Although he is by religion a Shí‘ah* he is distinguished for his impartiality, justice, virtue, modesty, piety, continence, and such qualities as are possessed by noble men, and is well known for his learning, clemency, quickness of understanding, singleness of heart, clearness of perception, and acumen. He is the author of several able works, and he has written a monograph on the “undotted commentary”* of Shaikh Faiẓī which is beyond all praise. He also possesses the poetic faculty and writes impres­sive poetry. He was introduced to the emperor by the instru­mentality of the physician Abū-'l-Fatḥ,* and when the victorious imperial army reached Lāhōr, and Shaikh Mu‘in the Qāẓī of Lāhōr, when he was paying his respects to the emperor, was afflicted suddenly in the presence chamber with the falling sick­ness, which came upon him in consequence of the feebleness of old age, and the failure of his natural powers, the emperor took pity on his weakness, and said, “The Shaikh is past his work, ¹³⁸ and we have therefore appointed Qāẓī Nūru-'llāh to the post which he held.” In truth he has reduced the insolent muftīs and the crafty and subtle muḥtasibs of Lāhōr, who venture to give lessons to the teacher of the angels, to order, and has closed to them the avenues of bribery, and restrained them within due bounds as closely as a nut is enclosed in its shell, and to such a degree that stricter discipline could not be imagined. One might almost say that the author of the following verses had the Qāẓī in his mind when he wrote them:—

“Thou art he who has never in all his life admitted
Any statement by anybody in a law-suit, except the sworn
testimony of a witness.”

One day when he was in the house of Shaikh Faiẓī the Nīshā-pūrī commentary was the subject of discussion, and regarding the blessed verse:—“When he said to his companion, ‘Be not cast down, verily God is with us,’”* —which verse is held, by the great majority of commentators, to refer to the greatest of faithful witnesses of the truth (Abū Bakr)—may God be graci­ously pleased with him!—he said, “If the signification of the companionship referred to in the text be trifling and unimportant then the expression cannot be understood as conveying praise of anybody, but if it be said that the word is used in the conven­tional sense which has been attributed to it by traditionists, we come back to the question under debate, and I deny that there was any companionship (in that sense).”* I replied, “If a mere child even who knew the Arabic language were asked he would say that this verse clearly involves praise (of the person referred to therein) and not blame, and an African infidel, or a Jew, or a Hindū who knew Arabic, would give the same reply.” There was much controversy on the subject, and Shaikh Faiẓī after his usual vile custom took the side of the Qāẓī, though he actually had nothing whatever in common with either side. Suddenly a passage was turned up, in the Nīshāpūrī commentary itself, which supported my contention, and even went beyond it, saying that the verse, supposing that the prophet (may God bless and preserve him!) had at that moment been summoned to the immediate presence of God, would have been authority for regarding Abū Bakr and no other as the successor nominated by the prophet himself.