Face the facts
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->In his article, "Ayodhya: The futility of talks" (December 4), Mr SP Gupta, a noted archaeologist, has given ample historical and archaeological evidence to support the claim that a Hindu temple existed prior to Babri Masjid in Ayodhya which was demolished on December 6, 1992. He has rightly quoted November 13, 1997, ruling of the Imam of Kaba, that if it is proved that there was a temple before the mosque was built, Muslims should leave their claim.
Nevertheless, just below the above article, Mr Zafaryab Jilani, convenor, Babri Masjid Action Committee (BMAC), asserted, "Historians, including Hindu religious scholars, deposed the fact that the place was never considered Ram's birth place upto December 1949." He conveniently forgets that as late as 1934, Hindus of Ayodhya had forcibly tried to occupy this Babri structure and in the process, caused considerable damage to it. The British government got it repaired by levying a fine on the Hindu population and set up a police chowki nearby, called "Chowki Janmasthan". Indeed, Mr Jilani and his cohorts rely only on the testimony of Hindu renegades like the communists or Marxists to support their claim. They are by nature immune to any proof that may come up to support the Hindu view.
Two months before the demolition of the Babri structure, I saw that of several Hindu motifs engraved in its stone pillars, there was one carrying a boar, depicting Varah avatar of the Hindu mythology. It is well known that the Muslims regard boar as the most abominable creature on earth. Even an insane Muslim will not allow the use of such motif on the pillar of a mosque. Thus we can conclude that the Babri structure was erected on the foundation of a Hindu temple.
Decades before the "Sangh parivar" appeared on the scene, Professor Balraj Madhok, former MP and Jana Sangh president, raised the Ram Janmabhoomi issue in the Lok Sabha on September 1, 1961. Mr Madhok said, "If you are really nationalist, it is your duty to come forward and say, some of our people in the past did some wrong; we are not here to hold a brief for them. Their wrongs should be removed and the temples should be restored to the worshippers. I do hope and wish that Muslim members of this House will come forward with that statement. That will be a very noble gesture on their part which will pave the way for emotional integration of the country." The House profusely applauded Mr Madhok, but those at the helm cared a fig for Hindu sentiments. They are the ones who observe December 6 as the 'blackest day' forgetting the time when Ram Janmabhoomi temple in Ayodhya, Shri Krishna Janmabhoomi temple in Mathura, Shri Kashi Vishwanath temple and many more sacred Hindu shrines were converted into mosques.
Hence we come to history's best proven lesson, truth may be truth, but power is a greater truth. All the Hindu temples that were demolished or converted into mosques only to show that Islam was the dominant religion of the ruling classes. The British maintained the status quo. Successive Congress governments gave legal sanction to Muslim hegemony through Articles 29 and 30 of the Constitution and the Places of Worship Act, 1991, Shariat law for the Muslims and through various other administrative orders. Hindu renegades (secularists) are also on their side. They must realise this hard fact and gain greater power. Without it, even a favourable court judgment will not help them because through their bullying tactics, Muslims can get it annulled, as it happened in the Shah Bano case.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Following the demolition of Babri mosque some churches were attacked and <b>hundreds of Hindu temples were demolished by Muslim extremists. A federal minister supervised the demolition in Lahore</b><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Source
letters to editor, Pioneer 22 Feb. 2005
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Letter to Justice Liberhan
Apropos KN Govindacharyaâs recent statement about the demolition of the Babri edifice, I was in Ayodhya on December 6, 1992. The BJP leaders present in the holy city were on a terrace not far from the edifice. I reached there at 10:40 am and did not come down till 5:45 pm. It was clear from the expressions of the BJP bosses that they had no idea as to who precisely was at work under the domes. <b>The modus operandi was to hit the joints between the domes and the walls with iron crowbars.</b> No amateur was likely to have either the strength or the skill to wield those crowbars. That they were professionals was indicated in the course of the morning when they did not allow photographers to take their pictures. Two of the cameras were snatched while films were taken away from the others. Normally, kar sevaks or political workers like to be photographed. It is the Government servants who are usually reluctant to come on record for fear of losing their jobs. There was no State BJP politician on the terrace except one. UP was represented only by police officers, some of whom were delighted, especially when the second dome collapsed at 3:40 pm. (The first one had gone down at 2:30 pm while the third crumbled at 4:30 pm.) <b>While a few VHP members too were delighted, several of the senior BJP leaders appeared so shocked that their faces looked incredibly pale. When I left Ayodhya, it was cold and pitch dark. The crowds from outside were jubilant but by then preoccupied with leaving the scene. The 10 walls of the edifice were standing without the domes. They were, more or less, 30 inch thick.</b> Mr Kalyan Singhâs Government, I heard on the radio, had been dismissed by 5:45 pm, and Governorâs rule had come into effect. In Lucknow, I heard Prime Minister Narasimha Rao addressing the nation. He said he was disgusted by what had happened and promised to rebuild the masjid. Actually, all that was needed was to reconstruct the domes since the rest of the structure was intact when I left Ayodhya. <b>To my surprise, I found photographs in newspapers of December 9 showing a makeshift temple with the Ram Lalla idol in place. This temple stands till today. Clearly, in the course of about 60 hours (the night of December 6, the whole of 7 and 8), the 10 thick walls were demolished and the massive quantity of rubble cleared for the Ram Lalla idols to take their place. </b>There was no police intervention although, reportedly, 15,000 paramilitary personnel were standing in readiness at Faizabad four km away. It is my surmise that the demolition was masterminded by Narasimha Rao and Mr Kalyan Singh. If there were to be any doubt about the PMOâs involvement, would it not be cleared by recalling that the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, passed by Parliament in 1991, prohibited any change in old places of worship from its condition on August 15, 1947, except Ayodhya? The implication was the Babri edifice could be disturbed.
Prafull Goradia
General Secretary, Bharatiya Jana Sangh
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<img src='http://www.outlookindia.com/images/ayodhya_graphic_20030602.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->VHP restarts campaign for Ram Mandir
Pioneer News Service / Lucknow
March 17, 2005
After a lull of over year and a half, the Vishwa Hindu Parishad has decided to
re-start its campaign for construction of Ram Mandir, and the campaign will
start from April 9 - the Ram Navami day.
Under this campaign idols of Lord Ram will be worshipped in villages. The
function will continue for nine days and on 10th day, the idol will be placed
in local temple so that it could be worshipped by the villagers.
"Through this campaign the VHP wants to create a situation akin to 1992 when
Hindus were united in their approach to construct Ram temple at Ayodhya," the
VHP spokesman Sharad Sharam told The Pioneer on Wednesday.
The puja of Ram idol will not be just "another" puja. The Ram idols will be
identical in shape, size and weight. It will be 2.5 feet tall and will measure
about 10 kg. Cement cast have been build to construct such `identical' Ram
idols. Besides, over 100 artisans have been trained in Karsewakuram in Ayodhya
who will go to different parts of the country to construct identical Ram idol.
"This puja will be a community participation. People of all caste and creed are
excpected to take part in this campaign," the VHP spokesman said. Puja will be
held in six lakh villages.
There was a lull for over a year and a half in VHP's campaign to construct Ram
Temple at Ayodhya. Even senior VHP functionaries believed that the campaign was
fast losing steam following "Hindus losing interest" in construction of Ram
temple.
Moreover, the caste-based politics has divided Hindus among dalits, kurmis,
Yadavs, brahmins and Thakurs. This has also affected VHP's pro-Ram Mandir
campaign.
"The community `Ram pujan' is also aimed at obliterating the thin caste lines,"
said the VHP spokesman and added: "Only religion can act as a binding force to
unit the Hindus.
Meanwhile, the BJP has also decided to throw its weight behind the VHP's
campaign. "We are in favour of construction of Ram temple at Ayodhya. And Ram
Temple is still in our (BJP's) agenda," senior national vice-president of the
party Kalyan Singh said.
Singh was Chief Minister when disputed structure at Ayodhya was demolished in
1992.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Posted by SmartNLucky on sulekha newshopper.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--> Ayodhya is National Symbol   [ Posted by  smartnlucky  ]
   N.S. Rajaram
   Ayodhya is a National Symbol
   "Babri Masjid advocates must come up with a historical and ideological justification for having a mosque on the site sacred to Hindus."
   <b>The real question</b>
   In my recently released book Profiles in Deception: Ayodhya and the Dead Sea Scrolls (Voice of India, New Delhi) I have raised a basic question. What is the real meaning of the Ayodhya movement? As part of it I have tried also to answer the following: what gave Babar the right to demolish a temple at a site that the people of India have held sacred from time immemorial? First we must recognize that the underlying question - whether a temple was destroyed to make way for the mosque - has been settled by archaeology, though the English language media has not given it sufficient prominence. To its credit, The Hindu published an article by the eminent archaeologist Dr. B.B. Lal presenting the evidence, including an inscription, showing the existence of previous temples at the site. Perhaps for this reason, the Babri Masjid advocates have been focusing on court cases rather than on the evidence and the meaning of Ayodhya. This brings us back to the question: by what right did Babar demolish a temple at a site held sacred by the people of this country and build a mosque in its place?
   Let me reframe it. Ram Janmabhumi is sacred to the Hindus because they hold it to be the birthplace of Rama, who embodies for them the ideals of truth, heroism, chivalry and every other virtue. What is the justification for the mosque by Babar beyond the fact that he had the power to erect it as a mark of conquest and of humiliation of the Hindus? Does might make right? No one to my knowledge has satisfactorily addressed this question about the legitimacy of the Babri Masjid. One can understand that many Muslims hold the tomb of Moinuddeen Chisti in Ajmer to be sacred because he is venerated as a Sufi saint. No such justification exists for the Babri Masjid, for it was not intended as a place of worship. To understand temple destructions by Babar and his descendants - and the building of mosques in their place - we must recognize that it was part of their ideology. Here is how one of his descendants, a granddaughter of Aurangazeb, described why mosques should be built at the site of demolished temples:
   "... keeping the triumph of Islam in view, devout Muslim rulers should keep all idolaters in subjection to Islam, brook no laxity in realization of Jizyah, grant no exceptions to Hindu Rajahs from dancing in attendance on 'Id days and waiting on foot outside mosques till end of prayer ... and 'keep in constant use for Friday and congregational prayer the mosques built up after demolishing the temples of the idolatrous Hindus situated at Mathura, Banaras and Avadh ..."
   Spoken like a true child of Aurangazeb! But this allows us to answer the question raised earlier about Babar's right to destroy the temple and build his mosque: Babar's ideology - as described by his descendent - gave him that right. It is an ideology that sees everything outside the pale of Islam as an object of derision to be humiliated and destroyed. This does not mean that everyone - especially the victims - should accept it as legitimate. Accepting the legitimacy of the Babri Masjid at Ram Janmabumi means acknowledging the superiority of Babar's ideology over that of the overwhelming majority of the people of India, and his right to impose it on others by force. This is imperialism pure and simple. The Babri Masjid advocates - the Muslim leaders, the Secularists and the Congress party - must acknowledge this fundamental fact. Those who demand reconstruction of the Babri Masjid are implicitly upholding Babar's right to impose his ideology by force. Court cases and political postures cannot erase this truth.
   <b>National symbols</b>
   The basic problem is that the concerned parties have avoided such fundamental issues. Instead of trying to understand what Ram Janmabhumi and Ayodhya mean to the Hindus, the Babri Masjid advocates have been trying to present it as a dispute over a piece of real estate and a structure in brick and mortar. Every living nation has national symbols and Ayodhya is India's. A young American - a former student of mine - recently asked me why building the temple at Ram Janmabhumi was so important. I asked her if Americans would let stand a mosque built by someone like Osama bin Laden after demolishing Mount Vernon (George Washington's home) or the Statue of Liberty. Similarly, the Westminster Abbey in London is more than a Church, for it is inseparably bound with English history and tradition. This is how the people of India also look at Ram Janmabhumi: it is a sacred spot for Hindus for historical, cultural and nationalistic reasons - and not just because it is a place of worship. Many like me who never go to a temple still hold it sacred for cultural and historical reasons.
   <b>From Babar to bin Laden</b>
   To highlight this point: can the terrorist warlord Osama bin Laden claim the ideological right to demolish the Venkateshwara Temple in Tirupati or the Golden Temple in Amritsar and build something else in their place to mark the triumph of his 'faith'? These, like Ram Janmabhumi, the Westminster Abbey, and the Statue of Liberty, are not pieces of real estate that can be bartered - or forcibly occupied and demolished.
   When put in this light, the Secularists will scream that Babar cannot be compared to a terrorist warlord like Osama bin Laden. Hasn't Nehru told us that Babar was both charming and tolerant - a true 'Secularist'? Like most things that Nehru wrote it is nowhere near the truth. Babar was as much a religious fanatic as bin Laden. He saw himself as a Ghazi - an Islamic warrior - on a jihad to uproot infidelity. Jihad was Babar's ideology, the same as bin Laden's. Here are his own words from the Babarnama:
   "Chanderi had been in the daru'l-harb [Hindu rule] for some years and held by Sanga's highest-ranking officer Meidini Rao, with four or five thousand infidels, but in 934 [1527-28], through the grace of God, I took it by force within a ghari or two, massacred the infidels, and brought it into the bosom of Islam ..."
   This was the real Babar - in his own words. When in a particularly jovial mood, he composed the following poem happy for having become a Ghazi (religious warrior):
   For the sake of Islam I became a wanderer;
   I battled infidels and Hindus.
   I determined to become a martyr.
   Thank God I became a holy warrior.
   This was the man who gave India the Babri Masjid - at the spot held sacred by Indians. He and his successors did not build it to be a place of worship- they saw it as a mark of conquest. Ideologically, Osama bin Laden is a modern day Babar - a Ghazi. And yet Nehru praised Babar as:
   ⦠one of the most cultured and delightful persons one could meet. There was no sectarianism in him, no religious bigotry, and he did not destroy as his ancestors used to."
   Like all Secularists, Nehru was making excuses for Babar that he himself never made. He did not see tolerance as a virtue. Babar, the proud Ghazi, would have seen tolerance as an insult.
   So here is the plain truth: Ram Janmabhumi is a national symbol, while the Babri Masjid is a symbol of Babar's imperialism. Those who support the Babri Masjid either identify with Babar's imperialism or are willing to live as its slaves. India must decide whether it wants to be a nation or an imperial colony - it cannot be both. Paraphrasing Abraham Lincoln we may say:
   "A house divided against itself cannot stand. This nation cannot continue half a free nation and half a colony. It will become all of one, or all of the other."
   It is for the people of India to decide which half they want their country to be. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<b>'Advani cannot be believed on Temple issue'</b>
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Calling Ram Janmabhoomi an issue of national importance, Govindacharya said, "What I want to underline is that the issue needs greater commitment. You cannot leave the issue and take it up at your own convenience."
He claimed the failure of BJP to build Ram Temple in six years of its rule had affected its credibility.
"We can't take their promises seriously. It was in power for six years but was inactive on the issue saying it was helpless due to compulsions of coalition politics," Govindacharya said.
On Advani's reported statement that hectic efforts were being made in the last six months of the NDA's tenure and a solution would have been found had it come back to power, he said, "Why did they prepone the elections? They could have used the time to solve the issue."<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The Wahhabis keep tearing down Muslim holy places in Saudi Arabia
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->By Stephen Schwartz
06/08/2004 12:00:00 AM
SAUDI ARABIA, in which Wahhabism is the state form of Islam, has a long history of vandalizing and demolishing historical monuments. Wahhabi doctrine holds that raising gravestones or tombs or maintaining graveyards constitutes idolatry, known in Arabic as shirk, a grievous sin. So does preserving buildings--including religious structures such as mosques. To Wahhabis, a beloved building, the tomb of a saintly figure, or a gravestone is an idol. In Wahhabism, prayers to the Prophet are forbidden--above all because Wahhabis see in them a parallel with Christian worship of Jesus.
Thus, the Saudis followed their conquest of Mecca and Medina in the mid-1920s with an orgy of destruction. They leveled the "Jannat al-Baqi" or "Heavenly Orchard" at Medina that included graves of the Prophet Muhammad's son Ibrahim, as well as numerous of the Prophet's relatives and original companions. They also looted the Prophet's Shrine in Medina and demolished the cemetery in Mecca that included the graves of Muhammad's mother and grandfather. They completely destroyed mausoleums, mosques, and other honored sites, including Muhammad's own house. It was even said that they wished to uproot the grave of Muhammad himself and tear down the Kaaba, the stone temple at the center of Mecca. They were prevented from this last act by pressure from Muslims in India.
WAHHABI VANDALISM continues today, and its appearance is typically the first sign of aggressive Saudi penetration of Muslim lands. Saudi agents uprooted graveyards in Kosovo even before the war began there in the late 1990s, and Wahhabi missionaries have
sought to demolish Sufi tombs in Kurdistan. Late in 2002, the Saudi government tore down the historic Ottoman fortress of Ajyad in Mecca, causing outrage in many Muslim countries.
And now the Saudi authorities are at it again, according to reports from enraged Saudi subjects, who as in earlier instances have requested anonymity. The city planning authorities in Medina, known for their Wahhabi extremism, have ordered the leveling of five of seven mosques built in the city by Muhammad's daughter and four of his companions. These structures are the Mosque of Sayyida Fatima bint Rasulillah, Salman al-Farsi Mosque, Abu Bakr Mosque, Umar ibn al-Khattab Mosque, and Mosque of Ali ibn Abi Talib. The latter three were constructed by figures among the four "righteous caliphs" who immediately succeeded Muhammad in the leadership of Islam. The structures in question are unique cultural assets whose historic value is literally incalculable, to say nothing of their religious symbolism.
Protestors against the decision say the ancient buildings have been covered with black tarpaulins to hide the demolition work going on inside the revered shrines. Other recent actions of the same kind by the Medina authorities have also been reported.
Wahhabi desecration of Islamic sacred relics clash notably with the claims of bin Laden and other ultra-Wahhabis, who argue that the Hijaz, the territory including Mecca and Medina, is "holy Muslim territory" on which no non-Muslim should set foot. Indeed, al Qaeda propaganda would have the West believe that all of Saudi Arabia belongs to this category. That would presumably include Riyadh, where Saks Fifth Avenue and The Body Shop maintain branches.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Those Muslims who keep picture of Kaaba, the stone temple at the center of Mecca in their homes and cars, which makes them idol worshipers and according to Koran they are Kufir.
Majority of Indians and Pakis falls under this category.
Actually all Muslims are idolators including Muhammad himself. Why do they kiss the Kaaba, what is so special about that stone, this just shows the hypocrisy of Muslims.
<b>Jihad by iconoclasm: time to settle Ayodhya </b>
Sandhya Jain
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--> Given the political diffidence of both Congress and the BJP towards the Ram Mandir, it would be premature to conclude that the terrorist attack has revived the Ayodhya issue. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Home Minister Shivraj Patil made uninspiring statements about the assault upon Hindu dharma's preeminent holy site, while Congress president Sonia Gandhi issued a formal statement through a party functionary. Though the Sangh Parivar formally called for mature and peaceful nation-wide protests, observers feel the BJP's ideological stresses will deny it mileage that might have accrued in other circumstances.
Yet whoever equipped six terrorists with AK 47 and AK 56 rifles, hand grenades, and even prepared the ubiquitous human bomb for the 5 July 2005 assault upon the Janmabhoomi, did so with a purpose. I believe the objective was to seize a psychologically vantage site with easily available hostages and make demands upon the Indian State. That the attempt failed due to the quick responses and valour of CRPF personnel was an unexpected setback, as many things favoured the terrorists' success.
First, of course, was the advantage of surprise, which always vests with the aggressor, no matter how high the state of alert. Second, the fact that the Mulayam Singh government in Uttar Pradesh and the UPA at the Centre are both inimical to the BJP and the demand for the Ram Temple, could have misled the terrorists to believe that Ayodhya was vulnerable for a hostile takeover.
A successful seizure of the Ram Janmabhoomi could have killed many birds with one stone. Removal or destruction of the murtis in the sanctum sanctorum - which were not disturbed even during the High Court sponsored excavations in 2003 - would have denuded the site of its current sanctity and levelled the playing field for rival communal claims. This aspect of jihadi iconoclasm, which caused the loss of the Janmabhoomi four hundred years ago, must not be lost sight of. Those fighting the title suit in the Allahabad High Court would do well to ask the Hon'ble Court to order status quo on the site. Thus, if the mandir is attacked again, its status as a temple would have to be restored.
The capture of Ayodhya by a handful of possibly Pak-sponsored terrorists would have seen the international community breathing down heavily upon India for the state of its relations with neighbouring Pakistan and its treatment of minorities. One has only to recall how the Shahi Imam of Jama Masjid justified Taliban destruction of the Bamiyan Buddhas as revenge for Babri, to appreciate the heavy price we would have to pay for the Janmabhoomi. At the very least, Western diplomats and Indian secularists would demand concessions to Pakistan in Jammu & Kashmir.
Some observers feel Congress' appeasement of Muslims with reservations in jobs, educational institutions and local bodies in Andhra Pradesh, led to a belief that more concessions could be extracted by force. With the death of all terrorists, however, we shall never know for sure the calculations behind the attack.
On the flip side, the unsolicited return of Ayodhya to national consciousness may be the best time to revisit it for a final resolution. ASI excavations in 2003 established that Ayodhya had an uninterrupted human (read Hindu) presence from the first millennium BC. Although the Allahabad High Court prohibited publication of the complete findings, the summary released to the press is adequately illuminating.
The first inhabitants of the site used Northern Block Polished Ware (NBPW), and the remains of their material culture included terracotta figurines of female deities with archaic features, beads of terracotta and glass, wheels and fragments of votive tanks etc. A round signet with legend in Ashokan Brahmi was found at this level, probably circa 1000 BC to 300 BC. The next layers show the Sunga period (second-first century BC) with the typical terracotta mother goddess, human and animal figurines, beads, hairpin, and pottery including black slipped, red and grey wares. This is followed by the Kushan period (first to third century AD) and the Guptas (fourth to sixth century AD).
The post-Gupta-Rajput period (seventh to tenth century AD) reveals structural activity with burnt bricks, most important of which is a circular brick shrine, which is internally squarish and has an entrance from the east. Though damaged, the northern wall shows the pranala (water-chute), a distinct feature of contemporary temples of the Ganga-Yamuna plain. ASI also found a huge structure dating to the eleventh-twelfth century AD, nearly 50 metres in north-south orientation, but having a short life-span as only four of the fifty pillar bases exposed during excavations belonged to this level.
The conclusive finding, however, was of a massive structure with at least three structural phases. Architectural members of the previous structure with stencil cut foliage pattern and other decorative motifs were reused in this building which had a huge pillared hall (or two halls), and shows evidence of a public building with a minimum dimension of 50x30 metres. This lasted a long time during period VIIÂ (Medieval-Sultanate level, twelfth to sixteenth century AD). The disputed Babri structure was erected directly over this twelfth century temple complex in the
early sixteenth century.
Summing up the totality of archaeological evidence of a massive structure just below the disputed structure and the continuity in structural phases from the tenth century onwards up to the construction of the Babri structure, along with the findings of stone and decorated bricks, mutilated sculpture of divine couple, carved architectural members including foliage patterns, amalaka, kapolapali doorjamb with semi-circular pilaster, broken octagonal shaft of black schist pillar, lotus motif, circular shrine having pranala (water-chute) in the north, fifty pillar bases, etc., ASI concluded that the remains found are indicative of the distinctive features associated with temples of north India.
      This is fairly definitive. Given the fact that neither the courts nor the negotiation process has yielded fruit so far, it is high time that we faced the fact that Ayodhya is not - as falsely claimed in the courts - a mere property dispute (title suit). Indeed, the jihadi attack proves it is universally perceived as the heart of Hindu dharma's highest reverence.
A new beginning should be made by approaching the High Court to permit publication and dissemination of the complete ASI findings for public information and debate. At the same time, political parties must rise above partisan considerations and seriously consider a national legislation to build a Ram temple in Ayodhya.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You may not have had the privilege of reading this authoritative account. From <b>YOGINDER SIKAND</b> in YAWN of Karachi, ur 1-stop source for HYSTERY
http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews/nov2003-wee...11-2003/foo.htm
[QUOTE]history
Ayodhya's Muslim past
'Small Mecca' or 'Hindu Vatican' or a holy city of the Buddhists, Ayodhya seems particularly blessed -- and disputed
By Yoginder Sikand
The Ayodhya controversy continues to drag on, with no sign of any solution in sight. Hindutva ideologues insist that Ayodhya must be theirs alone. Reinventing tradition and myth, they claim that Ayodhya has always been Hindu, thus promoting it to the status of a Hindu Vatican. Yet, as critical historians have pointed out, this claim is completely unsubstantiated.
In his slim yet insightful booklet, Communal History and Rama's Ayodhya, Professor Ram Sharan Sharma writes, "Ayodhya seems to have emerged as a place of religious pilgrimage in medieval times. Although chapter 85 of the Vishnu Smriti lists as many as 52 places of pilgrimage, including towns, lakes, rivers, mountains, etc., it does not include Ayodhya in this list."
Sharma also notes that Tulsidas, who wrote the Ramcharitmanas in 1574 at Ayodhya, does not mention it as a place of pilgrimage. Long before the emergence of the cult of Rama and of Ayodhya as a place of pilgrimage in the Brahminical tradition, the town is said to have been a holy city for the Buddhists. As Buddhism was forcefully challenged by Brahminical revivalists in early medieval India, many Buddhist shrines were taken over and converted into Hindu temples. It is thus possible that Ayodhya, too, met with the same fate.
This explains why some Buddhists today are demanding that they be treated as an interested party in the current dispute. The Buddhist claim is not unfounded. According to Buddhist tradition, Ayodhya, then known as Saket or Kosala, was a major city in the kingdom of Shuddhodhana, father of the Buddha.
The 5th century Chinese traveller Fa-hsien visited Ayodhya and mentioned a tooth-stick of the Buddha in the town that grew to a length of seven cubits, which, despite being destroyed by the Brahmins, managed to grow again. Two centuries later, another Chinese Buddhist traveller Hsuien Tsang came to Ayodhya, where he noted some three thousand Buddhist monks with only a small number of town's other inhabitants adhering to other faiths.
At this time Ayodhya had some 100 Buddhist monasteries and 10 large Buddhist temples. The Hindutva argument that Ayodhya has always been a Hindu holy city is, as this clearly suggests, patently untenable.
In the Hindutva imagination, the relation between Muslims and Ayodhya is one characterized by continuous large-scale destruction and bloodshed. Serious historians have forcefully challenged this image, and have pointed to the fact that the spread of Islam and the emergence of Muslim communities in the area owed principally not to violent invaders but, rather, to the peaceful missionary work of Sufi saints. Considerably before the emergence of Ayodhya as the centre of the cult of Rama, it appears that several Sufis had settled in the town. With their message of love and compassion, based on an ethical monotheism, they attracted a large number of followers, particularly among the 'low' castes -- victims of the Brahminical caste system.
In other words, Ayodhya's association with Islam and Muslims dates to a period much before the construction of the Babri Masjid in the 16th century. As many local Muslims themselves believe, Ayodhya is a particularly blessed town. They consider it to be the 'Khurd Mecca' or the 'small Mecca' because of the large number of Muslim holy personages who are believed to be buried therein. These include, or so local tradition has it, two prophets, Hazrat Sheesh, son of Adam, and Noah or Hazrat Nuh.
In addition, there are said to be more than 80 Sufi shrines or dargahs in Ayodhya. Interestingly, most of these shrines attract both Muslim as well as Hindu devotees. A number of Sufis seem to have made Ayodhya their centre for spiritual teaching and instruction from as early as the 12th century.
One of the first of these was one Qazi Qidwatuddin Awadhi, who came to Ayodhya from Central Asia. He is said to have been a disciple of Hazrat Usman Haruni, the spiritual preceptor of India's most famous Sufi saint, Khwaja Moinuddin Chishti of Ajmer. Another great Muslim mystic of Ayodhya of pre-Mughal was Shaikh Jamal Gujjari, of the Firdaussiya Sufi silsilah.
According to a popular local story, the Shaikh would regularly go out of his house carrying a large pot of rice on his head, as the men of the Gujjar milkmen caste did, which he would distribute among the poor and the destitute of Ayodhya. This is how he earned the title of 'Gujjari'. His spiritual preceptor, Musa Ashiqan, who also lies buried in Ayodhya, would also distribute food among the poor -- to share the love of God with all mankind.
Ayodhya also seems to have been home to a number of spiritual successors of the renowned 14th century Sufi of Delhi, Khwaja Nizamuddin Auliya. The most important of these was the famous Sufi Shaikh Nasiruddin Chiragh-i-Dilli, who lies buried in what is today New Delhi. Shaikh Nasiruddin was born in Ayodhya, where he learnt the Quran from one Shaikh Shamsuddin Yahya Awadhi. At the age of 40, he left Ayodhya for Delhi to live with Khwaja Nizamuddin Auliya. Yet, he would often return to Ayodhya to visit his relatives and make disciples who, in turn, grew into great men of religion. These included people such as Shaikh Zainuddin Ali Awadhi, Shaikh Fatehullah Awadhi and Allama Kamaluddin Awadhi. Other khulafa or spiritual deputies of Khwaja Nizamuddin Auliya from Ayodhya include Shaikh Jamaluddin Awadhi, Qazi Muhiuddin Kashani, Maulana Qawamuddin Awadhi and Shaikh Alauddin Nilli.
Ayodhya is also home to one of the few shrines of female Sufi saints, the dargah of Badi Bua or Badi Bibi, said to have been the sister of Sheikh Nasiruddin Chiragh-i-Dilli. She is said to have been particularly beautiful, because of which many men offered to marry her. She, however, remained unmarried throughout her life, devoting herself to serving God and the poor. When she was asked why she refused to marry she would answer, "I only love God and nothing else".
She is said to have been greatly troubled by the local mullahs, ostensibly because of her refusal to marry. One day, so the story goes, the mullahs of the town appeared before her, insisting that if she were really a pious Muslim she should follow in the path of the Prophet Muhammad and marry. To this she replied that she indeed did follow in the path of the Prophet and offered to get married, but laid down the condition that her husband must be a truly pious man.
The kotwal, chief police officer, of the town, who was attracted to her, dispatched a messenger to her asking for her hand in marriage. Badi Bua declined to speak through a messenger and asked the kotwal to come before her himself. The kotwal willingly complied.
When the kotwal appeared before her, Badi Bua asked him why he wanted to marry her. His reply was that he was in love with her eyes. Without a moment's hesitation, so the story goes, she plucked out her eyes and gave them to the kotwal. The shocked kotwal, realising that Badi Bua was no ordinary woman but a true devotee of God, fell at her feet and begged her for mercy.
Stories of these and other Sufis of the town are today almost completely forgotten, for there are now hardly any Muslims left, almost all of Ayodhya's Muslim families having fled in the wake of the destruction of the Babri Masjid in 1992. However, visible signs of centuries' old Muslim presence continue to dot the town... the crumbling minarets of ancient mosques, neglected graveyards rapidly slipping under a dense cover of weeds, the broken walls of what must have once been grand Sufi lodges. Some of these structures came down along with the Babri Mosque, vandalised by bloodthirsty Hindutva mobs more than a decade ago.
In the violence that followed even hallowed Sufi shrines, such as the dargahs of Shah Muhammad Ibrahim, Bijli Shah Shahid, Makhdum Shah Fatehullah, Sayyed Shah Muqaddas Quddus-i-Ruh and the Teen Darvesh, were attacked.
Today, some Sufi shrines still survive in Ayodhya, continuing to be visited by local devotees in the hope of a miraculous cure to their woes or in search of solace. Strikingly, and despite the almost total takeover of the town by votaries of Hindutva, several of them are carefully tended to by local Hindus, particularly 'low' castes -- a silent reminder of a past now rapidly being forgotten and one that perhaps can never be relived again.
Muslims angry over VHP plea to vacate houses near mandir
Tavishi Srivastava / Lucknow
Muslim residents of Ayodhya have reacted with anger to the VHP's petition to the President and Union Home Minister, asking that occupants of houses on the periphery of the Ram Janmabhoomi complex be made to leave on the plea that they are vulnerable to jihadi pressure and hence a security threat. Nearly all the occupants are Muslims.
Haji Mehboob, a senior leader of the Babri Masjid Movement and president of the Anjuman Muhafiz Muazib Avadh, dismissing the move, said, "the VHP demand is totally unjustified. We are not going to tolerate this. We also plan to meet the President and Union Home Minister to put forward our side of the story.
The VHP can't be allowed to whip up a communal divide. They have already failed in their designs and have been exposed before the people of Ayodhya and Faizabad."
Saying that most of the houses were at least four generations old, he justified his stand by adding, "the VHP is simply looking for an issue since their efforts to encash on the terrorist strike have failed miserably for lack of public support."
There are about 50 houses and shops belonging to the minority community in the periphery of the RJB complex mainly in Duari Kuan, Karziana, Panji Tola, Katra and Tehri Bazar localities accounting for a population of nearly 3,000 families.
Ironically, when the VHP was meeting the President, the Nehru Yuva Kendra was taking out a sadbhavna yatra in Ayodhya to promote communal amity. However few seemed to notice the procession on Tuesday and many dismissed it as an "official exercise."
Sants and local VHP leaders however feel that the government should have acquired these minority homes long ago. VHP spokesman Sharad Sharma said, "in 1993, the Narasimha Rao Government failed to acquire the houses of the minority community simply due to their appeasement policy. At that time the government did not hesitate in acquiring the houses belonging to the Hindus. Over two dozen ancient temples were acquired, some were given compensation while the others got nothing.
Even the stables of the minorities were exempted. This discriminatory attitude has now created problems for us."
Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas chairman Mahant Nritya Gopal Das, told The Pioneer, "an impartial assessment can be made. It is not an issue of Hindus and Muslims, but the earlier government had toed minority appeasement and exempted minority homes located adjacent to the RJB complex. The need of the hour now is to safeguard the RJB complex from further terrorist strikes. All the houses located on the periphery of the RJB complex must be acquired. The former government did not think twice in acquiring the mandirs, now why are they faltering when it comes to acquiring minority houses and that too for the sake of security of the mandir?"
In Mecca and Medina they don't allow non Muslim, why Muslims are against?
<b>Court orders production warrant for Singhal</b><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Aligarh, July 23, 2005
A local court on Saturday ordered Delhi Police to produce VHP President Ashok Singhal before it on August 27 in connection with alleged derogatory remarks made by him against the Koran in 1989.
The Chief Judicial Magistrate issued the order to Delhi Police Commissioner K K Paul and also asked him to explain the circumstances under which the station house officer of R K Puram police station in New Delhi failed to execute a non-bailable warrant against Singhal on June 24.
The warrant pertains to a 1989 interview Singhal had given to RSS mouthpiece Panchjanya in 1989 following which a complaint was filed by a local lawyer alleging that he had made "derogatory remarks" against the Koran in the interview
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<b>Charges framed against Advani</b><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Special Judicial Magistrate VK Singh read out the charges against each of the accused in a packed court room and fixed August 30 for next hearing in the matter.
All the accused including <b>veteran BJP leaders Murli Manohar Joshi, Uma Bharti and Vinay Katiyar, VHP leaders Ashok Singhal, Giriraj Kishore, Vishnu Hari Dalmiya and Sadhvi Rithambara, were present in the court with their lawyers when the charges were read out.</b>
The judge explained the charges to the accused persons under sections 147, 153(a), 149, 153 (B) and section 505 of the Indian Penal Code.
All the accused pleaded "not guilty" and claimed to be tried after which the court posted the matter for further hearing next month.
The court also directed the accused to file a personal bond of Rs 10,000 each, which was complied.
Alleging that the case was "politically motivated," <b>BJP spokesperson Sushma Swaraj, who was present outside the court room, likened it to cases against freedom fighters under the British rule.
"This is the case against a national movement and can be compared with the cases on freedom fighters during the British regime," </b>she said.
<b>The CBI had neither any evidence nor any witness, which could prove the charges levied against the accused persons, she claimed.</b><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh no !! Why LKAji ? He has already said it was a dark chapter in history ... <!--emo&<_<--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/dry.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='dry.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Rajeshji: Statement in Pakiland: "dark chapter in history"
Everything said in India is just another chapter in his story
<!--emo&  --><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Is there a list of demolished mosques anywhere? If not might be a good exercise to list them in a separate thread. Till then, will park this article here.
Muslim silence over Saudi demolition of holy site puzzling
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Surprise has been expressed at the lack of reaction in the Muslim world at the impending demolition of the house of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) by the Saudi authorities.
An op-ed article in Toronto Star, Canadaâs widely-circulated daily, by Tarek Fatah, a Pakistani-Canadian Muslim activist and broadcaster, finds it incomprehensible that while the demolition of the Babri mosque by Hindu zealots at Ayodhya continues to remain an emotive issue with Muslims, what the Saudi authorities plan to do has evoked no protest at all.
Fatah writes, âWhat makes this demolition worse is the fact that the home of the Prophet is to make way for a parking lot, two 50-storey hotel towers and seven 35-storey apartment blocks; a project known as the Jabal Omar Scheme, all within a stoneâs throw of the Grand Mosque. Yet despite this outrage, not a single Muslim country, no ayatollah, no mufti, no king, not even a Muslim Canadian imam has dared utter a word in protest. Such is the power of Saudi influence on the Muslim narrative.â
The writer wonders if the lack of a response is because Muslims have become so overwhelmed by the power of the Saudi riyal currency that we have lost all courage and self-respect? Or is it because they feel a need to cover up Muslim-on-Muslim violence, Muslim-on-Muslim terror or Muslim-on-Muslim oppression? He notes that one man who is standing up to the demolition plan is Saudi architect Dr Sami Angawi, who is leading âa one-man campaign.â to save the sacred and historic edifice. He told a London newspaper, âThe house where the Prophet received the word of God is gone and nobody cares ... this is the end of history in Mecca and Medina and the end of their future.â
According to Fatah, âThe cultural massacre of Islamic heritage sites is not a new phenomenon. <b>It is said that in the last two decades, 95 per cent of Meccaâs 1,000-year-old buildings have been demolished. In the early 1920s, the Saudis bulldozed and levelled a graveyard in Medina that housed the graves of the family and companions of Muhammad</b>. Today, the religious zealots in Saudi Arabia are not alone.
Commercial developers have joined hands with them and are making hundreds of millions in profits as they build ugly, but lucrative high-rises that are shadowing the Grand Mosque know as the Kaaba. Today Saudi petrodollars have the ability to silence even its most vocal critics, but when all is said and done, history will render a harsh judgment on those who try to wipe out its footprints and steal the heritage of all humanity.â
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Let me start thread with list of Mosques destroyed by Muslims in Saudi Arabia.
|
