[Prev][Next][Index]
Ayodhya debate on SCI, 2
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 1995 10:46:00 EST
From: Dinesh Agrawal <DXA4@psuvm.psu.edu>
Message-ID: <95054.104600DXA4@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian
Subject: Re: Ayodhys Temple/Mosque dispute 1
References: <95048.101550DXA4@psuvm.psu.edu> <3i77p5$amm@nntp.Stanford.EDU>
<95050.182132DXA4@psuvm.psu.edu> <3if31q$852@nntp.Stanford.EDU>
In article <3if31q$852@nntp.Stanford.EDU>, farooq@chemeng.Stanford.EDU (Farooq)
says:
>
>In article <95050.182132DXA4@psuvm.psu.edu> Dinesh Agrawal
><DXA4@psuvm.psu.edu>
>writes:
>
>>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 l
>politica
>
>Non-existant mosque? Does the name Babri masjid strike any bells? While
>it is true that the Babri masjid as a mosque has no particular significance
>other than some possibly historical significance, it became important as
>a symbol of muslim history and identity.
Yes, you are right, it is/was a 'symbol of muslim history and identity' in
which thousands of places of worship of non-muslims were barbarically and most
intolrantly destroyed throughout the Jihadic expeditions of Islamic conquesst
and expansion. Yes, it was the symbol of 'muslim history' as the Indians have
known and endured for over 600 years: symbol of converting a darul harab into
darul islam by forcefully destrying their worship places and then erecting
mosques over their ruins. Yes, it was the symbol of muslim history in India, in
which the Hindus have been relentlessly fighting since 1528 to recapture their
one of the most sacred sites.
(In support of above view, please see the comments below).
>On the other hand, the hindu
>claim is quite facetious by itself. There are many (I have read that
>there are thousands) of temples and sites in and around Faizabad that
>claim to be Ram-janm-bhoomi.
What is so facetious about the Hindu claims? Just because all these Babarites
and their fellow travellers, keep on repeating ad nauseaum that there is no
evidence that a temple was destroyed in Ayodhya. But for them any evidence in
support of Hindu claims is outrightly rejected as 'no-evidence' even without
looking at it. And this people call scientific and rational.
Have you ever been to Ayodhya and Faizabad or just parroting out from some
Goebelian source that there are thousands of tempels claimed to be Ram
Janambhoomi? For your information, let me enlighten you on this: In Ayodhya
there is only one original Ramajanambhoomi site on which a temple was built in
11-12 th
century (see the proof of this in the second part of my response), this temple
was destroyed at the orders of Babur (also see below). But after this vandalism
Hindus from all over the country still continued to visit and pray at the
disputed site (which now looked like a mosque), but when they were denied
access, at several places for commercial reasons some sants started calling
their own temples/huts as the ramjanambhoomi temple and bringing the devout
Hindus there to collect offerings. This is a very common practice, when the real
thing disppears, imitations spring up if there is a demand. But the local
tradition is so strong and prevalent that everybody in Ayodhya knows the truth.
I have been to Ayodhya several times in the last twenty years, and couple of
temples were feigned by their priests as Ramjanambhoomi temples, but when you
ask them where is the original Ramajanambhoomi temple, they always indicate
towards the disputed structure.
>It is quite inexplicable why this
>one particular site where a mosque existed overnight became the holiest of
>the holy sites on earth for the BJP minded hindus.
And it is quite inexplicable why this particular 'abodoned mosque' which has
been a functioning temple for about 45 years overnight became the 'symbol of
the muslim history and identity' and also a symbol of the 'survival of the
secularism'??
And please remember that the site has been the holiest of holy sites for
millions of Hindus, even much before the birth of BJP or its earlier
incarnation BJS. There is no use in indulging in such flippancy and displaying
one's remarkable ignorance of the factual situation.
>It sounds kind of fishy to me. I have yet to see any evidence that a function-
>ing temple was destroyed (like somnath) and a mosque built in its place.
Thanks for telling us that somnath temple was destroyed. Please also inform us
how it was destroyed, and why, and what provoked the person to perform such a
holy and religious duty? And how many times this pious believer had made such
religious expeditions to destroy Somnath. And what did he do with the idols,
he had taken with him home? And also please tell how the fatwas-e-alamagir
fits in this particular example?
>All this business about "idols" spontaneously appearing one fine morning
>can only be sold to the gullible. And india is teeming with such people.
>It appears that the district court which granted limited puja rights
>in the compound was done out of expediency to placate emotions while
>the whole issue remain to be resolved. This action of the court,
>barring muslims from namaz in the masjid and giving hindus limited
>puja rights was a compromise quick fix solution, awaiting
>final decision in the courts. I dont see how
>you can argue on its basis that "no mosque existed, in fact it
>was a temple for 50 years".
Granted whatever you say above. Now please explain in rational and dispassioned
language with evidence (I have asked it before and asking you the last time):
Why suddenly the idols were surreptitiously (assuming that you don't buy the
general belief in local population about their sudden appearance, whatever
that means) put there, did the Hindus suddenly got crazy, and why only in this
particular mosque, and not in any other mosques which have been built by
destroying Hindu temples? And second: Assuming the mosque was seized/
fraudulantly taken-over by Hindus (forgetting for a moment the history behind
it), and court allowed Hindus to continue 'temporary' puja ( also what was the
court's rational and basis to grant Hindus even temporary custody if their
fraudulant act was so obvious, but denying Muslims the same right if they were
praying inside the structure prior to this fraudulant act of Hindus, not even
allowing them to come within 300 yards of the site?), which they were doing
till the structure was demolished, now from whatauthority such a place be
called a mosque? Is there any reference in Shariat to testify such a situation?
In my earlier response, I had cited a similar precedent in Lahore in which
the usurped shrine ceased to be a mosque and Muslims lost any right to reposse-
ss it as per the court rulings based on Shariat. You had not yet commented on
this.
>>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 s
>evidence
>>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 p
>u
>>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.
>
>>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?
>
>This does not prove that he destroyed a functioning temple. It is quite
>possible that the mosque was built over an abandoned site.
Mr Farooq, you have been demanding ad nauseam 'evidence' from Hindus about the
destruction of a temple, now for a change, please give us any evidence where it
is proved that the mosque was built on an 'abondoned site'. Is there any
testimony from any source, British, Muslim, foreign visitors, government
records, where it shows equivocally that the mosque was built on an empty land,
or that the owner of the plot had willingly sold it to Muslim rulers for the
construction of the Babri mosque?? And please remember that this evidence must
be the 'evidence' and not the kind of 'non-evidence' which you claim Hindus are
providing in support of their claims. And stop making such chilidish claims of
Shahabuddin type that 'probably the mosque was built on an abandoned site'.
>There are tons of such sites in existance in Ayodhya even today. So it does'nt
>really prove anything.
You are talking nonsense. What kind of such tons of sites? The original birth-
place of Lord Rama is one and one only. Are there thousands of hilltops in
Ayodhya?
>>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
>>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?
>
>You have contradicted yourself, here you make it appear that the babri masjid
>dispute was somehing of a national hindu cause. Whereas (see below) you
>concede that no-one outside of Ayodhya had heard of this dispute.
I did not say that, you had stated that, and for the argument's sake, I used
your logic and applied it on the Muslims. So please don't put your words in my
mouth.
>>>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 s
>day
>>non-stop, in order to appease Hindus who were getting alienated by Congress e
>du
>>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 r
>rule
>>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 s
>i
>>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 m
>fro
>>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 d
>happene
>>to them, the Islamic Evidence, By Arun Shourie and Sita Ram Goel.
>>
>
>I havent read the book, but knowing Arun Shourie, I know what the conclusions
>are going to be. I have said, that according to islamic law
>temples or other religious sites are inviolable. And this was
>observed by and large by muslim conquerors, although examples to the
>contrary may be found, the most famous one is masjid sulaimaniya in
>Istambul which used to be the St. Sophia cathedral, the pride the byzantium.
Perhaps you need to read the 'muslim history' of which you yourself claim the
Babri mosque is the symbol. Just because Arun Shourie's views are not palatable
to your mindset, without even looking at the evidence in support of the
destruction and conversion of thousands of Hindu temples, you are dismissing
these evidences. That shows how closed minded and brainwashed one can be. For
your information in these books, the author(s) do not give anything which has
not been proved by Muslim historians, Muslim scholars, court chroniclers of
Muslim rulers, and Muslims travellers. So please go and read these books,
and only after that you have any right to express your views about the books.
>>Here below is the description of Ayodhya temple by Maulana Abdul Hai:
>>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...
>>
>
>This doesnt prove that a mosque was built by destroying an existing
>temple, all it says is that a mosque was built on the site. I dont
>think it is ethically wrong to build a mosque on the ruins of a temple,
>even if it was a Ram-temple.
When I was writing the above example from Maulana Hakim Sayyid's book, I had
only the Urdu version with me at the time, and could not get my hands on the
original Arabic varsion which was translated into Urdu by his son, Ali Mian.
Now I have located the original Arabic version (see below). As I mentioned in
my earlier post the case of tinkering with the content of the book and
disappearing of this Urdu version also (you have deliberately deleted all this
in the above post), the original version if translated into English reads as
follows:
"And among them is the great mosque that was built by the Timurid king Babar in
the sacred city of Ayodhya. It is believed that Rama Chandra, considered to be
the manifestation of God, was born here. There is a long story about his wife
Sita. There was a big temple for them in this city. At a certain place Sita
used to sit and cook food for her consort. Well, the said king Babar demolished
it and built a mosque at that very place with chiselled stone in 923 A.H.
(In the Jannah al-Mashriq wa Matla 'an-Nur al-Mashriq, retitled as Al-Hind-u
fi al - 'Ahd al- Islami' by Maulana Hakim Sayyid 'Abd al-Hayy.)
Now, Mr Farooq, does this prove that a temple was destroyed and mosque over it?
If you have any doubt about the veracity of this document, I can fax you the
original Arabic version.
>[..other examples deleted...]
My purpose of citing just these two examples (the other one you deleted) was
to prove the invalidity of the fatwa-e-alamgir which you were using as a
'proof' that Muslim rulers cannot desecrate or destroy the shrines of non-
Muslims. There are numerous similar examples, and all of them from Muslim
sources only, who not only describe them in detail but take pride in such
acts, glorify these Islamic rulers who did such acts as Ghazis (killers of
infidels in Jihad), and justify them by quoting Quaran which enjoins them to
wipe out the kufr (idolatory) from the earth which belongs to Allah.
Now the fact about this 'fatwa-e-alamgir is that: it applies only to the Darul
Islam (land of believers) where any forceful or unlawful possession of land
and building a mosque on such a disputed property is forbidden. But this
fatwa is not applicable to Darul Harab (the land of kafirs), where according
to the Islamic traditions and Quaranic injunctions, the abodes of idols must
be destroyed and kufr has to be wiped out. To prove this, I would just cite
the central character of our discussion, Babar himself.
An officer of Babar, Hindu Beg, converted the Hari Mandir at Sambhal into a
mosque (Archaeological Survey of India Report, XII, 26-27). I know this is a
fact since I belong to this town, raised and brought up there, Hindus still
call this place as Hari-Har Mandir and Muslims as Jama Masjid. The entire bldg
and inside of it clearly show that it was a temple, and was later on converted
into a mosque. Babar's Sadr Shaukh Zayn, demolished a number of temples when
he occupied it. (Tarikh-i-Babari, p145). And his destruction of Jain temples
at Urwa near Gwalior (Babur-Nama,vol II pg 612, the original Babar-Namah by
Abdu r-Rahman Khan-i Khanan translated into English under the title Babur-Nama
by Mrs. A.S. Beveridge, New Delhi, 1989, 2 volms.). He was exhorted by a
noble of Kabul to conquer India with the remark that 'God and Muhammad engaged
you to extinguish the idolatory of the Indians. He raised a tower of Hindu
skulls at Fatehpur Sikri and Chanderi and assumed the title of Ghazi (killer
of infidles in jihad). And Babar does not make any bones about it, he writes:
"After the success Ghazi (victor in Holy war) was written amongst the royal
titles. Below the titles (tughra) entered on the Fath-nama, I wrote the
following quatrain: For Islam's sake, I wondered in the wilds,
Prepared for war with pagans and Hindus,
Resolved myself to meet the martyr's death
Thanks be to God! a ghazi I became.
(Babur-Nama, vol II pp. 574-75)
Babar's memoirs are full of contemptuous references to the Hindus. Ordering
gold and silver goblets and cups and other utensils used for drinking parties
to be dashed upon the earth and broken down, he remarked, "They dashed them
in pieces, as, God willing! soon will be dashed the gods of the idolators".
(Babar-Nama, II, pp.554-55)
.....to be continued...
Dinesh Agrawal...
