1875. J H. G. Raverfcj — Who were the Pathan Saltans of Dihli ? 



Sultan Bahrain, 

 [contemporary of the Khalifah 'All,] descendant of Zuhak, the Tazi or Taji. 



1. Eldest son, Jalal-ud-din Muham- 1. Youngest son, Jamal-ud-din Hasan. 

 mad Husain. 



2. Shah Mu'izz-ud-din Mahmtid, who 



2. Kamal-ud-din Mahmtid, who was retired to Makkah. 



sent as hostage to Walid. 3. Shah Husain [contemporary with 



Hajjaj, appointed to administer the go- 

 vernment of Khurasan, 78 H.], who had 



3. Son, nameless, [hut as his son is Bibi Matit, to wife. 



called Muhammad-i-Suri, it is presumed , A •, 



therefore by me, to he Suri], great great- 1, Ghalzi. 2, Ibrahim, sumamed Ludi, 



grandfather of the last mentioned under. properly Lo-e-day, "he is eldest", he 



4. Son, nameless. being the eldest legitimate son ; and 3, Sia- 



5. Son, nameless. ni. 



6. Son, nameless. 



7. Mu'izz-ud-din Muhammad, son of 

 Baha-ud-din Sam, Sultan of Ghaznin, 

 assassinated 602 H. 



Now what relationship existed between Sultan Mu'izz-ud-din Muham- 

 mad, son of Baha-ud-din Sam, conqueror of Iiai Pithora, and establisher 

 of the Muhammadan power in Hindustan, whose descent is traced to Zuhak, 

 the Tazi, (*. e., Arab : by Persian-speaking people Taji, whence comes 

 the name Tazik and Tajik, by which name the greater number of the 

 non-Afghan people of those tracts are still known. See Tab. Nas., page 

 301) and the descendants of Bibi Matu's sons, whose father, by this tradi- 

 tion, Shah Husain was ? Is there the slightest shadow of a reason why, 

 even if this tradition were true, the rulers of Grhur, whether Maliks or Sul- 

 tans, should be styled, as at page 50, Yol. 1, of Dow's version of Firishtah, 

 " Muhammad of the Stir tribe of Afghans, and in Brigg's version, page 50, 

 Vol. 1, " Muhammad of the Afghan tribe of Sur" ? and is there the most 

 remote shadow of a reason why Sultan Mu'izz-ud-din's Turkish slave 

 should be styled "the founder" of the Afghan or "Patan" dynasty of 

 Dihli, and all those Turkish slaves, and descendants of Turkish slaves, the 

 Khalj Titrks, and the Sayyids who trace their descent to Husain, grandson 

 of Muhammad the Prophet, and are acknowledged by all Muhammadans to 

 be his descendants — twenty rulers in all — should be styled the " Patan" or 

 " Pathan" kings of Dihli ? 



From the error of calling the Ghuri Sultans " Patans or Afghans" 

 emanates another error equally great ; but, in this instance, it is the 

 turning of Afghans into Turks ! Wherever the Khalj tribe are refer- 

 red to throughout Firishtah's work, Dow styles them ' Chilligies', which is 

 the name of no people, tribe, or race on the face of the earth, and in this he 

 is followed by Maurice and some others ; but Briggs styles them by nearly 

 their correct name, at least, for they are called Khalji as well us Khalj ; but 



