Tomb of Ghiyãsu’d-Dîn Tughlaq: Similarly, Sayyid Ahmad notices this tomb in some detail but does not describe its Hindu features.395 Khaleeq Anjum, however, says in his introduction that “corridors inside this tomb have been constructed in the style of Hindu architecture, and the pillars as well as the beams in the corridors are fully of Hindu fashion.” He repeats the same comments in his notes at the end.”

Tomb of Ghiyãsu’d-Dîn Tughlaq: Similarly, Sayyid Ahmad notices this tomb in some detail but does not describe its Hindu features.395 Khaleeq Anjum, however, says in his introduction that “corridors inside this tomb have been constructed in the style of Hindu architecture, and the pillars as well as the beams in the corridors are fully of Hindu fashion.” He repeats the same comments in his notes at the end.”

Hardly had on e walked a few steps after entering the main gate, when one noticed, on the wall outside, distinct remnants of Hindu deities. They are carved on solid stone which on the outside mingles quite naturally with the tile work of the same stone. One stone slab displays Ganesh by the side of his consort. There are several others including the crests of doorways at the entrance of the northern as well as the eastern face. Inside the mosque, the stone work is equall y convincing that the original building was a temple.

Cunningham's observations made in 1871/72 should be taken even more seriously because his impartiality would be beyond doubt. There would be no bias as between the Hindu and Muslim viewpoints . In the ASI report of those years he has written that the tomb of Sultan Chari, with its domes of overlapping courses, appears to be pre-Muhammadan, but when to this feature we add the other Hindu features, both of construction and ornamentation, the stones set without cement in the walls, the appearance of wear or weathering of the stones, greater even than in the Kutb, though similar in material, and the fact that the inner cell was originally finished in granite, but afterwards cased with marble, it becomes extremely probable that this is, like the Kutb, a Hindu building appropriated by the Muhammandans, and the probability is rendered almost a certainty by the existence of the central cell, which is a construction adapted to some Hindu forms of worship, the Saivic, but which is an anomaly in Muhammadan architecture.

Furthermore, we are instructed, when we do come across instances of temple destruction, as in the case of Aurangzeb, we have to be circumspect in inferring what has happened and why.... the early monuments – like the Quwwat-ul-Islam mosque in Delhi – had to be built in ‘great haste’, we are instructed...Proclamation of political power, alone! And what about the religion which insists that religious faith is all, that the political cannot be separated from the religious? And the name: the Quwwat-ul-Islam mosque, the Might of Islam mosque? Of course, that must be taken to be mere genuflection! And notice: ‘available materials were assembled and incorporated’, they ‘clearly came from Hindu sources’ – may be the materials were just lying about; may be the temples had crumbled on their own earlier; may be the Hindus voluntarily broke their temples and donated the materials? No? After all, there is no proof they didn’t! And so, the word ‘plundered’ is repeatedly put within quotation marks!
In fact, there is more. The use of such materials – from Hindu temples – for constructing Islamic mosques is part of ‘a process of architectural definition and accommodation by local workmen essential to the further development of a South Asian architecture for Islamic use’. The primary responsibility thus becomes that of those ‘local workmen’ and their ‘accommodation’. Hence, features in the Qutb complex come to ‘demonstrate a creative response by architects and carvers to a new programme’. A mosque that has clearly used materials, including pillars, from Hindu temples, in which undeniably ‘in the fabric of the central dome, a lintel carved with Hindu deities has been turned around so that its images face into the rubble wall’ comes ‘not to fix the rule’. ‘Rather, it stands in contrast to the rapid exploration of collaborative and creative possibilities – architectural, decorative, and synthetic – found in less fortified contexts.’ Conclusions to the contrary have been ‘misevaluations’. We are making the error of ‘seeing salvaged pieces’ – what a good word that, ‘salvaged ’: the pieces were not obtained by breaking down temples; they were lying as rubble and would inevitably have disintegrated with the passage of time; instead they were ‘salvaged ’, and given the honour of becoming part of new, pious buildings – ‘seeing salvaged pieces where healthy collaborative creativity was producing new forms’.

Jean-Baptiste Tavernier, who visited Ahmadabad numerous times, wrote a short account of the incident, There was a Pagoda in this place, which the Muhammadans took possession of in order to turn it into a mosque. Before entering it you traverse three great courts paved with marble, and surrounded by galleries, and you are not allowed to place foot in the third without removing your shoes. The exterior of the mosque is ornamented with mosaic, the greater part of which consists of agates of different colours, Obtained from the mountains of Cambay, only two days’ journey from thence .

Cunningham called it a masjid which was made up of Hindu materials. It is difficult to agree with Cunningham. The author feels that a Hindu building was converted into a masjid and not made up or rebuilt with Hindu materials. If it had been rebuilt, its Muslim builder would have excluded the inscription of Raja Ajaya as well as all the statuettes on the pillars and walls. The fact that they have been mutilated is a clear indication that the then existing Hindu edifice was quickly converted into a masjid. Apart from the factor of quickness, there must have been the lack of readily available architects and artisans familiar with Islamic architecture. Hence, a great deal of the early Muslim buildings in Hindustan were conversions of Hindu temples. A distinctly Islamic style did not emerge until about the advent of the Lodis in the course of the 15th century.

The fact that Hindu temple materials (14 black-stone sculptured pillars) have been used in the Babri Masjid is not an unusual feature requiring a special explanation; on the contrary, it was a fairly common practice meant as a visual display of the victory of Islam over infidelity. It was done in many mosques that have forcibly replaced temples, e.g. the Gyanvapi mosque in Varanasi (in which a part of the Kashi Vishvanath temple is still visible), the Adhai-Din-ka-Jhonpra mosque in Ajmer, the Quwwat-ul-Islam mosque in Delhi, or, outside India, the Jama Masjid of Damascus (which was a Christian cathedral)... There are Hindu temple materials in mosques attributed to Babar in Sambhal (replacing a Vishnu temple, and dated by archaeologists to the Sultanate period, just like the Ayodhya “Babri” Masjid) and Pilakhana. Local tradition affirms that the Babri Masjids in Palam, Sonipat, Rohtak, Panipat, and Sirsa have replaced Brahminical or Jain temples. The contemporary Tarikh-i-Babari describes how Babar’s troops “demolished many Hindu temples at Chanderi” when they occupied it.

But the unique and the most important feature of its construction is the use of... nook-shafts (corner pillars)... They bear stylized designs of kirttimukha and lahara-vallari and are obviously Hindu in their origin... Technically called a 'clerestory', this feature has been used on a large scale in the mosques of Ahmedabad in imitation of the preceding temples of the region... More than the (supposedly) corbelled ceilings and corbelled pendentives, these 11 nook-shafts testify, without any doubt, that material from some despoiled Hindu temple was used in the construction or the final restoration of this mosque.

Architecturally, the building was and remained a mosque, while functionally, it had been and continued to be a Hindu temple.

The ceiling rests on columns raised with two pillars each robbed from an earlier Hindu shrine; carved lintels from another were found embedded in the thick lime-concrete roof. Other pieces were used in the ceilings of the prayer-chamber and bastions and the pillars re-utilised in the verandahs, originally used as a madrasa, after chipping the decoration off them. The tomb was repaired later by Firuz Shah Tughluq.

There is one architectural argument which has not been used in the VHP evidence bundle, though it seems quite pertinent to me. The central dome of the Masjid is slightly deformed, and it is supported by a front wall that forms a sort of screen before part of the dome. The reason seems to be that the builders had to adjust the upper part of the Masjid to the walls and pillars of the pre-existing Mandir, which they were incorporating rather than razing them flat and starting totally anew.

In this connection I may say that there should not be any doubt to anyone regarding archaeological facts (remains and antiquities) unearthed by Prof. A.K. Narain and Prof. B.B. Lal or about the nature of the structure of Babri Masjid,which though a mosque built in 1528-29 as per the inscribed record, shows internally the reuse of earlier carved structural members including the pillars of pre-13th century AD (dating around circa 11th century AD or so).(M.C. Joshi, Director General of Archaeological Survey of India, ,quoted in Preface)

Throughout the Muslim rule destruction of Hindu shrines and construction of mosques and other building from their materials and at their very sites went on as a normal practice. From the Quwwal-ul-Islam mosque in Delhi built out of twenty-seven Hindu and Jain temples in the twelfth century to the Taj-ul-Masajid built from hundreds of Hindu and Jain temples at Bhopal in the eighteenth century, the story is the same everywhere.