"The judge of Mathura laid a complaint before the Shaikh [the governor] to the effect that a wealthy and stiff-necked brahman of that place had carried off the materials that he, the judge, had collected for the construction of a mosque and had built of them an idol-temple and that, when the judge had attempted to prevent him, he had, in the presence of witnesses, opened his foul mouth to curse the Prophet and had shown his contempt for Muslims in various other ways. [The brahman was summoned.] Abu’l-Fazl represented to the emperor [Akbar] what he had heard of the case from the people and stated that it was certainly proved that he had uttered abuse of the Prophet. Some of the religious scholars were of the opinion that he should suffer death, while others were in favor of his being publicly paraded on the back of an ass and heavily fined. The question was argued at length. The Shaikh required the emperor’s sanction to the execution of the brahman. No open sanction was given, and the emperor said in private, “Punishments for offences against the Sharica are in the hands of you, the religious scholars; what do you require of me?” The brahman remained for some time in custody on the charge, and the ladies of the imperial harem busied themselves in interceding for his release, but the Shaikh’s known opinions stood in the way. At last, when the Shaikh’s importunity exceeded all bounds, the emperor said, “You have received your answer, it is that which I have already given you.” No sooner had the Shaikh reached his lodging than he issued orders for the execution of the brahman. When this matter was reported to the emperor, he was exceedingly angry. The ladies of his harem complained in private and the Hindu courtiers in public, saying, “You have pampered these mullas till their insolence has reached such a pitch that they pay no heed to your wishes and, merely to display their own power and authority, put men to death without your orders.” One night he set forth the whole case and asked certain time-serving jurists and stirrers-up of strife for a decision on the question. One of them said, “The witnesses who have been produced prove that [the sadr] has committed an offense against the person under cover of the law.” Another said, “The strange thing is that Shaikh cAbd un-nabi should claim to be a descendant of the greatest of the Imams [i.e., Abu Hanifa], according to whose school of theology the cursing of the Prophet by unbelievers who have submitted to the rule of Islam gives no ground for any breach of agreement by Muslims, and in no way absolves Muslims from their obligation to safeguard infidel subjects.” [Akbar then turned to Bada’uni:] “Have you heard that, supposing there are ninety-nine traditions awarding the punishment of death for a certain offense and one tradition in accordance with which the accused person may be set at liberty, jurists should give the preference to that one tradition?” “Yes, it is just as Your Majesty has said; but this question turns on the maxim ‘Verily legal punishments and inflictions are set aside by doubts’ “Perhaps Shaikh cAbd un-nabi was not aware of this ruling, that he put the unfortunate brahman to death. Yet how could it be so?” “The Shaikh is, beyond all doubt, a learned man, but he must have had some wise purpose in view, in knowingly giving an order contrary to this tradition.” “What purpose can he have had in view?” “The closing of sedition and the uprooting of the germs of insolence from the minds of the common people.” [The discussion continued.] All at once the emperor, opposing my decision, said, “What you say is nonsense!” I immediately made my submission and retired. From this time forth the fortunes of Shaikh Abd un-nabi began to decline."