38. It is said that Islam does not sanction breaking of temples. Please comment.

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.