Why did the Muslims destroy Hindu temples? Part 2
continued from PART I

I think that I have said enough about the nature of Islamic attitude towards idolatory: it is really not iconoclastic i.e. anti-idol, but idolatrous as long as it is only the Prophet Muhammad, his close relations and associates, who are adored under his spiritual hegemony.

The heading of this article is "Idolatory, Islam and India." I have so far discussed the relationship of Islam and idolatory but have not touched upon the Islamic attitude towards India, especially in terms of idol-worship.

As students of history know, the Muslims have always done their worst to destroy the pre-Islamic period of every country where they have been able to spread their tentacles. Even Arabia, the cradle of Islam, is no exception to this rule. It is not easy to trace its pre-Islamic history. However, certain facts can be discovered from the Hadith (sayings and practices of the Prophet) and scholarly writings found in the Encyclopaedia Britannica. Having studied these sources of information, I come to the conclusion that the Prophet Muhammad had developed an unfavourable attitude towards India. It is because he was a national leader, par excellence. His patriotic zeal required of him to destroy the glory of Egypt, Iran, Byzantine and India. The last i.e. India, posed a special problem. Why?

It is because India constituted a real threat to the dreams of Muhammad, who was highly enthused by the love of his people, the Arabs, and wanted to make a great nation of them. He also knew that Moses, before him, had created a magnificent nation of Jews who should perpetuate his name. So the national dream of Muhammad sought to deify himself through the efforts of a great Arab nation to fight for his glory, which should also prove the pivot of Arab nationalism. Having told this story in my book: "Islam, The Arab National Movement," I need not repeat it here but must explain, why India stood in the way of the apostolic designs of Muhammad. The reason was that the Arabian way of life and religion were deeply influenced by the Indian culture and religious attitudes. To make the position clear, I must add that as the Indian sub-continent is dominated by the Islamic way of life today, so was the Arabian peninsular under the Hindu influence at the time of the Prophet's advent. Unless he could successfully strike at the roots of Hinduism, he could not make himself adorable. In a nutshell, he had to destroy the Hindu idols to erect his own.

Is there evidence for this point of view? Of course, there is. Let us start with the following hadith:


Abdullah bin Amr bin Al-As reported: "Allah's
Messenger (may peace be on him) saw me wearing
two clothes dyed in saffron, whereupon he said:
These are the clothes (usually worn by) the non-
believers, so do not wear them."
(Sahih Muslim: 5173)

The next hadith no. 5175 reports this event in a more heated manner:

Seeing Abdullah b. Amr attired in two clothes which had been dyed in saffron, the Prophet said, "Has your mother ordered you to do so?" Abdullah replied: "I will wash them." The Prophet replied: "Burn them."

The Hadith no. 5177 adds that the Prophet forbade reciting the Koran when one wore gold and clothes dyed in saffron!
To understand the built-in prophelic hatred of Hinduism in particular, and India at large, one must realise that colour of the Hindu or Om flag is saffron, which is also called Bhagwa, Gerva and Kesariya. The Om flag also represents the rising sun which not only alludes to the saffron colour but also to the internationally ascendant might of the then India. I have discussed these historical facts in my book: "The Wonders of the Rgveda." Saffron was, in fact, the national colour of India because the Hindu heroes, seers, sages and monks wore clothes dyed in saffron. Moreover, it implied the Hindu tradition of valour, elegance and commitment to noble causes as laid down by the Scriptures: some hymns of the Atharva Veda openly refer to the saffron colour. Therefore, it is not just traditional but also a part of the Hindu religious piety, purity and probity.

From the above quoted hadiths, it is evident that not only the Arab divines but also ordinary people wore yellowish clothes under the Indian influence which the Prophet hated to such an extent that he advocated burning of satfron dresses and forbade the recitation of the Koran when one wore such garments.

One should bear in mind that the Prophet wanted to create a distinct Arab nation dedicated to spreading his greatness. This is the reason that he told his followers to dye their hair and beards red (henna) so that they should look different from the Jews; to wean them from the Hindu tradition, he prescribed green colour for his followers.

The Koran has stated almost all its major tenets ambiguously i.e. relationship between Allah and Prophet, free will and predestination and so on. It equally applies to the Idea of creation and procreation. In this context, one can see the influence of the Gita on the Koran, which states:


"God originates creation, then
brings it back again,
and unto him you shall be returned."
(The Greeks: 10)

The Druzes of Lebanon, a sect of Islam, practise the Hindu doctrine of Samsara ardently even today. This is a continuation of the pre-Islamic tradition which is a remnant of the Hindu influence on the Arab culture.
The Prophet practically obliterated the pre-Islamic history of his people, which makes cultural assessment of Arabia a very hard task, indeed. Yet the modern scholarship has discovered certain religious facts about this country which confirm that it would have been impossible to establish Muhammadanism without destroying Hinduism in Arabia and elsewhere.

The truth is that the Arabs were not only statue-worshippers but their idolatory was founded on the Hindu principle of triad, also known as Trimurti. Since the Prophet wanted to plant his own image in people's mind, it was not possible without aupplanting the Hindu idols, which had considerable appeal owing to their visual effect and the legendary magic, built-up over a period of many centuries. I am certainly not forging history, the hadith (Prophet's sayings and record of his actions) provides cogent evidence to this effect:


"Jabir b. Samura reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: I recognise the stone in Mecca which used to pay me salutations before my advent as a Prophet and I recognise that even now. (Sahih Muslim: 5654)

The hadith confirms three facts:
1. Though the Muslims assert that Muhammad was a prophet even before the creation of Adam, this statement demonstrates that it is not so, and is borne out by "before my advent as a Prophet." Again, it is historically known that he claimed to have received his first revelation when he was forty. It is.at this point of life that the Prophet started preaching Islam. Obviously, it could not have been his religion earlier. If it were, he would have started disseminating its fundamentals from his cradle. What was then his religion previously? This hadith also answers this question:

2. "Stone in Mecca" cannot be anything but the Black Stone (Hajr-E-Aswad) at Kaaba, the main temple of Mecca, which also housed many other statues. The words: "used to pay me salutations" clearly show that the Prophet Muhammad was a fairly regular visitor to the temple before becoming the founder of Islam. I hardly need say why people go to the temples.

The Black Stone, as I shall discuss shortly, is an unshaped idol which still adorns the Kaaba and forms a prominent part of the Islamic rituals. The Prophet claims that this statue used to salute him. Since salutation is a form of worship, Muhammad was inspired by idolatory at Kaaba to be worshipped like an idol. Therefore, it was necessary for him to replace other idols with his own person to perpetuate Muhammadanism. He picked on Hinduisnn because it was the source of the Arab idolatory. Am I making it up? Not at all. Here is the evidence drawn from the most reliable source i.e. Encyclopaedia Britannica:

Though there is no mention of idolatory in the Rgveda, the principle of triad or trimurti is clearly stated therein:


"I laud the seven-rayed, the triple-headed
Agni all perfect...." (R.V.1: CXLVI: 1)

Triad or Trimurti is the fundamental principle of Hinduism. It means three-in-one i.e., the reality has three faces yet in essence it is one. For example, the most sacred Sanskrit word: ''Om" represents the triad of Vishnu, Brahma and Shiva as well as the Hindu belief in three universes, and so on.
Description of the god Agni as having three faces is the basis of the three-headed Shiva, who has been depicted as such on some seals found in the Indus Valley. It should be borne in mind that Shiva is a Vedic god, known as Rudra. He has been mentioned so often in the Rgveda that it is hard to call him a minor deity. Though there is no mention of image- worship in the Rgveda, the Shivite traditions represent the tampered form of the Vedic doctrines the same way as non- violence has become the basic principle of the modern Hinduism though the Vedas and Gita prescribe fighting for a righteous cause and declare it the greatest honour for a true Hindu. Dasa and Dasyus, the epithets of contempt, were invented for these dissenters, who were every bit as Aryan as anyone else. It shows that the Rgveda is older than the Indus Valley Civilisation, and this fact is also supported by the archaelogical excavations which have taken place in the areas close to Rawalpindi (Pakistan) during recent years. It demonstrates the antiquity of the Indian civilisation. The idolatrous principle associated with the three-faced Shiva became a fundamental doctrine of the Arab religion and culture as triad in the same way as it is known in India the triad of Vishnu-Brahma and Shiva. One has only to look at the Arab history to realise this fact:

Despite their lofty claims of antiquity, the word "Arabs" does not appear in historical sources until the middle of the First millenium B.C. The Arabian peninsula had received cultural inspiration from the Indus Valley many centuries earlier, but its religious influence increased dramatically when changes took place in the Greco-Roman trade routes to India during the first century B.C. The southern Arabia i.e. Yemen had experienced the Indian faith for a long time, but then its cultural effect shifted northward to the Hejaz, land of the Prophet Muhammad.

In the south Arabian kingdom, the principle of Triad or Trimurti was practised extensively. For example, they had a triad of astral deities representing the moon god, the sun goddess and the Venus god. The chief deity of this triad was the moon god, who protected the principal cities. However, it ought to be mentioned that the god EL, the Allah of Mecca was not well known in the south. A triad of gods was also found in Palmyra; it consisted of Bel, Yarhibol, a solar deity, and Aglibol; a lunar deity. Belshamini (Lord of the Heavens) also stood in a triadic relationship with the god Malakbel and Aglibol.

This triadic principle travelled from the south to Mecca. The Koran itself describes the three daughters of Allah, namely, ar-Lat, al-Uzza and Manat. It is worth mentioning that al- Lat in Palmyra was equated with the Greek goddess of Athena; al-Uzza was a goddess of the Nabataeans whereas Manat (Fate) was associated with Ihe Greek Nemesis at Palmyra.

It is absolutely misleading to say that Islam is free from idolatory. They have an idol in the central Islamic shrine of Kaaba which marks the climax of hajj because the faithful have to kiss it individually. This is the Black Stone known as Hajr-E-Aswad, and according to Ibn al-Kalbi, is a continuation of the Square Stone which was central to the cult of al-Lat at at-Taif. Suidas, a Greek compiler of encyclopaedia of C.A.D 1000 states that the Dhu-Shara at Petra had a similar Black Stone on a gold base.

The Muslims say that when Allah expelled Adam from paradise, He gave Adam the Black Stone which is now built into the eastern wall of the Kaaba and consists of three large pieces and some fragments, surrounded by a stone ring and held together by a silver band. It was carried away by members of the Qarmatian sects in 930. However, the above evidence shows that the other Arab temples had similar black stones; God would not have given Adam that many black stones to carry. What was then, the reality behind a black stone in the Arab culture?

"A principal sacred object in Arabian religion was the stone, either a rock outcropping or a large boulder, often a rectangular or black basaltic stone without representative sculptural details." Such stones were considered suitable material of worship to form part of the house of a god i.e. temple. This is the reason that the Christian writers of Byzantine during the 5th and 6th centuries called such a stone Baetyl, which is derived from Bet'EI (House of the god).

Shape or no shape, a stone which is an object of worship, is an idol. Moses forbade images of any kind but Muhammad allowed to continue the worship of the Black Stone in the Kaaba to make it the most sacred shrine of Islam for national reasons. The idea was, if Arabia, lost its political dignity, even then the Muslim nations must bow before it. God lives everywhere in the world but the genius af Muhammad seems to have permanently housed Him in Mecca for the benefit of his own people, the Arabs.

One should also realise that an annual pilgrimage was a principle celebration of the pre-Islamic Arabs. All tribes having the sarne god were required to gather at his sanctuary and go around the baetyl in a cermonial procession. The Prophet also retained this pre-Islamic rite to benefit his nation financially. What relationship can have this pagan ceremony with the true God?

The faithful usually forget that the Prophet was the founder of the Arab Empire; it could not be built without structuring a really strong nation which could batter, blast and bewilder the powers of the time such as Iran and Byzantine. As other nations sought strength from their gods through crying, cringing and crawling, the Prophet wanted his people to sigh, solicit and supplicate him for inspiration, might and victory. For this reason, he aspired to become an idol himself, the object of adoration and worship. Adroitly, he projected Allah as the God but became the driving force behind Him on the Indian principle, which holds that there is a deity behind every physical pehnomenon. However, he could achieve this ambition by destroying other idols only. As long as they existed, his chances of becoming the object of worship were minimal. Since India was the home of idolatory, the Muslim warriors made this land the target of their ambitions.

Human culture is not based on uniformity but multiety. It is because man is endowed with free will. Without free choice humans cease to be human. Therefore, Allah, if He is the real God, cannot order murder of those who do not believe in him. In the case af India, it is even more absurd because the Hindus had developed the concept of Prajapati, the Lord of Creatures; He was more monotheistic than the Arabian Allah whose divinity is shared by the Prophet, his descendants and companions. His oneness is theoretical only. Therefore, the Muslims had no quarrel with India on account of a Universal God. Their dispute centred around Muhammad who declared that faith without believing in him along with Allah, was useless.

The true God is the champion of virtue, but the God, who sanctions murder, rape, arson, slavery to make people acknowledge Him, falls far short of the standard of righteousness. He is not only extremely selfish but also impotent; if He is the Almighty Creator, He could have surely created a believing and obedient man. Again, what kind of God is He whose own satisfaction depends upon man's acknowledgement? When man accepts Allah, He feels glad but when he rejects Allah, He becomes sad. This concept of Godhead is nothing but the gross contempt of Allah. The Muslims must realise that they do not adore Allah but deplore Him.

Finally, religion is the search for peace of mind and moral perfection. Making innocent children orphans, and turning happily married women into widows, cannot be the command of God. Seeking suzerainty over other people for usurping their freedom is no part of righteousness, but the religion that the Prophet Muhammad invented, expressly sought dominance over non-believers. The Koran repeatedly says:


"He (Allah) it is who hath sent His messenger with
the guidance and the Religion of Truth, that He may
cause it to prevail over all religions, however much
the idolators may dislike." (Repentance: 33)

To establish a pe-manent excuse for fighting non- believers, the Prophet abrogated all other religions by declaring them, as false (Sahih Muslim, chapter: LXXI) and then announced a permanent state of war against them until they were completely uprooted (Sahih Muslim no. 31, 32 and 33). The whole purpose of acquiring dominance through carnage is that the Prophet should have the largest following. (Sahih Muslim no. 381)
This search for followers to satisfy the Prophetic urge of dominance brought the Muslims to India, the home of polytheism.

A serious search for the roots of polytheism not only leads to India but also to the Indian glory whose radiance has been tarnished by the dark clouds of history for a very long time, indeed. I am not trying to be a misguided patriot who treats fiction as a fact to mollify the painful national scars inflicted by the caprices of history but a sober student of this subject, who is satisfied with establishing the truth irrespective of its palatability.

The Hindu aversion to writing, especially the reluctance to keeping historical records, is the main cause of the Hindus lacking pride in their traditions; it has heavily contributed to the lowering of national aspirations and standards of honour. However, the truth cannot be held back indefinitely. It is like the sunlight which eventually breaks through the barriers of a dark eclipse. Until some fifty years ago, we were told that the Hindus had been so primitive in their ways that they never left the Indian soil. Thanks to the modern technical advancement, which revealed that the Hindus held a political sway over the Malay Peninsula, Sumatra, Java, Bali, Borneo, Champa (Annam), Cambodia, Burma, Siam and Indo-China. The political hegemony of India over these lands extended for about a 1000 years, while her cultural influence over all the Far Eastern countries survives even today.

Yet, it is only a part of the Indian glory. This picture becomes more vivid when we study the European civilisation with reference to paganism. Then, one can see that once European countries were dominated by the Vedic culture, which is a peculiarity of India, and clearly shows that the Aryans were the people of Indian origin, and not the other way round, as we have been led to believe by historians. If this were not true, one could not find the Europeans observing Asvamedha i.e., the horse-sacrifice, closely associated with the Vedas. On a 5,000 year old Harappan seal, we find an ithyphallic figure seated in a yogic position, which is the prototype of Shiva, also known as Pasupati, Lord of Beasts. We also notice this figure (Shiva as Pasupati) on the interior of the cauldron, which is in the Danish National Museum, Copenhagen, and belongs to the 2nd century. Shiva, a Vedic god, would not have reached the Western lands without the Hindus themselves. That the Europeans took their polytheistic faith from India is proved by the triadic principle of representing godhead as discussed earlier. Having dealt with this issue fully in my unpublished work, "The Wonders of The Rgveda," I need not go into detail here hut ought to point out that even today there are thirty images of a three-headed god extant on the European Continent. That is the mighty Shiva of India.

By comparing the Greek mythology with that of India, we realise that Zeus, the Chief God of Greece, is none other than Indra, the Chief God of India. There is abundant evidence which demonstrates that the Greco-Roman polytheism is firmly rooted in the Indian doctrine of idol- worship. The Christian writers refer to it as paganism or heathenism.

As Islam challenged idolatory in India, Christianity declared war on it in the West. However, the two tales have different endings. Christianity succeeded in smashing idolatory in the West, and whatever persists in the Roman Catholic Church is just a shadow of the original but it has survived in India despite persistent persecution at the hands of the foreign predators and has risen once again with a vigour, virility and vivacity unknown to any religious movement. On the contrary, Islam has ceased to have any relevance with the Koranic principles; it has become a slogan of the power- seekers, and this fact is fully vouched for by the recent histories of Palcistan and Afghanistan.

Why do these monotheistic religions i.e., Islam and Christianity seek destruction of idolatory?

Firstly, both these religions are dictatorial in essence, and violently oppose the principle of People's Power. They both claim that the government belongs to God and must be run by the theocrats i .e., the clergy and the Mullah. Idea of the Oneness of God is appealing and logical but presenting God as a power-maniac, is the gross insult to Him. To start with, presentation of monotheism through the exclusive- agency of a prophet is a big joke, indeed. No matter, what the prophet calls himself, he is an equal partner in Godhead right from the outset; for example, belief in Allah alone is totally useless unless Muhammad is also included in it. If God is absolute and Almighty, then believing in the Prophet is a glaring proof of Shirk or polytheism. Not only that, a prophet always bestows divinity on the members of his family, and thus creates a pantheon. Just look at the Sayyads of the Indian sub-continent, who are believed to possess intercessory powers for their Muslim followers. What applies to the Muslims, is equally true of the Christians. The Popes became infallible despite the fact that many of them wer just mundane rulers, and had mistresses and illegitimate children. The Christ rose to become the Son of God, and many Christians believe that He was God-incarnate.

Why do these so-called monotheists oppose polytheism? It is because monotheism serves the purpose of dominance-urge by concentrating power in one person. It is the representation of human jealousy for personal worship and glory. On the contrary, polytheism advocates belief in many gods, who happen to be equally sacred. This doctrine distributes power from person to people. This is the reason that the Vedic society calls for electing a king if he fails to govern according to the dharma, or leaves no issue to follow him.

More sins have been perpetrated to please God than to suppressing Devil. Destruction of the Indian idols was partly an exercise of the Muslim invaders to satisfy their lust for power and wealth. This is what brought Mahmud Ghaznavi to India repeatedly. Though his raids were abominable, yet I am reluctant to praise my Hindu ancestors who defied the Vedic Principle of Power and became the devotees of Ahimsa, an utterly non-Hindu doctrine. I find it hard to bear this most painful disgrace but accept the fact that it is the destiny of a sparrow to be humbled by a falcon. One ought to know that Falcon, being a Vedic bird, is a symbol of the Ksatriya qualities. The Hindus brought misery on themselves by acting as sparrows. The nation which loses its hawkish virtue is bound to be molested, mutilated and murdered by the Messengers of perdition such as Mahmud Ghaznavi, Juna Khan and Feroz Shah Tughlaq.

The Christians acted likewise against polytheism in the West. They closed down pagan temples and confiscated their property. Constantine discouraged pagan sacrifices; Constaus went even further to forbid them on pain of death. Constantius ordered the closing of all pagan temples and rituals. Those who disobeyed, perished at his command. However, these Byzantinian Emperors were succeeded by Flavius Claudius Julianus, who was born in 332. He was not only a competent administrator and soldier but also a philosopher. He ridiculed the basic tenets of monotheism and justified use of idols in worship. He thought of the deities of polytheism as impersonal forces and did not believe in their anthropomorphic forms. He preferred to be called the priest of polytheism instead of an emperor. He was able to reverse the tide of Christianity, at least during his reign, by withdrawing state subsidies from the Church and closing to the Christians, chairs of rhetoric, philosophy, and literature in the universities. He insisted that these subjects should be taught by the pagans only. He went even further: he permitted demolition of the Christian Churches, which had been built on the lands seized from the pagan shrines. He ordered reconstruction of the pagan temples and imposed levies on the Christians to make full reparations for the damage that had been caused to the pagan institutions during preceding reigns of the Christian emperors. His orders provoked riots but he stood firm, and succeeded.

Here is an example for the Hindus to follow. Polytheism represents the Hindu ethos. They shall not be able to live honourably without sticking to their basic way of life, especially when it harms nobody. Though I am not an idolator, I support the human right to worship as one thinks fit.

Dominance urge is the biggest predator of human rights. Though I have said enough to explain it, yet its description is not complete. It has another aspect; human psychology is polar like physical objects, which have negative and positive sides. As humans are naturally kind and curt, sagacious and stupid, they are also dominant and submissive. Thus, dominance and submissiveness are the opposite poles of human disposition. They both have their virtues, but when dominance has no purpose except enjoyment of power at the expense of people's honour, safety and freedom, then it becomes the worst evil that there can be. On the other hand, submission without fighting the dominance-seeker or aggressor is even greater vice because it makes the dominant or aggressor a lot more daring, devilish and destructive. A wolf without pugnacity is just a lamb - only fit for the dining table. The nation which loses nerve to defend its honour, becomes a football to be played with by every Tom, Dick and Harry. By making Ahimsa i.e, non-violence the uay of life, Hindus have made themselves a tempting target for any aggressor. This is not a religious virtue but a sign of profanity and a shameful exercise to enshrine a most despicable vice as a splendid virtue. Gods do not want cowards for devotees; they bless the Vedic patriots who fight with a sense of honour.

Finally, as a footnote to the above discussion, I may add that this thesis agitated my mind for a long time but I resisted the temptation of putting it on paper because I did not want to open up the old wounds. After reading works of some patriotic Hindu scholars, I realised my mistake; their cuts have not healed but become deeper. Though it is painful, it is a sign of renaissance - a new life, because it is only the senseless who forget the humiliation of 1000 years; the lively seek rejuvination through honourable conduct based on determination and the will to succeed.

Though my views are totally different, I salute the Indian writers who have written on this subject. Among them is the intellectual giant, Sri Ram Swarup, whose piety forbids him to pass judgement on the atrocious conduct of the foreign iconoclasts. Sri Sita Ram Goel is another scholar whose patriotic protests echo through the flourish of his pen and desperately seek the restoration of Hindu ascendancy. Sri G. M. Jagtiani, the Maratha mystic, is a Vedic preacher, whose writings are expressive of deep grief, which seeks relief through an immortal national glory. Sri A. Ghosh of Texas, is the Ksatriya stalwart who wonders what happened to the cutting edge of his ancestral sword. He will do anything to revive the martial character of his people.

http://www.hinduunity.org