6 W. Haig— Some Notes on the Bahmani Dynasty. [Extra No* 
from a nephew would have been harder to bear, and the assumption 
that Da’ud was Mujahid’s uncle explains his resentment, the result of 
which was the assassination of Mujahid and the accession of Da’ud. 
Bahman Shah’s four sons, therefore, were Muhammad, Da’ud, Ahmad 
and Mahmud. The only question concerning them which cannot be 
settled is the order in which Da’ud and Ahmad came. 
(3) The Offspring of Muhammad I. 
Muhammad was succeeded by his son Mujahid. Firishta, Nizamu* 
d-din Ahmad, and Khafi Khan mention no other son, but the author 
of the Burhan-i-Mcisir 1 says that Muhammad had a younger son, Fath 
Khan. The statement may be accepted as correct, but Fath Khan is 
not again heard of, and is therefore unimportant. Mujahid was 
assassinated after a reign of little more than a year, and his uncle and 
successor, Da’ud, was assassinated after a reign of little more than a 
month. The former left no issue. Da’ud, according to Firishta, left a 
son, Muhammad San jar, who was blinded. 
(4) Nasiru-d-din Muhammad Shah II. 
Muhammad Shah II is described both by Nizamu-d-din Ahmad 
and by the author of the Burhan-i-Ma’ a sir as the son of Mahmud 
Khan, the son of ’Ala’u-d-din Bahman Shah. The latter authority also 
describes him, consistently but wrongly, as the younger brother of Da’hd. 
Firishta, followed, of course, by Khafi Khan, falls into a strange error 
regarding the name and the identity of this king, and asserts that his 
name was Mahmud and not Muhammad and that he was the son of 
Ala’u-d-din Bahman Shah. He is very positive on this point, as the 
following extract 2 will show :— 
“ The author of the Futuhu-s-Salatin has made a mistake regard¬ 
ing the name of this king, saying that his name was Sultan Muham¬ 
mad Shah, and mentioning him as Muhammad Shah in all his poems; 
and likewise some of the historians of Gujarat and Dihli, both ancient 
and modern, not having inquired into events in the Dakan as they ac¬ 
tually came to pass, have made mistakes both in the names of the Bah¬ 
mani kings and in many of the stories which they relate concerning 
them, and all of them have wielded untrustworthy pens and have failed 
to verify their information.” 
Firishta, in spite of his assurance, was unquestionably wrong. 
In the first place he stands alone, his copyist Khafi Khan excepted, in 
describing the fifth Bahmani King as Mahmud. All other authorities 
1 King, p. 28. 
8 Firishta, i. 576. 
