Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
Propaganda_of_the_Deed

Ayodhya verdict: Site of destroyed Babri Masjid mosque must be given to Hindus for construction of Ram temple, Supreme Court rules

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

India's Supreme Court has ordered that the disputed site where a mosque was torn down in 1992 should be handed over to the government for the construction of a Hindu temple. 

The judges came to a unanimous verdict, after many decades of dispute and at-times deadly riots over the Ayodhya site that once housed the Babri Masjid mosque

Five acres of land in the city must be handed over to the Sunni Waqf Board, representing Muslims in Ayodhya, for the construction of a new mosque, the judges said.

Many Hindus believe that the Ayodhya site is the birthplace of the deity Lord Ram, and say the mosque was built in the 16th century over an ancient temple marking the spot. An archaeological survey of the site found no evidence of this, only that an unspecified structure existed prior to the mosque.

Read more:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/Asia/ayodhya-ram-temple-babri-masjid-mosque-supreme-court-verdict-Hindus-a9196096.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just like Kashmir and Pakistan, Ayodhya controversy was used to gain political points and polarize votes in their favour. This should not be the case henceforth. I don't know the reaction of International media but most Indian Muslim are seemingly happy with the verdict. This was always a sensitive issue. A spark could have led to violence between Hindus and Muslims, finally put to rest. 

Funny enough the Sunni fought decades against Hindu majority to get Masjid built, on the other hand, one of the largest Muslim nation fails to build a mere shed on the grave of Prophet's (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) daughter. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Propaganda_of_the_Deed said:

India's Supreme Court has ordered that the disputed site where a mosque was torn down in 1992 should be handed over to the government for the construction of a Hindu temple. 

The judges came to a unanimous verdict, after many decades of dispute and at-times deadly riots over the Ayodhya site that once housed the Babri Masjid mosque

Five acres of land in the city must be handed over to the Sunni Waqf Board, representing Muslims in Ayodhya, for the construction of a new mosque, the judges said.

Many Hindus believe that the Ayodhya site is the birthplace of the deity Lord Ram, and say the mosque was built in the 16th century over an ancient temple marking the spot. An archaeological survey of the site found no evidence of this, only that an unspecified structure existed prior to the mosque.

Read more:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/Asia/ayodhya-ram-temple-babri-masjid-mosque-supreme-court-verdict-Hindus-a9196096.html

Dangerous precedent set.. this means now, nobody can have sanctity of title. All you need to get a land claim is to claim some diety of yours was born there. It is sad that a court has also stooped to acknowledge "birth right" issues where there were clear legal issues here of violation of sanctity of property by an identifiable group of people, not about replacing the land with another land. I am pretty sure the waqf board of India, like other waqf boards around the world has plenty of yet un utilized land, so this was never about the land but the brazen impunity of violating existing rights for the sake of some apparently religious spiritual right to a place. Anyway, why are are we surprised? The precedent was already set in falastin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Propaganda_of_the_Deed said:

An archaeological survey of the site found no evidence of this, only that an unspecified structure existed prior to the mosque.

Unspecified Structure??? Perhaps a sand dune! 

Why Supreme Court has passed the verdict in favor of Hindu extremists then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe Supreme court's decision is not based on facts, they wanted to conclude the decades long running case. Yes, there are Hindu extremists and if decision was in favor of Muslims there was good chances of violence. So, may be it's not the right decision but more of it being in nation's interest. Also, 5 acres will be alloted for Masjid in same town by the government. 

There can be two cases:

1. If temple was raised and then Masjid built on it then it is Gazbi land and masjid cannot be constructed. Court decision stands. 

2. If there was Masjid without any usurping then the correct decision was to give the land to Muslims as Masjid  cannot be destroyed or relocated. Court decision falls. 

People outside India is reacting like Supreme Court of India allotted their property to someone else while Sunni waqf board who fought for decades welcomed the decision. 

Perhaps, our neighbors can't see Indian Muslim supporting India. Also, #hindumuslimbhaibhai was trending from yesterday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Mahdavist said:

A separate 5 acre plot has been allocated for the construction of a mosque.

Wallahu a'lam 

It has, though the issue was never about the land. The issues on trial were (I have not read either side's pleadings just assuming from what the news says):

- Is it OK to allow one group to destroy a status quo in existence because of some perceived spiritual right (not even historically documented)?

- Will the court be equally permissive if say, a Shia group comes up and says a place x was the place where the mother of a certain Imam was born and is of spiritual significance to us. Would the court then allow the destruction of a persons house, temple, building, school, hospital, etc to allow the Shias to have their holy place and replace that land with another for the affected party?

- This was the situation in existence for centuries, and the parties claiming a right brought no historical or archaelogical proof of the existence of their claimed right, yet no action was taken agaisnt the perpetrators except a mild legal rebuke?

These being said, I also recognize that legal systems often have very little to do with justice or what is right, but more often is about appeasing a dominant group over a less dominant one. More interesting is that politicians used this site and the promise of the size of temple they will build there to campaign. So where is the secular, no religion barred situation that people were told to give up their kingdoms and chiefdoms for?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's another temple somewhere else that has a mosque above it. I'm pretty sure those people will be looking at this situation with some interest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The case had been in court for a very long time and they probably just wanted to bring it to a close. Handing over the place to Muslims would surely have caused riots so they came up with the idea of giving an equal area of land to Muslims to settle the dispute.

Edited by starlight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Sirius_Bright said:

Funny enough the Sunni fought decades against Hindu majority to get Masjid built, on the other hand, one of the largest Muslim nation fails to build a mere shed on the grave of Prophet's (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) daughter. 

Salam place of  her grave will be unknown until time of reappearance of Imam Mahdi (aj) because it's a symbole of not accepting tyrant rulers  but it's a wish for all Shia Muslims to build a ' mere shed on graves of our Imams (عليه السلام) that buried in Baqi cemetery ' 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

Salam place of  her grave will be unknown until time of reappearance of Imam Mahdi (aj) because it's a symbole of not accepting tyrant rulers  but it's a wish for all Shia Muslims to build a ' mere shed on graves of our Imams (عليه السلام) that buried in Baqi cemetery ' 

Lol, I think he meant the satellite zareehs quite common in the subcontinent and the members of the subcontinent in the diaspora.  We even have a zareeh of Imam Ridha (عليه السلام) here in Kenya set up by the Pakistani and khoja communities. People go there on ziyarah and do nadhrs. :einstein:

Kind of like the 1000 or so imamzadehs all over Iran :grin:

Edited by habib e najjaar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, habib e najjaar said:

  We even have a zareeh of Imam Ridha (عليه السلام) here in Kenya set up by the Pakistani and khoja communities. People go there on ziyarah and do nadhrs. :einstein:

Kind of like the 1000 or so imamzadehs all over Iran :grin:

Salam as I know they call it ' Imam Bargah' because they couldn't travel long distances so they made replicas of shrines based on their Indian culture  to do it from long distance so there is no problem until they don't consider these replicas as holy  things other than vessel to our Imams also many fake Imamzadehs made by Bahais during pahlavi era to steal artifacts in these places that currently scholars of Qom made an office to organizing these Imamzadehs & caring real old imamzadehs that many of them martyred in way of coming to presence of Imam Reza during his staying in Iran & running away from Abbasids in Arabic lands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, habib e najjaar said:

Lol, I think he meant the satellite zareehs quite common in the subcontinent and the members of the subcontinent in the diaspora.  We even have a zareeh of Imam Ridha (عليه السلام) here in Kenya set up by the Pakistani and khoja communities. People go there on ziyarah and do nadhrs. :einstein:

Kind of like the 1000 or so imamzadehs all over Iran :grin:

How is that funny? Why can't there be replicas of zareeh? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/9/2019 at 11:14 AM, habib e najjaar said:

Dangerous precedent set.. this means now, nobody can have sanctity of title. All you need to get a land claim is to claim some diety of yours was born there. It is sad that a court has also stooped to acknowledge "birth right" issues where there were clear legal issues here of violation of sanctity of property by an identifiable group of people, not about replacing the land with another land. I am pretty sure the waqf board of India, like other waqf boards around the world has plenty of yet un utilized land, so this was never about the land but the brazen impunity of violating existing rights for the sake of some apparently religious spiritual right to a place. Anyway, why are are we surprised? The precedent was already set in falastin.

Worst case scenario the land should have been confiscated by the state to not set a wrong precedent and to avoid riots. 

The Indian Shia are appeasers of the worst degree. No wonder Mir Jaffer and Mir Sadiq come to mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, haideriam said:

The Indian Shia are appeasers of the worst degree. No wonder Mir Jaffer and Mir Sadiq come to mind.

Generalizing at it's best. Says one who wants to appease Sunnis day and night. 

I would not say similar things for Pakistani Shias. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, haideriam said:

The Indian Shia are appeasers of the worst degree. No wonder Mir Jaffer and Mir Sadiq come to mind.

I actually experienced that in this site ShiaChat that some of Indian Shias are so hateful disgusting people, they are so pathetic that they will defend their Hindu gov oppression over Muslims and there excuse is oh because those Muslims are Sunnis so we don’t care .and if I a Pakistani Shia defend those Sunni Muslims they start calling me that im a wahabi supporter loll.. ,

these people are definitely not Shia, a Shia would never defend a oppressor no matter what even if the oppression is against Sunni wahabis Hindu Christian black white or whatever , because we are Shia of Ahlulbait(عليه السلام) ,,...

and I wont be surprise if those some hateful extremist Indian Shias celebrating this news ...because all they see is oh its against Sunnis so its all good ,,these people don’t understand its against Islam not Sunnis alone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Marbles said:

But allowing the construction of a Hindu temple there gives a message to the Hindutva mobs that it is OK to destroy historical buildings as long as you have some oral legends to back up and bring "evidence" from books of 4000-year-old mythology.

this is what I think too its not about as some people say it was a Sunni wahabi mosque so its cool, its about Indian gov saying you Hindu extremist have a free pass todo whatever with Muslims now and their mosques and the so-called riots have always been Hindus massacring of Muslims in India relating to these type of situations

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Qasim-Raza said:

the so-called riots have always been Hindus massacring of Muslims in India relating to these type of situations

While it is true that Hindus have been massacring Muslims the opposite is certainly also true. Muslims has also massacred Hindus. And it is not beyond Muslims to blow up mosques and other places of worship. We have seen that in Iraq. If the blame game doesn't stop, the violence will only continue. Conflicts like the Hindu - Muslim conflict or the Shia - Sunni conflict is just a way for the people in power to divide and rule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Qasim-Raza said:

... actually experienced that in this site ShiaChat that some of Indian Shias are so hateful disgusting people, they are so pathetic that they will defend their Hindu gov oppression over Muslims and there excuse is oh because those Muslims are Sunnis so we don’t care .... 

Sorry, but your post shows how ignorant you are about what is happening in India. It would be better if you take care of Niazi and that clown maulana holding dharna in capital rather than poking nose in Indian matters. Minorities of India are living in much more peace than minorities of Pakistan. 

Peace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/10/2019 at 6:59 PM, Sirius_Bright said:

Generalizing at it's best. Says one who wants to appease Sunnis day and night. 

I would not say similar things for Pakistani Shias. 

Thanks Sirius Bright, you made my day..lol..lol

I guess it is beyond some people to properly comprehend the brotherhood among the Muslims as an Ummah and the compulsion on you to keep making it better so that Allah(سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) willing they may one day be on the path of true thaqlain.  One needs dialogue, dispute does not promote dialogue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, starlight said:

And then we wonder how Muslims allowed the demolition of Jannat ul Baqi. 

I cry reading about all the family and companions of the Prophet(صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) who was berried there. I don't understand how the Wahabis can justify such acts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/10/2019 at 12:13 PM, haideriam said:

The Indian Shia are appeasers of the worst degree.

 

22 hours ago, haideriam said:

I guess it is beyond some people to properly comprehend the brotherhood among the Muslims as an Ummah and the compulsion on you to keep making it better......  One needs dialogue, dispute does not promote dialogue.

Here's a suggestion, 

Practice before you preach. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Moalfas said:

 

Here's a suggestion, 

Practice before you preach. 

Thanks, will try to do better next time. And agreed, though had stated a fact but the wordings and the sentence style was poor. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/11/2019 at 5:52 AM, Qasim-Raza said:

I actually experienced that in this site ShiaChat that some of Indian Shias are so hateful disgusting people, they are so pathetic that they will defend their Hindu gov oppression over Muslims and there excuse is oh because those Muslims are Sunnis so we don’t care .and if I a Pakistani Shia defend those Sunni Muslims they start calling me that im a wahabi supporter loll.. ,

these people are definitely not Shia, a Shia would never defend a oppressor no matter what even if the oppression is against Sunni wahabis Hindu Christian black white or whatever , because we are Shia of Ahlulbait(عليه السلام) ,,...

and I wont be surprise if those some hateful extremist Indian Shias celebrating this news ...because all they see is oh its against Sunnis so its all good ,,these people don’t understand its against Islam not Sunnis alone.

I think u should hold ur tongue or go and watch pogo if u don’t know how to have a civilized discussion ....grow up baby ......don’t call any nation pathetic and disgusting ....world is full of pathetic and disgusting examples .... I am not kid to spil the name of such nation ..........wow you defend Sunni Muslim ..how ...? ..please be specific  ..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ayodhya verdict: ShiaChat dismisses Shia Waqf Board’s Single Leave Petition

Babri Masjid Verdict in India; Character of the Prophet - Maulana Syed Muhammad Rizvi

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...