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

[Von Hölle]

This is what i called reading between lines, where did i mentioned that i didn't like the idea of secularism. I have clearly mentioned "Indian version of secularism", which is no where closer to clear separation of state and church. If Indian state implements uniform civil law to all citizens rather than acting like a bigot, i personally have no problem handing over land to muslims.

If you believe in secularism ..then who the hell are you to suggest that Indian Muslims should be glad that India is secular..you should be equally glad India is secular not a Islamic or Christan or a Sikh state.

Most Indian laws uniform in their application except one in which Muslims are allowed to take more than one wife..but thats should be none of your concern..if you wan't such a law for your community to..then go file an appeal and get the Hindu marriage act abolish...then all the laws will be uniform.

 

[luffy]

I agree with you partially. It is the most sacred place for the followers of Hindu faith. Its just another Mosque for the Indian Muslims.

However, your blunt part is what makes the minoriy faith follower rather uncomfortable. There was no temple accoridng to the interim ASI report before the report had a 180 turnaround.

I will be frank, I ready don't know much about this, I will look into it mate and comeback.

Sikh didn't get any justice on the 1984 riots. Justice is yet to be delivered also on the Bomaby and Gujrat riots. However, justice was delivered based on a mumbo jumbo ASI report.

I agree it is a shame, that there should be speedy justice to muslims, sikhs( or any other group killed in riots), but as you know every thing is very slow in india, but I am sure justice will be done, you realize many of the perpretrators of gujarat have been cornered right?

Fighters concern is real. If you are the majority you can have your way in India.

I understand his plight, you make a headway to a problem only if you understand what the other person's opinion is right? I would be offended too if people smash my holysite, and give me 1/3rd of it after 20 years, but we must look at the other side too....this problem is not 20 years old,but 400, babhri is special case anyway, I don't see people demanding temples at all the places mosques were built on demolished temples.
My personal opinion: we made a sacrifice(land given to build a mosque), i expect the other party to make some sacrifice too and we move on happly ever after.
But the people who destroyed the mosque should be severly punished, there is no 2 ways about it.

thank you, please check the bolded part

 

[KS]

If you believe in secularism ..then who the hell are you to suggest that Indian Muslims should be glad that India is secular..you should be equally glad India is secular not a Islamic or Christan or a Sikh state.

Comon what logic is there for India to be Muslim or a christian state in the first place.?? why it is even coming here.

India had a choice of being either a Hindu state or a secular one and it chose to be Secular.

Though I must add indian version of Secularism is actually not secularism at all.

Most Indian laws uniform in their application except one in which Muslims are allowed to take more than one wife..but thats should be none of your concern..if you wan't such a law for your community to..then go file an appeal and get the Hindu marriage act abolish...then all the laws will be uniform.

And why Muslims alone must have separate laws.Doesnt the constitution say the law applies to all irrespective of caste,creed and religion.

 

[PakShaheen79]

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

I was about to say the same. It is very amusing that India Judicial system is not based on Islamic laws still it has given the reason that since the mosque was built "in volition of Islamic law" hence it was illegal.


Above all look at the judges who have upheld the Hindu fanatics' view about ram's birth. It is the same judge Mr Sharma who earlier wanted the dispute to be settled outside the court.

The same judge and the other hindu judge said it was birth place of ram hence 2/3 should go to the hindus while Muslims should be kicked out of the mosque.

It has once again exposed Indian mindset where Muslims have no worthy place but they have to follow the beliefs of Hindus.


I am sorry to say but India should come up with its Hindu status openly in front of the world instead of playing secularism bluff. Atleast in that case the world will not be as disappointed over favoring majority Hindus by Indian judicial system.

 

[kallu_be]

If you believe in secularism ..then who the hell are you to suggest that Indian Muslims should be glad that India is secular..you should be equally glad India is secular not a Islamic or Christan or a Sikh state.

Given India is 80% Hindus, there is no chance for your hypothetical orgasm to happen. Given that what Hindus endured thousand years of barbaric Islamic occupation (apart from some mughal kings) and plundering, one should thank Hindus for accepting the idea of Secular republic rather than going Pakistan way.

Most Indian laws uniform in their application except one in which Muslims are allowed to take more than one wife..but thats should be none of your concern..if you wan't such a law for your community to..then go file an appeal and get the Hindu marriage act abolish...then all the laws will be uniform.

"Shah Bano" case, ringing any bells.

 

[forcetrip]

Fighters concern is real. If you are the majority you can have your way in India.

Isn't that the basics of Democracy? I hate to say it but it is a compromised solution. But for this solution they should never have made a star plus serial in courts. Faith has nothing to do with the rule of Law. People were killed over a structure that was built 400 years ago when common sense was much different than it is today. The argument to demolish and recreate something that long ago because of someones elses stupid mistake does not hold water in today's world. Do not bring the law into a decision like this. The best way to argue this would definitely be that If a temple was built on top of the Kabba, what would be the course of action then. I would be more in favour of emptying out the mosque and remodel it into a temple.

 

[Von Hölle]

Comon what logic is there for India to be Muslim or a christian state in the first place.?? why it is even coming here.

India had a choice of being either a Hindu state or a secular one and it chose to be Secular.

Though I must add indian version of Secularism is actually not secularism at all.

Why wasn't India Islamic state for hundreds of year despite majority being Hindu ..weren't there biased laws against Hindus and other religions in Mughal era?

I am glad India adopted the secular path despite its history otherwise we would have country full of Hindu fundamentalist..I shudder at the thought of that.

And why Muslims alone must have separate laws.Doesnt the constitution say the law applies to all irrespective of caste,creed and religion.

Having separate law is upto Hindu community of India..if you can prove it in court, that your religions allows you to keep more than one wife ..then gladly court will aproove..after all Raja Dashrat had 3 wifes.

 

[Areesh]

Though I must add indian version of Secularism is actually not secularism at all.

Yeah. We all agree with you.

 

[luffy]

Isn't that the basics of Democracy? I hate to say it but it is a compromised solution. But for this solution they should never have made a star plus serial in courts. Faith has nothing to do with the rule of Law. People were killed over a structure that was built 400 years ago when common sense was much different than it is today. The argument to demolish and recreate something that long ago because of someones elses stupid mistake does not hold water in today's world. Do not bring the law into a decision like this. The best way to argue this would definitely be that If a temple was built on top of the Kabba, what would be the course of action then. I would be more in favour of emptying out the mosque and remodel it into a temple.

I sincerely appreciate your open and liberal attitude mate, and I only wish everyone in this world was like that, but I strongly think that muslims would not have given it up without a fight, if the ancient muslim invaders did not show a modicum of sympathy to other's holy monuments(somnath?) I would expect them to go crazy over a temple(pagan) built over the kaba and rightly so. History has examples too, remember the crusades...?

 

[Fireurimagination]

Having separate law is upto Hindu community of India..if you can prove it in court, that your religions allows you to keep more than one wife ..then gladly court will aproove..after all Raja Dashrat had 3 wifes.

Do you remember the Shah Bano case dude, how secular was it huh?

In a secular state religion should have no say what so ever

 

[arun]

The Shah Bano case seems to be the beginning of this kind of politics. To grab the radical Muslim vote-bank, the Congress rode roughshod over the SC judgement via a legislation. Then, to appease the radical Hindu groups, it opened the locks of the locked masjid. Look where this kind of cynical politics has brought us.

 

[fallstuff]

thank you, please check the bolded part

This is a repost from a diffeent thread

From BBC
BBC NEWS | South Asia | 'No sign' of Ayodhya temple

Independent archaeologists have been employed to try to determine whether the site at Ayodhya in northern Uttar Pradesh state belongs to Hindus or Muslims.

Archaeologists have spent the past three months tunnelling and digging and scraping away at earth beneath the site of a former mosque at Ayodhya.

In an interim report, the Archaeological Survey of India says it has not found any evidence of ruins of a Hindu temple.

The site in the northern Indian town has been at the centre of an angry dispute between Hindus and Muslims for decades.

 

[arun]

It was an interim report. The final report was submitted later and was taken into account by the court.

 

[fallstuff]

Isn't that the basics of Democracy? I hate to say it but it is a compromised solution. But for this solution they should never have made a star plus serial in courts. Faith has nothing to do with the rule of Law. People were killed over a structure that was built 400 years ago when common sense was much different than it is today. The argument to demolish and recreate something that long ago because of someones elses stupid mistake does not hold water in today's world. Do not bring the law into a decision like this. The best way to argue this would definitely be that If a temple was built on top of the Kabba, what would be the course of action then. I would be more in favour of emptying out the mosque and remodel it into a temple.

Court should rely on facts and science for justice, not the might of the majority.

 

[forcetrip]

If we keep discussing the temple it does not fortify the idea of secularism. There is no doubt in my mind that there was a mosque that was brought down on that site in 1992. First order of justice should be to find the people responsible for the destruction of a historic site before bartering over the remains. This case is now in a holding pattern and people who justify Faith based facts cannot justify secular rule of law.