Left historians prevented resolution of Babri Masjid

[Levina]

But that does not necessarily confirms he destroyed the temple beneath Babri Mosque

By the same logic- it is not necessary that he would have included every detail in his Baburnama for example, from the period 1508-1519 he had not made many entries.

3 and 4. We were never discussing if he was angel or not, or were we?

It is relevant to this discussion.

Do you have anything to say against Sikander?

It was common in the age he lived in.
But am not sure it's acceptable in Islam that's the reason I mentioned "Babri".

 

[SarthakGanguly]

Thik hai, mullahji.

Spelling mistake. It's THEEK HAI.

By the same logic- it is not necessary that he would have included every detail in his Baburnama for example, from the period 1508-1519 he had not made many entries.


It is relevant to this discussion.


It was common in the age he lived in.
But am not sure it's acceptable in Islam that's the reason I mentioned "Babri".

Babur would have more Hindu supporters today than he had Hindu enemies back in his day.

It will be like this -

Babur - "I shall destroy thy temple here and build our Mosque"
Secular Hindu - "I am sure you don't want to do that. It is entirely possible that a few shells from your artillery may fall on our temple by mistake...these guns are inaccurate... If the temples are already leveled, it would make sense to erect a Mohammedan temple in its place to mark a welcoming spot.
Babur - "SHUT UP. I shall kill you!!! I hate you lot!!!"
Secular Hindu - I believe you are tired and am confident that you never meant to generalize us with HATE..."
Babur - "Allah Damn it!"
Secular Hindu - "Yes sir, I find you very secular..."
Babur - "What's that? What do you mean infidel?"
Secular Hindu - "Ah, thank you for the compliment...it is something that you are but don't appear to be to the world..."

The Hindu is cut short as Babur cleanly cuts his head off.

 

[dray]

Principles of what? To undo one destruction with another one? A medieval practice of religious bigotry blended with political ambition reciprocated by a similar one in 21st century? A complete status quo should have been the goal of the government instead of bending knee principle in front of both Hindu and Muslim intimidation.

If it is wrong to 'undo one destruction with another one', then it is wrong irrespective of whether the temple underneath the mosque was destroyed naturally or forcefully. The principle is about taking a stand on whether we should reciprocate the 'medieval practice of religious bigotry blended with political ambition by a similar one in 21st century', or not. Debating on whether the temple was destroyed forcefully or not, whether that place was the birthplace of Ramlala or not, are inconsequential, and playing into the hands of your opposition (I can explain why). RSS's biggest success is that they could turn the debate in that direction on a national level. I am also for a status quo on this, but maybe it is too late for that..unless the supreme court gives a verdict for status quo.

 

[Tshering22]

About time you Hindus realised this.

Left, missionaries and jihadis... are the three heads of the same problem: anti-you and anti-us.

 

[unbiasedopinion]

Not interested in drivel. This is not mecca and if you want temple then take a time machine and go back 200 years. This is the republic of India not BJP Disneyland.

That is why we are waiting for the facts and SCs decision on it. Had it been Mecca or BJP dineyland, there would had been no reason to wait for the permission.

If the point of contention was not in the existence of a temple beneath the mosque, then whether it was destructed forcibly cannot be a point of contention too, in what other ways can there be a mosque over the ruins of a temple? Destroying temples and building mosques over them was not unusual in those days. And the birth place of Ram is a matter of faith as we have no sure way to prove with 100% certainty whether Ram was a historical character or a mythological character, it's like proving the existence of god with 100% certainty.

The only point of contention and debate can be about whether it is right or desirable to attempt to reset history by building temples (or three specific temples) now by destroying mosques that were built by destroying those temples in the past.

Tell me if you own a big plot which you have kept aside for building a nice house for yourself and i come and occupy it and build a casino over there? What will you do?

If it is wrong to 'undo one destruction with another one', then it is wrong irrespective of whether the temple underneath the mosque was destroyed naturally or forcefully. The principle is about taking a stand on whether we should reciprocate the 'medieval practice of religious bigotry blended with political ambition by a similar one in 21st century', or not. Debating on whether the temple was destroyed forcefully or not, whether that place was the birthplace of Ramlala or not, are inconsequential, and playing into the hands of your opposition (I can explain why). RSS's biggest success is that they could turn the debate in that direction on a national level. I am also for a status quo on this, but maybe it is too late for that..unless the supreme court gives a verdict for status quo.

Status Quo is the problem here. One side is looking for building the temple and second is maintaining the status quo. Hence status quo suits the other party more than the first party.

Also, status quo is just dragging the matter. Why not to solve it now rather than leaving it for the future generations to create more trouble. What ever good / bad has to happen will happen today and in 10-15 years things will normalize, then why not do it today.

 

[unbiasedopinion]

Spelling mistake. It's THEEK HAI.


Babur would have more Hindu supporters today than he had Hindu enemies back in his day.

It will be like this -

Babur - "I shall destroy thy temple here and build our Mosque"
Secular Hindu - "I am sure you don't want to do that. It is entirely possible that a few shells from your artillery may fall on our temple by mistake...these guns are inaccurate... If the temples are already leveled, it would make sense to erect a Mohammedan temple in its place to mark a welcoming spot.
Babur - "SHUT UP. I shall kill you!!! I hate you lot!!!"
Secular Hindu - I believe you are tired and am confident that you never meant to generalize us with HATE..."
Babur - "Allah Damn it!"
Secular Hindu - "Yes sir, I find you very secular..."
Babur - "What's that? What do you mean infidel?"
Secular Hindu - "Ah, thank you for the compliment...it is something that you are but don't appear to be to the world..."

The Hindu is cut short as Babur cleanly cuts his head off.

Loved it. This is how some of the chutiyas are behaving as secular Hindus. They are ashamed of their Hindu identity. They forget that they are able to say so many things because they are born in a country whch has majority as hindus. Apart from one or teo stray incidents Hindus dont even give damn to what these pseudo seculars are saying and it is best to ignore the barking dogs.

 

[Bombermanx1]

Yes.

And the likes you continued the destruction over and over again in your literary discourse.


Commitment to pluralism and religious tolerance?
LOL. India is THE country that saw the WORST massacres in the name of RELIGION in HISTORY. No other country witnessed slaughters in the name of God - WITHOUT the involvement of the Government!!!

There is no such commitment to tolerance. This has been a regular country and it has reacted with whatever force it had the power for.


Wrong. Many older mosques beside temples have a different story. During the Islamic rule, the older temples on their original sites were torn down with great pomp and Mosques built on them. During the Maratha rule or under patronage of some other Hindu Raja etc temples were built in close proximity without tearing down the mosque so that the original position of the temple can be restored TO SOME EXTENT. Kashi Vishwanath, Mathura all have this same history.

I can quote many numerous Holy sites of Hindus where there are DEAD BODIES (DARGAHS) inside temple premises,Idiot Hindus think they are some saints,when they are not! nor they know the history.
It was a practice of Islamic Invaders to demolish temples and build Dargahs or Masjids over it to mock and shame the Hindus.Thankfully as you said, we in south have resisted and due to Vijayanagara rule and Maratha, Hindu rulers we again rebuilt the temple, but North Indians still dwell in the the shame that we gave up our holy site to Muslims and somehow reconciled with that fact.Do you know how to fight back and reclaim your land or not?

This is YOUR opinion but commitment to pluralism and religious tolerance were the two founding stone of Indian national philosophy that mobilized and united billions Indians under one flag.

Pluralism and tolerance my arse! when Bong hindus like you were driven out or massacred in lakhs during Partition where was your Pluralism or Tolerance? Two founding principles, Pfffftt... Yeah right! United Billions?(World population is 7 BILLION, WHERE DOES BILLIONS IN BHARAT COME?)
Hello Bharat didn't have Billion population until 1990's Nice spin you leftist Bhadraloks give.

Request rejected. I will milk Taj instead. I am not an Islamic imperialist. Sorry about that. It will stay. In any case it never replaced any of the holiest of the Dharmic shrines. Had it been the birthplace of Guru Teghbahadur Singh/Gautam Buddh/etc - sure. But not otherwise.

We can paint Taj Mahal Saffron as Mehdi Hasan asked in his Interview with Ram Madhav
With the advent of latest technology Nano coat paints and a whole lot of things we can.... Hahahaha.