Irfan Habib has given different argument for the material and ideological backgrounds of the Kabir in which

development of technology with the establishment of Delhi Sultanate played an important role in societal changes. Kabir was a unique representative of the monotheistic movement of the late fifteenth and early sixteenth century. Irfan Habib attempted to examine the circumstances, material, social and ideological background amidst which the thought of Kabir and other like- minded preachers took shape. There was an assumption among the modern writers which led even R.C.Majumdar to say that the democratic ideas of the Muslims, leading to a wonderful equality among the brothers-in-faith offered a strong contrast to the caste system and untouchability of the Hindus. According to Irfan Habib , the fact is that there is no sign of commitment to any element of social equality among the writings of Muslim theologians and scholars of the period. There is in the entire range of medieval Islamic literature no word of criticism of the caste system, theory of pollution and the oppression of untouchables could be found. In the late years of the sixteenth century, Abdul Qadir Badauni in a work of ethics claims no superiority for the social ethics of Muslims over others but concedes that Muslims had additional vices including that of selling free people into slavery, though he claims that this evil had abated in his own time. Thus indeed, the sanction for full fledged slavery and even concubinage in Islamic law should strongly modify any attribution of equality to historical Islam. But there was a difference between the social inequalities that the Islamic law and usage sanctioned, and those of the Indian caste system. In Both system whereas upward or vertical mobility was restricted to varying degrees ,the caste system also hindered horizontal or inter craft and inter professional mobility , a restriction absent in Islamic societies. Moreover except for slavery, hierarchy in Islam tended to be based mainly on the possession of wealth and political power, birth playing its part largely on the basis of inheritance. Such continuance of the constraints of the caste system was however accompanied by the simultaneous process of the expansion of communities of Muslims, among whom caste could not legally be the basis of hierarchy. Muslim populations grew by immigration initially,

not only from Central Asia and Iran, but also from Sind and Southern Punjab where Muslim communities had flourished since the early eighth century. Most immigrants from the Islamic region had no caste backgrounds. Then, there were the large numbers of captives who had been made slaves: the augmentation of their ranks was a continuous process during the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. Torn from their original castes and localities, the slaves were made to work as labourers, artisans and domestic servants. Converted to Islam simultaneously with enslavement, and often freed later on, they must have formed a significant group among Muslims their original enslavement being simultaneouslyliberation from castes. To the caste-free core of Muslim populations formed by immigrants and slaves were thus added infusions of free converts, quite possibly passing over in groups as their headmen took to the new religious alliance. If such group conversions occurred, caste customs and barriers would continue until, in course of time, the increasing influence of the Sharia would begin to dilute the strength of earlier customs. It is possible to argue that living around 1500 Kabir was a member of such a weaver community in transition. A hint of this may be located in his indifferent use of Kori and Julaha for himself, whereas the latter were derived from Persian is generally used for Mulsim weavers alone. But, next to such converts were still other professional groups not converted, and yet living and working closely with Muslims. It is, however, important to see that there was a pull, not so much from the deliberate blandishments of an alien egalitarian faith, as from the demand created for crafts and urban labour by a new series of changes. Besides the changes in construction techniques and arrival of paper manufacture, the urban demand for craft goods was enlarged by the flow of wealth into towns generated by an efficient and successful system of revenue extraction from the countryside. There was correspondingly a marked expansion of trade as well as sizeable urban expansion. Thus it should be inferred that the technological infusion and the new demand created not only the ground for expansion of new profession, but also for a large number of entrants into old professions. This could initially but partially be met by immigration and enslavement, then by conversion;

ultimately, it requires suitable adjustments within the established caste system. Thus the enslavement, the conversions and the new progression could also introduce an element of instability in which old barriers of both caste and religion would be brought into question among groups affected by the new economic and social pressure. For Irfan Habib, out of this context, he sought to explain one of the most dramatic aspects of the popular monotheistic movements, namely, its low caste, artisan character. Kabir was recognized in the sixteenth century, not as a Muslim or Hindu, but eminently as a monotheist (muwahhid). This is the purport of a conversation which Abdul Haqq reported as having taken place between his grandfather and father as early as 1522. It is also the essence of Abul Fazls two celebrated notices of Kabir in 1595. This is how Kabirs preachings were seen by those who had access to his compilations within a century or so of his death. These assessments however, did not locate the source of kabirs thought in any single tradition, and Kabir himself refrains from mentioning any teacher or precursor. Yet attempts to find precursors for Kabir were soon not lacking. One precursor was supposed to be Namdev, the dyer or calico printer from Maharashtra, whose verses find a place in the Guru Granth Sahib and who, in the seventeenth century tradition, was seen as a monotheist very much in the mould of Kabir. This would then essentially place the origin of Kabir and his school only within a like tradition of an earlier time. But Namdev comes from post-Kabir times; and Kabir himself has no mention of him. Such also is the case with Ramanand through whom an effort has been made to trace Kabirs movement indirectly to Ramanuja. But in the Dabistan (c.1653), where the legend of a Brahmanical preceptor of Kabir is first given credence, his name in the first version of the work is Gang, and only in the second is the name of Ramanand substituted for Gang. Clearly, the legend was in the process of formation as late as the mid-seventeenth century, being obviously an invention of tradition at par with the still later one of a Brahmanical birth for the lowly weaver-saint. At best Kabirs frequent use of the name of Ram for God apparently provided the justification for the supposed Vaishnavite affiliations. But any reference either to Rams family, or to the Vaishnavite pantheon, is entirely absent in his verses. The author of the Dabistan, who places Kabir among the Bairagis , and the latter

among the Vaishnavites, himself insists that Kabir was a monotheist and his Ram was really the Almighty God. As against the Vaishnavite affiliations, the possibility of a Shaivite influence has also been urged, notably by Hazari Prasad Dwivedi , who has seen in Kabir a continuation or reassertion of the Shaivite Nath- Yogi tradition and remarks that Kabir calls himself a Julaha but never a musalman Here one must distinguish between Kabirs use of terms and words, familiar to himself and his hearers, borrowed from the popular yogic tradition, and his own ideas. In the latter realm, except for the rejection of Brahmanas, there is no perceptible yogic or Tantric element in the Kabir. On the other hand, there is a scornful rejection of the claims set forth by the Yogis. Kabir does not adhere to Nath- Panthi beliefs as he ridicules the Gorakhnathi paraphernalia and even their pretensions to immortality. As influence of Islam on kabir is concerned, there was only a limited amount of direct influence of Muslim theology and its vocabulary on him can be easily demonstrated linguistically. In the sphere of belief and ritual, Kabir rejected the Kaba and the mosque, just as he rejected images and the temple. It has been supposed by Tara Chand that Kabir was influenced by Sufism. The sufic doctrine of love and practice of preceptor and disciple had been fairly well developed by the thirteenth century, before Islam reached Kabirs own region. And yet, in Kabirs verses the theme of love as the cornerstone of the man- God relationship is rather weak. While it is justifiable to see the sufic concept of communion or self-effacement in some verses of kabir but the Pantheism of Ibn al- Arabi (d. 1240) is not recognizable. Kabir preaches a monotheism which in its total surrender to God and rejection of all ritual transcends the limits of orthodox Islam.