Ayodhya : Supreme Court Orders Mediation to Settle Dispute, Panel of 3 Mediators Appointed

[Tibarn]

There isn't a religious duty of certain religions to eat beef per say, but rather beef is a manifestation of another religious duty of certain expansionist, death cults: Iconoclasm. 

 

In Europe, their version of expansionist cultos would destroy/cut down trees/sacred groves of the Pagans to satisfy their Iconoclastic impulse. Further west of India, this region's variant of expansionist cultos would actively murder/lynch dogs to satisfy their blood lust, simply because the Zoroastrians held dogs to be a sacred animal.  

 

The Liberandu-Untermensch side with these death cults because liberandus have their ideology derived from the same "intellectual" movement as the expansionist death cults.

 

They also have a psychological need to engage in iconoclasm; when given the chance and under conditions with a dearth of nonbelievers, these aforementioned groups engage in competitive iconoclasm of each other. What a sad state of affairs!

 

Edit:

This is why the so-called "Internet Hindus" need to recalibrate their strategy. Follow the example of the Arya Samaj and engage in such behavior yourselves!

Edited March 9, 2019 by Tibarn

[Alam_dar]

1 hour ago, randomGuy said:

My thoughts

 

1. Muslim side doesn't want bjp to take any credit for temple. No electoral gain etc.

 

2. They too realise that things can't go on forever, such is the public pressure. So the decision in favour of temple should come soon, I think immediately after elections.

 

3. Judges didn't want to risk the decision on themselves, hence this decision for mediation. But I feel the outcome would be the same, i.e. for temple to be built at disputed land and mosque in a distant place to keep Muslim side happy too.

 

Is mediation mandatory or binding?

I am doubtful.

If both parties don't agree, then my understanding is this that Court has to decide it then itself. 

 

The Judges have to take the decision on themselves.

 

If the ASI report proves to be correct, then they have to decide in the favour of Hindu claim openly, and Muslims have to agree upon it. There is no point in taking side of Muslims in this case. 

 

But if the ASI report has errors and it is not proven with certainty that is was the birth place of Ram, and it is is not proved that Aurangzeb destroyed it, then decision should be made for Babri masjid, without the fear of the saffron brigade.

[mishra]

3 hours ago, randomGuy said:

My thoughts

 

1. Muslim side doesn't want bjp to take any credit for temple. No electoral gain etc.

 

2. They too realise that things can't go on forever, such is the public pressure. So the decision in favour of temple should come soon, I think immediately after elections.

 

3. Judges didn't want to risk the decision on themselves, hence this decision for mediation. But I feel the outcome would be the same, i.e. for temple to be built at disputed land and mosque in a distant place to keep Muslim side happy too.

Bhai, it is all politics. First Gogoi said its a topic which will waste his time. Now its big time cultural social religios stuff. SC knows that GoI may bring ordinance for temple construction. So they want GoI to go.

 

Honestly, I want BJP to win next election, just to see how libtard drama exposes itself. 70 years, they have been sitting on it.

 

Master slave architecture has to go. Bloody few people have become Masters once English left

Edited March 9, 2019 by mishra

[randomGuy]

3 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

 

Is mediation mandatory or binding?

I am doubtful.

If both parties don't agree, then my understanding is this that Court has to decide it then itself. 

 

The Judges have to take the decision on themselves.

 

If the ASI report proves to be correct, then they have to decide in the favour of Hindu claim openly, and Muslims have to agree upon it. There is no point in taking side of Muslims in this case. 

 

But if the ASI report has errors and it is not proven with certainty that is was the birth place of Ram, and it is is not proved that Aurangzeb destroyed it, then decision should be made for Babri masjid, without the fear of the saffron brigade.

Not binding but Muslim side wouldn't want to drag it too much beyond elections. They are getting negative emotion from Hindus for perceived delay.  Muslim side will be happy that atleast they succeeded in delaying the decision beyond elections so that bjp wouldn't have got any electoral gains due to the decision.

[Alam_dar]

39 minutes ago, Tibarn said:

There isn't a religious duty of certain religions to eat beef per say, but rather beef is a manifestation of another religious duty of certain expansionist, death cults: Iconoclasm. 

 

In Europe, their version of expansionist cultos would destroy/cut down trees/sacred groves of the Pagans to satisfy their Iconoclastic impulse. Further west of India, this region's variant of expansionist cultos would actively murder/lynch dogs to satisfy their blood lust, simply because the Zoroastrians held dogs to be a sacred animal.  

 

The Liberandu-Untermensch side with these death cults because liberandus have their ideology derived from the same "intellectual" movement as the expansionist death cults.

They also have a psychological need to engage in iconoclasm; when given the chance and under conditions with a dearth of nonbelievers, these aforementioned groups engage in competitive iconoclasm of each oth

55 minutes ago, Clarke said:

Wtf does beef have to do with secularism ? Do the abrahmic faiths have a religious duty to consume beef failing which they have sinned ? The liberty is there at state level. Go to Goa, Kerala, NE etc to consume beef. I don't think you seem to understand law & Constitution and simply hang on self defined freedom as the be all. 

 

 

Eating beef or meat has not started as reaction to the Hindu sentiments, but it was the old culture and people's way of ending the life of old cows.

Therefore, I don't agree with your accusations here. 

 

56 minutes ago, Clarke said:

Wtf does beef have to do with secularism ? Do the abrahmic faiths have a religious duty to consume beef failing which they have sinned ? The liberty is there at state level. Go to Goa, Kerala, NE etc to consume beef. I don't think you seem to understand law & Constitution and simply hang on self defined freedom as the be all. 

It is the very base of Secular values that majority could not take away the basic human rights of the minorities. 

 

The case of Beef is exactly the opposite of the Secular values, and is based upon the usurping the basic human rights of the others in name of being majority. 

[Tibarn]

5 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

Eating beef or meat has not started as reaction to the Hindu sentiments, but it was the old culture and people's way of ending the life of old cows.

Therefore, I don't agree with your accusations here. 

You're full of it

 

Back up your statement. 

Edited March 9, 2019 by Tibarn

[Alam_dar]

4 minutes ago, randomGuy said:

Not binding but Muslim side wouldn't want to drag it too much beyond elections. They are getting negative emotion from Hindus for perceived delay.  Muslim side will be happy that atleast they succeeded in delaying the decision beyond elections so that bjp wouldn't have got any electoral gains due to the decision.

In my opinion, the issue of Babari Masjid should not be a political one. 

If BJP is using it for communal hatred and for politics, then BJP is doing a wrong thing. 

 

Courts should have decided this case long ago on the bases of merit, without fearing one side or the other. Even if Court decides for a compromise (like the High Court did earlier  in distributing it among 3 parties), it would have brought much good for India. Delaying the verdict is only brining negativity. 

[Alam_dar]

4 minutes ago, Tibarn said:

You're full of it

 

Back up your statement. 

What is there to back up?

 

Islam or Christianity or Zoroastrians didn't originate in India and they were eating meat much much before coming to India. It has nothing to do with any so called "reaction" to Hindu religion as you are accusing. 

 

Even in India meat and even beef was consumed, especially by the Dallits for centuries and again it is not in any reaction to Hindu religion. 

 

In fact, ban on beef/meat is recent and it was itself not a part of Hindu religion initially as has been mentioned in the religious texts of Hinduism itself. 

 

 

 

 

 

[Tibarn]

22 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

What is there to back up?

When you state something, you are expected to back it up. Otherwise keep your propaganda to yourself. Don't waste my time/quote me.

 

22 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

Islam or Christianity or Zoroastrians didn't originate in India and they were eating meat much much before coming to India.

Do you lack even basic reading comprehension?

 

Where did anyone claim that Zoroastrians have anything to do with meat eating or that any of those religions are from India. Learn to read before arguing to satisfy your fragile ego/push your agenda.

Quote

It has nothing to do with any so called "reaction" to Hindu religion as you are accusing.

Again, back up your claim. 

 

22 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

Even in India meat and even beef was consumed,

Once again you are struggling with reading comprehension. Where did anyone mention meat? Why don't you answer the question that was asked instead of trying to divert the issue to something else?

 

Or does that not suit your agenda? 

Quote

especially by the Dallits for centuries and again it is not in any reaction to Hindu religion. 

Prove that Dalits consumed beef for centuries to any significant degree and justify your statement "especially by Dalits."

22 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

In fact, ban on beef/meat is recent and it was itself not a part of Hindu religion initially as has been mentioned in the religious texts of Hinduism itself. 

There is no ban on meat. Stop your propaganda. 

 

Once again you are repeating the same propaganda that tried months ago. This was already refuted when you vomited it the first time. You were even assigned a book to read, but who can expect a propagandist to actually read a book? 

 

I expect something other than empty words. I expect reliable evidence for everything you claimed by the time I log in again tomorrow.

Edited March 9, 2019 by Tibarn

[Singh bling]

30 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

In my opinion, the issue of Babari Masjid should not be a political one. 

If BJP is using it for communal hatred and for politics, then BJP is doing a wrong thing. 

 

Courts should have decided this case long ago on the bases of merit, without fearing one side or the other. Even if Court decides for a compromise (like the High Court did earlier  in distributing it among 3 parties), it would have brought much good for India. Delaying the verdict is only brining negativity. 

Muslim community should had given Babri to hindu's long ago, infact all those mosques which were built after demolishing historical temples should be handed back . None of these mosques hold any significance for muslims of world , they were built by invaders to humilate hindu community.

[Alam_dar]

11 minutes ago, Singh bling said:

Muslim community should had given Babri to hindu's long ago, infact all those mosques which were built after demolishing historical temples should be handed back . None of these mosques hold any significance for muslims of world , they were built by invaders to humilate hindu community.

Yes, they should have done it, by taking the other place as replacement. This was very stupid of them to not show the compromise. 

 

At the same time, Courts should have served the Justice immediately, without showing any delay due to pressure politics from one side or the other. 

 

[mishra]

6 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

Yes, they should have done it, by taking the other place as replacement. This was very stupid of them to not show the compromise. 

 

At the same time, Courts should have served the Justice immediately, without showing any delay due to pressure politics from one side or the other. 

 

Thanks. Now, everything can not be put in here. But i will try put it in simple terms

1. There are 3 parties and there are 3 plots

1. Party 1, plot 1: Muslims  and its various Boards ,very small plot but its right on birth place.

Aparently they claim that being representive of Muslims they own it, They are not ready for government to acquire this land. (Various clauses, Various cases), i doubt they have any legal deed paper.

2. Party 2, Plot 2: Nirmohi Akhada, very small parcel next to birth place. They have a land deed and are simply being greedy. They know that if their is Ram temple next to it, The landnis worth sevaral times then gold. There is a feeling that, Hindus will bully these guys once Hindu Muslim dispute is sorted.

3. Party 3, plot 3: This is massive plot which has been created by GoI (Atal Bihari period) by acquiring land around plot 1 and plot 2.

 

This plot has been donated to Hindus last month for purpose of temple building. Me think that access to plot 1 and plot 2 is also donated as part of plot 3.

 

Its dead horse for Nirmohi Akhara and Muslim boards. Practically, there is not much left for them to be able to do about it. They both wants land right next to temple for obvious financial reason. Offcourse temple team want both away in some other part of city. This is real contention

[Alam_dar]

38 minutes ago, Tibarn said:

Once again you are repeating the same propaganda that tried months ago. This was already refuted when you vomited it the first time. You were even assigned a book to read, but who can expect a propagandist to actually read a book? 

A book is not a PROOF, but it represents only a different point of view. 

If a book is enough, then you take this book as proof that Hindu sacred texts allowed eating beef (LINK to the Book). 

 

And rest, I still stand on my point that beef/meat is not eaten as reaction to Hindu religion. It is an old culture. 

 

Moreover, you allow meat, while when it comes to cow you deny to kill it for humane reasons. But these humane reasons are also associated with all types of meats, and thus it would become only DOUBLE STANDARDS where you allow killing of other animals, but not cow citing the humane reasons. 

 

Other double standards arises when cow becomes sacred for giving milk, while 75% milk in India comes from  buffalo, but poor buffalo does not become sacred. 

 

Please understand, I could respect your opinion, but I could not give away my own opinion regarding basic human rights. I have to insist and present my case with my evidences and arguments. 

[randomGuy]

1 hour ago, Alam_dar said:

In my opinion, the issue of Babari Masjid should not be a political one. 

If BJP is using it for communal hatred and for politics, then BJP is doing a wrong thing. 

 

Courts should have decided this case long ago on the bases of merit, without fearing one side or the other. Even if Court decides for a compromise (like the High Court did earlier  in distributing it among 3 parties), it would have brought much good for India. Delaying the verdict is only brining negativity. 

20 yrs back it may have been a significantly more inciting issue, i don't know.

 

For today, immediately after the elections is the time best suited for Muslim side i feel. Muslim side can't afford to delay it any further because next government will again be formed by bjp it seems. So i expected the matter to solve in May 2019. 

 

 

[surajmal]

11 hours ago, Tibarn said:

There isn't a religious duty of certain religions to eat beef per say, but rather beef is a manifestation of another religious duty of certain expansionist, death cults: Iconoclasm. 

 

In Europe, their version of expansionist cultos would destroy/cut down trees/sacred groves of the Pagans to satisfy their Iconoclastic impulse. Further west of India, this region's variant of expansionist cultos would actively murder/lynch dogs to satisfy their blood lust, simply because the Zoroastrians held dogs to be a sacred animal.  

 

The Liberandu-Untermensch side with these death cults because liberandus have their ideology derived from the same "intellectual" movement as the expansionist death cults.

 

They also have a psychological need to engage in iconoclasm; when given the chance and under conditions with a dearth of nonbelievers, these aforementioned groups engage in competitive iconoclasm of each other. What a sad state of affairs!

 

Edit:

This is why the so-called "Internet Hindus" need to recalibrate their strategy. Follow the example of the Arya Samaj and engage in such behavior yourselves!

Have been meaning pen a post on this mode of action. But it sounds so politically incorrect that I haven't got around to it. Maybe it's the remnants of dhimmi in me...

[coffee_rules]

says a man who has never visited India, but arguing over what is written by indian secular liberandus about hinduism. dont indulge with this ignaramus, guys. vedas never vouched to eat beef, he is reading commie atrocity litreture. He still believes in Aryan Invasion theory. 

[Alam_dar]

6 hours ago, coffee_rules said:

He still believes in Aryan Invasion theory. 

What is this? 

Why didn't you continued the discussion about the Aryan Invasion theory in the thread where I presented the LATEST Research Paper? 

I wished you brought your Arguments and Proofs in that thread, instead of coming up with you personal attacks against me in the non-related thread. 

 

We are here in a discussion forum. The first rule of discussion is to learn how to say welcome to the differing opinions. Why then to get personal and come up with the conspiracy theories? 

 

6 hours ago, coffee_rules said:

says a man who has never visited India, but arguing over what is written by indian secular liberandus about hinduism. dont indulge with this ignaramus, guys. vedas never vouched to eat beef, he is reading commie atrocity litreture.

Why this so much biased attitude and hatred against the Secularists and Communists? They have full right to present their opinion with their evidences, while you have full right to differ with them. But why to try to snatch away the right from others to even express their opinions? 

 

In fact, I even didn't still present their arguments, but I asked 2 very simple questions, which were based only upon the "Common Sense" and "Logic" and showing the Double Standards in the behaviour. 

 

Instead of directly answering these 2 simple questions, we get to hear only the personal hatred against the groups. Why? 

 

Is it really so difficult to hear the criticism and differing opinions? 

 

Unfortunately, this is the same intolerant behaviour which is shown by the Muslim where they could not hear any question and criticism against their religion.

Edited March 10, 2019 by Alam_dar

[someone]

On 3/9/2019 at 5:28 PM, randomGuy said:

2. They too realise that things can't go on forever, such is the public pressure. So the decision in favour of temple should come soon, I think immediately after elections.

That's bacha talk. These judges didn't want to hear what atrocities Babur did. So when they choose to ignore these past crimes, and history, how can they make the right decision? Additional in that case, why do we have justice for Dalits for past crimes in our country?

 

The past is relevant and that's the key argument in this whole case. Yet that past makes certain communities get offended, and thus we just keep ignoring the past.

[someone]

On 3/9/2019 at 10:31 PM, randomGuy said:

20 yrs back it may have been a significantly more inciting issue, i don't know.

 

For today, immediately after the elections is the time best suited for Muslim side i feel. Muslim side can't afford to delay it any further because next government will again be formed by bjp it seems. So i expected the matter to solve in May 2019.

Imo, even if court in favor of temple, will that be really implemented in our country? We couldn't even implement the triple talaq law. This issue needs political, legal, and even muscle support. And that's gonna be impossible especially with our demographics changes.

[Alam_dar]

3 minutes ago, someone said:

Imo, even if court in favor of temple, will that be really implemented in our country? We couldn't even implement the triple talaq law. This issue needs political, legal, and even muscle support. And that's gonna be impossible especially with our demographics changes.

I believe there was absolutely no problem upon Triple Talaq, and Muslims accepted the Court Ruling. 

 

But the bill, which was announced by BJP, it is totally wrong, and it is the sole problem in this issue while it is against logic.