Heroes of Islam

  Who was salahud-din ayubi??

Sultan Salahuddin Ayubi, the hero of hundreds of battles, was the person who for twenty years braved the storm of the Crusaders and ultimately pushed back the combined forces of Europe which had come to swarm the Holy Land. The world has hardly witnessed a more chivalrous and humane conqueror. 

The Crusades represent the maddest and the longest war in the history of mankind, in which the storm of savage fanaticism of the Christian West burst in all its fury over western Asia. `The Crusades form', says a Western writer, `one of the maddest episodes in history. Christianity hurled itself against Muhammadanism in expedition after expedition for nearly three centuries, until failure brought lassitude, and superstition itself was undermined by its own labour. Europe was drained off men and money, and threatened with social bankruptcy, if not with annihilation. Millions perished in battle, hunger or disease and every atrocity imagination can conceive disgraced the warrior of the Cross'. The Christian West was excited to a mad religious frenzy by Peter the Hermit, and his followers to liberate the Holy Land from the hands of the Muslims. `Every means', says Hallam, `was used to excite an epidemical frenzy'. During the time that a Crusader bore the Cross, he was under the protection of the Church and exempted from all taxes as well as free to commit all sins.
Peter the Hermit himself led the second host of the Crusaders comprising forty thousand people. `Arriving at Mallevile, they avenged their precursors by assaulting the town, slaying seven thousand of the inhabitants, and abandoning themselves to every species of grossness and liberalism'. The savage hordes called Crusaders converted Hungary and Bulgaria into desolate regions. When they reached Asia Minor, they, according to Michaud, `committed crimes which made nature shudder'. 

The third wave of the Crusaders commanded by a German monk, according to Gibbon, `were comprised of the most stupid and savage refuse of people. They mingled with their devotion a brutal licence of rapine, prostitution and drunkenness'. `They forgot Constantinople and Jerusalem', says Michaud `in tumultuous scenes of debauchery, and pillage, violation and murder was everywhere left on the traces of their passage'.
The fourth horde of the Crusaders which had risen from western Europe was, according to Mill, `another herd of wild and desperate savages... The internal multitude hurried on the south in their usual career of carnage and rapine'. But, at last, they were annihilated by the infuriated Hungarian Army which had a foretaste of the madness of the earlier Crusaders.
Later the Crusaders met with initial success and conquered a major part of Syria and Palestine, including the Holy city of Jerusalem. But their victories were followed by such brutalities and massacres of innocent Muslims which eclipsed the massacres of Changiz and Hulaku. Mill, a Christian historian, testifies to this massacre of the Muslim population on the fall of the Muslim town of Autioch. He writes: `The dignity of age, the helplessness of youth and the beauty of the weaker *** were disregarded by the Latin savages. Houses were no sanctuaries, and the sign of a mosque added new virulence to cruelty'. According to Michaud: `if contemporary account can be credited, all the vices of the infamous Babylon prevailed among the liberators of Scion'. The Crusaders laid waste to flourishing towns of Syria, butchered their population in cold blood and burnt to ashes the invaluable treasures of art and learning including the world famous library of Tripolis (Syria) containing more than three million volumes. `The streets ran with blood until ferocity was tired out', says Mill. `Those who were vigorous or beautiful were reserved for the slave market at Antioch, but the aged and the infirm were immolated at the altar of cruelty'.
But in the second half of the 12th century, when the Crusaders were in their greatest fury and the emperors of Germany and France and Richard, the lion-hearted king of England, had taken the field in person for the conquest of the Holy Land, the Crusaders were met by Sultan Salahuddin Ayubi, a great warrior who pushed back the surging wave of Christianity out to engulf the Holy Land. He was not able to clear the gathering storm but in him the Crusaders met a man of indomitable will and dauntless courage who could accept the challenge of the Christian West. 

Salahuddin was born in 1137. He got his early training under his illustrious father Najmuddin Ayub and his chivalrous uncle Asaduddin Sherkoh, who were the trusted lieutenants of Nooruddin Mahmud, the monarch of Syria. Asaduddin Sherkoh, a great warrior general was the commander of the Syrian force, which had defeated the Crusaders both in Syria and Egypt. Sherkoh entered Egypt in 1167 to meet the challenge of the Fatamide Minister Shawer who had allied himself with the French. The marches and counter-marches of the gallant Sherkoh and his ultimate victory at Babain over the allied force, according to Michaud, `show military capacity of the highest order'. Ibni Atheer writes about it: `Never has history recorded a more extraordinary event than the rout of the Egyptian force and the French at the littoral by only a thousand cavaliers'.
On January 8, 1169 Sherkoh arrived in Cairo and was appointed as the Minister and Commander-in-Chief by the Fatimid Caliph. But Sherokh was not destined to enjoy the fruits of his high office long. He died two months later in 1169. On his death, his nephew Salahuddin Ayubi became the Prime Minister of Egypt. He soon won the hearts of the people by his liberality and justice and on the death of the Egyptian Caliph became the virtual ruler of Egypt. 

In Syria too, the celebrated Nooruddin Mahmud died in 1174 and was succeeded by his eleven year old son, Malik-us-Saleh who became a tool in the hands of his courtiers, specially Gumushtagin. Salahuddin sent a message to Malik-us-Saleh offering his services and devotion. He even continued to keep his name in the `Khutaba' (Friday Sermons) and coinage. But all these considerations were of no avail for the young ruler and his ambitious courtiers. This state of affairs once more heartened the Crusaders who were kept down by the advice of Gumushtagin retired to Alippo, leaving Damascus exposed to a Frankish attack. The Crusaders instantly laid siege to the Capital city and released it only after being paid heavy ransom. This enraged Salahuddin who hurried to Damascus with a small force and took possession of it. 

After occupying Damascus, he did not enter the palace of his patron, Nooruddin Mahmud, but stayed in his father's house. The Muslims, on the other hand, were much dismayed by the activities of Malik-us-Saleh and invited him to rule over the area. But Salahuddin continued to rule on behalf of the young Malik-us-Saleh. On the death of Malik-us-Saleh in 1181-82, the authority of Salahuddin was acknowledged by all the sovereigns of western Asia. 

There was a truce between the Sultan and the Franks in Palestine but, according to the French historian Michaud, `the Mussalmans respected their pledged faith, whilst the Christians gave the signal of a new war'. Contrary to the terms of the truce, the Christian ruler Renaud or Reginald of Chatillon attacked a Muslim caravan passing by his castle, massacred a large number of people and looted their property. The Sultan was now free to act. By a skilful manoeuvre, Salahuddin entrapped the powerful enemy forces near the hill of Hittin in 1187 and routed them with heavy loses. The Sultan did allow the Christians to recover and rapidly followed up his victory of Hittin. In a remarkably short time, he reoccupied a large number of cities which were in possession of the Christians including Nablus, Jericko, Ramlah, Caesarea, Arsuf, Jaffa and Beirut. Ascalon, too, submitted after a short siege and was granted generous terms by the kind-hearted Sultan.
The Sultan now turned his attention to Jerusalem which contained more than sixty thousand Crusaders. The Christians, could not withstand the onslaught of the Sultan's forces and capitulated in 1187. The humanity of the Sultan towards the defeated Christians of Jerusalem procures an unpleasant contrast to the massacre of the Muslims in Jerusalem when conquered by the Christians about ninety years before. 

According to the French historian Michaud, on the conquest of Jerusalem by the Christians in 1099 `the Saracens were massacred in the streets and in the houses. Jerusalem had no refuge for the vanquished. Some fled from death by precipitating themselves from the ramparts; others crowded for shelter into the palaces, the towers and above all, in the mosques where they could not conceal themselves from the Christians. The Crusaders, masters of the Mosque of Umar, where the Saracens defended themselves for sometime, renewed their deplorable scenes which disgraced the conquest of Titus. The infantry and the cavalry rushed pell-mell among the fugitives. Amid the most horrid tumult, nothing was heard but the groans and cries of death; the victors trod over heaps of corpses in pursuing those who vainly attempted to escape. Raymond d'Agiles who was an eye-witness, says :that under the portico of the mosque, the blood was knee-deep, and reached the horses' bridles.' 

There was a short lull in the act of slaughter when the Crusaders assembled to offer their thanksgiving prayer for the victory they had achieved. But soon it was renewed with great ferocity. `All the captives', says Michaud, `whom the lassitude of carnage had at first spared, all those who had been saved in the hope of rich ransom, were butchered in cold blood. The Saracens were forced to throw themselves from the tops of towers and houses; they were burnt alive; they were dragged from their subterranean retreats, they were hauled to the public places, and immolated on piles of the dead. Neither the tears of women nor the cries of little children--- not even the sight of the place where Jesus Christ forgave his executioners, could mollify the victors' passion... The carnage lasted for a week. The few who escaped were reduced to horrible servitude'. 

Another Christian historian, Mill adds: `It was resolved that no pity should be shown to the Mussalmans. The subjugated people were, therefore, dragged into the public places, and slain as victims. Women with children at their breast, girls and boys, all were slaughtered. The squares, the streets and even the un-inhabited places of Jerusalem, were strewn with the dead bodies of men and women, and the mangled limbs of children. No heart melted in compassion, or expanded into benevolence'.
These are the graphic accounts of the massacre of the Muslims in Jerusalem about ninety years before the reoccupation of the Holy city by Sultan Salahuddin in which more than seventy thousand Muslims perished. 

On the other hand, when the Sultan captured Jerusalem in 1187, he gave free pardon to the Christians living in the city. Only the combatants were asked to leave the city on payment of a nominal ransom. In most of the cases, the Sultan provided the ransom money from his own pocket and even provided them transport. A number of weeping Christian women carrying their children in their arms approached the Sultan and said `You see us on foot, the wives, mothers and dauthers of the warriors who are your prisoners; we are quitting forever this country; they aided us in our lives, in losing them we lose our last hope; if you give them to us, they can alleviate our miseries and we shall not be without support on earth'. The Sultan was highly moved with their appeal and set free their men. Those who left the city were allowed to carry all their bag and baggage. The humane and benevolent behaviour of the Sultan with the defeated Christians of Jerusalem provides a striking contrast to the butchery of the Muslims in this city at the hands of the Crusaders ninety years before. The commanders under the Sultan vied with each other in showing mercy to the defeated Crusaders. 

The Christian refugees of Jerusalem were not given refuge by the cities ruled by the Christians. `Many of the Christians who left Jerusalem', says Mill, `went to Antioch but Bohemond not only denied them hospitality, but even stripped them. They marched into the Saracenian country, and were well received'. Michaud gives a long account of the Christian inhumanity to the Christian refugees of Jerusalem. Tripoli shut its gates on them and, according to Michaud, `one woman, urged by despair, cast her infant into the sea, cursing the Christians who refused them succour'. But the Sultan was very considerate towards the defeated Christians. Respecting their feelings, he did not enter the city of Jerusalem until the Crusaders had left. 

From Jerusalem, the Sultan marched upon Tyre, where the ungrateful Crusaders pardoned by Sultan in Jerusalem had organized to meet him. The Sultan captured a number of towns held by the Crusaders on the sea coast, including Laodicea, Jabala, Saihun, Becas, Bozair and Derbersak. The Sultan had set free Guy de Luginan on the promise that he would instantly leave for Europe. But, as soon as this ungrateful Christian Knight got freedom, he broke his pledged word and collecting a large army, laid siege to Ptolemais.
The fall of Jerusalem into the hands of the Muslims threw Christendom into violent commotion and reinforcements began to pour in from all parts of Europe. The Emperors of Germany and France as well as Richard, the Lion-hearted, king of England, hurried with large armies to seize the Holy Land from the Muslims. They laid siege to Acre which lasted for several months. In several open combats against the Sultan,, the Crusaders were routed with terrible losses. 

The Sultan had now to face the combined might of Europe. Incessant reinforcements continued pouring in for the Crusaders and despite their heavy slaughter in combats against the Sultan, their number continued increasing. The besieged Muslims of Acre, who held on so long against the flower of the European army and who had been crippled with famine at last capitulated on the solemn promise that none would be killed and that they would pay 2,00,000 pieces of gold to the chiefs of the Crusaders. There was some delay in the payment of the ransom when the Lion-hearted king of England butchered the helpless Muslims in cold blood within the sight of their brethren. 

This act of the king of England infuriated the Sultan. He vowed to avenge the blood of the innocent Muslims. Along the 150 miles of coastlines, in eleven Homeric battles, the Sultan inflicted heavy losses on the Christian forces. 

At the last the Lion-hearted king of England sued for peace, which was accepted by the Sultan. He had found facing him a man of indomitable will and boundless energy and had realized the futility of continuing the struggle against such a person. In September 1192, peace was concluded and the Crusaders left the Holy Land with bag and baggage, bound for their homes in Europe.
`Thus ended the third Crusade', writes Michaud, `in which the combined forces of the west could not gain more than the capture of Acre and the destruction of Ascaion. In it, Germany lost one of its greatest emperors and the flower of its army. More than six lakh Crusaders landed in front of Acre and hardly one lakh returned to their homes. Europe has more reasons to wail on the outcome of this Crusade as in it had participated the best armies of Europe. The flower of Western chivalry which Europe was proud of had fought in these wars'. 

The Sultan devoted the rest of his life to public welfare activities and built hospitals, schools, colleges and mosques all over his dominion. 

But he was not destined to live long to enjoy the fruits of peace. A few months later, he died on March 4, 1193 at Damascus. `The day of his death' says a Muslim writer, `was for Islam and the Mussalmans, a misfortune such as they never suffered since they were deprived of the first four Caliphs. The palace, the empire, and the world was overwhelmed with grief, the whole city was plunged in sorrow, and followed his bier weeping and crying'.
Thus died Sultan Salahuddin, one of the most humane and chivalrous monarchs in the annals of mankind. In him, nature had very harmoniously blended the benevolent and merciful heart of a Muslim with a matchless military genius. The messenger who took the news of his death to Baghdad brought the Sultan's coat of mail, his horse one dinar and 36 dirhams which was all the property he had left. His contemporaries and other historians are unanimous in acknowledging Salahuddin as a tender-hearted, kind, patient, affable person--- a friend of the learned and the virtuous whom he treated with utmost respect and beneficence. `In Europe', says Phillip K. Hitti, `he touched the fancy of the English minstrels as well as the modern novelists and is still considered the paragon of chivalry'.


...................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Muhammad Bin Qasim:

Muhammad bin Qasim was orphaned as a child and thus the responsibility of his upbringing fell upon his mother. She supervised his religious instruction herself, and hired different teachers for his worldly education. It was the uncle, Hajjaj bin Yousaf, who taught him the art of governing and warfare.

Qasim was an intelligent and cultured young man who at the age of fifteen was considered by many to be one of his uncle's greatest assets. As a show of faith in his nephew's abilities, Hajjaj married his daughter to Qasim. At the age of sixteen, he was asked to serve under the great general, Qutayba bin Muslim. Under his command Muhammad bin Qasim displayed a talent for skilful fighting and military planning. Hajjaj's complete trust in Qasim's abilities as a general became even more apparent when he appointed the young man as the commander of the all-important invasion on Sindh, when he was only seventeen years old. Muhammad bin Qasim proved Hajjaj right when he, without many problems, managed to win all his military campaigns. He used both his mind and military skills in capturing places like Daibul, Raor, Uch and Multan. History does not boast of many other commanders who managed such a great victory at such a young age.

Besides being a great general, Muhammad bin Qasim was also an excellent administrator. He established peace and order as well as a good administrative structure in the areas he conquered. He was a kind hearted and religious person. He had great respect for other religions. Hindu and Buddhist spiritual leaders were given stipends during his rule. The poor people of the land were greatly impressed by his policies and a number of them embraced Islam. Those who stuck to their old religions erected statues in his honor and started worshiping him after his departure from their land.

Muhammad bin Qasim was known for his obedience to the ruler. Walid bin Abdul Malik died and was succeeded by his younger brother Suleman as the Caliph. Suleman was an enemy of Hajjaj and thus ordered Qasim back to the kingdom. Qasim knew of the animosity between the two. He was aware that due to this enmity, he would not be well treated. He could have easily refused to obey the Caliph's orders and declare his independence in Sindh. Yet he was of the view that obeying ones ruler is the duty of a general and thus he decided to go back to the center. Here he became a victim to party politics. He was put behind bars where he died at age of twenty. Many historians believe that had he been given a few more years, he would have conquered the entire South Asian region.

 Muhammad Ghuri:

Muizz-ud-din Muhammad bin Sam, commonly known as Shahab-ud-din Muhammad Ghuri is one of the key persons who played a significant role in the establishment of Muslim rule in North India. An ambitious person, Muhammad Ghuri wanted to extend his rule towards South Asia. He took the small state of Ghazni from his brother Ghiyas-ud-din Muhammad bin Sam and turned it into an empire by conquering vast territories. First he captured the area ruled by the Ghaznavids and later on extended his rule to North India and Bengal. He was an able general and a brave soldier. He never let a temporary defeat stand in his way.

After his defeat in the first battle of Tarain in 1191 at the hands of Prithvi Raj Chauhan, ruler of Delhi and Ajmer, he spent a complete year preparing for war. He came back in 1192 and defeated Raj Chauhan in the second battle of Tarain. He was the first Muslim ruler to conquer Delhi and establish a Muslim rule in India.

Muhammad Ghuri was a loyal brother. He refrained from declaring his independence in South Asia, knowing that it would result in civil war between the two brothers. Till the death of Ghiyas-ud-din Muhammad bin Sam in 1202, Ghuri never considered himself anything but a general in his brother's army. After every victory he would send the best of the looted items to his elder brother in Firuz Koh. Ghiyas-ud-din reciprocated by never interfering in the affairs of his younger brother. Thus they were each able to concentrate on their own responsibilities. As a result, Muhammad Ghuri managed to push permanent Muslim rule much further east than Mahmud Ghaznavi did.

Muhammad Ghuri had no heirs and thus he treated his slaves as his sons. It is said that he trained thousands of Turkish slaves in the art of warfare and administration. Most of his slaves were given excellent education. During his reign many hardworking and intelligent slaves rose to positions of excellence. Once a courtier regretted that Sultan has no male heirs. Ghuri immediately replied, "Other monarchs may have one son, or two sons; I have thousands of sons. Namely my Turkish slaves who will be the heirs of my dominions, and who, after me, will take care to preserve my name in the Khutbah throughout these territories". Ghuri's prediction proved true when he was succeeded by a dynasty of Turkish Slaves.

Though Ghuri's main aim was the expansion of his empire, he also took an interest in the patronization of education and learning. Illustrious Muslim philosopher Fakh-ud-din Razi and the well know poet Nizami Aruzi were few of the big names of his era.

In 1206, Ghuri had to travel to Lahore to crush a revolt. On his way back to Ghazni, his caravan halted at Damik near Jehlum. He was killed while offering his evening prayers. Many think that the murderer was an Ismaili. However, some historians believe that the murderer belonged to the warrior Ghakkar tribe that resided in the area. He was buried where he fell and his tomb has recently been renovated. Muhammad Ghuri is remembered as an empire builder and is justly called the founder of the Muslim Empire in Indo-Pakistan.

 Zahiruddin Muhammad Babar:

Zahiruddin Muhammad Babur, popularly known as "Babur", meaning lion, was the founder of Mughal Empire in India. He was born in Farghana, now in Uzbekistan, on February 14, 1483. The Mughal Empire founded by him lasted for 331 years.

Babur was a descendant of Timur on his father's side and of Chengez Khan on his mother's side. When Babur's father Umar Sheikh Mirza died in 1494, he inherited the ancestral kingdom of Farghana. He was only 14 years old at that time. Babur faced many hardships during this period of his life. He was driven out of his father's state and for two years became a wanderer. In 1504, he came to Afghanistan and occupied Kabul. Here he assumed the title of Padshah.

On account of his precarious position in Central Asia, after crossing the Indus, he invaded India five times. The fifth expedition resulted in the death of Ibrahim Lodhi in the first battle of Panipat, in April 1526. Panipat was merely the beginning of the Mughal rule; Akbar laid its real foundation in 1556. At the time of the battle of Panipat, the political power in India was shared by the Afghans and the Rajputs. In the battle of Kanwaha, Babur defeated the Rajput leader Rana Sanga of Mewar. In 1528, he captured Chanderi from the Rajput chief, Medini Rao and a year later he defeated the Afghan chiefs under Mahmud Lodhi in the battle of Ghagra in Bihar. These conquests made Babur the "Master of Hindustan", and the founder of Mughal Empire in the Sub-continent.

Babur did not live long to rule his Kingdom. Towards the end of Babur's life, his eldest son Humayun fell seriously ill. It is said that in a religious ceremony, he transferred his son's illness to himself and sacrificed himself in order to save Humayun. As Humayun recovered, the former became worse and after two or three months Babur died at Agra on December 26, 1530. Babur was buried at Kabul, in accordance with his own wishes.

Babur's personality can be judged by his own memoirs Tuzk-i-Baburi, also known as Babur Namah, written in Turkish, personally transcribed by his son Humayun, and afterwards translated into Persian during the reign of Akbar. It is considered among the most enthralling and romantic literary works of all times. Babur possessed in him the qualities of a born leader. He was not only a brilliant general but also a great swordsman who had the quality of correctly gauging the strength and the weakness of the commanders and armies opposed to him. Babur was a man of extraordinary energy and strength. He had been known to take up a man under each arm and run with them round the battlements of a fortress. He swam and crossed all the rivers of the Indian Sub-continent. He was perpetually in saddle, riding 80 miles a day. Babur was pre-eminently a man of faith. "Nothing happens" he used to say, "but by the will of God".

During his brief period of absolute rule over India, Babur did not have the time, or indeed the opportunity, to set the affairs of state in permanent manner. Babur on his death left an empire barely held by force of arms, and lacking any consolidated civil administration. After him his 23 years old son Humayun came to power to rule an empire set up by his father.

Tipu Sultan:

Tipu Sultan, the eldest son of Haider Ali, was born on December 10, 1750 at Devanhalli. Right from his early years he was trained in the art of warfare and at the age of 15 he used to accompany his father Haider Ali, the ruler of Mysore, to different military campaigns. In Addition, he also learnt different languages, mathematics and science. Tipu Sultan had a fascination for learning. His personal library consisted of more than 2,000 books in different languages. He was an extremely active man and worked hard for the welfare of his subjects. He took over the kingdom of Mysore after the death of his father in 1782, who died of a carbuncle in the midst of a campaign against the British. He continued fighting the British and defeated them in 1783.

Tipu Sultan was a farsighted person who could foresee East India Company's design to get entrenched in India. He therefore negotiated with the French for help and also sought assistance from the Amir of Afghanistan and the Sultan of Turkey. The British were scared of Tipu's growing strength and after their defeat in 1783 they formed an alliance with the Nizam of Hyderabad and Marhattas. The French, however, deserted Tipu after the signing of the Treaty of Versailles. The British availed the chance with the help of the Nizam and the Marathas, and started the third Anglo-Mysore war in 1790.

As long as the British fought alone, Tipu always defeated them. But he could not come over their diplomacy, conspiracy and intrigue. Thus he was defeated in his capital, Seringapatam, and was forced to sign a humiliating treaty on March 22, 1792. As a result he had to concede half of his kingdom and pay an indemnity of 33 million rupees to the British and their allies. The alliance between the adversaries was soon broken and in 1795 the British, after defeating the Nizam, once again turned their attention towards Mysore. After the treaty at Seringapatam, Tipu Sultan did not waste his time and made extensive preparations against the British. He had rebuilt his war machine in the shortest possible time with the help of the French. The British regarded it as a violation of the treaty. This led to the start of the fourth Anglo-Mysore war in 1798 with the help of the Nizam. The French were unable to provide the needed support to Tipu Sultan. Tipu Sultan retreated to his capital and continued fighting till he breathed his last in May 1799. Tipu Sultan is buried at a mausoleum that he himself had built, along with his father Haider Ali and his mother Fatima Begum.

Tipu Sultan was a great patriot and like his father realized the danger of letting the British becoming stronger. Although much of the period of his rule was given to war with the Marhattas, the Nizam and the British, he made his state secure and peaceful with benevolent rule. He was an enlightened ruler who treated his non-Muslim subjects generously. He built a chain of excellent roads and constructed tanks and dams to promote agriculture. He introduced new industries, promoted trade and commerce on a large scale. Tipu prohibited the production and distribution of liquor and other intoxicants in Mysore. He also built and fortified numerous forts and many palaces, which were demolished by the British after his death. Bangalore Summer Palace still survives and is a remnant of his grand rule.

Razia Sultana:

                                               Daughter of Iltutmush, Razia Sultana was the first female Muslim ruler of South Asia. She was a talented, wise, just and generous woman. She was a great administrator and was well versed in governmental affairs. She was not only a good leader in the battlefield but herself was also an excellent fighter. As the most capable son of Iltutmush died during his own life, and the rest were incompetent to govern, Iltutmush nominated his daughter, Razia Sultana, as his successor on the throne of Delhi. Whenever Iltutmush had to leave his capital, he used to leave Razia Sultana in charge of the affairs in Delhi. But when Iltutmush died, Rukn-ud-din Firuz, one of his sons, occupied the throne and ruled for about seven months. Razia Sultana, with the support of the people of Delhi, secured the throne after defeating her brother in 1236.

Razia Sultana established complete law and order in her country. To rule the country, she abandoned her femininity and adopted a masculine getup. She used to dress as a man when appearing in public, be it in court or on the battlefield. She made an Ethiopian slave named Jalal-ud-din Yaqut her personal attendant and started trusting him the most. This challenged the monopoly of power claimed by the Turkish nobles.

The Turkish nobles resented having a woman as their ruler, especially when she started challenging their power. They began conspiring against her. In 1239, the Turkish governor of Lahore rebelled against Razia Sultana. However, when she marched against him, he first fled and then apologized. Then the governor of Bhatinda revolted. When Razia Sultana was trying to suppress the rebellion in Bhatinda, her own Turkish officers deposed her from the throne of Delhi and made her brother Bahram the Sultan. Razia Sultana married the governor of Bhatinda, Malik Altunia, and with his help tried to reoccupy the throne. She was defeated by the Turkish nobles and was compelled to flee away. A peasant who had offered her food and shelter while fleeing from an encounter killed her in her sleep. She died in 1240.