India’s PM to attend temple groundbreaking at disputed site

[Shantanu_Left]

The posts literally shows the true meaning of Pakistani mindset.... Same members are supported the conversion of church to mosque and wished to pray there...
And here they are annoyed at ram mandir...
Members here are openly stating to destroy temples.... This is the religious tolerance of Pakistan...
How many temples are their in whole pakistan???

You are in a Pakistan forum...what else do you expect? They will not support idol worship in any form.

 

[HalfMoon]

But still mandir would be brought down again

That would be the fate of this place

Exactly.

It may take 1 or 10 or 100 years but this temple needs to go.

 

[srshkmr]

Exactly.

It may take 1 or 10 or 100 years but this temple needs to go.

keep that in your pipe dream. it's not a disputed site anymore the supreme court ruled it in favor of Hindus. Title needs to be changed. @waz

 

[SuperStar20]

Exactly.

It may take 1 or 10 or 100 years but this temple needs to go.

It will solve muslim problem for India forever. do it quicker.
Online forum is different. I bet, no one(muslim/hindu) in India can't dare to say this in real life.

 

[HalfMoon]

keep that in your pipe dream. it's not a disputed site anymore the supreme court ruled it in favor of Hindus. Title needs to be changed. @waz

The judgement is unacceptable to the Muslims.

Babri Masjid will be rebuilt at any cost.

 

[xeuss]

https://www.timesnownews.com/india/...ple-bhoomi-poojan-by-pm-modi-on-august/626550

"They are doing it as per their convenience, there's no auspicious 'Muhurat' for the 'bhoomi poojan' in the month of August. If the ceremony is not done according to the shastras, then it'll have negative consequences," said Swami Avimukteshwarananda.

 

[padamchen]

Mob vandalism is wrong. If you ask me those involved in the demolition should be punished. But at the same time, justice to the devotees of Ram should be given. Even if it's 500 years Justice should be provided.

Quit this 500 nonsense and keep the spine now grown.

Regardless of the BJP getting the boot which they will.

The soul and spirit of the Hindu should not change.

Legally one by one every temple MUST be reclaimed. Constitutionally. Without lingering or delay.

Firmly. But with empathy for fellow citizens. All fellow citizens.

Jai Sri Ram.

Bun bum Bhole.

Taham tan zanam.

Jai Hind. Jai Maharashtra.

Cheers, Doc

 

[Nilgiri]

But if you are a believing Muslim, idol worship is one of the biggest sins in Islam, and we cannot voluntarily, and in good conscience, give up a place of worship to Allah to become a place of idol worship.

So would this logic be applicable in reverse?

Should you expect other faiths to voluntarily give up their places of worship?..based on whatever they list as sins according to their faith that a mosque would then engage in inside?

You see an issue here?

Surely even if you had offered us mountains of gold in exchange for the mosque, our answer would be the same. Our imaan is not for sale.

So Muslims that disagree with that are not the true believing type? I think there's a word for that kind of thing when you pronounce it...but I digress.

Aya sofya was bought legally by the ottoman king you guys say....apparently no compulsion was involved....basically putting aside or ignoring what happened to the orthodox faithful that took refuge in there as last resort when the city fell. Apparently the full weight of their voices and desires regarding their church (of that particular status) were kept around in the later asserted fair trade. Or what the Orthodox church policy is in general regarding what has been consecrated....unable to ever change after that.

Simply put, are Hindus allowed to similarly buy or use other legal acquisition for mosques and turn them into temples according to Islamic law? How about the people of the book, can they buy and change a mosque to a church or synagogue?...as they are even recognised named sanctified monotheists upstream correct?

 

[HalfMoon]

https://www.timesnownews.com/india/...ple-bhoomi-poojan-by-pm-modi-on-august/626550

"They are doing it as per their convenience, there's no auspicious 'Muhurat' for the 'bhoomi poojan' in the month of August. If the ceremony is not done according to the shastras, then it'll have negative consequences," said Swami Avimukteshwarananda.

Sanghis are not religious. In fact they give two about Ram or the Ram Temple.

They are just using this issue to pick a fight with the Muslims.

As an Indian Muslim, this is all indeed disappointing. Some of the disappointment originates from the travesty of justice that was done at the hands of the Supreme Court of India, and some of course, as symbolic of the decline of Muslims in India.

This was certainly a battle worth fighting till the end. At least we Indian Muslims can stand in front of Allah and say that we tried our best, with all the legal means at our disposal, and did not voluntarily give up a Masjid to become a place of idol worship.

Some Hindus (and some Muslims as well) might find this attitude as obstructionist and antagonistic, and wonder why did we never give up our claim to the mosque despite the tremendous odds stacked up against us? But if you are a believing Muslim, idol worship is one of the biggest sins in Islam, and we cannot voluntarily, and in good conscience, give up a place of worship to Allah to become a place of idol worship.

Surely even if you had offered us mountains of gold in exchange for the mosque, our answer would be the same. Our imaan is not for sale.

Excellent post brother.

So would this logic be applicable in reverse?

Should you expect other faiths to voluntarily give up their places of worship?..based on whatever they list as sins according to their faith that a mosque would then engage in inside?

You see an issue here?



So Muslims that disagree with that are not the true believing type? I think there's a word for that kind of thing when you pronounce it...but I digress.

Aya sofya was bought legally by the ottoman king you guys say....apparently no compulsion was involved....basically putting aside or ignoring what happened to the orthodox faithful that took refuge in there as last resort when the city fell. Apparently the full weight of their voices and desires regarding their church (of that particular status) were kept around in the later asserted fair trade. Or what the Orthodox church policy is in general regarding what has been consecrated....unable to ever change after that.

Simply put, are Hindus allowed to similarly buy or use other legal acquisition for mosques and turn them into temples according to Islamic law? How about the people of the book, can they buy and change a mosque to a church or synagogue?...as they are even recognised named sanctified monotheists upstream correct?

Why are you deflecting. The topic at hand is Babri Masjid not what is happening in Turkey.

Does Hinduism say that you cannot build a Mosque on the ruins of the Temple? The answer is no.

But Islam clearly says that Muslims should not support idol worship.

Why can't you pray in your homes?

 

[xeuss]

So would this logic be applicable in reverse?

Should you expect other faiths to voluntarily give up their places of worship?..based on whatever they list as sins according to their faith that a mosque would then engage in inside?

You see an issue here?

Depends on what "their" faith dictates. I cannot offer comment on other beliefs considering the vast differences across the many faiths that exist on this planet. They may be similar to mine, or they may not be. I fully understand that Hindus may be uncompromising on their demands, and that is fine. When it comes to religious beliefs, each side gives primacy to its beliefs. If they did not, then perhaps they do not think their faith is better than the other.

Without getting into the finer points of this particular dispute, the point here is that we used all of our legal provisions available before us. We came up short, but there are no regrets about the attempts that were made.

So Muslims that disagree with that are not the true believing type? I think there's a word for that kind of thing when you pronounce it...but I digress.

It's called a hypocrite, but that is not what is applicable here. There do exist many Muslims who questioned why a settlement was not made. Their faith does not diminish by such questions, but certainly those questions need to be answered. They may still not agree with what I stated, but that definitely does not make them lesser Muslims.

Aya sofya was bought legally by the ottoman king you guys say....apparently no compulsion was involved....basically putting aside or ignoring what happened to the orthodox faithful that took refuge in there as last resort when the city fell. Apparently the full weight of their voices and desires regarding their church (of that particular status) were kept around in the later asserted fair trade. Or what the Orthodox church policy is in general regarding what has been consecrated....unable to ever change after that.

Simply put, are Hindus allowed to similarly buy or use other legal acquisition for mosques and turn them into temples according to Islamic law? How about the people of the book, can they buy and change a mosque to a church or synagogue?...as they are even recognised named sanctified monotheists upstream correct?

That could happen and has happened in India. The government could acquire land that is occupied by a mosque for a purpose other than religious worship (industrial development/road construction/town planning) and later on sell off that land to a private entity that would construct a temple on it. Usually in cases like these, construction of a temple is not the original intention. I know of one particular case in Greater Noida where the Jaypee Greens now stands.

Your question regarding Islamic law is a tricky one to answer, since such cases would generally happen in non-Muslim countries where Islamic law does not exist. Having said that, I do not see Islamic jurisprudence prohibiting such a transaction, especially when the construction of a non-Muslim place of worship is not the stated goal of the transaction, but a consequence much later on.

 

[StandForInsaf]

Pakistan should consider erasing katas raj (mandir older then mahabharat itself) the tearful eyes of shiva , in retaliation to this Indian decision.

There Indian pm inaugurate mandir on babri masjid we do it here on katas raj.

@padamchen what an idea sir ji.

 

[padamchen]

Pakistan should consider erasing katas raj (mandir older then mahabharat itself) the tearful eyes of shiva , in retaliation to this Indian decision.

There Indian pm inaugurate mandir on babri masjid we do it here on katas raj.

@padamchen what an idea sir ji.

This is not a game of tit for tat.

What you do in your country is up to you.

We are the heartland of the Muslim rule of the subcontinent.

There are many structures standing today that were built on the debris of existing Hindu temples.

We have a long way to go.

Legally. Constitutionally. Firmly. With empathy and communal harmony.

Cheers, Doc

 

[StandForInsaf]

This is not a game of tit for tat.

What you do in your country is up to you.

We are the heartland of the Muslim rule of the subcontinent.

There are many structures standing today that were built on the debris of existing Hindu temples.

We have a long way to go.

Legally. Constitutionally. Firmly. With empathy and communal harmony.

Cheers, Doc

So you denounce thousand of year old mandir to us we can do what we want you have no objection to it ?
This is your shradha to shiv ji shame on you.

 

[padamchen]

So you denounce thousand of year old mandir to us we can do what we want you have no objection to it ?
This is your shradha to shiv ji shame on you.

Shiv ji has been famous for taking up residence at long distances per his whim.

Sometimes on the high mountain snows.

Sometimes on the western coast by the stormy seas.

Sometimes on top of a turbulent waterfall.

He is the Destroyer. Who can stop Him?

Surely not 200 million of his own kids?

Cheers, Doc

 

[Nilgiri]

It's called a hypocrite,

But why?..and why all of them? To be a hypocrite they would have to state their take and logic on the matter (and huge amount of that would first be dependent on how they interpret their faith I would assume)...and then run counter to what they asserted to be a hypocrite.

I disagree with many fellow Hindus on any number of issues...but their disagreement even a fundamental one...would not necessarily make them a hypocrite if they simply have used another interpretation, understanding and logical chain altogether. That's when I would have to talk to them and debate them to find out.

That could happen and has happened in India. The government could acquire land that is occupied by a mosque for a purpose other than religious worship (industrial development/road construction/town planning) and later on sell off that land to a private entity that would construct a temple on it. Usually in cases like these, construction of a temple is not the original intention. I know of one particular case in Greater Noida where the Jaypee Greens now stands.

Your question regarding Islamic law is a tricky one to answer, since such cases would generally happen in non-Muslim countries where Islamic law does not exist. Having said that, I do not see Islamic jurisprudence prohibiting such a transaction, especially when the construction of a non-Muslim place of worship is not the stated goal of the transaction, but a consequence much later on.

I find that a really icky way to get around the faith stuff (because you can then do things with underlying intent but not clear official intent...and that just leaves scope for argument and angst anyway)....but I get where you are coming from...esp if its a more recent modern kind of building with no real historic value etc....but of course even with this a consensus of its worshippers and its trust has to be taken for its sale etc.

I have always been proponent to leave ancient legacy places of worship to be as they are (as default)....whatever their history of people's actions who are long dead now. You learn the right and wrong from it and leave it there imo....resurfacing these things just bring up old wounds....and I do not see any scope to bring theological purism of earlier era... in today's modern world downstream....especially specifically for politics and mobs.

But appraently, this could not have been done with a status mosque/temple though (like babri masjid) in India we have today.... given the mob do or die, black or white issue out of it...and politics of course having to get involved.

I hate what this mob has done....and they seem emboldened. The then UP CM and Indian PM failed in 1992 big time...no doubt about it....just like our PM now failed in 2002 for a mob action of far worse kind.

How India survives its mob culture ascendancy today we will see. Thank God SC has been crystal clear that babri masjid is a one-off w.r.t Places of Worship Act....by arguing the case history goes back before the time the act took hold from (current Indian political independence).