‘Verdict makes me feel like a 2nd-class citizen’

[kallu_be]

Ahhh ... OK...
I am an INDIAN first but then the this same judgement ASKS and ADHERE you to belive that you are a HINDU first?

Double standards smells here?

Come to rationality and argue that way!

Fighter

Where did your rationality comes from, Court decide on facts not on some mumbo jumbo you posted.

 

[brahmastra]

Mosque was an illegal construction declared by court and also not built by Islamic laws. so, it shouldn't be there at first place.

 

[LaBong]

It was choice between what is right and what is feasible. But one thing is true, this leads to a bad precedent, court should not have divided the land to hindus and muslims wehn they concluded neither of them is the owner of the land.

 

[fallstuff]

Typical Muslim mentality, they are hard to get pleased. @Fighter488, Most of the Hindus don't like Indian version of secularism, but you should be thankful to the majority community that India is still secular to minorities.

Telling your little bro how to behave or else ?

 

[Fighter488]

Mosque was an illegal construction declared by court and also not built by Islamic laws. so, it shouldn't be there at first place.

If it was illegal by Islamic law then how Indian Judicial System made it legal and gave 1/3rd land for its re-construction?

The truth is totally opposite. Babri masjid's 2/3 land is illegaly and unjustifiably snatched from muslims to serve the appetite of hard-line hindutwa forces.

Fighter

 

[kallu_be]

^^ I am just asking our Muslims brothers to be in the shoes of Hindus in so called secular Muslim majority countries like Malaysia, Indonesia let alone Islamic countries and compare them to the rights they get in India.

 

[fallstuff]

Where did your rationality comes from, Court decide on facts not on some mumbo jumbo you posted.

Court used the mumbo jumbo ASI report.

 

[kallu_be]

Court used the mumbo jumbo ASI report.

If you don't believe in reports prepared by govt appointed agencies, they there is no need to believe in rule of land.

 

[CONNAN]

Pointing to facts and gross negligience or in-aptness of judiciary is not a blame game. Verdict based on a "Faith and Belief" system is not how modern judicial system run over. Faith was not the deciding criteria even in mediavel times, how it become so now?

Habib sahab was pointing to the fact and he is right!

Fighter

just forget about the current issue for a second being a muslim it dosent make u a secondary citizen you are indian you are one of us and will be one of us and about the issue no comments some thngs aren't reversable

 

[Areesh]

If you don't believe in reports prepared by govt appointed agencies, they there is no need to believe in rule of land.

One of the questions the court framed was “whether the building has been constructed on the site of an alleged Hindu temple after demolishing the same.” Pursuant to this question, it asked the Archaeological Survey of India to conduct a dig at the site. This was done in 2003, during the time when the BJP-led National Democratic Alliance government was in power at the Centre. Not surprisingly, the ASI concluded that there was a “massive Hindu religious structure” below, a finding that was disputed by many archaeologists and historians.

Force of faith trumps law and reason in Ayodhya case

 

[Fireurimagination]

If it was illegal by Islamic law then how Indian Judicial System made it legal and gave 1/3rd land for its re-construction?

The truth is totally opposite. Babri masjid's 2/3 land is illegaly and unjustifiably snatched from muslims to serve the appetite of hard-line hindutwa forces.

Fighter

Court decided

- The said place is Ram Janambhoomi
- A temple was destroyed by babar to build the mosque
- Hindus has been offering prayers at the place since even time can remember
- Since the last 400 or so years both Hindu/Muslims/Nirmohi Akhara had joint control of the place hence 1/3rd, 1/3rd, 1/3rd

Now if the verdict is for me, I love the judiciary and if not damn they are biased is the mentality of a 10 year old

 

[kugga]

If it was illegal by Islamic law then how Indian Judicial System made it legal and gave 1/3rd land for its re-construction?

The truth is totally opposite. Babri masjid's 2/3 land is illegaly and unjustifiably snatched from muslims to serve the appetite of hard-line hindutwa forces.

Fighter

You are right but In my opinion Muslims should give all the land to hindus... and should build baadri masjid somewhere else... at least it will avoid any riots ...

Avoiding murders is more important than building a mosque in my opinion..

 

[luffy]

@fighter488

you must understand that the place is one of the most sacred places of hinduism(like kabba sry if my spelling is wrong) would you allow a temple in mecca near the kabba ? Sorry if I sound blunt, as a hindu, I think we have made a great sacrifice(which is good ) by alloting place for a mosque in the MOST SACRED PLACE of hinduism, you realize there was a temple before right? technically our MOST SACRED PLACE was snatched away from us by babar......and we were only taking back 1/3 of it. I thought of all people, indian muslims would understand the significance. How would you feel if the christians destroy the kabba, and build a church over it....? I know this is provocative, so I apolosize in advance.....

 

[brahmastra]

If it was illegal by Islamic law then how Indian Judicial System made it legal and gave 1/3rd land for its re-construction?

The truth is totally opposite. Babri masjid's 2/3 land is illegaly and unjustifiably snatched from muslims to serve the appetite of hard-line hindutwa forces.

Fighter

because muslims were praying there from more than 100 years.
and all the party involved in case were unable to prove that the land belongs to them. so they divided the property in all 3 party. according to article 12 of Indian constitution.(I'm not sure about the number of the article)

Let me give you an example, If you are owner of the house and you rent half of your house and if the person who rented the property lives there for more than 10 or 12 year. than the person who rented property refuses to vacant the property and after lodging case in court, if you fail to provide document that you are the real owner of the property than according to law the person who rented the property becomes co-owner.

 

[fallstuff]

In a different way the Alhabad Court sadly confirmed the dismal state of religious harmony contrary to the popular belief. Religious riots in India is not a thing in the past.