Sita ram goel stalinists historians spread the big liePresentation Transcript
Presentation based on a book by Sita Ram Goel
The Babri Masjid
Only few historians have related the vandalism to the theology of Islam based on Quran and the Sunnah of the Prophet. Onthe contrary, the subject has been politicized by the votaries of Secularism. Some politicians are masquerading as academicians and selling far-fetched apologies for the havoc caused by Islamic Iconoclasm.
In August 1986, the Times of India printed on its front page the photos of two stone carrying defaced carvings of some Hindu deities. There was a short statement beneath the photos that two stones had been found by the Archeological Survey of India in course of repairs to the Qutub Minar at Delhi. According to ASI, the stones had been built into a wall with the carved faces turned inwards.But the Daily had dropped this part of the news.
The Quwwat al-Islam Masjid
On September 15, 1986, Times of India printed a photo of Idgah built by Aurangzeb on the site of the Kesavadeva temple at Mathura. It gave the news that a committee had been formed by some leading citizens for the liberation of what is known to be Sri Krishna’s birth place. None of the news-items threw any light on what was the Kesavadeva temple & why and when Aurangzeb converted it into mosque.
Kesavadeva temple which was destroyed & replaced with an Idgah by Aurangzeb, was built by Bir SinghDeva Bundela in the reign of Jahangir. But he did not built it on the same spot where an earlier Kesavadeva temple stood and which had been destroyed by Islamic iconoclast.
There were many letters from Marxist historians who wrote that this report by TOI is a debasement of history to distort these events for present day communal propaganda. Quitea few readers of TOI wrote letters challenging the facts as well as the logic of the Marxist professors. But they were never published. Thecontroversy had only started and TOI announced that the “controversy has been closed”
Marxist historians say that the temple was destroyed because it had “acquired considerable wealth” which attracted Aurangzeb. OR That the destruction was “politically motivated as well, for at the time when the temple was destroyed he faced problems with the Bundela & Jat rebellions in the Mathura region.”
According to Ma’sir-i-Alamgiri, April 9, 1669
Therewas no Bundela uprising in 1670 when the Kesavadeva temple was destroyed. TheJats had risen in revolt after and not before Aurangzeb issued his firman of April, 1969 ordering destruction of Hindu temples everywhere. TheKesavadeva temple was not the only place of worship which was wealthy. Many mosques were bursting with riches in his time.
Theology of Islam lays down loud and clear that it is a pious act for a Muslim to destroy the temples of the infidels and smash their idols. Thepolitical and economic motives, invented by Marxists, are not only far-fetched but also do not explain the destruction and conversion of temples.
"O you who believe, fight those of theunbelievers near you and let them see how harsh you can be...”
"... kill the disbelievers wherever we find them …"
"Instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers;"
"The infidels should not think that they can get away from us. Prepare against them whatever arms and weaponry you can muster so that you may terrorize them. They are your enemy and Allahs enemy."
Theprofessors have not named the Persian texts to which they are referring. The Persian text creates complication rather than clear the confusion, which according to historians . Theyfound it difficult to hide the atrocities committed by Islam in India, they have invented stories of Buddhist, Jain and Animist temples destroyed by the Hindus.
Marxisthistorians spread the big lie that the Hindus destroyed many Buddhists and Jain temples. But they never produced any evidence in support of their statement. Itis unfortunate that some Buddhist and Jain scholars have swallowed this Big Lie without any evidence.
The Buddha, Kushana period, 2nd century A.D., Katra mound, Mathura region
Krishna Temple,Mathura, Uttar Pradesh
Hukum Singh Yadav: “Brahminical tyranny, when rivers of the blood of Buddhist monks were made to flow in the Buddhist monasteries.” Harsh Narain: “Could you kindly name the Buddhist monasteries where it happened, & also the time when it happened?” Hukum Singh Yadav: “I will not pretend that I know. I must have heard it from someone, or read it somewhere.” Harsh Narain: “I give you six months for finding a single instance of Hindus murdering Buddhist monks. I am demanding only one instance, not two.” Hukum Singh Yadav: “I will try”
Hsuan Tsang refers to the atrocities of Saiva devotee, Mihirakula, against the Buddhists both in Punjab and Kashmir in the 6th century A.D. Kalhanagives an account of the king killing innocent people by the hundreds.
Mihirakula had requested the Buddhist Sangha to teach him the tents of Buddhism. The Sangha did not assign the task to a qualified teacher but sent a monk who had the rank of a servant. Mihirakula felt outraged at this insult & persecuted Buddhists. Kashmir had known many Saiva kings before Mihirakula as well as after him. None of them persecuted Buddhism. His fury had nothing to do with Saivism, it was fury of a tyrant whose ego had been hurt.
The recently discovered stupa at Shangol in Punjab, where sculpted railings were found in the vicinity of a stupa dismantled & packed away, indicates the persecution of Buddhists in Kashmir & willful destruction of a vihara, by a Saivite king.
No archeologist ever said that stupa was “dismantled or packed away” or Mihirakula was leading an invasion. All that is known is that many stones had een finished, & were meant to be parts of a stupa. But no one knows why they were left in pits & trenches.
The prabodha-candrodaya of Krsna Misra, a drama of the 11th century, dwells on the theme of a Kapalika converting a Jaina & a Buddhist monk to Saivism by offering them wine & women.
Professor Thapar is incensed that a Jain and a Buddhist monks have been shown in a Sanskrit drama as hankering wine & women. But she herself admits that “the Tantric version of these system [Buddhism and Jainism] conceded to practices which were opposed to pluralism.” She is aware that Tantricism was not confined to Shaivsm, & was shared by both Buddhism & Jainism. Yet she uses the Tantric portrayal of Buddhist & Jain monks just to support her story of Saivas persecuting the Buddhists & Jains.