C.

EDMUND BOSWORTH is a Fellow of the British Academy and an Honorary

Member of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences. He was until retirement Professor
of Arabic Studies at Manchester University and is now a Visiting Professor at the
Institute of Arabic and Islamic Studies, Exeter University. He was the British Edi-
tor of the second edition of the Encyclopaedia of Islam, and is the author of numerous
books and articles on the history, culture and literature of the Arabic, Persian and
Turkish lands of the Middle East and Central Asia in the pre-modern period. He
was the recipient of the biennial Giorgio Levi Della Vida Award at the University
of California, Los Angeles, in May 2010.
 I.B.Tauris & BIPS Persian Studies Series
Series ISBN 978 1 84885 203 7

Series Editor
Vanessa Martin

Editorial Board
C. Edmund Bosworth, Robert Gleave, Vanessa Martin

The I.B.Tauris / BIPS Persian Studies Series publishes scholarly works in the
social sciences and humanities on Iran. Such works include: original research
monographs, including biographies and suitably revised theses, specially planned
books deriving from conferences, specially commissioned multi-authored research
books, academic readers and translations.

1  The Practice of Politics in Safavid Iran: Power, Religion, Rhetoric

Colin P. Mitchell
978 1 84511 890 7

2  The Ilkhanid Book of Ascension: A Persian-Sunni Prayer Manual

Christiane Gruber
978 1 84511 499 2

3  Hafiz and his Contemporaries: A Study of Fourteenth-Century Persian Love Poetry

Dominic Brookshaw
978 1 84885 144 3

4  The Ornament of Histories: A History of the Eastern Islamic Lands AD 650−1041

The Original Text of Abū Sa‘īd ‘Abd al-Hayy Gardīzī
Tranlsated and Edited by C. Edmund Bosworth
978 1 84885 353 9

5  The Safavid Dynastic Shrine: Architecture, Religion and Power in

Early Modern Iran
Kishwar Rizvi
978 1 84885 354 6
 THE ORNAMENT
OF
HISTORIES
A History of the Eastern Islamic Lands
AD 650–1041
The Original Text of
Abū Sa‛īd ‛Abd al-H.ayy Gardīzī

Translated and Edited by

C. E DMUND B OSWORTH

an imprint of
I.B.Tauris Publishers
LONDON • NEW YORK
BIPS Persian Studies Series
A Joint Publication with the British Institute of Persian Studies

Prelims.indd iii 7/10/2009 1:39:33 PM

Published in 2011 by I.B.Tauris & Co Ltd
6 Salem Road, London W2 4BU
175 Fifth Avenue, New York NY 10010
www.ibtauris.com

Distributed in the United States and Canada

Exclusively by Palgrave Macmillan
175 Fifth Avenue, New York NY 10010

Copyright © 2011 C. Edmund Bosworth

The right of C. Edmund Bosworth to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted by the
author in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patent Act 1988.

All rights reserved. Except for brief quotations in a review, this book, or any part thereof, may not be
reproduced, stored in or introduced into a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means,
electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior written permission of
the publisher.

British Institute of Persian Studies 4

ISBN 978 1 84885 353 9

A full CIP record for this book is available from the British Library
A full CIP record for this book is available from the Library of Congress

Library of Congress catalog card: available

Printed and bound in Great Britain by CPI Antony Rowe

Camera-ready copy edited and supplied by Swales & Willis Ltd, Exeter, Devon
 To the memories of Vladimir Minorsky (1877–1966) and Sir Gerard
Clauson (1891–1974), who were always ready to share their expert
knowledge on the Iranian and Turkish worlds with a much younger
scholar.

Prelims.indd v 7/10/2009 1:54:23 PM

Prelims.indd vi 7/10/2009 1:39:34 PM
 CONTENTS

Preface and Acknowledgements xi

Abbreviations of Journals, etc., cited xiii

Introduction 1

TRANSLATION OF THE TEXT

Part One: The Arab Governors 13
[Chapter Ten]Concerning the Table of the Governors of
Khurasan 13
Chapter Eleven Concerning the Historical Accounts of the
Governors of Khurasan 14
‛Abdallāh b. ‛Āmir b. Kurayz 14
Umayr b. Ah.mar al-Yashkurī 15
‛Abdallāh b. ‛Āmir b. Kurayz 15
Ja‛da b. Hubayra al-Makhzūmī 16
‛Abd al-Rah.mān b. Abzā al-Khuzā‛ī 16
‛Abdallāh b. ‛Āmir b. Kurayz 16
Ziyād b. Abīhi 17
‛Ubaydallāh b. Ziyād 17
Sa‛īd b. ‛Uthmān b. ‛Affān 18
‛Abd al-Rah.mān b. Ziyād 18
Salm b. Ziyād 18
‛Abdallāh b. Khāzim 19
Bah.īr b. Warqā’ 19
Umayya b. ‛Abdallāh 19
H.ajjāj b. Yūsuf 20
[Qutayba b. Muslim] 21
Wakī‛ b. Abī Sūd al-Ghudānī 22
Yazīd b. al-Muhallab 22
Jarrāh. b. ‛Abdallāh al-H.akamī 23
‛Abd al-Rah.mān [b.] Nu‛aym al-Ghāmidī 24
Sa‛īd b. ‛Abd al-‛Azīz 24
‛Umar b. Hubayra 24
Khālid b. ‛Abdallāh al-Qasrī 24

Prelims.indd vii 7/10/2009 1:39:34 PM

 viii C ONTENTS

Ashras b. ‛Abdallāh 25
Junayd b. ‛Abd al-Rah.mān 25
‛Ās.im b. ‛Abdallāh al-Hilālī 25
Khālid b. ‛Abdallāh al-Qasrī 25
Nas.r b. Sayyār 26
Abū Muslim ‛Abd al-Rah.mān b. Muslim 28
Abū Dāwūd Khālid b. Ibrāhīm al-Dhuhlī 31
‛Abd al-Jabbār b. ‛Abd al-Rah.mān 32
Abū ‛Awn ‛Abd al-Malik b. Yazīd 33
Usayd b. ‛Abdallāh 33
‛Abda b. Qadīd 33
H. umayd b. Qah.t.aba 33
Abū ‛Awn ‛Abd al-Malik b. Yazīd 34
Mu‛ādh b. Muslim 35
Musayyab b. Zuhayr 35
Abu ’l-‛Abbās al-Fad.l b. Sulaymān 36
Ja‛far b. Muh.ammad b. al-Ash‛ath 37
‛Abbās b. Ja‛far 37
Ghit.rīf b. ‛At.ā’ al-Kindī 37
al-Fad.l b. Yah.yā al-Barmakī 37
Mans.ūr b. Yazīd 38
‛Alī b. ‛Īsā b. Māhān 38
Harthama b. A‛yan 39
al-Ma’mūn ‛Abdallāh b. Rashīd 40
Ghassān b. ‛Abbād 41

Part Two: The Tahirids and Saffarids 43

T.āhir (I) b. al-H.usayn 43
T.alh.a b. T.āhir (I) 43
‛Abdallāh b. T.āhir (I) 44
T.āhir (II) b. ‛Abdallāh 45
Muh.ammad b. T.āhir (II) 46
The Outbreak of Ya‛qūb b. al-Layth 46
‛Amr b. al-Layth 49

Part Three: The Samanids 53

[Chapter Twelve] Concerning the Rule and the Lineage of the Samanids 53
Ismā‛īl b. Ah.mad (I) b. Asad b. Sāmān 54
The Martyred One (al-shahīd ), Abū Nas.r Ah.mad (II) b. Ismā‛īl 55
The Fortunate One (al-sa‛īd ), Nas.r (II) b. Ah.mad (II) 56
The Praiseworthy One (al-h.amīd ) Abū Muh.ammad Nūh. (I) b. Nas.r (II) 60
The Rightly-Guided One (al-rashīd )
Abu ’l-Fawāris ‛Abd al-Malik (I) b. Nūh. (I) 65

Prelims.indd viii 7/10/2009 1:39:34 PM

 C ONTENTS ix

The Upright One (al-sadīd) Abū S.ālih. Mans.ūr (I) b. Nūh. (I) 67
The Well-Pleasing One (al-rad.ī, al-rid.ā )
Abu ’l-Qāsim Nūh. (II) b. Mans.ūr (I) 70
Abu ’l-H.ārith Mans.ūr (II) b. Nūh. (II) 77
Abu ’l-Fawāris ‛Abd al-Malik (II) b. Nūh. (II) 78

Part Four: The Early Ghaznavids 81

[Chapter Thirteen Concerning the Historical Accounts of

Yamīn al-Dawla and His House] 81
The Reign of the Most Exalted Amir, Sayyid Yamīn al-Dawla wa-Amīn
al-Milla wa-Kahf al-Islām Abu ’l-Qāsim Mah.mūd, Son of Nās.ir al-Dīn
wa ’l-Dawla Sebüktegin, God’s Mercy upon Them! 82
The Meeting of Yūsuf Qadïr Khān and Sultan Mah.mūd,
God’s Mercy upon Them Both! 94
A Description of the Celebration and the Feast 94
The Beginnings of the Seljuq Turks 95
The Rule of Amir Jalāl al-Dawla wa-Jamāl al-Milla Abū Ah.mad
Muh.ammad b. Yamīn al-Dawla, God Most High’s
Mercy upon Them Both! 100
The Rule of Amir Nās.ir Dīn Allāh H.āfiz. ‛Ibād Allāh wa-Z.ahīr Khalīfat
Allāh Abū Sa‛īd Mas‛ūd b. Yamīn al-Dawla [Walī]Amīr al-Mu’minīn,
God’s Mercy upon Them Both! 102
The Rule of Amir Shihāb al-Dīn wa ’l-Dawla wa-Qut.b al-Milla
Abu ’l-Fath. Mawdūd b. Nās.ir Dīn Allāh Mas‛ūd b. Mah.mūd,
God’s Mercy upon Them Both! 112

Notes 115
Select Bibliography 149
Indices 155
1 Persons, peoples, tribes 155
2 Places 163
3 Technical Terms 167
4 Book titles 169

Prelims.indd ix 7/10/2009 1:39:34 PM

Prelims.indd x 7/10/2009 1:39:34 PM
 C ONTENTS xi

PREFACE AND
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Having completed, after some eight years’ work on it, my translation of and
commentary on Bayhaqī’s Tārīkh-i Mas‛ūdī (see below, pp. 9–10), it seemed to me
worthwhile attempting a similar task – one fortunately less arduous – for the other
contemporary source for the sultanates of Mas‛ūd and his immediate successors in
Ghazna, the Zayn al-akhbār of Gardīzī. Gardīzī’s section on the Ghaznavids actually
forms part of an extended history of the successive rulers in Khurasan and the
Islamic East from early caliphal days until the author’s own time. The translation
given here is accompanied by a commentary, one which is, however, on a less
detailed scale than that provided for the Bayhaqī translation; nevertheless it will, I
trust, be adequate for the comprehension of Gardīzī’s narrative and its place in the
general history of the Eastern Islamic lands. Ideally, the task of making available in
translation the contemporary sources on the early Ghaznavids should be completed
by a version of al-‛Utbī’s recounting of the origins of the Ghaznavid dynasty and the
first two-thirds of Mah.mūd’s reign, in his al-Ta’rīkh al-yamīnī; but tackling al-‛Utbī’s
florid and discursive Arabic must be left to a future labourer in the Eastern Islamic
vineyard.
It is especially fitting that this book should appear in the publication series of
the British Institute of Persian Studies, for whose journal Iran I have acted as
Co-Editor for over forty years (surely a record in journal editorship!), and I am
grateful for the encouragement of colleagues at the Institute in putting the present
book together.
Various other colleagues have helped me by providing items of information,
sending me copies of books and articles, etc.; I am much indebted to them all.
They include: Mr Mel Dadswell (Chudleigh Knighton, Devon); Dr Farhad Daftary
(Institute of Ismaili Studies, London); Professor Geert Jan Van Gelder (Oxford
University); Professor Peter Golden (Rutgers University, N.J.); Dr Pavel Lurye
(Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Vienna); Professor Nicholas Sims-
Williams (School of Oriental and African Studies, London); Dr Luke Treadwell
(Oxford University); and M. Étienne de la Vaissière (ENS Laboratoire d’archéologie,
Paris). These are specifically thanked in the appropriate places, but I am especially

Prelims.indd xi 7/10/2009 1:39:34 PM

 xii P REFACE ANDCA
ONTENTS
CKNOWLEDGEMENTS xii

obliged to Dr Daftary and to Mr François de Blois (School of Oriental and African

Studies, London) who have advised on certain problematic words and passages
of Gardīzī’s text. But as always, the buck stops with the author himself, to whose
account any imperfections must be laid.

C. Edmund Bosworth
Castle Cary, Somerset

Prelims.indd xii 7/10/2009 1:39:34 PM

 C ONTENTS xiii

ABBREVIATIONS OF JOURNALS,
BOOKS, ETC. CITED

AEMAe Archivum Eurasiae Medii Aevi (Wiesbaden)

AOHung Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientarum Hungaricae (Budapest)
BGA Bibliotheca Geographicorum Arabicorum (Leiden)
BSOAS Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies (London)
CAJ Central Asiatic Journal (The Hague, Wiesbaden)
CHIr The Cambridge History of Iran (Cambridge)
EI2 Encyclopaedia of Islam, second edition (Leiden)
EIr Encyclopaedia Iranica (New York)
GMS E.J.W. Gibb Memorial Series (Leiden, London)
H H.abībī’s text of the Zayn al-akhbār
IQ Islamic Quarterly (London)
Iran JBIPS Iran, Journal of the British Institute of Persian Studies (London)
Isl. Der Islam (Strassburg-Berlin, Leipzig-Berlin)
IsMEO Istituto Italiano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente (Rome)
JESHO Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient (Leiden)
JRAS Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society (London)
M Rid.āzāda Malik’s text of the Zayn al-akhbār
MW The Muslim World (Hartford, Conn.)
N Nazim’s text of the Zayn al-akhbār
RSO Revista degli Studi Orientali (Rome)
SBWAW Sitzungsberichte der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Wien
(Vienna)
St.Ir. Studia Iranica (Paris)

Prelims.indd xiii 7/10/2009 1:39:34 PM

Prelims.indd xiv 7/10/2009 1:39:34 PM
 INTRODUCTION

The author of the ‘Ornament of Histories’, Abū Sa‛īd ‛Abd al-H.ayy b. al-D . ah.h.āk
b. Mah.mūd Gardīzī, is a most shadowy figure. He must have been connected with
the early Ghaznavid court or bureaucracy, and he claims to have been present at
many significant events involving the military exploits of his masters (see below),
although it is strange that neither of his fellow-historians, Abū Nas.r ‛Utbī (who
was admittedly of an older generation, probably dying in the last decade of Sultan
Mah.mūd’s reign), nor Abu ’l-Fad.l Bayhaqī (who died in 470/1077, hence may
well have been a fairly exact contemporary of Gardīzī) mentions him. It seems very
improbable that he did not know Bayhaqī at least, working as Gardīzī obviously
did at the Ghaznavid court.1 Our Gardīzī may perhaps have been a relative of
the Abū Mursil b. Mans.ūr b. Aflah. Gardīzī who brought back to Nishapur from
the caliph al-Qādir’s court at Baghdad an investiture patent for Sultan Mas‛ūd b.
Mah.mūd (see below, p. 99). He presumably stemmed from Zābulistān, the Ghazna–
Gardīz region of what is now eastern Afghanistan, as indicated not only by his nisba
but perhaps also by the name of his father (if al-D . ah.h.āk is here an arabisation of
(Azhi) Zahāka, the tyrant who in Iranian legend overthrew Jamshīd, nevertheless
popular in the lore of the far eastern fringes of Khurasan). The only rough dates
that we have for Gardīzī’s life are those of the reign of Sultan ‛Abd al-Rashīd b.
Mah.mūd (r. ?440–43/?1049–52), whom Gardīzī mentions in the historical section
of his book as his sovereign, to whom he was dedicating the work; but when Gardīzī
was actually born and died is unknown. The book’s title Zayn al-akhbār is apparently
a kināya or allusion to ‛Abd al-Rashīd’s honorific title Zayn al-Milla ‘Ornament of the
Religious Community’. The only contemporary personal and intellectual connection
one may suggest with some confidence is with the great Abu ’l-Rayh.ān al-Bīrūnī
and his Tah.qīq mā li ’l-Hind and al-Āthār al-bāqiya, since Gardīzī states that he heard
information directly from him2 and the material for his chronological tables stems
largely from the Khwarazmian scholar.3
The ‘Ornament of Histories’ is a mélange of information, historical, geographical
and ethnographical such as would be of interest to the ruling official and scholarly
classes of the Eastern Iranian world; if for nothing else, it would be noteworthy as the
first work in New Persian to combine general history with specifically dynastic history.

Introduction.indd 1 7/10/2009 1:33:45 PM

 2 T HE O RNAMENT OF H ISTORIES

The Turkish ethnic origins of the house of Sebüktegin and the raids into northern
India of the Amirs would explain Gardīzī’s appending sections on the Turkish tribes
of Inner Asia and Eastern Europe and on the festivals and religious and philosophi-
cal sects of the Indians to the more strictly historical part of the book. This historical
part plunges in medias res, since a presumed preface or exordium has been lost from the
manuscripts (on which, see below), with the legendary Persian kings, the Arsacids and
the Sasanid emperors. It continues with a sketchy account of the Islamic caliphs up to
Gardīzī’s contemporary al-Qā’im (acceded in 422/1031) until the author gets to what
obviously interested him most, the history of the Arab governors in the East from
‛Abdallāh b. ‛Āmir (governor of Basra and the East 29–44/649–64) onwards and the
subsequent rulers there, still nominally agents of the caliphs but in practice increas-
ingly independent. After dealing in some detail with the events surrounding the fall of
Umayyad rule in Khurasan, the rise and career of Abū Muslim, and the establishment
of the ‛Abbasid Revolution there, the story of the successive governors continues
till the time of the civil war between Hārūn al-Rashīd’s sons al-Amīn and al-Ma’mūn,
with the latter’s eventual victory organised from his base in Khurasan. Al-Ma’mūn’s
rule merges into sections on the Tahirid governors in Khurasan, the Saffarid brothers
Ya‛qūb and ‛Amr b. Layth, the Samanid amirs of Transoxania and Khurasan, and the
early Ghaznavids.
Gardīzī is thus essentially concerned with the Mashriq, the Greater Khurasan
which, as Bert Fragner has stressed, emerged in the early Islamic period as a region in
its own right, as against the Western Persia of the ‘two Iraqs’, sc. the old Media, Persis
and Azerbaijan which formed ‛Irāq-i ‛Ajam, ‘Persian Iraq’, and the Mesopotamian
lands of the preceding Persian empires from the Achaemenids to the Sasanids form-
ing ‛Irāq-i ‛Arab.4 This Greater Khurasan straddled the Oxus – now no longer seen
as a separating and dividing boundary, and never in any case a serious obstacle for the
movement of peoples and armies – and included not only eastern Persia and what
is now modern Afghanistan, but also Transoxania, with its heartland of the former
Sogdia, and regions connected with it culturally, ethnically and linguistically such as
Khwarazm and the Syr Darya provinces like Chāch, Īlāq, Ushrūsana and Farghāna.
Gardīzī’s account of the history of the Mashriq, and especially that of the Samanids
up to ca. AD 950, is particularly valuable in that it apparently enshrines material from
the lost Ta’rīkh Wulāt Khurāsān of Abū ‛Alī al-H.usayn al-Sallāmī, a protégé of the
Muh.tājids of Chaghāniyān (flor. in the middle decades of the fourth/tenth century),
judging by the material common both to Gardīzī and the chronicle of Ibn al-Athīr;5
though both these historians’ sources for the last decades of the fourth/tenth century
and the demise of Samanid rule towards its end remain unclear.6 It is also conceivable
that Gardīzī took some information from another lost work, a Kitāb Kharāj Khurāsān
by H.afs. b. Mans.ūr al-Marwazī, a secretary of Hārūn al-Rashīd’s governor in Khurasan
‛Alī b. ‛Īsā b. Māhān (in post there 180–91/796–807), although nothing whatever is
known about this treatise on the tax system of Khurasan apart from Gardīzī’s mention
of its name.7
In recounting the earliest history of Islam, Gardīzī deals with the four Patriarchal
Caliphs only cursorily, and gives a neutral and dispassionate treatment of ‛Uthmān

Introduction.indd 2 7/10/2009 1:34:11 PM

 I NTRODUCTION 3

and ‛Alī (without even a mention of the controversial topic of ‛Uthmān’s murder by
the rebel Egyptian troops), accounts of these two reigns being normally a touchstone
of an Islamic author’s personal religious and sectarian attitudes. ‛Uthmān is accorded
the tard.iya, ‘May God be pleased with him’, after his name, the normal convention for
caliphs (it is, however, true that Gardīzī gives a conventional imprecation after the
name of the Umayyad Yazīd b. Mu‛āwiya, in whose reign the Third Imam of the Shī‛a,
al-H.usayn b. ‛Alī b. Abī T.ālib, was killed). Gardīzī is in general respectful towards the
‛Alids, but not particularly enthusiastic about them, and his retelling of episodes in
which they figure, such as the numerous revolts of ‛Alid pretenders, is set forth in a
non-partisan tone. The reigns of the four Patriarchal Caliphs are described as khilāfats,
but those of the Umayyads as wilāyats only, and the term khalīfat reappears only with
the first ‛Abbāsid al-Saffāh.; whether Gardīzī is echoing here the attitudes and practices
of a post-‛Abbasid period writer like al-Sallāmī is unknown but seems possible. The
story of the ‛Abbasid caliphs is continued, in very summary fashion for the period of
less-and-less effective caliphs between al-Ma’mūn and al-Mu‛tad.id, up to Gardīzī’s
own time, hence ending with the reign of al-Qā’im (succeeded in 422/1031).
Julie Meisami has noted that a general thread running through Gardīzī’s History
is the transfer of power in the Islamic East.8 This starts with the overthrow of the
Sasanids, whose emperors had in general been arrogant and tyrannical, by the Arabs.
It proceeds through the replacement of the Umayyads, whose rule is implicitly char-
acterised as a mere mulk and not a divinely buttressed khilāfat, by the ‛Abbasids, with
detail on the role of the Umayyad governors in Khurasan, in particular with that of the
last governor, Nas.r b. Sayyār, and the tribal conflicts and animosities which heralded
the downfall of Umayyad rule there. Gardīzī’s thus far matter-of-fact narrative takes
on an accelerated, livelier tone when he deals, at considerable length, with the role of
Abū Muslim al-Khurāsānī in the planning and eventual success of the ‛Abbasid da‛wa
in Khurasan, and then with his fall and execution at the hands of the jealous and suspi-
cious second ‛Abbasid caliph al-Mans.ūr; the narrative here includes many references
to prophetic and apocalyptic lore prefiguring these events. The next cataclysmic event
in the history of the Islamic East, the transfer of the caliphate from the hedonistic,
lightweight al-Amīn to his serious and virtuous brother al-Ma’mūn, is dealt with in
less detail, though there is an account of the attack on Baghdad by al-Ma’mūn’s gen-
eral T.āhir b. al-H.usayn and the subsequent killing of al-Amīn which casts the latter,
founder of the subsequent line of Tahirid governors in Khurasan, in a neutral light.
Meisami has further noted that Gardīzī seems to have a special interest in recount-
ing the messianic and heterodox movements which occur so frequently in the course
of Persian history, beginning with brief mentions of the movements of Mani and
Mazdak in Sasanid times and going into some detail with certain of the early Islamic
outbreaks, such as those arising in the wake of Abū Muslim’s meteoric career and
violent death: those in Khurasan and Transoxania of Bihāfarīd, Ustadsīs, al-Muqanna‛
and various anti-‛Abbasid ‘Wearers of White’. As with other historians showing a
similar concern, Gardīzī’s motive was doubtless to emphasise the good Islamic ruler’s
duty to God in upholding the true faith and in suppressing false prophets and religious
dissidence; it may also be, as Meisami suggests, that Gardīzī was consciously providing

Introduction.indd 3 7/10/2009 1:34:12 PM

 4 T HE O RNAMENT OF H ISTORIES

a background for the depiction of Mah.mūd of Ghazna as the suppressor of heresy

within his own empire and as the great ghāzī and hammer of infidels in the Indian
subcontinent.9
Apart from the fairly brief, atypical interlude of Saffarid domination in the East,
whose short-lived control of Khurasan was ended by the more virtuous Samanid
Ismā‛īl b. Ah.mad, Gardīzī’s narrative moves on from the Tahirids to the penultimate
stage of power transfers there, the century or so of the Samanids in Transoxania
and Khurasan, before the culmination of the History is reached in the Ghaznavids.
Gardīzī has little on the general history of the Samanid dynasty that is not found in
other sources like the local historian of Bukhara, Narshakhī, and the later Ibn al-Athīr,
but he is, with al-‛Utbī (see below), the main contemporary or near-contemporary
source on the mounting chaos in Khurasan and the rivalries of the various contenders
for power there, as the Samanid amirate disintegrated under both internal and external
pressures, with the Ghaznavids emerging as a new dawla or change in the succession of
dynasties and as bringers of a new order in the lands south of the Oxus.
Gardīzī has no information on the Turkish ghulām predecessors of Sebüktegin in
Ghazna after the Samanid commander Alptegin’s withdrawal from Bukhara to the
far eastern periphery of the empire in 351/962, and his material on the career of
Sebüktegin is fragmentary and is interwoven with the story of the last Samanid amirs.
His connected, chronological account of the Ghaznavids really begins with Mah.mūd
b. Sebüktegin’s victory in 388/998 over his brother Ismā‛īl after a succession strug-
gle and his investiture with the governorship of Khurasan by the caliph al-Qādir in
389/999, the beginning of the de facto independent Ghaznavid state. In the preface
to his account of Mah.mūd’s reign, Gardīzī sets out his qualifications for his task as
historian, prominent amongst which is the fact that he had been a first-hand observer
of many of the events concerned. He avers that the greater part of his chronicle here
is based on what he saw with his own eyes, including the Amir’s campaigns in India, in
Sistan, in Khurasan and in Western Persia, but that he has nevertheless been selective
in what he has set down, aiming at concision and hoping to avoid longwindedness.10
Given this last aim, it is not surprising that Gardīzī’s account of the early Ghaznavids,
running from the rise to power of Mah.mūd to the opening of his grandson Mawdūd’s
reign, hence spanning less than five decades, is mostly a bare chronicle of events,
although he does expatiate on a lavishly staged event like the meeting of Mah.mūd
with his ally, the Qarakhanid Great Khān Yūsuf Qadïr Khān, with such corroborative
detail that one surmises that the author was either himself present or had first-hand
information from someone who was there (see below, pp. 91–2). It may thus be said
that, in general, Gardīzī’s historical narrative lacks the enlivening comments on events
and the analyses of human motivation regarding the sultans, their Turkish command-
ers and their Persian bureaucrats, that we find in the extremely detailed, gossipy, often
day-to-day account of Sultan Mas‛ūd’s reign found in Bayhaqī, but Gardīzī shares
with Bayhaqī an aversion from fantastic and legendary adornments to his narrative.
Virtually nothing of Gardīzī’s own personality or attitude to events comes through,
beyond such occasional conventionalities and hypocrisies, unavoidable for a servant
of the regime, as eulogies of the sultans (he praises Mah.mūd’s ascent to power as

Introduction.indd 4 7/10/2009 1:34:12 PM

 I NTRODUCTION 5

an effortless rise, achieved without any deceitfulness, trampling on people or blood-

shed!), and his referring to Mas‛ūd (whose being killed through an army coup could
be taken as one of the normal hazards of rulership in medieval Islam) as the ‘Martyr
Sultan’.
Nevertheless, his account of Ghaznavid history is in certain places quite detailed,
as when he describes, at considerable length and with much circumstantial detail,
Mah.mūd’s crossing in 415/1024 of the Oxus north of Balkh by means of a bridge
of boats chained together and the Sultan’s subsequent meeting to the south of
Samarqand in 416/1025 with Yūsuf Qadïr Khān b. Bughrā Khān Hārūn or H.asan,
and the subsequent exchange of luxurious presents (see below, pp. 91–2); it is likely
that Gardīzī accompanied the Ghaznavid army and was a first-hand witness to these
events. The Zayn al-akhbār is liberally provided with dates, often with month and day
specified, most of which appear in fact to be accurate. For the first two-thirds of
Mah.mūd’s reign it supplements, in a much more judicious, straightforward and read-
able manner, the ornate and often opaque Arabic account of al-‛Utbī in his al-Kitāb
al-yamīnī, which was probably completed in its present form, Peacock has suggested,
at some point between 413/1022 and 416/1025, certainly before the fall from office
of Mah.mūd’s vizier Ah.mad b. H.asan Maymandī in 416/1025.11 Gardīzī’s account of
Mas‛ūd’s reign deals with the new sultan’s administrative and military changes, the
replacement of men of the former regime, the Mah.mūdiyān or Pidariyān, with ‘new
men’, the Naw-khāstagān or upstarts, Mas‛ūd’s own creatures; and also with his Indian
campaigns and the suppression of Ah.mad [b.] Ināltegin’s rebellion there. These merge
into the crisis of the latter part of his reign, the story of the growing ascendancy of the
Seljuqs in Khurasan and their ultimate victory at Dandānqān. Naturally, his account
of these happenings cannot compare with Bayhaqī’s enormously detailed treatment
of the events, yet there is a special value in Gardīzī’s story of the two brief reigns of
Muh.ammad b. Mah.mūd (421/1030 and 432/1041), for the extant books of Bayhaqī’s
Mujalladāt only deal with the first reign as the curtain-raiser for Mas‛ūd’s reign, and
break off before the killing of Mas‛ūd by his mutinous troops and their raising to
power Muh.ammad for his momentary, second reign.
It is regrettable that Gardīzī’s extant narrative ends with Mawdūd’s accession and
triumphal avenging of his father in 432/1041, so that we do not possess accounts from
him of the reign of Mawdūd and of those of his two ephemeral, shadowy successors
Mas‛ūd (II) b. Mawdūd and ‛Alī b. Mas‛ūd (II), or of his own patron ‛Abd al-Rashīd,
especially as these reigns are not well documented in the other historical sources.12
The narrative of the manuscripts ends abruptly with Mawdūd’s execution of those
involved in his father’s death; it is possible that Gardīzī carried it on for another ten
years or so up to ‛Abd al-Rashīd’s reign, or he may have been prevented from achiev-
ing this by the usurpation of the slave commander T.oghrïl and the violent end of his
sovereign in 443/1051–52;13 all this, however, is speculation.14
Gardīzī’s Persian style is simple and straightforward, even dry, though not without
difficulties in a few places, whose resolution is probably rendered more hazardous by
the absence of any early manuscripts. The two surviving ones of the Zayn al-akhbār,
both probably copied in India, are not very satisfactory. The date of the first and better

Introduction.indd 5 7/10/2009 1:34:12 PM

 6 T HE O RNAMENT OF H ISTORIES

one, that of King’s College, Cambridge, is uncertain but is very probably sixteenth or
seventeenth century. The Bodleian, Oxford, one bears the incontestable late date of
1196/1781. It is inferior to the Cambridge one in accuracy, and it seems that either the
Oxford ms. was copied from the Cambridge one or else both were copied from a now-
lost common source.15 In effect, we are dependent on a unique manuscript, which
itself has lacunae in various places, the most serious ones being the loss of the preface
or exordium and the historical section’s ending (see above). We have in any case a gap
of some four centuries or more between the time when Gardīzī wrote and the oldest
extant manuscript was made (a gap comparable to that existing for the more numer-
ous manuscripts of Bayhaqī). The extreme paucity of extant manuscripts of Gardīzī’s
work must be a reflection of the fact that, produced as it was on the far eastern fringes
of the Islamic world, it seems to have been little known to subsequent generations of
historians and udabā’ in the Persian and Indo-Muslim lands of later times, hence it was
not until E.H. Palmer in 1868 published a catalogue of the oriental manuscripts of
King’s College, Cambridge, that either Western or modern Persian scholars began to
be aware of its existence.16
By the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, Persian or, more likely, Indo-Muslim
copyists had lost familiarity with the Persian vocabulary and style of half-a-millen-
nium before, and inevitably could only guess at the correct forms of many Turkish
and Indian names.17 Gardīzī’s style was described by Malik al-Shu‛arā’ Bahār as ‘very
mature and flowing’ (bisyār pukhta wa rawān), and he attached it to an earlier period of
New Persian style than that discernible in Bayhaqī, one more closely resembling that
of the Samanid vizier and translator Bal‛amī in the previous century.18 Gilbert Lazard
has noted that the conditions under which the text was transmitted are not favourable
to the analysis of the Zayn al-akhbār for its linguistic content, but that the text neverthe-
less does not seem to have been subjected systematically to what its scribes thought
was a modernisation (as is clearly the case with the manuscripts of Bayhaqī’s History,
also only known from late manuscripts). There remain archaic features of vocabulary
and rare expressions. Forms like hamī as the verbal prefix for continual or habitual
action; the preposition andar for dar; and the use of mar . . . rā before complements
of verbs, with a resultant meaning often much wider than that of simple direct and
indirect object, are frequently to be found.19 Gardīzī’s vocabulary is largely Persian,
with few Arabic words, and those mainly of an Islamic religious and cultural nature;
it is indeed more strongly Persian than the vocabulary of Bayhaqī. God is always
Khudā or Īzad and never Allāh; Muh.ammad is almost always the Payghambar, and only
occasionally the Rasūl [Allāh]. In the stylistic field, one notes touches like the fre-
quent use of more euphemistic terms for death, e.g. farmān yāft ‘he received the Divine
Summons’ and wafāt ‘fulfilment of one’s life span’ for rulers and other exalted figures,
whereas more ordinary persons just ‘die’ (murdan).20 Gardīzī’s use of the conventional
pious phrases after person’s names (the tas.liya, taslīm, the tarh.īm, the tard. iya, etc.) is
restrained.21 Interesting is his occasional use of phrases which show the beginnings
of the penetration of basically Arabic expressions into the vocabulary of standard
Persian, such as sana-yi hādhihi for ‘this present year’.22 A further notable feature of
Gardīzī’s sober style is the absence from his narrative of poetical citations, in contrast

Introduction.indd 6 7/10/2009 1:34:13 PM

 I NTRODUCTION 7

to the more expansive and literary style of his contemporary Bayhaqī; the extant por-
tion of Bayhaqī’s History has no fewer than 473 lines of Arabic and Persian verse.23
The present translation has been made essentially on the basis of H.abībī’s text, the
first edition of Gardīzī approaching completeness (but see below). The first scholar
to publish any part of the Zayn al-akhbār was Wilhelm Barthold/V.V. Bartol’d in his
Otchet o poyezdkye v Srednyuyu Aziyu (St. Petersburg, 1897), pp. 78–103,24 and in the
volume of texts to accompany his chef d’œuvre, Turkestan v epokhu mongolskago nash-
estviya (St. Petersburg, 1900), Vol. 1, pp. 1–18 (these last texts are not included in Sir
E. Denison Ross’s English translation in the Gibb Memorial Series, Turkestan down
to the Mongol Invasion [London, 1928]). A substantial section of the historical part of
the work, covering the rulers in Khurasan from the Tahirids to the Ghaznavids, was
edited by Muhammad Nazim (E.G. Browne Memorial Series, 1, Berlin-Steglitz, 1928).
Nazim’s work had a certain virtue in that it emanated from an Indo-Muslim editor
who was able to interpret and make sense of many place and personal names in the
accounts of the Indian campaigns of Mah.mūd and Mas‛ūd, and he used Gardīzī’s
information here for his book of three years later, The Life and Times of Sult.ān Mah.mūd
of Ghazna. His version of the text was, however, far from adequate from the philologi-
cal point of view, and was the target of savage criticism by the Persian scholar Mīrzā
Muh.ammad Qazwīnī, who characterised its editor as stupid (ah.maq), unlettered
(bīsawād ) and ignorant (nādānā). Qazwīnī himself produced his own edition of this
same section of Gardīzī at Tehran in 1315/1937, and in 1333/1954 Sa‛īd Nafīsī pub-
lished at Tehran his text of the historical section of Gardīzī from the Sasanids up to
the beginning of the Samanids; these two publications marked a significant advance in
achieving a reliable text for this section.
But a critical edition of the greater part of the work was only secured by the Afghan
scholar, the late ‛Abd al-H.ayy H.abībī, who produced a text, in elegant ta‛līq calligraphy,
at Tehran in 1347/1968, with various appendices, including the texts of the prefaces
by Qazwīnī and Nafīsī to their editions. For the historical section of the book, H.abībī
built on Nafīsī’s work and often cites it in his apparatus criticus; in a few places, Nafīsī’s
reading has nevertheless seemed to the present writer to be the better of the two.25 As
both K. Czeglédy and A.P. Martinez have observed in their valuable studies concern-
ing Gardīzī’s information on the Turks of Inner Asia, H.abībī’s text is a most meritori-
ous work based on a careful, critical examination of the two manuscripts, although
the editor was often defeated by non-Arabic or non-Persian geographical, ethnic and
tribal names through his failure to consult Barthold’s printed texts (see above) and
subsequent translations of these sections by scholars like Count Géza Kuun, Josef
Marquart/Markwart and C.A. Macartney.26 H.abībī did with profit consult Minorsky’s
H.udūd al-‛ālam translation and commentary, and he added materials from this to his
knowledge of the historical geography and topography of his native Afghanistan,
and also used Minorsky’s article, ‘Gardīzī on India’, in BSOAS XII (1947–9),
pp. 625–40. However, he did not apparently have access to Sharaf al-Zamān T.āhir
Marvazī on China, the Turks and India (London, 1942), in which Minorsky edited and
translated the sections on these Inner Eurasian peoples and regions from the T.abā’i‛
al-h.ayawān of the Seljuq period, late fifth/eleventh and early sixth/twelfth century

Introduction.indd 7 7/10/2009 1:34:13 PM

 8 T HE O RNAMENT OF H ISTORIES

author Sharaf al-Zamān T.āhir; this writer made considerable use of Gardīzī in these
sections but also derived material from other, unspecified sources. Nor did H.abībī con-
sult the geographical section which survives of Ibn Rusta’s al-A‛lāq al-nafīsa (probably
written between 290/903 and 300/913) and which contains important sections on the
Byzantines, the Slavs, the Rus, the Magyars, the Turkish lands, India, etc. These caveats
apart, H.abībī’s work (reprinted at Tehran in 1363/1984 but now with the calligraphic
section set up in type) was a solid, scholarly achievement, and over the last forty or so
years it has formed a firm basis for utilisation of the Zayn al-akhbār by Islamic histori-
ans and by researchers on the ethnogenesis of the Turks and other steppe peoples, the
religions of India, questions of festivals, dating and chronology, etc.
However, in 1384/2005, a fresh edition of the whole work by Rah.īm Rid.āzāda
Malik appeared at Tehran under the auspices of the Anjuman-i Āthār wa Mafākhir-i
Farhangī (pp. 72 + 636).27 This has a substantial Introduction which inter alia surveys
previous work on Gardīzī’s text. The editor then provides for the first time a complete
edited text (H.abībī had omitted opening sections on the creation of the world and on
the prophets and also a brief amount of matter at its end, and had inserted his own
arbitrary renumbering of the work’s sections and subsections),28 with an attempted
restoration of contemporary orthography, e.g. with intervocalic and post-vocalic
dh for d. There are detailed and useful indices, with biographical details for prominent
personages, and some ta‛līqāt on certain specific topics or citing parallel passages, such
as the account from Muh.ammad b. al-Munawwar’s Asrār al-tawh.īd fī maqāmāt al-Shaykh
Abī Sa‛īd on the coming of the Seljuqs to Bāvard and Mayhana. However, there is
virtually no apparatus criticus (the essential work here having been admittedly done by
H.abībī and not requiring repetition), and this means that many small discrepancies of
Rid.āzāda Malik’s text with H.abībī’s – involving changes of words, different interpre-
tations of consonant ductus and even additional or missing words and phrases – are
unsupported and their rationale unexplained. Occasionally, Rid.āzāda Malik’s interpre-
tation has been adopted in the present translation (this being stated in the notes), but
on the whole, and certainly for this historical section of the Zayn al-akhbār, his text
does not replace that of H.abībī.
A rough English ms. translation by Major H.G. Raverty (who must have been the
first Western scholar ever to utilise Gardīzī’s work) of nearly the whole work, as pre-
served in the Cambridge ms., is mentioned by Storey, by his time deposited in what
was the India Office Library (now incorporated within the British Library, London).
Raverty presumably made this in connection with his magnum opus, his translation
of and very discursive and idiosyncratic commentary on the History by an author
from the period of the first Slave Kings of Delhi, Minhāj al-Dīn Jūzjānī’s T.abaqāt-i
nās.irī.29 A Russian translation of the section of Gardīzī’s work concerning the his-
tory of Khurasan, from the first governorship of ‛Abdallāh b. ‛Āmir b. Kurayz to the
demise of Sultan Mas‛ūd of Ghazna, was made by A.K. Arends (already known as the
translator into Russian of Bayhaqī’s History). Arends, however, died in 1976 with the
bare translation that he had made, essentially from Sa‛īd Nafīsī’s edition (see above)
still unpublished and with only an incomplete introduction. The Uzbek Academy
of Sciences gained possession of Arends’s manuscript and commissioned a former

Introduction.indd 8 7/10/2009 1:34:13 PM

 I NTRODUCTION 9

student of his, L.M. Epifanova, to put this into publishable form. She checked his
translation against H.abībī’s text, completed the introduction and added some notes, so
that the complete work was at last published as Zain al-akhbar. Ukrashenie izvestiy. Razdel
ob istorii Khorasana (Uzbekistan Academy of Sciences, Tashkent, 1991).30 However,
the rarity of copies of this book in Western libraries, published as it was in the Uzbek
Republic in a limited number of copies, and the inaccessibility of works written in
the Russian language to many scholars and researchers anyway, have seemed to the
present writer ample justification for the present work, one which has been made
independently of its Russian predecessor.
In the historical section of his work whose translation is the subject of the present
book, Gardīzī and his copyists were dealing with a section of eastern Iranian history
whose personal and place names were largely familiar to them, except when they came
up against the Turkish names of various military slave commanders and against Indian
geographical names and personal names and titles, prominent in the recounting of
Ghaznavid raids into the subcontinent. Nazim’s efforts towards the elucidation of
these last has already been noted, but of more recent importance have been the work
of Minorsky mentioned above and that of S.H. Hodivala, even though the latter does
not deal specifically with the Zayn al-akhbār (as implied above, not known to the schol-
arly world when Elliot and Dowson put together in the mid-nineteenth century their
collection of English translations bearing on the history of the subcontinent). The
usefulness of the work of Nazim and Hodivala may be supplemented by the more
recent study, specifically of Mas‛ūd’s campaigns into India, by Nazir Ahmad.31
The notes which accompany the present translation are not intended to provide a
thoroughgoing commentary on the text and its historical background; such a com-
mentary on four centuries of Eastern Islamic history could well be of an enormous
size. The notes here are meant merely to render the period and its events intelligible
in a summary fashion; and in general, studies and translations are given rather than
the primary sources, which may be traced from the historical works mentioned below.
H.abībī’s edition has a detailed apparatus criticus, and variants are only noted here
when they affect the meaning of the passage in question and when they concern the
correct forms of personal or place names, for which H.abībī did not always have the
best information. The studies of various scholars on the history of Khurasan and the
East during the four centuries or so covered by this section of Gardīzī (Wellhausen,
Marquart, Barthold, Gibb, Nāz.im, Shaban, Sharon, Daniel, Kaabi, Bosworth, etc.)
are well known, and these works are all thoroughly documented; moreover, a more
recent generation of scholars like Patricia Crone, Matthew Gordon, Étienne de la
Vaissière, Luke Treadwell and Deborah Tor is adding new insights into particular,
under-researched aspects of the period. Reference will be made to such studies, but
without repetition of the primary sources on which they are based. For the end of
the Samanids and the early Ghaznavid period, a very detailed commentary on the
greater part of the relevant events – since Bayhaqī has many anecdotal flashbacks
to what happened before Mas‛ūd assumed the throne from his brother Muh.ammad,
with stories on aspects of Samanid history, on the seizure of power in Khurasan
by Sebüktegin and Mah.mūd during the last years of Samanid rule, on Mah.mūd’s

Introduction.indd 9 7/10/2009 1:34:13 PM

 10 T HE O RNAMENT OF H ISTORIES

annexation of Khwarazm, etc. – is given in the translation by the present author

of the The History of Beyhaqi (The History of Sultan Mas‛ud of Ghazna, 1030–1041) by
Abu ’l-Fazl Beyhaqi, 3 vols. (New York, 2009), and reference may be made to this, to
the commentary that forms vol. 3 and to the extensive bibliography given at vol. 3,
pp. 399–420.

Introduction.indd 10 7/10/2009 1:34:14 PM

 TRANSLATION OF THE TEXT

Part 1.indd 11 7/10/2009 1:34:56 PM

Part 1.indd 12 7/10/2009 1:35:02 PM
 PART ONE: THE ARAB
GOVERNORS

[M 156]
[Chapter Ten]Concerning the Table of
the Governors of Khurasan
In regard to the governors of Khurasan, in ancient times a different arrangement
prevailed. From the time of Afrīdūn to that of Ardashīr Bābakān, there used to be one
single military commander (sipāhsālār) for the whole [Persian] world. When Ardashīr
came to power, he appointed four military commanders for the [Persian] world: one
for Khurasan; one for the western lands (i.e. Fars and Khuzistan); one for Nīmrūz
(i.e. Sistan); and one for Azerbaijan. He appointed four wardens of the marches
(marzbāns) for Khurasan: one for Marw Shāyigān; one for Balkh and Tukhāristān;
one for Transoxania; and one for Herat, Pūshang and Bādghīs.1 When the Muslims
seized control of the Persian realm and Khurasan passed into the Muslims’ hands, all
those customs and practices of the Magians (mughān) were swept away.
During the time of our Prophet, may God pray over him and grant him peace,
the Muslims had not extended their domination over Khurasan, nor likewise in the
caliphate of Abū Bakr S.iddīq, may God Most High be pleased with him. When ‛Umar,
may God Most High be pleased with him, succeeded to the caliphate, he sent Khālid
b. al-Walīd to the Persian lands to subdue them. When Khālid reached the plain of
Qādisiyya, the Persian army advanced towards him on the orders of Yazdajird b.
Shahriyār, and the commander of the army was Rustam b. Farrukh. A battle took
place there, and the adherents of Islam were victorious. They defeated the Magians
and made large numbers of them captive, selling them as slaves. Yazdajird fled and was
killed at Marw Shāhigān. The Muslim forces entered Iraq (i.e. ‛Irāq-i ‛Ajamī, western
Persia) and continued onwards in the same fashion, continually conquering cities, till
they reached Khurasan.
During ‛Umar’s caliphate, no-one penetrated as far as Khurasan. When ‛Uthmān,
may God be pleased with him, succeeded to the caliphate, he sent ‛Abdallāh b. ‛Āmir
b. Kurayz to Khurasan. ‛Abdallāh b. ‛Āmir sent ‛Abdallāh b. Khāzim as commander
of his advance guard. They (i.e. the Muslim troops) went by the Fars, [M 157] Kirman
(text, Gurgān) and T.abasayn road.2 They subdued the T.abasayn, and the people of the

Part 1.indd 13 7/10/2009 1:35:02 PM

 14 T HE O RNAMENT OF H ISTORIES

T.abasayn became the first ones of Khurasan to become Muslims. After him, other
governors kept coming and made various conquests, up to the present time.
I have set down here the names of each governor and the cities of each adminis-
trative region; the names of the caliphs during the time of their tenure of power; the
duration of each governorship; and the date of the beginning of each governorship.
I have put them into tabular form here so that the information may be more speedily
found and more easily come to hand. The table is as follows:

[Here Gardīzī inserts his table, at H 93–8, M 157–9, with a total of seventy-six
entries, from ‛Abdallāh b. ‛Āmir b. Kurayz to his patron the Ghaznavid Sultan
‛Abd al-Rashīd.]

[H 101, M 160]
Chapter Eleven Concerning the Historical Accounts of
the Governors of Khurasan
I shall now relate the historical accounts concerning the governors of Khurasan in the
same order as I set them down in the table. Success comes from God!

‛Abdallāh b. ‛Āmir b. Kurayz

He was ‛Abdallāh b. ‛Āmir b. Kurayz b. Rabī‛a b. H.abīb b. ‛Abd Shams.3 ‛Uthmān b.
‛Affān, may God be pleased with him, had made Abū Mūsā al-Ash‛arī governor of
Basra, but he now took the charge away from him and gave it to ‛Abdallāh b. ‛Āmir,
entrusting to him the governorship of Khurasan also. ‛Abdallāh b. ‛Āmir sent forward
‛Abdallāh b. Khāzim al-Sulamī as commander of his advance force. He set out for
the T.abasayn via the route through Fars and Kirman and subdued the T.abasayn, their
people becoming Muslims.
Other authorities relate that ‛Abdallāh b. ‛Āmir travelled to Qūmis and then to
Gūyān (i.e. Juwayn) and halted there. Then [from] there he came to Āzādwār and made
a peace agreement (i.e. with its people). He seized the daughter of Milh.ān Gūyānī
and presented her to ‛Abdallāh b. Khāzim as a wife. ‛Abdallāh had three sons by her,
Muh.ammad, Mūsā and S.ālih.. ‛Abdallāh b. ‛Āmir came to Nishapur, accompanied by
Ah.naf b. Qays, Muhallab b. Abī S.ufra and a group of the leading men of Basra. He
subdued Quhistān, Abarshahr (i.e. Nishapur), T.ūs and Sarakhs from amongst the
towns of Khurasan in the year 29 [/649–50]. He sent H.ātim b. al-Nu‛mān al-Bāhilī
with a force of 4,000 Arabs and 1,000 Persians to attack the Hephthalites (Hayt.alān),4
and in the course of the fighting Ah.naf was wounded in the head, and from that
wound fluid ran down into his eyes. [H 102]
He built the fortress (dizh) of Ah.naf (i.e. Qas.r Ah.naf) near Marw al-Rūd,5 and
took the town of Marw al-Rūd on the basis of a peace agreement. ‛Abdallāh [M 161]
b. ‛Āmir likewise made a peace agreement with the dihqān of Herat on the basis of
a tribute of fifty purses of dirhams. When it was the year 31 [/651–2], he went off
on the Pilgrimage and appointed Qays b. al-Haytham al-Sulamī as his deputy over
Khurasan, but when ‛Abdallāh came to [the caliph] ‛Uthmān, the latter kept him there
in his own entourage.

Part 1.indd 14 7/10/2009 1:35:02 PM

 P ART O NE : T HE A RAB G OVERNORS 15

Umayr b. Ah.mar al-Yashkurī

‛Uthmān then sent out Umayr b. Ah.mar as governor of Khurasan. Umayr sent
Ma‛mūr b. Sufyān al-Yashkurī to perform the Muslim worship in the citadel of Merv.
He remained governor of Khurasan for some time. He established a policy of com-
mandeering people’s houses for his troops and made it a customary practice. The rea-
son for this was that Umayr b. Ah.mar had established himself at the gate of Merv in an
encampment of tents. The weather became very cold, and the dihqāns of Merv feared
that Umayr and his troops would perish from the cold. So they gave them accommo-
dation in their own houses. But after several days had passed, they regretted what they
had done and formulated the plan of seizing those troops and Umayr. The market
traders and the urban rowdies (‛ayyārān) undertook this hostile action. The military
leader and dihqān of the town, Barāz b. Māhūya, got wind of this planned attack and
immediately informed Umayr b. Ah.mar about it.
The Amir gave orders, and all the troops girded on their weapons and set about
with their swords, and they killed a large number of the men of Merv and plundered
many houses, until all the people of the town gathered together and sent some per-
sons to negotiate a settlement, offering a sum of money and seeking Umayr’s pardon.
He curbed the troops’ violence and that strife subsided. After that, the practice was
adopted for the troops to be billeted (i.e. in the houses of the people of Merv).6
[H 103] Umayr b. Ah.mar gave compensation for what Barāz had done. Thereafter he
used to behave very properly and respected people’s rights.7

‛Abdallāh b. ‛Āmir b. Kurayz

‛Uthmān then appointed ‛Abdallāh b. ‛Āmir governor for a second time. [M 162]
‛Abdallāh sent Rabī‛ b. Ziyād to subdue Sistan, and he brought back from there
40,000 slave captives. These slaves included Mihrān, the mawlā of ‛Ubayd[allāh] b.
Ziyād; S.ālih. b. ‛Abd al-Rah.mān; Pīrūz, the mawlā of H.us.ayn b. Mālik al-‛Anbarī;
Bassām,8 the mawlā of the Banū Layth, who has numerous children and progeny at
Merv; Mu‛ādh b. Muslim, the forebear of the Mu‛ādhī governors of Khurasan; and
‛Ikrima, the mawlā of ‛Abdallāh b. al-‛Abbās.9
This man Pīrūz, the mawlā of H.us.ayn, was with ‛Abd al-Rah.mān Ibn al-Ash‛ath;
Yazīd b. al-Muhallab took him prisoner and sent him to H.ajjāj b. Yūsuf. H.us.ayn
b. [Mālik] ‛Anbarī and Pīrūz had been in charge of the district of Maysān and
the Euphrates and the collection of taxes there. They had collected a large sum
of money. H.ajjāj sought it from Pīrūz, but he refused to hand it over. For this
reason, H.ajjāj put him to death. When the conquest of Sistan was accomplished,
Rabī‛ b. Ziyād returned to Basra. During that time, persons knowledgeable about
irrigation works (āb shināsān) said to him, ‘If we dig out for you a branch channel
from the river, will you free us and our children?’ He agreed to this condition for
their enfranchisement. They then got to work and constructed a channel for the
water. They constructed water channels at Nibāj, at Juh.fa, at Bustān Banī ‛Āmir
and at Nukhayla one stage from Mecca,10 and at ‛Arafāt. They also dug out the
irrigation channels of the Banū ‛Āmir, and these constructions have remained and
are extant today.

Part 1.indd 15 7/10/2009 1:35:03 PM

 16 T HE O RNAMENT OF H ISTORIES

Ja‛da b. Hubayra al-Makhzūmī

When ‛Alī b. Abī T.ālib, may God be pleased with him, succeeded to the caliphate,
he gave the governorship of Khurasan to Ja‛da b. Hubayra, who was the son of
‛Alī’s maternal uncle and whose wife was ‛Alī’s daughter Umm al-H.asan. ‛Alī wrote
a letter to Barāz b. Māhūya, the dihqān of Merv, with instructions that he should
hand over the land-tax (kharāj) to Ja‛da.11 Ja‛da arrived in Merv. Barāz wrote a letter
to all the dihqāns of Merv (i.e. of the Merv oasis) enjoining them to give Ja‛da their
obedience [H 104] in handing over the land-tax. Ja‛da made many [M 163] conquests
in Khurasan, as did likewise his son ‛Abdallāh. He was present at the Battle of the
Camel at Basra in the year 36 [/656] and at the encounters at S.iffīn between ‛Alī,
God’s peace be upon him, and Mu‛āwiya in the year 37 [/657]

‛Abd al-Rah.mān b. Abzā al-Khuzā‛ī

Then ‛Alī entrusted the governorship of Khurasan to ‛Abd al-Rah.mān b. Abzā. ‛Abd
al-Rah.mān was a man of wisdom and of pure religious faith, who used patience and
forbearance with people and who established beneficent practices. He was still in post
in Khurasan when ‛Alī passed away (farmān yāft, lit. ‘received the divine summons’)
H.asan b. ‛Alī, may the Exalted God be pleased with them both, succeeded his father
in the caliphate. Mu‛āwiya employed various stratagems, with the involvement of
‛Amr b. al-‛Ās. as an intermediary, and sowed confusion amongst them12 with the
result that H.asan abdicated the caliphate. ‛Amr b. al-‛Ās. said to Mu‛āwiya that he
would employ a ruse so that H.asan would publicly announce his abdication and
make a formal declaration (khut.ba); he would not be able to withstand Mu‛āwiya and
would not be able to overcome his wiles.
H.asan rose to his feet and pronounced a khut.ba, whose Persian translation is as
follows:

O people! The Almighty God has prohibited the shedding of your blood, and
I have made a compact and covenant with Mu‛āwiya on your behalf, that he
will behave justly with you and that he will pay out to you the income due to
you from the captured lands (fay’).13 He will not busy himself with questions
of status and will not exact vengeance or tyrannise over you.

He turned towards Mu‛āwiya and said, ‘O Mu‛āwiya, is this the state of affairs agreed
upon?’ Mu‛āwiya replied, ‘Yes, it is.’ H.asan then set about reciting this verse of the
Qur’ān, ‘I do not know; perhaps it is a test for you and a period of enjoyment of life
for a time.’14 When H.asan fell silent, Mu‛āwiya reproached ‛Amr b. al-‛Ās., ‘Why did
you give me such counsel as this?’

‛Abdallāh b. ‛Āmir b. Kurayz

When Mu‛āwiya successfully achieved his aim, he gave the governorship of Khurasan
to ‛Abdallāh b. ‛Āmir. The latter made ‛Abdallāh b. Khāzim his deputy and sent him
to Khurasan. [M 164] He remained there until ‛Abdallāh b. Samura al-Umawī came.
He conquered the frontier regions (thaghr) of Kabul and Balkh, and then went back

Part 1.indd 16 7/10/2009 1:35:03 PM

 P ART O NE : T HE A RAB G OVERNORS 17

to Iraq. In the year 43 [/663–4] ‛Abdallāh b. ‛Āmir sent Mujāshi‛ b. Mas‛ūd to Sistan.
Mujāshi‛ conquered Bust and Zamīndāwar and then set out back to Iraq. When
he reached Kirman at a place [H 105] which they used to call K.r.kān and is now
called Qas.r Mujāshi‛, an intense cold set in. It began to rain, and snow and icy winds
became continuous. As a result, neither animals nor men were able to do anything.
They were all affected by the cold15 and buried under the snow. No-one was left alive,
but all died beneath the snow.16

Ziyād b. Abīhi
Mu‛āwiya then appointed Ziyād b. Abīhi governor of Khurasan, and the latter sent
out H.akam b. ‛Amr al-Ghifārī to Khurasan [as his deputy there].17 H.akam reached
Herat, and from there marched out into the mountains of Khurasan. Muhallab b.
Abī S.ufra was with him as commander of the army’s rearguard. Muhallab behaved
in a praiseworthy fashion and achieved a reputation for chivalrous conduct, dashing
behaviour in battle and vigilance. When reports about Muhallab reached Sa‛d b.
Waqqās., the latter invoked divine favour on him and said, ‘O Lord, be Muhallab’s
counsellor and protector, and never expose him to any ignominy!’18
Sa‛d’s prayers and invocations to God were wont to be answered, and he sent a
sword for Muhallab; Muhallab’s progeny and descendants always retained that sword
because of its charisma. It is related that Sulaymān b. Muh.ammad al-Hāshimī tried to
buy that sword from Durayd b. al-S.imma b. H.abīb b. Muhallab for 100,000 dirhams,
but Durayd refused to let him have it. Whatever Muhallab achieved, people would
say that it came from the efficaciousness of Sa‛d’s invocations to God.
H.akam b. ‛Amr died in the city of Merv, and they buried him in a tomb there. He
was the first amir of the Muslims [who] died in Khurasan, and was the first amir
who drank water from the river of Balkh.19 Ziyād b. Abīhi sent to Khurasan as his
successor ‛Abdallāh al-Laythī, [H 106] who was one of the Companions (yārān)
[M 165] of the Prophet. After him, Ziyād sent Rabī‛ b. al-H.ārithī in the year 50
[/670]. Rabī‛ came to Khurasan at Merv, and routed the Hephthalites. He also died
there. In the year 51 [/671] the people of Bādghīs and Ganj Rūstā(q) apostasised
from Islam. Shaddād b. Khālid al-Asadī led an attack on them; he killed a group of
them and carried off a considerable number of them as slave captives. However,
Mu‛āwiya ordered that these slave captives should be sent back because of the
covenant (‛ahd) with them. This was the first group of slave captives given back in
Khurasan.

‛Ubaydallāh b. Ziyād
Mu‛āwiya appointed to Khurasan Ziyād’s son ‛Ubaydallāh.20 ‛Ubaydallāh came to
Khurasan and crossed the river (i.e. the Oxus) with 16,000 cavalrymen. He was the
first of the Muslims ever to have crossed the Oxus. He sent Muhallab b. Abī S.ufra to
Bukhara with 4,000 troops to sack the city (and they did so). The ancestress of the
Bukhār Khudāt, Khātūn, was in control of Bukhara; her sons were still children. All
the Iranians (‛ajam)21 had come together round Khātūn. ‛Ubaydallāh put the whole
lot of them to flight and seized as plunder their wealth and possessions. He took

Part 1.indd 17 7/10/2009 1:35:03 PM

 18 T HE O RNAMENT OF H ISTORIES

4,000 slave captives from Bukhara and returned to Basra.22 He held the governorship
of Iraq [and the East] for seven years until Ibrāhīm b. al-Ashtar killed him.

Sa‛īd b. ‛Uthmān b. ‛Affān

Mu‛āwiya then appointed Sa‛īd b. ‛Uthmān governor of Khurasan in the year 55
[/675] and he put Aslam b. Zur‛a al-Kilābī in charge of the land-tax of Khurasan.23
He went off with Sa‛īd to a certain place. Aslam increased the yield of the land-tax
of Merv by 100,000 dirhams, and it is paid over at this rate today.
Sa‛īd b. ‛Uthmān conquered Bukhara and the region of Sogdia around Samarqand.
He was struck in the eye by an arrow at the gate of Samarqand and lost the sight
of one eye. He had a tent for the army, and there was room for the whole of his
army within [M 166] that tent enclosure. During Sa‛īd’s governorship, in accordance
with Mu‛āwiya’s command, the Arabs at Merv laid out and constructed agricultural
estates, crop-producing lands and residences, and settled down there, so that the
Turks should not be able to cross the Oxus (i.e. into Khurasan).24 [H 107]

‛Abd al-Rah.mān b. Ziyād

Mu‛āwiya then appointed ‛Abd al-Rah.mān b. Ziyād governor of Khurasan. ‛Abd al-
Rah.mān collected in taxation from Khurasan eighty million dirhams. H.ajjāj b. Yūsuf
appropriated the whole of that from him and reduced ‛Abd al-Rah.mān to penury.
Mālik b. Dīnār related that ‛Abd al-Rah.mān had gathered together 1,000 dirhams
each day during the many years25 of his life, apart from landed estates and fine
possessions. H.ajjāj reduced him to such straits that, one day, he was mounted on an
ass, and Mālik asked him, ‘What became of all that wealth of yours?’ He replied, ‘It
vanished, and even this ass is actually borrowed.’ At this point, Mu‛āwiya died.

Salm b. Ziyād
When Yazīd, God’s curse be upon him, succeeded to power, he sent Salm b. Ziyād
to Khurasan as governor.26 The Iranians had banded together in Transoxania under
the leadership of Khātūn.27 Salm came to Khurasan, rallied his forces and went to
Transoxania. The Iranians advanced towards him with the intention of giving battle
and they fought with great ferocity, but in the end Salm put the Iranians to flight.
In this battle no-one achieved such glorious deeds as Muhallab b. Abī S.ufra; he
fought with great élan and wrought many praiseworthy feats of arms on that field
of battle. When Salm had finished with the affairs of Transoxania, he entrusted
the governorship of Sistan to T.alh.at al-T.alah.āt, whose proper name was T.alh.a b.
‛Abdallāh al-Khuzā‛ī.28
Eventually, Salm became angry with T.alh.a. When T.alh.a learnt about this, he
fled, together with the Ispahbad of Sistan, and they went to the court of Yazīd b.
Mu‛āwiya, remaining there until Yazīd’s death. On Yazīd’s death, they returned to
Sistan and [M 167] established themselves firmly there. T.alh.a remained in Sistan
till the time of the internecine strife (fitna) involving ‛Abdallāh b. al-Zubayr.29 Salm
b. Ziyād entrusted Khurasan to ‛Arfaja b. ‛Āmir al-Sa‛dī and himself went off to
Mecca. [H 108]

Part 1.indd 18 7/10/2009 1:35:03 PM

 P ART O NE : T HE A RAB G OVERNORS 19

‛Abdallāh b. Khāzim
When Salm set out for Mecca, ‛Abdallāh b. Khāzim went with him. En route, the
latter performed deeds of service for Salm. ‛Abdallāh became emboldened to ask
Salm for a grant of the goverorship of Khurasan. Salm conferred the governorship
of Khurasan on him.30 ‛Abdallāh came to Merv, engaged ‛Arfaja in battle, killed him
and seized control of Khurasan. He wrote letters to ‛Abdallāh b. Zubayr offering
his allegiance and summoned the troops obediently to follow him in giving this
allegiance. Conflicts broke out between ‛Abdallāh b. Khāzim and the tribesmen of
Mud.ar at Merv. The conflicts became prolonged, and revolts broke out in the towns
of Merv, Marw al-Rūd, T.ālaqān and Herat. A group of tribesmen from Tamīm killed
‛Abdallāh b. Khāzim’s son Muh.ammad, who was the amir in Herat. As an act of
vengeance for his son’s death, ‛Abdallāh slew a group of Tamīmīs.
‛Abdallāh b. al-Zubayr’s cause flourished, and ‛Abdallāh b. Khāzim31 remained
in Khurasan for eight years, five months and twenty-five days until the time of the
internecine strife between Mus.‛ab b. al-Zubayr and ‛Abd al-Malik b. Marwān. Mus.‛ab
was killed, and ‛Abd al-Malik summoned ‛Abdallāh b. Khāzim to his obedience, but
‛Abdallāh refused to give it. Mus.‛ab’s head was sent to Ibn Khāzim. The Khurasanians
rose in rebellion against him.32 Both of them converged on T.ūs, and there was a
battle between the two sides. Wakī‛ b. al-Dawraqiyya and Bukayr b. Wishāh. went off
with a body of troops. When Ibn Khāzim33 had killed Wakī‛’s brother, Wakī‛ and
‛Abdallāh came into confrontation with each other and clashed in battle. Wakī‛ felled
‛Abdallāh to the ground, sat down on his chest and cut off his head. He brought
it to Bah.īr, and Bah.īr heaped praises on him. He sent ‛Abdallāh’s head to Khālid b.
‛Abdallāh al-Qasrī, who forwarded it to ‛Abd al-Malik b. Marwān.34 [M 168]

Bah.īr b. Warqā’
‛Abd al-Malik b. Marwān then appointed Bah.īr b. Warqā’35 as governor of Khurasan
in the year 71 [/690–1]. When he was settled into his post, ‛Abd al-Malik ordered
that Bah.īr should cancel all appointments to offices, issues of stipends for the
troops, additional payments and grants of land for the upkeep of state servants
(waz.ā’if wa ‛at.ā’-hā wa ziyādat-hā wa iqt.ā‛-hā ) that had been made in the time of
‛Abdallāh b. al-Zubayr. He (sc. ‛Abd al-Malik) treated the people of Khurasan in a
benevolent manner. Bah.īr was a feeble and ineffective figure and entirely under the
thumb of the troops. [H 109] As a result of this, Khurasan was in a permanently
disturbed state. Bah.īr then sent a letter to ‛Abd al-Malik to the effect that Khurasan
could not be held except by a man of Quraysh.36 So ‛Abd al-Malik deprived Bah.īr of
his office and appointed Umayya in his stead.

Umayya b. ‛Abdallāh
This was Umayya b. ‛Abdallāh b. Abi ’l-‛Ās. [Umayya b.] ‛Abd Shams.37 ‛Abd al-Malik
entrusted Khurasan to Umayya in the year 72 [/691–2]. Umayya arrived in Khurasan,
but Bah.īr rebelled and shut himself up in the citadel of Merv. He held out for some
time in the citadel, but in the end Umayya got him out and killed him. Bah.īr had two
brothers, one called Budayl and the other Shamardal, and Umayya killed them both

Part 1.indd 19 7/10/2009 1:35:04 PM

 20 T HE O RNAMENT OF H ISTORIES

with Bah.īr. Umayya b. ‛Abdallāh remained governor in Khurasan for seven years.
Umayya’s position as governor was a perpetual source of irritation to H.ajjāj b. Yūsuf,
and he employed various stratagems till ‛Abd al-Malik dismissed Umayya and gave
Khurasan and Sistan to H.ajjāj b. Yūsuf.

H
. ajjāj b. Yūsuf
‛Abd al-Malik gave Khurasan to H.ajjāj b. Yūsuf.38 H.ajjāj sent Muhallab b. Abī S.ufra
to Khurasan in the year 79 [/698–9]. Muhallab proceeded to the town of Kish and
made a peace agreement with the people of Sogdia. The king of Sogdia at that
time was the T.arkhūn, and Muhallab took hostages from him. Muhallab died in the
vicinity of Marw al-Rūd at a village called Zāghūl, having made his son Yazīd his
successor. His son was four years in Khurasan [M 169] as deputy for H.ajjāj, and
then after him H.ajjāj appointed to Khurasan Yazīd’s brother Mufad.d.al b. Muhallab.
Mufad.d.al was a well-known figure, possessing gravitas, and was a shrewd judge of
people.39 [H 110]
H.ajjāj had entrusted Sistan to ‛Abd al-Rah.mān b. Muh.ammad [b.] al-Ash‛ath.
When the latter came to Sistan, he rebelled against H.ajjāj and marched out against
him. Eighty engagements took place between the two of them. ‛Abd al-Rah.mān was
defeated at Dayr al-Jamājim, and he fled from there to Kabul, seeking refuge with
Ratbīl, the ruler there.40 H.ajjāj sent an envoy to Ratbīl, seeking ‛Abd al-Rah.mān’s
extradition. Ratbīl handed him over to the envoy, who put him in bonds. He put one
leg iron on ‛Abd al-Rah.mān’s ankle, linked to an iron placed on another man’s leg.
Whilst on the journey back, they halted at a rest house and went up on the roof. ‛Abd
al-Rah.mān hurled himself down from that roof, together with the man fettered to
him, and both died.41
When Walīd b. ‛Abd al-Malik succeeded to power, H.ajjāj dismissed Mufad.d.al b.
Muhallab from Khurasan, and subjected the sons of Muhallab to violent financial
mulcting. He divorced Muhallab’s daughter Hind, who was his wife, and sent 100,000
dirhams to her as her returned marriage portion. Hind, however, sent the money
back and refused to accept it. H.ajjāj kept Muhallab’s sons imprisoned at Basra for
three years until Yazīd b. Abī Muslim interceded for them and they gave sureties for
six million dirhams. They were released into the custody of a keeper (muwakkil), but
all four of them devised stratagems: swift-running camels42 were got ready, and they
escaped on them. They made their way to Syria, and sent Rajā’ b. H.aywa al-Kindī,
having sought his help regarding their predicament, to relate their story to Sulaymān
b. ‛Abd al-Malik, and Sulaymān agreed to help.
Sulaymān b. ‛Abd al-Malik and ‛Abd al-‛Azīz b. Walīd took charge of the matter,
and interceded forcefully with Walīd b. ‛Abd al-Malik, and the latter responded
to their pleas. He instructed Sulaymān to send Muhallab’s sons to him. [M 170]
Sulaymān sent his son Ayyūb together with Yazīd b. Walīd, and told Ayyūb, ‘Don’t
leave Yazīd b. al-Muhallab for one moment! If he (sc. Walīd b. ‛Abd al-Malik) intends
to do any harm to him, they’ll have to kill you first!’
Yazīd b. al-Muhallab then came before Walīd. Walīd accepted Sulaymān’s
intercession and sent Yazīd back to Sulaymān, but laid down that he was to be mulcted

Part 1.indd 20 7/10/2009 1:35:05 PM

 P ART O NE : T HE A RAB G OVERNORS 21

of three million dirhams, giving H.ajjāj the order, ‘Give a grant of protection to all
of those of the sons of Muhallab and their kindred who have been left with you
and despatch them to Syria.’ They all came to Damascus and Sulaymān’s entourage,
remaining there for six years till the end of Walīd b. ‛Abd al-Malik’s reign. He ordered
Qutayba b. Muslim, who was governor of Ray, to go to Khurasan (i.e. as governor).
[H 111]

[Qutayba b. Muslim]
Qutayba came to Khurasan in the year 87 [/706] by the Qūmish road; previously,
people used to travel to there by the road through Fars and Kirman.43 When Qutayba
reached Qūmish, he looked for his investiture document (‛ahd) but could not find it,
since it had been forgotten and left behind at Ray. He sent someone to Ray, and it
was brought back from there. Yazīd [b.] al-Muhallab had a very pleasant garden in
Khurasan. Qutayba destroyed it and built a camel stable on the site. A marzbān asked
him, ‘Why did you do a thing like this?’ Qutayba replied, ‘My father was a camel-
driver and Yazīd’s father a gardener!’
In the year 87 he got ready his army. During his time, the greater part of the
towns of the Bukhara region were conquered, together with Kish, Nakhshab and
Samarqand. It is said that Khwarazm, Kabul and Nasā were also subdued during his
time as governor. After that time, in the year 95 [/713–14], he conquered Farghāna.
In that same year, H.ajjāj died. In his treasury were found 219 million dirhams. H.ajjāj’s
governorship (i.e. of Iraq and the East) lasted twenty years. [M 171]
When Qutayba heard the news of H.ajjāj’s death, he became apprehensive and
returned to Marw. Walīd b. ‛Abd al-Malik sent letters of encouragement to Qutayba
and gave him promises of favour. So Qutayba returned to Farghāna and was
involved in much fighting. He took large numbers of slave captives, and then made a
peace agreement with the local people, taking hostages for good behaviour, and then
returned to Merv. When he reached Kushmayhan,44 he heard the news of Walīd’s
death and the succession of Sulaymān b, ‛Abd al-Malik. Qutayba was fearful regarding
Sulaymān, who sent to him a missive containing menaces and admonitions.
Sulaymān had appointed Yazīd b. al-Muhallab as governor of Khurasan. When
Qutayba’s response reached him, he suspended his intended action and wrote a fresh
investiture document for him in Arabic,45 forwarding it to him by hand of an envoy.
Qutayba’s mind nevertheless remained troubled, and he was all the time fearful that
Sulaymān was going to dismiss him. There was bad blood between Sulaymān and
Qutayba, since Qutayba was a proponent of recognition of ‛Abd al-‛Azīz b. al-Walīd
as designated successor in the caliphate and had been involved in the attempt to
get the succession arrangements changed. For this reason, Qutayba was fearful of
Sulaymān.
Qutayba, together with the greater part of his leading commanders (sarhangān) and
his retainers, now rose in revolt aganst Sulaymān. Before he broke out in rebellion,
Qutayba had dismissed Wakī‛ b. Abī Sūd al-Ghudānī from headship of the Tamīmīs
but had given him no other official position in place of the headship, and he had
given this last office to D. irār b. H.us.ayn al-D
. abbī. For that reason, Wakī‛ had sought

Part 1.indd 21 7/10/2009 1:35:05 PM

 22 T HE O RNAMENT OF H ISTORIES

his revenge on Qutayba and he was inciting the army [against him]. Wakī‛ had given
out that he was ill and had remained in his house for some time. When he emerged
from it, he joined up with those dissidents of the army. They seized an opportunity
in Farghāna to kill Qutayba. They killed eleven of the progeny of Muslim, including
seven of his sons, comprising Qutayba, ‛Abd al-Rah.mān, ‛Abdallāh, ‛Ubaydallāh,
S.ālih., Yasār and Muh.ammad, and four of Muslim’s grandsons. Out of Muslim’s sons,
there only remained alive ‛Amr, who was away in Gūzgānān. Wakī‛ ordered that the
heads of all of them should be cut off, and he sent them on to Sulaymān b. ‛Abd
al-Malik.46 [H 112, M 172]

Wakī‛ b. Abī Sūd al-Ghudānī

Sulaymān then sent an investiture document for the governorship of Khurasan to
Wakī‛ b. Abī Sūd al-Ghudānī.47 Wakī‛ embarked on a policy of instilling fear and
terror. Anyone who went beyond the limits laid down by Wakī‛ or who showed
the slightest trace of treacherous behaviour, he would immediately be put to death.
His policy went to such lengths that, one day, someone drunk was brought before
him and he ordered his head to be cut off. People protested to him that death was
not the obligatory penalty for someone drunk, but rather that the h.add penalty48
was a flogging. Wakī‛ replied, ‘My punishment isn’t the whip or rod, but the sword
alone!’ When people heard that, they all felt terrified of him; moreover, no-one
dared commit any offence since correction, punishment and death would ineluctably
follow. Things continued like this till the end of his period of governorship. His
governorship began in the year 97 [/715–16].

Yazīd b. al-Muhallab
Sulaymān b. ‛Abd al-Malik then entrusted Khurasan to Yazīd b. Muhallab for a
second term of office.49 Yazīd sent his son Mukhallad to Khurasan to act as his
deputy, and Yazīd himself followed after him to Khurasan, this in the year 97. He
arrested Wakī‛ b. Abī Sūd and inflicted much torture on Qutayba b. Muslim’s officials
and seized their possessions, thereby amassing a great amount of wealth. He set off
from Merv to Gurgān in the year 98 [/716–17], travelling along the Nasā road and
passing through the region of the Iron Gate.50 He subdued Gurgān, but when he
left, the people of Gurgān apostasised for a second time.
Yazīd b. al-Muhallab accordingly once more prepared a military expedition and
proceeded to Gurgān. The Gurgānīs fled for refuge to the mountains, and Yazīd
pursued them into the mountains and killed 12,000 of them. He took an oath that he
would not leave that place until he had made a watermill go round with the Gurgānīs’
blood and had ground flour in that mill, had baked bread from the flour and had
eaten his morning meal from it.
When the men were being killed, their blood kept on congealing and would not
flow. Yazīd was told, ‘Give orders [M 173] for a flow of water to be brought to the
mill.’ The mill went round and flour was milled. Bread was baked from that flour and
he was able to eat it. He was thus able properly to fulfil his oath. He took captive
6,000 Gurgānīs and the whole lot were sold into slavery. He sent a proclamation of

Part 1.indd 22 7/10/2009 1:35:06 PM

 P ART O NE : T HE A RAB G OVERNORS 23

victory (fath.-nāma) regarding the conquest of Gurgān to Sulaymān b. ‛Abd al-Malik,

in which he said,

No-one has conquered this province since the time of Shāpūr Dhu ’l-Aktāf. Kisrā
[Aparwīz] the son of Hurmuz, ‛Umar b. al-Khat.t.āb and everyone else have tried
to conquer it, but for all of them it proved impossible and no-one could subdue
this province. Now it has been conquered for the Commander of the Faithful.

The prince of Gurgān was S.ūl,51 and Yazīd took him prisoner; at this present time
there are numerous descendants of this S.ūl in Gurgān. S.ūl then said to Yazīd b.
al-Muhallab, ‘Is there any person within Islam nobler than you, for me to become
a Muslim at his hand?’ Yazīd answered, ‘The Commander of the Faithful is nobler
than I!’ S.ūl said, ‘Send me to him!’ Yazīd sent him to Sulaymān. S.ūl said to Sulaymān,
‘Is there no-one within Islam greater than you?’ Sulaymān replied, ‘At the present
time, there is no-one within Islam more noble than myself, except at the tomb of the
Prophet, peace be upon him!’ S.ūl said, ‘Send me to that place so that I may become
a Muslim [there]!’52
Sulaymān sent him to Medina, and he became a Muslim at the Prophet’s tomb. He
returned, and came into Yazīd’s entourage [H 113] and remained with him permanently,
fulfilling many offices and duties until he was killed in the time of Maslama b. ‛Abd
al-Malik. Muh.ammad b. S.ūl became one of the leading propagandists (dā‛iyān) for
the house of ‛Abbās, and was killed in Syria by ‛Abdallāh b. ‛Alī.
Yazīd b. al-Muhallab made his son Mukhallad his deputy over Khurasan, and he
himself turned back and headed for Sulaymān. When he reached Fars, he heard the
news of Sulaymān’s death. During the reign of ‛Umar b. ‛Abd al-‛Azīz he formed
the intention of going to Basra. When he reached there, the local governor, ‛Adī b.
Art.āt al-Fazārī, came to him with a letter from ‛Umar b. ‛Abd al-‛Azīz ordering him
to relinquish his office forthwith. Yazīd b. al-Muhallab was despatched to ‛Umar,
and when he reached ‛Umar, [M 174] the latter consigned him to prison. Whenever
anyone tried to make intercession with ‛Umar on Yazīd’s behalf, his reply was, ‘Yazīd
has done much killing; there’s no better place for him than prison!’ He then ordered
that Yazīd should be subjected to violence and torture in order to extract from
him the wealth and possessions listed in the letter written to Sulaymān, and all the
possessions and wealth confiscated from him were included in a reckoning raised up
against him.

Jarrāh. b. ‛Abdallāh al-H

. akamī
‛Umar b. ‛Abd al-‛Azīz appointed Jarrāh. b. ‛Abdallāh al-H.akamī to Khurasan.53 He
went to Khurasan with instructions from ‛Umar that Mukhallad b. Yazīd was to
be sent back to him. When Jarrāh. reached Khurasan in the year 99 [/717–18], he
immediately arrested and imprisoned Mukhallad. He put him in chains and sent him
to ‛Umar. On the road to Kufa, Mukhallad dispensed 800,000 dirhams in charity,
and all the people expressed good wishes and spoke favourable words regarding
him. During this time when Jarrāh. was governor in Khurasan, Muh.ammad b. ‛Alī

Part 1.indd 23 7/10/2009 1:35:06 PM

 24 T HE O RNAMENT OF H ISTORIES

al-Imām54 sent Maysara to Iraq and Khurasan. He sent out other propagandists, and
they secured pledges of allegiance (i.e to the ‛Abbasid cause) from large numbers of
people and then came back.

‛Abd al-Rah.mān [b.] Nu‛aym al-Ghāmidī

Then ‛Umar b. ‛Abd al-‛Azīz appointed ‛Abd al-Rah.mān b. Nu‛aym to Khurasan in
the year 100 [/718–19], and ‛Abd al-Rah.mān came to Khurasan in this same year.
When Mukhallad b. Yazīd b. al-Muhallab came before ‛Umar b. ‛Abd al-‛Azīz, the
latter regarded Mukhallad with favour and spoke kindly words about him. He gave
out that Mukhallad was a better man than his father and ordered that he should not
be harmed or harassed. [H 114]

Sa‛īd b. ‛Abd al-‛Azīz

Yazīd b. ‛Abd al-Malik conferred the governorship of Khurasan on Sa‛īd b. ‛Abd
al-‛Azīz.55 Sa‛īd acted in a beneficent fashion and did not give rein to excesses and
tyranny. When [M 175] he arrived in Khurasan, he behaved towards the people with
kindness56 and did not demand additional taxation from anyone. He remained in
office in Khurasan for a year, but was then after one year recalled and ‛Umar b.
Hubayra was sent out.

‛Umar b. Hubayra
Yazīd b. ‛Abd al-Malik then gave the governorship of Khurasan [and the East] to
‛Umar b. Hubayra.57 ‛Umar dismissed Sa‛īd b. ‛Abd al-‛Azīz from Khurasan, sending
out Sa‛īd b. ‛Amr al-H.arashī as his replacement, and Sa‛īd arrived in Khurasan in
the year 104 [/722–3]. He did not remain long in office before ‛Umar b. Hubayra
deprived him of it and sent out in his stead Muslim b. Sa‛īd b. Aslam. Muslim
remained in office during the year [10]4, the whole of the year [10]5 and several
months of the year 106 [/722–4].

Khālid b. ‛Abdallāh al-Qasrī

When Hishām b. ‛Abd al-Malik was firmly ensconced in power within the realm, he
appointed Khālid b. ‛Abdallāh as governor of Khurasan and sent him thither, also
awarding him the governorship of Iraq. Khālid stayed in Iraq and sent his brother
Asad b. ‛Abdallāh to Khurasan [as his deputy].58 Asad remained there for three years.
He stirred up factional strife (ta‛as..sub-hā) amongst the people. He arrested Nas.r b.
Sayyār, and also ‛Abd al-Rah.mān b. Nu‛aym, who was in charge of collecting the
land-tax; Bah.r b. Dirham, who was in charge of pay arrangements for the army; and
Sūra b. al-H.urr al-Dārimī. He made accusations against them that they had been
spreading disturbing, alarmist stories.59 Using this as a pretext, he had them flogged,
their heads shaved and their beards plucked out, and he put fetters on their hands.
He then despatched the lot of them to his brother (sc. to Khālid). These persons
informed Hishām about all that they had suffered. Hishām wrote a letter to Khālid
ordering him to release them, and they all came back to reside in Iraq and Syria. No
person went out to Khurasan [as governor] whilst Khālid was alive. [H 115, M 176]

Part 1.indd 24 7/10/2009 1:35:06 PM

 P ART O NE : T HE A RAB G OVERNORS 25

Ashras b. ‛Abdallāh
Hishām appointed Ashras b. ‛Abdallāh to Khurasan. Because of his excellent qualities,
Ashras used to be called ‘The Perfect One’ (al-Kāmil).60 He arrived in Khurasan in the
year 110 [/728–9], but now altered his behaviour and committed many inadmissible
acts. He perpetrated numerous acts of oppression and unjust behaviour against the
subjects. The people of Khurasan were driven to rebellion, and they went to Hishām
complaining of tyranny and injustice; he accordingly dismissed Ashras.

Junayd b. ‛Abd al-Rah.mān

Hishām then appointed Junayd b. ‛Abd al-Rah.mān as governor of Khurasan, and
the latter came to Khurasan in the year 112 [730–1]. When he reached there, the
Khāqān of the Turks led an invasion.61 Junayd engaged him in battle and put him to
flight, and he killed a great number of his troops. The next year, the Khāqān came
back to the attack. Junayd marched out to engage him. He wrote to Sūra b. al-H.urr
al-Dārimī, who was the amir of Samarqand, seeking his help, and Sūra marched forth
and engaged the Turks in battle. The Turks were defeated, but Sūra was himself
killed in the fight. Junayd arrived, and he at once routed the Turks, and the Khāqān
fled. When Junayd returned from that campaign, he seized [H.ārith b.] Surayj the
rebel,62 who had led an uprising in Khurasan, together with a large number of his
partisans, and put the whole lot of these followers to death. In the year 116 [/734]
he died.

‛Ās.im b. ‛Abdallāh al-Hilālī

Hishām then appointed ‛Ās.im to Khurasan in the year 116.63 When ‛Ās.im reached
Khurasan, affairs of state had not returned to the required state of good order,
since H.ārith b. Surayj rebelled and seized control of Gūzgānān, T.ālaqān, Fāryāb and
Marw al-Rūd. He led his movement on the basis of the Qur’ān and the traditions
of the Prophet and [M 177] displayed opposition to the Marwānids. He gave out
that the ‘Protected Peoples’ should observe the conditions of their Dhimmī status,
that he would not take land-tax from the Muslims and that he would not act unjustly
towards anyone. A great number of people flocked to join him. He set out for Merv
with the intention of attacking ‛Ās.im. A battle between H.ārith and ‛Ās.im took place
at Merv. Intermediaries came forward and arranged a peace agreement between the
two sides on the basis that an envoy should be sent to Hishām and that he should
be informed about this state of affairs. If he should give a favourable response to
H.ārith’s propositions, well and good; but if not, then they would continue fighting.
Both sides agreed upon this course of action. [H 116]

Khālid b. ‛Abdallāh al-Qasrī

Information about H.ārith’s activities reached Hishām. He entrusted the governorship
of Khurasan to Khālid b. ‛Abdallāh al-Qasrī, and the latter sent his brother Asad b.
‛Abdallāh (sc. as his deputy in Khurasan) in the year 116.64 The envoys of H.ārith
and ‛Ās.im came into Asad’s presence. He sent them back and himself came to
Merv with a force of 20,000 men and mounted an attack on H.ārith. The two sides

Part 1.indd 25 7/10/2009 1:35:06 PM

 26 T HE O RNAMENT OF H ISTORIES

confronted each other at the gates of Tirmidh. Battle was joined, and in the end,
H.ārith was defeated and fled into Turkestan. Asad seized a group of persons who
were summoning people to the cause of the house of ‛Abbās and killed them. When
he sought further directions from his brother Khālid, Khālid wrote back, ‘Don’t
shed blood!’
Asad remained in Khurasan for four years. He died in the year 120 [/738], having
appointed Ja‛far [b.] H.anz.ala as his deputy, and Ja‛far remained in Khurasan for
five months. Asad b. ‛Abdallāh founded the settlement of Asadābād in the rural
district of Nishapur,65 and his descendants retained possession of it till the time of
‛Abdallāh b. T.āhir. Then ‛Abdallāh b. T.āhir purchased it and made it into a perpetual
endowment (waqf ) for travellers and wayfarers (abnā’ al-sabīl).66

Nas.r b. Sayyār
Hishām appointed Nas.r b. Sayyār governor of Khurasan in the month of Rajab in the
year 120 [/June–July 738] and sent him an investiture charter for it, which reached him
at Balkh.67 Nas.r spoke with ‛Abd al-Salām b. Muzāh.im, and the two of them went to
Ja‛far and delivered to him the letter requiring Ja‛far to hand over his office. [M 178]
Ja‛far set up Nas.r in his own former place and personally hailed and congratulated
him, and the people likewise came to congratulate him. Nas.r treated the people of
Khurasan with kindness and consideration and lightened the burden of taxation on
them. 68
Nas.r arrested and imprisoned Yah.yā b. Zayd b. ‛Alī b. al-H.usayn b. ‛Alī b. Abī
T.ālib, may God be pleased with them all, who had gone into hiding at Balkh after
Hishām had killed his father.69 Hishām died at this juncture, as did also Muh.ammad
b. ‛Alī al-Imām at this time. In accordance with his command, the leading men of
the Shī‛a appointed twelve agents (naqībs).70 The first was Sulaymān b. Kathīr; the
second, Qah.t.aba b. Shabīb; the third, Mūsā b. Ka‛b; the fourth, Mālik b. al-Haytham;
the fifth, Abū Dāwūd [Khālid b. Ibrāhīm]; the sixth, Khālid b. Ibrāhīm;71 [H 117] the
seventh, Bakr b. al-‛Abbās; the eighth, Lāh.iz b. Qurayz.; the ninth, Shibl b. T.ahmān;
the tenth, Abu ’l-Najm b. ‛Imrān b. Ismā‛īl; the eleventh, ‛Alā’ b. H.urayth; and the
twelfth, ‛Amr and ‛Īsā the two sons of A‛yan.
‛Alā’ went to Khwarazm to spread propaganda (i.e. in the ‛Abbasid cause) and
T.alh.a b. Ruzayq72 took ‛Alā’’s place. When Hishām died, Walīd b. Yazīd succeeded
to power. He sent an investiture charter for Khurasan to Nas.r b. Sayyār and
commanded him to capture Yah.yā b. Zayd. When Yah.yā came to a rural district
of the administrative region of Nishapur, he threw off allegiance to Walīd and
summoned people to his own cause. He went back with 120 men and encamped at a
village by the gate of Nishapur. ‛Amr b. Zurāra al-Qasrī, the amir of Nishapur, sent
an envoy to Yah.yā with the message, ‘Get out of this district!’ Yah.yā replied, ‘[I’ll stay
here] until I have rested and the beasts have rested!’
When he drew near to ‛Amr, the latter immediately mounted and rode forth. They
clashed in battle, ‛Amr was defeated and in the course of his flight was killed. Yah.yā
b. Zayd headed for Balkh. When Nas.r got news of these events, he sent his police
commander (s.āh.ib-shurat.) Salm b. Ah.waz in pursuit of Yah.yā. Yah.yā went to Bādghīs

Part 1.indd 26 7/10/2009 1:35:06 PM

 P ART O NE : T HE A RAB G OVERNORS 27

and from there to Marw al-Rūd, T.ālaqān and Fāryāb. Salm [M 179] pursued him
continuously until he came upon him at Arghūy73 in Gūzgānān. A battle was fought
and Yah.yā b. Zayd was killed. His head was cut off, mounted on a pole and borne
to Merv.
Walīd was killed in Syria in Jumādā II of the year 126 [/March–April 744], and
Yazīd b. al-Walīd was set up as ruler in this same year 126. When Yazīd was secure
in his power, he sent an investiture charter for Khurasan to Nas.r b. Sayyār and sent
him a letter instructing him to offer a grant of protection to H.ārith b. Surayj. H.ārith
came back to Merv, but [at that point] Yazīd died and Ibrāhīm b. al-Walīd succeeded
to power on 1 Dhu ’l-H.ijja of the year 126 [/14 September 744]. His authority
was not, however, firmly established, since Marwān b. Muh.ammad came along and
deprived him of power. Marwān himself assumed the throne in S.afar of the year
127 [/November–December 744] and deposed Ibrāhīm. Marwān used to be called
‘Marwān al-H.imār’ because, in Arabic, when each hundred years of the life of a
dynasty elapsed, that year used to be called H.imār (lit. ‘wild ass’), and the dynasty of
the Banū Umayya had lasted for almost a hundred years.74
Marwān H.imār [H 118] sent an investiture charter for Khurasan to Nas.r b. Sayyār.
The Yamanīs and Rabī‛a opposed Nas.r. They went to Juday‛ b. ‛Alī al-Kirmānī, Juday‛
being an adherent of the party (shī‛a, sc. of the ‛Abbasids). H.ārith b. Surayj allied with
them, and they engaged in warfare with Nas.r b. Sayyār. Jahm b. S.afwān, the head of
the Jahmī sectaries, was with H.ārith but was killed.75 His son ‛Alī stepped into his
place. He sought help from Shaybān the Khārijite (h.arūrī ),76 and with a guarantee of
protection from him went to Merv. The Yamanīs, the Mud.arīs and the H.arūrīs came
together as allies and joined battle with Nas.r The warfare went on for nine months,
and in this space of time there were seventy engagements between the two sides.
Nas.r was invariably victorious on every occasion except for the fighting he was
engaged in with Abū Muslim, who had come out in revolt in the month of Ramad.ān
of the year 129 [/May–June 747]. He proclaimed his adherence [M 180] to the House
of Muh.ammad, and dug a protective ditch.77
Abū Muslim was a native of Isfahan, and his name was ‛Abd al-Rah.mān b. Muslim.
Ibrāhīm al-Imām had sent Abū Muslim to Khurasan.78 When Ibrāhīm al-Imām
received information about these dissensions (i.e. in Khurasan), he wrote a letter to
Sulaymān b. Kathīr, saying, ‘Unsheathe your sword against Nas.r b. Sayyār!’ When the
disturbances in Khurasan became acute, Nas.r b. Sayyār made an appeal for help to
Marwān but got no response. Every time that Nas.r b. Sayyār despatched a letter from
Nishapur, Yazīd b. ‛Umar b. Hubayra would detain Nas.r’s messengers and keep them
back from Marwān, and would himself send secret messages to Marwān complaining
of Nas.r b. Sayyār’s oppressive behaviour. Marwān was, moreover, completely taken
up with combatting the Khārijite D . ah.h.āk and could not reach Nas.r. Abū Muslim
recruited to his side the Yamanīs and the Rabī‛a who were with Ibn Kirmānī, and
Shaybān the Khārijite, and brought them, with himself, within the defensive trench,
and the combined forces marched against Nas.r. He fled before them, and moved
from Merv to Nishapur. When Nas.r fell back, Abū Muslim sent his experienced
agents to the towns and districts of Khurasan, and he sent Qah.t.aba b. Shabīb al-T.ā’ī

Part 1.indd 27 7/10/2009 1:35:07 PM

 28 T HE O RNAMENT OF H ISTORIES

in pursuit of Nas.r b. Sayyār. Qah.t.aba came upon Tamīm b. Nad.r at T.ūs, a battle
took place and Tamīm was killed.79 Nas.r retreated towards Iraq, but when he reached
Sāwa he died there. [H 119]

Abū Muslim ‛Abd al-Rah.mān b. Muslim

Abū Muslim, the leader of the ‛Abbasid movement, marched out of Merv. His home
was in the village of Mākhān.80 When he had disposed of the matter of Nas.r, he
wrote a letter to Qah.t.aba. Qah.t.aba went to Gurgān and attacked Nubāta b. H.anz.ala,
who was the governor of Gurgān and had with him 40,000 Syrian troops, and killed
Nubāta together with several of his sons, and a large number of troops were killed.
Marwān sent an army against Qah.t.aba by the Shahrazūr route, and ‛Umar b. Hubayra
b. Yazīd joined up with him from Kufa. Abū Muslim came to Nishapur in S.afar of
the year 131 [/October 748].
‛Uthmān, the son of Kirmānī, was in T.ukhāristān together with Abū Dāwūd.
Abū Muslim sent a letter to Dāwūd [M 181] instructing him to kill ‛Uthmān, and
Abū Dāwūd did this. Before this, Abū Muslim had killed ‛Alī b. Juday‛ al-Kirmānī in
Shawwāl of the year 131 [/May–June 749]. ‛Alī had been hailed as Amir before Abū
Muslim took charge. He sent an army to Qah.t.aba so that the latter had a force of
70,000 men round him, thus confirming the authenticity of that saying, transmitted
from ‛Alī b. ‛Abdallāh b. al-‛Abbās, that ‘70,000 swords will come from the east in
aid of the Prophet’s House’.81
Qah.t.aba went to Isfahan. He engaged in a battle with ‛Āmir b. D . ubāra, killing
him and a large number of his troops in Rajab of the year 131 [/February–March
749]. He then took Nihāwand and from there went to H.ulwān. Abū Muslim built the
congregational mosque at Merv and also reconstructed the one at Nishapur which
Fādūspān had presented to Abū Muslim. This person Fādūspān was one of the
dihqāns of Nishapur. He had been very helpful and kind to Abū Muslim when the
latter was secretly conducting his propagandist activities, and when things turned out
well for Abū Muslim, he repaid the favours which he had received from Fādūspān.
Bihāfarīd the Magian led a movement in the rural districts of Khwāf and Busht
near Nishapur. This Bihāfarīd came from the rural district of Zawzan. Amongst
[H 120] the Zoroastrian community he claimed to be a prophet, and he raised
up a dissident group amongst them involving a large number of people. He laid
down an obligatory seven acts of worship (namāz)82 to be performed (i.e. each day)
facing the sun wherever one might be. Of these acts of the worship, the first was
proclaiming the unity of God, He is Exalted and Magnified (tawh.id). The second
was [acknowledgement of] the creation of the heavens and the earth. The third was
[acknowledgement of] the creation of all living things and their sustenance. The
fourth was [acknowledgement of] death. The fifth was [acknowledgement of] the
resurrection of the body and the last reckoning. The sixth was [acknowledgement of]
heaven and hell. The seventh was giving thanks and praise for the people of paradise.
He forbade them to eat the flesh of anything that had died naturally. Marriage with
one’s mother, sister and the child of one’s sister or brother was prohibited. He
prohibited the marriage portion for a woman being more than 400 dirhams. He

Part 1.indd 28 7/10/2009 1:35:07 PM

 P ART O NE : T HE A RAB G OVERNORS 29

required one-seventh from people’s wealth and possessions and likewise from what
was gained by the labour of their hands (i.e. for charitable purposes). He introduced
corruption into that religion of the Magians. [M 182]
The Zoroastrian priests (mūbadān) came before Abū Muslim and raised a complaint
about Bihāfarīd, saying, ‘He has introduced corruption into your faith and ours.’
Hence Abū Muslim arrested Bihāfarīd and hanged and gibbeted him, and he killed
a group of his adherents.83
Abū Muslim had sent Abū ‛Awn to attack Marwān al-H.imār. When Qah.t.aba
reached the bank of the Euphrates, Yazīd b. Hubayra came out to give battle with
him. An overnight battle took place between the two sides. Qah.t.aba’s army was
victorious, but Qah.t.aba fell into the river and was drowned. After the passage of
some days, Qah.t.aba’s troops made his son H.asan their commander, and they entered
Kufa. ‛Abdallāh b. Muh.ammad b. ‛Alī b. ‛Abdallāh b. ‛Abbās, who had the honorific
title of [al-]Saffāh. (‘The Blood-thirsty One’ or ‘The Generous One’) and who had
been hidden, with his brothers, in the house of Abū Salama Khallāl, was brought
forth, and allegiance given to him as caliph.
Saffāh. then sent his paternal uncles ‛Abdallāh and ‛Abd al-S.amad, together with
Abū ‛Awn, to attack Marwān. When Marwān got news about them, he advanced to
give battle, but was speedily defeated. He withdrew towards Egypt, but Abū ‛Awn
kept on pursuing him until he came upon Marwān at Būs.īr in Egypt at ‛Ayn al-
Shams.84 ‛Āmir b. Ismā‛īl confronted Marwān, killed him, cut off his head and laid
it before Abū ‛Awn. The latter sent it on to Abu ’l-‛Abbās Saffāh.. The killing of
Marwān was in Dhu ’l-Qa‛da of the year 132 [/June–July 750].
When Abu ’l-‛Abbās succeeded to the caliphate, he sent his brother Mans.ūr to
Khurasan in order to get an oath of allegiance from Abū Muslim and oaths from
all the people of Khurasan. When Ibrāhīm al-Imām had been killed, Abū Salama al-
Khallāl, who was the amir in Kufa, acquired an inclination to the cause of the ‛Alids.
Abu ’l-‛Abbās got to know about this and informed Abū Muslim of the situation.
Abū Muslim then sent Murār b. Anas and he killed Abū Salama.
Sharīk was in Farghāna. He rebelled against Abū Muslim and rallied people to the
cause of the House of Abū T.ālib, [M 183] gathering a numerous body of people
around him. Abū Muslim sent Ziyād b. S.ālih. to attack Sharīk. When Ziyād b. S.ālih.
reached the Oxus, the Bukhār-Khudāh came to him seeking a grant of protection,
[H 121] and joined Ziyād for the fight against Sharīk. A battle ensued, large numbers
of people were killed and Sharīk was captured. His head was cut off and sent to Abū
Muslim, who forwarded it to Abu ’l-‛Abbās, this in the month of Dhu ’l-H.ijja of the
year 132 [/July–August 750].85
When order was restored in Khurasan, and there was nowhere giving him cause
for concern, Abū Muslim set out for the Pilgrimage with 8,000 men. When he came
to Nishapur and then Ray, he disbanded all these followers and set off with a force
of just 1,000 men.86 His aides and advisers told him, ‘Don’t go, for you’ll never
come back!’, but he refused to renounce his intention. Abū Muslim killed Sulaymān
b. Kathīr, who had inaugurated the movement for the claims of the House of the
Messenger [of God], peace be upon him and may God pray over him and his house

Part 1.indd 29 7/10/2009 1:35:07 PM

 30 T HE O RNAMENT OF H ISTORIES

and grant them peace. When he set off on the Pilgrimage, and came to the court
of Abu ’l-‛Abbās al-Saffāh., the latter fulfilled for Abū Muslim the due rewards for
service and gave orders that he should be lodged in a handsome fashion. When Abū
Muslim came into Saffāh.’s presence, the latter questioned him in an encouraging
fashion. When Abū Muslim departed on the Pilgrimage, Abu ’l-‛Abbās al-Saffāh. died
in Dhu ’l-H.ijja of the year 136 [/May–June 745] and his brother Mans.ūr succeeded
to the caliphate. When Abū Muslim came back from the Pilgrimage, Mans.ūr sent
him to attack his paternal uncle ‛Abdallāh b. ‛Alī. Abū Muslim defeated him, and he
seized his wealth and possessions as plunder. Jumhūr b. Murār captured ‛Abdallāh b.
‛Alī in the course of that battle and brought him before Abū Muslim, who sent him
on to Mans.ūr. Mans.ūr kept him in captivity till the end of [‛Abdallāh b.] ‛Alī’s life.87
Abū Muslim had had the deciding voice in all affairs, and all that had come
back to Mans.ūr’s ear, hence he continually sought an opportunity for killing Abū
Muslim. When Abū Muslim returned from the Pilgrimage, he was told, ‘There’s
a Christian at H.īra88 who is 200 years old and who knows about everything.’ Abū
Muslim summoned him into his presence. When that aged man saw Abū Muslim,
he exclaimed, ‘You’ve achieved enough, [M 184] you’ve brought your efforts to
perfection and you’ve reached the ultimate point! You’ve consumed yourself (i.e.
in strenuous action) and spread wide your efforts! Now you have come face to face
with your own killing!’ Abū Muslim was overcome by melancholy. The old man went
on to say to him, ‘Defects do not arise from perfect, resolute behaviour, nor from
good judgement or advantageous planning arrangements, nor from the sharp-edged
sword; on the contrary, no-one ever attains all his desires, for Fate catches up with
him when only a part of his aims has been achieved’.
Abū Muslim replied, ‘What’s your prognosis for the outcome! Where will this affair
end?’ The old man replied, ‘When two caliphs are agreed upon a course of action,
it will reach completion. The divinely ordained decree rests with that One before
Whom all human plans are in vain. If you go back to Khurasan, you’ll remain safe
and secure.’ Abū Muslim had the intention of returning, but Mans.ūr sent envoys to
him with the message, ‘Come speedily!’ The divine decree had come down, and Abū
Muslim had lost his powers of perception and foresight. He asked someone, ‘What
do you think they’re going to do with me?’ That person replied, ‘Good treatment,
and the reward for all that you’ve done for them (sc. the ‛Abbasids) can only be
good!’ Abū Muslim said, ‘I suspect otherwise!’
The opening phase of the killing of Abū Muslim by Abū Ja‛far Mans.ūr was on this
wise. Mans.ūr sent Yaqt.īn to Abū Muslim, and Yaqt.īn [H 122] said to Abū Muslim,
‘He’s sent me with this charge, that I should investigate whether this amount of
wealth is sufficient for the body of troops or not.’89 Abū Muslim realised that the
real intention did not lie in his words. He started out along the road to Khurasan,
disobeying Mans.ūr’s instructions until he reached H.ulwān and encamped there.
Mans.ūr despatched Jarīr b. Yazīd b. Jarīr b. ‛Abdallāh al-Bajalī. This man Jarīr was
an extremely wily and crafty person, and was shrewd, to an unequalled degree. He
invoked many incantations and magical spells on Abū Muslim, and as a result got
him to return to Mans.ūr.

Part 1.indd 30 7/10/2009 1:35:08 PM

 P ART O NE : T HE A RAB G OVERNORS 31

It is related that when Abū Muslim came back from H.ulwān with Jarīr al-Bajalī to
Abū Ja‛far’s court, he asked for a horse that was the finest in the stables and mounted
that horse with the intention of going into Mans.ūr’s presence. The horse bolted
beneath Abū Muslim three times. One of [M 185] his retainers told him, ‘Turn
back!’, but Abū Muslim replied, ‘What the Most Exalted God wills, will be.’ When
he came into Mans.ūr’s presence, the latter bade him sit down and asked after him in
a friendly way. Then he asked him, ‘Which sword did you wield in all those victories
and battles of yours?’ Abū Muslim responded, ‘With this one,’ and he indicated the
sword that was girded at his waist. Mans.ūr said, ‘Give it to me,’ and he handed it to
him. Mans.ūr then said, ‘Do you know what you did against me? You did so-and-
so,’ and he enumerated the charges one by one. Abū Muslim gave a reply to each
accusation until Mans.ūr made a sour face and shouted at him.
Abū Muslim said, ‘O Commander of the Faithful, this is not a fair requital of all
those beneficial deeds I did!’ Mans.ūr replied,

O Father of Criminal Deeds!90 Remember when you came into Abu ’l-‛Abbās’s
presence and rendered service to him, when I was sitting there and you paid no
attention to me! Remember that you said to my nephew ‛Īsā b. Mūsā, ‘Are you
agreeable that I should deprive Abū Ja‛far of his succession rights and set you
up in his place?’ Remember how, in Syria, in the presence of Yaqt.īn b. Mūsā,
you vilified me and called me ‘Son of Salama’,91 and [you said that] Salama was
of lower status than your own mother!

Abū Muslim gave an answer to each one of these charges.92

Mans.ūr then said, ‘You didn’t do these things out of friendship for us! On the
contrary, the successful establishment of our power was due to a heavenly decree and
divine favour!’ He made a sign to the person who was standing over Abū Muslim,
and the latter struck Abū Muslim with the sword. Abū Muslim fell to the ground,
crying out ‘Oh! Oh!’ Mans.ūr expostulated, ‘O you who wrought the deeds of mighty
warriors, you’re crying now like a small child!’ ‛Uthmān b. Nahīk, who had previously
been Abū Muslim’s personal bodyguard,93 was the first person to strike Abū Muslim,
and then the H.ājib Abu ’l-Khas.īb struck him with his sword and finished him off.
Abū Muslim’s troops rioted at the palace gate. Abu ’l-Khas.īb went out and gave out a
message from Mans.ūr to the Khurasanian troops which stated, ‘The Commander of
the Faithful announces that the Amir Abū Muslim was our servant, and we ordained
punishment for his disobedience. You are not behaving in this manner’, and he ordered
that a year’s pay allotment should be taken from the treasury [and distributed to them].
They all became quiescent. Mans.ūr then sent Abū Muslim’s head to Abū Dāwūd
[H 123] so that [M 186] it could be paraded round throughout all Khurasan.94

Abū Dāwūd Khālid b. Ibrāhīm al-Dhuhlī

Mans.ūr appointed Abū Dāwūd governor of Khurasan in the month of Ramad.ān of
the year 137 [/February–March 755], and Abū Dāwūd remained there as governor
till his death.95 The ‘Wearers of White’ (sapīd-jāmagān) killed him in the month of

Part 1.indd 31 7/10/2009 1:35:08 PM

 32 T HE O RNAMENT OF H ISTORIES

Rabī‛ I of the year 140 [/July–August 757].96 This group which killed Abū Dāwūd
were from the community of Sa‛īd Jawlāh. In the end, Abū Dāwūd’s retainers
captured all that group and killed them. Their chief, Sa‛īd Jawlāh, was also captured
and put to death with the rest of them.97

‛Abd al-Jabbār b. ‛Abd al-Rah.mān

This man ‛Abd al-Rah.mān was Mans.ūr’s commander of the police guard. When
Abū Dāwūd Dhuhlī was killed, Mans.ūr gave ‛Abd al-Jabbār b. ‛Abd al-Rah.mān an
investiture patent for the governorship of Khurasan.98 He came to Merv with forty
riding beasts of the postal and intelligence service (barīd ), and was accompanied by
his secretary, a man called Mu‛āwiya [b. ‛Ubaydallāh], who was directing his affairs.
‛Abd al-Jabbār then became puffed up with self-pride, and he wrote a letter to Mans.ūr
asking for his family and children to be sent to Khurasan. Mans.ūr duly despatched
them. ‛Abd al-Jabbār now embarked on a policy of rebelliousness. He imposed extra
impositions, in addition to the land-tax, on Merv, Balkh and many other towns of
Khurasan. He gave the governorship of Nishapur to his sister’s son Khat.t.āb b. Yazīd.
However, Khat.t.āb adopted evil ways and treated the people in an oppressive manner.
The subjects laid complaints against him before Mans.ūr. Mans.ūr wrote a letter to ‛Abd
al-Jabbār instructing him to send Khat.t.āb to the caliphal court. ‛Abd al-Jabbār did not
do this, and merely sent excuses and assumed a rebellious attitude.
‛Abd al-Jabbār’s attention was then drawn to a man named Barāz-banda b. B.m.rūn.
This man claimed to be Ibrāhīm b. ‛Abdallāh al-Hāshimī,99 and he summoned people
to support his claim. ‛Abd al-Jabbār sent an envoy to him communicating his secret
intentions and pledging allegiance to him. He raised the white banner [M 187] and
summoned people to give their allegiance to Barāz-banda.100 He killed several of
the leading commanders of the Khuzā‛a, who had all refused to respond to his
summons: ‛Is.ām, Abū Dāwūd’s commander of the police guard; Abu ’l-Qāsim Tājī
and his brother; ‛Umar b. A‛yan; Murār b. Anas; [H 124] Abu ’l-Qāsim Khuzā‛ī;
Shurayh. b. ‛Abdallāh; Qudāma al-H.arashī, Mans.ūr’s envoy; Abū Wahb; Bārmānī (?);
Abū Hilāl T.ālaqānī; and Muh.tāj.
Mans.ūr now entrusted Khurasan to his son Mahdī. Mahdī despatched H.arb b. Ziyād
to attack ‛Abd al-Jabbār. When news of this reached ‛Abd al-Jabbār, he sent Sawwār
with 5,000 men against H.arb, but H.arb defeated Sawwār and headed towards Merv.
When he drew near [to the city], ‛Abd al-Jabbār marched out to fight. In the course
of that fight, the person who had styled himself Ibrāhīm Hāshimī was killed by H.arb
personally, and ‛Abd al-Jabbār was put to flight. A great number of his troops were
killed. ‛Abd al-Jabbār fled along the road to Zam,101 but lost his way and found himself
in a cotton-growing tract of land in the vicinity of the dwellings of the Azd. ‛Abd
al-Ghaffār b. S.ālih. T.ālaqānī was in pursuit of him with a detachment of troops. They
came upon him there, and seized him and his secretary Mu‛āwiya, tied up their hands
and set them on a stout mount. ‛Abd al-Jabbār was brought before H.arb b. Ziyad, who
had taken up his quarters in the government headquarters (i.e at Merv). He consigned
them both to prison and wrote a letter to Mahdī announcing that victory. The letter
came into the hands of Khāzim b. Khuzayma, Mahdī’s deputy, who attributed the

Part 1.indd 32 7/10/2009 1:35:08 PM

 P ART O NE : T HE A RAB G OVERNORS 33

victory to his own doing. This routing [of the enemy] was on Saturday, 6 Rabī‛ I of the
year 142 [/7 July 759]. Khāzim remained at Merv. He sent H.arb to Herat and T.ālaqān,
and H.asan b. H.umrān to Balkh, Zam and the banks of the Oxus. Khāzim then sought
to be relieved of his post. Mahdī agreed to this, and he relinquished his office.102

Abū ‛Awn ‛Abd al-Malik b. Yazīd

Mans.ūr gave the governorship of Khurasan to Abū ‛Awn ‛Abd al-Malik b. [M 188]
Yazīd. Abū ‛Awn came to Merv in the year 143 [/760–61] and remained in Khurasan
for seven years. During his time, a group of mutinous troops, who were demanding
an increase in their pay allowances, killed H.asan b. H.umrān and his brother. In the
year 146 [/763–4], Mans.ūr completed the building of Baghdad and moved there
from Wāsit.. He dismissed Abū ‛Awn from his post in the year 149 [/766] and
summoned him back from Khurasan.

Usayd b. ‛Abdallāh
Mans.ūr gave the governorship of Khurasan to Usayd b. ‛Abdallāh. Usayd came to
Khurasan in the month of Ramad.ān [/October–November 766]. This man Usayd
was Mans.ūr’s commander of the guard. During his tenure of the governorship in
Khurasan, the rising of Ustādsīs of Bādghīs took place. [H 125] He claimed to
be a prophet, and followed the path of Bihāfarīd.103 The reason for this was that
Bihāfarīd’s adherents in Bādghīs sent a letter to Mahdī in these terms: ‘We have
become Muslims through you, so treat us with consideration!’104
Mahdī sent Muh.ammad [b.] Sa‛īd to lead a raid on Kabul. He sent along with
him these men of Bādghīs and made them sharers in the captured plunder (fay’).
Muh.ammad set off, and carried on warfare for several days, and he allotted them a
share in that captured plunder.105 They then returned to their homes and apostasised
from Islam. Ustādsīs came out in revolt. Mahdī sent Abū ‛Awn and Khāzim to attack
him. When Ustādsīs got news of this, he came with a group of his followers to seek
a guarantee of protection from Abū ‛Awn. Abū ‛Awn accepted the submission of
them all, kept faithfully to his promised terms and refrained from harming Ustādsīs
and the judge (?) and his son. He seized the fortress that they held together with all
its contents. Some people assert that Marājil, the mother of Ma’mūn, was Ustādsīs’s
daughter, and [M 189] that Ghālib, Ma’mūn’s maternal uncle, was Ustādsīs’s son;
it was Ghālib who assassinated Fad.l b. Sahl in the baths at Sarakhs on Ma’mūn’s
orders.106 Usayd b. ‛Abdallāh died in the year 150 [/767].

‛Abda b. Qadīd
The governorship of Khurasan was then given to ‛Abda b. Qadīd. He came to
Merv in Muh.arram of the year 151 [/January–February 768]. He was governor of
Khurasan for seven months and was then dismissed.107

H. umayd b. Qah.t.aba
Mans.ūr gave the governorship of Khurasan to H.umayd b. Qah.t.aba at the beginning
of Sha‛bān of the year 151 [/20 August 768]. H.umayd was one of the principal

Part 1.indd 33 7/10/2009 1:35:09 PM

 34 T HE O RNAMENT OF H ISTORIES

propagandists (dā‛iyān, i.e. for the ‛Abbasid movement).108 During his tenure of office
Mans.ūr died, and Mahdī succeeded to the caliphate. He sent H.umayd an investiture
patent for Khurasan. During H.umayd’s governorship, Muqanna‛ (‘The Veiled One’)
came out in rebellion and raised a white banner.109 This Muqanna‛ was one-eyed. He
was a fuller at Merv, with the name of H.akīm. When he first rebelled, he made a
claim to prophethood and then, ultimately, he claimed to be divine. He summoned
people to become his devotees, having covered his face with a golden mask. He used
to have this over his face so that no-one should see his face, since it was hideous to
behold. He used to say,

God, He is Exalted and Magnified, created Adam and became immanent in him,
and when Adam died, He became immanent in the form of Noah, then of
Abraham, of Moses, of Jesus and then of Muh.ammad, peace be upon them all,
and this continued until He was immanent in the form of Abū Muslim. After
Abū Muslim, He became immanent in the form of Hāshim [i.e. Muqanna‛].

This Muqanna‛ had adopted the name of Hāshim for himself.110

Large numbers of misled and errant people followed him and would prostrate
themselves before him. On the battlefield they would raise the cry of ‘O Hāshim,
give aid!’ just as a person will seek aid from God, He is Exalted and Magnified,
[H 126, M 190] and a great throng of people flocked round him. The fortress of
Sanām, which is in the rural district of Kish, had been got ready and had been provided
with defences against a siege. The ‘Wearers of White’ in Bukhara and Sogdia came
out into the open and provided reinforcements for Muqanna‛, and he also summoned
help from the infidel Turks.111 They were busy plundering the Muslims’ wealth and
possessions. Most of their activities manifested themselves in Sogdia.
Abū Nu‛mān attacked them, but was unable to achieve anything [against them].
They came to the district and town of Kish and erected barricades in its streets and
alleys,112 and they likewise seized control of the citadel of Nuwākath near Sanām and
S.n.k.r. Abu ’l-Nu‛mān, Junayd, Layth b. Nas.r, H.assān b. Tamīm b. Nas.r b. Sayyār
and Muh.ammad b. Nas.r made war on them, but none of these was able to get
the upper hand over them and all turned back defeated. Mahdī then sent Jibrā’īl b.
Yah.yā and his brother Yazīd. They became busy dealing with the ‘Wearers of White’
of Bukhara, who had manifested themselves in the year 157 [/774] during the time of
H.usayn b. Mu‛ādh. Jibrā’īl attacked them in the town of Nuwajkath (? Numijkath)113
and killed 700 of them, and he also killed H.akīm Bukhārī, their leader. The rest of
them took to flight and went to Muqanna‛.
Jibrā’īl then went on to Samarqand and led an attack on the Sogdians,114 killing one
of their leaders. H.umayd b. Qah.t.aba died, and his son ‛Abdallāh b. H.umayd held the
governorship of Khurasan after him till the end of the year 159 [/October 776].

Abū ‛Awn ‛Abd al-Malik b. Yazīd

Mahdī conferred the governorship of Khurasan on Abū ‛Awn, and the latter sent
on ahead his son as commander of the advance guard, this on Monday, 15 S.afar of

Part 1.indd 34 7/10/2009 1:35:09 PM

 P ART O NE : T HE A RAB G OVERNORS 35

160 [/2 December 776]. He held office in Khurasan for one year and one month,
and he led military actions against Muqanna‛. Yūsuf Thaqafī the Khārijite (H.arūrī)
had rebelled in the time of H.umayd, and he was joined by H.akam T.ālaqānī and Bū
Mu‛ādh Fāryābī.115 They had captured Pūshang from Mus.‛ab b. Ruzayq, and Yūsuf
had conquered Marw al-Rūd, T.ālaqān and Gūzgānān, until [M 191] the Hāshimites
of Balkh engaged him in battle [H 127] and put him to flight. Bū Mu‛ādh Fāryābī
was captured and was sent to Mahdī. The latter gave orders and Bū Mu‛adh was
gibbeted at Baghdad. Mahdī then dismissed Abū ‛Awn from Khurasan.

Mu‛ādh b. Muslim
Mahdī conferred the governorship of Khurasan on Mu‛ādh b. Muslim, and Mu‛ādh
sent his brother Salama to Khurasan as his deputy, whilst he himself followed after
him in the month of Rabī‛ II of the year 161 [/January 778].116 During his time
there, his son H.usayn was appointed governor of Nishapur. During H.usayn’s time
there was a famine, and a large number of people gathered round H.usayn’s gate and
lamented about the famine and the high level of prices. They made supplication
to him, ‘Release grain for sale, so that others may see what you’ve done and sell it
too!’ H.usayn replied, ‘I’d have very much liked a grain of wheat to cost a dinar!’ The
people went back in despair and sent up invocations to God. Before a week was out,
H.usayn died.
When Mu‛ādh went to Merv and the affairs of Khurasan were on an even course,
he then marched against Muqanna‛. He appointed Sa‛īd H.arashī as commander of
his vanguard, and ‛Uqba b. Salm also brought reinforcements for him at T.awāwīs.117
They went on to Samarqand. Khārija,118 one of Muqanna‛’s partisans, with 15,000
men from the ‘Wearers of White’, was involved in fighting with Jibrā’īl b. Yah.yā,
and Jibrā’īl killed 3,000 of them. When the reinforcements (i.e. those of ‛Uqba b.
Salm) arrived, the Muslims grew more confident and the ‘Wearers of White’ became
weaker. Large numbers of them were killed, and the remainder fell back towards
Muqanna‛. Muqanna‛ dug a defensive trench in front of the fortress of Sanām and
gave battle to the Muslims. The position of the ‘Wearers of White’ became parlous.
They nevertheless held out, until the point was reached when they were reduced
to eating each other. They sought to come to a peace agreement with H.arashī,
unbeknown to Muqanna‛. H.arashī agreed to this, and 30,000 men came up out of
the defensive trench and went off, [M 192] leaving behind Muqanna‛ with 2,000
persons, his retainers, his fellow-sectaries and his followers.
There were bad relations between Sa‛īd H.arashī and Mu‛ādh b. Muslim. Mu‛ādh
sought from Mahdī permission to lay down his office of collecting the taxes of
Khurasan. He got the caliph’s agreement and returned to Iraq.

Musayyab b. Zuhayr
Mahdī then appointed Musayyab b. Zuhayr as governor of Khurasan and sent him
there. Musayyab reached Khurasan in Jumādā I of the year 166 [/December 782–
January 783].119 As soon as he arrived there, he set about levying the land-tax. He
formed the plan of marching against Bukhara and attacking Muqanna‛. Then he

Part 1.indd 35 7/10/2009 1:35:09 PM

 36 T HE O RNAMENT OF H ISTORIES

received news of Sa‛īd H.arashī’s victory and how he had tightened up the besieging
of Muqanna‛. [H 128] When Muqanna‛ gave up all hope of preserving his life, he
gathered around him all his womenfolk. He prepared a poison and gave his personal
assurance that they would all enter Paradise, and then all of them drank the poison
and died immediately. Muqanna‛ also drank the poison and died some time later. He
had given orders that one of his partisans should cut off his head, and he stipulated
in a last charge that his body should be burnt so that it should never be found.120
Some lost and deluded people who had adopted Muqanna‛’s cause said that he
had gone to Paradise. For this very reason, a group of persons raised up disturbance
and strife on his behalf, and there are supporters of his cause (mutaqanna‛iyān) to this
day.121 The [Muslim] troops poured into that fortress. They found it deserted, and
they carried off as plunder whatever they could find. Musayyab b. Zuhayr remained
in Khurasan for eight months. He raised the land-tax above the customary amount
fixed. The subjects raised complaints about him, until Mahdī dismissed him [from
the governorship]. The Musayyabī dirhams which are current in Transoxania are
named after him, just as the Ghit.rīfī ones are named after Ghit.rīf b. ‛At.ā’ al-Kindī
and the Muh.ammadī ones after Muh.ammad b. Zubayda122 (i.e. the caliph al-Amīn).
These dirhams are made of an alloy of copper and lead.123

Abu ’l-‛Abbās al-Fad. l b. Sulaymān

Mahdī then appointed Abu ’l-‛Abbās al-Fad.l b. [M 193] Sulaymān al-T.ūsī to the
governorship of Khurasan.124 Abu ’l-‛Abbās sent out Sa‛īd b. Bashīr as commander
of the advance guard, and Sa‛īd came to Merv in Muh.arram of the year 167
[/August–September 783]. He went into Musayyab’s presence (Musayyab having
received no information about the change), greeted him ceremoniously and gave
him a letter instructing him to hand over his charge to Sa‛īd. When Musayyab had
read it, he rose from his place and said, ‘The seat of authority is now yours.’
Abu ’l-‛Abbās then arrived also in the month of Rabī‛ I of this same year
[/October 783], and embarked on a course of [praiseworthy] conduct. He gave back
to the people of Merv the 5,000 boards for measuring the quantities of water allowed
to the cultivators (bast-āb)125 which the military commanders and prominent persons
had arbitrarily appropriated. He enlarged the mosque of Merv. He purchased tracts
of land, comprising enclosures and gardens (i.e. for public use). He enlarged the
burial grounds at Merv. He increased the pay allotments of the military leaders. He
divided up the land-tax amongst the people in a just manner. In our places Quhistān,
the T.abasayn, Āmul, Nasā, Bāward, Herat and Pūshang, the situation now prevailed
that only the customary rate of taxation fixed by him should be approved, and he
removed from the people all the extra taxes on top of the land-tax that Musayyab
had imposed. He founded the settlement of Fad.lābād in the desert of Āmūy.126 A
stout wall was constructed between Sogdia and Bukhara to protect the people from
the Turks. He lightened the burden of the land-tax on the leading figures of the
Arabs.
During his time, Hādī succeeded to the caliphate, and for the whole of his reign,
Abu ’l-‛Abbās remained amir of Khurasan. But when Hārūn al-Rashīd succeeded to

Part 1.indd 36 7/10/2009 1:35:09 PM

 P ART O NE : T HE A RAB G OVERNORS 37

the caliphate,127 he appointed Ja‛far b. Muh.ammad b. al-Ash‛ath to the governorhip

of Khurasan. [H 129]

Ja‛far b. Muh.ammad b. al-Ash‛ath

Hārūn al-Rashīd then appointed Ja‛far b. Muh.ammad b. al-Ash‛ath to the governorship
of Khurasan and sent him there. In Dhu ’l-H.ijja of the year 176 [/March–April
793],128 Ja‛far sent his son ‛Abbās against Kabul. He subdued Shābahār, and seized as
plunder all the wealth and possessions in that place. Ja‛far was recalled. It is related
that, one day, Ja‛far came into Hārūn’s presence at a moment when Hārūn had
become angered against a certain person. [M 194] Ja‛far said, ‘O Commander of
the Faithful, one should only be gripped by anger on God’s behalf. Whenever you
become angered on God’s behalf, don’t be carried away by it to a greater degree than
God Himself, He is Exalted and Magnified, would be!’ Hārūn was pleased at these
words, and he showed benevolence towards the man with whom he had originally
been angry.

‛Abbās b. Ja‛far
When Hārūn recalled Ja‛far, he bestowed Khurasan on the latter’s son ‛Abbās b.
Ja‛far.129 The latter came to Khurasan and followed the same policies as his father.
He remained governor of Khurasan for three years, and in the year 175 [/791–2] he
was recalled.

Ghit.rīf b. ‛At.ā’ al-Kindī

Hārūn then appointed Ghit.rīf b. ‛At.ā’ al-Kindī to the goverorship of Khurasan.130
Ghit.rīf sent out as his deputy Dāwūd b. Yazīd b. H.ātim, and then himself followed
after Dāwūd in the months of the year 175. He despatched ‛Umar b. Jamīl, who
ejected the Jabūya131 from Farghāna and remained there for some time. He ordered
the Ghit.rīfī dirhams to be struck, and these are used at Bukhara for commercial and
financial transactions.132
During Ghit.rīf ’s governorship, H.ud.ayn the Khārijite, who was from Ūq,
came out in rebellion. The amir of Sistan at that time was ‛Uthmān b. ‛Umāra b.
Khuzayma. H.ud.ayn defeated ‛Uthmān’s army and then invaded Khurasan, coming
to Pūshang and Herat. Hārūn ordered that forces should be sent against him. [H 130]
Ghit.rīf sent his deputy (i.e. Dāwūd b. Yazīd) and the latter’s brother Jarīr b. Yazīd
with 12,000 troops. It is related that H.ud.ayn had 300 men. H.ud.ayn killed a substantial
number of his opponents. When he went to Isfizār, he was killed there, together with
his wife, this in the year 177 [793–4].133

al-Fad. l b. Yah.yā al-Barmakī

Rashīd then appointed as governor of Khurasan Fad.l b. Yah.yā al-Barmakī.134
[M 195] Fad.l b. Yah.yā sent on ahead Yah.yā b. Mu‛ādh as his deputy over Khurasan,
and Yah.yā came there in Ramad.ān of the year 177 [/December 793–January 794].
Fad.l b. Yah.yā himself reached Khurasan in Muh.arram of the year 178 [/April–May
794]. and went off to lead a raid (ghazw) into Transoxania.135

Part 1.indd 37 7/10/2009 1:35:09 PM

 38 T HE O RNAMENT OF H ISTORIES

Khārākhuruh, the ruler (malik) of Ushrūsana,136 submitted to Fad.l, never having

before submitted to anyone and never having given obedience to anyone. In
Fad.l’s time, the Khārijite Khurāsha b. Sinān had come out in rebellion and had
seized Dīnawar. Fad.l b. Yah.yā sent against him Ibrāhīm b. Jibrā’īl. Ibrāhīm defeated
Khurāsha, and in three days the latter retreated ninety parasangs to Shahrazūr. He
came to Chāh-i Asad (?), was captured there and put to death.137
Hārūn had entrusted Muh.ammad al-Amīn to Fad.l-i Yah.yā’s care for his upbringing,
and Ma’mūn to the care of Ja‛far b. Yah.yā. Hārūn used to call Yah.yā b. Khālid
‘Father’. He gave the vizierate to Yah.yā b. Khālid. Fad.l and all the Barmakis were
noted for their generosity and liberality, to the extent that, one day, it was said to
Fad.l b. Yah.yā, ‘‛Umar b. Jamīl is a generous and liberal person, hospitable to guests’.
Fad.l ordered that ‛Umar should be given 200,000 dirhams and made him his deputy
over Khurasan on the basis of this story which had been related about him. When
Fad.l was dismissed from the governorship, ‛Umar b. Jamīl got together resources in
Chaghāniyān and settled there; there remain in Chaghāniyān many of his progeny,
and to this very day there are numerous descendants of his there.138 It is related that,
one day, ‛Umar saw a fox which went down a hole. He had the hole dug out, and saw
there a great treasure. He built a residence (kūshk) over that spot and brought away
that treasure. All his kindred and close retainers built places round that house. Rashīd
dismissed Fad.l b. Yah.yā [from the governorship of Khurasan].139 [H 131]

Mans.ūr b. Yazīd
Rashīd then appointed Mans.ūr b. Yazīd, who was the maternal uncle [M 196] of
Mahdī, as governor of Khurasan.140 Mans.ūr made his son Sa‛īd his deputy, and
Sa‛īd reached Khurasan in Dhu ’l-Qa‛da of the year 179 [/January–February 796].
Mans.ūr himself arrived in Dhu ’l-H.ijja of that year [/February–March 796]. During
his governorship, the Khārijite H.amza b. Ādharak came out in revolt. He went to
Quhistān, and whatever H.amza demanded, the people of Quhistān gave it to him.
He then returned.141

‛Alī b. ‛Īsā b. Māhān

Hārūn then appointed ‛Alī b. ‛Īsā b. Māhān governor of Khurasan. ‛Alī sent his son
Yah.yā as commander of his advance guard, and Yah.yā b. ‛Alī reached Khurasan at
the opening of the year 180 [/16 March 796]. ‛Alī remained governor of Khurasan
for ten years.142 His secretary was H.afs. b. Mans.ūr Marwazī. H.afs. died, leaving behind
him sixty children, twenty of them grown up and forty still small. H.afs. has composed
the book Kharāj Khurāsān (‘The Land-tax of Khurasan’).143
During ‛Alī b. ‛Īsā’s governorate, the Khārijite H.amza rebelled. ‛Amr b. Yazīd
al-Azdī was in charge of the region of Herat as far [south] as Pūshang. ‛Amr
marched against H.amza with 6,000 troops and defeated him, killing a large part
of H.amza’s army. A substantial number of men died from the excessive heat of
the time, including also ‛Amr; they brought him back and buried him. H.amza went
to Astarābād. ‛Alī b. ‛Īsā b. Māhān sent forward his son H.usayn with a force of
10,000 men. H.usayn came to Bādghīs and wrote a letter to H.amza, made over the

Part 1.indd 38 7/10/2009 1:35:09 PM

 P ART O NE : T HE A RAB G OVERNORS 39

poor-tax (zakāt) to him and did not engage in warfare with him. In the end, his father
dismissed him for this reason.
He then sent another of his sons, ‛Īsā, who engaged H.amza in battle. H.amza
smashed ‛Īsā’s army,144 and ‛Īsā retreated to Balkh. His father provided him with
another army and he went out to engage H.amza. He killed large numbers of H.amza’s
troops, and H.amza fled in retreat with 40,000 of his followers to Quhistān. [M 197]
‛Alī b. ‛Īsā sent several of his senior officers to Ūq and Juwayn, and any of the
quietist Khārijites (khārijī qa‛adī ) they came across they killed without exception.
They also killed the menfolk of the villages that had given aid and support to H.amza
[H 132] and burnt down the villages themselves, and then returned to Zarang. It is
related that they killed 30,000 people in this fashion. ‛Abdallāh b. ‛Abbās was left in
Zarang (sc. as governor and tax-collector) with a force of 4,000 men, and he levied
a tax precept of three million dirhams.
H.amza advanced towards him as far as Sabzawār, and a battle took place there. The
troops from Sogdia and Nakhshab fought on doggedly until H.amza became weakened
and fatigued, and then they launched an attack. They killed his close retainers and
wounded H.amza in the face. ‛Abdallāh b. al-‛Abbās seized the plunder there and
marched away. H.amza fell upon the villages and killed everyone he could find there.
He came to a school and thirty children and their teacher were killed. When T.āhir145
heard about this, they were in a village of the quietist Khārijites (qa‛adiyān) who do not
have the custom of waging war and and who had stayed in their houses. After 300 men
and women were killed, and he had carried off their wealth and possessions as plunder,
he had them (sc. the survivors of the Khārijites) brought in. Two stout branches of a
tree were tied together with strong ropes connecting the two of them, and the two legs
of a quietist Khārijite were each tied to one of the two branches. Then the rope was
released, and the strength of those two branches thus released would split the man in
two. Several battles took place between the troops of ‛Īsā and those of H.amza. ‛Īsā’s
affairs now went well, and he constructed ten mills at Balkh.146

Harthama b. A‛yan
Rashīd gave the governorship of Khurasan to Harthama b. A‛yan, and he came to
Khurasan in the year 191 [/207].147 Rāfi‛ b. al-Layth b. Nas.r b. Sayyār had rebelled
at Samarqand, and on several occasions Harthama was involved with him.148 Then
Harthama wrote out a guarantee of protection for Rāfi‛ and sent it to him, but Rāfi‛
took no notice of it. When Rashīd heard about this, he said, ‘Anyone who rejects a
document offering protection becomes a contemptible wretch.’ Harthama b. A‛yan
summoned T.āhir b. al-H.usayn [M 198] to join forces with him, and Khurasan became
empty of troops. When Hārūn heard the news about Rāfi‛ and Harthama, he became
worried and perturbed. He set out from Baghdad with the intention of proceeding
to Samarqand, but when he reached T.ūs he died, in the year 193 [/809].149 H.amza
came out in revolt [again], and began to kill and plunder, and craftsmen and artisans
(kārdārān) from Herat and Sistan were flocking to his side.
‛Abd al-Rah.mān Nishābūrī led a movement at Zarang, and 20,000 ghāzīs whose
names were registered150 on the army’s strength rallied round him, and in the year

Part 1.indd 39 7/10/2009 1:35:09 PM

 40 T HE O RNAMENT OF H ISTORIES

194 [/809–10] he marched out to attack H.amza. H.amza had 6,000 men. Most of
H.amza’s troops were killed, [H 133] and H.amza was [eventually] killed. He went to
Herat, pursued by the ghāzīs. Finally, they killed him at some point in the months
of 213 [/828–9]. The judge Abū Ish.āq took his place.151 Harthama besieged Rāfi‛
b. al-Layth in Samarqand, and much fighting took place till he took Samarqand and
killed Rāfi‛.152
In the year 195 [/810–11], [the governorship of] Transoxania was given to
Yah.yā b. Mu‛ādh. Subsequently, he was dismissed from the post, and it was given153
to Bānījūr154 in Sha‛bān of the year 199 [/March–April 815].

al-Ma’mūn ‛Abdallāh b. Rashīd

When Rashīd passed away, Ma’mūn was at Merv. Rashīd had left behind his testament
(was.iyyat) that ‘All the wealth and treasure I have with me is to be conveyed to Ma’mūn.’
But Fad.l b. al-Rabī‛ betrayed these instructions, and all the wealth and treasure was
conveyed to Muh.ammad b. Zubayda at Baghdad, contrary to what Rashīd had stipu-
lated in his testament. Ma’mūn was the next covenanted heir (walī ‛ahd ) after Amīn.
Since Ma’mūn was in Khurasan at the time of his father’s demise, he remained there
permanently and kept the government of Khurasan firmly under his own control.
Amīn summoned Mu’taman back from the western lands (maghrib) and ordered him
to renounce his succession rights. Amīn had allegiance made to his own son as his suc-
cessor, and the son was given the honorific title (laqab) of al-Nāt.iq bi ’l-H.aqq ‘He Who
Enunciates the Divine Truth’. He wrote a letter to Ma’mūn summoning him back
from Khurasan. Ma’mūn, however, was very shrewd and sagacious, and realised what
Muh.ammad al-Amīn was up to. He made excuses and did not go to Baghdad. [M 199]
Muh.ammad al-Amīn then despatched ‛Alī b. ‛Īsā to attack Ma’mūn. When Ma’mūn
got news of this, he consulted with Fad.l b. Sahl about what he should do, and with
his concurrence and advice, and that of Dhūbān the astrologer,155 he sent T.āhir b. al-
H.usayn b. Mus.‛ab against ‛Alī b. ‛Īsā. The two commanders met up with each other
one stage away from Ray, and the armies made contact and engaged in battle. It was
not long before T.āhir gained the victory and ‛Alī b. ‛Īsā was killed. T.āhir cut off his
head and sent it to Ma’mūn, and from there he headed towards Iraq.
Muh.ammad Amīn sent ‛Abd al-Rah.mān b. Jabala with an army of 30,000 troops to
combat T.āhir. A mighty battle took place between the two sides near Hamadān. ‛Abd
al-Rah.mān was defeated and withdrew into Hamadān. T.āhir laid siege to the town.
At that point, ‛Abd al-Rah.mān came forth seeking a guarantee of protection (zīnhār),
but after a certain period of time had elapsed, he then adopted a stratagem. With a
contingent of troops that had arrived from Baghdad as reinforcements for him, ‛Abd
al-Rahmān fell upon T.āhir’s army at midday. T.āhir had marched out, and they joined
together in battle. All that body of troops (i.e the reinforcements from Baghdad)
were killed. ‛Abd al-Rah.mān was taken prisoner, his head was cut off and T.āhir sent
it to Ma’mūn. He then advanced against Baghdad. Harthama b. A‛yan arrived from
Khurasan to reinforce T.āhir. The united forces proceeded to Baghdad. The troops
encamped in the vicinity of Baghdad, and battle was joined, Baghdad was besieged
and Muh.ammad b. Zubayda’s position became desperate.

Part 1.indd 40 7/10/2009 1:35:10 PM

 P ART O NE : T HE A RAB G OVERNORS 41

When he was reduced to extremities and the treasury was empty, and all the court
troops (h.asham), soldiers, subjects and clients (mawlāyān) abandoned Muh.ammad al-
Amīn, and he was left isolated with no possible way out, he sent a note to Harthama
saying, ‘I’m coming to you this night.’ Harthama [H 134] took a river boat (zawraq)
and sailed along the Tigris to Baghdad. Muh.ammad came up to him, and they were
both in the boat. T.āhir was informed of this situation. He blocked Muh.ammad’s
way of escape and ordered stones to be hurled till Muh.ammad’s boat was eventu-
ally shattered. The skipper of the boat got hold of Harthama and hauled him out.
Muh.ammad knew how to swim [M 200] and tried to get out of the Tigris waters. One
of T.āhir’s slave guards (ghulām) seized him, brought him to his own tent and informed
T.āhir. T.āhir ordered that same ghulām to cut off Muh.ammad’s head. Then he sent
Muh.ammad, son of Zubayda’s, head, and the cloak, staff156 and prayer-mat of the
Prophet, God’s prayers and peace be upon him and his house, to Ma’mūn by the
hand of his own paternal cousin Muh.ammad b. al-H.usayn (text, al-H.asan) b. Mus.‛ab.
Ma’mūn rewarded the latter with a present of a million dirhams.157
When Ma’mūn was installed in Khurasan, he dispensed justice and equity copiously.
He used to come every day to the congregational mosque in Merv and there would
hear complaints of tyranny and injustice. He would listen to what people had to say
and give them appropriate redress.158

Ghassān b. ‛Abbād
When the deposed caliph’s head was brought to Khurasan and Ma’mūn was firmly
established in the caliphate, he conferred the governorship of Khurasan on Ghassān
b. ‛Abbād in Rajab of the year 204 [/December 819–January 820].159 Ghassān dis-
missed Layth b. Sa‛d from Samarqand and gave the governorship there to Nūh. b.
Asad. During Ghassān’s time of office, Ma’mūn left Merv and went to Baghdad. [‛Alī
b.] Mūsā al-Rid.ā, may God Most High be pleased with him, died at T.ūs, and Fad.l b.
Sahl was killed in the bathhouse at Sarakhs. When what he had left behind was inves-
tigated, they found fastened round his waist a women’s jewel box secured with a seal
and lock. They opened the lock and found there a golden box which was fastened up.
They opened it and found there a piece of silk on which was written, ‘In the name of
God, the Merciful, the Compassionate. This is the horoscope (h.ukm) for Fad.l b. Sahl
which has been prepared on his behalf. He will enjoy forty-eight years of life and then
he will be killed between water and fire.’ He did indeed have this term of life, and then
Ma’mūn’s maternal relative, Ghālib b. Ustadsīs,160 killed him in the bathhouse in the
town of Sarakhs.161

Part 1.indd 41 7/10/2009 1:35:10 PM

Part 1.indd 42 7/10/2009 1:35:10 PM
 PART TWO: THE TAHIRIDS
AND SAFFARIDS

[N 5, M 201]
T.āhir (I) b. al-H
. usayn
Then Ma’mūn gave Khurasan to T.āhir b. al-H.usayn b. Mus.‛ab in Shawwāl of the year
205 [/March–April 821]. T.āhir sent his deputy [to Khurasan] [H 135] and himself went
to combat Nas.r b. Shabath.1 He engaged him in battle at Raqqa. Then Ma’mūn sent
‛Abdallāh b. T.āhir to Raqqa in place of his father, and T.āhir came to Khurasan in the
month of Rabī‛ II of the year 206 [/September 821], and governed it for a year and
a half. Subsequently, he omitted Ma’mūn’s name in the bidding prayer (khut.ba) in one
of the Friday worships, but died on that very same night, in Jumādā II of the year 207
[/October–November 822], having made his son T.alh.a b. T.āhir his deputy (khalīfat).2

T.alh.a b. T.āhir (I)

When T.āhir died, his son T.alhā succeeded to the governorship of Khurasan. There
was much warfare between T.alh.a and H.amza the Khārijite, until in the year 213
[/828–9] H.amza was killed.3 Ma’mūn had given T.āhir b. al-H.usayn the honorific
title of Dhu ’l-Yamīnayn (‘The Man with Two Right Hands’). The reason for this was
that, when Ma’mūn was despatching T.āhir against ‛Alī b. ‛Isā, at that moment [N 6]
when T.āhir set out, Fad.l b. Sahl sought a prognostication and cast a horoscope, and
found two favourable stars, one of them Canopus and the other the Great Dog Star,
positioned in the centre of the firmament. For this reason, Ma’mūn gave T.āhir the
name Dhu ’l-Yamīnayn. Because of that propitious prognostication which had been
made, Ma’mūn took a great liking to the science of astrology. At the moment when
he awarded a banner for T.āhir b. al-H.usayn (i.e. at his official departure to take up his
new post), Fad.l said, ‘O T.āhir, I have placed a banner in your hands which no-one will
strike down for sixty-five years.’ From the time when T.āhir marched out of Merv to
confront ‛Alī b. ‛Īsā to the time of the downfall of the Tahirid house and Ya‛qūb b.
al-Layth’s seizure of Muh.ammad b. T.āhir, was sixty-five years.
When T.alha b. T.āhir had disposed of the threat from H.amza the Khārijite and the
latter had been killed, he himself died in that same year, having made Muh.ammad b.
H.amīd/H.umayd al-T.āhirī his deputy over Khurasan.4 [M 202]

Part 2.indd 43 7/10/2009 1:35:53 PM

 44 T HE O RNAMENT OF H ISTORIES

‛Abdallāh b. T.āhir (I)

When Ma’mūn heard the news of T.alh.a’s death, he conferred the governorship of
Khurasan on ‛Abdallāh b. T.āhir, who sent ‛Alī b. T.āhir to Khurasan as his deputy
whilst he himself remained at Dīnawar, from where he was sending armies to combat
Bābak the Khurram-dīn.5 The Khārijites launched an attack on one of the villages
of Nishapur and slaughtered a large number of people. When news of that reached
Ma’mūn, he ordered ‛Abdallāh b. [H 136] T.āhir to proceed to Nishapur and deal with
that situation, sending ‛Alī b. Hishām to take ‛Abdallāh b. T.āhir’s place at Dīnawar.
‛Abdallāh reached Nishapur in Rajab of the year 215 [/August–September 830] at a
time when Khurasan was racked by Khārijite strife. He sent on ‛Azīz b. Nūh. with the
vanguard of the army together with 10,000 men, and he eventually cleared Khurasan
of the Khārijites and killed large numbers of them.
Muh.ammad b. H.amīd/H.umayd al-T.āhirī acted as ‛Abdallāh’s deputy at Nishapur
[N 7] and committed many oppressive acts, appropriating part of the main thorough-
fare [through the town] and incorporating it within his own residential quarters. When
‛Abdallāh b. T.āhir came to Nishapur, he made enquiries. The H.ājj Ah.mad, who was
a professional witness (mu‛addil ), told him that Muh.ammad b. H.amīd/H.umayd had
appropriated part of the main thoroughfare and incorporated it within his own resi-
dential quarters. ‛Abdallāh dismissed him from office and ordered that the wall block-
ing off the Muslims’ road should be removed.6
During ‛Abdallāh’s time, Ma’mūn passed away and Mu‛tas.im succeeded to the
caliphate. Mu‛tas.im was hostile towards ‛Abdallāh. The reason for this was that, when
‛Abdallāh was Ma’mūn’s chamberlain and palace doorkeeper (h.ājib), Mu‛tas.im had
come one day to Ma’mūn’s gate, with a retinue of his personal ghulāms, at an inap-
propriate time. ‛Abdallāh had said, ‘This is not the right time to pay your respects
with so many ghulāms.’ Mu‛tas.im replied, ‘You find it appropriate to ride out with
400 ghulāms, so why shouldn’t I ride forth with this number of men?’ ‛Abdallāh said,
‘Even though I may ride out with 4,000 ghulāms, I won’t agree to your coming with
just four!’ Mu‛tas.im went back filled with anger. When Ma’mūn heard about the inci-
dent, he summoned the two of them and brought about a reconciliation. [M 203]
When Mu‛tas.im succeeded to the throne, he sent to ‛Abdallāh an investiture diploma
for the governorship of Khurasan. He also sent him an extremely beautiful slave girl,
and he gave her a towel, telling her, ‘When ‛Abdallāh has intimate relations with you,
give him this towel so that he may clean himself up.’7 But when the slave girl reached
‛Abdallāh’s house, she became enamoured of him and told him about that secret plot.
‛Abdallāh maintained an attitude of prudence and took care always to keep himself
out of Mu‛tas.im’s clutches, openly displaying a feeling of mistrust and suspiciousness.
One day, ‛Abdallāh said to his secretary Ismā‛īl [b. H.ammād], ‘I intend to go on the
Pilgrimage.’ Ismā‛īl replied, ‘O Amir, you are too sensible to undertake such a senseless
business!’ ‛Abdallāh said, ‘You’ve spoken truly; in saying this, I was only testing you!’8
In the year 224 [/839] there was an earthquake in Farghāna, with many dwellings
destroyed.9
During ‛Abdallāh’s time, [N 8] Māzyār b. Qārin rebelled in T.abaristān, adopted
the religion of Bābak the Khurram-dīn and put on red garments. [H 137] ‛Abdallāh

Part 2.indd 44 7/10/2009 1:35:57 PM

 P ART T WO : T HE T AHIRIDS AND S AFFARIDS 45

marched thither, engaged him in battle and captured Māzyār in the year 227 [/841–2].
He sent him on to Mu‛tas.im, who ordered Māzyār to be lashed with 500 strokes, from
the effects of which he died that same day.10
The people of Nishapur and Khurasan used continually to come to ‛Abdallāh and
there were continuous disputes over the subterranean irrigation channels (kārīz-hā).
There was nothing to be found in the law books or the traditions of the Messenger
[of God], God’s prayers and peace be upon him, concerning the constituting of such
channels and their regulation. Hence ‛Abdallāh assembled all the legal scholars of
Khurasan and some of those from Iraq, and he commissioned them to compose a
book on the legal aspects and regulation of such channels. This book was called the
Kitāb-i Qunī ‘Book Concerning Irrigation Channels’, with the aim that the regulatory
practices laid down there should now form the basis of [future] practice. That book
remains in existence till this present time, and the legal and regulatory practices regard-
ing underground irrigation channels and other watercourses11 followed in our own
time are conducted according to what is laid down in that book.
Many admirable practices and customs are attributed to ‛Abdallāh b. T.āhir. One of
them was that he sent a letter to all his officials, saying,

We have laid upon you the obligation to be alert and [M 204] not sunk in neglect-
fulness. You should avoid evil behaviour and seek to maintain an attitude of
personal uprightness. You should treat with consideration the cultivators in your
area of administrative responsibility, and should give support and strengthening
to agriculture when it becomes depressed. Now return to your charges, for God,
He is Exalted and Magnified, has provided our sustenance through the work of
their hands, has brought about a state of peace and security through their utter-
ances and has prohibited acts of oppression against them!

‛Abdallāh b. T.āhir used to say, ‘One should bestow knowledge on the worthy and the
unworthy alike, since knowledge is too circumspect to find a permanent home with
the unworthy [anyway].’
When Mu‛tas.im passed away, Wāthiq succeeded to the caliphate, and he sent an
investiture diploma for the governorship of Khurasan [N 9] to ‛Abdallāh. ‛Abdallāh
himself died during Wāthiq’s caliphate, in the year 230 [/844–5].

T.āhir (II) b. ‛Abdallāh

Wāthiq then bestowed Khurasan on T.āhir b. ‛Abdallāh, whose patronymic was
Abu ’l-T.ayyib. The latter was at this time in T.abaristān but returned to Nishapur
and appointed Mus‛ab. b. ‛Abdallāh as his deputy (i.e. in T.abaristān). Wāthiq died in
Dhu ’l-H.ijja of the year 232 [/July–August 847].
Mutawakkil succeeded to the caliphate, and he sent an investiture diploma for
Khurasan to T.āhir. After a certain period of time elapsed, Mutawakkil was killed.
Muntas.ir succeeded to the caliphate, and he sent an investiture diploma for Khurasan
to T.āhir.
Abu ’l-H.asan Sha‛rānī12 related that T.āhir had a slave boy (khādim) who had a fair

Part 2.indd 45 7/10/2009 1:35:57 PM

 46 T HE O RNAMENT OF H ISTORIES

skin and handsome face. He handed him over to me, saying, ‘Sell this lad!’ The slave
boy made much lamentation and burst out weeping. I delayed doing anything, for he
was a remarkably handsome slave boy, and I went back to the Amir, asking him, ‘Why
are you selling this slave boy?’ He replied, ‘One night he was asleep within the palace,
and a draught blew back his garment (i.e. from his body). [H 138] I looked at him and
saw how delectable he was, and I was afraid lest an evil spirit put lascivious thoughts
into my mind.’ Then he gave orders for presents to be got ready and the slave boy was
sent, accompanied by other presents, to Mutawakkil.
One day a document was written out and presented to him. In it was written, ‘If
the judgement of the rightly guided one (ra’y-i rashīd ) thinks fit . . .’ [M 205] He issued
an ordinance under his signature and seal (tawqī‛ ), saying, ‘I don’t want to be called
“rightly guided”, since this name should only be given to someone whom God, He is
Exalted and Magnified, has made deserving of it.’
When Muntas.ir died, Musta‛īn succeeded to the caliphate, and he retained T.āhir as
governor of Khurasan. T.āhir passed away in the year 248 [/862].13 [N 10]

Muh.ammad b. T.āhir (II)

Musta‛īn bestowed Khurasan on Muh.ammad b. T.āhir. The latter was negligent and
lacking in foresight. He plunged himself into wine drinking, and became occupied
with music and singing and with merrymaking to the pitch that, through his neglectful-
ness, T.abaristān became disturbed and the ‛Alid H.asan b. Zayd rebelled in the year 251
[/865], at the time when Sulaymān b. ‛Abdallāh b. T.āhir was governor in T.abaristān.
H.asan, son of Zayd, clashed with him in battle, Sulaymān was defeated and H.asan
seized control of T.abaristān. Musta‛īn was deposed.14 Then Muhtadī succeeded to the
caliphate, and ruled as caliph for fifteen months and sixteen days until he was deposed.
Then Mu‛tamid succeeded to the caliphate in Rajab of the year 256 [/June 870].
Muh.ammad b. T.āhir remained governor in Khurasan, whilst T.abaristān and Gurgān
had become stirred up in rebellion. The paternal nephews of Muh.ammad b. T.āhir
were jealous of him, and they gave support to Ya‛qūb, son of Layth, and emboldened
him until he attacked Khurasan. He marched forth, took Muh.ammad captive and
himself assumed power in Khurasan.15

The Outbreak of Ya‛qūb b. al-Layth

Ya‛qūb b. al-Layth b. Mu‛addal was a man of obscure origins from the village of
Qarnīn in the rural hinterland (rūstā) of Sistan. When he came to the city [of Sistan,
i.e. Zarang], he chose to take up the profession of coppersmith and set about learning
it. He worked as an artisan for fifteen dirhams a month. [H 139] The reason for his
obtaining a position of maturity and leadership was that he was a bold youth (jawān
mard) in all that he undertook and practised. [N 11] He used to eat and keep company
with people, [M 206] and, in addition to that, he was sharp-witted and manly, and all
his close companions held him in high respect.16 In every undertaking that came up,
amongst his co-participants he would assume the leadership.
From working as a coppersmith, he became an ‛ayyār, and from that, took up rob-
bery and brigandage.17 He rose to become a senior commander (sarhang) and assembled

Part 2.indd 46 7/10/2009 1:35:58 PM

 P ART T WO : T HE T AHIRIDS AND S AFFARIDS 47

around himself a troop of cavalry. In this way he gradually rose to become an amir.
First of all, he achieved military command at Bust under Nas.r b. S.ālih., and [eventually]
the position of amir of Sistan. When Sistan passed into his hands, he did not remain
content to stay there but said, ‘If I rest here on my laurels, people will not give me sup-
port again.’ Then he came from Sistan to Bust and seized it, and from there marched
against Panjwāy and Tegīnābād and attacked the Ratbīl/Zunbīl. He employed a ruse
and killed the Ratbīl/Zunbīl, and seized Panjwāy in Rukhwad/Rukhūd.18 From there
he proceeded to Ghaznin, occupied Zābulistān and razed the inner city (shahristān)
of Ghaznin to the ground. He came to Gardīz and made war on its amir, Abū
Mans.ūr Aflah. b. Muh.ammad b. Khāqān. He wrought much slaughter until negoti-
ations between the two sides took place, and Abū Mans.ūr pledged and undertook to
send to Sistan each year a tribute (kharāj) of 10,000 dirhams.19
From there, Ya‛qūb went back, and [then] led an expedition to Balkh. He captured
Bāmiyān in the year 256 [/870], destroyed Nawshād at Balkh and razed to the ground
all the buildings that Dāwūd b. al-‛Abbās b. Hāshim b. Bānījūr had erected.20 From
there he turned back and went to Kabul, and subdued the Kābul Shāh. Then he cap-
tured Pīrūz,21 and went to Bust and laid on its people [H 140] financial impositions of
all kinds. [N 12] He was angry with the people of Bust because they had previously
inflicted a defeat on him. From there he returned to Sistan.
In the year 257[/871] he went to Herat. He besieged ‛Abd al-Rah.mān the Khārijite
in Karūkh.22 When ‛Abd al-Rah.mān faced defeat in that fortress, he came forth seek-
ing a guarantee of protection, together with a group of his commanders, including
Mahdī son of Muh.sin, Muh.ammad b. N.w.la, Ah.mad b. Mūjib and T.āhir b. H.afs.. From
there Ya‛qūb went on to Pūshang, [M 207] and took captive T.āhir b. al-H.usayn b.
T.āhir, and from there returned to Sistan.
A conflict broke out between ‛Abdallāh b. [Muh.ammad b.] S.ālih. Sagzī and his two
brothers, Fad.l . . ., and Ya‛qūb, son of Layth, in which ‛Abdallāh struck Ya‛qūb with
his sword and wounded him. Because of this, all three brothers fled from Sistan and
came to Nishapur seeking the protection of Muh.ammad b. T.āhir. Ya‛qūb wrote a
letter demanding their extradition, but Muh.ammad b. T.āhir refused. Ya‛qūb came
to Khurasan in pursuit of them and sent an envoy to Muh.ammad b. T.āhir. When
Ya‛qūb’s envoy arrived there (i.e. at Nishapur) and sought admission to the court, Muh.
ammad’s doorkeeper replied, ‘There’s no court session, the Amir’s gone to sleep’.
The envoy said, ‘Someone has come who will wake him from his slumbers!’ and the
envoy went back. Ya‛qūb marched on Nishapur, and ‛Abdallāh Sagzī fled to Gurgān
with his brothers. When Ya‛qūb reached Farhādhān,23 three stages from Nishapur, the
sarhangs and Muh.ammad’s paternal cousins all came out to meet Ya‛qūb and offered
their service, with the exception of Ibrāhīm b. Ah.mad. Ya‛qūb entered Nishapur with
them. Muh.ammad b. T.āhir sent Ibrāhīm b. S.ālih. al-Marwazi to Ya‛qūb with a message,
saying, ‘If you have come on the Commander of the Faithful’s instructions, show me
your investiture diploma and patent and I’ll hand over the governorship to you; if
not, go back home!’ When the envoy got back to Ya‛qūb and delivered the message,
Ya‛qūb drew out his sword from beneath his prayer rug [N 13] and said, ‘This is my
document of appointment and standard!’ Ya‛qūb reached Nishapur and encamped at

Part 2.indd 47 7/10/2009 1:35:58 PM

 48 T HE O RNAMENT OF H ISTORIES

Shādyākh. He seized Muh.ammad and had him brought before him, heaped copious
reproaches on him and seized all his treasuries. This arrest of Muh.ammad took place
on 2 Shawwāl of the year 259 [/1 August 873]. [H 141]
Ya‛qūb summoned Ibrāhīm b. Ah.mad and said, ‘All the troops and retainers (h.asham)
have come over to my side; why didn’t you come?’ Ibrāhīm replied, ‘May God vouch-
safe strength to the Amir! I had no knowledge of or connection with you such that
I should come to you, nor had I any correspondence with you. I had no grounds for
complaint against Amir Muh.ammad that [M 208] I should abandon him. I did not
consider it lawful to betray my lord, and there was no question of repaying him or his
father with treachery.’ Ya‛qūb received these words with approbation, treated him as
a close intimate and made him one of his court circle, saying, ‘An unassuming person
like you should be cherished!’ All those persons who had come out to meet him and
escort him to the town he mulcted of their possessions and stripped them of their
wealth.24
He sent a letter to H.asan b. Zayd in Gurgān demanding of him the surrender
of ‛Abdallāh Sagzī and his brothers. H.asan b. Zayd sent back a reply but did not
forward them. Ya‛qūb launched an attack on Gurgān. H.asan b. Zayd was defeated
and fled before him to Āmul. From there he went out by the road to Rūyān via the
Kandasān pass.25 When Ya‛qūb reached H.asan’s encampment he found it empty. He
gave orders to his troops to carry off everything they could and to burn the rest, and
everything was consumed. This happened in the year 260 [/873–74].26 ‛Abdallāh and
his brothers went to Ray and sought refuge with S.allābī.27 Ya‛qūb wrote a letter to
S.allābī demanding that he should hand them over; if he should refuse, he would deal
with him exactly how he had dealt with Muh.ammad [b. T.āhir] and H.asan [b. Zayd].
The people in Ray were terrified by that letter, and S.allābī despatched both broth-
ers28 on to Ya‛qūb. Ya‛qūb brought them to Nishapur, and at Shādyākh had them
crucified against the town wall with iron nails. He carried off the Tahirids’ wealth
and possessions and returned to Sistan. He had Muh.ammad b. T.āhir, [N 14] together
with seventy others, brought in bonds, and Muh.ammad remained thus fettered up to
the time when Muwaffaq defeated Ya‛qūb at Dayr al-‛Āqūl and Muh.ammad b. T.āhir
managed to escape, this being in Rajab of the year 263 [/April 877].
Ya‛qūb then (i.e. after the Nishapur and Gurgān expeditions) led a campaign into
Fars and occupied Fars and Ahwāz. He mounted an expedition against Baghdad
with the aim of marching on it, deposing Mu‛tamid from the caliphate and placing
Muwaffaq on the throne. Muwaffaq revealed this intention to Mu‛tamid. Ya‛qūb kept
on secretly writing letters to Muwaffaq, and the latter would be showing these letters
to Mu‛tamid, until Ya‛qūb reached Dayr al-‛Āqūl in the vicinity of [M 209] Baghdad, at
the place where a connecting canal from the Euphrates joins the Tigris,29 and his army
encamped there. Muwaffaq gave orders for the waters of the Tigris to be released
against him, the greater part of Ya‛qūb’s army perished, and he himself was put to
flight and retreated. Because of that ignominy he contracted dysentery, and when he
reached Jundīshāpūr he died of it. He had never [previously] suffered defeat at the
hands of his opponents, and no-one had ever been able to dupe him. [H 142] His
death was on Saturday, 14 Shawwāl of the year 265 [/9 June 879].30

Part 2.indd 48 7/10/2009 1:35:58 PM

 P ART T WO : T HE T AHIRIDS AND S AFFARIDS 49

‛Amr b. al-Layth
Mu‛tamid and Muwaffaq then bestowed the provinces of Khurasan, Sistan and Fars
on ‛Amr b. al-Layth. ‛Amr came back from Jundīshāpūr to [Fars], and from there set
out towards Herat. Khujistānī established himself in Nishapur. H..y.kān (? Jaykān)
the Qur’ān-reader, Yah.yā b. Muh.ammad b. Yah.yā al-Dhuhlī,31 and all the volunteer
fighters for the faith (mut.t.awwi‛a) and religious lawyers of Nishapur inclined towards
‛Amr’s side because he [N 15] was sent by the Commander of the Faithful and had
an investiture diploma and standard from him. Khujistānī was spoken of opprobri-
ously because he was a rebel against the ruling authority (sult.ān). When Khujistānī got
news of this, he appointed Ah.mad b. Manna as his deputy in Nishapur and himself
proceeded to Herat in order to engage ‛Amr b. al-Layth in battle. ‛Amr shut himself
up in Herat in S.afar of the year 267 [/September–October 880], and Khujistānī was
unable to make any headway. From there he (i.e. Khujistānī) led an expedition against
Sistan. When he reached Ramal Samm (?), he besieged that stronghold, which was held
by Shādān, son of Masrūr, and As.ram. Then Khujistānī became frustrated and disap-
pointed and went back to Nishapur, killing a number of people there. The pressure
was thus lifted from ‛Amr’s mind.32
It is related that ‛Amr b. al-Layth exercised governorship over Khurasan in the best
possible and most complete fashion and established a governmental system according
to the established norms, in such a way that no-one was seized or imprisoned in the
course of that. It is further related that ‛Amr b. al-Layth had four treasuries, one treas-
ury for weapons and three for money, and these used to accompany him at all times.
One of these last three was a treasury for money collected as legal alms (s.adaqāt), as
poll tax (gazīd-hā33) and suchlike, [M 210] and that used to be expended on the quar-
terly-paid salaries (bīstagānī ) of the troops. The second was the privy treasury (māl-i
khās.s.), which used to be gathered in from levies on crop yields and estates (i.e. from
crown lands), and that was expended on living expenses of the court and upkeep of
the kitchen and suchlike. [H 143] The third was a treasury for monies derived from
extraordinary taxes (ah.dāth) and confiscations from members of the court troops and
retainers (h.asham) who were in collusion with enemies, and these monies used to be
expended on payments for the court troops and retainers, for spies and intelligence
agents (munhiyān), diplomatic envoys and suchlike.
‛Amr b. al-Layth was very active and energetic regarding the affairs of the court
troops and retainers and the army at large, and every three months he would reward
them with salary payments and gifts. He was also extremely acute and aware of what
was going on. When he made confiscations he would make them at the opportune
moment and adduce plausible excuses for mulcting a person of his wealth. It is related
that, one day, Muh.ammad b. Bishr came into ‛Amr’s presence at a time when the treas-
ury for salary payments (i.e. the third of the treasuries for money) was empty and the
appointed time for handing out salary payments to the court troops and retainers had
drawn near. ‛Amr was always in need of money. [N 16] He turned towards Muh.ammad
b. Bishr and began to heap reproaches on him, saying, ‘You know what you would
have done in my place? You’d have done such-and-such,’ and he went on saying all
sorts of things. Muh.ammad realised what ‛Amr meant and said, ‘May God strengthen

Part 2.indd 49 7/10/2009 1:35:58 PM

 50 T HE O RNAMENT OF H ISTORIES

the Amir! All the wealth that I possess, whether in the form of fine horses,34 slaves or
landed property, amounts to more than fifty purses full of dirhams. Accept this from
me directly, and relieve me of those reproaches and menaces.’ ‛Amr commented, ‘I’ve
never seen a more perspicacious fellow than this one!’ and he told Muh.ammad, ‘Go
and lodge this money in the treasury, and no fault shall be imputed to you.’ Muh.ammad
b. Bishr then deposited that money in the treasury and thereby became safe from the
many troubles, injuries and reproaches that his friends suffered.35
It was ‛Amr’s customary practice that, when the beginning of the year came round
(i.e. Nawrūz), he would have two drums, one called ‘the blessed one’ and the other
‘the auspicious one’. He would order both drums to be beaten so that all the troops
would be aware that it was pay day. Then the head of the army department (‛ārid.) Sahl
b. H.amdān would sit down and pour out purses filled with dirhams before him and the
‛ārid.’s assistant would bring forward the pay register. The name of ‛Amr b. [M 211] al-
Layth would come up first. He would step forth from amongst the throng of troops.
The ‛ārid. would scrutinise him and authenticate him as the person described in the
register, pass his mount and weapons as being in good order, examine thoroughly his
whole equipment, and express approval and praise. He would weigh out 300 dirhams,
place them in a purse and hand them over to him. ‛Amr would take them and place
them down the leg of his boot, exclaiming, ‘Praise be to God! God Most High has
bestowed on me the privilege of showing my obedience to the Commander of the
Faithful and has made me worthy of receiving His favours!’ and then he would go back
to his place. He would go up onto an eminence, sit down and watch the ‛ārid. intently
until the latter had in exactly the same way scrutinised every single soldier, would
look searchingly at the horse, saddle, footwear and equipment of the cavalrymen and
infantrymen, and would hand out pay to each [N 17] one of them according to their
ranks. He used to have spies over every commander, field officer and leader so that
he was aware of everything about that person.36 ‛Amr was extremely intelligent, crafty
and clearsighted.
The circumstance of the reversal of his power and fortunes were as follows. When
‛Amr [H 144] sent Rāfi‛’s head to Mu‛tad.id in the year [2]84 [/897], he sought from
the caliph an investiture diploma for Transoxania such as T.āhir b. ‛Abdallāh had had.
Mu‛tad.id sent the general (h.ājib) Ja‛far b. Baghlāghuz (?) to ‛Amr, and Ja‛far brought a
document detailing presents to ‛Amr. When ‛Amr b. al-Layth read that document, it
was the conferment of the governorship over Transoxania that pleased him more than
all those presents. Ja‛far then [went back] to the caliph’s son ‛Alī b. al-Mu‛tad.id Muktafī.
‛Ubaydallāh b. Sulaymān and Badr al-Kabīr, who were both at Ray, wrote to the seat
of the caliphate. The investiture diploma for Transoxania was written out immediately
and conveyed to ‛Amr by hand of Nas.r al-Mukhtārī, the ghulām of Abū Sāj.
Ja‛far came into ‛Amr’s presence with the investiture diploma and presents. The pre-
sents comprised seven sets of robes of honour, a coat (badana) woven with unpierced
pearls (durr) and set with jewels and pearls (marwārīd ); a crown set with rubies and
other jewels; eleven horses, ten of which had saddles and accoutrements decorated
with gold, and one of them [M 212] with a saddle, bridle and accoutrements decorated
with gold and set with emeralds and pearls, and a horse with its saddle-felt and outer

Part 2.indd 50 7/10/2009 1:35:58 PM

 P ART T WO : T HE T AHIRIDS AND S AFFARIDS 51

covering all set with jewels and the horse’s four legs shoed with golden horseshoes; and
many chests [of precious objects]. All these presents were successively laid out before
‛Amr and the chests placed within his palace. Ja‛far clothed ‛Amr in those robes of
honour one by one. Whenever he donned one of the robes, he performed two rak‛ats
of the ritual worship and [N 18] offered up thanks for it. Then he laid the investiture
diploma for Transoxania before him. ‛Amr said, ‘What am I to do with this, since this
province can’t be wrested from Ismā‛īl b. Ah.mad except by a hundred thousand drawn
swords?’ Ja‛far replied, ‘You requested this; you will now know best how to achieve it.’
‛Amr took that investiture diploma, kissed it, placed it on his head and then set it down
before himself. Ja‛far went out.37
Against Ismā‛īl b. Ah.mad, ‛Amr b. al-Layth sent Muh.ammad b. Bishr, ‛Alī b. Sharwīn
and Ah.mad Darāz along the road to Āmūy with the vanguard of the army. Ismā‛īl b.
Ah.mad crossed over the [Oxus] river by way of Zam, advanced towards them (sc.
‛Amr’s commanders and their troops) and engaged them in battle. Ah.mad Darāz
deserted to Ismā‛īl b. Ah.mad’s side under a promise of safe conduct. Muh.ammad b.
Bishr was put to flight and the [Samanid] army went in pursuit after him. In the course
of that flight he was killed together with 7,000 of his troops. ‛Alī b. Sharwīn was taken
prisoner. This was on Monday, 18 Shawwāl of the year 286 [/27 October 899]. [H 145]
When ‛Alī b. Sharwīn was captured, Ah.mad Darāz interceded for his life, but he was
held in imprisonment at Bukhara till he died. Ismā‛īl b. Ah.mad went to Bukhara. The
army of Sistan came back to ‛Amr in a defeated state and reached Nishapur. When
‛Amr saw them he became distressed and very cast down. He was told, ‘O Amir, a large
meal much finer than this has been cooked, and we have so far drunk only one goblet;
whoever is a real man, say, “Come, drink down the rest”.’ ‛Amr, however, remained
silent.
‛Amr b. al-Layth then prepared an army and distributed weapons, and set out from
Nishapur towards Transoxania with a well-armed, fully-equipped host. [M 213] When
he reached Balkh he came directly up against Ismā‛īl b. Ah.mad and a battle ensued. It
did not take long before ‛Amr b. al-Layth was defeated. His army was routed, and in
the course of this, ‛Amr was taken prisoner and made captive, and was brought before
Ismā‛īl b. Ah.mad. This defeat of ‛Amr was on Tuesday, 14–15 Rabī‛ [N 19] I of the
year 287 [/19–20 March 900]. Ismā‛īl straightway sent ‛Amr to Samarqand. When
the news reached Mu‛tad.id he was filled with joy, and sent ‛Abdallāh b. al-Fath. to
Khurasan. In the year 288 [/901] he despatched to Ismā‛īl at Samarqand an investiture
diploma for Khurasan, a standard, a crown and numerous robes of honour. Mu‛tad.id
sent Ashnās to bring back ‛Amr with him. When ‛Amr was brought to Baghdad and
he came before Mu‛tad.id, the latter exclaimed, ‘Praise be to God that an end has been
put to your evil and people’s minds have been relieved of concern with you,’ and he
ordered him to be held in prison where he remained till he died. His death was in the
year 289 [/902].38 [M 214]

Part 2.indd 51 7/10/2009 1:35:58 PM

Part 2.indd 52 7/10/2009 1:35:58 PM
 PART THREE: THE SAMANIDS

[Chapter Twelve Concerning] the Rule and the

Lineage of the Samanids
The occasion of the Samanids’ rise to power was as follows. Sāmān Khudā b.
H.ām.tān, after whom all this family is named, was a Magian (mugh) and followed the reli-
gion of Zoroaster. His genealogy was Sāmān Khudāh b. Khām.tā b. Nūsh b. T.amghāsb
b. Shād.l b. Bahrām Chūbīn b. Bahrām [H 146] H..sīs b. Kūz.k b. Athfiyān b. Kirdār b.
Dīrkār b. Jam b. J.y.r b. B.stār b. Kh.dād b. R.n.jhān b. F.y.r b. F.rāw.l b. Sīm b. Bahrām
b. Shās.b b. Kūz.k b. J.r.dād b. S.f.r.s.b b. K.r.k.y.n b. M.y.lād b. M.r.s (?Narsī) b. Marzwān
b. Mihrān b. Fādhān b. K.sh.rād b. Sād.sād b. Bishdād (Pishdād) b. Akhshīn (? Afshīn) b.
Fardīn b. W.mām b. Ar.sāt.īn b. D.w.s.r Manūchihr b. Kūz.k b. Īraj b. Afrīdūn b. Athfiyān
S.k. M.n S.k b. S.w.rkāw b. Ikhshīd Kāwā b. R.s.d.kāw b. Dīr.kāw b. R.y.m.n.kāw b.
B.y.furūsh b. Jamshīd b. Dīw.n.k.hān b. ’.s.k.h.d b. Hūshang b. F.rāwak b. M.n.shī b.
Kayūmarth, the first ruler on earth.1
During that period when Muh.ammad al-Amīn was caliph at Baghdad and [N 20]
Ma’mūn was at Merv, the latter was governor of Khurasan. This Sāmān Khudāh came
and joined Ma’mūn’s entourage and became a Muslim at his instigation. He had a son
called Asad. Ma’mūn used to look very favourably on this Asad, who had four sons,
Nūh., Ah.mad, Yah.yā and Ilyās. Ma’mūn showed favour to them all and they formed
part of his entourage because they were men of ancient, noble lineage.
When Ma’mūn went to Baghdad, assumed the caliphate and appointed Ghassān b.
‛Abbād governor of Khurasan, Ma’mūn commended them to him. Hence Ghassān
appointed Nūh. b. Asad governor of Samarqand, Ah.mad b. Asad over Farghāna, Yah.yā
b. Asad over Chāch and Usrūshana, [M 215] and Ilyās b. Asad over Herat.2
When T.āhir b. al-H.usayn came to Khurasan on Ghassān’s dismissal, he retained
them in these same offices. Out of all these sons, [H 147] Ah.mad was the most useful
and experienced. When he died, he left behind two sons, Nas.r and Ismā‛īl. During
the time of the Tahirids, they held Samarqand and Bukhara: Nas.r held Samarqand
and Ismā‛īl Bukhara. There used to be good relations between the two of them until
backbiters incited them against each other and brought about a breach in relations
between them. They kept on fanning the flames of that breach until it took firm shape

Part 3.indd 53 7/10/2009 1:36:31 PM

 54 T HE O RNAMENT OF H ISTORIES

and became permanently established. In the end, they became embroiled in warfare;
they marshalled their armies and went out to give battle with each other. In the year
275 [/888–9] they came to blows: Ismā‛īl was victorious over Nas.r, the latter was
taken prisoner and he was brought before Ismā‛īl. When he beheld Ismā‛īl, he went
before him on foot, kissed his hand and sought his pardon. Ismā‛īl sent him back to
Samarqand in a handsome fashion, accompanied by all his court troops and retainers
(h.asham wa h.āshiyat). After that episode, Ismā‛īl made Nas.r his deputy over the whole
of Transoxania, and things went smoothly and amicably.3
When ‛Amr b. al-Layth sought a grant of Transoxania from Mu‛tad.id and received
a favourable answer, he led an expedition against Ismā‛īl. [N 21] Ismā‛īl deployed his
army, advanced on ‛Amr and disposed of him once and for all, and he sent ‛Amr to
Baghdad, as has been related.

Ismā‛īl b. Ah.mad (I) b. Asad b. Sāmān

When the governorship of Khurasan passed into Ismā‛īl’s hands and Mu‛tad.id’s
investiture diploma and standard arrived, Ismā‛īl b. Ah.mad sent Muh.ammad b.
Hārūn to take over Gurgān and T.abaristān. The latter captured Muh.ammad b. Zayd
b. Muh.ammad and sent him to Ismā‛īl, and the latter bestowed on Muh.ammad b.
Hārūn the governorship of Gurgān and T.abaristān. After a certain period of time
had elapsed, Muh.ammad b. Hārūn rebelled. Ismā‛īl led an expedition against him
and marched to Ray. Ögretmish4 was killed and Muh.ammad b. Hārūn, with his two
sons, was captured. This victory [M 216] was on 17 Rajab of the year 289 [/27 June
902]. Ismā‛īl returned and came to Nishapur, and he left Ah.mad b. Sahl in charge of
those regions.
At this point, Mu‛tad.id died and Muktafī succeeded to the caliphate. He sent for
Ismā‛īl, and after him, for his son Ah.mad, an investiture diploma for Khurasan by the
hand of Muh.ammad b. ‛Abd al-S.amad, together with a diploma for the governorship
of Ray, Qazwīn and Zanjān, which he had joined to that of Khurasan. When
Muh.ammad b. ‛Abd al-S.amad reached Nishapur, Ismā‛īl treated him with great
honour and presented him with a gift of 300,000 dirhams, sending him back with
numerous presents. Then Ismā‛īl bestowed the governorship of Ray on Abū S.ālih.
Mans.ūr b. Ish.āq, and Mans.ūr gave command of the army there (sarhangi) to Ah.mad
b. Sahl and made him responsible for his, Mans.ūr’s, personal guard (h.aras). Ismā‛īl
gave orders that he himself would be responsible for paying the living allowances of
the entire body of troops so that Mans.ūr should not have the worry of this.
Ismā‛īl entrusted Gurgān to his son Ah.mad [N 22] and T.abaristān to Abu ’l-‛Abbās
‛Abdallāh b. Muh.ammad [b. Nūh. b. Asad]. He ordered his son to work harmoniously
with ‛Abdallāh [H 148] in all affairs and never to oppose him in anything. But
subsequently he dismissed his son from the governorship of Gurgān because he had
not led a military expedition against Justān.5 However, Nūh.’s son (i.e. Abu ’l-‛Abbās
‛Abdallāh) defeated Justān, and he entrusted Gurgān to Bārs,6 his Commander-in-
Chief. Ismā‛īl b. Ah.mad died during the night of Tuesday–Wednesday, 14 S.afar of
the year 295 [/24 November 907] and received the [posthumous] honorific title of
‘The Incisive [Amir]’ (mād.ī).7

Part 3.indd 54 7/10/2009 1:36:36 PM

 P ART T HREE : T HE S AMANIDS 55

The Martyred One (al-shahīd), Abū Nas.r Ah.mad (II) b. Ismā‛īl

When Ismā‛īl was dying, he made his son Ah.mad his covenanted successor
(walī ‛ahd) over Khurasan.8 Muktafī sent an investiture diploma for Ah.mad to succeed
in Khurasan by the hand of T.āhir b. ‛Alī, and the latter raised the standard sent by the
caliph with his own hand. When he reached Bukhara, Ah.mad b. Ismā‛īl lodged him
handsomely, received him cordially and bestowed on him great sums of money.
In Dhu ’l-Qa‛da of the year 295 [/August 908], Muktafī died and Muqtadir succeeded
in the caliphate. [M 217] Ah.mad b. Ismā‛īl continued to hold the governorship of
Khurasan. When he had got the situation at Bukhara fully under control, he formed
the intention of going to Ray and of bringing that province likewise under control
and putting its affairs in order. Ibrāhīm b. Zaydūya advised him, ‘First of all, proceed
to Samarqand and seize your paternal uncle Ish.āq b. Ah.mad lest he stir up trouble
for you in Khurasan, since he has got delusions of power into his head.’ Ah.mad b.
Ismā‛īl proceeded to Samarqand, clapped Ish.āq in bonds and sent him to Bukhara.
Then in the year 296 [/908–9] he went to Ray, where the investiture diploma sent
by Muqtadir reached him.9 Ah.mad then appointed Abū Ja‛far S.u‛lūk as his deputy at
Ray, and [N 23] himself went back homewards in the year 297 [/909–10].
He came to Herat, and from there sent against Sistan H.usayn b, ‛Alī al-Marwazī,
together with Ah.mad b. Sahl, Muh.ammad b. al-Muz.affar, Ibrāhīm and Yāhyā the sons
of Zaydūya, and Ah.mad b. ‛Abdallāh. They besieged Mu‛addal b. [‛Alī b.] al-Layth
in the citadel (i.e. of the capital Zarang).10 Mu‛addal despatched Abū ‛Alī b. ‛Alī b.
al-Layth to Bust and Rukhwad/Rukhūd in order to collect taxation from there and
send it back to Mu‛addal. But ‛Alī assembled an army and brought along the wealth
and the materials of war, and set out for Sistan. Ah.mad b. Ismā‛īl got news of this, led
an expedition from Herat and defeated that army, capturing Abū ‛Alī and seizing all
his wealth and materials of war, and despatching him to Baghdad. H.usayn b. ‛Alī was
meanwhile continuously engaged in warfare with Mu‛addal. [H 149] When Mu‛addal
received news of his brother Abū ‛Alī’s capture, he made peace, handed over Sistan to
Mans.ūr b. Ish.āq and himself went back with H.usayn b. ‛Alī to Bukhara.
There was a certain man from Ah.mad b. Ismā‛īl’s body of troops called Muh.ammad
b. Hurmuz, known as Mawlā S.andalī, who held the tenets of the Khārijites. He was
an old and much-experienced man. One day he came to the review ground (‛ard.-gāh)
for his regular pay allotment (waz.īfat) and got into an argument with the Head of the
Army Department Abu ’l-H.asan ‛Alī b. Muh.ammad. The latter told him, ‘It would be
better if you retired to a ribā.t since you’ve grown old [M 218] and become useless’.
Muh.ammad b. Hurmuz became filled with anger. He sought from the Amir permission
to depart and went to Sistan. He established himself there and gathered together from
the highways all the common people and riff-raff of Sistan. He led a rebellion against
Mans.ūr b. Ish.āq and secretly gave allegiance to ‛Amr b. Ya‛qūb b. Muh.ammad b. ‛Amr
b. al-Layth.11 The commander of the rebels was Muh.ammad b. al-‛Abbās, known as
‘Son of the Grave-Digger’ (pisar-i h.affār). They captured Mans.ūr b. Ish.āq, placed him in
bonds, [N 24] held him in jail and made the khut.ba for ‛Amr b. Ya‛qūb.
When Ah.mad b. Ismā‛īl got news of this, he sent H.usayn b. ‛Alī to Sistan a second
time and fighting between the two sides ensued. The warfare went on continuously

Part 3.indd 55 7/10/2009 1:36:36 PM

 56 T HE O RNAMENT OF H ISTORIES

for nine months. Subsequently, this old man known as Mawlā S.andalī came out onto
one of the angles of the citadel (i.e. of the capital Zarang) and called down, ‘Tell
the ‛ārid. Abu ’l-H.asan that I’ve fulfilled his command and taken a stronghold (ribāt.)
– what else does he ordain?’ ‛Amr b. Ya‛qūb and the Son of the Grave-Digger then
sought a guarantee of safe conduct from H.usayn [b. ‛Alī]. He granted them this and
they released Mans.ūr b. Ish.āq. H.usayn made the Son of the Grave-Digger one of
his close circle and used to treat him in a handsome fashion. But then, one day, ‛Amr
b. Ya‛qūb and the Son of the Grave-Digger came into his presence, and he arrested
them and placed them in bonds. H.usayn understood that Ah.mad [b. Ismā‛īl] was
going to entrust the governorship of Sistan to him. But Ah.mad then gave it to the
Keeper of the Inkstand (dawīt-dār) Sīmjūr12 and ordered H.usayn to return with those
persons who had been granted safe conduct. H.usayn brought ‛Amr b. Ya‛qūb and
the Son of the Grave-Digger to Bukhara in the year 300 [/912–13].13
It is related that Ah.mad b. Ismā‛īl was extremely fond of hunting. He had gone
for a while to Firabr14 for hunting. When he returned to Bukhara, he gave orders
that the army encampment should be set on fire. Whilst he was on the road, a letter
from Abu ’l-‛Abbās [Muh.ammad] S.u‛lūk, the governor of T.abaristān, arrived with
the news that H.asan b. ‛Alī b. H.asan b. ‛Umar b. ‛Alī b. al-H.usayn b. ‛Alī b. Abī T.ālib,
may God be pleased with them all, who was known as H.asan Ut.rūsh, had rebelled.15
[H 150] When he read the letter, he became perturbed and very downcast. He raised
his head towards the heavens and cried, ‘O Lord! If Your pre-ordained judgement
and the fixed decree of the heavens have so prescribed that this kingly power should
pass from me, [M 219] take my soul unto Yourself!’ From there he went to the army
encampment but found that it had been set on fire, [N 25] and he took that as an
unfavourable omen.
There used to be a lion on guard every night at Ah.mad b. Ismā‛īl’s door so that
no-one should be able to make an attempt on his life. That night they did not bring
that lion and there were, moreover, none of his retainers sleeping at his door. During
the course of the night, a band of his personal ghulāms burst in and cut his throat.
This took place on Thursday, 21 Jumādā II of the year 301 [/22 January 914]. He
was brought back from there to Bukhara and buried, and a detachment of troops
was sent after those ghulāms, some of whom were captured and killed. The secretary
Abu ’l-H.asan Nas.r b. Ish.āq was suspected of having colluded with the ghulāms in
killing the Martyred Amir, and he was seized and executed. Ah.mad b. Ismā‛īl was
given the honorific title of ‘The Martyred Amir’.16

The Fortunate One (al-sa‛īd), Nas.r (II) b. Ah.mad (II)

The Fortunate One Nas.r b. Ah.mad then succeeded to the governorship of Khurasan
on 21 Jumādā II of the year 301 [/22 January 914], being eight years old at the time,
and he was Amir of Khurasan for thirty years and three months. When the Martyred
Amir was killed, the senior religious leaders and court troops came together in
Bukhara and agreed upon the succession of his son Nas.r b. Ah.mad. The eunuch
(khādim) Sa‛d placed him on his shoulders and brought him forth so that formal
allegiance could be given to him.17

Part 3.indd 56 7/10/2009 1:36:36 PM

 P ART T HREE : T HE S AMANIDS 57

The official exercising administrative authority on his behalf was Abū ‛Abdallāh
Muh.ammad b. Ah.mad al-Jayhānī, who took up the reins of government in a laudable
fashion and was running affairs. Abū ‛Abdallāh Jayhānī was a knowledgeable person,
very intelligent, strong-willed and virtuous, and he showed percipience and foresight
in all matters. He was the author of many compositions in every genre and branch of
learning. When he assumed the vizierate, he wrote letters to all the lands of the world
and asked for accounts to be written concerning the customs and practices of every
court and every government office. [N 26] These accounts were written out and
brought to him, including those from such lands as those of Byzantium, Turkestan,
[M 220] India, China, Iraq, Syria, Egypt, the land of the Zanj, Zābul, Kabul, Sind and
the land of the Arabs. All these customs and practices of the world were brought
to him and all those written accounts set down before him. He examined them
very closely, and he selected every custom and practice that was specially good and
commendable but set aside the less praiseworthy ones. He adopted those good
customs and practices, and gave orders that all the personnel of the court and central
Dīwān at Bukhara should employ them. Thanks to Jayhānī’s good judgement and
statesmanship, all affairs of the realm now ran on orderly lines.18
Various rebels (khawārijiyān) reared their heads. He sent an army against each of
them, and all the armies came back victorious and triumphant. He never embarked
on any affair without accomplishing his aim. When Nas.r b. Ah.mad assumed office
as Amir, the first person to show himself as a rebel was his father’s paternal uncle
Ish.āq b. Ah.mad at Samarqand. [H 151] His son Ilyās b. Ish.āq assumed command
of the army, and the army marched against Bukhara. Nas.r sent H.amu.ya b. ‛Alī
against him. The two armies met at Khartang19 and clashed in battle in the month
of Ramad.ān of the year 301 [/April 914]. It was not long before Ish.āq was defeated
and fell back on Samarqand. H.amūya b. ‛Alī followed him in pursuit. Ish.āq’s situation
became constricted such that daily existence became disturbed and uncertain for
him. When he was reduced to really desperate straits, he sent a message asking for a
guarantee of personal safety, and this was accorded him. He came to Bukhara, was
well treated during that time and remained there till his death.
When H.usayn b. ‛Alī had conquered Sistan, he was anxious for the governorship
of Sistan to be given to him, but this was refused. Because of this he became
discontented and was watching out for an opportunity to wreak mischief in Ah.mad’s
rule. When Ah.mad died, H.usayn rebelled at Herat, and he kept up his rebellion for
some considerable time. One day [N 27] he mustered his army and led an attack
on Nishapur. Ah.mad b. Sahl was sent out from Bukhara to engage him in battle.
He came to Herat and conquered it, and Mans.ūr b. ‛Alī, H.usayn’s brother, [M 221]
sought a guarantee of safety, and they (i.e. Mans.ūr and his entourage?) came to
Ah.mad, son of Sahl. Ah.mad then came to Nishapur in the month of Rabī‛ I of
the year 306 [/August–September 918]. He launched an attack on H.usayn b. ‛Alī, in
which he took H.usayn prisoner, and he established his base at Nishapur. Muh.ammad
b. Ajhad,20 commander of the police guard (s.āh.ib-i shurat.) at Bukhara, was at Merv.
He came to Ah.mad b. Sahl, together with Muh.ammad b. al-Muhallab b. Zurāra21 al-
Marwazī, and from there they turned back and went to Bukhara.

Part 3.indd 57 7/10/2009 1:36:37 PM

 58 T HE O RNAMENT OF H ISTORIES

This Ah.mad b. Sahl stemmed from one of the noble families of the Persians.
He was a descendant of Yazdajird, son of Shahriyār,22 and came from one of the
landholding families (dihqān) of Jīranj,23 one of the large villages of Merv. Ah.mad’s
forefather was called Kāmgār, and there is at Merv a rose which they still call the
‘Kāmgārī rose’, said to be a deep red colour. This Kāmgārī family was in the service
of the Tahirids. Ah.mad’s brothers, Fad.l, H.usayn and Muh.ammad, were all secretaries
and experts in astrology, their father Sahl b. Hāshim having been very knowledgeable
about the science of astrology. One day, Sahl was asked, ‘How is it that you don’t
look at the horoscopes (lit. ‘rising stars’) of your sons to see what their future fates
will be?’ He replied, ‘What does it matter if I look, since all three of them are going
to be killed on the same day in the course of the factional fighting (ta‛as.s.ub) of the
Arabs,’ and it happened exactly thus.
When Ah.mad grew to manhood, he sought to avenge his brothers’ blood. A
thousand men rallied round him. ‛Amr b. al-Layth sent a body of troops against him,
and Ah.mad grew fearful. The person who went in pursuit of him was continually
engaging him in fighting but without success. ‛Amr b. al-Layth at that point offered
him a guarantee of protection and summoned him to his presence. [N 28] When
Ah.mad appeared before ‛Amr, the latter had him seized and consigned him to
prison in Sistan (i.e. at the capital Zarang). Ah.mad’s sister H.afs.a continued to be with
Ah.mad during this time. ‛Amr commanded Ah.mad, son of Sahl, to give his sister
[in marriage] to his ghulām Sebük-eri24 and ordered that Ah.mad should be sent to
Merv. [H 152] Ah.mad refused to give up his sister but was afraid that ‛Amr would
take vengeance on him. So he then had recourse to a stratagem. He told his sister to
be assiduous in attendance on ‛Amr’s daughter. Ah.mad’s sister then interceded with
‛Amr’s daughter that Ah.mad should be given permission to go to the bathhouse [M
222] since his hair had grown long. When he received this permission he went along
to the bathhouse and kicked up a great deal of fuss regarding his head and his beard.
He came out looking like a youth with ringlets and forelocks, put on unfamiliar
clothes and went out without any of the keepers of the bathhouse recognising him,
and came out into the city of Sistan thus disguised.
Abū Ja‛far S.u‛lūk then sought pardon for him from ‛Amr; the latter granted this and
Ah.mad came out into the open in his own guise. ‛Amr laid upon him the condition
that he should not don a cap and wear boots (i.e. assume the uniform of a military
commander) and Ah.mad promised to adhere to these conditions. Ah.mad secretly
fitted out swift riding-camels, left Sistan and came to Merv. He gathered together a
force of troops and seized and bound Abū Ja‛far Ghūrī, ‛Amr’s representative there.
He sought a guarantee of protection from Ismā‛īl b. Ah.mad and went to Bukhara.
Ismā‛īl received him in a hospitable fashion, and mighty deeds were done by Ah.mad
and fine victories achieved by him. Ah.mad, son of Sahl, was a man with sound
judgement, wily, knowledgeable and shrewd. Since he found a good reception at
Ismā‛īl b. Ah.mad’s court, he took up residence there. He performed various manly
deeds so that he rose higher in the Amir’s favour each day. He remained in this
favoured position all through the Martyred Amir’s reign and [N 29] in the time of
the Fortunate Amir was governor of Nishapur.

Part 3.indd 58 7/10/2009 1:36:37 PM

 P ART T HREE : T HE S AMANIDS 59

Then, however, he rebelled at Nishapur and dropped the Fortunate Amir’s name
from the khut.ba. Qarategin, who was governor in Gurgān,25 led an expedition against
him. Ah.mad abandoned Nishapur and went to Merv, constructed there a secure
fortress and shut himself within it. When the news reached Bukhara, the Amir
despatched H.amu.ya b. ‛Alī to combat him. When the latter’s troops entered [the
town of] Merv, H.amūya ordered the senior officers of his army to enter into an
exchange of correspondence with Ah.mad and give themselves out as inclining to
his side. When the letters reached Ah.mad, he was taken in by them and dropped
his guard. He marched out of Merv (i.e. out of the security of his fortress there)
to attack H.amūya. The two opposing forces met together at H.awzān on the banks
of the river.26 After a time H.amūya’s forces put Ah.mad’s army to flight, and only
Ah.mad himself remained. The fighting continued for as long as [M 223] his mount
had strength. When his horse collapsed to the ground, he dismounted and fought
the opposing troops on foot. In the end, they captured him, bound him and sent him
to Bukhara. The Fortunate Amir ordered him to be imprisoned, and he died in jail in
Dhu ’l-H.ijja of the year 307 [/April–May 920].27
In the year 317 [/929] the Fortunate Amir went from Bukhara to Nishapur. He
kept his brothers Ibrāhīm, Yah.yā and Mans.ūr captive in the citadel of Bukhara, and
ordered that their daily sustenance should continue to be supplied there. There was a
cook called Abū Bakr b. ‛.m.y (‛Amr, ‛Umar?) al-Khabbāz (‘The Baker’) who used to
supply them with this sustenance. He was somewhat stupid and used always to say
that the Fortunate Amir was going to experience something unpleasant from him,
but people used to laugh at his slow wits. This Abū Bakr acted as an intermediary
between the Fortunate Amir’s brothers on one side and disruptive elements
(fud.ūliyān) in Bukhara and the army on the other. One day, they made an agreement
amongst themselves and issued forth. They seized the custodian of the citadel, [N
30] released Ah.mad’s brothers and everyone who was incarcerated in the citadel and
took control of Bukhara. Yah.yā gave this Abū Bakr the Baker the military command
and made him part of his close entourage. [H 153]
When the Fortunate [Amir] got news of this, he came back from Nishapur and
led an expedition against Bukhara. Yah.yā sent Abū Bakr the Baker with his cavalry
force to the Oxus bank in order to secure the way and prevent anyone from crossing.
He sent with him H.usayn b. ‛Alī al-Marwazī’s son. When they reached the bank of
the Oxus, Muh.ammad b. ‛Ubaydallāh al-Bal‛ami28 sent a message to H.usayn’s son,
and the latter seized Abū Bakr the Baker and placed him in bonds. The Fortunate
Amir was able to cross the river; he came to Bukhara and ordered that Abū Bakr
should be flogged to death. Then his body was placed in an oven to be roasted. He
was roasted in it overnight. The next day his body was pulled out, but none of his
limbs had been burnt at all; everyone marvelled at this.29
The Fortunate Amir’s brothers scattered in various directions. Yah.yā went to
Samarqand and from there to Balkh, thence to Nishapur and finally to Baghdad,
where he died. His coffin [M 224] was brought back to Isfijāb.30
In the year 320 [/932] al-Qāhir bi’llāh succeeded to the caliphate. The Fortunate
Amir came to Nishapur, and he put the affairs of Gurgān in order. When he had

Part 3.indd 59 7/10/2009 1:36:37 PM

 60 T HE O RNAMENT OF H ISTORIES

finished restoring order there, he gave command of the army in Khurasan to Abū Bakr
Muh.ammad b. al-Muz.affar [b. Muh.tāj Chaghānī].31 When he came back to Bukhara
. . .32 Then al-Rād.ī bi ‘llāh succeeded to the caliphate. He sent to Nas.r b. Ah.mad an
investiture diploma for Khurasan by the hands of ‛Abbās b. Shaqīq (Shafīq?).
At this moment, Muh.ammad b. al-Muz.affar was at Nishapur and Mardāwīz at Ray.
Mardāwīz planned to go from Ray to Isfahan. En route he went into a bathhouse,
and there in the year 323 [/935] the ghulāms killed him, Bajkam Mākānī [N 31] being
the commander of those ghulāms.33 Muh.ammad b. al-Muz.affar returned to Nishapur
ill and suffering, and his sickness became serious. The Fortunate Amir then sent
Abū ‛Alī Ah.mad b. Muh.ammad b. al-Muz.affar [Chaghānī] to Nishapur and recalled
Muh.ammad [b. al-Muz.affar]. In Muh.arram of the year 328 [/October–November
939] [Abū ‛Alī] Ah.mad proceeded to Gurgān and besieged Mākān in the town.
Mākān’s position became constricted, and all his followers sought guarantees of
protection from Abū ‛Alī, since supplies of food and fodder had run low. Mākān
himself fled to T.abaristān, and Abū ‛Alī moved to Qūmis in the year 329 [/940–1]
and from there marched against Ray. Wushmgīr b. Ziyār was there, and sought help
from Mākān. Mākān came from T.abaristān, and a battle took place at the gates of
Ray. Abū ‛Alī put them to flight and killed large numbers of their troops. Mākān was
killed in the battle. [H 154] Abū ‛Alī sent his head to Bukhara, and the Amir sent it
on to Baghdad in the charge of ‛Abbās b. Shaqīq.34
Abū ‛Alī freed Mākān’s son and 900 Daylamī soldiers of note who had been taken
captive in the campaign, set them on camels and sent them to Bukhara. They were
kept detained in the Bukhara prison until Wushmgīr came to Bukhara offering his
submission; he asked for their release, and he (sc. the Amir) granted the captives to
him. [M 225]
Then al-Muttaqī succeeded to the caliphate in the year 329 [/940–1], and he sent
an investiture diploma for Khurasan to the Fortunate Amir. Ahmad b. Muh.ammad,
son of Muz.affar, was at Ray and Wushmgīr was in T.abaristān. The latter had taken
refuge in the citadel of Sārī. When Ah.mad attacked him, his position became parlous.
Ah.mad overran all his province. Winter drew on and the rains became continuous.
They entered into negotiations for peace and made an agreement by the terms
of which Wushmgīr was to stick to his promised obedience. Abū ‛Alī Ah.mad b.
Muh.ammad returned to [N 32] Gurgān in Jumādā II of the year [3]31 [/February–
March 943], the same month in which the Fortunate Amir passed away.35
On his death, none of those executive officials (mudabbirān) and secretaries
who had worked at his court remained, and a sharp division and two parties emerged
within his army.36 The direction of affairs passed from [Abu ’l-Fad. l] Muh.ammad
b. ‛Ubaydallāh al-Bal‛amī to Abū ‛Alī Muh.ammad b. Muh.ammad al-Jayhānī.37
Muh.ammad b. H.ātim al-Mus.‛abī showed opposition and affairs were in chaos.

The Praiseworthy One (al-h.amīd)

Abū Muh.ammad Nūh. (I) b. Nas.r (II)
The Praiseworthy Amir succeeded to the governorship of Khurasan in Sha‛bān of
the year 331[/April–May 943]. He reigned for twelve years and three months and then

Part 3.indd 60 7/10/2009 1:36:37 PM

 P ART T HREE : T HE S AMANIDS 61

died in the month of Rabī‛ I of the year 343 [/July–August 954]. When he assumed
power, he entrusted the vizierate and the conduct of government to Abu ’l-Fad.l
Muh.ammad b. Muh.ammad [b. Ah.mad] al-H.ākim, who was known as ‘The Exalted
Administrator’ (h.ākim-i jalīl).38 The Amir made him responsible for paying out the
army’s salaries and allowances, and Abu ’l-Fad.l put in place laudable procedures.
Abu ’l-‛Abbās Ah.mad b. H.amūya was fearful of the Praiseworthy Amir, since the
Fortunate Amir had, during his own lifetime, appointed as his covenanted successor
Ismā‛īl b. Nas.r, and Ah.mad b. H.amūya was the latter’s adviser and executive. Hostile
elements had stirred up trouble between Ismā‛īl and Nūh., the sons of Nas.r. Ismā‛īl
died before Nas.r (i.e. before Nas.r’s accession to the throne), but that feeling of
anger had remained in the Praiseworthy Amir’s heart. Ah.mad b. H.amūya continued
to be apprehensive; the Fortunate Amir had told him, ‘If anything should happen
to me, [M 226] Nūh. won’t treat you well’. When the Praiseworthy Amir succeeded
in the amirate, [N 33] Ah.mad b. H.amūya crossed over the Oxus and came to Āmūy,
keeping all the time in concealment. [H 155]
After a year had passed, a general accounting was made. [The Vizier] H.ākim had
paid out six million odd dirhams to the army, but everyone was dissatisfied, the
treasuries were empty and the troops full of complaints. The Vizier was revealed as
feeble and lacking in judgement.
The region of Nasā suffered an earthquake in Dhu ’l-H.ijja of the year 331
[/August 943]; it destroyed many villages and over 5,000 people were crushed
beneath the rubble.
Treasonable words uttered by the H.ājib Muh.ammad b. T.oghān39 were brought to
the Praiseworthy Amir’s attention, and he gave orders that he and his son should be
killed. When Amir Nūh. reached Merv in the year 332 [/943–4], Ah.mad b. H.amūya
was taken unawares. He went out of his house on the spur of the moment, but was
seized and brought before Nūh.. When the latter saw Ah.mad, he did not ill-treat him
but, on the contrary, spoke kindly words and encouraged him to look for favourable
treatment in the future. He questioned him in an amicable fashion, and gave orders
for a monthly salary to be allotted him on the grounds that he had been of service
to the state.
Amir Ah.mad then proceeded from Merv to Nishapur in Rajab of the year 333
[/February–March 945] and stayed there for fifty days. A deputation from the
subjects there came along and complained about Abū ‛Alī [Ah.mad Chaghānī]’s evil
behaviour and the tyrannical measures of his subordinates. Hence the Praiseworthy
Amir dismissed him and appointed in his place Ibrāhīm b. Sīmjūr, himself returning
to Bukhara.
In the year 334 [/945–6] Mustakfī succeeded to the caliphate.
The army at Ray rose up against Amir Nūh. and broke out in rebellion. When news
of this reached Amir Nūh., he left there (i.e. Bukhara) for Merv. [The Vizier] H.ākim
made slanderous accusations and told the Amir, ‘All this is Ah.mad b. H.amūya’s
doing, with the aim of causing trouble for you.’ He went on speaking in this vein
until Nūh. became roused against Ah.mad b. H.amūya; he issued orders and Ah.mad
was beaten to death in H.ākim’s presence in the year 335 [/946–7]. [N 34, M 227] The

Part 3.indd 61 7/10/2009 1:36:37 PM

 62 T HE O RNAMENT OF H ISTORIES

troops came into Merv40 and raised complaints about Muh.ammad b. Muh.ammad
al-H.ākim, alleging that ‘He doesn’t attend to the army’s concerns, he doesn’t show
any solicitude for them and doesn’t pay their salaries. He has stirred up disaffection
towards you, he has driven Abū ‛Alī to rebellion and he has rendered the troops
disaffected.’ (Abū ‛Alī had exercised his wiles,41 and had won over to his own side
large sections of the troops.) The soldiers demanded that the Amir should put an
end to the Vizier’s tyrannical practices against them; if not, they would abandon his
service. The Praiseworthy Amir commanded that H.ākim should be dragged from
where he was on his face. He was brought to the gate of the palace and there he was
killed on the Amir’s orders. This was in the year 335, two months after the execution
of the Son of H.amūya.
Then Abū ‛Alī Chaghānī came to Nishapur with Ibrāhīm, the Praiseworthy
Amir’s paternal uncle, and with an army. Ibrāhīm b. Sīmjūr, together with Mans.ūr
b. Qarategin and his cavalry force, withdrew and went to join Nūh. at Merv. Abū
‛Alī sallied forth from Nishapur at the end of the month of Rabī‛ I of the year
335 [/29 October 946] and came to Sarakhs, and from there decided to march
against Merv. When he reached the village of Ayqān,42 there arrived letters from
a considerable number of persons, these being adherents and senior officers of
Nūh., having shown an inclination to Abū ‛Alī’s side. Abū ‛Alī encamped at the
village of Sing43 a parasang away from Merv, whilst Nūh. fell back on Bukhara. Abū
‛Alī entered Merv and stayed there for some time, and then set out for Bukhara,
crossing the Oxus. [H 156]
Nūh. withdrew to Samarqand, and Abū ‛Alī made the khut.ba (sc. at Bukhara) for
Ibrāhīm b. Ah.mad and remained there for some time. The people of Bukhara laid
plans for seizing Abū ‛Alī and all his entourage. When he got news of this, he left the
city next day and ordered all his troops to leave also. They carried off all the cotton
and linen cloth and sets of clothing, and left [N 35] with the intention of setting the
city on fire. The leading citizens came forth and sought the intercession of God, He
is Mighty and Exalted. They instilled fear into Abū ‛Alī and he desisted. When he
perceived that the feelings of the citizens were unfavourable to him, he set up Abū
Ja‛far (i.e. Nūh.’s brother Muh.ammad b. Nas.r b. Ah.mad) as ruler, made appointments
to all departments of the Dīwān, and himself departed by the R.khna44 road. [M 228]
He gave out that he was making for Samarqand, but [actually] went to Nakhshab. He
then sent back all his senior officers and troops (i.e. to Khurasan) and himself went
to Chaghāniyān.
When Abū ‛Alī departed, Ibrāhīm and Abū Ja‛far Muh.ammad b. Nas.r sent a
messenger to Amir Nūh. seeking from him a guarantee of protection; he granted
them this and accepted their excuses. He returned to Bukhara in person in the month
of Ramad.ān of the year 335 [/March–April 947].
In this same year, Mut.ī‛ succeeded to the caliphate.
The Praiseworthy Amir appointed Mans.ūr b. Qarategin as commander-in-
chief in Khurasan. From Bukhara, Mans.ūr arrived in Merv, where was Ah.mad b.
Muh.ammad b. ‛Alī al-Qazwīnī. He came into Mans.ūr’s presence and rendered to him
service. Mans.ūr proceeded from there to Nishapur, whilst Abū ‛Alī was during all

Part 3.indd 62 7/10/2009 1:36:37 PM

 P ART T HREE : T HE S AMANIDS 63

this time in Chaghāniyān. Abū ‛Alī then got word that Amir Nūh. had got together
an army and was planning to attack him. Abū ‛Alī acted decisively, came to Balkh
and remained there for some time. He then set out with his army for Bukhara. The
Praiseworthy Amir and all his troops fell back before him. At Kharjang45 the two
sides came together in Jumādā I of the year 336 [/November–December 947] and
a battle ensued that lasted from the time of the afternoon worship till the close of
day. Nūh. and his senior commanders returned to Bukhara. Abu ’l-H.ārith b. Abu
’l-Qāsim, the treasurer Qut-tegin,46 Abū ‛Alī b. Ish.āq and Ah.mad the brother of Bārs
were stationed [N 36] there confronting Abū ‛Alī till the morning. Ibrāhīm b. Abu ’l-
H.asan was taken prisoner, together with several others of Abū ‛Ali’s followers. Abū
Ish.āq Ruzgāni47 sought a guarantee of protection and came over with a numerous
force of Daylamīs. Abū ‛Alī retreated in flight to Chaghāniyān. The General Bāyjūr
(?) was killed in the battle. ‛Alī b. Ah.mad b. ‛Abdallāh was captured in the environs
of Samarqand and Ah.mad b. al-H.usayn/al-H.asan al-‛Utbī at Nakhshab; they were
set on camels and brought into Bukhara by day. [H 157] They were brought to the
city gate and each of them was beaten with a hundred strokes, was put in fetters
and forcibly made to disgorge his wealth (mus.ādara). Abu ’l-‛Abbās Muh.ammad b.
Ah.mad [M 229] died in the course of this, but Ah.mad b. al-H.usayn/al-H.asan was
released after enduring these tortures for a considerable time.
Abū ‛Alī now sought help from the Amir of Khuttalān. He himself gathered
together an army, marched on Tirmidh, and crossed the Oxus and came to Balkh.
From there he headed for Gūzgānān and, according to the preconceived arrangement,
met up with the Amir of Khuttalān at Simingān. When he reached Tukhāristān,
the news came that the army of Bukhara had invaded Chaghāniyān, had burnt the
Iron Gate (dar-i āhanīn)48 and had devastated the whole of Abū ‛Alī’s property and
possessions. He immediately took the Mīla road and crossed the Oxus back again.
He sent out separate detachments of troops in all directions and blocked the way
for the army of Bukhara. Their position became parlous, and they had no access
to any food and fodder. When Abū ‛Alī reached the village of K.m.kānān (?), it
being at a distance of two parasangs from [the town of] Chaghāniyān, a battle took
place there in the month of Rabī‛ I of the year 336 [/September–October 947].
The Praiseworthy Amir’s army secured the victory over Abū ‛Alī, and he retreated
to Shūmān, twelve parasangs beyond Chaghāniyān [town]. The army of Bukhara
entered Chaghāniyān and plundered the town, including Abū ‛Alī’s palaces and
residences. At this point, Abū ‛Alī received reinforcements from the Kumījīs and
from the Amir of Zhāsht49 Ja‛far b. Sh.mānīqwā (?) and the army of Īlāq, and, in the
space of a day, they came to Wāshgird.50 The Amir of Khuttalān, Ah.mad b. Ja‛far,
[N 37] also sent his commander-in-chief Bajkam with a numerous army, and the
way for the army of Bukhara was now blocked and their communications with the
capital severed. Peace negotiations were opened up and a contractual agreement
(muwād. a‛at) was reached that Abū ‛Alī should send his son Abu ’l-Muz.affar ‛Abdallāh
b. Ah.mad to Bukhara as a hostage, and this was done. This happened in Jumādā II
of the year 337 [/December 948].
When Abu ’l-Muz.affar came to Bukhara, the Praiseworthy Amir ordered that

Part 3.indd 63 7/10/2009 1:36:38 PM

 64 T HE O RNAMENT OF H ISTORIES

the city should be decked out in a festive manner, and he was escorted into the city
with pomp and ceremony. The Amir further ordered that he should be lodged in the
palace; he invited him to the royal table and ordered him to be given a special robe
of honour, including the donning of a cap. [H 158, M 230]
A self-styled prophet (mutanabbī) from the region of Chaghāniyān and the district
of Bāsand51 had led an uprising, and he headed for the Iron Gate. He styled himself
the Mahdī and a prophet. He had first publicly made his claims in the year 322
[/934], and considerable numbers of people had gone to join him and adopted his
doctrines. This Mahdī used to have a sword in his belt, and with it would attack
anyone who opposed him. He was a crafty individual and up to tricks of all kinds.
Thus he would put this hand into a cistern filled with water and bring out from it
a fistful of dinars. A great number of people used to eat at his table, but it never
made any diminution in the amount of food there. People would drink water from
his goblet till their thirst was quenched, but that goblet never became empty. Each
person from his circle of retainers would eat just a single date per day, and that would
be enough for him. When news of this spread through those regions, large numbers
of the ignorant common people flocked to join him.52
A letter reached Abū ‛Alī Chaghānī from Bukhara instructing him to deal with
the matter of that self-styled prophet. Abū ‛Alī despatched Abū T.alh.a Ja‛far b.
Mardānshāh. This Mahdī [N 38] was at the village of Wardī.53 He retreated into
the mountains, but an attack was launched against him which dislodged him from
the mountains. His head was chopped off, and Abū T.alh.a sent it to Abū ‛Alī in a
horse’s nosebag. Abū ‛Alī was at that moment in Shūmān, and he gave orders that the
head should be publicly displayed to all the persons who had followed the would-be
prophet, and then he forwarded it to Bukhara.
Abu ’l-Muz.affar was meanwhile residing at Bukhara. One day he mounted his
horse and was riding on, but inadvertently the horse threw him. His head landed
against a stone, his brains were spattered out and he died. The Praiseworthy Amir was
distressed and gave orders that the dead man should be enshrouded in a handsome
fashion, and he sent his funeral bier back to Chaghāniyān, with the Royal Purveyor
of Drinks (sharāb-dār) Nas.r being charged with performing the rites of mourning
and consolation with Abū ‛Alī.
Only two months after Abu ’l-Muz.affar’s death, Mans.ūr b. Qarategin died at
Nishapur. The Praiseworthy Amir bestowed the office of commander-in-chief
of Khurasan on Abū ‛Alī Chaghānī and sent him an investiture diploma and a
standard. He gave him all the lands south of the Oxus (mā dūn al-nahr) and bestowed
Chaghāniyān and Tirmidh on his son Abū Mans.ūr Nas.r b. Ah.mad. [M 231] Abū ‛Alī
came to Nishapur in Dhu ’l-H.ijja of the year 340 [/May 952], and in the year 341
[/952–3] all affairs in Khurasan were peaceful and orderly.
In the year 342 [/953–4] Abū ‛Alī marched on Ray and besieged H.asan-i Būya54
in the town. Wushmgīr b. Ziyār sent reinforcements for H.asan-i Būya. The besiegers
were unable to make any headway. At this point, the riding beasts at Ray were hit
by a fatal murrain and only a few beasts survived. Negotiators from each side met
together and made peace on the basis that [H.asan-i] Būya should pay an annual

Part 3.indd 64 7/10/2009 1:36:38 PM

 P ART T HREE : T HE S AMANIDS 65

tribute of 200,000 dinars and that Abū ‛Alī should withdraw. H.asan sent to him
‛Abbās b. Dāwūd as surety for this sum of money.
Abū ‛Alī returned to Nishapur. However, the Praiseworthy Amir became suspicious
that Abū ‛Alī might perhaps have colluded with al-H.asan-i Būya. Abū ‛Alī [N 39,
H 159] sent emissaries and explained what he had been doing, but the feeling of
rancour was not dispelled from the Praiseworthy Amir’s mind. Abū ‛Alī Chaghānī
then sent a deputation of shaykhs, professional attesters and leading citizens of
Nishapur to Bukhara so that they might set forth the justification for his action and
explain that he was guiltless of the suspicions the Praiseworthy Amir held. But before
this group of trustworthy persons from Nishapur [attesting Abū ‛Alī’s innocence]
could reach Bukhara, the Praiseworthy Amir fell ill. His sickness became acute, and
in the month of Rabī‛ II of the year 343[/August 954] he died from it.55

The Rightly-Guided One (al-rashīd)

Abu ’l-Fawāris ‛Abd al-Malik (I) b. Nūh. (I)
Nūh. b. Nas.r had four sons: ‛Abd al-Malik, Ah.mad, Nas.r and ‛Abd al-‛Azīz. He
had had allegiance done to them as his covenanted heir in that successive order,
‛Abd al-Malik being the oldest. ‛Abd al-Malik succeeded to power in the month of
Rabī‛ II of the year 343 [/December 954]. He appointed as his vizier Abū Mans.ūr
Muh.ammad b. ‛Uzayr, and as his commander-in-chief Abū Sa‛īd Bakr b. Mālik. The
latter came to Nishapur in Sha‛bān of the year 343 and established there a benevolent
and just regime. [M 232]
Then the news arrived that Mut.ī‛ had given the governorship of Khurasan to
Abū ‛Alī Chaghānī. This information enraged Bakr b. Mālik. He marched out with
his army and encamped at the village of Āzādwār in the rural district of Juwayn,
and formulated the plan of moving on from there with his army to give battle. His
commanders, however, objected that ‘Fodder is in short supply, the army is without
provisions and it’s not possible to engage in battle.’ So Bakr b. Mālik wrote a letter
to the Rightly-Guided Amir ‛Abd al-Malik b. Nūh. explaining this state of affairs
and seeking money from him. The Rightly-Guided Amir sent back [to him] Ismā‛īl
b. T.oghān (text, t.gh.yān) but did not send the required money. [N 40] When this
news reached Khurasan, the province was plunged into a disturbed state. Taking
advantage of this, H.asan Būya sent Abu ’l-Fad.l56 Ibn al-‛Amīd against Isfahan, and
Ibn al-‛Amīd engaged in warfare, seized the Son of Mākān and consigned him to
the fortress of Arrajān, after which no-one ever saw him again. This conquest of
Isfahan took place in the month of Rabī‛ I of the year 344 [/June–July 955].
H.asan-i Būya now marched against Gurgān. News of this reached Bakr b. Mālik,
and H.asan [b.] Fīrūzān moved to the confines of Jājarm. When ‛Abd al-Malik b. Nūh.
heard about these happenings, he gathered together military forces and despatched
them to Bakr b. Mālik at Āzādwār. H.asan-i Būya and Abū ‛Alī did not stay to deliver
battle to Bakr, but retreated to T.abaristān. Abū Sa‛īd [Bakr b.] Mālik summoned
Abu ’l-H.asan Muh.ammad b. Ibrāhīm b. Sīmjūr to be military governor (shih.na) at
Nishapur. A letter from H.asan-i Būya and Abū ‛Alī Chaghānī reached ‛Alī b. al-
Marzubān seeking a peace settlement with Abū Sa‛īd Bakr b. Mālik. H.asan engaged

Part 3.indd 65 7/10/2009 1:36:38 PM

 66 T HE O RNAMENT OF H ISTORIES

[H 160] that he would regularly send an annual tribute of 200,000 dinars from Ray
and the districts of Jibāl plus additional presents, and would provide hospitality and
feasting (?),57 and he would not molest Wushmgīr in regard to T.abaristān. ‛Alī b. al-
Marzubān acted as an intermediary, and on this basis peace was made. H.asan sent the
tribute and the presents stipulated in the peace agreement. The danger of bloodshed
was averted and the causes of emnity removed, and affairs in Khurasan became
settled and ran smoothly. [M 233]
Mut.ī‛ wrote a letter to H.asan-i Būya. This peace made on the basis of a contractual
agreement was displeasing to him, and he said, ‘That’s the pay allotment for the army
of Khurasan due each year according to the agreement made in the year 344 [/955–
56].’ Abū ‛Alī fell ill and died at the end of Rajab of the year 344 [/19 November
955] and his bier was carried back to Chaghāniyān.
Bakr b. Mālik used to treat his troops with disdain and [N 41] used to stint them
in what was their due until they grew to hate him. They returned to Bukhara and
laid their complaints before ‛Abd al-Malik. Bakr b. Mālik came to the royal court at
Bukhara in Ramad. ān of the year 345[/December 956–January 957] because he, in
company with thirty-seven other commanders, was going to be invested with a robe
of honour, so that they might then go back to Farghāna. When Bakr b. Mālik came
along, performed the due obeisance and sought an answer (i.e. to his request for entry
to the palace), Qut-tegin the treasurer was on his right and the H.ājib Alptegin on his
left. He requested that he might mount, but the H.ājib Alptegin knocked him to the
ground. They attacked him with their swords and spears and killed him at the Gate
of the Government Headquarters (dar-i sult.ān), and carried off his [severed] head.
They clapped in bonds Abū Mans.ūr b. ‛Uzayr and set up Abū Ja‛far b. Muh.ammad
[b.] al-H.usayn [‛Utbī]58 in the vizierate, whilst Abu ’l-H.asan Muh.ammad b. Ibrāhīm
[Sīmjūrī] was appointed commander-in-chief of Khurasan. The H.ājib Ibrāhīm b.
Alptegin was sent to Abu ’l-H.asan with the investiture diploma and standard for a
commander-in-chief in the year 347 [/958–9].
Abū Ja‛far ‛Utbī was continually alighting on sources of wealth that he could
appropriate for himself and exerting himself to the utmost in searching out money
for the treasuries, until people complained volubly about him, and in the months
of the year 348 [/959–60] Abū Ja‛far was deprived of the vizierate, which was now
given instead to Abū Mans.ūr Yūsuf b. Ish.āq.
At Nishapur, the Amir Abu ’l-H.asan Muh.ammad b. Ibrāhīm committed numerous
oppressive acts, and complaints about his tyranny were continually reaching the court
in Bukhara. Hence in Jumādā II of the year 349 [/August 960] he was dismissed
and the post of commander-in-chief given to Abū Mans.ūr Muh.ammad b. ‛Abd al-
Razzāq. Abū Nas.r Mans.ūr b. Bāyqarā was sent to him with an investiture diploma, a
standard and a robe of honour. [H 161, M 234]
When that investiture diploma reached Abū Mans.ūr b. ‛Abd al-Razzāq, he got a
firm grip on the Cis-Oxanian lands (wilāyat-i mā dūn al-nahr) and established laudable
practices. [N 42] He held sessions for hearing complaints of injustice, personally
acted as an arbiter between opposing parties and dispensed justice in cases between
the subjects. Abū Mans.ūr was an upright man, knowledgeable about customs

Part 3.indd 66 7/10/2009 1:36:38 PM

 P ART T HREE : T HE S AMANIDS 67

and conventions, pleasant company and characterised by an abundance of good

deeds.59
At the court, the H.ājib Alptegin always acknowledged Abū Mans.ūr’s suitability60
for his post. But Alptegin spoke up about Yūsuf b. Ish.āq’s mismanagement of
affairs until the latter was deprived of the vizierate, which was given to Abū ‛Alī
Muh.ammad b. Muh.ammad al-Bal‛amī.61 After some time, Alptegin perceived that
‛Abd al-Malik’s attitude towards him had changed. He was now less and less62
rendering service and participating in court life. ‛Abd al-Malik ordered him to go to
Balkh (i.e. as governor there). Alptegin protested, ‘In no way will I become a mere
local governor and tax collector after having been the Chief H.ājib.’ So he was given
the post of commander-in-chief in Khurasan, with Abū Mans.ūr dismissed from that
office. Abū Mans.ūr went to T.ūs and Alptegin came to Nishapur on 20 Dhu ’l-H.ijja
of the year 349 [/10 February 961]. Alptegin’s vizier was Abū ‛Abdallāh Muh.ammad
b. Ah.mad al-Shiblī.
There was an agreement between Alptegin and Abū ‛Alī Bal‛amī that each would
act as the other’s representative, and Bal‛amī used never to do anything without
Alptegin’s knowledge and counsel. Alptegin had sent some presents for the Rightly-
Guided Amir ‛Abd al-Malik, included amongst them being some horses and other
things. They were brought into the Amir’s presence after the noon worship. ‛Abd al-
Malik was an enthusiast for polo-playing in the open parade ground. He had drunk
a certain amount of wine, and he successively mounted the horses which had been
given to him as presents. One of them bucked when ‛Abd al-Malik was on him and
threw him off, and his head and neck were smashed to pieces. They bore away his
corpse, and they gave him the honorific title of ‘The Rightly-Guided One’.63

The Upright One (al-sadīd) Abū S.ālih. Mans.ūr (I) b. Nūh. (I)
The Rightly-Guided One and the Upright One were sons of the Praiseworthy
Amir Nūh.. When that accident befell the Rightly-Guided One, Abū ‛Alī Bal‛amī
immediately wrote a letter to [M 235] Alptegin with the news of what had happened
to the Rightly-Guided One and asking him who, in his view, was the most suitable
candidate for the throne. Alptegin wrote back in reply that out of the Rightly-Guided
One’s sons, one was particularly suitable to succeed.64 When this reply had gone off,
a letter arrived with the information that the members of the Samanid family and the
army were all agreed that Mans.ūr should be raised to the throne.
When Alptegin read the letter, swift-running camel riders had already crossed the
river (i.e. the Oxus). Alptegin then sent a messenger65 to Abū Mans.ūr ‛Abd al-Razzāq
with the instructions, ‘Get a firm grip on affairs in Khurasan and act according
to the friendship which exists between the two of us, as I am firmly convinced
you will do.’ Alptegin’s envoy was still with Abū Mans.ūr when a letter arrived from
Bukhara dismissing Alptegin and appointing Abū Mans.ūr as governor in his place.
Abū Mans.ūr had also been ordered, ‘Don’t allow Alptegin to cross the river, but
launch an attack on him, and the post of commander-in-chief at Nishapur is yours’,
and further hopes of favour were offered to him. [H 162]
Alptegin left Nishapur in Dhu ’l-Qa‛da of the year 350 [/December 961–January

Part 3.indd 67 7/10/2009 1:36:38 PM

 68 T HE O RNAMENT OF H ISTORIES

962]. Abū Mans.ūr despatched an army by the T.ābarān and Nūqān Gate to Jāha (?).66
Alptegin had already left. They came upon a certain amount of the remnants of his
baggage, which the ‘ayyārs and sarhangs plundered, carrying off everything that was
there. Following in Alptegin’s tracks, Abū Mans.ūr came to Jāha, but Alptegin had
already reached the bank of the Oxus. Letters sent from Bukhara by the Amir, the
Vizier and the head of the palace household (wakīl-i dar) reached Alptegin’s senior
officers (sarhangān) denouncing Alptegin for acting wrongfully. When Alptegin
saw what the situation was, he set fire to the army camp until the whole of it was
consumed. Then he told his personal ghulāms, [N 44] ‘You all see what lies before us
– sword blows, imprisonment and the violent extortion of wealth – and behind us
– killing, captivity and the sword. The right course is that we should make for Balkh.’
He went from there to Balkh and then left that city by the Khulm road.
When the Upright One got news of Alptegin’s flight, he sent against him B.b.dāh.
(?),67 and B.b.dāh. caught up with Alptegin at the pass (dara) leading to Khulm.
Alptegin had with him 700 ghulāms, and they gave battle to 12,000 opponents,
killing the greater part of them. In the end, B.b.dāh. turned and fled back to Bukhara.
Alptegin went to Tukhāristān and from there to Ghaznin. He remained there for a
period of time and it was there that he died.68 [M 236]
Abū Mans.ūr b. ‛Abd al-Razzāq knew that he would not be left in that post (i.e. of
commander-in-chief) and that he would be dismissed. He returned to Merv, but the
sarhangs of Merv shut the gates of the town in his face. He passed on from there
and [now] allowed his troops full licence. The troops were indulging in plundering
and seizing people’s wealth, and in this fashion he headed for Nasā and Bāvard. The
headman (ra’īs) of Nasā had just died; Abū Mans.ūr arrested his heirs and seized the
wealth. He sent a letter to H.asan b. Būya seeking an agreement with him; he invited
him to Gurgān, and H.asan-i Būya set out from where he was.
Wushmgīr gave the physician Yuh.annā 1,000 dinars in gold, and he administered
poison to Abū Mans.ūr. That unjust and violent behaviour on Abū Mans.ūr’s part
redounded on his own head;69 the poison worked in him and he perished as a result
of it. The post of commander-in-chief (i.e. of Khurasan) was given to Abu ’l-H.asan
Muh.ammad b. Ibrāhīm [Sīmjūrī] for a second time, in Dhu ’l-H.ijja of the year 350
[/January–February 962]. Abu ’l-H.asan took up his post and treated the subjects
very benevolently, spread widely his justice, followed beneficent governmental ways
and put into practice laudable policies. He used always to cultivate the learned classes,
and turned completely away from those evil ways that he had previously followed
and from which the subjects had much suffered; he now conciliated people, put aside
that evil disposition and [N 45] abandoned reprehensible practices.
The order reached Abu ’l-H.asan to attack Abū Mans.ūr b. ‛Abd al-Razzāq. When
Amir Abu ’l-H.asan sallied forth to engage him in battle, he came upon H.asan-i
Būya’s army at N.m.kh.k.n70 and Khabūshān. Abu ’l-H.asan came up in pursuit of
him, and battle was joined by the two sides. [H 163] That poison administered to
Abū Mans.ūr had done its work and he was in an afflicted state, with his eyesight also
badly affected. Abu ’l-H.asan’s army proved victorious and Abū Mans.ūr’s troops fled.
In the course of this flight, Abū Mans.ūr said to his troops, ‘I’ve got to dismount.’

Part 3.indd 68 7/10/2009 1:36:38 PM

 P ART T HREE : T HE S AMANIDS 69

They replied, ‘There’s no time for that.’ He repeated, ‘I’ve got to take a rest.’ They
left him there alone and went off, and he himself dismounted. Straightway, a cavalry
troop of Ah.mad b. Mans.ūr b. Qarategin arrived; a S.aqlābī ghulām came upon him,
severed Abū Mans.ūr b. ‛Abd al-Razzāq’s head and pulled off his signet ring, and laid
them before his master. [M 237]
Amir Abu ’l-H.asan was now in a firm, settled position. He remained at Nishapur
for five years and did not go anywhere else. Then he received a letter from Bukhara
instructing him to go to Ray and campaign there. Wushmgīr sent his secretary ‛Alī
Dāmghānī, and he himself followed on after him. During the journey, he went out
hunting. A wild boar felled him to the ground, he was badly injured and died on
the spot. He was brought to Gurgān on 14–15 Dhu ’l-H.ijja of the year 356[/20–1
November 967].
With Wushmgīr dead, there was no point in going to Ray. The army of Khurasan
clamoured for its pay. Amir Abu ’l-H.asan sent a letter to Mans.ūr b. Nūh. asking for
money; Mans.ūr replied that the army’s pay would have to be taken from Bīsutūn, son
of Wushmgīr. When Bīsutūn heard this, he headed for T.abaristān, on the plea that
his money was laid up there. But he secretly concerted a plan of action with H.asan-i
Būya. The latter sent his ‛ārid. ‛Alī b. al-Qāsim to Āmul, [N 46] Bīsutūn then arrived
there and he made that arrangement between them firm.
The robe of honour sent by Mut.ī‛ reached Bīsutūn, together with a standard for
the governorship of T.abaristān, Gurgān, Sālūs and Rūyān, and he had awarded him
the honorific title of Z.ahīr al-Dawla ‘Upholder of the State’. Amir Abu ’l-H.asan
returned to Nishapur, and he was now accused of impotence and weakness. Sālār
b. Shīrdil and Shahriyār b. Zarrin-kamar had come to Amir Abu ’l-H.asan’s court,
and he welcomed and treated them handsomely. Then Bīsutūn died at Astarābād in
Rajab of the year 367 [/February–March 978]. Signs of weakness in Abu ’l-H.asan’s
grip on state affairs became apparent to the ruling authority (sult.ān), one of the
manifestations of this being that Gurgān, Qūmis, Sālūs and Rūyān slipped from his
control.
Mans.ūr b. Nūh. then sent Ash‛ath b. Muh.ammad al-Yashkurī to Nasā so that he
might proceed from there to Gurgān, and he despatched Nas.r b. Mālik to Gurgānj71
so that he might conquer it. He was also putting into effect plans regarding Abu
’l-H.asan. When [news of this] reached Abu ’l-H.asan, he got busy devising stratagems.
He came to Bukhara, and through the intimates of Mans.ūr secured intercession, and
as a result he was able to dispel that rancour from Mans.ūr’s heart and fend off from
himself that intended harm. The function of vizier had come to be shared between
Abū ‛Alī Bal‛amī and Abū Ja‛far ‛Utbī over a certain period, but then Abū ‛Alī Bal‛amī
died in Jumādā II of the year 363 [/March 974].72 [H 164, M 238]
Amir Abu ’l-H.asan was a very crafty and ingenious person, and he now brought
into play stratagems. He returned to Nishapur with the post of commander-in-chief
[and] as holder of the governorship of Merv. A sarhang from the province of Herat,
a certain Abū ‛Alī Muh.ammad b. al-‛Abbās Tūlakī, raised a rebellion. He put in order
and garrisoned the fortress of Tūlak,73 and a body of troops gathered round him.
Amir Abu ’l-H.asan appointed Abū Ja‛far Ziyādī to go and attack Tūlakī. Abū Ja‛far

Part 3.indd 69 7/10/2009 1:36:38 PM

 70 T HE O RNAMENT OF H ISTORIES

found Tūlakī in the fortress of Tūlak. Tūlakī then came forth under a guarantee
of protection, and Abū Ja‛far brought him back to Nishapur. This same Abū
Ja‛far Ziyādī marched into Ghūr and [N 47] conquered several of the fortresses
there.74 In the year 369 [/979–80] he went on to Sistan in order to aid H.usayn b.
‛Alī b. T.āhir al-Tamīmī, who was engaged in continuous warfare with Khalaf b.
Ah.mad.75 Amir Abu ’l-H.asan also proceeded there, following after him; they engaged
in warfare for some time and then they returned (i.e. to Khurasan) in the year 373
[/983–4].
The Commander of the Faithful al-T.ā’i‛ li’llāh succeeded to the caliphate in
the year 374 [/984–5].76 Abū Ja‛far ‛Utbī entered into correspondence with Abu
’l-Fath.77 Ibn al-‛Amīd. Abu ’l-Fath. was delighted at this, and the two viziers engaged in
negotiations and cleared up the causes of emnity between the Buyids and Samanids.
The sequence of hostile acts was ended, warfare ceased, and affairs became orderly
and settled. The Buyid house acknowledged its obedience to Mans.ūr b. Nūh. and put
a stop to acts of provocation. The land was no longer plagued by acts of violence
and the populace now enjoyed peace. Each year the stipulated tribute of 200,000
dinars and the additional presents were brought to Khurasan from Ray and the
districts of Jibāl.
H.asan-i Būya eventually fell ill. He bestowed his kingdom on his sons. Abū Shujā‛
[‛Ad.ud al-Dawla] Fanākhusraw had a private meeting with him, and H.asan passed on
to him all his secrets. He died at Ray on 5 Muh.arram of the year 366 [/3 September
976].
Abū Ja‛far ‛Utbī did laudable things in Khurasan. Yūsuf [b. Ish.āq] was brought
back again and appointed vizier, but died in Dhu ’l-Qa‛da of the year 363 [/July–
August 974],78 and the vizierate was then given to Abū ‛Abdallāh [M 239] Ah.mad
b. Muh.ammad al-Jayhānī in the year 365 [/975–76]. At this time Mans.ūr b. Nūh. fell
ill. The malady grew worse and he died of it on 11 Shawwāl of the year 365 [/12
June 976]. He was given [posthumously] the honorific title of ‘The Upright One’.79
[N 48]

The Well-Pleasing One (al-rad. ī, al-rid. ā)

Abu ’l-Qāsim Nūh. (II) b. Mans.ūr (I)
When Nūh. b. Mans.ūr succeeded to power, he had not yet attained mature years. He
reigned for twenty-one years and nine months. He made his close intimates the Amir
Abu ’l-H.asan [Sīmjūrī] [H 165] and Abu ’l-H.ārith Muh.ammad b. Ah.mad b. Farīghūn,80
and through them he acquired strong backing. He entrusted his affairs to Fā’iq of
the royal guard (al-khās.s.a) and the H.ājib Tāsh. When he assumed power, he sent Abū
‛Abdallāh b. H.afs., the commander (sālār) of the Bukhara ghāzīs, on a mission to the
Amir Abu ’l-H.asan and awarded him (i.e. Abu ’l-H.asan Sīmjūrī) the honorific title of
Nās.ir al-Dawla (‘The One who Renders the State Victorious’).81 He further sent him
an investiture patent and robe of honour for the post of commander-in-chief and
for the levying and collection of regular and extraordinary taxation (‛amal-i ma‛ūnat
wa ah.dāth) at Nishapur and Herat and in Quhistān. By the agency of [Abū] ‛Abdallāh
the Ghāzī he sent to him the following verbal message:

Part 3.indd 70 7/10/2009 1:36:39 PM

 P ART T HREE : T HE S AMANIDS 71

We have raised you to a higher level of closeness in our service than you expected,
since we have discerned in you signs of trustworthiness and indications of right
conduct; take care not to do anything to spoil our good opinion of you. We
have bestowed on you three things that none of our predecessors ever granted.
One is that we have made you one of our circle of intimates, and this will be
an indication of the firmness of our confidence in you and what has impelled
us to increase your noble status and high rank. Second is a further allocation
of territory for your governorship, and this will be an indication of how highly
we value your position and achievements. Third is the award of honorific titles
for you, to be used when you are formally addressed and in correspondence, so
that you will have an exalted status amongst your contemporaries and peers.

When this investiture patent, robe of honour and message reached Abu ’l-H.asan,
he was overjoyed. He entertained the envoy lavishly and sent presents for the royal
princes, according to their statuses. Then he despatched Abū ‛Abdallāh the Ghāzī
homewards.
Abu ’l-H.usayn ‛Abdallāh b. Ah.mad ‛Utbī was appointed vizier in Rabī‛ II of
the year 367 [/November–December 977]. When the Well-Pleasing Amir [N 49]
expressed his desire to appoint Abu ’l-H.usayn ‛Utbī as his vizier, [M 240] he sent
a letter to Amir Abu ’l-H.asan seeking his advice. The latter sent back a reply that
Abu ’l-H.usayn was too young for the post.82 When Abu ’l-H.usayn heard these
contemptuous and deprecatory words of Amir Abu ’l-H.asan, he sought his revenge.
He started spreading tales about Amir Abu ’l-H.asan’s defects and reprehensible
actions. He kept on saying continually that ‘Abu ’l-H.asan is useless and will never
achieve anything. He has brought Khurasan to ruin. All he cares about is mulcting
people and extracting taxation with violence. To make an intimate counsellor of him
is n.m.w.h..t.’83 He said so much in this vein that the Well-Pleasing Amir dismissed Abu
’l-H.asan and sent him a letter terminating his appointment.
Abu ’l-H.usayn ‛Utbī ordered the envoy to communicate the letter dismissing Abu
’l-H.asan publicly and in a loud voice. When the envoy reached Nishapur, Amir Abu
’l-H.asan had at the time taken up his position amongst his array of troops. The envoy
read out this message in accordance with the vizier’s instructions. Amir Abu ’l-H.asan
became indignant and filled with anger, and said, ‘I’m the governor of Khurasan and
the commander-in-chief of the army is my son Abū ‛Alī. By God, I’ll make them see
stars!’,84 and he had the drums beaten and brought out his army for action.
When news of this reached Abu ’l-H.usayn ‛Utbī, he became despairing and
repented of what he had said. He kept worrying whether the Amir would be pleased
with him or would charge him with responsibility for this reprehensible action, clap
him in bonds and imprison him. The next day, a letter brought by an agent of the
postal and intelligence service arrived with the information that Abu ’l-H.asan
had regretted his initial reaction and had accepted what was decreed regarding his
governorship and his dismissal. Amir Abu ’l-H.asan sent a group of trusted citizens
of Nishapur with Bū Nas.r Ah.mad b. ‛Alī Mīkālī,85 seeking the Vizier’s pardon for
his action. Abu ’l-H.usayn was filled with joy. Amir Abu ’l-H.asan summoned into

Part 3.indd 71 7/10/2009 1:36:39 PM

 72 T HE O RNAMENT OF H ISTORIES

his presence Ah.mad [H 166] b. al-H.usayn, who had come on the mission (i.e. to
Nishapur); he sought pardon and sent him back in a handsome fashion.
The Well-Pleasing Amir Nūh. then gave the post of commander-in-chief of the
army to the H.ājib Abu ’l-‛Abbās Tāsh and awarded him the honorific title of H.usām
al-Dawla (‘Sword of the State’). Tāsh reached Nishapur in mid-Sha‛bān of the year
371 [/14–15 February 982] and remained there for a year. Abu ’l-H.usayn ‛Utbī
[N 50] showed favour for Tāsh and solicitude because the latter had been one of
his father’s ghulāms. Abu ’l-H.usayn sent Fā’iq, Qābūs [b. Wushmgīr]86 and several
[M 241] other senior commanders to Gurgān in order to combat Būya (i.e. Mu’ayyid
al-Dawla), and himself set off on the road to B.y.h (?).
‛Alī b. al-H.asan b. Būya (i.e. Mu’ayyid al-Dawla) prepared to launch a military
campaign on behalf of his brother (i.e ‛Ad.ud al-Dawla). First of all, he attacked ‛Alī
[b.] Kāma and put him to flight, and himself proceeded to Astarābād. The Khurasanian
troops were busy plundering. Tāsh recalled ‛Alī [b.] Kāma. Abū Shujā‛ Fanā-Khusraw
(i.e. ‛Ad.ud al-Dawla) sent reinforcements for his brother [Mu’ayyid al-Dawla] Būya
to the number of 7,000 men, 4,000 of them coming from one direction and 3,000
from another direction. When the Buyid reinforcements arrived, they engaged Tāsh’s
forces and put them to flight. Tāsh went to his army camp and gave orders that it
should be set on fire, and himself departed. Just when the army of Būya b. al-H.asan
was about to pursue the fugitives into Khurasan, the news reached them of Fanā-
Khusraw’s death. The Buyid army halted and did not invade Khurasan; if this [death]
had not occurred, they would have destroyed Khurasan and Tāsh.
A letter reached Amir Abu ’l-H.asan from Bukhara telling him to put on a durrā‛a
and remain at home.87 He did this, and gave command of the army to his son Amir
Abū ‛Alī and sent him to reinforce H.usayn b. T.āhir in Sistan. The Amir of Khurasan
made over to him Pūshang, and Abū ‛Alī departed. When this news reached Amir
Khalaf in Sistan, he designated the ghulāms formerly of the following of Bāytūz
and the free troops, amounting to 4,000 cavalrymen, plus four elephants, to attack
Amir Abū ‛Alī.88 The latter had [only] 1,000 cavalrymen. Battle was joined and large
numbers of persons killed, and those four elephants were captured.
When this news reached Bukhara, praises were heaped on Abū ‛Alī, and he was
further awarded the province of Bādghīs. A reconciliation between him and Tāsh
was effected. Amir Abu ’l-H.asan had written to Fā’iq with complaints about Abu ’l-
H.usayn ‛Utbī and recounting the story of that uttering of abuses and displaying of
contempt. [H 167] Fā’iq replied, ‘I’ll devise some stratagem to deal with this.’ [N 51]
He then suborned a group of those royal ghulāms who had no fear of God [M 242]
and gave each one of them money. They murdered Abu ’l-H.usayn ‛Utbī, and he was
buried at the side of his father. Things fell into disarray. Tāsh was summoned back
to the capital. He set out for there with the intention of wreaking vengeance for the
death of Abu ’l-H.usayn ‛Utbī, but found no opportunity for this.89
Abu ’l-H.usayn Muh.ammad b. Muh.ammad al-Muzanī was then appointed vizier,
and affairs settled down. Amir Abū ‛Alī sought from Tāsh the office of deputy
for him at Nishapur, and Tāsh gave it to him; but Tāsh’s action here proved to
be a mistake. On Abu ’l-H.usayn ‛Utbī’s death, Tāsh’s position became weak. Fā’iq

Part 3.indd 72 7/10/2009 1:36:39 PM

 P ART T HREE : T HE S AMANIDS 73

and Abu ’l-H.asan moved against him, and they incited people so that they were
continually complaining of Tāsh’s tyrannical deeds. Fā’iq, Abū ‛Alī and Abu ’l-H.asan
conspired together; Abū ‛Alī seized Tāsh’s tax officials and confiscated large sums
of money from them.
Abu ’l-H.usayn Muzanī was arrested; he very soon fell ill and died. Abū
Muh.ammad ‛Abd al-Rah.mān b. Ah.mad al-Fārisī was made vizier. The ascendancy in
the state of Abū ‛Alī and Fā’iq grew very strong. In the end, they decided that Tāsh
should have Nishapur; Fā’iq should have Balkh; Abū ‛Alī should have Herat; and
Abu ’l-H.asan should have Bādghīs, Ganj Rustāq and Quhistān.
Tāsh went to Nishapur, but his detractors took the opportunity to denigrate
him, and they kept on making provocations, stirring up trouble and bringing false
testimonies until Tāsh was dismissed from office. ‛Abd al-Rah.mān was deprived of
the vizierate in the month of Rabī‛ I of the year 376 [/July–August 986]. The post
of commander-in-chief in Khurasan was given to Amir Abu ’l-H.asan, and Nasā and
Bāvard given to Tāsh. When the latter heard the news of his dismissal (i.e. from the
supreme command in Khurasan), he remained at Sarakhs and made no move as yet
to go to Nasā. Abū Sa‛īd Shaybī and ‛Abdallāh b. Muh.ammad b. ‛Abd al-Razzāq were
at Nishapur.
When Amir Abu ’l-H.asan [N 52] arrived, they decorated the town. They went
to Tāsh, and . . . they saw how well set-up and arrayed he was. Amir Abu ’l-H.asan
entered Nishapur. Tāsh came along and shut himself up in the citadel. ‛Alī b. H.asan
b. Būya (i.e. Fakhr al-Dawla) sent military help to Tāsh. Fighting broke out. Abu
’l-H.asan abandoned the town and fell back to Quhistān. He (sc. Tāsh) sought help
from Abu ’l-Fawāris b. Abī Shujā‛ (i.e. Sharaf al-Dawla Shīrzīl b. ‛Ad.ud al-Dawla),
[M 243] who sent a force of 2,000 men. Fā’iq now arrived. They proceeded to
Nishapur, and they defeated Tāsh, this defeat being on 7 Sha‛bān of the year 377
[/2 December 987].
They took prisoner large numbers of Daylamīs. Mans.ūr b. Muh.ammad b. ‛Abd
al-Razzāq was involved, and he was taken captive also. All were sent to Khurasan.
Mans.ūr was set on an ox and brought into Bukhara by day. Tāsh fled to Gurgān. ‛Alī
b. al-H.asan b. Būya received him handsomely and bestowed many presents on him,
and himself returned to Ray, entrusting Gurgān, with its harvest of grain and its
taxation, to Tāsh. Tāsh died in Gurgān in the year 378 [/988–9].
Abū ‛Alī Muh.ammad b. ‛Īsā al-Dāmghānī was then appointed vizier on 10 Rabī‛ II
of the year 378 [/28 July 988]. [H 168] The royal guard now favoured Abū Nas.r [b.
Ah.mad b. Muh.ammad b.] Abū Zayd, but in the end Bū ‛Alī Dāmghānī was given the
vizierate for a second time. He functioned thus as vizier until the Khān (i.e. Hārūn or
H.asan Bughrā Khān, the Qarakhanid Ilig Khān) came to Bukhara. When the Khān
left, he took Dāmghānī with him. He passed away at Samarqand on 1 Rajab of the
year 382 [/2 September 992].
One day, Amir Abu ’l-H.asan went to the Khurramak Garden. He was enamoured
of a slave girl and slept with her. He had fallen asleep across her abdomen and
then died, this being in Dhu ’l-H.ijja of the year 378 [/March–April 989]. Amir
Abū ‛Alī was at that time at Herat, whilst [his brother] Abu ’l-Qāsim was in charge

Part 3.indd 73 7/10/2009 1:36:39 PM

 74 T HE O RNAMENT OF H ISTORIES

of Nishapur. Troublemakers sowed dissension between the brothers. When Abu

’l-Qāsim learnt of this, he came from Nishapur to Herat in the year 379 [/989–90],
bringing Amir Abu ’l-H.asan’s treasury and ghulāms to Abū ‛Alī there. [N 53]
Nūh. b. Mans.ūr now in the year 381 [/991–2] appointed Abū ‛Alī commander-in-
chief, sent him an investiture patent, a standard and a robe of honour, and gave him
the honorific title of ‛Imād al-Dawla (‘Pillar of the State’). Fā’iq came back to Bukhara
without having received any permission for this. The H.ājib Inanch90 (? text ’.n.j)
and Begtuzūn engaged in battle with him; they defeated Fā’iq and he fled to Balkh.
Chaghāniyān was bestowed on Abu ’l-H.asan T.āhir b. al-Fad.l. [M 244]
Amir T.āhir b. al-Fad. l came forth, and Abu ’l-Muz.affar [Muh.ammad b. Ah.mad]
went to Fā’iq, who provided him with military assistance. He engaged in battle with
T.āhir b. al-Fad. l, and in the course of that battle T.āhir was killed. When Abū Mūsā
Hārūn, son of the Ilig Khān,91 came from Turkistan to Ispījāb there was a military
engagement. He captured Fā’iq’s senior commanders at Khartang.92 Fā’iq sought the
Khān’s protection and entered Bukhara with him. Nūh. b. Mans.ūr went into hiding.
Fā’iq sought a grant of Balkh from the Khān. The Khān gave it to him and himself
went back.
Amir Abū ‛Alī possessed numerous troops and weapons and an ample treasury. He
intervened in the territory of the Amir of Khurasan and seized control of the whole
of the lands this side of the Oxus. He took possession of the proceeds of the land-
tax, the tolls on local trade (ajlāb), the regular taxes and extraordinary levies (ma‛āwin
wa ah.dāth) and the revenues from crown lands, and he inflicted every humiliation
possible on Amir Nūh.. He assumed unilaterally the honorific title of Amīr al-Umarā’
al-Mu’ayyad min al-Samā’ (‘Supreme Commander, the Divinely-Aided One’), whilst
retaining the name of Nūh. in the khut.ba made from the mosque pulpits.93
When the Ilig came to Ispījāb, Abū ‛Alī sent a message to him and offered him
his support. The Ilig came to Bukhara and encamped at the Jūy-i Mūliyān94 in Rabī‛
I of the year 382 [/May–June 992]. Nūh. wrote a letter and sent it with an envoy to
Abū ‛Alī, instructing him to to come, since the Khān had appeared; Abū ‛Alī paid no
heed at all to that letter. Nūh. sought troops from him, but he did not respond. The
Khān fell ill for a while with haemorrhoids and turned back homewards. On leaving,
he entrusted the realm to ‛Abd al-‛Azīz b. Nūh. b. Nas.r, to whom a splendid robe of
honour was awarded; the Khān said to him, ‘We have deprived Nūh. of his realm and
have entrusted it to you.’95 The Ilig reached Quchqār-bāshī96 [H 169] and there died.
Nūh. had exiled to Khwarazm from his kingdom ‛Abdallāh b. Muh.ammad b. ‛Uzayr.
When Nūh. came to Āmūy, he recalled him and restored to him his former office. On
several occasions Nūh. sent letters to Abū ‛Alī, summoning him and seeking financial
help and troops, but Abū ‛Alī made no reply whatever, and displayed overweening
pride and rebelliousness until the day when God, He is Exalted and Magnified,
showed favour for Nūh.’s cause and, [M 245] without the latter’s having to seek help
from anyone, vouchsafed His favourable intervention. Nūh. returned to Bukhara.97
Amir Abū Mans.ūr Sebüktegin, following on after the H.ājib Alptegin, had established
his control over Ghazna, Gardīz, Parwān, Kabul, Bust and those regions which
Qarategin’s ghulāms held.98 Amir Sebüktegin’s role and status became exalted and he

Part 3.indd 74 7/10/2009 1:36:39 PM

 P ART T HREE : T HE S AMANIDS 75

became renowned. When Abū ‛Alī’s harsh and contemptuous treatment of the Well-
Pleasing Amir increased in intensity, Amir Nūh. wrote a letter to Sebüktegin, may God
have mercy on him, embodying his complaints about Abū ‛Alī and summoning him
(i.e. to furnish aid). Amir Sebüktegin proceeded to Kish and Nakhshab, and made all
the required pledges [to Nūh.]. Abū ‛Alī moved from Merv to Nishapur in Rajab of
the year 383 [/August–September 993]. Letters reached him from Amir Sebüktegin
filled with a mixture of promises and menaces, but these were of no avail. Abū ‛Alī
obstinately stood his ground and maintained his disregard for authority. However
much he was proffered copious advice, his pride and rebelliousness only increased.
When Abū ‛Alī went beyond bounds in his rebelliousness, it was impossible to
tolerate this any further. Nūh. moved from Bukhara to Merv and from there to Herat
with his army, of which Amir Sebüktegin was commander. Abū ‛Alī moved from
Nishapur to Herat. Outside the town, he set up his army camp with his brothers,
Fā’iq and other amirs, and envoys appeared with the aim of making peace between
the opposing sides. However, Abū ‛Alī’s senior commanders opposed this and said,
‘Nūh. and Sebüktegin are convinced99 that we shall be victorious.’ [N 55] The next
day, Nūh.’s and Sebüktegin’s troops seized the source of the water supply for Herat
(? sar-i ‛ayn- Harāt).
When Abū ‛Alī and his troops saw what was happening, they repented of their
decision, but it was too late. Abū ‛Alī had an intelligence agent (s.āh.ib-khabar) (i.e. in
Sebüktegin’s camp); Amir Sebüktegin was fully aware of this man’s presence, but
since he deemed it expedient not to expose him, he revealed nothing. One day, a
trusty messenger arrived and told Amir Sebüktegin, ‘Dārā b. Qābūs100 is intending to
come over to your side when on the battlefield; I will go and escort him back.’ Amir
Sebüktegin was delighted at this news. He summoned that spy on pretext of giving
him orders about some matter, and then spoke with one of the boon-companions
of his entourage, in such a way that the spy would overhear, saying that ‘Abu ’l-
Qāsim Sīmjūr, Fā’iq and Dārā are all planning to come over to our side, [M 246] and
one of them has undertaken to arrest Abū ‛Alī and hand him over to us,’ after which
the Just Amir (i.e. Sebüktegin) turned his attention to something else.
The spy reported back to Abū ‛Alī. The latter became fearful and now desired a peace
agreement, after not having [previously] given any reply. He hoped that someone might
come offering a peace agreement, but no-one came. Next morning, signs of treachery
and betrayal became apparent within his army, and he was convinced that they would
flee the battlefield. Contingents of ghulāms and banners came into view from every
side, and there were so many enraged elephants, cavalrymen and infantrymen that
the actual earth’s surface could not be seen. Abū ‛Alī had taken up his position on an
eminence. He saw that Dārā had gone over to the other side. He realised that the spy’s
information had been correct, and his fearfulness grew stronger. [H 170]
Then there arose the sound of drums, trumpets, barrel-shaped drums and
kettledrums,101 trumpets with tapered tubes (gāv-dum), cymbals, the jangling
ornaments and bells of elephants, deep-toned trumpets (karranāy) and conches
(sapīd-muhra), together with the shouting of warriors and the noise of horses, to such
a pitch that the world grew dark. The wind arose, with dust and stones swirling in

Part 3.indd 75 7/10/2009 1:36:39 PM

 76 T HE O RNAMENT OF H ISTORIES

it. Abū ‛Alī fled with a body of his ghulāms, abandoning everything left there in his
encampment. This battle took place in the year 384 [/994].
Then the Amir of Khurasan [N 56] and Sebüktegin’s troops joined forces and
fell upon Abū ‛Alī’s army camp, plundering all the valuables and impedimenta there.
Abū ‛Alī and his forces fled and entered Nishapur by night. The Well-Pleasing Amir
Nūh. awarded Amir Sebüktegin the honorific title of Nās.ir al-Dīn wa ’l-Dawla (‘The
One who Secures Victory for the Faith and the State’) and his son Abu ’l-Qāsim
Mah.mūd b. Nās.ir al-Dawla the title of Sayf al-Dawla (‘Sword of the State’).102 Amir
Mah.mūd remained for some time at Herat with Amir Nūh. in order to finish those
items of business there, and from Herat proceeded back to Nishapur.
When Abū ‛Alī Sīmjūrī realised his own wretched and humiliating position, he
came forward offering his apologies, but these were not accepted, and in despair
he left for Gurgān. In the year 385 [/995] the S.āh.ib Abu ’l-Qāsim [Ismā‛īl] Ibn
‛Abbād103 died at Ray. Amir Nūh. went back to Bukhara, Amir Sebüktegin was at
Herat and Pūshang, whilst Amir Mah.mūd was at Nishapur engaged in getting a firm
grip [M 247] on affairs in that region.
Abū ‛Alī and Fā’iq came with a powerful army in the year 385. Amir Mah.mūd
moved to Herat and joined up with his father, and they sought reinforcements from
all quarters. Abū Nas.r [Ah.mad b.] Abū Zayd was despatched as an envoy to the ruler
of Sistan Khalaf b. Ah.mad. Khalaf came with a fully equipped army, and the Amir
[Abu ’l-H.ārith Muh.ammad b. Ah.mad b.] Farīghūn came from Gūzgānān. The Khalaj
Turks104 were likewise summoned. Khalaf was left at Pūshang, and his son Tāhir was
taken along with the army. A battle took place in the region of T.ūs at the village of
Andarikh. Abū ‛Alī was routed, the prisoners he had taken were now released and
his army camp was plundered.
Abū ‛Alī went to Ray via the T.abas road. ‛Alī b. al-H.asan b. Būya welcomed and
made much of him, allotting him a monthly stipend [H 171] of 50,000 dirhams.
Whenever he was invited to a feast, a horse with fine accoutrements would be sent
along, and all that would be left for him to retain. Subsequently, Abū ‛Alī became
discontented with his lot [N 57] and came back to Nishapur in disguise on account
of a love affair with a woman. Amir Mah.mūd arrested and imprisoned him, but he
managed to escape from his bonds and headed for Khwārazm. When he reached
Hazārasp he encamped in a garden. The Khwārazm Shāh Abū ‛Abdallāh’s stewards
came, and set out fitting hospitality and food for Abū ‛Alī, and it was said that the
Khwārazm Shāh was coming in person the next day.105 Whilst everyone was asleep,
the Khwarazmians came in and Abū ‛Alī was seized, placed in bonds, taken back to
Khwarazm and imprisoned.106
There was a long-standing animosity (ta‛as.s.ub) between the people of Gurgānj
and those of Khwarazm (i.e. of the city of Kāth or Madīnat Khwārazm). The Amir
of Gurgānj Ma’mūn sent an army. A battle ensued at [Madīnat] Khwārazm and the
Khwārazm Shāh Abū ‛Abdallāh was taken prisoner. Abū ‛Alī Sīmjūrī was released
from his jail. All were brought back to Gurgānj, and Abū ‛Alī al-Ma’mūn was hailed as
Khwārazm Shāh. Ma’mūn was continually showing great favour to Abū ‛Alī [M 248]
and gave him rich presents of money, and Abū ‛Alī’s position now improved.107

Part 3.indd 76 7/10/2009 1:36:39 PM

 P ART T HREE : T HE S AMANIDS 77

Nūh.’s envoy came to Abū ‛Alī with many attractive words and promises of favour,
and had invited him back. Abū ‛Alī went to Bukhara. ‛Abdallāh b. [Muh.ammad b.]
‛Uzayr and Begtuzūn108 met and came back with him, but when they were inside
Nūh.’s palace, Abū ‛Alī was seized, together with eighteen of his brothers and senior
commanders, fettered and consigned to the citadel, this in the year 386 [/996].
When Amir Sebüktegin heard this news about Abū ‛Alī, he made a request to
the Well-Pleasing Amir Nūh. for him to be handed over. So Nūh. sent Abū ‛Alī, his
ghulām Il-Mengü, Amīrak T.ūsī and Abū ‛Alī’s son Abu ’l-H.usayn to Amir Sebüktegin
in Sha‛bān of the year 386 [/August–September 996]. Sebüktegin then despatched
these four persons to the fortress of Gardīz, which was a highly secure place, and
imprisoned them there, and in the year 389 [/999] all four of them were killed. The
Well-Pleasing Amir Abu ’l-Qāsim Nūh. fell ill, and passed away on Friday, 14 Rajab
of the year 387109 [/23 July 997].110
In Sha‛bān of this year [/August–September 997], Abu ’l-H.asan [Fakhr al-Dawla
‛Alī b. H.asan] b. Būya also died. Amir Sebüktegin fell sick at Balkh. He set out
for Ghaznīn but died en route, this event taking place in Sha‛bān of the year 387.
When the Well-Pleasing Amir Nūh. died, they gave him this designation of ‘The
Well-Pleasing One’.

Abu ’l-H . ārith Mans.ūr (II) b. Nūh. (II)

The Well-Pleasing Amir Nūh. b. Mans.ūr had made his son Mans.ūr the designated
heir, and when Nūh. died, Mans.ūr succeeded to his throne when he had not yet
achieved the age of maturity. His vizier was Abu ’l-Muz.affar Muh.ammad b. Ibrāhīm
al-Barghashi. Fā’iq was in control of everything else. [H 172]
Al-Qādir bi’llāh Abu ’l-‛Abbās Ah.mad b. Ish.āq b. al-Muqtadir succeeded to the
caliphate and invested Abu ’l-H.ārith with rule over Khurasan. Abū Mans.ūr ‛Abdallāh
b. Muh.ammad b. ‛Uzayr [M 249] said to Abū Mans.ūr Muh.ammad b. al-H.usayn b.
Mut, ‘. . .111 with me so that the supreme military command over the lands south
of the Oxus may be entrusted to you’ (i.e. they were planning a revolt). They also
summoned the aid of the Ilig,112 who came to them bringing military assistance
and encamped at the gate of Samarqand. Abū Mans.ūr came out to meet the Ilig
with a small detachment of troops and brought him back to his camping place.
When the Ilig’s cavalrymen arrived, the Ilig ordered that Abū Mans.ūr [‛Abdallāh b.
Muh.ammad] b. ‛Uzayr should be seized and placed in bonds. He summoned Fā’iq
from Samarqand, placed him over the vanguard of his troops [N 59] and ordered
him to go to Bukhara.
When Amir Abu ’l-H.ārith got news of these events, he went to Āmūy. When Fā’iq
arrived, he reproached Abu ’l-H.ārith for the loss of the kingdom. Abu ’l-H.ārith then
appointed Begtūzūn commander-in-chief in Khurasan. He despatched him thither
and himself returned to Bukhara. Fā’iq came out one stage to meet him, and they
entered Bukhara together.
At this time, Amir Mah.mūd was at Nishapur. He heard about the death of his
father and also that his brother Ismā‛īl b. Nās.ir al-Dīn had appropriated his father’s
legacy and position, including the governorship of Ghaznīn. Amir Mah.mūd set out

Part 3.indd 77 7/10/2009 1:36:40 PM

 78 T HE O RNAMENT OF H ISTORIES

for Ghaznīn. He and his brother clashed in a battle at the gate of Ghaznīn. He
defeated his brother and took him prisoner, routed his army and occupied the town
of Ghaznīn.113
Abu ’l-Qāsim Sīmjūrī had inflicted a defeat on the Turks.114 He then formed the
intention of attacking Begtuzūn, and proceeded to Nishapur. Begtuzūn marched
out and gave battle in the month of Rabī‛ I of the year 388 [/March 998], defeated
Abu ’l-Qāsim, and seized his wealth and possessions. Abu ’l-Muz.affar Barghashī
was deprived of the vizierate at Bukhara, and in his place Abu ’l-Qāsim al-‛Abbās b.
Muh.ammad Barmakī was set up provisionally until someone properly qualified
should appear.
When Abu ’l-Qāsim was killed, Abu ’l-H.usayn b. Muh.ammad b. ‛Alī al-H.amūlī
was set up provisionally until someone properly qualified should appear. Abu ’l-
H.usayn proved useless, so the vizierate was given to Abu ’l-Fad.l Muh.ammad b.
Ah.mad al-Khunāmatī115 – this place Khunāmat is one of the villages of the Bukhara
region116 – and he was confirmed in the vizierate. [M 250]
When Amir Mah.mūd had cleared up affairs at Ghaznīn, he got his forces ready
and set out for Nishapur. Begtuzūn realised that he could not prevail against
Mah.mūd, and withdrew to Nasā and Bāvard. Amir Abu ’l-H.ārith [N 60] moved
against him, but Begtuzūn and Fā’iq joined together, deposed Abu ’l-H.ārith and
blinded him at Sarakhs on Wednesday, 12 S.afar of the year 389 [/2 February 999].117
[H 173]

Abu ’l-Fawāris ‛Abd al-Malik (II) b. Nūh. (II)

Begtuzūn, Fā’iq and a section of the royal guard came together and set Abu ’l-
H.ārith’s brother ‛Abd al-Malik b. Nūh. on the throne. They sought from him an
accession payment (māl-i bay‛at) and he handed it over. At this juncture, Amir
Mah.mūd, may God have mercy on him, came to Merv seeking to avenge Abu ’l-
H.ārith and to engage in war. Envoys met together and a peace agreement was made
on the basis that Mah.mūd should have Herat and Balkh with all their revenues and
treasuries. Amir Mah.mūd, may God have mercy on him, distributed 2,000 dinars in
alms for the poor, and went back according to the terms of the peace agreement. He
rendered thanks to God, He is Mighty and Exalted, that no blood had been shed.
Whilst Amir Mah.mūd was on the way back, the royal ghulāms attacked and
plundered his baggage train, this being at the instigation and prompting of Dārā
b. Qābūs. The Amir Nas.r b. Nās.ir al-Dīn, the commander-in-chief, who was the
brother of Amir Mah.mūd, may God have mercy on them, came back and engaged
in war. Begtuzūn was routed and returned to Bukhara in a wretched condition. Fā’iq
died in Sha‛bān of the year 389 [/July–August 999] and Begtuzūn was left in a state
of deep regretfulness (i.e. for his actions).
The Ilig Abu ’l-H.asan b. Nas.r,118 the [Great] Khān’s brother, came to the gate of
Bukhara. He kept giving out that everything he did was out of friendship for ‛Abd al-
Malik b. Nūh., but in reality meant the opposite, and the sons of Nūh. were fearful of
his evil intentions. The next morning they went to greet him, and they were arrested.
He made them prisoners, put them in bonds and transported them to Uzgend,119 and

Part 3.indd 78 7/10/2009 1:36:40 PM

 P ART T HREE : T HE S AMANIDS 79

he seized all their wealth and possessions. Their period of power came to an end and
the age of their rule [N 61] passed away. [M 251]
The Ilig entered Bukhara on Monday, 10 Dhu ’l-Qa‛da of the year 389 [/23 October
999] and established himself in the government headquarters. Abu ’l-Fawāris ‛Abd
al-Malik had gone into hiding. The Ilig ordered that a search for him should be
made and he was brought forth. A veil was thrown over his head, and in that guise
they brought him out of Bukhara into the Ilig’s presence. The latter ordered that he
should be placed in bonds and transported to Uzgend. It was there, in the captivity
of the Ilig, that he passed away.120 God is Most High and Exalted! [M 252]

Part 3.indd 79 7/10/2009 1:36:40 PM

Part 3.indd 80 7/10/2009 1:36:40 PM
 PART FOUR: THE EARLY
GHAZNAVIDS

[Chapter Thirteen Concerning the Historical Accounts of

Yamīn al-Dawla and His House]
The person who has put this book together, Abū Sa‛īd ‛Abd al-H.ayy b. al-D . ah.h.āk
b. Mah.mūd Gardīzī, relates: Since we have finished with the stories and historical
narratives of the prophets, the kings of the Chaldaeans,1 the kings of the Persians,
the Islamic caliphs and the governors of Khurasan, we have set about relating the
exploits of Yamīn al-Dawla, may God’s mercy be upon him, in a summary and
condensed fashion. [This is] because of all the historical narratives that we have
read, none have that important status that the reports about him have. For we have
either heard those narratives through oral transmission or have read them in books.
It may well be that authors and relaters of narratives handed down orally have set
down less or more in those compositions and histories, and have said things out
of an attempt to create a remarkable effect or to make the book more impressive.
[H 174] But these historical narratives of ours are mainly based on what we have
seen personally: what Amir Mah.mūd, may God have mercy on him, did in India;
how he reduced fortresses in Nīmrūz (i.e. Sistan), Khurasan and ‛Irāq[-i ‛Ajam]
(i.e. Western Persia); how he traversed fearful deserts, mountains and tracks; how he
undertook military campaigns there; how he subdued mighty monarchs – things the
like of which no-one ever saw or heard about, for warfare and strategies like these
may only be regarded as superhuman achievements.
In particular, it so happens that for this lord of the world, the exalted Sultan
‛Izz al-Dawla wa-Zayn al-Milla, Sayf Allāh, Mu‛izz Dīn Allāh Abū Mans.ūr ‛Abd al-
Rashīd b. Yamīn al-Dawla wa-Amīn al-Milla Abi ’l-Qāsim Mah.mūd b. Nās.ir al-Dīn
wa ’l-Dawla, [N 62] may God prolong his life and perpetuate his power, make firm
his kingship and humble his enemies, royal power passed into his hands without any
effort. Whenever he purposed anything he immediately achieved his desire without
any hindrance or delay. So many thousands of people here became obedient and
submissive to him without his shedding any blood, without any lusting for gain,
without any pain or injury, without any great lapse of time, and without any trickery
or deceitfulness. May his power be always firmly established, his banner always

Part 4.indd 81 7/10/2009 1:37:12 PM

 82 T HE O RNAMENT OF H ISTORIES

victorious and his enemy always brought low! [M 253] May his friend always be
rendered joyful and all tribulations dispelled far from his sphere of life!
From all the historical narratives concerning the imperial power of this house,
may God make perpetual its continuance, I have now chosen whatever is most
pleasing and remarkable and have set it down here. I have kept it as brief and concise
as possible; if I had been concerned with producing a commentary on events, it
would have come out much fuller. I have then made a selection from those historical
accounts, and have set it down here, with God Most High’s permission. [H 175]

The Reign of the Most Exalted Amir, Sayyid Yamīn al-Dawla wa-Amīn
al-Milla wa-Kahf al-Islām Abu ’l-Qāsim Mah.mūd, Son of Nās.ir al-Dīn
wa ’l-Dawla Sebüktegin, God’s Mercy upon Them!
Mah.mūd, may God have mercy on him, completed the conquest of Merv and
became Amir of Khurasan. He came to Balkh, and was still there when an envoy
from Baghdad sent by al-Qādir bi’llāh came to him with an investiture patent for
Khurasan, a standard, a splendid robe of honour and a crown. Qādir also bestowed
on him the honorific titles of Yamīn al-Dawla wa-Amīn al-Milla (“Right Hand of the
State and Trusted One of the Religious Community”), Abu ’l-Qāsim Mah.mud,
Friend (walī) of the Commander of the Faithful’. When the investiture patent and
standard arrived, Amir Mah.mūd sat down on the throne of sovereignty, donned
the robe of honour and placed the crown on his head, and held public audience for
both high [N 63] and low, this being in Dhu ’l-Qa‛da of the year 389 [/October–
November 999).2
Then in the year 390 [/1000] he left Balkh for Herat. From there he went to Sistan
and besieged Khalaf b. Ah.mad in the fortress of Ispahbad. Khalaf sent envoys to
negotiate and made peace with Amir Mah.mūd, promising to hand over 100,000
dinars as tribute and to make the khut.ba in Mah.mūd’s name.3
When Amir Mah.mūd had completed this task, he went on to Ghaznīn and from
there to India, where he seized many fortresses.4 On his return from there, the Khān
sent an envoy and made a marriage alliance with Mah.mūd. The two rulers came
to a solemn agreement (muwād.a‛at) that Transoxania should be held by the Khān
(i.e. the Ilig Nas.r), whilst Amir Mah.mūd should have the lands south of the Oxus.
Mah.mūd came to Nishapur at the end of Jumādā I of the year 391 [/27 April 1001].5
[M 254]
The Samanid Abū Ibrāhīm [Ismā‛īl al-Muntas.ir]6 attacked the commander-in-
chief Amir Nas.r, son of Nās.ir al-Dīn [Sebüktegin], may God have mercy on the two
of them. He put Amir Nas.r to flight and captured the Hindu youth (? hindū-bachcha),7
this on Wednesday, the last day of Rabī‛ I of the year 391 [/27 February 1001]. Abū
Ibrāhīm consolidated his position at Nishapur, and Amir Mah.mūd, God’s mercy be
upon him, led an expedition against him. Abū Ibrāhīm withdrew to Isfarā’in and
Kirmān (?)8 and from there to Gurgān, but then came back to Nishapur a second
time. Amir Nas.r marched out from Nishapur to Būzgān. [Abū] Ibrāhīm’s army came
up after him, but the commander-in-chief Amir Nas.r put it to flight. The headman
(ra’īs) of Sarakhs indicated to Abū Ibrāhīm that he would attack Amir Nas.r and that

Part 4.indd 82 7/10/2009 1:37:18 PM

 P ART F OUR : T HE E ARLY G HAZNAVIDS 83

he, the headman, would provide him with military assistance. They both proceeded
there and Amir Nas.r likewise, and they met in battle. Abū Ibrāhīm was defeated, and
the H.ājib Tūztāsh9 and Abu ’l-Qāsim Sīmjūrī were both captured.
Abū Ibrāhīm fell back to Bāvard, [N 64, H 176] and from there went to the Ghuzz
Turks and was staying amongst them. The Turks agreed to march out with him to
battle. Their chief, the Yabghu, became a Muslim and became linked to Abū Ibrāhīm
through a marriage alliance.10 The two of them marched to Kūhak and gave battle
to Sübāshītegin, defeating him. The Ilig came to Samarqand. They attacked him at
that hill11 and captured eighteen of his senior officers. The Ghuzz carried off the
prisoners (i.e. for themselves).12 Abū Ibrāhīm fell into despair. With a force of 300
cavalrymen and 400 infantrymen he went to the Oxus crossing-place at Darghān13
and crossed over, the ice being firm. A force came after him in pursuit and tried to
cross over the river, but the ice broke and all of them were drowned. [Abū] Ibrāhīm
dallied at Āmūy. He sent the troop commander (naqīb) Maris14 to Amir Mah.mūd on
a mission, with the message, ‘I am unable to prevent the ruin of the Samanid house
except with your own help. Take thought about what you think will be the best
course, and I’ll follow it.’ When the troop commander Maris set off, Abū Ibrāhīm
went to Merv, and when he entered Kushmayhan,15 he sought help from his sister’s
son, Abū Ja‛far, but the latter refused this, treated the envoy with contempt and
marched out to give battle to Abū Ibrāhīm and [M 255] defeated him, so that Abū
Ibrāhīm fell back on Bāvard.
When Maris came into Amir Mah.mūd’s presence, the Amir treated him handsomely
and lavished favour on him. He sent him back with a considerable sum of money
and promised him whatever he wanted. He wrote a letter to Abū Ja‛far ordering
him to provide assistance as far as he could and to seek forgiveness (i.e. from Abū
Ibrāhīm). Abū Ibrāhīm went to Bukhara and from there to Sogdia. The Son of the
Standard-Bearer (pisar-i ‛alamdār), who was commander of the ‛ayyārs of Samarqand
with a force of 3,000 men, and the elders of Samarqand, rallied to him [with 300
ghulāms].16 The Great Khān came to combat him, but the allied forces defeated him
in Sha‛bān of the year 394 [/May–June 1004]. The Son of [N 65] Surkhak defected
from Abū Ibrāhīm’s camp to that of the Khān and joined his side.17 Then he wrote
a letter to [Abū] Ibrāhīm containing many fine words and pledges to him; but all that
was a tissue of lies which he had concocted together with the Khān.18 When the
Khān received the news that the Samanid (i.e. Abū Ibrāhīm) had been defeated, he
seized control of all the Oxus crossing-points and stationed men at them. When Abū
Ibrāhīm heard this news, he fled with just eight men, and came to the encampment
of the Son of Buh.ayj, one of the Arabs nomadising in the desert around Merv.
There was a local governor and tax collector (bundār) called Māhrūy, and he gave
orders that a watch should be kept on Abū Ibrāhīm’s route [and when darkness fell,
they killed him], this being in Rabī‛ II of the year 395 [/January–February 1005]. The
rule of the Samanid house came to an end at one stroke.19
When Amir Mah.mūd heard about the killing of Abū Ibrāhīm, he immediately
despatched Arslān Jādhib to plunder the Son of Buh.ayj’s camp, [H 177] and Māhrūy
and the Son of Buh.ayj were killed in a most contemptible fashion.

Part 4.indd 83 7/10/2009 1:37:19 PM

 84 T HE O RNAMENT OF H ISTORIES

When Amir Mah.mūd had reached Nishapur, the ghulāms had broken out in a
revolt. He straightway got news of it and took steps energetically to deal with it. He
made preparations to seize and punish them. They were filled with fear; some were
captured and others fled. Amir Mah.mūd [M 256] pursued the fugitives; some he
killed, some he took captive and some fled to join the Samanid (i.e. Muntas.ir). At this
juncture, Abu ’l-Qāsim Sīmjūrī also took to flight [and joined up with] the Samanid.
Amir Mah.mūd returned to Herat on 5 Ramad.ān of the year 391 [/29 July 1001].
From there he proceeded to Ghaznīn, and from there on to India with a large army
and encamped at the town of Peshawar with 10,000 ghāzīs. [N 66] The King of
India Jaypāl (Jayapāla)20 encamped with his army facing Amir Mah.mūd, having
brought along for the battle 12,000 cavalrymen, 30,000 infantry and 300 elephants.
The two sides deployed their forces in battle line and launched into the fight.
God, He is Magnified and Exalted, vouchsafed His help to the Muslims, and Amir
Mah.mūd emerged victorious. Jaypāl was vanquished and the unbelievers extirpated.
In the course of that battle the Muslims killed 5,000 of the infidels and captured
Jaypāl with fifteen of his sons and brothers. A vast amount of booty was taken,
comprising money, slaves and beasts.
It is related that around Jaypāl’s neck was a necklace set with jewels, which experts
valued at 180,000 dinars, and they found similar precious necklaces around the necks
of other Indian senior commanders. This battle took place on Saturday, 8 Muh.arram
of the year 393 [/17 November 1002]. From there Mah.mūd went to Wayhind and
conquered the greater part of that region. When spring came along, Amir Mah.mūd
returned [to] Ghaznīn.21
In Muh.arram of the year 393 [/November–December 1002] he went to Sistan.
Khalaf b. Ah.mad shut himself up in the fortress of T.āq, which was a heavily fortified
place. Amir Mah.mūd held back from battle, but when the right moment came along,
he gave orders for the elephants to be hurled against the gate of the fortress of T.āq.
Khalaf was filled with terror and asked for quarter. He came forth and laid all the
keys of his treasuries before Amir Mah.mūd. The latter treated him handsomely and
spoke kind words to him, asking him where he would like to be sent (i.e. exiled).
Khalaf [M 257] replied, ‘To Gūzgānān’, so Mah.mūd despatched him thither. The
death22 of Amir Khalaf took place at Dahak.23
When Amir Mah.mūd returned to Ghaznīn, he led an expedition against Bhatinda
(Bhāt.iya).24 He marched by way of Wālishtān and [N 67] and H.is.ār, and reached
Bhatinda. [H 178] He was engaged in fighting there for three days. Bajī Rāy25 prepared
an army at Bhatinda, and sent it to give battle to Amir Mah.mūd whilst he himself,
with a numerous force, proceeded to the bank of the river Sāsind.26 When Amir
Mah.mūd received news of this, he despatched a numerous force of cavalry against
him. When they made contact, they captured all that body of troops with Bajī Rāy.
When Bajī Rāy saw what the situation was, he drew his short sword and killed
himself. The victors carried off his head, and all those troops of his were taken
prisoner and brought before Amir Mah.mūd. The latter was filled with great joy, and
ordered that all the infidels should be put to the sword. Large numbers were killed,
and 280 elephants captured.

Part 4.indd 84 7/10/2009 1:37:19 PM

 P ART F OUR : T HE E ARLY G HAZNAVIDS 85

When Amir Mah.mūd returned from Bhatinda, news arrived that the people of
Sistan had broken out in rebellion. He set out for Sistan, and when he came to there,
all the Sistani leaders took refuge in the fortress of Ūk.27 The Amir launched an attack
lasting just one day and captured the chief of the rebels. All the Sistanis offered their
submission, and Mah.mūd returned to Ghaznīn victorious and triumphant.
From Ghaznīn he set off on an expedition against Multān. The Amir thought
that, if he went by the direct road, Dāwūd, son of Nas.r, the Amir of Multān, would
become aware of the attack and be ready to resist it, so he went by a different route.
Jaypāl’s son Anandpāl (Ānandapāla) blocked the way and refused Amir Mah.mūd
transit across his territory. Amir Mah.mūd gave his troops free rein, and they fell upon
Anandpāl’s territories and busied themselves with seizing people and things, killing
and plundering. Anandpāl fled into the mountains of Kashmir. Amir Mah.mūd took
the main route into India to Multān and besieged that place for seven days, until
negotiations took place between the two sides, and a peace agreement was reached on
the basis that twenty [N 68] million dirhams would be handed over annually from the
province of Multān. On these terms the peace agreement was concluded, and Amir
Mah.mūd returned homewards. This took place in the year [3]96 [/1005–6].28
Amir Mah.mūd then heard that the Turks (i.e. the troops of the Qarakhanids) had
crossed the Oxus, had entered Khurasan and [M 258] had spread out through the
land.29 The Amir rushed back from Multān to Ghaznīn in double-quick time (ba-‛ahdī
nazdīk). The Turk Sübāshītegin had come to Herat and taken possession of it, and
had sent a cavalry force to Nishapur in order to seize control of that region. Amir
Mah.mūd’s governor Arslān Jādhib had withdrawn from Nishapur. The Turks had
not yet consolidated their position when the news came that Amir Mah.mūd had
returned from India and had reached Balkh. The Khān’s troops pulled back in order
to join up with the Khān himself, but Amir Mah.mūd’s agents had seized control of
their intended routes. The Turks were filled with alarm and were retreating to the
regions of Marv al-Rūd, Sarakhs, Nasā and Bāvard, with Arslān Jādhib all the time
pursuing them from town to town. Those who fell into Arslān Jādhib’s hands he
would either make captive or kill. [H 179]
Amir Mah.mūd sent the H.ājib Altuntāsh to reinforce him. The Turks then sought
a way out. Some of them went to the river crossing-place, and one group of them
took a bold decision and tried to cross the Oxus, but the greater part of them was
drowned. The Cis-Oxanian lands were thus cleared of them. Information reached
Amir Mah.mūd that a substantial force of the Turks had proceeded to the bank
of the Oxus but would not be able to cross (?).30 Drums which were the signal
for attack were beaten and elephant accoutrements jangled.31 When the Turks who
had been left there heard that clamour, they threw themselves into the river out of
terror and were drowned. Ghāzī, the master of the stables (ākhur-sālār), was killed
there in . . . who fought.32 Amir Mah.mūd had the intention of engaging them, but
since his troops had become exhausted from fighting, [N 69] he thought that, if his
troops carried on combatting the enemy, the Turks might in desperation fight for
their lives, and it might happen that some adverse effects might mar33 this victory
and triumph.

Part 4.indd 85 7/10/2009 1:37:19 PM

 86 T HE O RNAMENT OF H ISTORIES

When Sübāshītegin came into the Ilig’s presence, the latter upbraided him violently,
but the senior officers replied that it was impossible for anyone to withstand those
elephants, weapons and matériel, and warriors. After these events, the Ilig sent
agents to all parts of Transoxania and sought to assemble an army, and he ended
up with a force of 40,000 cavalrymen. With that army he crossed the Oxus and
reached Balkh. Amir Mah.mūd marched thither and the armies clashed on the plain
of Katar.34 When the armies [M 259] formed up in their battle lines, Amir Mah.mūd
performed two rak‛ats of the worship and prayed to God, He is Magnified and
Exalted, for victory. Then he turned his attention to the battle. He gave orders that
all the elephants should be enraged and sent forward in an attack. The Turks were
immediately defeated, and Amir Mah.mūd’s army killed large numbers of them and
took many captives. Those who fled were drowned in the Oxus, and their horses and
weapons seized as booty. This victory took place on Sunday, 22 Rabī‛ II of the year
398 [/5 January 1008].35
When Amir Mah.mūd had completed this campaign, news arrived that Shūkpāl
(Sukhapāla), the king’s (i.e. Jaypāl’s) grandson, who had been held captive at Nishapur
by Abū ‛Alī Sīmjūr and had become a Muslim, had now apostasised. Amir Mah.mūd
set out to attack him, and captured him in the mountains of K.sh.n.w.r.36 Shūkpāl
offered to pay an indemnity of 400,000 dirhams. Amir Mah.mūd handed that sum
over to Tegin37 the Treasurer and held Shūkpāl in captivity until he died in it. From
there he marched into India in the year 399 [/1008–9]. He attacked Anandpāl and
defeated him, and he captured thirty elephants [H 180] whilst the army took much
booty. From there he went to the fortress of Bhīmnagar [N 70] and besieged it.
Fighting went on for three days until the defenders came out under a guarantee of
safe conduct and opened the gate. Amir Mah.mūd and a detachment of his personal
guard entered the fortress and seized the treasuries of gold, silver and diamonds
and everything which had been deposited there in the time of Bhīm of the Pāndu’a
dynasty. In that fortress they found quantities of wealth whose extent was hardly
conceivable, and from there he returned to Ghaznīn. The throne made of gold and
silver was set up at the palace gate, and he gave orders for all that wealth to be openly
displayed and spread out for all the troops and the masses of people to see. This was
in the year 400 [/1009–10].38
When it was the year 401 [/1010–11], he led an attack from Ghaznīn on Multān.
He proceeded there and annexed what remained of that province in its entirety. He
seized the greater part of the Carmathians there: [M 260] some of these he killed,
he cut off the hands of some and inflicted exemplary punishment, and some he
imprisoned in various fortresses until they all died there. In this same year, he seized
Dāwūd b. Nas.r, brought him back to Ghaznīn and from there consigned him to the
fortress of Ghūrak, where he was held prisoner till he died.39
Information reached Amir Mah.mūd that Thānesar was an important place with
large numbers of idols there. The Indians accorded it an importance comparable
to the position of Mecca for the Muslims, and they venerated the shrine highly.
Within the city was a very ancient idol temple containing an idol which was called
Chakraswāmī (j.k.r.s.w.m). When Amir Mah.mūd heard about this, he felt a strong

Part 4.indd 86 7/10/2009 1:37:19 PM

 P ART F OUR : T HE E ARLY G HAZNAVIDS 87

desire to go there, conquer that region, destroy that idol temple and acquire a great
[heavenly] reward for himself. So in the year 402 [/1011–12] he set out from Ghaznīn
and [N 71] headed for Thānesar.
When the king of India Trilochanpāl (Trilochanapāla) heard about this, he became
alarmed. He sent an envoy to Amir Mah.mūd promising that, if he would desist
from his intention and not march against Thānesar, he would give him fifty choice
elephants. Amir Mah.mūd paid no heed to those words and set out. He reached the
encampment of Rām (Rāma). Rām’s troops advanced along the road in great force
and took up positions at a place suitable for an ambush, and killed large numbers
of the Muslims. When Mah.mūd reached Thānesar, he found that the town had
been evacuated. The Muslim troops plundered whatever they found and smashed
numerous idols. They carried off to Ghaznīn the idol Chakraswāmī. It was set up at
the palace, and lots of people flocked round it to look at it.40
In the year 403 [/1012–13] Mah.mūd conquered Gharchistān. He brought forth
the Shēr (texts, Shār), ruler of Gharchistān, placed him in bonds and depatched him
to the town of Mastang.41 [H 181]
When the year 403 reached its end (i.e. in July 1013), Abu ’l-Fawāris [Qawām al-
Dawla] b. Bahā’ al-Dawla came from Kirman to Amir Mah.mūd at Bust seeking the
Amir’s protection from his brother Abū Shujā‛ [Sult.ān al-Dawla], and was in Ghaznīn
for three months. Amir [M 261] Mah.mūd wrote letters regarding this matter and
admonished the two parties, and in the end they came to a peaceful solution of their
differences, and Abu ’l-Fawāris’s brother further undertook not to engage in any
more quarrelling and animosity with his brother. Abu ’l-Fawāris returned to Kirman
and reassumed his rule there in security and peace.42
Also in the course of this year, an envoy called Tāhartī arrived from the ruler
of Egypt. When the envoy reached Khurasan, the jurists and theological scholars
proclaimed that ‘This envoy is come to solicit allegiance to the ruler of Egypt, and
he’s a Bāt.inī!’ When Mah.mūd heard about this, he refused to receive that envoy and
ordered him to be handed over to H.asan b. T.āhir b. Muslim al-‛Alawī, and H.asan
personally executed Tāhartī at Bust.43
In [N 72] the year 404 [/1013–14] Mah.mūd led an army against the fortress of
Nandana.363 When the king of India Trilochanpāl heard about this, he garrisoned that
fortress with battle-hardened warriors, giving instructions for its being held, whilst
he himself set out for the pass leading into Kashmir and proceeded there. Amir
Mah.mūd’s troops took up their positions before Nandana, and the sappers (h.affārān)
began digging mines. The Turkish troops were firing arrows up to the top of the
walls. When the defenders in the citadel saw warfare being conducted in this manner,
they very quickly asked for a guarantee of safety and quarter, and yielded up the
fortress. Amir Mah.mūd and a band of his personal guards entered the fortress, and
they carried off the wealth and the weapons found there. Amir Mah.mūd appointed
Sārïgh castellan of that fortress, and himself set out for the pass into Kashmir where
Trilochanpāl was. On hearing of this, Trilochanpāl fled, and Amir Mah.mūd gave
orders for all the fortresses along the pass into Kashmir to be seized and plundered.
The troops gained from those fortresses large amounts of booty and many slaves,

Part 4.indd 87 7/10/2009 1:37:19 PM

 88 T HE O RNAMENT OF H ISTORIES

and many infidels became converts to Islam. In this same year, he gave orders for
congregational mosques to be built in all the lands conquered from the infidels, and
for teachers to be despatched to all places for inculcating in the Indians the rites and
duties of Islam. He himself returned to Ghaznīn victorious and triumphant. This
capture of Nandana was in the year 405 [/1014–15].45 [M 262]
When it was the year [40]6 [/1015–16], he led an expedition against Kashmir. He
set out for Kashmir from Ghaznīn, but when he reached the pass into Kashmir,
the weather grew cold and winter set in. Within the pass there was a very strong
and well-fortified castle called Lōhkōt – which means ‘Iron Fortress’ [N 73] – and
this had a water supply and a numerous garrison. He stationed his army beneath
that fortress and kept up continuous attacks on it. He was engaged in this for quite
a while, but just when he discovered a means of conquering the fortress, extremely
cold weather set in, it began to snow and everything became frozen up, so that
nothing could be done on account of the cold. Reinforcements for the fortress’s
garrison arrived from Kashmir by the road across the mountains from there, and
[H 182] the garrison received an access of strength. Amir Mah.mūd took all these
facts into account and concluded that his troops would not be able to make any
headway, so he raised the siege and descended from those mountains and passes to
the plain. He got back to Ghaznīn in the spring.46
Also in the year 406, a letter arrived from Khwarazm sent by the Khwarazm
Shah Abu ’l-‛Abbās al-Ma’mūn (II) b. al-Ma’mūn (I) seeking the hand in marriage
of Yamīn al-Dawla’s sister. Amir Mah.mūd agreed to this and gave his sister to
the Shah, and she was brought to Khwarazm. Then in the year 407 [/1016–17]
a group of intriguers and dregs of the Khwarazm population banded together
and stirred up a revolt, in the course of which the Khwarazm Shah, Yamīn al-
Dawla’s son-in-law, was killed. News of this reached the Amir Yamīn al-Dawla.
He went from Ghaznīn to Balkh, and from there led an expedition to Khwarazm.
On reaching Jakarband,47 which is on the frontier with Khwarazm, he deployed his
forces for battle. He sent forward Muh.ammad b. Ibrāhīm al-T.ā’ī in command of
the army’s advance guard. Muh.ammad al-T.ā’ī encamped in a certain place with all
his cavalry. At daybreak, the Muslim troops were all engaged in their ritual worship
and ablutions when the Khwarazmian commander Khumārtāsh appeared from
the desert with a numerous army, attacked them and killed some of Muh.ammad
al-T.ā’ī’s cavalry.
Amir Mah.mūd was perturbed when he received news of this, and despatched
a contingent of the palace ghulāms [M 263] to pursue Khumārtāsh These troops
routed Khumārtāsh’s army completely and captured him [N 74] and brought
him along. There was unparalleled slaughter and wounding. When they reached
Hazārasp, the Khwarazmian army, in perfect battle order and armed to the teeth,
advanced on Yamīn al-Dawla’s army. The latter was drawn up in battle lines, with the
right and left, the centre and the wings, properly deployed, and battle was joined. It
was not long before the Khwarazmian army was put to flight. The commander of
the Khwarazmian army, Alptegin Bukhārī, was captured. Yamīn al-Dawla’s troops
invaded Khwarazm and seized the [ancient] capital (shahr-i Khwārazm, i.e. Kāth).

Part 4.indd 88 7/10/2009 1:37:19 PM

 P ART F OUR : T HE E ARLY G HAZNAVIDS 89

The first thing that Yamīn al-Dawla did was to order that all the wrongdoers,
including Alptegin Bukhārī and others, should be seized and brought before him.
Then he ordained that fitting reprisals should be wrought on each one of them.
Vengeance was exacted on behalf of those who had claims for revenge: some
were chastised and punished, others were clapped in bonds and consigned to
imprisonment.
Amir Mah.mūd appointed his Chief H.ājib Altuntāsh as governor of Khwarazm
(Khwārazm Shāh), with Khwarazm (i.e Kāth) and Gurgānj entrusted to him, and to
the end of his life Altuntāsh acted as Khwarazm Shah, fully obedient and the faithful
servant of Amir Mah.mūd and his house.48 The decisive battle for Khwarazm took
place on 5 S.afar of the year 408 [/3 July 1017]. From there, the Amir returned to
Balkh and stayed there for some time.49 Prince Mas‛ūd was summoned to Balkh, and
when Mas‛ūd came into his presence he spoke cordially with him, appointed him
governor of Herat and despatched him thither, having attached to him Abū Sahl
Muh.ammad b. al-H.usayn al-Zawzanī as his administrator and counsellor (kadkhudā),
and he likewise sent him to Herat with Mas‛ūd. He conferred the governorship of
Gūzgānān on Prince Muh.ammad, in the same way giving him a robe of honour
and speaking cordially with him, and despatched him to Gūzgānān with Abū Bakr
Quhistānī (i.e. as his kadkhudā). [H 183]
When it was the year 409 [/1018–19], Amir Mah.mūd decided on [N 75] an
expedition against [M 264] Qanawj. This was an extensive, populous and rich region,
with numerous infidels. He crossed seven hazardous rivers, and when he reached the
confines of Qanawj, he sent a letter to a certain K.w.ra (?), who was the ruler of the
frontier region; he made his submission and asked for a grant of security and quarter,
which the Amir extended to him. From there, he marched to the fortress of Baran
(text, b.r.na),50 whose prince was Hardat. The latter took flight and abandoned his
followers. Hardat’s followers fortified themselves within the fortress, but when the
army of Islam appeared on the scene and the defenders saw their splendid panoply
of arms, they sent persons to negotiate and redeemed their freedom by handing over
a million dirhams and thirty elephants.
From there, the army of Islam moved to Mahāban (text, m.hāw.n) where the
commander of the fortress was Kulchandra (Kulachand). This fortress was situated
on the banks of the river Jumna (text, j.w.n). When Kulchandra heard about the Amir
Yamīn al-Dawla’s approach, he mounted an elephant, the choicest one out of all
those he had, and tried to cross the river. Amir Mah.mūd became aware of this and
ordered the ways of access to be closed off. When Kulchandra realised this, he slew
himself with his own short sword. Yamīn al-Dawla’s troops entered the fortress,
and they carried off 185 choice elephants and plundered inestimable amounts of
wealth. From there, he marched on the fortress of Muttra (Mātūra), which is a great
city and the idol temple of the Indians. It is said that the birthplace of Krishna (text,
k.sh.n), son of Bāsdīv, whom the Indians consider as their prophet, was at this place
Muttra.
When Amir Mah.mūd came to this region of Muttra, no-one came out to oppose
him. He gave orders for his troops to enter that region, and whenever they came

Part 4.indd 89 7/10/2009 1:37:19 PM

 90 T HE O RNAMENT OF H ISTORIES

across an idol temple, they pulled it down and burnt it. They carried off all the wealth
there as plunder. Amir Mah.mūd got wealth from the idol temples and treasuries of
that region to an extent which could not be visualised, [N 76] including a sapphire
(yāqūt-i kuh.lī) weighing 450 mithqāls (!). No-one had ever before seen such a jewel.
There were also idols made of gold and silver, unlimited in number and in size. Amir
Mah.mūd ordered one golden idol [M 265] to be broken up and the pieces weighed;
98,300 mithqāls of well-worked gold were obtained from it, and an equivalent
amount of money and numerous jewels was gained from there. This conquest of
Qanawj was on 8 Sha‛bān of the year 409 [/20 December 1018].51
When the Rajah (rāy) of Qanawj had been captured (?), Amir Mah.mūd speedily
returned homewards from there. On the road from Qanawj to Ghaznīn, the treasury
of Chandra (text, ch.n.d) Rāy was brought before him, containing an immense amount
of wealth. There was also a celebrated elephant belonging to this Chandra Rāy, whose
fame had become proverbial throughout India. Amir Yamīn al-Dawla had heard of
that beast’s fame and had formed the intention that he must buy it at any price,
since he was avid to get it; and if it were required to give fifty elephants in exchange
for it, he would give them for that single elephant. By a fortunate concatenation of
circumstances, the elephant stampeded along the road away from Chandra Rāy and,
not having any elephant driver on it, went along until it reached the tented enclosure
of Yamīn al-Dawla. When Amir Mah.mūd saw it, he gave thanks to God Most High,
and he named the elephant Khudādād (‘God-Given One’), and from that place he
gave orders for the return to Ghaznīn, victorious and triumphant and laden with a
vast amount of plunder. [H 184]
Trustworthy authorities assert that they totalled up the amount of plunder brought
back from the Qanawj expedition in that year by the Amir Yamīn al-Dawla, as
amounting to twenty-odd million dirhams, 53,000 captives and over 350 elephants.
When it was the month of Tīr of the year 410 [/June–July 1019], Amir Yamīn
al-Dawla led an expedition against Ganda (text, n.n.dā),52 who had killed Rājyapāl
(Rājyapāla) the ruler of Qanawj, having reproached this last for having fled before
Mah.mūd’s army, and who had undertaken to Trilochanpāl to provide him with
assistance [N 77] and an army that would recover for him his kingdom. When news
of Mah.mūd’s imminent approach reached those lands, Trilochanpāl crossed the
Ganges and came to Bārī. Amir Yamīn al-Dawla crossed the river. All those troops
clashed together. Trilochanpāl fled with a detachment of Indian troops, and they
avoided further contact with Mah.mūd. An attack was then launched on the town of
Bārī. The troops found that the inhabitants had fled and the town left empty; they
burnt down all the idol temples [M 266] and plundered everything they could find.
From Bārī, the Amir’s army headed towards Ganda’s kingdom, crossing numerous
wide rivers. Ganda had got news of the army of Islam’s approach and had got
ready for war, assembling round himself extensive forces; it was reported that there
were in his army 36,000 cavalrymen, 5,40053 infantrymen and 640 elephants, together
with weapons, treasuries and fodder commensurate for such numbers. When Amir
Mah.mūd drew near to Ganda, he drew up his army in battle formation, and set out
the right and left, the centre, the two wings, the vanguard and the rearguard, and he

Part 4.indd 90 7/10/2009 1:37:20 PM

 P ART F OUR : T HE E ARLY G HAZNAVIDS 91

sent out scouts. He encamped with resolution and with careful precautions. Then he
sent an envoy to Ganda, proffering wise counsel, expressing threats and rousing him
to awareness of the situation. He sent verbal messages containing excuses (i.e for
attacking him) and admonitions, exhorting Ganda to become a Muslim and thereby
render himself immune from all this warfare, aggravation and destruction. Ganda
replied, however, that there could be nothing but war between them.
I have heard from certain reliable sources that Amir Yamīn al-Dawla took up a
position that day upon an eminence in order to view Ganda’s army. He saw a whole
world of tents, pavilions and camp enclosures, with cavalry, infantry and elephants.
His spirits drooped and he became gripped by regrets, so he sought help from God
Most High, asking that He should vouchsafe him victory. That night, God Most High
sowed fear and apprehension within Ganda’s heart; he got his army to move off and
withdraw. The next day, Amir Mah.mūd sent an envoy. When [N 78] the emissary
reached Ganda’s encampment, he could see no persons about; all military arms and
equipment had been left as it was, but the troops had gone, and all the beasts and
elephants had been driven off. The envoy went back and reported this to Amir Mah.
mūd, who ordered that possible ambushes should be investigated. They examined
where the army had been encamped, but it had entirely departed. Amir Yamīn al-
Dawla offered up thanks to God, He is Magnified and Exalted, and gave orders for
Ganda’s encampment to be plundered. Great amounts of wealth and property of
all kinds were carried off. From there he then returned to Ghaznīn victorious and
triumphant. On the way back they came to a forest. The troops went into its depths
and found there 580 of Ganda’s elephants, [H 185] all of which they drove off (sc.
as booty) and [M 267] brought back to their own encampment.54
News reached Amir Yamīn al-Dawla that there were two valleys, one called
the Qīrāt and the other the Nūr, and these were highly defensible and the people
there infidels and idol worshippers. Yamīn al-Dawla led an expedition against
these valleys with his army, and he gave orders that numerous squads of artisans,
including blacksmiths, carpenters and stonehewers, should accompany the troops,
hack out roads, cut down trees and break up rocks. When they reached there,
they first made for the Qīrāt valley. This is a pleasant place, whose inhabitants
were worshippers of the lion, and with a cool environment and copious fruits
grown there. When the ruler of the Qīrāt valley heard about this, he came forward
and offered his submission, seeking a guarantee of quarter and security. Amir
Mah.mūd received him and showed favour appropriate for his status. The ruler of
Qīrāt became a Muslim, together with a large number of the people of his land
who followed their ruler’s example. They accepted teachers and began to learn the
duties and requirements of the faith and to observe the sharī‛at. The people of
the Nūr valley, however, were refractory. Amir Mah.mūd ordered the H.ājib ‛Alī b.
Il Arslān al-Qarīb to proceed to Nūr. He conquered it, built there a fortress and
appointed ‛Alī b. Qadïr Rāh.ūq (?) as its castellan, commanding him to use force
[N 79] and compulsion, and to impose Islam upon the people by the sword. They
accepted that willy-nilly, and Islam spread over those lands. This conquest of the
Nūr and Qīrāt valleys was in the year 411 [/1020–1].55

Part 4.indd 91 7/10/2009 1:37:20 PM

 92 T HE O RNAMENT OF H ISTORIES

When the year 412 [/1021–2] came round, he led an expedition against Kashmir,
and he invested the fortress of Lōharkōt. He carried out operations against it for
a whole month but was unable to make any headway because it was extremely
impregnable and well fortified. During the course of this year, Amir Nas.r b. Nās.ir
al-Dīn passed away and Amir Yūsuf b. Nās.ir al-Dīn had gone along with Yamīn al-
Dawla. Since it proved impossible to reduce the fortress of Lōharkōt, he withdrew
from that valley and proceeded to Lahore and Tākīshar.56 The troops spread out
over that piedmont region and were continually engaged in ghazw. Then when spring
came along, [M 268] the Amir set out back to Ghaznīn.57
When it was the year 413 [/1022–3], Amir Mah.mūd led an expedition against
Ganda’s territories. When he reached the fortress of Gwalior, he invested it and
besieged it. He ordered his troops to occupy all the surrounding territory, but since
that fortress was so well fortified and impregnable, and was situated upon a rock of
hard stone, sappers and miners and operators of ballistas were useless against it, and
it was not possible to take it. Amir Mah.mūd remained there four days and nights
until the commander of the fortress sent an envoy and sued for peace, offering
thirty-five elephants.
In the end Yamīn al-Dawla’s army left Gwalior and marched against Kālanjar,
Ganda’s own stronghold. Ganda was within that fortress with all his troops, personal
retainers and family. Amir Mah.mūd [H 186] ordered his troops completely to
surround the fortress, and he was deliberating and making plans since this fortress
was a lofty and well-fortified place such that no stratagems or valorous deeds could
avail to reduce it. Moreover, the fortress was built [N 80] on a hard rock so that
there was no possibility of mining and tunnelling beneath it, and there seemed to
be no other means of conquering it. The Amir sat down before it and remained
there several days. But when Ganda looked out and saw that numerous army, that
had seized all possible ways of access to the fortress, he sent out envoys to discuss
peace terms. The terms arrived at involved Ganda’s paying tribute (jizya), sending
the customary presents immediately and handing over 300 choice elephants. Ganda
was pleased at this peace arrangement. He straightway ordered the 300 elephants to
be driven out of the fortress without mahouts. Amir Mah.mūd gave orders, and the
Turks and other warriors plunged into those elephants, secured them and mounted
them; the defenders were meanwhile watching from the fortress, and were filled with
great wonder at their intrepidness.
Ganda afterwards composed poetry in Hindi in praise of Amir Mah.mūd and sent
it to him, and the latter ordered the verses to be recited in the presence of all his
court poets – Indian, Persian and Arabic ones. All of them showed their approval
and averred that no more eloquent and lofty poetry could be uttered. Amir Mah.mūd
took great pride in it and ordered that an investiture patent conferring upon Ganda
the governorship of fifteen [M 269] fortresses should be written out and sent to him.
He added the words, ‘This is an award in return for that poetry you uttered about me,’
and he further sent with it many additional things – costly presents, jewels and robes
of honour. Ganda sent back in return much wealth and jewels on a similar scale. Amir
Mah.mūd returned from there victorious and triumphant, and came to Ghaznīn.58

Part 4.indd 92 7/10/2009 1:37:20 PM

 P ART F OUR : T HE E ARLY G HAZNAVIDS 93

In the year 414 [/1023–4], he ordered a review of the army to be held. Fifty-
four thousand cavalrymen paraded on the review ground at the plain of Shāhbahār,
these in addition to those cavalrymen who were stationed in outlying parts of the
realm and who were on garrison duty in the provinces. One thousand, three hundred
elephants, with complete outfits of armour and other trappings, that had paraded in
that review, came forth to be enumerated. The number of beasts, including camels
and horses, was beyond comparison.59 [N 81]
At the opening of the year 415 [/15 March 1024], Amir Mah.mūd decided to
go to Balkh with the intention of going there and staying over the winter. When
he reached Balkh, streams of persons complaining about ‛Alītegin were coming
to him continually from Transoxania. They were complaining specifically about
‛Alītegin’s oppressive measures, that he was committing many inadmissible acts,
afflicting people in various ways, and harming both the subjects and the military
classes. When these complaints reached a high pitch, Amir Mah.mūd formed the
intention of springing into action60 and delivering those Muslims there from that
distress and those tribulations. He wanted to cross the Oxus and reconnoitre those
regions, and formulated firm plans for this. He said, ‘If we cross the river in boats,
some calamity might occur.’ He spent some considerable time over the assembling
of materials and equipment. What he did was to order the making of stout chains
fitting into each other (lit. ‘male and female’, nar u māda), all of them two or three
fathoms61 long. All the chains were encased in cow hides. Boats were brought along
and these were fastened together spanning the width of the Oxus by means of those
interlocking chains and on frameworks yoked together which had been constructed
in the boats. Strong palm tree fibres had been brought from Sistan, [H 187] with each
one transported on a camel’s back, and the boats were wrapped round with these
fibres. The insides of the boats were stuffed with straw, rags, etc., so that cavalrymen,
infantrymen, camels, mules and asses could pass over them easily.62 [M 270] He then
brought the army across on that bridge of boats and himself crossed over.
When news of Yamīn al-Dawla’s actions reached Transoxania, a great buzz of
excitement and perturbation arose amongst the people in those lands and the local
princes became apprehensive. The first person to come and make obeisance to the
Amir was the ruler of Chaghāniyān,63 who brought all his troops, appeared before
the Amir in person and rendered every form of service possible. After him there
came to Amir Mah.mūd the Khwarazm Shah, the H.ājib Altuntāsh, with all his troops.
Amir Mah.mūd [N 82] then ordered a large tented enclosure (sarāy-parda) to be set up,
one which would accommodate 10,000 cavalrymen. Another such tented enclosure,
of crimson Shushtarī brocade, one with a canopy and domed roof of embroidered
brocade, was erected for his personal use.
Then he ordered the army to be deployed in its formations, each with its right,
left, centre and two wings, and with an armoury (zarrād-khāna) held behind each
formation, and the elephants were stationed with their protective armour and
saddles. He further ordered a simultaneous blowing of trumpets and beating of
kettle drums, barrel-shaped drums and large drums. The elephants’ backs were
draped with plates, elephant ornaments and white shells (i.e. for jangling); conches

Part 4.indd 93 7/10/2009 1:37:20 PM

 94 T HE O RNAMENT OF H ISTORIES

were blown, and drums and b.h.ūr (?)64 beaten. Without exception every individual
present was almost stricken deaf by such a din, men lost their senses, and all those
persons from Turkestan and Transoxania present in that encampment were terrified
(lit. ‘their gall bladders almost split’).65

The Meeting of Yūsuf Qadïr Khān and Sultan Mah.mūd,

God’s Mercy upon Them Both!
When Qadïr Khān, who was the leading figure in all Turkestan and the Great Khan,
received news of Yamīn al-Dawla’s crossing the Oxus, he set out from Kashghar
with the aim of arranging an encounter with Amir Mah.mūd, so that he might then
go and meet with him face to face and renew their previous agreement. Leaving
Kashghar, he came to Samarqand and travelled on from there, with peaceful and
amicable intentions, until he came within a parasang of Amir Mah.mūd’s army and
encamped there. He ordered a camp enclosure to be erected, and he sent envoys
to acquaint Amir Mah.mūd [M 271] with his arrival and to express his keen desire
for a meeting with him. Amir Mah.mūd sent back a correspondingly enthusiastic
reply and named a place for their meeting. Then the Amir and Qadïr Khān, both
accompanied by detachments of cavalry, [N 83] went to this place. When they came
into view of each other, they both dismounted. Amir Mah.mūd had previously given
a jewel of high value, wrapped up in a cloth, to his treasurer, instructing him to
place it in Qadïr Khān’s hands. Qadïr Khān had similarly brought with him a jewel,
but through the fear and agitation which had come over him had forgotten it. Only
after he had left Mah.mūd’s presence did he remember it, so he sent it with one of
his retainers, sought forgiveness (i.e. for his negligence) and returned to his camp.
The next day, Amir Mah.mūd gave orders for a large tent of embroidered brocade to
be erected and for an entertainment to be prepared, and he sent an envoy to Qadïr
Khān inviting him as his guest.

A Description of the Celebration and the Feast

When Qadïr Khān arrived, Mah.mūd ordered trays of food to be set out as splendidly
as possible, and the two monarchs sat down and ate at the same table. When they
had finished the feast, they moved on to the place where music and other festive
entertainments had been prepared. This had been magnificently decorated with rare
and unusual sweet-smelling plants, luscious fruits and precious jewels. The hall had
goblets of gold and crystal, remarkable mirrors and various rare objects so that
Qadïr Khān remained in the midst of all this dazzled. They remained seated there
for a good length of time. Qadïr Khān did not drink wine, since it was not customary
for the monarchs of Transoxania, and especially the Turkish ones of them, to drink
wine. They listened to music and singing for a while and then they arose.
Amir Mah.mūd then ordered a display of presents on a scale worthy of the
occasion, to be brought in: gold and silver drinking vessels; costly jewels; unusual
specialities imported from Baghdad; fine clothes; expensive arms; valuable horses
with gold accoutrements and with goads studded with jewels; [M 272] ten female
elephants with gold trappings and goads set with jewels; mules from Bardha‛a with

Part 4.indd 94 7/10/2009 1:37:20 PM

 P ART F OUR : T HE E ARLY G HAZNAVIDS 95

golden bells; litters for mules with girths, moon-like ornaments of gold and silver
[N 84] and bells for their necks; litters covered with embroidered brocade and
woven patterns; valuable carpets, including those from Armenia with raised patterns
(mah.fūrī-hā) and uwaysī and particoloured rugs; pieces of woven and embroidered
cloth; lengths of rose-coloured cloth from T.abaristān66 with designs on them; Indian
swords; aloes wood from Khmer; yellow-tinged67 sandalwood; grey-flecked amber;
she-asses; skins of Barbary panthers; hunting dogs; falcons and eagles trained to a
high pitch for hunting down cranes; and gazelles and other game animals. He sent
Qadïr Khān back homewards with great honour and magnificence, heaping favours
on him and asking to be excused (i.e. for the inadequacy of the reception and the
presents). [H 189]
When Qadïr Khān got back to his encampment and he saw that immense amount
of precious objects, furnishings and carpets, weapons and wealth, he was filled with
astonishment and did not know how he could requite Mah.mūd for them. He ordered
his treasurer to open up the treasury door. He took out a great amount of wealth
and sent it to Amir Mah.mūd, together with various items which were specialities
of Turkestan, including fine horses with precious trappings and accoutrements of
gold; Turkish slave boys with golden belts and quivers; falcons and hawks; pelts
of sable (samūr), grey squirrel (sinjāb), ermine (qāqum) and fox (rūbāh); vessels made
from leather skins; narwhal or walrus horn (? danīsha-yi khutuww);68 delicate cloth and
Chinese brocade; Chinese dārkhāshāk;69 and suchlike.70 The two monarchs parted
from each other completely satisfied and in peace and benevolence.
When ‛Alītegin got news of this meeting, he fled into the desert. Amir Mah.mūd
posted intelligence officers for the direction ‛Alītegin had taken. Then information
arrived that [Arslān] Isrā’īl b. Seljuq had moved to a secret location. Yamīn al-Dawla
despatched troops to ferret him out from there, and he sent him to Ghaznīn and
thence to India, where he remained till the end of his life (i.e. in captivity).71
The news came that ‛Alītegin’s family and baggage were about to follow him
into the desert. Amir Mah.mūd [N 85] sent the H.ājib Bilgetegin in pursuit of them.
Bilgetegin [M 273] set out and used various stratagems to capture ‛Alītegin’s wives,
daughters and baggage, and forwarded them to Amir Mah.mūd. This was in the year
416 [/1025–6].

The Beginnings of the Seljuq Turks

At this time when Amir Mah.mūd was in Transoxania, a group of persons, comprising
the military chiefs and leading men of Turkestan, came into his presence complaining
of the tyranny exercised over them by their amirs and of the injurious treatment they
were enduring at their hands. They said,

We number 4,000 families. If the lord were to issue a command and allow us
to cross the Oxus and settle in Khurasan, he would be relieved of worrying
about us [H 190] and there would be plenty of space for us in his realm, since
we are steppe people and have extensive herds of sheep. Moreover, we would
provide additional manpower for his army.72

Part 4.indd 95 7/10/2009 1:37:20 PM

 96 T HE O RNAMENT OF H ISTORIES

Amir Mah.mūd looked favourably on this request for them to cross the Oxus. He gave
them encouragement and hopes of a good outcome, and ordered that they should
be allowed to cross the Oxus. In accordance with his command, 4,000 families of
them, men, women and children, and their baggage and their sheep, camels, horses
and beasts of burden, crossed the river in their entirety, and they installed themselves
in the desert of Sarakhs and the desert of Farāwa and Bāward, pitched their tents
and made their home permanently there.
When Amir Mah.mūd crossed back from over the Oxus, the Amir of T.ūs, Abu
’l-H.ārith Arslān al-Jādhib,73 came to him saying, ‘Why did you bring these Turkmens
into your realm? You committed an error here! But now that you have admitted
them, either kill them all or [at least] allow me to cut off their thumbs so that they
won’t be able to shoot arrows.’ Amir Mah.mūd was astonished and accused him of
being a pitiless and hard-hearted man. The Amir of T.ūs replied, ‘If you don’t do it,
you’ll much regret it!’ It happened exactly thus, and even to this present time, [N 79]
there has been no satisfactory outcome of the problem.74
Amir Mah.mūd came from Balkh to Ghaznīn and spent the summer there. When
[M 274] winter began, he led a raiding expedition into India, as was his usual
custom. A story had been related to him that there was a great city on the shores
of the All-Encompassing Sea (sc. the Indian Ocean) called Somnath (Sūmnāt,
Somanātha) which was venerated by the Indians just as the Muslims venerate
Mecca. It contained numerous idols of gold and silver, and the idol Manāt, which
had been transported from the Ka‛ba by way of Aden in the time of the Lord of
the World (i.e. Muh.ammad), was there. It had been adorned with gold and set with
jewels, and a vast amount of wealth had been laid up in the treasuries of that idol
temple. However, the route to it was difficult and full of danger, containing many
fearful places and extremely arduous.
When Amir Mah.mūd heard this account, he became gripped by the idea of
marching against that city and destroying those idols and of embarking on a raiding
expedition. He left northern India (Hindūstān) for Somnath by the route through
Nahrawāla. When he reached the latter town, it had been completely evacuated
and all its inhabitants had fled. He gave orders for his army to carry off food and
fodder from there, and set out for Somnath.75 When he drew near to the city, and
the Shamanān76 and Brahmans saw that army, they all busied themselves with
worshipping and invoking the idols. The military commander of the city came forth,
and then got into a boat with his family and baggage, and launched out across the
sea. The boat hove to at an island, and all of them remained there as long as the army
of Islam remained in that region, not budging from the island.
When the army of Islam approached the city, the inhabitants all retreated into the
fortress and engaged in battle. It was not very long before the fortress was conquered,
and Amir Mah.mūd’s troops poured into it and inflicted the most frightful slaughter,
and large numbers of the infidels were killed. [H 191] Amir Mah.mūd gave orders,
and the muezzin climbed to the top of the shrine (d.y.h.ra)77 and gave the call to
prayer. All the idols were smashed up, burnt and destroyed. The stone embodying
Manāt was wrenched from its base and [N 87] smashed to pieces. Some of these

Part 4.indd 96 7/10/2009 1:37:20 PM

 P ART F OUR : T HE E ARLY G HAZNAVIDS 97

pieces were loaded on to the backs of mules and brought to Ghaznīn, and to this day
have been dumped by the gate of the mosque of Ghaznīn.
There was a treasure hoard beneath the idols, which they carried off. [M 275] The
Amir acquired a vast amount of wealth from there, made up of silver idols and their
jewels on one hand and of treasure plundered from other sources on the other. Then
he returned home. The reason for this decision was that Bhīmdeva (b.h.y.m dīv), the
king of the Indians, was blocking the way. Amir Mah.mūd said, ‘No stroke of ill
fortune must mar this mighty victory!’ He did not take the direct route [homewards],
but took a guide for the other route, and set off for Multan via the road to Mans.ūra
and the banks of the Indus river (Sayh.ūn).78 In the course of the journey, the troops
suffered great tribulations, both on account of the parched desert conditions and also
on account of the Jhats79 of Sind and of every other sort of disaster. Great numbers
of the troops of the army of Islam perished on that journey back, including the major
part of the beasts of burden. They finally reached Multan and from there set out for
Ghaznīn. Amir Mah.mūd entered Ghaznīn with his army in the year 417 [/1026].80
During this same year, envoys arrived from Qitā Khān and Yughur Khān. They
brought for Amir Mah.mūd messages couched in cordial terms and they performed
the rites of obeisance before him. They came seeking a marriage alliance between
the two sides. Amir Mah.mūd ordered that they should be fittingly lodged and
entertained, but then sent a message in reply to them, ‘We are Muslims and you
are unbelievers, and it would be inappropriate for us to offer you our sisters or
daughters. But if you become Muslims, that can be arranged,’ and he sent the envoys
back with an honourable provision.81
In Shawwāl of the year 417 [/November–December 1026], a letter came from al-
Qādir bi’llāh with an investiture diploma and standard for Khurasan, India, Nīmrūz
and Khwarazm, and there were honorific titles for Amir Mah.mūd, his sons and his
brothers. For Amir Mah.mūd there was that of Kahf al-Dawla wa ’l-Islām (‘Refuge
of the State and of Islam’); for Amir Mas‛ūd, those of Shihāb al-Dawla wa-Jamāl al-
Milla (‘Shooting Star of the State and Adornment of the Religious Community’);
for Amir Muh.ammad, those of Jalāl al-Dawla [N 88] wa-Jamāl al-Milla (‘Eminence of
the State and Adornment of the Religious Community’); and for Amir Yūsuf, those
of ‛Ad.ud al-Dawla wa-Mu’ayyid al-Milla (‘Upper Arm of the State and Strengthener
of the Religious Community’). A letter had also been written that said, ‘Appoint
as your designated heir whomsoever you wish, and we will agree to your choice!’
[M 276] Qādir expressed his profuse thanks to Amir Mah.mūd for the raids and
expeditions he had led and heaped many praises on him. This investiture diploma,
and the standard and honorific titles, arrived at Balkh.82
Amir Mah.mūd had an intense feeling of anger in his heart against the Jhats of
Multan and Bhatinda (Bhātiya) on the Indus banks because of the harassment they
had kept up when he was on the way back from Somnath, and he wished to retaliate
for it and inflict punishment on them. So at the beginning of the year 418 [/February
1027], as the twelfth episode [of his campaigns into Hindustan],83 he assembled the
army and set out for Multan. When he arrived there, he gave orders for 1,400 boats84
to be constructed in a stout fashion. He further ordered that each boat should be

Part 4.indd 97 7/10/2009 1:37:20 PM

 98 T HE O RNAMENT OF H ISTORIES

fitted with three strong, sharpened iron spikes, one projecting forward from the
prow and two from each side of the boat. Each spike was to be extremely strongly
made and sharp-pointed so that, whatever place the spike might strike, even if it
were against something strong, it would rend, smash [H 192] and destroy that thing.
He gave orders for the 1,400 boats to be launched on the banks of the Indus and
that each boat should contain twenty soldiers with arrows and quivers, containers for
hurling naphtha and the naphtha for them, and shields. When the Jhats heard about
Amir Mah.mūd’s approach, they transported their baggage and families to distant
islands in the river, and came just with their weapons, unencumbered by them. They
launched 4,000 boats – some say 8,000 – each with a numerous complement of
men, fully armed, and they prepared to fight. When the two forces came together
and clashed, the army of Islam’s archers let fly a hail of arrows and the naphtha-
throwers hurled containers of fire. Whenever [N 89] one of the boats of Mah.mūd’s
fleet engaged closely one of the Jhats’ boats, the projecting spike would strike the
Jhats’ boat and disable it, and it would be smashed to pieces and sink. The fighting
continued in this manner until the Jhats’ boats were smashed up or sunk or were
put to flight. Cavalry, infantry and elephants had been stationed on the Indus banks
so that anyone who managed to scramble out of the river, those cavalrymen and
infantrymen seized and killed him. From that point, the troops moved along the
Indus banks in the same fashion [M 277] till they came upon the Jhats’ baggage and
families; they plundered these and took many captives as slaves. From there, they set
out back to Ghaznīn victorious and favoured by fortune.85
When the year 4[1]8 approached its end [/January 1028], the people of Nasā,
Bāward and Farāwa came to the court complaining about the Turkmens’ violent
behaviour and the tyrannical acts they were continually perpetrating in those regions.
Amir Mah.mūd ordered a letter to be written to the governor of T.ūs, Abu ’l-H.ārith
Arslān al-Jādhib, instructing him to inflict punishment on those Turkmens and put a
stop to their acts of tyranny against the subjects. In accordance with the instruction,
the Amir of T.ūs led an attack on the Turkmens, who had meanwhile grown in
numbers. The Turkmens moved towards him and engaged in fighting, killing many
people and wounding many others. The Amir of T.ūs launched several attacks on
them but could achieve nothing, and those complaints of oppression and cries for
help sent to Amir Mah.mūd’s court were in no way halted. Amir Mah.mūd sent a
further letter to the Amir of T.ūs blaming him and imputing to him weakness. The
Amir of T.ūs wrote back in reply,

The Turkmens have become extremely strong, and the only way to suppress
this mischief of theirs is through the exalted banner and stirrup (i.e. the
Sultan’s personal presence). Unless the lord himself comes to repair this
damage, they will become stronger and dealing with the problem will be even
more difficult.

When Amir Mah.mūd read this letter, he became anxious and distressed. He lingered
no longer but mobilised his army, and in the year 419 [/1028] left Ghaznīn and

Part 4.indd 98 7/10/2009 1:37:21 PM

 P ART F OUR : T HE E ARLY G HAZNAVIDS 99

headed for Bust, and thence went to T.ūs. The Amir of T.ūs [N 90] came out to meet
him and escort him back and rendered service. When Amir Mah.mūd asked him
about the situation, he gave him a true and exact relation of what the Turkmens
were up to. Amir Mah.mūd issued orders that a numerous military force, with several
senior commanders, should accompany the Amir of T.ūs and attack the Turkmens.
When the Ghaznavid army reached the ribāt. of Farāwa, the two sides confronted
each other, the Turkmens having grown audacious and confident. Battle was joined.
When the Ghaznavid forces showed themselves strong and resolute and vanquished
the Turkmens, they put the Turkmens to the sword, killing 4,000 of their crack
horsemen and [M 278] taking large numbers captive. The remnants fled to Balkhān
[Kūh] and Dihistān, and their depredations in that region became less.86 [H 193]
When Amir Mah.mūd felt happier in mind about the matter of the Turkmens,
he led an expedition against Ray. He set out for Gurgān and reached it by taking
the road through the defile of Dīnārzārī.87 From there, he proceeded against Ray.
A trusted authority informed me that Amir Mah.mūd sent from Nishapur against
Ray the H.ājib Īkūtegin88 with a force of 2,000 cavalry but with no specific orders.
When Īkūtegin had travelled two stages, the Amir sent him a message telling him
to halt until the H.ājib Ghāzī should catch up with him bringing a further 2,000
cavalry. He likewise gave Ghāzī no specific orders. When the two commanders had
travelled onwards for five stages, the Amir sent them a message to halt till the H.ājib
‛Alī should come up with them. He gave the H.ājib ‛Alī orders and despatched him
with 4,000 cavalry. When the H.ājib reached that place (i.e. of rendezvous), he held
a review of the army. He placed Īkūtegin over the right wing and the H.ājib Ghāzī
over the left wing whilst he himself took command of the centre. They proceeded
onwards in that formation up to the gates of Ray.
When the news reached the Amir of Ray, the Shāhanshāh Majd al-Dawla Abū
T.ālib Rustam b. Fakhr al-Dawla, he thought that Amir Mah.mūd had come in person.
He went forth (i.e. to greet him) with a force of a hundred cavalrymen drawn
from his personal guard, retainers and attendants [N 91] and a numerous body of
infantrymen, comprising those who ran alongside the horses, shield-bearers, lance/
javelin bearers and suchlike. When the H.ājib ‛Alī saw him, he sent a messenger with
the instructions, ‘You must dismount whilst I deliver the message which I bear.’ Majd
al-Dawla straightway came forward, and the Ghaznavid forces erected tents and a
marquee and encamped there. The H.ājib ‛Alī gave orders, and the gates of the city
were seized and no-one allowed to leave. They did not permit anybody to go out
from or to enter the city. Meanwhile, what had happened to Majd al-Dawla was kept
quiet.
The H.ājib ‛Alī kept Majd al-Dawla in that tent under arrest, and all the weapons
that had been brought with him he confiscated. Abū T.ālib was held captive in that
tent for four days. The H.ājib ‛Alī [M 279] wrote to Amir Yamīn al-Dawla giving news
about the situation. A reply came back, and Abū T.ālib and six other persons were
then set on the backs of camels and despatched to Amir Mah.mūd. The latter ordered
that Abū T.ālib should be conveyed to Ghaznīn, and he remained there for the rest
of his life. Amir Yamīn al-Dawla came to Ray and occupied the city unopposed and

Part 4.indd 99 7/10/2009 1:37:21 PM

 100 T HE O RNAMENT OF H ISTORIES

without any difficulty. The Buyids’ treasuries, which had been laid up there from a
long time back, he carried off in their entirety. He found there wealth that seemed
beyond any counting and limitless.
Information was brought to Amir Mah.mūd that there were large numbers of
adherents of the Bāt.iniyya and Carmathians within the city of Ray and its environs.
He gave orders that anybody suspected of holding that belief should be brought out
and stoned to death. He killed large numbers of adherents of that belief, and some
of them he placed in bonds and sent to Khurasan, where they were held in captivity
in his castles and prisons till they died. He remained at Ray for some time until he had
set in order all that kingdom’s affairs. He appointed officials, and he entrusted the
governorship of Ray and Isfahan to Amir Mas‛ūd and himself returned to Ghaznīn.
The conquest of Ray was in Jumādā I of the year 420 [/May–June 1029].89 [N 92]
Amir Mah.mūd showed symptoms of the malady of consumption. It had been
appearing over some considerable time, but it grew worse and every day he kept
becoming weaker from it and at the same time suffering pain. He managed, with
great effort and the use of various expedients, ostensibly to retain his strength, and
he gave out to people that he had no sickness or pain. In this condition, he came
to Khurasan. He went to Balkh and spent the winter there. When [H 194] spring
came round, his illness became much worse. He set out for Ghaznīn and was there
for several days. He tried many remedies but could not secure any relief for his
condition. He became extremely weak, and death approached. He could not manage
to sleep lying down on a bed but could only sit up, and in that state he yielded up
the ghost, may God’s mercy be upon him and may He illuminate his tomb! Amir
Mah.mūd’s passing was on Thursday, 23 Rabī‛ II [M 280] of the year 421 [/30 April
1030].90 With his death, a whole world was brought to destruction; the vile became
elevated and the great were brought low.

The Rule of Amir Jalāl al-Dawla wa-Jamāl al-Milla Abū Ah.mad

Muh.ammad b. Yamīn al-Dawla, God Most High’s
Mercy upon Them Both!
When Amir Mah.mūd passed away, Amir Mas‛ūd was in Isfahan and Amir
Muh.ammad was in Gūzgānān. At that point, the H.ājib ‛Alī [N 93] b. Il Arslān,
who was Amir Mah.mūd’s kinsman, got a firm grip on affairs of state. He brought
stability to the monarchy and did not allow anyone to use excessive measures against
another person. The town of Ghaznīn became such that the wolf and the sheep
lived peaceably side by side.
The H.ājib ‛Alī sent an emissary and he brought back Amir Muh.ammad, and he
ascended the throne in his father’s place. The first thing Muh.ammad did was to
preside over sessions for hearing complaints of injustice and tyranny (maz.ālim);
he listened to the petitioners and arranged just settlements between the parties
concerned. Then he ordered the registers and tax assessment books for the various
regions to be brought out for examination. In regard to every place which had
become laid waste and whose proprietors were excessively burdened because of
the land-tax on it, he looked into that tax burden carefully and he looked after the

Part 4.indd 100 7/10/2009 1:37:21 PM

 P ART F OUR : T HE E ARLY G HAZNAVIDS 101

interests of the subjects. He ordered the doors of the treasury to be thrown open,
and he awarded robes of honour and presents of money for all the court troops and
other soldiers, whether of lowly or exalted status, obscure or in the public eye. He
appointed his paternal uncle Abū Ya‛qūb Yūsuf b. Nās.ir al-Dīn as commander-in-
chief of the army, and gave him a splendid robe of honour and handsome financial
rewards. He appointed Khwāja Abū Sahl Ah.mad b. al-H.asan al-H.amdawī as his
vizier and followed his counsel in the running of affairs. The state of the kingdom
became flourishing and expansive, and daily life became good for the populace. The
level of prices was low, and the troops and the bazaar traders became universally
contented. When news of Ghaznīn’s prosperity and ampleness of life reached other
cities, merchants flocked to it from distant parts, bringing every conceivable variety
of merchandise, textiles, etc., for trading. The level of prices became low and goods
became cheap. [M 281]
Despite all this prosperity which Amir Muh.ammad brought about for the mass
of subjects and the soldiery alike, the troops and the subjects inclined to the side of
Amir Shihāb al-Dawla Abū Sa‛īd Mas‛ūd b. Yamīn al-Dawla and sought after him.
Fifty days after Amir Mah.mūd’s death, Amir Ayāz91 conspired with the [royal]
ghulāms and took from them a sworn pledge for going over to Amir Mas‛ūd’s side;
they all agreed to this and swore an oath over it. He sent an envoy to Abu ’l-H.asan
‛Alī b. ‛Abdallāh, who was known as ‛Alī Dāya,92 [N 94] and ‛Alī Dāya agreed to
approach those troops. Next day, the palace ghulāms came out and went to the
stables, brought forth horses and mounted them with a full array of arms. They
rode out of the palace gates openly, and in this wise went along boldly and ready for
action, heading for Bust. [H 195]
When Amir Muh.ammad heard about this, he sent an army in pursuit of them.
These troops included Suvendharāy, commander of the Indian division,93 who went
after them with a numerous force of cavalrymen. He caught up with them and
attacked them. The ghulāms fought back and killed many of the Indians, including
Suvendharāy. A large number of the palace ghulāms were also killed and their heads
brought before Amir Muh.ammad.
Abu ’l-Najm Ayāz b. Aymaq and ‛Alī Dāya, together with a numerous force of
ghulāms, travelled along swiftly until they all reached Nishapur and appeared before
Amir Mas‛ūd. When they saw the Amir, all of them made obeisance and rendered
service, hailing him as king. He accepted their submission, spoke encouraging words
to them, sought excuses [from them] and asked about their journey, giving them
hopes of future favour.
Amir Muh.ammad remained there in Ghaznīn, indulging in listening to music and
singing, merry-making and busying himself with wine drinking, to the point that his
close retainers told him,

All this you’re doing is a mistake. The mass of people have begun talking
about you unfavourably and are blaming you for what you’re doing just now,
saying that ‘Your enemy has come from Western Persia (‛Irāq [-i ‛Ajam]) and
has mounted an attack upon you, yet you pay no heed to him [M 282] and have

Part 4.indd 101 7/10/2009 1:37:21 PM

 102 T HE O RNAMENT OF H ISTORIES

devoted yourself to wine drinking and self-satisfied behaviour.’ Unless you

march out against him, this royal power will slip away from you.

When four months of his reign had elapsed, Amir Muh.ammad made plans to march
forth. He gave orders and the tented encampment was transported to the vicinity of
Bust and set up. He handed out donatives to the troops and then marched out of
Ghaznīn with a well-equipped and powerful army. But when he reached Tegīnābād,
all the leading figures and army commanders came together in a conclave and sent a
message to Amir Muh.ammad,

You are leading us against an enemy [N 95] who has the entire population as
his supporters and followers. We know for certain that you won’t be able to
stand up to him. The wisest course is that you should remain here in this place
so that we may go to him, seek pardon for our actions and convey your words
[to him]. In this way, he might relent towards us and in the same way become
favourably disposed to you and summon you to his presence, and both you
and ourselves will thereby be in a secure relationship with him.

When Amir Muh.ammad saw that the whole of his army had changed its allegiance, he
realised that there was no means of retrieving the situation and that submission was
the only remedy. He immediately acceded to their demands, and they brought him to
the fortress of Rukhkhaj94 and held him captive there. Amir Yūsuf, the H.ājib ‛Alī and
the leading figures and commanders seized the treasuries and the armoury, got the
army moving in the direction of Amir Mas‛ūd and proceeded to Herat.95 [H 196]

The Rule of Amir Nās.ir Dīn Allāh H.āfiz. ‛Ibād Allāh wa-Z.ahīr Khalīfat
Allāh Abū Sa‛īd Mas‛ūd b. Yamīn al-Dawla [Walī] Amīr al-Mu’minīn,
God’s Mercy upon Them Both!
When Ayāz b. Aymāq and ‛Alī Dāya reached Nishapur, Amir Mas‛ūd became much
heartened. He held a court and presided over maz.ālim sessions, listening to the
subjects’ complaints and meting out justice between contending parties. When several
days had passed, the investiture diploma and standard sent by the Commander of the
Faithful al-Qādir bi’llāh were brought in; Abū Sahl Mursil b. Mans.ūr b. Aflah. Gardīzī
[N 96] had fetched these (i.e. from Baghdad). Amir Mas‛ūd commended Mursil [M
283] and gave him hopes of future favour. He remained at Nishapur for a while and
then from there came to Herat. When Amir Mas‛ūd had been at Herat for some days,
the H.ājib ‛Alī came into his presence. He took his hand in greeting and asked about
his journey. ‛Alī’s brother Mengütirek had come to Amir Mas‛ūd before ‛Alī’s arrival.
The Amir had bestowed on him the rank of H.ājib and was treating him with great
respect and consideration. When the H.ājib ‛Alī came back from attendance on the
Amir at court, he was borne along to a prison cell. Mengütirek put his hand to has
sword hilt, but the H.ājib ‛Alī expostulated with him, saying that Mas‛ūd was his lord,
and the son of his lord, and that whatever he might ordain the two of them had to
show obedience. Thereafter, no-one ever saw those two brothers again.96

Part 4.indd 102 7/10/2009 1:37:21 PM

 P ART F OUR : T HE E ARLY G HAZNAVIDS 103

When the body of troops and the treasuries reached Amir Mas‛ūd, he set out
from Herat for Balkh and spent the winter there. He brought a firm hand to the
administration of the realm. His reign began in Shawwāl of the year 421 [/October
1030]. He made his first concern the appointment of a vizier, with a consideration
of those who were the most suitable persons for the post. There was no-one more
proficient in his job, more learned in adab and with a greater fund of knowledge than
Khwāja Abu ’l-Qāsim Ah.mad b. H.asan Maymandī.97 Khwāja Ah.mad had been held
prisoner in the fortress of Jankī in India.98 Amir Mas‛ūd now despatched someone,
and he was brought back from that fortress. He appointed him as his vizier, giving
him a fine robe of honour and entrusting to him all affairs relating to the organisation
of the army.
H.asan b. Muh.ammad al-Mikālī99 had been arrested. The Amir gave orders that he
was to be made forcibly to disgorge his gains, and wealth was obtained from him.
Then the Amir ordered that he should be killed and gibbeted at Balkh. The reason
for this was that Amir H.asanak had sought permission from Amir Mah.mūd [H 197]
and had gone off on the Pilgrimage. He had returned from this by way of the Syrian
route because the road across the [Arabian] desert [M 284] was disturbed. From
Syria he had travelled to Egypt and had accepted a robe of honour from the ruler of
Egypt.100 [N 97] Suspicion had thereby been thrown on him that he was favourably
disposed towards the ruler of Egypt and was thus liable to the penalty of stoning.
Amir Mas‛ūd commanded that a helmet should be placed on H.asanak’s head and
that he should be placed on the gallows platform and stoned. Afterwards his head
was borne away and sent to Qādir in Baghdad.101
Every person who had opposed Amir Mas‛ūd or who had conspired with his
enemies, he arrested and without exception inflicted punishment on them and
brought them to destruction. He seized the treasurer Ah.mad [b.] Yïnāltegin, who
had filled this office under Mah.mūd, and forced him to disgorge his gains, ordering
a great amount of wealth to be exacted from him. When Ah.mad handed over the
money, the Amir sent him to India and appointed him commander of the army there,
despatching him thither in place of the H.ājib Eryārūq.102 All that show of anger,
the forcible confiscations, the ill-treatment and humiliations inflicted on Ah.mad [b.]
Yïnāltegin remained lodged in his heart, and when he reached India he threw off
obedience and rebelled.103
Amir Nās.ir Dīn Allāh gave orders for Abū T.ālib Rustam Majd al-Dawla to be
brought back from India.104 He summoned Majd al-Dawla to his court session and
spoke with him in a cordial manner. He ordered a residence to be built for him in
Ghaznīn and gave instructions that Majd al-Dawla should on all occasions be admitted
to the court to offer his service. He remained in Ghaznīn till the end of his life.
At this time, the Amir of Makrān, H.usayn b. Ma‛dān, came to the court and made
complaint about his brother Abu ’l-‛Askar, asserting that the latter had appropriated
the royal power for himself, had deprived H.usayn of his rights and had refused to
give him his due. So Amir Nās.ir Dīn Allāh issued orders for Tāsh Farrāsh to go back
with H.usayn to Makrān, secure restitution from Abu ’l-‛Askar for his brother and set
H.usayn on the throne there as ruler.105 [N 98]

Part 4.indd 103 7/10/2009 1:37:21 PM

 104 T HE O RNAMENT OF H ISTORIES

Amir Mas‛ūd then left Balkh for Ghaznīn. When the people of Ghaznīn heard
this news, they set about organising festivities. Everyone became busy preparing
merry-making and rejoicings, the markets were decorated, and musicians and singers
were stationed in positions outside the town. They were there for several days, with
rejoicings going on continuously day and night, [M 285] in anticipation of Nās.ir
Dīn Allāh’s arrival. The notables, prominent figures and community leaders of the
town all went out to greet him, offering up their service, and laid on festivities and
merry-making. When the Amir reached Ghaznīn, the townspeople scattered dirhams
and dinars as a sign of rejoicing. Next day, the Amir sat down in state and held
court. People came along continuously and were bringing presents, according to
the accepted custom. Amir Mas‛ūd likewise showed his benevolence to everyone,
speaking encouraging words and raising people’s hopes of future beneficence. All
the people of Ghaznīn spontaneously and with one accord broke out in voice,
addressed profuse praises to him, offered up prayers for divine favour and besought
God, He is Exalted and Magnified, to grant him a long reign, made their obeisances
and returned homewards.
Once the Amir had finished with affairs at Ghaznīn, he formed the intention
of taking action regarding Āmul, Isfahan and Ray, and set out for those places.
When he reached Herat, people from Sarakhs and Bāvard came with cries for help,
complaining about the Turkmens. So Amir Mas‛ūd designated a commander with a
large military force, and sent to accompany him Abū Sa‛d ‛Abdūs b. ‛Abd al-‛Azīz
as adjutant and administrator (kadkhudā) and quartermaster for that army; this was
in [H 198] the year 422 [/1031]. When the army made contact with the Turkmens
at Farāwa, they launched an assault on them and engaged in battle. Many men were
killed. The Turkmens removed their baggage and their families to Balkhān [Kūh],
and their cavalrymen were then able to fight unencumbered by these impedimenta
and dependents. Each day detachment after detachment kept coming on, and the
fighting was continuous. After being thus engaged for a certain period of time, these
warriors (i.e. the Ghaznavid forces) returned to base.106
At the beginning of the year 423 [/December 1031–January 1032], Khwāja Ah.mad
b. al-H.asan [N 99] passed away. The Martyr Amir took counsel with his advisers
concerning a new vizier, and the names of various persons were passed in review.
The decision fell on Khwāja Abū Nas.r Ah.mad b. Muh.ammad b. ‛Abd al-S.amad,
who was a man of good character and a shrewd person, possessing a high degree
of wisdom, perspicacious judgement and ability successfully to direct affairs. He
had exercised the function of vizier in Khwarazm for a considerable time and had,
through his clear-sighted exercise of authority and unerring judgement made that
province flourishing and populous. The Martyr Amir wrote a letter summoning him
back from Khwarazm. [M 286] He conferred on Khwāja Ah.mad the post of directing
state affairs and awarded him a robe of honour appropriate to that position.107 He
then set out for Ghaznīn and returned to the seat of his power.
In the year 424 [/1033], he led an expedition into India. There was a fortress called
Sarastī in the pass leading into Kashmir. He proceeded there and laid siege to it. Its
defenders fought back vigorously. In the end, he captured it, and the [Ghaznavid]

Part 4.indd 104 7/10/2009 1:37:22 PM

 P ART F OUR : T HE E ARLY G HAZNAVIDS 105

army acquired from the fortress a great booty of wealth and slaves. When it was
spring, he set off back to Ghaznīn.108
In the year 425 [/1034], he led an expedition to Āmul and Sārī. He mobilised his
troops and proceeded there with a well-armed and fully equipped army. News of
his approach had reached those lands, and all the people there had got ready for
war. A large army of town-dwellers, mountain folk, Jīlīs and Daylamīs had been
assembled and had taken up a position on the road, with detachments placed at
intervals in ambushes in the thick forests and narrow places.109 When the Ghaznavid
army arrived there, the enemy poured forth from very direction and were engaging
in fighting. The Martyr Amir was mounted on an elephant. Shahrākīm b. Sūriyal, the
Amir of Astarābād, confronted him, armed to the teeth. An elephant was coming on;
Shahrākīm made a spear thrust,110 [N 100] and the elephant was wounded in the side
and fell down. When the Martyr Amir looked down from the back of his elephant
and saw that, he hurled a javelin (zūbīn) which struck Shahrākīm’s face and felled
him. The [Ghaznavid] troops came up and made him captive. Shahrākīm’s men had
also entered the fray, and they engaged in fighting at Sārī. In the end, they were put
to flight and the Martyr Amir captured the town. Impulsive elements of the troops
plundered part of the town. The townspeople came forward and complained, saying
that ‘We are traders, pious and God-fearing, and your troops are treating us with
violence.’ He gave orders to the troops to desist from plundering and spoliation.
He had his tented enclosure erected at the gates of Āmul. Bā Kālījār, the Amir
of T.abaristān,111 sent messengers. [M 287] Representatives from both sides met
together [H 199] and a peace agreement was made on the basis that Bā Kālījār
should immediately convey 300,000 dinars as tribute, hand over taxation annually,
make the khut.ba throughout T.abaristān in Amir Mas‛ūd’s name and give hostages
for good behaviour. Bā Kālījār brought in this stipulated payment and delivered it
to the Martyr Amir, and he sent his own son and the son of his brother Shahrū[ī] b.
Surkhāb as hostages.112
When Āmul, Sārī and T.abaristān had passed under the Martyr Amir’s control,
he departed from there heading for Ghaznīn. When he reached Nishapur, victims
of oppression and wrongdoing came into his presence, complaining about the
Turkmens. The Martyr Amir took counsel with his viziers, boon-companions and
military commanders regarding the problem of the Turkmens, stating that their
violent behaviour had become acute. All those present considered the matter and put
forward their views. The H.ājib Begtughdï said, ‘These acts of destruction arise from
the fact of many commanders having been involved.113 If you send a single person
with responsibility for dealing with this matter, he will necessarily give it his whole-
hearted attention and will deal with the problem successfully.’ The Martyr Amir told
Begtughdï, ‘You must go and undertake the task, and H.usayn b. ‛Alī b. Mīkā’īl is to
accompany you (i.e. as kadkhudā).’114 He then despatched them with a numerous
army comprising Indians, Kurds, Arabs and Turks, and with them troops from every
other ethnic group, and he also sent high-quality war elephants.
They set out from Nishapur [N 101] and came to T.ūs. From there they went on to
Nasā. When they arrived at a place called S.p.n.dānqān (?),115 envoys came from the

Part 4.indd 105 7/10/2009 1:37:22 PM

 106 T HE O RNAMENT OF H ISTORIES

Turkmens. Their verbal message was communicated to Begtughdï, it being couched

in these terms: ‘We are slaves and are obedient. If you accept our presence and make
available for us pasture grounds, we’ll stop our depredations and no-one will suffer
any harm from us.’ Begtughdï expostulated violently with the envoy and used many
rough words to him. He told the Turkmens, ‘Between me and you is the sword. If
you are really obedient and carry out our commands, send an envoy of yours to King
Mas‛ūd and seek to make your excuses to him. Bring back to us a letter (i.e. from the
Amir) and we will turn away from confronting you in war; but if you don’t do this,
we shall in no circumstances turn back.’ [M 288]
Begtughdï then sent the envoy back and deployed his army for battle. He
appointed the treasurer Qut-tegin (?; text, ’.f.t.k.y.n) over the right, the H.ājib Böri
(text, p.y.r) over the left, and he himself took charge of the centre. He sent forward
the Arab contingent116 as scouts together with 500 cavalrymen who formed the
mounted element of the Arab contingent. When the contingent reached Mār.r.n.y
(?), it gained a victory over the Turkmens’ advance troops; large numbers of them
were killed and the Turkmens took to flight. Begtughdï’s army pursued them till his
troops came upon the Turkmens’ baggage. They seized all of this as plunder and
gained an immense amount of booty. They brought away the beasts and goods and
returned to their army camp since that place was a constricted one.
At this period, the greater part of Begtughdï’s army was away, either engaged
in attacking the enemy or else plundering. When Dāwūd (i.e. Chaghrï Beg), the
Turkmen leader, got news of this, he and a strong military force emerged from the
defiles and narrow places of the mountain, took up positions directly facing the
Ghaznavid army and formed themselves into battle lines. The fighting continued for
two days and nights, with the Turkmens gaining the upper hand. Begtughdï then said
to H.usayn b. ‛Alī [b.] Mīkā’īl, [N 102] ‘There’s no possibility of holding our ground.’
The ra’īs H.usayn answered, ‘In no circumstances will I go back to the Amir as one
who has fled the field; I’ll either emerge victorious or be killed.’
Begtughdï turned and fled, but H.usayn stood his ground and kept on fighting
until all his troops took to flight and he was left there a lone figure. The Turkmens
poured in, surrounded his elephant and forced him to dismount from it. They were
about to kill him when Dāwūd got news of this and sent someone with instructions
not to kill H.usayn. [H 200] They brought him into Dāwūd’s presence, bound him
hand and foot and kept him captive in a tent, with several Turkmens detailed to
guard him. H.usayn has remained there amongst the Turkmens until this present
time. Begtughdï went back and entered the Martyr Amir’s presence. The Amir was in
depair. Because of the fact that the Daylamī hostages and captives were with him,117
he was unable to remain there and went back to Ghaznīn, bringing the prisoners,
who were sent to various fortresses and towns, in the month of Ramad.ān 426
[/July–August 1035].118 [M 289]
Reports were continuously arriving from India that Ah.mad [b. Yïnāltegin] was
behaving oppressively within his Indian governorship, had arrested and imprisoned
the tax-collecting officials, and was treacherously appropriating the money. The Martyr
Amir sent Bānha b. Muh.ammad b. M.l.l.y, the commander (sālār) of the Indians,119

Part 4.indd 106 7/10/2009 1:37:22 PM

 P ART F OUR : T HE E ARLY G HAZNAVIDS 107

with a large army. When the two opposing sides met, they clashed together and
engaged in battle. Large numbers of troops from both sides were killed. Bānha was
killed in the course of the fighting and his troops all put to flight. Ah.mad Yïnāltegin’s
power thus became strong.
When the Martyr Amir heard the news of this, he despatched Tilak b. Jahlan,120
the supreme commander (sipahsālār) of the Indian contingent [within the Ghaznavid
army], and Tilak set off with a large army of Indian troops. He engaged in warfare
with Ah.mad [b.] Yïnāltegin, and there were several clashes and battles between the
two sides. Tilak was victorious on all these occasions. Ah.mad [b.] Yïnāltegin took
to flight and his army was completely destroyed. All those soldiers of Ah.mad’s, the
traders who had attached themselves to Ah.mad’s camp and were adherents of his,
whom Tilak captured, he cut off one hand and their noses, [N 103] thus inflicting
exemplary punishment, until he had dealt with a large number of persons in this
way.
Ah.mad [b.] Yïnāltegin fled, and headed for Mans.ūra and Sind. He tried to cross
the Indus river, but unfortunately for him, a flood swept down and carried him away,
and he suffered death by drowning. When the waters bore along his mutilated body,
they threw it up at a certain spot. One of his soldiers and doughty warriors found his
body and recognised it. He cut off the head and it was brought before Tilak. Tilak
sent it to Balkh, and Amir Mas‛ūd gave orders for a column to be erected and the
head to be set on it.121
At this time, i.e. in the year 427 [/1035–6], the New Palace at Ghaznīn was
completed, together with the golden throne set with jewels that had been specially
made for the palace. The Martyr Amir gave orders for that golden throne to be
installed in the palace. A golden crown, which weighed seventy mans and was set with
jewels, had been made, and this was suspended above the throne by golden chains.
Amir Mas‛ūd then sat down on the throne and placed the suspended crown on his
head, and he held a court session for his guards and retainers and the masses of
people.122 [Also in this same year, the Amir awarded his son Mawdūd]123 a ceremonial
drum and standard and sent him [M 290] to Balkh.
In Dhu ’l-Qa‛da of the year 427 [/August–September 1036], he mobilised the army
for campaigning in India. There was a fortress called Hānsī, considered impregnable,
strongly fortified and with a numerous garrison of defenders.124 The Martyr Amir
led an attack on that fortress. When he arrived there, he ordered [H 201] his army
to surround it. They launched an attack on it, whilst the defenders were fighting
back from the upper parts of the fortress. The defending garrison believed that
no-one would ever be able to conquer the fortress because of the strength of its
defences. After six days of fighting, one wall of the fortress was demolished and it
became exposed to attack (lit. ‘exposed to ravishment’, ‛awrat shūd).125 The army of
Islam poured in and sacked the fortress. They acquired a vast amount of wealth and
plunder [N 104] and numerous captives.
From there they marched towards the fortress of Sūnīpat, the seat of Daypāl
Hariyāna. When the latter learnt of their approach, he fled into the open plains and
the forests, abandoning that fortress with all its wealth and goods. When the army

Part 4.indd 107 7/10/2009 1:37:22 PM

 108 T HE O RNAMENT OF H ISTORIES

of Islam arrived there, the Martyr Amir gave orders for the fortress to be sacked.
They burnt down the idol temples and carried off as spoils all the gold and silver,
the food stores and furnishings that they could find. Spies then arrived and brought
the news that Daypāl Hariyāna was to be found in a certain stretch of forest. The
Martyr Amir proceeded there until he drew near to Daypāl Hariyāna’s army. When
Daypāl received information about this, he immediately fled, abandoning his army.
The army of Islam fell upon the army of infidels, slew a great number of them, took
many captives and seized innumerable slaves.
They went back from there and marched towards the seat126 of Rām. When Rām
heard of their approach, he despatched an emissary to the Martyr Amir seeking pardon
(i.e. offering submission), saying, ‘I am an aged man, and have no strength to come
and render service in person,’ but he sent a great sum of money by the hand of one
of his retainers. The Martyr Amir accepted his submission and his offering. He went
back from there and headed for Ghaznīn. Then he gave the governorship of Lahore to
Amir Majdūd b. Mas‛ūd. [M 291] He awarded him a ceremonial drum and standard, and
despatched him to Lahore with an army and his personal retainers, whilst he himself
came back to Ghaznīn. The conquest of Hānsī was in the year 428 [/1036–7].127
Once the Amir had established himself at Ghaznīn there was a continuous stream
of petitioners and persons arriving from Khurasan crying for help and complaining
about the Turkmens, and the intelligence agents and postmasters were continually
sending letters with the information that the violence and evildoing of the Turkmens
had gone beyond all measure.128 Then, at the end of the year 428 [/October 1037],
the Amir set out for Balkh with the plan of setting aright the affairs of Khurasan
and of putting an end to the Turkmens’ violence and evildoing. When [N 105] he
reached Balkh, a group of Turkmens who were in that vicinity moved away from
their camping places, and the province of Balkh became free of them.
News was brought to the Martyr Amir that a disturbed situation had arisen in
the Transoxanian region, caused by Böritegin and his troops, who were continually
oppressing the local people.129 The Martyr Amir decided to lead an expedition and
suppress this evildoing. [It had all arisen] because the Great Khān Qadïr Khān had
died and the local people had been put in fear of Böritegin. The Amir thought that he
might be able to seize the opportunity and gain control of Transoxania for himself.
So he commanded that a bridge should be thrown across the Oxus. He conveyed
the army across the river and set off into Transoxania. All the magnates and leaders
of Transoxania abandoned their seats of power and departed, and no-one came to
join the Amir. When they had been in Transoxania for several days, a letter reached
the Martyr Amir from the Vizier Khwāja Ah.mad b. Muh.ammad b. ‛Abd al-S.amad
in Balkh with the news that the Turkmen leader Dāwūd, with all [H 202] his host,
was planning to attack Balkh and that he himself lacked adequate soldiers, auxiliary
troops and matériel to withstand them; unless the Amir returned, a disaster would
occur. Amir Mas‛ūd returned fom Transoxania immediately and came to the Katar
steppe.130 He deployed his army for battle and got it ready to engage the Turkmens.
On receiving information about the Amir’s crossing back over the river, the Turkmen
chief Dāwūd straightway got his forces ready to move and left for Merv.131

Part 4.indd 108 7/10/2009 1:37:22 PM

 P ART F OUR : T HE E ARLY G HAZNAVIDS 109

When the Martyr Amir [M 292] heard about Dāwūd’s departure, he came to
Balkh and then went on to Gūzgānān. Several people from that region came before
him and laid complaints about the oppressive activities of ‛Alī Quhandizī. This ‛Alī
Quhandizī was an ayyār and evildoer, and had been guilty of many tyrannical acts
in these regions. The Martyr Amir issued orders for someone to be sent to this ‛Alī
and that he should be summoned to the court. [N 106] When the envoy reached
him he refused to come. In that region there was a fortress where he now sought
refuge, moving his family and his belongings into it and fortifying it against a siege.
The Martyr Amir gave commands for that fortress to be taken and laid waste. ‛Alī
Quhandizī was brought down from it. When he was brought before the Martyr
Amir, the latter forthwith ordered him to be executed. This happened in the year
429 [/1038].132
When the Turkmens learnt about the Martyr Amir’s march towards Merv, they
were filled with fear. They straightway sent an envoy to him, saying,

We are slaves and obedient to his commands. If the Amir will now admit us
into his territories and allot us pasture lands, we will transfer our beasts and
our baggage to those pasture lands and will devote ourselves exclusively to the
Exalted Stirrup’s service, if the Amir should see his way to do this.

The Martyr Amir sent back a messenger, and the requisite formal agreement was
made with Yabghu.133 The latter was made to swear that he would not again be
refractory, would remain fully obedient, would restrain his family and retainers and
the whole tribe from these oppressive acts, and would opt for those pasture lands
allotted to them by the Martyr Amir. They solemnly subscribed to all these conditions,
pledged themselves to them and swore oaths. All the chiefs and commanders of the
Turkmens agreed to that solemn agreement and gave guarantees that they would
observe all its conditions.
The Martyr Amir set out from there towards Herat, but a Turkmen force attacked
the baggage train of the Martyr Amir’s army en route for Herat, carried off much
equipment and possessions, killed several persons and inflicted wounds on others.
The Martyr Amir issued orders, and the army went in pursuit of the Turkmens. The
army attacked them, killed a large number of them and took numerous prisoners.
The captives, together with the heads of the slain, were brought before the Martyr
Amir. He commanded that those heads should be loaded on [M 293] asses and
delivered to Yabghu, with an accompanying message that, whoever broke his solemn
agreement would, as his reward, suffer the same fate. When Yabghu [N 107] saw
those heads, he sought pardon and heaped reproaches on the perpetrators of that
attack. He gave the reply that ‘We knew nothing about this action; we only wish to
do whatever the Amir himself is doing.’134
The Martyr Amir spent several days in Herat and then set out for Nishapur. When
he reached T.ūs, a detachment of the Turkmen forces advanced towards him. Battle
was given and a large number of Turkmens were killed. From there [H 203] he made
for Nasā and Bāward, but those regions proved to be completely free of Turkmens.

Part 4.indd 109 7/10/2009 1:37:22 PM

 110 T HE O RNAMENT OF H ISTORIES

Information then reached the Martyr Amir that the people of Bāward had handed
over their citadel to the Turkmens and had entered into friendly relations with them.
He immediately marched to Bāward, and very soon afterwards the men garrisoning
the citadel were brought before the Amir. He gave orders that the greater part of
them should be put to death. His mind was relieved of that matter, and he came to
Nishapur, where he spent the winter. This was in the year 430 [/1038–9].135
When spring came round, he left Nishapur136 and headed for Bāward, having
received reports that the Turkmen chief T.oghrïl was there. When T.oghrïl heard of
the Martyr Amir’s approach, he withdrew to N.z.n (?) of Bāward and avoided all
contact with Amir Mas‛ūd. When the Martyr Amir found no trace of him,137 he went
to Sarakhs via the Mayhana road. The people of Sarakhs refused to hand over any
taxation and fortified themselves within the town. The Amir gave orders, and the
garrison was brought down from the citadel and the citadel itself demolished. Some
of the defenders of the citadel were put to death whilst others had their hands cut
off.138
From there he went to L.stāna (?) and stayed in that place for a while, and then
he set out from there for Dandānqān. When he arrived there, the army encamped.
When morning dawned, the Turkmens had seized control of all the steppe lands
and mountains and had blocked the ways for the army of Ghazna. When the Martyr
Amir saw the situation, he gave orders that the troops should get ready for battle.
The army took up its battle formation and the troops formed up into unbroken lines
(s.aff-hā). [M 294] The Turkmens also set about preparing for battle and followed
their usual practice in forming up for battle, since they fight in separate compact
groups (kurdūs kurdūs), and they all deployed themselves thus. The two sides were
engaged in fighting [N 108] and the Ghaznavid army gained the upper hand, but
then a section of it turned away and went over to the enemy.139 The Martyr Amir
personally stood firm and felled to the ground a good number of battle-hardened
warriors, some with his spear, some with his sword and some with his mace. He
fought more fiercely on that day than any previous monarch had ever personally
done. He sent a message to his army commanders ordering them to fight on, but
they gave up the fight, turned away and took to flight. He himself kept on fighting
in that fashion described above until there was hardly anyone left at his side. When
he realised that the battle had ended in disaster, he turned and abandoned the field;
however, none of the Turkmens dared to go after him because they had seen his
prowess in the fray. This battle at Dandānqān was on Friday, 8 Ramad. ān of the year
431 [/23 May 1040].140
The Martyr Amir set out from Dandānqān for Marw al-Rūd, and various stragglers
from the army came to join him. From Marw [al-Rūd] he set off for Ghaznīn,
travelling via the Ghūr road and reaching Ghaznīn. The first thing he did there was
to take action against those three commanders who had disobeyed orders during the
battle and had been negligent,141 such as the Commander-in-Chief ‛Alī Dāya, the
Great H.ājib Sübashï and also the H.ājib Begtughdï. He had them seized and bound,
he confiscated their wealth and property, and he consigned them to fortresses in
India, where on the same day all three died.142 [H 204]

Part 4.indd 110 7/10/2009 1:37:22 PM

 P ART F OUR : T HE E ARLY G HAZNAVIDS 111

The Martyr Amir then formulated a plan how that situation might be retrieved.
It was agreed that he should go to India, collect there a mighty army, come back
and restore the position.143 He appointed Amir Mawdūd governor of Balkh and
despatched the Vizier Khwāja [Ah.mad b.] Muh.ammad b. ‛Abd al-S.amad to Balkh
to accompany him (i.e. as his kadkhudā). He also appointed as military commander
for Mawdūd the H.ājib Ertegin, [N 109] sending with him 4,000 cavalry. Mawdūd
proceeded towards Balkh. [M 295] When Amir Mawdūd reached Hupyān, he took
up his position there.144 The Martyr Amir sent Amir Majdūd to Multan with 2,000
cavalry and Amir Īzad-yār to the mountain fringes (kūh-pāya) around Ghaznīn where
there were Afghans and other rebellious elements, instructing him, ‘Keep a firm grip
on that region lest any adverse situation arise there.’145
He then gave orders for all the treasuries and stores of precious objects that Amir
Mah.mūd had deposited in fortresses and at various places, such as the fortresses of
Dīdī-Rū, Mandīsh, Nāy-Lāmān, Maranj and B.nāmad–Kōt (?),146 should all be brought
to Ghaznīn. Then all the wealth in the shape of jewels, gold, silver, clothing, carpets
and hangings, and vessels, were loaded on to the backs of camels. He mobilised the
army and set out for India with that treasury, his womenfolk and baggage. When
en route, he sent an emissary with instructions that his brother Amir Muh.ammad
should be fetched from the fortress of Barghund147 to the army camp.148
When he drew near to the ribāt. of Mārīkala,149 the treasury was being borne
along before him. A number of indisciplined royal ghulāms and soldiers, heedless
of all consequences, came up with the treasury. They saw an immense string of
camels and other beasts of burden all loaded with jewels, gold and silver. They
fell upon them and carried off a quantity of them. The army became mutinous,
and in one fell swoop carried away and pillaged all the treasuries. When they had
acted in this mutinous manner, they realised that they would not get away with it
except by raising to power a new amir. It happened that Amir Muh.ammad came
along at that moment, and a group of the criminals then came forward and hailed
him as king.
When the Martyr Amir saw what had happened, and discerned no hope of
punishing the rebels or of combatting them, he went and shut himself up in the
ribāt. of Mārīkala, remaining there that night. Next morning, he came forth and
made strenuous efforts (i.e. to regain his authority), but the decree of Fate had
come down and he could achieve nothing. [N 110, H 205] He went back inside the
ribāt. and fortified himself within it. But the army, comprising troops and elephants,
surrounded it. A detachment of troops broke into it and brought out Amir Mas‛ūd.
He was put in bonds and taken from there to the fortress of Gīrī. He remained there
until [M 296] 11 Jumādā I of the year 432 [/17 January 1041]. Finally, that same
group who had brought about his deposition conspired together in a plot. They sent
an envoy to the castellan of Gīrī with a message purporting to come expressly from
Amir Muh.ammad; in fact, the latter knew nothing about it. [Acting on the message,]
the castellan killed Mas‛ūd, and cut off his head and sent it to Amir Muh.ammad.
Amir Muh.ammad wept copiously and heaped reproaches on those who had plotted
Mas‛ūd’s death.150

Part 4.indd 111 7/10/2009 1:37:22 PM

 112 T HE O RNAMENT OF H ISTORIES

The Rule of Amir Shihāb al-Dīn wa ’l-Dawla wa-Qut.b al-Milla

Abu ’l-Fath. Mawdūd b. Nās.ir Dīn Allāh Mas‛ūd b. Mah.mūd,
God’s Mercy upon Them Both!
When news of the events at Mārīkala and the death of the Martyr Amir reached
Amir Mawdūd, he turned back to Hupyān with the intention of travelling to that
place (i.e Mārīkala), dealing with the situation and seeking vengeance for his father.
However, Abū Nas.r Ah.mad b. Muh.ammad b. ‛Abd al-S.amad dissuaded him from
this course of action, saying, ‘The soundest plan is that we should go to Ghaznīn in
the first place and take possession of it. Once we have secured control of Ghaznīn,
the army there will speedily rally to us.’
From Hupyān, Amir Mawdūd came to Ghaznīn with his army. The populace of
Ghaznīn all flocked to him and expressed their grief and condolences. He fulfilled
the requisite mourning ceremonies. When he had completed these, all the people
of Ghaznīn came forward and offered their services. Amir Mawdūd [N 111] spoke
encouraging words to them.
He spent the whole winter involved in preparations for war and in making plans.
When spring came round, he mobilised his forces and set off to confront his
uncle in battle. When he reached Dunpūr,151 Amir Muh.ammad’s army had already
arrived there. The lines of battle were drawn up, both armies assumed their fighting
formations and battle was joined. [H 206] Fighting raged all through the day, until at
nightfall the armies disengaged.
When Amir Mawdūd returned to his encampment, he summoned the Vizier and
the army commanders for advice and consultations. Then he secretly sent an envoy
to the Most Exalted Amir Sayyid Abū Mans.ūr ‛Abd al-Rashīd b. [M 297] Yamīn
al-Dawla, may God prolong his royal power,152 and conveyed to him the spoken
message,

I know that you cannot straightway turn round and come to me, but if you can
remain where you are and not get involved in any fighting until I can engage
the enemy in battle and seek my vengeance on him, that would be a great act of
favour on your part towards me. If I achieve my aim, I shall have the fame and
glory for the victory, but you will have all the control of affairs and issuing of
commands, and I will carry out your commands whenever you issue them.

He accordingly took firmly guaranteed oaths and gave solemn pledges that he would
never try to misinterpret or evade them. The point was also raised that ‘There exists
a covenanted agreement between you and my father the Martyr Amir that you will
never do any harm to his sons.’
When the message reached the Most Exalted Amir (sc. ‛Abd al-Rashīd) and he saw
the firm assurances, he became favourably disposed towards Amir Mawdūd, and he
announced that ‘I will not engage in war nor draw my sword, but will remain where
I am until this affair reaches a decisive conclusion.’ The next day, the armies drew up
their lines of battle and set in place their right and left bodies of troops, their centres
and their wings. The champions from each side were continuously engaged in single

Part 4.indd 112 7/10/2009 1:37:23 PM

 P ART F OUR : T HE E ARLY G HAZNAVIDS 113

combat until late morning. The Most Exalted Amir ‛Abd al-Rashīd stood aside and
took no part in the fighting.153
When Amir Mawdūd saw what the situation was, he personally led an attack
on the opposing army’s right. Many of the troops on this right fell. His own right
attacked the enemy’s left, and his left the enemy’s centre, and with a single assault
he put that army, despite its great size, [N 112] to flight. The H.ājib Ertegin and
the palace ghulāms rode into the enemy’s rear, killing, striking and taking captives,
until large numbers of the enemy troops were either killed or taken prisoner. Amir
Muh.ammad was captured, together with his son Ah.mad, Sulaymān b. Yūsuf and a
group of highly born members of the dynasty (dawlat). Amir Mawdūd ordered that
the whole lot should be executed: some were killed by arrows shot at them, and some
were tied to the tails of savage, refractory horses.154

Part 4.indd 113 7/10/2009 1:37:23 PM

Part 4.indd 114 7/10/2009 1:37:23 PM
 NOTES

Introduction
1 For general surveys of Gardīzī and his work, see C.E. Bosworth, ‘Early sources for the
history of the first four Ghaznavid sultans (977–1041)’, IQ VII (1963), pp. 8–10; EIr art.
‘Gardīzī’ (C.E. Bosworth).
2 H.abībī’s text, p. 252.
3 V. Minorsky, ‘Gardīzī on India’, BSOAS XII (1947–9), p. 625 and n. 3. However, in his chapter
19 ‘On the sciences and tenets (ma‛ārif ) of the Indians’, Gardīzī’s expressly acknowledged
source is the Samanid author Abū ‛Abdallāh Jayhānī (presumably Abū ‛Abdallāh Muh.
ammad b. Ah.mad b. Nas.r, vizier to the Samanid Amir Nas.r (II) b. Ah.mad (II), see above,
Part Three, p. 55 and n. 18), with material going back to the tradition of the mid-third/
ninth century geographer Ibn Khurradādhbih. See Minorsky, op. cit., p. 626; Louise
Marlow, ‘Some classical Muslim views of the Indian caste system’, MW LXXXV (1995),
pp. 16–17.
4 Fragner, ‘The concept of regionalism in historical research on Central Asia and Iran (a
macro-historical interpretation)’, in Studies on Central Asian History in Honor of Yuri Bregel,
ed. Devin DeWeese (Bloomington, Ind., 2001), pp. 244–7; and cf. Julie S. Meisami, Persian
Historiography to the End of the Twelfth Century (Edinburgh, 1999), p. 68.
5 See for al-Sallāmī and his work, W. Barthold, Turkestan down to the Mongol Invasion, 3rd ed.
(London, 1968), pp. 10–11, 21; Fuat Sezgin, Geschichte des arabischen Schrifttums, I, Leiden
1967, 352 no. 5; and EI2 art. ‘al-Sallāmī’ (C.E. Bosworth).
6 Material from al-Sallāmī seems also to have been used in the seventh/thirteenth century
by Ibn Khallikān and ‛At. ā’-Malik Juwaynī; see Barthold, op. cit., p. 10.
7 See below, H.abībī’s text, p. 131, and Barthold, op. cit., p. 7.
8 Op. cit., pp. 69ff.
9 Ibid., pp. 74–5.
10 Ed. Nazim, pp. 61–2, ed. H.abībī, pp. 173–4.
11 A.C.S. Peacock, ‘‛Utbī’s al-Yamīnī: patronage, composition and reception’, Arabica LIV
(2007), pp. 519–20.
12 See for them, C.E. Bosworth, The Later Ghaznavids: Splendour and Decay. The Dynasty in
Afghanistan and Northern India 1040–1186 (Edinburgh, 1977), pp. 25–47.
13 Ibid., pp. 41–7.
14 On Gardīzī as a source for Khurasanian history, see Barthold, Turkestan, pp. 20–1, and
as one for Ghaznavid history specifically, see Bosworth, ‘Early sources for the history
of the first four Ghaznavid sultans’, loc. cit. Gardīzī’s place in the historical writing of the
time is penetratingly discussed by Meisami in op. cit., pp. 66–79.
15 See C.A. Storey, Persian Literature. A Bio-bibliographical Survey (London, 1927–53), Vol. I/2,
pp. 65–7.
16 Ibid., p. 72 n. 5.

Notes.indd 115 7/10/2009 1:37:58 PM

 116 T HE O RNAMENT OF H ISTORIES

17 Cf. Minorsky, ‘Gardīzī on India’, pp. 625–6. Attempts at elucidating the Turkish names
in Bayhaqī have been made by Bosworth in his ‘Notes on some Turkish names in Abu
’l-Fad.l Bayhaqī’s Tārīkh-i Mas‛ūdī’, Oriens XXXVI (2001), pp. 299–313, and his ‘Further
notes on the Turkish names in Abu ’l-Fad.l Bayhaqī’s Tārīkh-i Mas‛ūdī’, to appear in a
Festschrift for Dr Farhad Daftary.
18 Bahār, Sabk-shināsī yā tārīkh-i tat.awwur-i nathr-i fārsī (Tehran, 1337/1958), Vol. 2, p. 50.
19 G. Lazard, La langue des plus anciens monuments de la prose persane (Paris, 1963), pp. 71–3.
20 See e.g. H.abībī’s text, p. 133, regarding Hārūn al-Rashīd’s death.
21 In the present translation, these are in any case usually omitted.
22 H.abībī’s text, p. 131.
23 Cf. Bosworth, The History of Beyhaqi (see above, pp. 9–10), Vol. 1, Introduction,
pp. 59–60, 72.
24 I am grateful to Mr Mel Dadswell for providing me with an English translation of
Barthold’s introduction to his section of this work on Gardīzī.
25 For surveys of the printed editions of Gardīzī’s work, see Storey, op. cit., Vol. I,
pp. 66, 1229 (who could at the time only list the edition of Nazim and a Tehran one of
the mid-1930s), supplemented and updated by Yuri E. Bregel, Persidskaya literatura, bio-
bibliograficheskii obzor (Moscow, 1972), Vol. I, pp. 288–9, noting subsequent Tehran prints
up to and including that of H.abībī. There is also much information in Lazard, loc. cit.
Concerning the most recent edition by Rid.āzāda Malik, see below and n. 27.
26 Czeglédy, ‘Gardīzī on the history of Central Asia’, AOHung, XXXVII (1973), 257–8;
Martinez, ‘Gardīzī’s two chapters on the Turks’, AEMAe II (1982), pp. 109–12. It may
be noted that, as well as Martinez’s English translation, facsimile texts of the relevant
parts of the manuscripts and discussion of Gardīzī’s two sections on the Turks, there is
now a German translation of and commentary on these passages by H. Cöckenjan and I.
Zimonyi in their Orientalische Berichte über die Völker Osteuropas und Zentralasiens im Mittlealter.
Die Ğayhānī-Tradition, Veröffentlichungen der Societas Uralo-Altaica, Bd. 54 (Wiesbaden,
2001), pp. 95–190 (I am grateful to Dr Pavel B. Lurye for this reference).
27 This became known to me only from a review article by Muh.ammad Gulbun in Āyīna-
yi Mirāth/Mirror of Heritage, NS V/1–2 (Tehran, Spring-Summer, 2007), pp. 367–75.
However, work on this present translation and its commentary was virtually complete
when Dr Farhad Daftary kindly procured for me from Tehran, after some difficulty,
a copy of Rid.āzāda Malik’s book, and in the short time available a thoroughgoing
comparison of H.abībī’s and Rid.āzāda Malik’s two texts has not been possible.
28 It is Rid.āzāda Malik’s restored numbering of the component chapters, and their headings,
which is followed in the translation below.
29 Storey, op. cit., Vol. I, p. 66.
30 I am most grateful to M. Étienne de la Vaissière for bringing Arends’s work to my notice
in the first place and for providing me with a photocopy of it, and also grateful to
Mr Mel Dadswell and his expertise in Russian bibliography for help with tracing the
book’s history up to its publication in 1991.
31 Hodivala, Studies in Indo-Muslim History. A Critical Commentary on Elliot and Dowson’s History
of India as Told by its Own Historians, 2 vols. (Bombay, 1937–57); Ahmad, ‘A critical
examination of Bayhaqī’s narration of the Indian expeditions during the reign of Mas‛ud
of Ghazna’, in Yād-nāma-yi Abu ’l-Fad.l-i Bayhaqī, ed. Mashhad University Faculty of
Letters and Human Sciences (Mashhad, 1350/1971), English section, pp. 34–83.

Part One: The Arab Governors

1 On this division of the Sasanid realm into ‘quadrants’, see C. Brunner, ch. ‘Geographical
and administrative divisions: settlements and economy’, in CHIr, Vol. 3/2, The Seleucid,
Parthian and Sasanian Periods, ed. Ehsan Yarshater (Cambridge, 1983), pp. 747ff.
2 As noted by Gardīzī, above, p. 14, this southerly route was the normal one to Sistan

Notes.indd 116 7/10/2009 1:38:03 PM

 N OTES 117

and Khurasan at this early period, since what became the more usual, northerly route
along the southern rim of the Elburz chain was menaced by the un-Islamised mountain
peoples, Daylamīs, Jīlīs, etc. to the north. See C.E. Bosworth, Sīstān under the Arabs, from
the Islamic Conquest to the Rise of the S.affārids (30–250/651–864) (Rome, 1968), pp. 13–15.
3 See on this outstanding warrior, H.A.R. Gibb, The Arab Conquests in Central Asia (London,
1923), pp. 15–16; J. Walker, A Catalogue of the Muhammadan Coins in the British Museum.
Volume I. A Catalogue of the Arab-Sassanian Coins (Umaiyad Governors in the East, Arab-
Ephthalites, ‛Abbāsid Governors in T.abaristān and Bukhārā) (London, 1941), pp. xlvi–xlvii;
M.A. Shaban, The ‛Abbāsid Revolution (Cambridge, 1970), pp. 16–25; EI2 art. ‘‛Abd Allāh
b. ‛Āmir’ (H.A.R. Gibb); EIr art. ‘‛Abdallāh b. ‛Āmer’ (J. Lassner). Al-Ya‛qūbī, Kitāb
al-Buldān, French tr. G. Wiet, Les pays (Cairo, 1937), begins his list of the governors
of Khurasan (pp. 114–38) with Ibn ‛Āmir and goes up to the last Tahirid governor in
Khurasan, Muh.ammad b. T.āhir. H.amza al-Is.fahānī, Ta’rīkh Sinī mulūk al-ard. wa ’l-anbiyā’
(Beirut, 1961), pp. 160–72, who dismisses the governors of Khurasan in the Umayyad
period as contemptible tyrants, begins essentially with Abū Muslim and has a fair amount
of detail on the governors of the early ‛Abbasids, the Tahirids and Saffarids, but does
little more than to list the names of the earlier Samanids, ending with ‛Abd al-Malik (I) b.
Nūh. (I), the author’s contemporary.
4 See on this Inner Asian people, foes of the Sasanids and Arabs alike, EI2 art. ‘Hayāt.ila’
(A.D.H. Bivar); EIr art. ‘Hephthalites’ (A.D.H. Bivar).
5 G. Le Strange, The Lands of the Eastern Caliphate (Cambridge, 1905), p. 405.
6 Rid.āzāda Malik’s reading of sipanj for an unclear consonant ductus seems better than
H.abībī’s basīj ‘arms, gear, equipment’.
7 According to al-Balādhurī, Futūh. al-buldān, ed. M.J. de Goeje (Leiden, 1866), pp. 409–10,
Umayr was the first to settle Arabs at Merv and thereby begin the process whereby the
Arabs acquired taxable land in the Merv oasis, settling down and intermarrying with the
Persian population. There thus began a process of assimilation there very different from
elsewhere, in which the Arabs kept themselves apart from the indigenous population by
keeping within fortified garrison cities and encampments. Gardīzī, however, attributes
this programme of Arab settlement in the Merv oasis to Mu‛āwiya’s governor Sa‛īd b.
‛Uthmān (see above, p. 18), and this seems more likely. Cf. EI2 art. ‘Marw al-Shāhidjān’
(A.Yu. Yakubovskii and C.E. Bosworth).
8 Conjecture of H.abībī of a possible reading for the text’s b.s.tām.
9 For this invasion of Sistan in 31/651–2, see Bosworth, Sīstān under the Arabs, pp. 16–17.
10 For these places along the Pilgrimage route from Iraq to Medina and Mecca, see Yāqūt,
Mu‛jam al-buldān (Beirut, 1374–6/1955–7), Vol. 1, p. 414, Vol. 2, p. 111, Vol. 5, pp. 255–6,
278–9; Abdullah Al-Wohaibi, The Northern Hijaz in the Writings of the Arab Geographers
800–1150 (Beirut, 1973), pp. 102–12 (for Juh.fa).
11 In early Islamic times, kharāj seems to have been the land-tax paid by the non-Muslim
dhimmīs in conquered lands, whilst the Muslims there paid ‛ushr on their land. The subjects
who were to pay the kharāj in the Merv oasis were obviously, at this time, substantially
the Persian, non-Muslim population. Only in ‛Abbasid times does kharāj become the
general, official term for land-tax. See F. Løkkegaard, Islamic Taxation in the Classic Period,
with Special Reference to Circumstances in Iraq (Copenhagen, 1950), pp. 72ff.
12 Lit. ‘he turned their heads’, sar-īshān bar gardānīd, unless one should read sirr-īshān . . ., with
a meaning like ‘he revealed their secrets’.
13 In pre-Islamic Bedouin society, fay’ (meaning something like ‘what is brought back’, i.e. to
God and the Muslim community) was a general term for ‘booty, plunder’. In early Islamic
times it took on the specialised meaning of ‘income from the conquered lands whose
revenue went to the state, which then paid back a proportion of it to the Arab warriors’
(see Løkkegaard, op. cit., pp. 32ff.; EI2 art. ‘Fay’’ (Løkkegaard). However, apart from this
instance where the words of al-H.asan are quoted, Gardīzī uses fay’ with the older, general
meaning of ‘plunder’, hence as a synonym for ghanīma.

Notes.indd 117 7/10/2009 1:38:04 PM

 118 T HE O RNAMENT OF H ISTORIES

14 Sūrat al-Anbiyā’, XXI, vol. 111.

15 Following Rid.āzāda Malik’s reading sarmā rather than H.abībī’s ānjā.
16 There may be some confusion here with the Arab historians’ mention of Mujāshi‛’s
pursuit of the fugitive Sasanid emperor Yazdagird III; see Bosworth, Sīstān under the
Arabs, pp. 15–16.
17 For Ziyād in the East, see J. Wellhausen, The Arab Kingdom and Its Fall, English tr. Margaret
G. Weir (Calcutta, 1927), pp. 119–30; Gibb, The Arab Conquests in Central Asia, pp. 16–17;
Walker, A Catalogue of the Muhammadan Coins in the British Museum, I, pp. xlii–xlv; Bosworth,
Sīstān under the Arabs, pp. 20–1; Shaban, The ‛Abbāsid Revolution, pp. 29–34; EI2 art. ‘Ziyād
b. Abīhi’ (I. Hasson).
18 For Muhallab, see EI2 art. ‘al-Muhallab b. Abī S.ufra’ (P. Crone).
19 H.abībī, p. 105 n. 9, thinks that this may refer to the Oxus.
20 See on him, Walker, op. cit., pp. xlvii–xlix; Bosworth, op. cit., pp. 42–4; EI2 art. ‘‛Ubayd
Allāh b. Ziyād’ (C.F. Robinson).
21 This seems the best translation here, given that Muhallab’s opponents here were Sogdians
rather than Persians.
22 Gibb, op. cit., pp. 17–19.
23 See on Sa‛īd, Shaban, The ‛Abbāsid Revolution, pp. 37–8.
24 Gibb, op. cit., pp. 17–19; Shaban, op. cit., pp. 38–9. See also above, p. 15 and n. 7.
25 Thus in Nafīsī’s text (chand sāl) for the reading of the mss.’ s.ad sāl ‘a hundred years’
adopted by H.abībī and Rid.āzāda Malik. Al-Ya‛qūbī, Buldān, tr. Wiet, p. 148, says that ‛Abd
al-Rah.mān functioned in Khurasan for four months only, and was then dismissed for his
feebleness and supine attitude.
26 See on him, Gibb, op. cit., pp. 21–2; Walker, op. cit., pp. xlix–li; Bosworth, Sīstān under the
Arabs, pp. 44–5, 48–9; Shaban, op. cit., pp. 39–41; EI2 art. ‘Salm b. Ziyād b. Abīhi’ (C.E.
Bosworth).
27 This was the Queen-Mother (khātūn = ‘lady’, Sogdian γwt’ynh) acting as regent for the
infant son of the ruler of Bukhara, the subsequent Bukhār-Khudāh T.ughshāda. See
Gibb, op. cit., pp. 17–22; Narshakhī, Tārīkh-i Bukhārā, English tr. R.N. Frye, The History of
Bukhara (Cambridge, Mass., 1954), pp. 9–10.
28 A mawlā of this Arab governor was Ruzayq, progenitor of the Tahirid governors of
Khurasan in the third/ninth century, see above, pp. 42ff.
29 On T.alh.a in Sistan, see Walker, op. cit., p. liv; Bosworth, Sīstān under the Arabs, p. 45.
30 For ‛Abdallāh’s lengthy governorship, during which he, as a Sulamī, headed the Qaysī
ascendancy in Khurasan and struck both dirhams and dinars in his own name, see al-
Ya‛qūbī, Buldān, tr. Wiet, pp. 120–1; Barthold, Turkestan, p. 184; Wellhausen, The Arab
Kingdom, pp. 416–21; Walker, op. cit., pp. lii–liii and index at p. 221; EI2 art. ‘‛Abd Allāh b.
al-Khāzim’ (H.A.R. Gibb).
31 Words added here by Nafīsī to complete the sense.
32 Phrase supplied here from al-Ya‛qūbī, Buldān. The Khurāsāniyān mentioned here are, of
course, the Arab troops and settlers in Khurasan rather than the population at large, as
are likewise the ahl-i Khurāsān that Gardīzī often mentions below in various relationships
with the governors and caliphs, becoming after the ‛Abbasid Revolution one of the
mainstays of the regime. See on them Farouk Omar, ‘The composition of ‛Abbāsid
support in the early ‛Abbāsid period’, in his ‛Abbāsiyyāt. Studies in the History of the Early
‛Abbāsids (Baghdad, 1976), pp. 42–5.
33 Various words supplied here to complete the sense.
34 On the roles of these two tribal leaders in Khurasan, Bah.īr b. Warqā’ and Bukayr b.
Wishāh., and their involvement with ‛Abdallāh b. Khāzim, see Wellhausen, The Arab
Kingdom, pp. 418ff.
35 There is some uncertainty in the sources concerning the exact form of his name; he is
not mentioned in al-Ya‛qūbī’s list of the governors.
36 Bah.īr was from S.arīm, a sub-clan of Sa‛d of Tamīm; see Wellhausen, op. cit., p. 421.

Notes.indd 118 7/10/2009 1:38:04 PM

 N OTES 119

37 See on him al-Ya‛qūbī, Buldān, tr. Wiet, p. 121; Wellhausen, op. cit., pp. 421–2, 426; Walker,
op. cit., pp. lvii–lviii; Bosworth, Sīstān under the Arabs, pp. 49–50; Shaban, The ‛Abbāsid
Revolution, pp. 44–6.
38 For al-H.ajjāj’s policy in the East, see Wellhausen, op. cit., pp. 426ff.; Shaban, op. cit.,
pp. 53–75; EI2 art. ‘al-H.adjdjādj b. Yūsuf ’ (A. Dietrich).
39 For the sons of al-Muhallab, see EI2 art. ‘Muhallabids’ (P. Crone).
40 Ratbīl or Rutbīl or Zunbīl was more properly the title of the indigenous rulers of
Zamīndāwar and Zābulistān, to the southeast of Kabul; see on them below, Part Two,
n. 18.
41 For `Ibn al-Ash‛ath and his rebellion, see Bosworth, Sīstān under the Arabs, pp. 55–63; EI2
art, ‘Ibn al-Ash‛ath’ (L. Veccia Vaglieri).
42 H.abībī reads an undotted consonant ductus as bakhtiyān, ‘Bactrian camels’. But Rid.āzāda
interprets it with greater plausibility as najībān ‘camels of noble breed’, hence ‘swift-
running’, supported by the fact that al-Ya‛qūbī, in his History, when recounting this
incident, speaks of najā’ib; this translation is accordingly followed here.
43 On Qutayba’s governorship, see in general Barthold, Turkestan, pp. 184–7; Wellhausen,
The Arab Kingdom, pp. 429–44; Gibb, The Arab Conquests in Central Asia, pp. 29–56; Shaban,
The ‛Abbāsid Revolution, pp. 63–75; EI2 art. ‘K.utayba b. Muslim’ (C.E. Bosworth).
44 See for this place below, Part Four, n. 15.
45 tāzagī. Tāzīg was the Middle Persian term for ‘Arab’; see D.N. MacKenzie, A Concise Pahlavi
Dictionary (Oxford, 1990), p. 83.
46 On the fall of Qutayba, see Wellhausen, op. cit., pp. 439–43; R. Eisener, Zwischen Faktum
und Fiktion. Eine Studie zum Umayyadenkalifen Sulaimān b. ‛Abdalmalik und seinem Bild in den
Quellen (Wiesbaden, 1987), pp. 91–7.
47 On Wakī‛’s tenure of power, see Wellhausen, op. cit., pp. 442, 444–6; Eisener, op. cit.,
pp. 97–8. His governorship does not appear as such in al-Ya‛qūbī’s list, and seems to
have been a provisional one; this historian in fact says (Buldān, tr. Wiet, p. 123) that Wakī‛
expected to be made governor, but the new caliph Yazīd b. ‛Abd al-Malik preferred to
give the post to Yazīd b. Muhallab, thus temporarily restoring the ascendancy of the
Yemenis in Khurasan.
48 i.e. that laid down in the Qur’ān; see EI2 art. ‘H.add’ (B. Carra de Vaux, J. Schacht).
49 On this second governorship of Yazīd, see al-Ya‛qūbī, Buldān, tr. Wiet, pp. 123–4;
Wellhausen, op. cit., pp. 445–8; Shaban, The ‛Abbāsid Revolution, pp. 77–83.
50 dar-i āhanīn. This must refer to the narrow valley and gorge connecting the upland plain
of Arghiyān and Juwayn in northern Khurasan with the Caspian lowlands of Gurgān,
in which flows the Gurgān river; the valley is called in the H.udūd al-‛ālam, English tr.
V. Minorsky, 2nd ed. (London, 1970), p. 64, comm. p. 200, the Dīnār-zārī, now the
Dahana-yi Gurgān.
51 This is the ‘S.ūl the Turk’ of al-T.abarī, Ta’rīkh al-Rusul wa ‘l-mulūk, ed. M.J. De Goeje
et al. (Leiden, 1879–1901), Secunda series, p. 1323, English tr. D.S. Powers, The History
of al-T.abarī. Vol. XXIV. The Empire in Transition (Albany, 1989), p. 48, located by him
in Dihistān, to the north of Gurgān in the steppelands on the eastern shore of the
Caspian Sea. The Turks in question were possibly Oghuz who had infiltrated southwards
from the steppes to the north of the Aral Sea. See Barthold, A History of the Turkmen
People, in Four Studies on the History of Central Asia, English tr. V. and T. Minorsky (Leiden,
1962), Vol. 3, pp. 87–8. Members of the family of S.ūl, now Islamised, were to have a
career in ‛Abbasid service and to produce a celebrated literary figure of the fourth/tenth
century, Abū Bakr Muh.ammad al-S.ūlī. On the name S.ūl/Sol and its possible meaning,
see L. Rásonyi and I. Baski, Onomasticon turcicum. Turkic Personal Names as Collected by László
Rásonyi (Bloomington, Ind., 2007), Vol. 2, pp. 665–6.
52 For Yazīd’s military operations in Gurgān, see Eisener, op. cit., pp. 100–1.
53 See on his term of office, al-Ya‛qūbī, Buldān, tr. Wiet, p. 124; Barthold, Turkestan, p. 188;
Wellhausen, The Arab Kingdom, pp. 450–2; Shaban, The ‛Abbāsid Revolution, pp. 86–7; EI2

Notes.indd 119 7/10/2009 1:38:04 PM

 120 T HE O RNAMENT OF H ISTORIES

art. ‘al-Djarrāh. b. ‛Abd Allāh’ (D.M. Dunlop). Jarrāh. has a claim to fame in the history
of Arabic palaeography and diplomatic as the addressee of the only Arabic document
from the Eastern Islamic world extant from this early period, sc. a letter found at Mount
Mugh in what is now the Tajik Republic. See Geoffrey Khan, Studies in the Khalili Collection.
Volume V. Arabic Documents (London, 2007), p. 15 (Khan here edits and translates a cache
of Arabic documents from the mid-eighth century AD, apparently emanating from
northern Afghanistan; these have greatly swelled the previously very exiguous extant
corpus of early Arabic documents from the East).
54 i.e. the great-grandson of the Prophet’s uncle al-‛Abbās. Gardīzī is here registering the
beginning of the ‛Abbasid da‛wa in Kufa when Muh.ammad b. ‛Alī took over the claims of
Abū Hāshim, son of ‛Ali’s son Muh.ammad b. al-H.anafiyya. See Shaban, op. cit., pp. 150–1.
55 For Sa‛īd, an Umayyad from the Abu ’l-‛Ās. branch of the clan, and nicknamed Khudhayna
‘Little Lady’ by the Khurasanian troops, who regarded his mildness as misplaced, see
Barthold, op. cit., pp. 188–9; Wellhausen, op. cit., pp. 451–2; Shaban, op. cit., pp. 99–101.
56 Following Nafīsī’s reading, mujāmalat.
57 ‛Umar was indeed governor for Yazīd, but was replaced by Hishām on his accession in
105/724. See EI2 art. ‘Ibn Hubayra’ (J.-C. Vadet).
58 Khālid was governor of Iraq and the East for the greater part of Hishām’s twenty-
years’ caliphate, with his brother Asad as governor in Khurasan for almost as long, dying
in 120/738. See Wellhausen, The Arab Kingdom, pp. 455–6; Gibb, The Arab Conquests in
Central Asia, pp. 67–89; Shaban, The ‛Abbāsid Revolution, pp. 106–27; EI2 art. ‘Asad b. ‛Abd
Allāh’ (H.A.R. Gibb); EI2 art. ‘Khālid b. ‛Abd Allāh al-K.asrī’ (G.R. Hawting).
59 H.abībī interprets the text here as shumā hamī irjāf afgandīd.
60 See on him Barthold, Turkestan, pp. 189–90; Wellhausen, op. cit., pp. 456–9; Shaban, op. cit.,
pp. 109–12.
61 This is apparently the Abū Muzāh.im of Arabic historical sources, the Qaghan of the
Türgesh or Western Turk empire at this time, whose actual name is only known from
its form in the Chinese annals, Su-lu. See Barthold, op. cit., pp. 190–1; Gibb, The Arab
Conquests in Central Asia, pp. 73ff.
62 khārijī, not, however, to be taken here in the sectarian sense of ‘Khārijite’. Al-H.ārith
seems to have been in theology a Murji’ite and, in practice, an ascetic calling for just
rule according to the Qur’ān and Sunna, as noted by Gardīzī below, and for allegiance to
one acceptable to the whole Muslim community (al-rid.ā). His anti-government activity
in Khurasan continued till his death in 128/746. See Wellhausen, The Arab Kingdom,
pp. 459–98; Barthold, Turkestan, pp. 190–3; EI2 art. ‘al-H.ārith b. Suraydj’ (M.J. Kister).
63 See on him Barthold, op. cit., p. 191; Wellhausen, op. cit., pp. 461–2, 466–7; Shaban, op. cit.,
pp. 118–21.
64 On this second spell of office for Khālid and Asad as his deputy, see Barthold, loc. cit.;
Wellhausen, op. cit., pp. 467–74; Shaban, The ‛Abbāsid Revolution, pp. 121–7.
65 This lay in the westernmost part of Khurasan, to the west of Nishapur and adjoining the
province of Qūmis; see Le Strange, The Lands of the Eastern Caliphate, p. 430.
66 i.e. for a hostel or caravanserai.
67 See on him Barthold, op. cit., pp. 192–4; Wellhausen, op. cit., pp. 474–91, 523–40; Gibb,
op. cit., pp. 89–93; Shaban, op. cit., pp. 127–37, 159–61; E.L. Daniel, The Political and
Social History of Khurasan under Abbasid Rule, 747–820 (Minneapolis and Chicago, 1979),
pp. 44–5, 54–8; Moshe Sharon, Black Banners from the East II. Revolt. The Social and Military
Aspects of the ‛Abbāsid Revolution (Jerusalem, 1990), pp. 34–7, 42–7, 63, 107ff., 147ff.; EI2
art. ‘Nas.r b. Sayyār’ (C.E. Bosworth).
68 Nas.r introduced significant financial reforms in Khurasan in 121/739 aimed at redressing
the grievances of the Arab settlers in the Merv oasis (Gardīzī’s ahl-i Khurāsān here) against
the local Persian dihqāns who had been collecting taxation from the oasis. See D.C.
Dennett, Conversion and the Poll Tax in Early Islam (Cambridge, Mass, 1950), pp. 124–8;
Shaban, op. cit., pp. 129–30.

Notes.indd 120 7/10/2009 1:38:04 PM

 N OTES 121

69 See on this ‛Alid, a descendant on his mother’s side of Muh.ammad b. al-H.anafiyya,

Daniel, op. cit., pp. 38–9; Sharon, Black Banners from the East. The Establishment of the ‛Abbāsid
State – Incubation of a Revolt (Jerusalem/Leiden, 1983), pp. 175–9, 181; EI2 art. ‘Yah.yā b.
Zayd’ (W. Madelung).
70 See on these agents, Shaban, The ‛Abbāsid Revolution, pp. 151–2; Sharon, Black Banners from
the East, pp. 188–97; Sharon, Revolt. The Social and Military Aspects of the ‛Abbāsid Revolution,
pp. 20–1; EI2 art. ‘Nak.īb. I. In Early Islamic History’ (C.E. Bosworth).
71 As H.abībī remarks, n. 11, copyists seem to have split the name of the fifth naqīb into
two separate persons, with the two brothers given as the twelfth one making up the full
number.
72 Text, z.r.y.q. This is the first appearance in Gardīzī’s pages of a family – probably of
mawlā origin in Basra, and of unknown ethnic affiliation – which was to have a glorious
future in both Iraq and Khurasan. Both T.alh.a and his brother Mus.‛ab were, as appears
here, involved with the ‛Abbasid da‛wa, and the patronage of the new caliphal dynasty
subsequently favoured the family’s rise, with Mus.‛ab’s grandson T.āhir Dhu ’l-Yamīnayn
becoming al-Ma’mūn’s commander during the civil war with al-Amīn (see above,
pp. 40–1) and founding the line of Tahirid governors of Khurasan. See Mongi Kaabi,
‘Les origines t.āhirides dans la da‛wa ‛abbāside’, Arabica, XIX (1972), pp. 145–64; Kaabi, Les
T.āhirides au Hurāsān et en Iraq (IIIème H./IXème J.-C.) (Tunis, 1983), Vol. 1, pp. 62–3.
73 Text, ’.n.y.sū; cf. H.abībī’s n. 5 and EI2 art. ‘Yah.yā b. Zayd’ (W. Madelung).
74 This explanation, and the more usual (and plausible) one that Marwān was called al-H.imār
because of the wild ass’s proverbial hardihood and endurance, are given by al-Tha‛ālibī
in his Lat.ā’if al-ma‛ārif, English tr. C.E. Bosworth, The Book of Curious and Entertaining
Information (Edinburgh, 1968), p. 61.
75 See on Jahm and his doctrines, W. Montgomery Watt, The Formative Period of Islamic Thought
(Edinburgh, 1973), pp. 145–8; EI2 arts. ‘Djahm b. S.afwān’ and ‘Djahmiyya’ (Montgomery
Watt).
76 Shaybān b. Salama had been an adherent of the Khārijite rebel in Iraq and al-Jazīra, al-
D. ah.h.āk b. Qays, and had fled from there to Khurasan, where he became an associate of
Juday‛ al-Kirmānī until he was killed by Abū Muslim in 130/748. See Daniel, The Political
and Social History of Khurasan, pp. 78–9.
77 This was presumably the first protective ditch constructed at Mākhān or Mākhwān (see
below, n. 80) by Abū Muslim as a defence against possible attack by Nas.r, see Daniel,
op. cit., pp. 52–3. He then had a second ditch made at Gīrang or Kīrang, which lay on the
Murghāb river, presumably to disrupt communication between Nas.r and his supporters
in Marw al-Rūd; see Le Strange, The Lands of the Eastern Caliphate, p. 400, and H.udūd al-
‛ālam, tr. Minorsky, p. 105, comm. p. 328.
78 The origins of Abū Muslim are in fact very obscure, making him an enigmatic figure in
Islamic history; see Sharon, Black Banners from the East, pp. 203–7. It is not clear whether
he was a free man or a mawlā, or of Persian ethnos, as is usually assumed.
79 For Qah.t.aba, the second most important person of the ‛Abbasid da‛wa in Khurasan after
Abū Muslim, and one of the nuqabā’ (see above, pp. 27–8), see P. Crone, Slaves on Horses.
The Evolution of the Islamic Polity (Cambridge, 1980), p. 188; EI2 art. ‘K.ah.t.aba’ (M. Sharon).
80 This is described by Yāqūt as a village three parasangs from Merv. Various traditions make
Abū Muslim’s father, as Abū Muslim himself, a native of Mākhān. See Irène Mélikoff,
Abū Muslim, le <<Porte-Hache>> du Khorasan, dans la tradition épique turco-iranienne (Paris,
1962), p. 93 n. 5.
81 On the apocalyptic and prophetic sayings which seem to have been put into circulation by
what Sharon has called the ‘‛Abbasid official propaganda machine’, see his Black Banners
from the East, pp. 87ff.
82 In Bīrūnī’s original (see next note), s.alāt.
83 This passage about Bihāfarīd is clearly taken from al-Bīrūnī’s al-Āthār al-bāqiya ‛an al-qurūn
al-khāliya, ed. E. Sachau (Leipzig, 1878), English tr. E. Sachau, The Chronology of Ancient

Notes.indd 121 7/10/2009 1:38:04 PM

 122 T HE O RNAMENT OF H ISTORIES

Nations (London, 1879). See on this Zoroastrian reformer, Gh.H. Sadighi, Les mouvements
religieux iraniens au IIe et au IIIe siècle de l’Hégire (Paris, 1938), pp. 111–31; B. Scarcia Amoretti,
ch. ‘Sects and heresies’, in CHIr, Vol. 4, The Period from the Arab Invasion to the Saljuqs, ed.
R.N. Frye (Cambridge, 1975), pp. 489–90; EI2 art. ‘Bih’āfrīd b. Farwardīn’ (D. Sourdel).
Meisami, Persian Historiography, pp. 74–5, noted Gardīzī’s concern – as shown also by
other historians in medieval Islam – with the movements of various pseudo-prophets
and religious reformers, the implication being that it is the ruler’s duty to eradicate such
dissidence and to support the true faith.
84 Actually at Ushmūnayn in Upper Egypt; see EI2 art. ‘Marwān II’ (G.R. Hawting).
85 On this pro-‛Alid revolt of Sharīk b. Shaykh al-Mahrī, centred on Bukhara, see Barthold,
Turkestan, pp. 194–5.
86 The background to this is explained by al-T.abarī, Ta’rīkh, Secunda series, p. 1891, English
tr. J.A. Williams, The History of al-T.abarī. Vol. XXVII. The ‛Abbāsid Revolution (Albany, 1985),
p. 211: that al-Saffāh. had been fearful of an army of several thousand Khurasanian
troops descending on Iraq and, on the plea that the Pilgrimage Road across the Arabian
desert of Najd could not feed and supply such a throng, instructed Abū Muslim to bring
1,000 troops only. See also H. Kennedy, The Early Abbasid Caliphate. A Political History
(London and Totowa, N.J., 1981), p. 54.
87 On ‛Abdallāh b. ‛Alī’s revolt with the support of the Syrian army, see J. Lassner, The
Shaping of ‛Abbāsid Rule (Princeton, 1980), pp. 35–8; Kennedy, op. cit., pp. 58–60.
88 Reading thus, following Nafīsī’s text rather than the completely implausible H.arra of
H.abībī and Rid.āzāda Malik, H.īra being an ancient centre of Christianity in central Iraq,
where this tarsā’ī was presumably a monk or anchorite.
89 This seems to be a reference to the dispute over the plunder captured from ‛Abdallāh
b. ‛Alī’s army when Abū Muslim defeated it at Nisibīn. According to al-T.abarī, Ta’rīkh,
Tertia series, pp. 102–3, English tr. Jane D. McAuliffe, The History of al-T.abarī. Vol. XXVIII.
‛Abbāsid Authority Affirmed (Albany, 1995), p. 23, for the distribution of this booty, the
caliph sent his own agent, the mawlā Abū Khas.īb (on whom see Crone, Slaves on Horses,
p. 190), with Abū Muslim protesting that the caliph was only entitled to a fifth (khums) of
captured spoils. See also Kennedy, op. cit., p. 61.
90 Abū Mujrim, punning on Abū Muslim’s name.
91 Salama, Mans.ūr’s mother, being a Berber slave.
92 The detailed Arabic historical sources (e.g. al-Ya‛qūbī, al-T.abarī) list further petty
accusations hurled at Abū Muslim by the caliph.
93 sar-i kas; Nafīsī’s text has sarhang ‘senior officer’; al-T.abarī has s.āh.ib al-h.aras. See on
‛Uthmān b. Nahīk, Crone, Slaves on Horses, p. 189.
94 Meisami, Persian Historiography, pp. 70–1, partially translates these exchanges between al-
Mans.ūr and Abū Muslim, noting the apocalyptic and prophetic overtones in this story
of the unfolding of the ‛Abbasid Revolution and its consequences for a protagonist like
Abū Muslim.
95 Abū Dāwūd had been one of the original twelve naqībs (see above, p. 26) and one of Abū
Muslim’s most trusted lieutenants. See on him al-Ya‛qūbī, Buldān, tr. Wiet, p. 129; Daniel,
The Political and Social History of Khurasan, pp. 86, 132, 158–9.
96 There are, however, in the sources differing accounts of his death, including one which
makes Abū Dāwūd an object of suspicion, because of his previous closeness to Abū
Muslim, for al-Mans.ūr, who accordingly had him murdered. See Daniel, op. cit., pp. 158–
9, who makes the point that the killing of Abū Muslim ushered in a period of sharp
factional strife in Khurasan between the erstwhile supporters of Abū Muslim and the
partisans of al-Mans.ūr and the ‛Abbasids.
The ‘Wearers of White’ (in Arabic contexts appearing as the Mubayyid.a) mentioned here
by Gardīzī must have been a ghulāt group, one of several who claimed to be avenging
the death of Abū Muslim and whose activity in Khurasan antedated that of the rebel
al-Muqanna‛ (‘The Veiled One’) of some twenty years later (see above, p. 34). This Sa‛īd

Notes.indd 122 7/10/2009 1:38:05 PM

 N OTES 123

Jawlāh (?) does not seem to be mentioned in other sources, but there was at this time
ghulāt agitation in Khurasan led by one Ish.āq al-Turk (the latter component of his name
does not seem necessarily to imply Turkish ethnicity, but that he had worked among
the Turks on the fringes of Transoxania); see concerning Ish.āq, Sadighi, Les mouvements
religieux iraniens, pp. 150–4; Scarcia Amoretti, ch. ‘Sects and heresies’, pp. 496–7; and
Daniel, op. cit., p. 132.
97 H.amza al-Is.fahānī, Ta’rīkh Sinī mulūk al-ard. wa ’l-anbiyā’, p. 162, mentions here with some
diffidence (‘He [sc. God] knows best the truth of matters’) that the commander of the
police guard, one Abū ‛Is.ām ‛Abd al-Rah.mān b. Salīm, functioned as governor for a year
and a month after Abu Dāwūd’s death.
98 See on him and his subsequent revolt, Ya‛qūbī, Buldān, tr. Wiet, pp. 129–30; Daniel, The
Political and Social History of Khurasan, pp. 159–61; Crone, Slaves on Horses, pp. 173–4.
99 Ibrāhīm and his brother Muh.ammad were grandsons of al-H.asan b. ‛Alī b. Abī T.ālib. In
145/762 the two of them led an unsuccessful revolt in Basra against al-Mans.ūr, being
killed in the attempt. See Lassner, The Shaping of ‛Abbāsid Rule, pp. 72, 74, 76–7, 81–4.
100 This agitator may have carried on the work of the Ish.āq the Turk mentioned above; see
Daniel, op. cit., pp. 132–3.
101 Zam(m) was a crossing-point on the Oxus, on the left bank roughly midway between
Āmul and Tirmidh. See Le Strange, The Lands of the Eastern Caliphate, pp. 403–4.
102 On this episode of ‛Abd al-Jabbār’s rebellion against the caliph – for whatever reason
– see Daniel, op. cit., pp. 159–62, who stresses, as one element at work here, the tension
between governors and other officials who represented Khurasanian Arab interests, and
the centralising policies of the ‛Abbasids.
103 Much obscurity surrounds Ustādsīs and his revolt. He was, according to some sources, a
local ruler (malik) in the Bādghīs region, and he may originally have assisted the ‛Abbasid
da‛wa; others connect him with the Khārijites of neighbouring Sistan; less probable,
given his obvious links with Muslim groups, even if somewhat heterodox ones like the
Khārijites, is that, like Bihāfarīd, his movement had elements of a reformed version
of Zoroastrianism. See Sadighi, Les mouvements religieux iraniens, pp. 155–62; Scarcia
Amoretti, ch. ‘Sects and heresies’, pp. 497–8; Daniel, op. cit., pp. 133–7; EI2 art. ‘Ustādhsīs’
(W. Madelung).
104 taqdīrī kun, perhaps, in the light of what follows, with the implication ‘allot us a share in
captured booty!’
105 Thus H.abībī, chīzī ba-dād; Rid.āzāda Malik has the opposite, chīzī na-dād, ‘he gave them
nothing’.
106 On Marājil, Hārūn’s slave concubine, see Nabia Abbott, Two Queens of Baghdad. Mother and
Wife of Hārūn al-Rashīd (Chicago, 1946), pp. 110, 141; according to Ibn Shākir al-Kutubī,
she died in childbirth, having borne al-Ma’mūn. Daniel, op. cit., p. 136, suggests that this
putative connection between al-Ma’mūn and Ustādsīs may have been put into circulation
by pro-Arab, anti-Persian partisans during the Shu‛ūbiyya controversies in order to cast
aspersions on al-Ma’mūn and his alleged pro-Iranian proclivities.
107 H.abībī, n. 6, observes that none of the standard chroniclers, such as al-Ya‛qūbī, al-T.abarī
and H.amza al-Is.fahānī, mentions this ephemeral governor.
108 H.umayd had been one of the nuz.arā’, i.e. stand-ins or deputies for the twelve nuqabā’, in
the ‛Abbasid da‛wa. See Crone, Slaves on Horses, p. 188; Sharon, Black Banners from the East,
p. 195.
109 Al-Muqanna‛’s rebellion probably began ca. 160/777, and constitutes the most important
of the anti-‛Abbasid social and religious movements in the Islamic East during this
period. See on this heresiarch, E.G. Browne, A Literary History of Persia (London and
Cambridge, 1908–24), Vol. 1, pp. 318–23; Barthold, Turkestan, pp. 198–200; Sadighi,
op. cit., pp. 163–86; Scarcia Amoretti, op. cit., pp. 498–500; Farouk Omar, ‘A point of
view on the nature of the Iranian revolts in the early Abbasid period’, in ‛Abbāsiyyāt.
Studies in the History of the Early ‛Abbāsids, pp. 81–3; Daniel, op. cit., pp. 137–47; EI2

Notes.indd 123 7/10/2009 1:38:05 PM

 124 T HE O RNAMENT OF H ISTORIES

art. ‘al-Muk.anna‛’ (ed.). The adoption of a white banner, and the white garments of
his followers, sapīd-jāmagān or mubayyid.a, were conscious repudiations of ‛Abbasid
authority, with its characteristic colour of black for banners, uniforms, etc.; see Omar,
‘The significance of the colours of banners in the early ‛Abbāsid period’, in ‛Abbāsiyyāt,
pp. 148–54.
110 This idea of ‘transmigration’ (tanāsukh) involves the transference, or the immanence
(h.ulūl ), of a divine element from one prophet, spiritual leader or (in the case of the
Shī‛a) imam to another. In early Islam, the concept was especially characteristic of the
Kaysāniyya, partisans of the claims of ‛Alī’s son Muh.ammad b. al-H.anafiyya, and of
other subsequent ghulāt sects. See EI2 art. ‘Tanāsukh’ (D. Gimaret). Here in Central Asia,
where there was a ferment of religious ideas and beliefs, it is likely, as Daniel suggests
(The Political and Social History of Khurasan, pp. 139, 144) that Muqanna‛’s movement
drew in adherents of other heterodox currents. Adoption of the name Hāshim would
obviously connect al-Muqanna‛, whatever his real name was, with messianic currents
in the original ‛Abbasid da‛wa, although his own movement was distinctly hostile to the
political authority of the ‛Abbasids.
111 This may refer to Turks settled on the fringes of Transoxania (cf. below, Part Four, n. 10),
or those Oghuz which Ibn al-Athīr, obviously utilising older sources, mentions as coming
at this time from the farthest fringes of Inner Asia; see P.B. Golden, An Introduction to
the History of the Turkic Peoples. Ethnogenesis and State-Formation in Medieval and Early Modern
Eurasia and the Middle East (Wiesbaden, 1992), pp. 206–7. This mention by Gardīzī is
nevertheless interesting in showing that al-Muqanna‛ was able to attract a wide spread
of support from all the local peoples of Transoxania, especially those in rural areas; and
it is further worthy of note that Narshakhī, Tārīkh-i Bukhārā, tr. Frye, p. 72, states that
Muqanna‛ had a commander in Bukhara with the name, redolent of the first Turkish
empire on the Orkhon, of Kül Er Tegin; see Frye’s nos. 66, 259.
112 The readings and sense of the mss. here are unclear. Nafīsī and H.abībī read kūy-hā,
but the latter, n. 6, suggests a possible meaning for the kūs-hā (‘drums’) of the mss.:
that important towns had drums that were beaten at the government headquarters as a
manifestation of sovereignty, citing the historian of the Delhi Sultanate period Minhāj
al-Dīn Jūzjānī, who states that up to 617/1220 and the coming of Chingiz Khān the
‘fanfare of drums (nawbat) of Abū Muslim’ were beaten at Merv (T.abaqāt-i nās.irī, ed.
H.abībī [Kabul, 1342–3/1963–4], Vol. 1, p. 107). The meaning here would accordingly be
‘and they beat the ceremonial drums’.
113 This obviously lay in the Bukhara region; Yāqūt, Mu‛jam al-buldān, Vol. 5, p. 309, reads the
name as Nuwajkath but does not pinpoint its exact location.
114 This is the obvious sense of S.ughdiyān, pace Frye, op. cit., p. 71, followed by Daniel, The Political
and Social History of Khurasan, p. 142, both taking it, improbably, as a personal name.
115 This is the revolt of Yūsuf al-Barm. Whether he was a Khārijite or was simply a rebel
representing local interests in eastern Khurasan against the ‛Abbasid state apparatus is
unclear. See Daniel, op. cit., pp. 166–7.
116 Mu‛ādh was a mawlā of Rabī‛a or of Dhuhl of Bakr. See on him al-Ya‛qūbī, Buldān, tr.
Wiet, pp. 131–2; Daniel, op. cit., pp. 142–3; Crone, Slaves on Horses, pp. 183–4.
117 T.awāwīs (‘The Peacocks’, so-called, says Narshakhī, because the invading Arabs first
encountered peacocks there) was one or two days, journey from Bukhara. See H.udūd
al-‛ālam, tr. Minorsky, p. 113; Barthold, Turkestan, pp. 98–9; Le Strange, The Lands of the
Eastern Caliphate, p. 462.
118 This appears to be a personal name, although nothing further is known of the man. It is
a not uncommon name in medieval Arabic onomastic, as has been pointed out to me by
Professor Van Gelder, citing e.g. the many Khārijas in the index to Caskel and Strenziok-
Ibn al-Kalbī’s Ğamharat an-nasab. An emendation of the text to khārijī ‘a Khārijite’, seems
nevertheless not impossible, since although al-Muqanna‛ himself was not a Khārijite, as
observed above, nos. 108–9, he attracted many heterodox elements to his standard.

Notes.indd 124 7/10/2009 1:38:05 PM

 N OTES 125

119 Musayyab was a mawlā of D . abba who had been a naz.īr in the ‛Abbasid da‛wa. see Daniel,
op. cit., p. 168; Crone, op. cit., p. 181.
120 Since the story of al-Muqanna‛ seems early to have attracted fantastic, semi-legendary
accretions, there are in the sources various accounts of his death, including self-
immolation as well as mass poisoning (this last reminiscent of the mass suicide of Jim
Jones and the adherents of his ‘The People’s Temple Full Gospel Church’ at Jonestown,
Guyana, in 1978).
121 The author of the H.udūd al-‛ālam, writing two centuries after al-Muqanna‛’s time, states
(tr. Minorsky, p. 117, comm. p. 356) that the people of Īlāq on the middle Syr Darya
mostly professed the creed of the sapīd-jāmagān.
122 Barthold, Turkestan, p. 205, read the second component of this name as d.h.da/Dahda,
admitting that no governor of that name is mentioned in the sources but suggesting that
he was an Arab financial official in Transoxania.
123 Concerning these alloy coins, introduced, so Narshakhī says (Tārīkh-i Bukhārā, tr. Frye,
pp. 35–7, 129), for local circulation when the price of silver had become excessively high
in Khwarazm and Transoxania, see Barthold, op. cit., pp. 204–7.
124 Both Barthold, op. cit., p. 202, and Daniel, The Political and Social History of Khurasan,
p. 168, note that the governorships of Abu ’l-‛Abbās and then of the Barmakid al-Fad.l b.
Yah.yā were ones in which beneficial policies for the people of the East were pursued.
125 Khwārazmī defines bast (lit. ‘something which is bound up, blocked’, hence a barrier) as
a measurement used at Merv for distributing irrigation water, essentially a board with
a hole in it of determined size. See Bosworth, ‘Abū ‛Abdallāh al-Khwārazmī on the
technical terms of the secretary’s art. A contribution to the administrative history of
mediaeval Islam’, JESHO XII (1969), p. 152.
126 Presumably this was a ribāt. for travellers crossing the Qara Qum. It is unmentioned by
the geographers, and may have had only an ephemeral existence.
127 This was on 15 Rabī‛ 170/14 September 786.
128 This dating is clearly erroneous, since Ghit.rīf was governor in this year (see below).
We know from other sources that ‛Abbās’s raid against Buddhist shrines at Kabul and
Shābahār (the latter place to be distinguished from the homonymous place outside Ghazna
mentioned in Ghaznavid history) actually took place in 171/787–8; see Bosworth, Sīstān
under the Arabs, pp. 85–6. Rid.āzāda Malik has the date Muh.arram 170 [/July 786], but this
is clearly too early.
129 In 173/789–90. H.amza al-Is.fahānī, Ta’rīkh Sinī mulūk al-ard. wa ‘l-anbiyā’, p. 164, has, as
governor between Ja‛far and Ghit.rīf, H.asan b. Qah.t.aba, but again with the disclaimer
‘God knows best’.
130 In 175/791–2. Ghit.rīf was Hārūn’s maternal uncle, the brother of the caliph’s mother
Khayzurān, wife of al-Mahdī. See Abbott, Two Queens of Baghdad, p. 29.
131 This Jabūya/Jabghūya must have been a Turkish chief from some tribal group like the
Qarluq, Yabghu being an ancient Turkish princely title. See EIr art. ‘Jabgˉ uya. ii. In Islamic
sources’ (C.E. Bosworth).
132 See above, p. 36. Narshakhī relates that Ghit.rīf ’s debased coinage placed a heavy burden
on the people of Bukhara (and doubtless elsewhere in the East) because taxes had now to
be paid at rates always manipulated in favour of the administration and to the detriment
of the taxpayers; see his Tārīkh-i Bukhārā, tr. Frye, pp. 36–7. It is clear from various
sources that Ghit.rīf ’s governorship was regarded as oppressive.
133 H.ud.ayn seems, from the parallel source of the Tārīkh-i Sīstān, to be the correct form of
the name rather than the text’s H.us.ayn. See on his revolt, Bosworth, Sīstān under the Arabs,
p. 85.
134 al-Ya‛qūbī, Buldān, tr. Wiet, p. 133, and H.amza al-Is.fahānī, op. cit., p. 165, record H.amza
b. Mālik b. Haytham al-Khuzā‛ī as Ghit.rīf ’s brief successor as governor in 176/792–3 or
at the beginning of the next year.
135 For Fad.l’s governorship, regarded in the historical sources and in the adab literature as a

Notes.indd 125 7/10/2009 1:38:05 PM

 126 T HE O RNAMENT OF H ISTORIES

benevolent, even idyllic one, see Barthold, Turkestan, p. 203; Daniel, The Political and Social
History of Khurasan, p. 169.
136 For the etymology of the name of this Iranian magnate, see F. Justi, Iranisches Namenbuch
(Marburg, 1895), p. 170: ‘Felsen-hahn (Tetraogallus)’. He is mentioned in al-T.abarī as
the father of Kāwūs, father of the Afshīn Khaydhar or H.aydar, who was prominent
in al-Mu‛tas.im’s caliphate as the vanquisher of Bābak Khurramī (see above, p. 43 and
Part Two, n. 5). These princes of Ushrūsana held the title of Afshīn, for which see
C.E. Bosworth and Sir Gerard Clauson, ‘Al-Xwārazmī on the peoples of Central Asia’,
JRAS (1965), pp. 7–8.
137 Nafīsī has in his text ‘to Shahrazūr, and from there to Asadābād, and there’.
138 ‛Umar b. Jamīl did not, so far as we know from historical literature, found a line in
Chaghāniyān of any significance, but the history of this province is particularly obscure
until the emergence of the Muh.tājids in the early fourth/tenth century; see Bosworth,
‘The rulers of Chaghāniyān in early Islamic times’, Iran JBIPS XIX (1981), p. 3.
139 The story of Hārūn and his breach of faith with the Barmakids, who had been loyal
servants of the ‛Abbasids, has been already given by Gardīzī in his section on the caliphs,
ed. H.abībī, pp. 69–70, ed. Rid.āzāda Malik, pp. 128–9, with an emphasis on the whole
episode as a phase in ‛Abbasid decline; cf. Meisami, Persian Historiography, p. 73.
140 Mans.ūr was thus, like Ghit.rīf, a maternal relative of the ‛Abbasid royal family, through
the brother of al-Mans.ūr’s H.imyarite wife. See Crone, Slaves on Horses, pp. 255–6 n. 580.
141 If the referent in wa bāz gasht is Mans.ūr, then presumably he returned to Iraq; if it is
H.amza, then he would have gone back to his native province of Sistan. H.amza’s revolt
was the most protracted and serious Khārijite outbreak in the East, beginning in Sistan
ca. 179/795–6, engulfing neighbouring provinces like Khurasan and Kirman, and only
ending thirty years later with H.amza’s death in 213/828. See Sadighi, Les mouvements
religieux iraniens, pp. 54–6; Bosworth, Sīstān under the Arabs, pp. 91–4; EIr art. ‘H.amza b.
Ādarak’ (C.E. Bosworth).
Other historians (e.g. al-T.abarī, Ta’rīkh, Tertia series, p. 644, English tr. C.E. Bosworth,
The History of al-T.abarī. Vol. XXX. The ‛Abbāsid Caliphate in Equilibrium [Albany, 1989],
p. 162; H.amza al-Is.fahānī, Ta’rīkh Sinī mulūk al-ard., p. 165) record that Ja‛far b. Yah.yā
al-Barmakī was briefly appointed to Khurasan after his successful campaignings in Syria,
but he does not seem ever to have gone there personally.
142 On ‛Alī’s governorship, regarded in all the sources as repressive and exploitative, see
Barthold, Turkestan, p. 203; Daniel, The Political and Social History of Khurasan, pp. 170–4;
EI2 art. ‘‛Alī b. ‛Īsā’ (Ch. Pellat). His family was of mawlā origin, and had been prominent
in the ‛Abbasid da‛wa; see Crone, op. cit., pp. 178–9.
143 Nothing is known of this work.
144 Following the reading of Nafīsī given in H.abībī’s n. 13, ba-shikast.
145 i.e. T.āhir b. al-H.usayn b. Mus.‛ab b. Ruzayq, whose family power base was in Pūshang.
146 The affluent stream of the Oxus, on whose banks Balkh stood, is called by Ibn H.awqal a
century-and-a-half later, Dih Ās ‘[that which drives] ten mills’; see Le Strange, The Lands
of the Eastern Caliphate, p. 420.
147 Harthama was of Khurasanian mawlā origin, who had risen high in caliphal favour. See
on him Crone, op. cit., pp. 75, 177; EI2 art. ‘Harthama b. A‛yan’ (Ch. Pellat).
148 Rāfi‛’s revolt probably reflected popular discontent in Transoxania with ‛Alī b. ‛Īsā’s
misgovernment there, but it spread also to Khurasan, where ‛Alī’s policies were equally
rapacious. See Barthold, Turkestan, pp. 200–1; Daniel, The Political and Social History of
Khurasan, pp. 172–5; EI2 art. ‘Rāfi‛ b. al-Layth b. Nas.r b. Sayyār’ (C.E. Bosworth).
149 This section on Harthama’s governorship is apparently considerably confused in the
mss., with an inconsequential chronology of events. This is unnoted by H.abībī, but has
been put right by Rid.āzāda Malik, and the latter’s rearrangement of the entry is followed
here.
150 Thus the suggestion of H.abībī in his n. 16 for the term niwishta, although one would not

Notes.indd 126 7/10/2009 1:38:05 PM

 N OTES 127

expect volunteers like these to be entitled to regular stipends on the dīwān al-jaysh rolls;
such volunteers normally brought their own arms, equipment and mounts but shared in
captured plunder.
151 On the confusion in the sources about the manner and place of H.amza’s death, and the
briefness of Abū Ish.āq Ibrāhīm’s headship of the Khārijites of Sistan, see Bosworth,
Sīstān under the Arabs, pp. 103–4.
152 The sources are likewise confused about the events surrounding the end of Rāfi‛’s
uprising. Some state that he accepted a pardon from al-Ma’mūn, after which he drops
out of historical mention; see Daniel, op. cit., pp. 174–5.
153 Following here Rid.āzāda Malik’s ba-dādand.
154 This man is presumably the ancestor of the petty dynasty of the Bānījūrids or Abū
Dāwūdids, apparently originally from Farghāna but ruling in Balkh and T.ukhāristān in
the later third/ninth century and possibly in the fourth/tenth one. See C.E. Bosworth,
The New Islamic Dynasties. A Chronological and Genealogical Manual (Edinburgh, 1996), p. 174
n. 85; EI2 Suppl. art ‘Bānīdjūrids’ (C.E. Bosworth).
155 According to the anonymous (or conceivably by one Ibn Shādī of the Hamadān region?)
Mujmal al-tawārīkh, ed. Malik al-Shu‛arā’ Bahār (Tehran, 1318/1939), p. 349, the astrologer
Dūbān had been sent to al-Ma’mūn by the king of Kabul. Kabul was at this time very
much within the Indian cultural world, and India was famed as a home of magical and
astrological lore.
156 qad.īb, text q.s..b. This and the other two items were insignia of kingship traditionally
handed down from caliph to caliph.
157 Amongst a considerable literature on the succession struggle between the two brothers,
see the exhaustive study by F. Gabrieli, ‘La successione di Hārūn al-Rašīd e la guerra fra
al-Amīn e al-Ma’mūn’, RSO XI (1926–8), pp. 341–97.
158 See on al-Ma’mūn’s personal rule in Khurasan, Roy Mottahedeh, ch. ‘The ‛Abbāsid
caliphate in Iran’, in CHIr, Vol. 4, pp. 72–4; Daniel, The Political and Social History of
Khurasan, pp. 175–82.
159 al-Ya‛qūbī, Buldān, tr. Wiet, p. 136, and H.amza al-Is.fahānī, Ta’rīkh Sinī mulūk al-ard. wa
’l-anbiyā’, p. 167, record that al-Ma’mūn in 203/818–19 briefly appointed Fad.l b. Sahl’s
kinsman Rajā’ b. Abi ’l-D . ah.h.āk to the governorship before Ghassān.
160 Ibn Khallikān, Wafayāt al-a‛yān, ed. Ih.sān ‛Abbās (Beirut, 1968–72), Vol. 4, p. 44, has for
this name the much more plausible one of ‘Ghālib [al-Mas‛ūdī al-Aswad]’. On the very
doubtful connection of this person with the heresiarch Ustādsīs, see above, n. 106.
161 On Ghassān’s governorship, see Bosworth, Sīstān under the Arabs, pp. 101–2; Daniel,
op. cit., p. 181; and on Fad.l b. Sahl, EIr art. ‘Fazl b. Sahl’ (C.E. Bosworth).

Part Two: The Tahirids and Saffarids

1 Thus correctly in H.abībī for Nazim’s Shabīb. For Nas.r’s raising of the Qays or
North Arabs of Jazīra in rebellion against al-Amīn and then al-Ma’mūn, apparently a
movement with anti-Persianising currents within it, see EI2 art. ‘Nas.r b. Shabath’ (C.E.
Bosworth).
2 On T.āhir’s appointment to Khurasan and his death soon afterwards, see D. Sourdel, ‘Les
circonstances de la mort de T.āhir Ier au H.urāsān en 207/822’, Arabica V (1958), pp. 66–9;
Daniel, op. cit., pp. 181–2; Bosworth, ch. ‘The T.āhirids and S.affārids’, in CHIr, Vol. 4,
p. 95; Mongi Kaabi, Les T.āhirides au Hurāsān et en Iraq (IIIème H./IXème J.-C.), (Tunis, 1983),
Vol. 1, pp. 139–86.
3 See above, pp. 38–9.
4 On T.alh.a’s governorship, see Bosworth, op. cit., pp. 95–6; Kaabi, op. cit., pp. 186–90.
5 On Bābak’s movement and the Khurramiyya or Khurramdīnān, see Sadighi, Les mouvements
religieux iraniens, pp. 187–280; Scarcia Amoretti, ch. ‘Sects and heresies’, pp. 503–9; G.-H.
Yusofi, EIr art. ‘Bābak Korramī’.

Notes.indd 127 7/10/2009 1:38:05 PM

 128 T HE O RNAMENT OF H ISTORIES

6 On ‛Abdallāh’s governorship in general, see Bosworth, ch. ‘The T.āhirids and S.affārids’,
pp. 97–101; Kaabi, op. cit., pp. 236–58; EIr art. ‘‛Abdallāh b. T.āher’ (Bosworth); and on
the Khārijites in Khurasan and the revolt of H.amza b. Ādharak specifically, above, Part
One, n. 141.
7 The towel was presumably poisoned.
8 Cf. on ‛Abdallāh’s circumspection, Barthold, Turkestan, p. 209.
9 The text here re-arranged in chronological order by Rid.āzāda Malik.
10 On Māzyār’s revolt, see Sadighi, Les mouvements religieux iraniens, pp. 290–303; Kaabi,
op. cit., pp. 253–5; EI2 art. ‘K.ārinids’ (M. Rekaya).
11 Following here H.abībī’s qunī wa q.n.yāt, there being presumably some difference between
the two terms not apparent to us today.
12 Unidentified, but presumably an adīb or boon-companion.
13 On his governorship, see Bosworth, ch. ‘The T.āhirids and S.affārids’, pp. 101–2; Kaabi,
op. cit., pp. 293–5.
14 Gardīzī omits in his listing al-Mu‛tazz, who reigned for three years (252–55/866–69)
between al-Musta‛īn and al-Muhtadī.
15 See on his governorship and his subsequent history, Bosworth, op. cit., pp. 102–3, 114–15;
Kaabi, op. cit., pp. 299–311.
16 On the career of Ya‛qūb in general, see Bosworth, Sīstān under the Arabs, pp. 112–21, and
Bosworth, The History of the Saffarids of Sistan and the Maliks of Nimruz (Costa Mesa and
New York, 1994), pp. 67–180; EI2 art. ‘Ya‛k.ūb b. al-Layth’ (Bosworth).
17 For a recent reinterpretation of Ya‛qūb’s role as an ‛ayyār leader, see Deborah G. Tor,
Violent Order: Religious Warfare, Chivalry, and the ‛Ayyār Phenomenon in the Medieval Islamic
World (Würzburg, 2007), pp. 85ff.
18 On Ya‛qūb and his contacts with the Ratbīls/Zunbīls, see Bosworth, The History of
the Saffarids of Sistan, pp. 76, 85ff. The correct form of the name or title of this ruler
in Zābulistān, Zamīndāwar and Rukhwad/Rukhūd/al-Rukhkhaj, whom the first Arab
raiders to Bust and beyond encountered in the later seventh century AD (see above,
n. 40), and who was probably one of the southern Hephthalites, has long been
enigmatic. On account of the ruler’s association in the sources with the local god
Zūn or Zhūn and its cult, Josef Marquart in a classic article ( J. Marquart and J.J.M.
de Groot, ‘Das Reich Zābul und der Gott Žūn vom 6–9 Jahrhundert’, in Festschrift
Eduard Sachau zum siebigsten Geburtstage von Freunden und Schülern gewidmet, ed. G. Weil
[Berlin, 1915], pp. 248–92) read the first part of the name as zun, although the second
element –bīl was never satisfactorily explained. The Arabic sources, both historical
and poetical, generally have Ratbīl, and it now seems fairly certain that this is the most
likely form, derived from the Old Turkic title used for a tribal ruler subordinate to the
Great Qaghan, élteber (concerning which see A. Bombaci, ‘On the ancient Turkic title
Eltäbär’, in Proceedings of the IXth Meeting of the Permanent International Altaistic Conference
[Naples, 1966], pp. 1–66; Sir Gerard Clauson, An Etymological Dictionary of Pre-Thirteenth
Century Turkish [Oxford, 1972], p. 134). Forms related to it are known from various
parts of northwestern India and what is now northern and eastern Afghanistan,
including the uilotobēr = hilitiber of the recently discovered documents in the Eastern
Middle Iranian language of Bactrian. See N. Sims-Williams, ‘Ancient Afghanistan and
its invaders. Linguistic evidence from the Bactrian documents and inscriptions’, in N.
Sims-Williams (ed.), Indo-Iranian Languages and Peoples (Oxford, 2002), p. 235; Bosworth,
‘The appearance and establishment of Islam in Afghanistan’, in Islamisation de l’Asie
centrale. Processus locaux d’acculturation du VIIe au XIe siècle, ed. E. de la Vaissière (Paris,
2008), pp. 97–114.
19 See Bosworth, ‘Notes on the pre-Ghaznavid history of eastern Afghanistan’, IQ IX
(1965), pp. 18, 20, 22.
20 The text has Māhjūr for the last element of this name. See on Dāwūd b. al-‛Abbās’s line,
above, Part One, n. 154.

Notes.indd 128 7/10/2009 1:38:06 PM

 N OTES 129

21 Fīrūz b. K.b.k or K.b.r is mentioned in the sources variously as the son of the Ratbīl/
Zunbīl (see above, n. 18) and as ‘the ruler of Zābulistān’. See Bosworth, The History of the
Saffarids of Sistan, pp. 99–100.
22 This place in Bādghīs was an enduring centre of the Khārijites. See Le Strange, The Lands
of the Eastern Caliphate, p. 410; EI2 art. ‘Karūkh’ (ed.).
23 Thus restored in the text of H.abībī, p. 140 n. 6. Farhādhān or Farhādgird, a place on
the road between Herat and Nishapur, in the district of Nishapur called Asfand, for the
F.r.hād of the mss. See Le Strange, op. cit., p. 388.
24 On this annexation of Nishapur and Khurasan by Ya‛qūb (short-lived, as it proved), see
Bosworth, The History of the Saffarids of Sistan, pp. 109–21; Bosworth, ch. ‘The T.āhirids
and S.affārids’, pp. 114–15. The episode is noted in an anecdote of Bayhaqī; see Bosworth,
The History of Beyhaqi (The History of Sultan Mas‛ud of Ghazna, 1030–1041) (New York,
2009), Vol. 1, pp. 352–3.
25 This place is frequently mentioned in the chronicles of the Caspian coast region; see, e.g.,
Ibn Isfandiyār, English tr. E.G. Browne, An Abridged Translation of the History of T.abaristán
Compiled about AH 613 (AD 1216) (Leiden and London, 1905), p. 182.
26 See Bosworth, The History of the Saffarids of Sistan, pp. 110, 123–7; and for the background
of the H.asanid da‛wa in Gurgān and T.abaristān, W. Madelung, ch. ‘The minor dynasties
of Northern Iran’, in CHIr, Vol. 4, pp. 206–12.
27 Nazim has, apparently erroneously, D . allālī for this name, whilst H.abībī has D
. allābī; it is
most probably the S.allābī of Rid.āzāda Malik which is correct. The nisba in fact remains
mysterious; G.C. Miles, The Numismatic History of Rayy (New York, 1938), p. 129, registers
al-S.alānī; Al-Sam‛ānī in his Kitāb al-Ansāb does not record it.
28 Thus, du barādar, whereas a plurality of brothers, ‛Abdallāh and an unspecified number,
are mentioned previously.
29 Reading, with H.abībī and Rid.āzāda Malik, manfadh rather than Nazim’s m.n.q.d (? munqadd).
An ancient canal, the Nahr al-Malik, running from Fallūja on the Euphrates, joined the
Tigris just above Dayr al-‛Āqūl; see Le Strange, The Lands of the Eastern Caliphate, p. 68.
30 For Ya‛qūb’s defeat at the hands of the caliphal army and its aftermath, see Bosworth,
ch. ‘The T.āhirids and S.affārids’, p. 113; Bosworth, The History of the Saffarids of Sistan,
pp. 158ff. Gardīzī telescopes these events after the Dayr al-‛Āqūl battle. During the two
years before his death, Ya‛qūb was in Khuzistan and involved in a three-way struggle with
‛Abbasid forces and the Zanj rebels; see ibid., pp. 162–8.
31 Following H.abībī’s text for these two names, see his n. 3.
32 I.e. because of the ending of the threat to Sistan (this phrase only in H.abībī). On Ya‛qūb’s
and ‛Amr’s prolonged struggles with this ambitious rival commander, Ah.mad Khujistānī, for
control of Khurasan, see Bosworth, The History of the Saffarids of Sistan, pp. 127–33, 194–201.
33 Otherwise gazīt in early New Persian (= Arabic jizya); see F. de Blois, ‘A Persian poem
lamenting the Arab conquest’, in Studies in Honour of Clifford Edmund Bosworth. II. The
Sultan’s Turret: Studies in Persian and Turkish Culture, ed. Carole Hillenbrand (Leiden, 2000),
p. 87 and n. 20.
34 sabal, thus suggested by Habibi, n. 4, for an uncertain reading of the mss. For this unusual
word, said to be from the name of a celebrated mare in ancient Arabian times, see Lane,
Lexicon, p. 1301c.
35 On ‛Amr’s administrative and financial system, see Barthold, Turkestan, pp. 220–1;
Bosworth, The History of the Saffarids of Sistan, pp. 358–9.
36 On his organisation of the army, see Bosworth, ‘The armies of the S.affārids’, BSOAS,
XXXI (1968), pp. 545, 549–51; idem, The History of the Saffarids of Sistan, pp. 351–4. This
description of the ‛ard., with inspection of everyone’s military preparedness, from the
Amir himself downwards, is also given in the lengthy biography of Ya‛qūb and his
brother in Ibn Khallikān’s Wafayāt al-a‛yān, at Vol. 6, pp. 421–2, English tr. McG. de
Slane, Vol. 4, p. 322, both accounts being obviously derived from the common source of
al-Sallāmī’s Ta’rīkh Wulāt Khurāsān (see above, Introduction, p. 2). Ibn Khallikān has the

Notes.indd 129 7/10/2009 1:38:06 PM

 130 T HE O RNAMENT OF H ISTORIES

further detail of a comparison of the ‛ard. under ‛Amr with that of the Sasanid emperor
Khusraw Anūshīrwān; Barthold, who in Turkestan, p. 221, also gives an account of this
Saffarid ‛ard., remarked that the resemblance between the two military procedures, though
separated by some three centuries, could hardly be coincidental.
37 On the diplomatic exchanges between ‛Amr and the caliph, leading up to ‛Amr’s ill-fated
decision to march against the Samanids, see Bosworth, The History of the Saffarids of Sistan,
pp. 223–8.
38 For ‛Amr’s attack on Ismā‛īl b. Ah.mad, his defeat and his imprisonment and consequent
death see Bosworth, ch. ‘The T.āhirids and S.affārids’, p. 121; Bosworth, The History of the
Saffarids of Sistan, pp. 229–35.

Part Three: The Samanids

1 Much of this elaborate genealogy, with over fifty generations between Sāmān Khudāh
and Kayūmarth, is unintelligible, doubtless at least in part through corrupt transmission.
Al-Bīrūnī, in his al-Āthār al-bāqiya, tr. Sachau, p. 48, merely traces Sāmān Khudāh’s great-
grandson Ismā‛īl b. Ah.mad back through four more generations to the father of the
emperor of Sasanid times, Bahrām VI Chūbīn (r. 590–1), sc. Bahrām Gushnāsp. The
late sixth-early seventh/late twelfth-early thirteenth century author Ibn Z.āfir, citing the
fifth/sixth century ‛Abbasid historian Ghars al-Ni‛ma Hilāl al-S.ābi’, takes the genealogy
five generations beyond Bahrām Chūbīn’s father to Yazdagird II (r. 399–420) (Luke
Treadwell, ‘The account of the Samanid dynasty in Ibn Z.āfir al-Azdī’s Akhbār al-duwal
al-munqat.i‛a’, Iran JBIPS XLIII [2005], pp. 136, 152). It is clear that Gardīzī was far
less informed about the pre-Islamic Persian kings than e.g. his predecessor by about a
century, H.amza al-Is.fahānī, in the first chapter of the latter’s Ta’rīkh Sinī mulūk al-ard. wa ’l-
anbiyā’. Mr de Blois has observed to me that none of the unintelligible names in Gardīzī’s
genealogy here has any obvious connection with Bactrian or Sogdian onomastic.
2 Narshakhī, Tārīkh-i Bukhārā, tr. Frye, pp. 76–7; Barthold, Turkestan, p. 209–10; Frye, ch.
‘The Sāmānids’, in CHIr, Vol. 4, p. 136; Frye, Bukhara, the Medieval Achievement, 2nd ed.
(Costa Mesa, 1996), p. 35.
3 Narshakhi, op. cit., tr. Frye, pp. 82–6; Barthold, op. cit., pp. 209–10; Frye, ch. ‘The Sāmānids’,
pp. 136–7.
4 The name of this rebel Samanid commander is rendered unintelligibly in Nazim, but
H.abībī has the correct Ūk.r.t.m.sh, Turkish ögretmish ‘he taught, instructed’. See Clauson,
An Etymological Dictionary of Pre-Thirteenth Century Turkish, p. 114; Faruk Sümer, ed. Turan
Yazgan, Türk devletleri tarihinde şahis adları (Istanbul, 1995), Vol. 2, pp. 493–4; Rásonyi and
Baski, Onomasticon turcicum, Vol. 2, p. 591.
5 I.e. the Daylamī lord Justān (III) b. Wahsūdān, involved at this time in the confused struggles
of the ‛Abbasids, the Zaydī Imāms of Gurgān and T.abaristān and the Samanids for control
of northern upland Iran and the Caspian coastlands. See Madelung, ch. ‘The minor dynasties
of northern Iran’, pp. 208–9; Bosworth, The New Islamic Dynasties, p. 145 no. 69.
6 Text, Pārs, i.e. Turkish bars ‘leopard’, also used for other large felines; see Clauson, op. cit.,
p. 368; Sümer, op. cit., Vol. 2, s.v.
7 See on Ismā‛īl’s reign, Narshakhī, Tārīkh-i Bukhārā, tr. Frye, pp. 86–94; Frye, ch. ‘The
Sāmānids’, pp. 138–41; Frye, Bukhara, the Medieval Achievement, pp. 38–49; Treadwell,
‘The account of the Samanid dynasty in Ibn Z.āfir al-Azdī’s Akhbār al-duwal al-munqat.i‛a’,
p. 153. Concerning the title Amir-i Mād.ī, with the epithet conventionally translated by
the common meaning of the word mād.ī as ‘late, one who has passed away’, Treadwell
has recently cited Van Gelder’s opinion that a better rendering in this context would be
‘incisive, penetrating, efficacious’, referring to Ismā‛īl’s numerous military successes (see
op. cit., p. 153 n. 20). Since the epithets applied posthumously to the succeeding Samanid
amirs all refer to such kingly qualities as good fortune, piety, righteousness, justice, divine
guidance, etc., this suggestion seems a sound one.

Notes.indd 130 7/10/2009 1:38:06 PM

 N OTES 131

8 I.e. Khurasan in its widest sense, all the lands east of Ray and Qūmis, including
Transoxania.
9 The investiture diploma sent by the caliph in 298/910–11 included a renewal of the grant
of governorship over Sistan and its dependencies which al-Mu‛tad.id had given Ismā‛īl
b. Ah.mad ten years previously; see Bosworth, The History of the Saffarids of Sistan, p. 263.
This grant now became the legal justification for Samanid attempts to annex Sistan to
their lands; a policy ultimately unsuccessful, however, given the distance of Sistan from
the Samanid centre of power in Transoxania, as the events recorded below show.
10 Mu‛addal and his brother Muh.ammad, sons of a brother of Ya‛qūb and ‛Amr, had
succeeded to power in the truncated Saffarid dominions in the confused years after ‛Amr
b. Layth’s capture; see Bosworth, op. cit., pp. 260–6.
11 On this superannuated former soldier of the Samanids, Muh.ammad b. Hurmuz, see
Bosworth, ‘The armies of the S.affārids’, p. 539, and Bosworth, The History of the Saffarids
of Sistan, pp. 269–71.
12 Sīmjūr Dawātī was a Turkish ghulām commander of the Samanids whose family was to
play a notable role in the warfare of the Samanids with their rivals in northern Persia, at
times acting as governors of Khurasan and acquiring estates in Quhistān. See Bosworth,
The New Islamic Dynasties, p. 175 no. 86, and EI2 art. ‘Sīmdjūrids’ (Bosworth).
13 For the episode of Samanid intervention in Sistan, followed by an abortive attempt by
al-Muqtadir to recover the province for the caliphate, see Bosworth, The History of the
Saffarids of Sistan, pp. 263–75.
14 Firabr lay just north of the right bank of the Oxus, opposite Āmul-i Shat.t., and on the
road to Bukhara. See Le Strange, The Lands of the Eastern Caliphate, p. 443.
15 This ‛Alid made firm the Zaydī imāmate which had been established in T.abaristān in
the latter half of the third/ninth century, and ruled there till his death in 304/917; the
Samanid army sent against him under Muh.ammad b. S.u‛lūk was disastrously defeated by
H.asan just before Amir Ah.mad’s murder. See EI2 art. ‘H.asan al-Ut.rūsh’ (R. Strothmann)
and Madelung, ch. ‘The minor dynasties of northern Iran’, pp. 208–10.
16 See on Ah.mad’s reign, Frye, ch. ‘The Sāmānids’, p. 141, and specifically for his murder,
Treadwell, ‘Ibn Z.āfir al-Azdī’s account of the murder of Ah.mad b. Ismā‛īl al-Sāmānī
and the succession of his son Nas.r’, in Studies in Honour of Clifford Edmund Bosworth.
II. The Sultan’s Turret. Studies in Persian and Turkish Culture, pp. 397–419. Treadwell notes
(pp. 414ff.) that this account seems to be independent of that of al-Sallāmī or a source of
his, and was probably written by a contemporary of the events in question. Some of the
sources state that the Amir was murdered by his guard because of his excessive favour to
scholars and the religious classes, and possibly because he had favoured the use of Arabic
at court over Persian; see Barthold, Turkestan, p. 240.
17 See the references in the previous note, with once again an especially detailed account in
Ibn Z.āfir apud Treadwell, pp. 405–13. Nas.r was clearly intended to be the puppet of the
elements who had conspired to kill his father.
18 There is much confusion over the members of the Jayhānī family, at least three of whom
served the Samanids as viziers in the course of the fourth/tenth century, in particular,
over the exact forms of their names (Muh.ammad and Ah.mad being especially liable to
be mixed up with each other). The one mentioned here by Gardīzī was apparently the
first Jayhānī, serving Amir Nas.r till ca. 310/922 and being then replaced by Abu ’l-Fad.l
Muh.ammad b. ‛Ubaydallāh Bal‛āmī (see above, p. 57), who was in turn replaced, at
the end of Nas.r’s thirty years’ reign, by the second Jayhānī, Abū ‛Alī Muh.ammad b.
Muh.ammad, very probably the son of the first Jayhānī. Gardīzī expatiates here on Jayhānī’s
great learning and intellectual curiosity, and this is confirmed by the geographer al-
Maqdisī’s description of Abū ‛Abdallāh as skilled in philosophy and astronomy and as
one who sought out persons from all the the world in order to get information on their
homelands, their specialities and characteristics (partial Fr. tr. André Miquel, Ah.san at-
taqāsīm fī ma‛rifat al-aqālīm (La meilleure répartition pour la connaissance des provinces) [Damascus,

Notes.indd 131 7/10/2009 1:38:06 PM

 132 T HE O RNAMENT OF H ISTORIES

1963], pp. 12–14 §§ 10–11). There seems to have been a taint of Ismā‛lism, perhaps
more of that faith’s philosophical aspect than of it as a radical, politically activist creed,
surrounding the three main members of the family involved in political life during
Samanid times (see Patricia Crone and Luke Treadwell, ‘A new text on Ismailism at the
Samanid court’, in Chase F. Robinson (ed.), Texts, Documents and Artefacts. Islamic Studies in
Honour of D.S. Richards [Leiden, 2003], pp. 54–5). Ch. Pellat suggested that the celebrated,
lost geographical work attributed to a Jayhānī, a Kitāb al-Mamālik wa ’l-masālik, was not
the work of a single person but was added to or remodelled by more than one member
of the family, a process not unknown in Arabic literature. See Frye, ch. ‘The Sāmānids’,
pp. 142–3; EI2 Suppl. art. ‘al-Djayhānī’ (Pellat).
19 This seems to be the correct reading for this place name. According to Yāqūt, Mu‛jam al-
buldān, Vol. 2, p. 365, it was three parasangs from Samarqand and famed as the site of the
great traditionist Muh.ammad b. Ismā‛īl al-Bukhārī’s tomb; see also Barthold, Turkestan,
p. 126.
20 Thus in both mss.; later sources have varying forms for this doubtful name.
21 Thus in the surmise of H.abībī, p. 151 n. 8 for the z.rāh of the mss.
22 I.e. of Yazdagird III (r. 632–51), the last Sasanid emperor.
23 H.abībī, p. 151 n. 10, identifies this with Kīrang, which he says was a well-known place in
Mongol times.
24 Text, s.b.k.r.y. Sebük-eri (this could be, in Turkish, something like ‘beloved man’, but
the etymology remains far from sure) was to play a dominant role within the Saffarid
state after the capture of ‛Amr and the succession in the capital Zarang of his weaker
grandson T.āhir b. Muh.ammad b. ‛Amr in 287/900. See Bosworth, The History of the
Saffarids of Sistan, pp. 243ff.
25 This is Qarategin al-Isfījābī (d. 317/929), who towards the end of his career in the
service of the Samanids withdrew to Bust and al-Rukhkhaj on the far southern
fringes of the Samanid amirate and established there a virtually independent line of
Turkish ghulāms who held power until the Ghaznavid founder Sebüktegin expanded
into that region in 367/977–8. His son Mans.ūr later appears as commander-in-chief
in Khurasan for the Samanids, see above, p. 60, and also his grandson Ah.mad b.
Mans.ūr, see above, p. 67.
26 H.abībī, p. 152 n. 10, points out that this place, defectively written in the mss., is mentioned
by the geographers as being a district of Marw al-Rūd (which would accord with the
mention here of a river; in this case, the river would be the Murghāb).
27 Nas.r’s youth obviously allowed these rebels and rival claimants to the throne to rear
their heads. See Narshakhī, Tārīkh-i Bukhārā, tr. Frye, pp. 95–6; Barthold, Turkestan,
p. 241; Frye, ch. ‘The Sāmānids’, p. 141; Treadwell, ‘The account of the Samanid dynasty’,
pp. 155–7.
28 I.e. the Amir’s vizier, see below, n. 37.
29 See Barthold, op. cit., p. 242, who notes that Abū Bakr al-Khabbāz must have had a
charismatic personality and have had a great influence amongst the populace of Bukhara
for there to have arisen this story of the miraculous preservation of his body from
effects of the flames.
30 Thus the suggested reading in H.abībī, cf. p. 153 n. 3, for the manuscripts’ s.n.jāb.
31 The Muh.tāj family were hereditary lords of the principality of Chaghāniyān on the
north bank of the upper Oxus river, probably of Iranian or Iranised Arab descent, and
members of them served the Samanids as commanders and governors until the mid-
fourth/tenth century, when the family lapsed out of public life and were apparently of
significance only in Chaghāniyān itself. See Bosworth, ‘The rulers of Chaghāniyān in
early Islamic times’, pp. 1–10; Bosworth, The New Islamic Dynasties, p. 177 n. 88; EI2 art.
‘Muh.tādjids’ (Bosworth).
32 As Nazim, p. 30 n. 2 notes, there seems to be a lacuna here.
33 Other sources like Mas‛ūdī, Miskawayh and Ibn al-Athīr confirm that the leading assassin

Notes.indd 132 7/10/2009 1:38:06 PM

 N OTES 133

here was Bajkam, but do not expressly attribute to him, as here, a connection with
Mardāwīj’s enemy and rival for power in northern Persia and a fellow-Daylamī, Mākān b.
Kākī. Nazim does not specify the name Bajkam amongst the assassins but interprets the
text here as ba-h.ukm-i Mākān ‘at the instigation of Mākān’; what Gardīzī originally wrote
here is thus unclear.
The name Bajkam was a name well known amongst Turkish slave troops of this
time, see Sümer, Türk devletleri tarihinde şahis adları, Vol. 2, pp. 482–3. It is, however, most
probably in origin an Iranian word with the sense of ‘tassel, fringe or tail of horsehair,
etc., tied on to a standard’, see G. Doerfer, Türkische und mongolische Elemente im Neupersischen
(Wiesbaden, 1963–75), Vol. 2, Türkische Elemente im Neupersischen, p. 425 n. 840.
34 Once Amir Nas.r had grown to maturity and had mastered the various threats to his throne,
he adopted a forward policy in northern Persia, aiming at exerting Samanid authority over
the Caspian provinces and securing control of Ray; in the later part of the century, this
would bring them into prolonged conflict with the Buyids. As a result of these ambitions,
Samanid forces clashed at this time with the Zaydī Imāms and with various Daylamī
and Jīlī soldiers of fortune, eager to carve out principalities for themselves. The most
notable of these were the commanders mentioned here, Mākān and Mardāwīj, the latter
and his son Wushmgīr being the founders of a long-lasting line of amirs in Gurgān and
T.abaristān. See Madelung, ch. ‘The minor dynasties of northern Iran’, pp. 208ff.; EI2 arts.
‘Mākān b. Kākī’; ‘Mardāwīdj’; ‘Wushmgīr b. Ziyār’ (C.E. Bosworth).
35 See on Nas.r’s reign, Narshakhī, Tārīkh-i Bukhārā, tr. Frye, pp. 95–6; Barthold, Turkestan,
pp. 240–6; Frye, ch. ‘The Sāmānids’, pp. 141ff; Frye, Bukhara, the Medieval Achievement,
pp. 51ff.; Treadwell, ‘The account of the Samanid dynasty’, pp. 155–7; EI2 art. ‘Nas.r
b. Ah.mad b. Ismā‛īl’ (C.E. Bosworth). A notable feature of Gardīzī’s account of this
Amir and his reign is the fact that, as with the other strictly historical sources, he has
no mention of what seems to have been the temporary, if only limited, success of an
Ismā‛īlī Shī‛ī da‛wa at the Samanid court, with converts to this heresy (as Sunnīs regarded
it), or at least sympathisers towards its philosophical aspects, from the Amir himself
downwards. It does appear that the episode has been edited out of the historical sources,
since the evidence for its existence comes from the basically adab and literary sources of
Ibn al-Nadīm, al-Tha‛ālibī and Niz.ām al-Mulk. This is not the place for discussing what
is a complex matter, but amongst recent writing on the topic, mention should be made
of Crone and Treadwell, ‘A new text on Ismailism at the Samanid court’, pp. 37–67, and
A.C.S. Peacock, Mediaeval Islamic Historiography and Political Legitimacy. Bal‛amī’s Tārīkhnāma
(London and New York, 2007), pp. 25–31.
36 Following the conjecture of H.abībī, p. 154, see n. 7: wa h.add wa du gurūhī andar uftād, for a
disturbed text here.
37 For Bal‛amī, see EIr art. ‘Bal‛amī, Abu’l-Fażl Moh.ammad’ (C.E. Bosworth), and for the
Jayhānī family, see above n. 18.
38 I.e. Abu ’l-Fad.l Sulamī, noted for his piety and vizier until 335/946, see below.
39 Thus in H.abībī, following Ibn al-Athīr’s T.ughān al-h.ājib for the incomprehensible T..gh.y
al-māj.t of the mss.
40 Following the text in H.abībī, ba-Marw.
41 The interpretation of H.abībī and Rid.āzāda Malik, h.īlatī karda būd, seems better than the
h.amlatī karda būd of the mss. and Nazim.
42 Yāqūt, Mu‛jam al-buldān, Vol. 1, p. 291, says that Ayghān was a village of Panj-dih, which
lay on the Murghāb.
43 The Sinj of ibid., Vol. 3, p. 265.
44 In the mss., r.kh.ta h..m.w.y, which H.abībī, p. 156 n. 3, reads as possibly R.khna, Rukhna
being the name of one of the gates of the suburb of Bukhara according to Ibn H.awqal,
Kitāb S.ūrat al-ard., ed. J.H. Kramers (Leiden, 1938–39), Vol. 2, p. 484, French tr. J.H.
Kramers and G. Wiet, Configuration de la terre (Paris, 1964), Vol. 2, p. 465.
45 Thus in Nazim, but H.abībī and Rid.āzāda Malik have Khartang. The first seems

Notes.indd 133 7/10/2009 1:38:06 PM

 134 T HE O RNAMENT OF H ISTORIES

nevertheless correct; see Barthold, Turkestan, pp. 248, 259, remarking that this place is
not to be confused with the Khartang mentioned above, see n. 19.
46 This seems the most probable rendering, since the name is attested in Turkish onomastic;
the mss. have q.t.gīn. Qut means ‘spirit, life, vitality’ and ‘fortune, success’, so that the
name could mean ‘fortunate prince’. See Rásonyi and Baski, Onomasticon turcicum, II,
pp. 505–6.
47 H.abībī, n. 13, suggests that this nisba (appearing thus in the mss.) comes from a place in
Zābulistān (presumably the present-day Uruzgan, in the province of the same name in
eastern Afghanistan).
48 This was the celebrated gorge, now the Buzgala defile, through which the road from
Tirmidh to Kish and Nakhshab in Sogdia passed. See Le Strange, The Lands of the Eastern
Caliphate, pp. 441–2; Barthold, Turkestan, p. 138.
49 Or Rāsht? See H.udūd al-‛ālam, tr. Minorsky, pp. 63, 120, comm. pp. 361–3. Zhāsht or
Rāsht lay in the Buttamān mountains which separated the upper basins of the Oxus and,
to their north, the Zarafshān, and was the haunt of the predatory Kumījīs, who were
probably the remnants of an earlier Inner Asian people like the Sakas. See Bosworth and
Clauson, ‘Al-Xwārazmī on the peoples of Central Asia’, pp. 8–9.
50 Apparently the Wayshagirt or Bishgird (< *Wēshgird), the modern Fayd.ābād, of H.udūd
al-‛ālam, tr. Minorsky, pp. 115, 120, comm. pp. 353–4.
51 Thus correctly in H.abībī and Rid.āzāda Malik. See on it H.udūd al-‛ālam, Barthold’s Preface,
pp. 38–9, tr. Minorsky, p. 114; Barthold, Turkestan, p. 74.
52 Although Gardīzī, in company with other historians, may have deliberately omitted
mention of the presence of Ismā‛īlism at the Samanid court in Amir Nas.r b. Ah.mad’s
reign (see above, n. 18), he clearly had a considerable interest in messianic and millenarian
movements, if this was indeed one; and earlier in his history he had taken note of such
movements as those of al-Muqanna‛, Ustādsīs and Bābak. See above, Introduction,
pp. 3–4.
53 Nazim, p. 36 n. 1, implausibly suggests that this is the Warduk of al-Maqdisī, Ah.san al-
taqāsīm, p. 264, listed there as a dependency of Binkath in the district of Shāsh, i.e. north
of the Syr Darya; but this region is a long way from the upper Oxus mountain region, the
locale of this episode.
54 I.e. Abū ‛Alī H.asan b. Būya, Rukn al-Dawla, the Buyid ruler in Jibāl; see on him EI2 art.
‘Rukn al-Dawla’ (H. Bowen and C.E. Bosworth). Gardīzī usually writes his name with the
Persian id.āfa, H.asan-i Būya, but occasionally with the Arabic ibn.
55 See on Nūh.’s reign, Narshakhī, Tārīkh-i Bukhārā, tr. Frye, pp. 97–8; Barthold, op. cit.,
pp. 246–9; Frye, ch. ‘The Sāmānids’, p. 151; Treadwell, ‘The account of the Samanid
dynasty’, p. 157.
56 The texts have Abu ’l-Fath., confusing the father Abu ’l-Fad.l Muh.ammad with his son
and successor Abu ’l-Fath. ‛Alī, both of whom were viziers to the Buyids and celebrated
literary stylists. See EI2 art. ‘Ibn al-‛Amīd’ (Cl. Cahen); J.L. Kraemer, Humanism in the
Renaissance of Islam. The Cultural Revival during the Buyid Age (Leiden, 1986), pp. 241–59.
57 mayzad, mīzad, thus conjectured by H.abībī, p. 160 n. 1, for an obscure text here. Rid.āzāda
Malik proposes the equally possible reading mabarrat-hā ‘acts of beneficence’.
58 The Khurasanian family of the ‛Utbīs, of Arab descent, provided two viziers for the
later Samanids and a secretary, the famed historian, author of the Ta’rīkh al-yamīnī, Abū
Nas.r Muh.ammad b. ‛Abd al-Jabbār al-‛Utbī, for Mah.mūd of Ghazna. See EI2 art. ‘al-
‛Utbī’ (C.E. Bosworth).
59 Abū Mans.ur was a dihqān of T.ūs and from a family that traced itself back to late
Sasanid times. As well as his military role in Samanid affairs, he also has fame in Persian
literature as the patron of a now lost New Persian prose version, made from the Pahlavi
original, of the national epic, the Shāh-nāma. See V. Minorsky, ‘The older preface to the
Shāh-Nāma’, in Studi orientalistici in onore di Giorgio Levi Della Vida (Rome, 1956), Vol. 2,
pp. 162–3; EIr art. ‘Abū Mans.ūr … b. ‛Abd al-Razzāq’ (Dj. Khaleghi-Motlagh).

Notes.indd 134 7/10/2009 1:38:07 PM

 N OTES 135

60 Reading here, with H.abībī and Rid.āzāda Malik, liyāqat.

61 I.e. the son of the Abu ’l-Fad.l Muh.ammad Bal‛amī who had served Ismā‛īl b. Ah.mad
and his grandson Nas.r as vizier (see above, p. 57). Abū ‛Alī was to achieve lasting literary
fame as the author of the Persian translation and remodelling of T.abarī’s History, the
Tārīkh-i Bal‛amī. See EIr art. ‘Amīrak Bal‛amī’ (Dj. Khaleghi-Motlagh); Peacock, Mediaeval
Islamic Historiography and Political Legitimacy, pp. 31–5. The sources imply that Abū ‛Alī was
inferior to his father in political wisdom and a better littérateur than statesman.
62 Reading here, with H.abībī and Rid.āzāda Malik, kamtar.
63 See on ‛Abd al-Malik’s reign, Narshakhī, Tārīkh-i Bukhārā, tr. Frye, p. 98; Treadwell,
‘The account of the Samanid dynasty’, pp. 157–8 (mentioning that, during his lifetime,
this Amir was known as al-muwaffaq ‘The Divinely-Assisted One’); Barthold, Turkestan,
pp. 249–50.
64 This sentence not in H.abībī’s text. The son whose succession Alptegin favoured was,
according to the geographer al-Maqdisī, Nas.r, who only held the throne, however, for
one day; see Barthold, op. cit., p. 250.
65 The words of a lacuna here have been supplied by Nazim and H.abībī.
66 H.abībī, n. 3, opines that this otherwise unknown place, obviously lying to the northeast
of Nishapur in the direction of Sarakhs, Merv and the Oxus, may be the S.āha mentioned
by al-Maqdisī, Ah.san al-taqāsīm, p. 351.
67 In Narshakhī, op. cit., p. 99, the general deputed to attack Alptegin is named as Ash‛ath
b. Muh.ammad; in Niz.ām al-Mulk’s recounting of this episode in his Siyāsat-nāma,
ch. XXVII, no name is given.
68 Alptegin’s withdrawal to Ghazna after the failure of the putsch mounted by him and Abū
‛Alī Bal‛amī (who apparently made his peace with the new regime, since he continued in
office as vizier during the early part at least of Amir Mans.ūr’s reign) marks the beginning
of a line of former Samanid Turkish ghulām commanders in Ghazna, culminating
in Sebüktegin’s assumption of power in 366/977 and the eventual foundation of the
Ghaznavid sultanate. See on these ghulām commanders in Ghazna, Bosworth, ‘Notes on
the pre-Ghaznavid history of eastern Afghanistan’, pp. 16–18.
69 This phrase in Nazim’s text but omitted (by inadvertence?) from H.abībī’s one.
70 al-Maqdisī, Ah.san al-taqāsīm, p. 352, lists N.m.kh.k.n as a stage between Nishapur and
Herat.
71 This is the reading of the texts, and would ostensibly refer to the town of Gurgānj in
Khwarazm, the region at that time ruled by the Shāhs of the Banū ‛Irāq line and in theory
tributaries of the Samanids (see M. Fedorov, ‘The Khwarazmshahs of the Banū ‛Irāq
(fourth/tenth century)’, Iran JBIPS XXXVIII [2000], pp. 71–5); but no other source refers
to a raid into Khwarazm at this time.
72 There is some uncertainty over the date of Bal‛amī’s death, since ‛Utbī states that he
served briefly as vizier to Nūh. (II) b. Mans.ūr (I) in 382/992 when the latter reoccupied
Bukhara on the death of the Qarakhanid Hārūn or H.asan Bughrā Khān (see above,
p. 72). See Peacock, Mediaeval Islamic Historiography and Political Legitimacy, pp. 32–3.
73 This lay in the western part of Ghūr, to the east-south-east of Herat, and still in fact
exists today as a small town; see Bosworth, The History of the Saffarids of Sistan, p. 409
n. 1252.
74 For the expedition into Ghūr of Abū Ja‛far (who came from a prominent family of Bayhaq
and had been made governor of that town by Abu ’l-H.asan Sīmjūrī, see Bosworth, ‘The
early Islamic history of Ghūr’, CAJ VI (1961), p. 122.
75 Khalaf b. Ah.mad, of the so-called ‘second line’ of Saffarid Amirs of Sistan, had for long
been at odds, first with Abu ’l-H.usayn T.āhir (apparently connected maternally with the
Saffarid dynasty) and then with the latter’s son H.usayn, over control of Sistan. Sources
like al-‛Utbī state that the Samanids intervened on the side of H.usayn because Khalaf
had cut off the customary tribute and presents to Bukhara. See Bosworth, The History of
the Saffarids of Sistan, pp. 302ff.

Notes.indd 135 7/10/2009 1:38:07 PM

 136 T HE O RNAMENT OF H ISTORIES

76 recte, in 363/974.
77 The texts have Abu ’l-Fad.l, i.e. the reverse of the confusion of names noted in n. 56
above; the father Abu ’l-Fad.l had in fact died in 360/970.
78 I.e. only five months after Bal‛amī’s death, if this did indeed take place in Jumādā II 363.
79 See on Mans.ūr’s reign, Narshakhī, Tārīkh-i Bukhārā, tr. Frye, pp. 98–9; Barthold, Turkestan,
pp. 250–2; Frye, ch. ‘The Sāmānids’, pp. 152–6; Treadwell, ‘The account of the Samanid
dynasty’, p. 158. Niz.ām al-Mulk mentions a recrudescence of Ismā‛īlism as occurring
during Mans.ūr’s amirate, but Crone and Treadwell suggest that, rather than being an
organised da‛wa on the scale of that in Nas.r b. Ah.mad’s time (see above, n. 35), this was
more probably sporadic provincial disturbances by Ismā‛īlīs, Khurramīs or other sectaries
and not a major outbreak in the Samanid heartland of Sogdia. See their ‘A new text on
Ismailism at the Samanid court’, pp. 48–52.
80 The Farīghūnids, apparently of Iranian stock, were local rulers of the region of Gūzgān
in northern Afghanistan and tributaries of the Samanids; when Mah.mūd of Ghazna
succeeded to the Samanid heritage in Khurasan, Gūzgān was speedily absorbed into his
domains. See Minorsky, H.udūd al-‛ālam, comm., pp. 173–8; EIr art. ‘Āl-e Farīgˉ ūn’ (C.E.
Bosworth).
81 The Samanids were normally abstemious in their personal use of titles and the granting of
them, but from the middle years of the century, the Amirs were often in effect compelled
to award grandiloquent laqabs to powerful governors and commanders. See Bosworth,
‘The titulature of the early Ghaznavids’, Oriens XV (1962), pp. 214–15.
82 Abu ’l-H.asan Sīmjūrī represented, of course, the powerful military commanders’ growing
ascendancy in the state that Abu ’l-H.usayn, like others of his predecessors in the vizierate,
could be expected to try and curb.
83 H.abībī, p. 165 n. 7 is unable to make sense of this word; the first syllable looks however
like the negative particle na-. The sense must in fact be something like ‘inadvisable’.
84 This is something like a colloquial English equivalent to the text’s idiomatic phrase wallāhi
ki man sitāra ba-rūz bad-īshān namāyam, lit. ‘By God, I’ll make them see the stars by daylight’,
i.e. turn their bright day into deep night; cf. Rid.āzāda Malik’s ta‛līqa at pp. 592–3.
85 Member of the influential Nishapur family of Mīkālīs, which seems to have been of
Sogdian origin; various of them served the Samanids, then the early Ghaznavids in
administrative and secretarial posts, and one of them at least served the Seljuq T.oghrïl
Beg. See EI2 art. ‘Mīkālīs’ (C.E. Bosworth); EIr art. ‘Āl-e Mīkāl’ (R.W. Bulliet).
86 From 371/981 to 387/997, Qābūs’s family patrimony of Gurgān and T.abaristān was
occupied by the Buyids ‛Ad.ud al-Dawla, his son Mu’ayyid al-Dawla and then ‛Ad.ud al-
Dawla’s brother Fakhr al-Dawla, with Qābūs as an exile in the Samanid lands. See EI2
arts. ‘K.ābūs b. Wushmagīr b. Ziyār’ and ‘Ziyārids’ (C.E. Bosworth).
87 I.e. to don civilian dress, the garment of secretaries and officials, instead of the garb and
panoply of war.
88 In the final phase of his struggle with H.usayn b. T.āhir, Khalaf b. Ah.mad sought help
from Sebüktegin, who had been in control of Bust since ca. 367–8/977–9, and received
from him a force of the troops formerly in the service of Sebüktegin’s predecessor
there, Bāytūz. It was presumably these who were now employed against Abū ‛Alī. See
Bosworth, The History of the Saffarids of Sistan, pp. 311–12.
89 The vizier’s kinsman, the historian Abū Nas.r al-‛Utbī, with justice considered Abu ’l-
H.usayn to be the last vizier of the Samanids worthy of the name. See Barthold, Turkestan,
pp. 252–3; EI2 art. ‘al-‛Utbī. 2.’ (C.E. Bosworth).
90 This seems the most probable interpretation of the text’s ’.n.j; ïnanch Turkish ‘belief,
trust’, is wellattested in onomastic from Orkhon Turkish times onwards. See Rásonyi and
Baski, Onomasticon turcicum, vol. 1, pp. 318–19; Sümer, Türk devletleri tarihinde şahis adları,
vol. 1, pp. 39, 59.
91 I.e. the son of Sulaymān b. Satuq Bughra Khān. See O. Pritsak, ‘Die Karachaniden’, Isl.
XXXI (1953–4), p. 26.

Notes.indd 136 7/10/2009 1:38:07 PM

 N OTES 137

92 See above, n. 19.

93 For these complex operations in Khurasan and Transoxania, now signalling the end of
Samanid independent power, see Barthold, op. cit., pp. 252–4.
94 This royal estate just outside Bukhara, with palaces and beautiful gardens, and dating
back to the pre-Islamic princes of Sogdia, was a favoured residence of the Samanids. See
the description of Narshakhī, Tārīkh-i Bukhārā, tr. Frye, pp. 26–9.
95 The Ilig’s nomination of ‛Abd al-‛Azīz to the Samanid throne, such as it was by now, was
based on the fact that the latter’s father Amir Nūh. (I) b. Nas.r (II) had nominated ‛Abd
al-‛Azīz as fourth in line of succession, as explained by Gardīzī, above, ed. Nazim, p. 39,
ed. H.abībī, p. 159, but this son’s rights had been usurped by Mans.ūr (I) b. Nūh. (I) when
he nominated his own son Nūh. (II) as his successor. When Amir Nūh. reoccupied his
capital after the Ilig’s departure, he took vengeance on his uncle and had him blinded. See
Barthold, Turkestan, p. 260; Treadwell, ‘The account of the Samanid dynasty’, p. 160 and
n. 78.
96 This place probably lay somewhere in the region of Aulié-Ata, medieval T.arāz, modern
Dzambul (hence near the northwestern border of modern Kyrgyz Republic with that of
the Kazakh Republic), in the surmise of Barthold. See his Zur Geschichte des Christentums in
Mittel-Asien bis zur mongolischen Eroberung (Tübingen and Leipzig, 1901), p. 35.
97 On this first Qarakhanid invasion of the Samanid lands, see Barthold, Turkestan,
pp. 257–60; Pritsak, ‘Die Karachaniden’, p. 26. Bayhaqī has some information on it; see
Bosworth, The History of Beyhaqi, Vol. 1, pp. 294–5.
98 See EI2 art. ‘Sebüktigin’ (C.E. Bosworth).
99 Thus in H.abībī’s text, yaqīn dārand; in Nazim’s one, t.‛.y.n dārand.
100 Dārā presumably shared in his father’s exile from the ancestral Buyid lands whilst the
Buyids were in occupation of them (see above, n. 86), and obviously became a soldier of
fortune in the struggles for control of Khurasan in these last days of Samanid rule there.
His later career is somewhat obscure. From the information of sources like al-‛Utbī, Ibn
Isfandiyār and Ibn al-Athīr, he was the rival of his brother Manūchihr for power in the
Caspian lands, being sheltered by Sultan Mah.mūd at his court as a check on the loyalty
of Manūchihr. Ibn al-Athīr mentions him in connection with Abū Kālījār, the ruler in
Gurgān and T.abaristān during Mas‛ūd’s reign, but it is strange that neither Gardīzī nor
Bayhaqī mention him at this time. See Bosworth, ‘On the chronology of the Ziyārids in
Gurgān and T.abaristān’, Isl. XL (1964), pp. 32–4.
101 Following the definitions given by H.G. Farmer, in his EI2art. ‘T.abl’.
102 See Barthold, Turkestan, pp. 261–2.
103 The celebrated vizier of the Buyids Mu’ayyid al-Dawla and Fakhr al-Dawla, called Kāfī
al-Kufāt ‘The Supremely-Capable One’, also famed as a littérateur and Maecenas. See
EI2art. ‘Ibn ‛Abbād’ (Cl. Cahen and Ch. Pellat); Kraemer, Humanism in the Renaissance of
Islam. The Cultural Revival during the Buyid Age, pp. 259–72.
104 Thus plausibly surmised by both Nazim and H.abībī; the mss. have turkān-i s..l.h.., though it
would be possible to read this phrase as turkān-i s.ulh. ‘Turks in a treaty relationship’, such
Turks being mentioned on the northern fringes of Transoxania by the H.udūd al-‛ālam, tr.
pp. 118–19, as turkān-i āshtī. The Khalaj Turks are known to have nomadised at this time
in what is now eastern Afghanistan, possibly brought there some centuries previously
as part of the following of the Sakas or Hephthalites, and were utilised as auxiliary
troops by Sebüktegin and later by his son Mah.mud. See Bosworth, The Ghaznavids, Their
Empire in Afghanistan and Eastern Iran 994:1040 (Edinburgh, 1963), pp. 35–6, 109; EI2art.
‘Khaladj. i. History’ (Bosworth).
105 This Shāh was Abū ‛Abdallāh b. Ah.mad (r. not earlier than 366–7/977 to 385/995), last
of the Banū ‛Irāq or ‛Arāq line of Kāth. As Gardīzī goes on to relate, Abū ‛Abdallāh was
at this point overthrown and killed by the Ma’mūnid line of Gurgānj who were later to
fall victims to the aggression and violence of Mah.mud of Ghazna, see above, p. 85–6.
See Fedorov, ‘The Khwarazmshahs of the Banū ‛Irāq (fourth/tenth century)’, pp. 71–5.

Notes.indd 137 7/10/2009 1:38:07 PM

 138 T HE O RNAMENT OF H ISTORIES

106 For these events leading to the capture and eventual death of Abū ‛Alī Sīmjūrī, see
Barthold, Turkestan, pp. 261–3.
107 This victory of Ma’mūn b. Muh.ammad of Gurgānj inaugurated a new, but short-lived,
line of Khwārazm Shāhs. See Bosworth, The New Islamic Dynasties, pp. 178–9 no. 89, and
above, p. 74.
108 For this name, see Rásonyi and Baski, vol. 1, p. 139, vol. 2, p. 813; Sümer, Türk devletleri
tarihinde şahis adları, vol. 1, p. 125, vol. 2, p. 544. Tüzün can mean ‘smooth, self-controlled,
well-behaved’, see Clauson, Etymological Dictionary, p. 576, but the second element of the
name may also, but less probably, reflect the Orkhon Turkish official function of the
todhun, see ibid., p. 457.
109 The three texts have 13 Rajab for this date, but al-‛Utbī, Vol. 1, p. 255, has 14 Rajab,
giving the correct correspondence.
110 See on Nūh.’s reign, Narshakhī, Tārīkh-i Bukhārā, tr. Frye, p. 99; Barthold, Turkestan,
pp. 252–64; Frye, ch. ‘The Sāmānids’, pp. 154, 156–8; Treadwell, ‘The account of the
Samanid dynasty’, pp. 158–60.
111 Text here incomprehensible, with a defectively written word in the text.
112 See below, n. 118.
113 On Mah.mūd’s struggle with Ismā‛I l for the succession, see Muh.ammad Nāz.im, The Life
and Times of Sult.ān Mah.mūd of Ghazna pp. 38–41.
114 According to Nazim, text, p. 59 n. 2, there is a lacuna in the text here.
115 Thus making the reading ‘al-Jayhānī’ of Barthold, Turkestan, p. 265, and Nāz.im, text,
p. 59, unnecessary.
116 See for it, Yāqūt, Mu‛jam al-buldān, Vol. 2, p. 391.
117 See on Mans.ūr’s reign, Barthold, op. cit., pp. 264–6; Frye, ch. ‘The Samanids’, pp. 158–9;
Treadwell, ‘The account of the Samanid dynasty’, pp. 160–1; and for Bayhaqī’s account
of these events, Bosworth, The History of Beyhaqi, Vol. 2, pp. 339–42.
118 Correctly, Arslān Ilig Abu ’l-H.asan Nas.r b. ‛Alī of Uzgend or Özkend (Arslān Ilig being
the designation of the subordinate Khān in the Qarakhanid hierarchy of rule, in this case,
subordinate to his brother the Great Khān Abū Nas.r Ah.mad). He was the nephew of
the first Qarakhanid to invade Transoxania, Hārūn or H.asan Bughrā Khān. See Pritsak,
‘Die Karachaniden’, p. 27; Doerfer, Türkische und Mongolische Elemente im Neupersischen. II.
Türkische Elemente im Neupersischen, pp. 210–13 no. 661.
119 Uzgend in Farghāna, now a mere village in the Andijān district of the Kyrgyz Republic, was
at this time the main town of the region and the Ilig’s capital, later becoming that of the
eastern branch of the Qarakhanid confederation. See EĪ2 art. ‘Özkend’ (C.E. Bosworth);
Valentina D. Goriatcheva, ‘A propos de deux capitales du kaganat karakhanide’, in Cahiers
d’Asie centrale No. 9, Études karakhanides (Tashkent/Aix-en-Provence, 2001), pp. 104–14.
120 See on ‛Abd al-Malik’s brief reign, Barthold, Turkestan, pp. 266–8; Nāz.im, Sult.ān
Mah.mūd of Ghazna, pp. 43–5; Frye, ch. ‘The Samanids’, p. 159; Treadwell, ‘The account
of the Samanid dynasty’, p. 161.

Part Four: The Early Ghaznavids

1 Thus in Rid.āzāda Malik, kaldāniyān, for the kalāniyān of the mss., followed by Nazim and
H.abībī but of no obvious meaning.
2 See Barthold, op. cit., p. 271; Bosworth, ‘The titulature of the early Ghaznavids’,
pp. 217–18; Bosworth, ‘The imperial policy of the early Ghaznawids’, Islamic Studies,
Journal of the Central Institute of Islamic Research, Karachi, I/3 (1962), pp. 62–3.
3 See Nāz.im, op. cit., p. 67; Bosworth, The History of the Saffarids of Sistan, p. 322.
4 It is unclear to what this laconic reference refers.
5 al-‛Utbī details the rich presents of the specialities of the Inner Asian steppes and East
Asia given to Mah.mūd on this occasion by the Qarakhanid, including khutuww. (In this
context, probably narwhal or walrus ivory or possibly even fossilised mammoth tusks

Notes.indd 138 7/10/2009 1:38:07 PM

 N OTES 139

from Siberia, but the term is also used for rhinocerus horn; see, on the ambiguity of
the term, Minorsky, Sharaf al-Zamān T.āhir on China, the Turks and India [London, 1942],
pp. 82–3, and on this whole episode, Barthold, op. cit., p. 272.)
6 This last of the Samanids was a son of Nūh. (II) b. Mans.ūr (I), hence brother of the two
preceeding ephemeral Amirs. See Bosworth, The New Islamic Dynasties, pp. 170–1 no. 83.
7 As H.abībī, p. 175 n. 4 says, the specific significance of this designation is mysterious, and
the parallel sources (al-‛Utbī, Ibn al-Athīr) throw no light on it; but it presumably points
to the presence already of Indian troops, and here an Indian commander, in Mah.mūd’s
army, already known from their mention at Zarang in 393/1003, according to the Tārīkh-i
Sīstān. See Bosworth, The Ghaznavids, p. 110.
8 Clearly a copyist’s error; a reading here like Kūchān would make sense geographically.
9 On this Turkish name, tüz tash, lit. ‘straight, level stone’, see Sümer, Türk devletleri tarihinde
şahis adları, Vol. 2, p. 551.
10 Ibn Z.āfir’s source seems to be the only other one mentioning this aid to Muntas.ir by
the Yabghu of the Oghuz, and Ibn Z.āfir specifically identifies him with Arslān Isrā’īl b.
Seljuq, as Barthold also was inclined to do. See Treadwell, ‘The account of the Samanid
dynasty’, p. 161; Barthold, Turkestan, p. 269. However, Pritsak suggested that this person
was the original Yabghu of Jand on the lower Syr Darya, whose tenure of this ancient
Turkish title, one going back to the succession of the Uyghur to the Orkhon Turkish
state in 744, was continued into the time of Sultan Mas‛ūd of Ghazna, when the then
Yabghu, Shāh Malik of Jand (son of the Yabghu who gave aid to Muntas.ir?) conquered
Khwarazm as an ally of Mas‛ūd; this seems more probable. Arslān Isrā’īl’s assumption
of the title of Yabghu was done in rivalry with the original Yabghu, there being strong
hostility between the two branches of the Oghuz. See Cl. Cahen, ‘Le Malik-nâmeh et
l’histoire des origines seljukides’, Oriens II (1949), pp. 46, 53–5; Bosworth, The Ghaznavids,
pp. 221–2; Golden, An Introduction to the History of the Turkic Peoples, pp. 206. 218; and on
earlier appearances of the title in Islamic sources, above, Part One, n. 131.
11 Following the reading of H.abībī, cf. n. 2, bar ān kuh, presumably referring to the previously
mentioned Kūhak.
12 This is how Barthold, Turkestan, p. 269, interpreted the manuscripts’ wa Ghuzzān wa asīrān
burdand.
13 In both Nazim and H.abībī given as w.rghān, but this is the well-known town of Darghān
on the left bank of the Oxus at the point where one first entered Khwarazmian territory,
as noted by the Arab geographers. See Barthold, op. cit., pp. 142–3, 270; Le Strange, The
Lands of the Eastern Caliphate, pp. 451–2.
14 Cf. Rásonyi and Baski, Onomasticon turcicum, Vol. 2, p. 532: marïs, marïš.
15 According to the H.udūd al-‛ālam, tr. Minorsky, p. 105, and other geographers detailed
in Le Strange, op. cit., p. 400, Kushmayhan or Kushmīhan was a large village of the
northeastern part of the Merv oasis, on the road across the Qara Qum desert to the
Oxus and across it to Bukhara.
16 This phrase concerning the accession of strength to Abū Ibrāhīm’s forces is supplied by
Nazim in his text from parallel sources, cf. Barthold, Turkestan, p. 270.
17 H.abībī, n. 10, states from al-‛Utbī’s Yamīnī that Ibn (sic) Surkhāk was a member of the
Samanid family.
18 Muntas.ir’s Samanid kinsman Ibn Surhak had lured Muntas.ir into returning to
Transoxania, whilst at the same time conniving with the Ilig against him. See Barthold,
loc. cit.
19 See on Muntas.ir and his brave but futile attempt to restore the fortunes of his house,
Barthold, Turkestan, pp. 269–70; Nāz.im, Sult.ān Mah.mūd of Ghazna, pp. 45–6; Frye,
ch. ‘The Sāmānids’, pp. 159–60; Treadwell, ‘The account of the Samanid dynasty’,
pp. 161–2. Gardīzī telescopes events here considerably, with al-‛Utbī giving more detail of
Muntas.ir’s actions (he in fact made no fewer than four forays into Transoxania seeking to
regain power there before he was finally killed).

Notes.indd 139 7/10/2009 1:38:08 PM

 140 T HE O RNAMENT OF H ISTORIES

20 I.e. of the Hindūshāhī dynasty, whose powerful kingdom in northwestern India was based
on Wayhind, modern Und near Attock. See EI2art. ‘Hindū-Shāhīs’ (C.E. Bosworth).
21 See Nāz.im, op. cit., pp. 86–7; H.C. Ray, The Dynastic History of Northern India (Early Mediaeval
Period) (Calcutta, 1931–6), Vol. 1, pp. 85–7.
22 Following the interpretation of the text in H.abībī, p. 177 n. 8, mīrak to be read as marg?
23 A stage on the road between Zarang and Bust, with a caravanserai, according to Ibn
H.awqal, Kitāb S.ūrat al-ard., Vol. 2, p. 422, tr. Kramers and Wiet, Configuration de la terre,
Vol. 2, pp. 409–10. On this ending of Saffarid power in Sistan, see Bosworth, The History
of the Saffarids of Sistan, pp. 325–7.
24 On its identification and location of the text’s Bhāt.iya with Bhatinda, now in the southern
part of the Indian Union’s Panjab province, see Nāz.im, op. cit., pp. 200–1, pace S.H.
Hodivala, Studies in Indo-Muslim History, Vol. 1, pp. 138–9, identifying it with Bhera on the
Jhelum river. The date of this expedition, unspecified by either al-‛Utbī or Gardīzī, was
probably the winter of 395/1004–5, see Nāz.im, Sult.ān Mah.mūd of Ghazna, pp. 202–3.
25 The consonant ductus for the title is confused and seems to be trying to represent both
Rāō and Rājah.
26 The correction of H.abībī and Rid.āzāda to āb-i Sind ‘river of Sind’, i.e. the Indus, seems
unlikely, given the distance of Bhatinda from that river; Nāz.im, op. cit., p. 100 n. 8, suggests
that this Sāsind was the old name of a branch of the River Hakra.
27 Thus in the mss. and Nazim; in H.abībī, Arg, both being possible, although h.is.ār-i arg
sounds tautologous. Ūk would be a variant spelling for the place to the north of Zarang,
Ūq, frequently mentioned in the historical and geographical sources for Sistan; see
Bosworth, The History of the Saffarids, pp. 77–8 and n. 217.
28 See Nāz.im, op. cit., pp. 96–7; Bosworth, The Ghaznavids, pp. 52–3. Only five years later,
Mah.mūd was to lead a further expedition against Multan, ostensibly because it was a nest
of Carmathians but in reality because of the lure of the city’s great riches; see above,
p. 83.
29 In 390/999, at a time when the Samanids had not yet been totally defeated, Mah.mūd
and the Ilig Nas.r had made an agreement to divide up the Samanid lands, with the Ilig
having Transoxania and Mah.mūd the lands south of the Oxus (Barthold, Turkestan,
pp. 266–7, 271–2; Nāz.im, op. cit., pp. 47–8). As is evident, this agreement did not last
long.
30 The text is dubious here: Nazim has s.m.r.w, and H.abībī has b.m.r.w : ?ba-marr-i u.
Rid.āzāda’s interpretation ba-marw seems improbable.
31 Barthold, op. cit., p. 273 n. 2, observed that the text here is badly mutilated. He translated
here ‘[Mah.mūd’s soldiers] sang a Turkish song to a Khotanese melody’. Nazim’s text is
unintelligible, and the translation here follows H.abībī, p. 179, cf. n. 1: dabdaba-yi tākhtan va
āyīna ba-zadand.
32 Thus according to the reading in H.abībī, p. 179, cf. n. 2, but there is obviously a lacuna
and/or corruption in the text here. A difficulty about H.abībī’s reading is that the
commander Ghāzī turns up alive and well in Sultan Mas‛ūd’s reign some two decades
later as one of the Mah.mūdiyān, men of the former regime whose destruction the new
Sultan then engineered, as related by Bayhaqī.
33 H.abībī reads here chashm rasad where the mss., followed by Nazim, have h.asham rasad.
The whole sentence is difficult, and the translation here follows Barthold’s interpretation
of this passage; he apparently read jān-rā ba-zadand for the khān-rā ba-zadand of Nazim,
H.abībī and Rid.āzāda Malik, which last does not easily make sense.
34 The vocalisation of this name as two syllables is indicated in Farrukhī’s mention of
this victory over the Qarakhanids in Dīwān, ed. Muh.ammad Dabīr-Siyāqī (Tehran,
1335/1956), p. 71 n. 35, cf. H.abībī, p. 179 n. 5. The site of Katar must have lain in
T.ukhāristān between Balkh and the Oxus river.
35 For this campaign, see Barthold, Turkestan, pp. 272–4; Nāz.im, Sult.ān Mah.mūd of Ghazna,
pp. 48–51.

Notes.indd 140 7/10/2009 1:38:08 PM

 N OTES 141

36 Nāz.im, op. cit., p. 98, takes this to be a copyist’s mistake for Kh.w.ra, Khewra, the common
name for the Salt Range in northwestern Panjab.
37 Thus read by H.abībī for an unintelligible name in the mss.
38 See Nāz.im, op. cit., pp. 98–9; H.C. Ray, The Dynastic History of Northern India, (Calcutta,
1931–6), Vol. 1, pp. 89–91.
39 Ibid., p. 99.
40 Ibid., pp. 103–4,
41 Ibid., pp. 60–2.
42 Ibid., pp. 192–3; Bosworth, ‘The imperial policy of the early Ghaznawids’, p. 68.
43 Nāz.im, Sult.ān Mah.mūd of Ghazna, p. 164; Bosworth, op. cit., p. 60; Heinz Halm, ‘Fatimiden
und Ghaznawiden’, in Studies in Honour of Clifford Edmund Bosworth. Vol. I. Hunter of the
East, ed. I.R. Netton (Leiden, 2000), pp. 213–15.
44 Nandana or Nārdīn (thus in ‛Utbī) lay on a northern spur of the Salt Range, in what is
now the Jhelum District of Pakistani Panjab, commanding the route from the region of
Attock into the Ganges Do’āb. See Nāz.im, op. cit., p. 91 and n. 4.
45 Nāz.im, op. cit., pp. 91–3; Ray, The Dynastic History of Northern India, Vol. 1, pp. 94–101,
136.
46 Nāz.im, op. cit., pp. 104–5; Ray, op. cit., Vol. 1, pp. 136–7.
47 The mss. have Ja‛farband, but the geographers situate the town of Jakarband or Jaqarband
between T.āhiriyya and Darghān; see Le Strange, The Lands of the Eastern Caliphate,
p. 451.
48 See for his later career, EIr art. ‘Altuntaš’ (C.E. Bosworth).
49 See for Bayhaqī’s detailed account of the the Ghaznavid invasion and annexation of
Khwarazm (actually derived from al-Bīrūnī), Bosworth, The History of Beyhaqi, Vol. 2,
pp. 369–400; also E. Sachau, ‘Zur Geschichte und Chronologie von Khwârazm’, SBWAW
LXXIV (1873), pp. 292–311; Barthold, Turkestan, pp. 275–9; Nāz.im, Sult.ān Mah.mūd of
Ghazna, pp. 56–60. Gardīzī does not mention that it was Mah.mūd’s brutal ultimatum
to the Khwarazmians, demanding that they recognise him as first in their khut.ba, which
precipitated the events giving him a convenient pretext for invading Khwarazm.
50 The modern Bulandshahr, in Uttar Pradesh.
51 See Nāz.im, op. cit., pp. 110–11; Ray, The Dynastic History of Northern India, Vol. 1,
pp. 598–600; Hodivala, Studies in Indo-Muslim History, Vol. 1, pp. 146–8.
52 Ray, however, in op. cit., Vol. 1, p. 606, see also Vol. 2, pp. 690–3, proposed to read n.n.da
as a corrupt form of Bīdā = the first part of the name Vidyādhara, son and successor of
Ganda/Gan.d.a.
53 The numerals here are confused in the texts, but the figure given here is Rid.āzāda Malik’s
interpretation.
54 Nāz.im, Sult.ān Mah.mūd of Ghazna, pp. 111–13; Ray, op. cit., Vol. 1, pp. 602ff.
55 Nāz.im, op. cit. pp. 74–5. These river valleys ran down to the Kabul river, in the regions
of Lamghān/Laghmān and Kunar lying to the north of modern Jalālābād. If Islam was
indeed permanently implanted in these valleys, it must only have been in their lower
reaches, since the highly mountainous, hardly penetrable interior parts of Kāfiristān
continued to follow their blend of animism and polytheism till the campaign into
Kāfiristān (modern Nūristān) of the Amir of Afghanistan ‛Abd al-Rah.mān Khān at the
end of the nineteenth century. See EI2art. ‘Kāfiristān’ (C.E. Bosworth).
56 I.e. the sub-Himalayan region of the Panjab west of the Chenab. See Nāz.im, op. cit.,
p. 105 n. 7, and al-Bīrūnī, Tah.qīq mā li ’l-Hind, English tr. E. Sachau, Alberuni’s India
(London, 1910), Vol. 1, p. 208.
57 Nāz.im, op. cit., p. 105; Ray, op. cit., Vol. 1, pp. 137–8.
58 Nāz.im, op. cit., pp. 113–14; Ray, op. cit., Vol. 2, p. 689 n. 3. See also EI2art. ‘Gwāliyār’ (K.A.
Nizami).
59 See on the Ghaznavid ‛ard. or review of troops, Bosworth, The Ghaznavids, pp. 122–4;
EI2art. ‘Isti‛rād., ‛Ard.’ (Bosworth).

Notes.indd 141 7/10/2009 1:38:08 PM

 142 T HE O RNAMENT OF H ISTORIES

60 The ductus of this word is unclear. H.abībī, p. 186 n. 3, following a suggestion of Mīrzā
Muh.ammad Qazwīnī, suggests reading jast, and this is followed here in the translation.
61 arash, i.e. the breadth between two outstretched arms. The reading here ‘two or three . . .’
follows Nazim’s text.
62 This seems to be how the bridge of boats over the Oxus was constructed, but Barthold
confessed, Turkestan, p. 282 n. 7, that the technical details here given were not entirely
clear to him.
63 Possibly the Muh.tājid prince Abu ’l-Muz.affar Muh.ammad b. Ah.mad, an early patron of
the Ghaznavid poet Farrukhī. See Bosworth, ‘The rulers of Chaghāniyān in early Islamic
times’, p. 12.
64 The ductus here without any dots.
65 Barthold, op. cit., pp. 282–3.
66 Reading here, with H.abībī, p. 188 n. 8, t.abarīhā.
67 Following the texts’ mus.affarī; Barthold, op. cit., p. 284 n. 5, read here maqās.īrī (from
Makassar?).
68 The first word in this phrase is obscure, but khutuww is a familiar exotic product, see
above, n. 5.
69 Barthold, Turkestan, p. 284 n. 6, found this term incomprehensible. H.abībī, p. 189 n. 5,
suggests a possible connection with khārchīnī, perhaps an arabisation of the word, said to
be a hard substance from which such things as bells, cooking vessels, etc. could be made.
70 Barthold, op. cit., pp. 283–4, translates this passage detailing the gifts that the two
sovereigns presented to each other, noting various uncertainties in the texts.
71 For the capture of Arslān Isrā’īl, see Nāz.im, Sult.ān Mah.mūd of Ghazna, pp. 63–4; Cahen,
‘Le Malik-nâmeh et l’histoire des origines seljukides’, p. 52.
72 It seems that these Turkmens, who included the Seljuq family and their followers,
had been auxiliaries in the service of the Qarakhanid ‛Alī b. Hārūn or H.asan Bughrā
Khān, called ‛Alītegin, in the neighbourhood of Bukhara, but were now compelled to
move towards the fringes of Khurasan when ‛Alītegin was temporarily driven out of
Transoxania by his brother Yūsuf Qadïr Khān; see Bosworth, The Ghaznavids, pp. 223–4.
The course of the relations between the ‛Alītegin and the Seljuqs is not, however, entirely
clear; see the discussion in Cahen, op. cit., pp. 48ff.
73 Thus in all the sources, but Jādhib, from the Arabic root j-dh-b ‘to drag, pull’ gives no
sense here, and it is probable that we have here an early misspelling by copyists of the
title H.ājib ‘general, commander’.
74 See Nāz.im, op. cit., pp. 64–5; Bosworth, op. cit., p. 224.
75 This short section on the march to Nahrawāla and taking on supplies there is omitted
from Nazim’s text, perhaps through inadvertence.
76 In an Indian context, the Shamanīs/Sumaniyya often designate the Buddhists, but cf.
Minorsky, ‘Gardīzī on India’, p. 627 n. 3, where H.W. Bailey is quoted as observing
that śraman.a means simply ‘ascetic’. It is indeed, highly improbable that there were any
Buddhists in Kathiawar at this time.
77 Thus written in the text; according to H.abībī, p. 191 n. 1, this is a Sanskrit word meaning
‘shrine’.
78 Thus in Nazim’s text, to be preferred to H.abībī’s Jayh.ūn; the latter has in fact Sayh.ūn
a few lines below. The name, normally used in Arabic geographical literature for the
Jaxartes/Syr Darya, seems to have been used analogically for the Indus because this
large river also divided off the Muslim lands from those of the unbelievers; see EI2 art.
‘Mihrān’ (C.E. Bosworth).
79 This ancient Indo-Aryan people of Sind and the southern Panjabi parts of the Indus
valley had been fiercely hostile to the incoming Arabs of Muh.ammad b. al-Qāsim at the
opening of the eighth century AD, but are little mentioned until now, when they at times
barred the advance of Ghaznavid raiders into the Indus valley lands. See EI2 art. ‘Djāt’
(A.S. Bazmee Ansari).

Notes.indd 142 7/10/2009 1:38:08 PM

 N OTES 143

80 Nāz.im, Sult.ān Mah.mūd of Ghazna, pp. 115–21, 209–24.

81 Barthold, Turkestan, p. 286; Nāz.im, op. cit., p. 56. It would seem that these two envoys
represented Inner Asian potentates from beyond the lands of the Qarakhanids, whose
ruling strata, at least, had not by this time become Muslim. If Qitā is a tribal name and not
a geographical one, it may refer to the Qitan, who were probably Mongolic in ethnos and
language and who occupied the Manchurian-northern China-Mongolian region after earlier
Turkic peoples in Mongolia had migrated westwards towards the fringes of the Islamic
lands (this last movement may be dimly referred to in Ibn al-Athīr’s laconic report, under
the year 349/960, that 200,000 tents of the Turks converted to Islam). The Yughur are
clearly the Uyghur, who had had a powerful state in Mongolia as successors of the Eastern
Turk empire, but who had, after ca. 840, fallen into disunity, with new Uyghur political
groupings forming in Eastern Turkestan, sc. the Tarim and Turfan basins, and in Kan-chu,
the Kansu Corridor leading from eastern Turkestan to China. The faiths of these peoples
ranged from animism and Buddhism to Manichaeism and Nestorian Christianity, hence
their princes would not be acceptable to Mah.mūd as husbands for his womenfolk. See
Golden, An Introduction to the History of the Turkic Peoples, pp. 162ff., 183ff.
82 Bosworth, ‘The imperial policy of the early Ghaznawids’, p. 63; Bosworth, ‘The titulature
of the early Ghaznavids’, p. 219.
83 The campaigns against the heretical Muslims of Multan and against Kashmir not being
counted here.
84 H.abībī has here ‘four and a thousand hundreds’, presumably a clerical error since ‘1,400’
is correctly given a few lines below.
85 Nāz.im, Sult.ān Mah.mūd of Ghazna, pp. 121–2.
86 Nāz.im, op. cit., pp. 64–6; Cahen, ‘Le Malik-nâmeh et l’histoire des origines seljukides’,
pp. 52, 55–6. Balkhān Kūh was the mountainous refuge region to the east of the Caspian
Sea, now in the western part of the Turkmen Republic.
87 See on this H.udūd al-‛ālam, tr. Minorsky, p. 64, comm. p. 200.
88 Of unclear etymology, unless the first element is related to the kinship terms ekē ‘female
relative older than oneself but younger than one’s father’, or eke ‘father, uncle, elder
brother’ (Clauson, An Etymological Dictionary of Pre-Thirteenth Century Turkish, p. 100).
Sümer, Türk devletleri tarihinde şahis adları, Vol. 2, p. 545, merely registers this name as Eygü
(?) Tigin without attempting any etymology or meaning for it.
89 Nāz.im, op. cit., pp. 80–3; Bosworth, ‘The imperial policy of the early Ghaznawids’,
pp. 70–2; Bosworth, The Ghaznavids, pp. 53–4.
90 Nāz.im, op. cit., pp. 123–4.
91 On Mah.mūd’s favourite, his cup-bearer Ayāz, see EIr art. ‘Ayāz, Abu ’l-Najm Ūymāq’
(J. Matīnī), and for his role in later Persian literature, Gertrud Spiess, Mah.mūd von Ġazna
bei Farīdu’dīn ‛At.t.ār (Basel, 1959).
92 Dāya, presumably cognate with older Turkish tagāy, dagāy, Ottoman dayï ‘maternal uncle’
(Clauson, op. cit., p. 474); it may be that ‛Alī was connected in some way by marriage with
Sultan Mah.mūd.
93 On this Indian commander’s name, see Bosworth, The History of Beyhaqi, Vol. 2, p. 237
n. 32.
94 The two mss. have w.l.h., which H.abībī suggested should be amended to Rukhkhaj, the
classical Arachosia, the region in which Tegīnābād was situated; from Bayhaqī we learn
that Muh.ammad’s place of incarceration was a fortress called Kūhtīz.
95 On this first sultanate of Muh.ammad, see R. Gelpke, Sult.ān Mas‛ūd I. von Ġazna. Die drei
ersten Jahre seiner Herrschaft (421/1030–424/1033) (Munich, 1957), pp. 31–43; Bosworth,
The Ghaznavids, pp. 228–9; EI2art. ‘Muh.ammad b. Mah.mūd b. Sebüktigin’ (Bosworth). It
may be noted that Gardīzī’s account of the sultanate is not unfavourable to Muh.ammad,
rather more so than that of Bayhaqī.
96 The arrest and incarceration of these two commanders marks the beginning of a
systematic campaign by the new sultan Mas‛ūd, extending even to his own uncle Yūsuf

Notes.indd 143 7/10/2009 1:38:08 PM

 144 T HE O RNAMENT OF H ISTORIES

b. Sebüktegin, to remove from positions of power those connected in any way with his
brother Muh.ammad’s sultanate or, indeed, connected at all with the ancien régime of
Mah.mūd, these last being stigmatised as the Mah.mūdiyān or Pidariyān. See Gardīzī’s own
words concerning this vendetta, above, p. 100; Gelpke, op. cit., pp. 48–53; Bosworth, The
Ghaznavids, pp. 101–2, 230–4.
97 This is the celebrated vizier of Mah.mūd, who was now brought back to serve as Mas‛ūd’s
minister until his death two years later (see above, p. 101). See Nāz.im, Sultān Mah.mūd of
Ghazna, pp. 130–1, 135–6; Gelpke, op. cit., pp. 59–63; Bosworth, The Ghaznavids, pp. 60–1,
71–3; EI2art. ‘Maymandī’ (M. Nazim, C.E. Bosworth).
98 See on this governor and castellan, Ray, The Dynastic History of Northern India, Vol. 1,
pp. 137–8; Hodivala, Studies in Indo-Muslim History, Vol. 1, pp. 145–6.
99 See on the Mīkālī family, above, Part Three, n. 85.
100 I.e. from the Fatimid caliph al-H.ākim.
101 For this episode of H.asanak’s death, graphically and movingly described by Bayhaqī,
see Gelpke, op. cit., pp. 67–71; Bosworth, The Ghaznavids, pp. 71, 182–4; Meisami, Persian
Historiography, pp. 88–94; Halm, ‘Fatimiden und Ghaznawiden’, pp. 218–19.
102 Text, Il-Yārūq, but the correct form is ascertainable from Bayhaqī, see Bosworth, The
History of Beyhaqi, Vol. 1, p. 165 etc.
103 See above, pp. 103–4.
104 Earlier, it was stated that Mah.mūd held Majd al-Dawla at Ghazna.
105 For these events in Makrān, see Bosworth, ‘Rulers of Makrān and Qus.dār in the early
Islamic period’, St.Ir. XXIII (1994), pp. 206–7.
106 Cahen, ‘Le Malik-nâmeh et l’histoire des origines seljukides’, p. 56.
107 See on the new vizier, from a family which, like so many of the Ghaznavids’ officials, had
apparently served the Samanids, Bosworth, The Ghaznavids, pp. 58, 61–2, 72.
108 See Nazir Ahmad, ‘A critical examination of Bayhaqī’s narration of the Indian expeditions
during the reign of Mas‛ud of Ghazna’, pp. 39–44, for a discussion of this expedition
and the location of Sarastī.
109 Thus in the texts of H.abībī and Rid.āzāda Malik, following the zāwi-hā of the mss.; Nazim
has wādī-hā ‘river valleys’, and also the Tehran edition (presumably that of 1315/1936–7),
according to H.abībī.
110 Following Rid.āzāda Malik, khishtī ba-zad.
111 Abū Kālījār is here the son of Surkhāb, but is said by the local historian Ibn Isfandiyār
to have been the son and successor of Manuchihr b. Qābūs when the latter died in
424/1033, reigning till his own death in 441/1049–50. See Ibn Isfandiyār, tr. Browne, An
Abridged Translation of the History of T.abaristán, p. 235. The history of these later Ziyārids
is, however, only sketchily known.
112 Bayhaqī describes Mas‛ūd’s campaign in the Caspian provinces in considerable detail,
but does not conceal the fact that the Sultan’s violent and avaricious behaviour created a
most unfavourable impression on contemporaries, with complaints being carried as far
as the caliph’s court in Baghdad and to Mecca. See Bosworth, The History of Beyhaqi, Vol.
2, pp. 106–7, 109–23; also Bosworth, The Ghaznavids, pp. 74–5, 90–1; Meisami, Persian
Historiography, pp. 95–8.
113 This seems to be the meaning here of tabāhī īn az sālār bisyar ast, i.e. effort has been dissipated
by sending several commanders at various times, with no unified plan of campaign.
114 Khwāja H.usayn was actually to be captured by the Seljuqs in the course of this ensuing
battle (see above, p. 103), and thereafter appears to have entered their service; in the reign
of the Great Seljuq Sultan T.oghrïl, successor to the Ghaznavids in Khurasan and Persia,
he fulfilled various high offices, possibly as vizier. See H. Bowen, ‘Notes on some early
Seljuqid viziers’, BSOAS XX (1957), pp. 105, 107–8.
115 Possibly to be identified, according to H.abībī, n. 1, with a place S.w.s.qān or S.w.sn.qān
near Merv.
116 This is how H.abībī interprets the text’s jāmi‛-i ‛arabī.

Notes.indd 144 7/10/2009 1:38:08 PM

 N OTES 145

117 These must have been captives and hostages brought back from the previous T.abaristān
campaign, see above, p. 102.
118 On Begtughdї’s defeat, see Cahen, ‘Le Malik-nâmeh et l’histoire des origines seljukides’,
p. 49; Bosworth, The Ghaznavids, pp. 248–9; Meisami, op. cit., pp. 98.
119 I.e. of the Indian division within the main Ghaznavid army, which Suvendharāy had
commanded during Muh.ammad’s brief reign, see above, p. 000.
120 According to Hodivala, Studies in Indo-Muslim History, Vol. 1, p. 163, the name of Tilak
or Tilaka’s father Jahlan/Jalhan.a/Jahlan.si is an old one found in dynastic lists and
inscriptions. Presumably Tilak was at his juncture appointed commander of the Indians
in Bānha’s place.
121 There are some chronological discrepancies in the accounts of Gardīzī and the other two
sources describing Ah.mad’s revolt, his final vanquishing and his death, sc. Bayhaqī and
Ibn al-Athīr. See for a discussion of the whole episode, problems involved with it and
identification of the places mentioned in its course, Nazir Ahmad, ‘A critical examination
of Bayhaqī’s narration of the Indian expeditions’, pp. 53–6.
122 Bayhaqī has a description of the new Mas‛ūdī Palace, which had taken four years to
build and for whose construction and decoration a total of fourteen million dirhams
had been expended on the wages of craftsmen and payments to forced labour levies. See
Bosworth, The History of Beyhaqi, Vol. 2, pp. 216–17.
123 This phrase supplied from Bayhaqī and Firishta.
124 Hānsī is situated in the modern Hariyana province of the Indian Union, to the northwest
of Delhi. After Mas‛ūd’s conquest of the fortress from its Chawhān ruler, it became
briefly a forward base for Ghaznavid armies launching raids against Delhi, but was
recaptured during Mawdūd’s reign by the Rājā of Delhi, Mahīpāl, and a coalition of other
princes and not regained by the Muslims till Ghurid times. See Nazir Ahmad, op. cit.,
p. 59; EI2 art. ‘Hānsī’ (J. Burton-Page).
125 Bayhaqī calls this place ‘The Virgin Fortress’, Qal‛at al-‛Adhrā’.
126 dīra; in the mss., dara ‘valley’.
127 There are problems arising out of the divergent chronologies of Gardīzī and Bayhaqī for
these campaigns of Mas‛ūd in India. These are discussed by Nazir Ahmad in his detailed
study of the whole episode, in op. cit., pp. 58–66; he opts for the more careful chronology
of Bayhaqī, for which see Bosworth, The History of Beyhaqi, Vol. 2, pp. 208–9.
128 Gardīzī does not record the fact that, whilst the Amir was campaigning in India, his
general Sübashï, ordered to march out from his base at Nishapur, had been defeated
by the Turkmens and had had to withdraw to Herat, allowing the Turkmens to occupy
Nishapur unopposed. See Meisami, Persian Historiography, pp. 99–100.
129 This is Qarakhanid prince Böritegin, son of the Ilig Nas.r b. ‛Alī, and later better known in
the sources as Ibrāhīm Tamghach Khān (d. 460/1068); he was from the Western branch
of the family whose possessions were centred on Transoxania. At this time, however,
Böritegin had recently escaped from custody of his enemies, the sons of his distant
kinsman ‛Alītegin, and had come, via a stay in Uzgend/Özkend, to the upper Oxus
region, where he had gathered together a force of the predatory Kumījīs and Kanjīna
Turks of the Buttamān mountains region (see above, Part Three, n. 49) and was harrying
the Ghaznavid dependencies of Wakhsh and Khuttal. See Barthold, Turkestan, pp. 300–1;
Pritsak, ‘Die Karachaniden’, pp. 36–7.
130 See above, n. 34. H.abībī in his text, p. 202 n. 1, quotes a verse of Farrukhī on Mah.mūd’s
earlier meeting there with the Qarakhanid Yūsuf Qadïr Khān.
131 The Sultan’s invasion of Transoxania was undertaken at the worst time of the year for
weather, the winter months of 430/1038–39, as his advisers had pointed out but to no
avail. Whereas Bayhaqī’s account does not conceal the terrible hardships endured by the
army, Gardīzī relates the episode in a comparatively neutral fashion; the expedition was
in fact a disaster, achieving nothing and diminishing Mas‛ūd’s prestige. See Barthold,
op. cit., pp. 301–2; Meisami, op. cit., pp. 77, 100–1.

Notes.indd 145 7/10/2009 1:38:08 PM

 146 T HE O RNAMENT OF H ISTORIES

132 The operations against this bandit chief are described in detail by Bayhaqī; see Bosworth,
The History of Beyhaqi, Vol. 2, pp. 241–3.
133 The Yabghu here is clearly the Seljuq Mūsā Yabghu, successor in this title to his close
kinsman Arslān Isrā’īl (whom Mah.mūd had imprisoned in India towards the end of his
reign, see Nāz.im, Sult.ān Mah.mūd of Ghazna, pp. 63–4) holding this title in rivalry with its
original holder amongst the Oghuz, the ruler in Jand, see above, n. 10. The problems
regarding the various holders of the title are discussed by Cahen, ‘Le Malik-nâmeh et
l’histoire des origines seljukides’, pp. 53–5. Here in this passage of Gardīzī, Mas‛ūd seems
here to have regarded Mūsā Yabghu as nominal head of the Seljuqs (it was to him that the
Sultan had the Turkmens’ severed heads delivered, see below), although insofar as there
was any central direction at all amongst the Seljuqs, it was T.oghril Beg and Chaghri Beg
who in practice exercised this. See Bosworth, The Ghaznavids, pp. 244–5.
134 āncha mā khwāstīm ba-kard amīr khwud ba-kard.
135 There is thus no mention by Gardīzī of the several months’ occupation of Nishapur by
the Seljuqs, whose arrival there is described in detail by Bayhaqī.
136 Mas‛ūd’s forces had reoccupied Nishapur towards the beginning of 431/end of 1039 and
opening of 1040, see Bosworth, op. cit., p. 251.
137 Following H.abībī, ū-rā andar na-yāft.
138 The people of the towns and cities of northern Khurasan like Bāward/Abīward and
Sarakhs were clearly despairing of securing any protection from the Sultan against the
Seljuqs, and were making their own terms with the Turkmens. The most notable instance
of this was the ease with which Nishapur passed temporarily under Seljuq control in
429–30/1038–9 (an episode unnoted by Gardīzī but described in detail by Bayhaqī; see
on this Bosworth, The Ghaznavids, pp. 244, 252ff.). See also ibid., pp. 264–5.
139 Bayhaqī relates that 500 defectors from the Ghaznavid side had joined the Seljuq group
of Yināliyān (i.e. those under the leadership of Ibrāhīm Ināl) at some point before the
battle of Dandānqān, and that before this, former troops of Ghaznavid commanders
whom Mas‛ūd had vindictively hunted down and killed, such as his uncle Yūsuf b.
Sebüktegin, the H.ājib ‛Alī Qarīb, Eryārūq, Ghāzī, etc., had joined the Turkmens.
140 This was one of the decisive battles in the history of the eastern Islamic world, for the
way was now open for the Seljuqs to sweep westwards, confront the powers of western
Persia like the Kakuyids and Buyids, and establish the Great Seljuq sultanate, whilst the
Ghaznavids, whilst still a great power, were forced to concentrate their vision eastwards
to northern India. Bayhaqī has a very detailed account of the course of the Dandānqān
battle, see The History of Beyhaqi, Vol. 2, pp. 309ff. See also Meisami, Persian Historiography,
pp. 102–4.
141 Thus in H.abībī’s text, ihmāl warzīda; Nazim has ih.timāl warzīda ‘had been wavering and
uncertain’.
142 Bosworth, The Later Ghaznavids, pp. 9, 139.
143 Bayhaqī’s narrative shows, however, that several of the Sultan’s advisers were against this
retreat to India and thought that the situation in eastern Afghanistan could be held, see
ibid., pp. 15–16,
144 Ibid., pp. 9–13. The exact location of Hupyān (if this is the correct vocalisation of the
name) is uncertain; see ibid., pp. 12–13.
145 Bayhaqī calls these disruptive elements, in what is now eastern Afghanistan, Khalaj; these
were almost certainly Turks but may well have become mingled with Afghan tribesmen,
i.e. Pashtuns. See above, Part Three, n. 104, and Bosworth, The Later Ghaznavids, pp. 13–14
and n. 27, where it is said that the first mention in Islamic sources of Afghans appears to
be in the H.udūd al-‛ālam. However, we now have mention of abagano, abgano, pl. abaganano,
from some two centuries earlier in the recently discovered letters in the Middle Iranian
Bactrian language from the Rōb/Ro’b and Gūzgān regions of northern Afghanistan
(information from Professor N. Sims-Williams, and cf. above, Part Two, n. 18).
146 See on these places, Bosworth, The Later Ghaznavids, pp. 16–17.

Notes.indd 146 7/10/2009 1:38:08 PM

 N OTES 147

147 In Bayhaqī this fortress is named as Naghar.

148 Barthold, Turkestan, p. 303; Bosworth, op. cit., pp. 14–17. It is at this point that the ninth
volume of Bayhaqī’s Mujalladāt ends, so that Gardīzī’s narrative assumes a particular
importance as the sole contemporary source on the end of Mas‛ūd’s sultanate.
149 This is modern Marigala, in a pass of the low hills separating Attock from Rawalpindi;
Mas‛ūd had thus just crossed the Indus at Wayhind when his troops mutinied. See
Bosworth, op. cit., pp. 19, 140.
150 Ibid., pp. 20, 140.
151 Text in the two mss., dīnawar, as also in Bayhaqī. Peshawar has been conjectured as a
possible reading, but H.abībī, p. 205 n. 3, suggests that we should read d.n.pūr, d.n.būr, this
being a site near the later Jalālābād, and this is more plausible; Jūzjānī, in his T.abaqāt-i nās.
irī (see above, Part One, n. 112) says that the battle took place in Nangrahār, i.e. in this
same region of the middle Kabul river valley. Dunpūr is in fact known as a town, the
resort of merchants, from the H.udūd al-‛ālam, tr. Minorsky, pp. 63, 72, 92, being placed
on the opposite bank of the Kabul river from Lamghān, cf. comm. p. 252. The town is
mentioned, in a later form, in the Bābur-nāma, and its name is possibly from the Sanskrit
Udyānapūra.
152 This du‛ā or invocation of long life for ‛Abd al-Rashīd implies that Gardīzī was writing his
history during that Amir’s reign, i.e. between ?440/1049 and 443/1052, thus confirming
the lauding by Gardīzī of ‛Abd al-Rashīd as reigning monarch in the texts of Nazim,
pp. 61–2, and H.abībī, p. 174, above.
153 It would be interesting to know the circumstances in which ‛Abd al-Rashīd was present
near the battlefield. Did he have supporters of his own with him, and was there perhaps
a feeling amongst the Ghaznavid troops that he, as son of Mah.mūd and the eldest
representative of the family, had a superior claim to the succession? Mawdūd obviously
felt a strong need to conciliate him. But despite Mawdūd’s promises to him in return for
his neutrality in the struggle, ‛Abd al-Rashīd was after the battle arrested and imprisoned
by Mawdūd during the whole of the latter’s reign; see Bosworth, The Later Ghaznavids,
pp. 23, 25.
154 For the battle, which took place in Rajab or Sha‛bān 432/March or April 1041, see
Bosworth, op. cit., pp. 22–4, 140, and for Mawdūd’s vengeance on Muh.ammad and his
supporters after it, ibid., pp. 24, 140.

Notes.indd 147 7/10/2009 1:38:09 PM

Notes.indd 148 7/10/2009 1:38:09 PM
 SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY

Note. This bibliography does not include some items which are mentioned only once or so in
the text of the book and are of peripheral relevance to Gardīzī’s work; but where such items
occur in the book, full bibliographical details are given there.

Abbott, Nabia, Two Queens of Baghdad. Mother and Wife of Hārūn al-Rashīd (Chicago, 1946).
Ahmad, Nazir, ‘A critical examination of Bayhaqī’s narration of the Indian expeditions
during the reign of Mas‛ud of Ghazna’, in Yād-nāma-yi Abu ’l-Fad. l Bayhaqī.
Majmū‛a-yi sukhanrānī-hā-yi Majlis-i Buzurgdāsht-i Abu ’l-Fad. l-i Bayhaqī, Mashhad, 21 tā 25
shahrīwarmāh 1349, ed. Mashhad University Faculty of Letters and Human Sciences
(Mashhad, 1350/1971), English section, pp. 34–83.
Anon., H. udūd al-‛ālam, English tr. and commentary by V. Minorsky, with a Preface by V.V.
Barthold, as H. udūd al-‛ālam ‘The Regions of the World’, a Persian Geography 372 AH–982
AD, GMS NS XI (London, 1937), 2nd ed. with additional material by the late Professor
Minorsky [and with comments by Dr Manuchihr Sotudeh and ‘The second series of
Addenda’ by V. Minorsky], ed. C.E. Bosworth (London, 1970).
Anon. (by Ibn Shādī?), Mujmal al-tawārīkh wa ’l-qis. as. , ed. Malik al-Shu‛arā’ Mīrzā Taqī Bahār
(Tehran, 1318/1939).
Anon., Tārīkh-i Sīstān, ed. Malik al-Shu‛arā’ Mīrzā Taqī Bahār (Tehran, 1314/1935), English tr.
Milton Gold as The Tārikh-e Sistān, IsMEO, Serie Orientale Roma, Vol. XLVIII/Literary
and Historical Texts from Iran, 2 (Rome, 1976).
Bahār, Mīrzā Taqī, Malik al-Shu‛arā’, Sabk-shināsī yā tārīkh-i tat. awwur-i nathr-i fārsī, 3 vols.
(Tehran, 1337/1958).
al-Balādhurī, Ah.mad b. Yah.yā, Futūh. al-buldān, ed. M.J. De Goeje as Liber expugnationis regionum
(Leiden, 1866).
Barthold, Wilhelm (V.V. Bart’old), Turkestan down to the Mongol Invasion, GMS N.S. V (London,
1928), 3rd ed. with an additional chapter, ed. C.E. Bosworth (London, 1968).
Bayhaqī, Abu ’l-Fad.l, Tārīkh-i Mas‛ūdī, English tr. C. Edmund Bosworth as The History of Beyhaqi
(The History of Sultan Mas‛ud of Ghazna, 1030–1041), 3 vols. (New York, 2009).
al-Bīrūnī, Abū Rayh.ān, al-Āthār al-bāqiya ‛an al-qurūn al-khāliya, ed. Eduard Sachau (Leipzig,
1878), English tr. E. Sachau as The Chronology of Ancient Nations (London, 1879).
——, Tah.qīq mā li ’l-Hind, English tr. E.C. Sachau as Alberuni’s India. An Account of the Religion,
Philosophy, Literature, Geography, Chronology, Astronomy, Customs, Laws and Astrology of India
about AD 1030, 2 vols. (London, 1910).
Bosworth, C. Edmund, ‘The early Islamic history of Ghūr’, CAJ VI (1961), pp. 116–33,

bib.indd 149 7/10/2009 1:38:32 PM

 150 T HE O RNAMENT OF H ISTORIES

reprinted in C.E. Bosworth, The Medieval History of Iran, Afghanistan and Central Asia,
Variorum Reprints, Collected Studies Series CS 56 (London, 1977), no. IX.
——, ‘The titulature of the early Ghaznavids’, Oriens XV (1962), pp. 210–33, reprinted in The
Medieval History of Iran, Afghanistan and Central Asia, no. X.
——, The Ghaznavids, their Empire in Afghanistan and Eastern Iran 994:1040, History, Philosophy
and Economics 17 (Edinburgh, 1963), 2nd ed. with additional bibliography (Beirut,
1973).
——, ‘Early sources for the history of the first four Ghaznavid sultans (977–1040)’, IQ VII
(1963), pp. 3–22, reprinted in The Medieval History of Iran, Afghanistan and Central Asia,
no. XIII.
——, ‘On the chronology of the Ziyārids in Gurgān and T.abaristān’, Isl. XL (1964),
pp. 25–34, reprinted in The Medieval History of Iran, Afghanistan and Central Asia, no. II.
——, ‘Notes on the pre-Ghaznavid history of eastern Afghanistan’, IQ IX (1965), pp. 12–24,
reprinted in The Medieval History of Iran, Afghanistan and Central Asia, no. XIV.
——, Sīstān under the Arabs, from the Islamic Conquest to the Rise of the S. affārids (30–250/651–864),
IsMEO, Centro Studi e Scavi Archeologici in Asia, Reports and Memoirs XI (Rome,
1968).
——, ‘The armies of the S.affārids’, BSOAS XXXI (1968), pp. 534–54, reprinted in The Medieval
History of Iran, Afghanistan and Central Asia, no. XVII.
——, ‘Abū ‛Abdallāh al-Khwārazmī on the technical terms of the secretary’s art. A contribution
to the administrative history of mediaeval Islam’, JESHO XII (1969), pp. 113–64, reprinted
in Medieval Arabic Culture and Administration, Variorum Reprints, Collected Studies Series
CS 165 (London, 1982), no. XV.
——, ch. ‘The T.āhirids and S.affārids’, in The Cambridge History of Iran. Vol. 4. The Period from the
Arab Invasion to the Saljuqs, ed. Richard N. Frye (Cambridge, 1975), pp. 90–135.
——, ch. ‘The early Ghaznavids’, in The Cambridge History of Iran. Vol. 4. The Period from the
Arab Invasion to the Saljuqs, ed. Richard N. Frye (Cambridge, 1975), pp. 162–97.
——, ‘The rulers of Chaghāniyān in early Islamic times’, Iran JBIPS XIX (1981), pp. 1–20,
reprinted in C. Edmund Bosworth, The Arabs, Byzantium and Islam. Studies in Early Islamic
History and Culture, Variorum Collected Studies Series CS 529 (Aldershot, Hants., 1996),
no. XXI.
——, The History of the Saffarids of Sistan and the Maliks of Nimruz (247/861 to 949/1542–3),
Columbia Lectures on Iranian Studies 8 (Costa Mesa and New York, 1994).
——, ‘Rulers of Makrān and Qus.dār in the early Islamic period’, St.Ir. XXIII (1994), pp. 199–
209.
——, The New Islamic Dynasties. A Chronological and Genealogical Manual (Edinburgh, 1996).
——, ‘Notes on some Turkish names in Abu ’l-Fad.l Bayhaqī’s Tārīkh-i Mas‛ūdī’, Oriens XXXVI
(2001), pp. 299–313.
——, ‘Further notes on the Turkish names in Abu ’l-Fad.l Bayhaqī’s Tārīkh-i Mas‛ūdī’, to appear
in Festschrift for Dr Farhad Daftary (London, 2010).
——, ‘The appearance and establishment of Islam in Afghanistan’, in Islamisation de l’Asie
centrale. Processus locaux d’acculturation du VIIe du XIe siècle, ed. E. de la Vaissière, Cahiers de
Studia Iranica, 39 (Paris, 2008), pp. 97–114.
Bosworth, C. Edmund and Sir Gerard Clauson, ‘Al-Xwārazmī on the peoples of Central
Asia’, JRAS (1965), pp. 2–12, reprinted in C.E. Bosworth, The Medieval History of Iran,
Afghanistan and Central Asia, Variorum Reprints, Collected Studies Series CS56 (London,
1977), no. XX.
Bowen, H., ‘Notes on some early Seljuqid viziers’, BSOAS XX (1957), pp. 105–10.

bib.indd 150 7/10/2009 1:38:37 PM

 B IBLIOGRAPHY 151

Cahen, Cl., ‘Le Malik-nâmeh et l’histoire des origines seljukides’, Oriens II (1949), pp. 31–65.
Clauson, Sir Gerard, An Etymological Dictionary of Pre-Thirteenth Century Turkish (Oxford,
1972).
Crone, Patricia, Slaves on Horses. The Evolution of the Islamic Polity (Cambridge, 1980).
Crone, Patricia and Luke Treadwell, ‘A new text on Ismailism at the Samanid court’, in Texts,
Documents and Artefacts. Islamic Studies in Honour of D.S. Richards, ed. Chase F. Robinson
(Leiden, 2003), pp. 37–67.
Czeglédy, K., ‘Gardīzī on the history of Central Asia (AD 746–780)’, AOHung XXVII (1973),
pp. 257–67.
Daniel, Elton L., The Political and Social History of Khurasan under Abbasid Rule 747–820,
Bibliotheca Islamica (Minneapolis and Chicago, 1979).
Doerfer, Gerhard, Türkische und mongolische Elemente im Neupersischen, unter besonderer Berücksichtigung
älterer neupersischer Geschichtsquellen, vor allem der Mongolen- und Timuridenzeit, Akademie der
Wissenschaften und der Literatur, Veröffentlichungen der Orientalischen Kommission,
Bd. XVI, XIX–XXI, 4 vols. (Wiesbaden, 1963–75).
Eisener, Reinhard, Zwischen Faktum und Fiktion. Eine Studie zum Umayyadenkalifen Sulaimān b.
‛Abdalmalik und seinem Bild in den Quellen (Wiesbaden, 1987).
Fedorov, Michael, ‘The Khwarazmshahs of the Banū ‛Irāq (fourth/tenth century)’, Iran JBIPS
XXXVIII (2000), pp. 71–5.
Frye, Richard N. ch. ‘The Sāmānids’, in The Cambridge History of Iran. Vol. 4. The Period from the
Arab Invasion to the Saljuqs, ed. Richard N. Frye (Cambridge, 1975), pp. 136–61.
——, Bukhara, the Medieval Achievement, 2nd ed. (Costa Mesa, 1996).
Gelpke, Rudolf, Sult. ān Mas‛ūd I. von Ġazna. Die drei ersten Jahre seiner Herrschaft (421/1030–
424/1033), Inaugural Dissertation . . . der Universität Basel (Munich, 1957).
Gibb, Hamilton A.R., The Arab Conquests in Central Asia (London, 1923).
Golden, Peter B., An Introduction to the History of the Turkic Peoples. Ethnogenesis and State-Formation
in Medieval and Early Modern Eurasia and the Middle East, Turcologica Band 9 (Wiesbaden,
1992).
Halm, Heinz, ‘Fatimiden und Ghaznawiden’, in Studies in Honour of Clifford Edmund Bosworth.
Vol. I. Hunter of the East: Arabic and Semitic Studies, ed. Ian R. Netton (Leiden, 2000),
pp. 209–21.
H.amza b. al-H.asan al-Is.fahānī, Ta’rīkh Sinī mulūk al-ard. wa ’l-anbiyā’ (Beirut, 1961).
Hodivala, S.H., Studies in Indo-Muslim History. A Critical Commentary on Elliot and Dowson’s History
of India as Told by its Own Historians, 2 vols. (Bombay, 1937–57).
Ibn H.awqal, Muh.ammad b. ‛Alī, Kitāb S.ūrat al-ard., ed. J.H. Kramers, 2 vols. (Leiden, 1938–9),
French tr. J.H. Kramers and Gaston Wiet as Configuration de la terre, Collection UNESCO
d’œuvres représentatives, série arabe, 2 vols. (Paris, 1964).
Ibn Isfandiyār, Muh.ammad b. H.asan, Tārīkh-i T.abaristān, partial English tr. E.G. Browne as
An Abridged Translation of the History of T.abaristán Compiled about AH 613 (AD 1216) by
Muh.ammad b. al-H. asan b. Isfandiyár, GMS II (Leiden and London, 1905).
Ibn Khallikān, Ah.mad b. Muh.ammad, Wafayāt al-a‛yān, ed. Ih.sān ‛Abbās, 8 vols. (Beirut,
1968–72), English tr. Baron McGuckin de Slane as Ibn Khallikan’s Biographical Dictionary, 4
vols. (Paris, 1842–71).
Kaabi, Mongi, Les T.āhirides au Hurāsān et en Iraq (IIIème H./IXème J.-C.), 2 vols. (Tunis, 1983).
Kennedy, Hugh, The Early Abbasid Caliphate. A Political History (London and Totowa, N.J.,
1981).
Kraemer, Joel L., Humanism in the Renaissance of Islam. The Cultural Revival during the Buyid Age
(Leiden, 1986).

bib.indd 151 7/10/2009 1:38:37 PM

 152 T HE O RNAMENT OF H ISTORIES

Lassner, Jacob, The Shaping of ‛Abbāsid Rule (Princeton, 1980).

Lazard, Gilbert, La langue des plus anciens monuments de la prose persane, Études linguistiques II
(Paris, 1963).
Le Strange, Guy, The Lands of the Eastern Caliphate. Mesopotamia, Persia, and Central Asia from the
Moslem Conquest to the Time of Timur, Cambridge Geographical Series (Cambridge, 1905).
Løkkegaard, Frede, Islamic Taxation in the Classic Period, with Special Reference to the Circumstances in
Iraq (Copenhagen, 1950).
Madelung, Wilferd, ch. ‘The minor dynasties of northern Iran’, in The Cambridge History of
Iran. Vol. 4. The Period from the Arab Invasion to the Saljuqs, ed. Richard N. Frye (Cambridge,
1975), pp. 198-249.
al-Maqdisī, Muh.ammad b. Ah.mad, Ah.san al-taqāsīm fī ma‛rifat al-aqālīm, ed. M.J. De Goeje as
Descriptio imperii moslemici, BGA III2 (Leiden, 1906), partial French tr. André Miquel as La
meilleure rēpartition pour la connaissance des provinces (Damascus, 1963).
Marquart, Josef, and J.J.M. de Groot, ‘Das Reich Zābul und der Gott Žūn vom 6–9 Jahrhundert’,
in Festschrift Eduard Sachau zum siebigsten Geburtstage gewidmet von Freunden und Schülern, ed.
Gotthold Weil (Berlin, 1915), pp. 248–92.
Martinez, A.P., ‘Gardīzī’s two chapters on the Turks’, AEMAe II (1982), pp. 109–217.
Meisami, Julie S., Persian Historiography to the End of the Twelfth Century (Edinburgh, 1999).
Minorsky, Vladimir, Sharaf al-Zamān T.āhir Marvazī on China, the Turks and India, Royal Asiatic
Society, James G. Forlong Fund Vol. XXII (London, 1942).
——, ‘Gardīzī on India’, BSOAS XII (1947–9), pp. 625–40, reprinted in Iranica. Twenty Articles/
Bīst maqāla-yi Mīnūrskī, Publications of the University of Tehran no. 775 (Tehran, 1964),
pp. 200–15.
Mottahedeh, Roy, ch. ‘The ‛Abbāsid caliphate in Iran’, in The Cambridge History of Iran. Vol.
4. The Period from the Arab Invasion to the Saljuqs, ed. Richard N. Frye (Cambridge, 1975),
pp. 57–89.
Narshakhī, Muh.ammad b. Ja‛far, Tārīkh-i Bukhārā, English tr. Richard N. Frye as The History of
Bukhara. Translated from a Persian Abridgement of the Arabic Original by Narshakhī (Cambridge,
Mass., 1954).
Nāz.im, Muh.ammad, The Life and Times of Sult. ān Mah.mūd of Ghazna (Cambridge, 1931).
Omar, Farouk, ‛Abbāsiyyāt. Studies in the History of the Early ‛Abbāsids, publication subsidised by
the University of Baghdad No. 104 (Baghdad, 1976).
Peacock, Andrew C.S., Mediaeval Islamic Historiography and Political Legitimacy. Bal‛amī’s Tārīkhnāma,
Routledge Studies in the History of Iran and Turkey (London and New York, 2007).
Pritsak, Omeljan, ‘Die Karachaniden’, Isl. XXXI (1953–4), pp. 17–68, reprinted in O. Pritsak,
Studies in Medieval Eurasian History, Variorum Reprints, Collected Studies Series CS 132
(London, 1981), no. XVI.
Rásonyi, Láslo and Imre Baski, Onomasticon turcicum. Turkic Personal Names as Collected by László
Rásonyi, Indian University Uralic and Altaic Series, Vol. 172, 2 vols. (Bloomington, Ind.,
2007).
Ray, H.C., The Dynastic History of Northern India (Early Mediaeval Period). 2 vols. (Calcutta,
1931–6).
Sadighi, Gholam-Hossein, Les mouvements religieux iraniens au IIe et au IIIe siècle de l’Hégire (Paris,
1938).
Scarcia Amoretti, B., ch. ‘Sects and heresies’, in The Cambridge History of Iran. Vol. 4. The Period
from the Arab Invasion to the Saljuqs, ed. Richard N. Frye (Cambridge, 1975), pp. 481–519.
Shaban, Muhammad A., The ‛Abbāsid Revolution (Cambridge, 1970).
Sharon, Moshe, Black Banners from the East. The Establishment of the ‛Abbāsid State – Incubation

bib.indd 152 7/10/2009 1:38:37 PM

 B IBLIOGRAPHY 153

of a Revolt, The Max Schloessinger Memorial Series, Monographs II (Jerusalem, Leiden,

1983).
——, Black Banners from the East II. Revolt. The Social and Military Aspects of the ‛Abbāsid Revolution,
The Max Schloessinger Memorial Series, Monographs V (Jerusalem, 1990).
Storey, Charles A., Persian Literature. A Bio-bibliographical Survey. Vol. I. Qur’ānic Literature; History
and Biography (London, 1927–53).
Sümer, Faruk, Türk devletleri tarihinde şahis adları, ed. Turan Yazgan, 2 vols. (Istanbul, 1995).
al-T.abarī, Muh.ammad b. Jarīr, Ta’rīkh al-Rusul wa ‘l-mulūk, ed. M.J. De Goeje et al., 15 vols.
(Leiden, 1879–1901), English tr. The History of al-T.abarī, an Annotated Translation. Vol.
XXIV. The Empire in Transition. The Caliphates of Sulaymān, ‛Umar, and Yazīd AD 715–724/
AH 97–105, tr. David S. Powers (Albany, 1989); Vol. XXVII. The ‛Abbāsid Revolution.
AD 743–750/AH 126–132, tr. John A. Williams (Albany, 1985); Vol. XXVIII. ‛Abbāsid
Authority Affirmed. The Early Years of al-Mans.ūr AD 753–763/AH 136–145, tr. Jane D.
McAuliffe (Albany, 1995); Vol. XXX. The ‛Abbāsid Caliphate in Equilibrium. The Caliphates
of Mūsā al-Hādī and Hārūn al-Rashīd AD 785–809/AH 169–193, tr. C. Edmund Bosworth
(Albany, 1989).
Tor, Deborah G., Violent Order: Religious Warfare, Chivalry, and the ‛Ayyār Phenomenon in the
Medieval Islamic World, Istanbuler Texte und Studien, Band 11 (Würzburg, 2007).
Treadwell, W. Luke, ‘Ibn Z.āfir al-Azdī’s account of the murder of Ah.mad b. Ismā‛īl al-Sāmānī
and the succession of his son Nas.r’, in Studies in Honour of Clifford Edmund Bosworth. Vol.
II. The Sultan’s Turret: Studies in Persian and Turkish Culture, ed. Carole Hillenbrand (Leiden,
2000), pp. 397–419.
——, ‘The account of the Samanid dynasty in Ibn Z.āfir al-Azdī’s Akhbār al-duwal
al-munqat. i‛a’, Iran JBIPS, XLIII (2005), pp. 135–71.
Walker, John, A Catalogue of the Muhammadan Coins in the British Museum. Vol. I. A Catalogue of
the Arab-Sassanian Coins (Umaiyad Governors in the East, Arab-Ephthalites, ‛Abbāsid Governors
in T.abaristān and Bukhārā) (London, 1941).
Wellhausen, Julius, The Arab Kingdom and Its Fall, English tr. Margaret G. Weir (Calcutta,
1927).
al-Ya‛qūbī, Ah.mad b. Abī Ya‛qūb, Kitāb al-Buldān, ed. M.J. De Goeje, BGA VII (Leiden, 1892),
French tr. Gaston Wiet as Les pays (Cairo, 1937).
Yāqūt b. ‛Abdallāh al-H.amawī al-Rūmī, Mu‛jam al-buldān, 5 vols. (Beirut, 1374–6/1955–7).
Zarrīnkūb, ‛Abd al-H.usain, ch. ‘The Arab conquest of Iran and its aftermath’, in The Cambridge
History of Iran. Vol. IV. The Period from the Arab Invasion to the Saljuqs, ed. Richard N. Frye
(Cambridge, 1975), pp. 1–56.

bib.indd 153 7/10/2009 1:38:37 PM

bib.indd 154 7/10/2009 1:38:37 PM
 INDICES

1. Persons, peoples, tribes

‛Abbās b. Dāwūd 65 ‛Abd al-Rah.mān b. Nu‛aym al-Ghāmidī 24

‛Abbās b. Ja‛far b. Muh.ammad b. al- ‛Abd al-Rah.mān b. Ziyād 18
Ash‛ath 37 ‛Abd al-Rashīd b. Mas‛ūd, Ghaznavid
‛Abbās b. Shaqīq (? Shafīq) 60 sultan 1, 5, 112–13
‛Abda b. Qadīd 33 ‛Abd al-Salām b. Muzāh.im 26
‛Abdallāh b. ‛Abbās, governor in Sistan ‛Abd al-S.amad b. ‛Alī b. ‛Abdallāh,
‛Abdallāh b. ‛Alī, ‛Abbāsid, uncle of the ‛Abbasid 29
caliph al-Saffāh. 23, 29, 30 ‛Abdūs, Abū Sa‛d 104
‛Abdallāh b. ‛Āmir b. Kurayz 2, 13, 14, 15, Abu ’l-‛Abbās ‛Abdallāh b. Muh.ammad b.
16–17 Nūh b. Asad, Samanid 54
‛Abdallāh b. H.umayd b. Qah.t.aba 34 Abu ’l-‛Abbās Ah.mad b. H.amūya 61
‛Abdallāh b. Khāzim 13, 16, 19 Abu ’l-‛Abbās al-Fad.l al-T.ūsī 36
‛Abdallāh al-Laythī 17 Abu ’l-‛Abbās Muh.ammad b. S.ulūk 56
‛Abdallāh b. Muh.ammad b. ‛Abd al- Abū ‛Abdallāh, Afrīghid Khwarazm
Razzāq 94 Shah 76
‛Abdallāh b. Muh.ammad b. S.ālih. Sagzī 47, Abū ‛Abdallāh b. ‛Alī b. al-Layth,
48 Saffarid 55
‛Abdallāh b. Muh.ammad b. ‛Uzayr, Samanid Abū ‛Abdallāh b. H.afs., Ghāzī 70–1
vizier 74 77 Abū ‛Alī b. Ish.āq 63
‛Abdallāh b. Samura al-Umawī 16 Abu ’l-‛Askar, Ma‘dānid of Makrān 103
‛Abdallāh b. T.āhir, Tahirid amir 26, 44–5 Abū ‛Awn ‛Abd al-Malik b. Yazīd 29, 33,
‛Abdallāh b. Zubayr 18, 19 34–5
‛Abd al-‛Azīz b. Nūh. (I), Samanid 65, 74 Abū Bakr al-Khabbāz 59
‛Abd al-‛Azīz b. al-Walīd, Umayyad 21 Abū Bakr al-S.iddīq, Rightly-Guided
‛Abd al-Ghaffār b. S.ālih. T.ālaqānī 32 caliph 13
‛Abd al-Jabbār b. ‛Abd al-Rah.mān 32 Abū Dāwūd Khālid b. Ibrāhīm, naqīb 26,
‛Abd al-Malik b. Marwān, Umayyad 28, 31–2
caliph 19, 20 Abu ’l-H.ārith b. Abu ’l-Qāsim 63
‛Abd al-Malik (I) b. Nūh. (I) al-Rashīd, Abu ’l-H.asan Ah.mad b. Muh.ammad 55
Samanid amir 65–7 Abu ’l-H.asan Nas.r b. Ish.āq 56
‛Abd al-Malik (II) b. Nūh. (II), Samanid Abū Ja‛far, Samanid, nephew of al-
amir 78–9 Muntas.ir 83
‛Abd al-Rah.mān b. Abzā al-Khuzā‛ī 16 Abū Ja‛far Ghūrī 58
‛Abd al-Rah.mān b. Jabala 40 Abū Ja‛far S.u‛lūk 55, 58
‛Abd al-Rah.mān the Kharijite 47 Abū Ja‛far Ziyādī 69–70
‛Abd al-Rah.mān Nīshābūrī 39–40 Abū Kālījār, Ziyārid 105

Index.indd 155 7/10/2009 1:39:03 PM

 156 I NDICES

Abu ’l-Khas.īb, H.ājib 31 Qarakhanid 93, 95

Abū Mans.ūr Aflah. b. Muh.ammad b. Alptegin Bukhārī 88–9
Khāqān 47 Alptegin, H.ājib 66, 67–8, 74
Abū Mans.ūr Muh.ammad b. ‛Uzayr, Samanid Altuntāsh, H.ājib, Khwarazm Shah 85, 89,
vizier 65, 66 93
Abū Muslim al-Khurāsānī 2, 3, 4, 27–31, 34 al-Amīn, Muh.ammad, ‛Abbasid caliph 2, 3,
Abu ’l-Najm b. ‛Imrān, naqīb 26 36, 38, 53
Abū Nas.r b. Ah.mad b. Abī Zayd 73, 76 ‛Āmir b. D . ubāra 28
Abū Nu‛mān 34 ‛Āmir b. Ismā‛īl 29
Abū Sa‛īd Bakr b. Mālik 65–6 Amīrak T.ūsī 77
Abū Sa‛īd Shaybī 73 ‛Amr and ‛Īsā, sons of A‛yan, naqībs 26
Abū Salama al-Khallāl 29 ‛Amr b. al-‛Ās. 16
Abū T.alh.a Ja‛far b. Mardānshāh 64 ‛Amr b. al-Layth, Saffarid amir 2, 49–51,
‛Adī b. Art.āt al-Fazārī 23 54, 58
‛Ad.ud al-Dawla Fanākhusraw b. Rukn ‛Amr b. Muslim 22
al-Dawla, Buyid amir 70, 72 ‛Amr b. Yazīd al-Azdī 38
Ah.mad, brother of Bars 63 ‛Amr b. Zurāra al-Qasrī 26
Ah.mad b. ‛Abdallāh 55 Anandpāl, Ānandpāla, Hindu king 85
Ah.mad (I) b. Asad, Samanid amir 53 Aparwīz, Khusraw (II), son of Hurmuz,
Ah.mad Darāz 51 Sasanid emperor 23
Ah.mad [b.] Ināltegin or Yināltegin 5, 103, Ardashīr Bābakān, Sasanid emperor 13
106–7 Arends, A.K. 8–9
Ah.mad (II) b. Ismā‛īl al-Shahīd, Samanid Arslān Jādhib 83, 85, 96, 98
amir 54, 55–6 Asad b. ‛Abdallāh al-Qasrī 24, 25–6
Ah.mad b. Ja‛far, amir of Khuttalān 63 Ash‛ath b. Muh.ammad al-Yashkurī 69
Ah.mad b. Manna 49 Ashnās 51
Ah.mad b. Mans.ūr b. Qarategin 69 Ashras b. ‛Abdallāh 25
Ah.mad b. Muh.ammad, Ghaznavid 113 ‛Ās.im b. ‛Abdallāh al-Hilālī 25
Ah.mad b. Muh.ammad b. ‛Abd al-S.amad, Aslam b. Zurāra al-Kilābī 18
Ghaznavid vizier 104, 108, 111, 112 Ayāz b. Aymaq or Uymaq 101, 102
Ah.mad b. Mujīb 47 Azd 32
Ahmad, Nazir 9 ‛Azīz b. Nūh., Samanid 44
Ah.mad b. Nūh. (I), Samanid 65
Ah.mad b. Sahl 54, 57–8 Bābak Khurram-dīn 44
al-Ah.naf b. Qays 14 Badr al-Kabīr 50
‛Alā’ b. H.urayth, naqīb 26 Bahār, Malik al-Shu‛arā’ 6
al-‛Alawī, H.asan b. T.āhir 87 Bah.īr b. Warqā’ 19
‛Alī b. ‛Abdallāh b. al-‛Abbās, ‛Abbasid 28 Bah.r b. Dirham 24
‛Alī b. Abī T.ālib, Rightly-Guided caliph 16 Bājī Rāy, Hindu king 84
‛Alī Dāya, Abu ’l-H.asan, H.ājib 101, 102, 111 Bajkam, Khuttalī commander 63
‛Alī b. ‛Īsā b. Māhān 2, 38–9 Bajkam Mākānī 60
‛Alī b. Juday‛ al-Kirmānī 28 Bakr b. al-‛Abbās, naqīb 26
‛Alī b. Kāma 72 al-Bal‛amī, Abū ‛Alī Muh.ammad b.
‛Alī b. al-Marzubān 65–6 Muh.ammad, Samanid vizier 67, 69
‛Alī b. Mas‛ūd (II), Ghaznavid sultan 5 al-Bal‛amī, Abu ’l-Fad.l Muh.ammad b.
‛Alī b. Qadïr Rāh.ūq (?) 91 ‛Ubaydallāh, Samanid vizier 59, 60
‛Alī Qarīb b. Il Arslān 91, 99, 100, 102 Bānha b. Muh.ammad b. M.l.l.y, 106–7
‛Alī b. al-Qāsim 69 Bānījūr 40
‛Alī Quhandizī 109 Barāz b. Māhūya 15, 16
‛Alī b. Sharwīn 51 Barāz-banda b. B.m.rūn, claimant to be
‛Alī b. Ya‛qūb b. Muh.ammad b. ‛Amr b. al- Ibrāhīm b. ‛Abdallāh al-Hāshimī 32
Layth, Saffarid amir 55–6 al-Barghashī, Abu ’l-Muz.affar Muh.ammad
‛Alītegin b. Hārūn or H.asan Bughra Khān, b. Ibrāhīm, Samanid vizier 77, 78

Index.indd 156 7/10/2009 1:39:08 PM

 I NDICES 157

al-Barmakī, Abu ’l-Qāsim al-‛Abbās b. al-Fad.l b. Muh.ammad b. S.ālih. Sagzī 47, 48

Muh.ammad, Samanid vizier 78 al-Fad.l b. al-Rabī‛ 40
Bārs, Samanid commander 54 al-Fad.l b. Sahl 33, 40, 41, 43
Barthold, W. 7 al-Fad.l b. Yah.yā al-Barmakī 37–8
Bassām, mawlā of the Banū Layth 15 Fādūspān, dihqān of Nishapur 28
Bayhaqī, Abu ’l-Fad.l 1, 4, 5, 6, 9–10 Fā’iq Khās.s.a 70, 72–4, 75, 77, 78
Bāyjūr 63 Fakhr al-Dawla ‛Alī b. Rukn al-Dawla,
Bāytūz 72 Buyid amir 73, 76, 77
B.b.dāh. (?) 68 al-Fārisī, Abū Muh.ammad ‛Abd al-Rah.mān
Begtughdï, H.ājib 105, 106, 110 b. Ah.mad, Samanid vizier 73
Begtuzūn 74, 77, 78 Fragner, Bert 2
Bhīmdeva, Hindu king 97
Bihāfarīd 4, 28–9 Ganda, Hindu king 90–1, 92
Bilgetegin, H.ājib 95 Gardīzī, Abū Mursil Mans.ūr b. Aflah. 1, 102
al-Bīrūnī, Abu ’l-Rayh.ān 1 Gardīzī, Abū Sa‛īd ‛Abd al-H.ayy 1ff., 81
Bīsutūn b. Wushmgīr, Ziyārid 64 Ghālib, uncle of al-Ma’mūn 33
Böritegin, Ibrāhīm b. Nas.r, Qarakhanid 108 Ghālib b. Ustādsīs 41
Bosworth, C.E. 10 Ghassān b. ‛Abbād 41, 51
Budayl b. Warqā’ 19 Ghāzī, ākhur-sālār 85
Buh.ayj, Ibn 83 Ghāzī, H.ājib 99
Bukayr b. Wishāh. 19 Ghit.rīf b. ‛At.ā’ al-Kindī 36, 37
Bukhār-Khudāh 29 Ghuzz, Oghuz, Turkmens 83, 98–9, 104,
105, 106, 109ff.
Carmathians, Bāt.inīs, Ismā‛īlīs 86, 87, 100
Chaghānī, Abū ‛Alī Ah.mad b. Muh.ammad b. H.abībī, ‛Abd al-H.ayy 7–8
al-Muz.affar 60, 61–6 al-Hādī, ‛Abbasid caliph 36
Chaghānī, Abū Bakr Muh.ammad b. H.afs. b. Mans.ūr al-Marwazī 38
al-Muz.affar b. Muh.tāj 55, 60 H.afs.a bt. Sahl 58
Chaghānī, Abū Mans.ūr Nas.r b. Abī ‛Alī 64 H.ājj Ah.mad, mu‛addil 44
Chaghānī, Abu ’l-Muz.affar ‛Abdallāh b. al-H.ajjāj b. Yūsuf 15, 18, 20–1
Abī ‛Ali Ah.mad 63–4 H.akam b. ‛Amr al-Ghifārī 17
Chaghrï Beg Dāwūd, Seljuq chief 106, H.akam T.ālaqānī 35
108–9 H.akīm Bukhārī 34
Chakraswāmī, Hindu idol 86–7 al-H.ākimī, Abu ’l-Fad.l Muh.ammad b.
Chandra Rāy, Hindu king 90 Muh.ammad, Samanid vizier 61, 62
Czeglédy, K. 6 al-H.amūlī, Abu ’l-H.usayn b. Muh.ammad,
Samanid vizier 178
al-D . ah.h.āk b. Qays al-Fihrī, Kharijite 27 H.amūya b. ‛Alī 57, 59
Dārā b. Qābūs, Ziyārid 75, 78 H.amza b. Ādharak 38–9, 43
al-Dāmghānī, Abū ‛Alī Muh.ammad b. ‛Īsā, H.arb b. Ziyād 32
Samanid vizier 73 Hardat, Hindu king 89
Dāwūd b. al-‛Abbās b. Hāshim b. Bānījūr 47 al-H.ārith b. Surayj 25, 27
Dāwūd b. Nas.r, amir of Multān Harthama b. A‛yan 39–40
Dāwūd b. Yazīd b. H.ātim 37 Hārūn or H.asan Bughra Khān,
Daypāl Haryāna, Hindu king 107–8 Qarakhanid 73
Dhimmīs 25 Hārūn b. Sulaymān, Abū Mūsā, Ilig Khān,
Dhūbān the Astrologer 40 Qarakhanid 74
D. irār b. H.us.ayn al-D. abbī 21 H.asan b. ‛Alī b. Abī T.ālib 16
Durayd b. al-S.imma 17 H.asan-i Būya, Rukn al-Dawla H.asan, Buyid
amir 64–5, 65–6, 68–9, 70
Epifanova, L.M. 9 H.asan b. H.umrān 33
Ertegin, H.ājib 111, 113 H.asan b. Pīrūzān 65
Eryārūq, H.ājib 103 H.asan Ut.rūsh, ‛Alid 56

Index.indd 157 7/10/2009 1:39:08 PM

 158 I NDICES

H.asan b. Zayd, ‛Alid 46, 48 Ja‛da b. Hubayra al-Makhzūmī 16

H.asanak, H.asan b. Muh.ammad Mīkālī 103 Ja‛far b. Baghlāghuz (?) 50–1
H.ātim b. al-Nu‛mān al-Bāhilī 14 Ja‛far b. H.anz.ala 26
Hephthalites 14, 17 Ja‛far b. Muh.ammad b. al-Ash‛ath 37
Hind bt. Muhallab 20 Ja‛far b. Sh.mānīqwā (?) 63
Hishām, Umayyad caliph 24–6 Ja‛far b. Yah.yā al-Barmakī 38
Hodivala, S.H. 9 Jahm b. S.afwān 27
H.ud.ayn, Kharijite 37 Jarīr b. Yazīd al-Bajalī 30–1
H.umayd b. Qah.t.aba 33–4 Jarrāh. b. ‛Abdallāh al-H.akamī 23
H.usayn b. ‛Alī b. ‛Īsā 38–9 al-Jayhānī, Abū ‛Abdallāh Muh.ammad
H.usayn b. ‛Alī al-Marwazī 55, 56, 57, 59 b. Ah.mad (? b. Muh.ammad), Samanid
H.usayn b. ‛Alī b. Mīkā’īl 105 vizier 57, 60
H.usayn b. Ma‛dān, Ma‛dānid of al-Jayhānī, Abū ‛Abdallāh Ah.mad b.
Makrān 103 Muh.ammad, Samanid vizier 70
H.usayn b. Mu‛ādh 34, 35 Jaypāl, Jayapāla, Hindu king 84
H.usayn b. T.āhir, Saffarid 72 Jhats 97–8
H..ykān (? Jaykān) the Qur’ān-reader 49 Jibrā’īl b. Yah.yā 34, 35
Juday‛ b. ‛Alī al-Kirmānī 27
Ibn al-‛Amīd, Abu ’l-Fad.l, Buyid vizier 65 Jumhūr b. Murār 30
Ibn al-‛Amīd, Abu ’l-Fath., Buyid vizier 70 Junayd b. ‛Abd al-Rah.mān 25
Ibn al-Ash‛ath, ‛Abd al-Rah.mān b. Justān b. Wahsūdān, Justānid ruler in
Muh.ammad 20 Daylam 54
Ibrāhīm and Yah.yā, sons of Zaydūya 55 Jūzjānī, Minhāj al-Dīn 8
Ibrāhīm b. ‛Abdallāh, al-Imām, ‛Abbasid 27,
29 Kābul Shāh 47
Ibrāhīm b. Abu ’l-H.asan 63 Kāmgar 58
Ibrāhīm b. Ah.mad, Tahirid retainer 48 Khalaf b. Ah.mad, Saffarid amir 72, 76, 82,
Ibrāhīm b. Ah.mad (II), uncle of Amir 84
Nūh. (I) b. Nas.r (II), Samanid 59, 62 Khalaj 76
Ibrāhīm b. Alptegin, H.ājib 66 Khālid b. ‛Abdallāh al-Qasrī 19, 24, 25–6
Ibrāhīm b. al-Ashtar 18 Khālid b. al-Walīd 13
Ibrāhīm b. Jibrā’īl 38 Khāqān of the Turks 25
Ibrāhīm b. S.ālih. al-Marwazī 47 Khārākhuruh, ruler of Ushrūsana 38
Ibrāhīm b. Sīmjūr 61, 62 Khārija, partisan of al-Muqanna‛ 35
Ibrāhīm b. al-Walīd (I), Umayyad caliph 27 Kharijites, H.arūrīs 27, 38–9, 43, 44, 47
Ibrāhīm b. Zaydūya 55 al-Khat.t.āb b. Yazīd 32
‛Ikrima, mawlā of ‛Abdallah b. al-‛Abbās Khātūn, ancestress of Bukhār Khudāt 17,
15 18
Īkūtegin H.ājib 109 Khāzim b. Khuzayma 32–3
Il-Mengü 77 al-Khujistānī, Ah.mad 49
Ilyās b. Asad, Samanid 53 al-Khunāmatī, Abu ’l-Fad.l Muh.ammad b.
Ilyās b. Ish.āq b. Ah.mad (II), Samanid 57 Ah.mad, Samanid vizier 78
Inanch H.ājib 74 Khurāsha b. Sinān, Kharijite 38
‛Īsā b. ‛Alī b. ‛Īsā 39 Khuzā‛a 32
Ish.āq b. Ah.mad (II), Samanid 57 Krishna, son of Bāsdīv 89
Ismā‛īl b. Ah.mad (I), Samanid 4, 51, 53–5, Kulchandra, Kulachand 89
58 Kumījīs 63
Ismā‛īl b. H.ammād 44
Ismā‛īl b. Nas.r (II), Samanid 61 Lāh.iz b. Qurayz., naqīb 26
Ismā‛īl b. Sebüktegin, Ghaznavid 77–8 Layth b. Sa‛d 41
Ismā‛īl b. T.oghān 70 Lazard, Gilbert 6

Jabūya, in Farghāna 37 al-Mahdī, ‛Abbasid caliph 32, 34–6, 38

Index.indd 158 7/10/2009 1:39:08 PM

 I NDICES 159

Mahdī, in Chaghāniyān 64 Milh.ān Gūyānī 14

Mahdī, son of Muh.sin 47 Minorsky, V. 7–8, 9
Mah.mūd b. Sebüktegin, Ghaznavid Mu‛addal b. ‛Alī b. al-Layth, Saffarid
sultan 4, 5, 76, 77–8, 81–100 amir 55
Mah.mūdiyān or Pidariyān 5 Mu‛ādh Faryābī 35
Māhrūy 83 Mu‛ādh b. Muslim, forbear of the later
Majd al-Dawla, Rustam b. Fakhr al-Dawla, Mu‛ādhīs 15
Buyid amir 99, 103 Mu‛ādh b. Muslim, governor of Khurasan
Majdūd b. Mas‛ūd (I), Ghaznavid 105, 108 for al-Mahdī 35
Mākān b. Kākī 60 Mu‛āwiya b. Abī Sufyān, Umayyad
Mākān b. Kākī, son of 65 caliph 16, 17, 18
Malik, Rah.īm Rid.āzāda 8 Mu‛āwiya b. ‛Ubaydallāh 32
Malik b. Dīnār 18 Mu’ayyid al-Dawla, Abū Mans.ūr ‛Alī b.
Malik b. al-Haytham, naqīb 26 Rukn al-Dawla, Buyid 72
al-Ma’mūn, ‛Abdallāh, ‛Abbasid caliph 2, 3, Mud.ar 19, 27
33, 38, 43–4, 53 al-Mufad.d.al b. al-Muhallab 20
al-Ma’mūn (II) b. al-Ma’mūn (I), Abu ’l- al-Muhallab b. Abī S.ufra 17, 18, 20
‛Abbās, Khwarazm Shah 88 Muh.ammad b. al-‛Abbās, ‘Son of the
al-Ma’mūn (I), Abū ‛Abdallāh, Khwarazm Grave-Digger’ 55–8
Shah 76 Muh.ammad b. ‛Abd al-Razzāq, Abū
Manāt, goddess 96–7 Mans.ūr 66–8
Mans.ūr b. Ah.mad (II), Samanid amir 59 Muh.ammad b. ‛Abd al-S.amad 54
Mans.ūr b. ‛Alī 57 Muh.ammad b. ‛Abdallāh b. Khāzim 19
Mans.ūr b. Bayqarā, Abū Nas.r 66 Muh.ammad b. Ah.mad, Abu ’l-‛Abbās 63
Mans.ūr b. Ish.āq, Abū S.ālih., Samanid 54, Muh.ammad b. Ah.mad b. Farīghūn, Abu
55–6 ’l-H.ārith 70, 76
Mans.ūr (I) b. Nūh. (I) al-Sadīd, Samanid Muh.ammad b. Ajhad 57
amir 67–70 Muh.ammad b. ‛Alī al-Imām, ‛Abbasid 23–4,
Mans.ūr (II) b. Nūh. (I), Samanid amir 77–8 26
Mans.ūr b. Qarategin 62, 64 Muh.ammad b. Bishr 49–50, 51
Mans.ūr b. Yazīd 38 Muh.ammad b. H.amīd/H.umayd al-
Marājil, mother of al-Ma’mūn 33 T.āhirī 43–4
Mardāwīz b. Ziyār, Ziyārid amir 60 Muh.ammad b. Hārūn 54
Maris 83 Muh.ammad b. Hurmuz, Mawlā S.andalī
Martinez, A.P. 6 55–6
Marwān (II) b. Muh.ammad, al-H.imār, Muh.ammad b. al-H.usayn b. Mus.‛ab,
Umayyad caliph 27, 29 Tahirid 41
al-Marwazī, H.afs. b. Mans.ūr 2, 38 Muh.ammad b. al-H.usayn b. Mut, Abū
Marwazī, Sharaf al-Zamān T.āhir 7–8 Mans.ūr 77
Maslama b. ‛Abd al-Malik, Umayyad 23 Muh.ammad b. Ibrāhīm al-T.ā’ī 88
Mas‛ūd (I) b. Mah.mūd, Ghaznavid sultan 1, Muh.ammad b. Mah.mūd, Ghaznavid
5, 89, 97, 101, 102–11 sultan 5, 89, 97, 100–2, 103, 111–13
Mas‛ūd (II) b. Mawdūd, Ghaznavid sultan 5 Muh.ammad b. al-Muhallab b. Zurāra
Mas‛ūdiyān or Naw-khāstagān 5 al-Marwazī 57
Mawdūd b. Mas‛ūd (I), Ghaznavid sultan 4, Muh.ammad b. al-Munawwar 8
5, 107, 111, 112–13 Muh.ammad b. Nas.r (II) b. Ah.mad (II),
al-Maymandī, Abu ’l-Qāsim Ah.mad b. Samanid 62
H.asan, Ghaznavid vizier 5, 103, 104 Muh.ammad b. N.w.la 47
Māzyār b. Qārin 44–5 Muh.ammad b. T.āhir (II), Tahirid 46, 47–8
Meisami, Julie 3–4 Muh.ammad b. T.oghān 61
Mengütirek, H.ājib 102 Muh.ammad b. Zayd b. Muh.ammad,
Mihrān, mawlā of ‛Ubaydallāh b. Ziyād 15 ‛Alid 54
Mīkālī, Abū Nas.r Ah.mad b. ‛Alī 71 al-Muhtadī, ‛Abbasid caliph 46

Index.indd 159 7/10/2009 1:39:08 PM

 160 I NDICES

Muhtājids 2 Pīrūz, mawlā of H.us.ayn b. Mālik al-

Mujāshi‛ b. Mas‛ūd 17 ‛Anbarī 15
Mukhallad b. Yazīd b. al-Muhallab 22, 23–4 Pīrūz b. K.b.k 47
al-Muktafī, ‛Abbasid caliph 50, 54, 55
al-Muntas.ir, ‛Abbasid caliph 45–6 Qābūs b. Wushmgīr, Ziyārid amir 72
al-Muntas.ir, Abū Ibrāhīm Ismā‛īl, Samanid al-Qādir, ‛Abbasid caliph 77, 82, 97, 102, 103
amir 82–3, 84 al-Qāhir, ‛Abbasid caliph 59
al-Muqanna‛ 4, 34–6 Qah.t.aba b. Shabīb, naqīb 26, 27–9
al-Muqtadir, ‘Abbasid caliph 55 al-Qā’im, ‛Abbasid caliph 2, 3
Murār b. Anas 29 Qarategin al-Isfījābī 59
Mūsā b. Ka‛b, naqīb 26 Qawām al-Dawla b. Bahā’ al-Dawla, Abu
Mūsā Yabghu, Seljuq 109 ’l-Fawāris, Buyid 87
Mus.‛ab b. Ruzayq 35 Qays b. al-Haytham al-Sulamī 14
Mus.‛ ab b. al-Zubayr 19 al-Qazwīnī, Ah.mad b. Muh.ammad b. ‛Alī 62
Musayyab b. Zuhayr 35–6 Qazwīnī, Mīrzā Muh.ammad 7
Muslim b. Sa‛d b. Aslam 24 Qitā Khān 97
al-Musta‛īn, ‛Abbasid caliph 46 Qutayba b. Muslim al-Bāhilī 21–2
al-Mu‛tad.id, ‛Abbasid caliph 50, 51, 54 Qut-tegin, treasurer 63, 66
al-Mu’taman b. al-Rashīd, ‛Abbasid 40
al-Mu‛tamid, ‛Abbasid caliph 46, 48–9 Rabī‛ b. al-H.ārithī 17
al-Mu‛tas.im, ‛Abbasid caliph 44–5 Rabī‛ b. Ziyād 15
al-Mutawakkil, ‛Abbasid caliph 45, 46 Rabī‛a 27
al-Mut.ī‛, ‛Abbasid caliph 66, 69 al-Rād.ī, ‛Abbasid caliph 60
al-Muttaqī, ‛Abbāsid caliph 60 Rāfi‛ b. Harthama 50
al-Muwaffaq, ‛Abbasid 48–9 Rāfi‛ b. al-Layth b. Nas.r b. Sayyār 39–40
al-Muzanī, Abu ’l-H.asan Muh.ammad b. Rajā’ b. H.aywa al-Kindī 20
Muh.ammad, Samanid vizier 72–3 Rājyapāl, Rājyapāla, Hindu king 90
Rām, Rāma, Hindu king 87, 108
Narshakhī 4 al-Rashīd, Hārūn, ‛Abbasid caliph 36–40
Nas.r, sharāb-dār 64 Ratbīl/Zunbīl 20, 47
Nas.r b. Ah.mad (I), Samanid amir 53–4 Raverty, H.G. 8
Nas.r (II) b. Ah.mad (II) al-Sa‛īd, Samanid al-Rid.ā, ‛Alī b. Mūsā, Eighth Imām of the
amir 56–60 Shī‛a 41
Nas.r b. ‛Alī, Arslān Ilig, Qarakhanid 77, Rustam b. Farrukh 13
78–9, 82–3, 86 Ruzgānī, Abū Ish.āq 63
Nas.r al-Mukhtārī 50
Nas.r b. Nūh. (I), Samanid 65 al-Saffāh., Abu ’l-‛Abbās, ‛Abbasid
Nas.r (Nad.r) b. S.ālih. 47 caliph 29–31
Nas.r b. Sayyār 3, 24, 26–8 Safīd-jāmagān ‘Wearers of White’ 4, 31–2
Nas.r b. Sebüktegin, Ghaznavid 78, 82–3, al-S.āh.ib Ibn ‛Abbād, Buyid vizier 76
92 Sahl b. H.amdān 50
Nas.r b. Shabath 43 Sahl b. Hāshim 58
Nazim, Muhammad 7, 9 Sa‛īd b. ‛Abd al-‛Azīz 24
Nubāta b. H.anz.ala 28 Sa‛īd b. ‛Amr al-H.arashī 24
Nūh. b. Asad, Samanid 41, 53 Sa‛īd b. Bashīr 36
Nūh. (II) b. Mans.ūr (II) al-Rad.ī, al-Rid.ā, Sa‛īd H.arashī 35, 36
Samanid amir 70–7 Sa‛īd Jawlāh 32
Nūh. (I) b. Nas.r (II) al-H.amīd, Samanid Sa‛īd b. Mans.ūr b. Yazīd 38
amir 60–5 Sa‛īd b. ‛Uthmān b. ‛Affān, Umayyad 18
Salama, mother of al-Mans.ūr 31
Ögretmish 54 Salama b. Muslim 35
Sālār b. Shīrdīl 69
Peacock, Andrew C.S. 5 S.ālih. b. ‛Abd al-Rah.mān 15

Index.indd 160 7/10/2009 1:39:08 PM

 I NDICES 161

al-Sallāmī, Abū ‛Alī al-H.usayn 2, 3 T.arkhūn, king of Sogdia 20

Salm b. Ah.waz 26 Tāsh, Abu ’l-‛Abbās, H.ājib, Samanid
Salm b. Ziyād 18–19 commander 70, 72–3
Sāmān Khudā 53 Tāsh Farrāsh, Hājib, Ghaznavid
Sawwār 53 commander 103
Sebük-eri 58 Tegin the Treasurer 86
Sebüktegin, Ghaznavid 4, 74–7 Tilak, commander in India 107
Seljuqs 93ff., and see Ghuzz, Oghuz, T.oghrïl Beg, Seljuq chief 110
Turkmens Trilochanpāl, Trilochanapāla, Hindu
Shādān, son of Masrūr 49 king 87–8
Shaddād b. Khālid al-Asadī 17 Tūlakī, Abu ‛Alī Muh.ammad b.
Shahrākīm b. Sūriyal 105 al-‛Abbās 69–70
Shahriyār b. Zarrīn-kamar 69 Tūztāsh 83
Shamardal b. Warqā’ 19
Shāpūr Dhu ’l-Aktāf, Sasanid emperor ‛Ubaydallāh b. Sulaymān 50
Sharaf al-Dawla Shīrzīl b. ‛Ad.ud al-Dawla, ‛Ubaydallāh b. Ziyād 17–18
Buyid amir 73 ‛Umar b. ‛Abd al-‛Azīz, Umayyad caliph
Sha‛rānī, Abu ’l-H.asan 45 23–4
Sharīk b. Shaykh al-Mahrī 29 ‛Umar b. Hubayra 24
Shaybān the Kharijite 27 ‛Umar b. Jamīl 37, 38
Shēr or Shār, of Gharchistān 87 ‛Umar b. al-Khat.t.āb, Rightly-Guided
Shī‛a 26 caliph 13, 23
Shibl b. T.ahmān, naqīb 26 ‛Umayr b. Ah.mar al-Yashkurī 15
al-Shiblī, Abū ‛Abdallāh Muh.ammad b. Umayya b. ‛Abdallāh 19–20
Ah.mad, Samanid vizier 67 Umm al-H.asan bt. ‛Alī b. Abī T.ālib 16
Shūkpāl. Sukhapāla, Hindu king 86 ‛Uqba b. Salm 35
Sīmjūrī, Abū ‛Alī Muh.ammad b. Usayd b. ‛Abdallāh 33
Muhammad 72ff., 76–7, 86 Ustādsīs 4, 33
Sīmjūrī, Abu ’l-H.asan Muh.ammad b. al-‛Utbī, Abu ’l-H.usayn ‛Abdallāh b. Ahmad,
Ibrāhīm 65, 66, 68–9, 71ff. Samanid vizier 71–2
Sīmjūrī, Abu ’l-H.usayn b. Abī ‛Alī al-‛Utbī, Abū Ja‛far Muhammad b. al-
Muh.ammad 77 H.usayn, Samanid vizier 66, 69, 70
Sīmjūrī, Abu ’l-Muz.affar Muh.ammad b. al-‛Utbī, Abū Nas.r Muh.ammad b. Abd
Ah.mad 74 al-Jabbār 1, 4, 5
Sīmjūrī, Abu ’l-Qāsim ‛Alī b. al-‛Utbī, Ahmad b. al-H.usayn/al-H.asan 63
Muh.ammad 78, 83, 84 ‛Uthmān b. ‛Affān, Rightly-Guided
Sīmjūrī, Abu ’l-Qāsim b. Ibrāhīm 73–4, 75 caliph 14, 15
‛Uthmān b. Nahīk 31
Tāhartī 87 ‛Uthmān b. ‛Umāra b. Khuzayma 37
T.āhir (II) b. ‛Abdallāh b. T.āhir (I), Tahirid
amir 45–6, 49 Wakī‛ b. Abī Sūd al-Ghudānī 21–2
T.āhir b. ‛Alī 55 Wakī‛ b. al-Dawraqiyya 19
T.āhir b. al-Fad.l, Abu ’l-H.asan 74 al-Walīd (I) b. ‛Abd al-Malik Umyyad
T.āhir b. H.afs. 47 caliph 20, 21
T.āhir (I) b. al-Husayn, Tahirid amir 3, 39, al-Walīd (II) b. Yazīd, Umayyad caliph 26–7
40–3 al-Wāthiq, ‛Abbasid caliph 45
T.āhir b. al-H.usayn b. T.āhir 47 Wushmgīr b. Ziyār, Ziyārid amir 60, 64,
T.āhir b. Khalaf b. Ah.mad, Saffarid 76 68–9
al-T.ā’i‛, ‛Abbasid caliph 70
T.alh.a b. ‛Abdallāh al-Khuzā‛ī 18 Yabghu, of Jand 83
T.alh.a b. Ruzayq, naqīb 26 Yah.yā b. Ah.mad (II), Samanid 59
T.alh.a (I) b. T.āhir (I), Tahirid amir 43 Yah.yā b. ‛Alī b. ‛Īsā 38
Tamīm 21 Yah.yā b. Asad, Samanid 53

Index.indd 161 7/10/2009 1:39:08 PM

 162 I NDICES

Yah.yā b. Mu‛ādh 37, 40 Yazīd b. Yah.yā 34

Yah.yā b. Muh.ammad b. Yah.yā al-Dhuhlī 49 Yughur Khān 97
Yah.yā b. Zayd b. al-H.usayn, ‛Alid 26–7 Yuh.annā, physician 68
Yamanīs 27 Yūsuf [al-Barm] Thaqafī 35
Yaqt.īn b. Mūsā 30–1 Yūsuf b. Ish.āq, Abū Mans.ūr, Samanid
Ya‛qūb b. al-Layth, Saffarid amir 2, 46–8 vizier 66, 67, 70
Yazdajird (III) b. Shahriyār, Sasanid Yūsuf b. Nas.r b. Sebüktegin, Ghaznavid 92
emperor 14, 58 Yūsuf Qadïr Khān, Qarakhanid 4, 5, 94–5,
Yazīd (II) b. ‛Abd al-Malik, Umayyad 108
caliph 24 Yūsuf b. Sebüktegin. ‛Ad.ud al-Dawla,
Yazīd b. Abī Muslim 20 Ghaznavid 97, 102
Yazīd (I) b. Mu‛āwiya, Umayyad caliph 3, 18
Yazīd b. al-Muhallab 20–1, 22–3 al-Zawzanī, Abū Sahl Muh.ammad b. al-
Yazīd b. ‛Umar b.Hubayra 27, 28, 29 H.usayn 89
Yazīd (III) b. al-Walīd (I), Umayyad Ziyād b. Abīhi 17
caliph 27 Ziyād b. S.ālih. 29

Index.indd 162 7/10/2009 1:39:09 PM

 I NDICES 163

2. Places
Ahwāz 48 Dīnārzārī defile 99
Āmul, in Gurgān 69, 104, 105 Dīnawar 37, 44
Āmul-i Shat.t., Āmūy 36, 51, 61, 74, 83 Dunpūr 112
Andarikh, near T.ūs 76
‛Arafāt 15 Egypt 29, 103
Argūy, in Gurgān 27
Armenia 95 Fad.lābād, in desert of Āmūy 36
Arrajān 65 Farāwa 96, 98–9
Asadābād, near Nishapur 25 Farghāna 21, 29, 36, 44, 53
Astarābād 38, 69, 72, 105 Farhādhān, near Nishapur 47
‛Ayn al-Shams 29 Fars 13–14, 48, 49
Ayqān 62 Fāryāb 25, 27
Firabr 56
Baghdad 33, 35, 39, 40–1, 48, 51, 53, 60,
103 Ganges river 90
Bādghīs 13, 17, 26, 33, 38, 72, 73 Ganj Rustāq 17, 73
Balkh 13, 16, 17, 26, 32, 33, 39, 47, 59, 63, Gardīz 47, 74, 77
68, 77, 78, 82, 85, 86, 93, 97, 100, 107–8, Gharchistān 87
111 Ghazna, Ghaznīn 4, 47, 74, 77, 78, 82,
Balkhān Kūh 104 84ff., 96–112
Baran, fortress in India 89 Ghūr 110
Bardha‛a 94 Ghūrak, fortress 86
Barghund, fortress 111 Gīrī, fortress 111
Bārī 90 Gurgān 22–3, 28, 46, 47–8, 54, 59, 60, 65,
Basand 64 68, 69, 72, 73, 82, 99
Basra 14, 16, 20, 23 Gurgānj 74, 86
Bāward, Abīward 8, 36, 68, 83, 85, 96, 98, Gūzgān(ān) 22, 25, 35, 76, 84, 89, 100, 109
104, 109–10 Gwalior 92
Bhatinda, Bhāt.iya 84–5, 97
Bhīmnagar 86 Hamadan 40
B.nāwad-Kōt (?). fortress 111 Hānsī 107–8
Bukhara 4, 17–18, 34ff., 53, 56ff., 62ff., Hawzān, on the Murghāb 59
72ff., 77–9, 83 Hazārasp 88
Busht, near Nishapur 28 Herat 13, 17, 19, 33, 36ff., 47, 48, 55, 57, 70,
Būs.īr 29 75, 76, 78, 82, 84, 85, 89, 102, 109
Bust 17, 47, 55, 74, 87, 98, 101 al-H.īra 30
Bustān Banī ‛Āmir 15 H.is.ār, in India 84
Būzgān 82 H.ulwān 28, 30–1
B.y.h (?) 72 Hupyān 111, 112

Chāch, Shāsh 53 Īlāq 63

Chaghāniyān 2, 38, 63, 64, 66, 93 India, Hindūstān, Indians 9, 80, 82, 84, 96,
Chāh-i Asad (?) 37 97, 103, 106–8, 110–11
Indus river 97
Dahak 84 ‛Irāq-i ‛Ajam 2, 13, 24, 81, 101
Damascus 21 ‛Irāq-i ‛Arab 2
Dandānqān 5, 110 Iron Gate, in Transoxania 63, 64
Darghān 83 Isfahan 27, 28, 60, 65, 100, 104
Dayr al-‛Āqūl 48 Isfarāyin 82
Dayr al-Jamājim 20 Isfījāb, Ispījāb 59, 74
Dīdī-Rū, fortress 111 Ispahbad, fortress of, in Sistan 82

Index.indd 163 7/10/2009 1:39:09 PM

 164 I NDICES

Jājarm 65 Medina 21
Jāla (?) 68 Merv, Marw Shāyigān 13, 15ff., 21, 25,
Jīranj, near Merv 58 27, 28, 32, 34ff., 40, 41, 53, 57–8, 62, 68,
Juh.fa 15 75, 82, 108–9
Jumna river 89 Multān 64, 86, 97, 111
Jundīshāpūr 48 Muttra, Mātūra 89–90
Juwayn, Gūyān 14, 38, 65
Jūy-i Mūliyān, at Bukhara 74 Nahrawāla 96
Nakhshab 21, 39, 62, 63, 75
Ka‘ba 96 Nandana 87–8
Kabul 16, 20, 21, 33, 37, 47, 74 Nasā 21, 22, 61, 68, 69, 73, 85, 98, 105,
Kālanjar 92 109
Kandasan pass 48 Nawshad, at Balkh 47
Kārūkh 47 Nāy-Lāmān, fortress 111
Kashghar 94 Nibāj 15
Kashmir 85, 87, 88, 92, 104 Nihāwand 28
Katar steppe or plain 86 Nishapur or Abarshahr 14, 26ff., 44, 45,
Kāth, Madīnat Khwārazm 76, 88, 89 47ff., 57ff., 63ff., 67ff., 73ff., 78, 82, 84–5,
Khabūshān 68 101–2, 105
Kharjang 63 N.m.kh.k.n 68
Khartang, near Samarqand 57 Nukhayla 15
Khmer 95 Nūr valley 91
Khulm 68 Nuwajkath (? Numijkath) 34
Khunāmat, near Bukhara 78 Nuwākath, citadel 34
Khurramak Garden, at Nishapur 73 N.z.n of Bāward 109
Khuttal(ān) 63
Khwāf 28 Oxus river 5, 17, 18, 33, 51, 59, 61, 63, 64,
Khwarazm 10, 21, 26, 74, 76, 88–9, 97, 67, 83, 85, 86, 95–6, 108
104
Kish 20, 21, 34, 75 Panjwāy 47
Kirman 13–14, 17, 87 Parwān 74
K.m.kānān, in Chaghāniyān 63 Peshawar 84
K.r.kān or Qas.r al-Mujāshi‛ 17 Pūshang 13, 35ff., 47, 72, 76
K.sh.r.w.r, (?) Khewra 86
Kufa 23, 28, 29 Qādisiyya 13
Kūhak 83 Qanawj 89–90
Kushmayhan 21, 83 Qarnīn 46
Qas.r Mujāshi‛, see K.r.kān
Lahore 92, 108 Qīrāt valley 91
Lōhkōt 88, 92 Quchqār-bāshī 74
Quhistān 14, 36, 38, 39, 70, 73
Mahābar, fortress in India 89 Qūmis(h) 14, 21, 60
Mākhān, near Merv 28
Makrān 103 Ramal Samm (?) 48
Mandīsh, fortress 111 Raqqa 42
al-Mans.ūra 97, 107 Ray 21, 29, 48, 54, 55, 60, 61, 64, 66, 69–70,
Maranj, fortress 111 73, 76, 99–100, 104
Mārīkala, ribāt. of 111–12 R.khnā 62
Marw al-Rūd 19, 20, 25, 27, 35, 85, 110 Rukhwad, Rukhūd, al-Rukhkhaj 47, 55, 102
Mastang 87 Rūyān 48, 69
Mayhana 8, 110
Maysān 15 Sabzawār 39
Mecca 96 Sālūs, Chālūs 69

Index.indd 164 7/10/2009 1:39:09 PM

 I NDICES 165

Samarqand 18, 21, 25, 34, 35, 39, 40, 41, 51, T.ālaqān 19, 25, 27, 33, 35
53, 57, 62, 63, 73, 77, 83, 94 T.āq, fortress in Sistan 84
Sanām, fortress 34 T.awāwīs 35
Sarakhs 14, 41, 62, 73, 78, 82, 85, 96, 104, 110 Tegīnābād 102
Sarastī 104–5 Thānesar 86–7
Sārī 60, 105 Tigris river 48
Sāsind river 84 Tirmidh 26, 63, 64
Sāwa 28 Transoxania 3, 13, 18, 36, 37, 40, 50, 54, 93,
Shābahār, near Kabul 37 95, 108
Shādyākh, at Nishapur 48 Tukhāristān 13, 28, 63, 68
Shāhbahār, at Ghazna 93 Tūlak 69–70
Shahrazūr 37 T.ūs 14, 19, 28, 41, 67, 76, 96, 98, 99, 102,
Shūmān 64 105, 109
S.iffīn 16
Simingān 63 Ūq, Ūk, fortress in Sistan 37, 38, 85
Sind 107 Ushrūsana 38, 53
Sing, near Merv 62 Uzgend 78–9
Sistan or Nīmrūz 13, 15, 17, 18, 20, 37, 39,
46–7, 49, 55–6, 57, 70, 72, 80, 82, 84, 85, Wālishtān 84
93, 97 Wardī 64
S.n.k.r 34 Wāshgird 63
Sogdia 18, 20, 36, 39, 83 Wayhind 84
Somnath, Sūmnāt, Somanātha 96–7
S.p.n.danqān (?) 105 Zābulistān 1, 47
Sūnīpat, fortress 107 Zāghūl 20
Zam 32–3, 51
T.abaristān 44, 46, 54, 56, 60, 65, 66, 69, 95, Zamīndāwar 17
105 Zarang 39, 46, 55–6, 58
T.abas, T.abasayn 13–14, 36, 76 Zawzan 28
Tākīshar 91 Zhāsht 63

Index.indd 165 7/10/2009 1:39:09 PM

Index.indd 166 7/10/2009 1:39:09 PM
 I NDICES 167

3. Technical terms
āb-shināsān 15 māl-i bay‛at 76
ah.dāth 48, 68, 72 marzbān 13, 21
ākhur-sālār 82 ma‛ūnat 68, 72
‛ayyār, ‛ayyārān 15, 45, 80,106 mūbad, mūbadān 29
mughān 13
barīd 32 mus.ādara 61
bast-āb 36 Musayyibī dirhams 36
bīstagānī 48 mutaqanna‛iyān 36
bundār 80 mut.t.awwi‛a 48

dā‛ī, dā‛iyān 23, 34 namāz 28

dārkhāshāk 92 naqīb 26
dawīt-dār 54
dihqān 14, 15, 16, 56 qa‛adiyān, qa‛ada 39
d.y.h.rā 93
s.āh.ib-i shurat. 55
fay’ 16 sarāy-parda 90
sarhang 21
Ghit.rīfī dirhams 36, 37 sharāb-dār 62

h.add 22 ta‛as.s.ub 24, 74

jizya, gazīt 48 uwaysī 92

kadkhudā 86, 101, 102 wakīl-i dar 66

kharāj 16
khut.ba 16, 102 zarrād-khāna 90
khutuww 92

Index.indd 167 7/10/2009 1:39:09 PM

Index.indd 168 7/10/2009 1:39:09 PM
 I NDICES 169

4. Book titles
Asrār al-tawh.īd fī maqāmāt al-shaykh Abī Sa‛īd, Kitāb al-Qunī 44
of Muh.ammad b. al-Munawwar 8
al-Āthār al-bāqiya ‛an al-qurūn al-khāliya, of T.abaqāt-i nās.iri, of Jūzjānī 8
al-Bīrūnī 1 Tah.qīq mā li ’-Hind, of al-Bīrūnī 1
Tārīkh-i Mas‛ūdī, of Bayhaqī 10
Kitāb Kharāj Khurāsān, of al-Marwazī 2, 38 Ta’rīkh Wulāt Khurāsān, of al-Sallāmī 2

Index.indd 169 7/10/2009 1:39:09 PM

Index.indd 170 7/10/2009 1:39:09 PM