[35] The author does not mention any particular miracle, which we had reason to expect from the preceding title of this section.
Section II.—On the dispute of the people of different religions.
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.’
“But Omar said: ‘The prophet is overcome by the malady, and his intellect is obstructed; the heavenly book, and the proofs of the text of the Koran are sufficient for us.’ On which account accumulated contradictions and conflicting discussions rose to such a height that the prophet said: ‘Leave me.’ The Sonnite resumed: The prophet himself declared:
‘I am a man like you, but I speak from inspiration.’
“In eating, dress, repose, affliction, health, sickness, wounds, in life and death, his condition was that of mankind: thus, some teeth of the venerable were knocked out,[40] and in his last malady he was exceedingly suffering, so that in the violence of his pain he might have said things which were not consonant with a sound mind. On that account Omar forbade his writing.” The Shiâh remarked: “When the prophet had left the garment of mortality, Omar drew his sword, and threatened to kill whosoever would say that the prophet died, because he was still living; such a declaration, how can it be reconciled with his impeding the writing of the last will in the manner before said?” The Sonnite avowed: “Mankind is subject to error.” The Shiâh pressed further: “After the contention, when Osmân was appointed khalif, his relations of the family of Omiyah practised oppression under his authority, and he brought back Hakim, the son of Aś,[41] the son of Omiyah, to Medina, from whence the prophet had banished him, so that he was called ‘the banished of the prophet,’ although Sádik (Abubekr) and Fárúk (Omar) had not called him. Further, Osman expelled Abázer from Medina; he also gave his daughter in marriage to Merván, the son of Hakim, with the fifth part of the spoils of Afrika, which amounted to forty thousand gold dinárs.[42] Besides, he granted security to Abd-ullah, the son of Serj;[43] although the lord of the prophetic asylum had ordered his blood to be shed; and he conferred on him the administration of Egypt; he consigned also to Abd-ullah, the son of Aamar, the government of Baśra, where he indulged himself in all sorts of shameful actions. Among the Umrás of his army were Máavíah, the son of Abi Safián, the collector of Shám (Syria), and Sâíd, the son of Alâaś, the collector of Kúfa. Afterwards, Abd-ullah, the son of Aamer; and Valíd, the son of Akba Abd-ullah, the son of Sâd, the son of Abí Serj; all these trod the road of perverseness and unrighteousness.” The Sonnite had no convenient reply to make. The Shiâh continued: “The prophet sent three friends to fight to a place called Tabúk;[44] they disagreed: after which the prophet declared: ‘Whoever causes discord in the army or service, the curse of God be upon him.’” The Sonnite here fell in: “At the time of the prophet’s moving, it was not advisable to undertake the expedition designed; there was no disunion about the war among them; but only a discussion about the fitting out of the troops and the arrangements; whence a delay in this affair arose, on account of settling the proper order of march and other proceedings.” The Shiâh went on: “What the Sonnites attribute to God and the prophet, cannot be ascribed to the lowest man.” The Sonnite asked: “What is that?” The Shiâh answered: “One of these things, stated in the book of your traditions, is that the lord prophet, having exhibited before Aâisha dance and disport, asked her: ‘Art thou satisfied?’ Such a thing cannot in truth be said of any body without disgrace. Besides, there are acts unbecoming of the prophet’s companions, such as Omar’s preventing Muhammed’s last will, and the like, avowed by themselves in their book; and yet they hold these men in high esteem!” Here the Sonnite observed: “What thou first settest forth about the prophet’s exhibition of disport, is nothing shameful; as to what thou sayest about bad customs, they belong only to thy own vicious opinion. Deniest thou that the prophet has said: