*!
4
i
1

ARTES
LIBRARY
1817
VERITAS
SCIENTIA
OF THE
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
EL FLUCIOUS UNUN
TUEBOR
SI-QUÆRIS PENINSULAM·AMŒENAM
CIRCUMSPICE
1
"
}
1
¿
1
1
Rs .
2 /=
$
t
A
70volsTABAKAT-I-NASIRI:
A GENERAL HISTORY
OF THE
MUHAMMADAN DYNASTIES OF ASIA,
INCLUDING HINDŪSTĀN,
FROM A.H. 194 [810 A.D.], тO A.H. 658 [1260 A.D.],
AND THE
IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDEL MUGHALS INTO ISLĀM.
BY
THE MAULANĀ, MINHĀJ-UD-DĪN, ABŪ-'UMAR-I-'USMAN.
Minhaj Sirāj Jūzjānī
Translated from Original Persian Manuscripts.

}
BY MAJOR H. G. RAVERTY,
BOMBAY NATIVE INFANTRY (RETIRED).
Author of a Grammar, a Dictionary, and The Gulshan-i-Roh, or Selections,
Prose and Poetical, in the Pushto or Afghan Language; The Poetry
of the Afghans (English Translation); The Fables of Esop
Al-Hakim in the Afghan Language; The Pushto or
Afghan Manual; Notes on Afghanistan,
Geographical, Ethnographical,
and Historical, etc.
VOL. I.
London:
PRINTED BY GILBERT & RIVINGTON.
Um
1881.
D
199
.M663
BIBLIOTHECA INDICA:
A
COLLECTION OF ORIENTAL WORKS
PUBLISHED BY
THE ASIATIC SOCIETY OF BENGAL.
TRANSLATION
OF
THE TABAKĀT-I-NĀSIRĪ
OF
THE MAULANA, MINHAJ-I-SARĀJ,
ABŪ 'UMAR-I-'USMAN.
į
LONDON
GILDERT AND RIVINGTON, PRINTERS,
ST. JOHN'S Square,
TABAKĀT-I-NĀSIRĪ:
A GENERAL HISTORY
OF THE
MUHAMMADAN DYNASTIES OF ASIA,
INCLUDING HINDŪSTĀN,
FROM A.H. 194 [810 A.D.], TO A.H. 658 [1260 A.D.],
AND THE
RUPTION OF THE INFIDEL MUGHALS INTO ISLĀM.
Minhaj Seraj jazzja më
BY
THE MAULĀNĀ, MINHĀJ-UD-DĪN, ABŪ-'UMAR-I-'USMĀN.
Translated from Original Persian Manuscripts.
BY MAJOR H. G. RAVERTY,
BOMBAY NATIVE INFANTRY (RETIRED).
hor of a Grammar, a Dictionary, and The Gulshan-i-Roh, or Selections,
Prose and Poetical, in th Pushto or Afgbān Language; The Poetry
of the Afghans (English Translation); The Fables of Esop
Al-Hakim in the Afghan Language; The Pushto or
Afghan Manual; Notes on Afghānistān,
Geographical, Ethnographical,
and Historical, etc.
London:
PRINTED BY GILBERT & RIVINGTON.
1881.
n
!
must Fine arts
5.8.45
4 5 8 7 8
PREFACE.
IN 1865 I was led to read the printed text of the Tabakat-
i-Naşiri, published at Calcutta in 1864, in search of materials
towards a history of the Afghans and their country, which
is very much mixed up with that of India.
Having gone through a great portion of it, and finding
it defective in many places, and full of errors, I thought it
advisable to examine the India Office Library MS., No.
1952, from which the printed text was said to have been
taken, went through the whole of that work, and found that
it also was defective, and contained numerous errors. I
found nothing, however, respecting the Afghāns, except in
one place, and there they were briefly mentioned in a few
lines, but very characteristically.
I had already discovered, when in search of other mate-
rials, what lamentable errors the available Histories of
India, so called, in the English language contained, and I
now found how they had arisen. With a view of correct-
ing them, I made a translation of those portions of the
Tabakāt-i-Naşiri which related to India, and the History
of the Ghaznawi and Ghūri dynasties: and, when I offered
a translation to the Bengal Asiatic Society some twelve
years ago, my intention was, as stated in my letter on the
subject, merely to have made a fair copy of the translation
of those identical portions.
Soon after, I obtained a very old copy of the work; and,
on comparing it with the I. O. L. MS. No. 1952, I found
such considerable and important differences to exist, that
I determined to begin anew, and translate the whole work.
The Society having accepted my offer, and the defective
vi
PREFACE.
state of the printed text being well known, Mr. Arthur
Grote, to whom I am very greatly indebted for assistance
in many ways, advised that, in making this translation, I
should avail myself of any other copies of the text that
might be procurable in Europe. On instituting inquiry the
following were found, and have been already referred to in
my report to the Society, published in the "Proceedings "
for February, 1873, and have been used by me in my task.
I must here give a brief description of them, and notice
and number them according to their apparent age and
value, which arrangement, however, will be somewhat
different from that in the notes to pages 68 and 77 of the
translated text.
1. A MS. belonging to the St. Petersburg Imperial
Public Library.
This, probably, is the most ancient of the copies col-
lated. It is not written in an elegant hand, by any
means, although plainly and correctly, but in the style in
which Mullās usually write. The dals are marked with
diacritical points, and other letters are written in a peculia
manner, denoting considerable antiquity. It is, however,
imperfect, and does not comprise much more than half the
work.
2. The British Museum MS. No. Add. 26, 189.
This copy is considered by Doctor Rieu, whose expe-
rience is sufficiently great, and authority undoubted, to be
a MS. of the fourteenth century. It is clearly written and
correct, and has been of the utmost use to me. It wants a
few pages at the end, hence the date on which it was com-
pleted, and by whom written, which generally are inserted
at the end, cannot be discovered.
3. The old MS. in my possession.
One
To judge from the writing and paper, I should suppose
it to be about the same age as No. 2. It is clearly written,
but wants several pages at the end, consequently, the date
of its completion likewise cannot be discovered.
pretty good proof of its age, however, is that the whole, from
beginning to end, has been cut close to the illuminated
borders of each leaf, and inlaid on other paper, which also
appears to be of considerable age. Whoever did this
turned a number of leaves the wrong way, and misplaced
&
PREFACE.
vili
i
several pages, which took me some time to put in their
places again.
I imagine that there is very little difference, in point of
antiquity, between these three copies.
4. AMS. belonging to the Imperial Academy of Sciences
at St. Petersburg.
This is a well and correctly written MS., which has also
been of the greatest use to me in my work. It wants about
two leaves at the end, and, consequently, the date on which
it was copied does not appear. I should say, comparing it
with the others above described, that it is a MS. of
the sixteenth century, possibly, still earlier.
It has an
unreadable name on the last leaf, with 1218 H. [1803 A.D.]
upon it.
5. The India Office Library MS., No. 1952.
This is also a plainly written copy, and, apparently, of
considerable age, nearly as old, possibly, as the three copies.
first named, but it is incorrect in scores of places: one place
in particular, where three complete pages of the history of
Sultan Mas'ud of Ghaznin occur in the middle of the ac-
count of the Saljūķs. This is important, although an error,
because it shows us how many other copies have been taken
from it, or that it, and the other copies hereafter to be
named, were all copied from another, still earlier, MS.
imperfect in that identical place.
This MS. is, in all probability, that referred to by
Stewart, as belonging to Tipu's library, and said to have
been "copied by the author himself." The reason why
this, too, has been erroneously considered "an autograph of
the author's," is simply this-whoever copied it, as in the
case of other copies, neither recorded his own name, nor the
place where, or date when, it was completed, and so it ter-
minates in the author's own words, hence some people have
run away with the idea-and it only shows upon what a
shadow they often found their theories-that the author
himself must have written it. It ends thus :-"The book
of Al-Minhāj bin Sarāj, the 5th of Rabi'-ul-Awwal-the
third month-in the year fifty and six hundred." The eight,
which should have preceded the fifty, has been left out.
On the first leaf the following is written: "The Tabakāt-
i-Naşiri, in the city of Haidar-ābād, in the month of Rabi'-
viii
PREFACE.
ul-Awwal, 1157 H. [1744 A.D.], was bought of the booksellers
in that place."
6 and 7. Two MSS. in the Paris National Library.
These may be classed, at least the best of the two, with
the preceding MS., No. 5, in point of date, and want of correct-
ness and I believe that they are either copies of No. 5, or,
like it and two others—the Bodleian MS., and the Ro.
Asiatic Soc. MS.-copies of the same identical MS. They
all agree as to errors,' and they all end in the same way,
without the name of the scribe, the date, or place where
copied, with the single exception of the Bodleian copy,
which has the word "eight" written over the words "fifty
and six hundred.". For the reasons above-mentioned, both
Paris MSS.—not one only, I find-were fondly considered
autographs of the author's," but M. H. Zotenberg, whose
opinion I asked, very justly says, "this is impossible, because
the two MS. are not in the same handwriting." He, how-
ever, adds, “but to judge from the paper and the writing,
I should suppose that they are both MSS. of the fifteenth
century. They were both brought from India." They
came from the Dakhan, in all probability.
8 and 9. The other copy of the text in the British
Museum, No. Add. 25,785, which Doctor Rieu considers
may be of the sixteenth century, and another belonging to
the Imperial Academy of Sciences of St. Petersburg. These
are, comparatively, modern copies, of the first half of the
seventeenth century in all likelihood. They are plainly
written, but are neither of them very correct. The former
is defective to the extent of seven or eight 8vo. pages at
the end, and the other also wants a few leaves. They are
neither of them of much value.
10. A MS. formerly in the Library of Haileybury
College.
This is the most complete MS. of the text that I have
met with, although it is of comparatively recent date. It
is written in a plain, but not elegant hand. It is generally
correct, and closely agrees with Nos. 2, 3, and 4; and I
have found it exceedingly useful. Indeed without it, and
',
1 See Notes 9, page 308; 3, page 376; 2, page 400; 5, page 426; 2, page
573; 7, page 577; and particularly page 665, note; page 684, note"; note
page 692; and ⁹, page 703; in which some of these are pointed out.
PREFACE.
ix
Nos. 2, 3, and 4, I never could have completed my
task satisfactorily. In a few places it supplied what
was defective in two of the others. The date of copying
is not given, but, from its appearance, I should say it was
a MS. of the last half of the seventeenth century. After
the author's concluding words the following is written :-
"The owner of this MS., in the port [Bandar] of Sūrat,
[is] the Haji, Muḥammad Sharif, son of Mulla Muḥammad
Sharif, son of Mulla Muḥammad Tahir;" after which follow
some words not quite intelligible, " on the 8th of Sha'bān-
the eighth month-1113 H. [1701-1702, A.D.], was recorded."
The two last words appear to refer rather to the date the
owner wrote his name, than to the date the MS. was com-
pleted. It subsequently belonged to some Grandee of the
Mughal empire, from the titles given under the above
record, namely, "The Mumtaz-ud-Daulah, Mufakhkhar ul-
Mulk, Husām-i-Jang." Who he was I am unable to say.
II. The copy of the text formerly belonging to the late
Colonel G. W. Hamilton, C.B., in the collection of the late
Earl of Crawfurd and Balcarres. This is, upon the whole, the
worst copy I have collated, and contains very numerous
errors, although, in point of age, it may be older than Nos. 8,9,
and 10. It terminates abruptly at page 462 of the Printed
Text, and is thus defective to the extent of about twenty-
six pages, but it has the closing page, and when and where
written. Before I saw it, I was informed that it was a very
valuable copy, and that it had belonged to "the Emperor
Shah Jahan, because his seal was stamped on the margin
of one of the pages." On examination, I found that the
MS. was completed "on Thursday, the 6th of Rajab-the
seventh month-of the year 1059 H. [July, 1649], in the
reign of the Second Ṣāḥib-i-Ķirān, Abu-l-Muzaffar, Shihāb-
ud-Din, Muḥammad, Shāh-i-Jahān, Bādshāh-i-Ghāzi, in
the city of Burhānpūr [in Kāndes], at the time when hosti-
lities broke out between that monarch and Shah 'Abbās
the Second [the Şafawi ruler of I-rān], respecting Kanda-
hār [the Kizil-bashis were then actually investing that
stronghold]," and that the copyist was the Khānah-zād-i-
Dargah [the born slave of the Court or Household], Mu'in-
ud-Din, Khwajah-i-Jahan, the Jahan-giri," [of the Household
of Jahangir Badshah], Shāh-i-Jahān Bādshah's father.
X
PREFACE,
Beneath this again is the name of a Maulawi, the son of
some "Khan," partly obliterated, with the date 1255 H.
[1839 A.D.]. A seal underneath bears the date 1233 H.
[1818 A.D.]. The largest seal, supposed to be that of
Shah-i-Jahan Badshah, bears the following inscription:-
"Mu'in-ud-Din, Muḥammad [the same person as referred
to above], ghulām-i-Shāh-i-Jahan," with the figures 24,
referring to the year of that monarch's reign, and the year
1061 H. [it began Dec. 14th, 1650, A.D.]. A smaller seal,
with an inscription-"Ya Mu'in "-"O Helper!"-bears
date 1058 H. [1648 A.D.]. I could discover nothing to show
that the MS. had ever belonged to Shāh-i-Jahān Bādshāh.
12. The MS. belonging to the Royal Asiatic Society.
This, as previously mentioned, is a modern copy, of the
latter part of the seventeenth century possibly, and is
either a copy of No. 5, or copied from the same MS. that
that was copied from. It is pretty plainly but carelessly
written, in, by no means, a good hand; but, like the others
referred to, is very defective, and the proper names of
persons and places are often without any points.
I have already noticed how incorrect the Printed Text
is. In the Preface to it, Colonel W. N. Lees, LL.D., says:
"When I commenced the work, we had three copies, one
belonging to the Ro. Asiastic Soc., one in the India House
Library, and one belonging to the High Priest of the Pársís
at Bombay. A little while afterwards, Colonel Hamilton,
in reply to a circular of the Society, forwarded a copy from
Dehli. These MSS. are all apparently good old copies,
and are written in very different hands. It was supposed,
then, that we had four distinct copies to collate; but, before
long, it became apparent that the four had been copied
from two MSS., so, in reality, we had only two. . . . The
Society had issued hundreds of circulars to all parts of
India, and had failed to draw out more than two copies;
and the fact, that the four old copies I had had been copied
2 In this case, if the Ro. As. Soc's MS. is a copy of the India Office MS.,
the Hamilton MS., and the High Priest's, must be copies one of the other, or
copies from another MS.
Sir Henry Elliot mentions that he found one in the Royal Library at
Lakhnão, but most of the MSS. in that collection were, I believe, destroyed
during the rebellion of 1857.
;
PREFACE.
XI
from two MSS., seemed to indicate so clearly the great
scarcity of MSS. of this work, that I decided to go on."
From these remarks its defectiveness is not to be won-
dered at, but, at the same time, as I have shown in my
notes, there are numerous errors in it which are not to be
found in these MSS., and a little historical and geographi-
cal discrimination on the part of the editors might have
corrected many of them.
The time and labour required for simply translating a
book, especially if but one or two copies be used for colla-
tion, is not very great; and this translation could have been
accomplished in a tithe of the time I have devoted to it.
But, as this History is one of the four most important
works with respect to the early rulers of India, and that
part of Central Asia upon which all eyes have been lately
turned, and are likely to be turned in the future, I thought
it advisable not to spare any pains on it, although it has
occupied some years longer than I anticipated. I have
collated nine copies of the text word for word; and all
doubtful passages have been collated for me from the other
three. Although this has occupied a great deal of time,
and entailed much labour, a still greater amount of both has
been expended on the notes, which I deemed necessary to
illustrate our author's often brief, sometimes erroneous, but
generally valuable, statements, to point out the errors which
he has sometimes fallen into, and to point out some of the
legion of lamentable mistakes, and misleading statements,
contained in compilations purporting to be "Histories of
India," "Histories of Afghánistán from the Earliest Times,"
and similar Histories of other Eastern states and peoples;
and to show the exact value of the compilations, turned
out by the yard by raw hands, for the Public of the news-
papers and reviews, and the general reader.
These errors in Indian History are solely attributable to
the miscalled translations of the comparatively modern
chronicle, known as the Tarikh-i-Firishtah by Dow and
Briggs, the first of whom could not possibly have under-
stood the words of the writer in scores of places, and in
such cases appears to have recorded his own ideas instead
of the author's statements. Firishtah's work, too, is not
difficult, and the style is simple; and it is one of a few books
¡
xii
PREFACE.
{
well adapted for the Lower Standard of Examination in
the Persian language. Firishtah's materials were chiefly
taken from the Tabakāt-i-Akbari, also known as the
Tabakāt-i-Akbar Shāhi, of the Khwajah, Nizām-ud-Din,
Aḥmad, who obtained his materials, up to the reign of
Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din, Balban, from the work of our author; and
not a single event is recorded in Firishtah that is not
recorded in the Tabakāt-i-Akbari. This will be quite clear
to any one who will take the trouble to compare them.
Firishtah, indeed, follows it so closely that, not only are the
poetical quotations appropriated, but the errors also, as I
have pointed out in my notes, have been faithfully copied
by the Dakhani author: where the one errs the other is
sure to follow.³
The English version of Briggs, "the admirable version,"
as a writer, who did not know the contents of Firishtah,
calls it, is clearly based upon Dow's, with very slight altera-
tions, and they are chiefly of a verbal kind. I should be
sorry to be unjust to any author, but I submit that, where
great, misleading, and glaring, historical errors, are as clear
as the light of day, it is a duty towards the public, and in
the interests of science, that they should be pointed out,
even at the risk of "hurting the susceptibilities" of the
authors of them or their friends, especially when such per-
nicious compilations as I have referred to, under the name
of history, continue to be used in our colleges and schools,
without the nature of them being known in its true light.
The writers of them have much to answer for, but those
who have adopted them in our public institutions a vast deal
more. See, for example, note, page 312, and note, page
323.
One of the most glaring of the misstatements I refer to is
that wherein the Turk sovereigns of Ghaznin, as well as
the Tajzik rulers of Ghur, are turned into "Patháns"
or "Afgháns," which words are synonymous, and "Pa-
tháng or “Afgháns” into Turks and Tājzik Ghūris.
Dow, in the first place, is to blame for this, but Briggs
blindly followed him." I say this advisedly. The proof is
""
3 A few examples of which may be seen in Note 9, page 441; and ³, page
653; last para. of Note 8, page 665; º, page 697; and 4, page 711.
♦ Examples of this will be found in Notes ³, page 204 ;
6
', page 312; 4.
PREFACE.
xili
easy from any MS. of Firishtah's work, but with MSS.
alone we need not rest content. We have only to compare
Briggs's version with that lithographed edition printed at
Bombay, to which Briggs put his name as editor and
reviser, to prove my words.
Let us, for example, take any passage in Briggs' account
of the Ghūris, or the history of the Turkish slave Sultāns
of Dihli-those, say, referred to at page 508 of this work
-and in the Persian text which, according to the title-
page, had the benefit of his editing and revision, not one
word will be found respecting their being Afgháns, as con-
tained in his “admirable translation:" all comes from
Dow.
If this TRANSLATION OF THE TABAKĀT-I-NĀȘIRĪ, the
original of which was published just six hundred and twenty-
one years ago, and the notes accompanying it, disperse
to the winds this error-bubble alone, I shall deem my time
not lost, and the labour of years not thrown away, because,
even since the publication of Sir H. Elliot's extracts from
various Histories, which also showed how incorrect this
"Pathán" theory was, Turks, Tajzik Ghūris, Turkish Slaves,
Jats, Sayyids, and others, continue to figure under the ridi-
culous name of "Pathán dynasties," up to this present day."
I have already remarked that our author has mentioned
the Afghans but once in his History, and that very briefly,
but, at the same time, most graphically [page 852], a body
of them being in the pay of the Ulugh Khān-i-A'zam.
The Afghans were by no means unfamiliar to our author,
and he certainly knew the Ghūris better than any other
author known to us, and he shows on that very page that
they were a totally different race. In his account of the
Shansabānis of Ghūr, and their dynasties, he simply stands
unrivalled, and also in his accounts of the first Mughal inva-
sions of the territories between Hirät and Multan. The Af-
ghāns appear at this time to have begun to take service under
the Muḥammadan feudatories of the western border pro-
vinces of the Dihli kingdom. They may have been in the
page 320; note 7, para. 4, page 321; note 9, page 404; 7, page 431; note
", page 441; note 4, page 514; and ¹, para. 5, page 794.
* See the "Journal of the Bengal Asiatic Society," Part I., No. II., pr.
1880, page 18.
I
xiv
PREFACE.
{
ļ
habit of taking such service previously, but to no great ex-
tent I imagine, but, about this period, there was a particular
reason for it-the confusion and convulsions caused through-
out the vast tracts of country which formed the kingdom.
of the Ghaznawis and their subverters the Ghūris, styled
Afghanistan by Europeans chiefly, through the irruptions,
devastations, massacres, and final subversion of the Musal-
man rule by the hordes of infidel Mughals, by whom the
country of the Afghāns was completely surrounded on the
north, south, and west, while the only territory still held by
a Musalman sovereign lay on the east-the Panj-ab-the
western part of which also subsequently fell under the
Mughal yoke. The limits of the true Afghānistān were pre-
scribed by the mountains bounding the Kurma'h valley and
the territory of Kabul on the north, the Koh-i-Surkh on the
south, the territories of Ghaznin and Kandahar on the west,
and the Sulimani mountains or Koh-i-Siyah on the east.
It will be observed that I have really commenced the
Translation from Section VII.; and from that point it em-
braces the whole work. The first six, with the exception
of the History of the early kings of I-rän, are not of much
importance by reason of their brevity. The account of the
I-rāni dynasties, which would require a volume to illustrate
them, I have treated as a separate work, which, ere long,
may see the light. To make the Translation in effect
complete, however, I have given an abstract of the first six
Sections.
The adulations addressed to, and constant prayers offered
up for, the Sulṭān to whom the author dedicated, and after
whom he named, his History, have been omitted or greatly
reduced, and some of the introductions to the Sections
also, which are of a similar style, have been cut short, but,
in all other cases, I have not "compressed" the Trans-
lation in the least degree; and I may say that I have
weighed every word and sentence, and have omitted.
nothing, not even the poetical quotations, having only
rejected some of the longer portions when they have
been of no interest, not necessary to the text, or of no
particular merit. I have endeavoured to render the trans-
lation as nearly as possible in the author's own words,
without being slavishly literal. It is however sufficiently
1
PREFACE.
XV
ན
literal to assist a student, and yet readable by the English
reader, though keeping much of a foreign complexion for
various reasons. It is possible that in so long a work,
published at intervals as completed, and not in a com-
plete form at once, slight inconsistencies in punctuation
and English (though not Persian, save through printers'
errors) orthography may be here and there observable.
Most English punctuation is haphazard, and left to the
compositors, who, apparently, sometimes use it to denote.
breathing pauses; sometimes to help out the grammar.
One may point sentences very much or very little, but
whatever is done should be upon one system. Accordingly
here, for the most part, the minute plan of what may
seem to some over-much stopping is adopted, though not
always, but no such absurdity is allowed to appear as a
divorce of the verb from its subject by a single comma,
and other errors of that sort, which come of printers attend-
ing entirely to pause and forgetting grammar.
Scholars will understand that there may be much to be
said for more ways than one of spelling the same word in
such a language as English.
This book, the text and notes together, will be found to be
a very thesaurus of the most varied and often recondite his-
torical material for the periods of which it treats, and many
time-honoured historical errors have been pointed out and
rectified. It wants but one thing to make it still more accept-
able to the Student, and that is an Index. The Reviewers
are tolerably sure to point this out for fear nobody else
should see it. So the Translator begs to say, once for all,
that he is too weary, and his time too valuable, to take
up any such work. Meanwhile, The Index Society will
have here a capital tough subject for their charitable
exertions.
Besides the standard Histories mentioned in note 3,
page 869, the following, among which are many rare, cele-
brated, and excellent, works, have been also used; and some
of them have been extensively drawn upon. The majority,
but not all, have been mentioned in the notes taken from
them. From "the labours of" these authors "my prede-
cessors" I have derived the utmost "assistance," and
acknowledge it accordingly.
xvi
PREFACE.
}
Tarikh-i-Tabari,
Kitab-i-Yamini,
Kitab-i-Masalik-wa-Mama-
lik,
Tarikh-i-Abu-l-Fazl-i-Bai-
haķi,
Zain-ul-Akhbār,
Nizām-ut-Tawarikh of the
Kāzi, Abū-Sa'id-i-'Abd-
ullah of Baizā,
Taj-ul-Ma'aşir,
Kāmil-ut-Tawarikh of the
Shaikh, Abu-l-Hasan-i-
'Ali,surnamed Ibn-ul-Aşir,
Khulaṣatut Tawarikh of
Sujan Rãe,
Khulāṣat-ul-Akhbār,
Mir'at-ul-'Alam,
Mir'at-i-Jahan-Numā,
Tarikh-i-Firuz-Shāhi of Zi-
yā-ud-Din, Barani,
Tarikh-i-Mubarak-Shāhi,
Tarikh-i-Firūz-Shāhi of
Shams-i-Sirāj,
Zaffar-Namah,
Tuzūk-i-Bābari,
Tarikh-i-Rashidi of the Mir
zā, Muḥammad Haidar,
the Doghlāti Mughal,
Memoirs of Humāyān Bād-
shah by Bayazid the Byāt,
A'in-i-Akbari,
Tabakāt-i-Akbari,
Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh of
the Buda'ūni,
Akbar Namah of Faizi the
Sarhindi,
Tazkirat-ul-Abrar of the I
Akhund, Darwezah,
Makhzan-i-Afghāni,
Tarikh-i-Khan-i-Jahān, the
Lūdi,
Zubdat-ut-Tawārikh,
Raugat-ut-Tahirin,
Sair-ul-Bilād
- a
Persian
Translation of the Aṣār-
ul-Bilād,
Bahr-ul-Asrar,
Tuhfat-ul-Kirām,
Chachh Namah,
Tarikh-us-Sind of Mir Ma-
'sum, the Bakhari,
Tarikh-i-Haft-Iklim,
Ikbal Namah-i-Jahān-giri,
Ma'adan-i-Akhbar-i-Aḥ-
madi,
Tazkirat-ul-Mulūk of Yaḥyā
Khan,
Jami'-ut-Tawarikh of Fakir
Muhammad,
Tarikh-i-Rajahāhe Jammu,
History of Gauṛ or Lakhaṇ-
awati of Shiam Parshad,
and a few others.
The following Pushto or Afghan Chronicles have also
been used :-The History of the Khashi sept of the Afghan
nation, and their conquests beyond the river of Kabul, by
Khwājū, the Matizi; the Tārikh-i-Nisbat-i-Afāghinah, by
the Shaikh, 'Abd-ur-Razzāk, Matizi; and the Tarikh-i-
Muraṣṣa' by Muḥammad Afzal Khan, Khaṭak.
I cannot close these remarks without tendering my
sincere thanks to Doctor C. Rieu, Keeper of the Oriental
1
PREFACE.
xvii
*
Manuscripts of the British Museum, for his kind and
efficient assistance at all times, also to Professor Alois
Sprenger of Wabern near Bern, and to Monsieur H. Zoten-
berg of the French National Library, who very kindly
collated numerous passages for me.
و
ح
í
خ
9
The system of transliteration, adopted in the following
pages, is that known as the system of Sir William Jones,
which, after some thirty years' experience, the Translator
conceives to be the easiest, as well as the most natural, and
as easy of pronunciation [except, perhaps, the purely 'Arabic
gutturals] as the original letters of the 'Arabic alphabet.
The vowels are three short —a, i, u, equivalent to
-and-; and three long—ä, i, u, equivalent to ĺ--
All consonants, except the following, are pronounced
precisely the same as in English:s, as th in thing, or
lisped s; & ch, as ch in church; ḥ, strongly aspi-
rated, which occurs only in purely 'Arabic words; kh,
as ch in loch, and as German ch; 3 — ḍ, pronounced by
applying the tip of the tongue inverted to the palate; ¿
z, as th in thine, by 'Arabs, dth; ṛ, as ruttered by
striking the point of the tongue on the palate; ; →jz, as s
in pleasure, or soft French j;-sh, as sh in shell;ş,
as ss in dissolve; z, as dwd; bt, as t with a slight
aspiration; z, as English with a slight aspiration;
-', a deep guttural without any audible aspiration,
and, when initial to a word, the ' is placed before its vowel,
as in 'Ali, and, when not initial, after its preceding vowel,
as in Ja'far and Rāfi'; ¿ gh, a guttural sound like that
produced in gargling, or Northumbrian r, and something
similar to gh in ghost; -k, another peculiar 'Arabic
&
sound, produced by pressing back the root of the tongue
to the throat, and partaking of the sound of k and 9; - h,
slightly aspirated; at the end of a word it is often un-
aspirated. When e occurs at the end of a word preceded
by a, the former is almost quiescent. The only diphthongs
are ai and au.
' - ع
b
—z,
z
From the above system the scholar can at once tell the
original letters in the names of persons and places. Unless
the peculiar letters are marked there is no knowing what
they are meant for. For example; if the equivalent of
a
خ
xviii
PREFACE.
خ
is not marked, we cannot tell whether the original was or
the two letters and; and if the roman equivalents of
all rendered by simple "s," how are we to
رس
وت
and are
ص
know which is the letter meant?
As the work is rather more bulky than was anticipated
at the outset, and may be perhaps more convenient in two
volumes than in one, I have provided for binding it up into
two volumes by giving two separate title-pages, as it can
be conveniently divided at the commencement of Section.
XXII., page 719.
ROCK HOUSE,
Milverton, Somerset,
12th January, 1881 a.d. 12th Şafar, 1298 H.
MEMOIR OF THE AUTHOR.
FEW materials exist for a notice of our author, and these
are chiefly furnished by himself.
The first mention he makes of his family is to the effect
that "the Imām, 'Abd-ul-Khālik, the Jūrjāni, having, in his
early manhood, dreamt a dream on three successive occa-
sions, urging him to proceed to Ghaznin and seek a wife,
set out thither; and, subsequently, obtained, in marriage,
one of the forty daughters of Sultan Ibrahim of Ghaznin,"
who was in the habit of bestowing his daughters, in mar-
rage, upon reverend and pious Sayyids and ’Ulamā, like
>ther Musalman rulers have continued to do, down to recent
times.
By this wife, 'Abd-ul-Khalik had a son, whom he named
Ibrahim, after his maternal grandfather, the Sultan; and
he was our author's great-grandfather. He was the father
of the Maulānā, Minhaj-ud-Din, 'Uṣmān, who was the father
of the Maulānā, Sarāj-ud-Din, Muḥammad-who is called
Ibrahim by some-who was known by the title of 'Ujubat-
uz-Zaman-The Wonder of the Age. He was the father
of the Maulānā, Minhaj-ud-Din,' Abu-'Umar-i-'Usman, the
author of the following History, who thence often brings in
his father's and grandfather's name, styling himself Minhāj-
i-Sarāj-i-Minhāj, the two iṣāfats being used to signify son
of in place of the Arabic bin.
Our author's ancestors, on both sides, for several gene-
rations, appear to have been ecclesiastics of repute, and men
¹ The title, Sarāj-ud-Din, means 'The Lamp, or the Luminary of the
Faith," and Minhaj-ud-Din, "The High-road, or the Way of the Faith." See
note 2, page 1295.
4
a 2
XX
MEMOIR OF THE AUTHOR.
}
}
|
distinguished for learning. He states that he possessed,
among the miṣal or diplomas granted to his maternal
ancestors by the Khalifahs, one from the Khalifah, Mustazi
B'illah, conferring the Kazi-ship of the fortress, or rather,
fortified town, of Tulak, described in the following pages,
together with that over the Kuhistan, and the Jibāl—
Highlands of Hirāt, upon his maternal grandfather, in
conformity with the diploma previously held by the latter's
father before him. His paternal grandfather also received
an honorary dress from the same Pontiff; and our author
says that he himself possessed the diploma which was sent
along with it.
In the oldest copies of the text, and in several of the
more recent, our author almost invariably styles himself' the
Jūrjāni—¿-as I have from the outset rendered it; but
those MSS. previously referred to, which appear to have
been copied from the same source as that from which
the I.O.L. MS. was taken, or from that copy itself, gene-
rally have ¿j—Jūzāni—and sometimes Jūrjāni as above.
If the point of ;-z-be left out, as is very liable to be
the case, like the points of other letters, by copyists, it is
but simple, r. Words containing long u--are often
written with the short vowel sammah or pesh -
of—and hence, in some few copies, it is¿—Jurjāni,
while sometimes it is written both ways in the same MS.
ج
-instead
Since writing note, at page 321, giving an account of
the Amir, Mas'ud's inroad into the northern parts of Ghūr,
when on his way from Ghaznin to Hirāt, I have considered
that the word given by our author referred to the tract of
country described in that note as the Güzgānān, or the
Gūzgāns, by Tājziks, but which 'Arabs, and people of 'Arab
descent, who use j——for the Tājzik g——turn into
Jūzjānān, and that the word he uses in connexion with his
own name refers to one of the Gūzgāns, and that he should
be styled 'the Gūzgāni' or 'Jūzjāni.' As the most trust-
worthy copies of the text, the best and most correctly
written, had Jūrjāni, I considered it necessary to follow
them as I had begun, and to mention the matter more in
detail here in the Memoir of the Author's life.
Gūzgān, as the native inhabitants styled it, or Jūzjān,
is not the name of a single town, village, or fortress,
1
MEMOIR OF THE AUTHOR.
xxi
but one of the small districts or tracts of country among
the mountains, on the north-west frontier of the country
of Ghur, and north of Hirāt, beyond the Murgh-Ab-the
Jibal of Hirāt, as he himself styles it-but its exact posi-
tion, and the localities of most of the great fortresses
mentioned by our author in the last Section of his
work, are at present unknown to us. The Gūzgānān, or
Gūzgāns were the appanage of the Amir, Muḥammad,
brother of Mas'ud; and it was from thence that he was
brought when he assumed the throne of Ghaznin after the
death of his father. Notwithstanding the details which our
author gives respecting the great fortresses of Ghūr, Ghar-
jistān, and other parts, including the fortress of Tūlak,
which appears to have been his own place of residence at
the time, and also the home of his maternal relatives (see
page 1066 and note ³), which he helped to defend against
the Mughal invaders, and which must have been situated
in one of the Gūzgāns, he never once, throughout his whole
work, refers to Gūzgān or Jūzjān, except in connexion with
his own name. See also notes to pages 186 and 232.
After the Ghūris obtained possession of Lāhor in 582 H.,
and they had seized the Sulṭān, Khusrau Malik, the last of
the Sultāns of Ghaznin, our author's father was made Kāzi
of the Ghūrian army stationed at Lahor, under the Sipah-
Sālār, 'Ali-i-Kar-mākh; and twelve camels were assigned
him for the conveyance of the establishment of his office,
his tribunal, etc., on the line of march.
Our author was born after this, in the year 589 H., the
very year in which Dihli, of which, and of which Musalmān
kingdom, he was subsequently to become the chief Ķāzi and
Şadr, was made the seat of the Musalman government in
Hindustan by the Turk Mamluk, Kutb-ud-Din, I-bak, who
was, in after-years, to become its first Muḥammadan Sultan.
That our author was born at Lahor, as the Daghistani, re-
ferred to farther on, asserts, cannot be correct; for, from
what he himself states respecting his arrival at Üchchah in
624 H. [see pages 541 and 722], that was the first time he
set foot in Hind. Had he been born at Lahor, he would,
doubtless, have mentioned it, and he would probably have
been styled and known as the Lahori in consequence.
The next mention he makes of his father is, that, when
xxii
MEMOIR OF THE AUTHOR.
Sultan Baha-ud-Din, Sam, ruler of Bamian and Tukhāris-
tān, succeeded his father on the throne, he desired that
our author's father, the Maulānā, Sarāj-ud-Din, Muḥam-
mad, should take up his residence in his kingdom, and
enter his service. With the sanction of his own sove-
reign and patron, and Baha-ud-Din, Sam's suzerain,
namely, the Sultan of Ghür, Ghiyās-ud-Din, Muḥammad-i-
Sām, the Maulānā proceeded to the Court of Baha-ud-Din,
Sām, and was made Ķāzi of the kingdom of Bāmiān and
Tukhāristan, with the judicial administration over its
forces, was made censor, with full powers as regards eccle-
siastical law, and intrusted with the charge of two colleges,
and their funds. This happened in 591 H., when our
author was in his third year. He states that the diploma
conferring these offices upon his father, in the handwriting
of the Wazir of the Bāmiān state, was still contained in the
kharitah [a bag of embroidered silk for holding documents]
containing his own diplomas, his banner, and turban of
honour.
The mother of our author was the foster-sister and
school-mate of the Princess, Mah Malik, the daughter of
Sultan Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din, Muḥammad-i-Sām, mention of
which lady will be found in several places in the follow-
ing pages; and his mother appears to have continued in
her service after her marriage. Our author distinctly states.
that his early years were passed in the Haram of the
Princess, until the period of his entering upon adolescence,
when, according to Musalman usages, he had to be sent
elsewhere. He speaks in terms of much gratitude of the
fostering kindness and protection he received while dwell-
ing in that Princess's household. Under these circum-
stances, Lahor can scarcely have been the place of his
birth.
When Sultan Takish, Khwārazm Shah, withdrew his
allegiance from the Khalifah, Un-Naşir-ud-Din-Ullah, and
the latter's troops had been defeated by him, Ibn-ur-Rabbi',
and Ibn-ul-Khatib, on two different occasions, came as
envoys to the Courts of the Sulṭāns of Ghūr and Ghaznin, to
demand aid from these monarchs against Sultan Takish.
In consequence, the Imām, Shams-ud-Din, the Turk, and
the Maulānā, Sarāj-ud-Din, Muḥammad, the Tajzik, our
MEMOIR OF THE AUTHOR.
xxiii
author's father, were directed to proceed to Baghdad, to
the Khalifah's Court, along with the envoys. They set
out for Baghdad by way of Mukrān; and, in some affray
into which they fell on the road, they were attacked by a
band of robbers, and our author's father was killed. Intima-
tion of his death was received in a communication from the
Khalifah to the Sultan, Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din, Muḥammad-i-Sām,
in these words: "Furthermore, Sarāj-i-Minhāj perished in
an affray on the road. The Almighty recompense him!"
Another of our author's relatives, his mother's brother's
son, was Ziya-ud-Din, Muḥammad, son of 'Abd-us-Sallām,
Kāzi of Tulak, who was left in command of the fortress of
Tabarhindah, with a force of 1200 Tūlakis, by the Sulṭān,
Mu'izz-ud-Din, Muḥammad-i-Sām, when that Sulṭān was
about to retire from Hind before the hot season of 587 H.,
intending to return after it was over and relieve him. The
Kazi of Tulak was to hold the place for seven months;
but, as the Sultan, just after this arrangement was made,
was defeated by Rãe Pithora, and severely wounded in the
battle, and an expedition into Khurāsān soon after inter-
vened, he was totally unable to come to the Kazi's relief,
as agreed upon, in the following season, and, consequently,
after having held out over thirteen months, the Ķāzi, Ziyā-
ud-Din, Muḥammad, had to capitulate.
At the time Sultan Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din, Maḥmūd, son of
Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din, Muḥammad-i-Sām, was assassinated by
the Khwārazmi refugees, in Safar, 607 H., our author was
dwelling at Firūz-koh, and was then in his eighteenth
year.
In 611 H., the year preceding the surrender of his capital,
Firuz-koh, by the last of the Sultāns of the Ghūri dynasty,
2 He was despatched on this mission by Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din, Muḥammad-i-
Sām, Sulṭān of Ghur, the elder brother and suzerain of Mu'izz-ud-Din,
Muḥammad, Sultan of Ghaznin, who, in a paper in the "Journal of the
Asiatic Society of Bengal," Part I., No. I, for 1880, page 28, by Mr. C. R.
Stüpnagel, is styled Mu'az-ud-din. The writer is at a loss to know why the
elder brother's name appears on his younger brother's coins, and informs us
that “of Sultán Ghiás-ud-din scarcely anything is known.” I beg to recom-
mend him to study the twenty-three pages respecting him in the following
translation, and to refer to note 6, page 472, and 2, page 489. Here again
is turned into "the first Pathán king of Dehli!" See also Part
I., No. II., page 84, of the "Journal."
Muaz
xxiv
MEMOIR OF THE AUTHOR.
our author proceeded thither: Two years after we find
him in Sijistān, at Zaranj, the capital, where he remained
some time. At this period the whole of the territories
which had formed the empire of the Ghūris, including the
dominions of Ghaznin, and extending east of the Indus
into the upper part of the Sind-Sagar Do-abah of the
Panj-āb as far as the Jhilam, had fallen under the sway of
the Khwārazmis. These events must, in some way, have
been the cause of his sojourn in Sijistan for seven months,
but he is quite silent on the causes which led him there.
See page 195.
In 617 H., during the first inroad of the Mughals into
Ghur and Khurāsān, before the Chingiz Khan himself
crossed the Oxus with his main army, our author was
living at Tūlak; and, shortly after, in the same year, took
part in the defence of that fortified town against the
invaders, who kept prowling about it for about eight
months. During a period of four years, from the above
mentioned year up to the close of 620 H., during which the
Mughals made several attempts upon it, he helped to
defend it.
In 618 H., the year in which he says the Chingiz Khān
crossed the Jiḥūn into Khurasan, and he was in his thir-
tieth year, he married the daughter of a kinsman of his
own; and, in 620 H., he determined, as soon as circum-
stances permitted, to leave his native country, and proceed
into Hindustan, not liking, apparently, to dwell in a coun-
try overrun by the Mughal infidels. In 621 H. he was des-
patched from Tulak, where he was then living, and in the
defence of which against the Mughals he had just taken
part, by Malik Tāj-ud-Din, Ḥasan-i-Khar-post, to Isfizār,
after Khurāsān had become clear of Mughals, and from
thence into the Ķuhistan-the Chingiz Khān had, at that
time, returned homewards-to endeavour to arrange for
the re-opening of the karwan routes, which, during the
Mughal invasion, had been closed, and the traffic
suspended.
On a second occasion, in 622 H., he again proceeded
from Tulak into the Kuhistan for the same purpose, at
the request of Malik Rukn-ud-Din, Muḥammad, son of
'Uṣman, the Maraghani, of Khãesār of Ghūr, the father of
MEMOIR OF THE AUTHOR.
XXV
Malik Shams-ud-Din, Muḥammad, the first of the Kurat
dynasty, as the Tājzik—not Afghān, I beg leave to say—
rulers of the fiefs of Hirāt and Ghūr and their depen-
dencies, who were the vassals of the Mughals, were styled.
The following year he again set out on a journey into
the Ķuhistan, on the part of Malik Rukn-ud-Din, Mu-
ḥammad, that the karwan route might be re-opened.
From Khāesār he first went to Farah, and from thence
proceeded by way of Sijistān into the territory referred to,
and returned to Khāesār again.
In 623 H., our author, who appears to have left Tūlak and
was residing at Khãesar, with the permission of Malik Rukn-
ud-Din, Muḥammad, went to Farah in order to purchase a
little silk required by him for his journey into Hindūstān.
Having arrived in the neighbourhood of Farāh, Malik Tāj-
ud-Din, Bināl-Tigin, the Khwārazmi, who then ruled over
Sijistān, and was engaged in war with the Mulāḥidah of
the Kuhistan, induced him to undertake a journey into the
latter territory, to endeavour to bring about an accommo-
dation between himself and the Mulāḥidah governor of that
part, the Muḥtashim, Shams-ud-Din. Our author was
accompanied by the son of Malik Rukn-ud-Din, Mu-
ḥammad, whose name is not mentioned, but, in all pro-
bability, it was the identical Shams-ud-Din, Muḥammad,
the founder of the Kurat dynasty. Our author succeeded
in effecting an accommodation, but it does not appear to
have been on terms acceptable to Malik Taj-ud-Din, Bināl-
Tigin, for he wished him to return to the Muḥtashim's pre-
sence and declare war again. This he declined to do, as
he had several times put off his journey into Hind, and was
now desirous of departing without further delay, and before
the Mughals should again appear. Malik Taj-ud-Din,
Bināl-Tigin, was wroth at this refusal, and shut him up
within the walls of the fortress of Ṣafhed of Sijistān. There
he was detained for a period of forty-three days, but, Malik
Rukn-ud-Din, Muḥammad, having interfered in his behalf,
he was set at liberty.
He did not allow the grass to grow under his feet after
this; and in the fifth month of the following year-Jamādi-
ul-Awwal, 624 H., [in another place he says it was Rajab,
the seventh month, while in another place-page 612-he
xxvi
MEMOIR OF THE AUTHOR.
says it was in 625 H.], by way of Ghaznin and Baniān, he
reached Üchchah by boat; and, in the following Zi-Hijjah,
Sulṭān Nāṣir-ud-Din, Ķabā-jah, ruler of ŪÜchchah and
Multān, placed him in charge of the Firūzi College at
Üchchah, and made him Ķāzi of the forces of his son,
'Ala-ud-Din, Bahrām Shāh.
Our author could distinguish the winning side, and pre-
ferred it; for, no sooner had Sultan Shams-ud-Din, I-yal-
timish, ruler of Dihli, Ķabā-jah's rival, appeared before
Üchchah, than he deserted Ķabā-jah and the Firūzi Col-
lege, and went over to his rival. In the first place, our
author presented himself before Malik Tāj-ud-Din, Sanjar-i-
Gajz-lak Khan, who was in command of the van of I-yal-
timish's forces; and, a few days after, I-yal-timish himself
having arrived, he waited on him. He was favourably
received, and was appointed to officiate, in his priestly
capacity, within that Sultan's camp. After the fall of
Üchchah, he accompanied I-yal-timish to Dihli; and
reached it in Ramaṣān, 625 H.
He subsequently accompanied the Sulṭān, in his priestly
capacity, to Gwāliyūr in 629 H.; and, in the following year,
after that stronghold was taken possession of, was made
Kāzi, Khatib, and Imām of Gwāliyūr and its dependencies,
under the governor, Rashid-ud-Din, 'Ali. In the early
part of Sultan Raziyyat's reign he returned to Dihli, but
he was not removed from office, neither was he a for-
given rebel;"³ and, during his absence from Gwāliyūr, his
Deputies acted for him. On reaching the capital, in 635 H.,
that sovereign added to his offices that of Superinten-
dent of the Nāșiriah College at Dihli.
((
In the year 639 H., in the reign of Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din,
Bahrām Shāh, our author was made Chief Kazi of the Dihli
kingdom, and of the capital as well. In the disturbances
which arose between that Sulṭān and his Amirs, our
author, and other ecclesiastics, endeavoured to bring
about a peaceful accommodation, but without effect.
In Zi-Ka'dah of the same year, the Khwajah, Muḥazzab-
ud-Din, the Wazir, bribed a number of villains to murder
him; and, after the conclusion of the Friday's prayers, on
3 See page 1285, and Thomas's "Pathán Kings of Dehli," page 105.
MEMOIR OF THE AUTHOR.
xxvii
the 7th of that month, they actually attacked him in the
Jami' Masjid, but he escaped without hurt.
Soon after, on the accession of Sultan 'Ala-ud-Din,
Mas'ud Shah, on the Khwajah, Muḥazzab-ud-Din, being
re-appointed Wazir, our author, in 640 H., resigned the
Chief Ķāzi-ship, and in Rajab of that year left Dihli in
order to proceed into the territory of Lakhaṇawati. There
he remained about two years, and there he acquired his
information respecting it and its rulers. While residing in
that country, he accompanied Malik Tughril-i-Tughān
Khan in his expedition against the Rãe of Jāj-Nagar,
and was present at the attack on the frontier post of
Katāsin, in Shawwal, 641 H. On the removal of that
Malik from the government of Lakhanawați in 643 H., our
author accompanied him on his return to Dihli, and, in
Şafar of that year, presented himself at Court. Muḥazzab-
ud-Din had in the meantime been put to death by the
Amirs; and, through the interest and efforts of his subse-
quent munificent patron, Malik Ghiyas-ud-Din, Balban
(afterwards Ulugh Khan-i-A'zam, and subsequently Sultān
of Dihli), who held the office of Amir-i-Hajib, three days.
after his return, he was put in charge of the Naşiriah
College once more, and entrusted with the administration
of its endowments, the lecture-ship of the Jami' Masjid,
and the Ķāzi-ship of Gwaliyūr, according to the previous
grant. Subsequently, in the same year, he accompanied
the army which advanced to the banks of the river
Biah for the relief of Uchchah when invested by the
Mughals.
In 644 H., at Jalhandar [in the Panj-āb], on the return of
the army, on the occasion of performing the services pre-
scribed for the'Id-i-Azḥā in the hall of the College there, the
new Sultan, Naşir-ud-Din, Mahmud Shah, to whom this
History is dedicated, presented our author with a cloak, a
turban, and a richly caparisoned horse. In 645 H.,
In 645 H., he wrote
a description, in verse, of the expedition against Talsandah,
entitled the "Naşiri Namah." The Sultan rewarded him
for this with a yearly stipend, and Malik Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din,
Balban, the hero of the poem, and commander of the ex-
pedition, gave him the revenues of a village in the Hansi
province, which was that Malik's fief at that period. In
xxviii
MEMOIR OF THE AUTHOR.
649 H., for the second time, the Chief Ķāzi-ship of the Dihli
kingdom, with jurisdiction over the capital as well, was
conferred upon him; but, when, two years after, in 651 H.,
the eunuch, 'Imād-ud-Din-i-Rayḥān, succeeded in his con-
spiracy for the removal from office of our author's patron,
who had been raised to the title of Ulugh Khan-i-A'zam in
647 H., and he was banished the Court, our author, like
others of the Ulugh Khan's clients and supporters, was
removed from the office of Chief Kazi, and it was conferred
upon one of the Rayhani's creatures, notwithstanding our
author stood so high in the estimation of the weak and
puppet Sulṭān. In 652 H., matters improved a little a
new Wazir succeeded; and, while in the Kol district, whither
our author appears to have accompanied the Sultan's Court,
the title of Şadr-i-Jahan' was conferred upon him.
At the close of the following year the Rayḥāni was ousted
from office, the Ulugh Khan-i-A'zam again assumed the
direction of affairs, and our author, who, for months past,
had been unable, for fear of his life, to leave his dwelling,
even to attend the Friday's service in the Jami' Masjid, was,
in Rabi'-ul-Awwal, 653 H., for the third time, made Chief
Kazi of the Dihli kingdom, with jurisdiction over the
capital as before.
With the exception of his remark at page 715, in winding
up the events of the year 658 H., that if his life should be
spared-he was then in his seventieth year—and aptitude
should remain, whatever events might subsequently occur
would be recorded, our author henceforward disappears.
from the scene, and we hear no more of him. At the end
of his account of the Ulugh Khān-i-A'zam farther on, he
does not renew that promise, nor does he do so when finally
closing his History. The munificent rewards he received
on presenting copies of his work to the Sultan and to the
latter's father-in-law, the Ulugh Khan-i-A'zam, are men-
tioned at page 1294. He refers to his family casually,
now and then, in the following pages, but, with a single ex-
ception, enters into no particulars whatever. At page 820
he says, with reference to the Malik-ul-Hujjab [Head of
the Chamberlains], 'Ala-ud-Din, the Zinjäni, that he is "his
son, and the light of his eyes;" but he could not have been
1 See page 698, and note 8
•
MEMOIR OF THE AUTHOR.
xx
his son from the fact of his being styled "the Zinjāni,” tha
is to say, a native of Zinjān in Khurāsān. He may have
been his son-in-law, or an adopted son.
When the emissaries from Khurāsān were received by
the Sultan, Naşir-ud-Din, Maḥmūd Shāh, as related at
page 857, our author composed a poem befitting the occa-
sion, and this, he says, was read before the throne by one
of his sons. He also, in one place, refers to a brother.
Between the time when our author closes this History in
658 H., and the Ulugh Khan-i-A'zam succeeded to the
throne of Dihli under the title of Sultan Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din,
in 664 H.-the date generally accepted, although Faşiḥ-i
says it was in 662 H.-is a period of about six years; and,
as no other writer that we know of has recorded the events
of that period, it is a complete blank in Indian History,
which, I fear, cannot be filled up. Ziyā-ud-Din, Barani, in
his Tarikh-i-Firuz-Shahi, which is not much to be depended.
on, says he takes up the relation of events from the time
our author left off, but this is not correct, for he begins
with the reign of Sultan Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din, Balban.
Our author died in his reign, but when cannot be dis-
covered, neither can the place of his burial. Possibly some
inscription may hereafter turn up which may tell us, but
there is no record available in any of the works I have
waded through in search of the information. Whether his
health failed him; whether he grew out of favour with his
old patron, the new Sultan; or whether circumstances.
arose which, as regards the Ulugh Khan's conduct towards
the weak-minded, but amiable, Sultan, Naşir-ud-Din, Maḥ-
mud Shah, would not bear the light of day-for there are
vague statements of foul play on the part of the Ulugh
Khan, but no proofs-who shall say? Some writers state
that the Sultan died a natural death, which is most pro-
bable, and some further add that he, having neither off-
spring nor heir, nominated his father-in-law, the Ulugh
Khan-i-A'zam, his successor, which was but natural, seeing
that, for nearly twenty years, he had virtually ruled the
state. That the Ulugh Khan-i-A'zam poisoned him ap-
pears unworthy of credence, since, had he desired to sup-
plant him, or get rid of him, he might have effected either
object years before. See note, page 716.
xx
MEMOIR OF THE AUTHOR.
The only mention I can find, after much search, respect-
ing these years, between the closing of our author's History
and the accession of the new Sultan, is the following from
Faşiḥ-i. "Sultan Naşir-ud-Din, Maḥmud Shah, died in
this year, 662 H., and great anarchy and disorder arose
throughout the territory of Hindustan. At last, since
among the great Amirs of Hind, for prudence, counsel,
wisdom, munificence, dignity, magnificence, and power, the
Amir, Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din [the Ulugh Khān-i-A'zam] was pre-
eminently distinguished, and as he had obtained his freedom
previously—a matter never alluded to by our author—he,
with the unanimous accord of the great nobles and gran-
dees of the kingdom, ascended the throne of Dihli in the
beginning of this year, 662 H."
—
The Daghistāni, previously referred to, in his Tazkirah,
under the letters has the following :-" Sarāj-ud-
Din-i-Minhaj is the author of the Tabakat-i-Naşiri, which
he completed in the name of the Malik of Hind, Nāṣir-ud-
Din. His birthplace was Lahor, and his origin was from
Samr-kand."
This last sentence of the Daghistāni's is sufficient to
show that he is not entirely to be depended upon, in this
instance at least. Our author's family was not from Samr-
kand. The Daghistāni also gives the following as a
quatrain of our author's :-
"That heart which, through separation, thou madest sad;
From every joy that was, which thou madest bare of ;
;
From thy disposition I am aware that, suddenly and unexpectedly,
The rumour may arise that thou hast broken it."
In the “Akhbār-ul-Akhyār ”—a Biographical Collection
of Notices of Saints-of 'Abd-ul-Hakk [he died 1052 H.
1642 A.D.], the following will be found respecting our
author:-"The Shaikh, Ķāzi Minhaj, the Jurjāni, the
author of the Tabaķāt-i-Nāṣiri, was a saint, and one of the
most learned and excellent of his time, and one of those
who would become filled with religious ecstasies on hearing
the singing at Zikrs or Tazkirs. When he became Kazi of
Hindūstān that office assumed integrity and rectitude. The
Shaikh, Nizam-ud-Din, states "I used, every Monday,
5
Te
5 This. probably, is no other than the celete 8.
int of Dihli.
1
MEMOIR OF THE AUTHOR.
xxxi
to go to his Tazkirs, until, one day, when I was present at
one of them, he delivered this quatrain :-
"The lip, in the ruby lips of heart-ravishers delighting,
And to ruffle the dishevelled tresses essaying,
To-day is delightful, but to-morrow it is not-
To make one's self like as straw, fuel for the fire.'
“'When I heard this verse,' says the Shaikh, Nizām-ud-
Din, ' I became as one beside myself; and it was some time
before I came to my senses again.''
Our author appears to have been deeply imbued with
the tenets of Ṣūfi-ism, for a brief essay on which, see the
Introduction to my "Poetry of the Afghans." Professor
Sprenger tells me that he was a notorious Ṣūfi. A good
account of these Zikrs, or Tazkirs, will be found in the
notes to the Third Chapter of Lane's "Thousand and One
Nights."
Before closing this brief memoir of our author, it will be
necessary to mention the reasons which led him to write
this History. These he gives in the Preface dedicating the
work to the Sultan, Naşir-ud-Din, Maḥmūd Shah, and this
divested of much of its fulsome adulation and redundant
expressions, may well appear as the Preface to this
translation of his History.
1
THE AUTHOR'S PREFACE AND
DEDICATION.
IN the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate!
Thus sayeth Abu-'Umar-i-'Usman, son of Muḥammad-
al-Minhaj-al-Jurjāni, that, when, through the blessing of
Almighty God, the diadem and throne of the dominion of
Hindustan became graced by [encircling] the blessed head,
and adorned by [being pressed by] the august foot of that
Lord of the World, Naşir-ud-Dunyā wa ud-Din, Abū-l-
Muzaffar-i-Mahmud Shah, son of the Sultan, J-yal-timish
-May his reign long continue!-and the khutbah and
coin became embellished with his titles and his name, and,
during the reign of which august sovereign, the justice-seat
of the Kazi-ship of the empire of Hindustan was con-
signed to this loyal servant, on a certain occasion, in the
tribunal of law and justice, a book came under his obser-
vation which the learned and worthy of former times had
compiled for the edification of the select and distinguished!
of posterity. This had been taken from the annals of the
Prophets and Khalifahs-On whom be peace !—together
with their genealogies, and the histories of the reigns of
great Maliks [kings] of bygone times-The splendour of
the Almighty illumine their tombs !—and had been written
down in tabulated forms, and abbreviated after the manner
2
1 This Preface varies in some copies, particularly at the commencement,
to the extent of a page or more.
2 I do not find any trace in the Preface to either of the copies collated, of the
"tabular chronicle compiled by the Imâm Mohammad Ali Abu 1-Kâsim 1
Imâdi, in the time of Nâsir ol-dín Soboktikín," mentioned by Col. Lees,
LL. D., in the English Preface to the Calcutta Printed Text, nor is it to be
found in its Persian Preface. The words are .
کرده بودند
که افاضل سلف
The Imām's “Tārikh-i-Majdūl" is mentioned in Section XI.
THE AUTHOR'S PREFACE AND DEDICATION.
xxxiii
of an epitome, in the time of the Sultans of the dynasty
of Naşir-ud-Din, Sabuk-Tigin-The Almighty guard their
last resting-place!-from every flower-garden a flower;
from every sea a drop, they had brought together [in this
book]. After mentioning the Prophets, and giving their
genealogies, and that of the Khalifahs of the Bani-Um-
miyah and Bani-'Abbās, the Maliks of 'Ajam, and the
Akāsirah, they rested content with an account of the
family of the august Sulṭān, Maḥmūd-i-Sabuk-Tigin-i-
Ghāzi-On whom be peace!--and abstained from any
mention of other great Maliks, or the dynasties or annals
of the Sultans of the past.
This frail one desired, therefore, that this meagre History
should be filled up from first to last, from beginning to end,
with an account of the whole of the Maliks and Sultāns of
Islām, both of 'Arab and of 'Ajam, and that a candle out
of every dynasty should be enkindled in this assembly,
and that, to the head of every race, a cap might be stitched,
by the relation of events and occurrences and illustrious
actions. Therefore, an account is recorded here, of the
Tubba-yawa' of Yaman, and the Himyar Maliks; and,
after mention of the Khalifahs, an account of the Tahiris,
Şuffāris, Sāmānis, the dynasty of Buwiah, the Saljūķs, Rū-
mis, Shansabānis,and the Sulṭāns of that family who were
sovereigns of Ghūr, Ghaznin, and Hind, the Khwārazm-
Shāhis, the Kurd Maliks who are Sultāns of Sham,
and the Mu'izziah Maliks and Sultāns, who became
Badshahs on the thrones of Ghaznin and of Hind, up to
the present time, which is the reign of the heir to the
diadem and throne of the dominions of the I-yal-timishi
dynasty and house,
Sulṭān-ul-Mu'azzam, Sultān-us-Salāțin Fi-l-'Ālamin,
NĀȘIR-UD-DUNYA WA-UD-DÎN,
ABŪ-L-MUZAFFAR-I-MAHMUD SHĀH,
Yamin-i-Khalifah U'llah, Kasim-i-Amir-ul-Mūminin
-Khuld U'llah Saltanatahu!"
3 Signifying, The Supreme Sultan, The Sultan of the Sultans of the World,
The Defender of the World and of the Faith, The Victorious (or Accustomed
to Conquer), MAHMUD SHAH, The Right Hand of God's Khalifah, The Co-
Se Tubba-yane Lord of the Faithful—The Almighty perpetuate his Reign !
b
xxxiv
THE AUTHOR'S PREFACE AND DEDICATION.
and this History is reduced to writing, and adorned with
his august titles and name,' and is entitled the
TABAKĀT-I-NĀṢIRĪ.
It is his implicit hope, through the perfect grace of the
Creator, the Most High and Holy, that, when this book
shall be honoured by the blessed sight of this Badshah,
the Asylum of the World, it may meet with the felicity of
his approbation; and that from the zenith of the firma-
ment of benefaction, and the summit of the sphere of
favour, a ray of the royal grace may shine upon this
frail one; and, after his removal from this temporary
dwelling, from its readers may a kind invocation endure;
and, should they become cognizant of any error or omis-
sion, may they veil it with the skirt of the robe of for-
giveness, since whatever was to be found in trustworthy
chronicles is herein recorded.
4 In ELLIOT, vol. II., page 261, the editor, Mr. Dowson, tells us that,
"The eulogistic way in which he [our author] always speaks of the successor
of Násiru-d dín would induce the belief that the work appeared in the reign
of that Sultán, and the fact is proved by his more than once offering up an
ejaculatory prayer for the continuance of his reign." Again, at page 362 of
the same work, in a foot-note, we are informed that "The text says 'the
Sultán (may God prolong his reign);' plainly showing that this part of the
work [the notice of Ulugh Khan-the text at page 807 of this Translation is
referred to] was written in the reign of Balban.
22
What our author says above, as well as his other statements noticed in
the body of the work, and up to its very conclusion, are, perhaps, undoubted
proofs that this work was neither written, nor appeared, in Balban's reign.
CONTENTS.
Preface
Memoir of the Author.
Author's Preface and Dedication
Contents
•
Additional Notes and Emendations
Errata.
Introductory, being an Epitome of the First Six Sections
SECTION I.
Adam, the Patriarchs and Prophets, and the ancestors of Muḥammad
SECTION II.
The Four orthodox Khalifahs, the descendants of 'Ali, and the Com-
panions of the Prophet
SECTION III.
The Khalifahs of the house of Ummiyah
PAGE
V
xix
xxxi
XXXV
·
xlv
lvii
ib.
ib
ib.
SECTION IV.
The Khalifahs of the house of 'Abbās .
ib.
SECTION V.
The Maliks of 'Ajam to the rise of Islām :-
I. The Bastaniah or Pesh-Dādān
II. The Kaiāniān
III. The Ashkāniān
IV. The Sasāniān
V. The Akāsirah
•
•
2
3
4
ib.
5
SECTION VI.
The Tu'a-yawa', and Maliks of Yaman
I
b 2
xxxvi
CONTENTS.
SECTION VII.
The Dynasty of the Tahiri Muḥammadan Maliks in 'Ajam
I. Tahir-i-Zu-l-Yamanain
II. Talḥah, son of Tahir
III. 'Abd-ullah, son of Tahir
•
•
•
IV. Tahir, son of 'Abd-ullah, son of Tahir
V. Muhammad, son of Tahir, son of 'Abd-ullah
PAGE
9
II
12
13
14
•
15
SECTION VIII.
The Şuffariun Dynasty
I. Ya'ķūb, son of Lais, Ṣuffärì
II. 'Umro, son of Laiş, Şuffări
SECTION IX.
•
19
20
23
The Dynasty of the Sāmānis
Asad, son of Sāmān-i-Khaddāt
I. Aḥmad, son of Asad, son of Sāmān
II. Nasr, son of Aḥmad, Ṣāmāni
III. Ismā'il, son of Aḥmad, Sāmāni
IV. Abu Naṣr-i-Ahmad, son of Isma'il
V. Nasr, son of Aḥmad, son of Isma'il
VI. Nuḥ, son of Nașr, son of Aḥmad
VII. 'Abd-ul-Malik, son of Nuḥ
VIII. Manṣur, son of Nūḥ
IX. Nūḥ, son of Manṣur, son of Nūḥ
X. Manṣur, son of Nūḥ, son of Manṣūr
XI. Abu-l-Fawāris-i-'Abd-ul-Malik, son of Nūḥ
•
26
27
28
29
31
•
33
35
38
40
4I
44
48
5C
SECTION X.
The Dynasty of the Dialamah Maliks at the Dar-ul-Khilafat of Baghdad,
and in 'Irāk.
I. Abū-l-Ḥasan, son of Buwiah, Ud-Dilami
II. Al-Ḥasan, son of Buwiah, Ud-Dilami
•
•
III. Bakht-yār, son of Al-Ḥasan, son of Buwiah, Ud-Dilami
IV. Fanā Khusrau, son of Al-Hasan, son of Buwiah, Ud-Dilami
V. Al-Marzabān, son of Fanā Khusrau, Ud-Dilami
VI. Abū-l-Fawāris-i-Mākān, son of Fanā Khusrau, Ud-Dilami
•
55
58
59
бо
6:
6₁
6
SECTION XI.
The Dynasty of the Yaminiah, Al-Maḥmūdiah Sovereigns of the race of
Sabuk-Tigin
I. Amir-ul-Ghāzi, Nāṣir-ud-Din-U'llah, Sabuk-Tigin
II. Sulṭān-ul-A'zam, Yamin-ud-Daulah, Nizam-ud-Din, Abu-l-
Ķāsim, Maḥmūd-i-Ghāzi, son of Sabuk-Tigin
III. Amir Muḥammad, son of Maḥmūd.
6
7
S
78
CONTENTS.
xxxvii
IV. Sulṭān Nāṣir-ud-Din-U'llah, Mas'ud, the Martyr
V. Shihab-ud-Daulah, Maudūd, son of Mas'ūd
VI. 'Ali, son of Mas'ud, and Muḥammad, son of Maudud, in
Association.
VII. 'Abd-ur-Rashid, son of Maḥmūd
VIII. Tughril, Al-Mal'un, or The Execrated
PAGE
91
95
97
IX. Farrukh-Zad, son of Mas'ūd
•
98
99
100
•
X. Sultan Ibrahim, Sayyid-us-Salātin
102
XII. Malik Arsalan, son of Mas'ud .
XI. 'Ala-ud-Din,
Ibrahim
XIII. Mu'izz-ud-Daulah wa ud-Din, Bahrām Shāh
XIV. Khusrau Shah, son of Bahram Shāh
XV. Khusrau Malik, son of Khusrau Shah, the Last of the Mahmudi-
ah Dynasty.
Mas'ud-al-Karim, or the Beneficent, son
of
106
•
107
109
III
·
114
The Dynasty of the Saljukiah
I. Tughril, son of Mikā’il
SECTION XII.
II. Malik Da'ūd-i-Jaghar Beg, son of Mika'il.
III. Sulṭān Alb-Arsalān-i-Ghāzi, son of Dā'ūd-i-Jaghar Beg
IV. Sultan Jalāl-ud-Din, Malik Shah, son of Alb-Arsalān
V. Muḥammad, son of Malik Shah
VI. Sulṭān-ul-A'zam, Mu'izz-ud-Dunyā wa ud-Din,
Malik Shah.
•
Account of the Sultāns of Rum of the Saljūķiah Dynasty
I. Mahmud, son of Malik Shāh
II. Mas'ud, son of Mahmud Shāh
•
116
122
126
·
•
132
137
143
ud-Din, Sanjar, son of
146
•
157
159
ib.
160
ib.
•
161
•
•
ib.
162
•
163
164
165
III. Ķizil-Arsalan, son of Mas'ud, son of Maḥmūd, son of Malik
Shāh
IV. Ķulij-Arsalan, son of Ķizil-Arsalān .
V. 'Izz-ud-Din, Kai-Kā-ūs, son of Ķizil-Arsalān
VI. Kai-Kubād, son of Kai-Ka-ūs ..
VII. Kai-Khusrau, son of Kai-Kubād
VIII. 'Izz-ud-Din, son of Kai-Khusrau
IX. Kutb-ud-Din, Kulij-Arsalan
X. Tughril, son of Tughril
•
•
SECTION XIII.
Account of the Sanjariyah Rulers.
168
First Dynasty.
The Sanjariyah Maliks of 'Irāk and Ázarbāijān :-
I. The Atā Bak, Ilatt-Giz, Us-Sanjari .
•
II. The Atā-Bak, Muḥammad, son of Ïlatt-Giz
III. The Atā-Bak, Yūz-Bak, son of Muḥammad, Us-Sanjari
IV. The Ata-Bak, Abu-Bikr, son of Muhammad
·
170
•
171
172
173
xxxviii
CONTENTS.
Second Dynasty.
The Sanjariyah Maliks of Fars :-
I. The Atā-Bak Sunkar, Us-Sanjari
II. The Ata-Bak, Zangi, son of Sunkar
III. The Ata-Bak, Duklah, son of Sunkar
IV. The Ata-Bak, Sa'd, son of Zangi
V. The Ata-Bak, Abu-Bikr, son of Sa'd
Third Dynasty.
The Sanjariyah Maliks of Nishāpūr :-
I. Malik Mu-ayyid, Us-Sanjari
II. Malik Tughãn Shāh, son of Mu-ayyid
III. Sanjar Shah, son of Tughān Shāh
SECTION XIV.
The Maliks of Sijistan and Nimroz
I. Tahir, son of Muḥammad
.
•
•
•
PAGE
173
175
ib.
176
179
180
181
182
•
183
184
187
II. Malik Tāj-ud-Din, Abū-l-Fatḥ, son of Tahir
III. Malik-us-Sā'is, Shams-ud-Din, Muḥammad, son of Tāj-ud-Din 189
IV. Malik-us-Sa'id, Taj-ud-Din-i-Harab, son of Muḥammad .
V. Malik Nāṣir-ud-Din, 'Usman-i-Ḥarab, son of Tāj-ud-Din
VI. Malik ul-Ghāzi, Yamin-ud-Daulah wa ud-Din, Bahram Shāh,
son of Tāj-ud-Din-i-Ḥarab
•
VII. Malik Nusrat-ud-Din, son of Malik Yamin-ud-Din, Bahrām
Shāh
•
VIII. Malik Rukn-ud-Din, Maḥmūd, son of Yamin-ud-Din, Bahrām
Shāh
IX. Malik Shihāb-ud-Din, Maḥmūd, son of Ḥarab .
•
191
193
194
•
196
•
197
198
SECTION XV.
The Kurdiah Maliks of Shām
1. Sultan Nür-ud-Din, Mahmud-i-Zangi
II. Malik-us-Ṣāliḥ, 'Ali, son of Maḥmūd-i-Zangi
III. Malik Aiyūb, son of Shādi
IV. Malik Asad-ud-Din, son of Shādi, in Mișr
•
V. Sulṭān Şalāḥ-ud-Din, Yusuf, son of Aiyub-al-Kurdi
VI. Malik-ul-Afzal, 'Ali, son of Ṣalāḥ-ud-Din, Yūsuf
VII. Malik-ul-'Aziz, 'Uṣmăn, son of Salãḥ-ud-Din, Yūsuf
VIII. Malik-ul-'Ādil, Abū-Bikr, son of Aiyub al-Kurdi
•
203
ib.
205
207
208
•
•
214
222
•
•
223
224
IX. Malik-ul-Mu'azzam, 'Īsā, son of Abu-Bikr, son of Aiyub-al-
Kurdi.
•
227
X. Malik-ul-Kamil, son of Abu-Bikr, son of Aiyūb-al-Kurdi.
XI. Malik-uş-Şāliḥ, son of Al-Kamil, son of Abu-Bikr, son of Aiyub-
al-Kurdi
228
229
SECTION XVI.
The Maliks of the Khwārazm-Shahiah Dynasty
231
1. Kutb-ud-Dunya wa ud-Din, I-bak, the Turk
ib.
CONTENTS.
xxxix
VI. Sultan Jalāl-ud-Din, Maḥmūd, son of I-yal- Arsalān.
II. Malik Tāj-ud-Din, Muḥammad, son of Ï-bak.
III. Malik Jalāl-ud-Din, Utsuz, Khwārazm Shāh, son of Tāj-ud-Din,
Muḥammad.
IV. Malik I-yal-Arsalan, son of Jalal-ud-Din, Utsuz
V. Sultan Takish, son of I-yal-Arsalān
VII. Yūnas Khan, son of Takish, Khwārazm Shāh.
PAGE
234
236
238
•
239
•
245
249
VIII., Malik Khan, son of Takish, Khwārazm Shāh
IX. 'Ali Shah, son of Takish, Khwārazm Shāh
250
252
X. Sultan 'Ala-ud-Din, Muḥammad, son of Takish, Khwārazm
Shāh.
253
XI. Kutb-ud-Din, Arzalū Shāh, son of Muḥammad, son of Takish,
Khwārazm Shāh .
279
XII. Sultan Rukn-ud-Din, Ghūri Shānasti, son of Muḥammad, Khwā-
razm Shāh.
281
XIII. Malik Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din, Ak Sulṭān, son of Muḥammad, Khwā-
razm Shāh.
282
•
XIV. Sulṭān Jalāl-ud-Din, Mang-Barni, son of Sultan Muhammad,
Khwärazm Shāh .
•
285
SECTION XVII.
The Shansabaniah Sultāns, and the Maliks of Ghur
Account of the First [Ancestors] of the Family, their Genealogy, and
their Progenitors, up to Zuḥāk, surnamed Tāzi
Account of Busṭām, Malik of Hind and Sind
I. Amir Pūlād [or Fūlād], Ghūri, Shansabi
II. Amir Banji, son of Nahārān, Shansabi
III. Sūri, son of Muḥammad
•
IV. Malik Muḥammad, son of Sūri
V. Malik Abū-'Ali, son of Muḥammad, son of Surt
VI. Malik 'Abbas, son of Muḥammad, son of Suri
VII. Amir Muḥammad, son of 'Abbās
•
300
302
305
311
ib.
316
320
325
•
330
332
VIII. Malik Kutb-ud-Din, Al-Hasan, sun of Muḥammad, son of
'Abbās.
333
IX. Malik 'Izz-ud-Din, Al-Husain, Abū-us-Salāṭin, son of Ķutb-
ud-Din, Al-Hasan
335
X. Malik-ul-Jibal, Kutb-ud-Din, Muḥammad, son of ['Izz-ud-Din]
Al-Husain
338
XI. Sultan Bahā-ud-Din, Sām, son of 'Izz-ud-Din, Al-Husain
XII. Malik Shihab-ud-Din, Muhammad [Kharnak], son of Al-
Husain, Malik of Mādin of Ghūr
341
XIII. Malik Shujā'-ud-Din, Abi-'Ali, son of Al-Husain [son of Sām],
son of Al-Hasan, Shansabi
343
•
XIV. Sulṭān 'Ala-ud-Din, Al-Husain, son of 'Izz-ud-Din, Al-
345
Husain, son of Sam, son of Al-Hasan
347
XV. Malik Naşir-ud-Din, Al-Husain, son of Muḥammad, Madini
XVI. Sultan Saif-ud-Din, Muḥammad, son of Sultan 'Ala-ud-Din,
364
Al-Husain
365
XVII. Sultan-ul-A'zam, Ghiyāṣ-ud-Dunya wa ud-Din, Abu-l-Fatḥ,
Muḥammad, son of Baha-ud-Din, Sam, Kasim-i-Amir-ul-
Mūminin
368
xl
CONTENTS.
XVIII. Malik-ul-Ḥāji, ’Alā-ud-Din, Muḥammad, son of Malik Shujā’-
ud-Din, Abi-'Ali, son of 'Izz-ud-Din, Al-Husain, son of Al-
Hasan, Shansabi
XIX. Sulṭān Ghiyāṣ-ud. Din, Maḥmud, son of Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din,
Muḥammad, son of Baha-ud-Din, Sām, Shansabi
XX. Sulṭān Bahā-ud-Din, Sām, son of Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din, Maḥmūd,
son of Ghiyās-ud-Din, Muḥammad, son of Bahā-ud-Din,
Sām, Shansabi .
PAGE
391
396
XXII. Sulṭān 'Alā-ud-Din, Muḥammad, son of Shujā'-ud-Din, Abū-
'Ali, the Last of the Sultāns of Ghūr .
XXI. Sulṭān 'Alā-ud-Din, Utsuz, son of Sulṭān 'Alā-ud-Din, Al-
Husain, Jahan-soz
408
413
417
SECTION XVIII.
The Shansabāni Sulṭāns of Tukhāristān and Bāmiān
I. Malik Fakhr-ud-Din, Mas'ud, son of 'Izz-ud-Din, Al-Husain,
Shansabi
421
II. Sultan Shams-ud-Din, Muḥammad, son of Mas'ūd, son of Al-
Husain, Shansabi
422
425
Muḥammad
·
•
428
III. Sulṭān Bahā-ud-Din, Sām, son of Sultān Shams-ud-Din,
IV. Sulṭān Jalāl-ud-Din, 'Ali, son of Bahā-ud-Din, Sām, Bāmiāni . 432
SECTION XIX.
The Sultans of Ghaznin of the Shansabaniah Dynasty
•
I. Sultan Saif-ud-Din, Sūri, son of 'Izz-ud-Din, Al-Husain
II. Sultan-ul-A'zam, Mu'izz-ud-Dunya wa ud-Din, Abu-l-Muzaffar,
Muḥammad, son of Baha-ud-Din, Sām, Ķasim-i-Amir-ul-
Mūminin
•
III. Sulṭān 'Alā-ud-Din, Muḥammad, son of Baha-ud-Din, Muḥam-
mad-i-Sām, of Bāmiān
•
IV. Sulṭān Taj-ud-Din, Val-dūz, al-Mu'izzi, us-Sultāni
V. Sultan-ul-Karim, Kutb-ud-Din, I-bak, al-Mu'izzi, us-Sultāni
SECTION XX.
Account of the Mu'izziah Sultāns of Hind
I. Sultan Kuṭb-ud-Din, I-bak, al-Mu'izzi, us-Sultāni
II. Sulṭān Ārām Shāh, son of Sulṭān Ķuṭb-ud-Din, Ï-bak
III. Malik [Sulṭān] Nāṣir-ud-Din, Ķabā-jah, al-Mu'izzi, us-Sulṭāni.
IV. Malik [Sulṭān] Bahā-ud-Din, Tughril, al-Mu'izzi, us-Sulṭāni
V. Malik-ul-Ghāzi, Ikhtiyār-ud-Din, Muḥammad, son of 'Bakht-
yār, Khalji, in Lakhaṇawați.
VI. Malik 'Izz-ud-Din, Muhammad, son of Sheran, Khalji
VII. Malik 'Alā-ud-Din, 'Ali, son of Mardān, Khalji
VIII. Malik [Sulṭān] Ḥusām-ud-Din, 'Iwaz, son of Husain, Khalji
438
ib.
446
492
496
•
506
•
508
512
528
531
·
544
548
573
576
•
580
SECTION XXI.
The Shamsi Sultāns of Hind
I. Sulṭān ul-Mu'azzam, Shams-ud-Dunya wa ud-Din, Abū-l-Muzaf-
far, I-yal-timish, the Sulțăn
•
596
•
597
CONTENTS.
xli
II. Malik-us-Sa'id, Nāṣir-ud-Din, Maḥmud Shāh, son of Sulṭān
Shams-ud-Din, I-yal-timish.
III. Sulṭān Rukn-ud-Din, Firūz Shah, son of the Sultan [I-yal-
timish]
PAGE
628
630
IV. Sulṭān Raziyyat-ud Dunya wa ud-Din, daughter of Sultan I-yal-
timish .
637
V. Sulṭān Mu'izz-ud-Dunyā wa ud-Din, Bahrām Shāh, son of
Sultan I-yal-timish
649
660
Year: 644 H.
VI. Sulṭān 'Alā-ud-Dunyā wa ud-Din, Mas'ūd Shāh, son of Sulṭān
Rukn-ud-Din, Firuz Shāh
•
VII. Us-Sultan-ul-A'zam ul-Mu'azzam, Nāṣir-ud-Dunya wa ud-Din,
Abu-l-Muzaffar-i-Maḥmud Shah, son of the Sultan [I-yal-
timish], Kasim-i-Amir-ul-Muminin
Events of the First
669
·
675
Second
645 H.
679
""
Third
646 H.
683
Fourth
647 H.
685
Fifth
648 H.
687
وو
Sixth
649 H.
689
""
Seventh
650 H.
692
>>
Eighth
651 H.
693
Ninth
Tenth
Eleventh
652 H.
696
653 H.
701
-654 H.
704
Twelfth
༤
""
"
655 H.
706
Thirteenth
"
656 H.
711
Fourteenth
་
657 H.
712
Fifteenth
">
"
658 H.
•
714
SECTION XXII.
Account of the Shamsiah Maliks in Hind
I. Tāj-ud-Din, Sanjar-i-Gajz-lak Khān
II. Malik 'Izz-ud-Din, Kabir Khan, Ayaz i-Hazār-Mardah, ul-
Mu'izzi
III. Malik Naşir-ud-Din, Ai-Yitim-ul-Bahā-i
IV. Malik Saif-ud-Din, Ï-bak-i-Ūchchah
V. Malik Saif-ud-Din, I-bak-i-Yughan-Tat
VI. Malik Nusrat-ud-Din Ta-yasa'i [Tai-shi]
VII. Malik 'Izz ud-Din, Tughril-i-Tughan Khān
VIII. Malik Kamar-ud-Din, Ķi-rān-i-Tamur Khān, us-Sulṭāni
•
719
►
722
1
724
727
•
729
731
732
736
IX. Malik Hindū Khān, Mu-ayyid-ud-Din, Mihtar-i-Mubārak, ul-
Khāzin, us-Sultāni
X. Malik Ikhtiyar-ud-Din, Karä-Kush Khan-i-Aet-kin
XI. Malik Ikhtiyār-ud-Din, Altuniah, of Tabarhindah.
XII. Malik Ikhtiyār-ud-Din, Aet-kin
XIII. Malik Badr-ud-Din, Sunkar-i-Rūmi
XIV. Malik Tāj-ud-Din, Sanjar-i-Kik-luk
XV. Malik Taj-ud-Din, Sanjar-i-Kuret Khān
XVI. Malik Saif-ud-Din, Bat Khan, I-bak-i-Khiṭā-i
XVII. Malik Tāj-ud-Din, Sanjar-i-Tez Khān
XVIII. Malik Ikhtiyār-ud-Din, Yüz-bak-i-Tughril Khān
742
•
744
•
746
748
749
·
752
•
754
756
757
759
•
761
xlii
CONTENTS.
XIX. Malik Tāj-ud-Din, Arsal in Khan, Sanjar-i-Chast.
PAGE
•
766
787
XX. Malik 'Izz-ud-Din, Balba-i-Kashlū Khān, us-Sulṭāni, Shamsi 775
XXI. Malik Nusrat Khan, Bad:-ud-Din, Sunkar-i-Ṣūfi, Rūmi
XXII. Az-Kulli Dād-Bak, Malik Saif-ud-Din, Ï-bak-i-Shamsi, 'Ajami 788
XXIII. Malik Nusrat-ud-Din, Sher Khan, Sunkar-i-Saghalsus
XXIV. Malik Saif-ud-Din, Ï-bak-i-Kashli Khān, us-Sulṭāni
XXV. Ul-Khākān-ul-Mu'azzam-ul-A'zam, Baha-ul-Hakk wa ud-Din,
Ulugh Khan-i-Balban, us-Sultāni
•
791
795
•
799
SECTION XXIII.
The Affairs of Islam, and Irruption of the Infidels
First Inroad of the Turks of Karah Khitā
I. Account of the Outbreak of the Chingiz Khan, the Mughal
History of the events which happened in Islām
Account of the crossing of the river Jiḥun by the troops of the
Chingiz Khan towards Khurāsān .
•
869
900
935
968
ΙΟΟΙ
Account of the passage of the river Jiḥun by the Chingiz Khan. 1008
Account of the coming of Sultan Jalāl-ud-Din, Mang-Barni, son
of Sultan Muhammad, Khwārazm Shah, to Ghaznin, and the
events that befell him there
Account of the taking of Walkh of Tukhāristān
Account of the capture of the cities of Khurāsān, and the mar-
tyrdom of their inhabitants
Account of the calamities which befell the territory of Khurāsān
the second time
Account of the capture of the Forts of Kāl-yun and Fiwār.
Account of the events which happened in Ghūr, Gharjistān, and
Firuz-Koh
•
1012
·
1023
1026
•
1042
•
1051
1055
Account of the events which took place before the fort of Saif-
Rūd of Ghūr
1062
•
•
1071
•
•
1077
. 1096
•
1104
Fall of the fort of Ashiyār of Gharjistān, and other fortresses
Account of the return of the Chingiz Khăn towards Turkistān,
and his departure to hell
II. Tūshi, son of the Chingiz Khān
III. Uktãe, son of the Chingiz Khān
Account of the nomination of armies from Turkistan to proceed
into the territory of 'Irāk
Account of the despatching of Mughal armies to proceed towards
Ghaznin and Luhāwar .
Account of the death of Uktãe, son of the Chingiz Khān .
IV. Chaghatãe, son of the Chingiz Khān-May God's curse
upon him!
•
V. Kyuk, son of Uktãe, son of the Chingiz Khān
Account of a Musalman miracle
The decease of Kyuk, the Accursed.
•
VI. Bātū, son of Tushi, son of the Chingiz Khān
An astonishing anecdote.
•
be
1115
1126
•
1136
•
1144
·
1148
1157
1160
•
. 1164
•
VII. Mangū Khān, son of Tūli Khan, son of the Chingiz Khān
Account of the fall of the Mulāḥidahs-on the whole of whom
be God's curse!
.
1173
1176
1187
CONTENTS.
xliii
An account of the misfortune which happened to the Muḥtashim,
Shams-ud-Din
VIII. Hulākū, son of Tuli, son of the Chingiz Khān
Account of the fall of the capital of the Khilafat
Account of the martyrdom of the Lord of the Faithful, Al-Musta'-
șim B’illah—the Almighty reward him!
Account of the march of Hulākū towards Ḥalab and Shām
Account of the miracle [which happened in behalf] of the Musal-
māns of Mayyā-fāriķin
•
Another miracle [wrought in behalf] of the Musalmāns
Account of the conversion of Barkā Khãn, son of Tushi Khãn,
son of the Chingiz Khan, the Mughal
•
Anecdote respecting Barka Khan's zeal in the Musalman faith
First statement
Second statement
Conclusion
Appendix A.
Appendix B.
Appendix C.
Appendix D. .
•
•
PAGE
1212
•
1225
1228
1252
1262
•
1270
1279
•
1283
1288
•
1287
•
1290
•
1293
i
vii
xiii
xxiii
ADDITIONAL NOTES AND EMENDATIONS.
THERE is some disadvantage in publishing an extensive History of this
kind in parts after each portion is completed, because any extra information
obtained during the progress of the work cannot be inserted in its proper place.
To remedy this, as much as possible, I have embodied here such further infor-
mation in the form of Additional Notes and Emendations.
S
ر
Page 34. Further research shows that Arg or Ark--is an error of the
copyists for Ūk--the having been mistaken for as suggested in
note. The word is correctly given in the last Section.
1124, and note, page 1122, para. 5. It was a celebrated fortress of Sijistān,
and was still an important place when Amir Timūr took it.
See pages 1120,
Page 36.- Sanjaris," in note 9, taken from Faşiḥ-i, is an error for Sijizis
or Sigizis, that is to say Sijistānis or Sigistānis. See note 6, page 34. This
error is frequently made by oriental authors as well as scribes.
Page 52, note 9.—All the copies of the text are wrong with respect to this
word, and have for Üz-kand of Turkistan is meant, not Ūrganj the
capital of Khwārazm. See note 7, page 1097.
Page 68, line 5.-There is no doubt whatever as to the meaning of the text
here respecting Sabuk-Tigin's nickname; and that one man could possibly be
nicknamed "black troop," or "black uproar," is very improbable. See note 4,
page 852, and Elliot's India, vol. viii., page xii., where, if not "ghaughá,'
there is, at least, "ghubär-angezi." I have not followed the printed text in
this Translation, because it is very incorrect as well defective.
ج
>>
The Turk Amir-ul-Umarā of Baghdad, who was accidentally killed by
some Kurds in 329 H., bore the name of Buj-kum [], as written with the
vowel points, which is the same word as I supposed that applied to Sabuk-
Tigin to be from the way it was written in one copy of the text, which
Turkish word means, in the Tajzik language, ghajz-ghão [, ]. See the
last para. of note 4, and the Bodleian copy of the Kitab-ul-Kamil of 'Izz-ud-
Din-i-Ibn-ul-Aşir, under the year 329 H. It is therefore quite clear that Jūk
[not Ḥūk (59), which is the same word less the vowel point of left out by
the copyists: a similar name occurs at page 477], entitled Sabuk-Tigin, was,
by his Turkish comrades, nicknamed "the Ķarā Buj-kum," the Tājzik trans-
lation of which is "the Siyah Ghajz-Ghão," which is the Kutās of Mirzā
Haidar, the Doghlāti Mughal, who gives a description of that immense and
formidable animal. The English translation thereof is "The Black Wild
Vāk," siyah here signifying furious as well as black, and the Turkish karā
will bear the same construction. See note at page 922, and at 948, para. 2.
Page 77, note 2, para. 1.-There is no doubt whatever as to the point of
junction of the rivers of Nūr and Ķirāt at Darūnṭhah, now a well-known place.
The words in the original are
but the printer has carelessly let
xlvi
ADDITIONAL NOTES AND EMENDATIONS.
the drop out after the type was set up, and the proof passed for press. I
have described the Darah of Nur, as well as Darunthah, in my "NOTES ON
AFGHANISTAN," page 108, and there they will be found. Mr. Dowson ap-
pears to have forgotten what is contained in his second vol., page 465. See
also vol. i. page 394, which is certainly amusing.
Page 95.-The fortress of Giri here mentioned, I believe, refers to the
fortress of Gibar Kot in Bajawṛ. See "Notes on Afghanistan," page 117.
The word "Tahkri" in para. 5 should be "Tighari.”
Page 101.-The singular of the word murghan [], which I have
rendered "carrier pigeons," 'signifies a bird absolutely" [ alles], and
not a fowl only, as Mr. Dowson imagined; and as fowls do not carry news,
and carrier pigeons are referred to by the same word as is here used in note 5,
page 1280, para. 4, I had no hesitation in adopting the rendering I have,
Another proof that carrier pigeons were meant is the fact that one day was not
sufficient to convey the news from Ghaznin to the fortress of Baz-Ghund, after-
wards known as Kūshk-i-Sulṭān, for that was at Firūz-Koh, a distance of about
240 miles as the crow flies, and a very difficult tract of country to traverse.
Pages 104, 105. —There is an error here respecting our author's ancestors,
caused by some confusion in most copies of the text, which have "great-great-
grandfather," whereas, from his statements elsewhere, his third ancestor, or
great-grandfather is meant. It should stand "great-grandfather" at page 104,
and “That princess bore him a son, whom he named Ibrāhim, and he was
the father of the Maulānā, Minhaj-ud-Din, 'Uṣmān-i-Ibrāhim, upon whom be
the mercy of the Almighty! The Maulānā, Minhaj-ud-Din, was the father of
the Maulānā, Sarāj-ud-Din,” etc., etc.
ره
Page 106.-The text is not as 98, dis" chand barah wa kasbah "—as
Mr. Dowson imagined; and even if it were, although bārah means "walls,"
it does not mean a fortification," much less " fortifications," but the text has
8ļ—pārah—not "bārah," and no- and the signification, of the sentence,
in the idiom of the East, is as rendered in the Translation. The very same
word occurs at page 821-ro of the printed text-but that Mr. Dowson
leaves untranslated. See also printed text, page or and page 1294 of this
Translation.
Mr. Dowson (Elliot's India, vol. viii., p. xi.) is very wroth with me about
my criticisms, to one of the errors in which work the above refers, and says
he has "noticed them, and examined them seriatim," but this is a mistake,
and the "Cradle of Irák," in note 6, page 107, is one of very many others to
which, very wisely, he has not referred.
ممالك غزنين گرمسیر سير و .as و گرم
Page 107.-The words of the text are not los 9 mm as Mr.
Dowson assumed, except in the printed text, in which, two words have been
left out before and the first, is redundant. The reason why Arsalan
assumed the throne in the Garmsir, instead of waiting until he reached
Ghaznin, the capital, is elsewhere explained.
Page 112, note ³, para. 2.-There seems to be an error of ten years here.
The writer doubtless meant the year of the Riḥlat, instead of the Hijrat,
which would make a difference of ten years. Our author distinctly states, at
page 111, that Bahram Shāh was succeeded by his son, Khusrau Shāh, in
552 H.
See note, and note 2, page 347.
Page 115. Our author has made a mistake here, or rather, his copyists for
him, of ten years, for, as related at pages 378, 457, and in other places, the
campaign against Sultan Shah in Khurāsān occurred in 587 H. See also
Appendix A., page ii.
ADDITIONAL NOTES AND EMENDATIONS.
xlvii
"Amir
Page 122, note 8.-The proper title and names of this Chief are
'Imād-ud-Daulah, Dā'ūd-i-Jaghar Beg, or Jaghari Beg," son of Mika'il
[Faşiḥ-i says, son of Taghari Beg], son of Abu-Sulimān, son of Saljuk. The
word Mikā'il has been left out accidentally after Jaghar Beg.
?
Page 154, line 6 after poetry.—The word Kabalik, written in the text
is an error for Kaiālik--the was made by the copyists. For the
details respecting it see page 900, and note 2. Kara-Khita-i in the same
paragraph should be Kara-Khitae, the latter word, or Ķarā-Khiṭā, being
the proper name, the substantive, applied to the country, and the former,
the adjective, applied to the people, as correctly given a few lines under, and
farther on.
Pages 159, 160.-Kizil is the more correct mode of writing this Turkish
word, signifying "red," and so it should be read in all cases.
Page 162, note 2.-The Nu-in or Nu-yan, Tāju, is the same leader as is
mentioned at page 1237, and is the Tanju of the Pro-Mughal writers. See
note at page 1191, line 10.
Page 163, note 5, line 9.—“ Abghā" Khān cannot be correct, for the period
indicated was the interregnum which occurred between the death of Kyūk
Khan, and the accession of Mangū Ķā'ān in 648 H. Āb-ghā, Āb-ķā, Abāghā,
or Abāķā Khān, Hulākū's son, appears to be referred to here, and he only
succeeded his father in 661 H. See note at page 1287, para. 2.
Page 164, line 15.-The Nu-in, Aljaktā, here mentioned, is the Aljaktãe,
or, more correctly, Iljidãe, Ilchikdae, or Īlchiktāe, as it is variously written,
Much about the latter Sultans of Rūm will be found
the desolator of Hirāt.
in note 7, page 1261.
Page 188. The campaign against Khiṭā mentioned here refers to the war
with the Gur Khan of Kara-Khitae, mentioned at pages 261 and 934.
'
Page 201.- Arg of Sistān." This refers, as previously mentioned, to Ūk.
According to the Pro-Mughal writers, the investment took place in 627 H.,
but it actually commenced in 625 H., and terminated in 627 H., the place
having held out nineteen months. See page 1120.
Page 224 and note 3.-The chroniclers of the Crusades say that "it was
proposed that Joan of Sicily, sister of Richard Coeur de Lion, should be given
in marriage to Saphaddin," as they write the title, Saif-ud-Din, "and that
Jerusalem should be yielded to the parties in this strange alliance." The
Princess, however, refused to give her consent, and so the affair came to
nothing.
Page 233, line 6.-After Muḥammad there should be an izafat, namely,
"Muḥammad-i-'Usman," because 'Usman was his father. See page 1198.
Page 233, line 12, and note .-Ṣuḥāri is the same place as is referred to
at page 227, and again at page 237, where it is said to be in Turkistan.
Page 235, line 12.-This well-known place is called Guzarwan, and Juzarwān
by 'Arabs, and people of 'Arab descent. Its correct name, according to the
pronunciation of the people inhabiting it, was Gujzarwān, as mentioned in the
note below. See note 2, pages 257 and 258, and pages 376 and 475.
Page 239, note 1.-There is an error here: it should be sixteen, not
"eight" years, for, from 551 H., as mentioned in the preceding note, to
567 H., is a period of sixteen years.
Page 254, line 18.—At page 240 the Khan of Kifchak is styled Akrān or
Ikrān. This was his Turkish name, and Kadr, which is 'Arabic-Kadr Khãn
—his Musalmān title only. Our author, to avoid confusion, ought to have
given both.
xlviii
ADDITIONAL NOTES AND EMENDATIONS.
Page 257, note 2, line 7.-Shihab was his first title, by which some Indian
Muḥammadan writers, who knew not the fact of the change, nearly, if not
always, incorrectly style him. His elder brother and sovereign assumed a
new title on ascending the throne, and a new one was also assigned to Shihab-
ud-Din, his brother, See page 370.
Page 260, and note 7, para. 5.-Ķulij Khān cannot refer to the Gur Khān,
for his Khiṭā-i name, which is very different, is given at page 928, and Ķulij
is again mentioned distinct from the Gür Khān.
Page 263, note 1.-The frontiers of Jund are referred to here; and the
correct name of the territory referred to in the following para. is Saghnāk, as
confirmed by other writers.
Page 267.-The Kadr Khan, son of Yusuf, here mentioned, is the same
person as is referred to at page 1097, as son of Safaktan-i-Yamak. It
appears, therefore, that, in this instance also, Yusuf is his Musalmān name,
and Safaktan his Turkish name. The Yighur, or Ï-ghur, here mentioned,
and at page 270, is written Saghar at page 960, which see, also note G to
that page.
Page 267, note 9, to "this very year" should have been added "according
to some," for, as given farther on, the first month of 617 H. was the year of
the Sultan's flight. See note 2, para. 2, page 972, and page 274.
Page 268, note, line 5.—Takrit is an error of the writer from whose work
the extract was taken. It should be Makrit, a well-known tribe; and Kara-
Kuram is an error, often made, for Kara-Ķum. These errors have been
rectified at page 1097.
Page 270, para. 3, line 6.—"Tingit." The name of this country is written
Tingkut by the Pro-Mughal writers.
Page 270, and note 7.-The Sayyid, Bahā-ud-Din, is a totally different
person from the Badr-ud-Din of Guzidah, and Ahmad, the Khujandi. The
Sayyid was a man of high position and dignity, and is again referred to at
page 963, where the subject is more fully detailed.
Page 280, and note .-The movements of the Chingiz Khan and his sons
are given in greater detail at page 968. Tūli was not sent into Khwārazm,
but, when the two eldest sons of the Chingiz Khan began to quarrel at the
siege of Gurgānj, or Ūrgānj, its capital, Uktãe, the youngest of the three
there present, was directed to assume the chief command. See note at
page 1099, para. 2.
ن
Page 288, note 3, line 5.-Wāmiān or Bāmiān, and Walian, mentioned
below, are neither of them correct. Our author, in the text above, did not
give the name of the place, but he does so farther on. It should be Walishtān
l Some careless copyist of an early copy, probably, writing the
long, thus--left out the three points of the letter, and thus led
others who followed to read the word -Walian-omitting the MS.
form of which is without the points, putting two points under instead of
over, and thus turning into and causing great confusion and error.
into
Walishtan is the same place as is mentioned at page 319, but, in the same
way as in Gūzgān and Gūzgānān, the singular form of the word, and also its
plural, as if there was more than one place or district so called.
The same
mode of expression is used with regard to the Lamghan district, which is also
known as the Lamghānāt or the Lamghāns.
The Chingiz Khān, moreover, was not investing Tae-kān, twenty miles east
from Kundus, as mentioned in the fifth line from the bottom in the same note,
but Tāl-ķān, about three hundred miles west of Kundus, and much the same
ADDITIONAL NOTES AND EMENDATIONS.
xlix
distance from the Parwan Pass.
His main army was encamped at and around
the Pushtah-i-Nu'man, near by. It is a common error for writers to mistake
Tāl-ķān, which is in Khurāsān, for Tae-ķān, which is in Tukhāristān; and
these errors are contained in the Tārikh-i-Jahān-Kushãe, and other works
consulted by me, which led me to suppose that our author's statement at
page 290 might possibly be wrong, but he was perfectly correct, and the others
wrong. At page 1016, likewise, our author mentions Walishtān as the iden-
tical place invested by the Mughals which Sulṭān Jalāl-ud-Din marched to
relieve, and there the details will be found.
Page 290, note 4.-Tal-kān had fallen after a long siege, and before the
Chingiz Khan set out in pursuit of the Sultan. The writers, who mistake that
place for Tāe-ķān, make the Chingiz Khan move towards Ghaznin by way of
Andar-āb, Bāmiān, and Kābul, thus making the geography suit their state-
ments. He reached Ghaznin by a much more direct route; and such a place
as Bāmiān is not once referred to. See page 1016, and note 6.
Page 318, line 1.—" Aytkin-ābād." From the way in which the first part
of this word is written elsewhere, and what is stated at pages 350 and 448,
and in note", this might be more correctly written Ai-Tigin-ābād, and might
refer to Tigin-ābād, about which so much is said, but the site of which, unless
old Kandahār stood on it-which I am sometimes inclined to think, because
the latter name begins to be mentioned when the other disappears—has been
altogether lost.
Page 319, line 1.-"Tajir-Koh." This I believe to be the Nakhjir of
Baihaki, or in some way connected with it.
Page 319, line 11.-It was not my MSS. which "enabled" me "to correct"
the words "the fifth mountain is Faj Hanisár" in Elliot (see vol. viii.,
p. xviii.), but the knowledge that faj is a common term for a defile or pass, in
the same way that I was aware what rasiat meant, and that "the mountains
of Ráslát” was, and is, an impossible translation, whether "worthy of
consideration " or not. I was also aware that "Sarha-sang" was not a
proper name, as supposed, and rendered in Elliot, which Mr. Dowson wisely
passes over in his "seriatim examination," but two very simple, every-
day words.
Page 341, note 7.-See note at page 348, last para. Bahram Shah is said
to have died in 543 H., the year previous to Bahā-ud-Din, Sām, the Ghūri,
but our author distinctly states at page 111 that Bahrām Shāh was succeeded
by his son nine years later, namely, in 552 H. The former date may refer to
the Riḥlat.
Page 370, line 4 from the bottom.-The meaning usually assigned to Sar-i-
Jān-dār, as here given, is not correct, but, at page 603, I have mentioned its
correct signification. See also pages 410 and 447.
Page 378, line 8.—Kilaf, or Kilif, is probably the town on the Oxus of that
name, only, in our maps, it is placed on the farther (north) bank.
Page 379, note .—See page 469, and Appendix A., page ii.
Page 391, note 8.-As subsequently shown, 'Ighrāk was the name of a
Turk-man tribe, and the territory held by those people was sometimes called
after them. See pages 1015 and 1043.
Page 392, last line. —The Ūrgān here mentioned may possibly refer to Urgūn
of Ghaznin. See my "Notes on Afghānistān," page 85.
Page 427, last para. of note Rășif." The name of this place is also
written Arṣuf——in several histories, the first letter being placed second.
Page 429, line 4, and note ¹. -Rāz is the name of a place near Sabzwār,
C
1
ADDITIONAL NOTES AND EMENDATIONS.
but the Imam was probably styled Rāzi, not as being a native of that place but
of Rai, the inhabitants of which are styled Rāzi.
Page 433.-The Beghu, referred to here, and in note 6, also written Beghun,
with the "n" nasal, is the name by which the Kārlūks or Kārlūghs are also
known, an account of whom is given in the notice of the Afrasiyabi rulers at
page 909. In MS., the letters, and are very liable to be mistaken one for
the other, as the point of the latter is often omitted.
ن
Page 435, line 13.-The Hazar-Darakhtan here mentioned is not that north-
east of Ghaznin, but more to the west, on the way from that city towards
the Bamian district. There are several places so called.
Page 477, note .—I think it probable that all the errors that have been
written as to the gates of Ghaznin having been shut against the Sultan by his
most trusted slave, and his successor to the throne of Ghaznin, have arisen
from the act and name of the slave, mentioned in the text above, Ayyah, Jūķi
(Sabuk-Tigin's Turkish name was Jūķ. See ante), who seized the bridle of the
Sultān's charger, and dragged him out of the fight. The "king of Multān
is no other than the Khokhar Rãe.
Page 482, note, line 18 from bottom.-Amir Muḥammad, son of Abi 'Ali,
was the Sultan's kinsman, and also son-in-law to the late Sulṭān, Ghiyāṣ-ud-
Din. He was entitled Ziyā-ud-Din before he succeeded to the throne of
Firuz-koh after the death of his father-in-law, upon which he was styled
Sultan 'Ala-ud-Din.
Page 488, note ¹." The year 4 of his rule," mentioned in the second para.,
cannot refer to his rule in Hind, because 589 H. was the year in which Dihli
was made the capital, as mentioned at page 469. Lahor was acquired as early
as 582 H., but some say in 583 H.
Page 495, line 9.-It is probable that the name Aetkin would be more
correctly Ai-Tigin, for both may be written as one word thus--and as
ای تکین two
Page 499, note ³.—This requires a little explanation. The lower road did
not lead by the Dara'h of Kaṛmān, but the northern or higher routes did; one
leading by Kohat to Peshawar, and the other through Bannu. The route by
Kabul, and Nangrahār, or Nek-Nihār, or Nek-Anhār, through the Khaibar faj
or defile, was rarely used at the period in question. The flourishing province
of Kaṛman, so called after the small Dara'h of that name, in those days was
of considerable extent, and very populous. In after years, at the period of
Akbar Bādshāh's reign, it constituted the Sarkar of Bangash, but its con-
dition had greatly changed for the worse. The lower road" into Hind was
by the Gumul. See "Notes on Afghanistan," etc., previously referred to,
Section Second.
Page 503, note ³.—The Jalāl-ud-Din, referred to in line 7, cannot, from the
dates, refer to the gallant Sultan of Khwārazm, but to Jalāl-ud-Din, 'Ali, son
of Sulṭān Bahā-ud-Din, Sām, Ghūri, of Bāmiān. See page 493, and note at
page 527.
1
Page 513, note ¹, last line, should be I-bak-i-Shil, as repeated in the second
line over leaf, or the nickname would not be complete, for I-bak, alone, does
not convey the meaning ascribed to it, from the simple fact that at least half-a-
dozen Ï-baks are mentioned in this work, and the whole of them could not
have each had a fractured finger.
Page 525, line 2.-It must not be supposed from our author's mode of
narrating events that Malik Kutb-ud-Din set out from Lahor for the presence
of Sultan Mahmud, the late Sultan's nephew. It is only his way of relating
ADDITIONAL NOTES AND EMENDATIONS.
li
events which happened subsequently, before others which happened previously.
Malik Kutb-ud-Din had gone to join the late Sultan in the expedition against
the Khokhars, as related at page 604, under the reign of I-yal-timish, and had
not left the Panjab. Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din, Muḥammad, was assassinated
on the 3rd of Sha'bãn, the eighth month of 602 H., and Malik Kutb-ud-Din,
according to our author, assumed sovereignty at Lahor in Zi-Ka'dah, which is
the eleventh month. But there is, I think, no doubt that the correct date of his
assuming sovereignty was 605 H., as stated at page 398, for it was only in that
year that he received his manumission from Sulțṭān Maḥmūd; and it is very
certain that an unmanumitted slave could not assume sovereignty.
It is very
possible, however, that Sultan 'Ala-ud-Din, Muḥammad, who had been made
Sulṭān of Ghūr on the death of Sulṭān Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din, Muḥammad, may
have sent Kutb-ud-Din the investiture of Hindustan when Sultan Mu'izz-ud-
Din was assassinated, and before he was himself ousted by his rival, Maḥmūd,
to whom Kutb-ud-Din, as stated at page 398, sent soliciting his manumission.
See also note to page 525, para. 2.
Page 529, note - It is barely possible that the words Kutb-ud-Din's
"brother's son "-ssl; l-may have been intended by Abu-l-Fazl and
others, and that in some copies the word sol; may have been left out by the
scribes, but, whether Abu-l-Fazl says so or not, it is clearly stated that Kutb-
ud-Din had no son: still, on the other hand, we are not told that he had a
brother. An adopted son is by far the most probable.
Page 531, last line. This word, like Ai-Tigin, may be, more correctly,
Ai-Timur, as no diacritical points are given in the text.
Page 539.-The Khalj, not Khilj," are by no means "hypothetical,"
but a well-known tribe, as may be seen from these pages. See Elliot,
vol. viii., p. xviii. There was no "army of Khilj," but a contingent from
the Khalj tribe served in the army of the Sulṭān of Khwārazm. A Turk
tribe, or part of a tribe, all the males being armed, was a lashkar in itself;
and who and what the Khalj were who sought refuge in Sind is explained in
the note. That these few formed "all the forces of Khwárizm" is a blunder
pure and simple. What the forces of Khwārazm were composed of is men-
tioned in many places in this work.
Page 551, text, para. 2.-Two or three copies of the Persian text have these
additional words at the beginning of the para. : "For one or two years, in this
manner, he used," etc..
Page 553, note 5, line 7.-559 H. is a printer's error for 590 H., as the
context plainly shows.
Page 562, note, last para., line 4, where “Dinjā-pūr” occurs, is also a mere
press error, unobserved by the printer's reader, for Dināj-pūr. It is correctly
given in the preceding note ¹, pages 558-559, and Dināj-pūr should be read
in all places.
"}
Page 567, line 11.- "Nunis is incorrect: it is an error in the text of i
for The Tunis are described farther on, page 1157. The Kar-battan of our
author may be Shigatze of the latest maps, or where Shigatze now stands; and
the great river in which the Musalmān troops perished is, doubtless, the Sānpo.
They must have penetrated to within a few marches of Lhāsā. Names of
places become changed in the course of six or seven centuries, especially when
old dynasties, one after the other, have been overturned, and others have
arisen.
Page 581.-See Elliot's India, vol. viii., p. xx. The Editor, Mr.
Dowson, does not see the least necessity for my criticism of the incorrect
C 2
lii
ADDITIONAL NOTES AND EMENDATIONS.
translation of this sentence in vol. ii. of that work, and says that the words
are (in the text) "Nán-i khurish-i safriyána," and that "bread for travelling
food" is its literal translation, explained in dictionaries as travelling
provisions," and adds that mine is “ a paraphrase, not a translation."
قرصی با
CC
Safar certainly means "journey," "travelling," etc., but "safr" does not.
The printed text, which Mr. Dowson says he so implicitly followed, has the
words before the "travelling food." What has become of them in the
"literal translation"? The words for the food are not "nán-i-khurish-i
safriyána,”—there should be no izafat after nān—but nän-khurish-i-safariānah,
nān-khurish being a well-known compound word, signifying some dainty or
savoury morsel to eat along with bread, such as meat, fish, cheese, pickles,
or the like, and is equivalent to the 'Arabic word l which word, as well as
nān-kḥurish, he will probably find in his dictionary if he refers to it.
Page 582.-There is no necessity to "venture upon any explanation of the
position" of Basan-kot, as suggested by Mr. Dowson, because it is sufficiently
well known; but, in Elliot, the proper name has been left out entirely.
Page 583, note 2.-"To better his means. The next page shows how he
bettered them. He came, as others still come from the very same parts, to
better his means, and the word in the Translation is correct as rendered. He
was an eminent ecclesiastic and good preacher, and was, therefore, invited to
deliver "a discourse" before the pious and orthodox Sultan and his Court, as
I have translated the sentence, and as any one else would do who knew what
he was translating.
Mr. Dowson, however (vol. viii., p. xxi.), "cannot admit Major Raverty's
improved rendering of the words," although he is himself "not satisfied with
the Munshi's rendering in Elliot his name was mentioned at Court,
," and
considers "Having recited a commemorative (speech or ode) he came to Court,"
would be much better, or, he thinks, "the author's meaning would have been
more clearly rendered [mark the words] by He came to Court and delivered
an eulogistic speech."
66
sermon," and even "discourses,'
discourse" used by me.
>>
In other places he can admit "preach,
which is the same in signification as
At page 615 of this Translation, our author-himself a good preacher and
ecclesiastic of repute-says he was called upon, on first entering Hind, to
deliver discourses within the audience tent of Sultan I-yal-timish when that
Sulṭān was investing Uchchah. The corresponding place in Elliot is page
326 of vol. ii., but the whole passage has been left out, and so we have no
commemorative speech or ode," nor an eulogistic speech."
At page 619, our author relates, that, during the time the same Sultan was
investing Gwāliyūr, he "was commanded to deliver discourses at the private
pavilion of the Sultān;" that "three times in each week discourses were
fixed;" that "in Ramaṣān—the fast month-a discourse used to be delivered
daily ;" and that "ninety-five times congregations were convened at the entrance
of the Sultan's pavilion." The words of our author here, as elsewhere, I have
rendered literally; and the printed Persian text agrees with the MSS. I used.
See also page 745.
The corresponding place in Elliot is page 379, and there it is stated that
the author "" was ordered to preach in turns [sic, but not in the original] at the
door of the royal tent ;" that "Discourses were appointed to be delivered
three times every week ;" and winds up with " Ninety-five times religious
assemblies were convened at the royal tent."
At page 651, our author says "a discourse was delivered" by him in the
ADDITIONAL NOTES AND EMENDATIONS.
liii
Kaşr, named Safed [White Castle], and the same word is again used two
lines under.
The corresponding place in Elliot is page 338, and it is rendered, “there
was a sermon in the Palace of the White-roof," and two lines under
sermon " is again used.
66
At page 656, our author again says, on the news of the Lahor disaster, that
-and the rendering is literal-"to the writer of these lines the Sultan gave
command to deliver a discourse, and the people pledged their fealty [anew]
to the Sultán." In a note I say, Compare Elliot, vol. ii., p. 340, for, at
that page, the corresponding passage of the text is thus rendered, 'The
Sultan assembled the people of the city at the White Palace [there is no
White-roof here], and the writer of this book received orders to preach and
induce the people to support the Sultán.”” This too is literal possibly.
Again, at page 845, our author says-and the translation is literal—that he,
on the occasion of the invasion of Sind by the Mughal infidels, "by com-
mand, delivered an exhortation with the object of stimulating to holy warfare,
and the merit of fighting against infidels," etc.
The corresponding place in Elliot is page 379, which is there rendered “the
author received orders in the royal tent to compose an ode, to stir up the
feelings of the Muhammadans and to excite them to warlike fervour for the
defence of their religion and the throne." This is certainly very far from
literal, even without the "ode."
Which is the most probable, the delivery of an exhortation, lecture, sermon,
or discourse, by an eminent preacher and one of the highest ecclesiastics in
the kingdom, on such an occasion, or "the composition of an ode"? and would
odes be delivered three times a week, and "religious assemblies convened
ninety-five times to "compose or listen to "odes or eulogistic speeches "?
دو
The very idea of such a thing is absurd.
رو
Now I must mention that in every instance here referred to in which I have
used "discourse or "exhortation," the very same word is used in every copy
of the Persian text, the printed text included, and that word is and
it was ignorance of the correct signification of this simple word, the idiom of
the language, and the usages of the Musalmāns, which has given rise to all
these blunders, and yet they must not be noticed!
There are several other instances in our author's work of the delivery of
discourses, lectures, or exhortations. At page 190 it is stated that his grand-
father, an eminent ecclesiastic and preacher, was called upon to deliver a
discourse——before the ruler of Sijistān; and the subject he chose for his
discourse or lecture was on defiling emissions." Mr. Dowson cannot
admit" my "improved rendering" of the word
" of the word "discourse" for Does
he think "the author's meaning," in this instance, "would have been more clearly
rendered" by "He came to Court and delivered a eulogistic speech on defiling
emissions," or that he " composed an ode on the subject?
در
تذکیر
Because, in the course of my work, I have had to point out such like errors
as these but this last "is a gem of its kind "-Mr. Dowson, in the Preface
to vol. viii. of Elliot's India, must call it "hostile criticism;" and has been
so foolish as to dig up "the late Lord Strangford," who, to suit certain
purposes, had the assurance to write a criticism on my Pushto works, without
knowing a single word of the language, except "what he read up for the pur-
poses," in the course of a few days, as I was informed on undoubted authority.
I could say much more on this subject, but I will only remark here that the
writer's object was not attained, and that I hope he possessed a more practical
liv
ADDITIONAL NOTES AND EMENDATIONS.
knowledge on the other subjects upon which he is said to have written. Better
Mr. Dowson had admitted the errors, and eschewed "ghaughá." It seems
that a writer must shut his eyes upon, and conceal the most palpable errors in
Oriental history and geography for fear of "hurting the susceptibilities of those
who made them," and must refrain from correcting them lest he be declared
'hostile" and "offensive." But I undertook this "Translation," and have
devoted years to it, to correct errors.
Page 587, note 4.-Mr. Dowson is not altogether disingenuous in his
"Examination of my criticisms, and in this one, xxxiii. of his replies, he
would make it appear that I objected to his rendering of the words "territories
of Lakhnautí,” at page 319 of the volume referred to, but what I say is, that
there is nothing, even in the printed text, to warrant such a statement as "that
Fáj-nagar ever formed part of the Lakhanawați territory." They were totally
different one was a Muḥammadan state, the other Hindu.
Page 600, note 4.-Mr. Dowson appears to have assumed that, because herds
or droves of horses are mentioned in the same page with merchants, the latter
may be turned into "
a dealer." There is nothing in the original to show that
the merchants were horse-dealers, but the contrary; and the herds of horses-
not a drove," for the plural form is used-evidently belonged to the Ilbari
tribe because the pastures are also mentioned. I contend that the bāzargānān
-here too the plural form is used-were not necessarily horse-dealers any
more than ass-dealers, cow-dealers, or any other dealers. The word bāzargān
66
signifies a merchant, but, in the translation in Elliot, the words, "into the
pastures" have been left out.
Mr. Dowson considers this last criticism "a gem of its kind;" and, at the
beginning of his "Examination" of my criticisms, says he has noticed and
examined them seriatim.” He is mistaken: a great many gems" are
passed over unnoticed by him, and not with reference to the Tabaķāt-i-Nāṣiri
only; for example, at pages 311, 557, 579, 580, 664, 686, 687, 853, 1023, and
several other places.
Page 623, and note .--For the identification of Banian see my "Notes on
Afghanistan," page 281.
Page 633, note 7.-Further research has shown that this Turkish title
should be read Tai-shi. See reference to page 732 farther on.
Page 644, note 4, para. 2.-
- Balkā Khan is referred to at length at page
1283. The name of this monarch is generally written with "r"-Barkā-as
our author writes it, but in Turkish words "1" and "r" are often interchange-
See page 617 and note 5.
able.
Page 645.-The Turkish name of Malik Ikhtiyār-ud-Din is sometimes
written Kara-Kash, and sometimes Kara-Kush, and Kara-Kush, which last two
forms are the most correct ones, and signify, literally, "a large black bird,”
kūsh or kush signifying a bird in general, but the term Kara-Ķūsh is the name
by which the Golden Eagle is known in Turkistān. Such names often occur,
as for example Kara-Sunkar, a species of black or dark falcon. Kara-Ķūsh
was also the name of the celebrated engineer from Egypt, who built the citadel
of Al-Ķāhirah, and had fortified Acre, and took part in its defence when
besieged by the Christians in 1189 A.D., which was considered " one of the
mightiest events of the middle ages."
Page 677, note 6.—I have previously referred to the identification of Banian.
Instead of "hilly tract west of" read "hilly tract west of the Jhilam," etc.
The year 644 refers to the Riḥlat, which is equivalent to 654 H. The details
will be found at page 1201.
ADDITIONAL NOTES AND EMENDATIONS.
lv
Page 716. As the Ulugh Khan's son, whose Turkish title was Bughrā
Khan, and his Musalman title Naşir-ud-Din, Maḥmūd-and evidently so
named after his father's sovereign and son-in-law-married a daughter of
Sultan Naṣir-ud-Din, Maḥmūd Shah, it is very evident that the idle tales
about the latter having only one wife must be incorrect. He must have had
more than one, or a concubine at least, since the Bughrā Khan could not pos-
sibly have married a daughter of his own sister, even though she is the only
wife mentioned. As this daughter of the Sultan had children by the Bughrā
Khān, and a son of hers, Kai-Kubād, succeeded her father, Sultan Ghiyāṣ-
ud-Din, Balban, Sulṭān Nāṣir-ud-Din, Maḥmūd Shah, can scarcely be said to
have left no offspring or heir, unless she died shortly before her father, but
even then an heir survived.
8
•
Page 717, note ‘, para
The Malik of Kabul is an error on the part of
the writer from whom this extract was taken, or the scribe who copied
it possibly, for the Malik-i-Kāmil, an account of whom is given at
page 1274.
Page 732, and note 2.-The title of Malik Nusrat-ud-Din is, correctly,
Tai-shi, not Tā-yasa'i. It is a Turkish title. The scribes appear to have
read the three diacritical points of ✩ as See Additional Note, page 866,
para. 7.
Page 901, note, para. 4.—Gardez is not really in Kaṛmān, but, at the period
in question, it was included in the province of Kaṛman. See "Notes on
Afghanistan," page 75.
Page 932, note, para. 4.—The word Î-lāsh, in the original is possibly
an error for Talash, which would be written the two points above instead
of below making all the difference. I-lash and Ilāmish are both plainly
written, however, in several works. Talās, also written Talash, is the name
of a city of Turkistan. There is also a little district so called immediately
north of Lower Suwat.
Page 987, note, para. 1, line 6.--"Darah of the Sarigh-Kol" [J]-the
latter a Tājzīk word-is, literally, Valley of the Yellow Lake, a mistake con-
stantly made.
The correct name is "The Lake in, or of, the Sārigh Ķol"
[J-the last a Turkish word-or Yellow Valley.
Page 1043, note ¹.-The most correct mode of writing this word is Gibari
or Gibari, and not "Gabari." The fort referred to near the Indus is known
to the Afghans, and other inhabitants of the locality, as Gari Kapura'h. See
“Notes on Afghānistān,” page 247.
Page 1201, note, para. 5, line 2 from end.-Can the Chingiz Khān here
mentioned be the person referred to whose coin is given by Thomas, in his
"Pathán Kings of Dehli," page 91? See also pages 711, 784, 792, and 884.
Page 1216, note, para. 3.-Jāng, in Turki, signifies "cold," and, if the
word be read Chāng, it means
"dust in the same language. We have a
tract called Kara-Kum, or Black Sand, and another called Kara-Ķuram, or
Black Shale, etc., and, therefore, a Karā-Jāng, or Black Cold, or a Karā.
Chãng, or Black Dust, is not improbable after all.
Page 1220, note, last line.-The great river Ka'an-Ling here referred to
is evidently "the Kyan-lin" of the Chinese, mentioned six paragraphs
farther on.
Ķarā-
Page 1229, note 8.-The "Ibn" prefixed to the word would rather indicate
that "the 'Alkami" is the father's name.

ERRATA.
Page 9, noite, for Zu-l-Yamanain read Zū-1-Yamanain in all places.
10, line 6,
A'yan
Ahwaz
A'yun, also at page 30, line 11.
Aḥwāz in all cases.
""
20, "
19, "
'Irak
II,
12,
3,,,
Talhah
'Irāk.
Talhah.
„, 12, should be Māwarā-un-Nahr in all places where otherwise, not
Māwar, the last syllable of the word having escaped notice for
some time. It is correctly written subsequently.
14, line 17, for Al-Mutaşim read Al-Mu'taşim.
15)
19,
21
3,,,
16,
3,,,
Zu-l-Hijjah Zu-l-Hijjah always.
Muḥammad-i-Tahir read Muḥammad-i-Tahir.
There should be a comma after Sarāj.
7 from bottom. After Lais should be a semicolon.
,, 20, for Lāis read Lais,
22, note 8,
23,
Shapur, and Ya'ķub read Shāpūr, and Ya'ķūb in all cases.
Badghais read Badghais.
Jami'-ut-Tawarikh read Jami'-ut-Tawarikh.
25, line 7,
,,
3
24,
,,
5
Nakib
Nakib.
Muḥammad Bashir
"
Muḥammad-i-Bashir, that is, son
Ibrahimi.
""
""
Khāddāt
Khaddat.
of Bashir, which he was.
note 2, Ibrahāmi
27, line 15,,,
29,,,
32, note
6
5,,, Kāṣghar is writen in other places Kashghar.
7,,,
33, line 18,
34, note 8,
35.
,,
5
,
Irān read Ï-rān always.
Hak
"
Hakk.
Zakria read Zakaria, also at page 37, note ⁹.
Haft Aklim read Haft Iklim.
Dowāti and dowāt read Dawāti and dawāt.
Ibrahami
Ibrahimi.
36, line 9, and page 38, line 16, for Nayab read Na'ib, and in other places.
38, note, for MS.
MSS.
39, line 4, also page 63, for Jibāl read the Jibāl, and where otherwise.
40, last line, and note 4, Alb-Tagin read Alb-Tigin, as in other places.
Hisām
44, line 2 from bottom
45,
,, 25, for Ï-lāk
46,
Husam in all cases.
I-lak.
""
,, 15.—Abi 'Ali is often written Abū 'Ali, and both are of the same
meaning, and sometimes Bū is written for Abū.
note 4, third line from bottom, should be "from Kashghar to Chin,
not, the Jiḥūn.”
52, lines 3 and 10, and note 8, for Zi-Ka'dah read Zi-Ķa'dah.
note 8, for Ibrahim
Ibrahim.
8, line 13 from bottom, for Abū Ismā'il read Abū Ibrāhim.
53, last line of text,
Ilyas
Ilyas.
lviii
ERRATA.
Page 58, line 2, the comma after "he" is redundant.
2 from bottom for "Tabri" read Tabari.
61,,,
10, for “Mūṣil” read Maușil, as correctly written in other places.
18, “diffe-rent” read differ-ent, the printer ha; incorrectly
divided the word.
64, note ¹, para. 2, for Burhan Ķāti read Burhan-i-Ķāti' always.
2, for "Ghazi "
70,
72,
77,,
80,
SI,
86,
87,
88,
""
89,
""
6
Ghāzi.
', para. 3, line 2, should be " Amir Manṣur, son of Nuḥ, son of
Nasr.'
first line after the Persian, for "Tawarikh" read " Tawarikh.”
5, line 2, for “Maḥmud " read
Maḥmud" read "Maḥmūd."
,
.
2
""
", 4,
28,,,
, para. I,,,
overcome
""
..
overcame."
“different place to" read "different place from."
“Al-Zawzani" read " Az-Zawzani" in all places.
"'Amid "
""
"'Amid."
2, line 6.-The words "works of" have been left out
after "in."
5, for "Jalal-ul-Millat " read "Jamal-ul-Millat."
6, line 6, for "Māmlūks" read "Mamlūks," and next line, after
contrary to" a comma is required.
8, line 9, for "Iyāz” read “Ayāz,” also at page 102, note 4.
90, line 14, "Mawdūd" should be "Maudūd" in all cases.
97, 13, for “Sūlimān” read “Sulimān.
IOI,
""
""
9
Į
,, 23, the date should be 443 H., as in note ', page 102, not 344 H.
""
3, and note 7, for Bar-Ghund and Buz-Ghund read Baz-Ghund.
102, ,, 10, for Razzi-ud-Din read Razi-ud-Din.
107, note 6, line 5, for Baiḥaki Baihaki.
109, line 15, there should be a comma after "the Martyr."
وو
IIO,
note 9, last line, for "Taimur" read "Timūr.”
""
1, first line. The year 548 H. is an error for 514 H., as the
context shows, and as given immediately under.
1, line 6, for "western" read "eastern," the present Panj-ab is
referred to.
112,
113,
,
line 13, "
""
">
>>
"Badāūni"
'Budā'ūni."
, para. 4, line 11, for "Seyr" read "Siyar;" and after "others"
there should be a comma.
first line, for "Sankarān
115, note ³, as at pages 450 and 498.
Sankarān" read "
Sankurān;" also on page
117, , para. 3, line 2, for "Tughril" read “Taghari.”
line 6 from bottom, for "Säljūķs " read Saljūks" as before.
123,
128,
""
""
8
134,
""
140,
145,
151,
2, after "p. 142
p. 142" there should be a full stop.
t
,, 3, for "Gūr Khan" read "the Gur Khān.”
last, for "early" read "yearly," the letter "y" has been
allowed to fall out.
line 3 from bottom, for "Khaṭā-i" read “Khiṭāe.
5
""
4
,, 4
""
152, line
99
363 and other places.
"Almut "
""
" Alamut," as at page
6, line 11 from bottom, for "Ibn-i-Khalkān" read "Ibn Khalli-
kān," as in note, page 1278.
last line, for "Mughis" read "Mughis."
of the poetry.-There should be a colon after the word "field,"
instead of a comma.
ERRATA.
lix
Page 154, line 6 of the poetry.—The note refers to "white steed's," and not to
rths, therefore, the figure 9 should be over the former.
""
line: 2 of text under poetry, for "Khaṭā-i” read “Khiṭāe,” and in
l other places. Khita or Khitae is the name of the country, and
Khita-i is the adjective derived from it.
161, note, line 14 from bottom, for "fifth" read "fourth."
8
, ","
""
8, line 8, for “Vafā'i” read “Yāfa'i," as in other places.
10 from bottom, for "Shirwan" read "Shirwān.
11, for "Muhammad, Jahan Pahlawan," read "Jahan Pahlawan,
Muḥammad," as in the note above.
167,
fr
170,
171,
tl
172,
180,
גי
5
; line 14, for "Būwiah" read "Buwiah."
for "Changiz" read “ Chingiz," as in other places.
""
183, line 9, after "himself seen there should be a comma.
185, note, line 5, para. 2, and para. 3, line 4, for "Husain 'Ali” read
"Husain-i-'Ali," with an izafat, for Husain was 'Ali's son accord-
Į ing to other writers who have bin.
190, lime 10 from bottom, after "learning" a comma is required.
199, note 7, last line." Kurt." This name is more correctly written
"Kurat." See note, page 1198.
200, line 6, for "Mangabarni" read "Mang-barni."
202, note 6
, ""
"Sufed"
"Safed."
6 "walls of his fortress," read "walls of this fortress :" the
printer, after revision, let the "t" drop out.
1
204, 'line 4, for "Lakhnauti" read " Lakhanawati," also in note of
preceding page.
205, note 4, for "Ibn-i-Khalkān," read "Ibn Khallikan,
208,
page 1278.
1.-After "Zangi" there should be a comma.
>>
as in note,
211, line 3.-There should be a comma after "Rūm," and another after
"other" in line 10.
217, note, line 5 from bottom.-There should be a comma after "Vertot."
3.-After "force " in line 2, after "Jerusalem " and "Nov." in
the next line, and after "knights " in the next, there should be
220,
221,
""
commas.
,, 5, line 5, for "different to "read" different from."
222, line 11,
"Aziz"
"
وو
“Afzal.”
225, note 4, next to last line of para. 1, also at page 226, note 6, for “Miā-
fārkin" read "Miyyā-fārikin," as at page 1268, and note 9.
229,
, last para., line 7, for "Manṣurah read “ Manṣüriyah; and
"Kaif or Kayif" appears to be meant for "Katif."
235.—There should be no comma between “ Abi” and “Muḥammad” in
lines 16 and 19; and for "Kutlagh" in the latter read "Kutlugh,"
and in all cases.
246,
242, note 6, para. 1, for "Dajlah" read "Dijlah," as in other places.
7, three lines from the bottom, instead of "that man," the
sense requires "that that man," etc., the other that has been
left out..
, para. 2, line 10 from bottom, after "his brother
required.
247,
250,
3
252,
>
>>
"" a comma is
6, line 4, for "Sultan Shah" read "Malik Shah," as above.
3, after "brother" should be a comma.
253, para. 4, line 7, for "Garmsir" read "the Garmsir."
lx
ERRATA.
>>
Page 271, note, para. 1, line 2 from bottom, for "Tatār" read "Mughal.'
272, fourth line from bottom of text, and next page, line 8, and in first
line of note 2, add Khan after Chingiz, for alone, without the
Khan, the word Chingiz, which only means "the great," etc., is
meaningless.
273, note 5, line 5, the number should be 5000, as at page 970,
Ķarājah and Ķarāchah are often written the one for the
276,
وو
,
line 20, for "Kalat" read "Kal'āt.”
277, line 12, for "Tamishah," read "Timmishiah."
not 50,000.
other.
282, note 5, line 10, for "Tatār" read "Mughal," also in note 9, line 3
from bottom, page 283.
283,,,,
9, line II from bottom, for "Jirfat” read “
places :" the letters have been misplaced.
Jirfat" read "Jiraft," as in other
-Muḥam-
285, line 2 from bottom, for "Kaṛṛman" read "Kaṛmān."
286, ,, 2, an izafat is required between Muḥammad and 'Ali
وو
mad-i-'Ali-for 'Ali was Muḥammad's father's name, asnentioned
elsewhere.
3, for "Changiz" read "Chingiz," as before.
7
287, note 1, last line, for Amin-ul-Mulk," the more correc line me is
"Yamin-ul-Mulk."
See note 2, para. 3 , page 101 He is
', para. 2, line 4 from bottom, there should be a bra
Ghuri," thus "Ghūri]."
sometimes called Yamin Malik.
288,
""
3 see under Emendations.
290,
4
""
292,
295,
298,
301,
,,,
>>
""
"
305, line
319,
""
lote 4
after
line 5, for "Khurdabih" read " Khurdādbih," as in other
places.
, para. 1, line 3, para. 2, line 5, for "Ḥūkal" read "Haukal,"
as correctly rendered in other places.
, para. 2, line 2, read "'Alā-ud-Din, Kai-Ķubād," not
Kai-Kubād."
2, last line, not "Saiyid" but "Sayyid," as before.
4 from bottom, for "Dimawand" read "Damawand."
II, for "Khaesār" read "Khāesār.”
son of
322, note, para. 5, line 7 from bottom, there should be a bracket before
"This seems,” etc.
332, line 2, for "Razzi" read "Razi," as corectly rendered in other places.
341, note 6, line 8, and note 7, last line, for "Utba " read "'Utba'."
342, line 7 from bottom, for "Ķazil" read "Kizil.”
346, note 9, for "Pathora," read "Pithora," as correctly rendered at
page 458. The reference, page 125," is incorrect: it should
be 391.
383, line 7, for "Saraj-ud-Din, son of Minhaj-i-Sarāj,” read “ Sarāj-ud-
Din, son of Minhāj-ud-Din.”
405, note 4, line next to last, for "different place to" read "different place
from."
408, line 17, for "Irān” read "“Ī-rān," and for "Malik " in the following
line read " Malik.'
413, 13, for "cholic" read "colic."
""
415, note, the reference should be " page 489," not "205.”
420, line 12, for “'Ărifain” read “ 'Arifin."
423, note 8, para. 3, for "Nusherwan" read "Nushirwan," or, as it is
also written, "Noshirwan.”
ERRATA,
lxi
F
Page 426, noº, line 16, for “Tāl-kān” read "Tāe-kān," and see note ³, 1008.
line last, for "See his reign," read, "See his brother's reign,"
c., and see pages 495, 496.
4,35,
464,
470,
484,
7, next to last line, for "pears" read " spears," and in the fol-
pwing line for "wir" read "awir:" the "s" in the first line
nd the " a in the latter, were carelessly allowed to fall out, and
were not detected by the printer's reader.
, para. 1, last line, for "Changiz
I,
Changiz" read "the Chingiz,” and
or “Ũng” read “the Awang," as in note at page 940.
, para. 4, posaession" is the printer's devil's mode of spelling
"possession," and passed by the printer's reader.
489, lat line of text and under, for
Phanawati " if "n" and "t
""
"Lakhanawati
read always "Lak-
are not marked correctly.
491, line 3 from bottom, for "Janābād " read "Junābād." It is also called
Gunābād by Tājziks, and is in the Ķuhistān.
1
496, pote º, line 8, for "firs" read "first;" line 12, for "mounta” read
"mountain;" line 16, for "wi" read "with;" in the next for
O "read"
or;" and in the next note, line 1, for "tha" read
"that ;" and in next line from bottom, for "othe" read "other."
The printer has very carelessly allowed six letters to fall out from
the ends of as many lines.
1
1
499, , para. 2, line 7, for "Toris" read “Tūris.”
>>
504,,,,
O,
521,
¹, last line, for “etrms” read “terms." Through some mystery
connected with the printer's art, proofs after being read over and
corrected time after time, get changed again, and the printer's
reader passes them as
them as "read for press."
It
, para. 3, line 10, after Taj-ul-Ma'aşir there should be a bracket
and a comma, not a full stop, for the sentence is unfinished.
should stand thus "Tāj-ul-Ma'aṣir]," etc.
530, last line of text, for "Mālik" read "Malik."
""
532,
535,
543,
548,
note, line 2, the 'Arabic J has, through the printer's error, been
turned into = a mistake liable to occur, but the signification
is evident from the interpretation.
""
>>
9, for "Inda-khud " read "Indda-khud."
, para. 5, line 2, and page 540, note, para. 3, line next to last,
for "Changiz" read "Chingiz.
sixth line from the bottom. Here again, through carelessness
in printing, three letters have been let drop out, and have been
unnoticed-❝n e" for on the."
2, line 4, for "wati" and "wāti”
“wāti” read “ wati" and "wāți
with "t," as in the word immediately above.
5, line 4, for "Karmah-nasah" read Karam-Nāsah, or Karam-
Nāsā.
550,
551,
5, next to last line, for
549, line II of text.
"Hizabar read "
Hizabr," as at page
556, line 9, after "kingdom" there should be a comma.
559, note 2, line 3, for "Nudia" read "Nūdiā.”
2, para. 2, line 6, the comma after "Lakhanawati " is redundant.
564, 2, line 7 from bottom, should be "Chingiz" not "Changiz."
585,
586,
>>
7
> ""
I, and line 5, for "Barinda "read" Barindah."
9
>
,, 4, for “Dhākah " read "Ṛhākah."
594,
១
9, the reference "page 219," should be 319.

lxii
ERRATA.
Page 595, note 2, line 5, for "Naşir-ud-Din, 'Iwaz," read "Na şir-ud-Din-i-
'Iwaz," with an izafat, that is, son of 'Iwaz, for Ghiyas-ud-Din,
'Iwaz, was his father.
P
597,
602,
""
*, line 3, for "very different to "read"
3
,
"Nāşir"
CC
""
very different from."
Naşir."
ea
610,
,
2,,,
para. 2, line 1, for "D'Ahsson" read "D'Ohssor.
next to last line, for "page 389 "r
615, last para. of note, next to, last line, for
398."
""
ead "
621, note, line 12, for "minārah " read "manārah as before
5 from bottom of last para., for "Afaghiah"
Afaghinah."
622,
وو
CC
627, line 9, after "Yal-dūz" there should be a comma.
,,
637,"
642,,,
page
read
15, for “Gūjah" and "Kūjah" read “Gūjāh" and "Kūjah," as
at page 750.
II, after "justice" there should be a comma.
12, "Aet-kin." See "Additions," reference to page 318.
650, note ¹, "line 2, for "and to the office" read "and refers to the
office," etc.
651,
7, para. 2, line 3, for
read
"different statement to
statement from.
662,
7, line 3, for "'Abbāsis" read “’Abbāsis.”
680,
'different
6, para. 3, line 3, for "Ķinnanj" read "Kinnauj."
४
690, end of note 8, for "page 694” read “ “page 695.”
""
note ¹, end of para. I, the printer has again carelessly let the letter
fall out.
', para. 2, line 3, for "Nãyab" read “Nā’ib.”
"māwās."
694,
""
705,
7,
5,
(C
3,,,
mawās
""
706, line 3 under the Twelfth Year, for "Ban" read "Bat.
No. xvi. among the Maliks of Hind.
¢ .
Bat Khan is
712, text, last line, for "Balaram" read "Balārām," and also in note,
three lines from the bottom.
5
716, note ³, para. 2, line 12, for "Ziyā” read “Ziyā.”
720, text, line 11, for "fi ul-'Ālamin "read" fi'l-’Alamin.”
726, note 4, the printer has put "See the reign under" instead of "See
under the reign," and the printer's reader has passed it over.
749, line 15, for "Awwal" read "Awwal."
759, note 5, for "Shart-badar " read "Shart-bardār.'
">
""
751, 6 from bottom, after "which" there should be a comma.
"ee" read "See." Here also a letter has fallen out.
761, line 11, for "Shaḥnagi" read "Shaḥnagi."
752,
764,
""
8, for
16, for “Lakhaņawati" read "Lakhaṇawati," as in tenth line
above.
775, note, para. 4, line next to last, for "stated above " read as stated
above."
778,
,,, para. 5, line first, for as far it goes" read "as far as it
goes."
780, , 7,
", for "page 650” read “660.”
784, line 12,
"}
"Kurt." See page 1198.
809, note 2, line 5, for "Tukhāristān" read "Khurāsān.”
810,
59
+, 2, "664 H." is an error for "646 H.”
820, line 6 from the botttom, "-i-," after Kashli Khan is a printer's
blunder: it should be "Kashli-Khān, Ī-bak-us-Sulṭāni."
ERRATA.
lxiii
Page 822, line 10, for “Zi-Ka'-dāh” read “Zi-Ķa'dah.”
84,,,
838,
867, note, line 13 from bottom, for “ Balaban” read “ Bùlban.”
, para. 1, line 8, for "Saklabs" read "Saklābs."
next to last, for "different to read "
16, and next page, line 9, as before noticed, instead of “Tā-
ya sa'i," the correct title is " Tai-shi." See note, page 866.
5, after "Kasmandah " there should be a comma.
872,
""
"
""
from."
8,
8,,
875,
the comma is redundant.
""
tr
different
after the words "vowel points,'
877,,, , para. 3, third line from bottom. "Kafchak," etc., may be
also written "Kik" and " Khifchak," as at pages 254, 796, and
94 with "i" in the first syllable is, perhaps, the most correct.
Irdish" is also written with "a"-Ardish, as in note
890,
line 2,
2 page 950, para. 3.
1
”—Ardish,
, para. 1, line 5 from bottom, for "Kol or Lake Bae-Kol," read
Kol or Lake, the Bae-Kol," etc.
, para. 6, line 5, for "ocasion" read “occasion.”
892,
899, "
900,
CC
> 99 2,
دو و4
2,
4,,,
""
Taijiūt "
'Mughuls
""
Tānijūt," as at page938.
908,
913,
2,
3,
""
7,,,
"Itsiz"
'Mughals."
"Itsuz."
>>
5, ""
"TĀYĀ-GHŪ
""
920,
last line in
page,,,
"Muran"
""
936,
956,
957,
,
""
""
, para. 2,
968, text, line
2,
2,
3,
line 3, "Timur-chi,”
>>
5,,,
"Jabbah "
“Jabah.
""
next to last, for "Ja'fir" read "Ja'far."
after "sovereignty" there should be a comma.
969, note 9, for "shrab" read "sharab."
973,
""
line 27, for “Juji” read “Jūji.”
979, line 3, for "jazbi" read “juzbī.”
980, note 7, para. 2, line 2, for "Ghu-Baligh" read "Ghu-Baligh."
"TĀYA-GHŪ.”
"Mur-an."
"Tamur-chi.”
981,
""
""
4,
,,
3,,,
983,
985,
""
5,
2,,,
CC
2,
,, II,,,
5,
2,,,
"Gūzidah"
"Gür Khūn
shujā
"Kankulī”
وو
Guzidah."
"Gür Khan."
CC
shuja'."
"Kankuli."
986,
""
""
""
""
988,
989,
,,
""
991,
CC
I,
,,
""
6 from bottom, after the bracket and before
gave him "there should be a comma.
last, line 3, for "Mughal" read "Mughal."
, para. last, line next to last, for "Jiḥun " read "Jiḥūn.”
2, line 13, for "Baisut" read " Baisūt," as at page 1094.
2,,,
preceding page.
14, "
, para. 4, line 3,
“Tūķājār”
CC
""
Tūķachār, as in the
,, "Fushang",.
Fūshanj.”
4, line 3, for "to-vedal" read "to-yedal," part of the "y" has
been broken in printing.
1002, 5, line 2, for
IOIO,
""
was styled" read " was also styled."
, para. 2, line 1, for “Ibn-Khalkān” read “Ibn Khallikān,”
as at page 1278.
, para. 2, line 7 from bottom, for "Tal-kān
and the comma after the word is redundant.
IOII,
2
1014,
1015,
, para. 4, line 7, for "Umra" read "Umarā.”
66
read “Ṭāl-ķān,"
3, ,, 12,,, Aghrāk",,"Ighrāk," as in other places.
lxiv
ERRATA.
Page 1020, note, para. 4, line 9, the full stop after 30,000 mer M
error, and is redundant.
is a painter's
1025,
1027,
, para. 4, line 1, for "Mamālik" read "Mamālik
an
Wis
8
, para 2, next to last line, for "Taghachar" read Taghachar,"
also in para. 3, line 3.

,
29
pat
n
1029, note, para. 4, line 2, for "Baha-ud-Mulk" read "Baha -ul-Mulk."
1032,
5, after "Jahan" the comma is redundant.
1046, 3, line 6, for " AL-BIRŪNĪ” read" AL-BĪRŪNĪ.”
1048, text, last line, "Hirāt"
""
""
"Hirāt" as in of her places.
1073, note, para. 4, line 7, for "Turan" read “Tūrān.” e
1074,
1095,
1099,
1116,
رو
ور
ง
five lines from bottom of page, for
"Shiwistān."
>
rr
""
Shi wstan reall
line 3, for "Mughal" read " Mughal as in li
, para. 2, line 17, for "the two" read "the othe
3,
"" 4,
CC
'Itmās '
""
S
2 above.
two."
“Ītimās.
,,t
Tā'ir "
as in
1119, text, line 7 from bottom, "Ta-ir" may also be written "
1132,
""
note 2, para. 3, next page.
1126, note 6, para. 2, lines 2 and 3, for "Mukānū" and "Mikātū" read
“Mūkānū” and “Mūkātū," and also in next two paragraphs.
, para. 2, line 2, before "Humayun " there is an
Humayun "there is an empty space
for the word "to," which, through carelessness, the
allowed to fall out after revise, and a letter in the next,
its place.
1135,
1137,
""
3
printer has
to get out of
', para. 2, next to last line, for "eve" read "even," a letter has
fallen out here too.
, para. 4, line 3, for "tumāns "read "tomāns.”
1161, line 15, after the words "inclined to it" there should be a comma.
1164, 6, for “Chingiz” read “
Chingiz" read "Chingiz," as it has been printed scores
""
of times before.
1166, note, para. 2, line 3, for “Bashghird” read “ Bāshghird.”
1180,
""
I, ,, 4, "
"Ughūl"
Ūgbul."
last, next to last line, for "Zi-Kadah" read "Zi-Ka'dah."
, para. 2, line 2, for "Shirāmun" read "Shirāmūn.’
1188, end of note 7, for "hat" read "that," a letter has been allowed to
1183,
fall out again.
1194, note, para. 2, line 6, for “Jāmi' "read" Jāmi " as in fourth line above.
1196, 2, line 1, here again, through carelessness, the "g" of excepting
has fallen out unnoticed.
1197, text, line 14, and 1198, line 17, for "Isfirar" read "Isfizār.”
re
""
""
""
15, "Kā-in" may also be written "
"Ķā'in."
1201,
""
I, for “karwāns” read “kārwāns.'
""
1203,
""
""
3, the "b" in Tabas" should be doubled thus
"Tabbas."
1220, note, second line from bottom, and next page, line 7 of note, for
Taghachār" read “Taghachār.”
1234,
1239,
1255,
""
1260,
1267,
1276,
>"
4, line 4, for "'Usmanli" read "Uṣmānli.”
para. 3, line 7, for “Ilkāe, or Ilkā, or Ilkān," read “I-yalkāe,
or I-yalka, or I-yalkān."
, para. 1, last line, for "Ibn 'Umran" read "Ibn 'Amrān.”
6, line 3, for "İlkā " read "I-yalkā."
', para. 3, line 4, for "Kūrdiah" read "Kurdiah.”
2 from end, for "Umrã" read “Umarā.”
6
""
>
"
I,
3,
», 10, for "
Kaimiri” read "Ķaimiri.”
دو
i
THE TABAKAT-I-NĀŞIRĪ:
INTRODUCTORY,
BEING AN EPITOME OF THE FIRST SIX SECTIONS.
THE following is a brief summary of the contents of the
first six Sections of the work as an Introduction to the
Seventh with which my translation begins.
SECTION I. Account of Adam, the Patriarchs and
Prophets, the ancestors of Muḥammad, and the latter's
history to the date of his decease.
SECTIOst II. The four orthodox Khalifahs, the descend-
ants of 'A and the 'Asharah-i-Mubashirah, or Ten Com-
panions of Apostles of Muḥammad.
I-K
IOC
SECTIO III. and IV. The Khalifahs of the house of
Ummiyal d'Abbas, to the downfall of the latter.
SECTIC The Maliks [Kings] of 'Ajam to the rise of
Islām, coi.ing of five dynasties:-I. The Bāstāniah or
Pesh-Dādān. II. The Kai-āniān. III. The Ashkanian,
IV. The Sāsāniān. V. The Akäsirah.
•
The author, quoting the Tawarikh-i-'Ajam from which
he says the Shah-Namah of Firdausi was taken, and the
statements of the Fire-Worshippers, and other authentic in-
formation, states that, when Kabil slew his brother Habil,
Adam had another son born to him who was named
Shis, which signifies "given by God." He was inspired,
and became ruler over Adam's descendants. The Persians
say this [Shis] was Gaiu-mart, son of Adam; but the Musal-
māns say that it is Unnush, son of Shis, who is here referred
to. In Unnush's time a son of Adam named Nabati, with his
children, retired to the mountains of Jarmun, and devoted
themselves to religion, and many others joined them. From
the death of Adam to this period, according to Abu-l-
Ma'shar-i-Munajjim, in the Ķānūn-i-Mas'ūdi, was 432
years. After some time elapsed, Nabați and his descend-
ants came down from the mountains, and joined the
d
2
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĀṢIRĪ.
M
I
er grievous
descendants of Kabil, who had taken possession of the
of Sham, and parts around, and who had increased bey
computation. Iblis [the Devil] had taught them the worship
of fire; and drunkenness, and all sorts of othea
sins prevailed among them. A thousand years had
elapsed since Adam's death, and the rebelliou
is sons of
Kabil and Nabați began to act tyrannically. They chose
one of their number to rule over them, who w
Was named
Sämiärush; and between them and the other descendants.
of Adam, who were just persons, hostility and enmity
arose.
10
2
tw
Τ
The sons of Shis, and others of Adam's descendants who
acknowledged Shis' authority, assembled, and ch ose one o
the Kārāniān Maliks, who are styled the Bāstārian Maliks
to defend them from the wickedness of the sons agrof Ķābi!
and Nabați; and this, the first person among
lli
ae
F Ι
uprigh
and just kings whom they set up, is styled the
xt torus in the
Yūnāni language; and the Yunānis say, that h s the sam
as he whom the 'Ajamis call by the name cn, Gaide-mar
He was entitled Gil-Shah, and was the first, ng of the
Gil-wānian dynasty, which is also named the be al-Dadian,
and Bāstāniān dynasty. When this Ilū-rūs en prime king,
1024 years had passed from the fall of Adamd the land
of Bābil became the seat of his government, and the just
sons of Shis, and other just descendants of Adam obeyed.
him. When 1162 years had passed away, the countries of
'Arab, 'Ajam, Sham, and Maghrab became settled; and,
according to the Kanun-i-Mas'udi, previous to Nuh's flood,
eleven kings of the Gil-wanian dynasty had reigned.
FIRST DYNASTY: THE BĀSTĀNĪAH.
I. GAJU-MART, or Gil-Shah, surnamed Pesh-Dad, or
I-ran Shah. Reigned 30 years. II. HOSHANG, who was
born 223 years after Gaiu-mart's death, reigned, according
to different accounts, 1400, or 400, or 40 years. III. THA-
MŪRAS-I-DIW-BAND, great grandson of the preceding.
Reigned 30 years: some say 1030. IV. JAMSHED, grand-
son of Hoshang, but Tabari says brother of Thamūras.
Reigned 700 years. V. BIWAR-ASP, the infidel, who
dethroned Jamshed, and was swallowed up in the Flood.
For 1000 years after the death of Nūḥ there was no king
INTRODUCTORY.
3
on earth, but, after that, one arose of the seed of Hām, son
of Nūḥ, named Zuļāk. VI. ZUḤĀK, THE TĀZĪ [i. e.
'Arab]. He was a great sorcerer, and reigned 1000 years.
VII. AFRIDŪN, entitled Mihr-gän. Ibrāhīm, the Patriarch,
Tabari says, lived in his reign, which was 500 years, but
Ibrahim lived in Zuḥāk's reign, when Nimrūd reigned over
Bābil. VIII. I-RAJ, son of Afridün, reigned 40 years.
IX. NIMRŪD, THE TYRANT. He was great grandson of
Nūḥ, and the first to assume sovereignty after the Flood.
He perished after reigning 400 years. A son of his, Kubt,
an idol-worshipper, succeeded, and reigned 100 years.
After him, a son of his reigned 80 years, when the sove-
reignty again passed to the former kings of 'Ajam.
X. MANU-CHIHR, son of I-raj. Reigned 120 years, in the
60th year, which the Patriarch Mūsā appeared. XI.
AFRASIYAB, THE TURK, who invaded I-ran and overthrew
the dynasty. XII. ZAU, son of Thamasib, son of Manu-
chihr, who reigned 30 years.
SECOND DYNASTY: THE KAI-ANĪĨAH.
I. KAI-KUBAD, sixteenth in descent from Manu-chihr.
Reigned 100 or 120 years. II. KAI-KĀ-ŪS, his son, reigned
150 years. Mihtar Sulimān lived at this period. III. KAI-
KHUSRAU, grandson of Kai-Ka-us. Died aged 150, but
the years of his reign are not given. One of his champions
was Rustam. IV. KAI-LUHRĀSIB, THE TYRANT. Reigned
120 years and abdicated. The Prophet Asha'ya [Isaiah]
lived at this time, and Bukht-un-Nassar was leader of the
forces of Sanjarib, Malik of Babil. V. GUSHTASIB, son of
Luhrāsib. Zartusht arose in this reign, Rustam died,
Bukht-un-Nassar became Malik of Babil, and Jerusalem.
was sacked. Reigned 120 years. VI. BAHMAN, son of
Isfandiyar, son of Gushtasib, surnarned ARDA-SHER-I-
DIRAZ-DAST [Artaxerxes Longimanus of the Greeks].
The Bani-Isra'il carried into captivity. Bahman marries
an Isrā'ili woman, who bore him a son.
set free. Reign 22 years. VII. HUMA-I [also Humãe],
daughter of Bahman. Married by her father and bore him
Dārā. She abdicated after reigning 30 years. VIII. DĀRĀ
[or DĀRĀB]-I-AKBAR [Great or Elder]. He made captive
the king of Rūm, and imposed tribute of 100,000 eggs of
The Bani-Isra'il
d 2
4
THE TABAKAT-I-NĀṢIRĪ.
gold, each as large as an ostrich egg. Failaķūs, Iskandar's
father, was king of Yūnān. Dārā reigned 12 years.
IX. DĀRĀ-I-ASGHAR [Less or Younger]. Iskandar, son
of Failaķūs, brought all Rūm under subjection. Invaded
and subdued I-ran. Length of reign not given. X. Is-
KANDAR, son of Failakus, who is said to have been the son
of Dara's sister married to Failaķūs. Iskandar died in
Ï-rān after 12 years' reign.
THIRD DYNASTY: THE ASHKĀNĪĀN.
I. ASHK [Ushk = Hushkā?], styled ARFA'WA, ninth in
descent from Dārā-i-Akbar. Ashk reigned 10 years.
II. ASHKAN, his son, reigned 10 years. III. SHAPUR, his
son, who totally destroyed Jerusalem. In his reign Mihtar
'ISA [Jesus Christ] was born. Shāpūr reigned 60 years.
IV. GUDARZ-I-AKBAR, son of Shāpūr. Reigned 10 years.
V. GUDARZ-I-ASGHAR, his son, reigned 21 years. VI.
NARSI-UL-ASHGHĀNĪ, who reigned 40 years. VII. KISRĀ-
UL-ASHGHĀNĪ, son of Narsi. He is styled also, ARDAWĀN-
I-AKBAR, and reigned 44 years. VIII. BALAS-UL-ASH-
GHANI, who reigned 24 years.
IX. ARDAWAN-I-ASGHAR,
who reigned 13 years.
FOURTH DYNASTY: THE SĂSĂNĪĀN.
J. ARDA-SHER-UL-JAMI' or ВĀBAKĀN, son of Bābak,
son of Sasan, descended from Kai-Luhrāsib. He rose to
power 266 years after Iskandar, some say 270, but the
Christians, 550 years after. He reigned 14 [40?] years
and 6 months. II. SHAPUR, his son, reigned 30 years.
III. HURMUZ [HURMAZ or AORMAZD], who reigned I
year and 10 months. IV. BAHRAM, his son, reigned 3
years. V. BAHRAM, son of Bahrām, who assumed the title
of Shāh-an-Shāh [King of Kings]. He reigned 4 months:
Tabari says, 4 years. VI. NARSI, son of the elder Bahrām,
succeeded his brother, and reigned 9 years. VII. HURMUZ,
son of Narsi, who reigned 7 years and 5 months. He left
one of his wives pregnant, who, after six months, gave
birth to Shāpūr. VIII. SHĀPŪR-I-ZŪ-L-AKTAF, so called
because, when at war with the 'Arabs, he had the shoulder-
blades of all those who fell into his hands removed. He
defeated and took prisoner the Kaisar of Rum. Shāpūr
INTRODUCTORY.
5
reigned 72 years.
IX. ARDA-SHER, son of Hurmuz,
Shapur's brother, a great tyrant; and after 4 years he was
dethroned. X. SHAPUR, son of Shapur-i-Zu-l-Aktaf, who
was put to death by his troops after reigning 5 years and
2 months. XI. BAHRĀM, Son of Shāpūr, styled Kirmān-
Shah before his accession. He was slain by his troops
after reigning II years, but Tabari says 15 years.
XII. YAZDAJIRD-UL-ASIM [Evil-doer], also styled KAW-
KHASH [morose]. Killed, after reigning 21 years, by the
kick of a mysterious horse, which suddenly appeared,
and as quickly vanished again. XIII. BAHRAM, his son,
styled BAHRAM-I-GOR, so called from having, when hunt-
ing, discharged an arrow at a lion which was about to tear
a wild ass, and pied both through. He reigned 60
years. XIV. YAZDAJIRD, his son, who reigned 18 years, 4
months, and 18 days. XV. FĪRÜZ, son of Yazdajird, who
reigned 27 years. XVI. BALĀSH, son of Firūz, reigned 4
years. XVII. KUBAD, his son, was dethroned by his
brother, Jamāsib, but recovered the sovereignty again.
Reigned 42 years.
FIFTH DYNASTY: THE AKASIRAH.
I. NŪSHIRWAN, son of Ķubād, famous for his justice and
equity. Reigned 47 years, in the 40th year of which the
Prophet, Muḥammad, was born. II. HURMUZ, his son,
reigned II years and 7 months, and was deposed.
III. KHUSRAU PARWIZ, son of Hurmuz, was one of the
most magnificent monarchs of I-rān, and reigned 38 years,
when he was put to death by his son. In the 20th year of
his reign, Muḥammad began to propagate his religion, and,
in the 30th, fled from Makkah to Madinah, which year is
called the Hijrah or Flight. IV. SHERWAIAH, son of
Khusrau Parwiz, who died of poison 6 months after putting
his father to death. V. ARDA-SHER, his son, a mere child,
succeeded, who was put to death by his Wazir, Shahr-ārāe,
after he had been 1 year and 6 months on the throne.
VI. SHAHR-ĀRĀE [or Shahr-yar] usurped the throne, but
was assassinated after I month. VII. TURĀN-DUKHT,
daughter of Khusrau Parwiz, was raised to the throne.
She sent back to Rūm the Cross, which her father had
6
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĂŞIRĪ.
carried away. She died after reigning I year and 6
months. VIII. ĀRZŪMAND-DUKHT, another daughter of
Khusrau Parwiz, succeeded, but was cruelly murdered after
reigning 6 months. IX. KISRA, son of MIHR-JAISH, a
descendant of Arda-Sher, Bābakān, was then set up, but
was soon after dethroned and put to death. X. JUNAID,
a descendant of NUSHIRWAN'S, was then raised to the
throne, but immediately after dethroned. XI. FARRUKH-
ZAD, son of Khusrau Parwiz, who was deposed and put
to death after 6 months' reign. XII. YAZDAJIRD-I-SHAHR-
YĀR, son of Khusrau Parwiz, who, after a nominal reign of
20 years, was assassinated by a peasant of Marw, in the
21st year of the Hijrah [A.D. 642]. In his reign the
Musalmāns overthrew the I-rāni empire, and with Yazdajird
the dynasty terminated.
SECTION VI.
THE TUBBA-YAWA', AND MALIKS OF YAMAN.
The author states that he copies the account of the kings
contained in this Section from the Tarikh-i-Mukaddasi,
and from Tabari.
After Kaḥtan, son of 'Abir, son of Shalikh, son of Ar-
fakhshad, son of Sam, son of Nuḥ, came into Yaman,
Y'rab, his son, became king; and he was the first who
used the 'Arabic language. Fifteen kings are said to have
reigned for a great number of years, up to the time of
Hāris-ur-Rayish, who is the first of the Tubba-yawa'
dynasty.
I. HĀRIS-UR-RĀVISH. He was contemporary with
Manū-chihr, sovereign of 'Ajam, and was subject to him,
He reigned 120 years.
II. ABRAHAH-I-ZU-L-MANAR, son of Haris.
subject to Manu-chihr, and reigned 180 years.
He was
III. AFRĪĶĪS, son of Abrahah. He also was subject
to Manu-chihr, and reigned 164 years.
IV. MUNDAZ, styled ZU-L-ADGHAR, son of Abrahah.
He was subject to Manu-chihr, and reigned 25 years.
V. HAILAD, son of Sarakhil, grandson of Hāris. He was
cousin of Mundaz, and son of Balķis [Queen of Sabã], but
INTRODUCTORY.
7
by some he is said to have espoused the daughter of the
king of the Jinn, and that Balķis was their daughter.
VI. BALĶĪS, daughter of Hailād, became sovereign of
Yaman and Maghrab. She reigned 40 years.
VII. UN-NASHIR-UN-NA'AM, son of 'Umaro, son of Sara-
khil. He reigned 75 years.
VIII. SHAMAR, son of Afrikis, son of Abrahah, styled
Ra'ash-the Palsied. He was a great king, contemporary
with Gushtasib and Bahman. He reigned 137 years.
IX. AĶRĀN, son of Shamar.
He reigned 53 years.
X. TUBBA', son of Akran, or Tubba'-i-Akbar.
reigned 160 years.
He
XI. MALKĪRAB, son of Tbba'. He reigned 35 years.
XII. TUBBA'-UL-AUSAT [the Medium]. He was put to
death by his soldiery after reigning 160 years.
XIII. HASSAN, son of Tubba,' surnamed Zu-Hassan.
He was put to death by his brother 'Umaro after a reign of
5 years.
XIV. 'UMARO, son of Tubba'. He reigned 23 years.
XV. 'ABD-UL-KULAL, son of Marṣad. In his reign 'ĪSĀ
[Jesus Christ] lived, and 'Abd-ul-Kulal believed in him.
He reigned 74 years.
XVI. TUBBA'-UL-ASGHAR [the Younger], son of Ḥassān.
He made great slaughter among the Bani-Isrā'il of Ma-
dinah on account of their crimes, and slew fifty of their
Mihtars. He reigned 78 years.
XVII. MARSAD, son of 'Abd-ul-Kulal. He reigned 41
years; and, after him, the dominions of Himyar and the
Tubba-yawa' became restricted to Yaman.
XVIII. WALTA'AB, son of Marṣad. He reigned 37
years.
XIX. ḤASSĀN, son of Ḥassān. He reigned justly for
70 years.
XX. ZU-SHANATAR. He did not belong to the family
of the Tubba-yawa'. How long he reigned is unknown.
XXI. ZU-L-NAWASH,' son of Hassan, son of Ḥassan.
Tabari calls him Zar'ab. With him the Tubbā-yawa'
dynasty ended, which from the time of Hāris up to this
period lasted 1360 years.
XXII. ABRAHAH-UL-ASHRAM [The Scarred in the Lip],
1 Tabari calls him Zu-l-Nawas. He was a Jew.
со
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĂȘIRĪ.
Ṣāḥib-ul-Fil, son of Hasan-us-Ṣabbāḥ. He endeavoured to
destroy the ka'bah of Makkah, but perished with his whole
army. The period of his reign and the reigns of his two
sons, Yagsum [Bagsūm] and Masrūķ, when this Habashah
dynasty terminated, was 73 years, and in the last year the
Prophet, Muḥammad, was born.
XXIII. YAGSUM, son of Abrahah, who reigned 4 years.
XXIV. MASRŪK, son of Abrahah. He was dethroned
by Saif, the son of his mother by an 'Arab husband, aided
by some criminals set at liberty for the purpose by com-
mand of Nūshirwān, to whom Saif had complained.
XXV. SAIF, son of Zi-Yazan. He reigned a consider-
able time, and was subsequently slain by a Habashi left
behind, who had entered his service.
XXVI. HARIZ [or DAHRIZ], the 'Ajami, who had accom-
panied Saif, son of Zi-Yazan, from 'Ajam, by command of
Nushirwan, became ruler. He reigned 4 years.
XXVII. THE MARZABAN, son of Hariz [or Dahriz], the
'Ajami. He succeeded his father by Nushirwan's com-
mand, and reigned over Yaman a long time. At his death
his son, Sajan [Abū-Shajān ?], succeeded, and, at his death,
Khur-Khusrau became king of Yaman. The reign of
Nūshirwān had terminated, and Hurmuz had succeeded;
and Khur-Khusrau, having rebelled, was removed.
XXVIII. BĀZĀN, the Muslim Malik. He became king
and ruled over Yaman up to the rise of Muḥammad, the
Prophet. He embraced the new faith, and Yaman passed
under the rule of the Musalmāns.
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĀṢIRĪ.
SECTION VII.
THE DYNASTY OF THE TAHIRI MUHAMMADAN
MALIKS IN 'AJAM.
MINHĀJ-I-SARĀJ, JŪRJĀNĪ, the humblest of the servants
of the Almighty's Court, gives, in the following pages, an
account of the Tahiri Maliks [kings], whose descent, in
some histories, is traced to Manuchihr Al-Malik, sovereign
of 'Ajam; and, according to which, the first of them who
rose to power, was Tahir', son of Al-Husain, son of Mus-'ab,
son of Zarnik, son of As'ad, son of Bādān, son of Mãe
Khusrau, son of Bahrām. Mãe Khusrau was the first who
embraced the faith of Islam, having been converted by
'Ali-May God reward him!-and received the name of
As'ad. This Bahram was son of Razān Mūrit, son of
Rustam, son of As-Saddid, son of Dostan, son of Barsan,
son of Jūrak, son of Gusht-äsp, son of Ashrat, son of Is-
ham, son of Tūrak, son of Anshar, son of Shaid-asp, son of
Azar-sab, son of Tuḥ, son of Ru-shed, son of Manuchihr
Al-Malik.
The Tahiri Maliks were remarkable for their virtues
and equity; and they first rose to power in Khurāsān,
in the time of the Amir-ul-Mūminin [Commander
of the Faithful], Māmūn, and in the following manner.
Between the Khalifah, Muḥammad Amin, who was at
1 The Tarikh-i-Yafa'i, which is a rare and most valuable work, and highly
esteemed by the early chroniclers, gives a different account. According to it
the following is the genealogy of the family :-" Abu-Taiyib-i- Tahir, called
Zu-l-Yamanain, son of Husain, son of Ruzaik [giving the vowel points], son
of Māhān-i-Khaza'i, son of As'ad, son of Radwiah; and, according to
another tradition, As'ad, son of Rādān; and, according to another, Muş'ab,
son of Talhah. Tahir's ancestor, Ruzaik, was a servant of Talhah-i-Talaḥāt,
who was renowned for his generosity and beneficence."
B
IO
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĂȘIRĪ.
2
Baghdad, and his brother Māmūn, who was in Khurāsān,
ill-feeling arose. Upon this, Amin despatched 'Ali 'Isa-
'Īsā-
i-Mahān' from Baghdad into Khurasan to reduce Mãāmün
to obedience; and, in one of the months of the year 195
of the Hijrah, he reached Hamadān with a warlike army.
Māmūn appointed Harṣamah, son of A'yan, to the com-
mand of a force to oppose 'Ali 'Isā; and Tahir, son of
Husain, was nominated to command the van of Harsa-
mah's army.
By the advice of Fazl, son of Sahl, who was Māmūn's
Wazir, Māmūn bestowed a standard upon Tahir, saying
unto him at the same time, that he had bent for him a
standard which for thirty years should lead to victory;
and so it turned out, for the sway of the Tahiris lasted for
upwards of thirty odd years 5. Within two leagues of
Rai, with 14 or 15,000 horse, he encountered 'Ali, son
of 'Isā, son of Māhān, who had brought 50,000 horse with
him, defeated, and slew him, and sent his head to Mamūn.
He then subdued the whole of the mountain tracts of 'Īrāk,
and took Wasiṭ and Ahwaz, and appeared before the gates
of Baghdad.
After carrying on hostilities for the space of a
year, Tahir captured Muḥammad Amin, put him to
death, and despatched his head to Mamun, his brother,
His two
2 His right name is Abū Yaḥyā-i-'Ali, son of 'Īsā, son of Māhān.
sons were also sent to serve under him; and his army amounted to 50,000
men.
3
• Tabari says Tahir was alone appointed, but, subsequently, when he asked
for reinforcements, on marching from the Hulwan Pass to Baghdad, then
Harṣamah was sent with another army.
Other chroniclers of undoubted authority state that 'Ali, son of Abi Khālid,
was the minister in question.
Their dynasty is
5 Most writers give a greater number of years than this.
said to have continued nearly fifty-four years. One of the poets has brought
together the names of the Tāhirian rulers in these two couplets :—
'In Khurāsān, of the race of Muş'ab Shah,
Were Tahir, and Talḥah, and 'Abd-ullah:
Then a second Tahir, and a Muḥammad, who,
Gave up unto Ya'kub, the throne and crown."
Tabari says 20,000 men.
7 'Ali, son of ’Īsā, was slain, it is said, by Da'ūd-i-Siyah, or the Black. Most
writers state that Tahir himself slew him.
The
8 The author of the Mujmal-i-Faşiḥ-i states, that a slave of Tahir's, Firdaus
by name, slew Muḥammad Amin on the 5th of Muḥarram, 198 H.
author of the Tarikh-i-Yāfa'i gives the 6th of Şafar as the date.
THE TĂHIRĪ DYNASTY.
II
together with his mantle, his rod of office, and his seal, by the
hand of his uncle's son, Muḥammad, son of Al-Ḥasan, son
of Muş'ab. This event happened, and this victory was gained,
on the 25th of the month Muḥarram, in the year 198 H.
I. TAHIR-I-ZU-L-YAMANAIN 9.
Ibn Haiṣam, the chronicler, and author of the work entitled
'Kaşaş-i-Sani," whose patronymic appellation was Abū-l-
Hasan, and his name Haiṣam, son of Muḥammad, Al-Bāķi
[Nabi ?] states, that, when the Commander of the Faithful,
Māmūn, removed Ghassan', son of 'Ubbād, from the
government of Khurasan, he conferred it, together with
the government of 'Ajam, upon Amir Tahir; and that
As'ad, the grandfather of Tahir, before his conversion to
the Muḥammadan religion, bore the name of Farrukh.
He was converted to the faith by Talḥah 3, who gave him
the name of As'ad; and he had a son whom he named
Muş'ab; and he, Muş'ab, became resident at Fushanj '.
2
When the claims of the family of 'Abbas to the Khilafat
were put forward, this same Muş'ab became one of the
principal men and partisan leaders of that dynasty.
Muş'ab had a son, Husain by name, which Husain, for a
considerable time, administered the affairs of Fushanj,
and was its Wali [governor]; and Tāhir [Zū-l-Yamanain]
was his son; and these successes, which have been men-
tioned, were gained by this same Tahir.
When Māmūn came to Baghdad, to assume the Khilafat,
9 Of the two right hands. Tahir had also lost an eye, which our author
does not seem to have known. The reasons why he obtained the name of
Zu-l-Yamanain are differently related. One is, that, when engaged in battle
against 'Ali, son of 'Īsā, he struck another antagonist with his left hand, with
the other sword he carried, with such force as to cleave him in twain. The
other, that, when about to give his hand in token of allegiance to the Imām
Rizā, at Māmūn's command, he gave the left. Rizā asked the reason. Tāhir
replied, “I swore fealty to Mamun with my right hand." Rizā replied,
'Your left will do just the same.
1 Only one copy of the different MSS. collated contains this name correctly.
2
♫ means ancestor also. According to the genealogical tree previously
given, Tahir was third in descent from As'ad.
hei
3 Tālḥah, son of 'Abd-ullah, one of the Prophet's companions
4 According to the Tarikh-i-Yafa'i, above quoted, the grandfather of Tahir
held the government of Fūshanj and Hirāt. Fushanj or Bushanj (it is written
both ways) "is the name of a city of Khurāsān near Hirāt.”
5 As considerable difference exists in some of these terms, I have thought it
best to add, occasionally, the signification which the author means to convey.
B 2
12
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĂŞIRĪ.
he despatched Tahir to Rakk'ah, to carry on hostilities
against Naṣr-i-Shis. Subsequently to this he came into
Khurāsān; and, in 207 H., he died, having nominated his
son Talḥah, son of Tahir, his Khalifah or successor.
The chronicler relates, that on the Friday he read the
Khutbah, and either forgot to mention the name of
Māmūn, or omitted it purposely. After he had returned.
to his residence at night, and had retired to rest, at day-
break of Saturday morning he was found in his bed asleep
in death; and it was never known how, or from what, his
death originated 2.
II. TALHAH, SON OF TAHIR-I-ZÜ-L-YAMANAIN.
When the Khalifah, Māmūn, became aware of the death
of Tahir, he sent letters patent to Talḥah, confirming him
in the government of Khurāsān, together with a robe of
honour. He held the government until 213 H.; and,
when the end of his life drew near, he bequeathed the
government of Khurāsān to Muḥammad, son of Al-Hasan,
son of Muş'ab, At-Tahiri, who was Talḥah's paternal uncle,
and soon after died.
During his [Talhah's] lifetime, the Khāriji or heretic,
Hamzah, broke out into rebellion in Sijistān, and Talḥah
6 In two MSS. written Rakah, which is not correct. Tahir's father,
Husain, son of Muş'ab, son of Ruzaik, died at Hirāt of Khurāsān in 199 H.
At this time Tāḥir was at Rakk'ah, and the Khalifah, Māmūn, was present at
his funeral, and prayed over him, and the Wazir Fazl, son of Sahl, placed the
body in the grave.
7 Abu Naṣr-i-Shiş, son of Rabi'i () the Khāriji, or Schismatic.
8 He died at Marw, according to Yafa'i, 23rd of Jamādi-ul-Akhir, 207 H.,
or, according to the computation of the Musalmāns, the night being reckoned
before the day, on the night of the 24th.
9 As the word Khutbah will occur frequently in these pages, it will be well
to explain, that it is an oration delivered after the service on the Muhammadan
Sabbath, in which the deliverer of it-the ruler or governor of the province
properly-blesses Muḥammad, his successors, and the reigning Khalifah or
the Sovereign. In ancient times, the Khalifah, or his heir apparent, pro-
nounced it, a the capital, in the principal Mosque.
1 He is said to have been poisoned. The account is to be found in detail in
several histo :S.
• His de say took place in the month of Jamādi-ul-Awwal.
3 The Mujmal-i-Faşiḥ-i states, that, in 210 H., the Khalifah, Māmūn,
despatched 'Abd-ullah, son of Tahir, to the assistance of his brother Talhah,
that, in concert, they might proceed into Mawar-un-Nahr to carry on hostilities
against Rāfi', son of Hāsham.
He died at the end of 212 H.
?
5 Also called Nim-roz.
THE TAHIRI DYNASTY.
13
carried on hostilities against him for a considerable period;
and what he did in Khurasan, during the Khilafat of
Māmūn, was the cause of his name being remembered
with gratitude in that country, where numerous proofs of
his goodness remained.
III. 'ABD-ULLAII, SON OF TAHIR.
-
On the decease of Talhah, the Commander of the
Faithful, Mamun,
Māmūn, summoned to his presence Abd-
ullah, the son of Tahir, who had become
become Amir
[governor] of Mişr. 'Abd-ullah had been brought up
at the Court of the Khilafat, and under the patronage,
and under the eye, of the Khalifah himself, and had
become greatly accomplished. In his seventeenth year,
Māmūn had entrusted him with the command of his forces;
and he had so conducted himself, that, in his twenty-
seventh year', 'Abd-ullah had become renowned among
men for his manliness, his vigour, his intrepidity, and his
virtues and talents. At this period the Khalifah appointed
him to the government of Khurasan, and directed that
'Ali, son of Tahir, brother of 'Abd-ullah, should act as his
brother's Khalifah, or Lieutenant, in the command of the
troops of the Dar-ul-Khilafat [the capital], in repressing
the seditious and rebellious, and in the extermination of
heretic Khārijis, and, likewise, in carrying out the affairs of
state, and all such other duties as appertained unto 'Abd-
ullah to perform and attend to.
At the time the Khalifah's mandate to proceed into
Khurāsān and assume the government reached him, 'Abd-
ullah' was at Dinawr engaged in suppressing Bābak-i-
Khurrami. When he reached Nishāpūr, rain, which had
not fallen for a considerable time, began to descend and
6 Any large city: Egypt, and its capital.
7 Some copies of the original mention "his twentieth year," but I prefer
the other reading.
8 Other writers state, that 'Ali succeeded his father in the government of
Khurāsān, and that he was killed in battle fighting against the Khārijis, in the
vicinity of Nishāpūr; and, that 'Abd-ullah was at Abiward when he received
the intelligence of his brother's death.
9 Tabari makes no mention of 'Abd-ullah, son of Tahir, as having been
employed against Bābak, but says that Is-ḥāk, son of Ibrahim, son of Mu'ṣab
-who would be thus cousin of 'Abd-ullah's father-was. That author states,
that 'Abd-ullah seized Bābak's brother in Khurāsān, and, that he sent that
heretic to Is-ḥāk, at Baghdad, to be dealt with as Bābak had already been.
14
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĂŞIRĪ.
1
to refresh the parched ground on the very same day, and
the people took it as a good omen. He founded palaces
for himself, and his followers and dependents, at Shād-
yakh of Nishāpūr. He suppressed the Khārijis, and
punished them with severity; and ruled with the utmost
equity and justice, and introduced many good and wise
regulations.
He was also a great patron of learning, and to such a
degree, that he requested the Imam 'Abd-ul-Kāsim, son
of Sallam, to write a commentary for him on the work
entitled "Gharib-ul-Hadis," and, in recompense for so
doing, sent him a present of 100,000 silver dirams, and a
valuable dress of honour.
The Lord of the Faithful, Al-Māmūn, had entrusted
'Abd-ullah with the government of the whole of the
territory of 'Ajam; and, when that Khalifah died, his
successor, Al-Mutaşim B'illah, confirmed him, as his father
had done before, in the government of the whole of the
territory of 'Ajam, which 'Abd-ullah retained until the year
230 H., in the reign of Al-Wasik B'illah, when he died. He
had exercised sovereignty over the territories of 'Ajam for a
period of seventeen years; and, when he died, he had
attained the age of forty-eight, the same age as his father.
When his death drew near, he nominated his son Tahir as
his successor over Khurāsān ‘.
IV. TAHIR, SON OF 'ABD-ULLAH.
When the account of the decease öf 'Abd-ullah reached
the Khalifah, Al-Wāṣiķ, he despatched, from the Dār-ul-
Khilafat of Baghdad, letters patent and a standard, con-
firming him as his father's successor.
5
His brothers solicited from Tahir the grant of the pro-
The
1 In the Persian translation of the Arabic work entitled Aṣār-ul-Bilād, by
Muḥammad Murād, son of 'Abd-ur-Raḥmān, Shād-yākh is described as "a
city of Khurāsān near unto Nishāpūr;" but it appears to have been a fortified
suburb, where the royal palace, arsenal, and gardens were situated.
Habib-us-Siyar states that the capital of the Tāḥiris was called Kar-shākh !
2 Some copies have Abū-l-Ķāsim. 'Ajam-countries not Arabian : Persia.
4 'Abd-ullah, son of Tahir, had a son called 'Abd-ullah, who was born
223 H.; and another son, Muḥammad, who was his father's deputy at Baghdād,
died in 226 H.
3
5 In all the copies of the original the word brothers is used, but only one
brother is mentioned afterwards.
THE TĀHIRĪ DYNASTY.
15
vince of Khurāsān, and its government; and he bestowed
on his brother, Amir Muş'ab, the government of Nishāpūrº.
The Khalifah, Al-Wāṣik, died in the month Zu-l-Hijjah,
232 H., and Al-Mutawakkil assumed the Khilafat.
He confirmed Tahir in the government of 'Ajam. After
a period of fourteen years and nine months, at which time
the Khalifah, Al-Mutawakkil, was martyred by the
Turks, he was succeeded by Al-Mustanşir.
7
Six months subsequently to that event, in the year
248 H., Al-Musta'in succeeded him. He sent letters
patent and a standard, and confirmed Tahir, son of 'Abd-
ullah, in his government, as before; and, in that same year,
Amir Tahir died, having previously nominated his son
Muḥammad as his successor over Khurāsān º.
9
V. MUHAMMAD, SON OF ŢÃHIR.
Amir Muḥammad-i-Tahir' was endowed with good
breeding, the gift of poetry, and many other accom-
plishments; but was greatly addicted to pleasure and
amusement.
He had entrusted the government of Tabaristān
to his uncle Suliman, son of 'Abd-ullah-i-Ṭāhir; but,
in 251 H., Amir Hasan, son of Zaid-ul-'Alawi, broke
out into rebellion in that country. He was a Sayyid,
and a well-bred and learned person, and a poet. He
subdued the territories of Dilam, and Gilan, which
were in the possession of infidels; and the people of
those parts were converted to the Muḥammadan faith
by him. From thence he entered Tabaristan with a
large army; and Sulimān, son of 'Abd-ullah-i-Tāhir, uncle
of Amir Muḥammad, was defeated by him, and retreated
6 In 231 H., Hasan, son of Al-Husain, brother of Tahir-i-Zu-l-Yumanain,
died in Tabaristān; and, in 235 H. Is-ḥāk, son of Ibrahim, son of Zu-l-Ya-
manain's brother, Hasan, died at Baghdad. He had held the Shart, or district
of Baghdad, under three Khalifahs.
7 Middle of the month of Shawwal, 247 H.
According to our author, in his account of the Khalifahs, on the 4th of
Rabi'-ul-Awwal, 248 H.
9 Succession to the government of Khurasan seems to have been considered
hereditary, but to that of 'Ajam, at the pleasure of the Khalifah.
1 His name is given differently by Hamd-ullah-i-Mustaufi in his history.
He styles him Muḥammad, son of Ahmad, son of Tahir, son of 'Abd-ullah,
son of Tahir-i-Zu-l-Yamanain. In the Mujmal-i-Faşiḥ-i he is called Muham-
mad, son of Tahir-i-Zū-l-Yamanain.
16
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĂŞIRĪ.
to Rai, and subsequently retired to Baghdad. On his
arrival at the latter place, he was made Ķa'id [governor]
of the district of Baghdād.
At this period, Ya'ķūb, son of Lais, had risen in rebellion
in Sistān, and had subdued some portion of Jarūm³, and
of Zawulistan, and had acquired considerable power in
Khurāsān. In 259 H., Ya'ķūb determined to attack Amir
Muhammad. The reason of this was, that his enemies,
Aḥmad and Fazl, the brothers of 'Abd-ullah-i-Ṣāliḥ, Sijizi,
had fled from the territory of Nim-roz, and had sought the
protection of Muḥammad, son of Tahir. Ya'ķūb continued
repeatedly to demand them at the hands of Amir Muḥam-
mad-i-Tahir, but he had always refused to give them up. On
this Ya'kub determined to march against Nishapūr'; and,
when he had arrived within a short distance of it, Ahmad.
and Fazl came to the entrance of the palace, where Amir
Muḥammad was at the time, to acquaint him with the
news of Ya'ķūb's approach. The Ḥajib [chamberlain] of
the Amir told them that his master was asleep, and that
he had no leisure to receive them. They observed to
each other that it was necessary that some one should
awaken the Amir; and, thus saying, they retired and went
to their brother 'Abd-ullah-i-Ṣāliḥ, Sijizi, and told him what
had occurred. He was well aware that Amir Muḥammad
was entirely sunk in carelessness, and that his dynasty
near its fall; so he retired to Rai, and sent his
brothers, Aḥmad and Fazl, to the Wāli [governor] of
Rai, but went himself into Tabaristan to Amir Hasan, son
of Zaid-ul-'Alawi.
was
When Ya'ķūb, son of Lais, reached a place called Farhad-
gurd', a short distance from Nishāpūr, Amir Muḥammad
despatched an agent to Ya'kūb, named Ibrāhim-i-Ṣāliḥ,
2 Re is not the correct pronunciation for the name of this city, but Rai.
It is written thus in the original Persian-
C
3 Jarum is described as being the district of Garmsir, which latter word
is written in various ways by those who fancy that Oriental proper names,
as well as other words, may be written according to their fancy, such as
Gurmsehl, Gurmseer, and the like.
4 The capital of Khurasan. As stated, previously, the Tahiri rulers held
their court at Shād-yākh, a short distance from that city.
5 The name of this place is not quite certain : it is written -
3,5 Loyol
and even in the different copies of the MSS. collated. The above name
is the most probable one.
THE TAHIRI DYNASTY.
17
Marwazi [or native of Marw], with a message demanding
whither he was going without the command of the Lord of
the Faithful, and that, in case he had a commission, he
should show it, in order that he, Muḥammad, might obey
it, and observe its provisions. When the agent reached
Ya'kub's presence, and delivered his message, Ya'ķūb put
his hand under his prayer-carpet and drew forth his sword,
and, placing it before the envoy, said: "This is my pass
and authority."
When the envoy, Ibrahim-i-Ṣāliḥ, returned with this
reply, all the people of Nishāpūr entered into communica-
tion with Ya'ķūb; and they delivered Muḥammad-i-Tahir
into his hands, and the dynasty of the Tahiris came to an
end. This event happened on Sunday, the 3rd of the
month of Shawwal, 259 H. Respecting the generosity and
munificence of Muḥammad-i-Tahir, one of the learned, whose
statement may be depended on, relates the following
ANECDOTE.
There was a person dwelling at Nishāpūr, one of the most
excellent men of his day, named Maḥmud-i-Warrāk. He
possessed a female slave, who played exceedingly well upon
the barbat a kind of lute-and of such grace and beauty
as cannot be described.
The fame of the loveliness of this slave-girl, and of her
amiability and accomplishments, having reached the ear of
Muḥammad-i-Tahir, to the effect that she improvised
ghazals, or odes, sang them, and accompanied them on
the barbat, the heart of Muḥammad-i-Tahir desired,
beyond measure, to obtain possession of her. He had
repeatedly asked Maḥmūd-i-Warrāk to part with her, and
had offered to give a very high price for her; but all
his offers were rejected, and he could not obtain posses-
sion of her, for her master himself was deeply enamoured
of his beautiful slave, Rātibah, as she was named.
After some time had elapsed, however, and Maḥmud-i-
Warrāk had expended all his property and possessions in
pleasure and expense on her account, and nothing remained
to him, he despatched a person with a message to the
6 These events are fully detailed in the Jami'-ut-Tawarikh, and several other
histories. See note 7, page 22.
7 Warrāk means a writer, a cutter and folder of paper, also a monied man.
५
18
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĂŞIRĪ.
presence of Muḥammad-i-Tahir soliciting that the Amir
would honour him with a visit, in order that he might
dispose of his beautiful slave to him.
8
When Muḥammad-i-Tahir received this message he was
delighted beyond measure, and directed that four badrahs
of silver should be brought and handed over to the
domestic who brought the message, while the Amir
arose, and proceeded, by way of his own private residence
to that of Maḥmūd-i-Warrāk. When the Amir had sat
down, and the silver was placed before the eyes of Maḥ-
mūd-i-Warrāk, he, seeing the state of affairs, went out, and
directed Ratibah, saying: "Don your best apparel,
Ratibah, and prepare to present yourself before the Amir,
as I am going to sell you to him." When the slave-girl
heard these words she burst into a flood of tears, and, such
was the paroxysm of her grief, that the sounds reached the
ears of the Amir, who was in another apartment. He
heard Maḥmūd say to her: "Wherefore all this grief and
lamentation, O Rātibah?" to which she replied: “O my
master! is this the end of our connexion, that at last you
separate me from you?" Maḥmūd replied: "All this I
do out of love and affection for you, now that I possess
nothing, and am a beggar; and, that you may continue to
live in ease and affluence for the rest of your life, I send
you to the haram of the Amir." Rātibah replied: “If
you merely act thus on my account, refrain from doing so,
for I undertake to work for the rest of my days, and, by
industry befitting a woman, by weaving coifs and mantles,
earn sufficient means for your subsistence and my own,
but do not separate me from you." Maḥmud-i-Warrāķ
rejoined: “If such be the case, O Rātibah, I now pro-
nounce you free, and fix your dowry at nineteen dīnārs
and a half, and make you my wife."
Muḥammad-i-Tahir, hearing this loving and affectionate
dialogue between Maḥmūd-i-Warrāķ and his slave, arose,
and, gathering his garments about him, said to Maḥmūd:
"The whole of the four badrahs of silver are thine; I make
thee a present of it: pass the rest of thy life in ease and
affluence!" Thus saying, he went his way; and the fame
of his generosity still remains.
8 A weight equal to 10,000 dirams, also a bag made of leather or lamb's-skin.
SECTION VIII.
THE ŞUFFĂRĪŪN DYNASTY.
THE author, Minhaj-i-Sarāj Jurjāni, makes a short extract
from the Tarikh or chronicle of Ibn Haiṣam-i-Sāni, respect-
ing the dynasty of the Ṣuffāriūn. That chronicler and
annalist relates, that Ya'kub-i-Lais, and 'Umro, 'Ali, and
Mu'addil-i-Lais, were four brothers, sons of Lais, the Suffär
or worker in brass, who was head of the braziers of Sijis-
tān¹. [At this time] Ibrāhim, son of Al-Husain², was the
Wali [governor] of Sijistān on the part of Muḥammad,
son of Tahir, the last of the Tahiris, who was the Amir of
Khurāsān. This Ibrahim had appointed a deputy or
lieutenant of his own to govern in Sijistān in his name,
who was called Ṣāliḥ, son of Un-Nașr. This Lais the
brazier was a restless and refractory fellow, and had a
great number of assistants, servants, and followers.
¹ Other historians greatly differ here, as to the origin and rise of the
Ṣuffarian. One says that Laiş, the brazier, was in the service of Ṣāliḥ, son of
Nașr, Kanāni; and another, quoting the History of Khurāsān of Moulānā
Mu'in-ud-Din, Sabzwari, states, that the latter author had traced the descent of
this family to Nushirwan the Just, the celebrated ruler of Iran. Again, another
author states, that Ya'kub, son of Lais, after the death of Darhim [sic], son of
Un-Nasr, revolted against his sons Ṣāliḥ and Nasr, in 237 H., and managed
to gain possession of some portion of the territory of Sijistan. His affairs
prospered, and, the principal men among the partisans of Darhim's family
having combined with him from time to time, in 253 H., he acquired the whole
of Sijistan. Darhim's sons fled to the king of Kabul.
A
Abū
2 In three copies of the MSS. compared, and also in the Tarikh-i-Fanāķati,
this name is written "Haşin," [] which signifies a fortification.
few words, respecting the Tarikh-i-Fanākati, may not be amiss here.
Sulimān-i-Dā’ud, the author of that work, surnamed Fakhr-ud-din, was a
native of Fanākat-also written Banakat, according to the rule by which
'Arabs change Persian f into b-in Mawar-un-Nahr; hence he is known as
Al-Fanākati, and Al-Banākati, and his work as the Tarikh-i-Fanākati or
Banākati; but not by the absurd name that some persons have bestowed
upon it, apparently through ignorance of the existence of this place, such as
"Bina-Gety," and "Bina-i-Geti." They probably supposed the meaning to
be a "History of the Foundation of the World," which Binā-i-Geti would
signify.
20
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĂŞIRĪ.
I. YA’ĶŪB, SON OF LAIS, ŞUFFĂRI.
The author of these pages, in the year 613 H.,
arrived in Sijistān, during the rule of the Malik of Nim-
roz, Shāh-i-Ghāzi, Yamin-ud-din, Bahrām Shāh, son of
Malik-i-Kabir, Tāj-ud-din, Ḥarab, son of I'zz-ul-Mulūk,
Muhammad.
There I noticed a place, on the south
of the city of Sijistān, which they call by the name
of Dar-i-Ta'am, outside the city, at a spot called Reg-
i-Gunjān. In the vicinity of this latter place, on a height
or rising ground, there is a palace in ruins; and a number
of trustworthy persons informed me, that Ya'ķūb, son of
Lais, and his brothers, with their dependents and servants,
were in the habit of coming thither one day in each week,
as is the custom among young men, to divert themselves
by sports and fun.
They used on these occasions to choose an Amir, or
king of the sports, and a Wazir, or minister. One day,
according to their usual custom, they had come to the
wonted place of meeting, and Ya'kub had
Amir for the day's sports; and, to each and every one of
his brothers, his kinsmen, and dependents, he had assigned
been chosen
3 "There I noticed a place," &c. This sudden change to the first person
is found in the original, and is not unusual in Oriental works. The whole of
the MSS. compared here appear hopelessly corrupt, the place to the south
of Sijistan having, apparently, two names, and yet either of them is named,
as though it were a principal distinguishing designation. But, as the Bodleian
and some other MSS. omit the relative in the last clause, it has been adopted
in the text of the translation. Since the above has been in type I find, from
"MASALIK WA MAMALIK"-the original MS., not a translation—that Dar-i
Ta'am was the name of one of the thirteen gates of the suburbs of the then
extensive city of Zaranj, the capital of Sijistān, founded after the city of
Ram Shahr became uninhabitable. The city was surrounded by a high wall
and a ditch, and had five gates, which were of iron. The walls of the suburbs
were probably not so strong, and the gates seem to have been of wood.
The
author says:
says: "The palace of Ya'ķūb, son of Lais, is situated between the
gates called Dar-i-Ta'ām, and Darwazah-i-Bārs [Fārs]; and the palace of
'Umro, son of Lais, is the residence of the ruler." The copy of the above
work which I have used is, from the style of writing, very ancient; and, from
various events mentioned in it, appears to have been compiled previous to the
time of Maḥmūd of Ghaznin. I have translated a considerable portion of it.
Our author's journey to Sijistān took place some centuries after this work was
written, at which period, from his remarks, the extensive suburbs had almost
disappeared, and the names only of some of the gates appear to have survived.
From the mention of the Reg [sand] of Gunjan, the suburbs had evidently been
partially, if not altogether, buried in the sands, which, in after-times, reduced a
once well-cultivated tract into a desert. See Section XIV. on the Kings of
Nim-roz and Sijistān.
THE SUFFARĪÛN DYNASTY.
21
the name of some one of the nobles and grandees of the
country. Unexpectedly, the deputy of the Amir of Sijis-
tan, Ṣāliḥ, son of Nasr, himself, on his return home from
the chase, arrived at this place, attended by his usual small
suite. Perceiving this assemblage of people collected on
the mound in question, he directed one of his attendants.
to go and make inquiry who they were.
When the man sent reached the party, and noticed what
was going on, he was much astonished; and, a bevy of youths
having come forward to receive him, the messenger was
forced to dismount from his horse, because it was necessary
to present himself before the Amir of the sports on foot.
The servant of Ṣāliḥ, accordingly, was under the necessity
of complying; and he made his obeisance, and returned,
and related to his master, Ṣāliḥ, son of Nasr, what had
passed and what he had seen.
"}
Ṣāliḥ, whose disposition was inclined to pleasantry, said,
"We will go and see what this party of youths are about,'
and rode up and came to the spot where they were.
Ya'ķūb-i-Lāis never moved from his seat, and he directed,
that Amir Ṣāliḥ should be brought forward to pay his
obeisance. The youths, as commanded, advanced to meet
him, and they made Ṣāliḥ dismount from his horse, and
compelled him to make his obeisance to Ya'kūb.
As the day of his fortune and the period of his age had
reached the evening of their termination, and the morning of
the prosperity of the Ṣuffariūn had dawned, Ya'ķūb made a
sign to the effect that it was necessary to put an end to
Amir Ṣāliḥ's career, and forthwith they put him to death.
Ya'kūb, without delay, mounted a horse, and the party
with him armed themselves, and, with the utmost expedi-
tion, they set out for the city, and proceeded to the palace
of the ruler, and there Ya'kub took up his quarters.
This event took place at the time of early forenoon, and
by the time of meridian prayer the territory of Sijistān was
in the hands of Ya'ķūb-i-Lais, and all the people submitted
to his rule, like as if the Almighty God had pre-ordained
that he should follow his own way. Ya'küb directed that
the Khutbah should be read for him; and these events,
and this success, took place in the year 251 H.
After this, Ya'kub led an army towards Bust and
Zawulistan, and the territory of Dawar [Zamin-i-Dawar]
22
THE TABAKAT-I-NĀŞIRI.
and Ghaznin, and subdued the whole of them. From
thence he advanced into Tukhāristan' and Balkh, and
subdued them; and then returned and marched towards
Kabul. This success took place in 256 H., and, subse-
quently, he returned to Sijistān, and afterwards advanced
to Hirāt, which, after much fighting, he gained possession
of. After this he took Badghais, Bushanj [or Fushanj],
Jām, and Bākhurz, and returned to Sijistān again.
After a short time Ya'küb again put his forces in motion,
and marched against Nishāpūr, which he gained possession
of without opposition in 259 H., and seized upon Muḥammad-
i-Tahir, son of Husain, together with his treasures, and his
dependents, and followers. He then marched towards.
Gurgān and Tabaristān, and, after having extorted tribute,
again retired. He made his brother, U'mro-i-Lais, Wali
[governor] of Hirāt: and, in 261 H., a person-one of the
Amirs of Muḥammad-i-Tahir-revolted, and set Muḥam-
mad-i-Ţāhir at liberty, who retired to the Court of the
Khalifah, Al-Waṣik B'illah. Ya'kūb-i-Lais again marched
an army into 'Irāk, and, on his return from thence, he
reached a place which was called Khandah-i-Shāpūr, and
there he departed this life, in the year 265 H., of colic, after
a reign of fourteen years.
The ancient name of one of the districts of the territory of Balkh, and of
which Tae-kan-Tal-kan by moderns, but not correct, I think-is the largest
town, the authority of "Hwen [Houen ?] Thsang," and its extent of "ten
day's journey by thirty days," and "twenty-seven states," notwithstanding. See
J. Ro. As. Soc., vol. vi. p. 94.
5 As stated in a former note, the sons of Darhim, Nasr and Ṣāliḥ, had
fled to Kabul, and had sought shelter with the " Shah," as he is styled, of
that territory, whose name was Ratbel or Rantbel; but this seems to have been
a surname merely, for the opponent of the first Mussalmāns bore this very title,
6 The name here is not correct: the last of the Tahiris is Muḥammad, son
of Tahir, son of 'Abd-ullah, son of Tahir-i-Zu-l-Yamanain. See page 15.
7 The author says not one word respecting Ya'kub's overthrow near Ḥulwan
by Muwaffik, the brother of the Khalifah Mu'tamid, in 262 H. On that
occasion the baggage and effects of Ya'kub fell into the hands of the victors,
among which were the chests containing his treasures, clothes, &c. On
opening one of the chests, they found reclining therein the Amir Muḥam-
mad, son of Ut-Tahir, whom Ya'ķūb had made captive, when he gained pos-
session of Nishāpūr, and overthrew the Tahiri dynasty. Muwaffik set him at
liberty, and sent him to Baghdad. He died there in 266 H., and, at that time,
and with him, other authors consider the Tahiri dynasty to have ended.
8 The Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh calls this place by the name of "Jand-i-
Shapur, a town of Ahwaz," and states that the date of his death was the 14th
of Shawwāl, 265 H. It is also called "Jande-Shapur." Ya'kub was buried there,
THE ŞUFFĂRĪŪN DYNASTY.
23
II. 'UMRO, SON OF LAIS, SUFFĀRĪ.
When Ya'kub-i-Lais was removed from this transitory life,
his brother, 'Umro, Suffāri, sent a written petition to the Lord
of the Faithful, the Khalifah, Al-Muwaffik B'illah', tendering
his obedience and submission, and soliciting that he should
be confirmed in the possession of the greater part of Fārs,
Gurgān, Sijistān, and Khurāsān. His request was acceded
to by the Khalifah, and 'Umro retired from the mountain.
tracts of 'Irāk with his own forces and those of his brother,
and returned towards Sijistān again. From thence he
moved towards Hirāt, and arrived there in the year 266 H.
From Hirāt he marched to Nishāpūr; and Khujistān', who
was one of the Amirs of Muḥammad, son of Tahir [the last
of the Tahiri dynasty], who had released his master from
the hands of the Ṣuffāris, and who was at this period in
Gurgān, marched to Nishāpūr against 'Umro, and there he
was joined by Rafi', son of Harṣamah, from Marw.
They fought a battle with 'Umro before the gate of Nishāpur,
and 'Umro was defeated and put to the rout. He retreated
to Hirāt, and the Khalifah, Al-Mawaffik B'illah 2, deposed
9 There was no Khalifah of this name. The author must refer to the Khalifah
Mu'tamid's brother, Muwaffik, who was made Wali over the eastern parts
of Islām, and declared heir, after the death of Mu'tamid's son Ja'far, but he did
not succeed to the Khilafat. Mu'tazid, son of Muwaffik, who died before his
brother, Mu'tamid, succeeded his father, Al-Muwaffik, in his capacity as ruler of
the eastern parts of the Khilafat; and he conferred the investiture of Khurāsān,
Fārs, Ișfahān, Sijistān, Kirmān, and Sind, upon 'Umro in 265 H., after the death
of Ya'ķub; and, in 266 H., 'Umro appointed 'Ubaid-ullah, the son of Tahir, to
the district of Baghdad, as his deputy. Mu'tamid was the Khalifah who excom-
municated 'Umro, son of Lais, from the pulpit, at Baghdad, in 265 H. 'Umro
had despatched an agent to offer his submission and obedience, which the
Khalifah refused to accept, and he cursed him.
Under the events of the year 278 H., the Mujmal-i-Faşiḥ-i also mentions,
that "Amir Isma'il, Sāmāni, overcame 'Umro, son of Laiș, the Ṣuffar ;" and,
under the events of the following year, 279 H., I find the Khalifah, Al-Mu'tazid,
presenting a standard to 'Umro, with the government of Khurāsān, at 'Umro's
request, and that "Umro hoisted the standard over his Sarãe or palace, and
kept it flying there for three days. The Khalifah also conferred upon 'Umro's
envoy, who brought the request for a standard, a dress of honour, and a pre-
Our author sadly confounds the dates of events, and jumbles them
into a very short space.
sent.
This is an error, although seven copies of the text give the same name.
Other authors state, that Ya'kūb was defeated by Ahmad, son of 'Abd-ullah,
Khujistāni, i.e. a native of Khujistān, which, the author of the Mujmal-i-
Fașiḥ-i says, is a dependency of Badghais, in the highlands of Hirāt.
2 See preceding note, on this subject.
24
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĂŞIRÎ.
ત
'Umro-i-Lais from the government of Khurāsān in the year
271 H., and the whole of the territories and places which had
been annexed by him were given [back] to Muḥammad, son
of Tahir, son of 'Abd-ullah.
Muḥammad was, at that time, at the Dar-ul-Khilafat of
Baghdad, and Rafi', son of Harṣamah, was directed to act
as his deputy and lieutenant in the government of
Khurāsān. The government of Mawar-un-Nahr the
territory trans Jiḥūn-was conferred upon Aḥmad, Sāmāni,
as the deputy likewise of Muḥammad, son of Tahir.
Between 'Umro-i-Lais and Rafi', son of Harṣamah, many
battles and conflicts took place up to the period that Rāfi’-
i-Harṣamah himself rebelled against the authority of the
Khalifah.
In the year 284 H., in an encounter which took place
between him and 'Umro-i-Lais, Rafi' was slain. 'Umro
sent the head of Rafi' to the Court of Baghdad, at which
time the masnad [throne] of the Khilafat had devolved
upon Al-Mu'tazid B'illah, and 'Umro-i-Lais made a request
to him that the government of Mawar-un-Nahr, Khurāsān,
Nim-roz¹, Fārs, Kirmān, and Ahwaz, together with the
Naķābat, or guardianship of the entrance to the palace of
the Khalifah, and of the district of Baghdad, should be
made over to him. More than this, he solicited that the
name 'Umro should be inscribed on the canopies which
every chief had in his residence [which would signify that
he was above them all], and that his name should be men-
tioned in the Khutbah, and on the coins of Makkah and
Madinah and of Ḥijāz. All his demands were acceded to
by the Khalifah's Court, and were duly carried out, and
numerous dresses of honour, and countless marks of favour
and distinction, were conferred upon him.
6
The letters patent, acceding to his demands, having
reached 'Umro from his Majesty the Khalifah, he made
3 Other authors state that Rafi' was taken prisoner by 'Umro, and sent to
Baghdad, where he died in confinement, which former proceeding so pleased the
Khalifah that he restored 'Umro to the government of Khurāsān, Māwar-un-
Nahr, Kirmān, &c., again. The Jami'-ut-Tawarikh, and Tārikh-i-Guzidah,
however, state that Rafi' sought shelter with the ruler of Khwārazm, who put
him to death, and sent his head to 'Umro. The latter's report to the Khalifah,
in the Mujmal-i-Faşiḥ-i, confirms this.
4 Sijistān.
5 Nakabat, the office of a Nakib, a leader, &c.
سرهای another سیرمانی One S has سرمانی - The word is rather doubtful 6
THE SUFFARIÛN DYNASTY.
25
preparation for proceeding and taking possession of
Mawar-un-Nahr; and Muḥammad Bashir, who was his
Hajib [chamberlain], was despatched with a force from
'Umro's army in advance.
Amir Isma'il-i-Ahmad', Sămâni, marched from Bukhārā
towards Khurāsān, crossed the river Jiḥūn, and defeated
the [advanced] force of 'Umro under Muhammad Bashir,
who was slain in the engagement, together with a great
number of his troops. Upon this 'Umro-i-Lais proceeded
towards Māwar-un-Nahr with a numerous
numerous army, for it
included 70,000 horsemen armed with spears, besides other
troops. Amir Ismā'il-i-Aḥmad crossed the Jiḥūn, and
fought a battle with 'Umro-i-Lais before the walls of
Balkh, defeated him, and took him prisoner, and sent him
to the court of Baghdād¹, and then Isma'il returned to
Bukhārā. In the year 288 H., the Khalifah, Al-Mu'tazid,
directed that 'Umro should be cast into prison, and in it he
died; and the dynasty of the Ṣuffariūn terminated ².
9
7 Isma'il's army is said to have consisted of 12,000 horse, but the accounts.
of other writers differ considerably in their statements from this one.
8 The Oxus, also called Bakhtrus, and Amuūiah.
9 According to the author's own statement above, Isma-il with his army was
already across.
¹ See note 5, page 31, for a full account of 'Umro's fate.
2 The Tarikh-i-Ibrahāmi, and others, state, that after the downfall of 'Umro
his descendants contented themselves with the sovereignty of Sijistān, subject,
however, to the Sāmānis. This is also proved from the subsequent accounts
given by our author himself. When the people of Sijistān became aware of
'Umro's capture they set up Taḥir, who, according to the Tarikh-i-Guzidah,
Nizām-ut-Tawārikh, Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh, and other works, was not
'Umro's brother, but his grandson, Tahir, son of Muḥammad, son of 'Umro.
Isma'il, Sāmāni, overcame him; but after a time conferred the government of
Sijistẵn upon Nașr, son of Aḥmad, Tāḥir's son. His descendants continued
to possess it until the year 643 H. 'Umro, son of Lais, founded the 'Atik
Masjid at Shiraz.
:
C
SECTION IX.
THE DYNASTY OF THE SĂMĀNĪS.
THE humblest of the servants of the Almighty, Minhaj-i-
Sarāj, Jūrjāni, states that, after the mention of the Maliks
of Yaman, and the Suffariun Amirs, he has considered it
preferable to insert here the section in which it is proposed
to give an account of the race of Sāmān, and the Maliks
of that dynasty, and therefore this portion of the work was
made, in its arrangements, antecedent to that treating of the
genealogy of the Maḥmūdi, and Naşiri Maliks'. Although
the history of the Maliks of Yaman ought, properly, to
have been first in the arrangement of the book, still, as
they were not among the number of Maliks of Islam, he did
not consider it right to place them before the Khalifahs,
and therefore they have received this much precedence.
This section has been taken from the Tarikh or Chronicle
of Ibn Haişam, in order that those under whose inspection
it falls may place perfect confidence in its correctness.
The chronicler relates that the ancestor of the Sāmānis
was named Saman; but, according to some others, his
name was different from this; and, moreover, that Sāmān
is the name of one of the districts of the Sughd of Samr-
kand, and that the ancestor of the Sāmānis was the Ra'is
[chief] of that place, and that he used to be styled Sāmān-
i-Khaddāt³; but, for sake of brevity, the name of Sāmān was
1 The Ghaznawi dynasty, and the Turkish Slave dynasty (not Paṭāns), of
which Naṣir-ud-din, the ruler of Dihli, to whom the author dedicated his work,
was one.
2 These remarks would have been better prefixed to the notice of the kings
of Vaman, or the Tahiris, and are rather out of place here.
3 The Tarikh-i-Jahān-Ārā states that he was chiefly known by the name
of Sāmān-i-Khadah, which signifies the master or possessor of sāmān or effects,
chattels, &c. Sāmān likewise, quoting the "Muajjam-ul-Baladan," is the name
of a village of Mawar-un-Nahr, but others consider it to be the name of a place
in the territory of Balkh.
statement.
The Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh also agrees with this
THE SAMANĪ DYNASTY.
27
adopted, and it became the name by which he was generally
known. He was of the posterity of Bahrām Shūbin¹.
At
This Sāmān-i-Khaddāt had a son who was named Asad,
who had four sons-named, respectively, Nuḥ, Yaḥya,
Ilyās, and Aḥmad. They became Princes and Lords of
great dignity and power, able, and experienced, and en-
dowed with considerable promptness and vigour.
length, when their family had attained the pinnacle of
greatness and power, Alb-Tigin", the Amir of Ghaznin,
and Sabuk-Tigin, were among the slaves and servants of
their descendants. All the Samānis left numerous proofs
of their goodness in Khurāsān and Mawar un-Nahr; and
may the Almighty reward them by bestowing upon them
exalted stations in the courts of Paradise.
ASAD, SON OF SĂMĂN-I-KHĀDDĀT.
He had four sons, Yaḥyā, who held the territory of
Shāsh and Isfanjāb, and their dependencies; Ilyās, who
held the government of the province of Hirāt and parts
adjacent; Aḥmad, the third son, who held Samrķand and
Farghänah, and their dependencies; and Nuḥ, the fourth,
who at first held the government of Samrkand, which,
however, was subsequently conferred upon Aḥmad.
The Lord of the Faithful, Mamun, when he came to Marw,
remarked the talents and capabilities, bravery, and innate
nobility of mind of the sons of Asad, son of Saman, and
he treated them with great distinction, and conferred great
favours upon them, and raised them to high rank and position.
When the Khalifah, Māmūn, returned to Baghdad,
his capital, he directed Ghassan, the son of 'Ubbād, to
4 The noble, who, in the reign of Hurmuz, son of Nūshirwān, overthrew
the son of the Khākān of Turkistan, with an immense army, before the walls of
Balkh, but was insulted by Hurmuz, and he rebelled and dethroned him, and set up
another in his stead. The word is sometimes written Chubin, sometimes Shubin.
5 See note 2, page 37.
6 In the year 204 H., Ghassan, son of 'Ubbād, was appointed to the govern-
ment of Khurāsān. He conferred Samrkand upon Nuḥ, son of Asad, Sāmāni.
Aḥmad, Ilyas, and Yahya, the other sons of Asad, received, respectively, the
investiture of Farghānah, Shash, Isrushtah, or Sirushtah, and Hirāt. Soon
after, Tahir-i-Zu-l-Yamanain became Wali of Khurasan, Nuh died, and the
former bestowed the territory held by Nuḥ on his brothers, Yaḥya and Aḥmad.
When Ilyas, another brother, died, Tahir gave his territory of Hirāt to his own
son, 'Abd-ullah. After this the family of the Sāmānis rose to great power in
Khurāsān and Mawar-un-Nahr. See note ¹, page II; rote 8,
page 28.
C 2
28
THE TABAKAT-I-NĀṢIRĪ.
assume the government of Khurāsān, and added thereunto
the whole of it as far as Māwar-un-Nahr. Ghassan, son of
'Ubbād, made each of the sons of Asad the Amir [ruler]
of a territory, and conferred certain cities upon them, as
the table given at the end of this Section shows. These
governments were first conferred upon them in the year
204 H.; and, when his Majesty, the Khalifah, nominated
Amir Tahir-i-Zu-l-Yamanain, son of Al-Husain, to the
government of Khurasan, the whole four Sāmāni Amirs;
who [as already stated] were four brothers, were confirmed
by him in the territories and cities they were then holding.
When the sovereignty passed from Amir Tahir to his
son, 'Abd-ullah-i-Tāhir7, he confirmed the Sāmānis in their
governments as his father had done, and made no change
with respect to them.
I. AHMAD, SON OF ASAD, SON OF SĀMĀN.
Each of the sons of Sāmān-i-Khaddāt rose to great rank
and power, and they each held a tract of territory in
Māwar-un-Nahr, Farghānah, or Khurāsān, as will be men-
tioned in the succeeding pages.
Nūḥ, son of Asad, who was a person of excellent qualities
and disposition, and of great energy and high courage, was
invested with the government of the territory of Samrkand,
Yaḥya, another son, held the territory of Shash, and
Isfanjāb®, and their dependencies. He was a a man of
undaunted spirit and energy, and possessed great talent for
government, and left many proofs of his goodness in those
parts. Ilyas held the government of the province of Hirāt
and its dependencies, and the parts adjacent. He also was
a person of energy and great experience; but Aḥmad was
the greatest, the most intrepid, energetic, and sagacious of
7 It passed to his son, Talhah, first, and afterwards to 'Abd-ullah, and also
by the author's own account.
8 Shash is the name of a territory, river, and city of Mawar-un-Nahr, on the
Siḥun or Jaxartes, on the frontier of the Turks. It was also called Fanākat,
and is now known as Tashkand. According to the ASAR-UL-BILAD, and
MASALIK WA MAMALIK, it was also called Chāj and Jāj. Ibn Haukal [the
translation] first states that Seket is the capital, and immediately after says
Chaj is.
Its inhabitants were Musalmāns of the tribes of Ghuzz and Khalj.
Isfanjab, also written Sfanjāb, is a town or city of Mawar-un-Nahr, towards
Turkistan. These names are generally carelessly written in the various copies
of the text.
THE SAMANĪ DYNASTY.
29
the whole of the brothers, and held charge of the territory
of Samrkand.
Nūḥ, at first, was placed in charge of the affairs of Far-
ghanah, but, subsequently, it came into the hands of Ahmad,
with the whole of Ķāṣghar, and Turkistān, to the frontier
of Chin. He was renowned for his courage, and valour,
and experience, which were celebrated throughout Iran and
Tūrān; and his descendants, one after the other, occupied
the throne, and governed God's people liberally and bene-
ficently. Of those of his descendants who attained to
sovereignty, one of the learned men has spoken, in verse, in
the following quatrain :—
"Nine persons there were of the race of Samān, renowned,
Who as rulers became famous in Khurāsān,
A Ismā'il, a Aḥmad, and a Nașr,
Two Nuḥs, two 'Abd-ul-Maliks, two Manṣurs."
Amir Aḥmad had nine sons: Nasr, Isma'il, Is-ḥāk,
Manṣur, Asad, Ya'kūb, Hamid, Yaḥyā, and Ibrāhim.
The mention of their descent was found, as has been
entered herein-Sāmān, son of Jashman, son of Tamghan,
son of Nosher, son of Noshed, son of Bahrām, son of Shubin
[Chūbin].
II. NASR, SON OF AHMAD, SĀMĀNĪ.
When Ahmad, son of Asad, son of Saman, died at
Samrkand, he nominated his son, Nasr, as his 'successor;
and, during the sway of the Tahiris, the territory, which
Naṣr's father had held, was confirmed to him, and his
brother Isma'il served under him, and acknowledged in
him, as his suzerain, his superiority.
In 261 H. Nașr conferred the government of the territory
of Bukhārā upon Isma'il, who established himself therein.
Nașr performed great deeds, and was endowed with many
virtues. He governed with strict regard to the rules of
equity and justice until the end of his days, when death
overtook him in the month of Jamādi-ul-Akhir, in the
year 279 H.'
9 The Tarikh-i-Guzidah and others state, that, after the death of Ahmad
in 261 H., the Khalifah, Al-Mu'tamid B'illah, placed the whole of those terri-
tories under the government of one person-Nașr, son of Aḥmad, the most
upright and best prince of the Samāni dynasty.
1 According to the I. O. L. MS., No. 1952, and the R.A.S. MS., which
30
THE TABAKAT-I-NĂṢIRĪ.
When his brother, Isma'il, had become established in
the government of the Bukhārā territory, several designing
and evil-intentioned persons managed to come between
him and his brother Nasr, his sovereign, and began to
resort to calumny and falsehood [to effect their designs],
until the disposition of Nasr became completely changed
towards his brother, and he determined to reduce Ismā'il
by force, and overthrow him entirely.
Amir Nasr accordingly moved from Samrķand towards
Bukhārā with a large army. Amir Isma'il despatched a
trusty agent to Rafi', son of Harṣamah, son of A'yan, who
was Amir of Khurāsān², and acquainted him with the state
of affairs between himself and his brother, Amir Nașr, and
solicited assistance from that ruler.
Rafi', son of Harṣamah assembled a warlike army,
numerous and well-equipped in every way, and marched
towards the scene of expected hostility; but he, out of
benevolence, kindness, and humanity, interposed between
the brothers, and brought about an accommodation be-
tween them, and retired into his own territory again.
Amir Nasr returned to Samrkand, and Amir Isma'il
proceeded to Bukhārā. As soon as Nasr heard of this,
still nourishing that antagonism against his brother which
had taken possession of his heart, he advanced towards
Bukhārā with a warlike army. Isma'il came out of the
city to encounter him; and a fierce and obstinate battle
took place between them, attended with great carnage,
in the year 275 H. Isma'il was victorious over his
brother, whose forces were defeated and put to the rout,
and Amir Nasr was himself taken prisoner.
He was
taken to the presence of Isma'il, who, seeing that he was
being brought forward, immediately dismounted from his
horse, and rendered homage to his captive brother, and
kissed him on the breast, and paid him the utmost honour
and respect. He then induced Amir Nasr to return to
Samrkand, and returned himself to Bukhārā, which he con-
tinued to retain as the lieutenant of his brother. Nasr, son
of Ahmad, ruled for a period of eighteen years.
of course agrees, Nasr assumed the government in 269 H., and reigned eighteen
years. This is quite wrong. The correct date is 261 H., as in the other MSS.,
which date other histories confirm.
2 Subordinate to the Khalifahs.
THE SĀMĀNĪ DYNASTY.
31
3
III. ISMĀ'ÏL³, SON OF AHMAD, SĂMĀNĪ.
On the death of Amir Nasr, the Khalifah, Al-Mu'tazid
B'illah, conferred upon Amir Isma'il the government of
the territory of Mawar-un-Nahr, and also all the territory
which his brother, Nasr, had held, and sent him a commis-
sion and a standard. He became a great and powerful
ruler, and the whole of those territories submitted to his
sway*; and all men, chiefs, and grandees, and the common
people, became obedient to his authority.
He was a just man, and endowed with wisdom; and many
great deeds were performed by him, for when 'Umro, son of
Lais, determined to make war upon Isma'il, and set out with
a vast army to attack him-according to the author of the
Tārikh of Ibn Haiṣam-on the day that 'Umro, son of
Lais, set out to enter upon hostilities with Amir Isma'il, he
had seventy thousand horsemen armed with spears under
his standard, without counting archers, swordsmen, and
other armed men besides. Amir Ismā'il crossed the river
Jiḥūn, and encountered 'Umro, son of Lais, at Balkh; and
the Almighty bestowed the victory upon Ismā'il. The
army of 'Umro was defeated and put to the rout, and
'Umro was himself taken prisoner. Isma'il sent his captive
to the Lord of the Faithful, Al-Mu'tazid-B'illah, to dispose
of as he might deem fit".
Abū Suliman-i-Dā'ūd, author of the Tarikh-i-Fanākati, considers Ismā'il,
Sāmāni, very properly, as the first of the dynasty who is entitled to be con-
sidered a sovereign prince, The Tarikh-i-Ibrahimi, Jahān-Ārā, and several
other histories, also confirm it, as does Ibn-Haukal likewise. The Mujmal-
i-Faşiḥ-i also agrees in this. Under the events of the year 287 H. it is
stated, that from that year commenced the sovereignty of the Sāmāniān,
who were nine persons, who reigned 103 years, 9 months, and II days; and,
that Ismā'il, Sāmāni, had risen, and had subdued, during that same year, Māwar-
un-Nahr, Khurāsān, Fārs, Kirmān, 'Irāķ, Sijistān, and some parts of Hindū-
stan. At this period, it must be remembered, the territory of Kabul was
considered a part of "Hind ;" and this, doubtless, is what is referred to here.
In the same year, the Khalifah, Al-Mu'tazid B’illah, sent Ismā'il the investi-
ture of Khurāsān, Tabaristan, and Jurjān, together with a rich dress of honour,
and the sum of "ten times a thousand thousand dirams" [ten millions of
dirams; and the affairs of Isma'il began to prosper greatly.
4 In 280 H., Isma'il made an expedition into the territory of the Turks, and
made holy war upon them. The chief town was taken, and booty and captives
beyond compute carried off, together with their Malik [king] and his wife.
Each horseman present on this expedition received a thousand dirams for his
share of the booty.
5 Respecting the subsequent fate of 'Umro, son of Lais, it appears, on
32
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĂŞIRĪ.
The Khalifah bestowed a commission on Amir Isma'il,
with the investiture of the territory of Khurasan, together
with the whole of 'Ajam; and Amir Ismā'il's power and
grandeur increased accordingly.
7
Subsequently, the Lord of the Faithful, Al-Mu'tazid,
despatched a commission to him, with directions to free
the countries of Tabaristan and Gurgān from the sway of
Amir Muḥammad-i-Zaid-ul-'Alawi, who had possessed
himself of them. Amir Isma'il appointed Ahmad-i-Hārūn
to the command of the van of his army, and sent him on
in advance with that portion of his forces; and, between
Amir Muḥammad-i-Zaid-ul-'Alawi and Amir Isma'il, very
severe fighting took place, and the Amir Muḥammad-i-
Zaid was slain. His son, Zaid, also, was taken prisoner
and brought before Amir Ismā'il, who sent him to Bukhārā,
with orders that, on the way thither, due respect should
be paid to him, and that he should be provided with
suitable accommodation; and he treated him with such
honour and attention as kindness and magnanimity could
devise.
trustworthy authority, that Amir Ismā'il sent 'Umro to Baghdad at his
['Umro's] own request. Arrived there, he was, by the Khalifah's orders,
paraded on a camel's back through the streets of Baghdad, and afterwards
thrown into prison. This was in 287 H. In the year 289 'Umro died in con-
finement. It is said that the Khalifah, Mu'tazid, whilst in his last struggles,
expressed a desire that 'Umro should be put to death; but, that he was entirely
forgotten in his prison, and neither food nor drink was brought to him, and he
died of starvation and thirst. Another account is, that Mu'tazid gave orders
to Ṣāfi to put him to death, and that he delayed carrying the sentence into exe-
cution. When Al-Muktafi succeeded to the Khilafat, he inquired of Şafi
respecting 'Umro, whether he was still alive. He replied that he was.
Muktafi said: "I will act generously towards him; for, during the time of
Mu'tazid, he continually sent me presents, and was always very attentive to
me." Kāsim, son of 'Abd-ullah, however, feared 'Umro ; and, when he heard
this speech of the Khalifah's, he gave directions to put 'Umro to death in his
prison. More respecting the Ṣuffaris will be found at page 183. I hope, very
shortly, however, to give a detailed account of the rise of the different Muḥam-
madan dynasties to the public,
-
6 In the Mir'at-ul-'Alam and other works, he is styled "Muḥammad, son of
Zaid-ul-'Alawi, who bore the surname of Ud-Dai'-ala-l-Hak." In the Tārikh-
i-Guzidah, he is styled Al-Bakiri," instead of 'Alawi; but the meaning of
these two titles is much the same. He was a descendant of the Khaliſah, ’Ali,
and Bāķir was the surname of Abū Ja'far-i-Muḥammad, son of 'Ali, son of
Husain, son of 'Ali, the fourth Khalifah.
7 Muḥammad, son of Hārūn, seems to be the correct name of this officer.
He had been deputy to Rafi', and had entered the service of Amir Ismā'il.
THE SĂMĀNĪ DYNASTY.
33
At this time, the Khalifah Al-Mu'tazid B'illah died,
and his son, Al-Muktafi B'illah, succeeded to the throne
of the Khilafat. He despatched a commission and a
standard to Amir Isma'il, and conferred upon him the
territories of 'Irāk, Rai, and Ṣafahān³, and the provinces
of Tabaristan, and Gurgān, the whole of which were
incorporated with Khurāsān. Amir Ismā'il gave the
government of Rai to his nephew, named Abū Ṣāliḥ, son
of Manşür, son of Is-ḥāk', Sāmāni, and to his own son,
Aḥmad by name, that of Gurgān.
On the night of Tuesday, the 14th of the month Şafar,
in the year 295 H., he died, and his title became Amir-i-
Māzi, or the Past or Late Amir¹. He had reigned for a
period of eight years².
IV. ABŪ NAŞR-I-AḤMAD ³, SON OF ISMĀ’ĪL.
This ruler had four sons, named Nasr, Manṣūr, Ibrāhim,
and Yaḥyā, whose surnames were, respectively, Abū Ṣāliḥ,
Abu Muḥammad, Abū Is-ḥāk, and Abū Zakria.
Abū Naṣr-i-Aḥmad was a severe and energetic ruler, and
put to death several of his slaves for some misconduct.
The rest of the slaves, who were their comrades, sought
opportunity to revenge them, and to assassinate Amir
Aḥmad; but he had a lion, which had been trained, and
he was in the habit of securing the animal near his sleeping-
apartment, in the night-time, in order that, through fear of
this creature, no one should approach his place of repose.
This animal used to keep guard over his master at night,
until, on one occasion, when the Amir had gone on a hunting
excursion, and set out, on his return from thence, at an
untimely hour. The halting-place was at a considerable
distance, and he was unable to reach the station fixed upon,
and had to stop at another place for the night. The slaves
See page 29.
9 A son of Aḥmad is so named.
8 Iṣfahān.
1 Amir Isma'il made the celebrated Abu-l-Fazl, Al-Bal'ami, his Wazir.
He continued to act in that office up to the time of Amir Nuḥ, son of Manşür,
by whose command he translated the Tarikh-i-Tabari from 'Arabic into
Persian.
2 Computing from the commencement of his reign in 287 H.
3 Abu Naṣr-i-Ahmad signifies Ahmad, the father of Nasr.
4 The word is used both for lion and tiger.
34
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĀṢIRĪ.
now found the opportunity they had been seeking, and they
assassinated Amir Aḥmad. This event happened on the
night of Thursday, the 23rd of the month Jamādi-ul-Akhir,
301 H.
They then took his body, and conveyed it to
Bukhārā; and, after this occurrence, Amir Aḥmad was
designated the Amir-i-Shahid, or the Martyred Amir.
In the outset of his career, after his father had departed
this life, and an assemblage of the heads of the army, the
grandees, and principal men of the country had pledged
their allegiance to him, Abū Naṣr-i-Aḥmad, son of Ismā’il,
he sent a distinguished person, as envoy to the Court of
the Khalifah, and from thence, the Lord of the Faithful,
Al-Muktafi B'illah, sent him a commission and a standard;
and his reign gave regularity and order to the affairs of the
Empire. In Sijistan, however, Mu'addil, son of 'Ali, son
of Laiș, Ṣuffāri, brother's son of Ya'ķūb and 'Umro, had
broken out into rebellion, and caused great disturbance and
disorder. An army had been appointed to proceed into
that quarter, and Mu'addil had been reduced, and rendered
powerless; and he was made captive, and put in durance.
The government of Sijistan was then conferred by Amir
Aḥmad upon his uncle's son', in whom he placed confidence,
Abū Ṣāliḥ-i-Manṣūr, son of Is-ḥāk, son of Aḥmad, Sāmāni.
Subsequently the people of Sijistān revolted, and seized
the person of Abū Ṣāliḥ, and confined him in the fortress of
Ark, and gave their allegiance to 'Umro, son of Ya'ķūb-
5 Tarikh-i-Guzidah, Khulāṣat-ul-Akhbar, Mujmal-i-Faşiḥ-i, and other
works, say this event occurred 23rd Jamādi-ul-Ākhir, 300 H. Faşiḥ-i gives
his reign as 5 years and 3 months.
6 Our author seems to have had a very imperfect and confused idea of the
state of Sijistān at this period. He makes no mention of the doings of Sijizi,
the slave—the Sigizi [s], or Sijizi [] slave probably-of 'Umro,
son of Lais; his having, at last, taken to the fortress of Bam, in Kirmān, and
his subsequent flight into the desert of Khurāsān; nor of Tahir and Ya'ķūb,
'Umro's sons, nor of Lais, son of 'Ali, of the same family, all three of whom
were, at different times, taken captive and sent to Baghdād. In 297 H.
Muḥammad, son of 'Ali, brother of Ya'ķūb and 'Umro, sons of Lais, Ṣuffări,
was made prisoner along with Sigizi, by Amir Aḥmad, Sāmāni, who subdued
Sijistān. He sent them to Baghdad, at the Khalifah's request.
In 299 H.,
Laiș, son of ’Ali, died in Fārs; and Mu'addil, his son, died the same year.
7 The same Abū-Ṣāliḥ, who was son of Manşür, son of Is-ḥāk, mentioned
towards the close of the last reign, which see.
•
C
8 All the copies of the MSS. compared, except one, which has have
the words 'di "fortress of Ark or Arg;" but I think it might be ©‚¹ [Ūk],
which is the name of a buried town of Sijistān, and, from its ruins, Afghāns and
THE SĂMÂNÍ DYNASTY.
35
i-Lais'. On this, Amir Abū Naṣr-i-Aḥmad, son of Ismā'il,
nominated a well appointed army [well equipped in all
things] to march into Sijistān for the second time, and
Husain 'Ali', Marw-ar-Rūdi, was made Amir [com-
mander] of that force. This army had entered Sijistān in
the year 300 H., and had invested 'Umro [son of Muḥammad],
son of Ya'ķūb, for a period of seven months 3, when he
begged for quarter, and came out and surrendered. Sijistān
was then made over to the charge of Simjūr-i-Dowāti*.
It was at this period that the Amir, having been unable to
reach his appointed place of rest before nightfall, as already
related, was assassinated, after having reigned for a period
of six years and three months.
V. NAŞR, SON OF AḤMAD, SON OF ISMĀ'ĪL.
On the decease of the Amir-i Shahid, Ahmad, son of
Isma'il, the whole of the Amirs, and commanders of the
troops, and the principal men of the country, in concert
with the 'Ulama-the learned in law and religion-of that
period, set up his son, Nașr, as his successor º.
6
Amir Nasr at this time was but eight years of age, and
according to the statement of the chronicler, at the very
Hindus of Kandahār have brought me coins. The fact of as being given as well
seems to throw a doubt upon it, for both Arg and Kala' are just the same in
meaning, and would have to be read "the fort or castle of [the] citadel," unless
Ark be a proper name-"the castle of Ark." Perhaps has been written by
mistake for, The Tarikh-i-Haft Aklim says there is "a place called Ūk
[9], in Sijistan, near which is a Reg-i-Rawan [running or flowing sand]
situated near Kala'-i-Kah, or Gah, in which vicinity are several holy tombs."
9 'Umro, son of Muḥammad, son of Ya'kub-i-Lais, is correct.
¹ Other writers say Husain, son of 'Ali.
2 That is, he was a native of Marw-ar-Rūd.
3 Others give nine months as the period.
4 Tarikh-i-Ibrahāmi says Aḥmad-i-Simjūr—also written Simjūr-i-Dowāti.
Dowāti is from dowāt, a pen-case, or ink-holder.
5 His proper designation, according to the Mujmal-i-Faşiḥ-i, Tarikh-i-
Jahan-Ara, the Tarikh-i-Ibrāhami, and Tarikh-i-Fanākati, is Abū-l-Ḥasan-i-
Nasr, &c.
6 Among the events of the year 301 H., the Mujmal-i-Fașiḥ-i mentions,
the "arrival of the news at Baghdad, that the slaves of Amir Ahmad, son of
Isma'il, son of Aḥmad, Sāmāni, had put him to death, on the banks of the
Jiḥün of Balkh, [referring to what was mentioned under 300 H.] and that his
son, Abu-l-Ḥasan-i-Nașr, had succeeded him. Upon this, the Khalifah,
Muktadir, despatched to him a commission confirming him in the government
of Mawar-un-Naḥr, and added thereunto that of Khurāsān."
36
THE TABAKAT-I-NĂŞIRI.
time that they brought him forth from the Haram to place
him upon the throne, being of such tender years, he was
completely overcome with fear and began to cry, and was
saying, "Where are you taking me to? Do you desire to
put me to death, in the same way as you put my father?
Let me alone, I beg of you!"
After they had placed him on the throne, Abū 'Abd-ullah
Muḥammad, son of Aḥmad, Al-Jihāni, was appointed his
Nayab [lieutenant]. He was a man of sagacity, and
wise in counsel, and he entered upon the administration of
the government in accordance with the rules of strict justice,
and with a firm hand, but based upon moderation and bene-
ficence; but, as the Amir was himself so young in years,
the governors and great nobles on the confines showed a
refractory spirit.
The first to revolt against his authority was his father's
uncle, Is-ḥāk, son of Ahmad, Sāmāni, and his son Ilyas,
at Samrkand. They made ready their forces, and
marched towards Bukhārā. Hamzah, son of 'Ali, who
was one of the chiefs of Amir Nasr's forces, pushed forward
to meet them with a large following, put them to the rout,
and pursued them as far as the gates of Samrkand. Amir
Is-ḥāk sought for mercy, and became ashamed of his con-
duct, and he was forgiven.
Subsequently to this, Amir Nasr's uncle's son, Mansur,
son of Is-ḥāķ, revolted against him in 302 H. in Khurāsān
and Nishāpūr; and Husain 'Ali', who was Wāli [go-
vernor] of Hirāt, joined him in his rebellion. The
Sipah-sālār, [general-in-chief] of Amir Nasr's forces,
Ḥamawiyah, marched against them from Bukhārā, but,
before he came up with them, Manṣūr had died at Nishā-
pūr, and Ḥusain 'Ali returned to Hirāt, but still continued
in a state of revolt. He engaged in many conflicts, and
gave battle on several occasions, until, at length, he was
taken prisoner'. He likewise, being clothed in a dress of
7 Husain, son of 'Ali.
8
حمويه
• In 309 H. Abū Manṣūr-i-Jihāni, was appointed to the government of
Hirāt, Fūshanj, and Bādghais, and arrived at the former city to take up his
appointment. In 311 H. Shāh-Malik, son of Ya'ķūb, son of Laiş, the Şuffari,
and a body of Sanjaris appeared before Hirāt. Simjūr was at Hirāt at this
time; and Shāh-Malik and his party invested Hirāt four months, but could ·
effect nothing, and had to retire. Changes continually took place there for
THE SAMĀNĪ DYNASTY.
37
pardon¹, was forgiven, through the intercession of Muḥam-
mad, son of Aḥmad, Al-Jihāni, the Nayab of the Empire;
indeed, during the reign of Amir Nasr, whoever revolted
against his authority, was either put to death, or, on
expressing penitence for his conduct, was pardoned.
His sovereignty continued during the reigns of the Khali-
fahs, Al-Muktadir B'illah, Al-Kahir B'illah, Ar-Rāzi B'illah,
up to that of Al-Muttaķi B'illah, and he continued to pay
fealty to them, and to render them submission and obedi-
ence; and, from each of those Khalifahs likewise, he re-
ceived a commission and a standard. He continued to
reign, until the month of Rajab, in the year 331 H.2, when
he died³. He was spoken of by the title, or surname,
of the Amir-i-Sa'id, or the August Amir, and his reign
extended to a period of thirty years.
He had three sons,
some years. In 319 H. Abū Zakriā-i-Yaḥyā, son of Aḥmad, son of Isma'il,
Sāmāni, appeared before Hirāt, ousted Shabāsi, who had seized the govern-
ment, burnt some of the gates, and threw down part of the walls, and left
Ķarā-Tigin, a slave of Abū Ibrahim, Sāmāni, in possession. He then departed
towards Samrķand, but, the following day, Amir Nasr himself reached Hirāt,
stayed one day, and set out by way of Karukh, after Abū Zakria, leaving
Simjūr again governor of the province. In 321 H., Manṣūr, son of 'Ali, was
appointed. He died there in 324 H., having been Wali [governor] for three
The appointment was then conferred upon Muḥammad, son of Hasan,
son of Is-ḥāk. Soon after, in the same year, Abu-l-'Abbās, Muḥammad,
son of Al-Jarraḥ, marched against Hirāt, took Muḥammad, son of Hasan,
captive, and sent him, in bonds, to Jurjān to Balka-Tigin. In 326 H. the
office of Wazir was conferred upon Muḥammad, son of Muḥammad, Al-Jihāni,
by Amir Nasr.
years.
Our author generally leaves out the principal events, or most of them, so
does not say anything of Mākān, son of Kāki, Dilami, his attempt on
Khurāsān, or the events which led to his death. He was slain by Amir 'Ali,
son of Ilyas, who was one of the Umra-i-Juyush [Commanders of the Forces]
of Amir Nasr. Amir Nasr sent a Dabir [Secretary] along with Amir 'Ali,
with directions to transmit him a brief account of what took place, and send
it by a carrier-pigeon. He did so in the following words-bylo ulslo lol
containing a play upon the first part of his name, Mākān [„SL] was not,"
which interpreted is "Was not' has become like his name.
""
In this same year, 329 H., Balka-Tigin was removed from the government
of Hirāt, and it was again conferred upon Abū Manṣur-i-Kara-Tigin.
¹ A winding-sheet, with a sword hung round his neck, probably, as was the
custom until very lately.
2 It was in Amir Nașr's reign that Alb-Tigin is first mentioned as being
one of his mamlūks or slaves, but it was only in the subsequent reign that he
rose to the rank of Amir [lord]. See page 40, and note 4.
3 The Tarikh-i-Guzidah, Tārikh-i-Faşiḥ-i, Tarikh-i-Ibrāhimi, and other
histories, state that Amir-Nasr was slain by his own slaves, 12th of Ramazan,
330 II., but some say it took place in 331 H.
38
THE TABAKAT-I-NĀṢIRĪ.
Nüḥ, Isma'il, and Muhammad, and the first succeeded
him.
VI. NŪḤ, SON OF NASR, SON OF AHMAD, SĀMĀNĪ.
Amir Nūḥ, son of the Amir-i-Sa'id, ascended the throne
of the dominion of 'Ajam, on the 5th of the month of
Sha'bān, in the year 331 H., and he reigned for a period
of twelve years and three months. He had two sons,
'Abd-ul-Malik and Manşür. The Lord of the Faithful,
Al-Muttaki B'illah, sent Amir Nuḥ a standard, with the
deed of investiture, confirming him in the government of
the whole of the territories of 'Ajam and Khurāsān, which
had been held by his father. He appointed the Imām,
Shams-ul-A'immah, Abi-ul-Fazl, Muḥammad, son of Al-
Ḥākim, Sarakhsi, the author of the work entitled "Mukh-
taşar-i-Kafi," to the office of Wazir, and made him his
Nayab, and entrusted to him the administration of his
affairs.
Having entered upon his office, the Imam began to
conduct the affairs of the country according to the pre-
cepts of wisdom and knowledge, the rules of justice,
and the canons of the orthodox law and usage, and, in
such a manner, that he left not the least thing neglected.
Matters went on in this way until Amir Nūḥ, through the
rebellion of 'Abd-ullah, son of Ashkan, Khwārazm Shah,
proceeded to Marw' in 332 H., and brought that impor-
tant matter to a successful issue. In the year 335 H., his
4 In 330 H., according to others, as stated previously.
5 Nuḥ first appointed Ḥākim Abū-l-Fazl, Aḥmad, son of Muḥammad, to the
office of Wazir in 330 H., when he succeeded his father.
In the same year
I find Amir Nūḥ giving orders to put the Wazir Abū-l-Faṛl, Al-Bal’ami, to
death. This is not the Wazir, Al-Bal'ami, who translated the Tārikb-i-
Tabari, but of the same family.
• The Mujmal-i-Fașiḥ-i mentions among the events of the year 332 H., that
'Abd-ullah, son of Ashkām, manifested hostility towards Amir Nūḥ, but where,
is not stated.
The Khwārazm Shāhis are not mentioned by our author until
a long period after this time. The name of this person is written Ashkān,
Ashkāb, and Askāb, in as many different copies of the MS. In 331 H. Kară-
Tigin had been removed from the government of Hirāt, and it was conferred
upon Ibrahim, son of Simjūr, who, in the following year, sent thither Abū-l-
Fazl-i-'Aziz, son of Muḥammad, the Sijizi, to act as his deputy, until he came
himself, and directed that the gateways should be destroyed and the walls of
the city thrown down.
7 Neither "Meru" nor "Merve" is the correct pronunciation.
THE SAMANĪ DYNASTY.
39
8
uncle, Is-ḥāk, who had fled to Baghdad, had managed to
obtain from the Khalifah, Al-Muktafi B'illah, the investi-
ture of Khurasan. He, accordingly, entered those parts,
and seized upon the territory of Jibal' and Khurasan.
Amir Nuḥ had proceeded to Marw to expel him, but
the whole of his nobles, his retinue, and the soldiery were
disaffected. They had become annoyed and irritated at
the enlightenment displayed, and the just administration of
Shams-ul-A'immah, and had become quite sated with his
ministry, because he had entirely fettered the hands of
tyrants and oppressors, and restrained their extortionate
demands and exactions, so that that party were unable to
succeed in acquiring what their ambition and tyranny sug-
gested.
Amir Nuḥ, was in urgent need of his army's ser-
vices, to enable him to oppose his uncle, Amir Is-ḥāk,
whilst the troops began to show a rebellious spirit
towards him, and an inclination to take the side of his
uncle. A party of the officers of his army, tyrants and
enemies to progress and good government, proceeded to
the presence of Amir Nuḥ, and stated that all the dissatis-
faction and discontent among his retinue and troops, the
confusion in the country, and division in the state, was caused
by the Wazir, Shams-ul-A’immah ¹. "Give him," they
demanded, “over into our hands, or otherwise we will all
join your uncle." Amir Nuḥ was constrained by necessity
to deliver the Imām into the hands of those tyrants, and
they brought him forth. At the entrance of the royal
residence there stood two tall white poplar-trees. These
they bent downwards, and, fastening each of that unfor-
tunate minister's feet to a branch of either tree which was
nearest it, let the trees spring back again into their upright
1
8 Other authors mention hostilities between Amir Nuḥ and his uncle
Ibrahim.
9 Jibal, or the Highlands of 'Irak, is meant here.
1 Faşiḥ-i, under the events of the year 335 H., mentions that Abū 'Ali-i-
Simjūr became hostile towards Amir Nuḥ, son of Nașr, and that the troops
demanded of him the Wazir, Ḥākim Abu-l-Fazl, son of Muḥammad, and that
the Amir had to comply, whether he liked it or not, and that they put the
Wazir to death, after he had held that office four years. After his being thus
put to death, Amir Nūḥ conferred the office of Wazir upon Shams-ul-
A'immah
; so it seems from this, that our author has confused the two
ministers into one.
40
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NAŞIKI.
position, and that great man was thus torn asunder. This
occurrence took place in the year 335 H.
Amir Nūḥ, son of Nașr, died in 343 H., and he was styled
by the title of Amir-i-Hamid, or the Laudable Amir.
VII. 'ABD'-UL-MALIK, SON OF NŪḤ, SĀMĀNĪ.
On the decease of Amir Nuḥ, the son of Nasr, the whole
of the great nobles and principal commanders of the troops
agreed together to give their allegiance to his son, Abū-l-
Fawāris-i-'Abd-ul-Malik, and they accordingly placed him
on the throne. The Wazir's office was given to Abū
Manşūr, Muḥammad, son of Al-'Aziz³, and the commander
over the Amir's troops was Abū Sa'id-i-Bakir, son of Al-
Malik, Al-Farghāni.
Amir 'Abd-ul-Malik based the administration of the
government of his dominions upon the rules of justice
and rigour, and placed Walis [governors] in different
parts, while others of the great nobles were retained
by him in authority near his own person. An arrange-
ment was entered into with Abu-l-Ḥasan, son of Buwiah
respecting his territory, for the sum of 200,000 rukni
dirams ³.
3
This treaty was concluded, in accordance
with the mandate of the Amir 'Abd-ul-Malik, by Abu
Sa'id-i-Bakir, son of Al-Malik, Al-Farghāni, before men-
tioned, who was the general of his troops; but Abu
Sa'id being suspected of partiality in this matter towards
the Dilaman and the family of Buwiah, Amir 'Abd-ul-
Malik put him to death. He also imprisoned the Wazir,
and subsequently put him to death likewise, as both he
and Abu Sa'id had become tainted with the doctrine of the
Karāmiṭah sect of heretics. The command of his troops
was entrusted to Alb-Tagin', the Hajib [chamberlain],
2 Amir 'Abd-ul-Malik made Abū Ja'far, ul-'Uṭbā, his Wazir, according to
other authors.
3 See the dynasty of the Dialamah, page 55.
In Faşiḥ-i, Alb-Tagin is first mentioned in the year 267 H. in the following
words :-"Birth of Alb-Tagin, the freedman (-) of Nasr, son of Aḥmad,
Sāmāni." According to the same excellent authority, in 346 H., Abū Manṣür, son
of 'Abd-ur-Razzāk, who had been made Wāli [ruler] of Hirāt [which appears
to have always formed a province of itself, from its constant separate mention],
that same year left it, and retired to Tus, thus throwing up his command.
THE SAMANĪ DYNASTY.
43
until the year 350 H.5, when Amir 'Abd-ul-Malik, having-
gone one evening to the Maidan or Course to amuse him-
self in playing Chaugan, fell from his horse and was
killed, after having reigned for a period of little over
seven years.
8
VIII. MANŞŪR, SON OF NŪḤº, SĀMĀNĪ.
On the decease of Amir 'Abd-ul-Malik, the commanders
of the troops, and the heads and elders of the religious
bodies and the law, at the capital [Bukhārā], met together,
Great agitation and commotion took place at Hirāt in consequence, and the
government was bestowed upon the Hajib, or chamberlain, Alb-Tigin. The
latter sent his deputy, Abū Is-ḥāk-i-Tahiri, thither; but in the same year Abū
Is-ḥāk was seized and bound and removed, and Husain, son of Ribāl, came to
Hirāt as Alb-Tigin's deputy. * * * In 350 H. Hirāt was given to Abū-1-Ḥasan-
i-Simjūr. This Alb-Tigin is the Turkish slave who was master of Sabuk-
Tigin, who was also a Turkish slave, and father of Mahmud of Ghaznin.
Some persons, who appear to have been unable to read Persian for themselves,
have called him by all sorts of names in their so-called "Histories of India,"
and in professed translations, such as Alputtekein,' Abistageen,"
Abistagy," Abistagi," Alepteggin," and the like, from Dow down to
Marshman, and his "Samanides" and "Aluptugeen," who “ rose through the
gradations of office to the government of Candahar [which is never once men-
tioned by any writer of that period] or Ghuzni ”—he is not quite sure which.
5 Abū Suliman-i-Da'ūd, Al-Fanākāti, says in 351 H. Mansur succeeded in
((
349 H.
t
6 Chaugān is a game somewhat resembling tennis, but played on horseback,
and with a stick with one end bent, instead of a bat. The Turks were
passionately fond of it. Amir 'Abd-ul-Malik, Sāmāni, was riding at full
speed after the ball, when he fell from his horse, and was so injured thereby
that he died. Kutb-ud-din, Ï-bak, the first of the Turkish slave-kings of Dihli
was also killed from a fall while playing at this same game.
The
7 Faşiḥ-i says,
"This occurred in the year 348 H., although some say in
351 H.," and, that "it happened either whilst playing at Chaugan, or whilst
hunting." He had reigned seven years, six months, and eleven days.
* There is great discrepancy here between our author and others.
Tarikh-i-Guzidah, Nusakh-i-Jahān-Ārā, Lubb-ut-Tawārikh, Tārikh-i-Ibrā-
himi, Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh, Khulāṣat-ul-Akhbar, Tārikh-i-Vāfa'i, and
last, and not the least trustworthy history, the Mujmal-i-Faşiḥ-i, all say that
Abu-Ṣāliḥ, son of 'Abd-ul-Malik, son of Nūḥ, surnamed Us-Sadid, the son,
not the brother of the late Amir 'Abd-ul-Malik, succeeded his father. The
first event mentioned in the latter work, under the year 349 H., Accession
to the throne of Mansur, son of 'Abd-ul-Malik, son of Nuḥ, son of Nasr, son
of Ahmad, son of Isma'il, Sāmāni." What is most strange in our author's
statement is that he only mentions one name of the two; and therefore I
suspect he has confused them. All the copies of the MS., however, are alike
on this point.
D
1
THE TABAKAT-I-NĀṢIRĪ.
40
and held consultation whether they should raise to the
throne Abū Ṣāliḥ-i-Manṣur, son of Nuḥ, the late Amir's
brother, or the latter's son.
At this juncture Alb-Tigin, the Amir-i-Hajib [Lord-
Chamberlain], was absent in Khurasan, and the Wazir of
the late Amir was 'Ali Al-Bal'ami ', between whom and the
Amir-i-Ḥājib great unanimity and concord existed. The
Wazir wrote to Alb-Tigin to consult with him on this matter,
and have his advice, to which Amir Alb-Tigin wrote in reply
that the son's right to succeed his father to the throne was
greater than that of the father's brother'; but, before Alb-
Tigin's reply had time to arrive, the whole of the soldiery, the
great nobles, and the heads of religion and law, had agreed
to place Amir Manşūr, son of Nūḥ, on the throne, and
had already installed him thereon. When the news reached
Alb-Tigin respecting Amir Manşūr's elevation to the
sovereignty, he despatched messengers and agents in
order to stop by the way, those bearing his letter of reply,
and to bring it back, but they did not succeed in finding
the kāṣids, or couriers, who bore it.
Amir Alb-Tigin [at this period] held the government
of the province of Nishapur from the Sāmāni Court 2,
but it was [now] conferred upon Ibn 'Abd-ur-Razzāķ³.
9 His name is not correctly given by our author. His right name is Abū
’Ali, son of 'Abd-ullah, Muḥammad, Al-Bal'ami; and on the authority of the
Āṣār-ul-Nuzarā, Tārikh-i-Yāfa'i, and other works, Abū 'Ali was the translator
of the Tarikh of Imam Muḥammad Jarir-ut-Tabari, as stated in the preface to
that translation. See note, page 44.
¹ Other writers state quite contrary to this, and say that Alb-Tigin, having
risen so as to be considered one of the greatest Amirs, was written to, and
asked which of the two named he preferred being raised to the throne. He
wrote in reply that the uncle was the best of the two; but, before his reply
came, the nobles and great men had raised Manṣur, son of the late 'Abd-ul-
Malik, to the throne. On this account Manṣur cherished enmity towards
him, or at least Alb-Tigin thought so. Faşiḥ-i says nothing whatever
respecting the letter to the Wazir, or his advice as to the succession. Had
Alb-Tigin written what our author states he did, it was entirely in favour of
the son, and therefore if Mansur was the son he could have no cause to
entertain enmity against him; but, if the uncle, the case would be different.
I have been very careful to give the exact words here.
2 See note 4, page 40.
and
3 It was conferred upon Abū-l-Ḥasan-i-Simjūr in 351 H., he having become
Şahib-ul-Jaish, or commander of the troops, and proceeded to Nishāpūr ;
the government of Hirat was conferred upon Abu-l-Ḥasan, son of 'Umro
Al-Fāryābi. After four months it was bestowed upon Talḥah, son of Mu-
ḥammad, Un-Nisa'i. In 352 H. Alb-Tigin died.
THE SĂMANĪ DYNASTY.
43
!
5
Alb-Tigin was filled with wonder and astonishment, and
he determined to proceed from Nishapur to the court of
Bukhārā; but, when he had reached Balkh, on the way.
thither, having been informed, respecting the change in the
heart of Amir Manşūr towards him, on account of the letter
he had despatched [which had fallen into Manṣūr's hands],
on reaching Balkh, he turned aside, and proceeded towards
Ghaznin. Amir Manṣur despatched a commission after
him, and pacified his mind [by assuring him of his favour].
In this reign, Hasan, son of Buwiah, died; and his son,
Fanā Khusrau, removed his father's treasures, and pro-
ceeded to Baghdad, overcame his uncle, Bakhtyär, and pos-
sessed himself of 'Irak. The 'Ulama and the Kāzis he
now put forward, and solicited an accommodation from
Amir Mansur, under the agreement that he, Fana Khusrau,
should retain possession of the territories of 'Irāk, Rai,
Gürgan, and Tabaristan, in fief, on payment of a tribute,
at the rate of one thousand gold dinārs daily '.
During the reign of Amir Manṣūr, in Farghānah, Sijistān,
and 'Irāk, the whole of the great nobles were continually
revolting from his authority; but the Almighty was
pleased to bestow victory upon the Amir's nobles and
4 This too is quite contrary to other writers, who give much greater details
of these matters. An army was sent by Manṣur against Alb-Tigin, who
defeated it, and then marched against Ghaznin, and gained possession of it.
Upon this Manṣur proposed to move against him in person, but instead, he sent
a still larger force than before against him, but did not succeed in reducing
him. The details of these events are far too long for insertion here.
I may
mention, however, that "when Alb-Tigin appeared before Ghaznin, the Ṣāḥib,
or lord of Ghaznin, refused to admit him, on which he invested it until it was
reduced to such straits that the city was surrendered to him, and he put the
Badshah of Ghaznin to death." On this Amir Mansur sent 30,000 horse
against him, but he suddenly fell upon them with a force of 6000, and defeated
them. On this Manṣur gave up the contest. Our author says nothing more
respecting Alb-Tigin until the middle of the next reign, and then, that he
"had died at Ghaznin." The Mujmal-i-Faşiḥ-i, which is quite silent on the
hostility between Manṣur and his slave, and the cause of it, states, under the
year 352 H., that "Alb-Tigin, Turk, died at Ghaznin in this year," and that
"Is-ḥāk, son of Alb-Tigin, assumed the government." See note on this
subject at page 71. Our author is entirely silent on the affairs of Khalaf, sou
of Aḥmad, in Sijistān, and of his proceeding to the court of Bukhārā to
obtain aid from Manşür. See notes to Section XIV.
5 The investiture of Ghaznin he means, no doubt.
• See account of the Buwiahs farther on, and note 8 to page 63.
7 The I. O. L. MS., the Bod. MS., and the R. A. S. MS., say
thousand gold dinārs;" but the other MSS. give the amount as above.
"three
D 2
44
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĂŞIRĪ.
troops, until the whole of the rebels were reduced to sub-
mission.
Amir Manṣur died on Tuesday, the 11th of the month of
Shawwal, 365 H., after a reign of seventeen years, six
months, and eleven days. He went by the surname of
the Amir-i-Sadid, or the Steadfast Amir.
IX. NŪḤ, SON OF MANŞUR, SON OF NŪḤ, SĀMĀNĪ.
His sons were Manşür, 'Abd-ul-Malik, and Muḥammad'.
On the departure from this world of Amir Manṣur, son
of Nuḥ, they [the people] gave their allegiance to his son,
Amir Abu-l-Kasim-i-Nuḥ, and raised him to his father's
throne. The Lord of the Faithful, Ut-Ta'i'u-L'illah, sent
him a patent of investiture and a standard.
The new ruler directed Fayik-i-Khāṣah', and Tāsh',
the Ḥajib [chamberlain], to assume the command of his
troops and the direction of military affairs. Abu-l-Hasan-i-
Simjūr, who was the son of a slave of this dynasty, and
ruled, in the name of Amir Nūḥ, over parts of Khurāsān,
such as Hirāt and Nishāpūr, and over the territory of
Mawar-un-Nahr, received the title of Naşir-ud-Daulah
from the Amir, and the territory of Tūs was added to the
territories already held by him.
The office of Wazir was conferred upon Abi-ul-Hasan-
i-'Abd-ullah, son of Aḥmad Al-'Utbā; and Tash, the
Hajib, was made head of the army, or commander-in-
chief, with the title of Hisām-ud-Daulah. Kābūs, son
of Washm-gir, was made Wali [governor] of Gurgān,
8 Five years previous to this event, in 360 H., Maḥmūd, son of Sabuk-
Tigin, was born.
9 The author's arrangement of his work is by no means uniform; he some.
times mentions the sons of rulers, and at times leaves them out altogether.
This too is often the case with respect to their titles. The title of Nuḥ was
Ar-Riza, and other authors style him Nüḥ, son of Manşür, son of 'Abd-ul-
Malik, son of Nūḥ, son of Nașr, &c.
1 From one meaning of this word, Fayik appears to have been a
secretary. The Tarikh-i-Ibrahimi calls him Fāyiķ-i-Bak-Tūzūn.
2 His right name is Abu-l-'Abbās-i-Tāsh. 3 So in all copies of the text.
The author of the Tarikh-i-Yamini was of this family. The name has
been sometimes written 'Utbi. Guzidah, and other most trustworthy works
state that Abū 'Ali, son of 'Abd-ullah-i-Muḥammad, son of Bal'ami, trans-
lator of the Tarikh-i-Tabari, was his Wazir. In the preface to that translation
Mansur is styled son of Nūḥ.
HE SAMĀNĪ DYNASTY.
45
and he and other nobles were despatched along with Tash
into 'Irāk, in order to carry on hostilities against Buwiah",
son of Al-Hasan, son of Buwiah. They fought a battle
before the gate of Gurgan and were defeated, and Tāsh,
the Ḥājib, was overthrown and had to retreat.
6
After some time Tāsh and Abū-l-Ḥasan-i-Simjūr, both
of them, revolted; but, after some struggles, and victory
over the Dialamah of the family of Buwiah, they both
returned to their allegiance; and the command of Amir
Nuḥ's forces, after some time, fell to Abi 'Ali, son of
Simjūr, and Nishāpūr was made over to him, and he re-
ceived the title of 'Imad-ud-Daulah.
8
In this reign likewise, Amir Abū Mūsa-i-Harun, I-lak
Khān, determined to attack Bukhārā, and Amir Nūḥ fled to
Amul, and kept in retirement. Abi 'Ali, son of Simjūr,
now began to act in a rebellious manner. I-lak Khān, after
having succeeded in gaining possession of the country
[Bukhārā] and overthrowing the government, became greatly
afflicted with hæmorrhoids, and determined to retire into his
own territory again. He sent for Amir 'Abd-ul-'Aziz, son of
Nūḥ, son of Nasr, who was an uncle of Amir Nuḥ's, and pre-
sented him with a robe of honour, and made over the ter-
ritory to him, after which he retired towards Turkistan. Amir
Nuḥ, son of Mansur, brought assistance from the Turk-
māns, and set out in pursuit of I-lak Khan until he came
up with him; but I'lak Khān faced about, and inflicted a
defeat upon his pursuers before the gate of Samrkand;
and on his way back to Turkistān the Khān died.
Amir Nūḥ returned again to Bukhārā, and once more
5 So in the original; but it was against the forces of 'Uzd-ud-Daulaḥ, Abū
Shujā'-i-Fanā Khusrau, the Dilami, that Amir Nūḥ's forces were sent. The
details are very long.
6 Our author's account here is very confused. The details would occupy
more space than I can spare.
7 Abū-l-'Abbās-i-Tash, surnamed Hisām-ud-Daulah, died in 379 H., at
Jurjān. Some copies of the text have big for låg.
8 This is incorrect; it was Bughrã Khān, ruler of Turkistān, not Ï-lak, who
was his son and successor, as mentioned farther Manṣiu author himself.
According to Guzidah and other histories, A'
contemplated
assuming independent sovereignty, and sougimjūr at Nishāpūr, ghrã Khān
to aid him in doing so. Bughra Khan's co
Tigin proceeded to Hirāt to attack Aband the author's intention here is
page 46,
y acquired.
? In Mazanda.an,
46
THE TABAKAT-I-NAŞIRĪ.
acquired strength; but, through the rebellion of Abu 'Ali-
i-Simjūr, the affairs of Khurasan had fallen into great
disorder, and [to make matters worse] Amir Alb-Tigin
had likewise died at Ghaznin, and Sabuk-Tigin' had suc-
ceeded him there, and become very powerful.
2
3
The people of Balkh, on account of the weak state of
the Sāmāni ruler's power, implored aid from Amir Sabuk-
Tigin from the tyranny of Fayik-i-Khāṣah, and he had
marched thither. Amir Nuḥ sent a sagacious person
to him, and great graciousness and courtesy passed between
them, and compacts were entered into. Amir Sabuk-
Tigin came to Kash and Nakhshab, and Amir Nūḥ
came out of Bukhārā [to meet him], and they united
[their forces], and afterwards marched into Khurāsān
to crush Abi 'Ali-i-Simjūr". When they reached the
confines of Tāl-kān, the agents and instigators of the
Karamiṭah and Mulaḥidah schismatics had arrived in that
territory, and a great number of the people of those parts
had listened to and accepted their doctrine. Amir Sabuk-
Tigin laid hands upon the whole of them, and made holy
war, as by orthodox institutes prescribed, [upon them],
and obtained the title of Nasir-ud-din.
When Bu 'Ali-i-Simjūr became aware that Amir Nuḥ
and Sabuk-Tigin had set out towards Hirāt, he left Nisha-
1 The only correct way of spelling his name as given with the vowel points—
s followed by the short vowel a, silent b followed by the short vowel u, and
silent k = Sabuk; t with the short vowel i, and silent g, the long vowel 7, and
silent "= Tigīnutile (Sabuk-Tigin). Neither "Sebektekein," nor
39 66
سبكتكين
"Sabak Tagin, Subuktugeen," "Sébekteghin," "Subuktagi," &c.
2 Sabuk-Tigin had certainly succeeded; but between his accession and Alb-
Tigin's death sixteen years had intervened, and three other persons had ad-
ministered the government.
3 Kesh," as this place has been styled in some works, is an impossible
word. The Persian is and by any change of the vowel points it cannot
be made Kesh. It must be either Kash, Kish, or Kush; but the first is correct.
Faşiḥ-i says, under 382 H., Amir Nuḥ, son of Mansur, Sāmāni, and
Amir Nasir-ud-din, Sabuk-Tigin along with him, came to Hirāt, and fought
a battle with Abū 'Ali-i-Simjūr, and overthrew him." It was in the following
year, 383 H., that Bughrā Khan advanced against Bukhārā. Our author has
put this event pe Tārikh-i-. Nūḥ and Sabuk-Tigin joining against Abū ’Ali-i-
Simjūr, not of name is Abu-l-'order of events, bui also giving Bughrā Khān
a wrong napthor of the Tarikhname was Shihab-ud-Daulah, Hārūn, son of
been sometimes written 'Utbi. rnamed Bughrā Khan, the Turk, and he held
state that Abū 'Ali, son of 'Athar to the Jiḥun. His son, Ï-lak Khán, suc-
lator of the Tarikh-i-Tabari, wa Nuḥ gave the government of Khurāsān to
Mansur is styled son of Nūḥ,
་
THE SAMANĪ DYNASTY.
47
I
pur and proceeded thither. Amir Nüḥ, on the day of
the engagement between the two armies, gave up the com-
mand of the troops to Amir Sabuk-Tigin. When their
forces encountered each other before the gate of Hirāt, and,
during the engagement, Dārā, son of Ķābūs, son of
Washm-gir, who was on the side of Abu 'Ali, deserted.
and went over to the other side; and Abū 'Ali was over-
thrown, through the misfortune of his having acceded, as well
as most of the chief men of that territory, and his army also,
to the exhortations of the Karamiṭahs, and having become
contaminated with that heresy. He had founded a Masjid-i-
Jami'', or great masjid, at Nishāpūr, intending, when it
should be completely finished, that the Khutbah should be
read there for Muştanşir-i-Mișri'. This victory was gained
by Amir Nūḥ, son of Mansur, in the middle of the month
of Ramazan, in the year 384 H.; and, after this success, the
affairs of the province of Hirāt were arranged by Amir
Nūḥ, and he proceeded to the territory of Nishāpūr.
Abū’Ali-i-Simjūr now sought for peace; but, on his request
not being acceded to, he left Nishāpūr, and set out towards
Rai, and sent his son to Abu-l-Ḥaṣan, son of Buwiah.
Amir Nuḥ was now left to return [to his capital]; and
Sabuk-Tigin and his son, Amir Mahmud, were stationed
at Nishāpūr; but, as Amir Nūḥ paused at Tūs, Sabuk-
Tigin despatched his son, Amir Maḥmūd, to the Court;
and he was nominated to the command of the troops, and the
title of Saif-ud-Daulah was conferred upon him, together
with the government of Nishapur. Subsequently to this, Amir
Nuḥ, son of Manşür, returned to Bukhārā, leaving Balkh,
Hirāt, Nishāpūr, and the territory of Khurāsān', under the
care of Amir Sabuk-Tigin and his son, Amir Maḥmūd,
the latter of whom took up his quarters at Nishāpūr.
5 With a body of troops.
The great masjid, in which the Khutbah is read on Fridays, is called by
this name.
7 The rival Khalifah, whose seat was in Misr, and who was head of the
Karamiṭah sect at this period, was Ul-'Aziz B'illah, Manṣūr-i-Nizār, who died
in 386 H.
8 Fasih-i says Nūḥ defeated Abū ’Ali-i-Simjūr at Nishapur, and that Abū
'Ali fled.
9 He was not "Amir" Maḥmud then, and the author's intention here is
merely to call him by the title he subsequently acquired.
1 So in the original.
48
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĂŞIRĪ,
In the month of Rabi'-ul-awwal, 385 H., Abū 'Ali-i-
Simjūr came out of Gurgan, and advanced to Nishāpūr,
with the intention of compelling Maḥmūd to relinquish it,
and the people of the city espoused his cause. Maḥmūd,
after much opposition and hard fighting, was defeated, for
he had but a small force with him, and retired again to Hirāt.
Abū 'Ali-i-Simjūr again gained possession of Nishāpūr, and
continued there until Sabuk-Tigin, with a large army, ad-
vanced towards that place. Abū 'Ali moved forward towards
Tus to oppose his advance, and there they encountered each
other, and a severe and sanguinary battle ensued. Amir
Maḥmūd made an attack upon the rear of Abū 'Ali's army,
and broke through his ranks, and overthrew Fayik, who
was with him, and completed the defeat of Abū 'Ali's army.
Fayik retired to Bukhārā, and there was thrown into con-
finement, and died². Amir Sabuk-Tigin proceeded to
Balkh, and took up his quarters there; and Amir Maḥmūd
returned again to Nishāpūr.
At length, on Friday, the 13th of the month of Rajab,
387 H., Amir Nüḥ, son of Manşür, departed this life. His
reign extended over a period of twenty-one years and nine
months; and in this same year Amir Sabuk-Tigin also died.
X. MANŞÜR, SON OF NUH, SON OF MANŞÜR,
The late Amir Nuḥ had nominated his son, Amir
Manşūr, as his heir and successor; and, when the former
died, his son ascended his father's throne. He entrusted
the command of his forces to Fayik-i-Khāṣah; and Abū
Manşür-i-'Aziz", who, through fear of Amir Mahmud, son
? Other writers say that Fāyik, after this defeat, separated from Abū 'Ali,
and feared to return to Amir Nuḥ, although he had permission to do so,
went, therefore, and joined Ï-lak Khãn, son of Bughrā Khān, and obtained
bigh rank in his service.
3 Hostility arose between Amir Nūḥ and Sabuk-Tigin in 386 H.
He
* Some state that Abū 'Ali and Fāyik sent a force of slaves and had him put
to death; others, that it was supposed he was assassinated at the instigation of
the Sahib, Ibn-i-'Ubbād, the Wazir of Fakhr-ud-Daulah, Abū-l-Ḥaṣan-i-
Buwiah, by the Karamiṭah schismatics. Faşiḥ-i says, "Amir Ar-Rāzi-i-Nūḥ,
died at Nishāpūr, 13th of Rajab, 387 H.; and, in the same year, Sabuk-Tigin,
the slave of the house of Samani, also died."
5 He has not been mentioned before, and who or what he was, the author
does not say; but Faşiḥ-i mentions that the Wazir, Abū Manṣūr-i-'Aziz, was
removed from that office in 388 H., on account of disagreement with Fayik, the
Hajib.
THE SĂMÂNÎ DYNASTY,
49
of Sabuk-Tigin, had fled, and retired to Isfanjāb', was
brought back again. At the time of returning he had
implored help from I-lak Khan, soliciting that he would
take vengeance upon the enemies and opponents of Amir
Mansur, When Abū Manşūr, son of 'Aziz, reached the
gate of Samrkand he seized him; and at this period Fāyik-
i-Khāṣah was at Samrkand. I-lak Khan summoned Fayik
to his presence, and despatched him to Bukhārā with an
army; and, on Amir Manşūr becoming aware of it, he left
Bukhārā, and retired to Amul.
When Fayik reached Bukhārā, and approached the gate of
the palace of the Sāmāni princes, he showed great emotion,
and became greatly agitated, and went and joined Manṣūr
[Amir Manşūr, son of Nūḥ], and asked of him why he had
left the government, and abandoned the capital. Manşür, on
this, returned to Bukhārā again, and left the office of com-
mander of the troops [there, as previously stated,] to Fāyik,
and in Khurāsān the command over the troops was given
to Bak-Tüzün', as Amir Mahmud had proceeded to
Ghaznin, in order to take possession of the territory of his
father, Sabuk Tigin [who was now dead], and he left Bak-
Tūzūn the command over the forces in KhurāsānⓇ.
At this period Bak-Tüzün slew Abu-l-Kasim-i-Simjūr, and
took up his residence at Nishapur; and, on this, Amir Maḥ-
mūd marched an army from Ghaznin towards Khurāsānº.
6 Also written Sifanjāb,
7 In every copy of our author which I have compared, except one, the first
letter of this word is m, and the other letters also differ; but from other
histories it is fully proved that the name of this personage is Bak-Tūzūn. A
similar name occurs in the history of the Dialamah: and sometimes the Bak
is omitted, as in the Jami'-ut-Tawarikh. Guzidah also has Bak-Tūzūn. The
word, Bak, (e) is quite a distinct word from Beg (…). The Shams-
ul-Lughat describes it as written with Arabic kaf [i. e. not gaf], and short a
-Bak, signifying a lord," a great man." It is a title or surname, like Bak
in Bak-Taghdi, Alb in Alb-Tigin, and Balkā in Balkā-Tigin, &c. The
Tarikh-i-Ibrahimi calls him Fayik-i-Bak-Tüzün.
8 The command of the troops, and the government which he had held, when
the late Amir died. Other authors state that Manṣur would not confirm
Maḥmud in that appointment, and that he became hostile in consequence.
In
9 A great deal of detail is wanted here to elucidate these transactions.
the month of Rabi'-ul-Awwal, 388 H., Abu-l-Kasim, the commander of the
Simjūri forces, was defeated by Bak-Tüzün, on which he retired to Fushanj,
Bak-Tüzün again assembled a force, and advanced to Fushanj against Abu-l-
Ķāsim; but an agreement was arrived at between them.
I have not space to
give further details.
50
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĂŞIRĪ.
Bak-Tūzūn, being aware that he could not cope with
Maḥmūd, evacuated Nishāpūr, and set off for the pre-
sence of Amir Manṣūr. The latter had left Bukhārā,
and had arrived at Marw, and Fayik was with him; but,
when Bak-Tūzūn joined him, Amir Manṣūr had reached
Sarakhs. Fayik-i-Khāṣah and Bak-Tüzün now con-
spired together to dethrone Amir Manşür; and, on the
night of the 12th of the month of Safar', 389 H., they
removed him from the sovereignty, after which they left
Sarakhs, and went back to Marw again. There they agreed
together to place Abu-l-Fawāris-i-'Abd-ul-Malik, son of
Nūḥ, on his brother's throne. This they carried out, and
they deprived Amir Abu-l-Ḥirs2-i-Manṣur, son of Nūḥ, of
his sight, after he had reigned one year and eight months.
XI. ABŪ-L-FAWĀRIS-I-'ABD-UL-MALIK, SON OF NŪḤ.
By the time that Fāyik-i-Khāṣah and Bak-Tūzūn had
placed Amir 'Abd-ul-Malik upon the throne, Amir Maḥmūd³
had arrived at Balkh; and, on being made acquainted with
this occurrence, he advanced to the gates of Marw in order
to revenge the treatment which Amir Manṣur had suffered
at their hands. They, however, sent an agent to negotiate
with Maḥmūd; and an arrangement was entered into
between them and him, whereby it was agreed that Hirāt
and Balkh should be held by Mahmud, and Marw and
Nishapur by them. Amir Maḥmüd, after this arrangement,
again retired, and this was on Tuesday, the 26th of the
month of Jamādi-ul-awwal, in the year 389 H.
1 Fașiḥ-i says, on the 8th of Şafar, and that they then deprived Amir
Mansur of his sight. His reign, according to the same authority, was one year
and nine months.
2 According to some, Abu-l-Hāris was his title, but Abu-l-Hirs is correct.
The whole of the Sāmāni rulers had titles of this kind, but the author does not
always give them. I have supplied them.
3 He had dethroned his own brother Isma'il, and had assumed the
Ghaznin throne, a short time previous to the accession of Abu-l-Fawāris-i-'Abd-
ul-Malik.
4 Mahmud fought a battle against 'Abd-ul-Malik, son of Nuḥ, who fled,
along with Fayik and Bak-Tūzūn; the two former retired to Bukhārā, and the
latter to Nishāpūr. Abū-l-Ķāsim-i-Simjur retired to Ķuhistan, and Khurāsān
was left in Maḥmūd's possession. About this time, Maḥmūd gave the com-
mand of his troops to his brother Nasr, and made Balkh the capital of his
dominions. See notes to Mahmud's reign.
THE SĀMĀNĪ DYNASTY.
51
At this period, Dārā, son of Ķābūs-i-Washm-gir, was
Wali [governor] of Gurgān, and incited a party of the slaves,
of the Sāmāni kings [who appear to have taken refuge
with him], to follow the forces of Amir Mahmud, with the
object of plundering his retinue; and they set out in
pursuit of them. Amir Nasr, son of Sabuk-Tigin, the
brother of Maḥmūd, had charge of the rear [column]
of his brother's forces, and joined battle with the body
of pursuers, and also despatched a messenger to Maḥmūd
to inform him of the state of affairs. Amir Maḥmūd
turned back, and proceeded to the scene of action; but,
previously to his reaching it, Amir Nasr had already
defeated the assailants, and put them to the rout.
When the party of nobles, at Marw, became aware that
Mahmud had made a retrograde movement in that direc-
tion, they evacuated it, and retired to Bukhārā. Fāyik,
shortly after these events took place, died in the month of
Sha'ban, of this same year. He had deeply regretted,
and heartily repented of the acts he had committed, but
all was now of no avail, and his contrition came too late;
and all the adherents of the Sāmāni dynasty became
separated and dispersed.
After the death of Fayik, Amir Abu-l-Hasan, Ï-lak'-i-
5 Styled nobles in following paragraph, and refer to slaves such as Alb-
Tigin and Sabuk-Tigin, who were some of the chief men in the state.
6 Mahmud having succeeded his father in 389 H., by the dethronement of
his brother Ismā'il, appointed his brother Naşr commander of his army in
Khurāsān, and made Balkh the capital of his dominions.
At this period,
Amir Abū Ibrāhim-i-Ismā'il, son of Nuḥ, the last of the Sāmānis, was strug-
gling to recover the dominions of his ancestors, after having escaped from
Bukḥārā when Ï-lak-i-Nașr, son of Bughrā Khan, entered it, and had, just
before this period, succeeded in reaching Khwārazm. At this time he had
come to Bukhārā again, from whence he went to Abiward, and from thence to
Nishapur. Naṣr, brother of Maḥmūd, on this, evacuated Nishāpūr with all
despatch, and retreated precipitately towards Hirāt. Subsequently, Maḥmūd
advanced to Nishāpūr, upon which Abū Ibrahim fled therefrom, and took
shelter with Shams-ul-Ma'āli, Ķābūs, son of Washm-gir. This must have been
the time, when, according to our author, Amir Nasr had charge of the rear
[column] of his brother's army, but he has related these events in his usual
confused manner, and has not mentioned even the name of Abū Ibrāhim-i-
Isma'il. See note ¹, page 52.
7 Other authors state that Amir Maḥmūd, son of Sabuk-Tigin, marched
against Bak-Tüzün and Fāyik, who had conspired against their sovereign,
dethroned him, and deprived him of his sight, drove them out of Khurāsān,
and possessed himself of that territory; and that Bak-Tüzün and Fayik fled
52
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĂȘIRĪ,
Nasr, son of 'Ali, brother of the Khan-i-Buzurg, or the
Great Khan, advanced from Farghānah, and appeared
before the gates of Bukhārā, in the month of Zi-Ka'dah,
in the year 389 H. He pretended to the people that he
had come to render aid to Amir Abu-l-Fawāris-i-'Abd-ul-
Malik, son of Nuḥ. Amir 'Abd-ul-Malik despatched the
nobles and principal officers still remaining in his service to
receive him; but, as soon as they approached, he gave
orders to seize the whole of them; and, on the 10th of
Zi-Ka'dah of that same year, he entered Bukhārā. Amir
'Abd-ul-Malik concealed himself; but I-lak-i-Nasr asked
him to return, and succeeded in getting the Sāmāni prince
into his power; after which he sent him to Ūrjand', and
the dominion of the Sāmānis terminated'. The dynasty,
into Māwar-un-Nahr, and once more conspired with I-lak Khãn, who, under
pretence of aiding Amir 'Abd-ul-Malik, whom they had set up, marched out of
Kashghar, and appeared before Bukhārā.
8 Ï-lak, son of Bughrā Khãn, took Bukhārā, 10th of Zi-Ka'dah, 389 H.
The blind Amir Manṣur, 'Abd-ul-Malik, Ibrahim, and Ya'ķūb, the four sons
of Nuḥ, were made captive at the same time.
9 One copy has Ūzjand, but other writers give Uzgand, and the fortress of
Üzgand; and state that there he was confined till his death, which took place
in 389 H. It was the capital of Khwārazm, and the name of a province: the
'Arabs called it Jurjāniah. It is the present Ūrganj.
1 Other most trustworthy historians, some of whose works I have been
quoting from, give an account of the reign, or rather struggles, of another
prince of this dynasty, brother of Manṣūr and 'Abd-ul-Malik, which, in a con-
densed form, is as follows:-
“ABŪ IBRĀHĪM-I-ISMĀ'ĪL, SON OF NUḤ.
"He was known by the title of Muntașir, one of the significations of which
word is 'extricating one's self from any calamity or misfortune,' which may have
reference to the following circumstances. During the uproar and confusion
which ensued upon the seizure of 'Abd-ul-Malik by Ĩ-lak-i-Naṣr, Abū
Ismā'il, having covered himself with the mantle of a slave-girl, succeeded, by
means of that disguise, in getting out of the throng. For three days he lay
concealed in the dwelling of an old woman, after which time he managed to
effect his escape from the place in the dress of a common soldier, and reached
the territory of Khwārazm. Some of the nobles and soldiery of the Sāmānī
dynasty, on becoming aware of his escape, hastened there to join him.
Muntasir by this means acquired some strength; and he began to prepare his
followers to make an effort to regain the territory of his ancestors, For several
years he carried on a desultory warfare on the confines of Khurāsān and
Mãwar-un-Nahr. He encountered the troops of I-lak Khān [I-lak-i-Naṣr],
and the governor of Khurāsān, on several occasions, with various success. At
length, in the month of Rabi'-ul-Awwal 395 H., while in the encampment of a
THE SĂMĂNĪ DYNASTY.
53
from the commencement of the reign of Isma'il up to this
time, had continued for a period of one hundred and eight
years2.
The following table gives the genealogical tree of the
race and dynasty of the Sāmānis³ :—
father of, میلاد میداد MI-DAD
4
ather of كرسيت, and کن, and كركي كركين * KAR-KIN
حنر and جوش and جش] بهرام جشنش BAHRAM JASH-NASH
father of
ather of,شوین] بهرام چوبین BAHRAM CHÜBIN
ather of بود. and نوشیا and نوشید] نوشد NUSHAD
father of [ پوشید, and نوشرد] نوشره NUSHIR
father of عماد, and طرفان and مغات طمغان AMGHAN
ather of چیمان and حسمان and جمان] جشمان JASHMAN
SĀMĀN-I-KHADDĀT
6
[l], father of
ASAD, who had four sons, Nuḥ, Aḥmad, Yahya, Ilyas.
nomad tribe, in whose tents he had sought shelter, in the neighbourhood of
Bukhārā, he was put to death by Mah-Rue [moon-faced], the chief of the
tribe. The Mujmal-i-Faşiḥ-i states that Mah. Rue was 'Amil or subordinate
governor of the district in the vicinity of Üzgand, on the part of Sultan
Maḥmūd, and that Maḥmūd put Mah-Rue to death for his treatment of Amir
Abū Ibrāhim. Thus ended the dynasty of the Sāmānis, none of the race
being left, after having lasted one hundred and three years, nine months, and
eleven days." The account given by Abu-Sulimān-i-Dā'ūd, Al-Fanākati, is
slightly different from this.
2 The I. O. L. MS., No. 1952, and its prototype the R. A. S. MS., for
they seem, as far as errors go, to be copies of each other, give one hundred and
eighty years as the period during which this dynasty continued. Guzidah says
one hundred and two years, six months, and twenty days.
3 To make it more intelligible I have reversed it, as the author begins with
the last ruler. It must be also borne in mind that, as such great difference
exists in all the MSS. as to the names before Sāmān, and that no vowel points
are given, they cannot be absolutely depended upon. I give the variations within
brackets, and also mention the result of my comparison with other writers.
* This word of course may possibly be read Gargin, &c., as in Persian,
may be k or g.
5 No doubt Nushir is correct.
حتمان of
6 Fasih-i gives the following names :-Sāmān-i-Khaddāt, son
son of lab son of son of Bahrām Chūbin, son of Bahrām Ḥashnush,
who is said to have been stationed at Rai and Ahwaz, as Wali of Azarbāijān
on the part of Hurmuz, son of Nūshirwān.
54
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NAŞIRĪ.
NAMES OF RULERS.
PERIOD OF REIGN.
AHMAD, son of Asad,
Eighteen years.
NASR, son of Aḥmad,
Eighteen years.
ISMĀ'ĪL, son of Ah- Eight years7.
SONS.
Naṣr, Isma'il, Is-hāk,
Manşür, Asad, Ya'-
kūb, Ḥamid, Yaḥyā,
Ibrahim.
Ahmad, Nūḥ,
Nuḥ, Ilyās,
Yaḥya.
Naṣr, Manṣūr, Ibrāhim,
Yaḥya.
mad,
ABU NAŞR - I - AH-
MAD, son of Isma'il,
Six
years
months.
and three Ya'kub, Asad.
NASR, son of Aḥmad,
Thirty years.
Nūḥ, Ismā'il, Manṣūr.
NŪḤ, son of Nașr,
Twelve years and three 'Abd-ul-Malik, Abū Ṣā-
months 8.
'ABD-UL-MALIK, son Little over eight years 9.
liḥ-i-Manṣur.
of Nūḥ,
ABU ŞALIH I-MAN-
Seventeen
years, six
ŞÜR, son of Nūḥ,
months, and eleven
days'.
NŪḤ, son of Abū Ṣāliḥ- Twenty-one years and Manṣur, 'Abd-ul-Malik,
i-Mansur,
nine months.
MANŞÜR, son of Nuḥ, One year and six months.
'ABD-UL-MALIK, son Between nine and ten
Muḥammad2.
of Nuḥ,
months.
seven
7 From the period he acquired sole rule. Tarikh-i-Guzidah gives sever
years and ten months.
8 One MS. gives twelve years and nine months, another eleven years and
nine months.
• Two copies have eight years.
1 One MS. has seventeen years; another seventeen years, six months, and
eleven days; two others, eighteen; but, as he assumed power in 350 H., and
died in Shawwal, 365 H., the above is correct.
2 There were other sons besides these.
See note 8 page 52.
SECTION X.
THE DYNASTY OF THE DĪĀLAMAH MALIKS AT THE DÅR.
UL-KHILAFAT OF BAGHDAD, AND IN 'IRĀK.
THE first person of the family of the Diālamah, who
rose to power, was Mākān, son of Kāki, Dilami', who was
¹ Mākān, son of Kāki, was certainly a native of Dilam, but he was not of
the same family as the Buwiahs, and belonged to an entirely different dynasty,
called the Āl-i-Ziyār.
According to the most trustworthy writers, the first of the family of Buwiah,
who attained to sovereign power, was 'Imad-ud-Daulah, Abu-l-Hasan-i-'Ali,
who afterwards received the title of 'Imad-ud-Daulah, the son of Buwiah, son of
Fanā Khusrau, Dilami. 'Imad-ud-Daulah's father is said to have been a
fisherman. Abu-l-Hasan-i-'Ali was an officer in the service of Mardawanj,
as he had previously been in that of Makan, son of Kāki, whom Mardawanj
had succeeded, when Makan retired, and entered the service of the Sāmāniāns.
Mardawanj had conferred some territory upon Abu-l-Hasan, who, in 321 H.,
considered himself sufficiently powerful to endeavour to gain possession of
Ișfahan and the territory of 'Irāk for himself. Abū-1-Ḥasan accordingly
marched against Ișfahan, and defeated Muzaffar, son of Vāķūt, a slave of the
'Abbasi dynasty, who was governor of Fars for the Khalifah. Muzaffar was
defeated, and retired to Shiraz, which was his father's head-quarters. Marda-
wanj did not approve of this movement on the part of Abu-l Ḥasan, and he
determined to march to Ișfahān and oust him. Abu-l-Hasan was not suffi-
ciently strong to oppose Mardawanj, and was advised to turn his arms against
Färs. This he acted upon; and Yāķūt, who came out of Shiraz, the capital
of Fars, to oppose him, was overthrown. Abu-1-Hasan took possession
of it, and made it his capital. This was in 321 H.; and he now
assumed sovereignty, and read the Khutbah for himself, and coined
noney. In 323 H., on the death of Mardawanj, at Isfahan,
he determined to extend his conquests; and he gained possession of
Isfahan, Rai, Ḥulwan, and other territories. He now made his eldest
brother, Abū 'Ali-i-Hasan, afterwards entitled Rukn-ud-Daulah, ruler of
'Irāk, and sent the youngest, Abu-l-Husain-i-Ahmad, afterwards Mu'izz-ud-
Daulah, to Kirmān. In 326 H., 'Imad-ud-Daulah, Abu-l-Hasan-i-Ali, sent
an envoy to Baghdad to the Khalifah-Ar-Rāzi B'illah, and asked to be con-
firmed in the possession of his territory, which was granted; and, in the same
year, 'Imad-ud-Daulah left his brother, Mu'izz-ud-Daulah, as his representa-
tive at Baghdad. In 330 H. 'Imad-ud-Daulah died, after a reign of nearly
seventeen years, leaving no sons. Rukn-ud-Daulah, his eldest brother,
succeeded him at Shiraz, while Mu'izz-ud-Daulah, the youngest, remained at
Baghdad as previously; but, in the course of that same year, Mu'izz-ud-
Daulah set out on an expedition towards Misr and Sham. In 333 H. the
Khalifah, Al-Muttaki B'illah, was blinded by Tüzün, son of Abu-l-Wafā,
$6
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĀṢIRĪ.
Wali [sovereign] of Gurgān until the reign of Abū 'Àli²,
Sāmāni, who succeeded in wresting Gurgan from him, after
considerable fighting. Mākān retired towards Rai, and
sought shelter from Sham-gir [Washm-gir], son of Ayāz.
Abū 'Ali went in pursuit of him, and fought an engage-
ment with both of them, slew Mākān, son of Kaki, and
became powerful in that part.
Amir Buwiah, Dilami, was with Mākān's force; and he
had a great number of followers and dependents, and
grown-up sons, who were endowed with wisdom and valour,
and great talent and ability. All of them rose to great-
ness and renown, and became sovereign princes; and for a
considerable time they held the supreme authority and
dominion at the Dar-ul-Khilafat of Baghdad.
Notwithstanding the author made much search for infor-
mation on this subject in the Tarikh-i-Ibn Haiṣam-i-Sāni",
but little was to be found respecting them and their actions
in those chronicles, on account of some confusion as to which
preceded, which followed the other. The author, therefore,
has written a short account of them, somewhat based on
supposition and conjecture. If any errors have been made,
he hopes he may be excused, since it is known that no
mention is made of them in the histories of 'Ajam and
Khurāsān, except very briefly.
a Turk, the Amir-ul-Umrā [see note ¹, page 58], who set up his son, Al-
Mustakfi. We now come to the first ruler mentioned by our author, who,
certainly appears to have had a very superficial knowledge of this dynasty. He
takes little or no notice of the other two dynasties of Fars and 'Irak, and con-
fines his account to those who ruled at Baghdad. It is the most meagre and
incorrect notice of these princes, that I am acquainted with; and, although
the dynasty only terminated in 459 H., he ends his history of them in 388 H.
Ample materials for a history of this dynasty are available; and I have been
obliged to burden the translation with this long note to make the author's
account intelligible.
2 So stated in all the copies of the work examined, but erroneously; for it
refers to Abū 'Ali, son of Ilyās, Sipah-sālār, or general of the forces of Amir
Nasr, son of Aḥmad, Sāmāni, who overthrew Mākān, son of Kāki, as
subsequently shown. See latter part of note 9, pages 36, 37.
The I. O. L. MS., No. 1952, and of course the R. A. S. MS., have
"and in Yamini" after the word Ṣāni, but not the other MSS. The
word Ṣāni at this place, in four of them, is doubtful; and, in two, another
word follows. I think Ibn Haiṣam-i-Fāryābi" [native of Faryab] is the
correct name of this author.
4 A novel way of writing history, and our author's account of this and other
dynasties shows what such history is.
THE DIĀLAMAH DYNASTY.
57
GENEALOGICAL TREE OF THE DĪĀLAMAH PRINCES OF THE DYNASTY OF BUWĨAH, DĪLAMİ 5.
E
BUWIAH
Fakhr-ud-Daulah wa ud-Din,
Abū-1-Ḥasan [-i-’Ali].
Rukn-ud-Daulah,
Abū 'Ali-i-Ḥasan.
Şamṣām-ud-Daulah,
Marzabān.
['Izz-ud-Din], Bakhtyār.
Fakhr-ud-Daulah.
Muayyid-ud-Daulah,
Buwiah.
'Uzd-ud-Daulah wa ud-Din,
Fanā Khusrau.
Mu'izz-ud-Daulah,
Abu-l-Ḥasan 6-i-Aḥmad.
Baha-ud-Daulah,
[Khusrau Firūz].
Sharaf-ud-Daulah,
Abu-1-Fawāris-i-Mākān".
The names within brackets I
5 The whole of the MSS. compared do not contain this Tree, and, in those that do contain it, it is arranged in such a manner as to be
almost unintelligible without reference to the different princes in the body of the work, besides being incorrect.
have added. The author mentions the names of ten out of eighteen persons, and gives an account of six only.
6 Abu-l-Husain is correct.
His title was 'Imad-ud-Daulah.
8 His correct title and name was Sharaf-ud-Daulah-i-Shir-Zail.
58
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĂŞIRĪ.
I. ABU-L-HASAN, SON OF BUWIAH, UD-DĪLAMİ.
He bore the title of Fakhr-ud-Daulah'; and he, first rose
to power and dominion, from the time that he was Amir
[lord] of Ahwaz, when the Turks of Baghdad, whose chief
and commander was Tūzūn, seized the person of the Lord
of the Faithful, Al-Muttaki B'illah, and deprived him of
his sight, set him aside, and fixed a stipend for his support.
Having done this, Tūzun set up the dethroned Khalifah's
son, Al-Mustakfi B'illah, in his stead, while Tüzün himself
became Amir-ul-Umrā', and assumed the direction of the
whole of the affairs of the Khilafat.
Abu-l-Ḥasan, son of Buwiah, assembled the troops of
Dilam, and marched towards Baghdad; and for a period
of four months carried on hostilities with the Turks, at the
expiration of which time the Turks were defeated, and put
to flight. Abu-l-Hasan took possession of Baghdād, and
his commands were obeyed in all matters respecting the
government of the territory, and the Khilafat. A party of
spies informed him, however, that the Khalifah, Al-Mus-
takfi, meditated treachery towards him, in order to get him
into his power, and intended to put him to death if he suc-
ceeded in doing so. Abu-l-Hasan, however, determined to
be beforehand and to anticipate his intention, and seized
the person of the Lord of the Faithful, Al-Mustakfi
B'illah, blinded him, and set up the Khalifah, Al-Muti'u-
L'illah, in his stead. According to the historian Ut-
Tabri³, he gave himself the title of Mu'izz-ud-Daulah, and
took the whole power in the State into his own hands, so
• He bore no such title: it was Mu'izz-ud-Daulah. His name also, as given
by our author, is not correct. It was Abu-l-Husain-i-Ahmad. For his first
rise to power see note ¹, page 55. His elder brother, 'Imad-ud-Daulah, ought
to have been the first mentioned here.
1 Lord of Lords: a title adopted by the ministers, or rather tyrants, of the
Khalifahs, in the decline of their power. This title was also often conferred upon
the chief commander of an army-a captain-general.
2 Fașiḥ-i, among the events of the year 334 H., mentions the succession of
Al-Muți'u-L'illah, and that he had no territory, and was agreeable to a stipend
being allowed him.
3 As these events occurred in 334 II., and Muḥammad, son of Jarir-ut-
Tabari, died at Baghdād, in 310 H., although some say in 311 11., our author
must refer to the continuation of Tabari's Chronicle by the Wazir, Al-
Bal'ami.
THE DIĀLAMAH DYNASTY.
59
that Al-Muti'u-L'illah was Khalifah only in name, while
he ruled the country, issued his mandates, and exercised
the supreme authority over the Khilafat.
Abu-l-Ḥasan, son of Buwiah, instituted many excellent
regulations which he carried out; and he caused the whole
of the depopulated and dilapidated parts of Baghdad to be
restored and rendered habitable. He also abolished a
custom whereby each quarter of the city possessed a sepa-
rate prison of its own, and had them all demolished. On
the son of Abū-l-Hayjā' he conferred the fief of Mūṣil,
and to his brother, 'Ali, son of Buwiah, he gave the title
of 'Imād-ud-Daulah, and to another brother, Hasan, that
of Rukn-ud-Daulah; and day by day the sovereignty of
the family of Buwiah began to prosper uninterruptedly.
II. AL-HASAN³, SON OF BUWĨAH, UD-DĪLAMĪ.
He was Amir of Hamadān and Rai, and was a person of
great manliness and generosity; and he entertained a large
number of troops in his pay, and possessed great military
resources. The whole of the men of Dilam, both high and
low, were obedient to his authority. He had several "
talented and warlike sons grown up, the name of one of
whom was Fakhr-ud-Daulah, 'Ali, son of Al-Hasan, and of
the second, Muayyid-ud-Daulah, Buwiah. Fakhr-ud-Dau-
lah, 'Ali, was Amir of 'Irāk, to whom Shams-ul-Ma'āli,
Ķābūs-i-Washm-gir, went for protection, and sought his
assistance, and Fakhr-ud-Daulah accordingly marched to
Nishāpūr for that purpose, and Muayyid-ud-Daulah had
4 Only two copies of the MSS. collated are altogether free from a great
blunder, contained in the text here. 'Imad-ud-Daulah whom our author
styles Fakhr-ud-Daulah, the first sovereign prince of the dynasty, had no off-
spring, hence he could not have conferred the government of Müşil on “his”
son, Abu-l-Hayjā," as the R. A. S. MS. and I. O. L. MS. No. 1952 have.
Other writers, very properly, state that these titles were conferred by the Khali-
fahs. Abu-l-Hayjā is a totally distinct person.
5 His correct name is Abu-l-Husain-i-Ahmad, and his title was Mu'izz-ud-
Daulah. His elder brother was called Abū-l-Ḥasan-i-'Ali, as previously stated.
6 Only two sons are mentioned by our author. The I. O. L. MS. No. 1952,
and the R. A. S. MS. also, contains but one name. 'Uzd-ud-Daulah, Abū
Shujā'-i-Fanā Khusrau, the eldest of the sons, who was accounted
of the Buwiah family, is not mentioned here. An account of his
reign, however, is given at page 61.
cream
"the
E 2
бо
THE TABAKAT-I-NĂŞIRĪ.
several engagements with them, the events of which Ṣābi?
has mentioned in his History.
III. BAKHTYÄR, SON OF AL-ḤASAN, SON OF BUWĨAH,
DĪLAMİ.
On the death of his father he took possession of Baghdad,
and directed the affairs of government after the manner of
his father, and acquired great power and dominion. .
As soon as he had become firmly established in his
authority, the Khalifah, Al-Muti'u-L'illah, preferred a re-
quest to him respecting the sedition and discord caused by
the Karamiṭah sect of schismatics, which had assumed
great proportions throughout the empire of Islām, and
urged him to assemble forces and suppress them, and
uproot them utterly. Bakhtyār, however, did not pay
attention to the solicitations of the Khalifah, and, conse-
quently, enmity arose between them. Matters assumed
such an aspect that Bakhtyar was not safe from the designs
of Al-Muti'u-L'illah; and the informers of Bakhtyār
warned him that the Khalifah meditated treachery towards
him. Bakhtyār sought his opportunity, according to the
.statement contained in the History of Ibn-Haiṣam, and
assembled together all the Ķāzis and 'Ulamā—judges,
7 The oldest MS. has Zia-yi; but one of the others has Ṣābi, and another
Ṣāfi, which is one and the same thing, and I also find Guzidah quotes, as one
of its authorities, the Kitāb-i-Nāji of Ṣābi-i-Dabir, or Ṣābi, the secretary ; and,
among the events recorded in Faşiḥ-i in the year 365 H., is the death of Sabit,
son of Sinan, son of Sabit, son of Kurrah, surnamed Abū Ķurrah, us-Sābī, in
the month of Zi-Ka'dah, the author of the Şannafah-ut-Tarikh, containing a
history of events between the years 195 H., and 343 H. This, no doubt, is the
author referred to by the Tarikh-i-Guzidah, and our author.
• As before stated, the father of Bakhtyar was named Abu-l-Husain-i-Aḥmad,
son of Buwiah, and his title was Mu'izz-ud-Daulah. Bakhtyār's title was 'Izz-
ud-Daulah, Abū Manṣūr-i-Bakhtyār. Mu'izz-ud-Daulah, the father of Bakht-
yār, died at Baghdad, of which he was ruler on the part of his nephew,
Amir 'Uzd-ud-Daulah, the head of the dynasty, on the 1st of Rabi'-ul-
Awwal, 356 H., but, according to other writers, on the 16th of that month. He
was known by the name of Ikṭa', having lost his left hand, and the fingers of
his right, in an affair with the Kurds of Kirman according to the Tarikh-i-
Yafa'i, but other writers say, with the Kuch and Baluch, a nomad tribe [two
tribes] then inhabiting a portion of Kirman, according to the Burhan Ķāti',
and from whom the present Baluchis are descended. Kuch in Persian, among
other meanings, signifies a nomad, and in the Afghan language, Kochaey,
which some persons, who know no better, imagine to be the name of an Afghān
tribe, signifies "pastoral" or "nomad. ""
THE DIĀLAMAH DYNASTY.
61
9
lawyers, and ecclesiastics-and transferred the office of
Khalifah to the son of Al-Muti'u-L'illah whose name
was Abu-Bikr-i-'Abd-ul-Karim, and gave him the title
of Ut-Ta-i'u-L'illah. As soon as he was installed in the
Khilafat, he gave his daughter' in marriage to Bakhtyār,
Buwiah, and he became the chamberlain and lieutenant
of the Khilafat.
Soon after this dignity was conferred upon Bakhtyār,
he set out for Ahwaz in order to levy the revenues and
taxes. Sabuk-Tigin, Chashni-gir, [cup-bearer or taster]
who was Bakhtyār's deputy, began to act insubordinately
towards his master, and took the power out of his hands².
IV. FANĀ KHUSRAU³, SON OF AL-ḤASAN, SON OF BUWĨAH,
DĪLAMI.
The title borne by Fana Khusrau was 'Uzd-ud-Daulah',
and he was a proud and haughty prince, but was, at the
same time, endowed with great intellect and valour.
The direction of the affairs of the country, and the diffe-
rent forces were left under his control; and the whole of
the property and treasure of the dependencies of the Dar-
9 The author himself states, in his account of the Khalifahs, Section IV.,
that Al-Muti'u-L'illah abdicated in favour of his son, in 363 H., on account of
his infirmities. Other historians confirm it; but, in Fașiḥ-i, it is said that he
abdicated at the end of Muharram, 364 H., having previously been stricken
with palsy, and died two months afterwards. It must also be remembered
that the Buwiah rulers were Shi'ahs, hence probably their severity towards
the Khalifahs.
¹ Her name was Shāh-i-Zaman, and she had a dowry of 100,000 dinārs.
2 See note 8, at page 63.
3 Al-Fanākati considers Fanā Khusrau third prince of the dynasty.
4 In 366 H., Rukn-ud-Daulah, Abū 'Ali-i-Hasan, son of Buwiah, brother
of 'Imād-ud-Daulah, the founder of the dynasty, died. Some say he died in
365 H. He had succeeded his elder brother, 'Imad-ud-Daulah, who died
without issue, in the sovereignty of Fars, the sovereign of which was, in that
family, considered suzerain over the other two branches, who ruled in 'Irāk,
and at Baghdad. Rukn-ud-Daulah bequeathed his dominions in the following
manner :-To his youngest brother, Mu'izz-ud-Daulah, Ahmad, he left Kirmān.
He afterwards became Amir-ul-Umra at Baghdad. He was the father of
Bakhtyar; and our author calls him Al-Hasan, and says he was the second
prince of the dynasty. To 'Uzd-ud-Daulah, Abū Shujā-'i-Fanā Khusrau, his
eldest son, he left the sovereignty of Fars; and he became the head of the
family, and suzerain over all. To his second son, Muayyid-ud-Daulah, Abū
Nașr, he left 'Irāk and its dependencies; and to his youngest son, Fakhr-ud-
Daulah, 'Ali, he bequeathed Rai, Hamadān, Ķazwin, and other territory in
Azarbaijan.
62
THE TABAKAT-I-NĂŞIRI.
ul-Khilafat came into his possession. The reason of this
was, that, when Bakhtyar set out for Ahwaz, to collect the
revenue due to the Bait-ul-Mal, or Khalifah's treasury",
Sabuk-Tigin, the Chashni-gir [cup-bearer], who was his
deputy at Baghdad, assembled the Turks together, and
opposed the authority of Bakhtyar, drove out the Dilamis,
broke out into open revolt, and began to act in an over-
bearing and tyrannical manner. They [the Turks and
Sabuk-Tigin] commenced shedding the blood of Musal-
māns, and carrying off their females. 'Izz-ud-Daulah,
Bakhtyār, sent to acquaint his uncle Abu-l-Hasan, son of
Buwiah, who was ruler of Rai, with what had occurred;
and to his first cousin, Fanā Khusrau-i-Abū Shujā', who
held the government of Fars, he also gave information;
and solicited assistance from both of them. A large army
was assembled, and Fanā Khusrau came to his aid with
the troops of Fārs; and Abū-l-Hasan, his uncle, despatched
his forces to co-operate with them.
The combined troops marched towards Baghdad; and
Sabuk-Tigin, with the Turks and other forces, moved out
of Baghdad, and advanced to meet them. When Sabuk-
Tigin and his adherents reached the village of 'Āķūl', he
was taken ill, and died after four days. The Turks were
defeated; and they took along with them from Baghdad,
the Lord of the Faithful, Ut-Ta-i'u-L'illah, and marched
towards Nahrwan, in order again to encounter Fana Khus-
rau. They were defeated a second time, however, and
retired towards Mūşil.
Fana Khusrau entered Baghdad, and found with respect
to the affairs of his cousin, Bakhtyar, that he was in the
habit of passing his time in gaiety and pleasure, and that
he was no longer fit for and capable of directing the affairs
of government.
He therefore seized Bakhtyār, and put
him in durance. The latter sent a letter of complaint to
his uncle, Abū-l-Ḥasan, son of Buwiah, the father of Fanā
Khusrau, ruler of Rai, saying: "Your son, Fanā Khusrau, has
seized me without cause or reason, and has imprisoned me."
• Intended, according to the Kur'an, "For God, His Apostle, his kindred,
the orphan, the poor, and travellers."
• As before stated, the name of Rukn-ud-Daulah, the uncle of Bakhtyar,
was Abū 'Ali-i-Ḥasan.
7 A small town or village in the Muşil [not Mosal] territory.
THE DIĀLAMAH DYNASTY.
63
The father of Fanā Khusrau issued a mandate to his son,
directing him to set Bakhtyar at liberty. This he did, and
he [Fana Khusrau] returned to Fārs; but, when his father
died, Fana Khusrau proceeded to Baghdad, again seized
Bakhtyār, and put him to death, after which he took pos-
session of the territory of Baghdad, and the control of the
affairs of the Khilafat Ⓡ.
8
He entered into a compact with the Sāmāni Amirs for
the mountain tracts, or Highlands of 'Irāk, as far as Tabar-
istan, of which he received the tenure from them, at the
rate of one thousand dinārs per day.
Fanā Khusrau ruled with vigour and energy; and, as
before stated, was excessively proud, but of great spirit and
resolution. He had, however, great dread of death, so
much so that not a soul dared to mention before his throne,
in any way, the name of the Gor-i-Dashti, or Wild Ass,
because Gor also signifies a grave; and it is stated that
he commanded that all graveyards should be enclosed with
lofty walls, so that his eyes might not behold a grave. Of
his pride and grandeur the following is a specimen. After
his decease, eight thousand napkins and handkerchiefs, of
great price and fineness of fabric, befitting a king, were
found, belonging to him, of brocade, linen, and Egyptian
tūzī°, threaded and embroidered with gold, and orna-
mented with jewels, with which he was wont to wipe his
mouth and nose, and which fetched the price of 50,000
dinārs of gold.
9
When his end drew near, he affixed his seal to mandates
and decrees, which he gave into the hands of his secretary,
directing him to fill them up according to the best of his
own ability and judgment, and to issue, and carry them
into execution, and not to let people know of his death.
For a period of four months his decease was kept con-
8 'Izz-ud-Daulah, Abū Manṣür-i-Bakhtyār, is said, by the author of the Mujmal-
i-Faşiḥ-i, to have ended his days at Baghdad, in 367 H., having been put to
death by his nephew, 'Uzd-ud-Daulah, Abū Shujā-'i-Fanā Khusrau, after he
had ruled there for a period of eleven years and some months, at the age of
thirty-six, and Bahā-ud-Daulah, Khusrau Firūz, son of 'Uzd-ud-Daulah, his
nephew, succeeded him as ruler of Baghdad.
9 The name of an expensive and fine fabric so called from being the peculiar
manufacture of a town or city of that name, now in ruins. It is said to have
been manufactured from flax ; but tuz is also the name of the bark of a tree
like the papyrus.
64
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĀṢIRĪ.
cealed, and they continued to place his corpse upon the
throne, so that people, from a distance, could see him, as
they supposed, as usual. When his end drew near, he
directed that ashes should be spread upon the floor, in
which he rolled about, exclaiming, "What advantageth all
my wealth and my sovereignty, since death has overcome
me!" until he ceased to be.
His death took place in the month of Ramaṇān, in the
year 372 H.¹ The Almighty alone is eternal.
II.
1
V. AL-MARZABĂN, SON OF FANĂ KHUSRAU, DĪLAMI.
On the decease of his father 'Uzd-ud-Daulah, the
Khalifah, Ut-Ta-i'u-L'illah, conferred upon him the title
of Samṣām-ud-Daulah, and raised him to his father's
office 2.
The Khalifah treated him with great esteem and distinc-
tion. He embarked on board a vessel on the river Dijlah
[Tigris] and proceeded to the palace of Fanā Khusrau, and
paid a visit of consolation and condolence to his son, Mar-
zabān, and conferred considerable honours and dignities
upon him. The Khalifah left the administration of affairs.
in his hands, and showed great respect and honour towards
1
'Uzd-ud-Daulah died, it is said, át Shiraz, his capital, although Guzidah
says, at Baghdad, which is not probable, 15th of Ramazan, 372 H.
He was
buried in the Mashad, or sepulchre, [especially for those killed fighting for
their religion] of the Khalifah 'Ali, and his son Imam Husain, which was
one of the buildings founded by him. The same illustrious prince also founded
the great hospital at Baghdad, and liberally endowed it; and the great
embankment over [as the historian from whom I quote says] the river Kur, the
like of which there is not in the world, called the Band-i-Amir. This is the
same structure that Mac D. Kinneir refers to in his "Geographical Memoir of
the Persian Empire." He says, "The river Bund-Emeer [sic] takes its name
from a dyke [in Persian a bund] erected by the celebrated Ameer Azad-a-
Daulah, Delemi "[!].
Among other great works carried out by him were a town founded opposite
Shirāz, named Sūk-i-Amir [plural of Sāk, a market, &c.], the walls of
Madinah, and a splendid Sarae or palace, at Baghdad, called the Sarãe-i-
Sultan. He was succeeded, in the government of Baghdad, by his son,
Şamṣām-ud-Daulah, Al-Marzabān, which latter word is derived from marz, a
boundary, border, &c., and signifies the governor of a frontier, and the like.
He is also called Abū-Kālinjār, and sometimes Kānjār, the meaning or deri-
vation of which, the Burhan Ķāti', the Farang-i-Jahāngiri, and other works,
do not give. Kāljār, in Persian, signifies war, battle, &c.
2 This is absurd, for the Khalifahs had long before been stripped of all
power, and were mere shadows of sovereignty.
THE DIALAMAH DYNASTY.
65
him. He [Marzabān] exercised the authority at Baghdad
until his brother, Abu-l-Fawāris, rose against him 3.
VI. ABU-L-FAWARIS, MAKAN, SON OF FANA KHUSRAU,
DĪLAMI.
He was ruler of Kirman; and, when he became aware of
the death of his father, and heard of the exalted position of
his brother at the Dar-ul-Khilafat, he assembled troops in
Kirmān, and entered Fārs, and seized upon that territory.
He then advanced to Ahwaz, and possessed himself of that
likewise, having expelled from thence his brother Abi-ul-
Ḥasan-i-Abi Shuja', son of Fanā Khusrau, and then he
pushed on to Başrah. Having gained possession of that
place he marched towards Baghdād.
When the news of his approach, and his designs, reached
Baghdad, his brother, Ṣamṣām-ud-Daulah, Marzabãn, son
of Fanā Khusrau, came out and waited on him, in order to
show his submission and pay him homage. Abu-l-Fawāris-
i-Mäkän seized his brother, and deprived him of his sight.
Enmity and hostility now arose between the Turks and
Dilamis; and the Turks of Baghdad overcame their oppo-
nents, and of the Dilamis about 4000 men were slain by
them. After a short time, however, Abū-1-Fawāris over-
threw them, and entered Baghdad, and assumed the
administration of the affairs of the Dar-ul-Khilafat. The
Khalifah, Ut-Ta-i'u-L'illah, conferred upon him the title of
Sharaf-ud-Daulah ".
6
•
After him, the author has not found any annals respect-
ing the Dialamah such as he could write down. What
3 In the year 375 H.
4 His correct titles and name are, Sharaf-ud-Daulah, Abū-l-Fawāris-i-Shir
Zail, son of 'Uzd-ud-Daulah. All the copies of the work have " Mākān,"
but it is not mentioned by any other writer that I am acquainted with.
5 He was imprisoned in the fortress of 'Umman after being blinded in 375 H.;
and on the death of Sharaf-ud-Daulah, who had dethroned him, he was again
brought forth, blind as he was, and reinstated. After about nine months, Shams-
ud-Daulah, 'Ali, son of Sharaf-ud-Daulah, rose against him, whom he defeated
in 379 H.; but Baha-ud-Daulah now rose against him, and civil contention
continued for some time, till, in 380 H., the sons of 'Izz-ud-Daulah, Bakhtyār,
put him to death.
6 Sharaf-ud-Daulah, and Zain-ul-Millat, in 377 H. He died in the month
of Jamādi-ul-Akhir, 379 H., after reigning seven years over Kirmān, and six
months at Baghdād.
66
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĂȘIRĪ.
was contained in histories, and what came to his hearing,
has been entered herein, so that this work may not be
without mention of those princes; and he hopes that those
who may peruse it will extend pardon and indulgence to
the author for any shortcomings.
7 The dynasty of the Buwiahs did not terminate until 459 H., or eighty-two
years after the date of our author's account of them, when it fell before the
power of the Saljūķs. His great mistake throughout has been in not keeping
the rulers of Fars, 'Irāk, and Kirman, separate from those who ruled at
Baghdad. Al-Fanākati gives a more accurate account of this dynasty,
although a very abridged one. The last of the family was Abū 'Ali-i-
Kai-khusrau, son of 'Izz-ul-Muluk, who died in 487 H., and who submitted to
Alb-Arsalan, and had a small tract of territory assigned to him.
SECTION XI.
THE DYNASTY OF THE YAMĪNĪAH', AL-MAḤMŪDĨAH
SOVEREIGNS OF THE RACE OF SABUK-TIGĪN.
THE pages of this section' are devoted to the mention of
the Maliks and Sultāns of the dynasty of Naşir-ud-Din,
Sabuk-Tigin, and of Sultan Yamin-ud-Daulah, Niṣām-ud-
Din, Abu-l-Ķāsim, Maḥmūd, the Conqueror, and to the
description of the events in their lives; to an account of
their lineage; to the record of their justice and equity,
and the incidents in their reigns; to the vicissitudes and
changes in the fortunes, and the dominion of the sovereigns
of that family of exalted power and might, from the outset
of the career of the Amir-i-Ghāzi, Sabuk-Tigin, to the end
of the reign of Khusrau Malik, the last of that dynasty of
kings, in an abridged and concise form, in order that this
Tabakāt of kings and nobles may be illumined by the
mention of their lineage and their titles, and the pages of
this history be adorned and ennobled by the relation of
the deeds of those sovereigns of Islam, whom may the
light of Almighty God illumine!
Imam Abu-l-Fazl, Al-Hasan-i-Baihaki, in his chronicle
1 So called from Maḥmūd's title of Yamin-ud-Daulah.
"The printed edition of the TABAĶĀT-I-NĂŞIRĪ, edited by Lieut.-
Colonel W. N. Lees, LL. D., and his Maulawis, commences from this Section.
It forms No. 42—50 of the BIBLIOTHECA INDICA, New Series. I have been
unable to make any use of it for a very cogent reason, that not a page of it is
correct. Whole sentences are often wanting, and, at times, much more ; and
the names of persons and places are frequently wrongly spelt. The work, ·
however, appears to have been printed from the text of the MS. No. 1952 of
the India Office Library, and the Royal Asiatic Society's MS., to which I have
before alluded, both of which are the most defective and incorrect of any I have
collated. The same errors occur in each, in nearly every instance. To
restore the text would be impossible without entirely reprinting the work. I
may say, however, that the state of most of the MSS. I have collated is such
that it would be impossible to give any thing like a correct version without
examining the number of copies which I have been so fortunate as to find in
different Libraries, and others which have been placed at my disposal through the
kindness of their owners, and of the Imperial Russian Government in particular.
3 So called from Baihak, the name of his native town, which is also called
Mukir, in Zawulistan. His correct name will be found in note, page 87.
The passage above quoted may have been contained in the first portion of his
work; but is not to be found in what has been preserved, as far as we know.
68
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĂȘIRĪ.
ઃઃ
39
CC
copies differ.
here call No. 1 MS., the passage stands as follows:-
one MS. says, that these Turkish words mean glee l but all the other
4 In eight copies of the text the words occur, and of this number
be the Black Tatar Bull; and every where that the
Baḥ-kam; and that the meaning of Karā Baḥ-kam would
Huk; and that Ghar-ghau in the Turkish language is called
by the name of Karā Baḥ-kam; and that his [proper] name was
[namely] that his [Sabuk-Tigin's] father used to be called
latter had heard from his father, the Amir Sabuk-Tigin,
told him by the august Sulṭān Maḥmūd himself, which the
In the very old MS. previously referred to, which copy I shall
entitled "Tarikh-i-Nāṣiri," relates the following tradition
آقا
cr
150
33
པ་
""
33
""
""
>>
39
""
لمرة
م گفتندي و نامش حوق بود و غرغاؤ را بتركي بحکم خوانند و معني قرا بحکم سیاه غرغاؤ باشد .1
3 3 3 3 3
3
(C
عشرة علو .
عشر علو
غرغاو
غرعاؤ
غروغا
جون
غرغار
غرغا و
""
""
CC
سیاه عشره علو
39
홍콩 ​홍콩
​CC
""
>>
८८
tr
""
>>
سپاه عشر علو
سباه عشر غاو
سیاه غرغاو
سپاه غوغاو
سیاه غوغا
قرار بحکم سیاه غرغار
قرا
CC
66
(C
CC
CC
ev
++.
5.
6.
""
""
(6
7.
8.
$9.
No.
.
66
يحكم
كفتندي
و
"}
""
>>
The printed text is similar to No. 7, except that it has leè in both instances.
The I. O. L. MS. No.
1952, the R. A. S. MS., and the St. Petersburg MS. No. 572 Abb., are all alike defective here,
being minus only nine words. I shall call them Nos. 10, 11, and 12 respectively
(C
علو باشد
عشر
قرا
بحكم
وو
66
CC
عرو
غاو
(C
CC
66
""
13. The St. Petersburg Imp. Bibl. Pub. MS. is very defective here, and has lost several pages.
* Paris MS. 181.
+ Paris MS. 182.
++
St. Petersburg MS. No. 572 Ab.
10.
II.
12.
""
6C
THE YAMINIAH DYNASTY.
69
Turks, in Turkistān, heard his name mentioned, they fled
before him on account of his energy and valour.
Imām Muḥammad 'Ali, Abu-l-Kāsim, 'Imadi", in his
work, the "Tarikh-i-Majdul," states, that Amir Sabuk-
جون
It will be noticed that four copies say his name was [Hark, or Hurk],
which might possibly be read [Hūk, or Ḥauk], as in the two best copies,
whilst in two other copies the word is 9 [Jūķ, or Jauk], and in another
[Jun]. Then comes the signification of the Turkish word, as it is called,
In five copies, it is said to mean jle, in one in another, in a third
gle in three others land in one le The printed text has The
Arabic words contained in two copies of the text-in one of the best
and one of the most modern-would be intelligible enough, but we are told that
قی
غرغار راؤ are Turkish, and that the
signify قرا بحكم or قرار the words, whether
which ever we عشرة علو and على علو عشر غاو[of the printed text] غوغا غشر غاو
و
choose to select, and we must presume that these words are intended for the
Persian equivalents of the Turkish. The word must be e-Ghajz-ghāo—
also written l-Ghajz-gliā, and, at times, lėj—Ghaz-ghão; and as έ in
the Persian language is permutable to the words are, and may be respectively
-signifying a Khita'i bull-the Yak [Bos Grum گرگ or گرم کرد اگر او ,written
<
sea-
niens], found in the vast mountain tracts of Central Asia, north of Hindūstān, the
tail of which is fastened to the manes and necks of horses, and as an ornament to
Tartar and Turkish standards [hence "a Pachah" of so many
a Pachah" of so many "tails"]. The
author from whom I take this says, “Its real name is Gão-i-Khiṭā'i, the
Khiṭā'i bull, and is called nтos by the Rūmis [Greeks], who say it is a
horse.' It is also called the 'Silk Bull,' as and also signify silk." The
word or, more correctly, is, of course, the Turkish for black, in
Persian In Elliott's INDIA, vol. ii., p. 266, the passage in question
is thus translated: "His [Subuktigin's] father was called Jauk [troop],
and in Turki they call a troop bahkam [on whose authority, I wonder?] so that
the meaning of the name Kará-bahkam is black-troop."
بحكم
From this it will be seen that the translator has discarded altogether, both
gles of MSS. 10 and II, and of the printed text, and has given the per-
son's Turkish real name as the equivalent [the Persian equivalent, it must be sup-
posed] of his Turkish nick-name; so according to this theory means troop,
and also means troop, but what becomes of the Persian translation légé slu
&c., the translator sayeth not! Jauk, however, is Arabic for a party, a troop,
&c., but what may mean, remains to be proved. I have an idea,
however, from the manner in which the word is written, in one place, in one of
the MSS., viz. -Baj-kam, that-Bah-kam-is an error of some early
copyist [but and are interchangeable] for -Bach-kam, "a wolf,"
which word is used, but not commonly, in Persian, and probably is Turkish ;
and it is not impossible that the author quoted may have been under the
impression that a Khita'i bull was the same beast as Gurg, a wolf, and,
therefore, I am inclined to think that the correct interpretation is, that Sabuk-
Tigin's father was called in Turkish, the Black Wolf, meaning a soldier.
of [black being expressive of excess, &c.] excessive fierceness and daring.
This reading, as I have said before, is not certain; but I do not think any thing
more intelligible can be made of it without Baihaki's work to refer to; but
that portion does not appear to be in existence.
ج
A few copies have [Hamadi], which is incorrect.
70
THE TABAKAT-I-NAŞIRI.
Tigin was a descendant of Yazdijurd-i-Shahryar-the last
of the sovereigns of Persia-and, that, at the time that Yaz-
dijurd was murdered in the mill in the territory of Marw,
which was during the Khilafat of the Lord of the Faithful,
'Uşman, the family and dependents of Yazdijurd fled before
the troops of Islam into Turkistān, and reached the frontier
district of Nakhistan in that territory, and there took up
their residence, and intermarried with the people. After
two or three generations had passed away, they became
Turks; and their palaces are still standing in that coun-
try ³.
8
7
The pedigree of Sabuk-Tigin is given in the above
history after the manner in which it is here entered, in
order that it may come under the notice of the king of
the world'—May the Almighty perpetuate his sovereignty!
—and of such others as may peruse this work, viz. : Sabuk-
Tigin, son of Ḥūk-i-Karā Baḥ-kam, son of Karah [Ķarā ?]
Arsalān, son of Ķarah [Karā ?] Mallat [or Millat], son of
Karā Na'mān, son of Firuz-i-Bam-sinjān [?], or Barsin-
jān [?]', son of Yazdijurd-i-Shahryar, or Yazdijurd, the king.
I. AMĪR-UL-GHĂZĪª, NĂȘIR-UD-DİN-ULLAH, SABUK-TIGĪN.
Imām Abū-l-Fazl-i-Baihaķi states that, during the reign
of Abd-ul-Malik-i-Nūḥ, the Sāmāni, there was a merchant
named Nașr, the Ḥāji [pilgrim], who purchased Sabuk-
I am not satisfied that فستان and in one لنخلستان but in three copies خستان 6
this name is correct, still five copies of the work agree in the reading above.
Both the I. O. L. MS. No. 1952, the R. A. S. MS., and the Petersburg
copy 572 Abb. are minus another nine words here, and the printed text is the
same. The place is not mentioned in Masālik wa Mamālik or Aṣār-ul-Bilād.
7 Their descendants doubtless.
8 Another writer states that Ķarā Firūz, the fifth ancestor of Sabuk-Tigin,
who was son of Yazdijurd, became ruined during the Khilafat of 'Usman, left
his country, and retired into Turkistān; and there his descendants continued
to dwell until 335 H., when Alb-Tigin made an incursion into that country.
He carried off from thence three thousand captives, and among them was
Sabuk-Tigin. Another author states that Alb-Tigin purchased Sabuk-Tigin
at Nishāpūr, when stationed there in command of the Sāmāni forces.
9 "The king of the world," here referred to by the author, is that shadow of
a monarch to whom he dedicated his work. It is a very slight specimen of his
slavish flattery of him, and of others.
1 This name occurs in eight MSS., but none of them are very distinct: one
has Bar-sinjā, son of Parwiz, son of Yazdijurd.
2 Ghazi signifies a conqueror, one who makes war upon infidels.
THE YAMİNİAH DYNASTY.
71
Perceiving in his
4
Tigin and brought him to Bukhārā.
countenance evident signs of capacity and energy, the
Amir-i-Ḥājib [Lord Chamberlain], Alb-Tigin, purchased
him. He accompanied his master into Tukhāristan, when
the government of that territory was entrusted to him;
and subsequently, when the government of Khurāsān was
made over to Amir Alb-Tigin, Sabuk-Tigin attended him
thither also. After some time had passed away, Alb-Tigin,
through the vicissitudes of fortune, retired towards Ghaznin,
and subdued the territory of Zawulistan, and wrested
Ghaznin out of the hands of Amir Abu-Bikr-i-Lawik 5.
Eight years subsequently to these events Amir Alb-
Tigin died, and his son, Is-ḥāk, succeeded to his father's
authority. He entered into hostilities against Lawik, but
was defeated, and retired to Bukhārā, to the court of Amir
Manşūr, son of Nūḥ, Sāmāni, and there continued until
• See note 8, page 70.
See under the reign of Manşür, son of Nuh, the eighth sovereign of the
Sāmāni dynasty.
6
"In the year 322 H., Alb-Tigin, the Turk, the slave of the Sāmāni
dynasty, took Ghaznin, and Lawik, the Wāli [the word here signifies a
chief or sovereign, as he does not appear to have been subject to the Samānis]
of that territory, fled." Nothing more is mentioned respecting Alb-Tigin, in the
work from which I have extracted these occurrences, until 346 H. There had been
repeated changes in the government of Hirāt for some time past, and considerable
disorder had arisen therein. "In 346 H.," I find that "Abū Manşür, son of
'Abd-ur-Razzāk, the Wali of Hirāt and its dependencies, gave up his appoint-
ment, and withdrew to Tus again, in consequence of which great agitation and
commotion arose at Hirāt." On this becoming known to the Samāni court,
the Ḥājib, Alb-Tigin, who appears from this to have administered the affairs
of Ghaznin since 322 H., was entrusted with the government. He sent to
Hirāt, as his deputy, Is-hak-i-Tahiri ; but he was very shortly removed, and
Ḥasan, son of Ribāl, was sent to replace him. In 350 H. Abu-l-Hasan-i-
Simjūr was sent to govern Hirat; and, in the following year, having been
promoted to the rank of Sahib-ul-Jaish [Commander-in-Chief of an army],
he proceeded to Nishapur, and was succeeded, at Hirāt, by Abu-l-Ḥasan,
son of 'Umro, Fāryābi. After he had held it four months the government
was bestowed upon Talḥah, son of Muḥammad, Nisa'i. In the following
year, "352 H., Alb-Tigin, the Turk, died at Ghaznin, and was succeeded in
the government by his son, Is-ḥāk," subordinate, of course, to the Sāmāni
sovereigns, although Mr. E. Thomas, in his paper "ON THE COINS OF THE
KINGS OF GHAZNI," in Ro. As. Soc. Journal for 1859, styles them kings and
speaks of their reigns, when they were merely subordinate governors. The
most astonishing thing, however, is, how our author makes out that Alb-Tigin
died eight years after his seizure of Ghaznin. From 322 to 352 H. is a period
of thirty years; but then he generally, eschews dates. According to Fasih-i
and others, Alb-Tigin was born in 267 H., and died in the
year above-mentioned.
72
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĀṢIRĪ.
that ruler directed that aid should be afforded to him,
when Is-ḥāķ came back again to Ghaznin, and regained
possession of it. After a year Is-ḥāk died, when Balkā-
6 Is-ḥāk succeeded his father in the government in 352 H., and died in 355 H.,
and so ruled for about four years. Among the events of the year 353 H.,
Faşiḥ-i mentions that "Amir Is-hak, son of Alb-Tigin, attended by Sabuk-
Tigin, his father's slave-who is mentioned for the first time in that work-
fled from Ghaznin, and proceeded to Bukhārā, and obtained the investiture of
the government of that province from the Sāmāni sovereign. In the follow-
ing year, 354 H., the same work states that "Is-ḥāk, son of Alb-Tigin, the
Turk, the slave of the house of Sāmāni, returned to Ghaznin again, and fought
against Lawik [this name is also confirmed by other writers, and there is no
doubt of its correctness], who, previously, had been Wali [sovereign or chief],
of Ghaznin, and had been ousted by Alb-Tigin. When Is-hak retired to
Samrkand, Lawik returned to Ghaznin, but now that Is-hak had come back
again, Lawik again fled.”
ك
Mr. Thomas, in his paper just referred to, trusting implicitly, it would seem,
to the I. O. L. MS. No. 1952, and the R. A. S. copy of our author's work,
calls Amīr, Abū Bikr-i-Lawik, “the Anūk.” In those two MSS. Amir, Abū
Bikr, is left out altogether, but occurs in the other MSS., although some
have ill and instead of yet in a note Mr. Thomas says,
"I propose with but slight hesitation a rectification of the orthography to Gaid
or 'Lumghán,' the Lampage of classical writers," from a personal to a local
name ! Into what mazes of error do not the "classical writers" draw their
disciples as regards Oriental history! See note E., Elliott's INDIA, vol. ii.,
last par., which is quite to the point.
On the death of Is-hak, Balka-Tigin, the slave of Alb-Tigin, succeeded to the
government of Ghaznin, by order of Amir Nūḥ, son of Nasr, the Sāmāni
sovereign. Balkā-Tigîn died in 362 H., after being governor eight years. Mr.
Thomas, on this passage in our author, in which the latter says Balka-Tigin
ruled ten years, remarks: "Two copies [of the work], out of the three I have
at this moment the opportunity of consulting, give ten instead of two [years];
the former, however, is a palpable error." I wonder on which side the error
lies really? This is not all. In his remarks on the "coin of Mansur, son of
Nuḥ, with the name of Balka-Tigin under the symbol, on the obverse," Mr.
Thomas gives a translation of his Excellency, State Counsellor Von Dorn's
description, and a woodcut of it, contained in the St. Petersburg Journal.
If the translation is correct, of which there can be but little doubt,
his Excellency must have been somewhat in the dark respecting the
Sāmānis, and their connexion with Ghaznin, which formed part of their
dominions. What I refer to is this: "History mentions only the conquest
of Alp-Tigin, but is silent in regard to the rule of the Sámánis in Ghazna.
We see from our coin that Balká, or Bulká-Tagin, in the year A.H. 359 was
chief of the Sámáni party in this city. His name appears already on the
Balkh coins of A. H. 324. Subsequently he passed over to Alptegin's cause [!]
became chamberlain under Abú Ishák, and is said to have ascended the throne
after the death of the latter in A.H. 365." This is absurd. What sort of
history can it be that is silent in regard to the rule of "the Sámánis in Ghaz-
nin," when it formed an integral part of their empire? Balka-Tigin, in
324 H., was governor of the province of which Balkh was the seat of govern-
ment, hence his name on the coin referred to.
THE YAMİNĨAH DYNASTY.
73
Tigin, who was the chief or commander of the Turkish
troops, was raised to the government. He was a just
and pious man, and one of the greatest warriors of his time.
He exercised the authority for a period of ten years, and
died. Sabuk-Tigin was in his service.
After the death of Amir Balkā-Tigin, Pirey succeeded to
the authority. He was a great villain; and a body of people
wrote from Ghaznin to Abū 'Ali-i-Lawik, and invited him
to come there. Abū 'Ali-i-Lawik acceded to their request,
and brought along with him the son of the Shah, or king,
of Kabul to assist him. When they reached the vicinity
of Charkh, Sabuk-Tigin, with a body of five hundred
Turks, suddenly fell upon them, and defeated them, killed
a great number of their followers, took them captive also, and
slew them. He also captured ten elephants, and brought
them to Ghaznin.
Such a great success having been gained by Sabuk-
Tigin, and all having become quite sated with the
villainies and misdeeds of Pirey, with one accord, they
raised Sabuk-Tigin to the direction of affairs. On
Friday, the 27th of the month of Sha'ban, 366 H., Amir
ment.
7 Our author is quite correct as to Pirey, but gives no details or dates. I will
furnish them. "On the death of Balka-Tigin, in 362 H., Pirey, the slave of
Alb-Tigin [as was his predecessor and successor also], obtained the govern-
In the following year, 363 H., Pirey, the Wali of Ghaznin, with the
help of Sabuk-Tigin, fought a battle with a body of infidels who had advanced
out of Hind for the purpose of seizing Ghaznin, overthrew them, and despoiled
them. This event is confirmed from other annals. In the year 367 H. Pirey
was deposed from the government [as our author records], and the government
passed to Sabuk-Tigin." He was confirmed by the Sāmāni ruler, but soon
after, on the decline of their power, became independent in all things, except,
perhaps, in name.
The "Kitab," or "Tarikh-i-Yamini," which is considered to be a very
trustworthy and authentic history, contains, judging from Reynold's version,
not one word about Sabuk-Tigin having been Alb-Tigin's slave, although
probably transferred as such to Balka-Tigin, and his son Is-ḥāk; and makes
no mention of the government of Amir Pirey, although he ruled over the
province of Ghaznin for just five years.
8 A well known place situated a few miles from the right or east bank of
the Lohgar river on one of the routes between Kābul and Ghaznin. Abu-l-
Fazl, the secretary, mentions in the Ã'in-i-Akbari, that Charkh is so called
after a pious man, one Maulana-i-Charkhi.
9 Fasihi says this took place in 367 H., the same year that 'Izz-ud-
Daulah, Abū Manṣūr-i-Bakhtyār, Buwiah, was put to death at Baghdād,
See page 63.
In the same year Sabuk-Tigin appointed Abū-l-'Abbās, Al-
Fazl-i-Aḥmad, son of Muḥammad, Al-Isfarāini, his Wazir. He had acted
F
74
THE TABAKAT-I-NĀṢIRĪ.
Sabuk-Tigin, with a scarlet canopy held over him, and
attended by a large following with standards, came dowı
from the citadel, and proceeded to the Jami' Masjid, o
Great Mosque, and the administration of the governmen
and the sovereignty of that province was settled upon him
Soon after, he put his forces in motion and marched
from Ghaznin towards the adjacent parts, and took posses
sion of the districts of Bust, Zamin [district] of Dawar, the
Zamin of Kusdār, and Bāmiān, all Tukhāristān, and Ghūr¹
On the side of Hind, he overthrew Jai-pal', with numerou
elephants and a host of troops, and he rid the Saman
family of Bughra Khan of Kashghar, and marched to
Balkh, and sent back the Amir of Bukhārā to take re
possession of his throne.
During the time that Amir Sabuk-Tigin held the
government, great deeds were performed; and he com
pletely put an end to the iniquitous heresy of the Batinial
schismatics in Khurāsān 3.
in the same office to Fayik-i-Khāṣah, and, after the latter's defeat, Ami
Sabuk-Tigin took him under his patronage. Wazir does not necessarily mea
the minister of a sovereign prince only; and Sabuk-Tigin was not yet inde
pendent.
1 The mode of spelling the word by its people, and on the authority of the
Burhan-i-Kati' and other works.
2 "In 369 H., Jai-pāl, 'Bādshāh' of Hind, as he is termed, marched an army
towards Ghaznin to attack Amir Nāṣir-ud-Din, Sabuk-Tigin; but an accom
modation was come to, and Jai-pāl again retired." This is quite a different affai
from that in which Sabuk-Tigin assisted Amir Pirey, mentioned in a previou
note. It must be remembered too, that, at this time, the country west of the Indus
between Safid-Koh west, and the Salt-Range on the east, and Hindu-Kush
extending as far west as Kabul, was still under Hindu rule. The Afghan
had not extended northward of the river Kurmah [erroneously called the
Kurum and Koorum] at this time.
9 Our author says nothing about the affair of Bust in 370 H., or of Sabuk
Tigin's raid on the frontier districts of Hind in 376 H., when he carried of
many captives and much booty. In the same year he took possession of the
territory of Kuşdar. In 378 H., Sabuk-Tigin again encountered Jai-pāl, king
of Hind, who was routed, and pursued by him. A peace was afterwards con
cluded, the terms being that "Jai-pal should cede unto Sabuk-Tigin four o
the fortresses of Hind on the side of Ghaznin, and one hundred elephants.” Ir
380 H., an occurrence took place, which few writers have noticed, namely:
the imprisonment of Mahmud in the fortress of Ghaznin, by his father's orders,
where he remained until the following year. In 382 H, Amir Nūḥ, son ol
Manşür, Sāmāni, reached Hirāt, attended by Sabuk-Tigin, and marched
against Abū 'Ali-i-Simjūr, whom they defeated. See page 46, and note, In
384 H. Amir Nūḥ conferred the government of Khurasan upon Sabuk-Tigin;
and in the same year Amir Nuḥ defeated Abu-'Ali-i-Simjūr at Nishāpūr, In
THE YAMĪNIAH DYNASTY.
75
In the month of Shawwal, 384 H., his son, Amir
Maḥmūd, was made captain-general of the forces of Khura-
san, and received the title of Saif-ud-Daulah, while Amir
Sabuk-Tigin himself received that of Nāṣir-ud-Din-ullah ‘.
Abu-l-Hasan-i-Simjūr they defeated and repulsed, and
Khurasan became cleared of their enemies.
Amir Sabuk-Tigin was a man of great valour and intre-
pidity, just and pious, faithful, true to his word, not
avaricious of other men's goods, kind and compassionate to
his people, and a discerner between right and wrong; and,
in fact, every sign and indication of all such virtues and
accomplishments as are desirable in kings and nobles, the
Almighty had amply endowed him with. He ruled for a
period of twenty years; and was fifty-six years old when
he died. His decease took place on the frontier of Balkh,
at the village of Madrū-mūe³, in the year 387 H.
His sons were Ismā'il, Naṣr, Maḥmūd, Ḥusain, Ḥasan,
and Yusuf.
II. SULTAN-UL-A'ZAM, YAMIN-UD-DAULAH, NIZAM-UD-DİN,
ABŪ-L-ĶĀSIM, MAHMUD-I-GHAZI, SON OF SABUK-TIGÏN 7.
Sultan Mahmud-i-Ghāzi was a great monarch, and was
the first among the sovereigns of Islam, who was styled
385 H. Sabuk-Tigin defeated Abū 'Ali-i-Simjūr, and Fayik at Tūs. Among
the events of the year 387 H. recorded in Faşiḥ-i, are the deaths of Amir Nūḥ,
son of Manṣur, Sāmānī, and Nāṣir-ud-din, Sabuk-Tigin, the Mawla, or manu-
mitted slave of the house of Sāmāni.
4 From the Sāmāni sovereigns, see page 47. Abū 'Ali, the son of Abū
Hasan-i-Simjūr was the person who was defeated: Abu-l-Hasan, the father,
had died previously. See pages 45 and 48.
5 This name is written in various ways :-Barmal-Madrūe, Madrūe, Madriwi,
and, in one MS., Tirmaz. In the translation of Yamini, p. 201, it is said that
a palace [!] was erected at the place where he died, and that it was named
Sahl-ábád. Baihaki says his tomb is at Afghān-Shāl, a place mentioned by
Bābar.
• Isma'il succeeded his father; but our author ignores him as a sovereign,
which is not correct, for Isma'il was only dethroned in 389 H., two years after
the decease of his father, by Maḥmūd, who sent him to the fortress of Kalinjar,
now known as Talwarah," according to Faşiḥ-i. The same authority
states: some say Isma'il was confined in the fortress of Jūzjānān." Fanā-
kati states that Maḥmūd succeeded in 388 H., and that Ismā'il was sent to a
fortress in 389 H.
7 Baizawi considers Maḥmūd to be the first sovereign of this dynasty.
F 2
76
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĂŞIRI.
S
Sultan by the Court of the Khalifahs of Baghdad. He
was born on the night of 'Ashūrā, the 10th of the month
Muharram, in the year 361 H., in the seventh year of the
government of Amir Balka-Tigin, at Ghaznin.
About one hour before his being ushered into the world,
Sabuk-Tigin, his father, saw in a dream, that there began to
issue from the chafing-dish [used in those countries instead
of having fire-places in the wall, and placed in the centre of
the apartment] in his room, a tree, which began to grow to
such a height that the whole world began to be over-
shadowed by it. When he awoke from his sleep, he began
to ponder in his mind what the interpretation of this
dream could be, when a bearer of good news presented
himself, bringing intelligence that the Almighty had been
pleased to give him a son. At this joyful announcement
Sabuk-Tigin became overjoyed, and said to the mes-
senger: "I have given him the name of Maḥmüd '."
The same night also upon which Maḥmud was born, the
idol-temple of Wahand or Bihand [it may also be read
Wahind, or Bahind], which was situated on the confines of
Barshābūr², on the bank of the river Sind, split asunder.
8 There is a different version given as to how and when Maḥmūd became
styled Sultan. When Maḥmud took the fortress of Tak in Sijistān, by assault,
and Khalaf was brought before him, the latter addressed Mahmud by the title
of Sultan. This pleased Maḥmud so much that he gave Khalaf his life. The
titles bestowed upon Maḥmūd by the Khalifah, and also bestowed, according
to Baihaķi, upon Mas'ud, were as follow: "The right hand of the empire,
defender of orthodoxy, the guardian of the true religion and of the true believers,
the regulator of the faith, the friend of the Lord of the Faithful."
See notes,
page 80.
• Faşiḥ-i says he was born on that date in 360 H.
1 The past. part. of the Arabic verb used as an adjective, signifying—
laudable, praised, worthy, &c.
2 Out of the thirteen MSS. collated, four agree respecting the word
Barshābūr, and three have Parshawar. These are meant, probably, for the
present Peshawar. Six copies have Nishābūr; and six copies say that the
idol-temple in question was situated on the bank of the Sudarah [Sudharah
is an old name of the Chinab, see the Saḍhūrā-,, farther on],
and a fifth copy has, the bank of the Ab-i-Shudah [×]. 'Uṭbi ['Uṭbā]
quoted in Elliot's INDIA, vol. ii. pp. 27 and 41, makes the "Síhún " the Indus;
and in Reynolds' version of the same work, the Indus is called the "Jíhún !"
I need scarcely mention that the first is the Jaxartes, and the last the Oxus.
In the last named version, also, we have "Wámund" for "Waihind." The
name of the idol-temple is written in three different ways in the various copies
of the original collated: p-which may be either Wabhind or Wabhand,
in six MSS.; Bahind, or Bahand, or Bihand, in two; and -
1
THE YAMINIAH DYNASTI.
77
He was endowed with great virtues and vast abili-
Wahand, or Wahind, in tauto. In seven copies, the relative as follows this
name, but in three others we have instead of which I have certainly
seen used for ♫ but very rarely. The following will show at a glance what I
mean. The original sentence, in the very old MSS. in my possession [which
I call No. 1.], stands thus :-
بتخانه و بهندكي (sic) در حدود برشاور بود بر لب آب سنده بشکست ..
I.
2.
3.
4.
دو
99
""
5.
""
6.
""
7.
""
8.
""
9.
10.
""
II.
""
12.
13.
""
19
و بهند که
""
""
""
برشابور
نشابور
دو
سدره
""
"
سدرة
""
پرشاور
سدره
""
>>
و دهند که
بهند که
بهندکي
دو
نشابور
دو
سدره
پرشاور
سنده
""
""
برشابور
سند
""
>>
ومهندكي
و برسند که
وو.
برشابور
وو
""
وبنهدكي
و یهند که
""
نشابور بر لب آب شده
برشابور بر لب آب سند
نیشابور لب آب سدره
""
وو
""
""
""
The author of the Jami'-ut-Tawarikh, in his account of the river of Kabul and
its tributaries, taken from Abū Rihān, Al-Birūni, says, that, having passed by
Lamghan, the united streams "join near the fort of Darunah, or Darūntah [the
and fall ,[درونتا only place that can possibly be meant here is Daruntha
after which the, لنور و قرات] into the river of Un-Nur and Kirat, or Karat
united waters meet together opposite the town [city] of Barshawar [one MS.
compared has or ], and become a mighty river called by the name
lies on the east bank of the [نهارة] of Lair-wal. The village of Manharah
united waters [another MS. has, instead of this sentence, the following
called by the name of Ma'bar, signifying a ford or crossing place,'] which fall
into the Ab-i-Sind in front of for near] the fort of Yitur, or Yatur [one MS.
belonging to the town [or city] of GANDHAR [how [ شاب - has Shetab
is inexplicable قندهار can ever be mistaken for Kandahar کندهار - Gandhar
to me], which place [] is called WAHIND [or may be DAHIND].
This place-Wahind, or Dahind, or whatever it may be proved to be-is
that which our author refers to, no doubt, and is the same place, probably, as
mentioned by Baihaki in one or two places in his History, although he does
not mention it as being on the bank of the river Sindh. I have never seen it
The printed text, edited by Morley, has 4 and a MS. in
Some three years since I carefully compared the
whole passage in the Jami-ut-Tawarikh, with the work of Al-Fanakati, the
Arabic copy of a portion of the former work, in the R. A. S.'s Library, and
other works; and I am unable to agree either with Sir H. Elliot's first reading
of it, in his APPENDIX p. 30, or Mr. Dowson's new reading, in Elliot's
وی هند written
وند my possession has
78
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĂŞIRĪ.
ties;
and the same predominant star was in the as-
HISTORY OF INDIA, edited by him, vol. i. pp. 47 and 48, both of which differ
widely from each other. Neither do I agree in the theory that Ūhand
[g] not Ohind] so many miles above the junction of the Nil-ab, or river of
Kabul with the Aba-Sind, or Indus, is the place indicated, in face of the
statement of Abū Rihān, which is perfectly plain in the passage referred to,
namely, that the river in question falls into the Aba-Sind, “in front of" or
opposite the fort of Yitur or Wahind.
و هند
If the western bank of the Indus were the right place to search for this spot,
so difficult to trace, there is Mahāban [-not much unlike dip and g
to look at] together with Oong, Behoh, and Rām-takht, mentioned by Abbott
—although, from his mode of rendering Oriental words, it is impossible to tell
what the originals may be-in his "Gradus ad Aornon," in the Ben. As.
Journal for 1854, and Rājah Hoḍaey's castle, as well as "Ohind." There are
also extensive ruins of a temple on a hill called Takht-i-Bihi, about fifteen
miles north-east of the Kabul river's junction with the Lanḍaey Sind, and
some thirty miles north-east of Peshāwār, which I visited in 1849 [see my
account of Peshawar, Bom. Geogr. Journal, vol. x., for 1851-2]. Can this
be the idol-temple which fell when Maḥmud was ushered into the world? In
the same vicinity, and within a few miles of each other, are "Kāpir di Giri”
the Infidel's Mount, and "Pratah Minārah"-the Fallen Minar, in Pushto,
which names bear a striking resemblance to Baihaki's fortress of “Giri” or
"Giri," and "Man-Minārah;" but both the places I have mentioned are on
the western, not the eastern bank, and the last lies above Ühand, which latter
name, in all probability, is not ancient, but one of the many new designations
given to places in that vicinity by the Yusufzi Afghans, when they first con-
quered those tracts on the Indus. I have made the early history of the Afghans
my especial study for a particular purpose, and I have never met with the
name of Wabhand, Wahind, Bahind, or Wahband in the histories containing
the account of their conquests in those parts.
Since the above was written, I have looked over vol. ii. of Elliot's INDIA,
and find that the author, at page 465, when referring to Maḥmūd's fourteenth
expedition into India, says that Farishtah in his work, as well as the "Taba-
ķāt-i-Akbari," and "Kanzu-l-Mahpúr," which latter I have not examined,
mention "the waters of Nur and Kirāt" as falling into the Kabul river, pre-
cisely as I had read the same words in the passage from Al-Birūni; but the
editor, Mr. Dowson, still persists, as he says in a note to the same page, in
reading them "Nurokírát." Did he not consider that the second, in the
words
might be and? The darah of Nur is mentioned by Babar,
and is well known still.
To return to the subject of Wahind. From the passage in the Jāmi'-ut-
Tawarikh, and our author, "the fort belonging to the town or city of Gand-
hār, which place is called Wahind or Bahind, on the banks of the Sind,
facing the junction of the Nil-Ab with the Aba-Sind," must be looked for
east of the Indus, near Attak-Banaras, in the vicinity of which extensive
ruins of an ancient city are mentioned in the account of the building of the
former fortress in Akbar's reign. Apollonius of Tyana, in his "Travels," men-
tions a lofty temple as situated outside the walls of Taxilas, a few miles east of the
Indus. [See Jour. R. A. S., vol. xvii. p. 76.] These ruins were again
noticed in the writings of a Muḥammadan traveller towards the close of the
last century. However, under any circumstances, and in whatever manner we
may read these names, which want the vowel-points, and are probably incor.
THE YAMİNĨAH DYNASTY.
79
cendant at his birth as appeared at the dawn of Islām
rectly copied, the situation of the rivers, and the number mentioned, will not
agree with actual facts. The Muḥammadan traveller I refer to, states, from.
actual observation: "The Kabul river, after flowing through the darah of
Mandroṛ-called by the same name as the chief town of Lamghān-is joined,
to the north of that place, by the Tahkri [], generally known as the river
of Lamghān; and near the koh or mountain of Durūnṭhā [9] those streams
are joined by the Surkh-rud [Red-River], which then flow past Jalālābād on
the east, and near the town of Kāmah are joined by the Chitrar or Chitrāl
[also called the Kāmah], and thus united flow on towards Peshawar. On issuing
from the Khaibar mountains at Michani [not Michni], the united streams
again separate into three branches, and thus [not united] pass by Peshawar—
which is some distance from the nearest branch-for some miles, and do not
unite again until just after receiving the Lanḍaey Sind and its tributaries at
Nisatah, after which the united waters fall into the Indus a little above, and
opposite Attak." The courses of rivers may alter in the lapse of centuries, in
a flat country, as they have in the Punjab, in some instances, but not in such a
mountainous tract as the Kabul and its tributaries flow through, on their way
to the Indus. I cannot but coincide with Abu-l-Fazl, the secretary [but never
"minister "] of Akbar, in his remarks upon the accounts of India, written by
early travellers, such as Al-Birūni and others. He says, in the Ã'in-i-
Akbari [I give the pith of his remarks merely], that "Fanākatī, Hafiz-Abrū,
and others, wrote down all the nonsense that was palmed off upon them;
and, therefore, what they state is contrary to facts, and not to be depended upon,
while other writers have wilfully perverted them. How could it be otherwise,
when such persons knew nothing of the languages of India, or of its people, or
their customs? They could neither make investigations themselves, nor could they
obtain efficient interpreters, or reliable information." See R. A. S.'s Journal,
vol. iv. p. 356.
Farther investigation, since the above remarks were written, has, I think,
enabled me to throw some light upon the situation of what is called Wahind
and Bahind, and as to its correct name. The Tarikh-i-Mir'āt-i-Jahan Numā,
a general history by Muḥammad Baķā, contains the following respecting
Maḥmūd's two first expeditions against Hindūstān. "In 390 H., Maḥmūd
set out for Hindustan and captured the fortress of Barjanid or Barjunid [
possibly but this word is not quite certain], and again retired. In
Shawwal, 391 H., he again set out towards Hindūstān, and reached Peshawar
with 10,000 horse, and defeated Jai-pāl, who, with fifteen brothers and sons,
was taken captive. This took place on Saturday, 8th Muharram, 392 H.
From thence, Maḥmūd advanced to the fortress of [Bahindah], which
was the residence of Jai-pal; and he subdued that territory." In a history of
the Rajahs of Jamū, said by its author, a Hindu, to have been compiled from
Hindu annals, [Bathinḍah] is said to have been Jai-pal's capital and
place of residence, which Maḥmud captured. Mirza Mughal Beg, who, about
eighty-three years since, made a survey of great part of the North-West
Provinces between Dihli and the Sutlaj, the Punjab, and great part of Afghan-
istān, and the countries on the northern slopes of Hindu-Kush, in his account
of the Lakhi jungle, says: "Bhatindah [], which is also called What-
Indah [] is the name of a territory, with a very ancient stronghold
bearing the same name, which was the capital of the Chahil [J] tribe.
Lakhi, son of Jundharah, of the Bhati tribe, having been converted to the
Muhammadan faith, during an invasion by Sultan Mahmud of Ghaznin,
So
THE TABAKAT-I-NĀŞIRI.
itself. In the year 387 H., Mahmud proceeded to Balkh, and
received the title of Rana Lakhi, and he and his tribe were removed thither.
They found there some three hundred and fifty or sixty towns and villages of con-
siderable size, some with large and fine buildings; and began to make inroads
into the tracts adjacent, against the infidels." According to traditions quoted
by this author, which are also to be found in other works, there were formerly
two or three considerable rivers in this now sandy tract of country. In ancient
times the Ghaghar flowed past Bhatnir, and "fell into the Sind [Indus] on
the confines of Jasalmir. One of these rivers is called the Saḍhūrā [see the
various readings of the original at the beginning of this note], which falls into
the Ghaghar, and in its neighbourhood, at about five miles west, is a sacred
pond or small lake, visited by hundreds of thousands of persons, and there is
no other place accounted like unto it in sanctity." There is a great deal more
about this district, but I have no space for it here.
I think it very probable
that what has been called Wahind or Bahind is no other than Bhatindah or
Whatindah, which, written without the points or are much
the same in appearance as the words in the various MSS. of our author's text
وده and بهده
As to some confusion in the arrangement of Elliot's INDIA, tending to dis-
tract, which I have referred to above, I would mention, with respect to the
name Wahind," that at p. 63, vol. i., "Wahind" is said to be the capital of
Kandahar [ stands for g as well as k, and Kandahār in Afghanistān is always
with ; in a note at p. 397, the "river of Wahand or Wahind-Ságar" is
mentioned; in vol. ii. p. 28, in the extract from Yamini, "Waihind" is said
to be a country; at p. 33, and other places, it is again called "the river of
Wahind; and at p. 444, "the river of Waihind or the Indus." Notwith-
standing all this, this identical passage in our author, after having been
"revised and sundry long gaps filled up by the Editor," is thus translated
[vol. ii. p. 269]:-"On the same night that he [Maḥmūd] was born, an
idol-temple IN INDIA, in the vicinity of Parsháwar, on the banks of the Sind,
fell down!!" There is nothing like giving a bold translation.
3 This last sentence is somewhat obscure in all the copies. It may be under-
stood also to mean that his appearance was propitious to the ascendancy of
Islām: ¿ does not mean "the greatest champion."
lb
طالع
4 See note 6, page 75, for date of accession.
5 Balkh has been mentioned by more than one author, as the capital of
Sabuk-Tigin's and Maḥmud's dominions. In the same year wherein he over-
come his brother (389 H.), Maḥmūd, according to Fașiḥ-i, fought a battle
against 'Abd-ul-Malik, son of Nūḥ, Sāmāni, and the Sāmāni dynasty termi-
nated. See page 52. His independency may be dated from that time.
In the same year, Arsalān-i-Jāzib fought an engagement with Abū-1-Ķāsim-i-
Simjūr, and compelled him to retire to Tabas; and Maḥmūd made his brother,
Amir Nasr, the commander of his army (see page 51, note "). In that same
year, likewise, he made Balkh the capital of his dominions; and the Khalifah,
Al-Kādir B'illah, sent him a robe of honour, with the titles of Yamin-ud-
Daulah, and Amin-ul-Millat. Maḥmūd also received the submission of the
Shār, as was the style of the rulers of Gharjistān [called by some Gharishtān],
Abū Nașr, son of the Shār, Rashid, and of his son, Shār, Abū Muḥammad;
and the Khutbah was read for Maḥmūd in that territory, and the coin im-
pressed with his name and titles. In 390 H. Mahmud made a dash upon
Nishapur, which he took possession of, and Bak-Tüzün, the slave of the
Sāmāni dynasty, fled; and in the same year Bughrājaķ, the uncle of Maḥmūd,
THE YAMİNİAH DYNASTY.
81
ascended the throne of sovereignty, and donned the robe
of honour which had been sent to him from the Dar-ul-
Khilafat. At this time the throne of the Khalifahs was
adorned by the Lord of the Faithful, Al-Kadir-B'illah.
When Sultan Maḥmūd ascended the throne of sove-
reignty, his illustrious deeds became manifest unto all man-
was slain by Tahir, son of Khalaf, son of Aḥmad, at Fūshanj. Maḥmūd
marched into Sijistān against Khalaf, who fled before him, and took shelter
within the walls of the fortress of Tak, which Maḥmūd directed should be
invested. This is a different place to Ūk. For farther particulars respecting
Khalaf, whose doings appear so obscure [Jour. R. A. S., vol. xvii. p. 147],
see notes to Section XIV. Maḥmud does not appear to have established his
power in Khurāsān, for in 391 H., Amir Abū Ibrāhim Al-Muntaṣir—the last
of the Sāmānis, who is not even mentioned by our author-aided by Shams-
ul-Ma'āli Ķābūs, son of Washmgir, who sent his sons Dārā [see page 51] and
Manūchihr, advanced with an army to recover Rai; but, having altered his
plans, Abū Ibrāhim, and his adherents, faced about, and marched on Nishā-
pūr, from which Naṣr, Maḥmūd's brother, again fled, and Abū Ibrāhim once
more gained possession of Nishāpūr. Naṣr, who had retired to Hirāt, again
moved to recover it, aided by Arsalan-i-Jazib from Tūs. Abū Ibrahim
despatched his forces under Arsalan-i-Bālū and Abū-1-Ķāsim-i-Simjūr to oppose
them; but they were overthrown, and Abū Ibrāhim again retired from Nishā-
pūr, and took refuge, in Jurjān, with Ķābūs. Eventually he reached Sarakhs,
and Amir Nasr marched against him and defeated him; and he fled for refuge
to the tribe of Ghuzz. Nasr made prisoners of Abu-l-Ķāsim-i-Simjūr, and
Yūz-Tash, the Ḥājib of Abū Ibrahim, who had previously put Arsalān-i-Bālū
to death for flying from Amir Nașr. In the following year, 392 H., Jai-pāl,
[which appears to be the title, not the actual name, of two or more princes], Bād-
shah of Hind, as he is called, was made captive by Maḥmūd. "He was sold
for," as the chronicler states, whose words I quote, or rather his ransom was fixed
200,000 golden dinārs, and 150 elephants; and the necklace taken from
Jai-pal was valued at another 200,000 golden dinārs. This battle took place
on Thursday, 8th of Muharram, 392 H., in sight of Burshor of Hind." Here
we might have expected to find "Wahind" or "Waband" mentioned.
Whether this is what is now called Peshawar is somewhat doubtful, for up to the
time of Bābar and Akbar, the latter city was called generally Bagrām, and is
seldom mentioned, except by more modern writers of the Farishtah class. The
chronicler adds: "Jai-pal, the Hindu, subsequently shaved his head, and
mounted a funeral pyre, and died; for it is customary with Hindūs, that any
Badshah of theirs, who becomes a captive to Musalmāns, should abdicate in
favour of another ruler.
Anand-pāl—is meant], succeeded him as ruler of Hind." In 393 H. the Khut-
bah was read for Mahmud in Sijistan, by Khalaf's own nobles, and his titles.
were impressed upon the coins. In the following year the fortress of Tak was
captured, and Khalaf was made prisoner. The Sultan kept the territory of
Sijistan entirely for himself, but gave the district of Jūzjānān to Khalaf, who,
taking his family with him, left Sijistān altogether. Afterwards, however,
Sultan Mahmud gave the government of Sijistān to his own brother, Nasr ;
Maḥmūd
and the government of that province was joined to the appointment of com-
mander of the forces [of Khurāsān].
at
انند پال but probably تندپال His son Tand-al MS
82
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĀṢIRĪ.
kind within the pale of Islam, when he converted so many
thousands [!] of idol-temples into masjids, and captured so
many of the cities of Hindustan, and overthrew and sub-
dued its Rāes. Jai-pāl, who was the greatest of the Rães of
Hind, he made captive, and kept him [a prisoner] at Man-
Yazid, in Khurāsān, and commanded that he might be
ransomed for the sum of eighty dirāms'. He led an army
to Nahrwālah of Gujarāt, and brought away Manāt, the
idol, from Somnath, and had it broken into four parts, one
of which was cast before the entrance of the great masjid
at Ghaznin, the second before the gateway of the Sultan's
palace, and the third and fourth were sent to Makkah and
Madinah respectively.
Concerning this victorious expedition the poet 'Unşūri
composed a Kașidah', or poem, two couplets of which are
here inserted :—
"When the potent sovereign made the expedition to Somnath,
He made the working of miracles his occupation.
He staked the Chiess of dominion with a thousand kings:
Each king he check-mated, in a separate game."
Out of the different occasions in which the Sultan's
greatness showed itself pre-eminent, one occurred during
this expedition. When he retired from Somnath, and de-
sired to lead back the army of Islam by way of the desert 2,
to Sindh and Manṣurah, out of Gujarāt, he directed that
guides should be procured. A Hindu presented himself,
6 Nearly every copy agrees in the name Man-Yazid [j]. "Yazd" is
not meant.
من بريد One copy has
7 Sic in MSS., but I fancy the word "thousand " must have been left out.
If not, Maḥmud did not set much value on his captive. See amount men-
tioned in note³, preceding page.
8 One of three chief idols of the pagans of Makkah was named Manāt.
9 Some fragments of idols might still have been seen lying near the
entrance to the Sultan's tomb a few years ago, and probably they are still
there.
1 The first two lines are corrected from 'Abd-ul-Ķādir-i-Budāūni. The
point of these lines lies principally on the play upon the terms in chess, lost in
translation.
2 The Rinn or desert of Kachh. An author, quoting from the Tarikh-i-
Naşiri of Baihaki, relates a remarkable circumstance, which occurred upon this
occasion: "On the Sultan's return from Somnath, one of his huntsmen killed
an enormous serpent or boa-constrictor, which was skinned, and found to be thirty
ells (gaz) in length and four in breadth. Baihaķi adds, 'Whoever doubts the
correctness of this statement, let him go to the citadel of Ghaznin, and see for
himself the skin in question, which is hung up like a canopy."
THE YAMINIAH DYNASTY.
33
and offered to act as guide, and that sovereign, with the
army of Islām, proceeded on his way. After the army had
marched all night and next day, and the time had come
round for the troops to halt, although search was made for
water, none was any where to be found. The Sultān
directed that the Hindu guide should be brought before
him, and inquiries made from him. This was done, when
the Hindu guide replied to the Sultan, saying: "I have
devoted my life for the idol Somnath, and I have led you
and your army into this desert, in any part of which water
is not to be found, in order that you may all perish." The
Sultan commanded that the Hindu should be despatched
to hell, and that the troops should halt and take up their
quarters for the night. He then waited until night had set
in, after which he left the camp, and proceeded to some
distance from it, aside. Then, kneeling down, and with his
forehead to the ground, he prayed devoutly and fervently
unto the Most High for deliverance. After a watch³ of
the night had passed, a mysterious light appeared in the
horizon, and the Sultan gave orders for the troops to be
put in motion, and to follow him in the direction of the
light. When the day broke, the Almighty God had con-
ducted the army of Islām to a place where there was water,
and all the Musalmāns were delivered safely out of this
impending danger. .
The Almighty had endowed that ruler with great power
of performing many miraculous and wondrous acts, such as
He has not bestowed since upon any other sovereign, nor such
vast military resources, so large a number of troops, and un-
bounded wealth. Sultan Maḥmūd possessed two thousand
five hundred elephants; and his court was guarded by four
thousand Turkish slave-youths, who, on days of public
audience, were stationed on the right and left of the throne,
-two thousand of them with caps ornamented with four
feathers, bearing golden maces, on the right hand, and the
3 A period of three hours.
✦ The words used are
5
Washāk signifies a good-looking
slave, and a beardless youth; and has sometimes been used to signify a slave-
girl. As these youths attained unto man's estate and their beards began to grow,
they were attached to a separate corps, and placed occasionally under the
command of rulers of provinces.
5 signifying a Tartar cap, a sort of mitre or tiara made from leather or
cloth or such like fabric, and covered with brocade or cloth of gold.
84
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĂŞIRĪ.
other two thousand, with caps adorned with two feathers,
bearing silver maces, on the left.
This monarch, by his manliness, his bravery and intre-
pidity, his wisdom and foresight, and his prudent counsels
and wise measures, considerably extended the Muḥam-
madan conquests in the east, and greatly increased the
dominion of Islam in that quarter. The whole of 'Ajam",
Khurāsān and Khwārazm, Tabaristan, 'Irāk, the territory
of Nimroz, Fars, the mountain districts of Ghūr', Tukhār-
istān—all came under the control of his officers. The
Maliks, or rulers, of Turkistan paid him obedience and
acknowledged his superiority. He threw a bridge over
the Jiḥun, and marched his forces into Tūrān, and Kadr
Khan had an interview with him, as had the Khāns of the
Turks likewise; and the Khāķāns of Turkistan came and
presented themselves before him, and tendered him their
allegiance'.
6 That Maḥmud ruled "the whole" of 'Ajam, and Tabaristan, is an exag-
geration. Not one word is mentioned, by other writers of any authority, as
to his holding any part of Fars, and in 'Irāķ his sway was but partial over a
portion.
r
7 The only notice of this contained in Faşiḥ-i, during the whole period of
Maḥmūd's reign, is in the following words :—“400 H. Death of the son of
Sūri, Malik of Ghur, who was taken prisoner in an encounter fought by Sulṭān
Maḥmud, in Ghur. He sucked poison from a ring he had, and destroyed
himself. Some say it occurred in 401 H.”
8 In the year 387 H., the same in which Sabuk-Tigin died, and two years
before Maḥmud became ruler, Māmūn, son of Muḥammad Al-Farighūni, the
Wali, or ruler, of Jurjāniah [also written Gurgāniah], of Khwārazm died, and
was succeeded by his son 'Ali; and, in this same year, 'Ali was married to a
daughter of Maḥmūd. 'Ali, however; died in 390 H., and was succeeded by
his brother, Abū-l-'Abbās, son of Māmūn. He, in the following year, sent⚫an
envoy-supposed to be the author so much depended upon by Sir H. Elliot,
and others, for his geographical knowledge of India—Abū Rihān, Al-Birūni,
to Maḥmūd, asking permission to marry the lady, his brother's widow.
was sanctioned by Maḥmūd, and Abū-l-'Abbās married her.
This
9 In 396 H., Sulṭān Maḥmūd sent an envoy to I-lak Khan, the Turk, son
of Bughra Khan [for now the last of the Samanis had been put to death, as
already related], proposing that they should enter into an alliance, and that all
the territory this side [on the left bank] of the Amūiah [Oxus] should belong
to him, Maḥmūd, together with Khwärazm, and that all on the other side
should appertain to I-lak Khan, and that they should not interfere with or
molest each other's territories. Baihaķi says, writing in 451 H., that Kadr
Khan at that period was called Bughra Khan. It was in this same year that
Mahmud undertook the expedition into Hindustan, against Bhira Rae [also
written -Bajira in Fașiḥ-i, Biḥrae in Mirāt-i-Jahān-numā,
-Biḥra by Yaḥyā Khan in his History, and Rajah Baḥirãe by
≤
!
THE YAMINĨAH DYNASTY.
85
At their request, the son of Saljūk, through whose activity,
and boldness, too, the whole of the Khāķāns of the Turks
were reduced to a state of helplessness, was permitted to
Sanjan Rae in his work. He was doubtless chief of the tribe of Biṛār—j:
See also Elliot, APPENDIX to vol. ii., pages 34 and 439, wherein great con-
fusion appears to exist]. Bhiṛā Rae was slain, and the fortress of Bhāṭiah
near [i. e. not far distant from] Multan was taken. After this, the Sulṭān
returned to Ghaznin, but in the same year he undertook an expedition against
the Wali of Multān, Abu-l-Fatḥ, who fled from that territory. Whilst Maḥ-
mūd was absent in Hindustan, in 397 H., I-lak Khan broke the newly made
treaty of alliance, and invaded Khurāsān. This made Maḥmūd return to
Ghaznin to make arrangements for marching against him, for I-lak Khãn had
penetrated as far as Hirāt, which he took; but, in the following year, Maḥmud
encountered him at Balkh, and compelled him to retire. Khalaf, the late
ruler of Sijistān, it was found, had been intriguing with him during Maḥmūd's
absence, and had advised this invasion. On this account Khalaf was immured
in the fortress of Juzdez of Ķuhistan. In 401 H., Maḥmūd again advanced
into Hindustan against the fortress of Bhim [also called Bhim-nagar], the chief
of which was Bhim Narayan. There is no mention of any expedition under-
taken in that quarter in Faşiḥ-i, as contained in the Jami'-ut-Tawarikh,
against Nardin; but, in some works, an expedition against Nandanah, in
404 H., is mentioned. In 407 H., Maḥmūd's son-in-law, Abu-l-'Abbās-i-
Māmūn, Farighūni, ruler of Jurjāniah of Khwārazm, was murdered by some
of his troops. Mahmud went in person into Khwārazm, defeated the insur-
gents, and put Nial-Tigin [called Alb-Tigin by Baihaki], the ringleader, and
the murderers, to the sword, reduced that territory under his sway, and Altūn-
Tash, the great chamberlain, was entrusted with its government. Ĩ-lak Khăn
had died in Mawar-un-Nahr, in 403 H.; and in 408 H. Maḥmud sought from
her uncle, Tughãn Khân, who had succeeded him, the hand of Ï-lak's daughter in
marriage for his son Mas'ud, whom he nominated as his heir and successor.
Tūghan Khan himself died in the same year, and was succeeded by his
brother, Bughră Tigin, entitled Arsalan Khan. On that lady's arrival shortly after
at Balkh, the capital was illuminated; and soon after Maḥmud made over the
government of Khurasan to Mas'ud, with Hirāt as the seat of government,
having previously assembled the whole of his Ulūs, or tribe, together, to take
oath of fealty to his son. [According to Baihaķi, however, this lady had been
betrothed to Muḥammad, Mas'ud's brother, but the former, having been
immured in a fortress by the latter, when he ascended the throne, Muḥammad
could not marry her, and Mas'ud did, with the consent of her brother; but
this was several years subsequent to the events above-mentioned.]
After having disposed of these affairs, Maḥmud had leisure again to turn
his attention to Hindustan; and I will here mention, as briefly as possible,
his next expedition into that country, because the narrative will greatly differ
from the accounts of other writers. In the year 409 H. [see Elliot, vol. ii.
p. 460], Sultan Maḥmud undertook another expedition against the infidels of
Hind, and overcame Hardab [-the "Hardat" of 'Abd-ul-Kadir-i-
Budāūni, the "Hirdat of Matharah" of the Jami'-ut-Tawarikh] in that
region, at which place-[my authority so styles Hardab, but must mean his
capital, Mathurah]—there were nearly a thousand palaces [4] of stone, and an
idol-temple of such extent and size, that "if a thousand times a thousand
thousand dinārs should be expended, and builders and workmen of the greatest
86
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĂŞIRĪ.
pass the Jiḥun with all his kindred and dependents, and
cross over into Khurasan. The wisest and most sagacious
men of that time considered the granting of this permission.
""
during which time many conquests were چهار سال مکث واقع شد]
activity and energy should be employed for two hundred years, they could not com-
plete the like." Within this great temple were five idols of gold, five gaz or ells in
height, and the eyes of one of them were formed of two rubies [Jāmi'-ut-Tawã-
rikh-"of a dark red colour "], which were valued at 50,000 dinārs of gold.
The eyes of another were formed of two sapphires, of the weight of four
hundred miskāls! [600 miṣkāls = 1 ser = 1 lb. 13 oz.] the immense value of
which could not be computed. From the lower extremities of one of the
idols, pure gold of the weight of 4400 miskāls was obtained. Besides these
great idols, there were two hundred others of silver, in the temple, the whole
of which were broken up; and the temple itself was overthrown, and set on
fire. [Compare with Elliot, vol. ii. pp. 44, 45.] After this Ķinnauj on the Gang,
and other places, were captured, the details of which events are too long for inser-
tion here ; but among them is mentioned Nardin, the fortress of “ Brāmah” [per-
haps the place called Bhawan or Bahāwan by some authors] called Manj, Āsi,
and other places. From the idol-temple of the first named, a stone tablet
was brought, on which was written that the temple had been founded forty
thousand years before. Jai-pal of Ķinnauj fled across the Gang, on the bank of
which were ten thousand idol-temples in seven fortresses. At the capture of Āsi,
Chand-pal Bhūd, the sovereign of that part, was slain. In 410 H. Maḥmūd
again entered Hindūstān, “and was engaged [detained] therein for a period of
four years
made. In 411 H. Maḥmūd became greatly incensed against his brother Amir
Naṣr, who had been acting improperly and carelessly in his duty in com-
mand of his troops, being constantly engaged in wine-bibbing and pleasure,
and, by his conduct, causing relaxation in discipline, "for, when the forces were
about to march, his followers were generally found to be in the bāzārs, instead
of present at their posts; and great excesses were committed by them." Maḥ-
mūd sent Khwajah-i-'Amid, Abū Nașr-i-Mishkān, Al-Zawzani, to him about
this misconduct. Nasr's reply was so becoming that Mahmud passed it over,
at the same time saying to the Khwajah: "My brother Nașr is a very prudent
and sagacious man. In 412 H., Tasdar [Naro ] Jai-pāl, ruler of
Hind [see Elliot, vol. ii. p. 12], was slain, and Bhim-pal, his son, succeeded
to his sovereignty. In 414 H., Sultan Maḥmūd came to an accommodation,
in a distant part [] of Hind with Bedā [Nandā, in other works], on the
latter's presenting 150 elephants, after which he returned to Ghaznin, and in
the same year made a raid into the mountains inhabited by the Afghāniān
[sic in MS.], plundered them, and carried off much booty. This is the first
time they are mentioned in the history from which I have taken these accounts.
In 416 H. Maḥmūd made another raid upon them from Balkh, and fell upon
them at night. In this same year, Jaghar Beg-i-Abū Sulimān-i-Dā’ūd, son of
Tughril Beg, son of Mikā'il, the Saljuk, rose, and entered Khwārazm ; and Bhim-
pāl also died. In 417 H. the expedition against Somnath was undertaken, and
a farther portion of Hind was subdued; some by treaty and agreement to pay
the jaziah or capitation tax, some by force of arms and plunder of the
country, and making captives of the people, and some by the people becoming
converts to Islam. In 419 H. Maḥmud proceeded into Mawar-un-Nahr, and
had an interview with Kadr Khan, sovereign of Turkistān, and the treaty for-
merly existing between them was renewed and confirmed, on the agreement
THE YAMĪNĨAH DYNASTY.
87
a grave error in the Sultan's policy; for they perceived
therein danger to the empire of his sons and descendants.
Sultan Maḥmūd entered 'Irāk and subdued that terri-
tory, and purposed proceeding to the Court of Baghdad
to pay his respects'; but, on the receipt of a mandate to
the contrary from the Lord of the Faithful, he retired, and
that a portion of Mawar-un-Nahr should be held by Maḥmūd, and some be
incorporated with Kadr Khan's dominions; and a fresh treaty was written out
upon these terms, and duly signed. On his way back, Maḥmūd granted an
audience unto Isra'il, son of Beghu, son of Saljük, son of Luķmān, and
brought him along with him. After a time Isra'il was immured within the
fortress of Kālinjar, also called Talwarah, where he died. In 420 H. Maḥmūd
slew [slain in battle with Maḥmūd] Majd-ud-Daulah, Buwiah, and acquired
sway over 'Irāk [a portion], and overthrew that branch of the Buwiah dynasty;
and 'Irāk was added to the dominions previously conferred Mas'ud.
upon
"On
Thursday, the 14th of Rabi'-uṣ-ṣāni, 421 H. [A.D. 1030, about the middle of
April], Sultan Maḥmūd died, and was buried in the Firūzi Bagh, or garden, of
Ghaznin, after he had reigned thirty-three years. Some say he died in
420 H." These extracts were taken originally from the work entitled
"Maķāmāt of the 'Amid Abū Nasr," written by the 'Amid [—not Aḥmad]
Abu-l-Fazl, Al-Baihaķi, so called from Baihak his birth-place, a small town in
Zāwulistan, also called Mukir.
There are many materials for a complete history of this reign which, as
regards India, is the most important one. Our author's account is, to use the
words of Sir H. Elliot, "too curt;" and I have been compelled to make
these notes much longer than I liked. Another reason, for my comparative
minuteness, was, that the accounts of this reign, in most authors, are confused
and erroneous, particularly in writers of modern times. As in other cases, the
"classical" writers, and the old geographers, referred to by Abu-l-Fazl, appear
to have led their votaries astray; and the names of persons and places are as
diverse and different as the authors and translators themselves. Elliot's work
contains a large amount of most valuable materials, but the mode of arrange-
ment tends rather to confuse, as I have previously pointed out. Names of
persons and places have been introduced from modern translations of works,
instead of from the originals, where possible. Who would think of appealing
to Dow or the like for the correct reading of proper names? For example:
in note at page 19, vol. ii., wherein S. de Sacy is quoted, who says that Dow
has "
Abistagi, and Subuktagi for Alpteghin and Sebekteghin," his own
blunder is far worse than Dow's, for neither of the words contains any gh in
it. See note ¹, page 58. In the extract from 'Utbí, page 20, where men-
tion is made of the "fountain in one of the ravines of a very lofty mountain
called the 'Ukba Ghúzak ['Ukbah- -means a pass], into which if any
filth is thrown storms arise," which is quite correct, Dow, in his "Hindostan,"
page 27, interprets it, "if a small quantity of a certain drug should be thrown,'
&c. Reynolds, in his version of the Kitab-i-Yamini, has made terrible work
of the proper names, which are written all sorts of
ways. He has Simjourí,
Sinjúr, and Simjúr for one person; Bastí and Bostí; Muwid-Addowlat and
Muwayyad-Addowlat, and the like, in scores of places.
1 Not mentioned in other authors, and very doubtful.
SS
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĂŞIRĪ.
returned to Ghaznin, where he died at the age of sixty-one,
after a reign of thirty-three years, in 421 H.2
His sons were Muḥammad, Nasr, Mas'ud, Suliman",
Isma'il, 'Abd-ur-Rashid, styled 'Izz-ud-Daulah, Amir of
Ghaznin, and Ibrahim, which latter had a son named
Suliman.
III. AMIR MUHAMMAD¹, SON OF MAḤMŪD.
Jalāl-ud-Daulah wa-ud-Din, Muḥammad, was a learned
and virtuous-minded prince; and they recite [upon his
authority] a great number of poems in the Arabic lan-
guage.
When his father, Sultan Maḥmūd, died, his brother,
Mas'ud, was in 'Irak; and the great nobles and chiefs of
7.
2 For the precise date of his decease, see note, preceding page. Among the
different coins struck in Maḥmūd's reign one bore the following inscription
"The right hand of the empire, Maḥmūd Sulṭān, son of Nășir-ud-Din, Sabuk-
Tigin, Breaker of Idols.” This coin appears to have been struck at Lāhor,
in the seventh year of his reign. The following territories are said to have
been included in his empire :-Ghaznin, Zābulistān, Khurāsān, Khwarāzm,
Chaghāniān Tabaristān, Sipahān [Ișfahān], Kābul as far as Ķinnauj [sic in
MSS.], the country around Kalinjar, Multan as far as Nahrwālah of Gujarāt,
Somnath, the territory lying on the sea-coast of 'Umman, Kuşdar, Sind as far
as Siwastān bordering on Kirman, Kij, and Makrān. His authority in a good
many of these must have been very nominal.
3 In two MSS. the name of Maḥmūd occurs in place of Suliman, but the
latter seems to be correct.
4 Most authors place Mas'ud before his brother Muḥammad, and only con-
sider the latter's reign to have commenced after Mas'ud had been dethroned and
imprisoned in 432 H.
5 Other writers state that his title was Jalāl-ud-Daulah and Jalal-ul-Millat.
Guzidah says 'Imad-ud-Daulah was his title. His coins have Jalāl-ud-Daulah,
and Jamāl-ul-Millat.
In
6 He was an authority with respect to the text of several Arabic poems.
poems like the Mu'allakāt, for example, the texts furnished by various
philologists differ considerably from each other. The original words are
از وی اشعار عربیت روایت بسیار کنند
9
7 Mas'ud was, of course, in 'Irāk, as he held the government of all the
western parts of his father's empire. He appears to have been at Hamadan-
but one author, at least, says at Ișfahan-when his father's death took place.
See note at page 87. Immediately on the decease of Maḥmūd, the Ḥājib,
'Ali Khweshāwand, who was a relative of the late Sultan, and the Ḥājib,
Bak-Taghdi, who was commander of the Mamluks of the palace, entered into
a compact "that they would act in concert with, and do nothing contrary to
each other, but act in harmony in whatever might occur, and carefully hold the
dargah or palace until such time as one of the late Sultan's sons should ascend
THE YAMĪNĪAH DYNASTY.
Sy
the late Sultan's court, by mutual accord, raised Sultān
Muḥammad to the throne of Ghaznin in the year 421 H.
He was, however, a man of mild and unaspiring tempera-
ment, and possessed neither sufficient resolution of heart,
nor decision of character, to govern the kingdom. A party,
who were favourably inclined towards Mas'ud, sent com-
munications to him in 'Irāk, upon which he assembled the
troops of 'Irāk and Khurasan, with the determination of
proceeding to Ghaznin; and he marched from 'Irāk in that
direction.
When the news of his coming, and his intentions, reached
Ghaznin, Muḥammad caused his forces to be got in readi-
ness, and set out with the purpose of resisting his brother;
and 'Ali Ķurbat' was the Ḥājib-i-Buzurg [Great Cham-
berlain], and the commander of his army.
When the forces reached Tigin-ābād, information of the
advance of Mas'ud having reached the camp of Muḥammad,
the throne, when they would deliver it up, with the country [sic], into his
hands."
This compact was entered into by those officers, in the presence of,
and with the advice, approval, and concurrence of the 'Amid [not “Aḥmad "]
Abu Naṣr-i-Mishkan, the minister of the late Sultan.
8 Faşiḥ-i says, that in the same year, 421 H., through the endeavours and
efforts of the Ḥajib, 'Ali Khweshāwand, and Yūsuf, son of Sabuk-Tigin, brother
of the late Sulṭān, Muḥammad was confined within the walls of the citadel of
Tigin-ābād, and they awaited the arrival of Sulṭān Mas'ud, The Tazkirat-ul-
Mulūk calls the first mentioned person 'Ali, son of I-yal-Arsalan, a relative of
the late Sultan Maḥmūd; and says that Muḥammad made his uncle [cousin ?]
Ya'ķūb, son of Yusuf, commander of his forces, and Khwajah Abū Sahl [not
"Suhal"], his minister; but, that a strong party were inclined to his brother
Mas'ud. Accordingly, Amir Iyāz, with the Ghulāms, or slaves—the regular
troops or guards as they may be termed-combined to espouse his cause,
entered the royal stables, mounted the best horses therein, and set out to join
Mas'ud, who was then at Ișfahān. They joined him at Nishāpūr on his
advance towards Ghaznin by way of Hirāt. On this Muḥammad, with all his
followers, set out towards Hirāt in order to submit to his brother. Other
writers differ greatly from our author, on very good grounds, in their accounts
of his reign. Mas'ud is said to have written to his brother to say that he had
no intention or desire to interfere with his sovereignty over the dominions-the
eastern parts of the empire-left him by their father's will, but that it was
absolutely necessary that his, Mas'ud's, name should be first in the Khutbah.
Muḥammad replied in a surly manner. Mas'ud's partisans then seized Mu-
ḥammad, as above related; and it is farther asserted that Muḥammad had not,
as yet, been blinded by them, but that he was deprived of his sight by order of
Mas'ud.
''Ali Ķurbat and 'Ali Khweshawand refer to one and the same person.
Kurbat signifies kindred," "affinity," and Khweshāwand,
a relative." This is the 'Ali Karib of Baihaki.
G
a kinsman,'
90
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĀṢIRĪ.
they seized his person, deprived him of his sight, and placed
him in confinement. After this act 'Ali Ķurbat marched
the troops towards Hirāt, in order to meet Sultan Mas'ud;
and, having arrived within one stage of that place, he pro-
ceeded to present himself before the Sulṭān. Mas'ud gave
orders to seize him, and Muḥammad's whole army was
plundered¹ and despoiled.
On this occasion his reign extended to a period of seven
months. Subsequently, when Sultan Mas'ud, the Martyr,
became the victim of misfortune at Marigalah, Sultān
Muḥammad, although he had been deprived of his sight,
was brought forth and placed upon the throne, and he
brought the army from thence back towards Ghaznin.
Sultan Mawdūd, the son of Mas'ud, marched out of
Ghaznin, with the determination to take revenge upon his
uncle for his father's death, overthrew him in the battle
[which ensued], and put to death his uncle Muḥammad with
all his offspring. Muḥammad, on the second occasion,
exercised sovereignty for a period of four months. His
martyrdom took place in the year 432 H.; and his age
was forty-five years.
5
¹ In Elliot's " HISTORY OF INDIA," edited by Professor Dowson of the Staff
College, the latter is rather bitter [vol. ii., pref. ix], against the bad translation
of extracts from our author, made for Sir H. Elliot, for his work, and, in
several places, cries out against this kind of assistance. I doubt very much,
however, whether any "officer," with even a practical smattering of Persian or
Ordered his whole ، جمله لشكر او را غارت کردند Urdu, would have translated'
When ،، سلطان مسعود شهید در ماریشگاه صاحب واقعه شد also translates this passage
force to be destroyed."
does not mean "to destroy." Mr. Dowson
does not mean
Mas'ud was killed at Máríkala ;" but, as in the case above, šl,
does not
mean killed." His own words disprove his own translation, for, two pages
farther on, comes the passage, "but in Máríkala his Turki and Hindí slaves
revolted, took him prisoner," &c.
2 See note 4 at page 95.
3 See note 2 at page 96.
4 The Tazkirat-ul-Mulūk states that all were put to death by Mawdūd,
except one son, 'Abd-ur-Raḥim by name. "Amir Mawdud forbade that he
should be injured, because he had been informed that, at the time of the
murder of his father, Mas'ud, one of 'Abd-ur-Rahim's brothers, out of inso-
lence, had plucked the diadem which Mas'ud wore from that gallant prince's
head, but 'Abd-ur-Rahim took it from his brother, and replaced it on the brow
of Mas'ud again, and severely rebuked his brother for what he had done.
""
5 For particulars see reign of Mawdūd, and notes. His reign is said to have
extended over a period of nine months. The word signifying martyr,
also means one who dies for a cause which he thinks just; and any Muḥam-
madan killed in battle is so called.
THE YAMĪNĪAH DYNASTY.
91
His sons were 'Abd-ur-Rahman, 'Abd-ur-Rahim, and
Ahmad.
IV. SULŢĂN NĂȘIR-ŪD-DĪN U’LLAH', MAS’ŪD, THE MARTYR.
8
Sultan Mas'ud, the Martyr, bore the title of Nãṣir-ud-Din
U'llah, and his surname was Abū Mas'ud. His birth, and
that of his brother, Sultan Muhammad, took place on the
same day. Sulṭān Mas'ud assumed the sovereignty in
the year 422 H. He was generous and munificent to so
great a degree that they called him a second Khalifah 'Ali
-may God reward him!—and in valour and prowess he
was a second Rustam. No man could lift his mace⁹ with
one hand from the ground; and no iron target used to stay
his arrow'. His father, the Sulṭān, used to be envious of him,
and constantly treated him with harshness and severity, to
such degree that he preferred a request to the court of
Baghdad, that the name and title of Muḥammad should
have precedence in the Khutbah over those of his brother
Mas'ud.
• Other writers style him Năṣir-ud-Daulah, and Nāṣir-ud-Din. The Jāmi’-
ut-Tawārikh gives him the title of Naşir-ud-din U'llah, wa Mu'in-i-Khalifah
U'llah; but Baihaķi, his biographer, styles him "Shihab-ud-Daulah, and
Kutb-ul-Millat Abi Sa'id-i-Mas'ud."
7 It does not follow that they were twins.
8 He ascended the throne of Ghaznin, at Hirāt, on the 1st of Jamadi-ul-
Awwal, 422 H., soon after which he gave orders to put the Ḥājib, 'Ali
Khweshāwand, and his brother Mangirāk, to death, and confiscated all their
property. The Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh agrees in this statement, and adds
farther, that 'Ali Khweshawand, the Ḥājib, had taken an active part in raising
Muḥammad to the throne, and had subsequently acted perfidiously towards
him.
9 Mr. E. Thomas, in his numismatic "Chronicles of the Pathān kings of
Delhi," asserts [p. 79], with respect to a coin of the Turkish slave-king, I-yal-
timish, that the mace is "the special weapon of the great Mahmúd. The
statement is erroneous, as shown in the text. The mace was, by no means,
an uncommon weapon in those days. See also under reign of Sultan Tughril,
son of Arsalan Shah, last reign of Section XII.
و تیر او بر هیچ بیل آهنى - Mr. Dowson translate this passage [in the original 1
_oliw] si]—“ and even an elephant could not stand before him." The word here
used signifies a plate of iron placed on a post used for tilting at, and as a butt
for arrows.
2 Mas'ud, on one occasion, when writing to his envoy in Turkistan, men-
tions his father's having once ordered him back from Hirāt, when there as
governor, and sent him to Multān, where he was kept in durance, but that he
was never considered in any other light than his father's heir.
G 2
92
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĂȘIRĪ.
Khwājah Abū Naṣr-i-Mishkān³ says: "When the [Kha-
lifah's] letters patent were being read out in the audience.
hall of Sulṭān Maḥmūd, a weight came over the hearts of
the great nobles and chiefs, as well as my own, because the
marks of majesty and nobility of mind were more promi-
nently impressed upon the brow of Mas'ud. When Sulṭān
Mas'ud came out from his father's presence, I, Abū Naṣr-i-
Mishkan, went out after him, and I said: O Prince, a
heavy load has overcome the hearts of us, your servants, on
account of the reversal of your august title in the mandate
of the Khalifah.' Mas'ud replied: 'Do not you be grieved.
Have you not heard that "the sword is a truer authority
than any writing?" and commanded me to go back again.
By the time that I returned to the audience-chamber
informants had already, without loss of time, acquainted the
Sultan of this obsequiousness of mine, and he summoned
me before him. When I came into the presence of Sulṭān
Maḥmūd, he demanded, saying, 'Wherefore didst thou go
out after Mas'ud, and what wast thou speaking about?'
I related all that occurred without withholding any thing,
for, had I concealed any thing, my life would have been in
danger. The Sultan said: 'I am aware that, in every
respect, Mas'ud excels Muḥammad, and that after my time.
the sovereignty will fall into the possession of Mas'ud ‘;
and I use so much ceremony now that this poor Muḥammad
may, during my lifetime, experience a little honour and
3 Mas'ud, as soon as he assumed the sovereignty, appointed this same
person-whose proper name is Khwajah-i-'Amid, Abū Naṣr-i-Mishkān, Al-
Zawzani-his confidant and secretary, which was the same office as he had
held under the late Sultan Maḥmūd; and Tahir, the Dabir [secretary], who
had previously held that office, was removed. In 423 H., Hasnak, who bore
the title of Shaikh-ul-Khatir [great, honourable, &c.], who had been Wazir
to Sultan Maḥmūd, and had also held the same office under Muḥammad, was
gibbeted by order of Mas'ud, because he had been the most active in depriving
him of the throne. He had, in all probability, influenced Maḥmūd in his
harsh treatment of Mas'ud. In 426 H. Mas'ud ordered Khwajah-i-Fazil,
Aḥmad, son of Ḥasan, Al-Maimandi [from his native place, Maimand, a
small town of Ghaznin], who had been long kept in prison by his late father,
to be set at liberty, after which Mas'ud made him his Wazir. It was on this
occasion that he drew up his celebrated Mūāṣafat, or stipulations on his duties,
to be observed between his sovereign and himself, and which each of them
swore to observe.
4 Our author does not appear to have known that Maḥmūd, his father, had
declared Mas'ud his heir, and made the whole of his ulūs or tribe swear
See note 9, p. 85.
allegiance to him in 408 H.
THE YAMĪNIAH DYNASTY.
93
gratification, which, after I am gone, will not be left to
him. The mercy of God be upon thern !'
""
Khwajah Abū Nasr-i-Mishkan says, "In this occurrence
two things astonished me: one was the answer of Mas’ūd
to me, spoken with such wisdom and discernment, and the
second, the greatness of mind and the perfect supervision of
Mahmud, that such a trivial act of attachment could not
escape him.”
When Maḥmud subdued 'Irāk he bestowed the throne of
that territory upon Mas'ud; and, previous to that event, the
city of Hirāt, and Khurasan, had been ruled in Mas'ud's
name. When he ascended the throne of Ṣafahan, he
seized the territory of Rai, Kazwin, and Hamadan, and the
country of Taram', all which he conquered, and he likewise
overcame the Dilamān³. On several occasions he donned
robes of honour conferred upon him by the court of the
Khalifahs. After the decease of his father Mahmud, he
came to Ghaznin, and took the government of his father's
dominions into his own hands. Several times he led armies
into Hindustan 9, and carried on holy wars as by law en-
joined. On another occasion¹ he marched into Tabaristān
5 See note 9, p. 85.
• Isfahan or Şafahan.
7 Taram is in Lar, or Lāristan, a province of Persia.
8 Mas'ud, in 424 H., wrested Kirman from the Buwiah dynasty, who had
long since declined; and sent Aḥmad, son of 'Ali, son of Nush-Tigin, thither
as governor. This, however, could have been temporary only, for in 433 H.,
after Mas'ud's death, Ķara-Arsalan Beg, son of Jaghar Beg, wrested Kirman
out of the hands of Bahram, son of 'Ali, the governor on the part of the
Diālamah sovereign, Abū Kālinjār, son of Sulṭān-ud-Daulah, son of Bāhā-ud-
Daulah, son of 'Izz-ud-Daulah, son of Rukn-ud-Daulah. See note 7 to page
66. After this, eleven princes of the race of Saljuk reigned in Kirman.
9 In the year 772 H. Sultan Firuz, Tughlak, was encamped near a place
named Zafarābād, on his return from Bangal. This was before he gave orders
to found Junpur [vul. Jounpoor]. "At this place were the ruins of several
idol-temples, destroyed by Sultan Mas'ud the Victorious, during one of his
campaigns in Hindūstān A fort there still retains. [i. e. when the author, from
whom the extract is taken, wrote] the name of Karar-kot, from Karar-Bir, a
demon killed by Rajah Ram Chand, in the Treta Jug." If it had not been
Rām
stated that Mas'ud destroyed these temples, I should be inclined to think this
must refer to Mus'ūd-i-Karim, only he sent his Hājib, and did not make a
campaign in India in person, that I am aware of. Baihaki mentions nothing
more than the expedition against Hansi, in his work. Our author does not
mention his authority for the statement that Mas'ud led armies into India
upon several occasions.
1 Not "twice."
94
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĂŞIRĪ.
and Māzandarān; and, at the end of his reign, the Sal-
jūķs rose against him. On three several occasions he
overthrew them in battle within the confines of Marw and
Sarakhs; but, in the end, since it was the Divine will that
the country of Khurāsān should pass unto the race of
Saljuk, he encountered them in battle at Dāe-ķān³, and for
2 Isrā'il-i-Beghū, son of Sulimān, son of Saljūķ, who had been immured
within the walls of the fortress of Kālinjar, died there in 426 H.
In the same
year Jaghar Beg, or Jaghari Beg, as he is also called [s]-a name
which most oriental writers, and all English writers but one, have, most
erroneously, supposed to be "Ja'far" Beg-son of Abū Suliman-i-Dā'ūd, son
of Mika'il, son of Saljūķ, son of Luķmān, rose, and took up his quarters at
Marw. In the following year, Mas'ud made all those persons who had
received grants or presents from his brother Muḥammad refund them. This
was done quite against the urgent remonstrances of his Wazir. The sum pro-
duced is said to have amounted to eighty times a thousand thousand of dirams.
In 429 H., Tughril Beg, son of Mika'il, son of Saljūķ, assumed sovereignty at
Nishāpūr, and from that date their dynasty commenced.
3 This encounter took place in 431 H.—although some authors differ as to
430, 431, and even 432-in the desert tract between Marw and Sarakhs, at
three marches from the former, near a fort named "Dandānķād of Marw,”
also written Dandanķān and Dāe-kān, as our author states in the very old MS.,
and other copies equally reliable, from which this translation has been made.
Baihaki also mentions it in two places in his history, as does Mas'ud likewise
in his despatch to Arsalan Khan, ruler of Turkistān; and they call it by the
same name precisely. It is hard, when an author is correct, that he should
be made wrong; but Mr. Dowson [Elliot's INDIA, vol. ii. p. 273], who
appears to have implicitly followed the printed text, which is as incorrect and
defective as the I. H. L. copy, No. 1952, and the R. A. S. MS., has
Tāliķān, a name equally as impossible as "Takarhárúd" for Nangnihār; yet
he puts a piece upon it, by adding, in a note, that "Istakhri [the geographer,
having been a native of Istakhur, would be called Iṣṭakhuri] and Ibn Haukal
call it the largest city in Khurásán [!] and say it was three days' journey from
Merv." Ibn Haukal is not quoted correctly. In Ouseley's translation there
are three Tal-kāns [ possibly Tali-kan]-one in Dilam, one in Bust, and
one between Marw and Balkh-and Tae-kan [] between Balkh and
Badakhshan, which Ibn Haukal says "is the largest city of Tukhāristān.
The original of Ibn Haukal, the work entitled "Masalik wa Mamalik," con-
firms the correctness of Ouseley's translation, with the exception that one, in a
few places, contains some additional matter. Again: "Firishtah states that the
battle was fought at Dandánkán, a town ten parasangs [farsangs ?] from Merv-
i-Shāh-Jahan. Firishtah is quite correct. If any proof were wanting, I may
mention that the name of the place is confirmed by Baihaķi, Yafa'i, Guzidāh,
Jami'-ut-Tawarikh, Lubb-ut-Tawarikh, and several other works equally
trustworthy; the only difference in writing beings and J substi-
tuted in one or two for which, in writing, without the dot, is easily mistaken
for the former letter, and as being written, with the mere addition of an
extra close upon the for as our author correctly writes it, may be mis-
taken for I may also mention that it is the "Dandanekan" of Abu-l-Fidā
[Geo. Reiske, p. 345], who describes it as a small town of Khurasan celebrated
for its cotton manufactures.
U
لقا
ن
ن
""
THE YAMINIAH DYNASTY.
95
three successive days he assailed and struggled with them; •
and on the third day, which was Friday, the Sultan was
defeated, and retreated to Ghaznin by the way of Gharjistān.
Through the great dread which had now overcome him,
he collected his treasures together, and came towards Hin-
dūstān; and at Mārigalah, his Turkish and Hindū slaves
revolted against him, seized his person, and [again] set
up his brother, Muḥammad, upon the throne, and sent
Mas'ud to the fortress of Giri; and, in 432 H., he was
martyred. His age was forty-five years; and the period
of his reign was nine years, and a little over.
His sons
were Maudud, Majdūd', Muḥammad, Ibrahim, Izid-yār,
Farrukh-zad, Shuja', Mardan Shah, and 'Ali.
V. SHIHAB-UD-DAULAH, MAUDŪD, SON OF MAS'UD.
Shihab-ud-Daulah, Abū Sa'd-i-Maudud, son of Naṣir-
ud-din U'llah, Mas'ud, when the tidings of his father's
murder reached him, ascended the throne of his father's
dominions.
4
↑ A pass, in ancient times somewhat difficult, situated between Rāwal Pindi
and Attak, a few miles east of Hasan Abdāl. The hills around used to be
infested with robbers, who generally chose this pass for attacking travellers
and karwāns of traders, hence the name "Mari-galah." The emperor Akbar
had a good road carried through the pass for about two miles. I have
noticed it in my paper-" Diary of a March with the Bombay Column of the
Army of the Panjab,"-contained in the Transactions of the Bombay Geogra-
phical Society for 1850-51.
كيرا ]
5 Baihaķi writes it Giri [] and others write it Giri [] and Girā
• He was not murdered until the 11th of Jamādi-ul-Awwal of the following
year, 433 H., at which time, his nephew, Aḥmad, son of the blind Muḥammad,
pretending it was his father's command, put Mas'ud to death, after a reign of
a few days over eleven years, not nine as our author states, because he
ascended the throne on the 1st of Jamadi-ul-Awwal, 422 H., and was mur
dered in the very same month of the year 433 H.; but he had certainly been
in confinement since the previous year. Muhammad is said to have lamented
this act, and greatly reproached the murderers.
7 Appointed governor of the territory east of the Indus, with his head-
quarters at Lahor, in Zi-Ka'dah, 427 H. Baihaki mentions two others, but
merely gives the title of one-Amir-i-Sa'id--to whom Mas'ud was much
attached, and whom he proposed to make his heir, but he died at Ghaznin in
429 H. The other was named Abd-ur-Razzāķ.
8 Styled by some authors Shihab-ud-Daulah, and Kutb-ul-Millat, 'Abd-ul-
Fatḥ-i-Maudūd, and Maudūd-i-Ghāzi. According to Baihaķi, Mas'ūd's title
was Shihab-ud-Daulah and Kutb-ul-Millat.
⁹ Maudud was at Balkh, when the tidings of his father's imprisonment and
murder reached him. He set out for Ghaznin without delay. See note 2, p. 96,
96
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĀṢIRĪ.
At the period that Sultan Mas'ud was about to proceed
into Hindustan, he had established Maudud as his lieu-
tenant over the territory of Ghaznin, and its dependencies.
Maudūd assumed the throne in 432 H., and assembled an
army, in order to revenge his father, and commenced his
march towards Hindūstān¹.
Sultan Muhammad, son of Mahmud, who was Maudud's
uncle, had been brought forth from his place of confine-
ment, by the rebellious retinue [of Mas'ud], and had been
raised to the throne by them, who, with their loins girded,
stood before him [to do his behests]. The great nobles of
Hindustan submitted to him; and the Turkish slaves of
Maḥmūd and of Mas'ūd, who had acted so perfidiously and
with such hostility towards the latter, all had gone over to
Muhammad, and espoused his cause. After he had been
made sovereign by them four months, an encounter took
place between Maudud and his uncle; and, by the will of
the Most High, the victory was bestowed upon Maudud,
within the limits of Nagrahār [Nangrahār 2], and Muḥam-
"When hostilities arose
1 Guzidah differs in the account of this affair.
between Mas'ud, and the Saljūķs, and Mas'ud had been defeated, he had to
retreat to Ghaznin. He then determined to retire into Hindūstān [which in
nearly every case should be understood to mean the Panjāb, except in the case
of occasional expeditions beyond]. After Mas'ud had passed the Jilam […]
his troops mutinied against him, and carried away the blind Muḥammad from
him, after which they placed a throne upon the back of an elephant, and
seated Muḥammad thereon. They then conducted him through the whole
army; and Mas'ud was seized and brought before his sightless brother." The
Tārikh-i-Ibrāhimi, while confirming this, with the exception of mentioning
the Ab-i-Sind, instead of the Jilam, adds that Muḥammad gave up the direction.
of the affairs of government to his son, Aḥmad, and that Muḥammad only im-
prisoned his brother Mas'ud; but Aḥmad directed that he should be put to
death. This statement is confirmed by most other historians. Mas'ud's object
in proceeding into India, or rather his territory on the Indus and in the Panjāb,
was to raise a fresh army in order to take vengeance upon the Saljūķs.
2 Maudud, on hearing of his father's murder, advanced with his troops.
towards Ghaznin to secure the capital; and Muḥammad, who was on the con-
fines of Sind [i. e. on the Indus, in the Sind Sagar Do-ab], also hastened
towards Ghaznin for a similar purpose. Every copy of the work I have seen
has the name Nagrahār as plainly written as it is possible to write, yet Mr.
Dowson translates it by the impossible name of “ Takarhárúd,” and makes
the error worse, by adding, in a note [Elliot, vol. ii, p. 274]—" or "Bakarhá,'
perhaps Bakhrála [Firishta's text says 'Depúr,' not 'Duntoor,' as in Briggs'
translation]." Why "Bakhrálá" is fixed upon thus at hap-hazard, it would
be highly interesting to know. Was it because there is a place east of
the Margalah Pass called "-Bak-ṛālah, which happened to be not far off
THE YAMINĨAH DYNASTY.
97
mad was taken prisoner, together with his children and
dependents. Sulṭān Maudūd wreaked vengeance upon
him for his father's fall; and the murderers of his father,
both Turk and Tazik, he put to death, and thereby gained
fame and great distinction. Whoever were implicated in
the shedding of his father's blood, the whole of them he
put to death.
He returned again to Ghaznin, and took possession of
the different parts of his father's dominions. He reigned
for a period of nine years, and died; and his age was thirty-
nine years ³.
3
His sons were Manşūr, Muḥammad, and Maḥmūd; and
the latter had a son named Sūlimān.
VI. 'ALĪ, SON OF MAS'ŪD, AND MUHAMMAD, SON OF
MAUDŪD, IN ASSOCIATION 4.
These two princes, uncle and nephew, were raised to the
towards the Jihlam []? Which is the most natural-one force marching
from Ghaznin, and another marching towards it from the Margalah Pass-
that they should meet about half-way, or at Bak-ṛalah? A glance at a map
would show at once where those places lie. Maudud founded a Bāzār or
emporium, at the place where he gained this victory, which Baihaki calls
Dinür, and named it Fatḥ-ābād, which, in the advance to Kabul, in 1842,
was occupied by the troops under the command of Gen. Sir R. Sale, G. C.B.
The name has been incorrectly spelt, as usual, Futtehabad.
Maudud gained
this battle 434 H.
3 Our author has omitted to mention some of the chief events of his reign,
as well as the date of his death. Both Guzidah and Faşiḥ-i, as well as several
other writers, state that Maudud died in the month of Rajab, 441 H., of colic,
when on his way to meet Jaghar Beg, his father's old foe, whose daughter he
had married. The capital of Jaghar Beg, at this time, was Marw.
4 A very unlikely arrangement, to say the least of it. Our author, here, is
at variance with all works of undoubted authority. Yafa'i, Faşiḥ-i, the
Nizām-ut-Tawarikh of Baizawi, Guzidah, Jahān-Ārā, Lubb-ut-Tawarikh,
Fanākati, and several others state, generally, that on the death of Mau-
dūd, his son Mas'ud, in accordance with his father's will, was raised to
the throne, and that his mother, the daughter of Jaghar Beg, Saljūķi, began
to administer the government in his name, he being a child of three years of
age. After he had been one month on the throne-some say ten days-with
his mother's consent and approbation, the great nobles and grandees, by
mutual agreement, set the child aside, and raised his uncle, Baha-ud-Din,
'Ali, to the throne. No writer that I am acquainted with says one word about
two rulers in joint occupation of the throne, except our author, who also
makes a great blunder in calling Maudūd's infant son, Mas'ud, by the name of
'Muḥammad." A very good reason is given in Guzidah for the child's being
set aside. Bahā-ud-Daulah, 'Ali, married his brother Maudud's widow, on
which she, probably, did not much mind her infant son being set aside, for her
new husband.
98
THE TABAKAT-I-NĀṢIRĪ.
throne by the Turks and the chief men of the kingdom.
Each and every person took possession of some office or
other. As the two princes possessed neither capacity nor
ability, and neither authority nor control, the utmost dis-
order and detriment continued to arise in the affairs of the
country, the condition of the soldiery, and of the people in
general. After two months they raised Sultan 'Abd-ur-
Rashid to the throne, and sent the two princes back to a
fortress again.
5
VII. 'ABD-UR-RASHĪD, SON OF MAḤMŪD.
Sulṭān 'Izz-ud-Daulah-i-'Abd-ur-Rashid ascended the
throne in 441 H.. He was an enlightened and intelligent
man, and was a depository of the oral traditions, which he
was wont to narrate' but he did not possess much
strength of mind or intrepidity.
•
Seeing the repeated and successive changes and revolu-
tions in the sovereignty, the Saljuks on the side of Khura-
sān coveted the throne of Ghaznin. The sovereignty of
5 Fanākati and Tarikh-i-Ibrahimi say 'Ali reigned two years, after which,
on 'Abd-ur-Rashid rebelling, he fled from Ghaznin. Guzidah agrees as to
the number of years that 'Ali reigned, but says that his reign terminated in
443 H., and calls 'Abd-ur-Rashid his uncle.
• Under the events of the year 443 H., Fașiḥ-i notices" a battle between
Majd-ud-Daulah, Abū Manṣūr-i-'Abd-ur-Rashid, son of Maḥmūd-i-Ghāzi, and
Bāhā-ud-Daulah, 'Ali, son of Mas'ud, and the overthrow of 'Ali after a reign,
at Ghaznin, of one year, and the accession of Majd-ud-Daulah before men-
tioned." Other authors also call him Majd-ud-Daulah. Vāfa'i says that 'Abd-
ur-Rashid, who had for years been imprisoned in a fortress, escaped, raised
forces, overthrew 'Ali, and ascended the throne.
7 Translated by Mr. Dowson-"used to listen to chronicles and write his-
اخبار سماع داشت و روایت کردی tory ! " The original is
8 A much more probable cause is given for the advance of the Saljūķs in
other histories, which is as follows :— "After 'Abd-ur-Rashid had reigned one
year, the daughter of Jaghar Beg, in order to revenge the loss of her second
husband, 'Ali, brought an army of Saljūķs against him." It is farther stated ·
that among the slaves of the Maḥmūdi dynasty was one named Tughril, who
was Amir-ul- Umrā, who went and joined the Saljūķs, conspired with them,
fought a battle against 'Abd-ur-Rashid, and took him prisoner. The daughter
of Jaghar Beg, widow of Maudūd and 'Ali, made 'Abd-ur-Rashid over to
Tughril, and returned herself to Khurāsān. Tughril imprisoned him in a
fortress in the district of Maidan [near Kābul]. 'Abd-ur-Rashid was of such
weak intellect that on one occasion, when Tughril was playing at Chaugān
there, 'Abd-ur-Rashid came forth to see the sport, and applauded Tughril.
After a time 'Abd-ur-Rashid was put to death, at which period nine of the
THE YAMİNÍAH DYNASTY.
99
Khurāsān had passed to Da'ūd; and Alb-Arsalan, his son,
having become the commander of his forces, they deter-
mined to advance against Ghaznin. Alb-Arsalān entered
[the country] by way of Tukhāristān, with a numerous
army; and his father, Dā'üd, advanced upon Bust, by way
of Sistān.
Sultan 'Abd-ur-Rashid caused his forces to be got ready,
and made Tughril, who was one of the slaves of Maḥmūd,
and a man of consummate valour, general over them, and
sent him against Alb-Arsalan. In front of the darah' of
Khumar he inflicted a defeat upon Alb-Arsalan, and from
thence pushed on towards Bust, and arrived there with the
utmost expedition. When he came up with Da'ūd, the
latter retired before him, and Tughril pursued him into
Sistān, and overthrew Beghū, the uncle of Dā’ūd.
Tughril having gained two or three such like successes,
returned to Ghaznin, seized Sultan 'Abd-ur-Rashid, and
put him to death, after which he ascended the throne
himself.
'Abd-ur-Rashid's reign was two years and a half, and
his age was thirty years ¹.
VIII. TUGHRIL, AL-MAL'ŪN, OR THE EXECRATED².
Tughril was one of Maḥmūd's slaves, and was endowed
grandsons of Maḥmūd were still living. Vāfa'i states that 'Abd-ur-Rashid
reigned nearly seven years, and died 450 H. No mention of Tughril is made;
and the author passes immediately on to Ibrahim, without any notice of Far-
rukh-zad; but that work only contains a brief notice of the Ghaznawi rulers
after Mas'ud the Martyr. The Tazkirat-ul-Mulūk states that he reigned four
years. Faşiḥ-i states, and the Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh agrees, that 'Abd-ur-
Rashid succeeded in 443 H., was imprisoned in 444 H., by Tughril, who was
put to death the same year, and that Farrukh-zād succeeded; but makes no
mention of 'Abd-ur-Rashid's death. Fanakati says he died 450 H., and then
makes a sudden jump from 'Abd-ur-Rashid to Sultan Ibrahim. Baizawi, in
the Nizam-ut-Tawarikh, makes no mention of Tughril or the reign of Far-
rukh-zād, and says that 'Abd-ur-Rashid reigned seven years, and died in
445 H., and yet states that his successor, Ibrahim, reigned from 450 H. to
492 H.
9 A "Darah" signifies a valley between two hills, through which a stream
flows, and a pass between two mountains.
1 'Abd-ur-Rashid was present with his brother Mas'ud at the battle of Dan-
dānkād, or Dāe-ķān..
2 Authors of any authority do not give Tughril a place among the sove-
reigns, because he was an usurper of forty days.
100
THE TABAKAT-I-NAŞIKÏ.
t
+
with great intrepidity and valour. During the reign of
Sulṭān Maudūd, he left Ghaznin, and went into Khurāsān,
and entered the service of the Saljuks. He remained there
for a considerable time, and made himself acquainted with
their mode of warfare; and returned to Ghaznin again in
the reign of 'Abd-ur-Rashid. He seized 'Abd-ur-Rashid,
and slew him, along with eleven other princes, and usurped
the throne of Ghaznin, and reigned over the country for a
period of forty days, during which he practised great in-
justice and tyranny.
They inquired of him, saying: "Whence didst thou
acquire ambition to reign?" He replied: "At the time
that 'Abd-ur-Rashid was sending me forth to do battle
against Alb-Arsalan and Dā'ūd, and was giving me my
instructions, and had placed his hand in mine, terror had
overcome him to that degree, that I could hear his very
bones rattling from the state of trembling he was in. I
knew that this pusillanimous man was incapable of sove-
reignty, and the ambition of reigning entered my heart.”
After forty days of his rule had expired, a Turk named
Nush-Tigin, a Silāḥ-dar, or armour-bearer, who happened
to be standing behind Tughril, entered into an agreement
with another, his friend, and they slew Tughril upon the
throne itself; after which they brought out his head, and
fixed it upon a pole, and had it paraded round the city;
so that the people became free from anxiety and care *.
IX. FARRUKH-ZAD, SON OF MAS'UD 5.
At the time that Almighty God brought down upon
Tughril the just reward of his crimes, and delivered the
3 The mode of making a compact-giving one's right hand.
4 After Tughril had put all the princes he could lay his hands on to death,
he compelled a daughter of the late Sultan Mas'ud to become his wife. Soon
after he made a great entertainment, when a number of champions, filled with
loyalty to the Maḥmūdi dynasty, attacked him, and cut him to pieces.
5 Guzidah, Fașiḥ-i, and Tārikh-i-Ibrahimi, strange to say, call Farrukh-zād
son of 'Abd-ur-Rashid. His title was Jamāl-ud-Daulah, but, in the Muntakh-
ab-ut-Tawārikḥ, he is styled 'Imād-ud-Daulah, son of Mas'ūd. Baihaķi, in
commencing one of the chapters of his work, states that he " began it in Zi-
Hijjah, 450 H., in the reign of the Sultan-i-Muazzam, Abū Shuja'-i-Farrukh-
zād."
THE YAMİNİAH DYNASTY.
ΙΟΙ
people from his unbearable tyranny, and unlimited oppres
sion, two princes of the Mas'udi family remained alive
immured within the fortress of Bar-ghund'-one Ibrāhim,
the other Farrukh-zād.
The accursed Tughril had despatched a party to that
fortress for the purpose of putting them to death; but the
seneschal, who was stationed therein, had taken one day to
consider the matter, and had kept the party in question.
without the gates, under the agreement that they should
be admitted on the following day, to carry out that wicked
mandate. Suddenly, carrier pigeons arrived there, bearing
the news of Tughril the Accursed having been killed.
8
After that execrable [man] was slain at Ghaznin, by the
hand of Nush-Tigin, the chief men of the empire, and the
Maliks, and Ḥājibs, sought for a sovereign. It was found
that two princes still remained, immured within the walls
of the fortress of Bar-ghund; so all of them set out towards
that fortress, and desired to raise Ibrahim to the throne:
but his august frame had become overpowered by infirmity,
and, as delay was impossible, they brought forth Farrukh-
zād, and congratulated him on his accession to the sove-
reignty, on Saturday, the 9th of the month Zi-l-Ka'dah,
344 H.
Sultan Farrukh-zad was a man of mild and amiable dis-
position, and just. As soon as he ascended the throne, he
6 Guzidah says three-Ibrahim, Farrukh-zād, and Shujā'.
7 The same fortress is mentioned in Baihaki. Guzidah says Ghund [a].
Bar [] in the Afghan language signifies "on," "upon," &c., and ghund
[] "round, circular," and the like, as "a mound, a bluff, a detached
hill," &c. A few copies have Buz-Ghund.
CC
8 Every copy of the work collated has [with two exceptions, which have lee]
the word signifying "birds," &c., as plainly written as it is possible to
مردان
write; but in the printed text le has been substituted, and Mr. Dowson,
of course, follows the printed text. That carrier pigeons, or rather doves, were
in use long before, for transmitting news speedily, see note at p 37. When
the Crusaders under Godfrey were passing through the narrow defiles of Judea,
a white dove, with a letter tied under its wing, from one Musalman Amir to
his superior, gave information to the Crusaders of the foe's designs. This was
but a short time previous to Farrukh-zad's reign. Ṣalāḥ-ud-Din, subsequently
to this, also established "pigeon posts" for the conveyance of news; and, in
the latter part of A.D. 1179, when defeated by the Crusaders under Baldwin
IV., the Count of Tripoli, the Grand Master of the Hospitallers, and the
Templars, near Jerusalem, a victory was proclaimed at Cairo [Kahirah], and
pigeons spread the triumphant news over Egypt, to quiet the spirits of the
public," by Ṣalāḥ-ud-Din's desire.
102
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĂŞIRĪ.
remitted the revenue of the territory of Zawulistan, which
had become ruined through [the levying of] heavy contri-
butions in taxes and supplies, so that it became pros-
perous again¹. He brought under his control the frontier
provinces of the empire; and governed his people with
benevolence. He reigned seven years 2,.when, suddenly, he
was carried off by colic ³, in the year 451 H., at the age of
thirty-four years.
3
X. SULŢĂN IBRĀHĪM, SAYYID-US-SALĂȚĪN 5.
Sultān Zahir-ud-Daulah, Naşir-ul-Millat, Razzi-ud-Din,
و
9 The original text is lives—' Awāriz-wa-mūnāt [not “mútán ”]
which Mr. Dowson renders-"disease and murrain," and adds, in a note—
"Awáriz-o-mútán. The former words [sic] mean literally diseases, but it [sic]
is also used for those diseases of the body politic, extraordinary imposts."
Does "
mūnāt" also mean "murrain in the body politic?
""
At
The Tazkirat-ul-Mulūk mentions that, soon after the accession of Farrukh-
zād, the Saljūķs advanced towards Ghaznin in great force, and were
encountered by Farrukh-zad and his forces. The Saljuks were defeated and
numbers slain, and some made prisoners. Subsequently, Alb-Arsalān advanced
against Ghaznin, fought a battle, and gained a victory, in which most of the
Maḥmūdi chiefs were made captive, and carried away into Khurāsān.
last an accommodation was come to, and some of the captives were set free.
2 Farrukh-zād, according to Guzidah, reigned six years, in which several
other authors agree; but the former gives the year 450 H., as that of his death,
and says he bequeathed his sovereignty to his cousin, Ibrahim. Faşiḥ-i agrees
in this, and also as to the year; but states that he reigned seven years, which
is apparently correct, he having ascended the throne in the eleventh month of
the year 443 H., and died in 450 H. According to Baihaķi, just quoted, we
find he was alive in the last month of 450 H., but, as he died suddenly, he
might have died in that same month. The Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh, however,
says he began to reign Saturday, 9th of Zi-Ķaʼdah, 444 H., and died, in Şafar,
451 H.
Vāfa'i agrees with Faşiḥ-i, and states that Ibrahim succeeded in
450 H.
In the latter part of the year preceding Farrukh-zad's death, Alb-
Arsalan, who had succeeded his father, Jaghar Beg, over the territory of
Khurāsān, ousted his great uncle, Beghū, from Hirāt, and had the Khutbah
read there for himself.
3 The word used for colic is and described as a pain in the bowels
and in the side, but I suspect it must be some type of cholera or inflammation,
as it seems to have carried off several of this dynasty.
• Among the Wazirs or Ministers of Farrukh-zad was Khwajah Abū Bikr-
i-Ṣāliḥ, who had previously held the government of Hindustan. Among the
celebrated personages who died during his reign was Abu-Najm-i-Iyāz, Ui-
māk or I-māķ, the slave of Sultan Maḥmūd, famous under the name of Iyāz.
He died in the month of Rabi'-ul-Awwal, 449 H.
5 Sayyid here means "lord," "prince," "chief of," &c. His correct title,
as given by most authors, is Zahir-ud-Daulah, Abū Muzaffar-i-Ibrāhim. The
THE YAMİNĨAH DYNASTY.
103
Ibrahim, son of Mas'ud, the Martyr, was a great and illus-
trious monarch, learned and accomplished, just and God-
fearing, benevolent and compassionate, the friend of the
learned, and supporter of religion.
After Farrukh-zad had ascended the throne, Ibrahim
had been removed from the fortress of Bar-ghund to the
fortress of Nãe; and, when Farrukh-zād died, all hearts
decided upon the sovereignty of Ibrahim. The Sarhang,
Ḥasan, proceeded to his presence, and, accompanied by the
chief persons in the state, conducted him from the fortress;
and, on a Monday, at an auspicious conjunction of the
planets in the high vault above, he ascended the throne.
The day after he performed the customary mourning cere-
monies for the Amir-i-Hamid-the Laudable Amir-Far-
rukh-zād, his brother, and paid a visit to his tomb, and to
the tombs of his ancestors; and all the great nobles,
ministers, and most distinguished personages accompanied
him on foot, for he did not show [particular] favour or
familiarity towards any person soever, and, on this account,
awe of his authority was implanted in the hearts of all
people ³.
8
When the intelligence of his accession to the throne
reached Dā'ūd, the Saljūķ, he sent an embassy into Khu-
rāsān; and entered into a treaty of peace with him. After
Da'ūd [died] his son, Alb-Arsalān, continued to abide by
it; and Ibrahim brought under his entire control the
other titles, given by our author, are not mentioned by other writers.
He was
abstemious and continent, and renowned for his tact and excellent judgment.
He wrote a beautiful hand, and every year sent a copy of the Kur'an, written
by himself, to Makkah, with other valuable offerings. Guzidah says the
Saljūķi monarchs used to style him "father ;" and, when they addressed a
communication to him, used to write his titles at the top of it.
• This fortress was situated in the district of Wajiristān.
7 The meaning assigned to this word generally is—“A commissary, a ser-
jeant, a commander, a superior officer," &c. ; but, in the Burhan-Kati', and
other works of authority in these matters, it seems, more correctly, an officer
who marched in front of the troops bearing the standard-equivalent to the
Italian gonfalonier.
8 Mr. Dowson translates this: "IIe bestowed no favours upon any one, and
hence apprehensions about his rule took possession of the hearts of the people.”
بدين سبب حیبتی از سلطنت او در دل خلق متمکن شد The original is
⁹ Da'ūd died, according to most authorities, in Rajab, 451 H., though one
says it took place in 452 H., and another in 453 H. Faşiḥ-i says,
"In the
year succeeding that in which Ibrahim ascended the throne, Jaghar Beg died.”
At all events he died a considerable time before Tughril, his brother.
104
THE TABAKAT-I-NĀṢIRĪ.
dominions of his ancestors'. The troubles and disorders
which had fallen upon that empire, through the vicissi-
tudes of the times, and continual warfare, were all, during
his reign, remedied and rectified, and the affairs of the
empire of the great Maḥmud assumed fresh vigour. The
ruinous places in the country were again repaired and
restored, and he founded several towns, such as Jatr-
ābād (?) Khair-ābād, Aimin-ābād, and others in different
parts.
During his reign many astonishing and uncommon occur-
rences took place; and Da'ūd, the Saljuk, whose ravages,
inroads, conflicts, and conquests might vie with the flashing
lightning, died.
The birth of Ibrāhim took place in the year of the con-
quest of Gurgān, in 424 H., in the province of Hirāt, and
that monarch had forty daughters and thirty-six sons. All
the daughters were given in marriage to illustrious Sayyids,
and dignified 'Ulamā³; and one of those princesses was
married to the great-great-grandfather of [the author] Min-
hāj-i-Sarāj, and this was the cause of the removal of the
writer's ancestors from Jūrjān. Imām 'Abd-ul-Khalik,
Jurjāni, who lies asleep within the Sarãe of Tahir-ābād of
Ghaznin, saw in a dream, whilst dwelling in Jurjān, in his
youthful years, that an angel said unto him in the vision:
"Arise, and proceed to Ghaznin, and seek a wife." When
he awoke, he imagined that this dream might have been
prompted by the devil; but, having dreamt the same dream
three times successively, as therein commanded, he came to
Ghaznin, and one of those daughters was bestowed in marriage
upon him. That princess bore him a son, whom he named
This is not correct, because the Saljuks held a very considerable portion
of them.
2 In Elliot's INDIA, vol. ii. p. 277, this passage is translated—“Several
fortified places and towns were founded," &c., but kasbah does not mean for-
tified places; and, even were "kaṣr" read for it by mistake, it would not
mean "fortified places." All authors agree that Ibrahim, during his reign,
founded naught but masjids, colleges, buildings for the accommodation of
travellers, and works of public utility; and that he built nothing for himself.
3 Here Sayyid is the title of the chiefs of the family of Muḥammad, de-
scended from 'Ali, and his daughter Fatimah. 'Ulamā signifies the learned-
theologians, ecclesiastics, doctors of law. Mr. Dowson translates the sentence,
"nobles or learned men of repute."
4 Our author is so much taken up with his ancestor's grand alliance that he
leaves out most of the principal events of the reign of Ibrahim. After he
THE YAMINIAH DYNASTY.
105
Ibrahim - Maulānā, Minhaj-ud-Din, 'Usman-i-Ibrahim-
upon whom be the mercy of the Almighty! He was the
father of Maulānā Minhāj-ud-Din, who was the father, of
Maulānā Sarāj-ud-Din, 'Ujūbah-uz-zamān [the Wonder of
his Age!], and he was the father of [the author] Minhaj-i-
Sarāj.
Sultan Ibrahim was a monarch of felicitous and prosperous.
career, and his reign extended over a period of forty-two
years, and his age [at his death] was sixty years. He died in
the year 492 H.³
5
His sons were Maḥmud, Is-hak, Yusuf, Nasr, 'Ali,
Bihzād, Khurshed Malik, Khub-chihr, Azad Malik,
Malik-Chihr, Tughan Shah, Azad-Mihr, Daulat Shah,
Azad-Chihr, Amir Shāh, Nih-Firūzah Tahamtan Shāh,
Turan Shah, Malik-Zad, Malik-Dād, Shams-ul-Mulk,
Malik Sher, Sher Malik, Mas'ūd, Īrān-Malik, Kaihān Shāh,
9
arranged matters with the Saljūķs, by marrying his son, Mas'ūd, to a Saljūķ
princess, daughter of Malik Shāh, and sister of Sultan Sanjar, and had no
cause for farther anxiety respecting them, he carried his arms into Hind upon
several occasions, and reduced many strongholds, and other places, among
which is said to have been a populous city, inhabited by Khurāsānīs, whose
ancestors had been expelled from their native country by Afrasiyab. There
was a large hawz, or reservoir, there, said to have been half a league in
diameter; 100,000 persons were made captive, and taken away to Ghaznin,
and booty, in proportion, was captured. During the reign of Ibrāhim, in
470 H., Abū-Fazl-i-Muḥammad, son of Husain [not Hasain], Al-Baihaķi, who
had been secretary in the "Diwan-i-Inshā," of Sulṭān Maḥmūd, son of Sabuk-
Tigin, but, as the Deputy of the Khwajah-i-'Amid, Abū Naṣr-i-Mishkān, Al-
Zawzani, and a pupil and disciple of that great man, died. Abū-l-Fazl was
the author of the work entitled the "Makāmāt-ul-'Amid-i-Abu Nasr-i-Mish-
kān, and the "Tārikh-i-Āl-i-Sabuk-Tigin," in twelve books or volumes,
[called by our author the Tarikh-i-Nāṣiri], entitled Tarikh-i-Yamini. The
first portion of the work, containing the reigns of Sabuk-Tigin and Maḥmūð,
does not exist, and appears to have been lost for some centuries.
>>
5 On the 5th of the month of Shawwāl. One author says in Rajab, but gives
no date. Faşih-i mentions the taking of Jerusalem by the Christians [August
15th, but some say 15th July, A. D. 1099] in this same year, and the slaughter
of 80,000 Musalmāns. The year 492 H. began 27th of November, A.D.
1098.
• In 471 H. Sultan Ibrahim was apprized that his son, Saif-ud-Daulah,
Maḥmūd, meditated flying to Sultan Malik Shāh, the Saljūķ; and accordingly
confined him within the citadel of Ghaznin, and his partisans were sent to
other fortresses.
7 One MS. has Munawwar Shah.
S Malik Mihr.
9 So in two MSS., but doubtful.
The whole number forty. I expect the
text should be, "He had forty sons and thirty-six daughters."
H
106
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĀṢIRĪ.
幅
​Jahan Shah, Firuz Shah, Miran Shah, Yaghan' Shah,
Turkān Shāh, Arsalan Shāh, Tughril Shah, Kutlugh Shāh,
Muayyid Shah, Sultan Shah, Malik Shah, Khusrau Shah,
Farrukh Shah, and Bahrām Shāh.
XI. 'ALĂ-UD-DĪN 2 MAS’ŪD, AL-KARĪM, OR THE BENEFICENT,
SON OF IBRĀHĪM.
Mas'ud, son of Ibrāhim, who bore the title of Karim, or
the Beneficent, was a monarch of excellent disposition [and
temperament], blessed with many virtues, just and equi-
table, and of auspicious reign.
He ascended the throne during the Khilafat of the Lord
of the Faithful, Al-Mustazhar B'illah [Abu-l-'Abbās], i-Aḥ-
mad, son of Al-Muktadi Bi-amr-ullah. He was endowed
with humility and beneficence to an extraordinary degree,
and he suppressed all the oppressive usages which, before
his time, had been established. The contingent taxes,
which were exorbitant, he abolished throughout the Maḥ-
mūdi dominions and in Zawulistan; and likewise remitted
all tolls and imposts throughout the whole empire.
All the great chiefs and nobles and grandees of the
country were left in undisturbed possession of the [offices and
possessions] which they had held during the reign of Sulṭān
Ibrahim; and he adopted the most beneficial regulations
for the government of his dominions. Amir 'Uzd-ud-Daulah
wa ud-Din was continued in the government of Hindūstān
5
1 Tughān, in one copy.
2 The proper title of this monarch appears to be 'Ala-ud-Daulah.
3 Every copy of the work [and the printed text also], with one exception,
perpetrates the great blunder of calling this Khalifah son of Muktadir,"
instead of Muķtádi. In Section IV., on the Khalifahs, our author gives
the correct name.
Under the occurrences of the year 493 H., Faşiḥ-i mentions an important
matter, from which it would appear that the chiefs of Ghur were not, at the
time in question, such great or powerful personages as Minhaj-i-Sarāj would
lead us to believe. It says: "Husain, son of Sām, by command of 'Alā-ud-
Daulah, Mas'ūd, son of Ibrāhim, obtained the government of Ghur." I shall
have more remarks to offer on this subject when I reach Section XVII.
4 Mr. Dowson renders this passage in the following manner: "He restored
to the princes, nobles, and grandees, their possessions," &c. They must have
been dispossessed of them in order to have them restored; but ˆ¿‚—‚'‚§}}
does not happen to mean "restored.”
5 From the word "Amir" I should imagine this personage must have been
either a brother or uncle of Mas'ud's.
THE YAMĪNĪAH DYNASTY.
107
[as before]; and, during Mas'ūd's reign, the Ḥājib-i-Buzarg
[Great Chamberlain] died, and the Ḥājib, Tughā-Tigin,
crossed the river Gang, in order to carry on holy war in
Hindūstān, and penetrated to a place where, except Sulṭān
Maḥmūd, no one had reached so far with an army before.
During the sovereignty of Mas'ud all the affairs of the state
were conducted with perfect order and regularity, and no
heart had any cause of care from any quarter. He was
born at Ghaznin in 453 H., reigned seventeen years, and
died in 509 H., at the age of fifty-seven. The sister of
Sulṭān Sanjar, Saljūķi, who was styled the Mahd-i-'Irāk
[or the 'Irāki spouse], was wedded to him.
6
His sons were Bahā-ud-Din, Muḥammad, who had a son
named Khatir-ud-Din, Muhammad; Sher-zad', Malik Arsa-
lan, Farrukh-zad, who had three sons, 'Ali, Iran Malik,
and Shah-zad; 'Ali, Bahram Shah, Malik-Chihr, Malik-zäd,
Maḥmūd, Sulṭān Malik, who had three sons, Arsalān
Malik, Al-Hasan, and Mir-Nūk; and Jamshed Malik, who
had two sons, Khurshed, and Tūrān Malik.
XII. MALIK ARSALĀN, SON OF MAS’ŪD.
Malik Arsalan-i-'Abd-ul-Mulūk, son of Sultan Mas'ūd,
ascended the throne in the year 509 H. at Garmsir itself,
6 In Elliot's INDIA, vol. ii. p. 278, "Mahd-i-'Irāk" is translated "Cradle
of Irak.' One of the meanings of mahd [4] is certainly a cradle, and also a
seat for the back of an elephant or camel; but another is "making a bed," and
here mahd has the metaphorical meaning of a wife, hence the meaning is the
'Iraki wife. Baiḥaki, in his History, makes constant use of the word in this
sense.
7 Our author, like some others, has left out one sovereign. Faşiḥ-i says that
'Ala-ud-Daulah, Mas'ud, son of Ibrahim, died in 508 H., after a reign of sixteen
years; and that he was succeeded by KAMĀL-UD-DAULAH, SHER-ZÁD,
his son, in the same year; and in the following year Sherzad died, after reigning
about one year, when Arsalan Shah succeeded. Guzidah confirms this succes-
sion of Kamal-ud-Daulah, Sherzäd, but says that he succeeded to the throne.
according to his father's will, and ruled for about a year, when his brother,
Arsalan Shāh, rose against him, and put him to death, in 509 H. Other writers
of authority likewise confirm the accession of Sherzad, who was the second
son of Mas'ud, while Arsalan was the third. Yafa'i and Fanākati also state
that Mas'ud reigned sixteen years, and Baizawi confirms it.
8 His correct title is Sultan ud Daulah, Arsalan Shah, son of Mas'ud, son
of Ibrāhim; and, according to the Tārikh-i- Vāſa'i, he succeeded to the throne
in accordance with his father's will. Some call him Abu-l-Mulūk.
بر خود گرم سیر The original is 9
The passage is translated in Elliot's INDIA,
vol. ii. p. 278, thus: "Malik Arslán Abu-l malik [sic] ascended the throne
H 2
108
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĂŞIRĪ.
and assumed the sovereignty of the empire of Ghaznin.
Bahram Shah, his brother', fled from him, and proceeded
into Khurāsān, to the court of Sultan Sanjar.
During the reign of Malik Arsalān some remarkable
events occurred, one of which was that fire, accompanied by
a thunderbolt, fell from the heavens, so that by that fire all
the bāzārs of Ghaznin were consumed. Other untoward
events and occurrences likewise took place during his
sovereignty, so that people held his rule in detestation ³.
He was possessed of great nobility of mind, energy, courage,
and valour.
3
When he came to the throne he treated his step-mother,
who was [styled] Mahd-i-'Irāk, with indignity ³, and on that
5
A. H. 509 [A.D. 1115], and brought Garmsir and the kingdom of Ghazni under
his rule." I wonder what throne he ascended if it was not that of the kingdom.
of Ghaznin?
1 Some copies say "his uncle," but this is an error, for Bahrā:n was his
brother, as the names of the sons of Mas'ud confirm.
2 The I. H. L. MS., No. 1952, and R. A. S. MS. are both very defective
with regard to this reign. In those copies Bahram is said to be uncle of
Arsalan; and in the sentence referring to the destruction of the bāzārs of Ghaz-
nin they have the word -people-which is totally meaningless.
These matters are not alluded to in the works I have been quoting, and
seem to have been taken from our author by more modern writers.
4
سببی
means a step-mother.
5 He is said to have requested her to dance before him, for his amusement.
This may have been one reason why Sulṭān Sanjar took up the insult to his
sister, and the cause of his nephew, Bahrām. When Arsalan came to the throne,
he imprisoned the whole of his brothers except Bahram, who succeeded in
reaching his uncle's court. Fanākati makes a mistake in this matter. He
says Sanjar was the son of Bahrām's maternal uncle; but, as Mas'ūd, Bah-
rām's father, married the daughter of Malik Shah, she was Sanjar's sister [as
our author also states], he being Malik Shāh's son. According to Guzidah,
Fașiḥ-i, and others, in 509 H., Sulṭān Sanjar, finding Arsalān Shāh deaf to all
the expostulations which he had made in behalf of Bahrām, set out along with the
latter for Ghaznin, attended by a numerous army. Arsalān came forth to meet
them with 30,000 horse, but, after an obstinate engagement, was defeated and
retired to Lāhor. Having placed Bahrām on the throne, and fixed a yearly
tribute, Sanjar returned to his own dominions; but, in the same year [509 H.],
Arsalan returned with an army, and defeated Bahrām, who again took shelter
in Sanjar's dominions. It was only in the following year that Sanjar became
sole monarch of the Saljūķs, after the death of his brother Muḥammad, and
had only a few months before acquired sway over 'Irak and Khurāsān, his
dominions before that having been but a portion of the latter territory. It was
only in 511 H., that Bahrām, having obtained the aid of an army from his
uncle, who did not accompany him the second time, was able to move agaiust
his brother Arsalan again. In the encounter which ensued, Arsalan was taken
prisoner, and thrown into confinement. Bahram's reign really commenced in
THE YAMINIAH DYNASTY.
109
account Sanjar became his foe, and gave assistance to
Bahrām Shāh. Sanjar came against Ghaznin, and Malik
*Arsalān fought a battle with him, and was defeated, and
retired towards Hindustan, where he fell into misery and
wretchedness. He died in the year 511 H., after a reign of
two years, at the age of thirty-five years.
6
XIII. MU'IZZ-UD-DAULAH WA UD-DIN 7, BAHRĀM SHĀH.
Mu'izz-ud-Daulah, Bahrām Shāh, was a person of hand-
some exterior, manly, munificent, just, and the sustainer and
protector of his subjects. At the outset of his career, when
Malik Arsalān ascended the throne, after the decease of
their father, Sultan Mas'ud, the Beneficent, Bahram Shāh
proceeded into Khurasan, the throne of which country was
adorned by the great and inestimable sovereign, the august,
the martyr Sultan Sanjar; and Bahrām Shāh resided at
his court for a considerable time. Sultan Sanjar led an
army towards Ghaznin, and Malik Arsalan, after an
engagement, was defeated, and Bahram Shah ascended the
throne. Sanjar treated him with great honour, and Sayyid
Hasan, a celebrated poet of Ghaznin, recited this ode [on that
occasion] in the Audience Hall, in the presence of Sultan San-
jar, on whom be the mercy and the pardon of the Almighty!
One quatrain of the ode in question is here inserted :—
"Of the eloquent of the world what is the strain,
That shall ever on earth be proclaimed ?—
'A shout emanated from the seven heavens,
9
That Bahram Shah is of the universe king.'
5II II. In the following year Arsalān was released, but, being again found
plotting, was put to death.
• At Shāh-ābād, in Shawwal, 511 H.
7 Faşiḥ-i states that his title was Yamin-ud-Daulah, in which Guzidah and
other writers agree; but there are others also, but chiefly modern authors, who
agree with the title in the text.
8 The word Sa'id-august-is not a proper name here. As Sanjar died a
natural death it is difficult to conceive how he was a martyr.
9 It is the commencement of the poem. As Bahrām was a patron of learning
and literature, a number of authors flourished in his reign, and numerous works,
both poetry and prose, were written. The celebrated work, known as "Kali-
lah and Damnah, was translated from the Arabic [] into Persian by
Nașr-ullah, son of Muḥammad, son of 'Abd-ul-Majid, [called “Ḥamid” by
Eastwick], in his reign, and was dedicated to Bahrām Shāh. Subsequently,
the same work was translated in the reign of Sultan Husain, of the race of
Taimur, by Mulla Ḥasan-i-Wā'iz-ul-Kashifi, and entitled Anwar-i-Suhaili.
IIO
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĂȘIRĪ.
Sulṭān Sanjar returned to Khurāsān again, and Bahrām
Shah assumed the government of the country'. He carried
on holy wars in the direction of Hindustan; and, on the 28th
of Ramaṣān, in the year 512 H., he took Muḥammad Bahlim
prisoner, and put him into confinement; but at last released
him, and made over the whole of Hindustan to him. Again
he rebelled, and founded the fortress of Naghawr, in the
territory of Siwalikh, in the neighbourhood of Birah; and
he had likewise numerous sons and followers and depen-
dents. Bahram Shah, with the determination of extir-
pating him, advanced into Hindustan against his strong-
hold, and Bahlim moved forward towards the confines
of Multan, and fought an
fought an engagement
engagement with Bahrām
Shāh. The Almighty rewarded Muḥammad Bahlim for
his base ingratitude, and he, with his ten sons 3, together
with their horses and arms, on the day of the battle, sank
in a morass, so that no trace of him and them remained.
2
Bahrām Shāh returned to Ghaznin again, and between
him and the Maliks, or chiefs of Ghur, hostilities arose; and
an engagement took place between them, in which Daulat
Shāh, a son of Bahrām, was slain". During that one cam-
paign Bahrām Shāh sustained three defeats from Sulṭān
1 One of Bahram's coins struck at Lahor in 548 H., contained in a work on
the subject, bears the following inscription. Obverse-“Coin of the Dar-us-
Sultanat-i-Lahor, in the fifth year of his prosperous and happy reign."
Reverse—“ A proclamation issued from the seven heavens, that Bahrām Shāh
is of the universe king.' Anno 514." This inscription, it will be noticed,
constitutes the two last lines of the quatrain given by our author, who, in
another place, states that the coin of Bahram was stamped in Sanjar's name.
See under his reign, next Section.
2 Two MSS. have
and in place of but either of them is a
strange name for a Musalmān.
3 A few copies have "two sons; but, as he is said before to have had
"numerous sons, ten is the more probable number.
""
4 Mr. Dowson, Elliot's INDIA, vol. ii. p. 280, says, with reference to this
passage, "The text has some unintelligible words, which vary in different
MSS.," and then quotes "Briggs." The words are?,g? Or say? gooj ju
and are quite plain and intelligible. which is also sometimes written
signifies a ditch, a marsh, a place where water stagnates; and is the
adjective derived from it.
بودن
*
5 Among the events of 521 H. Faşiḥ-i mentions that " a battle took place
between the troops of Ghaznin, and 'Alā-ud-Din, Husain, son of Hasan,
Ghūri, at Tigin-abad. Hostility had arisen between them on account of that
place, which was a city situated between Ghaznin and Ghūr. The city was
taken, and Bahrām fled. In 522 H. 'Alā-ud-Din took Ghazrin, and made it
over to his brother.
See Section XVII.
THE YAMİNĨAH DYNASTY.
III
'Ala-ud-Din, Ghūri, and Ghaznin fell into the hands of the
Ghūrians. They set fire to it, and destroyed the whole [!]
city. Bahram Shah retired into Hindustan at this time,
but, on the withdrawal of the Ghūri forces, he returned
to Ghaznin again, and there died after a reign of forty-
one years º.
6
His sons were Jalāl-ud-Daulah, Daulat Shāh, slain in
battle with the Ghūriāns; 'Alā-ud-Daulah, Dā’ūd❜ Shāh;
Bahā-ud-Daulah, Sultan Shah; Fakhr-ud-Daulah, 'Ali
Shāh; 'Izz-ud-Daulah, Muḥammad Shāh ; Samā-ud-
Daulah, Mas'ūd Shāh; Shihāb-ud-Daulah, Manṣur Shah;
Mu'ayyan-ud-Daulah, Shāhan-Shah; Mu'izz-ud-Daulah,
Khusrau Shāh; and Sayyid-ud-Daulah, Farrukh Shah.
XIV. KHUSRAU SHAH, SON OF BAHRÁM SHĀH.
Sultan Mu'ayyan-ud-Daulah-wa ud-Din ³, but, according
to some statements, Taj-ud-Daulah, Khusrat Shah, ascended
the throne in the year 552 H.
9
As the Maliks and Sultāns of Ghūr had shaken the
empire of the house of Maḥmūd to its very foundations, and
had wrested Ghaznin, Bust, Zamin-i-Dāwar, and Tigin-
ābād out of their hands, and had ravaged and desolated
them, feebleness had come upon its government, and its
glory and splendour had passed away. When Khusrau Shāh
ascended the throne he was weak and powerless, and was
unable to maintain his rule over the country.
A horde of the tribe of Ghuzz', who had acquired
dominion and power in Khurāsān, in the reign of the august
Sultan, Sanjar, who had now passed away 2, marched an
army against Ghaznin. Khusrau Shāh was unable to resist
6 Great discrepancy exists with respect to the dates of Bahrām Shāh's
death, and the accession and death of his son Khusrau Shāh, and also of
Khusrau Malik, the last of the dynasty. For farther notice of this, see note 5,
next page.
7 In one copy Zawul Shāh.
8 In a few copies he is styled "Yamin-ud-Daulah
Yamin-ud-Daulah" only; but the title
above agrees with the statements of several other authors.
9 That is, "who were Maliks and also Sulṭāns" from the text.
1 Some lexicographers spell the word Ghazz, and some Ghuz.
2 Sultan Sanjar died on the 16th of Rabi'-ul-awwul, 552 H., but a few
writers say in 553 II. The former is correct.
II2
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĂṢIRĪ.
them, and he accordingly retired into Hindūstān³, and
Ghaznin was lost to him, and fell into the hands of the
Ghuzz. They retained possession of that territory for a
period of twelve years, until the august Sulṭān, Ghiyāṣ-ud-
Din Muḥammad, Sām, led an army from Ghūr to Ghaznin,
overthrew Burāķ, the Ghuzz chief, retook Ghaznin, and
established [his brother] Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din Muḥammad,
Sām, the martyr, upon the Ghaznin throne. Khusrau
Shah had retired to Lahor, of Hindūstān.
His reign
extended to a period of seven years, after which he died ³.
3 The Tazkirat-ul-Mulūk contains a very good account of the reign of
Khusrau Shāh, which I here make an extract from. He succeeded his
father, and as 'Alā-ud-Din, Husain, son of Hasan, Ghūri, was in full march
upon Ghazuin, he, being unable to resist him with hopes of success, retired
into Hindustan [here signifying the Panjab] and took up his residence at
Lahor. He turned his attention to the government of the western portion of
his father's dominions, which were now left to him; but, when 'Ala-ud-Din
retired, after the plunder of Ghaznin, Khusrau Shah returned to Ghaznin, and
again took up his quarters there. Soon after, when the Ghuzz tribe took
Sultan Sanjar, his great uncle, captive, and were advancing towards Ghaznin,
Khusrau Shāh, who, probably, while Sulṭān Sanjar was in power, might have
expected aid from him in some shape or other, now that he was a prisoner,
was totally unable to resist them, and he again retired to Lahor, and died there
in 555 H., after reigning eight years."
4 In one copy Turāķ.
5 Great discrepancy prevails among authors respecting the latter part of
Bahram Shah's reign, and the reigns of Khusrau Shah, and Khusrau Malik,
which I will notice as briefly as possible.
The first events noticed in Faşiḥ-i, under the year 523 H., are, "the return
of Bahrām Shāh to Ghaznin, his encountering Saif-ud-din, Ghūri, and the
capture of the latter." He was placed upon a bullock-not a cow"
and paraded through the streets of that city, and afterwards put to death.
'Ala-ud-Din, his brother, determined to revenge him, and marched towards
Ghaznin with a numerous army; but Bahram died before his arrival, in that
same year [523 H.]." An account of the plunder of the city, and massacre of
the people then follows; and it is farther stated therein, that 'Ala-ud-Din,
Jahān-soz, made over the sovereignty of Ghaznin to his nephews, the brothers
Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din, and Mu'izz-ud-Din, and that "Khusrau Shah, who succeeded
his father, Bahram, was inveigled by them, that same year, and immured
within the citadel of Ghaznin, and the dynasty of the race of Maḥmūd, son of
Sabuk-Tigin, ended:"—that is, terminated over the Ghaznin territory.
Vāfa'i, Ķāzi Baizawi, Guzidah, Tārikh-i-Alfi, and some others agree with
the above statement, except as to the year of Bahram's death, and the termina-
tion of the dynasty. These four works also mention 'Alā-ud-Din as the first of
the Maliks-here, doubtless, signifying independent rulers-of Ghūr; and
they, correctly, it appears to me, account those previous to him to have been
mere subordinate chieftains, for, if we consider the smalhextent of territory
they could only have possibly possessed, their statements are to be relied
upon.
THE YAMİNĨAH DYNASTY.
113
His sons were Maḥmüd, Khusrau Malik, and Kai-
Khusrau.
Guzidah says Bahram died in 544 H. after a reign of thirty-two years, while
Fanākati asserts that he reigned twenty years, and died in 532 H. The Mun-
takhab-ut-Tawarikh, which is generally most particular and correct as regards
dates, agrees with Guzidah as to the year, but confirms the statement of Yāſa'i,
Faşiḥ-i, and the Nizam-ut-Tawarikh, as to Khusrau Shāh having reigned but
one year, after which the tribe of Ghuzz came against Ghaznin, and he, being
unable to cope with them, retired into Hind, and took up his residence at
Lahor, where he died in 545 H. The Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh however adds,
that, in the Rauzat-us-Safa, the year 555 H. is given. Guzidah also says this
event occurred in 555 H., and in this Ķāzi Baizawi agrees. Among more
modern works, the Tazkirat-ul-Mulūk and Tarikh-i-Alfi state that Bahram
died in 547 H., after reigning thirty-five years, and Khusrau Shah in 555 H.,
and in this the Tabakāt-i-Akbari, Badāūni, and Firishtah, and other modern
writers agree.
Our author states that Bahram ascended the throne in 511 H., and died in
552 H.. after a reign of forty-one years; and that Khusrau Shah, his son, suc-
ceeded, and reigned seven years, but does not give the date of his decease; but,
by his statement, it would have been in 559 H., after which date his son,
Khusrau Malik, succeeded. Their coins, mentioned farther on, tend to show
the contrary.
As to 'Ala-ud-Din's making over the government of Ghaznin to his nephews,
there is not so much discrepancy in the earlier writers, with the exception of
our author, who expressly states that they were detained within the walls of a
fortress by him, and were only set at liberty by his son and successor, as men-
tioned in Section XVII., which see. This was the year after Saif-ud-Din's
death, who, according to Faşiḥ-i, was slain in a battle with the Ghuzz near
Balkh, in which same year his nephew, Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din, succeeded him, and
inflicted a defeat upon the Ghuzz, with considerable slaughter, and imposed
tribute on them.
After Khusrau Shāh comes his son Khusrau Malik, or Malik Khusrau, as
he is also styled. Yāfa'i, Baiṇawi, Guzidah, and Fanākati say the dynasty
terminated with Khusrau Shāh, and make no mention of his son, as his
successor. Perhaps they considered him as ruler of the Panjab only. The
Tazkirat-ul-Mulūk states that Khusrau Malik succeeded his father as ruler of
the Panjab in 555 H., and was put to death in 583 H., after reigning twenty-
eight years, while the Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh, which agrees in the date of
his accession, says that he was immured in a fortress in Gharjistän in 583 H.,
and in 588 H. was murdered along with his son Bahrām Shāh, and the whole
of the remainder of the Ghaznawi family then left. Rauzat-uş-Şafa, Ḥabib-us-
Seyr, Firishtah, and others say this occurred in 582 H., and Budāūni, who
merely gives this ruler a place "because the author of the Tabakāt-i-Akbari
as he remarks, says 583 H. Our author states that the Ghūris first
appeared before Lahor in 577 H., and gained possession of it in 583 H., thus
agreeing with some of the above statements, but mentions the year 598 H., as
the year in which Khusrau Malik and all his family were murdered.
does so,
})
Faşiḥ-i mentions the Ghūrians as powerful in Ghaznin and Hind in 566 H.,
that Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din took that capital from the Ghuzz tribe [What an excellent
opportunity this would be, to the "comparative" or rather superlative “philo-
logists," to have derived the name of Ghaznin from the Ghuzz tribe !] in
569 11., and made it over to his brother, Mu'izz, as Wāli. After referring to
•
114
THE TABAKAT-I-NĂŞIRI.
XV. KHUSRAU MALIK, SON OF KHUSRAU SHAH, THE LAST
OF THE MAḤMŪDĪ DYNASTY.
Tāj-ud-Daulah, Sulṭān-i-Halim, or
the Mild Sultan,
Khusrau Malik, ascended the throne at Lahor.
He was a monarch of excessive mildness and benefi-
cence, unassuming, and endowed with many good qualities,
but addicted to pleasure. As he came at the close of the
sovereignty of his family, no prepossessing memento of him
has survived, and the sovereignty of that dynasty termi-
nated in him. Anarchy and disorder at last showed itself
in the affairs of his government, and all the Amirs and lesser
officials of the country, both the Turks and the free-born
[natives], all became too powerful for him to deal with, and
the servants of the state and governors of provinces and
districts exercised independent power, whilst their sovereign
abandoned himself wholly to pleasure.
the defeat, by him, of a horde of the Sankaran, à sept of the Ghuzz tribe [not
a mountain' or a town"] in 571 H., and his expedition against Nahr-
walah in 575 H., the same work states, under the occurrences of the year
581 H.-"In this year an engagement took place between Sulṭān Mu'izz-ud-
Din Muḥammad, son of Sām, son of Husain, son of Sām, the Wali of Ghaznin,
and Khusrau Malik, at Lohor, in Hind. Khusrau was taken captive by
stratagem; and the Sipah-sālār, 'Ali Karmākh, who was Wali of Multān
previously, was left at Lohor as Wāli, but some writers say this took place in
582 H.
In Mr. Thomas's paper on the Ghazni Coins there is, unfortunately, no
notice of the last two monarchs of the house of Sabuk-Tigin, and there are no
coins of theirs, or the dates above referred to might have been tested; but a
work I have by me supplies some information on the subject, and confirms the
A coin of Khusrau Shah's
statements of Faşiḥ-i, and the older writers.
therein noticed, contains the following inscription, which I translate literally :
Obverse-Stamped coin in the universe, with magnificence and grandeur,
the great Bādshāh Khusrau Shāh.”
Reverse "Struck in the city of Lohor, A. H. 552, the first of his reign.
Another coin of his son, Khusrau Malik, also struck in the Panjab, contains
the following inscription :-
Obverse-"Zahir-ud-Daulah wa ud-Din, Sulṭān Khusrau Malik."
Reverse-"Struck in the city of Lohor, A. H. 555, the first of the reign."
All writers agree as to the deceitful and treacherous conduct of Mu'izz-ud-
Din, Ghūri, towards Khusrau Malik. After he had inveigled that unfortunate
prince by his oaths and promises, he broke them, and sent him and the whole
of the family then remaining to his brother Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din, to be immured in a
fortress in Ghur. Subsequently, when these very pious and model Sultāns,
as our author considers them, found those unfortunates in the way, they
massacred the whole of them.
THE YAMINIAH DYNASTY.
115
Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din Muhammad, Sām, used to advance
every year from Ghaznin, and to possess himself of por-
tions of Hind and Sind, until in the year 577 H., when he
appeared before the gate of Lahor, and extorted a son
and an elephant from Khusrau Malik, and then retired.
Thus matters went on until the year 583 H., when he brought
an army against Lahor and reduced it. Khusrau Malik
was induced, under the faith of a treaty, to come out, upon
which he was taken and sent off to Ghaznin, and from
thence was removed to the capital, Firuz-koh, which was
the seat of government of the elder Sulṭān, Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din
Muhammad, Sām. That sovereign gave orders that
Khusrau Malik should be immured within the fortress of
Balarwān, in Gharjistān.
When the affair' of Sultan Shah occurred in Khurāsān,
and the two Sultāns turned their attention to that important
enterprize, they put Sultan Khusrau Malik to death in the
year 598 H., and the latter's son, Bahrām Shah, who was
confined within the fortress of Saifrūd of Ghūr, was also
murdered, and the dominion and dynasty of Naşir-ud-Din,
Sabuk-Tigin, became obliterated, and the sovereignty of
Iran, the throne of Hindustan, and the territory of Khu-
rāsān came under the sway of the Maliks and Sulṭāns of
the house of Shansabani.
*
Khusrau Malik's sons were Bahram Shah, Maḥmūd
Shah, Jahan Shah, Mas'ud Shah, Malik Shah, and Khusrau
Shāh.
6 In the greater number of places where this name occurs in the different
MSS., is given; but it is also written Yalarwan, Badwān, and in
various other ways. Saifrud is also written Sankaran in some copies. See
note to Mu'izz-ud-Din's reign, Section XIX.
7 See under Section XVII.
1
SECTION XII.
THE DYNASTY OF THE SALJŪĶĪAH.
THE author of the Tarikh-i-Sani', who was Ibn Haişam,
has thus related: that when the victorious Sultan, Maḥmūd-
i-Sabuk-Tigin, crossed the Jiḥūn, and the territory of
Mawar-un-Nahr was left clear in his hands, Kadr Khān,
who was the brother of the late I-lak [Khān], and of the
Afrāsiyābi dynasty, entered into negotiation with the Sultan.
Between the two potentates treaties of alliance and amity
were entered into, and confirmed and cemented, and an
interview took place between them 2.
After Kadr Khan had been received by the Sultan, the
latter commanded, after the public reception, that the privy
apartment should be cleared; and they held private con-
ference together, and consulted confidentially on all the
affairs of Iran and Türān. Kadr Khan preferred many
requests to the Sultan, one of which was that he would
remove the son of Saljuk, the Turkman, with his followers
1 At Section VII. page 11, the author calls the work Kaşaş-i-Sāni, but the
signification is the same. See also note ³, page 56.
3
2 This interview took place in 419 H. They entered into a treaty of friend-
ship and alliance, the principal stipulation in which was, that a portion of
Mawar-un-Nahr should remain in the possession of the Sultan, and that some
should belong to Kadr Khan, who is styled Badshah of Mawar un-Nahr.
The Khwajah-i-'Amid, Abū Nașr-i-Mishkan, Al-Zawzani, relates that at that
time the forces along with Sulṭān Maḥmūd were so numerous, that no
monarch had ever so many under his standard before.
3 With respect to the Saljuks and their rise to power, Oriental historians
differ considerably; but space will not permit my noticing their discrepancies,
except very briefly. Several authors altogether deny that Sultan Maḥmūd
suffered the Saljūks to enter Khurāsān, and assigned them lands therein―among
whom is the author of the Rauzat-uṣ-Ṣafā—and contend that the two brothers,
Dā'ūd-i-Jaghar Beg and Tugbril Beg [but our author states they were altogether
separate from those under Yagh-mu or Yagh-mur; still his statement is so con-
fused as to be scarcely reliable], with their dependents, did not cross the Jiḥūn
into Khurāsān, until the reign of Mas'ud, when they appropriated Nisā and
Abiward, but, at the same time, sent to tender their allegiance to that monarch.
See note 3, p. 120. In the Tarikh of Abu-l-'Alā-i-Ahwal, or the "Squinter,"
THE SALJŪĶĪAH DYNASTY.
117
and dependents, from the country of Mawar-un-Nahr and
Turkistān into Khurāsān. These followers and dependents
Saljuk is said to have been a descendant of Afrāsiyāb, and had four sons—
Isrā'il, Mikā’il, Mūsā-i-Beghū [i. e. son of Beghū], and Yūnas. The Jami'-
ut-Tawarikh says he had five; and that the name of the fourth son was Yusuf,
and the fifth Yūnas. Finding the lands they occupied too circumscribed, they
were compelled, in 375 H., to leave their native pastures in Turkistān-one
author says the Dasht-i-Khurz-and entered Mawar-un-Nahr, and took up
their quarters in the Nur of Bukhārā, and the Sughd of Samrkand, making
the former their winter, and the latter their summer quarters. Maḥmūd,
according to the "Squinter," was on friendly terms with them [see under his
reign], and Isrā'il came and waited upon him, when that monarch entered
Mawar-un-Nahr, and was treated with great distinction. This was the occa-
sion when Isrā'il told the Sultan the effect which the sending of his two
arrows and his bow would have, so well known as not to require relation here.
[Gibbon incorrectly calls him Ismael !] The Sultan, it is stated, became sus-
picious of the Saljuks on this, and had Isrā'il seized, when in a state of
intoxication, and sent to the fortress of Kalinjar in Hind; but a few authors,
including our own, say to the fortress of Multan." The former statement
I think the most reliable. Isra'il remained in durance till his decease seven
years after; but, previous to his death, he sent messengers to his brothers,
sons, and kinsmen, and incited them to rebel. They sent to ask Maḥmūd's
leave to cross over the Jihun into Khurāsān; but Arsalān the Ḥājib, who was
governor of that province, refused to grant it, and strongly advised the Sulṭān
to refuse permission. Contrary to Arsalan's advice, he gave them permission;
and they passed the Jiḥun, and took up their quarters in the pasture-lands
about Nisā and Abiward. Mika'il had two sons, Tughril, and Dā'ūd-i-
Jaghar Beg, who, from their talents and superior accomplishments, became the
leaders of the tribe.
Other writers, however, say that Saljuk had four sons, Isrā'il, Mikā’il, Mūsā,
and Yūnas ; and that Beghu was the son of Mūsā. Mikā'il having been slain in
one of the battles of that period, leaving two sons, Saljūķ named those two
grandsons, Dā'ūd-i Jaghar Beg and Tughril Beg, rulers of the tribe after his
decease. When Maḥmūd of Ghaznin subdued the territories of Māwar-un-
Nahr, among other chiefs, Dā'ūd and Ţughril, who had fought several battles
with the rulers of Turkistān, and had acquired fame for valour, waited on
Maḥmūd, and solicited that some portion of territory should be assigned to
their tribe, as grazing-grounds for their flocks and herds.
Fașiḥ-i states that, previous to Maḥmūd's crossing the Jiḥun and entering
Māwar-un-Nahr, as early as 416 H., Da'ūd-i-Jaghar Beg, son of Tughril Beg,
son of Mika'il, son of Saljuk-by this account Da'ūd-i-Jaghar Beg was
Mika'il's grandson-had risen and entered into the Khwārazm territory,
thus, in a measure, confirming a part of our author's statement.
The same
authority mentions that it was in 419 H., on the Sultan's return from Māwar-
un-Nahr, that Isra'il, son of Beghu, son of Saljūķ, son of Luķmān, had the
interview with the Sultan, who brought him along with him; but soon after,
on some account or other, Isra'il was seized and sent to the fortress of Kalinjar.
For Fanakati's statement on this subject, see note 2, p. 126.
The above notice of the Saljuks has been taken from the Tarikh-i-Abu-l-
'Alā, Guzidah, the Lubb-ut-Tawarikh, Jami'-ut Tawarikh, Abu-l-Fazl-i-
Baihaki, Tarikh-i-Alfi, Mujāmi'-ul-Khiyār, Jahan-Ārā, and the Muntakhab-
ut Tawārikḥ, and others. Yafa'i differs considerably from these works and
}
118
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĂȘIRĪ.
C
of Saljuk and his son were a tribe whose dwelling-place
4
was the Nur of Bukhārā, and they were all subject and
Nūr
obedient to the Sāmāni dynasty.
At the period in question the son of Saljuk had attained
to man's estate, and, on account of his prowess and valour,
his arrow and his sword, all the Maliks of Turkistān and
the Afrāsiyābi rulers were continually in fear. Not a bird
in the air nor a deer of the plain escaped his arrow; and,
like a whirlwind and a thunder-cloud, he was wont to enter
the chase or the conflict, and used to vanquish every man
who entered into a personal contest with him. Upon this
occasion when Kadr Khan joined and accompanied Sultan
Maḥmūd, and all were in attendance at his stirrup, and pro-
ceeding towards the Sulṭān's own tents, the son of Saljūķ con-
tinued to ride on before them all, a Turkman cap placed jaun-
tily on one side of his head, and bestriding a horse like the
spur of a mountain, galloping about like a roaring lion, or
the flickering lightning, in such wise that the forces of Turan
and Iran were amazed at his agility and horsemanship.
As Kadr Khan had requested of the Sultan, so it was
carried out; and, at the very time that Kadr Khan set out
on his return [to his own territory], they brought a man-
date [from the Sultan] to the son of Saljūk to remain in
his tent,and gave orders that his followers, with his and
their effects, should cross the river Jiḥūn into the confines
of Khurāsān in company with the Maḥmūdi forces. Agents
were directed to take care of them, and look after them;
and, when they reached the bank of the Jiḥūn, they crossed
the river along with servants of the Sulṭān.
At the time the command was issued that the son of
Saljūķ, along with his followers and dependents, should
embark on boats, and pass over the Jiḥūn with their pro-
perty and effects, the Hajib, Arsalān Khan, who was
authors, but least from Guzidah. I have not completed the translation of that
portion of Vafa'i as yet, therefore cannot make much use of it at present.
It will be noticed that our author repeatedly quotes "the son of Saljūķ," but
gives no name; and, moreover, Isra'il, to whom he must refer, was, by some
accounts, Saljuk's son, and by others, his grandson.
4 A district of the territory of Bukhārā so called.
5 His correct name is Arsalan Khan. Jāzib [l] seems to have been an
error on the part of some early copyist for Hajib [], and copied accord-
ingly by Firishtah, and other modern authors.
THE SALJŪĶIAH DYNASTY.
119
the Amir [Governor] of Khurāsān, and the greatest of the
retainers of Sultan Mahmud, made a representation to that
monarch, saying: "This which your Majesty has com-
manded is far from the cautious counsel of your servant,
for, with your own hand, you have placed power in the
hands of the enemies of your country, over the dominion
of your descendants; and, in the end, by this tribe, disorder
and tumult will be brought upon the empire." The Sultān,
in reply, said: "What is your opinion in this matter?" The
Ḥājib, Arsalan, answered: "My advice is this, that the
whole of them be commanded to re-embark on board the
boats, and then to sink them in the river; or otherwise to
have their thumbs cut off, so as to render them incapable
of discharging arrows in future." Sultan Mahmud answered:
“Arsalān, thou art a hard-hearted man, indeed!. To break
one's promise, and slay the helpless, are not acts becoming
a sovereign who possesses any feelings of honour, or a man
who has any magnanimity in his nature; and, moreover,
destiny cannot be averted by perfidy any more than by
valour." However, after the son of Saljuk had been con-
veyed across the Jiḥun, it was commanded that he should
be brought to Multān, while his kinsmen, and his other fol-
lowers and dependents were assigned pasture-lands for their
flocks and cattle in the territory of Khurasan, such as Nisā,
Nishāpur, Bāward', and other tracts in Upper Khurāsān.
As the Almighty had willed that, subsequently, this race
should become great and powerful, and that from their
posterity should spring puissant and mighty monarchs and
rulers, notwithstanding Sultan Maḥmūd afterwards re-
gretted what he had done, still regret was of no avail, for
regret cannot avert destiny.
Imām Abū-l-Fazl-i-Baihaķi states in his Tārikh-i-Nāṣiri³,
6 So in the text; but it must be presumed that the author meant the thumb
of the right hand of all the males.
7 Also called Abiward; but, correctly speaking, Abiward is the name of
the town, and Baward the name of the district. Guzidah states that the people
of Khurāsān, in the parts where the Saljuks were located, became attached to
the brothers Tughril Beg and Jaghar Beg.
8 This portion of Baihaki's work has not come down to us. He mentions
the names of these chiefs in one or two places in the part relating to the life of
Mas'ud, and says that the people who entered Khurāsān under Yagh-mur and
other chiefs were Turkmans; and he always makes a difference between them
and the Saljuks.
120
THE TABAKAT-I-NĂŞIRĪ.
2
that, at the time that Sulṭān Maḥmūd carried across the
Jiḥun four thousand Saljuk families, their Mihtars, or chiefs,
were four persons, Yagh-mür', Būkah, Kūk-tash, and Kazil,
and in different parts of Khurasan pasture-lands were
assigned to them, and they were made over to [the guar-
dianship of] the great nobles of Khurāsān, and instructions
were given to them that the Saljūks should, in no way, and
on no account, be permitted to carry arms. Their chief', who
was the eldest son of Saljūķ, and famous for his manhood,
was sent to Multan, along with two of his sons likewise;
and at Multān, after some time had passed away, they
also died. The remainder of the Saljuk tribe, who had re-
mained behind in Mawar-un-Nahr, were in the habit every
year of migrating from Nur of Bukhārā to Darghan of
Khwārazm, to the pasture-lands therein. They entertained
innate enmity towards the Malik [chief] of Jund, whose
name was Shāh; and, in the reign of Sultan Mas'ud, the
Martyr, the Amir [Governor] of Khwārazm, the son of
Altun-Tash, rebelled against the Sultan's authority. The
9 Also written Yagh-mur.
4
1 It will be doubtless noticed here that our author stated just a few lines
above, quoting Baihaķi, as he says, that the Saljūķs, who crossed the Jibun
into Khurāsān, had four chiefs, and immediately after says, "their chief, who
was Saljuk's son," died at Multān. He evidently confounds those of the tribe.
who entered Khurasan with the remainder who stayed behind. See p. 121.
Yāfa'i states that their place of abode was twenty farsakhs, or leagues, distant
from Bukhārā.
2 All the copies of the work do not contain this last sentence about the
sons.
3 Faşiḥ-i, Baizawi, and other authorities, mention the death of Isrā'il, son
of Beghū, son of Suliman, son of Saljūķ, at Kālinjar, in 426 H. His son had
come with a party of followers from Mawar-un-Nahr to effect his release and
carry him off. They had succeeded in getting him out of the fortress, but
missed the road, were pursued, and overtaken. When his pursuers were in
the act of securing him, he cried out to his son: "I shall never be released ;
do you seek to acquire territory." That same year Da'ud-i-Jaghar Beg broke
out into open rebellion, and took up his quarters at Marw.
4 Considered generally as belonging to Samrkand.
5 Altun-Tash, the Ḥajib, was appointed viceroy of Khwārazm by Sulṭān
Maḥmūd in 407 H., after he [Maḥmūd] had proceeded thither in person, and
had defeated the rebels, who had slain his son-in-law, Māmūn, son of Māmūn,
and had put Niāl-Tigin to death, as related in the events of Maḥmūd's reign.
When the Sultan returned to Balkh, after his raid upon the Afghāns, Altūn-
Tāsh-i-Khwārazm Shāh, as he is styled, was sent for. He came and remained
at Court three months. He then obtained permission to return; and, in the
presence of Khwajah Aḥmad-i-Hasan, Maimandi, the Wazir, and the Khwajah
-i-'Amid, Abū Naṣr-i-Mishkān, gave his word, and swore, that he would never
THE SALJŪĶIAH DYNASTY.
121
Saljuks joined him in that outbreak; and, in the year
425 H., he bestowed upon them a tract of country belong-
ing to the territory of Khwārazm, which they call Rabāṭ-i-
Māṣah, as grazing ground for their flocks and herds. The
chief of Jund, having received information as to their situa-
tion, made a raid upon them, and slew about eight thou-
sand of the males, and but few of them remained, and they
became totally at a loss as to what they should do in this
state of affairs.
The Governor of Khwārazm, Harun, the rebel, the son of
Altun-Tash [with whom the Saljuks had sided, as before
stated] had [lately] been killed, and they found it impos-
sible to continue to dwell in the territory of Khwārazm;
and, through fear of the sons of 'Ali Tigin, the late ruler of
Bukhārā, who was one of the Afrasiyabi Khāns, or chief-
tains, they were unable to enter that territory. Out of
necessity, therefore, they moved towards Nisā and Marw
—in all about seven hundred horsemen-with their pro-
perty, and their families and dependents.
Yagh-mūr, who was one of their chiefs, had died pre-
viously to this, and a son of his remained; and, when that
portion of the tribe [who had escaped the sword of the
Malik of Jund] came towards Nisā and Marw from Khwā-
razm, the son of Yagh-mür" was unable to cope with them,
for, although they were weak in numbers themselves, other
tribes, such as the Niālis, and others, had joined them. The
son of Yagh-mūr [with his tribe, who had first crossed the
Jiḥun] retired before them, and entered 'Irāk, and seized
upon Rai; and the Saljuks took up their residence in the
return.
act contrary to the Sultan's wishes and commands; and he left two sons,
Saibi [?] and Yusuf, at Court. In 422 H., after the accession of Mas'ud, the
Martyr, Altun-Tash presented himself at Court, and was soon allowed to
After he had departed, a number of the Sulṭān's advisers worked on
the mind of the Sultan so much about it, that he regretted he had allowed him
to leave. A message was sent for him to return, but he made excuses, and did
not do so. It was thought he had penetrated into the design against him ;
but su¹equently he became satisfied, after receiving kind messages from the
Sultan No mention is made in Faşiḥ-i respecting this grant of lands by the
son f Altun-Tash," to the Saljūķs.
6 Here again our author says the son of Yagh-mūr, but does not give any
name. This is his constant failing.
7 The Nialis refer to the adherents of Nial-Tigin, viceroy of the Panjāb,
who had rebelled, and had been removed. See Baihaķi.
I
122
THE TABAĶĀT-Î-NĂŞIRĪ.
grazing lands on the border of the desert [in the districts of
Nisa and Marw].
The Almighty gave them strength and power, so that
they possessed themselves of the territories of Khurāsān ;
and the east, and the west, and whatever the dominions of
Islām were, wholly and completely came under the sway of
their descendants, in such wise that their fame will remain
upon the records of time unto the judgment day ³.
8
I. TUGHRIL, SON OF MĪKĀ'IL 9.
2
The author of the Tarikh-i-Nāṣiri', Imām Abu-l-Fazl-i-
Baihaki, relates after this manner: that, at this period when
the Saljuks entered the skirt of the desert of Khurāsān,
and the son of Yagh-mur retired discomfited before them,
their Mihtars [chiefs] were three persons-Tughril and
Da'ūd, two brothers, the sons of Mika'il, and their uncle
Beghū; and all three in accord determined to tender their
services to Sultan Mas'ud, and despatched a confidential
agent to the Sulṭān's presence-he, at that time, having
come to Nishāpūr from Gurgān—and solicited that the dis-
tricts of Nisā, Farawah, and certain places at the head of the
desert might be assigned to them in fief³. In the missive
8 The commencement of the outbreak of the Saljūķs was in 423 H.; and,
in the same year, Kadr Khan, the Turk, ruler of Mawar-un-Nahr, died.
Jaghar Beg, son of Abū Sulimān, seized Marw, and took up his quarters there
in 426 H. The Saljuks made an attempt upon Hirât in 428 H., but were re-
pulsed, and forced to retire. They returned however in the following year,
and compelled the place to capitulate, and the territory was annexed in the
name of Sulṭān Tughril Beg; but Sulṭān Mas'ūd subsequently gained re-
possession of Hirāt, and severely punished those who had, as he considered,
so tamely capitulated to the Saljuks. See note 3, p. 129.
• His correct name is Abū Tālib, Muḥammad, and his title, Rukn-ud-din,
Tughril Beg, Yamin-i-Amir-ul-Muminin, or "The Right Hand of the Lord
of the Faithful."
1 This work is styled Tarikh-i-Mukaddasi-i-Nāṣiri in two copies of the
text at this place.
2 The word here used is "munhazim," signifying routed, put top flight,
discomfited in battle, dispersed, &c.
3 As from other writers, our author has not quoted Baihaki correctly The
text states that they sent a trustworthy agent to the Sultan. The following is
condensed from what Baihaķi says in this matter. Soon after Mas'ud arrived
at Gurgăn, a despatch reached his minister from Bu-Fazl, Sūri, Diwān of
Nishāpūr, which had been brought by horsemen in two days and a half from
that city, intimating an irruption of Saljuks and Nialis from Marw, who had

THE SALJŪĶĪAH DYNASTY.
123
in question they had written their own names in the fol-
lowing manner:-"Tughril, and Beghū, and Dā'ūd, who
proceeded to Nisā, where they had joined the Turkmāns [see note 8, page 119]
there, and that they had been reinforced by other Saljūks and Khwārazmis ;
and further, that he, Bu-Fazl, enclosed therewith a communication addressed to
him by Beghu, Tughril, and Dā'ūd, in order that the Sultan might give such
orders upon it as he might deem fit. The communication began thus: "To
his Excellency the Shaikh, the Illustrious Lord, the Sayyid Maulānā Abi-ul-
Fazl-i-Sūri, from his servants, Beghū [it will be noticed that the uncle here
takes precedence of the nephews], Tughril, and Da'ūd, the Muwali or lieges
of the Amir-ul-Mūminin ;" and began, "We, your servants." They went
on to state that they found it impossible to dwell in Mawar-un-Nahr and
Bukhārā since the death of Ali-Tigin, who had been kind and friendly towards
them, as his affairs were now administered by his two sons, inexperienced
boys, who were hostile towards them. On account of the distracted
state of Khwārazm, through Hārūn, its ruler, having being killed, they
found it impossible likewise to remove thither; and therefore they had
come to put themselves under the protection of the Sovereign of the
World and Lord of Beneficence, the great Sultan. They hoped the
Khwajah [Abi-ul-Fazl] would aid them at this juncture, and write on
their behalf to the Khwajah, 'Abū Nașr [the Wazir], and advocate their
cause as they were known to him. They farther solicited that, as through that
minister's good offices [Khwajah Abū Naṣr-i-Aḥmad had previously been Wazir
to Hārūn and his father], the late Harun, Khwārazm Shah, used to allow them
to remove with their families and flocks into his territory in winter, he would
assist them now. If the Sultan, they said, would accept their vassalage, one
of them would constantly attend at Court [as a pledge of good faith], and
the other two would serve him in such manner as he might command; and
they would rest under his great shadow. They asked that the territories of
Nisa and Farawah, which lay on the edge of the Desert [between the moun-
tains bounding Khurāsān on the north-east, and the Jiḥūn or Oxus], should be
conferred upon them, in return for which they promised they would undertake
to prevent any rebel from raising his head in Balkhan Koh, Dihistan, the
direction of Khwārazm, or the Jiḥūn; and would assail the 'Irāķis [the Turk-
māns under Yagh-mur's son are here referred to] and drive them out. Their
request was couched in civil words, to all appearance, but concluded as
follows: "but if, which God forbid, the Sultan would not grant their request,
and should refuse his permission, they did not know what the state of affairs
might become, because they had no place on earth, and none remained to
them. Not having the boldness to venture to address such an august person
[as the Sultan's Wazir], they had addressed the Khwajah [Abi-ul-Fazl] to
solicit him, Please God! to bring their request to a favourable issue."
Sultan Mas'ud wished to move at once against them, so wrath was he at
this insolent demand; and bitterly complained of the injury and trouble his
father had entailed upon the empire and upon him, through allowing any of
those "camel-drivers," as he styled the Saljuks, to pass the Jiḥun, in the first
instance. The Wazir and some others counselled the acceptance of the
allegiance of the Saljuk chiefs; but another party at the Court advised the
Sultan not to think of marching against them himself, or at the present time,
as they would have it that the cattle of his army, after the late expedition,
required rest. They advised that a reply should be sent to Abi-ul-Faṛl, telling
I 2
124
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NAŞIRĪ.
are the Mawali [lieges] of the Lord of the Faithful, repre-
sent unto your presence," &c. The Almighty had been
pleased to fill their hearts with much arrogance and con-
tumacy; and, when the purport of their request was made
known to the Sultan, he at once commanded that they
should have a reply couched in courteous words, but a
force of about 15,000 horse, under the command of the
Sālār [general], Bak-Taghdi, was told off in the year
420 H., to proceed against them.
When that force reached the Saljuks, it fought a stub-
born battle with them, and the Sultan's army sustained
a defeat, and the Sultan, out of necessity, had to come to
him to acquaint the Saljuk chiefs, in reply to their demand, "to be under no
concern, as they had come to their own homes [as it were], and that they were
in his dominions, and under his protection ;" and to pretend that he was going
to march to Rai, but instead to proceed to Nishāpūr, and get a force
ready to send against them unawares. The Sultan was induced to follow
this advice; and the upshot was the despatch of 15,000 horse to Nisā,
under the Ḥajib, Bak-Taghdi. He, on first coming upon the Saljūķs
near Sarakhs, defeated and routed them; but, soon after, his troops, who
were already encumbered with baggage and women, having taken to plunder,
he was himself overthrown, by the Saljuks, who had again rallied and
attacked him. This took place in Sha'ban, 427 H., not in 420 H., as
our author relates, and as is written in the ten copies of his work collated.
After this affair, Mas'ud had to agree to their demands, they being the first
however to open negotiations, and Farawah was given to Beghu, Nisā to
Tughril, and Dihistan to Da'ud. Having obtained their demands, they
Dā'ūd.
became more insolent than ever.
4 Several other writers differ here, not only from our author, but also from
Baihaķi, who is very particular respecting dates. In the beginning of 426 H.,
the Khāṣah Khadim, Nūsh-Tigin, routed a body of Turkmāns near Marw; and
in the same year, a force of 17,000 horse, under the Salar, Bak-Taghdi, was sent
against them.
He was at first successful; but, the enemy having drawn him
into the desert, where water was not procurable, and his troops being careless
and over confident, he sustained a complete defeat in the eighth month of that
year. In the following year, a force of 10,000 horse and 5000 foot was prepared
to operate against the Saljuks, under the command of the Hajib-i-Buzarg,
Subashi. In the first month of 429 H., in fulfilment of a vow made during
illness, Mas'ud undertook an expedition against Hansi, captured it in the third
month of that year, and in the fourth returned to Ghaznin. In the same year,
Mas'ūd, being unable from the state of affairs to proceed against the Saljūks
as he was desirous of doing, despatched orders to the Hajib to expel them from
Khurāsān. Subashi sent a reply to the effect that they were far more than he
could cope with. Mas'ud imagined the Ḥājib was enhancing, or desirous of
enhancing, his services, and sent him orders to march against them without
farther delay. He did so, and his meeting them, and his defeat followed.
The Ḥājib is styled Surbashi, and Surpāshi by Guzidah, Sanbāṣhi in the
Tārikh-i-Alfi, and Subāși by our author. The name mentioned by Baihaķi
is no doubt correct.
THE SALJŪĶIAH DYNASTY.
125
an accommodation with them. He bestowed Nisā upon
Tughril, and the Dihistan on Dā'ūd, and gave Farāwah to
Beghu. The Sultan then proceeded towards Balkh, and
conferred the government of Hindūstān upon his son
Maudud 5.
In 429 H., the Saljūķs possessed themselves of the towns
on the skirt of the desert, such as Marw, Sarakhs, and
other places besides, and solicited that Khurāsān should
be made over to them. The Sultan thereupon despatched
the Hajib, Subāsi, with a large army to expel them.
An engagement took place between the Sultan's forces and
the Saljuks, and the Sultan's troops were defeated, and
the Saljuks acquired power over the territory of Khurāsān.
They sent Ibrahim, Niāliah, to seize upon Nishāpūr, and,
subsequently, Tughril himself followed him thither. At
Nishäpür he ascended the throne, and became a sovereign;
and the Khutbah was read in his name. He despatched
Dā'ūd to Sarakhs, and nominated Beghū to proceed to
Marw; and they took possession of Khurāsān, and one-
half of that territory passed from the sway of the servants
of the Mas'udi dynasty'.
9
5 Not so: Majdūd was viceroy of the Indian provinces, Maudūd was
left at the capital; and subsequently, when Mas'ud retired into the Panjāb,
the latter was sent to Balkh, and he was with his father in the battle of
Dandānķād.
6 Farther on, our author, when mentioning the council held by the Saljūķs
when they thought of leaving Mas'ūd's dominions, says, "They are said to have
been defeated by the Sultan's troops several times.
See p. 130.
7 Ibrāhim, son of Ni'al, was Tughril's mother's brother.
8 Tughril Beg assumed sovereignty over a portion of Khurāsān, and
ascended the throne at Nishāpūr in 429 H.; and the Saljuki dynasty is con-
sidered by several authors to have commenced from that year. Others,
however, with very good reason, say that the Saljuks only assumed independent
sovereignty after the defeat of Sulṭān Mas'ud at Dae-kān or Dandānķān [Dan-
dānķād], as stated by our author farther on. He acquired sway over a large
portion of Western Asia, Khwārazm, Dihistān, Tabbas, Rai, Kazwin, &c., in
447 H., in which same year the Khalifah, Al-Ka'im, summoned Tughril to
Baghdad, and ordered his name to be entered in the Khutbah, and impressed
upon the coin. Fanākati states that the Khalifah sent a commission with a
robe of honour to Tughril.
9 A paradox of our author's.
1 Tughril Beg died at Turusht [] near Rai, Friday, 8th of Ramazan,
455 H., at the age of seventy. His reign is variously computed: Fanakati
states that he died in 442 H., after a reign of ten years! From 429 H. to
455 H., however, is a period of twenty-six.
126
THE TABAKAT-I-NAŞIKĪ.
II. MALIK DĀ’ŪD-I-JAGHAR BEG², SON OF MĪKĀ’ĪL.
When Da'ūd, after leaving the presence of his brother
Tughril, came for the purpose of taking possession of
Marw and Sarakhs, Sultān Mas'ud was at Balkh, and he
sent an agent to him [Dā'ūd] to see whether or not an
accommodation could be brought about³.
At that time Da'ūd was in the neighbourhood of Marw,
with his forces, and it was he who was the mover in all this
boldness and audacity. He advanced to the gate of Marw.
It was at the dawn of the morning, and the Mu'azzin
from the top of a Minārah was proclaiming this verse:
"O Dā'ūd, verily we have made thee a sovereign prince on
earth: judge therefore between men with truth".' Dă'ūd,
hearing his own name, inquired of a learned person what
was the meaning of this. The signification was explained
to him, upon which he again drew his sword, and pressed
forward after the troops of the Sultan, which were in Marw,
and put the whole of them to the sword".
At this period, when the Sultan's envoy from Balkh pre-
sented himself before him, a Mu'azzin at Marw was repeating
this verse— "Thou givest dominion unto whom Thou wilt,
and Thou takest away dominion from whom Thou wilt "."
6 "
2 Also written Jaghari Beg. Guzidah has both Jaghar and Chaghar Beg.
His title is Amir 'Imād-ud-Daulah, Abū Suliman-i-Dā'ūd-i-Jaghar Beg.
Guzidah, Faşiḥ-i, Fanākati, and several others, do not consider Dā’ūd as a
sovereign, and Alb-Arsalan is, by them, very properly, accounted the second
monarch of the Saljuki dynasty, having succeeded. his uncle Tughril. Dā’ūd
had died some years before. Fanākati likewise says that on the death of
Isrā'il, at Kālinjar, his son, Tughril, broke out into rebellion in 432 H., in the
reign of Sulṭān Mas'ūd. This would imply that Tughril and the Saljūķs had
been quiet up to this time, but such is not the case; and Isrā'il died in 426 H.
See note 3, p. 120.
3 This is not correct. A person was sent, according to Baihaki, to sound
the Saljūķs, and, as if coming as a friend to them, to induce them to open
negotiations. They appeared quite willing to do so, and at once sent an agent
to the Wazir. It was on this occasion that Mas'ud gave them the territory
mentioned in note ³, page 122-3. The author makes great repetition through
mixing up the events of Tughril's reign with Dā'ūd's affairs.
3
4 Kur'an, chap. xxxviii.
5 The above sounds all very well, and may be true; but it is not contained
in Baihaki or any other historian with whom I am acquainted. The last sen-
tence here, it would require the author himself to explain.
6 A portion of the 25th verse of chap. iii. of the Kur'an.
THE SALJŪĶĪAH DYNASTY.
127
The envoy of Sultan Mas'ud perceived Da'ūd, who had spread
his felt saddle-cloth under him, seated on the ground, with
his saddle placed on one side of him. Sometimes he would
rest his head upon the saddle, and stretch himself out [on
the felt] on the ground, and then again he would sit up,
and support himself resting on his elbow. His quiver of
arrows was placed near him, and at times he would draw
forth an arrow from the quiver, and he would sharpen the
head of the arrow, and then again he would smooth out the
feathers of it. The envoy of the Sultan, having concluded
his message, asked for an answer. Da'ud replied:-"What
was this Mu'azzin calling out about 'Thou givest,' 'Thou
givest'? Write that down." A scribe accordingly wrote
down this verse on paper :--"Possessor of all power, Thou
givest dominion unto whom Thou wilt, and Thou takest
away dominion from whom Thou wilt; Thou exaltest
whom Thou wilt, and Thou humblest whom Thou wilt,"
&c., and gave it to the envoy. When the envoy reached
the presence of Sultan Mas'ud, and made known to him
the condition and mode of life of Da'üd, and placed before
him the verse in reply to his message, he understood that
the period of the sovereignty of the Maḥmudi dynasty over
the territory of Khurasan had come to an end, and, in his
heart, he relinquished all hope of holding it³.
The Saljūks having acquired Sarakhs and Marw, and
being left in undisturbed possession of the whole of those
districts, Dā'ūd determined to attack Upper Khurāsān.
Manifesting the utmost daring and boldness on that occa-
sion, he again assembled together a force of 11,000 horse',
and pushed on to the gates of Balkh, where the Sulṭān
was at the time, with all his great nobles and his forces.
An elephant was tied up in a place in the outskirts of the
city, and an elephant-driver had fallen asleep upon the
animal's back. Da'ud' came during the night, unfastened
7 It is strange that all this is neither to be found in Baihaki nor in the other
authors I have been quoting.
8 The author here contradicts himself, as is not unusual; for the battle of
Dāe-kān [Dandānķād] had not yet been fought, even by his own account.
9 Most copies of the work have "he came with eleven horsemen," which is
absurd.
1 Our author does not quote Baihaki correctly here, as the following
extract, which I have made from the original, a good MS. copy in my posses-
128
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĂŞIRĪ.
the elephant, and drove it off, and, by the time the driver
had awakened from his slumbers, the elephant had been
*
sion, and the printed edition of his work edited by Morley, will show. It will
be found rather different to the translation given in Elliot, vol. ii. p. 142,
"The Amir halted to celebrate the festival of No-roz, on Wednesday, the 8th
of Jamādi-ul-Ākhir. On Friday, the roth of the same month, other news
arrived [the sentence following and part of next is not in my MS.] that Dā’ūd
had come to Tae-kan [Morley has Tāl-kan] with a strong force, and well pre-
pared. On Thursday, the 16th of the month, farther information was received
that he had reached Pār-yāb [Far-yab is equally correct-p and ƒ are inter-
changeable], and that from thence he would speedily advance to Shiwar-kān
[Shaburghan of course is meant-the name is spelt both ways: and our author,
as well as Baihaķi, is perfectly correct as to the name, notwithstanding the
efforts of editors to make out otherwise. In the Persian, b is often inter-
changed for ƒ, and for gh, and so, in reality, both ways of writing may be, and
f, k
were adopted; but never with s for sh, except through an error of a copyist.
The Burhan-i-Kāṭa' says, Shaburghān, in ancient times, was the name of the
city of Balkh, but now it is the name of a kasbah near it. Compare Elliot's
INDIA, vol. ii. p. 142], and that wherever they appeared [Dā'ūd and his
troops] there plunder and slaughter followed. On Saturday [here the quotation
which our author states he had taken from Baihaķi follows], the 18th of this
month, at night, ten Turkman [no such mode of spelling as Turkoman will be
found in any lexicographical work: the derivation is from Turk, and manind
-Turk-like = Turk-man] horsemen came by stealth, close to the Bagh-i-
Sultan [the Sulṭān's garden-the garden in which the Sultan's palace was
situated], and slew four Hindu foot soldiers. From thence they pushed on
near the Ķuhandujz [citadel], and there the elephants were kept. They espied
one elephant, and on it a youth who had fallen asleep behind the neck of the
animal [any one who has seen elephants and their drivers will know what is
meant by this]. These Turkmāns came up and began to drive the elephant,
the youth being [still] asleep. The Turkmāns passed on a farsang [or
league] from the city, and then they awoke the youth, and said, 'Drive the
elephant faster, otherwise we will kill thee.' He replied, "I am obedient to
your commands;' and began to urge the animal on, the horsemen following
close behind, urging it onwards, and goading it with their lances. By the time
day broke, they had gone a considerable distance; and they brought the
elephant to Shabūrghān. Dā'ūd gave a present to the hosemen, and directed
them to take it to Nishapur. From this the troops [of Mas'ud] acquired a very
bad name, for people said, ' Among these men such neglect exists, that enemies
are able to carry off an elephant from them.' The next day the Amir heard
of it, and became very much irritated thereat, and reproved the elephant-
drivers severely, and commanded that 100,000 dirams should be deducted
from them, for the price of the elephant, and several of them were castigated.
[There is no mention of 'Hindū elephant-riders' in the MS., although Hindū
Filbāns are mentioned in the printed text, but even then it would not follow
that they were Hindus in faith.]
"On Monday, the 20th of this month, Ālti Sakman, the Ḥājib [Chamber-
lain] of Dā'ūd, with 2000 horse, came up to the [very] gate of Balkh, and took
up a position at a place called the Band-i-Kafiran, or the Infidels' Dyke, and
plundered two villages. When the news reached the city, the Amir became very
angry because the horses were in the Daral-i-Gaz, &c. There is not one word
200 v1 Clap.
THE SALJŪĶĪAH DYNASTY.
129
taken away some five leagues, and the driver dared not
utter a word.
Dā'ūd [then] advanced with his forces from Shafūrķān
to 'Ali-ābād of Balkh, and fought an engagement with the
Sulṭān, but, notwithstanding all the efforts and endeavours
of Dā'ūd, he was defeated.
In the month of Shawwal of the year 429 H. the whole
of the Saljuks assembled together, Tughril, Beghū, and
Dā'ūd, and also the Niālis, and the Mas'ūdi and Maḥmūdi
Turks, some of whom had joined the Saljūks. The Sul-
ṭān marched from Balkh with his forces, and led them
towards Marw and Sarakhs"; and in the desert of Sarakhs
an engagement ensued, which was contested from day-
dawn until the time of afternoon prayer, when the Saljūks
were overthrown*.
about Da'ūd's coming up to the gates of Balkh, for Sakman was driven off in
the afternoon by one of the Hajibs with a small body of troops, and some
under the Sipah-sälär; and the Turkmāns retired to 'Ali-ābād again, where
they remained that night. He reported what had happened to Dā’ūd, who
then advanced to 'Ali-ābād from Shaburghan. As soon as Amir Mas'ud
heard of his movements, he moved out to the Pul-i-Karwan until troops
arrived; and, on the 9th of Rajab, routed Dā'ūd and his troops as soon as they
reached 'Ali-ābād from the direction of the desert."
Several partial engagements took place up to the 5th of Shawwal; and,
whenever the Sultan's troops could get at the Turkmāns, they overthrew them,
and scattered them "like thin clouds before a Biscay gale," but the difficulty
was to bring them to close quarters: they would not stand. At last, the Wazir
contrived to come to an accommodation with the Saljuks, who appeared as
willing as he was for that course, and tracts about Nisā, Bāward, and Farāwah,
were assigned to them; but Mas'ud agreed to it, fully determined to attack
them next year.
He then returned to Hirāt. Our author, as on many other
occasions, has misplaced events, putting those first which happened last, and
vice versa, as Baihaki's history shows; and in some cases, as in the following
page, has mentioned the same events twice over.
2 The Turkish slaves who had been first entertained by Maḥmūd and others,
and since taken into pay by Mas'ud, are here referred to. They may have been
in some way kinsmen of the Saljuks. Some of them had deserted some time
previously.
3 The Sultan marched against them by way of Hirāt, because the Saljūks,
after having been compelled to withdraw from that place in 428 H., as already
stated, had returned in the following year, and had compelled the defenders to
surrender it, and the Khutbah had been read there for Tughril. Sultān
Mas'ud took the opportunity, on this occasion, when marching against the
Saljuks, to punish the Hirātis for surrendering so easily. He reached Hirāt in
Zi-Kā'dah, 430 H., and proceeded by way of Mihanah [ or spo it is
spelt both ways: European writers have transformed it into Maimanah].
4 The author here is quite confused: he makes out, a second engagement,
but no other engagement took place than is mentioned in the preceding note ¹,
130
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĀŞIRĪ.
The Sultan, after this, returned to Hirat; and the Sal-
jūķs, becoming aware of it, again sought an accommoda-
tion; and, as a matter of necessity [on the part of the
Sulṭān], once more a peace was concluded: However,
Sultan Mas'ud summoned troops, with all requisite stores
and war-material, from Ghaznin; but, when those reinforce-
ments reached him, famine prevailed in Khurāsān, and
there was a great scarcity of forage. The forces of the
Sulṭān had become quite powerless and ineffective; and
the horses and camels had grown weak and emaciated. The
Sulṭān, with his whole army, advanced towards Tūs; and
Tughril retired from Nishāpūr, and fell back upon Sarakhs.
All the Saljuks now met together, and came to the
unanimous conclusion, that they had no longer any power
to oppose Sulṭān Mas'ūd and his forces; and, as they had
been defeated several times, that it was advisable to make
terms with the Sulṭān, or otherwise to move towards the
territory of 'Irāk, and abandon Khurāsān altogether. The
lion-hearted Amir Dā'ūd, who had no compeer in loftiness
of spirit and energy, said :-"Confidence is necessary in
making conquests", even though it were necessary to
devote [one's] life a thousand times over. I have no means
or appliances to depend upon save war; so-Sovereignty or
destruction!-Victory or death!" When the Saljuk chief-
tains beheld this bold and intrepid bearing on the part of
Da'ūd, they coincided with him with one accord. Having
come to this determination, they sent away all their fami-
lies, and dependents, and effects, into the desert; while the
horsemen, alone and unincumbered, took up a position on the
skirt of the desert, at Dāe-ķān, prepared for war and conflict.
in which also the accommodation is also referred to, but it took place before
the Sultan's return to Hirāt.
From the description here, the reader would scarcely understand that the Sulṭān
had advanced in the meantime from Hirāt to Nishāpür. See note 7, next page.
5 Nearly all copies of the text have the words—“should not have confi-
dence of heart;" but I read it as above, and the context proves the correctness
of that reading.
• There is nothing of this kind in Baihaki. What Da'ūd said was to the
effect, that the heads of the tribe made a great mistake in imagining that they
would be able to obtain territory so easily in 'Irāk and farther west; and, that
if they should move one step out of Khurāsān, Sulṭān Mas'ūd would not allow
them to rest upon the face of the earth, and would raise up powerful enemies
against them every where. He ended by saying that, at least, they should try
the upshot of another engagement before deciding upon abandoning Khurāsān.
1
THE SALJŪĶĪAH DYNASTY.
131
When the Sultan reached the spot, the battle com-
menced; and for three days, from morning's dawn to the
setting of the sun, the conflict went on, until, on Friday,
the 9th of the month of Ramazan, in the year 431 H., the
troops of Sultan Mas'ud became hard pressed, and his own
Turkish troops even began to give way legion after legion.
Sultan Mas'ud was defeated'; and the Saljūķs gained the
victory, and assumed independent sovereignty.
7 This was Mas'ud's second expedition in person against the Saljuks,
although his officers had previously encountered them upon several occasions.
He had passed the winter of 430-31 H. at Nishāpūr, with his forces encamped
in and about Baihak [not Baihaki's native place], Khowaf, Bakhurz, Isfand,
Tūs, and other places facing the desert. The utmost scarcity prevailed, and
grain had to be brought from a great distance. On the 28th of Jamādi-ul-
Akhir of 431 H. was the vernal equinox [about the end of March, 1039 A.D.],
and Mas'ud prepared for a fresh campaign. He had really made no prepara-
tion for it; but the Saljūķs had issued from the Balkhan mountains and the
desert, and were assembled around Sarakhs. The scarcity was so great that
the force could hardly be prevented from melting away; yet the Sultan deter-
mined to advance to Marw, notwithstanding his Wazir and nobles advised
him against it [but Abū Nașr-i-Mishkan, the only one who could venture to
speak his mind and expostulate effectually, was dead], as the greater part of
his men had lost their horses, and had to march on foot. The animals
that remained also were nearly useless, whilst the Saljuks were in pos-
session of Marw, and were well supplied with all things. He moved
from Sarakhs on the 19th of Sha'ban towards Marw. The Turkmāns soon
appeared, and among them were many rebels who had deserted from the
Turkish troops in India, and others; and, according to their usual mode of
fighting, continued to harass Mas'ud's troops, who wanted for every thing.
The details are far too long for insertion; but I may mention that Mas'ūd and
his troops fought under the greatest disadvantages, for the enemy had either
emptied or filled up the few wells which the desert tract contained, while they
themselves wetted their clothes beforehand, and carried water along with
them. Mas'ud's men and their cattle suffered from heat and extreme thirst;
and some of his Ghulams [Turkish slaves], who, on the march, had been
obliged to ride on camels, in the confusion that ensued, made all the Tāzik
horsemen they met dismount and give up their horses to them, after which a
large body of them deserted to the enemy. Mas'ud's forces became separated
and confused; order was at an end; and leaders became separated from their
"The Turkish troops," says Baihaki, who was present, "went one
way, and the Hindu [i. e. natives of Hind, whatever their creed] another, and
neither Kurds nor 'Arabs could be distinguished. A few Khowaṣis or body-
guards, who remained near the Sultan, made several and repeated charges
upon the enemy; and Mas'ud himself, who carried a poisoned halberd or
short spear in his hand, slew every one that came within arm's length of him—
man and horse. I saw Mawdud [the son of Mas'ud] myself, who was gallop-
ing his horse here and there endeavouring to rally men around him, but no one
gave ear to him, for every one was for himself." This occurred on the 9th of
Ramaṣān, 431 H., beyond the river Marw-ar-Rud, two stages from Marw-i-
Shah-i-Jahn.
men.
132
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĀṢIRĪ.
8
After the battle was over, a throne was set up upon the
battle-field itself, and Tughril became sovereign'. Beghu
proceeded to Marw, and Amir Da'ud led a force towards
Tukharistan and Balkh, and subdued the territories of that
region. Subsequently, Tughril and Dā'ūd marched into
Khwārazm, and secured that country; and some time after
they had brought those countries under subjection, Tughril
died, and Dā'ūd entered into a treaty with the Maḥmūdis
and the Sulṭāns of Ghaznin, and became sovereign of
Khurāsān and the territories of 'Ajam, and the universe
was given up to him¹.
He reigned for a period of above twenty years, and died
in the year 451 H., and the throne of sovereignty became
adorned by the victorious Sulṭān, Alb-Arsalān.
III. SULTAN ALB-ARSALAN-I-GHAZI, SON OF DÃ'ŪD-I-
JAGHAR LEG.
He ascended the throne of Khurāsān after Da'ūd, in the
year 451 H.², and the territories of Khurāsān, 'Ajam, with
8 Baihaki does not say any thing about a throne.
9 Yafa'i says that great discrepancy exists among chroniclers respecting the
date of the first assumption of sovereignty by the Saljūks, and differs much
from them. Guzidah, Faşiḥ-i, and other writers of authority, state that
Tughril Beg assumed independent sovereignty over the greater part of
Khurāsān, at Nishāpūr, in 428 H., while some few writers say, in 429 H.
In 431 H., after the defeat of Sulṭān Mas'ud, and his retreat to Ghaznin, all
Khurāsān fell into the hands of the Saljūķs; and the two brothers, and Beghū,
their uncle, divided the territory between them. In 432 H., Tughril, who had
acquired territory farther west, in 'Irak-i-'Ajam, obtained the Khalifah's
consent to his assuming sovereignty, and the title of Sulṭān. He made Rai
his capital, and chose 'Irāk-i-Ajam, with its dependencies, as his portion.
Khurāsān was reserved for the elder brother, Jaghar Beg-i-Da'ud, who made
Marw [some say Balkh] his capital; and Beghu, the uncle, obtained Kirmān,
Tabas, Hari [Hirāt], Bust, and as much of the territory of Hind as he could
lay hands upon and filch from the Ghaznin rulers. [See page 99, in which hist
and Da'ūd's defeat by Tughril, the slave of 'ABD-UR-RASHID, is mentioned
by our author only.] He has made a complete muddle of Tughril's reign, as
well as Dā'ūd's proceedings, and it is difficult to separate them, without a much
longer note than space will permit.
1 This is a good specimen of our author's random mode of writing history.
Tughril, who was considered the head of the family, survived Dā’ūd some
years, and died in 455 H., as previously stated. Guzidah says he died in
453 H., Faşiḥ-i 451 H., and some say 452 H. In nearly every copy of the
text he is styled Alb-Arsalān-i-Tughril Beg, a blunder sufficiently apparent.
His name was not Tughril.
≈ Alb-Arsalān ascended the throne of 'Irāk and Khurâsän in Ramaṣān 455 H.,
THE SALJŪĶĨAH DYNASTY.
133
the whole of 'Irāk, Khwārazm, Tabaristan, Kirman, Fārs,
and Sistan he brought under his sway 3. He also led
an army into Turkistan and Turan, and the Maliks of
Turkistan, and the Afrāsiyābi Amirs, submitted to his
authority.
The vastness of his forces, the immensity of his war-
material, and the military resources of his empire, attained
to such extent, that the intellect of the geometrician would
remain in the labyrinth of helplessness, in an attempt to
compute the quantity: as a poet-in all probability the
Hakim Sana'i—who, after Alb-Arsalan's decease, com-
posed a dirge, says of him, in the following strophe :—
"Thou sawest the head of Alb-Arsalan elevated to the sublimity of the
seventh heaven:
Come to Marw that thou mayest see the body of Alb-Arsalān buried in the
dust.
Attended neither by train or guards, nor the moon-faced, dimple-chinn'd ;
Nor the steed press'd by his thighs, nor the reins within his grasp ."
4
When Alb-Arsalan ascended the throne, he despatched
ambassadors to the Court of Ghaznin, and entered into the
strongest terms of friendship and amity with Sulṭān Ibrā-
him", and did not interfere with the Ghaznin dominions.
He occupied himself in holy wars against Turkistān and
Rūm, and in securing possession of the territories of Ḥijāz
,
not before; but he succeeded to his father's dominions in Khurasan, at his
father's death in 451 H., subject to Tughril of course. His correct name and
title is 'Uzd-ud-Daulah, Abū Shuja'-i-Muḥammad, Alb-Arsalān.
3 Our author forgets to state, or did not know, that, by the will of
Tughril Beg, Suliman, son of Jaghar Beg-i-Da'ūd, succeeded; but Kal-
timish [also written Katl-mish], son of Isra'il, Tughril's uncle, with the
aid of the Turkmāns, fought a battle with Suliman, at Damghān, and
overthrew him. On this Alb-Arsalan came against Kal-timish, and in
the action which ensued, near Damghan, Kal-timish was killed by a fall
from his horse, and Alb-Arsalan was left without a rival. The Khalifah,
Al-Ķā'im Bi-amr-ullah, conferred upon him the title of Burhan-ul-Mūminin.
Yafa'i, however, says that as no successor had been named by the will of
Tughril, Suliman, half-brother of Alb-Arsalan, ascended the throne, and that
Kal-timish joined Alb-Arsalān against him.
4 This verse, minus the last half, is what Gibbon would lead us to believe was
the inscription on Alb-Arsalān's tomb. The third line is different in some
copies, and might be rendered :-"Neither with the glittering blade at his
side," &c., or, "Neither attended by his train with the star [one of the
emblems of royalty], nor the moon-faced," &c.
5 See page 103, and note 9.
134
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĀṢIRĪ.
and Mișr; and, influenced by the sense of pure faith and
belief, he began to render services to the Court of the Lord
of the Faithful, Al-Ka'im. He was distinguished upon
several occasions with honorary dresses from the Khali-
fah's Court, and the lieutenancy of the capital, Baghdād,
was conferred upon him.
6
The writer and author of this TABAKĀT, Minhaj-i-
Sarāj, Al-Jūrjāni, intimates that, in the year 613 H., he was
at the Court of Sijistān, and in that capital there was an
Imām [Patriarch], the teacher of the doctors in wisdom
and philosophy, and the asylum of the learned of the
time, whom they called Imām Rashid-ud-Din-i-'Abd-ul-
Majid. I heard him, when speaking of the magnificence
and majesty of Alb-Arsalan, state, that that monarch, in
the year 453 or 454 H., had undertaken the subjugation of
the territory of Turkistan. When he reached the frontiers
of Kash-ghar and Balāsāghūn, messengers followed him.
thither, bringing intelligence that the Lord of the Faithful,
the Khalifah, Al-Ka'im B'illah", had sustained a great mis-
6 It will, doubtless, be noticed that our author seldom quotes the writings of
others, and that most of his information is hearsay. The value, or otherwise, of
his statements may be judged of accordingly. How he had been deceived by his
"asylum of the learned of the time," may be seen from note 2, page 135. He only
quotes Abu-l-Fazl-i-Baihaki for the Saljuk dynasty, a very good and trustworthy
authority, but often quotes him incorrectly, as shown in the preceding notes.
7 The meaning of which is, that he was, by our author's account, one of the
most learned men of his time.
9 A city of Mawar-un-Nahr, near Kāshghar, and the capital of Afrāsiyāb,
which continued the seat of government of his descendants until the time of
Gür Khan [not Kor Khan, as Europeans generally write it]. stands for
g as well as k in Persian, unless explained to the contrary.
9 Al-Ka'im Bi-amr-'ullah. The Kaisar of Rūm, Armānūs [Romanus], entered
the dominions of Alb-Arsalan with the intention of invading Īrān, but the greater
part of his army perished through the excessive heat, and the Kaisar retired. Sub-
sequently, Armānūs again invaded Alb-Arsalān's dominions, and the latter, with
12,000 horse-a rather improbable number-marched to encounter him. They
met at a place named Malāzah-gird [the ancient Mauro-Castrum], in Azarbāijān,
in the vicinity of Akhlat, in which action the Kaisar was taken captive by a Rūmi
[Roman] slave in Alb-Arsalan's army, whose person was so weak and so con-
temptible, that at the time of mustering the army the 'Ariz [muster-master,
not a "general"] refused to take his name down, when Sa'ad-ud-Daulah, the
Shaḥnah or agent of Alb-Arsalan, at Baghdad, said :-"Write down his name;
who knows but that he might take the Kaisar prisoner!" Guzidah states that
Alb-Arsalan himself ordered that his name should be taken down. The emperor
Armānūs [Romanus] was defeated and taken prisoner in 459 H. [after the death
of Al Ķā'im], but was set at liberty the same year, on undertaking to pay "a
early tribute at the rate of 1000 dinārs a-day, or 360,000 dinārs every year.”
THE SALJŪĶĪAH DYNASTY.
135
fortune that an action had taken place between him and
the Christians of Rum, and that the troops of Islām had
been overthrown; and further, that the Khalifah himself had
been taken prisoner, and had been immured within the
walls of a fortress, situated in the lofty mountains of the
territory of Anbār¹ and the Jazirah [Mesopotamia] on the
frontiers of the empire of Rum. The fortress in question
is situated on a high hill, or mountain, on the bank of the
river Furat [Euphrates].
Alb-Arsalan, with a force of 180,000 horse, all brave and
veteran soldiers, returned with the utmost expedition, in
order to release the Lord of the Faithful, and revenge the
defeat of the army of Islam. He pushed on with such
speed, and made such long marches, that in the space of
sixteen or seventeen days-God knows the truth of the
statement-he appeared at the foot of the walls of that
fortress, which was situated on the bank of the Furat, from
Balāsāghūn. Adopting such means of procedure as the
occasion demanded, he called upon the governor of that
fortress to embrace the Muḥammadan faith, and caused
him to be ennobled with the robe of Islām; and, with the
aid of Almighty God, he released the Khalifah from con-
finement 2. He accompanied the Khalifah's sacred caval-
1 There is a place of this name on the Euphrates, Felugia or Anbar, men-
tioned in Julian's campaigns as Pirisabur, and called the second city in Assyria.
The Khalifah was confined at 'Anah. See next note over leaf.
A copyist
عانه for انبار might write
2 Our author has made a muddle of the reigns of these Saljuk monarchs,
and betrays such complete ignorance here, that we may doubt his correctness
in many other cases after and before. Both in the text above, as rendered
faithfully, and word for word, and in the six lines devoted to the history of
Al-Ka'im's Khilafat, in Section IV., our author. plainly asserts that the
Khalifah's troops were defeated by the Naṣarānis or Christians, and that the
Khalifah was made prisoner by them, and confined in a fortress on the frontier
until released by Alb-Arsalān. The author, apparently, had either no written
authorities to refer to, or did not trouble himself to do so, and composed his
work chiefly on hearsay, hence the woful blunder he has herein made. The
Lubb-ut-Tawarikh, strange to say, has made the same error. The Khalifah
Al-Ka'im never fell into the hands of the Romans, and was never confined in a
fortress by them.
Our author has confounded the events of Tughril Beg's reign with those of Alb-
Arsalan's. In 448 H. [Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh says in 447 H.] Al-Ķā'im
summoned Tughril Beg to Baghdad, and directed that his name should be read
in the Khutbah after his own, and also be impressed upon the coin; while the
name of the Malik-ur-Rahim-i-Abu Nasr, son of 'Imād-ud-din, son of Sultan-
ud-Daulah, Buwiah, was to come in after Tughril's. Tughril finding his oppor-
136
THE TABAKAT-I-NĀṢIRĪ.
cade to the precincts of the capital of Islām, and then
solicited permission to return [to his own dominions].
Having obtained it, at the time of taking leave, Alb-Arsa-
lān dismounted from his horse, and honoured his imperial
lips by placing them to the hoof of the animal which bore
the Lord of the Faithful, and kissed it. On this occasion,
in return for these signal services rendered by him, during
all this time, to the Court of Islam, he received this much
commendation and esteem, that the Lord of the Faithful,
Al-Ka'im Bi-amr-'ullah, thus expressed himself:-" Thou
hast saved the servants of God from slaughter, and the
country' from destruction." Let those who read these
words calmly ponder in their minds between the extent of
the services of Alb-Arsalan-i-Ghāzi, and on the sublime
fortitude and high resolve expressed in the words of the
tunity, after pretending friendship towards, and alliance with, the Buwiah ruler
of Baghdad, seized and imprisoned him. In 448 H. Al-Ka'im espoused the
daughter of Tughril's brother [daughter of Dā'ūd-i-Jaghar Beg], Khadijah by
name. In 450 H. Basāsiri rose against the Khalifah, and put him in confine-
ment in the fortress of 'Ānah, a town of Diyār-i-Bakr, or Mesopotamia, on the
east bank of the Furāt, four miles from Rāwā, and seven days' journey from
Baghdad by karwan route. The Khalifah appealed to Tughril Beg, not to Alb-
Arsalan, who did not come to the throne until nearly five years after. Tughril
reached Baghdad in 451 H., Basāsiri fled, the Khalifah was set at liberty, and
Tughril went to meet him, and walked, on foot, at the head of the Khalifah's
horse. On that occasion Al-Ka'im hailed him-“Yā Rukn-ud-din !”—“O
Pillar of the Faith!"-and his title, which had been Rukn-ud-Daulah, or
Pillar of the State, was changed to Rukn-ud-din. Tughril entered Baghdad
on the 14th of the month of Şafar; and in that same year also Dā'ūd-i-Jaghar
Beg, his elder brother, died. Some few authors say these events happened in
452 H.
Basāsiri was soon after captured and put to death, but Fașiḥ-i says
he was captured before the Khalifah's release. In 455 H. Tughril espoused a
daughter of the Khalifah's. The betrothal took place at Tabriz, but Tughril
was desirous that the marriage should be consummated at his capital, which
was Rai, and he set out for that city; but before he reached his palace, having
halted a short distance from the city, to enjoy the cool air, hæmorrhage came
on [not "dysentery"] and could not be stopped. He died 8th of Ramaṣān;
and the Khalifah's daughter hearing of his decease, when on the way to join
him, returned, a virgin bride, to her father at Baghdad.
I may mention that the Tarikh-i-Yafa'i, which is generally so very correct
and minute in the description of important events, says not a word respecting
any hostilities between Alb-Arsalan and the Romans, and nothing whatever
about Armānūs [Romanus] having been captured.
The Khulaṣat-ul-Akhbar turns the two expeditions of the Romans, in the
last of which Romanus was taken captive, into one, and again makes the same
Romanus a prisoner in Malik Shah's reign. There is much similar discre-
pancy in some other authors, which I have not space to notice here.
THE SALJŪĶIAH DYNASTY.
137
Lord of the Faithful, and what amount of eulogium every
one of them conveyed.
Alb-Arsalan's reign extended over a period of fourteen
years. He ascended the throne in the year 451 H., and
in the month of Ṣafar, 465 H., he was martyred¹. May the
Almighty again raise up their pure souls with like glory,
and reserve them to Himself in Paradise above!
IV. SULTAN JALĀL-UD-DĪN, MALIK SHAH, SON OF ALB-
ARSALĀN.
Sultan Malik Shah ascended the throne at Marw, after
the death of his father, and took possession of the whole
of the territories of I-ran, Tūrān, the Jibal [Highlands of
'Irāk], 'Irāk, Dilam, Tabaristān, Rūm, Mișr, and Shām,
besides Diyār-i-Bakr, Arman, Sistān, and Fars; and in all
the pulpits of Islam the Khutbah was read in his name,
and the coin, both diram and dīnār, became ennobled by
his titles.
He was, himself, a victorious and a conquering monarch,
and governed with a firm hand; and was sagacious, brave,
and just, and endowed with all the accomplishments
befitting a sovereign and empire. He brought under his
sway the whole of the countries of Turkistan", and sub-
3 The length of his reign depends upon how it is computed. If his acces-
sion to his father's territory be reckoned, of course it is considerably longer;
but he succeeded as an independent sovereign in the tenth month of 555 H.
Our author does not say how his martyrdom took place. Perhaps his
authority for the Khalifah's captivity in the Roman territory did not inform
him.
It is very interesting, but much too long for insertion here; but his
assassinator was Yūsuf, a native of Khwārazm, the governor of the fortress of
Barzam [on the Jiḥun], which Alb-Arsalan had taken. The murderer was
nearly escaping, when a Farrash, or tent-pitcher, beat in his head with a
wooden mallet, used for driving tent-pegs. This took place in Rabi'-ul-
Awwal, 465 II. Other authors state that the name of the fortress in question
was Firbad, or Firbaz.
5 His title, according to most writers, was Mu'izz-ud-Din, and his patro-
nymic, Abu-l-Fath. The Nizām-ut-Tawarikh and Jahān-Ārā say his title
was Jalal-ud-Daulah. The correct titles appear to have been Sultān Jalāl-ud-
Din, Mu'izz-ud-Daulah, Malik Shah, Yamin [some say Kasim]-i-Amir-ul-
Mūminin.
6 In 468 H. Malik Shah entered Mawar-un-Nahr, and subdued that territory,
and took the Khan of Samrkand captive. He was taken all the way from
Samrķand to Ișfahān on foot; but, subsequently, he was taught better bo
viour, and restored. In 471 1. Malik Shāh again entered Mawar-un-Nal
K
138
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĂŞIRĪ.
dued the territory of Rūm; and the vice-royalty and
sovereignty of Baghdad, subordinate to the Dar-ul-Khilafat,
were conferred upon him. In Makkah and Madinah, and
in Yaman and the country of Ḥijāz, in the whole of the
pulpits of Islām, the Khutbah was read in his name.
He carried on various hostilities, and undertook many
holy wars in various parts of the country of the Turks and
the territory of Rūm; and, on every side of the territories
of the east and of the west, he acquired a kingdom, and
placed viceroys of his own therein. He conferred the
kingdom of Rūm upon one of his brothers, and, after him,
he gave it to his own son, Maḥmūd'; and, up to this
period, that territory is still in the possession of his
descendants, as will, hereafter, please God, be mentioned.
removed, for the second time, Sulimān Khān from the government. He was
subsequently sent to the fortress of Üz-gand [Ūr-ganj of the present day], and
there immured. This is, no doubt, the same event as is referred to in the
Jami'ut-Tawarikh, and in Alfi, but under a wrong year. In those works it is
stated that Malik Shāh, in 482 H., annexed the territory of Samrkand, taking
it from Aḥmad Khan, son of Ja'far Khan; who was a great tyrant. He was
the brother of Turkān Khātūn, the consort of Malik Shah, who was mother
of Sultan Sanjar.
7 This is totally incorrect: Maḥmūd, son of Malik Shah, was never ruler of
the territory of Rūm. See note 4, page 157.
8 Our author's account of this reign is much the same as the tragedy of
"Hamlet" would be with the part of the Prince of Denmark left out. I must
give a brief outline of the chief events that occurred to make it intelligible :-
The year following his accession, 466 H., his brother, Takish [Tughãn Shāh],
rebelled at Hirāt. He was taken and imprisoned at Isfahan, the capital.
Then followed the rebellion of his uncle, Ķāwurd, according to Guzidah ; but
he was the founder of the Kirman dynasty of the Saljuks, which our author
says not one word about. They met in battle at Karkh, near Baghdad, and
Kāwurd was defeated and slain; but his son succeeded him in Kirman, and
was allowed to hold that territory. In 467 H. [Jami'-ut-Tawarikh and
Alfi, mistaking the dates, or wrongly written in the copies of those works, say
in 473 H.] his brother, Takish [this name is written by our author Takish ;
in the Shams-ul-Lughat, Tagish [Takish?]; and in the Burhan-i-Kati',
Takash] rebelled, and seized several districts in northern Khurāsān, and shut
himself up in Nishāpūr. Malik Shah sent an army against him [Jāmi'-ut-
Tawarikh and Alfi say he went in person, and that it was in 476 H.]. In
468 H. he subdued Mawar-un-Nahr for the first time, previously mentioned.
In the following year Anṭāķiah [Antioch] was taken, and the territory as far
as the sea-coast. In 471 H. Samrkand was taken, and Suliman Khan, the
ruler, again deposed, and confined in the fortress of Üz-gand. On this
occasion, Malik Shāh demanded the hand of Turkān Khātūn, daughter of
Tumghash [also written Tughmākh] Khan, a descendant of Bughra Khan.
475 H. Khwārazm was subdued, and conferred upon Nush-Tigin, who
ed the Khwārazm-Shāhi dynasty. [See note 7, page 169.] The follow-
THE SALJŪĶĪAH DYNASTY.
139
In the Muntakhab-i-Tarikh-i-Naşiri, which work was
composed by one of the great men of the Court' of
Ghaznin, I read that, upon a certain occasion, Sultān
Malik Shah requested his Wazir, Nizam-ul-Mulk, to make
ready his forces, as he had resolved upon proceeding into
the territory of Misr [Egypt]. The Wazir, Nizām-ul-
Mulk, represented, saying:—“It is right for the Sultan to
ponder well over this undertaking, because that country con-
tains the Karāmiṭah sect, and other heretics, and something
of the profanities of their creed might come to the hearing
of an orthodox monarch like his Majesty; and I do not
consider it right that such depravity should find access to
the royal mind." Sultan Malik Shah enjoined that they
should be diligent in making due preparation for the
expedition, as for him to repudiate that determination of
his was impossible. Nizam-ul-Mulk [consequently] made.
great preparations, and got all things in readiness; and
the Sultan, with a numerous army, set out in the direction
of Mişr.
When he arrived in the vicinity of it, the people of Mișr
hastened forth to perform the duty of receiving the Sulṭān ;
but he paid no regard to any one, neither did he turn his
eyes towards any thing, until he arrived before the gate of
ing year saw the rise of Hasan-i-Ṣabbāḥ, and the heretic sect of Mulahidahs.
In 480 H. Malik Shah gave the territory of Rum to Suliman, son of Kal-
timish, which his descendants held for a long period of years. Sham he
bestowed upon his brother, Tutash [ not "Tunish"], who gained
successes over the 'Arabs, Rūmis, and Farangs. Other territories were con-
ferred upon some of his Mamluks or slaves, as will be mentioned hereafter.
In 482 H. [the period assigned in Jāmi'-ut-Tawarikh and Alfi for the ex-
pedition into Mawar-un-Nahr, just referred to,] Malik Shah undertook a cam-
paign against the Kaisar, as the Greek emperors of Constantinople are termed
by Muḥammadan writers; upon which occasion, as related by all authors of
repute, Sultan Malik Shah fell into the hands of a party of the Kaisar's
soldiers; but, not having been recognized by any one, he was released through
the great tact of his minister, Nizām-ul-Mulk. Next day, a battle took place
between them, when the Kaisar was taken prisoner, on which occasion Malik
Shāh set him at liberty. In 481 H., as has been mentioned farther on, Malik
Shah went on a pilgrimage to Makkah. In 484 H., Nizām-ul-Mulk was
deprived of the Wazirship through the intrigues of Turkān Khātūn. In 485 11.,
Malik Shah sent a force against the Mulaḥidahs, but it was defeated by those
schismatics; and, in that same year, Nizam-ul-Mulk was assassinated by them.
He was the first that fell beneath the daggers of that sect; and, within
a few days over a month, Malik Shah himself departed this life at
Baghdad.
1 Hazrat, signifying the Court, the presence of the sovereign.
K 2
140
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĂṢIRĪ.
the city of Misr². When he had passed over the ferry of
Misr, and the river Nil, he inquired which was the palace of
Fir'awn [Pharaoh].
3
On being told where it was situated, he turned towards
that direction, and ordered his army to halt on the spot
where it then was. Sultan Malik Shah, attended only by
a single stirrup-holder, set out alone towards the place
indicated. He then dismounted from his horse, and, at the
place where was the palace of Fir'awn, performed a prayer
of two genuflections. He then laid his forehead in the dust,
and lifted up his voice in supplication, saying:-" Oh God,
Thou didst bestow the dominion of Misr upon one, Thy
servant, and he proclaimed, saying:-'I am your most
supreme Lord';' but this Thy erring servant, having been
exalted [by Thee] to the sovereignty of the countries of
the east and the west, has come hither, and, bowing his
forehead in the dust, says :- Great God! O Lord most
High! be pleased of Thy grace and goodness to have
mercy upon this Thy servant.'"
4
Then, raising his head from his posture of adoration, he
came back, and, without entering the city of Misr [at all],
returned to Khurasan. This anecdote is related to show
the exalted nature of the faith of that just and victorious
sovereign'.
Al-Mişr―The City-Old Cairo, as it is called by the Chroniclers of the
Crusades. Its inhabitants, in ancient times, were rated at two millions; and
those of New Cairo [Kahirah] at four millions. The old city stood on the east
bank of the Nile, and was some twenty-two miles in extent.
Some say its
extent was thirty miles. Old Cairo, or The Misr, was, perhaps, deducting
exaggerations, the largest and most densely populated city the world ever con-
tained, after Ķāhirah, ancient Thebes, and Babylon on the Euphrates. The
name Misr is generally applied at present to the whole of Egypt, but should
be Diyar-ul-Miṣriah, as in ancient 'Arab writings.
3 Lit. "Where was the place of Fir'awn's throne,” signifying his Court,
residence, &c.
4 Kur'an, chap. lxxix.
5 Whatever the author of the Muntakhab-i-Tarikh-i-Nāṣiri may have said
on the subject, I may here mention that this statement of Malik Shah's having
made a journey, accompanied by a "large army," into Egypt and crossed the
Nile, is not confirmed, in fact, is not recorded in any history with which I am
acquainted. Malik Shah certainly made a tour throughout his dominions,
"from Anṭākiah of Sham and Ladāķiah of Rūm to Mãwar-un-Nahr, the
frontiers of Khaṭā-i and Khutan; and from the Bahr-i-Khurz [the Caspian]
to Yaman and Tayif." He also performed the pilgrimage to Makkah and
Madinah; but there is no mention of Misr or the Nile. Some of the story-
THE SALJŪĶĪAH DYNASTY.
141
Another anecdote, respecting the same monarch, is
narrated in the Muntakhab-i-Tarikh-i-Naşiri; that some
persons in Kuhistan sent in a memorial to the Wazir,
Nizam-ul-Mulk, to the effect that a wealthy person had
died, leaving no other heir behind him than a sister's
child, and that he had left great wealth, and further that
it ought to go to the Bait-ul-Mal' [the royal treasury].
Nizam-ul-Mulk, at a convenient opportunity, represented the
matter to Malik Shāh, but he obtained no answer, and did
not receive one, until after mentioning it three times. Malik
Shah said he would give him a reply respecting it on the
following day; but, when it came, he set out for the chase.
Nizam-ul-Mulk, in his eagerness to augment the royal
treasury, followed after the Sulṭān [to obtain the promised
reply]. Malik Shah had to pass the camp bāzār on his
way; and, when he returned from the hunting-ground,
gave directions to one of his attendants, saying: "I am
hungry; and in the bāzār I saw some wheaten cakes', and
my appetite has a mind for some. Go and purchase as
many as you can procure, and bring them hither."
When Malik Shah approached the precincts of the
camp, he ascended a rising ground, and sat down, until such
time as they brought the wheaten cakes. He then made all
the nobles with him sit down to partake of the cakes. There
was one very large dish full³, which sufficed for more than
fifty Maliks and Amirs, with their attendants. After he
had eaten, Malik Shah arose and inquired of his attendant :
"For how much didst thou purchase these?" The man,
with eyes bent on the ground, replied :—“ For four and a
half dangs' [little pieces] of coin." The Sultan then asked
the whole of those present, whether they had had sufficient,
to which they replied, that through the Sultan's liberality
they had eaten all that they desired. Malik Shah, on
books mention it, but the account is evidently copied from our author. The
Isma'ili Khalifahs were independent of Malik Shāh.
6 See note 5, p. 62.
7 Thin cakes of paste called "tutmāj.'
وو
8 All the copies of the work but two say there were ten large dishes full.
One copy says two; but, as one large dish is mentioned in another work,
which gives this same anecdote, I have adopted that reading.
9 A dang signifies a grain in general, cither of wheat, barley, or the like,
and is used to signify the fourth part of a dram. It is also used to signify the
sixth part of a city, and the like.
142
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĀȘIRĪ.
hearing the price, defrayed the amount out of his own
private purse; and, turning towards Nizām-ul-Mulk, he
said :—“A poor frail creature like Malik Shāh, and a
minister such as Nizam-ul-Mulk, and so considerable
a number of followers, have eaten their fill at the cost of
four and a half little pieces of coin; therefore it would be
the height of inhumanity to covet the property of orphans.
Whosoever hath amassed wealth, and hath accumulated
both lawful and unlawful gains, did so in order that, after
his decease, his property should go to his progeny and his
dependents, and not that I should take possession of it
arbitrarily. Therefore give up the matter, and say no
more on the subject." The mercy of the Almighty be
upon him! and may those, who read this, utter a benedic-
tion to his memory and to mine.
Many monuments of the goodness and wisdom of that
excellent monarch remain in the world, among which one
is, that the astronomical calculations were, during his
reign, tested anew, and the calendar reformed; and it
was after the following manner:-It had been discovered
from observations, that, from the want of an inter-
calation, very great confusion existed with regard to
the lunar months, and that calculations had fallen into
disorder, and that the zodiacal signs in the almanac had
become involved in error. Sultan Malik Shāh commanded
that the most learned men in the science of astronomy,
and the most profound arithmeticians, should make fresh
observations, and that the seasons and months should be
again tested and adjusted; and the first day of spring,
which is the first degree of the sign Aries, became named,
after that monarch, the No-roz-i-Jalāli.
Nizam-ul-Mulk, Tusi, who has left in the world so many
proofs of his goodness and nobleness, was his Wazir; and
Shaikh Abu Sa'id-i-Abu-l-Khayr, and Imam Ghazzāli lived
in his reign. Sultan Malik Shah's reign extended over a
period of twenty-six years, and, in the year 491 H.¹, he died.
God alone is immortal.
1 Sic in all copies of the work. Our author is greatly out of his reckoning
here. According to the Jami'-ut-Tawarikh, Guzidah, Alfi, Faşiḥ-i, Lubb-ut-
Tawārikh, and all others of authority, Malik Shāh died at Baghdād in the
month of Shawwal, 485 H., six years before the date our author gives; and,
according to the Nizam-ut-Tawarikh and others, in 471 H.
?
THE SALJŪĶIAH DYNASTY.
143
V. MUHAMMAD 2, SON OF MALIK SHAH.
When Sultan Malik Shah took his departure from this
world, three sons survived him. Muhammad, the elder,
2 Here we have a specimen of our author's mode of writing history; and,
if we may judge of the rest of his work from this part, but little dependence can
be placed in him. He leaves out the reigns of MAHMUD and BARKĪĀRŪĶ,
the successors of Malik Shah, entirely, a period of thirteen years! Space will
only permit me to give a brief summary of those events.
After Malik Shāh's death, at Baghdad, his consort, Turkān Khātūn, who
had previously been plotting to secure the succession of her son, Mughis-ud-
Din, Maḥmud, set him up at Baghdad, and had the Khutbah read for him.
She sent off swift messengers to Isfahān to secure the person of Barkiārūķ,
the eldest son, who had been nominated heir and successor by his father.
Having succeeded in securing him, Turkān Khātūn, with her son Maḥmūd,
advanced towards Isfahan, the capital. Barkiārūķ, aided by the slaves and
partisans of the late Wazir, Nizam-ul-Mulk, who had been removed from office
at Turkān Khatun's instigation, because he opposed her views, succeeded in
escaping from Isfahan to Rai, where forces flocked around him from all parts.
He defeated bodies of troops sent against him upon two occasions, but was not
powerful enough, as yet, to attempt to regain Isfahan, and so he remained at
Rai. Turkān Khatun having died in Ramaṇān, 487 H., he moved against the
capital, and Maḥmūd, his brother and rival, came forth to submit to him,
and the brothers embraced each other. Some of Maḥmūd's partisans, however,
succeeded in seizing Barkiārūķ, and were going to deprive him of his sight,
when Maḥmūd was seized with small-pox, and died on the third day. There
is some discrepancy here, among a few authors of authority, who state that
Barkiārūk's escape took place in 488 H., and that he again retired to Rai,
where he was crowned and enthroned, and that he was again seized and im-
prisoned in 489 H., at which time his brother Maḥmūd died, as above related.
However, on the death of his brother, Barkiārūķ was brought forth from his
prison, and raised to the throne; and, from this date, his reign properly com-
mences. The Khalifah acknowledged him, and the titles he conferred upon him
were, according to Yāfa'i, Guzidah, and others, RUKN-UD-DĪN, ABŪ-L-
MUZAFFAR, BARKĪĀRŪĶ; but Fașiḥ-i and others say, RUKN-UD-DİN,
ABU-L-FAWARIS, were his titles. There was no peace for him still, and he
had constantly to take the field. In 488 H. his uncle, Takish, revolted, but he
was defeated; and, in the following year, he was moving against another uncle,
Arsalan-i-Arghu, when a slave of the latter put his master to death, before
Barkiārūk arrived. On the death of Arsalan-i-Arghū, who had held the
greater part of Khurāsān, in 489 H., Sanjar, the third son of Malik Shah, and
full brother of Muḥammad, was set up in Khurāsān; and, in 490 H., when in
his eleventh year, his brother, Sulṭān Barkiārūķ, nominated him to the govern-
ment of Khurāsān as his deputy. In 492 H., the year in which Jerusalem was
taken by the Crusaders, and Sulṭān Ibrāhim of Ghaznin died, Barkiārūķ's
troops revolted against him, and he retired into Khūzistan. On this, his other
brother, Muḥammad, who appears to have been in revolt since 489 11. [some
say 490 H.], moved from Arran of Āṣarbāijān to Hamadān, during Barkiārūķ's
absence, and assumed the throne. In Rajab of the following year, Barkiārūķ
marched against him, but was defeated, and had to retire into Khūzistān again.
}
144
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĂŞIRĪ.
they called by the name of Tir, and the second son was
named Sanjar, and the youngest, Maḥmūd³.
Muḥammad Tir, the eldest, ascended the imperial throne,
He, however, regained sufficient strength during the next year to be able to
march against Muḥammad again; and, in Jamādi-ul-Akhir, he defeated him
in 'Irāk, and Muḥammad fled to Rai, at which time, according to Faşiḥ-i,
Sanjar joined him from Khurāsān. In 493 H., according to Faşiḥ-i, Barkiārūķ
was again defeated by Muhammad; and, in the same year, the former had to
encounter Sanjar in Khurāsān, but he was again unsuccessful, and had to fly.
Barkiārūķ, notwithstanding he was exceedingly weak from severe illness, set
out from Baghdad to oppose Muhammad; but the great nobles on either side
succeeded in effecting an accommodation between the brothers, and Muḥammad
returned to Kazwin, of which part he had held the government previously.
Muḥammad, however, soon regretted what he had done, and further hostilities
arose. Barkiārūķ again marched against him, and, in Rabi'-ul-Akhir, 495 H.,
a battle took place between them near Sawah, in which Muḥammad was
defeated and routed, and he fled to Isfahan, followed by Barkiarūk, who in-
vested him therein. Muḥammad ventured out to try and raise the investment,
but was again overthrown, and fled towards Khue. Barkiārūk followed, and
came up with him near Ganjah, and again defeated him. In Jamādi-ul-Akhir,
496 H., a peace was brought about, on the agreement that Muḥammad should
have the western parts of the empire, Āzarbaijan, Shām, Arman, Gurjistān,
and a part of 'Irāk, and Barkiārūķ the remainder of the empire. This having
been agreed upon, Barkiārūķ set out on his return to Baghdad; but his illness
assumed a more dangerous form on the way thither, and he died on the 12th of
Rabi'-ul-Awwal, 498 H., after a stormy reign of twelve years, having nomi-
nated his son, Malik Shah, his successor. This is a mere outline of the events
entirely left out by our author; and, in the account which he gives of Mu-
hammad's reign, he makes still more serious errors than before. Gibbon
[chap. lvii.] destroys the empire of the Saljuks in a few words. He asserts
that "The greatness and unity of the Turkish empire expired in the person of
Malek Shah," and of course never mentions his successors, Maḥmūd, Barkiā-
rūk, or Muḥammad. A little farther on he does say that "Sangiar, the last
hero of their race," was unknown to the Franks, and that he might have been
made prisoner by the Franks, as well as by the Uzes." He means the Ghuzz
tribe probably; but he omitted to state that the first Crusaders were opposed,
really, by about the least powerful of the Satraps of the Saljük empire. The
eight successors of this "the last of his race," as well as himself, will be
mentioned farther on.
3 Our author is totally incorrect here again. Muḥammad did not succeed
his father, as already shown, neither did three sons [most of the copies of the
work say "two"] only survive Malik Shah. There were four, the eldest of whom
was Barkiārūķ; the youngest, Maḥmūd, an account of whom I have just
given. The other two sons were Muḥammad and Sanjar, who were full
brothers: an adopted son is also mentioned. The name Tir [] and Tabr
[], for some copies say one, and some the other, given to Muḥammad by our
author, is not mentioned in any other work, and the significations of either do
not appear applicable. I am inclined to consider that he has confounded the
name of Muḥammad with that of his uncle Tutish [], the progenitor of
the Saljūķ dynasty of Sham, out of whose hands the Franks wrested Antioch,
in the first Crusade.
THE SALJŪĶĪAH DYNASTY.
145
1
and all the Maliks and great nobles, with their loins girded,
stood before him ready to do his bidding. The Wazirs,
or ministers of the east and the west, by their tact and
experience, succeeded in securing possession of the whole of
the territories of the empire; and the Sultāns of the neigh-
bouring countries submitted to his suzerainty.
Sultan Muḥammad Tir, however, was a person wholly
given to pleasure; and, having found his dominions tranquil
and undisturbed, he was in the habit of abandoning himself
wholly to wine. He never led his forces in person towards
any part of the frontiers of his empire, neither did he
nominate any forces [under others for that service]; con-
sequently, no event worthy of record took place during his
reign, nor did his territories acquire any extension. His
life of pleasure soon terminated; and, after passing two
years in gaiety and jollity, he died; and the sovereignty
passed to Sultān Sanjar*.
4 Muḥammad, born 474 H., whose correct titles are Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din, Abū
Shuja', Muḥammad, Kasim-i-Amir-ul-Mūminin, whom our author calls a
wine-bibber, and wholly addicted to pleasure, and who, according to his
account, but on what authority he does not mention, never led his troops or
despatched any under his nobles upon any expedition whatever, was, on the
testimony of authors of undoubted authority, one of the most intrepid of the
Saljuk sovereigns, of high principle, faithful to his engagements, truthful, just,
a cherisher of his subjects, and moreover pious and temperate. See Rauzat-
uş-Şafa for his character. At the very outset of his reign, having claimed the
whole empire as his right, he moved to Baghdad, against the adherents
of Malik Shah, son of Barkiarük, who had been set up as successor to his
father's dominions, according to the terms arranged between Barkiārūķ and
Muḥammad already explained. Sadakah and Ayaz were defeated, Sadakah
slain [Faşiḥ-i, however, says he was put to death in 501 11.], Ayaz taken
prisoner, and Malik Shah was seized and kept in confinement. In 504 H.
Muḥammad defeated the Mulaḥidahs, who had acquired great strength during
the stormy period of Barkiārūķ's reign, and had occupied a strong fortress of
Isfahan, named Kala'-i-Shah. The place was reduced, and the leader put
to death. After this, an expedition into Hindustan-the western frontier must
be referred to the destruction of a famous idol-temple, and the removal of the
idol to Isfahan, is mentioned in some authors of authority. It seems im-
probable, but is distinctly mentioned, and further research may throw some
light upon it. Fașiḥ-i, however, does not mention it. Subsequently Mu-
ḥammad despatched an army, under the command of one of his great nobles,
against Almut, the stronghold of Hasan-i-Sabbaḥ, the head of the sect of
Mulaḥidahs, but the Sultan's death happening soon after prevented the
expedition succeeding. Muhammad died in 510 H., but some authors say. in
511 II., so that he reigned twelve years and nine months.
•
146
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĂŞIRĪ.
VI. SULŢĂN-UL-AʼZAM,
MUʼIZZ-UD-DUNYA-WA-UD-DÎN³,
SANJAR, SON OF MALIK SHAH.
Sultan Sanjar was a great, dignified, and mighty
monarch. His birth took place in the country of Sanjār,
in the year 479 H., at the time when his father, Malik Shah,
was engaged in the service of the Court of the Khilafat, and
occupied in the disposal of the affairs of the Lord of the
Faithful.
When his father died, Sultan Sanjar was in his tenth
year, and his brother Muḥammad ascended the throne".
After his brother's death, Sanjar was raised to the
sovereignty; and was distinguished by the Court of Bagh-
dāḍ with a dress of honour, a standard, and a commission
of investiture. At the capital, Marw of Shāh-i-Jahan, and
throughout the whole of the territories of Islam, over which
his father and grandfather had held sway, the Khutbah
was read for him, and his name was impressed upon the
coin.
When he attained unto years of discretion, the flower of
youth, and the bloom of manhood, the dominions of the
east and of the west came under the control and adminis-
tration of the slaves and vassals of his empire'. His first
5 Yafa'i says his titles were Sulṭān-ul-A'zam, Mu'izz-ud-Din, and his patro-
nymic Abū Hāris-i-Sanjar. Fanākati calls him Mu'izz-ud-Daulah; Faşiḥ-i,
Saif-ud-Daulah; Mirat-i-Jahan Numā styles him Sultan-us-Salāṭin, Mu'izz-ud-
Din, Abu-Haris, &c.; and Nizam-ut-Tawarikh and Muntakhab say his
patronymic was Abu-l-Hāris-i-Ahmad.
6 On the death of Muḥammad, Sanjar, then the only surviving son of Malik
Shah, who had held the government of Khurāsān since his brother, Barkiārūķ,
conferred it upon him, assumed sovereignty over the whole empire, notwith-
standing Muḥammad had bequeathed the sovereignty over 'Irak to his son
Mahmud. An engagement took place between Sanjar and his nephew, in
which the latter was defeated; but Sanjar allowed him to retain the sove-
reignty, subject to himself. Mahmud did not enjoy it long, for he died the
same year, and his son, Tughril, succeeded; but he too died the same year,
and Mas'ud, another son of Sultan Muhammad, succeeded. There having
been two Mas'ud's and three Tughril's, several authors, one of whom is gene-
rally so correct as to dates-the Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh-have confounded
them. See note 6, p. 151, and note ³, p. 173.
7 Sanjar did not succeed to the sovereignty over the whole empire until the
death of his elder brother, Muḥammad, in 511 II. [Faşiḥ-i says in 510 H.],
although he had held great part of Khurasan, almost independent, for some
time previously. In 511 H., he was just thirty-one years old, and he then
assumed the title of Sultan.
THE SALJŪĶĪAH DYNASTY.
147
hostile operations were directed against Muḥammad, Khān³
of Samrkand, whom he defeated; and, subsequently,
Sultan Sanjar fought sixteen different engagements on
different frontiers of his territories, and came forth vic-
torious from the whole of them.
His reign extended over a long period of time; and
public affairs went on in the highway of legality, and on
the beaten track of equity and justice. The ordinances of
the sacred law of Muḥammad, and the canons of the faith
of Islām, conformable with the Divine commands, acquired
fresh vigour and newness.
The
The countries of Khurāsān, 'Irāk, and Mawar-un-Nahr,
became exceedingly populous and flourishing; and, at
Baghdad, royal palaces were erected in his name.
viceroyalty, and the command of the troops of Baghdad,
under the same conditions and provisions as those under
which his forefathers had held these offices, indeed upon
even more favourable terms, came into the possession of
him, and of his representatives.
He installed his slaves in the government, and adminis-
tration of every country'. Arrān, 'Irāķ, and Āzarbāijān
he conferred upon Iladd-giz', who was his slave; and he
8 Sanjar fought several battles before he became supreme ruler, on the death
of his brother, Muḥammad. His first was with Daulat Shah, Wali of Balkh,
who was his cousin-german. This took place in 491 H., but, as Sanjar was
He may
only then in his twelfth year, he could not have taken part in it.
have been present with the army. The second encounter was with his elder
brother, Barkiārūk [who had nominated him to the government of Khurāsān
in 490 H.], in 493 H. The third was with Kunduz Khan, near Tirmiz, in
The fourth with Arsalan Shah, Ghaznawi, in 511 H.
The first
495 H.
battle fought, after he became supreme sovereign in 511 H., was against his
nephew, Maḥmud, in the neighbourhood of Sawah, in 513 H., which appears
to be that said to have been fought with Mas'ud. See page 151, and note ".
Sultan Sanjar fought nine battles, in the whole of which he was victorious;
and was defeated in two, as our author himself allows a few pages farther on.
The expedition against Aḥmad [also called Muḥammad] Khan, son of Suli-
mān Khān, styled "Badshah" of Mawar-un-Nahr, took place in 524 H. The
Muntakhab ut-Tawarikh mentions an expedition against "Muḥammad Khan,
Wali of Samrkand," in 514 H. It appears to be the same which Faşiḥ-i,
Guzidah, and Jahān-Ārā place ten years after. Aḥmad Khan was taken
prisoner, but he was restored to his sovereignty in 530 H.
See note 2 at page
9 Our author's statements here are contrary to facts.
168.
¹ This name is wrongly given here in all the copies of the work but one,
although, subsequently, when giving an account of him, the author calls him
by his right name. As d is interchangeable with t, it can be, and sometimes is,
148
THE TABAKAT-I-NĂŞIRĪ.
was the father of the Ata-bak, Muḥammad; and the Ata-
bak, Üz-bak, and the Ata-bak, Akhtān', are both descend-
ants of his. The territory of Fars was given to Sankur,
who was the ancestor of the Ata-baks of Fars; and the
Atā-bak, Zangi, the Atā-bak, Duklah, and the Atā-bak, Sa'd,
and his sons, are all his [Sankur's] descendants. The
country of Khwārazm he conferred upon the son of
Khwārazm Shah, who was one of his [the Sultan's] ser-
vants, who was the father of I-yal-Arsalān, who was the
father of Takish, Khwārazm Shah, father of Muḥammad,
Khwārazm Shah.
The Sultan of Ghaznin, Mas'ūd-i-Karim [the Beneficent],
son of Sulṭān Razzi-ud-Din, Ibrāhim,—May the light of
the Almighty illumine their resting place! - took the
sister of Sulṭān Sanjar to wife. During the reign of the
last, through the death of Sultan Mas'ud-i-Karim, it is
said that dissension arose between the Sultans of Ghaznin.
Malik Arsalan, son of Sultan Mas'ud, ascended the throne.
at Ghaznin, and Bahrām Shah, another son of Mas'ud, was
with his father, in the district of Tigin-ābād of Garmsir,
at the time of his father's decease; and, from that place,
Bahram Shāh proceeded to the presence of Sultan Sanjar
[his maternal uncle], and for a considerable period con-
tinued in attendance at his Court.
After some time had elapsed, Sultan Sanjar came to
Ghaznin to the aid of Bahrām Shāh, and set Bahrām upon
the throne of Ghaznin; and in that territory, and in
Hindustan likewise, the Khutbah was read and the coin
stamped, in Sulṭān Sanjar's name".
This dominion and power which Sanjar possessed was
more extensive than had been possessed by any of his
ancestors. He conferred the territory of Mauşil upon one
written Ilatt-giz. This person's name has been incorrectly written "Atlakin,"
and "Ildekuz," in many translations. See page 170, and note 8.
2 No Ata-bak of this name occurs elsewhere.
3 See note 9, p. 107.
4 At this period Sanjar was merely ruler of Khurasan, subordinate to his
brother, although he succeeded to the whole empire shortly after.
5 Sanjar imposed a tribute of one thousand dinārs per day upon Bahrām
Shah; and, in 530 H., had to march to Ghaznin to enforce payment, and
reduce him to submission.
6 It is beyond a doubt that the Saljuk empire was of the greatest extent in
Malik Shah's reign. See latter part of note
See latter part of note 5, page 140.
4
THE SALJŪĶĪAH DYNASTY.
i49
of his slaves',-and the Ata-baks of Mauşil, who have been
up to nearly this present time, are the descendants of this
slave of his, who was a Turk of Khiṭā-i,—and the whole of
the territories of Sham were held by his slaves. Sultān
Nur-ud-Din, of Shām, likewise, was one of the descendants
of the Atā-baks of Mauṣil, as will, please God, be hereafter
mentioned. The Maliks of Ghur, and the Sultans of the
Jibal, were all subject to Sultan Sanjar.
9
During his reign hostility arose between the Sultans' of
Ghaznin and the Maliks of Ghur, and the latter were
overcome. When, however, the territory of Ghur came
under the rule of Sultan 'Alā-ud-Din, Husain, he refused to
pay submission to the Sulṭān; and an engagement took
place between him and Sultan Sanjar in the neighbourhood
of the mountain tracts of Hirāt, at a place named Sih
Goshah-nab', and the forces of Ghur were routed, and
Sultan 'Ala-ud-Din was taken prisoner. After some time
he obtained his release, and became one of the especial
confidants and intimate companions of Sultan Sanjar.
About the time of the troubles consequent on the out-
break of the Ghuzz tribe, when 'Ala-ud-Din was in company
one day with Sulṭān Sanjar, and engaged in a carousal, San-
jar, who was seated upon the throne, thrust out one of his
august legs, and let the foot, on the sole of which there
was a black mole, dangle over the throne. On 'Alā-ud-
7 See note 2, page 168.
8 Jibal here signifies the northern parts of Ghur, Bāmiān, &c., not of 'Irāk.
9 Petty chieftains at this time, and holding but a very small tract of
country. See note 3, page 106.
1 This encounter took place before the gate of Aobah.
2 Our author, being such a warm partisan of the Ghūris and their Turk
successors, would not probably mention, if he knew of it, the circumstance of
Bahram of Ghaznin sending the head of Saif-ud-Din, Sūri, son of Ḥusain, son
of Sām, to his uncle. Sultan Sanjar encountered the Ghūrians upon two
occasions. The first time, in 501 H., in which affair Husain, son of Săm, was
made captive, and Sanjar gave orders to put him to death, but he was saved at
the intercession of Shaikh Ahmad, Ghazzāli; and, it is stated, that for two
years Husain used to light the fires for the cooks of the Sultan's army, to such
misery was he reduced. For further details see Section XVIII. The second
occasion, when, according to our author, "Alā-ud-Din Ḥusain, refused to
pay submission to the Sultan," was in 547 H., just before Sanjar moved
against the Ghuzz tribe, in which affair he was taken prisoner, and at the
time when the Sultan's power was almost at the lowest ebb. See note 3,
page 155.
3 This statement is much more probable than that of the Rauzat-uṣ-Ṣafā,
150
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĂȘIRĪ.
Din's noticing this mole, he stood up and solicited that he
might be allowed the honour of kissing it; and repeated
these lines suitable to the occasion :—
Verily the dust at the gate of thy palace is [my] diadem,
[And] this, the collar of thy service, is my adornment.
In the same manner as I kiss the mole on the sole of thy foot,
Even so good fortune [likewise] salutes my head 4."
Sultan Sanjar acceded to his request; and, when 'Ala-ud-
Din knelt down and kissed the mole, the Sultan contrived
to twist his toes in the hair about the face of 'Alā-ud-Din,
and to keep him on the floor. 'Ala-ud-Din desired to raise
his head from the ground, but was held down by his hair.
Those present laughed, and 'Ala-ud-Din became disturbed,
and his countenance changed. Sulṭān Sanjar, noticing his
mortification, out of his princely beneficence and sympathy,
said: "'Ala-ud-Din, this jesting hath hurt thy feelings; let
the dominion of Ghūr be [my] amends to thee. I con-
gratulate thee! Return again to thy capital and throne:
thou art my brother! Now that the troubles with the
Ghuzz tribe have arisen, take along with thee all the flocks
of sheep and herds of horses and camels belonging to me,
my own private property. If victory aid my efforts against.
them, and the outbreak of this tribe should be quelled, send
them back to me again; but, if not, let them be. It is far
better that they should remain with thee, than that they
should fall into the hands of such ingrate rebels."
•
Sultan 'Alā-ud-Din returned to Ghūr, and through the
magnanimity and generosity of Sulṭān Sanjar regained his
throne. This was a tradition of Sanjar's beneficence and
kindliness; but the author of this Tabakāt will here relate
that which sets forth his sovereignty. I, Minhāj-i-Sarāj, in
the year 611 H., when at Firūz-koh, which was the capital
and seat of government of the Sulṭāns of Ghūr, heard [the
following] from Amir 'Ali, the Chā-ūsh [pursuivant], who
said that his grandfather was the Marshal of the retinue of
Sultan Sanjar: and that his grandfather stated, that, when
Sultan Mas'ud of 'Irak, who was one of Sultan Sanjar's
and far more cleanly. The throne of state is not meant, but a chair or
raised seat used on ordinary occasions. See Dorn's "Afghans," part ii, p. 85.
The point of the original, of course, is partially lost in translation.
5 This seems to be about the only meaning applicable to the term
سلام کام
*
THE SALJŪĶĪAH DYNASTY.
151
brothers' sons, broke out into rebellion, and Ķarājah, the
Sāķi [cup-bearer], who was one of Sanjar's slaves, became
his supporter in that revolt, the Sultan marched an army
from Marw, with the object of falling upon the rebels
unawares.
He reached the summit of the Sāwah Pass, at the foot of
which, on the 'Irāk side, the rebels were encamped, and
issued from it with a few followers; but, when his eye
caught sight of the forces of the enemy, he reined in his
horse, and came to a halt. A party of nobles, who had
reached the spot where he was, he summoned to his side,
and said to them :-"We have come upon this gathering,
6 Some discrepancy exists among historians respecting the sons of Muḥammad,
son of Malik Shah, the nephews of Sultan Sanjar. Guzidah and others men-
tion an encounter between Sanjar and his nephew, Maḥmud, in 513 H., in
'Irāk, who was defeated and fled to Sawah, but mention no revolt on the part
of Mas'ud, who only succeeded to the subordinate sovereignty over 'Irak-i-
'Ajam, on the death of his brother Tughril, in 529 H., who succeeded
Mahmud, the other brother. In the enumeration of the different victories
obtained by Sulṭān Sanjar during his reign, the Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh men-
tions one gained over his nephew, Maḥmūd, in the neighbourhood of Sawah,
in 513 H., and a second gained over another nephew [?], Mas'ud, near Dinawr,
in 526 H.; but Mas'ud only succeeded his brother in 529 H. He may have
been, however, rebellious before he succeeded. The cause for such discrepancy
appears to have arisen from there having been two Mas'uds and three
Tughrils, who held 'Irāķ-i-'Ajam under Sanjar, on the authority of Fașiḥ-i,
who gives the events of each year in chronological order. That work states,
that "Maḥmūd, son of Muḥammad, Sanjar's brother, at his father's death in
510 H. [some say it took place in 511 H.], notwithstanding he had opposed
his uncle in battle, was allowed to retain the government of 'Irāķ[-i-'Ajam],"
but that he died in that same year. Tughril, his brother, succeeded him, but
in that same year Tughril likewise died. On this, Mas'ud, the third brother,
succeeded, and he became disaffected towards his uncle, who marched against
him, and defeated him in 513 H. in sight of Hamadan [a long way from Sawah].
Mas'ud fled to Jurjān; but he was permitted, shortly after, to resume his
government, but under supervision. There is no mention of his having been
taken prisoner, yet this is the account which agrees best with the statement
of our author. This Mas'ud died in 525 H. The Jahan-Ārā, and Muntakhab-
ut-Tawarikh state, that Mahmud died in that year [Ibn-i-Khalkān says in
524 H.], and was succeeded by his brother, Tughril, who died in 529 H., and
was succeeded by Mas'ud; but, if Mas'ud only succeeded in 529 H., how
could he, according to the same authors, have been defeated by his uncle in
526 H.? According to Faşiḥ-i, Mas'ud was succeeded by Tughril, his brother,
but probably his son, as the same author states that his brother Tughril died
in the same year as Mahmud, who died in 525 H. [this date agrees with Jahan-
Ārā and the Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh above quoted], when Mas'ud, son of
Mahmud [son of Muḥammad], Sanjar's nephew, succeeded. He died in
547 H., and is said to have always been loyal to Sanjar. He was succeeded
by his brother, Mughis-ud-Din, Malik Shāh.
52
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĂŞIRĪ.
but we have but a weak following, while the enemy are
very numerous: what is it advisable to do?" Some among
the nobles replied, that whatsoever, in accordance with his
Majesty's opinion, he might be pleased to command would
be most advisable; but, if his Majesty would defer any
movement until such time as the whole of the force should
come up, and then dash upon them, it would be still more
advisable. Others of the nobles said :-"These people too
are his Majesty's servants: it is necessary that he should
be pleased to show clemency towards, and have compas-
sion on them, and give them intimation of the arrival of the
imperial standards, so that the whole of them may be able
to come and tender their services, and rest in safety under
the shadow of the imperial protection and pardon." In
short, each one of the great lords and nobles made repre-
sentation of such opinions as entered their minds.
Sultan Sanjar [then] turned his face towards the Amir-i-
Cha-ush, who was also Marshal of his retinue, and said:
-"Cha-ūsh, what is it advisable to do?" The Chã-ush
dismounted from his horse, and, bowing his head to the
ground, repeated the following lines :—
"Great monarch! we ought to give battle:
We should close with the foe.
All the fierce lions of the forest
Must be brought into the field,
All the huge elephants of war
Should doubtless be brought into the fray.
It is the day of battle it is meet to engage.
It is the hour for action: it is well to be doing.
If thou wouldst render the kingdom stable,
It is essential that the sword should be plied."
The Sultan replied:-"It is necessary to act as the Cha-
ush advises;" and at once, without any further delay, with
as many cavalry as had come up, Sultan Sanjar dashed
upon the rebel forces. Ķarājah, the cup-bearer, and Mas'ūd
of 'Irāk were both taken prisoners, and the forces of this
gathering were defeated and put to the rout, and the
countries of 'Irāk and Āzarbāijān were recovered anew.
The Sultan returned to Khurāsān; and it was a constant
practice with him to pass the hot season at Bukhārā, and
the winter at Marw of Shah-i-Jahan. It so happened, one
year, that he remained longer than was his wont at Marw.
THE SALJŪĶĪAII DYNASTY.
153
The temperature began to rise, and not one of his Court had
the courage to represent that it would be well to return to
the land of Bukhārā. The climate of Bukhārā agreed with a
number of the nobles and great men. They urged Amir-i-
Mu'azzi that he should, by means of verse, bring the charms
and beauties of the villas and gardens of the city of Bu-
khārā to the imperial hearing, so that Kamal-uz-Zamān
might, at an opportune time, sing it, accompanied with
lutes.
Amir Mu'azzi, who was the Chief of Poets, or Poet-
Laureate, and who, along with forty other adepts [in the
art], was in the habit, on days of entertainment and at
banquets, of recounting the deeds of the Sultan, and [of
whom] it is related, that the whole of these [poets] were of
his clan and followers, accordingly composed the following
strophe' and the Minstrel, Kamāl-uz-Zamān, early one
morning, when the Sulṭān had taken his morning draught
of wine, played it with such feeling and touching effect,
that the Sultan, half-dressed as he was and in his slippers,
came forth, mounted on horseback, and took neither
:
8
7 Our author is unfortunate with regard to his quotations very often. These
lines were neither composed by the poet Mu'azzi, nor were they composed to
influence Sultan Sanjar to return to Bukhārā. It was neither his capital, nor
did he use to pass the hot seasons there. The lines were composed
more than two hundred years before Sanjar was born, with the title "Mir"
instead of "6 Shāh," by Farid-ud-Din, Abū 'Abd-ullah, Muḥammad, born at
Rūdak of Ṣamrkand, and hence known as Rūdaki, a famous poet, blind from
his birth, but endowed with a very melodious voice, and he played enchant-
ingly on the barbat, a kind of lute. He was also the first native of 'Ajam who
composed a Diwan. The lines in question were composed to try and influence
the Amir, Abu-l-Hasan-i-Nasr, son of Ahmad, Sāmāni, to return to his
capital, which was Bukhārā. One author states that he went to Hirāt, and
was so delighted with the place that he remained a long time, and even
thought of taking up his residence there. His ministers, nobles, and troops,
who longed to return to Bukhārā, were much put out at this, so much so that
they, finding all remonstrance useless, even contemplated rebelling. Another
writer, who gives a biography of Rūdaki, states that the place was Marw with
which Nasr was so much taken up. But, be this as it may, the poet, Rūdaki,
was induced to use his efforts upon the Amir. He accordingly composed
these lines, and in the Sarae or villa, in which Nașr had taken his morning
collation, the poet sang them accompanied by his lute. Nasr became so
enchanted on hearing some of the lines, that he did not stay to hear all; but,
without either turban or shoes, he at once mounted and rode off the first stage
on the way to Bukhārā.
8
"Lutes" are mentioned above in all the copies; whilst here, it appears,
the minstrel sang it, accompanying it with his lute.
L
154
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NAṢIRĪ.
rest nor repose until he reached the appointed destina-
tion :-
"The breeze from Mulian's rivulet reacheth me the same,
Even as cometh the fragrance of a loving friend.
The gravel of the Amu, and the roughness thereof,
Appeareth like as the softest silk beneath my feet.
The river Jiḥün, with its wide-spread surface,
Reacheth, even now, to my white steed's very girths⁹.
O Bukhārā! rejoice, and be thou glad once more,
For the Shāh even now cometh a guest¹ unto thee.
The Shah is a moon, and Bukhārà a firmament;
The moon likewise riseth the celestial vault within.
The Shah is a cypress, and Bukhārā is a garden ;
The cypress also cometh unto the garden now."
After a great part of his reign had elapsed, a body of
people from Karā-Khaṭā-i, from Tamghaj, and the depen-
dencies of Chin, entered the confines of Kara Kuram of
Turkistan, and solicited Sultan Sanjar to assign them
grazing-lands; and, with the Sultan's permission, they took
up their quarters on those confines, in Bilasaghun, Kabalik,
and Almāliķ, and made those parts their grazing-grounds.
When their progeny became very numerous, during the
Sultan's reign, they rebelled against his authority, and
fought a battle against him. Tāniko of Taraz, at the
nomination of Sunkam and I-ma, was at the head of the
Khaṭā'is. The Sultan's forces, from a long period of inac-
tion, and enervated by protracted ease and luxury, were
unable to cope with or stand before the enemy, and were
overthrown; and they took Turkān Khātūn, who was the
Malikah-i-Jahān [Queen of the Universe], and consort of
Sulṭān Sanjar, captive³.
9 The only other signification the word used will admit of is a boat, which
does seem more appropriate, for I do not think the Jiḥun can be forded on
horseback. I have doubts whether the word is correct in the original.
1 Sic in MSS.
2 In 534 H. Sanjar marched to Samrkand, and fought a battle with At
Khān; but he was defeated, and had to retreat to the fortress of Tirmiz, or
Tirmid, as it is also called. Turkān Khātūn, and the Malik of Nimroz, and
many other great men, were left in the hands of the enemy. These infidels of
Khaṭā-i, and Mughals likewise, overran Māwar-un-Nahr, slaying, devastating,
and making the people captives; and, included in the numbers put to the
sword by the invaders, were many great and learned men. The Khaṭā-i's and
Mughals remained in Mawar-un-Nahr until driven out by Sultan Muḥammad,
Khwārazm Shāh. Guzidah and Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh state that this reverse
took place in 535 H.
As soon as this disaster befell Sanjar, his vassal, Utsuz [it is written "Itsiz"
THE SALJŪĶĪAH DYNASTY.
155
This was the first reverse the Sulṭān had ever sustained;
and, subsequently, he concluded a peace with them, and the
pasture-lands of Turkistan and Bilāsāghūn, along with the
cities and towns included in those frontier tracts, were left
in the hands of the Khata-i invaders. After the peace was
concluded they sent back Turkān Khātūn to the Sultān
again. The Ḥakim [philosopher] Koshaki has written much
satire upon this unfortunate event, which is contained in
Diwāns and [other] books.
5
When this reverse became public, the affairs of the empire
began to decline, and to grow weak³; and, of the reign of
Sanjar, sixty years' had passed away. A body of the
Ghuzz tribe, from Khandan ", now rose in revolt against the
Sultan's authority, and withheld the yearly tribute which
had been previously fixed. The Sultan marched an army
against them, and the Ghuzz were willing to pay a kalah
[ingot] of silver' for each family, but the Sultan would not
in Burhan-i-Kāṭa', and in the Tarikh-i-Ibrahimi, "Utsiz," and by our author,
"Utsuz"], son of Kutb-ud-Din, Muḥammad, son of Nush-Tigin, upon whom
Sanjar's father conferred the rule over Khwārazm, threw off his allegiance.
Sanjar invested him in Hazār-asp in 535 H., which was taken; but he treated
the rebel leniently, and still allowed him to retain that territory. In 537 H.
[Guzidah says in 535 H., while the Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh says it hap-
pened in 536 H.] Gür Khan, who, in concert with At Khan, defeated Sanjar in
the Dasht, or Desert of Katran [], on the frontier of Samrkand, died;
and, after this happened, Muḥammad Khwārazm Shah expelled the infidels
from Mawar-un-Nahr.
3 It was, according to Guzidah and others, after Sanjar's defeat by the
Khaṭā-i's and Mughals that 'Ala-ud-Din, chief of Ghur, ventured to show
hostility towards him. Sanjar defeated him before Aobah in 547 H., and 'Alā-
ud-Din was taken prisoner, but was subsequently released. Our author has
mentioned this as about the first event of Sanjar's reign.
4 See note ¹, page 157.
5 A tract of territory on the frontier of Chin. A few MSS. have Khutlān.
• Fanākati says that, when the Ghuzz tribe crossed the Jihun, Badr-ul-
Mulk, 'Ajami, the Sultan's Wazir, advised Sultan Sanjar to attack them.
This he did, and was overthrown and taken prisoner, and Khurasan, Kirman,
and Fars were seized by them!
The Sultan marched against the Ghuzz in 548 H. The details are far too long
for insertion here. Upwards of a hundred thousand persons, not including
women and children, were afterwards massacred by the Ghuzz, and the terri-
tory of Khurāsān was devastated. In the following year was born Tamūchin,
afterwards known by the name of Chingiz Khan.
7 Guzidah says
"a maun [which signifies two pounds of twelve ounces
each] of silver." Price, quoting the Khulaṣat-ul-Akhbar, says "a quarter of
a hundredweight of gold, besides 100,000 dinārs," which is ridiculous. Our
author's account is the most probable one.
L 2
156
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĂŞIRĪ.
agree to it, and, on this account, gave battle to them, and
was defeated and taken prisoner.
On the Sultan falling into their hands, the whole of the
Ghuzz dismounted before his stirrup, and saluted him, and
tendered their services. The Ghuzz chieftains, such as Tūti,
Kurgharat, Malik Dinār, Ibrāhim, and Khutali, besides
others, girded up their loins before the Sultan's throne [to
serve him], and began themselves to issue mandates [in
his name]; and they divided Khurāsān among themselves.
Whatever it was requisite to do they did, and they used to
state, "The Sultan commands this and that." The slaves
and servants of the Sanjari dynasty became dispersed
and separated; and the affairs of the country became
disorganized, and the thread of sovereignty snapped.
asunder.
After some time had passed-about a year, more or less³
-one of the slaves, who was one of the Sultan's nobles,
proceeded to the Sultan Sanjar's presence, and presented
himself, and, as if going out on a hunting excursion,
mounted the Sultan on horseback, and brought him away
[out of the hands of the Ghuzz], and restored him to
liberty once more. He conducted the Sultan to Marw',
and placed him on the throne again, and some of the still
remaining adherents of the dynasty collected around him;
but the Sultan's days had now drawn towards their close,
and the sovereignty had grown antiquated and gone to
decay. On Monday, the 24th of the month Rabi'-ul-
Awwal, in the year 552 H., Sulṭān Sanjar died at Marw,
and was there buried. His age was seventy-three years
8 Our author generally eschews dates. Here again we have a specimen of
his mode of writing history, when he asserts that Sanjar remained in captivity
"about a year, more or less." Sanjar remained nearly four years in the
hands of the Ghuzz, and, during this period, no efforts were made to effect
his escape, lest his consort, Turkān Khātūn, who appears to have again fallen
into captivity, might remain in their hands. She having died, however, in
551 H., Sulṭān Sanjar succeeded in gaining over the Ghuzz chief who had
charge of him, so far as to get him to take him out on a hunting excursion to
the banks of the Jiḥun. Arrangements had been made for the occasion, and
Amir Aḥmad-i-Ķamāj, governor of Tirmiz, was awaiting him on the bank,
where he had got boats in readiness. The Sultan succeeded in throwing
himself into one, and his people got into others, and then made their escape.
In Ramaṣān of that year, the Sultan succeeded in assembling a force at
Tirmiz, and he then set out, under its escort, to Marw.
See latter part of preceding note.
THE SALJŪĶĪAH DYNASTY.
157
and a little over, and his reign lasted sixty-two'.
mercy of the Almighty be upon him!
The
ACCOUNT OF THE SULTANS OF RŪM 2, OF THE SALJŪĶĪAH
DYNASTY.
THE Sultans of Rūm were of the race of Saljūķ, and were
great and powerful monarchs; and, in the territories of Rūm
and the country of Afranj, numerous signs and marks
of their goodness and benevolence, their expeditions and
holy wars, their conflicts with unbelievers, buildings of public
utility and charity, in the shape of colleges, mosques, monas-
teries for darweshis, karwānsarães, bridges, and charitable
and pious foundations, remain to this day; and the accounts
of their descendants, their Maliks, and their Amirs, and of
their heroic achievements in that country, are recorded in
trustworthy books.
When the Sultan of Sultāns, Sanjar, on whom be the
mercy of the Almighty, ascended the throne of his father,
and became established in the sovereignty of the world, and,
when the territories of Islām, both east and west, were taken
possession of by his servants, and the Khutbah was read
for him from all the pulpits of Islam, and the money of the
world became adorned with his name and titles, he conferred
the kingdom of Rūm upon his brother, Maḥmūd, son of
Malik Shah". The whole of the Sultāns [of that country]
4
1 Guzidah says Sanjar died of grief on the 16th of Rabi'-ul-Awwal 552 H.,
aged seventy-two years. The length of his reign must be calculated from the
death of his brother Muḥammad in 510 H., at which period he was thirty-one
years old.
Previous to this he was but subordinate ruler of Khurāsān; and
historians calculate his reign from the date above mentioned. Other authors
state that he reigned forty-one years.
2 Our author completed his work in 658 H., and Sanjar died in 552 H.;
and, although the Saljuk dynasty existed for thirty-two years after Sanjar's
death, and had terminated ninety-eight years before our author closed his
history, he says nothing about Sanjar's successors.
3 Europe, the countries of the Christians, and the Roman empire of the east.
4 All the copies of the text are alike here. Our author has made a precious
hash of this Section of the Rūmi dynasty of the Saljūķs. Sanjar did not, as
he states, first establish that dynasty, neither was Sanjar's brother, Maḥmūd,
the first subordinate sovereign of Rūm, nor was his son, Mas'ud, the second,
nor were they ever its rulers. He has confounded the Sulṭāns of 'Irāk and
those of Rum together. Sanjar's brother, Maḥmud, moreover, died when in
?
[his
158
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĂŞIRĪ.
are his [Maḥmūd's] descendants, an account of every one of
whom is recorded in this Tabaķāt, in order that its readers
may call to remembrance, with a blessing, those who have
passed away, and acquire some information respecting that
dynasty*.
* I will now demonstrate what I have referred to by giving a brief account
of the rulers of Rum, of the Saljuk dynasty.
Kil-timish [5-written likewise Kil-timish
and Kat-limish —
but the last syllable is evidently the same as occurs in the name of the Turkish
slave-sovereign of Dihli, "I-yal-timish,"] son of Isra'il, son of Saljūķ, Alb-
Arsalan's great uncle's son, according to the Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh, rebelled
against him [Alb-Arsalan]; but, in an action near Damgban in Muḥarram,
456 H., Kil-timish was defeated, and was found dead on the field. Alb-
Arsalān desired to put Ķil-timish's sons to death, but was dissuaded from doing
so by his Wazir, and was induced to make Suliman, son of Ķil-timish, viceroy
of certain territories of Shām, and he was the founder of the Saljūķ Sultāns of
Rūm. Guzidah states that Ķil-timish received the investiture of the govern-
ment of Damashk, from Malik Shah, at the time when he conferred so many
territories upon others. See note 2, page 168. Suliman, who was employed
against the Christians in 467 H. [A. D. 1074-5]-but Faşiḥ-i and a few others say
in 469 H.-succeeded by stratagem in wresting Anṭākiah out of the hands of
Firdaus [Philaretus], Rūmi, after it had been in the hands of the Christians
"the
his tenth year, in 489 H., only twenty-one years before Sanjar succeeded to the
throne, and when Sanjar was about the same age. The first two sovereigns
here mentioned as rulers of Rum, who undertook expeditions against
infidel Afranj," were the first two rulers of 'Irāk, subordinate to Sanjar, as
will be seen on reference to the second Rūmi sovereign, so called, and Sanjar's
reign where Karajah, the cup-bearer, is referred to, page 151. From the third
to the ninth, the rulers mentioned in this Section are correctly given as far as
their names and a very meagre account of their reigns go; but the tenth ruler,
again, was the last ruler of 'Irak, not of Rum. I noticed, when reading the
work, that, at the latter part of the reign of Mas'ud, all the copies of the
original contained matter totally unintelligible with regard to that sovereign.
It is strange too that all the copies of the work should be the same, for some
of the MSS. I have collated, one in particular, are certainly five or six hundred
years old. Still more strange is it, however, that, not only should the author
in his preliminary notice of the Sultāns of Rūm mention Maḥmud, brother of
Sanjar, as the first, but, that he should subsequently mention his undertaking ex-
peditions against the Christians; and, with reference to the second ruler, Mas'ud,
Maḥmud's son, he says that Sanjar, at first, conferred the throne of 'Irak upon
him [Mas'ud], thus inferring that, subsequently, that of Rum was given to
him. The heading of a chapter or paragraph might be put in incorrectly by a
copyist, but the sense of the matter cannot be, nor could Rum have been
inserted for 'Irāk. It is therefore evident that our author himself made a
muddle of his work, and confounded the rulers of 'Irak with those of Rūm,
which, from other errors he has made, is not improbable. It will also be
noticed that he makes no mention whatever of the Saljūķs of Kirmān, consist-
ing of eleven sovereigns, whose dynasty outlasted all the others--but he has also
left out all the other 'Irāķi rulers, except the two first and the last, who do
duty for the Rūmis-neither has he given any account whatever of Sanjar's
successors, nor does he notice at all other less powerful dynasties.
THE SALJŪĶĪAH DYNASTY.
159
I. MAḤMŪD, SON OF MALIK SHAH.
On the throne of the territory of Rum having been con-
ferred upon him by Sultan Sanjar, his brother, he undertook
many holy wars in that region, and on the frontiers of
Islām. He marched armies against the infidel Afranj, and
carried on holy war according to the canons and ordinances
of the sacred law. He captured fortresses and cities, and
ruled over the servants of Almighty God with justice and
beneficence. After he had reigned for a considerable time
he died,
II. MAS’ŪD, SON OF MAḤMŪD SHĀH.
Sultan Mas'ud was the son of Mahmud, son of Malik.
Shāh. At first, Sulṭān Sanjar conferred the throne of 'Irāk
upon him; and, on one occasion, through the power and
authority which he had acquired in that territory, he com-
bined with Ķarājah, the Sāķi [cup-bearer], and they rebelled
against the Sulṭān.
The Sultan came upon them suddenly, and attacked
them, and took both Mas'ud and Karājah, the cup-
bearer, prisoners. After that occurrence the affairs of
Mas'ud went to ruin, and he never ascended the throne
again; but, in the person of his son, Kazil-Arsalān by name,
he acquired considerable power, and became sovereign, and
carried on the government.
*
*
*
*
*
*
[Twelve copies of the original are all hopelessly defective
here, and no two copies are alike. No break occurs in either
MS. to indicate that any portion whatever has been lost or
misplaced, or that any omission has been made in copying'.
since 358 H. This was effected during the reign of the Greek emperor, Alexius
Comnenas. I. SULĪMAN [the Solyman of Tasso] acquired great renown
by this, and, in 480 H., Malik Shah [not Sanjar, as our author states, for he
was then only an infant in his first year], conferred the sovereignty on him.
He reigned twenty years, and was succeeded by his son, II. DÀ’ŪD, who
5 See the particulars, at page 151.
• This is the only sense that is to be gathered from the original, and the
statement is incorrect. See note, page 157.
7 Not even in the precious Paris copy, which M. Tascherau so fondly
imagines to be in our author's own handwriting.
160
THE TABAKAT-I-NĀṢIRĪ.
The context, in fact, proves that Minhāj-i-Sarāj considered
Kazil-Arsalān to be the son and successor of Mas'ūd; and,
such being the case, the extent of our author's knowledge
of history is impressively indicated.]
*
*
*
*
III. ĶAZIL-ARSALĂN³, SON OF MAS’ŪD, SON OF MAḤMŪD,
SON OF MALIK SHĀḤ.
After the decease of his father, Kazil-Arsalan acquired
some little power, and possessed himself of some of the
frontier districts of the territory of Rum. He ruled for a
short period and died.
IV. ĶULĪJ-ARSALĂN, SON OF KAZIL-ARSALĀN.`
Kulij-Arsalān was the son of Ķazil-Arsalan, who was
the son of Mas'ud, son of Mahmud, son of Malik Shah.
He assumed the sovereignty of Rum after the death of
his father, and became a very great and powerful monarch.
He possessed himself of the territories upon the confines of
Rūm, captured many fortresses and strongholds, performed
many heroic exploits, and acquired a great name on ac-
count of the infidel Afranj having been often worsted and
overthrown by him.
All the Sultāns of Rum glory in their connexion with
him; and he obtained the felicity of martyrdom.
interred at Ķūniah', which is a large city in Rūm.
He was
ascended the throne at Ķūniah. He gained some successes over the Christians,
and, after a reign of eighteen years, died in 518 H. His brother, III. KULĪJ.
ARSALĂN, succeeded, who is said by one author to have fought a naval
battle with the Christians, and, after an arduous struggle, to have been
victorious; but there is some discrepancy with respect to the date, and the story
may refer to the previous reign. He reigned until 539 H., but some say until
537 H.; but, having been defeated in a battle with the 'Irāki Saljūķs, he was
drowned whilst crossing a river, when retreating before them. His son, IV.
SULȚĀN MAS'ŪD, succeeded, who, after a reign of nineteen years, died in
8 Mas'ūd, brother of Maḥmūd, son of Ghiyas-ud-Din, Muḥammad, Sanjar's
brother, had no son so named. The lines which follow are meaningless, but
are alike in all the copies.
9 Called Koniah by Europeans.
TIIE SALJŪĶĪAH DYNASTY.
161
V. 'IZZ-UD-DĪN, KAI-KĀ-ŪS, SON OF ĶULĪJ-ARSALĀN.
Sultan 'Izz-ud-Din, Kai-Ka-ūs, ascended the throne after
his father's death, and brought the country under his rule.
He carried on holy war against the infidels of Afranj, and
fought several battles with them in that country. He
founded colleges and masjids, and left many monuments
of his goodness and bounty behind. He was interred by
the side of his father in the city of Ķūniah.
VI. KAI-ĶUBĀD, SON OF KAI-KĀ-ŪS.
Sultan 'Ala-ud-Din, Kai-Kubād, ascended the throne on
the decease of his father, Kai-Ka-ūs, and brought under his
sway the territories of Rūm, and parts adjacent.
558 H. He was succeeded by his son, V. 'IZZ-UD-DĪN, ĶULĪJ-ARSALĂN,
who ascended the throne at Ķūniah. He annexed some of the terri-
tories of the Christians, and, after a reign of twenty years, died in 578 H.
After him came his son, VI. RUKN-UD-DĪN, SULĪMĀN SHAH, the
eldest, and, between him and his brother Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din, Kai-Khusrau, who
had been nominated successor by his father, hostilities arose, which went on
till 588 H. Kai-Khusrau fled to the Christians. Suliman annexed Arz-i-Rūm
and Kārṣ [Kars], with their dependencies. He reigned twenty-four years, and
died in 602 H. His son, VII. 'IZZ-UD-DĪN, ĶULĪJ-ARSALĀN II.,
son of Sulimān, succeeded. He was an infant, and his uncle, Kai-Khusrau,
having been recalled from the Farang, in 603 H., succeeded, after a year, in
depriving him of the sovereignty, and Ķulij-Arsalān was shut up in a fortress,
where he died in 609 H. VIII. GHIYAS-UD-DIN, KAI-KHUSRAU,
after dethroning his young nephew in 603 H., assumed the sovereignty. He
took Anṭākiah from the Christians, into whose hands it had again fallen, in
603 H., and was himself killed in a battle with the ruler of Istanbul [Constan-
tinople], after a reign of six years, in 609 H., but some authors say in the pre-
ceding year, and some, 610 H. This probably is the fifth monarch referred to
by our author, under the name of Kulij-Arsalan, as he is the only one
mentioned who attained the felicity of martyrdom in having been slain by the
Christians. His brother, 'Àlā-ud-Din, Kai-Ķubād, rose against him, but had
to submit, and was confined in a fortress.
Ghiyaṣ-ud-Din, Kai-Khusrau, having been slain in battle with the Chris-
tians, was succeeded by his son, IX. 'IZZ-UD-DĪN, KAI-KĀ-ŪS, but he
died after a short reign of about a year. Most authors do not mention this
prince at all.
He was succeeded by his uncle, 'Ala-ad-Din, Kai-Kubād,
who is about the first of the sovereigns of this dynasty that can be traced
by his correct name and title, from our author's account of them. X. 'ALĂ-
UD-DĪN, KAI-ĶUBĀD, who had been immured in a fortress, succeeded his
nephew, 'Izz-ud-Din, Kai-Ka-us, in 610 H., and is accounted one of the
greatest sovereigns of the dynasty. Hostilities arose between him and the
162
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĀṢIRĪ.
He fought battles with the infidels of Afranj; and many
indications of his goodness exist to this day.
He had sons, who acquired great renown, and became
great men. He died on the 5th of the month Shawwal, in
the year 633 H., and he, likewise, was buried at Ķūniah.
VII. KAI-KHUSRAU, SON OF KAI-ĶUBĀD.
Sultan Ghiyaṣ-ud-Din, Kai-Khusrau', was a great monarch
of noble disposition and excellent qualities, just and
impartial. Having ascended the throne after the death of
his father, he took possession of the territories of Rūm, and
assumed the government of them.
In this reign, the disturbance and disorder consequent
upon the irruption of the army of infidel Mughals had
reached the frontiers of Rūm². The Sultan, in such
manner as he was able, entered into friendly relations with
the Farang³. He was assembling an army upon the fron-
tiers bordering upon the territory of Islam, when, suddenly,
unfortunate but gallant Jalāl-ud-Din, the last of the Khwārazm Shāhis. They
fought a battle, in Ramazan, 627 H., in which Kai-Kubād was victorious.
The Mughal, Uktãe Ka'an, sent him a Yarligh [diploma] congratulating him,
and the Khalifah [for overthrowing a good Musalman perhaps] conferred upon
him the title of Sulṭān-i-A'zam, wa Kasim-i-Mu'azzam. He reigned twenty-
six years, and died in 634 H., having been poisoned, by mistake some authors
say, by his son, Ghiyaş-ud-Din, Kai-Khusrau, who assumed the throne.
1 Our author is correct here as to the name and title. GHIYAS-UD-DÏN,
KAI-KHUSRAU, the eleventh of the dynasty, is the man who poisoned his
own father, of whom our author gives such a glowing account.
2 An army of Mughals marched against him, under Tājū, Nūyan, and the
Mughals obtained sway over the territory of Rūm, after an engagement at
Koshah-dagh, in 641 H. Kai-Khusrau died in 642 H., but Guzidah says in
644 H., and Jahān-Ārā and Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh say in 643 H., but
Rauzat-uş-Şafa says in 640 H., which is certainly incorrect. His son Suliman
succeeded.
3 The word "Farang" is used here in all the copies, but Afranj is the word
previously used. This, doubtless, is what Gibbon refers to in grandiloquent style,
which often covers great errors :-"Flying from the arms of the Moguls, those.
shepherds of the Caspian [whom he styles the strange and savage hordes of Cariz-
mians,' thus indicating the extent of his knowledge of the matter] rolled
headlong on Syria; and the union of the Franks with the Sultans of Aleppo,
Hems, and Damascus, was insufficient to stem the violence of the torrent."
The "torrent" of course signifies the fugitive Sulṭān Jalāl-ud-Din flying from
the Mughals, who was defeated by Alā-ud-Din, Kai-Ķubād, as related in a
previous note.
THE SALJŪĶĪAH DYNASTY.
163
he was deserted and left alone by his troops. The Mughal
forces made an inroad into that territory; and, after they
again retired, Kai-Khusrau died in the beginning of
Muḥarram, 643 H.¹
4
He reigned for a period of eleven years, and named his
son, 'Izz-ud-Din, Kai-Kā-ūs, his heir and successor.
VIII. 'IZZ-UD-DĪN, KAI-KĀ-ŪS, SON OF KAI-KHUSRAU.
According to his father's nomination as successor to the
sovereignty, Sulṭān 'Izz-ud-Din, Kai-Kā-ūs, ascended the
throne of Rum in the beginning of the year 643 H., and
the Maliks and other great nobles submitted to his autho-
rity 5.
As he was celebrated for his energy, his warlike accom-
plishments, and his nobility of mind, he strengthened his
frontiers on the side of Afranj; and, as a matter of necessity,
Died in 644 H. according to Guzidah and Faşiḥ-i, and in 642 H. accord.
ing to the Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh.
5 As is often the case towards the termination of a dynasty, authors here are
at variance one with another respecting the succession. Some say that Ghiyas-
ud-Din, Kai-Khusrau, was succeeded by his son, ’Izz-ud-Din, Kai-Kā-ūs, and
that he, as our author states, despatched his brother Rukn-ud-Din, Ķulij-Arsalān
[called by others Rukn-ud-Din, Suliman], to the camp of the Mughal Ka'an.
The facts, however, appear to be as follow. On the death of Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din,
Kai-Khusrau, in 642 H., his son, XII. RUKN-UD-DİN, SULĪMĀN, suc-
ceeded. It was he who despatched his brother, 'Ala-ud-Din, Kai-Ķubād, to the
Court of Ab-ghā [called also Ab-kā] Khān, where he continued for a consider-
able time in distress and trouble. Having at length succeeded in his mission, he
set out on his return, but Rukn-ud-Din, Suliman, suspecting he was coming
with designs against him, had him put to death as soon as he entered his terri-
tory; and another brother, 'Izz ud-Din, Kai-Kā-ūs, fled to the camp of Barkā
Khān. After a reign, so called, of twenty years, Suliman was himself put to
death, by order of Ab-ghā Khān, in 664 H.
Others, on the contrary, say that Rukn-ud-Din, having succeeded in obtain-
ing from the Mughal Ka'an, a grant of investiture for himself, on his return
into Rūm, was the cause of great disorders; and that 'Izz-ud-Din, Kai-Khusrau,
fled to Istanbul, and was proceeding to the Dasht-i-Kabchak to lay his case
before the Ka'an, but died on the way, Rukn-ud-Din having in the mean-
time, with Mughal aid, assumed the sovereignty; but, after a short time had
elapsed, Rukn-ud-Din [called Kulij-Arsalan by some and Suliman by others]
was found to have been intriguing with the ruler of Misr, and was put to death
in 664 H.
As our author finished his history in 658 H. I have no occasion to say
more than that he records events respecting the Mughals which, evidently,
belong to the reign of Ghiyaṣ-ud-Din, Kai-Khusrau, the seventh ruler, by his
account, and has confused the events of the following ones.
164
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĀṢIRĪ.
consequent upon the power and predominance of the infidel
Mughals over the dominions of Islām, he, in order to ward
off [the inroads of] that race, despatched his younger
brother into Turkistān to the Court of Mangũ Khān, the
Mughal, so that he might, under terms of peace, be left in
possession of his dominions.
On Rukn-ud-Din, Ķulij-Arsalān, the envoy and brother
of Sultan Kai-Ka-ūs, reaching the presence of Mangū
Khan, the Mughal, he preferred requests, and made solici-
tations contrary to the mandate of his brother. He sought
from Mangu Khan the territory of Rum for himself, and
likewise assistance from him to enable him to liberate that
country from the hands of his brother. Mangū Khān gave
him the daughter of the Nu-in [a Prince, or a great noble,]
Aljaktā, the Mughal, and despatched Aljaktā, with his troops,
to aid Rukn-ud-Din, Ķulij-Arsalan [against his brother].
6
When they reached the Rūmi territory, 'Izz-ud-Din,
Kai-Ka-ūs, retired before them; and Ķulij-Arsalan and
the Mughals became dominant over Rūm. Kai-Ka-ūs
went to Aor Khan of Rūm, and, having obtained aid from
him, came and suddenly attacked the Mughals, and over-
threw them'. He captured his brother, and immured him
in a fortress.
After some time, he, Kulij-Arsalān, succeeded in escap-
ing, and went to the Mughals; and, as what has happened
since has not become known to the author, this [notice of
him] has been thus much abridged.
IX. ĶUTB-UD-DĪN³, ĶULĪJ-ARSALĀN.
Trustworthy persons call him Rukn-ud-Din, Ķulij-
Arsalan, and say that he is among the Mughals, along
with Hulāū, the Accursed, in the direction of the terri-
tory of Āzarbāijān. What the upshot of his affairs
may be no one can say; but, please God, may they end
well!
6 Also written Nuyān.
7 Who Aor [in one copy Ūz] Khân of Rūm might have been, it would
require our author to explain. No overthrow of the Mughals by the Saljuks
of Rūm is mentioned by other writers.
8 One copy has Rukn-ud-Din.
9 This short account varies, and is somewhat less in some of the copies of
the work. Hulāū is also styled Hulākū.
THE SALJŪĶIAH DYNASTY.
165
*
*
*
*
*
*
[The author now returns to the last of the Saljūķs of
'Irāk'. All the MSS. are alike here.]
*
*
*
*
*
*
X. TUGHRIL, SON OF TUGHRIL.
Respecting the descent of this Prince two different
accounts have been given. Some relate that he is Tughril,
the son of Tughril, son of Kazil Arsalan 2.
Sultan Tughril was a sovereign, and the son of a
sovereign, and a person of great magnificence; and his reign
was contemporary with that of Sulṭān 'Alã-ud-Din, Takish,
Khwārazm Shāh ³.
3
His strength was so very great, that not a warrior of his
day could lift his mace from the ground, and he was a
man of great stature and of awe-striking presence. Per-
sons of credit relate, that the hair on his upper lip was so
long, that he used to draw his moustaches back, and put
them behind his ears.
He was one of the brother's sons of Sultan Sanjar³, and
was [left] very young in years on the decease of his father.
The sons of the Ata-bak Iladd-giz-who was one of Sanjar's
slaves, and had, previously, been ruler of that territory, and
had espoused Tughril's mother [grandmother of Tughril,
widow of Arsalan, Tughril's father], after his father's death
-had acquired power over 'Irāk; and, when their father
died, they immured Sultan Tughril in one of the fortresses
of 'Irāk, and took the country into their own possession.
1 All the copies are alike in this respect, and no hiatus whatever occurs in
the different MSS. to show it. I merely discovered it from the names and
events mentioned.
2 Not so: Tughril, the last of the dynasty, was son of Arsalān Shāh, and
his title was Rukn-ud-Din. There are no contrary accounts that I know of.
One copy has Tughril, son of Arsalan, son of Ķulij-Arsalān.
3 In some copies this paragraph is placed at the end of his reign.
• See note 9, page 91.
5 He was Sanjar's brother's great-grandson, if not one generation farther
removed.
• I have been obliged to take a little liberty with the text of this paragraph,
which, in all twelve copies, is in a hopeless state of muddle. No two copies
are alike; and, as the text now stands, it is a mere jumble of words without any
observance of grammatical rules. The literal translation of this passage, as it
now stands, is as follows:-"He was one of the brother's sons of Sulṭān
166
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĂŞIRĪ.
When Sultan Tughril reached man's estate, and became
famous for his vast strength, his great bodily vigour, his
nobility of mind, and his warlike accomplishments, a party
[of adherents] rendered him aid, and set him at liberty from
imprisonment. He came forth, and great numbers of the
servants of his father and grandfather flocked around him.
He assumed the Chatr [canopy of royalty], and became
Sultan. The following are two lines from a poem composed
on his escape fromconfinement, and his rise to dominion and
power :-
7
"The tidings reach'd Rai-' The Sultan is come!'
And that august canopy of his is to Hamadān come.'
After Sulṭān Tughril had acquired supremacy over
the territory of 'Irāk, and had reigned for a considerable
period, a number of his servants despatched letters to
Sultan 'Alā-ud-Din, Takish, Khwārazm Shāh, and invited
him to come into that country. In accordance with that
request, Sultan Takish invaded 'Irāk with a large army.
When the two armies came into proximity with each other,
one or two ingrate slaves acted treacherously towards
Sultan Tughril, and came up behind his august back and
martyred him.
At this period his other followers were engaged in front,
at the head of a pass, fighting bravely, and did not become
aware of this piece of treachery, until those treacherous
ingrates brought the august head of their sovereign to
Sulṭān Takish, Khwārazm Shāh, who despatched it to that
staunch and steadfast band of Tughril's followers.
Sanjar, and had been left, after his father ['s death] very young [in years].
The sons of the Ata-bak Īladd-giz, who was a slave of Sanjar's, having
acquired power over 'Irāk, because his [sic] father was ruler of 'Irāķ; [and],
when he died, they imprisoned Sultan Tughril in one of the fortresses of 'Irāk,
took his mother to wife [sic], and possessed themselves of the country." For
a correct account of these matters see the following note, and note 7, page 169.
7 Jahan-Pahlawan, the Atā-bak, on the death of his half-brother [see under
Atā-baks of Āzarbāijān and 'Irāk, page 171, and note 9] Arsalan Shah, set up
the latter's son, Tughril, as sovereign of 'Irāk, who was then seven years old.
While his maternal uncle, Jahān-Pahlawan, lived, Tughril's affairs prospered,
and he reigned in some splendour. Jahān-Pahlawan, however, died in 582 H.,
and Ķazil-Arsalan, his full brother, desired to take his place as Atā-bak to
Tughril. The latter, being impatient of restraint, would not brook it, and,
accordingly enmity arose between them. For further particulars respecting
Tughril and Ķazil-Arsalān, see note 9, page 171, and note³ page 172.
THE SALJŪĶĪAH DYNASTY.
167
When they found what had happened, they declared
that they would not cease fighting and using the sword,
until he, Sulṭān Takish, should deliver up to them the
murderers of their sovereign, whereupon they would yield
to him. Sulṭān Takish complied, and delivered up the
murderers, whom they sent to the infernal regions. Then,
taking along with them the head of Sultān Tughril, they
proceeded to the presence of Sultan Takish, and sub-
mitted to him. He took the head in his arms, and, along
with them, performed the customary mourning [for the de-
ceased]; and Sulṭān Takish, Khwārazm Shāh, took pos-
session of 'IrākⓇ.
8
8 Tughril's death occurred in the following manner :-Takish of Khwārazm,
having invaded 'Irāk at the instigation of Kutlagh Īnānaj, encountered
Tughril's forces within three farsakhs of Rai, where Tughril had pitched his
camp. According to several authors Tughril and Ķutlagh Īnānaj were
engaged hand to hand, when Tughril struck his own horse a blow with his
mace, which was intended for his opponent, and the horse fell with him, and
Tughril was slain by Ķutlagh Īnānaj. I prefer, however, the circumstantial
account of Yafā'i, who says that whilst Tughril was leading his troops in a
charge, his horse stumbled, and Tughril was thrown to the ground. At this
moment Kutlagh Īnānaj reached the spot, and desired to give Tughril a
finishing blow, and slay him before he was recognized. This he accomplished,
and the body was then placed upon a camel and taken to the presence of
Takish, "who, on seeing his enemy in this condition, knelt down and gave
thanks to the Almighty for the mercy vouchsafed to him." His head was
sent, as an insult, to the Khalifah at Baghdad, and his body was exposed upon
a gibbet in the bāzār of Rai, on Thursday, the 29th of Rabi'-ul-Awwal, 590 H.
Thus ended the first dynasty of the Saljūķs, who ruled over Khurāsān and
'Irāk for a period of 161 years. This account of Tughril and his death is
widely different from our author's. The Khalifah was hostile to Takish. See
under his reign, Section XVI.
Our author does not give any account of the Saljuk dynasty of Shām, or
of that which ruled so long in Kirman.
SECTION XIII.
ACCOUNT OF THE SANJARĪYAH RULERS.
THE humblest of the servants of the Almighty's Court,
Minhaj-i-Sarāj, Jūrjāni, states, that, when the period of
the dynasty of the Sanjariyah expired, and no son remained
unto Sultan Sanjar, nor brother's sons' [likewise], every one
of his slaves held some territory among the dominions of
Islām. These slaves assumed the title of Atā-baks [guar-
dians and preceptors], and, to the brother's sons of Sulṭān
Sanjar, they accorded the title of Sovereign, whilst they
possessed themselves of the different territories of the
empire 2.
These Atā-baks were of different races. One was the
descendant of the Ata-bak, Ilatt-giz, to whom Sulṭān
Sanjar had given the territories of 'Irāk and Āṣarbāijān;
the second, the Ata-bak, Sankur, to whom he had given
¹ So in all the copies, but a few lines under our author contradicts himself.
2 Our author appears quite as much in the dark with respect to the Atā-baks,
if not more so than he is with regard to the Sultans of Rūm. It was Sultān
Malik Shah, the father of Sultan Sanjar-not Sanjar himself-who made
several of his Mamlūks or slaves, as well as some of his relatives and nobles,
rulers over different parts of his vast empire [see page 138], as the dates which
I shall give will prove, and on the authority of authors of undoubted authority,
such as have been already mentioned. For the information of the general
reader uninitiated in Oriental lore, I would mention that the words Mamluk
and Ghulam, signifying "slave," must not be understood in the sense slave
conveys in our language. These slaves were sometimes captives, but more
often boys of Turkish origin, purchased by kings and their great nobles of
traders-slave-dealers—and trained for the highest offices. They were some-
times adopted by their masters, and were frequently made governors of pro-
vinces, and leaders of armies. Numbers of these Turkish slaves possessed the
throne of Dihli, as will hereafter be mentioned in these pages.
The Ata-baks, it must be remembered, notwithstanding our author's
assertions, were, at the outset, more or less, subject to the sovereigns of the
house of Saljūķ, and acted as tutors and guardians of various young princes,
which the word Atā-bak means, from the Turkish ata, father, and bak, a lord,
a great man. Sanjar himself was put in charge of Khurasan in the thirteenth
year of his age, which signifies that the government was administered in his
name, and that his Atā-bak carried on the administration.
THE SANJARİYAH DYNASTIES.
169
the territory of Fārs; and, third, the Atā-baks of Mauşil,
and the Maliks of Sham³. Trustworthy authorities have
related some little respecting the events [in the lives] of
two of these dynasties, as has been [herein] recorded; and,
with regard to the Atā-baks of Maușil, as much as has been
written respecting the affairs of Sulṭān Nūr-ud-Din of Shām
is all the information that has been obtained, with the
exception of that of which the Khudawand-Zadah [son of a
lord or great man] of Mauṣil informed me, which was this
much, that his eighth ancestor was a Turk of Khața-i, and
the slave of Sulṭān Sanjar¹. Such being the case, this
dynasty [of Ata-baks] has been classified into three
sections".
FIRST DYNASTY.
THE SANJARIYAH MALIKS OF 'IRĀK AND AZARBĀĪJAN.
6
Be it known that one night, at a convivial entertainment,
Sultan Sanjar conferred sovereignty upon three persons—
to Malik Utsuz he gave the throne of Khwārazm; to the
Atā-bak, Ilatt-giz, the throne of Āzarbāijān; and the
throne of Fārs to the Atā-bak, Sanķūr'.
3 Respecting both of which dynasties he gives no account. From the
remarks which follow, our author seems to have been at a loss for materials,
and his statements fully prove it.
4 A vast deal of information, certainly.
5 It will be noticed that our author, who generally eschews dates, never
gives a single date throughout his account of the three following dynasties, so
called.
Also written Utsiz, and in the Burhan-i-Kaṭa', Itsiz.
7 Sanjar's father, Malik Shah, who certainly held a greater extent of terri-
tory than any other of the Saljuk sovereigns, bestowed territories, that is the
viceroyalty over them, upon his Mamlūks and officers. Khwarazm he gave to
Nush-Tigin-i-Gharjah, who was also a slave, on his conquest of that territory,
in 475 H. [He was the progenitor of that dynasty], and this happened five
years before Sanjar was born. The latter, during his reign, in 535 H., endea-
voured to reduce Itsiz, the grandson of Nush-Tigin, who died when Sanjar
was in his twelfth year, but was unable, and Itsiz became an independent
sovereign. On Āķ-Sanķur, the progenitor of the Atā-baks of Fārs and of
Diyār-i-Bakr, Muḥammad, Sanjar's predecessor, bestowed the government of
Halab, in 487 H., upwards of five years before Sanjar came to the throne of the
empire he had only held Khurasan before. It was Mahmud, nephew of
Sanjar, who gave Īladd-giz the widow of his brother in marriage, and the
government of Āṣarbāijān, as mentioned farther on. I have been thus par-
ticular here in order to show the value of our author's statements with respect
M
170
THE TABAKAT-I-NĀṢIRĪ.
When the next day came round, a number of his Wazirs,
confidants, and advisers, represented to the Sulṭān, that, on
the previous night, his Majesty had given thrones away
to three different persons, out of whose hands he would not,
hereafter, be able to disengage them. He inquired what
three persons they were, and, when they informed him, he
confirmed the appointments, saying:-"Those two first
mentioned are my slaves, and the other is in my service.
As there is no son to interpose, who would be heir to
the sovereignty, it is better that my slaves should be
paramount."
I. THE AŢĂ-BAK, ĪLATT-GIZ³, US-SANJARĪ.
The Atā-bak, Īlatt-giz, was a slave of Sultan Sanjar's,
and he was possessed of great strength and nobility of mind.
Having brought the territory of Āzarbāijān under his
sway, he performed many great acts; and many monu-
ments of his goodness still remain in that country.
to the Atā-baks, whatever may be the value of what he says about Hindūstān.
As the other slaves, who were appointed rulers at the same time, are not
mentioned by our author, I need not refer to them here.
8 The Atā-bak, Īladd-giz [or Īlatt-giz, t and d being interchangeable], was
the slave of Kamāl-ud-Din, 'Ali, Samairami, the Wazir of Sultan Mahmud,
son of Sulṭān Muḥammad, son of Sultan Malik Shah. [See note 6, page 146.
As the author leaves out Maḥmūd's reign, it is not surprising that he makes
errors with respect to Īladd-giz.] Samairam is one of the dependencies of
Iṣfahān, and is said to have been founded by Sam, the son of Nuh [Noah],
who gave it the name of Sām-Ārām-Sām's resting-place [or place of rest]—
but, from constant use, in course of time, the name got corrupted into
Samairam. After the Wazir, Kamāl-ud-Din, was put to death, in the month
of Şafar, 516 H., İladd-giz became the servant of Sultan Maḥmūd, during
whose reign he rose to the highest rank and dignity, and great power. Maḥ-
mūd gave the widow of his brother Tughril, the mother of Arsalan Shāh
[see page 165, where the author falls into utter confusion: this note tends to
throw some light upon his statements there], in marriage to Īladd-giz, and
bestowed upon him the government of Āṣarbāijān. He became very powerful,
and annexed Ganjah and Shirwan to his territory. He set up Arsalān Shāh,
son of Tughril, his wife's son, as sovereign, and, at once, assumed the entire
direction of affairs, and all the power, Arsalān possessing nothing of sove-
reignty except the bare name. Ïladd-giz died at Hamadān, according to
Faşiḥ-i, in 567 H., but some say in 569 H. In 557 H., an army of 30,000
Gurjis [Georgians] invaded Āṣarbāijān, destroyed the city of Du-in, and slew
10,000 Musalmāns, carried off a number of captives, and burnt the great
Masjid. Shams-ud-Din, Īladd-giz, took the field with 50,000 horse, at Tabriz,
in order to aid the ruler of Akhlat and the lord of Maraghah, and to revenge
this invasion, which he effected in the following year.
THE SANJARIYAH DYNASTIES.
171
The Almighty gave him worthy and accomplished sons;
and he carried on wars with the infidels of Afranj and
Karkh, and reduced the country, as far as the frontiers of
Rūm, under his subjection, and conquered a great part of
'Irāk. He died after reigning a considerable time.
II. THE ATÀ-BAK, MUHAMMAD, SON OF İLATT-GIZ.
The Ata-bak, Muḥammad, was a great monarch, and
succeeded his father on the throne. He took possession
of the territories of 'Irāk and Āṣarbāijān, and performed
many illustrious deeds. He was just and of implicit faith,
he founded colleges and masjids, and undertook many
expeditions against the unbelievers.
He likewise per-
formed many gallant exploits in the direction of Karkh,
and reduced the territory, as far as the frontiers of Rūm
and Shām, under his sway.
He reigned for a considerable period, and had slaves.
who attained great eminence and grandeur, who, after him,
took possession of the territories of 'Irāk', such as I-tagh-
mish, and Ada-mish, and others besides them, the whole
of which they held up to the time of Khwärazm Shah, when
the territories of 'Irāk passed out of their hands, and they
died.
In the length of his reign', his justice, and his bene-
ficence, the Ata-bak, Muḥammad, was a second Sanjar
Īladd-giz was succeeded as Ata-bak by his son, Jahān Pahlawan, Muḥam-
mad, by the widow of Sultan Tughril, and half-brother of Arsalan Shah. The
latter having died in 571 H., the Ata-bak set Arsalan's son, Tughril, a child in
his seventh year, upon the throne of 'Irak; but he was a mere puppet, and,
except in name, the Ata-bak was sovereign. Jahan Pahlawan then despatched
his full brother, Kazil-Arsalan, as his deputy, to Ăṣarbāijān. Jahān Pahlawān
died at Rai in 582 H. There is a good deal of discrepancy among authors as
to the dates of the deaths of these two Atā-baks.
¹ As the Ata-bak, Muḥammad, Jahān Pahlawān, had several sons, who
succeeded to his territories, the mention of his "slaves," who held them "up
to the time of Khwärazm Shah," is, like many other statements of our author,
inexplicable. No other writer makes such a statement.
2 The Atā-bak, İladd-giz, died in 567 H., some say in 568 11., and others,
569 H. He held sway about 35 years. The Ata-bak, Muḥammad, who, our
author says, was "a second Sanjar in length of reign," only held power from
the date of his father's death, until 582 H., just 15 years. He has confounded
the father with the son.
M 2
172
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĀṢIKĪ.
III. THE ATA-BAK, YŪZ-BAK, SON OF MUHAMMAD, US-
SANJARI.
3
The Ata-bak, Yuz-bak, was sovereign of Aṣarbāijān.
Some have said that he was the brother of the Atā-
bak, Muḥammad, son of the Ata-bak, Ilatt-giz, the San-
jari.
Yūz-bak was a man of energy and experience, and reigned
over the territory of Azarbaijān for a considerable time.
3 An absurd way of writing history, when he is not even certain of the names
and descent of the people he pretends to write about, who flourished only a
short time before he compiled his work. The Ata-bak, Jahān Pahlawān,
Muḥammad, was succeeded by his brother, Ķazil-Arsalān, not by Yūz-bak.
At the decease of the former, Kazil presented himself before Sultan Tughril,
in expectation that he would permit him to act as his Atā-bak; but he, having
experienced severity from Jahān Pahlawān, and having now grown older, was
not inclined to have another master, and would not consent. Kazil, becoming
hopeless of gaining his object, retired into Āṣarbāijān, and rebelled; but was
defeated in an engagement with Tughril's partisans. In 583 H., Kazil had
gained sufficient strength to be able to renew hostilities; and, in 586 H., he
made Tughril prisoner, with his son, named Malik Shah, and immured them
in a strong fortress in Āṣarbāijān, and Ķazil-Arsalān assumed independent
sovereignty. Kazil-Arsalān was assassinated by the disciples of the Mulāḥidah
in 587 H., after reigning five years. See pages 165 and 166.
He was succeeded by his nephew, Nusrat-ud-Din, Abu-Bikr, the son of
Jahān Pahlawān, in the territory of Āṣarbāījān only, and 'Irāk passed to his
brother, Kutlagh Īnānaj. In 587 H., the year after Abu-Bikr's death, Sulṭān
Tughril effected his escape from imprisonment, and succeeded in reaching
'Irāk. Kutlagh Īnānaj, after marrying his mother to Tughril, combined with
her to administer poison to Tughril in his food; but, having received a warn-
ing, Tughril compelled his wife to take it, upon which she almost immediately
died. Ķutlagh Īnānaj was imprisoned for a time, but was subsequently set at
liberty. He went to the Court of Takish, Sulṭān of Khwārazm, and brought
him with an army upon Tughril, and, in a battle which took place between
them, Tughril was slain, and the first dynasty of the Saljūķs terminated. This
will throw some light upon the almost unintelligible and confused account given
by our author respecting the reign of Sultan Tughril, at page 166, and the
very romantic, but not very authentic account of his death. It will be noticed
that, up to this time, even the Ata-baks were nominally but the ministers of
the Saljuk sovereigns, and not "great monarchs" who ascended " thrones,"
as our author asserts.
The Ata-bak, Ūz-bak, or Yūz-bak [the name is written both ways], son of
Jahān Pahlawān, was the last of the Atā-baks of Āṣarbāijān, and succeeded
Nușrat-ud-Din, Abū-Bikr, in the government of that territory. He was the
Atā-bak whose city of Tabriz, Sulṭān Jalāl-ud-Din, the last of the Khwārazmi
Sultāns, invested.
Yuz-bak had left it, and had placed his consort in charge;
and she, having fallen in love with Jalāl-ud-Din, became his wife, and sur-
rendered the city to him. Yuz-bak died of grief and chagrin. For an account
of this circumstance, see the reign of Jalāl-ud-Din, Section XVI.
THE SANJARĪYAH DYNASTIES.
173
1
He continued in possession of it until the reign of Sulṭān
Muḥammad, Khwārazm Shah. Upon several occasions
the forces of Khwārazm Shāh were appointed to act against
him, but he did not fall into their hands, until he advanced
into 'Irak, being eager for the possession of Ișfahān, and
hostilities were going on between him and the Atā-bak of
Fārs, Sa'd [son of Zangi].
Unexpectedly, Sultan Muhammad, Khwārazm Shāh,
came upon them. The Ata-bak, Yuz-bak, was defeated
and completely overthrown, and Azarbaijan passed out of
his possession, and he died.
IV. THE ATĀ-BAK, ABŪ-BIKR, SON OF MUHAMMAD.
The Atā-bak, Abū-Bikr, was a great monarch; and the
territory of 'Irāk, and the Jibal [the mountain tracts of 'Irāk]
came into his possession. He ruled his subjects justly and be-
neficently,and cleared the frontiers of his territory of enemies.
He founded colleges and masjids in 'Irāķ, Arrān, and
Āṣarbāijān, and a very large college at Marāghah; and
was the patron of ecclesiastics and learned men. He had
numerous slaves, both of his father's and of his own, each
of whom was Malik [ruler] in one of the cities of 'Irāķ. He
was the elder brother of the Atā-bak, Yūz-bak, and he
reigned for a considerable time, and died, leaving no
children behind him.
!
SECOND DYNASTY.
THE SANJARIYAH MALIKS OF FÅRS.
I. THE ATĀ-BAK, SANĶUR, US-SANJARĪ.
As soon as the throne of Fārs" was conferred upon the
Atā-bak, Sankur, by Sulṭān Sanjar, Sanķur brought that
4 Guzidah says that Ak-Sankur [turned into "Ascansar" by Gibbon], who
held Halab of Sulṭān Malik Shāh, is the progenitor of these Ata-baks of Fārs.
5 We now come to the Ata-baks of Fars, whom our author continually styles
"great monarchs," who ascended thrones, although, at the very outset, he says the
brothers' sons of Sanjar retained the title of Badshah. He begins with the
Atā-bak, Sankur, and would lead his readers to imagine that he was the first
of the rulers of Fars who bore that title, and that Sultan Sanjar bestowed the
174
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĂŞIRĪ.
territory under subjection, and acted with justice and
beneficence to the people under his sway.
To
On the death of Sultan Sanjar, some of the brothers'
sons of that monarch came into the territory of Fārs from
'Irāk. Sankur sent them to Istakhur, in that territory,
sovereignty of that territory upon him, as he did upon others of his slaves.
Such, however, is not the case. The Ata-baks of Fārs were of the race of
Salghur, a Turkman chief, who, about the time of the great movement of the
Saljuks towards Khurāsān, made raids into that territory, and committed
great ravages, until the Saljuks became complete masters of it, when that
chieftain is said to have taken service under Sultan Tughril Beg, and Salghur
and his tribe took up their quarters in Fārs, Khūzistān, Luristān, and parts
adjacent. From the downfall of the Diālamah dynasty to the rise to indepen-
dent sovereignty of the Sankuriah, of whom our author's Sankur is the first,
seven persons ruled over Fārs, six of whom were governors on the part of the
Saljūk sovereigns. The first of these was Fazl, son of Hasan, who in 459 H.,
after Alb-Arsalan, the previous year, had inflicted chastisement upon the Shaban-
kārah, seized Manṣur-i-Fūlād Sutūn [Pillar of Steel], the last of the Dilami
sovereigns of the family of Būwiah, and imprisoned him. He then seized
upon Fārs, which he appears to have been allowed to retain ; but, subsequently,
having become disaffected, he was replaced by the Amir Khumar-Tigin.
him succeeded the Atā-bak, Jawli [also written Chawli], who reduced the
power of the Shabānkārah. He was succeeded in the government by the Atā-
bak, Ķarājah, who was slain at Hamadān [Guzidah says in Fārs]. He was
followed by the Ata-bak, Mangu [also called Mangus], his son. Subsequently,
the Atā-bak, Būzābah [also written Fūzābah, ƒ being interchangeable with ¿],
was made governor by Sultan Mas'ud, son of Muḥammad, son of Malik Shāh,
Saljūķi. He rebelled against Mas'ud, son of Maḥmūd, and was taken in an
engagement with him, and put to death in 542 H. After this, Sultān Mas'ūd
made his brother's son, Malik Shah [Guzidah says, Muḥammad], ruler of Fārs.
He was a youth wholly given to pleasure; and, after a time, he put to death,
without cause, the Ata-bak [his own Atā-bak in all probability], Salghur. On
this, Sackur-Tigin, son of Maudūd, son of Zangi, son of Āķ-Sankur, son of
Salghur, rose against Malik Shah, and expelled him from the territory of
Fārs. Malik Shāh went to his uncle's court, obtained assistance, and again
entered Fārs, but was unable to effect any thing; and, in 543 H., Sankur
assumed independent sovereignty. The account given in Guzidah is some-
what different, but to the same purpose.
It says,
Būzābah, having rebelled
against Sulṭān Mas'ūd in 541 H., was defeated before Hamadan, taken
prisoner, and put to death in 543 H. The brother's son of Būzābah, Sanķur,
son of Maudūd, in revenge for his uncle's death, seized upon the territory of
Fārs." All these events took place in Sanjar's lifetime. Sankur assumed the
title of Muzaffar-ud-Din, and ruled for a period of thirteen years, and died in
556 H. He was succeeded, not by his son, but by his brother, Tuklah.
must be borne in mind that all these Atā-baks were, more or less, subject to
the successors of Sultan Sanjar, while the dynasty lasted. Mas'ud died in
547 H., and Malik Shah succeeded. See latter part of previous note, and
6
note 6 page 146, and note º, page 151.
It
6 The constant recurrence, throughout the work, of this stock phrase of our
author's, may be partly accounted for from the fact that confusion, more or less,
arose on the death of each ruler.
THE SANJARİYAH DYNASTIES.
175
and assigned a stipend, and furnished them with all things
necessary for their support. Those princes were allowed
to retain the empty title of Badshah, whilst Sankur, under
the name of Ata-bak [guardian and preceptor], ruled over
the territory of Fars. He reigned for a lengthened period, and
died.
II. THE ATA-BAK, ZANGI, SON OF SANĶUR.
The Ata-bak, Zangi, ascended the throne of Fars after
the death of his father. He was a great monarch, and was
just, and ruled with a firm hand; and he brought the do-
minions of his father under his control and government.
With respect to the rulers of the countries around, he
guided his policy as the circumstances of the times ren-
dered feasible; and he held the sovereignty of Fārs for a
long period, and died.
III. THE ATĀ-BAK, DUKLAH, SON OF SANĶUR.
The Ata-bak, Duklah, after the decease of his brother,
ascended the throne of Fārs. He was an energetic and
rigorous monarch, and brought the territory of Fars under
his control.
Hostilities broke out between him and the Maliks of
'Irāķ; and he collected together, from all parts of the
country, a vast quantity of material and munitions, the like
of which, to such an amount of wealth and treasure, none
of his predecessors in the rule of Fārs had ever possessed.
He reigned for a long time, and died.
7 Our author here again has made a great blunder. There were two
Zangis and two Tuklahs [or Duklahs, d being interchangeable with t]. The
first, according to the Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh, Sankur's brother, Tuklah,
having become suspicious of his brother's intentions, retired among the Fazla-
wiahs. The chief rendered Tuklah assistance, and he, one night, suddenly
fell upon Sankur by surprise, seized him, and immured him in the Kala'-
i-Safid. Tuklah then assumed the authority, and held it four years. He died
in 553 H.; after which Sankur again obtained power, and in 556 H. he died.
He was succeeded by his brother, Zangi, son of Maudūd.
8 Zangi, son of Maudud, only reigned for a short period, and died in the
following year, 557 H. He was succeeded by his son [not his brother: our
author confounds the two Tuklahs into one], Tuklah, or Duklah, as our author
now states. He was confirmed in possession of Fars by Sulṭān Arsalān, son
of Tughril, son of Muḥammad, son of Malik Shāh.
9 Tuklah died in 590 H., but the Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh says in 591 H,
176
THE TABAKÁT-I-NĀṢIRI.
IV. THE ATÃ-BAK, SA’D, SON OF ZANGĪ ¹.
The Ata-bak, Sa'd, was a great monarch, and ascended
the throne of Fars after the decease of his uncle [the Atā-
bak, Duklah], and brought the different parts of that
country under his rule, in the manner which has been
described 2.
He was a most just and intrepid sovereign; and trust-
worthy authorities have related this, that the weight of his
arms and armour was so great, that a powerful man could
not lift from the ground the armour he used to wear.
He led armies against 'Irak upon several occasions, and
in some engagements he was victorious; but, in others
again, he was defeated, as happened when a battle took
place between him and Sultan Muhammad, Khwārazm
Shāh, undesignedly, and in the following manner. The
Atā-bak, Sa'd, was marching an army into 'Irak, with the
object of capturing Isfahan; and the Ata-bak, Yuz-bak,
son of the Atā-bak, Muḥammad, had come out of Āzar-
bāijān also, with the object of gaining possession of that
city.
The two armies, of Fars and of Āzarbāijān, were march-
ing towards the same point from opposite directions, when
Sultan Muhammad³, Khwārazm Shāh, arrived [with an
army] upon the frontier of 'Irāk. He obtained informa-
tion that the Ata-bak, Sa'd, was marching an army from
Fārs, towards the gate of Isfahan, in order to give battle to
the Ata-bak, Yuz-bak, and he [Sultan Muhammad] ad-
vanced with his troops towards the Ata-bak, Sa'd.
When the troops of Khwārazm Shah came in sight, the
Ata-bak, Sa'd, imagined that this was the army of the Ata-
I Duklah was succeeded by his cousin, the Ata-bak, Tughril, brother of
Zangi, and son of Sankur, son of Maudud, son of Zangi, son of Ak-Sankur,
the other brother of the first ruler; and hostilities went on between him and
Sa'd, son of Zangi, for a considerable time, during which Fārs suffered great
desolation. At length Tughril was taken captive by Sa'd, who deprived him
of his sight, and immured him within the walls of the fortress of Istakhur,
where he died, 599 H. He was succeeded by Sa'd, son of Zangi, son of
Maudud, who is fourth according to our author.
2 Not mentioned in any other place in the work.
3 Sulṭān 'Alā-ud-Din, Muḥammad.
4 The Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh and Jahan-Ārā say this affair took place on
the confines of Rai.
THE SANJARIYAH DYNASTIES.
177
bak, Yuz-bak, and at once marshalled his ranks in order,
and attacked the Sultan's army, and threw it into confu-
sion. Suddenly, one of the champions of Khwārazm Shāh's
army joined spears with him; and the name of that cham-
pion was Kashkah", who was the [Sultan's] Amir-i-Ākhūr
[lord of the stables]. The champion hurled the horse of
Sa'd to the ground, and wanted to slay him; but the Atā-
bak cried out to him:-"I am the Ata-bak, Sa'd; do not
slay me. Say, Whose army is yours?" The champion
replied "The army of Sultan Muḥammad, Khwārazm
Shah." The Ata-bak rejoined :- "Take me to the Sultan's
presence."
On reaching the Sultan's presence, Sa'd kissed the
ground, and said :—“King of the Universe, by the great
God, this your servant knew not that this was the king's
army, otherwise he would never have drawn his sword."
The Sultan comforted and encouraged him, and forthwith
had him remounted; and, on account of what had reached
the ears of the Sultan respecting the great energy, man-
liness, and intrepidity, of the Atā-bak, Sa'd, he treated
him with honour and reverence, and restored to him the
dominion of Fārs, upon this stipulation-that one half of
that territory should be held by the Maliks, or great nobles,
and trusty retainers of the Khwārazm Shāhi dynasty, and
the other half should belong to the Atā-bak˚.
The Sultan likewise appointed a force to accompany
him, for this reason, that, on the Atā-bak, Sa'd, having been
taken prisoner, his son, the Ata-bak, Abu-Bikr, had taken
possession of the territory of Fars, and had read the Khut-
bah in his own name.
When the Ata-bak, Sa'd, with the forces of Khwarazm
Shāh, and the Sāḥib [lord] Ikhtiyār-ul-Mulk, Amir-i-Ḥāji,
who was despatched along with Sa'd by Khwārazm Shāh,
5 In some few copies Kashili, in others Kashiki.
6 In the year 603 H., Sa'd was taken prisoner on the confines of Rai by the
troops of Sultan 'Ala-ud-Din Muhammad, Khwārazm Shāh.
He was
released on the stipulation "that he should pay four dāngs [a dãng is the fourth
part of a dram, and the meaning here signifies a fourth part of any thing: some
writers say a third] of the revenue of Fars and 'Irak, which he appears to
have then held, into the Sultan's treasury," and, upon these terms, he was
allowed to retain these territories. The Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh calls the
Sultan by the title of Kutb-ud-Din, and says that Sa'd was released on the
intercession of the Malik of Zawzan.
I
178
THE TABAKAT-I-NĂŞIRĪ.
reached the frontier of Fars, the Ata-bak, Abu-Bikr, ad-
vanced to oppose them, and the father and son came to
blows. The Ata-bak, Sa'd, wounded his son, Abu-Bikr, in
the face with his sword, and the ranks of the Farsi army
became disorganized.
The Ata-bak, Sa'd, again ascended the throne of Fārs,
and imprisoned his son. After this, Sa'd reigned for a
considerable period over [half of?] that territory, and died
after the misfortunes attending the irruption of the infidel
Mughals'.
The Atā-bak, Sa'd, was endowed with many distinguished
virtues, and excellent qualities. In the first place, the flag,
which, every year, he used to send along with the caravan
of pilgrims on the journey to the Ka'bah [at Makkah], when
the pilgrims returned, he used to have kept constantly set
up before the entrance of his palace or pavilion; and, every
time he came to the hall of audience, or his private apart-
ments, he used to perform a prayer of two genuflexions
under the flag in question, after which he would mount his
throne. This circumstance indicates how excellent was
his faith; but, respecting his ostentation and pomp, a trust-
worthy person has related, that the revenues of one of the
provinces of the territory of Fārs was set apart for the
expenses of his own wardrobe. The revenue of the pro-
vince in question amounted, every year, to three hundred
and sixty thousand golden dinārs, and, every day, one
thousand dinārs of red gold used to be expended upon his
attire, in the shape of head-dresses, tunics, mantles, robes, and
expensive fabrics, girdles, jewel-studded collars, and the like.
If any surplus remained over and above the necessary
expenses of his wardrobe, he would purchase therewith
7 Sa'd died at Baiza in 625 H., but the Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh says his
death happened in 628 H., which is evidently incorrect. His Wazir, Khwā-
jah Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din, kept his death secret, and sent Sa'd's signet-ring to the
Kala'-i-Safid, and released Sa'd's son, Abū Bikr, who had been confined in
that fortress for a considerable time, had him brought into the pavilion, and
then said, as though Sa'd were still alive, “The Atā-bak is pleased to com-
mand 'the Atā-bak, Abū Bikr, is his heir,' '" and he succeeded accordingly.
The Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh says that Abu-Bikr was confined in the fortress
of Istakhur. Guzidah, on the other hand, says that, when Sultan Jalāl-ud-
Din, the last of the Khwārazm Shāhis, entered Fārs, on his return from Hind,
he set Abu-Bikr at liberty. Yafa-i says much the same.
I rather expect this is much more than all the revenues of Fars at
present.
THE SANJARIYAH DYNASTIES.
179
valuable gems and jewels, which used to be arranged about
his head-dress, his tunic, and girdle., He never wore a suit
but one day; the next day he would invest one of his
nobles or grandees with it. May the Almighty have mercy
upon him, and pardon his sins!
V.⁹ THE ATA-BAK, ABŪ-BIKR, SON OF SA’D.
The Ata-bak, Abū-Bikr¹, is a great monarch, and he has
brought under his sway the territories of Fārs.
When the Ata-bak, Sa'd, was sent back again to ascend
the throne of Fars by Sultan Muhammad, Khwārazm Shāh,
under the agreement that one half the territory of Fārs
should remain in the possession of Sa'd, and the other half
be held by the Sulṭān, the latter despatched [a body of
troops] along with the Ata-bak, Sa'd, under the Amir-i-Ḥāji,
Ikhtiyar-ul-Mulk, Nishāpūri, to enable Sa'd to re-possess
himself of that half.
The Ata-bak, Abu-Bikr, and his two brothers, Tahamtan
and Sankur Shah, with the troops of Fars, advanced against
their father, determined that they would not give up their
dominions into the hands of their enemies. When the
battle on both sides had been duly ordered, the Ata-bak,
Sa'd, issued from the ranks of his forces, while his son, the
Atā-bak, Abu-Bikr, came forth from the ranks of the troops
of Fārs to encounter his father. Sa'd struck and wounded
his son in the face with his sword, [and, seeing this,] the
ranks of the Farsi army gave way. Sa'd took his son, Abū-
Bikr, prisoner, and put him in confinement.
When Sa'd departed this life, they brought forth Abu-Bikr
from his place of confinement, and raised him to the throne
of Fārs; and he brought under his rule the territories of
his father, and his grandfather, and chastised his enemies.
After some time, he sent an army towards the sea [of
Fārs³], and took the capital of the country of Kish',
He is the eighth, not the fifth, of the Ata-baks of Fārs.
1 Shaykh Sa'di dedicated his Gulistan and Bostan to this prince.
See page 178, and note 7.
He annexed the greater part of the tracts lying on the side of the Gulf of
Persia, such as Hurmūz, Katif, Bahrain, 'Ummãn, and Laḥ-ṣã [], the
Al-Hasa [] seemingly of Ibn-i-Baṭūṭah, which he says was previously
called Hajar. The Khwārazm Shāhi dynasty, at this time, had fallen.
4 Kish is described in old geographical works as a city, on a hill, on an
180
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĀṢIRĪ.
[together with] Bahrain and Hurmuz. He also despatched
one of his brothers to the infidel Mughals, and entered into
a treaty of peace with that race. He engaged to pay tri-
bute and revenue to them, and brought reproach and dis-
honour upon himself by becoming a tributary of the infidels
of Chin', and became hostile to the Dar-ul-Khilafat.
Up to the time this history was written, affairs are in
this state. May the Almighty God continue the Sultan
of the Sultāns of Islām, and the great nobles and lords of his
Court, in sovereignty, and in rendering bounden duty to the
Dār-ul-Khilafat, and the house of 'Abbās, for the sake of
Muḥammad, his family, and the whole of his companions
and friends!
THIRD DYNASTY.
THE SANJARİYAHI MALIKS OF NĪSHĀPŪR.
I. MALIK MU-AYYID, US-SANJARĪ.
Malik Mu-ayyid was a slave of Sultan Sanjar's, and a
Turk 7.
He held the government of the territory of
island, in the sea of Fars, called Hurmūz; and is said to be so called from its
resemblance, when viewed from the hills, to a quiver for arrows, which Kish
signifies. The word is sometimes spelt Kish, and sometimes Kesh. See note ³,
p. 46.
5 At the time of the interregnum after the death of Changiz Khān, Abū-
Bikr sent his brother, Tahamtan, to the presence of Ūktāe Ķā-ān with rich
presents, and received from him a charter, and the title of Kutlagh Khān.
He likewise obtained a charter from Hulākū Khan, and reigned for a period
of thirty-three years.
6 The Ata-bak, Abu-Bikr, died in 558 H., the very year in which our author
completed his History. The dynasty did not terminate for several years after;
and three persons, including a female, ruled over the territory remaining to
them, tributary to the Mughals, until 685 H.
7 The first of the Mu-ayyidiah dynasty was Mu-ayyid-ud-Din, who was one
of the slaves of Sulṭān Sanjar. As he was the Ã'inah-dār, or mirror-bearer,
to that monarch, he became known by the name of Mu-ayyid-i-Ã'inah. After
Sultan Sanjar's death, he for a short time pretended to be obedient to Rukn-
ud-Din, Maḥmūd, the son of Muḥammad Khān, son of Bughrã Khān, who had
married Sanjar's sister, who, when Sanjar fell into the hands of the Ghuzz tribe,
was raised to sovereignty in Khurāsān; but he soon threw off his disguise, and,
having seized Maḥmūd, in the fifth year of his sovereignty, deprived him of
his sight, and assumed the sovereignty over the tract of territory extending
from Hirāt to Rai. In 569 H., he undertook an expedition against Māzan-
daran, and made great bloodshed and devastation therein. He subsequently
THE SANJARIYAH DYNASTIES.
181
Nishāpūr, and the parts adjacent, such as Jām, Bākhurz,
Shangān, Sabrās, Jā-jurm, Shāristānah, Khūjān, and
other cities and towns which are dependencies of
Nishāpūr.
He was a Malik of good disposition; and, when the San-
jari dynasty passed away, Malik Mu-ayyid, the sovereign
of Khwārazm, the Maliks of 'Irak, and the Sultans of
Ghur, entered into terms of friendship and amity together
for mutual support and security. Under the shelter and
support of this arrangement, Malik Mu-ayyid continued for
some years, and died.
II. MALIK TUGHÃN SHAH, SON OF MU-AYYID.
Malik Tughan Shah was a monarch of blooming pro-
spects, and of handsome person, and greatly addicted
to pleasure and gaiety. He used to spend his days in
pleasure, in singing, and convivial meetings, along with his
confidants and favourites, minstrels and singers and boon
companions".
When the territory of Nishapur passeḍ from his father
under his own control, he entered into relations of amity
and dependence towards the neighbouring Maliks and
Sultāns, and rendered homage unto them; and, as he was
incapable of injuring or molesting them, they all refrained
from troubling him.
He passed his whole time in pleasure and jollity, dancing
[but, according to Fașiḥ-i, in the same year], in concert with Sulṭān Shāh,
Khwārazmi, the rival of Sultan Takish, encountered the latter in battle, was
taken prisoner, and put to death by Takish. A portion of the territory of
Sanjar's nephew, on the usurpation of Mu-ayyid, had passed into the possession
of the Khwärazmi sovereign. See reign of Takish, V. of the Khwarazm
Shāhis.
8 Some of these names are rather doubtful. Some copies have Sangan, and
Shagan, and Sabrāsh, Bihrās, Sirān, and Shiran. Possibly, Sunkhās and
Samnakan are meant.
9 The accounts of other writers differ considerably from our author's as to
this prince and his doings. Tughān Shāh, in 576 H., fought a battle with
Sultan Shah, the Khwärazmi, and rival of 'Alā-ud-Din, Takish, near Sarakhs,
after Sultan Shah had returned from Gür Khan's territory, whither he had fled
after his previous defeat in which Tughan's father was made prisoner. Tughān
was routed, and sought protection from Sultan Takish, and also from the sove-
reign of Ghur, but without avail; and Sultan Shah possessed himself of Tus
and Sarakhs. Tughan died in 581 H.
182
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĂŞIRĪ.
and wine-drinking; and, for the sake of his own pleasure
and merriment, he had the sleeves of his vest made each
about ten ells in length, to which small golden bells were
fastened, and he would himself join in the dance. He soon
took his departure from this world.
III. SANJAR SHAH, SON OF TUGHAN SHAH.
When Tughan Shāh ascended the throne of Nishāpūr,
he entered into connexion with the Maliks of Ghūr, and
despatched a confidential agent, and demanded the hand
of the daughter of Sultan Ghiyaṣ-ud-Din, Muḥammad
Sām, for his son, Sanjar Shah. The chief men among the
ecclesiastics and theologians of Nishapur accordingly came
[into Ghūr], and the knot of that marriage contract was
tied.
When Tughan Shah died, Takish, Khwārazm Shāh,
marched an army from Khwārazm, and advanced to Nishā-
pūr, and possessed himself of that city and territory,
seized Sanjar Shāh, and carried him away to Khwārazm¹.
Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din released his daughter, Malikah-i-
Jalāli, from her betrothal; and, according to the statement
of Imam Shafi'i, he gave her in marriage, in Ghūr, to
Malik 'Ala-ud-Din³. Sanjar Shāh died in Khwārazm.
1 Sanjar Shāh succeeded to his father's territory; and Manguli Beg, a slave
of his grandfather's, through the youthfulness of Sanjar, acquired the whole
power, and was in consequence put to death by Sultan Takish. After this,
Takish married Sanjar's mother, and gave a daughter of his own to Sanjar in
marriage. In 591 H., Sanjar was accused of meditating rebellion, and was
deprived of his sight. He died in 595 H., and his territory was taken posses-
sion of by the Khwārazm Shāhi sovereign.
2 A title, not her name.
3 In three copies Ziyā-ud-Din.
SECTION XIV.
THE MALIKS OF SIJISTĀN AND NĪMROZ.
As this Tabakāt' is being written in the name of the great
Sultan, the king of kings [over] both Turk and 'Ajam,
Nãşir-ud-Dunya wa ud-Din, Abu-l-Muzaffar, Maḥmüd, son
of Sultan I-yal-timish-May his sovereignty endure!
and, as an account of all rulers and their Tabakāt is being
penned, the author, Minhaj-i-Sarāj, Jūrjāni, would state
that he desires, to the extent of his capability, to commit
to writing what has come to his hearing, and what he has
himself seen respecting the Maliks of Nimroz.
They were able and just monarchs, virtuous, and cherishers
of the indigent, whose country, from the Sanjari era up to
this time, when the territories of Iran have, through the
cruelty and rapine of the infidels of Chin, become ruined,
was adorned by the grandeur, the justice, the munificence,
and the nobility of mind of those monarchs, and, therefore,
the author desires that he himself, and those Maliks, may
continue to call forth the favourable mention of those under
whose notice this [account] may come, and, that a bene-
diction may be offered for the sovereign of the present
time.
The origin and lineage of these rulers from the previous
Amirs, did not seem clearly deducible in History2.
1 The word Tabaķāt being a portion of the title of the original work, it has
been used here, for convenience, in the singular form, although really the
طبقه plural of
2 As in scores of other places, our author is also very incorrect here. He
has already given us a Section on the Suffarians of Sijistān or Nimroz, and
has mentioned the names of the other sons of Laiş, the Brazier; but he does
not appear to have known that the descendants of 'Umro, son of Lais, subse-
quent to his captivity, ruled over Fars [for a time] and Sijistān, although these
events took place some three centuries before our author composed his work.
There is consequently an hiatus of the reigns and struggles of no less than six
princes of this family, and the events of just one century are entirely passed
over; and two Sections are given, and two dynasties made, of one and the
same family, whatever claims Khalaf may have had to descent from the Kai-
184
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĀṢIRĪ.
I. TAHIR, SON OF MUHAMMAD.
Trustworthy persons have related, that, when the
dominion and sovereignty of the Maḥmudi dynasty passed
āniāns. Our author appears here to greater disadvantage, as an historian,
than even in his accounts of the Saljūķs and the Kurds, which are sufficiently
incorrect.
I will here briefly supply an account of the Ṣuffariāns, passed over by our
author, in order to make the subject intelligible to the reader.
When 'Umro, son of Lais, was defeated under the walls of Balkh by Işma'il,
Sāmāni, in 287 H., as related at page 25, his grandson, TAHIR, son of Mu-
ḥammad, son of 'Umro, was set up as his successor. His career was a
chequered one. He at first possessed himself of Fars, and drove out the
Khalifah's officers, but was subsequently obliged to relinquish it. Subse-
quently, however, the administration of the affairs of Fars was conferred upon
him by the Court of Baghdad; but, shortly after, a slave of his grandfather's
rose against him, in that territory.
[In nearly every history in which this slave is referred to, his name is said to
be Saikzi, Sabkri, Sankri, and the like; but further research, since note
page 34, was written, tends to show that this could not have been intended for
the name of the slave, but of his race. He was a Sigizi, one of a people often
mentioned in the following pages. 'Sigiz, and Sigizi, is the name of a lofty
mountain [range of hills ?] in Zabulistan, and the people dwelling thereabout
are called after that mountain, Sigizis and Sigiziān. Rustam-i-Zāl is also
called Sigizi on the same account. Some consider, however, that the meaning
of Sigizi is Sīstāni, because the 'Arabs change the gintoj, and call Sigistān,
which is the proper name of that country, Sijistān, and Sigizi, by the same
fashion, Sijizi.” The Sigizis are not Afghāns, so must not be turned into
Paṭāns, but there is a small tribe of that people called Sekari.]
A battle took place between Tahir and the Sigizi slave, and Ṭāhir was
worsted, and fell into the hands of the rebel, who sent him, together with his
brother Ya'ķūb, to Baghdad, through which city they were paraded on a
camel [one author says on two elephants]. This happened in the year 293 H.
and Tahir died after having ruled for a period of six years. Some say he died
in 296 H.
On this, in the same year, LAIS, son of 'Ali, entered Fārs [from Sijistān],
and the rebel Sigizi slave fled; but, being supported by an army sent by the
Khalifah under his general, Munis-i-Khādim, he was enabled to march against
Lais. Although Laiṣ made a gallant and vigorous dash upon their forces near
Ūjān, he was unsuccessful, and fell a captive into their hands, and the Sigizi
again acquired possession of Fārs. Soon after, however, the Khalifah had to
despatch Mūnis into Fārs again, as the Sigizi withheld the revenue [the
Khalifah's share], which amounted to 400,000 dirams. The Sigizi now
offered to pay 1,000,000 dirams, but this offer was not accepted, and, after
several encounters with Muḥammad, son of Ja'far, the Khalifah's general, the
Sigizi fled to the fortress of Bamm, in Kirmān; but, as he was followed by
that officer, he fled from Bamm, and retired into the wilds of Khurāsān; and
Muḥammad was entrusted with the administration of the affairs of Fars and
Kirman.
•
THE MALIKS OF SIJISTĀN AND NĪMROZ.
185
over to the family of Saljuk, the nobles who were exercising
authority in the country of Sijistān acquired power, and,
In that same year, Abu Naṣr-i-Aḥmad, Sāmāni, took possession of Sijistān,
and, as he had succeeded in making prisoner of Muḥammad, son of ’Ali,
brother of Ya'kub, 'Umro, and Mu'addil, sons of Lais, and the Sigizi also,
they were despatched to Baghdad, by the Khalifah's directions, and entered
it paraded on elephants; and rich presents were sent by the Khalifah to the
Sāmāni prince, in return for this service.
I
In 299 H. [some say in 298 H.], Lais, son of 'Ali, died in Fārs, and his
brother, MU'ADDIL, assumed the sovereignty over Sijistān, and drove out the
Sāmāni governor, Abū Ṣāliḥ-i-Manṣūr, Sāmāni, cousin of Amir Abū Naṣr-i-
Aḥmad, on which, the latter despatched a large army under some of his
greatest nobles, such as Husain 'Ali, Marw-ar-Rūdi, Aḥmad, son of Sahl,
Muḥammad, son of Muzaffar, Simjūr-i-Dowāti, &c. Mu'addil, on becoming
apprized of this, sent his brother Muḥammad for supplies, to enable him to
stand a siege, into Zamin-i-Dawar; but, as he happened to fall into the hands
of the Sāmāni forces, Mu'addil, on receipt of the news of this disaster, came
and surrendered on terms to those leaders, and was taken to Bukhārā, from
whence he was sent to Baghdad. See page 34.
In the year 300 H., 'UMRO, son of Ya'kūb, son of Muḥammad, son of
'Umro, son of Lais-i-Suffär, rose in Sijistān, and assumed the sovereignty.
Amir Abū Naṣr-i-Ahmad, Samāni, again despatched a force under Husain
'Ali, Marw-ar-Rūdi, against him. After defending the capital for a period of
nine months, 'Umro surrendered on terms of capitulation, and the territory of
Nimroz received a Sāmāni governor.
In the year 309 H., AHMAD, said by Guzidah to have been the grandson
of Tahir, but by others to have been the son of Muḥammad, son of Khalaf,
son of Abu Ja'far, son of Lais [which Lais is not mentioned, but, if the
Brazier be meant, Abū Ja'far must have been a fifth son, but no doubt he was
a grandson], who was living in great distress and misery at Hirat, chanced to
come under the notice of Amir Abu-l-Hasan-i-Nașr, son of Ahmad, the fifth
of the Sāmāni rulers, who bestowed upon Aḥmad-i-Ṣuffär the government of
his native country, Sijistān.
Fașiḥ-i, among the occurrences of the year 310 H., says, that by command
of the Khalifah, Al-Muktadir, honorary dresses were bestowed upon Tahir and
Ya'kub, sons of 'Umro, Lais; but this must refer to Lais, son of 'Ali, son of
Lais the Brazier, as Tahir, son of 'Umro, the second of the dynasty, died at
Baghdad many years previous to this. In 311 H., according to Faşiḥ-i, Shāh
Malik, son of Ya'kub-i-Lais, Ṣuffari, with a body of Sigizis, attempted to
gain possession of Hirāt, but after a time left, and proceeded to Fushanj. He
returned to the Dasht of Malan of Hirāt again, and invested Hirāt for four
months, but had to abandon it, and he and his party retired discomfited.
Simjūr held Hirat on that occasion.
Aḥmad was succeeded as ruler of Sijistan by his son, KHALAF, but the
date of the former's death or the latter's accession is not mentioned-it was
probably in 331 H.-but, in 353 H., Khalaf set out on a pilgrimage to Makkah,
leaving as his deputy, his son-in-law, Tahir, son of Al-Husain, to administer
the government of Sijistan. Tahir coveted his dominions, and, when Khalaf
returned from the pilgrimage, he would not allow him to resume his authority,
Khalaf proceeded to the Court of Mansur, son of Nūḥ, Sāmāni, the eighth of
that dynasty, who sent a force with Khalaf, which, after ousting Tahir and
reinstating Khalaf, returned to Bukhārā.
N
186
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĂŞIRĪ.
having tendered their allegiance to the Sultāns, Alb-Arsalān
and Malik Shah, the states of Nirroz came under their
sway, and they took possession of those territories.
Tahir now returned, and again dispossessed Khalaf, who, a second time,
received aid from Manṣur, Sāmāni; but, by the time the Samani forces
reached Sistān, Tahir was dead, and Husain, his son, had succeeded to the
authority. After considerable fighting, Husain retired to one of the fortresses
of that territory, and was therein invested. He despatched an envoy to Amir
Mansur's presence, who sent a mandate directing him to appear before him,
and so Husain was allowed to proceed to Bukhārā. This was at a period
when the Sāmāni power was much weakened, and in the same year that
Is-ḥāķ, son of Alb-Tigin, the Turk, encountered Abu-Ali-i-Lawik, previously
ruler of Ghaznin.
Nothing more is mentioned about Khalaf except his rebellion against Nūḥ,
Sāmāni, and the seven years' investment of his capital, until the year 390 H.,
in which year, Bughrajak, the uncle of Mahmud of Ghaznin, was slain by
Khalaf's son, Ṭāhir, at Fushanj. On this, Maḥmūd marched against Khalaf,
who retired for shelter within the walls of the fortress of Tāk, and he was
invested therein. In 393 H., Khalaf again withdrew from public life, and gave
up the government of Sijistān to his son Tahir, but, soon after, he regretted
what he had done, resumed the authority, and put his son Tahir to death.
Some say he put two sons, Tahir and 'Umro, to death with his own hand,
This ruined Khalaf's affairs, and his nobles rose against him on account of this
abominable conduct; and they invested him in the city which he had made
his capital, and read the Khutbah, and coined money in the name of Sultān
Maḥmud of Ghaznin.

776
Maḥmūd, on account of this last act of Khalaf, again entered Sijistān, and
Khalaf was defeated and retired once more to the fortress of Tak, but it was
taken by assault and Khalaf was captured. It was on this occasion that
Khalaf, when brought before Maḥmud, addressed him by the name of
Sultan" [see note 8, page 76], and his life was spared. The district of
Jūzjānān was assigned for his future residence, and, with his family and
dependents, he left Sijistān for ever and proceeded thither. Sijistān was
conferred by Maḥmūd upon his brother Nasr, and that territory continued for
a considerable time in the possession of the Ghaznawis.
In 398 H. Khalaf was found to have been intriguing against Maḥmūd with
Ī-lak Khān, ruler of Turkistān, and was, in consequence, confined within the
walls of the fortress of Juzdez. He died in the following year; and Maḥmūd
directed that his property and effects should be made over to his son, Abū-1-
Hifs. Khalaf was a learned and intelligent man, and, by his command, the
learned men of his time compiled a commentary on the Ķur'ān in one hundred
volumes, and at the expense of 100,000 dinārs; yet, with all this, he committed
the cruel act of slaying his own sons. See also note 8, p. 76.
The sovereignty of Sijistān, or Nimroz, having been taken from Khalaf,
remained in the possession of the kings of Ghaznin for a considerable time.
At length, by the support of the Sultāns, Alb-Arsalan, and Malik Shāh, a
great grandson of Khalaf, TAHIR, son of Muḥammad, son of Tahir, son of
Khalaf, obtained the government of his native country; and the ruler's palace
in Sistan is called the Sarae-i-Ţāhiri after him. This is the first of the rulers
of Nimroz by our author's account, but the sixth of chroniclers of authority,
after Ya'ķūb and 'Umro, the founders of the Ṣuffarian dynasty. A few authors
THE MALIKS OF SIJISTĀN AND NĪMROZ.
187
When the throne of sovereignty became adorned by the
phoenix-like splendour of Sanjar, the territories of Nimroz
passed to Amir Tahir; and, in the service of that monarch,
he gave proofs of his loyalty and good faith. The Sarãe-
i-Tahiri, or Tahiri Palace, in Sistan, which was the seat
of government, was founded by him. He instituted regu-
lations and precepts of government, brought under his
control the different districts and dependencies of the
country of Nimroz, reigned for a considerable time, and
died. These Maliks claimed descent from the race of Kai-
Kā'ūs. May the Almighty reward them!
Trustworthy persons have related that Sijistān is called
Nimroz for the reason that, in ancient times, the whole of
that tract was a sea; and, when Mihtar' Suliman, reclining
on the couch which the winds used to bear, had to pass
over that country on his way from Fārs to the mountains.
of Suliman, which are opposite Multan, he commanded
that that sea should be filled with sand. The Diws, in
the space of half a day, completed the task, and the sea
became dry land; and the name by which it was called
was Nim-roz, signifying mid-day, and that designation
continued to be applied to that country. God alone is
eternal, and His kingdom only is eternal, without intermis-
sion and without wane.
II. MALIK TĀJ-UD-DĪN, ABŪ-L-FATḤ¹, SON OF ȚĂHIR.
Tāj-ud-Din was a great and a just monarch, and, when
his father departed this life, in conformity with the mandate
of Sulṭān Sanjar, Saljūķi, he assumed authority over the
territory of Nimroz, and brought it under his sway. He
spread the carpet of justice, and the people became obedient
to his authority; and, both in the city and round about
Sijistān, numerous monuments of his goodness remained.
mention that some writers consider Khalaf to have been a descendant of the
ancient kings of Īrān.
See the short account of the descent of the Afghans in the Introduction to
my Afghān Grammar, last edition, page 7, respecting Mihtar Sulimān and the
Suliman mountains.
4 Styled Taj-ud-Din, Abu-l-Fazl-i-Nasr, son of Tahir, by others. He suc-
ceeded to the sovereignty in 480 H. He was just, valiant, and beneficent; and
was loyal to the utmost degree towards Sultan Sanjar.
N 2
188
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĀṢIRĪ.
He accompanied Sultan Sanjar in the campaign
against Khiṭā, and took along with him the troops of
Sijistān; and, when Sultan Sanjar's army was defeated,
Malik Taj-ud-Din, Abu-l-Fath, was taken prisoner. When
they had taken him to the place where the camp of the
Khiṭā-is was situated, his feet were confined in a pair of
wooden stocks and secured with a heavy chain, and he
was kept in imprisonment.
5
6
A number of trustworthy persons have related, that one
of the ladies of the Great Khān [of Khiṭā] got a sight of
Malik Taj-ud-Din, and, secretly, used to entertain great
affection for him, and to have all his wants, and even more,
liberally supplied, and have great care and attention paid
to him. That lady left not the least thing undone, or a
moment to be lost, until, by her endeavours also, Malik
Tāj-ud-Din was suddenly set at liberty, and was enabled to
fly from the camp of the Khita-is; and he brought back his
chain and the stocks along with him to Sistan.
The territory of Nimroz, which, during his captivity, had
been deprived of his comeliness and munificence, now
began to acquire fresh grace and elegance. The stocks
and chain, which he had brought away with him [when he
escaped], were, by his orders, hung up in the most sacred
place in the great mosque [where the Imām stands during
the prayers]; and Minhaj-i-Sarāj, the writer of this Tabaķāt,
in the year 613 H., arrived in the city of Sistān', and, in
5 This battle having taken place in 534 H. [some say in 536 H.], and Tāj-ud-
Din being above a hundred when he died in 559 H., he must have been about
eighty years of age when taken prisoner.
6 Trustworthy persons are constantly mentioned by our author, but it is
strange that they are nameless.
7 I have constantly noticed, in several authors, that, when mentioning the
country, the names Nimroz and Sijistān are applied; and that Sistan almost
invariably signifies the city, the capital of the country; but I have also noticed
that the latter name is sometimes, but not often, applied to the country also.
There is one rather astonishing thing, however. Our author invariably says the
city of Sistan was the capital; while travellers, such as Pottinger and Christie,
and other European authors also, say that Dooshak, or Jalālābād, is the
capital. "Who shall decide when doctors disagree?" The author of the
MASĀLIK WA MAMALIK, who visited it before our author wrote, says that
Zaranj is the capital, and that there is no city in the territory of Nimroz so
large; and, further, describes the buildings and gates and other matters in
such manner, that there can be no doubt whatever but that Zaranj was the name
of the capital of Sijistān, or Nimroz; and no such city as Sistān is ever men-
tioned in that work.
THE MALIKS OF SIJISTAN AND NĪMROZ.
189
the great mosque there, saw that chain and stocks; and
whoever may have reached that great city, will also have
seen them.
Malik Taj-ud-Din, Abu-l-Fath, was a learned and en-
lightened sovereign; and they relate that, sometimes, he
would himself read the Friday's Khutbah; and this fact is
an indication of the extent of his wisdom and knowledge.
He reigned for a considerable time, and died; and his
mausoleum is at Sistan.
III. MALIK-US-SĀ'ĪS 9, SHAMS-UD-DĪN MUHAMMAD, SON OF
TĀJ-UD-DĪN.
When Malik Tāj-ud-Din, Abu-l-Fatḥ¹, passed away,
several sons survived him, and the eldest of them was
Malik Shams-ud-Din, Muḥammad. He succeeded to the
sovereignty, and brought the territory of Nimroz under his
sway. He deprived one of his brothers, 'Izz-ul-Mulūk, of
his sight, and put the rest of them to death; and he
caused a great number of the Amirs and Maliks of Nimroz
and Sistan to be executed.
He was a sanguinary man, and it is related of him, that,
at the outset of his reign, he killed eighteen of his brothers
in one day. The royal palace, which he founded in Sistān,
is [on this account] called by the name of Sarāe-i-Siāsati,
or Palace of Slaughter; and, through his excessive murders
and executions, the people's hearts became filled with
terror.
At the time when the reign of Sulṭān Sanjar came to a
termination, and the territories of Khurasan, Ghaznin, and
Kirman fell into the hands of the tyrannical tribe of
Ghuzz, Malik Shams-ud-Din had already established his
authority over Nimroz. On several occasions the Ghuzz
forces resolved to subvert his rule, but they did not succeed
in their design.
The grandfather of the author of this work, Maulanā
8 He died in 559 H., after having reigned over Nimroz, subordinate to the
Saljuk Sultāns, for just eighty years, and his age was above a hundred. It
seems strange our author did not know the year of his de th.
9 Torturer, executioner.
1 It was with this ruler that Mu'izz-ud-Din, Ghūri, the conqueror of Hin-
dūstān, passed one cold season, after he and his brother, Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din, had
been released from confinement,
190
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NAṢIRĪ.
Minhaj-ud-Din, 'Uṣmān, Jurjāni, who was on his way to
Ghaznin and Lohor, on his return from the pilgrimage to
Ḥijāz and the sacred Ka'bah [at Makkah], reached Sistān
during the reign of Malik Shams-ud-Din. At that time.
there was residing there one of the great theologians,
whom they called Imām Awḥad-ud-Din, Bukhāri, one of
the most eminent men of Khurāsān. He was also one of
the incomparable ones of the world, and one of the col-
leagues of the Khwājah—a second Imām Nu'mān-Abū-
1-Fazl, Kirmāni. There was likewise there another man of
learning, who went by the name of Imām, Ķawām-ud-Din,
Zawzani, a talkative, open-mouthed, staring-eyed fellow,
who was in the constant habit of annoying Imām Awḥād-
ud-Din, and of behaving insolently towards him in public.
Imam Sharaf-ud-Din, 'Aṭṭār, related this anecdote, which
was told to him, respecting this man: that, when Maulānā
Minhāj-ud-Din arrived at Sistān, it was customary with the
rulers of Nimroz to treat strange 'Ulama with respect and
kindness; and they used to command them to deliver a
discourse, and expound some religious dogma, in their
presence, at the Court. Malik Shams-ud-Din, accordingly,
commanded that Maulana Minhaj-ud-Din should expound
a dogma at the Court.
The 'Ulama of that city having presented themselves
there, Maulānā Minhaj-ud-Din expounded the dogma of
defiling emissions³. When the exposition was concluded,
Kawām-ud-Din, Zawzani, wishing, by his insolence, to
annoy and mortify Maulānā Minhaj-ud-Din, and to clash
with him, said :—"We had heard great report of thy emi-
nence, of thy learning and thy reputation; but this much
was incumbent on thee, that, in the presence of such a
great monarch, thou shouldst not have mentioned the
precept of defiling emissions." When Maulana Minhaj-
ud-Din perceived that he intended insolence and rudeness,
he replied, saying :--" Maulānā Ķawām-ud-Din, it is not
necessary to make a long story of it; thou art filthiness
itself. I beheld thee, and that precept came to my recol-
lection."
At this rejoinder, Maulānā Kawam-ud-Din was com-
2 The celebrated Imām, Abū Ḥanifah of Kufah, was called Nu'mān.
3 Emissions in sleep, &c., requiring ablution afterwards.
THE MALIKS OF SIJISTĀN AND NĪMROZ.
191
pletely silenced, and Malik Shams-ud-Din was so overcome
with laughing, that he rolled over and over, almost beside
himself, on his couch". That day Imām Awḥād-ud-Din was
made himself again by this rejoinder of Maulānā Minhaj-
ud-Din, who also gave éclat to that dogma likewise; and
that monarch showed abundant kindness and consideration
towards Maulānā Minhaj-ud-Din.
Malik Shams-ud-Din reigned for a considerable time,
and was put to death, and passed away.
IV. MALIK-US-SA'ĪD, TĀJ-UD-DIN-I-HARAB, SON OF
MUHAMMAD 6.
Malik Taj-ud-Din was a great, learned, and just sovereign,
and a cherisher of his subjects. He had a number of chil-
dren, and, during his lifetime, two of his sons succeeded to
the throne of Nimroz, as will, please God, be hereafter
mentioned.
The first incidents in his career were these. When
Malik Shams-ud-Din, his uncle, came to the throne, he
deprived his, Tāj-ud-Din's, father of his sight, and put the
rest of his brothers to death. Malik Shams-ud-Din had a
sister, who was aunt to Malik Tāj-ud-Din-i-Ḥarab, who pos-
sessed great influence; and, when the tyranny and oppres-
sion of Shams-ud-Din became unbearable, the people
became quite sated of his rule, and prayed the Almighty
to grant them redress.
A party of the nobles and chief men of the country of
Nimroz sought the aid and assistance of that Malikah, the
aunt of Malik Tāj-ud-Din-i-Ḥarab; and they held counsel
4 A couch or sort of throne or seat spread with four cushions.
5 Our author, who has a peculiar way of his own for relating important
events, says this ruler was martyred. He was such a blood-shedder and tyrant
that his troops rose against him, attached themselves to his sister, and put him
to death. Our author relates it among the events of the following reign instead
of here.
• Styled Taj-ud-Din, Ḥasan, son of 'Izz-ul-Mulūk by Faşiḥ-i, and Malik
Tāj-ud-Din-i-Ḥarab, son of 'Izz-ul-Mulūk, by others. Why he and some
others are styled Ḥarab [in the very old MS. I have previously referred to the
vowel points are given], and what the real signification of the word may be, it is
difficult to tell; but some of the Mughal officers--not Mughals probably—are
designated by this same appellation.
7 How could they possibly "attain the throne during his lifetime," unless
they previously dethroned him?
192
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĂŞIRĪ.
together, and made arrangements for a change [of rulers],
and fixed upon Malik Taj-ud-Din by general consent. At
that time he was sixty years of age, and none else remained
of the descendants of the Maliks who was eligible for the
sovereignty.
There is a place, outside the city of Sistan, where, in
ancient times, there was an old city, which place they call
Ḥashnue. At night, all the populace of Sistān and the
soldiery assembled there, and, in the morning they rose
against Malik Shams-ud-Din, and put him to death with
eighteen of his sons; and Malik Taj-ud-Din-i-Harab was
raised to the throne. His father, 'Izz-ul-Mulūk, was still.
living, but deprived of the blessing of sight'.
When Malik Taj-ud-Din ascended the throne, he governed
the people with equity and justice, and all submitted to his
authority. He entered into communication with the Sultāns
of Ghur and Khurasan, and became feudatory to them,
and read the Khutbah' in the name of the Sultans of
Ghur. He used his utmost endeavours in the support and
encouragement of ecclesiastics and learned men, and in
securing the rights of the weak and helpless; and it was a
rule with that family to show great honour and respect to
strangers and travellers. Malik Tāj-ud-Din, in this respect,
greatly surpassed his ancestors. He commanded, likewise,
that for every mosque of Bukhārā a prayer-carpet should
be woven, according to the size of each, and despatched to
that city; and for the sacred mosque at Makkah, and the
holy Ka'bah, he despatched carpets, mats, and the like, as
well as vessels of different kinds, in great quantity.
During the reign of Malik Taj-ud-Din, the father of the
author of this volume, Maulānā Sarāj-ud-Din-i-Minhaj³
8 Rather doubtful, as the MSS. are all at variance here. Some have Ḥashūe,
others Khushūdi and Hushnūdi, some Ḥasue and Ḥashnue. I do not find
either of these names in the ancient accounts of Sijistān.
9 Therefore he was precluded from the succession.
¹ The coin also was stamped with the titles and name of the Sultan of
Ghūr.
2 It must have been in this reign, not during that of the Blood-Shedder, that
our author's grandfather met with such a good reception at the capital of
Sijistān, as blood-thirsty tyrants are not generally those who patronize priests
and earned men. This seems confirmed by the author's own remarks a little
farther on.
* Sometimes he writes Minhaj-i-Sarāj, and at others Sarāj-i-Minhāj.
THE MALIKS OF SIJISTAN AND NĪMROZ.
193
came to Sistān on two occasions. The first time, he went
there on a mission from the august Sulṭān, Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din,
Muḥammad-i-Sām; and on the second occasion', when he
was proceeding from the presence of that monarch to
present himself at the Court of the Khalifah, Un-Nāṣir-
ud-Din 'Ullah, by way of Mukran, he likewise passed by
way of Sistān, and received great kindness and benevolence
at the hands of Malik Taj-ud-Din-i-Harab.
During his own lifetime, Malik Taj-ud-Din made his
eldest son, Naşir-ud-Din, 'Usman, his heir-apparent; and,
subsequently, when Nășir-ud-Din died, he nominated an-
other son, Yamin-ud-Din, Bahrām Shāh, as his heir and
successor.
.
Towards the end of his reign, Malik Tāj-ud-Din became
totally blind. He had reigned for a period of sixty years,
and his age was a hundred and twenty. He died in the
year 612 H.
V. MALIK NĂŞIR-UD-DIN, 'USMAN-I-HARAB, SON OF MALIK
TĀJ-UD-DĪN.
Malik Nāşir-ud-Din was a just monarch', and 'Ayishah
Khātūn, the daughter of the Malik of Khurasan, 'Umr-i-
Maraghani, was married to him. He had good and worthy
sons; and, upon several occasions, he marched from Sistan
with numerous forces, and joined the Sultan Ghiyās-ud-
Din', Muhammad-i-Sam, in Khurāsān. At the time of the
success at Nishāpūr, he was present with that monarch's
Court.
He was a Malik of good disposition, and the patron of
learned men, and passed his life among men in [the
exercise of] justice, beneficence, and humanity.
During the reign of his father, Malik Taj-ud-Din, he
acted as his representative and lieutenant, in the adminis-
4 See page 244.
This was the occasion when the author's father, whilst
proceeding by way of Mukran to Baghdad, lost his life.
5 He died during his father's lifetime; consequently, he is not entitled to be
considered as one of the sovereigns of Sijistan, and he is not accounted such by
other writers. He was a regent or lieutenant only; and, on account of the
extreme age of his father, at his [Naşir's] death, his son, Yamin-ud-Din,
Bahram Shāh, became regent.
6 His suzerain. See account of Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din in Section XVII,
194
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĂŞIRĪ.
tration of the government of the territory of Nimroz; and,
outside the city of Sistan, on the bank of the river Hirmand,
he founded a large and noble palace.
He ruled the country for a considerable period, and
likewise died during his father's lifetime.
VI. MALIK-UL-GHĀZĪ, YAMĪN-UD-DAULAH WA UD-DĪN
BAHRĀM SHAH, SON OF TAJ-UD-DĪN-I-ḤARAB..
Yamin-ud-Din, Bahrām Shah, was a firm and stern ruler,
very severe but strictly just; and he continued to observe
the rule established by his ancestors, of treating learned men
and strangers and travellers with respect and reverence.
During the lifetime of Malik Taj-ud-Din, his father, he
became greatly distinguished, and was famous for his
valour, sagacity, activity, and magnanimity. He ruled
over the territory of Nimroz for a considerable time during
the lifetime of his father; and, when his father died, the
sovereignty passed to him.
Both Bahrām himself and two other brothers were
borne by a Turkish slave-girl; and, previous to his time,
all the sovereigns and nobles, according to ancient custom,
allowed their hair to hang loosely, and used to wear conical
caps on their heads, with two or three fillets wound round
them, with a black fillet over the others; but, when
Malik Yamin-ud-Din, Bahram Shah, came to the throne,
his mother being of the Turkish race, he assumed the cap
of sable, and camlet garments, and curling ringlets like the
Turks; and both his brothers, one, Malik Shihāb-ud-Din,
'Ali, and the other, Malik Shah, likewise adopted similar
costume.
The author of this work, in the year 613 H., set out from
the city of Bust for the purpose of proceeding to Sistān.
When he arrived within a short distance of that capital,
where there is a place which they call by the name of
Gumbaz-i-Baluch-the Cupola of the Baluch -on the east
side [of Sistān], at this place, a deputation received him, and
7 The grandson, not the son of Tāj-ud-Din. Bahrām Shāh was the son of
Näṣir-ud-Din. See note ", preceding page.
5
* One copy has Balūt, but the rest have Balūj and Baluch. The place is not
mentioned in the ancient accounts of the country. Balūt means an oak.
THE MALIKS OF SIJISTĀN AND NĪMROZ.
195
brought him to the city; and' there, at a place which is
named the Madrasah-i-sar-i-Hawz-the College at the head
of the Reservoir-to the south of the city, which they call
Dar-i-Ta'am' and Bāzār-i-Farod, he alighted and took up
his quarters2.
The author delivered a discourse in the private audience
hall of that dignified sovereign, within the Sarac-i-Siasati;
and, upon two occasions, he was honoured with robes of
distinction from that beneficent monarch, consisting, each
time, of three dresses; and, as long as the author remained
at Sistān, every month, Malik Yamin-ud-Din sent him a
liberal allowance in money and grain, .and treated him
with the utmost kindness and respect. After sojourning
there for a period of seven months, the author returned
again to Khurāsān.
Malik Yamin-ud-Din, Bahram Shah, ruled with great
firmness and sagacity. It had been a practice of old,
in the territory of Nimroz, among the tribes [therein], to
be constantly quarrelling and fighting among themselves;
and no person entered a city or town without being fully
armed. When the sovereignty devolved upon Bahrām
Shāh, he made every tribe give hostages, and kept them
shut up in different fortresses, so that, in whatever tribe
blood might be shed unjustly, the chiefs and head men of
the tribe were held responsible for the crime. Through
this stringent order such acts of bloodshed decreased.
Yamin-ud-Din, Bahram Shah, on two occasions waged
holy war against the heretics of Kuhistan', and carried on
hostilities against them for a long time. Imam Sharaf-ud-
Din, Ahmad' of Farah, who was the most eloquent man
of his time, composed these lines on those successes, and
in praise of them :—
9 One or two copies omit the "and."
¹ See page 20, and note ³.
The places noticed here were at Zaranj, and their mention proves the
statements of the author of the MASALIK WA MAMALIK to be correct.
also note 7, p. 188.
See
3 The chief place of which is Ķa'in, formerly of considerable importance.
He led troops against those heretics upon several occasions.
4 Several other authors, and among them the author of the Nusakh-i-
Jahān-Ārā, say, that Abu Naṣr, Farahi, was the composer of these lines.
He was the author of the celebrated lexicographical work entitled “Nişīb-i-
Niṣābian."
196
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĂŞIRĪ.
August and auspicious unto the world's people
Is the revered countenance of the Shah of exalted descent.
At this warfare, which thou didst in Ķuhistān wage,
The globe is with justice, with equity, and requital, full,
Thou art the king of mid-day 5, and of thy day's reign
'Tis as yet but the propitious early dawn thereof.
Like as the warriors of Muḥammad exult in thee,
In such wise the soul of Muḥammad in thee rejoiceth.
Continue in the world whilst the world hath freshness
From water and from fire, from earth and from air.
From the remembrance of the great king will not be obliterated
The encomiums of the Farah-i, if aught of memory remain "."
After Yamin-ud-Din, Bahrām Shah, had reigned for a
considerable time, the calamities attending the irruption of
the infidel Mughals arose, and Khurāsān became desolated
by them, and the kingdoms of Islam fell.
There is a fortress on the confines of Neh, in the terri-
tory of Nimroz, which they call the castle of Shāhanshāhi;
and the nephew of Bahram Shah, the son of Nāṣir-ud-Din,
'Usman, had sold the fortress of Shahanshahi to the here-
tics of Kuhistān, and it was in their possession. Yamin-
ud-Din, Bahrām Shāh, at this time, despatched an agent to
demand the restoration of that fortress, and further, to
intimate that, in case any difficulty should arise, a force
would be speedily brought against it.
On this account, disciples were nominated by the heretics
of Kuhistān to remove him; and, in the year 618 H., on a
Friday, when proceeding on his way to the mosque to
perform his devotions, in the middle of the bāzār, four
fida'is, or disciples, surrounded him and martyred him.
VII. MALIK NUȘRAT-UD-DĪN, SON OF MALIK YAMĪN-UD-DĪN,
BAHRĀM SHĀH.
On the death of Malik Yamin-ud-Din, Bahrām Shāh,
the great nobles and chief men of Nimroz agreed together
and raised to the throne Nusrat-ud-Din, the middle son
of the late ruler. This caused agitation and commotion to
5 · A play upon the word Nimroz, signifying mid-day. See p. 187.
6 Like all translated poetry, these lines, which are fine enough in the ori-
ginal, lose by translation, and the play upon words is generally lost. Two
copies of the text contain one distich more, but the second line is precisely the
same as the sixth line above, and therefore it must be an interpolation, or the
first line has been lost.
THE MALIKS OF SIJISTĀN AND NĪMROZ.
197
arise in the country of Nimroz, and, in every direction,
disorder and confusion occurred.
The eldest son of Bahram Shah, named Rukn-ud-Din,
was detained in confinement' [as a state prisoner]. The
orthodox people of both parties were all partisans, well-
wishers, and under allegiance to Amir Nusrat-ud-Din,
while the whole of the heretics of the districts of Nimroz
were friendly towards, and submissive to Rukn-ud-Din³.
After some months had passed away from the accession of
Amir Nusrat-ud-Din, the heretics broke out into rebellion
and brought forth Rukn-ud-Din; and, between Amir Nus-
rat-ud-Din and his brother, Rukn-ud-Din, an encounter
ensued, in which Nusrat-ud-Din was defeated, and he
retired into Khurāsān and Ghür.
·
He returned a second time to Sistan, and liberated the
country from the hands of Rukn-ud-Din; but, at last, as
a body of troops of the infidels of Chin and Mughals"
advanced against Sistān, it fell into the hands of those
infidels, and Nusrat-ud-Din obtained martyrdom, and
died¹.
VIII. MALIK RUKN-UD-DĪN, MAḤMŪD, SON OF YAMİN-UD-
DIN, BAHRĀM SHAH.
Malik Rukn-ud-Din, Maḥmūd, was a prince harsh, san-
guinary, and cruel. The author of this work saw him,
during the lifetime of his father, in attendance upon that
sovereign. Rukn-ud-Din was a person of middle height,
ruddy, and fair; and his mother was a Rūmi slave-girl.
During the lifetime of his father he had been guilty of
several perverse and contumacious acts; and his father,
Malik Yamin-ud-Din, Bahrām Shah, on two occasions, had
imprisoned him on account of his misdeeds.
Sultan Muḥammad, Khwārazm Shah, sent a mandate
from Khwārazm to Bahrām Shah, requesting him to des-
patch a force from Nimroz to join him. In conformity
7 Rukn-ud-Din had been kept in confinement by his father, and was still
imprisoned when his brother succeeded, for reasons afterwards explained. He
soon after made his escape.
8 This accounts partly for his being kept imprisoned in his father's reign.
9 Sic in MSS., and this difference between Mughals and infidels of Chin
often occurs in the text.
¹ Nușrat-ud-Din was slain early in the Mughal troubles by those infidels.
198
THE TABAKĀT-I-NĀṢIRĪ.
with this command, Malik Yamin-ud-Din, Bahram Shah,
nominated his son, Rukn-ud-Din, Maḥmud, to proceed
with this army, and despatched it towards the confines of
Khurasan along with the applicant for assistance, who
had come from Khwārazm Shah, to the presence of that
Sultan [Bahram Shāh].
When he had reached the limits of Füshanj, and arrived
near Hirāt, Malik Rukn-ud-Din, while engaged in a drink-
ing bout, slew the applicant in question, who was a Turk
of distinction, and, out of fear for what he had done,
returned towards Sistān again. Malik Yamin-ud-Din,
Bahrām Shāh, on account of this misconduct, put him in
durance, and despatched a numerous force under Amir
Shams-ud-Din, together with presents of silks and fine
linen, and numerous expressions of obligation, with many
apologies, to the presence of Khwārazm Shāh.
In that same year the calamities caused by the infidel
Mughals happened, and those troops of Nimroz were
ordered to the [frontier] fortress of Tirmiz². Chingiz³
Khan, the Accursed, advanced with his forces against it
in person, and took Tirmiz; and the whole of the troops
of Nimroz were martyred therein.
When Malik Rukn-ud-Din, after overcoming his brother,
assumed the sovereignty over Sijistān, he began to tyrannize,
and stretched out the hand of violence and oppression;
upon which, at the solicitations of the inhabitants of Sistan,
his brother, Amir Nusrat, returned from Khurāsān, and
between the brothers contention again ensued.
At this crisis an army of Mughals unexpectedly reached
Sistan, and the whole were either slaughtered, exterminated,
made captive, or martyred. The city of Sistän became
desolate, and its inhabitants obtained martyrdom'.
IX. MALIK SHIHÄB-UD-DÏN, MAḤMŪD, SON OF ḤARAB 5.
When the army of infidels, after having reduced it to
desolation, turned their backs upon Sistān, Malik Shihāb-
2 Sometimes spelt Tarmaz, but incorrectly.
3 Chingiz and also Chingiz. The word is spelt both ways; the latter
appears to be the most correct.
• Killed in battle with the Mughals, or slaughtered afterwards.
5 IIe is said to have been the son of Malik Nāṣir-ud-Din, 'Uṣmān, brother
THE MALIKS OF SIJISTĀN AND NĪMROZ.
199
ud-Din, who had kept in concealment, came forth and took
possession of Sistan; but, as it was in a very ruinous state,
and no inhabitants remained, he did not acquire much
strength or power.
A party of heretics gathered together in some force, and
besought Shah 'Uṣmān, the grandson of Nãṣir-ud-Din,
'Uṣmān˚, Tāj-ud-Din-i-Ḥarab, to come from the city of
Neh, and occupy Sistan. He called in the aid of a force
of Khwārazm-Shāhi troops, from the Malik of Kirmān,
whom they styled Burāk, the Ḥājib [chamberlain]. When
that body of troops, from Kirmān, joined Shāh 'Uṣmān
and came to Sistān, Shihāb-ud-Din, Maḥmūd, was mar-
tyred, and his brother, Amir 'Ali-i-Zahid' [a recluse, a holy
man], ascended the throne. Still the government did not
acquire stability, and he died.
X. MALIK TĀJ-UD-DĪN, BINĀL-TIGĪN, KHWĀRAZMĪ.
Malik Taj-ud-Din, Bināl-Tigin, was of the same family
as the Maliks [sovereigns] of Khwärazm, and was a son
of one of the maternal uncles of Sultan, Khwärazm Shah';
and, at the period that the Sultāns of Ghūr took Nishāpūr',
Taj-ud-Din, Binal-Tigin, with his cousin, Malik Firuz-i-
I-yal-timish, came into Hindūstān.
At the time of the irruption of the infidels of Chin, and
consequent calamities, this Tāj-ud-Din was in the service
of Bahram Shah. In some copies of the text he is styled son of Harab, and
simply Mahmud-i-Harab in others.
6 See page 196.
7 Neither of these persons is mentioned in Jahān-Ārā as ruler in Sijistān,
but Bināl-Tigin is. Rauzat-uş-Şafa, copying from our author, of course men-
tions the two first, but not the last. Shihab-ud-Din, Mahmud, encountered
Maḥmūd,
Shah 'Usman and Binal-Tigin, and was slain in battle; but Faşih-i, under
the events of the year 646 H., mentions a Malik 'Ali, ruler of Nimroz, having
been put to death by Malik Shams-ud-Din, Muḥammad, the Kurt.
8 Nial-Tigin, in some copies and in some other works, is totally incorrect.
The name, as above, is corroborated by other writers; and, in the old copy of
the text, the vowel points are also given. It appears to be an error of copyists
بنال for نیال writing
9 Which is not said. Some copies have Sultans. Rauzat-us-Ṣala says
Sultan Muhammad. He certainly was of the same tribe as the Khwarazm
Shahi rulers.
¹ See under reign of Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din, Ghūri, Section XVII.
200
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĀŞIRĪ.
6
of Malik Karim-ud-Din, Hamzah, at Nag-awr² of Siwalikh.
All at once he sought an opportunity, slew Khwajah
Najib-ud-Din; and an elephant, which was there, he sent
on in advance, and then set out towards Uchchah', and
joined Malik Naşir-ud-Din, Kubājah". When Sultān
Jalāl-ud-Din, Mangabarni, Khwārazm Shah, reached the
territory of Sind, Tāj-ud-Din, Bināl-Tigin, left Üchchah
and went and joined Sultan Jalāl-ud-Din. He accompanied
him into the territory of Kirman; and, in that country,
the district of Khūk and Lūk was entrusted to his charge.
As the rival Maliks of Nimroz were struggling against
each other, the grandson of Naṣir-ud-Din, 'Uṣman, whom
they styled by the name of Shah, sought assistance from
the Malik' of Kirman, who was the chamberlain, Burāk,
Khita'i. He despatched Malik Taj-ud-Din, Binal-Tigin,
to Neh, to his aid, in the year 622 H., and, when he reached
that place, he rendered him assistance, and assumed the
authority himself, and took possession of the territory and
city of Neh on his own account.
A body of people from the city of Sistan presented.
themselves before him, and sought his help and assistance,
saying that, as they had killed' Malik Shihab-ud-Din, and
2 The proper mode of spelling this word, on the authority of the Shams-ul-
Lughat and others, is-Nag-awr; and Siwalikh is said to have been the
name applied to the territory. Karim-ud-Din was the governor of the pro-
vince.
3 This sentence is the same in all the copies of the text on which dependence
can be placed. He slew Karim-ud-Din, and carried off a number of horses
and several elephants.
~W J
4 Written Uchchah, and at times-Uchchah, according to native
authorities; but which English writers have turned into Uch and Ooch.
5 See Section XX., the third ruler.
6 In the majority of copies these words are thus written, but in some
copies they are Juk and Kūk, Jūk and Lūk, and Huk and Kurk or Kark,
and Khuk and Kūk. These places are not mentioned in MASĀLIK WA
MAMALIK. The Gowk of modern maps probably.
7 Styled Burāķ Khān in one or two copies of the text. He was the brother
of Tāniko of Taraz, the Amir-ul-Umra of Gur Khan, who was defeated in
battle and taken prisoner by Sultan Muḥammad, Khwarazni Shah. See under
the tenth sovereign, Section XVI.
8 All the copies of the text, with two exceptions, say he did render assistance
to Shah 'Usman; but the only assistance he appears to have afforded was in
joining Shah 'Uṣman to overcome his rival, Shah Mahmud; and, after the
latter's defeat and death, Binal-Tigin showed no further regard or respect to
'Uṣman, but took possession of the country for himself.
bee note 7, p. 199.
•
THE MALIKS OF SIJISTĀN AND NĪMROZ.
201
1
Sistan remained without a ruler, he should take Shah 'Usman
to Sistan and set him up there. Taj-ud-Din, Bināl-Tigin,
accordingly moved to Sistān, took possession of the
city, and brought the territory of Nimroz under his own
sway.
At this juncture, Malik Rukn-ud-Din, of Khāesār¹ of
Ghur, despatched this, his dependent, Minhaj-i-Sarāj, from
Ghūr, on a mission to Malik Tāj-ud-Din, Bināl-Tigin. The
author found him at the city of Farah, in Dawari', and
waited on him; and a firm compact was concluded.
After returning from thence, and reaching Ghür again,
between Malik Taj-ud-Din and the Mulaḥidah heretics.
hostility arose, and an engagement ensued between them,
and he was defeated. After this, he returned to Sistān
again, and overthrew a body of Khāriji schismatics who
had revolted against him.
In the year 623 H., the author of this work was des-
patched a second time, and he proceeded again to his pre-
sence; and, after that, Taj-ud-Din came himself into Ghur,
and took possession of the fortresses of Tulak and Isfirār;
and, in this same year, after his return from Nimroz, the
author had occasion to undertake a journey into Hind.
In the year 625 H., an army of Mughals advanced into
the territory of Nimroz a second time; and Tāj-ud-Din,
Bināl-Tigin, was invested within the walls of the fortress
of Arg' of Sistān. For a period of nineteen months he
1 This journey is again referred to by our author towards the end of his work,
under the heading "Downfall of the Mulaḥidahs," Section XXIII. ; and this
place is again mentioned, but is there written in two different ways-Khãesār
and Khaisar.
• This word is used in all the copies of the text, with one exception,
which has, [dārūe or dārū-i]. This can scarcely refer to the district of
Dawar [not Dawari], which lies more to the east. In the MASĀLIK WA
MAMALIK the l [wādi is a valley, low-lying ground, &c.] of Farāḥ is
mentioned; but this is an Arabic term, not a proper name.
compact"
here referred to could not have been very "firm," as may be seen from a more
detailed account of these journeys of the author, under the head of "Downfall
of the Mulaḥidahs," towards the end of the Section above mentioned.
The "
3 The author contradicts himself, not an unusual thing, in the Section referred
to in the previous note, which see.
a
4 The Burhan-i-Ka-ti' says, one of the meanings of the word Arg is "
citadel," but that it is also the name of a fortress in the territory, not the city,
of Sistān. See note 8, p. 34, and the account of the investment of Sistān
[as our author calls it] by the Mughals in Section XXIII., where the situation
of this fortress is mentioned.
202
THE TABAĶAT-I-NĂŞIRĪ.
defended the place; and the whole of his followers with him
in that stronghold, consisting of Ghūris, Tūlakis, Sigizis³,
and Turks, all perished. Taj-ud-Din himself received an
arrow in one of his eyes, and he straightway fell from the
battlements to the ground, and became a captive to the
Mughals.
The fortress was taken, and the remainder of the people
within the walls were martyred; and Tāj-ud-Din, Bināl-
Tigin, was brought from Sistan to the fortress of Safhed.
Koh, and at the foot of the walls of that castle they mar-
tyred him. The mercy of the Almighty be upon him!
See fourth paragraph to note 2, pp. 183-4.
6 Also called Sufed-Koh. Our author was once detained within the walls of
his fortress by Bināl-Tigin.
SECTION XV.
THE KURDIAH MALIKS OF SHAM.
MINHĀJ-I-SARĀJ, Jūrjāni, the humblest of the servants of
the threshold of the Most High, begs to mention, that, as
an account of the Maliks of the East and West, both infidel
and of the true faith, has been detailed and recorded, to the
best of his ability and power, and a small portion, in a
condensed form, has also been related from the annals of
the Maliks of 'Ajam and the East, this work has been
embellished [!] with a description of the Maliks of Shām,
Misr, Hijaz, and Yaman, who were Sultāns in Islam, and
Maliks and warriors of the true faith, of great renown, and
who, subsequent to the Sanjari and Saljūķi dynasties, held
sway over those countries. He has done so in order that
the readers of this Tabakāt, when these pages come under
their observation, may remember the author with a pious
benediction, and the Sultan of the Musalmāns with a
prayer for the stability and permanency of his sovereignty
and dominion, and the increase of his conscientiousness.
and beneficence.
I. SULTAN NŪR-UD-DĪN, MAHMUD-I-ZANGĪ ¹.
Sultan Nūr-ud-Din, Maḥmūd-i-Zangi, was one of the
Ata-baks of Mausil; and the Ata-baks of Mausil were
¹ Sulṭān Nūr-ud-Din was not the first of this dynasty, neither was he a Kurd,
nor one of the Atā-baks of Mauşil, but, by our author's own account, "the
descendant of a Turk of Khiṭā;" and yet he places him at the head of the
dynasty which he calls the Kurdiah Maliks of Shām! In this Section, above
all the others in his work, and that is saying a good deal, he has greatly ex-
posed his ignorance; and appears to have concocted, out of his own fertile
imagination, the greater part of what he has here adduced, beyond what he
heard of the rulers of Maușil and Sham from a fugitive at Lakhnauti, in
Bengal, who called himself one of their descendants.
The first of this dynasty was ABŪ SA’ĪD-I-ĀĶ-SANĶUR [turned into
ASCANSAR by Gibbon], son of 'Abd-ullah, styled the Hajib, and Ibn-i-
0 2
204
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĂŞIRĪ.
descendants of slaves of Sultan Sanjar; and this bondman
of Sanjar, who was the first Malik of Mauşil, was a Turk
of Khita.
This relation the author heard, in the city of Lakhnauti,
from one of the descendants of that family, and the son of
one of the Lords of Mauşil himself. In the country of
Hindūstān, and at the capital, Dihli, he was known as the
Khudāwand-Zādah of Mauṣil. He was of the same pro-
genitors' as the august Sulṭān, Shams-ud-Dunyā wa ud-
Din [I-yal-timish]³.
Hajib, according to some. In 478 H., the year before Sanjar was born, Tāj-ud-
Daulah, Abū Sa'id, surnamed Tutish, son of Alb-Arsalan, the Saljūķ, gained
possession of Ḥalab and its dependencies. Āk-Sankur, who was one of his
brother's slaves, in whom he placed great dependence, he made his Deputy
there. Tāj-ud-Daulah-i-Tutish at this time resided at Damashķ. Āķ-
Sankur became disaffected, and Tutish marched against him; and, in a battle
which took place between them, near Ḥalab, in 487 H., Āķ-Sanķur was slain.
He was succeeded by his son, 'IMĀD-UD-DĪN, ZANGI, who had
previously held the government of Baghdad under Sultan Maḥmūd, son of
Muḥammad, son of Malik Shah, Saljūķi; but, in 521 H. [some say 522 H.],
through the efforts of the Khalifah of Baghdad, Mustarshid, 'Imad-ud-Din,
Zangi, was appointed to the government of 'Irak-i-'Arab, the capital of which
was Maușil—so called from being situated between 'Irāķ and the Jazirah
[Mesopotamia], and derived from the 'Arabic Je, and Sulṭān Maḥmūd
sent two of his sons, Alb-Arsalān and Farrukh Shah, to Zangi to be brought
up; hence he was styled Atā-bak or Preceptor. In the same year he took
Halab, and, in 523 H., the fortress of Himar, in Kurdistan, which he razed,
and erected a fortress in place of it, which he named after himself, and it is
still known as 'Imādiah. He acquired sway over the greater part of Shām,
Diyar-i-Bakr, the Jaza'ir, and Mauşil. Zangi was slain while besieging the
fortress of Ja'bar. He was killed, some say, by his own slaves, in Muḥarram
[Yafa'i says in Rabi'-ul-Akhir], 541 H. We now come to Nur-ud-Din, whom
our author places as first of the Kurdish sovereigns of Shām.
On the death of Zangi, his two sons, Saif-ud-Din-i-Ghāzi, and ABŪ-L-
KASIM, NŪR-UD-DĪN, MAḤMŪD, styled AL-MALIK-UL-'ADIL [the
Just Malik], divided their father's dominions among them. The former took
Maușil and its dependencies, and the latter Sham and its dependencies. Nūr-
ud-Din proceeded to Ḥalab, and began to extend his authority. In 549 H. he
gained possession of Damashk, and his power and dominions were greatly
extended. He also gained possession of Hims, Hamah, Manbij, Ba'albak,
and other fortresses in the territory of Rūm, and numerous strongholds in the
country of the Farangs [the Latin kingdom of Jerusalem], more than fifty in
number in all. He sent the Amir, Asad-ud-Din, Sher-i-Koh, on three dif-
ferent occasions into Mișr; and, on the third occasion, Şalāḥ-ud-Din, Yūsuf,
became the Deputy of Nur-ud-Din in that country. See under Ṣalāḥ-ud-Din,
p. 214.
2 The word used is another signification of which, but not applicable
here I think, is the affinity between two men who have married two sisters.
3 And so the first-the Turk of Khita-is here made "a Kurd," while his
THE KURDIAH MALIKS OF SHAM.
205
This Khudawand-Zādah stated to the author, that the
whole of his ancestors were descendants of a slave of Sanjar
Shāh; and, that he himself was the eighth in descent from
that Turk of Khiṭā previously mentioned.
In short, Sulṭān Nūr-ud-Din, who was Malik of Shām,
was a just and conscientious monarch, and did a great deal
of good. He undertook many expeditions against the
infidels, and engaged in many conflicts with them. A
number of Maliks [chieftains], Kurds, Turks, 'Ajamis, and
'Arabs were in his service.
Sultan Nūr-ud-Din left numerous marks of his goodness
behind him in the territory of Sham', and reigned for
very many years".
At the time of his death he left one son, named 'Ali,
who succeeded him.
II. MALIK-UŞ-ŞALIḤ, 'ALI, SON OF MAḤMŪD-I-ZANGI.
Malik-us-Ṣāliḥ, 'Ali, ascended the throne of Shām at the
city of Damashk; and the great nobles and chieftains paid
brother Turk-the slave king of Dihli-is turned into "a Paṭān," i. e. an
Afghan, by Dow and his copyists.
4 Nūr-ud-Din reigned for a considerable time in great grandeur and glory,
and the laudable course of his life, and his conduct towards his people, were
such that he was accounted, by them, as one of the saints; and it is said, that
prayers, offered up before his tomb, are effectual. He founded a great hospital
at Damashk, and a university or college, and died in the month of Shawwal,
569 H., but some say in 568 H., when leading an army towards Misr against
Ṣalāḥ-ud-Din, who had become disaffected. Ibn-i-Khalkān says he died in
the citadel of Damashk.
5 His descendant, apparently, did not know how long his ancestor reigned.
6 Nur-ud-Din does not appear to have had any son called 'Ali; but certain
it is that he was not succeeded by one of that name, as our author states, but
by his son ISMÃ'ĪL, entitled MALIK-UṢ-ŞĀLIḤ, then a mere child, being
only in his eleventh year. Ṣalāḥ-ud-Din, at first, read the Khutbah for him,
and coined the money in his name, as he had done for his father previously;
but in 570 H., the year after his accession, when in his twelfth year, Şalaḥ-ud-
Din, taking advantage of his extreme youth, brought an army before Damashk,
and seized upon it and the greater part of Shām, leaving nothing to his bene-
factor's son but the city of Halab and its environs, to which place Malik-us-
Ṣāliḥ retired. He dwelt there till 577 H., when he died in his nineteenth
year, much regretted by the people for his virtues; and, with him, this branch
terminated.
If this account be compared with our author's, the absurdity and incorrect-
ness of his statements will be sufficiently apparent, more particularly those
contained in the last paragraph of his account of them. Of the Ata-baks of
Mauşil and several other dynasties, he gives no account.
206
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĂŞIRĪ.
1
allegiance and submission to him; and the districts around
Sham, and Halab, and Diyār-i-Bakr, came under his sway.
When intimation of the decease of Sultan Nūr-ud-Din
reached Misr-and at this time the sovereignty of Misr
had passed to Sultan Salaḥ-ud-Din, Yusuf-as he owed
a heavy debt of gratitude for favours conferred, Sultan
Ṣalāḥ-ud-Din determined to proceed from Misr to the
presence of Malik-us-Ṣāliḥ, pay his obeisance to him, and
perform the forms of condolence, and congratulate Malik-
us-Ṣāliḥ on his succession to the dominion of Sham, and
then return again.
He set out from Misr [accordingly] with a body of troops
and conducted it to Shām'; and, as soon as he reached
the frontier of that territory, information of his arrival was
brought to Damashk. The heart of Malik-us-Ṣāliḥ was
filled with affright and consternation, and he asked advice
of everybody as to what he ought to do. There was a
servant of Malik-us-Ṣāliḥ, who had also been an old follower
of his father, Sultan Nur-ud-Din, who was named Aymin,
and he said to Malik-us-Ṣāliḥ:-"It is advisable, when
Şalāḥ-ud-Din comes, to turn your face towards Halab and
proceed thither, and relinquish Damashk and Sham to
him, since fear of him has taken root in people's hearts.
7 A novel mode of expressing his gratitude. A traitor in Damashk, who
had been gained over by Ṣalāḥ-ud-Din, gave out that Ṣalāḥ-ud-Din was coming
merely to adjust the affairs of the child. Our author either forgets to allude to,
or did not know of, the hostilities that took place between Şaläḥ-ud-Din and
Saif-ud-Din-i-Ghāzi, the latter of whom sent his troops to aid his brother
'Izz-ud-Din, Mas'ud [they were sons of Maudūd, sons of Zangi, cousins of
Malik-us-Ṣāliḥ], who advanced to Halab, and, taking his cousin Malik-us-
Ṣāliḥ and the latter's troops with him, marched to give battle to Ṣalaḥ-ud-
Din. The latter offered peace, which 'Izz-ud-Din refused; and, in Ramaṣān
of 570 H., a battle took place near Hamah, in which Ṣalaḥ-ud-Din was
victorious. After this, Malik-us-Ṣāliḥ entered into terms with him for Halab
and some other places. Further hostilities took place between Saif-ud-Din-i-
Ghazi, supported by his brother, and—but I might fill a volume by merely
naming our author's misstatements, and other important matters which he
has left out, without giving any details of the facts. He omits nothing that is
childish and ridiculous; the ball, for example, overshadowing the sun [p. 215],
the rings for the Christian captives [p. 221], and such like nonsense: it is the
important events only that he eschews. Ṣalāḥ-ud-Din subsequently endeavoured
further to express his gratitude," by attempting, in 571 H., to gain posses-
sion of Halab. He remained a long time before it, without being able to
take it. At last, a daughter of the late Sultan Nur-ud-Din was made over to
him, and, for her sake, he left Malik-us-Ṣāliḥ unmolested.
THE KURDĪAH MALIKS OF SHAM.
207
He has great resources and a large army, and he is able
to reduce the territories under his sway. He is likewise
legitimately born, and has a well-disposed mind, and will
respect your rights and the gratitude he owes to your
father. If you should enter into hostilities with him, you
have neither the means nor the power to oppose nor to
resist him." The opinion of Malik-us-Ṣāliḥ was in accord
with this fact; and he left Damashk, and retired to Halab,
and consigned the territory of Shām into the hands of
Salāḥ-ud-Din.
Malik-us-Ṣāliḥ passed the remainder of his lifetime at
Halab; and Salāḥ-ud-Din served him in all honour and
reverence, guarded his rights, and, in the observance of the
laws of good faith, and the fulfilment of his engagements,
he failed neither to observe nor to neglect the most minute
thing.
III. MALIK AIYÜB, SON OF SHĀDĪº.
This Malik Aiyub, son of Shadi, and his brother, Malik
Asad-ud-Din, were two brothers, and sons of one of the
8 The correct titles and name of Ṣalaḥ-ud-Din's father were Malik-ul-Afzal,
Najm-ud-Din, Abū-Lashkar-i-Aiyūb.
Shādi, their father, son of Mardān, was born in a village of Aṣarbāījān,
and belonged to a Kurdish tribe, which he left and proceeded to Baghdad,
with his two sons, Asad-ud-Din, Sher-i-Koh, and Najm-ud-Din, Aiyūb. The
sons entered the service of Bahrūz, the prefect of Baghdad, and were entrusted
by him with the charge of the fortress of Takrit, and there Shādi died. His
tomb was still to be seen there when Yafa'i wrote; and within the walls of
that stronghold Ṣalāḥ-ud-Din was born. The brothers continued there for a
considerable period; and, at the time when 'Imad-ud-Din, Zangi, in 526 H.,
came to the aid of Sulṭān Mas'ūd, Saljūķi, and his brother Saljūķ Shāh, and
his Atā-bak, Karajah, the cup-bearer, were routed, Zangi passed the Tigris
near the fort of Takrit, by means of boats provided by the brothers. Subse-
quently, Asad-ud-Din having slain a person, they had to leave the fortress of
Takrit, and they proceeded to Mauşil, and presented themselves at the Court
of Zangi. He received them with great favour, and bestowed fiefs upon each
of them.
Subsequently, when Zangi was assassinated, and his son, Saif-ud-Din-i-
Ghāzi, succeeded him as ruler over Mauşil, Najm-ud-Din-i-Aiyüb, who had
been assigned the territory of Ba'albak by Zangi, finding Saif-ud-Din-i-Ghāzi
unable to protect him, had to give it up, and went and entered the service of
the then ruler of Damashk, named Majir-ud-Din, Artūķ [Artūķiah], who gave
him a fief. Asad-ud-Din, Sher-i-Koh, Aiyub's brother, went to Ḥalab and
took service under Nūr-ud-Din, Maḥmūd, Saif-ud-Din's brother, who had
seen the honour with which he had been treated in his father's time, and he
raised Asad-ud-Din to the highest position among his nobles; and, at the
208
THE TABAĶĀT-1-NĂŞIRĪ.
Kurdish chieftains in the territory of Shām; and they
passed a number of years in the service of Sulțân Nūr-ud-
Din. They performed great deeds, and on the confines of
Maghrab and of Sham, with numerous forces, they waged
holy war, and fought engagements against unbelievers.
When Malik Aiyūb, son of Shādi, departed this life, he
left four sons behind him: first, Malik Salāḥ-ud-Din,
Yusuf; second, Malik 'Adil-i-Abu-Bikr; third, Shāhan-
shah; and fourth, Saif-ul-Islam': and Malik Asad-ud-Din,
son of Shādi, as before stated, was the brother of Malik
Aiyub'.
When the latter died, his sons were in the service of their
uncle, Malik Asad-ud-Din; and the first person among
them [sic in MSS.] who became sovereign of Misr was this
same Asad-ud-Din; and the first one who acquired sove-
reignty in Shām was Ṣalāḥ-ud-Din, Yūsuf, son of Aiyūb,
as will, please God, be hereafter recorded 2.
IV. MALIK ASAD-UD-DĪN³, SON OF SHADİ, IN MIŞR.'
Trustworthy persons have related after this manner: that
a body of Maghrabi 'Alawis laid claim to the Khilafat",
taking of Damashk, Asad-ud-Din, Sher-i-Koh, and Ṣalāḥ-ud-Din, were in
Nur-ud-Din's service; and the former held the government of Hims.
• Abū Lashkar-i-Aiyub had six renowned sons, the titles and names of
whom, according to the years of their birth, are as follow:-1. Amir-Nūr-ud-
Daulah, Shāhan-Shāh. 2. Malik-ul-Muazzam, Shams-ud-Daulah, Tūrān
Shah. 3. Malik-un-Naşir, Şalāḥ-ud Din, Yusuf. 4. Malik-ul-'Ādil, Saif-
ud-Din [Daulah], Abū Bikr, Muḥammad. 5. Malik-ul-'Aziz, Zahir-ud-Din,
Abū Farās-i-Tugh-Tigin, Saif-ul-Islām. 6. Tāj-ul-Mulūk, Majd-ud-Din—
the least in years, the greatest in learning and accomplishments.
¹ Any one reading this would imagine that Aiyūb had been an independent
ruler in Shām, and one of the dynasty, and that he had died before Asad-ud-
Din, and before Şalāḥ-ud-Din rose to power; but neither of these is the fact.
Aiyub merely held Ba'albak of Zangi and another fief under his son. See
note, page 215.
2 Here is another specimen of an author who "narrates his facts in a plain,
straightforward manner, which induces a confidence in the sincerity of his
statements, and the accuracy of his knowledge." He begins this Section with
an account of the Kurdish rulers of Sham and Misr, the two first of whom
were Turks, and the third never reigned at all; while he himself states, subse-
quently, that the fourth was the first Kurd that ruled in Misr, and the fifth, the
first Kurdish ruler of Sham!
3 His correct name and titles are Abū-l-Ḥāris, Sher-i Koh [the Lion of the
Mountains], Asad-ud-Din, surnamed Al-Malik-ul-Manşür.
Nearly three hundred years before Nur-ud-Din despatched Asad-ud-
THE KURDĪAH MALIKS OF SHAM.
209
+
and brought an army from Maghrab into Mișr, and wrested
it out of the hands of the governors and nobles of the
'Abbāsi Khalifahs.
The chief of them was named Al-Muntaşir"; and some
theologians regard them as Karamiṭahs. The territory of
Misr had continued in the possession of his descendants
up to the period that an army of Afranj set out towards
Misr, and plundered and sacked the country. The 'Alawis
of Misr had not the power to resist them, nor to drive out
that host of infidels; so they solicited aid from Sulṭān
Nur-ud-Din of Sham. He nominated Malik Asad-ud-Din,
son of Shadi, to proceed into Misr, and expel the Afranj
infidels from that country.
Din into Misr, viz. in 296 H. In 351 H. they removed from the territory
styled Maghrab, and took up their abode in the former country.
5 Abu-Tamim-i-Sa'd, Al-Mustanşir B'illah, was the eighth of the Isma-
'ilians or Fatimites. They had been in Egypt, and had founded Ķāhirah
upwards of sixty years before Al-Mustanşir succeeded to the Khilafat. All
the copies of the text have "Muntaşir.
6 Our author's statements here are totally incorrect. Asad-ud-Din, Sher-i-
Koh, was despatched into Mișr-or more correctly Diyār-i-Mișriah, for Misr
is the name of the ancient capital of Egypt, and Yafa'i and others make this
distinction-upon three different occasions. The first occasion was in this
wise: Sha'ur, the Wazir of Misr, who held the chief power, for the Ismā'iliān
Khalifahs appear to have possessed little authority, had been ousted from
office by a powerful rival, Zir-gham by name, who obtained the chief authority,
and put Sha'ur's son, Tae, to death. On this, Sha'ur came to the presence of
Nur-ud-Din to solicit his aid in restoring him to power; and, in Ramaṣān,
558 H. [according to some in 559 H.], Nur-ud-Din despatched a numerous
army into Misriah for the purpose, under Asad-ud-Din, Sher-i-Koh, and
Şalãḥ-ud-Din, his nephew, accompanied him.
The objects of Nūr-ud-Din, in sending this expedition, were twofold. One
was to aid Sha'ur, and the second was his desire to know the exact state of the
affairs of that country, as he had been informed that there was really no ruler
in it, and that it might be easily annexed. Asad was therefore selected to
command, as Nur-ud-Din had implicit confidence in him. He accordingly
entered the Misriah territory in Jamādi-ul-Akhir, 559 H. [some say in 558 H.],
and Zir-gham was put to death, his head placed on a spear, and his body left
to the dogs and jackals; but his remains were subsequently buried. Sha'ur
again assumed the Wazir-ship, but, finding the presence of Asad and his army
irksome, and fearing treachery on Asad's part, he sought an alliance with the
Farangs [Latin Christians of Jerusalem] to counteract it. Asad in consequence
was unable to hold his own in the Misriah territory, and he accordingly retired
into Shām again and returned to Damashk, and entered it in Zi-Hijjah, 559 H.
[some say in 558 H.] Asad-ud-Din's thoughts, however, were concentrated on
Mișriah, and he was constantly pondering the subject. Sha'ur, becoming
aware of his ambition and covetous designs, entered into a treaty with the
Farangs to aid him, in case of need, against the ruler of Shām.
On the news of these negotiations reaching the ears of Nūr-ud-Din and
210
THE TABAKAT-I-NĂŞIRI.
Malik Asad-ud-Din preferred a request to the Sultān
that he would appoint Ṣalaḥ-ud-Din, Yusuf, his nephew, to
accompany him on the expedition. This was granted; and
Malik Asad-ud-Din, along with Ṣalāḥ-ud-Din, set out from
Shām towards Mișr.
When they reached the frontier of that country, the
infidel Afranj, having gained information of the arrival of
the troops of Sham, reined in the bridle of their audacity,
and they halted in that part of the country which they had
then reached.
The troops of Shām entered the territory of Mișr, and
acquired predominance over it; and, as they possessed
great power and magnificence, the 'Alawis of Misr became
timid of them, and repented of ever having sought their
assistance, as they were not sufficiently strong to hinder
them [the Shamis] from the usurpation of power and
authority over the country.
The Sayyid, who filled the masnad of the Khilafat in
Misr, had a Wazir, who bore the name of Sha-ür, and he
summoned him privily, and commanded that he should
write a letter, secretly, to the infidel Farangs, and tell
them "neither we nor our troops will render any help to
the Shāmis, and we will not send them sufficient succour.
It behoveth you to advance upon them: put forth your
strength, and drive them out of this country, and all the
Asad, they consulted together, and the former, fearing lest the Farangs might
gain a footing in Mișriah, and thereby acquire dominion over the whole of the
parts adjacent, determined to despatch Asad with a large army against Shā'ūr,
which commenced its march in Rabi'-ul-Awwal, 562 H., and Ṣalāḥ-ud-Din
attended him, being in his service.
Shā'ūr, on this movement, called in the Farangs; and, with those allies,
encountered Asad and his forces in several engagements, but without decisive
advantage on either side. Nur-ud-Din now created a diversion by sending a
force against the Farangi territory, and succeeded in taking Montreal [? ¿,kis].
The news of this having reached Almeric [], king of Jerusalem, an accommo-
dation was entered into by the contending parties, under the agreement that
not a man of either the Shāmis or Farangs should remain in the Mișriah
territory, and that both armies should retire into their respective countries.
Asad-ud-Din, Sher-i-Koh, in 564 H., again advanced into the Mișriah
territory, accompanied by his nephew, Ṣalāḥ-ud-Din, and a large army, and
sought to subdue it. Ṣalāḥ-ud-Din succeeded in getting possession of Iskan-
dariah, but Shā'ūr invested him therein with the forces of Misr, and Asad had
to evacuate Sa'id and march to his succour. At last a peace was come to, and
Asad and Ṣalāḥ-ud-Din returned to Shām again. For an account of the third
expedition see note ¹, page 212.
1
THE KURDĨAH MALIKS OF SHAM.
211
spoil taken from them shall be yours." In short, the
Misris sought, by such like treachery, to betray the army
of Shām into the hands of the troops of the infidels of Rūm'
and the Farangs.
In accordance with the solicitation contained in the letter
referred to, the Farang infidels advanced upon the forces of
Sham to give them battle, and drive them out of Misr.
The army of the infidel Farangs amounted to 80,000 men,
and that of Shām numbered 700 horse'.
When the two armies came into contact with each other
and the conflict and struggle began, the troops of Shām,
on account of the smallness of their numbers, were unable
to withstand their opponents; and, as a matter of necessity,
they were discomfited, and fled, fighting, from the gate of
Misr until they reached a place which is called Talbis.
This place had a fortified wall all round it, and a citadel;
and, in it, they sought shelter, and they shut themselves up
within the walls. The troops of the infidel Farangs com-
pletely surrounded it, pitched their camp, and commenced
their preparations for taking the place.
When the Shami forces perceived the extreme danger
they were in, and that they were completely invested,
besides the treachery of the 'Alawis of Misr, they all, of one
accord, deliberated together, and discussed a plan of escape.
Malik Asad-ud-Din and Ṣalāḥ-ud-Din told them, saying:
“The plan of saving yourselves consists in staking your
lives; in victory or death." They all, accordingly, agreed
together; and, placing their hands within the open grasp of
confidence, and with full trust in the Most High and Holy
God, they, having quite resigned themselves to sacrifice sweet
life if necessary, suddenly and unawares, issued from the
place and commenced fighting the infidels, as by orthodox
law prescribed: and heavenly succour came to their aid; and,
according to the promise of Him who promised victory to
7 No troops whatever of the Greek empire were employed on the occasion;
but, the fact is, our author was not acquainted with his subject at all, and has
concocted much nonsense.
8 The words Afranj and Farang are often used here indiscriminately.
9 On the preceding page he says Asad-ud-Din's troops "acquired predo-
minance over the territory of Misr," and Sha'ūr had to call in the Christians
to expel them, and immediately after tells this impudent falsehood. A very
trustworthy writer certainly!
212
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĂŞIRĪ.
the true believers, He sent succour, and the army of the
infidels was put to the rout, and the defenders of the truth
gained the victory; and from that place to the gate of
Mișr', and in the vicinity, and in the parts round about,
1 The cause of the third expedition was that, in 564 H., the Farangs [King
Almeric and the Hospitallers, A. D. 1168] invaded the Misriah territory,
intending to seize it for themselves. They marched to Balbis [the ancient
Pelusium], took it, and put the inhabitants to the sword. Again Sha'ūr
sought aid from Nur-ud-Din, who, fearing the Farangs and their designs, and
possessing vast resources, sent a countless army [not 700 horse probably] thither
under Asad-ud-Din, who, on this occasion, took with him his brethren [sic in
MS.] and kinsmen, including Ṣalaḥ-ud-Din. The account of the advance of
this host having been conveyed to the Farangs, they desisted from further
operations, evacuated Balbis, and retired from the country, pressed hard in
their retreat by Nur-ud-Din's Turkmāns. The author, from whom I have been
taking these extracts chiefly, says, "Şalaḥ-ud-Din told me himself that he
[Salaḥ-ud-Din] did not accompany his uncle of his own choice; and further,
that Sha'ur used to promise to defray all the expenses of this expedition, under-
taken on his account; but he did not fulfil his promises, and sometimes he
would be with the Farangs, and at times he would be with the Amir [Asad-
ud-Din]. Fearing the perfidy and double-dealing of Sha'ūr, Amir Asad
resolved to seize him; and, one day, when Sha'ur, attended with drums and
trumpets and banners, as is the custom with the Wazirs of Mișr, mounted and
set out with a cavalcade to visit Asad-ud-Din, the latter also mounted and
rode forth to receive him; but, when they met, he seized Sha'ur by the collar,
and gave a sign to his own followers to secure him. This was done, and
Sha'ur was detained as a prisoner in a tent. Shortly after, a body-servant
arrived from the sovereign of Miṣriah [Abū Muḥammad-i-'Abd-ullah, entitled
'Āzid, the last of the Isma'ilis of Egypt] signifying his desire that the head of
Sha'ur should be sent to him. This was in accordance with the custom of
the country, that any one who, by force, seized the Wazir's person, and cut off
his head and sent it to the ruler, should have the robe of Wazir-ship forthwith
brought to him; and, according to that custom, Asad cut off the head of
Sha'ur [had it cut off] and sent it, and on the same day he assumed the robe
of Wazir-ship, and the supreme direction of the affairs of the country." This
occurred 17th of Rabi'-ul-Akhir, 564 H.
Another account of the events ending in the death of Sha'ur, quoted in
Yafa'i, is not unworthy of a brief record here, and, in all probability, is the
most correct. When Asad-ud-Din reached the Misriah territory, and entered
Kahirah on the 17th of Rabi'-ul-Ãkhir, 564 H., 'Āṣid-i-’Abd-ullah, the last
of the Isma'ili Khalifahs, on the Friday following, came forth and held
an interview with Asad, and had him arrayed in a dress of honour, and treated
him with great distinction. Asad now requested Sha'ur to disburse the
expenses incurred on his account, which he had agreed to defray; but Shā'ūr
delayed. Asad sent a person to him with a message, saying, "My troops,
through want of their pay, are much incensed against you; therefore be
careful." Sha'ur evinced no fear, and resolved to invite Asad to an entertain-
ment in order to seize his person. This design having come to Asad's know-
ledge, Amir 'Izz-ud-Din, one of Nur-ud-Din's nobles, and Ṣalāḥ-ud-Din,
agreed together to kill Shā'ūr, and communicated the design to Asad, who for-
bade them to do so. Sha'ur, subsequently, in order to visit Asad, without any
THE KURDĪAH MALIKS OF SHĀM.
213
they made heaps of the slain. Praise be unto God! May
victory ever be theirs!
The troops of Islām having gained such a victory, at
once appeared before the gate of Mișr. The Wazir of
Misr, who was named Shā-ūr, performed the ceremonies of
going to receive them; but, as soon as the sight of that
victorious Sultan', Ṣalāḥ-ud-Din, fell upon him, he, in the
presence of Malik Asad-ud-Din, with his own august hand,
struck off with his sword the wretched head from that
accursed one's body.
The whole of the people of Misr and the forces of Sham
agreed together, with one accord, to raise Malik Asad-ud-
Din to the sovereignty; and he became sovereign of Misr
accordingly, and obtained the throne of that country".
The 'Alawis of Misr, without molestation or impediment,
were placed in seclusion, and the Khutbah was read for
them in the same manner as before¹.
The news of this success was despatched to Shām; and
the territory of Misr, together with its coasts and confines,
was taken possession of by Malik Asad-ud-Din, who resided
there for a considerable time; and he died³.
suspicion, came to the bank of the Nil, where his [Asad's] tents were pitched
to enable his followers to visit conveniently the tomb of Imam Shafi'i. Amir
'Izz-ud-Din and Ṣalāḥ-ud-Din, after they had received Shā ūr, and the usual
salutation of "Peace be unto thee," &c., had passed-Asad was not present at
the time-dragged him from his horse, upon which his followers fled. They
then handcuffed him, and kept him a prisoner in one of the tents, but did not
dare to put him to death without the permission of Nur-ud-Din [Asad?]. In
the meantime, 'Āzid, the Isma'ili, sent an order to put Sha'ur to death
[according to the custom before mentioned], on which his head was cut off [by
two slaves of Nur-ud-Din] and sent to 'Āzid on a spear. After this, 'Azid
summoned Asad-ud-Din to his presence, who went ; and the Wazir's robe was
conferred upon him, with the title of Al-Malik-ul-Manşür, Amir-ul-Juyūsh.
2 At this time this "victorious Sultan" was serving under his uncle, who
was himself serving Nur-ud-Din.
³ Asad-ud-Din was not raised to the sovereignty, and never occupied the
throne of Misr. For the refutation of this absurd and untrue statement, see
preceding note ¹.
4 At page 215 our author contradicts his own statement.
5 Asad did not enjoy his Wazir-ship very long, for on the 22nd [some say
26th] of Jamādi-ul-Akhir of the same year, two months and five days after he
obtained it—a "considerable time" truly-he died suddenly at Kahirah. He
was first buried there, but subsequently, according to his last wishes, his
remains were removed to Madinah. The "Lion of the Mountains" left a son,
Nāṣir-ud-Din, Muḥammad, Sher-i-Koh, entitled Al-Malik-ul-Kahirah. When
his father died, Sulṭān Nur-ud-Din of Shām, deprived him of the fief of
214
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĂŞIRĪ.
V. SULTAN ŞALAH-UD-DIN, YUSUF, SON OF AIYUB-AL-
KURDİ.
Sultan Salāḥ-ud-Din was a great and illustrious monarch,
and he waged holy wars and undertook many religious
expeditions; and the Kaisar of Rum and the infidel
Farangs, he encountered in many conflicts. It was most
probable, that in all his doings, and throughout the whole
of his career, the sword of heavenly success and divine
victory attended him. The territories of Sham, Ķudsi
[the Holy Land], Misr, Hijaz, and Yaman, all came under
his rule.
As the Most High God willed that, at this, the end
of time', His true religion should be manifested, and that
the empire of Islām should be victorious, from every illus-
trious family He made choice of one sovereign, His servant,
and, by means of the key of holy war waged by him,
caused the gates of conquest of the countries of the infidels
to be thrown open. In the same manner as in the countries
of the East He distinguished Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din, Mu-
ḥammad-i-Sām, Shansabi [Shansabāni], Ghūri, by great
victories in the country of Hindustan, as far as the boun-
daries of Chin; in the territories of the West, and in the
country of Shām, He made Sultan Salaḥ-ud-Din, Yusuf,
the Kurd, exalted by the conquests of the territories of
Maghrab, and of the Afranj³, so that great victories were
achieved by him.
He brought back again the realm of Misr from the hands.
Ḥims; but, when Ṣalāḥ-ud-Din, his cousin, gained possession of Shām, he
restored Hims to him, and there he died in 581 н.
• Ṣalaḥ-ud-Din had an elder brother named Malik-ul-Muazzam, Shams-ud-
Daulah, Tūrān Shah, and greatly esteemed by that Sultan. He employed
him in an expedition into Yaman, and subsequently sent him into Nubah
[Nubia of Europeans], and he was afterwards placed in charge of Damashk.
He died in Şafar, 576 H., and was buried in the Madrasah in sight of Damashk,
which he had himself founded.
7 Our author has been as unsuccessful in foretelling the end of the world,
as some others, his successors, who pretend to know the secrets of futurity and
the will of Providence.
8 It is somewhat new to find that Ṣalāḥ-ud-Din made conquests in Europe.
He does not mean conquests in Palestine or the Greek empire, for he mentions
them a little farther on. This is merely another of his audacious falsehoods. The
سلطان صلاح الدین یوسف کردی را بفتوح دیار مغرب و افرنج مخصوص کردانید,words he uses care
THE KURDĪAH MALIKS OF SHĀM.
215
of the Misri 'Alawis, who were the chiefs and heads of the
Batinah and Karāmiṭah heretics, under the sway of the
Khalifahs of the house of 'Abbās; and Kuds [the Holy
City], 'Akkah [Acre], and a great portion of the territories
of Rūm, and Filiştin, he liberated from the hands of the
infidel Farangs.
The beginning of his career was this. When his father,
Malik Aiyub, son of Shadi, departed this life', he was in
the service of his uncle, Malik Asad-ud-Din, as has been
already stated in what has been previously recorded, and
used to be constant in his attendance at the Court of Sultan
Nūr-ud-Din. He had acquired great fame for his manhood,
his activity, and his sagacity. He had also become an
associate with Sultan Nur-ud-Din in the game of Chaugān,
and playing at ball on the course¹.
One of the trustworthy has related after the following
manner -One day Salāḥ-ud-Din was engaged with Sultan
Nur-ud-Din in the game at ball, and the ball fell between
him and the Sultan. By his strength and agility, Ṣalāḥ-
ud-Din, with one blow, bore away the ball from the Sultan
in such a way, that, from the immense force with which
his Chaugan struck it, the ball flew into the air so far that
it became immersed in the light of the sun, and the shadow
of it fell upon Nur-ud-Din. When the Sultan noticed this
circumstance, his heart became so overpowered with wrath,
that he threw down his Chaugān in a rage and left the
course. This circumstance filled Ṣalāḥ-ud-Din with fear
and apprehension, and he began to conceal himself from
"The
9 Here is another specimen of the false statements of our author, so trust-
worthy." Asad died in 564 H., and Ṣalāḥ-ud-Din's father, Abū-Lashkar-i-
Aiyub, joined his son in Egypt in the following year, when Ṣalah-ud-Din had
succeeded to the Wazir-ship held previously by his uncle. Salãḥ-ud-Din
wished his father to accept the office, but Aiyub refused, saying,
Almighty hath chosen thee, my son, for this office, and consequently no one
else is worthy of it." Aiyub was killed from injuries sustained by a fall from
his horse, which threw him when he was viewing Ṣalaḥ-ud-Din's troops file
past before the Bab-un-Nasr [the Nasr Gate] of Kahirah, on an expedition
against Karak, in Zi-Hijjah, 567 H., about three years after Asad's death.
Aiyub entered Ķāhirah in Rajab, 565 H., and 'Ăzid, the Isma'ilian Khalifah,
in order to gratify Salaḥ-ud-Din, came forth to receive his father, whom he
treated with great reverence and distinction.
1 Sic in MSS.
2 Our author must have been a very simple-minded man indeed if he
believed this; but many of his statements are equally childish and absurd.
216
THE TABAKAT.I.NĂŞIRĪ.
the Sultan's sight, and seldom used to present himself to
the Sultan's observation.
The author heard from Khwajah Muzhir, a merchant,
that, at the period in question, one night Sultan Salāḥ-ud-
Din saw, in a dream, that he was in Misr, and that, at
night, some people seized him, and took him away to the
palace of the sovereign, and, having placed a tent-rope
around his neck, they hung him up from the battlements of
the palace. The terror which this produced awoke him
from his sleep, and his apprehension became still greater
than before, and he was constantly overwhelmed with
anxiety³. Unexpectedly, the envoy from the 'Alawis of
Misr arrived to solicit aid from Sultan Nūr-ud-Din, as has
been related previously. The Sultan appointed Salāḥ-ud-
Din's uncle, Malik Asad-ud-Din, to proceed thither, and he
solicited that his nephew, Ṣalāḥ-ud-Din, should be allowed
to accompany him.
The latter was so overcome with fear, caused by this
dream, that he went to an interpreter of dreams, and related
the dream to him. The interpreter said :-" May the sove-
reignty of Mișr be propitious! Allow no anxiety to find a
way into thy mind, for the Almighty God will make thee
a great king." On the strength of that interpretation, with
a buoyant heart and with expanded hope, he reached Mişr,
where all those circumstances happened to him and to his
uncle, as already stated.
When his uncle died, the people of Mișr and the troops.
of Shām were agreeable to his assuming the sovereignty,
but he would not in any way assent to it. When the
3 These are the exact words of our author; but the story is related somewhat
differently. "One night, before he had gone to Misr, he saw in a dream that
a party of people, having put a tent-rope about his neck, drew him up to the
battlements of the metropolis of Misr by the neck. When Asad-ud-Din was
about to proceed into that country, he used to endeavour to persuade Ṣalaḥ-
ud-Din to accompany him; but the latter, on account of this dream, which he
kept secret, used to manifest great disinclination to accede. At length, having
communicated the dream to an interpreter of dreams, he was told that it sig-
nified he should become ruler of that country, and after this he was quite
willing to go."
4 Another of our author's absurdities or wilful perversions of facts. After
the death of Asad-ud-Din, his nephew, Ṣalāḥ-ud-Din, was chosen Wazir,
from among several candidates, by the Isma'ili Khalifah, 'Azid, as he con-
sidered Şalāḥ-ud-Din rather weak in intellect, and less to be feared than the
others, in which he greatly deceived himself. Instead of seizing people's
THE KURDĨAH MALIKS OF SHAM.
217
importunity of people, however, exceeded all bounds,
Sultan Salaḥ-ud-Din commanded, saying :—"I will comply
property and effects, Ṣalāḥ-ud-Din began to appropriate their hearts, by
making them his own; and he likewise resolved to lead a new life, and
renounced wine and women, riotous living and amusements, and other vicious
practices. Having obtained the direction of the affairs of the country, Salāḥ-
ud-Din issued commands to read the Khutbah for Nur-ud-Din; and the latter
addressed him in all his communications as the Amir-i-Sipah-sālār ['Āṣid
having previously given him the title of Malik-un-Naşir]. As Ṣalāḥ-ud-Din
acquired the attachment of the people, 'Āzid lost it; and he now sent for his
brothers, who were in the service of Nur-ud-Din, who would not allow them to
go, mentioning, as his reason, his fear lest either of them should become hostile to
his brother Ṣalāḥ-ud-Din, but the truth was Nur-ud-Din suspected his motives.
However, when Nūr-ud-Din subsequently despatched his troops to operate
against the Farangs, who had invaded the Misriah territory, he entrusted
Şalāḥ-ud-Din's elder brother, Shams-ud-Daulah, Tūrān Shāh, with a com-
mand in that army, but with orders that he was not to consider Yusuf [Ṣalāḥ-
ud-Din] as his younger brother, but as the lord of Misr, and his [Nūr-ud-
Din's] lieutenant and representative; and this order Tūrān Shāh agreed to
obey.
Ibn Aşir says, that, when Ṣalāḥ-ud-Din had become firmly established, Nūr-
ud-Din sent to command him to give up reading the Khutbah for 'Ăṣid, and
to read it for the 'Abbāsi Khalifahs. Ṣalāḥ-ud-Din excused himself by saying
that the people were well-inclined towards the present family, and he feared,
if he obeyed, that an insurrection would take place. Nur-ud-Din, however,
wrote the second and the third time to order him to do so, and Ṣalāḥ-ud-Din, not
daring to disobey the reiterated commands of his suzerain, was in a dilemma,
but it so happened that 'Azid was about this time taken ill. Ṣalāḥ-ud-Din
now consulted with the chiefs and nobles as to what should be done; but
some said one thing and some another, and the difficulty was as great as
before. At this juncture, a person of some note, named Amir-i-'Ālim [Guzi-
dah calls him Najm-ud-Din], an 'Ajami, who had come to Misr, offered to
take the initiative, if permitted; and, on the first Friday in the month of
Muḥarram, before the Khatib [the preacher who pronounces the Khutbah]
entered the pulpit, this 'Ajami got into it, and prayed for the 'Abbasi Khali-
fah, Imam Mustazi B'nur-Ullah. The Misris who were present made no
objection, and the next Friday Ṣalāḥ-ud-Din directed that the Khutbah for
'Āzid should be discontinued at Kahirah and at Mişr [the old capital], and that
for Mustazi B'nur-Ullah adopted, and also in other parts of the Diyār-i-Miṣriah.
The disorder of ’Āṣid had increased, and this matter was, in consequence, not
communicated to him, because, in case he ever arose from his bed again, he
would soon hear of it, and if not, of what use was it to afflict him? Ṣalā ḥ-ud-
Din took care, however, to separate the family, slaves, and dependents of 'Āzid
from each other, and to provide for the security of the dying man's wealth and
effects. Before his death, 'Āzid sent for him; but, fearing treachery, as he pre-
tended, Ṣalāḥ-ud-Din did not go, and regretted it afterwards. 'Āzid died 10th
of Muḥarram, 567 11. [Fașiḥ-i says 565 H.], and the 'Ubaidi Ismā'ili dynasty
terminated. [According to VERTOT vol. ii. p. 209, Ṣalaḥ-ud-Din had the
Khalifah murdered in or out of his bath, and says it was narrated freely by
the Christians, but that the Moslems were silent on the matter.] When the
Abbāsi Khalifah, Al-Mustazi B'nūr-Ullah, received information that the
Khutbah had been read for him in Mişriah, he despatched 'Imãād-ud-Din, a
Р
218
THE TABAKAT-I-NĂŞIRĪ.
!
with your solicitations. on the stipulation that you attend
to a request of mine." To this demand of his they signified
their assent. Sultan Salāḥ-ud-Din commanded that they
should assemble, on the morrow, in the great mosque, at
which time he would make his request known to them, and
accept the sovereignty of Mişr. To this all pledged their
faith; and the next day they all assembled in the great
mosque of Misr, and solicited that he would mention his
request.
Ṣalāḥ-ud-Din demanded that they should give their alle-
giance to the Khalifahs of the house of 'Abbās as the
successors of the Prophet and chief patriarchs. The people
all agreed to pledge their fealty to the house of 'Abbas;
and, at that time, the Lord of the Faithful, Al-Mustazi
B'amr-Ullah', filled the office of Khalifah, and the Khutbah
was pronounced in the name of the 'Abbasi family. A
despatch announcing this triumph was forwarded to Bagh-
dad, the capital of the Khalifahs, together with the standard
of the Farangs, inverted, and the flags of the Karamitah
heretics, to the presence of the Khalifah, Al-Mustazi
B'amr-Ullah.
From the capital of Islām, Ṣalāḥ-ud-Din received the
title of Malik-un-Năṣirº, and he became sovereign of Mișr;
venerable and illustrious dependent of the 'Abbasi dynasty, to Sham, with
rich dresses of honour for Nūr-ud-Din-to the sovereign, not to his lieutenant,
Ṣalāḥ ud-Din,—but robes of honour were also despatched to Ṣalah-ud-Din,
together with black hangings for the pulpits of Misriah, as the Isma'ili
colour was green.
In 569 H. Nūr-ud-Din directed Ṣalāḥ-ud-Din to assemble the forces of
Mișriah, and march against the Christian territory, and invest Karak, and pro-
mised to come himself likewise. Ṣalāḥ-ud-Din reported his departure 20th of
Muḥarram, from Kahirah; and Nur-ud-Din, on receipt of his despatch at
Damashk, marched towards Karak, and, having reached it, fully expected the
arrival of Şalāḥ-ud-Din and his forces. He was, however, too cunning to
trust himself in the power of his master, and wrote excusing himself on
account of pretended disaffection in Misriah. Nur-ud-Din repeated his com-
mands without avail, and had serious intentions of marching into the country
and removing his disobedient lieutenant. Ibn-i-Shadad gives a different
account of this circumstance, which is too long for insertion here, and says it
happened in 568 H. Nur-ud-Din died in 569 H.
5 Faşiḥ-i says that, the first time the Khutbah was read in the Diyār-i-
Misriah, it was read for Al-Mustanjid, who died in the beginning of the
of Rabi'-ul-Awwal, 566 H., but, subsequently, the news of his death, and
...cession of his son Al-Mustazi B'nūr-Ullah [not B'amr-Ullah] was received.
This statement is totally incorrect: the title was conferred upon him by
'Aid, the Isma'ili Khalifah, when Ṣalāḥ-ud-Din became his Wazir.
THE KURDIAH MALIKS OF SHAM.
219
and, at this time also, Sulṭān Nūr-ud-Din died'. Sulṭān
Ṣalāḥ-ud-Din marched into Shām, and assumed the throne
of sovereignty, as has been previously stated. He con-
ferred the [government of the] territory of Misr upon one
of his sons, Malik-ul-'Aziz, and another son, Malik-ul-
Afzal, he nominated to be his heir; and upon his brother,
Malik-ul-'Adil, he conferred the province of Diyār-i-Bakr.
8
One of the most distinguished [persons] of the trust-
worthy has related, that, when the news of the accession of
Sultan Salāḥ-ud-Din reached the territories of Rūm and
the Kaiṣars of the Farangs, a countless army came from
the country of the infidels, and advanced into Shām, and
fought a battle with Sultan Ṣalāḥ-ud-Din before the gate
of Damashk'. The army of Islam was defeated and over-
thrown, and the Sultan, flying before them, retired within
the walls of the city of Damashk. The infidels pitched
their camp before the gates of the place, and the Musal-
māns sustained great calamity and misery.
Sultan Salāḥ-ud-Din assembled the inhabitants of Dam-
ashk in a certain place, in order to induce them to pledge
themselves to make holy war upon the infidels, and to
attack them and drive them away. He deputed one of the
godly 'Ulama to ascend the pulpit, to speak a few words
in order to incite the people to holy warfare, and urge them
7 Nūr-ud-Din did not die until 569 H., and the Khutbah was read for the
'Abbāsis in 567 H.
8 The plural form is used in all the copies of the text collated.
9 This assertion is totally false: during the whole of the reign of Şalāḥ-ud-
Din, and the numerous battles that took place therein, no battle was ever fought
before Damashk between him and the Farangs. The rest of our author's state-
ment may be depended upon accordingly. It is something like 700 horse
routing S0,000 Crusaders, and their dead lying in heaps for miles. Our worthy
author probably considered, when he wrote this, that, as Hindustan was such a
far-off country, he might make any statement for the glorification of the Mus-
salman faith with impunity. The great battles that took place during the
reign of Ṣalaḥ-ud-Din, of course, are not mentioned, and were probably
unknown to Minhaj-i-Sarāj, who was so industrious in collecting information
from 'trustworthy persons,' and who often [very !] mentions his authority for
the facts he records "-of which, probably, the matter of the rings for the ears
of the Crusaders farther on is one. Our author has evidently been confused
about the investment of Damashk in the year 543 H., some years before Sulṭān
Nür-ud-Din obtained possession of it, when Ṣalāḥ-ud-Din was in his eleventh
year, and in the defence of which city his eldest brother, Amir Nur-ud-Daulah
Shāhan Shah, so greatly distinguished himself, and died of the wounds he
received on that occasion.
1 2
220
THE TABAKAT-I-NAŞIRI.
to enter into conflict with the infidels'. The godly eccle-
siastic, with all sincerity of heart, turned his face towards
Salāḥ-ud-Din, and said:-"Oh, Salaḥ-ud-Din, from thy
mouth, thy tongue, and thy person, emanateth the effluvium
of Satan's urine! How canst thou expect that the Most
High God will ratify thy vow? how can it be regarded as
real and sincere?"
This reproof, by the grace of God, took effect upon the
august heart of Ṣalāḥ-ud-Din. He got up, and on the
hand of that godly ecclesiastic he expressed contrition, and
renounced wine and all other sins'. The people, with sin-
cere eagerness and willingness, renewed to him their vows
to undertake holy war; and from that very spot they
turned their faces in the direction of the scene of holy
warfare. The whole of the people issued from the city, and
they fell upon the army of the infidels. The Most High
God sent them heavenly assistance, and the enemies of the
faith were defeated and overthrown, and such a vast num-
ber of them were sent to Hell by the stroke of the sword
of the defenders of the true faith, as cannot be numbered
or computed. The whole of the Maliks' [princes], and
1 Ṣalāḥ-ud-Din was too wise to trust to "the people" to make holy war and
defend his cities. He depended more upon his hardy troops, well knowing
that rabble cannot be turned into soldiers at a nod of the head.
2 See beginning of note 4, p. 216. Our author confounds both times as
well as events.
3 Ṣalāḥ-ud-Din's total overthrow, near 'Asķalān, at the head of an immense
force by the sick king Baldwin IV.-at the time that Ṣalaḥ-ud-Din marched
against Jerusalem in Nov. 1179 A.D.=575 H., when Odo de St. Amand, the
Master of the Temple, at the head of eighty of his knights rode through Ṣalāḥ-ud-
Din's Mamluk body-guard of a thousand picked men, in coats of mail and saffron
coloured mantles, and penetrated to Ṣalāḥ-ud-Din's own tent, from which he
with difficulty escaped almost naked, and had scarcely time to scramble up the
back of a fleet dromedary and make for the desert--is an event which our
author would scorn to chronicle. On this occasion, pigeons spread over Egypt
the triumphant news of a victory, in order, as the Arab chroniclers say, "to quiet
the minds of the people," although scarcely one of the Egyptian army ever got
back to Egypt again. Neither would our author condescend to chronicle the
crushing defeat, inflicted upon Ṣalāḥ-ud-Din and his immense host, by Richard
Coeur-de-Lion, and his French and Burgundian allies, near Arsūf, in 1191 A.D.
587 H., nor the alacrity with which, soon after, he agreed to enter into a
treaty with Richard [who had rebellion at home to crush], when his forces were
in such a woeful plight, but the real state of his affairs unknown to the
Christians.
4 The word Malik may mean king here; and our author might have desired
his readers to believe that all the kings of the Franks were made captive.
THE KURDIAH MALIKS OF SHĀM.
221
nobles, and chief personages among the Farangs were
made captives.
The Islāmis having become victorious and triumphant,
Sulṭān Ṣalāḥ-ud-Din directed every one to devise [means]
for the disposal of the Farang captives. At last the Sulṭān
determined to set the whole of them at liberty, and they
were set free accordingly; and he made them signify their
repentance, and conferred gifts upon them. After they had
departed to the distance of a day's journey, they sent a
representation to the Sultan, saying:-"We are all your
servants, set at liberty by you: send to each of us a ring
that we may insert it in our ears, and then we will depart."
The Sultan commanded that a sufficient number of rings
should be prepared, of pure gold, sufficient to supply every
one of them with one of the weight of one miskal'; and they
were sent to them, and the whole of the liberated captives
inserted the rings in their ears, and they went away; and
of that host not one person ever again came to fight against
the Sulṭān's troops.
Sultan Salāḥ-ud-Din became firmly established, and
his illustrious deeds in Islām will endure. He reigned for
a very long period, and died. He had six sons, whose
titles were as follows:-Malik-uz-Zahir, Malik-ul-Afzal,
Probably he heard something about Salãḥ-ud-Din's encounters with the Latin
Christians and the battle of Tiberias, just before the capitulation of Jerusalem in
583 H., and has confounded them with the investment of Damashk by the
Emperor Conrad and Louis VII. in 541 H., some years before the death of
Zangi, Nur-ud-Din's father, when Ṣalaḥ-ud-Din was about nine years old.
He has made a precious hash of the account of the Kurdish rulers, and of
Şalāḥ-ud-Din's reign in particular.
5 Rings in the ears are emblems of slavery. Bigoted Mullas, like our author,
stick at no falsehoods in their endeavours to enbance the deeds of their co-
religionists; but the 'Arab chroniclers of the Crusades are very different, and
their writings, generally, bear the stamp of truth. I need scarcely say that
their accounts are very different to our author's, and that such an absurd state-
ment will not be found in any of their writings.
6 He knows all about the rings and their weight, but he does not know how
long Salãḥ-ud-Din ruled, or when he died. All his sovereigns reign "for a
long period, and die ;" and the same stereotyped expression answers for Asad-
ud-Din, Şalāḥ-ud-Din's uncle, who never reigned at all, but was the Wazir of
Egypt for sixty-five days, and for Ṣalaḥ-ud-Din, who reigned [after Nur-ud-
Din's death] from 569 to 589 H.
7 Ṣalaḥ-ud-Din had a number of sons, but the names of six only have been
recorded; the others may have died very young. The correct titles and names
of the six referred to are as follows:-
1. Abu-l-Hasan-i-'Ali, Malik-ul-Afzal, Nūr-ud-Din, who was the eldest
222
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NAŞIRĪ.
Malik-ul-'Aziz, Malik-ul-Muḥsin, Malik-ul-Mushtammir,
and Malik-us-Ṣāliḥ.
VI. MALIK-UL-AFZAL³, 'ALĪ, SON OF ṢALĀḤ-UD-DĪN, YŪSUF,
SON OF AIYÜB, AL-KURDĪ.
Malik-ul-Afzal, 'Ali, was the heir of Sultan Salaḥ-ud-Din,
Yusuf; and on the death of the Sultan he ascended the
throne of the territories of Damashk and Shām".
9
All presented themselves before him, and paid him hom-
age, and submitted to him, with the exception of Malik-ul-
'Aziz, his brother, who was ruler of Mişr. He led an army
into Shām in order to claim the sovereignty from 'Aziz;
and Malik-ul-’Ādil, Abū-Bikr, son of Aiyub, the brother of
[the late] Ṣalāḥ-ud-Din, and who held the territory of
Diyār-i-Bakr, took part with [his nephew] Malik-ul-’Aziz.
They invested Malik-ul-Afzal within the walls of Damashk,
and for a considerable time contention continued between
them. At length it was agreed that Damashk should be
given up to Malik-ul-'Aziz, and peace was effected. The
territory of Sar-ḥadd', which is a tract of country in
Shām, was assigned to Malik-ul-Afzal.
son, and the heir-apparent. 2. Malik-ul-'Aziz, 'Imād-ud-Din, Abū·l-Fatḥ,
'Uşman, who was the favourite son. 3. Malik-ut-Tahir, Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din,
Abu-Manṣur-i-Ghāzi. 4. Malik-uz-Zāfir, Al-Mushtammir, Muzaffar-ud-Din,
Abū-l-Ķāsim, Abū-l-'Abbās-i-Huzr, full brother of Zafir. 5. Malik-uz-Zahir,
the remainder of whose titles and names are not mentioned, neither are the titles
“Malik-ul-Muḥsin," nor "Malik-us-Ṣāliḥ" mentioned except by our author.
6. Malik-uz-Zāhid, Majir-ud-Din, Abū-Sulimān-i-Da'ud. He was the twelfth
son of Ṣalaḥ-ud-Din, and full brother of Zahir.
He was the eldest son
8 For his correct name and titles see note 7 above.
of Sulṭān Ṣalāḥ-ud-Din, and his father's heir-apparent. On the death of his
father, at Damashk, where Afzal then was, and which he held the government
of, he assumed the sovereignty over that territory, whilst his brother, 'Aziz,
assumed sovereignty over the Diyār-i-Miṣriah, of which he held charge.
Another brother, Malik-uz-Zahir, held Ḥalab. Contention went on between
the brothers, Afzal and 'Aziz, the latter supported by his uncle 'Ãdil, for a
considerable time, the details of which are too long for insertion here.
At last,
Afzal was invested in Damashk and made prisoner, and a portion of territory
on the frontier was assigned to him.
9 Other writers place Malik-ul-'Aziz next after his father, as he assumed
the sovereignty over the territory of Mișriah, and overcame his brother, Malik-
ul-Afzal, who held Shām.
1 The word here used is unintelligible. It is
written in different ways in
Yafa'i مسکت and also سکمت سکھت سلحت nearly every copy which مقام سرحد ,Yafai says
means "a place on the frontier." There is
a
place called "Şar-khad.”
THE KURDIAH MALIKS OF SHAM.
223
He was a learned and very enlightened man², and com-
posed beautiful poetry. The situation in which he was
[now] placed, together with the condition of his brother,
who was named 'Uṣmān [Malik-ul-'Aziz], and their uncle,
Abū-Bikr [Malik-ul-'Adil], he depicted in the two following
couplets, and sent them to the Court of Baghdād, to the
Khalifah, Un-Nāṣir-ud-Din-Ullah ; for the office of Khalifah
had fallen to Imām, Un-Naşir. The two couplets are as
follows:-
'My lord! Abu-Bikr and his companion, 'Usmān,
Have, by the sword, deprived 'Ali of his right.
Remark the fatality of the name; how it suffers, from the last,
The same wrong as from the first [generation] it endured ³."
After some time expired, Malik-ul-'Aziz died, and Malik
ul-Afzal was entreated to come into Misr. He proceeded
thither, and from thence he brought an army into Sham.
Malik-ul-'Aziz had made over Sham to his uncle, Malik-ul-
'Adil, and he and Malik-ul-Afzal came to a battle, and the
latter was defeated". At length, however, Malik-ul-Afzal
chanced to have a meeting with his uncle, who gave him
Samisāṭ. He remained there for a long time, and he
died'.
VII. MALIK-UL-'AZĪZ, 'UŞMĂN, SON OF ŞALĀḤ-UD-DĪN,
YUSUF, SON OF AIYUB, AL-KURDİ.
The name of Malik-ul-'Aziz was 'Usman; and, when
Sultan Salāḥ-ud-Din came to the throne of Sham, and the
Other writers say Afzal was a state prisoner when his brother died, and that
he was invited to Misr to act as Atā-bak to 'Aziz's son, Malik-ul-Manşūr.
The celebrated historian, the learned Abu-l-Fath-i-Naṣr-ullah, son of
Ziya-ud-Din, Muḥammad, Shibāni, surnamed Ibn Aşir, was Malik-ul-Afzal's
Wazir.
3 Yafa'i has four lines more. The reference of course is to the Khalifah
'Ali and the two first Khalifahs.
4 All the copies of the text are alike here; but, as 'Aziz died in Misr,
Afzal was invited to come to Misr. See last paragraph of the next reign,
page 224.
5 After assuming the throne of Mișr after 'Aziz's death, Afzal invested his
uncle, 'Adil, within the walls of Damashk, and reduced him to great straits;
but his son, Kamil, having advanced from the eastern parts with an army,
raised the investment, and the father and son overcame Afzal, and deprived
him of Misr, and he was fain to content himself with Ṣamiṣāt.
6 Some write this name Samisāt, others, Shamisat, and some, Ṣamiṣāt.
The last, however, seems most correct.
7 In 622 H,
224
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĀṢIRĪ.
dominions of Shām and the territories of Miṣr, Diyār-i-
Bakr, Filistin, and Sikandariah came under his sway, he
conferred the throne of Misr upon his eldest son, who bore
the title of Malik-ul-'Aziz. He brought that country
under subjection, and was a man of tact and capacity, and
in the guardianship of that country, he showed many
laudable dispositions.
When his father, Sultan Salāḥ-ud-Din, died, Malik-ul-
'Aziz led an army from Misr and appeared before
Damashk; and his uncle, Malik-ul-'Adil, joined him. He
wrested the territories of Diyār-i-Bakr and Damashk out
of the hands of his brother, Malik-ul-Afzal, and gave up to
his uncle, Malik-ul-'Adil, Sham and Damashk and the
whole of that region, and returned again to Mișr.
A short time afterwards the decree of destiny overtook
him, and he sustained a fall from his horse, and broke his
neck, and he died. After this occurrence, Malik-ul-Afzal
came into Mișr, and took possession of that country'.
VIII. MALIK-UL-'ADIL, ABŪ-BIKR 2, SON OF AIYŪB, SON OF
SHADI, AL-KURDİ.
Some time subsequent to Malik-ul-'Adil's having as-
cended the throne of the kingdom of Sham, and after he
had defeated Malik-ul-Afzal, who had brought an army
from the side of Misr, and he ['Adil] had reduced the
various provinces of the territory [entrusted to him] under
his sway, the daughter of a Kaişar of the Farangs entered
3
8 'Aziz was the second, not the eldest son. Afzal was the eldest of
Şalāḥ-ud-Din's sons, according to Yafa'i and other chroniclers. See note 7
'Aziz was merely his father's lieutenant in Mișr.
p. 221.
9 The first attempt on the part of 'Aziz to deprive his brother of Damashk
did not succeed; but on the second occasion he succeeded.
1 See page 223, and note 4.
2 His correct titles and name are, Malik-ul-'Adil, Saif-ud-Din, Abu-Bikr-i-
Muḥammad.
3 Our author has neglected-for a very good reason, doubtless-to name his
trustworthy" authority for this statement, of a piece with the "rings," and
the like. There is nothing whatever contained in any of the authorities I have
consulted to warrant such an assertion, not even that a Christian female had
had the misfortune to be his captive, and was immured in his haram, much
less a Christian princess. Such a circumstance, if true, was not likely to have
been passed over in silence.
THE KURDĨAH MALIKS OF SHĀM.
225.
his haram, and he married her, and that daughter bore him
several children.
This Malik-ul-'Ādil was a sagacious, discerning, compe-
tent, experienced, and crafty man, and he ruled for a great
number of years. He held possession of the different parts
[of his territory], to the best of his judgment and ability;
and his adversaries kept quietly and peaceably each within
his own dominions, and hence he had but seldom to carry
on hostilities¹.
He had several distinguished sons, who acquired great
4 Malik-ul-'Ãdil accompanied his uncle, Asad-ud-Din, when the latter was
despatched into Misr by Nur-ud-Din, at which time Ṣalaḥ-ud-Din also went,
as previously related. When Ṣalaḥ-ud-Din acquired power in that country,
he sent his brother, 'Adil, as his representative into Sham; and, when Ṣalāḥ-
ud-Din marched against Karak, in Rabi'-ul-Awwal, 579 H., 'Ādil was left in
Misr, but he was summoned from thence, with all the available troops, to
join Salāh-ud-Din, as the Christians had assembled in strong force with
hostile intent against the Musalmāns. 'Ādil joined him there accordingly,
with an immense army, in Sha'ban of the same year. When Salaḥ-ud-Din
gained possession of Halab, in the same year, he bestowed it upon 'Adil,
having taken it from his own son Malik-ut-Tahir, to whom he had just before
entrusted it. Ṣalāḥ-ud-Din was in the habit of placing his strongholds in
charge of his brothers and nephews and other kinsmen, and not of entrusting
them to his sons. At last, Suliman, one of the Amirs [nobles] of Halab, an old
friend of Ṣalāḥ-ud-Din, expostulated with him on the subject and it took effect,
and he at once gave back Halab to Tahir. When Sultan Salaḥ-ud-Din went
against Mauşil, in Sha'bān, 581 H., and was taken ill, and a peace was con-
cluded between him and 'Izz-ud-Din Mas'ud, of Mauşil, he was joined at Ḥarrān,
by his brother 'Adil, on whom he had conferred the fiefs of Ḥarran, Ruhā
[Edessa], and Miafārkin [Martyropolis], after which the Sultan returned to
Damashk.
After the Crusaders, under Richard Coeur-de-Lion and Philip Augustus, took
'Akā [Acre], in Jamādi-ul-Akhir, 587 H., when "the Musalmans sustained such
a great calamity," and the Christians were preparing to march against 'Askalān
[Ascalon], Ṣalāḥ-ud-Din, in consultation with the chiefs of his forces, deter-
mined to entrust his brother 'Adil with a portion of his army, to hold the
Christians in check, whilst he himself, with the remainder, proceeded to
'Askalān to raze it, in order to deter the enemy from marching thither. Whilst
engaged in this operation, during the same night, a messenger arrived from
Malik-ul-'Adil, saying that the Christians were willing to make peace, if the coast
towns were ceded to them. Ṣalāḥ-ud-Din, finding his troops so disorganized
and dispirited, was under the necessity of agreeing, and he wrote to 'Adil to make
an accommodation on the best terms he could. The authorities, from which these
details are taken, agree generally with European chroniclers of the Crusades at
this period, and their writings are free from such nonsense as our author writes.
'Adil did not succeed to the sovereignty of Egypt and Damashķ until after
the death of his nephew 'Aziz, and ousting the latter's son, Malik-ul-Manṣūr,
under pretence of serving whom he came into Misr, from the former country. The
Khutbah was read for him there in Shawwal, 596 H., and at Halab, in 598 H.,
when he obtained sway over it and other parts of Sham and the eastern provinces.
⚫226
THE TABAKAT-I-NĀṢIRĪ.
renown, such as Malik-ul-Kāmil, Malik-ul-Muazzam-i-'Īsā,
Malik-ul-Ashraf, Malik-ul-Fa'iz", Malik-ul-Ghāzi, Malik-
ul-Awḥad, Malik-ul-Mamdūd, Malik-ul-Amjad, and Malik-
us-Ṣāliḥ-i-Isma'il. Each one of them was a sovereign' over
a different tract of territory comprised within his do-
minions; and the annals of the good works, and the cir-
cumstances of the sovereignty of his sons, will remain
[inscribed] on the pages of time, in the countries of Ḥijāz,
Shām, and Yaman, until the resurrection at the last day.
Each of the different portions of his dominions Malik-ul-
'Adil conferred upon one of his sons, whilst he himself
continually moved about from one part to another with his
forces, and, with equity and sagacity, guarded and watched
over them.
He always had a bow at his side, and such was his great
strength, that no one in that part, or at that time; could
bend his bow on account of its great tallness. He was
noted, both by friend and foe, for his truthfulness of word.
The whole of the enemies of his country, who were the
infidels of Rum and the Farangs, placed implicit trust in
his word; for the dust of falsehood had never soiled the
skirts of the robe of his word and his promise. Throughout
his dominions no human being suffered from tyranny or
oppression.
He reigned in tranquillity and affluence for a period of
thirty odd years, and diedº.
5 'Ābid, in one copy.
6 Ghani, in two copies.
7 The word used by our author is "Badshahs," but his sons were only his
lieutenants charged with the administration, subject to his control. When
he became firmly established in his dominions, he divided them among
his sons, giving each of them charge of one or more provinces. To Malik-ul-
Kamil he assigned the Diyar-i-Misriah, to Malik-ul-Muazzam the territory of
Shamiah, to Malik-ul-Ashraf the Sharkiah [the castern parts], and to Malik-ul-
Awḥad the territory of Miālārkin; and, in 610 II., after he had established his
authority over Yaman, and Awḥad had been sent to Miafārķin, another son,
Malik-ul-Mas'ud, was sent to Yaman.
8 Malik-ul-'Ãdil died in Jamādi-ul-Ākhir, 615 H., near the village of
'Alfin, in sight of Damashk, when moving against the Christians, who had
entered the coasts of Sham. Hearing of his death, they gave up their designs
on Sham, and turned their thoughts towards Egypt, and appeared before Dimyāṭ
[Damietta]. He was a man of great wisdom and intellect, of considerable judg-
ment and conception, of good disposition and temperament, constant to his re-
ligious duties and attendance at public worship, a follower of the orthodox, inclined
to learned men, and, altogether, a fortunate and august personage.
alike abstemious in his food, and moderate in his passions.
He was
THE KURDÍAII MALIKS OF SHAM.
227
IX. MALIK-UL-MUAZZAM º, 'ĪSĀ, SON OF ABŪ-BIKR, SON OF
AIYUB, SON OF SHADI, AL-KURDİ.
Malik-ul-Muazzam was a learned monarch, and endowed
with great accomplishments, and Almighty God had
dignified him with great attainments.
Among the sons of Malik-ul-'Adil, who observed the
ordinances of the followers of the traditions of the sect of
Shafi'i, Malik-ul-Muazzam' was the only one who was of
the sect of the great Imām, Abu Hanifah-i-Nu'man, son of
Sābit, Al-Kufi.
During the troubles in the territories of 'Ajam, when the
'Ulama of Khurāsān, and Māwar-un-Nahr, became dispersed
at the period of the inroad of the infidels of Chin, Imām
Sharaf-ud-Din, Adimi, who was a prodigy in the science of
theology and religious jurisprudence, and Imām Jamāl-ud-
Din, Haşiri², who was a master in the science of physiognomy,
came and presented themselves at his Court. Malik-ul-
Muazzam became the disciple of these two great Imāms,
and other eminent 'Ulama,-the mercy of the Almighty
be upon the whole of them!-and assigned them emolu-
ments and rewards, and fixed places for their abode. He,
however, sought mostly to secure the presence of Muḥam-
mad Husain³, Shibāni.
The brother of Malik-ul-Muazzam, Malik-ul-'Adil, was
by the same mother as himself, and for a long time was
9 Most other writers place Malik-ul-Kāmil, the other son of 'Adil, next after
his father as ruler of Misr; but our author has reversed them. Malik-ul-
Muazzam's proper titles and name are, Al-Malik-ul-Muazzam, Sharaf-ud-Din,
'Īsā. To read our author's account of him, one would imagine that he reigned
over the whole of his father's territories, but such was not the case. He held
a large portion of Sham, but never reigned in Mișr at all; and, at his death, at
Damashk, in 624 H., his son, Malik-un-Naşir, Şalāḥ-ud-Din-i-Dâ'ūd, succeeded
him as ruler of that territory. The latter died in 650 H.
1 One author says of him :- -"He was a man of great firmness and resolution,
bold and intrepid, of great stateliness and gravity, high-minded and endowed
with many virtues and excellencies, the friend and patron of ecclesiastics and
learned men, strongly attached to the doctrines of the Hanifah sect, in fact, the
only one of the race of Aiyub who was a follower of Abū Ḥanifah. He had
performed the pilgrimage to Makkah and Madinah, and was, altogether, one
of the best and the most inestimable of men."
2 Also written, Ḥaşiri.
3 In two copies, Hasan.
228
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĂȘIRĪ.
his brother's associate and lieutenant in the territory of
Damashk [?].
Malik-ul-Muazzam reigned for a considerable period, and
died.
X. MALIK-UL-KĀMIL, SON OF ABU-BIKR, SON OF AIYŪB,
SON OF SHADĪ, AL-KURDİ.
Malik-ul-Kamil was his father's heir, and ascended the
throne of Misr after his father's death. On the decease of
his brother, Malik-ul-Muazzam, he brought the territories
of Shām under his jurisdiction. He conferred the sove-
reignty of the territory of Yaman upon his son, who was
named Malik Mas'ud, and also brought Ḥijāz under his
sway.
over it.
4 His names are Abu-l-Ma'āli, Muḥammad, entitled Al-Malik-ul-Kamil,
Naşir-ud-Din. He was about the greatest of his family, and, of course, our
author has said the least about him. He held the government of the territory
of Misr during his father's lifetime, and at his death assumed the sovereignty
It will be remembered that his father, Malik-ul-'Adil, died when on
his way to oppose the Christians, who, on hearing of his death, turned their
arms against Mișr. They had now reached Dimyat. Malik-ul-Kamil
assembled a large force to repel them, and was joined by his brother, Malik-ul-
Muazzam, Lord of Damashk, who by his tact prevented Kamil's being
dethroned by his own nobles, and his brother Malik-ul-Fa'iz, Sabik-ud-Din,
Ibrahim. After the Christians had taken Dimyat, they determined to advance
to Kahirah and Mişr; but the Almighty gave Kamil success, and the Christians
abandoned the strong position they had taken up in the prosecution of their
design, and an accommodation was come to 11th of Rajab, 618 H., and the
Christians returned to their own territories, after they had remained between
Sham and Mişr for forty months [four ?] and seventeen days.
Malik-ul-Kāmil raised a dome over the tomb of Imam Shafi'i, on the banks
of the Nil; and, when his brother, Malik-ul-Muazzam of Sham, died, and the
latter's son, Malik-un-Naşir, succeeded him, Kamil marched from Mișr to
deprive him of his territory. He was joined by another brother, Malik-ul-
Ashraf, Muzaffar-ud-Din, Mūsā; and, having subdued Shām in 625 H., he
bestowed it upon Ashraf instead of the eastern provinces, which he resumed,
and set out for those parts. It was at this time that Sultan Jalāl-ud-Din,
Khwārazm Shah, invested Khalat [also called Akhlaṭ]. Kamil subsequently
made his son, Najm-ud-Din, Abu-l-Muzaffar, Aiyub, his lieutenant over the
eastern parts, and his youngest son, Saif-ud-Din, Abu-Bikr, lieutenant in the
Mişriah territory, and another son, Mas'ud, he sent into Yaman. The latter
annexed Makkah, and the Hijaz territory; and the empire of Kamil became of
vast.extent. When the Khatib of Makkah, on Fridays, prayed for him, he
styled him, "Lord of Makkah, 'Ubaidian, Yaman, Baidan, Miṣr, Sa'idan,
Shām, Ṣanādiān, the Jazirah, and Walidān, Sultan-ul-Kabilatain wa Rabb-ul-
'Alāmatain-ush-Sharif, Abu-l-Ma'ali, Muḥammad, Al-Malik-ul-Kamil, Nāṣir-
ud-Din, Khalil-i-Amir-ul-Mūminin." I have not space to say more. He
died at Damashķ in Rājab, 635 H.
THE KURDIAH MALIKS OF SHAM.
229
In the direction of Rūm and 'Arab, he undertook
numerous expeditions against infidels, and waged holy war
as by orthodox law required; and, after having ruled over
the kingdom for some time, he died.
XI. MALIK-US-ṢĀLIḤ, SON OF AL-KAMIL, SON OF ABU-BIKR,
SON OF AIYŪB, SON OF SHĀDĪ, AL-KURDĪ.
Malik-us-Ṣāliḥ was his father's heir, and, when Malik-ul-
Kamil departed this life, Malik-us-Ṣāliḥ ascended the
5
was at
5 The nearer he approaches his own time, the more our author blunders,
and the shorter and more confused his accounts become. Here, the ruler of
Misr is said to be ruler of Sham, and vice versa. After the death of Malik-
ul-Kāmil, his empire soon fell into utter disorder and confusion.
His son,
Malik-ul-'Adil, Abu-Bikr, who was quite a youth, succeeded; and his cousin,
Malik-ul-Jawād, Muzaffar-ud-Din, Yūnas, son of Shams-ud-Din, Maudūd,
son of 'Ādil [Ṣalā ḥ-ud-Din's brother, and father of Malik-ul-Kamil], became
his deputy with the accord of the nobles of Kamil. Malik-ul-'Adil exercised
the sovereignty, or held the name of sovereign rather, for about two years,
when his nobles assembled together at Balbis, seized him, and sent for his
brother, MALIK-UṢ-ṢĀLIḤ, NAJM-UD-DĪN, AIYŪB, who
Damashk, which he had promised to give up to Malik-ul-Jawad for other
territory. On this, Ṣāliḥ's uncle, also called Malik-us-Ṣāliḥ, 'Imad-ud-Din,
Lord of Ba'albak, being supported by Mujahid-ud-Din, Asad-i-Sher-i-Koh,
Lord of Hims, when Ṣāliḥ [son of Kamil] set out towards Misriah, and
remained encamped at Balbis for some time, made a dash upon Damashk and
gained possession of it. Malik-us-Ṣāliḥ's [son of Kamil] adherents, fearing
for the safety of their families and homes at Damashk, deserted him, and left
him nearly alone in his camp at Balbis, and went over to Ṣāliḥ, the uncle.
The younger Ṣāliḥ, before he could fly to some place of safety, was pounced
upon by Malik-un-Naşir, son of Malik-ul-Muazzam [son of the first 'Adil],
Lord of Karak, who carried him off to that stronghold; but he set him at
liberty again the same year, 637 H., and at the request of 'Ādil's nobles, and
attended by the same Naşir and his forces, Malik-us-Ṣāliḥ [son of Kāmil]
entered Ķāhirah in Zi-Ķa'dah of the same year. The author from whose work
most of these extracts have been taken, says, "I was present there at the time,
and Malik-ul-'Adil was brought forth seated in a covered litter, and under an
scort, and immured in the fortress of Sultaniah."
Malik-us-Ṣāliḥ regained possession of Damashk in 643 H., and proceeded
thither, and, when on his way back to Misriah, was taken dangerously ill, and
had to remain at Shamum. The Christians had resolved to attack his terri-
tory, and they reached Dimyat on Friday, 20th of Şafar, 647 H.
The city
was totally abandoned by its inhabitants, who fled. They gained possession
of the place on the following Sunday. Malik-us-Ṣāliḥ was removed from
Shamum to Manşūrah, and had to be kept there, so ill was he, until the night
of 14th of Sha'bān, when he died. His remains were deposited in the Jadidah
Masjid, and for near three months his death was concealed, until his son,
Malik-ul-Muazzam, Tūrān Shah, arrived there from his fief of Kaif [or Kayif |
when the Khutbah was read for him, and the father's death was made known.
230
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĂŞIRĪ.
throne of Misr, and took possession of the dominions of
his father and his grandfather.
According to the best of his capability, he provided for
and advanced the sons of his uncles, and his own brothers,
and took measures for the safety of his dominions; but his
life was a brief one, and, after a short time, he died, leaving
young children behind him.
Trustworthy persons have related, that, during the
calamities and troubles which happened in Iran, when the
irruption of Chingiz Khan took place, a body of Turks
of Khwārazm, and [several] nobles of the Khwārazm-Shāhi
dynasty, retiring before the infidels of Chin, after the defeat
of Sultan Jalāl-ud-Din, Mang-barni, son of Muḥammad,
Khwārazm Shah, reached the territories of Sham and Misr,
and possessed themselves of the dominions of the 'Adili
dynasty. Some they slew, some passed away, and some
remained. May the Almighty have mercy upon the whole
of them!
Tūrāṇ Shāh did not get on with his father's slaves [nobles and chiefs], and,
after he had put some of them to death for their rebellious conduct, the
remainder combined against him, and put him to death in Muharram, 648 11.
Malik-ul-'Adil died in confinement in 646 H., and left a young son named
Mughis-ud-Din, 'Umr. He subsequently had possession of Karak and its
dependencies, but was invested therein by the rebel slaves, and capitulated on.
terms in 662 H., but was put to death by the usurper of the Mișriah throne.
Most authors consider the Aiyub dynasty to have ended with Malik-ul-Muaz-
zam, Tūrān Shah. There were other branches of the same family, who ruled
in different parts until the irruption of the Mughals, but I have not space to
mention them here.
SECTION XVI.
THE MALIKS OF THE KHWĀRAZM-SHĀHĨAH DYNASTY.
RESPECTING this notice of the Maliks of the Turks, and
the Sultāns of Khwārazm, the Almighty's humble servant,
Minhaj-i-Sarāj, Jurjāni, states, that, as the account of the
rulers of the different nations, from first to last, is now
being compiled in the name of his Majesty, the Sulṭān of
Sultāns of both Turk and 'Ajam, Nāṣir-ud-Dunya wa ud-
Din, Abū-l-Muzaffar-i-Maḥmūd, son of the Sulṭān I-yal-
timish-May the Almighty perpetuate his dominion and
his sovereignty !-he thinks it expedient to enter here
the account of the dynasty of the Sultāns and Maliks of
Khwārazm, the standards of whose sovereignty, after the
decline of the Sanjari dynasty, began to float on high; into
whose possession the whole of the territories of Iran came,
after the extinction of the dominion of the Maliks of Ghür
and Ghaznin; who undertook numerous expeditions against
infidels, and waged many holy wars; the monuments of
the goodness of whom abound in the land of Iran; and,
who, in fact, were the last of the Sultāns of Islām'.
I. KUTB-UD-DUNYA WA UD-DĪN, I-BAK, THE TURK?.
The ancestry of these Maliks was related by Malik
1 What of the slave who reigned at Dihli, who refused shelter to Sultān
Jalāl-ud-Din-he who is, and whose descendants are, so often styled "Sultān
over both Turk and 'Ajam," and "Sultan of Sultans of Islām"?
2 Our author, in his account of the first two personages of this dynasty,
differs wholly from other writers, and, as he has constantly made great
blunders respecting other dynasties, and at times quoted authors incorrectly,
his statements here, although obtained, as he asserts, from a descendant of
those rulers, must be received at their worth.
Baihaķi, quoting from Bū-Riḥān, mentions that the territory of Khwārazm
always formed a separate sovereignty from the period when a kinsman of
Bahrām-Gūr, the famous monarch of 'Ajam, acquired power over it, and also
after its conquest by the 'Arabs; and further, that even after the 'Arab con-
quest it was not considered as a dependency of Khurāsān, like Khutlān and
232.
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĀṢIRĪ.
Tāj-ud-Din, Bināl-Tigin, who came from the border of Kir-
Chaghanian were, even in the time of the Tahiris. Rulers bearing the title.
of Khwārazm Shah are mentioned upwards of a century and a half previous
to the dynasty now under notice, which I must briefly refer to. Our author
himself adverts [page 38] to 'Abd-ullah, son of Ashkan, Khwārazm Shāh, as
early as 332 H.; and in the present Section farther on [page 233] again refers
to them. In 386 H., mention is made of another 'Abd-ullah, styled Khwārazm
Shah, who in that year was made prisoner by the forces of Mamun, son of
Muḥammad, Lord of Jurjāniah of Khwārazm. 'Abd-ullah was taken in fetters
to Jūrjāniah, and subsequently beheaded; and the whole of Khwārazm passed
under the rule of Mamun, son of Muhammad. The territories of Khwārazm
Māmūn,
and Jūrjāniah, had, for a considerable time, been in the possession of this family,
who are styled Farighūni, subordinate to the Sāmāni sovereigns. In 387 H.,
the same year in which Nūḥ, son of Manṣūr, Sāmāni, Amir Sabuk-Tigin, and
Fakhr-ud-Daulah, Dilami, died, Māmūn, Farighūni, died also, and was
succeeded by his son, Abū 'Ali, who was married to a sister of Mahmud of
Ghaznin. 'Ali died in 390 H., and was succeeded by his brother, Abu-l-
'Abbās-i-Māmūn [son of Mamun]. He despatched an envoy to Maḥmūd,
asking the latter's consent to his [Abu-l-'Abbas] espousing his brother's widow,
the sister of Maḥmud, which request was acquiesced in. This Abu-l-'Abbās
was the patron of Bu-Riḥān, who passed seven years in his service. The
Khalifah, Kadir B'illah, sent him a dress of honour, a title, and addressed
him as Khwārazm Shāh; but, such was 'Abbas' attachment to [or fear of?]
Maḥmud, that he did not make this matter known. In 407 11. his nobles and
troops rose against him, because he meditated acknowledging the suzerainty
of Maḥmud, put him to death, and set up his nephew in his stead. Maḥmūd
marched into Khwārazm, to revenge his brother-in-law, slew Alb-Tigin [some
call him Nial-Tigin] 'Abbās' chamberlain, and other ringleaders, and the
murderers of 'Abbas, annexed the territory, and conferred the government of it
upon his [own] Great Chamberlain, Altūn-Tash, with the designation of Khwã-
razm Shāh. Abu Naṣr, son of 'Abd-ul-Hirs, Farighūni, Wali of Jūrjānān and
the territory of Jawzjānān, of the same family, had died in 402 H., upon which
Maḥmud had annexed that territory, and had sent a Diwan of his own to
administer its affairs.
Altün-Tash, Khwārazm Shah, presented himself at the court of his sove-
reign, Sultan Mas'ud, in 422 H., and died from the effects of a wound received
in battle in 424 H. His son Harun, who succeeded, became disaffected towards
Sulṭān Mas'ūd, in 425 H., assumed independence, and intrigued with the Turk-
māns and Saljuks. This fact our author alludes to at pages 120 and 121, but
says nothing further. Harun was killed in 426 H., and was succeeded by his
brother, Isma'il, who held Khwārazm for a short time; but he was soon after
ousted by Shāh Malik, a neighbouring chief, upon whom Sulṭān Mas'ud con-
ferred it, provided he could drive out Isma'il. Isma'il, accordingly, having
been driven out, took shelter with the Saljuks in Khurāsān. In 434 H. Sultān
Tughril annexed Khwārazm to his dominions; and but little is said about it
afterwards until 475 H., when Malik Shāh, Saljūķi, conferred the Intendancy
of Khwārazm upon the slave, Nush-Tigin-i-Gharjah, the father of Kutb-ud-
Din, Muḥammad, the first ruler of the dynasty mentioned by our author.
Balkā-Tigin [Guzidah and Jahān-Ārā style him Malka-Tigin, but it is an
error], one of the slaves and grandees of the court of Malik Shah, who held
the office of Tasht-dar, or Purveyor, purchased Nush-Tigin, much in the same
manner as Alb-Tigin, the slave of the Sāmānis, purchased Sabuk-Tigin
THE KHWARAZM-SHAHIAH DYNASTY.
233
3
4
mān, in the year 622 H. ³, to the aid of the sons of the Maliks
of Nimroz, and arrived in that country, and the territories
of Nimroz were left in his possession.
The author of this book came from Khãesär of Ghūr, on
a mission from the august Malik, Rukn-ud-Din, Muḥam-
mad, 'Uṣmān, Maraghani, in order to secure a compact, and
arrived at Farāh of Sistān, and proceeded to the presence
of Malik Taj-ud-Din, Bināl-Tigin.
During the conversation at the interview, Malik Tāj-ud-
Din mentioned that Malik Kutb-ud-Din, I-bak, the Turk,
came, with his tribe and kindred, towards Jund and Khwa-
razm, from the side of Ṣuḥāri³ [or Ṣaḥāri], and from among
the tribes of Ķifchāk and Kankuli, and, for a consider-
able period, dwelt in those tracts, subject to the Khwarazm-
Shāhi rulers, Abū Ja'far and Māmūn', and their posterity,
and used to subsist in the wilds and pasture-lands.
6
Some consider he
upwards of a century before, at Gharjah of Samrkand.
was of I-ghūr descent, and that he was of the Bekdali [or Begdali] tribe.
After the decease of Balkā-Tigin, his slave, Nush-Tigin, who through lis
talents and sagacity had risen to distinction, succeeded to the office of Tasht-
dār; and as the revenues of the Khwārazm territory were assigned to defray
the expenses of the Purveyorship, in the same manner as those of Khuzistān
were assigned for the expenses of the wardrobe, the government of the territory
whence the expenses of the Purveyorship were drawn was conferred upon
Nush-Tigin, with the title of Khwārazm Shāh.
He placed his eldest son, Kutb-ud-Din, Muḥammad, with a preceptor at
Marw, to be educated in a manner becoming his station, and on the death of
Nush-Tigin, his father, in 490 H. [some writers say in 491 H.], the lieutenant
of Sultan Barkiārūķ, in Khurāsān, at the recommendation of Sanjar, Bar-
kiārūķ's brother—for Sanjar did not obtain the sovereignty until many years
after-appointed Kutb-ud-Din, Muḥammad, Nush-Tigin's son, after the
removal of Alanji, son of Taghdār [some call him Fāḥķār] to the government
of Khwārazm; and the title which his father had held was also conferred upon
him. See page 169, and note 6.
3 See page 199.
To the aid of one only; but all the copies have "sons of the Maliks," as
above. See page 200.
5 One copy has Ḥiṣāri [] which may be the most correct; but the
majority of copies of the text have Şuḥāri, or Şaḥāri []. Neither of
these names occurs in the MASALIK-WA-MAMALIK. The latter word, if not a
proper name, may be the plural of 'Arabic signifying "extending,
wide [as plains], wild, desert," in which case the broad and extensive deserts
of Turkistan would be meant. Yafa-i mentions Suḥārā in one or two places.
6 In some few copies of the original, and in Vāfa-i, this name is written with
kh-Khifchak. It is the name of a tribe of Turks, and of a desert of
Turkistān, commonly called Dasht-i-Kipchāķ.
7 These were of the Farighūni family mentioned in note 2, preceding page.
234
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĀṢIRĪ.
As Kutb-ud-Din was a spirited, enterprising, and high-
minded chief, and of admirable temperament, the leader-
ship of the forces of the Maliks of Khwārazm was entrusted
to him, until, as Providence had decreed, the ruler of
Khwārazm at that period died, and no son of his survived
who could take his place, and his dominions were left
without a sovereign. A daughter, however, survived him ;
and the whole of the great nobles of Khwārazm agreed
among themselves, and gave that daughter in marriage to
Malik Kutb-ud-Din. The espousals having been concluded,
the name of sovereign was assigned to that daughter, and
the viceroyalty was conferred upon Malik Kutb-ud-Din,
the Turk, her husband.
He brought the whole of the territory of Khwārazm
under his jurisdiction, and the tracts on the confines under
subjection; and by his alertness, and his sagacity, restrained
enemies and tyrants from violence and sedition. He also
guarded the frontiers of Khwārazm Shāh from the infidels
of Saksia, Bulghār, and Ķifchāķ.
The Almighty so decreed that Malik Kutb-ud-Din had
a son born to him by that lady [the daughter of the late
ruler], and they gave him the name of Muḥammad; and,
after the termination of the lives of his mother and father,
the sovereignty of Khwārazm devolved upon him.
II. MALIK TĀJ-UD-DĪN, MUḤAMMAD, SON OF Ï-BAK.
When the mother of Taj-ud-Din, Muḥammad, passed
away, and his father died, he became ruler of the kingdom
→
8 From what our author says, the reader would imagine that Kutb-ud-Din
was an independent ruler, but such was not the case. He was ever loyal to
his Saljūķi suzerain, and was in the constant habit of attending the court of
Sultan Sanjar every other year. When he returned to Khwārazm, his son,
who succeeded him, Itsiz called Utsuz by our author, and, by his account,
Kutb-ud-Din's grandson-took his father's place at court, nominally as his
representative, but in reality as security for his father's good faith. Kutb-ud-
Din, Muḥammad, died in 521 H. [some say in 522 H.], and was succeeded by
Itsiz. By no other writer is Ķutb-ud-Din styled Ï-bak. Our author's account
of him is confused, and he has evidently lost himself here again. At page 148
he says Sanjar "conferred" Khwārazm "upon the son of Khwarazını Shāh,
who was one of his servants, who was the father of I-yal-Arsalan, who was the
father of Takish, father of Muḥammad;" and, at page 169, states that he gave
the throne of Khwārazm to Malik Utsuz.
"The father of Itsiz [Utsuz of our author], according to all authors of
THE KHWĂRAZM-SHAHĨAH DYNASTY.
235
He also had a
of Khwārazm in succession to them.
brother, and of his own father and mother, younger than
himself; and upon him he conferred the government of the
tribes of Kankuli and Kifchak, from which their own race
had sprung, his brother having solicited it, and Malik Tāj-
ud-Din acceded to his request.
That same brother had sons' who acquired great dis-
tinction, and became powerful Maliks in Khurāsān and
'Irāk. During the time of Sultan Takish-i-Khwārazm
Shāh, and his son, Sulṭān Muḥammad, they were Maliks
of Khurāsān, like as was Ulugh Khan-i-Abi, Muḥammad,
Khan of Guzarwan. Subsequently he became Khan of
'Irāk under the name of Ata-bak, or preceptor, of the great
Sultan, Rukn-ud-Din, Ghūri Shānasti, son of Muḥammad,
Khwārazm Shah.
3
Ulugh Khan-i-Abi, Muḥammad, had two sons, the
eldest, Taj-ud-Din, Azabar Shah, and the younger,
Nusrat-ud-Din, Kutlagh Shah; and there were likewise
brothers' sons of Ulugh Khan-i-Abi, Muḥammad, in Hin-
dūstān, such as Malik Firūz-i-I-yal-timish, son of Sālār,
and Malik Taj-ud Din, Bināl-Tigin, who left Hindūstān,
and became Malik of Sistān; and whose narrative this
is.
This Malik Taj-ud-Din, Muḥammad, son of I-bak, was
an intrepid, just, and resolute sovereign; and he came to
the Court of the Saljuk sovereigns, and paid homage to
authority-in fact, acc rding to all writers but our author-was Kutb-ud-Din,
Muḥammad, son of Nūsh-Tigin-i-Gharjah, the first of the dynasty; and no
person of the above name and title is mentioned by any other writer among
the rulers of Khwārazm. I suspect our author has done much the same here
as he has in his account of the Saljuks of Rum-mixed up the affairs of two
dynasties.
As other authors do not mention the name of any such ruler as Malik
Tāj-ud-Din, Itsiz being the second of the dynasty, and as our author himself
gives no name to this said brother, although he gives names to his sons, it will
be easily imagined that other authors do not name either the brother or
his sons.
2 This name is somewhat doubtful, but the majority of copies have it as
above written; and, in all probability, it is the place referred to by Yafa-i, up
the valley of the Murgh-ab river, which he writes Juzarwān. The other copies
of the text have Gurdwan, Gurzawan, and Gurwan; and one, which is gene-
rally pretty correct, has Gujzarwān-g and j are interchangeable, and jz is
often used for z.
3 This name too is doubtful: there are scarcely two copies alike. One has
Urzulu, which is a proper name, as well as Hijzabr.
Q 2
236
THE TABAĶAT-I-NĀŞIRĪ.
them. He performed great deeds, and ruled the people
with equity and beneficence.
He reigned for a long time, subordinate to the Saljūķs,
and died.
III. MALIK ṬALĀL-UD-DİN, UTSUZ¹, KHWĀRAZM SHÃH,
SON OF TAJ-UD-DIN, MUHAMMAD.
Utsuz-i-Khwārazm Shāh, after the death of his father",
Muḥammad, brought the dominions of Khwārazm under
his authority, and ruled over its people with uprightness,
justice, and beneficence.
On several occasions he had to move from Khwārazm,
4 Written Itsiz and Itsiz by others [and Ātsiz by Guzidah], signifying in
Turki “lean, fleshless, thin." His title was Muzaffar-ud-Din, but some writers
say it was Abu-l-Muzaffar, 'Alā-ud-Din. He succeeded his father by farmān
of Sultan Sanjar, his suzerain.
5 Kutb-ud-Din, Muḥammad, son of Nush-Tigin, and father of Itsiz, died
in 521 H. [some say in 522 H.], after a reign of thirty years, and was noted for
his loyalty to Sulṭān Sanjar.
6 He had really to fly, But our author softens it down. In the beginning of
his career and government of Khwārazm, no one could have been more loyal
towards Sultan Sanjar than Itsiz was, and Sanjar was also much attached to him,
more particularly because Itsiz had once saved his life. This moved the envious
to sow the seeds of distrust and suspicion between them. In 527 H. [some
say when Sanjar marched against Bahram Shāh of Ghaznin, but this can
scarcely be, as that event occurred three years after], Itsiz obtained per-
mission to proceed to his government, although Sanjar suspected his loyalty ;
and in a short time after he openly showed his disaffection. Sultān Sanjar
marched against him in 533 H., and invested Hazar-Asp, which was taken.
Itsiz was totally defeated, and fled; and the Sultan installed his nephew,
Suliman Shah, son of Muḥammad, as ruler of Khwārazm. As soon, however,
as Sanjar returned to Khurasan, Itsiz again appeared; and Suliman Shāh, not
being sufficiently powerful to oppose him, evacuated Khwārazm, and returned
to his uncle's court.
Itsiz now [535 H.] assumed independence and the title of Badshah, and
coined money in his own name; and this may be partly, if not altogether,
accounted for by the fact that Sanjar had sustained a defeat at the hands of
the infidels of Kara-Khita only the previous year. Some authors contend that
Sanjar's defeat took place in 536 H., and that Itsiz assumed independence in
537 H.
The Sultan again determined to attempt to reduce him in 538 H., on
which Itsiz sought with entreaties, prayers, and costly presents, to propitiate
the Sulṭān's anger, and was forgiven; but soon after he again showed disaffec-
tion, treated the Sultan's farman with contempt, and subsequently, in 541 H.,
despatched two criminals, released from prison for the purpose, to assassinate
his benefactor, to show his gratitude, perhaps, for “the confidence and good-
will" of the Sultan towards him, as our author says, and for pardoning his
past offences. Again [in 542 H., or, according to Yafa-i, in 541 H.] Sanjar
THE KHWARAZM-SHAHĨAH DYNASTY.
237
sometimes out of necessity, and at others of his own free.
will. He marched forces against Jund, Turkistān, and
Kifchak; and through his wisdom, abilities, and skill, he
was exceedingly fortunate in all his affairs. The Court of
Khwārazm, through his enlightened policy and beneficence,
became the resort of the most learned men.
After obligations and stipulations had been entered into,
he presented himself at the Court of Sulṭān Sanjar, and for
some time, in conformity with his commands, Malik Jalāl-
ud-Din, Utsuz, continued in attendance at the Court of
that Sultan until he gained the confidence and good-will of
Sanjar Shah [Sultan Sanjar], who gave him back the throne
of Khwārazm".
After some period of time had elapsed, through the
conduct of Malik 'Ali, Chatri, who was governor of Hirāt,
with respect to Malik Utsuz, he [Utsuz] rebelled, and
declined any longer to submit to the yoke, or to attend the
Sultan's presence. When the dominion of the house of
Sanjar came to an end, the sovereignty of Khwārazm,
and the whole of the territory of Ṣuḥāri¹ [or Ṣaḥāri] of
Turkistān, and Jund, fell into his hands, and were left in his
possession 2.
marched against him, and invested Hazār-Asp a second time. After taking
it, the Sultan was about to invest the capital, when, at the intercession of a
holy man, namely, the Zahid-i-Ahu-posh, and the Sayyids and heads of the
religious bodies, Itsiz again succeeded in propitiating the Sultan, and solicited
permission to present himself before him, and sue for forgiveness. This he
did, after a fashion he came forth, and appeared before the Sulṭān, and from
his horse bowed his head and retired.. This took place Monday, 12th
Muḥarram, 543 H. Sanjar was not in a position to renew hostilities, so he
passed his rebel vassal's conduct over, and allowed, or rather was obliged to
allow him to continue in possession of the territory of Khwārazm. Soon
after Sanjar became a captive to the Ghuzz tribe. See Sanjar's reign, page 154.
7 See page 169, where our author says that Sanjar bestowed the sovereignty
upon "Utsuz"; but in this Section he has said that the throne descended to
him from his ancestors.
8 This person, and what he did, are not mentioned by other authors that
have come under my notice, with a solitary exception. Faşiḥ-i refers to it,
under the year 542 H., in these exact words :—“Rebellion of 'Ali Jatri, Wāli
of Hirāt, during the absence of Sultān Sanjar, and his combining with 'Ala-
ud-Din, Ḥusain, Malik of Ghur:" nothing more. See reign of 'Ala-ud-Din.
9 This is utter nonsense. See note 6 page 236. Itsiz merely acted according
to the world's ways. When he found his suzerain weak and in difficulties he
took advantage of it.
See note 5, page 233.
1 This name is plainly written in nearly every copy.
2 Fasih-i says that Gür Khan, who, in concert with At Khan, defeated
238
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĀṢIRĪ.
3
The greater number of the most learned men of the
Court had previously attached themselves to his service;
and Imām Rashid-ud-Din, Watwat, wrote, and dedicated
to him, the work entitled "Hadayik-us Saḥr fi Dakayik-
ush-Shi'r" ["Gardens of Enchantment in the Subtilties of
Poesy"]. At the time, likewise, that Malik Utsuz was in
attendance at the Court of Sulṭān Sanjar, he became greatly
attached to Sulṭān 'Alā ud-Din, Husain, Ghūri, Jahān-soz",
on account of his learning and talents, to such a degree,
that when Sulṭān 'Alā ud-Din, Husain, returned again to
assume the throne of Ghūr, the Almighty blessed him with
a son, and he gave him the name of Utsuz.
Malik Utsuz reigned over Khwārazm for a long period
and died.
IV. MALIK, I-VAL-ARSALAN, SON OF JALĂL-UD-DĪN,
UTSUZ.
Malik I-yal-Arsalan ascended the throne of Khwārazm
after the decease of his father, and assumed authority over
the whole of his late father's dominions. He ruled his
people with justice and benevolence, and concluded a
Sultan Sanjar a few years before, died in 537 H., after which Sultan Itsiz
reduced Māwar-un-Nahr, which Sanjar had lost, under his sway.
3 What court is not stated, but Sulṭān Sanjar's court, it is to be presumed.
Courtier-like, finding Sanjar in difficulties, they sought a more powerful
master.
• This Rashid-ud-Din, Waṭwāt, was a lineal descendant of the Khalifah
'Umr.
• Al-Husain ['Izz-ud-Din], son of Sām, Ghūri, it is said, was made prisoner
by Sanjar in 501 H.; but the person here referred to is his son, Jahān-soz,
Ala-ud-Din, Ḥusain, son of Husain, son of Sām, taken prisoner in 547 H.
See note 2, page 149, note ³, page 155, and account of 'Alā-ud-Din.
6 As usual, he reigned for a long period and died, according to our author,
“who rarely indulges in high-flown eulogy, but narrates his facts in a plain,
straightforward manner, which induces a confidence in the sincerity of his
statements and the accuracy of his knowledge." Itsiz ruled over Khwārazm
for a period of twenty-nine years, sixteen of which were independent, and died
in 551 H.; and in the same year Turkān Khātūn also died.
7 Styled Sultan by others.
8 How good all our author's rulers are all so just and beneficent: never
were the like known before or since. Immediately on assuming the throne,
suspecting his younger brother, Sulimān Shāh, he seized and imprisoned him,
and put a number of nobles, Sulimān's adherents, to death. I-yal-Arsalān
was engaged in hostilities with the ruler of Samrkand, and subsequently, in
558 H., marched against Shad-yakh of Nishāpūr-Sanjar had lately died-and

THE KHWARAZM-SHĀHĪAH DYNASTY.
treaty with the infidels of Karā Khiṭā, whereby he st
lated to pay a certain fixed tribute yearly'.
He contracted an alliance with the Khāns of Kifcl
and guarded his dominions to the best of his power
ability. He became involved in disagreements and
lities with some of the slaves of Sultan Sanjar who were
rulers of Khurāsān, and peace was brought about in the
manner he could best effect.
He reigned for a long time', and died leaving sons
behind him, such as 'Ala-ud-Din, Takish, and Sultan Shah,
Maḥmūd.
V. SULTAN TAKISH, SON OF I-YAL-ARSALĂN.
6
Sultan Takish was a very great monarch, and was
endowed with considerable attainments, capacity, and
engaged in hostilities with Rukn-ud-Din, Maḥmūd Khan, a grandson of
Bughrā Khãn on the father's side, and a nephew of Sanjar on his mother's;
and, after an engagement with Mu-ayyid-i-A'inah-dār [see note to page 1So],
returned into his own territory after effecting an accommodation. Subsequently,
having, in the seventh year of his reign, neglected to pay the tribute to the
ruler of Kara-Khița-i, the former sent a force against I-yal-Arsalan, and the
latter's troops, which moved to oppose them, were routed. I-yal-Arsalān
died from the effects of a disorder contracted during the war with the Kara-
Khiṭā-is.
9 If the Ata-bak, Abū-Bikr [see p. 179], by becoming tributary to the
Mughals, "brought reproach and dishonour upon himself," by bowing his
head to circumstances which he could not remedy nor control, and when he was
well aware that, at the nod of the Khan of the Mughals, his territory could be
subdued and desolated; what is the conduct of I-yal-Arsalan here, and what
that of the Khalifah, Un-Naşir, when he, some years before Abū Bikr's day,
sent an agent to the infidel Chingiz, and incited him to invade the territory of
Islām out of hostility to the Khwārazm Sulṭān, because he would not give
him, Un-Năṣir, a slice of 'Irāk? Our author was too pious a Musalmān to
name such a disgraceful act as this. See note, page 242, and page 265.
1 In this instance the "long time" was only eight years. I-yal-Arsalān
died, according to most authors, in 567 H.; but one or two say it occurred in
568. As Takish rose against his brother, Sulṭān Shāh, in the former year, it
is natural to conclude that he could have had no occasion to do so in his father's
lifetime.
2 Styled 'Imad-ud-Din, Takish Khan. Some call him 'Ala-ud-Din.
Other authors generally, with the exception of Vāfa-i, place Sulṭān Shāh,
Maḥmūd, next after his father, Itsiz, and before Takish; and do not bring in
Takish at all until after Sultan Shah's death in 589 H. Sultan Shah succeeded
to the throne according to the will of his father; and, as he was a mere boy,
his mother, Malikah Turkān, conducted his affairs. She sent an agent to
summon Takish, the eldest son by a different mother, who held the govern-

THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĀŞIRĪ.
erstanding, and was a proficient in the science of
sic.
When he ascended the throne he brought under his
the different tracts of the territory of Khwarazm, and
wise some parts of Khurāsān, either by force of arms
or by peaceful means.
He entered into union with the Khan of Ķifchāk, who
was named Aķrān [or Iķrān], and married the daughter
of that ruler. That lady acquired great celebrity in the
world, and rose to great eminence, more particularly
during the reign of her son, Sulṭān Muḥammad, Khwārazm
Shāh. She was a woman of great firmness of character,
ment of Jund [some say he retired thither] to Khwārazm. As he refused to
obey, an army was sent against him. Guzidah and Vafa-i state that Takish
demanded a portion of his father's dominions, and was refused; on which he,
in 567 H., rebelled, and determined to seek aid from the Khān-i-Khānān, or
Great Khan of Kara-Khita-i. The latter's wife, at that time, held the
sovereignty, and Takish entered into an alliance with her; but no mention
whatever is made by these or other authors as to Takish having taken either
her or her daughter to wife, as they, no doubt, would have done, had such an
alliance as our author refers to taken place. Takish, having reached her
territory, agreed to make over to her the treasures and revenues of Khwārazm,
as soon as he, by her aid, should obtain possession of it, and afterwards to pay
a yearly tribute. A numerous army was accordingly sent along with Takish
to put him in possession. Sultān Shāh and his mother, as soon as they became
aware of the combination against them, evacuated Khwārazm, and joined
Malik Mu-ayyid-i-Ã'inah-dār, Wāli of Khurāsān [Nishāpūr. See page 180,
and note 7], and Takish obtained possession of the Khwārazm territory.
These events took place in 568 H.
Sultan Shah, however, acquired power over a considerable portion of
Khurāsān, and hostilities went on between the rival brothers up to the end of
Sultan Shah's life. He lived twenty-one years after these events. In 569 H.
Malik Mu-ayyid-i-Ā'inah-dār, in order to aid Sulṭān Shāh, marched in concert
with him against Takish, and gave him battle; but they were defeated, and
Mu-ayyid was taken and cut in two by order of Takish. Sultan Shah and his
mother fled to Dihistan, followed by Takish and his troops. The mother of
Sultan Shah was killed, after which Takish marched against Nishāpūr, the
capital of Mu-ayyid's territory. Hostilities having afterwards arisen between
Takish and his former ally, Sultan Shah sought aid from the female ruler of
Kara Khiṭā-i, and she and Sultan Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din, Ghūri, both rendered him
aid. The details are far too voluminous for insertion here: suffice it to say
that an accommodation subsequently took place between the brothers in 585 H.;
but hostilities were again renewed in 589 H., in which year Sulṭān Shāh died.
After his death Takish acquired the whole power; and, according to Guzidah,
he now for the first time assumed the title of Sultan, being without a rival.
These events are referred to by our author in his accounts of Khusrau Malik,
the last of the Ghaznawids, and in his account of the Sultāns of Ghūr, which
see.
THE KHWARAZM-SHAHIAH DYNASTY.
241
very impetuous, and of imperious temperament; and,`
during the reign of her son, she had the title of Khudā-
wandah-i-Jahan [Princess of the Universe].
So great
was her spirit, her haughtiness, and her resentment, when
roused, that, on one occasion, she became enraged with her
husband, Sultan Takish, on account of a female slave with
whom he had formed a connexion, and followed him to
the bath, and closed the door of the hot bath upon him,
so that the Sultan very nearly perished. Information of
the circumstance was conveyed to a party of the great
nobles, and a number of lords and chiefs arrived, broke
open the door of the hot bath, and took Sultan Takish out.
He had been reduced to a state of lividness, and one of his
eyes had been nearly destroyed.
3
Sultan Takish was a wise and sagacious monarch; and,
with respect to his witticisms, they relate that on a certain
occasion a necessitous person wrote to him a statement
of his affairs, saying:-" If thou givest me one hundred
dīnārs, what difference will it make to the amount of thy
treasures?" The Sultan, with his own hand, wrote at the
head of the statement, "one hundred dinārs;" and this
reply, in the opinion of men of learning and talent, was
exceedingly clever. On another occasion a person wrote
to him, saying:-"In being a Musalman I am thy brother :
give me a portion of thy treasures." The Sultan com-
manded that ten dinārs of gold should be presented to
him. When that gift reached the indigent person, he wrote
another communication to the Sultan, saying "I am thy
brother; and yet, with all the treasures that thou possessest,
not more than ten dīnārs of gold do I obtain"."
4." The
Sultan wrote in reply:-"If the rest of my brethren should.
demand their shares also, thou wouldst not have received
even this much." May the Almighty have mercy on
him!
Sultan Takish reduced a half of Khurāsān under his
sway by force, and the Maliks [kings] of Māzandarān
acknowledged his superiority. He also subdued a part of
3 It is customary, in the East, to write orders, decrees, &c., at the head of
documents.
4 This anecdote, or one very similar, is related of another before the time of
Sultan Takish.
342
THE TABAKAT-I-NĂŞIRI.
the territory of 'Irak; and Sultan Tughril, of 'Irak, who
was the nephew of Sultan Sanjar, fell a captive into his
hands".
Hostilities arose between him and the Court of the
Khalifah on account of some of the territories of 'Irāķ°,
5
At page 165, which see, our author was in doubt as to who Tughril was.
In 558 H. Kutlagh Înānaj, son of the Ata-bak, Jahan Pahlawan, Muḥammad,
sent envoys, one after the other, to Sultan Takish informing him of the escape
of Sultan Tughril, Saljūķi, from the fortress in which he had been immured,
and inviting him to invade 'Irak, promising to support him. For further par-
ticulars of these events, see note 3, page 167, and note 3, page 172, where our
author entirely contradicts this statement respecting Sultan Tughril.
• The Khalifah, Un-Naşir, on Takish overrunning 'Irāk, and possessing
himself of the strong places, was desirous that Takish should let him have
some share of that territory, and make over some portion of it to his Diwāns.
Envoys came and went between them; but, as Takish in the end refused to
give up any portion, Un-Nāṣir, in 590 H., despatched Mu-ayyid-ud-Din,
Ibn-ul-Kaṣṣāb, or the Butcher's Son, with robes of honour, valuable presents,
and the like, in hopes that on his appearance at Hamadan he would be favour-
ably received, and that Takish would come out to receive him, and do him
honour as the Khalifah's envoy, and humble himself before him; but, on his
reaching Asad-ābād, the Sulṭān despatched a force to compel him to retire.
Mu-ayyid-ud-Din fled, and speedily placed the river Dajlah between himself
and Takish's troops. After this. Takish pushed on to Dinawr, and plundered
the place and country round, and returned to Hamadan laden with dirams and
dīnārs, and other booty beyond compute.
In 593 H., shortly after his son, Kutb-ud-Din, Muḥammad, had been
entrusted with the government of Khurasan, after the death of his elder
brother, he was recalled to proceed at the head of an army against Ghā-ir
Buķā Khān, the I-ghür ruler. He conducted the campaign successfully,
and Ghā-ir Buķā was made prisoner, and brought to Khwārazm, in Rabi’-
ul-Awwal of the following year. Another expedition was undertaken
shortly after against the successor of Ghā-ir Buķā, which Takish conducted
in person.
At the end of the year 594 H. Takish marched into Khurasan again. After
three months' halt at Shad-yākh he proceeded into 'Irāk against Miānjuk, the
Atā-bak of his son, Yūnas Khan, who was disaffected. He passed the cold
season in Mazandarān, and in the following spring pursued Miānjuk from one
end of 'Irāk to the other. Miānjuk and his party were pounced upon and
most of them put to the sword, and the rebel took shelter in Firūz-koh, from
which stronghold he had ousted the Sultan's seneschal some time before. It
was invested and taken, and Mianjuk was placed on a camel and brought to
Kazwin. He was imprisoned for a year, and subsequently exiled for life on
the hostile frontier of Jund. After this Sultan Takish is said to have received
a dress of honour from the Khalifah, with the investiture [which he could
neither give nor withhold] of 'Irāk, Khurāsān, and Turkistān!
In the following year, 595 H., the Wazir of the Khalifah, who was at
Hamadan with an army, drove out the Khwārazmi troops, upon which Takish
again entered 'Irāk from Khwārazm, and hostilities were renewed. The Wazir,
however, who commanded the Khalifah's troops, had died a few days before
the forces came into contact; but the fact was kept concealed, and was not
THE KHWĀRAZM-SHĀHIAH DYNASTY.
243
and Ibn-ul-Kaṣṣāb, who was the Wazir of the Dar-ul-
Khilafat, entered 'Irāk [with an army] to repel Sultan
Takish; but he was defeated, and retired to Baghdad
again.
This disloyalty towards the Khalifah was a disaster' to
the empire of Takish, as Maulānā Zahir-ud-Din, Fāryābi³,
says in the following strophe :-
“Oh, Shāh! since 'Ajam, by the sword, to thee has been consign'd,
Towards Mustafa's place of repose, an army send.
Then lay the Ka'bah desolate, and a fan bring,
And like unto useless atoms, to the winds the dust of the Haram send.
Within the Ka'bah the drapery crumbleth away: place it in thy treasury,
And, for the Prophet's tomb, two or three ells of matting send.
When thou shalt have a perfect infidel become, rush on Karkh,
And, then, the Khalifah's head to Khiṭā send."
Although Sultan Takish had entered into a treaty with
the Sultans of Ghür', nevertheless, through the hostility of
[the Court of] Baghdad, Ibn-ur-Rabbi' came from Bagh-
dad into the territories of Ghur and Ghaznin; and, on
another occasion, Ibn-ul-Khatib came to the Court of Firuz-
koh, and one Friday read the Khutbah, and, whilst reading
it, he made use of these words in the presence of Sultan
Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din, Muḥammad-i-Sām :-" Ayyahu-l-Ghiyāṣ
al-Mustaghāṣ min ul Takish ut-ṭāghi ul-bāghi." "Hail!
prop of defence against Takish the traitor and the rebel!"
At the time of Ibn-ul-Khatib's returning to Baghdad',
rout.
made known until after the Khalifah's troops had been defeated and put to the
The body of the Wazir was exhumed, and the head cut off, and sent to
Khwārazm. Faşiḥ-i mentions this affair, but places it several years earlier,
and calls the Wazir, Abu-l-Fazl-i-Muḥammad, son of 'Ali, styled Ibn-ul-
Baiză; and further states that, Takish being absent from 'Irāk at the time,
the Wazir, with the aid of Kutlagh Īnānaj, drove out the Khwārazmi troops,
and pursued them as far as Busṭām. After this Takish again entered 'Irāk,
and overthrew the Khalifah's troops.
7 The ascendency and power which Takish acquired by this success, instead
of being a blow to the prosperity of his rule, had quite a contrary effect. It
became noised abroad throughout both 'Irāks, and thereby his affairs attained
a greater grandeur than before. Possibly our author may refer to the inveterate
hostility of the Khalifah towards his son and grandson, and his refusing aid to
the latter when hard pressed by the infidel Mughals.
The Malik-ush-Shu'arā [Prince of Poets], Khwajah Zahir-ud-Din of
Faryab, who died in 598 H.
9 A treaty with the Sultāns of Ghur is out of the question; in fact the
author's own words disprove it. See also following note, and note ', page 265.
1 A correspondence found when the son of Takish acquired possession of
244
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĂȘIRÎ.
the father of the author, Maulānā Sarāj-ud-Din-i-Minhāj,
was despatched to the Court of Baghdad along with
him, and, on the confines of Mukrān, the Maulānā was
martyred. This intimation arrived from the Court of
the Khalifah, Un-Naşir-ud-Din Ullah, about it, saying:-
"Furthermore, Sarāj-i-Minhāj perished in an affray on the
road the Almighty recompense him!"
Sultan Takish-i-Khwarazm Shah was in firm alliance.
with Khita; and trustworthy persons have stated that
Sultan Takish had enjoined his son, Sulṭān 'Ala-ud-Din,
Muḥammad, never to quarrel or embroil himself with
Khiṭā, if he desired to preserve the safety of his dominions³;
and it turned out as this wise monarch had said. They
also relate, with respect to this subject, that the Sulṭān
often used to say that there would be two judgment-days
-one, that time which Almighty God has ordained; and
the other, that which would happen when he should be
removed from this world, through his son's bad faith to-
wards the infidels [of Chin].
Sultan Takish reigned for many years, and died.
Ghaznin confirms these hostile intentions. See note, page 265. In his
account of the Khalifah, Un-Naşir, our author states that three envoys arrived
from the Khalifah's court to solicit aid from the two brothers, Ghiyās-ud-Din
of Ghūr, and Mu'izz-ud-Din of Ghaznin; and that they were named respec-
tively, Imam Shams-ud-Din, Turk, Ibn-ur-Rabbi', and Ibn-ul-Khatib; and
that his father was sent along with them when they returned to Baghdad.
2 Some copies merely mention that he died.
3 Yafa-i says that Takish's last request was that his son should neither clash
with, nor show resistance against, Gūr Khān, nor depart from the agreement
previously settled [the tribute], because Gür Khan was as a bulwark of defence
in his rear against enemies in that quarter which he should not break down.
4 During his reign Takish became involved, upon more than one occasion,
in hostilities with the Khița-is and the rulers of Turkistān; and, towards the
close of his reign, waged war upon the Mulāḥidah heretics in 'Irak and Kuhis-
tan. He gained possession of their stronghold of Arsalan-Kushãe, the strongest
fortress in Asia, it is said. He then left his son, Tāj-ud-Din, ’Ali Shāh, in
'Irak, with Isfahan as his place of residence, and set out on his return to
Khwārazm, and reached it in Jamādi-ul-Ākhir, 596 H. The heretics supposed
the Wazir, Nizām-ul-Mulk, to have been the author of their disasters; so they
assassinated him. Sultan Takish resolved to avenge him. An army was
despatched against them under his son, Kutb-ud-Din, Muḥammad, who laid
siege to Turshiz. Our author chronicles his own father's death, but says
nothing of the time or place of the decease of the sovereign whose reign he is
supposed to be giving an account of; and, although Takish reigned so near his
own time, our author does not appear to have known that he reigned for
twenty-five years and six months, the last six and a half years being over 'Irāk
THE KHWARAZM-SHĀHĨAH DYNASTY.
245
VI. SULTAN JALĀL-UD-DĪN, MAHMUD, SON OF I-YAL-
ARSALĀN.
Maḥmūd, son of I-yal-Arsalan, Sulṭān Shah-i-Jalāl-ud-
Din, was a rash and impetuous monarch. When his
brother, Takish, assumed the throne of Khwārazm, dis-
sension arose between them, and he [Sultan Shah] went
from Khwārazm towards Khurasan, and from thence came.
into the states of Ghur, and presented himself at the Court
of Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din, Muḥammad-i-Sām. Sultān
Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din, and his Maliks ", treated him with honour
and deference,
Between the Sulṭāns of Ghūr and Sulṭān Takish a firm
compact existed; and some parts of Khurāsān had fallen
into the possession of the Amirs of the Ghuzz tribe, and
some to the slaves of the Sanjari dynasty, whilst others had
become dependencies of the Court of Ghur and Firuz-
koh, and of Bāmiān.
Sultan Shah solicited assistance from the Ghurian Sul-
tāns to enable him to liberate Khurāsān from the hands.
of his brother and the Ghuzz Amirs. They assigned him
a fief for the present, and he was furnished with all things
necessary as a guest; but they continued to observe the
treaty between themselves and his brother, Sultan Takish,
and hesitated to furnish him with the aid he sought.
also. Having despatched his son against the Mulāḥidahs, Sultan Takish was
organizing forces at Khwārazm to follow, when he was suddenly taken ill. He
recovered, and was advised not to undertake so long a journey, but he would
proceed. He was taken ill again, and died on the way, in Ramazan, 596 H.
See note, page 254. Many eminent and learned men flourished during his
reign, and numerous works on poetry, medicine, and other sciences, were
written and dedicated to him.
5 Styled Sultan Shah, Mahmud, by others.
6 In a few copies there is a slight difference in this clause of the sentence,
which, in them, is-"and the Maliks of Ghur."
7 After his defeat along with Mu-ayyid-i-Ã'inah-dar, and the latter had been
cut in two [see note 6, page 180], and Sulṭān Shāh's mother had also been put
to death by Takish, Sulṭān Shah went to Shād-yākh to Mu-ayyid's son,
Tughan Shah, who had succeeded his father, and took up his quarters in the
territory of Nishāpūr. As Tughān, however, had not power to help him, he
left his territory and went to the Sultans of Ghur [after obtaining written
promises of favourable treatment], who received him well. Hostility having
arisen shortly after between his brother Takish and the Kara Khiṭā-i ruler,
Sultan Shah was delighted, and entered into negotiation with that sovereign,
246
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĂŞIRĪ.
Sulṭān Shah [consequently] left the territory of Ghūr,
and proceeded to Mawar-un-Nahr and Turkistān, and
sought assistance from the Great Khan of Khita; and
brought an army, and freed Khurāsān from the oppressive
grasp and possession of the Ghuzz chiefs, and their
tyranny. He made Marw his capital, and marched an
who, to spite Takish, invited him to his Court. On leaving the Ghūrian territory
he observed to the nobles of his party that it occurred to him, although he had
had to put up with some annoyance and mortification from him, that man
[Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din, Ghūri] would cause much sedition in Khurāsān; and so it
turned out.
8 He stated to the Khita-i ruler that the Khwārazmis and the troops gene-
rally were well inclined towards him, and thereby induced the Khan to send
forces along with him to reinstate him. On their arrival before Khwārazm,
the Khita-is were undeceived, and, finding that no advantage was likely to
accrue by investing it, determined to retire again. Sultan Shah now solicited
that a portion of the Khita-i army might be sent along with him into
Khurāsān, against Sarakhs. This was assented to, and Sulṭān Shāh and his
allies suddenly appeared before it. Malik Dinar, one of the Ghuzz chiefs,
held it at that time; and most of his followers were put to the sword, and
Malik Dinār himself was dragged out of the ditch of that fortress, by the hair
of his head. The rest of his followers sought shelter within the walls. After
this, Sultan Shah marched to Marw and there took up his quarters, and dis-
missed the Khița-i troops to their own territory. He continued after that to
make constant incursions against Sarakhs, until most of the Ghuzz were
dispersed and driven from it, but Tughan Shah got possession of it. In Zi-
Hijjah, 576 H., hostilities arose between Sultan Shah and Tughan Shāh about
the possession of Sarakhs; and an engagement was fought between them, in
which the former was victorious and obtained possession of that place, and
Tūs likewise.
From this success Sultan Shah acquired considerable power,
because he, contrary to Tughan Shah, was not taken up with cymbals and
lutes, and such like frivolous pursuits. He made constant raids upon Tughān's
territory, until his nobles and troops became greatly harassed and distressed;
and they had mostly gone over to Sultan Shāh, and no power was left to
Tughan. He applied for aid both to Takish and to the Sultan of Ghur, and
once went to Hirāt, in person, to solicit assistance from Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din,
Ghūri ; but all was of no avail. Disappointed and depressed, he lived on
miserably till Muharram, 581 H., when he died. See our author's account of
him at page 181, where he says "all rulers refrained from molesting him.'
The same night in which Tughan Shāh died, his son, Sanjar Shah, was
raised to his father's masnad, and Manguli Beg, his slave, was made his Atā-
bak. The latter afterwards went over to Sultan Shah, who acquired sway
over the greater part of Tughān's territory. Malik Dinār, the Ghuzz chief,
went off to Kirmãn, and established himself as ruler therein; and everywhere
the Ghuzz Turks were reduced to subjection, or rooted out. See page 182,
note¹.
In the beginning of 582 H., Takish having entered Khurāsān, Sulṭān Shāh
marched against Khwārazm with a large army, in hopes of seizing it; but
Takish, in return, marched to Marw, Sultan Shah's capital, and sat down
before it. As Sultan Shah found he could not gain admittance into Khwã-
THE KHWARAZM SHAHIAH DYNASTY.
247
army against Hirāt, and invested Fushanj; and made raids.
razm, and that Marw was in danger, he abandoned the attempt; and, on
reaching Amūiah, left his army, and taking fifty picked men with him, made
for Marw, passed through Takish's army, and succeeded in throwing himself
into Marw. Next day, on hearing of this feat, Takish marched away to
Shād-yākh, and, in Rabi'-ul Awwal, 582 H., invested Sanjar Shāh, and his
Atā-bak, Manguli Beg, therein. After two months an accommodation was
entered into, and several men of rank were left there by Takish to carry out
the terms, and he departed for Khwārazm. Manguli Beg, as soon as Takish
had marched away, seized his officers and delivered them over to Sultan Shāh;
and they were kept in durance for a long time by him, until a truce was brought
about between the brothers, which, however, was but of short duration.
After the truce, Takish again moved against Shād-yākḥ, secured Manguli
Beg, and then returned to his capital, Khwārazm. Sultan Shah, being
ambitious of possessing Shād-yākh, now seized the opportunity and marched
against it. He invested it for a time, but, finding the defenders had the best of
it, he raised the investment and set out for Sabzwār, and invested that place.
It capitulated on terms on the intercession of a holy man, and Sultan Shah, in
conformity with those terms, entered it, remained an hour, and departed for
Marw again. In Muharram, 583 H., Takish again appeared before Shād-
yākḥ, and it was forced to submit, and Manguli Beg came forth and capitu-
lated. Sultan Takish entered it in Rabi'-ul-Awwal of that year. Manguli
was compelled to disgorge the wealth he had deprived others of, and was
afterwards delivered over to the son of an Imam, whose father he had put to
death unjustly, to suffer death according to the law of kiṣās or retribution.
Three months afterwards, Takish having set out for Khwārazm, Sulṭān Shāh,
finding the coast clear, made another effort to get possession of Shad-yakḥ ;
but, although the walls were for the most part destroyed, the place was obsti-
nately defended. Takish marched into Khurāsān again on becoming aware of
this movement on Sultan Shah's part, and the latter, hearing of Takish's
entering Khurāsān, burnt his battering-rams and made off. Takish remained
all the cold season in Khurāsān, preparing for a campaign in Āṣarbāijān, and
nearly all the Amirs of Khurāsān, who had hitherto not presented themselves,
now joined him. In the spring he returned from Ăṣarbāijān, and encamped
in the plain of Radakan of Tus, an accommodation having been come to
between the brothers in 585 H., whereby Sulṭān Shāh was left in possession of
considerable territory in Khurāsān, such as Jām, Bākhurz, and other districts.
Takish ascended the throne at Rādakān of Tūs [but not before], and soon after
set out for Khwārazm. Peace continued between them until after the affair at
Marw-ar-Rud with the Ghūris, with whom Sulṭān Shah had previously been
on the most brotherly terms, in which Sultan Shah was compelled to retire,
and his power became much broken, when, having infringed some of the stipu-
lations with his brother in 586 H., Takish again marched to Sarakhs, which
Sulṭān Shāh had made the depository of his treasures and military material.
It was taken; but, subsequently, another accommodation having been
arranged, it was restored to Sultan Shah, who again repaired it.
In 588 H.,
Takish having entered 'Irāk at the solicitation of Ķutlagh Īnānaj [see page
167, and note 8], against Sultan Tughril, Saljūķi, Sulṭān Shāh seized the
opportunity, marched with his forces against Khwārazm, and invested it; but,
hearing of the return of his brother from the 'Irak expedition, he abandoned
the investment, and retired into his own territory. Takish, having passed the
winter at Khwārazm, marched against his brother, Sultan Shah, in the follow-
248
THE TABAKAT-I-NAŞIRI.
upon the frontiers of the territory of Ghur, and created
tumult and disorder.
Some of the nobles and slaves of the Sanjari dynasty
joined him-such as Baha-ud-Din, Tughril, who was
governor of Hirāt, and used constantly to harass and afflict
the frontiers of the kingdom of Ghur. Sultān Ghiyāṣ-ud-
Din, Muḥammad-i-Sām, gave instructions so that his
Sultāns, namely, Sultan-i-Ghāzi, Mu'izz-ud-Din, Muḥam-
mad-i-Sām, from Ghaznin, Sulṭān Shams-ud-Din, Muḥam-
mad, from Bāmiān, and Malik Taj-ud-Din-i-Harab, from
Sistan, all assembled, marched, and joined Sultan Ghiyāṣ-
ud-Din, after which they set out for the purpose of repelling
Sultan Shāh.
They advanced into the valley of the river of Marw, and
pitched their camp between Dazak [Dajzak?] and Marw-
ar-Rūd, while Sultan Shah moved his forces from Marw
farther up; and, for a period of six months, the two armies,
Ghūris and Turks, were arrayed confronting each other.
Sultan Shāh used to display great audacity and boldness,
and was in the constant habit of cutting off the foragers [of
the Ghūrian army], whence it arose that Malik Kutb-ud-
Din, I-bak, the Turk, of Hindūstān, who, at that time, was
Amir-i-Akhur [lord of the stables-master of the horse] of
the Ghaznin' [ruler], was taken prisoner by the troops of
Sultan Shāh.
Matters went on in this manner, until, at the expiration.
of six months, an engagement took place, and Sultan Shāh
had not the power to resist his opponents, for the troops of
Ghaznin crossed the river Murgh-ab and attacked the army?
of Sultan Shah, who, unable to repel them, or make a stand
ing spring. As soon as Takish reached Abiward, negotiations for a peaceable
settlement of their differences were entered into, and letters passed between the
brothers; but, through the folly and precipitancy of Sultan Shah, the negotia-
tions were in abeyance, when he was betrayed by Badr-ud-Din, Ja'far, an
officer in his service, who held Sarakhs for him. Ja'far delivered up the fortress
to Takish, together with his master's treasures; and two days after, at the end
of Ramazan, 589 H., Sultān Shāh died. He had reigned for twenty-two
years.
9 His brother, his kinsman, and his vassal.
1 To Mu'izz-ud-Din, Sultan of Ghaznin, whose slave he was, and subse-
quently ruler of Dihli.
2 Five copies have
affair on the Murgh-āb.
attacked the camp." Yafa-i barely alludes to this
"attacked the camp."
THE KHWARAZM-SHAHIAH DYNASTY.
249
before them, was defeated; and, perplexed and distracted,
he retired towards Marw again.
Malik Bahā-ud-Din, Tughril, of Hirāt, who was with
Sultan Shah's army, fell into the hands of the troops of
Bāmiān; and they brought his head to the presence of
Sultan Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din, and he commanded them to take it
to Hirāt. Sultan Shams-ud-Din of Bāmiān [likewise], on
that day, was assigned a chatr [canopy]; and he was
honoured with the title of Sultan.
When they brought the head of Tughril to Hirāt, a Poet
repeated these lines:-
"The head of Tughril, which he carried higher than the altitude of the
heavens,
And which possessed the jewel and diadem of haughtiness and pride,
Without a body, hath to Hari, a spectacle come,
For this reason, that he had an inclination for Hari in his head."
Sultan Shah, having been thus defeated, and his army
routed and dispersed, retired to Marw; and this affair
and this victory took place in the year 588 H.
Sulṭān Shāh was [it appears] troubled with a complaint,
for which every year he used to take a small quantity of a
certain poison, in order to cure it; and, in that same year,
the complaint increased, and as a remedy against it he
took somewhat more of the antidote, and it killed him, and
he died.
VII. YŪNAS KHAN, SON OF TAKISH, KHWARAZM SHÃH³.
Yūnas Khān was the son of Sulṭān Takish; and, when
Sultan Takish subdued the territory of 'Irak, and wrested
it out of the hands of the Ata-bak, Abu-Bikr, the son of
3 The seventh ruler and successor of Takish was his son Sultan 'Ala-ud-
Din, Muḥammad; and neither Yūnas Khan, Malik Khan, nor 'Ali Shah,
were ever rulers of Khwārazm, but merely held subordinate governments
under their father. When Sultan Takish entered 'Irāk in the beginning of
590 H., and Sultan Tughril was slain in battle [see page 167, and note ³],
Takish, after securing 'Irak, conferred Ișfahan on Ķutlagh Īnānaj, son of the
Atā-bak Jahan Pahlawan, leaving the Amirs of 'Irak with him, and the terri-
tory of Rai and its dependencies was conferred upon Takish's son, Yūnas
Khan, with Miānjuk as his Atā-bak and the commander of his troops. The
whole of 'Irak he never held. Takish did not take 'Irāk from the Ata-bak
Abu-Bikr, son of Muḥammad, for a very good reason that no such Atā-bak
ever held it in the reign of Takish.
R
250
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĂŞIRĪ.
the Atā-bak, Muḥammad, and a second time caused its
deliverance from Sultan Tughril, he conferred it upon his
son, Yūnas Khān.
He was a monarch of good disposition, and used to live
on good terms among his people, and brought 'Irāk under
his subjection. He began to enter into contention with
the troops of the Court of the Khalifah, and that untoward
circumstance became a source of misfortune to the sove-
reignty of his father, and to their dynasty'.
He reigned for a considerable time over 'Irāk, and died.
VIII. MALIK KHAN, SON OF TAKISH, KHWARAZM SHÃH.
Malik Khan was the eldest son of Sultan Takish, and
was a mighty and arrogant monarch'. He was endowed.
with great sagacity, wisdom, knowledge, and understanding,
nobleness of mind, and intrepidity.
When his father wrested Nishapur and other parts of
that territory out of the hands of the Sanjari slaves, such
as the descendants of Malik Mu-ayyid were, Sanjar Shāh,
who was the son of Tughan Shah, the son of Malik Mu-
ayyid, he induced, by treaty, to come out of Nishapūr”,
and gave the throne of Nishāpūr to his son, Malik Khān.
When he assumed the throne of that territory, he brought
under his sway the tracts of country around as far as the
4 Whilst his father was absent on the expedition against Ghā-ir Būķā Khan,
the Ï-ghūr, in 591 H., Yūnas Khān turned his arms [or rather his Atā-bak for
him] against the Khalifah's troops in 'Irāk. Yūnas sought help to carry out
this hostile purpose, from his brother Malik Shah, who held the government of
Marw and its dependencies. Yūnas, however, before being joined by his
brother, had defeated the troops of Baghdad, and had acquired great booty.
The brothers met at Hamadan, where they made some stay; and, after they
had passed a jovial time together, Malik Khān—or Shāh, as he is also styled—
set out on his return to Khurāsān.
His title was Nāṣir-ud-Din.
6 When Sultan Takish entered Khurāsān in 590 H. on his way back from
'Irāk, he heard of the illness of his son Malik Shah, who held at that time the
government of Marw. Takish directed that his son should be brought to him;
and, when they reached Tūs, Sultan Shah recovered. His father transferred
him to the government of Nishāpūr, which he had previously held, with Shad-
yakh as his residence in place of Marw, from the unwholesome climate of
which his health had suffered; and an appanage was conferred upon his other
son, Kutb-ud-Din, Muḥammad, in Khurāsān; and he was made his father's
companion and favourite.
7 For the facts, see note to Sulṭān Shāh's reign, page 246.
THE KHWÅRAZM-SHÁHĨAH DYNASTY.
251
8
gate of 'Irāk; and a great number of eminent men assem-
bled at his Court. He reigned for a considerable time, and
died', leaving a son named Hindū Khan.
He [Hindū Khan] was an exceedingly intrepid, high-
minded prince, and was endowed with a poetical genius.
After the decease of his father and his grandfather, he
began to collect forces in Khurāsān, and, in consequence,
his uncle, Sulṭān Muḥammad, son of Takish, reprehended
him'. Hindu Khan composed a few elegant lines, and sent
them to his uncle:-
"A hundred treasure-hoards be thine: the keen poniard mine.
The palace thine: the steed and the battle-field be mine.
Shouldst thou desire that hostility cease between us,
Be Khwārazm thine, King! the country of Khurasan mine 2."
8 Alike in all the copies. The Hulwan Pass may be called the "gate" of
'Irāk.
⁹ Malik Shah having returned from Hamadan, as related in note 4,
', pre-
ceding page, as soon as he entered Khurasan, despatched Arsalan Shah, one
of the nobles, to act for him at Shad-yakh, and set out himself for Khwārazm.
During his absence great disorder and sedition arose in the Nishāpūr territory
in consequence of disaffected persons inciting Sanjar Shāh, son of Tughān
Shah, who had previously been relieved of the cares of independent sove-
reignty, to rebel against Sultan Takish. He had been treated with the utmost
kindness, the Sulṭān had married his mother, and after his daughter's decease,
who had been espoused by Sanjar, he had also given him his sister in marriage,
and was regarded as a son. He was accordingly sunmoned to Khwārazm
and deprived of his sight, and his fief was taken from him. This was in
591 H., and in 595 H. he died. After Sanjar Shah's threatened outbreak,
Sultan Takish had to march into 'Irāk against the 'Irāki nobles, in conse-
quence of his son Yūnas Khan's acts. It was on this occasion that the
Khalifah's troops, after the death of their leader, the Wazir, were defeated.
Takish returned into Khwārazm by way of Isfahan, and conferred the
government of Khurāsān upon Malik Shah, with directions not to go to Marw
because of its unhealthiness. His partiality for it, however, was so great, that
it drew him there. He was taken ill soon after, and returned to Nishāpūr;
but his illness increased, and he died at the close of the year 593 H.
1 Yafa-i, which contains so much information respecting this dynasty,
merely states that Sultan Takish had to delay his departure on an expedition
against infidels [heretics], fearing an outbreak on the part of Malik Shah's
sons. Accordingly, the Wazir, Şadr-ud-Din, Mas'ud, Harawi, was despatched
to Shad-yakh to assume charge of affairs. He contrived to prevent any
tumult, and sent the eldest son, Hindū Khān, to Khwārazm. Subsequently
Sulṭān Takish conferred the government of Khurāsān upon his son, Kutb-ud-
Din, Muḥammad, who proceeded thither; and, two days after he reached
Shad-yākh, the Wazir set out to join the Sultan, in Zi-Hijjah, 593 H. Hindū
Khan subsequently took service with his country's enemies, the Ghūris. See
note 7, page 255.
2 This line, according to two copies of the original, might be read :-
Khwārazm thine mine alone the realm of Khurāsān."
"Be
R 2
252
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĀṢIRĪ.
Sultan Muhammad-i-Takish wrote the following lines in
reply:-
"Soul of thine uncle! this ambition takes the path of insanity :
This monition will take effect neither on thee nor on me,
'Till blood, to the hilt, shall the sword's blade smear :
'Till, of one of us two, triumph's fire shall the highest blaze.”
Hindu Khan was not powerful enough to offer opposition
to his uncle and his armies, and he came to the territories
of Ghur, and sought assistance; but he was unable to
obtain it, and he pressed onwards for Khiṭā. He possessed
mettle, but he was not favoured by fortune; and he was
martyred on the confines of Bamian.
IX. 'ALĪ SHÃH³, SON OF TAKISH, KHWĂRAZM SHAH.
Sultan 'Ali Shah was a very great and illustrious prince;
and, when the period came for his brother to assume the
sovereignty, he made 'Ali Shah ruler of Nishāpūr. When
the Sultans of Ghur conquered' Nishapur, Malik' 'Ali
Shah, with other Maliks of Khwārazm, under terms of
treaty, came out of that city, and presented themselves
before Sultan Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din, and the victorious Sulṭān
· Mu'izz-ud-Din; and they brought Sultan 'Ali Shah [with
them] to Ghaznin. When Sulṭān Muḥammad [of Khwārazm]
appeared, the second time, before the gate of Nishāpūr,
and Malik Ziya-ud-Din', under terms of convention, came
out [and surrendered the city], the Sultan sent him back
to Ghur', and the Sultans of Ghur sent back Malik 'Ali
Shah also, to his brother, Sultan Muḥammad.
3 His title was Tāj-ud-Din. He had been placed in charge of a part of
'Irak, with Isfahan as the seat of government, some time before the accession
of his brother Kutb-ud-Din, and when the Ghūri Sultāns appeared before
Shād-yākḥ, in Rajab, 597 H.—particulars of which are given under his brother's
reign - Taj-ud-Din, 'Ali Shah, who had recently left 'Irak, chanced to be
there, together with a number of his other brothers' nobles and officers.
They were not observed fairly; and
'Ali Shah and the Khwarazmi nobles and officers with him were treated with
great indignity by the Ghūris. See note 7, page 255.
Nishapur capitulated on terms only.
5 The titles Sultan and Malik are used here indiscriminately.
• A kinsman of Sulṭān Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din and his brother.
7
Together with his garrison; and they had dresses of honour given to them,
and were treated with the utmost consideration, in order to show the Ghūris
how to behave to fallen foes.

THE KHWARAZM-SHAHIAH DYNASTY.(
253
The latter bestowed the throne of Ṣafahān/ and 'Irāķ
upon his brother, 'Ali Shāh, and, for a considerable period,
he continued in that country; when, suddenly, he became
overcome with fear and apprehension from some cause or
other, and left it, and came into the territories of Ghūr, and
presented himself at the Court of Firuz-koh.
At that period, the throne of Firuz-koh had passed to
Sultan Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din, Maḥmūd, son of Muḥammad-i-
Sām; and Sultan Muḥammad despatched envoys from
Khwārazm to the presence of Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din,
Mahmud, so that 'Ali Shah was seized and placed in
durance. At length, a party of 'Ali Shah's followers de-
voted themselves to the cause of their master, and martyred
Sultan Maḥmūd, son of Muḥammad-i-Sām.
8
When the throne of the kingdom of Ghür had passed to
the sons of Sulṭān Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din, Maḥmüd, son of [Mu-
hammad-i-] Sam, an army from Khurasan arrived there in
order to take possession of Ghūr, as will subsequently be
related; and the Ghūriāns caused 'Ali Shāh to be set at
liberty, on the day that the Khwārazmi forces gained
possession of Firuz-koh.
'Ali Shah proceeded to Ghaznin, and there he continued
as Malik for a considerable time. Subsequently, Sultān
Muḥammad, Khwärazm Shah, despatched persons who
entered into engagements with him on favourable terms;
so much so that 'Ali Shah, placing faith therein, was
induced to leave Ghaznin, and join the Khwärazmi army
and reached Tigin-ābād of Garmsir. A party was [subse-
quently] appointed and despatched from Khwārazm, and
in the year 609 H., they martyred 'Ali Shāh.
X. SULŢĂN 'ALĂ-UD-DĪN¹, MUHAMMAD, SON OF TAKISH,
KHWĀRAZM SHĀH.
Sulṭān 'Alā-ud-Din, Muḥammad, had five sons; the
8 Khwārazmi troops, though no doubt chiefly natives of Khurāsān—the
Khurasani contingent.
9 One copy alone of the original contains the word "Malik." For a correct
account of these matters, see the reign of Maḥmūd, in Section XVII., for our
author seems to have been determined not to relate anything not tending to
the glorification of the Ghūris, and often distorts facts to suit his purpose.
¹ Before he came to the throne his title was Ķutb-ud-Din, but on his
accession he assumed that of 'Alā-ud-Din, the title borne by his father.
254
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĂŞIRĪ.
し
​first, Harroz Shah; the second, Ghūri Shānasti²; the
third, Jalalud-Din, Mang-barni; the fourth, Arzalū Shāh ;
and the fifth, Āķ Sulṭān³.

3
He was a great and potent monarch, wise, valiant,
munificent, a patron of the learned, a conqueror, and im-
petuous; and, whatever qualifications it was desirable a
great sovereign and just ruler should possess, the Almighty
had endowed him with.
During the lifetime of his father, he bore the title of
Kutb-ud-Din; and, when his brother, Malik Khan, died,
his father conferred upon him the throne of Nishāpūr, and
Malik Sharaf-ud-Din, Mas'ūd-i-Ḥasan, was appointed to
be his Atā-bak or governor; and, after some time, the
command of the forces of Khwārazm was conferred upon
him.
On the side of his mother, likewise, he was a prince of
[the house of] Ķifchāķ and very great, his mother being
the daughter of Kadr Khan of Ķifchāk; and, from the
days of his boyhood, the marks of intelligence and clever-
ness shone clearly and conspicuously on his brow. Every
expedition on which his father sent him, in the direction of
Jund and Turkistan, he brought to such a successful issue
as was desirable, in fact even a better than could have been
anticipated.
At the period when death overtook his father, Sulṭān
Takish, Muḥammad was absent in the direction of Jund
and Turkistān*, and; when he obtained information of that
This name is very doubtful. Three copies of the text, in two or more
places, agree in the above reading; but others, again, have Nashānasti,
Bashānasti, Bashāsti, and Shansabi, all of which are unintelligible; whilst
other authors, such as Guzidah, Jahān-Ārā, and others, have Ghūri Sānji,
which, they say, signifies "the Ghūri fled."
The name of the first son here mentioned varies considerably in different
copies. The majority have Har-roz Shāh, but the St. Petersburg copies have
Birūz [Firūz?], Nimroz, and Pir Shāh, respectively. This last name is con-
firmed by other authors, as will be mentioned farther on. The name of the
fourth also is written Aṣarlū, Arzalū, and Uzurlū. The whole of these names
are omitted altogether in most copies of the text. Other writers say he had
seven sons, three only of whom attained sovereign power. Guzidah mentions
their names as follows:-Ak-Sulṭān, Azlāk [one copy, Ūzlāķ], Kurjā [one copy,
Būjā; Vāfa-i has Kūjāe] Tigin [?], Ughul Malik, Jalāl-ud-Din, Ghiyāṣ-ud-
Din [Pir Shāh], and Rukn-ud-Din, Ghūri Shānasti. See note 2 above.
Yafa-i mentions another, Timur Malik. See note 3, page 285.
Nothing of the kind: our author commences this reign with a totally in-
correct statement. He was engaged in the siege of Turshiz when the news of
THE KHWĀRAZM-SHĀHĨAH DYNASTY.
255
circumstance, he returned to Khwārazm, and assumed the
throne; and, in the year 595 H.³, he brought the dominions
of his father under his own jurisdiction.
He conferred the throne of Nishāpūr upon his brother,
'Ali Shah", as has been already stated; and despatched an
envoy to the Courts of Ghūr and Ghaznin, and sought for
peace; and I, Minhāj-i-Sarāj, heard from one of the trust-
worthy [persons] of the Maliks of Ghūr the statement, that
one of the messages and requests of Sultan Muhammad
was this:-"I, Muhammad-i-Takish, who am their ser-
his father's death was received, and another week would have been sufficient to
have taken it. His father's ministers kept the matter secret, and sent off to
acquaint Sultan Muḥammad of it. He concealed the matter from his army,
and, feigning illness, prepared to retire. The Mulaḥidahs sent him valuable
The
presents, and offered an additional sum of 100,000 dinars as tribute.
Sultan proceeded to Sharistānah, performed the funeral ceremonies of his
father, and set out with all haste for Khwārazm. This is a most important
reign, and such events as our author has related-a number of most important
ones have been passed over-are either incorrectly stated, or moulded to the
glorification of the Ghūris: hence the notes here will be found, I fear, volu-
minous, and, were I to notice every thing, I might almost fill a volume.
5 Not so: his father died in Ramazan, 596 H., and Sulṭān Muḥammad
ascended the throne in Shawwal of that year.
6 See note 2, page 251.
ex-
▾ This statement is ridiculous, and totally unworthy of credit; moreover,
the events which follow prove the contrary. No sooner had the Sultāns of
Ghur and Ghaznin obtained information of the death of Sultan Takish, “than
the devil," as one of the authors from whom this extract is taken says,
cited their envy and ambition; and they, without loss of time, despatched a
force to Marw under Muḥammad-i-Kharnak, whilst they followed at the head
of an immense force, including ninety great elephants like mountains in appear-
ance. On reaching Tus they plundered and devasted the country, and
slaughtered the people, and then marched to Shad-yakh. The Sultan's
brother, Tāj-ud-Din, 'Ali Shah, who had lately returned from 'Irāk, happened
to be there, and the Ghūriāns obtained possession of the place by capitulation,
a tower having fallen from the number of spectators in it, which they took as a
good omen. This our author turns into a miracle in the account of Ghiyāṣ-ud-
Din, who, by his account, was a miracle-worker. This was in Rajab, 597 H.
The place was given up to plunder, and 'Ali Shāh, the Sultan's officials, and
the chief men of the place, were inhumanly treated and sent off with the
garrison to the capital of Ghur. By the fall of this place the Ghūris acquired
temporary possession of the whole country, as far as Busṭām and Jurjān. This
effected, the brothers left a strong force at Nishāpūr [Shād-yākh was a portion
of that city, or rather a fortified suburb] under Malik Ziyā-ud-Din; and
Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din repaired to Hirāt, and Shihāb-ud-Din into the Ķuhistān
against the Mulāḥidahs of that part, and afterwards returned to Hirāt likewise.
As soon as Sultan Muḥammad heard of these troubles in Khurāsān, he, in Zi-
Hijjah of the same year [597 H.], set out at the head of his troops, and early
in 598 11. encamped before Shad-yākḥ. After some skirmishing outside, the
256
THE TABAKAT-I-NAŞIRI.
vant, make this request, that the Sultans would be pleased
to accept my services; and, although I am not possessed
of the worthiness of being a son, it behoveth that the
Sultan-i-Ghāzi, Mu'izz-ud-Din, Muḥammad-i-Sām, should
take to wife my mother, Khudāwandah-i-Jahan, and that
he should accept me, Muḥammad-i-Takish, as his son and
servant, in order also that I, his servant, may, by the name
on the coin of that august monarch, and the Khutbah of
that sovereign of exalted dignity, conquer the whole world;
and, for the servants of the Court of the Sultans—the
asylum of the world-draw the sword, and become one of
those servants."
8
When this overture had been delivered, the purport
coincided with the inclinations of Sultan Ghiyās-ud-Din,
but did not accord with the sentiments of Sultan Mu'izz-
ud-Din [the person chiefly interested], and he declined to
ratify it.
The latter Sultan assembled his troops, and
marched into Khurasan, and subdued the whole of that
territory; but, when he subsequently set out on his return,
Sultan Muḥammad brought an army, and again recovered
Khurāsān.
In
Whenever the Sultāns of Ghūr [and Ghaznin] used to
march into Khurāsān, Sulṭān Muḥammad used to retire
[as they advanced] to the distance of two or three marches
before them; and when they fell back he would follow
them up at the distance of two or three marches'.
Ghūris retired within the walls "like mice to their holes," and the battering-
rams were placed in position, and the ditch filled, when the Ghuris capitulated.
They were treated honourably, and sent back to Ghur "with dresses of honour,
in order to show the Ghuris how to treat fallen foes." The Sultan, after this
affair, directed that the walls of Shad-yakh should be razed. All these events
certainly look as though Sultan Muḥammad had solicited the Sultans of Ghūr
to accept his vassalage. After this the Sultan proceeded to Marw and Sarakhs,
which last mentioned place was held by his nephew, Hindū Khan, and held by
him for the Sulṭāns of Ghūr and Ghaznin. On the approach of his uncle
Hindu Khan fled to Ghür; but, as the governor in charge of Sarakhs refused
to open the gates, Sultan Muhammad left a force to take it, and continued his
march to Khwārazm by way of Marw to prepare for a campaign against Hirāt.
In Zi-Hijjah of that year he encamped in the plain of Rādakān; and having
mustered his forces, both Turk and Tajzik, he commenced his march, and in
due time his tents were pitched in sight of Hirāt.
8 The text differs here in some copies. Some have "by the name and coin,”
hers "by the name of the coin," &c., both of which are meaningless.
9 Not desiring to be roasted in a bath. His first title was Shihāb-ud-Din.
1 The reader would imagine, from the above, that the Ghūrian Sultāns were
THE KHWÄRAZM-SHAHĨAH DYNASTY.
257
short, he never sustained a complete overthrow, and he
used to give proofs of his skill and bravery; but, as those
Sultāns were monarchs of great power and magnificence,
he was unable to cope with them effectually.
When the Sultans of Ghür died, Sultan Muhammad,
Khwārazm Shāh, appeared before the gates of Hirāt', and
in the constant habit of invading Khurāsān; but the facts are mentioned in the
preceding note 7, page 255.
2 Any one reading the above would imagine that Hirāt sustained one siege
only by the Khwärazmi forces during this reign, and that one after Shihab-ud-
Din's decease; and our author, whose idea of epitomizing events appears to
have been to leave out three out of four, or combine three into one, has done the
latter here. Hirāt sustained no less than three sieges, and one of these occurred
before the death of Ghiyas-ud-Din, and the second long before the death of
Shihāb-ud-Din. The first occurred at the close of 598 H., upon which occa-
sion, the Khwārazmi army having invested it, after the battering-rams had been
freely plied on either side, the governor, 'Izz-ud-Din, 'Umr, Maraghani, a
man of experience, saw no other remedy than to submit. He sent his son to
the Sultan's presence, and the terms were agreed upon, and a large sum of
money was paid as ransom.
Hearing of the investment of Hirāt, the Sultāns of Ghur and Ghaznin made
all haste to endeavour to relieve it, and recover what they had lost in western
Khurāsān; and Shihab-ud-Din, at the head of a large army, advanced by way
of Tal-kan for that purpose. Sultan Muhammad thought it advisable to retire,
which he did, and proceeded towards Marw by way of Marw-ar-Rūd. When
he reached Sarakhs he halted, and negotiations went on between him and the
Ghūris, who sought the cession of some portion of Khurasan, the details of
which are too long for insertion here. These events took place in 599 H.
Shihab-ud-Din, shortly after, however, heard of the death of his brother,
and he hastily withdrew from Khurāsān, leaving Muḥammad Kharnak, the
greatest of the Ghūri nobles, and the champion of Ghūr, to hold Marw. The
latter, however, having been overthrown by a body of Khwarazmi troops, threw
himself into that place, but it was captured, and his head was struck off and
sent to the Sultan at Khwarazm.
This success so greatly elated the Khwarazmi nobles and ministers that they
advised the Sulṭān to march again against Hirāt, and to take possession of it,
whilst the Ghūris were fighting among themselves about the late Sultan's
inheritance, as the Hirātis would receive him with open arms. In the month of
Jamādi-ul-Awwāl, 600 H.-Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din had died in the previous year
[some say he died in 598 H., and others in 597 H.]-the Sulṭān appeared before
Hirāt for the second time; and, after immense stones had been poured into the
bāzārs and streets of the place, negotiations for surrender were again opened by
Alb-i-Ghāzi, the governor, sister's son of the two Ghūrian Sultāns; and after
stipulations had been entered into for the safety of life and property, and the
payment of a large sum of money, the place was given up.
Some years passed between this affair and the next investment of Hirāt,
during which time Shihab-ud-Din invaded Khwārazm, and had to beat a
precipitate retreat, particulars of which will be found under his reign farther on.
Shihab-ud-Din had subsequently entered into a treaty of peace with Sulṭān
Muḥammad, Khwārazm Shāh, and had been assassinated, Khwārazm Shāh had
258
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NAŞIRĪ.
Malik 'Izz-ud-Din, Husain-i-Kharmil, Ghūri, came out and
paid homage to him; and the Sultan brought all Khurāsān
under his sway. When, by his command, Husain-i-Khar-
mil was seized by his troops, a Khwajah of Hirāt, named
Sa'd-ud-Din, a native of Tirmiz, succeeded in getting
away from the [Khwārazmi] army, and threw himself into
annexed the Ghaznin territory, and the successor of Sulṭān Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din had
acknowledged Sultan Muḥammad's suzerainty before the next investment of
Hirāt took place, on which occasion the waters of the Hari-rūd were dammed
up; and 'Izz-ud-Din, Husain-i-Kharmil, one of the Ghūrian nobles, had in the
meanwhile become Wali of Hirāt and its dependencies, which he held of
Sultan Maḥmūd, son of the late Ghiyas-ud-Din. Kharmil, being suspicious of
the upshot of the affairs of Ghūr, sent to the Sulṭān repeatedly tendering his
allegiance to him. The Sultan was occupied with the affairs of Khita-i at the
time, and could not proceed to Hirāt, as Kharmil solicited him to do, and to
take possession of it and its dependencies. At length the Sultan set out for
Khurasan, and, having taken possession of Balkh by the way, he marched by
way of Jazūrān to Hirāt. He entered it in Jamādi-ul-Awwal, 607 H. After
this Maḥmud of Ghur acknowledged his suzerainty, and read the Khutbah,
and coined money in the Sultan's name, and sent him costly presents,
including a white elephant. Kharmil was continued in the government of
Hirāt with a salary of 250,000 gold dīnārs yearly out of the revenues of
Khurāsān.
The
After the Sultan returned to Khwārazm, and became occupied in the affairs
of Khiṭā-i, and a rumour had spread abroad that the Sulṭān had been taken
prisoner by the Khita-is, Kharmil became disaffected, and began intriguing
with the Ghūri ruler, and again coined money in his name [from this it would
appear that the governor of every province had a mint, or rather coined money,
at the provincial capital], and apologized for the past; but the Ghūris, being
enraged at his past conduct, resolved upon hostility, and determined to try and
oust him from Hirāt, and advanced with an army towards it. Kharmil, who
in the meantime had heard of the Sultan's safety, fearing the consequences of
his acts, and in order to palliate them, called upon the Khwārazmi nobles
stationed in eastern Khurāsān to aid him in resisting the Ghuris. They came
to his assistance with a body of troops, and, after oaths and stipulations of safe-
conduct, Kharmil came out, and in combination they routed the forces of Ghur;
and this blow quite broke the little power still possessed by them.
Khwārazmi nobles now wrote to Sultan Muḥammad, saying that Hirat was
like a forest, and Kharmil like a lion within it, and thought the time propitious
for getting rid of him. They kept on good terms with him until the Sultan's
When the
reply reached them, after which they invited him to a consultation.
council broke up, the Malik of Zawzan, Ķawām-ud-Din, invited Kharmil to his
quarters to a feast and drinking bout. He excused himself under plea of want
of leisure. Kawam-ud-Din seized his bridle as though determined to take no
denial, and gave a sign to the rest of the nobles and chiefs along with him,
who drew their swords, dispersed Kharmil's followers, and dragged him on
foot to their tents. He was sent away a prisoner to the fortress of Salomad of
Khowaf [another historian says "of Zawzan:" it is probably the Sala-Mihr of
our author; see page 283], and his effects were seized, and a short time after-
wards his head was sent to Khwārazm.
THE KHWARAZM-SHAHĨAH DYNASTY.
259
the city, and, for a period of eleven months, he continued
to hold the place³.
The Khwārazmi army, by a contrivance devised by
Husain-i-Kharmil, dammed up the water of the river of
Hirāt above the city, and all round became like unto a sea;
and matters assumed such an aspect, that, if the city had
not been entirely surrounded by walls, the water, which
rose higher than the housetops, would have overwhelmed
it. As it was, upon one or two occasions the ground opened
in the middle of the city, and water issued forth from the
midst, but it was diverted [and the danger obviated].
For a period of eight months hostilities continued
between the defenders of the city and the Khwārazmi
forces in boats'; and, when eleven months of the invest-
ment had passed, Sultan Muhammad-i-Takish arrived"
from Khwārazm, and gave directions that the dyke [which
kept the water in] should be opened; and, when the water
flowed out, it carried along with it about three hundred
It so
2 The steward or deputy in Kharmil's employ, Zaydi by name, a man of
acuteness and cunning, managed to throw himself into the fortress, seeing the
state of affairs, and shut himself up there. He was joined by Kharmil's fol-
lowers and all the vagabonds and rascals of the city, among whom he distributed
the wealth in Kharmil's treasury, and defied the Khwarazmi forces.
happened that the Sultan, on account of the disaffection of a relative of his
mother, who held the government of Shad-yākh, had come into Khurasan at
this juncture, and had reached Sarakhs on his return. Zaydi now began to
fear the consequences of his temerity, and to plead as an excuse that he could
not place any confidence in the Khwārazmi nobles for his safety, and that he
was merely awaiting the arrival of the Sulṭān at Hirāt to give up. This the
nobles communicated to the Sultan, and solicited him to come.
He did so,
and, on being made acquainted with Zaydi's doings, his anger was so much
kindled, that he ordered that the waters should be dammed up. When the waters
had accumulated sufficiently the dam was opened, the waters rushed in, and one
of the principal bastions fell. The ditch near was filled up with trees and
rubbish, and rendered practicable for the troops; and one day, whilst Zaydi
was entertaining his vagabond followers, the Khwarazmi soldiers planted the
Sultan's standards on the walls, rushed in,. slew them, and carried the place.
Zaydi sought to get away unnoticed, but was seized, and dragged before the
Sultan by the hair of his head. After this the Sultan directed that plunder
should cease, and the shops were again opened; and thus was Hirāt freed from
the tyranny of Zaydi and his gang. As Kharmil had been put to death some
time before, his having advised the damming up of the Hari-Rud is, like many
other of our author's statements, purely imaginary.
• Boats are not mentioned in all the copies.
Two paragraphs before this our author states that Sultan Muḥammad
appeared before the gates of Hirāt and invested it, but now says quite dif-
ferently.
260
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĂŞIRÎ.
ells of the walls of the city, and a breach was thereby
effected; and, after fifteen days' fighting, the city was taken
by assault.
After this success the Sulṭān marched to Balkh, and
gained possession of that place likewise; and Malik
'Imād-ud-Din, 'Umr, Fiwāri [native of Fiwār], who was
governor of the province of Balkh, on the part of the
Sultāns of Bāmiān, was sent away [as a prisoner] to
Khwārazm. From thence the Sulṭān set out towards
Mawar-un-Nahr and Turkistan; and the whole of the
Maliks and Sultans of the Afrasiyabi dynasty, who held
territory in the countries of Mawar-un-Nahr and Fargha-
nah, presented themselves before him.
He then turned his face towards Ķulij' Khān of Khiṭā-i,
6 In some copies he is called Malik Imād-ul-Mulk, Āhwāzi; and in some
it is stated that he went, in others that he was sent, and in others that he was
taken. Balkh was surrendered before the last investment of Hirāt, as mentioned
in the preceding note. Imad-ud-Din, having been found acting perfidiously,
instead of being put to death, was removed from the government of Balkh and
sent to Khwārazm, and was employed elsewhere.
7 Our author has misplaced the order of these events and related them
incorrectly, as well as confounded one with another. After the death of Sultān
Shihāb-ud-Din, Ghūri, in 602 H., Sulṭān Muḥammad, having no cause for
anxiety respecting the safety of his dominions in Khurāsān, turned his attention
to Māwar-un-Nahr, which had remained in subjection to the infidels of Khiṭā-i
since the defeat of Sultan Sanjar. The chiefs of that territory had repeatedly
solicited him to deliver them from the yoke of those infidels, and, being quite
wearied and disgusted with the constant arrivals of agents from Gūr Khān
demanding payment of the tribute, which he had purposely kept in arrears,
and which his father, Takish, had agreed to pay to the sovereigns of Khiṭā-i for
assistance rendered to him against his brother, Sultan Shah, he now readily
acceded to these requests, considering himself powerful enough to ignore all
future payments, which he had long considered dishonourable to his sovereignty.
Bukhārā at this time was held by a mean upstart named Sanjar Malik.
was annexed, and the upstart met with his deserts. The Sultan then despatched
an agent to 'Usman, Sulṭān of Samrkand, of the race of Afrasiyāb, and of the
family of Bughra Khan, the antagonist of the latter Samanian princes. He
was already disaffected towards Gür Khan, for he had solicited the hand of a
daughter of the latter, and had been refused; so he became secretly a zealous
ally of the Sulṭān. This was in 606 H.; and, after consulting with the Sulṭān
of Sultāns-as 'Uṣman had been hitherto styled-and his chiefs, Sultān
Muḥammad returned to Khwärazm to prepare for the campaign.
It
In the eastern parts of Gūr Khān's dominions, his great vassals at this period
began to act rebelliously; and Kojlak [called Koshlak and Kushlak by some
writers, but not Kashlū, as our author writes it], son of Tae-nāk [also written
Tayā-nak] Khān, the Nãeman ruler, who had fled from the power of Chingiz
Khân, and had sought Gür Khan's protection, was at his court, and ready to
take advantage of any outbreak against his protector.
THE KHWARAZM-SHÃHĨAH DYNASTY.
261
and, throughout the territories of Khita-i and the country
of Turkistan, as far as Bilāsā-ghūn and Kashghar, the
Khutbah was read for him, and the coin was impressed
with his name. The forces of Khita-i, which, in point of
numbers, were beyond account and computation, advanced
to encounter him. At the head of these forces was Bāniko
of Țarāz, a Turk of great age and wisdom, but victorious
in battle. He had fought forty-five engagements, in the
whole of which he had been victorious; and he had defeated
Sulṭān Sanjar, son of Malik Shāh, and overthrown Sulṭān
Mu'izz-ud-Din, Muhammad-i-Sam, before Andkhud; and,
at this time, he was at the head of that army.
When the battle ensued, Sultan Muḥammad received
divine succour and heavenly assistance, and overthrew the
host of Khita-i, and took Baniko of Taraz prisoner, and he
was converted to the true faith by means of the Sulṭān
himself, and was treated with respect and honour³.
Sultan Muhammad thought this opportunity propitious, and such as he had
long sought. He accordingly marched to Samrkand, and, being joined by
'Usman and other vassals, set out to invade Gür Khan's dominions, reached the
Jiḥūn of Fanākat, and crossed. Having advanced into the territory of Taraz,
the Khwārazmi forces found Baniko [several writers call him Tāniko], of
Tarāz-famous as Jai-timur, son of Kalduz, elder brother of Burāķ, the Cham-
berlain, who subsequently usurped the government of Kirman--the commander-
in-chief of Gūr Khan's troops, at the head of a numerous, brave, and well-
equipped army, drawn up to receive them. An obstinate and bloody battle
ensued, in Rabi'-ul-Awwal, 607 H., which terminated in the complete over-
throw of the Khita-i forces. Baniko, of Taraz, was wounded and taken, as
related on the next page, and booty to a vast amount fell into the hands of the
victors. This victory filled all the neighbouring rulers with fear and awe of
Sultan Muḥammad's power, and he now assumed the title of "The Second
Alexander."
In the previous year Māzandaran had been annexed, and in this same year
[607 H.] Kirman was also added to his dominions. Who Kulij Khan was it
would be difficult to tell; he is a totally different person to Kojlak [Koshlak],
by our author's own account, and cannot be intended for Gür Khan, as he
mentions that ruler subsequently. Kashlu is evidently mistaken for Kojlak.
Baniko, of Taraz, was Gūr Khan's general, as stated above.
8 How absurd, or rather deceptive, our author's statements are, compared
with the accounts of writers who state facts, or who, at least, knew what they
were writing about! Bäniko was wounded in this severe encounter, and was
left on the field with only a slave-girl standing over him. A Khwārazmi
soldier coming up was about to cut off his head, when the girl cried out to him
not to slay him, for it was Baniko. He was taken accordingly to the Sultan's
presence, and afterwards sent to Khwārazm as a trophy with the bulletin
announcing the victory. When Sultan Muḥammad returned to Khwārazm,
on the termination of this campaign, he ordered Baniko to be put to death, and
262
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĂŞIRĪ.
A reliable person among the trustworthy has related,
that, when Bāniko of Taraz became a Musalman, Sultān
Muḥammad was wont to show him great deference and
respect, and used constantly to send for him, and was in
the habit of questioning him respecting the past events [in
the history] of Khita-i, and the previous Maliks [kings]
who had fought with him in the forty-five encounters he
had been engaged in, the whole of which the Sultan made
inquiry about of him. Upon one occasion, when engaged in
such conversation, the Sultan inquired of him, saying:-
"In all these battles which you have fought, and amid the
monarchs you have defeated, which among the whole of
them was the most valiant and the sturdiest in battle?"
Bāniko replied:-"I found none more valiant, more im-
petuous in battle, or more intrepid than the Ghuri'; and, if
he had had an army along with him refreshed and not worn
out, I should never have been able to beat him; but, he
had retreated before the army of Khwārazm, and but a
small number of cavalry remained with him, and their
horses had become thin and weak." Sulṭān Muḥammad
replied: "You speak truly." The mercy of God be upon
them!
Sultan Muḥammad having gained such a great success,
the second year after, again assembled an army, and led a
force of 400,000 effective cavalry, both horses and riders
arrayed in defensive armour', into Khita-i, and completely
his body was cast into the river. There is not a word as to his having been
converted to Islam. This was the "deference and respect" he received. What
follows, as to the conversations about the Ghūris, must be taken at its true
value. See also note 9, page 283.
9 Here again we see the determination to glorify all things Ghūriān. One
of the oldest copies has "if his army and himself had been refreshed," &c.
For a correct account of this affair, see the reign of Mu'izz-ud-Din, otherwise
Shihab-ud-Din, Ghuri, Section XVII.
After the victory gained over Bāniko, the Sulṭān marched against the
Malik of Utrar, who, notwithstanding the Sulṭān had invited him to sever his
connexion with Gūr Khan, refused. His chiefs, however, on the approach of
the Khwārazm-Shāhi troops, forced him to submit. He came out clothed in
a winding sheet, and with a sword hanging about his neck, but was pardoned
on the understanding that he should be removed together with his family,
kinsmen, and dependents to Nisā, in Upper Khurāsān, and Sulṭān Muḥammad
placed a governor of his own in Utrār. After this, the Sultan returned to
Samrkand, and bestowed a daughter in marriage upon Sultān 'Uṣmān, and
leaving an intendant of his own at Samrkand, returned to Khwārazm. It
was at this time that he gave orders to put Baniko to death; and ambassadors
THE KHWARAZM-SHAHIAII DYNASTY.
263
overthrew Gür Khan, who was the Great Khān of [Ķarā]
Khiṭā-i. The whole of the horses, camels, and other
from all parts hastened to tender their masters' submission; and it was at this
period that disaffection showed itself at Jund among the remaining vassals of
Kadir Khan [called Ķadr Khan by our author, and some few other writers,
who appear to have copied from him], and therefore Sultan Muḥammad did
not rest long at his capital, but put his forces in motion and marched to Jund.
After exterminating those rebels, Sultān 'Uṣman and his family took up their
residence in Khwārazm; and some authors state that he was soon after, in the
year 609 H., put to death. Having disposed of the affairs of Jund, information
reached the Suiṭān that 30,000 of Gūr Khan's troops had appeared before
Samrkand, and invested the city.
The Khiță-i forces used their utmost endeavours to take it, but their inces-
sant attacks were of no avail. The Sultan was hastening his preparations to
relieve it, when the Khita-i forces were recalled to act against Kojlak, the
Nãemān, who was now making head again. The Sultan marched to Samr-
kand, and, having been joined by additional forces from various parts, set out
from Samrkand against A'nak [or I'nāk, or Ighnāk?], the ruler of which was
in alliance with Gur Khan. He had been summoned to submit to the Sultan
upon very favourable terms, but, trusting to the strength of his fortress, refused.
A force was detached against him, and he was compelled to submit.
The Sultan, who had heard of Kojlak's successes, became more ambitious
than ever, and Kojlak entered into secret negotiations with him, and incited
him to another invasion of Gur Khan's territory. The agreement was, that
whoever could first dispossess Gür Khan of the territories of Kashghar and
Khutan as far as the Jiḥün should have them; and, in case the Sultan did so,
Kojlak was to have the remainder. Gür Khan, having obtained information
respecting the Sultan's movements, also prepared to oppose him.
•
The Sultan had traitors also in his camp. Two of his great vassals, the
governor of Samrkand, and the Așfahed [also written Asfahed, the title borne
by the Maliks of Tabaristan and Rustamdar], despatched agents to Gūr Khān
secretly, and offered to desert the Sultan with their troops on the day of battle,
if, in case of success, the former should have Khwārazm and the latter
Khurāsān assigned to him as the price of his treachery. This was
guaranteed and on the day of the engagement, when the ranks of the two
armies were drawn up in array, the left wing of the Khita is attacked the right
of the Khwārazmis; and, as agreed upon, the two nobles with their troops,
who appear to have been stationed in the right wing, retired from the field,
and the Sultan's right wing was forced back and broken. In the meantime,
the latter's left wing broke the right of the Khiṭā-is and routed them, and the
centres of both armies fell upon each other. The wings on either side began
to plunder, and neither party knew whether they were the conquerors or con-
quered. It was usual with the Sultan to disguise himself on the day of battle,
by dressing in the costume of the enemy and on this occasion, in the utter
confusion which ensued, the centres of both armies having become disengaged
from each other, the Sultan got mixed up with the enemy's troops, and not being
recognized by his attendants, for some days he was in the greatest danger in
the very camp of the enemy. Finding an opportunity, however, he succeeded
in getting away, reached the river of Fanākat, and restored fresh life to his
troops. The news of the Sultan's disappearance, however, had spread into all
parts of his dominions. Some said he had been killed, some that he had been
264
THE TABAKAT-I-NAŞIRĪ.
cattle, baggage, and followers of the army of Khiṭā-i were
captured, and the Great Khan retreated discomfited before
him. Suddenly Kashlu Khan, the Tatār, who had come
from Turkistān, fell upon Gür Khan, attacked him, and
made him captive; and the whole of the dominions of
Khiṭā² were left in the possession of Sultan Muḥammad-i-
made prisoner; for no authentic account had been received, and the ambitious
were ready to take advantage of it.
2
As soon as he joined his army, messengers were sent out into all parts to
intimate his safety; and the Sulṭān returned to Khwārazm to prepare for a
fresh campaign. It was on the occasion of the Sultan's disappearance, that
Kharmil of Hirāt became disaffected, and began intriguing with the Ghūris.
The Khita-i troops on their retreat through their own territory slew and
plundered their own people, and devastated the whole country until they
reached Bilāsā. ghūn, called Ghū-bāligh, by the Mughals. On reaching that
city they found the gates closed against them, for the inhabitants made sure
that Sultan Muḥammad would annex that part, and that he must be following
Gür Khan's troops with his army, and therefore refused to admit them. All
the promises and oaths of Gur Khan and his Wazir were of no avail; and the
place was attacked and defended for sixteen days, in expectation of the arrival
of the Khwārazmi troops. At last it was taken and given up to plunder and
massacre, which went on for three days and nights, and a vast amount of booty
was taken by the troops.
Two or three writers mention these occurrences immediately after the first
defeat of Gur Khan's troops, when Bāniko was taken; but this is impossible,
as, very shortly after the sacking of Bilāsāghūn, Gūr Khan was seized by
Kojlak, and his dynasty terminated after it had lasted ninety-five years. The
cause of it was this :--Gür Khan II.-for he was the second of the name-was
desirous of enriching himself and replenishing his coffers, by making his nobles
and chiefs disgorge the booty they had acquired by the sacking of Bilāsā-ghūn
and country round. This caused great disorders, which Kojlak becoming
aware of, and finding that Gür Khan had been almost deserted by his troops,
suddenly surrounded his camp. Kojlak treated him with respect, but pos-
sessed himself of great part of his territory. This took place in 610 H., and
two years after Gür Khan was put to death-some say he died.
Most works are, more or less, defective with respect to the Sultan's cam-
The Rauzat-
paigns against Gür Khan, and dates are not often mentioned.
uş-Şafă only mentions one battle, others mention two; but Guzidah says there
were three battles in all, but gives no details. Here, I regret to say, my
excellent guide, Yafa-i, which gives full details of two battles, already men-
tioned, becomes somewhat abrupt with respect to the affairs of Gur Khān, and,
possibly, there may be an hiatus in the MS., as, from the context, a third and
more decisive battle is implied; and it must have been after a third encounter
that Bilasa-ghun was sacked, and Kojlak was enabled to seize the person of
Gür Khan. The second encounter took place in 610 H., and Faşiḥ-i, under
the events of 612 H., mentions that, in that year, Sultan Muhammad acquired
sway over the whole of Mawar-un-Nahr, which had continued in the possession
of the infidels of Ķarā-Khiṭā-i, and the Mughals, since Sultan Sanjar's defeat.
On the other hand, however, most writers state that Gür Khan was taken
prisoner in 610 H., and died in 612 H.
2 Gross exaggeration, as shown by the notes.
THE KHWĀRAZM-SHĀHĨAH DYNASTY.
265
Takish. The Sulṭān of Samrkand, and the Afrāsiyābi
Sultāns, he directed should be removed from Samrkand³,
and some of them were martyred.
From thence [Samrkand?] Sultan Muḥammad advanced
into 'Irāķ, and the territories of 'Irāķ, Āṣarbāijān, and Fārs
fell into his hands. He took the Atā-bak Sa'd captive in
battle, as has already been stated, and the Ata-bak Yūz-bak
was likewise put to flight'. He placed his son, Sulṭān
3 All the copies, except one of the oldest, are minus the words "from Samr-
kand." Our author inverts the order of most of the events of this reign, as
the previous notes show.
4 Our author, on a previous page, has mentioned the hostility existing
between the 'Abbāsi Khalifahs and Sultan Takish, Muḥammad's father; and
the arrival in Ghur of ambassadors from Baghdad to negotiate with the
brothers, Sultāns Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din and Shihāb-ud-Din, and his own father's
return to Baghdād along with them; and, likewise, the Khalifah's continued
enmity towards the son of Takish also. No sooner had Sultan Takish died,
than the Sultāns of Ghūr and Ghaznin hastened to take advantage of the
Khalifah's recommendation, notwithstanding our author's absurd statement at
page 255. He was too orthodox a Musalman, of course, to mention such a
horrid circumstance as the Khalifah, Un-Năṣir's, despatching an agent to the
infidel Chingiz Khan, prior to the period of this expedition into 'Irāk, inciting
him to make war upon Sultān Muḥammad-a Musalmān, and of which faith
he [Un-Naṣir] was himself the patriarch and head! It was upon this occasion
that, fearing to send a letter, the communication addressed to the traitor
Muḥammad, Yalwāj, the minister of Chingiz, was written or rather tattooed
[there is a precisely similar story in Herodotus] on the agent's shaven head.
The hair was left to grow over it before he was despatched, lest even that
mode of communication might be discovered. Among other causes of hostility
was this -The Sultan's flag, borne by the kārwān of pilgrims to Makkah, was
placed behind that of Jalāl-ud-Din, Ḥasan, of Ālamut, the Mulāḥidah heretic,
lately turned orthodox; and another was that the Khalifah borrowed, so to
speak, several Fida-is [volunteers, or disciples rather, of the head of the
Mulāḥidahs are so called] from the former, intending to despatch them to
assassinate the Sultan; and had sent some of these disciples to murder the
Sharif of Makkah, but, instead, they assassinated his brother. Further, when
Sulṭān Muḥammad acquired possession of Ghaznin, after the death of Tāj-ud-
Din, I-yal-düz [styled Yal-düz, and Yal-duz by some], in 611-12 H., and
gained possession of the treasury of the late Sultan Shihab-ud-Din, Ghūri, a
document was found therein, from the Khalifah to the Ghūrian Sulṭāns, urging
them to hostility against him [Muḥammad], which accounted for the persistent
hostility of the brothers towards him, notwithstanding our author's ridiculous
statement referred to above. At length, in 613 H., the Sultan, having sufficient
excuse, obtained the necessary decree from the chief ecclesiastic of his
dominions, issued a proclamation to the effect that as long as a descendant of
Fatimah lived the Abbasis had no right to the Khilafat, and that the then
Khalifah was to be considered dethroned. His name was omitted from the
Khutbah and the coin, and the name of Sayyid 'Ala-ul-Mulk [some few call
him 'Ala-ud-Din] of Tirmid, a lineal descendant of Imam Husain, was inserted
instead, and he was to be considered as the rightful Khalifah.
S
266
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĀṢIRĪ.
Rukn-ud-Din, styled Ghūri Shānasti, on the throne of
'Irāk, and appointed Ulugh Khan-i-Abi Muḥammad, his
Ata-bak and Lieutenant; and the Maliks of Ghür were
directed to proceed into that territory".
Sultan Muḥammad now left 'Irāk, and set out on his
return to Māwar-un-Nahr; but, turning suddenly off from
The Sultan assembled an army accordingly for the purpose of proceeding
to Baghdad, ousting Un-Naşir, and placing Sayyid 'Ala-ul-Mulk in his
place.
On reaching Damghan, Sulṭān Muḥammad found that the Ata-bak Sa'd,
ruler of Fārs, with an army, had reached Rai with hostile designs against the
territory of 'Irāķ. He pushed on without delay, and at once attacked him.
The troops of Shiraz were broken and overthrown at the first onset, and Sa'd
was taken prisoner. The Sulṭān was for putting him to death, but Sa'd,
having made interest with the Malik of Zauzan, was admitted, through him, to
the Sultan's presence.
Sa'd was released on the agreement to give up two of
the strongest fortresses of Fārs, one of which was Iṣṭakhur, and to pay one-
fourth of the revenues as tribute. Faşiḥ-i states that this took place in 603 H.;
but Yafa-i and Guzidah say it happened in 613 H.; while Rauzat-uş-Şafā,
Khulaṣat-ul-Akhbar, and some others, say in 614 H. It is somewhat strange
that Sa'd did not attempt to shake off the yoke and break the treaty after the
disasters which befell the Sulṭān soon after, if the two latter dates be the more
correct. Sa'd made over his son Zangi as a hostage and was allowed to
depart, as already related; see page 176 and page 177, note 2.
At this same time the Ata-bak Yüz-bak, ruler of Azarbaijān, had also
marched from that territory with the object of invading 'Irāk, and had reached
Hamadan. The Khwārazmi forces advanced against him, but, on their reach-
ing Hamadān, Yüz-bak decamped. The Sultan's nobles urged pursuit, but
that monarch refused his sanction, saying that it would be a bad omen to take
two kings in one year; so Yuz-bak got safely back to his own territory. As
soon as he did so, however, he sent envoys with rich presents to the Sulṭān,
and acknowledged his sovereignty.
In the meantime, the advance of the Sultan into 'Irāk had filled Un-Naşir
and his people with terror. Un-Naşir despatched an agent to Hamadan to
endeavour to deter him by remonstrances and threats, but found them of no
use with the Sultan with 300,000 horse at his back, who was resolved to
persist. When he reached the Hulwān Pass [the town of Asad-ābād] it was
autumn, and, whilst there encamped, he encountered a heavy fall of snow,
which rose even higher than the tent walls; and nearly the whole of the cattle
of his army, and a great number of men, perished. This was the first disaster
he had ever met with, and he had to abandon the expedition and return to
Hamadan. When the cold season drew towards a close, he thought it
advisable to retrace his steps. He returned to Rai, and remained in that part
for a little while to repair his losses and reorganize his forces, and arrange the
affairs of that territory. He was on his return from thence, where he had left
his son, Rukn-ud-Din, in charge of the government, when a messenger reached
him from the governor of Utrār, intimating the arrival there of a number of
Tatār spies, as he termed them, with a large amount of valuable property.
For details see farther on.
5 To serve with their contingents. They were subordinate then.
THE KHWARAZM-SHĀHĨAH DYNASTY.
267
-the banks of the river Jazār', he pushed on towards Bāmiān,
and, suddenly and unawares, pounced upon Sultan Jalāl-ud-
Din 'Ali, son of Sam, ruler of Bamian, seized him, and mar-
tyred him, and then returned [to Khwārazm].
h
In the year 612 II., Sulṭān Muḥammad advanced from
Mawar-un-Nahr and came to Ghaznin, and suddenly and
unexpectedly possessed himself of the Ghaznin territories
likewise. Sultan Taj-ud-Din, Yal-duz, retired towards
Hindustan' by the way of Sang-i-Sūrākh; and the countries
of Ghaznin, Zawulistan, and Kabul, as far as the banks of
the Sind, came under the jurisdiction of the Khwarazmi
nobles. The Kh'ān-sālār [the Sewer of the imperial house-
hold], Kuriz, was stationed at Ghaznin; and the countries of
Ghūr, Ghaznin, the Bilād-i-Dawar [Zamin-i-Dāwar], Jarūm,
and the throne of the two Sultāns, Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din, and
"Mu'izz-ud-Din, sons of Muḥammad-i-Sām, was conferred, by
the Sultan, upon his eldest son, Sultan Jalāl-ud-Din, Mang-
barni, after which he himself returned to Māwar-un-Nahr.
fi In the year 615 H., he pushed on towards Turkistān in
cpursuit of Kadr Khan', who was the son of Yusuf the
Tatār, and penetrated as far as Yighur' [I-ghūr] of Tur-
kistan, so far to the north, that he came under the North
fahole, and reached a tract where the light of twilight did not
agvisappear at all from the sight; and, to the vision, in the
direction of the north, the glow seemed merely to incline
change over] from the west to the east, and the light of
Edawn appeared and the day broke.
ne
S
P
WL
to The matter was accordingly referred to the 'Ulama and.
Muftis of Bukhara respecting the obligation to repeat the
last prayer at night', [question being asked] to this effect :-
6 In most copies this part of the sentence is left out altogether. The name
is also written Jowār.
7 I-yal-dūz [or Yal-dūz] was taken prisoner and put to death by I-yal-timish
in 611 H., before the Sultan entered the Ghaznin territory.
8 This name differs considerably in some copies of the text.
9 There is no expedition against any ruler styled Kadr Khãn mentioned
by other writers at this period, for it was in this very year that the Sulṭān fled
from the Mughal invaders. Our author has evidently lost himself again. At
page 254, he says the Sultan's mother was the daughter of Kadr Khan of
Ķifchāk, and he, incorrectly, styles the governor of Utrar by the same name;
and thus no less than three Kadr Khāns are mentioned.
1 All the copies of the text are somewhat at variance here with respect to
this name; but it is mentioned again farther on, and is quite plain in several copies.
2 Prayer before retiring to rest, repeated some two or three hours after sunset.
S 2
268
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĂŞIRĪ. .
As the light of twilight did not disappear at all, whether
the prayer before sleep was necessary or not? They,
with one accord, wrote a reply, that the prayer before
sleep was not necessary, when the prescribed time for it
could not be found with the people inhabiting such region'
3
Kadr Khān, the Tatār, having in this expedition been
overcome, the calamity of the infidels of Chin arose, and
the darkness of the night of sedition and tumult showed
its head from the mantle-collar of actuality, and was the
beginning of dire misfortunes to the true faith, and
the commencement of calamities and afflictions upon the
Muḥammadan people. That circumstance occurred after
this manner :-Chingiz Khān, the Mughal, had a son, the
eldest of all his sons, Tushi' by name. At this time, this
3 Having noticed in the month of June at St. Petersburg that the light
did not leave the sky during the whole night, and being desirous of discovering
as nearly as possible how far north of the Siḥūn the Sultan may really have
penetrated, as the territory of Taraz is the most northern tract reached by the
Sultān, according to Yāfa-i, I referred the paragraph to the Rev. Rober
Main, M.A., Radcliffe Observer, at Oxford; and to the kindness of that
gentleman I am much indebted for the following explanation
"It is usually considered that twilight exists as long as the sun is not more
than 18° below the horizon, and hence we shall readily find that the lowest
latitude which will have twilight all night, at midsummer, will be 48° 30
(= sun's solstitial N. P. D. - 18°
18° = 66° 30′—18°). As we go northwards, h-
course the twilight will continue longer, till, at the Arctic circle, the sun doet
not set on midsummer-day.
"I presume, therefore, that the Sultan's expedition was towards the north,
and the time not far from midsummer; and, from the expressions used, he must
have been getting into rather high latitudes, where the sun, after dipping for a
little while, would soon transfer the twilight glow from the west to the east. Itr
would appear also that the Sultan and his army had never seen this phenomenon›
before, by their apparent surprise at it, and by his sending for advice con->
cerning the evening prayer.”
From the above remarks it would also further appear, that Sulṭān Muḥam-
inad could not have had any people in his army who had ever been so far
north before, and he and they were so much surprised that they concluded [or,
rather, our author concluded] that they must be "under the North Pole." It
also seems strange that he should see the necessity of writing to Bukhārā for
advice, since we might suppose that the people of Khwärazm would have been
aware of the fact of this phenomenon.
The territory of Taraz lies between 46° and 49° N. lat.
4 Also called Jūji. This affair took place a considerable time after the mer-
chants had been put to death, and subsequent to the Sultan's return from 'Irāk,
and, of course, our author has put it before. See note 2, page 272. Whilst delaying
at Samrkand, intimation was brought to Sultan Muḥammad that Tuk-Tughān,
one of the chiefs of Turkistān, of the tribe of Takrit, was retreating before the
Mughals towards Karā-Ķuram, the locale of the Kankuli tribe, and that he,
>
THE KHWARAZM-SHĀHĨAH DYNASTY.
269
Tūshi, by command of Chingiz Khān, his father, had come
out of the territory of Chin, in pursuit of an army of
Tatārs, and Sultan Muhammad, from Mawar-un-Nahr
and Khurāsān, had likewise pushed on in the same direc-
tion; and the two armies fell in with each other.
A battle ensued between them, and the fighting,
slaughter, struggle, and conflict, continued and was main-
tained from the beginning of the day until the time of
with some troops, had turned his steps in the direction of Jund. The Sulṭān
Snow moved from Samrkand towards Jund, by way of Bukhārā, to guard his
oown territory, and prevent their entering it; but, hearing that they were pur-
sued by a numerous army of Chingiz Khān's, under the leadership of his son,
ɖJūji or Tūshi, the Sulṭān again returned to Samrkand, and taking with him the
t¿emainder of his forces, previously left there, advanced with great pomp at the
chead of a large force to Jund, thinking, as the author from whom a portion of
†these extracts are taken says, "to bring down two birds with one arrow.” [In
hthe meantime, in 615 H., Kojlak had been overthrown by Chingiz, and slain.]
uHe pushed on [from Jund] until he reached a place in Kashghar, lying
between two small rivers, where evidences of a late conflict, in the shape of
Fresh blood and numerous dead bodies, were discovered. Search was made,
mand one among those who had fallen was discovered to be still alive. From
finformation gained from the wounded man, it was found that Chingiz Khan's
otroops had there overtaken Tūķ-Tughān and his followers, who had been
wdefeated and put to the sword, after which Jūji and his Mughals had set out
Sto rejoin his father. Hearing also that the Mughals had only marched that
phery day, the Sulṭān pushed on, and by dawn the next morning came up with
fahem, and at once prepared to engage them. The Mughal leaders were not
agvilling to fight, saying that they had been sent in pursuit of prey, which they
tchad already entrapped, and had not permission from Chingiz Khan, but that
wthey could not retire if the Sultan should attack them; and, at the same time,
thadvised that he should not make matters worse than they were already between
Ehimself and Chingiz Khan, by any fresh act of hostility. Sultan Muḥammad's
togood star was on the wane, and he attacked the Mughals, who stood their
round manfully. The right wings of either army, as is often the case in
eastern as it has frequently been in western battles, broke their respective
opponents, and the Mughals at last attacked the Sultan's centre, and forced it
'back some distance. The Sultan was in some danger, when his gallant son,
Jalāl-ud-Din, who had been victorious on the right, charged the Mughals in
flank, and saved the centre from defeat. The fight was maintained with great
obstinacy until night came, when each army retired to a short distance, con-
fronting each other. The Mughals lighted an immense number of fires to
deceive the Khwārazmis, and decamped quietly during the night, and set out
to join the camp of Chingiz, who was hastening his preparations for the
invasion of the Sultan's territories. The Sultan halted on the field for a few
days, and, after this occurrence, his mind, already much changed, appears to
have given way entirely; and, having with his own eyes witnessed the vigour
and tenacity of the Mughals, he became filled with apprehensions and
misgivings, and retreated to Samrkand without attempting anything more.
Irresolution and bewilderment now marked all his proceedings. For further
particulars, see page 274 and note ¹.
270
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĂṢIRĪ.
evening prayer, and the ranks of both the armies assumed
the form of a circle. The right wing of the Musalmān
forces routed the left wing of the infidels, and pursued after
them; while the right wing of the Mughal infidels routed
the left wing of the army of Islam and pursued it, and, in
this manner, the armies assumed the form of a circle. This
battle was maintained from the dawn of day; and, when
night came, the two armies separated from each other, and
withdrew to a short distance. There was a small stream of
water between them; and the two armies halted, facing
each other, on the banks of that stream and bivouacked,
When the morning broke [it was found] that the Mughal
army had marched away. They had lighted great fires,
and had decamped, and left them burning.
Sultan Muḥammad having thus witnessed and beheld
with his own eyes, in this encounter, the warlike feats, the
activity, and the efforts of the Mughal forces, the next day
retired from that place; and fear and dread of them took
possession of his heart and mind, and he never again came
against them. This was one of the causes of the miseries
and troubles which befell the people of Islām.
The second reason was this. When Chingiz Khan broke
out into revolt in the land of Chin, and Tamghaj, and the
Greater Turkistān, and Altūn Khān of Tamghāj, who was
sovereign of Upper Turkistan, and the lineal monarch of
Karā Khiṭā-iº, was overcome by him, and the territories of
Tamghāj, Tingit, and Yighur [I-ghūr], and Tatār, all.fell
into his hands; the news of these successes having come to
the hearing of Sultan Muhammad, his mind became filled
with ambition [for the possession] of Chin, and he became
desirous of obtaining authentic information respecting the
forces of the Mughals, and the condition of Chingiz Khan.
Accordingly, the most excellent Sayyid, Baha-ud-Din,
Rāzi', with a party of other persons, were despatched on a
5 Or, Upper Turkistan: the original word will serve for either.
6 For our author's further and more detailed account of Chingiz Khān's
proceedings, see last Section of this work.
7 Probably Aḥmad, Khujandi, is the person whom our author has mistaken
here; but I am rather inclined to think that this "excellent Sayyid" can be
no other than the Badr-ud-Din referred to by Guzidah, who was the chief
Diwan in Sulṭān Muḥammad's service, and who became suspicious and dis-
affected on some account or other, and fled and took service with Chingiz.
For account of further proceedings of this arch-traitor, see note, page 274.
THE KHWARAZM-SHĀHĨAH DYNASTY.
271
t
ня
St
to.
ch
Th
ho
to
mission to Chin; and, when these agents reached that
country, Chingiz Khān sent trustworthy and confidential
persons of his own, bearing numerous rarities as presents
to Sultan Muḥammad.
I heard from the Sayyid Baha-ud-Din-the mercy of the
'mighty be upon him!-[who said :-]" When we reached
the presence of Chingiz Khan, the accursed, the Wazir of
Tamghāj, and the son and the uncle of Altun Khān, were
brought in, and we were summoned. Then, turning his
face towards them, Chingiz said :- Behold, my affairs and
my sovereignty have attained to such a pitch of grandeur,
Be this as it may, our author differs wholly from other writers here. I have
dei
only space for a few details. A person named Aḥmad, a merchant of Khu-
jand, and two others, with a considerable quantity of merchandize suitable for
the purpose, set out for the great camp of Chingiz Khān. At this time he had
reduced under his yoke most of the nomad tribes of Mughalistan and Turkistān
-Tatārs, Mughals, Ī-ghūrs, and others—and a portion of Chin and Ma-chin.
utky
The merchants were well received and liberally treated. Subsequently, Chingiz
R directed his sons, the great nobles, and others, to despatch servants of their
mown with merchandize into the territory of Sultan Muḥammad, to accompany
forAhmad of Khujand and the others on their return journey. A large party of
on merchants, numbering about 450, Musalmāns it is stated, left Chingiz Khān's
wiferritory with property of immense value, and set out, accordingly, for the
ShSultan's dominions. At the same time, Chingiz Khan sent three agents of his own
pleto the Sultan, intimating the despatch of these traders with the object of pur-
for chasing merchandize suitable for his camp; and, further, to state that he had
agareduced the refractory around him to subjection and considerable tracts under
to his sway, and that, in place of estrangement and distrust, intercourse and
whiconfidence might arise between them; that merchants and traders might be
thafree to go and come; that their subjects and dominions might be secure
Eurand open to each other's people; and that they might aid and assist each
towother under any circumstances that might arise. When they reached Utrār
hion the Sihun, the frontier capital of the Sultan's dominions in that direction,
the governor, Aniāl-juķ by name, a kinsman of the Sultan's mother, who bore
the title of Gha-ir Khan [not Kadr Khan, as our author states], being offended
at the impertinence of one of Aḥmad Khujandi's party,-said to have been a
Hindu—who addressed him in too familiar a style; and his cupidity likewise
being excited by the arrival of all this treasure and valuable property brought
by the merchants, sent off a messenger to the Sultan, announcing the arrival
of a number of spies of the Tatār, Chingiz, on their way into Īrān, and asked
permission to put them to death and confiscate their property.
The Sultan, whose mind was already disquieted at the successes of Chingiz,
deceived by the perfidious message of Gha-ir Khan, and his temper still ruffled
at the disaster he had so lately sustained, without thought or consideration
most unfortunately gave his consent. The merchants, numbering about 45
Musalmāns, including Chingiz's messengers, were put to death, with
exception of one person, who eventually escaped, and told the tale to Ch
and the whole of their property was confiscated.
8 Most of the MSS. are defective here, and do not contain the last
Iit
272
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĂŞIRĪ. ·
that the monarch of the [empire of the] setting sun has
sent envoys unto me.' In short," said the Sayyid, "when
he sent us away, he requested that envoys on both sides,
and merchants, and kārwāns, should constantly come and
go, and bring and take away with them choice descriptions
of arms, cloths, and stuffs, and other articles of value ´nd
elegance of both empires; and that between the two
monarchs a permanent treaty should be maintained."
He despatched merchants along with the envoys of
Sultan Muḥammad, with about five hundred camel-loads
of gold, silver, silks, and targhū [a description of woven
silk of a red colour], together with other precious and
valuable commodities, that they might trade with them.
They entered the territory of Islam by way of Utrār.
At that place, there was a governor named Kadr Khān³,
and he sent an account to Sultan Muhammad respecting
the importance and value of the merchandize; and solicited
permission from him, in a perfidious manner, to stop the
party of merchants. Having obtained permission to do so,
he seized the envoys and the whole of the merchants, and
slew them, and took possession of all their property, and
sent it to the Sultan's presence. Of that party, there was
one person, a camel-driver, who had gone to one of the
[public] hot baths, and he succeeded in making his escape
by way of the fire place. He, having taken to the wilds,
returned back to Chin, and made Chingiz acquainted with
the perfidious conduct of Kadr Khan of Utrar and the
slaughter of the party'.
Chingiz Khan prepared to take revenge"; and he caused
9 For his correct name and title, see proceding note7. At page 254, Kadr Khān
is said, by our author, to have been the name of the ruler of Ķifchāķ, and, at
page 267, we have another Kadr Khan, son of Yusuf the Tatār. This is a third.
1 From our author's account of the putting the merchants to death, one
would imagine that Chingiz Khān marched without the least delay, but a con-
siderable time elapsed between that unfortunate act and the appearance of the
Mughals before Utrār. The first took place in 614 H., and the second in
616 II.
2 As soon as Chingiz became aware of this outrage, he despatched an
envoy [some say, envoys] calling for redress for Gha-ir Khan's perfidy, and
Temanding that the latter should be delivered over to him, to punish according
no the Muḥammadan law of ķiṣāṣ; but, as Ghā-ir Khan was related to many
Diwa chief officers of his troops, the Sultan was powerless to comply, even
affected so desired, and, in an evil hour, gave orders to put the envoy to death
For accou. The rage of Chingiz knew no bounds: he collected his troops to
!
THE KHWARAZM-SHĀHĨAH DYNASTY.
273
the forces of Chin and Turkistān to be got ready for that
purpose. Trustworthy persons have related, that, at the
place where he then was, seven³ hundred banners were
brought forth, and under every banner one thousand horse-
men were arrayed. Every ten horsemen were directed to
take with them three dried' Mughali sheep, and an iron.
cauldron; and he set out on his way.
From the place where Chingiz was at this period, to the
boundary of Utrar, was a three months' journey through
tree wilderness; and, along with his hosts, he despatched
seprses, mares, and geldings, without number, to supply
offem with milk, and for riding. The journey through the
ilds was got over in a short time, and he issued forth on
e Utrār frontier; and that fortress and city was taken, and
dec,
to
chiet
The revenge, and, according to a few authors, even despatched another envoy
hopennounce his coming; but he took care in the first place to quell all dis-
utrers in his own dominions.
to
The Sultan having disposed of the affairs of 'Irāk, and having left his son,
Rukn-ud-Din, in charge of the government of the province-nominally, it
must be understood, for Rukn-ud-Din was only in his fifteenth year-set out
for the purpose of proceeding into Mãwar-un-Nahr. On reaching Nishāpūr,
on the 8th of Shawwal, 614 H,, contrary to his wont, he gave himself up to
wine and women. After delaying there more than a month, on the 10th of
Shaban, he marched to Bukhārā; and, it being spring, pitched his tents in the
pleasant meads near that city. Having given himself up to pleasure there also
for some time, he assembled the troops of that part, and determined to move
against Kojlak, who had been extending his dominions to the territories
towards the head of the Siḥun, and marched to Samrkand, after reaching
which the same infatuated course of pleasure was followed. It was at this time
that, hearing of the movement of Tuk-Tughan [the Takna Khan of some
European authors and translators] of the tribe of Makrit, the Sulțăn advanced
towards Jund, and the engagement with the troops of Chingiz took place,
hich our author has related, out of its proper order, at page 268.
For a
Correct account of that battle see note to the page referred to.
3 In two or three copies "three," but seven hundred is the more correct number.
4 Sheep's or goat's flesh salted and dried in the sun, called "landaey" by
the Afghāns.
5 One or two copies of the text have "in three months," but the majority
have "in a short time." Utrar was, however, taken after five months. When
the Sultan retired to Samrkand, after the encounter with Tushi, he had a force
of 400,000 men. The greater part of these was left in Mawar-un-Nahr and
Turkistān; 50,000 men were detached to Utrār to join Ghā-ir Khan; and
when report followed report of the advance of Chingiz, 10,000 more were sent
to reinforce Ghā-ir Khān, under the Ḥājib, Ķarājah. On reaching Utrār,
Chingiz pushed on to Bukhārā, after leaving a force to invest the former place,
which was not the first that was captured, as our author makes it appear.
Fasih-i says he reached it on the last day of Zi-Hijjah, 616 H., and entered it
the following day.

274
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĀṢIRĪ.
the whole of the inhabitants were martyred. From thence
Chingiz Khān marched towards Bukhārā; and, on the day of
the Festival of the Sacrifice, 10th of the month Zi-Hijjah,
in the year 616 H., he captured the city, and martyred
the whole of the inhabitants, put the 'Ulama to the sword,
and gave the libraries of books to the flames. They have
related that the Imām-zādah, Rukn-ud-Din-the mercy of
the Almighty be upon him!--when they were martyring
him, repeated the following lines :—
"I said, that my heart said, 'It is murder committed by us 7.'
I said, my soul said, that 'It is the carrier away of us.'
I said, that 'Thy powerful dog has fallen on me.'
1
's
n
d
It [my soul?] said, 'Thou shouldst not draw breath, for it is brought up.
ourselves 8.'
Chingiz Khan, after the catastrophe of the city,
Bukhārā, marched towards Samrkand, in which city Sung
Muḥammad, Khwarazm Shah, had stationed 60,000 hoid
fully equipped and furnished, consisting of different race
of Turks, Ghūris, and Khurāsānis, together with the Maliks
and troops of Ghur, who were all included among that
body of troops. After a few days, on the 10th of the
month of Muharram, 617 H., Samrkand was also captured,
and the whole of the inhabitants were martyred'.
6 Abraham's offering up of his son Isaac.
7 That is "it [viz. this fact] is murder committed by us," in the sense, as it
were, we have done for ourselves.
8 These four lines are with difficulty translatable or intelligible, nor do the
various texts enlighten us. Generally it seems a mere amplification of "we're
undone," or "I'm undone." The first two lines are apparently the expression
of the inner consciousness. The third line is the man's summary judgment.
The fourth line is the reproof of conscience again, that he should spare h
words. The latter part of the second line might be translated "the tearer c
our curtain [honour]."
9 Vāfa-i says the Sultan only left 30,000 men to garrison Bukhārā, and that
110,000, among whom were some of the greatest of his nobles and leaders,
were left at Samrkand; and that 60,000 Tajiks [the forces of Ghūr], each of
them a Rustam in valour, were stationed in other fortresses.
When the Sulṭān left Samrkand, dispirited and hopeless, he set out, by
way of Nakhshab, towards Khurāsān. As he proceeded, he told the people of
the places he passed by the way, to shift for themselves and provide for their
own safety. Swift messengers were also despatched to Khwārazm, to tell his
mother, to take with her all his family and effects, and proceed towards Māzan-
darān.
Before doing so she caused all the state prisoners there, and such as
were supposed ambitious of sovereignty, to be cast into the Jiḥun. See page 279.
The Sultan's apprehensions and irresolution caused the utmost confusion in
all state affairs; and, as if this was not enough, some astrologers began to
THE KHWARAZM-SHĀHĨAH DYNASTY.
275
When the accounts of these disasters came to the hearing
of Sulṭān Muḥammad, the forces, then along with him
before the gates of Balkh, consisted almost entirely of
Tatar and Khita-i troops, whilst his own old soldiers and
vassals had been left behind by him in Mawar-un-Nahr;
and those people, on whom the most implicit trust and
confidence could be placed, were also all away in those
parts. The troops who were along with him [now] conspired
together to seize him, and to make that act of perfidy and
treachery the means of their own deliverance; and, having
seized the Sulṭān, to take him and deliver him over as an
offering to Chingiz Khan'.
2
declare that the stars prognosticated his downfall, and that he would be unable
to apply himself to any measures for effective opposition to the enemy. His
chief men and his sagest ministers were paralyzed at all these misfortunes.
The most experienced among them in the world's affairs urged that it was
hopeless to attempt to preserve any hold over Mãwar-un-Nahr, but that the
utmost efforts should be directed to the preservation of Khurāsān and 'Irāķ;
to concentrate all his available forces, and raise the whole people to arms; to
make the Jiḥun their ditch, and defend the line of that river. Others, craven-
hearted, advised his going to Ghaznin, there to raise troops and make a stand,
and, if unsuccessful, make Hindūstān his rampart. The latter advice the
Sulṭān proposed to follow, and he came as far as Balkh with this object, when
'Imād-ul-Mulk, who had great influence over him, arrived from 'Irāk, from
Rukn-ud-Din, the Sulṭān's son. 'Imād-ul-Mulk, who was a native of that
part, advised the Sultan to retire into 'Irāk, and assemble the forces of that
country to oppose the Mughals. The Sultan's eldest son, Jalāl-ud-Din, who
had often before entreated his father to adopt vigorous measures, now again
protested, and entreated his father to concentrate his troops, as far as lay in his
power, and advance to meet the enemy; but, if his heart would not permit
him to do so, to proceed into 'Irāk, and leave the troops with him, that he
might hasten to the frontier and attack the invading hordes, and see what
Providence willed, that he himself, at least, might be exonerated before men.
"If fortune favour me," he said, "I will carry off the ball of desire with the
Chaugan of Divine aid; but, if fortune favours me not, neither will the finger
of reproach be pointed at us, nor the tongue of malediction curse; and the
world will not be able to say :-' They have collected taxes and tribute from
us for so long, and at a time like this they renounce our affairs, and abandon
us to be captive to infidels.' This counsel he continued to urge, and burned
to receive his father's consent. All was of no avail: the Sulṭān's panic was so
great that the sage advice of his son was considered the mere lispings of an
Infant.
2 The Sultan left Balkh with the object of retiring into 'Irāk; and with this
ntention was encamped on the bank of the Tirmid river [the Jiḥun], when
news of the fall of Bukhārā reached him, and, very soon after, that of Samrkand
also. He now gave up all hopes of preserving his dominions. The majority
of the troops with him then-and they were not numerous, and were in a
disorganized state-were Turks of the tribe of his mother and her kinsmen,
called Uranian; and, during the confusion and distraction which had now arisen,

276
THE TABAKAT-I-NĂŞIRI.
One of the party, however, presented himself before
Sultan Muḥammad, and told him all about the plot. The
Sultan kept his own counsel; and, at night, he left the
camp, in order to test beyond a doubt the perfidy of the
conspirators. At midnight the party drew near to the
imperial pavilion, formed a cordon about it, and completely
surrounded it. Not finding him within the tent, they came
upon the camp at that untimely hour, and the whole army
fell into utter disorder and confusion. Sultan Muḥammad
was forced to fly, and set out towards Nishāpūr, and wrote
mandates to the Amirs and Maliks in every part of his
dominions, commanding them to put the fortresses of
Khwārazm, Ghūr, Khurāsān, and 'Irāķ in a posture of
they conspired against him.
One of the Sultan's own ministers, the Diwan,
Badr-ud-Din, previous to this, had fled, and had entered the service of Chingiz.
Not satisfied with this, he had forged letters, as though the Sultan's nobles had
written, tendering their services to the Mughal chief, and urging him to hostility
against their sovereign; and also forged replies, as coming from Chingiz,
promising them aid and assistance. These letters were made over to a spy, with
instructions to let them fall into the hands of the Sultan's trusted followers. This
caused suspicion to arise between the Sultan and his nobles; and, having been
warned by one of them of the meditated treachery of the troops, he left his
pavilion that very night, and changed his place of repose. The mutinous
troops, in the night, took to their bows, and the next morning the pavilion was
found like a sieve from the holes made by the volleys of arrows discharged
into it. Finding, however, that the Sultan was safe, and their object dis-
covered, these disaffected troops dispersed, and finally joined Chingiz. The
Sultan now began to suspect his nobles, along with him, and they were mostly
sent away, on some duty or other; and he then set out for Nishāpūr with all
haste, and the greater part of his forces dispersed. On the way, he urged the
people of the places he passed through, to see to their fortifications and means
of defence, which filled them with perplexity and fear, and rendered easy matters
difficult. On reaching Kalāt, near Tus, he was induced to consent to make a
stand there-it is a place of great strength, the upper part of which was said
to be seven leagues round, and capable of an energetic defence [it is a valley,
so to say, enclosed within lofty hills; Nadir considered the position so strong
that he deposited his treasures there]-and to erect fortifications there. Some
of the Sultan's effects were removed thither accordingly, and provisions were
collected. This, however, was also abandoned; and, on the 12th of Safar,
617 II., the Sulṭān reached Nishapur, where he abandoned himself to pleasure
-if such can be so called-more than eyer, for he considered that fate was
against him, and all state affairs, were abandoned. Whilst thus occupied news
reached him, in the following Rabi'-ul-Akhir, that an army of Mughals under
Yamah Nu-yan, Sabtãe, and Taghajar [some authors say Jabah Nu-yān,
Swidãe Bahādur, and Tūķjar; the first some European authors call “Hubbe”],
and other leaders, had, after the fall of Bukhārā, crossed the Jiḥun at Tirmiz,
in Rabi'-ul-Awwal, in pursuit of him. He left Nishāpur without delay, and
fled by way of Isfarăin to Rai.
3 The words "at that untimely hour
are contained in one MS. only.

THE KHWARAZM-SHĀHĪAH DYNASTY.
277
defence; and throughout the empire of Islam disorder and
tumult arose.
Chingiz Khan, having received information of the dis-
organization and dissolution of the army of Sultān
Muḥammad, after the capture of Samrkand, nominated a
force of 60,000 Mughal horse, which was placed under the
command of two Mughals, chiefs of high rank, one of
whom was Yamah Nū-in, and the other Sahūdah Bahādur,
to proceed in pursuit of the Sulṭān. When this force had
passed over the river [Jiḥūn], the Sulṭān retired from
Nishāpūr, and set out towards Māzandarān, and his camp
was pitched at the top of the Darah or Pass of Tamishah¹,
when the Mughal troops came upon him. The Sultan was
obliged to fly from thence, and entered the hills on foot, and
got away; and, going from one range of hills to another,
entered Māzandaran³. The son of the chief of Māzandarān,
4 Only a single copy of the texts collated gives this name correctly.
5 Any one reading the above would imagine that the Sultan proceeded
irect from Nishāpūr into Mazandaran, but such was not the case; he took a
uch longer circuit, as already shown. When he reached Rai news came to
m from Khurasan that a strange army had reached it, which report made
m regret the haste he had shown in coming into 'Irāk. He left Rai accord-
ngly, and proceeded to the fortress of Kazwin [some say Ķārün], at the foot
f which his son, Sulṭān Rukn-ud-Din, was encamped, with an army of 30,000
Irāķis. The Sultan sent his other son, Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din, and his mother, and
some of the ladies of his family, to the fortress of Ķārün-dujz for safety, and
his own mother and the rest of the family to I-lal, a fortress of Mazandaran.
He was advised by the Amirs of 'Irāk to take shelter at Shiran-koh, and there
oncert measures and assemble troops, and oppose the Mughal army which
was in pursuit of him. Again he declined, saying that it was not safe, and
uld not be defended against the Mughals; and this disheartened his followers
still more. He was advised by some to start that very hour. Between
Luristan and Fars, they said, was a range of mountains, called Tang-Talū,
after they had passed which they would enter a rich country, and could take
shelter there, collect troops, and, in case the Mughals should arrive, be ready
o encounter them. Whilst considering this advice, which he thought good,
ews arrived from Rai of the Mughals having reached it; and now his followers
egan to desert him, as is the nature of the world, and to seek their own safety
nd interests. Almost deserted, the unfortunate monarch set out with his son,
alāl-ud-Din, and with scarcely any followers, for the fortress of Ķārūn-dujz,
hither he had previously sent Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din and his mother and the ladies
his family. On the way he was actually overtaken by the Mughal advance ;
at the smallness of his party led to their not recognizing him. They gave
em, however, a volley of arrows, which wounded the Sultan's horse, but it
rought him safely to Kārūn. He only stayed one day, and, after providing a
esh horse, made off in the direction of Baghdad. The Mughals appeared
efore Karun, which they attacked, and fighting went on as long as they
ought the Sultan was there; but, finding this was not the case, and that he
278
THE TABAKAT-I-NĂŞIRI.
who had joined him, was in attendance on the Sultan, and
his own son, Sulṭān Jalāl-ud-Din, Mang-barni, was also
with him. Sulṭān Muḥammad embarked on the Sea of
Khurz [the Caspian], and for a considerable time he
continued on an island therein, in distress and affliction.
had set out towards Baghdad, they followed on his tracks. They came up
with a small body of his party, who acted as a rear-guard, and slew them; but
the Sultan having changed his route-he had found shelter in a fortress-they
missed him, and at last gave up the pursuit. Having remained a few days at
the latter place, the Sultan set out towards Gilan, and then on to Asdār,
where what remained of his treasures was lost. He then entered the district
of Amul. His family had reached that part, and had taken shelter in its
strongholds. The Mughals were in pursuit, however; and he, having con-
sulted with the chief men of those parts, it was determined that the Sulṭān
should seek refuge for a time in one of the islands of the Sea of Khurz, named
Āb-i-Sugün.
[A few words may not be out of place here respecting this island and its name.
An old writer states that it was the name of an island [one of several], and of
a small town of Tabaristan, in the district of Astarābād, three days' journey
from Gurgan or Gūrgān, called Jurjān and Jurjān by Muḥammadans, who
change the g's to j's according to the 'Arabic custom; and that it was also
the name of a considerable river, which formerly came from Khwārazm [the
Oxus ; but more probably the river of Gurgan or Jurjān], and fell into the Sea
of Khurz-the Caspian. When this river approaches the sea, it flows very
slowly and quietly; hence its name, Āb-i-Sugūn, the tranquil or quiet river.
Some, however, say the place where the river enters the sea was called by this
name. The islands in question, for there were several, were situated near the
river's mouth. That on which the Sultan took refuge, and where he died, has
long since been swallowed up by the sea. The Introduction of the Zafar-
Nāmah says
the sea is called Āb-i-Sugūn, and the island on which the Sultan
took shelter, Āb-gūn].
The Sultan, having taken shelter on one of them, moved occasionally, for
safety's sake; and well he did, for a party of Mughals did actually come to the
first island in search of him after he had left it. The army of Mughals unde
Yamah Nū-yān and others, who had reached Rai in pursuit of him, had returned.
on not finding him there, and invested the fortresses of Ķārūn and Ï-lāl, in
which his mother and wives and children had taken refuge, and soon took
them. The males were all slaughtered, even the infants, and the females were
sent to Chingiz's camp. The thoughts of the dishonour of the females of his
family, the slaughter of his children and his servants, and the miseries of his
country, afflicted him to such a degree that he died of a broken heart, and in
great misery, in one of the islands above mentioned, and was there buried. So
great was the distress of the party, that his son, Jalāl-ud-Din, could not
procure even a winding-sheet to bury him in, and he had to be consigned to the
grave in part of the apparel which he had on at the time of his death.
sequently, however, Jalāl-ud-Din removed his father's remains from the island
to the fortress of Ardas [?]. The Mughals, some time after, gained possession
of this place likewise, and they exhumed his remains, and burnt them. That
the Sultan died on his way to Khwārazm is like many other of our author's
statements. He never left the island alive. His death filled Islām with
distress; and this event took place in Shawwāl, 617 H.
Sub

THE KHWÄRAZM-SHĀHĪAH DYNASTY.
279
na
The Mughal troops, not finding the Sultan in the pro-
vince of Mazandaran, passed out of it, and entered 'Irāk,
on which Sultan Muḥammad, with the few horsemen who
trued with him, left the island; but he was
prostrated with disease of the bowels, and melancholy
supervened, and he became quite out of his ma. He urged
his son, Sultan Jalāl-ud-Din, Mang-bami, saying
deavour to take me to Khwārazm; for from thence w
commencement of our dominion." These lines, also,
often repeated :—
"When men become distracted about their own affairs,
-"En-
Was the
~Kihe
e
Than that, it will be better that the thread of life were sever'd."
When his disease increased, he was totally unable to ride
on horseback, and camels were procured for him; and he
was placed in a camel-litter, and they sent him off towards
Khwārazm. He died on the road, in the year 617 H. and
Sultan Jalāl-ud-Din brought his father's remains to
Khwārazm, and buried them by the side of Sultan Takish,
his father. Sultan Muḥammad's reign extended over a
period of twenty-one years. May the mercy of God and
His pardon be on him!
n
XI. ĶUTB-UD-DĪN ARZALŪ SHĂH, SON OF MUHAMMAD, SON
OF TAKISH, KHWĀRAZM SHAH.
Kutb-ud-Din, was the son of Sultan Muḥammad, and
his mother was a kinswoman of his father's mother, and of
the family of Kadr Khan of Kifchak; and he was the
heir-apparent to the throne of Khwārazmº.
When the calamities consequent on the irruption of
6 The name of this young prince is written in various ways-not only in our
author's text, but also by other writers-Azilāķ, Arzāķ, Ūzlāķ, Arzalū, and
Arzalak; the last seems the most correct. Certain it is that he was not heir-
pparent to the Khwārazmi empire. The word Shah or Sulṭān affixed to his
ther name signifies that it was not his title as sovereign, but merely one of his
lames. Other writers, with whom I am acquainted, do not account him as a
tuler at all. It was through the influence of Turkān Khātūn, Sulṭān Muḥam-
mad's mother, that this boy, of very ordinary intellect, was set up at Khwā-
azm, during Jalāl-ud-Din's absence with his father. Arzalak's supporters
magined, that, in case Jalāl-ud-Din should ascend the throne and establish his
power, they would not be permitted to do as they liked, as was likely to be
he case with Arzalāk Sultān as sovereign; and, as long as their objects were
ained, they cared nothing for their country. Under such circumstances, it is
pt surprising that the Mughals met with little or no opposition.

280
THE TABAKAT-I-NĂȘIRĪ.
•
wit
Chingiz Khan arose, and Sultan Muḥammad was obliged
to fly from the banks of the Jiḥun and th vicinity
of Balkh, and retired to Nishāpūr, the grandmother of
Arzalū Shāh, the mother of Sulṭān Muḥammad, an
the
people of Khwārazm, the Maliks, and the Amirs, con-
certed toget spi, and raised Kutbid-Din, Arzalu Shāh, to
the the of Knwarazm, and the whole of them applied
themives to his service.
The Sultans and Maliks, from both the east and west,
and of the countries of Iran and Turan, who were
imprisoned at Khwārazm, were all drowned in the Jiḥun;
and not one of them was left alive, by the time that one of
the sons of Chingiz Khān, Tūshi by name, with a numerous
army, from Māwar-un-Nahr, was nominated to march into
Turkistān and Khwārazm' and arrived before the gates of
the latter-named city.
8
As Arzalū Shāh did not possess the power to oppose
him, he took along with him' his dependents, his sisters,
and mothers, the ladies of the Haram of Sultan Muḥammad,
his father, together with the Khudawandah-i-Jahan, his
father's mother, and brought them into Tabaristan and
Mazandaran, and threw himself into the fortress of Lal in
Tabaristān³.
7 Turkān Khātūn, the consort of Takish, the strong-minded woman, who
roasted her husband.
8 All the copies of the text collated, with one exception, are defective
here.
in
9 When Chingiz arrived at Utrār, he left a force to invest it, but pushed o
with the bulk of his forces to Bukhārā; and it was only after the fall for
Samrkand that troops were sent against Khwārazm. In the first place, he
despatched his three sons, Tūshi [Jūji], Uktāe, and Chaghatãe, with severa
tumāns or hordes thither; but, having quarrelled on the road, they came ned
blows, and a number of the Mughal troops were slain by each other. Ching, in
then recalled them, and Tūli, his other son, was sent in command in tltook
stead.
were
کا
1 Other writers state, that after Jalāl-ud-Din left Khwārazm for Khura of his
as mentioned in note, page 286, which see, his brothers, Arzalāk Sultān, Ahis
Sulṭān, and two others, followed after him, escorted by a body of troops, V
to endeavour to induce him to return. They did not overtake him, but f
encountered on their way the same body of Mughals their brother had so
recently opposed and escaped from. They were all taken and, with their
followers, put to the sword.
J.
2 The mothers of the different brothers of Arzalū [Arzalāķ Sultan]-the d
other wives of his father, Sultan Muhammad, and his grandmother arsion·
meant here.
That'
3 See latter part of note ³, page 277. Alfi calls it the fortress of Lār-jārǝthor's '
vith
:
THE KHWĀRAZM-SHĀHĨAH DYNASTY.
281
When Tushi, son of Chingiz Khan, appeared with his
troops before the gates of Khwārazm, the people of the
city [the troops quartered there] came forward to resist
them, and fighting commenced; but, in the course of a very
few days, Khwārazm was taken, and the inhabitants were
martyred, and the whole city was razed to the ground,
with the exception of the Kushk-i-Akhjuk, which was the
ancient palace, and the sepulchral vault of Sulṭān Takish,
Khwārazm Shah, which was allowed to stand; but all else
was overthrown.
After this, Tushi pushed on in pursuit of the dependents
and ladies of Arzalū Shāh's family, captured them all, and
martyred the whole of them. The mercy of the Almighty
be upon them*!
XII. SULȚÂN RUKN-UD-DĪN, GHŪRĪ SHĀNASTĪ, SON OF
MUHAMMAD, KHWĀRAZM SHAH.
Sulṭān Rukn-ud-Din was another of Sulṭān Muḥammad's
sons, and his birth took place on the night preceding the
day on which Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din Muhammad-i-Sam,
Ghūri, retreated from before the gates of Khwārazm in the
car 601 H.; and, on that account, he was named Ghūri
anasti, that is to say, "The Ghūri Breaker."
When the territory of 'Irak fell under the sway of
Sultan Muḥammad, Khwārazm Shah, he conferred the
throne of that country upon Rukn-ud-Din. The daughter
of Malik Ulugh Khan-i-Abi Muḥammad, who was
4 Most of the copies of the text are defective here: only three have the last
aragraph, and, of these, but two appear correctly written.
Rukn-ud-Din was younger than his brothers, Jalāl-ud-Din, and Ghiyāṣ-
ud-Din; but, having acquired greater ascendency, the government of 'Irāķ
was conferred upon him, when his father left 'Irāk on his last expedition into
Mawar-un-Nahr. Yafa-i says he gave himself up to excess-he was only
fifteen-and his father had just become aware of his misconduct, when the
Mughal troubles began. On the death of his father, the Amirs of that
territory became disaffected. He moved against them, reduced them, and
gave them their lives, and overlooked their misdeeds, thinking kindness would
e returned with gratitude. But, after a short time, finding he could not hold
s own, he retired, after his father's death, accompanied by only a few
lowers, towards Kirman. He reached Gawāshir, and was subsequently
joined by the chiefs and partisans of the Malik of Zawzan [Ķawām-ud-Din,
Mu-ayyid-ul-Mulk, Abi-Bikr, son of 'Ali, Az-Zawzani. His son, 'Izz-ud-Din,
held Kirmān and its dependencies after his father's death but he was removed,


T
282
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĂȘIRĪ.
a descendant of one of the paternal uncles of the
Khwārazm Shahs, was given him in marriage, and the
father-in-law was made the Lieutenant of Sultan Rukn-
ud-Din, by Sultan Muhammad; and the whole of the
Maliks of Ghur, and the troops of the Jibal [of Khurāsān],
were left to serve under him. When [his father], Sultan
Muḥammad, retired from the territory of 'Irak, the Turks
of 'Irāk, who were slaves of the Ata-baks, assembled [their
troops] together, and gave him battle, but the Khwārazm
Shāhis gained the victory, in the year 614 H.
Rukn-ud-Din reigned in 'Irak for a considerable period;
and, when the Mughal troops reached that country, and
tribulation befell the Musalmāns, the whole of the Khwā-
razm Shāhis fell into captivity, in the year 617 H., and
were, in all probability, martyred.
XÃ, MALIK GHIVĀṢ-UD-DĪN, ĀĶ SULTĀN”, SON OF
MUHAMMAD, KHWÄRAZM SHAH.
Ak Sultan was another of the sons of Sulṭān Muḥammad;
and, when the latter obtained possession of the throne of
and the government was conferred upon Rukn-ud-Din.], who were in th
parts. He divided the treasure, accumulated by the Malik referred to, am
his followers, and advanced to Ișfahan to endeavour to gain a footing in 'I
again. When he entered it, the Ķāzi kept aloof, and Rukn-ud-Din though
advisable to leave the city, and pitch his tents outside. He was soon attacked
by the Kazi's adherents, on a hint from their master, who slew 1000 of Rukn-
ud-Din's followers, and lost many themselves. When the Mughals had
disposed of other matters in Khurasan, a force was sent against Rukn-ud-Din,
He had given up all hope of acquiring possession of 'Irāk, and had retired t
Firūz-koh, and the Tatar forces invested him therein. He held out for s
months, at the end of which period he had to come down and yield. Alte
threats of the infidels could not induce him to bend the knee to their leader,
and he was put to the sword, along with his followers and dependents, and the
people of the fortress. This took place in 619 H.; but some writers say
it happened in 618 H., and others, in 620 H.
6 Here, also, considerable difference occurs in the various copies of the text,
and the style is different, as in several other places. Some have, “and th
whole of them were martyred."
7 Pir Shāh bore the title of Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din, and he was ruler [nominally
of Kirman, after the Malik of Zawzan, and his son. Āķ Sulṭān was never I
in charge of any territory whatever. Our author has perpetrated another grea
blunder here. Āķ-Sulṭān was killed at the same time that Sulṭān Arzalāļ
and two other younger brothers were massacred by the Mughals. See note 6
Page 286.


THE KHWARAZM-SHĀHĨAH DYNASTY.
283
8
Kirman, and the masnad of Gawashir, he placed the
Khwajah of Zawzan upon the throne of Kirmān. After
some years, the Khwajah of Zawzan died. He was an
excellent man, and founded colleges of great repute, and
rabāts [hostels for travellers], and erected the fortress of
Sala-Mihr of Zawzan.
When he died, Sultan Muhammad had conferred the
throne of Kirman upon his own son, Āķ Sulṭān; and he
proceeded into Kirman, and brought under his jurisdiction
that territory as far as the sea-shore, and the frontiers of
Mukrān'. When the calamities caused by the Mughal
8 Utter nonsense the Malik of Zawzan was merely governor on the part
of the Sultan, and never ascended a throne."
9 Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din, Pir Shāh, had been named ruler of Kirman by his father;
"but what help is there, when man's proposals chime not with destiny's
disposals?" When the convulsions arose at the outset of the Mughal troubles,
Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din determined to proceed into Kirman. At this time, Shujā'-ud-
Din, Abū-l-Ķāsim, who had held the government on the part of the son of the
Malik of Zawzan, was acting as the Prince's deputy. The "world being filled
with tumult and sedition," he would not receive him, and the Prince was com-
pelled to retire into 'Irāk, where he stayed a short time. A party of his
father's troops, which had remained in concealment, now joined him, and
Burak, who was a native of Kara-Khita-i, also became his adherent.
He was
a relative-some say a younger brother, some the son-of Baniko of Tarāz,
and had been converted to Islām, and had risen in Sulṭān Muḥammad's
service to the rank of Hajib; and some writers state that he had been
nominated preceptor to the young Prince. Be this as it may, on being joined
by Burak and his followers, Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din marched into Fars against the
Atā-bak Sa'd [see note, page 266], who was routed. Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din and
his forces committed great devastation in Fārs, after which he retired. Burāķ,
however, being aggrieved with him for some reason, deserted Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din
one night, and set out with his adherents, intending to proceed by way of Kich
and Mukrān into Hindustan, "to take service with I-yal-timish, ruler of
Dihli, who was also a native of Kara-Khiṭā-i." On reaching the frontier of
Kirman, Shujā'-ud-Din, Abū-l-Kasim, who had been made governor of
Gawāshir for Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din, but who had refused to receive him, was induced
by some of the youths among his followers, who sought to plunder Burāķ's
party and carry off the “moon-faced Khiṭā-i damsels” among them, to inter-
cept Burak by the way. They came into contact at Rūdbār of Jirfat, and,
during the fight which ensued, a party of Turks, serving with Shujā'-ud-Din,
went over to Burāk. Shujā'-ud-Din was taken and put to death, and Burāķ
acquired power over Kirman. This was in the year 621 H. Shuja'-ud-Din's
son continued to hold the citadel until Jalāl-ud-Din arrived.
After his sepa-
ration from Burāķ, Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din had taken up his quarters at Rai; and, when
his brother, Jalāl-ud-Din, reached 'Irāk, after his return from Sindh, Ghiyāṣ-
ud-Din had joined him, had misconducted himself, and, finally, deserted his
brother in an engagement with the Tatārs, and finally retired into Khūzistān.
See note 9, page 297. He then sent an agent to Burāk to tell him of his
arrival there. Burāk pretended to be overjoyed; and, after oaths and pro-
T 2
284
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĂȘIRĪ.
irruption befell the empire of Islam, and Chingiz Khān
became triumphant over Irān, a body of Khiṭā-is, and
some troops of Sultan Muhammad, along with Burāk, the
Chamberlain, a native of Khiță, a newly converted Musal-
mãn, proceeded into Kirman, and contention and strife arose
between them and Sultan Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din-i-Āķ Sulṭān. The
latter, not being powerful enough to repel the Khita-is, out
of necessity, left Kirman and proceeded into 'Irāk to his
brother, Sulṭān Rukn-ud-Din, leaving the Amir, Shujā'-
ud-Din, Abū-l-Ķāsim, in the city of Gawāshir, which was
the seat of government and capital of Kirman, with the
name of Deputy and Seneschal of the city.
Burāķ, Khiṭā-i, the Chamberlain, with a numerous army,
appeared before the gates of Gawashir, and took up his
position there; and contention went on between them,
which continued for a considerable length of time, until the
period when Sultan Jalāl-ud-Din, Mang-barni, marched
from the land of Sind, by way of Mukrān, into Kirmān.
As soon as he arrived in the vicinity of the latter territory,
Burāk, Khita-i, the Chamberlain, having obtained news of
the coming of Sulṭān Jalāl-ud-Din, proceeded to wait upon
him, and pay him homage; and Shuja'-ud-Din, Abū-l-
Kāsim, likewise, came out of the city of Gawashir to pay
homage to the Sultan'.
When Sultan Jalal-ud-Din reached the city, he had but
a small following with him, and, therefore, he became
anxious with respect to Burāk, the Chamberlain, and made
over the country of Kirman to him as governor, and
proceeded into 'Irāk himself. After Burāk, the Chamber-
lain, had acquired possession of Kirmān, Āķ Sultān, having
mises had been entered into by both parties, Ghiyās-ud-Din set out for Kirmān
with about 500 followers, and Burak came forth to receive him with a large
following. They got on well together for some time, until Burāk began to
treat the Prince with great arrogance, and finally demanded his mother in
marriage. She gave a reluctant consent for the sake of her son. Two kins-
men of Burak's now became partisans of the Prince, warned him of Burak's
designs against him, and asked his permission to kill him. Ghiyās-ud-Din,
remembering his promises and oaths, refused. A few days after, Burāķ became
aware of all this; his two kinsmen were cut to pieces, Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din
strangled, and his mother and all their followers and dependents were put to
death, every soul, even to the infant at the breast. Burak sent the head of Ghiyāṣ-
ud-Din to Uktãe, son of Chingiz, and obtained from the Mughal the investiture.
of Kirman, which he held for eleven years, when it passed to his descendants.
1 His son came out and presented the keys of Gawashir to the Sultan.
THE KHWÄRAZM-SHĀHĨAH DYNASTY.
285
quarrelled with his brothers, in 'Irāk, returned again into
Kirman, and obtained martyrdom at the hand of Burāk,
Khita-i, the Chamberlain, and died.
XIV. SULTAN JALĀL-UD-DİN, MANG-BARNĪ³, SON OF
SULTAN MUHAMMAD, KHWARAZM SHAH.
Sultan Jalāl-ud-Din, Mang-barni, was the eldest son of
Sultan Muhammad, and was endowed with great heroism,
valour, and high talents and accomplishments.
When his father, Sultan Muḥammad, acquired possession
of the territories of Ghur and Ghaznin, he conferred them
on Jalal-ud-Din, and made over both those kingdoms to
his charge; and deputies of his were placed in those
countries. Ghaznin was given to Malik Kuriz¹; Firūz-
koh was entrusted to Mubariz-ud-Din, Sabzwari; and the
Wazārat was entrusted to Shihāb-ud-Din-i-Alb, Sarakhsi.
Kaṛṛmān was given to the Malik-ul-Umrā [Chief, or Noble
of Nobles], Burshor³ [Peshāwar?] and Bū-bikrpūr [or, Abū-
2 Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din was murdered in the fortress of Gawāshir in 627 H.
There is some discrepancy as to dates, which I have not space to discuss, but
the former appears the most correct, as Burāk evidently took advantage of
Jalāl-ud-Din's defeat, mentioned in note 9, page 297, to make himself inde-
pendent, and would scarcely have dared to put his brother to death while
Jalāl-ud-Din had the power to chastise him.
3 In one of the oldest copies of the text where the vowel-points are given,
he is called Mang-barni, and was so styled from having a mole on his nose.
He was, according to Vafa-i, and other trustworthy writers, the greatest, the
most noble-minded, the most warlike, and the most devout of the sons of his
father, and most worthy of the diadem of sovereignty. His valour rivalled that
of Rustam and Isfandiyar, and he was able, skilful, and sagacious. If there
was any man in those days capable of coping with Chingiz successfully, it was
he; and, from his subsequent heroic actions, there can be little doubt but
that his efforts would have been crowned with success, if his advice had been
acted upon, or he had had the direction of affairs, and had been seconded by
his brothers, nobles, and subjects, with that unity of purpose so essential in the
hour of danger. His brothers, however, were selfish beyond measure, and cared
for naught but their own interests and worldly pleasures and excesses, whilst
Jalal-ud-Din was kept in constant attendance upon his father, contrary to his
own inclinations.
4 Possibly, Kurbuz.
The majority of copies are as above, but others have
.all of which seem meaningless [?] كبرنو and كزبر کرنو
5 This may refer to Peshawar, which was called Bagrām up to Bābar's time,
but there is a place named Burshor [9], much farther south, between
Kandahar and the Indus; and our author, in his account of Mahmud of
Ghaznin, when referring to the idol-temple which fell at his birth, says it was
near Barshabur []-quite a different mode of spelling. See page 76.
1
286
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NAṢIRĪ.
Bikrpur] were conferred upon Malik Ikhtiyār-ud-Din,
Muḥammad Ali-i-Khar-post.
When the irruption of Changiz Khan occurred, Sultān
Jalāl-ud-Din, Mang-barni, was in attendance upon his
father, as has been previously recorded; and, when he
brought his father's remains to Khwārazm and interred
them, his brother [Arzalu Shah] was seated on the throne
of Khwārazm, although he was a [much] younger brother;
and both the brothers were apprehensive of each otherº.
Kutb-ud-Din, Arzalū Shāh, conspired against Jalāl-ud-
Din, who, having obtained information of his design, came
out of Khwārazm, and departed by the route of the wilds
of Sharistan. From thence he proceeded to the westward
of Nishāpūr, and entered the desert between Khurāsān and
Kirman, with the determination of proceeding to Ghaznin'.
6 After his father had breathed his last and had been buried, Jalal-ud-Din
left the island of Āb-i-Sugun with a few followers, and set out for Khwārazm,
where were his younger brothers, Arzalāķ Sulṭān, Āķ Sulṭān, Timur Malik,
Aghūl Ṣāḥib, and Kajāe Tigin, with 90,000 Kankulis. He had vast difficulties
to encounter from the confused state of affairs at that time, the successes of
Chingiz and his sons, and from his own countrymen, who considered that the
glory of the house of Takish had departed. It may be as well to mention,
that the following notes give a consecutive account of Jalāl-ud-Din's life.
All men of experience, and the soldiery generally, were desirous of the
sovereignty of Jalāl-ud-Din, and, although the most solemn agreement had
been entered into by the two brothers not to injure or molest each other, the
ill-disposed Amirs of Arzalāķ's party, who desired a weak and inexperienced
Prince at the head of affairs for their own selfish purposes, combined to fall
suddenly upon Jalāl-ud-Din and slay him. He, finding such acts could be
contemplated at such a time, and knowing the state of utter misery in which
the country was now overwhelmed, considered it advisable to leave Khwārazm
in the hands of his brother and his party, rather than weaken the little power
still remaining by civil strife. He determined to proceed, attended only by a
small following, by way of Nisā to Shād-yākh [of Nishāpūr]. As it was, an
army of Mughals had already reached the Khwārazm territory, and Jalāl-ud-
Din was closely pursued [near Astawah, according to Alfi,] by a portion of
that horde, on his way to Shad-yākḥ, and had great difficulty in effecting his
escape. His brothers-four in all-who had followed after him to try and
induce him to return, or, more probably, because they could not stay any
longer, fell into the hands of this band, and were all put to the sword. See
note ¹, page 280.
7 Sulṭān Jalāl-ud-Din only remained two or three days at Shād-yākh, in
order to get together as many men as possible; and, on the 12th of Zi-Hijjah,
he set out quietly at night, by way of Zawzan, towards Ghaznin, to the govern-
ment of which part he had been nominated by his father. The Mughals were
close at hand, and he had not left more than an hour before they appeared before
the place. As soon as they found he was not there they set out in pursuit,
and pushed on until they came to a place where two roads branched off. At
THE KHWARAZM-SHÄMIAH DYNASTY.
287
Trustworthy persons have related, that Jalāl-ud-Din, in
that desert, saw Mihtar Khizr³, who foretold his sove-
reignty, but, under this compact, that the blood of no
Musalman should be shed by his hand. From thence,
Jalāl-ud-Din proceeded into the territories of Nimroz, Bust,
and Dawar, and came to Ghaznin".
Malik Khan of Hirāt, who formerly bore the name of
Amin-i-Ḥājib[Amin-ul-Mulk?]', and had killed Muḥammad
Kharnak, Ghūri, and who had, before the arrival of Jalāl-ud-
Din, set out towards Hindustan, at this time, that the Sultan
came to Ghaznin, likewise, joined him. Chingiz Khan
detached an army, from his Mughal following, in search of
Sultan Jalāl-ud-Din, towards Ghaznin, and Fiķū² Nū-yān,
this place the Sulṭān had left a small party of his followers, under an Amir, with
directions, in case of his being pursued, to resist the Mughals for a short
period, to give him time, and then to take the other road. This was done ; and
the Mughals, thinking they were on the Sultan's track, took the wrong road.
The Sultan on this occasion is said to have made a march of forty farsakhs
without a halt.
On reaching Zawzan he wished to enter and take some repose, and give rest
to his horses; but admittance was refused, the excuse being, that, in case of
attack by the Mughals, the people could not hold out the place for an hour,
and that any attempt at opposition would bring vengeance upon them. He,
therefore, continued his route as far as Mābarn-ābād [?]. He left that place at
midnight, and at dawn the next morning the Mughals reached it. They
followed in the track of the Sultan as far almost as Yazdawiah [also called
Zaudiah-Jezdoun of the maps?], a dependency of Hirāt [about seventy-five
miles s. w. of that city], and then abandoned the pursuit.
8 Another of our author's childish tales, certified by "trustworthy autho-
rities."
9 The Sultan, without further trouble, reached Ghaznin, on the 17th of
Zi-Hijjah, 617 H. Amin Malik, called also Amin-ul-Mulk [he is styled
Yamin-ul-Mulk in Rauṇat-uṣ-Ṣafã and Ḥabib-us-Siyar, and Yamin Malik by
Alfi], the governor, who had 50,000 men with him, came out to receive th
Sulṭān, and both the troops and people rejoiced at his arrival, for the govern.
ment of the territory formerly possessed by the Sultans of Ghur had been
previously assigned to him by his father. He encamped on the Maidan-i-
Sabz of Ghaznin; and, as soon as the news of his arrival spread abroad, chief-
tains and troops [who were in those parts previously, no doubt] began to flock
to his standard from all parts around, and among the number was Saif-ud-Din,
Ighrak, with 40,000 men, Kankulis, Khalj, and Turkmāns; and the Amirs
of Ghur also joined him from the parts adjacent. His affairs now assumed
considerable grandeur and magnificence, and a large army assembled around him.
1 Some copies of the text, but they are those least to be depended upon,
differ considerably here. They have, - "Malik Khan of Hirāt, who was named
Amin-i-Ḥājib, at the outset of the events respecting Muḥammad Kharnak,
Ghūri, before Jalāl-ud-Din had come into Ilindūstān,” &c. The correct
name of this chief was Amin Malik, and he is also called Amin-ul-Mulk.
2 In some copies Fitķū.
288
THE TABAKAT-1-NĀṢIRI.
·
who was Chingiz Khan's son-in-law, was the commander of
that force.
Sulṭān Jalāl-ud-Din advanced against the Mughal army
as far as the limits of Barwan³, and overthrew the Mughal
3 Early in the spring of 618 H. he put his forces in motion, and advanced to
Barwan. Having encamped there, he received intimation that a Mughal
army, under Bak-chak and Yam-ghur [these leaders are somewhat differently
called by some writers-Kam-chak, and Vighūr, Tamghūr, and even Balghūr],
was pressing the siege of Wamian [Bāmian, w and b being interchangeable];
and that it was in danger of falling into their hands, if not speedily relieved.
[With regard to these places-the town and fortress referred to-I must
here make a few remarks. The town, or position, of Barwan, is like-
wise called Parwan, Farwān, Bārān, and Barwan on the Āb-i-Bārāni,
by as many different writers. The letters b, p, and ƒ are interchangeable.
The two first are undoubtedly incorrect. Bābar and Abu-l-Fazl call the
upper portion of the Kabul river the "Āb-i-Bārāni,” and, in my humble
opinion, this proves the correctness of the situation of this place, as given by
Baihaki, Yafa-i, and Jami'-ut-Tawarikh-which latter work also states that it
lies on the "banks of the Āb-i-Bārāni ". -as situated between Ghaznin and
Wāmiān, but nearer Ghaznin. What modern writers and travellers in Af-
ghanistan call the Logurh [the Lohgar] river, the historians above quoted, and
many others, call the Āb-i-Bārāni, and consider it, very properly, as the main
stream of the upper portion of that river which, ultimately, enters the Indus
above Atak. Barwan is also to be found in many maps, although the position
With
may not be quite correct, at about five or six stages north of Ghaznin.
respect to the fortress invested by the Mughals, the Introduction to the Zafar-
Nāmah, an excellent and trustworthy authority, says it was "Bāmian, also called
Wamian ;" and this last seems to be the name which some writers have mis-
taken for Walian. Certainly there is a place mentioned in the MASALIK-Wa-
MAMĀLIK named Walin, but one syllable less than Walian and Wāmiān, aṣ
being "the same distance from Khulum as the latter is from Balkh." There
is also a Parwān or Farwan, on the Panj-hir river; but those who have seen
the Parwan valley, north of Kabul, describe it as very tortuous, and, in many
places, a mere rocky defile; and there is also the pass of the same name over
Hindu-Kush, not the easiest by far. If Barwan, or Parwan, north of Kabul,
-the Walin of MASĀLIK-
could possibly be the place referred to, and Wāliān-
WA-MAMĀLIK, and which Mr. Thomas, R. A. S. J., vol. xvii. p. 86, calls
"Wáwálín," and considers to have been situated near the "modern Kundúz”
[Kundus, by 'Arabs, Kunduz, is described as a very ancient place, by oriental
writers, who say the correct name was Kuhandujz, signifying a fortress, but by
constant use shortened into Kundus. Baihaķi repeatedly refers to Kuhandujz,
and constantly mentions Walwalij also, but neither "Wáwálín" nor
Walin]—be the place to which the Mughals were laying siege, Jalāl-ud-
Din would have had to cross and re-cross the Hindu-Kush on this occasion, a
rather difficult matter at any time, even for travellers, much more for an army
of about 100,000 horsemen, in early spring, and a dangerous one too, con-
sidering that Chingiz, with his main force, was before Tae-kan, only about
twenty miles from Kundus, while the Parwan Pass, and Sar-i-Ulang Pass,
connected with it, and the other passes of Hindu-Kush, were no less than
eighty miles off, or more. Jalāl-ud-Din might have been cut off from the
passes easily by a force from Chingiz's army whilst he was engaged with the
!
1
THE KHWARAZM SHAHÏAH DYNASTY.
289
:
infidels. He encountered them upon three different times in
that quarter, and on all three occasions success and victory
Mughal forces before Wamian, or Walian so called. Besides, we are plainly
told that Barwān, on the banks of the Ab-i-Bārāni, was a town or city between
Ghaznin and Balkh. Chingiz himself came in pursuit of the Sultan, by way
of Andar-ab, Kābul, and Bāmiān.]
Leaving his heavy material and baggage at Barwān, Sultan Jalāl-ud-Din
marched to the relief of the fortress; and, having come upon the advanced
force of the Mughals in that direction, made a dash upon them, and inflicted a
loss of 1000 men. The Sultan's troops being the most numerous, the Mughals
retired across the river, destroying the bridge after them [this shows the river,
whatever it was, was not fordable], and took up a position on the opposite side.
Vollies of arrows were discharged on either side until night closed, and during
the darkness the Mughals, according to their favourite manœuvre, seemingly,
decamped. [If Walian lay where Kundus does now, a messenger would have
brought Chingiz with his whole army, or a large portion of it, from Tae-kān
before night.] The Sultan now caused a great quantity of food and other
necessaries [scarcely brought over the Parwan Pass] to be sent to the fortress
of Wāmiān, after which he returned to his camp at Barwān.
T
Chingiz, having heard before Tae-kan of this reverse, despatched another
force of 30,000 picked troops, under Shabki Kotu [according to Yafa-i, but
by our author and some others, Fiķū Nū-yan; by the Zafar-Namah, Kanķūd
and other leaders; and by others, Ķūbūr] to take revenge, and prepared to
follow in person; and one morning, in the early forenoon, about a week after
his return to Barwan, intimation reached the Sultan that the Mughals were
approaching. He at once put his troops in motion, and advanced about a
league to meet them, and drew up his ranks in readiness to receive them. [If
the modern Parwan be the place, a position they were not likely to verture
into with such a large force able to attack them within it, and a strong fortress
in their rear, the Mughals must have been about to issue from the pass, and
the Sultan must have advanced towards its entrance to receive them; but I doubt
very much whether those who have seen those passes would consider such to be
probable or possible.] Amin Malik had the right wing, and Saif-ud-Din,
Ighrāk, the left, while the Sultan took post in the centre. He gave orders
for the troops to dismount, and hold their horses' bridles in hand. [Thrown
over the arm probably, but scarcely to "bind the reins of their horses round
their waists." What if the horses had taken fright? Even with the reins
thrown over their arms, the men would have had to fight in a single rank-a
strange mode of fighting. The probability is that the bridles of the horses were
fastened at the saddle, to, or round, the horses' waists, which would enable a few
men comparatively to look after them.] This they obeyed, determined to do
or die. The right wing, under Amin Malik, being the strongest division of
the Sultan's army, the Mughals directed their chief efforts against it, and it
was forced back; but, prompt aid being afforded from the left and centre, the
Mughals, in their turn, were compelled to give way. Not a man on either
side turned his back: great valour was shown on both sides, and the fighting
only ceased with the light.
Next morning preparations were made to renew the engagement, but the
Sultan's troops, having noticed the ranks of another division [the "wood and
felt" ranks of the Rauzat-uş-Şafa], apparently drawn up in rear of the Mughal
ranks, conceived that reinforcements must have reached them during the night,
and they seemed disinclined to encounter them. Counsel was taken as to the
290
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĀṢIRĪ.
rewarded him; but, on the news of these successes of his
reaching Chingiz Khān, he, being at Tāl-kān of Khurāsān
[Tae-kān of Tukhāristān?] at the time marched his armies
towards Ghaznin'. Sultan Jalāl-ud-Din was unable to offer
advisability of falling back to and taking shelter near the foot of the hills, and
retiring to the high ground and spurs; but the Sultan would not hear of such a
prejudicial movement. The troops were directed to dismount as on the
previous day [ardering them to dismount would indicate ground impracticable
for cavalry, but dismounting to fight also indicates a determination to conquer
or die]; and, on this occasion, the enemy's efforts were directed against the left
wing under Saif-ud-Din, Ighrāk, the valour and spirit of whose men they had
had such recent proof of, and their best men were pitted against it. The troops
of the left wing, however, stood their ground so determinedly, and plied their
arrows with such effect, that the Mughals were hurled back. They having
turned their backs without venturing to renew the attack, the Sultan directed
that the tymbals should sound the charge, upon which the whole force mounted
and charged the Mughals [I fancy the Parwan Pass is not a nice place for a
general charge by a numerous army of cavalry], who turned their backs and made
off. Again they rallied, charged the Sultan's advanced troops, and inflicted a loss
of 500 warriors; but the Sultan flew to the rescue, and again charged the
Mughals and put them to final rout, making great slaughter among them.
The two leaders returned with the remnant of their forces to Chingiz's camp at
Tāe-kān.
The Sultan's troops, having defeated the Mughals, took to plunder; and,
most unfortunately, a dispute arose between Amin Malik and Saif-ud-Din,
Ighrāk, about a horse, and Amin Malik, in the heat of the dispute, struck
the latter over the head with his whip. The Sultan was unable [not
"unwilling"] to investigate the matter, because he doubted whether the
Kankulis [Amin Malik's followers] would submit to any decision. In conse-
quence of this untoward event, Saif-ud-Din, Ighrāķ, smarting under the insult,
stayed with the Sultan but for the day; and, when night set in, "with the
instinct [and cunning] of the wild beasts," he marched away with his whole
force towards the mountains of Kaṛṛmān and Sankurān [some say, Shanūzān].
This event completely broke the power of Jalāl-ud-Din, having deprived him
of nearly half his army; and, under the circumstances, he thought it advisable
to retire to Ghaznin.
4 Chingiz Khan, who had now disposed of Tae-kān, having become aware
of this division among, and partial dispersion of, the Sultan's army, hastened to
take revenge. Leaving his heavy material behind at Buķlān, he advanced
with his whole available force, by way of Andar-āb, it is said, against Wāmiān
or Bāmiān. [This certainly must be the Wāliān, as he would scarcely have
left it unmolested.] He was detained a month before it, and, having taken it,
he put every soul to the sword, and then set out against Sulṭān Jalāl-ud-Din.
The Sultan, on becoming aware of Chingiz's intentions, being far too weak
to make a stand against such forces, which no ruler of that time could out-
number, resolved to cross the Sindh, and retire into Hindūstān [the reason
probably was, that he claimed the western parts of the Panjāb, and also of
Sindh, as successor to the dominions of Mu'izz [Shihāb]-ud-Din, Ghūri, and,
leaving a garrison at Ghaznin, he set out. Üz Khan was left at Kajlah
[Kajlā; probably, the name of a place on the route to the Indus by the
Paiwar Pass], with the rear-guard of the Sultan's small force, to endeavour to
:
THE KHWARAZM-SHAHIAH DYNASTY.
291
resistance to these forces, and retired towards Burshor [Peshā-
hold Chingiz's advance at bay, and give him time to send his family and
effects across, and to get his followers across also, on the appearance of the
Mughals, but Ūz Khan was defeated and forced back. Chingiz, who saw through
the Sultan's object, and knew that he had left Ghaznin fifteen days before his
reaching it, pushed on with all possible celerity, and, after crushing the Sultān's
rear-guard, made a forced march during the night. It was in the month of
Rajab, 618 H. [corresponding to September, 1221 A.D., although a few writers
mention Shawwal-December]; and, when the morning dawned, the Sulṭān,
who was encamped near the bank of the river nearly opposite the Nil-ab ferry
[the place where Timūr is said, subsequently, to have passed the Indus, but
he crossed at Dinkot], and who had along with him his family, dependents,
and treasures, found the Mughals on three sides of him—they were in his front.
and on both flanks, and the river was in his rear. Notwithstanding the extreme
danger of his situation, he was not to be daunted, and determined to stand his
ground. The Mughals began by attacking his right wing [the odds were
more than fifty to one], under Amin Malik, a body of them having advanced
along the river's bank to take him in flank; and they overpowered him, and
most of his party were slaughtered. Amin Malik, with the few men remaining
of the right wing, made for Barshāwar; but, as the Mughals had occupied the
route, he and they were all slaughtered by the way. The left wing, under Khān
Malik, was likewise foverwhelmed. The Sultan had kept up this unequal
combat from dawn to noon, and was now left with the remains of his centre
reduced by this time to about 700 men [some say 100 only]. He flew from the
flank to the centre, and centre to flank of the enemy, and fought like a lion at
bay, charged them repeatedly [the Mughals were commanded not to kill him,
but to take him alive if possible], overthrowing numbers, and clearing a space
around him at every onset, and filling them with amazement at his valour. All was
of no avail; it was like attempting to stay the ocean's billows, for the Mughal
forces increased every moment by the arrival of fresh troops, and pressed
forward, every instant contracting the area round the gallant Sulṭān. [If the
reader will examine one of the Panjab survey maps of this part, he will find
that the nature of the ground was of some advantage to Sulṭān Jalāl-ud-Din,
by rendering it difficult for the Mughals to show an extended front.]
When he perceived that his situation was become desperate, and had gone
beyond name and fame, he surveyed the scene with tearful eyes and fevered
lip. At this crisis Ujāsh Malik [also Akhās], son of Khan Malik, his maternal
uncle, seized the bridle of his horse, and dragged him away. With weeping
eyes, and his heart filled with a thousand pangs, he bade adieu to his wives
and children, his mother, and other relations and dependents, called for his
state charger to be saddled and brought forth, and, having mounted him, once
more, like the crocodile, he plunged into the sea of conflict, and, having forced
back the foremost of the enemy for a short distance, turned round, divested
himself of his armour, slung his shield at his back, and, seizing his canopy
without its staff, and urging his charger with his whip [spurs not used], he
plunged into the Sindh, although the water was at a distance of eight or ten
yards below the bank; and, armed with his sword, spear, shield, and quiver of
arrows, "like unto a fearless lion rushing along a plain, he passed the Jiḥūn,
and reached the opposite bank in safety, after having been carried down some
distance by the force of the current, and before reaching a spot favourable for
landing." [A camel does not look very "proud" when crossing a river, much
less the Indus, even in a boat. See ELLIOT, vol. ii., note 2, page 552.
2.
292
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĂȘIRĪ.
war?]; and, on the banks of the river Sind, an encounter
Between a lion and a camel there is a vast difference, although they are but two
points-and-but who could mistake them, the camel being a very
model of awkwardness? The word “Jiḥūn,” used øy one of the authors from 、
which this is taken, seems to signify any mighty river, as the Jiḥūn of Sindh ;
and, in this sense, Ibn Khurdabih appears to use it. There is a place, on the
west bank of the Indus, a little below Nil-ab, called Ghoṛa-Trap, or the
"Horse's Leap," and very probably the name is derived from the Sultan's
feat above recorded. Chingiz Khān caused a monument [] to be erected -
where the battle took place. It has been said [ELLIOT, vol ii., App. page
571], that "the passage of the river [Indus] would have been no such very
gallant feat [Columbus and the egg to wit': nothing is after it has been
accomplished!] in that month [December] when the river was at its lowest,"
and reference is made to “Altamsh” [I-yal-timish] and old Ranjit Singh ; but
where did they cross? Where the river was broad and shallow, and the current
not rapid; but where Jalāl-ud-Din is said to have plunged in from the over-
hanging bank, some 25 to 30 feet above the water, was at a place a few
miles below Nil-ab, where the river is about 180 feet deep, 250 yards wide,
and running at the rapid rate of nine or ten miles an hour. The whole distance
between Nil-ab and this place may be described as one immense and irresistible
rapid. See WOOD: "Oxus."] Chingiz, seeing the Sulṭān in the act of crossing,
galloped to the bank; and some of his Mughals would have thrown themselves
in after him, but Chingiz forbade them, and they took to their bows. A group,
who witnessed the scene, relate that, as far as their arrows could reach, the water
was red with blood, for several of his followers followed his example. Some
idea may be formed, from what has been noticed above, of the value of the
'UNIVERSAL HISTORY," the best authority for the English reader to consult,
when it is therein stated, that Jalāl-ud-Din, when in the middle of the river—
running about nine miles an hour-"stopped to insult Jenghiz Khan, who was
come to the bank to admire his courage, and emptied his quiver of arrows
against him"!!
Having reached the opposite side, the Sulṭān, slowly and sorrowfully, rode
upwards along the bank until he reached a spot facing his own camp, and
beheld the plunder of his family, kinsmen, dependents, his treasures, and all
his belongings, without being able to render them succour, while Chingiz
continued astride his horse on the opposite side, pointing out the Sultan to
his sons. The Sultan now dismounted from his charger, loosened the girths,
took off the felt saddle-cloth, together with his own tunic and cloak, and his
arrows, and laid them in the sun to dry, and spread his canopy on the head
He
of his spear, which he stuck into the ground to shade him from the sun.
remained all alone until the time of afternoon prayer, when about seven of his
followers joined him, and a small tent was pitched for his convenience. Whilst
the light permitted, he watched the proceedings of the Mughals, "whilst the
heavens above looked down upon him with wonder and amazement, as though
they said,-
'Never hath the world beheld a man like this,
Nor heard of one among the heroes of ancient times.'
Chingiz Khan and the whole of the Mughals, who witnessed this wonderful
feat, placed their hands to their mouths [denoting amazement]; and Chingiz
himself, when he beheld the Sultan's lofty bearing, turned his face towards his
sons, and said,—“Such a son as this is worthy to survive his father! Since he
has escaped the vortex of fire and water, and reached the shore of escape,
1
1
THE KHWARAZM-SHĀHĨAH DYNASTY.
293
took place between them. Sulṭān Jalāl-ud-Din was defeated
and overthrown, and he threw himself into, the river, and
retired, discomfited, into Hindūstān.
The august Sultan, Shams-ud-Dunya wa ud-Din,
despatched a force from his armies against him, upon which
Sulṭān Jalāl-ud-Din turned aside, and proceeded towards
Üchchah and Multān'. From thence he entered the
countless deeds will be achieved by him, and vast trouble caused; and, as long
as he lives, it is fallacious for us to entertain the hope of dominion and empire,
and how then is it possible for any prudent man to be heedless of his actions!”
Several historians say, that this event occurred in the "vicinity" [9] of
Barshawar; and, from this, we may judge how far Waihind or Bahind,
mentioned under Maḥmūd of 'Ghaznin [page 76], may have been distant from
that place. See also note 5, page 285.
5 Here we have a good specimen of our author's wilful concealment and
distortion of facts: he could not have been ignorant of these events, which
happened during his own lifetime, in the country in which he was residing, and
at Court, where all these matters were perfectly well known. He came first
into Sindh in 624 H., not long after they happened. I must only give a brief
summary of the principal events to elucidate Jalāl-ud-Din's Indian career,
and correct our author's blunders and misstatements. The Sultan, having
crossed the Indus in safety, as soon as night came on, entered the Chul [un-
cultivated or desert tract] of Jarūķ-called to this day, the Chul-i-Jalāli—with
his few followers, and was joined, by degrees, by stragglers from his army,
until they numbered about 50 or 100 men, some badly armed. With this
handful of followers he attacked a town, where there was a considerable force
of Hindus, defeated them, and captured the place, and in it obtained some
horses and arms. Shortly after, others of his men, who had escaped from the
banks of the Indus, also joined him. He sent a force of 500 horse against
another place in that vicinity, and again defeated the people of those parts,
who showed hostility towards him. By degrees his force increased to between
4000 and 5000 men; and Chingiz, who was still in the vicinity of the Indus,
on hearing of it, and fearing the energy of Jalāl-ud-Din, despatched a force
against him under a leader named Turtae. The Sulṭān, not being strong
enough to oppose the Mughals, retired through a part of the Panjab towards
the frontier of the kingdom of Dihli. On this the Mughal leader again retired,
after plundering the neighbourhood of Malkapur. The Sultan despatched
an envoy to I-yal-timish, the slave-king of Dihli, on arriving near his frontier,
requesting that the latter would assign a place for his residence for a short time,
and urged this request upon the previous good understanding, which had
existed between them as neighbours [his father's officials and the ruler of Dihli
probably], and further urged the great advantage of mutual support, and that,
even for humanity's sake, he would grant this favour of an asylum. "The base
nature of the slave, however, was, as one author says, "unchanged in the
king; and, sprinkling his head with the dust of churlishness and ill-nature,
he, after taking a long time to consider on the subject, put the Sultan's envoy
to death [some say he had him poisoned], under pretence that the envoy had
been conspiring against him, but, in reality, fearing the effect upon his own
Turkish followers, and probably the Sultan's superiority over himself, his war-
like character, his nobility of mind, and great energy. The manumitted slave
!
294
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĀṢIRĪ.
territory of Kirmān, and afterwards Fārs. The Atā-bak,
excused himself by saying, that the climate of the country would not agree with
the Sultan's health, but that, if he would accept a place in the environs of
Dihli, one should be assigned to him. This, of course, was to get him into
his power, if possible. As to I-yal-timish sending "an army" against the
Sulṭān, it is absurd: he knew better than to do that. He did send a great
man as envoy, with rich presents and supplies, and false excuses, for the murder
of the Sultan's envoy. The Sultan, having returned to Balālah and Nikālah,
near Lāhor, and his forces having now increased, by the arrival of many of his
old soldiers, to the number of about 10,000, but by no means sufficient to bring
the ruler of Dihli to account, despatched a portion of his army against the
Hills of Jud. That force defeated the Khokar [or more correctly, Khokhar]
chief, erroneously styled Rãe Kokār and Kokar by most writers [the Ghakhars
are quite a distinct race], and returned with great booty. The Sulṭān demanded
the chief's daughter in marriage, which was readily acceded to; and, moreover,
the Rãe sent his son at the head of a considerable body of his tribe, to join the
Sultān's troops, and the title of Ķutlagh [some say Kulij] Khan was bestowed
upon the latter.
Hostility of long standing existed between the Khokhar chief and Ķubāchah,
governor of Sindh [the whole valley of the Indus, below the Salt Range, was
called Sindh in those days], who had now begun to consider himself an
independent sovereign. He was encamped near Uchchah with 20,000 men,
and a force of 7000 was despatched against him, by the Sulṭān, under Jahān
Pahlawan, guided by the chief's son. They made a forced march, and, falling
suddenly upon Kubachah,, in the night, totally overthrew him. Kubāchah
got on board a vessel, and made for his stronghold of Akar and Bakar [Sakar
and Bhakar? Jami'-ut-Tawarikh says, "two fortresses on one island"],
"which are two islands in the river Sindh" [more on this subject anon], and
the Sultan came to Uchchah. Kubachah now managed to get back to
Multan, after having, on the Sultan's demand, paid him a considerable sum
of money as tribute. The hot season coming on, the Sultan returned to the
Salt Range hills again, and, on the way, took a fortress called Bisiram or Bisrām
[Bisram-pur?], where he was wounded in the hand by an arrow.
Chingiz had despatched another army against him, and the Sultan was
obliged to move towards Lower Sindh. On his arrival in sight of Multan,
he sent an agent to Kubachah and demanded a.contribution; but he, knowing
the Mughals were on the move, refused, and showed determined hostility.
The Sultan did not tarry in the vicinity, but proceeded to Uchchah, which,
proving hostile also, he remained before two days, and set fire to. From thence
he advanced to Sindustan [the name given by the generality of historians is
Siwastān—Alfi says, “Sadūsān, which is Siwastān”]-the present European-
ized Sehwän. The city and fortress were held by a deputy of Ķubāchah's,
Fakhr-ud-Din, Sālāri. A force sent out by him, under Lächin, a native of
Khiṭā, having been overthrown by the Sultan's vanguard under Uz Khan,
Fakhr-ud-Din, on the Sultan's arrival, came forth, and delivered up the place.
Jalāl-ud-Din entered the city, and remained there a month, after which he con-
ferred a dress of honour upon Fakhr-ud-Din, left him in charge as his lieutenant
in Sindūstān, and marched to Dibal and Damrilah. A Habash [Abyssinian
or negro], who was ruler of that part, fled, got on ship-board, and escaped.
The Sultan encamped near those places; and, from thence, detached a force,
under Khāṣ Khan towards Nahrwālah, from which he returned with immense
booty. Sultan Jalāl-ud-Din founded a Jāmi' Masjid at Diwal or Dibal, as it
Į
7
THE KHWĀRAZM-SHĀHĨAH DYNASTY.
295
•
Abu-Bikr, ruler of Fars, gave the
Sultan his sister in
is also called, on the ruins of an idol-temple. [The situation of this place
seems to have puzzled many. Isṭakhuri says it lies west of the river
Mihran; Abi-1-Kasim, Ibn Hukal, says, in one place, that it lies on the
sea-coast on the eastern bank of the Mihran; while, in another place, he
says the waters of the Mihran fall into the sea east of Dibal. Abu-l-Ķāsim-i-
'Abd-ullah, son of Khurdad, Khurāsāni, author of the MASĀLIK-WA-MAMĀ-
LIK, also says the Mihran passes Dibal on the east; but Abu-l-Fazl says,
plainly, that Brahmanābād was subsequently styled Dibal or Diwal and
Thathah, and so does the Jami'-ut-Tawarikh and others also. Extensive ruins
exist for miles around Thathah; and, in endeavouring to fix the site of Dibal,
which the ancient geographers say was situated on the coast, and modern
writers expect to find there still, the latter do not make allowance for
alterations and changes in the course, and for the deposits at the mouth of
the Indus, which, during the lapse of many centuries, have increased the
distance of the present Thathah from the sea many miles. The mouth
[or mouths] of the Indus must have changed considerably within the last 250
years, if Thathah and Diwal be one and the same place; for Paynton, in his
account of the voyage of Captain Christopher Newport, who took out Sir
Robert Shirley as envoy to Persia in 1613, says Sir Robert was landed there.
He remarks, "We came to an anchor near the city of Diul, in the mouth of the
river Sinde, in 24° 30′ N. LAT., and our varying at the same place 16° 45'."
Thathah is in LAT. 24° 44′, and Karachi, which is also supposed by some to
be the site of Dibal, lies in 24° 51'.]
Whilst in Lower Sindh, information reached the Sultan, that his brother,
Ghiyaṣ-ud-Din, Pir Shah, was established in 'Irāk; but that the troops,
generally, desired his [Jalāl-ud-Din's] presence, and were calling for him to
head them; and further, that Burāk, the Ḥājib, was in Kirmān, and was then
investing the town [city] of Bardasir. [Ibn Hukal says-"Bardasir, which
is to say, Gawāshir.] These things, together with information respecting the
movements of a large Mughal force [the one previously alluded to, which was
despatched into the Mukrānāt-the Mukrāns], and the return of Chingiz to
his own country again, determined the Sultan to set out for 'Irāk by way of
Mukrān, which he did in 621 H.; and, like Alexander before him, lost a
number of his followers from the unhealthiness of the climate.
From this point, in order to save space, I must greatly curtail the notes I
had written, although the remaining events in the career of Jalāl-ud-Din are very
interesting. The Sultan entered Kirmān, and Shujā'-ud-Din, Abū-l-Ķāsim's
son, who held out Gawashir [also called Bardasir] for Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din, the
Sultan's brother, and who was then holding it against Burāk, the Ḥājib,
came out and presented the keys to the Sultan. Burāķ pretended to submit
and to be most loyal, and gave his daughter to the Sultan, but, subsequently,
shut him out of the capital, and sent out his followers, although he pretended
merely to hold it, and the territory of Kirman, as the Sultan's deputy. Jalāl-
ud-Din had matters of greater importance to engage his attention at that time,
and he accordingly set out for 'Irāk by way of Shiraz, and sent an envoy to the
Atā-bak Sa'd to announce his coming.
6 Not so: the Ata-bak Sa'd still ruled in Fars, and Abu-Bikr did not
succeed him until 628 H.-seven years subsequently. How different was the
behaviour of Sa'd to that of the "august Sultan" of our author! As soon as
the Sultan's agent came, he despatched his son, Salghur Shah, with 500 horse,
to do him honour, and to apologize for not coming himself, because, some time
1
296
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĂȘIRĪ.
P
marriage, and entertained him as a guest. From Fārs,
Jalāl-ud-Din entered the country of Āzarbāijān, and
defeated the infidels of Gurj' [Georgia], and reduced that
country under his jurisdiction.
previously, he had taken an oath which he could not break, that he would
never more go forth to receive any one soever. Jalal-ud-Din accepted his
apology, received his son with great favour, and conferred the title of Farzand
Khān upon him. On the Sultan reaching the neighbourhood of Sa'd's capital,
he supplied him with every sort of thing that could be desired-clothes, arms,
horses, supplies of all descriptions, and even Habashi, Hindi, and Turkish
slaves to serve him. After certain agreements and stipulations had been
concluded between them, the Ata-bak Sa'd gave a daughter of his own in
marriage to the Sultan, the ceremonies of which were duly celebrated, and a
thoroughly good understanding was established between them, and Sa'd was
confirmed in his possessions. On his departure for Isfahan, the Sultān
induced Sa'd to release his son Abu-Bikr, who had long been imprisoned
for hostility towards his father [see page 178], and Abu-Bikr was released and
allowed to follow in the train of the Sultan.
Having entered 'Irāk, the Sultan proceeded to Rai; and his brother,
Ghiyās-ud-Din, Pir Shah, pretended to submit to his brother's authority.
On the way to Isfahan, the Sulṭān was joined by the venerable 'Ala-ud-Daulah,
who bore the title of Ata-bak, and, for the last sixty years, had held the govern-
ment of Yazd. He was the lineal descendant of the last of the Dialamah
rulers of the family of Buwiah. See page 66, and note 7.
Jalāl-ud-Din's affairs, now began to acquire some stability. He determined
to proceed to Shustar for the winter of 621 H., and afterwards, having
previously despatched an envoy, to proceed to Baghdad and endeavour to
establish friendly relations with the Khalifah, and solicit his aid and support
against the common enemy of their faith, or at least to obtain the countenance
and sanction of the Khalifah for his own efforts against them. All was to no
purpose the hostility of Un-Naşir towards the father was continued towards
the son, although the common enemy of their faith was, so to speak, at his own
gates. He not only refused to hold any communication with him, but sent
two armies to expel him from his territory; but the Sultan, who was compelled
to fight in his own defence, defeated and routed both armies in detail, with
much inferior numbers. Un-Naşir died in the following year, 622 H.
The Sultan, unsuccessful at the court of Baghdad, determined to bring
under his jurisdiction the subject province of Āzarhāijān, in which the Atā-
bak, Yuz-bak, the son of the Atā-bak, Jahān Pahlawan, ruled. Yūz-bak fled
from his capital, Tabriz, on the Sultan's approach, and retired to his stronghold
of Alanjuk, leaving his consort, the daughter of Sultan Tughril [not Sanjar],
Saljūķi, in charge of the capital. She was aggrieved with Yūz-bak on some
account, and stated that he had divorced her; and, having obtained a dispen-
sation from the chief Kazi to that effect, she, after consulting with and
obtaining the sanction of the chiefs and great men, agreed to deliver up Tabriz
to the Sultan, if he would, after the prescribed period, marry her. The Sultān
agreed, and the capital was delivered up to him, and he entered it in 622 H.
Subsequently, he went to Nakhjūān, and espoused Shams Malikah Khātūn,
as agreed; and, a few days after the news reached her former husband, the
Atā-bak Yüz-bak, he died of grief and chagrin.
7 Soon after Jalāl-ud-Din engaged in hostilities with the Gurjis, and was
THE KHWARAZM-SHAHIAH DYNASTY.
297
}
He also fought engagements with the armies of Rūm
and of Shām, and was defeated and overcome; but, at
length, peace was concluded between him and the army of
Shām. Tūrti, the Mughal, who had invested Multān³, left
Chingiz Khān, and came and joined Sultān Jalāl-ud-Din,
and became a convert to the Muḥammadan faith.
The Mughal forces, upon several occasions, went in
pursuit of Sultan Jalāl-ud-Din, but victory always attended
him. At last, in the year 628, or 629 H., the Sultan was
successful against them; but was impeded in his operations by Burāk, the
Hajib, throwing off his allegiance. He determined to move against the rebel
at once, and acted with such celerity, that on the eighteenth day he reached
Kirman from Tiflis, only 300 horse having kept up with him. Burāk hastened
'to make submission, by sending apologies, rich and costly presents, and
protestations of loyalty for the future, but did not, of course, venture into the
Sultan's presence. The latter could do nought else than accept his submission,
for during his absence, Malik-ul-Ashraf, ruler of Sham, instigated by Burāķ to
create a diversion in his own favour, sent an army into the Sultan's territory,
under the governor of Akhlat, who carried off Shams Malikah Khatun from
Khue, and dishonoured her [Jami'-ut-Tawarikh says, Malik-ul-Ashraf dis-
honoured her, and Rauzat-uş-Şafa says, it was the Hajib, 'Ali]; and the
Gurjis also rose. The Sultan lost no time in taking revenge, and carried
slaughter and devastation up to the very gates of Akhlāt. He had, however,
to abandon his operations against it, from intimation that two Mughal armies
had entered 'Irāk. One of these supposed armies turned out to be Jahān
Pahlawan, Īr-bak [Thus in one copy of Guzidah, with the diacritical points;
in others, Ir-lak and Ir-lik; and in other writers, Uz-bak and Üz-bak and
Üz-bak Khān, but I do not account the last three correct], and his followers,
who had been left by the Sulṭān as governor of his conquests in the valley of
the Indus. Jalāl-ud-Din, however, broke up his camp before Akhlāt, and
retired into ’Irāķ to oppose the Mughals. Nearly every copy of the text has
Karkh instead of Gurj.
8 This statement is not mentioned by other authors quoted herein, and is
very doubtful.
[It
9 In Ramaṣān 624 H. [Jāmi'-ut-Tawarikh and some others say, in 626 H.,
and others, 625 H., but the first, from other circumstances and data, is correct],
he encountered the enemy between Isfahan and Rai. The right wing of the
Sulṭān's army, led by Uz Khan, overthrew the opposing force of Mughals,
when the Sulṭān's brother, Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din, who had charge of the other wing,
deserted during the action, with all his adherents, and fled into Lūristān.
was subsequent to this that he was put to death by Burak. See page 285, and
note 2.] This dastardly act on the part of his brother caused the Sultan's
overthrow, and he had to cut his way out of the fight. He succeeded in
reaching the neighbouring hills, and, after some days, reached Isfahan, to the
joy and surprise of the troops and people, who feared he must have perished.
The Mughals, after this, retired into Khurāsān again. Their object, at this
period, seems to have been to prevent the Sultan's government from acquiring
any stability, to ravage the country they passed through, and to endeavour to
surprise him. In consequence of their retreat, the Sultan had time to renew
U
•
298
THE TABAĶAT-I-NĀṢIRĪ.
n the side of
encamped on the confines of Azarbaijan, orughals came
Shām and Diyār-i-Bakr, when an army of li to fly¹.
unexpectedly upon him, and he was obliged t
in 625 H.,
ink
his operations in Gurjistān and Arman. He marched from Ișfahan, in ☺.
and, having succeeded against the Gurjis, marched to Akhlāt once more, to
it by storm, captured the governor's [Ḥājib 'Ali's] wife, whom he made his
slave, and amply revenged the outrage Shams Malikah Khātūn had suffered at
hér husband's hands.
Jalāl-ud-Din now turned his arms against the Sulṭān of Rūm, 'Alā-ud-Din,
son of Kai-Ķubād, Saljūķi [see bottom of page 162], and Malik-ul-Ashraf,
ruler of Sham, who had combined against him [all the Muḥammadan rulers
at this time, with few exceptions, seem bent on their own destruction, and
played into the hands of the Mughals], and had been joined by forces from
Arman, Gurjistān, and Kifchāk [Krim ?]. In the first action, the Sulṭān
overthrew a portion of them; but in a second engagement, having to dismount
from his horse through illness, his troops, thinking he had retired from the field,
became dispirited and gave way. They were not pursued, because the enemy
considered their flight a mere stratagem of the Sultan's to draw them into an
ambuscade. This is said to have taken place in 627 H. Jalāl-ud-Din had
endeavoured [in 627-8 H.] to induce the rulers of Rum and Shām to join him
against the common enemy, but jealousy and suspicion on their part prevented
so advantageous an alliance.
1 The end of the gallant Sultan's eventful career, however, was approaching.
He had passed the winter of 628 H. in the neighbourhood of Irmāniah, when
intimation reached him of the despatch of a fresh and numerous army of
Mughals, under Jarmaghun, and of their early approach. He despatched
Üz Khan, with a strong patrol, to make inquiries. He proceeded as far as
Tabriz, where he was told that they had retired from the country again, and,
without satisfying himself as to the truth of this report, he returned to the
Sultan's camp with it. Thrown off his guard by this false report, the Sultan
and his troops gave themselves up to festivity and carousal. After some time
had elapsed, one night, in the month of Shawwal of the above year, the
Mughals came suddenly upon him. The Sultan, who was sound asleep at the
time from the effects of his potations, was aroused by Uz Khān, who urged
him to fly. The Mughals had already got into his camp, and were slaying all
who came in their way. Üz Khan kept them at bay for a short time, during
which the Sulṭān was able to mount his horse, and fly towards the hills of the
Kurds. He wandered about for some time, when sleep overcame him; he lay
down, and fell fast asleep. A Kurd, attracted by the richness of his dress,
seized him. The Sultan made himself known to him, and requested the man
to conduct him to Malik Muzaffar, the then governor of Akhlāt. The Kurd
conducted him first to his dwelling, and then went back to the place where he
had found the Sultan asleep to search for his horse, which had strayed whilst
his master slept. Another Kurd, whose brother had been killed in the storming
of Akhlāt—some say by the Sulṭān's own hand—having heard where he was,
came, during the absence of his clansman, and slew him in revenge for his
brother's death.
With Jalāl-ud-Din, the Khwārazm Shāhi dynasty terminated. Some
authors relate that he was not slain on the above occasion, but that he changed
clothes with the Kurd, and turned devotee, and wandered about the world.
Curiously enough, I have accidentally met with a confirmation of this. It is
THE KHWĀRAZM-SHÃHĨAH DYNASTY.
299
;
He succeeded in reaching a place in the territory of
Akhlāt, and halted to rest near a village, the chief of
which recognized him. In a battle, which had taken place
between the Sultan and the troops of Sham, he had slain
the brother of that chief. Having the Sultan thus in his
power, that chieftain martyred him. The next day,
information was conveyed to the sovereign of Shām, who
was greatly grieved [at his fate]; and he commanded that
the murderer should suffer condign punishment.
On the occurrence of this misfortune, the sister of the
Atā-bak, Abu-Bikr, ruler of Fars [Jalal-ud-Din's consort],
reached Shām. She was treated with honour and reverence,
and was conducted back to Fārs.
Thus the dominion of the Khwārazm Shahs terminated;
and their remaining Maliks, and their followers, took up
their residence in Sham and in Misr.
most interesting, and from one who attended him in his last moments. Shaikh
'Alā-ud-Daulah, Al-Byābānki, us-Simnāni relates as follows:-When at
Baghdad, I used daily, at noon, to wait upon the pious and venerable Shaikh,
Nur-ul-Hakk wa ud-Din, 'Abd-ur-Raḥmān-i-Isfaraini-may his tomb be sanc-
tified! I happened to go upon one occasion, at the usual hour, and found him
absent from his abode, a rather unusual occurrence at that time of the day. I
went again on the following morning to wait upon him, and inquired as to
the cause of his absence on the previous day. He replied, 'My absence was
caused through Sultan Jalāl-ud-Din, Mang-barni, having been received into the
Almighty's mercy.' I inquired, 'What, had he been living all this time?'
He answered, 'You may have noticed a certain aged man, with a mole upon
his nose, who was wont to stay at a certain place,' which he named. I had
often remarked the venerable devotee in question ;" and that was the heroic,
but unfortunate Sulṭān, Jalāl-ud-Din. According to this account, Jalal-ud-Din
could not have died until 688 H., above sixty years after the period above
mentioned.
2 The most reliable copies have "brother;" others, "brothers and sons ;'
and some again, "sons" only.
U 2
*
¡
SECTION XVII.
THE SHANSABĀNĪAH SULŢĀNS, AND THE MALIKS OF
GHŪR.
MINHAJ-I-SARĀJ, Jūrjāni, the servant hopeful of the Divine
mercy-the Almighty guard him from negligence and
inadvertency says, with respect to this account of the
Shansabāniah Maliks of Ghūr, after this manner:- -That
the following pages are illumined with the sun of the illus-
trious race of the Sultāns of Ghūr, together with that of the
offset of the fragrant tree of the Maliks of Ghūr—may the
Almighty God render their dust fragrant, and assign to
them a habitation in Paradise!—in the manner of a record,
from the dawn of the morning of their dominion, and the
noon-day splendour of their sovereignty, together with the
genealogy of their family, until the expiration of the
empire of that princely house, and the last of the Maliks of
that kingly dynasty—the mercy of the Almighty be upon
those among them who have passed away¹-in such
wise as masters have, in histories, made mention of them,
in order that the robe of this chronicle may be adorned
with an account of them, and also, in order that this [their]
servant, and his priestly family, may acquit themselves of
some portion of the debt of gratitude for benefits received,
due unto those Sultans-the light of the Almighty illu-
mine their tombs !-and, in order that such as may inspect
these pages may, please God, derive profit and instruction.
Be it known, that that master of eloquence, Maulānā
Fakhr-ud-Din, Mubarak Shāh, of Marw-ar-rūd—the light
of the Almighty illumine his tomb!-has strung the genea-
logical pearls of the Sulṭāns of this dynasty on the thread
of poetry, and, having arranged those pearls in perfect
1 When this flourish was penned they had ceased to hold any territory for
nearly half a century.
1
THE SHANSABĀNĪAH DYNASTY OF GHŪR,
301
order, has affixed the head pearl of that string to the
oyster-shell of the illustrious dynasty of Zuḥāk, the Tāzi;
and, from the time of those Sultāns up to the first com-
mencement of the sovereignty of Zuḥāk, he has mentioned
the whole of them, father by father.
2
This book their servant, Minhaj-i-Sarāj, inspected in
the year 602 H., before the exalted throne in the sacred
haram [private dwelling] of that lady, the Princess of the
Universe, and the most excellent of her day and of the age,
the glory of the world and of the faith, the sovereign of all
good qualities among the race of mankind, Mah Malik,
daughter of the august Sultan, Ghiyāṣ-ud-Dunya wa ud-
Din, Abi-ul-Fath, Muḥammad, son of Sām, Ķasim-i-
Amir-ul-Mūminin-may the light of the Almighty illumine
them! This Queen of the Universe used to bestow her
fostering care and protection upon this frail creature [Min-
hāj-i-Sarāj], and, in her own princely hall, as though he
had been a child of her own, he was brought up; and, in
his younger years, he used, day and night, to dwell within
her haram, and, under her blessed sight, he used to receive
instruction.
That princess was possessed of many virtues and endow-
ments. First: she departed from this transitory sphere,
and passed to the eternal mansion, within the veil of
maidenhood. Second: she knew the whole of God's word
[the Kur'an] by heart. Third: she was a depository of all
the traditions of martyrdom. Fourth: she used, once
a year, to devote a certain period to religious exercises,
and would repeat the whole Kur'ān in two genuflexions of
prayer. Fifth when her father, Sulṭān Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din,
Muḥammad-i-Sām, went to the mercy of the Almighty, for a
period of seven years the light of the sun and of day never
shone upon her, and she continued in constant and solitary
prayer.. The mercy of the Almighty be upon her, and may
her happiness and her reward be ample in heaven!
In short, that master of eloquence, Maulānā Fakhr-ud-
Din, Mubarak Shah, has composed that genealogical list
in verse, in the name of Sultan 'Alā-ud-Din, Husain, Jahān-
soz; and, at the outset, I heard from the sacred lips of that
2 One historian quotes a portion of Fakhr-ud-Din's work, but it is too long
for insertion here. He was a Saiyid, hence he is styled Shāh.
302
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĀṢIRĪ.
3
most excellent of her time, and Khadijah of the age, the
Malikah-i-Jalāli¹, that, when some portion of the book and
chronicle in question had been composed in verse, through
a change which had showed itself in the temperament of
Fakhr-ud-Din, Mubarak Shāh, this poem was neglected
by him until the time when the throne of the kingdom.
became adorned and beautified with the majesty and
august splendour of Sultan Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din', Muḥammad-i-
Sām, when this chronicle became graced with his name.
and titles, and was brought to completion.
The Chronicler relates after this manner :-The Almighty
knoweth the truth!-that this dynasty are called Shansa-
bāniān with reference to their paternal ancestor [Shansab
by name], who, after the removal of the sons of Zuḥāk, grew
up in the country of Ghür, and attained great authority,
power, and superiority, and acquired a name. The great
probability is, that this personage lived in the time of the
Khilafat of the Lord of the Faithful, 'Ali-may God re-
ward him!-and that he received conversion to the faith
at the hand of 'Ali himself, and that he took, from that
Khalifah, a mandate and a standard; and to every one
of that family, who used to sit upon the throne, that cove-
nant which the Lord of the Faithful, 'Ali, had written,
used to be presented to him, and he would agree to abide
by it, after which he would become [legally] king. The
family likewise were among the clients of the Khalifah
'Ali; and affection towards the High Priests of the family
of the Chosen One used to be a firm tenet in their creed.
ACCOUNT OF THE FIRST [ANCESTORS] OF THE FAMILY,
THEIR GENEALOGY, AND THEIR PROGENITORS, UP TO
ZUḤĀK, SURNAMED TĀZĪ.
Zuḥāk has been mentioned in the section on the ancient
kings of Iran; and the duration of his reign was a thou-
sand years less one day and a half.
3 Muḥammad's first wife.
4 The same lady he previously referred to under the name of Māh-Malik.
5 One of the oldest MSS. has Mu'izz-ud-Din, the younger of the two brothers.
• Jahān-Ārā, and some other histories distinctly state that Shansab, son of
Kharnak, was contemporary with the Khalifah 'Ali, and that he was converted
to the Muhammadan faith by him. Compare our author's statement above
with that at page 312.
THE SHANSABĀNĨAH DYNASTY OF GHŪR.
303
The learned in chronology differ considerably with respect.
to his ancestry and his forefathers, from Mihtar Adam
down to Mihtar Nuḥ, on account of the great lapse of time".
The fraternity, who account Zuḥāk among the descendants
of Sam, son of Mihtar Nuḥ, relate as follows:-Zuḥāk, son
of 'Anwān ['Ulwan], son of 'Amlāk ['Amlāt and 'Alāķ], son
of 'Ãd, son of 'Aş ['Awas and 'Awaz], son of Iram, son of
Sām, son of Nuḥ, son of Lamak; while others again have
related that his [Zuḥāk's] name was Biwar-asp, son of
Ārwand-āsp, son of Tuḥ, or Tawaḥ [Tarḥ], son of Kābah
[Kayah ?], son of Nūḥ.
Some, on the other hand, have stated:-Biwar-āsp, or
Biwar-asp, son of Ārwand-āspº, son of Zankabā [Ranbakā],
son of Tāzio-barsed [Tāzio-barsid, Tāzio-barshed, Tāzio-
7 The Muḥammadan historians are at variance respecting the descent of
Zuḥāk. Our author, in his account of him in Section V., says he was called
Biwar-asp, and that God sent Nuḥ to him to exhort him to repent of his
misdeeds, and that Nuḥ continued for ages to do so.
He would not repent,
and the Flood followed. Our author then copies Tabari [tolerably correct],
and says that that author [the most trustworthy perhaps of any] states that
Biwar-asp lived before the Flood, in which he perished; and, one thousand
years after the death of Nuh [compare with his statement here and at page 312],
king arose of the seed of Sam, son of Nuḥ, named Zuḥāk, who was a
sorcerer.
Immediately after quoting Tabari, our author again says that Pesh-dād, son
of Hoshang, had a son, Tazio by name, who is the father of all the 'Arabs.
He had a son Zankabā, who had a son Ārwand-āsp, who was father of Zuḥāk.
The Tarikh-i-Mukaddasi, there quoted by him, says Zuḥāk's name is Biwar-
asp, son of Ārwand-asp, son of Tarah, son of Kāyah, son of Nūḥ.
The Jami'-ut-Tawarikh, Tarikh-i-Ibrahimi, and some others, say the
'Ajamis call Zuḥāk, Biwar-āsp, and that the Patriarch Ibrahim lived during
his reign; but further state that great discrepancy exists among authors as to
his descent. The 'Arabs say he was brother's son of Shadad-i-'Ād, and trace
his descent to Iram, son of Sam, brother of Arfakhshad, while the Iranis say
his name is Ārwand-āsp, son of Rinkāwar [Zankabā?], son of Sahirah, son of
Tūjz, son of Farāwal, and that Tūjz was Hoshang's brother. Guzidah and
others trace his descent from Jamshed, and say he was his sister's son ; but the
;.
greater number of chroniclers agree that he was sixth in descent from Kaiumurt,
also written Kaiumurs. The people of Yaman, again, say Zuḥāk was of
Yaman, of the tribe of Tubba' [the royal tribe of Arabia Felix, of whom
Balkis, Queen of Sheba [Saba], was one], and that he was the first of the
Fir'awns of Mișr.
8 It will be well to mention here that the first name given in the following
pages is the one considered most trustworthy from comparison, and in which
the greater number and best copies of the text agree; and that those within
brackets are less so according to position.
9 Alwand-āsp and Ārwand-āsp are also the names of the father of Luhr-āsp,
also called Ārwand Shāh.
304
THE TABAKAT-I-NĂŞIRI.
narsad, Tābūr, Tāzbū, and Tāzbūr], son of Farawwal
[Farawal, Karawal?], son of Sia-mak, son of Mubshi
[Mushbi], son of Kaiu-murs, son of Adam-peace be
unto him!-while others again say :-Kaiu-murs, son of
Lawad, son of Sam, son of Nuḥ
The writers of chronicles [other than those pove ?] relate
after this manner, that Arwand-asp was the father of
Zuḥāk', and son of the son of Tāzio-barsed [Tāzio, Tāzbū,
and Tazbūr]; and, with the concurrence of historians,
Tāzio-barsed, likewise, was the father of all the 'Arabs,
and brother of Hoshang Malik'; and the 'Arabs are called
Tāzi³ through affinity to him. He held dominion and
sovereignty over the nomad tribes of 'Arabs, as did his
descendants after him. From him the authority passed to
his son, Zanbakā [Zankabā ?], and from him to the latter's
son, Arwand-āsp [Arwan-asp], who was a just, wise, and God-
fearing man. He had a son, Zuḥāk by name, who was
exceedingly malicious and factious, a blood-shedder, and
a great tyrant, and a cruel man, whom Shaiṭān [Satan]
had led astray from the right way'. He dug a well in the
¹ According to Tabari he [Zuḥāk] was a descendant of Ḥām, son of Nūḥ,
and after the Flood there was no king upon the earth for a thousand years,
until Zuḥāk, the sorcerer, arose; but there are different accounts of him, and
great discrepancies exist among authors concerning him. There are the
remains of an immense fortress near Bamian, still known as the castle of
Zuḥāk-i-Mārān, or Zuḥāk of the Snakes.
2 Hoshang is considered the fourth in descent from Ādam, and was the son
of Sia-mak, who was son of Kaiūmurt. Some consider him to be Arfakhshād,
son of Sam, who composed the Jāwidān-Khirad. He is said to have founded
Istakhur-Istakhur is the 'Arab form of writing it—of Fārs, Bābal, and Sūs.
·
3 Called also Tāji by 'Ajamis, and hence the name Tajik [k added to
'Ajami names forms a diminutive], by which the descendants of 'Arabs were
styled who were born in and had grown up in 'Ajam. At present the term is
used with respect to Persian-speaking people who are neither Turks nor
'Arabs, and of which race the inhabitants generally of towns and cities in
Afghānistān, and several districts likewise under Afghan sway, and also of
several independent states to the north, consist, The Afghāns often style
them "Tājik-Mājik." Numbers of 'Arab tribes, or parts of tribes settled in
different parts of 'Ajam, after its conquest by the first Musalman invaders, and
several tribes dwelling among the Afghans, and often confounded with them,
claim 'Arab descent. In my proposed history of the Afghan tribes, I shall
be able to enter into more detail on this subject. Modern philosophers, how-
ever, are, as a matter of course, divided in opinion about the derivation of the
name, and also as to the descent of the people; but why should we begrudge
them the infinite pleasure of still speculating upon the matter, and trying to
make every other account fit that of certain Greeks? See page 309.
A few copies have "from the right way, so that he dug a well," &c.
THE SHANSABĀNIAH DYNASTY OF GHUR.
305
ช
path which his father was wont to pass, and Ārwand-
asp, who had become old and infirm, fell into it, and was
killed".
Zuḥāk now became sovereign over the 'Arabs, and, after
Jamshed [Jamshed's time?] conquered the whole world,
and by sorcery, and tyranny brought the whole of it under
his sway. The author of the Tarikh-i-Mukaddasi states,
that Zuḥāk possessed a cylinder, made of gold, in which
were seven apertures, each of which was named after one
of the seven climes of the four quarters of the earth. When
the inhabitants of either of these climates happened to
rebel against his authority, he would raise incantations
in the aperture named after such climate, and breathe
into it, and famine, pestilence, and calamity would arise
in it.
After a thousand years of his sovereignty passed away,
Almighty God was pleased to release the world from his
tyranny and oppression, and the kingdom came to Faridūn.
He seized Zuḥāk, and confined him in a pit on mount
Dimāwand, in 'Įrāķ.
ACCOUNT OF BUSTĀM, MALIK OF HIND AND OF SIND 7.
8
This Busṭām Malik held the dominion of Hindustan at
the hand of Zuḥāk, and he was one of Zuḥāk's descendants,
5 According to trustworthy authorities, this Biwar-asp became styled Zuḥāk,
from the old Persian words ♪ dah-āk, signifying "ten vices and defects;"
and the 'Arabs, in copying the name, used for 3 or 3 and transformed it
into by changing the also into With this change of letters, the
て
​original meaning of the word became changed, for [Zuḥāk] signifies
a mocker, laughing."
"} <<
His vices and defects were hideousness, dwarfishness, excessive arrogance
and pride, shamelessness, audacity, gluttony and voracity, a foul tongue,
recklessness, lying, injustice, ferocity and tyranny, depravity of heart, and
stolidity. These are rather more than ten however. Rauzat-uş-Şafa says Biwar
is from the Pahlawi, and in Dari means ten thousand; and, therefore, Dah-āk
received the name of Biwar-asp because he had always ten thousand 'Arab
horses in his stables.
6 Tabari says his age was a thousand years, while other writers state that
he reigned for that period of time.
7 Nine copies of the text have "Malik of Hind and of Sind," and others
have "Hind and Ghur." In the map, if such may be so called, accompanying
the account of Sijistan and adjacent parts, in the "MASALIK-WA-MAMĀLIK,”
the river of Hind and Sind adjoins Ghur on the north-east.
8 Sic in all copies of the text.
306
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĂȘIRĪ.
፡
namely:-Busṭām, son of Mihshad [Mishhad, Mamshād,
Shamad, Shad, Shihād, and Shihādan], son of Nariman
[also called Nadimān], son of Afridūn [or Faridūn], son of
Sāhind [Sāmind and Sāmid], son of Sifand-āsp [or Isfand-
āsp], son of Zuḥāk, son of Suhrāb', son of Shaid-āsp, son
of Sia-mak, son of Marniās [Marsās and Marras], son of
Zuḥāk the Malik.
When Zuḥāk was made captive, Afridun despatched
an army to take possession of Hindūstān; and Busṭām,
who did not possess the power to oppose the forces of
Afridun, retired towards the mountain tracts of Shaknān²
[Shaghnan] and Bāmiān, and therein took up his residence.
On a second occasion the forces of Afridun were directed
to proceed in search of him; and Busṭām had several times,
for the purpose of hunting and in his rambles, come from
the mountains of Shaķnān and Tukhāristān³ into the
mountain tracts of Ghūr. That district was called Hazār-
Chashmah [the thousand springs] on account of the num-
ber of rivulets in it; and Busṭām, at this time, retiring
before the army of Afridun, came into Ghūr, and at the
foot of the mountain of Zār-i-Margh' [the place where
Margh grows] he fixed his residence.
•
9 Other writers say that Busṭām was one of the descendants, not sons, of
Zuḥāk, and that his progeny increased in Ghur up to the time of Shansab,
who was contemporary with the Khalifah, 'Ali. Shansab was the son of
Kharnak, and from him descended Busṭām, as well as Pūlād. See page 311.
¹ Jahān-Ārā has Shahran.
ن
ن
2 The letters ķ and gh are interchangeable. A few copies have for
3 Not Hwen Thsang's "Tokháristán," extending "ten days' journey by
thirty," but a much smaller Tukhāristān is meant here.
4 Zār signifies a place of growth, and “margh” is the name of a species of
verdure called also farez, which any browsing animals feed on with great
avidity. It is odoriferous, the reed scoenanthemum.
5 Other authorities state that when Faridun overcame Zuḥāk, a number of
his descendants fled, and took shelter in the mountains of Ghur; and that
Busṭām, who was one of his progeny, and who held Hindustan, being unable
to cope with the forces of Faridun, he [Busṭām] also took shelter in Ghur.
The place he took up his residence at was, from the number of its springs and
rivulets, called Hazār-Chashmah, and was an exceedingly pleasant and strong
spot, and therefore he chose it, saying to himself "baro; ma-andesh !”—“Go
to; don't be concerned !" and that spot was subsequently called Mandesh.
Busṭām prospered there, and his descendants multiplied, and they were rulers,
one generation after the other. Other writers say he first fled for shelter "to
the mountain tracts of Bāmiān, which lie between Balkh and Kābul, and from
thence entered the difficult country of Ghur, in which he founded several strong
fortresses. He had wandered about in several parts previously before reaching
THE SHANSABĀNĪAH DYNASTY OF GHŪR.
307
薯
​At this point in the account of Busṭām, the masters of
history have two traditions, one of which is that just related.
The other tradition is from the Muntakhab-i-Tarikh-i-
Naşiri, which one of the great men of Ghaznin composed in
the time of the Sultan i-Ghāzi, Mu'izz-ud-Din, Muḥammad,
son of Sām—the Almighty illumine his tomb!—which is
as follows:-
"When Afridun overcame Zuḥāk, and took the do-
minion from him, two brothers, his sons, reached Nihāwand.
The elder brother bore the name of Süz, and the younger
was called Sām. The elder brother, Suz, became Amir
[chief or ruler], and the younger, who was named Sām,
became the Sipah-sālār [leader or commander of his forces]".
"Amir Süz had a daughter, and the Sipah-sālār, Sām, a
son; and these two cousins had, in early childhood, been
betrothed to each other, and they had fixed their hearts
upon each other. The Sipah-sālār, Sām, died; and his
son had become valiant and a great warrior, so much
so, that in that day he had no equal in manliness and
valour. After the decease of his father, certain envious and
malicious persons arose, who slandered him to his uncle,
Amir Süz, in consequence of which his uncle became.
irritated against him, and he determined to bestow his.
daughter upon the son of some one of the Maliks of the
parts round about.
"When his daughter became aware of this, she made her
cousin acquainted with it, so that, one night, he came and
unfastened the gate of the fortress, and, having loosed and
brought out ten chosen horses from the stables of Amir
8
Ghūr ; and, as soon as Faridun became aware of his whereabouts, he despatched
large forces against him, but, after protracted hostilities, the forces of Faridun
were glad to accept terms, on account of the difficult nature of the country, and
the strength of Busṭām's castles. Tribute and taxes were imposed upon him
[Busṭām], and he had to content himself with Ghur, and not to molest other
parts of the country. His descendants increased and multiplied up to the
time of Shansab, who is said to have been converted by 'Ali. The Jami'-ut-
Tawarikh states that the Ghūris are styled Bani Rasib, otherwise famous
under the name of Uz-Zuḥāk.
6 Some copies have Sür, but the oldest have as above. One has Sawār !
7 Such being the case, wherefore any cause of dispute afterwards, and
appeal to the Khalifah, as to who should be ruler and who commander of the
troops? See page 313.
8 Two copies of the text, which are reliable, have "ten chosen horses of his
father, from the stables of Amir Sūz.”
308
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĂŞIRĪ.
Sūz, he set the damsel and her servants upon them and
made off, taking away as much coin as he was able to
remove. With all diligence possible he made for the foot
of the mountains of Ghur, and there he took up his quar-
The girl and her cousin said [to each other], 'Za-o
[i. e. Az-o] ma-andesh'-be not afraid of him and the
name of that place became Mandesh'; and there their
affairs assumed stability'."
ters.
According to the first tradition, however, when Amir
Busṭām, with his followers, took up his residence in that
locality, information was conveyed to Afridūn.
He was
desirous of sending forces, for the third time, for the pur-
pose of destroying and exterminating Busṭām and his
followers, or to take him [alive] if possible. The sons of
Afridun, Tūjz and Salm, by means of treachery, killed
their brother, I-raj, who was on the throne of Irān²; and,
9 "Lamandesh" in most copies of the text, but impossible from what he
has just stated. Some copies are very different here, in style as well as words,
and have, "They said that the name of that place was Dū-mandesh, and at this
time, on account of that great personage's coming thither, the name became
Bulandesh." The I. O. L. MS., and R. A. S. MS., both agree that the
name was “Roz-mandesh, and the name became Bulandesh," but omit the
first clause of the last sentence. Mandesh is mentioned by some old writers
as the name of a stronghold in Khurāsān. Desh must not be confounded with
the Sanskrit word Des-a country, &c. See note 5, page 306.
¹i. e. There they settled down permanently.
2 In his account of Faridun in Section V., our author says I-raj, the youngest
son, held the countries of 'Irāk-i-'Arab, and 'Irāk-i-'Ajam, and Hind and
Sind. Salm signifies peace, Tujz [also Tūj], boldness, daring, and Ī-raj,
wisdom with tact. The Rauzat-ut-Tahirin states that he held Khurāsān, and
only a portion of Hind and Sind.
The Rauzat-uş-Şafa and some others say that a sept of the descendants of
Zuḥāk, not the sons of Zuḥāk, finally took up their residence in the mountain
tracts of Ghūr, and that they were hard pressed for some time by the forces of
Faridūn, and became as desirous of accommodation as Faridūn's general was
of granting it; and the Zuḥākis agreed to pay taxes and tribute, and not to
encroach on other territory. See note 5, page 306.7.
In the account of the ancient kings of Asia, contained in the Rauzat-ut-
Tāhirin, taken from the work compiled from ancient records in the Pahlawi
language in 259 H., and which work, subsequently, was partly put into verse
by the poet, Dakiķi, in Ismā'il Sāmāni's reign, and afterwards resumed by
Anṣāri, and completed by Firdausi, in Maḥmūd of Ghaznin's time, but of
course greatly embellished by the poets; and also in Tabari, and Jāmi'-ut-
Tawarikh, there are detailed accounts of the reign of Faridun; but although
the death of I-raj is given therein, and agrees with what our author says [he
doubtless took his short notice from Tabari], of course, nothing whatever is
mentioned about Busṭām. Karsh-āsp, ancestor of Rustam, held Kābul,
1
THE SHANSABĀNÏAH DYNASTY OF GHŪR.
309
!
3
un that account, Shah Afridun was greatly afflicted in
heart, and distressed in mind, and he did not obtain his
revenge upon Busṭām. The latter, having found time and
opportunity, turned his attention to peopling and render-
ing habitable the mountain districts of Ghūr, and parts
adjacent.
He despatched trustworthy agents to the presence of
Shāh Afridūn, and sought for peace. Afridun complied
with the request of Busṭām, and, as he had now obtained
security and safety, the followers, dependents, and parti-
sans, and the 'Arab tribes akin or related to Zuḥāk, from
all parts around, turned their faces towards the mountain
district of Ghūr, and took up their residence in that country,
and the number of those tribes became very great.
As Almighty God had willed that from that race pious
kings and potent sovereigns should arise, He prospered and
blessed those tribes so that they attained unto the faith
and covenant of Islām; and from the mine of the seed of
Zābul, and Sijistān for Faridūn, and any petty chief would naturally have been
tributary to the former. The nephew of Karsh-asp, Narimān, had a son
named Sam, who was father of Zāl, father of Rustam. Sam is said to have
held Zabul, and Kābul, as far as Hind, in feudal sovereignty from the rulers of
Īrān. What I wish here to draw attention to, however, is the following:
"Zāl, having succeeded to his father's fief, went to Kabul [Zabul?] from
Zaranj [founded by Karsh-asp], and MIHRAB SHAH, of the race of Zuḥāk, the
Tāzi, the tributary ruler, came forth to receive him, and acknowledged his
supremacy. Mihrab Shāh gave his daughter to Zal, and she was Rustam's
mother." Subsequently, this same Mihrab Shāh is said to have led the right
wing of the army of Kai-Kubād, the first of the Kaiānian dynasty, in the expe-
dition against Afrāsiyāb, the Turk. The Jami'-ut-Tawarikh also states that,
when Afrāsiyāb crossed the Jiḥūn into Khurāsān, he detached a force to
intercept Sam, or keep him in check; and, when the force reached the Hir-
mand, Mihrab Shah, who held the city and fortress of Zabul, as deputy of
Zāl, sent a message, as a ruse only, to its commander, saying, "I am neither
Zābuli nor Īrāni, but of the race of Zuḥak; and am loyally inclined to Afrā-
siyāb." These accounts are, at least, equally as trustworthy as the legends of
Greeks about themselves, and perhaps more so. I hope very shortly to give
them in detail. I am one of those [weak-minded persons perhaps] who con-
sider the historians of a country best qualified to write its history-its early
history at least-and prefer the accounts of ancient Persia, given by the old
Īrāni and 'Arab writers after the time of its conquest, to those of Greeks who
do not even know the names correctly, just as I should esteem the history of
England, from the pen of a Hume or a Lingard, superior to one written by a
native of India who had sojourned three months in London, or by a Chinaman
who had never visited it.
3 One copy has, "and he did not give his mind to taking revenge on
Busṭām."
310
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĀṢIRĪ.
them the gems of sovereignty were arranged upon the
thread of dominion. Some thousands of mosques were
founded in place of ancient idol-temples; and the laws and
canons of Islām were promulgated to the very extremity
of the region of Hindūstān which adjoins that of Chin-
the mercy of the Almighty be upon them! These Sultans
likewise acquired slaves, every one of whom spread the
carpet of justice upon the surface of the world, and raised
palaces of beneficence and munificence; and, up to this
present time, the heir of that sovereignty and successor to
the functions of that empire, is the pearl of the oyster-
shell of ascendency, out of the ocean of dominion, the Great
Sulṭān, Nāṣir-ud-Dunya wa ud-Din, Abi-l-Muzaffar, Maḥ-
mūd, son of the Sultan, Kasim-i-Amir-ul-Mūminin—the
Almighty perpetuate his sovereignty and dominion, and
may he long reign!
The Sultāns of the Shansabi dynasty have been divided
into four groups :-I., that class, the mention of which will
now be recorded, of which Sulṭāns Firūz-koh was the seat
of government; II., the dynasty of the Sulṭāns of Bāmiān,
who were a branch from this great tree of sovereignty;
III., the dynasty of the Sultāns of Ghaznin, which was the
capital of Sulṭān Mu'izz-ud-Din, Muḥammad-i-Ghāzi, son
of Sam, and his own particular slaves, every one of whom,
after him, ascended the throne; and IV., the dynasty of
the Sultāns of Hindustan, the heritage of which dominion,
and the sovereignty of which monarchy passed to them,
and after whom the race of Shamsi became established
upon the throne of royalty. May the Almighty purify the
tombs of those who have passed away, and prolong the
sovereignty of those remaining to the judgment day!
5
As much as was discoverable respecting this race in
chronicles has been recorded [here], although, in the com-
4 Some of the best copies of the text have, "son of the Sultan of Sultāns,"
and omit the Ķasim altogether. If the Shansabāni Sulṭāns had any right to
assume such a title [explained farther on], neither the slave, nor the slave's son,
this "pearl of the oyster-shell of ascendency," the poor puppet to whom our
author dedicated his work, had the most remote right to assume it.
5 Only a single copy has this passage correct. The slaves here referred to
were not relatives nor kinsmen of each other. Shams-ud-Din, I-yal-timish,
however, married a daughter of Kuṭb-ud-Din, Ï-bak, his owner, who ruled in
Hindūstān; and the dynasty of the former, from his name, Shams-ud-Din, is
styled the Shamsi or Shamsiah dynasty.
THE SHANSABĀNĪAH DYNASTY OF GHŪR.
311
pilation of it, there was not an uninterrupted succession to
be set forth".
I. AMIR PULĀD [OR FŪLĀD], GHŪRI, SHANSABĪ.
8
Amir Pūlād, Ghūri, was one of the sons of Malik Shan-
sab', son of Kharnak; and he brought under his jurisdic-
tion the districts of the mountain tracts of Ghūr. He
rendered the names of his fathers immortal; and, when the
advocate' [of the cause] of the house of 'Abbās, Abū-Mus-
lim-i-Marwazi¹, arose, and considered it expedient to oust
and to expel the Amir of the family of 'Ummiah from the
territory of Khurāsān, Amir Pūlād led the forces of Ghūr
to the aid of Abu-Muslim-i-Marwazi², and greatly distin-
guished himself in supporting and assisting the house of
'Abbas and the family of the Prophet.
For a long period the dominion over Mandesh³, and the
authority over the mountain tracts of Ghūr was exercised
by him. He died; and his dominions remained in the
possession of the sons of his brother', and, subsequently,
their affairs [and proceedings] were not to be discovered,
up to the time of Amir Banji, the son of Nahārān.
II. AMĪR BANJĪ, SON OF NAHĀRĀN, SHANSABĪ.
Amir Banji, son of Naharan, was a great lord, and, in
Ghūr, his memory is undying; and he is accounted among
the greatest and most famous of the Maliks of that country.
6 At this place, in some copies, a totally distinct idiom is used to express the
same sense,
,
7 See note 9, page 306.
8 Some copies have
under, &c.
"came ""
under his jurisdiction, and others were "
Sahib-i-Da'wat" means
"It is something new, certainly, to find that
a founder."
That is, a native of Marw.
? In the accounts of Abu-Muslim, the quondam "founder" of this house of
'Abbās, and in the accounts of those transactions in the history of the Khali-
fahs, there is no mention, of course, of the great support they received from
Pūlād the Ghuri. Some writers say that the fief of Ghur was conferred upon
Amir Pūlād and his descendants on account of the services rendered by him,
and that he added to it by annexing other tracts of country.
3 All the copies of the text here, with few exceptions, write this name
differently as well as incorrectly. There is no doubt that Mandesh is the
correct name. See note 5, page 306, and note 2, page 308.
4 Which brother is, of course, nameless.
9
312
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĀṢIRĪ.
1
The whole of the Sultāns were descended from his sons;
and his genealogy has been thus made out:-Banji, son of
Nahārān, son of War-mesh, son of War-meshān [War-
maṣān, Dar-manshān, War-mashān, and War-heshān], son
of Parwez, son of Parwez', son of Shansab, son of Kharnak,
son of Bain or Bayyin, son of Munshi', son of Wajzan
[Wazn, Wazan, and Warat, or Darrat, or Dirat?], son of
Hain [Hin, or Hunain ?], son of Bahrām, son of Hajash, or
Khajash, [Jahs, or Jaḥsh ?], son of Ibrahim, son of Mu'ddil
[Ma'add, or Ma'id], son of Asad [Nāsad ?], son of Shadad,
son of Zuḥāk.
Amir Banji was excessively handsome, and of excellent
disposition, and endowed with all good qualities and natural
gifts. When the dominion of the house of 'Abbās acquired
stability', and the empire of Islam came under the sway of
the Khalifahs of that family, he presented himself at the
Court of the 'Abbāsi Khalifahs; and the first person of the
Ghurian race who proceeded to the Khalifah's Court, and
brought [back] a covenant and a standard, was Amir Banji,
son of Nahārān.
The cause of his proceeding to the presence of the Lord
of the Faithful, Hārün-ar-Rashid, was this:-In the terri-
tory of Ghur there was a tribe who are called Shiṣāniān³,
5 And from him, too, we may suppose.
6 Jahan Ārā has Nahawan [and Nahādān], son of Wir-mesh [and War-
mesh], son of War-manshān; and Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh has Nahāwān,
son of War-mesh, son of War-mashan. Firishtah [Muḥammad Ķāsim, not
Briggs," who turns Shansabi into Shisty!], to judge from three or four
copies of the text, has made a terrible hash of these names; and, of course,
Dow scarcely ventures to meddle with them, but those he does interfere with
he succeeds, as with others in every place in his volumes, in making so ridi-
culous that their own mothers could not distinguish them. But what can be
expected of a translator who does not appear to have known what,,o
[mu'arrikhan, signifying "annalists, historians "] meant, which he, in his
innocence, styles "MOR CHAN, the historian" [vol. i. p. 131], and yet his work
is the great cabbage-garden for modern historians of India for the million!
7 One copy alone of the text has "Parwez, son of Parwez," but it is one of
the best copies I have.
8 Respecting this name there is not the least doubt: "Harnak" is not correct.
9 Another name for Utarid [Mercury] is Munshi.
''Harun-ar-Rashid, to whose court Amir Banji went, was the fifth 'Abbāsi
Khalifah.
2 See page 302, where Shansab is said to have been converted by the Khali-
fah, 'Ali, and to have brought back with him a covenant and a standard.
3 That is to say, the name of the tribe was Shis, and, when speaking of its
people, Shiṣān or Shiṣāniān.
F
THE SHANSABĀNĪAH DYNASTY OF GHÜR.
313
and they assert that, in the first place, their ancestor em-
braced the true faith, and then the Shansabāniān did; and
Muḥammad, in the dialect of Ghür, they call Hamad
[Aḥmad ?], and, after they had embraced Islām, they
became styled Hamadi [Ahmadi ?], that is to say, Mu-
ḥammadi. In the time of Amir Banji, the Mihtar [chief]
of the tribe of Shiṣāniān was an Amir named Shis,
son of Bahrām; and, in the language of the Ghūris, Shis
they call Shis", and this tribe they call Shisāniān, after
the name of this Amir. Now between Amir Shis and
Amir Banji, son of Naharan, dissension arose about the
lordship of Ghūr; and [in consequence] disturbance ensued
among the people of that territory. The whole agreed
together, on either side, that both the Amirs, Banji and
Shis, should proceed to the presence of the Khalifah, and
whichever should bring back from the Court of the Khilafat
a covenant and a standard should be accounted Amir.
Both disputants made their arrangements with the deter-
mination of undertaking their journey, and setting out.
towards the Dar-ul-Khilafat. The throne of the Khilafat,
at this time, was adorned by the radiance of the Lord of
the Faithful, Hārūn-ar-Rashid.
The chronicler relates that, in that country [Ghūr] there
was a merchant, a Yahūdi [Jew], [a follower] of the religion
4 By nearly every other writer of authority they are said not to have em-
braced Islām up to the time of Husain, son of Sām, son of Hasan, who was
made ruler of Ghūr by Mas'ūd-i-Karim, Sulṭān of Ghaznin. See page 321
and note 7.
I have several times mentioned that the various copies of the text collated
may be divided into two sets, which, in many places, differ considerably
in idiom. At this place, the oldest and best copies have Khamad [15],
Khamadi […], and Akhmadi [], and also at page 369, whilst the more
modern copies have Hamad, and Ḥamadi, with the exception of the I. O. L.
MS.No. 1952, which, at page 369, has Khamadi also. The points of letters are
often omitted in writing, and て ​might be written for but that should be
ż
although possible, is not so probable. Still I do not consider
myself quite justified in adopting the reading of the older copies, although the
Ghūrian tribes may have given the harsher sound of
written for
て
​•
وخ
خ
I certainly have
never met with a similar instance of the kind. We may suppose, with some
certainty, that the Ghūriāns merely adopted the other name of Muḥammad,
derived from the same root, namely Ahmad, by which the prophet is men-
tioned in the Ķur'ān [a matter which has been much discussed], and hence they
used Aḥmadi in preference to Muḥammadi. See page 369.
5 That is to say, the Ghūris did not correctly pronounce the s, lisped s
of the 'Arabs, but pronounced it as common s.
X
314
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĀṢIRĪ.
of Mihtar Mūsā [Moses], on whom be peace! This mer-
chant entertained a friendship for Amir Banji. He had
travelled a great deal, and had acquired great experience
in the ways of the world, and had frequented the capitals
of the rulers of the countries around, and had become
acquainted with the usages and forms of etiquette of the
Courts of Sultāns and Princes; and he set o in com-
pany with Amir Banji.
He was acquainted with the objects and intentions of
Amir Banji, and he said to him:-"If I should instruct
thee in etiquette, and make thee acquainted with the usages
of decorum and politeness, and give thee proper knowledge
of the forms and ceremonies observed at the Court of the
Khilafat, and in the presence of sovereigns, so that on that
account the authority and government of the territory of
Ghur shall be conferred upon thee, do thou enter into a
covenant with me, that, in every tract that I may desire,
throughout the whole of thy territory, thou shalt assign a
locality to, and cause to settle therein, a number of the
Bani-Isra'il [children of Israel], followers of the faith of
Mihtar Mūsā, in order that under the shadow of thy pro-
tection, and beneath the guardianship of thy Maliks and
thy offspring, they may dwell in peace and tranquillity.
Amir Banji, son of Nahārän, entered into a covenant with
that merchant of the Bani-Isra'il, and said:" When thou
teachest me the usages of politeness, and instructest me in
the rules of conduct and demeanour necessary to be ob-
served before princes, and in paying homage at the Court
of the Khilafat, I will fulfil the whole of thy requests, and
fully satisfy thy desires."
))
This covenant having been duly settled on both sides,
the merchant of the Bani-Isra'il commenced to instruct
Amir Banji in the polite usages necessary to be observed
before princes, and at the Courts of sovereigns, and the
requisite forms of respect and reverence needed at the
6 I would here call the reader's particular attention to the universal tradition
of the Afghāns, recorded in all histories of them, respecting their claim to
Israelitish descent. But they consider it an insult to be called Yahudis or
Jews, and declare that they are Bani-Isra'il. Many European writers declare
most energetically that such a descent is impossible. Perhaps if it had been
recorded in Greek, or merely mentioned by one of that nation, they would
have been equally energetic in the other way.
}
THE SHANSABĀNIAH DYNASTY OF GHŪR.
315
Khalifah's Court. The merchant likewise began to put in
order and make ready a dress for him, consisting of a tunic,
a cap, boots, and breeches, and to perfect him in riding and
in the mode of wearing his arms, in such wise, that his
rival, Shis, son of Bahrām, knew nothing whatever of all this
[preparation] until they arrived at the Khalifah's capital.
Shis, son of Bahrām, proceeded thither just as he was,
in the short Ghūrian garments which he was accustomed
to wear at home, whilst Amir Banji, son of Nahārān,
entered the Khalifah's capital in a dress befitting an Amir,
and becoming a great personage.
After they had been permitted to make their obeisances
before the Khalifah's Court, when a convenient opportunity
arose, each of the disputants represented what were his
objects and wishes, in a respectful manner, and with many
expressions of his devotion and loyalty, and stated to the
Wazir and the Ustad-ur-Raz-bān' the matter of the dis-
pute between them, and made fully known what were
their desires and requirements. The Lord of the Faithful,
Harun-ar-Rashid, after he had been pleased to peruse.
their statements, and his august consideration and atten-
tion had been drawn to their case, was pleased to regard
Amir Banji, son of Nahārān, with favour.
As Amir Banji was blessed with great good fortune,
combined with a most felicitous destiny, and his good
nature was adorned with gracefulness of manners, the Lord
of the Faithful was pleased to remark:-"Hazā Kasim,"
that is to say, "This Banji is good looking, has a noble
bearing, and appears endowed with the necessary qualifi-
cations of government and sovereignty, combined with
good looks and artlessness of nature. Let the whole of
the territory of Ghūr be made over to him, and let the
championship of the forces of the country of Ghür be
entrusted to Shis, son of Bahrām." Both of them were
invested with a robe of honour of the Dar-ul-Khilafat, and
these titles were bestowed upon them, and they took their
departure, and returned to Ghur again, according to the
command of the Khalifah's Court".
7 The Ustad-i-Rāz-bān was an officer who represented to sovereigns the
statements of persons who desired that their cases should be investigated by
the monarch himself.
8 Another author, who says nothing whatever about any Jew merchant,
→
X 2
:
316
THE TABAKAT-I-NĀṢIRĪ.
From that time forward, the title of the Shansabaniān
Sultāns, according to the august words of the Lord of the
Faithful, Hārūn ar-Rashid', became Kasim-i-Amir-ul-Mu-
minin—the Lord of the Faithful's handsome [one].
When these two personages returned to Ghur again, the
government of the territory [was assumed] by the Shansab-
ānis, and the championship of the forces by the Shiṣānis,
and that arrangement continued up to the present age
according to this settlement. The Sultans were all Shan-
sabānis, and the Champions, such as Mu-ayyid-ud-Din,
Fath-i-Karmakh', Abu-l-'Abbas-i-Shis, and Suliman-i-
Shis, were all Shiṣānis - the mercy of the Almighty be
upon the whole of them!
III. SŪRI, SON OF MUHAMMAD.
From the time of the government of Amir Banji up to
the present period' [of Sūri's rule], nothing was found in
relates that Amir Banji, having added considerably to his previous territory
by seizing other tracts, became one of the most powerful of the Maliks around.
He was famed for his noble qualities and disposition; and, during the Khilā-
fat of Harun-ar-Rashid, he proceeded to the Dar-ul-Khilafat. He was treated
with great favour on account of the successes which had been gained, by his
efforts, in the arrangement of the important affairs of the house of 'Abbas; and,
on beholding him, the Khalifah uttered these words: "Haza-Kasim," which
is to say "good looking;" and, consequently, he obtained the title of Kasim-i-
Amir-ul-Muminin. He returned to Ghūr again, with a robe of honour and a
patent of investiture.
The dominion over those parts continued in the posses-
sion of himself and his descendants until the time of Sūri, the son of Muḥam-
mad, who was one of Banji's descendants, and lived in the time of Mahmud of
Ghaznin.
9 No other Khalifah confirmed it, I fancy, if Hārūn bestowed it. By our
author's own account, they did not even assume the title of Sulṭān up to Saif-
ud-Din, Sūri's time. He was seventh after this Sūri.
بخج
and one has
پنجم
but Karmakh is correct.
1 Some copies have
2 Jahān-Ārā and Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh differ from our author con-
siderably here [he certainly acknowledges his want of materials] :-Sūri, son of
Muḥammad, was the grandson [farzand-zadah] of Amir Banji, and he flourished,
not in the time of Mahmud of Ghaznin, but in the time of the Suffarian.
Sūri's son, Muḥammad, was a contemporary of Maḥmüd's. The Rauzat-uș-
Ṣafã, Fasiḥ-i, and others also, state that Muḥammad, son of Sūri, was a con-
temporary of Maḥmūd; but that, when Sultan Mahmud got rid of Mu-
ḥammad, son of Sūri, ruler of Ghur, his grandson, Hasan by name, through
fear of the Sulṭān, retired into Hindūstān, with his family, and took up his
residence in that country. What reason there could have been for this, when
the father could stay, is not given. Some others, again, say that sometimes
Muḥammad, son of Sūri, would be obedient to Sultan Maḥmūd, and, at
others, in open revolt, as circumstances permitted, until, after some years,
THE SHANSABĀNĪAH DYNASTY OF GHŪR.
317
!
chronicles respecting the state of the country of Ghur that
could be particularly enlarged upon; and, as the compilation
of this TABAĶĀT was completed at the sublime capital,
Dihli-may its pre-eminence never decline!—and the king-
doms of Islam were thrown into convulsion through the
irruption of the Mughal infidels-the Almighty confuse
them and the country had become isolated, and the
extreme parts disturbed and unsettled, it was impossible to
copy from the history which the author had examined in
the territory of Ghūr³. As a matter of necessity that
which has been obtained from the Tarikh-i-Naşiri, and the
Tarikh of Ibn-Haiṣam-i-Sani, together with some tradi-
tions from the priesthood of Ghūr, have been [therefore]
recorded; and the author hopes that he may be forgiven
by those who look into the work [for any errors or short-
coming that may be found in it].
1
They thus state, that Amir Sūri was a great Malik, and
that most part of the territory of Ghur was under his juris-
diction; and, as in some parts of that country, such as
Zāwulistan, the people, both high and low, noble and
ignoble, were not [yet] exalted to the excellence of Islām,
they were, at that time, at continual feud one with another.
When the Ṣuffarian came out of the territory of Nimroz,
and advanced to Bust and the district of Dawar, and
Ya'kub, son of Lais, attacked Lakan the Lak", Amir of
partly by stratagem and partly by peaceful means, the Sultan succeeded in
securing Muḥammad, son of Sūri, whom he took along with him towards
Ghaznin, but that he died by the way, at Kidān. The Tarikh-i-Ibrahimi
gives a more trustworthy account, and which, if dates are examined, certainly
seems correct. For further particulars see note 7, page 321.
3 The history in verse composed by Fakhr-ud-Din, Mubarak Shah,
mentioned at page 300.
4 Great discrepancy exists in most of the copies of the text with respect to
this name.
Some have Walishtān, Waeshān, and Wālshiān; but two good
copies have Zawulistān very plainly written, and that may be considered the
correct reading.
5 Ya'ķūb-i-Laiṣ reduced Bust, Zamin-i-Dāwar, Ghaznin, Tukhāristān, and
other tracts in 256 H., and, in the previous year, fought an action with Tūk,
son of Muklas, in Kirman; but who Lakan the Lak [some copies have Lak-
Lak] was it is difficult to say. There is no mention of this matter in any
author with whom I am acquainted; but Lak is the name of a sept of nomad
Kurds, of which people there seems to have been a considerable number in
those parts at that time. There are some tribes dwelling among the Afghāns
to this day, erroneously supposed by Englishmen to be Afghans, who claim to
be Kurds.
..
318
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NAŞIRĪ.
:
Aytkin-ābād, which is the district of Rukhaj, the tribes
of the Ghūris fortified themselves on the summits of the
rocks, and remained in safety; but they used to be at
constant enmity with each other-the followers of Islām
and the unbelievers' so that they were in the habit of
keeping up a war from kūshk to kūshk', and lived in a
constant state of contention and strife.
1
Through the natural impregnability of the strong moun-
tains which are in Ghur', others [foreigners] used not to
subject them to their power; and the head of the whole
of the Shansabanis of Mandesh was Amir Süri'.
2
There are five great and lofty mountains in Ghūr, re-
specting which the people of Ghur are agreed that they
are the strongest mountains in the world. One of these
is Zār-i-Margh of Mandesh, at the foot of which mountain
is the kushk and capital of the Shansabānis, and they
[the people of Ghūr] contend that the Simurgh nourished
Zāl-i-Zar [Zāl, the ruddy-faced], who was the father of
Rustam, in that mountain. Some of the dwellers at the
skirt thereof maintain, that it was in one of the years be-
tween 500 H. and 600 H., when the sound of lamentation
and regret issued from that mountain, "Zal-i-Zar hath
passed away." The second mountain [range] has the name
of Surkh-Ghar³, and that also is in the Mandesh district,
• Some copies have Lātkin-ābād, but the above is the correct reading; but
Rukhaj-which is said to have been a district of the territory of Bust,
might be read Zaranj—¿,;—and I am almost inclined to consider the last
reading correct. All the copies of the text are more or less imperfect here.
One copy also says plainly that "the tribes of Ghūris sought shelter on the
borders of Sind," and this seems the preferable reading, but the majority of
copies are as above.
7 That is, those not yet converted to the Muḥammadan faith, and, probably,
some of the Bani-Isrā'il before referred to, and such tribes as have since retired
northwards towards Hindu-Kush, or have now nearly disappeared.
8 A kushk here means a fortified village, and also a castle, &c.
page 331.
See note 2
9 There would be considerable difficulty in finding "the mountains of
Rásiát, which are in Ghor," for a very good reason-that they do not exist.
The word “rāsiāt" is not a proper name, but the plural of "rāsiah,” which
strong mountains." See Elliot's INDIA, vol. ii. p. 284.
means
66.
From this statement it is plain, as in Baihaki's account farther on, that
Ghur was under several petty chiefs. Sūri was chief of Mandesh only.
2 The word koh, here used, may signify a mountain range, or a single
mountain.
It is impossible to fix the names of two of these five ranges with any
degree of certainty, for there are scarcely two copies alike out of the twelve
THE SHANSABĀNIAH DYNASTY OF GHŪR.
319
6
in the limits of Tajir-Koh. The third mountain is Ashuk,
in the district of Timrān, the size and altitude of which
is greater than that of any other part of the territory
of Ghūr; and the district of Timran is [situated] in its
hollows and [on] its sides. The fourth is the mountain
range of Warani, in the valleys and on the skirts of which
are the territories of Dawar and Walisht", and the kasr
of Kajūrān. The fifth is the mountain of Ro'en, in the
central part of Ghūr, of immense strength and altitude;
and they have stated that the fifth mountain [range] is
the Faj [defile, pass] of Khaesār³, the length, extent, and
loftiness of which is beyond the bounds of conjecture,
conception, and understanding. In the year 590 H., one
half of the trunk of an ebony tree was found at the sum-
mit of it, more than one thousand mans¹ in weight; and no
one was able to conceive how, or in what manner, it could
have been brought, or have fallen there.
9
7
collated. One, the very old copy I have often referred to, has
Surkh-Ghar, as above, which means the red mountain, and the next oldest
copy between which two words there is but a very slight difference.
سرحفر - سر حصر سرح The remaining copies have and the سرخف - سرحفز - سرحفر - سرحه
چین - تجين
like.
جين - تحر تجز تحیر تخر تخیر As many other copies have 4
غور و والشت
5 It is impossible to fix some of these names satisfactorily. Some copies of
the text havell Dawar and Wālisht, while others again leave
out the and altogether. The very old copy I have often referred 'to has
as written above; but another very old copy, one of the St. Petersburg MSS.,
has "Ghur and Walisht." This is somewhat remarkable, as
Baihaki mentions a Gūr-i-Walisht, as lying in the route between
Ghaznin and the fortress of Mandesh, in which stronghold Mas'ud of Ghaznin
confined his brother Muḥammad; and he also mentions, Walistān,
in connexion with Bust and Kuşdar. One of the Paris copies here has "the
district of; Zāristān," and leaves out Dāwar. Although so many
copies have Walisht, I am half inclined to read this part of the sentence thus-
".which are the territories of Dawar and Zawul که بلاد داور و زاولیست
6 Kaşr and Kushk have both one meaning: the first is 'Arabic and the last
Persian. See note 2, page 331.
7 From this remark it is evident our author does not describe these mountain
ranges from his own knowledge.
8 Faj is not a proper name: it means a wide and open route or road
between two mountain ranges; a pass. Khaesar is a well-known place, and
is mentioned in a number of places throughout the work, and therefore the
"Faj Hanísár" is as much a myth as the "mountains of Rásiát.”
9 The printed text, the I. O. L. MS. and the R. A. S. MS., have " a kaşr
[see meaning of kaşr, note 2, page 331] of the trunk of an ebony tree "!!
1 The man varies from forty to eighty pounds in different parts.
former probably is meant here.
The
320
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĀṢIRĪ.
IV. MALIK MUHAMMAD, SON OF SŪRĪ.
4
Abu-l-Ḥasan-ul-Haişam, son of Muḥammad-i-Nabi², the
historian, relates in this wise :-that, after the sovereignty
of Khurāsān and Zāwulistān passed from the Sāmānis and
Ṣuffāris, and devolved upon Amir Sabuk-Tigin³, he had,
upon several occasions, marched forces from Bust towards
the mountain [tracts] of Ghūr, and had put numbers to the
sword; and, when the throne fell to Amir Maḥmūd-i-
Sabuk-Tigin, the sovereignty of Ghūr had passed into the
hands of Amir Muḥammad, son of Suri', and he, having
brought the territories of Ghūr under his sway, sometimes
would pay obedience to the Court of Sultan Maḥmūd-i-
Ghāzi, and at other times would act in a rebellious manner,
and manifest a refractory spirit, and would withhold the
amount of tribute and arms stipulated; and, relying on
the faith of his strong fortresses, his power, and the
ample number [of his people], he used continually to show
hostility.
5
The heart of Sultan Mahmud, for this reason, was ever
2 Every copy of the text, with one exception, says "Nabi" here, instead of
Sāni, and therefore, as I previously conjectured, the correct name of the
history so often quoted must be the Tarikh of Ibn Haiṣam-i-Nabi, entitled
the Kişaş-i-Sāni.
3 See page 74, where our author says that Sabuk-Tigin took possession of
Ghur, together with Bust, Zamin-i-Dawar, Bāmiān, and all Tukhāristān.
Here we might have expected to have heard something of Alb-Tigin, Balkā-
Tigin, Abū 'Ali-i-Lawik, and Pirey. See note 5, page 71.
4 Our author is quite correct here [and Ārā and some others agree] with
regard to Muḥammad, son of Sūri, having been contemporary with Maḥmūd.
The reason why the great blunder has arisen that it was Sūri who lived in
Maḥmūd's time, is, that some authors and translators, in their simplicity,
thought the words "Muḥammad-i-Sūri” signified one man, instead of which
they mean Muḥammad, son of Sūri. Another matter I would also remark
upon :-Sultan Maḥmūd made raids upon the Afghāns in 411 H., and again
in 416 H., but they are never mentioned in connexion with the Ghüris by
Baihaki and such like trustworthy authors, a pretty good proof, were any
wanting, that, although the Afghāns are Paṭāns, the Ghūris are not, and never
were so accounted by any historian, nor by the Afghans nor Ghūris themselves.
It does not follow that, because a Tajik is called Sūri, he should be of the
Afghan clan of Sur, of the tribe of Lūdi, so styled from their progenitor
named Sūr, but not Sūri. It is a curious fact that the Afghāns are not men-
tioned by our author but once, towards the end of the work.
5 Ghür appears to have been famous in those days for the manufacture of
warlike weapons.
THE SHANSABANIAH DYNASTY OF GHŪR.
321
ī
on the watch, and, on account of his [Muhammad's, son of
Sūri,] numbers, his power and dignity, and the fact of the
great [natural] strength and altitude of the mountains of
Ghur, the Sulṭān used well to consider in his mind, until,
with a large army, he came into Ghür, and he [Muḥam-
mad, son of Sūri,] was invested within the fortress of
Ahangaran. Muḥammad, son of Sūri, held out the for-
tress for a considerable period, and defended it energeti-
cally; but, after some time, the stronghold was gained
possession of by his descending from it, on terms of
accommodation, and presenting himself before Sultan
Maḥmūd.
The Sultan took him, together with his youngest son,
who was named Shis, away to Ghaznin, because Amir
Muḥammad-i-Sūri entertained the greatest affection for
his youngest son, Shis. When they reached the precincts
of Kidan, Amir Muhammad-i-Suri died. Some relate
after this manner: that, when he became a prisoner,
through the proud spirit within him, he was unable to
brook disgrace. He had a signet-ring, beneath the stone
of which some poison had been set; and, at this time, he
availed himself of it, and died?.
6 Not mentioned in his account of the strong fortresses of Ghür, but there
was a place called Dih [village] of Āhangaran [Ãhangaran is the plural of
Āhangar, a blacksmith], near Ghaznin, and the river of Ahang, which flowed
past that city. 'Utba' also mentions it. See following note.
7 Before giving the accounts of other authors, I will first give an extract
from the Kitab-i-Yamini of 'Utba', as he was a contemporary of Maḥmūd, but
he seldom mentions dates.
He says, Maḥmud became greatly incensed against the tribes of Ghur, who
were unbelievers, on account of their waylaying caravans and levying black-
mail, thinking their hills and defiles impregnable. An army, consisting of
horse and foot, was assembled to punish them, and Altūn-Tash, the Ḥājib,
and Arsalān-i-Jāzib [called a Multāni, but it appears he had only held the
government of Multan] were appointed to the command. They set out, but
had such hard fighting with the Ghūris that Mahmud, finding they made little
progress, resolved to proceed in person, attended by a body of his Ghulams.
He succeeded in defeating them, and, after penetrating narrow passes and
defiles, made a road which enabled him to reach Ahangaran, the stronghold of
their Malik, who was called Ibn-i-Sūri [i. e. "Suri's son and thus he agrees
with our author, and others I have quoted, to the effect that the correct name
of this chief is Muḥammad, son of Sūri, son of Muḥammad. See also Bai-
haki's account farther on]. Sūri's son, with a force of 10,000 men, came out
of his stronghold, and, being intrenched behind walls [breastworks ?], and
availing himself of the ravines, hills, and broken ground, succeeded for half a
day in resisting all efforts to dislodge him. Mahmud had recourse to a
"
322
THE TABAKAT-I-NĀṢIRĪ.
Sultan Maḥmūd sent his [Muḥammad's] son, Shis, back
stratagem. He directed his troops to face about, as though about to give up
the contest and retire. This had the desired effect; and Sūri's son, the Hindu
[as 'Utba' calls him], came forth from his strong position to follow in pursuit.
The Sultan faced about, and defeated him. Sūri's son was taken, together
with great booty, consisting of arms and other war material.
Suri's son
subsequently poisoned himself by means of his ring, which contained poison.
'Uṭba' also makes a difference, as do all writers of any knowledge of their
subject, between Ghūris and Afghāns, and never confounds them.
Other writers contend that Muḥammad and his son, Hasan by name, not
Shis, were made captive by Maḥmūd, and imprisoned. Their place of con-
finement was the upper story of a tower, thirty ells from the ground, an aperture
of which faced the open country. Muḥammad gave himself up for lost, but,
not wishing that his family should be ruined, desired Hasan to make for
Ghur. He contrived to effect the escape of his son by tearing up the blanket
given him to lie upon, to make it into a rope, by means of which he lowered
Hasan to the ground, who escaped to Ghur. As soon as the Sulṭān became
aware of Ḥasan's escape, he put Muḥammad, the father, to death. Ḥasan
obtained the rule over Ghür, and had a son, Husain by name, who had seven
sons. This is the 'Izz-ud-Din, Ḥusain, the IXth chief of our author.
Jahān Ārā, Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh, and some others agree as to Muḥam-
mad, Sūri's son, having been made captive by Maḥmūd, but, like our author,
contend that he [Muḥammad] was succeeded by his son Abū-'Ali, who had
always been obedient to Maḥmūd, and that he was appointed to the chieftain-
ship of Ghur by that Sulṭān; and that afterwards Abū-'Ali was ousted by is
nephew, 'Abbās, son of Shiṣ [who had been taken captive with his father].
The chieftainship then passed into the hands of Muḥammad, son of 'Abbās,
then to Kutb-ud-Din, Ḥasan, his son, and then to the latter's son, Ḥusain, the
'Izz-ud-Din, Husain of our author. He, as well as other writers, does not
make any remark whatever upon Abū-'Ali's having been deprived of the chief-
tainship by 'Abbās, son of Shiṣ. In this case the line terminated in Abū-’Ali's
family, and passed to the younger branch, and thus the Ghurian Sulṭāns are
not descended from him at all, but from Shiş.
The Rauzat-uş-Şafă considers this statement weak, and quotes, as does also
the Ḥabib-us-Siyar and the Mir'āt-i-Jahān-Numā, another tradition to the
effect that when Maḥmūd marched an army into Ghur, and took Sūri
[Muḥammad, son of Sūri-Rauzat-uş-Şafă makes this blunder here, after
having previously called him by his correct name] captive, and put him to
death, his grandson [if such be correct, what became of the son ?] Hasan, with
his family, through fear of Maḥmūd, fled into Hind; and, as they had not yet
been converted to the Muḥammadan faith, they took up their residence in an
idol temple [in a Dharm-sālā perhaps]. This Hasan had a son named Sām,
who, after his father's decease, was converted to Islam. He proceeded to
Dihli, and followed the occupation of a trader [and, according to the Rauzat-
uș-Ṣafă only, used to carry goods from Hindustan to Ghūr, and bring other
commodities back from thence. This seems strange however, since, if he could
have gone back to Ghur in this way, his father surely need not have left it,
unless he liked]. He had a son named Husain, who was endowed with many
excellent qualities. After some years had passed away, and Sām had acquired
considerable wealth, the desire of returning to his native mountains induced
him to set out for Ghur. He embarked on one of the seas [the word used also
signifies a large river, which is probably meant here] of Hind, together with his
THE SHANSABĀNĪAH DYNASTY OF GHŪR.
323
to Ghūr again. He had [already] conferred the govern-
family and effects, on board a vessel which met with a contrary wind, which
raised a violent storm. The vessel and all on board, with the exception of
Husain, son of Sam, went to the bottom. Husain, when the ship was sinking,
succeeded in getting upon a plank or log of wood, and, at the very same time,
a lion [Dow calls the lion "his father," mistaking „…!
“his father,” mistaking for, or], which was
being conveyed upon the vessel's deck, also sprang upon it, and for three days
and nights Husain and his strange companion remained in this state upon the
log, at the end of which period they were wafted to the shore. The lion made
for a neighbouring forest, and Husain for a town near by. Being a stranger
and not knowing any one, and the time night, he went and lay down upon one
of the benches or platforms, which are to be found in front of almost all shops
in India, and fell fast asleep. The watch on going their rounds perceiving
him there, and, not knowing who he was, took him for a thief, and dragged
him away to prison, where he remained for about seven years. The governor
of that place having been attacked with a dangerous disorder, by way of atone-
ment, ordered all the prisoners to be set at liberty. Husain, son of Sām, by
this means obtained his freedom, and set out for Ghaznin. On the road
thither he fell in with a band of robbers, who, finding him a powerful and
intelligent youth, induced him to join them, and he was provided with a horse
and arms.
It so happened, however, not long after, that a band of troops in
the service of Sulṭān Ibrāhim of Ghaznin, which had been for some time on
the look out for the robbers, came upon them unawares, and made the whole
gang captive. They were brought bound into the presence of Sultan Ibrahim,
who directed that they should suffer death. One after the other several under-
went their sentence, until it came to the turn of Husain, son of Sam. While
the executioner was blindfolding him, he exclaimed, “O God! I know that
error is not agreeable to Thee, why then is it that I, although innocent, am
thus to suffer dath ?" These words affected the executioner, and the matter
was represented, through one of the Court, to the Sultan, who directed that
Husain should be brought before him. He stated his pitiful case to Ibrahim,
who, on hearing it, took compassion on him, pardoned him, and enrolled him,
in a subordinate office at first, among his chamberlains. When Sulṭān Mas'ūd,
surnamed the Reneficent, succeeded his father, Ibrahim, he conferred upon
Ḥusain, son of Săm, son of Muḥammad, [grand(?)]son of Sūri, the government
of the district of Ghur, and the title of 'Izz-ud-Din. Some say Ibrāhim gave
Husain a kinswoman of his own in marriage [our author states, at page 105,
that one of his own ancestors married a daughter of Sulṭān Ibrahim]. After
Husain's death, enmity arose between his descendants and Bahrām Shāh,
Mas'ud's son, as mcutioned by our author farther on, and as will be hereafter
noticed. Many authors very properly consider 'Ala-ud-Din to be the first of
the dynasty, and the dynasty to consist of five persons only, whose dominion
lasted sixty-four years, the others being merely accounted petty chieftains.
There can be no doubt whatever that the Ghūris were merely petty
mountain-chiefs up to the time of Sulṭān Maḥmūd of Ghaznin, and the extent
of country they dwelt in proves it; but, as the Ghaznawid dynasty declined,
the Ghūris waxed stronger and more independent after the decease of Mas'ūd-
i-Karim [the Beneficent], who gave the government of his native country to
Ḥusain, son of Sām, when the Ghaznawid empire began rapidly to decay.
Our author's desire at all times appears to be to glorify the Ghūris, and, there-
fore, the fact of their having been merely petty tributary chiefs did not chime.
in with his wishes. We find Maḥmud and his son Mas'ud continually passing
324
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĀṢIRĪ.
L
ment of Ghūr upon Muḥammad-i-Sūri's eldest son, Amir
Abu-'Ali, as will, subsequently, be recorded.
from Ghaznin to Balkh and Kabul, Ghaznin to Hindustan, Ghaznin to
Sijistān, and from Ghaznin to Hirāt, and thence up the valley of the Murgh-
āb; and Mas'ūd appears to have passed through Ghur to Ghaznin, when he
had to fly, after his defeat by the Saljūķs, and yet we hear not a word about
these powerful rulers of our author, although the Sultans must have passed
through the mountain tracts of Ghūr constantly-in fact the Sultāns of Ghaznin
held several fortresses in Ghur; and Tigin-ābād was in that very part, and
Muḥammad, brother of Mas'ud, was confined in the fortress of Nãe in
Wajiristan, one of the very districts mentioned by our author as forming part
of the Ghurian dominions. I think 'Utba' and Baihaki were more than likely
to have had thorough knowledge of these potent Maliks and sovereigns so
called, yet Baihaki and 'Utba' treat them as very petty chieftains, although
they held some strong fortresses. Our author quotes Baihaki constantly about
other matters, but not here in regard to what happened under his [Baihaki's]
own observation as it were; and this looks suspicious. I will now give an
abridged account of what he does say respecting Sultan Mahmud's proceedings
with respect to Ghur, and of the expedition undertaken by his gallant son,
Mas'ud, against some of its petty chiefs, during the time he held the govern-
ment of Khurāsān, before he succeeded to the throne of Ghaznin.
"In the year 401 H., Sulṭān Maḥmud went on an expedition into Ghūr
against the infidels of that part, by way of Zamin-i-Dawar, taking along with
him his two sons, Mas'ud and Muḥammad, both at that time in their fourteenth
year [they were not twins], and also their uncle [Maḥmūd's youngest brother],
Yusuf, then seventeen.
“These three young Princes were left in Zamin-i-Dāwar, with the heavy
matériel and baggage, and Maḥmud left them there because he considered that
district auspicious, it having been the first territory entrustedrio him by his
father, Amir Sabuk-Tigin. The narrator of the preceding and following events,
'Abd-ul-Ghaffār, says, 'my grandfather, who related this, was at that time in
the service of Batikin, the Zamin-Dāwari [i. e. of Zamin-i-Dawar], who was
governor of that district on the part of Sultan Maḥmūd, and he [my grand-
father] was directed to remain in attendance on the Princes.' [There is not the
slightest allusion either to Suri or his son here, although it is the year in which
his son Muḥammad is said to have been made captive by Maḥmūd] * * * *
In 405 H., Maḥmūd began to make raids upon Khawānin, which is a tract of
Ghur, adjoining Bust and Zamin-i-Dawar, in which were infidels exceedingly
tall and strong, and they held many passes and strong fortresses. On this
occasion the Sultan had taken along with him his son Mas'ud, and he then
greatly distinguished himself, and showed many proofs of his manhood and
valour. When a body of them [the infidels] retired for refuge to their strong-
hold, one of their chiefs was standing on a tower of the fort, and was acting
with great insolence and audacity, and galling the Musalmāns, when Mas'ud,
who was fighting on horseback, hit him in the throat with an arrow, and he
fell dead from the tower. The chief's companions became heart-broken at
this, and surrendered the fortress; and all this was accomplished by one
wound dealt by a brave hand. Amir Mahmud was delighted with his lion-like
son, and, whilst he was yet in his youth, made him his heir, for he knew that
after his own death there was no one able to maintain the dynasty but he. [See
note ¹, page 92.] ****
In 411 H., Mas'ud [he had been declared heir-
apparent, and appointed governor of Khurasan, with Hirāt as the seat of
4
THE SHANSABĀNÍAH DYNASTY OF GHŪR.
325
V. MALIK ABŪ-'ALĪ, SON OF MUHAMMAD, SON OF SŪRĪ.
Amir Abu-'Ali, son of Muḥammad-i-Sūri, was a man of
government] proceeded to Hirāt, and determined to undertake an expedition
into Ghūr.
!
"He set out from Hirāt, in Jamādi-ul-Awwal, with a strong force of horse
and foot, and five light elephants. The first march was to Badshān [one MS.
has Badshāhān], and the next to Khusan [one MS. Chashan or Chushan; but
several of these names cannot be considered certain, although all available
MSS. have been compared, and the printed text of MORLEY, which has been
carefully edited], and then to Barian [MS. Parāyān]. There a halt took
place to allow all the troops to come up, after which Prince Mas'ud marched
to Pār [MS. Bar], and from thence, after two days, to Nakhshab [MS.
Naḥshab or Niḥshab], and then to Bagh-i-Wazir, outside; and that Ribāṭ
[public edifice, a kārwānsarãe] is the commencement of the frontier of
Ghur.
"When the Ghūris became aware of this movement of Amir Mas'ud, they
retired to their strongholds and deliberated about making resistance. Before
he set out on this expedition, Mas'ud had conciliated Bu-l-Hasan-i-Khalaf [Bū
or Abu-l-Hasan-i-Khalaf would signify the father of Hasan, and son of Khalaf.
According to some authors already quoted the son of Muḥammad, son of Sūri,
was named Hasan. See para. 2, page 321], one of the most notable of the chief-
tains of Ghur, and had induced him [Bu-l-Hasan] to submit to his authority;
and it had been agreed, that, on the Amir's troops reaching that Ribāţ, Bū-l-
Hasan should present himself there with his forces fully equipped. On the
day Mas'ud reached that place, Bu-l-Hasan joined him with a considerable
force, amounting to 3000 horse and foot, and brought along with him nume-
rous offerings and contributions in the shape of shields, armour, and whatever
was most esteemed of the produce of Ghur. Mas'ud treated him with favour,
and he was followed by Sher-wan. This was another of the chiefs on the
frontier of Ghūr and Gūzgānān [pronounced and written Jūzjānān by ’Arabs],
and he too came attended by numerous forces, horse and foot. He likewise
had been conciliated by Amir Mas'ūd, and he brought along with him offerings
beyond compute. Amir Muḥammad [Mas'ūd's brother] had used the utmost
endeavours and contrivances to induce this chieftain to come and attach himself
to him, because his territory adjoined Muḥammad's appanage, which was Gūz-
gānān, but he had declined because people were more inclined towards
Mas'ud.
'Having been joined by these chiefs, Mas'ud resumed his march, but went
on in advance himself, slightly attended by about fifty or sixty ghulāms, and
200 foot, selected from each dastah or band. He reached a fortress which
they called Bar-tar, an exceedingly strong place, and garrisoned by a nume-
rous and well-armed force. He prepared to attack it, his party not being
patient enough to wait for the arrival of the army. He led the way himself,
followed by his ghulāms and the foot, and they shouted the takbir, on which
the accursed unbelievers [these Ghūris were not Muḥammadans] of this for-
tress of Ghur sprung up infuriated, and set up a yell sufficient to rend the
ground. Mas'ud ordered his ghulāms to take to their bows; and they kept
up such an effectual fire of arrows, that not a Ghūri dared show his head above
the walls, and this enabled the foot, by means of lassos [used up to a recent
326
THE TABAKAT-I-NĀṢIRĪ.
good disposition and excellent qualities, and was highly
commended for the excellency of his faith.
period] to assault one of the bastions. They effected an entrance, and drove
the Ghūris before them, and, being joined by the ghulams, completely cleared
the walls and bastions, making great slaughter among the unbelievers, and
taking a great number of captives and a considerable amount of booty of all
descriptions. After the fortress had been captured, he main body of the
troops arrived, and many were their praises and congratulations, that such a
strong fortress had been taken by such a mere handful of men.
"From thence Mas'ud marched towards the tract of Zarān [in one copy
of the original, Razān, but the first is the most probable], the people of which
agreed to pay taxes and tribute, and presented contributions in gold, silver,
and arms.
From that part to the district called Jarus [also Kharūs and
Ḥarus] where War-mesh-i-Bat dwelt, was a distance of ten farsakhs [leagues].
The Amir did not commence hostilities against this chief, War-mesh-i-Bat,
because he had sent an agent to the young Amir' tendering submission and
allegiance, and had promised that, when Mas'ud should return to Hirāt, he
would present himself before him, and enter into stipulations respecting tribute.
That district, and the place where this chieftain dwelt, were excessively strong,
and the most difficult portion of the whole territory of Ghur, its people the
most warlike and the strongest men in that part. It had been the capital of the
Ghūris in bygone times; and, whatever ruler held that tract, the whole of the
rest of the territory used to submit to him, up to the time that Amir Mas'ud
marched into that part of the country."
وراس and in another place ,[رمیش]
[There can be no doubt but that Baihaki, who was a native of the Ghaznin
district, and who wrote his work at Ghaznin upwards of a century before our
author composed his history, must have had a much greater knowledge of Ghūr
and its people; yet this extract makes the accounts of Ghur and of the Ghūris
more puzzling than ever. That the latter were not all converted-if any
were-to the Muḥammadan faith is clear, and it is also clear that up to this
time they were under several petty chiefs, independent of each other, though
perhaps nominally acknowledging the supremacy of the chief of Zarān, whose
But the name
place of residence had been the capital of Ghūr in bygone times.
of this chief is the most perplexing. In Morley's edition of the text of Baihaki
he is called Ra'is-i-Bat, or Tab [or], and, in a note, Ramish
A MS. in my possession has War-mesh
[,], but, the passage being so important, I sent it to Professor Rieu, of
the British Museum, who has been so very kind as to compare my translation
with another copy of Baihaki in the British Museum, and, from what the
Professor says, there is no doubt that the first name is War-mesh, and this is
remarkable, because this very name occurs among the names of the ancestors
of Amir Banji [see page 312], and occurs again at page 366. What Bat or Tab
may mean it is impossible to say. It might be part of but-parast [~~ ~]
idol-worshipper, infidel; but that all the known copies of the original should
have left part of the name out [Morley collated his edition of the text
with four or five copies] is improbable. The word is not Pus'hto, and
there is no Afghan tribe or clan of this name. Had the Ghūris been
Hindus instead of Tajiks, we might suppose it was a corruption of Sanskrit
Bhat, a hero, a warrior. I dare say, however, that some one will be able to
account for the name, and perhaps show to his own satisfaction that this chief
must have been one of the Bhați tribe of Jats now in the Panjab. We might
as well have Bhaṭis in Ghūr as "a fugitive band of Crusaders" from Palestine
1
:
THE SHANSABĀNĪAH DYNASTY OF GHŪR.
327
At the time when his father held the sovereignty of
in the army of Ghūris who conquered the upper provinces of India, according to
the interpreters of the poem of the Bard Chand-but I have forgotten myself.
Bat might be Pat, and that will be surely founded upon and shown to be part
of the word Paṭān, and can be made "Pathan,” “ Patan," or Pahtan," with
the greatest ease. If it were not a dangerous practice to tamper with proper
names, I should be inclined to read, Shis.]
+
46
"The Amir now despatched an intelligent person to this chief, and two
men of Ghur of the followers of Bu-l-Hasan-i-Khalaf and Sher-wan were sent
along with him to act as interpreters, with a message combining threats and
hopes, as is usual on such occasions. The agent departed, and the Amir
followed in his steps. The former, and the others with him, reached the place
in question, and he delivered his message to those arrogant fellows [sic], who
manifested great fierceness and defiance, and said that the Amir had made a
great mistake in imagining that either the people of that part or that district
were similar to those he had met with and had passed through; that he had
better come there, and he would find sword, spear, and stone [rock] ready for
him. This insolent message roused the ire of Mas'ud.
He halted his troops
for the night at the foot of the mountain, arms were distributed, and, at dawn,
the force moved forward. The drums and trumpets sounded, and the soldiers
began to ascend the heights, on which the Ghūris showed themselves like so
many ants or locusts on the tracts above them, horse and foot, all well armed,
and occupying all the paths and defiles leading to it, who raised shouts and
yells, and began casting stones with their slings, at Mas'ud's force.
be severe.
"The best of it was, that that mountain was somewhat depressed, and partly
composed of earth [not very rocky?] and accessible in every direction. The
troops were told off in parties, to advance by the different practicable paths,
and Mas'ūd himself kept parallel to them, for the fighting there was likely to
Bu-l-Hasan-i-Khalaf, and his men, were sent to the right, and
Sher-wan, with his contingent, to the left. The accursed ones evinced the
utmost daring, and pressed forward with impetuosity, particularly in front of
the Amir, and they disputed the greater part of the ground with determination.
The troops were hard pressed, and the enemy crowded towards the standards
of the Amir, and the fighting became desperate. [This reads something like
an UMBEYLAH expedition.] Three mounted warriors of the enemy succeeded
in getting close up to the Amir, who, perceiving them, smote one of them full
on the breast with his mace of twenty mans in weight [the man varies from
forty to eighty pounds], which laid him sprawling on his back, and prevented
his rising again; and the ghulams attacked the other two, and hurled them
from their horses. This was enough for the Ghūris, who gave way; but they
continued, now and again, to face about and dispute the ground, until a village
[town] was reached at the foot of the mountain [on the other side], and, on the
way thither, numbers were slain and made captive. The fugitives threw
themselves into this place, which was of vast strength, and contained
numerous kūṣhks [here kushk seems to mean a castle or fortified house],
after the manner of the Ghuris, and sent away to a stronghold, at a
distance in the rear, their women, children, and everything they could remove.
The unbelievers resisted obstinately up to the time of evening prayer, and
great numbers of them were killed, and numbers of Musalmāns were martyred
[Mas'ud's troops are referred to here]. When the night closed in, the un-
believers decamped, and the village [or town] was taken possession of by the
troops, who occupied themselves, throughout the night, in plundering it.
["At
328
THE TABAKAT-I-NAŞIRI.
Ghūr, and the mountain tracts of Mandesh, the whole of
8 This tends to show that Ghur and Mandesh were separate tracts.
“At dawn next day, the Amir again moved forward towards their [other]
stronghold, two leagues distant. He had to pass through a constant succes-
sion of defiles and passes, and did not reach it till the time of afternoon prayer.
They found a fortress, as they had been informed, stronger than any other in the
whole of Ghur, and no one recollected hearing that it had ever been taken by force
of arms. Mas'ud, having reached it, disposed his forces around this stronghold,
and, during the whole night, preparations were made for attacking it, and the
battering rams were placed in favourable positions.
""
I must here still further curtail this interesting account of the expedition for
want of space. Suffice it to say that breaches were made and bravely assaulted
and as bravely defended, the Amir being ever in front, and thereby inspiring
his men with strong hearts. After four days' very severe fighting, each day
increasing in severity, it was carried, at last, sword in hand, the Ghūris
defending every inch of the breach. Great numbers of them were slain and
taken prisoners, but the latter were protected on making their submission,
while slaves and booty to a vast amount were captured.
Mas'ud had it pro-
claimed that he gave up all gold, silver, slaves, and other booty to the troops,
but that all arms and war matériel taken was to be brought to him.
A great
quantity was accordingly brought and laid before his tent, and such as was
most valuable or rare he selected, and divided the rest among his soldiers.
Of the prisoners, one half was made over to Bu-l-Hasan-i-Khalaf, and the
other half to Sher-wan, for them to take to their own territories.
Orders were
also given to raze that stronghold, so that, from thenceforth, no rebel might
take shelter therein. When the rest of the Ghūris found what had happened
to the tortified town and the other stronghold, they began to fear, and became
submissive and willing to pay tribute and obedience; and even War-mesh-i-
Bat began to quake. He made intercession through Bu-l-Hasan-i-Khalaf
and Sher-wān, and sent an envoy, tendered his submission, and increased the
amount of tribute and contributions. His offers were accepted on the stipula-
tion that every castle he [War-mesh] had taken on the side of Gharjistān
should be given up. Although War-mesh ground his teeth at this, he could
do nothing else than agree, and those fortresses were given up to governors of
the Amir. Whilst the latter was still in Ghūr, that chief´sent in his contribu-
tions and offerings; and, subsequently, when Mas'ud reached Hirāt, War-
mesh-i-Bat presented himself at the Court, was well received, had a dress of
honour conferred upon him, and returned to his country along with the two
other friendly chieftains.
.
After the capture and destruction of the fortress above referred to, Amir
Mas'ud advanced against another, a famous place, and of vast strength, named
Tur [this name is doubtful, the variants are Būr and Nūr]. It was carried by
storm after a week's fighting and great slaughter, and the two friendly chiefs
took part in it. Mas'ud placed a governor of his own in the place, after which
he set out on his return to Hirāt. At Mār-ābād, ten farsakhs [leagues] from
that city, large quantities of arms and war matériel, as stipulated for by others.
of the Ghūris to avert molestation, were found already collected, together
with what War-mesh-i-Bat had despatched.
The narrator, 'Abd-ul-Ghaffar, then adds, that "no sovereign ever acquired
such power over Ghur as the martyr, Mas'ud, did; for, although the first
THE SHANSABĀNĪAH DYNASTY OF GHŪR.
329
the people had their eyes upon him, and affection towards
him was instilled into their minds. Notwithstanding that
his father used to act in a rebellious and contumacious
manner towards Amir Sabuk-Tigin, and his son, Sultān
Mahmud, Amir Abū-'Ali at all times used to manifest his
fidelity and allegiance towards the Sulṭān; and he was in
the habit of writing letters containing the expression of
his fealty and his affection, and despatching them to
Ghaznin, the capital.
When the contumacy and defection of his father went
beyond the bounds of forbearance, Sulṭān Maḥmūd
brought an army against him from Ghaznin; and, after
considerable effort, the Sultan succeeded in securing the
person of Amir Muḥammad-i-Sūri, and took him away
along with him towards Ghaznin, and bestowed the
government of Ghūr upon Amir Abū-'Ali, his son.
As soon as Amir Abū-'Ali became installed in the
government of Ghur, he conferred great benefits upon the
people, and directed the erection of many buildings of
public utility. Masjids and colleges were founded in Ghūr,
and he also built a Jami' Masjid, and liberally endowed
the whole of them. He held priests and ecclesiastics in
great respect, and considered it incumbent on himself to
venerate hermits and recluses.
During his time, the people of the territories of
Ghür dwelt in tranquillity and repose, and his brother,
Shis, son of Muḥammad, passed his days under his pro-
tection.
When the appointed period of Amir Abu-'Ali's dominion
came to an end, and the empire of Ghaznin [also] reverted
from Maḥmud to his son, [Sulṭān] Mas'ud, a son of Amir
Shis, 'Abbas by name, having attained great dignity and
power, broke out into rebellion, seized his uncle, Amir
Abu-'Ali, and reduced the whole of the country of Ghur
under his own sway; and the reign of Amir Abu-'Ali
came to a termination, and he died.
Musalmāns [the 'Arabs] conquered 'Ajam and Khurasan, they found it impos-
sible to enter Ghür; and, although Sultan Mahmud, on three separate occasions,
by the same route of Zamin-i-Dawar, attacked different frontier tracts of Ghūr,
yet he did not penetrate into the defiles and more difficult parts; still, it was
not through inability to do so, for his designs and objects were different to
those of his successor."
Y
330
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĀȘIRĪ.
VI. MÁLIK⁹ 'ABBAS, SON OF SHIS, SON OF MUHAMMAD,
SON OF SŪRĪ.
Amir 'Abbās was a warlike, intrepid, and pitiless man,
and endowed with great manliness, strength, and activity.
When he attained the full vigour of youth, and his whole
strength, he entered secretly into a compact with a party
of adherents and young men, and gained them over to his
own rebellious views. He then suddenly rose, and seized
his uncle, Amir Abū-'Ali, ruler of Ghūr, and imprisoned
him, and appropriated the whole of his uncle's property,
his treasures and his hoards, to himself. He was exceed-
ingly determined, cruel, and tyrannical; and lawlessness
and injustice were engrafted in his nature.
He commenced to act illegally, and began to seize
people's possessions and property, so much so that the
commonalty, and his own immediate followers, were quite
miserable, and became perfectly helpless in his hands, and
to such degree, that, for a period of seven years during
his reign, no animal-such as the horse, camel, cow, or
sheep-brought forth young, and the rain from the heavens
ceased to fall; and, according to one story, women also
did not bear children, through the ill-luck consequent on
his tyranny.
The chronicler thus states, that he possessed two fine
[and powerful] dogs, which were constantly kept fastened
by heavy chains, and iron collars round their necks. One
of these dogs had been named Ibrahim of Ghaznin, and
the other, 'Abbas of Ghūr. These animals used constantly
to be brought before him, and the chains to be removed
from them, and they were set to fight together. Whenever
the dog bearing his own name overcame the other, that day
Amir 'Abbas would make great rejoicings, and bestow
liberal presents; but, on days when the dog named
Ibrahim of Ghaznin gained the advantage [over his an-
tagonist], he would become infuriated, and greatly ill-treat
and torment people, and not a single person among his
favourites and attendants dared to say anything to him.
With all this tyranny and oppression, however, he was
• Two copies of the text style him Amir-ul-Kāmil—the perfect or thorough
Amir.
:
i
1
THE SHANSABĀNĪAH DYNASTY OF GHŪR.
331
i
gifted with a profound knowledge of astrology. He had
taken great pains with respect to that science, and had
shown vast perseverance and assiduity in its acquirement,
and had gained a deep knowledge of it. In the country
of Mandesh, in the Khittah [district] of Sangah, the origi-
nal fortress which Bustam-i-Zuḥāk had founded, he [Amir
'Abbas] directed should be entirely reconstructed; and
skilful artisans were obtained from parts around [for the
purpose]. The walls, after the manner of a parapet, were
carried from that castle, on two sides, to the strong ground
on the summit of the mountain of Zar-i-Margh; and, at
the foot of that mountain, on a knoll, a lofty Kasr [castle]
was directed to be raised, with twelve towers; and in every
tower, in likeness to the zodiacal circles in the firmament,
there were thirty openings-there were six towers towards
the east and north, and six others towards the west and
south-marked out; and these were so arranged that,
every day, the sun would shine through one of those open-
ings approximate to the position of its rise¹. By this
means he used to know in what degree of what sign of the
zodiac the sun was on that particular day; and this per-
formance indicates the proficiency and knowledge which
Amir 'Abbas had attained in the science of astrology.
During his reign, likewise, the Kaşrs of Ghūr were con-
structed, and plenty reigned throughout the country; but,
as people now abominated him for his excessive tyranny,
See the view of the Castle of Zuḥāk in SALE'S "Defence of Jalālābād,"
and also in HART'S "Character and Costume of Afghanistān." The view
› in the first-mentioned work answers tolerably well to this description. It is
much to be regretted that no effort was made to explore Ghur, even by means
of natives, or gain some information about it, during our occupation of Afghān-
istan. What a field it must be for archæological research!
2 The Persian word "kushk," and its 'Arabic equivalent, "kasr," signify
a palace, a large and lofty stone or brick building, a castle; but here "kaṣr"
means one of those fort-like villages, many of which, though on a smaller
scale than in past ages, probably, may still be seen in scores in the tracts west
of Kandahar and Ghaznin, as well as in other parts of Afghanistan. Our
author says above, that these structures "were constructed" in the time of
'Abbas, but of course many must have existed before, and his own statements
confirm it. He must mean that many more were constructed during the chief-
tainship of 'Abbas. Sometimes he uses the 'Arabic, at others the Persian
word. There are several places which were once fortified after the above
fashion still remaining in Afghanistan, such as Kūshk-i-Safed, Kūshk-i-Nā-
khūd, and others, but not "Khushk," as written by recent travellers. Khushk
signifies "dry."
Y 2
332
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĀŞIRĪ.
oppression, and injustice, and the empire of Ghaznin, and
throne of sovereignty, had passed to Sulṭān Razzi-ud-Din,
Ibrahim, son of Mas'ud, a party of the most powerful and
eminent men, and the nobles of Ghūr, despatched letters to
Ghaznin, imploring the Sultan's assistance.
In conformity with these solicitations, Sulṭān Ibrahim
marched a large army into Ghür; and, when he reached
it, the whole of the forces of Ghur went over to that
monarch, and they delivered Amir 'Abbās into the Sultan's
hands ³. He commanded that Amir 'Abbās should be
placed in confinement, and he took him away to Ghaznin,
and conferred the territory of Ghūr upon his [Amir 'Abbās']
son, Amir Muḥammad“.
VII. AMIR MUHAMMAD, SON OF 'ABBĀS.
When Sultan Ibrahim, son of Mas'ud, seized Amir
'Abbās, and sent him away to Ghaznin, at the solicitations
of the chief personages and eminent men of Ghūr, he made
over the country to Amir Muḥammad-i-'Abbās".
He was endowed with great good nature, was of ex-
ceeding amiability of heart, and of excellent disposition,
most just, conscientious, and merciful, a patron of the
learned, an impartial judge, and a cherisher of the weak
and helpless. In the place of every one of the odious and `
hateful proclivities towards inhumanity and tyranny which
were in his father, the disposition of the son was implanted
with a thousand amiable and admirable qualities.
3 These operations are not mentioned by other authors; but a few notice,
very briefly, that Amir 'Abbās carried on hostilities with Sultan Ibrāhim.
This too is pretty good proof, by our author's own account, that the Ghūris
were subject to the Sultans of Ghaznin; but, as the power of the latter
declined, consequent on the rise of the Saljuks, and after Mas'ud-i-Karim's
death, the Ghūris acquired more power. See top of next page.
Mu-
5 Which is impossible, if what other writers state as to Husain, son of Sām,
having been saved from shipwreck, and Ibrahim's son, Mas'ud-i-Karim,
having conferred the chieftainship on him, be taken into consideration.
ḥammad, son of Sūri, was taken prisoner in 400 H., or, according to some
accounts, in 401 H. From that time, up to 493 H., when Mas'ud-i-Karim
conferred the fief of the tributary province of Ghur upon Husain, son of Sām,
son of Hasan, son of Muḥammad, son of Sūri, none of this family held inde-
pendent sway over Ghūr. As already shown from the account of Mas'ud the
Martyr's expedition into it, it was held by several petty chiefs independent of
each other. See note 7, page 321.
}
THE SHANSABĀNĪAH DYNASTY OF GHŪR.
333
When the territory of Ghūr was assigned to Amir Mu-
ḥammad, the whole of the grandees, the chiefs, and most
distinguished personages of the country, submitted to his
authority; and, to the best of his ability and power, he
began to labour and study to revive and restore the ob-
servances of goodness and utility, and the laws and usages
of benevolence, beneficence, and justice. He used to ren-
der homage to the Sultāns of Ghaznin with heartiness and
loyalty, and pay them submission and vassalage, and used
to despatch the fixed tribute regularly. ·
During his reign the gates of repose and tranquillity were
opened to the people of Ghūr, and they all passed their
days in the enjoyment of peace and security; happiness
and plenty reigned; and his country, his people, and his
retainers dwelt for a long while in the enjoyment of compe-
tency and affluence, up to the period when he passed away
and was received into the mercy of God.
VIII. MALIK KUTB-UD-DĪN, AL-HASAN, SON OF
MUHAMMAD, SON OF 'ABBĀS.
Malik Kutb-ud-Din, Hasan, the grandfather of the great
Sultāns of Ghür, was a just Amir, high-principled, and of
handsome countenance. The proofs of his goodness, equity,
clemency, and beneficence were sufficiently obvious and
manifest to the inhabitants of Ghūr.
Such factions as were in the habit of acting contuma-
ciously he used to occupy himself in chastizing and
overthrowing, and considered it incumbent on himself to
punish severely the disaffected and seditious. The tribes
of the territory of Ghūr, having sprung from families of
'Arabs, and having been nurtured, and grown up, in a
6 According to the statements of other authors given in noté 7, page 321, the
grandfather of the Sultāns of Ghūr, that is to say, of Sulṭān 'Alā-ud-Din, and
his brothers, was Hasan, son of Muḥammad, son of Sūri, who was let down
from the tower by his father, and who had a son, Husain, the IXth chief
mentioned by our author. But, according to the other tradition quoted by
Rauzat-uş-Şafā, Ḥabib-us-Siyar, and other histories, in the same note, their
grandfather would be Sām, son of Ḥasan, grandson of Sūri, who was drowned.
See note 4, page 335, in which it is stated that "Husain, son of Sām, of the
race of Sūri," was taken captive by Sulṭān Sanjar in 501 H.
7 See note, page 320.
The Afghans have, certainly, as well as other
mountain tribes, behaved at all times in the manner mentioned here, but so
334
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĂŞIRĪ.
mountainous tract of country, obstinacy, turbulence, and
contumacy were implanted in the constitutions and cha-
racters of the whole of the Ghurian tribes. Feuds and
contentions would continually arise of one tribe against
another, and conflicts constantly ensue. Every year one
district or another of the territory of Ghūr would manifest
antagonism [to the constituted authority] and withhold the
payment of the regulated amount of revenue; and up to
[near] this present time, when the dominion of the Ghurian
Sultāns came to its termination, the state of these peoples
continued to be seen and witnessed [after the same fashion].
8
Upon one occasion, during the time of Malik Kutb-ud-
Din, Ḥasan, a tribe who dwelt in Tak-āb of the territory of
Wajiristan, rose in rebellion. Malik Kutb-ud-Din, with his
followers and the chiefs of Ghūr, appeared at the foot of
that Kushk and the stronghold of that faction, and sum-
moned them to surrender. They refused to submit, and
commenced hostilities. Unexpectedly, by destiny's decree,
an arrow from the bow of fate came from the rebels and
struck Malik Kutb-ud-Din in the eye, and, as it had
wounded a mortal part, he died from the injury. His
retainers and followers, immediately on seeing the effect of
that arrow's wound, with the utmost daring, and putting
forth all their energy, attacked and carried the Kushk and
stronghold by storm, and put the whole of the rebels to
the sword, and that place was completely destroyed. Up
have the people styled Kohistanis, who inhabit the valleys immediately north
of Kābul, and also the Baluchis, and they [the latter] have not yet, I believe,
been quite made Paṭāns of, although some progress has been made towards it.
Such conduct seems inherent in all mountain races, whether in the east or in
the west.
8 There is a river and valley of Tag-ão, or Tag-ab, in Afghanistān, but to
them cannot possibly be referred the locality indicated here, for they are some
sixty miles to the eastward of Kabul. I think the translation of this compound
word may throw some light on its whereabouts. The word "Tak-āb,” or
"Tag-ab," both of which forms are correct, also the forms in use among natives of
those parts-Tak-ão and Tag-ão, and Āb-i-Tang—are described by an old author
as "ground furrowed by water [a ravine or series of ravines], a defile, a valley
between two mountains, and ground, whether in a valley or not, in which,
here and there, water collects and remains, and in some places flows, and in
which there is pasture and much verdure. They are also used for the name
of a territory, and there is a small district so named." I think the place
alluded to by our author is not far from Ab-Istādah, but more to the west.
Wajiristān has been often mentioned in the account of the Ghaznawids.
*
THE SHANSABĀNĨAH DYNASTY OF GHŪR.
335
to the time of the last of the Sultāns of Ghūr, and the
termination of the sovereignty of the Shansabānis, no king
would grant permission for the restoration of that Kushk,
its equipments, and the suburbs of that place, with the
exception of the Kushk of Amir Kharnak, which was
in that Ab-i-Tang, for his ancestors had always been
obedient".
When Kutb-ud-Din, Ḥasan, departed this life, his son,
Amir Husain, succeeded him.
}
IX. MALIK 'IZZ-UD-DĪN, AL-HUSAIN, ABŪ-UŞ-ŞALATAIN¹,
SON OF KUTB-UD-DIN AL-HASAN.
Malik 'Izz-ud-Din, Husain, was a sovereign upright, of
handsome countenance, devout, and endowed with all good
qualities, and distinguished for his many virtues. During
the period of his rule, the territory of Ghur and the Bilad-i-
Jibāl³ [mountain country] were populous and prosperous;
and the tribes and inhabitants of those tracts enjoyed ease
and content, and, under his protection, lived in safety and
security. Priests, recluses, and holy men, and the whole of
the people, without interruption, attained the fulfilment of
their requirements and desires in an abundant degree.
The Almighty God blessed his devoutness and good dis-
position by bestowing upon him seven sons, the fame of
whose sovereignty and dominion became published through-
out the seven climates of the world. Of these sons four
attained unto empire and dominion; and from them
descended sons of renown in the world, who became
9 Discrepancy more or less exists among all the copies of the original here.
The oldest and most trustworthy are as above. The Paris copies too are
defective, and in one copy the last part of this sentence runs :—“No sovereign
set about the restoration of that Kushk, except Amir Kharnak, who was in
the neighbourhood of that Ab-i-Tang, and those parts were obedient to
him."
1 One of the oldest copies has "Abu-l-Mulūk" here, instead of Abū-uṣ-
Şalaṭain.
2 See note¹, page 320, and note 5, page 332. 'Izz-ud-Din, the title, signifies
"Glory, &c., of the Faith," but "A'iz-ud-Din" nothing, for it is meaning-
less.
Husain also is his correct name, confirmed by numerous other authors,
and Hasan was his father's name, as qur author states.
3 Ghur is mountainous enough, surely, as well as the Bilad-i-Jibal. From
our author's statement, however, they are separate tracts of country.
336
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĀṢIRĪ.\·
sovereign princes, as will be subsequently narrated and
recorded.
4
This Malik 'Izz-ud-Din, Husain, was firmly attached to
and in amity with, the Sanjari dynasty and the Saljuki
sovereignty; and every year he used to despatch to the
court of Sultan Sanjar such things as had been customary
and established, such as armour, coats of mail, steel caps,
and other equipments, and war material. There is also
4 His "attachment to the Sanjari dynasty" may also easily be accounted
for. In 501 H., Sulṭān Sanjar, whilst in charge of Khurāsān, nine years before
he became supreme ruler of the Saljuk empire, fought a battle with the
Maliks [here a further proof that there were several petty chiefs] of Ghur, who
were of the race of Sūrī, and Ḥusain ['Izz-ud-Din, Husain, of our author], son
of Sām, was made prisoner. Sulṭān Sanjar ordered him to be put to death;
but, at the intercession of the celebrated Shaikh Ahmad, Ghazzāli, the Sultān
of Masha'ikh, as he is styled, he was spared, and set free. For two
For two years he
used to light the fires of the cooks of the Sultan's army, until, one day, the
Amir of the troops of Khurasan, 'Imad-ud-Daulah, Ķimāj, chanced to meet
with him. He took compassion on Husain, and represented his case to the
Sultan, who directed that Husain should be brought to his presence. When
he was admitted, he kissed the ground of the Sultan's court. Sanjar said to
him :-"I understand that thou hast neither wealth nor power left to thee,
notwithstanding thou wast a chief and leader. Has neither kindliness nor
sympathy been left to thee?" Husain replied:-"When this head was my
own head, I had the good fortune to be attended by a thousand servants, but
now that it belongs to thee, thou keepest me thus wretched and abject.”
Rashid-ud-Din, who also relates this anecdote [but, strange to say, under the
account of his son, 'Ala-ud-Din, although he calls him Husain too, and leaves
out all mention of the first part of the name, 'Ala-ud-Din], says that Husain
wandered about the Sultan's camp for two years as a mendicant [our author
would scorn to relate this, as it did not tend to the glorification of the Ghūris,
and their slaves, his patrons], when "one day Amir Ķimāj was passing the
shop of a cook, he chanced to notice Husain, who was attending the fire, and
watching the cook's pot." When admitted to the presence of the Sulṭān,
Rashid-ud-Din says the Sulṭān thus addressed Husain :-"I gather that thou hast
neither wealth nor power left to thee: hast thou not the means and the power
of keeping one head and face clean ?" The rest of the anecdote agrees with
Faşiḥ-i, related above.
Sultan Sanjar was touched, took pity on him, pardoned him, and sent him
back to his native country attended by a large following; and to the end of
his days Husain paid obedience to that monarch.
Faşiḥ-i further states that "Husain, son of Sam, who escaped drowning,
and the sword of the executioner," only died in 545 H. He ruled that terri-
tory justly; and, up to his time even, great numbers of the inhabitants of the
mountain tracts of Ghur had not been converted to Islām, but were made
converts of by him. This Husain, the same chronicler states, was succeeded
by his son, 'Ala-ud-Din, Husain, in that same year. For further particulars,
see under 'Alā-ud-Din, note 2, pages 347 to 350.
5 Ghūr, and mountain tracts around, appear to have been famous for the
manufacture of arms and armour; and iron mines must have been worked therein.
THE SHANSABĀNĪAH DYNASTY OF GHŪR.
337
a remarkably fine breed of dogs in Ghūr, so powerful that,
in frame and strength, every one of them is a match for a
lion. A number of this breed of dogs, with valuable
collars round their necks, Malik 'Izz-ud-Din, Husain, was
in the habit of sending to the Sultān's [Sanjar's] presence ;
and he used to receive in return dresses of honour and
many valuable presents.
Malik 'Izz-ud-Din likewise was wont to keep on terms of
amity and friendship with the Sultans of Ghaznin'; and
for a considerable length of time the government of the
territory of Ghur was held by him up to the period when
he died.
He had [as before stated] seven sons, the eldest of whom
was Malik Fakhr-ud-Din, Mas'ud, of Bāmian, but an ac-
count of whom will be contained in another chapter on the
Sultāns of Bāmiān, which will commence with a mention of
him, and be therein recorded.
The names of his sons are as follow:-Malik Fakhr-ud-
Din, Mas'ud, Amir of Bāmiān and Tukhāristan; Sulṭān
Baha-ud-Din, Sām, Amir of Ghūr and Firuz-koh; Malik-
ul-Jibal, Kutb-ud-Din, Muḥammad, Amir of Ghur, and
Firuz-koh; Sultan Saif-ud-Din, Sūri, sovereign of Ghūr
and Ghaznin; Sulṭān 'Alā-ud-Din, Husain ³, sovereign
of Ghur, Ghaznin, and Bāmiān; Malik Shihāb-ud-Din,
8
6 This fine breed of dogs, or rather one very similar, still exists among the
Ghalzi tribe of Afghāns, who trace their descent on the father's side only from
the son of a chief of Ghur, whom their traditions style Shah Husain; but he
fled from Ghur, and took shelter among the Afghāns at a much earlier period,
in the time of the Khalifah, 'Abd-ul-Malik, son of Mirwan, who reigned from
66 H. to 86 H. He was adopted by an Afghān Shaikh; but the names of his
ancestry, as mentioned by the Afghan historians, do not agree with those
mentioned by our author. This Shah Husain's grandfather, according to
them, was forty-ninth in descent from Zuḥāk. Had not the names and the
dates been so very different, I should have been inclined to consider Shāh
Husain of the Ghalzis, and the Husain of others, who was saved from ship-
wreck, and received the fief of Ghūr from Mas'ud-i-Karim, as one and the
same person.
7 Sulṭān Mas'ūd conferred the sovereignty upon ['Izz-ud-Din] Husain in
493 H., the year after the decease of his own father, Sultan Ibrahim. It is
no wonder he kept on good terms with his suzerains. Faşiḥ-i says he died in
545 H., and that this was the same Husain, son of Sām, and one of the
kindred of Muḥammad, son of Sūri. See preceding page, note. It is strange,
but several of the best copies of the text have “Sultāns of Ghūr and Ghaznin
here.
8 In two copies he is here styled Sultan 'Ala-ud-Din-i-Sām,
338
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĂŞIRĪ.
Muḥammad, Kharnak, Malik of Mādin of Ghūr; and Malik
Shuja'-ud-Din, 'Ali, Amir of Jarmās' of Ghūr.
༈
X. MALIK-UL-JIBAL, ĶUTB-UD-DĪN, MUHAMMAD, SON OF
['IZZ-UD-DĪN] AL-HUSAIN.
Of the seven sons of Malik 'Izz-ud-Din, Husain, the
eldest among them all was Malik Fakhr-ud-Din, Mas'ud,
of Bāmiān, mention of whom will be made in the other
chapter [referred to previously], the foundation of the dynasty
of the Sultāns of Bāmiān dating from the rise of his power¹.
His mother was a Turki handmaid; and after him, in suc-
cession [in age], came the Malik-ul-Jibal [the Lord of the
Mountains], Kutb-ud-Din, Muḥammad. His mother was
a woman who was of no high descent, and was the Ḥajibah
[Chamberlain] and attendant of the mother of the other
9 Soine copies have Ḥarmās, and some Barmās.
1 This was the proper place to have separated these dynasties, as this chief
was the first of the rulers of Ghūr and Firūz-koh after the patrimony had been
divided. This has been done by other writers, but they make Ķutb-ud-Din
the first of the dynasty of Ghūr and Ghaznin, and his brother, Saif-ud-Din,
Sūri, second. Had our author given an account of Saif-ud-Din second, as in
the order of the events, instead of last, he would have saved his readers some
perplexity and trouble.
2 So far, other writers agree pretty well with our author, but here consider-
able difference arises. The Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh, quoting other authors,
says, that Kutb-ud-Din, Muḥammad, who is known as the Malik-ul-Jibal
[Lord of the Mountains], was sent for by Bahram Shah of Ghaznin-after he
had made an accommodation with the sons of 'Izz-ud-Din, Ḥusain—and that
he made him his son-in-law; but, through his having been suspected of a
crime, he was removed by poison. This is said to have been the first enmity,
that arose between the Ghaznawids and the Ghūris, but such is not correct, as
already shown. Jahān-Ārā agrees with the above, however, with this excep-
tion, that, in the latter, it is stated that he, the Malik-ul-Jibal, came from
Ghur and presented himself at the Court of Bahram Shah. The Tarikh-i-
Ibrāhimi, and some others, however, agree more with our author's statement,
and say, that Malik Saif-ud-Din, Sūri, on the death of his father, 'Izz-ud-Din,
Husain, succeeded to the dominion of Ghūr, and divided the patrimony among
his brothers, one of whom [Kutb-ud-Din, Muḥammad] became irritated with
his brothers, and went to the Court of Bahrām Shāh, who put him to death
for some reason; and this caused enmity between the two houses. The
Rauzat-uş-Şafă and some others, however, consider this statement very weak,
and quote the tradition which I have already given at page 321, note 7, and
state, that, after the death of Husain, enmity arose between his descendants
and Bahram Shāh of Ghaznin, and hostilities took place between them upon
several occasions, which will be subsequently referred to.
>
J
THE SHANSABĀNĪAH DYNASTY OF GHŪR.
339
3
sons, the Sultāns, namely, Sulṭān Sūri; Sulṭān Bahā-ud-
Din, Sām; Sulṭān 'Ala-ud-Din, Husain; Amir [Shihab-
ud-Din] Muḥammad; and Amir [Shuja'-ud-Din] 'Ali¹,
the other sons of Malik 'Izz-ud-Din, Al-Husain.
5
When Malik 'Izz-ud-Din, Husain, who was the father of
the Sultāns, departed this life, Sulṭān [Saif-ud-Din] Sūri, in
succession to his father, ascended the throne and divided
his father's dominions among his brothers. An account of
Sultan Sūri will, please God, be given in the chapter on the
Sultāns of Ghaznin.
6
In this division, the territory of Warshādah was assigned
to the Malik-ul-Jibāl, Ķuṭb-ud-Din, Muḥammad, and there
he fixed his seat of government. Subsequently, it so hap-
pened, that he had to seek for a [suitable] place in which to
found a strong fortress and a handsome city, such as would
be suitable to his dignity. He despatched persons on
whom he could depend into the parts adjacent, until [at
length] his opinion led him to fix upon the position of Firūz-
koh, and he founded the fortress and city of Firuz-koh'.
8
Sulṭān Sūri made the fortress and town of Istiah his
capital, and to Malik Naşir '-ud-Din, Muḥammad, Mādin
3 Styled Sulṭān without reason: Malik is his correct title, as given at the
head of this notice in the copies of the text.
4 These two last, here styled Amirs, are the sixth and seventh sons men-
tioned over leaf, viz. Malik Shihab-ud-Din [called Naşir-ud-Din subsequently],
Muḥammad, and Malik Shuja'-ud-Din, 'Ali, the XIIth and XIIIth of the family.
5 See note, page 336.
6 Some few copies have Warshād, and Warshār.
7 In several other places our author mentions "the territory of Ghur and
the Bilad-ul-Jibal," thus indicating that they were separate; and yet Firūz-koh
was the capital of the' Bilad-ul-Jibāl, and in his account of the division of their
father, 'Izz-ud-Din, Al-Husain's, territory, and the names of the districts, the
whole appear included in Ghur, of which Firuz-koh was the capital! The
mention of the places shows the extent of the territory held by these chiefs-the
mighty monarchs of our author. It is a curious fact, and a very important
one, that the name of Kandahār never once occurs in our author's work. It is
not strange, however, because Kandahār is a comparatively modern place, and
is not mentioned by contemporary writers, under that name at least, until very
many years after our author's time. Tradition says that Kandahār stands a
few miles east of an ancient city named Waihind; and Masson also refers to
it, but calls it Vaihund. Can this be the place the idol-temple of which fell
on the night of Maḥmūd of Ghaznin's birth ?
8 Other old writers call this place "Istia, which is the name of one of the
mountains of the range between Ghaznin and Hirāt," and give the vowel
points. The Burhan-i-Ķāṭi' also confirms it.
9 There is no son of this name among those previously mentioned. Pro-
340
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĀṢIRĪ.
was given. Bahā-ud-Din, Sām, had the district of Sangah,
which was the capital of Mandesh, assigned to him; and
the district and castle of Wajiah' were made over to Sultān
'Alā-ud-Din; and the probability is that the territory of
Kashi [or Kashā] was fixed upon for Malik Fakhr-ud-Din.
By heaven's decree, however, contention arose between
the Malik-ul-Jibāl [Kuṭb-ud-Din, Muḥammad], who was at
Firūz-koh, and the other brothers; and the Malik-ul-Jibāl
became indignant with his brothers, and withdrew to
Ghaznin; and it was [at. this time] the reign of Bahrām
Shah. This Malik-ul-Jibal was endowed with great beauty
and comeliness, and urbanity to perfection. When he
reached Ghaznin he opened the hand of munificence and
liberality; and affection for him, according to the saying,
"Man is the servant of kindliness," began to take root, in
people's hearts, and became firmly established. The in-
habitants of Ghaznin entertained a great liking for him,
but a number of envious persons set upon him, and had it
represented to Bahrām Shāh that he [the Malik-ul-Jibal]
was, with treacherous eyes, regarding that sovereign's haram
[some female or females of his family], and was expending
his property liberally, with the object of rising against him
[Bahrām Shāh]. The latter issued commands to administer
to him, secretly, poisoned sharbat [which was done], and he
died; and they, moreover, buried him at Ghaznin. On
this account, enmity and hatred arose between the Maḥmūdi
family 2, and the family of Shansabi, and the race of Zuḥāk ³.
When the account of what had befallen Kutb-ud-Din
reached Sultan Suri's hearing, he marched an army to
Ghaznin and took that country, às will be hereafter re-
corded, since, although this was the place for mentioning
4
bably, Shihāb-ud-Din is meant, or, otherwise, Shihāb is a mistake for Nāṣir ;
but there is a Malik Naşir-ud-Din, Husain, son of Muḥammad, mentioned
immediately after Bahā-ud-Din, Sām, at page 343, which sée.
قلعه دختر One of the Paris copies has 1
وجته One copy has دختر have read
the Maiden's Castle-but the
majority, including the oldest copies, have, and some have, which
a copyist may have read, One
2 Their enmity, according to other authors, appears to have had a different
origin. See under 'Ala-ud-Din, Husain, page 347.
3 All the copies collated agree with regard to this part of the sentence-“the
race of Shansabi and the race of Zuḥāk.”
4 Four different verbs are used in the different copies of the text in this
sentence, although the signification conveyed is much the same.
THE SHANSABANĨAH DYNASTY OF GHŪR.
341
and recording the proceedings of Sultān Sūri, still, as
Sulṭān Sūri was the first person of this family who assumed
the name of Sulṭān, and the first to ascend the throne of
Ghaznin, an account of him will, please God, be given in
another chapter, at the beginning of the history of the
Sultāns of Ghaznin.
XI. SULTAN BAHĀ-UD-DĪN, SAM, SON OF 'IZZ-UD-DĪN,
AL-HUSAIN 5,
When the Malik-ul-Jibal retired to Ghaznin [as pre-
viously related], and left the buildings of the city of Firūz-
koh in an unfinished state, Sultan Baha-ud-Din, Sam, came
from [the territory of] Sangah to Firuz-koh, and went on
with the building of the city and fortification, and brought
to completion those edifices and the royal palaces. He
also commanded the erection of the fortresses of Ghur,
and contracted alliance and entered into amity with the
Shārs of Gharjistān. He ascended the throne of Firuz-koh
in the year 544 H. When the construction of the capital of
Firuz-koh was completed through his propitious auspices,
he gave directions for the construction of four strong for-
tresses on the confines of the territory of Ghūr, Garmsir,
Gharjistān, and the mountain tract of Hirāt, and the Kaṣr
5 In some copies the names of his children follow immediately after his
name and title.
6 The Shars of Gharjistan, who had for many years acknowledged the
suzerainty of the Sāmānis, had submitted to the suzerainty of Sultan Maḥmūd
as early as 389 H. The Shār, Abu Nașr, son of the Shār, Rashid, and Abū-
Nasr's son,
the Shār, Abu Muḥammad, acknowledged the Sultan's suzerainty
in that year, and read the khutbah for him, and impressed his name and titles
upon their coin. In 405 H. the Shār, Abū Nasr, who had become disaffected,
was seized and imprisoned by Maḥmud's command-his father, Rashid, is
said to have solicited protection some time before, and it was granted ['Utba'
agrees, and says "he went into retirement "]; and he had presented himself at
Court. The Sultan purchased from him [the Shar] his possessions in Ghar-
jistān, and had made over the price in money to him. This was one hundred and
forty-six years before the time our author says Baha-ud-Din, Sām, became
ruler. The Shār, Abū Nașr, died in prison, at Hirāt, in 406 H., after which
the Shārs are not mentioned by other writers.
7 Baha-ud-Din died in 544 H., the same year in which he succeeded. His
brother, Sūri, had been put to death, and Bahrām Shāh of Ghaznin had died
the previous year.
Our author's mode of arrangement here causes confusion.
Baha-ud-Din is the third of the dynasty of Ghur and Ghaznin, and only
succeeded after Saif-ud-Din had been put to death. See also the Kitāb-al-
Yamini of Al-'Utba'.
342
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĀṢIRĪ.
}
of Kajūrān in the district of Garmsir and Ghūr, the fortress
of Sher-Sang in the mountains of Hirāt, and that of Bindār
[or Pindar], in the hills of Gharjistān, and Fiwār, between
Ghärjistān and Fāras [or Bāras].
After the martyrdom of [Saif-ud-Din], Sūri [yet to be
mentioned], as Sulṭān Bahā-ud-Din was the eldest of the
five brothers [styled Sultans], the sovereignty of the king-
dom of Ghur devolved upon him. The Malikah of Kidān,
who was also of Shansabani lineage, the daughter of Malik
Badr-ud-Din of Kidān, was married to him, and Almighty
God blessed him with two sons and three daughters by that
Malikah of high descent. The sons were Sultan Ghiyāṣ-
ud-Din, Muḥammad-i-Sām, and Sulṭān Mu'izz-ud-Din,
Muḥammad-i-Sām-the Almighty illumine them!-the
amplitude of whose dominions comprehended the eastern
quarter of the world, and the fame of whose expeditions.
against infidels, whose holy wars, the energy and vigour of
whose rule, justice, and beneficence will continue imperish-
able and manifest on the outspread world until the latest
revolutions of time. Some of those glorious actions and
annals in the account of each of them, by way of ensample,
will, please God, be subsequently recorded.
Of the daughters, one was the Malikah-i-Jahan, mother of
Malik Tāj-ud-Din, Zangi; the second, the Hurrah-i-Jalāli,
mother of Sultan Baha-ud-Din, Sam, son of Sultan Shams-
ud-Din, Muḥammad, son of Malik Fakhr-ud-Din, Mas'ūd, of
Bāmiān; and the third daughter was the Malikah-i-Khu-
rāsān, the mother of Alb-Arsalān-i-Ghāzi ', son of Malik
Kazil-Arsalan, Saljūķi, the brother's son of Sulṭān Sanjar.
When the account of the affliction and degradation
which had befallen Sultan Sūri at Ghaznin, through the
hostility and perfidy of the retainers of the Maḥmūdi
dynasty, reached the hearing of Sultan Baha-ud-Din, Sām,
he came to the determination of wreaking vengeance upon
the inhabitants of Ghaznin, and, without occupying himself
8 Sām was not his name, nor the name of his brother; neither does our
author mean that such should be supposed; but some translators have sup-
posed it was the son's name instead of the father's.
9 Malikah-i-Jibal in nearly every copy, but the above is correct.
1 Other authors style him Alb-i-Ghāzi only. He held the fief of Hirāt
subject to the Ghūri Sulṭān upon one of the occasions when Sultan Muhammad,
Khwārazm Shāh, invested it.
See note 2, page 257.
THE SHANSABĀNĪAH DYNASTY OF GHŰR.
343
in mourning ceremonies for his brothers, he assembled the
forces of Ghur, and of the parts and tracts around, and on
the confines of it, and of the hill-tracts of Jarum and Ghar
jistān; and, having arranged and ordered them, he turned
his face towards Ghaznin in order to accomplish that
important matter. After great preparation, and being
fully equipped, he moved forward, and a large army
marched under his standards. When he reached the dis-
trict of Kidān, excessive anxiety and grief for the death of.
his brothers, and the strength of his feelings, brought on an
attack of illness, and there [at Kidān] he died ³.
In the same manner as Sultan Sūri, at the time of his
proceeding against and capturing Ghaznin, had entrusted
the capital of the kingdom of Ghūr, and had made over the
government of that territory to him, Sultan Baha-ud-Din,
Sām, the latter, at this time, when about to march an army
himself against Ghaznin, assigned the capital of Ghūr, and
the rule over the territory of the Jibāl [mountain tracts] to
Sulṭān 'Ala-ud-Din, Husain-i-Jahān-soz [his brother], and
consigned to him his children, dependents, Amirs, property,
and effects.
When Baha-ud-Din died at Kidān, and that circumstance
came to the hearing of Sultān 'Alā-ud-Din, Ḥuṣain, he,
likewise, without occupying himself in mourning cere-
monies, assembled together the forces with all celerity, and
set out towards Ghaznin.
4
10
I
XII. MALIK SHIHAB-UD-DIN, MUHAMMAD, [KHARNAK,]
SON OF AL-HUSAIN, MALIK OF MĀDĪN OF GHŪR.
Malik Shihab-ud-Din, Muḥammad, Kharnak, was the
brother of the Sultans; and the district of Mādin, which
2 His two brothers, Kutb-ud-Din, Muḥammad, and Saif-ud-Din, Sūri.
3 He is said to have died of small-pox, but the word used also signifies a
tumour, and the like. Rauzat-uş-Şafā and some others say Baha-ud-Din,
Sam, died of phrensy, or inflammation of the brain, on the way back to Ghūr,
after the taking of Ghaznin by 'Ala-ud-Din, and his brother, Saif-ud-Din,
Sūri, who was left there as ruler! See note 2, page 347.
Here again some copies of the text use different verbs to express the
same meaning.
5 He is called Nāșir-ud-Din repeatedly in most of the copies of the text,
and in some, although the heading is written Shihāb-ud-Din, he is styled
I
344
THE TABAKAT-I-NAŞIRĪ.
was his territory, and is a tract of country on one of the
confines of Ghur, had been assigned to him by the mutual
consent of his brothers, after the decease of their father.
6
He had two sons, one of whom was Malik Nāṣir-ud-Din,
Husain, whom they placed upon the throne, at the capital,
Firuz-koh, during the absence of Sultan 'Ala-ud-Din, Ḥu-
sain, in Khurasan, and his attendance at the Court of
Sultan Sanjar, an account of whom will be hereafter re- -
corded. The second son was Malik Saif-ud-Din, Sūri',
who, after his father's death, succeeded him in the posses-
sion of the district of Madin. This Malik Saif-ud-Din,
Sūri, had three children, one a daughter, and two sons, and
the daughter was older than the sons. She was married
to the holy warrior and martyr, Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din,
Muḥammad-i-Sam; and by her that conquering Sultān
likewise had a daughter who died a maid, and whose
tomb is at the capital city, Ghaznin.
Of those two sons of Malik Saif-ud-Din, Sūri, one was
Malik Shihab-ud-Din, 'Ali, of Mādin, who was martyred
by the Turks of Khwārazm' during the period of their
domination. The second son was Malik Nāṣir-ud-Din,
Abu-Bikr; and the writer of this book, in the year 618 H.,
waited upon him in the territory of Kaziw [or Gaziw]¹ and
Timran, and witnessed numerous marks of urbanity and
generosity from him. At that period the author had
espoused a daughter of one of the great men and a kins-
man of his own. That was in the period of his first man-
hood, and in that same year in which Chingiz Khan, the
2
Nāṣir-ud-Din in the account of him. As 'Izz-ud-Din, Al-Husain, had no son
of this name, and as all the copies agree in the list of the seven sons, as to
This
Shihab, I have adopted that reading here, which is certainly correct.
Shihab-ud-Din had a son named Naşir-ud-Din, and hence the mistake may
have arisen.
• His captivity in fact, but this our author did not consider necessary to
mention. See note 3, page 358.
7 Not to be confounded with 'Ala-ud-Din, Jahan-soz's son, nor 'Ala-ud-
Din's brother. There are three of his title in all.
8 Several copies have "died in her infancy." This can scarcely be correct,
as it may be doubted whether the tomb of an infant would have been
mentioned.
9 See note ¹, page 274.
·
1 A few copies have [Kariw or Gariw], and others and
2 "Was about to espouse" in a few copies; but if he had not espoused
this wife he would not probably have required a horse.
THE SHANSABĀNĨAH DYNASTY OF GHŪR.
345
accursed, crossed the Jiḥūn into Khurāsān, and was bent
upon marching to Ghaznin. In short, the author memo-
rialized Malik Nāṣir-ud-Din, Abū-Bikr, for a horse, and,
in verse, represented the matter of his marriage with one
of his own kinswomen for that Malik's information. In
reply to that versified narrative, he composed this quatrain,
and with his own august hand wrote it on the back of the
story, and put it into the author's hands:
"God willing, affliction will have departed from thy heart,
And that pearl of great price will have been by thee bored 3.
The horse thou hast solicited of me requires no apology.
With the horse, much more apology might be made ¹."
Malik Naşir-ud-Din, Abu-Bikr, sent his humble servant a
dun-coloured horse of three years' old, ready saddled and
caparisoned the Almighty reward him for it!
That Malik-zadah, after the calamities which befell Ghaz-
nin and Ghūr", came to the city of Dihli, and presented
himself at the Court of the august Sultan, Shams-ud-
Dunya wa ud-Din [I-yal-timish], and was received by him
with honour and kindness, and, from the Maliks and other
nobles, he received deference and respect.
Malik Naşir-ud-Din, Abū-Bikr, died at the city of Dihli
in the year 620 H.
XIII. MALIK SHUJĀ'-UD-DİN, ABİ-’ALİ, SON OF AL-HUSAIN,
[SON OF SAM], SON OF AL-HASAN, SHANSABĪ.
Malik Shuja'-ud-Din, Abi-'Ali, son of Al-Husain, son of
Al-Ḥasan, was removed from this world in his early manhood,
and his existence terminated whilst he was yet in the flower
of his youth.
A son survived him, Malik 'Ala-ud-Din,
3 A virgin is styled an "unbored pearl."
4 This somewhat obscure line may imply that the donor might have made
apologies because the present was not more valuable.
At the hands of the Mughals.
From the heading the reader would suppose this article to have contained
an account of Shujā'-ud-Din; but he is finished in two or three lines, and the
article contains an account of his son and grandson. Neither of these two
brothers, Shihāb-ud Din, nor Shuja'-ud-Din, can be considered as belonging
to the dynasty any more than the whole of the race, as they never held
overeign power. They are not named even, separately, by other writers.
Z
346
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĂŞIRĪ,
Abu-'Ali; and the brothers [of Shujā'-ud-Din, Abi 'Ali']
with one accord, when dividing the dominions of Ghūr,
had invested him [Shujā'-ud-Din] with the district of
Jarmās. When he died, they conferred the district of
Jarmās upon his son, 'Alā-ud-Din, Abū-'Ali.
The Malik-ul-Jibal, Kutb-ud-Din, Muḥammad, who had
been martyred at Ghaznin, had left a daughter, and she
was given to 'Ala-ud-Din, Abu-'Ali, in marriage; and,
after that noble lady was espoused by him, the Almighty
blessed them with a son, who had the good fortune of be-
coming both a Ḥāji [a pilgrim] and a holy warrior', namely,
Malik Ziya-ud-Din, Muḥammad, the Pearl of Ghur', and
it happened in this wise:-When [his father] Malik 'Alā-
ud-Din, Abū-'Ali, died, and his son grew up, the Almighty
bestowed such grace upon his mother that she decided
upon undertaking a journey to the Ķiblah, and up to that
period not one of the Maliks of Ghūr had attained that
felicity.
Malik Ziyā-ud-Din, in attendance upon his mother, was
proceeding on the journey to the holy places by way of
Hirāt, Khurāsān, and. Nishāpūr. At that time Sulṭān
Takish, Khwārazm Shah, was at Nishāpūr, and Malik
Ziyā-ud-Din, in the habit of a Sayyid, with his hair twisted
into two long ringlets, presented himself at the Court of
that Sultan, and had the happiness of being permitted to
kiss Sultan Takish's hand.
Malik Ziya-ud-Din [in the company of his mother] had
the happiness of performing the orthodox pilgrimage with
great reverence, and with the observance of all the rites
and ceremonies. He gave directions to build a Khān-ķāh
[chapel] at Makkah, and provided all the necessary funds
for raising the structure, and left trustworthy persons of his
own to see it carried out.
He also returned, along with his mother, to the territory
7 Abū, or Abi-'Ali : either is correct.
• Our author's mode of narration tends to confuse. This 'Alā-ud-Din,
Abu-'Ali, is the father of Ziya-ud-Din, afterwards styled 'Ala-ud-Din. See
note 2, page 391, and note 9, page 394.
• He accompanied his second cousin, Sulṭān Mu'izz-ud-Din, on his campaign
against Rãe Pathora of Ajmir. See page 125.
These words “♪ Durr-i-Ghūr, occur again in the list of Maliks at the
end of Sultan Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din's reign, and in some other places.
THE SHANSABĀNĨAH DYNASTY OF GHUR.
347
of Ghūr; and she acquired the name of the Malikah-i-
Ḥāji [the Pilgrim Princess], and founded a great number
of masjids, pulpits, and colleges in the Ghūrian country.
May they both become acceptable in the sight of Almighty
God!
'
XIV. SULŢĂN 'ALĂ-UD-DĪN, AL-HUSAIN, SON OF ['IZZ-UD,
DİN,] AL-ḤUSAIN, SON OF SĂM, SON OF AL-HASAN 2.
When Sultan Baha-ud-Din, Sām, son of ['Izz-ud-Din,]
Al-Husain, who was marching an army against Ghaznin,
2 Of all the persons mentioned in Oriental history, greater discrepancy
occurs with respect to 'Ala-ud-Din, Jahān-soz's name and proceedings, pro-
bably, than regarding any other man.
Some authors call him Hasan, son of Husain; some [but these authors are
but two] Husain, son of Hasan; some, Husain, son of Husain, son of Ḥasan,
son of Sām; others copy our author, while others again, and they seem most
correct-they certainly are as to his own and his father's name-
-style him
'Alā-ud-Din, Ḥusain, son of ['Izz-ud-Din], Al-Husain, son of Sam, son of
Hasan [Suri's grandson], son of Muḥammad, son of Sūri.
With respect to his rise to power, the different accounts [I quote here from
sixteen authors] may be classed under no less than five heads.
The first is, that, after Sultan Bahram of Ghaznin had been put in posses-
sion of the throne by his maternal uncle, Sulṭān Sanjar, distrust arose between
them [Sanjar marched to Ghaznin to bring Bahram to submission in 530 H.,
according to Fașiḥ-i], and, on this, Bahram began to enter into friendly nego-
tiations with the sons of 'Izz-ud-Din, Al-Husain, and invited one of them to
his capital, and expressed a wish to take him into his service, in order to
strengthen the bonds of friendship between the two families. Kutb-ud-Din,
Muḥammad [the Malik-ul-Jibal of our author], the eldest of the sons, proceeded
to Ghaznin, and for some time he was treated with great distinction, but was
subsequently guilty [or suspected ?] of some crime, and was put to death by
Bahram Shah's orders.
Enmity now arose between Bahram and the sons of Al-Husain, and they
began to attack each other's territory, and several encounters took place between
them [Fasih-i says they fought about Tigin-ābād as early as 521 H., but this
may be an error for 541 H.], and our author himself in his account of Sanjar's
reign, page 149, says that hostilities arose in that reign "between the Sultāns
of Ghaznin and the Maliks of Ghūr, and the latter were overcome," and,
subsequently, refers to the time when "the territory of Ghur came under the
rule of 'Ala-ud-Din, Husain," and, on the death of Al-Husain, their father [in
545 H., according to Faşiḥ-i, but it must have been five years earlier, at least],
hostility, which hitherto had been concealed, was openly shown by 'Alā-ud-
Din, Husain, and his brothers, and they rose against Bahrām Shāh, and he set
out on an expedition against Ghaznin, accompanied by Saif-ud-Din, Sūri,
and Bahā-ud-Din, Sām ['Alā's full brothers]. They were opposed by Bahrām
Shah, who was defeated, and retired into Hind.
Having obtained possession of Ghaznin, 'Ala-ud-Din, Husain, left his
brother, Sūri, as ruler there, and returned to Ghur. [This event is said to
Z 2
348
THE TABAKAT-I-NĂȘIRĪ.
in order to take revenge for [the slaying of his brothers],
Sultan Suri and the Malik-ul-Jibal, died on the way thither,
have occurred in the fifth month of the year 543 H. [October, 1052 A.D.], and
by Fasih-i in 542 H. [October, 1051 A.D.], but, as the father only died it i
said in 545 H., both cannot be correct.] On the way back his brother, Sām,
died of inflammation of the brain [phrensy, according to some, a tumour, or
small-pox, according to others].
In the following winter Bahram returned from Hind with a numerous army
and several elephants, and appeared before Ghaznin. Sūri came out with
300 Ghūris and 1000 Ghuzz Turks, and endeavoured to reach Ghur, but the
Ghuzz deserted to Bahrām, and Sūri was taken, paraded on a bullock through
the city, and hung along with his Wazir. This occurred in 543 H. according
to Fașiḥ-i, but in 544 H. according to several other trustworthy authors.
'Alā-ud-Din, Ḥusain, again marched to Ghaznin to avenge Sūri, again took
the city, plundered, and fired it, then abandoned it, and returned to Firūz-koh,
destroying all the buildings raised by the Maḥmudi family, on his way back.
This is said to have taken place in 547 H., but such cannot have been the case :
it must have been towards the end of 544 H., or early in 545 H., at the latest.
Alfi says in 547 of the "Riḥlat" [death of Muḥammad, not the Hijrah],
which would make it as late as 558 H.!
Most of the authors from which the above is taken contend that 'Ala-ud-
Din, Husain, was the first of the family who attained to independent sovereignty,
that the dynasty consisted of five sovereigns, and continued for a period of
sixty-four years.
It terminated in 607 H., so must have commenced in 543 H.
’Ali, Jatri, and 'Alā-ud-Di̟n, Ḥusain, were defeated by Sultan Sanjar in
545 H. [some say in 544 H.], but Faşiḥ-i says in 547 H., just before he [Sanjar]
marched against the Ghuzz, in 548 H., which will be referred to farther on.
Fanākati says, and somewhat astonishing it is, that Husain, brother of Sām,
was put to death by Bahrām Shah's orders, and he [Husain] went to Sultān
Sanjar and solicited aid. Sanjar assisted him with an army! and he then
fought a battle with Bahrām Shah, who was defeated and retreated into
Hindustan. After this, the same author states—and the Jami'-ut-Tawārikh
agrees that Husain ['Alā-ud-Din] left his brother Sam in charge of Ghaznin,
and returned himself to Ghūr. He then agrees with the statements of other
writers as to the hanging of 'Alã-ud-Din's brother, but says it was Sām [Bahā-
ud-Din], not Sūri, that Bahrām Shāh took and hung after his return from
Hindustan. Husain returned, made a general massacre, and devastated the
place, and 70,000 persons were slain. On this Sultān Sanjar resolved to proceed
against him, and, in a battle, Husain was taken prisoner. For further
particulars regarding this see page 357, and notes 2 and 3 page 358.
The second account is, that Husain ['Izz-ud-Din], the father of the seven
sons, raised to the rulership of Ghūr by Mas'ūd-i-Karim, having died in
545 H. [540 H. ?] was succeeded by the most prominent of his sons, 'Alā-ud-Din,
Husain, who rebelled against Bahrām Shāh, marched against Ghaznin, took
it, during Bahrām's absence, and set his brother, Sūri, upon the throne of the
Maḥmūdi's. Soon after Bahrām returned, and hung Sūri. The remainder
of the account agrees pretty well with the first.
The third is, that Bahrām Shāh was dead before 'Alā-ud-Din reached
Ghaznin the second time, and in this statement a number of the most trust-
worthy authorities agree, and further that Khusrau Shāh, his son, had succeeded
just before 'Alā-ud-Din's advance, and, on his approach, Khusrau Shāh
THE SHANSABĀNĪAH DYNASTY OF GHŪR.
349
at Kidān, Sulṭān 'Alā-ud-Din ascended the throne of the
dominion of Ghūr, and assembled the forces of Ghūr, of
abandoned Ghaznin and fled to Lahor [Baizawi states that it happened in
550 H.; but this is the only authority for that date, which cannot be
correct; and if Sūri, according to the other statement, was put to death in
544 H., 'Alā-ud-Din would scarcely allow six years to elapse before avenging
him]. On 'Ala-ud-Din's departure, Khusrau Shah returned to his devastated
and ruined capital, and continued there until the Ghuzz Turks, who had
defeated and made captive Sultan Sanjar, Khusrau's maternal great uncle,
invaded Khurāsān, and appeared before Hirāt, and from thence advanced
towards Ghaznin.
Sanjar had marched against the Ghuzz in 548 H.-some few authors say in
547 H.-and was taken prisoner in the first month of the former year [March,
1056 A.D.]; they had invested Hirāt in 549 H., and gave up the attempt early
in 550, and then appear to have advanced towards Ghaznin, and this must
have been the year in which Khusrau Shāh finally abandoned Ghaznin, and
not that in which 'Ala-ud-Din, Husain, devastated it.
Some writers, who agree generally with this last account, say that Khusrau
Shah had reigned about a year when 'Ala-ud-Din arrived in the neighbour-
hood of his capital, and that he [Khusrau Shali] was taken, and confined
within the walls of the citadel, and 'Alā-ud-Din set up his two nephews,
Ghiyās-ud-Din, and Mu'izz-ud-Din, at Ghaznin. Most authors say Khusrau
Shah died in 555 H., but others again state that his death took place in 544 H.,
and according to our author, who says he succeeded in 552 H., and reigned
seven years, it would be in 559 H. See note 5, page 112.
The fourth account is, that, on the death of the father, ['Izz-ud-Din],
Al-Husain, Saif-ud-Din, Sūri, succeeded him, and that he seized upon
Ghaznin, while his other brother, 'Ala-ud-Din, Husain, seized upon Ghūr.
This is said to have taken place in 543 H., and it is further said that, after
Sūri had been hanged, Baha-ud-Din, Sam, set out to avenge him, and died
on the way [in 544 H.].
The fifth account agrees pretty well with our author, and may have been
partly copied from his work, although such a fact is not mentioned.
It is to
the effect, that Sūri took Ghaznin to avenge the death of his brother, Kutb-
ud-Din, Muḥammad, put to death by Bahram Shah, and that, after Suri's
death along with his Wazir, Bahā-ud-Din, Sām, set out to avenge him, and
died on the road. 'Ala-ud-Din, Husain, followed, on which Bahrām Shāh
fled, and the city was taken. The date of the first capture of Ghaznin is said
to have been 542 H., or 543 H.
[Our author says that Bahā-ud-Din, Sām,
succeeded to the sovereignty of Firuz-koh and Ghur, when Saif-ud-Din, Sūri,
his brother, set out on his expedition against Ghaznin, in 544 H.-the first
date he gives in the whole Section-and tends to show that Ghaznin must
have been taken in 543 H.]
It is absurd to suppose that Ghaznin was taken by 'Alā-ud-Din in 550 H.,
and still more so to suppose that 547 of the Riḥlat could be the possible date;
and, although the exact date is not to be found in authors generally, it is quite
clear that Saif-ud-Din, Sūri, took it first in the fifth month of 543 H. [middle
of October, 1051 A.D.]. Bahrām returned in the depth of winter [probably in
January, 1052 A. D.], and hung him. Baha-ud-Din, Sām, his brother, succeeded
him as ruler of Ghur in 544 H., and died soon after, in the same year; on which
'Alā-ud-Din, Ḥusain, who was not one to allow five or six years to clapse, at
350
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĂȘIRĪ,
1
the capital, Firuz-koh, and of Gharjistān, and determined
to march against Ghaznin.
When Sultan Yamin-ud-Din³, Bahrām Shāh, became
aware of this matter, and of his ['Ala-ud-Din's] intention,
he caused the troops of Ghaznin and of Hindustan to be
got ready and organized, and led them from Rukhaj¹ and
Tigin-ābād, in the district of Garmsir, towards Zamin-i-
Dāwar. As Sultan 'Ala-ud-Din, with his forces, had
[already] reached Zamin-i-Dawar, Sultan Bahrām Shāh
despatched envoys to him, saying, "Return again to Ghur,
and in thy ancestral possession remain in quietness, for
thou wilt not be able to resist my forces, for I bring
elephants [along with me]." The envoys having delivered
the message with which they were entrusted to Sulṭān 'Alā-
ud-Din, he replied, saying, "If thou bringest elephants, I
will bring the Kharmil; but, God knows, indeed, thou fallest
into error, that thou hast put my brothers to death, and I
have not slain any person belonging to thee. But hast
thou not heard what Almighty God says ?—" Whosoever is
once marched against Ghaznin, and took it towards the close of the same
year, 544 H., the same in which Guzidah and a few others say Bahrām died.
What tends to prove all this is, that in 545 H. 'Alā-ud-Din was taken captive
by Sultan Sanjar, after the former had sacked Ghaznin, and was detained
in captivity some two years, during which time another ruler was set up in
Ghūr, and 'Ala-ud-Din only obtained his release just before Sultan Sanjar set
out on his unfortunate expedition against the Ghuzz, which was in 547 H., for
Sanjar was defeated by them and taken prisoner, on the first day of the first
month, Muḥarram, 548 H. [20th March, 1056 A.D.]. See also page 358, and
notes and 8.
}
6
'Alā-ud-Din, Ḥusain, made no attempt to retain possession of Ghaznin,
and he abandoned it, and retired into Ghur, but destroyed every building
pertaining to the Maḥmūdi sovereigns, on his way back. The reason why
he abandoned it must have been his fear of Sultan Sanjar, or of Bahrām's or
Khusrau's return, as the case may be, and of meeting a fate similar to his
brother Suri's.
In three copies of the text at this place he is called Yamin-ud-Daulah.
In his account of Bahram Shah's reign our author styles him Mu'izz-ud-Din,
Bahrām Shāh, and says Khusrau Shah's title was Mu'ayyan-ud-Din.
pages 109 and 111, and note *.
+ A small tract of country in the district of Bust.
See
5 The word Jan elephant, is used in most copies of the text, but to make
sense of the passage I have been obliged to make it a plural. The context
shows there must have been more than one elephant. Some other authors
which certainly agrees better with J and might be translated
the chief, head, or leader of the elephants, alluding to some famous war-
elephant he may have had.
سر فیل have
• On the Kur'an's authority only. It is rather strange that in his account
|
THE SHANSABĀNĨAH DYNASTY OF GHŪR
351
slain unjustly, we have given his heir, or next of kin, power
[to avenge him]; but let him not exceed bounds in putting
the slayer to death, because he likewise will be assisted
and avenged"."
When the envoys returned, both armies were marshalled
in ranks and made ready for the conflict. Sulṭān 'Alā-
ud-Din called unto him two Pahlawāns [champions] of his
own, who were the leaders of the army, and famous war-
riors of the kingdom of Ghūr, and both of them were
named Kharmil. One was Kharmil-i-Sām, Husain, father
of Nāṣir-ud-Din, Husain-i-Kharmil; and the other Khar-
mil-i-Sām, Banji; and both of them were famed in their
day for their valour and prowess. He said unto them:
"Bahram Shāh has sent a message, saying, 'I bring ele-
phants [against thee];' and I have sent a reply, 'If thou
bringest elephants, I bring the Kharmil.' This day it
behoveth that each one of you champions should over-
throw and bring an elephant to the ground." They both
kissed the ground and retired [to their posts]; and, at a
place which they call Kotah-bāz³, the two armies came to
an encounter. When the battle commenced, both these
champions dismounted, fastened up the skirts of their coats
of mail', and entered the fight. When the elephants of
Bahram Shah made a charge', each of those champions
attacked an elephant, and got beneath the armour of the
animals, and, with their poniards, ripped open the bellies
of the elephants. Kharmil-i-Sām, Banji, remained under
his elephant, and it fell upon him, and he and the elephant
perished together. Kharmil-i-Sam, Husain, brought his
of Bahram Shah's reign, pages 109-111, our author does not even mention
Sūri's name, although he refers to 'Ala-ud-Din, Husain, the brother, and the
capture of Ghaznin.
7 Ku'rān: S. 17, 35.
* One copy has Kūnah[or Gūnah]-waz, and two copies have Kotah-bāz-bab.
This last appears incorrect, and bab seems merely bāz repeated in error by the
copyist. Katah-wāz cannot be meant, although w and b are interchangeable :
Katah-wāz is much too far to the east. One copy has Goshah-i-nab. A place
of this name, or Sih Goshah-i-nab, has been mentioned at page 149, but this
again is too far to the west. See also page 358.
<<
9 The word used signifies to fasten up or back. Throwing off their coats
of mail" would scarcely have been likely at a time like this, and the text
contains the word "skirts" moreover. See Elliot, INDIA, vol. ii. page 287.
¹ Both the British Museum copies have, "when the elephants of Bahrām
Shah charged the elephants, each of the champions," &c.
352
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĂȘIRĪ.
elephant to the ground, and got away in safety, and
mounted [his horse] again.
When the battle was duly ordered, Sulṭān 'Alā-ud-Din,
after he had arrayed himself in all his panoply, commanded
that a surcoat of crimson-coloured satin should be brought
to him, and he put it on over all his armour. His kinsfolk
and his intimates inquired:-"What device is this of the
king's, that he covers his armour with a crimson surcoat?"
He answered:-"For this reason, that, in case my body
should be wounded by arrow, lance, or sword, the redness
of my blood, by means of the crimson surcoat, will not
show upon my armour, so that the hearts of my followers
may not become dejected." The mercy of the Almighty
be upon him!
The troops of Ghur have a method, in the practise of
fighting on foot, of making a certain article of one fold of
raw bullock-hide, over both sides of which they lay cotton,
and over all draw figured coarse cotton cloth, after
the form of a screen [or breast-work], and the name of
that article of defence is karwah. When the foot-soldiers
of Ghur place this [screen] upon their shoulders, they are
completely covered from head to foot by it; and, when
they close their ranks, they appear like unto a wall, and no
missile or arms can take any effect on it, on account of the
quantity of cotton with which it is stuffed³.
When the engagement was fairly begun, Daulat Shāh,
son of Bahrām Shāh, with a body of cavalry and an
Called karbās.
3 Our author has described this instrument of defence tolerably well, but
not exactly. The word kāṛwah is contained in Pus'hto, and this means of
protection was used by some of the Afghans in former times, before fire-arms
came into use. The karwah was made from a raw bullock, cow, or buffalo
hide stuffed with straw or hay [cotton would be too expensive], and rolled
along before troops on foot, when advancing, to defend them from the arrows
of their opponents. In the battles between the Yusufzi and Dilazāk tribes
of Afghāns, in the fifteenth century, of which before long I hope to be able to
give an account, the Utman Khel, one of the lesser and of the many still
independent Afghan tribes [who never paid allegiance to Durranis or
Bārakzis] who accompanied the Yusufzis when the latter first appeared east
of the Khaibar Pass, on one occasion formed the advance of the allied forces,
and used these stuffed hides above described. They are said to have been very
expert in their construction; but I do not think this mode of fighting will be
sufficient to prove that the Ghūris were "Pațáns," or Paṭáns Ghūris. Com-
pare Elliot, INDIA, vol. ii. pages 287-8. See my Afghan Dictionary, second
edition, p. 1151. London: 1867.
THE SHANSABÀNĨAH DYNASTY OF GHŪR.
353
elephant, made a charge. Sulṭān 'Alā-ud-Din directed
that the foot-soldiers should open their rank of kāṛwahs,
in order to allow Daulat Shāh to enter with his whole
division. They opened their ranks accordingly. When
Daulat Shah, with his body of horse and the elephant,
entered, the infantry closed the breach in their ranks again,
and completely surrounded that Prince on all sides; and he,
with the whole of that body of horse, were martyred, and
the elephant was brought to the ground, and also killed.
When the troops of Bahrām Shah witnessed that disaster
and slaughter, they fell into disorder and gave way. Sulṭān
'Ala-ud-Din followed in pursuit, from stage to stage, as far
as a place which they call Josh-i-Ab-i-Garm [the jet of hot-
water], near to Tigin-ābād, where Sultan Bahrām Shāh
faced about, and a second time prepared to renew the
engagement; and the whole of the forces then assembled
under him again gave battle, but were defeated and put to
the rout, and only stopped at the gate of Ghaznin. Sultān
'Alā-ud-Din followed in fierce pursuit, so that Bahrām Shāh,
for the third time, assembled the troops of Ghaznin, the
inen of the city, and a large levy of footmen, and gave
battle for the third time; but he was unable to overcome
[the enemy], and was again defeated. 'Ala-ud-Din took the
city of Ghaznin by storm, and, during seven nights and days,
fired the place, and burnt it with obstinacy and wantonness".
The chronicler states that, during these seven days, the
air, from the blackness of the smoke, continued as black as
night; and those nights, from the flames raging in the
burning city, were lighted up as light as day. During
these seven days, likewise, rapine, plunder, and massacre
were carried on with the utmost pertinacity and vindictive-
ness. All the men that were found were killed, and the
women and children were made captive. 'Ala-ud-Din
4 One elephant only is mentioned, and it is not stated that Daulat Shah was
mounted on it. It appears to have been intended to break the rank of
kāṛwas with it.
5 Our author himself says that Saif-ud-Din, Sūri, was the first of the
brothers who came into contact with Bahram Shāh, and 'Ala-ud-Din, Husain,
the last; but he has so arranged his work that his account of Suri comes last.
The reader will perhaps find it less perplexing if he should read the account
of Suri, at Section XIX., first, then that of Bahā-ud-Din, Sām, at page 341,
and this notice of 'Ala-ud-Din last.
354
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĀṢIRĪ.
commanded that the whole of the [remains of the] Maḥ-
mūdi Sulṭāns should be exhumed from their graves and
burnt, except those of Sultan Mahmud, the Ghazi, Sultan
Mas'ud, and Sulṭān Ibrahim; and, during the whole of
these seven days, 'Alā-ud-Din gave himself up to wine and
carousal within the palaces of the Sultāns of Ghaznin.
During this time he gave directions so that the tomb of
Sultan Saif-ud-Din, Sūri, and the mausoleum of the Malik-
ul-Jibal [Kuṭb-ud-Din, Muḥammad], were sought out, and
coffins prepared; and caused preparations to be made
for putting his whole army into mourning. When the
eighth night came round, and the city had become entirely
desolated and consumed, and its inhabitants massacred,
Sulṭān 'Alā-ud-Din, on that night, improvised³ several
strophes eulogistic of himself, and gave them to the
minstrels, with directions to sing them accompanied by
their changs and chighānahs' before him; and the lines,
which are appropriate, are as follows:
"The world knoweth that I of the universe am king¹.
The lamp of the family of the 'Abbasis am I.
'Ala-ud-Din, Husain, son of Husain, am I,
Whose house's sovereignty be ever enduring!
When on the bright bay steed of my dominion I sit,
One, to me, will be both the heavens and the earth.
Death sports around the point of my spear:
Hope follows [as goad] the dust of my troops 2.
I should roam the world through, like unto Sikandar :
I should in every city another sovereign place.
I was determined on this, that of the vagabonds of Ghaznin
I would set a river of blood running like unto the Nil.
But they are maudlin old dotards and infants,
And my blooming fortune maketh intercession for them.
For their own sakes I have granted them their lives,
That the granting of their lives may of mine be the bond³."
6 Other writers state that the bones of the whole of the Maḥmūdi sovereigns
were exhumed and burnt, with the sole exception of those of Sultan Maḥmūd.
7 The greater number of copies of the original leave out the words
mourning-entirely; whilst the Bodleian MS., the R. A. S. MS., and one
of the Paris copies have ;-food! The other Paris copy has—fighting,
making war, &c. !!
8 He was gifted with a poetical genius.
The first is a kind of guitar, or harp, and the latter a kind of violin.
1 'Ala-ud-Din had evidently an exalted opinion of himself, or had imbibed
more strong drink than was good for him.
2 Several other works which give this poem leave out these two lines.
3 As far as can be judged from all the exaggeration contained in these
THE SHANSABĀNĨAH DYNASTY OF GHUR.
355
He then commanded, saying, "I have spared the
remainder of the people of Ghaznin," and he arose from
the assembly, and went to the hot-bath; and, on the eighth
day of these proceedings, he got up at day-dawn, and,
accompanied by the whole of the troops of Ghūr, and the
Maliks [chiefs], came to the mausoleum of his brothers.
He then donned mourning garments, together with his
whole army, and, for [another] seven nights and days, he
remained at the mausoleum observing funeral ceremonies.
During this period the whole Kur'an was read through
several times, and alms were there distributed; and the
coffins of his brothers were placed on biers', and he ['Alā-
ud-Din] marched from Ghaznin towards the districts of
Dāwar and Bust. On reaching the city of Bust, he entirely
destroyed the palaces and other edifices of the Maḥmūdi
dynasty, the like of which were not to be found in the
regions of the world; and the whole territory, which
appertained to the Maḥmūdi sovereigns, he directed should
be ravaged and desolated".
5
He returned to Ghur, and, by his command, the corpses
of his brothers were deposited by the side of their ancestors.
He had ordered that several Sayyids of Ghaznin should
be seized, according to the law of retaliation, in the place
of Sayyid Majd-ud-Din, Mūsawi, who was Sulṭān Sūri's
Wazir, and who, along with Sultan Suri, they had hung
up from one of the arches' [of the bridge?] of Ghaznin,
boastful effusions of 'Ala-ud-Din, Husain, he seems to have imagined that his
own life might be lengthened in proportion to the lives he spared, after he had
caused almost the whole of the inhabitants of Ghaznin to be massacred!
The word has other meanings besides "cradle."
vol. ii. p. 289.
• Such as mosques, colleges, fortifications, &c.
Elliot INDIA,
6 Some ruins of those edifices still remain. An intelligent man, a native of
Kandahār, and an Afghan, says these ruins are of immense size and height,
particularly one arch, which was standing some few years since, said to have
been one of the great mosque. There was also a stone bridge across the river
Hirmand, near this arch, called the Pul-i-'Ashikān-the Lovers' Bridge-
remains of which may still be seen.
7 The whole of the district of Zamin-i-Dāwar, I presume. The territory of
the Maḥmūdi sovereigns, even at that time, was of great extent, and Ghūr
formed only a very small portion of it.
8 The word used by our author signifies tombs, sepulchres, and the like,
which, of course, would scarcely be interred. The coffins and their contents
were interred.
9 The word used here is Tak, signifying an arch, among other meanings,
356
THE TABAKAT-I-NĂȘIRĪ.
and they were brought before the Sultan. Bags were filled
with the earth' of Ghaznin, and placed upon their backs,
and [they were] brought along with him to Firūz-koh, the
capital; and, on reaching that city, the Sayyids were put
to death, and their blood was mixed with the earth
which had been brought from Ghaznin, and from it several
towers were erected on the hills of Firuz-koh, which
towers, moreover, were still remaining up to this present
time. The Almighty pardon him!
2
After, he had wreaked such vengeance as this, and
returned to the capital again, 'Alā-ud-Din desired to
devote himself to pleasure and revelry; and he gathered
around him minstrels and boon companions, betook himself
to conviviality and carousal, and improvised lines which
he directed the minstrels to sing, and accompany on their
harps and violins³. These are the lines:
"I am [he] in whose justice the world hath exultation ;
And I am [he] through whose munificence the treasury sustaineth injustice.
The finger of his hand, to his teeth, the enemy placeth‘,
When, to the string of the bow, I the thimble apply 5.
and it is also a proper name; but no word signifying a bridge is used in any
copy of the text collated, but some other writers say it was the Tak Bridge-the
bridge leading to Tak, in Zabulistan, probably. Another writer, however,
says, Sūri and his Wazir were hung at the head of "the Bridge of Two
Arches"-bg J-and this is probably correct. In his account of Sūri,
farther on, our author says it was the Bridge of One Arch. See the first of the
Ghaznin dynasty, Section XIX.
سر پل دو طاق
Khāk signifies earth, not "dirt." The context shows what this earth was
intended for, but dirt would scarcely have answered for making mortar.
2 Another author states that it was the remainder of the people of Ghaznin
not Sayyids only-that 'Ala-ud-Din removed, and that they were laden with
sacks of earth from that city, and on their arrival at Firūz-koh they were
slaughtered, and a building was raised from the earth which was mixed with
their blood. The word used by our author signifies a tower, bastion, &c. The
probability is that they were small towers, such as are raised for landmarks,
and that the earth brought from Ghaznin, mixed with the blood of the Sayyids,
and amalgamated with the mortar, was used for these buildings.
3 Here again the idiom of the different copies of the original varies
so much that it would lead one to imagine that the work of our author must,
originally, have been written in a different language. One set of copies has
છું.
whilst another set of copies has مطربان را بفرمود تا در چنگ و چغانه بزدند و بنواحتند
and throughout the work the و مطربان را بفرمود تا در عمل مزامیر آوردند و بساختند و بگفتند
two sets agree word for word almost.
4 In token of astonishment.
The latter set is the least trustworthy.
5 A sort of thimble used by archers to protect the left thumb from the bow-
string.
THE SHANSABĀNĨAH DYNASTY OF GHŪR.
357
When my bay steed leap'd a square within the ranks,
The adversary no longer knew ball from square".
When, out of hatred towards me, Bahram Shah7 bent the bow,
I pluck'd, with my lance, the quiver from his waist.
The support of my foe, although they were all Rāes [and] Rānahs,
I reduced, with my mace, to atoms, both Rāe's and Rānah's headº.
To draw forth vengeance by the sword, I have indeed taught
The sovereigns of the time, and the kings of the age.
Ah, ravishing Minstrel! since I am released from war,
Sing that strain indeed, and that melody enkindle.
When fortune hath been grasp'd, it is not right to renounce
The singers' melody, nor the fire-worshippers' pure wine."
Trustworthy persons have related after this wise, that,
when Sultan 'Ala-ud-Din ascended the throne of Firuz-
koh, he ordered his nephews, Ghiyas-ud-Din, Muḥammad-
i-Sām, and Mu'izz-ud-Din, Muḥammad-i-Sām, sons of
Sultan Baha-ud-Din, Muḥammad Sām, to be imprisoned,
and they were confined in the fortress of Wajiristān¹, and
an allowance was fixed for their support.
He ['Ala-ud-Din] also began to show a contumacious.
spirit towards Sulṭān Sanjar, and manifested open hostility
6 These two lines evidently refer to the game of Chaugan, from which the
lately introduced game of Pola is derived. The text of these lines varies con-
siderably in different copies of the original, but I have rendered the translation
as close as possible; still the meaning is not clear. Probably horse and rider
bore everything before them, and spread terror among the foe, and struck
Bahram Shāh with amazement.
7 From this line, if correctly quoted, it was Bahram Shah who encountered
'Ala-ud-Din, Ḥusain; but other authors, as already noticed in note 2, page 347,
distinctly state that he was dead before the second expedition against Ghaznin;
but whether Bahram or Khusrau Shah-the measure would not be lost if
Khusrau" were substituted for Bahrām-it would appear that Rājpūt and
other Hindū princes and chiefs were in the Ghaznawid army on this occasion.
See account of Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din, Muḥammad, the second of the Ghaznin
dynasty. In his account of Bahram Shah's reign, pages 109 to III, our
author says that he returned to Ghaznin after 'Alā-ud-Din, Ḥusain, withdrew,
and died there. Those authors who contend that Bahram Shah had died a
short time before 'Ala-ud-Din, Husain, appeared before Ghaznin, state that it
was his son, Khusrau Shah, who left it on his approach, and who returned to
it after the departure of the Ghūriāns, and finally relinquished it on the
advance of the Ghuzz Turks, in 548 or 549 H., after the defeat of Sultān
Sanjar, and his falling a captive into their hands in that year, two years only
before the death of 'Alã-ud-Din.
8 The word, is used in all but one copy of the text, which has
a ball," and may even be the most applicable meaning after all.
signifying
t
9 Sām [Bahā-ud-Din] was the name of the father only.
1 The fortress of Nãe probably, which stronghold was used as a state prison
by the Ghaznawid Sulṭāns.
358
THE TABAKAT-I-NĀŞIRI.
towards him'. What the Sultāns of Ghūr had stipulated
for, and which used to reach the Sanjari Court every year,
such as arms and armour, rarities, and offerings, 'Alā-ud-
Din withheld; and matters reached such a pass, that
Sultan Sanjar assembled a numerousarmy, and determined
to march into the territory of Ghur.
Sultan 'Ala-ud-Din collected the forces of Ghur, and
advanced to meet the Sultan as far as the limits of the
town of Nab, between Firūz-koh and Hirāt, in the valley
of the Hariw-ar-Rüd. There is water there, and a delight-
ful and extensive plain, which they call Sih-goshah-i-Nab;
2 This seems to confirm the statement of Fașiḥ-i [note 4, page 336], that
Husain ['Izz-ud-Din], son of Sām, 'Ala-ud-Din, Husain's father, had also
been made captive by Sultan Sanjar, some years before, and made tributary.
Under the reign of Sanjar also, our author states, page 149, "The Maliks of
Ghur and Sultāns of the Jibal were all subject to Sultan Sanjar. It is probable
that, as Sultan Sanjar had dethroned Sultan Arsalan, and had set up Bahrām
Shah on the throne of Ghaznin, he [Sanjar] received, as lord-paramount over
Ghaznin also, the tribute formerly paid by the chiefs of Ghur to the Sultans
of the Maḥmūdi dynasty. When Bahram executed Saif-ud-Din, Sūri, 'Ala-
ud-Din's brother, he sent his head to his uncle, Sultan Sanjar. See also
Fanākati's statement, para. 10 to note 2, page 348.
3 Two copies have, ." There there is a delightful river and an extensive
plain;" but of course the Hariw or Hari-rūd, as the river of Hirāt is named,
was there, and the extra river appears redundant.
Faşiḥ-i states that the battle took place before Aobah, near Hirāt [Aobah is
Pushto for "water"], and in this Jahān-Ārā agrees, but the Tarikh-i-Ibrāhimi
says it took place at Maran-zad, but both places are in the Hirät district, and
not far from each other.
In the year 544 H. [Faşiḥ-i says as early as 542 H.], 'Ali, Jatri, [called
Chatri by our author] who held the fief of Hirāt, during Sultan Sanjar's
absence, had become disaffected towards the Sultan, in what way is not men-
tioned, for but little is said about him in history. [See note 8, page 237.]
He concerted with 'Ala-ud-Din, Husain, "Malik of Ghur," in this hostility,
and Sanjar marched against them. They were defeated and overthrown in
545 H.—some say in 544 H., and Fașiḥ-i 547 H.—and 'Ali, Jatri, 'Alā-ud-Din,
Husain, Ghūri, and the Malik-zādah, Shams-ud-Din, Muḥammad [son of Fakhr-
ud-Din, Mas'ūd, of Bāmiān, elder brother of 'Ala-ud-Din], were taken prisoners,
the last by the hand of the Sipah-sālār, Barankash. Orders were given to
put 'Ali, Jatri, to death at once, and 'Alā-ud-Din was thrown into prison; but
Shams-ud-Din, Muḥammad, having obtained 50,000 dinārs from Bāmian, the
sum demanded for his ransom, that sum was paid to Barankash, and he was
set free.
After some time, Sulṭān Sanjar took compassion on 'Ala-ud-Din,
set him at liberty, and made him one of his boon companions.
4
Fanākati here relates the story respecting ['Ala-ud-Din] Husain, which
Faşiḥ-i, and some others relate of his father, Husain, already recorded in
note *, page 336; but, although Fașiḥ-i relates matters entirely different here
respecting 'Ala-ud-Din, Ḥusain, and gives such circumstantial details, I still
cannot but consider Rashid-ud-Din's account correct notwithstanding, who,
THE SHANSABĀNĨAH DYNASTY OF GHŪR.
359
and at that place an engagement took place between the
two armies. Sultan 'Ala-ud-Din, a day before the battle
was fought, had directed so that the ground in rear of the
forces of Ghur had been entirely laid under water; and he
had caused it to be proclaimed that the ground in the
rear had become quite flooded, and that whoever should
attempt to fly to the rear would get into the mud, and stick
there.
When the battle was arranged, and the two armies came
in contact, a body of about 6000 Ghuzz, Turk, and Khalj
horse, which was stationed on the right of the army of
Ghur, deserted, and went over to Sultan Sanjar, and sub-
mitted to him, and the troops of Ghūr were defeated and
overthrown. The whole of the Amirs and warriors, and
however, styles both of them Husain, without giving their titles. The anecdote
is much the same in both authors.
Fașiḥ-i says,
"When Husain ['Izz-ud-Din, Husain, of our author], son
of Sām, was taken prisoner, the Sultan commanded that he should be put
to death, but, at the intercession of Shaikh Ahmad [the Imām-i-Rabbāni of
Rashid-ud-Din], Ghazzāli, he was spared, and set at liberty. This was in the
year 545 H. For two years he used to light the fires of the cooks of the Sultan's
army [our author would scorn to relate this, as it did not tend to the glorifica-
tion of his patrons], until one day, the Amir [commander] of the troops of
Khurāsān, 'Imād-ud-Daulah, Ķimāj, chanced to meet with him.” Fanākati
says, for two years ['Alā-ud-Din] Ḥusain wandered about the bāzārs of Sanjar's
camp [or capital] as a mendicant, when one day as Ķimāj was passing the shop
of a cook he noticed Husain, who was attending the fire and watching the
cook's pot.
Kimāj took compassion on Husain and made known his case to the Sultan,
who directed that he should be brought to his presence. When admitted, he
kissed the ground before the Sulṭān, who said to him :-"I understand thou
hast neither wealth nor effects left unto thee. Hast thou no sense of cleanliness
left thee either?" [Rashid-ud-Din says, "Hast thou not the means and power
of keeping one head and face clean?"] Husain replied :-"In the days when
this head was mine own head I had the good fortune to be attended by a
thousand servants, but, now that it belongs to thee, thou keepest it thus
wretched and abject." The Sultan was touched; he pardoned him, treated
him with honour, and sent him back to his native country attended by
a large retinue; and to the end of his days Husain paid obedience to that
monarch.
'Alā-ud-Din, Ḥusain, was restored to the sovereignty of Ghur in 547 H.,
just before Sultan Sanjar moved against the Ghuzz. He was defeated and
made captive in the first month of 548 H., and, when released in 551 H., no
power was left to him. 'Ala-ud-Din died a month before Sanjar's release.
Several authors mention Sanjar's having bestowed a casket of gems, one night
at a convivial meeting, upon 'Ala-ud-Din, Husain, but treasure, flocks, and
herds are not referred to. See page 238, and note 5.
360
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĂŞIRĪ.
distinguished men of the Ghūriān army, got entangled in
that swampy ground and morass. Some of them obtained
martyrdom, and some were made captive, and Sulṭān 'Ala-
ud-Din himself was taken prisoner.
Sultan Sanjar commanded that he should be put in con-
finement, and they brought gyves of iron to place on his
legs. He urged that it was requisite they should make a
representation [from him] to the Sultan, saying:-"Do unto
me as I intended to have done unto thee, for I obtained
gyves of gold, in order that, thereby, reverence for thy
sovereignty might be so much the more preserved." When
this request was made known, those identical gyves were
called for, and, when they were obtained, those very same
ves were placed upon 'Ala-ud-Din's legs, and they
mounted him upon a camel, and Sultan Sanjar returned
[to his own territory].
As the report of 'Alā-ud-Din's wittiness of temperament,
and quickness of intellect, was much talked about at that
period, and had become famous, and Sultan Sanjar had
heard a great deal about it, either the next day, or a few
days after, he sent for him, treated him with honour, and
set him at liberty [from his gyves]. A salver of precious
gems had been placed near the masnad of the imperial
throne, and that was bestowed upon 'Ala-ud-Din, who arose
and made his obeisance, and spoke these lines, befitting
the circumstance. The following is the quatrain :—
"In the rank of battle the Shah took me, but did not kill,
Notwithstanding, of a verity, I was full worthy of being slain.
A casket of precious gems he bestow'd upon me :
In such wise his mercy [was], and his bounty such ¹.'
Sulṭān Sanjar made him one of his associates and boon
companions, and there was no pleasure-party without the
presence of 'Ala-ud-Din, until one day, during a banquet,
the sight of 'Ala-ud-Din fell upon the sole of Sultan San-
jar's foot, who, seated on his throne, had extended one of
his legs, upon the sole of the foot of which there was a
large mole. He arose, kissed the mole, and improvised
the following lines:
4 Some other authors quote these lines differently, particularly the two last.
THE SHANSABĀNĪAH DYNASTY OF GHŪR.
361
"Verily the dust at the gate of thy palace is [my] diadem 5,
And [this], the collar of thy service, is my adornment.
In the same manner as I kiss the mole on the sole of thy foot,
Even so good fortune [likewise] salutes my head."
This anecdote has been already related in the account of
Sultan Sanjar's reign. The latter gave him back again
the throne of Ghur, and he commanded that stores,
treasure, all his herds of horses and camels and cattle, and
flocks of sheep, his own personal property, should be made
over to 'Alā-ud-Din; and Sulṭān Sanjar said:—“’Alā-
ud-Din, thou art in the condition of a brother to me.
Return, and take all these things-cattle and treasure-
along with thee, and remove them to the country of Ghūr.
If the divine decree should in such wise will, that this
host of Ghuzz should be overcome, and
and we
we should
obtain the victory, when these things shall be demanded
of thee, send them back to me; but otherwise, if it should
turn out that my dominion shall have come to an end,
and the thread of the empire's regularity shall have been
severed, it is far better that these things should remain
with thee than that they should fall into the hands of the
Ghuzz"."
During this period of Sultan 'Alā-ud-Din's absence
from the capital of the kingdom of Ghür, a number of the
Amirs, Maliks, and the great men and judges of the Jibal
[mountain tracts] and of the territory of Ghür, had agreed
together to bring Malik Naşir-ud-Din, Husain, son of
Muḥammad, of Madin, who was the brother's son of 'Alā-
ud-Din, and place him upon the throne of Firuz-koh. A
body of disobedient persons of the territory of Kashi¹, who
excel all the rest of the people of Ghur in arrogance and
obstinacy, had committed great violence, and by their
turbulence and clamour, under pretence of grants, gifts,
5 The first line here is slightly different in some few copies, and varies a
little from what was given at page 150, and reads, "Verily the dust of thy
steed's hoof is my diadem," but the rest agrees with the former version. Other
authors quote the line as given in the text above.
6 The Tarikh-i-Ibrahimi says "both Ghur and Ghaznin."
7 Another author says that Sultan Sanjar bestowed a standard and kettle
drums upon 'Ala-ud-Din, and restored him to the rulership of Ghūr.
s Captivity did not sound well in Minhaj-i-Sarāj's ears apparently.
• Some have Hasan.
1 This word is written "Kasi" in several copies.
A a
362
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NAŞIRĪ.
alms, and robes of distinction, had appropriated the royal
treasure and property.
When Sultan 'Ala-ud-Din came towards Ghur from
Khurāsān with all that treasure, cattle, and wealth [con-
ferred upon him by Sulṭān Sanjar], he first proceeded in
the direction of the territory of Kashi, destroyed the whole
of their Kushks [fortified villages], which exceeded a
thousand Kasrs in number, and every one of which, in
strength and height, was such, that the decision of conjec-
ture and conception could not admit a plan of it.
After having taken vengeance upon the rebels of the
Kashi territory and other mountain tracts, he ['Ala-ud-Din]
returned to the capital Firuz-koh, and, before his reaching
it, they had killed Malik Naşir-ud-Din-i-Muḥammad, as
will, subsequently, be recorded. When Sulṭān 'Alā-ud-Din
arrived at Firuz-koh, and [again] seated himself on the
throne of his ancestors, he turned his attention to the
making of fresh conquests. He brought under his sway
the districts of Bāmiān and Tukhāristān², and seized the
districts of Dāwar, Jarūm, and Bust also; and, of Khurā-
sān, took the fortress of Tulak, which is situated in the
mountains in the vicinity of Hirāt, after a period of six
years³.
There was a poet within the fortress of Tulak, whom
they called by the name of 'Umr-i-Sarāj; and, when hosti-
lities were about to come to an end, and the fortress of
Tūlak was about to be gained possession of by terms of
accommodation, he composed some vèrses, two lines of
which, which were deserving [of insertion], are here brought
in:
"Seated on horseback, galloping up-hill and down,
Thy object is Tūlak: lo! there is Tulak."
In their language, galloping up-hill and down-dale is
called "Wurlak-Fülak"." "The mercy of God be upon
them!"
2 See the Tukhāristān dynasty farther on.
3 According to this statement, 'Ala-ud-Din must have been investing this
place during the whole of his reign, for he only ruled six years.
4 These words vary in most of the copies of the text, but the best copies
have as above written. Some have "Ūrlak-Fülak,' " "Warlak-Tulak," and
"Wurkal-Tūkal. The
Pus❜hto.
words are unintelligible, and are certainly not
THE SHANSABANIAH DYNASTY OF GHŪR.
363
From that place 'Alā-ud-Din turned his face to the
conquest of Gharjistān; and took to wife the lady Ḥūr
Malikah, who was the daughter of the Shār, Shāh [by
name], son of Ibrāhim, Shār, son of Ardshir, one of the
Maliks of Gharjistān; and the valley of the Murghāb
river and [its] fortresses came into his possession. The
fortress of Sabekji' [or Sabegji], however, held out, and
carried on hostilities [against him] for six years'; and of
this time, for a period of three years, he sat down con-
tinually before it, until it was given up to him.
Towards the end of Sultan 'Ala-ud-Din's life, Mula-
hidah emissaries came to him from Alamut, and he
treated them with great reverence; and in every place
in Ghūr they sought, secretly, to make proselytes. The
Mulāḥidah [heretic] of Alamut had set his ambition on
subjecting the people of Ghūr [to his heresy], and making
them submissive. This fact became defilement which
adhered to the train of the 'Ala-i robe of sovereignty. Of
his life, however, but a short period remained, and he
died, and they buried him by the side of his ancestors
and his brethren. The Almighty forgive him!
5 See note 6, page 341.
6 The name of this place is doubtful. The majority of copies have as
سبکی ستكجم
سبتكجي ستبكجي but other copies have سبیکجی written above
سبکی سنکجی - سبتكجى - ستبكجي
سبیکنی - -
سنيكجي
and
Of Ghur we have no knowledge whatever, and the Politicals,
who were stationed in Afghanistan previous to the outbreak in 1841, although
they did gain a little knowledge of the eastern parts of Afghānistān, appear
almost to have neglected the western parts.
7 See note ³, preceding page.
8 Alamut, from and the eagle's [not vulture's] nest-the name
of the stronghold of Hasan-i-Sabbaḥ, the Shaykh-ul-Jibal, or the Old Man of
the Mountain, or Chief of the Assassins, as the chief of this sect used to
be called. The person here referred to, however, is MUHAMMAD, son of
BUZURG-UMĪD, the third of the Alamutiahs, who died in 557 H.
Elliot, INDIA, vol. ii. pages 289-90, he is turned into "the Muláhi-datu-l-
maut"! See page 365, and note ³.
In
'Ala-ud-Din, Husain, died at Hirāt in 551 H., the same year in which
Sultan Sanjar escaped from the Ghuzz, and Itsiz, Khwārazm Shāh, died,
according to Faşiḥ-i, Lubb-ut-Tawarikh, Ḥabib-us-Siyar, Haft-Iklim,
Mir'āt-i-Jahan Numā, and several others, but, according to Jahān Ārā and
Muntakhab-ut-Tawārikh, in 556 H., but this is incorrect. Jannābi says in
566 H. ! Our author, although brought up in the residence of his niece, and
the glorifier of all things Ghūriān, appears neither to have known the
year of 'Alā-ud-Din's death nor the extent of his reign. He reigned six
years.
9 How many sons he had our author did not appear to consider necessary
A a 2
364
THE TABAĶĀT-1-NĂŞIRĪ.
XV. MALIK NĂŞIR-UD-DİN, AL-HUSAIN, SON OF MUHAMMAD,
MĀDĪNĪ.
When Sultan 'Ala-ud-Din, Husain, was made captive
in the engagement with Sulṭān Sanjar, the [affairs of the]
territories of Ghūr and the Jibāl [mountain tracts] became
weak and disordered. The refractory and disobedient of
Ghur began to show contumacy, and each tribe fortified
itself in the hills and defiles in which it dwelt, and com-
menced carrying on strife and hostility one against the
other.
A party of the great Amirs who still remained [for a
great number had been slain or made captive in the battle
against Sulṭān Sanjar] brought Malik Nāṣir-ud-Din,
Husain, son of Muḥammad, Madini, from Madin, and
placed him on the throne of Firuz-koh'. The treasures of
Sultan 'Ala-ud-Din, and the treasures of his son, Sultān
Saif-ud-Din, he took into his own possession; and the
whole of the precious things, treasures, and valuable pro-
perty, and other effects stored up, he expended upon those
Amirs, and great men, and on mean persons, and seized
upon the dominions of Ghur. His strength lay in the
support of the rebels of the Kashi country.
This Malik, Nãṣir-ud-Din, had a great passion for women
and virgins, and he had taken a number of the handmaids
and slave girls of the haram of Sulṭān 'Alā-ud-Din under
his own control, and used to have recourse to them.
When Sultan 'Ala-ud-Din, having been dismissed with
great honour and respect from the presence of Sulṭān San-
jar, set out towards the dominions of Ghur, and reached the
hill country of Hirāt, and the news of the advent of his ex-
alted banners was brought to Firūz-koh, terror, and fright,
and the fear of retribution, threw all hearts into dread.
A party, who were loyally devoted to the 'Ala-i dynasty,
secretly instigated and incited those slave girls of 'Alā-ud-
Din's haram, who had been taken into Malik Naşir-ud-
Din's haram, so that they sought an opportunity; and, at
to state here; but we shall find that he had two at least, both of whom
succeeded to the sovereignty.
1 He is not mentioned as a ruler by other authors, who pass at once from
'Alã-ud-Din, Husain, to his son; but there is no doubt about Naşir-ud-Din,
Husain, having seized the sovereignty and held it during the former's captivity.
THE SHANSABĀNĪAH DYNASTY OF GHŰR.
365
a time when Malik Nāṣir-ud-Din was lying asleep on his
couch, they placed the pillow of the couch over his face,
and, with all their force, held down the four corners of the
pillow until they suffocated him, and he died.
9
XVI. SULŢĂN SAIF-UD-DĪN, MUḤAMMAD, SON OF SULŢĂN
'ALA-UD-DİN, AL-HUSAIN.
When Sultan 'Alā-ud-Din departed from this world, his
son, Sultan Saif-ud-Din, Muḥammad, with the concur-
rence of the whole of the Maliks, Amirs, and chief men of
Ghur, ascended the throne of Firuz-koh.
He was a youthful and good-looking sovereign, and was
beneficent in disposition, just, the cherisher of his subjects,
and patronizer of his servants, bountiful, munificent, open-
hearted, and liberal, humble, conciliating, pious, orthodox,
and steadfast in the faith of Islam. When he ascended the
throne, he, at the outset, repudiated acts of tyranny and
injustice; and for all the injustice, oppression, and violence
which his father had committed, he commanded that resti-
tution should be made; and he carried out his purpose
according to the institutes of justice, and the ways of
rectitude.
Those emissaries who had come from the Mulāḥidah
[heretic] of Alamut [towards the close of his father's
reign], and who, secretly, had exhorted every person to the
vanities of heresy and schism, he directed should be brought
to task, and the whole of them, by his orders, were put to
the sword. In every place wherein the odour of their
impure usages was perceived, throughout the territory of
Ghūr, slaughter of all heretics was commanded. The
whole of them were sent to Hell, and the area of the
country of Ghūr, which was a mine of religion and ortho-
doxy, was purified from the infernal impurity of Karamitah³
depravity by the sword. By this orthodox war upon in-
fidels, love for him became rooted in the hearts of the
people of Ghūr and of the territory of the Jibāl; and the
Styled Malik by several authors.
3 Our author makes no difference between Muläḥidahs and Karāmiṭahs,
but they are different sects. See Sale, ĶU'RAN, Preliminary Discourse,
pages 130-31.
366
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NÂȘIRĪ.
whole of them bound the girdle of his service round their
loins, and placed the collar of obedience to him about the
neck of sincerity.
One of the proofs of his equity, and of the goodness of
his rule, was this, that he gave orders for the release from
the fortress of Wajiristan of both his uncle's sons, Ghiyāṣ-
ud-Din, Muḥammad, and Mu'izz-ud-Din, Muḥammad, the
sons of Sām, and he cherished and caressed them, and
allowed them perfect liberty of action.
During his reign people, both comers and goers, enjoyed
plenty, repose, and security beyond compute; but that
youthful monarch of excellent disposition had but a short
life, and his reign only extended to the space of one year
and little more. The mercy of God be upon him!
The cause of his loss of life was this :-One day, seated
in his pavilion, he was discharging arrows at a butt; and
the Amirs of Ghur had been directed to be present, and
were in attendance. The Sipah-sālār [commander of the
troops], War-mesh, son of Shis, who was the brother of
Abū-l-'Abbās, son of Shis, and the brother of Suliman, son
of Shis, was also in attendance on him. It was the custom
with the Amirs of Ghur, and the Maliks of the Jibal, at
that period, that upon whomsoever they would confer
honour, him they should present with a golden gauntlet
studded with jewels, after the same manner as, in these
days, they bestow a girdle; and on the hand[s] of this
commander, War-mesh, son of Shis, were two gem-studded
gauntlets, which Malik Naṣir-ud-Din, Husain, Mādini,
had honoured him with; and both those gauntlets were
from the treasury of Sultan Saif-ud-Din's own haram.
When he perceived those two gauntlets belonging to his
own haram upon the hand of War-mesh, the honour of
manhood, and the dignity of sovereignty, began to flame
up within his heart, and the fire of wrath burst forth, and
he said:" Run, War-mesh, and bring back my arrow from
the butt." When War-mesh turned his face towards the
4 The word used is a glove or gauntlet; a bracelet may have
been what our author intended, as it is difficult, I should imagine, to wear two
gauntlets on one hand, but he says on the hand," not the hands. The word
for bracelet, however, is
Other writers say, a bracelet, which Naşir-
ud-Din, Ḥusain, had taken from one of 'Ala-ud-Din's wives, and presented to
War-mesh. It is the father's haram at page 364.
THE SHANSABĀNĪAH DYNASTY OF GHÛR.
367
butt, in order to carry out this command, and his back
was turned towards the Sultan, he, Sultan Saif-ud-Din,
fitted a broad steel-headed arrow" to his bow, and drew
the bow-string to his ear, and discharged the arrow with
such force into the back of War-mesh, that the feathers of
the arrow passed out through his breast, and he fell down
dead on the spot.
As the empire of the Sanjari dynasty had come to an
end, the Amirs of the tribe of Ghuzz had acquired power,
and had taken possession of the different parts of the
territory of Khurāsān, and their violence and depredations
had extended in all directions; and the disquietude and
affliction consequent upon these depredations used to reach
the frontier districts of the kingdom of Ghur, and the
borders of the hill tracts of Gharjistan.
When Sultan Saif-ud-Din brought the dominions of his
father under his jurisdiction, he assembled his forces, and
set out for the purpose of restraining the aggressions of
the Ghuzz, and reached the confines of Gharjistān, and the
district of Madin'. From thence he advanced to Rūd-
bār⁹ of Marw, and passed beyond Dajzak, which is a large
city [town?], and came to a battle with the Ghuzz.
The Sipah-sālār, Abū-l-'Abbas, son of Shis, who was
the champion of Ghūr, of the family of the Shiṣānis, and
who nourished revenge in his heart on account of War-mesh,
son of Shis [his own brother], and waited his opportunity,
on the day of the encounter with the Ghuzz, came behind
the back of the Sultan, Saif-ud-Din, and thrust his spear
into his side, and hurled him from his horse, and exclaimed
[at the same time], "Men are not killed with their faces
to the butt, as thou didst kill my brother, otherwise they
[themselves] get killed at such a place as this."
5 The arrow-head called bel-ak, formed in the shape of a shovel; hence its
name-a little shovel. It is also called the "huntsman's arrow-head," and a
double-pointed arrow-head also.
• The “meek, conciliating, and pious" youth did not hesitate to shoot an
enemy in the back!
7 Some copies of the text have Fārus, which is sometimes written Ķādus,
instead of Mādin. See page 374, and note 6.
s Rūd-bār also means a river in a valley," but here refers to a place so
called.
9 Some writers mention that he was "killed in battle with the Ghuzz of
Balkh," and that it happened in 558 H.; but he is said to have reigned some-
368
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĂŞIRI.
When the Sultan fell, the troops of Ghür were defeated
and routed, and they likewise left the [wounded] Sulṭān on
the field. A Ghuzz [soldier] came upon him, and, as yet,
the Sultan was still alive. The Ghuzz, when he noticed
the princely vest and girdle, was desirous of despoiling
him of them. The fastening of the Sultan's girdle would
not come open quickly, on which the Ghuzz applied his
knife to the fastening, and divided it. The point of the
knife entered the stomach of Sulṭān Saif-ud-Din with force,
and from that wound he obtained martyrdom.
XVII. SULTAN ¹-UL-A'ZAM, GHIYAŞ-UD-DUNYĀ WA UD-DİN,
ABU-L-FATH, MUHAMMAD, SON OF BAHA-UD.DIN, SAM,
KASİM-I-AMĪR-UL-MŪMINİN 2.
Trustworthy persons have stated, after the following
manner, that Sultan Ghiyās-ud-Din, and his brother,
Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din, were both born of one mother; and
that Ghiyas-ud-Din was the elder of Mu'izz-ud-Din by
three years and a little more. Their mother was the
daughter of Malik Badr-ud-Din, Kidāni, both of the lineage
of Banji, son of Naharan, and also of the seed of the
Shansabānis. The Malikah, their mother, used to call
Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din [by the name of] Ḥabashi; and Mu'izz-ud-
Din, Zangi³; but, originally, the august name of Ghiyāṣ-ud-
Din was Muḥammad, and the name of Mu'izz-ud-Din was
thing less than two years, and, in this case, if his father died in 551 H., there
are three or four years unaccounted for, and, if the former date is correct, 'Alā
must have died in 556 H., or his son must have reigned about seven years;
but, as our author says that Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din, who succeeded him, died in
599 H., after a reign of forty-three years, Saif-ud-Din, 'Alā's son, must have
been killed in 556 H. Some other authors, however, say Ghiyaṣ-ud-Din
only reigned forty-one years, which would make 558 H. as the year of Saif-ud-
Din's death correct. The Mirat-i-Jahan Numā says that his father died in
551 H., and Saif-ud-Din reigned one year and a half, and by some accounts
seven years, and that he was killed in a battle with the Ghuzz of Balkh. In
all probability he was killed in 558 H.
1 Styled
"Malik by many authors, like the whole dynasty.
The legendary etymology of this assumed title has already been given at
page 315; but its real meaning was, probably, co-sharer, or the like, from
a share, portion, &c. See also page 316, and note 9.
3 Why their mother called them by these "pet" names does not appear.
We must suppose that they were both very dark indeed, as both words signify
Abyssinian, Ethiop, negro, &c.
THE SHANSABANĨAH DYNASTY OF GHÜR.
369
also Muḥammad. In the dialect of Ghūr they call Muḥam-
mad, Ahmad".
When Malik Baha-ud-Din, Sam, died within the limits
of Kidān, and Sulṭān 'Alā-ud-Din, Husain, ascended the
throne of Firuz-koh, he commanded that his two nephews,
Ghiyas-ud-Din and Mu'izz-ud-Din, should be imprisoned
in the fortress of Wajiristän³, and fixed but a small
allowance for the supply of their wants". When Sulṭān
'Ala-ud-Din departed from this world, Sultan Saif-ud-Din
directed that they should be released from that fortress,
and he allowed them entire liberty of action. Ghiyās-ud-
Din took up his residence at the Court of Firūz-koh in
amity with Sulṭān Saif-ud-Din, and Mu'izz-ud-Din, his
brother, proceeded to Bāmian to the presence of his pater-
nal uncle, Malik Fakhr-ud-Din, Mas'ūd.
Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din accompanied Sultan Saif-ud-Din, serving
along with the army, on the expedition against the Ghuzz
tribe; but he had, however, but a small following through
want of means and scantiness of resources; but every one,
among the old servants of his father and of his mother,
used clandestinely to afford him some little help.
Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din continued always in the service of Sulṭān
Saif-ud-Din up to the time when the heavenly decree
arrived, and Sultan Saif-ud-Din was removed from the
throne of life imperial to the bier of premature death';
and the army of Ghur, discomfited, came out of the district
of Rūd-bar and the borders of Dajzak towards Gharjistān
by way of Asir Darah and La-wir [or Lū-ir ?], and passed
beyond Afshin, which was the capital of the Shars of
Gharjistān; and, when they reached the town of Wada-
wajzd, the Sipāh-sālāṛ, Abū-l-'Abbās, son of Shis, who
4 See note 4, page 313.
5 A few authors have stated that the two brothers were placed in charge of
Ghaznin [not a province of Ghur] by their uncle, Ala-ud-Din, Husain, but
such is not correct, and our author's statements here and at pages 357 and 366
are quite correct, and are confirmed by many authors of undoubted authority,
See also Thomas: THE PATHAN KINGS OF DEHLI, page 10.
6 See paragraph 14, note 2, page 347.
7 For shooting the greatest of his chiefs in the back, in a cowardly manner,
in a fit of jealousy.
8 The text bere in all the copies is more or less exceedingly defective, and
it would be almost impossible to make anything of this passage without col-
lating the number of copies I have seen. As it is there is some doubt about
two or three of the proper names. Some copies have Abar [ ] and Asir
370
THE TABAKAT-I-NĀṢIRĪ.
had unhorsed Sulṭān Saif-ud-Din with his spear, there
presented himself in the presence of Ghiyās-ud-Din; and
such of the most powerful and illustrious personages, and
the Amirs and Maliks of the troops of Ghur and Gharjistān
as were present, he assembled and brought together,
and they all gave their allegiance to the sovereignty and
dominion of Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din, and they raised him to the
throne, and congratulated him on his accession to the
supreme power. Command was given to erect a castle
there [where this occurred], and up to this time, wherein
the calamity of the infidel Mughals arose, that town and
castle was inhabited. From thence they conducted him to
the city of Firūz-koh, and, when they reached the city,
they placed Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din on the throne.
Previously to this, his title was Shams-ud-Din; and his
brother's, Shihab-ud-Din; but, after he had been on the
throne some time, his own title was changed to Sultan
Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din; and, after the successes in Khurāsān,
his brother Malik Shihab-ud-Din's title became Sultān
Mu'izz-ud-Dinº.
When his brother, Mu'izz-ud-Din', became cognizant
of his brother Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din's situation, he proceeded to
the presence of his uncle, Malik Fakhr-ud-Din, Mas'ud,
and asked his permission, and came to Firuz-koh, and
he was invested with the office of Sar-i-Jāndār [or
chief armour-bearer], and he used to be always in attend-
ance on his brother, Sulṭān Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din. The territory
of Istiah' and Kajūrān were entrusted to his charge.
Some و د وژد] for Wadawajzd [وژاورد ] and Wajzaward ,[اسیر] for Asir [اسر]
copies may be read any way, and have no diacritical points. The name of
the capital of Gharjistān, which is also called Gharchistan, is also written in
various ways, and, in some copies, is unintelligible; but the above reading is
confirmed by Vafa-i, who gives a detailed account of the Shārs; but Fașiḥ-i
calls the town Afshinah. Ibn-Hūkal says, the two [chief] towns of Ghar-
The first is evidently an error of the
سورهين and بشین not نشین jistan are
copyist for and so confirms Yafa-Ï's statement.
• Several years after his brother's accession. Modern writers of Indian
history generally, and European writers, English in particular, put the cart
before the horse in this respect, but the latest version of his name, in this way,
occurs in THE STUDENT'S MANUAL OF INDIAN HISTORY, where he
appears as
"Shahab ood Deen, Mahmood Ghoory"! Shihab has a meaning,
but "Shahab " none: moreover his name was not Maḥmūd.
1 The writer does not mean that he was then Mu'izz-ud-Din, but subsequently.
2 Written by some other authors, Istiyā. It is the name of a small district
and range of hills between Ghaznin and Hirāt.
THE SHANSABĀNĪAH DYNASTY OF GHŪR.
371
When the [Sultan's] pavilion was brought out of the
city of Firūz-koh, and conveyed towards Ghūr³, the con-
tumacious of Ghūr began to manifest opposition. The
Sipāh-sālār, Abū-l-'Abbās, son of Shis, who had raised
him to the throne, possessed great authority and influence,
and the refractory of Ghur used to shelter themselves
under his protection. Both the brothers continued to
nourish revenge in their hearts against him [Abū-l-'Abbās],
on account of his having killed their cousin, Sulṭān Saif-ud-
Din, and they both concerted a design [against him]. It
was determined between them, that one of their own imme-
diate Turkish followers should carry it out [in the following
manner]:-When Abu-l-'Abbās should enter the audience-
hall, and should stand up in the assembly to make his
obeisance, and Sulṭān Mu'izz-ud-Din should raise his hand
to his cap¹, the Turk should strike off Abu-l-'Abbās' head;
and such was done.
After Abu-l-'Abbās had been put to death, Ghiyāṣ-ud-
Din acquired strength, and the grandeur of the realm
increased. The uncle of the brothers, Malik Fakhr-ud-
Din, Mas'ud, of Bāmiān, being the eldest of the seven
Sultan brothers, and there being neither one of them
remaining [but himself], he became ambitious of acquiring
the territory of Ghur and the throne of Firuz-koh. Malik
'Alā-ud-Din, Ķimāj [a noble] of the Sanjari dynasty, who
was Malik [ruler] of Balkh, he sought aid from, and
despatched envoys to Malik Tāj-ud-Din, Yal-dūz", of Hirāt,
and asked assistance from him also. Subsequently, the
3 From the manner in which our author here expresses himself [and the
sentence is the same in all the copies collated], Ghūr must have been the
name of a town as well as of the whole country. From many of his expres-
sions, however, in other places, Firūz-koh would seem to refer to one district
or territory, Ghūr to another, and the Jibāl to a third.
4 The word here used signifies not a cap exactly, but a head-dress made from
the fur or skin of an animal, of cloth or other texture, or of cloth of gold, and
the like, made into a head-dress, a tiara, diadem, &c., but not a turban.
Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din, the elder brother, engaged Abu-l-'Abbās in conversation,
whilst the other brother gave the sign for his assassination. Abu-l-'Abbās
appears to have suspected treachery, for he had half drawn his dagger from
its sheath when he was cut down. This is a specimen of the noble qualities of
those amiable and pious sovereigns of our author, and is quite in keeping with
their treachery, or at least with Mu'izz-ud-Din's towards Khusrau Malik. See
note 5, pages 112-13.
5 They were not all styled "Sultan," even by his own account.
6
I-yal-dūz of others.
372
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĂŞIRĪ. .
troops of Bāmian and the forces of Balkh and of Hirāt
advanced from different directions towards Firuz-koh.
Malik Fakhr-ud-Din, Mas'ud, of Bamian, being the
uncle of the Sultāns, and there being a great number of
the Amirs of Ghur in his service, and he claiming the ter-
ritory of Ghur by right of heritage, set out at first, and
Malik 'Alā-ud-Din, Ķimāj, the Amir [ruler] of Balkh,
began to follow after him, at the distance of some leagues,
by the route of Upper Gharjistān, while Malik Tāj-ud-Din,
Yal-duz, marched to Firuz-koh with his army from Hirāt,
it being the nearest route by way of the Hariw-ar-Rūd ', or
valley of the Hari river.
S
Sultan Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din and Mu'izz-ud-Din came out of
Firuz-koh, and proceeded to a place which is called Ragh-
i-Zarir [the Zarir plain] and the forces of Ghūr there
assembled around them. Tāj-ud-Din, Yal-dūz, of Hirāt,
used the utmost expedition, being ambitious of this, that
perhaps the capture of Firuz-koh and the destruction of
the Ghūrian army might be achieved by him.
When he arrived near to the position of the Ghurian
forces, and both armies confronted each other, and prepa-
rations were being made for coming to action, so that only
about the distance of half-a-league intervened between
them, and the ranks of either army could be seen by the
other, two Ghurian warriors from the midst of the army
formed a compact, and came to the front of the [mar-
shalled] ranks, and presented themselves before the Sultan,
dismounted from their horses, and, bowing their faces to
the ground, said, "We two your servants will disperse the
army of Hirāt;" so by command they mounted, and,
rousing both their horses, they drew their swords, and, like
the fierce blast, and the flying cloud, they approached
towards the ranks of the Turks of Hirāt, crying out, "Where
is Malik Yal-dūz? We seek Malik Yal-dūz!"
Malik Taj-ud-Din, Yal-düz, was standing beneath his
canopy, and his troops all pointed towards him, so that
those Ghūrian warriors knew which was Yal-duz; and both
7 This clause of the sentence is only contained in the best copies of the text.
8 In some copies Ragh-i-Zar," which is much the same, zar signifying
golden or yellow, and Zarir the name of a grass yielding a yellow dye. One
old copy has Wejz, which signifies purc.
THE SHANSABĀNĪAH DYNASTY OF GHŪR.
373
of them like hungry lions and rampant elephants fell upon
Yal-dūz, and brought him from his horse to the ground by
the wounds inflicted by their swords. When the troops of
Hirāt beheld this heroism, boldness, and intrepidity, they
gave way and took to flight. As Almighty God had
brought those two Sultāns, Ghiyās-ud-Din and Mu'izz-ud-
Din, beneath the shadow of His kindness, He made such
a victory and triumph as this a miracle of theirs.
The next day a body of horse', lightly equipped and
ruthless, was nominated to proceed against the force of
Ķimāj of Balkh. They fell upon his army unawares, put
it to flight, took Ķimāj, and slew him, and brought his
head to the presence of the Sultāns together with his
standard. Then the head of Kimāj was placed in à bag,
and entrusted to a horseman's charge, and they sent him to
meet their uncle, Malik Fakhr-ud-Din, Mas'ud. The latter
had arrived near at hand; and, when they [the Sultāns]
had despatched the head of Ķimāj, they put their forces
in motion to follow, and pushed on towards their uncle,
Malik Fakhr-ud-Din.
When that horseman brought the head of Ķimāj to the
presence of Malik Fakhr-ud-Din he determined upon re-
turning, and made his troops mount; and, by the time they
had become ready prepared to begin their retreat, the two
Sultāns had come up [with their forces] and had occupied
all the parts around. On reaching the place where their
uncle was, Sultan Ghiyās-ud-Din and Mu'izz-ud-Din at
once dismounted from their horses, and proceeded to
receive him, and paid him great attention and considera-
tion, and said, "It is necessary that your lordship should
return;" and they conducted him to their camp and seated
9 This "miracle" is not mentioned by other authors, with the exception of
a very few who copy from our author. The Rauzat-us-Safa says that the
brothers despatched two bodies of troops to oppose the advance of two of the
confederates, the ruler of Hirāt, whose name is not given, and Ķimāj of Balkh ;
and that the Ghurian forces slew both of them, and returned triumphant to the
presence of Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din, who despatched the head of the son of Ķimāj of
Balkh to his uncle, who repented of his expedition, and sought to retire.
Troops had been despatched, however, to surround him, and the brothers
followed; and, when they found Fakhr-ud-Din, Mas`ūd, their uncle, had been
intercepted, they went to him. Then follows much copied almost word for
word from our author.
1 Three copies of the text have "several thousand horse," &c.
374
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĂŞIRĪ.
2
him on a throne, and both those sovereigns stood up
before him with their hands stuck in their girdles [in token.
of servitude]. From this Malik Fakhr-ud-Din became
filled with shame and compunction, and, overcome with
humiliation, he spoke to them some words of rebuke, arose,
and said, "You mock me!" They mollified him by many
apologies and excuses, and accompanied him one stage, and
sent him on his return back to Bāmiān; and the territory
of Ghur was left vacant to Sultan Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din.
After that event he proceeded into Garmsir and Zamin-
i-Dawar, and that tract was liberated; and, as Malik Taj-
ud-Din, Yal-dūz, of Hirāt, had been slain, and the army of
Hirāt had returned thither discomfited, Badr-ud-Din,
Tughril, who was one of [Sulṭān] Sanjar's slaves, took
Hirät into his own jurisdiction, and held possession of it
for a considerable time, until the inhabitants of Hirat
despatched petitions to Sultan Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din inviting him
[thither], and that success was also achieved.
5
2 Mu'izz-ud-Din was not then a sovereign prince, and did not become so
nominally until after the taking of Ghaznin from the Ghuzz.
3 He obtained possession of Badghais at the same period, and is said to have
entered into a connexion with the chiefs of Gharjistān, and established his sway
also over that tract of country. From whose possession Garmsir and Zamin-i-
Dawar were "liberated our author does not state. Faşiḥ-i, however,
mentions that in the same year in which he succeeded his cousin, 558 H.,
Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din fought an engagement with the Ghuzz, vanquished them, and
imposed tribute on them. The Ghuzz were doubtless in possession of the
districts mentioned above.
4 See note 5, page 379.
5 This
success" could have been but a very temporary one, for, by our
author's own account, Tughril was in possession of Hirāt up to the year when
Sulṭān Shāh, Khwārazmi, was defeated by the Ghūris, which event took place
in 588 H. In another place, our author, referring to this "taking" of Hirāt,
says it happened in 571 H., yet seventeen years after Tughril still, by his own
account, held Hirāt. See page 249, and note 5, page 379.
During the Khilafat of the 'Abbāsi Khalifah, Miḥdi, the Ghuzz entered
Mãwar-un-Nahr from the north, and became converts to Islām; but Mukanna’-
i-Miti [the "great Mokanna" of Moore's poem of "Lalla Rookh"], the false
prophet, reduced them under his sway. When the 'Abbāsis set about putting
down Mukanna', the Ghuzz deserted him, and retired to the more southern
parts of Mawar-un-Nahr. They were constantly engaged in hostilities with the
Ķārlughiah Turk-māns, who were generally victorious over them. The Ghuzz
were in the habit of paying tribute to the sovereign of the period, and, when
Sulṭān Sanjar ascended the throne of the Saljūķs, 40,000 Ghuzz families entered
the territory of Khutlan and Chaghāniān, and paid a tribute of 24,000 sheep
to the royal kitchen. In 545 H., according to Alfi, when Amir Ķimāj [the
Ķimāj mentioned above, and in note 4, page 336, also probably] was Wali of
THE SHANSABĀNĪAH DYNASTY OF GHÜR.
375
After some years Fāras and the territory of Kaliyun [or
Kāl-yūn], and Fiwār and Baghshor˚, came into his posses-
Balkh, the Ghuzz became disaffected about the collection of the tribute.
Ķimaj was at enmity with Amir Zangi, son of Khalifah, Shaibāni, the Wāli
of Tukhāristan [this was a short time before Fakhr-ud-Din, Mas'ud, Ghūri,
became ruler of Tukhāristan and Bāmiān], who, seizing the opportunity of
Ķimāj's absence at the court of Sultan Sanjar, and fearing lest the Ghuzz, who
had lately been worsted by the Karlughs, and had abandoned Mawar-un-Nahr,
and contemplated migration into Khurāsān, might be induced to join his
enemy, Amir Ķimāj, he invited them to take up their quarters in Tukhāristān,
wherein he assigned them lands. In a dispute about the revenue, brought
about by Kimāj out of enmity to Zangi, the Ghuzz slew him and one of his
sons, and, at last, Sultān Sanjar moved against them, and he fell captive into
their hands. Sanjar returned from captivity in 551 H., having effected his
escape by the aid of Aḥmad, son of Ķimāj, governor of Tirmid [see page 155,
and note 6, and note 8, page 156], and died in 552 H.
',
In 553 H. the Ghuzz
poured forth from Balkh [the province of?], and moved towards Sarakhs.
Mu'ayyid-i-'Ã-inah-dar, the slave of Maḥmūd, Sanjar's nephew, and, after-
wards, ruler of Nishapur [see note 7, page 18o], and other parts of Upper
Khurāsān, made a night attack upon them, and overthrew them with great
slaughter. He encountered them again, two months after, in sight of Marw,
whither they had moved, when the Ghuzz were victorious, and they carried
on great depredations in Khurāsān. Other events followed, which are too
long to be related here; but, subsequently, Mu'ayyid became independent, and
acquired power over greater part of Khurāsān. The Ghuzz were in posses-
sion, however, of Marw, Sarakhs, Balkh, and some other tracts; and some
parts were under the sway of the Khwārazmis. Hirāt was held by a chief
named Malik Aetkin, who, in 559 H., marched into Ghur with a considerable
army; but, the Ghūris being prepared to receive him, Aetkin was slain in the
battle which ensued. This in all probability is the Tāj-ud-Din, Val-duz, of our
author. He was succeeded at Hirāt by one of his own officers, styled Babar-ud-
Din in Alfi, and he must be our author's Bahā-ud-Din, Tughril. This chief, not
considering himself safe from the power of Amir Mu'ayyid, and having some pre-
vious acquaintance with the Ghuzz chiefs, called upon them to help him, intend-
ing to give up Hirāt to them. On the appearance of the Ghuzz, however, the
people of Hirāt rose against Babar-ud-Din, and put him to death in the same
year. [See note 2, page 239.] Mu'ayyid was himself put to death in 569 H.
Saif-ud-Din, Muḥammad of Ghūr, was slain when engaging the Ghuzz of Balkh
in 558 H., and in the same year his successor, Ghiyaş-ud-Din, defeated them
with great slaughter, and imposed tribute on [some portion?] of them, and
in 571 H. his brother, Mu'izz-ud-Din, encountered a tribe of them, as will be
mentioned under his reign. Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din, Ghūri, gained possession of Hirāt
[temporarily ?] in 571 H. These events appear to be identical with what our
author relates above. See also second paragraph to note at page 349, page 367,
and note 5, page 379.
In
6 With respect to these proper names there is great discrepancy in the
different copies of the text. The majority of the best and oldest copies are as
above; but in place of Faras, some have Fādas and Ķādas, and one Ķādush,
which place is mentioned, in several places, written in the same manner.
place of Baghshor, contained in one set of copies, Saif-rūd is contained in the
other set.
I have before alluded to this curious fact that the twelve copies
collated appear, in several places, to be two distinct sets of the original. In
376
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĂŞIRÎ.
sion; and, when these parts came under his jurisdiction, he
took to wife the daughter of his uncle, the Malikah, Tāj-ud-
Dunya wa ud-Din, Gohar Malik [Malikah ?] the daughter of
Sulṭān 'Alā-ud-Din, Husain. The whole of Gharjistān, and
Tāl-kān', and Juzarwan, devolved upon him; and Tigin-
ābād, out of the district of Jarūm', Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din made
over to his brother, Mu'izz-ud-Din, after he had returned
from Sijistān¹. He [now] began to despatch [bodies of]
horse towards Ghaznin, and the district of Zābul, and parts
adjacent thereunto; and, at that period, the territory of
Kabul, Zābul, and Ghaznin were in the hands of the tribes
of the Ghuzz, who had wrested them out of the possession
of Khusrau Shah. The reign of Khusrau Shah had ter-
minated, and his son, Khusrau Malik, had made Lohor his
capital.
The Amirs of the Ghuzz [tribe] who were in Ghaznin,
not being able to oppose the forces of Ghür [in the field]
threw up intrenchments, and, from the excessive firmness
of the Ghuzz, the Ghūrian army very nearly sustained an
overthrow. Sulṭān Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din retired, and despatched
a body of Ghürians to the aid of Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din 3.
Suddenly a body of Ghuzz warriors attacked [the army
of Ghūr], and captured the royal standard of the Ghūriāns,
and carried it away within their own intrenchments. The
Ghūrian forces in the right and left wings imagined that
the list of places and territories acquired at the end of Ghiyās-ud-Din's
reign farther on, the name of Baghshor is not mentioned. It is probable
that Fiwar and Baghshor are correct, and that one has been omitted by
different copyists.
7 A different place to Tae-kān.
8 This is the place referred to fifth paragraph of note 2, pages 257-8.
9 In a few copies "and the district of Jarum and Tigin-ābād," &c.
1 See page 184.
2 This remark confirms the statements of those authors who state that
Khusrau Shāh returned to his sacked and devastated capital after 'Alā-ud-Din,
Husain, had abandoned it, and also tends to show that it must have been the
same monarch, and not his father, who fled from Ghaznin when 'Alā-ud-Din,
Husain, appeared before it. See para. 10 to note 2, p. 347, and note 3, p. 350.
3 The whole of this sentence, and the first word of the next, are neither
contained in either of the Paris copies, nor in the Bodleian MS., the I.O.L.
MS., 1952, or the R. A.S. MS. ; and, certainly, the passage is somewhat obscure.
It would appear that Ghiyas-ud-Din retired to obtain reinforcements, and also
that he subsequently returned [as mentioned a few sentences after], which
latter statement is contained in those very copies which omit the former. The
Sultan, however, could not have retired to any very great distance, otherwise
he would not have been in time to take part in the closing scene of the battle.
THE SHANSABĀNĪAH DYNASTY OF GHŪR.
377
the royal standard had accompanied their own centre into
the intrenchments of the enemy, and they advanced to the
attack in all directions, broke through the intrenchments of
the Ghuzz, and carried them, and put the Ghuzz to the
rout. The news reached Sultan Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din, who
returned; and the troops of Ghur commenced slaughter-
ing the Ghuzz, and laid the greater number of that race on
the earth, and Ghaznin was left in the possession of the
Ghūris. This victory was gained in the year 569 H.*
When Ghaznin was conquered, Sultan Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din
placed his brother, Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din, upon the throne
of the Maḥmūdis, and returned himself to Firuz-koh.
After two years, he [Sulṭān Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din] summoned
his troops [again], and the armies of Ghūr and Ghaznin
were got ready, and he advanced to the gates of the city
of Hirāt. The people of that place had been manifesting
signs of duty and desire [to place themselves under his
rule]. When Baha-ud-Din, Tughril, became aware of this
[latter] fact, he evacuated the city of Hirāt, and retired to
the Khwārazm-Shāhis; and, in the year 671 H.7, the city
of Hirāt was taken possession of. Two years subsequent
to this, Fushanj was taken; and, after these successes, the
4 This is the second date given by our author throughout the whole of this
Section. At page 112 he says the Ghuzz held possession of Ghaznin twelve
years, and here says Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din took it from them in 569 H., by which
account they must have got possession of it in 557 H. Khusrau Shah died in
555 H.; so, if the above dates are correct, they could not have wrested
Ghaznin out of his hands. I think our author is pretty correct as to the
period the Ghuzz held Ghaznin, and they appear to have obtained possession
of it in 557 H., or 558 H., probably after the death of Saif-ud-Din, Sūri, 'Alā-
ud-Din, Husain's son, and defeat of the Ghūriāns by the Ghuzz.
sān;
5 From which time only he is entitled to be styled Sultan. Faşiḥ-ī says
that as early as 566 H. the Maliks of Ghur had acquired power in the Ghaznin
territory and in part of Hind, and the Khwärazm Shāhis in 'Irāk and Khura-
but agrees with our author as to the date of the acquirement of the city of
Ghaznin, but some other authors state that it was taken in 568 H. It was in
569 H. that Malik Mu-ayyid i-Ã'inah-dār, in concert with Sultan Shah, fought
an engagement with Sultan 'Imād-ud-Din, Takish. See note 7, page 180,
and note 7, page 245.
6 Fasih-i does not mention the acquirement of Hirāt among the events of
571 H., but states that in that year Mu'izz-ud-Din, Wali of Ghaznin, en-
countered the Sanķuran, a sept of the Ghuzz tribe, and slew many of them.
Some other authors, who say that Ghaznin was taken in 568 H., state that
Hirāt was acquired two years after-in 570 11. The particulars of Tughril's
death will be found at page 379.
7 See note, page 379.
B b
378
THE TABAKAT-I-NĀṢIRĪ.
Malik of Nimroz and Sijistān despatched envoys, and he
enrolled himself among the vassals of that Sultan.
9
8
Subsequently to these events, the Ghuzz Maliks who
were in Kirman paid submission to him; and different
parts of the territory of Khurasan, which were dependent
upon Hirāt and Balkh, such as Tāl-kan, Andkhūd,
Maimand Faryab, Panj-dih, Marw-ar-Rūd, Dajzak,
Kilaf', the whole of those towns came into the possession
of the Ghiyāṣi officers, and the Khutbah and the
coin became adorned by the august name of Sultān
Ghiyās-ud-Din.
After some time, Sultan Shah, Jalāl-ud-Din, Maḥmūd,
son of I-yal-Arsalān, Khwārazm Shāh, was ousted by his
brother, Takish, Khwārazm Shah, and presented himself at
the Court of Sultan Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din. After a time he became
seditious, as has been previously recorded, and departed
for Khiṭā, and from thence brought aid, and took Marw,
and began to ravage the frontier districts of the territories
of Ghur, and commenced harrying and plundering them,
until, in the year 588 H., Sultān Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din commanded,
so that Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din from Ghaznin, Malik Shams-
ud-Din³ of Bamian, and Malik Taj-ud-Din-i-Harab, from
Sijistān, with their forces, assembled at Rudbār of Marw,
and they came and confronted the forces of Sultan Shah,
who, with his troops, marched out of Marw, and proceeded
up [the river]; and, in opposing the Sultan, used to make
irregular and sudden attacks, and to continually harass the
foragers of the Sultan's army. For a period of six months.
8 Malik 'Imād-ud-Din, Dinār, the Ghuzz chief, driven out of the territory
of Sarakhs by Sultan Shah, Khwārazmi [see note 8, page 246], retired
towards Kirman in 581 H.; and, taking advantage of the distracted state of
that kingdom, succeeded in establishing himself therein in Rajab, 583 H., and
reigned over it for a period of eight years, and his son succeeded him. The
subjection of the Ghuzz rulers of Kirman to Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din is not confirmed
by other authors.
C
}}
9 Called also Maihand by some other writers. "Meemuna" and "Meimuna
are mere Anglicised forms, according to the rule of writing Oriental names
contrary to the mode of the inhabitants of places, and also contrary to the way
in which they are spelt.
1 This name is somewhat doubtful. Some have Kashif, but the majority of
copies have the probably of Ibn-i-Hukal.
2 See page 239 and note 2.
3 The same that was taken prisoner in the battle with Sultan Sanjar, along
with 'Ala-ud-Din, Husain, and 'Ali, Jatri, and ransomed for 50,000 dinārs.
See note 3, p. 358.
THE SHANSABĀNĪAH DYNASTY OF GHŪR.
379
this harassing warfare went on; and the two armies con-
tinued in proximity to each other until Sulṭān Mu'izz-ud-
Din commanded that a ferry over the river Murgh-ab
should be sought for, and he crossed it [with his own
forces], and the other troops crossed over after him; and
Sultan Shah was defeated and put to the rout.
This success was gained in the year 588 H.*; and Malik
Bahā-ud-Din, Tughril, the Sanjari, in that encounter, fell
into the hands of the Bāmian troops, and they brought his
head to the presence of Sulṭān Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din³. On that
day, likewise, Malik Shams-ud-Din of Bamian, son of
Bāmiān,
Malik Fakhr-ud-Din, Mas'ud, who was the Sultans' uncle,
obtained [the honour of] a canopy of state, and they gave
him the title of Sultan.
In this same year likewise, previous to the time that
the forces of Ghur, Ghaznin, and Bāmiān were about to
assemble at Rūdbār of Marw, for the purpose of restraining
Sultan Shah, commands had been issued for the martyr-
dom of the gentle and beneficent Sultan, Khusrau Malik".
The mercy of the Almighty be upon him!
Every year fresh successes were taking place in different
directions of the territories of Ghūr', until, in the year
4 This was the year in which, according to most writers, and also our author
himself, Mu'-izz-ud-Din of Ghaznin defeated the Rãe of Dihli.
6 Our author, in another place, page 377, says Ghaznin was taken in 569 H.
[others say, in 568 H.], and that in 571 H. Hirāt was taken, and Bahā-ud-Din,
Tughril, evacuated the city on the approach of the Ghūris, and joined the
Khwārazmis. The Ghūris could not have held Hirāt very long, for this affair
with Sultan Shah, in which Tughril was taken, took place, by our author's
own account, in 588 H., seventeen years after that evacuation of Hirāt by
Tughril, and he is even then styled "Tughril of Hirāt " by our author, and
so he styles him in his account of Tughril and his death, at page 249. From
this it is obvious that the Ghuris could only have held Hirāt for a very short
time after 569 H., and Tughril must have regained possession of it soon after,
and only finally left it, on the advance of the Ghūris against Sulṭān Shāh, in
this year, 588 H., or, more correctly, in 587 H. See note 3 , page 374.
6 One of these pious brothers and model Sultāns of our author, Mu'izz-ud-
Din, having deceitfully inveigled this amiable monarch into his power, broke
his promises, and sent him and his family away into Ghur to his other worthy
brother who immured him in a fortress. At the time in question, finding
Khusrau Malik an obstacle in their way, they had him put to death, and also
his son, Bahrām Shāh. Here our author says it took place in 588 H., and
587 H., in his account of Mu'izz-ud-Din, but, in his account of Khusrau Malik,
he says it happened in 598 H.! See pages 114 and 115, and note 5 to page 112,
para. 10.
7 Sic in all the copies.
B b 2
380
THE TABAKAT-I-NĀṢIRĪ.
596 H., Sultan 'Ala-ud-Din-i-Takish, Khwārazm Shah,
died. Sultan Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din and Mu'izz-ud-Din moved
into Khurāsān with the armies of Ghur and Ghaznin, and
advanced to the gate of Nishāpūr. While the forces occu-
pied a position in the vicinity of Nishapur, and hostilities.
commenced, trustworthy persons have, among the miracles
of the victorious Sultan Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din, related on this
wise, that one day he mounted, in order to reconnoitre a
place from which to attack the city, and rode round the
edge of the ditch, and reached a spot from whence, in his
august opinion, he determined to make the attack, as being
the point where the capture of that city was likely to be
effected'. He made a sign with his whip, saying: :-" It is
necessary that the battering-rams should be planted from
this tower to that tower, in order to make a breach, and
enable a general assault to be made, so that the capture of
this city may be effected, and this victory achieved." At
the very time that he made this indication [with his whip]
towards those towers, the very portion of the walls of the
city which he had pointed out, and the [two] towers, with
everything near them, gave way, and the whole fell down,
and became destroyed in such wise that not one brick
remained upon another, and Nishāpūr was taken. Malik
'Ali Shah', son of Sultan 'Imad-ud-Din, Takish, Khwärazm
9 At page 255, in our author's account of his succession, he says, "Ala-
ud-Din, Muḥammad, son of Takish, brought his father's dominions under his
own jurisdiction in 595 H.”
9 If we choose to be guided by what English and some other European
writers of Histories of India say, on the authority of translations of Firish-
tah's work, from which their inspirations are drawn, Ghiyās-ud-Din was either
a mere imbecile or a puppet, for he is said by several of them to have “re-
tained nothing of the empire but the name," whilst others, including Elphinstone,
of whom I expected something better, rush into the almost opposite extreme
and say, that "he appears to have resumed his activity before his death, and to
have been present in person in all the campaigns in Khorásán except the last ;"
but they forget, or, more likely, are unable to, mention, when all these cam-
paigns took place, and against whom. The fact is that none of these state-
ments are correct. Ghiyaṣ-ud-Din reigned in glory to the end of his days,
and his brother, Mu'izz-ud-Din, held the sovereignty of Ghaznin subject to
him, and undertook the conquest of Upper India by his commands. His
last campaign, according to Yafa-i, was in 597-8 H., only a few months before
his death. See the specimens of translations under his brother's reign, Section
XIX., and note 7, page 255, and note 2, next page.
¹ He is styled Sulṭān 'Ali Shah," and "a very great and illustrious
prince," at page 252, and also "Malik " in some places.
THE SHANSABANIAH DYNASTY OF GHŪR.
381
Shah, together with the Khwārazmi Maliks who were there,
and chiefs, and other persons of distinction, such as Sur-
tãsh and Gaz-lak Khan, and a considerable body of others,
fell into their hands2.
To Malik Ziya-ud-Din, Muḥammad, son of Abū 'Ali,
Shansabi, who was the uncle's son³ of both the [Ghūrian]
Sultāns, and the son-in-law of Sulṭān Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din, they
gave the government and throne¹ of Nishāpūr, and returned
[to their own dominions] that same year.
The next year
[597 H.] they advanced to Marw-i-Shah-i-Jahan, and took
it; and Malik Naşir-ud-Din, Muḥammad-i-Khar-nak, they
installed at Marw; and conferred the government of
Sarakhs upon their uncle's son, Malik Tāj-ud-Din, Zangi,
who was the son of Malik Fakhr-ud-Din, Mas'ud,
Bāmiāni. Malik Taj-ud-Din acquired jurisdiction over
the whole of that territory, and Khurāsān became clear³.
Malik' 'Alā-ud-Din, Muḥammad, Khwārazm Shāh, used
great endeavours that they [the Sultāns] might perhaps
2 Vāfa-i gives the following account of this "miracle" which our author
makes so much of. "In the month of Rajab, 597 H., the Ghūris with an
immense army, and ninety great elephants, each of which was like a mountain.
in size, advanced against Shad-yakh [of Nishāpūr] where was, at that time,
'Ali Shāh, Sulṭān Muḥammad's brother, who had very recently arrived there
on his return from 'Irāk, and several men of distinction in the service of his
other brothers. The Ghurian Sultāns [the two brothers], in order to recon-
noitre the place, were making a circuit around it, and came to a stand opposite
the city [Nishāpūr]. A vast crowd of people, from within Shād-yākh, in
order to gaze upon the Ghūrian army, flocked to one of the towers facing it.
Suddenly the tower gave way, from the crowd within it [the fortifications at
the time were not in good repair], and fell down. This the Ghūris took as a
good omen, and, during the same day [through this accident], took possession of
the place." Another author states that the place was at once assaulted, cap-
tured, and plundered, and the date given is Rajab, 597 H., not 596 H., as our
author states. Nishāpūr was retaken from the Ghūris five months after. See
page 393, note 8.
3 This is incorrect. See page 346, and note 8 and note 2, page 391.
4 Malik Ziya-ud-Din was merely left in charge as governor.
of Nishāpūr," is one of our author's absurdities.
The "throne
• After getting possession of Nishāpūr Sulṭān Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din returned to
Hirāt, and his brother, Mu'izz-ud-Din, marched into Ķuhistan for the purpose
of destroying the strongholds of the Mulāḥidah heretics of that part, and, after
several [minor] encounters with them, an accommodation was brought about,
and Junābād was occupied, and the Ķāzi of Tūlak [the same who was pre-
viously left as governor of Tabarhindah. See the reign of Mu'izz-ud-Din,
Section XIX.] was left there in charge.
6 Sultan, by his own account, and a much greater one than either of the
Ghūris in many respects, and the ruler of a far greater extent of territory.
382
THE TABAKAT-I-NĀṢIRĪ.
consent to accept his services [as their vassal], and relin-
quish Khurāsān to him again; but it was not given up to
him. Trustworthy persons' have related after this manner,
that, when Takish, Khwārazm Shāh [the father], died,
Muḥammad, Khwārazm Shah [the son], sent envoys to
the presence of Sultan Ghiyās-ud-Din, the purport of their
embassy being to the effect, that, between the Sultāns of
Ghur and his father, a compact of friendship and unanimity
was firmly established. He, their servant, desired that,
according to that same compact, he might be [accounted]
in the series of their other servants. If his exalted opinion
thought well of it, the Sultan-i-Ghāzi, Mu'izz-ud-Din, should
take his [servant's] mother to wife, and consider him, his
very humble servant, as a son; that from the Ghiyāṣiah
Court he, his [Sultan Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din's] servant, might
receive an honorary robe, and a patent of investiture for
Khurasan and Khwārazms, and his servant would set free
all the territory of 'Irāk and Mawar-un-Nahr from the hands
of enemies.
When they [the envoys] had discharged the purport of
their mission, Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din did not become agree-
able to the proposed union, and hostility arose. As the
Almighty God had ordained that the whole of the domi-
nions of Iran should fall under the sway of Muhammad,
Khwārazm Shāh', he, upon several occasions, towards the
close of Ghiyaṣ-ud-Din's life, retired discomfited before the
forces of Ghur and Ghaznin, and, at last, those Sultans died.
before him.
Upon several occasions rich dresses of honour from the
Court of the Khilafat, from the Lord of the Faithful, Al-
Here again our author brings forward his absurd statement as to this mighty
monarch's seeking to become the vassal and servant of the Ghūris, which is
not worthy of the least credit whatever.
7 Who, as usual, are nameless.
8 Very probable, seeing that his ancestors ruled over it for more than a cen-
tury previously, and over all Khurāsān and greater part of 'Irāk, by our author's
own accounts, for many years. See the reign of Maḥmüd, son of Ghiyāṣ-ud-
Din, Muḥammad, farther on, where a treaty with the Khwārazmis is mentioned.
9 Sultan Muḥammad, Khwārazm Shāh, recovered most of his Khurāsān
possessions, which the Ghūris had overrun the previous year, in 598 H. See
previous note, and our author's own account of Sultan Takish's conquests
at pages 241-2, and note 8, page 393, and his account of the Khwārazmi
Sultāns generally.
THE SHANSABĀNĪAH DYNASTY OF GHŪR.
383
Mustazi B'illah', and from the Lord of the Faithful, Un-
Nāṣir-ud-Din Ullah, reached the Court of Sultan Ghiyās-
ud-Din. On the first occasion, Ibn-ur-Rabbi' came; and
the Ķāzi, Majd-ud-Din, [styled] the Model, went along
with him to the Court of the Khilafat, and, on the second
occasion, Ibn-ul-Khatib came; and the father of this their
servant, Maulānā Sarāj-ud-Din, son of Minhāj-i-Sarāj, he
[the Sultan] nominated to proceed along with him to the
Court of the Khilafat. On the arrival of the honorary
dress from the Court of Un-Nāṣir-ud-Din Ullah, the im-
perial naubat five times a day was assumed by the Sultan.
His dominions became wide and extended, and from the
east [eastern extremity] of Hindūstān, from the frontier of
Chin and Ma-Chin, as far as 'Irāk, and from the river
Jiḥun and Khurāsān to the sea-shore of Hurmuz, the
Khutbah was adorned by his auspicious name. He reigned
for a period of forty-three years.
3
His bounty and benefactions, bestowed upon the meri-
torious, the learned, the recluse, and the devout, reached
to the extremes of the empire of Islam, from the east to the
west, to 'Arab and to 'Ajam, to Turkistān and to Hind;
and the names of all those meriting his bounty and charity
were recorded in his civil courts and record offices. His
life extended to a period of sixty-three years; and the
removal of this great monarch from this transitory sphere.
to the eternal habitation took place at the city of Hirāt, on
Wednesday, the 27th of the sacred month of Jamādi-ul-
Awwal', 599 H. His mausoleum was raised by the side
of the Jami' Masjid of Hirāt. The mercy of the Almighty
be upon him!
The Most High God had adorned the incomparable
nature of the victorious Sulṭān, Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din, Muḥam-
The Khalifah's proper name and title is Al-Mustazi Bi-Nur Ullah. He
died 575 H.
2 The Khalifah was stimulating the Ghurian Sultāns to hostility against
Sultan Müḥammad's father, Sultan Takish, and afterwards did the same with
respect to himself. See page 243, and note ¹.
3 Kettledrums and other instruments sounded, at stated periods, before the
gate of sovereigns and great men.
Some copies have the 7th, but the 27th of the month is confirmed by
other authors. His tomb was on the north side of the Jami' Masjid which he
had himself founded. Some authors state that 597 H. was the year of his
decease, and others again, 598 H.
384
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĂŞIRĪ,
mad-i-Sām, with divers virtues and endowments, both out-
ward and inward; and his Court was graced with learned
doctors of religion and law ecclesiastical, accomplished
scholars, illustrious philosophers, and the celebrated in
eloquence; and his magnificent Court had become the
asylum of the world, and the retreat of the worthy and
laudable persons of the earth. Chiefs of the [holders of]
religious tenets of every sect were there gathered together,
incomparable poets were there present, and masters in the
art of poetry and prose were entertained in the service of
his sublime Court.
At the outset of the career of those sovereigns [Sulṭān
Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din and Mu'izz-ud-Din], both the brothers fol-
lowed the tenets of the Kirāmi sect, in imitation of their
ancestors and [the people of] their dominions; but Sultān
Mu'izz-ud-Din, Muḥammad-i-Sam, the younger brother,
when he ascended the Ghaznin throne, the people of that
city and territory being followers of the tenets of the Great
Imām, Abū Ḥanifah of Kūfa, in conformity with them,
adopted the doctrines of Abū Ḥanifah. Sulṭān Ghiyāṣ-ud-
Din, however, saw, whilst in a dream, that he was used to
be in the same masjid along with the illustrious Kazi,
Waḥid-ud-Din, Marwazi, who followed the religious doc-
trines of the Traditionists, and who was one of the leaders
of the Shaf'i sect. Unexpectedly, Imam Shaf'i himself
enters, and proceeds to the Miḥrab', and begins to repeat
the prayers; and Sulṭān Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din, and Ķāzi Waḥid-
ud-Din, both of them follow Imām Shāf'i in so doing.
On awakening from his dream, the Sultan commanded,
so that, at break of day, Ķāzi Waḥid-ud-Din was requested
to deliver a discourse. When he occupied the seat of
the pulpit, he remarked, during the discourse, saying,
* The Kirāmis, also called Mujassamiān-Corporealists-the followers of
Muḥammad, son of Kirām, are one of the subdivisions of the Şifati sect who
follow the tenets of Muḥammad, son of Idris, Ush-Shaf'i. Ghiyāṣ ud-Din
being of that sect, the offices of Imam and Khatib of the great masjid of
Hirāt, and other minor offices, were conferred on its ecclesiastics.
6 The four orthodox sects of Muḥammadans are Traditionists.
7 The chief place in a masjid where the priest prays with his face turned
towards Makkah.
8 The different copies of the text express this clause of the sentence in three
different ways, and use three different verbs although their meanings are
similar.
THE SHANSABĀNĪAH DYNASTY OF GHÚR.
385
"Sovereign of Islam! this your servant hath during the
past night dreamt a dream," and he related the very same
dream that the Sultan had himself dreamt, for he had had
one like it; whereupon, when the Kāzi descended from the
chair, and went up to make his obeisance to the Sulṭān, the
latter seized the blessed hand of Ķāzi, Waḥid-ud-Din, and
adopted the tenets of Imam Shaf'i'.
When the withdrawal of the Sultan to the sect of the
Traditionists became divulged, a load came upon the hearts.
of the 'Ulama of the sect of Muḥammad-i-Kirām [the
Kiramis]. Of this body, the great ecclesiastics were nume-
rous; but, at that time, the most eloquent among them all
was Imām, Ṣadr-ud-Din, 'Ali, Haiṣam, the Nishāpūri, who
was resident at, and the head of the college of the city of
Afshin of Gharjistān. He composed a strophe on the
Sulṭān, and in it censured his withdrawal from the sect ;
and, when that strophe came to the Sulṭān's knowledge, his
sacred mind became much irritated with him, and Imām
Sadr-ud-Din found it impossible to continue to dwell
within the dominions of Ghūr. The strophe is this:-
[This polemical squib is of some length, and varies more
or less in almost every copy, is of no particular interest, and
need scarcely be translated.]
Imām Ṣadr-ud-Din, on this account, removed out of
the territory of Ghur, and proceeded to Nishapur, and
there he remained for the space of a year; after which
he despatched [another] strophe to the presence of the
Sultan, so that he was sent for to come back again, and a
robe of honour was despatched; and he returned to the
Court from Nishāpūr again. Strophe :-
[These lines have also been left out for the reasons.
previously given. As may be imagined, they are as full of
fulsome adulation as the first were of aspersion.]
Trustworthy persons have thus related, that Sultān
Ghiyās-ud-Din, in his early youth, was greatly addicted to
conviviality, and fond of the sports of the field; and from
9 The Aṣār-ul-Bilad states that Ghiyas-ud-Din used to copy Ķur'āns with
his own hand, and sell them, and give the money they were sold for in alms to
the poor.
The celebrated Imām, Fakhr-ud-Din, Muḥammad, son of 'Umr of
Rāz, wrote and dedicated to him a work entitled Laṭāif-i-Ghiyāṣi. See
under the reign of Mu'izz-ud-Din, Section XIX.
386
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĀṢIRĪ.
the capital city, Firuz-koh, which was the seat of govern-
ment, as far as the Zanin [district] and town of Dawar,
which was the winter capital, not a human being dared to
pursue the chase. Between these two cities [towns] is a
distance of forty leagues, and he [the Sulṭān] had com-
manded that a pillar should be erected at each league of
distance; and in Zamin-i-Dawar he had laid out a garden,
and he had given it the name of Garden of Iram', and
certainly, for pleasantness and freshness, no such garden.
had ever been seen in the whole world, nor did any monarch
possess the like of it. The length of this garden was more
than sufficient for two courses of a horse, and the whole of
its glades were adorned with pine and juniper-trees, and
various sorts of shrubs and odoriferous herbs; and the
Sulṭān had commanded, so that, adjoining the wall of that
garden, a plain had been cleared corresponding in length
and breadth with the garden itself.
Once every year he used to give directions, so that for a
distance of fifty or sixty leagues or more, a nargah² [semi-
circle] of huntsmen would be drawn out; and it would
require the space of a whole month for the two extremities
of this semicircle of huntsmen to close up. More than ten
thousand wild beasts and animals of the chase, of all species
and descriptions, used to be driven into that plain; and, on
the days of chase³, the Sulṭān was in the habit of coming
out on the pavilion of the garden, and holding a convivial
entertainment; and his slaves, his Maliks, and the servants
of the Court, one by one, with the royal permission, would
mount on horseback and enter the plain, and chase and kill
the game in the Sultan's august sight.
Upon one occasion he was desirous of entering the plain
and enjoying the sport, upon which Fakhr-ud-Din, Muba-
rak Shāh', got upon his feet, and repeated a quatrain.
The Sultan retracted his intention, and devoted himself'
1 The famous garden of Shadad, son of 'Ãd, described by the eastern poets
as a perfect model of the promised Muḥammadan Paradise.
2 One set of copies of the original use the words and the other
They are both of much the same signification.
3 If such can be called "the chase."
4 The same who composed the History of the Shansabānis in verse, referred
to by our author at page 300. Other writers state that he was one of the most
learned of his time in the science of astrology.
THE SHANSABĀNIAH DYNASTY OF GHŪR.
387
to enjoyment. The following is the quatrain in ques-
tion :-
"To follow the wine, the beloved, and enjoyment,
Will be better than that thou shouldst pursue the chase.
When the gazelle of paradise is within thy net,
Of what use that thou shouldst follow the mountain goat?"
Trustworthy persons have related that, when Sulṭān
Ghiyas-ud-Din forswore wine, and devoted himself to
rectitude and goodness, at the period that Sultan Shah,
Khwārazm Shah', brought the forces of Khiṭā against
Khurāsān, and made Marw his capital, the latter began to
harry the border-tracts of the territory of Ghūr, and brought
his troops to the Dahānah-i-Sher-the Lion's Jaws-[Pass]
of Sarakhs, and despatched an emissary to the presence of
the Sultan, Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din, and preferred certain requests
of his own to him. The Sultan commanded that an enter-
tainment should be prepared to do honour to the envoy,
and a gay party was brought together. Wine was cir-
culated among the Maliks and Amirs of Ghūr, and the
envoy was treated with great honour; and he was plied
with wine, in order that, when in a state of inebriety, the
disposition of Sultan Shah might be discovered from his
emissary.
For the Sultan's own drinking, sweet pomegranate juice
was poured into a flask, and, when it came to the Sultan's
turn to pledge, they would fill his goblet with that pome-
granate juice, and would present it to him. When the
envoy of Sultan Shah became excited from the effects of
the wine, he rose to his knees, and requested a minstrel to
sing the following quatrain, which he accordingly did :—
"Of that lion whose abode is within the Lion's Jaws,6
The lions of the universe are in great affright.
Thou shouldst, O lion, from 'The Jaws' show thy teeth,
Since these are [as though] in 'The Lion's Jaws' from terror.'
">
When the envoy called for this verse, and the minstrel
sang it, Sultan Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din's colour changed, and the
5 See page 246 and note §.
6 The point of these lines depends upon the play on the word Dahānah.
It signifies the jaws, the mouth of a pass, yawning, and the like.
388
THE TABAKAT-I-NĂŞIRĪ.
Maliks of Ghūr became much agitated. Khwajah Ṣafi-ud-
Din, Maḥmud, one of the most distinguished of the Wazirs
of his Court, and who was a miracle of wit and address,
and endowed with a forcible poetic genius, and composed
excellent poetry, arose to his feet, and, looking on the
ground, in reply to the envoy, called on the minstrel for
this verse:-
"On that day when we shall raise the standard of hostility,
And shall take in hand the enemy of the territory of the world,
Should any lion from 'The Jaws' [dare] show his teeth,
We, with our mace, will crush his teeth within 'The Jaws.'
Sultan Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din was greatly pleased at this, and
bestowed a liberal present upon the Khwajah, and honoured
him with honorary dresses of great value; and the whole
of the Maliks commended him. The Almighty have
mercy upon the whole of them! and may He keep the
Sulṭān of Islām, the sovereign of the seven climes, the
great king of kings, the lord over all the rulers of Turk,
'Arab, and 'Ajam, the defender of the world and of the
faith, the glory of Islam and of the Faithful, the aider of
kings and emperors, the protector of the dominions of the
Almighty, the pastor of the servants of God, the aided by
Heaven, the victorious over the greatest of all species, the
place of safety to the orthodox, the heir of the dominions
of Sulimān, ABŪ-L-MUZAFFAR-I-MAḤMŪD, son of the
Sulṭān [I-yal-timish], the Kasim [the co-sharer] of the
Lord of the Faithful, in sovereignty and dominion for years
unending, permanent and lasting, for the sake of His
Prophet Muhammad, on whom be peace abundantly
abundant
7 I have generally abstained from giving our author's fulsome and unctuous
prayers for his patron, the puppet and recluse, who nominally ruled at Dihli ;
but this was such a curious specimen that I could not leave it out. It shows
that our author did not stick at any exaggeration-and the above contains
many-and is a convincing proof that he rarely indulges in high-flown
eulogy, but relates his facts in a plain straightforward manner," &c. We
must not imagine that all the epithets bestowed upon these rulers by their
parasites were the titles they assumed.
"
THE SHANSABĀNĨAH DYNASTY OF GHŪR.
389
Titles and Names of the Sultān³:
US-SULTAN-UL-A'ZAM",
GHIYAS-UD-DUNYA WA UD-DĪN,
ABU-L-FATH, MUHAMMAD, SON OF SĂM
KASİM-I-AMİR-UL-MŪMINİN.
Offspring.
Sultān-ul-A'zam, Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din, Maḥmūd.
Malikah-ul-Mu'azzamah, Jalāl-ud-Dunyā wa-ud-Din.
Length of his reign :-Forty-three' years.
Summer capital:-The City of Firuz-koh of Ghūr,
Winter capital:-The district of Dāwar.
Kazis of his Court.
Kazi-ul-Kuzat [Chief Kazi], Mu'izz-ud-Din, Harawi.
Kāzi Shihāb-ud-Din, Harmawādi².
Wazirs of the Kingdom.
Shams-ul-Mulk, 'Abd-ul-Jabbār, Kidāni.
Fakhr-ul-Mulk, Sharaf-ud-Din³, Wadāri‘.
8 From the way in which his titles and names are here written in the very
old copy of the text, within a circular area, it is evident that this was the
inscription on his coins.
9 A few copies have "Mu'azzam," but it is incorrect.
1 Forty-one in a few copies.
2 Also written Ḥarmabādi in one or two copies: probably Jarmabādi or
Jarmawādi may be more correct.
3 Sharaf-ul-Ashrāf.
In one copy Fardāri.
390
THE TABAKAT-I-NAŞIRĪ.
'Ain-ul-Mulk, Sūrāni [or Sūriāni].
Zahir-ul-Mulk, 'Abd-ullah, Sanjari.
Jalāl-ud-Din, Diw-Shāri [or Diw-Shāhi].
Majd-ul-Mulk, Khwajah Ṣafi-ud-Din.
Standards.
On the right, Black; on the left, Red.
Motto on his august Signet.
"For me God alone is sufficient."
His Sultans and Maliks.
Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din, Muḥammad-i-Sām, his brother,
ruler over Ghaznin.
Sultan Shams-ud-Din, Muḥammad, son of Mas'ud,
Bāmiāni.
Sultan Baha-ud-Din, Muḥammad Sām, Bāmiāni.
Malik Tāj-ud-Din, Muḥammad-i-Harab, Sijistāni.
Malik Naşir-ud-Din, Alb-i-Ghāzi, son of Kazil Arsalān.
Malik Taj-ud-Din, Muḥammad, Timrāni.
Malik Taj-ud-Din, Zangi, son of Mas'ūd, Bāmiāni.
Malik Kutb-ud-Din, Yusuf, Timrāni.
Malik Ziyā-ud-Din, Muḥammad, Durr-i-Ghūr [the Pearl
of Ghūr]³.
Malik Naşir-ud-Din, son of Sūri, Mādini.
Malik Badr-ud-Din, 'Ali, Kidāni.
Malik Shah, Wakhshi [of Wakhsh of Badakhshan].
Malik Naşir-ud-Din, Timrāni.
Malik Taj-ud-Din of Mukrān.
Malik Mu-ayyid-ud-Din, Mas'ūd, Timrāni.
Victories and Conquests".
The territory of Hirāt, [defeat of] Ķimāj, Dāwar, Fāras'
Kāliyūn, Fiwār, Saif-rūd, Gharjistān, Tāl-ķān, Juzarwān,
5 See page 346, and next page.
6 The list of these victories and conquests is only contained in three copies
of the original. Even if a place was evacuated before the arrival of the
Ghūris, it is styled a “conquest” on their reaching it. What the "conquest
of Nimroz and Sijistān was may be seen from what our author himself
says at page 378. The Malik of Sijistan merely acknowledged his
suzerainty.
7 Also written Bāras.
See page 375 and note 6.
THE SHANSABANIAH DYNASTY OF GHŪR.
391
Jarum, Tigin-ābād, Kabul, 'Ighrāk, victory over Baha-ud-
Din, Tughril, of Hirāt, Ghaznin, Fūshanj, Sijistān, Nimroz,
Maimand [or Maihand], Fāryāb, Panj-dih, Marw-ar-Rūd,
victory over Sulṭān Shah, Lohor' and Maro Malkah [?]'
Nishāpür, and Nisā.
XVIII. MALIK-UL-ḤĀJĪ, 'ALĂ-UD-DĪN, MUḤAMMAD, SON OF
MALIK SHUJĀ'-UD-DĪN, ABĪ-'ALĪ, SON OF ['IZZ-UD-DĪN],
AL-HUSAIN, SON OF AL-HASAN, SHANSABĪ.
Malik 'Ala-ud-Din, Muḥammad, was the son of Malik
Shuja'-ud-Din, Abi-'Ali, and he was the uncle's son of
both the Sulṭāns, Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din and Mu'izz-ud-Din, and
was older than either of the brothers. He had performed
the pilgrimage, as well as fought against infidels; and, in
addressing him, they [the Sultāns] used to style him
Khudāwand [my Lord]. The daughter of Sulṭān Ghiyāṣ-
ud-Din, who was named Mãh Malik [Malikah], and styled
by the title of Jalāl-ud-Dunyā wa-ud-Din, whose mother
was the daughter of Sultan 'Ala-ud-Din, Jahan-soz, was
married to Malik 'Ala-ud-Din³.
That daughter was a highly dignified princess, and knew
the sacred Kur'an by heart, and she had also committed to
memory the Akhbār-i-Shihābi [the Shihābi traditions¹],
8 In some copies but it is evidently the tract from whence Saif-ud-
Din, who joined Sulṭān Jalāl-ud-Din, Khwārazm Shāh, at Ghaznin [see
note 9, page 287,] against the Mughals, took his name.
9 Lohor will, of course, be repeated as one of Mu'izz-ud-Din's victories, as
Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din never passed the Indus.
1 This name is doubtful, and is not very plain in either copy of the text.
It might be, Mar and Malkah. No such place is mentioned in the account of
his reign, and some of the places here recorded as conquests were derived by
marriage, or their rulers, as in the cases of Sijistān and Nimroz, merely acknow-
ledged his suzerainty.
2 See page 346, para. second. This Malik-ul-Haji, or the Pilgrim Malik,
was, by our author's own account, the son of Abu-'Ali, son of Shujā'-ud-Din,
Abi-'Ali, and therefore he was not the uncle's son of the two Sulṭān brothers,
but the son of their uncle's son-a second cousin.
To save perplexity to the reader, I must mention that this personage is the
same as was mentioned at page 346 by the name of Ziyā-ud-Din, Muḥammad,
the Pearl of Ghur. See also page 393, and note 9.
3 She was first betrothed to Sanjar Shāh, son of Tughan Shāh, son of
Mu-ayyid-i-Ã’inah-dār, Malik of Nishāpūr; and, after his, Sanjar Shāh's,
captivity, betrothed to Ziyā-ud-Din, Muḥammad. See page 182.
4 At page 301, our author states that this princess was the depositary of the
traditions of martyrdom [~\]; but, it is evident, from what he says here,
392
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĂṢIRĪ.
and her handwriting was as pearls befitting a king. Once
every year she was in the habit of performing a prayer of
two genuflexions, during which she would repeat the whole.
Kur'an from beginning to end. The cause of her passing
from the world a maid was this, that, before he was joined.
in wedlock to her, Malik 'Alā-ud-Din, Muḥammad, pos-
sessed a Turkish hand-maid, who was the mother of his
son [Rukn-ud-Din]; but he had contracted marriage with
her, and was not capable of consummating his marriage.
with this princess. In beauty, purity, and self-restraint,
she had no equal in the whole world.
The mother of the writer of these pages was the foster-
sister and school-companion of this princess; and this
devotee [himself] was brought up in the princess's own hall
of favour and her haram of chastity, up to the period of his
entering upon the bounds of adolescence, in the service of
her royal dwelling, and her private apartments. The
maternal uncles" of this devotee, and his maternal ances-
tors, were all attached to the service of that princess's
Court, and to the Court of her father; and this poor indi-
vidual [himself] received many proofs of that lady's favour
and bounty God reward her! At last her martyrdom.
and death took place in the territory of 'Irāķ during the
calamities which arose on the irruption of the infidels [the
Mughals]. The mercy of the Almighty be upon her!
During the lifetime of Sultan Ghiyās-ud-Din, Malik
'Alā-ud-Din held in fief, belonging to Ghūr, the district of
Bust, and Wajiah [or Wejah] of the territory of Garmsir [of
Ghūr], and Ūrgān [or Urkān] of Ghaznin. In the battle
and from what other writers state, that the book in question was the work
entitled "Akhbar-i-Shihābi" [4], the Shihabi Traditions, so called from
the author's name, or the person to whom he dedicated his work.
5 A few copies havel-brothers, instead of J'-maternal uncles.
• The text is hopelessly defective here, and of the whole of the twelve copies
collated no two agree, except the I. O. L. copy and the Ro. As. Soc. copy,
but they agree in leaving out several words. The two oldest copies agree as
above given, with the exception that one has Wurmashān [] or Durmashān
[] which last word also occurs in the defective passage in the two first-
named copies. Wajiah [], which here, in several copies, seems written
and was referred to at page 340. Some copies have, and and
even,,, in place of Ürgan [,,'] of Ghaznin, whilst the third best copy of the
text omits these two words, and altogether. It is tiresome not to be
able to fix this passage of the text for certain.
THE SHANSABĀNĪAH DYNASTY OF GHUR.
393
which the Sulṭān-i-Ghāzi, Mu'izz-ud-Din, fought against
Pithora Rãe of Ajmir', and in which the Sultan was
defeated, 'Ala-ud-Din, Muḥammad, accompanied the Sultan-
i-Ghāzi, and, during that expedition, did good service.
When the Sulṭāns of Ghūr proceeded into Khurāsān, and
Nishāpūr was taken, 'Ala-ud-Din was installed in the ter-
ritory of Nishāpūr, and, for a considerable period, he
remained at the city of Nishāpūr, and acted towards its
people with justice and beneficence.
When Sultan Muhammad, Khwārazm Shah, arrived
from Khwārazm before the gate of Nishāpūr, 'Alā-ud-Din
defended the place for some time. At last he entered into
a convention, and surrendered the city to Sultan Muḥam-
mad, Khwārazm Shāh, and returned again into Ghūr.
When Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din was removed to the Al-
mighty's mercy, the Sultan-i-Ghāzi, Mu'izz-ud-Din, con-
ferred the throne of Firuz-koh, and the territories of Ghur,
Gharjistān, and Zamin-i-Dawar, upon him; and, in the
Khutbah, his title became Malik 'Ala-ud-Din, Muḥammad.
Previous to this they used to style him Malik Ziyā-ud-Din',
the Pearl of Ghur.
7 The I. O. L. copy, and also the Ro. As. Soc. MS., and one of the others,
have “In the battle which Sulṭān Ghiyāṣ and Mu'izz-ud-Din fought," &c.
See under Mu'izz-ud-Din, Section XIX.
The
8 Nishāpūr [Shad-yākh] was taken in Rajab 597 H. Five months after-
wards—in Zi-Ķa'dah-Sultān Muḥammad, Khwārazm Shāh, appeared before
it. Malik Ziyā-ud-Din had been left there, in command, at the head of a
large force; and the walls [which, like the walls of Jericho, had fallen when
Sulṭān Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din performed the miracle of pointing his riding whip at
them, as related by our author at page 380] had been put into thorough
repair. The Ghūris came out to fight, but, finding what the Sultan's army
was, "they retired," says Vafa-i, "like so many mice into their holes." The
walls were pounded to dust and the ditch filled, when Malik Ziyā-ud-Din sent
out the chiefs of the 'Ulama to solicit quarter for himself and troops.
Sultan acceded to his request, and he and his troops were treated with honour,
and sent back to Ghür. So the Ghūris only held Nisḥāpūr about five months.
It must have been on this occasion that Ziyā-ud-Din stipulated never again to
draw his sword against the Sulṭān, referred to at page 418. After retaking
Nishāpūr, the Sulṭān advanced to Marw and Sarakhs, which latter place was
held by his own nephew, Hindū Khān [see page 252], on the part of the
Ghūris. He fled to Ghur on the approach of his uncle, but, the officer he left
in charge not presenting himself, Sultan Muḥammad left a force to invest it,
and set out, via Marw, for Khwārazm to prepare for an advance upon Hirāt.
⁹ Our author has a peculiar way of his own for distracting his readers very
often. After giving an account of Malik Ziyā-ud-Din, under the heading of
his grandfather, Shujā'-ud-Din, at page 345-6, and calling him there by the
title of Ziyā-ud-Din, he is here introduced again under a totally different
CC
394
THE TABAKAT-I-NĂŞIRĪ.
He held possession of Firuz-koh and the territories of
Ghur and Gharjistān for a period of four years; and in the
year 601 H., when the Sultan-i-Ghāzi, Mu'izz-ud-Din, pro-
ceeded towards Khwārazm, and took [with him] the armies
of Ghur and Ghaznin, Malik 'Ala-ud-Din, the Pearl of
Ghur, conducted sundry of the troops of Ghūr into Mul-
ḥidistan' and Ķuhistān, and advanced to the gate of the
city of Ķā-in, and [from thence] pushed on to Junābād of
Ķuhistān³, and captured the castle of Ķakh of Junābād ;
and, after having performed numerous feats of arms and
holy warfare, he returned into Ghūr again.
When the Sultān-i-Ghāzi, Mu'izz-ud-Din, attained mar-
tyrdom, Sultan Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din, Mahmud, son of [Sultān
Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din] Muḥammad, son of Sam, advanced out of
Bust, which was one of his fiefs, into Zamin-i-Dawar; and
the Maliks and Amirs of Ghur joined Sultan Mahmud, and
he set out towards the capital city, Firūz-koh.
Malik 'Alā-ud-Din came from Firūz-koh into Gharjistān,
and, when he reached the head of the bridge over the
Murgh-āb river, the Sipah-sālār, Ḥasan-i-Abd-ul-Malik,
came up after him, and caused him to turn back; and, by
command of Mahmud, he was confined in the castle of
Ashiyār of Gharjistān³.
name; and it is only now, after three or four pages, that he tells us that 'Alā-
ud-Din is the same person as figured before, in another place, under the title
of Ziyā-ud-Din. The fact is, that his correct title, up to this time, was Ṭiyā-
ud-Din; and, when Sulṭān Mu'izz-ud-Din conferred the throne of Firuz-koh
and other tracts upon him, his title was then changed to 'Ala-ud-Din. Sulṭān
Mu'izz-ud-Din held him in great estimation, and he appears to have deserved
it; and this fact, taken in connexion with Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din, Maḥmūd's real
character, noticed farther on, will account for the Sultan's making him
sovereign over Ghur in preference to Maḥmud, and also for Maḥmūd's enmity
towards him, and the murder of his son, Maḥmūd-i-Īrān Shāh.
¹ Not the name of a territory. It is derived from mulḥid-heretic, &c.
The Kuhistan of Khurasan was full of these schismatics. All the copies of
the text have the conjunction and between Mulḥidistan and Ķuhistan; but it
reads redundant, and "the heretical country of Ķuhistān" appears to be the
more correct rendering.
2 Junābād, also called Gūnābād, is situated between Tabas and Ḥirāt.
Kakh itself means a castle, a lofty building, and the like; but here refers to a
small town of that name, a dependency of Junābād,—the “Goonabad” of
Frazer and the maps.
3. Our author takes a most round-about way of relating ordinary events, and
seems desirous of making a mystery of them. Malik 'Alā-ud-Din, Muḥammad,
unable to resist the combination against him, retired from Firuz-koh, was
pursued, and imprisoned.
THE SHANSABĀNĪAHI DYNASTY OF GHŪR.
395
When Sultan Mahmud was assassinated, and the sove-
reignty of Ghūr fell to Sultān 'Alā-ud-Din, Utsuz-i-Husain',
he caused Malik 'Alā-ud-Din, Muḥammad, to be released
from the fortress of Ashiyār, brought him to Firuz-koh,
and treated him with honour and respect, until he slew the
Sipah-sālār, 'Umr-i-Shalmati, for murdering his son, Malik
Rukn-ud-Din, Maḥmud-i-Iran Shah. The cause of it was
this, that, when Malik 'Alā-ud-Din, in the reign of Sulṭān
[Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din], Maḥmūd, son of Muḥammad-i-Sām³, was
seized [as just previously related], his son, Malik Rukn-ud-
Din, Maḥmud-i-Iran Shāh, retired to Ghaznin. He was a
prince of sufficient greatness, and endowed with perfect
wisdom, knowledge, and understanding, and famed for his
lofty-mindedness and activity. From Ghaznin he pro-
ceeded into Garmsir, and from thence came into Ghūr;
and the Kashi people, who were the [most] refractory of
Ghur, to the number of about 50,000 men, joined him.
Sultan Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din, Maḥmūd, son of Muḥammad-i-Sām,
with about 500 horse, of the main portion of his army, and
some 2000 or 3000 foot, came forth from Firuz-koh, and
a fight took place between them, and defeat befell the
Ghūriāns'; and Malik Rukn-ud-Din, Maḥmūd-i-Irān Shāh,
discomfited, retired to Ghaznin, and again came into
Garmsir. He was seized by the Khudāwand-zādah³, Saif-
ud-Din, Timrāni, and he brought him to the presence of
Sultan Ghiyās-ud-Din, Maḥmūd, who directed that he
should be imprisoned in the residence of the Amir-i-Ḥājib,
'Umr-i-Shalmati.
On the day that Sulṭān Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din, Maḥmūd, was
assassinated, the Turkish slaves of Maḥmūd raised a
tumult, and despatched one, who was named Amir Mang-
baras-i-Zard, to put Malik Rukn-ud-Din, Maḥmūd-i-
Another son of Sultan 'Ala-ud-Din, Husain, Jahan-soz. He was named
Utsuz after the third monarch of the Khwärazmi dynasty. See page 238.
5 That is to say, Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din, Maḥmūd, son of Ghiyas-ud-Din,
Muḥammad, son of Baha-ud-Din, Sām.
Five thousand more likely. Our author grossly exaggerates the numbers
here. See page 399.
7 From this it is evident that the Kashis were Ghurians.
8 The son of a lord or great man.
⁹ There is some discrepancy with regard to this person's name. Some copies
and the second word, Zard, signifying منكوش - منکورس - منگور of the text have
pale, sallow, and the like, is written in some copies Züd, swift, quick; and in one
CC 2
396
THE TABAKAT-I-NĀṢIRĪ.
Iran Shah, to death. The writer of these words, Saraj-i-
Minhaj, states on this wise :-I was in my eighteenth year
in the year 607 H.', and was present at the entrance [gate-
way] of the Sulṭān's palace, in the capital city of Firūz-
koh, standing looking on, as is the custom among youths,
when this Amir Mangbaras-i-Zard came riding up with a
wallet, with blood dropping from it, hanging from his arm.
The head of Malik Rukn-ud-Din, Maḥmūd-i-Irān Shāh-
may he rest in peace!-he had placed in that wallet, and he
entered into the Sultan's palace with it.
I now return to my relation again :-In the reign of
Sulṭān 'Alā-ud-Din, Utsuz-i-Husain, when Malik 'Alā-ud-
Din, Muḥammad, obtained an opportunity, he seized Amir
'Umr-i-Shalmati, saying, “Thou hast used thy endeavours
in bringing about the murder of my son ;" and at night he
slew him. Early the next morning, when [Sultān] 'Ala-ud-
Din, Utsuz, became aware of it, and the Amirs of Ghur
demanded redress, 'Ala-ud-Din, Utsuz, issued commands
for Malik 'Ala-ud-Din, Muḥammad, to be imprisoned the
second time in the fortress of Balarwān of Gharjistān.
The remaining account of him, respecting what befell him
when he ascended the throne of Firuz-koh the second time,
will be related at the end of this Section.
XIX. SULȚÂN GHIYAŞ-UD-DĪN, MAḤMŪD, SON OF GHIYĀṢ-
UD-DĪN, MUḤAMMAD, SON OF BAHĂ-UD-DİN, SĂM, SHAN-
SABI.
Sultan Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din, Maḥmūd, son of Sultan Ghiyāṣ-
ud-Din, Muḥammad-i-Sām, was a sovereign of good quali-
ties, and conviviality, pleasure, and jollity were dominant
in his disposition³.
When Sultan Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din, Muḥammad-i-Sām, his
father, died, Maḥmūd was desirous that his uncle, the
Sultan-i-Ghāzi, Mu'izz-ud-Din, should assign to him the
Zāl, which means old, decrepit, &c. One copy has Mangūras-i-Zūd suwār,
which would signify Mangūras, the swift or quick horseman.
1 Our author, being in his eighteenth year in 607 H., would have been in
his sixty-ninth year when he composed this work.
• The palace or residence of the Sultāns.
3 See note 3, para. 3, page 400, and page 405.
• The I. O. L. MS.,
52, is minus a leaf here.
TIIE SHANSABĀNĪAH DYNASTY OF GHŪR.
397
throne of his father. But that expectation was not fulfilled,
and the throne of Firuz-koh was conferred upon Malik
'Alā-ud-Din, Muḥammad", the Pearl of Ghūr, to whom the
daughter of Sulṭān Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din, Muḥammad-i-Sām,
was betrothed; and the territory of Bust, Isfizār', and
Farah, were given to Sulṭān MaḥmūdⓇ.
In the year in which [his uncle] the Sultan-i-Ghāzi led
an army into Khwārazm, Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din, Maḥmūd, marched
the troops of Bust, Farah, and Isfizar, into Khurāsān, and
proceeded to the gate of Marw-i-Shah-i-Jahan; and in that
expedition he manifested many marks of skill and activity'.
When the Sultan-i-Ghāzi, Mu'izz-ud-Din, was assassinated,
Maḥmūd determined to proceed from Bust to Firūz-koh,
and, when he reached Zamin-i-Dawar, the Khalj' Amirs
of Garmsir, with a numerous following, joined him. The
Amirs and Maliks of Ghur all came forth to receive him;
and, in the year 602 H.2, he reached Firuz-koh, and the
throne of Ghur came into his possession, and he brought
the territories of his father under his jurisdiction³.
Malik 'Ala-ud-Din, Muḥammad, retired from Firuz-koh
into Gharjistān, and therein he was taken prisoner, and
5 Styled Ziya-ud-Din before he was raised to the throne of Firuz-koh.
6 She was either the full or half-sister of Maḥmūd.
7 In some copies written Isfirar-the present Sabzwār.
s Not styled Sulṭān until he gained the throne after the death of his uncle.
His title had been Malik hitherto.
9 The compact which our author states to have existed previously between
Maḥmud and Sultan 'Ala-ud-Din, Muḥammad, Khwārazm Shah, at page 400,
may have been entered into at this period. See also note , page 400. The
object he had in marching to Marw-i-Shāh-i-Jahān does not appear, neither in
the account of his uncle's reign is it referred to.
1 The Khalj tribe, I beg to remark, are neither Afghāns nor Paṭāns, although
some persons have made such an absurd assertion.
I shall have more to say
about them as I proceed.
2 In this same year Fakhr-ud-Din, Mubarak Shah, the author of the history
of the Ghuris in verse, referred to at page 300, died.
3 When information reached Maḥmud of the assassination of his uncle,
Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din, he, in the first place, sent intimation to his brother-in-
law, 'Ala-ud-Din, Muḥammad [the Pearl of Ghur], son of Abi-'Ali, and called
upon him to acknowledge his authority. Mahmud also communicated the
tidings to 'Izz-ud-Din, Husain, son of Khar-mil, Wali of Hirāt. Both of them,
however, declined to acknowledge his authority, on which Maḥmūd advanced
to Firūz-koh with a large army. On this the generality of the Ghūriān Amirs
deserted the cause of 'Ala-ud-Din, Muḥammad, and went over to Maḥmud,
and he gained possession of Firuz-koh, and threw 'Ala-ud-Din, Muḥammad,
into confinement. See also note ³, page 400.
3
398
THE TABAKĀT-I-NĀṢIRĪ.
was confined in the castle of Ashiyār, as has been previously
recorded; and when the whole of the various parts of the
dominions of Ghur, and Gharjistan, Tal-ķān, and Guzar-
wan, and the district of Faras", and Garmsir, came under
the sway and jurisdiction of his Slaves, such as Sultan Taj-
ud-Din, Yal-duz, and Sultan Kutb-ud-Din I-bak, and other
Turk Maliks and Amirs, who were Slaves of Sultan Mu'izz-
ud-Din, each of them despatched a person of rank to the
presence of his Court, and solicited from Sulṭān Maḥmūd
letters of manumission, and the investitures of the territories.
of Ghaznin and of Hindustan respectively.
6
He despatched a deed of investiture of the territory of
Ghaznin and a canopy of state to Sultan Taj-ud-Din, Yal-
duz; and, when Sultan Kutb-ud-Din, I-bak, advanced to
Ghaznin, he despatched Nizam-ud-Din, Muḥammad, to
Firūz-koh, in the year 605 H.; and Sultan Maḥmūd directed
that a scarlet canopy of state and a deed of investiture of
the government of the dominion of Hindustan should be
sent to him.
Throughout the whole of the territories of Ghur, Ghaznin,
and Hindustan, the Khutbah was read for Sultan Mahmud,
and the coin was stamped with his name'; and, as he was
4 Also with j, as at page 376; and in the same way as Sijistān for Sigistān,
the one being the Arab mode of writing the word, and the latter the local.
This name also is written Bāras; and in some few copies Ķādus. See
page 342.
• All these Slaves were of Turkish parentage. Mahmud having succeeded
to the sovereignty of the dominions of his late uncle, the latter's slaves became
his slaves also, according to Muḥammadan law, by succession. It is not to be
supposed that either Yal-duz [I-yal-dūz] or I-bak were then styled Sultāns, or
that our author means it to be so understood. They were styled so ultimately.
See note 9, page 496, and page 502.
7 Just above he says, "Yal-duz, İ-bak, and other Turk Maliks and Amirs;”
but all could not have demanded the investitures of Ghaznin and Hindūstān.
Yal-dūz [I-yal-dūz] and Ï-bak sent agents to Sulṭān Maḥmūd expressing their
loyalty, submission, and obedience to him; and in the whole of the empire the
Khutbah was read for him and the money stamped with his name and titles.
8 Two copies of the text add here, "in order that he might assume juris-
diction over the Ghaznin territories.'
"See the reign of Ķuțb-ud-Din, I-bak, beginning of next Section. There
our author contradicts this statement entirely, and says Kutb-ud-Din received
the investiture in 602 H., and that he went to Lohor to receive it.
1 These events occurred, as our author here states, in 605 H.; but Tāj-ud-
Din, I-yal-dūz, appears to have received the investiture of Ghaznin some time
previous to this, and it is somewhat strange that he should have continued to
coin money in the name of the late ruler, Mu'izz-ud-Din, after what our author
1
THE SHANSABÁNĨAH DYNASTY OF GHŪR.
399
the heir of the kingdom of his father and his uncle, all the
Maliks and Sultāns paid reverence to his dignity, and
showed the obedience of vassals unto him".
When one year of his sovereignty had passed, Malik
Rukn-ud-Din, Maḥmud-i-Iran Shah, son of Malik 'Ala-ud-
Din³, Muḥammad, advanced from Ghaznin towards Firūz-
koh, as has been previously recorded¹, and Sultan Ghiyāṣ-
ud-Din, Maḥmūd, marched from Firūz-koh, and put him
to the rout, and about 5000 Ghūris [in that affair] bit the
dust.
5
After a period of two years and a half, Sulṭān' 'Alā-ud-
Din, Utsuz, son of ['Alā-ud-Din] Husain, who was his
[Maḥmud's] father's uncle's son, proceeded from the country
of Bāmiān into Khwārazm, and sought assistance from
Sultan Muḥammad, Khwārazm Shāh, to enable him to
seize the dominions of Ghur. The Malik-ul-Jibal, Ulugh
Khan-i-Abi-Muḥammad', and Malik Shams-ud-Din, Utsuz,
the Hajib, who were two of the greatest of the Turkish
Maliks of the Khwārazm Shāhs, with the troops of Marw
and Balkh, Sarakhs and Rudbār, were nominated to give
him assistance, and he ['Ala-ud-Din, Utsuz] proceeded by
way of Tāl-kān towards Ghūr.
Sultan Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din, Maḥmūd, brought out his forces
from Firūz-koh, and on the limits of Maimand and Fār-yāb',
here states, and even after Sultan Maḥmūd, the former's successor, had given
Tāj-ud-Din his freedom with the investiture of Ghaznin, much more up to the
year 610 H., when even Maḥmud had been killed in 607 H.
But see page
497, and 500-505; and Thomas: Coins of the PATHAN KINGS OF DELHI,
page 30.
2 He was heir certainly in name at least; but the two favourite slaves of
Sulṭān Mu'izz-ud-Din already possessed the greater portion of their master's
dominions, from which Maḥmūd would have, in all probability, been unable
to oust them. Mu'izz-ud-Din had, on more than one occasion, expressed a
desire that these slaves, especially I-yal-dūz, should succeed to his dominions.
See page 500.
3 Styled Ziya-ud-Din, the Pearl of Ghur, before he came to the throne
from which Maḥmūd deposed him. See page 393, and note 9, and page 408.
• Page 395.
5 Our author styles him "Sultan," as well as many others, before their
attaining sovereignty.
6 Referred to in the account of the Khwārazm Shāhis. He subsequently
became the father-in-law of Rukn-ud-Din, son of Sultan Muḥammad,
Khwārazm Shah. See page 235.
7 Also called Far-āb, Fār-āw, Bār-āb, and Bār-yab. This battle and victory
of Maḥmūd is not mentioned by other authors. See also pages 409 and 414.
400
THE TABAKAT-I-NĀṢIRĪ.
at a place which they call [by the name of] Sālūrah, a
battle took place between the two armies. The Almighty
bestowed the victory upon Sultan Maḥmüd, and 'Ala-ud-
Din, Utsuz, and the Khwārazm Shāhi Maliks, and the
troops of Khurāsān were overthrown.
When four years of Sultan Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din, Maḥmūd's
reign had expired, Malik 'Alā-ud-Din, 'Ali Shāh', son of
Sultan Takish, Khwärazm Shah, sought refuge from his
brother's [Sulṭān 'Ala-ud-Din, Muḥammad, Khwārazm
Shah] presence with Sultan Maḥmūd. On the Khwārazmi
Sultan becoming aware of this, he despatched distinguished
personages [as envoys] to Firuz-koh. During the life-
time of the Sultan-i-Ghāzi, Mu'izz-ud-Din, Muḥammad,
a firm compact existed between Sulṭān Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din,
Maḥmūd³, son of [Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din], Muḥammad-i-Sām, and
2
8 A few copies have Aslūrah.
9 See note 3, below.
1. His title was Tāj-ud-Din, not ’Alā-ud-Din. See the account of him,
page 252-3. He had been a prisoner in Ghūr some few years previously, and
was known to the Ghurian Princes.
2 The I. O. L. MS. No. 1952, and R. A. Soc. MS. both have "when
Sulṭān Takish became aware of it." Takish had been dead many years. The
printed text, of course, is the same.
3 By this statement our author entirely contradicts that made at pages 256
and 382, and the present statement is certainly one more likely to be correct,
It tends to confirm what Vāfa-i and some other works say, and which I shall
presently refer to.
Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din, Maḥmūd, after the death of his father, expected that his
uncle, Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din, would have placed him, the son, on his late
father's throne of Firuz-koh and the kingdom of Ghur; instead of which,
knowing Maḥmūd's love of wine and other sensual pleasures, he bestowed it
upon the son-in-law of the late Sultan, Malik Ziya-ud-Din, the Pearl of Ghur,
and gave the western districts of the empire to Maḥmūd as his appanage, as
stated by our author at page 472. On this account Maḥmūd entertained no
very good feeling towards his uncle, and he may have entered into communi-
cation secretly with the Sultan of Khwārazm, who was naturally hostile to
Mu'izz-ud-Din; and such an understanding as our author mentions may have
been entered into at the time Maḥmūd went on the expedition to Marw,
mentioned at page 397, when Mu'izz-ud-Din invaded Khwārazm.
I rather expect, however, that our author, who rarely indulges in dates, has
confused the events of this period, as Maḥmūd, previous to the assassination
of his uncle, was not in a position to enter into a firm compact" with
Sultan Muhammad, unless secretly. Yafa-i says [and Jāmi'-ut-Tawārikh
agrees] that when Maḥmūd seized the throne of Ghūr, shortly after his uncle's
death, "he gave himself up to drinking and riotous pleasures, as was the
habit of the Amirs of Ghur, and attended to singing and jollity, whilst he
neglected the affairs of the kingdom, and could not endure the fatigues of war.
His great chiefs and nobles, perceiving his weakness of character, began to
THE SHANSABĀNĨAH DYNASTY OF GHUR.
401
Muḥammad-i-Takish', Khwārazm Shah, that friendship
and concord should exist between them, and that the
4 Sulṭān 'Ala-ud-Din, Muḥammad, son of Takish. Before he succeeded
his father, his title was Kutb-ud-Din. See note ¹, page 253.
grow disaffected; and 'Izz-ud-Din, Husain, son of Khar-mil, the Wali of
Hirāt, who was the greatest prop of the Ghurian empire, took precedence of
all the other chiefs in tendering allegiance to the Sultan of Khwārazm, and
despatched agents repeatedly soliciting that the Sultan would annex Hirāt.
Although that monarch had other important matters to attend to, still, fearing
lest a portion of the Ghurian dominions, such as Balkh and districts around,
might offer allegiance to the ruler of Kara-Khiṭā, and that that city might fall
into his hands, he determined to move towards Balkh."
"The Wali of that part, styled. 'Imad-ud-Din, the chief of the Nāmiān
[Bāmiān] Amirs [called by our author, at page 260, 'Imād-ud-Din, 'Umr, Fiwāri],
at first was most warm in his professions of loyalty and fidelity, and Balkh
was made over to the Sultan, who continued the government, as heretofore, in
the Wali's hands; but, being afterwards detected in acts of treachery, and an
intercepted letter having been placed in his hands, he threw himself at the
Sultan's feet. His life was spared, but he was sent away to Khwārazm, after
being allowed to take what treasure and other valuables he desired with him.
His son [name not given] was also removed from the charge of the fortress of
Tirmid, and that important post was made over to the guardianship of Sultān
'Uşman of Samrkand."
The Tarikh-i-Alfi differs considerably on these matters. It is stated therein,
that, on the death of Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din becoming known to Sulṭān Muḥam-
mad, he assembled a large army for the purpose of attacking Balkh, then held
by the officers and troops of Malik 'Alā-ud-Din, Muḥammad, son of the late
Sulṭān Bahā-ud-Din, Sām, of Bāmiān and Tukhāristān, and invested that
stronghold. At this crisis, Malik 'Alā-ud-Din, Muḥammad, had led an army
against Tāj-ud-Din, I-yal-dūz, ruler of Ghaznin. On this account Sultān
Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din, Maḥmūd, who had intended to march his forces against Hirāt,
to reduce 'Izz-ud-Din, Husain, son of Khar-mil, to obedience, paused in order
to see what the upshot of the other two affairs would be.
•
Tāj-ud-Din, 'Ali Shah [Sultan Muḥammad's brother, who subsequently
took refuge with Maḥmud], who commanded the forces investing Balkh, being
unable to take it, Sultan Muhammad proceeded thither in person, and sum-
moned the governor to submit. All was of no avail, and the Sultan deter-
mined to proceed without further loss of time to Hirāt, when news reached
him that Malik 'Alā-ud-Din, Muḥammad, and his brother, Jalāl-ud-Din, ’Ali,
had been defeated by Taj-ud-Din, I-yal-dūz, taken prisoners, and thrown into
confinement. This happened, according to Faşiḥ-i, in 605 H.
On this,
'Imad-ud-Din ['Umr], Governor of Balkh, hopeless of succour, surrendered
the place. He was treated with honour and kindness, and continued in charge
of Balkh, as before. After this, Sulṭān Muḥammad advanced to Bākhūrz,
got possession of that place, then proceeded to Tirmid, and obtained possession
of that stronghold likewise, and then he returned to Khwārazm.
This latter statement is incorrrect. The Sulṭān proceeded to Hirāt before
returning to Khwārazm, as will be presently stated.
The Ghūriān Amirs and Chiefs, who were in accord with Amir Maḥmūd,
were preparing forces, says Vāfa-i, to attack Sultan Muḥammad's forces then
402
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĂŞIRĪ.
enemy of one should be the enemy of the other; and, on
this occasion, Sultan Muhammad, Khwārazm Shah, scnt
before Balkh; but the Sultan's troops made a swoop upon them, like a falcon
on a covey of partridges, and routed and dispersed them before they had had
time to complete their preparations. This must have been the affair called a
victory of Maḥmūd's by our author. The territory of Balkh was now entrusted
to the charge of Badr-ud-Din, Ja'lish [?], with a strong force to support him;
and, after having disposed of the affairs of Balkh, the Sultan proceeded by way
of Juzarwān [or Guzarwān] to Hirāt, which he entered in the middle of Jamādi-
ul-Awwal, 605 H., to the great joy of its people. [Yafa-i is, as well as other
writers, somewhat confused as to the dates here, and says this took place in 607
H., and so it is stated in note 2, page 257-258, taken from that work; but it is
evidently an error for 605 H., as it was only in the third month of 607 H.
some say in 606 H.-that the Sultan first defeated the forces of Kara-Khiṭā
under Bāniko of Taraz, and a month after Maḥmud Ghūri's death, if he died
in Şafar 607 H., as our author and some others say, and not in 609 H.]
Rulers and chieftains from the adjacent parts now hastened to tender sub-
mission and allegiance to the Sultan, and to present themselves; and among
these was the Malik of Sijistān [Yamin-ud-Din, Bahrām Shāh?], who was
received with great honour. 'Izz-ud-Din, Husain, son of Khar-mil, was con-
tinued in the government of Hirāt and its dependencies, as previously related;
and the Sultan, having disposed of these matters, despatched several eccle-
siastics of the Kirāmi sect [Yāfa-i says in 606 H.] with proposals to Amir
Maḥmūd, ruler of Firuz-koh and Ghur. Maḥmud accepted those proposals,
which were, that he should acknowledge the suzerainty of Sultan Muḥammad.
He despatched valuable presents to the Sultan from the hoards accumulated by
his ancestors and his uncle, and, among other rarities, a white elephant. [A
white elephant is said to have been captured in the battle in which Jai Chandra,
Rājah of Ķinnauj, was defeated by Mu'izz-ud-Din. See page 470.] Amir
Maḥmud was named Nayab or Deputy of the Sultan, for whom he read the
Khutbah, and stamped the coin with his name. This must be the treaty our
author refers to, but he has confused the events. This acknowledgment of the
superiority of the Sultan is evidently what Taj-ud-Din, I-yal-dūz, took um-
brage at, as mentioned in Alfi, in note7, page 433, when he set at liberty
Jalāl-ud-Din, 'Ali, of Bāmiān, who, in 605 H., along with his brother, was
taken prisoner in a battle against him [I-yal-dūz], and sent him back to recover
the throne of Bāmiān, which probably was early in 606 H.
Sulṭān Muḥammad, leaving 'Izz-ud-Din, Husain, son of Khar-mil, as
Wali of Hirāt, returned to Khwārazm, and subsequently entered on the
campaign against Gūr Khān of Ķārā-Khiṭā. 'Izz-ud-Din, Ḥusain, son of
Khar-mil, hearing the report of the Sultan having been killed or taken cap-
tive in the second engagement with Gur Khan's troops [see page 258, and last
para. of note 2], began to pave the way to make his peace with his former
sovereign, and he again read the Khutbah for the ruler of Ghur, and substituted
his name on the coin. This must refer to Maḥmūd, as his young son, three
months after his father's death, was taken away to Khwārazm, and 'Alā-ud-
Din, Utsuz, had been set up by the Khwārazmi Sulțăn as ruler of Ghūr; and,
such being the case, Maḥmūd could not have been assassinated in Şafar, 607 H.,
for this reason, that these events took place in the latter part of that year, or
even in 608 H.; but if Şafar, 607 H., is correct, then Mahmud was dead one
month before the first battle between the Sultan and Baniko of Taraz.
'Izz-ud-Din, Ḥusain, son of Khar-mil, finding almost immediately after that
THE SHANSABĀNIAH DYNASTY OF GHŪR.
403
Maḥmūd a copy of that treaty, with a request, saying, “As
'Ali Shah is the enemy of my dominion, it is necessary
that he should be seized." In compliance with the terms
of that compact, Sultan Mahmud seized 'Ali Shah, and
imprisoned him in the Kasr, which they call the Baz
Kushk-i-Sultān, at Firuz-koh.
6
Б
That Kasr is an edifice the like of which is not to be
found in any country or in any capital-a Kaşr in height
and area, and with buttresses, balconies, and turrets, and of
the Sultan was safe, to get himself out of this scrape, sent a requisition to the
Khwārazmi nobles located in Eastern Khurāsān for aid against the Ghūris,
who, on account of 'Izz-ud-Din, Husain's perfidy, were marching against him.
This evidently is the matter referred to by our author at page 503, where he
says I-yal-dūz aided Maḥmūd against 'Izz-ud-Din, Husain, son of Khar-mil,
but distorts the facts to suit his own purposes and inclinations, about the Sulṭān
of Khwārazm "flying before the forces of Ghur and Ghaznin;" and what
Alfi refers to, namely, that Amir Isma'il, Maḥmūd's general, sent against
'Izz-ud-Din, was defeated and taken prisoner, and the remnant of his army
returned to Firūz-koh. See note 2, page 504.
With the aid of the Khwarazmi nobles of Khurasan the Ghūris were over-
thrown, and this affair broke their power entirely, and their party dispersed ;
and 'Izz-ud-Din, Husain, was also seized and put to death, as related at page
258, last para., note 2.
The Habib-us-Siyar states that Sulṭān Muḥammad demanded that Maḥmūd,
Ghūri, should seize the former's brother, Taj-ud-Din, 'Ali Shah, and send
him back in conformity with the terms of treaty previously existing "between
himself and the late Sulṭān, Mu'izz-ud-Din" [see note, page 481], but says
nothing about a previous treaty between him and Maḥmūd. This event, our
author says, happened in the fourth year of Maḥmūd's reign, which, by his
own account, would be towards the close of 606 H. The treaty thus referred
to is doubtless the treaty mentioned by Fasih-i and others, which took place.
between Sulṭān Muḥammad and Sulṭān Mu'izz-ud-Din, after the latter's
disastrous campaign against Khwārazm.
I have burthened the text with this lengthy note in order to show what dis-
crepancy exists with regard to the events in the history of the Ghūris about this
time, and to show the impossibility of the correctness of the dates given by
several authors. Yafa-i and Fașiḥ-i and several others [see note 5, page 407]
also say that Maḥmud was assassinated in 609 H., and the Mir'at-i-Jahān-
Numa confirms it. It is also certain, from our author's statements, as well as
from the statements of others, that Maḥmūd was assassinated in the same year
as Tāj-ud-Din, 'Ali Shāh was; and that event, even our author says, happened
in 609 H. See also page 253.
It is moreover proved beyond a doubt, that, soon after the decease of Sultān
Mu'izz-ud-Din, the Ghurian rulers became mere vassals of the Khwārazmi
sovereigns, who, at last, annexed the whole of their extensive territory as far
as the Indus, or even to the Jihlam.
5 The word baz [], which is doubtless correct, signifies a mound, the
spur of a mountain or hill, high ground. Some of the more modern copies
have abaz ['], and some leave out the word altogether.
6 The signification of Kushk and Kaşr has been given in note 2, at page 331.
404
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĂŞIRĪ.
such configuration as no geometrician hath made manifest.
Over that Kaşr are placed five pinnacles inlaid with gold,
each of them three ells and a little over in height, and in
breadth two ells; and also two gold humãe”, each of about
the size of a large camel. Those golden pinnacles and
those humãs, the Sultan-i-Ghāzi, Mu'izz-ud-Din, Muḥammad,
after the capture of Ajmirs, had sent in token of service,
and as valuable presents, to [his brother] Sulṭān Ghiyāṣ-
ud-Din, Muḥammad-i-Sam, with many other articles of
rarity, such as a ring of gold, with a chain of gold attached,
the dimension of which was five ells by five ells, and two
great kos [kettle-drums] of gold, which were carried on
carriages. Sultan Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din directed that the ring
and chain, and those kharbūzah' [kettle-drums], should be
suspended before the portico of the Jami' Masjid at Firūz-
koh; and, when the Jami' Masjid was destroyed by a flood,
the ring, chain, and those kharbūzah [kettle-drums], the
Sultan sent to the city of Hirāt, so that after the Jami'
Masjid of that city had been destroyed by fire, they rebuilt
it by means of those gifts'.
Sulṭān Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din, Maḥmūd, son of [Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din],
Muḥammad-i-Sam, was a sovereign very great, beneficent,
7 A fabulous bird peculiar to the East. It is considered to be a bird of
happy omen, and that every head it overshadows will, in time, wear a crown.
See also G. P. R. James's ATTILA, chap. vi.
8 The word used is signifying small turrets in the wall, and also some-
times used for battlements, cornices, pinnacles, &c. The last is the most
probable meaning here, or possibly small open domes, such as we see in some
old Hindu buildings.
9 The text here again is very defective in all but the three oldest copies.
Some of the more modern copies have "one kos," and state that the ring was
"five ells by five ells," and instead of Kharbūzah have jazirah, which signifies an
island. The same word occurs in Firishtah-the original text I mean-who says
two were presented to Kutb-ud-Din by the ruler of Ajmir, which Dow, very
correctly, translates "two melons of gold," without apparently knowing what
they were; but BRIGGS, by way of improving on Dow, turns them into "two
tents of gold tissue"!! See his translation, vol. 1, p. 194-5.
or
خربوزه The word
which signifies a musk melon, suggests the shape of these drums.
1 I do not find any notice of this fire in other works, not even in Fașiḥ-i
which generally contains minute particulars of every event occurring at Hirāt,
as the author was a native of that city. Rauzat-uş-Şafa merely mentions that
Maḥmüd finished the Masjid of Hirat which had been left unfinished at his
father's death, and this statement is confirmed by the Khulasat-ul-Akhbār and
some other histories. I do not find any account of a flood. Amir 'Ali Sher,
the celebrated Wazir of Sultan Husain, Bahadur Khan, subsequently rebuilt
this masjid in 905 H., just a year before his death.
THE SHANSABANIAH DYNASTY OF GHŪR.
405
humane, munificent, and just. When he ascended the
throne he opened the door of the treasury of his father.
That treasury remained untouched as before, and Sultān
Mu'izz-ud-Din had not appropriated any portion of it;
and they have related, that of pure gold there were four
hundred camel loads, which are eight hundred chests-but
God knows best-and rich garments, vessels, pearls, and
jewels in proportion, together with other valuable property
of every description, the whole of which he disposed of.
During his reign gold, apparel, perfumed leather2, and
other things, through his munificence and his presents,
became very cheap. He also purchased a number of
Turkish slaves, and greatly valued them all, and raised
them to competence and wealth; and his presents, gifts,
and donations were constantly reaching people, until one
day, during the second year of his sovereignty, the son of
his aunt, the sister's son of the Sultāns [Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din,
Muḥammad, and Mu'izz-ud-Din, Muḥammad], Malik Tāj-
ud-Din, died 3, and no heir survived him, and his effects.
and treasures, consisting of ready money, gold and silver
vessels, a vast quantity of wealth, were brought to the
presence of Sultan Mahmud. He commanded that a
banquet and festal entertainment should be arranged
beneath [the walls] of the Kushk, which is situated in the
middle of [the city of] Firuz-koh'.
He spread the carpet of pleasure, and directed that
festivity and gaiety should be the order of the day; and,
from the time of meridian prayer to the period of evening
prayer, the whole of that money, consisting of darhams
and dīnārs, contained in leathern bags and in scrips, was
poured out of the windows of the Kasr. As it was a
2 Perfumed leather [] must have been extremely valuable in those days.
3 Malik Tāj-ud-Din, Zangi, son of Sultan Shams-ud-Din, Muḥammad,
sovereign of Bāmiān and Tukhāristān. He was taken prisoner in battle with
a body of Khwārazmi troops in the vicinity of Marw-ar-Rūd, at a time when
peace existed between the Sultan of Khwārazm and Sulṭān Mu'izz-ud-Din, of
Ghaznin, and sent to Khwārazm with other chiefs taken at the same time, and
their heads were struck off. See page 425, and page 481, note 8.
4 The text varies here again. The oldest copies are plainly written as above;
but, according to some, the sentence may be read: "in the Kasr of Nar Kushk
which is [situated] in the midst of [the city of] Firuz-koh," and, according to
others, merely "in the Kaşr which is [situated] in" &c. It is quite a different
place to the Kasr of Baz Kushk. The Europeanized kiosk is derived from this
latter word.
406
THE TABAKAT-I-NĀṢIRĪ.
public banquet and a largess to both high and low, great
and small, every description of the different classes of the
people of the city of Firuz-koh were arriving in crowds at
the foot of the Kushk, and kept themselves under the
Sultan's observation. To each class of persons he was
giving a liberal share of dishes, long-necked flasks, lamps,
ewers, cups, platters, bowls, goblets, and other vessels of
different descriptions, all of gold and of silver, and, among
other presents, above a thousand slaves of his own, both
male and female, which he repurchased again from their
[new] owners. The whole city, from those largesses,
became [so to speak] filled with gold.
Sultan Maḥmūd was a sovereign of very great good quali-
ties, and his alms, donations, and honorary robes, to a large
amount, were received by all classes of the people; but, as
the decree of fate had [now] come, the motives of its advent
began to appear. Having, at the request of Sultan Muḥam-
mad, Khwārazm Shah, seized the latter's brother, 'Ali Shah,
and imprisoned him, 'Ali Shah's servants, followers, and
dependents, consisting of 'Irāķis, Khurāsānis, Khwārazmis,
and Turks, in great numbers, together with his mother, his
son, and his women, along with him, the whole of them
agreed together with one accord, and several times, by means
of each of the most notable among them, sent messages,
secretly, to Sulṭān Maḥmūd, saying: "The reliance we
have in the Sultan is, that as we have all come and sought
refuge with his Highness, in the service of our master, 'Ali
Shāh, and have thrown ourselves under the shadow of the
Sultan's power and protection, it behoveth he should not
deliver us up into the hands of the enemy, for to seize and
make captive of those who have sought one's protection will
not turn out fortunate, otherwise we will make sacrifice of
ourselves, and let it not be that the Sulṭān should be in
dread of his life from us."
As the decree of destiny had gone forth, this communi-
cation, which they continued to represent to the Sulṭān,
was without any effect whatever, and a party of 'Ali Shah's
dependents used, at night, to ascend to the summit of the
hill, called Koh-i-Azad, which was facing the Kasr, and
the sleeping apartment of Sulṭān Maḥmūd, and there they
sat concealed, and examined the Kaşr and noticed the
Sulṭān's sleeping apartment, and marked the way to the
THE SHANSABẢNĨAH DYNASTY OF GHÜR.
407
place. All this they had done, until on the night of
Tuesday, the 7th of the month of Safar, in the year 607 H.,
four individuals of the party referred to climbed up on the
roof of the Sultan's Kaṣr, and assassinated him, and got
away again by the same road as they had got up. They then
crossed the river of Firūz-koh, which flows in front of the
Kaṣr, and also climbed to the top of that high hill [the
Koh-i-Azād], and cried out with a loud voice: "O foes of
our Malik! we have killed the Sultan: arise, and search
for your Malik'!" When the day broke, the whole city
became agitated; and they buried the Sultan in the Kaṣr
itself, and subsequently the body was removed to Hirāt,
and finally interred in the Gāzār-gāh [catacombs] of Hirāt.
The eldest son of the Sultan, namely Bahā-ud-Din, Sām,
was raised to the throne.
8
There is considerable discrepancy among authors respecting the year of
Maḥmūd's assassination. Yafa-i, Jami'-ut-Tawarikh, Faşiḥ-i, Alfi, Lubb-ut-
Tawarikh, Guzidah, Mir'āt-i-Jahan-Numā [which says "after reigning nearly
eight years ”], and some others say it happened in 609 H., while Jahān-Ārā,
Rauzat-uş-Şafā, Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh, and a few others agree with our
author's statement here as to the year 607 H. The former says it took place on the
7th of Şafar, whilst the latter, Rauṣat-uṣ-Ṣafā, and some others say, on the 3rd
of Şafar. Habib-us-Siyar, on the other hand, affirms that it happened in 606 H.,
Khulāsat-ul-Akhbār, 607 H., and the Tārikh-i-Ibrāhimi, that it happened on
the 3rd Safar, 597, but this must mean the year of the Riḥlat [death of
Muḥammad], not the Hijrah [Flight], between which two eras a period of
about eleven years intervenes; and 597 of the former is about equal to 608 of the
latter. There is no doubt but that Maḥmūd was assassinated in the same year
in which Firuz-koh was taken by the Khwarazmis, and Tāj-ud-Din, 'Ali Shāh,
put to death; and this last event our author himself states, at page 253, took
place in 609 H. The words and without the diacritical points, may
be easily mistaken by a copyist. See note 6, page 410.
)་
سبع
• A feeder of the Hari Rūd probably, if not the main stream, which rises in
Ghur.
7 It is not certain who killed Mahmud, and authors are at variance on this
point. Rauzat-us-Safa agrees with our author, but merely copies his state-
ments. Habib-us-Siyar of course agrees with Rauzat-us-Ṣatā. Yafa-i, Faşiḥ-i,
Tārikh-i-Ibrāhimi, and a few others, state that he was found dead on the roof
of his palace, and that his slayer was not known, and Jahān-Ārā, and Mun-
takhab-ut-Tawarikh, agree with our author. Another writer says 'Ali Shāh
slew him with his own hand.
8 Sometimes written Gāzār-gāh as above, and also Gāzar-gāh. It signifies
the place of caves or hollows, a grave yard, catacombs. There is one at
Shiraz in which the Poet Sa'di was buried, and the one near Hirāt in which
the venerated Khwājah 'Abd-ullah, Anṣāri, was buried. The meaning of
gāzar is certainly a bleacher or washer, and gah a place, but the above term
does not refer to any "bleaching ground," as a modern writer terms it, except
that it is the bleaching ground for dead men's bones.
408
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĀṢIRĪ.
XX. SULŢĂN BAHĀ-UD-DĪN, SĀM, SON OF GHIYAS-UD-DÎN,
MAHMUD, SON OF GHIYAṢ-UD-DIN, MUHAMMAD, SON OF
BAHA-UD-DIN, SAM, SHANSABĪ.
Sultan Baha-ud-Din, Sam, son of Sultan Mahmud [at
this time] was about fourteen years of age, and his brother,
Malik Shams-ud-Din, Muḥammad, about ten. Their
mother was the daughter of Malik Tāj-ud-Din, of Timrān ;
and in the haram likewise were two daughters by this
Malikah.
When Sultan Mahmud was martyred, the next morning,
all the Amirs of Ghur and the Turk Amirs assembled
together, and raised Baha-ud-Din, Sam, to the throne of
Firuz-koh; and the Malikah-i-Mu'izziah, who was the
mother of Bahā-ud-Din, and the other children of Ghiyāṣ-
ud-Din, Maḥmūd, incited the Turkish slaves' to slay the
competitors for the sovereignty. Of that party one was
Malik Rukn-ud-Din, Maḥmūd-i-Irān Shah, the son of
Malik 'Ala-ud-Din, Muḥammad-i-Abi-'Ali, and they
martyred him, as has been previously recorded. Malik
Kutb-ud-Din, Timrāni, was imprisoned, as was Malik
Shihab-ud-Din, 'Ali, Madini, likewise, who was the son of
the uncle of the Sultāns [Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din, and Mu'izz-ud-
Din]; and the Ghūri and Turk Amirs, in concert, stood
around the throne with girded loins.
The followers of 'Ali Shāh, after five days, when they
found the city had become tranquil, and that 'Ali Shah
still remained in durance, contrived to get up another
tumult. They placed a number of men in chests, and
pretended that they were going to bring treasure into the
city from without, such was the plan they chose to enable
them to enter the city and create another disturbance; but,
unexpectedly, one among them who had conceived the idea
of this wicked action came and gave information about
• Her title, not her name.
1 In some of the more modern copies this is reversed, and they have "the
Turkish slaves incited her," &c.
2 Several Princes of the family who were supposed likely to cause trouble,
and interfere with this arrangement, were put to death by his supporters.
³ See pages 394, and 396. At page 399 this is differently related.
4 Other writers say, "cases of merchandize;" and that forty-five persons
were made to come out of these chests, and were, at once, put to the sword.
THE SHANSABANIA DYNASTY OF GHŪR
409
it. The chests were seized at the gate of the city, and
about eighty men came out of the chests, of whom three
were of those who had killed Sultan Mahmud. All three
were made a public example of and put to death, two
others were cast headlong from the hill [of Āzād], and
seventy-five were thrown at the feet of the elephants and
killed, amid the clamours and reprobation of the crowd.
Subsequent to this, Malik Husam-ud-Din, Muhammad-
i-Abi-'Ali, Jahān Pahlawan, from Fiwār and Kāl-yūn
presented himself [at the court]; and, when three months
of the sovereignty of Sulṭān Bahā-ud-Din, Sām, had passed
away, Malik 'Alā-ud-Din, Utsuz [son of 'Alā-ud-Din],
Ḥūsain [Jahan-soz], who was in attendance on Sultan
Muhammad, Khwārazm Shah, solicited aid from that
monarch to enable him to possess himself of the dominions
of Ghūr. Malik Khan [governor] of Hirāt, who at the
commencement of the reign of the Khwārazmi Sulṭān bore
the title of Amir-i-Ḥājib, and who was an 'Ajami Turk
of great intrepidity, and the slayer of Muhammad-i-
Khar-nak', was nominated to proceed from Khurāsān to
render assistance to 'Ala-ud-Din, Utsuz, son of ['Alā-ud-
Din], Husain.
S
6
Malik Khan, with the forces of Khurasan, set out
accordingly to assist Sulṭān 'Alā-ud-Din, Utsuz-i-Husain,
in possessing himself of Firuz-koh. When they arrived in
the vicinity of Firuz-koh, the Maliks and Amirs of Ghur
took counsel together, and came to the conclusion' that it
was advisable to release Malik 'Ali Shah from confine-
5 If it was so well known that 'Ali Shah's followers had done the deed, it
seems strange that they should have been allowed even to approach the gate,
and that they should have come near the place and thus thrust their heads
into danger.
* That is a Turk born in 'Ajam. This personage is mentioned in a number
of places. He is the chief who joined Sultan Jalāl-ud-Din, Khwārazmi, in after
years, with 50,000 men, was present in the battle of Barwan, and was the
unfortunate cause of Saif-ud Din, Ighrāk's desertion. Our author styles him
Malik Khān, Amin-i-Ḥājib, at page 287, but more correctly, Amir-i-Ḥājib,
at pages 415, 416, and the last Section on the invasion of the Mughals. His
correct name appears to be Malik Khān, entitled Amin-ul-Mulk, the Amir-i-
Hajib. See notes to pages 287 291. The Jami'-ut-Tawarikh styles him
Amin Malik of Hirāt."
7 See note, page 287, and note 5, page 471.
$
• Subsequently perhaps styled Sultan, after he had been set up as a vassal
of the Khwārazmis, but Malik is more correct.
9 Some copies are much more curt with the following passage.
D d
410
THE TABAKAT-I-NĂŞIRĪ.
ment, and treat him with great honour and reverence,
so that, on his account, some of the Khurāsāni forces
might evince an inclination towards that Prince, and, as
he was also the adversary of his brother [Sultan Mu-
ḥammad, Khwārazm Shah], he might, in concert with this
sovereignty, oppose in battle the forces of Khurāsān.
Malik 'Ali Shāh they accordingly set at liberty, and they
appointed Amirs to the [defence of] different sides around
the city'.
Malik Kutb-ud-Din, Husain, son of 'Ali, son of 'Abi-
'Ali, and Amir 'Uṣman-i-Khar-fash², and other Amirs, with
troops, were appointed to occupy the summit of the Koh-
i-Maidan, and Amir 'Usman-i-Maraghani, who was the
Sar-i-Jāndār [the Chief Armour-Bearer], with a body of
forces, was named to occupy the upper part of the Koh-i-
Āzād³. Other Amirs, such as Muḥammad-i-'Abd-ullah,
and Ghūri, Shalmati, and 'Umr, Shalmati¹, were nominated
to the Zar-Margh gate; and on a Thursday, during the
whole day, round about the city and on the hills constant
fighting went on. On a Friday, in the middle of the
month of Jamādi-ul-Awwal, in the year 607 ii.", the city [of
6
1 After strengthening the defences as well as they were able.
2 This is evidently a nickname or byname [like Khar-mil, Khar-nak, &c.]
of no very complimentary nature—Ass-like. "Fash" has, however, other
significations, which see. Two good copies have and
but no doubt is intended.
respectively,
3 This was the hill the followers of 'Ali Shah used to climb to reconnoitre
the palace of Sultan Mahmud.
Salmani" and "Suliman,” but the above is correct.
4 Some copies have "Salmani” and “
5 Some few copies of the text, the best Paris copy included, name it the
Tara'in gate. It is possible a gate might subsequently have been so named in
remembrance of the victory over Pithora Rae, but the other best and oldest
copies are as above.
6 Sultan Muhammad, Khwārazm Shah, having delivered Hirāt from
'Izz-ud-Din, Ḥusain, son of Khar-mil, did not interfere in any way with
Sulṭān Maḥmūd, Ghūri, who had previously acknowledged his suzerainty,
as already stated in note 3, para. 10, page 402. While, however, Sultān
Muḥammad was engaged in a campaign beyond the Jiḥun, his brother,
Tāj-ud-Din, 'Ali Shah, having become dissatisfied with his brother, the
Sultan, left his dominions and sought the Court of Mahmud, who received
him honourably and with distinction, and supplied all his requirements.
After some time had passed 'Ali Shah [and some of his adherents probably],
managed to effect an entrance, secretly, into the Sarae-i-Haram [private
apartments] in the middle of the day, where he found Maḥmüd asleep on the
throne, and slew him, and no one knew who had done the deed. It however
became noised abroad, that Tāj-ud-Din, 'Ali Shah, had conspired against
him, in order to obtain the throne of Ghur for himself.
THE SHANSABĀNIAH DYNASTY OF GHŪR.
411
Firuz-koh] was taken [by the Khwārazmi forces], and the
dominion of the family of [Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din] Muḥammad,
son of Bahā-ud-Din, Sām, passed away.
I have already pointed out [note 5, page 407] what discrepancy exists
between authors as to the year of Maḥmūd's assassination, and that, in all
probability, 609 H. is the correct date, and not 607 H. Our author himself
says, in his account of Taj-ud-Din, 'Ali Shah [page 253], that he was put to
death in 609 H. and every copy of the text available agrees, and Yafa-i, and
Faşiḥ-i, and Jami'-ut-Tawarikh confirm it; and, from the various accounts
of these events, it is beyond a doubt, that both Maḥmud and Taj-ud-Din,
'Ali Shah, were put to death in the same year, probably within a few months.
of each other, and before 'Ala-ud-Din, Utsuz, ascended the throne, subject to
the Khwārazmis.
Our author here says it happened in the fourth year of Mal mūd's reign,
and, as he ascended the throne about the middle of 602 H., this would make
it before the middle of the year 606 H.; and, in this case, the date given by
most authors for the battle between Sultan Muḥammad, Khwārazm Shāh,
and Baniko of Taraz, namely Rabi'-ul-Awwal 607 H., cannot be correct, as
it is certain that the Sultan entered Hirāt, after 'lzz-ud-Din, Husain, son of
Khar-mil, had been put to death, in Jamādi-ul-Awwal, 607 H., three months
after the date of Maḥmūd's assassination given by our author and several others.
See note 7, pages 260-261.
Faşiḥ-i distinctly states, that, after Maḥmud had been killed in 609 H., as no
one remained of the descendants of the Sultāns of Ghūr worthy of the wand
of sovereignty, the chief personages of Firuz-koh concerted together [our
author's own statement above tends to confirm this, although probably he did
not like to acknowledge that the Ghūriān Amirs had set up a Khwārazmi as
ruler], and raised Tāj-ud-Din, 'Ali Shah, to the throne. They then despatched
an emissary to the presence of Sultan Muḥammad, to represent to him the facts
of the case, and to solicit him to confirm 'Ali Shah in the sovereignty. The
Sultan [seemingly] acceded to their request, and despatched Muḥammad-i-
Bashir [one of his chamberlains] with a robe of honour for 'Ali Shāh. After
Muḥammad-i-Bashir arrived and began to congratulate 'Ali Shāh with the
usual ceremonies, 'Ali Shah proceeded towards an inner apartment and com-
menced arraying himself in the robe, when Muḥammad-i-Bashir drew his
sword, and with one blow struck off his head; and congratulation was turned
into condolement.
After this event no other could be found capable of the sovereignty, and
Firūz-koh and Ghūr, and parts adjacent, were left in the possession of the
Khwārazmi Sulṭān.
Ḥabib-us-Siyar says that Khwārazm Shāh, unable to secure his brother's
person, advanced upon Ghur with a numerous army. The Ghurian nobles
released 'Ali Shāh to create a diversion, but it was of no avail, and Firūz-koh
was taken in 607 H. Rauzat-uş-Şafa states, that, after two or three days
fighting in the hills and around the city, it was taken, as our author mentions,
in the middle of Jamādi-ul-Awwal, 607 H., and in this Jahān-Ārā, Muntakhab-
ut-Tawārikh, and others agree, the latter giving the 15th of that month as the
exact date, which was just three months and seven days after the death of
Maḥmūd, if he died in that year.
The statement of Yafa-i is different from those of other authors, who probably
copied from our author's work, but as the former work gives far more details
D d 2
412
THE TABAKAT-1-NĀṢIRĪ.
The Amirs, who had been despatched to occupy the
hill-tops around, all escaped in safety, and 'Ali Shah, and
Malik Husām-ud-Din, Muḥammad-i-Abi-'Ali' of Kāl-yūn,
went out by the gate of the Reg Pul of Bust, and each and
every one of them betook himself to some part or other.
Malik Husām-ud-Din betook himself to Kāl-yūn, and
'Ali Shah set out towards Ghaznin. Sulṭān A'lā-ud-Din,
Utsuz, was placed on the throne, and Malik Khan of Hirāt
returned thither.
Sultan Baha-ud-Din, Sam, with his brother [Malik
Shams-ud-Din, Muḥammad], his sisters, and his mother,
together with the treasure then ready at hand, and their
aunt the Malikah-i-Jalāli, the daughter of Sulṭān Ghiyāṣ-
ud-Din, Muḥammad-i-Sām, who was betrothed to Malik
'Alā-ud-Din, Muḥammad, and the whole, with the bier of
Sultan Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din, Maḥmūd, were conducted towards
Khurāsān. The bier of Sultan Mahmud was deposited in
the Gāzār-gah [catacombs] of Hirāt. The dependents, the
married and the younger ladies of the family, and their
property were removed to Khwārazm; and, up to the time
of the troubles caused by the irruption of the infidels of
Chin, they continued in Khwārazm, and were treated with
esteem and honour.
Chroniclers have related in this wise, that, when the
Mughal troubles arose, the mother of Sultan Muḥammad,
Khwārazm Shah, had those two Princes [Bahā-ud-Din,
Sām, and Malik Shams-ud-Din, Muḥammad] drowned in
the Jiḥun of Khwārazm-the Almighty have mercy upon
them and forgive them!
Two daughters of Sultan Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din, Maḥmūd, up
to the date of the composition of this History [are still
living]-one is at Bukhārā, and the other is at Balkh,
respecting the Khwārazmis than any other writer with whom I am acquainted,
its statement, taken in consideration of what our author mentions, appears
worthy of credit. Jahān-Ārā, another good authority, states that it was 'Alā-
ud-Din, Utsuz, with an army sent along with him by Khwārazm Shah, who
invested Firuz-koh, and took the city in the year and date above-mentioned,
when Baha-ud-Din, Sām, and his brother were sent away to Khwārazm and met
the fate mentioned by our author, at the time of the irruption of the Mughals.
7 Styled Jahan Pahlawan at page 409.
8 The "sand" or "gravel gate" leading to Bust.
defective here, in nearly every copy.
9 See page 280.
The text is very
THE SHANSABĀNIAII DYNASTY OF GHŪR.
413
married to the Malik-zadah of Balkh, the son of Al-mās,
the Ḥājib.
XXI. SULTAN 'ALA-UD-DIN, UTSUZ, SON OF SULTAN 'ALĀ.
UD-DIN, AL-HUSAIN, JAHAN-SOZ.
Sulṭān 'Ala-ud-Din, Utsuz', was the son of Sulṭān 'Alā-
ud-Din, Husain, Jahān-soz, and was left by his father [at
his death] very young in years; and he had grown up in
the service of the two Sultāns, Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din, and Mu'izz-
ud-Din, but served the greater portion of his service at the
court of Ghaznin with Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din.
The chronicler relates after this manner, that, upon one
occasion, Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din was attacked by the
cholic, to such degree that people had given up all hope
of his recovery. The Amirs of Ghūr agreed together, in
secret, on this matter, that, if the Sultan should unfortu-
nately die, they would raise Sultan' 'Ala-ud-Din, Utsuz, to
the throne of Ghaznin. Almighty God sent the draught
of health from that dispensary, whence "indeed, when I am
sick HE healeth me," to Sulṭān Mu'izz-ud-Din, and he
recovered.
2
Certain informers' made the Sultan acquainted with
this circumstance, and this compact; and he commanded
that it was necessary that 'Ala-ud-Din should be removed
from the court of Ghaznin lest, through the wrath of
humanity, odium might chance to touch him. 'Alā-ud-Din
proceeded to the court of Bamiān to his uncle's sons; and
[at that time] the throne of Bamian had passed to Sultān
Baha-ud-Din, Sam, son of Sultan Shams-ud-Din, son of
Malik Fakhr-ud-Din, Mas'ud. After he [Utsuz] had pro-
¹ Ḥabib-us-Siyar, and some others likewise agree with our author, and say
that 'Ala-ud-Din, Utsuz, was set up by Khwārazm Shāh after the dethrone-
ment of Baha-ud-Din, Sām; and that 'Ali Shāh fled to Ghaznin after the
capture of Firuz-koh. The reason why this Khwārazmi, or rather Turkish
name, was given to 'Ala-ud-Din is mentioned at page 238. He was, no
doubt, set aside by Abu-l-'Abbās-i-Shis who slew Utsuz's brother, Saif-ud-
Din, Muḥammad, for killing his brother, War-mesh, otherwise he was the
Text heir to the throne after his brother Sultan Saif-ud-Din, Muḥammad.
2 Not Sultan at that time, for he had not then come to the throne.
3 Kur'an: chap. 26, verse 80.
It appears that all rulers had these news-givers or informers in their employ.
* See page 428 for the account of him.
414
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĀṢIRĪ.
ceeded thither, they treated him with reverence, and the
district of Nãeº of Bāmiān was assigned to his charge.
6
After some time his [Utsuz's] daughter was given [in
marriage] to his [Sulṭān, Bahā-ud-Din's] eldest son, Malik
'Ala-ud-Din, Muḥammad', as will subsequently be, please
God, recorded in the Section on the Maliks of Bāmiān.
The course of the days allotted to the extent of the
dominion of the Sultans, Ghiyas-ud-Din and Mu'izz-ud-
Din, having run their course, and Sultan Baha-ud-Din,
Sām, having likewise died, Malik 'Ala-ud-Din, Utsuz,
proceeded from the court of Bāmiān to the presence of
Sultan Muḥammad, Khwārazm Shah, to solicit assistance
to enable him to obtain possession of the dominion of
Ghur and the throne of Firuz-koh. He was treated with
great honour there, and received the most princely usage,
and the Amirs of Khurasan, such as Ulugh Khan-i-'Abi-
Muḥammad', Malik Shams-ud-Din, Utsuz [the Hajib],
and the Majd-ul-Mulk, Wazir of Marw, with the whole of
the troops of Upper Khurāsān were directed to afford
assistance to Malik 'Alā-ud-Din, Utsuz, in possessing him-
self of the territories of Ghūr².
Sultan Maḥmūd advanced out of Firūz-koh to meet
them and overthrow their forces, as has been previously
recorded; and they [the Khwārazmi nobles] retired, and
again resumed their duties in the service of Sultan
Muḥammad, Khwārazm Shāh.
6 This place is often mentioned in Baihaķi.
See account of him, No. III. of Section XIX.
8 Bahā-ud-Din of Bamian must be meant. Maḥmūd's son, Baha-ud-Din,
Sām, only reigned three months, but he did not die until cast into the Jiḥūn
between ten and eleven years after these events, and after the slaves of Sultān
Mu'izz-ud-Din had succeeded to the whole of his dominions.
See page 409.
9 The reader will not fail to observe that this mighty sovereign to whom
the latter Ghūris appealed when they wanted help, and whose suzerainty the
nephew of Mu'izz-ud-Din acknowledged, is the same that our author would
make us believe sent such abject petitions to Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din and his brother,
Mu'izz-ud-Din, mentioned at page 381-2.
1 Styled Malik-ul-Jibāl at page 399.
2 Scarcely probable, even by our author's own account, if the "firm com-
pact" mentioned at page 400 is correct; but, as mentioned in note 3, page
400, the "treaty" must, really, mean Maḥmūd's acknowledgment of Sultan
Muḥammad's supremacy, which took place after the affair here alluded to.
The defeat of the Khwarazmi troops is not mentioned by the various authors
I have quoted, but quite the contrary.
3 At page 400.
THE SHANSABĀNĪAH DYNASTY OF GHŪR.
415
Matters continued in this wise until after the assassination
of Sultan Maḥmūd, when Malik Khān of Hirāt, the Amir-i-
Ḥājib, and [Malik] 'Alā-ud-Din, Utsuz, from Bust, and the
forces of Khurāsān, advanced towards Firuz-koh'; and they
placed 'Ala-ud-Din, Utsuz, on the throne of Ghūr, and
Malik Khan of Hirāt again retired.
The Maliks and Amirs of Ghur submitted to Sultan
'Alā-ud-Din, Utsuz; but hostility showed itself between
him and the Turk Amirs of Ghaznin, and Malik Tāj-ud-
Din, Yal-duz, and Mu'ayyid-ul-Mulk, Muḥammad-i-'Abd-
ullah, Sistāni", who was the Wazir of Ghaznin, and in
pomp like a sovereign, encountered Sultan 'Ala-ud-Din,
Utsuz, in the limits of Kidān and the Margh-i-Nūlah, in
battle, and the army of Ghaznin was defeated and
overthrown.
Sultan 'Ala-ud-Din, Utsuz, was a just monarch, learned,
and a patron of learned men; and the Kitab-i-Mas'udi, on
ecclesiastical jurisprudence, he knew by heart. In the
promotion of 'Ulama [theologians], and the bringing up of
the families of men of learning, he used to do his utmost,
and every one among the sons of 'Ulamā, whom he con-
tinued to find diligent and persevering, he was accustomed
to honour with his benevolent regard.
6
When he ascended the throne he set at liberty Malik'
'Ala-ud-Din, Muḥammad, from the fortress of Ashiyar of
Gharjistan; but, on account of his killing 'Umr-i-Shalmati,
the Sultan again shut him up within the walls of the
fortress of Balarwan.
7
Sulṭān 'Ala-ud-Din, Utsuz, reigned for a period of four
years, until Malik Naşir-ud-Din, Husain, the Amir-i-
Shikar [Chief-Huntsman], brought an army from Ghaznin
against him, and a battle took place between them in the
4 Compare the account at page 409, and on the preceding page. In a few
copies of the text the words "and [Malik] 'Alā-ud-Din, Utsuz," are left out.
5 Styled Sanjari in the list of Mu'izz-ud-Din's ministers and nobles, at
page 205
6 Sulṭān 'Ala-ud-Din, Muḥammad, the last of the dynasty. · See page 417.
7 Subject to Sultan Muḥammad, Khwarazm Shah.
• Any one reading this would imagine that this Naşir-ud-Din, Husain, was
some independent chief who had made war upon 'Ala-ud-Din, Utsuz. He
was sent by Taj-ud-Din, I-yal-dūz, against 'Alā-ud-Din, who, being a vassal
of the Khwārazmis, was naturally inimical to I-yal-dūz, the trusted Slave of
the late Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din, and on whose side most if not all, of the
416
THE TABAKĶĀT-I-NĂṢIRĪ.
centre of Ghur, within the limits of Jarmās. The right
wing of Sultan 'Ala-ud-Din, Utsuz's, army was commanded
by Malik Kutb-ud-Din, Husain, son of 'Ali, son of Abi-
'Ali', who attacked the left wing of Malik Naşir-ud-Din,
Husain's, troops, and overthrew and routed [that portion
of] the Ghaznin forces, and pursued the fugitives [off the
field]. Malik Naşir-ud-Din, Husain, [with his centre]
charged the centre of the Sultan's army, and wounded him
with his spear, and a Turk among the troops of Ghaznin
smote the Sultan on the head with his mace in such wise
that both his august eyes exuded from their sockets', and
he fell down from his horse. Malik Naşir-ud-Din, Husain,
remained on horseback over the head of the Sultan, when
Malik Kutb-ud-Din, Husain, returned from the pursuit of
the routed left wing of the Ghaznin army, and charged
Malik Naşir-ud-Din, Husain, and again recovered the
[wounded] Sultan, and conveyed him towards the district
of Sangah, and on the way the Sultan was received into
the Almighty's mercy. They buried him by the side of
his kindred, the Maliks of the family of the Shansabānis.
Sultan 'Ala-ud-Din, Utsuz, reigned for a period of four
years and a little over; and, after his death, his sons became
dispersed. One of them, Malik Fakhr-ud-Din, Mas'ud,
went into Gharjistān to the castle of Siya-Khānah 3, and
Turkish Amirs were ranged, whilst the Ghūri Amirs were on the opposite
side.
9 This chief is again mentioned by our author in his account of the Mughal
invasion of these parts. Malik Kutb-ud-Din was directed by Sulṭān Muḥam-
mad, Khwārazm Shāh, under whose rule the Ghurian empire west of the
Indus had fallen, to put all the fortresses of Ghur into a state of efficiency for
defence against the Mughals. Malik Kutb-ud-Din, at last, succeeded in
reaching Hindūstān after a narrow escape of falling into the hands of those
infidels.
¹ The idiom here, as in many other places, differs considerably, for example one
هر دو چشم از جای برخاست and the other set هر دو چشم بیرون افتاد set of copies has
2 This event happened, near Ghaznin, in 611 H. 'Ala-ud-Din, Utsuz,
ruled over Ghūr for about four years; and most authors state that he was the
last of the race of Shansabani who held sovereign power, and, with him, the
dynasty terminated.
This must have happened very shortly before the death
of I-yal-dūz, who was put to death in the tenth month of this year, according
to some, and in 612 H. according to others; but it is very probable that I-yal-düz
did set up the favourite and trusted kinsman of his late master. See page 418.
3 Several of the more modern copies of the text have Sata-Khanah for Siya-
Khanah. This fortress is again referred to in the last Section containing the
account of the Mughal invasion.
THE SHANSABANĨAH DYNASTY OF GHŪR.
417
there he remained for some time; another, Malik Nasir-ud-
Din, Muḥammad, went to the fortress of Bindar [or
Pindar], in Upper Gharjistān, and long continued there.
The youngest son, Jamshed by name, during the troubles
of the infidel Mughals, entered into the district of Hariw-
ar-Rūd, and, in the Darah of Khisht-Ab, he was martyred
[by Mughals]. Those two elder sons of the Sultan, through
the calumny of Malik Khān of Hirāt, received martyrdom
at the hands of the slaves of Sultan Muhammad,
Khwārazm Shah. They strove greatly, and strained every
nerve; but, as it was not the Divine will, neither one of
them attained unto sovereignty.
XXII. SULTAN 'ALA-UD-DIN, MUHAMMAD, SON OF SHUJA'.
UD-DĪN-I-ABŪ-'ALĪ³, TIE LAST OF THE SULTANS OF
GHŪR 6.
Previous to this, in several places, 'Ala-ud-Din, Muḥam-
mad, has been made mention of, that, at the outset of his
career, he used to be styled Malik Ziya-ud-Din, the Pearl
of Ghūr, and when, after Sulṭān Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din, Muḥam-
mad, son of [Baha-ud-Din] Sam, he ascended the throne of
Firuz-koh, his title became Malik [Sulṭān] 'Alā-ud-Din '.
Since Malik Naşir-ud-Din, Husain, at this time
martyred Sultān 'Alā-ud-Din, Utsuz, Firūz-koh, and the
dominion of Ghur came under the control of the Amirs
and troops of Ghaznin, and of Ghur. They, in concert, set
up Malik Husām-ud-Din, Husain-i-'Abd-ul-Malik, Sar-i-
Zarrād, over Firuz-koh, and they repaired the fort of
Firūz-koh, and, in the midst of the city, and on the hill of
• Khisht and Khusht, in Pu_to, signify damp, wet, humid, dank, soaked,
&c., and ab is Persian for water. The Pushto equivalent for water is
ao-bah.
5 Our author makes the same blunder here as at page 391. Shujā'-ud-Din,
Abu-'Ali, was 'Ala-ud-Din, Muḥammad's, grandfather. See page 346.
6 This should be, Sulṭān 'Alā-ud-Din, Muḥammad, restored. See page 391.
7 See note 8, page 393.
8 Previously mentioned as Amir-i-Shikar, or Chief Huntsman.
here varies considerably.
set
The idiom
9 One copy of the text has "Sih-Zarrād," and another Si-Zād. He was
up as temporary ruler perhaps. He is, no doubt, the same person who is
referred to by our author in his account of the Mughal invasion, and who, at
that time, held the fortress of Sangah of Ghur for Sultan Muḥammad
Khwārazm Shāh, and his son Sulṭān Jalāl-ud-Din.
418
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĂŞIRĪ.
the fortress of Baz Küshk, they placed a barrier of iron,
and raised a rampart, and commenced hostilities'. They
brought Malik 'Ala-ud-Din, Muḥammad, out of the castle
of Ashiyar [of Gharjistān] and carried him away to
Ghaznin. These events happened in the year 610 or
бин.2
When Sultan 'Ala-ud-Din, Muḥammad, reached Ghaznin,
Sultan Taj-ud-Din, Yal-duz, treated him with great honour
and reverence, and commanded so that they took the
canopy of State of Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din from the head of
that monarch's mausoleum, and they raised it over the
head of Sulṭān 'Alā-ud-Din, and he [Tāj-ud-Din, Yal-duz]
gave him the title of Sultan, and sent him to the capital,
Firuz-koh.
3
He returned to Ghur again; and, when he had ruled for
a period of one year and a little more, and the Khutbah was
read, and the money was coined in his name ³, and his title
of Sulṭān was made universally [public] in the Khutbah,
Sulṭān Muḥammad, Khwārazm Shāh, sent him the treaty
which the Sulṭān had, at Nishāpūr, taken from him, to the
effect that he ['Alā-ud-Din, Muḥammad] should never,
at any time soever, draw sword against him [Sulṭān
Muḥammad]. Accordingly, in the year 612 H., Sulṭān
'Ala-ud-Din, Muḥammad, delivered up the city of Firuz-
koh to the trusty officers of Sultan Muḥammad, Khwārazm
1 The text here is very defective in most copies, and varies considerably
both in words and idiom. Whom hostilities were carried on with does not appear.
2 Sulṭān Maḥmūd was killed, according to our author and some other
writers [see note 5, page 407 and 410], in the second month of the year 607 H.;
and 'Ala-ud-Din, Utsuz, was killed after a reign, by our author's account, of
four years and a little over, which, supposing the "little over" to have been
one month only, would bring us to the third month of the year 611 H.; and,
according to several authors, on the 3rd of the tenth month of that same year,
Tāj-ud-Din, I-yal·dūz, was himself put to death at Budā’ūn by Ï-bak's son-in-law,
Shams-ud-Din, I-yal-timish, who then ruled at Dihli. If these dates be cor-
rect, 'Alā-ud-Din, Muḥammad, could not have reigned more than six months,
which is evidently incorrect. Jahān-Ārā says he vacated the throne, and
retired to the court of Sultan Muḥammad, Khwārazm Shāh, leaving him to
take possession of the country, after he had reigned one year and a little over.
This would bring us to about the fourth month of 612 H.; and the Muntakhab-
ut-Tawarikh states that I-yal-düz was defeated and put to death in this year,
not in 611 H. The period assigned for Utsuz's reign is probably too great.
See under Tāj-ud-Din, Yal-duz, No. IV., Section XIX.
3 I do not think any of his coins have been found.
4 At that time styled Ziyā-ud-Din, Muḥammad. See note ³, page 393.
8
THE SHANSABĀNĪAH DYNASTY OF GHŪR.
419
Shāh, and was himself conducted to Khwārazm, and was
treated with great honour and veneration 5.
6
He took up his residence near to the Malikah-i-Jalāli,
the daughter of Sulṭān Ghiyāṣs-ud-Din, Muḥammad-i-Sām,
who was joined in wedlock to him. They dwelt together
in the Khwārazmi dominions for a considerable time, and
[at length] death's decree arrived, and he was received into
the Almighty's mercy. During the period of his own
dominion and sovereignty, he had despatched trusty and
confidential persons, and had acquired a place adjacent to
[the tomb of] Shaikh Abu-Yazid, Busṭāmi, and had caused
the position of his tomb to be fixed upon; and, at the
time of his decease, he had made it his last request that
his body should be removed from Khwārazm to Busṭām.
5 Tāj-ud-Din, I-yal-dūz, being dead at this time, Sulṭān 'Ala-ud-Din,
Muḥammad, was deprived of his support; and this may have been another
reason for his abdicating. Several other authors agree with respect to this
year, but others again distinctly state that Sultan Muḥammad obtained pos-
session of Firuz-koh and Ghūr, and also of Ghaznin, in 611 H. Ghūr, as
previously stated, had been subject to him in the time of Utsuz. Yāfa-i says:
"After these events [before related], in 611 H., [the Jami'-ut-Tawarikh agrees,]
news reached the Sultan [Khwārazm Shāh] that Taj-ud-Din, I-yal-dūz, had
died at Ghaznin [our author and several others state that he was put to death
at Budā'ūn], leaving no heir who was capable of succeeding him [he left no
son], and that one of his slaves had assumed his place. This determined the
Sultan to devote his energies to the annexation of that territory, together with
other extensive provinces. Having effected his purpose, Hirāt, Ghūr, Gharjis-
tān, and Sijistān, and the territory as far as the frontier of Hind, an extensive
empire, and containing many flourishing cities and towns, previously ruled by
Sulṭān Maḥmūd-i-Sabuk-Tigin and his descendants, up to the period of the
rise of the Sulṭāns of Ghūr, fell under his sway, and he nominated his eldest
son, Jalāl-ud-Din, to the government of it," and a Khwārazmi Amir [see page
257] was appointed to rule it as his deputy or lieutenant. See the reign of
Yal-duz further on.
In the treasury, at Ghaznin, where Sulṭān Mu'izz-ud-Din had placed them,
were found, at this time that Sultan Muhammad obtained possession of Ghaz-
nin, several documents from the Khalifah's Court to the Ghūrian Sultāns,
inciting them to hostility against him, and vilifying and maligning him and his
acts. The finding of these documents proved to him that the hostility of the
Ghūris towards him proceeded from the instigation contained in them. He
did not make known the contents of these documents at this time, intending to
do so after sufficient time had elapsed for him to free the countries of the East.
See note 4, page 265.
How was it possible for them to have dwelt together, when, as our author
himself states at pages 301 and 392, the marriage was never consummated, and
the princess died a maid? They may have resided near each other. She had
been betrothed to Tughan Shah, grandson of Malik Mu-ayyid-i-Ã-inah-dār,
before she was betrothed to Ziyā-ud-Din. See page 182.
420
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĂṢIRĪ.
When, in accordance with his last will, they conveyed his
remains to Busṭām, the attendant at the Khānķah [mo-
nastery] of Busṭām, the night previously, saw Shaikh Abu-
Yazid in a dream, who said to him, "To-morrow a
traveller and guest arrives: it behoveth that thou shouldst
perform the rite of going forth to receive him." At the
dawn of the morning the attendant of the Khānķah set out
from Busṭām; and, at about the first watch of the day,
the bier of Sulṭān 'Ala-ud-Din, Muḥammad, arrived from
the direction of Khwārazm. It was conducted with all
reverence and veneration into Busṭām, and they buried
him likewise adjoining the Shaikh-ul-'Ārifain, Abū-Yazid
-the mercy of the Almighty be upon them!-and the
Maliks of Ghūr, and the Sulṭāns of the Shansabi race, by
the extinction of his dominion, came to a termination.
SECTION XVIII.
THE SHANSABĀNĪAH SULŢĀNS OF TUKHĀRISTĀN AND
BĀMĪĀN.
MINHAJ-I-SARĀJ, JŪRJĀNI, the humblest of the servants of
the Almighty's threshold, thus states, that, as Almighty
God raised up great and powerful Sultāns from the race of
the Shansabānis, who were Maliks over the mountain
tracts of Ghūr, and brought within the grasp of their juris-
diction, and under their subjection, sundry territories of
the countries of 'Ajam and of Hind, one of those territories
was Tukhāristān and the mountain tracts of Bamian, the
rulers of which part have been famous and celebrated upon
all occasions, from the most remote ages, for the grandeur
of their station, the abundance of their riches, the vastness
of their treasures, the number of their mines, and their
buried wealth; and, on sundry occasions, the sovereigns of
'Ajam, such as Ķubād and Firūz', these rulers have van-
quished and overcome. That tract of country has also
been famed and celebrated, to the uttermost parts of the
countries of the world, for its mines of gold, silver, rubies,
and crystal, bejādah' [jade], and other [precious] things.
When the sun of the prosperity of the Maliks and
Sultāns of Ghur ascended from the eastern parts of
eminence, and Sultan 'Ala-ud-Din, Husain, Jahan-soz, had
wreaked vengeance upon the people of Ghaznin, he had
leisure to turn his attention to the subjugation of that
territory. After having subdued it, he installed therein his
eldest brother, Malik Fakhr-ud-Din, Mas'ud, and from him
descended an illustrious posterity, and Maliks of grandeur
and dignity, the marks of whose equity and beneficence,
1 See note 3, page 423.
The name of a gem, by some said to be a species of ruby, and by others a
species of sapphire; but jade is no doubt meant. Goez refers to a species of
jasper found in these parts.
422
THE TABAKAT-I-NĂŞIRI.
and the fame of whose munificence and obligations con-
ferred, became published throughout the four quarters of
the world. The mercy of the Almighty be upon the
whole of them!
I. MALIK FAKHR-UD-DİN, MAS'-ŪD, SON OF 'IZZ-UD-DİN,
AL HUSAIN, SHANSABĪ.
Malik Fakhr-ud-Din, Mas'ūd, son of Al-Husain, was
older than his other six brothers; and his mother was a
Turkiah. He was a sufficiently great monarch; but, as
he was not by the same mother as [his brothers] the
Sultāns, they did not permit him to occupy the throne of
the dominions of Ghur, for this reason, that five other
brothers, both on the side of the father and mother, were
Shansabānis, while the Malik-ul-Jibāl, Muḥammad, who
attained martyrdom at Ghaznin, was by another mother,
who was the attendant of the mother of the Sultāns, and
Malik Fakhr-ud-Din, Mas'ud, was by a Turkish bond-
woman, as has been previously stated.
After Sultan 'Ala-ud-Din, Husain [Jahan-soz], became
disengaged from taking revenge upon the inhabitants of
Ghaznin, and had demolished the Kaşrs of Bust, which
was the place of residence of the house of Maḥmūd, he
caused an army to be got ready from the capital of Ghūr,
and marched towards Tukhāristān, and, in the subjugation
of that territory, and the strongholds thereof, manifested
great alertness and dexterity; and the Amirs of Ghūr, in
that army, displayed such valour and martial heroism,
that, if Rustam-i-Dastan' had been present, he would have
recited the story of their valour.
When those tracts were taken possession of, 'Alā-ud-Din,
Husain, placed Malik Fakhr-ud-Din, Mas'ūd [his brother],
upon the throne of Bāmiān, and that territory was com-
3 A term constantly quoted by Eastern authors before the time of Columbus.
4 The feminine of Turk.
5 They only assumed the title of Sulṭān some time subsequent to this period,
and, of course, were not all Sultāns at once.
6 Here our author refers over again to the "Sultāns" just mentioned. There
is no improving his style without taking great liberty with the original.
7 Dastan, a name of Zal-i-Zar [Zal of the Golden Locks], the father of
Rustam.
THE SHANSABĀNĪAII DYNASTY OF TUKHĀRISTĀN. 423
mitted to his charge. Malik Fakhr-ud-Din, Mas'ūd,
having ascended the throne, the adjacent hill territories,
[namely] the mountain tract of Shaķnān⁹, Tukhāristān, as
far as Dar-gūn¹, and Bilaur, and the tracts towards Turkistān
8 Here, again, our author contradicts his own previous statements. At page
339 he says that, on the death of Malik 'Izz-ud-Din, Husain [the father of
Fakhr-ud-Din, Mas'ūd, 'Alā-ud-Din, Ḥusain, and others], Saif-ud-Din, Sūri,
the eldest legitimate son, who succeeded to his father's authority, divided the
dominions among his six brothers and himself, and that, in that division,
Bāmīān was assigned to the eldest brother, Fakhr-ud-Din, Mas'ūd. Now he
states that 'Ala-ud-Din, Husain, conquered this territory several years sub-
sequently, after he had destroyed the city of Ghaznin. Jahān-Ārā also states
that, in the division of the father's hereditary patrimony among the brothers,
Bāmiān went to the eldest son by a Turkish bond-woman, Fakhr-ud-Din,
Mas'ud.
The older Chroniclers contain a great deal respecting the affairs of Tukharis-
tān and the Hayāṭilah, whatever “the clay-stamped annals of Senaccherib”
[Sennacherib?] may say. Ibn-i-Khurdād-bih, in his account of the Turks, also
refers to them. Haytal [J], according to the ancient dialect of Bukhārā,
is said to signify a man of great strength and size; the 'Arabs made it Hayṭāl
[J-the plural form of the word, applied to the people generally, being
Hayatilah []. One writer states that Haytal was the name of the ter-
ritory of Khutlān, a dependency of Badakhshan, also called Kol-āb [Kol-i-
Ab, which signifies a lake]; but this is contrary to the MASALIK WA
MAMALIK, and to our author's account.
Firūz, son of Yazdijurd, son of Bahrām-i-Gūr, when his brother Hurmuz
ascended the throne, fled from his fief of Sijistan, by way of Gharjistān and
Tukhāristān, and sought shelter and aid from Khush-nawaz, the king of the
Hayatilah. According to the Rauzat-ut-Tahirin, the name of the ruler he
sought aid from was Faghāni, the Chaghāni, or Shah of the Chaghāniāns.
He espoused the cause of Firūz, and agreed to aid him with 30,000 men if
Firuz would cede to him Tirmid and Wesah. Another author calls the people
of Tukhāristan itself Hayatilah likewise. By Faghani's aid Firuz gained
the throne of Īrān; and for many years subsequent to this, and during several
succeeding reigns, there was alternate peace and war between the sovereigns of
Īrān and the Hayatilah rulers. In the time of Nusherwan, the Hayātilah,
being without a ruler, are said to have chosen Faghani [this would seem, from
what was stated above from another author, to be the name of the family, not
the person's name], the Chaghanian ruler of Tukhāristān. I have neither
space nor time to say more at present; but will merely observe, that, by some
modern writers, Tukhāristan and Turkistān are often confused, one for the
other.
9 Shaghnan and Shaknan are synonymous: "Shighnan" is not correct,
but such as one would adopt who could not read the original for himself, and
depended entirely on the statements and translations of others.
¹ Considerable discrepancy exists here, in some copies of the text, with respect
to these names. The best copies have as above, although the oldest leaves
out the and, which makes it Dar-gün of Bilaur. The next best has Dar-gūt [or
Dar-kot or kūt], which, if the of the original MS. was written rather long
drawn out, as is often done, might be mistaken for → The next best copies,
which are comparatively modern, have Dar-gür [or Dar-gor], and one Dar-būr
ن
424
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĀṢIRĪ.
i
to the boundary of Wakhsh and Badakhshan, the whole
came under his jurisdiction ".
3
Malik Fakhr-ud-Din, Mas'ūd, had able and accomplished
sons; and, when Ķimāj, from Balkh, and Tāj-ud-Din,
Yal-duz, from Hirāt, who were slaves of the Sanjari
dynasty, conspired to eject Sultan Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din, Mu-
ḥammad-i-Sām, in order to take possession [of the country]
as far as Firūz-koh, and the Ghiyāṣiah sovereignty was, as
yet, in the morning of its ascendancy, Malik Fakhr-ud-Din,
Mas'ud, rendered assistance to them, under the stipulation
that whatever pertained to Khurasan should go to them,
and what belonged to Ghūr to [him] Malik Fakhr-ud-Din,
Mas'ud .
6
î
When Almighty God bestowed victory upon Sulṭān
Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din, and Malik Taj-ud-Din, Yal-duz, of Hirāt,
was slain, he despatched the head of Yal-duz to his uncle,
Malik Fakhr-ud-Din, Mas'ud, whose forces had arrived
near at hand. Sultan Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din followed in pursuit
of them, and Malik Fakhr-ud-Din was put to the rout.
Sulṭān Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din discerned him, and caused him to
turn back again, and conducted him to his camp, and
there placed him on the throne ; and Sultan Ghiyāṣ-ud-
Din, and Mu'izz-ud-Din, both of them, stood before the
[or Dar-bor]. The printed text, and one of the most recent copies, have Dar-
kūfah; and the former, in a note, Bur-Bilaur; and, in brackets, as the pro-
bable reading, “Darwāz and Bilaur;" but the different copies of the text
collated do not show that this is at all the correct reading.
2 Also called Khutlan.
8
3 The dominions of the Sultans of Bamian and Tukhāristan, according to
Jahān Ārā and several other works, extended north to the territory of Kāsh-
ghar; south as far as Gharjistān and Ghūr; east to Kashmir; and west as far
as Tirmid. See note 6, page 426.
4 This appears to be the same Amir Ķimāj referred to in note 3 , page 358;
and he is probably the same as mentioned in note 5, page 374; and this
Yal-duz [I-yal-dūz] must be the same who is mentioned in the same note,
which see.
5 See pages 371-4.
"On
6 Mr. E. Thomas, in his paper on the "COINS OF THE KINGS of Ghazni,”
Ro. As. Journal, vol. xvii., in a note, page 199, erroneously states that,
the first rise of Ghiás-ud-din, Fakr[Fakhr?]-ud-dín aids him, under the con-
dition that all the conquests in Khorásán should pertain to the former, while
the acquisitions in Ghór should fall to his own share." The conditions were
between Ķimāj and Val-duz and Fakhr-ud-Din, not Ghiyaṣ-ud-Din.
7 See the account given in Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din's reign, where our author says
that Ķimāj's head was sent, page 373, and note 9.
A round-about way of stating that they took him prisoner.
THE SHANSABĀNĪAH DYNASTY OF TUKHĀRISTÅN. 425
throne in attendance on him. Chroniclers state that Malik
Fakhr-ud-Din, Mas'ūd, became enraged [at this], and that
he reproached both of them unjustly, saying that they
mocked him. His words were these: "You two rascally
boys laugh at me!" The Almighty's mercy be upon
them!
This exclamation of his has been mentioned here for this
reason, that the beholders and readers of these pages may
know the laudable qualities of these two monarchs, the
extent of their compassion and clemency, to what degree
they guarded the honour and respect [due] towards their
uncle, and to what extremity they bore his injustice º.
1
When the two Sulṭāns became disengaged from this
audience, they caused complete arrangement to be made
for the return of their uncle, and conferred honorary dresses
upon the whole of his Amirs and Slaves, and caused them
to return. Malik Fakhr-ud-Din, Mas'ud, retired towards
Bāmiān again; and there he acquired great power, and
the Sultans and Maliks of Ghur used constantly to pay
him homage.
His career came to an end in [the enjoyment of]
sovereignty, and he ruled for a long period and died.
He had several worthy and deserving sons. Sulṭān Shams-
ud-Din was the eldest, and Malik Taj-ud-Din, Zangi ³, and
Malik Husām-ud-Din, 'Ali.
3
II. SULTAN SHAMS-UD-DIN, MUHAMMAD, SON OF MAS'UD,
SON OF AL-HUSAIN, SHANSABĪ.
When Malik Fakhr-ud-Din, Mas'ud, of Bāmiān, was
⁹ We have ample proofs of their amiability and long-suffering, from our
author's point of view, in the fate of Sultan Khusrau Malik and his family, and
'Abbās-i-Shiṣ.
¹ Mu'izz-ud-Din, the younger brother, only received the title of Sultān
some time after this occurrence.
2 Such are the words in the original: it seems a truism if the passage is not
corrupt.
3 This is the Taj-ud-Din, Zangi, who had his head struck off at Khwārazm,
mentioned in note 8, page 481. He can scarcely be the same person as men-
tioned at page 342, because the latter's mother was one of the sisters of the
two Sultāns, Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din, and Mu'izz-ud-Din. If he is, his father, Fakhr-
ud-Din, Mas'ud, must have married his own niece; while his son, Shams-ud-
Din, Muḥammad, must have married her sister, a most unlikely alliance,
illegal according to Muḥammadan law. There must have therefore been two
persons named Tāj-ud-Din, Zangi, but of the same race.
E e
426
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĀṢĪRĪ.
taken to the Almighty's mercy, his eldest son was Sulṭān
Shams-ud-Din, Muhammad, and they raised him to the
throne of Bamian; and the sister of the Sultans Ghiyās-
ud-Din and Mu'izz-ud-Din was married to him, which
princess's title was Hurrah-i-Jalāli. She was older than
either of the Sulṭāns, and was the mother of Sulṭān Bahā-
ud-Din, Sām, the son of [Shams-ud-Din] Muḥammad.
When Sultan Shams-ud-Din, Muḥammad, ascended the
throne of Bāmiān, in accordance with the last will of his
father, and with the concurrence of the Amirs, Sultān
Ghiyās-ud-Din sent him a robe of honour, and paid him
abundant deference and respect. He brought the whole
of the territory of Tukharistan under his sway, and, subse-
quently, the city of Balkh, Chaghāniān, Wakhsh, Jarūm,
Badakhshan, and the hill tracts of Shaknān, came under
This is the Malik's son, Shams-ud-Din, Muḥammad, who was taken
prisoner by the Sipah-salar, Barankash, along with 'Ala-ud-Din, Husain
[Jahan-soz], and 'Ali, Jatri, in the engagement with Sultan Sanjar before
Aobah in 547 H. Shams-ud-Din, Muḥammad, obtained 50,000 dinārs from
Bāmiān for his ransom, which sum was paid over to Barankash. Our author,
had he known this, is not likely to have related it.
5 The best Paris copy, the I. O. L. MS., and the Ro. As. Soc. MS., have
Iṣfahan!!
6 Others say Balkh, Bughlan or Buklan [both are correct], Chaghāniān,
and some part of Badakhshan. According to our author, his father, Fakhr-
ud-Din, Mas'ud, held sway over some of these very tracts, now mentioned as
66
رو
subsequently coming under the sway of the son. However, it is clear,
whatever "Haven Thsang" may say to the contrary, that Tukhāristān was but
a district or province of Balkh, and not a vast tract of country "reaching from
the frontiers of Persia" [wherever that might mean in those days] "to the
Thsung-ling or Mountains of Pamir ;" and that "the great Po-chu or Oxus"
did not run through the middle" of the Tukhāristan here referred to, for the
very good reason that it lies south of the Jihun, Āmū, or Oxus. The MASĀLIK
WA MAMALIK plainly states, that of Balkh there are a number of divisions and
districts, such as Tukhāristān, Khulum, Samnagān, Bughlan, Zawālin [this,
in all probability, is Mr. Thomas's "Warwálín" [,,,]-the first, is the
copulative conjunction, and the, wants the point to make it ]; and Baihaķis,
Walwālijs may be traced to the same source. Of this Tukhāristān,
Tāl-kān was the chief and largest town. Had such a place as Walwālij been
capital of Tukhāristān, our author would, without doubt, have known of it,
and have mentioned it here. Chaghāniān and Wakhsh lie to the northward
of this Tukhāristān, and are accounted in Mawar-un-Nahr, as this latter term
signifies, viz. beyond the river. "The Wakhsh-Ab-river of Wakhsh-
issues out of Turkistan into the territory of Wakhsh, runs onward towards
Balkh, and falls into the Jihun, near Tirmid." In his account of the Mughal
invasion, our author mentions Balkh [] and Walkh [] sometimes as one
and the same place, and, at others, as separate places.
While on this subject, I must now mention another matter. In the MASALIK
THE SHANSABĀNĪAH DYNASTY OF TUKHĀRISTĀN. 427
his jurisdiction. He marched forces in every direction,
and throughout the whole of those parts his mandates were
obeyed.
In the year in which the Sultāns of Ghur and Ghaznin
led an army into the territory of Rūd-bār of Marw, to
repel Sultan Shah, the Khwārazmi, Sulṭān Shams-ud-
Din, Muḥammad, by command of the Sultans, brought the
forces of Bāmiān and Tukhāristān and joined them. On
the occasion of Sulṭān Shah's overthrow, Malik Bahā-ud-
Din, Tughril, of Hirāt, who had been a slave of Sulṭān
Sanjar, and who, obliged to evacuate Hirāt, had joined
Sulṭān Shāh, in this engagement fell into the hands of the
troops of Bāmian. They slew him, and brought his head
to the presence of Sulṭān Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din. The Sultan [in
consequence] became very cordial towards Shams-ud-Din,
Muḥammad, and upon this very occasion his advance-
ment took place, and he received the title of Sultān
Shams-ud-Din, and a black canopy of state was assigned
to him.
8
Previous to this, neither Malik Fakhr-ud-Din, Mas'ud,
nor he had any canopy of state, and his designation was
Malik Shams-ud-Din; but, when he acquired a canopy of
state, he obtained the title of Sultan'; and by Sultān
Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din, and Mu'izz-ud-Din, who were his uncle's
sons, he was treated with great honour and reverence.
:
""
WA MAMALIK, Bāmian is described as a town about half the extent of
Balkh [in those days Balkh was a very extensive city], situated on a hill, and
in front of it flows the river which runs through Gharjistān. The Tarikh-i-
Alfi, a work of great authority, Jahän-Ārā, the Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh,
and some others, distinctly aver that there was no town whatever called Bāmiān,
which is the name of the country, and that RĀṢIF [], RAȘIF [],
was the name of its chief town, which place was totally destroyed
by Chingiz Khan on his advance towards Ghaznin. The Muntakhab-
ut-Tawarikh says Bāmiān is also called Tukhāristān! Rāṣif is probably
the place called "Gúlgúlih" by Masson, but such name is not to be found in
any Persian history that I know of. The Mughals styled it Maubālig—the
unfortunate city-after its ruin.
7 See pages 249, 378, and notes, page 379.
دوع
-to
8 The printed text and I. O. L. MS. 1952, and two others, have
repulse, drive away; and, in the R. A. Soc. MS. —repulsing, driving
arway!
9 The text here exhibits considerable variations, and great differences of
idiom express the same signification. Some authors state that, on this occa-
sion, Mu'izz-ud-Din also received the title of Sultan, and that before his title
was only Malik.
E e 2
428
THE TABAKAT-I-NĂȘIRĪ.
The Almighty bestowed upon him worthy and excellent
offspring, and blessed him with six sons'; and for a con-
siderable time the country of Tukhāristan continued under
the jurisdiction of his officers. He patronized learned men
of distinction, and they took up their residence in his
dominions; and acted with equity and beneficence towards.
his subjects, and died renowned and popular; and, after
him, the sovereignty came to Sultan Baha-ud-Din, Sām.
II. SULTĀN BAHA-UD-DĪN, SĂM, SON OF SULTAN SHAMS
UD-DIN, MUHAMMAD.
Sultan Baha-ud-Din, Sām, was a very great and august
monarch, and was just and enlightened. He was the
patronizer of learned men, and the dispenser of equity;
and, in his day, the whole of the learned 'Ulamā were
unanimous, that there was no Musalman sovereign who
was a greater cherisher of learned men, for this reason, that
his intercourse, his communion, and his converse, were
exclusively with 'Ulama of judgment and discrimination.
He was, on both sides, a Shansabani, and. his mother
was the Hurrah-i-Jalāli, the daughter of Sultan Baha-ud-
Din, Sam, the sister of the two Sultāns, and older than
either of them. Ķāzi Tāj-ud-Din, Zawzani, who was the
most eloquent man of his day, [upon one occasion] was
delivering a discourse within his [Bahā-ud-Din's] palace,
and, during the invocation, the Sultan said: "What adorn-
ment can I give to the bride of the realm upon the face of
whose empire two such moles exist, one Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din,
and the other Mu'izz-ud-Din "!" The Almighty's mercy
be upon them all!
3
1 Our author, like others, does not even give the names of these sons.
Bahā-ud-Din, Sām, however, was not the eldest of the sons of Shams-ud-Din,
Muḥammad. When the latter died, the Bāmiān nobles raised his eldest son,
'Abbas, by a Turkish wife, to the throne. The two brothers, Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din
and Mu'izz-ud-Din, were angry at this, and they deposed 'Abbas, and set up
their sister's son, Sam, and he received the title of Baha-ud-Din. 'Abbas
might have been here entered among the rulers of Tukhāristān and Bāmiān as
well as Kutb-ud-Din, Ï-bak, among the sovereigns of Ghaznin.
2 The mother of his grandfather, Fakhr-ud-Din, Mas'ūd, was a Turkish
bond-maid.
3 These are our author's exact words, but what the "invocation" was our
chronicler does not say; but it is a way he has of mystifying his own state-
ments. The fact is, as related by another author, that the Ķāzi, mentioned
THE SHANSABĀNĪAH DYNASTY OF TUKHĀRISTĀN. 429
5
In short, the admirable benevolence of that monarch
towards the 'Ulamā of Islam was more than can be con-
tained within the compass of writing. That Miracle of the
World, Fakhr-ud-Din, Muḥammad, Rāzi, composed the
Risalah-i-Bahāiah in that Sulṭān's name; and for a con-
siderable period he continued under the shadow of that
sovereign's favour and protection. That Chief of learned
Doctors, Jalāl-ud-Din, Warsak ³, during the Sulṭān's reign,
attained the office of Shaikh-ul-Islam of the district of
Balkh; and Maulānā Sarāj-i-Minhāj, that Most Eloquent
of 'Ajam, and the Wonder of his Age, was sent for, secretly,
by Sultan Baha-ud-Din, Sām, from the Court of Firūz-koh,
who despatched a seal-ring of turquoise stone with the
name of Sam engraved upon it, and with great respect and
reverence invited the Maulānā to his Court. When this
circumstance occurred, the writer of this History, Minhaj-i-
Sarāj, was in the third year of his age.
7
The requests and solicitations of Sulṭān Bahā-ud-Din,
Sām, were continuous and unremitting. The reason of
this was, that, during the time of [his father] Malik'
Shams-ud-Din, Muḥammad, the Maulānā proceeded from.
Ghaznin towards Bāmian, and, at that period, Baha-ud-
Din, Sam, held charge of the district of Balarwan . He
paid his respects to the Maulānā, and sought to retain
8
above, began one day from the pulpit to eulogize Baha-ud-Din, and was
extolling the flourishing state his dominions were in, when that monarch ex-
claimed: "What adornment can I give unto the kingdom's bride, when on
the cheek of her sovereignty are already two such moles?" The word khāl
signifies a mole, and also a maternal uncle; and the moles here referred to are
his two maternal uncles, Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din and Mu'izz-ud-Din.
4 Jahān-Ārā and Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh say that Baha-ud-Din, Sām,
was a learned monarch, and a friend of learned men; as an example of which
he entertained, near his person, the Imam Fakhr-ud-Din, of Rāz, and treated
him with great favour and consideration. They do not, however, mention
"that Most Eloquent of 'Ajam, and the Wonder of his Age," our author's
father; in fact, I have never noticed his name mentioned in any other work.
This same Imām was subsequently accused, by some parties, of having brought
about the assassination of Sultān Mu'izz-ud-Din. See note 3, page 485, and
note 9, page 385.
5 In some copies Warsal and Kadsak. The above seems the most correct.
6 Our author's father.
7 Sultan Shams-ud-Din, whose reign has just been given.
8 The majority of the best copies are as above, but two others have "Bal-
wan," and three others "Barwan," and one "Balarwan of Bamiān;" but at
page 115 our author says Balarwan is in Gharjistān.
430
THE TABAĶAT-I-NĂṢIRĪ.
him, and showed him great respect and veneration; and
he had both seen and heard his soul-inspiring discourse,
and his heart-expanding conversation, and the pleasure he
had derived therefrom remained impressed upon his royal
mind, and he was desirous of enjoying all the delicacies of
the benefits of the Maulana's conversation. When Bahā-
ud-Din, Sām, reached the throne of sovereignty of Bāmiān,
he sent for the Maulānā repeatedly, and charged him with
the administration of all the offices connected with the
law, and sent him his private signet-ring.
The Maulana proceeded to the Court of Bamian from
the Court of Firuz-koh without the permission of Sultān
Ghiyās-ud-Din; and, when he arrived in that part, he was
treated with great respect and honour, and the whole of
the [legal] functions of that kingdom, such as the Chief
Kāzi-ship of the realm and other parts, the judicial ad-
ministration of the triumphant forces, the chaplaincy of the
State', together with the office of censor 2, with full power
of the ecclesiastical law, the charge of two colleges, with
assigned lands and. benefactions abundant, all these offices.
the Maulānā was entrusted with. The diploma conferring
the whole of these offices, in the handwriting of the Ṣāḥib³,
who was the Wazir of the kingdom of Bāmiān, up to the
present time that this TABAKĀT was put in writing in the
sublime name of the great Sulṭān, Nāṣir-ud-Dunyā wa ud-
Din, Abu-l-Muzaffar-i-Maḥmūd, son of Sultan I-yal-timish,
Kasim-i-Amir-ul-Mumminin'-whose monarchy may the
Almighty perpetuate !-still exists in the Khariṭah [a bag of
embroidered silk] containing the author's diplomas, along
with his banner and his turban of honour. The mercy of
9 Allowance must be made for a little family blarney.
¹ Here, too, the text varies much. One set of copies—the oldest—has as
above
whilst the other-
gais,lböl
قضاء ممالك
و اقطار دیگر و قضای لشکر منصور و خطابت
قضاء ممالك و انقطای دعای حشم منصور و خطابت - comprising the more modern copies
-"the Chief Kazi-ship of the country, and settlement of the requests of the
triumphant forces or retinue."
2 An official who examines the weights and measures, and has a supervision
over merchants and shop-keepers, superintends the markets, and fixes the
price of grain, &c. He can whip those found wine-bibbing, and interfere in
other matters relating to public morality.
3 The title given to a minister.
4 This title is totally incorrect. See reign of Shams-ud-Din, I-yal-timish,
Section XXI.
THE SHANSABĀNĪAH DYNASTY OF TUKHĀRISTÅN. 431
the Almighty be upon them! This fact is recorded in
the narrative to show the admirable faith of that pious
ruler.
In short, he was a great monarch; and his dominions.
assumed great amplitude and expansion, and comprised
the whole of the country of Tukhāristan and its depend-
encies, together with other territories, namely, in the east",
as far as the frontier of Kashmir, and, in the west, as far as
the boundary of Tirmid and Balkh; north, as far as the
bounds of Kashghar; and south, as far as Ghūr and Ghar-
jistān, in the whole of which the Khutbah was read for him
and the money impressed with his name ". The whole of
the Maliks and Amirs of each of the three kingdoms,
namely, Ghūr, Ghaznin, and Bāmiān, after [the decease of]
both the Sultāns [Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din, and Mu'izz-ud-Din],
turned their eyes on him; and, when Sulṭān Mu'izz-ud-
Din, Muḥammad-i-Sām, was martyred, the Maliks and
Amirs of Ghaznin, both Ghūris and Turks, with one con-
sent, requested him to come [and assume the sovereignty]'.
Sultan Baha-ud-Din, Sam, accordingly, determined to pro-
ceed from Bāmiān to Ghaznin, and set out in that direction
with a numerous army.
5 At this period there were powerful sovereigns ruling over Kashmir and its
dependencies, also the Jahangiriah rulers of Suwat, who held sway over a
large portion of the mountain districts to the west, and the Sultāns of Pich, of
whom more anon.
6 How much of this tract never yet heard the Khutbah?
7 Firishtah's History, or rather the translation of Firishtah's History, which
supplies the chief materials for the Histories of India, so called, here says [that
is the text] "The inclination of the Khwajah, Mu-ayyid-ul-Mulk [a title given
to Wazirs], and the Turk Amirs, was towards the sovereignty of Ghiyāṣ-ud-
Din, Maḥmūd; and the Ghūri Amirs, in secret, entertained the idea of the
sovereignty of Bahā-ud-Din, Sām." This is nearly in the words of our author,
whom he quotes; but Dow, vol. i. pp. 149-50, translates this passage thus:
"The Omrahs of Ghor, insisting upon Baha-ul-dien, the King's cousin,
Governor of Bamia, and one of the seven sons of Hussein; and the Vizier [Chaja-
ul-Muluck!!], and the officers of the Turkish mercenaries, on Mamood, son of
the former Emperor, the brother of Mahommed Ghori." BRIGGS, vol. i., page
186, renders it: "The chiefs of Ghoor claimed it for Baha-ood-Deen, the
King's cousin, Governor of Bamyan, and one of the seven sons of Eis-ood-
Deen Hoossein; while the Vizier and the officers of the Toorky mercenaries
espoused the cause of Mahmood," &c.
This is faithfully rendering the text, certainly; but it so happens that Bahā.
ud-Din, Sām, was neither Governor of Bamyan, nor was he one of Eis-ood-
Deen Hoossein's ['Izz-ud-Din, Husain's] sons, but certainly his grandfather,
Fakhr-ud-Din, Mas'ud, was 'Izz-ud-Din, Al-Husain's, son.
432
THE TABAKAT-I-NĀṢIRĪ.
When he reached the district of Kidän, he was attacked
with diarrhoea, and, only nineteen days after the martyr-
dom of the victorious Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din, Muhammad-i-
Sām, Sultan Baha-ud-Din, Sam, died. His reign was
fourteen years 9.
IV. SULTAN JALĀL-UD-DĪN, 'ALĪ¹, SON OF BAHA-UD-DİN,
SĀM, BĀMĪĀNĪ.
When the victorious Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din, Muḥammad-
i-Sam, obtained martyrdom, and Sultan Baha-ud-Din,
Sām, departed this life on the way [to Ghaznin], the heirs
to the sovereignty, then remaining, were of two branches
of the Shansabaniah race-one, the family of the Sultāns
of Bāmiān, and the second, the family of the Sultāns of
Ghūr. When they conveyed the bier of the victorious
Sultan from Dam-yak, the Turkish Slaves of the [late]
Sultan, the great Maliks and Amirs, took the Sultān's bier,
together with vast treasures, and the magazines of military
stores, from the Amirs of Ghur. Those Ghūrian Amirs,
who were in the army of Hindustan, were inclined towards
the sons of Sulṭān Bahā-ud-Din, Sām, and the Turk Amirs
were inclined to Sultan Ghiyās-ud-Din, Maḥmüd, son of
[Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din,] Muḥammad-i-Sam, the [late] Sultan's
nephew ³.
3
8 It seems somewhat remarkable that Kidān proved fatal, according to our
author, to so many of the Shansabāni chiefs. Muḥammad, son of Sūri, and
Bahā-ud-Din, Sām, son of 'Izz-ud-Din, Al-Husain, also both died at Kidān.
See pages 321 and 343.
9 He died in Sha'ban, 602 H., and reigned fourteen years. He must there-
fore have succeeded to the throne about the middle of the year 588 H., which
was the year in which Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din defeated Rãe Pithorā at Tarā’in.
1 Nearly every copy of the text is incorrect here in giving the name of 'Alā-
ud Din, Muḥammad, instead of his brother's, Jalāl-ud-Din, 'Ali ; and 'Alā-
ud-Din is again mentioned in them as the last of the Shansabi rulers of
Ghaznin, and he never ruled over Tukhāristan. The best Paris copy, how-
ever, contrary to all the others examined, has both brothers here. Jahān-Ārā and
some others have the same; but, in them, the brothers are not mentioned again,
and the dynasty of Tukharistan terminates with them. Rauzat uṣ-Ṣafā agrees
with the above, and mentions 'Alā-ud-Din among the Ghaznin rulers, his
proper place.
2 See note 5, page 486.
3 Our author here contradicts the statement made in the preceding page.
The fact was that all the Amirs, both Turks and Ghūris, seemed desirous that
Bahā-ud-Din, Sam, should succeed to the supreme authority; but after his
death they became divided, when the choice lay between his son, 'Alā-ud-Din,
THE SHANSABĀNĪAH DYNASTY OF TŪKHĀRISTĀN. 433
4
The Ghūrian Amirs, such as were at Ghaznin, namely,
the Sipah-Sālār [the Commander of Troops] Kharoshti ",
Suliman-i-Shis, and others besides them, wrote letters to
'Alā-ud-Din, and Jalāl-ud-Din [sons of Baha-ud-Din, Sam],
and prayed them to come to Ghaznin, and they came
thither, as will be subsequently recorded, please God, in
the Section on the Sultāns of Ghaznin.
5
When Jalal-ud-Din had seated his brother on the throne
of Ghaznin, he returned himself, and ascended the throne
of Bāmiān. A trustworthy chronicler related that they
[the brothers] divided the treasures at Ghaznin, and that
the share of Jalāl-ud-Din amounted to two hundred and
fifty camel-loads of pure gold and of jewel-studded articles of
gold and silver, which he conveyed along with him to Bāmiān.
A second time he assembled an army against Ghaznin,
and drew together forces from every part of his dominions,
consisting of Ghūris, Ghuzz, and Beghū, and proceeded
to Ghaznin, and was taken prisoner, and was subsequently
Muḥammad, and Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din, Maḥmud, the late Sultan's brother's son;
notwithstanding that Bahā-ud-Din, Sām, at the time of his death, had ex-
pressed a wish that his two sons should proceed to Ghaznin, and endeavour,
by conciliation, to gain over the Wazir, the Turkish Slaves, and the Ghūriān
Amirs, and take possession of Ghaznin; after which 'Ala-ud-Din, Muḥam-
mad, the eldest, was to have Ghaznin, and Jalāl-ud-Din, 'Ali, the youngest,
Bāmiān. See the reign of the III. ruler, Sultan 'Ala-ud-Din, Muḥammad,
farther on.
Several authors consider the dynasty to have ended with Bahā-
ud-Din, Sām.
4 There is some doubt with regard to this probably by-name: some have
Kharosh, Kharoshni, Ḥaroshti and Ḥarosh, and Ḥarosti and Ḥarosi. The
majority of the most generally correct copies are as above. See Section xxiii.
5 Nameless, of course.
6 This name is uncertain. The majority of copies have Beghū, as above;
whilst the oldest copy has Beghūr [not Ï-ghūr]; whilst the best Paris copy,
and the three which generally agree-the I. O. L. copy, the Ro. As. Soc. MS.,
and the Bodleian copy-have Saķrār []. There is a tribe of the Ghuzz
mentioned at page 377, note 6, under the name of Sanķurān. Perhaps Beghū
may be another tribe of the Ghuzz also, and the Sanķuran may also have been
included in this levy of troops. See under the reign of I-yal-dūz.
3
7 After Sulṭān Muḥammad, Khwārazm Shāh, reached Hirāt [in Jamādi-ul-
Awwal, 605 H.], he sent agents to Sultan Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din, Maḥmūd [see
note ³, page 400]; and, among other matters, interceded for Malik 'Izz-ud-
Din, Husain, son of Khar-mil. Maḥmūd accepted the terms offered by
Sulṭān Muḥammad, and an accommodation took place between them. This
evidently refers to the acknowledgment of Sultan Muḥammad's suzerainty by
Maḥmud, mentioned in the note just referred to. Another author, however,
states, that, after disposing of the affairs of Balkh, Sultan Muhammad pro-
ceeded to Guzarwan, which was the ancient fief of 'Izz-ud-Din, Husain, son of
434
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĀṢIRĪ.
released, and returned to Bāmiān again. During his ab-
sence, his uncle, Sulṭān 'Ala-ud-Din, Mas'ud, had seized
the throne of Bāmiān. Jalāl-ud-Din came back with but a
few men, and one morning, at dawn, attacked his uncle
unawares, took him prisoner, and put him to death, and
the Sahib who had been his father's Wazir he caused to
be flayed alive; and he brought the country [again] under
his jurisdiction.
He reigned for a period of seven years, when Sultān
Muḥammad, Khwārazm Shah, made a forced march
against him from the banks of the river Jadarah, and sud-
denly fell upon him, and took him prisoner; and the
whole of that treasure which he had brought from Ghaznin,
together with the treasures of Bāmiān, Ṣulṭān Muḥammad
appropriated, put Jalāl-ud-Din to death, and retired'.
Khar-mil [see pages 474, 475], and was then being invested by Abu-’Ali [an
officer and probably a kinsman of Sulṭān Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din, Maḥmūd], and that
this same Abū-'Ali was made the means of communication, in behalf of the
son of Khar-mil, with Maḥmūd.
Be this, however, as it may, when Taj-ud-Din, I-yal-dūz, became aware of
the accommodation between Maḥmūd and Sulṭān Muḥammad, he demanded
of Maḥmud why he had made friends with the enemy of the Ghūris. He
received, in reply, the answer, that his, I-yal-dūz's, bad conduct had been the
cause of it.
When this message was delivered to him, I-yal-dūz released
Jalāl-ud-Din, 'Ali, brother of 'Alā-ud-Din, Muḥammad, gave him one of his
own daughters in marriage, and sent him, with a considerable army, to
Bāmiān, where Jalāl-ud-Din's uncle, 'Abbās by name, had assumed the
sovereignty after the imprisonment of himself and brother. One of I-yal-dūz's
chiefs, Abi-Dakur [Zakur ?] by name, then accompanying him, advised Jalāl-
ud-Din, 'Ali, to face about, and march back against Ghaznin itself, so that
they might put an end to the career of that slave, referring to I-yal-düz, whose
servant he was. This Jalāl-ud-Din, 'Ali, declined to do; upon which Abi-
Dakur separated from him, and retired to Kabul, which was his fief. Jalāl-
ud-Din, 'Ali, continued his march to Bāmiãn, the capital of which was Rāṣif
[or Raṣif], and recovered the sovereignty from his uncle 'Abbās. See next
page, and latter part of note 6, page 426, and account of the III. ruler, 'Alā-
ud-Din, Muḥammad, and I-yal-dūz, IV. ruler, farther on.
8 One of the oldest copies has Sulṭān Fakhr-ud-Din, Mas'ud, son of Shams-
ud-Din, Muḥammad; but all the others have 'Alā-ud-Din, Mas'ūd. See
note 5, page 436. Alfi, Jahān-Ārā, and Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh, call him
'Abbās. Rauzat-uş-Şafa, Mas'ud.
9 This is the circumstance referred to at page 267. There the name of the
river, in the majority of the best copies, was Jazār [j]; but it appears that
Jadarah [] or Jadār [] is the correct name. See page 267. Some
copies of the text make a great hash of this name, and have|‚ö—¿jö—
چون and even خزار
1 Rauzat-uş-Şafā says, but follows our author generally, "when Khwärazm
Shāh came into Mawar-un-Nahr [the southern part of it], he made a forced
THE SHANSABĀNĪAH DYNASTY OF TUKHĀRISTĀN. 435
Jalāl-ud-Din was a very great monarch, and of great
intrepidity, alertness, and gallantry, an ascetic, devout and
continent, so that during the whole of his lifetime no
inebriating liquor had ever passed his blessed lips, and the
cincture of his garment had never been undone to any un-
lawfulness. Manliness he possessed to that degree, that no
prince of the Shansabāniān race came up to him in vigour,
in valour, and in arms. He was wont, in battle, to dis-
charge two arrows at one aim, and neither of his arrows
would miss the mark, and neither animal of the chase nor
antagonist ever rose again from the wound of his arrow.
At the time when the Turks of Ghaznin followed in pursuit
of him, at the Hazār Darakhtan' [place of the Thousand
Trees] of Ghaznin, he had struck the trunk of a tree with
an arrow, and had overturned it [!]; and every Turkish
warrior who reached the tree would make obeisance to the
arrow, and would turn back again; and [the tree of] this
arrow became [subsequently] a place of pilgrimage.
With all this strength and valour Jalāl-ud-Din was mild ³
and beneficent; but manliness availeth nothing against
destiny, and, as his time was come, he died ‘.
4
·
3
V. SULTAN 'ALA-UD-DIN, MAS'UD, SON OF SULTAN SHAMS.
UD.DIN, MUHAMMAD.
At the time that the sons of Sultan Bahā-ud-Din, Sām,
namely, 'Alā-ud-Din, Muḥammad, and Jalāl-ud-Din, 'Ali,
were both made prisoners at Ghaznin, 'Ala-ud-Din,
march, and, quite unexpectedly and unawares, appeared before Bămiān [Rāṣif?]
seized Jalāl-ud-Din, 'Ali, killed him, gained possession of his treasures, and
carried them off. The Afghans will have to keep a sharp look out now, or
they may be served in the same fashion, and find a foreign force from "the
intermediate zone" pounce suddenly on Bamian some fine morning.
2 In some modern copies of the text Hazar-Darakht. There are several
places of this name. It may be that on the route between Ghaznin and
Gardaiz.
3 The flaying alive of the Wazir, for example. See page 437.
4 Other authors state that, after a nominal reign of seven years, Jalāl-ud-Din,
'Ali, fell into the hands of the Khwārazmis, and that he was the last of the
race that attained power; but what his subsequent fate was is not stated. Our
author says he was put to death by the Khwarazmis, but when or where is not
mentioned. See his reign, farther on.
436
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĀṢIRĪ.
Mas'ud, son of Shams-ud-Din, ascended the throne of
Bāmiān, and took to wife the daughter of Malik Shah of
Wakhsh, who had been married to [and left a widow by]
his brother, Sultan Baha-ud-Din, Sam. He conferred the
Wazir-ship upon the Ṣāḥib, the Wazir of Bāmiān, and
assumed sway over the dominions of Tukhāristān.
6
When Jalal-ud-Din was released from Ghaznin, he
turned his face towards Bāmiān. In the fortress of Kāwik
was a person, one of the godly ecclesiastics, a holy man,
whom they called Imam Shams-ud-Din-i-Arshad [the
most upright]. Jalāl-ud-Din came to pay him a visit of
reverence, to obtain a good omen from his words, and his
benediction. This personage was a holy sage, who, after
the acquirement of all the knowledge and science pertain-
ing to the [written] law, had withdrawn from the world,
and devoted himself to the worship of Almighty God, and
who, having turned his face towards the Court of the Most
High, had became a worker of miracles and the foreteller
of the future.
When Jalal-ud-Din paid him a visit, and sought the
assistance of this Imam's blessed spirit, he enjoined him,
saying: "Certainly, repossess thyself of the throne of
Bāmian; but take care that thou slayest not thine uncle,
for, if thou slayest him, they will also slay thee."
Having performed his visit to the holy man, Jalāl-ud-
Din retired and went away; and, when he had turned his
back, that holy Imām predicted, saying: "The hapless
Jalal-ud-Din will kill his uncle, and they will kill him
also;" and, in the end, so it turned out, as that unique one
of the world had foretold. Jalāl-ud-Din moved onward
from that place where he then was, with his followers, and,
5 The Rauzat-uş-Şafa, which appears to have blindly followed our author,
here calls this ruler Mas'ud only, and, of course, agrees with our author's
statement respecting his usurpation of the government and his subsequent fate.
Other writers, however, including Jahān Ārā, Muntakhab ut-Tawārikh, and
Tarikh-i-Alfi, state that the news of the defeat of the two brothers, and their
having fallen prisoners into the hands of I-yal-dūz, having suddenly reached
Bāmian, there being no one else to undertake the government, their uncle,
'Abbās, whose mother was a Turkish bond-maid, naturally assumed it; but
when they, having been set at liberty, returned in safety, he gave up to them
the authority again. See note', page 428, and page 433, and note 7.
6 The name of a pass and fortress, now in ruins, in the range of Hindu-kush,
called Kawak by modern travellers. Some of the copies of the text have
كنارتك and كاريات
THE SHANSABĀNĪAH DYNASTY OF TUKHÀRISTĀN. 437
at the dawn of the morning, fell upon his uncle, took him.
prisoner, and put him to death, and flayed alive the Ṣāḥib,
his Wazir, as has been previously recorded'.
7 Our author has not yet finished his account of Jalāl-ud-Din, 'Ali; he
merely leaves it for another dynasty, and relates his farther proceedings, in the
account of his brother, 'Ala-ud-Din, Muḥammad, which see.
SECTION XIX.
ACCOUNT OF THE SULTANS OF GHAZNĪN OF THE SHANSAB-
ANIAH DYNASTY.
THE frail and humble author [of these pages], Minhaj-i-
Saraj-i-Din-i-Minhaj-the Almighty shield his deformity!
—thus states, that this Section is confined to the mention
of the Shansabāni Sultāns from whose majesty the throne
of the court of Ghaznin acquired splendour and mag-
nificence, and from whose sovereignty the countries of
Hind and Khurāsān became glorious, the first of whom, of
the Shansabi race, was Sulṭān Saif-ud-Din, Sūri, and, after
that, Sultan' Alā-ud-Din, Al-Husain took Ghaznin, but did
not rule there. After that, Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din, Mu-
hammad, son of Sam, captured it; and, when he attained
martyrdom, he devised that throne to his own slave,
Sultan Taj-ud-Din, Yal-duz, and with him that sovereignty
terminated. The mercy and pardon of the Almighty be
on the whole of them!
I. SULTAN SAIF-UD-DĪN, SŪRĪ, SON OF 'IZZ-UD-DĪN, AL-
HUSAIN.
Sultan Saif-ud-Din, Sūri, was a great monarch, and was
greatly endowed with valour, vigour, clemency, decision,
A title he sometimes gives himself which will be explained in the Prefatory
Remarks. The 'deformity' was not bodily.
At page 377, and 449, he says
2 I fear our author had a very bad memory.
his elder brother, Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din, took it, and conferred the government of it
on Mu'izz-ud-Din, as his lieutenant. Here it is contradicted, and the copies
of the text agree as to this name. Here too he says that Mu'izz-ud-Din
"devised" the throne of Ghaznin to his slave, Tāj-ud-Din, Yal-duz, and, in
his account of the latter, that he desired to bequeath it to him. The idiom of the
text here again differs, but only the idiom, in the two different sets of copies.
THE SHANSABĂNĨAH DYNASTY OF GHAZNĪN. 439
justice, beneficence, a graceful presence, and kingly
grandeur. He was the first person of this race to whom
they accorded the title of Sulṭān ³.
•
When the news of the misfortune which had befallen his
elder brother, the Malik-ul-Jibāl¹, was brought to his [Saif-
ud-Din, Suri's] hearing, he set about taking revenge upon
Sulṭān Bahrām Shāh, and caused a numerous army to be
got in readiness from the different tracts of Ghūr, and set
out towards Ghaznin, overthrew Bahram Shah, and took
Ghaznin. Bahrām Shāh fled from before him, and retired
3 This personage should have been mentioned first after the death of his
father, whose successor he was, and when the dominions were divided, and
separate petty dynasties formed. Who "they" were who accorded him the
title of Sultan the chronicler does not say.
+ Kutb-ud-Din, Muḥammad, Malik-ul-Jibal. Jibal signifies mountains:
“Jabbál” nothing. At page 339 our author states that Saif-ud-Din, Sūri, in
succession to his father, ascended the throne of Ghur, and divided the territory
among his brothers.
Alfi says that Bahrām Shah put Kutb-ud-Din, Ghūri, the Malik-ul-Jibāl,
to death in 536 of the Riḥlat [547 H.], on which 'Ala-ud-Din, Al-Husain,
[Guzidah and Khulāṣat-ul-Akhbar, and Habib-us-Siyar also agree] advanced
against Ghaznin for the purpose of avenging him. Bahram Shah fled to
Kaṛmān, situated in a strong country surrounded by hills, where cavalry could
not act, and made it his residence. 'Alā-ud-Dīn, having gained possession of
Ghaznin, left his brother, Saif-ud-Din, Sūri, there, and returned himself to
Ghūr. Sūri, placing dependence on the Amirs and troops of Ghaznin to
support him, remained there with but a few of the Ghūrian troops. When
winter arrived, Bahrām Shāh advanced from Kaṛmān with an army of Afghāns
and Khaljis, which he had raised, on which the Amirs seized Sūri. This
took place in Muharram 537 of the Riḥlat [548 H.], but Guzidah and Jāmi’-
ut-Tawarikh say in 544 H., and both Guzidah, Ḥabib-us-Siyar, and Fanākati
state, that Bahrām Shāh was dead before 'Ala-ud-Din [who is said to have
been known as A'RAJ, or the lame from birth] reached Ghaznin the second
time.
Since writing note 2, page 347, I find that, in 543 H., some time after
Sultan Sanjar's defeat by the Kara-Khita-is [authors disagree as to the date
of his overthrow. See note 2, page 154], and when he had retired into
'Irāk, Sulṭān Bahrām Shāh, his sister's son, sent him a despatch intimating
his recovery of Ghaznin, and the death of Săm and Sūrī, the Ghūris [namely,
Bahā-ud-Din, Sām, and Saif-ud-Din, Sūri. See pages 340-343,] who had
previously acquired power over that territory, on which Fakhr-ud-Din, Khalid,
Fushanji, a poet of the Court of Sanjar, composed the following lines :—
They, who in thy service falsehood brought,
The capital-stock of their heads in jeopardy placed.
Far remote from thee, Sam's head, in frenzy sank,
And now the head of Suri they've to 'Irāk brought."
This tends to confirm the date mentioned by Guzidah and others, and to
show that the Ghūris had been guilty of hypocrisy, as many authors state,
towards Bahrām Shah, as well as Sultan Sanjar. See page 343.
440
THE TABAKAT-I-NĂŞIRĪ.
towards Hind, and Saif-ud-Din, Sūri, ascended the throne
of Ghaznin, and made over the dominions of Ghur to his
brother, Baha-ud-Din, Sām, the father of [the Sultans]
Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din, and Mu'izz-ud-Din.
5
Having brought Ghaznin under his sway, the whole of
the Amirs and soldiery, the notables and great men of
Ghaznin and of the adjacent parts submitted to him; and
he bestowed upon those classes ample gifts and favours, so
much so, that the soldiery and Amirs of Bahrām Shāh
became overwhelmed in the benefits he bestowed upon them.
When the winter season came round, he commanded
that the forces of Ghur should have permission granted
them to return to their own country, and entertained the
followers, soldiery, and petty officials of Bahram Shāh in
his own service, and placed confidence in them. The
Sultan and his Wazir, Sayyid Majd-ud-Din, Mūsawi, along
with a small number of persons from among his old
retainers, were all that remained with him, and the rest
[both] at the court, and [stationed] in the Ghaznin territory,
were all the soldiery of Ghaznin.
When storms of snow and excessive cold set in, and the
roads and passes of Ghūr became closed from the excessive
snow, and the people of Ghaznin became aware that it was
impossible that troops or succour could reach Ghaznin from
the side of Ghur, they despatched letters, secretly, to the pre-
sence of Bahram Shah, saying, "throughout the entire city
and parts around, only a small number of persons have re-
mained with Sultan Sūri of the forces of Ghur, the whole
of the remainder are the servants of the Maḥmūdi dynasty.
It behoveth [the Sultan] not to let the opportunity slip
through his hands, and he should repair to Ghaznin with
all possible haste." In accordance with those letters and
solicitations, Bahram Shah, from the side of Hindustan,
advanced unexpectedly and reached Ghaznin, and made a
night attack upon Sulṭān Sūri. He came out of Ghaznin
with his own particular followers who were from Ghur, and
along with his Wazir, Sayyid Majd-ud-Din, Mūsawi, took
the road to Ghūr ®.
6
5 Some copies have, ri'ayā, —the people, the peasantry, &c.
6 It would have been just as difficult for him to reach Ghür from Ghaznin,
as it was impracticable for troops from Ghūr joining him at Ghaznin.
THE SHANSABĀNĨAH DYNASTY OF GHAZNĪN.
44I
Bahram Shah's horsemen set out in pursuit of him, until
they discovered him in the precincts of Sang-i-Surākh' [the
Perforated Rock or Stone]. Sulṭān Sūri, with the few
followers that were along with him, joined battle with
Bahrām Shāh's cavalry, and fought and opposed them as
long as it was possible so to do; and, when compelled to
fight on foot, they took shelter on the hill [side]. It was
impossible to surround the Sultan, his Wazir, and his own
followers, whilst an arrow remained in their quivers. When
not an arrow remained in their quivers, Bahrām Shāh's
troops, by [entering into] stipulation, and pledging the
right hand, seized them, and secured them 8.
When they reached the gate [one of the gates ?] of the
city [of Ghaznin], two camels were brought, and Sulṭān
9
7 There are three or four places bearing this name, the correctness of which
there is no doubt of. It is the name of a kotal or pass near the Halmand river,
about N.N. W. of Ghaznin, on the route from that city, and also from Kābul
into Ghūr; but "Sang-i-Surkh, a strong fort in Ghor, probably near the Hari
river,” is as impossible as "the mountains of Faj Hanísár” and “the Rásíat
mountains."
8 If a little liberty were taken with the text, then it might be "by promise
[of safety], and their [Bahram's officers] pledging their right hands, they were
captured and secured," &c.; but, seeing that they were at the mercy of
Balirām's troops, I do not see what stipulations were necessary. Our author,
as usual, wishes to soften it down.
9 According to others, he was not so much honoured as to be placed on a
camel, but was seated, with his face blackened, on an emaciated bullock, and
paraded through the capital. From statements noticed in Dow's and BRIGGS’
translations of FIRISHTAH'S History, to which all modern compilers of
Histories of India resort, as authorities not to be doubted, but which state-
ments, I was convinced, could not be correct, I have taken the trouble to
examine Firishtah's text, more particularly, because that writer quotes our
author as one of his principal authorities, and often quotes him verbatim. I
have also used in this examination the lithographed text which Briggs himself
edited, or, rather, which was edited under his superintendence; and, as I
expected, particularly in the passages now to be pointed out, I have found
Firishtah generally correct, and his translators wholly wrong. I am not the
first, however, who has noticed them, and I beg leave to observe that I have
no desire whatever to take, from Dow or Briggs, any credit that may be due
to them, although I dare say there are some who will view what I have done
in quite another light; but if truth in history be desirable, and correct transla-
tions of native historians wanted, it is time that these grave errors were pointed
out and corrected, however distasteful it may be to those who have written
their histories, fancying these versions reliable, and disgusting to those who,
not even knowing a letter of any Oriental alphabet themselves, have presumed
to declare such Histories compiled from such incorrect translations, “works of
undoubted authority." To expose and correct such errors is a duty, when it
is taken into consideration that such incorrect statements, which are not con-
F f
442
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĂŞIRĪ,
Sūri was seated upon one, and his Wazir, Sayyid Majd-ud-
Din, Mūsawi, was placed on the other, and they were both
tained in the original work, have been, and are still being taught in our colleges
and schools. A careful writer like ELPHINSTONE, by the translations above
referred to, has been betrayed into terrible errors, and others have repeated and
re-echoed them down to the present day.
To those conversant with the Persian language and who can read for them-
selves, I say: do not fail to see for yourselves, for the lithographed text of
FIRISHTAH is as easy as possible. It does not matter if, in translating, the
literal words are not given; but FACTS must not be distorted, or made to
appear what they are not.
•
Dow.
"He [Byram, which is the name
he gives to Bahram] soon after pub-
licly executed Mahommed Prince of
Ghor, who was son-in-law to the rebel
Balin.
Seif ul dien, sur-
named Souri, Prince of Gher, brother
to the deceased, raised a great army
to revenge his death.
The
Prince of Ghor, without further oppo-
sition, entered the capital, where he
established himself, by the consent of
the people, sending Alla, his brother,
to rule his native principality of Ghor.
It was now winter, and
most of the followers of the Prince of
Ghor had returned, upon leave, to
their families, when Byram, unex-
pectedly, appeared before Ghizni,
with a great army. Seif ul dien being
then in no condition to engage him
with his own troops, and having little
dependence upon those of Ghizni,
was preparing to retreat to Ghor,
when the Ghiznians entreated him to
engage Byram, and that they would
exert themselves to the utmost in his
service. This was only a trick for an
opportunity to put their design in
execution. As the unfortunate prince
was advancing to engage Byram he
was surrounded by the troops of
Ghizni, and taken prisoner, while
Byram in person put the forces of
Ghor to flight. The unhappy captive
was inhumanly ordered to have his
forehead made black, and then to be
put astride a sorry bullock, with his
face turned towards the tail.
When this news was carried to the
BRIGGS.
"He [Beiram] soon after publicly
executed Kootb-ood-Dien Mahomed
Ghoory AFFGHAN [this last word is
not contained in Firishtah at all, and
is the translator's own. MALCOLM
too, Persia: Vol. i., note*, page 344,
quotes PRICE-Vol. ii. page 309-
as an authority for " Syfudeen Souri
[Saif-ud-Din, Sūri?] being an Aff
ghan prince of Ghour." I felt con-
•
vinced that Price would never have
said so, and, on reference to the page,
find he makes no such statement. It
must be BRIGGS to whom Malcolm
referred], to whom he had given his
daughter in marriage.
Seif-
ood-Deen-Soory, Prince of Ghoor,
brother of the deceased, raised a great
army to revenge his death.
Seif-ood-Deen Ghoory, without further
opposition, entered Ghizny, where,
having established himself with the
consent of the people, he sent his
brother, Alla-ood-Deen Soor (sic) to
rule his native principality of Ghoor.
•
It was now winter, and
most of the followers of the Prince of
Ghoor had returned to their families,
when Sooltan Beiram unexpectedly
appeared before Ghizny with a con-
siderable army. Seif-ood-Deen being
in no condition to oppose him with
his own troops, and placing little
reliance on those of Ghizny, was
preparing to retreat to Ghoor, when
the Ghiznevides entreated him to engage
Beiram, promising to exert themselves
to the utmost. This was done only to
enable them to put their design of
THE SHANSABANIAH DYNASTY OF GHAZNIN.
443
publicly exposed about the streets of Ghaznin, and, from
the house-tops, dust, ashes, and excrement were launched
ears of his brother Alla, he burnt
with rage, and, resolving upon re-
venge, with all his united powers,
invaded Ghizny."- Vol. i. pages
124-5.
seizing him into execution. The
Ghoory Prince advanced, but was
instantly surrounded by the troops of
Ghizny, and taken prisoner, while
Beiram in person put the forces of
Ghoor to flight. The unhappy captive
had his forehead blackened, and was'
seated astride on a bullock, with his
face towards the tail.
When
this news reached the ears of his
brother Alla-ood-Deen, he burnt with
fury, and, having determined to take
revenge, invaded Ghizny."-Vol. i.
pages 151-2.
But what says FIRISHTAH?
FIRISHTAH?—“In the latter part of his [Bahrām's] sovereignty,
Kutb-ud-Din, Muḥammad, Ghūri, Sūri [this is incorrect: he was not named
Sūri, Saif-ud-Din was so named. I also beg to remark that this is the name of
a man, not of a race or tribe], who was his son-in-law, was put to death at
Ghaznin by command of Bahrām Shāh. Saif-ud-Din, Sūri, in order to avenge
his brother's blood, set out towards Ghaznin.
Saif-ud-Din, having
entered Ghaznin and become possessed of it, and, placing faith in the Ghazna-
wis, was there located. He sent back his brother, 'Ala-ud-Din, along with
the whole of the old Amirs, to Ghūr; and, notwithstanding that Saif-ud-
Din, Sūri, used to treat the people of Ghaznin with lenience, and that the
Ghūriāns did not dare to oppress them, the Ghaznawis wished for Bahrām
Shāh; and, although they used, outwardly, to show amity towards Saif-ud-
Din Sūri, secretly, they used to carry on a correspondence with Bahrām Shāh,
until the winter set in, and the roads into Ghūr were closed by snow, and
people were unable to pass to and fro. At this time Bahram Shāh unex-
pectedly reached Ghaznin with a large army of Afghans [he does not say they
were Sūris or Ghūris], Khalj, and other dwellers in the wilds. At this time
when not more than ten leagues intervened between them, Saif-ud-Din, Sūri,
having received information of it, held consultation with the Ghaznawis-who
had been talking of their friendship and attachment—as to fighting, or retreating
towards Ghur. They, making hypocrisy their garment, did not give him just
counsel, and excited and stimulated him to fight. Saif-ud-Din, Sūri, placing
faith in the counsel given by them, issued from the city with a body of the men of
Ghaznin, and a few of the men of Ghūr, and marshalled his ranks opposite [those
of] Bahram Shāh. As yet the preparations for battle were not completed, when
the Ghaznawis seized Saif-ud-Din, Sūri, and, in high spirits, delivered him over
to Bahrām Shāh. He commanded that the face of Saif-ud-Din, Sūri, should be
blackened; and, having placed him on an emaciated and weak bullock, which put
one foot before the other with a hundred thousand shakings, they paraded him
throughout the whole city. [There is not a word about with his face to the tail—
which is an Indian bāzār term.] .. When this terror-striking news came
to the hearing of 'Ala-ud-Din, the fervour of his nature burst out, and, with the
determination of avenging his brother, with a furious and relentless army, he
set out towards Ghaznin. This is a literal translation of Firishtah's words.
Then follow, in the two translations, things respecting 'Ala-ud-Din and his
·
Ff2
444
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĀṢIRĪ.
upon their sacred heads until they reached the head of the
doings, still more absurd and incorrect, which had better have been noticed in
the account of 'Alã-ud-Din, but, at that time, I had not the least conception
that Briggs and Dow were so much alike, and had not compared their state-
ments with the original. Both translators leave out Firishtah's statement,
that, "before the arrival of 'Ala-ud-Din, Bahram Shah had died, and his son,
Khusrau Shāh, had succeeded to the throne, and was made captive by means of
treachery," and they merely give what Firishtah says was the common tradition
that Bahram encountered 'Ala-ud-Din, as our author states.
"Alla" is
supposed by the translators to have replied to "a letter" written by Bahram
Shah, in these terms :—
Dow.
Alla replied, That his threats
were as impotent as his arms. That it
was no new thing for kings to make
war upon their neighbours; but that
barbarity like his was unknown to
the brave, and what he had never
heard to have been exercised upon
princes. That he might be assured
that God had forsaken Byram, and
ordained Alla to be the instrument of
that just vengeance which was de-
nounced against him for putting to
death the representative of the long-
independent and very ancient family
of Ghor."-Page 126.
BRIGGS.
"Alla-ood-Deen replied,
• That
his threats were as impotent as his
arms; that it was no new thing for
kings to make war on their neigh-
bours, but that barbarity like his was
unknown to the brave, and such as he
had never heard of being exercised
towards princes; that he might be
assured that God had forsaken him,
and had ordained that he (Alla-ood-
Deen) should be the instrument of
that just revenge denounced against
him for putting to death the represen-
tative of the independent and very
ancient family of Ghoor.""-Page 152.
FIRISHTAH says:
"Bahrām
'Ala-ud-Din replied: "This
There is nothing of this kind in the original.
Shah despatched an emissary with a message.
act which Bahrām Shāh has perpetrated is a sign of the wane of the dominion
of the Ghaznawis, because, although sovereigns are used to lead armies against
the dominions of each other, and, having overcome each other, are in the habit
of depriving each other of their precious lives, still not with this disgrace and
ignominy; and it is certain that heaven will take vengeance upon thee as a
retribution and exemplary punishment, and will give me triumph over thee!
There is nothing more than this in the original. Compare these passages in
PRICE'S Mahommedan History, vol. ii. pages 309-311. He translates it
from Firishtah correctly although he does not profess to do so literally.
One more specimen here and I have done with this reign:—
Dow.
"At first the troops of Ghizni, by
their superior numbers, bore down
those of Ghor; till Alla, seeing his
affairs almost desperate, called out to
two gigantic brothers, whose name
was Chirmil, the greater and the less,
whom he saw in the front, like two
rocks bearing against the torrent.
Byram fled, with the scattered remains
of his army, towards Hindostan; but
he was overwhelmed with his mis-
•
BRIGGS.
"At first the troops of Ghizny, by
their superior numbers, bore down
those of Ghoor; till Alla-ood-Deen,
seeing his affairs desperate, called out
to two gigantic brothers, denominated
the greater or lesser Khurmil [In a
note, he says, he doubts whether this
word should not be Firmil, and says
there is a tribe so called!!! Elliot :
INDEX, page 157, note, writes their
name Sirfil, and says Briggs [who
THE SHANSABĀNĪAH DYNASTY OF GHAZNÏN.
445
1
Pul-i-Yak Tāķ' [the One-arch Bridge] of the city. When
they reached that place, Sulṭān Sūri, and his Wazir, Sayyid
Majd-ud-Din, Mūsawi, were gibbeted, and they were both
hung from the bridge. Such was the cruelty and ignominy
with which they treated that handsome, just, intrepid, and
laudable monarch. The Almighty bestowed victory upon
Sulṭān 'Alā-ud-Din, Husain, Jahān-soz, the brother of
Sulṭān Sūri, so that he took revenge for this barbarous
deed and this dishonour, as has been previously recorded ².
fortunes, and sunk under the hand of
death, in the year five hundred and
forty-seven, after a reign of thirty-five
years."-Page 127.
•
read it correctly, but spoilt it after] "is
wrong" !! See pages 350 and 351],
whom he saw in the front standing
like two rocks, and bearing the brunt of
the action, to support him.
Beiram fled with the scattered remains
of his army towards Hindustan, but
overwhelmed with his misfortunes,
sunk under the hand of death in the
year A. H. 547, after a reign of thirty-
five years."
The above is copied by MAURICE, and by ELPHINSTONE, although not quite
in the same words; and is re-echoed by Marshman in his HISTORY OF INDIA,
written at the request of the University of Calcutta ;" and Meadows Taylor,
in the STUDENT'S MANUAL OF INDIAN HISTORY, who improves it, by inserting
in the margin of page 89—“Ghuzny plundered by Alla ood Deen, Seljuk” !!!
FIRISHTAH'S account is as follows:-
"When the two armies came in contact, and the noise of the clashing of
swords, and the whiz of arrows reached the vengeance-pursuing heavens, Khar-
mil the greater [older], and Khar-mil the lesser [younger], entered the field
like unto two rampant elephants. Khar-mil the greater with a poniard ripped
up the belly of a famous elephant," &c. [There is not a word about "rocks,"
"torrents," or anything approaching it.]
"Bahrām Shāh, being with-
out heart or strength in every way, fled towards the country of Hind, and, in
a very short time, through grief and affliction at the loss of his son, and other
matters, fell sick, and was removed from this hostel of mortality to the gardens
of eternity. According to the authentic account, his death took place in
547 H., after thirty-five years' reign."
Firishtah himself is not an author on whom implicit reliance can be placed,
even though he quotes from the works of others, for he often mis-quotes them.
This is particularly apparent from his account of these events under the reign
of Bahrām Shāh, and that of the same events in the chapter on the Ghūris,
which is very different, and utterly contradictory, in many things, of his
previous statements given above.
¹ See page 355, and note 9.
2 Everything is barbarous, cruel, savage, and the like that others do to Ghūris;
but inducing a sovereign to come out of and abandon his capital and surrender
after pledging to him the most solemn oaths, and then imprisoning him, and
afterwards murdering him, and the rest of his race; inducing a noble to turn
his back before shooting him in a cowardly manner; inviting his brother to
446
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĂŞIRĪ.
II.
SULŢĂN-UL-A'ZAM³,
MU’IZZ-UD-DUNYA WA UD-DÎN,
ABU-L-MUZAFFAR, MUHAMMAD, SON OF BAHA-UD-DİN,
SĀM, KASĪM-I-AMIR-UL-MUMINİN.
Trustworthy narrators have related after this manner,
that, when Sulṭān 'Alā-ud-Din, Ḥusain, Jahān-soz, was
removed from the habitation of the world, and Sultān
Saif-ud-Din, Muḥammad, his son, ascended the throne of
Ghūr, he commanded, that both the Sulṭāns *, Ghiyāṣ-ud-
Din, Muḥammad, and Mu'izz-ud-Din', Muḥammad, sons
an audience, and having him basely assassinated; flaying a minister alive;
digging up the bones of the dead; massacring women and children, and
burning a city in a drunken fit, and mixing the blood of Sayyids with earth to
make mortar, all these, on the part of a Ghūri, are mildness, amiability,
beneficence, greatness, and the like. Fanākati says no less than 70,000 persons
were massacred, on this occasion, in Ghaznin alone.
a Some copies of the text, the idiom of which differs considerably here, have
Sulṭān-i-Ghāzi; and most copies leave out the Ķasim, &c. His titles given
at the end of his reign [which see] are altogether different.
Between the putting to death of Saif-ud-Din, Sūri, and the establishment of
Mu'izz-ud-Din at Ghaznin as his elder brother and sovereign's lieutenant, a
period of no less than twenty-six years elapsed, but, as our author gives no
dates, the uninitiated reader would imagine that Mu'izz-ud-Din succeeded
close upon Saif-ud-Din, Sūri. In reality, Mu'izz-ud-Din is the first of the
Ghurian dynasty of Ghaznin.
4 Sultāns subsequently.
This personage is incorrectly styled by the impossible title of Shahábu-d-
din, Shahab-ood-Deen, and even Shabudin. Shihāb-ud-Din, which is Arabic,
was certainly his title before his brother succeeded to the sovereignty of Ghūr,
and his brother's was Shams-ud-Din; but soon after the accession of the
latter both their titles were changed, as mentioned at page 370. Many
authors, either not noticing this fact, or ignorant of it, continued to style the
former by his first title of Shihāb-ud-Din, and some have reversed the order
of things, and appear to have imagined that Mu'izz-ud-Din was his first title,
which was changed to Shihab-ud-Din; but no such title will be found on his coins.
I have, myself, been led into the error of occasionally styling him Shihāb-ud-Din
in my notes to the Khwārazmi dynasty, page 255-260, an oversight I now
correct. Firishtah calls him sometimes Shihab-ud-Din, Muḥammad, the
Ghūri, and at others Mu'izz-ud-Din, Muḥammad, the Ghūri. Dow, in his
translation of Firishtah, chose to style him Mahommed Ghori, as though the
last word was part of his proper name, instead of that of his country, and
overlooked the fact of the at the end of Ghūri [,], being the ya-i-
nisbat, expressing relation or connexion, as Hind and Hindi, Kabul, Kābuli,
&c., and so compilers of Histories of India have re-echoed the name of
Mahommed Ghori down to the present day, although some follow Briggs, who
sometimes styles him by the impossible titles of Shahab-ood-Deen, and Moyiz-
ood-Deen; but he too generally follows Dow, and calls him Mahomed Ghoory.
See also Elliot, INDIA: vol 2, page 292.
THE SHANSABĂNĨAH DYNASTY OF GHAZNİN.
447
of Sam, who were imprisoned within the fortress of Wajir-
istān, should be released, as has been stated previously in
the account of Sultan Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din °.
6
Sultan Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din abode at the court of Firuz-koh
in the service of Sultan Saif-ud-Din [his cousin], and
Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din proceeded to the court of Bamian
to the presence of his uncle, Malik Fakhr-ud-Din, Mas'ud-
i-Husain, Bāmiāni,
When Sultan Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din ascended [the throne of]
the dominion of Ghūr, after the catastrophe³ of Sulṭān
Saif-ud-Din, Muḥammad, and the news of it reached
Bāmian, Malik Fakhr-ud-Din, Mas'ud, turned his face
towards Mu'izz-ud-Din and said: "Thy brother hath dis-
tinguished himself; when wilt thou do the like, and
bestir thyself?" Mu'izz-ud-Din hung his head in the
presence of his uncle, and left the audience hall, and set
out then and there for the Court of Firuz-koh. When he
reached the presence of Ghiyaṣ-ud-Din [his brother], he
became Sar-i-Jāndār [Chief Armour-Bearer], and he con-
tinued to serve his brother, and served him with assiduity,
as has been previously recorded.
He continued in his brother's service for the period of
one year, when some cause of umbrage' arose in his august
mind, and he proceeded towards Sijistān, to [the Court of]
Malik Shams-ud-Din, Sijistäni 2, and there he remained one
cold season. Sulṭān Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din despatched a distin-
6 Guzidah, and some other works, mention that 'Ala-ud-Din, Husain,
made Hari his capital, and conferred the sovereignty of Ghaznin upon his
nephew, Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din, as his deputy [The others say "his nephews,
Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din, and Mu'izz-ud-Din "], and that he [others "they"] succeeded,
by treachery, in securing the person of Khusrau Shāh, in 555 H.; but from
this statement, and what those writers immediately after state, it is evident,
beyond a doubt, that they have confused Ghiyāṣ with Mu'izz, and Khusrau
Shah with Khusrau Malik his son.
7 Eldest son of 'Izz-ud-Din, Al-Husain, and first of the Ghurian rulers of
Bāmiān.
8 He was mortally wounded and left for dead in the action with the
Ghuzz, by Abu-l-'Abbās-i-Shiṣ, brother of the noble he had so treacherously
shot with an arrow when his back was turned. See page 367.
9 The words in Persia, and in the
"wilt thou do:" not "thou art doing."
Persian of the East, signify
1 Because his brother Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din had not conferred a separate appanage
on him.
2 The Malik-us-Sa'is [the Sanguinary], Shams-ud-Din, Muḥammad, who
succeeded his father Taj-ud-Din, Abu-l-Fatḥ, in 559 H. See page 189.
448
THE TABAKAT-I-NĀṢIRĪ.
guished person and brought him back again, and com-
mitted to his charge the territory of Kasr-i-Kajūrān and
Istiah. After he had brought the whole of the district of
Garmsir under his authority, Sulṭān Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din en-
trusted to him the city of Tigin-ābād, which was one of
the largest cities of Garmsir ³. This Tigin-ābād is the
place about which, and the possession of it by the Sultāns
of Ghur, the downfall of the dynasty of Maḥmūd-i-Ghāzi,
son of Sabuk-Tigin, has been caused, and about which
Sulṭān 'Alā-ud-Din, Husain, had improvised and sent to
Khusrau Shah, son of Bahram Shah, the quatrain, which is
as follows:
"Thy father first laid the foundation of enmity,
Hence the world's people all under oppression fell.
Have a care, lest for one Tigin-ābād 4 thou dost not give,
From end to end, the kingdom of Maḥmūd's dynasty to the wind."
The Almighty's mercy be upon the Sultāns of both
dynasties!
5
When Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din acquired the territory of
Tigin-ābād, the Ghuzz tribe, and the chieftains of that
sept, who, retiring defeated from before the forces of Khita',
had moved towards Ghaznin, during a period of twelve
""
3 Dow
says, in his translation of Firishtah: "Mahommed Ghori was left
by his brother [Yeas ul dien !] when he acceded (sic) to the throne of Ghor, in
command at Tunganabad, in the province of Chorassan.' BRIGGS has :
"On the accession of Gheias-ood-Deen to the throne of Ghizny and Ghor, he
appointed his brother, Moyiz-ood-Deen Mahomed [not called “Mahomed
Ghoory" here], governor of Tukeeabad"!! FIRISHTAH, who quotes our author,
says: "Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din, Muḥammad-i-Sām, on attaining the sovereignty of
Ghur, left his full brother, Mu'izz-ud-Din, who is renowned as Shihāb-ud-Din,
at Tigin-ābād, which belongs to the territory of Garmsir.' He was only
"renowned as Shihāb-ud-Din" by Firishtah, and a few other comparatively
modern writers who, perhaps, knew not of the passage in our author where he
mentions the change of title by both brothers. The Taj-ul-Ma'āṣir written,
or, at least, begun before the Sultan's death, does not mention the word
Shihab any more than our author.
4 The citadel of this place is situated on the Koh-i-Sher, and is sometimes
called the fortress of Koh-i-Sher, and is mentioned by Baihaķi; but, in the MS.
copies of Baihaķi, is called Aytkin-ābād. This remark above would indicate
that Khusrau Shāh, not Bahrām, was 'Alā-ud-Din's antagonist. See note 2,
page 347.
5 Not Sultan then but Malik. The title was conferred after this.
6 The word used signifies an army [not "armies"], but, as all the able
men of the tribe carried arms, I have not used the word in its literal sense.
7 Before the Karlu ghiah Turk-māns. See note ", para. 2, page 374.
THE SHANSABẢNĨAH DYNASTY OF GHĀZNĪN.
449
years had taken the Ghaznin territory out of the hands of
Khusrau Shāh and of Khusrau Malik, and had brought it
under their own sway.
Mu'izz-ud-Din was in the constant
habit of making raids upon the Ghuzz from Tigin-ābād,
and assailing them, and continued to harass that territory
until the year 569 H., when Sulṭān Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din sub-
dued Ghaznin, and placed Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din upon the
throne [of that territory] and returned to Ghur again, as
has been previously recorded.
The second year after this, [namely] in 570 H., Sultān
Mu'izz-ud-Din brought the districts of Ghaznin under his
sway, and acquired Gardaiz'; and, in the third year [571 H.]',
he marched an army towards Multan and delivered it from
the hands of the Karāmiṭah 2, and, in this year, 571 H., the
8 There is some discrepancy among authors with respect to the date of the
capture of Ghaznin. Jahān-Ārā, and Haft Iklim say, Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din acquired
possession of Ghaznin in 570 H., after which he conferred the government of
it upon his brother, Mu'izz-ud-Din, as Wali [Haft Iklim says, deputy or
lieutenant]; Faşiḥ-i says Ghaznin was taken in 569; the Zubdat-ut-Tawarikh,
which copies our author, also says 569; Tabakāt-i-Akbari agrees with
Rauzat-uş-Şafa, and Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh, that Ghiyaṣ-ud-Din took
Ghaznin from the Ghuzz, in 569, and conferred it on his brother, Mu'izz-ud-
Din, in 570; the Tazkirat-ul-Mulūk of Yaḥyā Khān, Mir'āt-i-Jahān-Numā,
and the Khulāṣat-ut-Tawarikh say 569; the Lubb-ut-Tawarikh-i-Hind says
Ghaznin was given to Mu'izz-ud-Din in 567; and states that the Maḥmūdis
had regained possession of it, and that Ghiyās-ud-Din took it from the Amirs
of Khusrau Malik (sic!). Budā'ūni states that some say Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din took
it from the Ghuzz in 569 H., and others, that he took it from Khusrau Malik
who had re-taken it from the Ghuzz. Alfi states that Khusrau Shāh himself
returned to Ghaznin after the withdrawal of 'Alā-ud-Din, but the Ghuzz,
who had defeated Sulṭān Sanjar [his great uncle], were perpetually making
raids upon the Ghaznin territory, and he, Khusrau Shāh [not his son,
Khusrau Malik], again returned to Lahor, and the Ghuzz, taking possession
of Ghaznin, retained possession of it for ten years. Firishtah, who does not
always copy his authorities correctly, says Ghaznin was taken by Ghiyāṣ-ud-
Din in 567 H., and that the Ghuzz only held it two years!
9 Gardaiz is the name of a large darah of the Tājiks, or Tāziks, for both
are correct [The Ghūris were themselves Tajiks], with lofty hills on either
side, well watered, and once very populous and well cultivated. To the east
and south-east are Afghāns. In Akbar's reign there was a strong castle here
named Gardaiz also. See note 7, page 498.
¹ Three of the works just quoted state that Multān was taken in 570 H.;
but Firishtah, who is evidently wrong, has 572 H.
2 Who had regained possession of it some years previously. He does not
mention the capture of Uchchah, which immediately followed that of Multān.
An account of the capture of Ūchchah and the conduct of Mu'izz-ud-Din has
been given by Firishtah, which has not been correctly rendered by his trans-
lators, and makes the conduct of Mu'izz-ud-Din appear in a light contrary to
450
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĂŞIRĪ.
Sankurān tribe' broke out into rebellion, and committed
great violence, until, in the year 572 H., he marched an
Faşiḥ-i is the only work, among those previously quoted, which mentions
this affair. Therein it is stated that the Sankuran were a tribe of the Ghuzz.
They are referred to in the second paragraph of the note at the foot of page 290.
This name, in some copies of the text, is written Sankurian and Sufrän; and,
in one of the oldest copies, Shanfūzān. Shalūzān appears to be the present
name of the locale of this tribe, which is also mentioned in the history of Timur.
See note', page 498. Some call it Shanūzān.
facts; and these mis-statements, to which I draw attention, have been re-echoed
by all the Indian History writers.
Dow, vol. i. page 136,
"The prince of that place [Adja,
this is intended to represent Üchchah]
shut himself up in a strong fort.
Mahommed began to besiege the
place; but, finding it would be a
difficult task to reduce it, he sent a
private message to the Rajah's wife,
promising to marry her if she would
make away with her hushand.
"The base woman returned for
answer that she was rather too old
herself to think of matrimony, but
that she had a beautiful young daugh-
ter, whom, if he would promise to
espouse, and leave her in free pos-
session of the country and its wealth,
she would, in a few days, remove the
Rajah. Mahommed basely accepted of
the proposal, and the wicked woman
accordingly, in a few days, found
means to assassinate her husband, and
to open the gates to the enemy.
Mahommed confirmed his promise by
marrying the daughter upon acknow-
ledging the true faith, but made no
scruple to deviate from what respected
the mother; for, instead of trusting
her with the country, he sent her off
to Ghizni, where she soon died of
grief and resentment. Nor did her
daughter relish her situation better;
for, in the space of two years, she
also fell a victim to grief.
>>
FIRISHTAH'S account is as follows:-
BRIGGS, vol. i. page 169.
"The Raja was besieged in his
fort (of Oocha); but Mahomed Ghoory,
finding it would be difficult to reduce
the place, sent a private message to the
Raja's wife, promising to marry her
if she would deliver up her husband.
"The base woman returned for
answer that she was rather too old
herself to think of matrimony, but
that she had a beautful and young
daughter, whom, if he would promise
to espouse, and leave her in free pos-
session of her wealth, she would, in a
few days, remove the Raja.
homed Ghoory accepted the proposal ;
and this Princess, in a few days, found
means to assassinate her husband, and
open the gates to the enemy.
Ma-
"Mahomed only partly performed his
promise, by marrying the daughter,
upon her embracing the true faith
[he could not marry her legally unless
she did sol; but he made no scruple
to depart from his engagements with
the mother; for, instead of trusting
her with the country, he sent her to
Ghizny, where she afterwards died of
sorrow and disappointment. Nor did
the daughter long survive, for in the
space of two years she also fell a
victim to grief.”
"The Rajah of that country took refuge therein [in Uchchah], and Suiṭān
Shihab-ud-Din pitched his tents and pavilion around the fort, and set about
preparations for investing it. As he knew that to overcome that Rajah in
battle and capture the fort would be arduous, he despatched a person to the
THE SHANSABĀNĨAH DYNASTY OF GHAZNİN.
451
army against them, and fell upon that people, and put the
greater number of them to the sword. They have related
that most of the Sanķkuran tribe were manifestly confessors
of the Kur'an creed, who, on this occasion, obtained mar-
tyrdom; but, as they had stirred up rebellion, they were
put to death, as a matter of exigency, according to sovereign
prerogative.
5
In the following year after this event, Sultān Mu'izz-
ud-Din marched an army towards Nahrwālah by way of
Üchchah and Multan. The Rãe of Nahrwālah, Bhim
Diw, was young in years, but he had numerous forces and
many elephants; and, when a battle took place, the army
of Islām was defeated and put to the rout, and the Sulṭān-
wife of the Rajah, who was despotic over her husband, and cajoled her, and
promised, saying: 'If, by your endeavours, this city shall be taken, having
contracted marriage with you, I will make you the Malikah-i-Jahān [Queen of
the Universe, i.e. his consort; but there is not a word about "making away
with," or delivering up her husband:" the offer is her own].
the offer is her own]. The Rājah's
wife, frightened of or at the power and grandeur of the Sulṭān, and knowing
that he would be victorious [over her husband, and capture the place], sent a
reply, saying: 'No worthiness remains to me, but I have a daughter possessed
of beauty to perfection, and grace. If the Malik consents, he may take her
into the bonds of marriage; but, after taking the city, if he will not evince any
avarice towards my own peculiar property and effects [not a word about entrust-
ing the country to her], I will remove the Rājah.' The Sulṭān agreed, and in
a short time that woman caused her husband to be put to death, and delivered up
the city. Sultan Shihāb-ud-Din, having fulfilled his promise, made the Rājah's
daughter a Musalman according to the rites of the sublime law of Muḥammad,
contracted marriage with her, and both of them, mother and daughter, were
sent to Ghaznin, that they might learn the duties respecting fasting and prayer,
and to read the sacred pages [the Kur'an]. The mother, whom her daughter
held in abhorrence on account of her abominable act, and placed no faith in,
shortly after died; and the daughter herself, after two years, from not having
obtained the enjoyment of the Sultan's society [the marriage was never consum-
mated], through grief and mortification, followed her mother.”
The Rajah above referred to, according to the Mir'at-i-Jahān-Numā, was
chief of the Bhați tribe, which previously held a large part of Sind. The same
work states that Uchchah was taken by assault. The name is differently
written by different authors--and while some have and
Compare Abu-Riḥān-al-Birūni, and see translation in Elliot's INDIA,
vol. i. page 61, and page 154.
4 If So,
it is somewhat strange that such an orthodox champion of the faith
should have massacred them.
5 "The following" year after 572 H. is 573 H. ; but, just under, our author
says 574 H., which is the year which most authors mention, but Faşiḥ-i has
575 H.
6 This is the correct name, confirmed by several other writers; but some
copies of the text differ.
anothery!
The Rauzat-ut-Tahirin styles him Bhoj []-Diw.
یدیو and three به ودیو another بهبودیو One has
.ern P
452
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĀṢIRĪ.
i-Ghāzi returned again without having accomplished his
designs. This event took place in the year 574 H.’
In the year 575 H., Mu'izz-ud-Din led an army to
Furshor, and subdued it; and, in another two years sub-
sequent to that, he marched an army towards Lohor. As
the affairs of the Maḥmūdi empire had now approached
their termination, and the administration of that govern-
ment had grown weak, Khusrau Malik, by way of compro-
mise, despatched one of his sons, and one elephant', to the
presence of the Sultan-i-Ghāzi. This circumstance hap-
pened in the year 577 H.¹
The following year, 578 H., the Sulṭān led an army
towards Diwal2 [or Dibal] and possessed himself of the
7 Our author slurs over this affair because it was a reverse, but it was not
dishonour. Mu'izz-ud-Din's forces were completely worn out with their long
march, the latter portion of it through the sandy desert, and suffering from
thirst and want of forage for their cattle. The forces of Bhim-Diw were
numerous, fresh, and well supplied. Numbers of the Musalman forces perished
in the obstinate battle which took place, and the retreat was effected with great
difficulty,
8 Previously spelt Purshor and Burshor, and in some copies of the text
here Burshor likewise the letters p and f, and b and w are interchange-
able. In the passage at page 76, where mention is made of the idol temple
which fell on the night of Maḥmūd's birth, the place supposed to be
Peshawar is written in every copy of the text with an extra letter. Nearly
every author I have quoted mentions that, in ancient books, this place was
known as Bagrām. See my account of it in Journal of Bombay Geographical
Society, vol. x.
9 Our author should have added, "a renowned elephant, and the finest
that Khusrau Malik posssessed." His son is called Malik Shah by some
writers, including Firishtah; but one of his translators turns it into Mullik.
1 As to this date there is considerable discrepancy. Of the different works
previously quoted, the majority state that the first expedition against Lāhor
took place in 577 H., as our author has it; but two others mention 576 as the
year, and three others that it took place in 575. Buda'ūni says 580 H.; but
he has omitted the first expedition, and mistaken the second for it. I do not
quote Baizāwi or Guzidah, for they are both at sea with respect to the two
last Maḥmūdi sovereigns, and make one of them.
2 In the same manner, there is much discrepancy with regard to the invasion
of Diwal. Five authors give 577 H. as the year, one 578, one 576, one 575,
and Budā'ūni 581! Of these, some say the expedition against Purshor and
Diwal took place in the same year; others that it took place the year after
Purshor was annexed, and the year before the first expedition against Lahor;
whilst others state that Diwal was taken the year after; and some omit all
mention of it. Aḥmad, son of Muḥammad, Kazwini, the author of the Jahān-
Ārā, which I have often quoted, on his way to visit Hindustan, died at this
place in 975 H.-1567 A.D. It is not the same place as Thathah, but in the
Thathah pre between Thathah and Karachi. Sec note 5, p. 295.
THE SHANSABĀNĪAH DYNASTY OF GHAZNĪN.
453
whole of that territory [lying] on the sea-coast, and ac-
quired much wealth, and returned.
In the year 581 H., he [again] led an army towards
Lohor³, and ravaged and pillaged the whole of the dis-
tricts of that territory; and, on his return homewards,
directed that the Hiṣār [fortress] of Sial-kot should be re-
stored'. Husain son of Khar-mil was installed therein, and
3 The name of this city-which is a very ancient one-is also written Lah-
nor [], as well as Loha-war [‚g\@g!].
ها
The Tabakat-i-Akbari, Mir'āt-i-Jahān-Numā, and Firishtah say that this
second expedition took place in 580 H., and the Khulasat-ut-Tawarikh says
it was in 579; but the others agree with our author as above. The astonishing
thing, however, is, that our author himself, in his account of Khusrau Malik's
reign, at page 115, which see, only mentions two expeditions to Lahor-one in
577 H., and the other, when it was taken, in 583!
4 Most authors, including Firishtah, make a great error in asserting that
Mu'izz-ud-Din founded the fortress of Sial-kot. Such is not the case, and
some of the authors I have been quoting very correctly state that it is a very
ancient place, founded by one of the early Hindū rulers. Mu'izz-ud-Din found
it in a dilapidated condition on the occasion of his retirement from the Panjab,
and unsuccessful attempt to take Lāhor; and, considering its situation a good
one for his purposes, he put it in a state of efficiency, and garrisoned it at the
suggestion of the Rājah of Jamūņ. I extract this statement from a History of
the Rājahs of Jamūn [the " is nasal], which the author states to be composed
from Hindu annals; and in no other writer have I seen the same details,
although another confirms a portion of it, which I shall subsequently refer to.
"In the year 1151 of Bikramaditya, Rajah Jakr [or Chakr] Diw succeeded
his father as ruler of Jamūn; and, in the middle of his reign, in 555 H., Khus-
rau Malik, the descendant of Maḥmūd, Ghaznawi, abandoned Ghaznin, and
assumed the throne of Lah-nor. The Jamun Rajahs continued to entertain their
natural hatred towards his dynasty, but without effect; and Khusrau Malik, by
degrees, brought under his rule the northern parts of the Panjab, as far as the
foot of the mountains [the Alpine Panjab]. The tribe of Khokhar, who dwelt
round about Manglān [Makhiālah ?], at the foot of the hills, who were subject to
the Jamun-wal [the Jamun dynasty], having received encouragement from the
Lah-nor ruler, and sure of his support, refused any longer to pay tax and
tribute to Jamūņ, and threw off its yoke.
"At this time, the year 579 H., Sulṭān Mu'izz-ud-Din, the Ghūri, who had
taken possession of Ghaznin, raised the standard of conquest; and Rājah Jakr
[Chakr] Diw despatched his full brother, Ram Diw, with presents to the
Sultān's presence, representing to him the state of affairs, and inciting him to
invade Khusrau's territory, assuring him that, on his appearance, the territory
of Lah-nor would pass from his grasp. The Sultan, who received the emis-
sary with favour, replied in writing to the Rajah, that his Mian-ji [agent] had
made known the Rajah's object, and that the time was at hand for the appear-
ance of his standards in that part;' and in that same year the Sulṭān made a
raid on, and possessed himself of, the Purshor territory and Multan, and
invested Lah-nor, which Khusrau Malik defended.
"The Sultan, finding he could not gain possession of it easily, devastated
and ravaged the country about Lah-nor, and retired by the northern part of the
454
THE TABAKAT-I-NĂŞIRI.
the Sultan again retired. After his departure, Khusrau
Panjab; and, at the suggestion and representation of the Rajah of Jamūṇ,
repaired anew the fort of Sial-kot [Sial is the name of a tribe of Jats, since
displaced, and dwelling much farther south, at and around Jang-i-Siāl], which
was then in a ruinous and dilapidated state, and left there Husain-i-Khar-mil
[turned into Hussein Churmili by Dow, and Hoossein Firmully by BRIGGS !]
as governor, with a garrison. The Mian-ji, of Jamūņ, was then dismissed,
with a request to inform the Rājah that next year his wishes would be ful-
filled.
"Khusrau Malik, after the Sultan's departure, aided by the tribe of Khok-
har, invested Sial-kot; but, as Rājah Jakr [Chakr] Diw, assisted and sup-
ported the defenders, Khusrau Malik was unable to take it. At this period
the Rajah, who had attained to nearly his eightieth year, died, and was suc-
ceeded by his son, Rājah Bij, who is also called Bijayi [faat) Diw, in
1221 of Bikrāmaditya; and in that year, which corresponds with 582 H. the
Sultan [Mu'izz-ud-Din] crossed the Sind at the Nilab ferry, where the Rajah's
Mian-ji went to receive him; and on the banks of the Bihat [the Jhilam] the
Rājah's son, Nar-singh Diw, joined him with a considerable force.
He was
presented to the Sultan through Husain-i-Khar-mil, and received with honour.
He accompanied the Sulṭān to Lah-nor, which was taken, and made over to
the charge of Kar-mākh ['Ali-i-Kar-mākh, who is turned into Ally Kirmany
by BRIGGS!], governor of Multān. The Rajah's son and his agent were
dismissed with honorary robes, and the town of Sial-kot, together with the
fort, was entrusted to the care of the Rajah. Khusrau was taken to Ghaznin,
and was subsequently put to death. From the circumstance of the Sultan, in
his communications, styling the Rājah's agents by the term Miān-ji, according
to the custom of Īrān, instead of Wakil, the whole family of the Jamūņ-wal
[not the present dynasty], considering this title great honour, adopted it; and
from it the abridged term Miān, used by their descendants, is derived.'
""
))
Dow, in his translation of Firishtah, states, under the reign of Khusrau
Malik [page 129], that "the Emperor Chusero [Khusrau would not have
known his own name thus written], in alliance with the Ghickers, besieged the
fort of Salcot, but, their endeavours proving unsuccessful, they were obliged
to desist. BRIGGS, in his version, repeats this in the same words, with the
exception of styling Khusrau, Khoosrow Mullik; and the Khokhars, Gukkurs ;
and that Khusrau had to abandon the investment; but under the reign of
Mu'izz-ud-Din, Dow [page 137] states: "This fort [Salcot], as we have
before related, was effectually besieged by Chusero, in the absence of Mahommed;"
and BRIGGS also [page 176] says: "This fort, as we have before related,
being successfully besieged and taken by Khoosrow Mullik," &c.; and thus
both translators totally contradict their own previous statements. FIRISHTAH,
whom they translate, of course, states, as other writers do, that Khusrau Malik
was unable to take it. Led away, I imagine, by this statement, and placing
reliance on its correctness, ELPHINSTONE has repeated [page 311] this ab-
surdity. He says "Khusru Malik, taking courage from despair, made an
alliance with the Gakkars [Dow, Gickers; Briggs, Gukkurs; Elphinstone,
Gakkars!!], captured one of Shaháb u dín's strongest forts, and obliged him
to call in the aid of stratagem," &c. Thus a totally incorrect translation of a
native historian's words, and a statement respecting which the translators.
themselves contradict their own previous translation, is handed down from one
writer to the other. This is writing history with a vengeance.
The stratagem referred to above is related in Firishtah, which see but it
THE SHANSABĀNĪAH DYNASTY OF GHAZNÍN.
455
Malik assembled the forces of Hindūstān³, and a levy of
the [different] Khokhar tribes, and appeared before the
gates of Siāl-kot, and sat down before it for a considerable
time, and again retired without being able to effect his
object. After that, in the year 582 H., the Sultan-i-
Ghāzi [Mu'izz-ud-Din] appeared [again] before the gates
of Lohor. As the Maḥmūdi sovereignty had reached its
termination, and the sun of the empire of Sabuk-Tigin had
reached its setting, and the Recorder of Destiny had in-
scribed the decree of Khusrau Malik's dethronement, that
monarch was not possessed of the power to resist, and he
entered into negotiations for peace; and, for the purpose of
having an interview with the Sultan [Mu'izz-ud-Din], Khusrau
Malik came out [of Lohor]. He was seized, and imprisoned,
and Lohor passed into the possession of the Sultān-i-Ghāzi,
and the kingdom of Hindustan came under his sway.
7
is not related by any of the authors I have quoted, from some of whom he
derived his own information.
The account contained in the Hindu history of Jamun previously quoted, of
Khusrau Malik's attempt to take Sial-kot, which was a standing menace to his
rule, agrees with the account given by our author and some others, with the
exception that other tribes of unbelievers besides the Khokhars were engaged in
it ; and, although Khusrau Malik had got together a large following, he was un-
able to keep the field against the superior and more efficient forces of the Ghuris.
The Khokhars [9] are a totally distinct race from the Gakhars
[] _The_name of the former is sometimes written [] Khukhar, but
the first mode is the most correct. Abū-l-Fazl, in the A'-in-i-Akbari,
constantly mentions them, and he writes the two names very differently.
There are still numbers of Khokhars in the Panjab, some 20,000 families, and
I have met with them constantly in the Multan district, and districts further to
the north-west, towards the Indus, in the Sind-Sāgar Do-ābah. Their chief
locale is about Bārih, Aḥmad-ābād, and Khūsh-āb. They still style their chief
SULTAN as well as RAE, and will not give their daughters in marriage to
other tribes, or, at least, used not to. The Ghakars are still further north-
wards. Our author does not mention a word about these transactions with the
Khokhars in his account of Khusrau Malik's reign, and only mentions two
expeditions against Lahor, and therein states that Khusrau Malik delivered it
up to Mu'izz-ud-Din in 583 H.; but here he says in 582 H. Some of the works
I have been quoting say Mu'izz-ud-Din obtained possession of Lahor in 582 H.,
while others say it happened in 583 H.
5 This is the same person who subsequently gave his adherence to Sultān
Muḥammad, Khwārazm Shāh, and then acted treacherously, and was ousted
from Hirāt, and put to death. See note 2, page 257. His correct name is
'Izz-ud-Din, Husain. His father's name was Khar-mil.
6
See page 115, where our author states that Khusrau Malik, under the faith
of a treaty, was induced to come out.
7 That portion only over which Khusrau Malik ruled; but subsequently he
conquered more.
456
THE TABAKAT-I-NAŞIRĪ.
The Sipah-Sālār, 'Ali-i-Kar-makh, who was the Wāli
[Governor] of Multan, was located at Lohor, and the father
of the author of this work, Maulānā Sarāj-ud-Din-i-Minhāj,
the Wonder of his Age, and Most Eloquent of 'Ajam,
became the Kazi of the forces of Hindustan, and, dressed
in an honorary robe, conferred upon him by Sultan Mu'izz-
ud-Din, in the audience hall [or tent] of the camp he
established his Court of Judicature. Twelve camels were
assigned to convey his tribunal' [on the march]. The
mercy of the Almighty be upon him, and upon the
orthodox Sulṭāns of the past, and the Musalmān Maliks of
the present!
8
After these events the Sultan-i-Ghāzi set out on his
return to Ghaznin, taking along with him Khusrau Malik;
and from the court of Ghaznin sent him to the court of
Firūz-koh, to the presence of the Sulṭān-ul-A'zam, Ghiyāṣ-
ud-Din. From thence Khusrau Malik was sent into
Gharjistan and imprisoned within the castle of Balarwān,
and it was commanded that his son, Bahram Shah' [by
name], should be detained within the walls of the fortress
of Saif-rud of Ghur; and, when the outbreak and sedition
of Sultan Shāh, Khwārazm-Shāhi, arose in the year
8 Where public business was usually transacted.
9 For himself and the Muftis. He did not continue at Bāmiān long then.
See pages 431 and 433.
This, probably, is the son who had been given up as a hostage to Mu'izz-
ud-Din. Firishtah, but on whose authority he does not mention, styles him
Malik Shāh. There is not the slightest doubt as to who put them to death,
and the text very plainly indicates who did, both here and at page 115.
Compare Elliot: INDIA, vol. ii., note 2, page 295.
::
2 Not "Khwärazm Shah" but his brother. He was not a Sultan; this
is part of his title merely. See page 245. The error of calling him Sulṭān or
King of Khwārazm is of common occurrence. Elphinstone, misled by trans-
lators or translations, calls him " King of Khárizm." His name was Maḥmūd,
and his title, Sultan Shah-i-Jalal-ud-Din. At page 115, our author says
Khusrau Malik and his son, Bahram Shah, were put to death when the affair
of Sultan Shah occurred in 598 H., and here says, 587 H., while twice, in his
account of Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din's reign (see pages 378 and 379], he distinctly states
that the engagement with Sulṭān Shāh, in which Kutb-ud-Din, Ï-bak, then
only Lord of the Stables, was taken prisoner, took place in 588 H. [Jahān-
Ārā, 588 H.]. The year 587 H. is that in which the first battle took place
with Rãe Pithora, according to the whole of the authors I have been quoting,
as well as several others, including our author himself, and the second battle,
in which Rae Pithora was defeated and [according to Musalmān accounts]
slain, took place beyond a doubt [see page 468], in 588 H, There is no doubt
whatever as to the dates our author gives, for they are as plainly written as it
THE SHANSABÂNIAH DYNASTY OF GHAZNİN.
457
587 H., they martyred Khusrau Malik and his son [Bahrām
Shah]. The mercy of the Almighty be upon them all!
Subsequent to these events, the Sultan-i-Ghāzi caused
the forces of Islām to be organized, and advanced against
the fortress of Tabarhindah³, and took that stronghold, and
is possible to write, and all the copies of the text collated agree; but
neither of these three dates can be corrrect. The campaign against Sultān
Shāh, Khwārazmi, which lasted over six months, took place in 586 H., or
early in 587 H., and in 589 H. he died. What tends to prove this to be
correct, even from our author's own statements, is the fact, that, between the
acquirement of Lahor, and the first battle of Tara'in, no operations were
undertaken east of the Indus by Mu'izz-ud-Din, because occupied elsewhere.
See also next page where it is said that the Kāzi of Tulak was to hold Tabar-
hindah for the period of eight months, thus showing that the Sultan intended
to come again the next cold season and relieve it. The Kazi however held
out for five months longer, and, the Sultan not having arrived, was obliged to
capitulate. Here is further proof. Alfi and Jami'-ut-Tawarikh say Sulṭān
Shāh sent a message to Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din [after Sulṭān Shah revolted against his
brother's authority. See also page 246 and note 8], after he had gained
possession of several places in Khurāsān with the aid of the Kara-Khita'is,
that he, Ghiyaṣ-ud-Din, should give up to him the places belonging to his
[Sultan Shah's] father, otherwise to prepare for hostilities. Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din
summoned his brother, Mu'izz-ud-Din, from Hind to join him. Some writers
affirm that up to this time the latter was styled Malik only, and that after that
campaign the title of Sultan was conferred upon him, as well as on his cousin,
Shams-ud-Din of Bāmiān, from which period, and not before, the name and
title will be found on his coins. In the neighbourhood of the Murgh-ab, in the
valley of Marw-ar-Rūd, the two brothers, Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din, and Mu'izz-ud-Din,
Shams-ud-Din of Bāmiān, and Tāj-ud-Din, ruler of Sijistān, being also
present, after several months, encountered Sultan Shah, who was defeated,
and reached Marw with only forty followers. This is said to have taken place
in 586 H. Sultan Takish, Khwārazm Shah, hearing of this reverse his
rebellious brother had sustained, advanced from Khwārazm against him by
forced marches; and Sulṭān Shāh again sought protection from the Ghūris,
who, some time after, aided him with a numerous force, and despatched him
towards Khwārazm. This was in 588 H., for, his brother Takish having
marched into 'Irāķ at the request of Ķutlagh Īnānaj [see page 167, note ³] in that
year, Sulṭān Shāh made a dash against Khwārazm, the capital of his brother.
Alfi further states, but it is somewhat contrary to other accounts, that, on
the way, Sultan Shāh was taken ill, and died at the end of Ramazan, 589 H.
When the news of this event reached Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din, he despatched orders
for his troops to march back again.
Another reason why I consider 586 H. correct is, that all authors of any
authority, as well as our author himself, say that the second battle of Tarā'in
took place in 588 H., after which Ķutb-ud-Din, I-bak, was left to carry on
operations in Hindūstān, and, if the campaign against Sulṭān Shāh took place
in that year, and the two armies were six months in sight of each other, Ķutb-
ud-Din, I-bak, could not have been present there to be taken prisoner, and be
at Kuhṛām in Hindūstān at the same time. See page 515.
3 All the copies of the text collated, both here, and elsewhere in the work,
as well as many other authors, say Tabarhindah [or Tabarhindh]. The
G g
458
THE TABAKAT-I-NĂȘIRĪ.
made it over [to the charge of] Malik Ziya-ud-Din, the Kāzi
Muḥammad-i-'Abd-us-Sallām, Nisāwi, Tūlaki*. This Ķāzi,
Ziyā-ud-Din, was the son of the uncle of the maternal
grandfather of the writer of this History, [namely] Ķāzi
Majd-ud-Din, Tūlaki. At his [Kazi Ziyā-ud-Din's]' re-
quest, they selected twelve hundred horse from the forces
of Hindustan and of Ghaznin, all men of Tulak, and the
whole of them were ordered to join his Khayl [band or
division], and were located within that fortress, under the
stipulation that they should hold it for the period of eight
months, until the Sultan-i- Ghāzi should return again from
Ghaznin; but the Rãe Kolah Pithorā, however, had arrived
6
printed text has Sirhind, and many authors of comparatively modern date,
including the Tabaķāt-i-Akbari, Mir'āt-i-Jahān-Numā, and Khulāṣat-ut-Ta-
warikh, also have Sirhind. The Tarikh-i-Alfi, and Zubdat-ut-Tawārikh say
Tarhindah, Budā'ūni also has the same in one copy, and Tarhindah [the Persian 6
might have been left out by the copyist] in another; and, in another place, says
it was Jai-pāl's capital. The Lubb-ut-Tawārikh-i-Hind says Tabarhindah now
known by the name of Bithandah. Firishtah has Pathindah [] in the
latest lithographed copy of the Persian text which was so carefully collated, it
is said, with several copies of the original, by BRIGGS himself, and Bathindah
[] in other MS. copies I have examined, but, in his translation,
BRIGGS has Bituhnda, and Dow calls it "The capital of Tiberhind."
I may
mention that Bathindah, which is the place Briggs probably means, is some
hundred miles west of Thani-sar. See also note 2, page 76, next to last para.
4 That is to say, he or his family came originally from Nisā, and he was
Kāzi of Tūlak, which was a considerable place mentioned by our author in
several places. We might as well say Chief Justice Supreme Court, as
• Kází
Tolak." Instead of Nisawi, some copies of the text have Būshāri, and
Būshāi, but the majority of the best copies have Nisāwi. BRIGGS turns
him into "Mullik Zeea-ood-Deen Toozuky," and Dow into "Malleck Zea”!
5 Compare Elliot : INDIA, vol. ii. page 295.
• The right word may be Golah, as both would be written a In
Sanskrit -golak signifies the offspring by illegitimate connexion with
a widow; but we hear nothing of such a connexion on the part of Prithi Rāj's
father. Top, in his usual highly imaginative way, however, considers Gola
[Golah] to mean a slave :-" In Persian Gholam, literally 'a slave,' evidently a
word of the same origin as the Hindu gola." In another place, he asserts that
Golah refers to the natural brother of Prithi Rāj. Vol i. page 179. Had Prithi
Rāj been a golak, I do not think he would have been eligible to succeed his
grandfather. The Taj-ul-Ma'āṣir, referring to the second battle between the
Hindus and Muḥammadans, calls Kolah [or the Kolah] the son of the Rãe of
Ajmir; and all authors with whom I am acquainted state, that Kolah or Golah,
the son of Pithorā or Prithi Rāj, after his father was put to death, was made
tributary ruler of Ajmir by Mu'izz-ud-Din, as do all the authors I have been
quoting; and no other writer that I know of pretends that Pithorā was a natural
son of his father or adds Kolah or Golah to his name. Our author has
apparently confused the two names, and this seems the more likely, because he
THE SHANSABĀNĪAH DYNASTY OF GHAZNÍN,
459
8
near at hand, and the Sultan marched to Tara'in' to meet
him. The whole of the Rānās of Hind were along with
the Rãe Kolah.
When the ranks were duly marshalled, the Sulṭān seized
a lance and attacked the elephant on which Gobind Rãe 9,
has not said a single word about Pithora's son having been set up by the Musal-
māns, although they had to support him subsequently by force of arms.
7 This name is plainly and correctly written, in the different copies of our
author's text, and all the authors I have quoted previously, as well as many
others, call this place by the same name. Compilers of Histories of India,
led astray by the translations of Firishtah [not by Firishtah himself] which
supplied them with their materials, have turned this name into Narain. Dow
has "Sirauri upon the banks of the Sirsutty," and BRIGGS, Narain, now
called Tiroury, on the banks of the Soorsutty." ELPHINSTONE, following
Briggs, no doubt, calls it "Tiroury, between Tanésar and Carnál," and
Dowson [Elliot : INDIA, vol. ii. page 295], in the translation of this passage
of our author's text, evidently trusting to Briggs's translation rather than to
the original text, is led to believe our author wrong; but acknowledges, in
a foot note, that the text [our author's] has Taráín,” and adds “but Firishta
gives the name as Náráín, and says it was afterwards called Tirauri. He
places it on the banks of the Sarsutí fourteen miles from Thánisar and eighty
from Dehli." Now all this is incorrect as far as Firishtah is concerned, even
to the lithographed text of Briggs's own revision, for the former has Tarā'in
[] like other authors, not Nara'-in []. Mirzā Mughal Beg, who,
about eighty years since, made a personal survey of these parts, and the
territories further west, says that "on the Shāh-Rah [Royal Route] from
Karnāl to Thāni-sar is A'zim-ābād-i-Talāwaṛi [], where there is a large
and lofty Rabāṭt of great strength and solidity which can be seen for miles
round. Seven miles from this place, to the north, is Amin-ghaṛ, a large
village with a large and lofty Rabāt likewise. About two miles from the
village of Chatang is a small river, filled in the rainy season only, running
from right to left, which joins the river Sursuti. Six miles from Amin-ghaṛ,
still going northerly, is the city of Thani-sar."
This is within a mile or two of the distance given by many other writers as
well as Firishtah. There are several places called Talwanḍi, and one, on the road
from Dihli to Bhaṭnir, called Talwāṛah ['], but no other Talāwaṛi. For an
account of the engagement, as given in the Jamūn History, see next page.
8 In some copies Rães: other writers say, a number of Rājpūt princes.
9 Thus styled [] and also Gobindah [] in the oldest copies of the
text.
Some have J and both of which modes of writing the name
confirm the correctness of the above, which is a common Hindū name; but
some more modern copies of the text have Kand [$], Khānd [], and
Khāndi [si]. Most other authors, including Firishtah, have this latter
name also; but the Hindu bard, Chand, calls him Rae Gobind, like our
author in the oldest copies. He led the van of the Hindus on an elephant.
Translators of Firishtah make him commander of the whole; but Rãe Pithorā
was himself an experienced leader: the other led the van.
TOD (vol. i. p.
119), says Chaond Rae, which the historians of "Shabudin” style "Khan-
dirai, was not brother of Pirt'hwirájá” ! ! He states that he was of the
Dahima race of Rājpūts, one of three brothers, the eldest of whom, Kaimas,
was lord of Biana [Biānah], and minister of Pirt'hwirájá; the second was
Gg 2
460
TIE TABAKAT-I-NAṢIRĪ.
Rae [Rajah] of Dihli, was mounted, and on which elephant
he moved about in front of the battle. The Sultan-i-
Ghāzi, who was the Haidar of the time, and a second
Rustam, charged and struck Gobind Rãe on the mouth
with his lance with such effect that two of that accursed
one's teeth fell into his mouth. He launched a javelin at
the Sultan of Islām and struck him in the upper part of
the arm and inflicted a very severe wound'. The Sulṭān
turned his charger's head round and receded, and from the
agony of the wound he was unable to continue on horse-
back any longer. Defeat befell the army of Islam so that
it was irretrievably routed, and the Sultan was very nearly.
falling from his horse. Seeing which, a lion [hearted]
warrior, a Khalj stripling, recognized the Sulțăn, and
sprang up behind him, and, supporting him in his arms,
urged the horse with his voice, and brought him out of the
field of battle ³.
3
2
"Poondir, who commanded the frontier at Lahore " [the utter absurdity of
this assertion I have already shown, I think, in note ', page 466]; and the
third brother, Chaond Rae, was the principal leader in the last battle in which
Pirt'hwirájá fell." All the Muḥammadan historians and three Hindu chroni-
clers agree in the statement that this person, styled Gobind by some, and
Khandi by others, was Pithora's brother, and that he was present in both
battles, and was killed in the last.
These are the author's exact words: there is nothing in the text about " on
the other hand, returned the blow, &c." The J or signifies not a blow here,
but a small spear or javelin, an Indian weapon, the point of which is some-
times barbed, and sometimes made with three barbs. From five to ten were taken
in the hand [the left] at once, and launched at an enemy singly with the right.
2 Not a Ghalzi Afghān, I beg leave to notice, but a Turk.
3 Various are the different accounts given by authors respecting the incidents
of this battle, and very erroneous and incorrect are the versions translated
from Firishtah which, as authentic statements are to be desired in all matters of
history, ought to be corrected, and more particularly respecting this important
period of Indian history.
The History of the Rājahs of Jamun states that "Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din,
in 587 H., determined to undertake an expedition against the fortress of
Tabarhind, which was the strongest place belonging to the great Rājahs of
Hind. Rae Pithorā, the Chohan, sovereign [Farman-rawā] of Hindūstān,
and eighth in descent from Bal-Diw, Chohān, advanced to give battle to the
Sulṭān. They met at Tara'in-ghar, fourteen miles from Thani-sar. During
the engagement, Rãe Khāni [sic in MS.] Rãe, ruler of Dihli on the part of
his brother, from the back of an elephant on which he was mounted, with a
long spear wounded the Sultan in the upper part of the arm. He would
have fallen from his horse from the agony of the wound, had not some of his
slaves come to him at the moment, and borne him out of the fight. The
Sulṭān, having sustained this defeat, retired towards Ghaznin, and, near the
banks of the Rāwi, a deputation from the Rājah of Jamūn presented themselves.”
THE SHANSABĀNĪAH DYNASTY OF GHAZNĪN.
46I
On the Musalman forces not seeing the Sultan, lamenta-
tion broke from them, until they reached a place where
Another history, written by a Hindu, says Kiḍi [] Rãe commanded his
brother's army, and that, after the Sultan had wounded him in the mouth, he
wounded the Sultan in the head with his spear, and the Sultan received
another wound in the side [by whom inflicted is not said], and he fell from his
horse, when a Khalj youth took him on his own horse, and, placing him before
him, carried him safely out of the fight. Budā'ūni also says the Sulṭān
fell from his horse, and agrees with the above in the last clause of the sentence.
Other authors, including the Tabaķāt-i-Akbari, and Tazkarat-ul-Mulūk,
state that Khani Rãe commanded the van, and was leading on the enemy
when the Sultan attacked him. They state that the Khalj youth was on foot
at the time, and, seeing the state of the Sulṭān, he sprang up behind him,
and carried him out of the mêlée to his own camp, whither his own troops had
retired; and that the panic and anxiety which had arisen on its being found
that the Sulṭān had not come out of the fight with the rest of his army
subsided.
One of the oldest copies of our author's text here differs from the others
collated to a considerable degree. It says that "the Khalj youth recognized
the Sulṭān [in the mêlée and confusion], joined him, and replaced him on the
horse's back [thus implying that he had fallen or had to dismount], cried out
with his voice to urge the horse, and brought the Sultan out of the battle."
This is the literal translation of the passage in that copy; and, in it, there is
no mention of the youth having mounted the horse also.
The Sultan remained at Lahor until his wound was healed before he
returned to Ghaznin.
But what say FIRISHTAH and his translators on this subject?
Dow, vol. i. page 138-9.
"In the year 587, he [Mahommed]
marched again towards Hindostan,
and, proceeding to Ajmere, took the
capital of Tiberhind, where he left
Malleek Zia, with above a thousand
chosen horse, and some foot, to garrison
the place. He himself was upon his
way back, when he heard that Pittu
Ra, the prince of Ajmire, with his
brother Candi Ra, king of Delhi, in
alliance with some other Indian
princes, were marching towards Ti-
berhind, with two hundred thousand
horse, and three thousand elephants.
Mahommed determined to return to
the relief of the garrison. He met the
enemy at the village of Sirauri, upon
the banks of the Sirsutti, fourteen
miles from Tannassar, and eighty from
Delhi, and gave them battle. Upon
the first onset his right and left
wings retired, being outflanked by the
enemy, till, joining in the rear, his
BRIGGS, vol. i. p. 171–173.
"In the year 587, he [Mahomed
Ghoory] marched again to Hindustan,
and, proceeding towards Ajmere, he
took the town of Bituhnda, where he
left Mullik Zeea-ood-Deen Toozuky with
above a thousand chosen horse, and
some foot to form its garrison. While
on his return, he heard that Pithow
Rae, Raja of Ajmeer, with his brother
Chawand Rae, the Raja of Dehly, in
alliance with other Indian princes,
were marching towards Bituhnda with
200,000 horse, and 3000 elephants.
Mahomed Ghoory marched to the
relief of his garrison; but, passing
beyond Bituhnda, he encountered the
enemy at the village of Narain, now
called Tirowry, on the banks of the
Soorsutty, fourteen miles from Thani-
sar, and seventy from Delhy. At the
first onset his right and left wings,
being outflanked, fell back, till, join-
ing in the rear, his army formed a
462
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĀṢIRĪ.
the defeated army was safe from pursuit by the infidels.
army was formed into a circle. Ma-
hommed, who was in person in the
center (sic) of the line when first
formed, was told that his right and
left wings were defeated, and advised
to provide for his own safety. En-
raged at this counsel, he smote the
imprudent adviser, and rushed on
towards the enemy, among whom he
commenced, with a few followers, a
great slaughter. The eyes of Candi
Ra, king of Delhi, fell upon him.
He drove the elephant, upon which he
was mounted, directly against him.
Mahommed, rising from his horse,
threw his lance with such force at the
elephant, that he drove out three of his
Back teeth [the elephant's ! !]. In the
meantime the King of Delhi, from
above, pierced the Sultan through
the right arm, and had almost thrown
him to the ground; when some of his
chiefs advanced to his rescue. This
gave an opportunity, to one of his
faithful servants, to leap behind him
as he was sinking from his horse,
and, supporting him in his arms, he
carried him from the field, which, by
this time, was deserted almost by his
+
whole army. The enemy pursued
them near forty miles."
circle. Mahomed Ghoory was in per-
son in the centre of his line, and,
being informed that both wings were
defeated, was advised to provide for
his own safety. Enraged at this coun-
sel, HE CUT DOWN THE MESSENGER,
and, rushing on towards the enemy,
with a few followers, committed terrible
slaughter. The eyes of Chawand
Rae falling on him, he drove his
elephant directly against Mahomed
Ghoory, who, perceiving his inten-
tion, charged and delivered his lance
full into the Raja's mouth, by which
many of his teeth were knocked out.
In the meantime, the Raja of Dehly
pierced the king through the right
arm, with an ARROW [!!]. He had
almost fallen, when some of his chiefs
advanced to his rescue. This effort
to save him gave an opportunity to
one of his faithful servants to leap up
behind Mahomed Ghoory, who, faint
from loss of blood, had nearly fallen
from his horse, but was carried
triumphantly off the field, although
almost wholly deserted by his army,
which was pursued by the enemy nearly
forty miles," &c.
MAURICE, MURRAY, ELPHINSTONE, MARSHMAN, and MEADOWS TAYLOr,
and probably others, such as MILL and THORNTON, take their accounts from
the above versions of Dow and BRIGGS. Marshman adds, "He was pursued
for forty miles by the victorious Hindoos, and was happy to escape across the
Indus," perhaps unaware that he remained at Lahor till his wound was healed
[as Dow states] and that there was no pursuit at all.
FIRISHTAH, from the revised text of BRIGGS has as follows:-
''In 587 H., he [Shihāb-ud-Din] determined to enter Hindūstān, and he
took the fort of Pathindah [ but the MSS. I have examined have
Baṭhindah ], which, in that day, had become the capital of Rājahs of
great dignity, out of the hands of the men of the Rājah of Ajmir. He left
Malik Ziyā-ud-Din, Tūlaki, in that fortress, with 1200 horsemen, each and
every one of whom was selected and a picked man; and was desirous of
returning. Suddenly, information reached him, that Pitho Rāe, Wāli [a
ruler, a prince, the governor of a province] of Ajmir, in concert with his
brother, Khāndj Rãe, Wāli of Dihli, and bringing along with them several
Rājpūt Rājahs, were advancing, by regular marches, with an army of 200,000
horse, and 3000 elephants, with the determination of retaking the fort of
Pathindah [Bathindah ?]. Sulṭān Shihab-ud-Din, abandoning his intention.
of returning [to Ghaznin], advanced to meet them, and at the mouza' [place,

THE SHANSABĀNĪAH DYNASTY OF CHAZNİN
463
Suddenly the Sultan arrived.
A number of A
Ami
CC
district, village] of Tara'in, on the banks of the Sursuti,
distance of rather less than fourteen miles] from Thānī-sar, now knows
Taιāwarī [but in several MSS of Firishtah, which I have seen, it is jġ
not], and foity kuroh from Dihli, an encounter and conflict took place
The right and left wings of Sultan Shihab-ud-Din having broke and faced
about [it does not say that they were actually broken by the Hindus, and it
appears to mean that they declined the onset, or recoiled], and not a great num-
ber remained in the centre either [There is not a word about his army
forming a circle"] At this juncture one of the Sultan's confidential atten-
dants represented [saying] "the Amīns of the right and left [wings] who were
nourished by the beneficence and favours of your Court [or dynasty] not
keeping their ground resolutely, have taken to flight, and the Afghan [Fish-
tah does not appear to have had authority for introducing Afghāns here, from
the statements of the contemporary wiiters of these times] and Khalj Amīts,
who were the commanders of the advance, who continually boasted of their
valour and prowess, are not to be found [seen], and, should you promptly
[I give the exact words, except adopting the second peison plural for the
third] tuin the reins of retrocession towards Lāhoi, it seems expedient [so to
do]" This speech not agreeing with the Sultan's temperament, he drew his
sword from its sheath, and, with the troops [remaining] of the centre, charged the
enemy's forces and commenced the conflict [Fishtah then quotes some lines
to the effect that both friend and foe lauded his prowess ] Suddenly the eye
of Khāndī Rāe, the Sipah-Sālā [commander of the army] of Dıhlī, falling on
the Sultan, he urged the mountain-like elephant on which he was mounted
towards the Sultān, who at once seized his spear and made towards him, and
smote him in the mouth with such effect, that many of his teeth fell out [äelow]
Khāndī Rāe likewise [1 e „—which Buggs has read for—anow] showed
the greatest audacity and agility, and, from the top of his elephant, inflicted
such a wound [with what weapon not said] on the upper part of the aim [,,b]
of the Sultan that he was nearly falling from his hoise A Khalj youth on
foot [there is not a word about his chiefs coming to his rescue] discovered it,
jumped up behind him on the hoise, and, taking the Sultan in his aims, bore
him out of the battle-field, and conveyed him to the forces of the runaway
nobles which were twenty kuroh off, and the tumult and disquiet which had
aisen, consequent on the defeat of the aimy of Islam, and not finding the
Sultān, subsided "
There is not a word about pursuit
According to the Zain-ul-Ma'aşı, quoted by Fuishtah immediately after
the above, "Sultān Mu'izz-ud-Din, having become faint from the effects of the
wound, fell from his hoise This not being noticed [in the mêlée], no one came
to his aid Night intervened, and, when one watch of the night had passed,
a paity of his Turkish slaves came to seek him, and went into the battle-field
and began searching among the slain The Sultan [who appears to have
ievived], ₁ecognizing the voices of his faithful slaves, acquainted them with
his situation. His slaves gave thanks for his safety, and, taking him on their
shoulders, in tuins, proceeded along throughout the night, and by day-dawn
reached then own people
This battle is said to have taken place in the fifteenth year of the reign of
Rãe Pithora, and the Hindu wiiters state that this was the seventh time the
Sultān had invaded Hind, in all of which he had been defeated '
4 The Malik ul-Ḥājī, Ziyā-ud-Din [subsequently 'Ala-ud-Din], Muham-
mad, the Sultān's mece's husband, was present in this battle. Sec page 393
464
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI

Ghurious, and other distinguished men, had noticed.
Sultan along with that lion-like Khalji, had recognized
{
and had gathered round him, and broke spears and
'made a litter and a stretcher, and had borne him to that
halting-place The people [now] became composed, and
once more, through [the safety of] his life, the true faith
acquired vigour, and the dispersed army, on the strength
of the safety of the life of that Sultān-1-Ghazī, again came
together, and retired, and turned their faces towards the
Musalman dominions.
The Kazi of Tulak' was left [in charge of] the fortress.
of Tabarhındah, and Rãe Pithora appeared before the walls
of that stronghold, and fighting commenced For a period
of thirteen months and a little over the place was defended
The following year the Sultan-i-Ghāzī assembled the
troops of Islam, and commenced his march towards Hin-
dūstān, to avenge the [disaster of the] previous year 7.
The idiom vanes considerably here in nearly every copy Some have-
"On the strength of the safety of that Bādshāh-1-Ghāzī, the army came
together again [01 ₁allied]," &c.
6 The same as mentioned at page 458
no any other
7 I have here also to notice, and enter my protest against, a statement
respecting the character of Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din, which Fishtah's trans-
lators have incorectly given, and which neither Fishtah no any
author asseits In this instance the character of this Prince has been unjustly
assailed, held up in a wrong light, and things are asserted which nev
happened at all
Dow, vol 1 page 139
"Mahommed remained a few months
with his brother at Ghor, who still
kept the imperial title, and then, ic-
turning to Ghizm, spent the ensuing
year in indolence and festivity But,
ambition again fermenting in his
mind, he iccruited a noble army," &c
BRIGGS, Vol 1 page 173
"Mahomed remained a few months
with his brother at Ghoor, who still
retained the title of King [he never lost
the title of Sultān], and then, return-
ing to Ghiny, spent the ensuing year
in pleasure and festivity
At length,
having recruited an army," &c
Fishtah says “Sultān Shihīb-ud-Din, having taken leave of his brother
[at Firūz-koh], proceeded to Ghaznin, and, with the determination of taking
cvcnge [on Pithoiā], having made sleep and rest unlawful to himself [I give
the words literally], m a short time assembled troops, brave and ruthless," &c
This is a specimen of “pleasure and festivity,” certamly
Here is another specimen of the same kind,
after another as undoubtedly true and conect
Dow, page 140
"When his [Mahommed's] victorious
pears had advanced as far as Pak-
te, in old sage of Gher, prostrating
and it is repeated by one water
BRIGGS, page 174
When he had adv inced as far as
Piskarow, an old sage of Gheer,
prostrating himself before him, said,
THE SHANSABĀNĨAH DYNASTY OF GHAZNĨN
465
The author heard from a trustworthy person, a distin-
guished man of the highland district of Tūlak, whom they
used to style by the title of Mu'in-ud-Din, Ūshi", who
said: "I was in that army along with the Sultan-i-Ghāzi,
and the number of cavalry composing the army of Islam
that year was one hundred and twenty thousand arrayed
himself before him, said, 'O King,
we trust to thy conduct and wisdom;
but as yet thy design has been a
subject of much dispute and specu-
lation among us.' Mahommed replied,
'Know, old man, that since the time
of my defeat in Hindostan, notwith-
standing external appearances, I have
never slumbered in ease, or waked
but in sorrow and anxiety. I have
therefore determined, with this army,
to recover my lost honour from those
idolaters, or die in the noble attempt,'
&c.
'O King, we trust in thy conduct and
wisdom; but as yet thy design has
been subject of much speculation
among us.' Mahomed Ghoory replied,
Know, old man, that since the time
of my defeat in Hindustan, notwith-
standing external appearances, I have
never slumbered in ease, or waked
but in sorrow and anxiety. I have
therefore determined, with this army,
to recover my lost honour from those
idolaters, or die in the attempt," &c.
Here, again, ELPHINSTONE has been deceived, and, quoting BRIGGS, further
disseminates a wrong translation. MARSHMAN says [vol. i. p. 44] that "he
[Shahab] stated" this "in one of his letters;" but, unfortunately, Firishtah
himself says nothing of the kind! His words are :-"When his [the Sultan's]
standards, the emblems of victory, reached the Peshawar territory, one of the
Pirs [a holy man, a saint] of Ghūr, who was [sufficiently] bold, bowing his
forehead to the ground [only Pirs are not wont to do so], represented [saying],
'It is not understood at all whither the Sultan goeth, nor what his object is.'
Sulṭān Shihāb-ud-Din replied: ‘O such an one []! know for certain
that, from the time I have been defeated by the Rajahs of Hind, I have
abstained from my wife's bed [I do not give the literal words to this part of the
sentence, but it tends to show that he had but one wife, and his having but
one child appears to prove it], and have not changed the clothes on my body;
and, having passed this year in grief, sorrow, and sadness, I have not per-
mitted the Amirs of Ghur, of the Khalj, and of Khurāsān, who, notwithstand-
ing their ancient servitude, abandoned me in the battle and fled, to present
themselves in my presence, nor have I seen their faces during this period.
Now, placing dependence on the goodness of God, I am proceeding towards
the country of Hind; and I have no expectation of the services of those old
[ancient] Amirs, who, from their cradles to this time, have been nourished by
the favours of this [my] family.' The Pir, hearing this statement, kissed the
ground of service, and said, 'Victory and success attend the followers at the
sovereign's stirrup,'" &c. This is rather different to the statements above.
* The name of a town of Farghānah, and also of a place near Baghdād.
The person here referred to is no other than the celebrated Mu'in-ud-Din,
Chisti, whose tomb is at Ajmir, and so much frequented. The Emperor
Akbar paid several visits to it. Some writers say that he only came into India
towards the close of Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din's career, and stayed to propagate
the Musalman faith.
466
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĂȘIRĪ.
in defensive armour." When the Sultan-i-Ghāzi with such-
like organization and such a force arrived near unto Rãe
Kolah Pithora, he had gained possession of the fortress of
Tabarhindah by capitulation, and had pitched his camp in
the neighbourhood of Tara'in'. The Sultan [now] made
9 It does not appear to have been steel armour. The meaning of the word
used is, "a covering, a garment, vestment worn in battle, and also put on
horses ;"-defensive armour of some sort, some of steel, perhaps, and some of
leather. This is what Firishtah appears to have turned into "helmets inlaid
with jewels, and armour inlaid with silver and gold."
¹ See note', page 459. Hasan Nizāmi, in the Taj-ul-Ma'āṣir, a contem-
porary writer, who began his work the year before Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din's
assassination, and who begins with this expedition, does not mention where this
battle took place, but mentions that Sulṭān Mu'izz-ud-Din, on reaching Lāhor,
despatched the Sadr-i-Kabir, Ķiwām-ul-Mulk [these are his titles, not his
name], Rukn [Rúhu is a mistake]-ud-Din, Ḥamzah, to Ajmir to offer his ulti-
matum to Pithorā Rāe; but his inflated style greatly obscures the details.
Some writers state that two emissaries were sent. The Sultan called upon
Pithorā Rãe to embrace the Musalman faith and acknowledge his supremacy.
The Chohan prince sent an indignant reply; and, having received aid from
most of the Rājahs of Hind, with 300,000 horse-Rājpūts, and some Afghāns,
one author says-advanced to meet him, and they again met on the former
battle-field. Pithorā Rāe sent a message to the Sultan, saying, "It is advisable
thou shouldst retire to thine own territory, and we will not follow thee." The
Sulṭān, in order to deceive him, and throw him off his guard, replied: "It is
by command of my brother, my sovereign, that I come here and endure trouble
and pain: give me sufficient time that I may despatch an intelligent person to
my brother, to represent to him an account of thy power, and that I may obtain
his permission to conclude a peace with thee under the terms that Tarhind
[Tabarhindah], the Panjab, and Multān shall be ours, and the rest of the
country of Hind thine." The leaders of the infidel forces, from this reply,
accounted the army of Islām as of little consequence, and, without any care or
concern, fell into the slumber of remissness. That same night the Sultan made
his preparations for battle, and, after the dawn of the morning, when the Rāj-
pūts had left their camp for the purpose of obeying the calls of nature, and for
the purpose of performing their ablutions, he entered the plain with his ranks.
marshalled. Although the unbelievers were amazed and confounded, still, in
the best manner they could, they stood to fight, and sustained a complete over-
throw. Khandi Rae [the Gobind Rãe of our author], and a great number
besides of the Rães of Hind, were killed, and Pithorā Rāe was taken prisoner
within the limits of Sursuti, and put to death."
There are, however, other versions of these events which, although partly
traditionary, bear some measure of truth, and it will be well to notice them.
The History of Jamun, which agrees in some measure with the Rājpūt tra-
ditions, states that Pithorā Rāe, having been apprised by certain informers of
the part the Rājah Bij, or Bijayi Diw, had taken in aiding the Musalmāns,
proposed to march against him, and chastise him. At this juncture, hostility
arose between Pithorā Rāe and Rājah Jai Chandra, ruler of Kinnauj [the
details of which are too long for insertion here], respecting his daughter. In
588 H., Sulṭān Shihāb-ud-Din, having learned the state of Pithorā Rāe's
affairs, prepared to avenge his previous defeat; and Bijayi Diw, Rajah of
THE SHANSABANIAH DYNASTY OF GHAZNĪN.
467
disposition of his forces. The centre division of the army,
the baggage, the standards and banners, his canopy of
Jamūn, despatched his son, Nar-singh Diw, with a body of his forces to join
him, and Rajah Jai Chandra of Kinnauj, who had been in communication with
the Sultan [TOD also says "the Princes of Kanouj and Putun invited Shabudin
[Shihab-ud-Din ?] to aid their designs of humiliating the Chohan [Rãe Pithorā].
•
The envoy was Chand Poondir, the vassal chief of Lahore, and guardian
of that frontier, speedily joined his camp with his available forces"! vol. i.
page 256.] Perhaps the writer was unaware that Lahor had been in the
possession of the Ghaznawids for more than a century, and that Shabudin, so
called, had only taken it from the last of that dynasty five or six years before,
and since that time his own governor had held it. The Sultan came in con-
tact with Rãe Pithora on that same field of Talāwaṛi, and formed his forces
into two divisions. The troops of Jamun and Ķinnauj were to oppose Khandi
Rãe of Dihli, while the Sulṭān, with his own forces, encountered Rãe Pithorā.
The battle was obstinately maintained, and it is related that Khāndi Rāe fell
by the sword of Nar-singh Diw of Jamun, and the Sultan himself slew several
of the enemy. Rãe Pithora was captured alive and taken to Ghaznin, where
he was deprived of his sight. For further details on this subject, see page 485,
note 3.
Alfi gives another version of this battle, which is certainly curious. It
states that the Sulṭān, having taken the route by Purshor, arrived within the
limits of Dihli [the territory of ?]. Pitho Rae and Kandi [sic] Rãe prepared
to oppose him, on which Mu'izz-ud-Din made a precipitate retreat. Rãe Pitho
was following in pursuit of him until they had passed beyond Lāhor, and had
reached the mouza' [village or district] called Shihāb-ud-Din [Shihāb-ud-Din-
pur?], when the Sultan came to a stand. His object in retiring had been to
separate Rãe Pitho from his own territory; and, at the place above mentioned,
a battle took place, in which Rae Pitho was defeated and taken prisoner.
After this the Sulṭān advanced upon Ajmir. He subdued that territory, and
put Rãe Pitho to death; after which he made Ķutb-ud-Din, Ï-bak, governor
of it, and returned to Ghaznin.
Another writer states that "Pithorā Rāe was killed in the battle, and
Khandi Rae, the leader, escaped in safety;" whilst another says that "both
were captured and slain."
The statements of both Dow and BRIGGS are equally imaginary with respect
to the battle, where they say :—
Dow, vol. i. page 142.
"The Mussulman troops, as if now
only serious in fight, made such dread-
ful slaughter, that this prodigious
army, once shaken, like a great build-
ing was lost in its own ruins.”
BRIGGS, vol. i. page 177.
"The Moslems, as if they now had
only began to be in earnest, com-
mitted such havoc, that this pro-
digious army, once shaken, like a
great building tottered to its fall, and
was lost in its own ruins.”
This last sentence is quoted by several writers, including MAURICE,
ELPHINSTONE and MARSHMAN; and MEADOWS TAYLOR says ["The Student's
Manual of Indian History," page 92], “‘Like a great building,' writes Ferishtah,
'it tottered to its fall,'" &c. ; but, unfortunately, Firishtah never wrote anything
of the kind. His language here is particularly simple. Referring to the final
charge by the Sulṭān, he says: "The dust of the battle-field was drenched with
the blood of the brave; and, in the twinkling of an eye, he threw the ranks of
468
••
THE TABAKAT-I-NAŞIRI.
state, and the elephants, were left several miles in the rear.
He marshalled his ranks, and was advancing leisurely.
The light-armed and unincumbered horsemen he had
directed should be divided into four divisions, and had
appointed them to act against the infidels on four sides;
and the Sultan had commanded, saying: "It is necesssary
that, on the right and left, and front and rear, 10,000
mounted archers should keep the infidel host in play; and,
when their elephants, horsemen, and foot advance to the
attack, you are to face about and keep the distance of a
horse's course in front of them'." The Musalman troops
acted according to these instructions, and, having ex-
hausted and wearied the unbelievers, Almighty God gave
the victory to Islām, and the infidel host was overthrown.
Rae Pithora, who was riding an elephant, dismounted
and got upon a horse and fled [from the field], until, in the
neighbourhood of [the] Sursuti³, he was taken prisoner,
and they despatched him to hell; and Gobind Rãe of
Dihli was slain in the engagement. The Sultan recognized
his head through those two teeth which had been broken.
The seat of government, Ajmir, with the whole of the
Siwālikh [territory], such as Hānsi, Sursuti, and other
4
the enemy into commotion. At this crisis Khar-mil ['Izz-ud-Din, Ḥusain, son
of Khar-mil] and other Amirs, from different directions, charged, and over-
threw the Hindu troops." This is all he then mentions the fall of Khāndi
Rãe and other chiefs.
2 The object was to harass, and to induce them to break their order. The
Sultan's tactics, from our author's description, as well as that of others, are not
One writer, however, throws a little more light upon the matter;
very clear.
and from that it appears that the Sultan, leaving the central portion of his
army- about half his entire force-some miles in the rear, with the baggage and
other matériel, divided the remainder into five divisions, four of which, each of
10,000 light-armed horse-mounted archers-were to attack the enemy right
and left, and front and rear, and retire, pretending flight. This mode of
fighting having been carried on from about 9 A. M. to the time of afternoon
prayer, the Sultan, considering that the enemy had been sufficiently wearied,
with the remainder-his fifth division, the flower of his troops, consisting of
some 12,000 horse-made a final charge, and put the Hindu army to a
complete rout.
3 The ancient Saraswati.
Sursuti : the word is
Probably our author means in the tract near the
Ibn-i-Baṭūṭah calls Sursuti a great city. In
Akbar's time Sursuti was one of the Mahalls of Sirkar Sanbhal.
4 Like some other historians, our author calls that tract of country, lying
south of the Himalayah, between the Sutlaj and the Ganges, and extending as
far south as Hansi, by the name of Siwālikh; but some other native writers,
including the author of the History of Jamun, include the whole of the Alpine
THE SHANSABANIAH DYNASTY OF GHAZNIN.
469
tracts, were subjugated. These events took place, and this
victory was achieved, in the year 588 H.5; and the Sulṭān
placed Malik Kutb-ud-Din, I-bak, in the fort of Kuhṛām²,
and returned [home again].
Malik Kutb-ud-Din advanced from Kuhṛām to Mirath,
and took that city and fortress, and, in the following year,
he possessed himself of the capital city, Dihli'. In this same
tracts below the higher range, from the Ganges to Kashmir, that is to say,
the extreme northern boundary of India - under the name of Koh-i-Siwälikh.
Another writer says Siwālikh is the ancient name of the territory of Nag-awr.
See page 200 also. The Sultan returned to Ghaznin along the skirts of the
hills of the northern Panjab.
5 Authors generally agree respecting this date; but, as already noticed, our
author, in another place, states this was the year in which the campaign against
Sulṭān Shāh took place. See note 2, page 456.
6 For the meaning of I-bak, see under his reign, next Section.
7 As written with the vowel points—not Kahrām.
8 Our author leaves out entirely all mention of the son of Rãe Pithorā having
been set up at Ajmir as a subject and tributary ruler, as mentioned in the
Tāj-ul-Ma'āṣir and subsequent histories; and hence his name, together with
the Sultan's also, was impressed on the coins issued by him during the short
period he ruled at Ajmir.
9 Mr. E. Thomas [COINS OF THE PATHAN KINGS OF DEHLÍ], page 22,
note ¹, says "The historical evidence as to the capture of Dehli by the Moslems,
in 587 H., is complete and consistent with the best authorities," &c. He is
mistaken, however, even on his own authorities. Hasan Nizāmi, in the Tāj-
ul-Ma'āṣir [Elliot, vol. ii. page 216], gives no date at all; but, in the following
page, says, "in the month of Ramazán [which is the ninth month], 588 H.,'
Kutb-ud-Din “marched against Fatwán” to relieve Hānsi. After this he
marched against Mirath and took it; and, after that again, marched towards
Dihli, and invested and took it [page 219]. I have compared the text of the
Tāj-ul-Ma'āṣir, and find the above date quite correct. Our author, Minhāj-i-
Sarāj [the version given at page 300 of ELLIOT, which is evidently translated
from the printed text, is incorrect and imperfect], who often contradicts his
own statements and dates, after saying here that the overthrow of Rãe Pithorā
took place in 588 H., in his account of Ķutb-ud-Din, farther on, says that
Kutb-ud-Din took possession of Mirath in 587 H.; but immediately endeavours
to correct himself, and says: "From Mirath he issued forth, in the year 588 H.,
and captured Dihli; and, in the year 590 H.,” accompanied the Sulṭān against
Jai-Chand, &c. The fact is that the Hindus, having been overthrown in
588 H., in the battle of Tara'in, Ķutb-ud-Din was left at Kuhṛām, from which,
towards the close of the same year, he moved against Jatwan, and relieved
Hānsi, and then proceeded against Mirath. These movements must have
occupied some three months, and, in the last days of 588 11., or carly in 589 H.,
he invested Dihli, and gained possession of it. Some works, however, such
as the Ṭabaķāt-i-Akbari, Haft-Iķlim, Khulāṣat-ut-Tawārikḥ, and Firishtah,
say Dihli was taken in 588 H. The Lubb-ut-Tawarikh-i-Hind says, "Mu'izz-
ud-Din advanced against Dihli, after taking Ajmir, and, on the kinsman of
Rãe Pithora and Khandi [Gobind ?] Rae, who then held possession of it,
tendering tribute and submission, he was allowed to retain it; and the next
470
THE TABAKAT-I-NĂŞIRĪ.
year likewise—589 H.—he [Kutb-ud-Din] took the fort of
Kol. In the year 590 H., the Sultan [again] marched from
Ghaznin and advanced towards Ķinnauj and Banaras, and, in
the vicinity of Chandwar', he overthrew Rãe Jai-Chand 2,
and by that victory three hundred and odd elephants fell
into his hands.
Under the shadow of the ascendancy and auspices of
that victorious and just monarch, victory was conferred
upon his slave, the Malik-i-Karim [the Beneficent Malik],
Kutb-ud-Din, I-bak, so that he continued to subdue the
territory of Hindūstān and parts adjacent, namely, the
state of Nahrwālah, and Thankir³, the fort of Gwāliyūr,
year, 589 H., Kutb-ud-Din, who had been left at Kuhṛām, took it, and made
it the seat of government ;" and, in this, the works quoted above agree. The
statement of our author, backed by the statement of Fasih-i, and the Tāj-ul-
Ma'āṣir, and some others, is to be depended upon; but 587 H. is out of the
question altogether, although that year is given in the Khulāṣat-ul-Akhbar, and
one or two others. If 587 H. is correct, in what year was Rãe Pithorā defeated
the first time? See also note 2, page 456. The year 589 H. is a somewhat
remarkable one:-Dihli was made the capital of Muḥammadan India; Richard
Coeur de Lion fought in Palestine; Ṣalaḥ-ud-Din, Yūsuf, Sulṭān of Mișr, died;
and Changiz Khān entered into friendly relations with Ūng Khãn.
In some copies Chandwal and Jandwal, and in some other authors Chand-
wär
war and Chandawar. The only place bearing a similar name at this time, and
in the direction indicated, is what is styled Chandpur and Chandanpūr, in the
district of Farrukhābād, on the route from Bareili to Fath-ghar, Lat. 27° 27',
Long. 79° 42'.
2 That is, he turned his arms against Kinnauj and Banāras. The Rajah of
Ķinnauj and Banāras, his former ally, according to the Hindu accounts,
against Rãe Pithorā, had assembled numerous forces, in consequence of Kutb-
ud-Din, Ï-bak's, aggressive policy, and was about to march against him. It
was to support Kutb-ud-Din that the Sultan again came into India, and an
encounter [the Hindu writers say "several" encounters] took place between
them on the Jūn [Jamna], in which the Rājah [Jai Chandra] was slain. Some
say as many as 600 and 640 elephants, one of which was a white one, were
captured, besides a vast amount of other booty. The white elephant is pro-
bably the same as was presented subsequently by Ghiyaṣ-ud-Din, Maḥmūd,
the Sultan's nephew, to Sulṭān Muḥammad, Khwārazm Shāh. Firishtah says
the white elephant, which was taken on this occasion, soon after died. Jai-
Chandra was killed in this action, and his body could not be recognized. At
leng h, after much search, a body was found, but was so disfigured with wounds
that it could not be distinguished for certain by his people; but, on examining
the mouth, it was found to be the body of the Rājah, from the fact of his teeth
being fastened in with pegs of gold [signifies a peg, pin, &c., not a plate],
he being an old man. The probability is they were false teeth, or a set not
his own, fastened by gold pins or wires. His stronghold, Asni, was also
taken.
3 Here our author seems confused. In his account of Kutb-ud-Din, he
does not say that Ķutb-ud-Din took Thankir, quite the contrary; and, in his
THE SHANSABANĨAH DYNASTY OF GHAZNİN.
471
and Buda in, the whole of which he took, the dates of
every one of which will, .please God, be subsequently
recorded in the [account of the] Kutbi victories ¹.
When the august Sultan, Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din, Muḥammad,
son of [Baha-ud-Din] Sām, departed this life in the city of
Hirāt, the victorious Sultan, Mu'izz-ud-Din, Muḥammad,
son of Sam, was on the frontiers of Tūs, and Sarakhs, of
Khurasan, and, with the purpose of performing the
account of Bahā-ud-Din, Tughril [Section XX.], says that Sulṭān Mu'izz-ud-
Din himself took it, and afterwards made it over to Tughril, which is correct.
There is great discrepancy here, too, among authors. The Taj-ul-Ma'āṣir,
Allis and others, say the Sultan marched against it, and then marched on
Gwaliyur, the Rajah of which agreed to pay tribute, and paid a large sum
down.
He was allowed to retain his territory, on these terms, for a time; and
the Sultan returned to Ghaznin. Alfi says he took Thankir, the present
afanah, in 590 H.; Budā’ūni says 591 H. ; and Tāj-ul-Ma'āṣir says in 592 H.
See account of Kutb-ud-Din, next Section.
4 That is to say, the victories gained by Kutb-ud-Din, Ï-bak.
5 We now come to "Proceedings West of the Indus" [See Elliot, INDIA,
vol. ii. page 297], and very important proceedings they are; and most of the
proceedings hitherto related by our author have occurred west of the Indus.
Ghaznin, as well as Ghur, is west of the Indus. Our author takes good care
to trumpet the successes of the Ghūris, but conceals their reverses. He appears
to have forgotten that, when Sulṭān Mu'izz-ud-Din left Tūs, and abandoned
the expedition against Khurāsān, on receiving intimation of the death of his
elder brother at Hirāt, he left, in command of a large force at Tūs, and parts
around, Muḥammad-i-Khar-nak, the chief of the Amirs of Ghur, and of the
Ghurian champions, a second Rustam in valour. He began carrying his
depredations as far as Abiward, made some of the Khwārazmi nobles captive,
and slew a great number of men. Subsequently, he pushed on as far as Trāķ
against Taj-ud-Din, Khalj, a Khwārazmi officer. The latter sent his son to
Muḥammad-i-Khar-nak as a hostage for himself; and, on the return of the
latter towards Tūs again, the Amir of Maraghah sent his son to him also.
Muḥammad-i-Khar-nak, becoming arrogant at this success, turned his face
towards Marw. News now reached him that a force from Khwarazm had
arrived near Marw by way of the desert. He advanced to meet it by way of
Rue. When the two armies came in contact, good fortune smiled upon the
Khwārazmi forces; and, although Muḥammad-i-Khar-nak's troops were twice
as numerous, the Khwārazmis charged them, and overthrew them. Muḥam-
mad-i-Khar-nak, by a thousand contrivances, succeeded in throwing himself
into Tūs.
The Khwārazmi troops followed, made breaches in the walls, and
took him captive; and, fearing his fury likewise, one of the Amirs-Amin
Malik [styled, by our author, Malik Khan, of Hirāt, the Amin-i-Ḥājib, at
page 415, and see page 287, note 9]—struck off his head, and despatched it to
Khwārazm to the Sultan. He greatly disapproved of this act, but it filled
Sulṭān Mu'izz-ud-Din with amazement and anxiety, for Muḥammad-i-Khar-
nak was the most valiant of his champions, and the pillar of his army. Such
was his intrepidity, and the strength of his arm, that the Sultans frequently
pitted him in combat against the lion and the elephant, and he could overcome
both, and could break the leg of a three-year old horse with his hands.
This
472
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĂȘIRĪ.
7
mourning ceremonies for his brother, he came to Badghais
of Hirāt. Having performed the mourning rites, he nomi-
nated different Maliks to the several fiefs of the kingdom
of Ghūr. He gave the city of Bust, and the listricts of
Farah and Isfizār to his late brother's son, Sultan Ghiyāṣ-
ud-Din, Maḥmud, son of Ghiyas-ud-Din, Muḥammad-i-
Sām, and to Malik Ziyā-ud-Din ', the Pearl of Ghur, who
was uncle's son of both the Sultans, and the son-in-law of
Sultan Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din, Muḥammad-i-Sām, the territory of
Ghur and Garmsir, namely, the throne of Firuz-koh, and
the town and territory of Dawar, and also presented him
with two elephants. To Malik Naşir-ud-Din, Alb-[Ar
salān]-i-Ghāzi, son of Ķazil Arsalān, Saljūķi, who was the
son of a sister' of the two Sultāns, Sultān Mu'izz-ud-Din
gave the city of Hirat [and its dependencies], after which
is the person styled Mahomed Zeeruk, Prince of Murv, by Briggs; and Zireek,
Prince of Murve, by Dow. In the revised text of Firishtah, his name is
[Khair Beg] !
turned into
•
It was after this defeat of Muḥammad-i-Khar-nak that Sultan Muhammad,
Khwārazm Shah, was urged by his ministers and nobles to advance against
Hirāt, as the sons [son and son-in-law] of the late Sultan Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din,
Muḥammad-i-Sām, were quarrelling about the inheritance, and their nobles
were inclined to join his service. Consequently, in Jamādi-ul-Awwal, 600 H.,
the Sultan marched towards Hirāt for the second time, and Alb-i-Ghāzi, the
sister's son of the two Sultan brothers, surrendered that stronghold to him, as
already related in note 2, page 257. Muḥammad-i-Khar-nak must be the same
person as is referred to at page 344, the son of Malik Saif-ud-Din, Sūri, son
of Malik Shihab-ud-Din, Khar-nak [son of 'Izz-ud-Din, Al-Husain], the uncle
of the Sultāns Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din and Mu'izz-ud-Din; and the former's full name
would be Shihāb-ud-Dīn, Muḥammad 'Ali-i-Khar-nak, and he was second
cousin of Mu'izz-ud-Din and his brother.
My note 2, page 257, will show why and with what object the Sultan was
between Tūs and Sarakhs, where he heard of his brother's death.
• He divided the ancestral dominions amongst the family of Sam. His
brother had died in the fifth month of 599 H., and, from this date only, authors
state, "he assumed the title of Sultan ;" but this must mean, that from that
date he assumed the title of Sultan-ul-A'zam-the greatest Sultan-which had
been his brother and sovereign's title; his own, previous to his brother's death,
being only Sultān-ul-Mu'azzam-the great Sultān-as shown by his coins.
7 This is the Malik-ul-Haji, who, after he received the investiture of Ghūr
and Firūz-koh, received the title of Sulṭān 'Ala-ud-Din. See pages 391, 397,
and 417.
8 Here, too, the idiom differs in the copies of the text in the same manner
as previously alluded to.
9 One sister, the elder, married Shams-ud-Din, Muḥammad, of Bāmiān;
another married Alb-Arsalan-i-Ghāzi, son of Ķazil Arsalān, Saljūķi; and the
third was the mother of Tāj-ud-Din, Zangi; but the father is not mentioned.
See page 342, and note 3, page 425.
THE SHANSABĀNIAH DYNASTY OF GHAZNĪN.
473
he returned again to Ghaznin, and brought along with
him to that city some of the Amirs and Maliks of Ghūr
to serve under him, and commenced his preparations for
an expedition against Khwārazm ¹.
In the year 601 H., he marched his forces into the
Khwārazm territory; and Sultan Muḥammad, Khwārazm
Shah, fell back discomfited' before the Ghaznin forces and
1 This expedition was undertaken to recover what had been lost, and avenge
the defeat and death of Muḥammad-i-Khar-nak. See note 2, page 257.
2 Sultan Muḥammad's "falling back discomfitted" appears from the sequel.
The Sultan's object was to defend his capital. No action whatever took place
between them until the Ghūris appeared in the neighbourhood of the city, and
took up a position east of the Shatt mentioned under.
Sultan Muḥammad, Khwārazm Shah, having become aware of Mu'izz-ud-.
Din's designs of carrying war into his enemy's country, and his vast pre-
parations, hastened back from Khurāsān, by way of the desert, to Khwārazm;
and his people prepared to give the Ghūris a warm reception. The Sulṭān
asked for aid from Khurāsān, both in shape of horse and foot, and Gūr Khān
of Kara-Khita was also asked for assistance. Sultan Muḥammad's camp
was fixed on the western bank of the Shatt-i-Nūdwar or Nūdawar []
-our author's Kara-Su, no doubt, but another work says the bank of the
Nur-and, in a short space of time, 70,000 men assembled. "The Ghurian
forces were vast in numbers, and contained so many elephants,” says Vāfa-i,
'that, had they desired, they might have drained the Jiḥun." But, setting
aside all exaggeration, the number is said to have been 140,000 men, and
about 300 or 400 great elephants. The Jami'-ut-Tawarikh, which constantly
copies Yafa-i, says 70,000 warriors, and elephants [besides followers ?].
Arrived on the banks of the Jiḥun, Mu'izz-ud-Din, Ghūri, took up a
position on the east side of the Shatt, and pitched his camp, and gave
orders to search for a ferry in order to cross over next day, and attack the
Khwārazmi forces.
Sulṭān Mu'izz-ud-Din was engaged in arranging his elephants, and making
his preparations for crossing next morning at dawn, when news, suddenly and
unexpectedly, reached him that Sultan Muḥammad had arrived, and along
with him Sultan 'Usman of Samrkand [his son-in-law subsequently] and that
the Khita-i forces were pushing on. Mu'izz-ud-Din, finding that he was much
in the same position as the "Lords of the Elephant "- "Hast thou not beheld
how the Lord of Lords dealt with the Lords of the Elephant? Did He not
make their evil design the means of drawing them into error, and sent
against them flocks of birds, which cast upon them lumps of burnt clay which
rendered the perfidious like unto the corn that has been reaped ?" [Ķur'ān:
Chap. c. 5]—and that destruction awaited him if he remained, resolved to
retire. He directed that the whole of the heavy material should be burnt
during the night, and his army began to retire along the banks of the Jiḥūn,
but they were pursued by the Khwārazmis next day at dawn, and, at Hazār-
Asp [afterwards destroyed by the Mughals. Guzidah and Jāmi'-ut-Tawarikh
call it Hazar-Ṣat], the Ghūris faced about and came to a stand, and drew up to
fight. Sultan Muḥammad, with his forces, fell upon the right wing of the
Ghūris, and overthrew it, and the rest gave way, pursued by the Khwarazmis.
In this affair several of the Amirs of Ghūr, and a great number of men were
Hh
t
474
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĂŞIRÏ.
retired to Khwārazm. When the Sultan-i-Ghāzi appeared
before the gates of Khwārazm, and carried on hostilities
for some days, the people of Khwārazm commenced en-
gaging the Ghūris on the bank³ of the aqueduct which
had been drawn from the river Jiḥun towards the east of
the city, and the name of which place and water is Ķarā-
Sū
Su' [the Black Water], and of the Amirs of Ghur several
persons were slain and taken prisoners in that engage-
4
ment.
5
As the capture of [the city of] Khwārazm was not accom-
plished on account of the scarcity of the appliances of the
Ghaznin forces, the length of the campaign, and the lack
of forage, the Sulṭān withdrew his troops from the gates of
Khwārazm and retired along the banks of the Jiḥun, and
towards Balkh. The forces of Khita, and the Maliks and
Amirs of Turkistān had arrived on the banks of the Jiḥūn,
and had possessed themselves of the route of the army of
Islām. When the Sultan-i-Ghāzi reached Andkhūdº,
a Tuesday, at the time of evening prayer, the van of the
infidels of Turkistān reached the Sultan's position, and set to
to fight. The commander of the van of the army of Islām
was the Sālār [chief, leader, &c.], Husain-i-Khar-mil, and he
put the infidels to the rout. He was one of the Maliks of
on
taken prisoners. After a time the Khwārazmis gave up the pursuit, and Sulṭān
Muḥammad returned to Khwārazm, where he gave a great banquet, and made
great rejoicing.
In this action the Ghūris lost still more of their war material and elephants,
and they continued their retreat towards Andkhūd [Guzidah says, within
the limits of Tal-kan] and, on reaching it, found that the troops of Gur Khan
of Karā-Khiṭā, under Baniko of Taraz, were there posted to bar their retreat,
and appeared on all sides of them. The Ghūris fought with great bravery
from dawn to the setting of the sun, and darkness put an end to the fray, in
which, according to Yafa-i, the Ghūris lost 50,000 men. Jāmi'-ut-Tawarikh
says the Ghūris were broken on the first charge of the Khita-is. See following
page for a specimen of our author's exaggeration.
Some copies have "on the hither side or bank of the aqueduct "!
4 The Ķarā-Sū is some eight or nine miles from the city-or rather the
city here referred to.
5 Almost as absurd a reason as our Central Asian oracles pronounced would
render the success of the Russians against the same territory "utterly impos-
sible," a few months ago. Mu'izz-ud-Din was only five days before the place.
The preceding note 2 shows why the Ghūris had to retire.
6 Not Andkhod. See note on this in the account of Kaba-jah farther on.
7 He is particular about the day of the week and time of day, but not the
day of the month.
THE SHANSABĀNĨAH DYNASTY OF GHAZNİN.
475
Juzarwan. He at once represented to the Sultan-i-Ghāzi
the fact of the success of the Islāmi forces and the repulse [!]
of the infidel troops. "It is advisable," he said, "that the
sovereign of Islam should command that the army of
Islām should mount at once and pursue the routed infidels,
and fall upon them unexpectedly, whereby a great victory
may be achieved."
The Sultan-i-Ghazi replied: "For years past I have
been seeking such an encounter as this. I shall not be
found to hold back: to-morrow, at dawn, by the guidance
of the Most High, we will do battle face to face, and see
unto whom Almighty God will bestow the victory. I shall
at least have acquired the merit of having fought for the
faith as by creed enjoined." Malik 'Izz-ud-Din, Husain,
son of Khar-mil', perceiving that the mind of the Sultan-i-
Ghāzi was imbued with this intention, was convinced that
the Sultan gave vent to these words by virtue of unbounded
reliance in the true faith, and the ardour of piety; [for
regard had to be given to the fact] on the other hand, that
the host of the infidels which had come upon them was
countless, and all fresh and calm, while the Musalmān
army was wearied by the march from Khwārazm, and the
horses were emaciated, and would not be strong enough to
withstand the enemy; and he withdrew from the service
of the Sultan, and, with the whole of his retinue and fol-
lowers, to the number of five thousand horse, set out, at
night, towards Juzarwān', and almost all the troops [also]
whose horses were weak and emaciated departed.
8 This place has been often mentioned as Guzarwan and as above : g and j
are interchangeable.
• In the next paragraph our author contradicts this absurd statement.
1 The same who after this was Wali of Hirāt. His conduct here was in
keeping with his doings there. See note 2, page 257.
modern copy.
2 One copy only has "the town of Jüzarwan," but it is a comparatively
There was a town, probably, as well as a district so called.
This desertion of the Sultan by 'Izz-ud-Din, Husain, son of Khar-mil, ap-
pears to have given rise to the improbable story related by Firishtah and some
others, and repeated by Briggs in his translation of Firishtah, but Dow does
not give the whole. This story is repeated and re-echoed by Briggs' copyists,
and people are led to imagine that Sulṭān Mu'izz-ud-Din's most trusted, most
devoted, and loyal slave, whom he delighted to honour, and whom he intended
as his successor, had refused to admit his master and sovereign into Ghaznin,
of which he is styled governor, after the Sultān's defeat and accommodation with
the allied forces of Khiṭā and Sulṭān 'Uṣmān. We know that Tāj-ud-Din,
H h 2
476
THE TABAKAT-1-NĀṢIRĪ.
In the morning, notwithstanding that only a few horse-
men of the centre division and his own slaves remained
1
I-yal-dūz, held the government of Kaṛman, but where is it stated that he held
Ghaznin at all at that time? It appears that he had not been removed from
Kaṛman up to the period of the Sultan's death, and the honour shown to him
by Mu'izz-ud-Din, only a few months after his return from Khwārazu, when
marching against the Khokhars, precludes the possibility of I-yal-dūz's having
acted in the way asserted by Firishtah; and it was only when Ghiyāṣ-ud-
Din, Maḥmūd, conferred on him the investiture of Ghaznin, with a deed of
manumission, and the title of Sultan, that he proceeded thither from his
government of Kaṛmān. See page 500, note 3. It is also stated that another
of Sulṭān Mu'izz-ud-Din's chiefs "went straight" from the field of battle at
Andkhud to 'Mooltan," and seized it. Where Andkhud? Where Multān?
This story, absurd though it seems, appears to have emanated from the
Tāj-ul-Ma'āṣir, and something similar is related in Guzidah, the Jami'-ut-
Tawarikh, and in Alfi, noticed farther on; but no mention whatever is made
in these works about closing the gates of Ghaznin by I-yal-dūz [Īladd-giz, in
Guzidah] or any other person; and it appears to have received great ampli-
fication from Firishtah himself, for the Tabakat-i-Akbari, a work of authority,
written a few years before, says not one word about anything of the kind.
See also note ¹, page 481. The Taj-ul-Ma'aṣir has the name of this rebel
written in four different ways, in as many copies of the text, namely, Ï-bak-i-
Bāk […], Ī-bak-i-Na-pāk [], and the unintelligible names of
Jḥ alio' or ', but in a fourth JJ without points. [It is evidently the
same name as occurs in Jāmi'-ut-Tawārikh—Lik-Tāl [J. Guzidah styles
him Ī-bak, Badshah of Multān! !] "a Turki slave—one of the most trusted
servants of the kingdom fled from the field of battle with the Khwārazmis,
thinking that the Sultan had been killed, and some calamity had befallen the
state, and made for Multan with all possible despatch. Arrived there, he
stated to the Amir-i-Dad [chief justice], Hasan, that he had important matters
to communicate to him in private within the Kasr, by the royal command,
and which it was by no means advisable should become known to others."
Having succeeded in getting a private audience, he gave a sign "to a mean
Turk" who assassinated the Amir-i-Dad, who appears to have held the chief
authority there under the governor of the province of Lahor and Multān,
Amir Muḥammad, son of Abi 'Ali. For some time this affair remained
secret, and it was thought that Hasan had been imprisoned by the Sultan's
commands; but, at length, it became noised abroad, far and near, through
Hind and Sind. See note, page 481. The Taj-ul-Ma'aṣir then passes,
at once, to the outbreak of the Kokars [Khokhars-natives of Khurāsān and
Europeans generally leave out the h in pronunciation of the Hindi ],
while Firishtah gives a long account of the slave's reduction and punishment.
He says, “the Sulṭān, unable to enter Ghaznin, proceeded towards Multān,
encountered Ï-bak-i-Na-pāk [otherwise Val-bur, &c.], took him captive, and
marched towards Ghaznin with the frontier troops of Hind." At Ghaznin,
the Sultan, through the intercession of the great men of that city, overlooked
the conduct of Īladd-giz [this is the name Guzidah and Firishtah use for
this personage, and Val-dūz, for Tāj-ud-Din, I-yal-dūz], and, having disposed
of that matter, entered into a treaty of peace with Sultan Muḥammad,
Khwārazm Shāh, and, after that, made preparations for his expedition
against the Khokhars. Firishtah, like some other more modern writers,
THE SHANSABANĨAH DYNASTY OF GHAZNIN.
477
with him, the Sultan drew out his ranks and commenced
the engagement. The army of the unbelievers, having
formed a circle round about the troops of Islam, came on,
and, in despite of the remonstrance his slaves were using
that of the army of Islām only a small number of men
remained, and that it was advisable to retreat, the Sultan-i-
Ghāzi still continued to maintain his position, until, of cavalry
and his own personal slaves³, only about one hundred horse-
men remained, who, with a few elephants, the Turkish slaves,
and the Ghūrian leaders, who were the Sultan's grandees,
in front of his charger's head, were hurling back the infidels,
devoting their lives, and obtaining martyrdom.
Trustworthy persons have related on this wise, that the
Sultan-i-Ghāzi stood his ground so persistently that his
august state canopy, from the wounds of the arrows of the
infidel Mughals* [and the arrows remaining sticking fast],
became like unto a porcupine, and he would not turn his
head round in any direction, until one of his Turkish slaves,
whose name was Ayyah 5, Jūki, came up, seized the Sultan's
bridle, and dragged him away towards the fortress of And-
styles them Ghakars--but he could scarcely have been expected to
know the difference, and even Elliot, in his Index [page 160, note*], after
writing the word properly, supposes Gakhar[] and Khokhar [S]
one and the same race, but there is as much difference between them as
between an Afghan, and a Khar'l Jat, as those who have served in the
Panjab well know. The Tabakāt-i-Akbari, a work of greater authority than
Firishtah [whom I do not consider an authority in these matters any more
than respecting the presence of cannoniers [] at the battle of Tara'in],
says nothing of the kind; and, had I-yal-düz, Ī-bak-i-Nā-pāk, Lik-Tāl, or
any other person, been guilty of the acts mentioned, there is no doubt our
author would, at least, have referred to them. He might smooth or slur over
See Alfi's account of the
a defeat, but not circumstances of this kind.
expedition against the Khokhars in note ¹, page 481, which I think tends to
disprove much of the improbable story under discussion, more particularly
when the Taj-ul-Ma'aṣir says not one word about either Īladd-giz or Yal-dūz,
nor about the Sulṭān's coming to Multān against I-bak-i-Na-pāk, whose name
is not again mentioned in the entire volume. The account given by our
author farther on in his account of 'Ala-ud-Din, Muḥammad, at page 492,
and of Tāj-ud-Din, I-yal-dūz, page 496, also tends to disprove this story.
3 This description of troops has already been mentioned in note 2, page
168.
4 The Khiṭā-is he means.
5 In two of the best copies, I-bah or Ai-bah, and in one good old copy
Abiah or Abiyah, but in the oldest the name is plainly written as above.
Juki in all probability is the name of his tribe. Some other authors style
him a Khalj, but it is one and the same thing-Turk and Khalj.
478
THE TABAĶAT-I-NĂŞIRĪ.
khūd, and conducted him thither, and brought him within
the walls of that fortress º.
• Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din, with the few men remaining of the centre division
of his army, as soon as the sun rose, succeeded, by stratagem, in throwing
himself within the walls of the Ḥiṣār of Andkhūd [Guzidah says, Tāl-
kan]; but the Khita-i troops invested it, perforated the walls, and Mu'izz-ud-
Din would have been captured, when Sulṭān 'Uṣman of Samrkand, who was
now with the Khiṭā-i forces, sent him a message saying: "For the honour
of the true faith I do not desire that a Sultan of Islam should fall into the
hands of those of another belief, and be put to death by them: therefore it
is advisable that you should agree to sacrifice for your own safety what
remains of your elephants and other animals, your valuables, treasures, arms
and armour, and other war material, that I may make these things the means,
with these people, of obtaining your escape in safety." This he agreed to do,
and Sultan 'Uṣmān, by a thousand efforts and contrivances, succeeded in
securing the Sultan's escape, and he reached his own territory in safety.
There can be no doubt whatever as to the Sultan's gallantry, but our author's
statements are rather highly coloured. The Tabakat-i-Akbari, contrary to
others, states that the Sulṭān defended Andkhūd for some time, and then
surrendered on terms, but it is not correct.
The following is another specimen of the translations from which Indian
history is written, referring to this campaign
Dow, vol. i. page 145..
News was then brought to him
[Mahommed] of the death of his
brother Yeas ul dien, who retained
nothing of the empire but the name
[this is totally incorrect, and is the
translator's own]. Mahommed, upon
this, succeeded to the empire. He
turned by the way of Budyeish, and
subdued the country of Chorassan, re-
covering it out of the hand of the
Siljoki, and he divided it among the
family of Sam, giving the government
of Ferose Ko and Ghor to Malleck Zea,
who was son-in-law to his brother,
Yeas ul dien, the deceased Emperor,
Bust, Ferra, and Isphorar he gave to
Mamood, his brother's son; and the
government of Herat and its districts
to Nasir, his nephew by a sister.
Mahommed, after these transac-
tions, returned to Ghizni, where, ac-
cording to the will of the deceased
Emperor, he was crowned in form;
and mounted the imperial throne.
In the same year, he heard of the
death of Zireek, prince of Murve, and,
in the beginning of the next, marched
to the conquest of that country, ad-
BRIGGS, vol. i. page 180-181.
'On hearing of the death of his
brother, he [Mahomed Ghoory] now
returned towards Ghizny, by the route
of Budghees, and, subduing part of
the country of Khwaruzm, recovered it
out of the hands of the Suljooks. He
divided this new conquest [! ! !] among
several members of his own family
[see our author, page 472], giving the
government of Feroozkooh and Ghoor
[Are these in Khwaruzm recovered
from the Suljooks?] to his nephew
Zeea-ood-Deen, son-in-law of his late.
brother, Gheias-ood-Deen. He also
gave Boost, Furrih, and Isfurar [All
in Khwaruzm perhaps ?] to the Prince
Mahomed, his brother's son, and the
government of Hirat and its depend-
encies to Nasir-cod-Deen, his nephew
by a sister.
"On his arrival at Ghizny, accord-
ing to the will of his deceased brother,
he was crowned in form [STUdent's
MANUAL OF INDIAN HISTORY-"he
was crowned Sultan without opposi-
tion"]; and ascended the throne.
In the same year he heard of the
death of Mahomed Zeeruk, Prince of
THE SHANSABANĨAH DYNASTY OF GHAZNİN.
479
The following day, Sultān 'Usman of Samrkand, who
'Uṣmān
vancing by way of Charizm [! ! !],
and Tacash, the King of that country,
not able to oppose him in the field,
shut himself up in the city. The King
pitched his camp on the banks of the
great canal, which the Chilligies had
formerly dug to the westward of that
city. He forthwith attacked the place,
and in a few days lost many brave
nobles in the pursuit of glory. In
the mean-time, news arrived, that
Aibeck, the general of the King of
Chitta, in Tartary, and Osman, King
of Samarcand, were advancing with
great armies, to the relief of Charizm.
Mahommed was so unwilling to
abandon his hopes of taking the
city, that he delayed till the allied
armies advanced so near, that he
was under the necessity of burning all
his baggage, and to retreat with the
utmost expedition to Chorassan [! 1].
But an army from the city pressed so
close upon his heels, that he was
obliged to give them battle. He was
totally defeated, losing all his ele-
phants and treasure.
"In the meantime the confederate
Kings, who had taken a circuit, to
cut off Mahommed's retreat, met him
full in the face, as he was flying from
the King of Charizm.”
Murv, and in the beginning of the
next year marched to complete the
conquest of Khwaruzm [! ! !] [This is
what is styled "his western campaign
against the King of Kharizm" in
THE STUDENT'S MANUAL, but I
think Khwārazm lies north of Ghaz-
nin]. Mahomed Ghoory, having en-
camped on the banks of the great
canal, which had formerly been dug
to the westward of the city, forthwith
attacked the place, but lost many
brave officers and men in AN AT-
TEMPT TO ESCALADE IT [!!!]. Mean-
while news arrived that Kurra Beg,
the general of Ghoorkhan, King of
Khutta, and Othman Khan Samar-
kandy, were advancing with armies.
to the relief of Khwaruzm Shah. Ma-
homed Ghoory, unwilling to abandon
his hopes of taking the city, delayed
his retreat till the allied armies ad-
vanced so near, that he was compelled
to burn his baggage, and to retire
with the utmost precipitation towards
Khorassan. His army was pressed
so closely by troops from that province,
that he was compelled to give battle,
and was wholly defeated, losing all
his elephants and treasure, while the
confederate Kings [see page 473, and
note 2] who had taken a circuit to
cut off his retreat towards Ghuzny,
intercepted him.”
This may truly be called the Romance of History. Deceived, apparently,
by this translation, ELPHINSTONE [page 316] has fallen into great error.
He says: "He [Sháháb u dín] gained a great victory over the king of that
country [Khárizm], besieged him in his capital, and soon reduced him to such
straits as to constrain him to sue [!] for aid to the Khitan Tartars," &c. Never
was a statement more erroneous. MARSHMAN too, possibly quoting from the
same, says
"Mahomed led his troops against Takash," as he styles Sultān
'Alā-ud-Din, Muḥammad, the son of Sultan Takish.
The following is FIRISHTAH's account:- Sultan Shihab-ud-Din was
between Tus and Sarakhs when the account of the decease of his brother,
Ghiyās-ud-Din, reached him, and in whose name the kingdom was [i. e. in whom
the sovereignty rested. This is the passage misinterpreted by Dow—“who
retained nothing of the empire but the name.
From thence he set out for Bādghais, performed the mourning ceremonies
there, and, in this year, he divided the whole of the states of Khurāsān
[Firishtah here shows that he is himself no authority as to the geography of
"}
[ اسم بادشاهی بر او بود The original is
480
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĀṢIRĪ.
was a second Yusuf [in beauty], and the Afrāsiyābi Maliks
of Turkistan, who were Musalmans', interposed and
He
these parts, any more than he is an authority as to the history] among the
family of Sām [i. e. the descendants of Sām, his father, only Ziyā-ud-Din
now to be mentioned was not of the family of Sam except as a son-in-law-
the revised text of BRIGGS has-Āl-i-Sāmān- J] in this manner.
gave the throne of Firuz-koh and Ghur to his uncle's son, Malik Ziyā-ud-
Din, who was Sulṭān Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din's son-in-law; Bust, Faraḥ, and Isfarā'in
[Isfizār?] to Sulṭān Maḥmūd, son of Sulṭān Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din; and Hirāt and
its dependencies to his sister's son, Nașir-ud-Din. He himself returned from
Badghais to Ghaznin, and, in accordance with the will of his brother, having
placed the crown of empire upon his head, he became established on the
exalted throne of sovereignty. [This is the literal translation of the sentence
which has been twisted into crowned in form, &c.] At this time intimation
reached him of the slaying of Muḥammad-i-Khar-nak [in the revised text
Khair Beg-], governor of Marw; and, in the year 600 H., he set
out, with numerous forces to subdue Khwārazm. Khwārazm Shāh, unable
to oppose him [in the field], entered the fortress of Khwārazm.
خل
"When the Sultan reached Khwārazm, he took up a position on the water
[canal, river, and the like] which they have (sic) dug and set flowing from the
Jiḥūn to the east of the city [the word here used with reference to this
water-cut has been mistaken by Dow for the Turkish tribe, Khalj, which he
styles Chilligies]. For some days fighting went on, and several of the
Ghurian Amirs were killed. At this juncture news arrived that Kara Beg,
the general of Gūr Khān, Bādshah of Khiṭā [this is enough to show of what
value Firishtah's authority is for these matters. See page 261, for the name
of the general of the Khiţă-i forces on this occasion. Hitherto, Firishtah
has copied our author, whom he quotes as one of his authorities, tolerably
correct], and Sulṭān 'Uṣmān, sovereign of Samrkand, were marching to the
aid of Khwārazm Shāh. On receiving this information, such alarm was felt
by the Sultan that he set fire to the surplus baggage and equipage, and set
out towards Khurāsān [he means Ghaznin]. Khwārazm Shāh followed in
pursuit, and Sultan Shihab-ud-Din faced about and gave battle, and was
defeated, and lost his treasure, his horses, and elephants. Having proceeded
on his way, unexpectedly, the army of Karā Beg, Khiṭā-i, and Sulṭān
'Uṣmān seized the route in advance," &c. The rest agrees with our author;
and there is not a word, in the whole account, about escalade or anything
approaching it, and, moreover, the canal, which he had not crossed, was some
miles from the city. Sultan Muḥammad, Khwārazm Shāh, in order to
celebrate the flight of Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din, bestowed the nick-name
"Ghūri Breaker" upon a son born to him the night before the enemy retired.
See page 281.
",[اندك چشم زخمی و شکستکی ]
The Taj-ul-Ma'āṣir, which pours out page after page of rhapsodical nonsense
upon the most trivial matters, merely mentions, with respect to this disaster, that
the Sultan sustained “a slight misfortune and reverse [timetão crai; pûz Quil],"
gives the year 600 H. as the date, and does not mention [in the three MSS.
I have read] anything whatever about the Sultan having been wounded. The
word; mentioned above may have been mistaken for such meaning. I
should be sorry to place implicit faith on any statements in the above work,
unless corroborated by some other work by a contemporary writer.
7 Our author calls the whole of those opposed to Mu'izz-ud-Din, "infidels
THE SHANSABĀNĪAH DYNASTY OF GHAZNĪN.
481
brought about an accommodation, and the infidel forces.
drew back again, and the Sultan returned to Ghaznin,
and commanded that forces should be organized for a three
years' campaign in Turkistān, and determined to march
into Khita .
At that period, an assemblage of contumacious persons,
[consisting] of Khokhars, and other rebels of the tribes of
the hills of Lohor and Jūd hills had broken out into revolt',
9
several times before this; but the fact is all are infidels who are opposed to
Ghūris. Mu'izz-ud-Din was saved from captivity or death through the good
offices of Sultan 'Uṣmān, a Musalman like himself.
8 When Sulṭān Mu'izz-ud-Din, overcome with grief and chagrin, reached
his own territory in safety, Sulṭān Muḥammad despatched one of his Chamber-
lains to him, saying: "You are aware that you yourself are the cause of this
hostility and distrust. Perhaps you may now be inclined to give up your
hostile intentions against my dominions and be desirous of peace. Sultān
Mu'izz-ud-Din was agreeable, and he bound himself by the most solemn
promises to abide by the terms, and, further, to aid and assist Sultan Muḥammad
whenever requested. Perhaps the latter may, in doing this, have had a
foreboding, that he might want support against Chingiz Khan, who had
acquired vast power at that time, and whose doings caused anxiety to the
Khwārazmi Sultān.
After this accommodation had been concluded, a body of insurgents assembled
together at Tāl-ķān, and Tāj-ud-Din, Zangi [brother of Shams-ud-Din,
Muḥammad, of Tukhāristān], who was Wali of Balkh at that time, was the
chief mover in this outbreak. He made a raid upon Marw-ar-Rud, and slew
the intendant stationed there, and sought to plunder the place. Sultān
Muḥammad, on becoming aware of this raid, nominated Badr-ud-Din-i-Khizr
[-probably Khazr-] from Marw, and Taj-ud-Din, 'Ali, from Abi-
ward, with their troops, to march against him. After coming up with them,
Zangi, together with ten Amirs, were taken in the encounter which ensued,
and were sent off prisoners to Khwārazm, where they met with their deserts,
and their heads were struck off. Notwithstanding this affair, the peace was
faithfully observed between the two Sultans and their Amirs. Still, the
remembrance of past events rankled in the heart of Mu'izz-ud-Din; and, in
order to prepare for any eventuality that might offer to enable him to avenge
his defeat, "under pretence of holy war, he was in the habit of organizing his
troops, and manufactured arms in great quantities, until, in 602 H., he became
bent on undertaking an expedition into Hindūstān against the infidels, in order
to improve the finances of himself and officers, and also of his men, all of
whom, during the last few years, and, in the Khwārazm expedition, had
sustained great losses."
9 "Of the hills of Lohor" is contained in two copies only. The hills to the
north of Lahor, of course, are meant.
¹ The following is the description of this affair contained in the Tarikh-i-
Alfi, which compare with Elliot's extract from the original in his INDEX,
page ₁, and his translation, pages 158-160 :—
Transactions of the year 592 of the Riḥlat.
"In trustworthy histories it is stated, that, at the time that Shihāb-ud-Din
482
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĂŞIRĪ.
and, in the cold season of that year, the Sulṭān came into
Hindustan, and sent that refractory race to hell, and
[see remarks as to his correct title and name, as shown by his coins, note,
page 446] was defeated by the Turks and Khiṭā-is, as already noticed, it
became noised abroad throughout his territories that the Sultan, Shihāb-ud-
Din, had disappeared in that battle, and it was unknown what had happened
to him-whether he had been killed, or whether he was still living, and had
gone into any foreign part. Consequently, the seditious in his territory—in all
parts-raised their heads, and each stretched forth his hand towards some
tract of the territory. Among the seditious was one, Rãe Sāl by name,
Rae Sal by name, who was
[dwelling] in the hilly country, between the city of Luhawar [94] and Ghaznah ;
and, in concert with a body of Kokars, in the [same] tract [of country], and
who always used to pay revenue to the treasury of Shihāb-ud-Din, having
revolted from authority and obedience, he commenced plundering and harrying
that district, and completely closed the route between Luhāwar and Ghaznah
[Ghaznin], and in such wise that not a soul could pass along it." [ He is called
“Re-bāl” [J] and "Ran-bāl" [J] in Jāmi'-ut-Tawarikh; but both
names are doubtful, and are, probably, meant for Rãe-Sal, "the ruler of the
Koh-i-Jūd [the Salt Range], at which the frontier of Hind commences, who
had turned Musalmān, and subsequently relapsed; and the Khokhars, who
also used to pay tribute to the Sultan, in consequence of these reports, also
rose."
Tāj-ul-Ma'āṣir, after stating that the proceedings of Lik-Tal [Judd],
and the rumoured death of the Sultan, was the cause of great confusion and
disturbance, says,
"the Kokar tribe, rising in rebellion, entertained the idea
of becoming independent, and obtaining dominion. The sons of Kokar,
Bakan and Sarkah [Firishtah has but one, whom he calls the chief of the
Khokhars, who bore the name of Sarkah'], also entertained the desire of
acquiring sovereign power." Then there is an account of their taking Lohor,
and of their defeating the feudatories of the Multan province, Baha-ud-Din
and his brother, and others, and that the Sipah-Sālār, Sulimān, had to fly
before them.] Alfi continues:-"When Shihab-ud-Din reached Ghaznah
in safety, in the manner previously described, and this matter came to his
knowledge, he determined to proceed into Hindustan, and thoroughly chastise
the rebels of that part. Therefore he first directed Amir Muḥammad,
son of Abi 'Ali [this must be his kinsman, the son-in-law of Ghiyaṣ-ud-
Din, the late Sultan], who was his lieutenant over Luhawar and Multān
[the Amir-i-Dād, Ḥasan, was probably subordinate to him], to remit with
all possible celerity the revenue of the year 601 H. [and yet the Tāj-ul-
Ma'aṣir gives the year 600 H. as that of his return from Khwārazm, and
his expedition against the Khokhars], as it was required in the preparations
making for the invasion of Khiṭā. [Jami' ut-Tawarikh says, "after the
Sultan had taken his slave Lek-Tal [or Lik-Tal], who had taken possession of
Multan, and had put him to death, and disposed of that affair, he despatched
Muḥammad, son of Abi 'Ali, to Lahor and Multan as governor, in order that
he should send the tribute of those territories, which for the last two years
were in arrears, to provide him with funds for his campaign against Khiṭā.]
Amir Muḥammad wrote, in reply, that the revenue of the years (sic) mentioned
was ready, but that the Kokars [Khokhars], and Rãe Sal, the chief of the
Jibāl-i-Jūdi [the Jūd Hills] [Tāj-ul-Ma'āṣir does not make the distinction
between two different tribes, but says the sons of Kokar, Bakan and Sarkah-
in another MS. ], had so closed the lower route to Ghaznah [neither the
THE SHANSABANIAH DYNASTY OF GHAZNÍN.
483
carried on holy war as prescribed by the canons of Islam,
and set a river of the blood of those people flowing. When
Bolan nor the Khaibar, the two by some supposed sole routes into Afghanistan,
are referred to], that not a person could proceed by it.
"On hearing this, Shihab-ud-Din wrote [he sent the Amir-i-Hajib, Sarāj-ud-
Din-i-Abi Bikr] to his slave, Kutb-ud-Din, who was the commander of the
forces of Hind, [to the effect] that having despatched a person to the Kokars to
forbid them against committing these odious acts, he should call upon them to
repent of their doings and return to obedience, on which he would pass over
their misconduct.' Kutb-ud-Din despatched a person to them, in conformity
with this command, and urged them to submit. The son of Kokar [not
mentioned before] replied: "This is not your affair: it was necessary for
Sultan Shihab-ud-Din to send a person of his own, if he were alive; where
fore, then, did he not send to us, that we also might have sent the taxes for
him?' That emissary, in reply, said: 'Consider this great regard towards
you, that he hath sent me, who am his slave, to you.' Again, the son of
Kokar said, in answer: All this is mere talk: Shihab-ud-Din is not forth-
coming.' The emissary replied: "The verification of this matter is easy:
send one of your own confidential people to Ghaznah, that he may, with his
own eyes, see, and come and say whether Shihāb-ud-Din is living or not.'
In short, the son of Kokar did not give ear to the emissary's words, and still
continued firm, as before, in his sedition and rebellion; and, when the person
sent by Kutb-ud-Din related to him the state of affairs, he represented it to the
Court of Shihab-ud-Din. The Sultan directed Kutb-ud-Din to assemble the
[available] troops of Hindustan and march against the Kokars, and to anni-
hilate and eradicate, beyond ought that could be conceived, that seditious and
contumacious race.
'When the command reached Kutb-ud-Din, he assembled and made ready
his forces, and was about to move against that tribe, when Sultan Shihāb-ud-
Din himself was on the point of marching his troops towards Khiṭā, but, suc-
cessive complaints of the violence and outrages committed by the Kokars
reached him, and his people represented to that Sultan such numbers of things
[respecting them], that it became incumbent on him to quell them and restrain
their sedition first, and then to proceed in the other direction. Consequent
upon this he gave up his determination of invading Khiṭā, and pitched his
[advanced] tent in the direction of Luhāwar, and, on the 5th of Rabi'-ul-Awwal,
of this same year [602 H.], he set out from Ghaznah towards Hindūstān.
When Shihab-ud-Din reached Purshawar, he found that the Kokars, in large
numbers, had taken up a position between the Jilam [Jhilam] and the Sūdarah
[Sūḍhaṛā]. On hearing this news, Shihab-ud-Din made a forced march from
Purshawar on Thursday, the 25th of the same month, and fell upon them
unawares [Jāmi'-ut-Tawarikh says he attacked them on the 25th]; and from
break of day till the time of afternoon prayers he kept up the flame of battle
and conflict; and the Kokars fought in such wise that, with all that grandeur
and power, the Sultan had nearly been forced back from his position, when,
unexpectedly, at that juncture, Ķutb-ud-Din, I-bak, with the forces of Hin-
dūstān, arrived [upon the scene], and commenced slaughtering the Kokars.
As Kutb-ud-Din's troops were fresh and vigorous, the Kokars were unable to
resist them, and they took to flight. The soldiers of Islām, pursuing them,
inflicted such havoc upon them as cannot be conceived.
them as cannot be conceived. Those that escaped
the sword fled to the dense depths of the jangal and the Musalmāns set fire to
484
THE TABAKAT-I-NĀŞIRĪ.
he set out on his return towards Ghaznin, in the year
602 H., at the halting-place of Dam-yak, he attained mar-
dīnār.
it on all sides. [Jāmi'-ut-Tawārikh states that the Hindūs [the Khokhars]
fled to the highest ranges of the Koh-i-Jūd, and, on being pursued, lighted a
great fire, and threw themselves into it, and perished. Great plunder was
taken and many captives, so that five Hindū [Khokhar] captives could be
bought for a dinar. The son of Re-bal, chief of the Koh-i-Jūd, sought the
protection of Kutb-ud-Din, I-bak, and made great supplication to him.
Kutb-ud-Din made intercession for him with the Sultan, who pardoned him,
while the Taj-ul-Ma'aṣir says one of Kokar's sons was among the slain [Sar-
kah], and the other, Bakan, made for a fortress in the Jud Hills, in which he
was invested; and, after holding out some time, being hard pressed, made
intercession through Kutb-ud-Din, and surrendered the place, and was for-
given.] At that time those infidels agreed together not to surrender to the
Musalmāns, and they threw themselves into the jangal, and were consumed.
"The Sultan, having disposed of that affair to his satisfaction, advanced to
Luhāwar [Jāmi'-ut-Tawarikh says he arrived there on the 15th of Rajab], and
gave his troops permission to return to their own homes [quarters ?], where,
having rested some days [some time], they might set out on their invasion of Khiṭā.
The authors of the Tarikh-i-Alfi availed themselves of the best authorities
in the compilation of their great work, and there is scarcely any celebrated
work, whether Arabic or Persian, that they did not use and quote from. They
also appear to have often used such Hindu historical works as were available ;
and yet there is no mention of the story of the Yal-dūz or Ïladd-giz rebellion, nor
of Lek-Tāl, nor of Ī-bak-i-Nā-pāk, nor I-bak-i-Bāk. It seems rather significant
that the author or authors of this story should have selected names similar to
those of the two most trusted, loyal, and favourite slaves of the Sultan, and
who succeeded him in the sovereignty of Ghaznin and Hindūstān respectively—
I-yal-dūz and Ï-bak-for their story; but it is certain that the Tāj-ul-Ma'āṣir
is accountable for the latter part of it, in which Ï-bak-i-Nā-pāk is mentioned.
The Khokhars were not annihilated in this affair by any means, and gave
great trouble in after years, and gained posaession of Lahor.
BRIGGS says, page 201, vol. i.: "In the latter end of the King's reign
[Mu'izz-ud-Din's], their chieftain [of the Gukkurs] was converted to the true.
faith when a captive. After becoming a proselyte he procured his release from
the King, who endeavoured to persuade him to convert his followers," &c.
This is totally contrary to the original. A Musalman became captive to the
Khokhars, and whilst among them he explained to them the tenets and
usages of the Muḥammadan faith. The chieftain asked the Musalman how
the Sultan would treat him if he should embrace the Muḥammadan faith, to
which the Musalman replied that he would undertake to say that the Sultān
would treat him with royal favour, and would confer on him the authority over
those mountain tracts. This circumstance was duly represented to the Sultan
in writing by the captive Musalman, and the Sulṭān at once despatched a rich
dress of honour for the chief of the Khokhars; and he came and presented
himself before the Sultan, was treated with great honour, was made a Musal-
mān, returned home with a farmān investing him with the government of those
parts, and he made most of the Khokhars converts. Dow, in this instance,
has translated the passage correctly; but, unfortunately for Firishtah's
authority, this tale does not tally with the last events in the Sultan's life, and
it, in a measure, contradicts his own statements respecting them.
THE SHANSABĀNĪAH DYNASTY OF GHAZNIN.
485
tyrdom² at the hand of a disciple of the Mulāḥidah, and
died. One of the learned men of that period has com-
2 The idiom differs here in one of the oldest copies, which has, "he was
killed," &c.
3 Yafa-i says that one successful expedition gained in Hindūstān at this time
was sufficient to repair the Sultan's finances, and to set right the affairs of his
troops; and, on his return to his capital, aſter having crossed the Jili []
ferry—the ferry over the Jhilam probably-Jami'-ut-Tawarikh has Hānli—
-[Ben. As. Soc. MS. and Jahān-Kushā-i J→] ford, and says he crossed over
on the 1st of Sha'ban-his royal tent was pitched on the banks of the Jiḥūn
[of Hind?], i. e. the Sind or Indus, so that one-half of it reached near to the
water, and hence it was not deemed necessary to guard that side; and that, at
the time of taking his noon-day nap, two or three Fida-is [disciples] suddenly
issued from the water and assassinated him, and in this most authors agree.
Guzidah, however, says he was then on his way to Turkistan to wreak ven-
geance on Sultān 'Usman of Samrkand! The term Fida-i is particularly
applied to the disciples of the chief of the Mulāḥidah heretics, and our author
plainly states that it was from the daggers of the disciples of this sect that
Mu'izz-ud-Din met his death, and not from the Khokhar tribe; and, when we
consider that he had undertaken an expedition against them only two or three
years before [see note 5, page 381],
page 381], it is by no means improbable that they
caused him to be assassinated. The Jami'-ut-Tawarikh says the assassins were
Khokhars, but almost immediately contradicts the statement, and says that
Imām Fakhr-ud-Din was suspected of having brought it about.
"Some ma-
lignant Muḥammadan 'Ulamā, on account of the great friendship that existed
between the Sultan of Khwārazm and the eminent Imam Fakhr-ud-Din, Rāzi
[see page 429, and page 492], accused hiin of having conspired against the
life of Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din, and asserted that Sultan Muḥammad, Khwārazm
Shāh, had sent some person, who, after consultation with the Imam, had
assassinated the Sultan; but it is considered by some writers that these very
people who had accused the Imām had themselves caused the deed to be done.
The Imām, as the late Sultan's slaves were bent upon avenging him, threw
himself on the protection of the Wazir, Mu-ayyid-ul-Mulk, until such time as
the Wazir contrived to secure him from their vengeance, and sent him to a
place of safety. Imām Fakhr-ud-Din used to accompany Sulṭān Mu'izz-ud-
Din in his expeditions, and he states that Sulṭān Mu'izz-ud-Din invaded India
nine times: twice he was defeated, and seven times victorious." The statement
above mentioned is confirmed, with but slight variation, by the author of the
Tāj-ul-Ma'āṣir, a contemporary writer, and corroborated by our author's very
meagre account. Tāj-ul-Ma'āṣir says, that the Sultan's tents were pitched in a
delightfully verdant mead on the bank of a clear stream [water]. At this time
some heretics [Mulāḥidahs—], who had been following him for some
time, awaiting an opportunity to assassinate him, at the time of evening prayer,
and whilst the Sultan was in the act of bowing his head to the ground in prayer,
and was uttering the praises of his Creator, the impure and obscene sect chose
for the execution of their design. They slew a Salaḥ-dar [armour-bearer] and
two Farrashes [carpet-spreaders] in attendance, and then went round towards
the Sultan's Khargah [pavilion or tent], and occupied it [to “surround” it
would have required a large number. The words used are —seized, took
possession. Compare Elliot, INDIA, vol ii. page 236]; and one or two among
those three or four assassins rushed upon the Sultan, and inflicted five or six
486
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĂŞIRĪ.
posed a verse on this occurrence.
It is here recorded that
it may come under the observation of the sovereign of the
Musalmans, and that verse is as follows:-
"The martyrdom of the sovereign of sea and land, Mu'izz-ud-Din,
From the beginning of the world the like of whom no monarch arose,
4
On the third of the month Sha'ban in the year six hundred and two,
Happened on the road to Ghaznin at the halting-place of Dam-yak 5.
5 >>
deep wounds, of which he immediately died." I have merely given an abstract
of the author's rhapsodical narration.
.
Alfi says they were Khokhars who had lost relatives killed in the late ope-
rations:—“One man among them came upon a door-keeper, and wounded him,
on which the wounded man began to cry out. On this, the rest of the people
about rushed up to the wounded man to see what was the matter, and were
collected around him. The Khokhars seized this opportunity, and succeeded
in reaching the Sulṭān, whom they despatched with many severe wounds."
Some other authors say it was one Khokhar only who murdered the Sultan,
and that he had attached himself to him, and followed him for the purpose.
The Hindūs give a different account, which is also related by Abū-l-Fazl
and in the Jamūn History with a slight difference :-" Although the Persian
Chroniclers state that Rãe Pithora fell on the field of Talāwaṛi [Tarā’in], and that
Mu'izz-ud-Din fell at Dam-yak by the hand of a Khokhar who had devoted
himself to the deed, and that such statement has been followed by the author
of the Tabakāt-i-Akbari and by Firishtah, nevertheless, from the mouth of the
Hindi bards, the depositaries of the traditions of every celebrated event, and
which is handed down orally from generation to generation, it is stated that,
after Rãe Pithorā was made captive and taken to Ghaznin, one Chandā, some
write Chāndā, the confidential follower and eulogist of Rãe Pithorā, styled by
some authors his Court poet, proceeded to Ghaznin to endeavour to gain informa-
tion respecting his unfortunate master. By his good contrivances he managed to
get entertained in Sulṭān Mu'izz-ud-Din's service, and succeeded in holding
communication with Rae Pithora in his prison. They agreed together on a
mode of procedure, and one day Chandā succeeded by his cunning in awaken-
ing the Sultan's curiosity about Rãe Pithora's skill in archery, which Chandā
extolled to such a degree that the Sultan could not restrain his desire to witness
it, and the captive Rājah was brought out and requested to show his skill. A
bow and arrows were put into his hands, and, as agreed upon, instead of dis-
charging his arrow at the mark, he transfixed the Sultan, and he died on the
spot, and Rãe Pithora and Chandā were cut to pieces then and there by the
Sultan's attendants.
The Jamun History states that Rãe Pithora had been blinded [see note ',
page 466], and that, when brought forth, and his own bow and arrows given
him, notwithstanding his blindness, having fitted an arrow, and tried the
temper of the bow, guided by the sound of the Sultan's voice, and the indi-
cations of Chandā, he discharged the arrow in the right direction, and trans-
fixed him.
The rest agrees.
4 Jahān-Ārā and some others say the 1st of Sha'bān, 602 H.
5 As the second line of this quatrain ends in yak, it is wholly impossible that
the last work can be Damik. Dam-yak is the correct name of the place.
Authors differ considerably about its situation: some say it was a little west
of the Jhilam, some on the Nil-ab, and others that it was a village beyond the
Indus, on the route to Ghaznin; but the first seems most probable. To prove
THE SHANSABĀNÏAH DYNASTY OF GHAZNÎN.
487
May the Most High King encompass that Sulṭān-i-Ghāzi
with his mercy and forgiveness, and preserve the sovereign
of the age!
With respect to the equity and justice of this monarch
in the world, the mention of them could not be contained.
in the capacity of writing; and the observance of the law
of the Chosen One, and the preservation of the system of
holy warfare likewise, according to the tenets of the Mu-
ḥammadan faith, was accomplished in that sovereign.
According to the traditions which they have related con-
cerning the Prophet-on whom be peace!-they say, that
he, having been asked respecting the general resurrection,
affirmed that it would take place six hundred and odd years
after him; and the martyrdom of this sovereign occurred
in the year 602 H., and, in this same year, likewise, indica-
tions of the last judgment appeared, and they were the ir-
ruption of Chingiz Khan, the Mughal, and the outbreak of
the Turk. Therefore it is evident that that monarch was the
strong barrier of Islām in the world, and, when he attained
martyrdom, the gate of the final judgment opened'.
The amount of wealth acquired in holy wars, accumulated
in the treasury at Ghaznin, was so great that the indication
of the like has not been noticed with regard to the treasury
of any sovereign, and Khwajah Ismā'il, the Treasurer,
stated at the Court of Firuz-koh, at the time of bringing
an honorary robe to the Malikah-i-Jalāli, the daughter of
the august Sultan Ghiyās-ud-Din, Muḥammad-i-Sam
how little trust is to be placed in Firishtah's statements, as shown in Briggs's
"Revised Text," the Persian scholar will there find this place styled Ramhek-
-in the prose; and a few lines under, in his version of the same
quatrain quoted by our author, translated above, it is turned into Rhutak—
-and Briggs translates it Rohtuk, which mistake is re-echoed by his
copyists; and so the blunder gets handed down.
6 Other authors, too, fully appreciate the character of Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din,
and say that "he was a God-fearing and just sovereign, compassionate towards
his people, liberal to his servants, honoured and reverenced learned and good
men, and treated them with distinction." His deeds prove that he was faith-
ful to his brother; but if his "exploits" are not more substantial than the
mythical relationship to his "great ancestor Sooltan Mahmood I." [who has
been lately declared illegitimate in the "STUDENT'S MANUAL OF INDIAN
HISTORY"], they need not have been ever recorded.
7 Notwithstanding which, our author, who appears to have had as keen an
appreciation of the mammon of unrighteousness as others who croak about
the end of the world, took care to accept villages and money presents, and even
slaves to send to his "dear sister" to sell in Khurāsān, not long after.
488
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĂŞIRĪ.
[Mu'izz-ud-Din's niece and Ziyā-ud-Din's betrothed wife],
that of jewels contained in the Ghaznin treasury, of dia-
monds alone, which are the most precious of gems, there
were actually fifteen hundred mans³. The amount of other
jewels and money may be judged of accordingly.
Titles and names of the Sultān.
SULTAN-UL-MU'AZZAM,
MU'IZZ-UD-DUNYA WA UD-DĪN,
A BŪ-L-MUZAFFAR, MUHAMMAD, SON OF
SĀM.
NĀŞIR-I-AMĪR-UL-MUMINİN ¹.
8 It depends upon what man is meant.
The
Our author must refer to the man
of Tabriz, which is much smaller than that of Hindustan, the former being
somewhat less than 2 lbs., whilst the latter varies from 40 to 80 lbs.
Tabriz man is thus described :—6 ḥabbah [ḥabbah signifies, a seed, a grain,
&c., and is equal to a barley-corn] = = I dũng, 6 dangs = 1 miskal 15 misķāls
= I astar, 40 astārs = I man.
I fear the Khwajah was as great an exaggerator as our author himself.
Other authors however mention the quantity as 500 mans. Even the latter
number is too incredible almost for belief.
9 After his brother's death, on becoming supreme ruler, he took the title of
Sultan-ul-A'zam.
1 How he obtained the title of Năṣir-i-Amir-ul-Mūminin, and when, the
chronicler does not say. It may have been conferred upon him by the
Khalifah of Baghdad for being with his brother, Ghiyas-ud-Din, a tool in
the Khalifah's hands against the Sultan of Khwārazm. I imagine it is this
title on his coins which Mr. E. Thomas reads as the name of the Khalifah.
Un-Naşir-ud-Din 'Ullah was certainly Khalifah at this period. See CHRO-
NICLES OF PATHAN KINGS of DEHLÍ, page 12.
The Sultan is styled "Us-Sultan Nāṣir-ud-Dunya wa ud-Din, Abū-l-
Muzaffar," &c., on a coin said to have been struck at Dihli, 589 H., in the
year 4 [of his rule in Hind ?].
TIIE SHANSABĂNĨAH DYNASTY OF GHAZNĪN.
489
Length of his reign: Thirty-two years and eight months².
Seat of government in the summer season :-Ghaznin
and Khurāsān.
Seat of government in the winter season :-Lohor and
Hind.
Kazis of his Court.
Ķāzi of the kingdom, the Ṣadr-i-Shahid, Kutb-ud-Din,
Abū Bikr, subsequently, the Ṣadr-i-Sa'id, Sharaf-ud-Din,
Abū Bikr, son of the Ṣadr-i-Shahid, Nizām [ud-Din ?] at
Ghaznin.
Kāzi of the army³ and other territory-Shams-ud-Din,
Balkhi, and his son.
Wazirs.
Ṭiyā-ul-Mulk, Durmashāni¹; Mu-ayyid-ul-Mulk, Mu-
ḥammad-i-'Abd-ullah, Sanjari; Shams-ul-Mulk, 'Abd-ul-
Jabbār, Kidāni.
Standards.
On the right, Black, with the Turk Maliks and Amirs.
On the left, Red, with the Maliks and Amirs of Ghūr.
The Sultan's august motto.
Victory through God"."
The Sultan's Dependents who attained unto Sovereignty.
Sultan Taj-ud-Din, Yal-duz, at Ghaznin.
Sultan Naşir-ud-Din, Ķabā-jah in Multān and Ūchchah.
Sultan Kutb-ud-Din, I-bak, at Lohor.
Sultan Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din, 'Iwaz, the Khalj, over the territory
of Lakhanawati'.
2 Three years and three months exactly as an independent sovereign, from
the 27th of Jamādi-ul-Awwal, 599 H., to 3rd of Sha'ban, 602 H.
He was
subordinate to his elder brother as shown by his coins; but as a dependent
ruler he of course ruled over Ghaznin from the time that sovereignty was
bestowed upon him.
3 Our author's father does not figure here among the Kazis. See page
456, nor is mention made of the Ṣadr-i-Kabir, Kiwām-ul-Mulk, Rukn-ud-Din,
Hamzah, who was sent to offer terms to Rae Pithorā.
4 In one copy Durmashi, in a second Durmanshi, and in a third Durshi or
Dursi. See page 392, note º.
5 One good copy of the text has, simply Jae Justice, or Rectitude.
• Not Dihli ! See the reign of Kutb-ud-Din, next Section.
7 Fourth Khalj ruler of Lakhanawati. It is strange that neither Muḥam-
mad, son of Bakht-yār, nor his two immediate successors in the government of
Lakhanawati, are mentioned here. It was Muḥammad, son of Bakht-yār, the
Khalj, who reduced Bihār and Lakhanawati during Sulṭān Mu'izz-ud-Din's own
lifetime, and their reduction is mentioned among the victories and successes of
I i
490
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĂŞIRĪ.
The Sultan's Kinsmen and his Maliks.
Malik Ziyā-ud-Din, Muḥammad, Durr-i-Ghur [The Pearl
of Ghūr], in Ghūr.
Sultan Baha-ud-Din, Sam, in Bāmiān.
Sultan Ghiyās-ud-Din, Mahmud, in Firuz-koh.
Malik Badr-ud-Din, of Kidān'.
Malik Kutb-ud-Din, Timrāni.
Malik Naşir-ud-Din, Alb-i-Ghāzi, son of Ķazil Arsalān
Saljūķi.
Malik Taj-ud-Din-i-Ḥarab, of Sijistān.
Malik Tāj-ud-Din, Zangi¹, of Bāmiān.
Malik Mubariz-ud-Din, Muḥammad 'Ali-i-Utsuz.
Malik Naşir-ud-Din, [Ḥusain], Mādini.
Malik Naşir-ud-Din, of Timrān.
Malik Mu-ayyid-ud-Din, Mas'ūd.
Malik Shihab -ud-Din, Madini³.
Malik Shams-ud-Din, Kidāni.
Malik Tāj-ud-Din, [of] Mukrān.
Malik Shah, of Wakhsh.
Malik 'Ala-ud-Din, Utsuz-i-Husain.
Malik Ḥusām-ud-Din, 'Ali-i-Kar-mākh.
Malik Zahir-ud-Din, Muhammad-i-Kar-makh.
Malik Zahir-ud-Din, Fath-i-Kar-mākh.
Malik 'Izz-ud-Din, Husain, son of Khar-mil.
Malik Husām-ud-Din, son of Khar-mil.
Malik Naşir-ud-Din, Husain, Amir-i-Shikar [Chief
Huntsman].
the Sultan at page 491. Ḥusām-ud-Din, 'Iwaz, does not appear to have ever
been in the immediate service of Mu'izz ud-Din, and did not acquire sove-
reignty until nearly ten years after Mu'izz-ud-Din's death, whilst Muhammad,
son of Bakht-yar, was assassinated towards the end of the same year in which the
Sultān was himself assassinated. See the account of the Khalj rulers farther on.
Strange to say, some of the copies have Shams-ud-Din, I-yal-timish in
this list also; but such is not correct. He was the slave of the Sultān's slave,
Kutb-ud-Din, I-bak, and did not acquire sovereignty until after I-bak's death,
and long after the Sultan's decease.
Here again the author puzzles his readers. After Ziya-ud-Din became
ruler of Ghūr, as our author himself says at page 393, his name was changed
to 'Ala-ud-Din.
• Maternal grandfather of the two Sulṭāns.
8
This is the person referred to in note, page 425, and note ³, page 481.
See pages 344 and 497.
3 He is the father of Malik Nāṣir-ud-Din, Mādini, and was surnamed
Khar-nak.
4 In some copies Naṣr.
{
THE SHANSABĀNĪAH DYNASTY OF GHAZNİN. 491
Malik Ikhtiyar-ud-Din, Kharº-wār.
Malik Asad-ud-Din, Sher Malik, Wajiri" [of Wajiristān?].
Malik Rukn-ud-Din, Sür, of Kidān'.
Amir Sulimān-i-Shis, Amir-i-Dad [Chief Justice?].
Amir-i-Hajib, Muḥammad 'Ali, Ghāzi.
Amir-i-Hajib, Khān Malik [?].
Amir-i-Hajib, Husain-i-Muḥammad Hasan [?]®.
Malik Mu-ayyid-ud-Din, Mas'ūd.
Amir-i-Hajib, Husain-i-Surkh'.
Victories, Successes, and Holy-wars.
Gardaiz, Sanķūran [now Shalūzān], holy-war against the
Karamiṭah of Multan and Uchchah, holy-war of Nahr-
wālah, Burshor [or Purshor], Sial-kot, Lohor, Tabar-
hindah', Pithora [at] Tara'in, Ajmir, Hānsi, Sursuti,
Kuhṛām, Mirath, Kol, Dihli, Thankir, holy-war of Buda'un,
Gwaliyur, Bhirah, Jai Chand of Banaras, Banāras,
Ķinnauj, Kālinjar, territory of Awadh, Mālwah, A-dwand³
Bihār, Lakhanawati, Marw¹-ar-Rūd, Nishāpūr, Ţūs, Marw,
Bāward, Nisā, Shāristānah, Sabzwār, Janābād, Khwārazm,
Andkhūd, holy-war of Khiṭā, and Koh-i-Jūd [and] the
Khokhars".
This name is doubtful. It might be Ḥaz-war, but the above is most
probable, and may be a nick-name. In modern copies of the text it is written
حرول and حرولی مردار خردل حراءل
In two copies, Aḥmadi, and in one copy Aḥmari.
7 Very doubtful. The best and oldest copy has which is un-
intelligible.
• In some Ḥabashi, and in others Husaini.
9. In one Surkhi or Sarkhi, and in another Sarji or Surji, but these are
doubtful. Only five copies of the text contain these names at all, and three
of these are very defective. The Amir-i-Ḥājib, Sarāj-ud-Din, Abi Bikr, and
Bahā-ud-Din, Muḥammad, are likewise mentioned in Alfi.
1 One copy has Bathindah.
as
2 Very doubtful. It is written --and even in the best Paris copy.
3 Probably quiet, tranquil, &c. See reign of Kutb-ud-Din, next Section.
* Mashrik-ar-Rūd in one copy.
5 It will be remarked that there is no reference made here to the expedition
against Diwal or Dibal, and the sea-coast of Sind. I have endeavoured to put
these "victories, conquests, and holy-wars" in chronological order as near as
possible; but many are mentioned with which Mu'izz-ud-Din, personally, had
nothing to do, three in which he was defeated, one a complete overthrow, the
loss of everything, and a narrow escape from captivity, and the "holy-war" of
Khita was never undertaken. The successes in Awadh were gained by others,
and A-dwand Bihār and Lakhanawati were acquired by Ikhtiyar-ud-Din, Mu-
ḥammad, the Khalj.
I i 2
492
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĂŞIRĪ.
III. SULTAN 'ALĀ-UD-DĪN, MUHAMMAD, SON OF BAHĀ-UD-
DIN, MUHAMMAD, SĀM, OF BĀMĪĀN.
When the Sultan-i-Ghāzi, Mu'izz-ud-Din, Muḥammad-i-
Sām, was martyred at Dam-yak, and Sultan Baha-ud-Din,
Muḥammad, Sām, son of Shams-ud-Din, Muḥammad,
died on his way to Ghaznin, as has been previously
recorded, the competitors for the dominion of Ghur,
Ghaznin, Bāmiān, and Hind, of the race of the Shan-
sabānis, consisted of two lines-one, the [descendants
of the] Sultāns of Ghur, and the other, of the Sultāns of
Bāmiān.
When they despatched the bier of Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din
from the halting-place of Dam-yak towards Ghaznin, the
Turk Maliks and Amirs, who were the slaves of that
Sultan-i-Ghāzi, deprived the Amirs and Maliks of Ghur,
by force, of the bier of the late Sultan, together with
precious treasures, and took possession of them'. When
• Within two days' journey of the capital. See page 432.
7 One author says, that "the Maliks and Chiefs, on finding the Sultān
lifeless, rallied round the Wazir, Mu-ayyid-ul-Mulk, and pledged themselves to
defend the treasure and dominions until such time as a successor should be
nominated to succeed him. The Sultan's wounds were sewn up [after his
death], and the body was placed in a sort of covered litter, and, pretending
that he was ill, they escorted it to Ghaznah, and the fact of his death was kept
a profound secret. The treasures, amounting to 2000 khar-wars [lit. ass-loads,
one kharwär
about 100 mans of Tabriz] were conveyed to the capital at the
same time."
The bier of the late Sultan having been taken up, and being conveyed
towards Ghaznin, on the way quarrels ensued between Mu-ayyid-ul-Mulk,
the Wazir, and the Ghūriau Amirs. The Wazir wished to proceed by way
of Kaṛmān, in order that, through the assistance of Taj-ud-Din, I-yal-dūz,
who held the government of that district, the late Sultan's treasures might be
conveyed to Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din, Maḥmūd, his nephew, who held the government
of Bust and Zamin-i-Dāwar, to whose succession he was inclined, while the
Amirs of Ghur desired to proceed by the route of Gum-rahan [] which
was nearer to Bāmiān, in order that the sister's son of the late monarch,
Bahā-ud-Din, Sām, Sulṭān of Bāmiān [who was advancing towards Ghaznin
when death overtook him] should obtain possession of these treasures.
the Wazir was supported by the Slaves of the late Sultan, he was more power-
ful, and he separated from the Ghūriān Amirs, and, taking along with him
the bier of the late Sultan and his treasures, proceeded by way of Shalūzān
[In those days called Sanķurân, and, subsequently, Shanūzān. See note 7,
p. 498] towards Ghaznin. When they reached Kaṛmān, Tāj-ud-Din, I-yal-dūz,
came forth to receive them, and, when he beheld the bier, he dismounted from
his horse, and received it with the utmost veneration, and he wept to such
degree, that the others were quite overcome and wept also. The bier was
As
THE SHANSABĀNIAH DYNASTY OF GHAZNÍN. 493
they reached Kaṛmān, the Wazir, Mu-ayyid-ul-Mulk,
Muḥammad-i-'Abd-ullah, the Sanjari, with several other
persons distinguished among the Turk Amirs, were
appointed to escort the late Sultan's bier to Ghaznin, in
company with other Turk Maliks; and Malik Tāj-ud-Din,
Yal-duz, who was the Mihtar [or chief] of the Turk Maliks,
and the greatest and most distinguished of the Sultan's
Slaves, held post in Kaṛmān.
When the Sulṭān's bier reached Ghaznin, two days after,
the Sultāns of Bāmiān, 'Alā-ud-Din, Muḥammad, and
Jalāl-ud-Din, 'Ali, sons of Baha-ud-Din, Sām, of Bamian,
in conformity with the solicitations of the Ghūri Amirs,
such as the Sipah-sālār the [Commander of Troops], Suli-
mān-i-Shiṣ³, and the Sipah-sālār, Kharoshi, and other
then conveyed to Ghaznin, and the corpse of the Sultan was interred in the
Madrasah [college] which he had founded in the name of his daughter, and
his only child. Firishtah's account of this affair has not been correctly
rendered by his translators.
After the funeral, Sultan Baha-ud-Din, Sām, set out from Bāmiān for
Ghaznin, and on the road was seized with a violent headache which was the
messenger of his death. There being no hopes of his recovery, he made his
last request to his two sons, 'Ala-ud-Din, Muḥammad, and Jalāl-ud-Din, 'Ali,
that they should proceed to Ghaznin, and endeavour, by conciliation, to gain
over the Wazir, Mu-ayyid-ul-Mulk, the Slaves, and the Amirs of Ghūr, and
take possession of Ghaznin, after which, 'Ala-ud-Din, who was the eldest son,
was to be sovereign of Ghaznin, and Jalāl-ud-Din, the younger, sovereign of
Bāmian.
The Jāmi’-ut-Tawarikh confirms this generally, but states that Baha-ud-Din
requested them to come to an accommodation with Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din, Maḥmūd,
if he would agree to content himself with Ghur and Khurāsān, and leave
Ghaznah and Hind to 'Alā-ud-Din, Muḥammad, the eldest son.
They came to Ghaznin accordingly, and, although the Ghurian nobles were
inclined to offer opposition to this, the Wazir persuaded them that as Ghiyāṣ-
ud-Din, Maḥmūd, was then wholly occupied in Khurāsān, and had proceeded,
at the head of an army, towards Hirāt against 'Izz-ud-Din, Husain, son of
Khar-mil, to oppose 'Alā-ud-Din's intentions would be useless and uncalled
for, since they required a ruler over them, and, that, whenever Maḥmūd should
have gained possession of Hirāt and subdued Khurāsān, it would be easy to
get rid of 'Alā-ud-Din. So he was allowed to assume the throne.
When Tāj-ud-Din, I-yal-dūz, became aware of this in Kaṛmãn, in compli-
ance with the request of Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din, Maḥmūd, conveyed to him from
Zamin-i-Dāwar, he marched from Kaṛman with a large army upon Ghaznin,
wrested it by force of arms from 'Ala-ud-Din and his brother, Jalāl-ud-Din,
'Ali, who retired to Bāmiān. Tāj-ud-Din, I-yal-dūz, however proceeded to
read the Khutbah for himself and to coin money in his own name; and, after
some time, 'Alā-ud-Din, and his brother, Jalāl-ud-Din, invaded Kaṛmān and
Shalūzān, and devastated the whole of those districts. See page 398.
• Styled Amir-i-Dad in the list of Maliks.
494
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĂŞIRĪ.
distinguished personages of the capital city of Ghaznin,
arrived there from Bamian, and entered the city. 'Ala-ud-
Din, Muḥammad, Bāmiāni, who was the eldest of the sons
of [Sulṭān] Bahā-ūd-Din, Sām, ascended the throne, and
brought the Amirs present there, both Ghūri and Turk,
under fealty to him; and the Ghaznin treasury, which,
from the immensity of its wealth and precious treasures,
would have [so to speak] considered the hoard of Ķārūn
but a tithe, was all divided into two equal portions.
Trustworthy persons have related that the portion of
Sultan Jalāl-ud-Din, 'Ali, Bāmiāni, who was the youngest
of the two brothers, amounted to two hundred and fifty
camel loads of pure red gold, jewel-studded articles, and
vessels of gold and silver, which was removed to Bāmiān.
After a period of some days had elapsed, Mu-ayyid-ul-
Mulk, the Wazir, and the Turk Amirs, who were at the
capital, Ghaznin, wrote letters to Malik Tāj-ud-Din, Yal-
duz, soliciting him to come thither, and despatched them
to Kaṛmān. He determined to proceed from Kaṛman to
Ghaznin; and, when he arrived in the vicinity of the city,
Sultan 'Ala-ud-Din, Muḥammad, made ready to fight, and
marched out to encounter him; and Jalal-ud-Din [his
brother], who also came out of the city, retired in the
direction of Bamian.
When the ranks of 'Ala-ud-Din were marshalled against
Tāj-ud-Din, Yal-duz, the Turk Amirs on either side united
together, and Malik' 'Alā-ud-Din was vanquished, and he,
along with all the Shansabāni Maliks who sided with him,
was taken prisoner. Malik Tāj-ud-Din, Yal-duz, entered
Ghaznin, and gave permission to the Shansabani Maliks,
so that they returned to Bāmiān again.
A second time Sultan Jalāl-ud-Din, in order to aid his
brother, 'Ala-ud-Din, Muḥammad, assembled the forces of
the territory of Bamian', and bodies of the troops of [the]
Beghu² from Wakhsh and Badakhshān, and brought them,
9 Styled Malik and Sultan indiscriminately.
1 Two copies of the text have "the forces of the kingdom of Ghur and of
Bāmiān,” but I do not think such can possibly have been meant. The whole
of the Shansabani Maliks were not subjects of the Bamian state. Ghiyaṣ-ud-
Din, Maḥmūd, the direct heir to the empire of his father and uncle, was still
ruling over Ghûr, and he appears to have favoured Tāj-ud-Din, I-yal-dūz, and
not to have been particularly friendly towards his kinsmen of Bāmiān.
One copy of the text, and also the printed text, have instead of
THE SHANSABĂNĨAH DYNASTY OF GHAZNİN.
495
and again appeared before Ghaznin, and possessed himself
of the Ghaznin territory, and re-placed 'Ala-ud-Din, Mu-
ḥammad, upon the throne, after which, Jalāl-ud-Din
returned again towards Bāmiān.
3
Malik Taj-ud-Din, Yal-duz, a second time, advanced
with his troops from Kaṛman towards Ghaznin; and 'Ala-
ud-Din deputed the Ghūri Maliks and Amirs from Ghaznin
to repel them. On the part of Malik Taj-ud-Din, Yal-duz,
Aetkin, the Tatar, was nominated to proceed in advance
to meet them. He came upon them at the Ribat of
Sanķurān, and seized the whole of them drunk and out of
their senses, and the Ghūri Maliks and the great Amirs
were there put to death. From thence Malik Tāj-ud-Din,
Yal-duz, appeared before the walls of Ghaznin, and 'Ala-
ud-Din, Muḥammad, was invested within the citadel.
a period of four months Taj-ud-Din, Yal-duz, continued to
invest it, until Jalāl-ud-Din, 'Ali, arrived from the territory
of Bamiān to the assistance of his brother, Sulṭān 'Alā-ud-
Din, Muḥammad, and to drive away the Turk forces.
For
When he reached the neighbourhood of Ghaznin, the
Turk Amirs moved out to encounter him, and Jalāl-ud-
Din, 'Ali, was overthrown, and was taken prisoner. He
was brought to the foot of the walls of the fortress of
Ghaznin', and that fort was taken. When the two brothers
fell into his hands, after a short time, Malik Taj-ud-Din,
Yal-duz, entered into a stipulation' with them, and caused
them to return to Bāmiān. After a little while, difference
of interests arose between the two brothers. Jalāl-ud-Din,
'Ali, was a lion-hearted monarch, an ascetic, and a firm
ruler; and 'Ala-ud-Din, Muḥammad, did not agree with
him, and he left Bāmiān, and proceeded to the presence of
Sulṭān Muḥammad, Khwārazm Shāh. The assistance it was
his object there to obtain was not advanced, and his good
fortune did not again favour him, and luck did not aid
in eleven other copies. The latter is evidently the name of one of the
Ghuzz tribes.
A Kārwān-Sarãe, also a station on an enemy's frontier.
This was done to induce 'Ala-ud-Din, Muḥammad, to give up Ghaznin.
5 This evidently refers to the occasion when I-yal-düz gave one of his
daughters in marriage to Jalāl-ud-Din, 'Ali. See para. second, note7, page
433.
Our author says nothing of these disagreements in his account of Jalāl-ud-
Din, 'Ali, at page 432.
496
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĂȘIRĪ.
him; and, after Sultan Muḥammad, Khwārazm Shāh, took
possession of the territory of Bamian, 'Ala-ud-Din,
Bāmiān,
Muḥammad, died'.
He had the daughter of 'Alā-ud-Din, Utsuz, son of ’Alā-
ud-Din, Ḥusain [Jahān-soz], to wife, and by that Princess
he had a son. When the writer of these words, Minhaj-i-
Sarāj, in the year 621 H., had to undertake a journey into
the Kuhistan from the territory of Ghūr, on an embassy,
it was intimated to him that that Princess and her son were
then in the district of Khush-ab, on the borders of Tabas,
into which part they had come during the misfortunes
attending the irruption of the accursed ones of Chin.
IV. SULŢĂN TĀJ-UD-DĪN, YAL-DUZ, AL-MU’IZZĪ US-SULŢĂNĪº.
Sulṭān Mu'izz-ud-Din, Muḥammad, son of Sām, was a
mighty monarch, just, a champion of the Faith, lion-
hearted, and in valour a second 'Ali-i-Abu-Talib-may
God reward him!-but he was wanting in children', and
one daughter was all he had by [his wife] the daughter of
7 See page 266–267.
8 See page 414.
66
• So called from having been one of the Slaves of Sulṭān Mu'izz-ud-Din, and
who, if the latter had been so renowned in history" as "Shahab-ood-Deen
Mahomed Ghoory," we might have expected to have been styled Shihabi
instead. Kutb-ud-Din, I-bak, and others are called Mu'izzi for the same
reason. It would be difficult to decide what is the real meaning here of the
word Yal-duz. In the different copies of the text it is written as above, and in
the three oldest copies the vowel points are also given; but in other works, in-
cluding Yafa-i and Fașiḥ-i, the word is written more correctly I-yal-düz, the firs
word of which is the same as occurs in I-yal-Arsalān, I-yal-timish, &c. In one
lexicographical work ja without any vowels being mentioned, is said to be
Turki [of which there is no doubt], and to be the name of a man and a star,
not a star only. I-yal [!], among other meanings, signifies a mounta
bull; Ï-1 [J'], which is not the word here meant, means friendly, obedient,
tame, familiar; and Yal [], brave, valiant, intrepid. Dūz [] means flat,
level, smooth, even; and [] dijz and diz [je] mean a fort, a hill, and also
rough, austere; anger, fury, rage, and the like. Among the Turks, as wi
other Oriental people, the name of a child is often derived from some object o
incident, trifling or otherwise, which may have struck the mother's fancy, or
that of any of the women present at the child's birth; and the name I-yal-dūz,
Yal-duz, or Yal-dūz is doubtless something of the same kind.
1 From the accounts given by some other authors, it would appear tha
Sultān Mu'izz-ud-Din had had several children born to him, but only one
daughter survived him. The others may have died in childhood. At page 344,
which see, he is said to have married the daughter of Malik Saif-ud-Din, Sūri
son of his paternal uncle, Shihab-ud-Din, Muḥammad, Khar-nak, whose othe
son was named Nāṣir-ud-Din, Muḥammad [Husain].
THE SHANSABĀNĪAH DYNASTY OF GHAZNÎN.
497
his uncle, Malik Nāṣir-ud-Din, Muḥammad, Mādini; and
he had a great fancy for purchasing Turkish slaves, and
he bought a great number of slaves of that race. Every
one of them acquired renown throughout the whole of the
countries of the East for activity, warlike accomplishments,
and expertness; and the names of his slaves became
published in the four quarters of the world, and during the
Sultan's lifetime every one of them became famous.
Trustworthy persons have related on this wise, that one
of the confidential favourites of the Sultan's Court made
bold to represent to him, saying: "To a monarch like
unto thee, the like of whom in height of dignity and
grandeur the whole expanse of the empire of Islām does
not contain, sons were necessary to thy empire, in order
that every one of them might be the inheritor of a kingdom
of the empire of the universe, so that, after the expiration
of the period of this [present] reign, the sovereignty might
continue permanent in this family." That victorious.
Sultan [in reply] uttered these august words:" Other
monarchs may have one son, or two sons: I have so
many thousand sons, namely, my Turk slaves², who will
be the heirs of my dominions, and who, after me, will take
care to preserve my name in the Khutbah throughout those
territories³." And so
And so it happened as declared in the
2 And yet the very first TURK slave who acquired the sovereignty after the
Sultan's death is turned into a Pathán, i. e. an Afghān, and even the Sultan
himself, and without any authority for such a,statement.
3 This may explain [for our author's statements, in different places, make
the above one very doubtful] why Taj-ud-Din, I-yal-dūz, is supposed to have
issued coins in the sole name of his deceased master and sovereign, and why
he styles himself "the servant and slave" of the "martyred Sultan, Muḥammad-
i-Sām." See the notice of his coins in Thomas, "PATHAN KINGS OF DEHLI,"
pages 25-31. It is quite a mistake to suppose that I-yal-dūz ever styled
himself "Sultān-i-Mu'azzam"-he is styled, at the head of this Chapter,
Mu'izzi—and it is probable the titles on the different coins, especially those
bearing "Sultan-ul-Mashrik," from our author's statement here, apply to the
late Sultan, or, more probably, to his successor, Maḥmūd, who is styled b
authors Sultan-i-Mashriķain wa Shahanshah-i-Maghrabain :--
محمود بن محمد بن سام بن حسين
سلطان مشرقین و شهنشاه مغردين
Kutb-ud-Din probably did the same, although we have no proof; but, what-
ever may have been done in our author's time, Shams-ud-Din, I-yal-timish,
the Kutbi slave and son-in-law, does not appear to have followed the same
example, from the evidence on the coins given by Thomas at pages 52 and 78.
See however our author's statement at page 398, where he says the Khutbah
498
THE TABAĶAT-I-NĂŞIRI.
5
hallowed words of that victorious Sultan-on whom be the
Almighty's mercy!—which, throughout the whole dominion
of Hindustan, up to the period when this book was written,
namely, the year 657 H., they observed, and are still
observing; and it is to be sincerely implored that, by the
grace of Almighty God, these dominions may continue, in
this same manner, under their sway to the uttermost end
of the existence of the race of Adam.
I now reach my own discourse, which is the account of
Sultan Taj-ud-Din, Yal-duz.
He was a great monarch, of excellent faith, mild, bene-
ficent, of good disposition, and very handsome. The
Sulṭān-i-Ghāzi, Mu'izz-ud-Din, purchased him when he
was young in years, and, from the outset of his career,
appointed him to an office, and subsequently, step by step,
advanced him to a high position, and made him head and
chief over the other Turkish slaves. When he grew up
he attained authority and power, and the Sulṭān conferred
upon him the government of the district of Sanķurān and
Kaṛmān' in feudal fief; and every year that the Sultān
was read for Sultan MAHMUD, and that the coin was stamped with his name
throughout the whole of the territories of Ghūr, Ghaznin, and Hindūstān.
That portion of Hindustan which our author's patron ruled over probably.
5 In three copies 568 H.
• Jahān-Ārā, Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh, and others, state that the Sulṭān
used to treat these Turkish Mamluks like sons, and bestowed the government
of provinces and countries upon them. He esteemed the most, and placed
the greatest confidence in, Tāj-ud-Din, I-yal-dūz, and showed him the greatest
honour ; and the Sultan's followers used to pay him great homage, and
attention, and go in his train. During the lifetime of the Sultan, Taj-ud-
Din became Wali of Kaṛman; and, from the great honour and respect in
which he was held, he subsequently acquired dominion over the kingdom of
Ghaznin. Compare this with FIRISHTAH'S idle tales, both in his text and
in Dow and BRIGGS.
7 The province which Taj-ud-Din, I-yal-dūz, held, included the tract of
country, containing several darahs-long valleys with hills on two sides, and
rivers running through them-extending from the southern slopes of Spin-
ghar, the White Mountain, in Pushto, and the south-westerly slopes of the
Salt Range, on the north; towards the Gumal on the south; from the range
of hills separating the district of Gardaiz on the west; and to the Sind-Sagar
or Sind or Indus on the east;—a large tract of country watered by the Kurmah
[vulg. Kurram] river and its tributaries, which province, in ancient times,
must have been exceedingly populous and flourishing, to judge from the
remains of several cities still to be seen in it, and which is still very fruitful.
The upper portion of this tract is called the darah of KURMAH, and, lower
down, towards the Sind, are Banu and Marwat.
The KURMAH darah is about 40 kuroh in length [each kuroh, in this part,
THE SHANSABANĨAH DYNASTY OF GHAZNĪN. 499
would make a halt in Kaṛmān, on his expeditions into
Hindustan, Taj-ud-Din, Yal-duz, used to feast the whole
being 2000 paces], and having little level ground. On either side of this
great darah are smaller ones, running in nearly transverse directions; but
those I would more particularly refer to here, as forming an important portion
of I-yal-dūz's fief, and giving name to the province, are those springing, so to
speak, from Spin-ghar.
One of these is the darah of SHALUZAN [also written in the account of
Amir Timur, Shanūzān], and which our author refers to [see page 450]
as SANKURAN, which name appears to have been derived from a tribe of the
Ghuzz, so named, who held it before, and in the time of Sultan Ghiyāṣ-ud-
Din, and his brother, Sulṭān Mu'izz-ud-Din. It is seven kuroh in length
from north to south, and through it flows a stream which issues from Spin-
ghar, and joins the river from the Paiwaṛ valley. Its inhabitants are Toris,
who are reckoned among the Afghāns, but they CLAIM other descent, and
some Awān-kārs, a tribe of Jaṭs, which appears to have been, for the most
part, displaced by the easterly migrations of the Afghān tribes, and are now
chiefly located on the other side of the Sind-Sagar or Indus.
KARMAN is another darah somewhat smaller, with a stream running through
it which also joins the Shalūzān and other streams which fall into the Kurmah.
I find no mention, in any author, of any ancient town of Kaṛmān, but the
governor of the province was located in the darah, and there may have been
a considerable town so called, or, at least, a permanent encampment.
East of Shalūzān is the ZEṚĀN darah, running in a south-westerly
direction from Spin-ghar, and eight kuroh in length. A stream issuing
from Spin-ghar flows through it, which, having joined the Shalūzān river,
enters the Kurmah west of the town or large village of Úji Khel. The
people are Dzāzis [turned into Jajees by travellers], who also are reckoned
among the Afghāns but CLAIM other descent, and some Awān-kārs.
Another large darah, and the most westerly one, is ĪRĪ-ĀB [vulg. Harriab],
twenty kuroh in length, running south-west from Spin-ghar, very mountainous,
but very fruitful.
Out of this darah likewise a stream issues, which, flowing
east of Baghzan, the chief town of the Dzāzis, enters the Kurmah district, and
receives the name of Kurmah.
Another darah is PAIWAR [not Piwar], which also has its river, which joins
the others before mentioned, flowing from the northwards.
The chief towns and large villages of this tract, at present, are Astiyā
[this is not the place referred to at page 339], Paiwaṛ, Balūṭ, Zūmisht, Saidā,
Ūji Khel, Buland Khel, Balimin [vulg. Balameen], Īri-āb, Baghzan, and the
cluster of villages called by the name of the darah, Shalūzān, with many of
smaller size. Kurmah, called by travellers Kurram, where is a fort, and the
residence of the local governor, is not situated in the Kaṛmān darah, so is
not to be confounded with any place of that name. This name, Kaṛmān, which
is spelt as the natives spell it, has caused some absurd blunders among writers
and translators, who have supposed it referred to the Persian province of Kirman.
The darahs south of the Kurmah darah include those of Khost, Dawar,
Maidān, and Bakr Khel, each with its stream which falls into the Kurmah; but
the whole of those mentioned, in the summer, decrease very much in volume.
It was through this province of Kaṛman-the government of which was a
most important post-that the lower route from Ghaznin to Lahor lay, which
is referred to in note ¹, page 481. The route by Kaṛman was the "lower
route" referred to in Alfi in the same note.
500
THE TABAKAT-I-NĀŞIRĪ.
of the Amirs, the Maliks, and the suite, and was in the
habit of presenting a thousand honorary head-dresses and
quilted tunics, and would command liberal largess to be
given to the whole retinue.
By command of the Sultan-i-Ghāzi, a daughter of Tāj-
ud-Din, Yal-duz, was given in marriage to Sulṭān Kuṭb-ud-
Din, I-bak; and another daughter' was married to Malik
Naşir-ud-Din, Ķabā-jah'. Sulṭān' Tāj-ud-Din, Yal-duz,
had likewise two sons, one of whom he had placed with
a preceptor. One day that preceptor, by way of chastise-
ment and discipline, struck the boy over the head with an
earthen water-flask'. The decree of destiny had come,
and the water-flask struck him in a mortal place, and the
boy died. Information was conveyed to Sulṭān Tāj-ud-
Din, Yal-duz, who forthwith, out of his excessive clemency
and exemplary piety, sent funds to the preceptor for his
expenses, with directions that "he should get out of the
way, and undertake a journey, before the boy's mother
became aware of her son's fate, lest she might cause any
injury to be done him, in anguish for the loss of her son."
This anecdote is a proof of the goodness of disposition and
the purity of faith of that amiable Sulṭān.
In the last year of the reign of Sulṭān Mu'izz-ud-Din, wen
that monarch [on his last expedition into Hind] came into
Kaṛmān and halted there, Tāj-ud-Din, Yal-duz, presented
those yearly stipulated thousand tunics and head-dresses.
The Sultan, out of the whole of them, selected one tunic
and one head-dress, and honoured his slave by presenting
him with his own princely robe; and the Sulṭān conferred
upon him a black banner, and it was the desire of his
august mind that Tāj-ud-Din, Yal-duz, after himself,
should succeed to the throne of Ghaznin³. When the
9 One daughter was given in marriage to Jalāl-ud-Din, 'Ali, of Bāmiān,
hence there must have been three, or more daughters. See note 7, page 433.
1 Our author styles him Malik and Sulṭān indiscriminately.
2 Firishtah has [], a whip; but all the copies of our author's
text have ; The Tabakat-i-Akbari too says: "he took up a gugglet
and struck him over the head with it," &c. A whipping was not likely to
cause death, but the other mode of chastisement was.
3 Here again is a specimen of the manner in which Firishtah has been
translated, and whose translated work hitherto has furnished the sole materials
for writers of Indian Histories for our Colleges and Schools :-
Dow says that " Mahommed, in his last expedition, favoured Eldoze so
THE SHANSABĀNĨAH DYNASTY OF GHAZNĪN.
501
4
Sultan-i-Ghāzi attained martyrdom, it was the desire and
disposition of the Turk Maliks and Amirs that Sultān
Ghiyās-ud-Din, Maḥmūd, son of [Ghiyās-ud-Din] Muḥam-
mad, son of Sam, should come from the confines of Garmsir
to Ghaznin, and ascend his uncle's throne, and that they
all should gird up their loins in his service. To this effect
they wrote to the Court of Firūz-koh, and represented,
saying: "The Sulṭāns of Bāmiān are acting oppressively,
and are ambitious of obtaining possession of Ghaznin.
Thou art the heir to the dominion, and we are thy slaves"."
much that he bestowed upon him the black standard of the kingdom of
Ghizni, by this intimating his will, that he should succeed to the throne,”
&c. BRIGGS has "Mahomed Ghoory, in his last expedition to India, con-
ferred on Taj-ood-Deen the privilege of carrying the black standard of Ghizny,
an honour which was usually confined to the heir-apparent." Any one reading
this last version could only conclude that Taj-ud-Din carried this "black
standard" in the last expedition, but such was not the case. Firishtah copies
almost the very words of our author: these are his words "Sultān Mu'izz-
ud-Din [he calls him Mu'izz and Shihab indiscriminately] in the latter part
of his reign, when he came into Kaṛman, dignified him by presenting him
with one of his own dresses, and specially conferred upon him a black banner
[for his own use that is], and it was the Sultan's desire that, after his own
decease, the Ghaznin territory should be his."
He refers to Baha-ud-Din, Sam's, sons here.
5 Our author contradicts himself twice, and makes three different statements
on this subject. At page 431 he says the general desire, both of the Turk and
Ghūri Amirs, was that Baha-ud-Din, Sām, of Bāmiān, should succeed to the
sovereignty; and at page 432 he contradicts himself, and states that they were
all inclined to his sons obtaining it. Tāj-ud-Din, I-yal-dūz, was the chief of
them, and the principal mover in this matter. From this statement of our
author, and his accounts given elsewhere, as well as from the statements of
other authors, it is clear that Taj-ud-Din, I-yal-dūz, up to this time, had not
been removed from the government of this province, and therefore did not shut
his sovereign and master out of Ghaznin after his defeat at Andkhūd; and,
further, that it was not until he and the other Mamlūks of the late Sultan had
called upon his nephew, Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din, Maḥmūd, to assume the sovereignty
over Ghaznin and Hind that he, I-yal-dūz, left Kaṛman, on being nominated
to the sovereignty of the kingdom of Ghaznin, and receiving his freedom from
Mahmud himself.
Alfi says, however, that, "when Tāj-ud-Din, I-yal-dūz, gained a firm hold
of the authority at Ghaznin, Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din, Maḥmūd, sent him a message
from Firuz-koh, requesting him to coin the money in his name, and read the
Khutbah for him. Tāj-ud-Din sent a reply, saying, that, when Maḥmūd
should send him a deed of manumission, he would do so; otherwise he would
give his allegiance to whomsoever he chose. As Mahmud was not safe from
being assailed by Khwārazm Shāh, and fearing lest Tāj-ud-Din should go over
to him [as 'Izz-ud-Din, Husain, son of Khar-mil, had done], he sent the
required deed of manumission to Tāj-ud-Din, and another to Kutb-ud-Din,
Ï-bak, together with deeds of investiture for the governments of Ghaznin and
Hindustan respectively. Kutb-ud-Din, Ï-bak, at this time was at Purshor,
502
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĂŞIRÏ.
Sultan Ghiyās-ud-Din, Maḥmūd, replied, saying: "To me
the throne of my father, which is the capital, Firūz-koh,
and the kingdom of Ghur, is the most desirable. I confer
the territory [of Ghaznin] on you" and he despatched a
robe of honour to Sultan Taj-ud-Din, Yal-duz, and pre-
sented him with a letter of manumission, and assigned the
throne of Ghaznin unto him.
By virtue of this mandate Sulṭān Tāj-ud-Din, Yal-duz,
came to Ghaznin, and seized the Maliks of Bāmiān, and
ascended the throne of Ghaznin, and brought that territory
under his jurisdiction. After a time he was excluded from
Ghaznin, and again returned to it, and again brought it
whither he had come to guard one of the routes into Hind, and was well pleased
with what was conferred upon him."
Other writers state that I-yal-düz sent an agent to Maḥmud and tendered his
allegiance, and confirm what our author states; but they probably copied their
account from his.
• Called "Sultāns" in the preceding paragraph, and in his previous account
of them. Alfi says I-yal-dūz, subsequent to sending Jalāl-ud-Din, 'Ali, back
to Bāmiān, as stated in note 7, page 433, assembled his forces, and carried his
inroads as far as Bust; and that, when Abi-Dakur [Zakur?] reached Kabul,
after his desertion of Jalal-ud-Din, 'Ali, an emissary reached him on the part
of Ķutb-ud-Din, I-bak, which emissary he had first despatched to Taj-ud-Din,
I-yal-dūz, reproaching him for his conduct towards his benefactor, Sulṭān
Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din, Maḥmūd, and exhorting him to discontinue it. This emissary
was directed to ask Abi-Dakur to co-operate with him [I-bak]; and, in case
I-yal-dūz did not hold his hand and repent of his acts, that Abi-Dakur should
assemble his troops and assail Ghaznin, and wrest it from I-yal-dūz, who
appears to have been then absent in Bust; and, in case he [Abi-Dakur] did
not find himself powerful enough for the purpose of taking it, not to be
deterred, as he was following to support him. Abi-Dakur complied with the
request, and invested Mu-ayyid-ul-Mulk, the Wazir, whom I-yal-dūz had left
there as his lieutenant, and a portion of the suburbs of Ghaznin was taken and
occupied by his men. On becoming aware of this movement, I-yal-düz
returned from Bust by forced marches, and reached Ghaznin, on which Abi-
Dakur precipitately withdrew, and joined Sulṭān Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din, Maḥmūd,
who gave him his manumission, and conferred upon him the title of Malik-ul-
Umra [Chief of Nobles].
At this time Sultan Muḥammad, Khwārazm Shah, advanced from Hirāt [on
his way to Hirāt?], and took the town and fortress of Tāl-kān from the
Ghūris, and then marched to Kāl-yūsh [Kāl-yūn ?] and Fiwār, and encountered
several times Amir Husām-ud-Din, the governor of those parts, for Maḥmūd;
but he did not succeed in his design, as they were very strong places, and
Sultan Muḥammad retired to Hirāt again. Arrived there, he acquainted the
ruler of Sijistān of it, and Malik Taj-ud-Din-i-Harab acknowledged his
suzerainty, and read the Khutbah and coined money in Khwārazm Shah's
name. These are the events of the year 594 from the Prophet's death
[604 H.]. The difference between the two eras H. and RIHLAT is ten years
less twenty or twenty-one days.
THE SHANSABĀNĪAH DYNASTY OF GHAZNĪN.
503
under his sway. A second time the same thing happened,
until, after some time, a battle took place between him and
Sultan Kutb-ud-Din, I-bak, on the confines of the Panj-āb’;
and Taj-ud-Din, Yal-duz, was defeated, and Sultan Kutb-
ud-Din advanced to Ghaznin, and remained there for a
period of forty days, during which time he gave himself up
to pleasure and revelry. A third time Sulṭān Tāj-ud-Din,
Yal-duz, marched from Kaṛman towards Ghaznin, and
Sulṭān Ķuṭb-ud-Din, I-bak, retired again towards Hin-
dustan by the route of Sang-i-Surakh, and once more Tāj-
ud-Din, Yal-duz, brought Ghaznin under his rule'.
He sent armies upon several occasions towards Ghūr,
Khurāsān, and Sijistan, and nominated Maliks [to com-
mand them]. On one occasion he despatched a force to
aid Sulṭān Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din, Maḥmūd, as far as the gates of
Hirāt, on account of the treason of 'Izz-ud-Din, Husain,
son of Khar-mil, who was the Malik of Hirāt, and who had
conspired with Sultan Muhammad, Khwärazm Shāh, and
had gone over to him, and who fled before the forces of
Ghur and Ghaznin'.
On another occasion Sultan Taj-ud-Din, Yal-duz, led an
army towards Sijistān, and remained away on that ex-
pedition for a considerable time, and advanced as far as
7 Some copies have "on the confines of the Panj-āb-i-Sind”—the five rivers
of Sind.
8 "I-yal-dūz having sent the Wazir of Ghaznin against Ķabā-jah and ousted
him from Lahor [see reign of Kabā-jah, next Section], Kutb-ud-Din, Ï-bak,
advanced into the Panj-āb against I-yal-dūz in 603 H., and, I-yal-düz having
encountered him, was defeated, and retreated to Kaṛmān and Shalūzān, which
districts had been his charge in Mu'izz-ud-Din's reign. Kutb-ud-Din, Ï-bak,
pushed on to Ghaznin [by another route], and drove out the governor, on the
part of Jalāl-ud-Din, Sulṭān Muḥammad, Khwārazm Shah's son, and then
gave himself up to wine and debauchery. The people of Ghaznin sent to I-yal-
dūz and solicited him to return; and, when he arrived in the neighbourhood,
at the head of a numerous force, Ķutb-ud-Din, I-bak, was quite unprepared
to resist him, and he made the best of his way towards Hind by the route of
Sang-i-Sūrākh, and reached Lohor." On this occasion 'Izz-ud-Din, 'Ali-i-
Mardān, the Khalj, who assassinated Muḥammad, son of Bakht-yār, ruler of
Lakhanawati, and afterwards obtained from Kutb-ud-Din, Ï-bak, the government
of that territory, was taken prisoner. See his reign, next Section. As Kutb-
ud-Din did not consider himself safe from the designs of I-yal-düz, he continued
at Lohor until 607 H., when he met with the accident which caused his death."
⁹ On the death of Kutb-ud-Din, and dethronement of Ārām Shāh, his
adopted son, Tāj-ud-Din, Ï-yal-dūz, sent a canopy of state and other insignia
of royalty to Shams-ud-Din, I-yal-timish. See his reign, Section XXI.
1 See note 2, page 257; and note 3, page 400.
504
THE TABA AT-I-NĂŞIRĪ.
the gates of the city of Sistān². At length peace was con-
cluded between him and Malik Taj-ud-Din-i-Ḥarab, who
was the king of Sijistan. When Taj-ud-Din, Yal-duz, set out
on his return [to Ghaznin], on his way thither, Malik Naşir"-
ud-Din, Ḥusain, the Amir-i-Shikar [Chief Huntsman]
showed disaffection towards him, and engagements took
place between them. Malik Naşir-ud-Din was overthrown,
and retired towards Khwarazm [the Khwarazm territory?],
and after a time returned, until, on the expedition [of Taj-
ud-Din] into Hindūstān¹, the Turkish Maliks and Amirs of
2 Other authors do not mention any cause why I-yal-düz should have marched
against Sistān, and do not give any details respecting this affair.
It may have
been caused through the ruler of Sijistān proposing to acknowledge the suze-
rainty of Sultan Muḥammad, Khwārazm Shah; but our author does not say a
word about any expedition of this kind in his account of the rulers of Sijistān.
Here, again, is a specimen of history-writing. Dow says: "Eldoze, in con-
junction with the Emperor Mamood of Ghor, sent an army to Hirat, which
they conquered, as also a great part of Seistan; but, making a peace with the
prince of that country, they returned." Then BRIGGS says:
"At length, in
conjunction with the King, Mahmood of Ghoor, he (Yeldooz) sent an army to
Herat, which he reduced, as also great part of Seestan," &c. Firishtah, how-
ever, says: Once, to support Sultan Mahmud, he despatched an army against
Hirāt, and overcame the Malik of Hirāt, 'Izz-ud Din, Husain-i-Khar-mil. On
another occasion he marched an army against Sistān, and invested it, and [then]
made a peace with the Malik of Sistan, and returned." Firishtah, however,
is no authority whatever for Western affairs; and as to overcoming 'Izz-ud-
Din, son of Husain-i-Khar-mil, see last para. to note 2, page 258. For
further details respecting the reign of I-yal-dūz not mentioned here, see pages
417 and 420.
3 Naşir-ud-Din in two copies, and Nașr in another. He held the office of
Chief Huntsman under the late Sultan.
4 Among the events of the year Riḥlat 603, according to Alfi [Hijrah 613],
Sulṭān Muḥammad, Khwārazm Shāh, acquired possession of Ghaznin. After
that monarch had possessed himself of the territory of Bāmiān and Khurāsān
from the Ghurian nobles, he despatched an agent to Taj-ud-Din, I-yal dūz,
intimating that if he, Tāj-ud-Din, would acknowledge his suzerainty, and
stamp the coin with his name, and pay him a yearly tribute, he should be left
in quiet possession of Ghaznin; otherwise he must be prepared to see his
troops speedily appear before it. Tāj-ud-Din, I-yal-dūz, called a council of
his Amirs; and Ķutlagh Tigin, his Amir-ul-Umrā [Jāmi'-ut-Tawārikh says
his Nayab or Lieutenant at Ghaznin], who was another of the late Sultan
Mu'izz-ud-Din's slaves, advised that the Sultan's demands should be acceded
to, as it was impossible for them to resist Khwārazm Shāh. Tāj-ud-Din,
I-yal-dūz, complied, and despatched befitting offerings and presents, and
accepted the Sultan's etrms.
Not long after these events, Tāj ud-Din went out on a hunting excursion,
and Kutlagh Tigin sent information to the Sulṭān [who was then on the
northern frontier of I-yal-dūz's territory], saying, that Ghaznin was now freed
from Tāj-ud-Din's presence, and urged him to come thither that he might
deliver up the place to him. Khwārazm Shāh acceded to the request, and

THE CHANSARANIAH DYNASTY OF GHAZNIN
505
Ghaznin conspired together and put to death the Khwajah,
Mu-ayyid-ul-Mulk, Muhammad-1-'Abd-ullah, Sanjari, who
held the office of Wazir, and likewise Malik Naşir-ud-Din,
Husain, the Amīr-i-Shikār.
5
After a period of forty days. Sultan Muhammad,
Khwārazm Shāh, marched an army from the side of
Tukhārıstan, and advanced towards Ghaznin, and his
troops suddenly and unexpectedly seized the frontier route
leading into Hindustan, towards Gardaiz and the Karahah
Darah [Pass]. Sultan Taj-ud-Din, Yal-duz, took the route
towards Hindustan, by way of Sang-1-Surākh, and reached
Lohor An engagement took place between him [Sultān
Tāj-ud-Din, Yal-duz] and the august Sultan Shams-ud-
Din, I-yal-timish', in the vicinity of Taia'in, and Sultān
8
obtained possession of Ghaznin; and Taj-ud-Din, finding what had happened
[Tāj-ul-Ma'āsır says in 612 H ], 1etned towards Hind The Jami'-ut-Tawārīkḥ
states that this took place in 611 H, and that all the dominions of the Ghuris
fell under his sway
Sultan Muhammad, Khwārazm Shah, having obtained possession of Ghaz-
nin, as above related, Tāj-ud-Dīn, I yal-dūz, continued his retreat towards
Hind On reaching the neighbourhood of Lahor, he fought a battle with
Nāsır-ud-Din, Ķabā jah, who was governor of that province on the part of
Kutb-ud-Din, I bak, defeated him, took possession of Lahor for himself, and
soon appropiated the whole of the Panjab [See the account of Nasu-ud-Din,
Ķabā-jah, page 532 ]
Khwāιazm Shāh, according to the statement of Alfi, on taking possession
of Ghaznin, put to death all the Ghurian nobles and chiefs [which is very
improbable], made over the city and tentory to his son, Jalāl-ud-Din [he
nominated him to the rulership of those parts, but left an officer there as his
son's deputy], and returned to Khwaiazm
It is
5 In some copies Kaiāsah [ i ], but the best have as above
one of the Passes on the 1oute from Ghaznin towards Lahor, the name of which
has been changed with the change in the inhabitants of those parts
6 There are three or four places so called, signifying the "Perforated Stone'
The oute here seems to refer to a moie southeily route than that by the Pass
above mentioned. It is a totally different route to that mentioned at page
441
7 Four good copies, two of which are old ones, wiite this name heie, and in
some other places, with two ts-I-yal-titmish, and some other writers do the
same.
• The engagement between Sultān Tāj-ud-Dīn, I-yal-düz, and this "august
Sultan"—the slave of the slave, Kutb-ud-Din, Ï-bak, his own son-in-law-
took place, by some accounts, on Saturday, the 20th of Shawwal, 611 H, and,
according to others, on Monday, the 31d of Shawwal, 612 H, at Taā'īn,
now Talawarī, near Panipat, in the neighbourhood of which the fate of India
has so often been decided Tāj-ud-Din was put to death soon after, in the
citadel of Budā'un, by his 1val, I-yal-tumish, on whom he had himself con-
feried the insignia of royalty after I-yal-timish's usurpation of the sovereignty
K k
506
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĂŞIRĪ.
Taj-ud-Din, Yal-duz, was [defeated and] taken prisoner,
and sent to the district of Budā'un; and there he was
martyred, and there his mausoleum is situated, and has
become a place of pilgrimage, and is visited by suppliants.
His reign extended over a period of nine years. The
Almighty's mercy be upon him! God alone is immortal
and eternal!
V. SULTAN-UL-KARIM [THE BENEFICENT], KUTB-UD-DİN,
I-BAK, AL-MU'IZZĪ US-SULTĀNĪ.
The beneficent and just Sulṭān, Kutb-ud-Din, I-bak,
who was a second Hatim, seized the throne of Ghaznin,
and took it out of the hands of Taj-ud-Din, Yal-duz, who
was his father-in-law. He occupied the throne for a period
of forty days, and, during this space of time, he was wholly
engaged in revelry, and in bestowing largess; and the
affairs of the country through this constant festivity were
neglected. The Turks of Ghaznin, and the Maliks of the
Mu'izzi [dynasty], wrote letters secretly to Sulṭān Tāj-ud-
Din, Yal-duz, and entreated him to return. Sultan Taj-
ud-Din determined to march thither from Kaṛman, and, as
the distance was short, he reached Ghaznin unexpectedly.
Sultan Kutb-ud-Din, when he became aware of this, retired
from Ghaznin towards Hindustan again, by the way of
Sang-i-Surakh'; and, as both of them, in the position of
father-in-law and son-in-law, were in the relation of father
and son, they did not cause any injury to be done to each
other. Subsequently to that, the territory of Ghaznin came
into the possession of Sultan Muhammad, Khwārazm Shāh,
and under the authority of the Khwārazmi Maliks, as has
been previously recorded.
This Section, on the Shansabānis and their Slaves, is
of Dibli, and dethronement of Ķutb-ud-Din's son [according to our author,
but his adopted son, according to others], and putting him to death.
9 A very stable government, certainly-forty days! Our author has made
Kutb-ud-Din, I-bak, one of the Sultāns of Ghaznin, as though he wanted to
make up the number as much as possible, and he is introduced here without
any cause whatever. Tāj-ud-Din, I-yal-dūz, took Lahor, and ousted its
governor, and held it a much longer time, and he, under the same system,
should have been entered among the Sultāns of Hindūstān.
THE SHANSABĀNĪAH DYNASTY OF GHAZNIN.
507
concluded; and, after this, I come to the Section on the
Sultāns of Hindustan, the first of whom to be mentioned
is Sultan Kutb-ud-Din, I-bak, and his illustrious actions',
which, please God, will be recorded as fully as the limits
of this book will permit.
1 The more modern copies of the text differ here somewhat.
Kk 2
SECTION XX.
ACCOUNT OF THE MU’IZZIAH SULŢĀNS OF HIND.
THUS saith the feeble servant of the Almighty, Abū
'Umr-i-'Uṣmān, Minhāj-i-Sarāj, Jūrjāni—the Almighty God
preserve him from indiscretion!-that this TABAKAT is de-
voted to the mention of those Sulṭāns, who were the Slaves
of the Court, and servants of the Sultan-i-Ghāzi, Mu'izz-ud-
Din, Muḥammad, son of Sam'-on whom be peace!-and
¹ English writers on Indian History, with scarcely an exception, begin,
from this point, their-I say their, because no native historian does so for
obvious reasons-"AFGHAN or PATAN Dynasty of Dehli," with the first
Turkish slave king, Ķuṭb-ud-Din, of the Powerless Finger,—although one or
two of them commence with his Tājik master, Sulṭān Mu'izz-ud-Din,
Muḥammad, son of Sām, Ghūri,—as its founder.
This monstrous error, which has been handed down from one writer to
another for more than a century, no doubt, originated with Dow, who, in
1768, published a version of FIRISHTAH'S HISTORY, the commonest Persian
historical work that is to be met with in India, and the one which is generally
known to most educated Musalmāns. The work, in itself, which is a com-
pilation from other works, and largely copies the histories composed in the
reign of Akbar, is not very often incorrect; but, consequently, Firishtah
is not a very great authority, and, as regards non-Indian history, no authority
at all.
Dow professes, in his Preface [which teems with monstrous errors, but
which I must pass over here, as I have referred to it in another place. See
JOURNAL OF THE BENGAL ASIATIC SOCIETY for the present year, 1875],
to have entered into more detail". -to have "clipped the wings of Firishta's
turgid expressions, and rendered his metaphors into common language," and
further states [p. ix] that he has "given as few as possible of the faults [!]
of the author; but has been cautious enough, not wittingly at least, to sub-
stitute any of his own in their place" [!!].
"
Notwithstanding all this, the work was so translated, that Gibbon suspected
that, through some odd fatality, the style of Firishtah had been improved
by that of Ossian ;" and, as it caused the late Sir H. Elliot, in his BIOGRAPHICAL
INDEX [p. 317], to say "his [Dow's] own remarks are so interwoven as to
convey an entirely different meaning from that which Firishtah intended," and
some of the commonest sentences are misunderstood, and the florid diction
was occasionally used to gloss and embellish an imperfect comprehension of the
original."
This is, by no means, an exaggerated picture of the translation, but, on the
THE MU'IZZIAH SULTANS OF HIND.
509
who, in the empire of Hindūstān, sat upon the throne of
sovereignty; to whom the throne of the kingdom of that
contrary, a very sober one, as I shall show in as brief a manner as possible,
with regard to those passages only which have led some conscientious writers
to turn Turkish slaves, Khalj Turks, the descendants of Jats, low caste
Hindūs, and Sayyids, into Afghans or Patāns.
Passing over the numerous errors in the Preface of Dow's translation to
save space, I begin with his Introduction, which is taken from Firishtah's, but
a vast deal of the original is left out, for obvious reasons, and what has been
retained is full of ridiculous mistakes. In the account of a Hindū king styled
Kid Raj [page 8], he has: "The mountaineers of Cabul and Candahar, who
are called Afgans [sic] or Patans, advanced against Keda-raja." The words in
italics are NOT in Firishtah.
と
​At page 50, vol. i. Dow has: "In the following year, Mamood [Maḥmūd
of Ghaznin is meant, but the translator ignores the letter -h-in his
name] led his army towards Ghor. One native prince of that country,
Mahommed of the Soor tribe of Afgans [sic], a principality in the mountains
famous for giving birth to the Ghorian dynasty," &c. BRIGGS, too, follows
Dow closely, and often verbatim, in his version of Firishtah. This identical
passage in his translation (vol. i. page 49) runs thus :-"In the following
year Mahmood led an army into Ghoor. The native prince of that country,
Mahomed of the Afghan tribe of Soor (the same race which gave birth to the
dynasty that eventually succeeded in subverting the family of Subooktugeen)," &c.
There is NOT A WORD in Firishtah about "the Afghan tribe of Soor :"
the whole of the passages in italics, in both translations, are NOT in Firishtah.
From this particular passage it is, I suspect, that the monstrous error of
making Paṭāns or Afghāns of all the rulers of Dihli, Turk, Khalj, Jat, or
Sayyid, has arisen. Compilers of Indian History, no doubt, felt assured that
this statement, from its being repeated by both translators, must be in
Firishtah, and, being in Firishtah, that it must be true; but it is NOT in
Firishtah, neither is such a statement correct, nor is such to be found in any
Muḥammadan history.
A few lines under the passage in question, thus incorrectly translated, added
to, and altered from the original, Firishtah refers to the Kitab-i-Yamini, and
quotes our author's work as his authority with reference to the conversion of the
Ghūriāns to Islām, and says: "but the author of the Tabakat-i-Nāṣiri, and
Fakhr-ud-Din, Mubarak Shāh, Marw-ar-Rūdi-i. e. of the town of Marw-ar-
Rūd-who composed a history," &c. [which Firishtah never saw, but learnt
of it from our author. See page 300]. Dow leaves this passage out entirely:
but Briggs, who appears to have been equally smitten with "Afgan or Patan "
monomania, translates [page 50], the last part of the sentence, "Fakhr-ood
Deen Mubarick Lody who wrote a history," &c.
مرو الرودي He read
Marw-ar-Rūdi—as (539) Lody [Lūdi], and so made a “Patan of him too!!
At page 132, Dow has: "The generality of the kings of Ghor, according
to the most authentic historians, could be traced up, by the names, for three-
and-twenty, and DOWNWARDS nine generations, from ALI to MAMOOD, the
son of Subuctagi," &c.
There is NOT one word of this in Firishtah. He gives the names of their
ancestors as our author [from whose work he copied them] and a few others
give them, name by name, down to Zuḥāk the Tāzi; but not understanding,
apparently, what followed in the original, Dow concocted-drew on his own
510
THE TABAĶĀT-J-NĂŞIRĪ.
monarch passed-in the same manner as his own august
fertile imagination-the "nine generations DOWN TO MAMOOD" of Ghaznin,
to whom the Ghūris were no more related than they were to Dow himself.
I have not a copy of Briggs's version by me now, that I might compare it
with Dow's, but I should not be surprised if, in this instance also, he had
drawn his inspiration from Dow. It was from this identical passage, probably,
that the author of a "Student's Manual of Indian History was led to
imagine that Mahmud of Ghaznin was "the great ancestor of Shahab-ood-
Deen."
""
As Sam was the name of Rustam's family, the Tāzik Ghūris might have
been, with equal plausibility, made descendants of Rustam, son of Zāl, the
Sigizi, and moreover Sigistān or Sijistān is close to Ghur, and several of the
Ghuri chiefs were called SĀM.
I now pass from the "Ghuzni Patans" and the Turkish slave "Patans
to the Tughlak dynasty or "Tuglick Patans."
})
Dow has, at page 295, vol. i.: "We have no true account of the pedigree
of Tuglick. It is generally believed that his father, whose name was Tuglick,
had been, in his youth, brought up as an imperial slave, by Balin. His
mother was one of the tribe of Jits. But indeed the pedigrees of the Kings of
the Patan empire make such a wretched figure in history," &c.
NOT ONE of the words in italics is in Firishtah: the whole sentence is his
own concoction. Compare Briggs also.
a
Under the reign of the Afghan ruler whom Dow styles "Shere" [vol. i.
page 159], being more correct in his translation, he consequently contradicts
some of his former assertions. He then describes Roh from Firishtah [" The
Student's Manual of Indian History" however assures us that it is only
town, in the province of Peshawur !!!], but makes several mistakes in
doing so; but Firishtah himself blundered greatly when he said that the
son of the Ghuri chief who took up his abode among the Afghāns was called
Muḥammad-i-Sūri, and that his posterity are known as the Sur Afghāns.
The Afghan tradition is very different. According to it, the chief's son was
named Shah Husain, he was said to have been descended from the younger
branch of the Ghurian race, while Muḥammad-i-Sūri, said to be the great-great
grandfather of the two Sultāns, Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din and Mu'izz-ud-Din, was
descended from the elder branch with whom the sovereignty lay. This Shah
Husain, by one of his Afghan wives, had three sons, Ghalzi, Ibrāhim, surnamed
Lodi and Lūdi-but properly, Loe-daey-and Sarwāņi. Lūdi had two
sons, one of whom was named Siani, who had two sons, Prānki and Ismā'il.
Pranki is the ancestor in the eighth degree of the FIRST Afghan or Paṭān
that attained the sovereignty of Dihli, namely, Sulṭān Bah-lūl, of the Shāhū
Khel tribe of Lūdi, and founder of the Ludiah dynasty. He is the thirtieth
ruler of Dihli counting from Kutb-ud-Din, the Turkish slave of Sultan
Mu'izz-ud-Din, Muḥammad-i-Sām, Ghūri; but, according to Mr. E. Thomas :
"Chronicles of the Pathan Kings of Dehli,' he, under the name of "Buhlól
Lodi," is the thirty-second PATĀN ruler.
The other sons, of whom Shah Husain is said to have been the father,
formed separate tribes, one of which, the Ghalzis, I shall have to make a few
remarks about, shortly.
Isma'il, brother of Prānki, and son of Siani, son of Lüdi, had two sons, one
of whom was named Sur, who is the founder,—not Muḥammad, son of Sūri,
the Ghurian-of the Afghan tribe, not of Suri, which here is a proper name,
but of SŪR. Sur, great grandson of Lūdi, had four sons, from one of whom,
THE MU’IZZŤAH SULȚĀNS OF HIND.
511
words had pronounced, and which have been previously
in the ninth degree, sprung Farid, afterwards Sher Shah, and therefore,
according to the Afghan mode of describing their peoples' descent, he would
be styled, Sher Khan, of the Shera Khel, of the Sur subdivision of the
Lūdi tribe of the Batani Afghāns or Paṭāns. The name of Sūri occurring
among the Ghūri Tāziks, and Sūr among the Afghāns, immediately struck
Firishtah probably, and he, at once, jumped at the conclusion that they were
one and the same, and that the Ghūris were Afghāns, and Afghāns Ghūris.
But, although Firishtah made this mistake-for he is the first who made it—
he never turns Turkish slaves, Khalj Turks, Sayyids, and others into PAȚĀNS,
for, according to Firishtah's statements also, Bah-lūl, Lūdi, is the first PATAN
sovereign of Dihli, as stated by other authors who preceded him.
Under the reign of Salim [Islām] Shāh, Sur, Dow has [at page 191,
vol. ii.], when mentioning his death, "In this same year, Mahmood, the
Patan King of Guzerat, and the Nizam of the Decan, who was of the same
nation, died."
Here we have the descendant of a converted Rajput of the Tak sept, on
the one hand, and the descendant of a Brahman of Bija-nagar [Bi-jayā-
nagar], on the other, turned into AFGHANS; but I need scarcely add that
the words in italics ARE NOT contained in Firishtah. Compare Briggs also
here.
One example more and I have done with these monstrous blunders; but there
are scores unnoticed still. At page 197, vol. ii. Dow, under the reign of
Ibrahim, Sūr, has: "In the meantime, Mahommed of the Afghan family of
Ghor, governour of Bengal, rebelled against Mahommed." The words in
italics ARE NOT contained in Firishtah's text; and what that author does
state is perfectly correct. What Briggs has I am not aware.
The last of the eight Afghan or Paṭān sovereigns of Dihli, as Bah-lūl was
the first, was Aḥmad Khan, who, on ascending the throne, adopted the
title of Sultan Sikandar.
The renowned Afghan chief, the warrior and poet, Khush-ḥāl Khan of
the Khatak tribe, who was well versed in the history of his people, mentions
the only two Paṭān dynasties-Lūdiah and Sūr, in one of his poems [See my
"Poetry of the Afghāns," page 197] in these words :—
"The whole of the deeds of the l'aṭāns are better than those of the Mughals;
But they have no unity among them, and a great pity it is.
The fame of BAH-LUL, and SHER SHAH too, resoundeth in my ears-
Afghan emperors of India who swayed the sceptre effectually and well.
For six or seven generations did they govern so wisely,
That all their people were filled with admiration of them."
He does not claim the Tazik Ghūris, Turks, Parānchahs, and Sayyids however.
I must mention before finishing this, I fear, tiresome note, that ELPHIN-
STONE does not perpetrate the monstrous blunder I have been dilating on.
He very properly calls the Turkish slaves, the "Slave Dynasty;" and the
others under their proper designations. I do not say slaves in a contemptuous
sense, far from it, for they were most able rulers, and many of them were of
as good descent as their master; but they were NOT Paṭāns NOR did they
belong to a Paṭān dynasty. It was however left for the President of the
Archæological Section, at the late Oriental Congress [on the authority
of Major-Gen. A. Cunningham probably] to crown this edifice of errors
with "Ghori Pathans," "Khilji Pathans," "Tughlak Pathans," and "Afghans
"1
512
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĂŞIRĪ.
recorded who became the heirs of his dominion, and the
august brows of whom became encircled with the imperial
diadem of that sovereign; and through whose sway the
signs of the lights of the Muḥammadan faith remained on
the records of the different parts and tracts of the territories
of Hindūstān: and may such evermore continue! The
Almighty's mercy be on those passed away, and may He
prolong the empire of the remainder!
1. SULTAN ĶUṬB-UD.DİN, Î-BAK, AL-MU’IZZĪ US-SULȚĂNĪ ³.
The beneficent Sulṭān Ķuṭb-ud-Din, I-bak, the second
Ḥātim, was a high-spirited and open-handed monarch.
The Almighty God had endowed him with intrepidity and
beneficence, the like of which, in his day, no sovereign of
the world, either in the east or west, possessed; and, when
the Most High God desireth to make manifest a servant of
His in magnificence and glory in the hearts of mankind,
He endows him with these attributes of intrepidity and
beneficence, and makes him especially distinguished, both
by friend and foe, for bounteousness of generosity and the
display of martial prowess, like as this beneficent and vic-
torious monarch was, so that, by the liberality and the
enterprise of him, the region of Hindustan became full of
friends and empty of enemics. His gifts were bestowed
by hundreds of thousands, and his slaughters likewise
were by hundreds of thousands, like as that master of elo-
quence, the Imam, Baha-ud-Din, Ūshi, observes in praise
of this beneficent sovereign :-
"Truly, the bestowal of laks thou in the world didst bring :
Thy hand brought the mine's affairs to a desperate state.
The blood-filled mine's heart, through envy of thy hand,
Therefore produced the ruby as a pretext [within it].”
[Afghans are not 'Pathans "here!], "Bengali Pathans," and "Juanpuri
Pathans." After this we may shortly expect Hindū Pathans and Pārsi Pathans,
or even English, Irish, and Scotch Pathans.
2 See page 497.
3 That is the slave of Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din.
See page
4 Hence he is also called "Lak Bakhsh "-the giver of laks.
555, where Rãe Lakhmaniah, his contemporary, is also said to have been a
Lak Bakhsh.
5 He passed the greater part of his life in Hindustan, and was one of the
most distinguished men of Kutb-ud-Din's assembly.
The liberality of Ķutb-ud-Din became a proverb in Hindūstān, and still
THE MU'IZZIAH SULTANS OF HIND.
513
At the outset of his career, when they brought him from
Turkistan, Kutb-ud-Din reached the city of Nishāpūr.
The Kazi-ul-Ķuzāt [Chief Ķāzi], Fakhr-ud-Din, 'Abd-ul-
'Aziz-i-Kufi, who was a descendant of the Imam-i-A'zam,
Abū Ḥanifah of Kūfā', the governor of the province of
Nishāpūr and its dependencies, purchased him; and, in
attendance on, and along with his sons, he read the Word
of God, and acquired instruction in horsemanship, and
shooting with the bow and arrow, so that, in a short time,
he became commended and favourably spoken of for his
manly bearing. When he attained unto the period of
adolescence, certain merchants brought him to the Court.
of Ghaznin; and the Sultan-i-Ghāzi, Mu'izz-ud-Din, Mu-
ḥammad, son of Sam, purchased him from those traders.
He was endowed with all laudable qualities and admirable
impressions, but he possessed no outward comeliness; and
the little finger [of one hand ?] had a fracture, and on that
account he used to be styled I-bak-i-Shil [The powerless-
fingered]¹.
C
continues to be so. "The people of Hind, when they praise any one for
liberality and generosity, say he is the Kutb-ud-Din-i-kal,' that is, the
Kutb-ud-Din of the age, kal signifying the age, the time, &c." Blood is a play
on the ruby's colour.
7 See page 384, and note 5.
Some say the Kazi sold Kutb-ud-Din to a merchant, but others, that,
after the Kazi's death, a merchant purchased Kutb-ud-Din from his sons,
and took him, as something choice, to Ghaznin, hearing of Mu'izz-ud-Din's
[then styled Shihab-ud-Din] predilection for the purchase of slaves, and that
he purchased Kutb-ud-Din of the merchant at a very high price. Another
work states, that the merchant presented him to Mu'izz-ud-Din as an offering,
but received a large sum of money in return.
Firishtah quotes from our author here correctly, but his translators manage
to distort his statements, and Kutb-ud-Din is made out a proficient in Arabic
and Persian, indeed, a ripe scholar. "He made a wonderful progress in the
Persian and Arabic languages, and all the polite arts and sciences" says Dow;
and Briggs repeats it; but Firishtah's statement was respecting his talent for
government, and his accomplishments in the art of war. Elphinstone and
others, led astray by the translators, copy their incorrect statements.
The printed text here has the words
and spoil the sense.
which are not correct,
¹ Ï-bak—|—alone is clearly not the real name of Kutb-ud-din, for,
if it were, then the word shal--added to it would make it I-bak of
the withered or paralyzed hand or limb; and, even if the word shil were
used for shal, it would make no material difference. Now we know that
Kutb-ud-din was a very active and energetic man, and not at all paralyzed
in his limbs; but, in every work in which he is mentioned, it is distinctly
stated that he was called I-bak because one of his little fingers was broken or
514
THE TABAKAT-I-NAŞIRI.
At that period, Sulṭān Mu'izz-ud-Din, now and then wa
wont to give himself up to pleasure and jollity. One nigh
he had given directions for an entertainment and con
viviality, and, during the entertainment, he commanded a
gift to be bestowed upon each of the slaves present, con
sisting of sums of ready money, and gold and silver, botl
wrought and unwrought. As to the portion of these gift:
which came to Kutb-ub-Din's share, he came forth [with]
from the jovial party, and bestowed the whole of the wealth
upon the Turks, and janitors, and other attendants, s
that nothing whatever, little or much, remained to him.
Next day, this story was conveyed to the royal hearing
and the Sulṭān distinguished Kutb-ud-Din by his favou
and intimacy, and assigned to him an honourable pos
among the important offices before the throne and the
royal audience hall³, and he became the leader of a body
of men, and a great official. Every day his affairs attained
a high degree of importance, and, under the shadow of the
patronage of the Sultan, used to go on increasing, until he
became Amir-i-Akhur [Lord of the Stables]. In tha
office, when the Sultans of Ghur, Ghaznin, and Bāmiān
advanced towards Khurāsān to repel and contend against
Sultan Shah, the Khwārazmi, Kutb-ud-Din was at the
head of the escort of the foragers of the stable [depart
ment], and used, every day, to move out in quest of forage¹
injured, and one author distinctly states that on this account the nick-nam
of I-bak-i-Shil was given to him. Some even state that Sultān Mu'izz-ud
Din gave him the name of Kutb-ud-din, while another author states that i
was the Sultan who gave him the by-name of Ï-bak-i-Shil. It may also be
remarked that there are a great many others mentioned in this work who
are also styled Ī-bak. Fanākati, and the author of the Jami'-ut-Tawārikh,
both style him Ï-bak-i-Lang—and lang means maimed, injured, defective,
&c., as well as lame.
I-bak, in the Turkish language, means finger only, and J according to
the vowel points, may be 'Arabic or Persian; but the 'Arabic shal, which
means having the hand (or part) withered, is not meant here, but Persian shil,
signifying, "soft, limp, weak, powerless, impotent, paralyzed," thus Ī-bak-i-
Shil-the weak fingered. See Thomas: PATHAN KINGS OF DEHLí, page 32.
2 Turkish guards, the slaves of the household.
3 The text is defective here in nearly every copy, but comparison makes
the passage correct. The idiom also varies considerably for several lines, as
in numerous other places, already referred to.
+ Others say Kuṭb-ud-Din, with the patrol under his command, had pushed
up the river bank of the Murgh-āb, towards Marw, when he unexpectedly fell
in with the army of Sultan Shāh. All his endeavours to effect his retreat,
THE MU’IZZĨAH SULŢĀNS OF HIND.
515
Unexpectedly [upon one occasion], the horsemen of Sulṭān
Shah came upon them and attacked them. Kutb-ud-
Din displayed great energy; but, as the horsemen [with
him] were few in numbers, he was taken prisoner; and, by
Sultan Shah's commands, was put under restraint.
6
When a battle took place between Sultan Shāh and the
Sultāns of Ghur and Ghaznin, and the former was put to
the rout, the Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din's men brought Kutb-
ud-Din, placed on a camel, in gyves of iron, as they found
him, into the victorious Sultan's presence. The Sultān
commended and encouraged him ; and, after he returned
to the seat of government, Ghaznin, the fief of Kuhṛām
was committed to Kutb-ud-Din's charge. From thence
he advanced towards Mirath, and took possession of that
place in the year 587 H. From Mirath likewise he issued
forth in the year 588 H. and captured Dihli; and, in the
and all the intrepidity he displayed, were futile, as his party was small.
was taken prisoner, and conducted to Sultan Shah's presence, and, by that
prince's orders, was put in durance. Firishtah, copying from our author, and
from others who also agree, states, that, when Mu'izz-ud-Din's men found
Kutb-ud-Din, in his place of confinement in Sultan Shah's camp, they placed
him on a camel, with his feet still in fetters [as they had no means then of
unfastening them], just as he was, and conducted him to the presence of his
master, the Sultan. Dow and BRIGGS however improve upon it, and assert
that "Eibuk was discovered sitting on a camel on the field," and carried to his
"old master," &c. Such is not contained in Firishtah. Both translators
fall into the same error of calling Sultan Shah-this is his name, not his
title: [see page 245]—“king of Charizm and Khwaruzm," and into this error
ELPHINSTONE likewise falls. See page 248, and note 2, page 456.
He
5 As a specimen of difference of idiom in the different copics of the text col-
بدیشان پیوست و جنات اغاز نهاد lated I may mention that one set-the oldest has
بر ایشان زد میان قتال قایم شد whilst the more modernet has
This important expedition, in which three sovereigns were engaged, is what
ELPHINSTONE [page 319, third edition] refers to as some border warfare with
the Kharizmians," in which "he was taken prisoner."
6 He was treated with great honour and much favour, and gifts were
conferred upon him.
7 As the Sultan's deputy or lieutenant: but this, by his own account,
could not have been immediately on returning from that campaign, for as
yet the battle of Tara'in was not gained. See page 469. Both Dow and
Briggs state that, at this time, the title of Kutb-ud-Din—which the former
correctly translates "the pole-star of religion," and the latter incorrectly,
"pole-star of the faithful," was conferred upon him; but Firishtah does not
say so, nor any other writer that I am aware of. He had been so named
long before this period.
8 This is the year in which Kutb-ud-Din, as Lord of the Stables only, was
aken prisoner in Khurāsān, and is impossible. Our author constantly contra-
dicts his own dates. See pages 379 and 469.
516
THE TABAĶĀAT-I-NĀṢIRĪ.
year 590 H., Kutb-ud-Din proceeded, at the august stirrup
of the victorious Sultan, along with the Sipah-Salar, 'Izz-
ud-Din, Husain, son of Khar-mil, both of them being the
leaders of the van of the army, and fell upon the Rãe of
Banāras, Jai-Chand, on the confines of Chand-wāl' and
overthrew him.
Subsequently, in the year 591 II., Thankir was taken;
and, in 593 H., Kutb-ud-Din marched towards Nahrwālah,
and attacked Rãe Bhim Diw¹, and took vengeance upon
that tribe [of people] for the Sulṭān-i-Ghāzi['s previous
defeat]. He likewise subdued other territories of Hindū-
stan, as far [south?] east as the frontier of the territory of
• See following note 2, last para., page 518.
1 The best St. Petersburgh MS. has Thinur Diw [99] here;
but the majority, including the two other oldest copies of the text, are as
above.
2 Our author omits mentioning many important events which are not touched
upon in Mu'izz-ud-Din's reign, although, at page 507, he says he intends
giving a detailed account of the Kutbi victories under Kutb-ud-Din's reign.
As this is one of the most important periods of Indian history, I am obliged,
in order to give some connexion to the events of the Muḥammadan conquest,
to burden this translation with an abstract of them, more particularly as they
are not given, in any detail, except in two histories, and, even in them, the
chronological order of events has not been strictly observed. The Taj-ul-
Ma'aşir states that, after taking Ajmir, subsequent to the overthrow and death
of Rae Pithora and the installation of his son as tributary ruler of that state,
Sulṭān Mu'izz-ud-Din proceeded towards Dihli, which was then held by a
kinsman of Khāndi [Gobind of our author] Rãe, the brother of Rãe Pithorā;
but, on his tendering submission, and payment of a large sum as tribute, he
was left unmolested, under the same terms as Ajmir had been left in possession
of Rae Pithora's son, but some say his brother. Kuhṛām and Samanah were
left in Kutb-ud-Din's charge, and he was left at the former place as the Sul-
tan's deputy or lieutenant, and Mu'izz-ud-Din himself returned to Ghaznin.
ELPHINSTONE says, page 314, on the authority of Firishtah's translators, I
suppose, that, when “Shahab u dín” returned to Ghaznin, he left “his former
slave, Kutb u dín Eibak," as his representative in India; and yet
“his former
slave" did not get his manumission until upwards of twelve years afterwards, as
all native authors, including Firishtah himself, state and such is history!
Another account is, that, after being installed at Kuhṛām, Kutb-ud-Din
marched from thence against Mirath, and gained possession of it, after which
he moved against Dihli and invested it. The kinsman of Khandi Rãe appealed
to his Rājpūt countrymen for aid, and an army of Rājpūts, in concert with the
garrison, endeavoured to raise the investment by attacking Malik Kuṭb-ud-Din
and his forces in the plain before the city. The Hindus, however, were over-
thrown, and the defenders, being reduced to straits, called for quarter, and
surrendered the place.
:
In Ramazan, 588 H., according to the Taj-ul-Ma'aṣir [Firishtah, who often
quotes it, says Ramaṣān, 589 H.], news reached Kutb-ud-Din that an army of
Jats [Firishtah says "under a leader named Jatwan, a dependent of the Rãe of
THE MU’IZZIAH SULŢĀNS OF HIND.
517
Ujjain³; and Malik 'Izz-ud-Din, Muḥammad, son of Bakht-
جين
جین
and
Ujjain اجین for
چین
3 Ujjain is as plainly written as it is possible to write, and the has the
tashdid mark over it in the two oldest and best copies of the text. Other
copies have
but it is evidently owing, in the first place, to a copyist or
copyists dropping the that the error arose— -thus
is the more probable, and certainly the more correct, if the map of India be
consulted, and the account of his campaigns, in the abstract I have given, read.
It is confirmed also by some other authors; but the generality of histories,
which are comparatively modern, with the exception of Mir'āt-i-Jahān-Numā,
which has Ujjain, have Chin. The only reason that will account for such an
idea having arisen respecting Chin must have been the raid of Muḥammad,
son of Bakht-yār, the Khalj, into Tibbat, mentioned at page 564, which ended
so disastrously.
4 Ikhtiyār-ud-Din, Muḥammad, is his correct name, as our author himself
states in his account of him. See page 548.
Nahrwālah "] had appeared before Hansi. The governor of that tract, Nuș-
rat-ud-Din, Sālāri, had been obliged to shut himself up within the walls, and
to send to Kutb-ud-Din for aid. He flew to his assistance, marching the same
night the news reached him twelve leagues. The enemy, hearing of his
approach, decamped; but, being closely pursued, faced about, and were over-
thrown. Their leader was slain Firishtah says he retired to Nahrwālah of
Gujarāt], and Ķutb-ud-Din, having again placed Hānsi in an efficient state,
returned to Kuhṛām, and soon after made Dihli his head-quarters and the seat
of government; but some authors state that he did not make it the capital until
the following year, after taking Kol.
Kutb-ud-Din had soon to take the field again to support the son of Rãe
Pithorā, who had been installed tributary ruler of Ajmir. The Ṣadr-i-'Alā,
Ķiwām-ul-Mulk, Rukn-ud-Din, Ḥamzah, who held the fief of Rantabhür, sent
information that Bhirāj [z], also written Bhuraj [], who is called
Hiraj [] in some imperfect copies of the Taj-ul-Ma'aṣir, Hemraj by
Firishtah, and Hamir by some others, brother of the late Rãe Pithorā, had
broken out into rebellion; that the son of Rãe Pithora, who is sometimes called
[the?] Golah, but generally styled merely "the son," was in great danger; and
that the rebel was advancing against Rantabhūr itself. Kutb-ud-Din marched
from Dihli against him; but Bhiraj [or Hamir], on hearing of his coming,
made off and took to the hills. Rae Pithora's son [see Top, who says his only
son, Rainsi, did not survive him! He further states that Dow, mistaking the
appellation of Pirt'hwiraja's natural brother for a proper name, calls him
Golah. The error is Firishtah's, however, not Dow's, in this instance], ruler
of Ajmir, was, upon this occasion, invested with an honorary robe; in return
he presented valuable offerings, among which were three golden melons [kettle-
drums, in the shape of melons], and, in all probability, the very same as
mentioned at page 404.
About this time, also, while Kutb-ud-Din was still absent from Dihli, its
former Rae raised an army to make an effort against the Musalmāns. He was
pursued and defeated by Kutb-ud-Din, taken prisoner, and his head struck off
and sent to Dihli.
According to the Taj-ul-Ma'aṣir, Kutb-ud-Din, at this time, sent an account
of his proceedings to his master, and was summoned to Ghaznin. As it was
then the hot season, he waited until the beginning of the rains to set out for the
capital. Having reached Ghaznin, and having been received with great honour
518
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĂṢIRĪ.
yar, the Khalj, in his [Malik Kutb-ud-Din's] time, and
and favour by the Sultan, he fell dangerously sick; but subsequently recovered,
and “was permitted to return to Hindustan again, and the government was
again conferred upon him."
Our author, under the reign of I-yal-timish [see next Section], also refers to
this journey, but he says it took place after the expedition against Nahrwälah.
It must have occupied some months; but, in the meantime, who acted as the
Sultan's lieutenant at Dihli? It would almost seem as though Kutb-ud-Din
had been suspected of being too powerful, and that this summons to Ghaznin
was to test his obedience and loyalty. One thing, however, is certain, from
the account of Malik Baha-ud-Din, Tughril [page 544], and the mention of
Malik Husām-ud-Din, Aghul-Bak, and others [page 549], that there were
powerful chiefs left by the Sultan in Hindustan who held fiefs independent of
Kutb-ud-Din. It was on this occasion, on his return to Dihli by way of Gar-
daiz and Kaṛman [which Dow, translating Firishtah, who is perfectly correct,
renders “Persian Kirman,” and adds, in a note, that it is "the ancient Car-
mania"!], that Kutb-ud-Din espoused the daughter of Tāj-ud-Din, I-yal-dūz.
This journey Firishtah, who constantly quotes the Taj-ul-Ma'aṣir, mentions.
as taking place in 592 H.
After remaining a short time at Dihli, Kutb-ud-Din marched from it in
590 H., crossed the Jun, and took the strong fortress of Kol after an obstinate
resistance, and acquired great booty. It was after this, according to some
histories, including the Tabakāt-i-Akbari,- -a work compiled from the best
authorities, that Kutb-ud-Din made Dihli the seat of his government; but
the Tāj-ul-Ma'āṣir seems to imply, but not exactly expressing it, that Dihli was
made the seat of government in 588 H., although, by its own account, the
Hindu ruler was allowed [in that year] to hold it upon the same terms as
Ajmir was held," already mentioned.
"
Kutb-ud-Din now [590 H., but same say in 589 H., the same year in which
Dihli was made the seat of government] received intimation of the Sultan
Mu'izz-ud-Din's having marched from Ghaznin on an expedition against Jai
Chand [Jai Chandra], Rājah of Ķinnauj and Banaras, his former ally, against
Rae Pithora, according to the Hindu Chroniclers, who, it is said, meditated
an attack upon Ķutb-ud-Din. On hearing of the Sultan's having crossed the
Sutlaj, Ķutb-ud-Din proceeded some stages in advance to receive him and do
him honour, bearing along with him rich offerings. [Firishtah, who gives an
account of this matter, uses the word peshwa' which signifies
meeting and conducting a superior or a guest; but his translators, Dow and
BRIGGS, mistaking, say respectively that Kutb-ud-Din “proceeded as far as
Peshawir" and "Pishawur" to meet him!! Where Dihli? where Peshawar?
where Kinnauj? Fancy his marching from Dihli with 50,000 horse at his
heels, and crossing the five great rivers of the Panjab, merely to meet his master
marching to Ķinnauj ! !]
پیشوای
Kutb-ud-Din's following, upon this occasion, amounted to 50,000 horse [the
Muḥammadan forces of Hindustan]; and, having joined the Sultan's army, he,
in concert with 'Izz-ud-Din, Husain, son of Khar-mil [the same who after-
wards turned traitor, and played such a false part towards Sulṭān Muḥammad,
Khwārazm Shāh, mentioned in note 2, page 257], led the vanguard [the prin-
cipal division unencumbered with heavy baggage, not "a small detachment of
1000 horse"] of the Sultan's army. The Musalmans came in contact with Jai
Chand's forces in the environs of Chand-war and Iṭāwah [another author says
Chanda-war. It is probably Chand-wal of Iṭāwah, a place a few miles S. E.
THE MU’IZZĨAH SULŢĀNS OF HIND.
519
during his government, subdued the cities of Bihar and
of the latter town. See page 470], and compelled them to give way. Jai
Chand, in person, then led on his forces to renew the action, in the heat of
which an arrow struck him in one of his eyes, and he fell dead from his ele-
phant. See also note 2, page 470, and compare the absurd statement of the
Kāmil-ut-Tawarikh in Elliot : INDIA, vol. ii., page 250-251.
It is truly amusing to compare Firishtah's account of this affair with the
versions of his translators. He, quoting the Taj-ul-Ma'aṣir, says-I give his
own words" At last Jai Chand, in person, appeared in the field against
Kutb-ud-Din, and, during the very heat of the fight, a life-taking arrow
[‚³‚³] entered the pupil of the Rājah's eye, and he fell from his ele-
phant into the dust of contempt." Dow renders this: "But Cuttub, who
excelled in archery, sunk an arrow in the ball of his eye;" and BRIGGS has:
"Kootb ood Deen, who excelled in archery, came in contact with Raja Fye
Chund, and with his own hand shot the arrow which, piercing his eye, cost the
Rajah his life" !!!
✓
The Musalman troops, having overthrown Jai Chand's army, and taken
possession of the fortress of Āsi, where his treasures were kept, pushed on to
Banāras, "one of the most central and considerable cities of Hind;" and
scores of idol temples were destroyed, and a vast amount of booty acquired,
including a large number of elephants, among which was a white one.
[Firishtah says this white elephant, a most rare animal, was presented by the
Sulṭān to Ķutb-ud-Din, who used to ride it up to the time of his death, and
that it died of grief the day after. This, however, is mere supposition, for it
appears that this same white elephant was taken to Ghaznin, and from
thence to Ghur, to Sultan Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din, Mu'izz-ud-Din's elder brother and
sovereign; and it was afterwards presented by Maḥmūd, the former's son, to
Sulṭān Muḥammad, Khwārazm Shah, when he became subject to that
monarch. See note ³, para. 9, page 402]. Elphinstone says this victory over
Jai-Chand "extended the Mussulman dominion unto Behár!" but this is not
correct. Muḥammad, son of Bakht-yār, it was who, shortly after these events,
took the city of that name by surprise.
3
After these successes Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din returned to Ghaznin, and Malik
Ḥusām-ud-Din, Āghūl-Bak [the same who took Muḥammad, son of Bakht-
yar, the Khalj, into his service, see page 549], was installed at Kol.
[Firishtah, in his work, gives his account of the expedition against Bhirāj
―para. 4 of this note-in this place.]
Kutb-ud-Din soon had to take the field again against Bhirāj [or Hamir],
who had issued from the hills of Alwur, whither he had fled, first fought an
engagement with his nephew of Ajmir, defeated him, compelled him to fly for
shelter to Rantabhūr, and took possession of Ajmir, and despatched a force
under a leader named Jhat Rãe towards Dihli; but Ķutb-ud-Din, having
speedily selected a force of 20,000 horse, marched to encounter him. Jhat
Rãe faced about, and was pursued by the Musalmāns to Ajmir. Bhirāj [or
Hamir] then drew out his forces to give battle, but he was defeated, and
retired within the walls; and then, finding resistance fruitless, ascended a
funeral pyre and perished. After this a Muḥammadan governor was left in
charge of Ajmir, but what became of Rãe Pithorā's son has not transpired.
After this, on disposing of the affairs of Ajmir, Ķutb-ud-Din is said to have
led his forces, in 591 H., towards Nahrwālah of Gujarāt, and encountered the
general of Bhim Diw [according to TọD, Komar-pāl was his name], Rãe of
Nahrwālah, who is styled by the name of Jatwan, and who was encamped with
520
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĂȘIRĪ.
Nudiah, and that country [Bihār], as will be hereafter
recorded.
his army under the walls of the place. On the appearance of Kutb-ud-Din he
retired, but was pursued, and, being hard pressed, faced about, made a stand,
was defeated and slain. Bhin Diw fled from his capital to the farthest quarter
of his dominions; and, Kutb-ud-Din, having acquired enormous booty in that
territory, returned by way of Hansi to Dihli.
In the year 592 H., the Jami' Masjid [now known as the Kutbi Masjid] at Dihli,
which Kutb-ud-Din is said to have founded in 589 H., and on which the most
skilful Musalman artizans had been employed [not Hindus solely, Mr. Grant
Duff and General Cunningham notwithstanding], and no expense spared, is
said to have been completed. [See note on the Minar, styled the Minar of
Kutb Sahib, under the reign of I-yal-timish.] The date of its foundation, as
given by Thomas, "PATHAN KINGS OF DEHLÍ," page 22, C, note¹, is
erroneous, as Dehli was not acquired, as I have shown [note, page 469],
until subsequent to that date, in 589 H. It is evident that &-seven-has
been read instead of nine, the two words, without the points, on which
all depends, being exactly alike; and, in writing such as the inscription is in,
may be easily mistaken.
In this same year, 592 H., according to the Taj-ul-Ma'aşir, but 591 H.,
according to our author, and 590 H., according to Alfi, Kutb-ud-Din was
preparing an expedition against Thankir or Thangir-also written Thankir or
Thangir—the modern Bhiānah [a further notice of which will be found at page
545], when intimation reached him of Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din's moving from
Ghaznin for the same purpose. He went as far as Hansi to meet his sovereign,
and they marched in concert thither; and Kutb-ud-Din brought about the
surrender of that stronghold, which was made over to Malik Baha-ud-Din,
Tughril. After this the royal forces advanced to Gwaliyūr, the Rājah of which
agreed to pay tribute, and he was left unmolested.
For further particulars,
see page 546, and note 7. After this event, Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din returned
again to Ghaznin.
تنران
While Kutb-ud-Din was at Ajmir, according to the Taj-ul-Ma'aşir [Firish-
tah has, at Dihli, in 592 H. The former work has 591 H., which cannot be
correct, from the date it subsequently gives], information was brought to him
that a body of rebel Mers or Mairs [not Mhers, for there is no h in the word.
Firishtah says-is-probably "the Tunur Rajahs”—and adds,
"that is to say, Rajputs." Dow translates the passage,
many Indian
independent princes," which is pretty near Firishtah's meaning; but BRIGGS
has: "The Raja of Nagoor and many other Hindoo Rājas"], having gathered
together, sent emissaries to the Rãe of Nahrwālah, asking him to aid them in
attacking the Musalmans, who were but few in number. On becoming aware
of this intention, Ķutb-ud-Din resolved to be beforehand with them; and,
although it was the height of the hot season, early one morning fell upon the
rebels, and kept up a conflict with them the whole of that day. Next morning
the army of Nahrwālah appeared upon the scene, and handled the Musalmāns
very roughly. Kutb-ud-Din's horse received a wound which brought it to the
ground, and his troops, greatly disheartened, with much difficulty managed to
mount him upon another horse, and carried him off to Ajmir.
TOD, referring to this affair, in his Rajasthan, vol. i., page 259, remarks,
that "Samarsi [Prince of Cheetore] had several sons; but Kurna was his heir,
and, during his minority, his mother, Korumdevi, a princess of Putun, nobly
THE MU'IZZIAH SULTĀNS OF HIND.
521
When the Sultan-i-Ghāzi, Mu'izz-ud-Din, Muḥammad-i-
She headed her Rajpoots, and gave battle to
See
maintained what his father left.
Kootub-o-din, near Amber, where the viceroy was wounded." In a note he
adds:
"This must be [of course !] the battle referred to by Ferishta.
Dow, p. 169, vol. ii.” The "wound or wounds" must also have come from
Dow or BRIGGS, for it is not in Firishtah. This statement of the translators,
not Firishtah's, must have led ELPHINSTONE astray, when he says [page 315
of third ed ]: “Kutb u Dín was overpowered on this occasion, and had diffi-
culty in making his way, covered with wounds, to Ajmír," &c. The statement
of Firishtah's is this:-"But his horse, having received a wound, came to the
ground. The army of Islām became heart-broken, and they, having by main
force-[i]-placed him on another horse, took him to Ajmir." This is
all; but his translators certainly display much fertility of imagination in their
rendering of Firishtah's words. Dow has: "But he was defeated, received
six wounds, and was often dismounted; yet he fought like a man who had made
death his companion. Forced, at last, by his own friends, to abandon the field,
he was carried in a litter to Ajmere." BRIGGS has: "But he was defeated.
After being frequently dismounted in the action, and having received six wounds,
he still fought with his wonted courage, till, being forced at length by his
attendants off the field, he was carried in a litter to Ajmeer." !!!
Emboldened by this success, the rebel Hindus [the of Firishtah], with
the troops of Nahrwālah, followed Ķuṭb-ud-Din and his force, pursued them
to Ajmir, and took up a position a short distance from it; and for several
months they shut up Kutb-ud-Din within the walls, and carried on hostilities
against the place. On intimation of the state of affairs having reached Sultān
Mu'izz-ud-Din, he despatched a large force from Ghaznin, under several of the
great Amirs, to succour Kutb-ud-Din; but the infidels thought fit to retire
before it arrived.
states.
From 591 H. the Taj-ul-Ma'āṣir jumps at once to 593 H., although immediately
before giving an account of the expedition against Thankir or Thangir and
Gwaliyur in 592 H., thus showing that 591 H. cannot be correct. The correct
date of this reverse must be the ninth or tenth month of 592 H., as Firishtah
To return, however, to the narrative. Kutb-ud-Din, finding himself
thus supported, resolved upon taking vengeance on the Rãe of Gujarāt, and,
in the middle of Safar-the second month of the year-593 H., which year is
confirmed by our author and several others, he began his march towards Nahr-
wālah. When he reached the bounds of Pali and Nadūl [these names are not
certain, but such they appear in the Tāj-ul-Ma'āṣir. In proceeding from Ajmir
to Nahrwālah, Ķuṭb-ud-Din had the choice of two routes, that on the eastern
slopes of the Arawali mountains, by Ūdipūr and Īdur, or that on the western
or Mārwār side, clear of the mountains; and this last he would in all pro-
bability have chosen by the direct route of Pali and Sirhoi, keeping Ābū on
his left. Nadūl, where, as at Pali, are the remains of ancient forts, lies about
twenty-five miles or more south of Pali, but off the direct line of route by Sir-
hoi; but it must also be mentioned that there are places named Palri and
Birgoni close to the hills nearer to Sirhoi, and a Ruirā still nearer Ābū.
Firishtah does not appear to have taken his account from the Taj-ul-Ma'aşir
in this instance, as the two names he gives may be either Hūtali or Dhūtali
and Bazul or Barul, or Rahi and Bartuki and Nuzul or Nadūl, as above] he
found those places abandoned-thus tending to show that they were in the
lower and less tenable parts-and the enemy under two leaders, one of whom
is styled Rãe Karan [Kurnah, probably] in the Taj-ul-Ma'āşir, and Ursi [¸~, ]
L 1
522
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĂŞIRĪ.
Sām, attained martyrdom, Sulṭān Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din, Maḥ-
He says
Fanākati makes a nice hash of this event.
after Shihab-ud-
Din, his slave, Kutb-ud-Din, I-bak, became the great Sultan [lblu Jel], and
paid homage to Shihab-ud-Din's son, Maḥmūd by name, who was Wali of
Ghaznin," and that writer makes out that Sulṭān Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din was the
younger [] brother, and Shihab-ud-Din the elder. He has substituted
Shihab for Ghiyāṣ; and the same is stated in several copies of his work.
The Taj-ul-Ma'āṣir states, "when the mournful news reached Ķutb-ud-Din,
and the period of mourning had expired, he sent out notifications to all parts
of Hind and Sind, intimating his assumption of the sovereignty, which notifica-
tions were attended to by the chief rulers [feudatories?] in those territories;
and, after the defeat of I-yal-düz, the whole tract, from Ghaznin [he should
have added, as far as concerns Ghaznin and its territory, for forty days and
nights only] to the extremity of Hindūstān, came under his jurisdiction,” and a
great deal of such like exaggeration.
With respect to this matter, and the date, there is very great discrepancy
دو
in Firishtah; and the other, Rārābars or Dārābars in the former, and Wālan
[] in the latter, were posted at the base of the hills of Ābū-gaḍh [this
word is written without points [5], and may be either Ālū-gaḍh [ *´¯‚||]
or Abu-gaḍh [5]. ELPHINSTONE has: "Two great feudatories of
Guzerát strongly posted on the mountain of A'bu." If he had ever seen Ābū,
he would have understood that they might as well have been posted on the
Himalayah as there, since the Musalmāns would not pass over or through it.
Firishtah says:
"At the foot of the fort of Abū or Ālū-gaḍh"], at he
entrance to a pass where the Musalmāns did not dare to attack them, as i' was
the very spot where Sultan Muḥammad-i-Sām, Ghūri, had been previously
wounded, and it was deemed unpropitious to bring on an action there lest the
same might happen. [Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din is here referred to, and this
statement does not tend to increase our confidence in what the Tāj-ul-Ma'āṣir
says, and it is quite certain that Mu'izz-ud-Din was never wounded but once,
and then not near Ajmir. ToD asserts [vol. i., page 696], upon Rājpūt
authority, no doubt, and therefore we must make every allowance, that it was
at this very place [Nadole] that "Mahmoud's [Maḥmūd's?] arms were dis-
graced, the invader wounded, and forced to relinquish his enterprise." But in
another place [page 249] he says "Nadole is mentioned in Ferishtah as fall-
ing a prey to one of Mahmood's invasions, who destroyed its ancient temples."
Both the statements are much of a piece.] Seeing their hesitation," says the
Taj-ul-Ma'āṣir, "the Hindus advanced to encounter them [Firishtah, on the
other hand, says Ķuṭb-ud-Din entered those defiles, and broken ground, and
defeated them "]; and, after facing them for some time, on Sunday, 13th of
Rabi'-ul-Awwal, 593 H. [about the 5th of January, 1197 A.D., the year 593 H.
having commenced on the 23rd of November, 1196], a battle took place, which
was obstinately contested from dawn to mid-day, and ended in the complete
overthrow of the infidels, who are said to have lost nearly 50,000 [!] killed.
[Firishtah says "nearly 15,000 killed and 20,000 captives, thus avenging his
former defeat."] Rãe Karan escaped, leaving twenty elephants, and 20,000
captives, besides booty to a great amount. Nahrwālah was taken possession
of, and a Musalmān Amir was located there [?], after which Kutb-ud-Din
returned to Dihli by way of Ajmir; and offerings of jewels, and handsome male
and female captives, were despatched to Ghur [to Sultan Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din] and
to Ghaznin. [Gujarāt could not have been retained for any time, as it was not
THE MU'IZZĨAH SULTANS OF HIND,
523
mūd, son of [Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din] Muḥammad, son of Sām,
among historians. In the first place, however, I must mention, that our author
himself states, at page 398, that, "when Kutb-ud-Din came to Ghaznin [for
the forty days after which he ran away. See note 8, page 503], he despatched
Nizām-ud-Din, Muḥammad, to Firuz-koh to the presence of Sultan Maḥmūd;"
and in 605 H. [much the most probable date, for reasons to be mentioned sub-
sequently] he, Maḥmūd, sent him a canopy of state, &c., thus contradicting his
own statement here. See also page 398, and note 3, page 500, para. 2.
Several histories and authors, including Tārikh-i-Ibrāhimi, Tabakāt-i-Akbari,
Lubb-ut-Tawarikh-i-Hind, Tazkirat-ul-Mulūk, Budā'ūni, &c., state that
Kutb-ud-Din assumed sovereignty, at Lahor, on Tuesday [one has Sunday, the
17th, another Wednesday], the 18th of Zi-Ka'dah, 602 H., which is much the
same as our author says here, and just two months and a half from the date of
the Sultan's decease. One of these works states that "Kutb-ud-Din had gone
to Lāhor in order to receive the canopy of state, a standard, the deed of manu-
mission, the title of Sulṭān-as he was styled Malik mostly up to this time and
permanently acquired by the Musalmāns until long after.] Promotions and
favours were conferred upon the Muḥammadan chiefs, and even the poor and
needy [Musalmāns] of Dihli shared in Kutb-ud-Din's bounty and munificence.
No other operation is mentioned from this time to the year 599 H., a period
of nearly six years; and it is somewhat surprising to find the Musalmāns in
India so quiet for such a length of time. It may be partly accounted for,
especially the last three years, through the Sultans-Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din and Mu'izz-
ud-Din-being occupied with the affairs of Khurāsān since the accession of
their powerful rival, Sulṭān Muḥammad, Khwārazm Shāh, the events of whose
reign will throw some light upon this period.
In the year 599 H., the same in which Sultan Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din died, and his
brother, Mu'izz-ud-Din, became supreme sovereign, Ķutb-ud-Din undertook
an expedition against Kälinjar. The Rãe of Kalinjar of the Pramārah race
made a desperate resistance in the field, according to the Taj-ul-Ma'āṣir,
before retiring within the walls; but Firishtah asserts that, in "the twinkling
of an eye, he faced about and fled for shelter to the fortress." He was invested
therein, and shortly after he made terms, and agreed to submit to Kutb-ud-Din
on terms the same as those upon which his ancestors had paid obedience to
Sultan Mahmud, Ghaznawid; and stipulated for the presentation of a large
amount in jewels and other precious things, and a number of horses and ele-
phants. It so happened that, next day, while engaged in collecting together
this tribute, he was cut off by the hand of death. His Wakil or minister, Ajah
Diw [in Firishtah, Jadah Diw], bethinking himself of a never-failing spring of
water in the upper part of the place, determined to resist the Musalmāns instead
of agreeing to the terms; but, as fortune had turned its face from him, and
adversity had come, the spring within a few days dried up, and the people
within the walls, being helpless, were compelled to call for quarter; and they
came out, and gave up the place. Vast booty in jewels, arms, elephants, and
other property fell into the hands of the Musalmāns, who became rich from the
spoils; and 50,000 captives, male and female, were taken, and were, accord-
ing to Firishtah, "exalted to the excellence of Islam," and the idol temples
were converted into masjids.
It is amusing here also to find how Firishtah, whose account is substantially
the same as the preceding, has been translated.
Dow says:
"In the year
599 he mustered his forces, and marched to the siege of Calinger, where he was
L 1 2
524
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĂŞIRĪ.
who was Sulṭān Mu'izz-ud-Din's brother's son, despatched
was still a slave—and the government of Hindūstān, which Maḥmūd had con-
ferred upon him, or rather, confirmed him in, and was greatly exalted and
honoured thereby." Our author, and some who copy him, state, that Kutb-
ud-Din returned to Dihli after the expedition against the Khokhars; but it
must be remembered that Kutb-ud-Din accompanied his master, Mu'izz-ud-
Din, to Lāhor after that affair, and, as only two months and sixteen days
elapsed between the assassination of the Sultan and Kutb-ud-Din's assumption
of the sovereignty at Lahor, it is therefore probable that, on hearing of the
assassination of the Sultan, which took place only fifteen days after the latter
left Lahor, he returned to it at once, and possibly had not even left it when the
news reached him. After a time, he returned to Dihli again. The Taj-ul-
Ma'āṣir says he made Luhāwar his capital, "the place where the throne of
Sultāns had been established," but the reason, why he eventually returned to
Lãhor, and continued there to the day of his death, has been stated already in
another place. See note 8, page 503.
It is stated in another work, the Khulaṣat-ut-Tawarikh, that Ķutb-ud-Din
met by Gola, the tributary prince of that country, whom he defeated; and,
dismounting his cavalry [!], began to besiege him in the fort." All this is pure
invention: there is nothing of the kind in Firishtah. BRIGGS has: "In the
year 599 he mustered his forces, and marched against Kalunjur, where he was
opposed by the Rāja of that country, whom he defeated; then, dismounting
his cavalry, he laid siege to the fort." A siege and an investment are far different
things. All about "the Hindoo flag being again hoisted on the fort" is also
purely imaginary, and is not contained in Firishtah's text.
Here is another choice specimen of how Indian history is written. Its source,
of course, is Dow and BRIGGS, not Firishtah. In MARSHMAN'S "History of
India,” vol. i., page 197, is the following: "In the year 599 he mustered his
forces, and marched against Kulunjur, where he was opposed by the Raja of
that country, whom he defeated; then, dismounting his cavalry, he laid siege
to the fort. The Rāja, seeing himself hard pressed, offered Kootb-ood-Deen
Eibuk the same tribute and presents which his ancestors had formerly paid to
Sooltan Mahmood. The proposal was accepted; but the Rāja's minister, who
resolved to hold out without coming to terms, caused his master to be assassi-
nated, while the presents were preparing. The Hindoo flag was again hoisted
on the fort, the siege recommenced, but the place was eventually reduced,
owing to the drying up of a spring upon the hill which supplied the garrison
with water.
From Kālinjar Kutb-ud-Din marched to the city of Mahobah, the capital of
the territory of Kalbi, which he took possession of, and returned to Dihli by
way of Budā'ūn, one of the chief cities of Hind, which he also occupied.
[It is not Firishtah who places "Badā'un between the Ganges and the Jamna'
(see Elliot, INDIA, vol. ii., page 232, note 1), but Dow and BRIGGS, who mis-
interpret him.] It was whilst in this part that Muḥammad, son of Bakht-
yār, the Khalj, is said to have presented himself in Kutb-ud-Din's presence,
-not from Awadh and Bihar, but from A-dwand-Bihar, noticed in the
account of that chief farther on-bearing rich presents in jewels and coin of
various descriptions; but this certainly took place ten years before 599 H.
He was received with great distinction, as his fame had extended over Hind
and Sind. When he was admitted to an audience to take leave, he received a
robe of honour, a standard, and other insignia, as will be found mentioned in
the account of him at page 548.
THE MU'IZZIAH SULTANS OF HIND.
525
a canopy of state to Malik Ķutb-ud-Din, and conferred on
him the title of Sultan"; and, in the year 602 H., he
determined to proceed from Dihli to the royal presence in
Lohor'; and, on Tuesday, the 17th of the month, Zi-
ascended the throne, at Lahor, on the 11th of Rabi'-ul-Awwal, 603 H., and
that he read the Khutbah for himself, and coined money in his own name, and
yet, although the coins of others are, comparatively, so plentiful, it is stated
A work
that not one bearing the name of Kutb-ud-Din has ever been found.
in my possession, however, which contains specimens of the different coins of
the Sultāns of Hind, with the inscriptions they are said to have borne, gives
the following as a specimen of Kutb ud-Din's coins :—
سكاء وارث ملك و نكين سلطان قطب الدین ايبك في سند ٦٠٣
ضرب دار الخلافه دهلی جلوس
which may be thus rendered :-"Coin of the inheritor of the kingdom and
signet of Sulṭān, Kutb-ud-Din, Ï-bak, in the year 603 H.," and on the
reverse :-" Struck at the Dar-ul-Khilafat, Dihli, in the first [year] of [his]
accession."
I rather doubt the possibility of Malik [which was his only title up to his
ascending the throne at Lahor] Kutb-ud-Din's having received the title of
Sultan and the investiture of the sovereignty of Hindūstān as early as Zi-Ka'dah,
602 H., because Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din, Maḥmūd, did not at once obtain the supreme
[nominal only] authority after the assassination of his uncle. His kinsman,
'Alā-ud-Din, Muḥammad, previously called by the name of Ziyã-ud-Din [See
page 394] was, at that time, ruler of Ghur and Firūz-koh, and Maḥmūd was
at Bust, and it must have taken him some few months, at the very least, to
dispossess 'Ala-ud-Din, Muḥammad, and acquire possession of the sovereignty;
and this would bring us to 603 H., as on the coin given above. One author, in
fact, states, and it is not improbable, that 'ALA-UD-DIN, MUHAMMAD, who
then held Ghur, after the Sultan's assassination-in which case, 602 H. would
be correct-sent Kutb-ud-Din a canopy of state, and conferred on him the
sovereignty of Hind, and that MAHMUD, subsequently, did the same; and one
of the authors previously referred to says Kutb-ud-Din was at Pūrshor, when
Maḥmüd's communication, conferring this dignity, reached him, and further
states that he had gone there to guard the route into India.
Another thing to be remembered is, that, by our author's account, the state-
ments of the Taj-ul-Ma'aṣir, and the greater number of other histories, Kutb.
ud-Din died in 607-although some say in 609, and 610 H.-in what month is
not stated, after a reign of little over four years; but, if we consider a little,
four years from Zi-Ka'dah, 602 H., only brings us to the same month of 606 H.
Strange to say, Faşiḥ-i, although mentioning the assassination of Sultan
Mu'izz-ud-Din in 602 H., does not mention Kutb-ud-Din's acquirement of
power as Sulṭān until 608 H.-"when the title of Sultan was conferred and
he was manumitted —one year before Maḥmūd's assassination, which he says
occurred in 609 H., and states that Kutb-ud-Din was killed by a fall from his
horse in 610 H. See note 2, page 528.
• See note 3, page 500.
7 The text in most copies, including the printed text, is slightly defective
here, causing a meaning contrary to what our author would convey. It is evi.
dent, from various events, that Kutb-ud-Din did not "determine to go to the
526
THE TABAĶĀT-1-NĂŞIRĪ.
Ka'dah, of that same year, he ascended the throne in the
royal Kaṣr of Lohor.
After some time, hostility arose between him and Sulṭān
Tāj-ud-Din, Yal-duz, respecting Lohor, so much so, that
that hostility led to an engagement; and, in that affair, the
victory was with Sultan Kutb-ud-Din. Sulṭān Tāj-ud-Din,
Yal-duz, was defeated, and retreated before him; and
8
capital, Lohor," as the words je alone mean; and, farther,
Lahor was not the capital. The correct reading is as above, namely—
and this refers, not to his going to the city of Lahor عزیمت بارگاه حضرت باوه ور کرد
merely, but into the Lahor territory to join his master the Sulṭān against the
Khokhars; he only relates it in the wrong place. After their overthrow, the
Sultan came to Lahor, accompanied by Kutb-ud-Din; and, subsequently,
after the Sultan's assassination, the latter assumed sovereignty there. Zi-
Ka'dah is the eleventh month. This is evidently our author's meaning.
Kutb-ud-Din had no reason to "attack Lohor," as in Elliot, INDIA: vol. ii.
page 300, and the imperfect passage in the printed text even will not bear such
a rendering.
› I have, in a previous place [see page 502, note ], referred to the proceed-
ings of Taj-ud-Din, I-yal-dūz, towards Ghiyaṣ-ud-Din, Mahmud, and Kutb-
ud-Din's jealousy of I-yal-düz, and his offer of aid to Abi-Dakur against him.
་་
In the year 603 H, shortly after Kutb-ud-Din is said, by some, to have
received his freedom, and the title of Sulṭān from Sultan Maḥmūd, I-yal-dūz,
who considered the Panjab part of the dominion of Ghaznin to which he had
succeeded, and which had neither been assigned, by Maḥmud, to Kutb-ud-
Din, nor to the other slave, Ķabā-jah, Ķuṭb-ud-Din's son-in-law, despatched
the Khwajah, the Mu-ayyid-ul-Mulk, Sanjari, the Wazir of Ghaznin, against
Lahor [but a few authors say he went himself], and ousted Kaba-jah, who
held it, nominally, for Kutb-ud-Din. Kutb-ud-Din, soon after, marched
against I-yal-dūz with all the available troops of Hindustan, and a battle took
place between them, in the Panjab, and I-yal-düz was worsted, and retreated
into the strong country of Kaṛmān and Shalūzān. Kutb-ud-Din now pushed
on to Ghaznin, which having obtained possession of, he gave himself up to
wine and riot; and this, according to our author, at page 398, happened in
605 H., which is a more probable date than 603 H.
There are great discrepancies, however, in several works of authority, which
are difficult to reconcile with the above in many respects, in Alfi, Yāfa-i, and
the Jami'-ut-Tawarikh, which must be briefly alluded to.
It is said in the first-mentioned work that, soon after the death of Mu'izz-
ud-Din, I-yal-düz had to abandon the Ghaznin territory, because, through the
treachery of Kutlagh-Tigin, a former slave of the late Sultan [can this be the
slave who shut the gates upon his master mentioned in note 2, page 475 ?],
and who, since his death, had been in Sultan Mahmud's service, but was now
one of I-yal-dūz's principal Amirs and held Ghaznin for him, during a short
absence, seized this opportunity of instigating Sulṭān Muḥammad, Khwārazm
Shāh, to seize it. I-yal-dūz, previous to this, had agreed to acknowledge the
suzerainty of that monarch, and had despatched befitting presents; but the
Sulṭān at once acted on the suggestion of Kutlagh-Tigin, and seized Ghaznin.
This event, according to Alfi, took place in 603 of the Riḥlat, and Yāſa-i,
Jāmi'-ut-Tawārikh, and some others say in 611 H., and, according to those
THE MU’IZZĨAH SULŢĀNS OF HIND.
527
Sultan Kutb-ud-Din proceeded towards the seat of govern-
ment, the city of Ghaznin, and possessed himself of that
kingdom likewise; and, during a period of forty days that
he sat upon the throne of Ghaznin, he bestowed upon God's
works, Sulṭān Maḥmūd did not die until 609 H. [see also last para. of note ³,
page 400], and Faşiḥ-i states that Kutb-ud-Din obtained sovereignty over
Hindūstān in 608 H., and places his death as late as 610 H. These dates do
not agree with those given by the Muḥaminadan Historians of India, but they
are not the most reliable authorities for events which happened out of that
country.
3
In the state of affairs in which I-yal-düz found himself, for Sulṭān Maḥmūd
was now but a mere vassal of the Khwārazmis [See note ³, page 400], he was
under the necessity of retiring towards Hind [the Panjab], which he considered
a portion of his own dominions. He reached Lahor, encountered Ķabā-jah,
and took possession of that capital and the whole Panjab. See our author's
account of Ķabā-jah, page 531, and early part of the reign of I-yal-timish.
On Sulṭān Muḥammad, Khwārazm Shah, getting possession of Ghaznin, he
put to death several of the Ghūriān Amirs, and made over his new acquisition
to his son, Jalāl-ud-Din, Mang-barni; and a Khwārazmi noble was installed
at Ghaznin as his deputy [This accounts, no doubt, for the reference made by
Jalāl-ud-Din, when soliciting a temporary asylum from I-yal-timish some years
subsequently, to their having been "good neighbours previously." See note*,
para. 7, page 290], and the Sulṭān returned to Khwārazm. Ķuṭb-ud-Din now
marched into the Panjab against I-yal-duz [603 Rihlat, 612 H.], who was
defeated by him, and retired into Kaṛman and Shalūzān. Kutb-ud-Din
marched to Ghaznin, drove out the governor on Jalāl-ud-Dīn's part, and gave
himself up to wine and pleasure.
Now we come to that part of the subject in which all agree; but it is
amusing to notice how our author slurs over these doings. Kutb-ud-Din now
giving himself up to amusement and debauchery, the people of Ghaznin, dis-
gusted with his remissness and laxity, and the disordered state of affairs, sent a
person, secretly, to I-yal-dūz, to whom they seem to have been much attached,
and solicited him to return to the capital. He did so with promptness; and,
as his appearance on the scene was quite unexpected by Kutb-ud-Din, he was
unable to resist him, and he abandoned Ghaznin precipitately, and fled by
way of Sang-i-Surakh [one of the routes between Ghaznin and the Panjab,
for he did not dare to take that through Kaṛmān], to Lāhor. This was the
occasion of his “filling the throne of Ghaznin for forty days," for which our
author considered it to be necessary to mention him [page 506], not only among
the Sultans of Hindustan, but, separately, of Ghaznin likewise.
I cannot refrain from inserting here a specimen of history-writing, which will
only be found in the writer's imagination. Mr. Marshman, in his "History of
India," written for the University of Calcutta, states at page 47, vol. i., that
"Kootub followed up the victory [over "Eldoze"] and RECOVERED Ghuzni
[which he never before possessed], where he assumed the crown [not at Lahor
then?], but was soon after expelled by his rival, and driven back to India. . . .
The establishment of the Mahomedan empire in India is, therefore, considered
to date from this event," &c. This is rich indeed.
Kutb-ud-Din does not appear to have returned to Dihli any more; and,
through fear of I-yal-düz, continued at Lahor until he met with the accident
which ended his days.
528
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĂŞIRI.
people abundant benefactions, and innumerable favours, and
returned again to Hindustan, the account of which has been
previously related. As the decree of fate supervened, in the
year 607 M., he fell from his horse whilst engaged in playing
ball' on the course, and the horse came down upon him, in
such wise that the prominent part of the front of the saddle
came upon his blessed breast, and he died.
1
The period of his rule, from the first taking of Dihli up
to this time, was twenty years; and the stretch of his
sovereignty, with a canopy of state, the Khutbah, and coin
[in his own name and titles], was four years and a little
over ³.
3
II. SULTAN ĀRĀM SHAH, SON OF SULTAN ĶUTB-UD-DİN,
I-BAK.
When Sultan Kutb-ud-Din, I-bak, died, the Amirs and
Maliks of Hindūstān at once considered it advisable for
• Chaugan, something similar to modern Polo.
1 The eastern saddle is vastly different from ours, and those who have seen
it in use in the East will easily conceive the effect of the high-pointed front
coming in contact with the breast.
2 The generality of authors place his death in the year 607 H., but the
month and date is not mentioned, and some place his death much later. One
work, the Tārikh i-Ibrāhimi, however, gives a little more detail than others,
and enables us to fix the month, at least, tolerably correctly. It is stated in
that work that, having ascended the throne at Lāhor, in Zi-Ķa’dah, 602 H.,
he died in 607 H., having ruled nineteen years, fourteen as the Sulṭān's [Mu'izz-
ud-Din's] lieutenant, and five and a half years as absolute sovereign. From
588 H., the year in which he was first made the Sultan's lieutenant, to the 2nd
of Sha'bān, 602 H., the date of the Sultan's death, is fourteen years and a
month, calculating from about the middle of the former year, if Mu'izz-ud-Din
returned to Ghaznin before the rainy season of 588 H., which, in all probability,
he did; and five years and six months from the middle of Zi-Ķa'dah, 602 H.,
would bring us to the middle of Jamādi-ul-Awwal, the fifth month of 607 H.,
which will therefore be about the period at which Kutb-ud-Din is said to have died,
and a little more than three months, by this calculation, after the death of Sultān
Maḥmud, if 607 H. be the correct year of the latter's assassination. Fasih-i
says Kutb-ud-Din died in 610 H., and the Mir'āt-i-Jahān-Numā and Lubb-ut-
Tawarikh say in 609 H. He was buried at Lahor, and, for centuries after, his
tomb continued to be a place of pilgrimage. It may now possibly be turned
into a reading-room, a residence, or even a place of Christian worship, pur-
poses for which many buildings of this kind are now used at Lahor, without its
being known whose dust they were built to cover.
³ It seems strange that our author should give detailed lists of the offspring,
kinsmen, Ķāzis, nobles, and victories of his former slave and son-in-law,
Shams-ud-Din, I-yal-timish, and not of Sultan Kuṭb-ud-Din, Ï-bak, himself,
the pseudo-founder of the´´ Patán or Afghán” dynasty.
THE MU'IZZIAH SULTANS OF HIND.
529
the sake of restraining tumult, for the tranquillity of the
commonalty, and the content of the hearts of the soldiery,
to place Ārām Shāh upon the throne *.
Sultan Kutb-ud-Din had three daughters, of whom two,
• Although a number of authors agree in the statement that Ārām Shāh
was Kutb-ud-Din's son, it nevertheless appears, from the statements of others,
that Kutb-ud-Din had no son; and it is stated, more than once, by our author
likewise, that three daughters were his only offspring. Some of these authors,
moreover, who call Ārām Shāh his son, afterwards add, "than whom he had
no other heir;" but, if he was really his son, what better heir could be desired?
Abū-l-Fazl makes the astonishing statement that Ārām Shāh was Kutb-ud-
Din's brother!
On the sudden removal of Kutb-ud-Din from the scene, at Lahor, the nobles
and chief men, who were with him there, in order to preserve tranquillity, set
up, at Lahor, Ārām Bakhsh, the adopted son of Kutb-ud-Din, and hailed him
by the title of Sulṭān Ārām Shāh. What his real pedigree was is not men-
tioned, and he may have been a Turk. Mandates and decrees were now
issued in his name, and the good news of justice and glad tidings of
impartiality towards the people reached them. This was, it is said, in
607 H.
At this juncture, Amir 'Ali-i-Isma'il, the Sipah-Sālār, and governor of the
city and province of Dihli, the Amir-i-Dad [called Amir Dā'ūd, by some], and
other chief men in that part, conspired together, and sent off to Budā'ūn and
invited Malik I-yal-timish, the feoffee of that part, Kutb-ud-Din's former
slave and son-in-law, and invited him to come thither and assume the sove-
reignty. He came with all his followers, and possessed himself of the
city and fort and country round. At the same time, Nāṣir-ud-Din, Ķabā-jah,
who had married two daughters of Ķuṭb-ud-Din [in succession], appropriated
Sind and Multān, Bhakar and Siwastān, and, subsequently, the territory to
the N.E., as far as Sursuti and Kuhṛām; the Khalj chiefs in Bangālah
assumed independency there, and the Rajahs and Rães on the frontiers [of
the Musalman dominions] began to show a rebellious and contumacious
spirit.
Ārām Shah, on first becoming aware of these acts of I-yal-timish, at the
advice of his supporters, summoned to his aid the old Amirs and soldiers of
his adopted father, and they, having rallied round him in considerable numbers
from Amrohah, and other parts, and he having inspirited them, advanced
with a strong force towards Dihli. Malik I-yal-timish, having gained posses-
sion of the capital, issued from it with his forces; and, in the plain of Jūd
before Dihli, the rival forces encountered each other. After a feeble effort on
the part of Ārām Shah's troops, he was defeated and disappeared, and what
became of him is not quite certain; but our author is probably correct in
saying that he was put to death by his rival. After this, Malik I-yal-timish
became independent ruler of Dihli, and the other great chiefs were left, for
a while, in the possession of the territories they before held or had since
appropriated. The reign of Ārām Shāh, if such can be properly so called,
is said by some to have terminated within the year; but others contend that
it continued for three years. The work I have before alluded to gives the
following inscriptions on a coin of Ārām Shāh, and the date on another, given
as I-yal-timish's, corroborates the statement of those who say Ārām Shah's
reign extended over three years.
530
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĂŞIRÎ.
6
5
one after the [death of the] other, were wedded to Malik
Naşir-ud-Din, Ķabā-jah, and the third was married to
Sultan Shams-ud-Din, I-yal-timish. At this time that
Sultan Kutb-ud-Din died, and Ārām Shah was raised to
the throne, Malik Naşir-ud-Din, Ķabā-jah proceeded to
Üchchah and Multan. Kutb-ud-Din had contemplated
Sulṭān Shams-ud-Din's acquiring dominion, and he had
called him son, and had conferred upon him the fief of
Buda'un. The Maliks, in concert, brought him from
Budā'ūn, and raised him to the throne of Dihli; and the
daughter of Sultān Kutb-ud-Din was espoused by him;
and they martyred Ārām Shah'.
Hindustan became subdivided into four portions: the
territory of Sind Malik [Sulṭān] Nāṣir-ud-Din, Ķabā-jah
took possession of, the dominion of Dihli pertained to
Sulṭān Shams-ud-Din, I-yal-timish, the territory of Lakh-
anawati was appropriated by the Khalj Maliks and Sul-
ṭāns, and the state of Lohor, according to alteration of
circumstances, used to be seized upon, sometimes by Malik
[Sultān] Tāj-ud-Din, Yal-duz, sometimes by Malik [Sulṭān]
The following are the inscriptions on this coin :—
هذا لا درهم مسكوك باسم الملك ظل الله آرام شاه في سنة سبع وستمايه
ضرب دار السلطنة بلده، لاهور
which may be thus rendered :- "This diram [is] stamped with the name
of the Malik, the shadow of the Almighty, Ārām Shah, in the year 607,” and
on the reverse :-- "Struck in the Dar-us-Salṭanat, the city of Lãhor.” The
date given on the coin of I-yal-timish, which see farther on, Section XXI.,
is 612, the first of his reign.'
))
Those authors, who say Ārām Shah was Ķutb-ud-Din's son, for the most
part make a great blunder in stating that he was raised to the throne at Dihli,
and that those, who had set him up, repenting of having done so, through
his incapacity-his incapacity seems to have been his incapacity to enforce
obedience—invited I-yal-timish to assume authority, and that Ārām Shāh,
becoming aware of their sedition, came out of Dihli, and called on his father's
old followers to aid him, after which I-yal-timish secured it, and subsequently
defeated Ārām Shāh.
5 From what our author states, a few lines under, it would appear that
I-yal-timish only espoused Kutb-ud-Din's daughter when he assumed the
throne, at Dihli.
6 In other words, he appropriated those places and their dependencies in the
confusion consequent on I-yal-timish's usurpation, and assumed the title of
Sulṭān.
7 The idiom varies here. All the modern copies of the text, and one of the
oldest also, have, instead of this sentence, the words-"and the decree of
destiny reached Ārām Shāh,” and the sentence ends. Compare Elliot : INDIA,
vol. ii. page 301.
THE MU’IZZIAH SULTANS OF HIND.
531
Naşir-ud-Din, Ķabā-jah, and sometimes by Sultan Shams-
ud-Din, I-yal-timish, as will, subsequently, be recorded,
please God! in the account of each of those personages.
III. MALIK [SULŢĂN] NĂŞIR-UD-DİN, ĶABĀ-JAH,
AL-MU'IZZĪ-US-SULŢĀNĪ º.
Malik [Sultan] Naṣir-ud-Din, Ķabā-jah, was a great
monarch, and the slave of the Sultan-i-Ghāzi, Mu'izz-ud-
Din, Muḥammad-i-Sām.
He was endowed with very great intellect, sagacity, dis-
cretion, skill, wisdom, and experience, and had served Sultan
Mu'izz-ud-Din many years in various departments of every
sort of political employment, both important and subordi-
nate, about the Court, in military affairs, and the adminis-
tration of civil duties, and had acquired great influence.
Malik Naşir-ud-Din-i-Aetamur, the feudatory of Üch-
8 Sulṭān, on his coins, the title he assumed, and to which he was equally
as much entitled as the "august "Sultan I-yal-timish.
ج
ز
ش
Some authors-but they are mostly those either natives of or resident in
India, and of comparatively modern days-write this name Ķubā-chah,
with ch. The Rauzat-uş-Şafa writes it Ķabāj merely. Our author, however,
invariably writes it Ķabā-jah, and I have therefore followed him. The letter
in writing, is constantly used for sometimes from ignorance, sometimes
by mistake, and the two letters are very often interchangable, and ; ; and i
are substituted for them; but, in this particular case, the name of this
ruler occurs time after time in the same line with Uchchah, but the j of
Ķabā-jah and the ch of Uchchab are distinctly marked in the oldest copies
of the text, and, in one, the vowel points are also given. Uchchah will be
found constantly written with j which is intended for ch, in several copies of
the text as well as in many other works, but we never find Ķabā-jah written
with ch in the text.
a
The idea appears to have prevailed that this probable nickname is derived
from -ķabā, an 'Arabic word signifying a quilted jacket with short
sleeves, or a tunic open in front, and that -chah is the Persian affixed
particle of diminution kaba-chah, a short jacket or tunic, and thus his name
would be Nășir-ud-Din of the short tunic or jacket; but, in this case, Ķubā-
chah with u is impossible, because there is no u in the 'Arabic word kabā.
The letter never occurs in a purely Persian word, nor does it ever
occur in Hindi; and έ is often substituted for it, and vice versa.
There are
other meanings attached to a precisely similar word used in Persian, which is
probably Turkish, like the nick-names, Ĩ-bak, I-yal-dūz, I-yal-timish, and
the like. This ķabā means, rending, tearing, cutting, paring, scraping,
shaving, &c., while, in another form of it, the b is doubled = ķabbā signifying
slender about the middle. To this last the Persian diminutive particle, chah,
is of course applicable; but, besides this, chah signifies, much, great, abund-
ance, and the like, and also fifteen, or, literally, three fives. Under these
circumstances this nickname might mean very slender waisted." See also
Elliot : INDIA, vol i, page 131.
532
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĂŞIRĪ.
chah, in the engagement at Andkhūd '—which took place
between the Sultan-i-Ghāzi, Mu'izz-ud-Din, and the forces
of Khita, and the Maliks of Turkistān-displayed great
valour before the stirrup of the Sulṭān, and fought against
the infidels as by orthodox law enjoined, and despatched
great numbers of them to hell. The Maliks of the army
of Khita became dejected through the amount of slaughter
inflicted [upon them] by Naşir-ud-Din-i-Aetamur, and they
simultaneously came upon him, and he attained martyrdom.
The Sultan-i-Ghāzi reached his capital and the throne of
Ghaznin in safety, from that disaster; and the government of
Üchchah' was entrusted to Malik Naşir-ud-Din, Kaba-jah.
He was son-in-law to Sultan Kutb-ud-Din, I-bak,
through two daughters; and, by the elder daughter, he
had a son-Malik 'Ala-ud-Din, Bahram Shah. He [Bah-
rām Shāh] was of handsome exterior and of good disposi-
tion, but addicted to pleasure; and, according to the way
of youth, he had an excessive predilection for vice.
In short, when Malik Naşir-ud-Din, Kabā-jah, after
the catastrophe of Sultan Kutb-ud-Din, I-bak, pro-
ceeded to Uchchah, he possessed himself of the city of
Multān, and Sindūstān³, and Diwal, as far as the sea-coast.
The whole he brought under his sway, and subjected the
fortresses, cities, and towns of the territory of Sind, as-
sumed two canopies of state, and annexed [the country to
the eastward] as far as the limits of Tabarhindah, Kuhṛām,
and Sursuti ¹. He also took Lohor several times; and
1950
⁹ This word is written, in one of the oldest copies of the text, with the
vowel points. Inda-khud--and, from further research, I find it is
the proper mode of spelling the name of this place. In the present day the
people of that part call it Ind-khud and Ind-khū. I have retained the
modern mode of spelling.
The printed text and two MS. copies of the text have Uchchah and
Multan, but the ten best copies omit Multan.
2 One having previously died. Ķabā-jah was likewise son-in-law of Tāj-
ud-Din, I-yal-dūz, and, consequently, by the alliance with Kutb-ud-Din's
daughters, he married the daughters of his wife's sister's husband.
The Taj-ul-Ma'āṣir calls him 'Alā-ud-Din, Muḥammad, but I look upon
our author as a better authority than the Taj-ul-Ma'āṣir for the events of this
reign. What became of Ķabā-jah's son our author and others do not state.
³ That is, Siwastān, also called Shiw-astan, by some Hindū writers. The
remarks which follow seem to indicate that all these were separate provinces
or territories. Siwastan is turned into Hindustan in Elliot's INDIA, page 302.
each of the slaves seized upon the territory he held the govern-
4 Yafa-i
says
THE MU'IZZIAH SULTANS OF HIND.
533
•
fought an engagement with the troops of Ghaznin which
used to come [into the Panjāb] on the part of Sulṭān Tāj-
ment of at the time of Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din's assassination, and that Ķabā-
jah appropriated Uchchah, Multān, Luhāwar, and Purshawar, which ter-
ritories, for the most part, Sultān Jalāl-ud-Din afterwards subjected.
Immediately after the decease of Ķutb-ud-Din, the so-called establisher of
"the Pathán or Afghán dynasty," Naşir-ud-Din, Kabā-jah, foreseeing a struggle
for power, or, at least, a weak government, appropriated all the forts and towns
in the territories of Lahor, Tabarhindah [some authors say Bathinḍah, some
Sirhind], and Kuhṛām as far as Sursuti, he holding, at the time of Kutb-ud-
Din's death, the fiefs of Uchchah and Multān, having previously held Lahor
for him. He was subsequently ousted from Lahor, Multan, and Uchchah by
the forces of Sultan Taj-ud-Din, I-yal-dūz, as our author mentions; but, after
the defeat of I-yal-düz, and he had been put to death in captivity by I-yal-
timish, Ķabā-jah got possession of these territories again, and apparently as a
tributary of I-yal-timish, or in some way subject.
Our author leaves out here, but mentions in two lines, and under a wrong
date, the first hostilities which arose between Ķaba-jah and I-yal-timish under
the latter's reign. These hostilities arose in 613 H., many years before the
defeat of Sultan Jalāl-ud-Din, Khwārazm Shah, by the Mughals. According
to the Tāj-ul-Ma'āṣir, Ķabā-jah was tributary to I-yal-timish, and the tribute
was in arrears. At the advice of his Wazir, I-yal timish marched from Dihli
towards Lahor to enforce payment; others say, and more probably, that it was
for the possession of the province of Lahor-in Jamādi-ul-Awwal, 613 H. [The
Tabakāt-i-Akbari, Buda'ūni, and some others, make a great blunder here.
They state correctly enough that war arose between these two rulers about
Lahor, and that Shams-ud-Din, I-yal-timish, was always victorious; but add
that, on the last occasion, in 614 H., Shams-ud-Din moved against him in
person, and invested Uchchah, and then proceed to mention Kabā-jah's death,
which happened ten years or more after, thus confounding or mixing up the two
events. Firishtah is completely at sea about these events in Kabā-jah's life. ]
Ķabā-jah with his forces was encamped on the Biah [the Bias of Europeans]
to defend its passage.
Arrived on its banks, I-yal-timish, on the 14th of
Shawwal, began to cross with his army, without the aid of boats [this in
ELLIOT, vol. ii. page 571, is called crossing the Indus !], at the ford near a
village named Chambah [?]; but we must remember that the present course of
the Biah is not what it was then. In those days it separated into two branches
at a village named Lowah-wal, one branch flowing by Kuşur, Kabūlah, Khā-e,
and Hujrah-i-Shah Mukim, passed about a mile and a half N. W. of the fort of
Dibal-pūr, and fell into the river Ghārā. This branch was called Biah and
Nālah-i-Biah; whilst the other branch, flowing southwards, fell into the Sutlaj,
as the Ghārā, above its present confluence with the Biah, is called. One
author, copied by Firishtah, states that this affair between Ķabā-jah and I-yal-
timish took place between Manşūriah and the banks of the Chinab, which
seems very unlikely, being too far west. Kabā-jah, on witnessing this daring
deed, according to the Taj-ul-Ma'aṣir, abandoned his position and fled towards
"Luhawar," whither he was pursued. His standard, kettle-drums, war
material, and other booty to a vast amount, fell into the hands of his rival.
After this disaster, Ķabā-jah fled towards Ūchchah, whither I-yal-timish
appears not to have been then prepared to follow him.
I-yal-timish remained some time at Lāhor to arrange its affairs; and, having
published the news of his success in all parts, conferred the government of that
534
THE TABAKAT-1-NĂŞIRI.
ud-Din, Yal-duz, and was overthrown by the Khwajah, the
Mu-ayyid-ul-Mulk, Muḥammad-i-'Abd-ullah, the Sanjari,
who was the Wazir of the kingdom of Ghaznin ‘.
5
8
When [Sultan] Nāṣir-ud-Din, Ķabā-jah, became quietly
established in the territory of Sind, during the calamities
[attending the inroads] of the infidels of Chin, a great
number of the chief men of Khurasan, Ghür, and Ghaznin
presented themselves before him, and he bestowed upon
the whole of them ample presents, and provided liberally
for them. There used to be constant contention between
him and the august Sulṭān, Shams-ud-Din, I-yal-timish,
up to the time of the battle on the banks of the Sind, which
was fought between Sultan Jalāl-ud-Din, son of Sulṭān
Muḥammad, Khwārazm Shāh, and Chingiz Khān, after
which, Jalāl-ud-Din, Khwārazm Shāh, came into the land
of Sind, and proceeded towards Diwal and Mukrān.
9
After the taking of Nandanah' by the forces of the infidel
territory upon his eldest son, Nāṣir-ud-Din, Maḥmūd Shāh, and then returned
to Dihli. It was after these events that Kaba-jah's territory was invaded by
Sultan Jalāl-ud-Din, Khwārazm Shah, as already mentioned in note 5, page
293. The extent of the province of Lahor may be judged of from what is
mentioned in that note, and note ¹, below.
:
5 This happened in 612 H., according to the Taj-ul-Ma'aṣir, but it cannot
be correct. That is the year in which I-yal-dūz in person overthrew him the
Wazir of Ghaznin defeated Ķabā-jah soon after the death of Kutb-ud-Din.
The Mir'at-i-Jahān-Numā states that engagements were fought between I-yal-
dūz and Ķabā-jah several times in the neighbourhood of Lahor for the posses-
sion of that province. See under the reign of I-yal-dūz, pages 496–506.
6 Having been deprived of the province of Lahor, Ķabā-jah retired into
Sind, and, devoting his energies to the consolidation of his rule therein,
acquired great power.
7 See page 200.
8 Truly; and at page 294 he says that Ķaba-jah was defeated by I-yal-timish
in person in 614 H., which refers to the same events as related in the Taj-ul-
Ma'aşir in note 4, page 532.
9 Sa'id here means august, and not that his name was "Sa'id," which it was
not, nor was it "Sultán Sa'id Shams.'
1 Sultan Jalāl-ud-Din's defeat happened in the seventh month of the year
618 H. Compare Elliot's INDIA here, and throughout this Section, as the
Calcutta printed text happens to be pretty correct in this identical portion of it.
In the translation in Elliot, vol. ii., page 303, this passage is thus rendered :-
"When the battle between Jalálu dín Khwárizm Sháh and Changíz Khán was
fought on the banks of the Indus, Jalálu dín came into Sind, and went towards
Dewal and Makrán. After the victory of NANDUA-TARI the Moghal prince
came with a large army, &c." Here it will be perceived that NANDANAH, the
name of the fort which was taken and the district in which it lay, and TURTI,
the name of the Mughal who led the troops engaged in it, have been very
THE MUNIZZIAH SULTANS OF HIND.
535
Mughals, Turti, the Mughal Nu-in, with a large army,
appeared at the foot [of the walls] of the city of Multān,
cleverly made into one name, and Chingiz Khan is brought to Multan, who
was never east of the Indus in his life!
This passage cannot fail to be unintelligible to the reader without giving
some explanation, and some details respecting the events to which it refers.
Our author, no doubt, could have given more particulars, but here, as else-
where, he has, for reasons of his own, concealed a great deal.
There are many discrepancies likewise in the generality of Muḥammadan
authors about the investment of Multan. Some works, including Jahān-Kushā,
and Jami'-ut-Tawarikh, agree with our author, and some others state that
Multan was taken by the Mughals, while Faşiḥ-i, and others, which give such
detailed accounts of the Mughal invasions and Sultan Jalāl-ud-Din's career,
say nothing about NANDANAH, and do not refer to this expedition against
Multān; and Faşiḥ-i farther states, what is rather improbable, that Chingiz
Khan himself gave Sulṭān Jalāl-ud-Din to understand, that, “as long as he
did not re-cross the Sind, he would not interfere with him." The A'in-i-
Akbari says the Mughals subdued Multan, and that Ķabā-jah again repulsed
them, but the first statement is not correct.
European writers also differ considerably-I need not quote the absurd non-
sense contained in D'Ohsson [iii. p. 4] and in Rampoldi, in his “Annali
Musalmani”—in their accounts, extracted from the Muḥammadan writers,
respecting the advance of the Mughals upon Multān. In the "History of the
Tartars, translated from the work of Abu-l-Ghāzi, Bahadur Khan, it is
stated that Chingiz "despatched Dubay, Noyan, and Bala, Noyan, in pursuit
of the Sultan, but they, having followed him in vain as far as the frontiers of
India, were obliged to return without being able to give any tidings respecting
him."
Petit de la Croix, on the other hand, quoting Fazl-ullah, says, Bela,
Noyan, with 20,000 men," was sent "to resist "the Sultan, "if he appeared
in the country of Multan," and again, quoting Abu-l-Fidā, says "Multan fell
into the hands of the Mughals." Jahan-Kushā, Jāmi'-ut-Tawarikh and Alfi
are, however, greater authorities than those quoted by Petit de la Croix for
these events.
:
After his defeat of Sultan Jalal-ud-Din on the west bank of the Sind or
Indus, Changiz Khãn, with the main body of his forces, halted in the country
near the Kabul river and the Sind-in the plain of Peshawar, or the Hasht-
nagar Do-ābah, probably-pending negotiations with Sultan I-yal-timish-as
stated by our author also farther on, only the negotiations of Chingiz were
usually conducted upon quite a different plan with the sword, not the pen-
for permission to pass through upper Hindustan and enter Chiu by way of
Lakhanawati and Kāmrūd. Whilst there encamped, Chingiz, hearing of the
progress of Sulṭān Jalāl-ud-Din, and the strength he was acquiring, detached
the Nu-in, Turti or Turtãe-both names are correct, and he is by some writers
called Turmati [not "Túlí," as stated in Thomas, "PATHAN KINGS OF DEHLÍ "
-Tūli was the son of Changiz, and was elsewhere employed at this time. Firish-
tah, on the other hand, says it was Chaghatãe, another of the sons, which is
equally incorrect]-with two tumans-20,000 men-in pursuit of him.
Sulṭān Jalāl-ud-Din, then in the western part of the Sind-Sagar Do-ābah,
being much too weak in point of numbers to face this Mughal army sent after
him, retired farther into the Panjab, after he had, with 150 men, attacked and
routed some 2000 or 3000 of the troops of Hindustan stationed in that part,
beyond the river Bihat, Wihat, or Jhilam, into the Chinhatah Do-abah [The
536
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĂŞIRĪ.
and, for a period of forty-two days, closely invested that
strong fortress.
وهته
name of this Do-abah is derived by combining the two first letters of the
word-Chināb-with the three last letters of Bihatah or ü@g
dige.
Wihatah, b and w being interchangable-the Do-abah of Chinhatah lying
between those two rivers], where there were numbers of Khokhars at that
period; and one writer states that the Sultan did actually invest Lahor itself.
Turti, having crossed the Sind, "pushed on until he reached the boundary
of the district or tract of country belonging to Hindustan which Ķamr-ud-Din,
Kaṛmāni, had held, but had been dispossessed of it by one of the Sultan's
[Jalāl-ud-Din's] Amirs. This evidently refers to the tract of country which
will be subsequently referred to in several places-Banbān or Baniān. In it
was the strong fort of NANDANAH [-in two copies of Alfi it is written
and, clerical errors probably, but the locality cannot be mistaken,
and NANDANAH is evidently meant] which he took, and inflicted great slaughter
upon its inhabitants." From whom this fort was taken is not mentioned, but it
could scarcely have been then in the possession of Jalāl-ud-Din's vassals. After
this feat, Turti set out towards Multan, keeping along the western bank of the
Jhilam. "On arriving opposite Multān he found the river unfordable, and
directed his followers to construct a bridge, which they did by means of rafts
of wood-a floating bridge." He then crossed, and invested the place; but,
after he had placed his catapults, and had discharged them a great number of
times with much effect, and the fortress was about to fall, he had to abandon
the siege on account of the excessive heat [It was the height of the hot season,
and the heat of Multan is truly excessive]. He plundered the provinces of
Multān and Lohāwar, re-crossed the Sind, and proceeded towards Ghaznin.”
Jami'-ut-Tawarikh and Alfi say he plundered the,, -the country of Für or
Porus-which is the same probably as the Malik-pur and Malka-pur of
other writers, the meaning of the former not having been recognized, perhaps,
from the two words being written as one—l and See also Elliot,
INDIA: vol. ii., page 559.
Our author, however, makes the matter of the investment of Multan by
Turti very confused, for, in a previous page [297], he states that "Turti, the
Mughal, who had invested Multan, left Chingiz Khan, and came and joined
Sulṭān Jalāl-ud-Din, and became converted to the Muḥammadan faith."
To return, however, to NANDANAH. This name is first mentioned in the
reign of Maḥmūd of Ghaznin by 'Utba' in the Kitāb-i-Yamini, and then by
Abū-Sā'id, son of Ḥaiyah, a native of Gardaiz in the Ghaznin territory [pro-
bably an earlier writer even than Abu-l-Fazl-i-Baihaki, though not much], in
his Zain-ul-Akhbar, who says that Maḥmūd, towards the end of 404 H., deter-
mined to attack that fort, and that Naro Jai-pal, on becoming aware of it,
placed a strong garrison therein and retired himself towards the valley of
Kashmir. Mines were sprung, and the Turks kept up such a fire of arrows
against those who showed themselves upon the walls that the place surrendered
in 405 H. This very rare and important work I have commenced translating.
The next mention of NANDANAH occurs in Abu-1-Fazl-i-Baihaki's work,
wherein it is said it was "impossible to leave that saghar--a narrow
pass between hills bordering upon a hostile country-where was the fort of
NANDANAH, without being properly taken care of." Our author also men-
tions it in several places, and it is mentioned in some other works, including
the Ṭabaķāt-i-Akbari [It appears to have been copied from Zain-ul Akhbar],
THE MU’IZZĨAH SULŢĀNS OF HIND.
537
During that contest Malik [Sulṭān] Nāṣir-ud-Din, Ķabā-
jah, opened the door of his treasury, and conferred nume-
Khulāṣat-ut-Tawārikh, and Firishtah, both under Maḥmūd's reign, and in
many other places, as well as by 'Abbās, Sarwāṛnī, the Afghan historian, and
other writers; yet, by some means or other, it has been turned into "Nárdín”
by a few Muḥammadan writers-or rather copyists-and by almost all Eu-
ropean translators, after the same fashion as Tarā'in—the present Talāwaṛi—
has been turned into “Náráín." No such places as "Nárdín" and "Náráín”
ever existed. See also Elliot, INDIA: vol. ii., pages 448 to 450. Firishtah's
mode of spelling it is Nandūnah, and, in this instance, Dow spells it tolerably
correct, and is followed by Briggs.
Although it is declared [Elliot, INDIA: vol. ii. page 451] that "the name
of Ninduna cannot be restored," I shall make an effort to restore that of NAN-
DANAH, and, I think, not unsuccessfully.
NANDANAH, as late as the latter part of the last century at least, was the
name of a district, and formerly of a considerable tract of country, and a
fortress, in the Sind-Sagar Do-abah of the Panjab-but the name, to judge
from the Panjāb Survey Maps, appears to have been dropped in recent times—
lying on the west bank of the Bihat, Wihat, or Jhilam. It contained within it
part of the hill country, including the tallah or hill of the Jogi, Bāla-nāth, a
sacred place of the Hindus, which hill country was known to the Muḥammadan
writers as the Koh-i-Jūd, Koh-i-Bāla-nāth, and to the people dwelling therein
as the Makhiālah, Janjhūi, or Jūd Mountains, which we style the Salt Range,
from the number of mines of rock salt contained within them, and lay between
Pind-i-Dadan Khān [so called after a former Khokhar chief named Dadan
Khan] and Khush-ãb, and now composes part of the Shah-pür [Pür or Fūr. i. e.
Porus] District of the present Rāwal Pinḍi Division under the Panjab Govern-
There was also another separate and smaller district named Nandan-
pūr, a little farther north, and there is a small river named Nandanah in the
present district of Fath-i-Jang, in the Rawal Pindi District, also to the north.
There is also, in this district, a Malik-pūr, in ancient days, the residence of
the provincial governors, which lies in the direct line of route from the NAN-
DANAH district on the Jhilam to the locality in which Chingiz Khan had
pitched his camp, previously alluded to.
ment.
It is not impossible that the name of NANDANAH was, previous to the reign
of Akbar, applied to the eastern half of the hill tract between Khush-ab,
Rāwal-Pindi, and the Jhilam, including the northern part of the Chul-i-Jalāli
—so called after Jalāl-ud-Din-in the midst of the Sind-Sagar Do-abah, which
formed, during the rule of the Ghuris and the Turkish Slave Kings of Dihli,
the north-western province of Hind and Sind. The authority of the last-named
rulers does not seem to have extended to the eastern bank of the Sind, except
on the advance of an army to enforce it, nor northwards over the mountain
tracts ; and the Khokhars, along with the Awan-kārs, Kathars, Ghakars, and
other less numerous tribes, and, like them, still inhabiting that strong country
-the ancient Gāndhārah of the Hindus- —were not reduced to the subjection of
the rulers of Hindustan till the time of Akbar.
In the reign of Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din, Muḥammad-i-Sām, his rule, which
extended from Ghaznin to Lahor and Dihli, did not extend, save very nomi-
nally, over this hilly country; and it was because the Khokhars, and others,
in alliance with them, closed the route between Ghaznin and Lahor, as referred
to in note, page 481, that he had to march into this very frontier district of
NANDANAH to coerce them. The fortress of that name seems to have been
M m
538
THE TABAKĀT-I-NĀŞIRĪ.
rous benefits upon the people, and showed such proofs of
boldness, ability, expertness, and courage that the men-
for the same object as that for which Sher Shah, Afghan, founded the fort of
Ruhtas in after years.
Whether it was founded on the site of the fort of NAN-
DANAH it is difficult to say, but is more than probable, for Abu-l-Fazl does not
mention it in the list of forts in that sarkar, which may account for the name
being less used in later times, but, at a place on the route between Khush-ab
and Makhad on the Sind, named at present Pakka-kot, there are the remains
of a very strong fortress of ancient times, which may be those of NANDANAH.
In the tract south of the Makhialah Mountains or Koh-i-Jūd, as far as
the Sind, and to the north among the hills likewise, and beyond the Sind
towards Kaṛmān and Ghaznin, are the remains of several large towns or cities,
and substantial buildings, including the ruins of a considerable city, on the east
side of the river, named Kahlūr [9], which were noticed in the latter part
of the last century, built in the strongest and most substantial manner, and
still to be seen, and which would be delightfully interesting to explore. The
country between the Jhilam and the Sind, in the direction I have been referring
to, teems with ruins of this kind, and the remains of numerous great wells,
with stone steps to descend into them, named wān-the present termination of
many village names—in the Panjābi dialect, baolī in Hindi, and sard-ābah in
Persian. There are also the extensive ruins of the ancient city of Akarrah, and
some others, in the Banu district, the whole of which give undoubted evidence
of this tract south of the Makhiālah or Jūd Mountains having been the chief
route between Hind and Ghaznin by Kaṛmān and Gardaiz.
The more
northern route by Jhilam, Rawal Pinḍi, Aṭak, and Peshawar was seldom, if
ever used, for the Khaibar route was not under the control of the Dihli kings,
nor was it s✪ good and practicable as the other. [I notice that the periodical
ravings about the “only two routes" from Afghānistān into India have not yet
ceased.] This may be gathered from the account of Sulṭān Nāṣir-ud-Din,
Maḥmūd's reign farther on, where he marches his forces as far as the Sūḍharah
and then sends Ulugh Khan with his best troops to endeavour to expel the
Mughals from this very tract, and also from the account of Ulugh Khan in the
following Section. The country on the west of the Sind and on the Kābul
river nearest to it, on the decline of the Ghūrian, Khwārazmi, and Mughal
powers, was occupied by confederacies of powerful tribes, among whom were
Afghāns, and on the east side, in the hills, by the tribes before alluded to,
some of whom, the Awān-kārs and a few others, also held lands on the west
side near the river Sind, and some even farther west.
It was from this frontier province of NANDANAH that Sultan Jalāl-ud-Din
sent an envoy to I-yal-timish- who was made away with by him-with whom
Chingiz is said by our author to have been at the same time negotiating [!].
I-yal-timish had, at this time, ousted his rival Ķabā-jah from this portion of
the Lahor territory, and had compelled him to content himself with Multan,
Üçhchah, and Sind, although, from what subsequently occurred, the hold of
either of the rivals upon the frontier district of NANDANAH could not have
been very firm or very secure. At page 293, our author says, that I-yal-
timish, on hearing of Sulṭān Jalāl-ud-Din's overthrow by the Mughals on the
Sind and retreat towards the frontiers of the Dihli kingdom, “despatched” —-
in his account of I-yal-timish farther on, he says he "marched"-
"the troops
of Dihli towards Lahor [into the province of Lahor ?] against the Sulṭān, who
thereupon "turned aside, and proceeded towards Sind and Siwastān." They
were in great terror of the Khwarazmis' at Dihli; but Sulṭān Jalāl-ud-Din,
THE MU'IZZIAH SULTANS OF HIND.
539
tion thereof will endure upon the pages of time until the
judgment day.
This affair of the fortress [of Multan] happened in the
year 621 H.; and, one year and a half subsequently, the
Maliks of Ghur, through the ravages of the Mughal
infidels, joined Malik [Sultān] Nāṣir-ud-Din, Ķabā-jah;
and, in the latter part of the year 623 H., a body of [the
tribe of] Khalj, a part³ of the Khwārazmi forces, acquired
supremacy over the district of Manşūrah, which is [one]
of the cities of Siwastān, and their head was Malik Khān,
the Khalj ".
who had no more than about 10,000 men with him, was unable to face the
immense forces of the Dihli kingdom, and therefore he contented himself, for
the time, with the Sind-Sagar Do-abah and part of Sind. Had he appeared
on the scene a few years earlier, before the Turk chiefs of the Mu'izzi and
Kutbi dynasties had been overpowered and slaughtered by I-yal-timish, he
might easily have maintained a permanent footing in India.
From the fact of NANDANAH being contained in the List of I-yal-timish's
victories, although no mention even of such an expedition is given under his
reign, he may have endeavoured to gain possession of it; and he certainly was
advancing towards that part when attacked by the illness which compelled him
to return, and which shortly after caused his death. This frontier tract must
have been held by the Mughals after taking the fort of NANDANAH, for the
very first act of his son Nașir-ud-Din, Maḥmūd, when he came to the throne,
eleven years after, was to march into the Panjab and despatch Ulugh Khān
from the banks of the Sudharah with his forces "to ravage the Koh-i-Jud and
the parts about NANDANAH," and to check the inroads of the Mughals, who,
in the preceding reign of Mu'izz-ud-Din, Bahrām Shah, had taken Lāhor and
attacked Uchchah.
2 Who the "Maliks" of Ghūr were at this period will be found in the
account of the Mughal invasion in the last Section. The ravages of the
Mughal here referred to have nothing whatever to do with "this invasion
irruption of Turti the Mughal. See ELLIOT, vol. ii. page 303.
or
3 Not even the printed text will admit of this sentence being rendered: "The
army of Khalj, consisting of ALL the forces of Khwarizm," &c. ELLIOT,
vol. ii. page 303.
4 The word used is of Manṣurah, and signifies literally depressed or
low land; also a portion of land, country, region, tract, &c. With Siwastān
the word is used, which is the plural of al-a district, province, country,
as well as town, city, inhabited place.
?
5 It is possible that this may be our author's version of Sulṭān Jalāl-ud-Din's
operations against Ķabā-jah; but it is evident, from the fact that neither here
nor in his account of Jalāl-ud-Din, Mang-barni, does our author, any more
than Hasan, Nizami, the author of the Taj-ul-Ma'aşir, give a correct account
of Sultan Jalāl-ud-Din's subjugation of the Khokhars, and the defeat and
reduction of Ķaba-jah, and occupation of Siwastan, that both writers studiously
conceal as much as possible what must have been perfectly well known to both
of them. Other Indian writers who came after them, probably considering
that contemporary writers might be depended upon, have been led into the
M m 2
540
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NÄŞIRĪ.
Malik [Sultan] Naşir-ud-Din, Ķabā-jah, moved on to
repel them, and a battle took place between the two
error of not mentioning those matters, if they were aware of them. The
Khwārazmi Sultans were very obnoxious to the Ghūris and their parasites;
and, as the Khwarazmi sovereigns were not on good terms with the Khalifahs
of that day, our author's bigotry doubtless led him, as well as Hasan, Nizami,
to conceal all that might tend to the honour and glory of those whom our
author and his sect considered no better than heretics, as well as to pander to
the vanity of his patrons. See page 609.
Eighteen months after the appearance of the Mughals on the Sind or Indus,
and the investment of Multan by Turti or Tūrtãe some time in 623 H., a chief,
named Malik Khan by several writers, and styled "of Hirāt," with his followers
and the Khalj tribe, or rather the remnant of the Khalj tribe [a portion of this
great tribe was settled in Garmsir, and some held lands in Nangrahār, north of
the Kaṛman district, centuries before the Afghans came into it. It is included
by some in Shanūzān or Sankuran, or rather the latter is included in Nang-
rahar], the remnant of the Khwarāzmi forces in these parts, pressed by the
Mughal invaders, arrived on the N.W. frontier of Sind. This person, however,
cannot be the great chief referred to at pages 287, 409, &c.-nor does our
author say he is, but styles him "the Khalj;" but some other writers endeavour
to make out that he is-for, according to Yafa-i, Jahān-Kushā, and other
works, he was slain when endeavouring to reach Parshor or Barshawar, when
the right wing of Sulṭān Jalāl-ud-Din's small force which he commanded was
defeated on the banks of the Indus. He was the son of Jalāl-ud-Din's mater-
nal uncle, and is styled by different names and titles in different histories. In
Alfi he is called, Yamin Malik, in Jami'-ut-Tawarikh, Amin Malik, and in
Rauzat-uş-Şafa, and Habib-us-Siyar, Yamin-ul-Mulk. It is apparent, however,
that his correct name and titles were Malik Khan, Yamin-ul-Mulk.
See page
287.
Abu-l-Ghāzi, Bahadur Khan, in his history styles the person last referred
to Khān Malik, Saif-ud-Din, 'Ighrak, Malik of the hills of Kaṛmān—the
Sankuran or Shanūzān hills. This however is not correct, for that chief,
together with others, 'Azam Malik and Nūḥ, the Jān-dār, after their desertion
of Sulṭān Jalāl-ud-Din, began to fall out and fight among themselves, so that
within three months of their desertion all three were killed, and their followers
dispersed; and, what with those killed by each other and those slain by Changiz
Khan's forces, after a short time no traces of them were left.
A Malik Khan commanded the left wing of Jalāl-ud-Din's force in the
battle on the Indus, and his fate is not recorded. He probably is the person
meant by our author, and the remains of the deserters from Jalāl-ud-Din's
army after the victory at Barwan may have been his followers.
Our author does not appear to have known much more about the situation of
Manṣurah and the district of which it was the chief place than Abū-l-Fazl did.
It was on the east side of the Indus, and nearly fifty miles from the present
main stream, and was situated between forty-five and fifty miles N. E. of Haidar-
ābād. The Khalj fugitives appeared on the N.W. frontier of Sind, of which
Siwastan [which gave name to the province] or Sadūsān, the present Siḥwān,
was the chief city, and included that district and what we at present call Upper
Sind. Kaba-jah moved against them and defeated them, and Malik Khān is
said to have been killed in the engagement. The remaining Khalj and others.
of his followers sought the protection of Shams-ud-Din, I-yal-timish, Ķabā-
THE MU'IZZIAH SULŢĀNS OF HIND.
54I
armies, and the Khalj force was overthrown, and the Khan
[Chief] of the Khalj was slain; and Malik [Sulṭān] Nāṣir
ud-Din, Ķabā-jah, returned again to Üchchah and Multān.
In this same year likewise, the writer of this work,
Minhaj-i-Sarāj, reached the city of Üchchah' from Khurā-
san by way of Ghaznin and Banian', by boat, on Tuesday,
the 27th of the month Jamādi-ul-Awwal, in the year 624 H.
In the month of Zi-Hijjah of the same year, the Firūzi
College of Uchchah was committed to the charge of the
author, together with the office of Kazi of the forces of
8
jah's rival and enemy, who took them under his protection, and subsequently
marched against Ķabā-jah, supported by these fugitives.
Firishtah, copying some other modern author, places this event in 615 H.,
but it is totally incorrect. He says they came from the outskirts of
Ghaznin. The Tabakat-i-Akbari copies from our author.
-
6 Üchchah, also called Üchchah-i-Jalāli, the Europeanized Uch, Ooch, and
Ouche, on the Ghārā, consisted I refer to it as it was a century ago—of seven
villages of large size. That in which is the tomb of Sayyid Jamal, Bukhāri, is
called Uchchah-i-Sharif, or the Holy; and that in which another Muḥam-
madan saint-Makhdum-i-Jahānān-i-Jahān-is buried is styled Uchchah-i-
Makhdūm. The part in which the Mughal governors used to dwell is named
Uchchah-i-Mughal, and so on, all seven villages having separate names; but
they may be considered as portions, although somewhat apart from each other,
of one large town. Six or seven kuroh [each kuroh 1000 paces] to the north-
ward of Uchchah, the rivers Ghārā, Chināb, and their tributaries fall into the
Sind, Āb-i-Sind, or Sind-Sagar.
بدیان
7 The Calcutta text has Mathan or Mithan--here, but there is no
such word in any copy of the text collated. The editor or editors, knowing
probably that there was a place somewhere on the Indus called Mithan-kot-
not Mithan with long ā-jumped at the conclusion that that must be the place
referred to. The name contained in every copy of the text is written generally
-Banian, but occasionally-Banban. See note, page 536, and
note 8, page 623. The same name occurs in the reign of I-yal-timish, and
in many other places; and, in the printed text, the name is, generally, correctly
written. In a note, however, it is turned into, but in two of the most
modern copies of the text it is turned into and respectively! In
Elliot's INDIA the printed text is implicitly followed. There is no doubt what-
ever that Multan is not meant, and that it refers to some place between Ghaznin,
Kaṛmān, and the tract north or west of the Salt Range, perhaps Banu or
near it; and further mention of it in the following pages of this work tends to
confirm this supposition, but its precise position is difficult to fix. Mithan-kot
is a long distance below Uchchah, and would have taken our author much
out of his way in coming from Ghaznin to that city.
o
• Compare Elliot, INDIA, vol. ii. page 304, where the Kazi-ship, or office of
Ķāzi, is turned into "provocation"! The passage is thus rendered "In the
month of Zi-l hijja of the same year the Fírozí college at Uch was consigned
to the care of the author. On the provocation of the army of 'Aláu-d dín
Bahrám Sháh, in the month of Rabi'u-l awwal, A. H. 624, Sultán Sa'íd
Shamsu-d dín encamped in sight of Uch"!
543
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĂŞIRĪ.
'Alā-ud-Din, Bahram Shah [the son of Sulṭān Nãșir-ud-
Din, Ķabā-jah]; and, in the month of Rabi'-ul-Awwal of
the same year, 624 H., the august Sultan, Shams-ud-
9 There are numerous discrepancies among authors with respect to these
events; and our author himself, who was present at Üchchah, makes a different
statement here from that given by him under the reign of I-yal-timish, page
611; and there says these events happened in 625 н.
was
}}
The Taj-ul-Ma'aşir, after stating that the fortress of "Uchchah-i-Multān
"taken,'
"—i. e. Üchchah of Multan, or belonging to Multān, not "Uch
Multán," and without mentioning that I-yal-timish was at Üchchah in
person, says that I-yal-timish, hearing of Ķabā-jah's pride and arrogance, and
that he had strongly fortified himself within the fort of Bhakar, despatched
his Wazir against him with a large arrhy. See also Elliot, INDIA, vol. ii.
page 242.
Other writers again state that, on the flight of Ķaba-jah from Üchchah,
I-yal-timish "left his Wazir to carry on the investment of Uchchah, and
returned himself to Dihli ;" and that "the Wazir took that place after two
months, and then marched against Bhakar."
Another work has that "I-yal-timish's Wazir marched an army against
Ķabā-jah, and invested him within the walls of Üchchah in 624 H. " that "it
was taken after two months, on the 22nd of Jamādi-ul-Akhir," and that,
'after it was taken, Ķabā-jah got on board a boat-not what we call boats in
this country, but vessels of considerable size, with flat bottoms-in order to get
to Bhakar, and was drowned."
The favourite author of Indian History writers [because translated probably],
Firishtah [not his translators], places this event "between 618 H. and 623 H. ;"
but, as he gives no authority for so doing, and no dates between, there is no
knowing what year he means. He places it before the expedition against.
Rantabhūr, whereas it took place after; and in the lithographed text "revised"
by BRIGGS, and also in the Calcutta text of our author, Bhakar is turned into
Thankir, which is Bhianah. The Tabakāt-i-Akbari also places these events
in 614 H. some ten years too soon: that was Ķabā-jah's first defeat by I-yal-
timish. See page 294.
The real events appear to be as follow. Soon after the Khalj and
Khwārazmi fugitives threw themselves on the protection of I-yal-timish, he,
jealous of the power of Kaba-jah, and his overthrow of that remnant of the
Khwārazmi forces, moved with an army from Dihli, by way of Tabarhindah
towards Uchchah, whilst the governor of the Lahor province, with another
force, to create a diversion, marched against Multan. I-yal-timish reached
Üchchah on the 1st of Rabi'-ul-Awwal, 625 H. [February, 1227 A. D.], having
sent on the principal part of his army, under the Wazir, the Nizām-ul-Mulk,
the Khwajah, Muḥammad, son of Abu-Sa'id, Junaidi, a few days in advance.
He, I-yal-timish, sat down before the place and invested it, and detached his
Wazir, with a large force, against the fortress of Bhakar, whither Ķabā-jah,
on becoming aware of I-yal-timish's coming against him, had withdrawn with
most of his forces and his treasures. These events happened during the hot
season of 625 H., and part of the Wazir's force dropped down to Bhakar by
water, and part went by land, and had to march through dense jangal.
It is remarkable that neither Lhuri [now often pronounced Rohri] nor
Sakar are mentioned here where we might naturally have expected to have
heard something about them, especially of Luhri, for on the plain immediately
north of it the troops of I-yal-timish probably encamped. I say probably,
THE MU'IZZIAH SULȚĀNS OF IIIND.
543
Dunya wa ud-Din [I-yal-timish] pitched his camp in sight
because there can be no doubt but that the course of the Indus, at this part,
has greatly altered during the lapse of upward of six centuries, and with
respect to the fortress of Bhakar in particular, and its connexion with Sakar.
To return to Ūchchah however some say it held out vigorously for a
period of two months and twenty days; but, as it capitulated-some say it
was taken on Tuesday, the 29th-one author says the 22nd-of Jamādi-ul-
Ākhir—this must be incorrect, as, between the two dates given for the arrival
of I-yal-timish and the fall of Uchchah, is a period of exactly four months.
Our author, although present, can scarcely be depended upon, for here he
says it occurred in 624 H., and under I-yal-timish's reign says 625 H.
The author of the Tarikh-i-Sind, Mir Ma'ṣum, says that I-yal-timish
marched an army against Ķabā-jah in 624 H., but that the Wazir was left to
carry out the investment, and I-yal-timish returned to Dihli; and that the
place capitulated 28th of Jamādi-ul-Awwal, 625 H.
On becoming aware of the fall of Uchchah, Kaba-jah despatched his son,
'Ala-ud-Din, Muḥammad, Bahrām Shāh, to treat for an accommodation; but,
although he was received with all outward marks of kindness, and matters had
been discussed, he was not permitted to depart. As the Wazir was close at
hand to invest Bhakar, Ķabā-jah was alarmed; and, with the fate of Tāj.ud-
Din, I-yal-dūz, before his eyes, threw himself on board a boat in order to
escape, and was drowned by the sinking of the vessel on the 22nd of Jamādi-
ul-Akhir, 625 H.
According to the Taj-ul-Ma'aṣir, Ķabā-jah, having been invested in Bhakar
by the Wazir, and the place reduced to extremity, then despatched his son to
I-yal-timish, with an offering of 100 laks of Dihli-wāls [a coin so called], and
1000 dresses of different kinds; but, being alarmed at the detention of his
son, shortly after, died of grief! He left treasures to the amount of 500 laks
of Dihli-wāls, 1000 large river boats, jewels and valuable pearls, inlaid
vessels of silver and gold, costly garments and other valuable property,
the whole of which was appropriated by I-yal-timish. What became of
Muḥammad, Bahrām Shāh, Kabā-jah's son, is not known.
The Jami'-ul-Ḥikāyat, a book of anecdotes, written about this period, and
dedicated to the Wazir of I-yal-timish, states-but the statements contained
in such works must be received with due caution-that "I-yal-timish sent an
army to repress the encroachments of Kaba-jah," but does not mention
Üchchah expressly, and adds, that "he, being unable to cope with this
army, sent his forces to Bhakar in boats. The troops of Dihli reached
Bhakar on the 10th of Rabi'-ul-Awwal, 625 H., and preparations for attack
were made. It was, however, not made until near seven weeks after, on Ist
of Jamādi-ul-Awwal; but Ķabā-jah, driven from the outer walls, lost the
town and had to retire to the fort." This description, however, is not appli-
cable to the island of Bhakar in its present extent. Kaba-jah is then said to
have offered to capitulate, if he were allowed to send away his sons and his
treasure. This was refused; and he, placing no faith in his conqueror
[rival?], preferring death to surrender and captivity, cast himself from the
walls into the water, n e night of Thursday, the 19th of Jamādi-ul-Akhir—
one month and nineteen days after the first investment of the place.
As a specimen of the random manner in which history is often written,
Buda'ūni says that the Mughals invested Multān in 611 H., and that, in
624 H., Ķabā-jah was made captive by Sultan Shams-ud-Din, "and took
the road of the other world."
544
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĂṢIRĪ.
of Uchchah. Malik [Sultan] Naşir-ud-Din, Ķabā-jah, dis-
comfited, embarked on boats [with his troops and fol-
lowers?] and retired towards Bhakar; and [a body of?] the
Sultan's forces, along with the Wazir of the State, the
Nizām-ul-Mulk, set out in pursuit of him, and invested him
within the fortress of Bhakar¹.
Sulṭān Shams-ud-Din, I-yal-timish, remained encamped
before the gate of the fortress of Uchchah for a period of
two months and twenty-seven days. On Saturday, the
27th of the month, Jamādi-ul-Awwal ', the citadel of Uch-
chah was given up. When the news of the capture of the
place reached Malik [Sulṭān] Nāṣir-ud-Din, Ķabā-jah, he
sent his son, 'Ala-ud-Din, Bahram Shah, to the presence of
the Sultan. Subsequent to his reaching the camp of the
Sultan, on the 22nd of the month, Jamadi-ul-Akhir, in-
formation arrived of the taking of Bhakar; and that Malik
[Sultan] Naşir-ud-Din, Kaba-jah, had drowned himself in
the river Sind, and the term of his existence was severed ³.
The period of his rule in the land of Sind, and Ūchchah,
and Multan, was twenty-two years.
3
IV. MALIK BANA-UD-DĪN, TUGHRIL, UL-MU’IZZĪ-US-
SULTANI.
Malik Bahā-ud-Din, Tughril, was a Malik of excellent
disposition, scrupulously impartial, just, kind to the poor
and strangers, and adorned with humility. He was one
of the slaves of the early part of the reign of the Sultan-i-
Ghāzi, Mu'izz-ud-Din, Muḥammad-i-Sām, and the latter
had raised him likewise to a high degree of rank; and,
1 The printed text [and Firishtah in his work] turns this name into Thankir,
which is Bhiānah, although Bhakar is mentioned correctly immediately
after !
2 Impossible, considering that Zi-Hijjah is the last month of the year, and
Rabi'-ul-Awwal the third. He must either mean that he reached Uchchah
in 623 H., or that it was surrendered in 625 H. See page 296, where he con-
tradicts both the date of his own arrival at Üchchah and also the year in which
it was taken.
3 Compare ELLIOT here, vol. ii. page 304.
4 Tughrul, with short u before the final 7, is the name of a bird; but the
name of this chief, like that of several of the Saljūk rulers, is spelt Tughril.
All writers agree that Baha-ud-Din, Tughril, was one of the greatest, most
amiable, and most accomplished of Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din's mamlūks.
THE MU’IZZĨAH SULŢĀNS OF HIND.
545
when the fortress of Thangir', [or Thankir], which is [in ?]
the territory of Bhianah, with the Rãe of which warfare
was being carried on, was taken, it was made over to Bahā-
ud-Din, Tughril's charge, and that part became flourishing
and prosperous through his means. From different parts
of Hindustan and Khurāsān merchants and men of repute
had joined him, and to the whole of them he was in the
habit of presenting houses and goods which used to become
their property, so that, on this account, they would dwell
near him.
As the fortress of Thankir was not suitable as a place of
residence for him and his following, Malik Bahā-ud-Din,
Tughril, founded, in the territory of Bhianah, the city of
Sultan-kot, and therein took up his abode, and used con-
tinually to despatch [bodies of] cavalry towards Gwaliyūr.
When the Sultan-i-Ghāzi [Mu'izz-ud-Din] retired from the
foot [of the walls] of the fort of Gwaliyūr, he said to Bahā-
5 The discrepancies of authors with regard to the taking of this fortress, and
the operations against Gwaliyur are great.
Our author himself, under the reign of Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din, states that
Kutb-ud-Din subdued Nahrwālah, Thangir, Gwāliyūr, and Budā'ūn, and here
contradicts himself.
The Taj-ul-Ma'āṣir says Thangir was taken in 592 H., and that Kutb-ud-
Din, having joined the Sultan's forces, the royal army moved against Gwāliyūr,
and invested it in that same year. Rãe Solankh Pal sued for peace, became
tributary, and was allowed to retain his possessions.
The Tabaķāt-i-Akbari says Sulṭān Mu'izz-ud-Din made the expedition to
Ķinnauj and Banaras in 589 H., and, leaving Kutb-ud-Din as his repre-
sentative in Hind, returned to Ghaznin. Immediately after, that work states,
“Ķuṭb-ud-Din subdued Thangir, Gwāliyūr, and Budā'ūn, and then invaded
Nahrwālah," but gives no dates; and then adds, without mentioning any other
event between, that, "when between Tūs and Sarakhs, Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din
heard of the death of his brother," which happened in 599 H., according to our
author.
The Mir'āt-i-Jahān-Numā also says that Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din, after the
conquest of Ķinnauj and Banāras, left Ķutb-ud-Din, as his deputy in India,
and that the latter took Gwaliyūr, Budā'ūn, and other places, but Thangir is
not mentioned, and, in this statement, Haft Iklim and Budā'ūni
agree.
Alfi, which is the most correct apparently, has, "Sulṭān Mu'izz-ud-Din,
Muḥammad-i-Sām, again entered Hind in 590 H., and took Thangir [or
Thankir], which was an exceedingly strong place, and then marched against
Gwaliyur," about which more will be mentioned in the following note.
It is amusing to compare Firishtah here-the text I mean-his account of
these events, first, under the reign of Sulṭān Mu'izz-ud-Din, and, subsequently,
in his account of Kutb-ud-Din, I-bak, and Bahā-ud-Din, Tughril. They are
related in three different ways, and neither in details nor in dates do they
agree!
546
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NAṢIRĪ.
-ud-Din, Tughril: "I must leave this stronghold to thee
[to take]." In concurrence with this hint, Malik Bahā-ud-
Din, Tughril, stationed a body of forces from his own
troops at the foot of the fort of Gwaliyūr, and near by, at
the distance of one league, he erected a fortification, in order
that the Musalman horsemen might remain within it at
night, and, when the day should break, push on to the
foot of the fort [walls].
They were occupied in this manner for the period of a
year; and, when the defenders of Gwāliyūr became reduced
to straits, they sent emissaries to the Sulṭān- [Malik at that
period] i-Karim, Kutb-ud-Din, I-bak, and gave up the fort
to him; and [consequently] between Malik Bahā-ud-Din,
The more recent copies of the text differ somewhat from this; but the
oldest and best copies are as above.
7 Neither here, nor under the reign of Sulṭān Mu'izz-ud-Din, does our
author give us the details in consecutive order, his constant failing. The
Sultan, having gained possession of Thangir, moved against Gwāliyūr.
Arrived there, he found it would be impossible to take it by a coup de main,
and that the only way to reduce it would be by a regular investment, and
reduction of the defenders to straits, which would occupy a considerable time.
The Rãe of Gwaliyur, becoming aware of the Sultan's deliberations on the
matter, hastened to present himself before him, with rich presents and
offerings, and conciliated him, and, for a time, he was enabled to preserve
his territory.
ELPHINSTONE, led away by the translations of Firishtah-Briggs's version
of which he constantly quotes-and other histories probably, easily, but
incorrectly, disposes of these affairs. He says, page 315, "next year, Shaháb
u dín came back to India, took Biána, west of Agra, and laid siege [!] to the
strong fort of Gwáliór, in Bundélkand. It is probable [!] that he was recalled
by some attack or alarm in Khorásán, for he left the conduct of the siege of
Gwáliór to his generals, and returned, without having performed anything of
consequence [!], to Ghazni.”
At the time of withdrawing from before the fort, the Sultan remarked to
Tughril, that, if the fort should be taken [hereafter by his means], it should be
made over to him. On this account, after the Sultan's departure, Tughril
founded the strong fortress of Sulṭān-koṭ in the Bhianah territory and there
took up his residence, and from thence made constant raids into the Gwaliyūr
territory; but, finding this of no avail, he founded a strong fortification within
two leagues [some say much nearer] of it, and made it his headquarters,
and virtually blockaded Gwaliyūr. By making incessant raids upon the
country round, he sought to reduce the place to extremity. After about a
year, the defenders, being reduced to great straits, sent agents, with presents
and rarities, not to Tughril, but to his rival, Malik Kutb-ud-Din, I-bak,
and delivered up the fortress of Gwaliyur to him. Kutb-ud-Din's having
accepted this offer was the cause of enmity between the two Turk mamlūks,
and, had not Tughril been suddenly removed from the scene by the hand
of death, hostilities would have arisen hetween them. The Tazkirat-ul-
Muluk says Tughril died whilst the operations were being carried on.
THE MU’IZZÏAH SULŢĀNS OF HIND.
547
Tughril, and [Malik] Kutb-ud-Din, I-bak, there used to
exist a little of the leaven of vexation.
Malik Baha-ud-Din, Tughril, was a man of exemplary
faith, and, in the district of Bhianah, numerous proofs of
his goodness remained; and he died, and was received into
the Almighty's mercy.
8
After this, an account will likewise be given in this
TABAKAT of the Khalj Maliks who were [among] those of
the reign of the beneficent Sultan Kuṭb-ud-Din, and
accounted among the servants of the Sultan-i-Ghāzi, Mu'izz-
ud-Din, Muḥammad-i-Sam, in order that, when the readers.
[of this work] acquire knowledge respecting all the Maliks
and Amirs of Hindustan, they may utter a benediction
upon the author, and pray unto the Omnipotent for the
eternal dominion and perpetual sovereignty of Sultān
NASIR-UD-DUNYA WA UD-DIN, ABU-L-MUZAFFAR-I-
MAHMUD, the son of the Sulṭān, the Kasim [co-sharer] of
the Lord of the Faithful: and may Almighty God per-
petuate the dynasty, Amin!
between
There is no date given of the surrender of Gwaliyur to Ķuṭb-ud-Din, but,
from what our author states about the "leaven of vexation
Kutb-ud-Din and Tughril, and what other writers say respecting Tughril's
determination of appealing to arms on account of Kutb-ud-Din's interference
with respect to this fortress, we may conclude that its surrender must have
taken place just before or immediately after the death of Sultan Mu'izz-ud-
Din, who would probably, had he lived longer, have interfered in this
matter out of his great regard for Tughril, his ancient slave. Kutb-ud-
Din, after the Sultan's death, would scarcely have kept himself entirely at
Lahor out of fear of Taj-ud-Din, I-yal-dūz, with another rival like Bahā-ud-
Din, Tughril, in his rear, lest they might act in concert.
Firishtah mentions these events in his account of Tughril as though they
had happened in 607 H. !
! See also note 2, page 516.
Gwāliyur did not long remain in Musalman possession however, and it
was recovered shortly after by the Hindus, during the confusion which
arose on the death of Kutb-ud-Din, I-bak, and the accession of his adopted
son; and, it was not until many years after-in 630 H.- that I-yal-timish
could gain possession of it. See under his reign farther on.
Not so: Malik Kutb-ud-Din was a slave at this time, and continued a
slave till after Sulṭān Mu'izz-ud-Din's assassination; and the first of the
Khalj rulers of Lakhanawați died before Kutb-ud-Din received his
mission.
9 See note, pages 310, 315, and 388, and note 7. On his later coins
the title is Naşir-i-Amir-ul-Muminin, and as our author himself states in his
account of Naşir-ud-Din Maḥmud's reign farther on.
548
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĂŞIRĪ.
V. MALIK-UL-GHAZI, IKHTIYAR-UD-DİN, MUHAMMAD, SON
OF BAKHT-YARI, KHALJI, IN THE TERRITORY OF
LAKHAṆAWAŢĪ ².
Trustworthy persons have related on this wise, that this
Muḥammad, son of Bakht-yār, belonged to the Khalj [tribe]
of Ghur, and the territory of Garmsir'; and that he was a
man impetuous, enterprising, intrepid, bold, sagacious, and
expert. He came from his tribes to the court of Ghaznin,
and [to] the Audience Hall of dominion of the Sultan
Mu'izz-ud-Din, Muḥammad-i-Sam. In the Diwan-i-'Ariz
بن
1 In the more recent copies of the text, the word "son of" has been
left out, but the izafat-the kasrah or i, governing the genitive, even in them
is understood, if not written; and thus, with European and some local Indian
Muḥammadan writers, the father has had the credit for what the son per-
formed. The same error, of omitting the kasrah or not understanding the
grammatical structure, has caused the ancestor of the Ghurian Sultāns,
Muḥammad, son of Suri, noticed at page 320, to be made Muḥammad
Sūri
-one person-instead of two. The father's name it appears was Bakht-
yar [i. e. the Fortunate or Lucky], the son of Maḥmūd.
At page 517, in every copy of the text, our author styles him 'Izz-ud-Din,
instead of Ikhtiyar-ud-Din.
2 My oldest copy of the text gives the vowel points as above. There is no
doubt but that the correct name is LAKHMANA-WAȚI, or LAKSHMANA-WAȚI
from Lakhmaṇa or Lakshmana, the son of Dasarata, and half-brother of
Rām Chandra, and wati, the contraction of wāti —habitation, dwelling,
home-the country of Lakhmana.
3 The most absurd statements have been made with respect to the people
named Khalj, the plural of which, according to the 'Arab mode of writing,
is Akhlāj. It is also written, but rarely, Khalaj; but some few Muḥam-
madan Indian authors write it Khilj and Khilji, and most European writers
have followed them [Dow, however, makes " Chilligies" of them, although
Firishtah writes the word like other Muḥammadan authors]; but, accord-
ing to the fertile imaginations of Europeans, the Khalj-tribe and Ghalzi
—j—tribe are one people-in fact, some roundly assert that the Khalj are
one and the same race as the Afghān tribe of Ghalzi, without there being
a shadow of authority for such an assertion in any Muḥammadan writer
whatever. Because the Khalj happened, in the days of the Ghūrian Sultāns
[and long prior], to have been located in that part of Khurāsān now included
in what in the present day is styled by the general name of Afghanistan—a
comparatively modern designation---such writers, in their innocency, jumped at
the conclusion that they were Afghans, and, more than that, that the Khalj
and Ghalzi must be one and the same people.
The Khalj are a TURKISH tribe, an account of whom will be found in all
the histories of that race--the Shajirah-ul-Atrāk, Jāmi'-ut-Tawarikh, Intro-
duction to the Zafar Namah, &c. ; and a portion of them had settled in Garmsir
long prior to the period under discussion, from whence they came into Hindūstān
and entered the service of Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din. See also note 6, page 550.
THE MU'IZZIAH SULTANS OF HIND.
549
[department of the Muster-Master], because, in the sight
of the head of that office, his outward appearance was
humble and unprepossessing, but a small stipend was
assigned him. This he rejected, and he left Ghaznin and
came into Hindūstān. Arrived at the capital, Dihli [there
likewise], by reason of his humble condition, not finding
favour in the sight of the [head of the] Muster-Master's
department, he was also rejected.
Muḥammad-i-Bakht-yār then left Dihli and proceeded
to Budā'ūn, to the presence of the holder of that fief, the
Sipah-Sālār [Commander or Leader of troops], Hizabr-ud-
Din, Hasan-i-Adib, and he fixed a certain salary for him.
The paternal uncle of Muḥammad-i-Bakht-yār-Muḥam-
mad, son of Maḥmūd-was in [the army of] Ghaznin [and
his nephew joined him]; and, when the battle was fought at
Tārā'in in which the Golah [Rãe Pithora] was defeated,
'Ali, [styled] Nāg-awri, entertained Muḥammad-i-Maḥmūd
[the uncle] in his own service. When he ['Ali] became
feudatory of Nag-awr, he stood up among his brethren [sic],
and conferred a kettle-drum and banner upon Muḥammad-
i-Maḥmūd, and made over to him the fief of Kashmandi
[or Kashtmandi]; and, after his [Muḥammad-i-Maḥmūd's]
death, Muḥammad-i-Bakht-yār became feudatory in his
place¹.
After some time he proceeded into Awadh to the pre-
sence of Malik Ḥusām-ud-Din, Aghul-Bak. As he had
acquired a horse and efficient arms, and in several places
had shown activity and gallantry, Bhagwat or Bhugwat
―
4 This passage is defective more or less in every copy of the text collated,
and most of them are the most modern copies-hopelessly so. To make
sense of it I have been obliged to add a few words, but they are those only
which are in italics within brackets. The greater part of what is stated there,
however, is corroborated by others; and the only parts which are doubtful
are those respecting the nephew joining the uncle, and 'Ali, Nāg-awri's
“standing up among his brethren." The latter was probably a Khalj.
The three chiefs here mentioned appear to have been quite independent,
or very nearly so, of Malik Kutb-ud-Din, Ï-bak's authority; and this,
seemingly, was why Muḥammad, son of Bakht-yār, entered their service. The
very fact of these Khalj rulers being put in the same Section with Kutb-ud-
Din, Ï-bak, Nāṣir-ud-Din, Ķabā-jah, and Bahā-ud-Din, Tughril, and
numbered consecutively, shows that Muḥammad, son of Bakht-yār, was not an
officer of Kutb-ud-Din, but only partially dependent on him as the Sulṭān's
representative at Dihli; and, in the same manner, his successors were to all
intents independent until the last was overcome by I-yal-timish.
550
THE TABAKAT-I-NĂŞIRĪ.
were conferred [ بھیولی] and Bhiuli or Bhiwali ,[بهكوت]
upon him in fief; and, being a man of valour and intre-
pidity, he was in the habit of making incursions into the
territory of Muner and Bihar, and used to obtain booty
5 These names are thus written in the oldest copies and are confirmed by
the best of the modern copies of the text, and, as they are important, I give
the original Persian. These fiefs were situated between the Ganges and the
Karmah-nasah, to the eastward of and adjoining Chūnār-gaṛh, and two par-
ganahs still bear the same names. The town of Bhiuli [anglicized Bhoelee] is
still the chief town of the latter, but there is a difficulty with respect to the
name of the principal place of the Bhagwat or Bhugwat parganah in those
days, and it is most probable that the hill and fortress of Chūnār-gaṛh was
included in it. See Indian Atlas, sheet 88. That the places mentioned in the
text were in the part named is singularly corroborated by what others say
were the names of Muḥammad, son of Bakht-yar's fiefs, mentioned in the
following note; for the places referred to are evidently the modern anglicized
Pateetah and Kuntil [Kuntilah ?], the former being only two miles north and
nine west, and the latter one mile north; and twenty-eight miles west of
Bhuili. All these three places moreover are immediately west of the Karmah-
nasah, which river was the boundary of the Bihār territory. In the printed
text these places are turned into Sahlat [] or Sahlaṣt [] and
Sahili [] or Sihwali [9]—in fact, anything but what is correct. See
Elliot INDIA, vol. ii., page 305.
6 There is considerable difference between our author and some other
writers here, and also in other places; and, as I proceed I will give a short
abstract of what they say.
Ikhtiyār-ud-Din, Muḥammad-i-Bakht-yār—as I shall in future style
him that is son of Bakht-yār, the Khalj, who was never a slave [the
History of India" written for the Calcutta University notwithstanding],
was one of the headmen of the Khalj tribe dwelling in and on the
south-west border of Ghur. He was endowed with great valour, wis-
dom, and liberality, was of robust and powerful form, with immensely
long arms-as described by our author. During the reign of Sultān
Mu'izz-ud-Din he came to Ghaznin in search of service during those
stirring times, and, subsequently, not obtaining employment such as he
desired, he came into Hind, and proceeded to Lahor. There he did not
get on with Kutb-ud-Din, it is said, so he proceeded farther eastward, and
joined the Malik-ul-Mu'azzam [the great Malik], Ḥusām-ud-Din, Ūghūl-
Bak [see note 2, page 516, para. 11], who held in fief a considerable tract of
country in the Do-ab, and on the east side of the river Gang, independent of
Kutb-ud-Din's authority. According to another author, Sulṭān Mu'izz-ud-
Din conferred on Ūghūl-Bak the fortress of Kol and its dependencies, which
is in the Do-ab. Muḥammad-i-Bakht-yār was taken into that Malik's service,
and, soon after, was despatched with some forces into Awadh [Compare
Thomas, "PATHAN KINGS OF DEHLÍ," page 110, who makes him " Sipah-
sálár of Oude" and note 7, page 558, farther on]; and, on several occasions,
he gave proofs of his valour and prowess against his Hindu opponents.
After this, Husām-ud-Din, Ughul-Bak, conferred upon him the fiefs of
PATĪTAH—‍ [Lat. 25°, Long. 82° 54′], and KUNTILAH—al√ [Lat. 25° 7',
Long. 82° 35'], the Kuntil of the Indian Atlas.
•
[From a similarity in the names, some comparatively modern Muḥammadan
THE MU’IZZĨAH SULȚĀNS OF HIND.
551
from it, until he acquired ample resources in the shape of
horses, arms, and men; and the fame of his alertness and
bravery, and the booty [he had acquired], became noised
abroad. Bodies of Akhlāj', from different parts of Hin-
dūstān, turned their faces towards him; and his reputation
reached Sulṭān [Malik] Kutb-ud-Din, who despatched a
robe of distinction to him, and showed him honour. Having
been honoured with such notice and favour, he led a force
towards Bihār, and ravaged that territory.
He used to carry his depredations into those parts and
that country until he organized an attack upon the fortified
city of Bihar. Trustworthy persons have related on this
wise, that he advanced to the gateway of the fortress of Bihār
authors of Akbar's time, and some European translators and writers, have been
led to suppose that these places referred to Patiāli— [Lat. 27° 41′, Long.
79° 40′], and Kanpilah [], Lat. 27° 37', Long. 79° 21', lying on the
southern bank of the Ganges a few miles N.N. W. of Budā'ūn, but no less
than three degrees west, and about the same distance north, of the places referred
to by our author above; whilst PATĪTAH and KUNTILAH are within a few
miles of BHUGWAT and BHĪŪLĪ, and situated in the same tract of country
immediately west of the Karmah-nasah. They are equally convenient for
Muner-a very old place at the confluence of the Soane [Son] with the Ganges,
on the right bank of the former-and Bihār, as well as Awadh. The town of
Patitah lies about five miles south of the fort of Chunar-gaṛh, and had a ram-
part and a fort when Chait Singh, the rebel Zamindar of Banāras, garrisoned
it in 1781; but it is not entered in the Indian Atlas, and may have since gone
to comparative decay.]
Muḥammad-i-Bakht-yar now began to carry his depredations into Bihār and
Muner as well as into Awadh, on his own account, and acquired great booty.
Hearing of his valour and prowess, Kutb-ud-Din, Ï-bak, sent him [from Lāhor
according to Budā'uni] a dress of honour of great value, for, at this period,
Ḥusām-ud-Din, Ūghūl-Bak, is no more mentioned.
It will be seen from these statements, as well as from the statement of our
author, that Muhammad-i-Bakht-yār was never Sipah-Salar in Awadh. The
mistake appears to have arisen from his having entered the service of Ḥusām-
ud-Din, Ūghul-Bak, who was a Sipah-Sālār and held the fief of Awadh, or
by confounding Muḥammad-i-Bakht-yār's name with that of the Sipah-Salar,
Hizabar-ud-Din, mentioned above by our author. See Thomas: "PATHÁN
KINGS OF DEHLÍ," page 11O.
7 This favour, on the part of Ķutb-ud-Din, as well as Muḥammad-i-
Bakht-yār's valour and generosity becoming noised abroad, bodies of Akhlāj
from the Sultan's forces in Hindustan from all parts began to flock around
him, and he became very powerful. He subdued the territory of Bihar, after
making great slaughter among the infidels of that part, and booty to a vast
amount fell into his hands. After these successes he presented himself
before Kutb-ud-Din, who had, at that time, taken up his residence at Dihli,
but he was not "Sultan" Kutb-ud-Din, for his master was still alive and he
himself was still a slave.
553
THE TABAKAT-I-NĀṢIRĪ.
with two hundred horsemen in defensive armour, and sud-
denly attacked the place. There were two brothers of
Farghānah, men of learning, one Nizam-ud-Din, the other
Şamṣām-ud-Din [by name], in the service of Muḥammad-
i-Bakht-yār; and the author of this book met with Sam-
ṣām-ud-Din at Lakhanawati in the year 641 H., and this
account is from him. These two wise brothers were soldiers"
among that band of holy warriors when they reached the
gateway of the fortress and began the attack, at which
time Muḥammad-i-Bakht-yar, by the force of his intre-
pidity, threw himself into the postern of the gateway of the
place, and they captured the fortress, and acquired great
booty. The greater number of the inhabitants of that place
were Brahmans, and the whole of those Brahmans had
their heads shaven; and they were all slain. There were
a great number of books' there; and, when all these books
came under the observation of the Musalmans, they sum-
moned a number of Hindus that they might give them
information respecting the import of those books; but the
whole of the Hindus had been killed. On becoming ac-
quainted [with the contents of those books], it was found
that the whole of that fortress and city was a college, and
in the Hindui tongue, they call a college [as] Bihār³.
When that victory was effected, Muḥammad-i-Bakht-
yār returned with great booty, and came to the presence
of the beneficent Sultan, Kutb-ud-Din, I-bak, and re-
ceived great honour and distinction. A party of Amirs at
the capital [Dihli], through the noising abroad of Muḥam-
8 A few modern copies say, "he, Ṣamṣām-ud-Din, discovered the
author," &c.
9
Jan-baz, which does not mean "active.
1 Books on the religion of the Hindus.
""
2 The Zubdat-ut-Tawarikh, which quotes our author verbatim on most
occasions, says they sent for a number of Hindus, who made them acquainted
with the contents of the books, and in them it was written that that fortress
and city was called a college, but, correctly, a Budhist monastery.
3 In Persian words derived or borrowed from the Sanskrit the letter is
often substituted for Nāgari -w-thus, Bihār or Wihar, but there is no
e in the word hence Behár is impossible.
4 He was not then Sulṭān, and his master, Sulṭān Mu'izz-ud-Din, was
still alive, and was assassinated thirteen years afterwards, and, some time even
after that event, Malik Kutb-ud-Din received his manumission and the title
of Sultan from the nephew of Mu'izz-ud-Din. Our author does not mean
that Kutb-ud-Din was Sulṭān at that very time. He was not Sulṭān, in fact,
during the lifetime of Muḥammad-i-Bakht-yar.
THE KHALJ MALIKS IN LAKHAṆAWAȚĪ.
553
mad-i-Bakht-yar's praises', and, at beholding the honour
5 After having gained possession of Bihār, Muḥammad-i-Bakht-yār, taking
along with him valuable presents, part of the spoils, proceeded to wait upon
Malik Kutb-ud-Din, at this time the representative of Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din
in Hindūstān. By the generality of authors he is said, more probably, to
have gone to Dihli for the purpose; but, as previously stated in next to last
para. of note 2, page 516, it was whilst Kutb-ud-Din was at Mahobah, in the
Kalbi territory, in 599 H.-which should be 589 H.-after taking Kälinjar,
that Muḥammad-i-Bakht-yār presented himself, for it was in 589 H. that he
moved from Bihār to invade Lakhanawati. See note 7, page 558. He was
received with such distinction, and so many marks of favour were shown him,
that the chiefs and ministers of Kutb-ud-Din's vice-regal court became filled
with envy and hatred of Muhammad-i-Bakht-jar, and they began to calum-
niate him to Kutb-ud-Din, and to report expressions of a scornful nature
towards himself on the part of Muḥammad-i-Bakht-yār which he had never
used. It happened, upon the occasion of Kutb-ud-Din's holding a public
audience in the Kaṣr-i-Safed [White Castle], that a rampant elephant was
brought forward for inspection, and these envious persons began saying, in a
disdainful and contemptuous manner, that there was no one who would venture
to stand before that elephant, the like of which was not to be found in Hind.
Kutb-ud-Din, in whose mind they had succeeded in creating an unfriendly
feeling towards Muḥammad-i-Bakht-yār, proposed to him an encounter with
the elephant. He agreed at once, and, with the mace he held in his hand,
dealt it one blow, but that blow was so effectual that the elephant made off.
This anecdote is somewhat differently related by another writer, who says
that these malignants stated to Kutb-ud-Din that Muḥammad i-Bakht-yār was
desirous of encountering an elephant, and that Kutb-ud-Din had a white one,
which was rampant, and so violent that the drivers were afraid of it, and which
he directed should be brought on the course for Muḥammad-i-Bakht-yār to
encounter. He approached it near enough to deal it such a blow on the trunk
with his mace as at once put it to flight.
After his performing this feat, Kutb-ud-Din distinguished him with still
greater favour,
He conferred upon him a special dress of honour of great value
and a large sum of money; and Muḥammad-i-Bakht-yar, having donned the
robe, added money of his own to Kutb-ud-Din's gift, and distributed the whole
among those présent, and left the assembly with increased renown and honour.
Kutb-ud-Din further distinguished him by giving him a standard and other
insignia, and confirmed him, on the part of his master, the Sultan, in the govern-
ment of the tracts he had subdued, and such further conquests as he might make
in the Lakhaṇawati territory; and Muḥammad-i-Bakht-yar returned to Bihār.
Here is a rich specimen of the history taught at present, at least, in the Uni-
versity of Calcutta, as it is from the "History of India" by Mr. Marshman :-
Kootub lost no time in despatching one of his slaves, BUKHTIYAR GHI JIE,
who had risen to command, by his native genius, to conquer Behar. The
capital was sacked, and the country subdued, and the army returned within two
years to Delhi, bending beneath the weight of plunder. An attempt was soon
after made to supplant Bukhtiyar in his master's favour, but it was defeated by
the prowess he exhibited in a single combat with a LION, which his enemies at
court had forced on him. This event established him still more firmly in the
confidence of Kootub, who sent him, in 1203, to reduce Bengal."
Now, in the whole of this statement, there is not one atom of truth, and in nó
author, Muḥammadan or Hindu, will such a statement be found.
N n
554
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĀṢIRĪ.
he received, and the gifts bestowed upon him by Sulṭān
Kutb-ud-Din, became envious of Muḥammad-i-Bakht-yār,
and, at a convivial banquet, they treated him in a reproach-
ful and supercilious manner, and were deriding him and
uttering inuendoes; and matters reached such a pitch that
he was directed to combat with an elephant at the Kasr-i-
Safed [White Castle]. With one blow, which he dealt the
elephant on the trunk with his mace, the elephant fled
discomfited.
When Muḥammad-i-Bakht-yar gained that distinction,
Sultan Kutb-ud-Din ordered him a rich robe of honour
from his own special wardrobe, and conferred considerable
presents upon him. The Sultan [likewise] commanded the
Amirs to make him presents, and he received such a
number of gifts as could not be contained within the limits
of writing. Muḥammad-i-Bakht-yār moreover, in that
same assembly, dispersed the whole of those presents and
bestowed them upon the people; and, with the special
imperial honorary robe, he departed, and set out towards
Bihar.
8
Fear of him operated exceedingly in the hearts of the
unbelievers of the different parts of the territories of Lakh-
anawati and Bihār, and the countries of Bang and Kam-
rud. Trustworthy persons have related after this manner,
that the fame of the intrepidity, gallantry, and victories of
Muḥammad-i-Bakht-yār had [also] reached Rãe Lakhmaṇ-
iah 9, whose seat of government was the city of Nūdiah, and
who was a very great Rãe, and had been on the throne for
a period of eighty years.
At this place, an ANECDOTE respecting the circum-
stances of that Rãe, which had been heard [by the writer],
is here recorded; and it is this, that, when his father was
6 See Elliot: INDIA, vol. ii. page 306. Gurz signifies a mace, not a “battle-
axe."
In some modern copies of the text the words "fled discomfited" are
left out, and we have instead " Muḥammad-i-Bakht-yār pursued the ele-
phant" no more.
t t
One of the robes probably which Kutb-ud-Din had himself received from
his master, hence it is called a "Sulṭāni" robe.
8 His intrepidity and valour.
• Another writer styles him Rae Lakhmiah [], intended, no doubt,
for the Sanskrit a son of Rae Lakhman [S]. See list of kings of
Bangālah in Abū-l-Fazl's Ã'in-i-Akbari, and Dr. Blochmann's translation, and
note 2, page 559.
THE KHALJ MALIKS IN LAKHAṆAWAȚĪ.
555
removed from this world, Rãe Lakhmaniah was in his
mother's womb. The crown was placed on the belly of
his mother, and all girded up their loins in her service.
The Rães of Hind used to hold their family in great
importance, and were wont to consider them in the position
of Khalifah' by descent.
When the birth of Lakhmaniah drew near, and the signs
of giving birth became manifest to his mother, she assem-
bled the astrologers together', and they made observation
whether the horoscope was auspicious. With one accord
they represented: "If this child should be born at this
hour, it will be unfortunate exceedingly, and will never
attain unto sovereignty; but, if it should be born two hours
subsequent to this time, it will reign for eighty years."
When his mother heard this conclusion from the astro-
logers, she commanded that she should be suspended with
her head downwards, with her two legs bound together;
and the astrologers were placed in order that they might
continue to observe the horoscope. When the time came,
they agreed that the [auspicious] hour of birth was now
arrived. She directed that she should be taken down, and
forthwith Lakhmaniah was born 3. On reaching the ground,
his mother, unable any longer to endure the agony of
labour, died, and Lakhmaniah was placed upon the throne ¹.
He reigned for a period of eighty years, and trustworthy
persons have related to this effect, that, little or much,
never did any tyranny proceed from his hand; and whoso-
ever preferred a request to him for anything, other than
one lak [one hundred thousand] he did not bestow, after
the manner of the beneficent Sultan, Kutb-ud-Din, the
Hatim of his time. It has been narrated on this wise, that,
The words "Khalifah by descent" [], here used by our
author, and Peshwa, by others, plainly indicate that his family was looked
upon in the light of heads or supreme leaders in spiritual, not temporal matters,
and Rãe Lakhmaniah, not as a “powerful monarch
powerful monarch" and "lord paramount,'
for power of that kind he evidently did not possess. Compare Elliot: INDIA,
vol. ii. page 307.
2 There is not a word about "Brahmans" in the best copies of the text.
3 Here is a specimen of the difference in idiom in the text, which I have
before referred to. The oldest set of MSS. have
and the more
لکهمنیه را ولادت آمد modern
4 His nobles, or rather the chief men of his kingdom-his late father's
ministers probably-carried on the government until such time as Rãe Lakh-
maniah was able to assume the direction of affairs.
N n 2
556
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĂȘIRĪ.
5
as in that country, the kauri [shell] is current in place of
silver ³, the least gift he used to bestow was a lak of kauṛīs.
The Almighty mitigate his punishment [in hell]!
I now return to the history of Muḥammad-i-Bakht-yār.
When he returned from the presence of Sultan Ķuṭb-ud-
Din, and subdued Bihār, his fame had reached the hearing
of Rãe Lakhmaniah, and the different parts of his dominions.
likewise. A number of astrologers, wise men, and coun-
sellors of his kingdom presented themselves before the Rãe,
and represented, saying: "In our books of the ancient
Brahmans they have foretold that this country will fall
into the hands of the Turks, and the time of its fulfilment
has drawn near. The Turks have subjugated Bihār, and
next year they will surely come into this country. It is
expedient for us that the Rãe should consent so that he,
along with the whole people, should be removed from the
country in order that we may be safe from the molestation
of the Turks."
9
The Rãe replied, saying: "Is there any token given in
your books with respect to this man who is to subdue our
country?" They replied: "The indication of him is this,
that, when he stands upright on his two feet, and lets down
his two hands, his hands will reach beyond the point of his
knees in such wise that the fingers will touch the calves of
his legs." The Rãe answered: "It is advisable that
5 In every copy of the text collated, with the exception of two, which have
jital, the word silver is used. In 1845 the rūpi was equivalent to 6500 kauris,
and a lak would be equal to a fraction over fifteen rūpis. In ancient times
they may have been estimated at a higher rate, but a lak of kauris could not
See
have been a very desirable present to obtain, or a very convenient one.
note 2, page 583.
6 Our author must mean when Muḥammad-i-Bakht-yār returned from the
presence of Malik Kutb-ud-Din, whither he had gone after he subdued Bihār,
because he did not go to Kutb-ud-Din before, even by his own account.
the copies of the text, however, are as above.
All
7 But their predictions did not go so far as to foretell that the Calcutta
University "History of India" would turn the Turks into Ghalzi Afghāns.
8 "Have this year subjugated Bihar, and next year will come into this
country," according to the Zubdat-ut-Tawarikh.
9 Compare Elliot: INDIA, vol. ii. page 308, where this sentence is translated:
"It was therefore advisable that the Ráé should make peace with them"!
ils does not signify to make peace with the Turks, but to consent,
approve, agree to, judge expedient, &c., their proposal.
1 Lit. "legs," i.c. the leg in its truc sense, the part below the knec.
ELLIOT the words have been translated "skins."
In
THE KHALJ MALIKS IN LAKṬIAṆAWAṬĪ.
557
trustworthy persons should be despatched in order that
they may, in a proper manner, investigate those peculiar
characteristics." In accordance with the Rae's command,
they sent trustworthy persons, and they made investigation
respecting this matter, and, in the external form and
figure of Muḥammad-i-Bakht-yār, those characteristics they
found.
2
When they became assured of these peculiarities, most of
the Brahmans and inhabitants of that place left, and
retired into the province of Sankanāt, the cities and towns
of Bang, and towards Kāmrūd; but to begin to abandon
his country was not agreeable to Rãe Lakhmaniah. The
following year after that, Muḥammad-i-Bakht-yār caused a
force to be prepared, pressed on from Bihār, and suddenly
appeared before the city of Nūdiah, in such wise that no
more than eighteen horsemen could keep up with him, and
the other troops followed after him. On reaching the gate
of the city, Muḥammad-i-Bakht-yār did not molest any
one, and proceeded onwards steadily and sedately, in such
manner that the people of the place imagined that mayhap
his party were merchants and had brought horses for sale",
and did not imagine that it was Muḥammad-i-Bakht-yār,
until he reached the entrance to the palace of Rãe Lakh-
maniah, when he drew his sword, and commenced an on-
slaught on the unbelievers.
At this time Rãe Lakhmaṇiah was seated at the head of
his table, and dishes of gold and silver, full of victuals,
were placed according to his accustomed routine, when a
cry arose from the gateway of the Rae's palace and the
interior of the city. By the time he became certain what
2 All but the two oldest copies have Sāhān [from I, which signifies
merchants, shopkeepers, and the like-inoffensive people, not "chiefs.”
3 In the best and oldest copies of the text, Sanknāt—li-is plainly
written, with the exception of two, which have Saknāt- The Zubdat-
ut-Tawarikh also has Saknat; but other works, including the Tabakat-i-
Akbari and the Tazkarat-ul-Mulūk, say Jagnāth. The part meant by our
author more probably refers to a province of eastern Bang.
4 The more modern copies of the text have gi—one even hasļi—
نودیا and نودیه instead of
5 The text varies in different copies here. It appears from the above remark,
that traders were in the habit of bringing horses from Bihār into the Rae's
territory, and such is stated by some other more modern writers.
6
• Not "at dinner" necessarily: it might have been the morning meal.
-
558
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĀṢIRÏ.
was the state of affairs, Muḥammad-i-Bakht-yār had
dashed forwards through the gateway into the palace, and
had put several persons to the sword. The Rãe fled bare-
footed by the back part of his palace; and the whole of his
treasures, his wives, and [other] females, his domestics and
servants, his particular attendants, were taken, and the
Musalmans captured a number of elephants, and such a
vast amount of booty fell to their lot, as cannot be
recorded". When the whole of Muḥammad-i-Bakht-yar's
army arrived, and the city and round about had been taken
possession of, he there took up his quarters; and Rãe
Lakhmaniah got away towards Sankanāt and Bang, and
there the period of his reign' shortly afterwards came to a
termination. His descendants, up to this time, are rulers
in the country of Bang'.
8
7 The Rãe, on hearing of the arrival of Muḥammad-i-Bakht-yar, was
dumbfounded. He fled alone and unattended, and succeeded in reaching a
boat, and escaped. His boundless treasures, the accumulations of eighty
years, fell into the possession of the Musalmāns; and a large portion of them,
the greatest rarities, were transmitted to Malik Ķutb-ud-Din, for the Sultan.
According to Munshi Shiam Parshad, who wrote an account of Gauṛ
[Gauḍah—55] for Major William Franklin [In referring to this work I shall
call it the Gaur MS.], Rãe Lakhmaniah ruled from 510 to 590 H., which is
correct. It was in the early part of the last-mentioned year that Muḥammad-
i-Bakht-yār took Nūdiah.
His rule extended over a period of twelve years, and he was assassinated in
the middle of the year
602 H.
page 110,
Mr. Thomas, however, in his "PATHAN KINGS OF DEHLI,
says Muḥammad-i-Bakht-yar, whom he erroneously makes " Sipah sálár"
of Awadh, "in A. H. 599, pushed his forces southward, and expelled, with
but little effort, the ancient Hindu dynasty of Nuddeah." Here is an error of
ten years: Muḥammad-i-Bakht-yār moved from Bihār in 589 H., and in the
following year took Nudiah by surprise. Were 599 H. correct, his sway over
Lakhaṇawati would have been less than three years, as he was assassinated
about the middle of 602 H. See note 2, page 516, para. next to last, and
note 9, page 572.
8 Here, as previously, some copies have Saknāt, and the other authors,
previously referred to, Jagnath and Kāmrūd.
9 In some copies, the period of his life, &c.
1 The Kājah, it is said, escaped in a boat to Bikrām-pūr or Wikrām-pūr.
We shall also find that Sunargāṇw, near Bikrām-pūr, continued to be a place
of refuge for those who were discontented at Gaur, and was not finally
reduced for a long time after the overthrow of Rãe Lakhmaṇiah, who had a
son, Madhob Sen, who had a son, Sũ Sen, who by Hindūs is considered the
last ruler. Bikrām-pūr is about eight miles south-east, from Dhākah, and is
said to have been the principal residence of Balal Sen, the predecessor of
Adisur, who preceded Lakhman Sen, the predecessor of our author's
Lakhmaṇiah, but he sometimes resided at Gaur, which did not become the
THE KHALJ MALIKS IN LAKHAŅAWAŢĪ.
559
2
After Muḥammad-i-Bakht-yār possessed himself of that
territory [Rãe Lakhmaṇiah's], he left the city of Nūdiah in
desolation, and the place which is [now] Lakhanawați ² he
made the seat of government. He brought the different
parts of that territory under his sway, and instituted
therein, in every part, the reading of the Khutbah, and the
coining of money 3; and, through his praiseworthy endea-
capital of Bangālah until immediately before the Muḥammadan conquest.
Nudiah was called Nobo-dwip. See "Account of Zila Dinajpur," Cal-
cutta: 1832.
Wilford says the conquest of Bengal took place in 1207 A.D., which is
equivalent to 603-604 H., the latter year having commenced 27th July,
1207 A.D.; and according to this theory Bengal was conquered a year or
more after its conqueror's death! Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din was assassinated in
Sha'bān 602 H. = March 1206 A.D., in which same year Muḥammad-i-
Bakht-yār died or was assassinated, and which, from 590 H. = 1194 A.D., is
just twelve years.
2 The name of Rãe Lakhmaniah's capital was spelt Nudiah until the time
of Aurangzeb, when words ending in -ha-i-mukhtafi -
-hā-i-mukhtafi —were ordered to be
written with 1-as Nudia.
ده
66
›
""
Muḥammad-i-Bakht-yār destroyed Nūdiah, and, leaving it in desolation,
passed onwards [Rauzat-uș-Ṣafā says "he passed beyond the territory of the
Rãe”], and, in place of that capital, founded another city [or town] at the
place, according to the Tabaķāt-i-Akbari, where Lakhaṇawati has been
[], and which, at this time [reign of Akbar], they call Gauṛ. The
Gaur MS. says he made the mouza' [place, village, district] of Lakhaṇawați,
his capital, now twelve miles from the Gang. The Mir'at-i-Jahan-Numā
says he founded a city as his capital in the territory of Lakhanawati,'
which signifies Gauṛ of Bangālah, "at the place where Lakhanawați was.
Budā'ūni says Muḥammad-i-Bakht-yār "destroyed the idol temples of the
infidels and erected masjids and other buildings, and built a capital in his
own name [!] which is now called Gaur." Gaur or Gauḍah was the name
of a division of the present country or tract styled Bangalah as well as of its
ancient capital, and its inhabitants were Gauṛiyā or Gauḍhiyā. According
to Abu-l-Fazl, the fort of Gaur was founded by Balal Sen, the second of
the Sen dynasty, one of eight [in some copies, seven] kings who reigned ro6
years, out of which Balal Sen reigned fifty years. According to the same
author, the last of this dynasty was Rājah gi [or]. It would seem,
from this, that the most ancient name of the city was Gaur, afterwards
changed to Lakhanawati, and subsequently styled Gaur again. The emperor
Humayun named it Bakht-ābād. Bangalah itself is sometimes styled Jannat-
ul-Bilād. See note 6, page 584.
ده
3 There is not a word in the text about causing "his name to be read in the
Khutbah and struck on the coins." See note, page 572. According to the
Zubdat-ut-Tawarikh he established "the Khutbah and money of Islām,” and
its author copies our author almost verbatim. Other writers, on the contrary,
state that, having brought all the surrounding territory under his sway after
the capture of Nūdiah, he assumed a canopy of state, read the Khutbah for
himself, and issued coin in his own name, which is not correct. He would
naturally have issued coin in the name of the Sultan, Mu'izz-ud-Din, Muḥam-
560
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĀṢIRĪ.
vours, and those of his Amirs, masjids, colleges, and mo-
nasteries [for Darweshes], were founded in those parts. Of
the booty and wealth [taken] he despatched a large por-
tion to the presence of Sultan Kutb-ud-Din, I-bak.
After some years had passed away', and he had ascer-
tained the state of the different mountain tracts of Turkis-
tān and Tibbat to the eastward of Lakhanawați, the
ambition of seizing the country of Turkistān and Tibbat
began to torment his brain; and he had an army got ready,
and about 10,000 horse were organized. In the different
parts of those mountains which lie between Tibbat and the
country of Lakhanawati are three races of people, one
called the Kunch, the second the Mej [Meg], and the third
the Tihāru; and all have Turk countenances. They have
a different idiom too, between the language of Hind and
Turk". One of the chiefs of the tribes of Künch and Mej,
whom they were wont to call 'Ali, the Mej, fell into the
hands of Muḥammad-i-Bakht-yār, the Khalj, and, at his
hand also, the former adopted the Muḥammadan faith.
mad-i-Sām, to whom he appears to have been most loyal [see page 571].
He had no occasion whatever to issue money in the name of Malik Kutb-ud-
Din, who was still a slave; and Muḥammad-i-Bakht-yar only died the same
year in which Sulṭān Mu'izz-ud-Din was himself assassinated. See Thomas:
'PATHAN KINGS OF DEHLI," page 110, and note ¹, and Elliot : INDIA, vol.
ii. page 309.
• This expedition must have been undertaken towards the close of the
year 601 H.
After Muḥammad-i-Bakht-yar had acquired great power and
grandeur, he turned his thoughts to the acquirement of further territory in
Tibbat and Turkistān without probably being aware of the distance to be
traversed, and the difficulties to be surmounted. He set out with a force of
about 12,000 horse according to the generality of accounts, but the Rauzat-uș-
Şafa has 10,000 horse, and 30,000 foot!" which is certainly incorrect.
Tibbat was
a well-known name in our author's time even, and yet
HAMILTON in his "Description of Hindostan," vol. ii. page 566, makes the
rash statement that it does not appear that the name Tibet is anywhere in
general use to designate the province according to the European acceptation
of the word ! This may be true as to Tibet, for the country here referred to is
written and called TIBBAT.
The "Tharoo " [Tiharu] caste, according to Buchanan, composes the
greatest portion of the population that are dwellers in the plain of "Saptari,"
in Makwānpur adjoining the Murang on the north-west; and the inhabitants of
the Mūrang to the east of Bijaipūr [Wijayāpūr] are chiefly Konch, and on the
lower hills are many of the Megh, Mej, or Mech tribe.
• Our author's ideas of east and west are rather obscure, as may be noticed
at page 431.
In this instance he means to the north and north-east.
• In some copies the nasal is left out—Kūch.
7 In some of the more modern copies of the text,
"Hind and Tibbat."
THE KHALJ MALIKS IN LAKHANAWAȚI.
561
He agreed to conduct Muḥammad-i-Bakht-yār into those
hills, and act as guide; and he brought the latter to a place
where there is a city, the name of which is Burdhan [kot]³.
They relate, after this manner, that, in ancient times,
Shāh Gūshtāsib' returned from the country of Chin, and
came towards Kāmrūd, and, by that route, got into Hin-
dūstān, and founded that city [Burdhan-kot]. A river
flows in front of that place, of vast magnitude, the name of
which is Beg-mati'; and, when it enters the country of
Hindustan, they style it, in the Hindui dialect, Samund 2
[ocean]; and, in magnitude, breadth, and depth, it is three
times more than the river Gang.
To the banks of this river Muḥammad-i-Bakht-yār came;
and 'Ali, the Mej, joined the army of Islām; and, for a
period of ten days, he took the army up the river among
the mountains, until he brought it to a place where, from
remote times, they had built a bridge of hewn stone, and
consisting of upwards of twenty arches. After the army
• The oldest and best copies generally have as above, but two add kot,
and one copy gives the vowel points. The Zubdat-ut-Tawarikh also has
Burdhan twice. The other copies collated have Murdhan and Murdhan-kot,
and the printed text, in a note, has Durdhan [Wurdhan ?] as well as Burdhan.
9 Some copies have Gushtāsib and some Garshāsib, and one has Gūdarz.
In the Iranian records Garshasib, son of Zau, is not mentioned as having
had aught to do with Hind or Chin. The wars of Gushtāsib with Arjāsib,
son of Afrāsiyāb, King of Tūrān, are narrated, but there is no mention of
Gushtasib's going into Turan or Chin; but his son, Isfandiyar, according to
the tradition, reduced the sovereign of Hind to submission, and also invaded
Chin. In the account of the reign of Kai-Khusrau, Gūdarz, with Rustam
and Giw, invaded Turkistan to revenge a previous defeat sustained from
Afrasiyab who was aided on this occasion by the troops of Suķlāb and Chin,
and Shankal, sovereign of Hind, was slain by the hand of Rustam. Our
author, in another place, states that Gushtāsib, who had gone into Chin by
that route, returned into Hind by way of the city of Kāmrūd, and that up to
the period of the invasion of Kamrūd by Ikhtiyār-ud-Din, Yūz-Bak-i-Tughril
Khān, governor of Lakhaṇawați-some years after Muḥammad-i-Bakht-yār's
expedition-twelve hundred "hoards" of treasure, all still sealed as when left
there by Gushtāsib, fell into the hands of the Musalmāns!
1 The name of this river in the best and oldest copies is as above, but some
others, the next best copies, have Beg-hati, Bak-mati, or Bag-mati, and
others have Bang-mati, Mag-madi, and Nang-mati, or Nag-mati. Bag-mati
is not an uncommon name for a river, and is applied to more than one.
river of Nipāl, which lower down is called the Grandhak, is called Bag-mati.
2 Samund or Samudr or Samudra, the ocean. One of the best copies of
the text has "when it enters the ocean or sea [] of Hindustan," &c.
The
The reader cannot fail to notice that considerable discrepancy exists here
in our author's statements respecting this river and bridge. From what he
562
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĀṢIRĪ.
of Islām passed over that bridge, he [Muḥammad-i-Bakht-
yār] installed there, at the head of the bridge, two of his
says about the size we are led to conclude that this river, Beg-mati or Bek-
mati, must be the Brahma-putr; but what part of it is the question to be
solved. When he adds that it is more than three times broader and deeper
than the Gang-and, of course, equally liable to inundation-the idea of its
being spanned by a stone bridge of above twenty [i. e. between twenty and
twenty-five] arches, shows that the narrator, or his informant, must have
grossly exaggerated. We may suppose our author's idea of the size of the
Gang was derived from what he had seen of that river on his journey from
Dihli to Lakhanawati; but, if we only take its average breadth at Banaras
during the height of the hot season, viz. 1500 feet, our author's river will be a
mile or more in breadth; and, if we believe that this bridge consisted of even
twenty-five arches, each of them would be above seventy yards in the span. Is
this at all probable?
At page 561, our author says 'Ali, the Mej, brought them to a place where
stood the town of Burdhan or Aburdhan-kot, in front of which flows the
mighty river Beg-mati, which, on entering Hindustan, they call the Samund,
but the great bridge is not mentioned in connexion with it.
He then says
that 'Ali, the Mej, joined the Musalman forces on the banks of this river, and
then conducted them "up the river for a period of ten days' journey" [some
200 miles or more, even at the low computation of twenty miles a day for
cavalry without incumbrance, would have brought them near to the Sānpū or
upper part of the Brahma-putr in Tibbat], and then, not before, they reached
this great bridge, but no river is mentioned. At page 565, it is said that after
passing this great river the forces pushed on for a further period of fifteen days
[200 or 250 miles, even allowing for the extra difficulty of the country] when
the open country of Tibbat was reached. Here it would appear that 'Ali, the
Mej, joined them, beyond the territory of the Rājah of Kāmrūd, and the latter's
message to Muḥammad, son of Bakht-yar, confirms it; but, farther on [page
569], this great bridge is said to be in [but probably adjoining] the Kāmrūd
territory, or words to that effect.
The boundaries of Kāmrūd are very loosely described by Musalmān authors,
and they apply the name to all the country between the northern frontiers of
Muḥammadan Bangalah and the hills of Bhūtān, its southern boundary being
where the Lakhiyah river separates from the Brahmā-putr.
From the distinct mention of Tibbat and Turkistan, by others as well as
by our author, together with other observations made by him, it is evident that
Muḥammad, son of Bakht-yār—and his forces-marched from Diw-kot, or
Dib-kot, in Dinjā-pur district, the most important post on the northern frontier
of his territory, keeping the country of the Rājah of Kāmrūd on his right
hand, and proceeding along the bank of the river Tistah, through Sikhim,
the tracts inhabited by the Kūnch, Mej, and Tihāru, to Burdhan-kot. They
were not in the territory of the Rājah of Kāmrūd, as his message shows; yet,
when the retreat is mentioned, the Musalmāns were, invested in the idol-
temple by his people, but no reference is made to this temple's being near the
bridge in the account of their advance. Pushing onwards from Burdhan-kot,
which may have been situated on a river, on the tenth day the Musalmāns
reached the bank of the great river where was the bridge of stone "of above
twenty arches."
If the town of Burdhan or Aburdhan-kot was situated on the
farther side of the great bridge, it is strange Muḥammad, son of Bakht-yār,
THE KHALJ MALIKS IN LAKHANAWAȚĪ.
563
own Amirs, one a Turk slave, and the other a Khalj, with
troops, in order to guard it until his return. Then Muḥam-
did not occupy it, when he left a detachment behind to guard the bridge, and
still more strange that, when he, on his retreat, reached the bridge and found
two arches broken, he did not occupy that town, and compel its inhabitants to
repair it or furnish him with all he required, and the means of crossing. If its
gates had been closed against him, we can easily imagine why he would have
had to take shelter in the great idol-temple, or that even with the town open
to him, why he would prefer a strong post such as this was; but the town is
never again mentioned by our author, although we might suppose this the place
for obtaining boats or wood and other materials for rafts, and people to construct
them. If the distance between this river and Diw-kot was only ten days'
journey, it was not impossible to have obtained aid from thence. All the
Muḥammadan histories with which I am acquainted state that the Musalmāns
entered Tibbat. In my humble opinion, therefore, this great river here
referred to is no other than the Tistah, which contains a vast body of water,
and, in Sikhim, has a bed of some 800 yards in breadth, containing, at all
seasons, a good deal of water, with a swift stream broken by stones and rapids.
The territory of the Rães of Kāmrūd, in ancient times, extended as far east as
this; and the fact of the Rãe of Kāmrūd having promised Muhammad-i-
Bakht-yār to precede the Musalman forces the following year, shows that the
country indicated was to the north. The route taken by the Musalmāns, there-
fore, was, I am inclined to think, much the same as that followed by Turner and
Pemberton for part the way, and that the Musalman army then turned more to
the east, in the direction taken by Pemberton, for it is plainly indicated by our
author, at page 568, that the tract entered lay between Kāmrūd and Tirhut.
The Sānpū, as the crow flies, is not more than 160 or 170 miles from Dinjā-pūr,
and it may have been reached; but it is rather doubtful perhaps, whether
cavalry could reach that river from the frontier of Bengal in ten days.
66
In the Twentieth Volume of the Bengal Asiatic Journal, page 291, is a
drawing by Dalton of the bridge of SIL HÁKO, described by Hannay.
"It is
situated," he says on the high alley [one of Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din, 'Iwaz's cause-
ways probably] which, no doubt, formed at one time the principal line of land
communication with ancient Gowahátty (Pragjyotisha) in Western Kamrup
[Kāmrūd].” He also considers that "it is not improbable that this is the
stone bridge over which Bactyár Khilji [Muḥammad, son of Bakht-yār] and
his Tartar cavalry passed previous to entering the outworks of the ancient city
of Gowahátty, the bridge being but a short distance from the line of hills
bounding Gowahátty on the N. N. W. and W., on which are still visible its
line of defences extending for many miles on each side from the N. W. gate of
entrance or pass through the hills. The Mohammedan general is said to have.
been obliged to retreat from an advanced position (perhaps Chárdoár), hear-
ing [?] that the Raja of Kamrup had dismantled the stone bridge in his rear;
now it is quite evident from the marks on the stones of the platform, that they
had been taken off and replaced somewhat irregularly."
The fact of the existence of this stone bridge is certainly curious, but I think
it utterly impossible that it can be the bridge our author refers to.
In all pro-
bability it is one of the bridges connecting "the high alley
the high alley" or causeway above
referred to, and there must have been very many of a similar description at one
time. It is but 140 feet long and 8 feet broad, and has no regular arches—this
last fact, however, is not material, as the partitions or divisions might be so
564
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĂŞIRĪ.
mad-i-Bakht-yār, with the whole of the rest of his forces,
passed over that bridge; and, when the Rãe of Kāmrūd
became aware of the passage [over the bridge] by the
conquering troops, he despatched trustworthy persons [say-
ing]:"It is not proper, at this time, to march into the
country of Tibbat, and it is necessary to return, and to
make ample preparations, when, in the coming year, I, who
am the Rãe of Kamrud, agree that I will embody my own.
forces, and will precede the Muḥammadan troops, and will
cause that territory to be acquired." Muḥammad-i-Bakht-
yār did not, in any way, accept this counsel, and he turned
his face towards the mountains of Tibbat.
described by a person who had never seen the bridge-and consists of slabs of
stone only 6 feet 9 inches long, and built, not over a mighty river three times
broader and deeper than the Ganges, but across "what may have been a
former bed of the Bar Nadí, or at one particular season a branch of the
Brahmaputra, now indicating a well defined water-course through which,
judging from the marks at the bridge, a considerable body of water must pass
in the rains, and, at that season, from native accounts, the waters of the
Brahmaputra still find access to it."
The chief reasons why the bridge of SIL HAKO could not have been that
over which Muḥammad, son of Bakht-yar, crossed with his army may be
summed up as follow :—
I. Muḥammad-i-Bakht-yār marched through the tract between Kāmrūd and
Tirhut into Tibbat in a totally different direction to Gowāhati, through defiles
and passes over lofty mountains, while between Gaur, Diw-kot, and Gowāhati
not a single pass or hill of any consequence is to be found.
II. In no place is it stated in this history, which is, I believe, the sole
authority for the account of this expedition, that the Musalmāns entered "the
outworks" of any city, much less those of Gowāhati.
III. If the great river in question was the Brahma-putr, and the small
branch of it which the Sil Hako bridge spanned were too deep to be crossed
by the Musalman cavalry, how could they have crossed the mighty Brahmā-
putr itself? They would not have been able to do so even had this bridge
been intact.
IV. Our author states, that, after passing the great river and bridge, they
pushed on for fifteen days—some 200 or 300 miles at least-and that, from the
farthest point they reached, the great city, garrisoned by Turks, was five leagues
distant. This description will not suit the situation of Gowahati, which is
quite close to the Brahma-putr.
V. The table-land of Tibbat is distinctly stated as the point reached, and it
is subsequently mentioned that Changiz Khan wished to proceed from the
vicinity of the Kābul river, through northern India, and get into China by the
same route through Tibbat as Muḥammad, son of Bakht-yār, took, but Gowāhati
would have led him much away from the part of China he wished to reach.
VI. The disaster which befell the Musalmāns was owing, not only to two arches
of the great bridge being destroyed, but to some of the horsemen of the force
riding into the river and succeeding in fording it for the distance of a bow-shot,
THE KHALJ MALIKS IN LAKHAṆAWAŢI.
565
One night, in the year 642 H., the author was sojourning,
as a guest, at the dwelling of the Mu'tamad-ud-Daulah, a
trusted vassal of Muḥammad-i-Bakht-yār, at a place, in the
territory of Lakhanawați, between Diw-kot and Bekānwah,
at which place his host was residing, and heard from him
the whole of this account. He related on this wise, that,
after passing that river, for a period of fifteen days, the
troops wended their way, stages and journeys, through de-
files and passes, ascending and descending among lofty
mountains. On the sixteenth day the open country of
Tibbat was reached. The whole of that tract was under
cultivation, garnished with tribes of people and populous
villages. They reached a place where there was a fort of
which alone would be at least as many yards as the bridge is feet broad, and
even then they had gone but a small part of the distance; and rafts and floats
were being constructed to enable the army to cross.
VII. We are not told that this disaster took place in the rainy season, and
few would attempt an expedition into Ashām at that period of the year. At all
other times the water-course in question would have been fordable to cavalry.
VIII. And lastly, can any one imagine that two gaps of 6 feet 9 inches each-
equal to 13 feet and 6 inches in all, would have deterred the Musalman cavalry
from crossing? The very bambus, or brushwood, growing near would have
enabled them to have, at once, repaired two such gaps, even if a tree or two
could not have been found. A door from the idol temple would have been
sufficient to have spanned the gap, of 13 feet 6 inches, or rather two gaps of 6
feet 9 inches, even if the materials which they had obtained to make rafts and
floats had not been available for that purpose.
One reason why it might seem that Gowāhati is referred to is, the fact of
there being a famous idol temple near it, or close to the Brahma-putr; but
there is no mention whatever that such was the case with regard to the great
idol temple near the bridge and scene of Muḥammad-i-Bakht-yār's disaster.
Moreover, the city of Gowahati is close by the river, while the Musalmāns
after reaching Burdhan[kot] marched upwards 10 days until the great bridge
was reached, and then pushed on from this bridge for 15 days more before they
reached the fort, which even then was 5 leagues distant from the city of Kar-
battan-the march from Burdhan[kot] to the fort 5 leagues from Kar-battan
occupying in all 26 days. Can any argument be more conclusive than this?
4 In a few copies 641 H.
Mu'tamad-ud-Daulah is but a title. In ELLIOT,
instead of our author, Muḥammad-i-Bakht-yār, who had been dead forty years,
is made to halt at the place in question.
5 The oldest copies have Bekānwah or Begānwah and one Bekāwān or
Begawan-as plainly written as it is possible to write, while two more modern
copies have Satgāwn [Satgāwṇ ?]. The remainder have Bangawn and Sagāwn.
See Blochmann's "CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE GEOGRAPHY AND HISTORY OF
BENGAL," note †, to page 9. It is somewhat remarkable that this place also
should be confounded with Satgawn; but in the copies of the A’ÎN-I-AKBARİ
I have examined I find Baklanah-instead of Bakla--but this can
scarcely be the place referred to by our author.
566
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĀṢIRĪ.
great strength, and the Musalman army commenced plun-
dering the country around. The people of that fort and
town and the parts adjacent advanced to repel the Muḥam-
madan army, and they came to a battle'. From day-
break to the time of evening prayer a fierce encounter was
carried on, and a great number of the Musalmān army were
killed and wounded. The whole of the defensive arms of
that host were of pieces of the spear bambu, namely, their
cuirasses and body armour, shields and helmets, which were
all slips of it, crudely fastened and stitched, overlapping
[each other]; and all the people were Turks, archers, and
[furnished with] long bows'.
When night came, and the Musalman force encamped,
a number [of the enemy], who had been made prisoners,
were brought forward, and they [the Musalmans] made
inquiry of them. They stated on this wise, that, five leagues'
distance from that place, there was a city which they called
6 The text varies considerably here.
7 Zubdat-ut-Tawarikh says the Musalmans began to attack the fort.
رسم
برشم
رشم ریشم
8 There is nothing here, even in the printed text, which is correct [with the
exception of ~—i. e. -being altered to ? but not is silk], which
warrants the reading of this passage as in Elliot [INDIA: vol. ii. page 311]-
"The only weapons of the enemy were bamboo spears, and their armour,
shields, and helmets, consisted only of raw silk strongly fastened and sewed
together." A "shield" and "helmet" of raw silk would be curiosities certainly.
The bambū referred to in the text is the male bāmbū—the young shoots, pro-
bably, used for spear shafts—for which the hollow bāmbū is not adapted. Had
the spear bambu not been so plainly indicated in the text, we might suppose the
armour to have been something after the manner of that worn by the Dufflahs,
and to have been formed of sections of the hollow bāmbū laid overlapping each
other as the rings of a coat of mail, but the male tāmbū could not be used in
this manner, and, therefore, their armour, shields, &c., must have been of
pieces of the male bāmbū overlapping each other, as in the literal translation
above. An officer with the Dufflah expedition, writing on December S, 1874,
says: "Each man has over his forehead a top-knot of his own hair, and now and
then a bit of bear's fur in addition. Through this he runs a skewer of metal—
silver if he can afford it-and by means of the top-knot and skewer he fastens
on his cane-work helmet, a sort of close-fitting skull-cap worn on the back of
the head. This helmet is usually ornamented with the upper portion of the
hornbill's beak to save the head from sword cuts. Round his loins over the
hips he wears a number of thin bambu or cane rings, unattached to one
another." See also Dalton: ETHNOLOGY OF BENGAL, page 32.
9 Buda'ūni says the people of this place were of the lineage [!] of Gushtasib
[Gurshasib ?], and that the fortress had been founded by him. That author docs
not give his authority for this statement. Our author says, at page 561, that
Gushtasib founded Burdhan[kot]. The Khalj were a Turkish tribe certainly,
but they had emigrated from northern Turkistān ages before this period.
THE KHALJ MALIKS IN LAKHAŅAWAȚI.
567
Kar-battan [or Kar-pattan', or Karar-pattan], and [that] in
that place would be about 50,000 valiant Turk horsemen,
archers; and that, immediately upon the arrival of the
Musalman cavalry before the fort, messengers with a
complaint had gone off to the city to give information, and
that, at dawn next morning, those horsemen would arrive.
•
The author, when he was in the territory of Lakh-
aṇawați, made inquiry respecting that [before] mentioned
city. It is a city of great size, and the whole of its walls
are of hewn stone, and [its inhabitants] are an assemblage
of Brahmans and Nūnis³, and that city is under the autho-
rity of their Mihtar [chief or lord], and they hold the pagan
faith*; and every day, at daybreak, in the cattle-market
of that city, about one thousand five hundred horses are
sold; and all the tangahan horses which reach the Lakh-
6
1 The text varies considerably here, and great discrepancy exists with respect
to the name of this important place. The oldest copy has S-Kar-battan,
possibly Kar-pattan, the next two oldest and best have-Karar-battan
or pattan, but what seems the second, in this word may be thus Karan-
pattan. All the other copies have Karam-battan or Karam-pattan.
Zubdat-ut-Tawarikh has which might be read Karshin, or Karan-tan;
and some other histories have Karam-sin.
M
کرم سين
ن
5
Bhāti-ghūn, the Banaras of the Gurkah dominions, and once a large place,
in Makwanpur, in which part the inhabitants are chiefly Tihārus, was anciently
called-Dharam-pattan, and another place, once the principal city in
the Nipal valley, and, like the former, in ancient times, the seat of an
independent ruler, is named Lalitah-pattan, and lies near the Bag-madi river;
but both these places are too far south and west for either to be the city here
indicated, for Muḥammad, son of Bakht-yar, must have penetrated much farther
to the north, as already noticed.
2 The best Paris copy-fondly imagined to be an autograph" of our author's,
but containing as many errors as the most modern copies generally, has 350,000!
3 In the oldest copies Nunian, and in the more modern ones Tūnian.
One copy of the text however has “but-parastān” idol-worshippers.
4 The original is "din-i-tarsā-i.”
din-i-tarsā-i.” The word tarsa is very widely applied,
to signify a Christian, also a worshipper of fire or gabr, a pagan, an infidel,
and an unbeliever, and not to "any established religion" other than that of
Islam. Here our author, I think, refers to Christians-Manichæans-the
whole of Tartary and other northern parts of Asia contained a vast number of
Christians. See Travels of Father Avril and others in Tartary. Christians
are constantly referred to in the annals of the Mughals.
5 The word used is "nakhkhās," which signifies a seller of captives, cattle,
or booty of any kind, and is used to signify a place where cattle and slaves are
bought and sold.
The printed text, and that only, has—asp-i-tang bastah. Where
the editor or editors got this from it would be difficult to conceive, but they
could scarcely have intended to convey the meaning of horses brought down
with saddles on their backs ready to be mounted. The words in the copies of
568
THE TABAKAT-I-NĀṢIRĪ.
anawați country they bring from that place. The route
by which they come is the Mahamha-i [or Mahanmha-i]
Darah' [Pass], and this road in that country is well known;
for example, from the territory of Kâmrūd to that of Tir-
hut are thirty-five mountain passes, by which they bring
the tangahan horses into the territory of Lakhanawati.
In short, when Muḥammad-i-Bakht-yar found out the
nature of that tract-the Musalman troops being fatigued
and knocked up by the march, and a large number
having been martyred and disabled on the first day-he
held consultation with his Amirs. They came to the con-
clusion that it was necessary to retreat, in order that, next
year, after making ample arrangements, they might return
again into that country. When they retreated, through-
out the whole route, not a blade of grass nor a stick of fire-
wood remained, as they [the inhabitants] had set fire to
the whole of it, and burnt it; and all the inhabitants of
those defiles and passes had moved off from the line of
route. During these fifteen days' not a pound of food nor
a blade of grass did the cattle and horses obtain¹; and all
our author's text are\—asp-i tanganah-they are still well known.
Stewart, who had no printed text to go by, read the name pretty correctly-
"Tanghan." Hamilton says these horses are called Tanyan or Tangun
from Tangusthan the general appellation of that assemblage of mountains
which constitutes the territory of Bootan," &c. He must mean Tangistān, the
region of tangs or defiles. Abu-1-Fazl also mentions these horses in his Ã'in-
I-AKBARĪ—“In the lower parts [] of Bangalah near unto Kūj [Küch], a
[species] of horse between the gut [gunth] and the Turk [breed] is produced,
called Tangahān," which is also written Tangahan, and gives the spelling of
the word, but they are not born "ready saddled." Compare Elliott: INDIA,
vol. ii. page 311, and note 4, and see Dr. Blochmann's translation of the Ã'iN.
7 Some copies-the more modern-and the best Paris copy, leave out the
name of this pass, and make —passes—of it; and, while all the oldest copies
66
[and Zubdat] have Tirhut, the more modern ones have Tibbat.
8 Although the Musalman troops were, at length, victorious, their victory
cost them so many lives, and so many men were disabled, that, on hearing of
a force of 50,000 valiant Turks being stationed so near at hand, Muḥammad,
son of Bakht-yar, held counsel with his chiefs, and it was determined to retreat
next day. Our author appears totally unable to tell the truth respecting a
Musalmān reverse, even though such reverse may be far from dishonour, and
may have been sustained under great difficulties or through their being greatly
outnumbered.
9 The fifteen days which the retreat occupied he seems to mean, as the
same route in going took that number of days. Zubdat-ut-Tawarikh says
that the inhabitants also destroyed the roads—obstructed them, cut them up in
some way.
They must have brought some provisions and forage along with them, or
THE KHALJ MALIKS IN LAKHANAWAȚI.
569
[the men] were killing their horses and eating them, until
they issued from the mountains into the country of Kām-
rūd, and reached the head of that bridge. They found two
arches of the bridge destroyed, on this account, that
enmity had arisen between both those Amirs [left to guard
it], and, in their discord, they had neglected to secure the
bridge and protect the road, and had gone off³, and the
Hindus of the Kāmrūd country had come and destroyed
the bridge.
4
On the arrival at that place of Muḥammad-i-Bakht-yār
with his forces he found no way of crossing, and boats were
not procurable. He was lost in surprise and bewilderment.
They agreed that it was necessary to halt in some place,
and contrive [about constructing] boats and floats, in order
that they might be enabled to pass over the river. They
pointed out an idol temple in the vicinity of that place
[where they then were] of exceeding height, strength, and
sublimity, and very handsome, and in it numerous idols
both of gold and silver were deposited, and one great idol
so [large] that its weight was by conjecture upwards of two
or three thousand mans' of beaten gold. Muḥammad-i-
Bakht-yār and the remainder of his followers sought shelter
within that idol-temple³, and began to devise means for
obtained some food, or must have eaten each other.
that many perished for want of sufficient food.
Perhaps our author means
seventy yards— would not
2 Two arches of any possible span-but not over
have been such a difficult matter to repair, so near primeval forests, and with
a town or city, as previously stated, close to the bridge. The town, however,
is not once mentioned on their return.
3 The Zubdat-ut-Tawarikh states that the two Amirs, to spite each other,
abandoned guarding the bridge, and each went his own way. Budā'ūni says
they first fought, and afterwards abandoned the bridge.
This remark, and what follows at page 571 again, tends to show that the
bridge in question was beyond the Kāmrūd territory, although, a line or two
before, it is stated that they came into Kamrūd and reached the head of the
bridge. See also page 561 and note³.
5 Where was 'Ali, the Mej, all this time? He is not again mentioned ;
but his kinsmen are; and the country people are not even referred to, although
the Hindus of Kāmrūd are, see page 571.
6 Zubdat-ut-Tawarikh says "necessary to occupy some place until boats
and floats could be constructed."
7 The more modern copies have miṣķāls.
8 According to other authors, when the Musalmāns reached the bridge,
they were filled with amazement and horror at finding two of its arches
broken. The two Amirs, who had been left to guard it, had not been on
good terms for some time prior to being stationed there; and, as soon as their
00
570
THE TABAKAT-I-NAŞIRĪ.
obtaining wood and rope for the construction of rafts and
crossing the river, in such wise that the Rãe of Kāmrūd
became aware of the reverses and helplessness of the Musal-
mān army.
He issued commands to the whole of the
Hindūs of the country, so that they came pouring in in
crowds, and round about the idol-temple were planting
spiked bambūs in the ground, and were weaving them to-
gether, so that it [their work] was appearing like unto walls".
When the Musalman troops beheld that state of affairs,
they represented to Muḥammad-i-Bakht-yār, [saying]:-
'If we remain like this, we shall all have fallen into the
trap of these infidels: it behoveth to adopt some means
chief had left, their hostility broke out afresh, and such was their enmity that,
rather than not prosecute their own designs against each other, they abandoned
it. After they had departed, the Rãe of Kāmrūd, on becoming aware of it,
sent his men, and destroyed the two arches. It is strange the names of these
two Amirs are not given by our author, as his informant, previously mentioned,
must have known who they were.
((
Finding the bridge thus impassable, Muḥammad-i-Bakht-yar determined to
occupy some strong place until such time as materials could be obtained to
enable them to effect the passage of the river. Here also we might expect to
hear something of the town and its people, but, as I have mentioned in
note 3, page 561, it is doubtful whether our author meant it to be under-
stood that Burdhan-kot was on the banks of the Bag-madi river, where this
bridge was.
Spies brought information that there was an immense and exceedingly
strong idol-temple near by, and that was occupied by the Musalmans accord-
ingly. Another writer states that they were ignorant, when they advanced,
of the existence of this temple.
Budā'ūni states that the Musalmāns only passed the night in the idol-
temple, but this statement is absurd. Where were materials to be obtained
from, during the night, to make rafts?
9 Tishū Lambū or Digārchah, the seat of a Lāma in Lat. 29° 7′ N., Long.
89° 2' E., a great monastery only 180 miles from Rang-pur of Bengal [said
to have been founded by Muḥammad, son of Bakht-yar], answers nearly to the
description of the idol-temple referred to, but it is on the southern not the
northern bank of the Sanpu river, and a few miles distant, and our author
says it was a Hindu temple. Perhaps, in his ideas, Hindus and Buddhists
were much the same. From this point are roads leading into Bhūtān and
Bengal.
As soon as the Rãe of Kamrud became aware of the helpless state of
the Musalmans, and that they had sought shelter in the great idol temple,
he gave orders for his people to assemble. They came in hosts, and began to
form a stockade all round it, by planting, at a certain distance, not their
bamboo spears" as in Elliot [INDIA, vol ii. page 317], but bambus spiked
at both ends [the mode of making stockades in that country], and afterwards
woven strongly together, which forms a strong defence. Ralph Fitch says,
respecting Kuch "all the country is set with bamboos or canes made sharp at
both ends and stuck into the earth," &c.
THE KHALJ MALIKS IN LAKHANAWAȚI.
571
3
whereby to effect extrication." With one accord they
made a rush, and all at once issued from the idol-temple,
attacked one point [in the stockade], and made a way for
themselves, and reached the open plain, and the Hindūs
after them'. When they reached the river bank the Musal-
māns halted, and each one, to the best of his ability,
sought means of crossing over. Suddenly some few of the
soldiers urged their horses into the river, and, for the dis-
tance of about an arrow flight, the water was fordable. A
cry arose in the force that they had found a ford, and the
whole threw themselves into the water, and the Hindūs
following them occupied the river's bank. When the Musal-
māns reached mid-stream, [where] was deep water, they
all perished, [with the exception of] Muḥammad-i-Bakht-
yār, who, with a few horsemen, a hundred more or less,
succeeded, by great artifice, in effecting the passage of
the river; and all the rest were drowned.
After Muḥammad-i-Bakht-yar emerged from the water,
information reached a body of the Kunch and Mej. The
guide, 'Ali, the Mej, had kinsmen at the passage, and they
¹ Muḥammad, son of Bakht-yār, seeing through the object of the Hindus,
issued from the idol-temple at the head of his troops, and, with considerable
difficulty, made a road for himself and followers. Having done this, he took
up a position and halted on the bank of the river Bag-madi. Here he appears
to have remained some days, while efforts were then made to construct rafts,
the Hindus not venturing to attack them in the open.
2 This is related differently by others. The Musalmāns were occupied in
crossing, it is said, or, perhaps, more correctly, about to make the attempt
with such means as they had procured, when a trooper [some say, a few
troopers] rode his horse into the river to try the depth probably, and he
succeeded in fording it for the distance of a bow-shot. Seeing this, the troops
imagined that the river, after all, was fordable, and, anxious to escape the
privations they had endured, and the danger they were in, as with the means
at hand great time would have been occupied in crossing, without more ado,
rushed in; but, as the greater part of the river was unfordable, they were
carried out of their depth, and were drowned.
After his troops had been overwhelmed in the Bag-madi or Bak-mati,
Muḥammad, son of Bakht-yar, with the few followers remaining with him,
by means of what they had prepared a raft or two probably], succeeded, with
considerable difficulty, in reaching the opposite bank in safety, and, ultimately
reached Diw-kot again. Apparently, this river was close to the Mej frontier.
Buda'ūni states that those who remained behind [on the river bank] fell
martyrs to the infidels; and, that of the whole of that army but 300 or 400
reached Diw-kot. He does not give his authority however, and generally
copies verbatim from the work of his patron-the Tabakat-i-Akbari—but such
is not stated therein.
3 In some copies of the text, "one of the soldiers."
002
572
THE TABAĶĀT-1-NĀŞIRI.
came forward to receive him [Muḥammad-i-Bakht-yār], and
rendered him great succour until he reached Diw-kot.
Through excessive grief sickness now overcame him, and
mostly out of shame at the women and children of those of
the Khalj who had perished; and whenever he rode forth
all the people, from the house-tops and the streets, [consist-
ing] of women and children, would wail and utter impre-
cations against him and revile him, so that from henceforth
he did not ride forth again. During that adversity he
would be constantly saying: "Can any calamity have
befallen the Sultan-i-Ghāzi that my good fortune hath
deserted me"!" and such was the case, for at that time
the Sultan-i-Ghāzi, Mu'izz-ud-Din, Muḥammad-i-Sām, had
attained martyrdom. In that state of anguish Muḥammad-
i-Bakht-yār became ill, and took to his bed, and died.
Some have related that there was an Amir of his, 'Ali
i-Mardān, a Khalj of great intrepidity and temerity, to
whose charge the fief of Naran-go-e [or Nāran-ko-e7] was
made over. When he obtained information of this disas-
ter he came to Diw-kot, and Muḥammad-i-Bakht-yar was
confined to his bed through sickness, and three days had
passed since any person was able to see him. 'Ali-i-
Mardān in some way went in unto him, drew the sheet
4 Zubdat-ut-Tawarikh says "by the time he reached Diw-kot, through ex-
cessive grief and vexation, illness overcame him; and, whenever he rode forth,
the women of those Khalj who had perished stood on the house-tops and
reviled him as he passed. This dishonour and reproach added to his illness," &c.
Rauzat-uş-Şafa says his mind gave way under his misfortunes, and the
sense of the disaster he had brought about resulted in hopeless melancholy.
5 This was certainly just about the time of that Sultan's assassination.
6 Zubdat-ut-Tawarikh has "one of the great Amirs," &c. The izafat, in
'Ali-i-Mardān, signifies 'Ali, son of Mardān. See page 576.
7 The name of this fief or district is mentioned twice or three times, and the
three oldest copies, and one of the best copies next in age, and the most perfect
of all the MSS., have
as above in all cases; and one the best Peters-
burg copy—has a jazm over the last letter in addition, but all four have the
hamzah. The Zubdat-ut-Tawarikh also has Naran-goe or Nāran-
koe. The next best copies of the text ave-in which, in all pro-
bability, the has been mistaken for ï
MS., and the printed text, have
latter word, in one place, and
اركوني
The I. O. L. MS. 1952, the R. A. S.
whilst the best Paris copy has this
in other places; and another copy has
In ELLIOT, vol. ii. page 314, it is turned into "Kúní" in one place,
and, sixteen lines under, into "Nárkotí.”
8 Zubdat-ut-Tawarikh says "no one used to go near him
no one used to go near him "-the way of the
world to desert one in misfortune.
THE KHALJ MALIKS IN LAKHAṆAWAȚI.
573
from his face, and with a dagger assassinated him. These
events and calamities happened in the year 602 H.⁹
VI. MALIK 'IZZ-UD-DİN, MUHAMMAD, SON OF SHERÅN ¹,
KHALJİ, IN' LAKHAṆAWAŢI.
Trustworthy persons have related after this manner,
that Muḥammad-i-Sheran and Ahmad-i-Sheran were two
brothers, two among the Khalj Amirs in the service of
Muḥammad-i-Bakht-yār; and, when the latter led his
troops towards the mountains of Kamrüd and Tibbat, he
[Muḥammad-i-Bakht-yar] had despatched Muḥammad-i-
Sheran, and his brother, with a portion of his forces, towards
Lakhan-or and Jāj-nagar. When the news of these events
[related above] reached Muḥammad-i-Sheran, he came
9 This date shows that the territory of Lakhanawați was taken possession
of in 590 H., the year in which Malik Kutb-ud-Din, Ĩ-bak, took up his quarters
at Dihli. The conquest of Lakhanawati is accounted among the victories of
Sulṭān Mu'izz-ud-Din, because it took place in his reign. Kutb-ud-Din, Ï-bak,
was at this time still a slave, and neither attained his manumission nor the title
of Sultan until some time after the death of Muḥammad, son of Bakht-yār.
See note 7, page 558.
Some authors consider him an independent sovereign, and say that he
"reigned" for twelve years. He certainly ruled in quasi independence for
that period; but, from the expressions made use of by him in his last sickness,
he evidently was loyal to Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din, and he probably paid some
nominal obedience to Malik Kutb-ud-Din, I-bak, as the Sultan's Deputy at
Dihli. It is not to be wondered at that Muhammad, son of Bakht-yār, neither
issued coin in his own name, nor in the name of his sovereign's slave: whilst
that sovereign was alive-the latter would have been an impossible act. See
Thomas, PATHAN KINGS, note ', page III; and note 3, page 559.
Also styled, by some other authors, Sher-wan. Sher-an, the plural of
sher, lion, tiger, like Mard-an, the plural of mard, man, is intended to express
the superlative degree. The izafat here- Muḥammad-i-Sheran-signifies son
of Sheran, as proved beyond a doubt by what follows, as two brothers would
not be so entitled.
2 Compare ELLIOT, vol. ii. page 314. The Paris copy of the text, the
I. O. L. MS., the R. A. S. MS., and the printed text, have "to Lakhanawati
and Jāj-nagar;" but the rest have Lakhan-or or Lakh-or, and Jāj-nagar. No
doubt Lakhan-or is meant in the copies first mentioned, and probably
stituted for, by ignorant copyists.
sub-
on
Some writers state that Muḥammad-i-Sheran was "Hakim of Jāj-nagar
the part of Muḥammad-i-Bakht-yar, but such cannot be. Jāj-nagar was an
independent Hindu territory [see note 4, page 587]; but most authors agree
with ours that Muhammad-i-Sheran was despatched against- or probably to
hold in check-Jāj-nagar during Muḥammad-i-Bakht-yār's absence on the
expedition into Tibbat; and he was, doubtless, feudatory of Lakhan or [see
note 6, page 584], which lay in the direction of the Jaj-nagar territory.
574
THE TABAKAT-I-NĂŞIRĪ.
back from that quarter, and returned again to Diw-kot,
performed the mourning ceremonies [for Muḥammad-i-
Bakht-yār], and from thence [Diw-kot] proceeded towards
Nāran-go-e³, which was 'Ali-i-Mardān's fief, seized 'Ali-i-
Mardān, and, in retaliation for the act he had committed,
imprisoned him, and made him over to the charge of the
Kot-wal [Seneschal] of that place, whose name was Bābā',
Kot-wal, the Ṣafahāni [Iṣfahāni]. He then returned to
Diw-kot again, and assembled the Amirs together.
This Muḥammad-i-Sheran was a man of great intrepidity
and energy, and of exemplary conduct and qualities'; and,
at the time when Muhammad-i-Bakht-yar sacked the city.
of Nudiah, and Rãe Lakhmaniah took to flight, and his
followers, servants, and elephants became scattered, and
the Musalman forces proceeded in pursuit of spoil, this
Muḥammad-i-Sheran, for the space of three days, was
absent from the army, so that all the Amirs became
anxious on his account. After three days they brought
information that Muḥammad-i-Sheran had taken eighteen
elephants along with their drivers in a certain jangal
[forest], and was retaining them there, and that he was
alone. Horsemen were told off, and the whole of these
elephants were brought before Muḥammad-i-Bakht-yār.
In fact, Muḥammad-i-Sheran was a man of energy [com-
bined] with sagacity'.
* Other writers state that Muḥammad-i-Sheran, on hearing of the fate of
their chief, Muḥammad-i-Bakht-yär, returned at once from Jāj-nagar [from
Jāj-nagar towards Lakhan-or] with his force, proceeded to Diw-kot, and per-
formed the funeral ceremonies; and then marched from Diw-koṭ to Bār-sūl—
J.,!—and secured the assassin, 'Ali-i-Mardān, and threw him into prison.
After performing this act, he returned to Diw-kot again. See note”, next
page. In ELLIOT this is turned into "they returned from their stations, and
came dutifully to Deokot ;" but 's bas in the printed text, does not mean
"dutifully," but "mourning ceremonies.
4 Familiarly so styled perhaps.
5 The Jahān-Ārā, which does not mention 'Ali, son of Mardän, at all, calls
Muḥammad-i-Sheran bloodthirsty, and greatly wanting in understanding, thus
confounding him with 'Ali-i-Mardān.
6 He had managed to take these elephants and their drivers on the day of
the surprise of Nūdiah, but, being quite alone, he was unable to secure them,
and had to remain to guard them until such time as aid should reach him.
Information of his whereabouts having reached Muḥammad, son of Bakht-yār,
he sent out a detachment of horse to bring him in with his spoil.
7 Muḥammad, son of Sheran, was an intrepid, high-minded, and energetic
man, and, being the chief of the Khalj Amirs, on their return to Diw-koţ, the
THE KHALJ MALIKS IN LAKHAṆAWAȚĪ.
575
When he imprisoned 'Ali-i-Mardān, and again departed
[from Diw-kot], being the head of the Khalj Amirs, they
all paid him homage", and each Amir continued in his own
fief. 'Ali-i-Mardan, however, adopted some means and
entered into a compact with the Kot-wal [before men-
tioned], got out of prison, and went off to the Court of
Dihli'. He preferred a petition to Sultan Kutb-ud-Din, Ï-
bak, that Ķāe-maz, the Rūmi' [native of Rūmiliā], should
be commanded to proceed from Awadh towards the terri-
tory of Lakhaṇawati, and, in conformity with that com-
mand, [suitably] locate the Khalj Amirs.
Malik Husām-ud-Din, 'Iwaz, the Khalj, at the hand of
Muḥammad-i-Bakht-yār, was the feudatory of Gangūri
[or Kankūri?]2, and he went forth to receive Ķãe-maz the
principal Amirs were assembled in council together, and they chose Muḥam-
mad-i-Sherān as their ruler and sovereign; and they continued to pay homage
to him. It seems strange that the city of Lakhanawati is seldom mentioned,
while Diw-kot is constantly referred to by various authors; and, from what
our author himself says at page 578, it would appear to have been the capital
at this period.
Some copies have "they all paid him homage," &c., and, after the word
fief, insert "until."
⁹ 'Ali-i-Mardān managed to gain over the Kot-wal, and was allowed to
escape. He succeeded in reaching Dihli, and presented himself before [the
then] Sultan Kuṭb-ud-Din, I-bak, who received the ingrate and assassin with
favour. Both our author and other writers, in mentioning his escape in their
account of Muḥammad-i-Sherān's reign, make it appear that 'Ali, son of
Mardan, at once succeeded in inciting Kutb-ud-Din, I-bak, against Muḥam-
mad-i-Sherān, and inducing him to despatch Ķãe-māz to Lakhaṇawați; but
this is not correct. 'Ali, son of Mardān, accompanied Kutb-ud-Din to
Ghaznin [where he reigned-in riot-forty days], and was taken captive by the
troops of I-yal-duz, and released or escaped again before these events happened,
as will be mentioned farther on.
1 The text differs here.
Some copies have: "So that Ķãe-māz, the Rūmi,
received orders, on which he proceeded from Awadh to Lakhaṇawați ;” but the
majority are as above. The Zubdat-ut-Tawarikh, however, clears up the
meaning of the last clause of the sentence :—“That he, Ķãe-māz, should pro-
ceed into Lakhaṇawați, in order that each of the Khalj Amirs, who were in
that part, might be located in a suitable place, and to make certain districts their
fiefs." That work, however, immediately after, states that the Khalj Amirs,
having shown hostility towards him [Ķāe-māz], opposed him in battle, and
were defeated, and that, in that engagement, Muḥammad, son of Sheran, was
slain. Compare ELLIOT, too, here.
2 Of the four best and oldest copies of the text, two have Gangūri or Kan-
kūri—¿„×and two, Gasgüri or Kaskūri—~—but this latter appears
very doubtful. Five other good copies agree with the first two, but three others
Some other works, including
the Tabakat-i-Akbari, state that Ḥusām-ud-Din, 'Iwaz, was the feudatory
دوری and دوری کنکوری have respectively
576
THE TABAKAT-I-NAŞIRI.
Rūmi, and, along with him, proceeded to Diw-kot; and,
at the suggestion of Ķãe-maz, the Rūmi, he became the
feoffee of Diw-kot. Kae-maz, the Rūmi, set out on his
return [into Awadh], and Muḥammad-i-Sheran, and other
Khalj Amirs, assembled together, and determined upon
marching to Diw-kot³. Ķāe-maz, whilst on his way back
[hearing of this], returned again, and an encounter took
place between the Khalj Amirs and him, and Muḥammad-
i-Sheran and the Khalj Amirs were defeated. Subse-
quently, disagreement arose among themselves, in the
direction of Maksadah and Sanṭūs', and Muḥammad-i-
Sheran was slain"; and there his tomb is.
VII. MALIK 'ALĀ-UD-DĪN, 'ALI, SON OF MARDAN, KHALJİ.
'Ali-i-Mardan, the Khalj, was a man of vast energy,
vehement, intrepid, and daring. Having obtained release
of Kalwā-i or Galwā-i—,—or Kalwā-in or Galwā-in——the ʼn of the
latter word is probably nasal.
3 No sooner had Ķãe-maz turned his back upon the scene than Muḥammad,
son of Sheran, and the rest of the Khalj Amirs, determined to recover Diw-
kot out of the hands of Ḥusām-ud-Din, 'Iwaz.
4 These two names are most plainly and clearly writen in four of the best
and oldest copies of the text, with a slight variation in one of Maksidah for
Maksidah [the Maxadabad probably of the old maps and old travellers]—~—~
Of the remaining copies collated, one has سنتوس for سنطوس and مكسيده and
and منطوس and the rest سطوس and .کننده two others سنطوس and مكنده
.only سنطوس The Tabakat-i-Akbari has مکیده
5 The Gaur MS. says he was killed in action after a reign of eight months,
and, in this latter statement, the Zubdat-ut-Tawarikh and some other works
agree; but the period seems much too short from the assassination of Muham-
mad, son of Bakht-yār, to his death for reasons mentioned in the following
note, or the country must have remained some time without a ruler before
'Ali-i-Mardān succeeded. Rauzat-uș-Ṣafă makes a grand mistake here. It
says that Muḥammad-i-Sheran, after having ruled for a short period, became
involved in hostilities with a Hindu ruler in that part, and was killed in one of
the conflicts which took place between them.
¤ ’Ali-i-Mardān, that is to say, 'Ali, the son of Mardān, was energetic and
impetuous; but he was not endowed with sense or judgment, and was
notorious for boldness and audacity, for self-importance, haughtiness, excessive
vanity and gasconade, and was cruel and sanguinary. After he escaped from
confinement for assassinating his benefactor, Muḥammad, son of Bakht-yār,
when lying helpless on his death-bed, he proceeded to Dihli and presented
himself before Kutb-ud-Din, I-bak, who, at that time, had acquired the
sovereignty of Dihli, and was well received. He accompanied Kutb ud-Din
to Ghaznin at the time that he filled the throne of Ghaznin, as our author
says, "for a period of forty days," in carousal and debauchery. There 'Ali
THE KHALJ MALIKS IN LAKHAṆAWAŢI.
577
from imprisonment at Naran-go-e [or Naran-ko-e], he
came to the presence of Sultan Kutb-ud-Din, I-bak, and
accompanied him towards Ghaznin; and he became a captive
in the hands of the Turks of Ghaznin. A chronicler has re-
lated in this manner, that one day, when he was out hunting
along with Sulṭān Tāj-ud-Din, Yal-duz, he began saying to
one of the Khalj Amirs, whom they used to style Sālār
[a leader, chief] Zaffir³: "What sayest thou if, with one
arrow, I should slay Taj-ud-Din, Yal-duz, within this
shikar-gah [chase] and make thee a sovereign?" The
Sālār, Zaffir, the Khalj, was a very sagacious person, and
he was shocked at this speech, and prohibited him from
fell a captive into the hands of the Turks of Ghaznin, the partizans of Sultān
Taj-ud-Din, I-yal-düz, at the time of Kutb-ud-Din's precipitate retreat pro-
bably. Some authors, however, state, and among them the authors of the
Tabakāt-i-Akbari, and Zubdat-ut-Tawarikh, that in one of the conflicts of
that time he was taken prisoner by the Turks-Tabakat-i-Akbari says, the
Turk-māns-and was carried off into Kashghar, where he remained for some
time. He, at length, managed to reach Hindūstān again, and proceeded to
Dihli, and presented himself at the Court of Kutb-ud-Din, who received him
with great favour and distinction. The fact of his having been a captive in
the hands of his rival's-I-yal-dūz's-partizans was enough to insure him a
favourable reception. Kutb-ud-Din conferred upon him the territory of
Lakhanawati in fief, and he proceeded thither and assumed the government.
It must have been just prior to this, and not immediately after the escape of
'Ali-i-Mardan, that Ķãe-maz was sent from Awadh to Lakhanawati, or, other-
wise, between the defeat of Muḥammad, son of Sheran, by the latter, and
Sheran's death, and the nomination of 'Ali-i-Mardan by Kutb-ud-Din,
Lakhanawati would have been without a ruler during the time that Kutb-ud-
Din took to proceed from Dihli to Ghaznin, where he remained forty days,
and back to Dihli again, and eight months, which is said to have been the
extent of Muḥammad-i- Sheran's reign, seems much too short a space of time
for this expedition, and 'Ali-i-Mardan's captivity in Kashghar and his escape
and return. The accounts of this period are not satisfactorily given in any
work. [See page 526, and para. two of note 8 for the year in which Kutb-ud-
Din had to make such a precipitous retreat from Ghaznin]; and, moreover, it
appears that Kutb-ud-Din did not return to Dihli again, but continued at
Lahor up to the time of his death.
7 Here is another specimen of difference of idiom, though not so great as in
some places, occurring in different copies of the text. This sentence is thus
را وی چنین روایت کرد - in another راوی چنین گفت: expressed in one set of copies
ثقات چنین روایت کرده اند and, in another ازثقات رواة چنین روایت کرد - in another-
-
8 Compare ELLIOT, vol. ii. page 315. If we are to translate the name
of the Salar, Zaffir [not Zafar, which signifies victory], why not trans-
late the name of Ḥusām-ud-Din, 'Iwaz, in fact, all the 'Arabic names in
the book? It does not follow that this person was a victorious general,"
but he was a chief whose name was ZAFFIR, signifying, in 'Arabic, overcoming
all difficulties, successful, triumphant, victorious, &c.
578
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĀŞIRI.
[the committal of] such a deed. When 'Ali-i-Mardān
returned from thence, the Salar, Zaffir, presented him with
two horses and sent him away.
When 'Ali-i-Mardan came back again into Hindustan, he
presented himself before Sultan Kutb-ud-Din, I-bak, and
received an honorary robe, and was treated with great
favour, and the territory of Lakhanawați was assigned to
him. He proceeded towards Lakhanawati, and, when he
passed the river Kons', Husām-ud-Din, 'Iwaz, the Khalj,
[feudatory] of Diw-kot, went forth to receive him, and
'Ali-i-Mardān proceeded to Diw-kot' and assumed the
government, and brought the whole of the country of
Lakhanawati under his sway.
When Sultan Kutb-ud-Din, Ï-bak, passed to the Al-
mighty's mercy, 'Ali-i-Mardān assumed a canopy of state,
and read the Khutbah in his own name; and they styled
him by the title of Sultan 'Ala-ud-Din. He was a blood-
thirsty and sanguinary man. He sent armies in different
directions, and put the greater number of the Khalj Amirs
to death. The Rães of the adjacent parts became awed of
him, and sent him wealth and tribute. He began granting
investitures of different parts of the realm of Hindūstān,
and the [most] futile bombast began to escape his lips.
Both in the assembly, and in the audience-hall, he would
declaim about the country of Khurāsān, of 'Irāk, of Ghaz-
nin, and of Ghūr, and idle nonsense he began to give
tongue to, to such degree, that they used [in jest] to solicit
from him grants of investiture of Ghaznin and of Khurāsān,
9 Another writer relates this somewhat differently. He says that 'Ali-i-
Mardān, one day, accompanied the suite of Sulṭān, Tāj-ud-Din, I-yal-dūz,
when he went to the chase-but this is scarcely compatible with his being a
captive-on which occasion he said to the Sālār Zaffir: "What sayest thou to
my finishing the career of the Sultan with one thrust of a spear, and making
thee a sovereign?" Zaffir, however, was a man of prudence and integrity,
and had no ambition of gaining a throne by assassinating his benefactor. He
therefore gave him a couple of horses and dismissed him, and he returned to
Hindustan.
1 In some copies Kons as above, and in others Kos, without the nasal n.
Some other writers call this river the Konsi and Kosi.
2 In some copies "from Diw-kot. Ḥusām-ud-Din, 'Iwaz, appears to
have been a kind of Vicar of Bray, from what is stated previously, and here.
3 He also coined in his own name, according to the Tabaķāt-i-Akbari and
Budā'ūni.
THE KHALJ MALIKS IN LAKHAŅAWAȚI.
579
and he would issue commands accordingly [as though they
were his own]*.
5
Trustworthy persons have narrated after this manner,
that there was, in that territory [Lakhaṇawati], a merchant
who had become indigent, and his estate was dissipated.
He solicited from 'Ali-i-Mardan some favour. 'Ali-i-
Mardan inquired [from those around]: "From whence is
that man?" They replied: "From Ṣafahān [Iṣfahān].”
He commanded, saying: "Write out the investiture of
Şafahan as his fief," and no one could dare, on account
of his great ferocity and unscrupulousness, to say: "Ṣa-
fahān is not in our possession." Whatever investitures
he conferred in this way, if they would represent: "It
is not under our control," he would reply: "I will reduce
it."
So that investiture was ordered to be given to the
merchant of Ṣafahān-that indigent wretch, who lacked
even a morsel and a garment of rags. The chief per-
sonages and intelligent men, there present, in behalf of
that destitute man, represented, saying: "The feudatory
of Ṣafahān is in want of resources for the expenses of the
road, and for the preparation of equipage, to enable him to
take possession of that city and territory;" and he ['Ali-i-
Mardan] commanded a large sum of money to be given
to that person for his necessary expenses. The nature
of 'Ali-i-Mardān's presumption, cruelty, and hypocrisy
Our author's mode of relation is not over plain. "His vanity and bom-
bast," says another writer, was such that he fancied Iran and Tūrān belonged
to him, and he began to assign their different kingdoms and provinces amongst
his Amirs." The fact is that he was mad; and it is somewhat remarkable
that a subsequent Sultan of Dihli, who was mad after the same fashion,
should also have been of the Khalj tribe. Compare ELLIOT, vol. ii. page 316.
The author of the Gaur MS. in his innocency says that after his [Kutb-ud-Din,
I-bak's] death, for two years and some months, the sway of this same 'Alā-ud-
din was acknowleged as far as Khurāsān and Iṣfahān, &c.!!! Where
Lakhanawați? where Khurāsān and Iṣfahān?
5 The word used in the text is misal [J] such a term as "jágir" is not
used once in the whole work, because it is a comparatively modern term.
6 Our author relates this anecdote differently from others. The destitute
merchant, who wanted something that would furnish him with food and
raiment, refused to accept the investiture of Isfahan; and the Wazirs, who out
of terror of 'Ali were afraid to tell him so, represented that the Hakim of
Isfahan was in want of funds for the expenses of his journey thither, and to
enable him to assemble troops in order to secure possession of his fief.
had the desired effect.
This
580
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NÂŞIRĪ.
amounted to this degree; and, together with such conduct,
he was [moreover] a tyrant and a homicide. The weak
and indigent [people] and his own followers were reduced
to a [perfect] state of misery through his oppression,
tyranny, and bloodthirstiness; and they found no other
means of escape save in rising against him. A party of the
Khalj Amirs conspired together, and slew 'Ali-i-Mardān,
and placed Malik Ḥusām-ud-Din, 'Iwaz, upon the throne.
The reign of 'Ali-i-Mardān was two years, or more or
less than that".
VIII. MALIK [SULTAN] HUSAM-UD-DIN, 'IWAZ, SON OF
HUSAIN, KHALJÏ.
Malik [Sultān] Ḥusām-ud-Din, 'Iwaz, the Khalj, was a
man of exemplary disposition, and came of the Khalj of
Garmsir of Ghūr.
They have narrated on this wise, that, upon a certain
occasion, he was conducting a laden ass towards the emi-
nence which they call Pushtah Afroz' [the Burning Mound],
7 Two years and some months was the extent of his reign, but most authors
say two years. I do not know whether all the copies of Buda'ūni's work are
alike, but in two copies now before me he says plainly, that 'Ali-i-Mardān
reigned two and thirty years. Perhaps he meant two or three years, but it is
not usual to write three before two in such cases. The Gaur MS. states that
he reigned from the beginning of the year 604 H. to 605 H., and yet says that
Kutb-ud-Din, I-bak, died in his reign!
8 Compare Thomas, "PATHÁN KINGS OF DEHLI," pages 8 and 112, and
Elliot, INDIA, vol. ii., page 317. The Arabic word 'Iwaz [] has a
meaning, but "Auz" and "Awz" none whatever. One or two other authors
state that he was the son of 'Iwaz; but this is doubtful: there is no doubt,
however, of his father's name being Husain. His correct title is Sultān
Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din. Malik Ḥusām-ud-Din was his name before he was raised to
the sovereignty.
9 Two of the oldest copies of the text, and some of the more modern ones,
are as above, and some other works confirm this reading; but one of the
oldest and best copies, and the Zubdat-ut-Tawarikh, have Pusht for Pushtah.
Both words are much the same in signification, however, as explained in the
text itself, namely, an ascent, a bluff, steep, eminence, hill, hummock,
mound," &c. ; but Pashah [See Elliot : INDIA, vol. ii. page 317] signifying
a flea, a gnat, &c., is impossible. Pusht is the name of a dependency of Bād-
ghais, and is very probably the tract here meant. Afroz is the active participle,
used as an adjective, of to inflame, to set on fire, to burn, to light up,
to enkindle, &c., the literal translation of which is "the burning hill, or
mound," and may refer to a volcano even at that time extinguished.
THE KHALJ MALIKS IN LAKHAṆAWAŢĪ.
581
>
to a place within the limits of Wāliṣhtān on the borders of
the mountain tracts of Ghur. Two Darweshes', clothed in
ragged cloaks, joined him; and said to him: "Hast thou
any victuals with thee?" 'Iwaz, the Khalj, replied: "I
have." He had, along with him on the ass, a few cakes of
bread, with some [little] dainty, by way of provision for
the journey, after the manner of travellers. He removed.
the load from the ass, spread his garments [on the ground],
and set those provisions before the Darweshes. After
they had eaten, he took water, which he had among his
baggage, in his hand, and stood up in attendance on them.
After those Darweshes had made use of the victuals and
the drink, thus hastily produced, they remarked to each
other, saying: "This excellent man has ministered unto us:
it behoveth his act should not be thrown away." They
then turned their faces towards 'Iwaz, the Khalj, and said:
"Husām-ud-Din! go thou to Hindūstān, for that place,
which is the extreme [point] of Muḥammadanism, we have
given unto thee³." In accord with the intimation of those
two Darweshes, he returned again from that place [where
he then was], and, placing his family on the ass, came
towards Hindūstān. He joined Muḥammad-i-Bakht-yār,
and his affairs reached such a point that the coin of the
territory of Lakhanawați was stamped, and the Khutbah
thereof read, in his name, and they styled him by the title
of Sultan Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din'. He made the city of Lakhana-
4
Walishtan is evidently the same tract as is referred to at page 319, which
see. The oldest and best copies of the text, and some modern copies, are as
above, but some of the latter have, and and three others,
including the best Paris copy, have j
زا واستان
1 They are thus styled in the original: there is not a word about "fakirs"
in any copy of the text.
2 Meat, fish, vegetables, or the like, eaten with bread to give it a savour :
in Elliot : INDIA, vol. ii., page 317, it is styled "traveller's bread," and the
ass is turned into a mule !
3 In some copies, and in some other works, Khwajah, equivalent here to
'Master," in others Sālār-head-man, leader or chief. Another author says
the Darweshes said: "Go thou, O Khwajah, into Hind, for they have
assigned unto thee one of the kingdoms of the region of Hind."
4 The text varies a little here. The oldest copy has "his family " as above,
whilst, of the other copies, some have "his children," some "his wife," and
some "his wife and children."
5 After the chief men had put the tyrant, 'Ali, son of Mardan, to death,
they, with one accord, set up Ḥusām-ud-Din, 'Iwaz, son of Husain, who,
originally, was one of the petty chiefs of the Khalj country on the borders of
582
THE TABAKĀT-I-NĀṢIRI.
wati the seat of government, and founded the fortress of
Basan-kot, and people from all directions turned their faces
towards him".
Ghür, a man of virtuous mind and high principles, and endowed with many
excellent qualities, both of mind and body. He is said, by several authors, to
have been very handsome, and they confirm all our author says about him in
this respect.
6 In ELLIOT, vol. ii. page 317, "He made the city of Lakhnautí the seat
of his government, and built a fort for his residence !" The printed text has
-fortress of Bas-kot.
From our author's remark here, it would appear as though Sultan Ghiyāṣ-
ud-Din, 'Iwāz, had been the first to make the city of Gaur or Lakhanawați
his capital. Akdalah can scarcely have been built at this period or it would
no doubt have been mentioned from its importance.
Abū-1-Fazl states, in the Ã'IN-I-AKBARĪ, that Lakhanawati, which some
style Gaur, is named Jannat-ābād, but this is an error from what is stated below
by others, and was the name applied to the Sarkar or district, not to the
city. He continues: "To the east of it is a great kol-āb [lake] in which is an
island. To the north, at the distance of a kuroh, is a building and a reservoir,
the monument of ancient times, which is called Sārahāe-māri [s,lo (sla,l…].
Criminals used to be confined in the building, and a good many died from the
effects of the water which is very noxious.”
The Haft-Iklim, says Gauṛ, in the olden time, was the capital of Bangālah,
and that the fortress of Gaur was amongst the most reliable strongholds of
Hindustan. "The river Gang lies to the west of it; and, on the N.E.
W. and S. sides, it has seven [sic in MS.] ditches, and a citadel on the side
of the Gang. The distance between [each] two ditches is half a kuroh, each
ditch being about three ṭanāb [= 120 gaz or ells] broad, and so deep that an
elephant would be unable to cross it. JANNAT-ĀBĀD is the name of the
tumān [district] in which Gaur is situated."
The Khulāṣat-ut-Tawarikh states that Lakhaṇawati or Gaur is a very
ancient city and the first capital of the country. To the east of it is a kol-āb
[lake] of great size, and, should the dyke [confining it?] burst, the city
would be overwhelmed. The emperor Humayun, when in that part, took a
great liking to Lakhanawați, and gave it the name of BAKHT-ĀBĀD.
Many fine buildings were erected in and around the city by Sulṭān Firūz
Shāh-i-Abū-l-Muzaffar, Shāh-i-Jahān, the Ḥabashi [Abyssinian, yet he is
included among the so-called "Patháns"], one of which was the Chand
gateway of the citadel near the palace, a ḥauz [reservoir], and the famous
lāṭ or manārah. Musalmāns do not erect "Jaya Sthambas.' The Chand
gateway was still standing some fifty years since, but hidden by the dense
jangal, and is probably standing still. There were several masjids, one of
which was founded by Sultan Yusuf Shah.
According to the Portuguese writers who "aided Mohammed [Mahmud]
against Sher Khan a Mogol general [!] then in rebellion,"
the capital
city Gouro extended three leagues in length along the Ganges and contained
one million, two hundred thousand families [one million of people or two
hundred thousand families, probably]. "VOYAGES AND TRANSACTIONS OF
THE PORTUGUESE: Castanneda, de Barros, de Faryia y Souza, Antonio da
Silva Meneses, &c."
The Tarikh-i-Firuz Shāhi says "Lakhanawati acquired the by-name of
Bulghak-pur-place of great sedition-from a signifying much noise, tumult,
THE KHALJ MALIKS IN LAKHAṆAWAȚI.
583
8
He was a man of pleasing mien, of exceeding handsome
appearance, and both his exterior and interior were [adorned]
by the perfection of mercy; and he was magnanimous,
just, and munificent. During his reign the troops and
inhabitants of that, country enjoyed comfort and tran-
quillity; and, through his liberality and favour, all' ac-
quired great benefits and reaped numerous blessings. In
that country many marks of his goodness remained. He
founded jämi' [general] and other masjids, and conferred
salaries and stipends upon good men among theologians,
the priesthood, and descendants of the Prophet; and other
people acquired, from his bounty and munificence, much
riches. For example, there was an Imām-zādah of
the capital city, Firuz-koh, whom they used to style
Jalāl-ud-Din, the son of Jamal-ud-Din, the Ghaznawi,
who, to better his means, left his native country and came
into the territory of Hindustan in the year 608 H.
some years, he returned again to the capital city, Firūz-koh,
and brought back with him abundant wealth and riches.
Inquiry was made of him respecting the means of his
acquisition of wealth. He related that, after he had come
into Hindustan, and determined to proceed from Dihli
to Lakhanawati, when he reached that capital, Almighty
God predisposed things so that he [the Imam, and Imam's
son] was called upon to deliver a discourse in the audience-
hall of Sultan Ghiyās-ud-Din, 'Iwaz, the Khalj¹.
After
That
sedition, &c.-because, from ancient times, from the period that Sultan
Mu'izz-ud-Din, Muḥammad-i-Sam, of Dihli, conquered it [Ziyā-ud-Din,
Barani, is rather incorrect here however], almost every Wali to whom the
sovereigns of Dihli gave the government of Lakhanawati, because of its
distance from Dihli, its extent, and the number of passes intervening, if he
had not rebelled himself, others have rebelled against him, and killed or
dethroned him."
7 There is not a word about "his nobles."
8 An not "the" Imām-zādah: there were scores of Imām-zādahs probably
at Firūz-koh. Imām signifies a leader in religion, a prelate, a priest.
9 Some copies have collection, amount, &c., and the more modern
copies and the printed text -signifying family, followers, dependents,
&c., instead of '-seeking benefit, and the like. In ELLIOT, vol. ii.
page 318, it is rendered a body of men-" He came with a body of men from
his native country," &c. !! He was merely a priest, and did not travel
attended by a body of men."
1 Compare ELLIOT, vol. ii. page 318; where this passage is translated :
"the Almighty so favoured him that his name was mentioned in the Court of
Ghiyásu-d-din !!
584
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĂŞIRĪ.
sovereign, of benevolent disposition, brought forth from
his treasury a large chalice full of gold and silver tangahs,
and bestowed upon him a present of about two thousand
tang ahs; and gave commands to his own Maliks and
Amirs, Grandees and Ministers of State, so that each one
presented, on his behalf, liberal presents. About three
thousand gold and silver tangahs more were obtained. At
the period of his return home [from Lakhaṇawaṭi] an
additional five thousand tangahs were acquired in gifts, so
that the sum of ten thousand tangahs was amassed by that
Imām, and Imam's son, through the exemplary piety of
that renowned monarch of benevolent disposition. When
the writer of these words, in the year 641 H.³, reached the
territory of Lakhanawati, the good works of that sovereign,
in different parts of that territory, were beheld [by him].
The territory of Lakhanawati' has two wings on either
2 The Haft-Iklim states that the money of Bangālah was confined to the
jital [always written with j-J] according to the following table :—
4 Fitals I Gandah, 20 Gandahs 1 Ānah, 16 Ānahš 1 Rūpī.
"Whatever the rūpi might be, whether 10 tangahs or 100 tangahs, it was
reckoned as 16 ānahs, and there was no change whatever in the jital and the
gandah." From what our author has stated in several places in this work,
however, it is evident that the jital was current in the kingdom of Dihli, and ·
Muḥammadan India, as well as in Bangalah. See page 603.
Firishtah [copying the Tarikh i-Firūz-Shāhi] states with respect to the
tangah that "it is the name given to a tolah of gold stamped, and that a
tangah of silver was 50 puls, each pūl [i. e. a piece of anything orbicular] of
copper [bronze?] was called a jital, the weight of which is not known exactly,
but I have heard that it was one tolah and three-quarters of copper [bronze ?]."
Another writer states that there were 25 jitals to 1 dām.
The word tangah—with g not with --signifies a thin plate, leaf, or slice
[5,9] of gold or silver, and appears to be an old Persian word. See Thomas :
PATHAN KINGS OF DEHLI, pages 37, 49, 115, 219, and 230.
According to some other writers, however, the following table is [also]
used:
4 Fitals Gandah, 20 Gandah 1 Pan, 16 Pan 1 Kahawan, 16 Kahāwan
[some call 20 a Riddha Kahāwan] 1 Rūpi.
According to the same account, 20 kandīs made a jital.
Price, in his "RETROSPECT OF MAHOMMEDAN HISTORY," in reference to
the revenue of Hindustan, says the "Tungah," as far as he recollects, was
considerably higher than the "Daum," and "conceives it was the fifth of a
rupee "!
3 Two copies have 644 H., which can scarcely be correct, and the remainder
641 H. Farther on he says he was in that part in 642 H. Our author
appears to have set out from Dihli for Lakhanawați in 640 H., reached it in
641 H., and returned to Dihli again in the second month of 643 H.
+ Of course Bang is not included, and our author mentions it separately.
THE KHALJ MALIKS IN LAKHAṆAWAȚI.
585
side of the river Gang. The western side they call Rāl
[Rāṛh"], and the city of Lakhan-or" lies on that side; and
the eastern side they call Barind' [Barindah], and the city
5 I can easily fancy a foreigner writing Räl—J',—or Rād—',—from hear-
ing a Hindū pronounce the Sanskrit UT—;',— Rāṛh, containing, as it does,
the letter which few but natives of the country can properly utter.
-
• The printed text followed in ELLIOT has "Lakhnautí," but that is totally
impossible, since it lay east, not west of the Ganges; its right pronunciation is,
no doubt, Lakhaṇ-or.
-
Most of the best copies of the text have Lakhan or, both here and in other
places where the same town or city is referred to; but two of the oldest and
best copies have both Lakhan-or and Lakh-or both here as well as elsewhere. It
appears evident to me that the " in the first word is nasal, and that its deriva-
tion is similar to that of Lakhaṇawați, from the name of Dasarata's son, Lakh-
mana, with the Hindi word —or, affixed, signifying limit, boundary, side,
&c. = Lakhmana's limit or frontier. In this case it is not surprising that some
copyists left out the nasal n, and wrote Lakh-or, having probably the name read
out to them. From the description of the dykes farther on in Section XXII.,
in the account of the different Maliks of the dynasty where the invasion of Jāj-
nagar by the Musalmāns is mentioned, and the invasion of the Musalman
territory by the Rãe of Jāj-nagar, Lakhan-or lay in the direct route between
Lakhanawați and Katāsin, the nearest frontier town or post of the Jāj-nagar
territory; and therefore I think Stewart was tolerably correct in his supposition,
that what he called and considered "Nagor," instead of Lakhan-or, was situated
in, or farther south even than Birbhum. It is by no means impossible that
Dr. Blochmann's supposition may be correct, that Lakarkundhah [the Lacara-
coonda of Rennell] is the place in question. It is in the right direction, but
seems not far enough south; and, if any indication of the great dyke or cause-
way can be traced in that direction, it will tend to clear up the point. Lakar-
kūndhah lies about eighty-five miles as the crow flies from Gaur or Lakhaṇa-
wați, “right away from the river," but this Mr. Dowson, in ELLIOT, appears to
think a proof of its being the wrong way, and he probably fancies that it should
follow the Ganges. "Right away from the river," too, in the opposite direc-
tion, distant about eighty miles, lay Diw-kot-Diw and Dib are the same in
Sanskrit and Hindu-i-the total length from place to place, allowing for devia-
tions, being a very moderate "ten days' journey." There is no doubt what-
ever as to the correct direction' of Jaj-nagar and its situation with regard to
Lakhan-or and Lakhanawați, as mentioned in note 4, page 587.
In one copy
7 In some copies Barbind, but Barind or Barinda is correct.
of the text the vowel points are given. I do not know the derivation of the
Sanskrit word—☎ Rāṛh, but —Brind or Wrind, signifies a heap [high ?],
and it is possible that the former may signify low, depressed, being subject to
inundation; and Brinda [the Barinda and Barind of the Musalman writers],
high, elevated, not being subject to inundation. Hamilton says the part liable
to inundation is called Bang, and the other Barendra. See also the account of
Malik Tamur Khan-i-Ķi-rān in Section XXII., where Lakhan-or is styled
Lakhaṇawați Lakhan-or.
Barind, under the name of "the Burin," is well known to sportsmen, I am
told, in the present day, who apply it to the high tract of country N. W. of
Ram-pur, in the Raj-Shahi district.
Terry says, alluding to the "two wings," "Bengala, a most spacious and
PP
586
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĂŞIRĪ.
of Diw-kot is on that side. From Lakhaṇawați to the
gate of the city of Lakhan-or, on the one side, and, as far
as Diw-koț, on the other side, he, Sultan Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din,
'Iwaz, [caused] an embankment [to be] constructed, ex-
tending about ten days' journey, for this reason, that, in
the rainy season, the whole of that tract becomes inundated,
and that route is filled with mud-swamps and morass³; and,
if it were not for these dykes, it would be impossible [for
people] to carry out their intentions, or reach various
structures and inhabited places except by means of boats.
From his time, through the construction of those embank-
ments, the route was opened up to the people at large.
It was heard [by the author] on this wise, that, when the
august Sulṭān, Shams-ud-Din [I-yal-timish], after the
decease of Malik Naşir-ud-Din, Maḥmūd Shah [his eldest
son], came into the territory of Lakhaṇawați to suppress
the sedition of Malik Ikhtiyar-ud-Din-i-Balkā, the Khalj¹,
and beheld the good works of Ghiyaṣ-ud-Din, 'Iwaz, the
fruitful Province, but more properly to be called a Kingdom, which hath two
very large Provinces within it, Purb [Pūrab] and Patan [Pachcham]; the one
lying on the East, the other on the West side of the River Ganges. *** The
chief Cities are Rangamahat and Dekaka."
8 Compare ELLIOT, vol. ii. page 319.
9 These embankments, according to other writers likewise, were constructed
through the perseverance and forethought of Sultan Ghiyaṣ-ud-Din, 'Iwaz.
Another author states that the "former ancient rulers of Bang, the present
capital of which is Dhakah, on account of the vast quantity of water which
accumulates throughout the province in the rainy season, caused causeways to
be constructed twenty cubits wide and ten high, termed al [J], and, from the
proximity of these als, the people styled the province BANG-AL. Rain falls
without ceasing during one-half of the year in the rainy season, and, at this
period, these als appear above the flooded country.
>>
A European writer, writing on the province "as at present constituted," says:
"There are several remarkable military causeways which intersect the whole
country, and must have been constructed with great labour; but it is not known
at what period. One of these extends from Cooch Bahar [Küch Bihār] through
Rangamatty [Rangamati] to the extreme limits of Assam [Asham], and was
found when the Mahommedans first penetrated into that remote quarter." He,
of course, must mean the Muḥammadans of Aurangzeb's reign.
Hamilton states that one of these causeways extended from the Diwah to the
Brahma-putr.
1 In the list of Maliks at the end of Shams-ud-Din, I-yal-timish's reign,
farther on, he is styled Malik Ikhtiyar-ud-Din, Daulat Shāh-i-Balkā, and, by
some, is said to be the son of Sulṭān Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din, 'Iwaz, and, by others, a
kinsman. Another author distinctly states that the son of Sultan Ghiyāṣ-ud-
Din, 'Iwaz, was named Nāṣir-ud-Din-i-'Iwaz, and that he reigned for a short
time. See also page 617.
THE KHALJ MALIKS IN LAKHAŅAWAȚI.
587
Khalj, whenever mention of Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din, 'Iwaz's name
chanced to arise, he would style him by the title of “Sultān
Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din, Khalji," and from his sacred lips he would
pronounce that there could be no reluctance in styling
a man Sulṭān who had done so much good'. The Al-
mighty's mercy be upon them! In short, Ghiyās-ud-Din,
'Iwaz, the Khalj, was a monarch worthy, just, and bene-
volent. The parts around about the state of Lakhaṇawati³,
such as Jāj-nagar', the countries of Bang, Kāmrūd, and
2 What extreme magnanimity! Reluctance or not, Sulṭān Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din,
'Iwaz, had as good a title to be called Sultan as Shams-ud-Din, I-yal-timish,
or any other who preceded or followed him; and, moreover, he had never been
a slave, nor the slave of a slave. I-yal-timish was not his suzerain until he
gained the upper hand. It was only 'Ali-i-Mardan who was subject to Kutb.
ud-Din, Ï-bak.
3 Compare Dowson's ELLIOT, vol. ii. page 319, where Jāj-nagar is made to
appear as being part of the Lakhanawati territory: there is nothing even in the
printed text to warrant such a statement.
• Dr. Blochmann's surmises [CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE GEOGRAPHY AND
HISTORY OF BENGAL, page 29] are quite correct with respect to Jāj-nagar.
It appears to have been named after a town or city of that name, subsequently
changed in more recent times to Jāj-pūr, the meaning of nagar and pūr being
the same; and in the days when our author wrote, and for many years sub-
sequently, it continued to be a kingdom of considerable power.
Before attempting to describe the boundaries of Jāj-nagar, and generally to
elucidate the subject, it will be well to describe the territory of Kaḍhah-Katan-
kah, or Gaḍhah-Katankah-for it is written both ways-which lay between it
and the Muḥammadan provinces to the north.
The best account of it I find in the Ma'dan-i-Akhbar-i-Aḥmadi, of which
the following is an abstract :-"The country of Kadhah-Katankah they call
Gondwanah, because the Gonds, a countless race, dwell in the jangals of it.
On the E., by Ratan-pur, it reaches the territory of Chhar Kund; on the W.
it adjoins the fort of Rasin of Malwah. It is 150 kuroh in length, and So in
breadth. On the N. it is close to the Bhatah territory [the Bhați of the Ã’iN-
I-AKBARĪ], and S. is close to the Dakhan; and this tract of country they call
Kaḍhah-Katankah. It is very mountainous, and has many difficult passes and
defiles, but is exceedingly fruitful, and yields a large revenue. It has forts and
kasbahs [towns], so much so that trustworthy narrators say that it has 70,000
[the MS. has 7000 in figures and seventy thousand in words] inhabited karyahs
[s—lit. a concourse of people, a village. It does not mean a city]. Kaḍ-
hah or Gaḍhah is a great city, and Katankah is the name of a mouça' [district,
place, village], and by these two names this territory is known. [Katankah,
however, must have been remarkable for something or other for the country to
be called after it.] The seat of government of this region is Chura-gaṛh, and
there are several Rājahs and Rães in it."
Faizi, Sarhindi, in his History, calls the country Jhāṛ-Kunḍah instead of
Chhār Kunḍ; and both he and the Khulasat-ut-Tawarikh say that it had
70,000 or 80,000 inhabited karyahs, and they both agree generally with the
above as far as they go; but they state that Āmūdah [Āmūḍah ?] is the name of
PP 2
588
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĂŞIRĪ.
Tirhut, all sent tribute to him; and the whole of that ter-
ritory named Gaur passed under his control. He acquired
5 In ELLIOT, vol, ii. page 319, this passage is translated from the printed
text :-"The district of Lakhnaur submitted to him;" but the text is as above.
one of the principal towns of Kaḍhah Katankah, and the first of importance
reached by Aṣif Khan when he invaded it in Akbar's reign. The Rāni, Dur-
gawati, issued from her capital, Chūra-garh, to meet the Musalmāns, who had
never before ventured into those parts. They halted at Damuh [9], Lat. 23°
50' N., Long. 79° 30' E., between the capital and Āmūdah.
From the above statements, as given in the works just quoted, the tract of
country adjoining Bihar on the S. and Bangalah on the W. is Bhaṭah or Bhāți,
which probably included Palamão, Chhoṭah Nag-pūr, and Gang-pūr, on the W.;
and the tract adjoining Bhāṭah on the W., and immediately joining the district of
Ruhtas-garh on the N., was Chhar-Kund or Jhaṛ-Kunḍah, lying on the right
bank and upper part of the Son, and stretching towards Ratan-pur. Still
farther W., between Ratan-pur and the Narbadah, but running in a S. W.
direction, and stretching from the left bank of the Son, on the one side, to
Rāsin of Mälwah, on the other, and S. to the hills, the northern boundary of
Birar, was Kadhah-Katankah.
Terry, in his Voyage, says that the chief city of Kanduana [Gondwanah] is
called Karhakatenka [58], and that the river Sersily parts it [Kanduana]
from Pitan. More respecting the capital of Jāj-nagar will be found farther on.
Jāj-nagar appears, therefore, to have been bounded on the E. by the range
of hills forming the present W. boundary of Ūḍisah-Jag-nāthh, Katasin, on
the Maha-nadi, being the nearest frontier town or post towards the Lakhan-or
portion of the Lakhanawati territory. Farther N. it was bounded towards the
E. by the river called the Braminy by some English writers, and Soank by
Rennell [I always adopt the native mode of spelling if I can find it, the fanciful
transliteration of Gazetteer writers ignorant of the vernacular spelling notwith-
standing], running to the W. of Gang-pur. Its northern boundary is not very
clearly indicated [but see Sultan Firuz Shah's excursion farther on], but it evi-
dently included Ratan-pur and Sanbhal-pur. On the W. it does not seem to
have extended beyond the Wana-Gangā, and its feeder the Kahan; but its
southern boundary was the Gūdāwūri, and S. W. lay Talinganah.
"
I am surprised to find that there is any difficulty with regard to the identi-
fication of Katāsin, also called, and more correctly, Katāsinghah. Our author,
farther on, says he himself went thither along with the Musalman forces, and
distinctly states that, “at KATĀSIN, the frontier of the JĀJ-NAGAR territory
commences. This place is situated on the northern or left bank of the Maha-
nadi, which river may have altered its course in some degree during the lapse
of nearly seven centuries, some thirty miles E. of Boada, in about Lat. 20° 32',
Long. 84° 50'; and some extensive ruins are to be found in its neighbourhood.
The capital of the Jaj-nagar state, our author distinctly states, was named
Ūmürdan or Ūmardan ——according to the oldest and best copies of
the text; and Urmurdan or Armardan--and Uzmurdan or Azmurdan
——in the more modern copies; and, in one, Uzmurdān or Azmardān—
The wilāyat-country or district-of Ūmurdān or Ūmardān is men-
tioned, as well as the capital, town, or city of that name. There is a place
named Amar-kantak, or Amar-kantaka--in Lat. 22° 40', Long. 81° 50',
where are the remains of a famous temple of Bhawāni or Parwati, which
be the site of our author's gl
ت
may
THE KHALJ MALIKS IN LAKHANAWATI.
589
possession of elephants, wealth, and treasures, to a great
amount.
It seems most strange that those who have run away with the idea that Jāj-
nagar lay east of the Ganges and the Megnah, in south-eastern Bengal-in
Tiparah of all places-never considered how it was possible for Ulugh Khan,
son of Sultan Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din, Tughlak-not that monarch himself—to invade
Taling [Talingānah] and Tiparah, if the latter were Jāj-nagar, in one and the
same short campaign, or that Hoshang, Sultan of Mālwah, during a short ex-
pedition or raid rather, could have reached south-eastern Bengal in search of
elephants. To have done so, he would have had to pass right through, and
return again through, the extensive territory of an independent sovereign equally
powerful with himself [he had only 1000 horse with him on the occasion in ques-
tion], and to have crossed and recrossed two or three mighty rivers, besides
many others of considerable size, or he forded 'the Bay of Bengal perhaps to
reach the supposed Jāj-nagar.
ELPHINSTONE, too, on the authority of HAMILTON [Hindostan, vol. i. page
178], who says that "Tiperah," by Mahommedan historians, is called "Fage-·
nagur," has fallen into the same error; and, not content with this, even the
map accompanying his History has "Jájnagur" in large letters in a part of
India where no such territory ever existed! Hamilton would have had some
difficulty, I think, in naming the "Mahommedan Historians" who made such
assertions. The name of one would much surprise me.
The way in which Jaj-nagar is mentioned in different places, by different
writers, and under different reigns, clearly indicates its situation. Ulugh Khãn,
son of Sultan Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din, Tughlak, on his second campaign into the Dak-
han, having reached Diw-gir [Dharagaṛh], advanced into Taling [Talingānah],
took Bidr, and invested Arangul [], now Warangul. Having captured
it, and given it the name of Sultan-pur, before returning to Dihli, he went for
amusement or diversion [~] into JĀJ-NAGAR. He merely crossed the frontier
of Talinganah.
Hoshang, Sultan of Mälwah, taking with him 1000 picked horsemen dis-
guised as horse-dealers, set out from Mandhū or Mandhūņ, and entered the
JĀJ-NAGAR territory in quest of elephants. He managed to seize the Rãe of
Jāj-nagar by stratagem, obtained a number of elephants, and brought him along
with him, partly for his own security, on his way back to Mālwah; and, on
reaching the frontier of the JAJ-NAGAR state [on the side of Mālwah], he set the
Rãe at liberty.
The Lubb-ut-Tawarikh-i-Hind states that Jāj-nagar is a month's journey
from Mälwah, but from what part of Malwah is not said.
The first ruler of the Sharki dynasty of Jūnpūr—the cunuch who is turned
into a “Pathán" by the archeologists― extended his sway as far as the territory
of Kol to the south; and, on the east, as far as Bihār; and compelled the rulers
of LAKHAṆAWAȚI and JĀJ-NAGAR to pay him tribute.
In 680 H. Sulṭān Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din, Balban, set out towards Lakhaṇawați to
reduce Tughril, his rebellious governor of Bangālah, who had defeated two
armies sent against him. On the approach of the Sulṭān and his army, Tughril,
who had been making preparations for retreat, retired towards the territory of
JĀJ-NAGAR. On the Sultan's arrival at Lakhaṇnawați, no trace of the rebel
could be found; but, discovering subsequently whither he had gone, he set out
in pursuit in the direction of JĀJ-NAGAR, until he arrived at a place some
seventy kos from that territory, when a patrol from the advanced guard of his
590
THE TABAKÁT-I-NĂŞIRĪ.
The august Sultan, Shams-ud-Din wa ud-Dunyā [I-yal-
timish], on several occasions, sent forces from the capital,
army, having gained information of his whereabouts, surprised Tughril en- ·
camped with his forces on the banks of a river, at and around a large stone
reservoir, and slew him. The next march would have brought him to the
JĀJ-NAGAR territory. The river, no doubt, was the boundary.
ی اينك
The Tarikh-i-Firūz-Shāhi of Ziyā-ud-Din, Barani, differs from this account,
and says—according to the Calcutta printed text-that Tughril fled to Ḥāji-
nagar--and, in some places, Jāji-nagar- but there is no in
Jă-NAGAR, and, if Ziyā-ud-Din's text is correct, it is a different place altogether.
"The Sultan, following in pursuit by successive marches, in a certain number
of days, arrived on the frontier of Sunar-gāņw [or kingdom of Bang], the Rãe
of which-Dinwaj by name [sic]—paid homage to the Sultan, and stipulated
that, in case Tughril evinced à desire to fly towards the sea [, also means
river], he should prevent his doing so. Proceeding by successive marches, the
Sultan had reached within 60 or 70 kos of JAJ-NAGAR, when information of
Tughril's whereabouts was obtained," &c. From this statement it would seem
that the place in question, whether Haji-nagar or Jāji-nagar, was beyond
Sunar-gāņw; but it is not said whether any great river was crossed, neither is
it stated that the Sultan marched eastwards, and he might-and, in case JĀJ-
NAGAR is correct, as stated in the extract above, he must-have turned to the
south-west on reaching the frontier of Sunar-gāṇw. I am inclined, however,
to think that Sangarah, mentioned in the fourth para. below, is correct, and
not Sunar-gāṇw. Where the Sunar-gāṇw frontier commenced we know not;
but it must have been a territory of some extent, as it was ruled, subsequently,
by a "Sultan." A district of this name is also mentioned by Ziya-ud-Din as
lying near Talinganah.
Be this as it may, however, the following extract, taken from the Tārikh-i-
Firuz-Shāhi of Shams-i-Sarāj, Alfi, Tabaķāt-i-Akbari, and others, will, I
think, tend to settle the question respecting the situation of the JAJ-NAGAR
[याज नगर] territory:-
In 754 H. [Alfi, 755 H.] Sultan Firuz Shah set out for Bangalah to reduce
its ruler, Ilyās, Ḥāji [Sulṭān Shams-ud-Din], to subjection. On Sultan Firūz
Shah's reaching the vicinity of Panḍūah, Ilyās evacuated it, and threw himself
into Akdalah [also written Akdalah], "a mouza'" near Panḍūah, on one side.
of which is the water [a river ?], and on the other an impenetrable jangal, and
considered one of the strongest fortifications of Bangālah [Westmacott, in
the Calcutta Review for July, 1874, places Ekdala [Akdālah] some forty-two
miles on the Maldah side of the river Tangan, and north of Gaur or Lakhaņa-
wați-"the later city of Gour," as he styles it], and so situated that, in the
rainy season, the whole country would become flooded, and not a piece of
elevated ground would be left for the Sultan even to pitch his tent on. Another
writer calls it an island or insular fortress. He came and encamped, accord-
ing to one of these works, on the bank on the other side of the water facing it;
but the others state that he encamped his forces near the place on the same side.
As he had to change the position of his encampment after a short time, this move-
ment led Ilyas to imagine that the Sultan was about to retire; and he sallied
forth with his troops and attacked the forces of Firūz Shāh, but sustained a
complete overthrow, and had to retire into his stronghold again. The rains
having commenced, Firuz Shah had to abandon the investment, came to terms
with Ilyãz, and retired towards his own dominion» by the Mänik-pür ferry.
THE KHALJ MALIKS IN LAKHAŅAWAȚI.
591
Dihli, towards Lakhanawați, and acquired possession of
Bihār, and installed his own Amirs therein. In the year
On several occasions Ilyas sent presents to the Sulṭān, and others were for-
warded to him in return, until, in the year 759 H., when, Ilyās having despatched
his offerings, Sulṭān Firūz Shāh sent him presents in return; but, information
having reached him from Bihār of Ilyas's death, and of his son, Sikandar's
succession, Firūz Shah ordered his presents to be stopped; and, in 760 H., he
set out for Bangālah with an army of 80,000 horse and 470 elephants. The
rains coming on, he passed the rainy season at Zafar-ābād, and founded the
city of Jun-pur. Sikandar, on his approach, retired to the fortress of Akdālah,
before which Sulṭān Firūz Shāh sat down; but, after a few days, an accom-
modation was come to, and the territory of Sunar-gāņw was given up to Sikan-
dar, and Firuz Shāh retired towards Jun-pūr. On the Sultan's reaching
Panḍuah [this shows that Akdalah was northward or eastward of it, and
beyond it], seven elephants and other valuable property, sent by Sikandar as
part of his tribute, reached his camp.
I notice in the Indian Atlas, sheet No. 119, in the parganah of "Debekote,”
as it is styled-of course Diw-kot or Dib-kot is meant-between Lakhanawati
and Dinjā-pūr, a place named DAMDUMA, and near it an old fort, and, to the
east of it, three large tanks. The name is evidently a corruption of damdamah-
a cavalier, a mound, &c. ; and it strikes me, since the name of Akdālah is not
mentioned in history for some time after the Khalj dynasty passed away, that
the name of Diw-kot was changed to Akdālah in after years. Dr. Blochmann,
I believe, identifies Diw-kot-probably on good grounds—with Gungārām-pūr,
which I do not find in the Atlas sheet referred to; but, I should think, from
the description given of the great causeway, at the northernmost extremity of
which Diw-kot is said, at page 586, to have been situated, that Diw-kot must
have lain north instead of south of Dinjā-pūr.
[Since this note was written, I find the last number of the Bengal Asiatic
Journal, No. III. 1874, contains an account of the site of Akdālah and a map
showing its situation, as promised by Westmacott, in a previous number; and,
I believe, the situation to be very nearly identical with the " Damduma" I have
referred to, but have not examined the map in question.]
On his reaching Jun-pūr the rains again set in [760 H.], and he stayed there
during the rainy season, and, in Zi-Hijjah of that year, set out by way of Bihār
towards JĀJ-NAGAR, which was at the extremity of the territory of Gaḍhah-
Katankah [5] When the Sultan reached Karah [-opposite Mānik-
pur ?], Malik Kutb-ud-Din, brother of Zaffir Khan, was left behind with the
troops and the heavy equipage, and he advanced with celerity through BIHAR
towards JĀJ-NAGAR. On his reaching Sangarah or Sankrah—sim [Budā'ūni,
who copies wholesale from the Tabakāt-i-Akbari, has, in my copy of the text,
-meant probably for - but Firishtah, who also copies from the
former, has See BLOCHMANN, page 30. Can it be the present Sir-
goojah, so called ?], Rãe Sāras [-Firishtah], Rājah of Sankarah,
fled, and his daughter fell into the Sultan's hands, and he called her daughter
[adopted her?], and protected her. Firishtah styles her Shakar Khātūn, an
impossible name for a Hindu, unless she became a convert to Islām, and was
afterwards so named. [I do not know what BRIGGS's version may contain,
but Dow has left out a great deal here.] 'Aḥmad Khan, who had fled from
Lakhaṇawati, and had reached the fort of Rantabhūr― [Ratan-pūr in
Jhar-kundah? Lat.° 22 14', Long. 82° 8'-is probably meant, not the cele-
brated stronghold of Rantabhūr] on the way, presented himself before Sultān
i
592
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĂŞIRĪ.
622 H. he [I-yal-timish] resolved upon marching into Lakh-
anawați; and Sultan Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din, 'Iwaz, moved his
Firūz Shāh. Having passed the river Maha-nadri, Mahān-dari, or Mahān-
the river--هندری Firishtah- مندری sic in MSS.Buda'uniمهاندری] adri
which falls into the Son doubtless is meant], he reached the city or town of
Banārsi [—Shams-i-Sarāj and Alfi have Banāras-、l—and Budā’-
ūni Bārāni—¿‚], which is the capital and abode of the Rãe of JAJ-NAGAR
[Shams-i-Saraj has Rãe of Jāj-nagar-Ūḍisah]. The Rae fled towards Taling
[Talingānah], and, the Sultan not pursuing him [Firishtah says pursuing], pro-
ceeded to hunt elephants in the vicinity [Shams-i-Sarāj says the Sultan remained
some time at Banāras, and the Rãe took shelter in one of the islands of the,
or on a, river]. [See the Asiatic Journal, vol. xiv., July to December 1822,
page 438, in which is a good account of this tract of country, entitled
'Notes on Birar"], during which time the Rae despatched emissaries and
sought for peace, sending at the same time three elephants, besides rarities and
precious things [Shams-i-Sarāj says after his return from Padmawati]. Hunt-
ing as he went along, the Sultān reached the territory of Rae Bhānu Diw
[Shams-i-Sarai, Bir-bhān Diw--Alfi, Pir-māhi Diw- colage
perhaps Bir-Mahi], who sent him some elephants. He then returned
from thence with the object of hunting, came to Padmawati-South Bihār pro-
bably-which is a part abounding with elephants, captured thirty-three, and
killed two which could not be secured.
The Tabaķāt-i-Akbari, Firishtah, and Budā'ūni, quote a verse composed on
the occasion by Malik Ziyā-ud-Din, thus showing to what extent the two latter
-particularly Firishtah-copied from the former; but Firishtah appears some-
what confused in the latter part of his account, or has made considerable verbal
alterations for some purpose; whilst Buda'ūni [MS.] says the Sultan left
Bārāni [—Banarsi ?], and proceeded from thence to Badwati-ÿgal—
[Padmāwati] and Bram-Talā [] to hunt elephants.
From Padmawati Sultan Firuz Shah returned to Karah in Rajab, 762 H.
JĀJ-NAGAR is mentioned on several other occasions in the history of the
Dakhan, and its whereabouts distinctly indicated. Sultān Firuz, Bahmani,
entered it in 815 H., and carried off a number of elephants. In the account of
Nizām Shāh, of the same dynasty, JĀJ-NAGAR and ŪḍĪSAH are mentioned as
totally separate territories. In the reign of Muḥammad Shah, son of Humā-
yun, a famine having arisen in his dominions, people migrated in order to
obtain food into MALWAH, JĀJ-NAGAR, and GUJARĀT; and, shortly after, the
Rãe of Ūḍisah, aided by the Rãe of JAJ-NAGAR, invaded Talinganah by way
of the Raj-mandrī district.
Now, if any one will look at the map, and take what has been mentioned
into consideration, where else can Jāj-nagar possibly lie than in the tract I have
indicated? Certainly not on the east side of the Bay of Bengal.
It may not be amiss here to say a few words respecting the ancient boundaries
of Bangālah as described by different authors, although little remains to be said
after Dr. Blochmann's elaborate paper on the subject before referred to.
The Jami'-ut-Tawarikh of Fakir Muḥammad says that the territory which
in after times was styled Bangalah, according to such writers as have written
about it, consisted of Bihar, Gaudha or Gaur or Lakhanawati, Bang, and JÃJ-
NAGAR. During the campaign in Bangalah, in Aurangzeb's time, against his
brother Shah Shujā', the Afghān Zamindar of Birbhum and Jāl-nagar is said
to have joined him. According to the Ã'in-i-Akbari, the Ṣūbah of Bangālah
from Gadhi to the port of Chatgānw [Chittagong] is 400 kuroh in breadth ; and,
from the mountains bounding it on the north to the uncultivated tract []
THE KHALJ MALIKS IN LAKHANAWAȚI.
593
vessels [war-boats?] up the river. A treaty of peace was
concluded between them, and the Sultan [I-yal-timish]
extorted thirty-eight elephants and eighty laks of treasure,
and the Khutbah was read for him, and the coin stamped
in his name. When the Sultan [I-yal-timish] withdrew,
• Another writer says he had all the boats on the river removed and secured,
in order to prevent Shams-ud-Din, I-yal-timish, from crossing with his forces
to the Lakhanawati side of the Gang.
7 Some histories, including the Tabakāt-i-Akbari, say the two Sulṭāns did
encounter each other in battle in 622 H.; but, as no details are given, it could
have been but a skirmish. A peace was entered into, and Sulṭān Ghiyāṣ-ud-
Din, 'Iwaz, gave, as an acknowledgment of suzerainty, for the sake of peace
which he himself soon after broke, 38 elephants and So laks of silver tangahs.
Another writer says Ghiyaṣ-ud-Din, 'Iwaz, despatched forces upon several
occasions to carry on war against Shams-ud-Din, I-yal-timish [the latter's
officers or his governors of Awadh probably]; but at length peace was con-
cluded on the terms above stated.
The Tazkarat-ul-Muluk states that this sum was in silver tangahs; and
of sarkār Madāran [also written Madārān-], 200 in breadth; but, as
the country of Ūḍisah was annexed to it on the settlement of the province in
Akbar's reign, and its formation into a Şubah, its length became increased 43
kuroh, and its breadth 20. The tract of country to the W. of Bangalah is
named Bhāṭah or Bhați, which is accounted as belonging to this country [Ban-
gālah], and Mānik is the surname of its rulers. To the north is a territory
called Kūj [Kuch ?] and Kamrud, also called Kanwrū. At the side of this is
the territory of the Rajah of Ashām, and adjoining it is Tibbat, and to the
left of it Khiṭā. To the E. and S. of Bangālah is an extensive country named
Arkhnāk [turned into Arracan by Europeans], and the port of Chatgānw
belongs to it. In the sarkar of Mangir, from the river Gang to the Koh-i-
Sangin [the Stony Mountains], they have drawn [l] a wall, and account
it the boundary of Bangalah.
The Haft-Iklim says Bangālah is 300 kuroh in length and 270 in breadth,
each kuroh being one mil [!]. On the E. it is bounded by the sea, on the
W. it has the parganah of Suraj-garh, which adjoins the Ṣūbah of Bihār, on
the Nit is bounded by Kuch, and on the S. by the parganah of Jasūḍah
[turned into Jessore by Europeans], which lies between Ūḍisah and Bangālah.
The Khulasat-ut-Tawarikh agrees generally with the other two works, but
states that Bangālah is 400 kuroh from E. to W.-from Chatgāṇw to Gaḍhi-
and 200 from N. to S.; that it has the Ṣubah of Bihar on the W., on the S.
,[باندھو and تاده . in two other] مانڈهو -the high hills of sarkar Mandha
and the sea on the E.
The Ã'in says it was divided [in Akbar's reign] into 24 sarkārs, and yielded
a revenue of 52 kurors, 4 laks, and 59,319 dāms.
The Haft-Iklim states that it was divided [in Jahangir's reign] into 22
tūmans [or sarkārs], and its revenue amounted to 5 laks, 97,570 rūpis, which,
at 40 dāms the rūpi, are equivalent to 23 kurors, 9 laks, and 2800 dāms.
There must be a mistake somewhere, as this amount of Jahangir's revenue is
not half that of Aurangzib's time, while Akbar's revenue greatly exceeds
Aurangzib's.
According to the Khulaṣat-ut-Tawarikh, it was divided [in Aurangzib's
reign] into 27 sarkārs, and yielded 46 kurors and 29 laks of dāms.
594
THE TABAKAT-I-NĀṢIRĪ.
9
he conferred Bihār upon Malik 'Izz-ud-Din, Jāni; and
Sulṭān Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din, 'Iwaz, marched into Bihār from Lakh-
aṇawați, and [again] took possession of it, and treated it
with severity, until, in the year 624 H., the augustⓇ Malik,
Nāṣir-ud-Din, Maḥmüd Shah, son of Sultan Shams-ud-
Din [I-yal-timish], at the instigation of Malik 'Izz-ud-Din,
Jāni', assembled the forces of Hindustan, and marched
from Awadh and proceeded into Lakhaṇawați. At this time
Sulṭān Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din, 'Iwaz-i-Husain, the Khalj, had led
an army from Lakhanawati towards the territory of
Kāmrūd and Bang, and had left the city of Lakhaṇawați
further—in which the Tabakāt-i-Akbari and some others agree that I-yal-
timish conferred a canopy of state and a dur-bash [see note 5, page 607] upon
his eldest son, Nāṣir-ud-Din, Maḥmūd Shāh, declared him heir-apparent,
bestowed Lakhanawați upon him, and left him in Awadh with jurisdiction
over those parts. Maḥmūd Shah may have been left in Awadh with charge
of that part, but not of Lakhanawati certainly; for Ghiyās-ud-Din, 'Iwaz, ruled
over his own territory up to the time of his death. The son of I-yal-timish
was probably left in Awadh to watch for a favourable time for invading or
seizing the Khalj dominions, which he soon found an opportunity of doing.
in several copies, but it cannot be correct, considering,
he died a natural death, according to our author's own account, as given at page
630. The word no doubt, is an error for august, &c..
8 He is styled
9 Compare Elliot, INDIA, vol. ii. page 219.
1 In the account of Malik Naşir-ud-Din, Maḥmūd Shah, page 629, and here
also, in some copies of the text, and in some other works, he is styled 'Alā-ud-
Din, Jāni. He is, no doubt, the personage referred to in the list of relatives
and chiefs at the end of Shams-ud-Din, I-yal-timish's reign, under the title of
Shāh-zādah, or Prince of Turkistān; but he only served I-yal-timish: he was
no relative. Soon after Sultan Shams-ud-Din, I-yal-timish, returned to Dihli,
Sultan Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din, 'Iwaz, marched into Bihār, and regained possession of
it, compelling Malik Jāni to fly into Awadh. The Khalj ruler held possession
of it for some time, until the year 624 H., when Malik Naṣir-ud-Din, Maḥmūd
Shah, I-yal-timish's eldest son, who held the government of Awadh, incited
by Malik Jāni and some other chiefs, and taking advantage of Sulṭān Ghiyāṣ-
ud-Din, 'Iwaz's absence on an expedition against the infidels on his eastern
frontier in Bang and Kāmrūd, with the greater part of his forces, suddenly and
without any previous intimation, invaded his dominions with a great army, in-
cluding forces sent by his father for the same purpose. As soon as Ghiyāṣ-ud-
Din, 'Iwaz, received information of it, he made all haste back to defend his
kingdom; but whether part of or all his army returned with him is doubtful, and
no aid from without could reach him, except through Hindūstān.
The enemy
had already taken the capital, and, in a great battle subsequently fought between
him and the invaders, Sulṭān Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din, 'Iwaz, with most of his chiefs,
were taken captive and afterwards put to death. Some state that he was slain
in the battle. A son of his [by some accounts a kinsman]-Malik Ikhtiyār-ud-
Din, Daulat Shāh-i-Balkā—subsequently regained and held sway over the
territory for a time, and Shams-ud-Din, I-yal-timish, had to proceed in person
against him with a great army.
\
THE KHALJ MALIKS IN LAKHAŅAWAȚI.
595
unprotected. Malik Naşir-ud-Din, Maḥmūd Shāh, took
possession of it; and Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din, 'Iwaz-i-Husain, the
Khalj, on account of that disaster, returned from that force
[which he had led into Kāmrūd and Bang?], and fought
an engagement with Malik Naşir-ud-Din, Mahmud Shāh.
Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din, 'Iwaz-i-Husain, and the whole of the Khalj
Amirs, were taken prisoners, and Sultan Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din,
'Iwaz, was martyred. His reign extended over a period
of twelve years'.
2 According to our author, Sultān Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din, 'Iwaz, the Khalj, was the
last of the Mu'izzi Sulṭāns of Hind; and he is the person respecting whom
ELPHINSTONE has been betrayed into such mistakes noticed in note 7, page 610.
According to the Gaur MS. he reigned twelve years, from 606 H. to 617 H.,
and was succeeded by his son, Nāṣir-ud-Din, 'Iwaz, who reigned for a short
time, and whose name has been already mentioned in note¹, page 586. See
also pages 617 and 626. The events which happened after the decease of
Sultan Ghiyāṣ-ud-Din, 'Iwaz, are involved in great obscurity; but the above
dates are not correct.
In concluding this portion of the Section on the Khalj dynasty of
Lakhanawati, I would mention that I am not personally acquainted with
Bengal; but I venture to hope that these notes, imperfect as they are, will aid
in further research. The district officers will be able to follow up the inquiry
with facility.
SECTION XXI.
ACCOUNT OF THE SHAMSIAH SULŢĂNS IN HIND.
THE frailest of the servants of the Divine threshold,
Minhaj-i-Sarāj, Jūrjāni—God grant him the attainment of
his wishes! states that, when the eternal will of God, the
Most High and Holy, has willed to imprint on the forehead
of a servant the signs of dominion and the light of power,
and the mother of time becomes pregnant with an embryo
of such a character, the gleam [characteristic] of such a
burden will shine upon her brow'.
When the time of her delivery arrives, and that lord of
felicity becomes enveloped in the swaddling of his birth-
place, joy, at the sight of that birth, becomes manifest in all
things; and, from the period of his nativity to the time of his
removal from this abode of service to the mansion of bliss,
whether in activity or in repose, all his actions will be a
source of gladness unto mankind, and of honour to both
high and low. If his neck should be placed in the collar
of servitude, his master becomes the possessor of affluence;
and, if his footsteps venture upon journeys and in travelling
stages, he will cause his companions to become the masters.
of prosperity, as in the case of the Patriarch Yusuf.
When Yusuf was sold to Malik the son of Du'ar, at his
1 Our author here follows the life of men destined for sovereignty from the
conception, and applies to them, somewhat blasphemously, the theory of the
nūr [light, &c.] of Muḥammad. The theologians assert that the first thing
created was the light of Muḥammad. It shone forth from Adam's forehead
until Eve became pregnant by him of a son, when it was transferred to her.
When she gave birth to the son [which? Cain or Abel ?], it, of course, dwelt
in him, and thus it was transferred, as the theologians aver, from the foreheads
of the fathers to the wombs of the mothers, until it assumed flesh in Muḥam-
mad. Our author has altered the theory in applying it to kings, in as far as
the ray of light, which emanates from the child [J], shines forth from the
brow of "the mother of time.'
""
2 In other words, when the child is born.
THE SHAMSĨĀH SULTANS OF HIND.
597
invocation, twenty [sons like] pearls³ befitting a king were
strung upon the thread of his line; and, notwithstanding
he came [as a slave] into the dwelling of 'Aziz, he made, in
the end, his ['Aziz's] spouse Queen of Mișr; and, foras-
much as the infant in the cradle bore testimony to the
purity of his garment's skirt-"a witness of the family bore
testimony”—at length, in his ['Aziz's] service, Yūsuf became
the Wazir of that kingdom.
I. SULTAN-UL-MU'AZZAM, SHAMS-UD-DUNYA WA UD-DĪN,
ABU-L-MUZAFFAR, I-YAL-TIMISH, THE SULTAN.
5
Since the Most High and Holy God, from all eternity,
had predestined that the states of Hindustan should come
under the shadow of the guardianship of the great Sulṭān,
the supreme monarch, Shams-ud-Dunya wa ud-Din, the
shadow of God in the worlds, Abu-l-Muzaffar, I-yal-timish,
the Sultan, the right arm of the Vicegerent of God, the aider
of the Lord of the Faithful God illumine his convictions.
and weight the balance with the effects of his equity and
beneficence, and preserve the dynasty of his descendants,
on whom, of those who have passed away, be peace! and
may the Nasiriah Maḥmūdiah sovereignty perpetually con-
tinue in security and safety from the troubles of the end of
time, and from the accidents and vicissitudes of the
world!—that just and munificent Sulṭān, upright, benefi-
6
3 I do not know what account of Yusuf our author may have read, but this
is different to what is contained in Tabari and other writers of authority, and
very different to the account given in the KUR'AN [Chap. xii.], and to his
own account of Yusuf in the first Section of this work. Yusuf was sold for
twenty pieces of silver.
4 Written in some few copies of the text and by some other historians-
I-yal-timish, and I-yal-titmish in some works; but the above appears
the correct mode of spelling. My oldest MS. gives the diacritical points. The
first part of this compound word, which it evidently is, is the same as in I-yal-
Arsalan, I-yal-dūz, &c. ; and the latter part of it is the same as occurs in Kal-
timish and the like. See note 2, page 133. Budā'ūni says he was so called
from having been born on a night during an eclipse of the moon, and that the
Turks call a child born on such an occasion I-yal-timish. I doubt this, how-
ever, for the reasons just mentioned in the beginning of this note.
5 Yamin-i-Khalifah U'llah, Naşir-i-Amir-ul-Muminin. See pages 617 and
624.
6 The sovereignty of his son, our author's patron-Nasir-ud-Din, Maḥmūd
Shah.
598
THE TABAĶĀT-I-NĂŞIRĪ.
cent, a zealous and steadfast warrior against infidels, the
patronizer of the learned, the dispenser of justice, in pomp
like Faridun, in disposition like Kubād, in fame like Kā-ūs,
in empire like Sikandar, and in majesty like Bahrām, was,
Yusuf like, from out of the Ilbari [or Albari] tribes of
Turkistan, delivered over to merchants, until, from one
degree to another, he was raised to the throne of empire
and seat of dominion, so that the back of the Muḥammadan
religion, through his sovereignty, waxed strong, and the
development of the Ahmadi faith, through his valour,
acquired pre-eminence. In intrepidity he turned out
another impetuous 'Ali, and, in liberality, a second Ḥatim-
i-Ta-i. Although the beneficent Sultan, Kutb-ud-Din-on
whom be peace! displayed to the world the bestowal of
hundreds of thousands, the august and beneficent Sultan,
Shams-ud-Dunyā wa ud-Din-may he rest in peace!—in
place of every hundred thousand of his, used to bestow a
hundred [times a] hundred thousand, both in capacity and
in computation, as, both in this world and in the next, may
be accounted [in his favour].
Towards men of various sorts and degrees, Ķāzis, Imāms,
Muftis, and the like, and to darweshes and monks, land-
owners and farmers, traders, strangers and travellers from
great cities, his benefactions were universal. From the very
outset of his reign, and the dawn of the morning of his sove-
reignty, in the congregating of eminent doctors of religion
and law, venerable Sayyids, Maliks, Amirs, Ṣadrs, and
[other] great men, the Sulṭān used, yearly, to expend about
ten millions7; and people from various parts of the world
he gathered together at the capital city of Dihli, which is
7 What coin, whether tangah or jital, is not stated-there is a vast difference
between them.
پون
8 An author, describing Dihli, states that, in the year 440 of Bikrāmajit,
Rājah Anang-pāl Tūn or Tūņār-the " is nasal [This is the word which,
written in some works, instead of and' and„„„, has been mis-
taken for pur and pūra― See note, page 84, para. 2; and ELLIOT,
vol. ii., pages 47, 426, and 427; and Thomas: PATHAN KINGS of DEHLI,
page 57]—founded the city of Dihli, near to Indra-prastha. Subsequently,
in the year 1200, or a little later, of the same era, Rãe Pithorã founded a city
and fortress which were named after himself. Outside this fort, to the east, he
raised a lofty structure which is still styled the Maḥall of Rãe Pithorā. In the
fortress Sultan Kuṭb-ud-Din, I-bak, and Sulṭān Shams-ud-Din, I-yal-timish,
dwelt. The Shahr-i-Zaghan [?] or Ghiyaṣ-pur was founded in 666 H.; and
Gilū-Khari [√ 45—not “Kila Garhi,” as Cunningham calls it] in 686 H.
;
THE SHAMSĨÃH SULŢĀNS OF HIND.
590
the seat of government of Hindūstān, and the centre of
the circle of Islām, the sanctuary of the mandates and in-
hibitions of the law, the kernel of the Muḥammadi religion,
the marrow of the Aḥmadi belief, and the tabernacle of the
eastern parts of the universe-Guard it, O God, from
calamities, and molestation! This city, through the number
of the grants, and unbounded munificence of that pious
monarch, became the retreat and resting-place for the
learned, the virtuous, and the excellent of the various parts
of the world; and those who, by the mercy of God, the
most High, escaped from the toils of the calamities sus-
tained by the provinces and cities of 'Ajam, and the mis-
fortunes caused by the [irruption of the] infidel Mughals,
made the capital-the asylum of the universe-of that sove-
reign their asylum, refuge, resting-place, and point of safety;
and, up to the present day, those same rules are observed
and remain unchanged, and such may they ever continue!
10
From a number of credible persons' it has been heard
narrated after this manner, that, when the beneficent
Sulṭān, Shams-ud-Din, was young in years, and was called,
by command of the Most High, from the territory of
Turkistan and the families of the Ilbari [tribe] to the
empire of Islām and dominion of Hindustan, it so hap-
pened that his father, who was named I-lam Khān¹º, had
numerous kindred, relations, dependents, and followers;
and [that] this [future] sovereign, from his earliest years,
was endowed with comeliness, intelligence, and goodness
of disposition to a great degree, so much so that his
brothers began to grow envious of these endowments.
They therefore brought him away from his mother and
father under the pretence that he should get sight of a
herd of horses'. Like as in the case of Yusuf, they said,
but it must have been begun or have been a suburb long before, as it is men-
tioned certainly over fifty years before by our author. Tughlak-ābād, the
Kushk-i-La'l, and Firūz-ābād, now called the Kotilah of Firūz Shāh, were
founded subsequently, besides many other additions of minor extent made.
have not space to say more.
9 Often referred to, but their names never mentioned.
I
10 Others say his father was the head or chief of a small community among
the divisions or clans of the Ilbari tribe in Turkistān.
His name is written
Vilam――Khān by some writers, and I-yal-J.-Khăn by others.
1 Some say he was taken by his brothers to some garden, under pretence of
going thither for recreation and diversion.
600
THE TABAĶĀTI-NĂȘIRĪ.
'Why, O father, dost thou not intrust Yusuf to us, seeing
that we are true friends of his? Send him along with us
to-morrow into the pastures that he may divert himself,
and we will be his protectors';' and, when they brought
him where the herds of horses were, they sold him to
certain merchants; and some say that his uncle's sons
were among the party that sold him³. The merchanis
brought him towards Bukhārā, and sold him to one of the
kinsmen of the Ṣadr-i-Jahan' [the chief ecclesiastic] of
Bukhārā, and, for some time, in that family of eminence
and sanctity, he remained. The most beneficent of that
family used to nourish him in the hall of his kindness, like
his own children in infancy.
One of the trustworthy has related, saying: "I heard
from the blessed lips of that monarch himself, who said,
"On a certain occasion, one of the [above-mentioned] family
gave me a small piece of money, saying: 'Go into the market
and buy some grapes and bring them.' When I set out
for the market, I lost by the way that bit of money; and
through my youthful age, out of fear at what had hap-
pened, I fell a crying. Whilst thus lamenting, I was joined
by a good Darwesh who took me by the hand, and pur-
chased for me some grapes which he gave me; and he
made me promise [saying]: 'When thou attainest unto.
power and dominion thou wilt ever regard devotees and
ascetics with reverence, and watch over their weal.' I
gave him my promise; and all the prosperity and blessings,
which I acquired, I acquired through the compassionate
regard of that Darwesh.'" The probability is that never
2 KUR'AN, Chap. xii.
3 Others say that his brothers and brothers' sons were concerned in this
affair, and that the merchants were of Bukhārā.
4 See Dowson, in Elliot: INDIA, vol. ii. page 320-1, who says-"When
they brought him to the drove of horses they sold him to the dealer.
. . The
horse-dealers took him to Bukhárá, and sold him to one of the relations of the
chief judge of that city" &c. The printed text here is perfectly correct and as
rendered above, with the exception of merchant for merchants in the first
sentence. The word bazargan does not mean "horse-dealer "
ass-dealer, for it signifies a merchant or trader.
Şadr also does not mean judge only: it has other meanings.
any more than
5 Being himself in this Sultan's service, our author might have made himself
acquainted with the events of his early days, instead of trusting to "one
of the trustworthy," and particularly as he stood so high in the monarch's
favour.
•
THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
JOL 3 6 1983
JUL 2 6 1983
DATE DUE
1990


UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
L
{
3 9015 00386 2524
DO NOT REMOVE
OR
MUTILATE CARD
+
F
&
1%