Kaushal,
You had posted on this thread....
Quote:Of course . How can we forget. Unfortunately very few Indian Muslims remember that Hindus were once(and still are) citizens of Afghanistan, Pakistan, B'Desh. The late Ali Mian(Maulana syed Abul Hasan Ali Nadwi) of Lucknow, wrote to the Emir of Kuwait not to allow the building of Gurudwaras in Kuwait. I presume that was a temporary lapse of memory that he was an Indian.
Hence my response:
As far as treason goes, You had pointed out that some Indian Muslims had acted against the interests of India and other Indians. While I do not dispute that, I wanted to make the point that plenty of Indian Hindus, Sikhs, Christians, etc have also done the same. Yet we do not doubt the loyalty of these communities as a whole. Only the loyalty of Muslims is in doubt as is apparent in some posts. This is very hurtful to those of us who have nothing but love for India. All traitors must be dealt with appropriately regardless of their religious affiliation.
I can see why you may feel my response was aimed at you. It was only the first two sentences of my response that were aimed at you, but the rest of that paragraph was intended to be more general. There is a among Indians to consider IMs to be less loyal than other communities even though we have all had our fair share of traitors.
toVishal, I never have denied that some Muslims have affections for familial or ideological reasons for TSP and BD. i am speaking for my self when I say I don't care about them. I represent only myself not IMs as a whole. Let me make my feelings very clear on this.
TSP needs to be smashed up into smaller easier to manage entities. I hate TSP. All IMs should also hate TSP even if just on religion grounds because TSP is responsible, directly and indirectly, for deaths of more Indian Muslims than anyone else whether in Kashmir or elsewhere.
We must choke TSP and end their reign of terror. Similarly for BD not only I am Muslim, also I am from Calcutta so some linguistic and cultural similarities are there, but if BD needs to be taught a lesson, I will be the first person to support it.
Some IMs are fond of TSP, but plenty of Hindus, Christians, etc are too. Just look in English language media for examples. You will find plenty. So I could ask you also why Hindus are also fond of TSP?
SIMI is a terrorist organization that needs to be eradicated. If SS, BD, etc want to invade POK I wholeheartedly support it. No true Muslim will ever support TSP over India as it is suppossed to be our duty to be loyal to the country we live in.
This is interesting since it shows the details of the negotiation between the Kanchi Sankaracharya and whoever was representing the other side. It is indicative of the negotiating tactics used .
[url="http://www.rediff.com/news/2003/jul/16inter.htm"]http://www.rediff.com/news/2003/jul/16inter.htm[/url]
The Shankaracharya of Kanchi Kamakoti Peetam, Sri Jayendra Saraswati's negotiations with the All India Muslim Personal Law Board over the Ram Janambhoomi-Babri Masjid site in Ayodhya, have run into rough water. In an exclusive interview with Managing Editor Saisuresh Sivaswamy at his Mutt in Kanchipuram, in Tamil Nadu, on Tuesday, the seer explains what went wrong, and how the talks could get back on track.
What is the extent of your, your Mutt's involvement in Ayodhya? Is it only the temple?
In Ayodhya the Kanchi Mutt has set up a trust, the Kanchi Ayodhya Nagara Development Trust. On it we have our Mutt officials, and locals, including a Muslim. The people of that area, whether Hindu or Muslim, are very poor; the mahants and such people are also there, living in big bungalows, they are happy. So we thought of doing something for the people, to do some social service, for the poor to prosper. We teach them tailoring, and buy readymade clothes from them which is sold in Hyderabad, so they have a steady livelihood. We have also started embroidery classes recently, and both Hindus and Muslims are part of this project. That is one endeavour of ours that is on in Ayodhya.
Apart from that we have also set up a small information technology project in Ayodhya, in which both Hindus and Muslims, men and women, participate. We have taken on rent a small place there, hired two teachers to teach them IT, and help them set up on their own by giving them whatever help they may need. One batch is over and the second batch commenced on the 6th of this month.
We want to see the people of Ayodhya happy. There is no point in fighting over Ram, Krishna, this god or that, in Ayodhya. Feed the stomach, Swamigal, they say. They are now able to look after themselves, their family, with dignity. Both communities are living with dignity, which is important.
But what about the main problem in Ayodhya?
As far as Ayodhya is concerned there is no problem at all. Not through the Mutts there, or through the poor people. If any problem is there it is coming through outside forces. If these forces were to keep away the problem you are referring to will automatically solve itself.
I am talking about the specific problem over the Ram temple. You and the All India Muslim Personal Law Board had this exchange of letters, which raised a lot of hope all around, and then came your letter dated July 1, in which you raised Kashi and Mathura over which the Board expressed its dismay.
Why? Leave their feelings alone. OK, I agree, maybe I need not have mentioned Kashi and Mathura, I don't want them either, but what about the other points in my letter? They have used this as a pretext to ignore the other points mentioned by me.
What else did you say?
We had said, in the first letter, to give us the undisputed area, and to build a wall in the middle if they feel that we will extend the temple, if they don't trust us. We will in the meantime talk, look to the court judgment etc. No one else should interfere in this matter, it should be sorted out by the two sides. Then they asked for some clarifications. You had mentioned the court judgment, they said, so can you tell us where the Ramalayam's garba griha will be located? Show the same on the map, they said.
We wrote to them that the undisputed and disputed areas, which were separate earlier, have become one, is not in existence anymore. They were separate, which is why we had asked for it, but now there is no separation of disputed and undisputed areas. In the last developments of the last few months the two parts have become one.
What are these developments you referred to?
The matter went to the Supreme Court for vacating the stay on the undisputed land given during the Bhoomi Pujan, which ruled that the stay will be vacated only when the status of the disputed land is sorted out. After that there is no point talking about disputed and undisputed areas, they have become one. There is no sense in them saying they won't give the undisputed area, both are now disputed. Given that, if we want the talks to go anywhere, we have to start discussing the disputed area since the court has made even the undisputed area into a disputed one.
On what basis did you ask for the disputed land?
We gave them reasons for saying so. One, for the sake of communal harmony. This issue has led to a lot of violence, and will lead to more violence in which poor people will get killed. You must develop a spirit of give-and-take. It is the vishwas-bhoomi [land of faith] for Hindus. For you, it is of a man who you call great today [Babar], we don't know what he was then. We don't also know if there was a temple there. Hindus have the faith that he was born there, so keeping in mind this faith if you give up the area it will lead to communal harmony, we told them.
Two, today, Lord Ram is already seated there, although in a small jhopdi, it is the reality. As of today if you think anyone can move him from there, it is impossible. Just as the undisputed and disputed areas have become one, it is also evident that Lord Ram has occupied the site. If he is moved, there will be mass protests, so he cannot be moved. Even a human being, over twelve years, acquires property, family etc. Also, whether occupied land or unoccupied, if someone has resided in a place for twelve years the law recognizes him as the owner. But we told them, we are not here to claim ownership. It may be yours but we are asking you to give it up in our favour. We can also go the law's way but we are asking you.
Next, there are already many mosques in that town, some 20. But only eight have prayers offered there still, the others are in a state of disrepair. No one's come forward to repair them, nor has the government given permission for it. In this situation if you erect another mosque who do you expect to come and pray there? You build a temple or mosque when there are people around. Like, when you build a colony you build a Vinayak temple. But you don't erect a temple just because the land is yours, you build where there is scope for public worship. Similarly there is no need for public worship in a mosque there, where will the people come from? For this reason also you must give in to us, we said.
More, we all accept Allah as great, the supreme power. We pray to such a god, in a mosque worthy of him, or in a holy place, or even when you find the time and place. But here is a mosque named after Babar, who came here, fought and won, so you decide, is he of importance, or is Allah of importance? Allah is supreme, but do we rate Babar who came here and fought as equally important? This fact of his war, whenever it was fought in history, will be remembered forever. If you want the ill will to go, remove Babar. Otherwise, his memory will keep coming up, and the problem will keep recurring.
Lastly, we all agree that communal harmony is needed. The Wakf Board has given up so much land in so many places, for schools, colleges, etc. It is nothing new. Given that, if you give up this site for the sake of communal harmony, you will come to occupy an exalted position. Because, although only a handful of Muslims may be terrorists they have given the entire community a bad name. Because of them the general perception is that a Muslim is someone who will only fight. But, if you were to think in a spirit of accommodation, you will enhance the reputation of Indian Muslims across the world, as a people who are willing to give in for communal harmony.
I had written all this to them, in my last letter
Which led to the Board digging its heels in. But why Kashi and Mathura?
That was extra, yes. I don't need it, it is not needed now, but I said one day Hindus may ask for them so be prepared mentally for it, that's all. But it was unnecessary, yes, though we had said it.
But it is that which apparently created all the problems.
You are wrong, that did not create any problems at all. I have a copy of their resolution, and do you know, there is not a word in it about that point. They have not said anything about it. On the contrary, they have mentioned there is a difference between my first and second letters.
Yes, there seems to be a hint of a threat in your second letter.
What threat? Isn't there a difference between saying 'prepare yourself mentally' and 'get ready to fight'? If your office says your performance is not good, is that a threat? It means to change your behaviour, to perform better, and cannot be considered a threat, but sound advice. If someone mistakes advice for a threat, what can I do! The two are different.
When you say, 'if you don't do this I will kill you, harm you' that is a threat, but we are not doing it. To consider well-meaning advice as a threat is the wrong approach. Anyway, let it be, we have no such desire in our minds.
In all fairness, their reply should have been to question why I am asking for the disputed area instead of the undisputed area. But they never wanted to know! If they had asked me I would have told them that the two have become one now, both are a problem today. Since the whole land has now become disputed, where do we start from if not the disputed area so that the non-disputed area also comes out? This has to be faced, but no one wants to face it.
So what is the next stage in the negotiations?
Unless they are willing to face all this we will not talk about the next phase.
But what do you expect to see from them?
The news must come out, that they realize we changed our view was that since the disputed and non-disputed have become one, we broached the disputed land. This has to happen.
Second, they have announced that no one has the right to give away Allah's land. Even during the various Muslim empires they have given grants to various temples and Mutts, including land. Grants were given to the Sringeri Mutt, our [Kanchi] Mutt, to the Srirangam temple and many others. One of them even built a temple! That proves there's nothing that says Allah's property cannot be given away.
Apart from what the Wakf Board owns everything else belongs to Allah. If the world is Allah's property how can they be different with just one piece of land? They have not answered that properly. They had clarifications of my first letter, but no doubts over the second letter. Why? So how did they decide Allah's property cannot be given, how did they decide that we are threatening them? Did I ask anything for myself?
Since I mentioned Kashi and Mathura they should have wanted to know what will happen later, who will ask, when, how, shall we talk about it now. Instead of that they decide that Allah's property cannot be given away, so how do they want to solve the problem? The way we say everything is Bhagwan's they believe Allah's property is all over, fine, but how can they say they cannot give only that portion? What, they don't buy and sell shops and houses? Whose property is that, Allah's or theirs?
According to the Quran, the world belongs to Allah, not one bit of land here or there. In countries like Pakistan mosques have been razed, only recently one was pulled down, but did you see any protest over it? In Afghanistan and Iraq many were ruined in the war. Such questions should be debated upon and done with. Instead, they say it is Allah's property and get stuck on one point: you raised Kashi and Mathura which we don't like.
Finally they say looking at their image, honour, respect, dignity, their consensus, the consensus of all Indians they will consider [my proposal]. They have taken a minority status, and now talk about Indian consensus? Let them then give up the minority status.
The counterpoint to what you say is, why can't Hindus show their large heart, the oft-repeated line that all faiths are equal, by giving away the site to Muslims? Why are you stuck on it?
Yes, Hindus have a large heart, all faiths are equal. If it were not, such a senior religious leader like the Shankaracharya will not be talking to them. I have gone to Lucknow to talk to them, no saint has done that, no Hindu has gone there. Why did I go to Lucknow when they called me? For peace and communal harmony. Did they show me similar respect? I did not go there to see their architecture and such stuff.
We were discussing this problem, so I went to an Arabic school there to talk to them, putting my prestige aside so that something positive may come about. Communal harmony can come about if both are in agreement. Has Allah told them to fight all the time, don't they have a spirit of give and take? Where can they go apart from India? We all have to live together right here.
Don't you agree Muslims harbour a sense of grievance over December 6, 1992, when the Babri Masjid was pulled down by Hindus?
What has happened has happened. They may feel that way but how long will they grieve over December 6? Our temples have also been demolished, people killed. In Kashmir many temples were destroyed, our people are still being killed there. Shouldn't we also harbour similar feelings? Both sides should forget. In day to day life there will be many grievances, they should not be nursed.
December 6 cannot last forever. How many people must be upset over Babar's mosque in that sacred site? You have been grieving for 10 years, many people have grouses going back hundreds of years. After all he defeated us and built that structure, didn't he? Both sides have grievances, and both sides should get over them, one can't live that way.
Ths is a must read for every Indian.It is anonline version of a book written by Dr.Elst. I agree with his thesis that the main adversaries in this battle for Ayodhya are not the Muslims but the leftist intelligentsia (surely a misnomer).
[url="http://www.bharatvani.org/books/ayodhya/intro.htm"]http://www.bharatvani.org/books/ayodhya/intro.htm[/url]
Ayodhya and After by Koenraad Elst
Introduction
I am not a Hindu. And I am certainly not a Muslim. So, when I started writing my earlier book Ram Janmabhoomi vs Babri Masjid, a Case Study in Hindu-Muslim Conflict, in the spring of 1990, I was an outsider to this conflict between Hindus and Muslims. But as I ventured deeper into the unique configuration of forces now existing in India, I saw that this was not a conflict between just any two communities. It is not just a struggle between one self-interest and another self-interest. It is a struggle between very unequal contenders, with unequal motives for waging this struggle at all.
On the one hand, there is the society that has continued the age-old civilization of this country. It has been badly bruised by centuries of foreign rule and oppression, with the moral losses more serious than the territorial and cultural ones : it suffers of self- forgetfulness and lack of self-respect. But it is still far better off than most of the cultures that have been overrun by the Muslim conquerors or the European colonizers. It has a real chance of coming through.
On the other hand, there is a community, which is allowed to function within this larger society, but which has the roots of its separate identity outside this society's age-old civilization. These people's ancestors were in may cases pulled out of Hindu society and made members of the Muslim community under duress. Now, they would automatically evolve back into Hindu society, were it not for some politicians and theologians who instill a separate communal identity in them.
The Ayodhya movement, which wants to reintegrate the sacred place of Ram Janmabhoomi into the living Hindu tradition by building a Mandir on it, is at the same time an invitation to the Muslim Indians to reintegrate themselves into the society and the culture from which their ancestors were cut off by fanatical rulers and their thought police, the theologians. It is thus an exercise in national integration.
The struggle of Hindu society is not primarily with the Muslim community. The most important opponents of Hindu society today are not the Islamic communal leaders, but the interiorized colonial rulers of India, the alternated English-educated and mostly Left-leaning elite that noisily advertises its secularism. It is these people who impose anti-Hindu policies on Hindu society, and who keep Hinduism down and prevent it from proudly raising its head after a thousand years of oppression. The worst torment for Hindu society today is not the arrogant and often violent agitation from certain minority groups, nor the handful of privileges which the non-Hindu communities are getting. The worst problem is this mental slavery, this sense of inferiority which Leftist intellectuals, through their power positions in education and the media, and their direct influence on the public and political arena, keep on inflicting on the Hindu mind.
These Leftist intellectuals work in a strange collusion with the Islamic fanatics. Normally, the atheist Left should be the sharpest opponent of religious obscurantism and dogmatic adherence to anti-universalist belief systems like Islam. But in India, the two work happily together for the destruction of their common enemy: Hindu Dharma. Of course, the Leftists are mistaken if they think they can use the Muslims for their own ends. It is a one-way collaboration, and increasingly so, as the Left is put on the defensive while Islam is still on the offensive. So far, the Left has rendered some fine intellectual services to the cause of Islam. It has strongly supported the movement for the Partition of India on the basis of the Islamic Two-Nation Theory. After Partition, it has used its increasing hold on the entire intellectual and educational scene in India to paralyze all criticism of the historical record and ideological character of Islam
[url="http://gurumurthy.net/display.asp?id=111"]An Insight into the Ayodhya Dispute [/url]
Gurumurthy
Sri Gurumurthy tells it like it is.
From the above link
There are authentic historical documents from the court of Aurangazeb too. Aurangazeb says, in this month of Ramadan, there are three places of worship very dear to the Hindus â kashi, mathura and Ayodhya. Ayodhya has been taken care of. Destroy the other two, are the written orders of Aurangazeb and it is recorded. Its authenticity cannot be questioned by the secularists and they havenât questioned it so far. Do you all know how the destruction of these two holy shrines took place?
In Mathura they broke the murti of Bhagawan Krishna into pieces, slaughtered forty cows, and mixed up the flesh of the slaughtered cows with the pieces of the broken idol of Krishna and put into sacks. Two sacks of this act of religious bigotry and violence was sent to Mecca, two sacks sent to Baghdad and some pieces of the broken idol and the flesh of the cows was strewn in the Jamma Masjid for the Muslim faithful to step on and urinate upon. This is how Hindu Gods were dealt with by more than one Muslim invader king. What is it that the Hindus want? Not revenge, but the return of those sites so that the temples can be rebuilt on the site again. There are huge mosques in Varanasi and mathura, on the exact spot where our temples had stood. The Muslims and the seculars want proof in Ayodhya. There is irrefutable proof, existing proof, historical proof for Kasi and Mathura. So why donât they give us back those sites?
Contrary to what is constantly being asserted, this incident did not take place a 1000 years ago and was not committed by an invader but a 6th generation Indian born in India, less than 350 years ago. We are constantly reminded by our IM brothers that 'it is our country too', even though we have never said otherwise. But here is an example of an Indian who behaved in a very barbaric manner, and by no stretch of the imagination was he an exception. Such behavior is repeated even today in Muslim majority areas of India not to mention the countries our neighborhood. Is this the way citizens of 'our country' demonstrate that it is 'our country too'.
But i agree with Sri G, we do not seek revenge for these acts, but what we do seek is acknowledgement that they took place from the leadership of the Muslim community. We must have a truth and reconciliation commission similar to that set up in South Africa, to lay bare everything we know has happened in the past. Some have suggested that we should forgive and forget. I say one can forgive, but only when the other party asks for forgiveness and admits there is reason for asking for forgiveness. As for forgetting, one should never forget. The events of the lost millenium of the Indic civilization should be etched into the psyche of every Indian.
Mr. Kaushal,
My apologies. Maybe this quote will be better to potray what I am trying to say...
""... Every public question must be judged from the point of view of national interest. It always felt, therefore, that the Muslims, or a large majority of them, were making a great mistake in continuously emphasizing their minority status. They should join the mainstream of national life. They should not forget that they are as much Indians as their Hindu fellow citizens; that they have as much right to be proud of India as the Hindus; that they have inherited the same traditions and the same legacy from common ancestors going back to hundreds of years."
Gill Graduate
I agree with Gills quote but I question whether a majority of Muslims are like that or if it is only a perception. No doubt a large number of Muslims act in minority interest over the national interest. How about Sikhs? many of them, especially in the west were anti-India and still are.
These people are worng to do so IMO. How about the bleeding heart liberals, leftie journalists and politicians, communisits etc. who are as equally guilty? These people manipulate communities against each other in the interest of personal gain. They use Muslims, Hindus, Tribals, Sikhs, etc against each other.
You can understand uneducated people blindly following a stupid path, these people need to be educated to break their mental and political shackles. The intelligensia should be exported to Pakistan to live in their fools paradise. The reason IM community doesn't break out of the morass it is in is from lack of education and clergy-politician nexus. This I think though, is slowly changing due to the improving economy and pressure from Hindu community.
abdul,
if someone educated and convinced some good people inside top muslim institutions boards of india what Gill said then it will do 51% work. Graduate
because these boards influence majority muslims. <img src='http://www.india-forum.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/cool.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='B)' />
lets hope building of temple will make hindu - muslims closer <img src='http://www.india-forum.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/rolleyes.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='  ' />
Problem is how to break the influence of Clergy over ordinary Muslims. Education is one approach. Compulsary education must be enforced and religious schools banned.
In a deeply religious country like India, I believe religion based general education is a sound basis for divsion and rivalry. Religion should be taught in home, temple church, gurdwara, masjid, etc. Government should not support nor encourage religion based general education. How this can be achieved I don't know yet.
Also in the larger picture, there should be strong anti-discrimination enforcement (not reservations - which I am against) to prevent alienation of all minorities.
Last but not least, ruthlessly punish a few intelligensia and radical imams (within judicial bounds or without such bounds) and the rest will cease much of their anti-national nonsense). If IMs are not manipulated by imams then they will have no problem with doing anything in national interest.
[quote name='Abdul' date='Nov 6 2003, 10:22 PM']Some IMs are fond of TSP, but plenty of Hindus, Christians, etc are too. Just look in English language media for examples. You will find plenty. So I could ask you also why Hindus are also fond of TSP?[/quote]
[quote name='Abdul' date='Nov 7 2003, 1:36 PM']How about the bleeding heart liberals, leftie journalists and politicians, communisits etc. who are as equally guilty? These people manipulate communities against each other in the interest of personal gain. [/quote]
Abdul,
While I don't disagree with you that there are many among Hindus, Christians, Sikhs who have been / are treacherous to out country but one thing we must remember that none of them have any sympathy, with Pakistan, based on religion. Only IMs have a sympathetic corner for Pakistanis, based on their same religious values.
We all know the reason behind Pakistan's creation: The two-nation theory.
Now when we see IMs helping or praising Pakistan, living in India, can you imagine how much it hurts us Hindus?
Nothing personal against you, but you also equated these traitors (From the Hindu, Christ', Sikh community) with traitors among IMs. Both are not the same, the first group acts due to petty differences, money factor while the later solely due to religious affiliations.
Now when you equate these 2 groups you are pretty much washing your hands off the problem. Imagine if we Hindus start doing the same, saying "What can we do when we have traitors among our own Hindus," and leave everything to fate. You know what would happen?
India won't exist in it's present form. Exactly what our enemies want.
But we can't let this happen, so we continue to fight on. We find the Bidwais, Roys, & paki-lovers and do whatever we can to stop them.
Krishna,
I am not washing hands of IM anti-nationals or leaving it to fate. What I am trying to convey is that traitors exist in all communities. Regardless of motives, traitors are traitors. Commies help commie terrorists and China on ideological grounds, some Sikhs also had anti-national feelings on religious grounds. So have some Christians, so it is not correct to say that only Muslims have a religious ground, etc. Although I do not dispute that some people or organizations are like that. We need to weed out traitors everywhere, Muslim or not.
If some IMs are helping TSP then we need to weed them out and deal with them in an appropriate manner. It is true that some Muslims have sympathy for TSP on religious grounds. You cannot tar the entireMuslim community with the same brush. There are untold Muslims who have served, fought and died alongside our Hindu, Sikh, Christian, etc brothers. Remember, thinking IMs will never support Pakistan or anyone outside India.
The extremist IMs who support 2 nation theory are just plain idiots. They can easily see Muslims treated worse in TSP than India and yet they want to be like them. To those people I would suggest go live in TSP and leave us alone.
India must not continue to exist in its present form, but grow culturally, geographically and economically. However if we swallow up other countries that were part of India, we should not absorb the Yahoos living there into our population.
what are the various percentages shia,sunni,ahmedy etc etc sects in India. I don't think IM shia's for one don't support tsp. I think the GOI should publizes the cruelty of shia's, ahemdi's, and in newspaper and stuff. :devil Graduate
The %ages of shia in Pakistan and India are roughly the same about 17%. The Ismailis (followers of agha khan ) are shia as are many Hyderabadis. Generally names with Naqvi, Hussain are Shia although one cannot generalize. In Kargil there are significant number of Shia and they all have a picture of Khomeini in their house.
The following passage asserts 10% as the percentage of Shia, but i will stick with my number
Quote:Regulation of the Muslim community rests primarily on rules in the Quran, then on authenticated tales of the conduct (sunna ) of the Prophet Muhammad, then on reasoning, and finally on the consensus of opinion. By the end of the eighth century, four main schools of Muslim jurisprudence had emerged in Sunni (see Glossary) Islam to interpret the sharia (Islamic law). Prominent among these groups was the Hanafi school, which dominated most of India, and the Shafii school, which was more prevalent in South India. Because Islam has no ordained priesthood, direction of the Muslim community rests on the learning of religious scholars (ulama) who are expert in understanding the Quran and its appended body of commentaries.
Early leadership controversies within the Muslim community led to divisions that still have an impact on the body of believers. When Muhammad died, leadership fell to his father-in-law, Abu Bakr, who became the first caliph (khalifa , or successor), a position that combined spiritual and secular power. A separate group advocated the leadership of Ali, the cousin and son-in-law of the Prophet, who had married his daughter Fatima. Leadership could have fallen to Ali's son Husayn, but, in the power struggle that followed, in 680 Husayn and seventy-two followers were murdered at Karbala (now in modern Iraq).
This leadership dispute formed the most crucial dividing point in Islamic history: the victorious party went on to found the Umayyad Dynasty (661-750), which had its headquarters at Damascus, leading the majority of Muslims in the Sunni path. The disaffected Shiat Ali (or Party of Ali) viewed only his line as legitimate and continued to follow descendants of Husayn as their leader (imam--see Glossary). Among the followers of this Shia (see Glossary) path, there is a party of "Seveners" who trace the lineage of imams down to Ismail (d. 762), the Seventh Imam and eldest son of the Sixth Imam. The Ismailis are the largest Shia group in India, and are concentrated in Maharashtra and Gujarat. A second group, the "Twelvers" (the most numerous Shia group worldwide), traces the lineage of imams through twelve generations, believing that the last or Twelfth Imam became "hidden" and will reappear in the world as a savior, or Mahdi, at some time in the future.
The division between Sunni and Shia dates back to purely political struggles in the seventh century, but over time between the two major communities many divisive differences in ritual and legal interpretations have evolved. The vast majority of Muslims are Sunni, and in contemporary India 90 percent of Muslims follow this path. Sunnis have recognized no legitimate caliph after the position was abolished in Turkey in 1924, placing the direction of the community clearly with the ulama.
Those who have seen Laurence Oliveir in Khartoum will recognize his role of the Mahdi.
Abdul,
I applaud your views.
But my questions are not about your or my personal views.
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.
Wanna try again?
Shall we try just the facts? The local waqf board sold the "Babri masjid" in the late 19th century. The new owner decided to do demolish it and build a temple. Any place else in the world, that would be no problem. Why is it in India? Why and on what basis did courts get involved? Why are they involved now? Those who wish to build a temple on that land have deed to the land. But wait, India has a deed to Jammu & Kashmir. May be there is a pattern here that needs busted. (It's called "what's mine is mine, what's your's is negotiable"). Those running India need to move towards "game over".
Mr. Parshuram, is right.
Mr. Abdul indeed your views are fair and just. Some of your reasons question the basic ethos of Independence and tolerance in India. By you harping on the idea of setting bad precedent, you are actually showing how alien the IMs feel from rest of Indians, and that is sad.
Even after all these years you have fears as you have shown, it goes to show that maybe partition was right, amybe Muslims cannot live with Hindus. You stated why are today's generation being blamed for crimes committed by others centuries ago, and I asked why not?
How many IMs can claim they are direct descendants of Babar, Auranzeb, Akbar etc? And if they claim to be heirs of these cruel men, then why not blame them today? For their total disconcern for national brotherhood and justice. Rather than cleaning up the acts of their anscestors, they are still claiming to their prejudicial, discriminatory and religious bigotry as if that is the ethos of Islam.
Indeed you are right, Hindus Christians, etc. many have done nation harm, what's the point? Are you seriously thinking if Christians had built a Church over Ramji's temple we would not ask for it back?
Simply put, please educate your community about whats right and whats unIslamic, wastefull engagements of words cannot lead to the right and just solution, building a temple. History is witnessing the fairness of Islam as practiced by Hindu converts to Islam.
Gill :grenade
Voice that resounds in Hindu hearts
Author: Prafull Goradia
Publication: The Pioneer
Date: November 10, 2003
What makes a cancer surgeon owning a nursing home in prosperous
Ahmedabad go for ardent Hindutva? Why does he take a "do or die" stance
for the Ram Janmabhoomi at Ayodhya? For a man trained in biology and
surgery, the mythology of a temple non-existent today might well have
seemed remote. Is the lure of Hindutva and the faith in Ayodhya much
greater than the classes or the elite of India suspect? The followers of
Togadia, almost without exception, are members of the Hindu masses.
The clue might be traceable to the political waxing and waning of
Ayodhya. The Congress first saw its potential and had the locks of the
Ram temple opened in 1983. On finding the Muslim reaction strong, the
party withdrew its further interest, until Rajiv Gandhi performed the
shilanyas to assuage the Hindu anger against the Muslim Women's Bill.
But, figuratively speaking, the Congress did not swim the Saryu and seek
votes on this exploit.
In the meantime, the BJP had been forced by the formation of the Babri
Masjid Action Committee to espouse the cause of Ram Lalla culminating in
the legendary Advani Rathyatra. The party's bold and open claim gave it
more and more Lok Sabha seats until it was eventually crowned with
power. In the heat and dust of frequent elections as well as the Kargil
war, who was doing what for Ram Lalla was overlooked. When the Babri
edifice was demolished, there was no one to claim responsibility for its
destruction; certainly neither the Congress nor the BJP. Mr PV Narasimha
Rao was the Prime Minister and Mr Kalyan Singh held the post of UP Chief
Minister at that time. Mr Atal Bihari Vajpayee had gone nowhere near the
Saryu, to say nothing of crossing it!
The lure of votes draws all parties and leaders to Ayodhya. But when it
comes to swimming in the Saryu and submerging oneself in the cause of
Ram Mandir, the habit of past electioneering beckons them back. The
minority votebanks, the leftists, the secularists, the intelligentsia,
the media, et al, distract and dissuade the vote seekers. Most are ready
to wet their feet but few are willing to plunge into the holy river.
Except, that is, the Hindu masses, for whom the rebuilding of the mandir
would signify the resurgence of Mother India.
Mr Praveen Togadia's voice resounds the heartbeats of these masses. On
the other hand, the minorities, the leftists, the secularists, and even
the Hindu elite are divided on the melody of this voice. Those who
cannot question the validity of its music, condemn the words of the
song. To read Mr Togadia's significance by contrast, be it realised that
Mr Mulayam Singh Yadav, endearingly called Maulana in Mumbai, is the
opposite pole. Whoever disapproves of Mr Togadia could well end up with
Mr Yadav.
Many political scientists are unwilling to treat the Gujarat elections
of a year ago as a barometer of the Hindu mass sentiment. Fair enough.
What about the national context? Look at what Pakistan's proxy war is
doing to innocent Indians. Consider what indigenous terrorists are
perpetrating on the people whether at Godhra or Mumbai, at Akshardham or
the Raghunath temple. Go beyond and observe West Asia. Islam has been at
war with Israel and Jews for decades.
Now the Christian civilisation. The 9/11 attack was conceptually not
unexpected. Mr Bernard Lewis, the most distinguished American scholar of
Islam, had clearly stated in 1990 that the two religions would soon
clash. Professor Samuel Huntington had predicted a clash of
civilisations. Sure enough, Islam is also at war against Christians,
apart from Jews and Hindus. Dr Togadia personifies the Hindu
determination to fight in the widespread war. He is a significant
microcosm of a historical macrocosm.
Dr Togadia also personifies the divide between the Hindu classes and the
Hindu masses - large sections of the latter have, in their collective
memory, the dread of foreign invaders. The living evidence of their
humiliation lies in the desecrated temples. Some of them are buildings,
as it were, untouched on their exteriors like the Adhai Din ka Jhopda of
Ajmer, the Bijamandal mosque at Vidisha, the Adina mosque in Pandua
(West Bengal), the Jami masjid at Etawah as well as Kannauj. A few of
them still carry their old Hindu names like the Ataladevi masjid at
Jaunpur, the Bijamandal at Vidisha and the Bhojshala at Dhar.
For the elite, especially those living in metropolitan cities, the
reminder of these desecrations is unwelcome and probably best forgotten
for the sake of building up a secular India in line with the Nehruvian
dream. Little do they realise that for the person living in say Jaunpur,
Vidisha or Dhar, the mandir-turned-mosque is a continuing disgrace. Dr
Togadia touches a chord in such people who are many across the country.
ok , there is enough fighting over ayodhya here.... :furious
now let me suggest solution,
1) pull down MECCA and MADINA, kill 10,000 muslims.
2)Build temple over it.
3)Wait 300 years till muslims regain power in MACCA and MADINA.
Then, situation will be equal equal as today.
NOW Mr.Abdul, just imagine how bloody and violent muslim will be to pull down that illegal temple over MECCA and MADINA....I can imagine that muslim will not be as PATIENT and PEACEFULL like hindus today to ask hindus "can you hand over that land to us so that we can build mosque there?". And i am sure muslims don't have such kind of generosity and patience.
thanks a lot.
Indians and Hindus should be able to distinguish between Muslims like Kalam and say Bukari.
To divert the subject a bit on a concern raised by Abdul:
Quote:What I am telling you that many IMs are afraid that if we agree with this, tomorrow you will change your mind and start on other majids. How do you address this fear?
I'm trying to draw an analogy here with another issue I usually discuss with my American friends who are the typical NRA card carrying types. They all agree 400% <img src='http://www.india-forum.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='  ' /> that safe gun locks are best thing since sliced bread. They agree that it will prevent all these kids going on shooting spree like Colombine or any accidental deaths etc. But NOT ONE will support any govt measure to implement even the most basic gun lock.
Same argument, if we allow one lock today, tomorrow they'll take away my gun.
<img src='http://www.india-forum.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':blink:' />
[quote name='Abdul' date='Nov 4 2003, 10:27 PM'] If the Hindus get the Ram temple, I fear that we will see more mob demolitions of mosques as it will set a precedent. [/quote]
very valid point considering the mistrust that both communities have
and the fundos who ensure that the mistrust stays that way
OTOH, the opposite could also happen
the enormous gratitude and goodwill that will be generated.
all the silly talk of "muslims are like that, they do not like us, we have to show them their place" etc etc will go away.
it could be a good beginning to end all the feelings of grievance ( perceived or real) on both communities.
|
