Sanatan Prabhat > Post Type > News > National News > Even if temples were demolished to build mosques in Kashi and Mathura, they must remain as is due to the Places of Worship Act

Even if temples were demolished to build mosques in Kashi and Mathura, they must remain as is due to the Places of Worship Act

Anti-Hindu Historian Irfan Habib’s Statement

Aligarh (UP) – “Previously, temples existed in Kashi and Mathura. They were demolished, it is true. It is mentioned in numerous history books. No survey or Court is required to prove this but their present form is protected under the Places of Worship Act, 1991. Thus, it is imperative to maintain the status quo of these sites as they stood in 1947. If something needs to be changed, the law will have to be changed. What is the justification for altering these sites after 300-400 years ?,” asked Hindu-hater and communist historian Irfan Habib. (As the temples of Kashi and Mathura hold paramount significance for Hindus, it is imperative to replace the mosques situated there with reconstructed temples. No justification is needed for that ! – Editor)

Courtesy: Zee Uttar Pradesh Uttarakhand

“Thousands of Buddhist monasteries in India were destroyed to build temples. Will you demolish those too ? The Mahabodhi Temple in Gaya is an example. Initially controlled by Shaivites, it’s now a place of worship for both Hindus and Buddhists.” – Historian Irfan Habib

Editorial Perspective

Buddhists were originally Hindus, and when Adi Shankaracharya revived Vedic Sanatan Dharma in India, many Buddhists returned to Hindu Dharma and rebuilt Hindu temples at the sites of Buddhist monasteries. Why doesn’t Irfan Habib speak on this historical aspect ?

Other points articulated by historian Irfan Habib

1. Aurangzeb was the only Mughal emperor who ordered the demolition of temples. Right- wing groups are naturally most aggressive against him but now it is too much. Only religious people can answer the question as to what was the motive of Aurangzeb in ordering the demolition of temples. (Look at the audacity of historian Irfan Habib ! – Editor) Mahmood Ghaznavi and Taimurlang also destroyed temples but they were not rulers, they were robbers.

2. Nearly all Mughal emperors protected the temples. Shah Jahan notably expressed a sentiment of support towards a temple in Vrindavan, stating, ‘God is worshipped here, and it should be supported.’ Additionally, Akbar and Jahangir provided grants to temples in Mathura. These practices continued even during Aurangzeb’s reign. (If such is indeed the case, then how were mosques and dargahs constructed after the demolition of over 350,000 temples across the country ? Will Habib answer this ? – Editor)

3. Akbar abolished the Jizya tax imposed on non-Muslims, which had been introduced by Muhammad bin Qasim (Year 814). There is no historical evidence to suggest that any other Mughal emperor, including Aurangzeb, enforced the Jizya tax. Furthermore, it is important to note that Jizya was not collected from Brahmins. (Historian Irfan Habib’s mentality can be likened to ‘lie but louder.’ According to some historians, evidence suggests that Aurangzeb imposed the Jizya tax on Hindus and actively collected it, as indicated in a letter written by Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj to Aurangzeb – Editor)

Editorial Perspectives

  • According to Islam, it is inappropriate to demolish religious sites of other religions to build a mosque. If that is the case, why were temples demolished to build mosques, and why should they remain untouched if they are considered impure in Islam ? Habib should address this.
  • It is time to take action against anti-Hindu, leftist and ideological terrorist historians like Irfan Habib, Romila Thapar, and RS Sharma, who have intellectually harmed India.

Latest Articles