Badayuni alone remains. In order to understand his criticism it is necessary to understand him first. He was an ultra-conservative in religious matte… - `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.