“…The temple of Nagarkot, which is outside the city, was taken at the very outset… On this occasion many mountaineers became food for the flashing sw… - `Abd al-Qadir Bada'uni

Badayuni alone remains. In order to understand his criticism it is necessary to understand him first. He was an ultra-conservative in religious matters for whom the beaten path was the only path to salvation. All non-Muslims were condemned to eternal hell according to him. He could not mention a Hindu name without boiling over with pious wrath. Shi’as were equally creatures for contempt. If Birbar is called *a bastard’, Shi’as were dubbed ‘heretics, fools, worshippers of the devil, fit only to be cast out’. He could not tolerate even a scholar of Muhammad Ghaus’s reputation if he happened to show common courtesy to Hindus. He would not go to pay his respects to Muhammad Ghaus when he discovered that he used to show respect to certain Hindus by rising to salute them. When Abu’l FaizI becomes a Shi’a, he is at a loss how to describe the change, and says alternately that he became a religious recluse and a Hindu, Islam to him seemed to centre not even in the observances of its outward ceremonials alone but in the display of militant hostility towards the non-Muslims. He was prepared heartily to condemn any one found negligent in these outward things.

In the year 998 (H./1589 C.E.) Raja Todarmal and Raja Bhagwandas who had remained behind at Lahore hastened to the abode of hell and torment (that is, died) and in the lowest pit became food of serpents and scorpions. May Allah scorch them both.

Abdul Qadir Badaoni who was then one of Akbar's court chaplains or imams, states that he sought an interview with the emperor when the royal troops were marching against Rana Pratap in 1576, begging leave of absence for "the privilege of joining the campaign to soak his Islamic beard in Hindu infidel blood".