Ismaili.NET - Heritage F.I.E.L.D.

(continued..)

The Rise of the Sumra dynasty in Sind

"Ismailism remained a force in Sind and emerged stronger, for the Sumra tribe, who were the Ismailis, patronized it. Mehmud conquered Sind and annexed it to the Ghaznavid regime. It remained so during the time of his son, Masud (d. 432/1041), and latter's son Abdur Rashid (d. 444/1051). Henceforward, the Ghaznavid became weak in Sind. Delhi and its environs had been snatched from them by the rising power of the Ghorid, and Sind became an independent of them under the Sumra tribe.

The Sumra were the local Sindi Hindu tribe, converted to Islam in the time of the first Aarb conquest. They lived mostly on the banks of Indus, in the big cities of Janani and Sehwan. The Sumra embraced Ismailism by the da'is staying at Multan. In 445/1052, the Sumra came up as an influential power, and mustered strength at Thari, a sandy tract in the district of Thatta, where their chief had been proclaimed. They however came to power after defeating Abdur Rashid bin Masud bin Mehmud of Ghazna, and dominated the whole Sind soon afterward.

Abul Hasan Ali bin Ahmad at-Taiy, known as Bahauddin al-Muqtana was one of the personages to have resumed the Druze mission in 418/1027. He wrote letters to several regions, summoning the rulers to embrace the Druze faith. His collection of letters are preserved in the Druze sacred book, entitled Rasail al-Hikmah or al-Hikmah al-Sharifa. It is learnt from the letters of Bahauddin al-Muqtana that he had also written one to a certain Shaikh Ibn Saumar Raja Pal in 425/1034, inviting him to espouse his faith. The text of the letter, according to Risalat al-Hind (p. 36) reads:- "O' Illustrious Raja Bal, arouse your family, the Unitarians, and bring back Dawood the younger into the true religion; for Masud only delivered him from prison and bondage, that you might accomplish the ministry with which you were charged, against Abdullah, his nephew, and against all the inhabitants of Multan, so that the disciples of the doctrines of holiness, and of the unity might be distinguished from the party of bewilderment, contradiction, ingenuity, and rebellion."

Shaikh Abul Fateh Dawood had left behind a son, called Dawood Asghar (younger). He was arrested by Masud, the then Ghaznavid ruler, and relieved him in about 423/1032. Abdullah Abul Fateh was the maternal grandson of Dawood Akbar (elder) and nephew of Dawood Asghar, whom the people of Multan wanted to make their amir. During the time of Masud (d. 432/1041), the Sumra tribe rebelled against the Ghaznavids in Sind, and brought on the throne a leader, named Sumra. It is probable that this Sumra of Tuhfat al-Kiram (comp. 1187/1773) was no other than that of Shaikh Ibn Saumar Raja Pal (d. 446/1053) of the above Druze letter. He had been proclaimed at Thari in 445/1052 as the chief of Sumra dynasty. It is however reliably known that he did not respond to the letter of Bahauddin al-Muqtana, and remained firm with Ismaili faith. He married the daughter of a rich Arab landlord, called Sa'd and got a son by her, named Asamuddin, surnamed Bhongar; who ruled for 15 years till 461/1069. His son Asam ad-Dawla, surnamed Duda I (d. 485/1092) ruled for about 24 years, who was a brave soldier, and extended his power as far as Las in Baluchistan. He was succeeded by his infant son, Sanghar (d. 515/1122), and thus, his elder sister Zainab Tari ruled on his behalf. Dr. Abbas H. al-Hamdani's Ismaili Dawa in Northern India (Cairo, 1956) gives some interesting accounts of the Sumra rulers, from which we give below a brief account.

Sanghar was a bold ruler, and extended his power in the West including Makran. He ruled for 15 years, and had no son, therefore his wife Himu, who held the fort of Adak, took her two brothers, Khafif and Unar in possession of Tor and Thari who ruled together. Khafif ruled for 33 years and Unar for 40 years. They were contemporary to Shihabuddin Ghori, who annexed Multan and Uchh in 571/1176 and had violated the territory of Sind in 578/1182.

Duda II assumed the leadership of Sumras. He marched from his fortress of Wahka against the brothers of Himu and killed them. With the advance of the Ghorid influence in Sind, the Sumra capital changed from Thari to Daibal when Muhammad Ghori occupied Daibal in 578/1182, the Sumra ruler Duda II and his successor Patho seem to have existed as powerless somewhere in Sind. Under the next ruler Ghanra I, the Sumra rule was confined to Thatta. He died in 634/1237 and was succeeded by Muhammad Tor, who ruled for 15 years and died in 649/1251. The next ruler, Ghanra II was dethroned by his foster brother, Duda III. Ghanra II acquired military aids from the Muslim ruler of Delhi, but failed to overthrow Duda III. Henceforward, it appears that the Sumra rulers began to profess Sunnism in Sind. The next Sumra rulers however were Tai, Chinsar, Bhungar II, Khafif II, Duda IV, Umar, Bhungar III and Hamir.

Ibn Batuttah (d. 779/1377) came to India through Sind in 734/1333 during the ruler of Sumar, who owed allegiance to the kings of Delhi. Ibn Batuttah writes in his Aja'ib al-Asfar that, "Then I arrived at Janani which is a large and handsome town on the banks of the river of Sind and which has lovely bazars. The inhabitants are called Samirah who settled down here, as historians have written, at a time when Sind was conquered during the time of Hajjaj...The name of the ruler at this time is Wanar (possibly Umar)....In this town live the Samirite amir Wanar and amir Qeysar Rumi, and both are under the supremacy of the sultan (of Delhi). Both had 18,000 horsemen...."

It appears that the ruling Sumra tribe had embraced Sunnism before the visit of Ibn Batuttah in 734/1333. The kernel of the extant traditions however suggests that the Sumra family was converted to Sunnism by Syed Jalaluddin Bukhari (707-785/1308-1384), also known as Makhdum-i Jahaniyan. In sum, the rule of Sumra dynasty came to an end almost before 762/1361.

The Ismailis after Sumras

Following the reduction of the Ismaili power in Mansurah in 416/1025, the surviving Ismailis disappeared in different safe places in India. In lower Sind, the local Ismailis emerged as the Sumra rulers in 445/1052 as discussed above, while in Punjab the Ismailis, known as the Khokars inhabiting in Hazara district and part of the district of Rawalpindi, Attock and Jehlam; also rose as a local tribal force.

Khokar, the war-like soldiers, descended from Anushirwan and Yazdigard, claimed the title of Kayani; and their eponym is said to have been one Sultan Kaygawhar (later corrupted into Khokar), a native of Kayan in Ispahan. According to another view, the Khokars are said to derive their name from koh (mountain) and gir (holder), because they once took an impregnable mountain fortress.

It is certain that some Ismailis of Multan had taken refuge in the territories of the Khokars and returned to their abode most probably between 525/1131 and 535/1141 and gradually they had gained a local domination. Shihabuddin Muhammad (d. 602/1206), also known as Muizuddin, who was the real founder of the Muslim empire in India; the Ghorid ruler of Ghor and Ghazna in Afghanistan, had invaded India in 571/1175. He marched through Baluchistan and made Multan his first prey and conducted a merciless massacre of the local Ismailis and captured their stronghold. His policy can be constructed to be a continuation of the trend of rooting out the Ismailis wherever they were found in India. Khusaro Malik, the last Ghaznavid ruler in India had secured help from the Khokars and laid siege to the fort of Sialkot. In 578/1186, Shihabuddin Ghori came India and directed his attack against Lahore, and defeated Khusaro Malik. Henceforward, the Ismailis took underground shelter and some of them are reported to have fled to Iranian Gulf and Alamut. One like Indian Ismaili can be traced from the five fidais, who were burnt alive by the order of Jalaluddin Khwarazmshah (d. 628/1231) soon after 624/1227 in the time of Imam Alauddin Muhammad.

The Ghorid regime gave the Ismailis no respite and Shihabuddin Ghori once again spurred his horses in the region of the Khokars. The Ismaili warriors fought valiantly against their overwhelming army, commanded by Qutbuddin Aibak (d. 607/1210) and were retreated in a battle near the ford of Jehlam. Sadruddin Muhammad bin Hasan Nizami, the contemporary writer has described the above event in his Taj al-Ma'athir (comp. 626/1228) and admits that the Khokar fidais were deep-rooted in Ismaili faith. It is also suggested that the chiefs of Khokars, namely Bakan and Sarki were the only among the Indian Ismailis to have procured a close contact with Alamut in Iran, whose details are not accessible.

Shihabuddin Ghori returned to Ghazna in 588/1192 after charging the command of the conquered territories of India to his faithful general, Qutbuddin Aibak. The later conquered Delhi in 590/1194 and finally he founded the Slave dynasty in India in 602/1205. After his death in 607/1210, the nobles raised Aram Shah, who soon proved inefficient ruler and therefore, the nobles invited Iltumish (d. 633/1236), the son-in-law of Qutbuddin Aibak to ascend the throne of Delhi Sultanate.

Jalaluddin Khwarazmshah was repulsed by Chingiz Khan in 618/1211 on the banks of the Indus and has subsequently spent three years in India. He soon came to Lahore, where he was defeated by the forces of Iltumish. So he rushed forth to Sind and occupied Thatta, the main foothold of the Sumra rulers.

In 633/1235, we hear that Iltumish mounted an expedition against the Khokars and took heavy toll of lives with devastation of properties. Iltumish died on April 29, 1236. His sons were incompetent to rule. He had however an able daughter, called Razia Sultana, but the Turkish nobles opposed the succession of a woman. Iltumish's son Ruknuddin Firuz ascended the throne however with the support of the commanders, but he proved incapable. When his supporters were spoiling the power, his sister Razia Sultana made a bold bit for the throne. Clad in red, she appeared before the people gathered for Friday prayers in the cathedral mosque of Delhi, and appealed them in the name of Iltumish to give her a chance to show her worth. It evoked ready response and she became the real successor of Iltumish. She ruled for 3 years and 6 days.

Myth of Maulana Nur Turk

"According to Minhaj Siraj (d. 685/1286) in his Tabaqat-i Nasiri (tr. Major H.G. Raverty, Calcutta, 1881, 1st vol., pp. 646-7), "Among the events which happened in the beginning of Razia Sultana's (634-637/1236-1240) reign, the one was that the qarmitah and mulahida heretics of India, incited by a person, a sort of learned man, named Nuruddin, a Turk, whom they used to style Nur Turk, collected together at Delhi, from different parts of the territory of India, such as Gujrat, Sind and the parts of Ganga. They fixed Friday, the 6th Rajab, 634/March 5, 1237 for the rising against Delhi, numbered about one thousand. They divided themselves into two parties. One party entered the grand mosque from its northern gateway, and the second party passing through drapers' market entered into the gateway of Muizzi seminary, presuming that it was the congregational mosque. From both directions, they began to slaughter the Muslims. A large number of people were killed by them, and quite a big number died in stampede. As soon as the soldiers came to know the riot, their leaders, some well armed and horsemen entered into the mosque and put them to sword. The Muslims from the roof of the mosque pelted them with brick bats and stones."

The curious tale of Minhaj Siraj attributing the revolt of Nur Turk (d. 692/1293) should be taken with a grain of salt. The following points to this effect however deserve careful consideration:- (a) This story contains mere one thousand persons mustered, intending to capture the throne of Delhi, which seems almost insufficient number for the incursion. However, even if this be granted, then it must be directed to the palace or fort, not at the mosque. (b) It is difficult to believe that half of the persons, who are shown the residents of Delhi, could not distinguish between the congregational mosque and the Muizzi seminary. (c) The story does not sufficiently establish the motives for Nur Turk's coup. He was not so naive as to believe that the act of killing some members of ulema class and the members of congregation, would overthrow the rule of Razia Sultana. His reputation as a pious would have very easily escalated him to higher echelons of government, had he truly wished to seize the power. (d) It is recounted that Razia Sultana held deep regard for Nur Turk, and once she is reported to have sent a large quantity of gold as a gift to him, but Nur Turk refused to accept it. He hit the gift with his stick in hand and said, "What is this? Take it away." It ensues from this account that Nur Turk disliked wealth or power, therefore, the alleged revolt against the Delhi Sultanate is far from the truth. (e) The whole story contains the expression of the terms, qarmitah and mulahida. It is difficult to believe that Nur Turk had led them jointly. (f) The weakness of the story can be gauged from the fact that it is not borne out by any other evidence. Granted that the ulema were attacked in the mosque, it would have inflamed a hootest agitation of the Muslims at least in Delhi, which also cannot be ascertained from any trace. (g) This story does not establish conclusively that Nur Turk was an Ismaili leader or had led the Ismailis to hatch a plot. (h) Minhaj Siraj belonged to the ulema class and it was a common practice of the zealots to call mulahida or qarmitah to the non-Sunni Muslims while condemning them. It is evident from the story that he had a personal enmity with Nur Turk, whom he tried to slander, accusing him of leading the heretics to engineer revolt against the Delhi Sultanate.

Shaikh Nizamuddin Awliya (d. 725/1325) very feelingly asserts that Nur Turk was purer than the rain water and the charges against him were maliciously cooked by Minhaj, vide Fawaidu'l Fu'ad (p. 199). A saint belonging to the Ismaili faith could not have been reverentially mentioned by scholars like Shaikh Amir Khurd and Shaikh Abdul Haq Muhadis as Maulana Nur Turk. Shaikh Abdul Haq had never included Nur Turk in his calendar of the subcontinent saints if he had been associated with Ismailism. If Nur Turk had been an Ismaili saint, Shaikh Fariduddin Ganj Shakar (d. 663/1265) would never have gone to attend his sermons.

All this evidently sounds that Nur Turk was a famous for his learning and piety in the eyes of the Muslim scholars, not in the sense that he was an Ismaili. It is therefore probable that the renowned Muslim scholars had never admired Nur Turk, had they known his leaning towards Ismailism.

A man of austere and simple ways as he was, Nur Turk did not like the habits of the ulema, whom he found wallowing in the dirty waters of politics. He condemned them roundly for their greed of gold and glory. He opposed the ulema of Shafite and Hanafite, calling them murji and nasibi. Minhaj Siraj was chagrined on this criticism, which applied to him as much as to other ulema and retaliated by painting him in lurid colours. He contrived a curious story that Nur Turk led the heretics and attacked the mosque, so as to arouse the Muslims against him, which sounds explicitly in the story. Hasan Sijzi, the disciple of Shaikh Nizamuddin Awliya writes in Fawaidu'l Fu'ad (comp. 718/1318) that, "Ulema of Delhi had made hostile statements against Nur Turk's faith. He used to assail the ulema and condemn them as Nasibi and Murji. He was hostile to the ulema of the town because they were sunk in materialism and their enmity was responsible for their false allegations against Nur Turk."

We have observed that the Sunni ulema always became the target of the Sufis, because of their worldly attractions. Instead of improving themselves, they aroused the Muslims by calling them the infidels, or mulahida - a common abusive term applied in their rulings. Most of the eminent Sufi Shaikh in India had been called mulahida by the ulema, which does not mean that they were the Ismailis. The mulahida or qarmitah were the common abusive words for the persons who acted contrary to Islam, and not specific for the Ismailis. Khaliq Ahmad Nizami writes in Salatin-i Delhi'ki Mazahabi Rujatat (Delhi, 1958, p. 138) that, "I am inclined to believe that Maulana Minhaj Siraj has fabricated an allegation on Maulana Nur Turk being a mulahida. Maulana Nur Turk used to criticize the conduct and behaviour of the ulema publicly of his period. Thus the ulema charged him as a mulahida in reprisal, so that he could not escalate his reputation among the Muslims."

Minhaj Siraj is the only source of information to make Nur Turk as the leader of the qarmitah and mulahida, impelling the modern scholars to cultivate an idea that he was an Ismaili, because the Ismailis were also wrongly branded with such pejorative misnomers. There is not a single contemporary trace attributing Nur Turk as an Ismaili, therefore his association with the Ismailis is highly doubtful.

Khan Bahadur Fazalullah Lutfullah in his Gujrat Population (Gazetteer of the Bombay Presidency, Bombay, 1899, vol., IX, part II, p. 38) tries to identify Nur Turk with that of Pir Satgur Nur, which is quite incorrect as the Indian Ismaili Pirs did never feel called upon to act as the crusaders. Dr. Mujtaba Ali writes in Origin of the Khojas and their Religious life today (Bonn, 1936, p. 40) that, "It is also to be noted that the Ismaili missionaries never tried to obtain success by force; their method as described already was of peaceful penetration through observance of pious life. The present writer, therefore, finds no reliable argument by which Nur Turk and Nur Satgur could be considered as the same person."

If the tradition that Pir Satgur was sent by Imam Hasan II be true, it seems rather improbable that Nur Turk of Delhi was Pir Satgur. Imam Hasan II died in 561/1166 and the alleged riot of Delhi is dated 634/1237. Taking Pir Satgur to be at least 20 years at the death of the Imam, he must have been 91 years old when he is supposed to have led the alleged riot in Delhi, and such activity can hardly be expected from an oriental of that age.

In sum, whatever objective of Minhaj Siraj may be in applying the words qarmitah or mulahida for the followers of Nur Turk, it does not belong to the Ismailis in the story. It seems that Nur Turk had a following in Sind, Gujrat and at the banks of Ganges and he himself was a Sufi Shaikh. He was deadly against the ulema, and as a result he fell a victim to the jealousy of Minhaj Siraj. In order to discredit him in the eyes of the Muslims, a story was put into circulation by calling him the leader of the heretics. The later historians who used to label the Ismailis with the same misnomer, had wrongly interpreted the terms, mulahida and qarmitah in the story of Minhaj Siraj for the Ismailis, and have painted it in gloomier colours than it merits. Nur Turk therefore was neither an Ismaili nor his association with the Ismailism.