Was Firoz Shah Tughluq a Usurper?

Was Firoz Shah Tughluq a Usurper?

This issue is yet to be decided and has become quite controversial whether FirozShah Tughluq was a usurper or not. Some scholars are of the opinion that he was a usurper. They believe tha Firoz Shah Tughluq had no claim to the throne. Sir Wolseley Haig writes that Firoz had purposely usurped the claim of the son of Muhammad Tughluq and occupied his throne. But many others do not agree with the views of Sri Wolseley Haig that he was a usurper. Let us reconsider the pros and cons of the issue in order to arrive at a solid conclusion.

Arguments against F Firoz Shah Tughluq

1.  An article of Sir Wolseley Haig appeared in the Jaurnal of the Royal Asiatic Society in which he wrote clearly that Sultan Muhammad Tughluq had a son and Firoz deprived him of his claim and captured the throne.

2.  Dr. Tripathi also opines that Firoz clearly manipulated the circumstances and removed the son of Muhammad Tughluq from his way.

3.  The statement of Ferishta makes it clear that if there had been a son of Muhammad Tughluq, it would not have been proper for him to be the sultan. This shows that Muhammad Tughluq had a son who was deprived of his rightful claim by Firoz.

4.  Badayuni also mentions tha tMuhamad-bin-Tughluq had a son.

5.  Moreover, the claim of Dabar Malik was also ignored who was the son of Muhammad-bin-Tughluq’s sister.

Arguments in Favour of Firoz Shah Tughluq

The following arguments have been put forth by different scholars in favour of Firoz to prove that he was not a usurper.

1.  Had there been any son of  Muhammad Tughluq, the contemporary historians must have written on his birth and early life. Later historians Yahya-bin-Ahmad, Ferishta and Nizamuddin have also described the child of some obscure origin.

2.  In Case there had been any son of Muhammad Tughluq, the Ulema and nobles would not have mentioned that he had no son.

3.  Although Afif does not relate the child to be an illegitimate one, but he also mentions that it was related by the army officers that Muhammad Tughluq had no son.

4.  The Sultan at the time of his departure to south made Firoz the regent of the war council. Had there been any son of Muhamad Tughluq, he must have appointed him the regent in place of Firoz.

5.  Ibn Batuta, a contemporary historian, does not refer to any successor of Muhammad Tughluq.

6.  When during the last days of his reign Muhammad Tughluq planned to go to Mecca, he did not refer to his son.

7.  Barani and Afif remark that Firoz was nominated successor by Muhammad Tughluq.

8.  In case Muhammad Tughluq had any son. Firoz who was very much attached to him, should not have deprived him of his right claim.

9.  Moreover, in Islamic traditions, there was no law of succession. Sword was the decisive factor and Firoz was the most appropriate person under that circumstance. He was nominated by the Sultan and had the support of all conservative Muslims; hence he was the rightful claimant to the throne and not the usurper as accused by some of the scholars. Dr. R.P. Tripathi has also remarked, “The circumstances under which he had been elected, the support he had received from the religious classes, his association with them and his own outlook combined to make him feel that he was a trustee of the Sultanate.”

SHARE

Milan Tomic

Hi. I’m Designer of Blog Magic. I’m CEO/Founder of ThemeXpose. I’m Creative Art Director, Web Designer, UI/UX Designer, Interaction Designer, Industrial Designer, Web Developer, Business Enthusiast, StartUp Enthusiast, Speaker, Writer and Photographer. Inspired to make things looks better.

• 
• 
• 
• 
•