Could it be denied that a lot of temples were destroyed during the Muslim rule? What explains the near total absence of big temples in north India? The South, where the penetration of the Muslim rule had been relatively superficial, is dotted with monumental temples dating from the pre-Muslim era. The source books of medieval history — the historical records written by the Muslim chroniclers — are replete with boastful accounts of the destruction of temples. Some were just laid waste, while mosques were built over some. There is a general admission of this historical truth.
However, whenever it’s said that a particular mosque stands on the site of a demolished temple, there is a reflexive rebuttal to such a claim. We saw this with Babri Masjid in Ayodhya and are seeing it again in the case of Shahi Jama Masjid in Sambhal. This denial begs the question: Why would less important temples be destroyed while those on important sites, such as the birthplace of Lord Rama or where the Kalki avatar of Lord Vishnu is expected to appear, be spared?
Are we saying that other places had big and eye-catching temples, but these more important sites didn’t have any to attract the attention of the but-shikan (idol breaker) invaders? Is it enough to say that since Baburnama doesn’t mention some instances, they didn’t happen? If so, what about the irrefutable literary and architectural evidence of so many other mosques standing on the foundations of razed temples? What about the in-your-face evidence of the existence of a Hindu temple at the Gyanvapi mosque site in Varanasi or the literary and architectural evidence of Mathura’s Shahi Idgah Masjid standing on the site of a demolished temple?
If it’s all about — as it should be — clinching and incontrovertible evidence, what should be the just position on Kashi or Mathura?
‘But-shikani’
The stock Muslim position on undeniable cases of temple destruction — and the construction of mosques over them — has been: so what, wasn’t it a common practice in the ancient and medieval ages, and didn’t Hindus destroy Buddhist temples? Well, if for the argument’s sake, Hindus destroyed Buddhist temples and built their own on those sites, it’s for the Buddhists to take up the issue. Muslims can’t use it for justifying their own historical wrongs.
By the way, if Buddhists were to raise these questions, Muslims would have a lot of answering to do. For, it was in the predominantly Buddhist areas — Central Asia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Bangladesh — that Islam completely replaced the existing religion. In the areas of Hindu predominance — mainly present-day India — Islam, despite its centuries-old rule, had a limited success. If the Buddhists were to ask for their lost places of worship in Central Asia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Bangladesh, or those in India like the Nalanda, Vikramshila, and Odantapuri ancient universities, what new whataboutery would the Muslims conjure?
Their terminology for breaking the idol – but-shikani – has an interesting etymology. In the regions mentioned above — from where Buddhism was eventually eradicated — Muslim rulers encountered the idols of the Buddha. They pronounced Buddh as ‘but’ (बुत), and hence, ‘but-shikani’ meant the breaking of the Buddha. The cult of the but-shikan warrior that emerged in Central Asia, Afghanistan, and northwest India had its genesis in the jihad against Buddhism.
So, Muslims would do better to eschew interpreting their excesses against Hindus as a retribution for what the Hindus did to the Buddhists. It’s neither morally right nor factually correct, and the Bamiyan incident of 2001 is just too fresh in memory to lend it any credibility.
So, what should be the Muslim position on the destruction of temples? Could it be any other than: “don’t do unto others what you don’t want done unto you”. They should denounce it in no uncertain terms, and dissociate from it. Neither should they identify with those rulers nor glory in their rule. They should also not justify the unjustifiable by citing mitigating circumstances of political contingency and economic exigency. They shouldn’t take a recourse to the clever application of historical relativism to argue that the past can’t be judged by the standards of the present. If they do so, they would be complicit in the crimes of the past, for an attack on other religions under some contrived political or economic compulsion is no less an abomination than that under religious motivation.
One may, however, wonder, if it’s ideologically possible for a Muslim to condemn the destruction of temples with any moral conviction? It’s one thing to criticise a wrong for pragmatic reasons or political correctness, but quite another to be morally revolted and condemn it regardless of the consequences. If Muslims considered the destruction of temples bad, there should have been an elaborate and pervasive condemnation of it in their literary and oral traditions. We don’t find any. All we find is its extenuation, even justification, by disingenuous application of Marxian economic determinism or some such outlandish theorisation. Quite often, there is a brazen denial too.
Also read: Sambhal mosque row: Is fixing historical injustices becoming a constant source of conflict?
Concealment and closure
Even though in the basic texts of Islam, the Quran and the Hadith, there is no sanction for the destruction of the places of worship of other religions, the overwhelming drift of the Islamic jurisprudence, the Muslim political theory, the historical practice, and the religious common sense have been geared to the subjugation and humiliation of non-Muslims. Thus, verbal and physical attack on other religions has been ideologically embedded in the theory and praxis of Islam. Such aggression is eulogised in literature and folklore. From Urdu poetry, one could quote scores of couplets glorifying the but-shikan. A glance at Allama Iqbal’s most famous poem, Shikwa, would reveal a lot about the concept of the ideal Muslim, and how he should treat other religions.
For Muslims to respect other religions, they have to learn to accept that non-Islamic religions are as true for their followers as Islam is for Muslims, and that it’s wrong to consider other religions as false and evil, or to try to convert their followers to Islam. It’s not possible until the Islamic theology is so reformed as to neutralise its proselytising and supremacist instinct. But then, religions don’t change, people do; and so, the attitude of Muslims toward the past and the present could change only if they secularised.
Muslims find it difficult to face their history, and engage with it in a dispassionate manner. It’s because Islam and politics have been so intertwined that their entire history has become religious, and therefore, sacred. The history of Muslims is known as the Islamic history. A sacred history is for adoration and veneration, not for the verification and evaluation of the received truth. That’s why a critical attitude toward this history is regarded as the criticism of Islam itself – a blasphemy.
The reluctance to face the past has been ingrained in the Islamic tradition. There is an ijma (religious consensus) on the concealment of the inconvenient facts of history lest it created fitna (strife) by affecting the people’s belief in the goodness of their religion, weakening their commitment to the sectarian position, and bringing the religious ancestors down in their estimation. Such concealment, however, leads to putrefaction, not peace. Example: the Shia-Sunni chasm. Not only the sides don’t have any understanding of each other’s point of view but they also don’t have any idea about the other side of the story. And so, while the sectarian wars in other religions are a thing of the past, the Shia-Sunni rift in Islam remains an active volcano. Concealment can’t bring closure.
The same template has been applied to the history of Islam in India. Inconvenient truths are sought to be hidden allegedly for the “public good”. It’s feared that admitting the wrongs of the past would make Muslims vulnerable. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Half truth is never conducive to peace. It’s a universal truth that reconciliation is preceded by truth.
Therefore, let Muslims come out with their own list of temples that were destroyed during the Muslim rule, and also of the mosques that were built on their sites. Then, they should clearly state what Islam says about such mosques. I am surprised (actually, I am not) why no fatwa has ever been asked for such mosques. So, they should ask for fatwa from the most reputed Darul Ifta (fatwa centres) of the world, and see what they have to say regarding the validity of such mosques in Islam. And then, they should go to Hindus with the list. Given the civilisational temper of India, we know well what Hindus are going to say. But before that, for their own good, the Muslim side must admit the truth, and make a solemn declaration: What happened was wrong. It shall not happen again. We dissociate from that history, and we denounce the power theology that enabled it. We are not saying this because today we are not in the position to do that again, but because we sincerely believe it to be wrong.
Ibn Khaldun Bharati is a student of Islam, and looks at Islamic history from an Indian perspective. He tweets @IbnKhaldunIndic. Views are personal.
Editor’s note: We know the writer well and only allow pseudonyms when we do so.
(Edited by Aamaan Alam Khan)
“They shouldn’t take a recourse to the clever application of historical relativism to argue that the past can’t be judged by the standards of the present. If they do so, they would be complicit in the crimes of the past” — I’m noting down these lines for whenever someone argues along the lines of, today’s Indian Muslims can’t be held responsible for the crimes of the invaders of yore.
This is a solid article with a coherent argument, but it’s too wishful. An acknowledgment of this kind and the need for closure need you to be empathetic, and anyone who takes one religion too seriously becomes incapable of empathy – especially towards the perpetual ‘other’ that is the infidel.
Another intellectually stimulating and thoughtful article by the most brilliant scholar, at least to my knowledge, of subjects that few would dare touch. Mr. Khaldun Bharati is one of a kind. He seems to have a phenomenal grip on all relevant historical facts that have anything to do with the issue he puts his mind to. I always learn something new and important and surprising from his writings. Prior to reading this article I was completely ignorant of the fact that the Persian word बुत derives from the idol of Buddha and बुत-शिकनी from the smashing of it. And it’s hard to argue with any of Mr. Bharati’s arguments presented here. He is such an enlightened, knowledgeable and decent individual… How I wish his voice could be heard far and wide!
This is a very thoughtfully written article. I just came back from northern Indian trip where all major temples have destruction stories to share. Acknowledgement could bring some closure to the past atrocities.
The author is 100% correct in his assessment. I had written a comment few days back about good old “paschataap”. Where is it to be seen in the Muslims ? On the contrary, you have people silently and some times very overtly glorifying the invaders in the Indian subcontinent in the name of Islam and at the same time shedding tears for Gaza all in the name of invasion and Islam ! What sort of a deranged and intellectually corrupt argument is this ? Everyone knows how Islam came to be in the subcontinent. It was on the back of loot, plunder , murder ! There are no two ways about it. And some “distorians” were busy painting the invaders as having merged into the Indian society and becoming one of us. Question is why did they need to force their cult upon the residents of Bharat who since millenia had been worshipping idols ? And why were plunderers coming back again and again to destroy the same temples if it had already been plundered once ? Distorians also try to portray this as robbery but the argument falls flat when you see Holy wars being documented in history to plunder and break temples. even today you can see sculptures with broken parts of deities and the Muslims of this land who shed so much tears for Gaza are conspicuosly silent on this. It is also not lost on anybody that the majority of them who voted to partition country on the bigoted religious lines stayed back in India. If this is not moral corruption pray what is ! Muslims in India need to be vocal about their feelings against invasion. If not, then be prepared to be exposed one generation after another.