Author: KR Phanda
Publication: The Pioneer
Date: February 16, 2006
In his article, "Why blame Abu Salem?"
(16, January), Jamal Ansari questions Hindus about their faith in the sanctity
of Ayodhya, thus: "How can the site of an outrageous offence be called
a place of worship or pilgrimage? Can any religion put such a premium on fraud,
deceit and brute force?"
So, the destruction of religious places of
non-Muslims by Muslims is a sacred act whereas the retrieval of those very
places by non-Muslims amounts to fraud and deceit! Such commentators must
note what is sacred to Hindus is entirely the concern of the Hindus and Hindus
alone.
Professor Alfred Guillaume, renowned scholar
of Islam, said, "Idolaters whose very existence was an insult to the
one true God would have to accept Islam or the sword; other monotheists would
have to acknowledge their inferiority by paying a special tax. This became
the established principle of Islam during the few years of Prophet's life
at Medina" (Islam, p 40).
In India, Muslim chroniclers took special
pride in describing the destruction of the Hindu religious places. This is
what historian Professor Muhammad Nazim writes, "The destruction of the
temple of Somnath was looked upon as the crowning glory of Islam over idolatory,
and Sultan Mahmud as the champion of the Faith, received the applause of all
in the Muslim world. One poet outdid another in extolling the iconoclasm of
Mahmud" (The Life and Times of Sultan Mahmud of Ghazna).
During 1954-'55, Professor Arnold Toynbee
in his Azad Memorial Lecture said that during the first Russian occupation
of Warsaw (1814-1915), the Russians had built an Eastern Orthodox Christian
Cathedral in the city which was once an independent Roman Catholic country,
Poland. The Russians had done this to give the Poles a continuous occular
demonstration that the Russians were now their masters. But as soon as the
Poles regained their independence, they pulled this Cathedral down.
On seeing the mosques that overlook the ghats
at Benaras and the one that crowns the Krishna hill at Mathura, Professor
Toynbee felt that "Aurangzeb's purpose in building those three mosques
was the same intentionally offensive political purpose that moved the Russians
to build their Orthodox Cathedral in the city centre at Warsaw - these three
mosques were intended to signify that an Islamic Government was reigning supreme,
even over Hindustan's holiest of holy places" (Azad Memorial Lectures,
Government of India, Delhi, p 60). These mosques are standing symbols of Hindu
humiliation. No self-respecting nation would have allowed them to stay on
so long as India has done.
As for the Hindutva's posing a "serious
threat to the unity and integrity of the nation", where was such concern
when the Muslims led by those in Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and Bombay Provinces
overwhelmingly voted in the 1945-'46 election for the creation of Pakistan?
The creation of Pakistan on religious basis and the ethnic cleansing of Hindus
and Sikhs thereafter are testimonies to the fact that Muslims believe in separatism
alone.
Further, the Muslim iconoclasm has not ended
yet. Only a few years ago, Bamiyan Buddhas were destroyed in Afghanistan.
Temples in India have been attacked by Muslim terrorists. In case Muslims
of India are not happy to stay on in India, they are welcome to go to the
Darul Islam which they forcibly created in 1947.
