The Amírs of Multán and Mansúra were independent of one another; but both deferred to the spiritual authority of the Khalif of Baghdád. The former was still a descendant of Sáma bin Lawí, and the latter a descendant of the Habbárí family.

Alor, the ancient Hindú capital, was nearly as large as Multán, surrounded by a double wall, and was a dependency of Mansúra. Its territory was fertile and rich, and it was the seat of considerable commerce. Ráhúk (or Dahúk) also, on the borders of Makrán, and to the west of the Hála range, was included in Mansúra.

There were other principalities to the west, besides these two in the valley of the Indus:—such as Túrán; which was under the authority of a native of Basra, named Abú-l Kassam, “tax-gatherer, administrator, judge, and general, who could not distinguish be­tween three and ten:”—and Kusdár; which was governed by an Arab, residing in Kaikánán, named Mu'ín bin Ahmad, who admitted the name of the 'Abbáside Khalif into the public prayers:—and Makrán; the ruler of which was 'Ísa bin Ma'dán, who had estab­lished his residence in the city of Kíz, about the size of half of Multán:—and Mushkí, on the borders of Kirmán; which was pre­sided over by Matahar bin Rijá, who had an independent jurisdic­tion extending through three days' journey, but used the Khalif's name in the public services of religion.*

Ibn Haukal observes, that at Mansúra and Multán, and in the rest of the province, the people spoke the Arabic and Sindian languages; in Makrán, Makránian and Persian.

With respect to those other parts of India to which the Musul-máns resorted, such as the maritime towns in the jurisdiction of the Balhará, between Cambay and Saimúr, Ibn Haukal observes that they were covered with towns and villages. The inhabitants were idolaters, but the Musulmáns were treated with great consideration by the native princes. They were governed by men of their own faith, as the traveller informs us was the case with Musulmáns in other infidel dominions, as among the Khazars of the Volga, the Alans of the Caucasus, and in Ghána and Kaugha in Central Africa. They had the privilege of living under their own laws, and no one could give testimony against them, unless he professed the Muham­madan faith. “I have seen,” says Ibn Haukal, “Musulmáns of this country invoke against other Musulmáns the testimony of natives of probity who did not profess the Muhammadan creed; but it was necessary that the adverse party should first give his consent.” They had erected their mosques in these infidel cities, and were allowed to summon their congregations by the usual mode of pro­claiming the times of prayer.

Such privileges could only have been conceded to men whose favour was worth gaining, and it is to be regretted that they were indisposed to show to others in similar circumstances the indulgences so readily allowed to themselves. In the Middle Ages, it was only the power and political influence of the Amalfitans, Venetians, Pisans, and Genoese, that were sometimes able to extort from the reluctant Musulmáns those immunities, which were willingly granted by the more easy and indifferent Crusaders and Greeks,—comprising the security of their changes, magazines, and churches, the recogni­tion of their Bailos, the privilege of being tried by their own laws, and by judges of their own appointment. These republics must then have occupied in Egypt and Constantinople the same kind of position as the Arabs on the coast of India, excepting that the tenure of the former was more precarious, and more subject to the caprices of despotism, the fluctuations of trade, and the ascending or waning influence of the principal carriers.

The commercial establishments in the peninsula of India do not seem to have excited any religious scruples in the minds of the Khalifs, or even of those casuistical divines who guided the con­sciences of these “Vicars of God” and their subjects. Trade was openly prosecuted in that land of infidels by Arab merchants, with­out any fulminations from these spiritual authorities, and probably with their encouragement. In this respect, there was a singular contrast between the sentiments that animated Muhammadans and Christians: for to Christians, on the contrary, whether merchants or princes, the permission of their “Vicar of God” was necessary, before they could traffic with infidels; as only he, in his infalli­bility, could authorize a departure from the most sacred injunctions of Holy Writ. Even as late as the year 1454, the dispensing power to trade with Muhammadans was exercised in favour of Prince Henry of Portugal by Pope Nicholas V., in a famous Bull, which refers to similar concessions from his immediate predecessors, Martin V. and Eugenius IV., to Kings of that country.

This intercourse with the Saracens was not merely subject to these formal, and perhaps interested, restrictions, but was strongly and honestly reprobated by many sincere believers: and not without reason, when we reflect, that some of these traders, especially the Venetians, disgraced their honour and their faith by supplying the Egyptian market with Circassian slaves, and even rendered their mercenary assistance in driving the Crusaders from Acre, the last and only stronghold left to them in Palestine:—

E non con Saracin, nè con Giudei,
Che ciascun suo nemico era Cristiano,
E nessuno era state a vincere Acri,
Nè mercantante in terra di Soldano.*

The revenues, which the Arab princes of Sind derived from their several provinces, are pronounced to have been very small,—barely more than sufficient to provide food and clothing and the means of maintaining their position with credit and decency; and, as a necessary consequence, only a few years elapsed before they were driven from their kingdoms, and compelled to yield their power to more enterprising and energetic assailants.

The Karmatians of India are nowhere alluded to by Ibn Haukal;* but it could not have been long after his visit, that these heretics, who probably contained within their ranks many converted natives and foreigners as well as Arabs, began to spread in the valley of the Indus. Abú-l Fidá dates the commencement of their decline from 326 H. (938 A.D.). This was accelerated by two ignominious defeats in Egypt in 360 and 363, and their overflow was completed in 'Irák in 375 (985 A.D.). It must have been about this latter year that, finding their power expiring in the orignal seat of their conquests, they sought new settlements in a distant land, and tried their suc­cess in Sind. There the weakness of the petty local governments favoured their progress, and led to their early occupation both of Mansúra and Multán,—from which latter place history records their expulsion by the overwhelming power of Mahmúd the Ghaznivide.

It appears from local histories, as well as the Kámilu-t Tawáríkh, that Mahmúd also effected conquests in Sind. Though this matter is not commonly recorded by his historians, there is every likelihood of its truth; for, being in possession of Kusdár and Multán, the country was at all times open to his invasions. As it is well established that, after the fall of Somnát, he marched for some days along the course of the Indus, we can readily concur with the Kámilu-t Tawárikh in ascribing his capture of Mansúra to the year 416 H., on his return from that expedition: and, as it is expressly stated that he then placed a Muhammadan prince on the throne, we may safely infer that the previous occupant had rejected that faith, and was therefore a Karmatian, who, having usurped the govern­ment from the Habbárí dynasty, had thus, after a duration of three centuries, effected the extinction of the Arab dominion in Sind.*