Perhaps the most famous and widely discussed epistle amongst the Rasāil Ikhwān Al-Ṣafā is the twenty second, fi kaifīyat takwīn al-ḥaiwānāt wa aṣnāfehā1 (on the modalities of the coming to be of the animals, and their kinds). Various research papers, essays and critical introductions have dealt with different aspects of the fable. Many, though not all of, the academic works that cite and engage with the fable often discuss what readers find to be the perplexing and surprising outcome of the fable, and its final judgement. When scrutinized collectively, however, there appears to be a discrepancy in the way each paper or article recounts the climactic events of the fable. Specifically, the pivotal, concluding argument, put forth by the human beings—that ultimately becomes the determinative injunction of the lengthy court case —is understood in vastly contrasting terms. Generally, academic works regarding the concluding argument of the animal fable can be divided into three sections: those that consider the argument of immortality as the reason for the humans’ victory, those that understand the existence of saintly figures as the reason for victory, and those that extrapolate indirect conclusions and inferences not mentioned in the text itself, but rather read in between the lines and assumed from the context. This paper will attempt to provide a brief survey of the ways the extant secondary literature on the fable describes the final argument, followed by an attempt to identify possible factors and reasons for the aforementioned inconsistency. These factors include the ambiguous ending itself, the discrepancies in the manuscripts, and the translations of the texts that fail to fail to fully recognize and convey the differences in the text. Finally, a comprehensive and reconciliatory proposition will be made, through inferencing from contextual clues and reference to concepts found throughout the epistles, that aims to harmonize the conflicting interpretations of the text with the text itself.