[Prev][Next][Index]
Ayodhya debate on SCI, 6
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Sat, 25 Feb 1995 16:06:09 EST
From: Dinesh Agrawal <DXA4@psuvm.psu.edu>
Message-ID: <95056.160609DXA4@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian
Subject: Re: Ayodhys Temple/Mosque dispute 1
References: <95050.182132DXA4@psuvm.psu.edu> <3if31q$852@nntp.Stanford.EDU>
<95054.104600DXA4@psuvm.psu.edu> <3ikb0f$pnu@nntp.Stanford.EDU>
In article <3ikb0f$pnu@nntp.Stanford.EDU>, farooq@chemeng.Stanford.EDU (Farooq)
says:
Mr Farooq, you have nothing worthwhile or sensible to offer in this debate
except indulging in Shahabuddin-menia, which you yourself have held mainly
responsible for causing tremendous harm to the community and called him even a
stupid man. Most of your comments do not even deserve any attention. They are
just product of a rambling and confused state of mind. However, I would like to
comment only to the following couple of points.
>In article <95054.104600DXA4@psuvm.psu.edu> Dinesh Agrawal
><DXA4@psuvm.psu.edu>
>writes:
>
>>Thanks for telling us that somnath temple was destroyed. Please also inform
>us
>>how it was destroyed, and why, and what provoked the person to perform such a
>>holy and religious duty? And how many times this pious believer had made such
>>religious expeditions to destroy Somnath. And what did he do with the idols,
>>he had taken with him home? And also please tell how the fatwas-e-alamagir
>>fits in this particular example?
>
>It was Mahmud of Ghaznavi's need for money, the longstanding practice
>of storing immense wealth in the temples, a lot of infighting among
>the hindus (basically the local politics of the time) that culminated
>in the destruction of Somnath. Of course a man like mahmud had little
>regard for the religious fatwas.
That shows how much you know about the history and as well as about your own
religion. Here, I do not know whether you are trying to misrepresent the
Islam as it was born and expanded through out the lands of infidels or trying
to portray a hero of Islam (in Mahmood gazni's country and home town if you
call him a lootera and a vandal, you might be prosecuted for blasphemy) as a
mere plunderer and bandit. This is a typical perverted interpretation and
whitewashing of the history which was actually started by Marxist Professor of
Aligarh Muslim University in 1924 Mr Mohammed Habib who had presented the
thesis that Mahmud Gazni's destruction of Hindu temples was actuated not by
zeal for the faith or driven by Quaranic injunctions, but by "lust and plunder"
If that is true then how come this plunderer and looter has not been portrayed
by Islamic chroniclers and Arab world as such. He is regarded as the great
hero of Islamic conquests and a true believer in Quaran, who had faithfully
carried out the same message and in the same manner as all his predecessors and
the Prophet himself did. Here below are some excerpts from the diary of
Mahmud's secretary and Muslim historians of medieval period, which will prove
my point of view and demonstarte how perverted and contrived the opinions of
Mr Farooq are:
When Mahmud Ghaznavi in 1011 AD plundered Thaneshwar and destroyed many temples
killed thousands of innocent people, broke large number of idols, his secretary
Utbi writes in Tarikh-i-Yamini, "The blood of the infidels flowed so copiously
that the stream was discoloured, notwithstanding its purity, and people, were
unable to drink it. The Sultan returned with plunder which is imossible to
count. Praise he to Allah for the honour he bestows on Islam and Muslims."
In 1013 AD Mahmud again took his 'looting' expedition to India, this is what
Utbi records, "The Sultan returns with immense booty, and slaves were so
plentiful that they became very cheap and men of respectibility in their native
land were degraded by becoming slaves of common shopkeepers. But this is the
goodness of Allah who bestows honour on his religion and degrades infidility."
Mahmud's these expeditions to India continued now to the heartland, in 1018 AD,
after the destruction of thousands of temples in Mathura and looting, Utbi
records, "The infidels..desreted the fort and tried to cross the foaming river.
..but many of them were killed, taken or drwoned...Nearly fifty thousand men
were killed. The Sultan gave orders that all the temples should be burnt with
Naptha and fire, and levelled with the ground."
How come Mr Farooq, he was not just content with his looting of the temples,
why did he have to burn and destroy them too, if he was only looking for money
to help his subject back home???? Ordinary thieves and bandits do not just
go and start killing people and destrying their places of worship even if
these places stored riches.
Next he writes, "The Muslims paid no regard to the booty till they had satiated
themselves with the slaughter of the infidels and worshippers of sun and fire."
Such narrations of this 'looter'or a 'hero' of Islam have been provided by his
secretrary in gruesome details. The details about the destruction of Somnath
temple are legion, only the following paragraph would suffice to indicate the
final act, does this act look like that a person who is interested only in
bounty and gold, would do this to the idols of another communty?
"He was endowed with great virtues and vast abilities; and the same predominant
star was in the ascendent at his birth as appeared at the dawn of Islam itself.
When Sultan Mahmud ascended the throne of sovereignty, his illustrious deeds
became manifest unto all mankind within the pale of Islam when he converted
so many thousands of idol temples into masjids...He led an army to Nahrwalah
of Gujarat, and brought away Manat, the idol, from Somnath, and had it broken
into four parts, one of which was cast before the entrance of the great Masjid
at Ghaznin, the second before the gateway of the Sultan's palace, and the
third and fourth were sent to Makkah and Madinah respectively." (Tabqat-i-
Nasari written by Maulana Minhaj-us-Siraj in 13th century,, translated into
English by major HG Reverty, 1970 Vol I pp. 81-82)
This not only summarises the theology of Islam vis-a-vis idols and idol-temples
but also proves the point which I made in the beginnig that Mahmud of Ganzni
was no different from any other Islamic invador who most mercilessly killed
infidels, destroyed their shrines, converted them, and bulit mosques on the
sites of the destroyed temples. No matter how much the apologists of Islam and
Marxist historians try to whitewash this barbarism, the truth will assert
itself. And hiding, negation or whitewashing will never help to either foster
communal harmony or solve any existing hang-over problem of the past. We have
to face the truth and try to make amends so that such incidents do not recur.
Otherwise, as the saying goes those who do not learn from the history are
condemned to relive it.
>>Mr Farooq, you have been demanding ad nauseam 'evidence' from Hindus about
>the
>>destruction of a temple, now for a change, please give us any evidence where
>i
>>is proved that the mosque was built on an 'abondoned site'. Is there any
>>testimony from any source, British, Muslim, foreign visitors, government
>>records, where it shows equivocally that the mosque was built on an empty
>land
>>or that the owner of the plot had willingly sold it to Muslim rulers for the
>>construction of the Babri mosque?? And please remember that this evidence
>must
>>be the 'evidence' and not the kind of 'non-evidence' which you claim Hindus e
>ar
>>providing in support of their claims. And stop making such chilidish claims
>of
>>Shahabuddin type that 'probably the mosque was built on an abandoned site'.
>>
>
>Convenient, when you cannot show something, shift the burden of proof! Mr.
>Agrawal, I really expected you to do better, like quote stuff from the
>diaries of French travellers!
Is that all you have to say? Have you seen part 2 and 3 of my response? How
about quoting from any diaries (French, English, Arabic, etc.) to prove that
Babri masjid was built on an empty and abadoned piece of land, which was not
held sacred by Hindus, and no temple was destroyed there. I have quoted all
this stuff in my part 2 and 3 of the response. If you do not have
evidence say so, otherwise stop participating in this debate as the Babri
leaders did when they were shown the evidence of the destruction of the
Hindu temple and building of the mosque with its debris.
>Mr. Agrawal, really, even the historical evidence for the existance of
>Rama is not available, and you insist on knowing his exact birthplace!
See, you are exactly following Shahabuddin type argumentation, and at the same
time holding him responsible for messing up the situation and calling him a
joker. What should I call you now? Is there any historical evidence that the
Kabba in Mecca was built by Abraham, a person who was supposed to exist
3000 BC. Now is there any historical evidence of this. There are people who
say that it is a Shiva temple. So who is right? is there any historical
evidence? Now you will say that it is a matter of faith , and has nothing to
do with Hindus or non-Muslims, well the same thing applies to the faith of
non-Muslims too. And for your information, it is not I who is insisting to know
the exact birthplace of Rama, it is people like you who are insisting on it.
And it is none of your business.
>Whether Rama existed or not nis beyond the scope of this discussion, what
Then why are you raising this question repeatedly?
>is important is that people believe that Rama (if he existed) was born in
>Ayodhya, and there are many competing sites for this. You insist that
>this was the very site where the Babri masjid was built, but that is an
>element of your belief, please dont shove it down our throats.
I am not. It does not matter whether you accept that the site where the disput-
ed structure stood was the birthplace of Rama or not. What matters that
millions of Hindus do believe that the site is the birthplace of Rama, and
it is a matter of faith as well as tradition. This I have shown you not only
from Hindu sources but even from Islamic and European sources. Now it is upto
those people who want a mosque to be rebuilt at this exact site, to demonstrate
whether they have any respect for the faith of Hindus. If they do, all is well
otherwise the problem and tension will persist.
Dinesh Agrawal...
