1/n #sadarPranam to Ishvara within you @SmitaMukerji Ji.

I don't know what actually makes one belive at times that, to abuse others is the "given right" considering that few have celebrated their knowledge and wisdom enough.

Seriously, what triggered you SO MUCH? https://twitter.com/SmitaMukerji/status/1264234971478269952

2/n It would have been so gracious, had you tried to explain your legitimate point without colorful words.

"History owes to none. Not to you Smita Ji, not to Akbar, not to me... but only to the time & fact."

And "no one can be authority except the history itself".

3/n Anyways, fair enough @SmitaMukerji ji.

I stand there to respect you and respectfully put my submission too.

The background is not as plain as you pen it down. Even Baduadi whom you cite has a different opinion. Read on from ur own source. https://twitter.com/SmitaMukerji/status/1264234971478269952?s=20

4/n The background actually goes back to 1575-76 during the initial days of Ibadatkhana, where Akbar had tussle about the Islamic Laws relating to Marriage. Akbar was trying to find justification for his innumerable marriage.

Source:Muntakhab At Tawarikh English Vol. 2

5/n Vol 3, has a mention of the fact of 4/n being one of the major trigger points.

I wonder what makes our great Historians debate upon it?

Source:Muntakhab At Tawarikh English Vol. 3

@SmitaMukerji don't respond until tweet number reads n/n. This is not 2-bit subject.

6/n @SmitaMukerji ji, now let us look at the Brahmin incidence of 1977 put across by Badauni critically and step by step.

It is proven that the Brahmin has said foul words against Muhammad & such offense deserves execution as per Ulemas.
https://twitter.com/SmitaMukerji/status/1264234971478269952?s=20

7/n This means that a word against Islam always had a consequence of death until the first 21 years of Akbar (at least). Similar executions never occurred though many derided Hindu Dharma at Akbar's court too on multiple occasions. Hence Secular Akbar is a hoax.