Babri Masjid Case Ruling Today

[Mirza Jatt]

i will repeat my self again.. the land is being divided 2/3 goes to hindus and 1/3 to muslims, i am not saying it.. whole world is saying it now.. see the links i posted in my previous post.

If you are trying to say that the ratio of land distribution is what makes the judgement wrong and unfair, then thats kiddish....it would have been unfair if the dispute was solved outside the court in an attempt to solve the issue with the co-operation of all the parties and still the ratio was small in favour of Muslims....in this case the court case went on for 60 years...all the parties were heard and judgement was made by on the light of proofs provided and not under the influence of emotions....and now you are claiming that the judgment was unfair....

so my question to you is.....

how do you know its wrong and unfair ??? do you know the case ?? do you know the suits filed by different parties including All India Muslim Personal law board (AIMPLB) ??? do you know the proofs and support documents provided by them ?? did you attend the court sessions ?? which part of the case makes you feel that the judgemnet was unfair ??

 

[Agnostic_Indian]

Its more of a political solution rather than a judgment.

Yes this is more of a compromise or solution than of a judgement.
THIS WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER IF IT WAS AN OUTSIDE SETTLEMENT.I STAND FOR THE RESULT BUT AS A JUDGEMENT BASED ON FACTS IT IS QUESTIONABLE.

 

[JonAsad]

So what if 2/3rd land has gone to Hindus, tell me how much land will you give in Mecca to construct a temple?

Dont cross the line, i know the names of your religious sites and religious persons fairly well. Dont make me go there. Have a fair disscusion or stay out.

 

[RamGorur]

Here is the gist of Justice S.U.Khan's observation.

1. The disputed structure was constructed as mosque by or under orders of Babar.
   
2. It is not proved by direct evidence that premises in dispute including constructed portion belonged to Babar or the person who constructed the mosque or under whose orders it was constructed.
   
3. No temple was demolished for constructing the mosque.
   
4. Mosque was constructed over the ruins of temples which were lying in utter ruins since a very long time before the construction of mosque and some material thereof was used in construction of the mosque.
   
5. That for a very long time till the construction of the mosque it was treated/believed by Hindus that some where in a very large area of which premises in dispute is a very small part birth place of Lord Ram was situated, however, the belief did not relate to any specified small area within that bigger area specifically the premises in dispute.
   
6. That after some time of construction of the mosque Hindus started identifying the premises in dispute as exact birth place of Lord Ram or a place wherein exact birth place was situated.
   
7. That much before 1855 Ram Chabutra and Seeta Rasoi had come into existence and Hindus were worshipping in the same. It was very very unique and absolutely unprecedented situation that in side the boundary wall and compound of the mosque Hindu religious places were there which were actually being worshipped along with offerings of Namaz by Muslims in the mosque.
   
8. That in view of the above gist of the finding at serial no.7 both the parties Muslims as well as Hindus are held to be in joint possession of the entire premises in dispute.
   
9. That even though for the sake of convenience both the parties i.e. Muslims and Hindus were using and occupying different portions of the premises in dispute still it did not amount to formal partition and both continued to be in joint possession of the entire premises in dispute.
   
10. That both the parties have failed to prove commencement of their title hence by virtue of Section 110 Evidence Act both are held to be joint title holders on the basis of joint possession.
    
11. That for some decades before 1949 Hindus started treating/believing the place beneath the Central dome of mosque (where at present make sift temple stands) to be exact birth place of Lord Ram.
    
12. That idol was placed for the first time beneath the Central dome of the mosque in the early hours of 23.12.1949.
    
13. That in view of the above both the parties are declared to be joint title holders in possession of the entire premises in dispute and a preliminary decree to that effect is passed with the condition that at the time of actual partition by meets and bounds at the stage of preparation of final decree the portion beneath the Central dome where at present make sift temple stands will be allotted to the share of the Hindus.

Order:-
Accordingly, all the three sets of parties, i.e. Muslims, Hindus and Nirmohi Akhara are declared joint title holders of the property/ premises in dispute as described by letters A B C D E F in the map Plan-I prepared by Sri Shiv Shanker Lal, Pleader/ Commissioner appointed by Court in Suit No.1 to the extent of one third share each for using and managing the same for worshipping.

A preliminary decree to this effect is passed.

However, it is further declared that the portion below the central dome where at present the idol is kept in makeshift temple will be allotted to Hindus in final decree.

It is further directed that Nirmohi Akhara will be allotted share including that part which is shown by the words Ram Chabutra and Sita Rasoi in the said map.

It is further clarified that even though all the three parties are declared to have one third share each, however if while allotting exact portions some minor adjustment in the share is to be made then the same will be made and the adversely affected party may be compensated by allotting some portion of the adjoining land which has been acquired by the Central Government.

The parties are at liberty to file their suggestions for actual partition by metes and bounds within three months.

List immediately after filing of any suggestion/ application for preparation of final decree after obtaining necessary instructions from Hon'ble the Chief Justice. Status quo as prevailing till date pursuant to Supreme Court judgment of Ismail Farooqui (1994(6) Sec 360) in all its minutest details shall be maintained for a period of three months unless this order is modified or vacated earlier.

Source

 

[Anonymous_Clown]

Dont cross the line, i know the names of your religious sites and religious persons fairly well. Dont make me go there. Have a fair disscusion or stay out.

Consider for a moment - you got so offended when that poster whom you replied to you even suggested such a thing. Then, why the discrimination against Ayodhya, which is considered among the most sacred places for Hindus?

I myself am not bothered whether a Temple comes up there or a Mosque. I am agnostic myself. But this place Ayodhya finds mention in Hindu epics such as Ramayana written thousands of years back. The question is not whether Lord Rama was actually born here, whether he actually existed, etc. It is about the fact that Hindus believe so in their faith, and they have been believing so and offering prayers at this spot for hundreds of years, even before the Mosque came into existance. That is established in court. And hence, the court decided that the title ought to be held jointly.

 

[Von Hölle]

Dont cross the line, i know the names of your religious sites and religious persons fairly well. Dont make me go there. Have a fair disscusion or stay out.

I asked you a simple question to which you have no answer too and hence resort to online threats...you are claiming to be a champion of secularism on this thread but mere provocation is exposing the bigot inside you.

You do not respect the desicion of Indian court, though I won't expect you too..but then I am forced to ask..what is your interest in this case..Its a matter b/w Indian Muslims and Indian Hindus...both the interested parties are accepting the verdict...what is your problem then?

 

[arihant]

Dont cross the line, i know the names of your religious sites and religious persons fairly well. Dont make me go there. Have a fair disscusion or stay out.

Actually you are wrong. Although all judges of the Bench agreed that the mosque is indeed the Birth place of Rama but still they gave away the 1/3rd of land to Muslims because they must also be given the land in the dispute. I think this is the most secular verdict. I never thought such verdict could come. Moreover, you are talking about 2/3rd. This is wrong. 1/3rd Land of Nirmahi Akhara was owned by them at least since Akbar's time which even Sunni Waqf Board agreed.

The real dispute was land where Masjid was built and its counteryard.
The court verdict decided that actual place should be given to Ram lalla and also said that Hindus should give away the half of the land to Muslims.

Well I am not a party to dispute, so my views are not conclusive. What I believe is that whole land should be given to Central Govt. to built some momentum their rather than something. I am sure if there is something Ram or Allah or god then they are at least that much tolerable.

 

[footmarks]

@jonAsad: buddy dont be sad. the case is between INDIAN hindus & INDIAN muslims. And even if all the land would have been given to built mosque, you would not have got anything, nor you would ever get to see the actual site. there is nothing in here for creatures like you. In India, matters are solved by judiciary based on proofs, not by Jamaat ul dwa based on silly fatwas.

We dont need a certificate on secularism from members of a country called Islamic republic of Pakistan.

 

[AR]

Perhaps if the same Historical Heritage status was given to Babri Masjid, then it would have also looked beautiful.

so you mean all the religion should serve islam.... and work by all means to satisfy it.... I am sorry sorry friend but you see Islam above all other religions... respect others you will be respected

 

[Srinivas]

hmmm to all those people who thinks its "balanced verdict"!

let's try this!

Lets go to MAHALAKSHMI TEMPLE BREAK IT DOWN & MUSLIMS SHOULD CLAIM RIGHTS TO IT! DUE TO BIRTH PLACE OF etc etc!


and then give out the exact verdict let's see how many of you would call that "balanced" fair just and what not!

everyone is a hypocrite when it comes to themselves!

This appeal was pending in the court from 1949 i.e long before the the babri incident(which is a black day for indian secularism).

 

[humanfirst]

Dont cross the line, i know the names of your religious sites and religious persons fairly well. Dont make me go there. Have a fair disscusion or stay out.

Yeah he shouldn't have dared to say the fact that any non muslim entering the premises of haram will be killed(how is the execution?by stoning?).How racist of him to bring this up!!But i agree with you that babur had every right to build a mosque in holiest place for hindus,on the ruins of a temple.Not just babur,you know about the temples and idols destroyed by muslim invaders,they were absolutely right to do so.

 

[Jackdaws]

Dont just say it do something, before your new generations consider babur as a savior or hero. Most of them still do

Do something? Like what - tear down a mosque built by/for Babar? You really think he or Aurangzeb are heroes?

 

[Agnostic_Indian]

There is one question arises in my mind.
there were several mosques which hindus allege, were constructed over temples which were demolished or naturaly broken down. So what happens if hindus claim that too ??
wil those places also be divided ??

 

[RiazHaq]

Here's an excerpt of how the BBC is reporting the Ayodhya verdict:

In a majority verdict, judges gave control of the main disputed section, where a mosque was torn down in 1992, to Hindus.

Other parts of the site will be controlled by Muslims and a Hindu sect.

Allahabad High Court is trying to create a false appearance of Solomon's wisdom by ordering what is being advertised as "split-the-baby" verdict.

In reality, though, the court has wrongly sided with the violent Hindutva outfits in practice by giving the main site where Babri masjid stood to Hindus.

Let's hope and pray that this latest verdict does not lead to more innocent blood being shed because of an unwise and unjust court ruling favoring the Hindu provocateurs and perpetrators of the crime of demolishing Babri mosque in 1992 and subsequent massacres of Muslim minority.

BBC News - Ayodhya verdict: Indian holy site 'to be divided'

 

[gubbi]

Excellent verdict. Kudos for the judges to come up with such a consensus decision. Another feather in the cap for Indian judiciary.

I sincerely hope that Supreme Court upholds this decision and forces the parties to either abide by it or hand over the land to the Central Govt to build a library/school there.

To all my Indian brothers, spread the word around your localities/neighborhood to keep peace. Stop mischief mongers.