|
Introduction
Islamic literary sources provide far more extensive evidence of temple destruction by the Muslim invaders of India in medieval times. They also cover a larger area, from Sinkiang and Transoxiana in the North to Tamil Nadu in the South, and from the Seistan province of present-day Iran in the West to Assam in the East. As we wade through this evidence, we can visualise how this vast area, which was for long the cradle of Hindu culture, came to be literally littered with the ruins of temples and monasteries belonging to all schools of Sanătana Dharma-Bauddha, Jaina, Saiva, Săkta, VaishNava and the rest. Archaeological explorations and excavations in modern times have proved unmistakably that most of the mosques, mazărs, ziărats and dargăhs which were built in this area in medieval times, stood on the sites of and were made from the materials of deliberately demolished Hindu monuments.
Hundreds of medieval Muslim historians who flourished in India and elsewhere in the world of Islam, have written detailed accounts of what their heroes did in various parts of the extensive Hindu homeland as they were invaded one after another. We have had access only to a few of these histories on account of our limitations in terms of language and resources. Most of the histories pertaining to what are known as provincial Muslim dynasties, have remained beyond our reach. One thing, however, becomes quite clear from the evidence we have been able to compile, namely, that almost all Muslim rulers destroyed or desecrated Hindu temples whenever and wherever they could. Archaeological evidence from various Muslim monuments, particularly mosques and dargăhs, not only confirms the literary evidence but also adds the names of some Muslim rulers whom Muslim historians have failed to credit with this pious performance.
We are citing the literary evidence also in a chronological order, that is, with reference to the time at which a particular work was written and not with reference to the period with which it deals. Appendix 1 Provides the names and dates of dynasties and kings described in these histories in the context of India. Most of these histories start with the creation of Adam and Eve or the rise of the Prophet of Islam, and come down to the time when the authors lived. Glorification of Islam, as its armies invaded various countries and laid them waste with slaughter and rapine, is their common theme. The writers have exhausted their imagination in describing g the holocaust that was caused everywhere and in coining names for those whom they look down upon as infidels and idolaters.1
The apologists of Islam are likely to point out that quite often the instances of iconoclasm have been copied by succeeding historians from the writings of their predecessors and that this repetition should be kept in mind while assessing the extent of temple destruction. There is no substance in this argument. Firstly, there are many instances of temple destruction which are not reported in the histories but which archaeological evidence proves. Secondly, what is relevant in this context is that the historians regard some instances as significant enough to bear repetition. It is obvious that no account of some reigns was considered complete unless the concerned ruler was credited with the destruction of Hindu temples. Had it not been an important pious performance from the point of view of Islam, it is inconceivable that historians who wrote in times when the dust of war had settled down, would have cared to mention it. The repetitions are valuable from another point of view as well. In quite a few cases, succeeding historians add details which are not found in the preceding accounts. It is immaterial whether the details were missed by the earlier historians or are the products of the succeeding historians´ imagination. What matters is that the historians thought them fit for the glorification of Islam.
Author : Shri Sita Ram Goel
Foot Notes
1 The language which is uniformly used by Muslim writers in describing the slaughter of people, destruction of cities and towns, and enslavement of the conquered men, women and children, has to be read in the original Arabic or Persian in order to realize that the writers themselves must have been bloodthirsty thugs masquerading as theologians, poets and historians. Amir Khusrű and Ziău´d-Din Barani, the two distinguished disciples of Nizămu´d-Din Auliyă´, excel them all in the respect. The Urdu translations retain some of the flavour which is lost in translations in other languages. Urdu is truly an Islamic language.
|
