Ignorance of law is not accepted as excuse for crime. Ignorance of history is no excuse either to falsify. None in court dared cite historical evidence justifying epithet for Moinaldin& a "sufi" declared by default to-be-honoured in spite of historically recorded despicable acts.
Frm Goel's Hindu Temples: vol2 citing Sufi author voiceofdharma.org/books/htemples… what is honourable non-looting behaviour in one occupying a temple by force, slaughtering a cow to show power over target Hindus, getting a jihadi army to loot a Hindu chief's daughter for Sufi's 2nd wife?
Medieval Sufi chroniclers themselves make no attempt to hide their violent intentions on Hindus, extol such actions by Sufis reconstructed now as "saints". Sirhindi claimed to be a Sufi: shall we cite his letters? Or the many other "sufis" and their violence/hatred on Hindus?
If historical Hindu religious figures are not sacrosanct, not by default to be honoured, and critical denunciation of their character allowed - why are historical Sufis to be automatically blanket protected from similar deconstruction?
But crucially, suppression of critical appraisal of historical characters selectively based on their current religious significance - is not only a medieval totalitarianism, but it also empowers fanatics and unquestionable institutional forces and movements - fatal for nation.
Share this Scrolly Tale with your friends.
A Scrolly Tale is a new way to read Twitter threads with a more visually immersive experience.
Discover more beautiful Scrolly Tales like this.