Sikandar himself marched on Friday, the 6th Ramzan AH 906 (AD March, 1501), upon Dhulpur (Dholpur); but Raja Manikdeo, placing a garrison in the fort… - Sikandar Khan Lodi

One may very well ask the purveyors of this puerile propaganda that if the record of Islam in medieval India was so bright and blameless, where is the need for this daily ritual of whitewashing it. Hindu heroes like Chandragupta Maurya, Samudragupta, Harihar, Bukka, Maharana Pratap, and Shivaji, to name only a few of the notables, have never needed any face-lift. Why does the monstrous men of an Alauddin Khalji, a Firuz Shah Tughlaq, a Sikandar Lodi, and an Aurangzeb, to name only the most notorious, pop out so soon from the thickest coat of cosmetics?
The answer is provided by the Muslim historians of medieval India. They painted their heroes in the indelible dyes of Islamic ideology. They did not anticipate the day when Islamic imperialism in India will become only a painful memory of the past. They did not visualise that the record of Islam in India will one day be weighed on the scales of human values. Now it is too late for trying to salvage Islam in medieval India from its blood-soaked history. The orthodox Muslim historians are honest when they state that the medieval Muslim monarchs were only carrying out the commandments of Islam when they massacred, captured, enslaved, and violated Hindu men, women and children; desecrated, demolished, and destroyed Hindu places of worship; and dispossessed the Hindus of all their wealth. The Aligarh “historians” and their secularist patrons are only trying to prop up imposters in place of real and living characters who played life-size roles in history.

It is said that one day a Brahman declared in the presence of several Muhammadans that the religion of Islam was true, but that his own religion was also true. When this declaration reached the ear of the Doctors, they reported it to the Sultan and as he was remarkably fond of religious and legal questions and theological controversies, he summoned the learned from various quarters, and invited their opinion on what the Brahman had asserted. The learned gave it unanimously as their opinion that he should be imprisoned, and that he should then be desired to embrace Islam, and if he should reject it, that he should be slain. Accordingly, when the Brahman was desired to embrace the Muhammadan religion, he refused to do so, and he was put to death. Many other similar instances of his zeal for religion occurred during his reign.
In his time, Hindu temples were razed to the ground, and neither name nor vestige of them was allowed to [p. 126] remain. In the city of Mathura, if a Hindu wished to have his head or beard shaved, there was not a barber that dared to comply. He prohibited the procession of the spear of Salar Mas’ud Ghazi, which went every year to Bahralch, and women were not allowed to go on pilgrimages to shrines.

At the time of his return he restored the fort of Dholpur also to Binayik Deo, and having spent the rainy season in agra after the rising of the Canopus in the year AH 910 (AD 1504), marched to reduce the fortress of Mandrayal, which lie took without fighting from the Rajah of Mandrayal, who sued for peace; he also destroyed all the idol-temples and churches of the place...'And in the year AH 912 (AD 1506), after the rising of the Canopus, he marched against the fortress of untgaRh and laid siege to it, and many of his men joyfully embraced martyrdom, after that he took the fort and gave the infidels as food to the sword' He then cast down the idol-temples, and built there lofty mosques.'183