He was the pupil of Miyāṅ ‘Azīzu-'llāh of alamba.* Taking him in all he had no equal in this generation as a sage versed both in those branches of knowledge which demand the exercise of the reasoning faculty, and in those which demand the exercise of the memory, but especially in scholastic theology, (Quranic) exegesis, practical theology, and Arabic literature. It used to be said that he had, in the course of teaching, gone through the commentary ⁶⁷ on the Miftāḥ* and the Muawwal,* from the bā of Bīsmi-'llāh to the tā of “tammata,” nearly forty times, and that he had gone through all other advanced works (on theology) as often. He used to tell Makhdūmu-'l-Mulk that he had no rival in dis­putation. When Mullā ‘Alā'u-'d-dīn Lārī took to the Miyāṅ, with the greatest assurance, his notes on the commentary on the ‘Aqā'id-i-Nasafi,* the Miyāṅ, after perusing them, discussed the matter with such minuteness of detail that Mullā ‘Alā'u-'d-dīn was unable to answer him.

In scholastic theology the greatest of the Imāms* (on him be the mercy of God!) was inferior to the Miyāṅ. The Miyāṅ was an ascetic and strove much in the way of holiness, and was pious and devout, although he sat in the seat of honour and dignity, exercising absolute authority.

When I, in the time of Bairam Khān,* the Khān-Khānān, re­entered the service of the Miyāṅ in Āgra, after an interval of five years, I delivered to him a request for a decision on a point of theology from Shaikh Mubārak* of Nāgōr, from whom I was at that time receiving instruction. After inquiring of me how I had done during the time of my separation from him, the Miyāṅ said, “What sort of a religious teacher is Shaikh Mubārak?” I told him what I knew of the Shaikh's conduct as a Mullā, of his piety, his poverty, his striving in the path of holiness, and his commands and prohibitions in religious matters which in those days he took upon himself to issue, declaring them to be binding. He replied, “Yes, indeed. I also have heard him well spoken of, but they say that he holds the Mahdawī doctrines. Is this true?” I said, “He believes Mīr Sayyid Muḥammad of Jaun-pūr * (may his tomb be sanctified!) to have been a great saint, but does not believe him to have been the Mahdī.” He replied, “What doubt can there be regarding the perfections of the Mīr?” Mīr Sayyid Muḥammad, Mīr-i-‘Adl,* now deceased and pardoned, who was a pupil of the Miyāṅ, was also present; and he said, “Why do they call Mīr Sayyid Muḥammad of Jaunpūr the Mahdī?” I told him that it was on account of his assumption of the authority to issue authoritative orders and prohibitions in religious matters. Mīr Sayyid Muḥammad again questioned me, saying, “Mīr ‘Abdu-'l-Ḥayy of Khurāsān,* who held the title of Ṣadr for some time, one day spoke ill of the Shaikh to the Khān-i-Khānān. Do you know the reason of this?” I said, “The ⁶⁸ Shaikh wrote him a note, giving him advice on various religious matters, and among other things advised him to attend prayers with the Sunnī congregation in the Masjid-i-Ḥayy.* This offended ‘Abdu-'l-Ḥayy, and he attributed this advice to the Shaikh being a Mahdawī, and supposed that he was reproaching him with heresy.” Mīr Sayyid Muḥammad said, “This deduction of the Mīr with regard to his own heresy depends upon this syllogism, ‘You do not join in the congregational prayers: everybody who does not join in the congregational prayers is a schismatic: there­fore you are a schismatic.’ But the major proposition is in­admissible. And likewise the syllogism, ‘The Shaikh assumes the power of issuing authoritative commands; anybody who issues authoritative commands is the Mahdī, etc., is unsound.’” The Miyāṅ then said, “I will seal this application for a decision,* but I will retain it in the same manner* as I have retained another application for a decision which was sent to me under the seal of some of the elders of this place, and in respect of which I have some doubts. Now do you take this to Shaikh Bahā'u-'d-dīn, who is an accepted muftī, and say to him that my excuse of lack of books of reference, owing to my being on a journey, is perfectly comprehensible, but that, as to the tradition on which he has authenticated that (other) fatw, it will be well if he sends me his original authenticated fatw”; and say to him further, “The long and the short of the matter is that you have delivered a fatw authorizing men to sell their children, when impelled thereto by hunger. In the first place this tradition is solely an Ibrāhīm Shāhī tradition,* and is not in accordance with any other standard theological works, and it is well known that the Ibrāhīm Shāhī traditions are not accepted by the learned as of sufficient authority to support a fatw, and if you maintain that a muftī is competent to give the preference to a superseded* tradition, I reply without hesitation that the expression used in the ⁶⁹ Ibrāhīm Shāhī tradition is that it is lawful for fathers (),* in time of distress, to sell their offspring, and it is well known that the word includes both father and grandfather, as we find in the book on marriage:—“Any person whose fathers () were Muslims is equal to him whose ancestors attained to the honour of (accepting) Islām,” and it is agreed that the word here means “father and grandfather,” not “father and mother.” On the assumption that this much is granted why should it not be (ruled) that the authority to sell children vests in both grandfather and father, acting jointly; and what proof is there that such authority should be assigned to the single individual? He then retained Shaikh Mubārak's application for a decision, and gave the former application to me. When I brought it to Shaikh Mubārak he was loud in his praises of Miyāṅ Ḥātīm's knowledge of theology and said, “Tell him, after conveying my salutations, that I did not affix my seal to the ap­plication for a decision as I expected that this occasion would arise.” When I showed the document to Shaikh Bahā'u-'d-dīn he said, “As other muftīs had confirmed the decision I trusted to what they said, and did not go deeply into the question, and there certainly was negligence on my part.” The readiness of Shaikh Bahā'u-'d-dīn, the muftī, who was a man of high position and great virtue, to acknowledge his fault, was evidence of his perception and love of truth, and of his rectitude and justice:—

“At the head of that letter which Āṣaf wrote
He wrote, ‘God had mercy on the most just.’”

Miyāṅ Ḥātim, after enjoying the blessing of the opportunity of teaching and imparting instruction for a period of seventy years, passed away from this transitory world in the year H. 968 (A.D. 1560-61). The chronogram of his death has been already given; the words, “With the King he is powerful,”* were found to give the date of his death. He left his son, Shaikh ‘Abdu-'l-Ḥātim by name, as his successor as a religious leader and Shaikh, but ⁷⁰ not as Mullā. He too rejoined his venerable father in the year H. 989 (A.D. 1581) and left some degenerate sons as his heirs.

“How long shall I cherish by blandishments the complaisance
of stony-hearted mistresses (idols)?
“These degenerate sons do not call to mind their father.”