Historicity of Ibn Batuta re Shamsuddin Firuz Shah
Summary
The article critically examines Ibn Battuta’s account of Shamsuddin Firuz Shah, whom the traveller describes as a Balbani king of Bengal. The author argues that Ibn Battuta’s narrative is unreliable: Firuz Shah belonged to the Ilyas Shahi dynasty rather than a Balban line, and there was no separate Balbani kingdom in Bengal. By assembling genealogical tables and numismatic evidence, the paper shows that the so‑called Balbani kings were part of the same dynasty as other Bengal sultans. The author analyses coins attributed to Firuz Shah and his successors, noting their legends and titles, and compares them with the details given by Ibn Battuta. He also scrutinises inscriptions from various mosques and madrasas that mention Firuz Shah, demonstrating that the chronology contradicts the traveller’s story. The article discusses how Ibn Battuta’s narrative may have been coloured by hearsay or misinterpretation and highlights broader issues in using foreign travelogues as historical sources. Ultimately, the author concludes that local epigraphic and numismatic evidence offers a more accurate account of Shamsuddin Firuz Shah’s reign and that the notion of a Balbani dynasty is untenable.
AI-assisted summary, not yet checked. Consult the original PDF before citing.
Conclusion
Using coins, inscriptions and genealogical tables, the article refutes Ibn Battuta’s claim that Shamsuddin Firuz Shah was a Balbani king. It demonstrates that Firuz Shah belonged to the Ilyas Shahi dynasty and that there was no separate Balbani rule in Bengal, illustrating the pitfalls of relying uncritically on medieval travel accounts.