Ayodhya

[Capt M Kumar]

With cracks appearing in the so-called Hindu unity in this originally minority-majority fight, one thing became clear — the Hindu petitioners stand united only against the Muslim presence in the inner courtyard. Both the Nirmohi Akhara and the VHP will move the SC against the Muslim share but will battle it out to own Ram Lalla.



Nirmohi Akhara’s lawyer Ranjeet Verma said: “The High Court has wrongly dismissed our plea to manage Ram Lalla’s affairs. The other Hindu party was in this case only as next of friend of Ram Lalla and their claim is limited to establishing that the idol stood at Ram Janmabhoomi. That has been proved. The VHP can build a temple but only under our banner.” http://www.tribuneindia.com/2010/20101002/main1.htm

[Guest]

The "faith versus evidence" is a hard nut to crack from a judicial point of view. Anybody have something yet?

[dhu]

"faith versus rationality" is a typical Monotheist concern over the "false gods" of the heathens versus the true god of the believers... It is not surprising that the deracinated jokers who constitute India's Intellegentsia have internalized this framework. The Dharmik framework for this

'situation ' (as opposed to 'issue' is Karma, an adharmik action of led to a dharmik reaction, and so on..

[Guest]

^^^^

try telling that to the common man on the internet or on streets.

[Guest]

[url="http://www.deccanchronicle.com/national/shia-body-offers-temple-15lakh-320"]Shia body offers temple `15lakh[/url]

Lucknow, Oct. 2: Hussaini Tigers, an outfit of Shia youth, has announced a donation of `15 lakh for starting construction of Ram temple in Ayodhya after the High Court verdict.



The Hussaini Tigers further announced that it would oppose any move to challenge the Allahabad High Court verdict in the Supreme Court.



Mr Shamil Shamsi, chief of Hussaini Tigers, told reporters on Saturday that he would formally request the Sunni Central Waqf Board not to go on appeal to the Supreme Court. A delegation will also meet members of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board with a similar appeal. “This is the right time to bring this long-pending dispute to an end and ensure everlasting peace and harmony between the two communities,” he said.



Mr Shamsi, incidentally, is a close relative of the Shia cleric, Maulana Maulana Kalbe Sadiq, senior vice-president of the Board. Maulana Kalbe Jawaad, another well known Shia cleric, is the chief patron of Hussaini Tigers. He termed as “extremely unfortunate” the criticism of the verdict by Maulana Ahmed Bukhari, the Shahi Imam of Delhi’s Jama Masjid and also by the Samajwadi Party chief, Mr Mulayam Singh Yadav.



“Muslims had promised that they would abide by the court verdict and now is the time to honour their commitment made to the nation,” he added.

[Guest]

[url="http://www.hindustantimes.com/Shia-outfit-asks-AIMPLB-not-to-challenge-Ayodhya-verdict/Article1-607017.aspx"]Shia outfit asks AIMPLB not to challenge Ayodhya verdict[/url]

[Guest]

[url="http://www.dailypioneer.com/287336/Verdict-leaves-%E2%80%98secular-intellectuals-aghast.html"]Verdict leaves ‘secular' intellectuals aghast[/url]

[Guest]

[url="http://www.dailypioneer.com/287210/Ram-ki-Nagri-once-again.html"]Ram ki Nagri, once again[/url]

[dhu]

There will be permanent mosque on site.. Why these seculars are not excited about that?

[Guest]

http://dharmaveer.blogspot.com/2009/02/m...-over.html



Babar's demolition of the Ram Janmabhoomi temple complex: The gloating muslim accounts





(Left: An oil painting of Babar - the founder of the Mughal empire, who demolished the Hindu temples at Ram Janmasthan and erected a Mosque in their place.)



To the western world, an iconic image of Islamic aggression is the conversion of the Hagia Sophia - Eastern Christendom's greatest church - into a mosque by the Ottoman Sultan Mehmet. It was his first act upon entering the conquered city of Constantinople (now Istanbul) in 1493AD.



It is relatively unknown in the western world that a mere 35 years later, in 1528AD, his fellow Turk - Zahir ud-din Babar, the founder of the Moghul empire in India, and a descendant of Tamerlane - demolished one of Hinduism's greatest temple complexes, and erected a mosque in its place, which is known in India as the Babri Masjid (Babar's mosque).



It is the purpose of this article to give my western readers a glimpse into this act of destruction, and to provide further evidence of the compulsive aggression and profanity of Islam.



Through the centuries of brutal Islamic rule over India, tens of thousands of Hindu temples were destroyed and mosques built at their sites. In northern India, which was under Islamic rule for a longer period of time, hardly any temple has survived the Islamic period. Among the temples destroyed were the 3 greatest temples of Hindu Dharma - those dedicated to Shri Ram, Shri Krishna, and Shankar, at Ayodhya, Mathura, and Benaras (Varanasi), respectively.



Muslims kept fairly accurate accounts of their temple demolitions, since they considered them acts of great piety. By destroying the temples of the "kufr", they were doing Allah's bidding, and imitating Muhammad, who himself had destroyed all the idols in the Kaaba and made it into a mosque. Muslim rulers throughout history have repeated this act. The West knows of the conversion of the St. Sophia in Constantinople into a mosque. Hindudom knows of thousands of such tragic instances.



Given below are some of the accounts left by muslim historians of the destruction of the Ram Janmabhoomi temple in Ayodhya - one of the greatest temples of Hindu Dharma. We will never know its splendour, but judging by the temples of South India that did survive Islamic rule, it must have been a stupendous feat of architecture.



The muslim writers unanimously describe the following:



1. The temple complex comprised of the Janmasthan of Shri Ram at Kot Ram Chander, the private apartments (mahal sarai) of King Dashrath and Shri Ram, and a temple and a kitchen popularly known as Sita Ki Rasoi, where tradition held that Sita (wife of Shri Ram) lived.

2. All three were demolished and a mosque constructed thereupon in 1528 A.D. under orders of Babur's commander Mir Baqi, and the religious guidance of a Muslim cleric named Sayed Musa Ashikan.



The earliest of such authors is none other than the granddaughter of the Mughal (Mogul) emperor Aurangzeb. Many of these Muslim writers were residents of Ayodhya (Awadh) and some were eye-witness to or participants in the Hindu-Muslim clashes that resulted from the numerous (77 recorded) attempts by Hindus to regain control of their holy site. Muslim records state that over 100,000 Hindus, over the centuries, perished in attempts to regain the temple.



Let us now see what the Muslim writers have said:



1) Abul Fazl (late sixteeth century)



Abul Fazl, the author of Akbar Nama and Ain-i-Akbari is an eminent writer of the Moghul age who describes Ayodhya as the residential place (banga) of Sri Ram Chandra who during the Treta age was the embodiment of both the spiritual sovereign supremacy as well as the mundane kingly office. Abul Fazl also testifies that Awadh (Ayodhya) was esteemed as one of the holiest places of antiquity. He reports that Ram-Navami festival, marking the birthday of Rama continues to be celebrated in a big way.



2) Safiha-i Chahal Nasaih Bahadur Shahi, written by the daughter of Bahadur Shah Alamgir during the early 18th century.



Out of the above Chahal Nasaih ("Forty Advices"), twenty-five instructions were copied and incorporated in the manuscript entitled Nasihat-i Bist-o-Panjam Az Chahal Nisaih Bahadur Shahi in 1816 AD, which is the oldest known account of the destruction of Ram Janmabhoomi for construction of the Babri Mosque, and its author is none other than Aurangzeb's grand daughter.



Mirza Jan, the author of Hadiqa-i-Shahda, 1856, Lucknow, has reproduced the above text in Persian on pp.4-7 of his book. The text runs as follows:



"... the mosques built on the basis of the king's orders (ba farman-i Badshahi) have not been exempted from the offering of the namaz and the reading of the Khutba [therein]. The places of worship of the Hindus situated at Mathura, Banaras and Awadh, etc., in which the Hindus (kufar) have great faith - the place of the birthplace of Kanhaiya, the place of Rasoi Sita, the place of Hanuman, who, according to the Hindus, was seated by Ram Chandra over there after the conquest of Lanka - were all demolished for the strength of Islam, and at all these places mosques have been constructed. These mosques have not been exempted from juma and jamiat (Friday prayers). Rather it is obligatory that no idol worship should be performed over there and the sound of the conch shell should not reach the ear of the Muslims ..."





3) Hadiqa-i-Shahada by Mirza Jan (1856), pages 4-7.



The author was an eye-witness and an active participant in the jihad led by Amir Ali Amethawi during Wazid Ali Shah's rule in 1855 for recapture of Hanumangarhi from the Hindus. His book was ready just after the failure of the jihad due to stout Hindu resistance, and was published the following year (1856) in Lucknow. In Chapter IX of his book, entitled Wazid Ali Shah Aur Unka Ahd ("Wazid Ali Ahah and His Regime"), we find his account of construction of the Babri mosque.



Mirza Jan who claims to have gone through various old sources says in his own account as follows:



"The past Sultans encouraged the propagation and glorification of Islam and crushed the forces of the unbelievers (kufar), the Hindus. Similarly, Faizabad and Awadh(Ayodhya) were also purged of this mean practice [of kufr]. This [Awadh] was a great worshipping centre and the capital of [the kingdom of] Rama's father. Where there was a large temple, a big mosque was constructed and where there was a small mandaf, there a small kanati masjid was constructed. The temple of Janmasthan was the original birthplace (masqat) of Ram, adjacent to which is Sita Ki Rasoi, Sita being the name of his wife. Hence at that site, a lofty (sarbaland) mosque has been built by Babar Badshah under the guidance of Musa Ashikan... That mosque is till date popularly known as Sita Ki Rasoi..."

(see Annexure 3)



4) Fasana-i Ibrat by the Urdu novelist Mirza Rajab Ali Beg Surur.



Dr. Zaki Kakorawi has appended an excerpt from this book by Surur (1787-1867) in his work. The excerpt reads as follows :



"During the reign of Babar Badshah, a magnificent mosque was constructed in Awadh at a place which is associated with Sita ki Rasoi. This was the Babari mosque. As during this period the Hindus could not dare to offer any resistance, the mosque was constructed under the benign guidance of Saiyed Mir Ashikan. Its date of construction could be reckoned from [the words] Khair-Baqi. And in the Ram Darbar, a mosque was constructed by Fidai Khan, the subedar."





5) Zia-i Akhtar by Haji Muhammed Hasan (Lucknow 1878), p.38-39.



The author states :





"The mosque which had been built by Saiyid Musa Ashikan in 923 AH in compliance with the order of Zahiruddin Badshah, Delhi, after demolishing the private apartments (mahal sarai) of Raja Ram Chander and the kitchen of Sita, as well as the second mosque built by Muiuddin Aurangzeb, Alamgir Badshah, [in fact] both these mosques have developed cracks at various places because of the ageing character. Both these mosques have been gradually mitigated by the Bairagis and this very fact accounts for the riot. The Hindus have great hatred for the Muslims..."





6) Gumgashte Halat-i Ajudhya Awadh ("Forgotten Events of Ayodhya"), i.e. Tarikh-i Parnia Madina Alwaliya (in Persian) (Lucknow 1885), by Maulvi Abdul Karim.



The author, who was then the imam of the Babri Masjid, while giving a description of the dargah of Hazrat Shah Jamal Gojjri states :

"To the east of this dargah is mahalla Akbarpur, whose second name is also Kot Raja Ram Chander Ji. In this Kot, there were few burjs [towery big halls]. Towards the side of the western burj, there was the house of birthplace (makan-i paidaish) and the kitchen (bawarchi khana) of the above-mentioned Raja. And now, this premises is known as Janmasthan and Rasoi Sita Ji. After the demolition and mitigation of these houses [viz. Janmasthan and Rasoi Sita Ji], Babar Badshah got a magnificent mosque constructed thereon."







7) Tarikh-i Awadh("History of Ayodhya") by Alama Muhammad Najamulghani Khan Rampuri (1909).



Dr. Zaki Kakorawi has brought out an abridged edition of this book. An excerpt from vol.II (pp.570-575) of this edition runs as follows :



"Babar built a magnificent mosque at the spot where the temple of Janmasthan of Ramchandra was situated in Ayodhya, under the patronage of Saiyid Ashikan, and Sita ki Rasoi is situated adjacent to it. The date of construction of the mosque is Khair Baqi (923 AH). Till date, it is known as Sita ki Rasoi. By its side stands that temple. It is said that at the time of the conquest of Islam there were still three temples, viz. Janmasthan, which was the birthplace of Ram Chanderji, Swargadwar alias Ram Darbar, and the Treta ka Thakur. Babar built the mosque after having demolished Janmasthan."





8) Hindustan Islami Ahad Mein ("India is under Islamic rule") by Maulana Hakim Sayid Abdul Hai.

The book contained a chapter on "The Mosques of Hindusthan" (Hindustan ki Masjidein), giving at least six instances of the construction of the mosques on the very sites of the Hindu temples demolished by the Indian Muslim rulers during the 12th-17th centuries. As regards Babri Masjid, he writes :



"This mosque was constructed by Babar at Ajodhya which the Hindus call the birthplace of Ram Chanderji. There is a famous story about his wife Sita. It is said that Sita had a temple here in which she lived and cooked for her husband. On that very site Babar constructed this mosque..."





It is this Babri mosque, built as a symbol of the subjugation and humiliation of Hindus at a spot they venerated so highly, that was damaged by a crowd of Hindus in 1992 at the height of the nationalist movement to rebuild a temple for Shri Ram at the site which had been venerated as his birthplace by Hindus for millenia.



Islam deliberately destroyed and desecrated what was most sacred to Hindus, and replaced it with a symbol of Islamic victory. The same reason Sultan Mehmet converted the Hagia Sophia into a mosque. The Hindus and the West have been fighting the same foe for centuries.



I end with the lament of Will Durant, from his Story of Civilization



"We can never know from looking at India to-day, what grandeur and beauty she once possessed."



All of that grandeur and beauty - laid waste by Islam.

[G.Subramaniam]

What next after Ayodhya



I suggest that Kashi-Mathura be put on hold and instead we focus on hindu demographics and improved street level resistance to islamisation of JK, Assam, WB and Kerala and long term shuddi of the mlechas

[Guest]

[url="http://www.dailypioneer.com/287545/Ansari-opens-talks-for-out-of-court-deal.html"]Ansari opens talks for out-of-court deal[/url]

Ansari said the Waqf Board was not interested in moving the apex court and wanted to settle the issue “here itself” because “it feels the issue would linger on for many more years if the Supreme Court was moved”.



He added, “The board has authorised me to contact the Hindu religious heads for formulating a peaceful settlement. We believe this move may usher in communal harmony in the country.” He also criticised Samajwadi Party chief Mulayam Singh Yadav for “politicising” the verdict for his own political gain. “Mulayam should not create hurdles in the final settlement of the issue. Let peace prevail in India,” he added.

[G.Subramaniam]

http://twocircles.net/?q=2010oct02/ayodh...shock.html



Ayodhya verdict: Babri petitioner Aslam Bhure dies of shock



Submitted by admin3 on 2 October 2010 - 3:37pm

Posted in Indian Muslim



By Md. Ali, twoCircles.net,



New Delhi: Not even 48 hours had passed and Aslam Bhure who was the first petitioner to move Supreme Court about two decades ago to protect Babri Masjid died of shock early this morning.



==



Rot in hell with 72 witches

[Guest]

[url="http://www.hindustantimes.com/Ayodhya-verdict-Waqf-Board-picks--three-core-points-for-appeal/H1-Article3-608279.aspx"]Ayodhya verdict: Waqf Board picks three core points for appeal[/url]

3 Points for appeal



1. Birthplace of Ram decided on the basis of faith, not evidence

2. Muslims had uninterrupted possession of inner courtyard until 1949, when idols were secretly placed

3. Babri Masjid wasn’t built against tenets of Islam or Shariah

Media was trying to pop up lot of stories that how nice these fundoos are, as we know they will never accommodate others and there are no moderation in them and Islam.

[ramana]

Politicsparty says INC wont make efforts for out-of court settlement:



LINK



Will wait for Supreme Court ruling on future appeal.

[Capt M Kumar]

LUCKNOW: Peaceniks in Ayodhya got a boost on Monday as the head of Nirmohi Akhara, Mahant Bhaskar Das, broke his silence, saying he was open to talks with the president of Akhil Bharatiya Akhara Prishad (ABAP), Mahant Gyandas. Gyandas and Hashim Ansari, the original plaintiff from the Muslim side in the 60-year-old Ayodhya title suits, had met on Sunday and are working on a compromise formula.



However, the 81-year-old Bhaskar Das made it amply clear that the Nirmohi Akhara -- a Hindu martial sect which now legally holds one-third of the land at the disputed site -- has "conditions which need to be taken into account before any concrete step in the direction is taken".



Read more: Ayodhya: Nirmohi Akhara ready for talks, 'modest temple' - The Times of India http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india...z11QfvhsL1

[G.Subramaniam]

A few reasons for the non-riots by muslims so far



First the several lakh armed cops put on full alert



Second, thanks to the psec media, they were expecting a judgement in their favor

[Capt M Kumar]

A miniscule minority of pseudo-secularists, atheists and agnostics which enjoys grossly disproportionate media space has begun to drum up opposition to the historic Allahabad High Court judgement in the Ayodhya case. This motley group of Hindu-baiters, which is blissfully ignorant of the laws that determine such cases pertaining to religious beliefs, customs and practices, is uncomfortable with the dignified response of both Hindus and Muslims to the verdict and is looking for opportunities to stir up trouble a la the film Peepli Live. http://www.dailypioneer.com/287696/A-per...ourse.html

[Guest]

October 07, 2010 2:30:44 AM

[url="http://www.dailypioneer.com/288218/An-otherwise-judicious-verdict.html"]An otherwise judicious verdict --S Gurumurthy[/url]

Despite the Sunni Waqf Board’s failure to prove its possession of any part of the disputed site in Ayodhya, dividing the land into three parts may make resolution of the conflict that much more difficult



The otherwise legally proper and judiciously sound Ayodhya verdict has suffered serious a legal haemorrhage by the decision of Justice SU Khan and Justice Sudhir Agarwal to divide the disputed land into three parts and give one-third each to Hindus, Muslims and the Nirmohi Akhara. This final part explains that fatal infirmity. An issue where law is mixed with facts, it calls for some strenuous reading to know what the deadly defect in the judgement is. To recall, the short facts are: In their two suits, the Hindus claim the disputed site as exclusively their own; in their suit, the Muslims claim it exclusively as their own; in its suit, the Nirmohi Akhara too claims it as exclusively its own. None of them had asked for nor would accept to share the disputed land with any other or the others.



To simplify for the law for the uninitiated, the law says that a person filing a suit has to plead his case properly and clearly, and also ask for reliefs in clear terms. The court will look only what suitor says in his plaint and his opponents in response, nothing else, to know what is the case. It will then frame the contentious issues and decide them on the basis of the pleadings of the parties and evidences tendered by them. The principal issues decided on that basis by Allahabad High Court, unanimously or by majority 2:1, in the present case are: One, the rights of the Hindus over the Rama Janma Bhoomi never ceased at any point in time; two, the Muslims were never in possession of the disputed premises at any point in time; three, the Muslims failed to prove their possession of any part of the disputed land; four, the last time the Muslims did namaz on the disputed property was on December 16, 1949; five, the Hindus never admitted possession by Muslims at any time, even in the suit of 1885; six, Muslims never acquired title even by adverse possession; seven, the Akhara never had possession nor acquired title by adverse possession; eight, the suits of Muslims and the Akhara, having been filed beyond the limitation period, are dismissed. On this basis, the court dismissed the suits of Muslims and Akhara, thus disentitling to any relief. While, Justice DV Sharma allowed the suits of Hindus in full, Justice Agarwal and Justice Khan allowed the Hindus’ suit partly.



On why they ruled partitioning of the disputed land, Justice Agarwal and Justice Khan have said that under a provision (Order 7 Rule 7) in the Civil Procedure Code they had the authority to give less relief than what the Hindus had prayed for in their suits. So by assuming that they had the power to reduce the share of the Hindus, the two judges seem to have thought that they had also the power to give the balance to Muslims and Akhara ; in the process what the two Judges have done is to give Muslims and Akhara rights, which Justice Sharma and Justice Agarwal have separately declared they do not have. Also none of the three parties had asked for what the High Court has done. The first principle is that, any relief beyond what the suits set out in pleadings and prayers can only be given at the instance of one of the parties; not by the court on its own motion like it has done in this case. If parties themselves had not asked for anything outside the pleadings, the court cannot go beyond their pleadings at all. The law on this point has never been in doubt. The Madras High Court has ruled in 1998 (Arunachalm Pillai Vs Ramu Mudaliar and others) that where each party claims exclusive title to the property and none of them accept the right of the other (exactly as in the Ayodhya case) the question of partitioning the property between them does not arise at all (under the very provision of law cited by the two judges in Ayodhya case). The Patna, Calcutta, and Madras High Court itself have ruled this principle earlier. As far back as 1991 the Supreme Court (in Om Prakash Vs Ram Kumar (1991) 1 SCC 441) had ruled that even if a party asks for reliefs outside his pleadings the court can never allow it when doing so will prejudice rights of the other party.



So the settled legal position is this: Even if parties, like the Ayodhya parties, who have filed suit asserting exclusive rights against one another, ask for partition, the court cannot grant it; and in no event the court can do it without the parties asking for it. None of these judicial rulings seem to be noticed by the two judges. Had one of the parties asked for partition, the other party would have brought the case laws to the court’s notice. That is why law requires that the court should decide no issue that is not put to the parties. An order contrary to this principle is, in law, without jurisdiction. Civil law pundits would cite the old maxim of ‘Coram Non Judici’ to say that the courts — read Justice Khan and Justice Agarwal — have no jurisdiction to do what they have done.



Now, that they have passed the judgement, the judges will now have to write a decree in accord with the judgement. Assume that the judges can write a decree in the Hindus’ suit giving them less than their claim of one-third share. The suits of Muslims and Akhara having been dismissed, how could a decree be written in their favour? If no decree could be passed in their favour in their suits, they cannot get the one-third share at all. And no decree could be passed in the suits of the Hindus in favour of Muslims and Akhara! Therefore, the one-third gift by the two judges to them each will be only on paper. So, a new battle will start only at the point if the two judges attempt to write the decree for two-third of the disputed land in favour of the Muslims and Akhara whose suits stand dismissed.



The legal unsoundness aside, the decision to divide the disputed land and award one-third each to the Muslims and Akhara, stands out contrary to the spirit of the otherwise judicious judgement. It has put roadblock on the temple construction; how could a temple to which a million people come on Ram Navami be accommodated in one acre of land (a third of the disputed area) along with a mosque beside. It will be an invitation to a law and order disaster. Many idealists welcome this action of the two judges as an ideal solution. But, in sensitive issues like relations between Hindus and Muslims (many among whom still share bitter memories of past) the ideal is not practical; only what is practical is the ideal. This sense of Idealism without practical sense is that what seems to have led the two judges into the judicially erroneous decision to divide the disputed land. QED: The historic Ayodhya judgement has, thanks to this fatal defect, now less potential to resolve the dispute and more potential to escalate it.

[Guest]

http://www.rjbm.nic.in/



Ram Janam Bhumi Babri Masjid Judgement