Ayodhya: Muslim Argument Examined Arun Shourie
Posted by jagoindia on October 2, 2010
Ayodhya: Muslim Argument Examined Arun Shourie
Posted by jagoindia on October 1, 2010
The following section is taken from the chapter Hindustan ki Masjidein (The mosques of India) of the above mentioned book. Here we can see a brief description of few important mosques in India and how each one of them was built upon plundered Hindu temples.
Qawwat al-Islam Mosque at Delhi: “According to my findings the first mosque of Delhi is Qubbat al-Islam or Quwwat al_Islam which, Qutubud-Din Aibak constructed in H. 587 after demolishing the hindu temple built by Prithvi Raj and leaving certain parts of the temple outside the mosque proper; and when he returned from Ghazni in H. 592 he started building, under orders from Shihabud -Din Ghori, a huge mosque of inimitable red stones, and certain parts of the temple were included in the mosque…”
The Mosque at Jaunpur: “This was built by Sultan Ibrahim Sharqi with chiselled stones. Originally it was a Hindu temple after demolishing which he constructed the mosque. It is known as the Atala Masjid..”
The Mosque at Qanauj: “It is well known that this mosque was built on the foundations of some Hindu temple that stood here. The mosque was built by Ibrahim Sharqi in H. 809 as is recorded in Gharbat Nigar”
Posted by jagoindia on September 30, 2010
Historical Basis Of Ramayana - Lokvani
Ayodhya Verdict: Read the full judgment Link
High Court of Allahabad: Ram Janmabhoomi Babri Masjid Judgement Link
Umesh Raghuvanshi & Ajaay Singh, Hindustan Times
Lucknow, September 30, 2010
A three-judge bench of the Allahabad High Court on Thursday ruled that the disputed land in Ayodhya where a makeshift temple was built after razing the Babri mosque in 1992 was Lord Ram’s birthplace. However, it ruled that the land be split among three contesting parties equally.
U Khan, Sudhir Agarwal and D V Sharma delivered a split verdict in 60-year old Ayodhya title suit filed by the Sunni Central Waqf Board. The majority of the bench ruled that the disputed land in Ayodhya was a joint property, held by all the three claimants namely Hindu Mahasabha, Nirmohi Akhara and Sunni Central Waqf Board.
The majority also ruled that the central dome of the disputed structure, where idols of Lord Ram are presently kept in the makeshift temple, be allotted to Hindus. Justice Khan ruled that the mosque was built by Babar, not by demolishing a temple, but on the ruins of a temple.
Justice Sharma categorically rejected the claim of Sunni Central Waqf Board and has ruled that the ‘disputed site is the birth place of Lord Rama’.
However, the entire bench was of the view that the central dome of the disputed structure goes to Hindu Mahasabha, where idols were installed in 1949 and again in 1992 after the demolition of the Babri Mosque. The sita rasoi and ram chabootara have been given to Nirmohi Akhara.
The judges said that none of the litigants would take any action on the land for the next three months.
“We are party disappointed. We will approach the Supreme Court,” Sunni Waqf Board lawyer Zafaryab Jillani told reporters.
Lawyers K N Bhat and Ravi Shankar Prasad, who represented two of the Hindu litigants, announced to reporters that the bench had decided that Lord Ram was born where the Babri mosque was built.
“All the three judges, including S U Khan, are unanimous in accepting that the idol of Ram cannot be removed from the place where it is installed right now,” said lawyer and BJP leader Ravi Shankar Prasad in Lucknow after the court verdict.
The bench invited suggestions from all the parties for demarcation of the land.
The bench delivered the verdict in court no 21, where entry of only 47 persons including the litigants and their counsels was allowed. The High Court had been totally fortified. Uttar Pradesh almost came to a virtual halt at 3.30 p.m., when the historical judgment was being delivered.
WHAT THE JUDGES SAID
Justice S U Khan
“Disputed structure was constructed as mosque by or under orders of Babar. It is not proved by direct evidence that premises in dispute including constructed portion belong to Babar or the person who constructed the mosque. No temple was demolished for constructing the mosque, but it was constructed on the ruins of the temple or some of its material was used in the construction of the mosque.”
Justice Sudhir Agarwal
” It is declared that the area covered by the central dome of the three domed structure, the disputed structure being the deity of Bhagwan Ram Janma Sthan and place of birth of Lord Rama as per faith and belief of the Hindus, belong to plaintiff- Bhagwan Sri Ram Virajman. and shall not be obstructed or interfered in any manner by the defendants, Rajendra Singh and others.”
Justice Dharam Veer Sharma
” The disputed site is the birth place of Lord Rama. Disputed building was constructed by Babar, the year is not certain, but it was built against the tenets of Islam. Thus it cannot have the character of a mosque. The disputed structure was constructed on the site of old structure after demolition of the same. The ASI has proved that the structure was a massive Hindu religious structure. The idols were placed in the middle dome of the disputed structure in the intervening night of 22/23 December 1949.”
Posted by jagoindia on September 30, 2010
History of Ayodhya Temple-Masjid Dispute
Thursday, September 23, 2010
The decades long Ayodhya dispute revolves around the claim over the land in Ayodhya, which is considered scared by Hindus as it is believed to be the birthplace of Lord Ram while Muslims seek to defend the Babri Masjid at the site.
Hindus believe that Ayodhya is the birthplace of Lord Ram, one of the avatars of Lord Vishnu. The land is, therefore, considered sacred and befitting the profile of a holy pilgrimage spot.
The communal tension over the land took root in the construction of the Babri Masji, by Muslim emperor Babur, who in 1527 defeated the Hindu King of Chittorgarh, Rana Sangram Singh at Fatehpur Sikri.
The king left his general, Mir Banki as the Viceroy of the region. Mir Banki, who enforced Mughal rule over the population, came to Ayodhya in 1528 and built the Mosque.
There are claims that when the Mosque built, the Ram temple at Ayodhya was either demolished or modified largely.
Over the years, Hindus have sought to reclaim the ‘Ram Janmabhoomi’ while Muslims have sought to defend the Babri Masjid.
Growth of dispute over the years
According to literature dating back to 1987, before the 1940s the mosque was called Masjid-i Janmasthan (‘mosque on birthplace’) by Indian Muslims
1947 – A Government order prohibited Muslims from being around the site (at least 200 yards). The main gate was locked. However, Hindu pilgrims allowed to enter through a side door.
1984 – The Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) started a campaign to reclaim the site for Hindus so that a temple dedicated to the infant Ram (Ramlala) could be erected.
1989 – Allahabad High Court passed an order that the main gates should be opened up and restored the site to Hindus for eternity.
But the communal discord re-erupted when the Hindus intented to make modifications of the Islamic style structure built by General Mir Banki.
When they inaugurated the proposed new grand Temple with Government permissions, unrest erupted across India as the Muslim community was against this.
This is when Government moved the court, turning the dispute sub-judice
1992 – The dispute took a rather ugly turn on Dec 6, 1992 when the Babri Masjid was demolished during a political rally. This led to riots in which over 2000 were killed.
Ten days after the Babri Masjid demolition, the Liberhan commission was set up to probe the circumstances that led to the demolition.
2003 – On the order of the High Court, the the Archaeological Survey of India carried out excavation at the disputed site of Rama Janmabhumi – Babri Masjid from 12 Mar, 2003 to 7 Aug, 2003. The study reportedly found evidences of an ancient temple.
A 574-page report with maps, drawings as well as opinions was presented before the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad high court in Aug 2003.
Based on the archaeological evidence the the ASI report noted that the remains had distinctive features found associated with the temples of north India and said that there was sufficient proof of existence of a massive and monumental structure having a minimum dimension of 50×30 metres in north-south and east-west directions respectively just below the disputed structure.
2005 – On July 5, 2005, five terrorists attacked the site of the makeshift Ramlalla temple, in Ayodhya.
All the five terrorists were killed in the ensuing gunfight with the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), guarding the area. The attack claimed life of one civilian, who died in a grenade blast that the terrorists triggered to breach a cordon wall.
2009 – In Nov 2009, some of the findings of the Liberhan commission was leaked to the media. These leaked reports indicted Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leaders like LK Advani and Murli Manohar Joshi.
2010 – On Sep 24, 2010, the Allahabad High Court was slated to give its verdict on the Ayodhya title suit on ownership of the disputed land. On the eve of the judgement, the Supreme Court deferred the verdict by a week on a deferment plea and scheduled hearing of the postponement petition on Tuesday, Sep 28.
Some important observations/ chronicles prior to Indian independence:
As early as 1767, Joseph Tieffenthaler, a Jesuit priest, recorded in his French works that were Hindus worshipping and celebrating Ramanavami at the site of the mosque. In 1788, he recorded that Emperor Aurangzeb demolished the fortress called Ramkot to establish a Mahometan temple.
Even till 19th century, there have been chronicles of Hindus worshipping Ram at the Ramkot hill.
P Carnegy wrote in ‘A Historical Sketch of Tehsil Fyzabad’, 1870, “It is said that up to that time (referring to the the Hindu-Muslim clashes in the 1850), the Hindus and Mohamedans alike used to worship in the mosque-temple.
“Since the British rule a railing has been put up to prevent dispute, within which, in the mosque the Mohamedans pray, while outside the fence the Hindus have raised a platform on which they make their offerings.”
While passing an order over the issue in March 1886, the Faizabad District Judge, Col F E A Chamier, observed:
“I visited the land in dispute yesterday in the presence of all parties. I found that the Masjid built by Emperor Babar stands on the border of Ayodhya, that is to say, to the west and south it is clear of habitations. It is most unfortunate that a Masjid should have been built on land specially held sacred by the Hindus, but as that event occurred 356 years ago, it is too late now to agree with the grievances.”
Posted by jagoindia on August 27, 2010
To support these charges, his detractors cite Rauf’s refusal to call Hamas a terrorist group and his equating of certain U.S. actions with Islamic terrorism. The Cordoba Initiative and its Park51 project aren’t about dialogue, critics say, but rather about proselytizing and spreading Islam.
What are some of his controversial quotes?
“We tend to forget, in the West, that the United States has more Muslim blood on its hands than al Qaida has on its hands of innocent non Muslims.” (Speech in Australia, 2005)
“I wouldn’t say that the United States deserved what happened [on 9/11], but United States policies were an accessory to the crime that happened… We have been accessory to a lot of innocent lives dying in the world. In fact, in the most direct sense, Osama bin Laden is made in the USA.” (CBS 60 Minutes, Sept. 30, 2001)
“The Islamic method of waging war is not to kill innocent civilians. But it was Christians in World War II who bombed civilians in Dresden and Hiroshima, neither of which were military targets.” (Quoted in Sydney Morning Herald, 2004)
Posted by jagoindia on August 7, 2010
‘Ground Zero’ Mosque is a mistake
By Star Parker on August 7th, 2010
Star ParkerThe “Ground Zero” Mosque project should not go forward and let’s hope that Imam Feisel Abdul Rauf that is behind this $100 million project gets this message and backs off.
But given what he is hearing from the liberals in New York, including the city’s Mayor, the congressman in whose district Ground Zero sits, and the New York Times, it’s hard to be optimistic that he will change his mind.
Opposition to the Mosque is being portrayed, as the New York Times editorial page put it, as abandoning “the principles of freedom and tolerance.” But the Times makes its own tenuous grasp of reality clear as it goes on in its editorial embracing the Mosque and Islamic Center to say that “The attacks of September 11 were not a religious event.”
We can only wonder what those at the Times think was motivating the young Muslims who, while embracing their Korans and chanting to Allah, committed suicide, taking 3000 innocent Americans to their deaths along with them.
The website for the project, the Cordoba Initiative, advertises itself as “Improving Muslim-West Relations”, and “steering the world back to the course of mutual recognition and respect and away from heightened tensions.”
But if Feisel Abdul Rauf is primarily motivated to “reduce heightened tensions,” why would he do something as obviously provocative as building a Mosque and Islamic Center a few feet away from 9/11 Ground Zero?
It’s fine and well that he wants to improve Muslim-West relations. But why must he choose the place where thousands of Americans were murdered by Muslim terrorists to do his outreach?
Critical to grasp here is the suggestion of the need for dialogue. That the existence of Islamic terrorism is the result of problems with we Americans as well as problems that may exist in Islam. And it all would be fixed if we understood each other better.
This is simply false.
Americans don’t need any lessons about freedom and tolerance.
Several million Muslim Americans live, prosper, and practice their religion freely and without interference in our country. According to a Google search, there are about 2000 Mosques in the United States.
We have one Muslim American member of the United States Congress, who took his oath of office with his hand on the Koran.
Probably every major American university has programs where students can learn about Islam to their heart’s content. Including universities, such as Columbia, that are in the heart of New York City.
In a Gallup poll earlier this year, only 9% of Americans said they feel a “great deal” of prejudice against Muslims. Given recent history, this is an astounding statement of the beauty of the character of the American people.
As we know, President Obama brought with him to the presidency a conviction that we Americans somehow bore some responsibility for the antipathy towards us in the Islamic world and that outreach would help.
But, of course, this is false. As Johns Hopkins University Middle East Scholar Fouad Ajami pointed out in a Wall Street Journal column, President Obama’s outreach program has accomplished only diminished respect for us in the Islamic world. Antipathy continues to run high and unchanged and it’s not because there something wrong with us. It’s because, as Ajami points out, it’s a convenient “scapegoat” for nations and rulers that refuse to address their own real problems.
Of the 17 nations that Freedom House rates the “worst of the worst” regarding their state of freedom, 6 are Islamic nations.
Feisel Abdul Rauf should spend his $100 million, wherever he is getting it from, to advance the cause of freedom in Islamic countries. That is where the problem is. It’s certainly not here.
The fact the he insists on provocatively erecting a Mosque at Ground Zero raises legitimate suspicion that he is more a symptom of rather than a solution to this problem.
Star Parker is president of the Coalition on Urban Renewal & Education and author of the new book White Ghetto: How Middle Class America Reflects Inner City Decay. Prior to her involvement in social activism, Star Parker was a single welfare mother in Los Angeles, California. After receiving Christ, Star returned to college, received a BS degree in marketing and launched an urban Christian magazine.
Posted by jagoindia on April 28, 2010
“The problem of namazis spilling over on to the roads is not limited to Madni Mosque. We face this problem all over Delhi.
Rahul Tripathi & Abhinav Garg, TNN, Apr 21, 2010
NEW DELHI: Residents of Aravali Apartment in Alaknanda in south Delhi and people offering namaz at a local mosque are locked in a dispute over the devout occupying road space and blocking traffic in the area. The residents had filed a contempt petition against Delhi Police after the Delhi high court passed an order in January last year asking the cops to ensure that the prayers were offered within the walls of the mosque.
However, on Tuesday the HC dismissed the contempt petition after getting an assurance from the police that the area beyond the mosque boundary will be kept free of the namazis. The Madni mosque is located at Gate no. 10 of Aravali Apartment and more than 600 people offer prayers every Friday, forcing closure of the road. Recently, more than 300 cops were deployed to prevent the namazis from coming to the road but they have pleaded that it’s not possible for them to make this arrangement every Friday.
“The problem of namazis spilling over on to the roads is not limited to Madni Mosque. We face this problem all over Delhi. The mosques do not have the capacity to accommodate so many people due to which they are forced to offer prayers on the road. We have to close down one carriageway near Mata Anandmai Marg every Friday. A lot of our manpower is being wasted on these arrangements,” said a senior police officer.
He claimed they have been making efforts to comply with the high court order. “Between February and March 2010, we have detained 113 people for encroaching on the road while offering prayers. They were booked under section 65 of Delhi Police Act,” the officer added.
The cops had also called a meeting with 23 representatives of the Muslim community after which notices were put up around the mosque about the high court order. Meanwhile, representatives of the mosque too had filed a contempt petition against Delhi Police and the residents for not allowing them to offer prayers. A complaint has also been sent to the ministry of home affairs. Speaking to TOI, the Imam of the mosque, Mufti Nasimuddin Qasmi, said, “We have been forced to go on to the road to offer prayers. The place where we used to offer prayers has been taken up by the residents for parking. It is the courtyard of the mosque and namazis have the right to offer prayers there. We have been cooperating with Delhi Police.”
RWA vice-president R G Gupta said, “When the allotments of the flats were made, the mosque did not exist. It came up during the construction of the apartments and has been made in connivance with the contractor.” After receiving an assurance from the police, Justice G S Sistani made it clear in his order on Tuesday that they would be bound in future by the assurance given in court that the HC’s orders will be complied with.
Posted by jagoindia on August 30, 2009
“Before dispersing, several protesters spat and stomped on the cow head. The cow is considered sacred among Hindus.”
Some 50 residents enraged with the proposed relocation of a Hindu temple to their area staged a noisy protest with a severed cow’s head this afternoon.
The residents – from Section 23 in Shah Alam – who gathered after the Friday prayers, placed the head outside the gates of the state secretariat building for a short period before removing it.
Before dispersing, several protesters spat and stomped on the cow head. The cow is considered sacred among Hindus. malaysiakini.com
For video, click here: Residents march with cow’s head
For photos, click here Protesters threaten bloodshed over Hindu temple
Cow killed in Malaysian temple row
Venkatesan Vembu / DNA August 28, 2009
Hong Kong: Muslim fanatics in Malaysia on Friday severed a cow’s head and warned of “bloodshed” unless a provincial government halted construction of a relocated Hindu temple that the protesters said “disturbed” their own praying.
The group of about 50 protesters left the cow’s head outside the entrance of the Selangor State Secretariat as a warning to local leaders, eyewitnesses told DNA.
The group gathered after Friday prayers at the Shah Alam state mosque in Selangor, near Kuala Lumpur, and marched to the secretariat. Ibrahim Haji Sabri, deputy chairman of the local resident’s committee that is opposed to the Maha Mariamman temple, warned of “bloodshed and racial tension” if local leaders did not halt the temple construction.
Sabri demanded that the state government relocate the temple to a neighbouring district as “as originally scheduled”. In particular, he branded Selangor minister Menteri Besar Tan Sri Abdul Khalid Ibrahim a “traitor to the Malay race and to Islam”. Ibrahim had visited the temple site on Thursday, one of the eyewitnesses told DNA.
The controversy began with the proposed relocation of a 150-year-old Mariamman temple in a plantation area in Section 19 neighbourhood; since that area is being redeveloped as a residential area, authorities proposed that it be relocated to Section 22, but since it was an industrial area, it was later assigned to Section 23.
The protest could whip up racial and religious tension, and PM Najib Razak has ordered the police to take action against the protesters. Malaysian Indian Congress president S Samy Vellu, who represents Indian interests in the ruling coalition at the centre, condemned the beheading of the cow.
Malaysian Muslim ‘cow head’ demo criticised
(AFP) – 5 hours ago
KUALA LUMPUR — Malaysian lawmakers have condemned a group of Muslim protesters who trampled on a severed cow’s head in protest at the building of a Hindu temple, and remained defiant on Sunday over the act.
In the latest religious dispute to erupt in multi-cultural Malaysia, local media said 50 Muslims on Friday took the head of the cow — a sacred animal for Hindus — to the central Selangor state government office and stamped on it.
The protest was against the relocation of a Hindu temple to a Muslim-majority neighbourhood in the state. News websites Malaysiakini and The Malaysian Insider published pictures of the bloodied cow head.
Around 60 percent of Malaysia’s 27 million people are Muslim Malays, but the country is also home to large Chinese and Indian minorities, variously practising Buddhism, Christianity and Hinduism, among others.
Lawmaker Khairy Jamaluddin, leader of the youth wing of the ruling United Malays National Organisation (UMNO), criticised the protest as “emotional and insulting”.
“(This) act did not consider the sensitivity and respect for other religions which is needed to maintain the country’s harmony,” he wrote on his blog.
“The act definitely will anger the Hindus and Malaysians,” Khairy added.
Veteran opposition legislator Lim Kit Siang said the act was “deplorable”.
“In a multi-religious society, the act of sacrilege to one religion must be regarded as an act of sacrilege to all other religions and the entire nation,” Lim said.
State police chief Khalid Abu Bakar said the protesters will be investigated for sedition, according to English daily Sunday Star, but the demonstration organiser told AFP they would not apologise and rejected responsibility for the incident.
“There is no point in us apologising as it was not our work. The cow head was brought in by an individual and we don’t know that person,” Mahyuddin Manaf, who led the group of local residents, said.
“Maybe that was just a way of expressing the anger. We just want the Hindu temple to be relocated to another area as this is a Muslim-majority area,” he told AFP.
Issues related to religion, language and race are sensitive matters in multi-racial Malaysia, which witnessed deadly riots in 1969.
A comprehensive report is available in this blog
Posted by jagoindia on July 4, 2009
“The clashes are reportedly over attempts to build a mosque on a disputed piece of land. In fact, two years ago a group had tried to build a mosque on this site but the Huliyamma temple trust had questioned it in court.
On Wednesday night, the mosque officials tried to resume construction but the carcass of a pig was found in the area inciting fresh violence. “
Clashes in Mysore over religious site, three dead
Jul 02, 2009
Mysore: Communal clashes have been reported to have occurred in Mysore and three people are believed to have died.
One of the dead reportedly includes a 15-year-old who was shot at. Curfew has been imposed in the Udayagiri and Mandi areas and the situation in surrounding areas too is said to be tense.
A large police presence is reported at the site of the incidence. Police fired in the air and lobbed tear gas shells to disperse crowds.
Police claim the situation is under control but Mahadevapura main road continues to be blocked by protestors.
The clashes are reportedly over attempts to build a mosque on a disputed piece of land. In fact, two years ago a group had tried to build a mosque on this site but the Huliyamma temple trust had questioned it in court.
On Wednesday night, the mosque officials tried to resume construction but the carcass of a pig was found in the area inciting fresh violence.
CNN-IBN contacted the Karnataka Chief Minister’s office. In a statement, the CM’s office said, “It was unexpected, it is now under control. The clashes started at 8.30 am today. School and Colleges have been closed in parts of Mysore. Media is prevented from entering troubled areas. Section 144 has been imposed.”
Posted by jagoindia on October 5, 2008
This is a real kicker “According to the resolution taken at the meeting, the demand for the mosque is not only in the interest of Muslim community alone but also to maintain secularism in the state and for peaceful coexistence between different communities. …..
Excuse me?? Promoting Islam so as to maintain secularism?!! What a cruel joke. That is what is called Muslim doublespeak. Fooling and Abusing secular India to promote their extreme Islamic agenda.
Cultural body protests Muslim demand for mosque inside Kangla
The Imphal Free Press
IMPHAL, Sep 28: A demand for the building of a mosque inside the historic Kangla fort by Muslim (Meetei Pangal) based civil organizations received sharp criticism from Cultural Preservation Centre, Imphal on Sunday.
Mention may be made that a joint meeting of various civil society bodies of minority Muslims (Meitei Pangal) in Thoubal district last Friday (September 16) resolved to press the state government for building of a mosque inside the historic Kangla fort and another at Sajiwa jail. They also planned to submit a memorandum to the state chief minister, O Ibobi Singh regarding their demand.
According to the resolution taken at the meeting, the demand for the mosque is not only in the interest of Muslim community alone but also to maintain secularism in the state and for peaceful coexistence between different communities. It will also make Meitei Pangals have a sense of belonging to the historic Kangla fort and Sajiwa jail where many Muslim inmates are facing problems due to the lack of a place of worship, they said.
Sharply reacting to the demand by the Muslim community, the Cultural Preservation Centre, Manipur, an apex body of various culture based organizations in a statement today said that it was unfortunate to put up such a demand for a mosque in such a sacred place of the Meetei community where the temple of Pakhangba, the Supreme God of the Meetei religion is located since time immemorial.
In a similar way, if some sections of the people demand making of temples at places housing other religious sites like Mecca or Jerusalem, would it be agreeable, it asked.
The demand may snowball from a small matter to a big issue like that of Babri Masjid which is yet to be solved, it said. The demand may be a threat to the long time peaceful co-existence and harmony among the different communities settling in the state, it added.
The body also recounted that knowing the fact that Kangla fort is a sacred place for the Meeteis, India’s Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh on November 20, 2004 handed the fort to the state government bringing to an end its occupation by the armed forces since before India got independence. It further said that on October 16, 1949, the then Governor General Raja Goplacharya ordered protection of Kangla as a Meetei’s holy place under the Monument Act while reiterating that any other religion should not try to disturb the historic site of the fort.