Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Tarikh (Arabic: تاريخ, romanized: Tārīkh) is an Arabic word meaning "date, chronology, era", whence by extension "annals, history, historiography". It is also used in Persian , Urdu , Bengali and the Turkic languages .
The Tarikh-i Ahmad Shahi traces the life and deeds of Ahmad Shah Durrani, with most of the manuscript devoted to events that occurred after 1747. [11] Rather than being a history of a particular region, it was a biography of Ahmad Shah. Ahmad Shah's reign is covered in varied lengths of folios by Al-Husayni. [11]
The Tarikh-i-Khan-Jahani is an example of the Mughal court's Persianizing effect on different tribal leaders who had been assimilated into the imperial fold, reflected by the choice of tarikh (Persian chronicling) as the medium for this early history of the Pashtuns over their native language of Pashto. Previous written histories sponsored by ...
Tarikh e Khandan e Timuriyah also known as "Chronicle of the Descendants of Timur" is a 16th-century manuscript commissioned by Mughal Emperor Akbar in 1577–1578. [1] It describes the descendants of the 14th-century leader Timur in Iran and India [2] This volume was crafted for the emperor's personal use, thus securing a place in his personal library.
The Tārīkh-i-Dāwūdī (Persian: تاریخِ داوودی) is a 16th-century Persian language document recording the administration of various Pashtun dynasties in South Asia.
Umar was likely born in Medina around 680. [5] [6] His father, Abd al-Aziz ibn Marwan, belonged to the wealthy Umayyad clan resident in the city, while his mother, Layla bint Asim, was a granddaughter of the second Rashidun caliph Umar (r.
The title "Jahangosha-ye Naderi", which originally read "Tarikh-e Naderi", is a reference to Ata-Malik Juvayni's history of the Mongol Empire, the Tarikh-i Jahangushay. Despite this, the two books do not share many close similarities in their style or structure.
Abu Hurairah's personal name (ism) is unknown, and so is his father's. [note 1] The most popular opinion, voiced by Al-Dhahabi and Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, is that it was 'Abd al-Raḥmān ibn Ṣakhr (عبد الرحمن بن صخر).