Ayodhya Ram Mandir: India PM Modi inaugurates Hindu temple on razed Babri mosque site [Update in post#488]

[Vega]

Wrong info

Literature on ramayan written on 5th 6 th century which states Ayodhya as ram birth place ..infact valmiki ramayan was written even before ..

This only stated that Ayodhya was the birth place of Ram. But none of the Hindu history book till 1500 AD mentioned that Hindus were going for pilgrim to any site in Ayodhya for Ram Yatra.
They didn't even mention about any gathering.
They didn't even mention about any particular place in Ayodhya where Ram was born in whole of Ayodhya.
They didn't mention of presence of any Temple and the birth place of Ram.

How is all this possible?

If Ram birthplace was really so important to Hindus, then why no history book of Hindus ever mentioned any of these things?

 

[Iqbal'sh]

Those who broke the structure are being criminally prosecuted.

That doesnot take awsy the right of 1bn hindus to worship at their one holiest places.

Does that include the politicians who incited the mob?

 

[Iqbal'sh]

As there was no evidence till date babur constructed babri masjid by destroying some other masjid built by lodi or some other dynasty. If u have any such evidence please let me know. I never heard any muslim saying babur constructed masjid by destroying one more masjid beneath it.

What is the evidence on the basis of which the ASI is saying there was a temple?

There are three things. What the ASI has excavated is not evidence there was a temple underneath the mosque. One is this western wall, the second are these 50 pillar bases and third are architectural fragments. The western wall is a feature of a mosque. It is a wall in front of which you say namaaz. It is not the feature of a temple. Temple has a very different plan. Underneath the Babri Masjid, there are actually older mosques.

https://m.huffingtonpost.in/amp/201...-to-the-country-say-archeologists_a_23604990/

 

[Napa]

I am pretty sure if India was a Muslim or even a Christian country, a mosque or a church in one of the home religion's holiest places would have been built and any other religious structure removed in a very short period of time instead of it being argued about for over 200 years.

 

[PakLFC]

It was always gonna be given to the Hindu's. Indian Muslims should stop crying and accept the decision of the court. They have been allocated land to build a Masjid on a nearby sight so go ahead and do it, better to be a happy slave then a dead one. No point in discussing if or not Ram was born there any further when the final decision has been made. Hindutva has won in the land of Hindu's now they'll demolish another Masjid and start the entire thing again saying Krishna was born here. Indian Muslim's have no choice but to get used to it.

 

[Mian]

Kudos to this former indian SC judge for speaking although he had to delete one tweet later.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">I was told when u have nothing good 2say about someone say nothing at all. Frankly, I have nothing 2say at all about SC Ayodhya verdict</p>— Markandey Katju (@mkatju) <a href="https://twitter.com/mkatju/status/1193088976812302336?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 9, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

The link the the above tweet he deleted later https://twitter.com/mkatju/status/1193249611386781697

 

[cricketjoshila]

Does that include the politicians who incited the mob?

Yes.

 

[cricketjoshila]

I am pretty sure if India was a Muslim or even a Christian country, a mosque or a church in one of the home religion's holiest places would have been built and any other religious structure removed in a very short period of time instead of it being argued about for over 200 years.

Its the failure of hindus. When partition happened, Muslims got their land, hindus should have asked for their temples.

 

[Abdullah719]

Supreme Court's Ayodhya Verdict Rests on a Glaring Contradiction

The bench ruled that Muslims failed to show they offered namaz and were in "exclusive possession" of the mosque from 1528 to 1857. Yet the Hindu plaintiffs, who also failed to show this, get the land on "balance of probabilities".

Spoiler

New Delhi: The Supreme Court’s 1,045-page-long verdict handing over the land where the Babri Masjid once stood to plaintiffs associated with the Vishwa Hindu Parishad rests on a narrow and extraordinary claim: that the Muslim side has not been able to provide documentary evidence that namaz was offered in the mosque from the time of its construction in 1528 until 1857, when it enters the annals of colonial law thanks to a riot in Ayodhya.

Paragraphs 786, 797 and 798 contain the crux of the judgment:

“786. Though, the case of the [Muslim] plaintiffs … is that the mosque was constructed in 1528 by or at the behest of Babur, there is no account by them of possession, use or offer of namaz in the mosque between the date of construction and 1856-7. For a period of over 325 years which elapsed since the date of the construction of the mosque until the setting up of a grill-brick wall by the British, the Muslims have not adduced evidence to establish the exercise of possessory control over the disputed site. Nor is there any account in the evidence of the offering of namaz in the mosque, over this period…

797. On the balance of probabilities, there is clear evidence to indicate that the worship by the Hindus in the outer courtyard continued unimpeded in spite of the setting up of a grill-brick wall in 1857. Their possession of the outer courtyard stands established together with the incidents attaching to their control over it.

798. As regards the inner courtyard, there is evidence on a preponderance of probabilities to establish worship by the Hindus prior to the annexation of Oudh by the British in 1857. The Muslims have offered no evidence to indicate that they were in exclusive possession of the inner structure prior to 1857 since the date of the construction in the sixteenth century. After the setting up of the grill-brick wall, the structure of the mosque continued to exist and there is evidence to indicate that namaz was offered within its precincts.” (emphasis added)

Curiously, in the same paragraph, 798, the court notes:

“The exclusion of the Muslims from worship and possession took place on the intervening night between 22/23 December 1949 when the mosque was desecrated by the installation of Hindu idols. The ouster of the Muslims on that occasion was not through any lawful authority but through an act which was calculated to deprive them of their place of worship. After the proceedings under Section 145 of CrPC 1898 were initiated and a receiver was appointed following the attachment of the inner courtyard, worship of the Hindu idols was permitted. During the pendency of the suits, the entire structure of the mosque was brought down in a calculated act of destroying a place of public worship. The Muslims have been wrongly deprived of a mosque which had been constructed well over 450 years ago.” (emphasis added)

In other words, the court says that:

1. the mosque was constructed well over 450 years ago,

2. there is proof that Muslims worshipped there from 1857 till 1949, when they were illegally ousted “through an act which was calculated to deprive them of their place of worship”;

3. but because “they have offered no evidence to indicate that they were in exclusive possession of the inner structure prior to 1857 since the date of the construction in the sixteenth century… on a balance of probabilities, the evidence in respect of the possessory claim of the Hindus to the composite whole of the disputed property stands on a better footing than the evidence adduced by the Muslims.”

What the court leaves unaddressed is the purpose the mosque served between 1528, when it was built, and 1857. If a dispute arose in 1856 between local Hindus and Muslims over the manner in which the inner and outer courtyards were being used, it stands to reason that this is because Muslims and Hindus had both been praying there from before.

In any event, when the court categorically asserts, “The Muslims have been wrongly deprived of a mosque which had been constructed well over 450 years ago,” it accepts that it was a mosque throughout its lifetime and thus, by definition, would have belonged to Ayodhya’s Muslim residents.

Yet, because the Muslim plaintiffs were able to provide no evidence to prove their exclusive possession or even that namaz was offered for over 300 years, the court handed the site over to the Hindu plaintiffs.

Incidentally, nowhere have the Hindu plaintiffs, other than the Nirmohi Akhara which the court ousted, been asked to demonstrate exclusive possession of the site. Hindus worshipped at the Ram Chabutra outside the domed structure and the 18th century European traveller Jozef Tieffenthaler’s account of the worship of the ‘bedi’ or chabutra/cradle is cited, but that is an ambiguous source for the claim that Hindus worshipped inside the inner courtyard, let alone on an exclusive basis.

https://thewire.in/law/supreme-court-ayodhya-verdict-possession

 

[Zaz]

Those who broke the structure are being criminally prosecuted.

That doesnot take awsy the right of 1bn hindus to worship at their one holiest places.

But its fine to take away the right of 200m muslims who have had their 500 yr old masjid illegally demolished by goons and in return get told tough luck a temple is being built on it not your masjid

 

[WebGuru]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">A bully snatches a kid's sandwich in school. He also thrashes the kid's friend who comes to his rescue. The teacher intervenes and let's the bully keep the sandwich, and gives the kid a slice of dry bread. The principal appreciates the teacher and calls it a 'balanced judgment'.</p>— Pratik Sinha (@free_thinker) <a href="https://twitter.com/free_thinker/status/1193188212832817153?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 9, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[miandadrules]

Its the failure of hindus. When partition happened, Muslims got their land, hindus should have asked for their temples.

So the needs of the majority trump the minority?

 

[Zaz]

Disputes can be resolved through court of law and the reactions show the people abide by the law and are.mature about it. Imagine a minority community in any country fighting for a sacred land of the majority in that country. Muslims in India did it. You have to appreciate their guts for it. You also have to appreciate their maturity in dealing with it after the result. It shows an evolved democracy. India had moved past the dark days of Mumbai, Gujarat riots and Babri masjid demolition. This is the 2nd great gesture by the Muslims in the last few months and will help bridge the differences between various religions in India further. The first one was how Indian Muslims handled the kashmir issue

Yes muslims in india know their place Do as your told muslims, say nothing to injustices and you ll be fine

The hindus dont have any responsibility to help brigde the differences Its the muslims who have to prove their loyalty by suffering n making consessions

 

[miandadrules]

Yes muslims in india know their place Do as your told muslims, say nothing to injustices and you ll be fine

The hindus dont have any responsibility to help brigde the differences Its the muslims who have to prove their loyalty by suffering n making consessions

Sounds like he was referring to them, as one would a pet.

Good, obedient Muslims. Do as your told and you’ll get a little treat eventually.

Disgusting.

Shows how tribalism blinds.

 

[Gabbar Singh]

If the courts are going to give the entire site to the Hindus then they should have given a much bigger site to the Muslims elsewhere.

The court said it will give almost double the ram temple site to the Muslim community in order to put right the wrong committed when the mosque was pulled down but imo it should be much more than just double the plot of land.

 

[Romali_rotti]

The temple exists at a adjacent plot.

Unlike Ayodhya, the destruction of kashi vishwanath temple is not even disputed. Its chronicled by Aurangzeb. The parts of the temple are visible at the backside of the mosque.

Well Hinduism gives you that freedom. Go to the temple or go to kailash.

Kashi & Vishwanath temples will be restored next, Modi has that in his to do list, no question about it. Aurangzab was an animal, all the plundering, looting and destruction he did to the temples, people of India at that time was unthinkable.....

 

[cricketjoshila]

But its fine to take away the right of 200m muslims who have had their 500 yr old masjid illegally demolished by goons and in return get told tough luck a temple is being built on it not your masjid

Was it fine that hindu's temple where they worshipped their god for 100 of years before Islam came was broken and forcibly taken by muslims?

 

[cricketjoshila]

So the needs of the majority trump the minority?

The minority got a country? What did the majority get?

Lectures on secularism from the minority which got a country on basis of religion?

 

[cricketjoshila]

Yes muslims in india know their place Do as your told muslims, say nothing to injustices and you ll be fine

The hindus dont have any responsibility to help brigde the differences Its the muslims who have to prove their loyalty by suffering n making consessions

You are not a muslim in India? Yet you are getting worked up? Why?

Pakistanis should be the last ones to talk about minority rights etc etc.

 

[Zaz]

You are not a muslim in India? Yet you are getting worked up? Why?

Pakistanis should be the last ones to talk about minority rights etc etc.

Im british fyi And this is a forum open to all for them to discuss freely Theres no hinduta raj here where you can subjugate and tell posters to mind there own business

I and everybody else can question your warped view all we like

 

[Zaz]

Sounds like he was referring to them, as one would a pet.

Good, obedient Muslims. Do as your told and you’ll get a little treat eventually.

Disgusting.

Shows how tribalism blinds.

Exactly and how the poster and his cronies cant see these warped subjugating statements beggars belief

And then they have the nerve to say india is a democracy where everyone is treated equally and all have the same rights What a joke

 

[SakunaPataka]

If you accept the SC verdict, then you have to accept that it was not proven that a temple existed on the site before the mosque was built. Thats the SC verdict, you cant just pick the bits you like and dismiss the bits you dont!

Actually here is the relevant bit from the judgement that addresses that ( Link: https://www.sci.gov.in/pdf/JUD_2.pdf )


Page# 905

PART P


P. Analysis on title


P.1 Marshalling the evidence in Suit 4 and Suit 5


788. A stage has now been reached to marshal together the evidence on the

claim of title in Suit 4 and Suit 5 to pave the way for the ultimate determination of

the relief to be granted.

I The report of the ASI indicates the following position:

(i) Archaeological finds in the area of excavation reveal significant

traces of successive civilisations, commencing with the age of the

North Black Polished Ware traceable to the second century B.C.;


(ii) The excavation by the ASI has revealed the existence of a pre-

existing underlying structure dating back to the twelfth century. The

structure has large dimensions, evident from the fact that there were

85 pillar bases comprised in 17 rows each of five pillar bases;


(iii) On a preponderance of probabilities, the archaeological findings on

the nature of the underlying structure indicate it to be of Hindu

religious origin, dating to twelfth century A.D.;


(iv) The mosque in dispute was constructed upon the foundation of the

pre-existing structure. The construction of the mosque has taken

place in such a manner as to obviate an independent foundation by

utilising the walls of the pre-existing structure; and


(v) The layered excavation at the site of excavation has also revealed

the existence of a circular shrine together with a makara pranala
indicative of Hindu worship dating back to the eighth to tenth

century.


A reasonable inference can be drawn on the basis of the standard of proof which

governs civil trials that:

(i) The foundation of the mosque is based on the walls of a large pre-existing

structure;

(ii) The pre-existing structure dates back to the twelfth century; and

(iii) The underlying structure which provided the foundations of the mosque

together with its architectural features and recoveries are suggestive of a

Hindu religious origin comparable to temple excavations in the region and

pertaining to the era.

 

[BreadPakoda]

I hope Indian Muslims do not react dangerously to this and go on with their lives as usual. Top people. India is going through a turmoil right now with Modi at the helm but the minorities must practice patience and restraint.

spineless indian muslims...

Expect nothing more than rabble rousing from folks like you.

 

[SakunaPataka]

Yes muslims in india know their place Do as your told muslims, say nothing to injustices and you ll be fine

The hindus dont have any responsibility to help brigde the differences Its the muslims who have to prove their loyalty by suffering n making consessions

Sounds like he was referring to them, as one would a pet.

Good, obedient Muslims. Do as your told and you’ll get a little treat eventually.

Disgusting.

Shows how tribalism blinds.

So how should it be then ? Perhaps Hindus must forget about their most holiest shrines ? Perhaps we should re-write history as it is narrated in Pakistan ? Perhaps we must express gratitude to the Mughal kings and accept that these temple demolitions were for the greater good of Hindus and ask for restoration of Mughal rule ?

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

So how should it be then ? Perhaps Hindus must forget about their most holiest shrines ? Perhaps we should re-write history as it is narrated in Pakistan ? Perhaps we must express gratitude to the Mughal kings and accept that these temple demolitions were for the greater good of Hindus and ask for restoration of Mughal rule ?

Perhaps reconsider wre-writing at all. Just present it as it unfolded without bias and you will probably find less distrust and opposition.

 

[SakunaPataka]

Perhaps reconsider wre-writing at all. Just present it as it unfolded without bias and you will probably find less distrust and opposition.

And how exactly has this NOT been done in the Ayodhya case ?

 

[IndianHero]

https://m.huffingtonpost.in/amp/201...-to-the-country-say-archeologists_a_23604990/

In the link of urs below is the quote...


"...There is this one particular sculpture, which is closest to some kind of image, which they called a 'divine couple.' But even that is just one man and a woman and is half-broken.."

So does any mosque has male & female resemblance of sculptures as pillars or any structures ??

So one can easily understand that there MAY be a temple which babur destroyed bcoz mosques don't have such male & female structures.

Clearly the person being interviewed said above.

Sir, thats is wat I said in my posts in this thread & thats wat indian supreme court said too which is "There is NO evidence to say that babur built mosque on temple" but there was no evidence either to suggest that there existed a mosque before babri masjid !

 

[MenInG]

Hours after the Uttar Pradesh Sunni Central Waqf Board counsel claimed that it will seek a review of the Ayodhya verdict in light of its "contradictions", the chief of the Islamic statutory body on Saturday clarified that it has no such move in mind.

"We welcome the Supreme Court verdict in the case. The board has no plans to challenge it," Waqf Board chairman Zafar Ahmad Farooqui said. "The verdict is being studied thoroughly as of now, after which the board will issue a detailed statement."

The Waqf Board was one of the main litigants in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid case.

Earlier on Saturday, a five-member constitution bench headed by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi had ruled that the disputed land in Ayodhya should be given to a government-run trust for constructing a temple. Acknowledging that the Babri mosque was illegally demolished by right-wing activists in 1992, it also directed the government to allot five acres of "suitable" land elsewhere for the construction of a new religious structure.

The court cited archaeological evidence of a structure pre-dating the Babri mosque on the site to allow the construction of a temple there.

Waqf Board counsel Zafaryab Jilani reacted to the verdict by calling it unjust. "Giving all land to the other side is unjustified. We respect the top court, but we have the right to disagree with the verdict. The top court has changed its judgments in many cases. We have a right to seek review," he said, adding that the verdict held several "contradictions".

Zafar Ahmad Farooqui, however, downplayed his claim. "If any lawyer or any other person said that the decision will be challenged by the board, it should not be taken as correct," he said. Later, Mr Jilani clarified that he had reacted as the secretary of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board and not as the Waqf Board counsel.

Last month, the Waqf Board had even proposed withdrawing its claim on the disputed land as long as some of its conditions are fulfilled.

https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/ayo...allenge-verdict-2130063?pfrom=home-topstories

 

[SakunaPataka]

But its fine to take away the right of 200m muslims who have had their 500 yr old masjid illegally demolished by goons and in return get told tough luck a temple is being built on it not your masjid

Does it even occur to you that history goes much further back than 500 yrs ?

 

[SakunaPataka]

Here is the more accurate analogy that reflects the current situation surrounding Ayodhya dispute: A rogue bully snatches a kids school bag , cricket bat and walks away ... few years later the kid grows up and beats the crap out of the rogue bully and gets back his favorite cricket bat while the bully is crying claiming he didn't do any wrong to deserve what he got.

This is what happens when important facts are deliberately left out. This is the classic taqqiyya technique that Muslims are the masters of playing. Good old fashioned rogue hill billy logic.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">A bully snatches a kid's sandwich in school. He also thrashes the kid's friend who comes to his rescue. The teacher intervenes and let's the bully keep the sandwich, and gives the kid a slice of dry bread. The principal appreciates the teacher and calls it a 'balanced judgment'.</p>— Pratik Sinha (@free_thinker) <a href="https://twitter.com/free_thinker/status/1193188212832817153?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 9, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[Kashmirilion]

Here is the more accurate analogy that reflects the current situation surrounding Ayodhya dispute: A rogue bully snatches a kids school bag , cricket bat and walks away ... few years later the kid grows up and beats the crap out of the rogue bully and gets back his favorite cricket bat while the bully is crying claiming he didn't do any wrong to deserve what he got.

This is what happens when important facts are deliberately left out. This is the classic taqqiyya technique that Muslims are the masters of playing. Good old fashioned rogue hill billy logic.

"Pratik Sinha"doesn't seem to me as a Muslim name

 

[SakunaPataka]

"Pratik Sinha"doesn't seem to me as a Muslim name

We have plenty of shameless apologists on our side which is why the country is in this state.

 

[Captain caveman]

Actually here is the relevant bit from the judgement that addresses that ( Link: https://www.sci.gov.in/pdf/JUD_2.pdf )


Page# 905

PART P


P. Analysis on title


P.1 Marshalling the evidence in Suit 4 and Suit 5


788. A stage has now been reached to marshal together the evidence on the

claim of title in Suit 4 and Suit 5 to pave the way for the ultimate determination of

the relief to be granted.

I The report of the ASI indicates the following position:

(i) Archaeological finds in the area of excavation reveal significant

traces of successive civilisations, commencing with the age of the

North Black Polished Ware traceable to the second century B.C.;


(ii) The excavation by the ASI has revealed the existence of a pre-

existing underlying structure dating back to the twelfth century. The

structure has large dimensions, evident from the fact that there were

85 pillar bases comprised in 17 rows each of five pillar bases;


(iii) On a preponderance of probabilities, the archaeological findings on

the nature of the underlying structure indicate it to be of Hindu

religious origin, dating to twelfth century A.D.;


(iv) The mosque in dispute was constructed upon the foundation of the

pre-existing structure. The construction of the mosque has taken

place in such a manner as to obviate an independent foundation by

utilising the walls of the pre-existing structure; and


(v) The layered excavation at the site of excavation has also revealed

the existence of a circular shrine together with a makara pranala
indicative of Hindu worship dating back to the eighth to tenth

century.


A reasonable inference can be drawn on the basis of the standard of proof which

governs civil trials that:

(i) The foundation of the mosque is based on the walls of a large pre-existing

structure;

(ii) The pre-existing structure dates back to the twelfth century; and

(iii) The underlying structure which provided the foundations of the mosque

together with its architectural features and recoveries are suggestive of a

Hindu religious origin comparable to temple excavations in the region and

pertaining to the era.

Blah blah blah!
It is possible to determine if there was a building on the site before , but without any remnants of the building remaining, its complete guess work, to say what the building was.
You can disagree, you can claim that the ASI say there was a mandir there, but they failed to convince the SC judges, as per the SC final verdict!

 

[uberkoen]

Honestly, who cares? Such a silly point to argue over. It's not like its Masjid al Aqsa or Masjid al Haram or any other mosque of significance. If Hindu's claim the area to be religiously significant to them just give it to them and build a mosque elsewhere.

Can't understand what all the issue is about. Seems as though its just a matter of ego more than anything.

 

[Captain caveman]

This was the headline story on the bbc, my english friends were curious about this and asked me why do hindus and muslims fight over religion , when all religions are just fairytales?

I replied because some people prefer to live in fantasy worlds rather than reality.

We all laughed for a few seconds and starting talking about where we should go for lunch.

Moral of the story, some people are so gullible and believe anything!!!
(Most of whom live in the indian subcontinent!)

 

[JaDed]

This was the headline story on the bbc, my english friends were curious about this and asked me why do hindus and muslims fight over religion , when all religions are just fairytales?

I replied because some people prefer to live in fantasy worlds rather than reality.

We all laughed for a few seconds and starting talking about where we should go for lunch.

Moral of the story, some people are so gullible and believe anything!!!
(Most of whom live in the indian subcontinent!)

I’m in states right now and you will be surprised by the amount of religious people here esp down south, having said that they are extremely hardworking as well and religion is just a Sunday affair for them but still at times makes no sense for their love of evangelicals.

 

[uberkoen]

This was the headline story on the bbc, my english friends were curious about this and asked me why do hindus and muslims fight over religion , when all religions are just fairytales?

I replied because some people prefer to live in fantasy worlds rather than reality.

We all laughed for a few seconds and starting talking about where we should go for lunch.

Moral of the story, some people are so gullible and believe anything!!!
(Most of whom live in the indian subcontinent!)

Honestly, people who worship multi-headed gods and monkeys in this day and age cannot be taken seriously.

 

[Captain caveman]

Honestly, who cares? Such a silly point to argue over. It's not like its Masjid al Aqsa or Masjid al Haram or any other mosque of significance. If Hindu's claim the area to be religiously significant to them just give it to them and build a mosque elsewhere.

Can't understand what all the issue is about. Seems as though its just a matter of ego more than anything.

All true, but what you are missing my little naive friend, is that a very dangerous precedent has been set, whereby, any mosque in india can be destroyed on the grounds that it was built on what used to be a mandir.

 

[shah_1]

Hindu terrorist didn't respect Supreme court when it came to Sabarimala Judgement ). Now telling Muslims to respect court decision.

 

[uberkoen]

All true, but what you are missing my little naive friend, is that a very dangerous precedent has been set, whereby, any mosque in india can be destroyed on the grounds that it was built on what used to be a mandir.

..and in case that happens Muslims are allotted another plot of land to build their mosque. So, just go and do it. It's not as if mosques are disappearing they're just being moved.

 

[Captain caveman]

I’m in states right now and you will be surprised by the amount of religious people here esp down south, having said that they are extremely hardworking as well and religion is just a Sunday affair for them but still at times makes no sense for their love of evangelicals.

Yes America is another religious hotbed, just like the middle east and africa.
I'm in the uk and most western european countries are not bothered by religion as a way of life, except for the immigrant populations, who bring this fundamentalism with them to the west.

 

[SakunaPataka]

All true, but what you are missing my little naive friend, is that a very dangerous precedent has been set, whereby, any mosque in india can be destroyed on the grounds that it was built on what used to be a mandir.

Is that why it took 70+ yrs to resolve the matter then ? Just use your brain for once ( and google which is free) . How do you even reconcile and accept that narrative as logical and fact based ?

 

[Captain caveman]

..and in case that happens Muslims are allotted another plot of land to build their mosque. So, just go and do it. It's not as if mosques are disappearing they're just being moved.

Yeah that makes it alright, they havent even said where this land to build the mosque will be, it could be in the middle of a jungle/desert .

And where do the muslims go to pray during the time it takes for the mosque to be built?

And did the SC say anything about WHO WILL PAY for this mosque to be built?
All i have read is that are going to give them some land.

 

[Captain caveman]

Is that why it took 70+ yrs to resolve the matter then ? Just use your brain for once ( and google which is free) . How do you even reconcile and accept that narrative as logical and fact based ?

A man who believes in fairy tales telling others to use their brain(lol)!

The mosque was destroyed 10 years ago, the muslims of india have been fighting hard for justice, naively.
If theres a next time, it wont take as long as the precedent has been set by the SC.
All hindus have to do is destroy a mosque on the grounds it was built on top of a mandir site and refer the courts to the SC verdict on the ayodhya mosque case and the case will be concluded much more swiftly, due to the legal preflcedent set!

You must read up on legal case studies and better educate yourself!

 

[Captain caveman]

A man who believes in fairy tales telling others to use their brain(lol)!

The mosque was destroyed 10 years ago, the muslims of india have been fighting hard for justice, naively.
If theres a next time, it wont take as long as the precedent has been set by the SC.
All hindus have to do is destroy a mosque on the grounds it was built on top of a mandir site and refer the courts to the SC verdict on the ayodhya mosque case and the case will be concluded much more swiftly, due to the legal preflcedent set!

You must read up on legal case studies and better educate yourself!

*precedent

 

[SakunaPataka]

A man who believes in fairy tales telling others to use their brain(lol)!

The mosque was destroyed 10 years ago, the muslims of india have been fighting hard for justice, naively.
If theres a next time, it wont take as long as the precedent has been set by the SC.
All hindus have to do is destroy a mosque on the grounds it was built on top of a mandir site and refer the courts to the SC verdict on the ayodhya mosque case and the case will be concluded much more swiftly, due to the legal preflcedent set!

You must read up on legal case studies and better educate yourself!

You must read up on such a thing called as "Places of religious worship act passed in 1991"

 

[Iqbal'sh]

In the link of urs below is the quote...


"...There is this one particular sculpture, which is closest to some kind of image, which they called a 'divine couple.' But even that is just one man and a woman and is half-broken.."

So does any mosque has male & female resemblance of sculptures as pillars or any structures ??

Please carry on reading the whole article instead of pulling a couple of sentences which are out of context with the rest of the information.
The sculpture you highlighted was not discovered by the ASI during the excavation it was found above the lime floor of the mosque along side 12 or so other pieces.
It could have been placed there at any time.

That is the only sculpture evidence found which in itself is odd because this was supposed to be the site of a stone temple and the ASI should literally have found thousands of broken sculpture pieces, they found 12 and I repeat none of them during the excavation.

Anyway this debate has been discussed at length many times, I’m not interested in going over old ground again because the Hindutva extremists will believe what they want even when faced with solid facts.

 

[Captain caveman]

You must read up on such a thing called as "Places of religious worship act passed in 1991"

Dont know it, dont care, its obvious that its not worth the paper it was written on after this case.

 

[Captain caveman]

Please carry on reading the whole article instead of pulling a couple of sentences which are out of context with the rest of the information.
The sculpture you highlighted was not discovered by the ASI during the excavation it was found above the lime floor of the mosque along side 12 or so other pieces.
It could have been placed there at any time.

That is the only sculpture evidence found which in itself is odd because this was supposed to be the site of a stone temple and the ASI should literally have found thousands of broken sculpture pieces, they found 12 and I repeat none of them during the excavation.

Anyway this debate has been discussed at length many times, I’m not interested in going over old ground again because the Hindutva extremists will believe what they want even when faced with solid facts.

Brother, theres NO evidence of a mandir being there, the SC judges have admitted so.

This was not a judgement on legal grounds, but a judgement on religious grounds!

 

[Iqbal'sh]

Yes.

Summarise what offences they were tried for and what punishments were handed out.

Vajpayee became PM I believe, Advani was deputy PM ?(not sure), what punishments were given to Joshi, Bharti etc

Has any politician received a punishment for this incident?

 

[Iqbal'sh]

Brother, theres NO evidence of a mandir being there, the SC judges have admitted so.

This was not a judgement on legal grounds, but a judgement on religious grounds!

I know this and I have looked through the evidence before.
I agree with you and nothing else was expected with the BJP extremists pulling the strings.

 

[SakunaPataka]

Dont know it, dont care, its obvious that its not worth the paper it was written on after this case.

Thats why it helps to use the brain and when in doubt google. So that act promises all places of worship a status quo as of India's independence except the Ayodhya Mosque because it was a special case.

There are literally hundreds of Temples that were demolished by rogue muslim rulers. It is what it it. But even the most hardline Hindu vigilante groups do not demand that all of them be reconstructed. Again something you would know if you bothered to google.

And yeah not all religions are fairy tales. There is more to Hinduism than tales and worship. Its called spirituality. Naturally thats beyond you.

 

[SakunaPataka]

I know this and I have looked through the evidence before.
I agree with you and nothing else was expected with the BJP extremists pulling the strings.

You are still peddling this nonsense based on that Huffington post article ?

 

[Captain caveman]

Thats why it helps to use the brain and when in doubt google. So that act promises all places of worship a status quo as of India's independence except the Ayodhya Mosque because it was a special case.

There are literally hundreds of Temples that were demolished by rogue muslim rulers. It is what it it. But even the most hardline Hindu vigilante groups do not demand that all of them be reconstructed. Again something you would know if you bothered to google.

And yeah not all religions are fairy tales. There is more to Hinduism than tales and worship. Its called spirituality. Naturally thats beyond you.

I wasnt just refering to hinduism, but all religions as fairytales.
Spirituality, just more mumbo jumbo!
Anyway, lets wait and see, if even one more case like this arises, are you willing to apologise for your ignorance?

 

[SakunaPataka]

I wasnt just refering to hinduism, but all religions as fairytales.
Spirituality, just more mumbo jumbo!

As is atheism ( or whatever ism you subscribe to ) ... 2 can play this game.

Anyway, lets wait and see, if even one more case like this arises, are you willing to apologise for your ignorance?

There were only 3 temples that were being asked - Ayodhya , Kashi, Mathura. Why only these 3 ? Because these are among the 7 holiest Hindu pilgrimage sites. And this has been going on for decades if not centuries. So much for the rigt wing extremist radical tag thats being bandied around on PP for Hindus in India these days ehh ? I mean we seem to be pretty patient for a supposedly extremist community.

Anyhow even the other 2 will require a constitutional amendment. Highly unlikely.

 

[Captain caveman]

As is atheism ( or whatever ism you subscribe to ) ... 2 can play this game.




There were only 3 temples that were being asked - Ayodhya , Kashi, Mathura. Why only these 3 ? Because these are among the 7 holiest Hindu pilgrimage sites. And this has been going on for decades if not centuries. So much for the rigt wing extremist radical tag thats being bandied around on PP for Hindus in India these days ehh ? I mean we seem to be pretty patient for a supposedly extremist community.

Anyhow even the other 2 will require a constitutional amendment. Highly unlikely.

Brother, your intentions may be sincere, we just have to wait and see if everyone else in your country shares the same mindset.

 

[cricketjoshila]

I know this and I have looked through the evidence before.
I agree with you and nothing else was expected with the BJP extremists pulling the strings.

You got access to the submitted evidence to supreme court? All the witness testimonials, all cross questions all arguments?

Wow!!!

 

[SakunaPataka]

Brother, your intentions may be sincere, we just have to wait and see if everyone else in your country shares the same mindset.

For the record I'am in favor of getting those 2 remaining sacred sites in a civilized legal manner. However history says that there is no such thing as a civilized settlement when it comes to Muslims. Time will tell.

 

[Captain caveman]

For the record I'am in favor of getting those 2 remaining sacred sites in a civilized legal manner. However history says that there is no such thing as a civilized settlement when it comes to Muslims. Time will tell.

Is this the civilised manner in which a gang of hindu thugs destroyed a masjid on the fake claim that it was built on a former mandir site.

 

[SakunaPataka]

Is this the civilised manner in which a gang of hindu thugs destroyed a masjid on the fake claim that it was built on a former mandir site.

There is a criminal case that is ongoing against those who brought down the mosque ( which was wrong ) .

But do tell us how you consider the Muslims as being civilized given that they still are fighting for a mosque that has been proven beyond doubt to have been constructed right over the foundation of a temple as proven by the ASI excavations which included observers from Muslim side. ( And then there is the small matter of them hailing these rogue Muslim invaders as heroes but I will let that pass for now ).

 

[Gabbar Singh]

This was the headline story on the bbc, my english friends were curious about this and asked me why do hindus and muslims fight over religion , when all religions are just fairytales?

I replied because some people prefer to live in fantasy worlds rather than reality.

We all laughed for a few seconds and starting talking about where we should go for lunch.

Moral of the story, some people are so gullible and believe anything!!!
(Most of whom live in the indian subcontinent!)

Bit like arguing over Santa Claus vs the tooth fairy

 

[Captain caveman]

There is a criminal case that is ongoing against those who brought down the mosque ( which was wrong ) .

But do tell us how you consider the Muslims as being civilized given that they still are fighting for a mosque that has been proven beyond doubt to have been constructed right over the foundation of a temple as proven by the ASI excavations which included observers from Muslim side. ( And then there is the small matter of them hailing these rogue Muslim invaders as heroes but I will let that pass for now ).

You are still ignoring the fact that the SC judges said there was no proof of a mandir on that site!!
Either accept the SC judgement in entirity or reject it.
The muslims are being civilised by going through the courts, unlike the hindu thugs who resorted to violence.
The bloke who built that mosque was an indian, it was his forefather who invaded the indian subcontinent, so people can choose to hail their leaders and former leaders, if they wish to, its called patriotism.

 

[Captain caveman]

Bit like arguing over Santa Claus vs the tooth fairy

Lol!

 

[Iqbal'sh]

You are still peddling this nonsense based on that Huffington post article ?

Apparently the SC agrees with me, so who’s the one looking like a class one idiot?

 

[SakunaPataka]

Apparently the SC agrees with me, so who’s the one looking like a class one idiot?

you may want to check post# 103

 

[Iqbal'sh]

You got access to the submitted evidence to supreme court? All the witness testimonials, all cross questions all arguments?

Wow!!!

We know the manner in which the ASI conducted the excavations, there is plenty of evidence out there.
This should never have gone to the courts never mind the SC. We know why it want this way.

btw any news on those politicians getting punished for incitement?

 

[SakunaPataka]

You are still ignoring the fact that the SC judges said there was no proof of a mandir on that site!!

See Post# 103.

 

[Captain caveman]

See Post# 103.

I've read it, its not proof just speculation

 

[Iqbal'sh]

But do tell us how you consider the Muslims as being civilized given that they still are fighting for a mosque that has been proven beyond doubt to have been constructed right over the foundation of a temple as proven by the ASI excavations which included observers from Muslim side.

Stop with the blatant lies. The observers from the Muslim side (SWB) rejected the ASI report out of hand. They published a paper in 2010 discrediting the ASI methodology and findings.

 

[SakunaPataka]

The muslims are being civilised by going through the courts,
unlike the hindu thugs who resorted to violence.

After patiently trying to settle the isue for centuries .... you conveniently left that bit out ehh ?

The bloke who built that mosque was an indian, it was his forefather who invaded the indian subcontinent, so people can choose to hail their leaders and former leaders, if they wish to, its called patriotism.

Wrong. Babur is from current day Uzbekistan.

 

[Iqbal'sh]

you may want to check post# 103

Already discredited by independent excavation experts. The ASI excavation was a sham. Basic principles and methods of excavation were not followed and you want us to believe their conclusion??

 

[Captain caveman]

@sakuna pataka

You are going to get your mandir, just be happy, but dont try to justify the evil means in which your desires were fulfilled.

 

[SakunaPataka]

I've read it, its not proof just speculation

It is THE part of the judgement that you were asking me to obey lol

 

[miandadrules]

@sakuna pataka

You are going to get your mandir, just be happy, but dont try to justify the evil means in which your desires were fulfilled.

Now, we’re concerned with evil measures? Human nature not coming in to play?

 

[Captain caveman]

It is THE part of the judgement that you were asking me to obey lol

Just read my post above.

 

[SakunaPataka]

Already discredited by independent excavation experts. The ASI excavation was a sham. Basic principles and methods of excavation were not followed and you want us to believe their conclusion??

Then the Sunni WAKF board and their lawyers who were witnesses to the ASI excavation should have followed the process to bring it to the courts attention.

 

[Captain caveman]

Now, we’re concerned with evil measures? Human nature not coming in to play?

Now you have followed me onto this thread!
I feel i am being stalked!

The one who sees evil in others but is blind to his own evils, is the true evil one!

 

[Iqbal'sh]

Just read my post above.

IK actions in respect to Nankana Sahib in contrast to Ayodhya on consecutive days.

We don’t need to say anymore about the differing paths these countries are on.

 

[Iqbal'sh]

Then the Sunni WAKF board and their lawyers who were witnesses to the ASI excavation should have followed the process to bring it to the courts attention.

They have and they have been ignored

 

[Captain caveman]

IK actions in respect to Nankana Sahib in contrast to Ayodhya on consecutive days.

We don’t need to say anymore about the differing paths these countries are on.

Absolutely!