What's new

Babri Masjid Case Ruling Today

No, it hasn't , that was just a statement give by the Hindu Mahasabah lawyer Ravi Shankar and the mainstream media picked it up

Who the hell even listens to Ravi Shankar ?

Repeating again, all judges (including Judge Khan), accepted the findings of ASI that the the core disputed site (of the 70 acres) under question is the birth place of Lord Ram.

Justice Khan also noted that no "proper temple existed" at the site when the mosque was constructed, instead "remains of a Hindu structure" is understood to exist when the mosque was constructed.

Considering many other factors, incl. that Hindus prayed there not because there was a temple, instead because its the birth place of Lord Ram, hence, the main disputed section went to Hindus.

By the main disputed section, I am referring to the inner courtyard - now proved to be the birthplace of Lord Ram by ASI.
 
.
Repeating again, all judges (including Judge Khan), accepted the findings of ASI that the the core disputed site (of the 70 acres) under question is the birth place of Lord Ram.


This is the correct version of events

All judges (including Judge Khan), accepted the findings of ASI that on the core disputed site (of the 70 acres) under question existed a 10th century Hindu temple, upon it's ruins the Babri Mosque was built
 
.
This is the correct version of events

All judges (including Judge Khan), accepted the findings of ASI that on the core disputed site (of the 70 acres) under question existed a 10th century Hindu temple, upon it's ruins the Babri Mosque was built

The Hindus are not claiming the land just because a mosque was created on the ruins of a temple, instead, their claim is based on that the disputed site is the birthplace of Lord Ram.
 
.
The Hindus are not claiming the land just because a mosque was created on the ruins of a temple, instead, their claim is based on that the disputed site is the birthplace of Lord Ram.

Yeah but that is a matter of faith ( I don't mean to disrespect)

The court case is purely a land dispute.
 
.
Again Gujrat makes its way here. duh.

Why do you ppl get forgetting that it was the burning alive of 60 Hindus by a fanatic Muslim mob that caused the riots.?


Get the difference?


OH OK SO according to your rule muslims can now avenge justice by going around destroying temples?

& please the gujrat thing of hindus being "slaughtered" for god sake back up your claims with international evidence!


didn't you see BABU BAJRANGI say it that nariender modi held back the police until we were done with killing!!
 
Last edited:
.
Yeah but that is a matter of faith ( I don't mean to disrespect)

The court case is purely a land dispute.

If you go see TV (some of them have copies of judgement), the copy calls it as a property dispute, and that main property owner is Lord Ram, with Hindus (worshippers of Lord Ram).

This issue is so tense BECAUSE its no ordinary dispute, its the birthplace of Lord Ram and hence so high profile.
 
.
The Hindus are not claiming the land just because a mosque was created on the ruins of a temple, instead, their claim is based on that the disputed site is the birthplace of Lord Ram.

ahan! and how did they determine this? if you don't mind me asking where was the death place of ram? & how are you sure that this is exactly the spot where ram was born?:undecided:
 
.
ahan! and how did they determine this? if you don't mind me asking where was the death place of ram? & how are you sure that this is exactly the spot where ram was born?:undecided:

Please go and read this thread completely and many other threads that are running on the same topic.

You will get all your answers. I really dont have the energy to keep repeating the same thing in every other thread.
 
.
Slightly off topic, the death place of Lord Rama, isn't it located somewhere in Pakistan.

Or I am confusing it with the place where a grand battle took place.
 
.
Please go and read this thread completely and many other threads that are running on the same topic.

You will get all your answers. I really dont have the energy to keep repeating the same thing in every other thread.

i read this thread and MANY MANY other threads but the answer of proof of ram bhoomi is still elusive!!

it is "ALLEGED" he was born here!

a ruling totally in favour of hindus! the best would have been no temple no mosque as the minimum!

but no they will proceed to build the temple on the spot!
 
.
the copy calls it as a property dispute, and that main property owner is Lord Ram

No, dude read this :

7. That much before 1855 Ram Chabutra and Seeta Rasoi had come into existence and
Hindus were worshipping in the same.
It was very very unique and absolutely unprecedented
situation that in side the boundary wall and compound of the mosque Hindu religious places were
there which were actually being worshipped along with offerings of Namaz by Muslims in the
mosque.
8. That in view of the above gist of the finding at serial no.7 both the parties Muslims as well
as Hindus are held to be in joint possession of the entire premises in dispute.


It's our usual ToI/HT/Aaj Tak media going crazy :coffee:
 
.
what basic research? Nirmohi Akhara are jains or hindus?

Its a Hindu denomination belonging to Vaishnav Sampradaya...
I can go on and on regarding this but this is not the place..
So, in a nutshell it is indeed hindu akhara...
 
.
I think this is one of the boldest decisions taken by independent India.We did not allow the pressure of proving ourselves secular affect the outcome.The judgement is based on scientific evidence and a lot more.
 
.
'What Allah does is always good for the community'

Allah ne jo kuch kiya, theek kiya hoga. Doosri surat main Mussalmano ko zyada bardasht karna padta tha. Zulm hua hai lekin bardasht kar lenge (God must have thought through it. It's possible that any other decision of the court would have made us suffer more. Injustice has been done but we will tolerate it)," said Waris Mazhari, editor of Urdu magazine Tarjuman-e-Dar-ul-Uloom while reacting to the Ayodhya judgment delivered on Thursday.
Mazhari said he has received many reactions from the community after the judgment, and most of them were disappointed.

"Personally, I don't see the judgment as the end of the road. I think if the Sunni Waqf Board would have won the entire case then our community would have suffered more. I strongly believe a large number of Muslims are fed up of the Babri mosque issue and we want to move ahead," Mazhari said.

"Most Muslims were thinking that there was 99 per cent chance that the Ayodhya judgment will favour the waqf board. That's why we are feeling disappointed. This verdict is the most unexpected. We have no choice but to keep calm. What Allah does is, always, good for the community. As I said, there was more danger in store for us if we would have won the Ayodhya case."

After debating the judgment and consoling himself, Mazhari said, "This judgment reads less legal and more political. But we expect that this will, at least, keep us safe. Is desh mein mohabbat se rehna hai (we want to live with love in the country). Muslims should console themselves that this judgment assures us that our country won't break up."

Finally, he said, "I believe this judgment is not the best but good enough to carry on with life. Surely, Muslim leaders will take it to the Supreme Court. I also agree with the view that the Bharatiya Janata Party will lose the issue of Ram temple and the people will forget it in a few months. This grants us a chance to get on with our lives. Before and now, we always knew Ayodhya is all about politics."
 
.
i read this thread and MANY MANY other threads but the answer of proof of ram bhoomi is still elusive!!

it is "ALLEGED" he was born here!

a ruling totally in favour of hindus! the best would have been no temple no mosque as the minimum!

but no they will proceed to build the temple on the spot!

Yes indeed the temple will be built...and so will be a mosque not Baburi though...
Justice has been done and could not have been done in a better way..
 
.
Back
Top Bottom