Clearing up misconceptions about Islam ( the religion ) , and a request . . . . . .

[silver 2039]

The mongols are muslims? I thought they were atheists (under communism and all) or had some pagan faiths still. Are you sure about the mongols being muslims?

Ever heard of the Il-Khanate? One of the 4 Mongol Khanates it's ruler converted to Islam and I believe the rulers of the Central Asian (Changati?) Khante also were Muslim.
Modern day Mongolia is still semi-Soviet style. Also pagan is a term used to refer to everyine generally not of a monotheistic religon and it is considered an insulting word equivalent to infidel, or barbarian.

 

[superisis]

a more fitting term whould be shamanism or animism.

 

[Capulet]

Interesting view, AllhailIndia.

 

[Tank_Guy#3]

1. Jihad was created long before the Crusades, and it means struggle to defend ones beliefs.

2. Don't go putting any halos around the heads of the Christians either, they have committed similar atrocities against Muslims.

Over the course of that afternoon, evening and next morning, the crusaders murdered almost every inhabitant of Jerusalem. Muslims, Jews, and even eastern Christians were all massacred. Although many Muslims sought shelter in Solomon's Temple (known today as Al-Aqsa Mosque), the crusaders spared few lives. According to the anonymous Gesta Francorum, in what some believe to be an exaggerated account of the massacre which subsequently took place there, "...the slaughter was so great that our men waded in blood up to their ankles..."[3]. Other accounts of blood flowing up to the bridles of horses are reminiscent of a passage from the Book of Revelation (14:20). Tancred claimed the Temple quarter for himself and offered protection to some of the Muslims there, but he was unable to prevent their deaths at the hands of his fellow crusaders. According to Fulcher of Chartres: "Indeed, if you had been there you would have seen our feet coloured to our ankles with the blood of the slain. But what more shall I relate? None of them were left alive; neither women nor children were spared."[4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_crusade

3. God (if there was one) save me from using this term, utter rubbish. Entirely irrelevant.

3-1 and 3-2. How is this different from any other captors/conqueror's in history? This even happens in some Western Countries today, look at what Slobodan Milosevic did with his ethnic cleansing.

3-3. It's not the Muslims destroying Buddhist temples, why don't you cry out that the Chinese are evil for doing a similar act in Tibet?
http://www.dzi.com/tibet.html

There are also innumberable cases of this type of destruction taking place throughout history around the world. Read the second paragraph under the heading: Moorish Empire.

The Muslims helped to spread culture and spur on the creation of new inventions and technology of the Western Culture.
The period of the Caliphate can reasonably be regarded as the golden age of al-Andalus. Irrigation techniques and crops – for instance, rice, oranges and a variety of other citrus fruits – imported from the Middle East provided the area around Córdoba and some other Andalusi cities with an agricultural infrastructure well in advance of that of any other part of western Europe. Córdoba under the Caliphate, with a population of perhaps 100,000, was far larger and more prosperous than any other city of the time in Europe, with the exception of Constantinople, and competed on at least equal terms as a cultural centre with anywhere else in the Islamic world. The work of its philosophers and scientists would be a significant formative influence on the intellectual life of medieval western Europe.
Muslims and Non-Muslims often came from abroad to study in the famous libraries and universities of Al-Andalus. The most noted of these was Michael Scot, who took Ibn Rushds (Averroes') works, and his commentaries on many of Aristotle's works as well as the works of Ibn Sina (Avicenna) to Italy. This event was to have a significant impact on the formation of the European Renaissance.

Have you also read what the Knight's Hospitaller did to the fallen Jannisarries during the Siege of Rhodes? Disembowelled them, impaled them, and put the heads of hundreds of them on pikes. And when Suleiman the Magnificent offered CONDITIONAL SURRENDER to the Hospitaller's several decades later, he let all those that did not want to be under Muslim rule to leave peaceably. He also let the Knight's keep their swords, a sign of true respect in those times.

Also, almost without exception, the Christians were the ones that broke their word when they said that they would never Crusade again. Remember Renald de Chatillion? He and his knights mercilessly slaughtered innocent Arab traders, so I believe Saladin was justified in beheading him.

Again, don't paint non-Muslims as being better or less likely to commit atrocities against the other religion, because that is most certainly not the case. The halo over the heads of all religions save Buddhism has definitely fallen down and strangled those wearing it.

If need be, I can type all day of more examples, but I believe that the mods would not appreciate the long load times that would create.

 

[superisis]

Good post tank guy, I didn't believe you'd take this side of the debate...perhaps I'm just mistaken. Anyways, my view of you has changed.

 

[Rambuchan]

I know this is jumping into the thread quite out of line but I'm really not going to go through the whole thread as I've seen this kind of (heated) debate in OT before. But here's a post I did for another thread which will die out quicker than this one and I've been wanting to share this with certain folk as a myth breaker. So sorry for being out of turn and if it's already said. I'm just pasting it word for word........



Firstly, I don't know where people get this idea that the Mughals were strictly religious Muslims. The later ones like Aurangzeb certainly were but the first 4 in the line were pretty bloody liberal, even by those oh so amazingly enlighted European standards . In fact they were famed, not to mention highly successful rulers, for their tolerance of other religions and other customs and this often meant drinking wine and listening to music and fooling around with nubiles young lily petals.

As recreation, they were smoking up the opium, drinking fine wines, being enchanted by gorgeous cosmopolitan hareems and musicians, including half nude dancing girls, and generally showing other world leaders of the time how to 'do it up'!

[A comment about the Mughals making India more conservative], IMO, is a case of using 21st century perceptios of Islam (quite misinformed in themselves) and attaching them to a society that existed quite a few hundred years ago. Apples and oranges.

In the same way that you can go to Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and other Islamic countries today and get your hands on loads of alcohol and hookers - the Mughals were up to it to. Moreso if anything.

 

[allhailIndia]

Actually, my theory on Indian conservatism can be traced to the first few raids of Muslim conqeurors, BEFORE they settled down to become rulers.
The Mughals were quite late in the picture, but their cosmopolitan tolerance was not unique to their empire either.

At the risk of sounding rabidly anti-British, I would also like to point out that the British Victorian conservatism also contributed in no small measure to the conservatism of the Indian middle classes. The tragedy of this being the taboo on sex or even talking about it.

 

[allhailIndia]

On a side note...

For all his supposed fanaticism, Aurangzeb had absolutely no qualms in making Raja Jai Singh, a Hindu Rajput, as the top general of his Army.

Ironically, it was also Jai Singh who defeated the supposed Hindu fanatic, Shivaji.

 

[Rambuchan]

Actually, my theory on Indian conservatism can be traced to the first few raids of Muslim conqeurors, BEFORE they settled down to become rulers.
The Mughals were quite late in the picture, but their cosmopolitan tolerance was not unique to their empire either.

At the risk of sounding rabidly anti-British, I would also like to point out that the British Victorian conservatism also contributed in no small measure to the conservatism of the Indian middle classes. The tragedy of this being the taboo on sex or even talking about it.

I'd like to know your sources and futher explanation for both paragraphs. I'm quite interested in this history and your theory.

On a side note...

For all his supposed fanaticism, Aurangzeb had absolutely no qualms in making Raja Jai Singh, a Hindu Rajput, as the top general of his Army..

Aurangzeb was an atrocious warmongerer, often fuelled by Shia fanaticism for sure, but he was a wise ruler amidst all this and that often meant appointing the best generals around. Jai Singh was the man to hire for this job afaik.

Ironically, it was also Jai Singh who defeated the supposed Hindu fanatic, Shivaji.

Shivaji was not a supposed fanatic. He WAS a fanatic. He terrorised the Portuguese, Indian Catholics, the Dutch and was a notorious 'I'll negotiate over your dead body' kind of guy. (My phrase not his)

 

[allhailIndia]

Yet Shivaji, like Aurangzeb had no qualms in accepting a Turkish head of artillery, like most armies in India at that time..


As for the conservatism..I remember reading it in a couple of places. I'll have to spend some time looking it up again.

I am not saying that Ancient India was some kind of bohemian, hippie paradise, but social norms that are today considered 'acceptable' are a hardening of earlier social practice based on the reaction to foreign influences.

Besides, if the Mahabharata is anything to go by, we have unwed mothers (Kunti), numerous references to sex (even out in the open), polyandrous women( Draupadi and Tilotthama), Arjuna's sexcapades with numerous women in several places and Krishna( who stands in a category all by himself)

 

[allhailIndia]

BTW...

I am not sure if Aurangzeb was Shia...

Those whom he fought against, such as the Deccan Sultanates were, but I seriously doubt if Aurangzeb himself was a Shia. The Mughals were a mix of Turkish and Mongol lineage, originating in what is now Uzbekistan, not exactly known for Shia Islam.
However, the Deccan Sultanates were all ruled by descendants of Persian nobles and were Shias.

Even today one is likely to find a large number of Shia Muslims in what was once the Princely State of Hyderabad.

 

[aneeshm]

Aneeshm, you say you've read the Quran and the Hadith. So, what makes you think that you're interpretation is the right one and the majority peace loving mainstream Muslims' interpretations are wrong?

It's not my interpretation - it's the interpretation as shown by the actions of the Prophet , and of the clerics here in India ( and outside , for that matter ) . You should read some of the fatwas which are issued by the Ulema here at Deoband . I repeat - this interpretation is not something I have conjured up , it is the interpretation which is held to be true by the people Mohammed appointed to interpret the Quran ( "My Ulema can never be wrong" ) .

You live in India with a huge Muslim population. Mosques should be plentiful there.. Have you ever gone to visit one?

I have no wish to incite a riot . Non-Muslims are not allowed inside mosques .

Or spoken to a Muslim cleric about your understanding of the passages you hold to show Islam is a violent religion and asked him to clarify those passages?

It is these same clerics you mention who insist that the passages have to be interpreted in a violent way .

 

[aneeshm]

I love the way you jump to conclusions about both me and the people I know. The "similar social circles" bit is completely wrong.

Let me put it this way - do you know anyone of the orthodox Ulema ?

All religions have nasty things in their scripture, their history, their traditions, or their common practices. That you choose to ignore this for all other religions and overemphasize this for Islam speaks to me of nothing but pigheaded bigotry.

Please give me a single injunction in the Gita or in the Vedas or in the Buddhist or Jain scriptures which you consider "nasty" .

As said before - the day Christian terrorists start blowing stuff up on Diwali , I'll turn my eye to Christianity and check whether they are actually following Christianity or not . As long as they do not trouble me , I am content to let them be .

 

[aneeshm]

Both of the sources are clearly anti-Islamic in content. They promote anti-Muslim thinking. Of course they are unreliable.

They do NOT promote anti-Muslim thinking . I have never found even a mild recommendation or incitement to any anti-Muslim action there . They are extremely critical of Islam the religion , but those sites , like me , leave the follower alone .

The websites are meant to be for the promotion of Hinduism.

No . They are meant more for the defense of Hinduism . Such an intellectual defense is required because about a thousand years of foreign rule ( first Islam , then the British ) , have left it weakened . As an example - whenever a history textbook mentions some atrocity committed by an Islamic ruler , it is attributed to two things - economics and politics , while whenever a Hindu king retaliates against such an atrocity , it is said to be for religious reasons ! Not only that , but whenever one fault in Islam is mentioned , another fault in Hindu society has to be mentioned ! Secularism has become a sham , and is being equated with either glossing over the flaws of minority religions , or putting down the majority religion .

So, from these to websites. does this mean that Hinduism as a religion promotes and advocates Hindus to be anti-Islamic or anti-anyone not a Hindu?

As said before , those websites do not promote anti-Muslim thinking . They promote anti-Islamic thinking . The difference may be small in theory , but is vast in practice . Anti-Muslim thinking is what least to communal riots . Anti-Islamic thinking is that leads to me sitting here and taking on people who want to close their eyes to the reality surrounding them .

I remember - when I was in the seventh or eighth grate , someone had criticised a Muslim guy in our class on the basis of his religion . I immediately told the critic to shyt up .

The reason I could do this then , and I can sit here and debate here now , is because I draw a distinction between a religion and a follower of said religion .

Or does it only mean that those who wrote in those sites are just using Hinduism as an excuse to incite anti-Muslim feelings?

Please tell me where these websites incite anti-Muslim feelings . I have been unable to find such incitement .

The actions of idiots should be blamed on those idiots themselves.
Not on the name of the religion which these idiots claim to subscribe to.
Be it Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Sikhism, etc...

When these idiots say that they are idiots because their religion tells them to be idiots , and when your check-up of the religion tells you that indeed , the religion does , in fact , tell them to be idiots , then I think it can be justifiably said that the actions of those idiots can be blamed on the religion .

 

[aneeshm]

can you source these?

The stuff I've posted gives sources from Islamic historians for most of their material . How many times have I to repeat this ?

 

[aneeshm]

So? Ever heard of the Spanish Inquisition? The several wars of religion? St. Bartholemew's Day Massacre? My question to you is, why is this exclusive to Islam only?

Who is talking about exclusivism ? I said that Islam is not a religion of peace , in fact , it is a religion of perpetual war against in infidel . Saying that some others fought at some time against some other is no refutation of this .

And anyway , the idea that by trying to drag the other religion through the mud so that the dirt on your religion is not so evident is pathetic . And it doesn't work for religions which have a spotlessly clean record . I say that yes , this obsession with the infidel and infidelity is exclusive to Islam , because it was there since the beginning ( not the case with others like Christianity ) .

 

[silver 2039]

Before demonizing Islam look to your own religon and its "spotless" recoord. How wonderful and peaceful Hinduisim is eh?

T
he last time Hindu militants
unleashed violence against
Muslims was in 1992, when they tore down a 16th century mosque in
Ayodhya to make way for a temple to the Hindu god Ram.
Over 2,000 people, mostly Muslims, were killed in 1992
[http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0304/p10s02-comv.html,
Christian Science Monitor, March 05, 2002].

The demolished mosque is known as the Babri Mosque. Which was created
in the 16th century and was named after the great Muslim Mughal
Emperor Babur. Whose dynasty also created the World Wonder Taj Mahal.
As part of planned destruction of Muslim heritage in India, the
World Hindu Council, an organization of Hindu zealots, and the
Bharatya Janata Party, an organization of Hindu fundamentalists
carried out the destruction of the mosque in 1991 and 1992.

World Hindu Council has vowed to begin construction of a Hindu
temple on the ruins of the 16th century mosque in Ayodhya.
Attempts to build the temple on the 16th century mosque have
brought an unbearable amount of carnage and mayhem in India.
Where, victims are mostly Muslims [Beth Duff-Brown,
Associated Press, March 3, 2002].

The recent effort to bring temple construction materials
from different Indian states to the site of the 16th Century
Mosque has claimed over 900 human lives. 91% of all victims are
Muslims. Many of the victims were burnt alive.

a) On February 27, 2002, mob set fire to a train resulting in death of
58 people. This took place when World Hindu Council workers returning
from the site of the 16th century mosque got into a conflict with the
local people at a train station near Godhra in the Indian state of
Gujrat [Beth Duff-Brown, Associated Press, March 3, 2002].
b) In the morning of March 1, 2002, 65 Muslims were burned to death
as they slept in a slum in the neighborhood of Naroda, Ahamadabad in
Gujrat. "The carnage at Naroda Patia was the handiwork of a mob
of 6,000, which was led by Babu Bajrangji, Kishan Kosani, T.J. Rajput,
Harish Rohit and Raju Goyal," said a report written by N.T. Bala, an
assistant police sub-inspector. "These people, possessing deadly weapons,
led the mob of about 6,000, all belonging to the Hindu community,"
said Bala's report. It details how the mob set fire to 24 homes,
killing the 65 Muslims inside. Jaideep Patel, the Gujarat state joint
secretary of the World Hindu Council, confirmed all five men were local
leaders of World Hindu Council. [Indian police "First Information
Reports (FIR)",
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20020305/ap_on_re_as/india_religious_strife_134].
c) During the night of Thursday, February 28, 2002, in the Gulbarg Society of
Meghaninagar, Ahamadabad, 42 Muslims were burned to death as they
slept in their homes. Also burned alive was a Muslim former Parliament
member, Ahsan Jaffrey, in his home. A local Bharatiya Janata Party leader,
Deepak Patel, lead a group of 22000 Hindu zealots to carry out the carnage
[Indian police FIR,
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20020305/ap_on_re_as/india_religious_strife_134].
d) Most of the remaining 735 victims were also burned to death. e) The carnage is continuing. The president of World Hindu Council recently
told reporters in New Delhi that his organization plans to start
construction of the temple on March 15, 2002 [Beth Duff-Brown, Associated Press,
March 3, 2002].

 

[silver 2039]

Oh and would you look at that? Buddhist terrosists too.

Quote:
20 December, 2004 SRI LANKA

Catholic church set on fire near ColomboBuddhist extremists are suspected. “They might destroy the building, but not our faith”, said the parish priest. Faithful will still celebrate Christmas in nearby grotto.Colombo (AsiaNews) – A Catholic church was set on fire Sunday night in a village 24 kilometres east of Sri Lanka’s capital of Colombo.Six men burst into St Michael’s church, ransacked the building and torched the tabernacle, the altar and the Crucifix. They then set the whole building on fire.Police investigating the arson are certain the attack was planned. Two levers used to break the church’s door open were found on the crime scene as were two gas tanks.St Michael’s is a small church and has no resident clergy. Local Catholics manage it as part of the larger Christ the King parish in nearby Pannipitiya village whose priest, Fr Ignatius Varnakulasingham, does not exclude possible political involvement by Buddhist extremist groups.This is second time that the small church becomes the target of arsonists. Last January 15, ten people broke in and set it on fire. A few weeks earlier, a Buddhist mob tore down the cross and raised a Buddhist flag on its top.Following these attacks police posted guards outside the building but they were removed just a few days ago.“We believe the same group that attacked the church earlier was responsible for today’s incident,” Fr Chaminda Wanigasena, the local assistant parish priest, said.He estimates that damages amount to about a million rupees (around US$ 9,500) and said that Milroy Fernando, a Catholic and Minister for Christian Religious Affairs, promised compensation for the church’s reconstruction.“Those guilty,” Father Varnakulasingham said, “might as well know that they might burn our church to the ground, but they cannot destroy our faith”.St Michael’s was built in the early 1960s and was an immediate cause of controversy because local Buddhist monks objected to its presence and the arrival of Catholic priests in the area.About 130 Catholic families live in the area and the small church provides them with pastoral care.“This mission has always suffered persecution,” Father Wanigasena said, “but persecution has always strengthened the Catholic community and the parishioners”.A local Catholic who was threatened in the latest episode of violence said: “We are against violence, but no one can stop us from meeting here”.Although the church cannot be used, St Michael’s parishioners are planning to celebrate Christmas in the nearby grotto of Our Lady. (LF)

 

[allhailIndia]

@aneeshm

I repeat my earlier point
One can look at ANY text and draw two possible interpretations of it. The kind of interpretations one draws can be consciously done to support a pre-emptive conclusion.
Simply put, people read what they want to read into books.

One can, if one wants to, come to the conclusion that the Bhagwad Gita enjoins a person to slaughter his or her relatives if one disagrees with them if one chooses only a certain way of looking at the text.
It is not the text itself which as at fault. It was written in a different day and age, and every one can come to different conclusions in a different day and age.

 

[aneeshm]

Before demonizing Islam look to your own religon and its "spotless" recoord. How wonderful and peaceful Hinduisim is eh?

First - a source for the second article , if you would ?

As for the Buddhist extremists part - find me one instance in whatever scriptures it is Buddhists have that tells them to do what they did . Just one . A single , solitary one .

Lastly - as said before , my criticism of Islam remains completely unaffected by your childlike and trollish abuse of Hinduism . You attitude is reminiscent of an animal which has been hurt in some sensitive spot , and lashes out wildly .




As said before , my criticisms of Islam have not been based on it's record , but on it's texts . The record is just icing . When someone shrieks "you did bad things too , so shut up , you're a bad man , you don't say warm-fuzzy stuff , you're not politically correct , I am not confortable with what you say , I hate your type in general" , I look on in bemusement . I expect criticisms of any other religion to be based on its texts , or on actions of adherents which are in accordance with these texts . Nobody has privovided me with that till now in the cases of Hinduism or Buddhism .








And silver - though I dislike veering away from the central topic , I will still demolish this "Ayodhya - Babri Masjid - Ram Janmabhoomi" thing once and for all , so as to ensure that you do not dare try using it again . Let me tell you the sequence of events that happened on that land , in brief .

Ayodhya at the time of Ram
Ram is born
Ram is acknowledged as an Avatar
A temple is built
Fast forward to Babar's invasion
Babar tears down the temple , builds a Mosque
Fast forward to current debate

Babri Masjid Action Committee demands proof that the Mosque was built on a temple , and says that if it is found that it was built on a temple , they will give the land away willingly

It is duly proven that it was built on a temple

Barbir Masjid Action Committee says that no , we don't like your evidence , we want more

Evidence is them produced from two sources , one being the court records of Babar , and the other being an inscription in the Mosque itself

BMAC then goes and sulks in the corner , not listening to any evidence put before it .

For a more detailed account , along with sources and references , let me quote Arun Shourie

Ayodhya: Muslim Argument Examined
Arun Shourie







At first, the demand-cum-assurance was, "If you can bring any proof showing a temple had been demolished to construct the mosque, we will ourselves demolish the mosque". A host of documents -- reports of the Archaeological Survey of India going back to 1891, Gazetteers going back to 1854, survey reports going back to 1838 were produced which stated unambiguously that a Ram temple had been demolished to construct the mosque".

The demand suddenly changed. "These are all British documents", it was now said. "The British concocted this story to divide and rule. "Show us some Pre-British documents" was an invention to get over inconvenient facts. It became evident soon enough, when in response to Chandrashekhar's initiative the All India Babri Masjid Action Committee submitted documents, most of these turned out to be nothing but the rulings of sundry British magistrates. Worse, they confirmed what the Vishwa Hindu Parishad had been saying: that the mosque had not been in use since 1936;that it has been built by demolishing the Ram temple: that the Hindus had, at the cost of many lives, been trying throughout to capture the spot, as they held it to be the sacred birth place of Lord Ram.

In any event, non-British, specifically Muslim documents as well as pre-British documents, including the account of an Austrian Jesuit priest who had stayed in Ayodhya in 1766-71 were produced. Each of them stated the same facts.

But each of these is only repeating what the other is saying. It was demanded that show some contemporary document". The demand for such a document was manifestly a dodge : the one document -- the Babarnama -- which could have settled the matter is truncated: Babar records his reaching Ayodhya on 2 April 1528. The pages from then to 18 September 1528 are missing, and are surmised to have been lost in a storm in May 1529, or during Humayun's subsequent wanderings in the desert as a fugitive. The matter, however, was soon nailed. If the absence of a contemporary accounts - the very day's Court bulletins recording the destruction of the temples of Mathura, Kashi, Pandharpur and scores and scores of other places and their replacement by mosques are available proof enough to propel Shahabuddin etc to demolish those mosques?

No answer was forthcoming, instead, there were demands for more concrete proof. This was soon available in the results of the archaeological excavations which had been conducted in 1975-86, when attention was drawn to the pillars on which the domes etc. of the mosque rest to this day. to the carvings on these, it was said that these could well have been brought from elsewhere. But that alibi too floundered. It could not account for the pillar bases which were found three to four feet below the surface just outside the boundary wall; these were in perfect alignment with the pillars inside the mosque, and it was clear that, along with them, there must have been pillars on these bases which supported the larger structure of the temple; no one would have dragged bases of pillars from a distance and buried them outside the mosque to align with pillars inside the mosque!

So, archaeology itself was denounced. And sophistry was put out. Irfan Habib led the charge. But his own howler showed his arguments to be special pleading: if one went by the dates he ascribed on the basis of "Carbon dating" and all. Babar would have expired in 1965 instead of 1530, the reign of Akbar would commence in 2001 instead of having ended in 1605.

Since then, the case of these pleaders has been made worse by the new finds: entire walls and floor levels have now come into-view, twelve to fourteen feet below the surface. No one could have picked these up from a distance and planted them below the structure.

Shahabuddin’s Latest Argument

At the discussion on Ayodhya which Newstrack organised on 1 August Shahabuddin produced yet another argument. I had just quoted a signed statement he had distributed to the press as late as 15 June 1989 in which he had said. "But the Hindu chauvinists are totally confused about their own case... "Whatever the Hindu chauvinist case, the Muslim community has, without any legal obligation, offered, as a moral gesture, to demolish the Babri Masjid -- if it is proved that a temple stood on the site of the Babri Masjid and it was pulled down to construct the mosque. As the point at issue accordingly was whether there had been a temple at the site, I said, we should focus on the archaeological evidence to settle the matter.

Shahabuddin said that he stood by the statement. His argument was that The temple just could not have been pulled down as pulling down a place of worship to construct a mosque is against the Shariat. Incredulous, The principal correspondent of Newstrack, Manoj Raghuvanshi, later asked Shahabuddin whether in that case no temple had been demolished by Muslim rulers. "It is not a historical fact", said Shahabuddin, "that a standing temple in peace time was demolished by any Muslim ruler". "Assertions to the contrary", he said, "are all chauvinist propaganda"; Even with the hedging -- "standing temple", "in peace time" -- that was quite a lump to swallow. "You mean even Sonmath was not demolished". Raghuvanshi asked, "Sonmath was disintegrated," said Shahabuddin, and reaffirmed his thesis that temples could not have been demolished because pulling them down to build mosques was against the Shariat.

"Disintegrated", not "demolished"? A disingenuous give-away. I thought the VHP would be quite satisfied with that kind of disintegration now. Even if one accepted his contention about Shariat, the Inference Shahbuddin had drawn was indefensible; it was like saying that no murders take place today because murdering is prohibited by the law.

But there is a more conclusive point. Is it at all the case that demolishing a place of worship to replace it with a mosque is prohibited by the Shariat?

Continued in next post