When it comes to dealing with the history of persecution and temple destruction by the Muslims, secularist historians throw all regard for hard evidence to the wind and replace it with a purely deductive (which is typically medieval) approach : Islam is tolerant, therefore the destruction and persecution cannot have taken place.

http://www.voiceofdharma.com/books/ayodhya/ch8.htm”

“1. She has suppressed the fact, stated by Huen Tsang, that Mihîrakula had requested the Buddhist Sangha to teach him the tenets of Buddhism. The Sangha did not assign the task to a qualified teacher but sent a monk who had the rank of a servant. Mihîrakula felt outraged at this insult and persecuted the Buddhists. It is highly doubtful if this HûNa tyrant had become a Šaiva. KalhaNa sees him only as a HûNa extending patronage to bad BrãhmaNas. But even if he had, his fury had nothing to do with Šaivism. On the contrary, it was the fury of a tyrant whose ego had been hurt. Kashmir had known many Šaiva kings before Mihîrakula as well as after him. None of them is known to have persecuted the Buddhists. In fact, most of them are known to have been patrons of Buddhism. The only instance she cites is that of a king who repented and rebuilt the vihãra which he had pulled down in a fit of anger. We should welcome a similar instance of some Muslim ruler who repented and rebuilt the temple he had demolished. The difference arises because while it was a temporary lapse on the part of the Kashmiran king, Muslim rulers were inspired by a permanently prescribed theology.

http://www.voiceofdharma.com/books/htemples2/app4.htm”

More info:

http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/articles/ayodhya/pushyamitra.html

http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/articles/ayodhya/harshakashmir.html

On a side note the word Muslim invaders used for themselves butshikan or idol breaker which is derived from them smashing Buddhist idols throughout Central Asia before invading India.

Also read up lama taranatha’s writings where he shows some understanding of the fanaticism inherent in Islam. He was aware of the Muslim destruction of the Buddhists and laments that the worshippers of Ishvara (i.e Astika’s) like the nAtha’s did not band together with the Buddhists to fight the Muslim invaders, precisely what historical instances he means by this I am not sure about.

Marxist are a wonderful tribe; a vanishing tribe ;vanishing under its own queer and laughable contradictions. The saviours of the undertroden are being hated by the undertrodden who beg them to leave them alon

Marxists are the only tribe which besides telling lies to all tells lies to itself; self delusion

And where is the doubt of destruction by fantic islamists of Budhist monuments. Why are we looking in past. See in the TV age the live destruction of Bamia Budhas in Afganistan. O judgement though art fled to the brutish beasts and men have lost their reason. Do you still require more proof Mr Singhvi.

Thanks to the blogging. Frauds like Singhvi stand exposed

I’m with you on the argument about destruction of Buddhist stupas/monasteries by Hindu kings as against those by Muslim invaders. But am in disagreement with the Harsha-Buddhist part, although I agree to not deviate into minute details unrelated to the topic.