Muslims won't give up Babri Masjid : Razakars

[Yeti]

We rebuilt Somnath next will be Lord Rams mandir then we will set our target on Kashi after all the Hindu sites will be liberated

 

[KS]

If I as a private person found explicit documents(I mean legally admissible historically unchallengable documents) on my land(registered to my name) that say Krishna was born on my land, still I am not liable to give up my land to build a temple there. I may have to give it up for archaeological survey of India or such agencies but not for a temple. The only problem with Babri was that there were legal proceedings regarding it for over a century.

If you had obtained the land by legal means, then true your right over that is defendable. I say defendable because according to Property laws in India, no Indian has absolute control over his property. The Govt of the day can acquire land as it deems fit.

But if you had destroyed a temple there and then built your possession there, then sorry you are just an encroacher.

 

[Yeti]

When was he born?

Hard to say for sure the exact date but Guru Nanak quoted during his travels Ayodha is the Kingdom of Shree Rama let us go there for darshan

 

[KS]

When was he born?

Matters of faith need not be proved.

Does there exist any historical proof for angels flying, heavenly horse drawn chariots and such stuff ? Is there any proof for the existence of Allah ? No right. You believe that Allah is the almighty and pray to him. Similarly we believe Ram was born in Ayodhya. Take it or leave it.

 

[rubyjackass]

Blame that on the brutal killing of 307 Kar Sevaks by the Mulayam Singh Govt who had assembled in Ayodhya to perform Kar Seva considering that the court had then allowed opening the gates of the disputed site. That bloodbath solidified the Kar Sevaks into a vengeful mob and rest happened. See history can be interpreted in any way.

Some headlines from regional newpapers from that fateful period,

“Kartik ke snan parv per khoon se nahai Ayodhya, Jalianwala kaand beuna pada”

“Yadi Balidaan nahi hue tho kahaan gaye yeh 307 Kar Sevak?”

And what I said is a fact, the law recognizing the status quo does structures does not include Ayodhya.

And even if its contempt of court, you may punish the ones responsible for it. But the mandir is going nowhere.

You said this:

technically the demolition itself was not in contravention to any law

I took the air off it.

Glad to see that you came down your high horse in the last line.

 

[KingMamba]

Hard to say for sure the exact date but Guru Nanak quoted during his travels Ayodha is the Kingdom of Shree Rama let us go there for darshan

Wasn't that Nanak fellow a Sikh??

 

[Yeti]

Guru Nanak visited Ayodhya and said to his Muslim disciple Mardana: 'Mardania! eh Ajudhia nagari Sri Ramachandraji Ji ki hai. So, chal, iska darsan kari'e. Translation: 'Mardana! this Ayodhya city belongs to Sri Ramachandra Ji. So let us go for his darshan [visit with God].

Wasn't that Nanak fellow a Sikh??

Guru Nanak is the founder of Sikhism yes

 

[KingMamba]

Matters of faith need not be proved.

Does there exist any historical proof for angels flying, heavenly horse drawn chariots and such stuff ? Is there any proof for the existence of Allah ? No right. You believe that Allah is the almighty. And we believe Ram was born in Ayodhya.

Can you answer my question on post 51?

 

[Areesh]

Babri was disputed there is also Kashi mosque that sits on the bank of the river Ganges apart from this we have no other disputes.

Well there are disputes on several other Mosques too. Hindus here on this forum have said several time that dozens of Mosques are built by razing temples.

A few weeks one Indian member was saying that even famous Charminar of Hyderabad was built after destroying a Hindu temple. So there won't be any stopping.

 

[KS]

If Muslims do so now out of the goodness of their hearts will the hatred be removed or is it too far gone??

Your answer is in my post 50. Read it.

You said this:
I took the air off it.

Glad to see that you came down your high horse in the last line.

The demolition itself was not illegal but the person doing it did in an illegal method. Think about it.

 

[Areesh]

Matters of faith need not be proved.

Does there exist any historical proof for angels flying, heavenly horse drawn chariots and such stuff ? Is there any proof for the existence of Allah ? No right. You believe that Allah is the almighty and pray to him. Similarly we believe Ram was born in Ayodhya. Take it or leave it.

Well we don't say Allah was born. Allah is infinity. It always existed. It will always exist. If someone was born then his "birth" should be proved.

 

[rubyjackass]

If you had obtained the land by legal means, then true your right over that is defendable. I say defendable because according to Property laws in India, no Indian has absolute control over his property. The Govt of the day can acquire land as it deems fit.

But if you had destroyed a temple there and then built your possession there, then sorry you are just an encroacher.

Using your arrow of legality back, where is the proof that Babar destroyed the temple? May be he built a mosque over the temple ruins without knowing there was a temple beneath it. May be he sought the permission of the Hindus to build a mosque there.

These may sound like gimmickry of words but then that is necessary to counter gimmickry of history.

The Govt of the day can acquire land as it deems fit.

This comes with a lots of ifs and buts. And destroying one religious place for building another, that too by the government means is impossible or if at all possible will take a very distorted interpretation of the constitution to allow such a thing.

 

[KS]

Well we don't say Allah was born. Allah is infinity. It always existed. It will always exist. If someone was born then his "birth" should be proved.

What is the proof he exists ? I say he doesnt even exist is a piece of imagination of Muslims. How can you disprove it ?

 

[rubyjackass]

The demolition itself was not illegal but the person doing it did in an illegal method. Think about it.

The demolition was illegal period. It is sad that I have to ask you to think about this simple fact.

 

[Yeti]

Well there are disputes on several other Mosques too. Hindus here on this forum have said several time that dozens of Mosques are built by razing temples.

A few weeks one Indian member was saying that even famous Charminar of Hyderabad was built after destroying a Hindu temple. So there won't be any stopping.

Not sure about the Charimar there is a Hindu temple next to it but we have no other disputes apart from Ayodhya and Kashi Mosque