The Ancient and Medieval Architecture of India: A Study of Indo-Aryan Civilisation c22.8

c22.8

Not even in the question of the idolatry which was anathema to the Muhammadan was there any vital difference between the teaching of Hinduism and of Islam. The iconoclast vented his blind rage upon Hindu sculptured symbols without understanding their meaning to prove that he was a true believer. His own intangible idols were sacred things necessary for his soul’s salvation. The Muhammadan was no philosopher, and to his practical mind an image of wood or stone, set up for worship as a symbol of God Who is everywhere and in everything, seemed an impious attempt to substitute things of earth for thoughts of heaven. The Hînayâna school of Buddhism had forbidden image worship for a different reason, because the teaching of the Buddha was agnostic and did not recognise the idea of a personal God. But both before and after the time of Muhammad all Hindu teachers were iconoclasts in a spiritual sense, though they did not seek to propagate their culture by fire and sword, and at all times there were among them some who were puritans in the Muhammadan and Christian sense, objecting to any kind of figure symbolism in religious ritual.