281 
1873.] H. Bloclimann —Geography and History of 'Bengal. 
The chronology of the c Life of Shah Jalal,’ as Dr. Wise observes, is 
confused. His death is put down as having occurred in 591, A.II., and he 
said to have visited Nizamuddin Aulia, who died in 725, A. II. Again, 
according to the legends still preserved in Silhat, the district was wrested 
from Gaur Govind, the last king of Silhat, by king Shamsuddin in 1381 
A. D., or 786 A. H., during the reign of Sikandar Shah, whilst ‘king 
Shamsuddin’ can only refer to Shamsuddin Ilyas Shah, Sikandar’s father. 
Dr. Wise also draws attention to the statement made by Ibn Bat Utah 
who “ from Sadkawan [Chatgaon] travelled for the mountains of Kamru 
[Kamrup, western Asam]. # # His object in visiting these mountains was to 
meet one of the saints, namely, Shaikh Jalal uddin of Tabriz.Jalal 
then gives him a garment for another saint‘ Burhan uddin,’whom Ibn Batutah. 
visits in Ivlianbalik (Pekin). Ibn Batutah, as remarked above, was in Eastern 
Bengal, when Fakhruddin was king (739 to 750, A. H.). But here again 
the confusion of dates and names is very great. Jalal uddin of Tabriz died, 
as we saw above, in 612, and the Sillmt Jalal is represented as a man from 
Yaman.f Neither Jalal nor Burhanuddin is mentioned in the biographi¬ 
cal works of Muhammadan Saints. 
XV. Sikandar Sha'h II. 
The Biyaz says that this king was the son of Yusuf Shah ; the other 
histories say nothing regarding his relationship. Stewart calls him “ a youth 
of the royal family,” but afterwards calls Fath Shah his “ uncle.” The 
Biyaz says that he was deposed on the same day on which he was raised to 
the throne ; the Ain i Akbari gives him half a day ; my MS. of the Tabaqat, 
two and a half days ; Firishtah mentions no time ; and Stewart gives him 
two months. 
XVI. Jala'luddi'n Abul MuzafFar Fath Sha'h, son of Mahmud Shah. 
Fath Shall was raised to the throne, as “ Sikandar Shah did not possess 
the necessary qualifications.” The histories say that his reign lasted from 
887 to 896, A. H., and yet, they only give him seven years and five months 
(Stewart, seven years and six months). The inscriptions and coins, however, 
given below shew that he reigned in 886 ; and if the “ seven years and five 
months” are correct, Fath Shah could only have reigned till 892 or 893, 
which agrees with the fact that his successor FiTuz Shah II. issued coins in 
893. Fath Shah was murdered at the instigation of the Eunuch Barbak. 
Laidley has published two silver coins of this king, of which one seems to 
have been struck at Fathabad in 892. The following is a new variety4 
* Lee, Ibn Batutah, p. 195. 
f Vide the Silhat Inscription of 1505, given below under Ilusain Shah. 
j The coin given by Marsden as a Fath Shahi does not belong to this king. 
37 0 0 
