Islam's injunctions to its followers to destroy and insult the other religions are well-known. Churches and synagogues in Southern Europe and Middle Eastern countries that have been desecrated by the Moslems in the name of Islam are too many to cite. The story did not change in the case of the subcontinent of India either. Their houses of worship were destroyed, desecrated, the deities stolen and carried away to be ground to dust or placed below the steps leading to mosques to be trod upon by Moslem pilgrims. the idea has been to insult the kafirs.

Of late the followers of Islam seem to have a second thought on the pheonomenon. A new breed has appeared on the scene who can be called apologists or public relations men for Islam. In the early days, Islam did not need any apologists. Anything done in the name of Islam was already justified and there was no room for any guilt complex. When Aurangzib executed the sufi holy man Sarmad, he knew that no apologies were required. When he tortured the mullahs that had advised his son to rebel against the father, Aurangzib was certain that no apologies were needed.

But times have changed and people dc think on their own, more so among non-Moslems. Among the Moslems, however, free thinking is taboo, where Islam is concerned. This explains why this religion did not have any reformers or thinkers to purify the creed as human civilization progressed. Whatever was supposed to have been said by the prophet more than a thousand years ago is supposed to hold good today in its entirety.

One such apologist of Islam writes in his 'The Life and Times of Sultan Mahmud of Ghazna': "The critics who accuse the Sultan of wanton bloodshed and reckless spoliation of Hindu temples forget that these so-called barbarities were committed in the course of legitimate warfare, when such acts were sanctioned by the practice of all the great conquerors of the world. Spoils captured from a defeated enemy have always been considered lawful property of the victorious army. In India, however, wealth was accumulated not only in the coffers of the kings, as in other countries, but also in the vaults of the temples, which were consecrated in the service of various deities. The consequence was that, while elsewhere the capture of the defeated monarch's treasury usually gratified the conqueror's lust for Mammon, in India temples were also ransacked to secure the piles of gold and precious stones In fume. The religious considerations rarely carry weight with a conqueror, and the Sultan does not appear to have been nfluenced by them in his schemes of conquest".

Quite clearly the apologist calls a simple but ferocious raider a conqueror. A raider raids and goes away but a conqueror adds to the conquered country's new system of government, commerce and industry. William the Conqueror, Napoleon, Alexander the Great were conquerors who contributed considerable developments to the conquered countries. Not so with Islamic conquerors. They built mosques on top of the destroyed temples. They violated the women, took slaves, killed noncombattants. The breed of Islamic raiders cannot be called conquerors in the true sense of the word. They were grabbers and could not grow anything themselves. The spirit of robbery, greed, intolerance toward people of other faiths, characterize these raiders as a special breed of people and time has come to look upon them as such and take proper precautions before it is too late.

All non-Moslems have been extremely tolerant toward the Moslems. The offending mosques built on the foundations of destroyed temples, have been allowed to remain and the Hindus have built new temples near by for a Hindu is reluctant to destroy the house of worship of anyone. Unfortunately, such behavior is translated by many Moslems as proven super~or~ty of their religion. They can destroy someone else's house of worship but others cannot do the same to theirs.

During the Pakistani attack on East Pakistan's Hindus, they destroyed many Hindu temples. It was not to rob the vaults of the temples but to spite the kafirs and prove the superiority of Islam. The inherent difference between Islam as a religion and any other religion is to be recognized. It is the behavior of the Moslem and his holy book that can provide the key to the Moslem psyche and his attitude to the non-Moslem world.

The attack on the kafir's religion has not been limited to physical demolition of the non-Moslem edifices only. The onslaught has been carried out at the spiritual level as well. The gods and goddesses of the kafirs have been vilified in grossest terms by the exponents of Islam. The editor of the Moslem Daily 'Morning News' of Calcutta once wrote a leading article on Lord Krishna, the Hindu God of preservation. Krishna was described as 'the Gay Lothario of Vrindaban' alluding to so called amorous associations between Krishna and the girls from many cow-herds' families. The not so informed Moslem editor did not bother to find out that the escapades he referred to could not be possible for Krishna was only twelve year old at the time. How precocious can a twelve year old be?

Take the case of Jesus Christ for instance. The greatness of Christ lies in his gentleness. His advice to turn the other cheek is the epitome of Christian behavior. But Khomeini of Iran has announced, on more than one occasion, in his speeches to the believers, that the Christians are erroneous in attributing these qualities to Jesus Christ. Christ, according to Khomeini, could never have advised to turn the other cheek for no true prophet is foolish enough to say such a thing. This was all concocted by the imperialist and Satanic infidels of Europe and America to subjugate the peoples of other lands.

The Moslems on the other hand cannot tolerate it if anyone doubts the words and deeds of their prophet, finds his moral behavior objectionable vis-'a-vis women or his words irreconcitable to his deeds, etc. If anyone expresses doubt on Mohammed's climbing to Islam's paradise on the back of the winged horse called Barq, then it becomes a blasphemy.

The Moslem blames everyone for some kind of idolatry The Hindus have their gods and goddesses from a big pantheon of deities. The Christians have their trinity and they call Jesus the son of God. To a Moslem these are sacrilegeous attributes. But when it comes to adoring the hair of the prophet which is said to be stored in the Hazratbal mosque in Kashmir then it is all right. No one can call it idolatry then! But for a Buddhist to show his veneration in front of the temple in Ceylon that houses the toe-nails of Buddha, is 'kufr'.

Naturally, it becomes very difficult to comprehend the psychology of the followers of Islam in these days of logic and reason.