« السابقةمتابعة »
assign this coin to Ahmad I, the younger brother of Firüz, and to assume that he had bestowed upon his father, Aḥmad Khān, the honorary title of “Shāh," bat 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 Ahmad Shāh I, and he is of opinion that the coin must be assigned to 'Alā'u-d-din Ahmad 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 Firūz) 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 Firüz and Aḥmad I were the sons of Aḥmad Khān, by assuming that Aḥmad II traced his descent per saltum through Ahmad I to Bahman Shāh.
Two errors concerning the descent of Aḥmad Shāh I call for notice here. The first is a mistake made by Nizāmu-d-din Aḥmad in the headingl of his account of Ahmad Shāh's reign, in which Ahmad is described as the son of Firūz, This is merely a slip, for the same author elsewhere mentions Hasan Khān as the eldest son of Firūz, and
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 Firūz) the son of Muhammad Shāh, evidently the fifth king of the dynasty. It has already been shown that Fīruz and Ahmad 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 Ahmad II.
There appears to be little if any doubt that Firūz Shāh and Ahmad Shāh, the eighth and ninth kings of the Bahmanī dynasty, were the sons of Aḥmad Khān, son of 'Alā'u-d-din Bahman Shāh, the founder of the dynasty.
(7) THE OFFSPRING OF FIRŪZ ŞĀH.
According to the author of the Burhān-i-Ma'āşir Firūz, 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 passaget he mentions Makhdūma-i-Jahān, the wife
1 Tabaqāt-i-Akbarī, p. 414. % Tabaqät-j-Akbarī, p. 413. J. 1. 2
King, p. 47. • Kivg, p. 89.
of Humāyān Shāh Bahmani, as the daughter of Mabārak Khān, son of Sultan Firuz Shāh. Firish tal and Khāfi Khān mention this princess and describe her as a wise woman, but do not give her descent. Neither author mentions any sons of Firüz except Hasan Khān. Nizāmu-d-din Ahmad says that Firüz commended his “sons” to Ahmad's protection. We may concląde that Firüz had several sons, of whom the eldest was Hasan Khān, Mubārak being one of the younger sons. Hasan Khān was designated heir-apparent during his father's life-time, and married the beautiful daughter of the Sonār 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 SHAR VALT.
The author of the Burhan-4- Ma'āşir says that Ahmad Shāh bad seven sons, and gives the titles of four-(1) Zafar Khān Khān-i-Khánān, (2) Mahmud Khān, (3) Muḥammad Khān, and (4) Dā’ūd Khān. Mahmůd is described as the fourth son. Nizāmu-d-din Ahmad mentions Zafar Khān by his name, 'Alā'u-d-din, and also mentions Muhanmad, Mahmûd, and Dā'ūd. Muhammad was entrusted to the care of his eldest, brother 'Alā'u-din, while the other sons were placed in charge of provinces. This bears out Firish ta's statement that Muhammad was the youngest of the sons and 'Alā'u-d-din the eldest. Firishta also mentions Mahmūd and Dā'īd. Ahmad Shāh Vali had at least two daughters, for one of his daughters married Shāh Habibu'llāh, and another married Jalal Khān and was the mother of Sikandar Khān, whom his father tried to raise to the throne.
(9) OFFSPRING OF ZAFAR KHAN, 'ALĀ'U-D-DIN AHMAD II.
'Alā'u-d-din Ahmad had three sons : Hamāyān Shāh Zālim (“th tyrant”), who succeeded him, and Hasan Khān, and Yahyâ Kbān, both of whom were put to death by their brother. He also had more than one daughter, for his eldest daughter7 married Shāh Muhabbu-'llāh, brother of the Shāh Habibu-'llāh already mentioned,
1 Firishta, i. 663. : Tabaqät-i-Akbari, p. 414. 8 King, p. 50. * Tabaqat-e-Akbarī, p. 416. 6 Firishta, i. 630. 6 Firishta, i. 659, 661. King, pp. 81, 85, 87. Tabaqat-i-Akbarī, pp. 424, 426. - King, p. 74.
(10) OFFSPRING OF HUMĀYUN SHAH ZĀLIM. Humāyān Shāh married the daughter of Mubārak Khān, a younger son of the eighth king, Firüz, 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) Nizām Shāh, who succeeded him, (2) Shamsu-d-din Muhammad, who succeeded his brother Nizām Shāh, and (3) Jamshid' called by Firish ta& Aḥmad.
(11) OFFSPRING OF SHAMSU-D-DIN MUŅAMMAD LASHKARĪ. Shamsu-d-din Muhammad bad, so far as is known, only one son, who is styled by the author of the Burhān-i-Ma'āşir 3 Ahmad, and who succeeded his father under the title of Shabābu-d-din Mahmūd. No other writer styles this prince Aḥmad, and the author of the Burhān-i-Ma'āşir does not explain why he should have changed his name on succeeding to the throne.
(12) OFFSPRING OF SHAHABU-D-DIN MADMÛD SÆĀH. Shahābu-d-din Mahmûd had threef sons-(1) Aḥmad, (2) 'Alā'u-d. din, and (3) Vali'-u-'llāh, all of whom were in succession raised to the throne as nominal sovereigns by Amir Barid. Firishta, in the heading of the chapter devoted to the “reign" of 'Alā'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 6 that Vali'u-'llāh, whom he describes as the son of Maḥmūd Shāh, followed the example of his “brother" in attempting to free himself from the influence of Amir Barid, so that Nizāmu-d-din Aḥmad is evidently correct in describing? 'Alā'u-d-din III as the son of Mahmud Shāh.
Of the three brothers Aḥmad Shāh III died after a reign of little more than two years, not without suspicion of poison ; 'Alā'u-d-din Shah 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) AĦMAD SHAH III.
Ahmad III was, as has been said, the eldest son of Shabābu-d-din Maḥmūd Shāh. There is a discrepancy as to the date of his birth. Nizāmu-d-din Ahmad 8 gives the date as Rajab 27, A.H, 899, whereas
1 King, p. 89.
See the account of Kalīmu.'llāh.
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 Tabrizī, the envoy from the rebel Bahādur Gilāni, arrived at court and discharged the daty entrusted to him. He had no sooner concluded an agreement with Mahmud Shāh than Bahādur Gilāni broke it, and was defeated and slain in battle, according to the author of the Burhān-i-Maāşira on Şafar 5, A.H. 900. Again, according to Firishta, Mahmūd Shāh was only twelve years of age at the time of his accession in A.H. 881, 80 that it is unlikely that his eldest son was born in A.H. 889; and we know, moreover, that Mahmūd Shāh was for some time disappointed of male issue, so that it is evident that he was not, at
of age, the father of a son. Firish ta also says that Aḥmad married Bibi Sata, sister of Ismā'il 'Adil Shāh, 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 Ahmad's birth, as given by Firishta, is a copyist's error, and that the correct date is that given by Nizāma-d-din Ahmad.
(14) KALĪMU-'LLĀH SHAH. There is some doubt as to the parentage of Kalimu-'llāh Shāh. Both Firişhta and Nizāmu-d-din Aḥmad describe him, in the headings of the chapters containing the accounts of his reign, as the son of Maḥmūd. But Firishta, in mentioning* his flight to Bijāpār 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 Ahmad, 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-'llāh, at the time of his flight to Bījāpūr, 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-'llāh 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--Ma'āsir, and (3) as described in this paper.
1 Firishta, i. 716.
2 King ,p. 133.
ó Firishta, ü. 32.
4 Firishta, i, 779. Hasan Khan
1.-GENEALOGY OF THE BAHMANI KINGS ACCORDING TO FIRISATA.
Muhammad (8) Firüz Shāh
Sanjar m. đau. of (5)
(9) Ahmad Shah Dau. m. Fīrüz m, đau. of (5) Shāh
f Dau: m, Aḥmad (6) Ghiyaşa-d-dīn (7) Shamsu-d-din Shāh Shah
(12) Azam Shāh
(13) Shamsu-d-din Muhammad Shāh
(14) Shabāba-d-din Mahmūd Shāh
(18) Kalimu-'llāh Shāb*
(10) 'Alā'u-d-din Ahmad Shāh II
Dan. m. Jalal
(11) Humāyān Shāh
Dau, m. Shẫh
(15) Aḥmad Shāh III m. Bibi Satā
dau. of Yūsuf 'Adil Shāh
(17) Valī'u-'llāh Shāh
Note.-The numbers in brackets indicate the order of sdocession to the throne. * It is doubtful whether Kalimu-'llāh was a son or a younger brother of Aḥmad III.