualify as clergy, like to have importance of their role in Islam, and thus use every trick to get importance and introduce clergy influence in religion (Islam) and state. They even fiddle with religious works to give themselves a prominent place in religion and functioning of state. Over years, some even succeeded in misguiding Muslims as well as Muslim rulers.