Secularists do not want to acknowledge the mayhem caused by Muslim rulers to Hindus and their temples. They always bring in examples of Hindu rulers destroying temples forgetting that no Hindu ruler has ever destroyed the images in the temples. They forget that the real issue is how Muslim rulers have treated Hindus and destroyed the images in the temples.
I have given below some true historic cases of Muslim rulers mistreating Hindus and their temples and images. Here is an example of what Muslim historians said about Alauddin Khilji's rule
Besides this system of espionage among the Moslems, great and small, the Sultan devised special measures against his Hindu subjects. The Hindu was to be so reduced as 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. He 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 twenty 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 Moslem families. Revenue officers came to be regarded as more deadly than the plague; and to be a government clerk was a disgrace worse than death, insomuch that no Hindu would marry his daughter to such a man – a state of affairs that showed their feeling against the power that ruled them. All these new enactments were promulgated without any reference to the legal authorities. Ala-ad-din held that government was one thing and law another, and so long as what he ordered seemed to him good he did not stop to inquire whether it was according to law. One day, however, he saw the learned kadi of Biana at court, and addressing him said he had some questions to ask to which he required truthful replies. “The angel of my fate seems to be at hand,” cried the kadi in alarm, “since your Majesty wishes to question me on matters of religious law.” The Sultan promised not to kill him, and a curious conversation ensued.
Ala-ad-din wished first to know the legal position of Hindus, and the kadi replied: “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 (or spits) into their mouths, they must unreluctantly open their mouths wide to receive it. By doing so they show their respect for the officer. The due submission of the non-Moslems is exhibited in this humble payment and by this throwing of dirt into their mouths. The glorification of Islam is a duty, and contempt of the Religion is vain. God holds them in contempt, for He says ‘keep them under in subjection.’ To keep the Hindus in abasement is especially a religious duty, because they are the most inveterate enemies of the Prophet.”
The Sultan said that he did not understand a word of the learned man’s argument, but he had taken his measures to reduce the pride of the Hindus, and had succeeded in making them so obedient that “at my command they are ready to creep into holes like mice.” “O Doctor,” he went on, “thou art a learned man, but hast no experience of the world. I am an unlettered man, but I have seen a great deal. Be assured then that the Hindus will never become submissive and obedient till they are reduced to poverty. I have therefore given orders that just sufficient shall be left to them from year to year of corn, milk, and curds, but that they shall not be allowed to accumulate hoards of property.”
So far the law and the Sultan were not at variance. When they spoke of the punishment of corrupt revenue officers, there was still not much difference; but when the Sultan touched upon the delicate question of his own claim upon war-booty and upon the public treasury,
History of India edited by Professor A. V. Jackson There is a fascinating exchange of letters between Anundpal (Raja of Delhi) and Sultan Mahmud of Gizhnevy about temple destruction. The question as to why temples were being destroyed by Islamic invaders was asked by Raja of Delhi, Anundpal in the year 1011 ce to the most famous (or infamous) of Islamic invaders Sultan Mahmud of Gizhnevy on the eve of the destruction of the temple of Tahnesur.

No reflections yet. Be the first to share your thoughts!