Ayodhya verdict: Babri mosque built at Ram birthplace

Ayodhya verdict: Babri mosque built at Ram birthplace

　
IANS
Thursday, 30 September 2010

LUCKNOW: In a judgement much awaited by India, the Allahabad High Court Thursday ruled that the spot in Ayodhya where a makeshift temple was built hastily after razing the Babri mosque in 1992 was indeed where Hindu god Ram was born, lawyers said.

By a majority decision, the Lucknow bench of the high court also declared that the land around the disputed site would be divided into three parts -- one going to Hindus, another to Muslims and the third to Nirmohi Akhara, a Hindu sect and a litigant in the case.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/india/32439-ayodhya-verdict-babri-mosque-built-ram.html

Lawyers K.N. Bhat and Ravi Shankar Prasad, representing two of the Hindu litigants, said the bench had decided that Lord Ram was born where the Babri mosque was built in the 16th century.

"All the three judges, including S.U. Khan, are unanimous in accepting that the idol of Ram cannot be removed from the place where it is installed right now," Ravi Shankar Prasad said.

Dismissing the 60-year-old title suit filed by the Sunni Waqf Board, the judges said that none of the litigants would take any action on the land for the next three months.

"We are party disappointed. We will approach the Supreme Court," Sunni Waqf Board lawyer Zafaryab Jillani told reporters.

Minutes after the ruling, Ravi Shankar Prasad, who is also a leader of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), urged Muslims to help in the construction of a grand Ram temple in Ayodhya, an Uttar Pradesh town about 700 km from New Delhi.

"After this ruling, I make a humble appeal to the Muslims of this country, please accept this verdict, please help in the construction of a temple... It will lead to a new brotherhood in the country," he said.

The lawyer added that he was making the appeal not as a BJP leader but as a citizen of India.

"It is definitely in favour of the Hindus," said H.S. Jain, counsel for the Hindu Mahasabha. He said he too would approach the Supreme Court to campaign against the land given to the Sunni Waqf Board.

Leading theatre personality Aamir Reza Hussain said it was time for Muslims to give up the land for a Ram temple.

"It absolutely the time to heal the wounds, and to let it go," he said.
The ruling followed years of litigation that at one staged threatened to rip apart the country's communal fabric.

source: http://www.punjabnewsline.com/content/ayodhya-verdict-babri-mosque-built-ram-birthplace/24435

 
Do share your immediate thoughts or reactions on this issue? We value your views! Login Now! or Sign Up Today! to share your views with us.. Gurfateh!

__________________
Prayer = TALKING to God; Meditation/Simran = LISTENING to God !
With the Divine Love & Blessings of WAHEGURU Ji, I wish you peace, love, light (enlightenment), health & happiness in life!

Indian PM leads appeal for calm after religious ruling

By Pratap Chakravarty, AFP - September 30, 2010 8:33 AM

Prime minister led appeals for calm after a court verdict Thursday divided a disputed holy site in the northern town of Ayodhya between Muslims and Hindus.

The decision, capping a six-decade legal battle, split the flashpoint parcel of land in Ayodhya in Uttar Pradesh state into three equal parts — with two portions awarded to the Hindus and one to the Muslims.


"I have full faith in the people of India and I also have full confidence in the traditions of secularism, brotherhood and tolerance of our great country," said Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.


"I know that often it is only a few mischief makers who create divisions in our society. I would appeal to my countrymen to be vigilant and not let such people succeed in disrupting peace," he said.


Tens of thousands of security forces were deployed around Ayodhya to avert a violent response to the ruling. The 1992 razing of the centuries-old Babri mosque on the site by Hindu zealots sparked riots that killed 2,000 people.

"I appeal to people of our state to maintain religious harmony and be aware of divisive forces," said Uttar Pradesh chief minister Mayawati, who goes by one name, in the state capital Lucknow.


Authorities were nervous about inflaming religious tensions with the ruling coming just days before the opening ceremony of the Commonwealth Games in New Delhi on Sunday.


Hindus were overjoyed that the ruling upheld their belief that the dome of the razed mosque had stood over the birthplace of the Hindu deity Lord Ram.


"I am very happy the court has accepted the historic fact and this is a matter of great happiness for Hindus," Nritya Gopaldas Maharaj, president of one of the main litigants, the Ram Janam Bhoomi trust, said.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=32439


But Syed Ahmed Bukhari, the chief cleric in New Delhi's main Jama Masjid mosque, denounced the judgment, saying the court had ruled "on the basis of blind faith and not by evidence and documentation provided to the judges."


"We are definitely not happy with the ruling," he told AFP. "We are not giving up our claim (to rebuild) the Babri mosque," he said in New Delhi.


Asaduddin Owaisi, a Muslim member of parliament, told AFP that "there is anger building up among the Muslim community over the verdict but, god willing, it may not translate into street violence."


Under the decision, one part of the site will become a temple for Hindus, another third will go to the Hindu charitable trust Nirmhoi Akhara and the remaining third would be handed to Muslims.


"We must forget everything that's happened and unite to build the grand temple to Lord Ram," said Mohan Bhagwat, head of the Rashtriya Sewak Sangh, ideological mentors of the main opposition Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).


But he held back from claiming victory, saying "this is not an issue of defeat or victory of anyone. This is a victory for our national identity."


"Please maintain harmony and accept the court's verdict. This is my appeal," said Narendra Modi, hardline Hindu chief minister of communally sensitive Gujarat state where religious riots in 2002 left 2,000 dead.


The calls for calm in officially secular but majority-Hindu India came as several Hindu and Muslim groups announced they would appeal against the High Court judgment to India's Supreme Court.


"The court has respected Hindu beliefs, but we will take the matter to the Supreme Court as the fight still remains," said Maharaj, the president of the Hindu Ram Janam Bhoomi trust, said.


"We will try and claim the portion of land that has been allotted to the Muslims. I appeal to the Muslims to peacefully accept the verdict," he said.


Zafaryab Jilani, the lawyer for the Muslim group Babri Masjid Action Committee, also said he would appeal the decision in the Supreme Court.


"We can hold talks (with Hindus) if any proposals come to us. The court has accepted there was a mosque, but we are not accepting this one-third formula and we are going to the Supreme Court," he told reporters.


Prakash Javedekar, spokesman for the BJP which was catapulted to political centrestage thanks to its drive to build the temple, called the judgment a "positive" development.

© Copyright (c) AFP


Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=32439

source: http://www.vancouversun.com/life/Indian+leads+appeal+calm+after+religious+ruling/3602255/story.html

It is never easy to say whether "dividing" a holy site is wise. Recall the "wisdom of Solomon" who threatened to cut a baby in half so the true mother and the false mother could each have a share of "their" child. In this biblical story the real mother gave up her claim, and that is how Solomon knew she was the true mother of the child. The Temple Mount/Noble Sanctuary however is another way such a division can work. Al Aqsa Mosque and the Wailing Wall of the Jews, remains of the ancient temple of Kind David, are both situated on the sacred site. The mount remains a powerful symbol of the claim made by both Muslims and Jews to Jerusalem itself, and it remains a lightening rod of continued strife.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=32439

How will this story work out?

High Court of Allahabad
Ram Janmbhoomi Babri Masjid Judgement - Gist of Judgement:

Link: http://www.rjbm.nic.in/

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ayodhya site is Lord Ram's birthplace: Justice D.V. Sharma

　
IANS
Thursday, 30 September 2010

LUCKNOW: Justice D.V. Sharma, one of the three judges who delivered the Ayodhya verdict, based his order on the findings of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) to say that the disputed site is the birthplace of Lord Ram.

The property in the suit is the site of the birthplace of Lord Ram and the Hindus have the right to worship at the site, he said.

The ASI had in a statement before the court said that the structure was a massive Hindu religious structure.

Justice Sharma's key observations are:

* The disputed site is the birth place of Lord Ram.
* The place of birth is a juristic person and is a deity. It is personified as the spirit of divine worshipped as birthplace of Lord Ram as a child. The spirit of divine ever remains present everywhere at all times for any one to invoke in any shape or form in accordance with his own aspirations and it can be shapeless and formless also.
* The disputed building was constructed by (Mughal emperor) Babar, the year is not certain but it was built against the tenets of Islam. Thus, it cannot have the character of a mosque.
* The disputed structure was constructed on the site of old structure after demolition of the same.
* The idols were placed in the middle dome of the disputed structure in the intervening night of Dec 22-23, 1949.
* A suit filed in 1989 by the Sunni Central Board of Waqfs, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow, and others vs Gopal Singh Visharad and others and another suit filed in 1989 by Nirmohi Akhara and another vs Sri Jamuna Prasad Singh and others, are barred by time.
* It is also established that the disputed structure cannot be treated as a mosque as it came into existence against the tenets of Islam.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
　
No proof mosque was built in Babar's reign: Justice Sudhir Agarwal

　
IANS
Thursday, 30 September 2010

LUCKNOW: Justice Sudhir Agarwal, one of the three judges who delivered the Ayodhya judgment, in his order differed with his colleague Justice S.U. Khan that the mosque at the disputed site was built in the reign of Mughal emperor Babar.

"The disputed structure was always treated, considered and believed to be a mosque and practised by Mohammedans for worship accordingly. However, it has not been proved that it was built during the reign of Babar," said Justice Agarwal.

He observed that the area covered under the central dome of the disputed structure is the birth place of Lord Ram as per faith and belief of Hindus.

"It is declared that the area covered by the central dome of the three domed structure belong to plaintiffs (Suit-5) and shall not be obstructed or interfered in any manner by the defendants," he said in his order.

Some key observations of Justice Agarwal are:

* The area within the inner courtyard belongs to members of both the communities, Hindus (here plaintiffs, Suit-5) and Muslims since it was being used by both since decades and centuries.
* The disputed structure was always treated, considered and believed to be a mosque and practised by Mohammedans for worship accordingly. However, it has not been proved that it was built during the reign of Babar in 1528.
* In the absence of any otherwise pleadings and material it is difficult to hold as to when and by whom the disputed structure was constructed. But it is clear that it was constructed before the visit of missionary Joseph Tieffenthaler in Oudh area between 1766-71.
* The building in dispute was constructed after demolition of non-Islamic religious structure - a Hindu temple.
* The idols were kept under the central dome of the disputed structure in the night of Dec 22-23, 1949.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=32439
* The area covered by the structures, namely, Ram Chabutra, Sita Rasoi and Bhandar, in the outer courtyard is declared in the share of Nirmohi Akhara.
* The open area within the outer courtyard shall be shared by Nirmohi Akhara and plaintiffs (Suit-5) since it has been generally used by the Hindu people for worship at both places.
* The land which is available with the Government of India acquired under Ayodhya Act 1993 shall be made available to the concerned parties in such a manner so that all the three parties may utilise the area to which they are entitled to, by having separate entry and exit for people without disturbing each others rights.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No temple was demolished for mosque: Justice S.U. Khan

　
IANS
Thursday, 30 September 2010

LUCKNOW:Justice S.U. Khan of the Allahabad High Court in his Ayodhya judgment Thursday said that no temple was demolished for building the Babri mosque and it was constructed over the ruins of temples.

The other two judges on the bench were of the view that the Babri mosque was constructed after demolition of a Hindu temple.

Justice Khan in his observation said that for a very long time till the construction of the mosque it was believed by Hindus that somewhere in a very large area, of which the premises in dispute is a very small part, the birth place of Lord Ram was situated.

"However, the belief did not relate to any specified small area, within that bigger area, specifically the premises in dispute," he said.

"It was very very unique and absolutely unprecedented situation that inside the boundary wall and compound of the mosque, Hindu religious places were there which were actually being worshipped along with offerings of namaz by Muslims in the mosque," he said.

Some of key observations were:

* The disputed structure was constructed as mosque by or under orders of Mughal emperor Babar.
* It is not proved by direct evidence that the premises in dispute, including the constructed portion, belonged to Babar or the person who constructed the mosque or under whose orders it was constructed.
* No temple was demolished for constructing the mosque.
* Mosque was constructed over the ruins of temples which were lying there since a very long time before the construction of mosque and some material thereof was used in construction of the mosque.
* After some time of construction of the mosque, Hindus started identifying the premises in dispute as the exact birth place of Lord Ram or a place wherein exact birth place was situated.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=32439
* Both the parties have failed to prove commencement of their title hence by virtue of Section 110 Evidence Act both are held to be joint title holders on the basis of joint possession.
* For some decades before 1949, Hindus started treating/believing the place beneath the central dome of the mosque (where at present a make sift temple stands) to be the exact birth place of Lord Ram.
* Much before 1855, Ram Chabutra and Seeta Rasoi had come into existence and Hindus were worshipping in the same.
* For the sake of convenience both Muslims and Hindus were using and occupying different portions of the premises in dispute, still it did not amount to formal partition. Both continued to be in joint possession of the entire premises.

source: Punjabnewsline.com

Almost all over the world the Muslims are claiming that Muslim religion is just and fair and peaceful religion. Now is the time to prove that what they are claiming is the truth. Babar invaded India he came from Middle East. All India was belonged to Hindus. Muslim should show tolerance and give up their claim if they are just and peaceful religion. To make up the violence they unleashed on Hindus of that time should help to build the temple

SS AKAL JI.

Neither Hindu or Muslim should have any concerns about some thing which was built under Mugal Empire who rules our nation and sucked every thing what we had .We shouldn't take it so seriously to divide our unity as Indian citizen.

Lord Rama's temple sould be accepted by all Indian citizen and who cares about Mugals,s infrastructures built under thier influances under unbearable harsh ruling practices to make us GULAM for centuries.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=32439

We are all Indians and Indians come first.

We had enough problems caused by mischievous politicians and others during partitions in 1947 to disrupt our unity in India.

It is time to put our emotions in the basket and embrace each other as a Indian brothers and sisters.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=32439

Do not let these politicians make their own gains by fueling the issues.

Jaspi