And had I chosen to pursue the dispute, the consequences would have been momentous. But whoever objects to anything I have said should declare, ‘I object to such-and-such,’ write out his objection in his own hand, and specify how it applies to what I have said. I will write my reply in my own hand, and both statements should be submitted to all the Muslim scholars, East and West. I stand by this.”

I had previously said in Damascus:

“These sweeping objections achieve nothing. Rather, whoever objects to something should write out his objection and its supporting evidence in his own hand. I will write my reply in my own hand, and people of knowledge and faith can examine both statements. This is the proper procedure in matters of public concern. As for statements that are not committed to writing, they are frequently confused, added to, and diminished—as has indeed happened.”

Among the things I said to al-Taybarsī was:

“What you have done undermines your religion, your state, and your religious law. The ‘royal’ letter written in the Sultan’s name contains numerous falsehoods concerning you and violations of religious law, amounting to more than ten points. Ghāzān’s letter, which was read from the pulpit in Syria, accords more closely with Islamic law than this letter written in the name of the Sultan of the Muslims and read from the pulpits of Islam. If, in their presence, falsehoods about you and the judges are committed to writing and the religion of Islam is altered, what, then, of other matters that have escaped your notice?”

Likewise, I sent a message through al-Fattāh to the Sultan’s deputy, saying:

“You have this statement of belief in your possession; it is the one examined by the scholars of Syria. Whoever objects to anything in it should specify it.”