ISRAEL

ORIENTAL
,-f STUDIES
II

1972
TEL AVIV UNIVERSITY

The Temple of MulUin
A note on early Muslim attitudes to idolatry
YOHANAN FRIEDMANN
When the early Arab conquerors arrived at the beginning of the eighth cen-
tury at the western fringes of India, they were immediately confronted with
the question of their relationship with the people living in the occupied ter-
ritory. In India, this question was more difficult to answer than in most other
countries conquered during the first century of Islamic history. The Qur'an
and the other branches of early Islamic literature" contain ample material on
Jews and Christians, specify their role in the spiritual history of mankind
and define to a certain extent the relationship which the Muslims should
evolve with them. None of this applies to the religious traditions of India, which
were totally unknown to the early Arab conquerors. It could, of course, be
argued that the Hindus were polytheists and ought to be treated in accordance
with the shar'i injunction relative to the mushrikiln of the Arabian peninsula.
This proposition - to confront the Hindus with the choice of Islam or the
sword - was, however, out of the question due to the paucity of the early
conquerors and to the precarious nature of their rule in its early stages. An
accommodation with the indigenous population had to be found if the Mus-
lims were to stand any chance of establishing their rule in parts of the Indian
subcontinent. After the fury of the conquest was over, the rulers of the early
Muslim principalities normally allowed their Hindu subjects to perform their
religious rites and observances. Some schools of Islamic law found a legal
way to include the Hindu community within the category of ahl al-dhimma,
despite the apparently idolatrous nature of their religious traditions.
A detailed description of the early Muslim intrusions into India is included
in al-Baladhuri's Futilb al-Buldiin.l The attitude adopted by the Muslim con-
querors towards the subjugated population of western India varied from place
to place. A part of the population of Daybul, which was conquered by Mu-
l;tammad b. al-Qiisim al-Thaqafi at the beginning of the eighth century, was
killed in a massacre lasting three days. Among those killed were the two
guardians of the city temple. The tower of the temple was destroyed and a
1 Ed. de Goeje, pp. 431-446.
176
The Temple of Multan
mosque was erected in the city.z Similar was the fate of Brahmanabiid.3 The
temple of Qandahiir, which was conquered by Hishiim b. 'Amr al-Taghlibi
in the reign of ai-Man~ur, was destroyed and a mosque was built in its stead.•
On the other hand, no harm was done to several other cities, such as Nirun,
Sadusan and al-Riir.S The anonymous lfudud al-'Alam, written towards the
end of the tenth century, gives information about several Indian towns, which
were governed by Muslims and at the same time served as sites for idol-temples.
Conversely, mosques existed in cities which were under the sway of Hindu
rulers.6
The city of Multan deserves our special attention. It was conquered by
Mul;tammad b. al-Qasim ouly after fierce fighting and after the water supply
of the beleaguered city was cut by the Muslims, who were able to do this
with the help of information transmitted to them by one of the city inhabi-
tants. Mul;tammad b. ai-Qasim killed the fighting men and imprisoned the
children and the guardians of the temple. These last numbered six
thousand men. The Muslims took posession of great quantities of gold which
were accumulated in the temple. According to ai-Baladhuri, the people of
Sind used to perform pilgrimage to this temple, to circumambulate it and to
shave near it their heads and beards. They used to present the idol of the
temple with money and to make vows to it. 7
The differences between the policies adopted by Mul;tammad b. ai-Qasim
in Daybul and his policy in Multiin are worth consideration. The temple of
2 FutUb al-Buldtin, p. 437. Despite this information, Bazmee Ansari maintains in the
article "Daybul" in E/2 that Mul;tammad b. al-Qasim "offered liberal terms to the van-
quished non-Muslims and assured them of full protection as dhimmis". Similarly, Qureshi
(The Muslim community of the Indo-Pakistan subcontinent (61D-1947), The Hague, 1962,
p. 39, n. 24) says, on the basis of Futfi/:t al~Buldiin, p. 437, that "the great' temple of Debal
still existed in the reign of the Abbasid caliph, Mu 'ta~im". This does not seem to be a cor~
rect interpretation of the passage. AI~Baliidhuri only says that a certain Man$Ur b. I;Iiitim
saw the tower of the temple broken and that a governor of Sind in the reign of al~Mu'ta$im
destroyed the upper part of the temPle and converted it into a prison. The case of Daybul
·thus cannot serve as a proof' that "places of worship were left unmolested" (op. cit., p. 39),
though in other places this certainly was so. Bazmee Ansari correctly observes in the article
referred to above that the temple, ruined during the conquest, remained in a state of neg~
I lect and disrepair.
~
3 FutUI; al~Buldiin, p. 439.
4 Ibid., p. 445.
,, Ibid., pp. 437-440.
6 l;ludiid a/-'A/am (Leningrad, 1930), fols. 14b-16a (translation by Minorsky, London,
1937, pp. 88-92).
7 FutUI; al~Buldiin, pp. 439-440. For more details about the rites performed at the temple,
see lbnRusta, al-A'liiq al-Nafisa (Leiden, 1891), pp. 136-137 and M.A. Pathan, "Multan
under the Arabs", IC XL111 (1969) pp. 13-20.
177
 Y ohanan Friedmann
Daybul was partially destroyed during the siege of the city. Its two guardians
were among those killed during the massacre that followed the conquest. In
Multan, however, despite the fact that this city was also conquered after a
long siege and fierce fighting, the attitude of the conquerors was different.
Nothing is said about the destruction of the temple; its guardians were not
killed but imprisoned and treated separately from the fighting men. There is
no mention of a mosque being built in the city.
The description of these events by al-Biriini is slightly different from that
of a!-Baladhuri. AI-Biriini also reports that the temple was left intact, but
maintains that Mul.lammad b. al-Qasim hung a piece of beef on the idol's
neck as a sign of humiliation and built a mosque in the city.s Since we know
from other sources that Friday prayers were performed in Multan,9 we can
assume that al-Biriini's information about the erection of a mosque is reliable.
Thus, Islam and idolatry were practised in Multan side by side.
An interesting light on the reasons for which the temple of Multan was
kept intact is shed by a tradition reported by Ibn al-Jawzi in his Talbis Iblis.IO
When the Muslims conquered the city in the days of al-I;Jajjaj, they wanted
to destroy the temple. The people of Multan asked them to desist from doing
this and promised to pay them a third of the temple's income. The caliph
'Abd al-Malik was consulted about this proposal and issued an order to leave
the temple unharmed.! I The city thus remained a centre of pilgrimage for
the Hindiis, who used to come there even from great distances. Each pilgrim
had to offer the temple a sum of money ranging from one hundred to ten
thousand dirhams, according to his financial ability. The pilgrimage was not
considered valid unless the offering was made. When the pilgrims left the
place, the money accumulated in the temple was divided into three equal
portions. One of them was given to the Muslims, in accordance with the
agreement referred to above. Another portion was used for the improvement
of the city and its fortifications. The third portion was given to the guardians
of the temple and expended partially for its upkeep.
A tradition very similar to this one is found in al-Shatibi's al-Jumiin fi
Akhbiir al-Zamiin.i2 This tradition explicitly says that 'Abd al-Malik made
his decision regarding the temple "out of desire for money" (raghbatan fi al-
miil). The wealth accumulated in the temple was used according to al-Shatibi
for the improvement of the city and its fortifications, for the benefit of the
' Ta/!qfq mii /i-'1-Hind (Hyderabad [Deccan], 1958), p. 88.
9 Ibn J;Iawqal, $iirat al-Ar¢ (Leiden, !948), p. 322.
10 Cairo, 1928, p, 61.
11 This is an anachronism. The expedition of Mu.l;tammad b. al-Qasim to Sind was under-
taken after 'Abd al-Malik's death.
12 BM Or. 3008, f. 36a. I am indebted to Professor M. J. Kister for this reference.
178
1
\
I
The Temple of M ultan
poor and for the guardians of the temple and its upkeep. The Muslims are
not mentioned here among those who benefit from the income; this is sur-
prising in view of the agreement on the basis of which the temple was left
unharmed. The tradition reported by al-Shatibi does not mention specifically
that the story refers to the temple of Multan, but its content leaves little doubt
about this. 13
The temple of Multan continued to flourish under Muslim rule aud pat-
ronage till the end of the tenth ceutury. It seems that the position of the
Muslim ruler of the city with regard to the management of the temple was
even strengthened with the passage of time. The geographer Ibn I;Jawqal,
who gives a relatively detailed description .of the temple, reports that the
amir of Multan takes all the money that is brought there, and provides its
guardians with sufficient means of livelihood (wa 'iimmatu mii yul,lmal ilii
hiidhii al-~anam min al-miil ya'khudhuhu a/-qurashi al-habbiiri amir al-multiin
wa yunjiq 'alii al-sadana minhu kafiifahum).l4 Thus, contrary to the tradition
describing the situation immediately following the conquest, the sum reserved
for the guardians of the temple is no more a fixed portion of the total income,
but is left to the discretion of the Muslim amir.
Ibn I;Jawqal and several other sources report a fascinating detail concern-
ing the tactic through which the Muslim ruler of Multan was able to foil
Hindii attempts to resume control of the city. Whenever a Hindii attack was
in progress, the Muslims threatened to break and burn the idol of the temple.
Faced with this threat, the Hindiis used to call the attack off and to retreat.1 5
The temple of Multan was eventually ruined by the Ismii 'iii dii'i I;lalam
b. Shayban in ca. 376/986. He broke the idol, killed its guardians and
transformed the temple into a mosque.16
13 The financial rea'Son for tolerating the temple of Multan is stressed also by al-Qazwini,
Athar al-Bilad (Beirut, 1960), p. 122;
14 Ibn J;Iawqal, op. cit., pp. 321-322.
15 Ibid., p. 322; al-Mas·udi, MurUj al~Dhahab, vol. I, p. 376; al~I~takhri, al-Masalik wa
al-Mamiilik (Leiden, 1927), p. 174-175; Reinaud, Relation de voyages ... (Paris, 1845), vol. I,
p. XLVI. See also M. Ahmad, Indo~Arab relations .(Bombay, 1969), who thinks that the
employment of this tactic by the Arab ruler was a symptom of his military weakness. For
harsh ciiticism by an Indian historian of the Indian rulers' failure to conquer Multan for
fear that the- idol might be destroyed, see. R. C. Majumdar, ed., The History and Culture
of the Indian People, vol. IV: The age of imperial Kanauj (Bombay, 1955), pp. 127-128.
16 AI~Biriini, op, cit., p. _88; S. M. Stern, "Isma."ili propaganda and the Fatimid rule in
Sind", IC XXIII (1949), pp. 298-307; idem, "Heterodox Isma 'ilism at the time of al~Mu "izz",
BSOAS XVII (1955), pp. 10-33; A. H. al-Hamdani, The Ismii'ili da'wa in Northern India
(Cairo, 1956), pp. 2-4.
179
 Y ohanan Friedmann
Thus, the observance of idolatrous practices was tolerated in Muslim Multiin
till the capture of the city by the Isma 'ills. The conclusion which emerges
from this seems to be that, from the point of view of Islamic law, the early
Muslim rulers of Multan accorded the Hindii population the factual status
of ahl al-dhimma. Among the schools of Islamic jurisprudence, however, there
is no unanimity as to whether this status may be accorded to idolators. This
problem is discussed in chapters dealing with the various groups of people
from whom it is permissible to accept the payment of jizya, and, consequently,
to allow them to preserve their religions beliefs and traditions. According to
al-Shafi 'i, jizya may be accepted only from those who believed at the time
of the Islamic revelation in one of the religions of the People of the Book.
Those who do not pass this test, whether they are Arabs or non-Arabs, may
not benefit from this privilege and ought to be fought until they accept Islam.
God allowed to accept jizya from the People of the Book only, and nobody
is entitled to accept it from someone else. The Prophet agreed to accept
jizya from the Zoroastrians only on the basis of their being People of the
Book.17
The ~anbali madhhab seems to have adopted the same view, though ac-
cording to one tradition Ibn ~anbal himself allowed to accept jizya from all
unbelievers, except Arab idolators. IS The ~anbali jurist Ibn Qudama main-
tains that jizya may be accepted from Jews, Christians and Zoroastrians.
Only these groups were excluded from the general commandment to kill the
unbelievers (Qur'iin, ix 5): the Jews and the Christians by virtue if the Qur'anic
verse imposing the jizya (Qur'iin, ix 29) and the Zoroastrians by the virtue of
the tradition according to which the Prophet ordered to treat them like the
People of the Book (sunnii bihim sunnata ahl al-kitiib).19
The point of view of the ~anafis and the Miilikis, which is of particular
importance for us because the ~anafi madhhab came to be predominant in
India, is different. These two schools differentiate between the idolators with
regard to their origin. Jizya may not be accepted from Arab idolators; these
17 Al-Shafi'I, al-Umm (Cairo, 1322), vol. IV, p, 97; idem, Al;kiim al-Qur'an (Cairo, 1952),
p. 53; a!-Tabar!, Ikhtiliif a/-Fuqahii', ed. Schacht (Leiden, 1933), pp. 201-203; al-Bayqilw!,
Anwiir a/-Tanzi/ wa Asriir al-Ta'wil (Leipzig, 1846), vol. I, p. 383.
18 Ibn Qudilma, al-Mug/mi (Cairo, 1367), vol. viii, p. 363, 11. 3-4; p. 500,11. 5-2 from
bottom; Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya, A(zkiim Ahl al-Dhimma, (Damascus, 1961), vol. I, p. 3, 11.
3-1 from bottom. For a tradition according to which Ibn I;Ianbal refused to accept jizya
from ail unbelievers except Jews, Christians and Zoroastrians, see Ibn al-Jawzi, Ziid al-
Masir fi "Ilm al-Ta/sir (Beirut-Damascus, 1965), vol. III, p. 421.
19 Ibn Qudiima, op. cit., vol. VIII, pp. 362-364, 500-501; Abii Ya 'Iii Mul;lammad b. a!-
I:Iusayn al-Farra' al-I:Ianbali, al-Abkdm al-Su{fdniyya (ed. 1357), p. 138. For a similar view
held by Ibn I:Iazm, see his al-Mublllld (Cairo, 1349), vol. VII, p. 345. For the relevant tra-
ditions on the Zoroastrians, see BUchner, Madjils, in E/1.
180
The Temple of M ultan
must become Muslims or be killed. As for the idolators who are not Arabs
('ajam), they may be allowed to pay jizya and, consequently, retain their
religious beliefs. Malik b. Anas is reported to have said that jizya may be
accepted from "faithless Turks and Indians" (man Iii dina lahu min ajniis al-
turk wa al-hind) and that their status is similar to that of the Zoroastrians
(l;ukmuhum l;ukm al-majiis). Abii ~anifa is reported to have adopted the
same view.20 There are. also traditions according to which Malik was willing
to accept jizya from all non-Muslims regardless of their racial origins, ex-
cluding the apostates only.21
It can thus be concluded that the ~anafi and Maliki schools of law impli-
citly agreed to accord the status of ahl al-dhimma to all non-Muslims with
the exception of the apostates. The exception made regarding the Arab ido-
lators was hardly of any practical importance, as no such people were in
existence after the early Islamic conquests.22 The tradition according to which
Mul;!ammad b. al-Qasim imposed after his conquest of the city of al-Riir
khariij on the inhabitants and declared that "the idol-temple is similar to the
churches of the Christians, to (the synagogues} of the Jews and to the fire-
temples of the Zoroastrians" (mii al-budd i/lii ka-kanii'is al-na~iirii wa al-yahiid
wa buyiit niriin al-majils)23 may be understood as a projection into the past
of the legal doctrine just outlined. The inclusion of the Hindiis and of the
other idolators in the category of ahl al-dhimma constitutes the final stage
in the gradual expansion of the concept, which originally involved Jews and
Christians only, was soon extended to the Zoroastrians and finally came to
denote practically all unbelievers living under Muslim rule. We may conclude
our discussion wLth an observation made by the jurist Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya
20 Al-Tabali, Ikhtiliif al-Fuqahd', p. 200; AbU YUsuf, Kitdb al-Khardj, (Cairo, 1352) pp.
128-129; idem, al-Radd 'ala Siyar al-Awzii'l, (Hyderabad [Deccan], 1357), p. 131-132; al-
Sarakhs!, Sharb Kitiib al-Siyar al-Kabir (Cairo, 1957), vol. I, p. 189; idem, al-Mabsiit, (Cairo,
1324), vol. X, p. 7; al-l,Ialab!, Majmti' al-Anhur, ed. 1327, vol. I, p. 678; Fatiiwii Qiiifikhiin
(Cairo, 1283), vol. III, p. 613; al-Fatdwd al-'Alamgiriyya, .Kiinpfrr n.d., vol. II, p. 275; al-
Ja!lill, Abkiim al-Qur'iin (Cairo, 1347), vol.III, pp. 111-115. See also Goldziher, Vorlesungen
(Heidelberg, 19~0), p. 305; A. Fattal, Le statut legal des non-Musulmans en pays d'lslam
(Beyrtit, 1958), p. 74; 'Abd al-Karim Zaydiin, Al;zkdm al-Dhimmiyyin wa al-Musta'minin
(Baghdad (?). 1963), pp. 25-28. For a modem plea to revive this doctrine see Humayun
Kabir, Muslim politics and other essays (Calcutta, 1969), pp. 130-133.
21 Al-Qurtubi, al-Jdmi' li-Ahkiim al-Qur'iin (Cairo, 1939), vol. VIII, p. 110; Ibn Kathir,
Tafsir al-Qur'iin, vol. II, p. 347, 11. 21-22; al-QastalHini, Irshtid al-Siiri(Bu.Iaq, 1323), vol. V,
pp. 229, 1. 26.
22 Cf. Ibn Taymiyya, Kitiib al-Ikhtiyiiriit al-'llmiyya (Cairo, 1329), p. 190; al-Qurtub!, ·
op. cit., vol. VIII, p. 110.
23 Futiib al-Buldiin, p. 439.
181
 Y ohanan Friedmann
(1292-1350), who arrived, despite his J.Ianbali affiliation, at the conclusion
that in a country like India, the collection of the jizya is the only practical
policy open to the Muslim rulers of the country. In his Al;.kiim Ahl al-Dhim-
ma24 he says: " ... if the idolators are a great, innumerable community, -
for iustauce the people of India and the like -, who cannot be extirpated
by the sword, then to humiliate and subdue them through the jizya is better
for the honour of Is!am, for its power and for its people than to spare their
lives without the jizya; (in that latter case) their situation would be better
than that of the People of the Book. The secret of the matter is that jizya
is a sort of punishment and not a favour bestowed upon the People of the
Book and not deserved by others ... " ( ... anna 'abadat al-awthiin idhii kiinu
umma kabira Iii tu/;.$ii ka-ahl at-hind wa ghayrihim l;.aythu Iii yumkin isti'$iilu-
hum bi-'1-sayj ja-idhliiluhum wa qahruhum bi-'1-jizya aqrab ilii 'izz al-isliim wa
ahlihi wa quwwatihi min ibqii'ihim bi-ghayr jizya jacyakilnim al;.sana l;.iilan min
ahl al-kitiib wa sirr al-mas'ala anna al-jizya min biib al-'uqubiit Iii annahii
kariima li-ahl al-kitiib fa-Iii yastal;.iqquhii siwiihum ... )

24 Vol. I, p. 17.

182