History of the Qaraunah Turks in India c13.79

c13.79

Nizam-al-Din Ahmad while dwelling upon the Sultan's observance of religious fasts and prayers and his exemplary conduct writes that from constant association with men who were learned in philosophy, but had no concern with the law of the Prophet, the Sultan had acquired an impression that truth was confined only to ratiocinative learning.⁴² His language is more guarded than that of Barani and he does not emphasise the slaughter of the 'true believers' caused by the Sultan's lack of faith in traditional learning. Badāoni who is less judicious than Nizam-al-Din Ahmad only paraphrases Yahya's diatribe against the Sultan and falls into the same inconsistency.⁴³ Himself an orthodox Muslim, he condemns the system of government which made the Sayyids, 'Ulama, Shaikhs, low-born men, mean fellows, peasants and soldiers all alike in his eyes, but in the same breath he says that the Sultan was so scrupulous in inflicting punishments that he argued with the *muftis* and warned them that if any one were slain wrongfully by their oversight, the blood of that victim would be upon their heads.⁴⁴ Firishta like Nizam-al-Din blames the Sultan for desiring to combine in his own person the temporal and spiritual functions and writes: 'The Sultan paid no regard to religious learning. He allowed no privilege to the 'Ulama in his *Darbār* and accepted only those things of religion which satisfied the test of reason.'⁴⁵ This is followed by the usual charge of the slaughter of true believers, saints, *sufis*, Qalandars, whose only fault as in Barani, is the profession of their faith. But like his predecessors Firishta praises the Sultan's strict observance of the five prayers and fasts and the exceptional purity of his private life. It is needless to mention other later writers, who have largely borrowed from Barani, Nizam-al-Din and Firishta their account of the Sultan's character.