253 
3892.] H. G. Raverty— The Mihrdn of Sind and its Tributaries. 
which, they call a tdlab [pure Persian word]. This was destroyed, 
after which, the defenders, overcome with thirst, surrendered the place. 
The fighting men were put to the sword, but the women and children, 
and the attendants of tbe budh or temple, to the number of 6,000 persons, 
were made captives.” 19i This was in 95 H. (713-14 A. D.). 
unless it refers to it as the river “which, below Multan and above Basmid, united 
with the Mihran,” and that was the Rud-i-Sind wo Hind, the Biah and its tributaries. 
194 The Oli ach Namah here again differs from the Balazari, but we must not 
forget, that, at this period, the Rawi and Biah, at this point, flowed nearly parallel 
to each other, and united near by. The author of the former says, that after Asal 
Kandah or ’Alah Kandah, etc., as it is here written, surrendered, Muhammad crossed 
the Biah, and advanced to Sikah of Multan, which was a strongly fortified place on 
the south or left bank of the Rawi. The Balazari is somewhat confused here, 
through confounding Sikah with Asal Kandah, and says it——ns-Sikah—is a 
town “on this side of the Biah, and now in ruins.” As the author of the Oliach 
Namah was a native of these parts, and the account of Ohach’s campaign in the very 
same places is perfectly clear, we may place dependence on his statements. After 
seventeen days of hard fighting, in which the ’Arabs lost twenty-five distinguished 
officers, and two hundred and fifteen other warriors, Bajhra, a relative of the 
Multan chief, Daliir’s uncle’s son, Kaursiyah, son of Chandar, brother of Ohach, who 
held it, passed over and entered Multan. This clearly shows, as indicated in the 
maps referred to, how the Rawi then flowed, and the nearest point of which, at 
present, is thirty-four miles north-north-east of Multan. The ’Arabs followed the 
Hindus, severe fighting ensued, and continued with great obstinacy for about two 
months, by which time provisions became so scarce that “ the head of an ass cost 
five hundred dirams .” The ’Arabs had gained a footing near the walls, but no spot 
was found suitable for sinking a mine, until a person came out of the place by 
stealth and sued for quarter, which was given him. He pointed out a spot towards 
the north of the fort, on the banks of a canal or cutting [ ^ 1, the same to 
which the Balazari refers. Elliot (page 205) supposes that “ this can hardly mean 
the main river .” Hardly : it refers to a cutting or canal, similar to the Loll Wa-han, 
which flowed in the same direction up to modern times, and traces of it still remain 
or recently did, between the northern face of the fort and the Td-gah, and in the 
time of the inundations contains water. 
“ A mine was dug, and in the course of two or three days the wall was brought 
down and the fort captured. “ Six thousand soldiers were taken prisoners and put 
to death, and their families were taken as slaves. The rest of the inhabitants were 
spared.” 
The account of the finding of the treasure, as related in the Ohach Namah, has 
been already related. See note 97, page 192. 
After Muhammad had settled the affairs of Multan, founded a Jami’ Masjid, and 
appointed Da’ud, bin Nasr, bin Walid, ’Umrnani, governor of the place, he sent 
another, ’Abd-ul-Malik, Tammi'mi “to the fort of Bramah-yur or Brahmah-pur, on 
the side of the Ab-i-Jihlam,” which was called Su-bur or Su-pur i n one 
copy —Sur-badar. Not intended for Shor Kot, certainly, which was on the 
Chin-ab) ; another to the territory around Multan, and another to the forts of 
Ijtahad and Karur or Karud. All these names are more or less doubtful. Kurur is 
G G 
