[Buddha-l] Nalanda's library destruction

[Dan Lusthaus]

> "We must set the story in the right perspective, which is better done in
> the light of the archaeological evidence." - Verardi says. The evidence he
> provides is not so unambiguous, as some anti-"revisionists" would wish 
> for.
> And, the Muslims did not act in a political void: they had informers,
> helpers and, also. smart local anti-Buddhist plotters and instigators.
>
> Artur

Unambiguous evidence? Such as?

Would you say this fits the categorization "designed to soften, exonerate or 
deny muslim actions" (in this case, the first option)?

At first deny (e.g., Elverskog: "...the story of Nalanda is not true", 
Buddhism and Islam on the Silk Road, p.2). When that's untenable, mitigate 
and exonerate (it was all a misunderstanding, an exaggeration, they weren't 
'really' muslims, etc....). When that is still too mushy, then soften it or 
spread the guilt around (they had non-muslim accomplices, etc.).

These are overused strategies -- and strategies reflect their underlying 
agendas.

While on the subject, note the difference in wording between the Wikipedia 
entry on Nalanda and the wording of the Tabaqat-i-Nasiri.

"...Nalanda University ...the invaders ...ransacked and destroyed the 
monasteries, and drove the monks from the site."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nalanda

Tabaqat-i-Nasiri:
"Most of the inhabi­tants of the place were ... put to death. ...when the 
Muhammadans saw [the vast number of books], they called for some persons to 
explain their contents, but all the men had been killed."

The modest difference between the phrase "drove the monks from the site" 
(shoo, monks, go away!) and "most of the inhabitants...were..put to death" 
is quite telling, don't you think?

Dan