Ayodhya Verdict

[someone]

Interesting fact, it was Masjid-i Janmasthan before 1940s. So again, our own people/historians purposefully misrepresented and confused us with this new name of Babri Masjid....

[cowboysfan]

3 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

Winning against the Muslims is one thing, but as a non-biased human being, let me remind it that there existed No Ram, and therefore no birthplace of Ram. 

 

All these stories were invented after the Aryan arrival to India, when for the first time Hindu religion was created and started getting evolved for the next 2000 years till Rigveda and other stories of Ramain and Mahabharata were written. 

 

There exist no statues of Hindu god,  no temples, absolutely no signs of Hindu religion in ALL OVER INDIA, which could be older than 4000 (i.e before the arrival of Steppe people). 

 

It was from the beginning when some story book told that Ram took human shape in Ayodhya. 

 

And since it was only a fantasy story, therefore no one knew exactly where in whole of Ayodhya Ram was born. 

 

Please note, these religious Hindu stories were written about 2000 years ago. From 2000 years ago to 500 years ago (i.e. till the construction of Babari Masjid), Hindus didn't know where in Ayodhya Ram was born.  

 

The construction of mosque is a very recent thing and only 500 years old at maximum (while Hindus claim it was Aurangzeb who constructed it which makes it only 400 years old). 

 

But from 2000 years ago till 500 years ago, Hindus wrote thousands and thousands of religious books. But in none of those thousands of books (between 2000 years to 500 years), any one mentioned the presence of any Temple in Ayodhya, where Ram was born, and where thousands of Hindus go for pilgrimage every year etc. 

 

So questions are:

 

(1) Why Hindus didn't mention exact place in Ayodhya where Ram was placed during this whole window of 1500 years, where thousands of Hindu religious books were written. 

The desert Arabs (who are considered Jahils) had already written hundreds and thousands of books till 500 ago, where they recorded the history of every stone which had any importance in Islam). Were Indian religious people and historians so lazy that they could not have even mention the birthplace of Ram properly? 

 

(2) Why didn't thousands of Hindus went for pilgrimage to this site every year since the event of birth of Ram. If that site was really so blessed and important, then Hindus should have started taking blessings from it from the time immemorial. 

 

Answer is very simple if we ponder upon it logically ... i.e. there existed no Ram at the first place, and it were only the fairy tales, and thus ancient Hindus were unable to point out any particular place in Ayodhya as Ram's birth place. 

 

At maximum, present day Hindus come up with an argument that LATER (after the mosque had already been built) some people stated that it was a birthplace of Ram. Nevertheless, these claims are still ambiguous while none of Hindu writer (out of thousands who existed during the window of 1500 years) mentioned about any Ram Temple there till 1500 BC. 

 

Yes, there may be some signs of Hindu ruins beneath Babari mosque, but such signs are present in every Hindu house, but they don't become ram birth place due to such ruins. It was a Hindu fort, and Hindu fort could carry such Hindu signs. 

 

You have full right to disagree with me, but I have full right to state my opinion on this issue. 

 

 

this was treated as a property dispute by the SC,they cant make rulings on faith and have mentioned in the ruling.I really dont know what your point is in your post.

[Suhaan]

5 minutes ago, cowboysfan said:

 

this was treated as a property dispute by the SC,they cant make rulings on faith and have mentioned in the ruling.I really dont know what your point is in your post.

He is qouting shiites from agenda driven westerners, whatever fits their agenda,there are theories after theories

 

 

[javier26]

Just now, coffee_rules said:

Sorry it is not AskASikh day..but Why are some places have Sahib suffixes? Like Patna Sahib. Why are Sikhs going away from vedic roots? They used to give up sons for Hindus to fight and vice versa. What some of the western Punjab sects are following is a version of Islam.

If by Western Punjab you mean Pakistan Punjab,  then there numbers are miniscule.  They have to tow the Pakistan establishment line as they are propped by them to appear as anti-Hindu and anti-India so that the propaganda can be further used to fuel Insurgency on the Indian Side of Punjab. 

 

The handful of Sikhs in Pakistan are not free to follow their religion but are mere propaganda tools of the state. They will organize meetings between leaders of Pakistan Gurudwara assocociation and Hafeez Saeed to prove how some Khalistani/Sikh - Pakistan nexus is building to liberate Indian Punjab from India.

[Mariyam]

3 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

And regarding Muhammad and his Drama of Revelations, then I left the path of 1.5 Billion Muslims while clearly it was not any revelation, but only the Drama of revelation by Muhammad. We are humans. It would be a shame if any person/religion could make us still a fool in this 21st century with dramas and lies. 

 

okay  

 

Ho gaye alayda.

Abhi to khush ho?

Edited November 11, 2019 by Mariyam

[coffee_rules]

1 hour ago, Suhaan said:

He is qouting shiites from agenda driven westerners, whatever fits their agenda,there are theories after theories

 

 

No, he is picking quotes from one 2017 Tony Joseph's article and making color coded patterns of selected quotes.

[Alam_dar]

3 hours ago, mishra said:

For all practical purposes, Globally it has been established that Hindus are oldest religion. What is there to answer? This court was not their to decide if Hindu religion is 1 year old or 10 year old. Courts dont go on tangent discussions.

Mishra ji,  hard facts are:

 

No one accepted other's religion to be the oldest one.

But every follower of his religion claims that his religion is the oldest one. 

Muslims, Christians, Jews start from Adam.

 

And according to followers of modern science, the oldest thing was this that there was absolutely no religion.

Humans evolved. 

Modern Science has thus rejected the claims of stories of Islam/Christianity, as well as of Hinduism. 

 

Reality is this not a single Hindu god was found in the thousands of excavations of the Indus Valley Civilisation. Not a single temple was found. 

 

What to talk about Indus Valley Civilisation, there has been no proofs of any Hindu gods and temples or any other sings of Hindu religion in whole of India which are older than 4000 (i.e. before the arrival of Steppe people). 

 

There are cave paintings in India which are up to 30000 years old. But no signs of any Hindu gods or temples or PUJA PAAT or any other signs of Hindu religion are present in these paintings. 

 

Thus, modern science does not consider Hinduism as a religion of time immemorial, but it is a very recent religion. According to science, there are many religions in the earth who were much older than the Hindu religion. The oldest statue of Gods are found in Turkey which are 11000 years old. Egytians gods have their statues and paintings who are more than 7000 years old. Mesopotamia is much older religion. Greeks were making statues of their gods much before 4000 years.  

 

 

Quote

BTW, What do you mean when you say, Hindus showed no importance to that place. Most of us firmly believe that All thept temples, Universities, places of social,religious, political importance with regards to various faiths of India have been decimated by Muslim invaders in a region starting from Afghanistan to centre MP and Bangladesh.

From importance, I meant if birthplace of Ram, it's visitation, and taking blessings from it was so important, then this brithplace and temple would have been mentioned in thousands of books which were written by Hindu scholars during 2000 AD (or even before i.e. start of Hindu religion) till 400 AD (when the mosque was built by Aurangzeb). 

Why?

Logic tells us that it was due to the reason while all those stories were only fairy tales, and thus no one was able to point out exactly in whole of Ayodhya where Ram was born. 

 

Quote

We still havent got place for Lord Shiva, Lord Krishna. Kashi Mathura Ujjain. Three more places are still next in line for a battle for next 50 years

I have nothing against when Hindus took their temple back in Ayodhya from Muslims. 

 

And I have nothing against when Hindus take the rest of 3 or many more from the Muslims if those mosques were really built upon even any simple temple and not related to any Hindu god. 

 

Muslim resistance in name of Jihad should be killed. 

 

But this has been done by the Right Wing Hindu. In an ideal case, this should have been done by the whole Indian community unitedly. 

 

And I also want people to remember that taking a lot of pride in Hinduism would not be good for the humanity at the end. But only the TRUTH will set us free from any false prides and unite the humanity worldwide. 

 

 

[Alam_dar]

18 minutes ago, Mariyam said:

okay  

 

Ho gaye alayda.

Abhi to khush ho?

I am sorry if I hurt your feelings. 

[Mariyam]

11 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

I am sorry if I hurt your feelings. 

Not really. I've seen much worse on ICF and have grown a thick skin.

 

But I do have a question for you. In the truest sense of the word, you are an extremist of the atheist variety. You are just as convinced that your way is the right way and you draw upon science ( sometimes true, sometimes make believe) to show your way of thought is superior to the rest of us; others of whatever religious denomination. How are you any different from the extremists you so much abhor? Yes you do not resort to violence, but you also, just like them, find the need to tell others how they should live their lives and what others should think and believe/disbelieve.

 

Also, re: your post at the beginning of this page, the verdict is not a win of Hindus over Muslims or such like. That is not how the court sees it. It is seen as a title dispute in which the Ram Janmabhoomi trust won the case over the Sunni Wakf board. 

 

 

Edited November 11, 2019 by Mariyam

[vayuu1]

27 minutes ago, Mariyam said:

okay  

 

Ho gaye alayda.

Abhi to khush ho?

O rajmata thand rakh, this was in response of sahib-e-alam comment regarding shri Rama, yes we are happy that finally one of the most iconic figure it Hindu dharma gets its rightful place, my mother yesterday got very emotional hearing about this verdict, and lots of guys too, so you can see it's not just the verdict but the very emotion attached to it, personally If u hear my wish toh I have announced my death wish is to live and die in kailash, abode of my bholenath,i know it's not possible right now, but who knows what vishweshwar has in store for us, so jaisi bhole ki ichcha. 

[Muloghonto]

16 hours ago, diga said:

Out of Africa is just a theory with probably more data points than multi regional evolution..

Not only does it have more data points, genetic science also confirms it. All African mtDNA is way older than non African ones and since mtDNA is a clone from the mother, it’s one of the fundamental genetic evidences of OOA.

[coffee_rules]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQUqxaHFYF4

 

2nd Century BC depiction of Ramayana - terracotta art found. Ram Katha was orally recited  centuries before CE. 

Details of the Hindus' right on the Ayodhya, countering the leftist false narratives. All persian, arabic and urdu accounts say the mosque was built on remains of a temple. 

 

Book in 1816 says Hindus bribed Awadh kings to worship Ram in Ayodhya

16th century till 20th century literary sources of the west have documented Hindus worshipping in the Masjid, but none have noted Muslims praying in that place.

 

1822 - court official submitting a note on the case of Masjid built over temple.

Till 1855 - HIndus had free access to Masjid and after a armed conflict, British built a fence and allowed both Muslims and Hindus to pray. 

1858 - 25 Sikhs enter the mosque and have started Havan and pooja and written Ram's name on the walls.

List of all the complaints of the dispute. Very interesting read. 

 

1860s revenue records show no name of Babri Masjid for the property. 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 11, 2019 by coffee_rules

[Alam_dar]

4 hours ago, coffee_rules said:

There are eye witness accounts in 13th and 14th century western and persian accounts that people prayed in Ayodhya. It is mentioned in vedas well. 

It is not the veda, but the story in Ramayana states that the location of Rama's birthplace is on the banks of the Sarayu river in a city called "Ayodhya". There is no mention of any temple there or any visitation, even though Ramayana has been written long after it was orally told.

 

And I am afraid that there is no such 13th/14th century western/persian accounts of Ayodhya. Here you could see it:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ram_Janmabhoomi

 

In 1611, an English traveller William Finch visited Ayodhya and recorded the "ruins of the Ranichand [Ramachand] castle and houses". He made no mention of a mosque.^[4] In 1634, Thomas Herbert described a "pretty old castle of Ranichand [Ramachand]" which he described as an antique monument that was "especially memorable".^[5] However, by 1672, the appearance of a mosque at the site can be inferred because Lal Das's Awadh-Vilasa describes the location of birthplace without mentioning a temple or "castle".^[6] In 1717, the Moghul Rajput noble Jai Singh II purchased land surrounding the site and his documents show a mosque.^[7] The Jesuit missionary Joseph Tiefenthaler, who visited the site between 1766-1771, wrote that either Aurangazeb (r. 1658–1707) or Babur had demolished the Ramkot fortress, including the house that was considered as the birthplace of Rama by Hindus. 

 

So, the first western/persian account about Babri Masjid being built upon Ram birthplace was recorded in 1766-1771. 

 

 

 

[vayuu1]

5 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

It is not the veda, but the story in Ramayana states that the location of Rama's birthplace is on the banks of the Sarayu river in a city called "Ayodhya". There is no mention of any temple there or any visitation, even though Ramayana has been written long after it was orally told.

 

And I am afraid that there is no such 13th/14th century western/persian accounts of Ayodhya. Here you could see it:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ram_Janmabhoomi

 

In 1611, an English traveller William Finch visited Ayodhya and recorded the "ruins of the Ranichand [Ramachand] castle and houses". He made no mention of a mosque.^[4] In 1634, Thomas Herbert described a "pretty old castle of Ranichand [Ramachand]" which he described as an antique monument that was "especially memorable".^[5] However, by 1672, the appearance of a mosque at the site can be inferred because Lal Das's Awadh-Vilasa describes the location of birthplace without mentioning a temple or "castle".^[6] In 1717, the Moghul Rajput noble Jai Singh II purchased land surrounding the site and his documents show a mosque.^[7] The Jesuit missionary Joseph Tiefenthaler, who visited the site between 1766-1771, wrote that either Aurangazeb (r. 1658–1707) or Babur had demolished the Ramkot fortress, including the house that was considered as the birthplace of Rama by Hindus. 

 

So, the first western/persian account about Babri Masjid being built upon Ram birthplace was recorded in 1766-1771. 

 

 

 

Read Doha shatak by none other than Tulsidas to know about demolition of ayodhya by mir baqi 

[Alam_dar]

1 hour ago, Mariyam said:

But I do have a question for you. In the truest sense of the word, you are an extremist of the atheist variety. You are just as convinced that your way is the right way and you draw upon science ( sometimes true, sometimes make believe) to show your way of thought is superior to the rest of us; others of whatever religious denomination. How are you any different from the extremists you so much abhor? Yes you do not resort to violence, but you also, just like them, find the need to tell others how they should live their lives and what others should think and believe/disbelieve.

 

My humble reply is this that "criticism" is not  an "extremism", but imposing your views through power/sword is extremism. 

I openly present myself and atheism for criticism. I totally welcome any kind of criticism. 

Criticism/Dialogue is the only way to communicate with each other. 

Reform is only possible through criticism. There is absolutely no other way possible.

 

In more clear words:

"All Muslims have full freedom to do their Tableegh (preaching) of Islam 24/7, while we have full freedom to criticise Islam at every issue where we differ."

I not only ask my right of criticism, but I also ask the rights for Muslims that they should do their Tableegh 24/7. I welcome their right of doing Tableegh of their religion. 

 

Other side of Story:

I am not alone in criticising others. 

Quran and Hadith are full of criticism of the Kuffar and their fake gods. 

Quran has even gone much much further there at several places disagreement went to stage where Quran has been openly sending CURSE upon the Kuffar and their gods. 

Quran is even using words like Kuffar are dogs.  And at one place Kuffar are like donkeys, and other place as animals, and other place as pigs and monkeys. 

And then Quran in anger also telling that Kuffar are impure, and the "worst of animals". 

Actually, Quran menioned about Walid bin Uqba that he is a "Zaneem" (Bastard). We all know that being an illegitimate child is not the fault of a child. But Quran counted it as the fault of Walid bin Uqba. 

 

This is a very normal "Human Attitude" that one gets aggressive and angry and then starts using abusive words and cursing the others. Quran is full of this "Human Attitude". It is a small example which proves that it was not any God in the heavens who were revealing these verses full of curse and abusive words, but it was Muhammad himself who were creating these verse in name of god, and thus this "human attitude" entered these verses. 

Edited November 11, 2019 by Alam_dar

[Alam_dar]

5 hours ago, coffee_rules said:

 Rigveda is at least 5000 years old

 

It is almost impossible for Rigveda to be 5000 years old. 

Please note that there were many cities of the Indus Valley Civilisation, who were at top of their greatness 5000 years ago as compared to the rest of whole India. But there has been no mention of any of the cities of the Indus Valley Civilisation in the Rigveda. Absolutely nothing. 

[coffee_rules]

43 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

It is not the veda, but the story in Ramayana states that the location of Rama's birthplace is on the banks of the Sarayu river in a city called "Ayodhya". There is no mention of any temple there or any visitation, even though Ramayana has been written long after it was orally told.

 

And I am afraid that there is no such 13th/14th century western/persian accounts of Ayodhya. Here you could see it:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ram_Janmabhoomi

 

In 1611, an English traveller William Finch visited Ayodhya and recorded the "ruins of the Ranichand [Ramachand] castle and houses". He made no mention of a mosque.^[4] In 1634, Thomas Herbert described a "pretty old castle of Ranichand [Ramachand]" which he described as an antique monument that was "especially memorable".^[5] However, by 1672, the appearance of a mosque at the site can be inferred because Lal Das's Awadh-Vilasa describes the location of birthplace without mentioning a temple or "castle".^[6] In 1717, the Moghul Rajput noble Jai Singh II purchased land surrounding the site and his documents show a mosque.^[7] The Jesuit missionary Joseph Tiefenthaler, who visited the site between 1766-1771, wrote that either Aurangazeb (r. 1658–1707) or Babur had demolished the Ramkot fortress, including the house that was considered as the birthplace of Rama by Hindus. 

 

So, the first western/persian account about Babri Masjid being built upon Ram birthplace was recorded in 1766-1771. 

 

 

 

Why do you quote leftist propaganda Wikipedia as an authentic source? But in this case it is correct. 

Abul Fazal court historian of Akbar has mentioned Ayodhya being a sacred Hindu place and in Ram Navami lots of people come there to worship and celebrate the janmasthan All 18th century persian sources have claimed Masjid built over temple. A scribe in persian has written about the Janmasthan in 1723. There is a lot of evidence in Allahabad judgement that ruled it in our favor.

[coffee_rules]

43 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

It is almost impossible for Rigveda to be 5000 years old. 

Please note that there were many cities of the Indus Valley Civilisation, who were at top of their greatness 5000 years ago as compared to the rest of whole India. But there has been no mention of any of the cities of the Indus Valley Civilisation in the Rigveda. Absolutely nothing. 

Comparitive linguistic studies have proven that. Archeology is limited, as a lot of artifacts are destroyed over time. you can't expecta picture of valmiki writing Ramayana with a calender next to him. Archeoastronomy  is a science that can be used to date old classics, but a lot of it needs corroborative evidence. IVC is a colonial term, call it Sindhu-Saraswathi civilization. 

[coffee_rules]

4 hours ago, javier26 said:

If by Western Punjab you mean Pakistan Punjab,  then there numbers are miniscule.  They have to tow the Pakistan establishment line as they are propped by them to appear as anti-Hindu and anti-India so that the propaganda can be further used to fuel Insurgency on the Indian Side of Punjab. 

 

The handful of Sikhs in Pakistan are not free to follow their religion but are mere propaganda tools of the state. They will organize meetings between leaders of Pakistan Gurudwara assocociation and Hafeez Saeed to prove how some Khalistani/Sikh - Pakistan nexus is building to liberate Indian Punjab from India.

Even in India, they are moving away from Hindus. Maybe it is post-80s phenomenon, but there were once closely related Hinduism, Guru Gobind Singh wanted Hinduism to prevail.

 

 

 

[Muloghonto]

8 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

This may be said about the oldest Hindu religious books that although religion existed since the first day that this earth was created by the Hndu gods, but surely this excuse will not work for an event which took place only 500 or even 400 years ago. It is a very recent time and Hindu Scholars had already written many many religious books. 

Even if we to believe that people were telling things to others orally till 1600 AD, still we don't see any importance of Ayodhya and Hindus from all over India were not going for any pilgrim there, or talking about it. Look at the temple of Somnath. When Ghaznavi attacked this sacred temple, then there was a huge strom in India and people wanted to defend this important religious site. And now compared it to Ayoddhya where every book and every tongue is absolutely silent.

 

And regarding Muhammad and his Drama of Revelations, then I left the path of 1.5 Billion Muslims while clearly it was not any revelation, but only the Drama of revelation by Muhammad. We are humans. It would be a shame if any person/religion could make us still a fool in this 21st century with dramas and lies. 

 

Science has already put an end to religious fantasy stories. It is only this that we as humans have still not started to believe in Science. 

 

Stop your nonsense and we know who you are from PP. A pretend atheist here, a raving mullah in PP. Also, Ram being born in Ayodhya and it being a pilgrimage site for Hindus is mentioned for the first time by I-tsing, a Gupta era chinese beurocrat who  came to study in India and mentions that Samudragupta is the one who identifies Saketa with Ayodhya. So either way, Ram’s birthplace is revered before your narcissistic desert God religion existed.