« السابقةمتابعة »
assign this coin to Aḥmad I, the younger brother of Firüz, and to assume that he had bestowed upon his father, Aḥmad Khan, the honorary title of "Shah," but Maulavi Muḥammad 'Aziz Mirzā, B.A., First Talukdar of Bid in the Haidarābād State, has pointed out to me that the kunya on the obverse of the coin does not coincide with that on coins which can be assigned with certainty to Aḥmad Shah I, and he is of opinion that the coin must be assigned to ‘Ala'u-d-din Aḥmad Shāh II, the son and successor of Aḥmad I. His ascription of the coin is undoubtedly correct but an explanation of the line of descent as given on the reverse is necessary, for there is no reason or authority for believing that Aḥmad I (and consequently Firuz) was the son of Bahman Shāh the founder of the dynasty. We must therefore explain the inscription on the reverse, in view of the very strong reasons for believing that Firūz and Aḥmad I were the sons of Aḥmad Khan, by assuming that Aḥmad II traced his descent per saltum through Aḥmad I to Bahman Shāh.
Two errors concerning the descent of Ahmad Shah I call for notice here. The first is a mistake made by Nizamu-d-din Aḥmad in the heading of his account of Aḥmad Shah's reign, in which Ahmad is described as the son of Firuz. This is merely a slip, for the same author elsewhere mentions Hasan Khan as the eldest son of Firūz, and says that Firūz, when delivering the kingdom to Ahmad, commended his sons to his protection. The other error is contained in the Narnāla inscription which makes Aḥmad (and consequently Firuz) the son of Muḥammad Shah, evidently the fifth king of the dynasty. It has already been shown that Firuz and Aḥmad were not the sons of Muḥammad II, and the inscription is, independently of this inaccuracy, of very little value, for it omits altogether from the descent given, the name of ‘Alā'u-d-din Aḥmad II.
There appears to be little if any doubt that Firuz Shāh and Aḥmad Shah, the eighth and ninth kings of the Bahmani dynasty, were the sons of Aḥmad Khan, son of 'Ala'u-d-din Bahman Shah, the founder of the dynasty.
(7) THE OFFSPRING OF FIRUZ ṢHÃH.
According to the author of the Burhan-i-Ma'aşir Firuz, who was deposed by his younger brother Aḥmad in A.H. 825, left several sons, for he speaks of "Hasan Khan and all the other sons of the late king." In another passage he mentions Makhduma-i-Jahan, the wife
of Humayun Shah Bahmani, as the daughter of Mubarak Khan, son of Sultan Firuz Shāh. Firishtal and Khāfi Khan mention this princess and describe her as a wise woman, but do not give her descent. Neither author mentions any sons of Firuz except Ḥasan Khān. Nizamu-d-din Aḥmad says that Firuz commended his "sons to Ahmad's protection. We may conclude that Firüz had several sons, of whom the eldest was Hasan Khan, Mubarak being one of the younger sons. Ḥasan Khan was designated heir-apparent during his father's life-time, and married the beautiful daughter of the Sonar of Mudgal. He seems to have been an unambitious and pleasure-loving youth who readily acquiesced in his uncle's elevation to the throne.
(8) OFFSPRING OF AHMAD SHAH VALI.
The author of the Burhan-i- Ma'āṣir says that Aḥmad Shah bad seven sons, and gives the titles of four-(1) Zafar Khan Khān-i-Khānān, (2) Maḥmud Khan, (3) Muḥammad Khan, and (4) Dā'ūd Khan. Maḥmud is described as the fourth son. Nizāmu-d-din Aḥmad mentions Zafar Khan by his name, 'Alā'u-d-din, and also mentions Muḥammad, Maḥmūd, and Da'ud. Muhammad was entrusted to the care of his eldest, brother 'Ala'u-din, while the other sons were placed in charge of provinces. This bears out Firishta's statement that Muḥammad was the youngest of the sons and 'Ala'u-d-din the eldest. Firishta also mentions Maḥmūd and Dā'ūd. Aḥmad Shāh Vali had at least two daughters, for one of his daughters married Shah Habibu'llāh, and another married Jalal Khan and was the mother of Sikandar Khan, whom his father tried to raise to the throne.
(9) OFFSPRING OF ZAFAR KHAN, 'ALA'U-D-DIN AḤMAD II,
'Alā'u-d-din Aḥmad had three sons: Humayun Shāh Zālim (“the tyrant"), who succeeded him, and Ḥasan Khan, and Yahya Khan, both of whom were put to death by their brother. He also had more than one daughter, for his eldest daughter married Shāh Muḥabbu-'llāh, brother of the Shāh Ḥabibu-'llāh already mentioned.
1 Firishta, i. 663.
2 Tabaqat-i-Akbarī, p. 414.
8 King, p. 50.
• Tabaqat-i-Akbarī, p. 416.
5 Firishta, i. 630.
6 Firishta, i. 659, 661. King, pp. 81, 85, 87. Tabaqāt-i-Akbarī, pp. 424, 425. 7 King, p. 74.
(10) OFFSPRING OF HUMAYUN SHAH ZALIM.
Humayun Shāh married the daughter of Mubarak Khān, a younger son of the eighth king, Firuz, and by this princess, who received the title of Makhdūma-i-Jahān, invariably bestowed upon the principal wife of a Bahmani king, had three sons-(1) Nizam Shah, who succeeded him, (2) Shamsu-d-din Muḥammad, who succeeded his brother Nizām Shāh, and (3) Jamshid' called by Firishta Ahmad.
(11) OFFSPRING OF SHAMSU-D-DIN MUHAMMAD LASHKARI.
Shamsu-d-din Muḥammad had, so far as is known, only one son, who is styled by the author of the Burhan-i-Ma'āṣir3 Aḥmad, and who succeeded his father under the title of Shahābu-d-din Maḥmūd. No other writer styles this prince Ahmad, and the author of the Burhān-i-Ma'āṣir does not explain why he should have changed his name on succeeding to the throne.
(12) Offspring OF SHAHABU-D-DÎN MAṛмÜD SHÃ¤.
Shahābu-d-din Maḥmūd had three1 sons—(1) Aḥmad, (2) ‘Alā’u-ddin, and (3) Valī'-u-'llāh, all of whom were in succession raised to the throne as nominal sovereigns by Amir Barid. Firishta, in the heading of the chapters devoted to the "reign" of 'Ala'u-d-din III, describes him as the son, not the brother, of his predecessor, Aḥmad Shāh; but this is an error, for he says afterwards that Vali’u-'llāh, whom he describes as the son of Maḥmud Shah, followed the example of his "brother" in attempting to free himself from the influence of Amir Barid, so that Nizamu-d-din Aḥmad is evidently correct in describing 'Ala'u-d-din III as the son of Maḥmud Shāh.
Of the three brothers Aḥmad Shah III died after a reign of little more than two years, not without suspicion of poison; 'Ala'u-d-din Shāh III was deposed after a reign which did not extend to two years; and Vali'u-'llāh Shāh was poisoned after a reign of three years.
(13) AḤMAD SHÃH III.
Aḥmad III was, as has been said, the eldest son of Shahābu-d-din Maḥmūd Shāh. There is a discrepancy as to the date of his birth. Nizamu-d-din Aḥmad gives the date as Rajab 27, A.H, 899, whereas
1 King, p. 89.
2 Firishta, i. 671.
5 Firishta, i. 727.
6 Ibid, 728,
3 King, p. 116.
• Possibly four, if the last king of the dynasty, Kalimu-'llah, be reckoned as: See the account of Kalimu-'llāh.
Tabaqat-i-Akbarī, p. 436.
8 Tabaqat-i-Akbarī, p. 434.
Firishtal has Rajab 27, A.H. 889. But Firishta also says that Aḥmad was born on the day on which Kh'āja Ni'matu-'llāh Tabrizi, the envoy from the rebel Bahadur Gilānī, arrived at court and discharged the duty entrusted to him. He had no sooner concluded an agreement with Maḥmüd Shāh than Bahādur Gilānī broke it, and was defeated and slain in battle, according to the author of the Burhan-i-Maāṣir? on Şafar 5, A.H. 900. Again, according to Firishta, Maḥmūd Shāh was only twelve years of age at the time of his accession in A.H. 881, so that it is unlikely that his eldest son was born in A.H. 889; and we know, moreover, that Maḥmud Shah was for some time disappointed of male issue, so that it is evident that he was not, at 14 years of age, the father of a son. Firishta also says3 that Aḥmad married Bibi Sata, sister of Isma'il 'Adil Shah, in A.H. 920, and it is more probable that Aḥmad was 21 than that he was 31 years of age when this marriage was arranged. It appears, therefore, that the date of Aḥmad's birth, as given by Firishta, is a copyist's error, and that the correct date is that given by Nizāmu-d-din Aḥmad.
(14) KALIMU-'LLAH SHAH.
There is some doubt as to the parentage of Kalimu-'llah Shāh. Both Firishta and Nizamu-d-din Aḥmad describe him, in the headings of the chapters containing the accounts of his reign, as the son of Maḥmüd. But Firishta, in mentioning his flight to Bijapur in A.H. 934, describes Ismā'il ‘Adil Shāh as his maternal uncle, and we have seen that Bibi Sata, Ismā'il's sister, was married to Aḥmad, so that it would appear that Kalimu-'llāh was a son, and not a younger brother, of Aḥmad. The principal difficulty in the way of this explanation is that it makes Kalimu-'llah, at the time of his flight to Bijāpār, by which time he had already caused a letter to be written to Bābar, a boy of 13 years of age at most; but this difficulty disappears if we assume that the appeal to Bābar and the flight to Bījāpūr were managed by those who had the immediate care of the youthful roi fainéant. Nevertheless, the question cannot be said to have been satisfactorily decided. I have seen copper coins of Kalimu-'llāh, and have a specimen, but unfortunately they do not bear his father's name.
Kalimu-'llah died at Ahmadnagar in A.H. 934 or 935, probably from poison, and with him ended the Bahmani dynasty.
The three genealogical tables appended give the pedigree of the Bahmani family-(1) according to Firishta, (2) according to the Burhān-i-Ma'āṣir, and (3) as described in this paper.
1 Firishta, i. 716. 2 King,p. 133. ō Firishta, ii. 32.
4 Firishta, i. 779.
I.—GENEALOGY OF THE BAHMANY KINGS ACCORDING TO FIRISHTA.
(12) Azam Shah
(11) Humayun Shāh Zālim
(1) ‘Alà'n-d-din Hasan Gāngū Bahmanī.
(9) Aḥmad Shah m. dau. of (5)
(15) Aḥmad Shah III m. Bībī Satā dau. of Yusuf 'Adil Shāh
(18) Kalimu-'llah Shāh*
Dau. m. Fīrūz Shāh
(13) Shamsu-d-din Muḥammad Shāh (14) Shahabu-d-din Mahmud Shāh
Dau: m. Aḥmad (6) Ghiyāṣu-d-dîn (7) Shamsu-d-din Shāh Shah Shāh
(5) Mahmud Shah
Dan. m. Jalāl Khān
Note.—The numbers in brackets indicate the order of succession to the throne.
* It is doubtful whether Kalimu-'llāh was a son or a younger brother of Aḥmad III.
(17) Vali'u-'llāh Shāh