"The Abbasid caliph al-Mutamid (d. 279/892) had handed over the charge of Sind to the Saffarid chief, Yaqub bin Layth, in order to divert his intentions from attacking Iraq. As a result, Yaqub bin Layth acquired the power of Sind, Balkh and Tabaristan. He however recited the Abbasid khutba, and was simultaneously responsible to spread Shi'ism in the territories he governed. He died in 265/892, and with his departure, the Muslim territories in Sind had been divided into two main states, i.e., the State of Multan and Mansurah. In 279/892, the State of Multan passed into the hands of an Arab dynasty, called Banu Samah, founded by the clan of Asad.

Meanwhile, Ibn Hawshab had sent al-Haytham in 270/884 from Yamen to Sind for Ismaili propaganda. He operated the Ismaili mission that continued under the charge of different da'is. The early accounts are so meager that nothing can be gleaned about the missionary activities. It is however possible that they had spread in the State of Multan during the period of Samah rule. Qadi Noman (d. 363/974) writes in Iftitah al-Dawa (comp. 346/957) that, "The mission in Sind goes back to the early days of the Ismaili movement. Abul Qassim bin Hawshab, well-known under the name of Mansur al-Yamen, sent his cousin, al-Haytham, as a da'i to the country of Sind, the latter converted many of its inhabitants and his mission still exists in Sind." It suggests that the Fatimid mission in Sind was in operation from 270/884 to 346/957. During the time of Imam al-Muizz (d. 365/975), it is reliably known that a certain unknown da'i, who had tied close relations with the ruling Samah dynasty and neglected in his duty, and acted contrary to the policy of the mission. Qadi Noman writes in his Kitab al-Majalis wa'l Musayarat (comp. 351/962) that, "In the time of al-Muizz in 347/958, there was in charge of the mission in Sind a da'i, whose views and conduct were utterly at variance with the Ismailism taught by the Imam and his close associates. Not only did he adopt a latitudinarian attitude towards those members of his flock who had made a direct passage from their old religion to Ismailism; whom he allowed to keep many of the un-Islamic practices of their former religion, but he even relaxed certain statutes of Islam for those who had been Sunni Muslims before joining Ismailism."

It suggests that the Ismaili faith penetrated among the non-Muslims and the Sunni Muslims in Sind, but the retention of certain practices of their former cults had been seriously noticed in Egypt. This unknown da'i was ultimately killed in a riding accident in 348/959, and according to the statement of Qadi Noman, another da'i called Jaylam bin Shayban was recommended by Imam al-Muizz to the headquarters of Yamen. Jaylam bin Shayban most probably proceeded to Sind via Khorasan, and seized Multan after overthrowing the ruling dynasty, and founded a Fatimid vassal state in Upper Indus Valley in 349/960. In another passage quoted by Uyun'l Akhbar (6:222), Qadi Noman summed up the Ismaili mission in Sind as follows: - "The mission of the ruler of the epoch (wali al-zaman) has emerged victoriously in Sind, his faithful followers earned glory; his da'i there conquered the ruler of the kingdom of Sind who was a Zoroastrian, killed him and his men and destroyed the idol which they used to worship and made a mosque of the temple in which the idol used to stand." It implies that there had been a firm foothold of the idolatrous in Sind, most possibly the Hindus, not Zoroastrians, and their domination throughout Sind was like their rule in Sind, which was wiped out by the Fatimid da'is, but the actual destruction of the rule in Sind was practically the Samah dynasty. It also suggests that Jaylam bin Shayban had faced challenges of both the Hindus and Samah dynasty.

Ibn Hawqal is generally quoted to have narrated the existence of the Samah rule in 358/968, and after him Maqadisi reported the Fatimid rule in Multan in 375/985. With the accounts of Ibn Hawqal and Maqadisi, the scholars almost determined the Fatimid foothold in Multan between 358/968 and 375/985, which seems unlikely. Ibn Hawqal started his famous journey from Baghdad in 331/943, and returned back in 358/976, and was in the African lands in the following year, and since 361/972 he had been in Sicily. The year of the termination of his work, according to Barthold, is held to be 367/978. With all this in mind at now, it is quite possible that the narration of Multan given by Ibn Hawqal cannot be dated as 358/968. Istakhri (d. 404/1014) also gives the details of Multan for the year 340/951 when he met Ibn Hawqal at Indus Valley. While examining the extracts of these two travellers, we will safely arrive to the conclusion that Ibn Hawqal had borrowed his information of Multan from Istakhri in 340/951, and himself was not in Multan in the year 358/968. Thus, the account of Ibn Hawqal relates to the year of 340/961 he had actually acquired from Istakhri. According to Barthold (vide Barthold's Preface in Hudud al-Alam, tr. by Minorsky, London, 1937, p. 20), Ibn Hawqal was in Mosul in 358/968, and writes, "The manuscript, which Sir W. Ouseley took for a copy of the translation of Ibn Hawqal and edited as such was found to be an abridged version of Istakhri's book." It further suggests that the account of the ruling Samah dynasty in Multan reported by Ibn Hawqal in 358/968 relates to the year 340/951, and the product of De Geoji's research in this context also testifies the fact. Sir H.M. Elliot's The History of India (Lahore, 1976, 1:26) also describes that, "Istakhri was a little anterior in point of time to Ibn Hawqal, but these two travellers met in the valley of the Indus, and exchanged observations. A comparison of the extracts will show how Ibn Hawqal availed himself of his contemporary writings, and made them the basis of his own work."

The Fatimid foothold in Multan therefore seems to have existed between 340/951 and 358/968. The early accounts are too vogue to permit of any solid inference concerning an exact influence of the Fatimid in Multan. We however come to know from a rare letter of Imam al-Muizz written in 354/965 addressing to Jaylam bin Shayban, the then Ismaili ruler of Multan, in which he acknowledged the report of Multan's occupation. It further transpires that the Fatimid vassal state was founded in Multan before 354/968. The anonymous geographical work, entitled Hudud al-Alam (The Regions of the World) compiled in 372/982, giving also the accounts of Multan, and its source of information is also Istakhri and Ibn Hawqal. The author however admits the existence of the Fatimid rule in Multan during the period he compiled his work in 372/982. It writes that, "Its governor is a Quraishite from the descendants of Sam. He lived at a camp half of farasang (from Multan) and reads the khutba in the name of the Western One (bar Maghribi)." In this context, the author of Hudud al-Alam shows the Samah dynasty as the rulers of Multan, suggesting that he had extracted from Istakhri and Ibn Hawqal. While his expression bar maghribi (Western One), according to Minorsky (Ibid. p. 246) refers to the Fatimids; also suggesting a report of his own period he had known. It may also be possible that the author of Hudud al-Alam had known in his time that the rulers of Samah dynasty recited the khutba of the Fatimids instead of Abbasids, making Jaylam bin Shayban, as the then Samah ruler.

In sum, it has been indicated previously that the Fatimid da'i Jaylam bin Shayban founded the Ismaili rule in the State of Multan in 349/960. Multan was a state of antiquity. For Hindus, it was the navel of the world. The Arabs called it the Bayt al-Zahab, and for the Mughal's it was Dar al-Aman. The State of Multan does not mean the present location of the city, but it was a big state, including whole Punjab and the region of Sind. Jaylam bin Shayban had solidified his hold and extended his power. His immediate neighbours in the north were the Hindu Shahis, who ruled the territory from Lamghan to the river of Chinab and from the hills of southern Kashmir to the frontier kingdom of Multan. He established friendly relations with the Hindu Shahis. He is reported to have demolished the famous Suraj Temple and smashed the highly venerated idol, called Aditya (sun-god), and built a big mosque in the city. Writing for Jaylam bin Shayban, al-Biruni (d. 430/1039) writes that, "He broke the idol into pieces and killed its priests. He made his mansion, which was a castle built of bricks on an elevated place." (vide Alberuni's India, Lahore, 1962, 1:157). It is also reported by al-Biruni that when Muhammad bin Kassim conquered Multan, he inquired how the town had become so flourishing and huge treasure had there been accumulated, and then he found that this idol was the cause, for there came pilgrims from all sides to visit it. He thought it best to have the idol where he was. According to Istakhri in Kitab al-Masalik wa'l Mamlik (comp. 340/951), "The temple of the idol is a strong edifice, situated in the most populous part of the city, in the market of Multan, between the bazar of the ivory dealers and the shops of the copper-smiths. The idol is placed under a cupola in the midst of the building, and the ministers of the idol and those devoted to its service dwell around the cupola. The idol has a human shape, and is seated with its legs bent in a quadrangular posture on a throne made of brick and mortar, and its hands resting upon its knees, with the fingers closed. Its whole body is covered with a red skin like Morocco leather, and nothing but its eyes are visible, made of precious gems, and its head is covered with a crown of gold."

Jaylam bin Shayban started the new coinage in the State of Multan, known as Qahirya minted in Egypt in the name of the Fatimids. It was equivalent in weight to five Iraqian dhirams. He also started the Fatimid khutba to be read in the mosques. He was in close contact with Imam al-Muizz, and reported the progress he made during his operation. According to Uyun'l Akhbar (6:214), "There arrived a letter from him (Jaylam bin Shayban), in which he mentioned the victory which God has granted him in the jazira of Sind and the dominion which the "Friends of God" had acquired there. He mentioned that he had broken the idol for the destructions of which he had previously asked the Imam's permission. He addressed to the Imam certain questions concerning the restoration of religion and abolition of the changes introduced by the former wicked da'i, who had wandered upon the path of transgressors. He also consulted the Imam about several matters concerning the laws (fiqh) and permitted and prohibited things (al-halal wa'l haram) and about problems of allegorical interpretation (tawil), the knowledge of which has been given by God to the "people of meditation" (ahl al-zikr), Imam after Imam. The Imam answered him by a sijill which is very famous and well known and is written down in the pages of the books." The reply of Imam al-Muizz to the letter of Jaylam bin Shayban is cited in Uyun'l Akhbar (6:219) which reads: "Referring to what you have written that God has granted you a victory over those who had attacked you and wanted to oust you from your place; that terrible battles have been fought between you, till God gave you the victory, by His help and assistance and you exterminated them completely; that you destroyed their idol and built a mosque on its site. What a great favour, what manifest and palpable excellence and lasting glory is that from God! We would be very much pleased if you could send us the head of that idol; it would accrue to your lasting glory and would inspire your brethren at our end to increase their zeal and their desire to unite with you in a common effort in the cause of God. The realization of God's promise to us, which used to seem so remote, has, indeed, become imminent...." In the concluding lines, Imam al-Muizz writes: "We have sent you some of our banners, which you can unfurl in case of need. Whenever they are unfurled over the heads of the believers, God increases their glory by the banners and hails them with His assistance; on the other hand, when they are unfurled over the heads of the unbelievers, the banners humiliate their pride and overwhelm them by the power of God, Who is our Benefactor....Written on Sunday, the 19th Ramzan, of the year 354."

After getting directions from his spiritual master, Jaylam bin Shayban attained both religious and political achievements in the State of Multan. No further details are accessible from the contemporary or later sources. It is however known from the fragments of the sources that the Abbasids assisted the remains of the clan of Munabbah in the State of Multan against the Fatimid ruler. Before the time the operation might threaten the Fatimid foothold, Jaylam bin Shayban took field against them in 373/983 and destroyed the remaining ashes of the Munabbah dynasty. Maqadisi was in Sind in 375/985 and writes in his Ahsan al-taqasim (p. 485) that, "In Multan the khutba is recited in the name of the Fatimid and all decisions are taken according to his commands. Their envoys and presents go regularly to Egypt. He (Jaylam) is a powerful and just ruler." Maqadisi further adds: "Multan is smaller than Mansurah in size, but has a larger population. Fruits are not found in plenty; yet they are sold cheaper......Like Siraf, Multan has wooden homes. There is no bad conduct and drunkenness here, and people convicted of these crimes are punished by death or by some heavy sentence. Business is fair and honest. Travellers are looked after well. Most of the inhabitants are Arabs. They live by a river. The place abounds in vegetation and wealth. Trade flourishes here. Good manners and good living are noticed everywhere. The government is just. Women of the town are modestly dressed with no make-up and hardly found talking to anyone in the streets. The water is healthy and the standard of living high. There is happiness, well-being and culture here. Persian is understood. Profit of business is high. People are healthy, but the town is not clean. Houses are small. The climate is warm and arid. The people are of darkish complexion." (Ibid. pp. 481-2) Jaylam bin Shayban died probably in 376/986. "It may be summarized" says Dr. Ahmad Nabi Khan in his Multan, History and Architecture (Lahore, 1983, p. 38) "that his rule was benevolent and the people prospered under him." He was succeeded by his son, Shaikh Hamid, who ruled till 387/997. In 385/995, Shaikh Hamid is reported to have sent a deputation from Multan to Cairo to meet Imam al-Aziz along with presents. Abu Jabbar Hamdani (d. 415/1025) also confirmed the arrival of such deputation from Multan in 385/995 at Cairo in his Tathbit Dala'il Nubuwwat (p. 180).

Alaptagin (d. 352/963) had founded the kingdom of the Ghaznavids in Afghanistan, and was succeeded by his son, Abu Ishaq Ibrahim (d. 355/966). Bilkatagin (d. 364/974), the slave of Alaptagin rose to the power as the third ruler. Piritagin (d. 366/977), another slave of Alaptagin ascended as the fourth ruler, and the fifth ruler was Sabatagin (d. 387/997), and his son and successor, Mehmud (d. 421/1030) had seized Ghazna and made it his capital. In 381/991, Sabatagin, the fifth Ghaznavid ruler had raided Multan, and concluded a truce with Shaikh Hamid, since the Ismaili ruler of Multan served a buffer state between the rising Turkish power of Ghazna, and the old Hindu Shahis. After the death of Sabatagin, his son Mehmud, known as Mehmud of Ghazna; the sworn enemy of Ismailism, had violated the above truce, and invaded Multan in 395/1005.

In 391/1001, Mehmud debouched from the snow-clad hills along the north-western frontier of India, marched through the Khaibar Pass and swooped down upon India. Between 391/1001 and 421/1030, he invaded India no fewer than 12 times. When he was returning from his expedition to Bhatinda in 395/1005, Abul Fateh Dawood bin Nasr, the grandson of Shaikh Hamid is said to have resented the passage of his army through the province of Multan, and as a result, Mehmud is supposed to have invaded Multan in 396/1006. Utabi however writes in Kitabu'l Yamini (comp. 411/1020) that, "Abul Fateh Dawood's adherence to the Ismailism was the root cause of Mehmud's invasion." Mehmud laid a siege over Multan, and exhausted with the seven days siege of the town due to the shortage of supplies, Abul Fateh Dawood was forced to pay a large sum of ransom to him, and it was also concluded that the reign of Multan facing the Indus River would remained under the Ghaznavid occupation.

In 401/1010, Mehmud once again spurred his horses towards Multan through opposite route, and crossed Khyber with a view to invade Multan after passing through Lahore. Anandpal, the son of Jaypal (d. 393/1002), the king of Hindu Shahis at Lahore did not allow Mehmud to pass through his territory, and himself commanded his army to block Mehmud at Peshawer, but was swept away before the mighty forces of the invaders. Mehmud entered Multan via Bhatinda, and launched a terrible massacre. Besides being greedy of wealth in plundering, Mehmud was a fanatical and cruel, and a special fierce enemy of the Ismailis. His aggressive operation is attested by al-Baghdadi (d. 429/1037), who writes in Kitab al-Firaq (p. 277) that, "The Ismailis of Multan were massacred in thousand by Mehmud." Gardizi writes in Zainu'l Akhbar (comp. 441/1048) that, "Mehmud arrested the majority of the Ismailis, who lived in Multan, killed and chopped off the hands of some and punished them severely." According to Tarikh-i Firishta (comp. 1015/1606) that, "A large number of the Ismailis were slaughtered. Hands and feet of a large number of them were ruthlessly amputated." Muhammad bin Mansur writes in Adabu'l Muluk wa Kifayatu'l Mamluk (comp. 615/1228) that Mehmud put so many Ismailis to the sword by himself that, "a stream of blood flowed from the Lohari Gate in Multan, which was on the western side of the town, and that the hand of Sultan Mehmud was stuck fast to the hilt of the sword on account of congealed blood, and has to be immersed in a bath of hot water before it could be loosened." In sum, after a bloody slaughter and savage persecution, Mehmud gained a booty of two crore dinars from the local citizens as a price of refraining from further horrible massacres. Thus, Multan was annexed to the Ghaznavid dominions. Abul Fateh Dawood, the then Ismaili ruler was taken prisoner and was imprisoned in the fort of Ghurak, about 50 miles northwest of Kandhar, and died there around 406/1015. So came to an end of the Fatimid rule in the State of Multan. It lasted for over a half century. The da'is in Multan constituted a dynasty of three rulers and were of Arab race.

Before long, however, the Ismaili power again revived in Multan by the descendant of Abul Fateh Dawood. In 572/1176, Shihabuddin Ghori (d. 602/1206) in his bid to revive Mehmud's tradition, had captured Multan. The small Ismaili state of Multan could not withstand the onslaught of the mighty military machine of the Ghorids, and according to Tabaqat-i Nasiri (comp. 658/1260), "The sultan snatched away Multan from the hands of the Ismailis in 572/1176." The underground organization of the scattered Ismailis however continued the mission for a long time without having direct contact with the Imams.

During the Fatimid rule in Multan, there existed one Sunni rule below Multan in Mansurah, known as the Habbarids, belonging to the Arab clan of Asad. Umar Habbar bin al-Asad (d. 270/884) had founded the Habbarid rule in 247/861 at Mansurah. Masudi writes that Mansurah was about 75 farasangs (each farasang in India consisted 8 miles) from Multan. It was a main city of Sind, about a mile long and mile broad; but the whole State of Mansurah comprised of three lac small villages, extending from Shahadadpur to the coast of Makran, Gwadar and Muscat with a large hinterland of Baluchistan. It also included the eastern delta of the Indus, extending from lower Sind to Aror. The State of Mansurah was famous for having a city and port, called Daibal.

The Fatimids had taken serious notice of the brutal massacre of the Ismailis in Multan, and intended to prevent further terrible operations. Ibn Jawzi (d. 597/1200) writes in al-Muntazam (7:262) that, "In 403/1012, the Fatimid Caliph al-Hakim made his contact with Mehmud of Ghazna, asking him to join the Fatimid mission, and declare his loyalty." Since Mehmud had been granted the titles of Yaminud Dawla, Aminu'l Millat and Sultan by the Abbasid caliph Kadir billah (d. 422/1031), one of the sworn enemies at the throne of Baghdad, therefore, Mehmud does not appear to have accepted the offer. Being a devout orthodox ruler, he refused Imam al-Hakim's proposal. Mehmud sent the record of communication, after tearing them up, to the Abbasid court to demonstrate his loyalty. Mehmud had committed slaughters in 396/1006 and 401/1010 at Multan, and thus the rise of the vigorous Ghaznavid regime had become a threat to the Ismailis even in Iran. Imam al-Hakim may, therefore, have endeavoured to win Mehmud's friendship, if not loyalty, to ensure the interest of the Ismaili mission. To ensure the Abbasids that he had not acknowledged the Fatimids over the Abbasids, Mehmud proceeded to intensify his hostile operations against the Ismailis. He conquered Ray in 420/1029, and severely persecuted the Ismailis in Iran. According to Ibn Athir (9:262), "Thousands of them were gibbeted, stoned to death or carried in chains to Khorasan to languish in captivity. In Ray, their houses were searched and all books dealing with their doctrines were cast into flames. Fifty camel loads of books are said to have burnt under the trees on which the Ismailis were gibbeted. While of such books as remained after this act of wanton vandalism, Mehmud transported a hundred loads to Ghazna."

The Habbarid dynasty at Mansurah recited the Abbasid khutba. Under the rule of Yaqub bin Layth, a bulk of the Shi'ites seems to have flourished in Mansurah. During the massacres of the Ismailis in 401/1010 at Multan, the surviving Ismailis fled to Mansurah, and began to live there at first under the garb of the Shi'ites. Gradually, the Ismaili influence reverberated in Mansurah. The foothold of the Ismailis can be judged from the report that the last Habbarid ruler, Amaduddin Khafif had espoused Ismailism. It is seen that the descendants of the da'i al-Haytham were active in Multan as far as Mansurah. Thus, like Multan, Mansurah emerged as an Ismaili State soon to be wiped out by the sworn enemy of Ismailism. Mehmud turned his mighty forces towards Mansurah, and destroyed the Habbarid rule in 416/1025. Farruk Sistani (d. 429/1038), the contemporary writer and poet at the court of Mehmud, writes in his Diwan-i Farrukhi (p. 74) that, "Khafif, the last ruler had a large military resource, nevertheless, he did not fight and fled to the jungles, and was followed by the Ghaznavid soldiers." It seems probable that the army of Amaduddin Khafif comprised of the Sunni Muslims in large number, therefore, he did not rely upon them, and avoided to fight. He however acquired support of the Jats and Med tribes, inhabiting near the Indus river, and fought a guerilla war against his enemies. He was at length arrested and drowned into the river. The Ismailis who escaped Mehmud's sword, had gone underground in Sind and Punjab. It also seems that many Ismailis of Mansurah fled to Kutchh in Bahawalpur State, whose chief was Anag Pal, the relative of Shaikh Ibn Sumar Raja Pal. The scattered Ismailis in Sind however retained their close contact with the Imams in Egypt. It appears that the Fatimid Imam az-Zahir had formulated a new policy for Sind. Instead of sending the da'is from Yamen, one reputable and notable person was chosen in Sind to become the leader of the Ismailis; and as a result, the leading tribe of Sumra in Sind had been preferred in this context.

The Rise of the Sumra dynasty in Sind

"Ismailism remained a force in Sind and emerged stronger, for the Sumra tribe, who were the Ismailis, patronized it. Mehmud conquered Sind and annexed it to the Ghaznavid regime. It remained so during the time of his son, Masud (d. 432/1041), and latter's son Abdur Rashid (d. 444/1051). Henceforward, the Ghaznavid became weak in Sind. Delhi and its environs had been snatched from them by the rising power of the Ghorid, and Sind became an independent of them under the Sumra tribe.

The Sumra were the local Sindi Hindu tribe, converted to Islam in the time of the first Aarb conquest. They lived mostly on the banks of Indus, in the big cities of Janani and Sehwan. The Sumra embraced Ismailism by the da'is staying at Multan. In 445/1052, the Sumra came up as an influential power, and mustered strength at Thari, a sandy tract in the district of Thatta, where their chief had been proclaimed. They however came to power after defeating Abdur Rashid bin Masud bin Mehmud of Ghazna, and dominated the whole Sind soon afterward.

Abul Hasan Ali bin Ahmad at-Taiy, known as Bahauddin al-Muqtana was one of the personages to have resumed the Druze mission in 418/1027. He wrote letters to several regions, summoning the rulers to embrace the Druze faith. His collection of letters are preserved in the Druze sacred book, entitled Rasail al-Hikmah or al-Hikmah al-Sharifa. It is learnt from the letters of Bahauddin al-Muqtana that he had also written one to a certain Shaikh Ibn Saumar Raja Pal in 425/1034, inviting him to espouse his faith. The text of the letter, according to Risalat al-Hind (p. 36) reads:- "O' Illustrious Raja Bal, arouse your family, the Unitarians, and bring back Dawood the younger into the true religion; for Masud only delivered him from prison and bondage, that you might accomplish the ministry with which you were charged, against Abdullah, his nephew, and against all the inhabitants of Multan, so that the disciples of the doctrines of holiness, and of the unity might be distinguished from the party of bewilderment, contradiction, ingenuity, and rebellion."

Shaikh Abul Fateh Dawood had left behind a son, called Dawood Asghar (younger). He was arrested by Masud, the then Ghaznavid ruler, and relieved him in about 423/1032. Abdullah Abul Fateh was the maternal grandson of Dawood Akbar (elder) and nephew of Dawood Asghar, whom the people of Multan wanted to make their amir. During the time of Masud (d. 432/1041), the Sumra tribe rebelled against the Ghaznavids in Sind, and brought on the throne a leader, named Sumra. It is probable that this Sumra of Tuhfat al-Kiram (comp. 1187/1773) was no other than that of Shaikh Ibn Saumar Raja Pal (d. 446/1053) of the above Druze letter. He had been proclaimed at Thari in 445/1052 as the chief of Sumra dynasty. It is however reliably known that he did not respond to the letter of Bahauddin al-Muqtana, and remained firm with Ismaili faith. He married the daughter of a rich Arab landlord, called Sa'd and got a son by her, named Asamuddin, surnamed Bhongar; who ruled for 15 years till 461/1069. His son Asam ad-Dawla, surnamed Duda I (d. 485/1092) ruled for about 24 years, who was a brave soldier, and extended his power as far as Las in Baluchistan. He was succeeded by his infant son, Sanghar (d. 515/1122), and thus, his elder sister Zainab Tari ruled on his behalf. Dr. Abbas H. al-Hamdani's Ismaili Dawa in Northern India (Cairo, 1956) gives some interesting accounts of the Sumra rulers, from which we give below a brief account.

Sanghar was a bold ruler, and extended his power in the West including Makran. He ruled for 15 years, and had no son, therefore his wife Himu, who held the fort of Adak, took her two brothers, Khafif and Unar in possession of Tor and Thari who ruled together. Khafif ruled for 33 years and Unar for 40 years. They were contemporary to Shihabuddin Ghori, who annexed Multan and Uchh in 571/1176 and had violated the territory of Sind in 578/1182.

Duda II assumed the leadership of Sumras. He marched from his fortress of Wahka against the brothers of Himu and killed them. With the advance of the Ghorid influence in Sind, the Sumra capital changed from Thari to Daibal when Muhammad Ghori occupied Daibal in 578/1182, the Sumra ruler Duda II and his successor Patho seem to have existed as powerless somewhere in Sind. Under the next ruler Ghanra I, the Sumra rule was confined to Thatta. He died in 634/1237 and was succeeded by Muhammad Tor, who ruled for 15 years and died in 649/1251. The next ruler, Ghanra II was dethroned by his foster brother, Duda III. Ghanra II acquired military aids from the Muslim ruler of Delhi, but failed to overthrow Duda III. Henceforward, it appears that the Sumra rulers began to profess Sunnism in Sind. The next Sumra rulers however were Tai, Chinsar, Bhungar II, Khafif II, Duda IV, Umar, Bhungar III and Hamir.

Ibn Batuttah (d. 779/1377) came to India through Sind in 734/1333 during the ruler of Sumar, who owed allegiance to the kings of Delhi. Ibn Batuttah writes in his Aja'ib al-Asfar that, "Then I arrived at Janani which is a large and handsome town on the banks of the river of Sind and which has lovely bazars. The inhabitants are called Samirah who settled down here, as historians have written, at a time when Sind was conquered during the time of Hajjaj...The name of the ruler at this time is Wanar (possibly Umar)....In this town live the Samirite amir Wanar and amir Qeysar Rumi, and both are under the supremacy of the sultan (of Delhi). Both had 18,000 horsemen...."

It appears that the ruling Sumra tribe had embraced Sunnism before the visit of Ibn Batuttah in 734/1333. The kernel of the extant traditions however suggests that the Sumra family was converted to Sunnism by Syed Jalaluddin Bukhari (707-785/1308-1384), also known as Makhdum-i Jahaniyan. In sum, the rule of Sumra dynasty came to an end almost before 762/1361.

The Ismailis after Sumras

Following the reduction of the Ismaili power in Mansurah in 416/1025, the surviving Ismailis disappeared in different safe places in India. In lower Sind, the local Ismailis emerged as the Sumra rulers in 445/1052 as discussed above, while in Punjab the Ismailis, known as the Khokars inhabiting in Hazara district and part of the district of Rawalpindi, Attock and Jehlam; also rose as a local tribal force.

Khokar, the war-like soldiers, descended from Anushirwan and Yazdigard, claimed the title of Kayani; and their eponym is said to have been one Sultan Kaygawhar (later corrupted into Khokar), a native of Kayan in Ispahan. According to another view, the Khokars are said to derive their name from koh (mountain) and gir (holder), because they once took an impregnable mountain fortress.

It is certain that some Ismailis of Multan had taken refuge in the territories of the Khokars and returned to their abode most probably between 525/1131 and 535/1141 and gradually they had gained a local domination. Shihabuddin Muhammad (d. 602/1206), also known as Muizuddin, who was the real founder of the Muslim empire in India; the Ghorid ruler of Ghor and Ghazna in Afghanistan, had invaded India in 571/1175. He marched through Baluchistan and made Multan his first prey and conducted a merciless massacre of the local Ismailis and captured their stronghold. His policy can be constructed to be a continuation of the trend of rooting out the Ismailis wherever they were found in India. Khusaro Malik, the last Ghaznavid ruler in India had secured help from the Khokars and laid siege to the fort of Sialkot. In 578/1186, Shihabuddin Ghori came India and directed his attack against Lahore, and defeated Khusaro Malik. Henceforward, the Ismailis took underground shelter and some of them are reported to have fled to Iranian Gulf and Alamut. One like Indian Ismaili can be traced from the five fidais, who were burnt alive by the order of Jalaluddin Khwarazmshah (d. 628/1231) soon after 624/1227 in the time of Imam Alauddin Muhammad.

The Ghorid regime gave the Ismailis no respite and Shihabuddin Ghori once again spurred his horses in the region of the Khokars. The Ismaili warriors fought valiantly against their overwhelming army, commanded by Qutbuddin Aibak (d. 607/1210) and were retreated in a battle near the ford of Jehlam. Sadruddin Muhammad bin Hasan Nizami, the contemporary writer has described the above event in his Taj al-Ma'athir (comp. 626/1228) and admits that the Khokar fidais were deep-rooted in Ismaili faith. It is also suggested that the chiefs of Khokars, namely Bakan and Sarki were the only among the Indian Ismailis to have procured a close contact with Alamut in Iran, whose details are not accessible.

Shihabuddin Ghori returned to Ghazna in 588/1192 after charging the command of the conquered territories of India to his faithful general, Qutbuddin Aibak. The later conquered Delhi in 590/1194 and finally he founded the Slave dynasty in India in 602/1205. After his death in 607/1210, the nobles raised Aram Shah, who soon proved inefficient ruler and therefore, the nobles invited Iltumish (d. 633/1236), the son-in-law of Qutbuddin Aibak to ascend the throne of Delhi Sultanate. 

Jalaluddin Khwarazmshah was repulsed by Chingiz Khan in 618/1211 on the banks of the Indus and has subsequently spent three years in India. He soon came to Lahore, where he was defeated by the forces of Iltumish. So he rushed forth to Sind and occupied Thatta, the main foothold of the Sumra rulers.

In 633/1235, we hear that Iltumish mounted an expedition against the Khokars and took heavy toll of lives with devastation of properties. Iltumish died on April 29, 1236. His sons were incompetent to rule. He had however an able daughter, called Razia Sultana, but the Turkish nobles opposed the succession of a woman. Iltumish's son Ruknuddin Firuz ascended the throne however with the support of the commanders, but he proved incapable. When his supporters were spoiling the power, his sister Razia Sultana made a bold bit for the throne. Clad in red, she appeared before the people gathered for Friday prayers in the cathedral mosque of Delhi, and appealed them in the name of Iltumish to give her a chance to show her worth. It evoked ready response and she became the real successor of Iltumish. She ruled for 3 years and 6 days.

Myth of Maulana Nur Turk

"According to Minhaj Siraj (d. 685/1286) in his Tabaqat-i Nasiri (tr. Major H.G. Raverty, Calcutta, 1881, 1st vol., pp. 646-7), "Among the events which happened in the beginning of Razia Sultana's (634-637/1236-1240) reign, the one was that the qarmitah and mulahida heretics of India, incited by a person, a sort of learned man, named Nuruddin, a Turk, whom they used to style Nur Turk, collected together at Delhi, from different parts of the territory of India, such as Gujrat, Sind and the parts of Ganga. They fixed Friday, the 6th Rajab, 634/March 5, 1237 for the rising against Delhi, numbered about one thousand. They divided themselves into two parties. One party entered the grand mosque from its northern gateway, and the second party passing through drapers' market entered into the gateway of Muizzi seminary, presuming that it was the congregational mosque. From both directions, they began to slaughter the Muslims. A large number of people were killed by them, and quite a big number died in stampede. As soon as the soldiers came to know the riot, their leaders, some well armed and horsemen entered into the mosque and put them to sword. The Muslims from the roof of the mosque pelted them with brick bats and stones."

The curious tale of Minhaj Siraj attributing the revolt of Nur Turk (d. 692/1293) should be taken with a grain of salt. The following points to this effect however deserve careful consideration:- (a) This story contains mere one thousand persons mustered, intending to capture the throne of Delhi, which seems almost insufficient number for the incursion. However, even if this be granted, then it must be directed to the palace or fort, not at the mosque. (b) It is difficult to believe that half of the persons, who are shown the residents of Delhi, could not distinguish between the congregational mosque and the Muizzi seminary. (c) The story does not sufficiently establish the motives for Nur Turk's coup. He was not so naive as to believe that the act of killing some members of ulema class and the members of congregation, would overthrow the rule of Razia Sultana. His reputation as a pious would have very easily escalated him to higher echelons of government, had he truly wished to seize the power. (d) It is recounted that Razia Sultana held deep regard for Nur Turk, and once she is reported to have sent a large quantity of gold as a gift to him, but Nur Turk refused to accept it. He hit the gift with his stick in hand and said, "What is this? Take it away." It ensues from this account that Nur Turk disliked wealth or power, therefore, the alleged revolt against the Delhi Sultanate is far from the truth. (e) The whole story contains the expression of the terms, qarmitah and mulahida. It is difficult to believe that Nur Turk had led them jointly. (f) The weakness of the story can be gauged from the fact that it is not borne out by any other evidence. Granted that the ulema were attacked in the mosque, it would have inflamed a hootest agitation of the Muslims at least in Delhi, which also cannot be ascertained from any trace. (g) This story does not establish conclusively that Nur Turk was an Ismaili leader or had led the Ismailis to hatch a plot. (h) Minhaj Siraj belonged to the ulema class and it was a common practice of the zealots to call mulahida or qarmitah to the non-Sunni Muslims while condemning them. It is evident from the story that he had a personal enmity with Nur Turk, whom he tried to slander, accusing him of leading the heretics to engineer revolt against the Delhi Sultanate.

Shaikh Nizamuddin Awliya (d. 725/1325) very feelingly asserts that Nur Turk was purer than the rain water and the charges against him were maliciously cooked by Minhaj, vide Fawaidu'l Fu'ad (p. 199). A saint belonging to the Ismaili faith could not have been reverentially mentioned by scholars like Shaikh Amir Khurd and Shaikh Abdul Haq Muhadis as Maulana Nur Turk. Shaikh Abdul Haq had never included Nur Turk in his calendar of the subcontinent saints if he had been associated with Ismailism. If Nur Turk had been an Ismaili saint, Shaikh Fariduddin Ganj Shakar (d. 663/1265) would never have gone to attend his sermons.

All this evidently sounds that Nur Turk was a famous for his learning and piety in the eyes of the Muslim scholars, not in the sense that he was an Ismaili. It is therefore probable that the renowned Muslim scholars had never admired Nur Turk, had they known his leaning towards Ismailism.

A man of austere and simple ways as he was, Nur Turk did not like the habits of the ulema, whom he found wallowing in the dirty waters of politics. He condemned them roundly for their greed of gold and glory. He opposed the ulema of Shafite and Hanafite, calling them murji and nasibi. Minhaj Siraj was chagrined on this criticism, which applied to him as much as to other ulema and retaliated by painting him in lurid colours. He contrived a curious story that Nur Turk led the heretics and attacked the mosque, so as to arouse the Muslims against him, which sounds explicitly in the story. Hasan Sijzi, the disciple of Shaikh Nizamuddin Awliya writes in Fawaidu'l Fu'ad (comp. 718/1318) that, "Ulema of Delhi had made hostile statements against Nur Turk's faith. He used to assail the ulema and condemn them as Nasibi and Murji. He was hostile to the ulema of the town because they were sunk in materialism and their enmity was responsible for their false allegations against Nur Turk."

We have observed that the Sunni ulema always became the target of the Sufis, because of their worldly attractions. Instead of improving themselves, they aroused the Muslims by calling them the infidels, or mulahida - a common abusive term applied in their rulings. Most of the eminent Sufi Shaikh in India had been called mulahida by the ulema, which does not mean that they were the Ismailis. The mulahida or qarmitah were the common abusive words for the persons who acted contrary to Islam, and not specific for the Ismailis. Khaliq Ahmad Nizami writes in Salatin-i Delhi'ki Mazahabi Rujatat (Delhi, 1958, p. 138) that, "I am inclined to believe that Maulana Minhaj Siraj has fabricated an allegation on Maulana Nur Turk being a mulahida. Maulana Nur Turk used to criticize the conduct and behaviour of the ulema publicly of his period. Thus the ulema charged him as a mulahida in reprisal, so that he could not escalate his reputation among the Muslims." 

Minhaj Siraj is the only source of information to make Nur Turk as the leader of the qarmitah and mulahida, impelling the modern scholars to cultivate an idea that he was an Ismaili, because the Ismailis were also wrongly branded with such pejorative misnomers. There is not a single contemporary trace attributing Nur Turk as an Ismaili, therefore his association with the Ismailis is highly doubtful.

Khan Bahadur Fazalullah Lutfullah in his Gujrat Population (Gazetteer of the Bombay Presidency, Bombay, 1899, vol., IX, part II, p. 38) tries to identify Nur Turk with that of Pir Satgur Nur, which is quite incorrect as the Indian Ismaili Pirs did never feel called upon to act as the crusaders. Dr. Mujtaba Ali writes in Origin of the Khojas and their Religious life today (Bonn, 1936, p. 40) that, "It is also to be noted that the Ismaili missionaries never tried to obtain success by force; their method as described already was of peaceful penetration through observance of pious life. The present writer, therefore, finds no reliable argument by which Nur Turk and Nur Satgur could be considered as the same person."

If the tradition that Pir Satgur was sent by Imam Hasan II be true, it seems rather improbable that Nur Turk of Delhi was Pir Satgur. Imam Hasan II died in 561/1166 and the alleged riot of Delhi is dated 634/1237. Taking Pir Satgur to be at least 20 years at the death of the Imam, he must have been 91 years old when he is supposed to have led the alleged riot in Delhi, and such activity can hardly be expected from an oriental of that age.

In sum, whatever objective of Minhaj Siraj may be in applying the words qarmitah or mulahida for the followers of Nur Turk, it does not belong to the Ismailis in the story. It seems that Nur Turk had a following in Sind, Gujrat and at the banks of Ganges and he himself was a Sufi Shaikh. He was deadly against the ulema, and as a result he fell a victim to the jealousy of Minhaj Siraj. In order to discredit him in the eyes of the Muslims, a story was put into circulation by calling him the leader of the heretics. The later historians who used to label the Ismailis with the same misnomer, had wrongly interpreted the terms, mulahida and qarmitah in the story of Minhaj Siraj for the Ismailis, and have painted it in gloomier colours than it merits. Nur Turk therefore was neither an Ismaili nor his association with the Ismailism.