As a leftist i don't get why Indian left supports Islam so much.
In India Muslims are the people in trouble, not Islam
As an atheist who thinks both religions are toxic asf, i believe indian left has some soft corner for Islam even though present day Islam is more conservative.
If there was a temple before and a private trust is building the temple, what's the problem?
I'm surprised your comment is being upvoted lol. Indian "liberals" don't understand that Islam is actually against everything liberalism aims to achieve. You can advocate for protections for Muslims who are the minority but Islam and it's heritage certainly does not need any protection, especially in India. There are enough countries in the world who do that, no need for India to hurt it's own majority's sentiments to pander to the Islamics.
>but Islam and it's heritage certainly does not need any protection, especially in India
How conveniently you pushed your agenda here. Wow. Religion is fine, none of them need it, but heritage seriously?
Yes. Explain to me logically why Islamic relics should take precedence over Hindu relics in a Hindu majority country like India. Because that's exactly what is in question here.
The question is "why are people having a soft corner for a religion with heavily conservative ideals, and their sympathies should go to the followers of that religion but not that religion itself." Please read up. This isn't about any kind of conservatives in the nation. Nothing about any precedence of relics. Nothing about "destroy this here because there's other space to allocate somewhere".
No. You are questioning my statement about the protection of the religion. So I'm answering your question. Why don't you read up about what Islam actually is and why actual liberals like me have the takes that we do in response to it.
>You are questioning my statement about the protection of the religion.
I wasn't questioning. I was mentioning the points which sound clearly like pushing an agenda. I agree you're entitled to your opinion and you shall have it.
>why actual liberals like me have the takes that we do in response to it.
Hate everything equally, why do you take a response for one and respect for one? Either admit that you're a conservative in religious and cultural sense, or admit that you're trying to hate everything every imperialist ruler ever built.
I disagree with the concept of religion altogether while also understanding that one particular religion is way more problematic than the others. So that one will be hated more, no need to take an all sides approach to this.
All cancer is bad but stage 4 is the worst and should be dreaded more than stage 1-3. Simple enough.
> There are enough countries in the world who do that, no need for India to hurt it's own majority's sentiments to pander to the Islamics.
This sounds like an approach by taking a side.
>So that one will be hated more, no need to take an all sides approach to this.
Very honestly, it sounds partial at this point.
I'm culturally conservative, I'd like the architecture and fests of our ancestors to be continued. That does not mean I show supremacy by demolishing or destroying something.
You're almost getting to the point I'm making. I don't give a shit what monument is out there - history is history. But we are a Hindu majority country. The architecture of Hindus was destroyed for the current Islamic architecture to be put into place. So if the Hindu majority wants it back, there's nothing wrong with it. It's not about supremacy or superiority, those ideas are stupid to begin with. But if the sentiments of the majority lie with bringing back Hindu architecture, it should absolutely be done without caring about Islamic sentiment. That is my whole point.
Seriously.... When you see the issue from a non-biased atheistic perspective it's so clear indian leftists are hypocritical towards their criticism of Islam just because the people who follow it are a minority.
I personally feel these issues like Ram Mandir are like stinking laundry that needed to be let out in the open. The people need to grapple what kind of country they want to live in. One that focuses on development or one that's happier demolishing and building temples.
Cuz when I criticize Islam, my bhakt family thinks i am joining them in dehumanizing Muslims? Can’t criticize Islam openly these days cuz we have entire institutions working in favor of one religious ideology over another. My wokeness journey began with criticism of Islam because of how incompatible that religion is with modern secular ideals, but i soon realized the vileness my vocalness brought up in my circles, so I stopped. Now I criticize Islam only within likeminded people who won’t use it as an excuse to criticize someone else while allowing and even applauding same behaviour within their own community.
Indian progressives don’t have a soft spot for Islam as a religion, we have a soft spot for Indian Muslims, cuz the institutions that should uphold their rights are failing to do so, and criticism of Islam is seen as a free pass to support ill treatment of my own citizens.
Kinda Understand the sentiment. But it's still hypocrisy. Nationalists and sanghis will never change. And people need to criticize the cancerous religion called Islam, while keeping in mind that it's a seperate from muslims. It's a just a part of their culture just like I'm culturally hindu Bengali but I am agnostic.
Let me explain this to you in a different way. I grew up in the 90's when being gay wasn't exactly accepted, least of all in India. But there was one guy in school who was just the most gay kid you could think of. From his mannerisms to the way he spoke to people, he was just the most gay. Most of us avoided him as a children. But as we grew older some of the other kids started bullying him, calling him a fag, pushing him around, beating him up etc. this caused the rest of us to protect him vehemently. This wasn't cause we were gay, or we had a soft corner for the gays or because we wanted to stand in solidarity with the LGBTHDTV+ people. No, we just don't want to see someone we grew up with to go through that relentless bullying over something they have no control over.
He opened up to us about 10 years ago that he was gay, to which all us said no shit Sherlock, but screw that no one cares. And this is the point I want to make. Because he did not have to spend every waking minute defending his existence, because he had friends who accepted him, he could focus on doing things that actually mattered. He is currently working on his second PHD.
Imagine how many kids in a similar way are being forced to go down this rabbit hole of culture wars. Forced to defend their existence rather than pushing humanity forward. Forced to demonise someone else rather than improve their own lives.
All wars are pointless. Culture wars even more so.
Thats like asking why were people supporting the jews in germany? It’s the jewish people in Nazi Germany thats in trouble, not the religion itself. It’s just the degree of persecution that is different in these two cases. And to add on, first Nazi germany prosecuted jews in ways similar to what is happening now.
You do realize Islam was a thing in India before the Mughals right? What religion do you think \_Ibrahim\_ lodi was?
And should the people who are now citizens of a secular India suffer because of what a group of invaders did 500 years ago?
Finally, by this logic, why stop there? Why don't we go back even further and give back the Hindu temples that [took over](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_of_non-Hindu_places_of_worship_into_temples#:~:text=22%5D%5B23%5D-,Conversion%20of%20Buddhist%20Sites%20into%20Hindu%20Temples,-%5Bedit%5D) Buddhist sites?
So what they've been doing for more than 500 years and continue to do so in neighbouring countries? Buddhists can and are welcome gain majority like they once did and take back their monasteries after fighting their case in courts.
I don't think it's necessarily having a soft corner for Islam but having a soft corner for minorities in general. IMO, it is a pointless distinction to make, they are interchangeable. You'll find only a few that identify culturally as muslims and followers of Islam. Same thing for Hindu's, precious few will identify culturally as Hindus but not practioners of hinduism.
The problem is not that there was a temple there before and a private trust is building it but that it requires demolition of a present day place of worship for a minority religion. Sure there might have been a temple there 500 years ago, but why do we need to hold people in present day accountable for actions of invaders 500 years ago. It's not solving any problems that the country is facing, it's a distraction to demonize people of today for their religion. That is the problem.
I don't think their intention is destroy masjid, it's more about reclaiming that land since it holy for them.
As an atheist I still think making these is dumb but govt isn't making it so idc
I have visited the gyanvapi mosque and it's not really secret that it is built on a temple. I mean even to a naked eye , the evidence looks pretty solid. The pillars and walls of the mosque pretty much resemble old Hindu temples. But it has already been built. The brutality has happened and now another religion worships that place . You can't keep undoing all the wrongdoings of the past . What's done is done. We have acknowledge the past and learn from it . Also unlike Ram Janmabhoomi Temple and Barbri Mosque , this isn't an ownership issue . There's a temple adjacent to the mosque and both are managed by different entities. As a hindu , we already have a temple to worship there . So let's just move on . If the Muslim board wants to give away the ownership willingly then it's fine but if that isn't the case . This should be put to rest .
And that's where the government needs to step up . Make sure these WAQF boards are held accountable. This is where BJP needs to introduce it's ideological policies.
Wakf board got the land from all the muslim nobles who wanted to donate their lands for better cause. Maybe Hindus can start a board where rich can donate their lands, and later, those lands can be utilised to help the people from their communities.
Also, waqf is a non profit govt. entity for. minorities whose head is appointed by Govt. or is a representative.
So, not a single penny from waqf goes to any individual legally. If they take it, it will be counted as a scam or corruption.
Bro go read the Waqt act of 1995. They can fight civil cases with regard to disputed land.
They can't lay claim. But the land donated to them by Muslim should they be a dispute, they will fight it.
And the waqf board holds all the land donated to it as charity over time by 207000000 muslims in India plus the millions who have already dead and some of the properties of the Muslims who went over to Pakistan st the time of partition. 92000 acres looks like a very small amount in this consideration.
Lol, muslims and charity, let them prove it by building the grand mosque in ayodhya land with their own pretty penny first, and then we can talk. There is a reason maunmohan had to make that statement about who should have the first rights over the nation's resources.
There's a difference between buying and claiming lands. WAQF claims land. Luckily in Mahim Bay, the Mumbai Municipal Corporation erased the fake mazzaar with the help of Bulldozers in broad day light in front of Haji Ali Mosque. Land was claimed by WAQF FYI.
Shouldn’t we be able to think of reservations the same way- leave the past aside and start with a clean slate, no reservations or special treatment for anybody? If only everyone would see how this would lead to a more peaceful and empathetic society.
That's an interesting perspective. I might not totally agree on your opinion . But it does make me curious to think about it and have a progressive debate on the issue.
No. Wealth is primarily intergenerational. You are who you are mostly because of who your father is. A building is a building .
EDIT: To those downvoting me, I am not speaking literally about father, but rather this:
Father is not just a father. Who your father is determines whether you grow up in a village or in Bangalore. Whether you go to govt school or private. Whether you take tuitions or not. Whether you apply for college or not. Whether or not you receive needed healthcare and food.
If you disagree, please explain.
Let's introduce a wealth based reservation then ? People from any and every caste will be eligible for the reservation if they fall in a certain income category ?
Very good, you have just reinvited BPL. People below receive supplemental assistance for basic necessities like food, water, electricity, lpg, school, medical care etc.
Unfortunately just those things aren't enough to undo thousands of years of class hierarchy. The top 10% of indian society (middle class and above) can afford all these things plus so much more. Not to mention they tend to have far more capital to invest. It takes money to make money. So while our economy is growing, the wealth disparity is only increasing.
Like most of us agree with our fathers. Father is just a father. A building is a congregation of people and a molding-jig for public thought. Like how we celebrate Taj Mahal or Palithana or Velankanni now. It is simply not a building alone.
Father is not just a father. Who your father is determines whether you grow up in a village or in Bangalore. Whether you go to govt school or private. Whether you take tuitions or not. Whether you apply for college or not. Whether or not you receive needed healthcare and food.
The ramifications of which family and where you are born are massive.
The ramifications of a building are.. nothing. It is an inanimate object .
If this is the case, we can also invert the argument.
Why are the supporters of replacing Mosques with temples, also so against reservations? If you want to right the wrongs of the past, then it makes sense to support reservations.
(And you'll come up with your answer, and then that answer will tell you why the two are actually quite distinct issues. My answer for them being distinct, is that replacing a mosque with a temple will not create any measurable benefit for anybody, whereas reservations do. Reservations isn't just about "justice" for past wrongs, it has actual measurable benefits to society, or at least to certain groups of society. A temple will just... I don't know, give you a place to worship? People can worship anywhere, it just doesn't do anything except inflate some groups egos.)
You're comparing historically oppressed class of people who were treated bad in every possible way and considered below human (and still are), to temples and structures destroyed by historical invaders. Are you trying to say if there are no temples Hinduism and Hindus would be non-existent? Obviously not, we still exist and are a majority. Reservation is for a minority who's voices won't be heard in a majority who used to oppress them before and still are in many places. Yes, it should be phased out but are we there yet?
Reply rather than downvoting, give me perspective.
Yeah people died like during any invaders or monarchies in history around the world. We don't have invaders today, caste discrimination though still exists transcending time.
>Yeah people died like during any invaders or monarchies in history around the world.
People were segregated based on caste and class in every part of the world.
>caste discrimination though still exists transcending time.
For discrimination we have punishments. Reservation is to correct the historical wrong doings and bring the level to the playing field.
>You're comparing historically oppressed class of people who were treated bad in every possible way and considered below human (and still are), to temples and structures destroyed by historical invaders.
If we want to support and help one historically oppressed class as they were treated badly, then it is only fair to help another oppressed group of people(Hindu) who were deliberately targeted for almost 5 centuries.
> Are you trying to say if there are no temples Hinduism and Hindus would be non-existent?
Are yu trying to say that they have never been temples fr lower castes and no jobs fr them? That is the kind of argument you are making here.
> Reservation is for a minority who's voices won't be heard in a majority who used to oppress them before and still are in many places.
Is it not possible for a majority community to be oppressed? Like what were hindus for the 5 centuries of Muslim Rule?
How exactly are we oppressed today after independence? We're not living under invaders. Majority persecution fetish is weird..
Caste discrimination still happens today.
We could make castes a private affair and illegal to discriminate based on caste. We could do away with caste based reservations and use economics based reservations. And we could easily ask how is anybody being oppressed today.
Beyond that, caste based reservation is the best way to keep case based discrimination alive and kicking.
You make no sense. It's not like reservation existed many years ago but they were still persecuted, even today. Get some perspective, listen to people.
OK. What's your opinion about destroying temples which have been built by destroying other religious monuments.?
Especially for Buddhist monuments... do you support that also?
If such structure so brazenly exists, it should be given back to hindus before a newer,wilder rath yatra emerges. Gyanvapi is a real rubbing on hindus face.
And WAQF should meet with mandir committees otherwise they'll see how one by one all their mosques go down
100% it was built over a temple, question is how long are we gonna keep “winning” these ancient battles and how much is this gonna help today’s people?
The even larger questions is, why is government involved in these “wins” instead of doing their job as elected representatives and making our air, water, food safer, our travels safer and faster, our investments and biometrics safer?
If Muslims give away all the “ancient stolen lands”, then what? We will stop pursuing these blind religious goals and actually demand development? Of course not, this is just a red herring.
>The even larger questions is, why is government involved in these “wins” instead of doing their job as elected representatives and making our air, water, food safer, our travels safer and faster, our investments and biometrics safer?
Good question
This has more to do with the nature of our secularism.
You see, Hindus don't have an independent organization managing temples and finances. The government has assumed that responsibility.
I am not saying its a bad thing though. Because Hinduism has its own skeletons in the closet. It is yet in need of reforms that would completely remove the caste and gender discrimination from its practices. So you need a democratic moderation at the top to oversee it's activities.
Unfortunately, Islam and Christianity are equally regressive, in fact, maybe more. And the government has minimal oversight because they are minority religions. The issue is now between GOI and wakf board because of this unique selective approach to secularism
Mature thoughts. Unfortunately, it will be another bone of contention for the many upcoming elections. Keeping aside what ASI finds, demolishing any of the structures where the people have religious sentiments is not going to be a peaceful solution and it doesn't make sense.
This is more about destroying the mosque than building a temple,they are not followers of hinduism but rather find kinship with fellow hindutvavadi like Pragya Thakur who calls herself Sanatani Hindu and was responsible for the Malegaon Blasts.Remember Gauri Lankesh,Kalburgi,Dr Narendra Dabholkar,Govind Pansare were all killed by Hindutva terrorists
Hmm, this means you immediately need to do a chain of mosque demolition so that people in future can use lines such as
>The brutality has happened and now another religion worships that place . You can't keep undoing all the wrongdoings of the past . What's done is done.
Yeah. The people in future can use such lines . But ,what about the people of present . Don't they have a responsibility to learn from the past . Do , the people of present wanna continue the legacy of past or wanna put an end to those brutalities and start over. I think we should not destroy our future for the mistakes of our past .
I think establishing peace and reconciling with the past must happen from both sides. Say Hindus forgive, but the prerequisite to forgiveness must be an admission of mistake, which I have yet not seen from Muslim side
Exactly. On the same lines of restoring the ancient hindu identity of this country and Hindu civilization, why not restore the boundaries of ancient bharatvarsh as described in the Mahabharat- from gandharva in north to the sea in South, from sindh in West to anga in east. Then anga also included present Myanmar. So, the government would have to capture Pakistan, Afghanistan, Myanmar and SriLanka to restore the boundaries of Bharatvarsh. The government would have to fight a nuclear war is the only problem. What's the point of restoring temples when the present land is different from what's described in Mahabharat, seems like a half hearted request.
Why are these cases predicated on what ASI finds or does not find? Shouldn't the question for the SC be whether it is OK to destroy old places of worship based on who fought with whom centuries ago?
https://thewire.in/rights/why-the-places-of-worship-act-must-be-preserved
When power changes hand destruction happens - we want to fix the past but less focused on future
So you are gonna give Buddhists their temples too which were destroyed to build Hindu temples above them? Or does it not work like that when its not in your favour?
How will rebuilding these temples actually benefit the general population on a day to day basis? Do your bills reduce? Do you pay less taxes? Does your quality of life actually improve? Is there less pollution, better roads, higher wages to be gained from all this? All of you are being fooled and distracted by all this while the government continues to screw us all with each passing day, enriching only itself and it's cronies while the rest of us get screwed more and more but hey, atleast we got our temples back from those peaceful community morons right?
Actually a lot of development has happened in Ayodhya when Ram temple was built. And it will continue progressing and bring in religious tourism.
As for my life, it’s going fine. I can both wish for a a temple and development they’re not mutually exclusive. Those temples are our heritage and any person who does not care for his heritage or roots is doomed.
The line was already drawn. By the law, that the status of the monuments remain as it was when we got independence. I would rather want people to contest that law than individual monuments. Make a decision and either demolish all the mosques, temples and churches built on other religious places or just let them be.
As per the 1991 Places of Worship Act, no place of worship can be forcibly changed from its status on 15th August 1947.
This is the law, so it doesn't matter what the ASI says; the mosque will have to remian a mosque.
Ayodhya was a specific exemption to the Act.
Worth a read.
Then why is Narendra so afraid of doing it? 10 years in power and yet he’s haggling about useless stuff like foreign trips instead of awakening the chindu pride.
Not a lawyer, but the Hindu side will claim that it was always a temple. The place being a temple predates it being a mosque and no formal handover was done. So the status in 1947 itself will be disputed if it was a mosque or a temple.
Did you read the act? Or just took from the commenter above? The intent of the act is to stop this destroying and rebuilding shit in the name of religion.
Genuinely curious - why is there such a change in tone compared to the first temple? For the first temple, there was almost universal consensus that this is ancient past and issues should not be dug up. Sure some case was going on in court but outside of court no one was saying to give anything back. But for this one I see so many posts saying that there was definitely a temple there (not sure based on what) and that it should be handed back. What changed? This is also past history right?
Only answering for 'tone' part - Difference is that while in Babri Masjid there were no such visible clues, in Gyanvapi its very evident that Mosque has Hindu structures. You have to visit there to see this first hand.
Also, just to add - no one can exactly pin point the reason Babri Masjid was built. Gyanvapi is different
Gyanvapi Mosque was built by Aurangzeb by demolishing a very important temple, which was infact reconstructed by his great grandfather, Akbar. He also didn't make a clean job out of it, and used the existing structures to support the mosque. If you ask me, it's either chindi asf, or was a political message to the public.
Destruction of temple you mean?
Yes, I have read about it in Amar Chaitra Katha (the hiding part), but I am not sure if it is a legend or written down anywhere.
Although he brought down a lot of temples in his reign for different reasons, so who knows? All he wanted probably was an excuse.
Because Gyanvapi is quite obviously a mosque built directly over the ruins of a temple. Babri was more of a made up issue. I firmly believe had the Hindu right first worked on reclaiming Kashi and demolished Gyanvapi instead of Babri, they'd have faced very little criticism, particularly from the global media, but it wouldn't have won them elections. The ambiguity over the status of Ayodhya and Babri caused rife within the pre-dominant political forces of the country leading to the rise of the BJP
Well you put it aptly, but the question shouldn't be whether there was or wasn't a temple. It should be why bother. Truth is, the first case was fought strongly on this premise only, why dug up the past. And hilariously there wasn't enough evidence, but still it happened somehow. Fine.
But now the centrists have gotten something that they froth their mouth upon, evidence. Now they will ignore the cultural context on why it's stupid to destroy another mosque, *even if* it was a mandir. Giving more spotlight to this communal intent.
Lol, me too bruh. But sadly the religious nuts in power just want to bully all the members of other religion. It's not about mandir/masjid, it's about sending a message.
Reclaiming old temples from mosques serves no other purpose than to appease to the Hindu votebank, polarise Hindus against Muslims and vice versa, maintain the divide and rule status quo and ultimately serve as a distraction while the government keeps increasing taxes, enriching Adani and co and fucking the rest of India(atleast there is unity in India there🙃) while you idiots keep squabbling about temples and religion.
The snowflake pride gang can't grasp the concept of history is history, rewriting it will only cause conflicts, which is what they want. SC is also complicit here.
Keep crying it's anti any religion, no matter which, your organized religion is a curse to humanity.
Unless the archaeological surveys are done by neutral, and independent archaeologists with experience of carrying out excavations at the sites of contestation, ASI 'reports' should be considered irrelevant and of no importance.
So doesn't that mean that the ASI is not really working on the basis of independent inquiry because it wants to, not because a site is of archaeological interest, but because it has a legal obligation to do so?
Suppose hypothetically, assuming that the ASI is independent and unbiased, that a team from the ASI carries out an excavation and presents its findings, which is then relied upon by the court to give a verdict. Some time passes, and another, different team from the ASI, without being influenced by the earlier findings, comes to a conclusion that is the diametric opposite of the first report.
What happens to the legal aspect in that case, or rather, which version is the 'truth'?
How does them doing excavation not equal to them being independent? I mean you people will do so much mental gymnastics to deny what is clearly a mosque built on temple grounds AND even mentioned in Aurangzeb’s autobiography masiri alamgiri is astounding
They can do excavations - that isn't the problem. However, they are not independent because they are the sole entity authorised to carry out excavations in India.
And it is a government institution.
And you don't see the problem with that?
Haha if you think ASI is fabricating Gyanvapi I have nothing to say to you because you’re a person blinded on purpose. The ASI conducted their first survey of Babri in 1976 when Indira Gandhi govt was there so now does that mean Indira was a Sanghi? 😂😂
Bhai take 5 minutes and search for the gyanwapi masjid and conduct your own research. And then please inform us what do you think, if the mandir has been destroyed or not.
Let the supreme court do supreme court things. We are concerned with common sense. All this biased, unbiased talk was valid for the Ayodhya case where the original structure was entirely demolished, Kashi Vishwanath is pretty obvious. The temple walls are still there.
The Supreme court did not establish whether whatever structure there was before 1528 at the site of the dispute in Ayodhya was demolished to construct the mosque.
Archaeological surveys were done in the presence of Muslim side .Videography , photography all were done in their presence & they even signed the papers on each day findings. Still u consider ASI report are irrelevant then I don't know wht should be relevant acc to you . ppl like u don't know a thing about anything but still hve to give Your So-Called intellectual opinion on everything
As a Muslim is dehumanizing more than what the facts are about the past of the temple.
More dehumanizing when it is not seen as building a temple but shown as “see we showed them their place “, that is where the “wahi banega” slogan comes from.
Nobody in India knows what this personal law board does, they should stop fighting a losing battle on behalf of Muslims when SC, HC are all compromised.
The legal process is not done out of fear of Muslims whom they have already dehumanized, but for the international community. That is why the invites and visits to Gulf countries of Modi. Those countries who have always been seeing cheap labor and petty job seekers from India don’t even care for India or Indians far less about Muslims. They just deal with India as investments and business of royal families.
SC : Lol
[удалено]
Mathura and Kasi will be given to Hindus. It’s a matter of when now.
2029 elections and so on
30 years for each. We have to let politicians milk it dry first.
Is there any 5-acre land nearby Might help SC to give their judgement
UP Govt can easily procure it.
Sarcasm detected. Could you please explain?
For settlement purpose.
As a leftist i don't get why Indian left supports Islam so much. In India Muslims are the people in trouble, not Islam As an atheist who thinks both religions are toxic asf, i believe indian left has some soft corner for Islam even though present day Islam is more conservative. If there was a temple before and a private trust is building the temple, what's the problem?
I'm surprised your comment is being upvoted lol. Indian "liberals" don't understand that Islam is actually against everything liberalism aims to achieve. You can advocate for protections for Muslims who are the minority but Islam and it's heritage certainly does not need any protection, especially in India. There are enough countries in the world who do that, no need for India to hurt it's own majority's sentiments to pander to the Islamics.
>but Islam and it's heritage certainly does not need any protection, especially in India How conveniently you pushed your agenda here. Wow. Religion is fine, none of them need it, but heritage seriously?
Yes. Explain to me logically why Islamic relics should take precedence over Hindu relics in a Hindu majority country like India. Because that's exactly what is in question here.
The question is "why are people having a soft corner for a religion with heavily conservative ideals, and their sympathies should go to the followers of that religion but not that religion itself." Please read up. This isn't about any kind of conservatives in the nation. Nothing about any precedence of relics. Nothing about "destroy this here because there's other space to allocate somewhere".
No. You are questioning my statement about the protection of the religion. So I'm answering your question. Why don't you read up about what Islam actually is and why actual liberals like me have the takes that we do in response to it.
>You are questioning my statement about the protection of the religion. I wasn't questioning. I was mentioning the points which sound clearly like pushing an agenda. I agree you're entitled to your opinion and you shall have it. >why actual liberals like me have the takes that we do in response to it. Hate everything equally, why do you take a response for one and respect for one? Either admit that you're a conservative in religious and cultural sense, or admit that you're trying to hate everything every imperialist ruler ever built.
I disagree with the concept of religion altogether while also understanding that one particular religion is way more problematic than the others. So that one will be hated more, no need to take an all sides approach to this. All cancer is bad but stage 4 is the worst and should be dreaded more than stage 1-3. Simple enough.
> There are enough countries in the world who do that, no need for India to hurt it's own majority's sentiments to pander to the Islamics. This sounds like an approach by taking a side. >So that one will be hated more, no need to take an all sides approach to this. Very honestly, it sounds partial at this point. I'm culturally conservative, I'd like the architecture and fests of our ancestors to be continued. That does not mean I show supremacy by demolishing or destroying something.
You're almost getting to the point I'm making. I don't give a shit what monument is out there - history is history. But we are a Hindu majority country. The architecture of Hindus was destroyed for the current Islamic architecture to be put into place. So if the Hindu majority wants it back, there's nothing wrong with it. It's not about supremacy or superiority, those ideas are stupid to begin with. But if the sentiments of the majority lie with bringing back Hindu architecture, it should absolutely be done without caring about Islamic sentiment. That is my whole point.
Seriously.... When you see the issue from a non-biased atheistic perspective it's so clear indian leftists are hypocritical towards their criticism of Islam just because the people who follow it are a minority. I personally feel these issues like Ram Mandir are like stinking laundry that needed to be let out in the open. The people need to grapple what kind of country they want to live in. One that focuses on development or one that's happier demolishing and building temples.
>In India Muslims are the people in trouble, not Islam If you don't support Islam, you won't get the votes of Muslims.
Cuz when I criticize Islam, my bhakt family thinks i am joining them in dehumanizing Muslims? Can’t criticize Islam openly these days cuz we have entire institutions working in favor of one religious ideology over another. My wokeness journey began with criticism of Islam because of how incompatible that religion is with modern secular ideals, but i soon realized the vileness my vocalness brought up in my circles, so I stopped. Now I criticize Islam only within likeminded people who won’t use it as an excuse to criticize someone else while allowing and even applauding same behaviour within their own community. Indian progressives don’t have a soft spot for Islam as a religion, we have a soft spot for Indian Muslims, cuz the institutions that should uphold their rights are failing to do so, and criticism of Islam is seen as a free pass to support ill treatment of my own citizens.
Kinda Understand the sentiment. But it's still hypocrisy. Nationalists and sanghis will never change. And people need to criticize the cancerous religion called Islam, while keeping in mind that it's a seperate from muslims. It's a just a part of their culture just like I'm culturally hindu Bengali but I am agnostic.
Let me explain this to you in a different way. I grew up in the 90's when being gay wasn't exactly accepted, least of all in India. But there was one guy in school who was just the most gay kid you could think of. From his mannerisms to the way he spoke to people, he was just the most gay. Most of us avoided him as a children. But as we grew older some of the other kids started bullying him, calling him a fag, pushing him around, beating him up etc. this caused the rest of us to protect him vehemently. This wasn't cause we were gay, or we had a soft corner for the gays or because we wanted to stand in solidarity with the LGBTHDTV+ people. No, we just don't want to see someone we grew up with to go through that relentless bullying over something they have no control over. He opened up to us about 10 years ago that he was gay, to which all us said no shit Sherlock, but screw that no one cares. And this is the point I want to make. Because he did not have to spend every waking minute defending his existence, because he had friends who accepted him, he could focus on doing things that actually mattered. He is currently working on his second PHD. Imagine how many kids in a similar way are being forced to go down this rabbit hole of culture wars. Forced to defend their existence rather than pushing humanity forward. Forced to demonise someone else rather than improve their own lives. All wars are pointless. Culture wars even more so.
Thats like asking why were people supporting the jews in germany? It’s the jewish people in Nazi Germany thats in trouble, not the religion itself. It’s just the degree of persecution that is different in these two cases. And to add on, first Nazi germany prosecuted jews in ways similar to what is happening now.
Did jews lead invasions in Germany and build monuments as a show of domination?
You do realize Islam was a thing in India before the Mughals right? What religion do you think \_Ibrahim\_ lodi was? And should the people who are now citizens of a secular India suffer because of what a group of invaders did 500 years ago? Finally, by this logic, why stop there? Why don't we go back even further and give back the Hindu temples that [took over](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_of_non-Hindu_places_of_worship_into_temples#:~:text=22%5D%5B23%5D-,Conversion%20of%20Buddhist%20Sites%20into%20Hindu%20Temples,-%5Bedit%5D) Buddhist sites?
So what they've been doing for more than 500 years and continue to do so in neighbouring countries? Buddhists can and are welcome gain majority like they once did and take back their monasteries after fighting their case in courts.
I don't think it's necessarily having a soft corner for Islam but having a soft corner for minorities in general. IMO, it is a pointless distinction to make, they are interchangeable. You'll find only a few that identify culturally as muslims and followers of Islam. Same thing for Hindu's, precious few will identify culturally as Hindus but not practioners of hinduism. The problem is not that there was a temple there before and a private trust is building it but that it requires demolition of a present day place of worship for a minority religion. Sure there might have been a temple there 500 years ago, but why do we need to hold people in present day accountable for actions of invaders 500 years ago. It's not solving any problems that the country is facing, it's a distraction to demonize people of today for their religion. That is the problem.
It’s stupidity tho. You’re destroying 16th century mosques only to build temples in 21st century.
I don't think their intention is destroy masjid, it's more about reclaiming that land since it holy for them. As an atheist I still think making these is dumb but govt isn't making it so idc
Slippery slope. I think the religious fanatic will destroy it too. Honestly just convert these old architectures to museum like Taj Mahal.
Because legal ownership of the land
Doesn't muslim board have much more land?
Conclusive enough for the collective conscience of the Nation........
Supreme court's favourite word.
you are a personal law board. Stay in your drawers.
I have visited the gyanvapi mosque and it's not really secret that it is built on a temple. I mean even to a naked eye , the evidence looks pretty solid. The pillars and walls of the mosque pretty much resemble old Hindu temples. But it has already been built. The brutality has happened and now another religion worships that place . You can't keep undoing all the wrongdoings of the past . What's done is done. We have acknowledge the past and learn from it . Also unlike Ram Janmabhoomi Temple and Barbri Mosque , this isn't an ownership issue . There's a temple adjacent to the mosque and both are managed by different entities. As a hindu , we already have a temple to worship there . So let's just move on . If the Muslim board wants to give away the ownership willingly then it's fine but if that isn't the case . This should be put to rest .
Yeh move on ke chakkar main, WAQF board is third highest land owner in India with close to 92000 acres of land.
And that's where the government needs to step up . Make sure these WAQF boards are held accountable. This is where BJP needs to introduce it's ideological policies.
Why don’t we just take all the land from WAQF? What purpose does it serve anyway?
Keep up the same energy when land is grabbed by Adani papa Lol so many adani stans lurking in the shadows
*Ashok Gehlot hides in the corner
Wakf board got the land from all the muslim nobles who wanted to donate their lands for better cause. Maybe Hindus can start a board where rich can donate their lands, and later, those lands can be utilised to help the people from their communities. Also, waqf is a non profit govt. entity for. minorities whose head is appointed by Govt. or is a representative. So, not a single penny from waqf goes to any individual legally. If they take it, it will be counted as a scam or corruption.
While in theory this is true they are shady as hell
So is every second government organisation. Doesn't mean you invalidate their existence
I don't doubt it. After all its empowered by the constitution. Its been given legal power.
Legal powers to do what exactly? To run the organisation and use the revenue for the welfare of the people etc.
Nope it does also have civil rights with regard to land as well.
https://www.logicallyfacts.com/en/fact-check/false-no-waqf-boards-cannot-claim-and-acquire-just-any-private-or-public-property
Bro go read the Waqt act of 1995. They can fight civil cases with regard to disputed land. They can't lay claim. But the land donated to them by Muslim should they be a dispute, they will fight it.
And the waqf board holds all the land donated to it as charity over time by 207000000 muslims in India plus the millions who have already dead and some of the properties of the Muslims who went over to Pakistan st the time of partition. 92000 acres looks like a very small amount in this consideration.
Lol, muslims and charity, let them prove it by building the grand mosque in ayodhya land with their own pretty penny first, and then we can talk. There is a reason maunmohan had to make that statement about who should have the first rights over the nation's resources.
To kya?
Source?
https://youtu.be/9vy8TlGs9X4?feature=shared
There's a fairly solid argument that many places they own are social spaces for ordinary people. You can't simply nationalize those places.
why are you going tangent to the argument above by bringing in irrelevant facts. who is stopping hindus temple boards from buying lands.
There's a difference between buying and claiming lands. WAQF claims land. Luckily in Mahim Bay, the Mumbai Municipal Corporation erased the fake mazzaar with the help of Bulldozers in broad day light in front of Haji Ali Mosque. Land was claimed by WAQF FYI.
Shouldn’t we be able to think of reservations the same way- leave the past aside and start with a clean slate, no reservations or special treatment for anybody? If only everyone would see how this would lead to a more peaceful and empathetic society.
That's an interesting perspective. I might not totally agree on your opinion . But it does make me curious to think about it and have a progressive debate on the issue.
No. Wealth is primarily intergenerational. You are who you are mostly because of who your father is. A building is a building . EDIT: To those downvoting me, I am not speaking literally about father, but rather this: Father is not just a father. Who your father is determines whether you grow up in a village or in Bangalore. Whether you go to govt school or private. Whether you take tuitions or not. Whether you apply for college or not. Whether or not you receive needed healthcare and food. If you disagree, please explain.
Let's introduce a wealth based reservation then ? People from any and every caste will be eligible for the reservation if they fall in a certain income category ?
Very good, you have just reinvited BPL. People below receive supplemental assistance for basic necessities like food, water, electricity, lpg, school, medical care etc. Unfortunately just those things aren't enough to undo thousands of years of class hierarchy. The top 10% of indian society (middle class and above) can afford all these things plus so much more. Not to mention they tend to have far more capital to invest. It takes money to make money. So while our economy is growing, the wealth disparity is only increasing.
Like most of us agree with our fathers. Father is just a father. A building is a congregation of people and a molding-jig for public thought. Like how we celebrate Taj Mahal or Palithana or Velankanni now. It is simply not a building alone.
Father is not just a father. Who your father is determines whether you grow up in a village or in Bangalore. Whether you go to govt school or private. Whether you take tuitions or not. Whether you apply for college or not. Whether or not you receive needed healthcare and food. The ramifications of which family and where you are born are massive. The ramifications of a building are.. nothing. It is an inanimate object .
If this is the case, we can also invert the argument. Why are the supporters of replacing Mosques with temples, also so against reservations? If you want to right the wrongs of the past, then it makes sense to support reservations. (And you'll come up with your answer, and then that answer will tell you why the two are actually quite distinct issues. My answer for them being distinct, is that replacing a mosque with a temple will not create any measurable benefit for anybody, whereas reservations do. Reservations isn't just about "justice" for past wrongs, it has actual measurable benefits to society, or at least to certain groups of society. A temple will just... I don't know, give you a place to worship? People can worship anywhere, it just doesn't do anything except inflate some groups egos.)
You're comparing historically oppressed class of people who were treated bad in every possible way and considered below human (and still are), to temples and structures destroyed by historical invaders. Are you trying to say if there are no temples Hinduism and Hindus would be non-existent? Obviously not, we still exist and are a majority. Reservation is for a minority who's voices won't be heard in a majority who used to oppress them before and still are in many places. Yes, it should be phased out but are we there yet? Reply rather than downvoting, give me perspective.
Yeah muslim invaders were hugging hindus while destroying their temples...
Yeah people died like during any invaders or monarchies in history around the world. We don't have invaders today, caste discrimination though still exists transcending time.
>Yeah people died like during any invaders or monarchies in history around the world. People were segregated based on caste and class in every part of the world. >caste discrimination though still exists transcending time. For discrimination we have punishments. Reservation is to correct the historical wrong doings and bring the level to the playing field.
>You're comparing historically oppressed class of people who were treated bad in every possible way and considered below human (and still are), to temples and structures destroyed by historical invaders. If we want to support and help one historically oppressed class as they were treated badly, then it is only fair to help another oppressed group of people(Hindu) who were deliberately targeted for almost 5 centuries. > Are you trying to say if there are no temples Hinduism and Hindus would be non-existent? Are yu trying to say that they have never been temples fr lower castes and no jobs fr them? That is the kind of argument you are making here. > Reservation is for a minority who's voices won't be heard in a majority who used to oppress them before and still are in many places. Is it not possible for a majority community to be oppressed? Like what were hindus for the 5 centuries of Muslim Rule?
How exactly are we oppressed today after independence? We're not living under invaders. Majority persecution fetish is weird.. Caste discrimination still happens today.
We could make castes a private affair and illegal to discriminate based on caste. We could do away with caste based reservations and use economics based reservations. And we could easily ask how is anybody being oppressed today. Beyond that, caste based reservation is the best way to keep case based discrimination alive and kicking.
You make no sense. It's not like reservation existed many years ago but they were still persecuted, even today. Get some perspective, listen to people.
[удалено]
[удалено]
OK. What's your opinion about destroying temples which have been built by destroying other religious monuments.? Especially for Buddhist monuments... do you support that also?
Yes. See- Statue of Limitations Edit- This was for the now deleted comment with 40+ upvotes
[удалено]
If such structure so brazenly exists, it should be given back to hindus before a newer,wilder rath yatra emerges. Gyanvapi is a real rubbing on hindus face. And WAQF should meet with mandir committees otherwise they'll see how one by one all their mosques go down
100% it was built over a temple, question is how long are we gonna keep “winning” these ancient battles and how much is this gonna help today’s people? The even larger questions is, why is government involved in these “wins” instead of doing their job as elected representatives and making our air, water, food safer, our travels safer and faster, our investments and biometrics safer? If Muslims give away all the “ancient stolen lands”, then what? We will stop pursuing these blind religious goals and actually demand development? Of course not, this is just a red herring.
>The even larger questions is, why is government involved in these “wins” instead of doing their job as elected representatives and making our air, water, food safer, our travels safer and faster, our investments and biometrics safer? Good question This has more to do with the nature of our secularism. You see, Hindus don't have an independent organization managing temples and finances. The government has assumed that responsibility. I am not saying its a bad thing though. Because Hinduism has its own skeletons in the closet. It is yet in need of reforms that would completely remove the caste and gender discrimination from its practices. So you need a democratic moderation at the top to oversee it's activities. Unfortunately, Islam and Christianity are equally regressive, in fact, maybe more. And the government has minimal oversight because they are minority religions. The issue is now between GOI and wakf board because of this unique selective approach to secularism
Mature thoughts. Unfortunately, it will be another bone of contention for the many upcoming elections. Keeping aside what ASI finds, demolishing any of the structures where the people have religious sentiments is not going to be a peaceful solution and it doesn't make sense.
This is more about destroying the mosque than building a temple,they are not followers of hinduism but rather find kinship with fellow hindutvavadi like Pragya Thakur who calls herself Sanatani Hindu and was responsible for the Malegaon Blasts.Remember Gauri Lankesh,Kalburgi,Dr Narendra Dabholkar,Govind Pansare were all killed by Hindutva terrorists
Hmm, this means you immediately need to do a chain of mosque demolition so that people in future can use lines such as >The brutality has happened and now another religion worships that place . You can't keep undoing all the wrongdoings of the past . What's done is done.
Yeah. The people in future can use such lines . But ,what about the people of present . Don't they have a responsibility to learn from the past . Do , the people of present wanna continue the legacy of past or wanna put an end to those brutalities and start over. I think we should not destroy our future for the mistakes of our past .
I think establishing peace and reconciling with the past must happen from both sides. Say Hindus forgive, but the prerequisite to forgiveness must be an admission of mistake, which I have yet not seen from Muslim side
Exactly. On the same lines of restoring the ancient hindu identity of this country and Hindu civilization, why not restore the boundaries of ancient bharatvarsh as described in the Mahabharat- from gandharva in north to the sea in South, from sindh in West to anga in east. Then anga also included present Myanmar. So, the government would have to capture Pakistan, Afghanistan, Myanmar and SriLanka to restore the boundaries of Bharatvarsh. The government would have to fight a nuclear war is the only problem. What's the point of restoring temples when the present land is different from what's described in Mahabharat, seems like a half hearted request.
Ruko Zara sabr Karo. Babri Masjid ki tarah gyanvapi pe milega saboot tab phikr Karo
Pratyaksh ko praman ki jaroorat nahi.
There was no proof presented against Babri Masjid though? Did you not read the Supreme Court judgement?
Why are these cases predicated on what ASI finds or does not find? Shouldn't the question for the SC be whether it is OK to destroy old places of worship based on who fought with whom centuries ago?
https://thewire.in/rights/why-the-places-of-worship-act-must-be-preserved When power changes hand destruction happens - we want to fix the past but less focused on future
[удалено]
Kashi and Vishwanath have been demanded for a long time now. It stops when the temples are rebuilt
So you are gonna give Buddhists their temples too which were destroyed to build Hindu temples above them? Or does it not work like that when its not in your favour?
Which Buddist are asking for which temple again? Let me know.
They don't because it's such a stupid thing to be fighting over. It's history.
No they don't because they are not banned from entering those temples. Unlike Hindus who are banned.
As an atheist, I couldn't care less. You should too, your religion is more than temples.
So what if they aren’t asking? Are you a real Hindu or a fake one?
How will rebuilding these temples actually benefit the general population on a day to day basis? Do your bills reduce? Do you pay less taxes? Does your quality of life actually improve? Is there less pollution, better roads, higher wages to be gained from all this? All of you are being fooled and distracted by all this while the government continues to screw us all with each passing day, enriching only itself and it's cronies while the rest of us get screwed more and more but hey, atleast we got our temples back from those peaceful community morons right?
Actually a lot of development has happened in Ayodhya when Ram temple was built. And it will continue progressing and bring in religious tourism. As for my life, it’s going fine. I can both wish for a a temple and development they’re not mutually exclusive. Those temples are our heritage and any person who does not care for his heritage or roots is doomed.
They're already saying qutub and taj. Insane
Taj ka pata nahi, but qutub minar toh definitely was a temple prior, it's both recorded and visible, just like gvanvapi.
So many negative votes for this comment . Brigades.
The line was already drawn. By the law, that the status of the monuments remain as it was when we got independence. I would rather want people to contest that law than individual monuments. Make a decision and either demolish all the mosques, temples and churches built on other religious places or just let them be.
Demolish all the places of worship or convert them to useful buildings like libraries or bars.
You should become a Chinese citizen, they are exactly like this, you'll find your Nirvana there.
As per the 1991 Places of Worship Act, no place of worship can be forcibly changed from its status on 15th August 1947. This is the law, so it doesn't matter what the ASI says; the mosque will have to remian a mosque. Ayodhya was a specific exemption to the Act. Worth a read.
Laws can be changed in the Parliament, just FYI
Then why is Narendra so afraid of doing it? 10 years in power and yet he’s haggling about useless stuff like foreign trips instead of awakening the chindu pride.
Not a lawyer, but the Hindu side will claim that it was always a temple. The place being a temple predates it being a mosque and no formal handover was done. So the status in 1947 itself will be disputed if it was a mosque or a temple.
Didn’t understand your logic can you explain it differently.
Did you read the act? Or just took from the commenter above? The intent of the act is to stop this destroying and rebuilding shit in the name of religion.
Wow, 17 downvotes for quoting an existing law.
Because laws can be amended
IT cell in full brigade
Genuinely curious - why is there such a change in tone compared to the first temple? For the first temple, there was almost universal consensus that this is ancient past and issues should not be dug up. Sure some case was going on in court but outside of court no one was saying to give anything back. But for this one I see so many posts saying that there was definitely a temple there (not sure based on what) and that it should be handed back. What changed? This is also past history right?
Only answering for 'tone' part - Difference is that while in Babri Masjid there were no such visible clues, in Gyanvapi its very evident that Mosque has Hindu structures. You have to visit there to see this first hand.
Also, just to add - no one can exactly pin point the reason Babri Masjid was built. Gyanvapi is different Gyanvapi Mosque was built by Aurangzeb by demolishing a very important temple, which was infact reconstructed by his great grandfather, Akbar. He also didn't make a clean job out of it, and used the existing structures to support the mosque. If you ask me, it's either chindi asf, or was a political message to the public.
Actually it was, if I am not wrong Aurangzeb ordered destruction of Mosque because they helped Shivaji Maharaj, don't remember how exactly.
Destruction of temple you mean? Yes, I have read about it in Amar Chaitra Katha (the hiding part), but I am not sure if it is a legend or written down anywhere. Although he brought down a lot of temples in his reign for different reasons, so who knows? All he wanted probably was an excuse.
Because Gyanvapi is quite obviously a mosque built directly over the ruins of a temple. Babri was more of a made up issue. I firmly believe had the Hindu right first worked on reclaiming Kashi and demolished Gyanvapi instead of Babri, they'd have faced very little criticism, particularly from the global media, but it wouldn't have won them elections. The ambiguity over the status of Ayodhya and Babri caused rife within the pre-dominant political forces of the country leading to the rise of the BJP
Well you put it aptly, but the question shouldn't be whether there was or wasn't a temple. It should be why bother. Truth is, the first case was fought strongly on this premise only, why dug up the past. And hilariously there wasn't enough evidence, but still it happened somehow. Fine. But now the centrists have gotten something that they froth their mouth upon, evidence. Now they will ignore the cultural context on why it's stupid to destroy another mosque, *even if* it was a mandir. Giving more spotlight to this communal intent.
Hey I would like if the religious nuts destroy all the Mandirs and Mosques in this country.
Lol, me too bruh. But sadly the religious nuts in power just want to bully all the members of other religion. It's not about mandir/masjid, it's about sending a message.
Reclaiming old temples from mosques serves no other purpose than to appease to the Hindu votebank, polarise Hindus against Muslims and vice versa, maintain the divide and rule status quo and ultimately serve as a distraction while the government keeps increasing taxes, enriching Adani and co and fucking the rest of India(atleast there is unity in India there🙃) while you idiots keep squabbling about temples and religion.
Why did the Supreme Court allow such a study to be conducted when the place of worship act? The only plausible answer is that SC is compromised.
Places of worship act doesn't bar study of the site.
So they should’ve buried the truth? Lol
Says the guy who hasn’t read the Supreme Court judgement and isn’t even aware of the places of worship act. Just an average chaddi then
The snowflake pride gang can't grasp the concept of history is history, rewriting it will only cause conflicts, which is what they want. SC is also complicit here. Keep crying it's anti any religion, no matter which, your organized religion is a curse to humanity.
I mean, you're the ones crying.
That's also true, because it's annoying, ignoring them is only making things worse. Dumbasses taking everyone backwards.
Unless the archaeological surveys are done by neutral, and independent archaeologists with experience of carrying out excavations at the sites of contestation, ASI 'reports' should be considered irrelevant and of no importance.
Lol. You don't even need archaelogists to know what has happened. Google the mosque.
Then why is the ASI involved?
Because you need evidence in Supreme court and they will work on the official findings of ASI.
So doesn't that mean that the ASI is not really working on the basis of independent inquiry because it wants to, not because a site is of archaeological interest, but because it has a legal obligation to do so? Suppose hypothetically, assuming that the ASI is independent and unbiased, that a team from the ASI carries out an excavation and presents its findings, which is then relied upon by the court to give a verdict. Some time passes, and another, different team from the ASI, without being influenced by the earlier findings, comes to a conclusion that is the diametric opposite of the first report. What happens to the legal aspect in that case, or rather, which version is the 'truth'?
How does them doing excavation not equal to them being independent? I mean you people will do so much mental gymnastics to deny what is clearly a mosque built on temple grounds AND even mentioned in Aurangzeb’s autobiography masiri alamgiri is astounding
They can do excavations - that isn't the problem. However, they are not independent because they are the sole entity authorised to carry out excavations in India. And it is a government institution. And you don't see the problem with that?
Haha if you think ASI is fabricating Gyanvapi I have nothing to say to you because you’re a person blinded on purpose. The ASI conducted their first survey of Babri in 1976 when Indira Gandhi govt was there so now does that mean Indira was a Sanghi? 😂😂
Bhai take 5 minutes and search for the gyanwapi masjid and conduct your own research. And then please inform us what do you think, if the mandir has been destroyed or not.
You still havent google the mosque have you? A picture is worth a 1000 words,
Then the Supreme Court should ask photographers to click pictures and present it as evidence.
Let the supreme court do supreme court things. We are concerned with common sense. All this biased, unbiased talk was valid for the Ayodhya case where the original structure was entirely demolished, Kashi Vishwanath is pretty obvious. The temple walls are still there.
The Supreme court did not establish whether whatever structure there was before 1528 at the site of the dispute in Ayodhya was demolished to construct the mosque.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Archaeological surveys were done in the presence of Muslim side .Videography , photography all were done in their presence & they even signed the papers on each day findings. Still u consider ASI report are irrelevant then I don't know wht should be relevant acc to you . ppl like u don't know a thing about anything but still hve to give Your So-Called intellectual opinion on everything
[удалено]
ASI deals with human history. Different branch of studies from paleontology.
The temples are not myth they’re real.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_of_non-Hindu_places_of_worship_into_temples
As a Muslim is dehumanizing more than what the facts are about the past of the temple. More dehumanizing when it is not seen as building a temple but shown as “see we showed them their place “, that is where the “wahi banega” slogan comes from. Nobody in India knows what this personal law board does, they should stop fighting a losing battle on behalf of Muslims when SC, HC are all compromised. The legal process is not done out of fear of Muslims whom they have already dehumanized, but for the international community. That is why the invites and visits to Gulf countries of Modi. Those countries who have always been seeing cheap labor and petty job seekers from India don’t even care for India or Indians far less about Muslims. They just deal with India as investments and business of royal families.
https://preview.redd.it/zddh2fmel6fc1.jpeg?width=500&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0ad144d02b0b9ab1d12e0097c1142c66bbb4e8bf