Babri Masjid Case Ruling Today

[ice_man]

A court in India has said that a disputed holy site in Ayodhya should be split between Hindus and Muslims, lawyers for the Hindu petitioners say.

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

Other parts of the site will be controlled by Muslims and a Hindu sect.
Continue reading the main story
Related stories

* Has India's flashpoint moved on?
* Q&A: The Ayodhya dispute

The destruction of the mosque by Hindu extremists lead to widespread rioting in which some 2,000 people died.

Officials urged both sides to remain calm and respect the court's verdict.

The exact terms of the verdict are unclear, as so far it has only been released to lawyers involved in the case.

Lawyers for the Muslim community are expected to appeal.

 

[KS]

BALANCED VERDICT????? hindus claim it is balanced verdict??


Please
"ENLIGHTEN" ME HOW!!

the disputed land went to hindus to build their mandir! end of story!

1/3 to Hindus,1/3 to Muslims,1/3 to Jains - simple number game.

Isnt it balanced enough.?

@ all Pak members - India (Both Hindus and Muslims) have moved on from 1992 to make a sucess story called India ,but unfortunately you guys have not moved on from what is a purely an internal matter of India.
I can only laugh at you when ther are more pressing concern for you in your own country.

 

[Anonymous_Clown]

if i'm not wrong u guys had 3 judges ... 1 muslim among them .. so the ruling went 2:1 .......

You are a pathetic creature who cannot think beyond religion. Read what the Muslim judge has to say below:

Gist of findings by the Hon SU Khan:

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.

Thank god we don't have bigoted religious fanatics like you anymore. Yes, as you were saying earlier above, Partition was a good thing.

 

[footmarks]

From the Court's website:



http://rjbm.nic.in/dv2.pdf

ISSUES FOR BRIEFING
1. Whether the disputed site is the birth place of Bhagwan
Ram?
The disputed site is the birth place of Lord Ram. Place of
birth is a juristic person and is a deity. It is personified as the
spirit of divine worshipped as birth place of Lord Rama as a
child.
Spirit of divine ever remains present every where at all
times for any one to invoke at any shape or form in accordance
with his own aspirations and it can be shapeless and formless
also.
2. Whether the disputed building was a mosque? When
was it built? By whom?
The 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.
3. Whether the mosque was built after demolishing a
Hindu temple?
The disputed structure was constructed on the site of old
structure after demolition of the same. The Archaeological
Survey of India has proved that the structure was a massive
Hindu religious structure.
4. Whether the idols were placed in the building on the
night of December 22/23rd, 1949?
The idols were placed in the middle dome of the disputed
structure in the intervening night of 22/23.12.1949.

5. Whether any of the claims for title is time barred?
O.O.S. No. 4 of 1989, the Sunni Central Board of Waqfs
U.P., Lucknow and others Vs. Gopal Singh Visharad and others
and O.O.S. No.3 of 1989, Nirmohi Akhara and Another Vs. Sri
Jamuna Prasad Singh and others are barred by time.
6. What will be the status of the disputed site e.g. inner
and outer courtyard?
It is established that the property in suit is the site of
Janm Bhumi of Ram Chandra Ji and Hindus in general had the
right to worship Charan, Sita Rasoi, other idols and other object
of worship existed upon the property in suit. It is also
established that Hindus have been worshipping the place in
dispute as Janm Sthan i.e. a birth place as deity and visiting it as
a sacred place of pilgrimage as of right since time immemorial.
After the construction of the disputed structure it is proved the
deities were installed inside the disputed structure on
22/23.12.1949. It is also proved that the outer courtyard was in
exclusive possession of Hindus and they were worshipping
throughout and in the inner courtyard (in the disputed
structure) they were also worshipping. It is also established that
the disputed structure cannot be treated as a mosque as it
came into existence against the tenets of Islam.
*********

 

[tyagi]

who the **** are Nirmohi Akhara

 

[GUNNER]

LUCKNOW, India, Sept 30, 2010 (AFP) - The main Muslim group contesting a religious site in northern India said it was "partly disappointed" by a verdict Thursday to divide the location.

The case relates to the site of a 16th-century mosque in Ayodhya which is claimed by Muslims and Hindus.

Lawyers said the court had ordered the site to be divided into three parts, with two thirds for Hindus and a third for Muslims.

"The suit of Muslims were liable to be dismissed. But they are still entitled to one third of the site," the lawyer for the Babri Masjid Action Committee, Zafaryab Jilani, told reporters.

"We can say we are partly disappointed not fully because some of the stand of the Muslims has been vindicated."

 

[democracyspeaks]

dont agree with the above comment

Kindly use GOOGLE, then you will know how many temples have been destroyed by Muslim rulers

 

[sms]

To all Pakistani members:

Guys no need to poke our noses in such issues, this is purely related to Indian Muslims and since they are so happy in their country, we don't need to get worried.

Let them deal with it!

Right approach, keep you nose to your self. We can take care ourselves and know what is good for us.

 

[SaifullahK]

A great tragedy that the following words should come from the mouth of a Musalman Judge:

Mosque was constructed over the ruins of temples ... and some material thereof was used in construction of the mosque.

... the portion beneath the Central dome where at present make shift temple stands will be allotted to the share of the Hindus.

 

[Kinetic]

BALANCED VERDICT????? hindus claim it is balanced verdict??


Please
"ENLIGHTEN" ME HOW!!

the disputed land went to hindus to build their mandir! end of story!

You are forgetting that there will be a mosque as well.

Than what do you wanted the whole land for Muslims??? And that lead to more violence???? Not surprised though! And many Hindus wanted the whole land for the Hindus, but not given and I see none of Indian Indians are disappointed!!!

 

[Areesh]

To all Pakistani members:

Guys no need to poke our noses in such issues, this is purely related to Indian Muslims and since they are so happy in their country, we don't need to get worried.

Let them deal with it!

I was about to say the same thing. Leaving IOK we have nothing to do with Inidan Muslims or what happens to them.

 

[Ahmad]

Muslim Invaders destroying temples is fine with you guys, but when its reversed then all the problem starts. Awsome.

No never, as a matter of fact i am not fan of guys like Mahmoud Ghanzani who destroyed idoles in india, although he comes from country, speaks my language, have the same race and ethnicity with me, but i still condemn him for that part of his work. He has got some other achievements that i praise, but not this one. and i hope that you dont be trapped by some hindo nationalist attitude to bring down all mosques in the name of revenge, lets live in peace, good for all of us, forget the past for good.

 

[SpArK]

A very balanced and well thoughtful verdict .

2.47 acres are enough to built all the structures with adequete space.

I would have been more happy if the court has ordered to recreate the mosque with Government money.

I guess all parties are happy now and secularity is preserved.

 

[notsuperstitious]

Yay hurray for Jains!!

I did not know that we were involved

I think jains are the true winners. Did not take part in the fighting, did not poison the minds of entire generations, did not bring a bad name to their religion, and yet got the same 1/3rd land!

 

[Kinetic]

A great tragedy that the following words should come from the mouth of a Musalman Judge:

Mosque was constructed over the ruins of temples ... and some material thereof was used in construction of the mosque.

... the portion beneath the Central dome where at present make shift temple stands will be allotted to the share of the Hindus.

What do you mean???? As he is a Muslims than shouldn't agree with what he found????