History of the Qaraunah Turks in India c13.90

c13.90

'Ain-al-Mulk Multani who is another contemporary writer lets not fall even a word in his numerous letters and dispatches to suggest that the Sultan was irreligious or had a fondness for shedding the blood of innocent Shaikhs, Sufis, and others. A distinguished servant of the state who was an eyewitness of most of the events of Muhammad's reign, says nothing about the Sultan's cruelty to Muslims, and his silence, which may have been dictated by any motive, though not a conclusive argument is certainly significant. Among those who wrote within forty years of Muhammad's death are Shams-i-Siraj 'Afif, Sultan Firuz Tughluq himself and the author of the *Sirat*. These men are certainly more reliable than later historians, because their knowledge of Muhammad's reign was derived partly from books and personal knowledge and partly from the testimony of living persons. 'Afif and Firuz say nothing from which we might infer that the Sultan was in any way lacking in faith. If Muhammad had been wanting in religion, Firuz would have certainly done something for the peace of his soul, just as he tried to reconcile him to the heirs of those who had suffered at his hands. On the contrary, 'Afif positively asserts that Shaikhs and Maulvis were present in the royal camp at Thatta when the Sultan died during his expedition against Taghi. The author of the *Sirat* who wrote 21 years after Muhammad's death describes him as a highly religious monarch and says that he was induced in part by his deep religious feeling to apply for investiture to the Khalifah and he is corroborated by Ibn Batūtah. Further proof of his devotion and humility is supplied by the legends on his coins. Unlike his predecessors he adopts humble titles and makes no parade of his power. He describes himself on his coins as 'the warrior in the path of God, the Reviver of the laws of the last of the Prophets, the just' and superscriptions such as 'struck in the time of the servant hoping for the mercy of God' and 'in the time of the servant, the one who trusts in the help of God' and ‘ dominion and greatness are of God ’ testify to his deep religious feeling.⁴⁹ The names of the four orthodox Khalifahs Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, ‘Usman and ‘Ali appear for the first time on the coinage of Dihli. When the Sultan issued the token currency, he appealed in the name of religion to his people and asked them to accept the token coins. No penalty was laid down for refusal and he trusted entirely to his own honesty and the dictates of religion for their acceptance. The submission to the Khalifah was dictated by political motives but from the manner in which the Sultan treated the Khalifah’s envoy, the robe of honour and the patent of investiture it appears that his reverence which at times bordered on the ludicrous was at least in part the result of his religious beliefs. Even Barani was bewildered by the Sultan’s humility and writes: ‘ I cannot help remarking that Sultan Muhammad was one of the wonders of the creation. His contradictory qualities were beyond the grasp of knowledge and common sense.’⁵⁰ When the penurious ‘Abbasid Ghiyas-al-Din came to his court, he behaved in his presence with incredible meekness and, if Ibn Batūtah is to be trusted, the Sultan placed on one occasion the ‘Abbasid’s foot upon his neck to signify his respect for the Khalifah. That a mighty monarch, master of such a vast empire, should demean himself in this manner in the presence of a man who was dependent upon his own charity puzzled his contemporaries no less than it puzzles the modern enquirer. But a close study of the character and habits of the Sultan clearly shows that he forgot his dignity in doing reverence to an idea and a tradition of which the impecunious ‘Abbasid was a living embodiment.