reclaimtemples

#ReclaimTemples•Blog•reclaimtemples

Tag: reclaimtemples

Jama Masjid Ahmedabad, an ancient Hindu temple

Article by Nayandeep

They say to build a new narrative the old narrative has to go,and if the old narrative represents something unmatched far superior then breaking and assimilating it is the only way forward for the one replacing it. The same applies to the history of Hindu Dharma and it’s living islands of history, culture and artistry, primarily it’s ancient temples.
Right from the days of Mohammed bin Qasim to the bigoted Aurengzeb and still continuing in the form of various Jihadi outlets in our present times, one narrative continues incessantly and that’s the destruction of Hindu temples or simply making mosque out of them as and when the numbers and favorable demography dictates. Markandey sun temple in Kashmir, Ram temple of Ayodhya, Vishwanath temple of Varanasi are some of the famous one’s that come to mind apart from the thousands of others that were destroyed. One such living proof of such wanton destruction of Dharma lies in the city of Ahmedabad in Gujarat State of India. Formerly Ahmedabad was known as Karnavati under the benign Rajput rulers and original structure and name of the temple where Jama masjid exists today was Bhadrakali temple. After his victory over the infidels the Sultan Ahmad Shah 1 destroyed the statues and converted once a famous temple dedicated to Goddess Bhadrakali to a Masjid.

Even if one ignores the word and history of the persecuted Hindu’s the very walls and carvings on the pillars supporting the structure are full of idols, animals, serpents and elephant, this very fact goes against the essence of Islam followed by the sultan. Primarily the open space for offering Namaz is crisscrossed by these very same pillars which are built in a typical Hindu way of construction. The question that needs an answer is that why would a Islamist Sultan Ahmed Shah built a mosque with pagan carvings on its pillars and have pillars obstruct the Namaz of the faithful.

 

 

Perhaps the answer lies in the observation of noted researcher P.N.Oak where he delivers an interesting and thought provoking observation where he said that after 35 years meticulous study of history buildings and cities he never believed that among the many invaders, that Sultan Ahmed Shah 1 built Ahmedabad, in his own words he said and I quote “It is easily assumed that Ahmed Shah built Ahmedabad and Tughlaq Shah raised Tughlaqabad. If that were true Allahabad should have been founded by Allah himself and Delhi’s Rashtrapati bhavan by some Rashtrapati”. Among the others who hold the same view is Mr M.k.Aggarwal the writer of the book The Vedic core of human history and truth will be saviour, he clearly claims of the Hindu origin of the Jama Masjid he observes that why would pillars with serpents elephants and fairies which are an anathema to Islam be built in a mosque and that too in middle of prayer halls.

 

Common sense dictates that did the Sultan wanted the faithful to bang their heads or simply took over an ancient piece of artistic beauty and when was unable to match it by his own beliefs he simply did a cosmetic surgery of the temple and called it a masjid but was not able to completely do away with the pillars as the whole structure depended on it.

 

What hope do the Hindus have of reclaiming this Bhadrakali temple? If it’s to be done, the time is now and for that two things have to take place simultaneously, the Slumber and Dhimmitude of the present has to go and Hindu Renaissance and Revival has to be forged.

 

#ReclaimTemples

Destruction of Hindu Temples by Muslim invaders

Article by @OGSaffron

Little discussed or highlighted is the psychosocial aspect that accompanied most of, if not all, the instances wherein Hindu temples were destroyed. As Jonsson (2006) points out: When “Muslim invaders broke and burned everything beautiful they came across in Hindustan,” they were “displaying the resentment of the less developed warriors who felt intimidated in [their] encounter with a more refined culture” (p. 86).

Indeed, for the Muslim invaders, the Hindu infidels—these “refined” pagans, the Kafirs—were “heathens, par excellence” (Jonsson, 2006, p. 86). Therefore, how could they build such extravagantly ornamented, finely constructed buildings if they were not Muslim? Are not the infidels supposed to be inferior in every respect to the zealous believer, to those who do not join other gods with the One True God?

When one examines the many architectural remnants that have survived in their “hybrid” form—as even the politically correct archaeologists would have us believe in “fusions” of Dharmic and Islamic “architecture” being congregational and intercultural rather than ferocious and resentful—visible is the mosque type that is the conquest mosque. The foundation of such “hybridity” is not the benign intercultural notion that secular ideologues would have us accept but instead a profound hatred of the Hindu and his place of worship. Almost every “hybrid” expression that has come down to us surviving in the form of the conquest mosque is a religious declaration, through architectural continuity, of Muslim superiority over Hindu heathenry.

To define the common feature of such “hybridity” is to capture the essence of the conquest mosque. Mosques of conquest are “mosques that are all built on the sites of dismantled temples and employ recut columns and other spolia taken from the destroyed monument” (Wagoner & Rice, 2001, p. 90).

To give an example, take for instance the inscription on the eastern gate of the Quwwat al-Islam mosque—a conquest mosque that stands as the “Might of Islam”—which records “that the mosque was built with spolia taken from twenty-seven different temples; these spolia include columns, bracket capitals, ceiling panels, and other decorative members, and the mosque can be seen to be founded on the plinth of one of the destroyed temples” (Wagoner & Rice, 2001, p. 90).

The usage of spolia from destroyed Hindu temples in the construction of conquest mosques, often on the sites of dismantled Hindu temples, is not entirely a matter of convenience and/or intercultural sharing, as secularist and Marxist historians often argue.

On the contrary, conquest mosques project quite vividly “the ghazis’ attitude toward the Hindu majority” based on “the virtues of [their] belief in Islam” where “the need to reinforce the spiritual and political authority of Islam through architecture” is in direct response to “the evils of idolatry and polytheism” (Welch & Crane, 1983, p. 124). Take, for example, Firuz Shah Tughluq’s assertion of Muslim orthodoxy when personally destroying the images of Hindu gods. These images “were burned in a place otherwise reserved for public executions and the punishment of criminals” (Flood, 2002, p. 648). The images of Hindu gods were destroyed, desecrated, or mutilated not only because of anti-heathenry, but also on the little discussed insight that the images represented the potency and purposefulness of a very sophisticated non-Muslim civilization that challenged the religious primacy of an Abrahamic faith whose zealous followers emphasized the superiority of its anti-idolatry creed (Wink, 1997). To render the idols powerless was to wash away the intimidation and shame brought on from encountering a more refined culture.

Therefore, the architectural patronage of Muslim sultans so incessantly praised by the rewriters of history is instead, and can be captured more realistically as, the religious declaration of Muslim supremacy over the nonbeliever, where Islam has been triumphant and idolatry has been subdued (Welch, Keshani, & Bain, 2002, p. 33). After all, “Muslim ghazis had brought the Jihad to India” (Welch et al., 2002, p. 31). And with that came the destruction of places of idol worship, and establishing “the foundation of congregations of Islam” in systematic fashion (Welch et al., 2002, p. 33).

To such a zealous mind, experiencing the existence of sophisticated heathenry, represented herein by the Hindu architectural tradition, was discontenting. As Lord Byron (1847, p. 293) put it: “They have raised a mosque…[and] they are not contented with their own grotesque edifice, unless they destroy the prior and purely beautiful fabric which preceded, and which shames them and theirs for ever and ever.”

Byron, G. (1847). Letter to John Murray on the Rev. W. L. Bowles’s strictures on the life and writings of Pope. In F. G. Halleck (Ed.), The works of Lord Byron; In verse and prose (p. 293). Hartford, CT: Silas Andrus & Son. (Original work published 1821)
Flood, F. (2002). Between cult and culture: Bamiyan, Islamic iconoclasm, and the museum. The Art Bulletin, 84(4), 641–659. http:/dx.doi.org/10.2307/3177288
Jonsson, D. (2006). Islamic economics and the final jihad: The Muslim Brotherhood to the Leftist/Marxist Islamist alliance. Maitland, FL: Xulon Press.
Wagoner, P., & Rice, J. (2001). From Delhi to the Deccan: Newly discovered Tughluq monuments at Warangal-Sultanpur and the beginnings of Indo-Islamic architecture in southern India. Artibus Asiae, 61(1), 77–117. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3249963
Welch, A., & Crane, H. (1983). The Tughluqs: Master builders of the Delhi Sultanate. Muqarnas, 1, 123–166. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1523075
Welch, A., Keshani, H., & Bain, A. (2002). Epigraphs, scripture, and architecture in the early Delhi Sultanate. Muqarnas, 19, 12–43. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1523314
Wink, A. (1997). Al Hind, the making of the Indo-Islamic world: The slave kings and the Islamic conquest, 11th–13th centuries (Vol. 2). New Delhi: Oxford University Press.