[Prev][Next][Index]
Ayodhya debate on SCI, 1
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Sun, 19 Feb 1995 18:21:32 EST
From: Dinesh Agrawal <DXA4@psuvm.psu.edu>
Message-ID: <95050.182132DXA4@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian
Subject: Re: Ayodhys Temple/Mosque dispute (Re: BJP is....)
References: <95046.095841DXA4@psuvm.psu.edu> <3i1ouo$fm5@nntp.Stanford.EDU>
<95048.101550DXA4@psuvm.psu.edu> <3i77p5$amm@nntp.Stanford.EDU>
In article <3i77p5$amm@nntp.Stanford.EDU>, farooq@chemeng.Stanford.EDU (Farooq)
says:
>
>In article <95048.101550DXA4@psuvm.psu.edu> Dinesh Agrawal
><DXA4@psuvm.psu.edu>
>writes:
>>The issue here is not whether anybody has respect for Shariah or not. It is
>>irrelevant. The issue started when Mr Siddiqui and his co-religionists
>>continue to call a disputed site and structure (which even in the court
>record
>>is described as Ramjanambhoomi-Babri Masjid distutes site) as simply a
>mosque.
>>And I was drawing the attention that this is no longer a factual situation.
>It
>>may have been a mosque till 1936, but not any longer. And when you also
>claimed otherwise, I requested you or any other knowledgeable person in the
>Islamic
>>theology to prove it by quoting any Islamic authoritative source. This was
>>asked as in Islam for each action or its justifcation the scriptural
>>authority is invoked. Such reference is yet to come!
>
>Your statements are very strange indeed. In one breath you say that it is
>irrelevent whether one respects the shariah or not. In the next you taunt
>that references from the shariah are not forthcoming! If it is so worthless
>to you why demand evidence from the shariah anyway?
Please read my statement again, and you will get the answer of your objection.
The evidence is needed for Muslims who still continue to consider the non-
existent mosque (before Dec. 1992), and now no-mosque-at-all, as a mosque
which suddenly became a symbol of life and death for them. Or so they were
led to believe by either their communal leaders or all pseudo-secular political
parties. If this was explained from the very beginning to the Indian masses
(Hindus and Muslims) that the disputed structure was a functioning temple and
it ceased to be a mosque for over 50 years, and not a single Muslim has even
prayed there in the last 50 years, the problem had not reached where it did.
But to stoke the religious passions, the factual position was never told to
the common people, and was never accepted by the Muslim leaders either. And the
situation continued to deliberately exacerbate into a serious crisis, and
for this every body is responsible. You cannot blame one single organization
or group for the Ayodhya crisis.
>It appears that you dont understand the nature of the Babri masjid dispute
>itself. The dispute is whether there was an original temple *in active use*
>that was forcefully demolished by Babar, and mosque built in its place.
Yes, that was the issue. And for that Chandrashekhar's government initiated a
dialogue between the two sides, both sides put forth their claims and evidences
in support of their respective positions. In the end the Babri leaders neither
refuted any evidences presented by the VHP people, nor were serious in
continuing the dialogue. In the final rounds, they did not even dare to show up
for further discussions. If you are interested and are unaware of this
development, I can send you all the details on this issue. These details not
only will indicate that Babri leaders had no case in support of their claims,
and nothig to refute the VHP's claims of the existence of a Hindu temple and
its destruction on the behalf of Babur.
>The structure that was destroyed on Dec 2nd was a *mosque*. This is not under
>dispute.
And it was a functioning temple too. And it was Ramjanambhoomi-Babri Masjid
disputed structure too as per court records. And it was Masjid-e- Janamsthan
too as was recorded by Mir Baqi himself on the front gate of the shrine. And
please tell us whose Janamsthan it was?
>>Yes, you are right that it was under 'dispute' to put it very lightly. In
>fact
>>it has been a source of consistent and continuous warfare between the two
>>communities since 1528. Now did anybdoy who is espousing Babri cause ever k
>thin
>>why among thousands of other Hindu places of worship which were demolished by
>>invadors and mosques/Idgahs were built on them, only for this particular site
>>the Hindus have been fighting so bitterly for so long and with such tenacity,
>>why??? Do you think that the Hindus suddenly got crazy on Dec.23 1949 or
>Nov.9
>>1989 or Dec. 6 1992? And why for no reason local Muslims stopped praying
>there
>>in 1936? Why there have been numerous mediation efforts by various
>authorities
>>for this particular site. Please use some common sense and rational to look r
>fo
>>an answer. There is no such precedent in the Indian history.
>>
>> Hindus are not historically known to wage war for trivial issues or
>>for no issue at all, if this particular place had not been held in supreme
>>esteem and reverence for the Hindu masses, and this was only for one reason:
>>the place was sacred due to the birth place of Lord Rama and a temple was t
>buil
>>there, which was destoryed and with its debris the so-called Babri masjid was
>>raised, there would have been no such prolonged strife and fighting to regain
>>this site. Now there is no doubt that the place was usurped forcefully,
>>unlawfully, and barbarically. Now since you are raising an issue of Fatwas,
>>well here is a Fatwa-e-Alamgiri, which categorically forbids to build mosques
>on
>>a place forcefully usurped, so accordingly Muslims should volunteerly give up
>>their right on this site:
>>
>>"It is not permissible to build a mosque on unlawfully acquired land. There
>>may be many forms of unlawful acquisition. For instance, if some people
>>forcibly take some body'd house (or land) and build a mosque or even a
>>Jama Masjid on it, then the namaz in such a mosque will be against the
>>Shariat."
>To set the record straight, the larger hindu community was not concerned
>about the babri masjid either (except for those who lived in and around
>the Faizabad area). The hindus of south India or Bengal (as also the muslims
>of these parts) were largely unaware and unconcerned about the Babri
>masjid.
Well, the same applies to Muslims. No muslims beyond the 12 miles radius of
Ayodhya was concerned or cared about this dilapidated structure. And even the
Muslims of Ayodhya had shown their wisdom in abandoning the site in 1936, but
due to foolishness of Shahabuddin (as you rightly described below) the issue
became national and international, and also pan-Islamic. Now please inform us
who is then responsible to communalize the entire issue, and whip up the reli-
gious passions? When VHP took over the issue which was gathering dust in the
courts for over three decades, they had only asked the Central government to
resolve the issue expeditiously either by legal means or by negotiations
so that Hindus can have freedom to pray at the birthplace of Lord Rama, and
in due course build a magnificent temple. The movement was not against any
community. But due to the vote-bank politics of Rajiv Gandhi and Shahabuddin's
communal politcs (he was smarting under his latest success in Shahbano case),
a simple issue was converted into a national issue.
>Credit for making this almost trivial matter into an issue
>of over-riding national importance (and thus making a mockery of what
>should be our priorities at a national level) goes partly to Shahabuddin
>who was the first person to make what essentially was a legal dispute,
>into a political one.
Fully agree with you. But the other party which was guilty to initiate the
process of politization of the Ayodhya issue was Rajiv Gandhi who manipulated
through Faizabd court to have the locks opened, and gave an unprecedented
publicity of this event in national print and electronic media for several days
non-stop, in order to appease Hindus who were getting alienated by Congress due
to its abject surrender to Muslim communal lobby in Shahbano case.
>I was in Delhi when Shahabuddin organized the
>first massive political rally in Boat Club to rally support for the
>Babri masjid (this was all done to protest the ruling of the district court
>handing over the custody of the mosque to the hindus). The BJP seized
>the opportunity. Until then the BJP did'nt give a damn to the Babri either.
>If you dont agree with me why dont you answer this question:
No I agree with you fully. But you are giving too much credit to BJP at this
early stage of the movement. BJP joined in full force only in 1989, until then
it was neither a force nor had a workable strategy to jump in this movement.
And secondly, by that time every political party had already taken sides on
this issue, you cannot expect BJP, being a national party, to remain aloof.
>The BJP has
>existed (under one name or another) since before independence, why is it then
>that they did'nt care about the Babri masjid till the late eighties?
>Dont say that they were waiting for a court settlement because nobody will
>buy that.
Well, the same argument is applied to everybody and every party who tried to
exploit the issue. BJP is not alone in this game. All major national and
regional parties have exploited Ayodhya issue to their advantage. The only
difference is that BJP got the maximum political benefit out of it, and other
parties either lost or gained to some extent as in the case of Mulayam Singh
Yadav.
>The BJP did a brilliant job of using the issue (which is a highly emotional
>one for hindus, who hold Ram in great awe) for its own political ends.
And you are saying that no other party did the same thing. How about VP Singh
and Mulayam Singh, how about Rajiv Gandhi who had inaugurated his election
campaign of 1989 from Ayodhya by promising Ram Rajya?
>As for the Fatwa that you have quoted from the "Fataw-e-Alamgiri"
>(this is a very well known fatwa), it in my opinion supports the opposite
>of what you suggest. It only makes it that much less likely that Babar
>would have demolished a functioning temple to build a mosque.
This is the same argument which Shahabuddin and his followers used to hurl in
the beginning to rebut the claim that Babur or for that matter any Muslim ruler
or leader in the entire history of Islamic conquest and religious wars against
kafirs ever destroyed any non-Mulsim religious places and built mosque. This is
truely amazing and even a child would not be fooled by this: an argument,
totally at variance with historical facts. When everybody knows that the
Prophet Mohammed himself had inaugurated his new religion by destryoing over
300 small and big shrines in Macca, and after him his enthusiastic and zealous
followers continued to emulate him wherever they went and conquered. Now I do
not want to go in any further detail on this issue. Those who are interested
please pick up any history book or for a collective reference and evidence from
Islamic sources for the destruction of Hindu temples and their conversion,
especially in India, please see the books:
Hindu Temples, Vol 1, A preliminary Survey; Vol 2, Hindu Temples: What happened
to them, the Islamic Evidence, By Arun Shourie and Sita Ram Goel.
In the present context the following quote would suffice to refute Mr Farooq:
Maulana Hakim Sayid Abdul Hai, father of Maulana Abul-Hasan Ali Nadwi, popular-
ly known as Ali Mian, chairman of the Muslim Personal Law Board, was the
Madadgar Nazim or the Additional Rector of Darul Ulum Nadwatul-Ulama, and he
had written a book under the title, Hindustan Islami Ahad Mein (Hindustan
under Islamic Rule). There is chapter in the book under the title: Hindustan ki
Masjidein (The mosques of Hindustan). In this chapter, a few facts about some
of the principal mosques are described in a few lines each. And the author also
describes brief history of several mosques, and clearly states that many of
them were built on the sacred sites of Hindus by destroying the existing
temples and using the debris of the temples.
(Now there is a very interesting story behind the disappearance of this book
from most of the libraries during the Ayodhya debate, and also the tinkering
done with the original edition and English translation of the book. Arun Shourie
has described this episode in great detail under the title of 'Hideaway
Communalism').
Here below is the description of Ayodhya temple by Maulana Abdul Hai: r
Babri masjid at Ayodya
This mosque was constructed by Babur at Ajodhya which Hindus call the
birth place of Ramchandraji. There is a famous story about his wife Sita. It
is said that Sita had a temple here in which she lived and cooked food for her
husband. On that very site Babar constructed this mosque in H. 963...
Here below is another example:
The Mosque at Jaunpur
This was built by Sultan Ibrahim Sharqi with chiselled stones. Originally
it was a Hindu temple afte demolishing which he constructed the mosque. It is
known as the Atala Masjid. The Sultan used to offer his Friday and Id prayers
in it, and Qazi Shiabud-Din gave lessons in it...
There are several such examples in the book.
Now Mr Farooq, where is the validity of Fatwa-e-Alamgir? I can provide tons of
examples quoting from Islamic sources only to prove that this particular
Fatwa was never enforced or even considered worthy of any consideration by
Islamic rulers and leaders.
Dinesh Agrawal...
=========================================================================
