^{page 58 note 1} References are here given to the Nawalkishore lith. edition (no date), ii, pp. 110–118.

^{page 58 note 2} Cf. Rieu, C., Catalogue of Persian MSS. in the British Museum i, 314–15Google Scholar. The work was begun in 1000/1592, and completed four years later. Cf. also Ethé, H., Cat. of Persian MSS. in India Office Library, No. 449, etcGoogle Scholar. The portion dealing with the history of Niẓām-Shāhs was translated into English by Haig, W., in the Indian Antiquary for 1920–1923Google Scholar.

^{page 59 note 1} Completed ca. 1002/1593—4. This work was not available to me for reference.

^{page 59 note 2} Completed ca. 1010/1601–2. Here references are given to the old Tabriz lith. edition (not dated), pp. 341–4 (the last notice in the seventh majlis).

^{page 59 note 3} Part iii (lith. Tehran, 1319), pp. 57–66.

^{page 59 note 4} Neither the Ta'rīkhi Guzīda, nor the Nuzhatu'l-qulūb, nor the Rāḥatu'ṣ-ṣudūr mentions such a place. It is quite possible that the name is the result of a misreading of another name in the original source from which all later authors took this information.

^{page 59 note 5} As is known to everyone who had to use the Survey of India maps on the spot, they are full of surprises and disappointments. The classic example of such surprises may be given in the fact that on the latest 16 miles to an inch maps, published after 1925, in such a frequented locality as the suburbs of Meshed, the sarai of Turuq is mentioned—a ruin of not the slightest interest, one of those which are met with in hundreds. But a village with about two thousand population, Turuq, about 2 miles away, does not exist on the map. Therefore it is quite possible that, after all, Khūnd really exists.

^{page 60 note 1} As is known, their ancestors were regarded as Sufic pīrs, and they themselves were almost deified by a sect of Shi'ite extremists. Traces of this sect still exist in the form of the secret community Siyāh-supurī (= “Blackshielded ones”), found in some localities in Northern Persia. One of their centres is situated in a village some 40 miles from Tehran.

^{page 61 note 1} The story, on the whole, sounds rather unconvincing: many Sufic saints and poets of that period used to “correspond” with different princes. For instance, the famous Shaykhh Ādhdharī Isfarā'inī (d. 866/1462) corresponded with the Bahmani kings of Gulbarga. Such correspondence obviously consisted of requests for donations, and offers of laudatory odes. It would be also difficult to imagine that the Ismaili leanings of Shāh Ṭāhir either were a surprize to Shāh Ismā'īl, or constituted a sufficient ground for execution.

^{page 62 note 1} Rieu, C., in his note on Shāh Ṭāhir (Pers. Cat., i, 395)Google Scholar states that the same date is given in the Ṭabaqāti Shāhjahānī, and the Tuḥfa'i Sānī. The latter, being the earliest of all works mentioned above, and written by a contemporary of Shāh Ṭāhir, most probably is the source of the information of all later authors. Unfortunately the work is not accessible to me at present.

^{page 62 note 2} There are apparently two versions of this work, the longer (Rieu's Cat., i, 395) and the shorter, compiled in 938/1531–2 (Ethe's, India Office Persian Cat., 2056)Google Scholar. At present copies of this Inshā are rather rare in India; but it seems that a careful study of its contents would give much interesting new data to the historian of the Deccan.

^{page 62 note 3} None of his sharḥs and ḥāshiyas are mentioned in Gunturi's, Kashfu'lḥujub (Calcutta, 1330)Google Scholar; most probably they were small opuscules, and had only local circulation, amongst the saint's pupils. The famous work al-Bābu'l-ḥādī 'ashar, on Shi'ite dogma, is by Ḥasan Ḥillī (d. 726/1326).

^{page 62 note 4} Perhaps the Ismaili commentary on the Gulshani rāz, of which a fragment was described by me in the paper published in the Journal of the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society (1932, pp. 69–78), may belong to the authorship of Shāh Ṭāhir.

^{page 62 note 5} There are several theological works with this title: one, mentioned by Gunturi (Kashf, No. 486), is by Zaynu'd-dīn 'Alī Badakhshānī, who dedicated it to Muḥammad Quṭb-Shāh (really Muḥammad-Qulī, 989–1020/1581–1611). This is a commentary on the Tajrīdu'l-kalām. It is obviously too late a work to be concerned here. The other Tuḥfa'i Shāhī, not mentioned by Gunturi, is a treatise on the correct methods of reading the Qur'ān. It was composed by 'Imādu'd-din 'Alī Sharīf Astrābādī, and dedicated to Shāh Ṭahmāsp (cf.Ivanow, W., Catalogue of the Persian MSS. in the (old) collections of the As. Soc. of Bengal, 1924, No. 975)Google Scholar. But it is also possible that the work mentioned here was yet another one.

^{page 63 note 1} Most probably the famous work by Muḥammad Ṭūsī (d. ca. 458/1066), the Tahdhību'l-aḥkām.

^{page 63 note 2} According to the Ṭarā'iqu'l-ḥaqā'iq (iii, 67), Shāh Ḥaydar visited Persia still during the time of his father. Abū'l-Ḥasan, his younger brother, joined the service of 'Ādil-Shāhs. Unfortunately there is no indication of the chronology of these events, and of the dates of the deaths of both these persons.

^{page 64 note 1} Apparently one leaf, i.e. two pages, is lost, as the custodes do not agree between pp. 17 and 18. It is difficult to be absolutely certain, for this reason, whether the final two pages really form the end of the pamphlet; but this looks highly probable. The style, and the handwriting both are the same.

^{page 64 note 2} Qunduz is a town on the left bank of the Oxus River, now within the boundaries of Afghanistan. At present it is a small place, but in the Middle Ages it was fairly important, and had some important madrasas.

^{page 64 note 3} The copy is written on old hand-made brownish paper, 6·5 by 4·25 inches, 13 lines, 2·75 inches long to a page. Good legible nasta'līq, of inelegant Herati type. The inner part of pages became damaged, and leaves are badly pasted to new paper; ends of the lines, which went under the new paper, are restored in a crude modern hand. The work begins with:—

^{page 65 note 1} It is written apparently by the same copyist, only in large naskh. It begins with:— [sic]

[sic[

^{page 65 note 2} As is well known, their names are often differently given: the Fatimid version is 'Abdu'l-lāh, Aḥmad, and Ḥusayn. The present Nizari Ismaili version is Aḥmad, Muḥammad, and 'Abdu'1-lāh.

^{page 65 note 3} As is known, Nizār was murdered, together with one of his sons, in prison, by the order of his brother, Musta'lī. It is still uncertain whether ḥasan b. ṣabbāḥ succeeded in bringing to Persia his son or grandson— the latter seems to me more probable.

^{page 66 note 1} In the Ta'rīkhi Guzīda, which gives interesting information about the Imams of Alamūt, and seems to be based on reliable sources, al-Qāhir bi-aḥkāmi'l-lāh is merely the title of the next Imam, Ḥasan 'adā dhikri-hi's-salām. This seems highly probable, but the original sectarian tradition is against this. Cf. Kalāmi Pīr (Bombay, 1935), p. 44 (p. 51 of the text)Google Scholar.

^{page 67 note 1} Cf. Kalāmi Pīr, pp. xxviii–xxix, footnote 3.

^{page 67 note 2} Similar prophecies are vaguely referred to in the Rawḍātu't-taslīm of Ṭūsī, Naṣīru'd-dīn (cf. JRAS., 1931, p. 560)Google Scholar.

^{page 67 note 3} If this is true, it would be interesting to find in how far all this was connected with the expectation of the impending invasion of Chingīz Khān; or, if this is of a late origin, with the rise of the Safavids.

^{page 68 note 1} Published in Urdū, without the name of the author. Lith. Lahore, no date.

^{page 68 note 2} His genealogy is given on p. 380. It begins as the supposed genealogy of Shamsu'd-dīn, the Ismaili missionary, who is buried in Multān, and now known under the name of Shamsi Tabrīz. Cf. my paper “The Sect of Imam Shah in Gujrat” (Journal of the Bombay Branch of the R.A.S., 1936), p. 31. The line bifurcates after No. 15, and goes as follows: 16. Ja'far Raḍiyyu'ddīn; 17. Shāh Qāsimi Anwār; 18. Murtaḍa; 19. Muḥammad Ismā'il; 20. 'Abdu'l-Mu'min Shāh; 21. 'Alī Khālid; 22. Ja'far Shāh Khūrshāh; 23. Muḥammad Riḍa; 24. 'Alī Jalālu'd-dīn; 25. Ḥasan al-'Ālim; 26. Rafī'u'd-dīn 'Alī; 27. Mu'min Shāh; 28. Muḥammad Raḍiyyu'd-dīn. The author has taken this version from the Malfūẓi Kamāliyya, of Sayyid Kamālu'd-dīn “Mawji Daryā”.

^{page 70 note 1} Strangely the author gives three different chronograms for the date of completion, the other two being 1107 and 1108, i.e. 1695–7.

^{page 70 note 2} Calcutta, 1924, No. 818.

^{page 70 note 3} In the MS. folios are numbered incorrectly and after f. 256 there is a mistake—30 folios omitted in calculation.

^{page 71 note 1} This is the famous collection of thirty-two letters, dealing with Sufic philosophy, written in 824–5/1421–2, by Muḥammad b. Naṣīri'd-dīn Ja'far al-Makkī, a disciple of Gīsūdirāz. The headings of the letters are given in H. Ethé's India Office Catalogue, No. 1867–9.

^{page 72 note 1} Rūmī's connection-with Ismailism is rather doubtful, but it is significant that so early as the beginning of the ninth/fifteenth century popular ideas associated the great Sufic poet with the Ismailis: Shaykh Ādharī Isfarā'inī (d. 866/1462) had to refute this in his Jawāhiru'l-asrār.

^{page 72 note 2} As I have already emphasized in my note on the Sect of Shah, Imam in Gujarat (Journal of the Bombay Branch of the R.A.S., 1936, p. 30)Google Scholar, there is much confusion in the legends which surround the name of this enigmatic saint. It appears that his association with the Ismaili line of the Imams came into existence at a very early date, and persisted ever since to this day, when the mutawallīs of the shrine of Shamsu'd-dīn in Multan positively assure every one about the identity of the friend of Rūmī with the person buried in the shrine.

^{page 75 note 1} He is referred to on at least over a dozen occasions: ff. 106 v., 142 v., 188, 234 (bis) v., 242, 247 v., 280 v., 308, 322 v., 417 v., 421, 514, etc. On f. 234 (bis) v. he is even called “mulaqqab ba Dak'hanī”.

^{page 75 note 2} The passages in which all his successors are mentioned one after another, in their proper sequence, are found on if. 234 (bis) v., 285 v., 287, 514. It is hardly worth quoting these passages, because they are nothing but vague and rather meaningless collections of bombastic epithets and glorifications. One of the successors of the saint, 'Azīz, is referred to even more frequently than himself, more than fifteen times. It is remarkable that in many such passages there is almost invariably a reference to Shamsi Tabrīz, whose name very often reappears here. This surely cannot be attributed to some particular admiration for this shadowy Sufic saint, but is a hidden emphasizing of Shāh Ṭāhir's descent from the Imams of Alamūt.

^{page 78 note 1} See pp. 12 sq. As the book was compiled long before I found the Irshādu'ṭ-ṭāhirīn, I neTer suspected at that time the existence of a separate sub-sect, of the “Muḥammad-Shāhī” Nizārīs, and therefore wrongly placed the Lama'ātu'ṭ-ṭāhirīn amongst the works of the Persian Alamūti school, which now may be called “Qāsim-shāhī” (No. 665, on p. 111).

^{page 78 note 2} In the history of the Ismaili Imams, composed by Muḥammad b. Zayni'l-'ābidīn Khurāsānī, which is being prepared for publication by A. A. Semenov, of Tashkent, Shāh Ṭāhir is regarded as the same as Shāh Muḥammad b. Islām Shāh b. Qāsim Shāh, which is quite fictitious. Cf. Semenov, A., “An Ismaili Ode glorifying the Incarnations of Ali-God”, in the Iran (Leningrad), ii, 1928, p. 21 (in Russian)Google Scholar. Mu'min Shāh, mentioned by the Irshād, is very often referred to in the genealogies from Badakhshan. It is quite probable that references to them could be multiplied if more of Persian Ismaili literature should be available.