خلاصه ماشینی:
Of the Muslim contemporary writers al-Biruni, the Savant, Farrukhi the poet and Gardizi who wrote his :?,ainul-Akhbar just twenty-three years after the sack of Somnath throw some light on the problem.
for he writes, "The religion was of old common to Arabia and Indiayand there is reason for believing what the early Muhammadan authorities assert that Lat, worshipped by the· idolators of Mecca, was a similar deity as the Swayam Nath of the Hindus.
Professor Elliot, quoting Wilson, writes, '' Somnath was in fact a linga, a nath or deity ascribed to Soma, the moon, as having been erected by him in honour of Siva.
It is stated there: "From the above legends and accounts we may gather this much that the portion of the coast near Somnath was in very special times specially famous for temples of the Sun and the country was ruled by a Solar dynasty, probably the Gohils.
But no definite statement is made by any writer, Muslim or Hindu about the builder of the wooden temple of Somnath which existed .
15 How• ever, Firishta contradicts this when he writes, "On approaching the temple, Mahmud saw a superb edifice built of hewn stone.
Shree Vaidya in his History of Medieval Hindu India maintains, "The temple that was destroyed by Mahmud was probably the one built by Bhoja Parrnara of Malwa as stated in one of their inscriptions to be noted in Parmara history.
" As no contemporary writer, except Farrukhi, describes Mahmud as having destroyed the temple of Somnath, it has been assumed that .