The dervish, who was brought before me last night, is illiterate. He seems to be an orthodox devotee. It is possible that he is practising hypocrisy. Many of his words and actions, one of which was the refutation of (the doctrine of) charity, were contrary to religion. The king of the time is the trustee of the royal treasury. What he gives to others (in charity, from the treasury) is legal. It is also lawful on his part, if he gives away in charity the revenue obtained from villages which have been selected by him for his private expenses after the decision of the religious men and the consultation of the nobles of the kingdom. Especially when some portion is given in charity, from this income, to the helpless dervishes, how can it be said to be unlawful? You should ask him the reason his speaking against charity. If he gives a reasonable answer, you should say to him ‘This sinner (i.e., Aurungzebe) has also a reason for practising charity’. Otherwise (i.e., if he does not give a sound reason), you should punish him like heretics, who fabricate something and attribute it to religion. Sūltán Mahmūd*—may God forgive his crimes—did not allow half-hearted religious men and heretics to enter his court, nay not even his kingdom, so that other people might not be misled by seeing such persons in the form of the (above-mentioned) dervish, and they themselves might have no power to mislead others. O God! guide us to the right path; and may peace be upon those who resign themselves to Thee and submit to Thee.