Plot to kill Ayodhya judges busted: Chidambaram

[KS]

The analogy is not wrong. As I said conquering meant ownership in those days. Goes for Hindu Kings too. Not only land, ladies, gold, cattle - Kingdom conquered, everything was owned by the conqueror.

The owner in that case was an alien invader who had nothing to do with India and who did nothing good to India. So whats that use of dilapidated relic that stands as a gory reminder of the bloody conquest of India by barbarians from Central Asia ? In fact even the Muslims in India should have supported pulling that structure off.

Any structure built on the blood of Indians by foreign invaders in not worth protecting.ASAT.

 

[Oracle]

Muslims and Hindus were never together since they arrived in India, Muslims are only most essential for Congress after Partition.
Hindus and Muslims were together in fight against British because their was bigger enemy and also their own ambition of Pakistan.

Muslims doesn't need a place to pray ! their is only one sacred placed for Muslims, Mecca ! and for Hindus Ayodhya is Mecca . So the place is more important to Hindus.

So according to your theory, Hindus should give up the temples in this list , as Ayodhya is Mecca for Hindus?

 

[KS]

So according to your theory, Hindus should give up the temples in this list , as Ayodhya is Mecca for Hindus?

Why did you even come to that conclusion ? Whats the relevance ? :-/

Just because there is a Mecca isnt there an Al-Azhar ? Isnt there a Jama Maskid ?

 

[Oracle]

The owner in that case was an alien invader who had nothing to do with India and who did nothing good to India. So whats that use of dilapidated relic that stands as a gory reminder of the bloody conquest of India by barbarians from Central Asia ? In fact even the Muslims in India should have supported pulling that structure off.

Any structure built on the blood of Indians by foreign invaders in not worth protecting.ASAT.

Those foreign invaders are Indians now and have a voice, choice and right to protect their religious shrines.

Why did you even come to that conclusion ? Whats the relevance ? :-/

Just because there is a Mecca isnt there an Al-Azhar ? Isnt there a Jama Maskid ?

The relevance lies in Drona's post, which I suppose you did not read thoroughly. Here is what he stated:

Muslims doesn't need a place to pray ! their is only one sacred placed for Muslims, Mecca ! and for Hindus Ayodhya is like Mecca . So the place is more important to Hindus.

And since that was for the said poster to reply, I will not be entertaining you again on posts from other posters.

 

[johnee]

An analogy.

Say I buy a piece of land with an old house on it. Destroy the old house and build a new one. Can the old owner come and ask me why I destroyed the old house? No.

For arguments sake (since I do not have much knowledge about religious issues), let's assume Muslim invaders destroyed the Temple and built a Mosque over it. In those days, conquering a land meant ownership of the land. Can Hindus now claim all land as theirs?

If we go by history, then Hindus have already lost the land centuries ago.

This is a sensitive issue and should be handled in a way in which both communities engage and accept the ruling. There would still be some dis-satisfaction, but whatever the Apex court rules, should be accepted by both the communities.

It is a sensitive issue but your analogy is quite insensitive. Conquering a land is not ownership but rulership. You become the new ruler by defeating the old ruler. But the people are there and their religious beliefs are there. If an invader or intolerant ruler destroys a sacrosanct temple of people, then the people have every right to re-construct their temple whenever they get the oppurtunity.

If we go by your analogy, right now the land is owned by Ram Lalla. So, the land has been reconquered by Ram Lalla. You are, of course, aware that land can change ownership. To say that just because Hindus were defeated in the past, so they should stay defeated is insensitive and unreasonable.

 

[KS]

Those foreign invaders are Indians now and have a voice, choice and right to protect their religious shrines.

Babri masjid was not built by Indian Muslims. It was built by a Central Asian barbarian who invaded my country and built the mosque after demolishing the temple there. I am under no obligation whatsoever to be protective of that.

Also just to let you know , the Indian places of worship act does NOT cover Ayodhya. So I dont think it was even illegal.in strict technical terms.

 

[johnee]

Those foreign invaders are Indians now and have a voice, choice and right to protect their religious shrines.

No, the descendents of the invaders are indians. These descendents have a choice to reject the brutalities of their savage ancestors and that will end the matter. However, when these descendents want to inherit the ancestral 'property', they simultaneously inherit the feelings the indians held towards the ancestors and that leads to communal divisions.

 

[Oracle]

Johnee, the analogy was a perception. You can have a different take. And it is just fine.

And also, descendants of the invaders is what I meant, you are smart enough to understand that.

Karthick & Johnee,

1. So shall we weigh the baggage of barbaric invaders (that happened centuries back) on our shoulders and what wrong they did to us? If so, what you think you guys should do?

2. Isn't a more holistic approach the need today?

Let me also make my stand clear. I want an amicable solution. I do not want a temple there, if it hurts the sentiments of the Muslim community. If Hindus object to the Mosque being there, I also do not want it. So, let's have a hospital over it run by both Hindus and Muslims, offering free service to all communities there.

Lot of voices, but how many of us are actually going to go there to offer prayers or namaz, specially when we are bound by hectic schedules. Some people make an issue out of everything, and give it a religious angle. You guys should not fall for it.

 

[Drona]

So according to your theory, Hindus should give up the temples in this list , as Ayodhya is Mecca for Hindus?

What ? ?? How did you conclude that ? And give up temples to whom ? Ayodhya case is specific one (this issue existed decades before partition) but their lots of temple which were destroyed and mosques were built. Hindus are not fighting for that, yet.
Hindu kings invaded and established their own rights on other land but didn't harm religious activities and monuments, temples. Eg. King shivaji, he faught for Hindu Swarajya but also donated lot to mosques. raping women and killing people for not converting and dimaging local culture was not in hindu kings blood.

 

[johnee]

Johnee, the analogy was a perception. You can have a different take. And it is just fine.

And also, descendants of the invaders is what I meant, you are smart enough to understand that.

Karthick & Johnee,

1. So shall we weigh the baggage of barbaric invaders (that happened centuries back) on our shoulders and what wrong they did to us? If so, what you think you guys should do?

2. Isn't a more holistic approach the need today?

Let me also make my stand clear. I want an amicable solution. I do not want a temple there, if it hurts the sentiments of the Muslim community. If Hindus object to the Mosque being there, I also do not want it. So, let's have a hospital over it run by both Hindus and Muslims, offering free service to all communities there.

Lot of voices, but how many of us are actually going to go there to offer prayers or namaz, specially when we are bound by hectic schedules. Some people make an issue out of everything, and give it a religious angle. You guys should not fall for it.

No, we need not take the baggage of the past. However, when someone claims to inherit what was 'conquered' by those barbarians, then one also inherits the baggage against that barbarian. So, the Babri was built by some barbarian, it was rightly deserted and desolete for it had no importance to the present muslims. Hindus continue to consider it a sacred land. So, they want to build the temple there. Now, if someone comes claiming ownership of Babri based on their relation to the barbarians, then the old baggage is revived.

 

[Vikramaditya]

my mistake

 

[Yusuf]

Hmmm, babri thing discussed a million times. we have a thread for it. Lets not get started all over again over here.

I am kind of glad that it was the SIMI which has been named and not some rightie group. If that had happened then that would have opened up another can or worms.

 

[Yusuf]

congress is going all out for muslim vote..

Congress government minister saying SIMI behind assassination of judge plot will get them muslim votes HOW?

 

[Oracle]

Hmmm, babri thing discussed a million times. we have a thread for it. Lets not get started all over again over here.

I am kind of glad that it was the SIMI which has been named and not some rightie group. If that had happened then that would have opened up another can or worms.

You are quite right.

 

[The Messiah]

The owner in that case was an alien invader who had nothing to do with India and who did nothing good to India. So whats that use of dilapidated relic that stands as a gory reminder of the bloody conquest of India by barbarians from Central Asia ? In fact even the Muslims in India should have supported pulling that structure off.

Any structure built on the blood of Indians by foreign invaders in not worth protecting.ASAT.

lol even the aryans were aliens to India. just because they happened to come few centuries earlier doesn't make them native.

according to your analogy everyone in India came from outside except adivasis since they were the first to settle in land mass known as India.

 

[S.A.T.A]

@Oracle

Amicable solutions,as welcome as they may be,need not be always just solutions.A solution predicated on injustice discounts amicability,in every sense,in the long run.While it must always be hoped that all disputes can be settled for every body's satisfaction,justice should always be the primary consideration.Muslims cannot be held accountable for acts of history that resulted in mosques on sites once and still revered by Hindus,neither can the Hindu be blamed for a just resolution.

Since we all agree that Muslims of today are not answerable to acts committed in the name of their faith,then this actually is not a dispute between Hindus and Muslims,rather setting right legacies of history.this then really is between Hindus vs history and its unfortunate legacy,while we cannot do Mary Shelly on the dead characters from history bu resurrecting them and putting them on trial,what we can do and must do,is to ensure their legacies are not allowed to fester and hurt the spiritual pursuits of very large sections of the Indian society.

It is reassuring that many Muslims in India today do not ascribe any cultural indebtedness to the people and events of those unfortunate period from our history,it would even better if these words of assurance translate in deeds.The legacy of Babur's masjid in Ayodhya must be seen for what it is,an act of political and religious subjugation of Hindus by alien conquerors.Let such legacies be undone.

 

[Bangalorean]

^^ You are right in that Amicable solutions need not be just solutions. But in our nation at present, we do not have much choice. Amicable solutions are more important than just solutions, IMHO. After seeing all the debates, discussions and strong views about this, I think Oracle's solution is the best. Don't give the land to anyone, make out a case that both parties are on legally weak ground. And build a "secular" structure there. Hospital, or school, or even just a skyscraper!

 

[The Messiah]

^^ You are right in that Amicable solutions need not be just solutions. But in our nation at present, we do not have much choice. Amicable solutions are more important than just solutions, IMHO. After seeing all the debates, discussions and strong views about this, I think Oracle's solution is the best. Don't give the land to anyone, make out a case that both parties are on legally weak ground. And build a "secular" structure there. Hospital, or school, or even just a skyscraper!

Best is to give it 50-50 rather than split is three ways when infact two sides are one and the same.

Build temple when its supposed to be and mosque alongside it.

 

[anoop_mig25]

Trust me if the status quo changes in Ayodhya it will either be that all land belongs to Hindus or the three way partition envisaged by the Allahabad court.Removing the Idol installed from a temple and converting it into a mosque and that too after such a history is fraught with danger and everyone including the Muslims know that.

indian policy makers like status quo for every problematic sitution eg kashmir,china border problems and lost of others

 

[anoop_mig25]

^^ You are right in that Amicable solutions need not be just solutions. But in our nation at present, we do not have much choice. Amicable solutions are more important than just solutions, IMHO. After seeing all the debates, discussions and strong views about this, I think Oracle's solution is the best. Don't give the land to anyone, make out a case that both parties are on legally weak ground. And build a "secular" structure there. Hospital, or school, or even just a skyscraper!

one make(specially head of that structure) small temple/mosque insuide that buliding and claim it as an scared temple/mosque etc...