Submitted by Rama (United Arab Emirates), Oct 9, 2006 at 12:59
[This comment replies to Daniel Pipes's analysis at "Arabian Sex Tourism."]
The following information derives from: "Hindu temple remains found under the debris of a Dargah" (a dargah is a Sufi shrine). This link goes to two pictures, both showing remains of a temple found under the debris of dargahs.
For thousands of years, Muslim assaults have destroyed Hindu temples and constructed mosques and dargahs in its place; but Indian politicians always favour Muslims and have tried to hide these facts of history. A series of articles published by Dainik Sanatan Prabhat also say the same thing. Will Indian rulers give back to Hindus, their places of worship?
An incident in Pune has shown that Muslim mosques and dargahs are originally Hindu temples. The base wall of the Chhota Shaikh Sallah dargah near the Mutha River at Pune recently collapsed and the local municipality took up the work of fixing it. As repair of the wall proceeded, ruins of an ancient Hindu temple emerged. This news spread like wildfire and members of Hindu organizations rushed to the spot, resulting in considerable tension. The police raised barricades to prevent people from going there.
The media was, however, allowed to visit the spot, as were senior historians Shri. Gajanan Mehandale and Shri. Pandurang Balkawade. They found that the ruins belong to a temple built by the Yadav dynasty.
While informing the media persons, Shri. Bulkawade said that according to the historical records, the ruins are of temple built in Yadava reign. There were Shiva and Vishnu temples at Punyeshwar and Narayaneshwar on the banks of Mutha River. Muslim Sultan Allauddin Khilaji attacked southern India. Later, he appointed Bada alias Bura Arab as his first Muslim administrator in the year 1194.
During that time, one 'Avalia' called Nizamuddin came to Pune from Delhi along with his 700 followers. Two of his disciples named Shaikh Isauddin and Shaikh Saluddin started propagation of 'Islam'. These two disciples destroyed the Shiva and Vishnu temples. In the holy book 'Gatha' written by Saint Namdev, there is a mention of these temples. After their death, in place of Narayaneshwar temple, Shaikh Sallah was built in the name of the elder and in place of Punyeshwar temple; Shaikh Sallah was built in the name of younger shaikh in the year 1330.
Pune got its name from the name of the temple 'Punyeshwar'. In the year 1918, Pune municipality had found some ruins of the temple when development work was undertaken e.g. dwarshakha of the temple, idol of Sree Vishnu, an idol of a hermit, other idols of Hindu deities, 'Shiva-linga', Gomukh etc. these ruins were handed over to the Indian Historians Committee.
This is a proof of 'idol-breaking' mind-set of Muslims – HJS
It is a slap on the face of so-called secularists and is one more proof of the theory that 'Attackers are always breakers; they can never be creators'. It is not a coincidence that after Paithan, ruins of temples have been found at Muslim structures at Pune; but it is an evident proof that Muslims have been 'idol breakers'. Even in excavations at Babri Masjid, ruins of Hindu temples have been found; but despite so many proofs, Muslims are claiming it as their structure and even Government is keeping mum. Hindus should not be under the wrong impression that Govt. would do anything for taking over their structures but need to unite and fight for getting back their own structures – appealed Shri. Ramesh Shinde, the spokesperson of HJS for the State of Maharashtra
Every mosque [in India] is a built over a Hindu temple – P.N. Oak, Senior Historian
Shri. P. N. Oak has said that it is his theory that every mosque is a taken over Hindu temple. This applied to even the 'Ka'ba', a Muslim holy place. He said that he has won a number of cases in court based on this theory.
Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".
Reader comments (403) on this item
Comment on this item
Support Daniel Pipes' work with a tax-deductible donation to the Middle East Forum. Daniel J. Pipes