Hanafi School was founded by a great person Imam Abu Hanifa. He was born in Kufa in Iraq in 699 A.D., 67 years after the death of Prophet Muhammad Saheb during the reign of Ummaid Caliph Abd al-Malik ibn Harwan. He was so free from greed that when the Abbasid Khalifa-al-Mansur offered him the post of the Qadi-Al-Mansur (Chief Judge of the State), Hanafí politely declined and wrote that he considered himself unfit for this post. The King was aghast and told him that he was lying. A man of wit, Hanafi replied that if he was lying, then his statement was doubly correct, because a liar could not be appointed to the exalted and august post of a Chief Judge. At this frank reply, the King lost temper and got Hanifa arrested and tortured in jail. He was probably poisoned and died in 767 A.D. It is said that his funeral was attended by more than 50,000 people and the funeral service was repeated 6 times for allowing the mourners to have his last glimpse.
By such a great scholar of religious jurisprudence and eminence Imam Abu Hanifa, the Hindus were granted the status of Zimmi after the conquest of Sindh by Arabs. Mahomed Kasim Ferishta, in his famous book ‘History of the Rise of the Mahomedan Power in India till the year A.D. 1612’ translated by John in English, writes:
“First question. “From what description of Hindoos is it lawful to exact obedience and tribute?”
Answer – It is lawful to exact obedience and tribute from all infields, and they can only be considered as obedient who pay the poll tax and tribute without demur, even should it be obtained by force; for, according to the law of Prophet, it is written, regarding infields “Tax them to the extent that they can pay, or utterly destroy them.’ The learned of the faith have also enjoined the followers of Islam,
“To slay them, or to convert them to faith;’ a maxim conveyed in the words of the Prophet himself. The Imam Huneef, however, subsequently considered as poll tax, or as heavy a tribute imposed upon them as they can bear, may be substituted for death, and he has accordingly forbidden that their blood heedlessly spilt. So that it is commanded that the Juzeea (poll-tax) and Khiraj (tribute) should be exacted to the uttermost farthing from them, in order that the punishment may approximate as nearly as possible to death.” (p. 198)
Under the Hanafi Law there was a mandate for those subjects who were unbelievers but protected (zimmis). For the Parasis who were fire-worshippers and the people of the Book (Jews and Christians) Caliph Umar made their safety obligatory, if the zimmis paid Jaziya to them. The Hindus were declared zimmis here and it was a great relief. Protection for non-believers on payment of Jazia is confirmed by an interesting anecdote mentioned in Ibn Battuta’s Rahela. He writes in chapter VII:
“The king of China had sent valuable gifts to the sultan, including a hundred slaves of both sexes, five hundred pieces of velvet and silk cloth, musk, jewelled garments and weapons, with a request that the sultan would permit him to rebuild the idol-temple which is near the mountains called Qarajil [Himalaya]. It is in a place known as Samhal, to which the Chinese go on pilgrimage; the Muslim army in India had captured it, laid it in ruins and sacked it. The sultan, on receiving this gift, wrote to the king saying that the request could not be granted by Islamic law, as permission to build a temple in the territories of the Muslims was granted only to those who paid a poll-tax; to which he added, “If thou wilt pay the jizya we shall empower thee to build it. And peace be on those who follow the True Guidance.” He requited his present with an even richer one-a hundred thoroughbred horses, a hundred white slaves, a hundred Hindu dancing-and singing-girls, twelve hundred pieces of various kinds of cloth, gold and silver candelabra and basins, brocade robes, caps, quivers, swords, gloves embroidered with pearls, and fifteen eunuchs. As my fellow-ambassadors the sultan appointed the amir Zahir ad-Din of Zanjãn, one of the most eminent men of learning, and the eunuch Kafur, the cup-bearer, into whose keeping the present was entrusted. He sent the amir Muhammad of Herat with a thousand horsemen to escort us to the port of embarkation, and we were accompanied by the Chinese ambassadors, fifteen in number, along with their servants, about a hundred men in all.”
After Muhammad bin Quasim, the conqueror of Sind, accorded the Hindus of Sind and Multan the status of zimmis which was the special privilege of Christians and Jews, it was approved by the famous Muslim Jurist, Abu Hanifa.
However, granting the status of Zimmis to Hindus in accordance with Hanafi Law was resented stoutly by many sections of the Muslim clergy. Historian Minhaj records an attack of Carmathians (or Ismailis) led by Nur Turk, which took place during the reign of Razia Sultan. Minhaj writes:
“A Carmathian scholar, Nuruddin Turk, generally known as Nur Turk, gathered together one thousand supporters from Delhi, Gujarat, Sind and the Doab. They began to condemn the Hanafi and Shafii doctrines and called the Sunni ulama ‘Nasibi’ and ‘Murji’. On 6 Rajab 634/5 March 1237, they entered the Jama Masjid from two directions and started killing the people who had assembled there to offer their Friday prayer. When confusion spread, some persons from the city Nasiruddin Aitam Balrami and Amir Nasiri came armed with pears, steel caps and shields. They fought with the ‘Mulahida’ while the people threw stones at them from the roof of the mosque.” (Minhaj, 189-90)
When I was an O.S.D. on Ayodhyā, the then Prime Minister Mr. P.V. Narasimha Rao called me once and told me that the instances of shifting mosques in Egypt and other countries were not being accepted by the Muslim leaders here because in India they are governed by the Hanafi law. Then he asked me to find out some historical instance in India, where a converted mosque was reverted to a temple. I told him that I would try my best to trace it.
After a fortnight’s efforts I succeeded in tracing the Farman of Shah Jahan dated 1648 A.D. wherein he had asked the Governor of Gujarat to restore the Chintamani temple built by Jain Banker Shantidas Zaveri and converted into a mosque by Aurangzeb to its original status of a temple. This Jain Chintamani temple had been converted into a mosque by Prince Aurangzeb when he was the Governor of Gujarat in 1645-46. The Emperor Shah Jahan, on the petition of the Chief Kaji of the Empire that under Islamic law no mosque could be built by force on others’ land, had issued this firman which is quoted in chapter “Many Mughal monarchs were magnanimous rulers.” Having seen this Farman the P.M. was very happy.
Since the Hindus were protected people after the payment of the poll tax, their temples were not razed by most of the monarchs and at Ayodhyā it so happened that almost all its temples remained intact till 1660 A.D.
There may be a lingering doubt in minds of many inquisitive readers about the survival of the temples at Ayodhyā by the end of the Sultanate period, even when the country faced the wrath of Muslim marauders like Salar Masud, Bakhtiyar Khalji and Makhdum Shah Juran Ghori. Ayodhyā was under the occupation of Muslim rulers with a Subedar stationed there at least since 1226 A.D. How could known iconoclasts like Malik Kafur, Feroz Shah Tughlaq and Sikandar Lodi allow the temples to exist at Ayodhyā without any demolition? Let it be examined on the basis of the known historical facts.
(2) Salar Masud
Although Mahmud of Ghazni attacked and plundered Mathurā, Kannauj, Somanātha and other religious places, he did not make any such attack on Ayodhyā. However, his sister’s son Salar Masud, a young warrior of 18 years, left Ghazni to conquer North India and establish the empire of Islam there. A detailed account of his life and expeditions is available in Mirat-i-Masudi written by Abdur Rahman Chisti during the days of Jahangir. As per the version of the author, his book is based on an old text written by a contemporary writer Mulla Muhammad Ghaznavi. ‘Mirat-i-Masudi’ has been called a historical romance in which “fact and fiction are freely mingled, and the great actions and exploits of other men are appropriated, without scruple, to the hero of the tale.”
In Salar Masud’s army expeditions two places are said to be identified with Ayodhyā. Ajudhan has been identified with Ayodhyā and Satrakh with Sāketa. But Ajudhan does not appear to be Ayodhyā; rather it is somewhere between Multan and Delhi, whereas Satrakh is a place at s
ome distance from Ayodhyā in Barabanki district. His army expedition to Ajudhan is described thus:
“The rainy season had now set in, so they remained at Multan the next four months. After the rains, Masud led his army against Ajudhan. Although, in those days, that place and its vicinity was thickly populated, it was subdued without struggle. Masud was delighted with the climate of Ajudhan, and as, moreover, it was a good sporting country, he remained there till the end of the following rains, when he set off for Delhi. Rai Mahipal was the king of the city.”
From this description it is clear that this Ajudhan existed between Multan and Delhi. Moreover, it is mentioned in Ibn Battuta’s travels in the following words:
“After two days journey from this place (Abuhar) we reached the town of Ajudahan (Pakpattan), a small town belonging to the pious Shaikh Farid al Din al-Badhawani.” (Gibb’s translation p. 613)
In the footnote 71, H.A.R. Gibb has thus identified this place:
“Ajudahan was the principal ferry across the Sutlaj river, and was remained Pakpattan (holy ferry) by Akber in honor of Saint (Baba) Farid al-Din mentioned below, whose shrine is widely venerated.”
Thus, there is no confusion about the identification of Ajudhan which was faraway from Ayodhyā. Those historians, who have identified Ajudhan with Ayodhyā, have written that Ayodhyā was subdued by Salar without any struggle. But it is not a fact. Ajudhan which Salar Masud captured is different from Ayodhyā, the birthplace of Rāma. After defeating Mahipal Salar Masud went to Kanauj where his favourite king Ajipal met him with gifts. Thereafter, he reached Satrakh. Satrakh is not Sāketa or Ayodhyā. At present, it is a small town in Barabanki district. But in the eleventh century it was an affluent town. Masud captured it and continued to reside there with grandeur. Thereafter what happened is lucidly described in Mirat-i-Masudi in the following words:
“One day ambassadors arrived from the Princes of Karra and Manikpur, bringing two saddles, bridles, and other rare presents, with this message, “This kingdom has belonged to us and our fathers from time immemorial. No Musulman has ever dwelt here. Our annals relate that the Emperor Alexander, Zu-I karnain, made an expedition against this country, and reached Kanauj; but there he made peace with Rai Kaid, and returned without having crossed the Ganges. Sultan Mahmud, also, with your father, came as far as Ajmir, Guzerit, and Kanauj, but spared our country. But you, without any respect for the rights of property, establish yourself in a country that does not belong to you. The action is unworthy of a great mind like yours. It is an infinite sorrow to us that you should be the only child in the house of your father, and that he should have no other descendants. Consider, we pray you, the right Satrakh is a pleasant place; but it is not fitting that you should remain there. We have 90,000 picked soldiers; the princes of the country of Bahraich and other places will come to our help on every side, and you will find yourself in great difficulties. You had better take the prudent course of retiring of your own free will.” (p. 535)
Masud raged at this like a fierce lion, and, compressing his lips, addressed the ambassador thus, “Well is it for thee that thou comest as an ambassador; had any one else addressed such an insolent speech to us, we would have had him torn in pieces. Go, tell thy princes their country belongs to the all-powerful God, who gives it to whom he wills. Think not that we are come only to take a journey. We intend to make our abode here, and, by the command of God, will uproot unbelief and unbelierers from the land.”
So saying, he dismissed the ambassador, who went and told his master all that had passed, adding “This cub, in truth, fears no one. Do you use your best endeavours, for he cares nought for your 90,000 picked men.” The unbelievers were greatly alarmed. At length a barber, who was present, said, he would settle the business if authorized to do so. The Rãi ordered him to make the attempt; to poison Masud, in which he succeeded, but the intended victim recovered. (The History of India, As Told by Its Own Historians, – Elliot and Dowson, vol. II, pp. 535-36)
The bold barber had presented a poisoned nail-cutter to Masud who had become almost dead due to the effect of the poison. The barber was caught subsequently spying along with two Brahmans. Brahmans’ lives were spared but the barber was butchered. From the above passage probably comes the first recorded mention of Alexander’s invasion in the country.
There were many battles between the two sides with heavy casualties. Masud’s mother died of grief and his father Salar Sahu joined him with a big contingent. Thereafter, a rare event of Indian history took place. All the local Princes united against Masud. Their names are given below:
(1) Rai Raib (2) Rai Saib (3) Rai Arjun
(4) Rai Arjun (5) Rai Bhikan (6) Rai Kanak
(7) Rai Kalyan (8) Rai Makru (9) Rai Sakru
10) Rai Karan (11) Rai Birbal (12) Rai Jaipal
(13) Rai Siopal, (14) Rai Harpal (15) Rai Harku
(16) Rai Prabhu (17) Deb Narayan (18) Narsing.
They are said to be present with 20,00,000 cavalry and 30,00,000 infantry.” (p. 539)
Thereafter, Sahar Dev from Shabhun and Har Dev from Baluna joined them with large forces. They were experts in drawing strategy. They addressed other Princes in the following words:
“You do not know the tactics of war. Order the blacksmiths to prepare 5,000 balls each, with five poisoned prongs. Before the battle we will fix them firmly in the ground. When the Musulmans charge with their cavalry, the prongs will enter into the horses’ feet; they will fall, and we will finish their business. Prepare besides plenty of fire-works.” (ibid. p. 542)
In two months all the Princes assembled with innumerable soldiers and encamped on the bank of the river Kaushalya. On the 18th day of the month of Rajab-ul-murajjab in the year 424 AH. 1033 A.D. these soldiers moved against the army of Masud at dawn. The Mirāt-i-Masūdī records this fight between the two forces in the following words:
“The army of the enemy was innumerable, like mountains on every side; so that although numerous forces fought in the army of Islam, they were mown down like so much grass. Many of the greatest nobles met their deaths. In the course of that day, from morning till evening prayer, two-thirds of the army were slain, leaving but one-third to mourn their loss.” (ibid. p. 545)
Mirat-i-Masudi further records:
“Meanwhile, the Rai Sahar Deo and Har Deo, with several other chiefs, who had kept their troops in reserve, seeing that the army of Islam was reduced to nothing, unitedly attacked the body-guard of the Prince. The few forces that remained to that loved one of the Lord of the Universe were ranged round him in the garden. The unbelievers, surrounding them in dense numbers, showered arrows upon them. It was then, on Sunday, the 14th of the month Rajab, in the aforesaid year 424 (14th June, 1033), as the time of evening prayer came on, that a chance arrow pierced the main artery in the arm of the Prince of the Faithful.” (ibid. p. 456)
It further says,
“By the time of evening prayer not one was left. All the servants of Masud lay scattered like stars around that moon.”
This battle was fought at Bahraich where stood a Sun-temple Bālārka. It ended on 14th June 1034 A.D. Masud’s body was captured and beheaded. However, his body was handed over for burial. His mausoleum was built much later by Sultan Feroz Shah Tughlaq who came to Bahraich and on learning that Masud was beheaded he not only built a mausoleum but declared him a saint also. On his Urs (death anniversary) held in May every year a large number of persons, both Muslims and Hindus, go there with a hope to get some thing magically. This was a practice during the time of Tulasi Das also. In Dohāvalī he has written:
लही आँखि कब आँधरे बाँझ पूत कब ल्याइ।
कब कोढी काया लही जग बहराइच जाइ।। (496)
Thus, it is clear that the first Muslim attack in the vicinity of Ayodhyā was a flop.
(3) Bakhtiyar Khalji
Bakhtiyar Khalji is a dreaded and despised name because he is
said to have burnt the famous library of Nalanda University and beheaded its hundreds of Buddhist monks. Many scholars have written that since Bakhtiyar Khalji was in-charge of the Oudh province, he could not have spared the temples at Ayodhyā. How could it be possible that an iconoclast like Bakhtiyar did not demolish temples at Ayodhyā? First his career should be examined before coming to a conclusion.
Bakhtiyar Khalji was a native of Garmsir in Northern Afghanistan. He went to Ghazni for employment. There he was offered a paltry salary and therefore he declined the offer. Then he came to Delhi where he was rejected because of his ugly features. Thereafter he went to Badaun where Hizabruddin Hasan Adib, the muqta (governor) of Badaun, took him into service. It was his first employment. There he came in contact with Ali Nagauri, who was the muqta of Nagaur. After his death Bakhtiyar was assigned a small iqta of Kashmandi but it was almost event-less. Thereafter, he went to Awadh where he met Malik Husamuddin Aghul Bek, who was commander of the Awadh and Varanasi divisions. Aghul Bek got impressed with his gallantry and conferred upon him the iqtas of Bhagwat and Bhiuli. Bhiuli is the north-eastern pargana of Chunar tehsil and it touches the pargana of Bhagwat on the west. According to Prof. K.A. Nizami both these parganas are in the south-eastern corner of the modern Mirzapur district.
Thus, it is clear that Bakhtiyar Khalji never held any post at Ayodhyā. During that period Malik Husamuddin Aghul Bek was the commander of both Awadh and Varanasi divisions. Bakhtiyar Khalji had no occasion to serve at Ayodhyā and thus could do no harm there. This must satisfy those writers who apprehend damage at Bakhtiyar Khalji’s hands in the holy city of Ayodhyā.
After massacring Buddhist scholars at Nalanda, Bakhtiyar Khalji captured Nadia and then had the ambitious plan of conquering Tibet. On the way he realized his folly and limited resources for the conquest, so he abandoned the idea and marched towards Assam for conquering the vast territory. But his army had to face the wrath and onslaught of the soldiers and subjects of Kamarupa. On account of the strategic farsightedness of the King of Assam, Bakhtiyar Khalji met a very ignominious end. Since very few persons know this tragic end, it is reproduced verbatim from the Persian book the ‘Riyazu-s-Salatin’ of Ghulam Husain Salim. It is a great irony of history that one of the most energetic iconoclasts of Indian history had to take shelter in a temple to save his own and his soldiers’ lives.
Ayodhya Revisited Page 62