The answer to this issue has to be determined
on the basis of what the Muslim clergy has to say. Even a cursory reading
of the history of 1400 years of Islam clearly indicate a pattern of destruction
of holy sites and denigration of the culture of the conquered people.
This has happened wherever Islam has gone by force. In Mecca, Mohammad
himself ordered the wholesale destruction of idols except one - the well
known Black Stone of Kaabah. He rejected the goddesses the Arabs worshipped.
The Prophet declared that true belief demands iklas, the giving of one's
whole and unmixed allegiance to God, and its opposite is shirk, the ascribing
of partners to God and the worship of any creature.
One has also to see the way the destroyers
of the temple viewed their action. Sir Vidiadhar Naipaul has put it most
appropriately when he says: "The Muslim view of their conquest of India
is a truer one. They speak of the triumph of the faith, the destruction
of idols and temples, the loot, the carting away of the local people as
slaves."
If it is to be accepted that Islam truly
does not sanction destruction of temples, then that is more the reason
for NOT considering the Babri structure as a place of worship. This reinforces
the argument that it was a political monument. |