12 
W. Haig— Some Notes on the Bahmani Dynasty. [Extra Ho. 
Firishta 1 lias Rajah 27, A.H. 889. But Firishta also says that Ahmad 
was born on the day on which Kh’aja Ni‘matu-’llah Tabriz!, the envoy 
from the rebel Bahadur Gfilani, arrived at court and discharged the 
duty entrusted to him. He had no sooner concluded an agreement with 
Mahmud Shall than Bahadur Gilani broke it, and was defeated and 
slain in battle, according to the author of the Burhan-i-Maasir 2 on 
Safar 5, A.H. 900. Again, according to Firishta, Mahmud Shah 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 Mahmud 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 says 3 that Ahmad 
married Bibi Sata, sister of Isma‘il ‘Adil Shah, in A.H. 920, and 
it is more probable that Ahmad 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 Nizamu-d-din Ahmad. 
(14) KalTmu-’llah Shah. 
There is some doubt as to the parentage of Kalimu-’llah Shah. 
Both Firishta and Nizamu-d-din Ahmad describe him, in the headings 
of the chapters containing the accounts of his reign, as the son of 
Mahmud. But Firishta, in mentioning 4 his flight to Bijapur in A.H. 
934, describes Isma’il ‘Adil Shah as his maternal uncle, and we have 
seen that Bibi Sata, Isma’il’s sister, was married to Ahmad, so that it 
would appear that Kalimu-’llah was a son, and not a younger brother, 
of Ahmad. The principal difficulty in the way of this explanation is 
that it makes Kalimu-’llah, at the time of his flight to Bijapur, by 
which time he had already caused a letter to be written to Babar, 
a boy of 13 years of age at most; but this difficulty disappears if we 
assume that the appeal to Babar and the flight to Bijapur were man¬ 
aged by those who had the immediate care of the youthful roi faineant. 
Nevertheless, the question cannot be said to have been satisfactorily 
decided. I have seen copper coins of Kalimu-’llah, and have a speci¬ 
men, 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 
Burhan-i-Ma asir, and (3) as described in this paper. 
1 Firishta, i. 716. 2 King 5 P* 133. 3 Firishta, ii. 32, 4 Firishta, i, 779. 
