Battering ram☣
Last and final thread on origin and ethnicity on sultan Alaudeen Hussein Shah.
I will dicuss and analyse each and every single sources and quote leading medieval Bengal historians on this subject.
Insha Allah
Last and final thread on origin and ethnicity on sultan Alaudeen Hussein Shah.
I will dicuss and analyse each and every single sources and quote leading medieval Bengal historians on this subject.
Insha Allah
For past 7 months I have been researching on this subject and read so many sources and come to the conclusion that medieval Bengal historians differ on his origin based on different accounts and sources. One opinion is that he was Syed Alaudeen Hussein Shah Al Makki
Or Al Husseini, his father was Sharif of Mecca who lived in Tirmiz, Turkestan. And, they came from Turkestan to Bengal. As, for second opinion is that he was native of Bengal who had dark black complexion like typical Bengalis and worked under a Hindu intially for his livehood
But, he was lashed by his master for not being able to complete with precision and all this are centered around a city called Murshidabad in North Bengal(Modern Wb).
I will dicuss the historians who held the former opinion and later opinion.
I will dicuss the historians who held the former opinion and later opinion.
The historians who ascribe to the first opinion are Reena Bahaduri, Professor Abdul Karim, Sir A B M Habibullah and others
As, for historians who asribe to the second opinion are Professor R C Majmudar, Shukomoy Mukopado, Sir Jadunath Sarkar.
As, for historians who asribe to the second opinion are Professor R C Majmudar, Shukomoy Mukopado, Sir Jadunath Sarkar.
Reena Bahaduri, Professor Abdul Karim(Banglar Etihas/Muslim society of Bengal) and Sir A B M Habibullah(History of Bengal) and others, all of them relied upon Ferishta and Riyaz Us Salatin by Salim for holding this opinion
It seems they haven't bothered much being skeptical and questioning this sources and instead accepted them as authentic whole heartedly, but as for historians like Dr Momtazur Rahman, Sir Jadunath, Professor Abdus Salam(who translated Riyaz Us Salatin and editor in footnote)
Professor Shukomoy Mukopado, all of them questioned the authenticity of this sources and lack of them being contemporary or being supported/corrobrated by other sources such in inscriptions or coins;
It seems Momtazur Rahman went so criticial and skeptic to an extant that despite Alaudeen Hussein Shah repeatedly claimed himself to be Syed on his coins by attaching "Al Husseini" or "Walad Rasullah" that "maybe" similiar to Ferishta's account, he states;
It is clear as day light from statements of Dr Momtazur Rahman, Shukomoy Mukopado, Jadunath Sarkar etc that Arab ancestry and origin of Hussein Shah is doubtful and shady. Interestingly, Jadunath Sarkar states that Alaudeen Hussein Shah
Another account of Portugese historian De Baros was used by 19th century German orientalist named "Blochman" to prove that Alaudeen Hussein Shah was indeed Arab and this account is referring to him;
However this account has many historical inaccuracies as pointed out by Professor Shukomoy Mukopaddo, Suniti Bhushan and R C Majmudar;
1- De Baros states 100 years before Portugese arrived, an Arab merchant from Yemen(Aden)came to Chittagong with his fellow men.
1- De Baros states 100 years before Portugese arrived, an Arab merchant from Yemen(Aden)came to Chittagong with his fellow men.
He suddenly got too close to the Sultan and helped him in his war against Oriyans and defeated them, Sultan awarded him as result. The Arab merchant killed the Sultan and usurped the throne of Gaur. The first problem with this narrative is that
Hussein Shah was already in rule of Bengal when portugese arrived(in early 1500's. If we apply his narrative that would mean Hussein came to power in early in 1400's. Second, problem is previous ruler of Bengal Muzaffar Shah's reign was very short;
And there is no evidence whatsoever that he ever fought with kingdom of Odisha nor the kingdom was his prime enemy or rival(as per Professor Shukomoy Mukopado), infact as per Sir Jadunath Sarkar this narrative applies to Ismail Ghazi who fought Oriyans under Barbak Shah;
Another, interesting point I forgot to mention that Jadunath Sarkar states Alaudeen Hussein Shah mentions his father name(with Al Husseini attached) just to legitimise himself
"Mentions his father it is only to emphasize his nobility"
"Mentions his father it is only to emphasize his nobility"
Now, as regards to the second opinion that Hussein Shah being native of Bengal. There are three primary sources or narratives used by the historians and scholars ;
Direct statement of Mughal emperor Babur who called Nusrat Shah "A Bengali", btw Babur was direct contemporary
Direct statement of Mughal emperor Babur who called Nusrat Shah "A Bengali", btw Babur was direct contemporary
Of Nusrat Shah.
Secondly, Hussein Shah was Black like typical Bengalis and had dark complexion as indicated by contemporary poets such as Kavindra Parameshwar and Krishna Das Kaviraj
Thirdly and lastly, He worked under a Hindu whose name was Shubuddi Rai
Secondly, Hussein Shah was Black like typical Bengalis and had dark complexion as indicated by contemporary poets such as Kavindra Parameshwar and Krishna Das Kaviraj
Thirdly and lastly, He worked under a Hindu whose name was Shubuddi Rai
As per numerous contemporary poets including Krishna Das Kaviraj, this numerous versions of this narrative with slight variations which also found in traditions of Murshidabad.
Both R C Majmudar and Professor Shukomoy Mukopado stated that Babur's statement is clear cut evidence that Hussein Shah was Bengali. As, he called Nusrat Shah "Bengali" along with the fact that he worked under a Hindu and had dark black complexion like typical Bengalis.
This is statement of leading and eminent medieval Bengal historians who refuted those claimed that this statement of Babur only refers to "territorial or was because he was king of Bengal" because, they thought Hussein Shah was Arab/Syed.
Despite this fact, great historian like @KalingaArya had to differ with R C Majmudar and Shukomoy Mukopado and has different conclusion that we can prove from Baburnama, Hussein Shah was Syed and "Bengali" only refers to "territorial"
What this @KalingaArya historian doesn't realise is that just Because, Babur called Alaudeen "Syed" doesn't neccesarily mean he meant he had Arab ancestry rather it could be "high title" as he himself called Nusrat Shah "Bengali" numerous times instead not Syed son of Syed
Since he wants to play this "territorial" game, we shall do the same with him from that book itself with words like "Hindustani" and "Bengali"
"Hindustani Envoy"
"Naked Hindustanis"
"Hindustanis call purabi"
"Hindustanis call Hathi"
"Bengali custom"
'Bengalis regard"
"Hindustani Envoy"
"Naked Hindustanis"
"Hindustanis call purabi"
"Hindustanis call Hathi"
"Bengali custom"
'Bengalis regard"
"Bengalis regard with respect"
"Bengalis say: we are faithful to the throne"
I am sure all this dozens of quote refering to natives/people of India and Bengal is only territorial not literal🤡🤡
"Bengalis say: we are faithful to the throne"
I am sure all this dozens of quote refering to natives/people of India and Bengal is only territorial not literal🤡🤡
I will give a bonus point by quoting example from other book by Afif the direct contemporary author of Haji Shamshuddin Ilyas Shah whom he called Shah I Bangalah or Shah I Bangliyan. Notice, how he calls him with two titles: first ruler of the land he ruled and second
The people(Bengalis)of that land he ruled.
In conclusion,
In my opinion that Hussein Shah was Bengali and I am inclined to the second view due to more convincing and compelling evidences. The only contemporary source we have that says Hussein Shah was Syed(Arab ancestry) is his coins and inscriptions only
In my opinion that Hussein Shah was Bengali and I am inclined to the second view due to more convincing and compelling evidences. The only contemporary source we have that says Hussein Shah was Syed(Arab ancestry) is his coins and inscriptions only
Outside coins, we possess no contemporary sources that support it. As, for being him Bengali we have many direct and indirect contemporary evidences. I will end my thread by quoting statement of Professor Shukomoy Mukopado;
Loading suggestions...