History of the Qaraunah Turks in India c13.50

c13.50

officers with the function of administering justice.³¹ In view of these facts it is not difficult to understand Barani's indictment which is based on a few particular cases in which the men of his own order were concerned. His account is different from that of Ibn Batūṭah who emphasises the severity of the Sultan's punishments, but does not say that the guilty and the innocent were indiscriminately punished. On the contrary, he gives credit to the Sultan for doing what was right and just. Barani cites no specific instances; he only indulges in vague generalisations, and his narrative creates the impression that the Sultan was a monster who loved cruelty for its own sake. Though a court historian writing his history for presentation to Firuz, he could never forgive Muhammad for his disregard of the ‘Ulama and described each case of punishment as an instance of a most wanton cruelty. On the basis of the two expeditions to Baran and Kanauj which were intended for punitive purposes he constructs the theory of ‘man-hunt,’ implying a serious charge which requires much more definite evidence to justify it than he places before us. Happily Ibn Batūṭah has left us a list of the cul- whom the Sultan punished and an examination of his detailed account will furnish us with a refutation of the commonly accepted view. In seven cases out of the ten mentioned by the Moor, the culprits are members of the class of ‘Ulama who were either hostile to the Sultan or had embezzled public funds or taken part in disloyal proceedings. Shaikh Shihab-al-Din, Faqiah ‘Afi-al-Din Kāshāni, the two Sindhi Maulvis, Shaikh Hūd, Shaikh Shams-al-Din bin Taj-al-ārfin, Shaikh ‘Ali Haidri, and the Khatīb-al-Khutbah (the chief preacher) of Dihli were all punished for charges of a serious nature ranging from wilful dereliction of duty to seditious conspiracy.³²