History of the Qaraunah Turks in India c13.93

c13.93

The true explanation of the charge of heterodoxy is to be found in the Sultan’s disregard of the pretensions of the ‘Ulama. In every respect his policy ran counter to the principles of the orthodox school. In the matter of taxation he deviated from the canon law. The state gave up completely its proselytizing character which was much in prominence during Firuz’s reign. The Hindus were treated with toleration and none of the contemporary writers mentions intances of wholesale persecution. The statement of the Masālik that he extirpated infidelity in the land, unbacked as it is by specific instances, is nothing more than the usual encomium bestowed by a Muslim writer upon a ruler who was devoted to his faith. The author of the *Sirat* in giving an account of Firuz's expedition to Nagarkot positively asserts that when Muhammad led an attack upon the citadel, he spared the temple of Jwālāmukhi at the request of the Rai of Nagarkot.⁵¹ Macauliffe's statement that he persecuted the Maratha saint Namadeva is chronologically inadmissible.⁵² From his youth upwards he had conversed with men of broad views and had developed a rationalistic frame of mind which made it impossible for him to play into the hands of the *'Ulama*, to grant some and impose disabilities upon others. He officers like Firuz's *'amils* to convert the unbelievers to a close. He enjoyed the society of Hindu Jogis (mendicants) and witnessed their performances. The Muslims became disciples of these men, but the Sultan never punished them even when he had personal knowledge of such matters. The Portuguese chronicler Nuniz, who wrote in the 15th century, basing his statement obviously on tradition says that during his conquest of Gujarat Muhammad Tughluq built a large pagoda which existed in his days—a fresh proof of the Sultan's toleration.⁵³ He was fond of Ganges water and did not object to his new town near Khor being called Saragdwāri which was a Hindu name.