Point Of View with ArzooKazmi : An Indian Muslim's stance on Ayodhya

[Suriya]

 

[SuvarnaTeja]

Demolition of Ram temple to build a Mosque in its place was a grave act committed by Babar against the Hindus.

But undoing that act to rebuild the temple does not serve any purpose.

Hindus should forgive but not forget.

The mosque should have been left as-is as a reminder and to demonstrate the atrocities committed by the erst while Islamic rulers on Hindus for generations to come.

 

[letsrock]

India - the country that aspires to middle ages where it can take revenge against percieved historical aggressions - but is stuck in modern era causing untold grief and harm to millions of people under its brutish rule.

 

[The Eagle]

No matter how much RSS Brigade explains, Modi has place a brick of hate within India and it will go for long in history. By the way, there were no traces in foundation of Masjid over Mandir except of RSS/ShevSena claims. This brick will be remembered as a "Brick of Hate in the name and foundation of a Mandir".

 

[SuvarnaTeja]

India - the country that aspires to middle ages where it can take revenge against percieved historical aggressions - but is stuck in modern era causing untold grief and harm to millions of people under its brutish rule.

Not perceived but factual atrocities committed by erst while Muslim rulers on Hindus.

Having said that I am staunchly opposed to the idea of holding the current generation Muslims responsible for the atrocities committed by their fore fathers.

 

[xeuss]

Funny how Sanghis are desperately seeking legitimacy for their crimes from Muslims.

 

[Cookie Monster]

Demolition of Ram temple to build a Mosque in its place was a grave act committed by Babar against the Hindus.

But undoing that act to rebuild the temple does not serve any purpose.

Hindus should forgive but not forget.

The mosque should have been left as-is as a reminder and to demonstrate the atrocities committed by the erst while Islamic rulers on Hindus for generations to come.

If Babar did do that...then it was wrong. Nowhere in Islam does it allow for such a thing. IF he did it...it was purely out of "might is right"...

Taking that further...IF indeed a Ram Mandir was there and it is a holy place for Hindus...then it's not a big deal to remove the masjid and build it elsewhere. The core issue is that it wasn't done lawfully(initially). The demolishing of Babri Masjid by the mob taking the law into their own hands and killings...that is again "might is right"...
...the only difference is that with Babar it was a monarchy...and so that was expected. In this case it's supposed to be a secular democracy...so it contradicts that whole concept. It would be better to just do away with the whole secular democracy entirely if such acts are to be allowed...or if the concept of secular democracy is important then enforce it as such with full force.

 

[xeuss]

Not perceived but factual atrocities committed by erst while Muslim rulers on Hindus.

Having said that I am staunchly opposed to the idea of holding the current generation Muslims responsible for the atrocities committed by their fore fathers.

Forefathers?

The only link between Babur and myself is that we share a same religion. Since when did Babur or any of the other Muslim rulers become the forefathers of 200 million Muslims of India.

 

[N.Siddiqui]

Forefathers?

The only link between Babur and myself is that we share a same religion. Since when did Babur or any of the other Muslim rulers become the forefathers of 200 million Muslims of India.

What is the name of Ram this Ram mandir is all about...?

 

[Suriya]

Funny how Sanghis are desperately seeking legitimacy for their crimes from Muslims.

You mean to call Arzoo kazmi or Rizwan Ahamd as Sanghis? Ok, fine.




Hey btw this is for @Joe Shearer @jamahir, Enjoy.
Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Pujan: The Liberal Meltdown

https://twitter.com/x/status/1289823798728863745

 

[letsrock]

Not perceived but factual atrocities committed by erst while Muslim rulers on Hindus.

Having said that I am staunchly opposed to the idea of holding the current generation Muslims responsible for the atrocities committed by their fore fathers.

"Hindus" really ? if babar detroyed temple officiated only by brahmins from cowbelt - how is it a problem for a dalit in tamil nadu. A country whose judiciary cannot prosecute vast majority of crimes in modern era is prosecuting something happened centuries ago when its judicial system did not even exist and making it a problem of "hindus" while ignoring their real problems of dignity, occupation etc.

 

[Suriya]

No matter how much RSS Brigade explains, Modi has place a brick of hate within India and it will go for long in history. By the way, there were no traces in foundation of Masjid over Mandir except of RSS/ShevSena claims. This brick will be remembered as a "Brick of Hate in the name and foundation of a Mandir".

Supreme Court judgement on ayodhya.

• 
  
  
  • The Court observed that archaeological evidence from the Archaeological Survey of India shows that the Babri Masjid was constructed on a "structure", whose architecture was distinctly indigenous and non-Islamic.
  • The ruins of an ancient religious structure under an existing building do not always indicate that it was demolished by unfriendly powers, the Supreme Court held in its 1,045-page judgment in the Ayodhya case.
  • The court observed that all four of the Janamsakhis (biographies of the first Sikh guru, Guru Nanak) state unambiguously and in detail that Guru Nanak made pilgrimage to Ayodhya and offered prayers in the Ram temple in 1510–11 AD. The court also mentioned that a group of Nihang Sikhs performed puja in the "mosque" in 1857.[36]
  • The Court said that Muslim parties, including the Sunni Waqf Board, failed to establish exclusive possession of disputed land. It said that the Hindu parties furnished better evidence to prove that Hindus had worshipped continuously inside the mosque, believing it to be the birthplace of the Hindu deity Rama. The Court cited that iron railings set up in 1856–57 separated the inner courtyard of the mosque from the outer courtyard, and that Hindus were in exclusive possession of the outer courtyard. It said that even before this, Hindus had access to the inner courtyard of the mosque.

 

[Suriya]

If Babar did do that...then it was wrong. Nowhere in Islam does it allow for such a thing. IF he did it...it was purely out of "might is right"...

...the only difference is that with Babar it was a monarchy...and so that was expected. In this case it's supposed to be a secular democracy...so it contradicts that whole concept. It would be better to just do away with the whole secular democracy entirely if such acts are to be allowed...or if the concept of secular democracy is important then enforce it as such with full force.

The Supre Court ruled that the Demolition of the Babri Masjid and the 1949 desecration of the Babri Masjid was in violation of law.

A separate criminal case is going on the destruction of Babri mosque.

 

[letsrock]

The Supre Court ruled that the Demolition of the Babri Masjid and the 1949 desecration of the Babri Masjid was in violation of law.

A separate criminal case is going on the destruction of Babri mosque.

Yea the case is going on since 1993 - 17 years now. Any sane nation will first establish tat guilt before piling on it by making a mega temple. But then it is india.

 

[Goenitz]

Supreme Court judgement on ayodhya.

• 
  
  
  • The Court observed that archaeological evidence from the Archaeological Survey of India shows that the Babri Masjid was constructed on a "structure", whose architecture was distinctly indigenous and non-Islamic.
  • The ruins of an ancient religious structure under an existing building do not always indicate that it was demolished by unfriendly powers, the Supreme Court held in its 1,045-page judgment in the Ayodhya case.
  • The court observed that all four of the Janamsakhis (biographies of the first Sikh guru, Guru Nanak) state unambiguously and in detail that Guru Nanak made pilgrimage to Ayodhya and offered prayers in the Ram temple in 1510–11 AD. The court also mentioned that a group of Nihang Sikhs performed puja in the "mosque" in 1857.[36]
  • The Court said that Muslim parties, including the Sunni Waqf Board, failed to establish exclusive possession of disputed land. It said that the Hindu parties furnished better evidence to prove that Hindus had worshipped continuously inside the mosque, believing it to be the birthplace of the Hindu deity Rama. The Court cited that iron railings set up in 1856–57 separated the inner courtyard of the mosque from the outer courtyard, and that Hindus were in exclusive possession of the outer courtyard. It said that even before this, Hindus had access to the inner courtyard of the mosque.

where does it say, it was built on any mandir? @The Eagle