The conflict of cultures on the subcontinent of India allows for virtually unparalleled examinations of the interactions between religions. In times of peace, the subcontinent has provided such evidence as the poems of Kabir or of Nanak. In times of war, the evidence has been a bit more difficult in the interpretation. In the case of the Rajput kingdom, however, one has a time with the intensity of war seen through the lens of peace. By examining extant histories from each side of the wars, one is able to compare the differing perspectives with all the intensity of a fight for life by the respective faiths.
Even in the history of India, through which virtually every religion has passed, and in which many were born, the conflict between the Hindu and the Muslim is of particular interest. Due to the sheer length of time the contact has lasted and the vast variety of circumstances, Muslim and Hindu have related to each other in virtually every possible way. Ideologically, however, at least on the topic of idols, it would be difficult to find two faiths more widely divergent.
In theory, all the religions of the Book oppose the use of idols, or rather the worship of idols. This opinion of idols varies, however. The Jews tolerated their Hellenic neighbors, so long as Israel was left in peace. Christians variously coopted or opposed the use of idols. The early Church afforded to idols a possible power, and Saint Augustine can even be found quoting Hermes Trismegistus's theory that idols had their powers invested into them by humans, while others saw them as demons or neutral intelligences. Islam has a slightly different take on the subject. While the Bible claims that God left the idolaters to suffer because of their choice of idolatry (cf. Romans 2), without a comment about their eternal status nor even what it is they follow, al-Quran leaves no doubt:
Lo! Allah pardoneth not that partners should be ascribed unto him. He pardoneth all save that to whom He will. Whoso ascribeth partners unto Allah hath wandered far astray. They invoke in His stead only females; they pray to none else than Satan, a rebel. Whom Allah cursed, and he said: Surely I will take of Thy bondsmen an appointed portion, And surely I will lead them astray, and surely I will arouse desires in them, and surely I will command them and they will cut the cattle's ears, and surely I will command them and they will change Allah's creation. Whoso chooseth Satan for a patron instead of Allah is verily a loser and his loss is manifest. He promiseth them and stirreth up desires in them, and Satan promiseth them only to beguile. For such, their habitation will be hell, and they will find no refuge therefrom. (iv.116-121)
With such unequivocal ideological opposition, it is no small wonder Hinduism and Islam coexisted on the subcontinent, while otherwise to the west idols were eliminated, or else drastically reinterpreted. In the time period under study, and in the works being examined, however, this relatively peaceful coexistence has not yet been reached. Ideologically, the Islamic opposition to idols is clear. Socio-politically, it also served the purpose of driving the people, and particularly the rulers, into cultural loss and political submission. Through the quirks of history, the stage has been set for an illuminating conflict.
Even within Hinduism, however, the nature of idols is a difficult one to establish. Some sects claim the idol to be the god, while others claim the idol represents the god. Some sects claim the idol becomes the god -- or begins to represent the god -- only upon consecration. Swami Prabhupada said:
So, while for us there is a distinction between the body and the soul, for Krsna there is no such distinction. Also, there is no distinction between Krsna Himself and His Deity form made of stone. Why? Because the stone is Krsna's energy. Earth, water, fire, air -- everything is Krsna's energy. (page 55)
In apparent contradiction, V.S. Bhatnagar said:
[To Kalidasa] Lord Siva now retired, leaving the idol in the Somanatha temple, a mere stone on which the misguided Muslims poured their vulgar wrath and took pride in their iconoclastic activity without in any way affecting the faith of the Hindus, either in the Gods or their religion. (page 125)
These commentators are much later than the texts under consideration, however, and it is back to those texts the reader ought to turn.
Turning back to the Islamic side in the conflict, keeping in mind the revelation of al-Quran, Amir Khusrau described the fall of one temple and the overcoming -- in his opinion, as V.S. Bhatnagor's conflicting opinion has shown, and recalling the reader has not yet heard the Hindu side of the story -- of its idol in The Khaza'inul Futuh with this description:
So the temple of Somnath was made to bow towards the holy Mecca; and as the temple lowered its head and jumped into the sea, you may say that the building first said its prayers and then had a bath. The idols, who had fixed their abode midway to the House of Abraham, and there waylaid stragglers, were broken to pieces in pursuance of Abraham's tradition. But one idol, the greatest of them all, was sent by the maliks to the imperial court so that the breaking of their helpless god may be demonstrated to the idol-worshiping Hindus. (page 182)
Much of this can be ascribed no doubt to personification. The opinion of Amir Khusrau on the idol of Siva, however, is clear. His idol was a "helpless god," and all the lessor idols were the same. They could be broken by humans without fear, and would show the helplessness of the Hindus. In the Muslim opinion, they were stones worshiped by evil men.
On the Hindu side, the same sacking of the same temple is described. In historical fact the descriptions are quite similar, but in terms of the disposition of the god (Siva, or Somanatha), they are quite different. The poet Padmanabha says:
(Coming to the temple now) Profound calamity had fallen upon Lord Somanatha's temple. The locks (of the doors) were broken upon and the enemy rushed through the doors tumultuously, and took possession of the temple drum and kansala. The Mlechchha (asura) stone-breakers climbed up the sikhara of the temple (to take off the golden kalasa) and began to rain blows on the stone idols on all the three sides (pasa) by their hammers, the stone pieces falling all around. They loosened every joint of the temple building, and then began to break the different layers (thara), and the sculptured elephants and horses on them by incessant blows of their hammers. Then, amidst loud and vulgar clamour, they began to apply force from both the sides to uproot the massive idol by means of wooden beams and iron crowbars.Such strange and improper happenings were taking place: the kaliyuga was, no doubt, showing its true temper: Lord Siva, leaving the earthly abode, went away to Kalidasa. (i.93-97)
In this description -- as in the gloss by the commentator on the poem, V.S. Bhatnagar -- the god leaves the image. The Hindu does not claim the idol was not destroyed, as the evidence of the senses would prevent, but claims that Siva has somehow left the idol, leaving a mere body in the hands of the Muslims.
The question of "Where is Siva?" is a difficult one. The answer that Kanhadade sees Siva in the camp of Alauddin is no more answer than to say Kanhadade is said later to have rescued Siva when he rescues the Somanatha idol. Siva can appear in multiple places, one assumes, or be spoken of metaphorically. Nonetheless, it appears safe to say that one cannot claim Siva to be -- in the eyes of the Hindu -- "trapped" in the body. Neither side doubts the mere rock to be at the mercy of the Muslim, but the essence of the deity is at issue. Amir Khusrau denies it exists; Padmanabha claims it exists independently of the idol.
The situation of the sacking of the Shaivite temple in Somnatha is an ideal situation for interrogating the views on idols held by the Muslims and the Hindus. Historically similar, the emphases allow the reader to see differences in opinions on the locations of the essences of the gods, and this of the powers of the gods. This provides a valuable window into the minds of the respective religions, and also into the struggle between them.