Written by Dr.B.R.Ambedkar

SHORT EASY FOR MUSLIM INVASION IN INDIA

 

  1. “Nationality is a social feeling. It is feelings of a corporate sentiment of oneness which make those who are charged with it feel that they are kith and kin. This national feeling is a double edged feeling. It is at once a feeling of fellowship for one’s own kith and kin and an anti-fellowship feeling for those who are not one’s own kith and kin. It is a feeling of “Consciousness of kind” which on the one hand binds together those who have it, so strongly that it over-rides all differences arising out of economic conflicts or social gradations and, on the other, severs them from those who are not of their kind. It is a longing not to belong to any other group. This is the essence of what is called a nationality and national feeling”.
  2. As a matter of historical experience, neither race, nor language, nor country has sufficed to mould a people into a nation. The argument is so well put by Renan that it is impossible to improve upon his language. Long ago in his famous essay on Nationality, Renan observed:-

“That race must not be confounded with nation. The truth is that there is no pure race; and that making politics depend upon ethnographical analysis, is allowing it to be borne upon a chimcra…Racial facts, important as they are in the beginning, have a constant tendency to lose their importance. Human history is essentially different from zoology. Race is not everything, as it is in the sense of rodents and felines.”

 

  1. The most important thing that has happened is the invasion of India by the Muslim hordes from the north-west. The first Muslim invasion of India was by the Arabs who were led by Mohommad Bin Qasim. It took place in 711 A.D. and resulted in the conquest of Sind. This first Muslim invasion did not result in a permanent occupation of the country because the Caliphate of Baghdad, by whose order and command the invasion had taken place, was obliged by the middle of the 9th century A.D. to withdraw its direct control from this distant province of Sind. Soon after this withdrawal, there began a series of terrible invasions by Muhammad of Ghazni in 1001 A.D. Muhammad died in 1030 A.D., but within the short span of 30 years, he invaded India 17 times. He was followed by Mahommad Ghori who began his career as an invader in 1173. He was killed in 1206. For thirty years had Muhammad of Ghazni ravaged India and for thirty years Mahommad Ghori harried the same country in the same way. Then followed the incursions of the Moghul hordes of Chenghiz Khan. They first came in 1221. They then only wintered on the border of India but did not enter it. Twenty years after, they marched on Lahore and sacked it. Of their in roads, the most terrible was under Taimur in 1398. Then comes on the scene a new invader in the person of Babar who invaded India in 1526. The invasion of India did not stop with that of Babar. There occurred two more invasions. In 1738 Nadirshah’s invading host swept over the Punjab like a flooded river “furious as the ocean”. He was followed by Ahmadshah Abdalli who invaded India in 1761, smashed the forces of the Mahrattas at Panipat and crushed for ever the attempt of the Hindus to gain the ground which they had lost to their Muslim invaders.
  2. These Muslim invasions were not undertaken merely out of lust for loot or conquest…………… Mahommad bin Qasim is quoted to have said: “The nephew of Raja Dahir, his warriors and principal officers have been dispatched, and the infidels converted to Islam or destroyed. Instead of idol-temples, mosques and other places of worship have been created, the Kutbah is read, the call to prayers is raised, so that demotions are performed at stated hours. The Takbir and praise to the Almighty God are offered every morning and evening.”
  3. After receiving the above dispatch, which had been forwarded with the head of the Raja, Hajjaj sent the following reply to his general: “Except that you give protection to all, great and small alike, make no difference between enemy and friend. God, says,’Give no quarter to infidels but cut their throats’. Then know that this is the command of the great God. You shall not be too ready to grant protection, because it will prolong your work. After this give not quarter to any enemy except those who are of rank.”
  4. Muhammad of Ghazni also looked upon his numerous invasions of India as the waging of a holy war. Al’Utbi, the historian of Muhammad, describing his raids writes: “He demolished idol temples and established Islam. He captured…cities, killed the polluted wretches, destroying the idolators, and gratifying Muslims. ‘He then returned home and promulgated accounts of the victories obtained for Islam….and vowed that every year he would undertake a holy war against Hind’.
  5. Muhammed Ghori was actuated by the same holy zeal in his invasions of India. Hasan Nizami, the historian, describes his work in the following terms: “He purged by his sword the land of Hind from the filth of infidelity and vice, and freed the whole of the country from the thorn of God-plurality and the impurity of idol-worship and by his royal vigour and intrepidity left not one temple standing.”
  6. Taimur has in his Memoir explained what let him to invade India. He says: “My object in the invasions of Hindustan is to lead a campaign against the infidels, to convert them to the true faith according to the command of Muhammad (on whom and his family be the blessing and peace of God), to purify the land from the defilement of misbelieve and polytheism, and overthrow the temples and idols, whereby we shall be Ghazis and Mujahids, companions and soldiers of the faith before God.” Now we will not kill anyone but as we must respect the value of life, just we should tell them to come back to their original religion. Those are not agree they should leave the country and go to their dream land. They can’t live peacefully anywhere in the world. We should help each other for this.
  7. Mahommad Bin Qasim’s first act of religious zeal was forcibly to circumcise the Brahmins of the captured city of Debul; but on discovering that they objected to this sort of conversion, he proceeded to put all above the age of 17 to death, and to order all others, with women and children, to be led into slavery. The temple of the Hindus was looted, and the rich booty was divided equally among the soldiers, after one-fifth, the legal portion for the government, had been set aside.
  8. Muhammad of Ghazni from the first adopted those plans that would strike terror into the hearts of the Hindus. After the defeat of Raja Jaipal in A.D. 1001, Muhammad ordered that Jaipal “be paraded about in the streets so that his sons and chieftains might see him in that condition of shame, bonds and disgrace; and that fear of Islam might fly abroad through the country of the infidels.”
  9. “The slaughtering of ‘infidels’ seemed to be one thing that gave Muhammad particular pleasure. In one attack on Chand Rai, in A.D. 1019, many infidels were slain or taken prisoners, and the Muslims paid no regard to booty until they had satiated themselves with the slaughter of the infidels and worshippers of the sun and fire. The historian naively adds that the elephants of the Hindu armies came to Muhammad of their own accord, leaving idols, preferring the service of the religion of Islam.”(Dr.Titus: Indian Islam p-22)
  10. Not infrequently, the slaughter of the Hindus gave a great setback to the indigenous culture of the Hindus, as in the conquest of Bihar by Muhammad Bakhtyar Khilji. When he took Nuddea(Bihar) the Tabaquat-i-Nasiri informs us that: “great plunder fell into the hands of the victors. Most of the inhabitants were Brahmins with shaven heads. They were put to death. Large number of books were found…..but none could explain their contents as all the men had been killed, the whole fort and city being a place of study.” .”(Dr.Titus: Indian Islam p-22)
  11. Summing up the evidence on the point, Dr.Titus concluded: “Of the destruction of temples and the desecration of idols we have an abundance of evidence. Muhommad Bin Qasim carried out his plan of destruction systematically in Sind. We have seen, but he made an exception of the famous temple at Multan for purposes of revenue, as this temple was a place of resort for pilgrims, who made large gifts to the idol. Nevertheless, while he thus satisfied his avarice by letting the temple stand, he gave vent to his malignity by having a piece of cow’s flesh tied around the neck of the idol”.
  12. “Minhaj-as-Siraj further tells how Mahommad became widely known for having destroyed as many as thousand temples, and of his great fear in destroying the temple of Somnath and carrying off its idol, which he asserts was broken into four parts. One part he deposited in the Jami Masjid of Ghazni, one he placed at the entrance of the royal palace, the third he sent to Mecca, and the fourth to Medina.”(ibid pp22-23).
  13. It is said by Lane Poole that Muhammad of Ghazni “who had vowed that every year should see him wage a holy war against the infidels of Hindustan” could not rest from his idol-breaking campaign so long as the temple of Somnath remained inviolate. It was for this specific purpose that he, at the very close of his career, undertook his arduous march across the desert from Multan to Anhalwara on the coast, fighting as he went, until he saw at last the famous temple:
  14. There a hundred thousand pilgrims were wont to assemble, a thousand Brahmins served the temple and guarded its treasures, and hundreds of dancers and singers played before its gates. Within stood the famous linga, a rude pillar stone adorned with gems and lighted by jeweled candelabra which were reflected in rich hangings, embroidered with precious stones like stars, that decked the shrine….Its ramparts were swarmed with incredulous Brahmins, mocking the vain arrogance of foreign infidels whom the God of Somnath would assuredly consume. The foreigners, nothing daunted, scaled the walls; the God remained dumb to urgent appeals of his servants; fifty thousand Hindus suffered for their faith and the sacred shrine was sacked to the joy of the true believers. The great stone was cast down and its fragments were carried off to grace the conqueror’s palace. The temple gates were set up at Ghazni and a million pounds worth of treasure rewarded the iconoclast.”(Mediaval India, p-26, by Lane Poole)
  15. The work done by Muhammad of Ghazni became a pious tradition and was faithfully followed by those who came after him. In the words of Dr. Titus India Islam,pp-23-24. “Mohammad Ghori, one of the enthusiastic successors of Muhammad of Ghazni, in his conquest of Ajmir destroyed pillars of foundations of the idol-temples, and built in their stead mosques and colleges and the precepts of Islam and the customs of the law were divulged and established. At Delhi, the city and its vicinity were freed from idols and idol worship, and in the sanctuaries of the images of the Gods mosques were raised by the worshippers of the one God”.

“Qutb-ud-Din Aybak also is said to have destroyed nearly a thousand  temples, and then raised mosques on their foundations. The same author states that he built the Jami Masjid, Delhi and adorned it with the stones and gold obtained from the temples which had been demolished  by elephants, and covered it with inscriptions (from the Quran) containing the divine commands. We have further evidence of this harrowing process having been systematically employed from the inscription extant over the eastern gateway of this same mosque at Delhi, which relates that the materials of 27 idol temples were used in its construction.

“Ala-ud-Din, in his zeal to build a second Minar to the Jami Masjid, to rival the one built by Qutb-ud-Din, is said by Amir Khusru not only to have dug stones out of the hills, but to have demolished temples of the infidels to furnish a supply. In his conquests of South India the destruction of temples was carried out by Ala-ud-Din, I as it had been in the north by his predecessors.

“The Sultan Firoz Shah, in his Futuhat, graphically relates how he treated Hindus who had dared to build new temples. ‘When they did this in the city (Delhi) and the environs, in opposition’s to the law of the Prophet, which declares that such are not to be tolerated, under Divine guidance I destroyed these edifices. I killed these leaders of infidelity and punished others with stripes, until this abuse was entirely abolished and where infidels and idolaters worshipped idols, Musalmans now by God’s mercy perform their devotions to the true God.”

 

Even in the reign of Shah Jahan, we read of the destruction of the temples that the Hindus had started to rebuild, and the account of this direct attack on the piety of the Hindus is thus solemnly recorded in the Badshah-namah:

“It has been brought to the notice of His Majesty, says the historian, that during the late reign (of Akbar) many idol-temples had been begun but remained unfinished at Benares, the great stronghold of infidelity. The infidels were now desirous of completing them. His Majesty, the defender of the faith, gave orders that at Benares and throughout all his dominions in every place all temples that had been began should be cast down. It was reported from the Province of Allahabad that 76 temples had been destroyed in the district of Benares.”

  1. It was left to Aurangzeb to make a final attempt to overthrow idolatry. The author of “Ma” athir i –Alamgiri dilates upon his efforts to put down Hindu teaching, and his destruction of temples in the following terms:

In April, A.D. 1669, Aurangzib learned that in the provinces of Thatta, Multan and Benares, but especially in the latter, foolish Brahmins were in the habit of expounding frivolous books in their schools, and that learners, Muslims as well as Hindus, went there, from long distances….The  ‘Director of the Faith’ consequently issued orders to all the governors of provinces to destroy with a willing hand the schools and temples of the infidels; and they were enjoined to put an entire stop to the teaching and practicing of idolatrous worship….Later it was reported to his religious Majesty that the Government officers had destroyed the temple of Bishnath at Benaras.”

 

As Dr.Titus observes:- “Such invaders as Muhammad and Timur seem to have been more concerned with iconoclasm, the collection of booty, the enslaving of captives, and the sending of infidels to hell with the ‘proselytizing sword’ then they were with the conversion of them even by force. But when rulers were permanently established the winning of converts became a matter of supreme urgency. It was apart of the state policy to establish Islam as the religion of the whole land.

 

“Qutb-ud-Din , whose reputation for destroying temples was almost as great as that of Muhammad, in the latter part of the twelfth century and early years of the thirteenth, must have frequently resorted to force as an incentive to conversion. One instance may be noted: when he approached Koil (Aligarh) in A.D. 1194,’ those of the garrison who were wise and acute were converted to Islam, but the others were slain with the sword’.

 

“Further examples of extreme measures employed to effect a change of faith are all too numerous. One pathetic case is mentioned in the time of the reign of Firoz Shah (A.D.1351-1388). An old Brahmin of Delhi had been accused of worshipping idols in his house, and of even leading Muslim women to become infidels. He was sent for and his case placed before judges, doctors, elders and lawyers. Their reply was that the provisions of the law were clear. The Brahmin must either become a Muslim or be burned. The true faith was declared to him and the right course pointed out, but he refused to accept it. Consequently he was burned by the order of the Sultan, and the commentator adds, ‘ Behold the Sultan’s strict adherence to law and rectitude, how he would not deviate in the least from its decrees’.”

  1. Muhammad not only destroyed temples but made it a policy; to make slaves of the Hindus he conquered. In the words of Dr.Titus: “Not only were slaughter of the infidels and the destruction of their temples resorted to in earlier period of Islam’s contact with India, but as we have seen, many of the vanquished were led into slavery. The dividing up of booty was one of the special attractions, to the leaders as well as to the common soldiers in these expeditions. Muhammad seems to have made the slaughter of infidels, the destruction of their temples, the capturing of slaves, and the plundering of the wealth of the people, raids. On the occasion of his first raid he is said to have taken much booty; and half a million Hindus, ’beautiful men and women were reduced to slavery and taken back to Ghazni.”
  2. When Muhammad later took Kanauj, in A.D.1017, he took so much booty and so many prisoners that ‘the fingers of those who counted them would have tired’. Describing how common Indian slaves had become in Ghazni and Central Asia after the campaign of A.D. 1019, the historian of the times says:-“The number of prisoners may be conceived from the fact that each was sold for from two to ten dirhams. These were afterwards taken to Ghazni, and merchants came from far distant cities to purchase them;…and the fair and the dark, the rich and the poor were commingled in one common slavery.

“In the year A.D.1202, when Qutbh-ud-Din captured Kalinjar, after the temples had been converted into mosques, and the very name of idolatry was annihilated, fifty thousand men came under the collar of slavery and the plain became black as pitch with Hindus.”Ibid,p-26.

  1. Slavery was the fate of those Hindus who were captured in the holy war. But, when there was no war the systematic abasement of the Hindus played no unimportant part in the methods adopted by the Muslim invaders. In the days of Ala-ud-Din, at the beginning of the fourteenth century, the Hindus had in certain part given the Sultan much trouble. So, he determined to impose such taxes on them that they would be prevented from rising in rebellion.

The Hindu was to be left unable to keep a horse to ride on, to carry arms, to wear fine clothes, or to enjoy any of the luxuries of life.”

Speaking  of the levy of Jizyah Dr.Titus says:-

 

The payment of the Jizyah by the Hindus continued throughout the dominions of the sultans, emperors, and kings in various parts of India with more or less regularity, though often, the law was in force in theory only; since it depended entirely on the ability of the sovereign to enforce his demands. But finally, it was abolished throughout the Moghul Empire in the ninth year of the enlightened Akbar’s reign (A.D.1665), after it had been accepted as a fundamental part of Muslim government policy in India for a period of more than eight centuries.”

 

Lane Poole says that

“the Hindus was taxed to the extent of half the produce of his land, and had to pay duties on all his buffaloes, goats, and other milch-cattle. The taxes were to be levied equally on rich and poor, at so much per acre, so much per animal.  Any collectors or officers taking bribes were summarily dismissed and heavily punished with sticks, pincers, the rack, imprisonment and chains. The new rules were strictly carried out, so that one revenue officer would string together 20 Hindu notables and enforce payment by blows. No gold or silver, not even the betel nut, so cheering and stimulative to pleasure, was to be seen in a Hindu house, and the wives of the impoverished native officials were reduced to taking service in Muslim families. Revenue officers came to be regarded as more deadly than the plague; and to be a government clerk was disgrace worse than death, in so much that no Hindu would marry his daughter so such a man.”

 

These edicts, says the historian of the period, “were so strictly carried out that the chaukidars and khuts and muqaddims were not able to ride on horseback, to find weapon, to wear fine clothes, or to indulge in betel…No Hindu could hold up his head….Blows, confinement in the stocks, imprisonment and chains were all employed to enforce payment.”

 

All this was not  the result of mere caprice or moral perversion. On the other hand, what was done was in accordance with the ruling ideas of the leaders of Islam in the broadest aspect. These ideas were well expressed by the Kazi in reply to a question put by Sultan Ala-ud-Din wanting to know the legal position of the Hindus under Muslim law. The Kazi said:-

 

“They are called payers of tribute, and when the revenue officer demands silver from them they should without question, and with all humility and respect, tender gold. If the officer throws dirt in their mouths, they must without reluctance open their mouths wide to receive it….The due subordination of the Dhimmi is exhibited in this bumble payment, and by this throwing of dirt into their mouths. The glorification of Islam is a duty, and contempt for religion is vain. God holds them in contempt, for he says, ‘Keep them in subjection’. To keep  the Hindus in a basement is especially a religious duty, because the Prophet has commanded us to sly them, plunder them, and make them captive, saying,’ Convert them to Islam or kill them, and make them slaves, and spoil their wealth and property.’ No doctor but the great doctor(Hanifah),  to whose school we belong, has assented to the imposition of jizya on Hindus; doctors of other schools allow no other alternative but ‘Death or Islam’. Dr.Titus Indian Islam p-29

 

  1. Such is the story of this period of 762 years which elapsed between the advent of Muhammad of Ghazni and the return of Ahmadshah Abdalli.
  2. How far is it open to the Hindus to say that Northern India is part of Aryavarta? How far is it open to the Hindus to say because once it belonged to them, therefore, it must remain forever an integral part of India? Those who oppose separation and hold to ‘historic sentiment’ arising out of an ancient fact that Northern India including Afghanistan was once part of India and that the people of that area were either Buddhist or Hindus, must be asked whether the events of these 762 years of incessant Muslim invasions, the object with which they were launched and the methods adopted by these invaders to give effect to their object are to be treated as thought they were matters of no account?
  3. Apart from other consequences which have flowed from them these invasions have, in my opinion, so profoundly altered the culture and character of the northern areas, which it is no proposed to be included in a Pakistan, that there is not only no unity between the area and the rest of India but that there is as matter of fact a real antipathy between the two.
  4. The first consequences of these invasions were the breaking up of the unity of Northern India with the rest of India. After his conquest of Northern India, Muhammmad of Ghazni detached it from India and ruled it from Ghazni. When Mohammad Ghori came in the field as a conqueror, he again attached it to India and ruled it from Lahore and then from Delhi. Hakim, the brother of Akbar, detached Kabul and Kandahar from Northern India. Akbar again attached it to northern India. They were again detached by Nadirshah in 1738 and the whole of Northern India would have been severed from India had it not been for the check provided by the rise of the Sikhs. Northern India, therefore, has been like a wagon in a train, which can be couplet or uncoupled according to the circumstances of the moment. If analogy is wanted, the case of Alsace-Lorraine could be cited. Alsace-Lorraine was originally a part of Germany, like the rest of Switzerland and Low Countries. It continued to be so till 1680, when it was taken by France and incorporated into French territory. It belonged to France till 1871, when it was detached by Germany and made part of her territory. In 1918, it was again detached from Germany and made part of France, In 1940, it was detached from French and made part of Germany.
  5. The methods adopted by the invaders have left behind them their aftermath. One aftermath is the bitterness between the Hindus and the Muslims which they have caused. This bitterness, between the two, is so deep-seated that a century of political life has neither succeeded in assuaging it; not in making people forget it. As the invasions were accompanied with destruction of temples and forced conversions, with spoliation of property, with slaughter, enslavement and abasement of men, women and children, what wonder if the memory of these invasions has ever remained green, a source of pride to the Muslims and as a source of shame to the Hindus? But these things apart, this north-west corner of India has been a theatre in which a stern drama has been played. Muslim hordes, in wave after wave, have surged down into this area and form thence scattered themselves in spray over the rest of India. These reached the rest of India in thin currents. In time, they also receded from their farthest limits; while they lasted, they left a deep deposit of Islamic culture over the original Aryan culture in this north-west corner of India which has given it a totally different colour, both in religious and political outlook. The Muslim invaders, no doubt, came to India singing a hymn of hate against the Hindus. But, they did not merely sing their hymn of hate and go back burning a few temples on the way. That would have been a blessing. They were not content with so negative a result. They did a positive act, namely, to plant the seed of Islam. The growth of this plant is remarkable. It is not a summer sapling. It is as great and as strong as an oak. Its growth is the thickest in Northern India. The successive invasions have deposited their ‘silt’ more mere there than anywhere else, and have served as watering exercises of devoted gardeners. Its growth is so thick in Northern India that the remnants of Hindu and Buddhist culture are just shrubs. Even the Sikh axe could not fell this oak. Sikhs, no doubt, became the political masters of Northern India, but they did not gain back Northern India to that spiritual and cultural unity by which it was bound to the rest of India before Hsuan Tsang. The Sikhs coupled it back to India. Still, it remains like Alsace-Lorraine politically detachable and spiritually alien so far as the rest of India is concerned. It is only an unimaginative person who could fail to take notice of these facts or insist in the face of them that Pakistan means breaking up into two what is one whole.
  6. I give below two such utterances. In a meeting held in Lahore in 1925 Dr.Kitchlew said:- “This Congress was lifeless till the Khilafat Committee put life in it. When the Khilafat Committee joined it, it did in one year what the Hindu Congress had not done in 40 years. The Congress also did the work of uplifting the seven crores of untouchables. This was purely a work for the Hindus, and yet the money of the Congress was spent on it. Mine and my Musalman brethren’s money was spent on it like water. But the brave Musalmans did not mind. Then why should the Hindus quarrel with us when we Musalmans take up the Tanzim work and spent on it money that belongs neither to the Hindus nor to the Congress?

“If  we  remove British rule from this country and establish Swaraj, and if the Afghans or other Muslims invade India, then we Muslims will oppose them and sacrifice all our sons in order to save the country from the invasion. But one thing I shall declare plainly. Listen, my dear Hindu brothers, listen very attentively, If you put obstacles in the path of our Tanzim movement, and do not give us our rights, we shall make common cause with Afghanistan or some other Musalman power and establish our rule in this country.”

  1. On 1925, 27th January at Sylhet expressed sentiments which are worthy of attention, In reply to the quest ion of a Maulana, Maulana Azad Sobhani said:- “If there is any eminent leader in India who is in favour of driving out the English from this country, then I am that leader. In spite of this I want that there should be no fight with the English on behalf of the Muslim League. Our big fight is with the 22 crores of our Hindu enemies, who constitute the majority. Only four and half crores of Englishmen have practically swallowed the whole world by becoming powerful. An if these 22 crores of Hindus who are equally advanced in learning, intelligence and wealth as in numbers, if they become powerful, then these Hindus will swallow Muslim India and gradually even Egypt, Turkey, Kabul, Mecca, Medina and other Muslim principalities, like Yajuj-Majuj(it is so mentioned in Koran that before the destruction of the world, they will appear on the earth and will devour whatever they will find).

 

“The English are gradually becoming weak…they will go away from India in the near future. So, if we do not fight the greatest enemies of Islam, the Hindus, from now on and make them weak, then they will not only establish Ramrajya in India but also gradually spread all over the world. It depends on the 9 crores of Indian Muslims either to strengthen or to weaken them (the Hindus). So it is the essential duty of every devout Muslim to fight on by joining the Muslim League so that the Hindus may not be established here and a Muslim rule may be established in India as soon as the English depart.

 

“Though the English are the enemies of the Muslims, yet for the present our fight is not with the English. At first we have to come to some understanding with the Hindus through the Muslim League. Then we shall be easily able to drive out the English and establish Muslim rule in India.

“Be careful ! Don’t  fall into the trap of Congress Maulvis; because the Muslim world is never safe in the hands of 22 crores of Hindu enemies.”

 

 

When they are minority then also they think of rule the majority, then, what is the harm to think to rule being a majority? If so then definitely Hindus can rule entire area of ancient India since time of Samrat  Ashoka. Christian can claim to rule all over the world as they are majority on religion ground. If the Jews being a minority think to rule entire Arab then what is harm. They are intelligent, powerful and ready to use civilize rule. Eucation of Madara’s in Pakistan can produce some terrorist but can’t produce any ruler so far, its education is nothing but hatred of fellow countryman.  Even they can’t think their equals terms with their own fairer sex or their own country man. Mukhtiar Mai was raped due to her Gujjar origin. If a man and his education are unable to teach them to respect their own kith and kin then nobody can save them from their immediate fall. Once they captured India by force, forced conversion and other evils make them unpopular and thrown out permanently.

 

I am providing some example of previous record to realize the present day generation, that the view and behavior of some perverted followers of religion are same as it was in the 7th century and 21st Century and according to this theory they have to be handle otherwise future is dark they will die like ant but will not go back.

 

Even western powers as well as China have issued threat to this perverted people. Now they are adamant as they can’t go back with their agenda but it is the duty of all peace loving people to annihilate this ideology by hook or crock. If continuous violence could wins the peoples mind then when power was in their hand and killing license was in their reach it could not failed to fulfill their pet project on that time. Whatever they achieved it is due to the wrong doing of the Hindus with their fellow religionist, untouchables and Buddhists. On the dark age of History there were no media only muscle power worked out but it was failed except few corner in India that is also by force. They have lost their power due to the misdeed and misbehave with natives as well as their lavish expenditure for enjoyment without looking after the welfare of the masses. As a result after ruling 762 years their masses are poor illiterate and a large number are begging in the name of religion.

 

On the 26th of 1940, Hindu India was started to attention as it had never been before. On that day, the Muslim League at its Lahore Session passed the following Resolution:-

“1. Government of India Act, 1935, is totally unsuited to and unworkable in the peculiar conditions of this country and is altogether unacceptable to Muslim India;

  1. Government of India Act, 1935, is based will be reconsidered in consultation with various parties, interests and communities in India, Muslim India will not be satisfied unless the whole constitutional plan is reconsidered de novo and that no revised plan would be acceptable to the Muslims, unless it is framed with their approval and consent;
  2. Resolved that it is the considered view of this Session of the All India Muslim League that no constitutional plan would be workable in this country or acceptable to the Muslims unless it is designated on the following basic principle, viz. that geographically contiguous units are demarcated into regions which should be so constituted with such territorial readjustments as may be necessary, that the areas is which the Muslims are numerically in a majority as in the North-Western and Easter Zones of India should be grouped to constitute “independent States” in which the Constituent Units shall be autonomous and sovereign;
  3. That adequate, effective and mandatory safeguards should be specifically provided in the constitution for minorities in these units and in the regions for the protection of their religious, cultural, economic political, administrative and other rights, and interests in consultation with them; and in other parts of India where the Musalmans are in a minority, adequate, effective and mandatory safeguards shall be specifically provided in the constitution for them and other minorities for the protection of their religious, cultural, economic political, administrative and other rights, and interests in consultation with them;
  4. This Session further authorizes the Working Committee to frame a Scheme of Constitution in accordance with these basic principles, providing for the assumption finally by the respective regions of all powers such as defense, external affairs, communication, customs, and such other matters as may be necessary.”

 

Blood is thicker than water in Pak elections too

The writer has posted comments on this article Sameer Arshad, TNN | May 7, 2013, 06.00 AM IST

Shahid Khaqan Abbasi, a four-time Pakistan Muslim League(N)parliamentarian,downplays the importance of biradari (caste) factor in the May 11 elections and counts on his party’s popularity to see him through. Yet as a hardnosed politician, he has the biradari breakup of his Murree-Kahuta constituency near Islamabad at his fingertips – Rajputs 30% and the rest Jats, Arians, Gujjars etc.

The arithmetic is crucial as the factor has a strong impact on elections particularly in rural Pakistan and more so in Punjab that accounts for 55% national assembly seats. Rajputs are dominant in northern Punjab, where Abbasi’s constituency is located, followed by Jats in central and Balochs in the province’s south. The Peoples Party (PPP)-led government had a Rajput prime minister and a Jat as his deputy before it demitted office in March. The Bhuttos, who founded and have led the party, are of Rajput ancestry.

Abbasi, who spoke to TOI from his constituency in the middle of an election rally, is facing a tough contest. He is pitted against PPP’s Ghulam Murtaza, a Satti Rajput, and two others from his Abbasi clan that accounts for 25% voters. Abbasi had lost to Murtaza in 2002, but wrested the seat back five years later due to Rajput vote division.

Murree-Kahuta is instructive of how kinship-based politics works in Pakistan. Military ruler Zia-ul-Haq’s ban on political parties and the 1985 non-party elections are blamed for re-entrenching the biradari system.

In an item headlined ‘Caste plays a surprising role in Muslim Pakistan’s elections’ Barbara Crossette of the New York Times described it as an unlikely factor that plays a role in a party’s choice of candidates ahead of the 1990 elections.

Little has changed since then. A Gallup survey ahead of the 2008 elections confirmed the existence of biradari as an important civil society institution. “Thus, 37% rural voters and 27% urban voters claim(ed) they had gathered in a meeting of their biradari to deliberate on whom to vote,” said the survey report.

Biradaris in fact have an all-encompassing role. “…biradari makes decisions of every aspect (political, social) and an individual is bound (by it),” Mughees Ahmed and Fozia Naseem note in Berkeley Journal of Social Sciences.

Political analyst Hasan-Askari Rizvi adds, “The biradari link becomes weak in urban centres, although not completely irrelevant.”

Durham University’s Shaun Gregory lists biradari system among the influences that have hobbled democracy and says leading political parties in particular will continue to use it to maximise votes. “(It is done) by harnessing wealthy land-owners with power over the neo-feudal rural peasantry, the wealthy mine and energy field owners with control of their large workforces, and the factory and industry owners who exert great influence over many of urban poor.”

Gregory noted the iron grip of the biradaris, which underpin the rule of elites such as the Bhuttos and the Sharifs, explains why it is difficult for emergent parties to flourish.

This makes Imran Khan’s emergence as a political force interesting. Gregory notes Khan cannot draw on the traditional power structures dominated by the biradari and instead has made his appeal nationally and offered hope of reform and change.

The ex-cricketer performance would be a measure of the biradari strength. “If he fails, the biradari politics of the past will have triumphed, for the moment at least,” concludes Gregory.

 

Wherever Islam has entered, like bubonic disease it has brought death and misery. Iran was destroyed, Egypt was destroyed, Iraq was destroyed, Syria was destroyed, Arabia was destroyed. Arabs prior to Islam were a noble, free and tolerant people. Today they are the most bigoted creatures on Earth. We Iranians had dignity, now we are amongst the most wretched people of the world. Look at Pakistan and India . 57 years ago they got their independence and thanks to one man’s ambition, the traitor Jinnah, they split. Today India is on its way to become a world power while Pakistan is marching backwards. It is the most ridiculous country of the world that produces nothing but stupid people, terrorists and zombies. During this 57 years there has been not a day of dictatorship in India while with the exception of perhaps a couple of years of failed democracy Pakistan has been always ruled by military dictators. (Which by the way is much better than democracy of the fools) Pakistanis and Indians are the same people. The only difference is Islam. The same is true about we Iranians. Those of us who have left Islam love mankind, consider ourselves brothers and sisters to the rest of humanity and the Iranians in America have the higher per capita academicians than any ethnic group. But those who still believe in the Islamic gobbledygook, think about wiping Israel off the map, think of assassinations and are just animals. There is not a single Islamic country that is prosperous and its people are free and happy or its jails are not filled with dissidents. During the past 105 years, 1.2 billion Muslims have produced eight Nobel Laureates with the joker Yasser Arafat and the stupid traitor Shirin Ebadi among them. That is one in every 150 million people. Less than twelve million Jews have produced 167 Nobel Laureates. That is one in every 72 thousand people. it is 2084 times more likely that a Jew win the Nobel Prize than a slave of Allah.

 

As long as the Muslim population remains around 1% of any given country/region/city they will be regarded as a peace-loving minority and not as a threat to anyone. In fact, they may be featured in articles and films, stereotyped for their colorful uniqueness: Nation % Muslim United States 1.0% Australia 1.5% Italy 1.5% Norway 1.8% Canada 1.9% China 2.0% At 2% and 3% they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs: Nation % Muslim Denmark 2.0% United Kingdom 2.7% Germany 3.7% Spain 4.0% Thailand 4.6% From 5% on they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. They will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature it on their shelves — along with threats for failure to comply. Nation % Muslim Switzerland 4.3% Philippines 5.0% Sweden 5.0% The Netherlands 5.5% Trinida and Tabago 5.8% France 8.0% At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islam is not to convert the world but to establish Sharia law over the entire world. When Muslims reach 10% of the population, they will increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions (Paris –car-burnings). Any non-Muslim action that offends Islam will result in uprisings and threats (Amsterdam – Mohammed cartoons). Nation % Muslim Guyana 10.0% India 13.4% Israel 16.0% Kenya 10.0% Russia 15.0% After reaching 20% expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings and church and synagogue burning: Nation % Muslim Ethiopia 32.8% At 40% you will find widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks and ongoing militia warfare: Nation % Muslim Bosnia 40.0% Chad 50.1% Lebanon 59.7% From 60% you may expect unfettered persecution of non-believers and other religions, sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels: Nation % Muslim Albania 70.0% Malaysia 60.4% Qatar 77.5% Sudan 70.0% After 80% expect State run ethnic cleansing and genocide: Nation % Muslim Bangladesh 83.0% Egypt 90.0% Gaza 98.7% Indonesia 86.1% Iran 98.0% Iraq 97.0% Jordan 92.0% Morocco 98.7% Pakistan 97.0% Syria 90.0% Tajikistan 90.0% Turkey 99.8% United Arab Emirates 96.0% 100% will usher in the peace of ‘Dar-es-Salaam’ — the Islamic House of Peace — there’s supposed to be peace because everybody is a Muslim: Nation % Muslim Yemen 99.9% Afghanistan 100.0% Saudi Arabia 100.0% Somalia 100.0% Of course, that’s not the case. To satisfy their blood lust, Muslims then start killing each other for a variety of reasons like dogs.

Merit of JEWs invention:-

A few days ago, Iran’s Supreme Leader Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei urged the Muslim World to boycott anything and everything that originates with the Jewish people. In response, Meyer M. Treinkman, a pharmacist, out of the kindness of his heart, offered to assist them in their boycott as follows:

1.”Any Muslim who has Syphilis must not be cured by Salvarsan discovered by a Jew, Dr. Ehrlich.

  1. He should not even try to find out whether he has Syphilis, because the Wasserman Test is the discovery of a Jew.
  2. If a Muslim suspects that he has Gonorrhea, he must not seek diagnosis, because he will be using the method of a Jew named Neissner.
  3. “A Muslim who has heart disease must not use Digitalis, a discovery by a Jew, Ludwig Traube.
  4. Should he suffer with a toothache, he must not use Novocaine, a discovery of the Jews, Widal and Weil.
  5. If a Muslim has Diabetes, he must not use Insulin, the result of research by Minkowsky, a Jew.
  6. If one has a headache, he must shun Pyramidon and Antypyrin, due to the Jews – Spiro and Ellege.
  7. Muslims with convulsions must put up with them because it was a Jew, Oscar Leibreich, who discovered and proposed the use of Chloral Hydrate.
  8. Arabs must do likewise with their psychic ailments because Freud, father of psychoanalysis, was a Jew.
  9. Should a Muslim child get Diphtheria, he must refrain from the “Schick” reaction which was invented by the Jew, Bella Schick.
  10. “Muslims should be ready to die in great numbers and must not permit treatment of ear and brain damage, work of Jewish Nobel Prize winner, Robert Baram.
  11. They should continue to die or remain crippled by Infantile Paralysis because the discoverer of the anti-polio vaccine is a Jew, Jonas Salk.
  12. “Muslims must refuse to use Streptomycin and continue to die of Tuberculosis because a Jew, Zalman Waxman, invented the wonder drug against this killing disease.
  13. Muslim doctors must discard all discoveries and improvements by dermatologist Judas Sehn Benedict, or the lung specialist, Frawnkel, and of many other world renowned Jewish scientists and medical experts.
  14. Oh, and by the way, don’t call for a doctor on your cell phone because the cell phone was invented in Israel by a Jewish engineer.
  15. And, forget about the computer; it has ‘Intel Inside’ which is Jewish and based in Israel.
  16. Einstein was also a Jews, his invention and Relativity theory should not use by Muslim.

Many more is there and is their comparison is anything has done by Muslim?

“In short, good and loyal Muslims properly and fittingly should remain afflicted with Syphilis, Gonorrhea, Heart Disease, Headaches, Typhus, Diabetes, Mental Disorders, Polio Convulsions and Tuberculosis and be proud to obey the Islamic boycott.”

It’s almost like a flashback to nearly 1,000 years ago, when Christianity and Islam fought Crusades. In a wide swathe ranging from Australia, through West Asia and Europe to the US, mob violence by Islamic protesters has targeted western institutions and Christian places of worship. The ongoing religious fury has been sparked by a documentary film denigrating Islam, made by a Christian fundamentalist who has since gone into hiding.

Those who have seen the film – before several governments banned it from websites – unanimously agree that it is imbecile in content and in the worst possible taste imaginable. The rage that it has generated, however, has been in inverse proportion to its abysmal quality. The many voices of sanity raised both in the Islamic and the Christian communities, against the tragic violence which has claimed several lives, including that of an American ambassador, have largely been drowned by the hysteria of hate.

To make matters worse, a French satire magazine has published caricatures of the Prophet, and a German magazine is said to be planning a provocative special issue presenting Islam in a less than flattering light. Once again, Islam-baiting seems to have become a popular participatory sport in several parts of the western, largely Christian, world, despite pleas by political leaders like President Obama that in true democracies and free societies all religions merit equal respect.

Critics of Islam justify their views and actions in the name of what they claim is the bedrock of liberal democracy, as represented by the western world: freedom of expression. The recent publication of Salman Rushdie’s fictionalized account of his exile in the West after the fatwa issued against him following the publication of The Satanic Verses has added further resonance to the debate between freedom of expression and the sanctity of religious and cultural sensibilities.

The self-congratulatory claim of the Christian West to represent freedom of speech as opposed to the supposed tyranny of silence imposed by Islam doesn’t stand the scrutiny of history. The Inquisition, under pain of torture, silenced Galileo’s ‘heresy’ against the Christian belief that it was the sun that moved around the earth, and not vice versa. The Vatican’s list of prohibited books still includes many world classics, and a number of American schools partly or totally ban Darwin’s theory of evolution in favour of the church-approved doctrine of ‘intelligent design’.

Perhaps the problem is not what fundamental Islam and fundamental Christianity don’t have in common, but what they do have in common. And that is that both are assertively proselytizing faiths which actively, often aggressively, seek converts.

When my faith enjoins me to get you to change your faith, and your faith enjoins you to do the same with me, confrontation becomes inevitable. Proselytization implies not just the superiority of my faith to yours; it totally denies the validity of your faith and narrows the scope of dialogue or even peaceful coexistence in mutual tolerance.

Ironically, Judaism, Christianity and Islam all come from the same semitic source. Indeed, Islam has always considered Jews and Christians to be ‘people of the Book’, referring to the overlap between the Old Testament and the Quran and, as such, not to be seen as adversaries. Over the centuries, the material and technological dominance of the West has upset this equilibrium, and pitted the ‘free’ West against an ‘unfree’ Islam.

Is there a lesson to be learnt here for those who would go against millennia of tradition and turn Hinduism into a proselytising faith system? Hinduism’s so far undivided heaven forbid.

Bottom of Form

The Aksa mosque in The Hague, Netherlands, was formerly a synagogue.

The conversion of non-Islamic places of worship into mosques has abated since no major territorial acquisitions have been made by Muslim majority populations in recent times. However, some of the Greek Orthodox churches in Turkey that were left behind by expelled Greeks in 1923 were converted into mosques.

A relatively significant surge in church-mosque conversion followed the 1974 Turkish Invasion of Cyprus. Many of the Orthodox churches in Northern Cyprus have been converted, and many are still in the process of becoming mosques.

Churches and synagogues in non-Islamic countries re-arranged as mosques

In areas that have experienced Islamic immigration, such as parts of Europe and North America, [some church buildings, and those of other religious congregations, that have fallen into disuse have been converted into mosques following a sale of the property.

In London, the Brick Lane Mosque has previously served as a synagogue.

Hagia Sophia

Hagia Sophia (from the Greek: Ἁγία Σοφία, “Holy Wisdom“; Latin: Sancta Sophia or Sancta Sapientia; Turkish: Ayasofya) is a former Orthodox patriarchal basilica, later a mosque, and now a museum in Istanbul, Turkey. From the date of its dedication in 360 until 1453, it served as the Greek Patriarchal cathedral of Constantinople, except between 1204 and 1261, when it was converted to a Roman Catholic cathedral under the Latin Patriarch of Constantinople of the Western Crusader established Latin Empire. In 1453, Constantinople was conquered by the Ottoman Turks under Sultan Mehmed II, who subsequently ordered the building converted into a mosque.[27] The bells, altar, iconostasis, and sacrificial vessels were removed and many of the mosaics were plastered over. Islamic features – such as the mihrab, minbar, and four minarets – were added while in the possession of the Ottomans. The building was a mosque from 29 May 1453 until 1931, when it was secularized. It was opened as a museum on 1 February 1935.

Ka’aba, In Islamic teaching, the Ka’aba was built by Ibrahim (Abraham) and his son.

Before the rise of Islam the Ka’aba, and Mecca (previously known as Bakkah), were revered as a sacred sanctuary and was a site of pilgrimage.[1] Some identify it with the Biblical “valley of Baca” from Psalms 84 (Hebrew: בך‎). At the time of Muhammad (AD 570–632), his tribe the Quraysh was in charge of the Kaaba, which was at that time a shrine containing hundreds of idols representing Arabian tribal gods and other religious figures. Muhammad earned the enmity of his tribe by claiming the shrine for the new religion of Islam that he preached. He wanted the Kaaba to be dedicated to the worship of the one God alone, and all the idols were evicted. The Black Stone (al-Hajar-ul-Aswad), still present at the Kaaba was a special object of veneration at the site. According to tradition the text of seven especially honoured poems were suspended around the Ka’aba. Martin Lings’ biography of Muhammad claims that even an image of the Virgin Mary had been displayed in the pagan shrine.

According to Islam, Muhammad’s actions were not strictly a conversion but rather a restoration of the mosque established on that site by Abraham, who is considered to be a prophet in Islam. The Ka’aba thus became known as the Masjid al-Haram, or Sacred Mosque, the holiest site in Islam.

 Biblical holy sites

Mosques were regularly established on the places of Jewish or Christian sanctuaries associated with Biblical personalities who were also recognised by Islam. This practice was particularly common in Palestine. The Caliph Umar initially built a small prayer house, which laid the foundation for the later construction of the Al-Aqsa mosque on the Temple Mount, the most sacred site in Judaism, possibly by the Umayyads. The Dome of the Rock was also built on the Temple Mount which was an abandoned and disused area. Upon the capture of Jerusalem, it is commonly reported that Umar refused to pray in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. for fear that later Muslims would then convert it into a mosque in spite of a treaty guaranteeing its safety.

The mosque of Job in Ash Shaykh Sa’d, Syria, was previously a church of Job. The Herodian shrine of Cave of the Patriarchs, the second most holy site in Judaism, was converted into a church during the Crusades before being turned into a mosque in 1266 and henceforth banned to Jews and Christians. Part of it was restored as a synagogue after 1967 by Israel.

Hindu, Jain and Buddhist temples (From internet)

The destruction of Hindu temples in India during the Islamic conquest of India occurred from the beginning of Muslim conquest until the end the Mughal Empire throughout the Indian subcontinent.

In his book “Hindu Temples – What Happened to Them“, Sita Ram Goel produced a politically contentious list of 2000 mosques that it is claimed were built on Hindu temples. The second volume of the book excerpts from medieval histories and chronicles and from inscriptions concerning the destruction of Hindu, Jain and Buddhist temples.

In Indonesia, where popular conversion from Hinduism to Islam was more widespread, it is believed that the minaret of the Menara Kudus Mosque, in Java, was originally part of a Hindu temple.

Zoroastrian temples

After the Islamic conquest of Persia, Zoroastrian fire temples, with their four axial arch openings, were usually turned into mosques simply by setting a mihrab (prayer niche) on the place of the arch nearest to qibla (the direction of Mecca). This practice is described by numerous Muslim sources; however, the archaeological evidence confirming it is still scarce. Zoroastrian temples converted into mosques in such a manner could be found in Bukhara, as well as in and near Istakhr and other Iranian cities.[4]

The Conversion of non-Muslim places of worship into mosques occurred primarily during the life of Muhammad and continued during subsequent Islamic conquests and under historical Muslim rule. As a result, numerous Hindu temples, churches, synagogues, the Parthenon and Zoroastrian temples were converted into mosques. Several such mosques in Muslim or ex-Muslim lands have since reverted or become museums, such as the Hagia Sophia in Turkey and numerous mosques in Spain. (Taken from Internet).

 

Ram Janmabhoomi

A view of the “Ram Janmasthan (Birthplace)or Babri Mosque, 1528–1992

Ram Janmabhoomi refers to a tract of land in the North Indian city of Ayodhya which is claimed to be the birthplace of Lord Rama. Archeological Survey of India (ASI), after conducting excavations at the site reported that prior to 1528, filed a report that stated that a temple stood at this site before the arrival of Mughals who constructed Babri Mosque at its present site.[8] Critics of the report claim that the “presence of animal bones throughout as well as of the use of ‘surkhi’ and lime mortar” that was found by ASI are all characteristic of Muslim presence, which they claim “rule out the possibility of a Hindu temple having been there beneath the mosque”.

From 1528 to 1992 this was the site of the Babri Mosque. The mosque was razed in 6 December 1992 by a mob of some 150,000 nationalist Hindus supported by the the nationalist Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), after a political rally developed into a riot despite a commitment to the Indian Supreme Court by the rally organisers that the mosque would not be harmed.

The Sangh Parivaar, along with VHP and the main Indian opposition party, sought to erect a temple dedicated to Lord Rama at this site. Nobel Laureate novelist V. S. Naipaul has praised Hindu nationalists for “reclaiming India’s Hindu heritage”. Naipaul added that the destruction of Babri structure was an act of historical balancing and the reclaiming of the Ramjanmabhoomi was a “welcome sign that Hindu pride was re-asserting itself”.

The 1986 edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica stated that “Rama’s birthplace is marked by a mosque, erected by the Moghul emperor Babar in 1528 on the site claimed of an earlier temple”.[14]

Archaeological excavations at the site by the Archeological Survey of India reported the existence of a 10th century temple.[8] ” The report stated that scientific dating indicated human activity at the site as far back to the 17th century BC.[15]

On 30 September 2010, Allahabad High Court ruled that the 2.7 acres disputed land in Ayodhya, on which the Babri Masjid stood before it was demolished on 6 December 1992, will be divided into three parts: the site of the Ramlala idol to Lord Ram, Nirmohi Akhara gets Sita Rasoi and Ram Chabutara, Sunni Wakf Board gets a third.

Krishna Janmabhoomi (Mathura)

The great temple of Keshava Rai at Mathura was built by Bir Singh Deo Bundela during Jahangir’s time at a cost of thirty-three lakhs of rupees. The Dehra of Keshava Rai was one of the most magnificent temples ever built in India and enjoyed veneration of the Hindus throughout the land. Prince Dara Shukoh, who was looked upon by the masses as the future Emperor, had presented a carved stone railing to the temple which was installed in front of the deity at some distance; the devotees stood outside this railing to have ‘darshan’ of Keshava Rai. The railing was removed on Aurangzeb’s orders in October 1666.

The Dehra of Keshava Rai was demolished in the month of Ramzan, 1080 A.H. (13 January – 11 February 1670) by Aurangzeb’s order. “In a short time, by the great exertion of the officers, the destruction of this strong foundation of infidelity was accomplished and on its site a lofty mosque was built at the expenditure of a large sum”. To the author of Maasir-i-‘Alamigiri, the accomplishment of this “seemingly impossible work was an “instance of the strength of the Emperor’s faith.”

Somnath Temple

 

Somnath temple (“today”; as reclaimed by Hindus), Somnath, India

A century later the third temple was constructed in red sandstone by the Pratihara king, Nagabhata II.

Soon the temple regained its old glory and wealth, the descriptions of which were carried to the Middle East. In particular, the accounts of the Arab Al Biruni impressed Mahmud of Ghazni. In AD 1025, Mahmud destroyed and looted the temple, killing over 50,000 people who tried to defend it.[18] The defenders included the 90-year-old clan leader Ghogha Rana. Mahmud personally broke the gilded lingam to pieces and took them back to his homeland and placed them in the steps leading to the newly built Jamiah Masjid, so that they would be stepped upon by those going to the mosque to pray. Work on the fourth temple was started immediately by the Paramara King Bhoj of Malwa and the Solanki king Bhima of Patan and the temple was ready by AD 1042. This temple was destroyed in AD 1300. At that time Allaudin Khilji occupied the throne of Delhi and he sent his general, Alaf Khan, to pillage Somnath. The fifth temple was built by King Mahipala of the Chudasama dynasty.

 

Converted structure at the site of Somnath temple, 1869

Somnath was repeatedly attacked in the succeeding centuries. The last of these attacks was by the Mughal emperor Aurangazeb in AD 1701. A mosque was built at the site of the temple.

In AD 1783 queen Ahilyabhai Holkar built the sixth temple at an adjacent site. The temple still stands and worship is carried out there. After independence, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel pledged on 13 November 1947, that the seventh temple would be reconstructed. According to prescribed Hindu rituals, pledges are made by taking holy water in one’s fist. Leaders like Morarji Desai, Dr. Rajendra Prasad (the first president) and Kanhaiyalal Munshi joined in and the work was entrusted to the Sompura Shilpakars, whose ancestors rebuilt each new temple through the ages. The mosque built by Aurangazeb was not destroyed but carefully relocated. In 1951 Dr. Rajendra Prasad performed the consecration ceremony with the words “The Somnath Temple signifies that the power of creation is always greater than the power of destruction.”

The temple construction was completed on 1 December 1995, long after the demise of Sardar Patel. The then President of India, Dr. Shankar Dayal Sharma, dedicated it to the nation.

Kashi Viswanath (Benaras/Varanasi)

The Gyanvapi Mosque built by Aurangzeb on the original site of the Kashi Vishwanath temple.

Kashi or Varanasi is the most sacred site in Hinduism and the worship of Lord Shiva as Vishveshvara goes back to ancient times. According to the Puranas, every step taken in Kashi Kshetra has the sanctity of making a pilgrimage to a tirtha. Lord Vishvanath is regarded as the protector of Kashi and the belief is that one earns great religious merit by having a vision of the deity after having bathed in the Ganges.The temple was demolished several times by Muslim invaders, and was reconstructed again and again by Hindu kings. After destruction of the original temple on the orders of Mughal emperor Aurangzeb‘s orders, a mosque was built which still stands.

Kuragala Cave Temple

Kuragala Cave Temple is an ancient Buddhist holy site in the Sabaragamuwa province of Sri Lanka which has roots in the preChristian era and declared at the beginning of 20th century as a protected place by the department of archaeology of the country.

There is small mosque and a shrine at the place used by Dafthar Jailany for prayer. The mosque and the temple have co-existed since 10th century AD.

Other references

Intricate stone carvings on the cloister columns at Quwwat ul-Islam Mosque, Qutb complex, Delhi

An inscription at the Quwwat Al-Islam Mosque adjacent to Qutb Minar in Delhi states: “This Jamii Masjid built in the months of the year 587 (hijri) by the Amir, the great, the glorious commander of the Army, Qutb-ud-daula wad-din, the amir-ul-umara Aibeg, the slave of the Sultan, may God strengthen his helpers! The materials of 27 idol temples, on each of which 2,000,000 Deliwal coins had been spent were used in the (construction of) this mosque”. However as the inscription depicts, the mosque was built from the material remnants of Hindu temples which was destroyed by Muslims.

During the reign of Aurangzeb, tens of thousands of temples were desecrated: their facades and interiors were defaced and their murtis (divine images) looted. In many cases, temples were destroyed entirely; in numerous instances mosques were built on their foundations, sometimes using the same stones. Among the temples Aurangzeb destroyed were two that are most sacred to Hindus, in Varanasi and Mathura. In both cases, he had large mosques built on the sites.

Alberuni in his India writes about the famous temple of Multan:

A famous idol of theirs was that of Multan, dedicated to the sun, .. When Muhammad Ibn Alkasim Ibn Almunabbih, conquered Multan, he inquired how the town had become so very flourishing and so many treasures had there been accumulated, and then he found out that this idol was the cause, for there came pilgrims from all sides to visit it. Therefore he thought to build a mosque at the same place where the temple once stood. When then the Karmatians occupied Multan, Jalam Ibn Shaiban, the usurper, broke the idol into pieces and killed its priests. .. When afterwards the blessed Prince Mahmud swept away their rule from those countries, he made again the old mosque the place of the Friday-worship.

An inscription of 1462 A.D.at Jami Masjid at Malan, in Banaskantha District of Gujarat states: The Jami Masjid was built by Khan-I-Azam Ulugh Khan, who suppressed the wretched infidels. He eradicated the idolatrous houses and mine of infidelity, along with the idols with the edge of the sword, and made ready this edifice. He made its walls and doors out of the idols; the back of every stone became the place for prostration of the believer.[23]

Mughal Emperor Jahangir wrote in his Tujuk-i-Jahangiri:

“I am here led to relate that at the city of Banaras a temple had been erected by Rajah Maun Sing, which cost him the sum of nearly thirty-six laks of five methkaly ashrefies. …I made it my plea for throwing down the temple which was the scene of this imposture; and on the spot, with the very same materials, I erected the great mosque, because the very name of Islam was proscribed at Banaras, and with God’s blessing it is my design, if I live, to fill it full with true believers”.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s