The Nāṣirī Generations 253: FIRST INROAD OF THE TURKS OF KARAH KHITA.
Tabakat-i-Nasiri 253
- Language
- English
FIRST INROAD OF THE TURKS OF KARAH KHITA.
253.1
Trustworthy persons have related after this manner, that the first irruption of the Turks was that the tribes of Karah Khita issued from the territory of Chin and land of the East, and came out upon the confines of Kaialik and Bilasaghun, and withdrew their allegiance from the sovereign of Tamghaj, and made the frontier tracts of Islam their dwelling-place, and their grazing-grounds. On agreeing to pay certain fixed imposts, for pasturage, to the Afrasiyabi Maliks, who were Musalman sovereigns, of the posterity of Afrasiyab — the descendants of the I-lak Maliks, because our author, both here and in his account of the Samanis, Saljuks, and Khwarazmi Sultans, occasionally confuses their names in such a manner as to puzzle and bewilder his readers. Such brief account of them will also tend to make the preceding account of the Turks clearer, and throw light upon the previous account of the Khwarazmi dynasty and of the Gur Khans farther on, and correct some crude theories recently put forth.
253.2
The Muhammadan writers make continual mention of the Turks and infidels of Mawara-un-Nahr and Turkistan, from the time that the first ’Arab — Hakam, son of ’Umr, in the Khilafat of Mu’awiyah, drank of the waters of the Amuyah, and ’Abd-ullah, son of Ziyad, was the first to cross it, but those writers give no consecutive accounts of the Afrasiyabi Maliks until they come down to the year 367 H. It must also be borne in mind that the name of Afrasiyab does not occur in the Turkish traditions, although the ’Ajamis style him “the Turk.” The first person with whom most Muhammadan writers begin this dynasty is the Bughra Khan, [No. IV. in this account] whose Musalman name was Abu-Musa-i-Harun, and his title, Shihab-ud-Daulah, and who, in 380 H., defeated Mardawanj, the general of the Samani forces, near Samrkand. Although this Bughra Khan, “the Turk,” is said to have been the son of Suliman — whom some also style by the title of the I-lak Khan — son of the I-lak Khan, the meaning of which will be presently given, they do not include these two personages, among those rulers, although the latter, probably, brought the dynasty into greater notice, and splendour.
253.3
A few writers, however, including Abu-Sa’id-i-’Abd-ul-Haiy, son of Zuhak, a native of Gardez in Ranman of the present Afghanistan — begin somewhat earlier, and, accordingly, I shall follow them. On reaching the time of the Bughra Khan, Abu Musa-i-Harun, son of Suliman, the different accounts agree. The Gardezi wrote about 441 H., in the reign of Sultan ’Abd-ur-Rashid, son of Mahmud-i-Sabuk-Tigin, the seventh of the Sultans of Ghaznin, and that writer is, therefore, a little before Abu-l-Fazl-i-Baihaki, who wrote in the reign of Farrukh-zad, the eighth of the Sultans of that line, and who died in 470 H. I. Satuk-Kujah, written Satuk by one author, was an infidel, and the ruler of Turkistan; but, from a remarkable dream which he had one night, he, in the morning, became a convert to Islam, and induced his people to embrace it also. This happened probably about the year 315 or 320 H., but no dates are given. In Alfi he is called Satuk-Karachar.
253.4
There is a History, so-called, of this personage, who, in recent times, has been regarded as a saint, and a tomb and masjid have been raised over him. The account is written by the Shaikh Najm-ud-Din, in Persian, and translated into Turki; but, as might be expected, it is history burlesqued. It is quoted by Surgeon-Major Bellew, C.S.I., who was attached to the late Kashghar Mission, who has composed a “History of Kashghar, from the Tabakati Nasari” etc., etc., which may be styled history in chaos. Shaikh Najm-ud-Din causes Hazrat Satuk to be born in 333 H., and to die in 430 H., at the age of ninety-six years. Unfortunately for such history, the IXth sovereign of the race, and the eighth or ninth in descent from the Satuk in question, was reigning over Turkistan including Kashghar in 430 H. The Doctor, however, “would identify” Satuk with, whom he calls, “Iylik Mazi — as he is usually styled. [I-lak-i-Mazi, probably — the past, or late I-lak, or of days of yore, as he is [Khan], of days of yore—and who were subject to the Saljuk Sultans, they occupied those plains and pasture
253.5
During the reign of Abu-Musa-i-Harun, Shihab-ud-Daulah, son of Suliman, son of the I-lak, the Bughra Khan, in 375 of the H., Saljuk, son of Lukman, and his family and dependents, entered Mawara-un-Nahr from Kara-kum for the sake of pasturage. In this same year a wonderful bird was seen to rise daily, for three days in succession, from the sea of ’Umman, which was said to portend evil to Islam; and indeed, in the following year, 376 H., Alan-Kuwa gave birth to the three sons “of the mysterious light,” as related in the Mughal tradition, one of whom was Bu-zanjar, the great ancestor of the Chingiz Khan. The Bughra Khan was subsequently induced once more to invade Mawara-un-Nahr by ’Abu-Ali-i-Simjur and Fayik-i-Khasah, the traitor nobles of Amir Nuh; and, in the year 380 H., he entered Mawara-un-Nahr and defeated Mardawanj, the general of Amir Nuh, the vicinity of Samrkand. Fayik also became subject to him, and was allowed to hold Isfanjab. In 382 H., accompanied by Fayik, he appeared before Bukhara, entered it in Rabi’-ul-Awwal, and Amir Nuh fled. Whilst at Bukhara, the Bughra Khan was attacked with a painful disorder, and set out to return into Turkistan, but death overtook him on the way in 383 H. Bughra in the Turkish language signifies a stallion kept for breeding purposes, but, more particularly, a two humped stallion camel.
253.6
The Bughra Khan was a just and well-disposed monarch, the friend of learning and the learned, and ruled over the vast tract of country extending from Kashghar to Chin. He was succeeded by his brother’s son, the I-lak Khan, Abu-l-Hasan-i-Nasr, son of ’Ali. V. The I-Lak Khan, Abu-l-Hasan-i-Nasr, son of ’Ali, brother of Harun-i-Bughra Khan [this is the person our author mentions at page 51], marched from Uz-gand, and acquired predominance over Bukhara on the 10th of Zi-Hijjah, 389 H., seized Amir ’Abd-ul-Malik, son of Nuh, the Samani, and sent him away to Uz-gand in Farghanah [a totally different place from Urganj as stated in note page 52, through an error of the copyist in writing j for j and from Gur-ganj — Khwarazm], and took possession of the whole of Mawara-un-Nahr. He again came to Samrkand in 391 H.; and, in 393 H., Abu-Ibrahim-i-Muntasir, the last of the Samanis, with the aid of the Ghuzz, defeated the I-lak Khan, and compelled him to retire. With the help of the Ghuzz tribe, under their Mihtar, or Chief, Begghu, Abu-Ibrahim re-took Bukhara, and re-subdued all Mawara-un-Nahr. It was but a temporary advantage however, although the I-lak Khan was a second time defeated by the confederates, for he returned soon after with a great host, and subsequently completely overthrew Abu-Ibrahim in 395 H., who, in the meantime, had been deserted by the Ghuzz tribe.
253.7
In Jamadi-ul-Awwal, 391 H., it is stated, that an envoy came from the I-lak Khan to Sultan Mahmud-i-Sabuk-Tigin, proposing that all the territories of Mawara-un-Nahr should appertain to him, and all Madun-un-Nahr [I have never noticed this term applied to the cis-Amuiah or cis-Oxus countries but in one old author: I shall refer to this again farther on] to Mahmud. Other writers state that a treaty to this effect was entered into between them in 396 H. There may possibly have been two treaties, the latter modified.
253.8
Whilst Mahmud-i-Sabuk-Tigin was at Multan, after taking it in 396 H., intimation reached him that the Turks had broken the treaty, crossed the Amuiah in great numbers under Subashi-Tigin, and had penetrated as far even as Hirat and Nishapur, but, that they had been driven back, and all Madunlands; and, being few in point of numbers, they there un-Nahr cleared of them. In the following year, Sultan Mahmud marched to Balkh, in order to avenge this attack; and the I-lak Khan assembled 40,000 horse in Mawara-un-Nahr, and crossed the river to encounter him. A battle took place in the plain a few miles from Balkh, and a charge of elephants decided the fate of the battle, and the I-lak Khan and his ally, Kadr Khan—his brother, probably—ruler of Khutan, were completely routed, on Sunday, the 22nd of Rabi'-ul-Akhir, 398 H., many prisoners were taken, and, in crossing the Amuiah, the I-lak Khan lost a great number of his followers who were carried away by the current and drowned. The Khan nourished the hope of revenge, but Time did not permit him to gratify it, and he died in 403 H.