Protests in Pakistan after Ayodhya judgement on babri masjid

[linkinpark]

This is hilarious!!. Why are Paks so concerned about an Indian legal judgment which has nothing to do with them. I think they should be concerned that their worship places are being attacked quite frequently by their own.

 

[Jungibaaz]

This is hilarious!!. Why are Paks so concerned about an Indian legal judgment which has nothing to do with them. I think they should be concerned that their worship places are being attacked quite frequently by their own.

We are fighting a war with the people that attack us, but what about you??? the people that took down Babri mosque, what have you done to them????

 

[Anonymous_Clown]

In Pakistan, i dont want even a dog to die protesting against this verdict coz 90% of indian muslims who i met r happy with this verdict, so pls my dear country men, let them have what they want, there blood have gone white.

Thankfully at least one Pakistani realizes that the Indian Muslims do not want Pakistan to be their Thekedaar. It infuriates and enrages Indian Muslims when Pakistan tries to speak on their behalf.

 

[rohitx007]

Well who so ever built it. It is sunni waqf board who has filed the case, so legally it is they who have interest in this issue.

As I said doesn't seems very related with Bharati secularism but inter-Islamic differences. By the way I think Babri mosque was under sunni administration.

well dude
i m a practicing lawyer in the same Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court which has delivered this verdict.
for your knowledge

1) Sunni waqf board is a government entity
therefore it comes under the definition of state under article 12 of indian constition therefore being a state it cannot take a side of a particular religion or group.it is only or the purpose of maintaining waqf properties. and its head in every district is district magistrate.
it was also a legal point in this title suit.

2) the most important reason why the suits of Waqf board and Nirmohi Akhara were dismissed by the court is that these both suits were barred by Indian Limitation Act which provides a period of Limitation for difrent types of suits, appeals and other legal proceedings. its a legal ground.

3) i know that none of you have read the 8,200 pages judgement and i have also not gone through it but i have read its 248 pages briefing and judges have relied on the report of Archaeological Survey of India which is 100% scientific and it was prepared in the presence of the representatives of both parties. This report clearly shows with pictures that the disputed structure of the so called Babri Masjid was built on the pillars of Black Stone which have images and pictures of devtas and kalash(chota sa ghada) and other hindu signs.

4) further my dear friends it further pertinent to mention here that as per Islamic law its mandatory of every masjid that it must have Minars but i hope that all of u have seen the images of Babari masjid and there were no minars in it.

5) its is not disputed that there was a structure which was used by Hindus for worship there(i m not saying Ram janambhumi) and later it was demolished by Mir Baki who was Governor of Babar and He had built a structure there.therefore it further proves that it was nor the private land of MIr baki or Babar neither it was bought by them but it was a disputed land and as per islamic laws a masjid must be built on a private land which must be owned by that person and it must not be disputed. therefore it was even against islam. further it is also important to tell you that this disputed structure was surrounded by hindu worshiping places and the only way to enter in that structure was thorough those ancient hindu places. this also proves that there was a structure which was used by hindus and worshiped by them as a ram janamsthan but later a mosque was built on that place without minars which was totally against islam

6) hindus are not opposing a mosque. even hindus have asked Muslims to build a big mosque on other place and for your knowledge there is a separate fund or musjid in fund raised by hindus for Mandir but Muslims have denied it. there was nothing so much important in a structure which was unislamic except this that it was built by babar therefore it may be replaced by a beautiful mosque which must be according to islam on other place because it can be changed but place o ram janambhumi cant be changed.

7) i also think in these 18-20 years indian public has became so much mature than that periond.

8) in this judgement Hon'ble justice S U Khan has mentions parts of hindu books and Hon'ble Justice Dharamveer sharma has mentioned some parts of kuran, hadits and preaching of prophet mohamad.

9) i have Seen an Interview of Justice Dharam Veer Sharma on aaj tak. he was asked by a reporter that he must have done great research on kuran then he replied him that kuran is a great book and none can do research on kuran. it is book which is like an order for every muslim from Allah but yes i have studied Kuran and gone with the preaching of Mohamad Sahab and also Hadits for delivering this justice.

i hope that my this post has solved some confusion in this forum

 

[KS]

well dude
i m a practicing lawyer in the same Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court which has delivered this verdict.
for your knowledge

1) Sunni waqf board is a government entity
therefore it comes under the definition of state under article 12 of indian constition therefore being a state it cannot take a side of a particular religion or group.it is only or the purpose of maintaining waqf properties. and its head in every district is district magistrate.
it was also a legal point in this title suit.

2) the most important reason why the suits of Waqf board and Nirmohi Akhara were dismissed by the court is that these both suits were barred by Indian Limitation Act which provides a period of Limitation for difrent types of suits, appeals and other legal proceedings. its a legal ground.

3) i know that none of you have read the 8,200 pages judgement and i have also not gone through it but i have read its 248 pages briefing and judges have relied on the report of Archaeological Survey of India which is 100% scientific and it was prepared in the presence of the representatives of both parties. This report clearly shows with pictures that the disputed structure of the so called Babri Masjid was built on the pillars of Black Stone which have images and pictures of devtas and kalash(chota sa ghada) and other hindu signs.

4) further my dear friends it further pertinent to mention here that as per Islamic law its mandatory of every masjid that it must have Minars but i hope that all of u have seen the images of Babari masjid and there were no minars in it.

5) its is not disputed that there was a structure which was used by Hindus for worship there(i m not saying Ram janambhumi) and later it was demolished by Mir Baki who was Governor of Babar and He had built a structure there.therefore it further proves that it was nor the private land of MIr baki or Babar neither it was bought by them but it was a disputed land and as per islamic laws a masjid must be built on a private land which must be owned by that person and it must not be disputed. therefore it was even against islam. further it is also important to tell you that this disputed structure was surrounded by hindu worshiping places and the only way to enter in that structure was thorough those ancient hindu places. this also proves that there was a structure which was used by hindus and worshiped by them as a ram janamsthan but later a mosque was built on that place without minars which was totally against islam

6) hindus are not opposing a mosque. even hindus have asked Muslims to build a big mosque on other place and for your knowledge there is a separate fund or musjid in fund raised by hindus for Mandir but Muslims have denied it. there was nothing so much important in a structure which was unislamic except this that it was built by babar therefore it may be replaced by a beautiful mosque which must be according to islam on other place because it can be changed but place o ram janambhumi cant be changed.

7) i also think in these 18-20 years indian public has became so much mature than that periond.

8) in this judgement Hon'ble justice S U Khan has mentions parts of hindu books and Hon'ble Justice Dharamveer sharma has mentioned some parts of kuran, hadits and preaching of prophet mohamad.

9) i have Seen an Interview of Justice Dharam Veer Sharma on aaj tak. he was asked by a reporter that he must have done great research on kuran then he replied him that kuran is a great book and none can do research on kuran. it is book which is like an order for every muslim from Allah but yes i have studied Kuran and gone with the preaching of Mohamad Sahab and also Hadits for delivering this justice.

i hope that my this post has solved some confusion in this forum

You think its logic and a real sense of concern that is the cause of the debate here.??

Anyways good post.

 

[rohitx007]

Well, Mosque is 500 years old not decades. I heard about Kashi etc as sacred place but never about that Mosque till recently. I also heard that the Puruhit raped a lady inside that sacred place so that Babor demolish that eshtablishment and built the mosque.

The time we talked about, a king was entitled to give away land to anybody which was the law the land of that time.

Anyways things are settled now and Muslim needs to move on. Hindus seems like going to build a Ram Mandir there which is good as they think that is their sacred place like Bethelham. Muslim should build a Memorial on their part of the land instead of mosque remembering the People killed by the onslaught of Hindu fanatics.

Mumbai attack or Daud Ibrahim is irrelevant to this case, so does Kashmir.

 

[Areesh]

See around the world - From Abu Sayyaf in Phillipine to Kashmir to LeT to TTP to Taaliban to Iraq to Hamas to Saudi Wahabbis to Sudan,Somalia almost all those professing extremist methods are Sunnis.

Looks like the Indian secularism changes faces for sect to sect and person to person.

@rohitx007

Irrelevant post and unnecessary. You better read my posts and try to comprehend what I have been asking for in all those posts.

 

[rohitx007]

Looks like the Indian secularism changes faces for sect to sect and person to person.

@rohitx007

Irrelevant post and unnecessary. You better read my posts and try to comprehend what I have been asking for in all those posts.

Bhaia mana irrelevent hai
Bt please give me an example of mosque without minars

 

[Zeluvaa]

4) further my dear friends it further pertinent to mention here that as per Islamic law its mandatory of every masjid that it must have Minars but i hope that all of u have seen the images of Babari masjid and there were no minars in it.

5) its is not disputed that there was a structure which was used by Hindus for worship there(i m not saying Ram janambhumi) and later it was demolished by Mir Baki who was Governor of Babar and He had built a structure there.therefore it further proves that it was nor the private land of MIr baki or Babar neither it was bought by them but it was a disputed land and as per islamic laws a masjid must be built on a private land which must be owned by that person and it must not be disputed. therefore it was even against islam. further it is also important to tell you that this disputed structure was surrounded by hindu worshiping places and the only way to enter in that structure was thorough those ancient hindu places. this also proves that there was a structure which was used by hindus and worshiped by them as a ram janamsthan but later a mosque was built on that place without minars which was totally against islam

Bhaia mana irrelevent hai
Bt please give me an example of mosque without minars

It is no where written in Islamic Law that mosques must have a Minaret. It is not mandatory. As a matter of fact, during the prophets (SAWS) time, mosques did not have minarets at all. They are later inventions.

So please refrain from making comments without doing a bit of background check....or if not at least back up your claims with sources. I did not bother to read the rest of the post for credibility, as I am not fussed either way.

 

[Bhairava]

Looks like the Indian secularism changes faces for sect to sect and person to person.

Typical attempt to divert the topic when faced with hard facts.

 

[Hutchroy]

2010 is a century away from 1992 - Arab News

M.J. AKBAR | ARAB NEWS

2010 is a century away from 1992

The judiciary is more important than any judgment.

Every institution has to be larger than the sum of its members, and nowhere more so than the two pillars of any democracy, Parliament and the judiciary. We do not question the legitimacy of an enactment just because we disagree with an MP, or indeed because the behavior of some MPs might have been unsavory. A substantial section of India did not agree with the passage of the nuclear bill in 2009; and evidence of bribery in the process was produced, in a fairly dramatic way, during the proceedings. This did not mean rejection of the new legislation.

Lawyers and leaders of the Sunni Wakf board and the Muslim Personal Law Board have repeatedly insisted that they would abide by the judgment of the courts. This was both reasonable and acceptable (reason and response have not necessarily been in harmony during the long years of contention over a mosque at Ayodhya). When the Allahabad High Court’s judgment was deferred by the Supreme Court for about a week, there was perceptible irritation among Muslims, who wanted the verdict to be announced. It is possible that such enthusiasm for the verdict was fueled by a conviction that it would go in favor of the mosque. The lawyers and spokesmen of the pro-mosque movement displayed considerable confidence. Maybe they forgot that however strong a case may be, it still has to be argued before a bench, and complacency within the legal team can be a fatal flaw. It was the BJP that was preparing for an adverse judgment. Its leader L.K. Advani told his party repeatedly, before the verdict, that any remorse should be a private matter; and that violence was unacceptable. No disputant can deny the validity of the judicial process, or the credibility of the verdict, just because it has gone against you. That is counterproductive, and dangerous.

In any case, the Allahabad judgment is a semi-colon, not a full stop. The full stop will come when the Supreme Court takes a decision. Muslims will appeal, as they have every right to. It must also be stressed that in 1993 Parliament clearly prevented the courts from hearing any other dispute over a place of worship. Ayodhya is the last case of its kind.

The Congress, which has been in power during all four of the nodal points of the Babri-Ayodhya controversy — opening of British Raj locks and installation of idols in 1949, laying of the foundation stone for a temple in 1989, destruction of Babri in 1992 and the verdict in 2010 — is in search of an “amicable” settlement. The game is old and evident. Congress policy on the dispute has rotated around one axis: How to get the temple built without losing the Muslim vote. The BJP has no Muslim vote to lose, but it will support such an under-the-surface endeavor since it obviously wants a temple to be constructed as soon as possible. If Ayodhya is the last case of its kind perhaps we should let it complete the legal process as well. We have waited for six decades; why not wait for two or three years more?

Any “amicable” settlement is unlikely to be amicable enough for everyone, to begin with and could degenerate into a “political” compromise that could strain community relations rather than heal them. If we trust our institutions then we must trust them fully.

Pseudo-politicians in religious garb seem to be able to resist everything except temptation, to paraphrase Oscar Wilde. Unsurprisingly, therefore, one or two professional fire-breathers among Muslims have reinforced their reputation for irresponsibility by indulging in provocative rhetoric from the pulpit. They have not learned from the experience of a quarter century what the price of provocation is, for they never suffer. The price is paid by the poor and the defenseless, who live in crowded lanes, defenseless on one side and hostile on the other.

There is, however, some good news. Those who think they can still milk hysteria are blind to an extraordinary change that has come about in India. The people, Hindu or Muslim, have risen above the negative politics of communal conflict; they want the positive politics of development. Faith and worship still matters to Indians; and it is a very limited, elitist, Delhi notion that the young have moved beyond religion. They have not. But they have moved beyond violence as a means to their horizon.

The impoverished have understood a simple, important, overriding reality: Poverty is not communal. There is no shortage of places for prayer in our country. There is, however, a shortage of self-respect, since every hungry stomach in our country is a sharp slap on the face of the idea of India. 2010 is a hundred years away from 1992.

 

[53fd]

Pakistanis have traditionally been more Kashmiri than Kasshmiris themselves,more Palestinian

You talk as if being a Pakistani and Kashmiri are separate identities. Being Pakistani and Kashmiri is not a separate identity: for example, Azad Kashmir. There are plenty of Pakistani Kashmiris out there. So your point is moot.

And even if they are a separate identity, then being an Indian and Kashmiri are separate identities too. In fact, there technically was no such thing as India before 1947 because each state was ruled by their respective ruler, and there was no collective identity. Hence, technically India shouldn't have any right over Kashmir as well as the other states; because technically Kashmir is for Kashmiris only, Maharashtra is for Marathis only, Assam is for Assame people only etc.