-
Contact the PP Team
Ayodhya/Babri verdict
- Thread starter Sir john
- Start date
- Status
nope fair verdict. historical background of babar having replaced an existing mandir at that site with a masjid, since the mandir has more emotional and religious importance to hindus ( irrespective of whether ram existed or was born there, but its a matter of faith ) i think muslims should be magnanimous enough to accept the judgment in good faith and rebuild the moque in their allotted area. lets all move on shall we? we have enough nation building ahead of us.
Thats the way it should be.
no its not a precedence, the destruction of babri masjid was a huge big deal, with reverbrations of that event even being felt now. there is no way in hell another masjid will be allowed to be taken down. plus the hindutva sentiment that was really high in the early 90's seems to be waning. why do you think BJP has been unable to seize power for so many years. and modi is pretty much a pariah outside gujrat. he is vilified by the media and rightfully so.
This is a politically correct verdict rather than the correct verdict,because if the judgement goes either way,it will affect common citizens since there are lunatics from each side.So the decision made in that regard,the only logical solution with minimum damage i think.
Personally i wouldn't have cared if it is given to the mosque,simply because for me faith is in my mind.But the politicians will try to score points over that.
Again, look at my post. I was being sarcastic. Im not saying that Hindus or Muslims won or lost. It was a riposte to someone who was trying to do exactly that.
The Secular Indian government has to cater to all its people, yes. Hindus and Muslims. It has to make both happy, which it has tried to do. The same secular Indian government cannot pretend that life started existing in India in 1947. Disputes need to be settled. The dispute did not start in 1947, so the same government cannot pretend it did. A compromise was the only solution they could come up with. In doing so they pleased no one, but such is life.
Hindus will say they lost, as they did not get their claim of the entire plot. It depends whos agenda it suits. Its a compromise. There are only winners and losers if you look to be one.
The Masjid in question was a special case. I would like to think that Hindus have not torn up every mosque in India yet looking for a temple. If that is the case, or begins to be the case, then you may have a point. Like look, having been to Delhi, I know the Qutb Minar complex has a mosque, which is claimed to have been built with the ruins of a temple that was destroyed. No claims have ever been made to restore the temple and destroy the mosque. Ayodhya is a special case, as for Hindus, its a special temple.
Last edited:
In India it happens. I've seen Hindus going to the Haji Ali in Mumbai.
Again, don't be so reactionary. Think about the issue.
And for you to decide on the existance of Ram is naive. Thats not the point. For Hindus its a matter of faith. You can't question their religion. And the existance of Ram is not the one which is being debated.
PakistanPaindabad
Tape Ball Star
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2009
- Runs
- 811
) not that I care much for the judgement just hoping that better sense prevails among the public and no innocent blood is shed but seriously, pull your head out of the sand. Sure, Muslims and Hindus can co-exist, theres an argument there but 'thats India' being a model for such harmony couldnt be further from the truth.
#Indian-brigade-present
GLORY OF '92
Test Debutant
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2007
- Runs
- 13,399
Being reported as a pro Hindu verdict by the Guardian and Sky News. It's basically saying destroy a mosque and we won't let them rebuild it.
not that I care much for the judgement just hoping that better sense prevails among the public and no innocent blood is shed but seriously, pull your head out of the sand. Sure, Muslims and Hindus can co-exist, theres an argument there but 'thats India' being a model for such harmony couldnt be further from the truth.
#Indian-brigade-present
Oh yes i forgot,Pakistan is there
jusarrived
Test Debutant
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2005
- Runs
- 13,527
no violence & thats all what matters ..not many care about the Temple or Masjid anyway
+++
cornered paktiger
Tape Ball Captain
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2005
- Runs
- 1,205
- Post of the Week
- 1
It is as the court decided that "he" was born there!!!!!
Its a disgraceful decison - the mosque had been there for 100s of years. the decision vindicates the ***** violence and destruction of the mosque.
PakistanPaindabad
Tape Ball Star
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2009
- Runs
- 811
Oh yes i forgot,Pakistan is there
I know you may feel insecure but dont make this about India-Pakistan
Xohaib
First Class Captain
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2009
- Runs
- 4,221
wese a masjid cannot be made on disputed land.
GLORY OF '92
Test Debutant
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2007
- Runs
- 13,399
Exactly. Promoting further destruction by BJP thugs.
You are absolutely right that both hindus and muslims are disappointed in this decision. Hindus want the whole land but are getting 2/3 of the land. Muslims wants the whole land but are getting 1/3 of the land.
But lets compare it with what were the circumstances before the dispute. At that time Hindus do not have any part of the land while muslims have the whole land.
So the end result is Hindus gain 2/3 of the land while Muslims loose 2/3 of the land. So I was right that Hindus are the winners and Muslims are the loosers in this dispute.
Now Hindus can become complete winner if they can get the remaining 1/3 of the land. Either challenge this decision and ask for remaining 1/3 as well or just buy 1/3 of land from the Muslims.
Yaar look, the court decided that the land there is the land which Hindus have always held to be the birthplace of Ram. i.e. That they didn't suddenly claim that land was Rams birthplace because there was a mosque there.
They did not claim that Ram was even born. No one can ever prove the existance of Ram, just like you or me can't prove the existance of Adem or Moses. It is a matter of faith.
The WagonWheel
Tape Ball Star
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2005
- Runs
- 771
Completely agree with every word that is said ....... The only injustice is that Advani, Uma Bharati, Kalyan Singh and all their Pappu-Chimpus are outside the bars ....
UsmanhailsAfridi
First Class Captain
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2005
- Runs
- 4,747
oh please...they torn down the mosques...innoncent ppl died...all this when a 'secular' government was in power and the goons are still walking free...where is the justice???
this decision pretty much says go ON do what you want if you got the majority in your favor and some myth to support it from 500 yrs ago you will win the case and walk free
this decision pretty much says go ON do what you want if you got the majority in your favor and some myth to support it from 500 yrs ago you will win the case and walk free
UsmanhailsAfridi
First Class Captain
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2005
- Runs
- 4,747
only in india such things happen and then they still claim to be a secular nation...why hide behind such blind propoganda...be fair and rename India as the Hindus Republic to set the record straight...what happ in 1992 was a disgrace by all means and i have seen nothing done by the INdian government to bring those guilty to punishment
Very true.We will try to learn from our noble neighbours how to treat the minorities.It will take time,.please be patient.
cricketindiafan
T20I Debutant
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2010
- Runs
- 7,323
- Post of the Week
- 1
http://www.nytimes.com/1992/12/08/world/pakistanis-attack-30-hindu-temples.html
In Lahore thousands of people accompanied a bulldozer in demolishing an abandoned Hindu temple. Crowds set fire to six other temples and stormed the office of Air-India.
"Crush India!" marchers shouted. "Death to Hinduism!" Business was brought to a standstill by a strike that closed shops and offices.
http://www.metransparent.com/spip.php?page=article&id_article=7551&lang=en
Following the demolition of the historic Babri Mosque in India in 1992 by Hindu extremists, over 200 Hindu temples were destroyed across Pakistan by angry Muslims.
http://www.dawn.com/2006/05/28/nat23.htm
Another temple is no more
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where was all this common sense that is being preached today when these incidents happened? Babri Mosque was demolished by criminals and there is a court proceeding going against those cirminals. Hopefully justice will be delivered and the idiots will get the punsihment they deserve. At the same time, how many of those invovled in razing these 200 temples have been brought to book so far? Was there ever a court case against any of the perpetrators of the crime of razing temples or a clamour for restoring some of those razed temples?
It's always easier to preach, but unfortunately the sub continent has seen shameful days due to a overporuing of religious emotions fanned by the fanatics on either side. And the public does get fooled into commiting crimes which anyone with a sane mind will never ever do.
Thankfully the reactions have not gone to the extreme this time and all the parties to the dispute have so far been asking for calm and peace. This is a test for us and god willing we will come through it without any bloodshed.
In Lahore thousands of people accompanied a bulldozer in demolishing an abandoned Hindu temple. Crowds set fire to six other temples and stormed the office of Air-India.
"Crush India!" marchers shouted. "Death to Hinduism!" Business was brought to a standstill by a strike that closed shops and offices.
http://www.metransparent.com/spip.php?page=article&id_article=7551&lang=en
Following the demolition of the historic Babri Mosque in India in 1992 by Hindu extremists, over 200 Hindu temples were destroyed across Pakistan by angry Muslims.
http://www.dawn.com/2006/05/28/nat23.htm
Another temple is no more
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where was all this common sense that is being preached today when these incidents happened? Babri Mosque was demolished by criminals and there is a court proceeding going against those cirminals. Hopefully justice will be delivered and the idiots will get the punsihment they deserve. At the same time, how many of those invovled in razing these 200 temples have been brought to book so far? Was there ever a court case against any of the perpetrators of the crime of razing temples or a clamour for restoring some of those razed temples?
It's always easier to preach, but unfortunately the sub continent has seen shameful days due to a overporuing of religious emotions fanned by the fanatics on either side. And the public does get fooled into commiting crimes which anyone with a sane mind will never ever do.
Thankfully the reactions have not gone to the extreme this time and all the parties to the dispute have so far been asking for calm and peace. This is a test for us and god willing we will come through it without any bloodshed.
Last edited:
But, when did the dispute begin? From your perspective, it began when the Hindutva activists tore down parts of the mosque and tried to reclaim it. From the perspective of Hindus, it began when Babur's army invaded Ayodhya, demolished the Ram temple, and constructed the mosque on its ruins. Before that point in time, the Hindus had all of the land and Muslims had none. And now, you've got 1/3 of it, and we've only got 2/3s.
The previous point was made with some levity. On a more serious note, both Hindus and Muslims worshipped at the site for much of the period of the mosque's existence. It wasn't until the rebellion in 1857 when the British built a fence demarcating one section of the site for Muslims to worship and the other for Hindus to avoid a repeat of the mutiny that the conflict still burning today was born. They constructed an outer enclosure for Hindus and forbid them from entering the inner yard.
Last edited:
GLORY OF '92
Test Debutant
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2007
- Runs
- 13,399
Very true.We will try to learn from our noble neighbours how to treat the minorities.It will take time,.please be patient.
Ermmmmmmm..........Gujrat????
if it was a hindu republic, the entire site would have been allotted to the ram janam bhoomi committee and the masjid( and countless others built on temples) would have been destroyed as soon as we became independent.
need some perspective here..ram is one of the biggest gods for hindus , the structure of the mandir predated the masjid. does not absolve the hindutva goons who took down the masjid of course but what is done cannot be undone. that area has always been a flashpoint( for centuries) and now with this verdict atleast we can attempt to move on.
why some people are unhappy that the area has been divided 3 ways among the 3 disputing parties is beyond me.
AZ
Hall of Famer
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2008
- Runs
- 55,655
Javed Akhtar is on NDTV now, saying that technically it was not even a mosque! Any truth to this?
Wazeeri
Test Debutant
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2006
- Runs
- 14,318
What this verdict has shown is that there just isn't a solution to this problem. India will have to wait for a less emotionally charged time to deliver a decent Judgement. At this moment there is no other peaceful verdict which could be given.
The just approach would have been to include the criminal aspect of the demolition of the mosque into the various suits which were listened to, despite the practical challenges it imposed. However that would have been impossible at the time with the power the hindu extremists held with them.
Also the verdict has in effect suggested a course of action for the hindu extremists who consider other mosques to have been built on temples or hindu holy sites. Destroy it and then take the main half.
The judgement doesn't have much legal merit.
Either one of the parties owned the land or no party owns the land. Ram being born at a place does not lead to legal rights to a community which worships him to that place.
The temple if destroyed (the judgement says that the temple may have been a ruin before the mosque was built) was destroyed before the law protecting people's or community's properties came into effect. You cannot apply laws retrospectively.
By giving a political verdict the court has outstepped its remit but there was no other option because any other verdict would have lead to bloodshed [ despite Siddhart's claim of hindus and muslims being able to live together in India ]
The just approach would have been to include the criminal aspect of the demolition of the mosque into the various suits which were listened to, despite the practical challenges it imposed. However that would have been impossible at the time with the power the hindu extremists held with them.
Also the verdict has in effect suggested a course of action for the hindu extremists who consider other mosques to have been built on temples or hindu holy sites. Destroy it and then take the main half.
The judgement doesn't have much legal merit.
Either one of the parties owned the land or no party owns the land. Ram being born at a place does not lead to legal rights to a community which worships him to that place.
The temple if destroyed (the judgement says that the temple may have been a ruin before the mosque was built) was destroyed before the law protecting people's or community's properties came into effect. You cannot apply laws retrospectively.
By giving a political verdict the court has outstepped its remit but there was no other option because any other verdict would have lead to bloodshed [ despite Siddhart's claim of hindus and muslims being able to live together in India ]
cricketindiafan
T20I Debutant
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2010
- Runs
- 7,323
- Post of the Week
- 1
Not sure what the requirements for a religious structure to be called a mosque are but at the Babri site people assemble for the Friday prayers like they do at the Taj Mahal. No Imams resides there and there are no adhans are called out by the muezzin everyday. Other than the Fridays, the place remains deserted and all can you see is 100s of para military forces around the area.
Last edited:
mastermind_quad
Test Debutant
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2010
- Runs
- 13,793
nice oneman on the left says, kalmadi will be responsible for the new construction at the site, the guys on the right( muslim and hindu reps) say- you can make your structure then.
does'nt translate well
Last edited:
rainahaina
Debutant
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2009
- Runs
- 59
The gist of judgments by the three judges -- Sibghat Ullah Khan, Sudhir Agarwal, Dharam Veer Sharma -- of the Allahabad Hight Court.
1. Whether the disputed site is the birth place of Bhagwan Ram?
Justice Sibghat Ullah: For a very long time till the construction of the mosque it was treated/believed by Hindus that some where in a very large area of which premises in dispute is a very small part birth place of Lord Ram was situated, however, the belief did not relate to any specified small area within that bigger area specifically the premises in dispute. That after some time of construction of the mosque Hindus started identifying the premises in dispute as exact birth place of Lord Ram or a place wherein exact birth place was situated. That for some decades before 1949 Hindus started treating/believing the place beneath the Central dome of mosque (where at present make sift temple stands) to be exact birth place of Lord Ram.
Justice Sudhir Agarwal: The area covered under the central dome of the disputed structure is the birthplace of Lord Rama as per faith and belief of Hindus.
Justice Dharam Veer Sharma: The disputed site is the birth place of Lord Ram. Place of birth is a juristic person and is a deity. It is personified as the spirit of divine worshipped as birth place of Lord Rama as a child. Spirit of divine ever remains present every where at all times for any one to invoke at any shape or form in accordance with his own aspirations and it can be shapeless and formless also.
2. Whether the disputed building was a mosque? When was it built? By whom?
Justice Sibghat Ullah: The disputed structure was constructed as mosque by or under orders of Babar. It is not proved by direct evidence that premises in dispute including constructed portion belonged to Babar or the person who constructed the mosque or under whose orders it was constructed.
Justice Sudhir Agarwal: Disputed structure was always treated, considered and believed to be a mosque and practised by Mohammedans for worship accordingly. However, it has not been proved that it was built during the reign of Babar in 1528. In the absence of any otherwise pleadings and material it is difficult to hold as to when and by whom the disputed structure was constructed but this much is clear that the same was constructed before the visit of Joseph Tieffenthaler in Oudh area between 1766 to 1771.
Justice Dharam Veer Sharma: The disputed building was constructed by Babar, the year is not certain but it was built against the tenets of Islam. Thus, it cannot have the character of a mosque.
3. Whether the mosque was built after demolishing a Hindu temple?
Justice Sibghat Ullah: No temple was demolished for constructing the mosque. Mosque was constructed over the ruins of temples which were lying in utter ruins since a very long time before the construction of mosque and some material thereof was used in construction of the mosque
Justice Sudhir Agarwal: The building in dispute was constructed after demolition of Non-Islamic religious structure, i.e., a Hindu temple.
Justice Dharam Veer Sharma: The disputed structure was constructed on the site of old structure after demolition of the same. The Archaeological Survey of India has proved that the structure was a massive Hindu religious structure.
4. Whether the idols were placed in the building on the night of December 22/23rd, 1949?
Justice Sibghat Ullah: Idol was placed for the first time beneath the Central dome of the mosque in the early hours of 23.12.1949.
Justice Sudhir Agarwal: The idols were kept under the central dome of the disputed structure in the night of 22nd/23rd December 1949.
Justice Dharam Veer Sharma: The idols were placed in the middle dome of the disputed structure in the intervening night of 22/23.12.1949.
http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?267309
1. Whether the disputed site is the birth place of Bhagwan Ram?
Justice Sibghat Ullah: For a very long time till the construction of the mosque it was treated/believed by Hindus that some where in a very large area of which premises in dispute is a very small part birth place of Lord Ram was situated, however, the belief did not relate to any specified small area within that bigger area specifically the premises in dispute. That after some time of construction of the mosque Hindus started identifying the premises in dispute as exact birth place of Lord Ram or a place wherein exact birth place was situated. That for some decades before 1949 Hindus started treating/believing the place beneath the Central dome of mosque (where at present make sift temple stands) to be exact birth place of Lord Ram.
Justice Sudhir Agarwal: The area covered under the central dome of the disputed structure is the birthplace of Lord Rama as per faith and belief of Hindus.
Justice Dharam Veer Sharma: The disputed site is the birth place of Lord Ram. Place of birth is a juristic person and is a deity. It is personified as the spirit of divine worshipped as birth place of Lord Rama as a child. Spirit of divine ever remains present every where at all times for any one to invoke at any shape or form in accordance with his own aspirations and it can be shapeless and formless also.
2. Whether the disputed building was a mosque? When was it built? By whom?
Justice Sibghat Ullah: The disputed structure was constructed as mosque by or under orders of Babar. It is not proved by direct evidence that premises in dispute including constructed portion belonged to Babar or the person who constructed the mosque or under whose orders it was constructed.
Justice Sudhir Agarwal: Disputed structure was always treated, considered and believed to be a mosque and practised by Mohammedans for worship accordingly. However, it has not been proved that it was built during the reign of Babar in 1528. In the absence of any otherwise pleadings and material it is difficult to hold as to when and by whom the disputed structure was constructed but this much is clear that the same was constructed before the visit of Joseph Tieffenthaler in Oudh area between 1766 to 1771.
Justice Dharam Veer Sharma: The disputed building was constructed by Babar, the year is not certain but it was built against the tenets of Islam. Thus, it cannot have the character of a mosque.
3. Whether the mosque was built after demolishing a Hindu temple?
Justice Sibghat Ullah: No temple was demolished for constructing the mosque. Mosque was constructed over the ruins of temples which were lying in utter ruins since a very long time before the construction of mosque and some material thereof was used in construction of the mosque
Justice Sudhir Agarwal: The building in dispute was constructed after demolition of Non-Islamic religious structure, i.e., a Hindu temple.
Justice Dharam Veer Sharma: The disputed structure was constructed on the site of old structure after demolition of the same. The Archaeological Survey of India has proved that the structure was a massive Hindu religious structure.
4. Whether the idols were placed in the building on the night of December 22/23rd, 1949?
Justice Sibghat Ullah: Idol was placed for the first time beneath the Central dome of the mosque in the early hours of 23.12.1949.
Justice Sudhir Agarwal: The idols were kept under the central dome of the disputed structure in the night of 22nd/23rd December 1949.
Justice Dharam Veer Sharma: The idols were placed in the middle dome of the disputed structure in the intervening night of 22/23.12.1949.
http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?267309
mastermind_quad
Test Debutant
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2010
- Runs
- 13,793
man on the left says, kalmadi will be responsible for the new construction at the site, the guys on the right( muslim and hindu reps) say- you can make your structure then.
does'nt translate well
well translated buddy ...
..Thanks ...!!!
Gabbar Singh
Test Debutant
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2007
- Runs
- 15,550
Some argue that because the title of the actual land does not belong to the Muslim group legally (well no one can prove it belongs to any of the groups) then any mosque built on disputed land is not actually a mosque from an Islamic pov.
I don't know if this is true from a theological pov.
However it's a silly point imo - the mosque was there and then it was torn down. Such technicalities mean very little.
And the place was considered the birth place of Ram even before Islam as a religion came into being.They didnt say he was born there,it is believed that he was born there.
The original area was 2.77 acres(which both hindu and muslims claim).The rest of the area about 65 acres were brought by various hindu groups to make a Ram Temple.Now the govt has divided the land into 3 parts...
1. To muslims for a mosque
2.To Hindus for a Temple
3.To nirmohi akhada,who had acquired most of 65 acre land.what they do with it.Heaven knows.
If someone thinks Muslims owned all 67 acre of the land,then it is wrong.
I think this a good decision
Similar arrangement is there in varanas and Mathura.Where Mosque and Temples are side by side.
mastermind_quad
Test Debutant
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2010
- Runs
- 13,793
good decision .... atleast there is no HUNGAMA in my country due to this verdict i'll take this decision anyday..
imran25
Debutant
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2010
- Runs
- 44
Stewie
Test Debutant
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2008
- Runs
- 15,620
I read through these opinions or should I say official statements of the judges.
Seems to me like there is clear disagreement between the lone Muslim judge and the two Hindu judges. Even more interesting that they disagree or have differing understanding of the historical backdrop of the disputed area as well.
I wonder why that is and if historians did such a bad job of recording it all.
First of all: and let me add I say this with utmost caution and reservation that the Hindu party really cannot furnish any absolute evidence and proof of whether their Lord Ram was actually born here. Just like there is no historical evidence of Jesus ever existing except for whats mentioned in the Bible and the Quran. Most Jews contest Jesus ever existed.
In any case and having said that, lets assume a group of catholics or Christians start disputing that a particular place, I say for the sake of argument, in the UK or US is the birthplace of Christ but now there is a Muslim place of wrship there. What would happen?
In a civilised, secular and/or supposedly progressive state such as US or UK (what India tries to portray itself to model after), I can guarantee you, the government will not allow its citizens to demolish the Mosque on a whim or an unproven historical event of the birth of Christ at that location. There is no legal grounds for that. If it happened, I am sure they will not issue the judgement in favor of the perpetrators.
Now having said all that, let me get to the key point here. Pakistan demolished Hindu temples as well. For which we should be ashamed of but it happened and its a sad truth and reality of the world that we live in. Indians did not do much different through this whole episode and the judgement. Bottomline, the two countries are not that far apart. One is run by fundamental Muslims, the other by fundamental Hindus. Now any argument that Indian posters on this forum are going to put forth that India is a secular/progressive state is going to be negated because quite frankly they have no ground to stand on, except that a large population of Muslims, Christians and other minorities live there. What is being done to make sure they all get equal footing is what matters and while they may have a better record of it than Pakistan, I am afraid it is nowhere close to what they advertise and propaganda about and claim. India is NOT a secular state in its true sense of the word. Their governmental policies may be pro secular but in all democracies, majority rules and Hindu majority wishes to be NOT secular in this instance.
That is just my observation and of course you are free to disagree with me.
Last edited:
I will agree with you stewie India is like Pakistan only if there is a Hindu president/Pm to rule Pakistan.Or a hindu player named captain of your cricket team.Until then let me disagree with you and to continue with claims India is far different from Pakistan in that regard.
Stewie
Test Debutant
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2008
- Runs
- 15,620
Siddharth, you seem offended by my comments but on the face of it, I think if I shared this story with an American colleague or co worker of mine, they will say the same thing.
You cannot make such comparisons on details of whether we had a minority president or captain or not. We have a very low percentage of minrities and there is no question we can never have minority president. because we clearly call ourselves a Muslim country, there is no hypocracy there. Besdies the President is just a figurehead, I would like to see a Muslim, Christian or Dalit become a PM of India.
What percetange of total Indian population are Muslims? What total percentage of Pakistan's population is the minorities? You will see what I am getting at.
India may have a better track record than Pakistan but its nowhere where it claims to be with its "We are Secular" slogan. This judgment proves that point. I would like to see any historical official documentation that Ram was born at that location .. something that will have substance in the court of law. Without that, this whole thing is a farce and ploy to run Muslims out of their worshipping area.
Last edited:
imran25
Debutant
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2010
- Runs
- 44
Thats a good one,now make a Hindu commander in chief.
Well the archeological evidences were present to the court(remeniscents),if you want a proper birth certficiate of Rama,I don't think thats possible.
By the way we have a Sikh PM,they are a minority as well.
Last edited:
jusarrived
Test Debutant
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2005
- Runs
- 13,527
cornered paktiger
Tape Ball Captain
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2005
- Runs
- 1,205
- Post of the Week
- 1
Interesting that not one Hindu poster has condemned the destruction of the mosque in 1992. They all seem to support today's verdict forgetting that without the desecretion of a holy site which led to the deaths of 1000s the mosque would still be there.
The architectural evidence to show a temple once existed was discredited as in the early 1990s the ASI was staffed with BJP symphatisers/cronies. They even tried to claim the Taj Mahal was on the site of a Hindu temple.
Sure you can't prove that your god was born there - the verdict seems to say it is enough if hindus believe he was born there. What if enough hindus believe a god was born on the site of the Taj Mahal (or any other muslim building in india)? Is that enough to generate a dispute and ensure a temple is erected in its place?
This just rewards destruction of a mosque. What's to stop a hindu mob from doing the same to say Jama Masjid in Delhi. The court is saying destroy it, claim it was originally a site of a temple, get enough people to believe (erroneously) that a hindu god was born there and bingo - we'll give you most of the land so you can build a temple.
Whether hindus like it or not Muslims ruled much of India for over 600 years. Its burned on your psyche and destroying mosques will not change that history or wipe away that hurt. Instead of seeing it as a humiliating episode in your history, embrace and enjoy the heritage it has left behind in terms of language, food, architecture etc.
The architectural evidence to show a temple once existed was discredited as in the early 1990s the ASI was staffed with BJP symphatisers/cronies. They even tried to claim the Taj Mahal was on the site of a Hindu temple.
Sure you can't prove that your god was born there - the verdict seems to say it is enough if hindus believe he was born there. What if enough hindus believe a god was born on the site of the Taj Mahal (or any other muslim building in india)? Is that enough to generate a dispute and ensure a temple is erected in its place?
This just rewards destruction of a mosque. What's to stop a hindu mob from doing the same to say Jama Masjid in Delhi. The court is saying destroy it, claim it was originally a site of a temple, get enough people to believe (erroneously) that a hindu god was born there and bingo - we'll give you most of the land so you can build a temple.
Whether hindus like it or not Muslims ruled much of India for over 600 years. Its burned on your psyche and destroying mosques will not change that history or wipe away that hurt. Instead of seeing it as a humiliating episode in your history, embrace and enjoy the heritage it has left behind in terms of language, food, architecture etc.
Last edited:
I agree that if you're looking for concrete historical evidence beyond scriptures and such texts, you aren't going to find it whether it's Ram or Jesus, as you say.
But, that has no bearing on the relevance of the fact that there are literally billions of people who are part of traditions which have held these beliefs (that these people existed and their importance to those traditions) for thousands of years. There's got to be some weight to that in that, we've got to respect their religious sensibilities.
Let's say that there is a holy site in Bethlehem or somewhere, and there is a case to be made that if the government takes over that land under eminent domain laws, a great deal of good can be done to the public welfare. In other words, if the government argues before the court on the grounds of public good leaving religion aside, it will win the case.
But, no court would allow that action. Someone could argue, "Well, there's no historical evidence for Jesus existing and there's certainly none that he was born in Bethlehem beyond scripture, so religion should not be considered in this case." That wouldn't work, because even if we can't verify or prove theological issues in court, they really aren't that relevant compared to how the vast majority of people perceive them to be.
I realize that most people in this forum don't consider Lord Ram to be a historical figure, much less a divine one, or that he was born in Ayodhya. But, there are hundreds of millions of Hindus who do and have done so for millennia. It's an integral part of the Ramayana, which is an important scripture.
It's not like some people woke up on the morning of December 16 and decided to claim that Ram was born in that location in order to get rid of the mosque. This has been an issue for centuries. One of the pieces of evidence considered in the case were the writings of a Jesuit missionary, Joseph Tiefenthaler, from 1740 in which he noted that the Hindu locals believed that the mosque had been constructed over the birthplace of Lord Ram. There were conflicts over the mosque in the 1800s. There have been cases filed about this since 1885.
I agree that the way in which the Hindu extremists demolished the mosque was absolutely revolting, but the religious history and sensibilities of Hindus, and Muslims, should be considered in this case. At any rate, the question of whether the disputed site was considered to be Lord Ram's birthplace was part of the suit brought to the court by the litigants, so they had to or, at least, were within their authority to take it up.
Last edited:
I've removed that part in the hope that I haven't offended anyone. It really isn't that relevant to my point though.
I should have stuck to using the example of Jesus, as you did, although there may well be Christians on this forum who feel that there is concrete historical evidence for his existence as well and might be offended by our treatment of him.
Last edited:
except for the hindutva brigade most regular folk really have no psychological damage from india's muslim past. NCERT history books present the facts in an unbiased manner. the majority of tourists to taj mahal , red fort and fatehpur sikri in agra and red fort in delhi are hindus. so yeah the islamic heritage is celebrated.
i think the babri masjid epi is a one off, only because it involved ram and the fact that people were worshipping that site as ram janam bhoomi before the mosque was built.
cornered paktiger
Tape Ball Captain
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2005
- Runs
- 1,205
- Post of the Week
- 1
Its good to hear that but the hinduvata brigade form the largest opposition party - the BJP are indistinguishable from RSS, VNP etc and they enjoy massive support. May be down from their early 1990s heyday but are a huge faction and not just some looney minority party like the BNP in England.
What's to stop them, when the next polls show them losing, to whip up another mob, claim another mosque was built on a temple and destroy it to get their bandwagon going again, blaming minorities for lack of jobs etc. Those sorts of actions always appeal to the unruly unwashed of which there are plenty.
Stewie
Test Debutant
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2008
- Runs
- 15,620
PAL, I was not able to read your whole post initially and I just did so wanted to post my thoughts.
I think your argument is sound but in the Bbari Mosque's case, I dont think it applies. What I mean to say is putting the emotional and sentimental aspect of this issue aside, as far as legal and civil rights are concerned, they were definitely violated, a minority targeted.
I think a great example here is that of Palestine and Israel. I think its been a bone of contention as well. But nothing can be said to justify the unsettlement of millions of people, relocating them and putting them in temporary accomodations. That is just not the civilised thing to do.
Whatever the backdrop was but there was a mosque there and it was standing and it was "illegally" demolished by no authorization from the governmental body. This sets a wrong precedent as well. It means government of India cannot do anything if me and my hooligan friends can raise enough support for a cause and commit illegal actions.
vishy_the king64
Debutant
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2010
- Runs
- 184
Points to be noted:
1.Ayodhya to Hindus is to what Mecca is to Muslims
2.There has never been any worship in Babri Masjid for 500 odd years since there are Hindu idols there.I am not an expert regarding Islam.Perhaps my Muslim friends will explain why.
3.Archeological survey of India concluded that there was indeed a Ram temple there which was destroyed and a Mosque was built in it's place.
Ayodhya holds a special place in the hearts of Hindus,it is of great sentimental value whereas for Muslims,it is just another Mosque(plus no one gets to worship there).Hindus want the Ram temple in Ayodhya to be rebuilt.They argue that Babri Masjid can be built somewhere near the Ram temple,elsewhere in Ayodhya.Pretty complicated issue that one.
And meanwhile a 3rd party claims that piece of land.
In light of these circumstances SC has come to the best possible solution so that all parties are happy and there aren't further communal tensions.One thing remains:those hooligans responsible for attacking the Mosque in 92 should be punished for weakening the secular fabric of the country.
1.Ayodhya to Hindus is to what Mecca is to Muslims
2.There has never been any worship in Babri Masjid for 500 odd years since there are Hindu idols there.I am not an expert regarding Islam.Perhaps my Muslim friends will explain why.
3.Archeological survey of India concluded that there was indeed a Ram temple there which was destroyed and a Mosque was built in it's place.
Ayodhya holds a special place in the hearts of Hindus,it is of great sentimental value whereas for Muslims,it is just another Mosque(plus no one gets to worship there).Hindus want the Ram temple in Ayodhya to be rebuilt.They argue that Babri Masjid can be built somewhere near the Ram temple,elsewhere in Ayodhya.Pretty complicated issue that one.
And meanwhile a 3rd party claims that piece of land.
In light of these circumstances SC has come to the best possible solution so that all parties are happy and there aren't further communal tensions.One thing remains:those hooligans responsible for attacking the Mosque in 92 should be punished for weakening the secular fabric of the country.
I agree with most of your post, but I just wanted to point out that there is a case pending against the people who participated in the illegal demolition of the mosque (and I hope they do get punished to the full extent of the law), although India's judicial process is rather slow unfortunately.
The case that was decided today was a different one. It actually began in the late forties/early fifties.
This case was just about the validity of four title suits filed by different organizations. The case stretches back to 1950, when the first of the suits was filed. And you could even take that date back further, because one of the organizations involved in the case first brought this issue to court in 1885.
I just want to reiterate that this issue has a long history, and although it came to the forefront in the nineties with the demolition, it's been going on for centuries.
Last edited:
Stewie
Test Debutant
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2008
- Runs
- 15,620
I have a question here then. If Hindus have known all this time that this was Ram's birthplace why wasnt a huge monument created there already that cemented its status as a religious symbol.
You used Mecca as analogy here. Well ever since the time of Our Prophet, the Kaabaa in Mecca has existed and has held the status of a Holy Place for Muslims. Why is it that a Mosque that has been there for 500 years is all of a sudden considered derelict and becomes the birthplace of Lord Ram?
Stewie
Test Debutant
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2008
- Runs
- 15,620
Thank you. I did not have that information. So from what I gather, this has been a long standing dispute and the Hindus finally upset with the waiting took matters into their own hands and violated law by demolishing the mosque.
Like I said, I can completely empathize with the emotional and sentimental aspects of this issue ....BUT... its the civil rights and laws violated that caught my attention. After the crime has been committed, the government makes a decision that in a way condones their actions and throws a bone to the aggrieved party.
I will also add that if this was Pakistan, of course you can forget about getting even 1/3rd of it back and will probably be running for your lives. But this just shows that India is not a secular state as they claim to be based on what has happened. Its is still very much a country controlled by majority Hindus and this judgment justifies the decision of Jinnah and Muslim leaders to advocate for a separate country for Muslims where they will not have to worry about suffering from such oppression (even though they are now themselves guilty of subjecting others such as hindus and christians to it in Pakistan now at times)
vishy_the king64
Debutant
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2010
- Runs
- 184
Babri Masjid was built on the foundations of the Ram Janmabhoomi temple during Mughal under Babur.In the Puranas,it is mentioned that Ayodhya is the birthplace and capital of Ram during the Rig Vedic period(1450 B.C).
Hindus have to undertake pilgrimage to Ayodhya and so it has been happening for the last 2 or so millenia.Hence the comparision with Mecca.
i really don't think jinnah would have been too happy with the state of affairs in the islamic republic of pakistan as it stands now.
meanwhile, indian muslims are happy with the decision to stay back, so everyone's satisfied.
The BJP and other extremist Hindu organizations instigated the demolition against the mosque. They took advantage of a longstanding conflict and manipulated it for their political gain. They could have waited for a decade or so for the case to come before the court and resolve it peacefully, but they had elections to win. I hope some of their leaders are convicted in the other case, but it will take years before that one gets decided.
chacha kashmiri
ODI Debutant
- Joined
- May 31, 2008
- Runs
- 11,407
- Post of the Week
- 1
This all reminds me of a indian film i watched some years ago called zakhm.
I do not think it is possible for a ruling to be given against hindus without the fundamentalists causing trouble and causing trouble for the politicans and so close to the commonwealth games this is a very diplomatic decision which doesn't really solve anything.
Unlike at sharukh khan house you cannot have a mandir and a mosque at the same site.
It would be interesting to know whether india is willing to divide up indian occupied kashmir in the same way.
I do not think it is possible for a ruling to be given against hindus without the fundamentalists causing trouble and causing trouble for the politicans and so close to the commonwealth games this is a very diplomatic decision which doesn't really solve anything.
Unlike at sharukh khan house you cannot have a mandir and a mosque at the same site.
It would be interesting to know whether india is willing to divide up indian occupied kashmir in the same way.
PakistanPaindabad
Tape Ball Star
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2009
- Runs
- 811
Stewie
Test Debutant
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2008
- Runs
- 15,620
Oh I am sure they are very happy considering the topic we are discussing right now involved Hindus and Aliens from planet Damnwegotscrewedbigtime.
ChennaiFan
Local Club Regular
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2010
- Runs
- 1,619
You may have to read Indian literature to find out that out. But questioning the belief of a particular religion works in other directions too. Please keep that in mind.
Overall, I am happy with the verdict. I was against demolishing in 1992. It was a historical building. (Courst has ruled that it was not mosque). But once it has happened, the best way forward is to share. After all, all humans belong to one another and the entire world is ours.
Stewie
Test Debutant
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2008
- Runs
- 15,620
and my best friend is a 10 year old white girl named polly prissy pants.
Is there any evidence that:
1) proves Ram ever existed? If so why do most historians conclude he was a mythical figure.
2)proves that modern day Ayodhya is the same place as mentioned in Hindu scriptures?
Is there proof that God exists? its a matter of faith. why do you need a birth certificate if some members of a faith believe in something.
rainahaina
Debutant
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2009
- Runs
- 59
Well, in India, few places are there where mandir and masjid erected as close as their walls touching. Mathura and Kashi are examples.
Btw, it is not the division but sharing the same site for mandir and masjid.
imran25
Debutant
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2010
- Runs
- 44
yep prophet Mohammed(pbuh) is the best example becoz he never lied
chacha kashmiri
ODI Debutant
- Joined
- May 31, 2008
- Runs
- 11,407
- Post of the Week
- 1
It has been divided- 2/3 for hindus and a 1/3 for muslims.
Without going into how mythical creatures were born at exact spots of a mosque which has been there since the mughals, indian occupied kashmir can also be divided in the same way- maybe 2/3 to muslims, a 1/3 to hindus?
Basically this verdict is justifying the demolishing of Masjid using the historical context which is the worst thing to do.
On the other hand if a Masjid is made wrongly (for example some person or institution grabs some other person's land and then make a Masjid there) then I believe its justified to demolish that Masjid.
On the other hand if a Masjid is made wrongly (for example some person or institution grabs some other person's land and then make a Masjid there) then I believe its justified to demolish that Masjid.
This is complete BS
I agree with the above poster it legitimises the destruction of the masjid, they attacked it, destroyed it and have ended up with 2/3 of it.
The only reason Muslims got 1/3 was to appease us so we would not react to this travesty of justice.
The muslims are doing the right thing and going to the courts again, even if it takes 100 years this BS must be fought and ulitmatley the muslims must be prepared to stop any temple being built.
Whats worse is they expect muslims to worship in the presence of pagan idols, knowing that muslims cannot worship in the presence of idols
I agree with the above poster it legitimises the destruction of the masjid, they attacked it, destroyed it and have ended up with 2/3 of it.
The only reason Muslims got 1/3 was to appease us so we would not react to this travesty of justice.
The muslims are doing the right thing and going to the courts again, even if it takes 100 years this BS must be fought and ulitmatley the muslims must be prepared to stop any temple being built.
Whats worse is they expect muslims to worship in the presence of pagan idols, knowing that muslims cannot worship in the presence of idols
KingKhanWC
Test Captain
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2010
- Runs
- 49,778
Exactly.
Hindu Extremists attack a mosque and get rewarded with 2/3 of it's land. It's absurd!
Nobody has provided any evidence Ram existed. To say it's a matter of faith is pathetic. A matter of faith doesn't allow a group to attack somebody esles property and this dangerous precident will have huge implications in the whole of India. Hindu extremist facists are probably already planning their next target because it's a matter of faith.
Indian Muslims and other minorities such as Sikhs should demand indpendence from India. Sikism isn't even a recognised religion by India.
India will break up in many pieces imo, Pakistan and Bangladesh were just the first do so.
) sure we believe youand no thank you very much indian muslims are quiet ok with the judgement and not overreacting unlike our brethren across the border who don't have even an iota of stake in the matter.
we have seen what happened with getting an independent muslim state at partition and how well that has turned out
Last edited:
KingKhanWC
Test Captain
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2010
- Runs
- 49,778
Are you laughing at your own ignorance? Sikhs are seen as a sect of Hinduism. Don't make me prove it and make a bigger fool of you.
What's happened. Which Hindu army could ever pull down any mosque in Pakistan? Which Hindu army could spray bullets in a Sikh shrine in Pakistan?
The creation of Pakistan has saved our honour from living under Hindu rule but you carry on loving mother India.
Edited could be hurting.
Last edited:
sikhism developed as a militarized offshoot of hinduism as a reaction to mughal rule, they are no friends of muslims if that is what you think.
and sikhism is a distince religion in india in practise, they certainly have no problems with being classified as hindus, why do you?
its even worse, a muslim army is killing muslims in pak
Last edited:
He thinks that India doesn't respect Sikhism,isn't that why we have a holiday on Gurunanak Jayanthi and well protected gurusdwaras all across the country.
He believes that none of the minorities enjoy religious freedom in India.
Is Prophet or Allah exists?
Can you prove in court that he did?
Matter of faith my friend.
He could have saved the mosque being destroyed in 92 by karsevaks if he did ?
Exactly Same analogy for can be placed for Ram as a lord
92/01 is a shameful act to gain politicaly which we all Indians admit. No body denies it in this forum or anywhere else.
Whose victory is the verdict : There was not a spot of any incidence anywhere in India after this verdict which says that it has gone well with the people.
What Indians are trying to achieve of being secular with 1.2B population is one of the most difficult to achieve and we are trying to. Not yet there but we will. Dont want to draw comparison with pakistan.
IT_Khumbee
Tape Ball Star
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2010
- Runs
- 720
Not sure about other minorities but definitely not Muslims....See Gujarat riots and ask Shabana Azmi why she cannot buy flat in bombay
- Status
Similar threads
- Poll
