Babri Mosque, Lahore Gurdwara: Legal parallels, different outcome

[W.11]

It wasn't about a mosque and a temple but rather the birth place of the Hindu God Rama.

here we go again, the insane hindutvas are on a roll

bhai simple matter, if it was a birth place of lord rama, as claimed, why didn't it have any temple or any shrine before the babri mosque structure, it seems more like the myth was propagated after muslims erected their mosque there.

regards

 

[Thamizh Puli]

here we go again, the insane hindutvas are on a roll

bhai simple matter, if it was a birth place of lord rama, as claimed, why didn't it have any temple or any shrine before the babri mosque structure, it seems more like the myth was propagated after muslims erected their mosque there.

regards

no here we don't go again. in fact you're going quite backwards.
anyway what's the point of my trying to make you lot see the facts - all you guys do (and yes it is a generalization but with very little exceptions, is what I see in this defence.pk - moderators completely biased, members making stuff up, somebody called super senior big shot then coming and wisely 'cleaning up' threads in effect keeping them bereft of facts). go read up yourself

 

[Hiptullha]

huh? what are religions and gods but matters of faith and belief? does Jesus have a birth certificate, does a video exist of Mohamed receiving revelations? put aside your colored glass and read that paragraph from the judgement.

Why are you defending court decisions being made on the basis of faith and belief which have no proof or evidence behind them? It just sets a bad precedent. Next thing you know, courts will be banning cow slaughter because Swami Thamizh Puli believes that a cow actually happen to be his mother as his religion teaches him. No one can argue against Swami Thamizh because his argument doesn't have any proof or scientific backing, it's based on his own superstitions.

 

[Thamizh Puli]

Why are you defending court decisions being made on the basis of faith and belief which have no proof or evidence behind them? It just sets a bad precedent. Next thing you know, courts will be banning cow slaughter because Swami Thamizh Puli believes that a cow actually happen to be his mother as his religion teaches him. No one can argue against Swami Thamizh because his argument doesn't have any proof or scientific backing, it's based on his own superstitions.

what part of read the last paragraph of the actual text of the judgement do you guys cannot understand? There is no need or standing for anyone to 'interpret' as it is quite explicit on what they made the judgement on. Swami.XYZ believing something about his or her god is as faith based as mulla.xyz believing allahu akbar and rev.xyz believing the domain of his or her lord. The court simply states that.