HISTORIANS OF SIND.
There can, therefore, be little doubt that this is the same minister to whom Muhammad Aufí has dedicated his Lubbu-l Lubáb, respecting whose identity some doubt has been entertained, in consequence of the title ’Ainu-l Mulk not being commonly ascribed to any minister of that period. The repetition of the name by the translator of the Chach-náma leaves no doubt that Husain bin Abí Bakr bin Muhammad al Asha’rí is the person indicated.
As this translation was made at so early a period of the Muhammadan dominion in India, it is greatly to be regretted that the translator did not attempt to identify the many unknown places of which mention is made in the course of the narrative. As he had himself visited U′ch, Alor, and Bhakar, and probably other places lower down the Indus, he might have cleared up the many doubts which our ignorance of the localities entails upon us.
It is difficult to fix the precise period of the composition of the original Arabic. It is not said to have been composed by an ancestor of the person from whom the translator obtained it at Bhakar, but merely to have been written in the handwriting (khat) of one of his ancestors. This may be applied either to composition or transcription, but the use of the term renders the precise meaning doubtful—most probably composition is referred to. In either case, we have a guarantee for the authenticity of the narrative, in the fact that the ancestor of Isma’íl, the possessor of the manuscript, was himself a participator in the scenes and the advantages of the conquest; for we find it distinctly mentioned, that the Kází appointed by Muhammad Kásim, after the conquest of Alor, was Músá bin Ya’kúb bin Taí bin Muhammad bin Shaibán bin ’Usmán. Now if we look at the name of the person from whom the translator obtained the Arabic original, we shall find it mentioned as Isma’íl bin ’Alí bin Muhammad bin Músá bin Taí bin Ya’kúb bin Taí bin Músá bin Muhammad bin Shaibán bin ’Usmán. In both in-
