1876.] H.G.Raverty— Beplyto < Histy. and Geogr. of Bengal, M. IIZ' 343 



« Muhammad Kasim" occur in scores of places throughout the extract 

 but, at page 157 we also have " Imadu-d-din Muhammad Kasim Un Abi 

 »Akil Sakifi. 



Now " Casim" or « Kasim" had nothing whatever to do with Sind or 

 its conquest. He was dead before his son, Muhammad, was appointed by 

 his uncle to lead the 'Arabs into Sind, and so the father, who was in his 

 grave at the time, has had credit up this moment, in our Histories of In- 

 dia, for what his son performed, in the same manner that Bakht-yar-ud- 

 Din, the Khalj, has had the credit for what his son, Ikhtiyar-ud-Din, per- 

 formed. 



From Tabari downwards, the name of the conqueror of Sind is 'Imad- 

 ud-Din, Muhammad, son of Kasim, son of Muhammad, son of Hakam, son 

 of Abu-'Ukail, and Al-Biladuri, an extract from whose work' is given in 

 Elliot, says the same as Tabari ; but because the author of the Chach- 

 Namah headed his Chapters in Persian instead of Arabic, the necessary izafat 

 was not recognized, and hence this lamentable error. Such is history. 



Examples of this I have already given ; but turn to page p» — 40 of the 

 Calcutta Printed Text, wdiich is the same as other copies in these instances, 

 and the fourth line from the heading are these words ojj**, ^JSS^^ dj+sz* 

 j* ^ i^y ^^ cJj-^. chun tahht-i-Ghaznin ha Amir Mahmud-i-Sabuk- 

 Tagin rasid. Does Mr. Blochmann mean to assert that Sabuk-Tigin is not the 

 father's name ? So much for the random assertion that " the izafat in- 

 stead of bin or pisar [which last I have not used] is restricted to poetry, and 

 does not occur in prose," and according to the foot-note that it " is rare in 

 poetry, and poets do not like to use this Izafat.'' 1 If Mr. Blochmann met 

 with the following in Indian History — cjl^ v-Cb' |j*j c^jU> <n) Jt y); wl^—I 

 wonder what he would think of it : he would write it " Shihabuddaulah 

 Harun Bughra flak Khan," and make one person of it. I, however, would 

 read it—" Shihab-ud-Daulah, Harun-i-Bughra-i-r-lak-Khan," because I 

 know for certain that Harun who is entitled Shihab-ud-Daulah is the 

 son of Bughra, who is the son of the I-lak Khan, who is named Miisa, 

 who were Khans of Mawar-un-JSTahr of the Afrasiyabi dynasty. 



Next, in the same foot-note,J page 280 of the Contributions," Mr. 

 Blochmann says that " Minhaj-i-Siraj" does not mean in prose, ' Minhaj, the 

 "son o/Siraj,' but Minhaj who writes under the name of Siraj. That the 

 "father's name was Siraj has nothing to do with it." 



Mr. Blochmann would find it difficult to show me where he " writes 

 under the name of Siraj." I suppose it will be allowed that that Author 

 knew his own name, and his father's, and if that be allowed, he calls himself 

 repeatedly Minhaj -ud-Din-i-Saraj, and he further says that his father was 

 the Maulana Saraj-ud-Din, whose father was the Maulana Minhaj -ud- Din, 

 'Usman, whose father was the Imam, 'Abd-ul-Khalik, the Jiirjani. Tor 

 V Y 



i___ 



