Truckloads Of Stones In Ayodhya Put Focus Back On Ram Temple

[jetray]

You guys urself were invaded and converted. Now since I converted "Hey I ruled u for 1000 years" What a false sense of superiorty

They defeated soviet union but find it hard to defeat US of A instead end up giving bases to them.
They ruled over us for 1000 of 1000 of 1000...years but cant take back kashmir. yeah we all know this.

 

[Rajaraja Chola]

I totally agree with the bold part. However I don't think that the Masjid should've been demolished by angry mobs taking the law into their own hands. This negotiation to relocate the Masjid and a court case showing evidence should have been the approach from the start. It would've totally avoided all the communal hostilities and tensions.

It was demolished even before I was born dude. As I said, we can only do with current situation in hand. Past is past. Future should be done in a way it buys everlasting peace. If the Ram temple is built, BJP loses one of its main election plank. It will need a new one again. It might end up good politics afterall. Final judgement is awaited though.

They defeated soviet union but find it hard to defeat US of A instead end up giving bases to them.
They ruled over us for 1000 of 1000 of 1000...years but cant take back kashmir. yeah we all know this.

That region of current Pakistan did not produce a single ruler of substance and what not they wont claim. Just enjoy a laugh buddy.

 

[Cookie Monster]

And look at what these 2 "fore-fathers" have given us?
We Hindus are living in our nation like second class citizens, trying to defend our culture & religion. Being apologetic to being Hindu. Begging every one to give our holy places back.

no thanks. These 2 people are no fake fore-fathers.

You are only partially right in your assessment. What these two people did to India is unpardonable. I sincerely hope few decades from now some one would do an impartial analysis of our Freedom Struggle and write the correct history.

Gandhi did not want armed Freedom struggle, Yet, the same guy wanted Indian's to fight for British (our occupiers) in WW2. Can you even imagine something more twisted or ironic?!

I hear this a lot on this forum from Indians that Hindus r living as second class citizen...why is this? Based on the news I see about India it seems on the contrary.

If u r referring to Ram Mandir/Babri Masjid stuff...that happened centuries ago by a monarch and not under the current(Post Independence) India that swore to protect the rights of all. Under this current India, Muslims saw their Masjid being destroyed by angry mobs. The beef ban was imposed on Muslims. Muslims are the poorest among all Indians despite being the biggest minority. So I don't see how it is Hindus that r suffering as second class citizens.

As for Gandhi he was for India fighting for Britain in WW2 to make Britain listen and pay attention to India. He was against an armed freedom struggle...again so that Britain would listen. Not fighting for the British(as their colony) is revolt, which is just the same as an armed freedom struggle. He didn't want Indian ppl slaughtered by the imposing British army. Instead he wanted to bring them to the table and have a dialogue. Whether or not that was the right thing or the wrong thing, u should look at the man's intention. He never intended to backstab/destroy/betray Indians by doing these things.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

To be honest if you had asked me this question 2-3 years back I would have said I dont care. If the Masjid hadnt been demolished, then I would have never asked for a temple there in the same spot.

But it had been demolished, and ASI have submitted in SC, that an temple structure existed before the Masjid, and the current Masjid pillars have carvings and stones older than the Masjid itself. Moreover I sincerely believe that if Muslims can give up their claim, it can buy peace among Hindus and Muslims in North India. That's my original intention now. However it should not be forced. Rather negotiated to buy land and convince Muslims.
And SC judgement must be followed to spirit in either case.

India is the last haven of Hinduism man. Its one of the holiest spot and evidence have clinched Hindus arguments. How will someone feel if some other religious structure is built over a mosque?



I think India should negotiate with SE asian countries to take over Hindu religious structure for rituals and prayers. We have a lot and lot of Hindu temples lying unused which can be made glorious again.

Actually, there is a lot of unnecessary politics around these issues. Citizens themselves should ideally come together and start initiatives. I have a very low expectation from the Gormint. Regardless of the parties.

For both tourism and soft power - it is good. Japan does it to this day. It works very well for them. In the 21st century, I think more than military might - soft power projection like these count more.

Wait and watch.

Not sure man. I think the sooner the matter ends with a temple being built, the faster tempers (on both sides) will soften. This hanging in between is what gets on people's nerves.

If u r referring to Ram Mandir/Babri Masjid stuff...that happened centuries ago by a monarch and not under the current(Post Independence) India that swore to protect the rights of all. Under this current India, Muslims saw their Masjid being destroyed by angry mobs.

This is the problem. It is expected that Hindus will accept the action long back as a monarch's action and let a mosque stand on a temple. But it is not acceptable for Muslims to have this mosque (and two others) returned to the owners 500 years after all the invasions. You expect one side to compromise alone. That worked during the times Muslims ruled. It can't go on forever.

Muslims are the poorest among all Indians despite being the biggest minority.

Not due to the fault of Hindus. Parsis, Christians, Buddhists, Jains are all minorities and by far wealthier than Hindus. Claiming discrimination is an excuse. Besides, after Partition, (some of )* their own expectations (we still rule ) needs a realignment.

*Watch pre election speeches of Islamic parties in India to get the idea. I will not give YouTube links. Just know that they are there for the world to see. Sar e aam - In India itself.

He never intended to backstab/destroy/betray Indians by doing these things.

In hindsight we know many actions to be mistakes. But that's okay. His unrealistic idealism was always at odds with MA Jinnah (or Patel) though. We are paying the price to this day. Some passions will still be high, naturally.

 

[Cookie Monster]

Actually, there is a lot of unnecessary politics around these issues. Citizens themselves should ideally come together and start initiatives. I have a very low expectation from the Gormint. Regardless of the parties.

For both tourism and soft power - it is good. Japan does it to this day. It works very well for them. In the 21st century, I think more than military might - soft power projection like these count more.


Not sure man. I think the sooner the matter ends with a temple being built, the faster tempers (on both sides) will soften. This hanging in between is what gets on people's nerves.


This is the problem. It is expected that Hindus will accept the action long back as a monarch's action and let a mosque stand on a temple. But it is not acceptable for Muslims to have this mosque (and two others) returned to the owners 500 years after all the invasions. You expect one side to compromise alone. That worked during the times Muslims ruled. It can't go on forever.

I never said Hindus should accept what Babar did nor am I expecting a one sided compromise. All I'm saying is maybe not mimic the actions of a monarch and do the might is right thing while claiming to be a secular democracy. It gives ppl wrong expectations from their government.

Not due to the fault of Hindus. Parsis, Christians, Buddhists, Jains are all minorities and by far wealthier than Hindus. Claiming discrimination is an excuse. Besides, after Partition, (some of )* their own expectations (we still rule ) needs a realignment.

*Watch pre election speeches of Islamic parties in India to get the idea. I will not give YouTube links. Just know that they are there for the world to see. Sar e aam - In India itself.

Yes the Muslims not doing so hot financially in India isn't the fault of Hindus and others I agree...and I never said it was. I was just pointing out that in my opinion Hindus shouldn't think that they r victimized. Show me proof(a law passed/a court ruling/etc) where Hindus were victimized by the post Independence Indian government in order to please Muslims and give them an upper hand.

U can see examples on the contrary regarding the beef ban. State laws passed to please one segment of the population at the expense of others. Imagine if Muslims demanded that the Hindus must stop worshipping idols bcuz it's considered super bad in Islam?
And state laws were enacted as such. If Hindus felt sidelined/repressed then that argument would be legit.

Muslims weren't sacrificing cows to rub it in the face of Hindus. Sacrificing of animals(including cows) is a religious sacrament in Islam.
This is where the coexistence thing seems to be failing. It was envisioned to work out like it works here in the US(for the most part). U can freely carry out ur religious beliefs in the privacy of ur home or at a mosque/Mandir/temple.
A Muslim can slaughter a cow and a Hindu can worship idols and no one gets offended by the other. People mind their own business and that's that.

In hindsight we know many actions to be mistakes. But that's okay. His unrealistic idealism was always at odds with MA Jinnah (or Patel) though. We are paying the price to this day. Some passions will still be high, naturally.

Then it seems India/Indians should decide(the sooner the better) whether they are going to try and become what Gandhi/Nehru envisioned or become a Hindu state(which caters to Hindus only). So that it becomes clear to everyone how things r going to be.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

Honesty certificate of freedom fighters has been issued by the Delhi aaptards.

Pls tell me this is fake.

I never said Hindus should accept what Babar did nor am I expecting a one sided compromise. All I'm saying is don't mimic the actions of a monarch and do the might is right thing.

No. The equivalence you are trying to point out is false.

To mimic we need to destroy hundreds of mosques. That is not necessary. Kashi, Mathura and Ayodhya - these are our holy sites and we need them back. That is all.

A Muslim can slaughter a cow and a Hindu can worship idols and no one gets offended by the other. People mind their own business and that's that.

I will tweak this a bit. What you say is not terrible. But let me elaborate.

How about Hindus draw Prophet Muhammad and sell the paintings in the market and make him a hero or a villain in movies? Muslims may choose to ignore these and follow his teachings without being consumers of Prophet's merchandise.

What do you think about its feasibility?

become a Hindu state(which caters to Hindus only).

Nope. We should be a Dharmic state, or more broadly an Indic state.

 

[Cookie Monster]

Pls tell me this is fake.


No. The equivalence you are trying to point out is false.

To mimic we need to destroy hundreds of mosques. That is not necessary. Kashi, Mathura and Ayodhya - these are our holy sites and we need them back. That is all.

Go right ahead and take them back...but having angry mobs take law into their own hands and destroy them knowing that a Muslim minority can't fight back is no different than what Babar did when Muslims were in power.

None of those things affect me personally. I was just making an observation, seeing the recent trends of rising communal tensions. In the long term it seems u guys r heading right back to where this all started...the same argument about religious freedoms/rights...the same way both sides might be at each other's throats.

How about Hindus draw Prophet Muhammad and sell the paintings in the market and make him a hero or a villain in movies? Muslims may choose to ignore these and follow his teachings without being consumers of Prophet's merchandise.

What do you think about its feasibility

That's a false equivalency. Slaughter of cows(among other animals) on Eid-al-Adha is a religious sacrament that came about at the advent of Islam in the Arab peninsula(where there were no Hindus at the time). They didn't create it to offend u. Drawing pictures of the Prophet Muhammad(SAW) isn't something that's part of the Hindu religion. This would instead be a deliberate attempt at insulting another religion.

If u want to come up with an example of Hindus doing something that's not ok in Islam but has been part of Hinduism for centuries(not created with the specific purpose of offending Muslims) then I already gave u one...idolatry. It is called "shirk" and is pretty offending to the God of Jews/Christians/Muslims.

Anyways we r deviating from the point. The point is it's fine if u guys wanna pass pro Hinduism laws...just maybe it would be better if u guys declare urself a "Dharmic state" as u suggested. So that ppl will know what to expect. For example I can't go to Israel and demand to eat pork at a restaurant or go to KSA and demand that women must wear bikinis at the beach. It will make things a whole lot simpler for all Indians(including Muslims).

 

[kris]

And with statues of Kama Sutra's showing hindu women enjoying multiple partners and men enjoying themselves with animals. All of this exists in the Kama sutra statues in Hindu temples so nobody including the MODs can say that I am hurting somebody's religious feelings.

Oops, some one is hurt really bad.....

My family members countributed in babri and i think its now or never. BJP will never get this majority in future.

Mandir wahi banega.

Jai shree Ram


Religious and cultural Slave of other people cant hurt our feelings

Wrong, this is the beginning only.
BJP will become stronger bday by day. Remember it's the peoples or precisely Hindus choice to drive away anti Hindu forces.

is islam the dominant religion in india? What ideology stops india right now from again mounting same statues everywhere in their temples to presidential palaces? And also on their house facades? It will be fun to see hindu kids trying to emulate same kama sutra postures with their sisters and siblings at home, because kids ape everything they see.

Or you still see yourselves as slaves to muslims as 1000 years long effects are hard to erase off the memory

Sorry dude, ours is not an imbecile inbreeding society
It's left for our neighbor

4-13 year old kids will be visiting pronhub.?
Your inferiority complexes are dripping and you are nervous, read again where i said 'our slaves" , i said muslims' slaves. Deeply ingrained inferiority compelxes only do this much damage to comprehension.

Btw you ditched my question, which ideology has currently stopping india from errcting same statues? Which ideology is held you back?

Btw by all means mount those disgusting humans and animals and multiple partners mating statues , i could care less.

13, why not..

Please don't care....
You yourself have lot to bother

@Kuru @Kaushika @Rajaraja Chola I'm curious to know as why u guys r so hell bent on making the Ram Mandir in the exact same spot as the Babri Masjid.

To clarify, I'm not saying whether it's the right thing to do or the wrong thing to do. Personally I don't care.

U have the right to make a Ram Mandir anywhere u please but why must it be by hurting the sentiments of ur fellow countrymen(Indian Muslims)?

...and please don't bother citing that a Ram Mandir used to exist there before Babri Masjid. Bcuz this was during the time of a ruler(King/Monarch) and not a democracy. It was more of a might is right kinda time. If there was a Hindu monarch destroying a Masjid and erecting a Mandir then I wouldn't ask.

India claims to be a democracy and that's what the whole partition was about. The one nation vs two nation thing. Congress and its leaders were of the view that religion has no part in state matters and all the subjects will be free to practice their religion and their rights will be protected. The Muslims that stayed behind and sided with India were of that view that ur forefathers like Nehru held...so by destroying Babri Masjid and erecting a Mandir in its place...isn't that like saying "u were wrong Indian Muslims and so was Nehru and his folks...we r gonna do whatever we damn well please bcuz we r the majority"?

I'm hoping for a civil response...if u guys feel like u can't do that...just don't bother replying

Please let me answer..

Few good questions in a civilized way made me happy

1. The temple was destroyed during Muslim rule and not democracy - valid.
But going back to history this issue kept on burning even till British rule.
The current situation is extension of that.

2. You asked why at same spot- why not? It's actually a temple land. Just because we are democracy it won't legalize an occupation

3. Regarding respect to fellow Indians, it's said mosque is just a place of worship. Even in few countries (Saudi) state itself are destroyed historical monuments saying it's forbidden according to Islam to get attached to physical things. Correct me if I am wrong.
My question - why are Muslims hell bent in not allowing Hindus to construct a temple on same site?

It is true Muslims would want Mecca to be rebuilt if that ever happened. But there's a right way of doing things and a wrong way. The right way would have been to raise public awareness. Let the community there know of the significance of that spot and the meaning it holds...along with the evidence that there used to be a Mandir here. Work with the community(Hindus/Muslims/etc) and have them sign a petition to relocate the Masjid elsewhere.

Wrong approach was to force ur will on to ppl, tear down the Masjid and build a Mandir. How different is that from what Babar did?

Wow, wish Muslims in India listen to you.

Historical significance- check
Discussion with Muslim leaders- check
Alternate land for a mosque- ready
Only thing left is stupid political stunts from Muslims and congress(& co)

I agree with u...ideal solutions hardly ever work in real life...and this was kind of the reason I brought this whole thing up.

If u read through my posts in this thread u will see that the point I was trying to highlight is the point of view that Congress leaders held during the push for India's freedom(those who were against the partition). They thought that "Hindus/Muslims of India can just coexist like they have for centuries...religion plays no part in state matters...state will protect the rights of everyone".

Isn't that a bit too idealistic? Babri Masjid incident is proof that such idealism doesn't work. It is easy to rile up crowds against each other citing whatever differences(religion, race, color, etc) that shouldn't really matter.

Co-existence doesn't mean at expense of others.
Religion should not be a state issue, that's why Muslims still live here without being converted

 

[ranjeet]

Pls tell me this is fake.

No, it's true. She deleted her tweet but still maintaining this position.

 

[Sam.]

If anybody touches Mecca, including the biggest world powers, let alone destroy it just wait and see what happens and how quickly it happens. Muslims will not wait a thousand years and file a court case and then bring a truckload of stones. Every Muslim Men Women and Child will rise up and it will change the world forever. You guys are just too weak. All false bravado and talk, even that in anonymity of the internet.

Couldn't be agree more. Hindus are weak and they hide it with fasacde of being polite.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

Couldn't be agree more. Hindus are weak and they hide it with fasacde of being polite.

True. 'I am liberal/I am secular' is often an excuse for saying 'I am a wimp and I don't dare to touch you'.

 

[Sam.]

True. 'I am liberal/I am secular' is often an excuse for saying 'I am a wimp and I don't dare to touch you'.

Weak need to justify/hide their nature or other people won't consider them as cool/Liberal.

 

[Rajaraja Chola]

That's a false equivalency. Slaughter of cows(among other animals) on Eid-al-Adha is a religious sacrament that came about at the advent of Islam in the Arab peninsula(where there were no Hindus at the time). They didn't create it to offend u. Drawing pictures of the Prophet Muhammad(SAW) isn't something that's part of the Hindu religion. This would instead be a deliberate attempt at insulting another religion.

If u want to come up with an example of Hindus doing something that's not ok in Islam but has been part of Hinduism for centuries(not created with the specific purpose of offending Muslims) then I already gave u one...idolatry. It is called "shirk" and is pretty offending to the God of Jews/Christians/Muslims.

Anyways we r deviating from the point. The point is it's fine if u guys wanna pass pro Hinduism laws...just maybe it would be better if u guys declare urself a "Dharmic state" as u suggested. So that ppl will know what to expect. For example I can't go to Israel and demand to eat pork at a restaurant or go to KSA and demand that women must wear bikinis at the beach. It will make things a whole lot simpler for all Indians(including Muslims).

Please. There is nothing in Quran about sacrifice of "cows" to begin with. Sacrifice of animals in general except pigs. You see just like how the Islam evolved in Arabic peninsula we Hindus evolved for thousands of years before and after Islam. And we draw our gods, sculpt our gods even in compromising position in temples. We(yes we) used to be a open society accepting all. And suddenly you want cows to be killed, and then we want to exercise our free will in drawing anything we want and you have offence to it? Drawing PBUH is not offensive in hinduism anyway just like killing cow is not offensive in Islam.

And now you spread your religion in a new country where cow is respected and you want to impose your new culture imported from somewhere else? How fair it even is?

Muslims of the old in India never ate beef out of respect/ and Muslims of India themselves converted considered it taboo to eat it. With more exposure to Middle east, these guys are now eating it (With less no of Hindus too in states like Goa, NE and Kerala). Fine. Do it in states where they legally allow it. Some states allow slaughter of Oxens too. Some dont. But in all states buffallo meet is allowed. Law of the land is formidable. Just like any muslim is killed if he/she tries to convert in SA.

 

[Spring Onion]

all the powers to Hindu rashtra

 

[Cookie Monster]

Please. There is nothing in Quran about sacrifice of "cows" to begin with. Sacrifice of animals in general except pigs. You see just like how the Islam evolved in Arabic peninsula we Hindus evolved for thousands of years before and after Islam. And we draw our gods, sculpt our gods even in compromising position in temples. We(yes we) used to be a open society accepting all. And suddenly you want cows to be killed, and then we want to exercise our free will in drawing anything we want and you have offence to it? Drawing PBUH is not offensive in hinduism anyway just like killing cow is not offensive in Islam.

And now you spread your religion in a new country where cow is respected and you want to impose your new culture imported from somewhere else? How fair it even is?

Muslims of the old in India never ate beef out of respect/ and Muslims of India themselves converted considered it taboo to eat it. With more exposure to Middle east, these guys are now eating it (With less no of Hindus too in states like Goa, NE and Kerala). Fine. Do it in states where they legally allow it. Some states allow slaughter of Oxens too. Some dont. But in all states buffallo meet is allowed. Law of the land is formidable. Just like any muslim is killed if he/she tries to convert in SA.

U r letting ur personal feelings into this. I didn't mean to offend u or ur religion. It was just purely a discussion. I m not advocating for ONLY the sacrifice of cows. I'm just saying that his example isn't equivalent in all respects. Let me break it down further more objectively. Sacrificing Halal Animals(including cow) is a religious sacrament to commemorate Prophet Abraham's resolve where he was even willing to sacrifice his son in the way of God.

Halal animal sacrifice(including cows)
- A religious practice in Islam...not created to offend ppl of other religions

--> Interferes with Hinduism(Cow being considered holy)

Idolatory
- A Hindu practice that has existed for centuries...not created to offend Muslims.

--> Interferes with Islam(considered shirk...one of the worst sins)

Do u see the equivalency?

If ur government bans cow slaughter...shutting out one religion's practice to please the other than does that mean in a Muslim majority country like Pakistan we should ban Hindus from worshipping their gods bcuz it doesn't sit right with Muslims?

Now let's address the false equivalency I was talking about.

Drawing pictures of Prophet Muhammad(PBUH)
- Not part of Hinduism. If done then the sole purpose is to hurt/offend Muslims.

It would only apply correctly if for example animal sacrifice(including cows) wasn't an Islamic practice...and instead Indian Muslims just slaughtered cows to offend Hindus...then u can relate the two.

The point I'm trying to make is that it was ur forefathers that rallied behind Congress(pre-Independence)...ur ancestors who were all for a united India and that we shouldn't part ways and divide the country based on religion. They promised that religion has no part to play in the government. They disagreed with Jinnah and claimed that the religious freedom of Muslims will not be undermined in a Hindu majority India.

So now why is ur government trying to stop them from having their religious freedom(we have already established in the above argument that it's a pre-existing religious sacrament)? Shouldn't the current India follow through on all those promises made?

If not then perhaps it should announce to its subjects(Indian Muslims) that "Jinnah was right, Nehru/Gandhi were wrong...u made the wrong choice of trusting/siding with Congress and u don't belong here"

That way Muslims of India will know what to expect...and learn to live in a non secular Hindu India. Currently all their demands r based on their view of India as a secular state. It would solve a whole bunch of India's problems along religious lines if Indian Muslims know how the state is going to operate.

P.S. please keep it objective and civil if u choose to reply.