Babri Masjid Case Ruling Today

[arihant]

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

No it would not have been. But surely in our case, there would not have been violence unless VHP comes at our side. The reason Jains didn't filed the suit case is that temples were built by people of New Delhi Jains in around 1st Century.

The complex initially housed a complex of twenty-seven ancient Jain temples which were destroyed and their material used in the construction of the Quwwat-ul-Islam Mosque next to the Qutb Minar, in the Qutb complex. According to a Persian inscription still on the inner eastern gateway, the mosque was built by the parts taken by destruction of twenty-seven Jain temples.

Actually there are some idols (not god, may be just alike Prophet) still found just at the Qutub Minar's backdoor.

File:Qutbminarsculpt.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

yes, if this could have been scared place, certainly we could have seen another suit in the case by jains but because it is not scared place, we don't want to put Nation in trouble for something that is not needed. But as Jain, I still think that that site belongs to Hindus as scared place but in return Hindus themselves should built a mosque somewhere else in memory of those killed because of the same suit.

Someone may not believe in wikipedia than this is screenshot of Jain Pillars used to built mosque - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Qutb_Minar_from_the_Quwwuatul_ul-Islam_mosque,_Qutb_complex.jpg This are full proof evidence.

 

[arihant]

hmm waiting for the ruling

17 years what kind of court case takes 17 years to complete lol

Sonam kapoor was probbly a child when the case started now she is a mature person my type

A 500 year old dispute!

Not sure but legally at least 125 Years old.

 

[greatsequence]

Its more of a political solution rather than a judgment.

 

[Illusive]

Sympathy? what sympathy, indian muslims are reaping what their grandparents sow.
All we are interested in is the fairness of the Case, so Chill.

That shouldn't bother you, its Indian affairs. You can't judge whats fair for Indian hindus or muslims, and if it does then you have Indianess in you.

 

[Mirza Jatt]

Sympathy? what sympathy, indian muslims are reaping what their grandparents sow.
All we are interested in is the fairness of the Case, so Chill.

so you are interested in India's internal affairs....ok,then how do you come to the conclusion that the court verdict was not fair ??

 

[arihant]

Sympathy? what sympathy, indian muslims are reaping what their grandparents sow.
All we are interested in is the fairness of the Case, so Chill.

I think you are wrong. The same verdict was going to be settlement issue in the 1980's itself but because VHP involved itself politcally and Babri got demolished, Sunni Waqf Board didn't back the out of court settlement.

Moreover, this is not the verdict in case of demolishation but in the case of who owns the land.

Problem with the verdict is that Hindus and Muslims both owned the land from the history itself since it was built. Both use to give their prays. Moreover, dispute never involved the Outer part of the dome that is Sita Rasoi and Ram Chabutra. But because the case of then converted into whole site, it got involved in the verdict too. Nirmohi Akhara was always in possession of the 1/3rd land thus they were always in the win situation.

Probably only problem was with the actual center point where both Hindus and Muslims use to worship at least since 17th century where proof from excerpts of writers (foreign travelers) is available.

 

[Jackdaws]

Do they teach you about the tyrant Hitler the same way they teach you about Babur in your school syllabus (History Books)?
I dont think so.

They should.

 

[JonAsad]

Well it seems that indian members here are saying that nirmohi akhara belong to janism,
But every where even in international media, it is said that the land is to be divided amongst hindus and muslims. they are considering nirmohi akhara as a hindu sect.

India court splits mosque site between religions

Ayodhya verdict: Indian holy site 'to be divided'

Ayodhya verdict: Muslims and Hindus ordered to share religious site

Disputed India Holy Site to Be Divided, Court Rules

So it is a clear verdict 2/3 of the land goes to hindus and 1/3 to the muslims. Not Fair

 

[fallstuff]

Facts and science did not prevail. The verdict was aimed at religious sentiments. I don't like the decision but it may help holding peace.

 

[JonAsad]

That shouldn't bother you, its Indian affairs. You can't judge whats fair for Indian hindus or muslims, and if it does then you have Indianess in you.

You cant stop me so dont try it.

so you are interested in India's internal affairs....ok,then how do you come to the conclusion that the court verdict was not fair ??

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.

 

[JonAsad]

They should.

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

 

[arihant]

Well it seems that indian members here are saying that nirmohi akhara belong to janism,
But every where even in international media, it is said that the land is to be divided amongst hindus and muslims.

India court splits mosque site between religions

Ayodhya verdict: Indian holy site 'to be divided'

Ayodhya verdict: Muslims and Hindus ordered to share religious site

Disputed India Holy Site to Be Divided, Court Rules

So it is a clear verdict 2/3 of the land goes to hindus and 1/3 to the muslims.

Actually you are wrong.

1/3rd that is Sita Rasoi and Ram Chabutra always belongs to Nirmohi Akhara since 16th century of Akbar's time. So there is no need of proof on that. What was not found in this is that whether Narmohi Akhara owned it or just hold it. This thing was challenged by only Ram Lalla association rather Muslims. So Court verdict was always going to be with Nirmohi Akhara. But Nirmohi Akhara also wanted share in the real disputed site. but time limitation act barred them from getting them back. Similar case was rejected of Sunni Waqf Board.

 

[Von Hölle]

You cant stop me so dont try it.



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.

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

 

[JonAsad]

i wonder, why Indian member are bothering to reply to pakistanis here.
like our f.m. said, we dont need lessons of democracy from pakistan, that itself is a shame on the name of secularity.

it is our high court's verdict. and can be challanged in supreme court.
why we have to justify this to pakistanis..???

Indians, chill, let them shout. this is all they can do.

You were just banned i suppose. Enjoy till it lasts again

 

[Anonymous_Clown]

In a country where Hindus form a huge majority, a dispute kept going on and on for 63 years, a court case went on for 17 years, on whether or not a temple should exist in one of Hinduism's most sacred locations. If this is not secularism, I don't know what is.

See, if India was indeed as baaaaaad as the Pakistani memebers here are trying to make it out to be, we would have demolished the mosque and built a temple decades back instead of all this knuckle dragging. At best, we would have given some compensation to build a mosque elsewhere. Most Hindus are happy that their country is like this, we want to be secular. This is the best way, the Indian way.