Posted on 07/05/2005 5:27:25 AM PDT by TigerLikesRooster
The Ayodhya complex is one of the most disputed religious sites in the world,
No, it belongs to Hindus. Hindu temple was there long before Muslims came and razed it.
BTW, tearing down a 500 year old building probably wasn't a good idea if ya' know what I mean ~ it's not like there are rich tourists who like to visit India just to see the new stuff.
Eventually, every single non-muslim in the world will hate every single muslim.
Why Muslims insists on building their Mosque on somebody else's holy site? As for air-tight proof of Rama Temple's existence on the location, perhaps more research is in order.
I wonder how Muslims feel if Hindus construct Gnash Temple on Mecca or Karbela, even if not on top of Kabba or Imam Ali Shrine.
Are you familiar with historical evidences related to this dispute?
Hey Kennedy, Schumer, Dean, Reid, and Pelosi! THIS is how you win a battle. Not by surrendering, you bunch of dung beetled yellowbacks.
When I read the first few paragraphs, this is the same thought I had! This whole WOT could be over, or close to it, if we didn't have the PC crowd fighting our military every step of the way.
http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ajoy/asi_report_babri.htm
Since you asked for archeological evidence.
There is only one solution to this war between Muslims and Hindus---Christianity.
Thanks for your help. So there was a Hindu temple there.
Yes, there was a "Hindu" temple there. Most mosques in India were built on destroyed "Hindu" temples. Served two purposes
1. Destroyed the temple and moral of the infidels ("Hindus")
2. Provided raw material (bricks, etc) for construction of mosques
A Sultan(?) of Egypt once tried to destroy Khufu's pyramid, the largest one, which is Giza Plateau. He only managed to strip off white limestone casing from it after two years(?), exposing step-like structure inside. It was simply too big.
Unfortunately, those temples are not big enough to withstand Muslim destruction, I guess.
Reading through the article concerning archaeological findings it seems quite clear that it is the site of a Jain Temple.
Much of the central part of Rome (including the oldest parts of Vatican City) are constructed from the marble that once covered the Coliseum.
The very earliest Christian churches are built on the site of pagan temples, etc., etc., etc.
Frequently the new buildings for the new religions were built by the former adherents of the old religions, and in many cases, by the very congregations of the old!
There's not necessarily anything "evil" in these discoveries.
What did or did not happen thousands of years ago is irrelevant. Who is butchering whom in today's world is relevant.
On the other hand the Moslem mosque had been long abandoned although it was of some architectural interest ~ as is the foundation found under its ruins.
Still, there aren't a whole lot of 500+ year old buildings in the world, and we ought to conserve them inasmuch as possible.
The Hindu movement that wants to build a new temple on this site will necessarily be ruining what archaeological value remains at the site and will undoubtedly cover up the ancient foundation stones. The Moslems had no plans for the site (which was not an active mosque), but that's no excuse for the Hindus to act like a bunch of Philistines.
Like the court said, the issue really is about who owns the site, and might I add, not the religious preferences of any of the prior owners. The site was abandoned by everyone so that's going to be very difficult for the court to determine.
Throughout India you can find former Buddhist and Jain temple sites that have been overbuilt with Hindu temples sometime since the Moghul conquest. Although I don't understand all the dynamics here, Hinduism seems to have had a serious resurgence under Moslem rule. Possibly this had something to do with Mongol religious politics ~ they had just been in some serious wars with Buddhism for several centuries. Others with a better command of Indian and Mongolian history could probably address the question.
Virtually nothing needed to be changed beyond taking down the old signs and putting up the new signs.
There are a gazillion mosques in this world that WERE NOT built on the site of a temple or church. Some are. Stuff happens. An old church building is just that ~ an old church building ~ nothing particular sacred about them.
"Although I don't understand all the dynamics here, Hinduism seems to have had a serious resurgence under Moslem rule. Possibly this had something to do with Mongol religious politics ~ they had just been in some serious wars with Buddhism for several centuries. Others with a better command of Indian and Mongolian history could probably address the question"
India was a Buddhist country till about 600 - 700 AD when it was re-converted to "Hinduism" by Sri Sankracharya. It had about 400 years of renewed glory before the Islamic onslaught. It was in wane from 1100 AD till 1990 when the RSS/BJP came to power.
The Mughals, although trace back to the Mongols, aren't really that similar. The Mongols preferred the 'plunder and flee' tactics, while the Mughals were largely "Indianised/ Persianised" empire builders who preferred to settle rather than plunder.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.