They believe it wrong to hold any faith or religious system in abhorrence, as according to them, we may draw near to God in every faith: also that no faith has been abolished by divine authority――they hold that, on this account, there have been so many prophets, in order to shew the various ways which lead to God. Those who carefully investigate well know, that the ways which lead to heaven are many; nay more than come within the compass of numbers. It is well understood, that access to a great sovereign is more easily attained through the aid of his numerous ministers; although one of the prince’s commanders be on bad terms with his confidential advisers, or even should all the chiefs not co-operate with each other; yet they can promote the interest of their inferiors: therefore it is not proper to say that we can get to the God of all existence by one road only. But the insurmountable barrier in the road of approaching God is the slaughter of the Zindíbar, that is, those animals which inflict no injury on any person, and slay not other living creatures, such as the cow, the sheep, the camel, and the horse: there is assuredly no salvation to the author of cruelty towards such, nor can he obtain final deliverance by austerities or devotions of any description. Should we even behold many miraculous works performed by the slayer of harmless animals, we are not even then to regard him as one redeemed; the works witnessed in him are only the reward of his devotions, and the result of his perseverance in the practice of religious austerities in this world: and as he commits evil, he cannot be perfect in his devout exercises, so that nothing but suffering can await him in another generation (when born again): such an instance of an ascetic endued with miraculous powers is likened in the Shat Dasatir[299] to a vase externally covered with choice perfumes, but filled internally with impurities. They also maintain that in no system of faith is cruelty to innoxious animals sanctioned: and all human sanction for such acts proceeds from their attending to the apparent import of words, without having recourse to profound or earnest consideration――for example, by putting a horse or cow to death is meant, the removal or banishing from one’s self animal propensities, and not the slaughtering or devouring of innoxious creatures. They state the later historians to have recorded without due discrimination that Rustam, the son of Dastan (who was one of the perfect saints), used to slay such animals: whereas tradition informs us, that the mighty champion pursued in the chase noxious animals only: what they write about his hunting the wild ass, implies that the elephant-bodied hero called the lion a wild ass; or “that a lion is no more than a wild ass when compared to my force.” In the several passages where he is recorded to have slaughtered harmless wild asses and oppressed innoxious creatures, and where similar actions are