10 lies that Congress tells to dupe Indian Muslims

[adi B]

I know. Doesn't makes any difference to us. I'm proud to be a Hindu and a Bengali... I was only talking from the Moderation POV... :icflove:

:five:

[Detonator]

I have. Nowhere does ASI report state that it is definitely a temple.

FYI, The Mosque was built in 1528 after destroying a big building. There is enough evidence from ASI that, it's a Holy Shrine for Hindus. And even before Mughal invasion, India is a Hindu land.

They stated that the site has resemblances to a temple. They did not state it to be a temple. It isnt about pedantry, its aboutbeing definite.

The same logic can be used against. The Mosque resembled like a Muslim site, with statues of Rama and Sita.

Yes, hinduvta types know very little outside of their brainwashings.

You never know outside wikipedia.

BS. Every single jain and buddhist consider them to be different. What ignorant illterate hindus think is largely besides the point here.

Another useless stat of urs.

Yep. Though i cannot give up ginger and garlic.

:giggle:

[Detonator]

i will give you a hint : rainbows.

Read my second line of my post.

[Muloghonto]

FYI, The Mosque was built in 1528 after destroying a big building. There is enough evidence from ASI that, it's a Holy Shrine for Hindus. And even before Mughal invasion, India is a Hindu land.

There is no evidence that states it to be exclusively a holy site.

The same logic can be used against. The Mosque resembled like a Muslim site, with statues of Rama and Sita.

Err no. We still have archeological evidence of it being a mosque, due to the calligraphy in there stating it to be 'house of allah'. We have similar evidence for some temples in the past ( for eg, the ruins of Somnath, where we have shivalinga related inscriptions) but not for the Ayodhya one. We havnt found a definitive inscription or grant plate to state that it is a temple. So on pure archeological evidence, it being a mosque is documented. it being a temple is not.

You never know outside wikipedia.

But i never quote wikipedia!

[Detonator]

There is no evidence that states it to be exclusively a holy site.

Now "exclusive" comes in the picture. What's next? It's an old hindu temple compared to the "newer" mosque? :giggle:

Err no. We still have archeological evidence of it being a mosque, due to the calligraphy in there stating it to be 'house of allah'. We have similar evidence for some temples in the past ( for eg, the ruins of Somnath, where we have shivalinga related inscriptions) but not for the Ayodhya one. We havnt found a definitive inscription or grant plate to state that it is a temple. So on pure archeological evidence, it being a mosque is documented. it being a temple is not.

Who is "we" ? :fear:

But i never quote wikipedia!

You never quote. You copy and say it as ur "research" :winky:

[Muloghonto]

you clearly did not read anything from this link : http://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/ayodhyafiles/hondvsj-ann-3.pdf read the tidbits below and enjoy the ownage. ------------ pg281 --- North, fifty pillar basis in association of huge structure are indicative of the remains of a temple. 34. That there was a Temple Structure beneath the disputed Structure --- pg291 I have derived my inference regarding existence of temple at disputed site on the basis of the temples of 11 th– 12th century A. D. Meaning thereby a temple was built in disputed site in 11th– 12th century which was demolished and a mosque was erected over it for which epigraphical and literary evidence is also available as already explained above. During excavation, different floors have been noticed at disputed site. The temple mentioned by me above existed at floor 3. This temple was built by a Gahadwal ruler of Kannauj some where around 1130 A. D --- Pg 302 I feel when the main temple of ‘Sri Ram Lala’ was existing in the centre, there had been two other sub-shrines of ‘Lord Shiva’ in the south and ‘Durga devi’ in the north. -------- I suggest this would be the right time to bring out that Archeology Degree straight outta your backside :nice:

This is the transcrpits of a judge. no ASI. ASI did not definitively state it to be a temple, their report stated that the structure below shared several motifs and designs with a temple. That deoes not definitely make it a temple, it just makes temple one probability of many.

[Laaloo]

No YOU need to read the report and judgement clearly. The court asked ASI to figure out if the mosque was built on top of a temple. The ASI report says Yes. The court made a ruling citing the ASI report as a basis. If the ASI report is indeterminate as you claim .... They would have said "we are not sure if it was a temple or a palace or a woarhouse". There is no ambiguity at all nor is there any mention of anything other than a Temple in their report. You can keep playing your pedantry here. Pretty soon you will claim to be a be better expert than ASI. Absolutely. Dont think there are any temples that were built on top of Buddhist/Jain temples nor is there any litigation ongoing that I know of. Bloody hell there is no shortage of Hindu temples that have Buddha statues in them. Most avg joes dont even consider Buddhism and Jainism to be separate religions. For the record I wish the entire world got converted to Jainism somehow. The world would be a very peacefull place.

That is never going to happen. That has never happened and will never happen. Jealousy, greed, and 2 seconds of sensual pleasures will get in the way. I have no problems with Jainism except the fact that they are against eating garlic and onions. I don't like being told what I can and can't eat.Hence, I follow Vedic Sanskruti. You are given a body and hence you are responsible for everything you do with it. You can make or break it. One of the many reasons I gave up eating meat about two years ago. Also, I find Jainism to be to little too passive as opposed Vedic Sanskruti.

[Detonator]

This is the transcrpits of a judge. no ASI. ASI did not definitively state it to be a temple' date=' their report stated that the structure below shared several motifs and designs with a temple. That deoes not definitely make it a temple, it just makes temple one probability of many.[/quote'] :hysterical: :hysterical: :hysterical:

[FischerTal]

This is the transcrpits of a judge. no ASI. ASI did not definitively state it to be a temple' date=' their report stated that the structure below shared several motifs and designs with a temple. That deoes not definitely make it a temple, it just makes temple one probability of many.[/quote'] Never before has BS reached this level :hatsoff:

[Muloghonto]

LoL jackass I knew you were too thick but not that thick .... Those are tidbits from the ASI experts deposition ... not the words of the judge. inb4 you try to claim that he was not there at the site while the excavation was in progress. :haha:

What are tidbits and what are the judges own deductions of the event is hard to discern, since the judge does not cite his referencing very well. As i said, you are quoting a judge. Yes, legally it was determined, my argument is not pertaining to legalese, its about the actual archaeology of it. If you read the ASI report, you will fail to find it definitively identifying the site as a temple. They use words such as 'features typical of temples, likely was a temple' etc. but nothign definitive. Not because there is no definitive in archaeology ( we discovered the Sanchi stupa and instantly knew it was definitely a stupa, where buddhists congregated due to the inscriptions associated with the find.) Its inscriptions that make it definitive or the presence/excavation of the entire structure to determine its purpose. ASI did not definitively pronounce it to be a temple because the whole site has not been excavated thoroughly and archaeologists are not sure if it was purely a temple or the parts below the mosque was a temple section of a much bigger structure like a fort or a palace. All we know is that its a big site and there were motifs common to temples in certain parts of the limited excavations.

[Muloghonto]

Never before has BS reached this level :hatsoff:

No, what is BS is hinduvta nutters quoting a judicial verdict as the primary source of an archaeological question. Agar dum hain argument mein to ASI ka report publish karo aur prove karo ki ASI ne kaha woh site pura puri ek mandir tha, haveli, qila ya kisi alag jagah thi.

[FischerTal]

No' date=' what is BS is hinduvta nutters quoting a judicial verdict as the primary source of an archaeological question. Agar dum hain argument mein to ASI ka report publish karo aur prove karo ki ASI ne kaha woh site pura puri ek mandir tha, haveli, qila ya kisi alag jagah thi.[/quote'] BossBhai has already given you the evidence, but as is expected from you, you dont accept it. :giggle: aapka screw dhila hain toh phir dusre kya kar sakte hain?

[Muloghonto]

Mr.Know-it-all' date=' why dont you list those temples that are built on jainism,buddhim worship places..?? I am seriously interested to know.. I am asking this since you claimed so..[/quote'] There is very little definitive research on this, primarily because of non-interest and the fact that its much older than Islamic invasions (stretching back to 8th century some historians think) and having considerable overlap with it. But i will tell you this much: there are quite solid indications, though not definitive proof that Jagganath Temple in Puri is originally a Buddhist site, with the deities itself being Buddhist that continued a lot of the rituals and practices in the Hindu makeover of the site. The preparation of the deity in Jagganth site is unique amongst Hindu temples and is remarkably consistent with Buddhist preparation of deities ( its the *ONLY* temple where the murti is not metal, stone or baked mud, its a wood carving, its shape is carved in a very ordinary fashion- ie, not a master carving by any stretch- and its the brahma padartha mani in the statue that is important, which is why the carving itself is not made with much skill. its even unique that rites are performed for the Bones of krishna in the muurti- all much more consistent with Buddhist reliquaries of Buddha's self in the form of preserved teeth, hair, etc. I must add though, that though the practices seem distinctly Buddhist, it might've been a Buddhist usurpation of a Jain site originally, since curiously, Jains are also seen worshipping at the site in past & the etymology of Jagannath is consistent with the Jain etymologies more than Buddhist, even if the practices are more Buddhist than Jain).

[Muloghonto]

BossBhai has already given you the evidence, but as is expected from you, you dont accept it. :giggle: aapka screw dhila hain toh phir dusre kya kar sakte hain?

Evidence from a judicial article about an archaeological question is not evidence, it is obfuscation & going by agenda-driven BS. The evidence is the ASI paper, not what justice so-n-so said in his writing, where he liberally mixes in his own views wih the findings without the meticulousness to record when he is quoting and when he is not. As i said, screw dheela ka aarop dene se pehle thee saboot to do. I mean whats next ? You are going to quote a paper from a bioscience guy and quote math from it to solve a math debate instead of quoting a mathematician ? Sorry, not good enough. But i guess it is for agenda-driven people.

[FischerTal]

Evidence from a judicial article about an archaeological question is not evidence' date=' it is obfuscation & going by agenda-driven BS. The evidence is the ASI paper, not [b']what justice so-n-so said in his writing, where he liberally mixes in his own views wih the findings without the meticulousness to record when he is quoting and when he is not. As i said, screw dheela ka aarop dene se pehle thee saboot to do. I mean whats next ? You are going to quote a paper from a bioscience guy and quote math from it to solve a math debate instead of quoting a mathematician ? Sorry, not good enough. But i guess it is for agenda-driven people.

so when a person's views are contrary to your own, its BS? any other viewpoint besides yours would be incorrect :--D if you are so convinced you are right, why not post the ASI report for all to see?

[Muloghonto]

so when a person's views are contrary to your own' date=' its BS? any other viewpoint besides yours would be incorrect :--D[/quote'] No, when you cite a judge for an archeolgical question or a doctor for an engineering one, its BS. Its not about whether my views are BS or not, my objection towards the evidence is because a judicial report is being cited as evidence of an archeological question. That is, failure to quote primary evidence, pure and simple. PS: I read the report on JSTOR when i had an acct. there. I dont think you can see JSTOR articles without having an account with them and this site would get completely effed if i cut-pasted it and referenced it. I havnt been able to find a copy online, not that I've tried for it subsequently very hard. In anycase, I am not the one making the claim that it was ruled by ASI definitively as a temple. The burden of proof falls on you and the hinduvaadis who wish to claim that it was ruled exclusively and definitively a temple by ASI.

[FischerTal]

No, when you cite a judge for an archeolgical question or a doctor for an engineering one, its BS. Its not about whether my views are BS or not, my objection towards the evidence is because a judicial report is being cited as evidence of an archeological question. That is, failure to quote primary evidence, pure and simple.

lol the job of the judge is to interpret the evidence put before him and thats what he did. If he interpreted it incorrectly, dont you think the people who made the report in the first place would have objected?

[Muloghonto]

lol the job of the judge is to interpret the evidence put before him and thats what he did. If he interpreted it incorrectly' date=' dont you think the people who made the report in the first place would have objected?[/quote'] I dont care whether they would've objected or not, ASI is a political organization afterall and who knows what the prevailing mentality towards the whole issue is on a political level. What the judge did, i am in no position to contradict or confirm as valid- i am not a judge or a legal person. But i will say that quoting a judge is not relevant in an archaeological question. He may or may not be right or sufficient doubts might exist in legal parlayance for him to rule on way or another, but it is not evidence for an archeological question. So a judge read the report and applied it to the law and came out witha verdict. Good for him if he did a good job. But it doesnt make HIS report proof on an archaeological evidence. Last i checked, you cant quote a judicial report as a primary source on anything but law. Same as how cant quote a physics paper in a math reference discussion.

[Muloghonto]

That is never going to happen. That has never happened and will never happen. Jealousy' date=' greed, and 2 seconds of sensual pleasures will get in the way. I have no problems with Jainism except the fact that they are against eating garlic and onions. I don't like being told what I can and can't eat.Hence, I follow Vedic Sanskruti. You are given a body and hence you are responsible for everything you do with it. You can make or break it. One of the many reasons I gave up eating meat about two years ago. Also, I find Jainism to be to little too passive as opposed Vedic Sanskruti.[/quote'] Passive ideology does not necessarily make for a passive state. Jainas have not had many major empires or dynasties in India but the Mahamegavahana dynasty & much later, the Rashtrakuta dynasties had several Jaina patrons & they were pretty war-like, especially the rashtrakutas. Its the Rashtrakutas who broke the power of the central Asian Iranic Gujjar-Pratihara power in India, not the arabs or Mehmoud of Ghazni. Hathigumpa records pretty strongly what a war-mongering militaristically successful emperor Kharavela was & he was a huge Jaina follower

[Detonator]

I dont care whether they would've objected or not' date=' ASI is a political organization afterall and who knows what the prevailing mentality towards the whole issue is on a political level. What the judge did, i am in no position to contradict or confirm as valid- i am not a judge or a legal person. But i will say that quoting a judge is not relevant in an archaeological question. He may or may not be right or sufficient doubts might exist in legal parlayance for him to rule on way or another, but it is not evidence for an archeological question. So a judge read the report and applied it to the law and came out witha verdict. Good for him if he did a good job. But it doesnt make HIS report proof on an archaeological evidence. Last i checked, you cant quote a judicial report as a primary source on anything but law. Same as how cant quote a physics paper in a math reference discussion.[/quote'] Hay boz, I know you are reading somewhere, but my advise is to read that thing fully. Don't give some half-baked info. The ASI stands for Archaeological Survey of India, if u don't know. Every one here and the judge quoted the ASI report. From your posts, it's obvious that you are too incompetent for making any argument. P.S: I guess u have taken a part of ur brain and pictured it in ur Avatar. :giggle: