Excerpt:
Places taken by assault: If a place was taken by assault-which was mostly the case because it was seldom that the Hindus surrendered-it was thoroughly sacked, its surviving population slaughtered or enslaved and all its buildings pulled down. In the next phase, the conquerors raised their own edifices for which slave labour was employed on a large scale in order to produce quick results. Cows and, many a time, Brahmanas were killed and their blood sprinkled on the sacred sites in order to render them unclean for the Hindus for all time to come. The places of worship which the Muslims built for themselves fell into several categories. The pride of place went to the Jãmi‘ Masjid which was invariably built on the site and with the materials of the most prominent Hindu temple; if the materials of that temple were found insufficient for the purpose, they could be supplemented with materials of other temples which had been demolished simultaneously. Some other mosques were built in a similar manner according to need or the fancy of those who mattered. Temple sites and materials were also used for building the tombs of those eminent Muslims who had fallen in the fight; they were honoured as martyrs and their tombs became mazãrs and rauzas in course of time. As we have already pointed out, Hindus being great temple builders, temple materials could be spared for secular structures also, at least in the bigger settlements. It can thus be inferred that all masjids and mazãrs, particularly the Jãmi‘ Masjids which date from the first Muslim occupation of a place, stand on the site of Hindu temples; the structures we see at present may not carry evidence of temple materials used because of subsequent restorations or attempts to erase the evidence. There are very few Jãmi‘ Masjids in the country which do not stand on temple sites.
I can fully appreciate that. The moslems did precisely the same to Zoroastrian places of worship as well as other pre-Islamic & non-Islamic sites & building in Iran. In many ways, it was & has been much worse in Iran.
Obviously, India still has much larger Hindu population than Iran has Zoroastrian one. In more modern times, India has been secular, whereas every effort by various moslem rulers in Iran, since the fall of the Sassanid, has been made to eradicate anything & most things that were and are pre-Islamic. Well, the Pahlavis were exceptions.
I’m currently reading a book entited “Crimes Against India and “. It is an excellent and graphic history of Muslim atrocities and invasions. It’s way, way beyond what is in any regular history books and indeed is not even taught in India today; Muslims have way too much influence in the goverment and are still encroaching Hindu practices by law, helped by Communist party (can’t remember the name) and “Christian” groups which are often fronts for communists.
It’s very horrible. But there is a sort of waking up now among Hindus.
Oops! Forgot to include the whole title, it’s long.
“Crimes Against India: and the Need to Protect its Ancient Vedic Tradition: 1000 Years of Attacks Against Hinduism and What to do About it”.
Yes, he needs an editor...
Here’s a link to a review: