Point Of View with ArzooKazmi : An Indian Muslim's stance on Ayodhya

[Suriya]

Fascinating.

So you think putting icing sugar on a pile of shit makes it instant temptation?

Talking up sugar and shit, hey joe are you a rice convert?

 

[Joe Shearer]

Talking up sugar and shit, hey joe are you a rice convert?

LOL.

Would you respect my posts more or less depending on whether I was one?

 

[Dalit]

Funny how Sanghis are desperately seeking legitimacy for their crimes from Muslims.

That is the modus operandi of a Hindu extremist.

 

[Suriya]

LOL.

Would you respect my posts more or less depending on whether I was one?

It will certainly give some more context where you are coming from.

 

[Joe Shearer]

It will certainly give some more context where you are coming from.

You think so? Like your being asked if you continue to shave your armpits?

 

[Joe Shearer]

Funny how Sanghis are desperately seeking legitimacy for their crimes from Muslims.

I fail to see why you are surprised.

1. They know they have behaved badly.
2. They have been congratulating each other loudly, saying that they have not behaved badly.
3. They know that it isn't enough for people caught in crime to reassure each other.

I am curious to know, from whom would they seek legitimacy but the victims?

While you are at it, the second largest group to feature in their loud mutual reassurances is the non-denominational liberal. Does that make you think?

 

[Goenitz]

Business as usual. Mota Bhai is the Home Minister now; what's the law got to do with it?

same as Pak. rules are for elite.. If judges can be intimidated, anything can happen. Or if judges follow popular opinion. One of our judge used to get happy on his news tickers, when he used to take suo moto notice.
However being bias is totally different.

 

[Cookie Monster]

No, it isn't. It's the individual judges deciding discretion is the better part of valour. It's judges deciding that they don't want to see cases foisted on them or transfers done, if they don't jump through hoops.

The incident occurred in 1992...in Dec of this year it would be 28 years. If discretion is required that's fine...but to take this long that is indeed incompetence in delivering justice(whatever the circumstances e.g. transfers).

 

[letsrock]

Talking up sugar and shit, hey joe are you a rice convert?

If they convert for a rice which is life sustaining commodity then all power to them - also shows they are smart. What does brahmanism give them - untouchability and humiliation.

 

[TNT]

You've no idea what you are talking about.

Kashi- Vishwanath mandir converted into Gyanvapi mosque

Mathura- Mosque built on top of Krishna Janmbhoomi

I as a muslim would not pray in those mosques. its clearly forbidden in Islam. Such acts only creates friction. But since india is not anymore under muslim rule and times have changed, it could have opted for a neutral way in between. Those 200 million are indian citizens not Pakistani.

 

[Joe Shearer]

same as Pak. rules are for elite.. If judges can be intimidated, anything can happen. Or if judges follow popular opinion. One of our judge used to get happy on his news tickers, when he used to take suo moto notice.
However being bias is totally different.

I don't think it is bias. I think the very clear changes in direction post-2014 show what has happened. It makes one wonder how to protect vulnerable individuals after a future recovery, if there is one.

 

[Joe Shearer]

The incident occurred in 1992...in Dec of this year it would be 28 years. If discretion is required that's fine...but to take this long that is indeed incompetence in delivering justice(whatever the circumstances e.g. transfers).

Discretion did not mean a wise and judicious application of the law; it meant an abstention from decision making. Not incompetence, but fear. It was not transfers alone; the Chief Justice was confronted with a transparently cooked up charge of sexual harrassment, and horrific consequences. One of the three-man Election Commission, who put in minority dissenting views on some very slanted decisions taken, had his son audited and investigated by the tax authorities, and charges were in the making that involved severe penalties. They would not have stuck, but, as in the case of Kafeel Khan, the process was the punishment.

 

[xeuss]

Any sane judiciary wouldn't conflate two separate cases even if they are related.

Ram jamanbhi/Babri mosques land dispute case was going since 1950s onward, you should be thankful to Hindu patience who waited 70 long years for a judgement to arrive about space which means so much to them.

Hindu "patience" was on display on Dec 6, 1992.

 

[xeuss]

I fail to see why you are surprised.

1. They know they have behaved badly.
2. They have been congratulating each other loudly, saying that they have not behaved badly.
3. They know that it isn't enough for people caught in crime to reassure each other.

I am curious to know, from whom would they seek legitimacy but the victims?

While you are at it, the second largest group to feature in their loud mutual reassurances is the non-denominational liberal. Does that make you think?

I don't know what is funnier. The Sanghis seeking the legitimacy from the Muslims, or the Muslims willingly (and unwittingly) providing it. The same can be said for the liberals as well.

 

[Cookie Monster]

Discretion did not mean a wise and judicious application of the law; it meant an abstention from decision making. Not incompetence, but fear. It was not transfers alone; the Chief Justice was confronted with a transparently cooked up charge of sexual harrassment, and horrific consequences. One of the three-man Election Commission, who put in minority dissenting views on some very slanted decisions taken, had his son audited and investigated by the tax authorities, and charges were in the making that involved severe penalties. They would not have stuck, but, as in the case of Kafeel Khan, the process was the punishment.

I'm not singling out judges and blaming them. My statement was more of a general statement.

My main argument is that the ppl(bhakts) trying to correct the supposed "injustice" done in a "might is right" kind of way...don't see that they are doing the same thing...
...except in this case the society has supposed to have progressed from monarchy to democracy. This includes everyone involved in suppressing this case/investigation. Even if there are judges who may still want to uphold the law...it doesn't matter bcuz as a whole the system is failing.

If this is what the majority has chosen going forward...then why not get rid of the garb of a secular democracy? If this is what the majority has not chosen...then the majority should speak up and not be bystanders to the few that are destroying the system by taking the law into their own hands.