Khawas Khan, who was the predecessor of Mian Bhua, having been ordered by the Sultan [Sikandar Lodi] to march towards Nagarkot, in order to bring the… - Sikandar Khan Lodi

Sultan Sikandar was yet a young boy when he heard about a tank in Thanesar which the Hindus regarded as sacred and went for bathing in it. He asked the theologians about the prescription of the Shari'ah on this subject. They replied that it was permitted to demolish the ancient temples and idol-houses of the infidels, but it was not proper for him to stop them from going to an ancient tank. Hearing this reply, the prince drew out his sword and thought of beheading the theologian concerned, saying that he (the theologian) was siding with the infidels.

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.