In the service of the khalifah were two learned persons, the one a Sonnite, and the other a Shiâh, who both sought admittance at court. The emperor called them, and by their desire in his presence they endeavored to establish the truth of their respective religions. The Shiâh said: “It is evident that the Sonnites are without faith, because they do not acknowledge the prophet’s purity, and say that David caused Uriá to be killed.” The Sonnite replied: “This fact is equally mentioned in the Koran and in the _Tóurít_, ‘Pentateuch,’ explicitly and circumstantially.” A Jew was present, and affirmed: “It is certainly in the Pentateuch.” Upon which the Shiâh rejoined: “The Pentateuch is altered.” The Jew retorted: “We may as well, and with a better right, say that your book is altered, whilst there is no reason to be urged that the Pentateuch is corrupted.” The Shiâh had no answer to give, and the author of this book saw in the treatises of several of the modern learned, that they have appropriated this answer to themselves. The Shiâh again said: “The godly Ali was a very learned and most excellent man, and never polluted his lips with wine, nor pork, nor any thing dressed by the infidels.” To which the Sonnite replied: “As with you the hand of an infidel is impure, and the Korésh all drank wine and eat pork, the prophet, who associated with them, eat the same food in the house of his paternal uncles, and so did the lord, the godly Ali.” The Shiâh had no suitable reply to make to this observation; he continued however: “In the _Malul_ and _Nahel_, it is stated that the pure Fátima[36] declared, The palmgrove of _Fedak_[37] is my inheritance, as the lord of the prophetic asylum committed it to me as a _tamlík_ (hereditary property) during his life-time. But the prophet has said: “‘We, the company of prophets, do not leave to our heirs what has been bestowed on us as a gift or as alms.’ “On the strength of which Sádik (Abu bekr) rejected her claim. But even were this tradition irrefragable, how could he reject the claim of a _tamlík_, if that tradition, by which the rejection of such an inheritance never takes place, be acknowledged to be right?” The Sonnite opposed to this: “The splendid lady had no witnesses that the law could accept; as the evidence of husband, or son, or grandson, is not admissible.” The Shiâh insisted: “Sádik was wrong. And the burning of the court[38] in sequel of the mortal malady of the prophet; and the repentance which was the consequence of it? and the like, what dost thou say about it? Moreover, Omar’s impeding the writing of a last will in the mortal malady of the prophet, as the Imám _Ismâíl Bokhárí_[39] has related upon the authority of _Abd-ulla_, the son of _Abas_, that in his mortal malady the house of the prophet was full of his companions. He said: ‘Make haste, let me put down a writing for your sake, in order that, after me, you may be safe against error and deceit.’