What's new

Babri Mosque verdict and it's repurcussions

How real was Abraham from whom all the Abrahamic religions have been derived from?

You are welcomed to disapprove all Abrahamic religions as wrong which btw are followed by people of more than one faith.

But here the onus is on Indian Hindus and here the reference to mythological ram and his birth is very much related to this entire story of Babri Mosque and ram mandir.

Indian Hindus claim that ram was born here which BTW had been proven wrong my your own people.
 
i did prefer to build a memorial over there to remind us the number of people died cos of this issue
 
You are welcomed to disapprove all Abrahamic religions as wrong which btw are followed by people of more than one faith.

But here the onus is on Indian Hindus and here the reference to mythological ram and his birth is very much related to this entire story of Babri Mosque and ram mandir.

Indian Hindus claim that ram was born here which BTW had been proven wrong my your own people.

The verdict is not about Ram being a mythological character but about existence of a Ram temple at the disputed site

Ram being the prince of Ayodhya and 7th incarnation of Lord Vishnu is a matter of faith for Hindus and it doesn't require any scientific proof for Hindus to believe in the same, just like it doesn't require any scientific proof for Christians and Muslims to believe in the concept of Prophets and re-birth of Jesus etc
 
You are welcomed to disapprove all Abrahamic religions as wrong which btw are followed by people of more than one faith.

But here the onus is on Indian Hindus and here the reference to mythological ram and his birth is very much related to this entire story of Babri Mosque and ram mandir.

Indian Hindus claim that ram was born here which BTW had been proven wrong my your own people.

Whether Ram existed or not, whether he was born on that site or not is not the dispute at all. Its a matter of belief and not under the remit of any court.

The dispute is whether there was a temple there before a mosque was built on the site, and that CAN BE proven or rejected subject to all the legal mumbo jumbo attached to civil suits.

Then why even touch Ram's existence when you yourself walk on thin ice when its not even the matter of dispute???????? General potshots out of a sense of religious superiority?
 
The verdict is not about Ram being a mythological character but about existence of a Ram temple at the disputed site

The question here is of claiming Mosque land by Hindus on the pretext that it was birth place of ram and that there was a temple on the basis of the same.


Ram being the prince of Ayodhya and 7th incarnation of Lord Vishnu is a matter of faith for Hindus and it doesn't require any scientific proof for Hindus to believe in the same, just like it doesn't require any scientific proof for Christians and Muslims to believe in the concept of Prophets and re-birth of Jesus etc

NO one is interested in scientific proof about thousands of Hindu gods either.
 
The question here is of claiming Mosque land by Hindus on the pretext that it was birth place of ram and that there was a temple on the basis of the same.

More bull. The claim is of a temple there, the importance of the temple for believers may be due to their belief that Ram was born on the site.

However, the claim of the temple - the legal and moral claim - is not diluted or enhanced by the belief regarding the importance of the temple and hence irrelevant to the dispute. Otherwise you will have to justify every religious place based on proof of the respective beliefs, an exercise in futility when it falls under beliefs.
 
Last edited:
Develop something which people can share irrespective of religion. Few lines from famous poetry below makes more sense to me, rather than religious fanatism.

madira meiN jaane ko ghar se chaltaa hai peenewaala
kis path se jaaooN asmanjas meiN hai wo bhola bhaala
alag alag pathu batalaathi sab paR maiN ye bataata hooN
raah pakaD tu ek chalaa-chal paa jaayega madhushaala

Seeking wine, the drinker leaves home for the tavern.
Perplexed, he asks, "Which path will take me there?"
People show him different ways, but this is what I have to say,
"Pick a path and keep walking. You will find the tavern."

dharm-grandh sab jala chuki hai jiske antar kee jwaala
mandir masjid girje sab ko toD chuka jo matwaala
panDit momin paadriyoN ke fandoN ko jo kaat chuka
kar sakti hai aaj usee ka swaagat meri madhushaala

He who has burnt all scriptures with his inner fire,
Has broken temples, mosques and churches with carefree abandon,
And has cut the nooses of pandits, mullahs and priests ---
Only he is welcome in my tavern.

mere aDharoN par ho na antiM wastu na tulsi-jal pyaala
mere JiWha par ho antiM wastu na ganga-jal haala
mere shaV ke peeche chalne-waaloN yaad ise rakhna
ram-naam hai satya na kehna kehna sachchi madhushaala

Touch not my lips with tulasi, but with the goblet, when I die.
Touch not my tongue with the Ganga's waters, but with wine, when I die.
When you bear my corpse, pallbearers, remember this!
Call not the name of God, but call to the truth that is the tavern.
 
Develop something which people can share irrespective of religion. Few lines from famous poetry below makes more sense to me, rather than religious fanatism.

madira meiN jaane ko ghar se chaltaa hai peenewaala
kis path se jaaooN asmanjas meiN hai wo bhola bhaala
alag alag pathu batalaathi sab paR maiN ye bataata hooN
raah pakaD tu ek chalaa-chal paa jaayega madhushaala

Seeking wine, the drinker leaves home for the tavern.
Perplexed, he asks, "Which path will take me there?"
People show him different ways, but this is what I have to say,
"Pick a path and keep walking. You will find the tavern."

dharm-grandh sab jala chuki hai jiske antar kee jwaala
mandir masjid girje sab ko toD chuka jo matwaala
panDit momin paadriyoN ke fandoN ko jo kaat chuka
kar sakti hai aaj usee ka swaagat meri madhushaala

He who has burnt all scriptures with his inner fire,
Has broken temples, mosques and churches with carefree abandon,
And has cut the nooses of pandits, mullahs and priests ---
Only he is welcome in my tavern.

mere aDharoN par ho na antiM wastu na tulsi-jal pyaala
mere JiWha par ho antiM wastu na ganga-jal haala
mere shaV ke peeche chalne-waaloN yaad ise rakhna
ram-naam hai satya na kehna kehna sachchi madhushaala

Touch not my lips with tulasi, but with the goblet, when I die.
Touch not my tongue with the Ganga's waters, but with wine, when I die.
When you bear my corpse, pallbearers, remember this!
Call not the name of God, but call to the truth that is the tavern.

Cheers to Madhushala :cheers:. I'll have another bud for that.
 
A mosque was destroyed in India, a mosque should be rebuilt. Status quo is totally unacceptable and is a akin to pardoning a heinous crime.

A mosque where there were no Islamic prayers for about 50 years and where Hindus are already worshiping ?

I think Islamic law specifies if you do not carry prayer for x number of days a structure is disqualified to call a mosque.
 
Well Hinduism is based on myths so it's futile to question the basis of those myths as the word faith directly contrasting to question.

Same can be said to other comparatively newer religion as well. With the course of time, history becomes legend, legends become myth and the story continues.
 
Develop something which people can share irrespective of religion.
Absolutely ; In fact, what can be developed is something that can stand as a symbol for humanity rather than religion. Because in this era, there are too many preachers for Religion, but none that can teach a Human to respect Humanity. This reminds me of a famous poem which i recently came across.
Ab to majhab bhi koi, aisa hi chalaya jaye
Ab to majhab bhi koi, aisa hi chalaya jaye
Ab to majhab bhi koi, aisa hi chalaya jaye
Jis mein insaan ko insaan banaya jaye

Aag behti hai yahan
Aag behti hai yahan Ganga mein, zum-zum mein bhi
Aag behti hai yahan Ganga mein, zum-zum mein bhi
Koi batlaye yahan kahan jaa ke nahaya jaye
Ab to majhab bhi koi, aisa hi chalaya jaye
Jis mein insaan ko insaan banaya jaye

Mera maksad hai ye mehfil rahey roshan yun hi
Mera maksad hai ye mehfil rahey roshan yun hi
Mera maksad hai ye mehfil rahey roshan yun hi
Khoon chahey mera deepon mein jalaya jaye

Ab to majhab bhi koi, aisa hi chalaya jaye
Mera maksad hai ye mehfil rahey roshan yun hi
Khoon chahey mera deepon mein jalaya jaye
Ab to majhab bhi koi, aisa hi chalaya jaye
Jis mein insaan ko insaan banaya jaye

Mere dukh dard ka
Mere dukh durd ka tujh par ho asar kuchh aisa
Mere dukh durd ka tujh par ho asar kuchh aisa
Mere dukh durd ka tujh par ho asar kuchh aisa
Main rahoon bhookha to tujh se bhi na khaya jaye

Ab to majhab bhi koi, aisa hi chalaya jaye

Jism doe ho ke bhi
Jism doe ho ke bhi dil ek hon apne aise
Jism doe ho ke bhi dil ek hon apne aise
Jism doe ho ke bhi dil ek hon apne aise
Mera ansoo teri palkon se uthaya jaye

Jism doe ho ke bhi dil ek hon apne aise
Mera ansoo teri palkon se uthaya jaye

Ab to majhab bhi koi, aisa hi chalaya jaye
Jis mein insaan ko insaan banaya jaye

Geet ghum-sum hai, ghazal chup hai rubaii hai dukhi
Geet ghum-sum hai, ghazal chup hai rubaii hai dukhi
Geet ghum-sum hai, ghazal chup hai rubaii hai dukhi
Aise maahole mein Neeraj ko bulaaya jaye

Ab to majhab bhi koi, aisa hi chalaya jaye.
 
You are welcomed to disapprove all Abrahamic religions as wrong which btw are followed by people of more than one faith.

But here the onus is on Indian Hindus and here the reference to mythological ram and his birth is very much related to this entire story of Babri Mosque and ram mandir.

Indian Hindus claim that ram was born here which BTW had been proven wrong my your own people.

Er...how can faith be proved or disproved in any way when faith by itself has no basis in fact?. If I tell you to prove to me the Prophet Mohammed talked to an angel,can you do it? If he did not then what is the mosque or any mosque in the world for?That is your logic.

All religions rely on faith..no religion can be proved.End of story.

As I said I long time back on this thread...one fictional story is as great as any other fictional story to me.
 
Differences in Indian Judiciary over Babri Mosque case :angle:

Ayodhya: Judge issues dissenting note, favours conciliation
IANS, Sep 20, 2010, 02.02pm IST


LUCKNOW: In a surprise move, one of the three judges of the Allahabad High Court's special Ayodhya bench on Monday issued a dissenting note on the order issued by his two co-judges and allowed postponement of the verdict on the long-pending Babri Masjid/Ramjanmabhoomi row.

Justice Dharma Veer Sharma also disagreed with his co-judges of the Lucknow bench of the court -- Justice S U Khan and Justice Sudhir Aggarwal -- on the question of exploring an out-of-court settlement on the issue and rooted for mediation or conciliation.

The bench is slated to give its verdict on the case on Friday.

Justice Sharma was not in agreement with the ruling of his colleagues to impose a fine of Rs.50,000 on the parties who sought a postponement.

Justice Sharma, who had refrained from signing the Sep 17 order issued by the special bench turning down the plea for postponement of the final verdict slated for Sep 24, said parties involved in the case must be given the freedom to try and work out an amicable settlement even until Sep 23.


The judge also pointedly accused his co-judges of not consulting him before taking the decision to reject the application seeking deferment of the verdict and making an effort towards an amicable out-of-court settlement.

"I am sorry to say that I was not consulted by my brother judges before they passed their order; otherwise I would have expressed my views then itself," Sharma has stated in his order.

"In its order dated July 27, the special bench had unanimously given top priority to efforts for trying to resolve the issue through mediation or conciliation even until a day before the proposed pronouncement of the final verdict on Sep 24."

Justice Sharma has also taken strong exception to certain remarks by his co-judges in their order dated Sep 17 about "mischievous intentions" behind the plea for postponement and an out-of-court settlement.

"I do not see any mischievous intention behind the move," he pointed out while stressing that the fine of Rs.50,000 slapped on the applicant by the bench was also not in consonance with law.



Read more: Ayodhya: Judge issues dissenting note, favours conciliation - The Times of India Ayodhya: Judge issues dissenting note, favours conciliation - The Times of India
 
The question here is of claiming Mosque land by Hindus on the pretext that it was birth place of ram and that there was a temple on the basis of the same.

You still don't get it, do you? Hindu organizations are not claiming the land on the pretext that it was birth place of Ram, they are claiming the land as they believe there was a Temple which was destroyed to build the mosque which was again destroyed to build the Temple

NO one is interested in scientific proof about thousands of Hindu gods either.

Thank God cause if you start asking for scientific proof for religions, all religions including yours will be :partay:
 

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom