A Muslim Mosque can be demolished, but not a Hindu temple: Modi's close aide Subramanian Swamy

[DineshS]

As usual, the context is being completely ignored.
This was comment made on why Temple can not moved and mosque can be. His logic is based on what lot of Islamic countries done all over the world where they destroyed mosques all the time.

In a real democracy "rights of a minority are protected"

Yeah...When Minority Kashmiri Hindus were being massacred, this logic was blissfully forgotten.
You reap whet you sow.

 

[hussain0216]

Unfortunately for Muslims there are plans to rebuild multiple destructed temples belonging to different Hindu gods. So they need to go through this exercise multiple times.

Absolutely!!!

Its why Pakistan was made, we are free to eat, pray and not give a toss about hindus.


For years indian muslims deluded themselves that they were part of a free democratic society and that they were equal indians.

The reality is now dawning on them and they are being attacked, humiliated and suffering

We are still India's enemy, India has 200 million muslims and we advocate to them that they are under risk in India.
India holds emnity towards them
Neither their hindutva goverment or security services will defend or look after them

It is time for them to wake up to the risk, band together their 200 million population, defend themselves and like the Kashmiris who are well ahead in their development of understanding of the risk of remaining with a hindu india o reach out and make their stake for a Partition of India so they can have a safe land for themselves

 

[Morpheus]

Saudi Arabia demolish mosques every other day to build roads, hotels, etc. so swamy has a valid point there.

I have yet to see that happen. If a mosque is demolished here, and turned into shopping mall, the new building will have whole floors will be dedicated for the new mosque. Demolishing mosque in Makkah was done, so in order to expand the haram, basically turning a small mosque into a giant mosque. They build roads around mosques, not though them.

 

[StraightShooter]

Absolutely!!!

Its why Pakistan was made, we are free to eat, pray and not give a toss about hindus.


For years indian muslims deluded themselves that they were part of a free democratic society and that they were equal indians.

The reality is now dawning on them and they are being attacked, humiliated and suffering

We are still India's enemy, India has 200 million muslims and we advocate to them that they are under risk in India.
India holds emnity towards them
Neither their hindutva goverment or security services will defend or look after them

It is time for them to wake up to the risk, band together their 200 million population, defend themselves and like the Kashmiris who are well ahead in their development of understanding of the risk of remaining with a hindu india o reach out and make their stake for a Partition of India so they can have a safe land for themselves

You have closed the borders before Bihari Muslims could immigrate and now shedding crocodile tears for the same.

What a crass hypocrisy

 

[Mitro]

Zahid hamid is very happy
He is getting free foot soldier for ghazwa.
Come we are ready for liberator every Muslim will fight on your side .

 

[Tom M]

In a real democracy "rights of a minority are protected"

In an ideal world ?? "YES".

 

[Flash_Ninja]

He is not making a political statement. He is making a legal argument as he is fighting Ram Mandhir-Babri Masjid case in the supreme court of India.

"Namaaz can be read without it also. But as far as temple is concerned, we have faith that god enters the idol placed there and becomes its owner. Different people claim their ownership over mosques, but only God Ram is the owner of the temple. So, Mosque can be removed demolished, but a temple cannot be even touched after the placing of the idol,"

How is a discussion over God in any way relevant to legal matters?

How can he say that any mosque can be demolished, but any temple cannot be touched?

don't be ridiculous.

 

[I.R.A]

He is not making a political statement. He is making a legal argument

So can he prove existence of God in temple? After all its a legal matter and court shouldn't decide without proper evidence. This Swami guy has made a legal statement (per you) so he should be asked to prove if God really has entered the temple ............. if he proves visible existence of God (not some statue sitting and doing nothing) in temple he is right if he doesn't then his argument is flawed (legally) and is more of his religious belief than a valid legal argument.

 

[ashok321]

A mosque can be demolished, but not temple: BJP MP Subramanian Swamy

What if you read the following instead?
My question to Right wingers/

A temple can be demolished, but not mosque: BJP MP Subramanian Swamy

 

[Arsalan 345]

Only in India they can do it.they can't do this in Pakistan.this is why we created Pakistan.Muslims of India will realize very soon that they are only slaves of Hindus in India.they will learn their real identity under bjp.

 

[StraightShooter]

"Namaaz can be read without it also. But as far as temple is concerned, we have faith that god enters the idol placed there and becomes its owner. Different people claim their ownership over mosques, but only God Ram is the owner of the temple. So, Mosque can be removed demolished, but a temple cannot be even touched after the placing of the idol,"

How is a discussion over God in any way relevant to legal matters?

How can he say that any mosque can be demolished, but any temple cannot be touched?

don't be ridiculous.

God is relevant in this legal matter as the case is about building a temple and/or mosque.

He is not making his own statement that mosque can be demolished but temple cannot be.

The statement is based on what each faith believes about their place of worship.

You can either counter it or modify Quran (or the Islamic position on mosques) to nullify his statement.

So can he prove existence of God in temple? After all its a legal matter and court shouldn't decide without proper evidence. This Swami guy has made a legal statement (per you) so he should be asked to prove if God really has entered the temple ............. if he proves visible existence of God (not some statue sitting and doing nothing) in temple he is right if he doesn't then his argument is flawed (legally) and is more of his religious belief than a valid legal argument.

Yes. Every god believing Hindu would see god in the idol installed in the temple. They can be called as witness and they would confirm the same in the court.

A mosque can be demolished, but not temple: BJP MP Subramanian Swamy

What if you read the following instead?
My question to Right wingers/

A temple can be demolished, but not mosque: BJP MP Subramanian Swamy

1000s of temples have already been destroyed in India by the invading Islamic rulers for over 1000 years.

 

[DineshS]

1000s of temples have already been destroyed in India by the invading Islamic rulers for over 1000 years.

More accurate number is Hundreds of thousands..
The barbarity of these invaders has been intentionally left out by left historians post Independent India.

 

[I.R.A]

Yes. Every god believing Hindu would see god in the idol installed in the temple. They can be called as witness and they would confirm the same in the court.

I said visible to human eye not Hindu eye.

 

[DineshS]

I said visible to human eye not Hindu eye.

There isn't a single religion on this earth that passes the eye test.

 

[StraightShooter]

I said visible to human eye not Hindu eye.

Hindus may not be considered as "Humans" in Pakistan but they sure are considered humans in India.