much popular excitement at his funeral, and his tomb was known and visited until at least the 14th century A.D.
On his great work, the Musnad, a collection of some thirty thousand selected traditions, see Goldziher in ZDMG, l. 465 ff. For his life and works generally see W. M. Patten, Ahmed ibn Hanbal and the Mihna; C. Brockelmann, Geschichte der Arab. Lit. i. 181 ff.; F. Wüstenfeld, Schäfi’iten, 55 ff.; M‘G. de Slane’s transl. of Ibn Khallikan, i. 44 ff.; MacDonald, Development of Muslim Theology, 110, 157, index. (D. B. Ma.)
AHMAD SHAH (1724–1773), founder of the Durani dynasty in Afghanistan, was the son of Sammaun-Khan, hereditary chief of the Abdali tribe. While still a boy Ahmad fell into the hands of the hostile tribe of Ghilzais, by whom he was kept prisoner at Kandahar. In March 1738 he was rescued by Nadir Shah, who soon afterwards gave him the command of a body of cavalry composed chiefly of Abdalis. On the assassination of Nadir in 1747, Ahmad, having failed in an attempt to seize the Persian treasures, retreated to Afghanistan, where he easily persuaded the native tribes to assert their independence and accept him as their sovereign. He was crowned at Kandahar in October 1747, and about the same time he changed the name of his tribe to Durani. Two things may be said to have contributed greatly to the consolidation of his power. He interfered as little as possible with the independence of the different tribes, demanding from each only its due proportion of tribute and military service; and he kept his army constantly engaged in brilliant scheḿes of foreign conquest. Being possessed of the Koh-i-noor diamond, and being fortunate enough to intercept a consignment of treasure on its way to the shah of Persia, he had all the advantages which great wealth can give. He first crossed the Indus in 1748, when he took Lahore; and in 1751, after a feeble resistance on the part of the Mahommedan viceroy, he became master of the entire Punjab. In 1750 he took Nishapur, and in 1752 subdued Kashmir. His great expedition to Delhi was undertaken in 1756 in order to avenge himself on the Great Mogul for the recapture of Lahore. Ahmad entered Delhi with his army in triumph, and for more than a month the city was given over to pillage. The shah himself added to his wives a princess of the imperial family, and bestowed another upon his son Timur Shah, whom he made governor of the Punjab and Sirhind. As his viceroy in Delhi he left a Rohilla chief in whom he had all confidence, but scarcely had he crossed the Indus when the Mahommedan wazir drove the chief from the city, killed the Great Mogul and set another prince of the family, a tool of his own, upon the throne. The Mahratta chiefs availed themselves of these circumstances to endeavour to possess themselves of the whole country, and Ahmad was compelled more than once to cross the Indus in order to protect his territory from them and the Sikhs, who were constantly attacking his garrisons. In 1758 the Mahrattas obtained possession of the Punjab, but on the 6th of January 1761 they were totally routed by Ahmad in the great battle of Panipat. In a later expedition he inflicted a severe defeat upon the Sikhs, but had to hasten westwards immediately afterwards in order to quell an insurrection in Afghanistan. Meanwhile the Sikhs again rose, and Ahmad was now forced to abandon all hope of retaining the command of the Punjab. After lengthened suffering from a terrible disease, said to have been cancer in the face, he died in 1773, leaving to his son Timur the kingdom he had founded.
AHMED I. (1589–1617), sultan of Turkey, was the son of Mahommed III., whom he succeeded in 1603, being the first Ottoman sultan who reached the throne before attaining his majority. He was of kindly and humane disposition, as he showed by refusing to put to death his brother Mustafa, who eventually succeeded him. In the earlier part of his reign he gave proofs of decision and vigour, which were belied by his subsequent conduct. The wars which attended his accession both in Hungary and in Persia terminated unfavourably for Turkey, and her prestige received its first check in the peace of Sitvatörök, signed in 1606, whereby the annual tribute paid by Austria was abolished. Ahmed gave himself up to pleasure during the remainder of his reign, which ended in 1617, and demoralization and corruption became as general throughout the public service as indiscipline in the ranks of the army. The use of tobacco is said to have been introduced into Turkey during Ahmed I.’s reign.
AHMED II. (1643–1695), sultan of Turkey, son of Sultan Ibrahim, succeeded his brother Suleiman II. in 1691. His chief merit was to confirm Mustafa Kuprili as grand vizier. But a few weeks after his accession Turkey sustained a crushing defeat at Slankamen from the Austrians under Prince Louis of Baden and was driven from Hungary; during the four years of his reign disaster followed on disaster, and in 1695 Ahmed died, worn out by disease and sorrow.
AHMED III. (1637–1736), sultan of Turkey, son of Mahommed IV., succeeded to the throne in 1703 on the abdication of his brother Mustafa II. He cultivated good relations with England, in view doubtless of Russia’s menacing attitude. He afforded a refuge in Turkey to Charles XII. of Sweden, after his defeat at Poltava (1709). Forced against his will into war with Russia, he came nearer than any Turkish sovereign before or since to breaking the power of his northern rival, whom his Grand Vizier Baltaji Mahommed Pasha succeeded in completely surrounding near the Pruth (1711). In the treaty which Russia was compelled to sign Turkey obtained the restitution of Azov, the destruction of the forts built by Russia and the undertaking that the tsar should abstain from future interference in the affairs of the Poles or the Cossacks. Discontent at the leniency of these terms was so strong at Constantinople that it nearly brought on a renewal of the war. In 1715 the Morea was taken from the Venetians. This led to hostilities with Austria, in which Turkey was unsuccessful, and Belgrade fell into the hands of Austria (1717). Through the mediation of England and Holland the peace of, Passarowitz was concluded (1718), by which Turkey retained her conquests from the Venetians, but lost Hungary. A War with Persia terminated in disaster, leading to a revolt of the janissaries, who deposed Ahmed in September 1730. He died in captivity some years later.
AHMEDABAD, or Ahmadabad, a city and district of British India in the northern division of Bombay. The city was once the handsomest and most flourishing in western India, and it still ranks next to Agra and Delhi for the beauty and extent of its architectural remains. It was founded by Ahmad Shah in A.D. 1411 on the site of several Hindu towns, which had preceded it, and was embellished by him with fine buildings of marble, brought from a distance. The Portuguese traveller Barbosa, who visited Gujarat in A.D. 1511 and 1514, described Ahmedabad as “very rich and well embellished with good streets and squares supplied with houses of stone and cement.” In Sir Thomas Roe’s time, A.D. 1615, “it was a goodly city as large as London.” During the course of its history it has passed through two periods of greatness, two of decay and one of revival. From 1411 to 1511 it grew in size and wealth; from 1512 to 1572 it declined with the decay of the dynasty of Gujarat; from 1572 to 1709 it renewed its greatness under the Mogul emperors; from 1709 to 1809 it dwindled with their decline; and from 1818 onwards it has again increased under British rule.
The consequence of all these changes of dynasty was that Ahmedabad became the meeting-place of Hindu, Mahommedan and Jain architecture. Ahmad Shah pulled down Hindu temples in order to build his mosques with the material. The Jama Masjid itself, which he built in A.D. 1424, with its three hundred pillars fantastically carved, is a Hindu temple converted into a mosque (see Indian Architecture, Plate III., fig. 15). One of the finest buildings is the modern Jain temple of Hathi Singh outside the Delhi gate, which was built only in 1848, and is a standing monument to the endurance of Jain architectural art The external porch, between two circular towers, is of great magnificence, most elaborately ornamented, and leads to an outer court, with sixteen cells on either side. In the centre of this court is a domed porch of the usual form with twenty pillars. The court leads to an inner porch of twenty-two pillars, two stories in height. This inner porch conducts to a triple sanctuary. James Fergusson wrote of this temple that “each part increases
