Muntakhab al-tawarikh 78.45.3

78.45.3

I remember, that in the early days of these discussions I had an argument with Shaikh Abu’-l-Fazl in the privy audience-chamber at Fathpur. He said: “It seems to me that there is a fair objection to be made to all writers [on such subjects] on two grounds. First—Why should they not have written as circumstantial histories of the old prophets, as they have done in the annals of their own Prophet (God bless him and his family, and give them peace!)?” I answered: “The stories of the prophets are numerous enough in all conscience!” He said: “Nay, they are too compendious, they ought to have been written more in detail.” I answered: “In times gone by just the amount now extant must have been thoroughly sifted by critics and historians, and the rest not authenticated.” He said: “This answer is not satisfactory. But secondly—There is no kind of handy-craft’s man, who is not mentioned in the tazkirat-ul-auliyá, and the nafaḥát-ul uns &c., but the people of the Prophet’s own family what fault have they committed that they are not mentioned therein? This is a great subject of wonder.” On this topic whatever the time allowed was said, but who will care to hear it! Afterwards I asked: “who will ever have a greater passion for all these notorious heresies, than yourself?” He said: “I wish to wander for a few days in the vale of infidelity for sport.” I said: “It will not be a bad thing if you eventually take the yoke of marriage, as they have said:—