1) Any serious study of history would expose the problem here. The fallacy here is that the "anonymous" author of Baharistan-i-Shahi itself takes from doubt-worthy works of his Brahmanic predecessors which contain inconsistencies galore. https://twitter.com/Aamani_03/status/1387730239363584003

2) In the zeal of exaggerating about Sikandar and other muslim rulers as iconoclasts, Baharistan-i-Shahi and similar persian works of the time fell prey to the false and historically inconsistent accusations of the Brahmanic historians. They glorified the inconsistent accusations

3) The false accusations were presented in these Persian works as truths to be proud of. However, the foundation remained same, baseless. In fact the king that Baharistan-i-shahi accuses of these crimes installed 18 stone inscriptions containing invocations to hindu god Ganesha.

4) He also constructed Dharmamtha & repaired temples.
The zeal to present muslims as iconoclasts in Baharistan-i-Shahi goes to insanity when it even goes against one of its own source, Jonaraja by presenting Shahabudin as an iconoclast when even Jonaraja didnt accuse him of that

5) A 100 years after Sultan Sikandar, Mirza Haider doughlat, refers to more than 150 temples as "wonders of Kashmir". This is testimony that the temples were untouched. Tuzuk-i-Jahangiri also mentions the same ancient temples centuries after Sikandar.

6) Muslim rulers offered official patronage for the development of Sanskrit. Sultan Shihab-ud-din even rebuked and declined the suggestion of his Hindu minister, Udayashri, to melt the metal images of hindu gods in order to make coins. These facts are often ignored.

7) Due to widespread illiteracy in Kashmir at that time, a select group of people acted as custodians of history and held it hostage to their own whims and fancies depending upon which ruler bestowed favours upon them.

8) The worst breakers of idols in Kashmir have been from the hindu community itself. Jayapida, Samkaravarman, Abhimanyu II, Harsha and Rajdeva broke idols, temples and persecuted Brahmins to the extent that Brahmins denied calling themselves as Brahmins.

9) Brahmin Chronicler Kalhana has himself mentioned this persecution at the hands of hindu kings in his works. These portions are conveniently ignored by certain people trying to inflame passions against the muslims.

10) Instead, whenever you see accusations against Muslims in these historically unreliable works, you will mostly find phrases like "as tradition says", "it is believed", "it is said" etc. instead of any concrete evidence.

May better sense prevail.

She deleted this thread of her's but this is what i was replying to: