Relinquishing the claim on RJM should be unconditional. There is no law preventing the Muslims from building a Masjid anywhere they want, if they purchase the land legally.
It is impossible to right the historical wrongs that were done by razing 20,000 Hindu temples and defacing countless others over the centuries,not to mention the most horrendous holocaust in human history resulting in 70 million deaths over the last 7 centuries, but relinquishing the claim on Ayodhya , kashi and Mathura would be a step in the right direction and would contribute immeasurably to the reconciliation between the 2 communities.
Mr. Rizvi has finally seen the light. Due to stubbornness of self-proclaimed leaders of Muslims in Bharat countless Snatan Dharmis were butchered by Mulyam Singh, who ordered helicopters to be used, and lined up the bodies along the streets for people to see what happens to kar Sevaks.
Mr. Rizvi, thank you for the gesture, but please apologize to the nation first and to all those who lost loved ones [both Snatan Dharmis and Muslims]. Now even science has proven that a temple did exist. Please walk shoulder to shoulder with your fellow Santan brothers and sisters and help re-build the temple.
I assure you Dharmis will make the Mosque with sweat and tears. Truth Shall Triumph.
Gill
This is an article which apeared earlier this year in Outlook, but the graphics are good.
[url="http://www.outlookindia.com/full.asp?fodname=20030602&fname=Cover+Story+%28F%29&sid=1"]Secrets Of The Shrine[/url]
Sandipan Deb gets into the heavily-guarded excavation site at Ayodhya and finds clues to a confusing past Updates
SANDIPAN DEB
![[Image: ayodhya_graphic_20030602.jpg]](http://www.outlookindia.com/images/ayodhya_graphic_20030602.jpg)
The following article refers to the dastardly role that the Communists played in the Ayodhya drama.
[url="http://www.wac.uct.ac.za/croatia/gupta.htm"]ROLE OF INTELLECTUALS AND ITS CONSEQUENCES ON AYODHYA ISSUE[/url]
S.P. Gupta Chairman. Indian Archaeological Society.
Shri. Rizvi willing to give up the site is all well and good. Now all that has to happen for complete national reconciliation is as soon as the RJB movement takes control of the site, they in a grand gesture should provide Dalits with a parcel of land for a temple of Shambuka on the premises. A grand temple of Ram next to a temple of Shambuka built with the support of all including the Muslim community should set the stage for national reconciliation.
Why a temple for Shambuka?
Writes Shri. Talageri:
[url="http://www.bharatvani.org/books/tfst/chii42.htm"]http://www.bharatvani.org/books/tfst/chii42.htm[/url]
The situation between different caste groups within the Hindu fold, and even the outlook of the Sangh Parivar in such matters (although, to be just, the Sangh Parivar has been ahead of any other Hindu group in genuinely trying to do away with the caste divisions in Hindu society), have not been favourable even to a consolidation of Hindus behind Hindutva, let alone to a weaning away of Muslims back to the Hindu fold.
Take the Ayodhya case. The Ramajanmabhoomî case has everything in its favour. But with what face can the Sangh Parivar approach the âlowâ-caste Hindus of certain areas in, say, Marathwada - where they are not allowed to enter a temple, but would be allowed to enter a mosque if they became Muslims, or perhaps even without that prerequisite - with the suggestion that the Babri Masjid be replaced once more with a Rama temple? Especially if those âlowâ-caste Hindus happen to be aware of certain Sangh publications which glorify or whitewash the interpolated story in the Valmiki Ramayana where Ram cuts off the head of a âlowâ-caste Shambuka for the sin of performing ritual austerities?
A temple for Shambuka would send a powerful message for the unification of Hindus and Indians and atone for the great sin of caste discrimination and bigotry (as the handover of the RJB land would go a long way in atoning the sins of the Islamic invaders). I hope my predominantly fellow caste-Hindus in the RJB movement consider this idea.
Note: No relation to the Dr. G mentioned in the linked webpage.
As a Muslim my perspective on this subject are somewhat different to most of you.
While I abhor the actions of Muslim invaders in the atrocities they committed in the past, you cannot hold present day Indian Muslims as responsible for those actions and you should not seek to punish us for them.
I feel it was an act of political terror to demolish the Babri Masjid in the manner it was done. The masjid was in disuse and should have been acquired legally. I have no problem with selling/giving it to the Hindu community as long as it is done with legality and goodwill.
Having said that, the masjid is now gone. Where to go from here? Personally I fell that a community structure such as a hospital would be better for this site, rather than any religous building. Ayodhya could use development more than religion. However extreme religious people on both sides insist on building a place of worship there. Either community could be magnanimous enough to give up the claim to Ayodhya, but politics ensures that this is not to be.
If the Hindus get the Ram temple, I fear that we will see more mob demolitions of mosques as it will set a precedent. Pakistan can even ensure this by infiltrating certain groups and leading them to demolish mosques to stir up conflagration between the two communities like they tried with the church bombings.
If Muslims get a masjid then there will remain a festering ill will and frustration from the Hindus towards Muslims for historical wrongs committed against Hindus. Again this may break out in riots.
They only way out of this is to build a non-denominational structure on the site regardless of the rights and wrongs of the situation. This will help the people of Ayodhya far more than a temple or masjid.
[quote name='Abdul' date='Nov 4 2003, 10:27 PM'] As a Muslim my perspective on this subject are somewhat different to most of you.
While I abhor the actions of Muslim invaders in the atrocities they committed in the past, you cannot hold present day Indian Muslims as responsible for those actions and you should not seek to punish us for them.
I feel it was an act of political terror to demolish the Babri Masjid in the manner it was done. The masjid was in disuse and should have been acquired legally. I have no problem with selling/giving it to the Hindu community as long as it is done with legality and goodwill.
Having said that, the masjid is now gone. Where to go from here? Personally I fell that a community structure such as a hospital would be better for this site, rather than any religous building. Ayodhya could use development more than religion. However extreme religious people on both sides insist on building a place of worship there. Either community could be magnanimous enough to give up the claim to Ayodhya, but politics ensures that this is not to be.
If the Hindus get the Ram temple, I fear that we will see more mob demolitions of mosques as it will set a precedent. Pakistan can even ensure this by infiltrating certain groups and leading them to demolish mosques to stir up conflagration between the two communities like they tried with the church bombings.
If Muslims get a masjid then there will remain a festering ill will and frustration from the Hindus towards Muslims for historical wrongs committed against Hindus. Again this may break out in riots.
They only way out of this is to build a non-denominational structure on the site regardless of the rights and wrongs of the situation. This will help the people of Ayodhya far more than a temple or masjid. [/quote]
Abdul,
Nice centiments.
How ever let me ask you couple of questions. Please dont take them personally or as a slander against a religion. Neither are these questions supposed to communal.
1. Suppose, what would have happened if the population of India was 85% muslims and Babur demolished a muslim shrine and built a Hindu temple over it?
2. What would be the fate of Ayodhya if India chose to become a Hindu religion when the nation was divided on religions grounds by Muslim League?
3. Thousands of temples are destroyed in Pakistan and many more are rotting. Why dont we hear outrage against by the "secularists"?
Your statement about "holding present muslims responsible" prompted me. I am not aware of anyone doing that. It is strictly a matter of symbol of faith, a place of worship.
JD I think your forgetting that hindus consider the site where BM is the birth place of ram. <img src='http://www.india-forum.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='  ' />
[quote name='Abdul' date='Nov 4 2003, 10:27 PM'] As a Muslim my perspective on this subject are somewhat different to most of you.
While I abhor the actions of Muslim invaders in the atrocities they committed in the past, you cannot hold present day Indian Muslims as responsible for those actions and you should not seek to punish us for them.
Having said that, the masjid is now gone. Where to go from here? Personally I fell that a community structure such as a hospital would be better for this site, rather than any religous building. Ayodhya could use development more than religion. However extreme religious people on both sides insist on building a place of worship there.
[/quote]
i agree with this.
only solution is convince muslims that AYODHYA is like MACCA to hindus. <img src='http://www.india-forum.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />
and also promise them new masjid in ayodhya. I assume that masjid is not a dirty thing or un-auspicious to hindus if its built 2-3 Km. away from new ram-temple.
if hindus can't tolerate 2-3 km, then build it outside but near ayodhya.
but it must be built because its a place of worship of a religion which we should respect as per GITA says,respect others too and we should make clear to muslims that hindus are not LIKE BABAR king. We understand and respect their religion too. this will only make our country and both communities better towards each other. <img src='http://www.india-forum.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=' ' />
and sir Abdul,
regarding your comment :
Personally I fell that a community structure such as a hospital would be better for this site, rather than any religous building.
tell me will you prefer a hospital over masjid over holy-place like MACCA(where muslims go for hajj)??
Quote:1. Suppose, what would have happened if the population of India was 85% muslims and Babur demolished a muslim shrine and built a Hindu temple over it?
I am not sure I understand this question. If anyone demolishes any place of worship without consent of the the faith whose shrine it is, it is outrageous and should be opposed and the perpetrators punished. Although not all Muslims will agree, I condemn the destruction of Hindu temples that have taken place throughout history as much as I condemn destruction of Babri Masjid in the way it was done and I condemn the aftermath.
Quote:2. What would be the fate of Ayodhya if India chose to become a Hindu religion when the nation was divided on religions grounds by Muslim League?
Out of all the religions in the world, Hinduism is the only major one which has shown nothing but tolerance and acceptance to other faiths. If the population of a hypothetically "Hindu" India remained true to their faith, then I would hope that all inter-community issues would be resolved in a peaceful manner as espoused by your faith. Put it this way - I am a Muslim and I know how barbaric some of my co-religionists can be. I would be far more comfortable in a "Hindu" India than a muslim Pakistan.
Quote:3. Thousands of temples are destroyed in Pakistan and many more are rotting. Why dont we hear outrage against by the "secularists"?
I condemn destruction of temples in Pakistan and Bangladesh as I would condem any such event anywhere in the world.
I am secular in that I support seperation of faith and state. I am not for positive or negative discrimination of anyone based on color, religion, etc.
I am not a (pseudo)-secularist and speak for them. They have their treacherous agendas and I hate them. They more than anyone are holding back the Indian Muslim community in order to satisfy their political needs.
Quote:Your statement about "holding present muslims responsible" prompted me. I am not aware of anyone doing that. It is strictly a matter of symbol of faith, a place of worship.
I have often perceived people justifying the mob demolition of Babri Masjid because Hindu suffered the same on a vast scale in the Mughal era. Two wrongs do not make a right.
The problem is not just a loss of a building, its the fissures and divisions it opens up in our society and the violence it can unleash. That is how present day Muslims are affected
Quote:JD I think your forgetting that hindus consider the site where BM is the birth place of ram.
I do not forget that. Also I do not care if evidence is there or not to prove this. That Hindus believe it is enough for Muslim community to be magnanimous and forsake the claim on this piece of land.
However this will not happen, because of politicians and votebanking.
Also Muslims fear that if a temple is built there then many other masjids will be in danger as it will set a precedent. It will be easy for some group like Shiv Sena to claim some place or other is holy in some way and a mosque is there so lets go do a "Babri Masjid" on it.
Then the cycle begins again.
Quote:As a Muslim my perspective on this subject are somewhat different to most of you.
Abdul, I appreciate your speaking from the heart. It requires courage to say it as you perceive the situation.
There are however major differences in perception on this issue. Let us see if we can articulate what these differences are.
First some facts - 1. The Babri structure had ceased being a Masjid long before independence. In fact no namaz had been offered at the site since about the 1930's. So to call it a Masjid is a misnomer. There is evidence that throughout the history of the structure , the periods where it was used exclusively as a Masjid have been few and far between. so, to call it a Masjid in the first place is a highly tenuous proposition. In my view it has not served as a Masjid for most of the 20th century.
2. The dispute is not new. It has been ongoing for a hundred and fifty years and attempts to regain the site has been going on much longer . The first lawsuits were filed immediately after 1857 when the Brits took possession of the territory. The current lawsuit has been ongoing ever since independence. Most of the original people who filed have died and this is the second generation of players who are currently active in this law suit.
Furthermore , there is no dispute regarding who owns this property. It has been handed over to the Hindus by the local Magistrate since 1950, primarily because the Muslims had abandoned it. The dispute is about the future use of the site.
3. There is overwhelming evidence that there was a very large structure with many pillars prior to the Babri structure, so the question of whether there was a Temple there in the first place is really not in doubt. Even the Saudi Government has stated unequivocally that a Masjid built on top of an already existing religious structure is against the tenets of Islam, and if that is the case, it is OK to replace it with a structure similar to whatever was existing before.
Quote:While I abhor the actions of Muslim invaders in the atrocities they committed in the past, you cannot hold present day Indian Muslims as responsible for those actions and you should not seek to punish us for them.
I am glad you have stated that you abhor the actions of the invaders, because in my entire life i have heard very few IM express it as unconditionally and publicly as you have. Many such as eminent historian Irfan Habib even deny that any atrocities took place, and even if they ever did, they say it was just for plunder (as if that makes it right) rather than driven by religious bigotry. These acts took place over a sustained period of over 6 centuries with regularity and were not restricted to invaders, they were committed by IM Sultans like Allauddin Khalji whose forefathers were in India for at least 4 generations prior to his ascending the throne. The scale of these atrocities was so horrendous that it reduced the population of India for several centuries.Equal or greater number of Indians were sold into slavery in the slave markets of Samarkhand, Damascus and Isfahan
When it comes to not blaming the present generation of IM for what happened in the past,I am inclined to agree with you. But i would like to see remorse expressed at the utter barbarity of what happened and i see this very rarely and almost never is it publicly expressed like you have done. However when it comes to restitution for past wrongs , the Constitution of India has penalized me by setting aside reservations for SC/ST/OBC at my expense, in order to compensate for the alleged mistreatment that my forefathers inflicted on the ancestors of these people.
I am not suggesting that we penalize the IM just as the Constitution has penalized me for what my forefathers have allegedly done. I ask only that they admit that one of the greatest holocausts in the history of mankind was inflicted by successive sultans and rulers over long periods of time in India and show remorse for such actions. Why do i ask for remorse . Not to humiliate the Muslim, but to ensure that we have their agreement for the proposition that they will not support any such actions in the future. I say this because in the only Muslim majority state in India they have ethnically cleansed almost all Hindus from the Muslim majority area (the Valley of Kashmir). not only do they show no sign of remorse for what happened in the past, but they continue to act in the same barbaric manner.
Quote:I feel it was an act of political terror to demolish the Babri Masjid in the manner it was done. The masjid was in disuse and should have been acquired legally. I have no problem with selling/giving it to the Hindu community as long as it is done with legality and goodwill.
I do not understand what the term 'political terror' means. You must remember that not a single life was lost during the demolition. As I said the property was already under the defacto management of Hindus. The ownership of the property was never in dispute. If the so called masjid (where no namaz was offered for over 50 years) was in disuse, why the brouhaha and the importance given to it. Surely this was an insignificant structure with very little religious value for the IM. Also remember that the property was already handed over to the Hindus by the local magistrate shortlly after independence in 1950. So there was never any question as to who owned it.
Quote:If the Hindus get the Ram temple, I fear that we will see more mob demolitions of mosques as it will set a precedent. Pakistan can even ensure this by infiltrating certain groups and leading them to demolish mosques to stir up conflagration between the two communities like they tried with the church bombings.
On what do you base this assumption on ? After all since independence there have been very few masjids that have been destroyed and when it has happened on relatively rare occasions, it has happened during riots .That does not make it right but the incidence of such destruction is very low in the rest of India (outside of Kashmir). As for setting a precedent, the Babri structure was extensively damaged in 1936 during fights between Hindus and Muslims. The then English magistrate made the Hindus pay to repair the damage. The point is that the precedent had been set in 1936. But what you say has not happened in the intervening 70 years. No other masjids have been vandalized in this period. So, there is no basis for your assumption.
The Babri structure is the only one that i know off that has been deliberately destroyed. Contrast with the destruction and defilement of temples in the Indian subcontinent. Hundreds of temples have been destroyed or defiled in B'Desh (long before 1992) , Pakistan and Kashmir after 1947. The fact of the matter is that in general Hindus do not go around destroying other peoples place of worship without any provocation. The Jamma Masjid, one of the largest Masjids in the entire world, stands proudly in Central Delhi,the capital city of India, as a testament to the tolerance of Hindus for those of other faiths. There are literally hundreds of cathedrals and churches in most of the metros in India often in very choice central locations of the cities, testifying to the fact even though they form only 2% of the population, the Christians occupy a place of prime importance in the national life of the country. Do you really believe that had we wished to do so , we could not destroy the Jamma Masjid ?. But that is not the way we Hindus behave. Contrast with Pakistan. The Indus Valley and the Punjab are the cradles of our Vedic civilization. Not only are there no Hindus left in Pakistan from the millions who once resided there, there are very few temples in good repair and the situation is similar in the Kashmir valley.
Quote:They only way out of this is to build a non-denominational structure on the site regardless of the rights and wrongs of the situation. This will help the people of Ayodhya far more than a temple or masjid.
I am sorry but this is completely unacceptable to me and to a significant section of the Hindu population. This is like asking Mecca to be turned into a tourist resort or the city of Mashhad in Iran to be turned into a Pharmaceutical Research complex. Ayodhya has far too much significance for Hindus for the RJB site to be turned into a Hospital. In fact such an attitude smacks of ' if i cant have it why should you '.
We are not asking for every masjid built over a temple to be returned to the Hindus. Just the three - Ayodhya, Mathura and Kashi. In each case there is overwhelming evidence that the Masjid was deliberately built over a temple and these 3 sites have immense significance to Hindus and such an act would contribute immensely to future good relations between the 2 communities.
Quote:i agree with this. only solution is convince muslims that AYODHYA is like MACCA to hindus.Â
Truthfully is this truly the case? I thought places like Varanasi, Allahabad, Mathura would be more like Mecca to Hindus than Ayodhya. I may be worng, if so please educate me.
Quote:and also promise them new masjid in ayodhya. I assume that masjid is not a dirty thing or un-auspicious to hindus if its built 2-3 Km. away from new ram-temple. if hindus can't tolerate 2-3 km, then build it outside but near ayodhya. but it must be built because its a place of worship of a religion which we should respect as per GITA says,respect others too and we should make clear to muslims that hindus are not LIKE BABAR king. We understand and respect their religion too. this will only make our country and both communities better towards each other.Â
This is not the point. And if Muslims build a masjid across the street from the new temple why should Hindus object? Muslims are equal citizens in India and are allowed to build a masjid wherever we are legally allowed to. Do Muslims smell or something that they must be some kilometers away?
Quote:tell me will you prefer a hospital over masjid over holy-place like MACCA(where muslims go for hajj)??
Under same circumstances yes. Or better a school in the case of Saudis who are most mentally backward people after Pakistanis. <img src='http://www.india-forum.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='  ' /> . However Kaaba is already there.
[url="http://www.flex.com/~jai/articles/ayodhya.html"]http://www.flex.com/~jai/articles/ayodhya.html[/url]
Quote:RECENT HISTORY - 1934 THRU 1992 :
In 1934, during the armed conflict between Hindus and Muslims the Babri structure was damaged. Since 1936, the Babri structure was an abandoned building and did not function as a community mosque for local muslims. There is no evidence of any Mutawalli or Imam or Muazzin or Khatib or Khadim having functioned as the mosque management as such for the up keep and maintenance of the 'mosque'. A Waqf report dated September 16, 1938 showed 'Syed Mohammad Zaki' as a Mutawalli. But later the District Waqf Commissioner found that Mutawalli Zaki was a Shia, an opium addict and most unsuited for the duties of a Mutawalli. Meanwhile the Sunni Waqf Board claimed that Babri mosque was under its control. A report dated December 10, 1949 by the Waqf inspector Mohammad Ibrahim, to the U.P. Sunni Central Board of Waqf, states that 'due to the fear of Hindus and Sikhs NO ONE OFFERED NAMAZ IN THE SAID 'MOSQUE'.
On December 23, 1949 the image of 'Ramalalla' appeared in the disputed structure and Hindus resumed prayers and worship inside. On December 29, 1949 Additional Magistrate Markandey Singh confiscated the building and handed over the posession to Priya Dutta Ram as Receiver, who assumed charge of the same on January 5, 1950. After almost 12 years, on December 18, 1961 the Sunni Waqf Board filed the law suit seeking the possession of the disputed structure. This law suit was liable to be dismissed since the then prevalent statute of limitation for property takeover of 6 years had already passed.
SINCE DECEMBER 23, 1949 THERE HAVE BEEN DAILY HINDU PRAYERS AND WORSHIP AT THE RAM JANMA BHOOMI TEMPLE.
NET, BABRI WAS NOT A FUNCTIONAL MOSQUE, AND IT HAS BEEN A FUNCTIONAL TEMPLE FOR AT LEAST 42 YEARS.
From the same link above
Quote:BRIEF HISTORY - 1528 THRU 1934 :
As per historians, since 1528 there have been at least 76 armed conflicts in which over 300,000 Hindus sacrificed their lives to restore the Ram Janma Bhoomi temple. Summary of these conflicts is as follows:
Babar's reign (1528-1530) - Hindus launched 4 attacks in which 100,000 people were killed.
Humayun's reign (1530-1556) - Hindus launched 10 separate initiatives to regain control.
Akbar's reign (1556-1605) - Hindus fought 20 battles.
Aurungzeb's reign (1658-1707)- Hindus fought 30 battles. One such battle was led by Guru Gobind Singh in which Aurungzeb's army was defeated. Four years later, Aurungzeb again attacked Ayodhya and regained control after killing 10,000 Hindus.
Sahdat Ali (1798-1814) - Hindus fought 5 battles.
Nasir-uddin Haidar (1814-1837) - Hindus fought 3 battles.
Wajid Ali Shah (1847-1857) - Hindus fought 2 battles.
British Rule (1912-1934) - Hindus fought 2 armed conflicts.
Hindus never gave up on one of their holiest places. Hence the only conflict free periods were when they were allowed to worship inside the disputed structure.
For example, in order to avoid further conflict, during the latter part of his reign Akbar allowed Hindus to build a platform known as 'Ram Chabutra', and to install and worship images of Ram Parivar in the so called Babri compound. This practice was later opposed by Aurungzeb which resulted in most battles for the control of the shrine during his reign.
In 1751 A.D. Maratha Sardar Malhar Rao Holkar after defeating the Pathans in the plains of Ganga and Yamuna, asked Nawab Safderjang to hand over Ayodhya, Kashi and Prayag to the Peshwas. In a letter dated February 23, 1756, Nanasaheb Peshwa asked Sardar Scindia to annex Ayodhya and Kashi as the handover of these holy places was already promised to Raghoba Dada by Suja- uddoula. Later in 1789 A.D. Sardar MahadJi Scindia did annex Ayodhya, Mathura and Kashi, but due to his untimely demise was not able to restore the temples of Ram Janma Bhoomi, Krishna Janma Bhoomi and Kashi Vishweshwar back to Hindus.
Joseph Tieffenthaler (1710 - 1785), an Austrian Jesuit priest toured Oudh (Ayodhya) region between 1766 and 1771 A.D. His account of Indian History and geography was translated and published in French in 1786 A.D. Tieffenthaler states 'The Emperor Aurungzeb destroyed the fortress called Ramkot and built at the same place a Mohammedan temple with 3 domes. Others say that it has been built by Babar. One can see 14 columns made of black stone .. which bear carvings ... Subsequently Aurungzeb, and some say Babar destroyed the (heathen) place in order to prevent heathens from practicing their ceremonies. HOWEVER THEY HAVE CONTINUED TO PRACTICE THEIR RELIGIOUS CEREMONIES IN BOTH THE PLACES (inside the 3 domed Babri structure and the compound), KNOWING THIS TO HAVE BEEN BIRTH PLACE OF RAMA, by going around it 3 times and prostrating on ground".
According to the British records by Thornton (1854 A.D.) and Carnegie (1870 A.D.) till 1855 A.D. Hindus continued to worship Ram in the 3 domed structure. During the First War of Independence of 1857 the local Muslim leader Amir Ali persuaded the Muslims to finally hand over the disputed place to Hindus and jointly fight with the British. However the British won the War of 1857 and Amir Ali and Hindu leader Baba Ram Charan Das were publicly hanged from a tree near the Ram Janma Bhoomi. The British subsequently put a railing wall between Babri structure and the courtyard and separated the Muslim worshipers who got the Babri structure and Hindus had no choice but to do puja outside in the courtyard.
NET - HINDUS CONTINUED TO WORSHIP AT THE DISPUTED STRUCTURE AND NEVER GAVE UP STRUGGLE TO REGAIN CONTROL OF RAM JANMA BHOOMI SINCE 1528.
Quote:Truthfully is this truly the case? I thought places like Varanasi, Allahabad, Mathura would be more like Mecca to Hindus than Ayodhya. I may be worng, if so please educate me.
Abdul,
"truthfully"??...well yes..100%...mathura also.In mathura, god shri Krishna defeated evil king KANSA and ayodhya it is where hindu god shri RAM took birth,lived,ruled there.
and yea, in vrindavana shri krishna took birth. <img src='http://www.india-forum.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=' ' />
i don't know much about varanasi,alahabad(???). <img src='http://www.india-forum.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/huh.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='  ' />
Quote: And if Muslims build a masjid across the street from the new temple why should Hindus object? Muslims are equal citizens in India and are allowed to build a masjid wherever we are legally allowed to. Do Muslims smell or something that they must be some kilometers away?
I am not sure about it.Its not question of equal citizens or legal issue.Its question of what hindu pujari who looks after temples says based on their religious beliefs.
I have seen many hindus comment on web very bravely that lets build masjid+mandir together but you know there are principle in hindu religion while building temples.It must be followed.Mandir are not homes so that anybody can design them like they want.There is religious procedure according to vedas/puranas.
Quote:Under same circumstances yes. Or better a school in the case of Saudis who are most mentally backward people after Pakistanis. <img src='http://www.india-forum.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' /> . However Kaaba is already there.
humm....did BABAR said such thing when he demolished temple?
abdul,
it has become a fashion to ask hindus everything to give up bcoz majority should be generous and courtous(spelling wrong??) towards minority.So does that mean majority don't build any hopes in their own country?
No one is asking for 20 thousand and odd temples to be restored, all the hindus are asking for are three temples AND that too in our own country!
[quote name='tovishal2003' date='Nov 5 2003, 01:21 AM']
[/quote]
Quote:"truthfully"??...well yes..100%...
I was not aware of that.
Quote:I am not sure about it.Its not question of equal citizens or legal issue.Its question of what hindu pujari who looks after temples says based on their religious beliefs.
I have seen many hindus comment on web very bravely that lets build masjid+mandir together but you know there are principle in hindu religion while building temples.It must be followed.Mandir are not homes so that anybody can design them like they want.There is religious procedure according to vedas/puranas.
What are these procedures? If they clash with Muslim procedures how to resolve it?
Quote:humm....did BABAR said such thing when he demolished temple?
To be honest with you, I was not around during the reign of Babar and I have no idea what he said or didn't say.
Quote:abdul,
it has become a fashion to ask hindus everything to give up bcoz majority should be generous and courtous(spelling wrong??) towards minority.So does that mean majority don't build any hopes in their own country?
I don't think generosity or courtesy should be extended to anyone on basis of majority or minority. Same rules should apply to everyone without prejudice and majority and minorities should respect each other and not make unreasonable demands.
Quote:No one is asking for 20 thousand and odd temples to be restored, all the hindus are asking for are three temples
That may be correct today but what if tomorrow something is discovered about Hindu heritage of other masjids. Any politician can do that to play the religion card. This is a very real fear of the Muslim community. To us we are afraid that if Hindus can take law into their own hands and get what they want without consequence, then what will prevent it in the future?
Quote:AND that too in our own country!
It is our country too. Please try to remember that.
kaushal,
Out of time for me today. I want to fully absorb all the information you kindly posted and respond later.
Thank you.
abdul,
nice & sweet to hear that from you <img src='http://www.india-forum.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=' ' />
many many mithai peda ras-malai in your mouth <img src='http://www.india-forum.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='  ' /> <img src='http://www.india-forum.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=' ' />
and i don't know much about principles or procedure when building temple.
but its definately not like building home.they check direction.does HAVAN and .....donno details.
you ask some pujari,can we build masjid and temple side by side...if he is knower of Vedas and says yes then its possible <img src='http://www.india-forum.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=' ' />
|
