[Apbii, 
120 
30. 
31. 
32. 
33. 
34. 
E. Mitra -—Coins of Pathan Kings of Delhi. 
Islam Shah, son of Sher Shah, large size, H. 955. 
Dit to ditto ditto H. 956. 
Ditto ditto ditto H. 958. 
Ditto ditto ditto H. 959. 
Ditto ditto ditto H. 960. 
35. Muhammad Shdh, with name in Nagari, no date, new. 
36. Sultan Jalal-uddin Muhammad Shah, no Nagari, no date. 
3/. Bahadur Shah, son of Muhammad Shah, with name in Nagari. 
38. Ditto ditto ditto. 
“No. 20 is worthy of special note, as it contains a date which can¬ 
not be reconciled with the history of Islam Shah. The Tarikh Daudi, 
quoting the Tarikh AJcbar Shahi, says, “ when Sher Shah rendered up his 
life to the angel of death in Kalinjar, Jalal Khan, his youngest son, was in 
the town of Rewan, in the province of Bhata, and his eldest son ’ A'dil Khan, 
the heir-apparent, in the fort of Ranthor (Ranthambhor). The nobles per¬ 
ceived that Adil Khan would be unable to arrive with speed, and as the State 
required a head, they despatched a person to summon Jalal Khan, who was 
nearer. He reached Kalinjar in live days, and, by the assistance of T'sa 
Dajjab and other grandees, was raised to the throne near the fort of Ka¬ 
linjar, on the 15th of the month Rabi-ul-awwal, 952 A. H. (25th May, 
1515, A. D.) He assumed the title of Islam Shah, and this verse was en¬ 
graved on his seal: 
Ihe world through the favour of the Almig'hty, has heon rendered happy, 
Since Islam Shah, the son of Sher Shah, has become king.”* 
If this record be right, Islam must be accepted to have succeeded Sher 
Shah in the middle of 952, immediately after the death of his father. How 
comes it that we have coins bearing date 951, and describing him as a 
Sultan, son of Sher Shah ? In Mr. Thomas’ excellent monograph of the 
Pathan Kings of Delhi, mention is made of a coin of Islam Shah bearing 
date Ranthambar 951 H., and the typo of that coin is the same with that of 
the above list, but the inconsistency in the date has not been noticed. It is 
impossible that the father and the son could reign at the same time, unless a 
levolt of some kind be admitted, and such a revolt or rivalry for the empire 
between the father and the son has nowhere been mentioned by Mu¬ 
hammadan writers. The son, acting in subordination to the father, 
would have struck the rupees in his father’s, and not in his own, name. 
Moreover he was not the rightful heir, and could not succeed except by 
superseding his eldest brother. My own reading of No. 20 I accept with 
diffidence, but Mr. Thomas’ unrivalled knowledge of Indian numismatics 
and Semitic palaeography leaves no room for doubt that the reading is cor- 
* Aj>ud Elliot’s Muhammadan Historians, IY, p, 478, 
