Showing posts with label islamic iconoclasm. Show all posts
Showing posts with label islamic iconoclasm. Show all posts

Thursday, February 16, 2012

DARK SIDE OF SUFISM

This is a guest post from Sh. Ram Ohri, IPS (Retd)

            A Reappraisal of  the Role of  Sufis Working as Missionaries of Islam

For centuries the Sufi creed and Sufi music have been tom tomed as great symbols of spiritualism and promoters of peace and harmony between the Hindus and the Muslims. The cleverly marketed concept of  Sufi spiritualism has been unquestioningly accepted as the hallmark of Hindu-Muslim unity.   It is time we studied the history of Sufis, tried to track the narrative of  their coming to India and analysed their explicit missionary role in promoting conversions to Islam.   More importantly, it needs to be assessed how did the Sufis conduct themselves during reckless killings and plunders by the Muslim invaders ?  Did they object to the senseless mass killings and try to prevent unremitting plunder of  Hindu temples and innocent masses?  Did the Sufis ever object to the capture of  helpless men and women as slaves and the use of  the latter as objects  of carnal pleasure ?  These are some of   the questions to which answers have to be found by every genuine student of  Indian history.  

Most Sufis came to  India either accompanying the invading armies of  Islamic marauders, or followed in the wake of  the sweeping conquests made by the soldiers of  Islam. At least the following four famous Sufis accompanied the Muslim armies which repetitively invaded India to attack the Hindu rulers, seize their kingdoms and riches and took recourse to extensive slaughtering of  the  commoners.  Almost all Sufi masters were silent spectators to the murderous mayhem and reckless plunder of  temples ands cities by the marauding hordes across the sub-continent.  Taking advantage of the fact that the Hindu masses are deeply steeped in spiritual tradition and mysticism, the Sufis used their mystic paradigm for applying sort of a healing balm on the defeated, bedegralled  and traumatized commoners with a view to converting them to the religion of the victors.  The following well-known Sufi masters came to India along with the invading Muslim armies which repetitively invaded India in wave after wave:
  1. Khwaja Moinuddin Chishti of Ajmer had accompanied the army of Shihabuddin Ghori and finally settled down at Ajmer in the year 1233 A.D 
  2.  Khawaja Qutubuddin came to Delhi in the year 1236 in the train of  Shihabuddin Ghori and stayed on to further the cause of  Islam. 
  3.  Sheikh Faridudin came to Pattan (now in Pakistan) in the year 1265.
  4. Sheikh Nizamuddin Auliya of  Dargah Hazrat Nizamuddin  came to Delhi in  the year 1335 accompanying a contingent of  the Muslim invaders.  
 Additionally,  the famous Sufi Shihabuddin Suhrawardy of  Baghdad was brought to India for carrying out the missionary work of conversions by Bahauddin Zakariya of  Multan several decades after the Hindu ruler had been defeated and the kingdom laid waste after repetitive plunder and manslaughter.  Like all Sufi masters, his main task was to apply the balm of spiritual unity on the traumatized Hindu population and then gradually persuade them to convert to Islam. Not a single Sufi, the so-called mystic saints, ever objected to the ongoing senseless manslaughter and reckless plunder, nor to the destruction of  temples, nor  for that matter to the ghoulish enslavement of  the so-called infidel men and women for sale in the bazaars of  Ghazni and Baghdad. Operating from the sidelines of spiritualism they even participated in the nitty-gritty of governance to help the Muslim rulers consolidate  their authority in the strife torn country. And significantly, their participation in the affairs of the State was not conditional upon the Muslim rulers acting in a just and even handed manner. On the contrary, the Sufis invariably tried to help the Sultans in following the path shown by the Prophet and the Shariah.  Another important objective of the spiritual and mystic preachings of the Sufi masters was to blunt the edge of Hindu resistance and prevent them from  taking up arms to defend their hearth and home, their motherland and their faith, through the façade of peace and religious harmony. The Naqashbandi Sufis had very close relations with Jahangir and Aurangzeb.    The well known Sufi Saint of  Punjab, Ahmad Sirhindi (Mujadid) of  the Naqashbandi order (1564-1634)  held that the execution of  the Sikh leader Guru Arjun Dev  by Jehangir was a great Islamic victory.  He believed and openly proclaimed that Islam and Hinduism were antithesis of  each other and therefore could not co-exist.   Even  the Chishti Sufi, Miyan Mir, who had been a friend of Guru Arjun Dev, later on  turned his back on the Sikh Guru when the latter was arrested by Jahangir and sent  for execution

It may be recalled that the great Sufi master of the eleventh century, Al Qushairi             (A.D.1072) had unambiguously declared that there was no discord between the aims of the Sufi ‘haqiqa’ and the aims of  the Sharia.  The definition given by Al Hujwiri should be able to quell any doubt about the commitment of Sufis in upholding the supremacy of the Islamic faith over all other religions.  That dogma has been the key component of  the philosophy of  Sufism not only in India, but across the world     - from India to Hispania (i.e., the Spain).  The great Sufi master, Al Hujwiri, laid down the golden rule that the words “there is no god save Allah” are the ultimate Truth, and the words “Muhammad is the Apostle of Allah” are the indisputable Law for all Sufis. In other words, the Sufism and the ulema represent the same  two aspects of the Islamic faith which are universally accepted and obeyed by all Muslims.  By definition therefore Sufi masters could be no exception. The renowned ninth century Sufi master, Al Junaid, also known as “the Sheikh of the Way”, and widely revered as the spiritual ancestor of  Sufi faith, had categorically proclaimed that for Sufis “All the mystic paths are barred, except to him who followeth in the footsteps of the Messenger (i.e., Prophet Muhammad)  [Source:  Martin Lings, What is Sufism, George Allen & Unwin Ltd, London, 1975, p.101].

As pointed out by Reynold A. Nicholson in the Preface to the famous tome,  ‘Kashaf al Mahjub’ (Taj & Co., Delhi, 1982).  “no sufis, not even those who have attained the highest degree of  holiness, are exempt from the obligation of  obeying the religious law”.  In fact, the famous tome, ‘Kashaf al Mahjub’ written by Ali bin Al-Hujwiri, who was also known as Data Ganj Baksh, was widely regarded as the grammar of  Sufi thought and practice.   Most Sufis have invariably drawn on the contents of this treatise for preaching the sufi thought ( also known as sufi silsilas). As already stated, on page 140 of  Kashaf al Mahjub Al Hujwiri loudly proclaims that “the words there is no God save Allah are Truth, and the words Muhammed is the Apostle of  Allah”  are the indisputable Law.   

K.A. Nizami in his celebrated book, The Life and Times of  Shaikh Nizamuddin Auliya (Idarah-I Adabiyat-i-Delhi, Delhi) has stated that the Auliya openly used to  say  that “what the ulama seek to achieve through speech, we achieve by our behaviour.” 
 The Auliya was a firm believer in the need for  unquestioned  obedience of every Muslim, every Sufi,  to the dictates of the ulema.  According to K.A. Nizami, another Sufi saint Jamal Qiwamu’d-din wrote that though he had been associated  with the Shaikh Nizamuddin Auliya for years, “but never did he find him missing a single sunnat …… ”.

The well known authority on Sufism,  S.A.A. Rizvi has recorded in his book, ‘A History of  Sufism in India’  that Nizamuddin Auliya used to unhesitatingly accept enormous gifts given to him by  Khusraw Barwar which implied that the Auliya was unconcerned with the source of  the gift, provided it was paid in cash. Yet the Auliya was a firm believer in the need for a Muslim’s unquestioned loyalty and obedience to the ulema.  As reiterated by K.A. Nizami, Auliya used to preach that the unbeliever is the doomed denizen of  Hell.  In his khutba he would leave no one in doubt that  Allah has created Paradise for the Believers and Hell for the infidels “in order to repay the wicked for what they have done”.   It has been categorically stated on page 161 in the famous treatise, Fawaid al-Fuad, translated by Bruce B. Lawrence (Paulist Press, New York, 1992)  that  the Auliya confirmed  on the authority of  the great Islamic jurist, Imam Abu Hanifa, that the perdition of  the unbelievers is certain and that Hell is the only abode for them, even if  they agreed to confess total loyalty to Allah on the Day of Judgment.   

In the above mentioned treatise on Sufi philosphy, Fuwaid al-Fuad,  a very interesting instance of  enslaving the kaffir Hindus for monetary gain has been cited which shows how another Sufi, Shayakh Ali Sijzi, provided financial assistance to one of his dervishes to participate in the lucrative slave trade. He had advised the dervish that he should take “these slaves to Ghazni, where the potential for profit is still greater”.  And it was confirmed by Nizamuddin Auliya that “the Dervish obeyed”.  Obviously therefore, neither spiritual ethics and nor justice to all, including the infidels, were the strong points of  Sufi saints.

If  the narrative of  the preachings  and acts of  Khawaja Moinuddin Chishti of Ajmer are taken as indication of  his religious philosophy and deeds, he emerges as a sufi master who nursed a deep hatred against the infidel Hindus and showed utter contempt for  their religious beliefs. As elaborated by S.S.A. Rizvi in ‘A History of Sufism in India, Vol. 1 (Munshiram Manoharlal, 1978, p. 117),  there is a reference in the book, Jawahar-i- Faridi,  to the fact that  when Moinuddin Chishti reached near the Annasagar Lake at Ajmer, where a number of holy shrines of  Hindus were located, he slaughtered a cow and cooked a beef  kebab at the sacred place surrounded by many temples. It is further claimed in Jawahar-i-Faridi that the Khwaja had dried the 2 holy lakes of Annasagar and Pansela by the magical heat of  Islamic spiritual power. He is even stated to have made the idol of the Hindu temple near Annasagar  recite the Kalma. The Khwaja had a burning desire to destroy the rule of the brave Rajput king, Prithviraj Chauhan, so much so that he ascribed the victory of Muhammad Ghori in the battle of  Tarain entirely to his own spiritual prowess and declared that “We have seized Pithaura alive and handed him over to the army of  Islam”. [Source: Siyar’l Auliya, cited by Rizvi on page 116 of  ‘A History of Sufism in India’].

Throughout the Muslim rule all Sufis enjoyed full confidence, royal favour and patronage of  the cruel Muslim rulers. Though foolishly accepted as “secular”  by  most Hindus seeking spiritual solace after being battered, bruised and marginalised, almost all Sufi saints dogmatically followed the commandments contained in the Quran, the Hadith and Sharia. Historians have recorded that many Sufi saints had accompanied armies of the Muslim invaders to use their spiritual powers in furtherance of  Islam’s conquests. Not one of them raised even a little finger to forbid slaughter of the innocents, nor did they question the imposition of jiziya by Muslim rulers. In fact, most of them guided the
Muslim rulers in carrying forward their mission of  conquest and conversion by furthering their campaigns of  plundering the wealth of Hindus of which many Sufis willingly partook  share. It was almost a taboo for Sufis, the so-called saints,  to accept a Hindu ascending the throne of  any kingdom during the heydays of  the Muslim rule. . In an example narrated by S.A.A. Rizvi on page 37 of  his well researched book, The Wonder That Was India (Vol.II, Rupa & Co, 1993, New Delhi)  it is pointed out that when the powerful Bengali warrior, king Ganesha, captured power in Bengal in the year 1415 A.D., Ibrahim Shah Sharqi, attacked his kingdom at the request of outraged ulema and numerous Sufis of  Bengal. In the ensuing strife, the leading Sufi of Bengal, Nur Qutb-i-Alam, interceded and secured a political agreement to the benefit of  the Muslim community and satisfaction of Sufis.  Under dire threat King Ganesha was forced to abdicate his throne in favour of  his 12 years old son, Jadu, who was converted to Islam and proclaimed as Sultan Jalaluddin  -   to the satisfaction of the Sufi masters. Similarly Sultan Ahmed Shah of Gujarat (1411-42), though a practitioner of  Sufi philosophy, was a diehard iconoclast who took delight in destroying temples, as stated in the same tome,  by S.A.A. Rizvi.  The Sultan also used to force the Rajput chieftains to marry their daughters to him so that they would become outcastes in their own community.  And the endgame of the Sultan could as well be that perhaps some of  the outcaste Rajputs might then opt to become Muslims.  

Unfortunately due to relentless colonization of the Hindu mind during 1000 years long oppressive Muslim rule, the Hindu masses till date have failed to realize that the so-called Sufi philosophy of  religious harmony is a one-way street.   This trend of Hindus praying at tombs and dargahs has been nurtured by the strong undercurrent of  belief in spiritualism among Hindu masses, even educated classes. That is the crux of the matter.  Deeply steeped in their traditional belief in spirituality and mysticism, the Hindus have developed the custom of  visiting dargahs and continue to  pray at the tombs of  Sufis.  No Muslim, nor any Sufi, has ever agreed to worship in a  Hindu temple, nor make obeisance before the images of  Hindu Gods and Godesses. For them it would be an act of  grossest sacrilege and unacceptable  violation of  the basic tenets of  Sufism.   That is the truth about the Sufi saints and their philosophy of inter-religious harmony.   

Related posts:
Sufi Sayyid Ali Hamdani
Sufi Moin-ud-deen Chishti
Sufi Muhammad Ghaus
Sufi Amir Khusro

Saturday, January 21, 2012

TRUE FACE OF SUFIS - SAYYID ALI HAMADANI

The page on wikipedia about Sayyid Ali Hamadani tells us that:
He is said to have converted nearly 37,000 persons during his stay in Kashmir and Ladakh,through his peaceful means and miracles.
Peaceful means.

Hmmm.

The very fact that it has to be written that  he used 'peaceful means and miracles' should be an indication.

Indication to what ?

Well. Indication that some liar is at work. And he wants us not to look at the real face. 

Surely, Sayyid Ali Hamdani was a Sufi. He came from Hamdan in fourteenth century. Like all other Sufis, his duty was propagation of his creed, i.e. Islam. And like all others of his ilk, he did a pretty good job. 
More information from wikipedia:
He was a social reformer besides being a preacher...The Zakhirat-ul-Maluk is a renowned book written by him in which he postulates the treatment of Muslims and Kafirs by the king in the ninth chapter
Just wonderful. So, we have a sufi, who is a social reformer and so thoughtful that he instructs the king about the ways in which Muslims and Kafirs are to be treated. Let us look at these instructions by the 'saint'.
  1. Hindus will not build any new idol temples.
  2. They will not rebuild any existing temple which may have fallen into disrepair. 
  3. Muslim travellers will not be prevented from staying in the temples.
  4. Muslim travellers will be provided hospitality by Zimmis in their own houses for three days.
  5. Zimmis will neither act as spies nor give spies shelter in their houses.
  6. If any zimmi is inclined towards Islam, he should not be prevented from doing so.
  7. Zimmis will respect Muslims.
  8. Zimmis will courteously receive a Muslim wishing to attend their meeting.
  9. Zimmis will not dress like Muslims.
  10. Zimmis will not take Muslim names.
  11. Zimmis must not ride horses with saddle and bridle.
  12. Zimmis should not have swords, bows or arrows.
  13. Zimmis should not wear signet rings.
  14. Zimmis should not openly sell or drink liquor.
  15. Hindus should not abandon their traditional dress, which is a sign of their ignorance, so that they can be distinguished from Muslims.
  16. Zimmis should not openly practice traditional Hindu or Vedic customs amongst Muslims.
  17. HIndus will not build their houses in the neighbourhood of Muslims.
  18. Hindus should not bury or carry their dead near Muslim grave-yards.
  19. Hindus will not mourn their dead loudly.
  20. They will not buy Muslim slaves.
Now, those of you, who do not know the meaning of 'Zimmi', it means a person who has to pay a tax to survive in an Islamic state. The tax is known as Jizya. The 'holy' Quran, which is the source of this 'saintly' tax, throws light for us:
Fight against the People given the Book(s) who do not accept faith in Allah and the Last Day, and who do not treat as forbidden what is forbidden by Allah and by His Noble Messenger, and who do not follow the true religion, until they pay the tariff with their own hands with humiliation. 
Quran Chapter 9, verse 29 (translation by Ahmed Reza Khan)

For a better idea about Jizya, read the story of another such scumbag (sickulars will hate me for this) called Amir Khusro.

The Muslims that we see in India, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh are the off springs of those Hindu forefathers, who were forcibly converted to Islam by such monsters, nowadays marketed as 'sufis'. The day they will be brave enough to accept that it was a cruel quirk of fate that forced them to be born as Muslims, they will feel liberated.

The mindset of these monsters was same as that of Taliban today but the evil nexus of Islamists, Evangelists, Communists and Nehruvites marketed them successfully. In fact, so successfully that one finds intellectually lazy Hindus proclaiming them to be at par with genuine saints like Guru Nanak, Guru Namdev, Kabir etc. The bogey of Bhakti movement was shrewdly used to club monsters alongwith saints.

Anyway, back to our 'loving saint'. 

Remember the Bamiyan Buddhas destroyed by the Taliban a few years back ?

Oooops. I agains talked about Taliban instead of our sufi 'saint'. That is because the site where we have a Khanqah of this 'faqir', used to be Kalishwari temple, a temple dedicated to 'Kali devi' which the 'sufi saint' helped in demolishing.
 Historian S.A.A. Rizvi, 'A history of sufism in India', pp 295-96 (vol. 1)

Now you must have got a fair idea of the 'peaceful means and miracles' of 'Islamic saint' a.l.a. Taliban. 

One more thing. The same wikipedia link further tells us:
Later on his son,who preached in Kashmir for 18 years, during the reign of Sultan Sikander, completed his job. Some of his descendants still live in Kashmir.
Completed his job !

Are you getting the drift ?

This Sultan Sikandar is also known as 'Sikandar Butshikan', which literally means 'Sikandar the Idol breaker'. 
That will put the euphemism 'completed his job' in perspective. Hamdani was as full of bigotry as the rest of sufis. He had migrated with 700 Sayyids like him and all of them spread to different parts of Kashmir. That was when Kashmir turned from a peaceful Hindu region to an Islamic one.

So, next time you plan to visit the grave of a monster, or appreciate some musical notes to be 'sufiana', think about the ideology you are unsuspectingly promoting.

 Related posts
Moin-ud-deen Chishti
Muhammad Ghaus
Amir Khusro

Wednesday, June 1, 2011

Khwaja mere Khwaja

Because of his Sword, instead of idols and temples in the land of unbelief now there are mosques, mihrãb and mimbar. In the land where there were the sayings of the idol-worshippers, there is the sound of ‘Allãhu Akbar’.
That is how or Mîr Khwurd has described Moinuddeen Chishti, whose tomb is at Ajmer. This iconoclast has been refferred to as a sufi saint by secular propagandists.
Hardly the kind of description that would fit a saint or what is known as 'sufi'. 

Marriage ?

Anyway, what would you think of a man who has taken a young woman from a dacoit as a gift for 'marriage'?
A pervert? Rapist? Monster? or a saint?
Well, here is more on Moinuddeen Chishti.
According to historian Sita Ram Goel, in 'Hindu temples - What happened to them (part 2)'  
Mu‘în al-dîn had a second wife for the following reason: one night he saw the Holy Prophet in the flesh. The prophet said: ‘You are not truly of my religion if you depart in any way from my sunnat.’ It happened that the ruler of the Patli fort, Malik Khitãb, attacked the unbelievers that night and captured the daughter of the Rãjã of that land. He presented her to Mu‘în al-dîn who accepted her and named her Bîbî Umiya 
Howzzat for a saint ?
The prophet comes in a dream and tells him to keep a hapless woman, who has been snatched away from his father, probably after killing him, and then rape her in the name of marriage. 
Try to imagine a young woman, brought up in an environment where meat eating is considered a sin and beef eating is considered to be the worst possible deeds. She is kidnapped from these safe environs and handed over to an old man, who takes pride in eating of cow flesh. 
If we believe the marxists, she converted to Islam and was named Bibi Umiya. 
Sick bastards.
You do not have to trust me or this respected and honest historian, verify it for yourself from the official website of the 'dargah'. Here is the link. The only difference between the above mentioned version and the one mentioned in the site is whether she was first or second wife. For me the order is not significant.
What kind of pervert will consider such a man to be holy, I really can not fathom. 
The extent of horror will be more clear if you understand the real meaning of the statements. Now, look at the alleged statement of the prophet, which I have underlined for the readers convenience. 
'depart from sunnat'?
Most of you will not understand it. These are euphemisms of Islam. The prophet of Islam, Mohammad, is said to be the role model for all Muslims. He has to be emulated in every respect. It is mentioned in Quran and the verse of Quran which says so can be read here.
The behaviour of his 'sunnat' or practice here is to marry kaafir women. Mohammad in his life time had married many women after killing their husbands. They were given the choice to convert to Islam. Those who converted, were 'married' to Mohammad and those who had a little more spine and did not convert were kept as his concubines (रखैल). Either way, they had to be there for the carnal pleasures of Mohammad.Two such wives of Mohammad were Juwairiya (Another one for prophet) and Safiya (kill husband, get the wife).
So, this 'pious' man called 'Khwaja Moinuddeen Chishti' 'married' the poor woman. Muslims, as well as Hindus visit his tomb, as if it was some sort of a holy place. That is a legacy of Nehruvian secularism, which has uprooted all sense of pride and rationality from the collective psyche of our nation.

Hate for Hindu temples

The opening quote of this post has been taken from 'SIYAR AL AQTAB' written by a pious Muslim. He further gives us an insight into the mind of this 'sufi'
Although at that time there were very many temples of idols around the lake, when the Khwaja saw them, he said: ‘If God and His Prophet so will, it will not be long before I raze to the ground these idol temples.
And the secularists want us to believe that sufis were not bigots and were responsible for the भक्ति movement. So thorough has been the brainwashing that a large number of our citizens have internalised the lie as truth. What they do not know is that the term 'movement' used here, in itself, is a misnomer.

Aim of Sufis

In fact, historians, (that is, the real historians, not from NCERT or AMU or JNU) tell us that sufis were sent into regions as information gatherers so that the Islamic invaders can have a first hand knowledge of the target localities. That is why, wherever they went, Islamic invaders followed. 
Many sufis were sent in all directions by Nizãmu’d-Dîn Awliyã, the Chistîyya luminary of Delhi; all of them actively participated in jihãds against the local population.  Nizãmu’d-Dîn’s leading disciple, Nasîru’d-Dîn Chirãg-i-Dihlî, exhorted the sufis to serve the Islamic state.  “The essence of sufism,” he versified, “is not an external garment. Gird up your loins to serve the Sultãn and be a sufi.
History of sufism in India by S.A.A. Rizvi, pp 189, Vol. 1

Muslims (?) are they really Muslims?

The irony is that those, who were suppressed the most by these bigots, are the most vocal supporters of sufis. Today, the missionary education system, combined with secularists propaganda has robbed the power of reasoning from most of the products of this system. This was predicted by these very sufis, albeit in a different context.
The descendants of those who were converted to Islam in this land will live until the Day of Judgement; so too will those who bring others into the fold of Islam by the sword of Islam. Until the Day of Judgement these converts will be in the debt of Shaykh al-Islãm Mu‘în al-dîn Hasan Sijzã and these people will be drawing closer to Almighty Allãh because of the auspicious devotion of Mu‘în al-dîn.
The Shrine and Cult of Mu‘in al-Dîn Chishtî of Ajmer, P.M. Currie pp 30

The Muslims who go there do not know that they are paying homage to a deranged criminal who would have been responsible for the rape and murder of ancestors of these very Muslims, who were originally Hindu.
Today, the times have changed, therefore, the Maulavis have changed like a chameleon. The tough talk of 'sword of Islam' has been replaced by 'Islam is the religion of peace' and 'all religions are same'. Most of us have swallowed it hook, line and sinker.

Denigrating Hindus

The only religion which says that we all are part of God and God resides in us is Hindu religion, which Gandhi called सनातन धर्म  and swami Dayanand Saraswati आर्य धर्म. The statement 
अहम् ब्रह्मास्मि 
means 'I am God' implying that everything animate and inanimate is God or extension of God. 
How this sufi saint treated this view is very clearly mentioned in Siyar Al Aqtab:

The other miracle is that before his arrival the whole of Hindustan was submerged by unbelief and idol-worship. Every haughty man in Hind pronounced himself to be Almighty God and considered himself as the partner of God. All the people of India used to prostrate themselves before stones, idols, trees, animals, cows and cow-dung. Because of the darkness of unbelief over this land their hearts were locked and hardened.
“All India was ignorant of orders of religion and law. All were ignorant of Allãh and His Prophet. None had seen the Ka‘ba. None had heard of the Greatness of Allãh.
“Because of his coming, the, Sun of real believers, the helper of religion, Mu‘în al-dîn, the darkness of unbelief in this land was illumined by the light of Islam.
That is how fanatic he was. No understanding of sublime ideology of Vedic dharm. Pure bigotry and fanaticism. Also notice how idol worshipping is being abhorred and still Kaba is being praised. Is it not idolatory?

Dargah is a Hindu temple

In fact the dargah is built on  the site of a grand Hindu temple:
There is evidence, more reliable than the tradition recorded in the Siyar al-Aqtãb, to suggest that this was the case in Ajmer. Sculpted stones, apparently from a Hindu temple, are incorporated in the Buland Darwãza of Mu‘în al-dîn’s shrine. Moreover, his tomb is built over a series of cellars which may have formed part of an earlier temple… A tradition, first recorded in the ‘Anis al-Arwãh, suggests that the Sandal Khãna is built on the site of Shãdî Dev’s temple
P.M.Currie
The records in Siyar Al Aqtab are:

It is said that among those temples there was one temple to reverence which the Rãjã and all the infidels used to come, and lands had been assigned to provide for its expenditure. When the Khwãja settled there, every day his servants bought a cow, brought it there and slaughtered it and ate it…
“So when the infidels grew weak and saw that they had no power to resist such a perfect companion of God, they… went into their idol temples which were their places of worship. In them there was a dev, in front of whom they cried out and asked for help
That has been a practice throughout the Islamic period. The local population was terrorised by acts which were considered unthinkably cruel. Cow killing was considered to be the worst. This 'sufi saint' used cow slaughter to assert Islamic supremacy. How saintly? How compassionate? I feel like paying a visit to Ajmer.
The story furthe states that:

“…The dev who was their leader, when he saw the perfect beauty of the Khwãja, trembled from head to foot like a willow tree. However much he tried to say ‘Ram, Ram’, it was ‘Rahîm, Rahîm’ that came from his tongue… The Khwãja… with his own hand gave a cup of water to a servant to take to the dev… He had no sooner drunk it than his heart was purified of darkness of unbelief, he ran forward and fell at the Heaven-treading feet of the Khwãja, and professed his belief…
“The Khwãja said: ‘I also bestow on you the name of Shãdî Dev [Joyful Deval]’…
“…Then Shadî Dev… suggested to the Khwãja, that he should now set up a place in the city, where the populace might benefit from his holy arrival. The Khwãja accepted this suggestion, and ordered one of his special servants called Muhammad Yãdgîr to go into the city and set in good order a place for faqîrs. Muhammad Yãdgîr carried out his orders, and when he had gone into the city, he liked well the place where the radiant tomb of the Khwãja now is, and which originally belonged to Shãdî Dev, and he suggested that the Khwãja should favour it with his residence…
Thus, the temple was usurped and converted into a slaughtering place for cows.


That is how the truth stands folks.


On the same topic

Amir Khusro
Muhammad Ghaus
Sayyid Ali Hamdani