Category Archives: Muslim Menace

by

Move to conduct Islamic Religous meet in Sacred Aluva Manappuram – HAV Hartal Today

http://www.haindavakeralam.com/HKPage.aspx?PageID=16888&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

01/02/2013 12:51:13  HK

ALUVA: The Hindu Ayikaya Vedi here called for a day long hartal in Ernakulam district on Saturday to protest against the Aluva municipal committee’s decision to permit a muslim religious meeting at  the Aluva manappuram, where Sivaratri festivities are held. The hartal will be observed from 6 am to 6 pm.

Thousands of Hindus yesterday marched to Aluva Sivaratri Manappuram to protest against Aluva Muncipality’s move to allow a religious meeting of Muslim youth movement here. While there are lot of open Grounds and Muncipality auditoriums in and around Aluva, the move to encroach Sivaratri Manappuram is part of the evil design to hurt the Hindus and to take control of these holy banks.Hindu Aikya Vedi state leader K P Haridas lead the protest march along with many other state and district leaders.

by

Hanumangarhi Temple Incident in Ayodhya 1855 India

http://www.thinkpolitics.in/2012/06/18/hanumangarhi-temple-ayodhya-india/

June 18, 2012

By 

Hanumangarhi  Temple and Shia/Sunni Conflict in Ayodhya in 1855 ,India

(Based on excerpt from Book- “Sacred Space and Holy War by Juan Cole who in turn wrote this from  records from British)

In 1850, a very bizarre claim was made by Sunni group lead by Shah Ghulam Husain that a Hindu temple HanumanGarhi was built over an ancient mosque. Claim was bizarre as temple was built on land donated by Shi’ite Muslim rulers- Nawab Shuja` al-Dawla (1754-1775) and there was never a reference to this ancient mosque in history books written by Islamic rulers themselves.

History of Nawab Dynasty

Awadh, located between Delhi and Bengal, consisted of Lucknow ,Faizabad and surrounding areas , was ruled by Iran based Shi’ite rulers –the Nawabs. Nawab dynasty was originally from Nishapuri dynasty(1722-1856)  of Iran and first Nawab was Burhan al-Mulk –first Nawab of Awadh. He came to the Mughal Empire from eastern Iran in 1708 and rose rapidly in government service. He became governor of Awadh in 1722, and was awarded Awadh by Nadir Shah who also left behind a substantial contingent of Shi`ite Qizilbash cavalrymen, who joined the Awadh military. The Nawabs gradually consolidated their hold on Awadh, and began in a minor way to build up local Shi`ite constituencies and institutions.

Demographic component of Awadh in 1855

  • Total population 10 million population,
    •  88% Hindu (Peasant class and few merchants)
    • 12% Muslims.
      • Majority Sunnis living in urban residents
      • Butchers, Tailors, Petty Clerks, Middle Managers,Troops and Officers in Army
      • Out of 100%Muslims, only 3-10% Shiite-Occupied high government office and controlled Judiciary.
      • Nawab Wajid Ali Shah was 10th and last Nawab of Awadh before British Annexation when HanumanGarhi conflict rose.

Hindu Status in 1850 India per Islamic Laws

  • At Best, Hindus were at best a protected minority (Dhimmis) regardless of Population Composition (provided they submitted to the political authority of the Muslims)
    • North India was surviving under this clause by paying Jaziya- a religious tax.
    • At worst, Hindus were Idolaters who deserved only a choice between death and conversion.
    • Islam Prohibits Idol worship in any form, and any country ruled by Islamist, Idol worship should not happen.
    • Nawab Wajid Ali Shah Claim- Hindus were a protected minority, Dhimmis, and that it was not lawful for Muslims to attack them, and that in any case Shi`ite law maintained that holy war no longer was permissible during the Occultation of the Imam.

HanumanGarhi Claim and Violence in 1855

  • It was large, well maintained temple supported by Rs 50,000 annual revenue from Awadh Ruler Nawab Shuja` al-Dawla (1754-1775). No Mussalman was permitted enter its walls and revenue absorbed by 500 residents, Sanyasis, and Hindu Pilgrims
  • Major General Out Ram –Calcutta Resident in Lucknow, wrote to Nawab Wajid Ali Shah about situation and asked to take precautionary measures. British arrested Shah Ghulam and a Maulawi two but released them after 3 months
  • 28th July 1855, 500 Muslims attacked 8,000 hindu men while they were trying to remove Hanumangarhi temple,80 person killed on each side according to Alexander Orr – representative in Faizabad of British Frontier Police. After such provocation action, Muslims tried to take shelter in Mosque but were still attacked.
  • To placate Hindus and Muslims, Wajid Ali proposed to Hindus that a mosque be built on Hanuamgarhi site with shared on wall so that sanctity of temple can be maintained-needless to say, this movement was opposed vehemently by Sanyasis
  • He later denied thathe had ever pledged to build a mosque adjacent to the Hindu temple, though Amir `Ali and the Sunni activists insisted that he had
  • On 2 October, the Officiating Resident handed the shah a note warning that he would be held personally responsible if he should attempt to build the mosque or if Muslims attacked Hindus. The shaken monarch agreed to do his duty.  British officials suspected that Vajid `Ali had counted on being able to employ British troops to quell the Hindus in the last instance, and his government had already broached the possibility of using them to put down Amir `Ali’s forces.

British had setup an independent commission earlier to enquire true origins of Temple , and later any presence of Mosque on that same old earlier was proved baseless. Muslims in 1855 wanted to instigate a riot and destroy temple on flimsiest of excuses.

 

Shi’ite Army on 7th December 1850 Prevents Jihad under British Pressure

On 7 November, Amir `Ali and his forces attempted to advance toward Faizabad, but were met and defeated by Shi`ite army troops along with soldiers supplied by Shi`ite great landlords such as Mahmudabad. Some 400 activists died, among them Amir `Ali, against 12 dead and 70 wounded among government troops

Famed Ganga-Jamuni Tehzeeb of Awadh

Study of “unbiased” British records show that Shiite wives of these rulers were Muslims in only name but continued practicing their ancient rites from Hinduism- like invoking Kali(Mata Sheetala Devi) in Smallpox, proficient in Astrology and worshipped “Hindu idols” . Britishers couldn’t fathom that these poor women were either forcibly converted or married against their will to Shiite rulers as Islam explicitly forbids worshipping of Idols in any form.  Admitting that they saw Women worshipping Hindu Idols or even their presence at their homes is tantamount  to admitting that they were originally Hindus.

Due to women able to mix in those religion (their parent and converted one), an existence of new culture took place which mixed in elements from Iranian/Persian civilization and Hinduism.

by

86 arrested in US consulate attack in Chennai: Police

http://www.ndtv.com/article/cities/86-arrested-in-us-consulate-attack-in-chennai-police-267610

86 arrested in US consulate attack in Chennai: Police

Chennai: Eighty-six people were arrested on Friday after a group of several hundred Muslim protesters threw stones and smashed windows at the US consulate in the Indian city of Chennai, police said.”They smashed the window panes, surveillance camera and tried to scale over the compound wall, but we dispersed them while exercising restraint,” a senior police officer said on condition of anonymity. “We made 86 arrests.”

The violence flared during a protest organised by the Tamil Nadu Muslim Munnetra Kazhagam, an Islamist movement, against an anti-Islam film which has triggered similar protests in large parts of the Muslim world.

The protesters also burnt an effigy of US President Barack Obama and an American flag, police said.

One group hurled stones, while others lifted iron barricades placed in front of the main gate to smash windows, police said.

“We have tightened the security and the situation is well under control,” JK Tripathy, the police commissioner in the southern city, told local reporters.

One of the organisers said that what had been planned as a peaceful protest was hijacked by militants.

“We wanted to organise a peaceful demonstration to express our dismay over the film, but the youngsters, who could not hold their nerves, ran and attacked the consulate office,” Gunangudi Hanifa told AFP.

A spokesman for the consulate, who did not give his name, said that no staff had been hurt in the attack.

“No one was injured and all the staff members are safe,” he said.

by

Dr. Ambedkar’s views on Islam and Indian Muslims — A. P. Joshi

A. P. Joshi (To appear in Bharat Speaks, 3rd quarter 2012).

After Gandhiji, Doctor Ambedkar is probably the most revered icon for Indians. The Dalits especially regard him as another Buddha. But it is unfortunate that his opinions on various issues are being quoted selectively. For example there appears to be a hush-hush about what he had written about Islam and Indian Muslims. But the fact remains that when he decided to quit Hinduism along with his followers, in spite of several appeals and enticements by Muslim and Christian clergy and leaders, he chose to embrace Buddhism, another dharmic faith. No one seems to bring this fact to the attention of the public.

Unlike most Hindu leaders, both pre-Independence and post- Independence, Dr. Ambedkar was very clear about the danger posed by Islam and Muslims to this country. He clinically examined the nature of Muslim psyche and society and the role that will be played by them after independence. He clearly foresaw that Hindus and Muslims cannot co-exist and hence British India had to be partitioned after an exchange of population into two separate Hindu and Muslim nations . He has developed this thesis in his well known book, ‘Pakistan or The Partition of India’ 1. We give below a few excerpts from this book to show that Dr. Ambedkar was well aware of the various problems posed by Islam and Muslims to the Indian society and polity.

But even before he wrote this book he had written about this problem. During 1927- 29, Dr. Ambedkar owned a Marathi newspaper called ‘Bahishkrut Bharat’. In it he maintained that the dispute in this country is not between two societies but between two nations. He was very critical of the Nehruvian plan of separating the Sind from the Bombay province and not giving equivalent minority rights to Hindus where they were in minority. He was quite worried about the fact that in undivided India the Muslim majority provinces were on the border. He felt that due to this the borders were not safe in case of any threat to our security by a Muslim power as the Indian Muslims had no loyalty for Hindusthan. He also strongly condemned the pardah system in Islam.

Coming to his book, in Chapter Four he has traced the history of Muslim invasions and the butchering, forced conversions and rape of Hindu women and the destruction of Hindu temples and monuments. He has clearly brought out the truth that the invaders were not interested merely in looting, but also in conversion of the ‘kafirs’. He is very forthright in his description of the atrocities committed by the Muslims and has extensively quoted from historical records. He has quoted scholars who state that the Hindu peasants had to part with half of their produce as Jiziya as well as pay a large tax on their cattle. (P.62)

Chapter VII

” It is a notorious fact that many prominent Hindus who had offended the Muslim susceptibilities of the Muslims either by their writings or by their part in the Shuddhi movement have been murdered by some fanatic Musalmans … But Mr. Gandhi has never protested against such murders. Not only have the Musalmans not condemned these outrages but even Mr. Gandhi has never called upon the leading Muslims to condemn them” (P. 156)

” But there are others who … believe in the possibility of Hindu-Muslim unity. This belief of theirs seems to rest on two grounds. Firstly they believe in the efficacy of a Central Government to mould diverse set of people into one nation. Secondly, they feel that the satisfaction of Muslim demands will be a sure means of achieving Hindu-Muslim unity”. (P. 187). Dr. Ambedkar subsequently shows that both presumptions are not valid.

Chapter X:

In this chapter titled as ‘Social Stagnation’, Dr. Ambedkar has analysed the social evils amongst Muslims and comments as follows:

” One may well ask if there is any social evil which is found among the Hindus and is not found among the Muslims? … Take child-marriage … [quoting from 1931 census statistics] Can the position among the Musalmans so far as child-marriage goes, be considered better than the position among the Hindus?” (P. 225-6)

” Take the position of women. It is insisted by Muslims that the legal rights given to Muslim women, ensure them a greater measure of independence than allowed to other Eastern women … the Muslim woman is the most helpless person in the world … her fate is ‘once married, always married’. She cannot escape the marriage tie, however irksome it may be. While she cannot repudiate the marriage, the husband can always do it without having to show any cause. Utter the word ‘Tallak’ and observe continence for three weeks and the woman is cast away … This latitude in the marriage in the matter of divorce destroys that sense of security which is so fundamental for a full, free and happy life for a woman. This insecurity of life, to which a Muslim woman is exposed, is greatly augmented by the right of polygamy and concubinage, which the Muslim law gives to the husband” (P. 226-227)

” Take the caste system. Islam speaks of brotherhood. Everybody infers that Islam must be free from slavery and caste. Regarding slavery nothing needs to be said. It stand abolished now by law. But while it existed much of its support was derived from Islam and Islamic countries … But if slavery has gone, caste among Musalmans has remained ” (P. 228). Dr. Ambedkar then quotes the 1901 census report for Bengal to show that Muslims there have several castes including Arzal or untouchable castes with whom no other Mohamedan would associate and who are forbidden to enter the mosque to use the public burial ground. He also quotes from the same Report about the panchayat system of each caste which extends to social as well as trade matters resulting in castes which are as strictly endogamous as Hindu castes. He concludes, “the Mohamedans observe not only caste but also untouchability” (P. 230)

“There can thus be no manner of doubt that the Muslim Society in India is afflicted by the same social evils as afflict the Hindu Society. Indeed, the Muslims have all the social evils of the Hindus and something more. That something more is the compulsory system of purdah for Muslim women”. Listing all the implications of purdah he concludes “they are usually victims to anemia, tuberculosis and pyorrhea. Their bodies are deformed, with their backs bent, bones protruded, hands and feet crooked. Ribs, joints and nearly all their bones ache. Heart palpitation is very often present in them. The result of this pelvic deformity is untimely death at delivery … the process of moral degeneration must and does set in. Being completely secluded from the outer world, they engage their minds in petty family quarrels … The physical and intellectual effects of purdah are nothing as compared to its effects on morals … a social system which cuts off all contacts between the two sexes produces an unhealthy tendency towards sexual excesses and unnatural and other morbid habits and ways … It is responsible for the social segregation of Hindus from Muslims which is the bane of public life in India … Not that purdah and the evil consequent thereon are not to be found among certain sections of the Hindus … But the point of distinction is that among the Muslims, purdah has a religious sanctity which it has not with the Hindus.” (P. 230-32)

“The Muslims have no interest in politics as such. Their predominant interest is in religion … Muslim politics is essentially clerical and recognizes only one difference, namely, that existing between Hindus and Muslims. None of the secular categories of life have any place in the politics of the Muslim community and if they do find a place – and they must because they are irrepressible – they are subordinated to one and the only one governing principle of the Muslim political universe, namely, religion.” (P. 232)

“The existence of these evils among the Muslims is distressing enough. But far more distressing is the fact that there is no organised movement of social reforms among the Musalmans of India on a scale sufficient to bring about their eradication … The Hindus have their social evils … and a few of them are actively agitating for their removal. The Muslims on the other hand, do not realise that they are evils and consequently do not agitate for their removal. Indeed, they oppose any change in the existing practices.” (P.233)

Dr. Ambedkar then goes on to analyse the reasons for this attitude. He feels that it is due to “the fundamental assumption made by all Muslims that Islam is a world religion, suitable for all people, for all times and for all conditions … that this uniformity is deadening and is not merely imparted to Muslims, but is imposed upon them by a spirit of intolerance which is unknown anywhere outside the Muslim world for its severity and its violence and which is directed towards the suppression of all rational thinking which is in conflict with the teachings of Islam.” (P. 234) Although its rigidity is being challenged elsewhere in the world, the Indian Muslim community is still clinging to it. The reason for this is due to the peculiar position he occupies in India as he is placed in a predominantly Hindu social and political environment which he feels is encroaching on his existence. The Muslims think that the Hindus and Muslims must perpetually struggle.

“How Muslim politics has become perverted is shown by the attitude of the Muslim leaders to the political reforms in the Indian States. The Muslims and their leaders carried on a great agitation for the introduction of representative government in the Hindu State of Kashmir. The same Muslims and their leaders are deadly opposed to the introduction of representative governments in other Muslim States. The reason for this strange attitude is quite simple. In all matters, the determining question with the Muslims is how it will affect the Muslims vis-a-vis the Hindus … The dominating consideration is how democracy with majority rule will affect the Muslims in their struggle against the Hindus. Will it strengthen them or will it weaken them? If democracy weakens them, they will not have democracy.” (P. 236-7)

CHAPTERS XI and XII

Dr. Ambedkar discusses the causes behind the behaviour and political aggression of the Muslims in these chapters. “How the Muslim mind will work and by what factors it is likely to be swayed will be clear if the fundamental tenets of Islam which dominate the Muslim politics and the views expressed by prominent Muslims bearing on Muslim attitude towards an Indian Government are taken into consideration … Among the tenets the one that calls for notice is the tenet of Islam which says that in a country which is not under Muslim rule, wherever there is a conflict between Muslim law and the law of the land, the former must prevail over the latter and a Muslim will be justified in obeying the Muslim law and defying the law of the land.” (P. 292). He quotes the Muslim leader Maulana Mahomed Ali, ” the only allegiance a Musalman, whether a civilian or soldier, whether living under a Muslim or under non-Muslim administration, is commanded by the Koran to acknowledge is his allegiance to God, to his Prophet and to those in authority from among the Musalmans … But the unalterable rule is and has always been that as Musalmans they can obey only such laws and orders issued by their secular rulers as do not involve disobedience to the commandments of God who in the expressive language of the Holy Koran is ‘the all-ruling ruler’.” (P.293)

“According to Muslim Canon Law the world is divided into two camps, Dar-ul-lslam (abode of Islam) and Dar-ul-Harb (abode of war). A country is Dar-ul-lslam when it is ruled by Muslims. A country is Dar-ul-Harb when Muslims only reside in it but are not rulers of it. That being the Canon Law of the Muslims, India cannot be the common motherland of the Hindus and the Musalmans. It can be the land of the Musalmans – but it cannot be the land of the ‘Hindus and the Musalmans living as equals’. Further, it can be the land of the Musalmans only when it is governed by the Muslims. The moment the land becomes subject to the authority of a non-Muslim power, it ceases to be the land of the Muslims. Instead of being Dar-ul-lslam it becomes Dar-ul-Harb. It must not be supposed that this view is only of academic interest. For it is capable of becoming an active force capable of influencing the conduct of the Muslims. It did greatly influence the conduct of the Muslims when the British occupied India. The British occupation raised no qualms in the minds of the Hindus. But so far as the Muslims were concerned, it at once raised the question whether India was any longer a suitable place of residence for Muslims. .A discussion was started in the Muslim community, which Dr. Titus says lasted for half a century, as to whether India was Dar-ul-Harb or Dar-ul-lslam. (P. 294).

He then points out another injunction, Jihad (crusade) by which it becomes “incumbent on a Muslim ruler to extend the rule of Islam until the whole world shall have been brought under its sway … Technically, it is the duty of the Muslim ruler, who is capable of doing so, to transform Dar-ul-Harb into Dar-ul-lslam … there are instances showing that they have not hesitated to proclaim Jihad. The curious may examine the history of the Mutiny of 1857 and if he does, he will find that, in part, at any rate, it was really a Jihad proclaimed by the Muslims against the British, and that the Mutiny so far as the Muslims were concerned was a recrudescence of revolt which had been fostered by Sayyed Ahmad who preached to the Musalmans for several decades that owing to the occupation of India by the British the country had become a Dar-ul-Harb. The Mutiny was an attempt by the Muslims to reconvert India into a Dar-ul-lslam … Not only can they proclaim Jihad but they can call the aid of a foreign Muslim power to make Jihad a success, or if the foreign Muslim power intends to proclaim a Jihad, help that power in making its endeavour a success. (P. 295-6)

He then draws attention to the third tenet “that Islam does not recognise territorial affinities. Its affinities are social and religious and therefore extraterritoria … this is the basis of Pan-Islamism. It is this which leads every Musalman in India to say that he is a Muslim first and Indian afterwards … To the Muslims a Hindu is a Kaffir. A Kaffir is not worthy of any respect. He is low-born and without status” (P. 301). Dr. Ambedkar goes on to show that this concept of Kaffir was extended even to Mahatma Gandhi by quoting his comrade-in-arm in the Khilafat movement, Mr. Mahomed Ali who said, ” However pure Mr. Gandhi’s character may be, he must appear to me from the point of view religion inferior to any Musalman, even though he may be without character” and ” Yes, according to my religion and creed, I do hold an adulterous and fallen Musalman to be better than Mr. Gandhi.” (P.302)

Dr. Ambedkar also quotes prominent Hindu leaders who were alive to the problem. For example “Mrs. Annie Besant says …The world has gone beyond such so-called theocracies, in which God’s commands are given through a man. The claim now put forward by Musalman leaders that they must obey the laws of their particular prophet above the laws of the State in which they live, is subversive of civic order and the stability of the State … Malabar has taught us what Islamic rule still means, and we do not want to see another specimen of the ‘Khilafat Raj’ in India … there is no place in a civilised land for people who believe that their religion teaches them to murder, rob, rape, burn, or drive away out of the country those who refuse to apostatise from their ancestral faiths … Such ‘Laws of God’ cannot be allowed to override the laws of a civilised country … In fact, Muslim sects are not safe in a country ruled by orthodox Muslims [italics ours]” (P. 274-5)

He also quotes Lala Lajpatrai expressing apprehensions about Hindu-Muslim unity and also an interview with the poet Dr. Rabindra Nath Tagore, “another very important factor which, according to the poet, was making it impossible for Hindu-Mohamedan unity to become an accomplished fact was that the Mohamedans could not confine their patriotism to any one country … The poet said he had very frankly asked many Mohamedans whether, in the event of any Mohamedan power invading India, they would stand side by side with their Hindu neighbours to defend their common land. He could not be satisfied with the reply he got from them. He said that he could definitely state that even such men as Mr. Mahomed Ali had declared that under no circumstances was it permissible for any Mohamedan, whatever his country might be, to stand against any other Mohamedan.” (P. 276)

Dr. Ambedkar has also written, ” Hinduism is said to divide people and in contrast Islam is said to bind people together. This is only a half truth. For Islam divides as inexorably as it binds. Islam is a close corporation and the distinction that it makes between Muslims and non-Muslims is very real, very positive and very alienating distinction. The brotherhood of Islam is not the universal brotherhood of man. It is brotherhood of Muslims for Muslims only … The second defect of Islam is that it is a system of social self-government and is incompatible with local self-government, because the allegiance of a Muslim does not rest on his domicile in the country which is his but on the faith to which he belongs … In other words, Islam can never allow a true Muslim to adopt India as his motherland and regard a Hindu as his kith and kin.” (P. 330). Also “The Muslims are howling against the Hindu Maha Sabha and its slogan of Hindudom and Hindu Raj. But who is responsible for this? Hindu Maha Sabha and Hindu Raj are the inescapable nemesis which the Musalmans have brought upon themselves by having a Muslim League. It is action and counter-action. One gives rise to the other.” (P. 359)

From this book it is not clear if Dr. Ambedkar had studied the Islamic scriptures since he does not quote from them. Hence one can only speculate what he would have written in this book about them and which passages he would have quoted from them. Perhaps he would have strengthened his case for partition considerably! As it is he believed that the solution to this problem lay in the partition of British India along with a systematic exchange of population.

The first part of his proposal was ultimately hurriedly carried out in spite of vehement denials of the Congress leaders. Unfortunately no action on the second part i.e. the exchange of population was undertaken by our leaders. Their (criminal) negligence is clearly reflected in the census figures released by the Pakistan census which show that according to the 1941 census the proportion of dharmic faiths in Pakistan was steadily increasing since 1900 and was 19.7% in 1941. The 1951 census figures for this group show a figure of 1.6% implying a massive genocide and/or deportation of Hindus and allied faiths in the 1947 carnage which accompanied Independence. In comparison the Muslim decrease in India was quite mild – from13.4% in 1941 to 10.4% in 1951. In India the Muslims who remained were also given full constitutional rights as well as concessions in several fields. And what they have lost in 1947 has been fully made up by now since their proportion in the 2001 census is again 13.4% and is likely to increase further in the 2011 census. The Indian census data also shows that they are present in large numbers in several border regions of the country and whispers of further partitions are frequently being aired. Dr Ambedkar’s observation in this book that Muslim and Hindu societies cannot coexist together in turning out to be uncannily accurate!

It is also very surprising that when Dr. Ambedkar was so clear about Islam and Muslims, his present followers are bending over backwards to appease this community for its votes, instead of using their influence to educate them and bring them within the national mainstream. Nor have our nationalist leaders, even after partition, asked the Muslims to give up their outdated theology and concepts. In this context it may be mentioned here again that when Dr. Ambedkar decided to make Buddhism his religion after much deliberation, and in spite of several inducements, he refused to embrace Islam or Christianity and instead chose another dharmic faith. When will his followers understand his logic behind this decision?

REFERENCE

Pakistan or The Partition of India, Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, Vol.8, Education Dept, Govt of Maharashtra, Bombay, 1990

by

Destruction of Hindu Temples by Aurangzeb

http://rajiv-varma.blogspot.in/

History Notes by Rajiv Varma

Destruction of Hindu Temples by Aurangzeb

Background
Islamic literary sources provide far more extensive evidence of temple destruction by the Muslim invaders of India in medieval times. They also cover a large area, from Sinkiang and Transoxiana in the North to Tamil Nadu in the South, and from Siestan province of present day Iran in the West to Assam in the East. This vast area, which was long the cradle of hindu culture, came to be littered with the ruins of temples and monasteries, belonging to all schools of Santana Dharma – Baudhha, Jaina, Shaiva, Sakta, Vaishnava, and the rest. Archeological explorations and excavations in modern times have proved unmistakably that most of the mosques, mazars, ziarats and dargahs which were built in this area, stood on the sites of and were made from the materials of deliberately demolished Hindu monuments.
Hundreds of medieval muslim historians who flourished in India and elsewhere in the world of Islam, have written detailed accounts of what their heroes did in various parts of the extensive Hindu homeland as they were invaded one after another. It is alear from the literary evidence collected alone that all Muslim rulers destroyed or desecrated Hindu temples whenever and whereever they could. Archeological evidence from various Muslim monuments, particularly mosques and dargahs, not only confirms the literary evidence but also adds the names of some Muslim rulers whom Muslim historians have failed to credit with this pious performance.
Some of the literary evidence of temple destruction during Aurangzeb’s rule is listed below.
1. “Mir’at-i-Alam” by Bakhtawar Khan
The author was a nobleman of Aurangzeb’s court. He died in AD 1684. the history ascribed to him was really compiled by Muhammad Baqa of Saharanpur who gave the name of his friend as its author. Baqa was a prolific writer who was invited by Bakhtawar Khan to Aurangzeb’s court and given a respectable rank. He died in AD 1683.
Excerpts:
Muhiyu’d-Din Muhammad Aurangzeb ‘Alamgir Padshah Ghazi (1658-1707) General Order
” …Hindu writers have been entirely excluded from holding public offices, and ALL THE WORSHIPPING PLACES OF THE INFIDELS AND GREAT TEMPLES of these infamous people HAVE BEEN THROWN DOWN AND DESTROYED in a manner which excites astonishment at the successful completion of so difficult a task. His Majesty personally teaches the sacred kalima to many infidels with success. … All mosques in the empire are repaired at public expense…”
2. “Alamgir-Nama” by Mirza Muhammad Kazim
This work, written in AD 1688 contains a history of the first ten years of Aurangzeb’s reign.
Excerpts:
Muhiyu’d-Din Muhammad Aurangzeb ‘Alamgir Padshah Ghazi (1658-1707) Palamau (Bihar)
” …In 1661 Aurangzeb in his zeal to uphold the law of Islam sent orders to his viceroy in Bihar, Daud Khan, to conquer Palamau. In the military operations that followed MANY TEMPLES WERE DESTROYED…”
Koch Bihar (Bengal)
” …Towards the end of the same year when Mir Jumla made a war on the Raja of Kuch Bihar, the MUGHALS DESTROYED MANY TEMPLES during the course of their operations. IDOLS WERE BROKEN AND SOME TEMPLES WERE CONVERTED INTO MOSQUES. …”
3. “Mas’ir-i-’Alamgiri” by Saqi Must’ad Khan
The author completed this history in 1710 at the behest of Inayatu”llah Khan Kashmiri, Aurangzeb’s last secretary and favorite disciple in state policy and religiosity. The materials which Must’ad Khan used in this history of Aurangzeb’s reign came mostly from the State archives.
Excerpts:
Muhiyu’d-Din Muhammad Aurangzeb ‘Alamgir Padshah Ghazi (1658-1707) General Order
“…The Lord Cherisher of the faith learnt that in the provinces of Tatta, Multan, and especially at Benaras, the Brahmin misbelievers used to teach their false books in their established schools, and that admirers and students both Hindu and Muslim, used to come from great distances to these misguided men in order to acquire this vile learning. His majesty, eager to establish Islam, issues orders to the governors of all the provinces TO DEMOLISH THE SCHOOLS AND TEMPLES OF THE INFIDELS and with utmost urgency put down the teaching and the public practice of the religion of these misbelievers…”
Varanasi (Uttar Pradesh)
” …It was reported that, according to the Emperor’s command, his officers HAD DEMOLISHED THE TEMPLE OF VISHWANATH AT KASHI. …” Mathura (Uttar Pradesh)
” … During this month of Ramzan abounding in miracles, the Emperor as the promoter of justice and overthrower of mischief, as the knower of truth and destroyer of oppression, as the zephyr of the garden of victory and the reviver of the faith of the Prophet, ISSUED ORDERS FOR THE DEMOLITION OF THE TEMPLE SITUATED IN MATHURA FAMOUS AS THE DEHRA OF KESHO RAI. In the short time by the great exertions of his 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…”
” …Praised be the August God of the faith of Islam, that in the auspicious reign of this DESTROYER OF INFIDELITY AND TURBULENCE, such a wonderful and seemingly impossible work was successfully accomplished. On seeing this instance of strength of the Emperor’s faith and the grandeur of his devotion to God, the proud Rajas were stifled and in amazement they stood like images facing the wall. THE IDOLS, LARGE AND SMALL SET WITH COSTLY JEWELS WHIC HAD BEEN SET UP IN THE TEMPLE WERE BROUGHT TO AGRA AND BURIED UNDER THE STEPS OF THE MOSQUE OF BEGUM SAHIB, IN ORDER TO BE CONTINUALLY TRODDEN UPON. The name of Mathura was changed to Islamabad. …”
Khandela (Rajasthan)
” … Darab Khan who had been sent with a strong force to punish the Rajputs of Khandela and TO DEMOLISH THE GREAT TEMPLE OF THE PLACE, attacked on March 8th/Safar 5th, and slew the three hundred and odd men who made a bold defence, not one of them escaping alive. THE TEMPLES OF KHANDELA AND SANULA AND ALL OTHER TEMPLES IN THE NEIGHBOURHOOD WERE DEMOLISHED …”
Jodhpur (Rajasthan)
” … On 24th Rabi S. (Sunday, May 25th), Khan Jahan Bahadur came from Jodhpur, AFTER DEMOLISHING THE TEMPLES and bringing with himself some cart-loads of idols, and had audience of the Emperor, who higly praised him and ordered that the idols, which were mostly jewelled, golden, silver, bronze, copper, or stone, should be cast in the yard (jilaukhanah) of the Court AND UNDER THE STEPS OF THE JAMA MOSQUE, TO BE TRODDEN UPON…”
Udaipur (Rajasthan)
” … Ruhullah Khan and Ekkataz Khan WENT TO DEMOLISH THE GREAT TEMPLE in front of the Rana’s palace, which was one of the rarest buildings of the age and the chief cause of the destruction of the life and property of the despised worshippers. Twenty ‘machator’ Rajputs who were sitting in the Temple vowed to give up their lives; first one of them came out to fight, killed some and was them himself slain, then came out another and so on, until every one of the twenty perished, after killing a large number of the imperialists including the trusted slave Ikhlas. The Temple was found empty. THE HEWERS BROKE THE IMAGES. …”
” …On Saturday, the 24th January, 1680 (2nd Muharram), the Emperor went to view lake Udaisagar, constructed by the Rana, AND ORDERED ALL THE THREE TEMPLES ON ITS BANKS TO BE DEMOLISHED. …”
” …On the 29th January/7th Muharram, Hasan Ali Khan brought to the Emperor twenty camel-loads of tents and other things captured from the Rana’s Palace and REPORTED THAT ONE HUNDRED AND SEVENTY-TWO OTHER TEMPLES IN THE ENVIRONS OF UDAIPUR HAD BEEN DESTROYED. The Khan received the title of Bahadur Alamgirshahi…”
Amber (Rajasthan)
“… Abu Turab, who had been SENT TO DEMOLISH THE TEMPLES of AMBER, returned to the Court on Tuesday August 10th (Rajab 24th), and reported that HE HAD PULLED DOWN SIXTY-SIX TEMPLES. …”
Bijapur (Karnataka)
” … Hamiduddin Khan Bahadur WHO HAD GONE TO DEMOLISH A TEMPLE AND BUILD A MOSQUE (IN ITS PLACE) in Bijapur, having excellently carried his orders, came to court and gained praise and the post of darogha of gusulkhanah, which brought him near the Emperor’s person…”
General Text
“…LARGE NUMBERS OF PLACES OF WORSHIP OF THE INFIDELS AND GREAT TEMPLES OF THESE WICKED PEOPLE HAVE BEEN THROWN DOWN AND DESOLATED. Men who can see only the outside of things are filled with wonder at the successful accomplishment of such a seemingly difficult task. AND ON THE SITES OF THE TEMPLES LOFTY MOSQUES HAVE BEEN BUILT…”
4. “Akhbarat”
These were reports from different provinces compiled in the reign of Aurangzeb.
Excerpts:
Muhiyu’d-Din Muhammad Aurangzeb ‘Alamgir Padshah Ghazi (1658-1707)
Mathura (Uttar Pradesh)
” … The emporer learning that in the temple of Keshav Rai at Mathura there was a stone railing presented by Dara Shikoh, remarked, ‘In the Muslim faith it is a sin even to look at a temple, and this Dara Shikoh had restored a railing in a temple. This fact is not creditable to the Muhammadans. REMOVE THE RAILING.’ By his order Abdun Nabi Khan (the faujdar of Mathura) REMOVED IT…”
Ujjain (Madhya Pradesh)
” … News came from Malwa that Wazir Khan had sent Gada Beg, a slave, with 400 troopers, TO DESTROY ALL TEMPLES AROUND UJJAIN… A Rawat of the place resisted and slew Gada Beg with 121 of his men…”
Aurangabad (Maharashtra)
“…… The Emperor learnt from a secret news writer of Delhi that in Jaisinghpura Bairagis used to worship idols, and that the Censor on hearing of it had gone there, arrested Sri Krishna Bairagis and taken him with 15 idols away to his house; then the Rajputs had assembled, flocked to the Censor’s house, wounded three footmen of the Censor and tried to seize the Censor himself; so that the latter set the Bairagis free and sent the copper idols to the local subahdar …”
Pandharpur (Maharashtra)
“… The Emperor, summoning Muhammad Khalil and Khidmat Rai, the darogha of hatchet-men …. ORDERED THEM TO DEMOLISH THE TEMPLE OF PANDHARPUR, and to take the butchers of the camp there AND SLAUGHTER COWS IN THE TEMPLE … It was done…”
On Way to the Deccan
” … When the war with the Rajputs was over, Aurangzeb decided to leave for the Deccan. His march seems to have been marked with A DESTRUCTION TO MANY TEMPLES on the way. On May 21, 1681, the superintendent of the labourers WAS ORDERED TO DESTROY ALL THE TEMPLES on the route…”
Lakheri ( ? – means the place is not traceable today )
” … On 27 Sept., 1681, the emperor issued orders FOR THE DESTRUCTION OF THE TEMPLES at Lakheri…”
Rasulpur ( ? )
“… About this time, April 14, 1692, orders were issued to the provincial governor and the district faujdar TO DEMOLISH THE TEMPLES at Rasulpur…”
Sheogaon ( ? )
” … Sankar, a messenger, was sent TO DEMOLISH A TEMPLE near Sheogaon..”
Ajmer (Rajasthan)
“… Bijai Singh and several other Hindus were reported to be carrying on public worship of idols in a temple in the neighborhood of Ajmer. On 23 June, 1694, THE GOVERNER OF AJMER WAS ORDERED TO DESTROY THE TEMPLE and stop the public adoration of idol worship there…”
Wakenkhera ( ? )
” … The TEMPLE OF WAKENKHERA IN THE FORT WAS DEMOLISHED ON 2 MARCH, 1705. …”
Bhagwant Garh (Rajasthan)
“… The newswriter of Ranthambore REPORTED THE DESTRUCTION OF A TEMPLE IN PARGANAH BHAGWANT GARH. Gaj Singh Gor had repaired the temple and made some additions thereto…”
Malpura (Rajasthan)
” … Royal orders FOR THE DESTRUCTION OF TEMPLES IN MALPURA TODA were received and the officers were assigned for this work…”
5. “Fathiyya-i-’Ibriyya”
This is a diary of Mir Jumla’s campaigns in Kuch Bihar and Assam. “By looting,” writes Jadunath Sarkar, “the temples of the South and hunting out buried treasures, Mir Jumla amassed a vast fortune. The huge Hindu idols of copper were brought away in large numbers to be melted and cast into cannon. …”
Excerpts:
Muhiyu’d-Din Muhammad Aurangzeb ‘Alamgir Padshah Ghazi (AD 1658-1707)
Koch Bihar (Bengal)
” … Mir Jumla made his way into Kuch Bihar by an obscure and neglected highway. …. In six days the Mughal Army reached the capital (19th December) which had been deserted by the Rajah and his people in terror. The name of the town was changed to Alamgirnagar; the muslim call to prayer, so long forbidden in the city, was chanted from the lofty roof of the palace, and a mosque was built by DEMOLISHING THE PRINCIPLE TEMPLE…”
6. “Kalimat-i-Tayyibat” by ‘Inayatullah
This is a collection of letters and orders of Aurangzeb compiled by ‘Inayatullah in AD 1719 and covers the years 1699-1704 of Aurangzeb’s reign.
Muhiyu’d-Din Muhammad Aurangzeb ‘Alamgir Padshah Ghazi (AD 1658-1707)
Somnath (Gujarat)
“… The TEMPLE OF SOMNATH WAS DEMOLISHED early in my reign and idol worship (there) put down. It is not known what the state of things there is at present. If the idolators have again taken to the worship of images at the place, THEN DESTROY THE TEMPLE IN SUCH A WAY THAT NO TRACE OF THE BUILDING MAY BE LEFT, and also expel them (the worshippers) from the place. …”
Satara (Maharashtra)
“… The village of Sattara near Aurangabad was my hunting ground. Here on the top of the hill, STOOD A TEMPLE WITH AN IMAGE OF KHANDE RAI. BY GOD’S GRACE I DEMOLISHED IT, AND FORBADE THE TEMPLE DANCERS (muralis) to ply their shameful profession…”
General Observation “… THE DEMOLITION OF A TEMPLE IS POSSIBLE AT ANY TIME, as it cannot walk away from its place. …”
Sirhind (Punjab)
“… In a small village in the sarkar of Sirhind, A SIKH TEMPLE WAS DEMOLISHED AND CONVERTED INTO A MOSQUE. An imam was appointed who was subsequently killed. …”
7. “Ganj-i-Arshadi”
It is a contemporary account of the destruction of Hindu temples at Varanasi in the reign of Aurangzeb.
Excerpts:
Muhiyu’d-Din Muhammad Aurangzeb ‘Alamgir Padshah Ghazi (AD 1658-1707)
Varanasi (Uttar Pradesh)
“… The infidels demolished a mosque that was under construction and wounded the artisans. When the news reached Shah Yasin, he came to Banaras from Mandyawa and collecting the Muslim weavers, DEMOLISHED THE BIG TEMPLE. A Sayyid who was an artisan by profession agreed with one Abdul Rasul to build a mosque at Banaras and accordingly the foundation was laid. Near the place there was a temple and many houses belonging to it were in the occupation of the Rajputs. The infidels decided that the construction of a mosque in the locality was not proper and that it should be razed to the ground. At night the walls of the mosque were found demolished. next day the wall was rebuilt but it was again destroyed. This happened three or four times. At last the Sayyid his himself in the corner. With the advent of night the infidels came to achieve their nefarious purpose. When Abdul Rasul gave the alarm, the infidels began to fight and the Sayyid was wounded by the Rajputs. In the meantime, the Musalman residents of the neighborhood arrived at the spot and the infidels took to their heels. The wounded muslims were taken to Shah Yasin who determined to vindicate the cause of Islam. When he came to the mosque, people collected from the neighborhood. the civil officers were outwardly inclined to side with the saint, but in reality they were afraid of the Royal displeasure on the account of the Raja, who was a courtier of the Emperor and had built the temple (near which the mosque was under construction). Shah Yasin, however, took up the sword and started for Jihad. The civil officers sent him a message that such a grave step should not be taken without the Emperor’s permission. Shah Yasin, paying no heed, sallied forth till he reached Bazar Chau Khamba through a fusillade of stones …… THE DOORS (OF TEMPLES) WERE FORCED OPEN AND THE IDOLS THROWN DOWN. THE WEAVERS AND OTHER MUSALMANS DEMOLISHED ABOUT 500 TEMPLES. They desired to destroy the temple of Beni Madho, but as lanes were barricaded, they desisted from going further….”
8. “Kalimat-i-Aurangzeb” by ‘Inayatullah
This is another compilation of letters and orders by ‘Inayatu’llah covering the years 1703-06 of Aurangzeb’s reign.
Muhiyu’d-Din Muhammad Aurangzeb ‘Alamgir Padshah Ghazi (AD 1658-1707) Maharashtra
“…The houses of this country (Maharashtra) are exceedingly strong and built solely of stone and iron. The hatchet-men of the Govt. in the course of my marching do not get sufficient strength and power (i.e. time) TO DESTROY AND RAZE THE TEMPLES OF THE INFIDELS that meet the eye on the way. You should appoint an orthodox inspector (darogha) who may afterwards DESTROY THEM AT LEISURE AND DIG UP THEIR FOUNDATIONS…”
9. “Muraq’at-i-Abu’I Hasan” by Maulana Abu’l Hasan
This is a collection of records and documents compiled by (the above named author) one of Aurangzeb’s officers in Bengal and Orissa during AD 1655-67.
Excerpts:
Muhiyu’d-Din Muhammad Aurangzeb ‘Alamgir Padshah Ghazi (AD 1658-1707)
Bengal and Orissa
“…Order issued on all faujdars of thanas, civil officers (mutasaddis), agents of jagirdars, kroris, and amlas from Katak to Medinipur on the frontier of Orissa :- The imperial paymaster Asad Khan has sent a letter written by order of the Emperor, to say, that the Emperor learning from the newsletters of the province of Orissa that at the village of Tilkuti in Medinipur a temple has been (newly) built, HAS ISSUED HIS AUGUST MANDATE FOR ITS DESTRUCTION, and THE DESTRUCTION OF ALL TEMPLES BUILT ANYWHERE IN THIS PROVINCE BY THE WORTHLESS INFIDELS. Therefore, you are commanded with extreme urgency that immediately on the receipt of this letter YOU SHOULD DESTROY THE ABOVE MENTIONED TEMPLES. EVERY IDOL-HOUSE BUILT DURING THE LAST 10 or 12 YEARS, WHETHER WITH BRICK OR CLAY, SHOULD BE DEMOLISHED WITHOUT DELAY. ALSO, DO NOT ALLOW THE CRUSHED HINDUS AND DESPICABLE INFIDELS TO REPAIR THEIR OLD TEMPLES. REPORTS OF THE DESTRUCTION OF TEMPLES SHOULD BE SENT TO THE COURT UNDER THE SEAL OF THE QAZIS and attested by PIOUS SHAIKHS…”
10. “Futuhat-i-Alamgiri” by Ishwardas Nagar
The author was a Brahman from Gujarat, born around AD 1654. Till the age of thirty he was in the service of the Chief Qazi of the empire under Aurangzeb. Later on, he took up a post under Shujat Khan, the governor of Gujarat, who appointed him Amin in the pargana of Jodhpur. His history covers almost half a century of Aurangzeb’s reign, from 1657 to 1700. There is nothing in his style which may mark him out as a Hindu.
Excerpts:
Muhiyu’d-Din Muhammad Aurangzeb ‘Alamgir Padshah Ghazi (AD 1658-1707)
Mathura (Uttar Pradesh)
” … When the imperial army was encamping at Mathura, a holy city of the Hindus, the state of affairs with regard to temples of Mathura was brought to the notice of His Majesty. Thus, HE ORDERED THE FAUJDAR OF THE CITY, ABDUL NABI KHAN, TO RAZE TO THE GROUND EVERY TEMPLE AND TO CONSTRUCT BIG MOSQUES (over their demolished sites)…”
Udaipur (Rajasthan)
“… The Emperor, within a short time, reached Udaipur AND DESTROYED THE GATE OF DEHBARI, THE PALACES OF RANA AND THE TEMPLES OF UDAIPUR. Apart from it, the trees of his gardens were also destroyed…”
Bibliography
1. Ahmad, Qeyamuddin (ed.), “Patna through the Ages”, New Delhi, 1988.
2. “Alberuni’s India”, translated by E.C. Sachau, New Delhi Reprint, 1983.
3. Attar, Shykh Faridu’d-Din, “Tadhkirat al-Awliya”, translated into Urdu by Maulana Z.A. Usmani.
4. Bloch J., “Indian Studies”, London, 1931.
5. Chuvin, Pierre, “A Chronicle of the Last Pagans”, Harvard, 1990.
6. Durrant, Will, “The Story of Civilization”, New York, 1972.
7. Elliot and Dowson, “History of India as told by its own Historians”, 8 volumes, Allahbad Reprint, 1964.
8. “First Encyclopedia of Islam”
9. “Futuhat-i-Alamgiri” by Ishwardas Nagar, trans. into English by Tasneem Ahmad, Delhi, 1978.
10. Growse, F.S. “Mathura: A District Memoir”, Reprint, Ahmedabad, 1978.
11. Hosain, Saiyid Safdar, ” The Early History of Islam,” Vol. I, Delhi Reprint, 1985.
12. “Jami Tirmizi,” Arabic text with Urdu translation by Badi’al-Zaman, Vol. I, New Delhi, 1983.
13. “Kitab Futuh Al-Buldan” of Al-Biladhuri, translated into English by F.C. Murgotte, New York, 1924.
14. “Maasir-i-Alamgiri” of Saqi Must’ad Khan, translated into English and annotated by Sir Jadunath Sarkar, Calcutta, 1947.
15. “Makke Madine di Goshati”, edited by Dr. Kulwant Singh, Patiala, 1988.
16. “The Rehala of Ibn Battuta,” translated into English by Mahdi Hussain, Baroda, 1976.
17. Sarkar, Jadunath, “History of Aurangzeb,” 3 Volumes, Calcutta, 1972, 73.